I need portable email and web on a device with more real estate than my cell phone. Not sure why people would be puzzled by this. "Portable" is the operative word here, not speed. If my IBM 240X thinkpad were still working, (small, light, no CD drive) I'd still be using it today, despite it's "lackluster" Pentium II processor. These days, you can't buy a processor too slow to adequately surf the web, so whatever is the lowest power chip out there would be fine for this application.
Here's my list:
I want cellphone-like battery time, cellphone-like bootup speeds, and smartphone-like cost (low hundreds) but with a real keyboard and a screen larger than 240X320. I want real wifi, *not* some co-dependent device that has to be paired with some cell phone that I'd never purchase on it's own merits.
Add the ability to read the memory chip out of my camera, allow me rudimentary touch-up and publish on the web, and let the device sync with my smartphone, and I could leave my big honkin' laptop at home entirely. None of these features require blazing hot performance.
Seriously, do most people really need four gigahertz quad processors with eight gigs of ram in a laptop they actually intend to carry around with them? Or do they just *think* they do?
The other day a friend asked my advice on a new computer for his daughter. The old desktop was painfully obsolete, and daughter wanted a laptop. I told him, keep an eye open for sales, and buy the cheapest laptop you can find, because anything you can buy new today will be an order of magnitude more than she actually needs. Oh, and request Windows XP rather than Vista.
It makes sense to me also. But that raises the question: If Comcast doesn't want you to do P2P, what is all that bandwidth for? If you're just browsing and watching movie trailers, there's not a lot of difference between 1.5 Mbps and 8 Mbps. At broadband speeds, latency and server upload speed are more significant factors than your download speed. Without torrents, there's no business model for those ultra fast download speeds except mindshare.
> All they need is right of way. They can put fiber on poles or in the ground. Or they could go into the cable business and start buying up cable franchises.
Agree on buying cable franchises, but regarding creating a new, competing infrastructure, I don't think it's that simple. Not a lawyer here, but I believe that local access for a particular type of physical delivery is awarded as an exclusive right to a particular company. So, for instance, if I'm a Qwest customer in Portland, I don't have a chance in hell of getting FIOS, because Qwest owns local access in that area, not Verizon. (Satellite is pretty much open, (but really expensive) wireless less so.) So (I believe) Microsoft would have to tangle with local authorities in order to put their own fiber lines right next to Verizon's. Perhaps someone in the industry could confirm or deny this.
Moreover, as big a company as is Microsoft, do they even have the resources (or desire) to create a new network infrastructure? It's a massive endevor, and has only been successful (as far as it has) because it was built on something that was already there.
> I don't think so. The ISPs are not going to want to face Microsoft, Google, Apple, Disney, and Sony. Yes I know that it seems that it is a battle of who can buy the most congressmen but Microsoft, Google, Apple, Disney, and Sony all have deep pockets and they all feel this is a battle they must win.
I don't know if even Microsoft and Google can force an ISP to provide a service they don't want to provide. But I guess we'll see.
> If need be Google and Microsoft both have the bucks to become the worlds largest ISPs. They both have the technology base and the motivation if the ISPs get too nasty with them.
But that kind of business model doesn't work anymore. In the dial-up days, you could do business with any ISP that had a local number in your area, but broadband kinda screws that up. Even independent DSL services have to negotiate with the company that owns the wires. Neither Microsoft nor Google have access to the last mile. Regardless of who's your "official" isp, they still have to negotiate with the actual owners of the equipment that is bringing the signal to your house. Unless Microsoft buys Comcast (which, now that I think about it, is possible), or comes up with some new, proprietary broadband infrastructure, they don't own the path to your house and have little to say about what kind of bandwidth throttling you see.
> Also the cable companies are hated. They are hated by the public at large.
Agreed!
>Congress know this so it may be a battle that they are willing to take on since Microsoft, Apple, Google, and Disney's money is just as green as Comcast's.
To give them what? Seriously, what is Google supposed to do, start buying phone companies?
> Hopefully those of you who do support friends and family weren't cruel enough to put Vista on their machines.
