"It's such lame and dishonest branding the marketing group should be ashamed."
That makes me laugh. I agree, of course. There are a LOT of technical companies with marketing companies that are out of touch with the reality of their business, and don't even seem to want to be in touch.
If you want to be a little scared, you can watch horror films. But if you want to be really, really deeply frightened, hang around some Microsoft marketing efforts. There are people who have turned themselves into drones. The go about their day robotically, not even realizing that what they do has no positive effect, or maybe any effect at all. They seem to think they have jobs, but actually they are locked into some forgotten corporate warp.
You are quoting an "internal press release"? The "simple fact" to use your
words, is that Intel's entire involvement with OLPC has been amazingly,
incredibly poorly considered, and had a predictable result.
Intel, apparently, never wavered from its position that it was in
competition with OLPC. Intel tried to kill the program before it got fully
started; that's how it appears to the public. Internal attempts at spin
control at Intel don't change the public perception that Intel has been, and
will continue to be, destructive.
Intel could have given the OLPC program lower cost processors, to
compete with the AMD processors used now. Instead, Intel decided to go into
the low-cost, commodity consumer business? When Intel has always failed at
that business? When Intel apparently has no interest in the huge issue
affecting all humans, the ability of some people to educate themselves and
become leaders in their communities, given some resources?
You did not address the underlying problem, which is that many people
think that Intel CEO Paul Otellini has extremely poor social skills. You did
not consider that Intel is still planning on doing something that can only
fail, given Intel's past history and core competency. Will Intel become a
strong competitor with Mattel?
"Intel's behavior regarding the OLPC is reprehensible."
Intel employees I've met have gone further than that. They are saying
that the management of Intel CEO Paul S.
Otellini is reprehensible. They say he is socially unskilled. They are
saying he creates dissension and reduces morale among Intel employees by
creating adversarial situations.
Certainly Otellini's handling of the One Laptop Per Child initiative
could not have been worse. It was as though he said to himself, "How can I
get billions of dollars worth of free publicity for Intel, all negative?"
Intel's actions have created the impression that Intel wants to kill
acceptance of the OLPC so that it can kill the OLPC project and then raise
prices on its own products.
Anyone thinking of buying an Intel consumer product should know that
Intel had a consumer products division in 2001 and decided to close it: Intel axes its consumer electronics unit. Why? In my
opinion, the Intel Consumer Products Division was extremely poorly managed.
There is no evidence that I can see that Intel is managed better
today. Here is an April 2006 example I found quickly: Intel's consumer fumbling, in which Intel is trying to
sell products using an unpronounceable trademark.
Before you read all the comments about dog noise and feces, it might be interesting to know the on topic reason for the Chinese rules about dogs.
In 1979, China adopted its One Child Policy. That was in response to calculations showing that, it China did not reduce its population growth, hundreds of millions of people would die of starvation by 2025, because China does not have enough productive farm land to feed everyone projected to be alive if there was no birth rate limit.
The idea of limiting dog size is to reduce the competition for food from pets.
Are the people who are bragging about getting domain name registration for $2.00 telling the truth? Are such registrations $2.00 after you have paid too much for hosting?
This is on topic considering that the article referenced by the Slashdot story claimed that big search engines are safe for doing domain searches because even the U.S. government cannot get access to Google. It's a minor point considering that the major point is about domain registration, but it is a point.
Quote from the article: "I love when I see search engines like Google stick
their neck out and tell the US Government that not even Uncle Sam can have
access to user's search data."
When you read that some company told the U.S. government it could not
have access, you should not believe that means the U.S. government did not get
access. It could mean that access was allowed, but that the company was
allowed to lie about it. It could mean that lower-level executives in the
company were threatened with prison, arranged access, and were allowed to keep
the access secret.
The U.S. government believes that it can get any information from any
U.S. company at any time by threatening to put the executives of the company
in prison. The U.S. government believes that it can keep that secret. The U.S.
government believes that it can lie to the world and to U.S. citizens.
