not sure what to make of it, really. initially, when i left the theater, i was rather angry at how they handled data's death - i.e., not at all - he gets a quick scene where the bridge crew each drinks a glass of wine in his memory, riker recounts the first time he saw data in the holodeck in 'encounter at farpoint,' and troi starts to cry - about 2 minuts worth, at most. data was easily my favourite character in the series, and i'd like to see more of a farewell given to him (hell, i'd rather see him not die, but...).
but now to the rest of the film...
the villain - believeable, mean and cruel. one of the rare bad guys that i didn't even feel the least bit of sympathy for. in the end, when picard beams aboard shinzon's ship at the end, i actually said out loud, with glee, "shoot him, picard!" shinzon - a clone of picard - tried to be the center of the writers over-obvious attempt to attack the nature vs. nurture debate - but he ended up just being evil, and not much else.
most of the cast was pretty well ignored. data and picard were in the spotlight. riker and troi got their little attention for the marriage thing, but that's about it. most of that focused on picard's speech, anyway. worf had about 5 lines in the entire movie, geordi not many more, and i hardly remember crusher being there most of the time. the short appearance made by guinan was nice - i felt she always brought a lot to the series. a shame that wesley's scene(s) was(were) cut. picard was the true focus of the movie, with maybe half as much attention devoted to data. michael dorn, i believe, said in an interview that the movie might have been called "star trek: narcissist," and i wholeheartedly agree.
but it feels like the writers were trying too hard to come up with new and novel ways for the characters to act. picard ignores riker's usual plea that his captain not go on away missions, just because picard wants to try out their new dune-buggy-like vehicle, driving around like a maniac. jumping the thing off a cliff and into the back of the hovering shuttlecraft was a bit much. picard's wedding speech - perfectly plausible things for him to say, i think, but the delivery was just... off. some of data's facial expressions to me just seemed out of character for him as well - looking angry at times when it didn't seem appropriate. sex scene with riker and troi - quite unnecessary.
oh, and i fail to see how the enterprise lasted more than a few seconds against shinzon's ship. the facts:
1) shinzon's ship can fire while cloaked
2) shinzon's ship has over 40 disruptor cannons
3) shinzon's ship has over 20 torpedo launchers
4) shinzon's ship has double-strength shields
seems to me like the enterprise should have been easily and quickly disabled. even considering mini-picard wanted picard alive.
and why, oh why, did they get a director who didn't know shit about star trek? whatever happened to nicholas meyer? i'd love to see another trek film under his direction. or jonathan frakes? he did a great job with first contact, and, while insurrection surely was nowhere near as good, i was pleased with it. why bring in a complete newbie to direct what may be the last of the TNG movies (and may be the last of the trek movies, period)? why?!
the parallels to other films were just ridiculous. after the final battle, the enterprise trying to pull away, not fast enough, saved at the last minute (st II, anyone?). the ultimate sacrifice by a crew member - the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one (st II, again). god, in the ending scenes, as the camera panned over the spacedock holding the under-repairs enterprise, they even used an excerpt from the exact same musical sequence from star trek: the motion picture, the scene where they pan over the enterprise for the first time! (yes, i'm revealing a bit too much of my geek-hood on this one). then of course data transferring his memories to his simple-minded prototype brother - somewhat reminiscent of spock's katra transfer to mccoy... as well as blatantly obvious foreshadowing ("oh great, so data really _is_ going to die?!"). the nurture vs. nature component was way too glaring and obvious, both in picard vs. shinzon and data vs. b-4, his earlier model.
so i don't know. getting rid of data really pissed me off, but i suppose i'd see it again. i guess we have to get used to the fact that movie-trek just can't compare to tv-trek. at least not anymore. hollywood wants money, they don't want to fit the (small) niche of hardcore trek fans. and you can devote an entire episode of a tv series here and there to one particular character, and that strengthens the series, and the character. you can't do that in a movie. newcomers or even casual trek observers would think very little of worf, crusher, geordi, even troi and riker. they'd see a seemingly troubled and indecisve picard and an insightful introspective data, and not much more (with regards to the core cast, anyway). the only character i was really happy with was data. not to say patrick stewart did not give a brilliant performance - as always he did not disappoint, but i don't think picard was written all that well in this one. stewart probably played picard better than the script deserved.
