it's a linux live cd that comes with audacity and other tools for multimedia editing/broadcasting etc.
Unless your hardware is exotic, you should just be able to boot and use the software you're interested in.
Be warned that it comes with a more lightweight desktop, but it's probably the easiest way to try out audacity yourself, IMHO.
Re:Future viability in question?
on
Gnome 2.10 Released
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
They're going after different demographics IMHO. The biggest complaint I hear is that you can't tweak the bejesus out of Gnome like you can KDE.
KDE is geared more towards power users who tweak for fun, Gnome is geared towards people who'll probably never change their settings (IMHO with much more sensible and aesthetically pleasing defaults for the thunderhing horde).
I consider myself a power user also, who used to spend tons of time tweaking KDE. It's a matter of preference (before this degenrates into a flame fest) but I ended up realizing that Gnome out of the box behaved and looked like what I would spend hours making KDE look like and behave like. Since Gnome behaves and looks by default in the way I've come to prefer, it's nice to install it and just use it (instead of hunting down icon sets that don't look garish with a given window manager theme, etc.). Maybe things have changed, but when I was running KDE the nicest setup I could put together was with Everardos (sp? Sorry man, cool icons) icons and some sort of crystal theme (I think). Took quite a bit of work to make it pretty though.
So, for me it's all about aesthetics and the much more (again, IMHO) unified look and feel to the Gnome desktop. Functionality is the same for me.
I don't think there's any issues with Gnome's viability. In fact, when/if Linux for the thundering horde takes off, I belive Gnome is much better positioned to be in the majority of linux desktops, since that's been the clear goal of the Gnome group for quite some time: the unwashed masses. The very design decisions that turn off power Linux users are based on serving this demographic, IMHO.
Puppy linux does load completely into RAM, freeing up your burner, btw.
It only asks for the CD that it booted from during shutdown to burn the changes.
I've been running it for kicks for the last couple of hours, and I'm very impressed! It's of course minimalist, but very functional (with Gxine and Firefox installed, I'm even streaming music).
If you're going to give it a try, keep in mind that, for me, it ran significantly better after the first reboot (and burn of session). Not sure why that would be....
That's actually were we disagree:) I'm exactly thinking of people not like us, on Slashdot, but more like my mom who definitely only fires up her PC occasionally. I think people like her and not us are in the majority.
Besides, aren't we talking about little more than a fridge cam, washing machine cam, etc.? Stuff that the average slashdotter could put together with parts lying around the house?
What's gained in having the option of either walking to the computer or to the washing machine / fridge to see the status of your clothes / milk bottle?
Not much.
If you don't keep your PC on 24/7, it's about useless.
Even if your computer is centrally located and always on, you need to hover and visit either appliance to get at your clothes / milk.
Adding an ethernet port to my Frigidaire doesn't do much for anyone at this point.
It's, sorry to say, not even terribly technically interesting.
I think MS can't wage "Patent War" and come out unscathed -- it might, out of necessity and not good will, really be a defensive stance by MS. Without a patent war chest, they are very vulnerable to an agressive IBM (or others who've been doing software longer and hold key patents or can easily prove prior art). It's not as unlikely nor naive as you seem to believe.
IBM will make things interesting and non trivial for MS to legislate its way out of having to compete with Free Software. It has an interest in Free Software, and it sure has the means to beat MS over the head with patents.
That's why IMHO IBM donated patents to the Free Software movement: just to keep MS from doing what you suggest. It's a mini warchest of our own.
I think the fact that China is a huuuuge market and companies are salivating, excuse me, *SALIVATING*, at being allowed to cater to this massive market is usually forgotten in these discussions.
It's nowhere near as easy as you seem to think: China has a powerful chip to bargain with. You want to sell there? (and you do, that's a given), you play ball with the Chinese. From everything I've seen, I'd say the Chinese are not behaving like wilting flowers; they're playing hardball because they can afford to.
When Thailand or Vietnam become as important a market, then maybe you can make that comparison, because China is much more than just another 3rd world country that cheaply manufactures our stuff.
In fact, I believe the fact that China just walked out shows that they know they have a lot of companies by the short and curlies, *not* the other way around.
Does no one remember how the world automotive industry (AFAIK, *all* major automotive companies) were elbowing each other to be the first to bow down to this market? These were sweet deals for the Chinese, with a transfer of know how and IP (after a short time). The computer deals recently reported were equally sweet for the Chinese.
I think we in the West tend to seriously overstate our own position in today's world.
Oh, and it's not clear who'd be damaged more by an embargo of Chinese goods (say if the US Gov. were to act), the Chinese economy or the American one. That's not much of an option for the US (the other thing I hear thrown around a lot around here). It's something neither country wants, and it's something that either country can threaten the other with (I understand it as a sort of economic M.A.D.)