When there is widespread corruption, it is not wise to believe in
limits to that corruption unless you have very good facts and reasons. The
U.S. government has killed, or arranged the death of, or done things that
resulted in the death of, an estimated 11,000,000 people since the end of the
2nd World War by invading or bombing 25 countries. All of that violence was
for profit. For example, the purpose of occupying Iraq is to restrict the
supply of oil and therefore drive up the price.
"... as long as you don't edit the file on the server, you're ok."
Maybe, but that's not what it says. Is even the Microsoft web page a buggy beta?: Microsoft Support article: "When you use certain programs to edit files on a home computer that uses Windows Home Server, the files may become corrupted when you save them to the home server."
That quote says the bug appears only on a home computer that "uses" Windows Home Server. Does that mean the home computer uses Windows Home Server as a server, or the home computer operating system is Windows Home Server?
Once again, Microsoft has sold sloppy, unfinished software, supported with sloppy and unfinished support pages.
Further, does that sentence mean that, if it is an office computer, there is no problem? The whole purpose of using the word "Home" is apparently to try to intimidate less-technically-minded managers from using the software in a small business office.
Quote from Microsoft's support article: "When you use certain programs to edit files on a home computer that uses Windows Home Server, the files may become corrupted when you save them to the home server."
A large amount of Microsoft's profit, in my opinion, comes from selling unfinished software, and then getting money for "upgrades". Microsoft won't get money for the fix to this problem, but I think you will agree that Microsoft is the largest supplier of unfinished software, and making the whole world a beta tester is cheaper than selling a finished product.
Therefore, MOD PARENT UP.
I notice that people are inventing nonsense about this; the problem appears not to have anything to do with editing backups.
The previous words in that quote show that the ancient book is advising us not to read:
"The words of the wise are like goads, and like nails firmly fixed are the collected sayings; they are given by one Shepherd. My son, beware of anything beyond these. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh." -- Ecclesiastes 11 and 12.
I doubt that anyone who reads Slashdot wants to read only "collected sayings", and be poor because he or she has lost his job.
"Basex reaches the key decision makers in the Collaborative Business Knowledge space."
I know that many people don't speak Corporate Robot Language, so I will translate: "We are really, really bored with our jobs. We don't like technical things, or have any respect for technically knowledgeable people. However, to make ourselves seem more important, we adopt technical-sounding expressions, and pretend that they are meaningful."
I'm guessing that the New York Times got paid for that article, and so did someone at Slashdot.
I would love to see the "Collaborative Business Knowledge Space". I'm guessing it is about one centimeter square and is guarded by one old cockroach.
Quote: "I personally think Google is on thin ice here and would personally
not like to see this deal go through."
I agree.
Anyone doubting how much Google has started to become a factor in our
lives should run Firefox with the NoScript add-on. NoScript will show you that most web sites deliver all of your browsing
history to Google-Analytics.com.
The U.S. government's idea that it can get any information from any
U.S. company at any time by threatening to put the executives of the company
in jail, and can keep that secret, means that, using Google's information,
your entire history online can be tracked by the U.S. government.
Only Firefox with NoScript can prevent this. Since Google has been
paying $50,000,000 each year to the Mozilla Foundation, the developers of
Firefox, and since Google makes money through advertising, it seems likely
that Firefox will eventually not allow add-ons like NoScript and Ad-Block.
When I learned that the founders of Google bought themselves a Boeing
747, I began to worry that they are not people like us any more, but have
rich man's sickness. Someone with that sickness will do anything to make more
money.
NoScript makes your browsing much more secure, in addition to giving
you the option to stop spying. It's amazing how many web sites run Javascript
scripts linking the web sites we visit to other servers at other companies.
Deciding what needs to be unblocked is extra work, however.
Quote from the Computerworld article and the Slashdot summary:
"Samsung rates the drive with a read speed of 100MB/sec and write speed of 80 MB/sec, compared to 59MB/sec and 60MB/sec (respectively) for a traditional 2.5" hard drive."
The speed quoted for a mechanical hard drive is a burst speed, accurate for reading only one track, and doesn't include the time it takes for a conventional rotating hard drive to change tracks. Isn't that correct?
"... used that fame and fortune to help kids in many challenged walks of life."