and if they try to bring data back by having something magically click in b-4's head with data's old memories, i will kill them.
one of my profs here at cornell was on the team at caltech that designed the minimips. i've taken a couple classes he's taught, and the man is amazing, and very passionate about his work. the latest class i took was mainly on async desgin techniques, which were mostly developed by him and his team at caltech. really fascinating stuff. it seems like async is the future, assuming that it can be made to work well on a large scale (not quite there yet...).
i have friends that swear that you can spell "lose" (i.e. to misplace or create a lack of something) either "lose" or "loose." it pisses me off to no end.
i maintain that the only reason you can do that is because so many people have made that common(?) mistake it has become allowed due to lack of education ^_~... or a lack of will to educate... *sigh*
hmm, when i ping -f myself, top tells me ping is eating about 35% cpu.
interesting is if i run four ping -f's on myself at once, top reports ping using about 13-14% cpu each. and setiathome is still chugging along, eating up the remaining. actually, no. dchpd (i'm running it on my tiny internal lan) is hitting 10% for no apparent reason. i wonder what's causing that...
and visual basic may be simple, but powerful it is not. then again, i last programmed in vb back in version 4, before the whole visual studio nonsense...
To learn C you need to know assembler(it was invented to be a portable assembler).
are you on crack? C was designed so people didn't have to learn and use assembly, as well as for portability reasons.
i've been programming in C for a relatively short time, but i definitely learned C programming back when all assembly was to me was "a scary arcane low-level language that no one really wants to have to understand anymore" ^_~. sure, knowing how assembly works has probably helped me to use C more efficiently, as i know what is going on behind the scenes, but by no means is a knowledge of assembly necessary for effective C programming.
i'm forced to agree with this, despite the other repilies on this thread. for our level of technology, the human form is one of the least efficient to try to build as an autonomous robot. granted, in space the conditions are a bit different, what with the lack of gravity, but it is extremely difficult (if not impossible) to match the balance of a real flesh-and-blood human. we actually have a quite amazing system for keeping our balance. i once read an article (i wish i knew where) that pretty much gave up on the idea of creating a humanoid-android, in favor of insect- or arachnid-like robots. much more efficient and stable. pretty creepy to look at tho, imho...
"...required to give ICANN 10 days notice of release of any information marked 'confidential' to give them the opportunity to seek a court order stopping him."
oh really? or might this be the 10-day period of "oh shit let's see what we can cover up and hide in ten days so he doesn't find out?" while that is of course illegal, i wouldn't put it past them if there really is anything incriminating in those records. granted, they've had plenty of time to do so...
does this seem to anyone else as just a pitiful bid for extra time? auerbach has been working for two years to get ahold of these documents. what could an extra 10 days possibly do for ICANN? they're just trying to be difficult on principle...
sounds like a good plan, but you're making this a linux-centric system. the system must be available to windows and macintosh users to be accepted in the market. and we all know how secure a standard install of windows is...
Sure, I understand that "all you can eat" is just marketing blurb, and that the fees charged for retail flat rate services don't cover the ISP costs of using them to their full capacity.
it must, at least where i am. i live in a university town - i'm a student who has just moved off campus. everyone on-campus is spoiled by the direct 10mbit lan connection (served by a two 155mbit pipes to the outside - i regularly got 600-800kb/s to the outside world), and once they leave campus, they (myself included) get cable. it's summer now (obviously), and with so many students gone, i get 300-400 kb/s regularly. but during the academic year, speeds aren't much better than dialup - normal connection speeds are between 10 and 15kb/s. if they're not at full capacity, i'd be quite surprised (and annoyed).