Not an issue of cruelty (or lack thereof) but one of self-preservation. Had I put Vista on friends and family's machines, I'd have had to support it. Decided to wait until SP1. Now uncertain whether to wait for next SP or Windows 7. (But then, when Windows 7 came out, would end up waiting for SP1...)
> Isn't that what the author was saying - with Matter, Banks' publishers are making an effort to introduce him to the American market?
Ah, ok. Well, if so it seems to have worked.
> Anyway, I can heartily recommend him. I've just about finished Matter, and good though it is it hasn't gripped me like some of his other books. I'd recommend Player of Games, Use of Weapons or Excession first if you're new to him.
Thanks, I've read them all. I think Use of Weapons affected me the most. That was one ghastly punch-line.
Although admittedly, I borrowed the first two from a friend, I bought the third off the shelf at a local book store in 1998. It was not my impression that Banks' novels were largely unavailable in the US. But I'm only one data point.
> In his native United Kingdom, Banks' work is released in hardcover at the front of bookshops; here, those seeking his science fiction work, at least, must dig down into the trade paperbacks -- and often find things out of print.
Really? I saw Matter on the shelf at Barnes and Noble this very day when I was picking up an order over lunch in Beaverton, Oregon. If we have it prominently displayed here, it should be pretty much everywhere. I'm thinking of picking it up this weekend.
I can agree with the economics, but there are social issues to deal with, to wit: my wife isn't a-gonna go for me investing in yet another dead format. Not only do I have to explain why I bought into a format already defunct, but years from now when the player finally gives up, I have to explain why we have to buy those movies over again. Yeah, I only paid $6 back in 2008, but with the spousal unit, that's not the point.
And in a way, I can agree with her. Yes, if I play my cards right and spend some time on it, I can squeeze some value out of the demise of HD-DVD, but is it really worth my time?
And so, I continue to baby my two year old chinese DVD player while prices come down on blu-ray.
The battery compartment cover on my wife's original gameboy broke shortly after she got it. But that's only one data point, of course, and it does still work, you just have to remove the duct tape to replace the batteries.
Come to think of it, the power jack became intermittent shortly after that.
Never broke a screen on it, though, and I've broken at least four on various Palm Pilots since the mid-nineties.
Agreed. Besides, not behaving badly does make some business sense. If you have a reputation of behaving honestly, even at the expense of some profit, there is a tendency to attract customers for which honesty is important.
Moreover it's not, as others have suggested, a black-and-white situation, where only the weasels succeed. Business is more complex than that.
And finally, to those who suggest that only government can prevent businesses from behaving badly; since when has government been a paragon of fairness and honesty? Governments are made up of people, not angels; no better or worse than anyone else.
Um, no, helium is inert. It's difficult to get helium to combine with anything, let alone oxygen.
Early airships used hydrogen, which is exteremely flammable. As I recall, hydrogen was used because it was easy to create through electrolysis.
Public perception, mistaking hydrogen for helium, has been a big roadblock to bringing back airships. You can get an idea of the extent of the problem when even geeks can't get it right.
It's too bad, because airships have the potential to carry huge loads long distances for modest cost. At a time when we're trying to wean off fossil fuels, it's worth considering.
> In other news, a $13000 Hyundai gets me from point A to point B just as well as a $43000 BMW. Why on Earth are people buying those BMW's???! It's craziness!
Bleh. A much better parallel would be a 2008 Hyundai compared to a 1998 Hyundai, where both cars cost about the same in inflation-adjusted dollars at the time of purchase. Sure, the new one is shiny and probably goes faster and doesn't rattle as much and the stereo is a little nicer, but in ten years, it'll still be a 2008 Hyundai.
I've generally been an early adopter. I just recently dug my Betamax out of the attic and sold it to a collector, still have an RCA CED disk player and two Laserdisk players in the closet. Was one of the first to own a DVD player ($799.95), bought a dual-mode, dual-layer DVD drive when they first became mainstream (about $300), so it was natural that read up on the competing HD formats and plan when to jump in.