Apparently you don't know that celebrities have publicists who find a "charitable" cause for photo shoots. Seeming charitable activity distracts people, easily, from the bad things celebrities do. Bill Gates uses this method.
Note that the parent comment intended to express an opinion about how Chuck Norris tries to portray himself. So, it should have said, "... the way Chuck Norris wants you to think about him, and that entire model of what it means to be male, is stupid."
Chuck Norris is dead... No one is strong enough to kill Chuck Norris, so he had to kill himself.
My opinion is that Chuck Norris, and that entire model of what it means to be male, is stupid. Strong people are aware of their feelings and thoughts. Strong people are cooperative, not adversarial.
As the families of more than a million Iraqis can verify, George W. Bush lives by the Chuck Norris model.
My guess is that the Chuck Norris and George W. Bush model of being male is only for profit. My guess is that Chuck Norris is not adversarial during most of the hours of his life. My guess is that when George W. Bush is alone, he is a sad, depressed, angry person with an alcoholic personality.
Chuck Norris wants to be seen as someone with that idea of "strong" to make money from films. George W. Bush wants to make money from getting control of, and restricting the supply of, oil. They are both weak losers.
The company wants investors. In my opinion, the investors page is written in
a curious way, giving the impression that some of the companies listed may not
actually be investors, but associated as suppliers, or not associated at all.
Slashdot has a long history of running articles about risky or even
fraudulent companies that want investments, in my opinion. I think Slashdot editors should be required to run
conflict-of-interest disclaimers, to give legal assurance they were not paid
to run an article.
Here is an questionable statement from the article referenced by Slashdot:
"Unlike HD DVDs, which use blue lasers to record and read data off
a reflective surface on top of a polymer substrate, Mempile's TeraDisc drives
use more powerful red-laser technology to write and read."
Since red light is of a longer wavelength, it has a lower resolution.
The power is not relevant. All systems use the power that is necessary to make
them work.
Here is another quote that seems ignorant and crazy, or
deliberately dishonest, to me:
"Over the next 10 years, both studio and consumer HD products will
multiply by 10 times the current resolution."
That statement tries to invent a situation in which the "new
technology" would actually be needed for other than making backups. However, even the present NTSC
resolution is enough for most TV watching. It seems doubtful that displays
with more resolution than HD DVD will become common.
Also, HD displays are far more expensive. Would people actually want
to pay more again, for resolution that is so great they cannot see it unless
they are very close to the display? I think not.
OLD: The deal was finished on May 26, 2005. The article referenced by the
Slashdot story is from October 2005.
NOT NEW TECHNOLOGY: They are merely piping light using fiber optics,
and then using the light with photocells to create small amounts of power for
use with measuring devices. The measurements are communicated back through the
fiber optics, using a different wavelength.
PATENTS? The article says, "Photonic Power owns key patents..." Can
the generation of power using light be patented again? Can sending information
using fiber optics be patented again? Maybe the company has patents,
considering that the U.S. government has become corrupt, but it is difficult
to believe that any patents could be valid.
IGNORANT: See this quote from the article referenced in the Slashdot
story: "... the company's fastest growing sector is currently electric
power transmission. One important application is eliminating the transformers
used to step down high currents and voltages to measurable levels."
The article should have said, "... the company's fastest growing
sector is currently powering and connecting the measuring devices used in
electric power transmission."
The writer does not understand that the idea does not change the
measuring system, only the method of transmitting the data. If step down
transformers are part of the method of measurement, they will still be
required. The "senior research analyst" who was quoted, Vincent Lui, doesn't
understand that, either, apparently.
REALITY RULES: If you play video games too much, your brain will
become partly useless for other things, and, if then try to be a Slashdot
editor, you won't be able to do a good job. (This is a theory that seems to
fit the facts.)
This is a useful idea for computer professionals in some cases where
voltage isolation is needed, but the Slashdot story was mishandled, as often
happens.
"Should Wikipedia just become a textbook that teaches mathematics?"
Wikipedia should become whatever people want it to be. Who knows in
advance what that is?
With the approval of the author of a well-known open-source program, I
posted information about how to use the program. Next day that contribution
was gone, removed by someone who said that Wikipedia should not become a place
for software manuals. But my explanation was the clearest, most complete
available at the time; the author of the software did not want to spend time
re-writing his own manual.