Maybe in the US we're just so not used to having to deal with a country on a more even footing that it's hard to understand we're simply not calling all the shots with regards to China anymore.
I agree that if the effect of Bloggers is more communication (esp. communication not coming from the ivory towers of academia or worse yet, commercial "news" on the airwaves), then it's a good thing.
But, that's the question, is this blogger mania communication or mis-information? How many people does it take to claim that the Earth is flat before it becomes "common" knowledge?
To badly paraphrase someone I heard on NPR's "On the Media" a few days ago when they were arguing the same thing: "what happens when you connect everyone up in the world? Is it discourse or is it a mob?"
I think *that's* the interesting question, I don't think it's a given that what we'll get will necessarily resemble factual information or even "homespun" plain-spoken and badly edited news. I think it's just as likely that we'll end up with fiction, especially if everyone's sources are another blogger.
Funny, version 0.93 seems immune to popups from this site as well (Ubuntu rpm package -- didn't upgrade because full screen is broken on Gnome on vanilla firefox it seems).
I wonder if Ubuntu is backporting fixes to this ol' Firefox..
That's not even remotely the same computer. It's HUUUUUUGE!
Try making a mini ITX that can sit in the living room (like a Mac Mini) and is of comparable size, *then* you've got yourself a comparison.
I need a new computer. I've been thinking about what to get, and I can go the cheap, huge, noisy, ugly route (like what you posted), or I can go with an mini ITX or something (the Mac mini is sweet and cheap cheap for what you get, but I want to run Linux -- I'm a fan now!). Also, I'm broke so I may have to live with something similar to what you posted.
I can get what I really want and spend 700-800 or so bucks, or the cheap route and spend only a couple hundred... I've not decided. But your comparison sucks.:)
Re:Systemic Problems vs User Problems
on
MyDoom Strikes Again
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The reason doesn't matter, the fact remains that switching will make things better.
If half of computer users switched, we'd still be better off -- anything would be better than the monoculture we have now.
The fact that Linux/OS X/BSD whatever (as good as they are, and I do think they're innately more secure than MS offerings) aren't perfect either is no reason to stand by and just live with these Microsoft virus/worm problems.
There are valid reasons why it may not make sense for some people to switch, but pointing out that Linux/OS X/etc. aren't perfect (only better) either isn't one of them.
It doesn't come preinstalled, but I remember it was about as easy as anything else that you need to do on a Mac (that is, pretty straighforward). Just reading the link above, apparently it comes bundled:
Optional install from the third Mac OS X v10.3 Panther CD.
I installed it on my woman's laptop so that she could try out OpenOffice before forking cash over for MS Office. Sadly, it didn't handle the extremely complicated spreadsheets she uses at work (I realize she's somewhat of an exception, she does use/create very complicated spreadsheets and little inconsistencies made the graphs not always work out. Oh well, she had to feed the beast.)
My understanding is that open source works on meritocracy, so it's great for the technical aspects of software.
It's hard to have a meritocracy with something as innately subjective as art. With technical stuff, it's usually provable what works better.
You can't submit patches to fix someone's crappy storyline (and if you did, I imagine chaos as no one agrees on whether your "story patch" actually improves the story or makes it too long, or too short, or hurts the original author's feelings, etc.). Can you imagine a bugzilla for "ugliness bugs" in the backgrounds, icons, monster design, etc. in a large game? Who gets to decide when a "garishness bug" is closed? Or that a "cacophonous section bug" in the soundtrack has been resolved?
It's always seemed this way to me, hence for a long time Linux ran great (the technical part of it), but the default icons, themes, etc. often left a lot to be desired. I think it wasn't until companies started throwing money at Linux that it started getting pretty.
It's now easy for me to imagine a complicated piece of software put together by committee (the proof was in the Linux pudding), but not a musical score (the proof again was in the Linux pudding).
I think maybe Stallman is just being practical*.
Back on topic, for these reasons I've long thought that games was one area where OSS would have a hard time competing with commercial software companies, since the important part of video games isn't the technical part, but the artistic parts where it's hard (if not impossible) to have a working meritocracy. You can't (I believe) have "bazaar like development" with 100 artists working on video games as you can with 100 programmers working on a web browser.
* OTOH, it's also only with software that not having source code means you fundamentally don't know (or can easily tell) what the software is *really * up to, hence the GPL. This is not the case with art. It could therefore also be that Stallman is just being steadfast with his freedom thing (that sadly, a lot of people criticize), which is not as meaningful with a game's soundtrack for instance.
OK, fair enough but let's focus on the reason why Einstein is considered "great". He contributed (and launched entire fields of study in some cases) on the smallest (QM) to the largest scales (cosmology), and changed the foundations of physics by increasing our understanding of basic concepts like time and space. That's simply not a claim that any other physicist can come close to making (arguably since Newton).