The specs of both systems are decent, and they look like they're running neck-and-neck, so was settling down to wait until the dual mode players became affordable.
But the real test is what it looks like. The difference between Laserdisc and VHS is obvious. A well-crafted DVD blows most Laserdiscs away. (I can show you an A/B comparison on my own equipment.) The choice in either case was obvious. But but but... A DVD with a good anamorphic transfer at 480P, with component video or HDMI into a decent TV looks pretty darn good. Would we see the same quality jump with HD formats?
Only one way to find out. Drive to a couple A/V stores and do A/B comparisons between decently mastered conventional DVD and HD DVD, on decent players going to a good monitor.
My reaction.... Enh. Ok, I can see a little more detail on the HD side, in some scenes, if I look closely enough. But I can't make myself believe that it's worth the cost and inconvenience to upgrade. Moreover, it was apparent from observations during those A/V tests that Mr. and Mrs. Joe Consumer can't see any difference at all, and is wondering what the hoopla is all about.
Although the cost of the discs themselves seem to be fixed artificially low at about 20 - 30% more than conventional DVDs, the players are still 3 to 5 times more expensive than a good generic progressive scan DVD player. The gap is wider for dual-standard players.
On the convenience side, consider: Every HD-DVD or BluRay disk I buy is essentially an orphan for the next couple years. It won't play in the laptop, it won't play in the car, it won't play at Grandma's house, and you won't be able to take it over to your friend's house unless your friend is another geek with too much money. Now, I'm willing to put up with this for a striking increase in video quality, but the HD formats are just not that. It's a lot of expense and inconvenience for very little gain.
Moreover, you know that when "value engineering" sets in, there will be a big overlap between the best crafted DVDs and the worst crafted high def DVDs, and a corresponding overlap between the best DVD players and the worst HD players. You may end up with no gain or even a loss if the highdef disk is thrown together quickly to take advantage of "High Definition" mindshare.
Side note: If you're interested in seeing for yourself, don't bother with the stock A/V comparison that's looping at Best Buy. The geek fledglings who set up those demos don't necessarily know what they're doing, and you'll find yourself wondering why both DVD and high def DVD images look both the same, and both look poorer than your DVD/Monitor setup at home.
So this early adopter is just going to give a pass to high definition DVD. I suppose I'll own a player someday, if I'm in the market and the players are dirt cheap. Until then, it's just not important.
I confess, I am mildly interested in high def DVD burner drives when they get cheap enough. It already takes several dual-layer DVDs to back up my systems at home. Greater capacity would be a boon, once the drive and media cost drop to something reasonable.
"The best part is, people will continue buying iPods regardless, and Apple's sacred cash cow will remain alive and well, except that users will complain that Amazon needs to integrate with iTunes so as to make their download experience easier."
Geeze, if people need something easier than Ctl-O to "add file to library", they should consider remedial computer literacy courses. Incorporating an Amazon-bought mp3 into itunes is easier than ripping a CD.
I don't begrudge Apple their profits -- we just acquired our second ipod. But Apple's music store needs competition, and I'm always glad to see more DRM-free music becoming available.
> As DRM dies the fools will start using digital watermarking to sue people who leak to p2p networks. This will ruin numerous lives until some clever lawyer points out that since the distributor knows the watermark THEY can upload it to p2p networks in order to frame people they wish to sue. Eventually this fact will sink in among judges, but before that happens thousands of people will have been burnt, new draconian legislation will have been passed, and music sales will have fallen even more.
Maybe I'm being naive here, but if I can get DRM-free, reasonably encoded music at a reasonable price, why would I want to continue sharing music on p2p networks? I mean, wasn't that the entire point?
(Disclaimer: The above was an hypothetical "I". I personally don't get music off p2p networks, mostly because the selection and price of used CDs has been sufficient for my needs.)
Besides being noisy, it's going to be really warm in there. I'd take whatever airflow you think you're going to need and double it. You can always close off vents if it gets too chilly, but you can't do much if the flow is at maximum and it's still too hot.