The problem is not to decide which kinds of content to include in
Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not have that problem of paper encyclopedias, paper
and printing cost. More pages in Wikipedia are almost free. The only problem
Wikipedia has with more content is organizing the content so that it is easy
for the reader to make use of what he or she wants, and easy to ignore the
rest.
The problem with Wikipedia is not with content, it is a social
problem. There are many, many people with some kind of anger problem. Such
people don't have many friends. But although they reject and discourage other
people, they are still human and need to socialize. So, they spend time with
open social groups like Wikipedia. They are there with the hidden and
not-so-hidden purpose of having targets for their anger.
Angry people have plenty of free time because other people usually
don't want to talk with them. Angry people have the time to dominate social
groups, and destroy them. Wikipedia's problem is how to recognize angry,
destructive contributors and how deal with their anger.
It's not free. It damages WikiPedia by competing with it, solely so Google can make money. It costs humans an enormous amount, as Google joins the "Do evil if it may make money" crowd.
By keeping every email online, Google's GMail has created a surveillance system unlike any other. Remember that the U.S. government believes that it can a) require access, b) require companies not to disclose that they gave access.
Slashdot Mirror
"It's such lame and dishonest branding the marketing group should be ashamed."
That makes me laugh. I agree, of course. There are a LOT of technical companies with marketing companies that are out of touch with the reality of their business, and don't even seem to want to be in touch.
If you want to be a little scared, you can watch horror films. But if you want to be really, really deeply frightened, hang around some Microsoft marketing efforts. There are people who have turned themselves into drones. The go about their day robotically, not even realizing that what they do has no positive effect, or maybe any effect at all. They seem to think they have jobs, but actually they are locked into some forgotten corporate warp.
You are quoting an "internal press release"? The "simple fact" to use your words, is that Intel's entire involvement with OLPC has been amazingly, incredibly poorly considered, and had a predictable result.
Intel, apparently, never wavered from its position that it was in competition with OLPC. Intel tried to kill the program before it got fully started; that's how it appears to the public. Internal attempts at spin control at Intel don't change the public perception that Intel has been, and will continue to be, destructive.
Intel could have given the OLPC program lower cost processors, to compete with the AMD processors used now. Instead, Intel decided to go into the low-cost, commodity consumer business? When Intel has always failed at that business? When Intel apparently has no interest in the huge issue affecting all humans, the ability of some people to educate themselves and become leaders in their communities, given some resources?
You did not address the underlying problem, which is that many people think that Intel CEO Paul Otellini has extremely poor social skills. You did not consider that Intel is still planning on doing something that can only fail, given Intel's past history and core competency. Will Intel become a strong competitor with Mattel?
"Intel's behavior regarding the OLPC is reprehensible."
Intel employees I've met have gone further than that. They are saying that the management of Intel CEO Paul S. Otellini is reprehensible. They say he is socially unskilled. They are saying he creates dissension and reduces morale among Intel employees by creating adversarial situations.
Certainly Otellini's handling of the One Laptop Per Child initiative could not have been worse. It was as though he said to himself, "How can I get billions of dollars worth of free publicity for Intel, all negative?" Intel's actions have created the impression that Intel wants to kill acceptance of the OLPC so that it can kill the OLPC project and then raise prices on its own products.
Anyone thinking of buying an Intel consumer product should know that Intel had a consumer products division in 2001 and decided to close it: Intel axes its consumer electronics unit. Why? In my opinion, the Intel Consumer Products Division was extremely poorly managed.
Also, Intel's marketing has been incredibly poorly managed. At one point, Intel was trying to sell processors by giving away dolls. Typical reaction: "Could this be the end of the bunny ads? We sure as hell hope so..."
There is no evidence that I can see that Intel is managed better today. Here is an April 2006 example I found quickly: Intel's consumer fumbling, in which Intel is trying to sell products using an unpronounceable trademark.
Before you read all the comments about dog noise and feces, it might be interesting to know the on topic reason for the Chinese rules about dogs.