ok, i'm being a nitpicky, devil's-advocate bastard, but i can't resist.
you're basically saying that if you don't take countermeasures to 'protect' your site from deep linking, you have no right to complain when someone does.
does that mean that if i don't take countermeasures to protect my house from a break-in (beyond simple locks), i don't have a right to complain if someone breaks in and steals my stuff?
granted, different levels of severity, but the relation is still there.
funny you should mention "programmer hostile" in reference to a mac (mac classic, anyway). i am primarily a linux/unix programmer, and in the past couple weeks i have just started to work on some macintosh programming. and it's hell. and i haven't even done anything that requires an interface. i was simply "porting" some "portable" mozilla code to macintosh, and it took me the better part of a week to do so! not because the mac is fundamentally different from a linux box, but because the internal workings of how shared libraries work on a macintosh are completely hidden to me. even my boss, who is primarily a mac developer (and a damned good one, from some of the work i've seen), had trouble helping me out (then again, he's a firm believer of static linking ^_~).
i'll be porting my work to windows next week, and, while i don't expect windows to do everything i want immediately, i expect to have it working by the time i go home monday evening. at the latest, lunchtime on tuesday. tho i only have a glimpse of it, i already have a sour impression of the macintosh as a development platform.
Now, every once in a while I get asked this question: how is it that a VCR can record a TV show when the TV isn't turned on?
the thing is, this example really doesn't have anything to do with the interface of a vcr - this is really a question about the fundamental system by which tv signals are transmitted and received, the concept that the tv signal is still available on the wire, and the existence or absence of the television unit itself is quite irrelevant.
but how that relates to the users - for the person that asks the question - bravo to them for attempting to expand their knowledge. if they don't get it, they don't get it. but then they had damned well better accept it and move on, and not put up a fuss every time you try to record something with the tv off.
as for an explanation - keep it simple. not everyone really understands what a tuner is - "the tuner is the thing on the tv that changes the channel." but what does that have to do with anything, really? what does that have to do with what it actually _does_, or how it works? nothing. i like the other poster's idea - tell them that the vcr is a tv where the picture tube has been replaced by a cassette tape. it's good, simple, likely to be understood, and, also importantly, isn't really dumbing down the actual facts, because, in essence, it is true - a vcr is really just a tv without a picture tube.
parting thought - your average non-geek can never even become a peripheral geek by simply being dropped into an uber-geek world. a gentle introduction is the only way to go.
good points - i think the fundamental thing is that our 'lusers' want to - or have to - perform some task on a computer, but refuse to take the time to learn.
for your examples: a recipe - if i wanted a particular dish, and i had a recipe for it, i would certainly try to make it. if i didn't have a recipe, i'd probably try to look it up online or in a cookbook, failing that i'd ask a friend who i know has some culinary skill.
fashion and clothing is generally a personal taste thing - i don't think that it really applies here.
as for fine art, i have only a passing interest. if i had the money and a fabulous house that i wanted to decorate with art, i would definitely do my research - 1) so as not to make "bad" choices and look bad to people who are "in the know" about art and 2) so as not to waste my money on crap.
you've probably got me on the elected officials thing. politics do not interest me, but then again, i don't really recall anything that has required a great knowledge of politics in my life.
i'm wild in bed. 'nuff said.
i think the point is that the general 'luser' mentality is that there is a very quick short-circuit from "i am going to sit down and use application X so i can Y" to "hey knowledgeable techie guy, show me how to do Y with X." they skip the intermediate step of trying to gather the knowledge for themselves and mastering it. is it that techie people have a higher aptitude for do-it-yourself-ness? possibly. then again, i am sure there are plenty of techies who would make fools of themselves in any of the situation/examples proposed.
the fundamental problem is that of doing the work of learning for yourself - and retaining the knowledge - rather than repeatedly asking someone else to help you - or worse, do it for you. people of all types - techies and non-techies, suffer from this in many different categories, both technical and non-technical.
or perhaps just name the next one "the array." that's what happens when they try to destroy the matrix - they are only able to remove one of its dimensions.
or maybe "the matrix: reducing neo to row echelon form." how about "the matrix: the gaussian elimination of agent smith."