Noise is going to be a significant problem. There's a (one, single) bad fan in the wiring closet closest to me, and I can just barely hear it with the door closed. With the door open, it's a banshee. Imagine living in the same room. Cube partitions aren't going to help.
Were it me, I'd turn down the offer and request a regular cube, somewhere away from the equipment.
> Wanna "make friends" at a place like Best Buy or Circuit City? Wait till you see Grandma about to buy one of those cables and is being pounced on by the salesguy -- then tell her about the twenty other options for getting that cable for next to nothing.
Or just give her one of your spares. I regularly dole out cables to friends and relatives from my huge box of spares. If she isn't currently a friend, she will be after you save her $40...
It absolutely pisses me off how salescreatures take advantage of non-geeks. There's a tremendous amount of satisfaction in making a customer happy while denying a salescreature an unnecessary sale.
I'm not sure why the extra step of downloading to a PC. It wouldn't be hard to put a screen on the other side of the device, like most digital snapshot cameras currently have, and view the movie there. Sure, the device would cost more, but not nearly as much as a PC and Vista license. (Or even XP license.)
I suppose one could say that "most people have a PC", but the people I know of with dementia either aren't computer-savvy or have lost the knack. To be really useful, it should be self-contained, easy to hold, and really easy to use, with big buttons.
Seems to me that Microsoft isn't actually solving "how can we do this". They're solving "how can we do this with Windows".
Huh? We got a couple paragraphs copied-and-pasted from a TOS episode wiki and STII wiki, and that's the big spoiler? Are there enough desperate living-in-basement Trekkers out there that these non-news items still work?
It seems to me that the real difference between areas of research that have been exploding and areas that seem stagnant is how they are funded. If you pay for research, you tend to get research. If you pay for solutions, you tend to get solutions. And if you pay for research and at the same time make it nearly impossible to bring a new product to market, then you get a lot of research and very few new products. It's not rocket science.
It is an apples/oranges comparison, as someone else said. But the reason the comparison is invalid is that Intel (for instance) only gets paid after they ship product, and cancer research (for instance) gets paid whether they ship or not.
Slashdot Mirror
I need portable email and web on a device with more real estate than my cell phone. Not sure why people would be puzzled by this. "Portable" is the operative word here, not speed. If my IBM 240X thinkpad were still working, (small, light, no CD drive) I'd still be using it today, despite it's "lackluster" Pentium II processor. These days, you can't buy a processor too slow to adequately surf the web, so whatever is the lowest power chip out there would be fine for this application.
Here's my list:
I want cellphone-like battery time, cellphone-like bootup speeds, and smartphone-like cost (low hundreds) but with a real keyboard and a screen larger than 240X320. I want real wifi, *not* some co-dependent device that has to be paired with some cell phone that I'd never purchase on it's own merits.
Add the ability to read the memory chip out of my camera, allow me rudimentary touch-up and publish on the web, and let the device sync with my smartphone, and I could leave my big honkin' laptop at home entirely. None of these features require blazing hot performance.
Seriously, do most people really need four gigahertz quad processors with eight gigs of ram in a laptop they actually intend to carry around with them? Or do they just *think* they do?
The other day a friend asked my advice on a new computer for his daughter. The old desktop was painfully obsolete, and daughter wanted a laptop. I told him, keep an eye open for sales, and buy the cheapest laptop you can find, because anything you can buy new today will be an order of magnitude more than she actually needs. Oh, and request Windows XP rather than Vista.
It makes sense to me also. But that raises the question: If Comcast doesn't want you to do P2P, what is all that bandwidth for? If you're just browsing and watching movie trailers, there's not a lot of difference between 1.5 Mbps and 8 Mbps. At broadband speeds, latency and server upload speed are more significant factors than your download speed. Without torrents, there's no business model for those ultra fast download speeds except mindshare.
> All they need is right of way. They can put fiber on poles or in the ground. Or they could go into the cable business and start buying up cable franchises.