In 1979, China adopted its One Child Policy. That was in response to calculations showing that, it China did not reduce its population growth, hundreds of millions of people would die of starvation by 2025, because China does not have enough productive farm land to feed everyone projected to be alive if there was no birth rate limit.
The idea of limiting dog size is to reduce the competition for food from pets.
Also see The Effect of China's One-Child Family Policy after 25 Years.
That Google link showed only spam web sites.
Are the people who are bragging about getting domain name registration for $2.00 telling the truth? Are such registrations $2.00 after you have paid too much for hosting?
What registrar registers a domain for $2?
Those who want to educate themselves about the corruption can also read The Lie of the Century and one of the many topics on Cooperative Research.
This is on topic considering that the article referenced by the Slashdot story claimed that big search engines are safe for doing domain searches because even the U.S. government cannot get access to Google. It's a minor point considering that the major point is about domain registration, but it is a point.
Quote from the article: "I love when I see search engines like Google stick their neck out and tell the US Government that not even Uncle Sam can have access to user's search data."
When you read that some company told the U.S. government it could not have access, you should not believe that means the U.S. government did not get access. It could mean that access was allowed, but that the company was allowed to lie about it. It could mean that lower-level executives in the company were threatened with prison, arranged access, and were allowed to keep the access secret.
The U.S. government believes that it can get any information from any U.S. company at any time by threatening to put the executives of the company in prison. The U.S. government believes that it can keep that secret. The U.S. government believes that it can lie to the world and to U.S. citizens.
When there is widespread corruption, it is not wise to believe in limits to that corruption unless you have very good facts and reasons. The U.S. government has killed, or arranged the death of, or done things that resulted in the death of, an estimated 11,000,000 people since the end of the 2nd World War by invading or bombing 25 countries. All of that violence was for profit. For example, the purpose of occupying Iraq is to restrict the supply of oil and therefore drive up the price.
"... as long as you don't edit the file on the server, you're ok."
Maybe, but that's not what it says. Is even the Microsoft web page a buggy beta?: Microsoft Support article: "When you use certain programs to edit files on a home computer that uses Windows Home Server, the files may become corrupted when you save them to the home server."
That quote says the bug appears only on a home computer that "uses" Windows Home Server. Does that mean the home computer uses Windows Home Server as a server, or the home computer operating system is Windows Home Server?
Once again, Microsoft has sold sloppy, unfinished software, supported with sloppy and unfinished support pages.
Further, does that sentence mean that, if it is an office computer, there is no problem? The whole purpose of using the word "Home" is apparently to try to intimidate less-technically-minded managers from using the software in a small business office.
Do evil if it will make more money?
Quote from Microsoft's support article: "When you use certain programs to edit files on a home computer that uses Windows Home Server, the files may become corrupted when you save them to the home server."
A large amount of Microsoft's profit, in my opinion, comes from selling unfinished software, and then getting money for "upgrades". Microsoft won't get money for the fix to this problem, but I think you will agree that Microsoft is the largest supplier of unfinished software, and making the whole world a beta tester is cheaper than selling a finished product.
Therefore, MOD PARENT UP.
I notice that people are inventing nonsense about this; the problem appears not to have anything to do with editing backups.
The previous words in that quote show that the ancient book is advising us not to read:
"The words of the wise are like goads, and like nails firmly fixed are the collected sayings; they are given by one Shepherd. My son, beware of anything beyond these. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh." -- Ecclesiastes 11 and 12.
I doubt that anyone who reads Slashdot wants to read only "collected sayings", and be poor because he or she has lost his job.
Quote from the Slashdot story: "... Basex chief analyst Jonathan Spira declared."
Quote from the Basex web site:
"Basex reaches the key decision makers in the Collaborative Business Knowledge space."
I know that many people don't speak Corporate Robot Language, so I will translate: "We are really, really bored with our jobs. We don't like technical things, or have any respect for technically knowledgeable people. However, to make ourselves seem more important, we adopt technical-sounding expressions, and pretend that they are meaningful."
I'm guessing that the New York Times got paid for that article, and so did someone at Slashdot.
I would love to see the "Collaborative Business Knowledge Space". I'm guessing it is about one centimeter square and is guarded by one old cockroach.