Look, let's be frank here: spammers will always find open relays in Asia. Always. China's recent baby steps forward notwithstanding, you know that this is true. This is part of the spammer's job.
bullshit. that's like saying, "well, there will always be murderers out there no matter how hard we try, so we might as well stop punishing the ones we do find." ok, so that's a little bit dramatic. but still, that kind of attitude is why we do have spam. yes, spammers will always look for open relays. but the more that are eliminated, the harder they'll have to look, and that creates a delay in their spamming. as more and more open relays are removed from the picture, we'll have less spam.
that's interesting... i was under the impression that the software was written for the hardware, not that the harware was built for the software. if MS decided they were going to stop writing x86 windows and write for a new set of hardware that they designed and controlled, people would flock to linux/bsd and macos. however, if intel and amd decided that they were going to stop deveopment and production of x86 processors, you better believe that everyone (including MS) would jump to port their OSes to the new architecture.
while i think the real solution here is for BSD to beef up their ACPI support, MS should not be allowed to bully hardware makers into making concessions, especially in the area of breaking spec.
Or at least have a non-biased third party look at the code.
does such a person/organisation exist? seriously, i think one would be hard pressed to find _anyone_ who doesn't have a position regarding MS that isn't at one or the other end of the spectrum - very hard to find someone in the middle.
the longer article at villagevoice states that "dr. park's analysis did not undergo peer review." to be honest, i really tend to dislike academics who are so hotheaded and quick in dismissing new ideas to go as far as ignore a simple common procedure like peer review. granted, this doesn't make his analysis invalid, but a bit hasty...
as for shapira and saltmarsh, taleyarkhan believes their detector was calibrated incorrectly, which is why their attempt at reproduction of the experiment failed. only time will tell if that's a correct assumption, but i would think that, if not at least giving the taleyarkhan group the benefit of the doubt, at least give the issue a little more time and careful consideration (and perhaps consultation) before so vehemently denouncing the effort.
perhaps this isn't true or workable. but give it more research and testing before deciding either way.
seriously tho - that thing has the potential to generate a LOT of EMI. at home i have one of the older (non 900mhz) cordless phones. when i go across the hall into the computer room, with a few computers with huge heavy metal cases, i tend to get a lot of interference. i hope this guy doesn't have one of those. or a desire to listen to the radio.
on the other hand, i really like the idea and design. the modded HD directly on top is a nice touch. i'd like to see something a little more interesting than your standard cube tho. perhaps something tower-like, or maybe even ultra flat - you could use the entire computer as a desktop. granted that would make plugging things into the pci bus a problem... modded mobos, anyone? ^_~
Slashdot Mirror
--spoiler alert--
not sure what to make of it, really. initially, when i left the theater, i was rather angry at how they handled data's death - i.e., not at all - he gets a quick scene where the bridge crew each drinks a glass of wine in his memory, riker recounts the first time he saw data in the holodeck in 'encounter at farpoint,' and troi starts to cry - about 2 minuts worth, at most. data was easily my favourite character in the series, and i'd like to see more of a farewell given to him (hell, i'd rather see him not die, but...).
but now to the rest of the film...
the villain - believeable, mean and cruel. one of the rare bad guys that i didn't even feel the least bit of sympathy for. in the end, when picard beams aboard shinzon's ship at the end, i actually said out loud, with glee, "shoot him, picard!" shinzon - a clone of picard - tried to be the center of the writers over-obvious attempt to attack the nature vs. nurture debate - but he ended up just being evil, and not much else.