Agree on buying cable franchises, but regarding creating a new, competing infrastructure, I don't think it's that simple. Not a lawyer here, but I believe that local access for a particular type of physical delivery is awarded as an exclusive right to a particular company. So, for instance, if I'm a Qwest customer in Portland, I don't have a chance in hell of getting FIOS, because Qwest owns local access in that area, not Verizon. (Satellite is pretty much open, (but really expensive) wireless less so.) So (I believe) Microsoft would have to tangle with local authorities in order to put their own fiber lines right next to Verizon's. Perhaps someone in the industry could confirm or deny this.
Moreover, as big a company as is Microsoft, do they even have the resources (or desire) to create a new network infrastructure? It's a massive endevor, and has only been successful (as far as it has) because it was built on something that was already there.
> I don't think so. The ISPs are not going to want to face Microsoft, Google, Apple, Disney, and Sony. Yes I know that it seems that it is a battle of who can buy the most congressmen but Microsoft, Google, Apple, Disney, and Sony all have deep pockets and they all feel this is a battle they must win.
I don't know if even Microsoft and Google can force an ISP to provide a service they don't want to provide. But I guess we'll see.
> If need be Google and Microsoft both have the bucks to become the worlds largest ISPs. They both have the technology base and the motivation if the ISPs get too nasty with them.
But that kind of business model doesn't work anymore. In the dial-up days, you could do business with any ISP that had a local number in your area, but broadband kinda screws that up. Even independent DSL services have to negotiate with the company that owns the wires. Neither Microsoft nor Google have access to the last mile. Regardless of who's your "official" isp, they still have to negotiate with the actual owners of the equipment that is bringing the signal to your house. Unless Microsoft buys Comcast (which, now that I think about it, is possible), or comes up with some new, proprietary broadband infrastructure, they don't own the path to your house and have little to say about what kind of bandwidth throttling you see.
> Also the cable companies are hated. They are hated by the public at large.
Agreed!
>Congress know this so it may be a battle that they are willing to take on since Microsoft, Apple, Google, and Disney's money is just as green as Comcast's.
To give them what? Seriously, what is Google supposed to do, start buying phone companies?
> Hopefully those of you who do support friends and family weren't cruel enough to put Vista on their machines.
Not an issue of cruelty (or lack thereof) but one of self-preservation. Had I put Vista on friends and family's machines, I'd have had to support it. Decided to wait until SP1. Now uncertain whether to wait for next SP or Windows 7. (But then, when Windows 7 came out, would end up waiting for SP1...)
Yeah, XP works fine for now...
> Isn't that what the author was saying - with Matter, Banks' publishers are making an effort to introduce him to the American market?
Ah, ok. Well, if so it seems to have worked.
> Anyway, I can heartily recommend him. I've just about finished Matter, and good though it is it hasn't gripped me like some of his other books. I'd recommend Player of Games, Use of Weapons or Excession first if you're new to him.
Thanks, I've read them all. I think Use of Weapons affected me the most. That was one ghastly punch-line.
Although admittedly, I borrowed the first two from a friend, I bought the third off the shelf at a local book store in 1998. It was not my impression that Banks' novels were largely unavailable in the US. But I'm only one data point.
> In his native United Kingdom, Banks' work is released in hardcover at the front of bookshops; here, those seeking his science fiction work, at least, must dig down into the trade paperbacks -- and often find things out of print.
Really? I saw Matter on the shelf at Barnes and Noble this very day when I was picking up an order over lunch in Beaverton, Oregon. If we have it prominently displayed here, it should be pretty much everywhere. I'm thinking of picking it up this weekend.
> someone who gets the latest Britney Spears release from bittorrent.
Um. Ack. Sorry, I just barfed a little in the back of my throat.
I can agree with the economics, but there are social issues to deal with, to wit: my wife isn't a-gonna go for me investing in yet another dead format. Not only do I have to explain why I bought into a format already defunct, but years from now when the player finally gives up, I have to explain why we have to buy those movies over again. Yeah, I only paid $6 back in 2008, but with the spousal unit, that's not the point.
And in a way, I can agree with her. Yes, if I play my cards right and spend some time on it, I can squeeze some value out of the demise of HD-DVD, but is it really worth my time?