Quote: "I personally think Google is on thin ice here and would personally not like to see this deal go through."
I agree.
Anyone doubting how much Google has started to become a factor in our lives should run Firefox with the NoScript add-on. NoScript will show you that most web sites deliver all of your browsing history to Google-Analytics.com.
The U.S. government's idea that it can get any information from any U.S. company at any time by threatening to put the executives of the company in jail, and can keep that secret, means that, using Google's information, your entire history online can be tracked by the U.S. government.
Only Firefox with NoScript can prevent this. Since Google has been paying $50,000,000 each year to the Mozilla Foundation, the developers of Firefox, and since Google makes money through advertising, it seems likely that Firefox will eventually not allow add-ons like NoScript and Ad-Block.
When I learned that the founders of Google bought themselves a Boeing 747, I began to worry that they are not people like us any more, but have rich man's sickness. Someone with that sickness will do anything to make more money.
NoScript makes your browsing much more secure, in addition to giving you the option to stop spying. It's amazing how many web sites run Javascript scripts linking the web sites we visit to other servers at other companies.
Deciding what needs to be unblocked is extra work, however.
Quote from the Computerworld article and the Slashdot summary:
"Samsung rates the drive with a read speed of 100MB/sec and write speed of 80 MB/sec, compared to 59MB/sec and 60MB/sec (respectively) for a traditional 2.5" hard drive."
The speed quoted for a mechanical hard drive is a burst speed, accurate for reading only one track, and doesn't include the time it takes for a conventional rotating hard drive to change tracks. Isn't that correct?
My experience is that the quality of writing in the best British newspapers is better than the writing in U.S. newspapers.
At present, the parent post is moderated:
50% Flamebait
30% Informative
20% Troll
Perhaps there should be a special way of treating moderation when there is substantial disagreement.
"... used that fame and fortune to help kids in many challenged walks of life."
Apparently you don't know that celebrities have publicists who find a "charitable" cause for photo shoots. Seeming charitable activity distracts people, easily, from the bad things celebrities do. Bill Gates uses this method.
Think about it, do you really think that Pamela Anderson is interested in charitable activities? P.A. graphs and calculations: If Pamela continues at her current rate of expansion, this is what she will look like by the year 2023.
Now my original post, Chuck Norris is dead..., is marked "(Score:-1, Flamebait)" People who live in fantasy worlds are easily manipulated.
Parent Moderation, 2007-12-23, 07:17 PST:
50% Troll
50% Informative
Note that the parent comment intended to express an opinion about how Chuck Norris tries to portray himself. So, it should have said, "... the way Chuck Norris wants you to think about him, and that entire model of what it means to be male, is stupid."
Chuck Norris is dead... No one is strong enough to kill Chuck Norris, so he had to kill himself.
My opinion is that Chuck Norris, and that entire model of what it means to be male, is stupid. Strong people are aware of their feelings and thoughts. Strong people are cooperative, not adversarial.
As the families of more than a million Iraqis can verify, George W. Bush lives by the Chuck Norris model.
My guess is that the Chuck Norris and George W. Bush model of being male is only for profit. My guess is that Chuck Norris is not adversarial during most of the hours of his life. My guess is that when George W. Bush is alone, he is a sad, depressed, angry person with an alcoholic personality.
Chuck Norris wants to be seen as someone with that idea of "strong" to make money from films. George W. Bush wants to make money from getting control of, and restricting the supply of, oil. They are both weak losers.
But they weren't all investors, apparently, some are just suppliers. Did the suppliers invest?
What bothers me is the lack of solid honesty about what is happening. Those who steal try to make their companies look as believable as possible.
The apparent lack of honesty in the article also bothers me, as I said.
The company wants investors. In my opinion, the investors page is written in a curious way, giving the impression that some of the companies listed may not actually be investors, but associated as suppliers, or not associated at all.
Slashdot has a long history of running articles about risky or even fraudulent companies that want investments, in my opinion. I think Slashdot editors should be required to run conflict-of-interest disclaimers, to give legal assurance they were not paid to run an article.