most of the cast was pretty well ignored. data and picard were in the spotlight. riker and troi got their little attention for the marriage thing, but that's about it. most of that focused on picard's speech, anyway. worf had about 5 lines in the entire movie, geordi not many more, and i hardly remember crusher being there most of the time. the short appearance made by guinan was nice - i felt she always brought a lot to the series. a shame that wesley's scene(s) was(were) cut. picard was the true focus of the movie, with maybe half as much attention devoted to data. michael dorn, i believe, said in an interview that the movie might have been called "star trek: narcissist," and i wholeheartedly agree.
but it feels like the writers were trying too hard to come up with new and novel ways for the characters to act. picard ignores riker's usual plea that his captain not go on away missions, just because picard wants to try out their new dune-buggy-like vehicle, driving around like a maniac. jumping the thing off a cliff and into the back of the hovering shuttlecraft was a bit much. picard's wedding speech - perfectly plausible things for him to say, i think, but the delivery was just... off. some of data's facial expressions to me just seemed out of character for him as well - looking angry at times when it didn't seem appropriate. sex scene with riker and troi - quite unnecessary.
oh, and i fail to see how the enterprise lasted more than a few seconds against shinzon's ship. the facts:
1) shinzon's ship can fire while cloaked
2) shinzon's ship has over 40 disruptor cannons
3) shinzon's ship has over 20 torpedo launchers
4) shinzon's ship has double-strength shields
seems to me like the enterprise should have been easily and quickly disabled. even considering mini-picard wanted picard alive.
and why, oh why, did they get a director who didn't know shit about star trek? whatever happened to nicholas meyer? i'd love to see another trek film under his direction. or jonathan frakes? he did a great job with first contact, and, while insurrection surely was nowhere near as good, i was pleased with it. why bring in a complete newbie to direct what may be the last of the TNG movies (and may be the last of the trek movies, period)? why?!
the parallels to other films were just ridiculous. after the final battle, the enterprise trying to pull away, not fast enough, saved at the last minute (st II, anyone?). the ultimate sacrifice by a crew member - the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one (st II, again). god, in the ending scenes, as the camera panned over the spacedock holding the under-repairs enterprise, they even used an excerpt from the exact same musical sequence from star trek: the motion picture, the scene where they pan over the enterprise for the first time! (yes, i'm revealing a bit too much of my geek-hood on this one). then of course data transferring his memories to his simple-minded prototype brother - somewhat reminiscent of spock's katra transfer to mccoy... as well as blatantly obvious foreshadowing ("oh great, so data really _is_ going to die?!"). the nurture vs. nature component was way too glaring and obvious, both in picard vs. shinzon and data vs. b-4, his earlier model.
so i don't know. getting rid of data really pissed me off, but i suppose i'd see it again. i guess we have to get used to the fact that movie-trek just can't compare to tv-trek. at least not anymore. hollywood wants money, they don't want to fit the (small) niche of hardcore trek fans. and you can devote an entire episode of a tv series here and there to one particular character, and that strengthens the series, and the character. you can't do that in a movie. newcomers or even casual trek observers would think very little of worf, crusher, geordi, even troi and riker. they'd see a seemingly troubled and indecisve picard and an insightful introspective data, and not much more (with regards to the core cast, anyway). the only character i was really happy with was data. not to say patrick stewart did not give a brilliant performance - as always he did not disappoint, but i don't think picard was written all that well in this one. stewart probably played picard better than the script deserved.
and if they try to bring data back by having something magically click in b-4's head with data's old memories, i will kill them.
one of my profs here at cornell was on the team at caltech that designed the minimips. i've taken a couple classes he's taught, and the man is amazing, and very passionate about his work. the latest class i took was mainly on async desgin techniques, which were mostly developed by him and his team at caltech. really fascinating stuff. it seems like async is the future, assuming that it can be made to work well on a large scale (not quite there yet...).
i have friends that swear that you can spell "lose" (i.e. to misplace or create a lack of something) either "lose" or "loose." it pisses me off to no end.