And so, I continue to baby my two year old chinese DVD player while prices come down on blu-ray.
--------- Woohoo! Free shirt!
Yeah, you could always wear it inside-out.
The battery compartment cover on my wife's original gameboy broke shortly after she got it. But that's only one data point, of course, and it does still work, you just have to remove the duct tape to replace the batteries.
Come to think of it, the power jack became intermittent shortly after that.
Never broke a screen on it, though, and I've broken at least four on various Palm Pilots since the mid-nineties.
Agreed. Besides, not behaving badly does make some business sense. If you have a reputation of behaving honestly, even at the expense of some profit, there is a tendency to attract customers for which honesty is important.
Moreover it's not, as others have suggested, a black-and-white situation, where only the weasels succeed. Business is more complex than that.
And finally, to those who suggest that only government can prevent businesses from behaving badly; since when has government been a paragon of fairness and honesty? Governments are made up of people, not angels; no better or worse than anyone else.
Um, no, helium is inert. It's difficult to get helium to combine with anything, let alone oxygen.
Early airships used hydrogen, which is exteremely flammable. As I recall, hydrogen was used because it was easy to create through electrolysis.
Public perception, mistaking hydrogen for helium, has been a big roadblock to bringing back airships. You can get an idea of the extent of the problem when even geeks can't get it right.
It's too bad, because airships have the potential to carry huge loads long distances for modest cost. At a time when we're trying to wean off fossil fuels, it's worth considering.
> In other news, a $13000 Hyundai gets me from point A to point B just as well as a $43000 BMW. Why on Earth are people buying those BMW's???! It's craziness!
Bleh. A much better parallel would be a 2008 Hyundai compared to a 1998 Hyundai, where both cars cost about the same in inflation-adjusted dollars at the time of purchase. Sure, the new one is shiny and probably goes faster and doesn't rattle as much and the stereo is a little nicer, but in ten years, it'll still be a 2008 Hyundai.
I've generally been an early adopter. I just recently dug my Betamax out of the attic and sold it to a collector, still have an RCA CED disk player and two Laserdisk players in the closet. Was one of the first to own a DVD player ($799.95), bought a dual-mode, dual-layer DVD drive when they first became mainstream (about $300), so it was natural that read up on the competing HD formats and plan when to jump in.
The specs of both systems are decent, and they look like they're running neck-and-neck, so was settling down to wait until the dual mode players became affordable.
But the real test is what it looks like. The difference between Laserdisc and VHS is obvious. A well-crafted DVD blows most Laserdiscs away. (I can show you an A/B comparison on my own equipment.) The choice in either case was obvious. But but but... A DVD with a good anamorphic transfer at 480P, with component video or HDMI into a decent TV looks pretty darn good. Would we see the same quality jump with HD formats?
Only one way to find out. Drive to a couple A/V stores and do A/B comparisons between decently mastered conventional DVD and HD DVD, on decent players going to a good monitor.
My reaction.... Enh. Ok, I can see a little more detail on the HD side, in some scenes, if I look closely enough. But I can't make myself believe that it's worth the cost and inconvenience to upgrade. Moreover, it was apparent from observations during those A/V tests that Mr. and Mrs. Joe Consumer can't see any difference at all, and is wondering what the hoopla is all about.
Although the cost of the discs themselves seem to be fixed artificially low at about 20 - 30% more than conventional DVDs, the players are still 3 to 5 times more expensive than a good generic progressive scan DVD player. The gap is wider for dual-standard players.
On the convenience side, consider: Every HD-DVD or BluRay disk I buy is essentially an orphan for the next couple years. It won't play in the laptop, it won't play in the car, it won't play at Grandma's house, and you won't be able to take it over to your friend's house unless your friend is another geek with too much money. Now, I'm willing to put up with this for a striking increase in video quality, but the HD formats are just not that. It's a lot of expense and inconvenience for very little gain.