The easiest way to make money is to steal it from investors who don't really have the capacity to understand technology. That's what happened in the year 2000 market crash. That "crash" was largely theft, and pre-planned theft, in my opinion. Others share my opinion: Blood on the Street: The Sensational Inside Story of How Wall Street Analysts Duped a Generation of Investors, an excellent book.
Here is an questionable statement from the article referenced by Slashdot:
"Unlike HD DVDs, which use blue lasers to record and read data off a reflective surface on top of a polymer substrate, Mempile's TeraDisc drives use more powerful red-laser technology to write and read."
Since red light is of a longer wavelength, it has a lower resolution. The power is not relevant. All systems use the power that is necessary to make them work.
Here is another quote that seems ignorant and crazy, or deliberately dishonest, to me:
"Over the next 10 years, both studio and consumer HD products will multiply by 10 times the current resolution."
That statement tries to invent a situation in which the "new technology" would actually be needed for other than making backups. However, even the present NTSC resolution is enough for most TV watching. It seems doubtful that displays with more resolution than HD DVD will become common.
Also, HD displays are far more expensive. Would people actually want to pay more again, for resolution that is so great they cannot see it unless they are very close to the display? I think not.
OLD: The deal was finished on May 26, 2005 . The article referenced by the Slashdot story is from October 2005.
NOT NEW TECHNOLOGY: They are merely piping light using fiber optics, and then using the light with photocells to create small amounts of power for use with measuring devices. The measurements are communicated back through the fiber optics, using a different wavelength.
PATENTS? The article says, "Photonic Power owns key patents..." Can the generation of power using light be patented again? Can sending information using fiber optics be patented again? Maybe the company has patents, considering that the U.S. government has become corrupt, but it is difficult to believe that any patents could be valid.
IGNORANT: See this quote from the article referenced in the Slashdot story: "... the company's fastest growing sector is currently electric power transmission. One important application is eliminating the transformers used to step down high currents and voltages to measurable levels."
The article should have said, "... the company's fastest growing sector is currently powering and connecting the measuring devices used in electric power transmission."
The writer does not understand that the idea does not change the measuring system, only the method of transmitting the data. If step down transformers are part of the method of measurement, they will still be required. The "senior research analyst" who was quoted, Vincent Lui, doesn't understand that, either, apparently.
REALITY RULES: If you play video games too much, your brain will become partly useless for other things, and, if then try to be a Slashdot editor, you won't be able to do a good job. (This is a theory that seems to fit the facts.)
This is a useful idea for computer professionals in some cases where voltage isolation is needed, but the Slashdot story was mishandled, as often happens.
"Should Wikipedia just become a textbook that teaches mathematics?"
Wikipedia should become whatever people want it to be. Who knows in advance what that is?
With the approval of the author of a well-known open-source program, I posted information about how to use the program. Next day that contribution was gone, removed by someone who said that Wikipedia should not become a place for software manuals. But my explanation was the clearest, most complete available at the time; the author of the software did not want to spend time re-writing his own manual.
The problem is not to decide which kinds of content to include in Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not have that problem of paper encyclopedias, paper and printing cost. More pages in Wikipedia are almost free. The only problem Wikipedia has with more content is organizing the content so that it is easy for the reader to make use of what he or she wants, and easy to ignore the rest.
The problem with Wikipedia is not with content, it is a social problem. There are many, many people with some kind of anger problem. Such people don't have many friends. But although they reject and discourage other people, they are still human and need to socialize. So, they spend time with open social groups like Wikipedia. They are there with the hidden and not-so-hidden purpose of having targets for their anger.
Angry people have plenty of free time because other people usually don't want to talk with them. Angry people have the time to dominate social groups, and destroy them. Wikipedia's problem is how to recognize angry, destructive contributors and how deal with their anger.
Linus Torvalds, Congratulations. MJ
It's not free. It damages WikiPedia by competing with it, solely so Google can make money. It costs humans an enormous amount, as Google joins the "Do evil if it may make money" crowd.
By keeping every email online, Google's GMail has created a surveillance system unlike any other. Remember that the U.S. government believes that it can a) require access, b) require companies not to disclose that they gave access.
Now this.