... or a lack of will to educate... *sigh*
i maintain that the only reason you can do that is because so many people have made that common(?) mistake it has become allowed due to lack of education ^_~
hmm, when i ping -f myself, top tells me ping is eating about 35% cpu.
interesting is if i run four ping -f's on myself at once, top reports ping using about 13-14% cpu each. and setiathome is still chugging along, eating up the remaining. actually, no. dchpd (i'm running it on my tiny internal lan) is hitting 10% for no apparent reason. i wonder what's causing that...
mfc is simple? lay off the crack, dude...
and visual basic may be simple, but powerful it is not. then again, i last programmed in vb back in version 4, before the whole visual studio nonsense...
are you on crack? C was designed so people didn't have to learn and use assembly, as well as for portability reasons.
i've been programming in C for a relatively short time, but i definitely learned C programming back when all assembly was to me was "a scary arcane low-level language that no one really wants to have to understand anymore" ^_~. sure, knowing how assembly works has probably helped me to use C more efficiently, as i know what is going on behind the scenes, but by no means is a knowledge of assembly necessary for effective C programming.
i'm forced to agree with this, despite the other repilies on this thread. for our level of technology, the human form is one of the least efficient to try to build as an autonomous robot. granted, in space the conditions are a bit different, what with the lack of gravity, but it is extremely difficult (if not impossible) to match the balance of a real flesh-and-blood human. we actually have a quite amazing system for keeping our balance. i once read an article (i wish i knew where) that pretty much gave up on the idea of creating a humanoid-android, in favor of insect- or arachnid-like robots. much more efficient and stable. pretty creepy to look at tho, imho...
does this seem to anyone else as just a pitiful bid for extra time? auerbach has been working for two years to get ahold of these documents. what could an extra 10 days possibly do for ICANN? they're just trying to be difficult on principle...
sounds like a good plan, but you're making this a linux-centric system. the system must be available to windows and macintosh users to be accepted in the market. and we all know how secure a standard install of windows is...
ok, i'm being a nitpicky, devil's-advocate bastard, but i can't resist.
you're basically saying that if you don't take countermeasures to 'protect' your site from deep linking, you have no right to complain when someone does.
does that mean that if i don't take countermeasures to protect my house from a break-in (beyond simple locks), i don't have a right to complain if someone breaks in and steals my stuff?
granted, different levels of severity, but the relation is still there.
funny you should mention "programmer hostile" in reference to a mac (mac classic, anyway). i am primarily a linux/unix programmer, and in the past couple weeks i have just started to work on some macintosh programming. and it's hell. and i haven't even done anything that requires an interface. i was simply "porting" some "portable" mozilla code to macintosh, and it took me the better part of a week to do so! not because the mac is fundamentally different from a linux box, but because the internal workings of how shared libraries work on a macintosh are completely hidden to me. even my boss, who is primarily a mac developer (and a damned good one, from some of the work i've seen), had trouble helping me out (then again, he's a firm believer of static linking ^_~).
i'll be porting my work to windows next week, and, while i don't expect windows to do everything i want immediately, i expect to have it working by the time i go home monday evening. at the latest, lunchtime on tuesday. tho i only have a glimpse of it, i already have a sour impression of the macintosh as a development platform.
but how that relates to the users - for the person that asks the question - bravo to them for attempting to expand their knowledge. if they don't get it, they don't get it. but then they had damned well better accept it and move on, and not put up a fuss every time you try to record something with the tv off.
as for an explanation - keep it simple. not everyone really understands what a tuner is - "the tuner is the thing on the tv that changes the channel." but what does that have to do with anything, really? what does that have to do with what it actually _does_, or how it works? nothing. i like the other poster's idea - tell them that the vcr is a tv where the picture tube has been replaced by a cassette tape. it's good, simple, likely to be understood, and, also importantly, isn't really dumbing down the actual facts, because, in essence, it is true - a vcr is really just a tv without a picture tube.