Moreover, you know that when "value engineering" sets in, there will be a big overlap between the best crafted DVDs and the worst crafted high def DVDs, and a corresponding overlap between the best DVD players and the worst HD players. You may end up with no gain or even a loss if the highdef disk is thrown together quickly to take advantage of "High Definition" mindshare.
Side note: If you're interested in seeing for yourself, don't bother with the stock A/V comparison that's looping at Best Buy. The geek fledglings who set up those demos don't necessarily know what they're doing, and you'll find yourself wondering why both DVD and high def DVD images look both the same, and both look poorer than your DVD/Monitor setup at home.
So this early adopter is just going to give a pass to high definition DVD. I suppose I'll own a player someday, if I'm in the market and the players are dirt cheap. Until then, it's just not important.
I confess, I am mildly interested in high def DVD burner drives when they get cheap enough. It already takes several dual-layer DVDs to back up my systems at home. Greater capacity would be a boon, once the drive and media cost drop to something reasonable.
"The best part is, people will continue buying iPods regardless, and Apple's sacred cash cow will remain alive and well, except that users will complain that Amazon needs to integrate with iTunes so as to make their download experience easier."
Geeze, if people need something easier than Ctl-O to "add file to library", they should consider remedial computer literacy courses. Incorporating an Amazon-bought mp3 into itunes is easier than ripping a CD.
I don't begrudge Apple their profits -- we just acquired our second ipod. But Apple's music store needs competition, and I'm always glad to see more DRM-free music becoming available.
Maybe I'm being naive here, but if I can get DRM-free, reasonably encoded music at a reasonable price, why would I want to continue sharing music on p2p networks? I mean, wasn't that the entire point?
(Disclaimer: The above was an hypothetical "I". I personally don't get music off p2p networks, mostly because the selection and price of used CDs has been sufficient for my needs.)
So, where's the downside?
I have a sudden feeling that I'd like to buy something from Warner's catalog off Amazon.
Besides being noisy, it's going to be really warm in there. I'd take whatever airflow you think you're going to need and double it. You can always close off vents if it gets too chilly, but you can't do much if the flow is at maximum and it's still too hot.
Noise is going to be a significant problem. There's a (one, single) bad fan in the wiring closet closest to me, and I can just barely hear it with the door closed. With the door open, it's a banshee. Imagine living in the same room. Cube partitions aren't going to help.
Were it me, I'd turn down the offer and request a regular cube, somewhere away from the equipment.
Ron
Or just give her one of your spares. I regularly dole out cables to friends and relatives from my huge box of spares. If she isn't currently a friend, she will be after you save her $40...
It absolutely pisses me off how salescreatures take advantage of non-geeks. There's a tremendous amount of satisfaction in making a customer happy while denying a salescreature an unnecessary sale.
I can understand the source of your confusion -- "Peter Jackson" and "George Lucas" sound almost identical.
I'm not sure why the extra step of downloading to a PC. It wouldn't be hard to put a screen on the other side of the device, like most digital snapshot cameras currently have, and view the movie there. Sure, the device would cost more, but not nearly as much as a PC and Vista license. (Or even XP license.)
I suppose one could say that "most people have a PC", but the people I know of with dementia either aren't computer-savvy or have lost the knack. To be really useful, it should be self-contained, easy to hold, and really easy to use, with big buttons.
Seems to me that Microsoft isn't actually solving "how can we do this". They're solving "how can we do this with Windows".
Huh? We got a couple paragraphs copied-and-pasted from a TOS episode wiki and STII wiki, and that's the big spoiler? Are there enough desperate living-in-basement Trekkers out there that these non-news items still work?
It seems to me that the real difference between areas of research that have been exploding and areas that seem stagnant is how they are funded. If you pay for research, you tend to get research. If you pay for solutions, you tend to get solutions. And if you pay for research and at the same time make it nearly impossible to bring a new product to market, then you get a lot of research and very few new products. It's not rocket science.
It is an apples/oranges comparison, as someone else said. But the reason the comparison is invalid is that Intel (for instance) only gets paid after they ship product, and cancer research (for instance) gets paid whether they ship or not.