parting thought - your average non-geek can never even become a peripheral geek by simply being dropped into an uber-geek world. a gentle introduction is the only way to go.
good points - i think the fundamental thing is that our 'lusers' want to - or have to - perform some task on a computer, but refuse to take the time to learn.
for your examples: a recipe - if i wanted a particular dish, and i had a recipe for it, i would certainly try to make it. if i didn't have a recipe, i'd probably try to look it up online or in a cookbook, failing that i'd ask a friend who i know has some culinary skill.
fashion and clothing is generally a personal taste thing - i don't think that it really applies here.
as for fine art, i have only a passing interest. if i had the money and a fabulous house that i wanted to decorate with art, i would definitely do my research - 1) so as not to make "bad" choices and look bad to people who are "in the know" about art and 2) so as not to waste my money on crap.
you've probably got me on the elected officials thing. politics do not interest me, but then again, i don't really recall anything that has required a great knowledge of politics in my life.
i'm wild in bed. 'nuff said.
i think the point is that the general 'luser' mentality is that there is a very quick short-circuit from "i am going to sit down and use application X so i can Y" to "hey knowledgeable techie guy, show me how to do Y with X." they skip the intermediate step of trying to gather the knowledge for themselves and mastering it. is it that techie people have a higher aptitude for do-it-yourself-ness? possibly. then again, i am sure there are plenty of techies who would make fools of themselves in any of the situation/examples proposed.
the fundamental problem is that of doing the work of learning for yourself - and retaining the knowledge - rather than repeatedly asking someone else to help you - or worse, do it for you. people of all types - techies and non-techies, suffer from this in many different categories, both technical and non-technical.
or perhaps just name the next one "the array." that's what happens when they try to destroy the matrix - they are only able to remove one of its dimensions.
or maybe "the matrix: reducing neo to row echelon form." how about "the matrix: the gaussian elimination of agent smith."
ok, i'll stop now.
i really see no legitimate need for an open relay that can't be achieved by putting some controls on the server to prevent spam.
two thumbs down to verio for caving in.
that's interesting... i was under the impression that the software was written for the hardware, not that the harware was built for the software. if MS decided they were going to stop writing x86 windows and write for a new set of hardware that they designed and controlled, people would flock to linux/bsd and macos. however, if intel and amd decided that they were going to stop deveopment and production of x86 processors, you better believe that everyone (including MS) would jump to port their OSes to the new architecture.
while i think the real solution here is for BSD to beef up their ACPI support, MS should not be allowed to bully hardware makers into making concessions, especially in the area of breaking spec.
the longer article at villagevoice states that "dr. park's analysis did not undergo peer review." to be honest, i really tend to dislike academics who are so hotheaded and quick in dismissing new ideas to go as far as ignore a simple common procedure like peer review. granted, this doesn't make his analysis invalid, but a bit hasty... as for shapira and saltmarsh, taleyarkhan believes their detector was calibrated incorrectly, which is why their attempt at reproduction of the experiment failed. only time will tell if that's a correct assumption, but i would think that, if not at least giving the taleyarkhan group the benefit of the doubt, at least give the issue a little more time and careful consideration (and perhaps consultation) before so vehemently denouncing the effort. perhaps this isn't true or workable. but give it more research and testing before deciding either way.
seriously tho - that thing has the potential to generate a LOT of EMI. at home i have one of the older (non 900mhz) cordless phones. when i go across the hall into the computer room, with a few computers with huge heavy metal cases, i tend to get a lot of interference. i hope this guy doesn't have one of those. or a desire to listen to the radio.
on the other hand, i really like the idea and design. the modded HD directly on top is a nice touch. i'd like to see something a little more interesting than your standard cube tho. perhaps something tower-like, or maybe even ultra flat - you could use the entire computer as a desktop. granted that would make plugging things into the pci bus a problem... modded mobos, anyone? ^_~