I see it this way, before Einstein (and after Newton), we gradually, systematically and slowly added to our knowledge and understanding. Along comes Einstein and shows that the most basic of assumptions used by everyone to build up on physics were wrong, and then uses his insights to also push out the frontiers of science on a scale and scope since umatched. After Einstein's push, we've gone back to gradually and systematically (and slowly!) adding to our knowledge of nature.
That's a pretty big deal!
I would actually argue that the coverage regarding the bomb hurt Einstein in the eyes of science geeks (generally speaking), as it has obscured everything else he's done. I myself only "knew" that Einstein was famous for relativity until I read more and understood the scope of what he did. I'd argue that the entirety of the repercussions of time not being absolute and varying with speed, gravity, etc. is not only seriously weird but is much more important than the first "practical" outcomes of the nuclear bomb or nuclear power (as important as those are).
PS
I'm a big fan of Feynman myself, aside from his technical credentials I think it also takes a special kind of genius to explain things so eloquently! But, he's added to the pile of knowledge -- not shifted the basic principles of physics (time and space is pretty far-reaching after all!). I'm not even sure he was as prolific as Einstein, in a "minor" discovery to "minor" discovery comparison. Not meant to put down people much much smarter than I could ever hope to be, but I can't think of something more important (fundamental) than what Einstein did that can be attributed to another person (again, except for Newton). The smartest and most famous of physicists compare to Einstein's "minor" works only (which he had plenty of) IMHO and therefore he does stand alone and unchallenged.
Check out the article, no one claimed that he did it himself (and I certainly didn't). No one can think that.
And there have been other smart people. To say he was smarter (or contributed more) doesn't take away from the other brilliant physicists in the world.
It's also disingenous to claim that all physicists have contributed the same, or had the same skills. No one has been at the cutting edge of physics for so long or over such a wide range of topics. We're still working on what he couldn't solve (even the ground work for string theory was his).
Serioulsy, check out the article. The author expresses an opinion, and goes on to chronicle why he believes so (including the opinion of other physicists and historians).
I agree with the general sentiment (physicists being lauded as great when they're actually more average, I would have picked Hawking as an actual example as opposed to Einstein, that's all). Other than Newton, Einstein is probably the only person who deserves to be on the highest pedestal in physics, and it's not clear who else might even be close. This doesn't mean that they had to do everything themselves -- and of course they benefitted from a world of thinkers. I don't see how this means they couldn't still be the greatest, however.
Choosing what works best includes letting commercial software actually compete on merit, not on who's got the most cash for patents or who's been smarter at leveraging propietary data formats.
I'm afraid that even here in the US we'd *need* government intervention to have a situation where software is chosen because it really is better.
I think if commercial software can really compete against OSS, it should do so based on merit, and not have proprietary file formats and (obvious, over reaching) software patents to shove it down our throats.
The problem with Einstein (if you can call it a problem) is that he *was* the most important physicist since Newton.
He stands completely unchallenged in the scope and quantity of contributions he's made to physics. He's the poster boy not because of the media, but because to this day the problems he couldn't solve are the problems we're still working on today, and no one single-handedly has so much changed the way we look at the universe (except for Newton).
At least for him, he _was_ "the opera singer super model brain surgeon sports star" of physics.
I've linked this article a lot (I think it's fascinating), but it specifically talks about physicists trying to "measure up" to other greats. But, trying to measure up against Einstein is a sort of dream:
"Einstein's work anchors the most shocking idea in twentieth century physics: we live in a quantum universe, one built out of tiny, discrete chunks of energy and matter."
"Before anyone else, Einstein recognizes the essential dualism in nature, the co-existence of particles and waves at the level of quanta. In 1911 he declares resolving the quantum issue to be the central problem of physics."
He disliked the theory, he didn't disbelieve it -- it was his search for a more fundamental theory that led him to the ground work that string theory is based on. Basically, unless someone can prove that string theories are wrong (or that there will never be a grand unified theory), you can't really say Einstein was "wrong" about quantum mechanics. For him to be wrong, QM would have to be the final and most fundamental explanation of our universe -- he felt there was more underneath that could explain QM (like the grand unified theory). AFAIK that's still the "cutting edge" physicists are working on still today.
Fascinating article, btw. Apparently, the questions he couldn't answer still define to this day the cutting edge of physics. That, and the fact that no other physicist has had as long a ride in the cutting edge is why Einstein is remembered as the greatest physicist since Newton.
"The company expects SOI to eventually replace bulk CMOS as the most commonly used substrate for advanced CMOS in mainstream microprocessors and other emerging wireless electronic devices requiring low power."
Which seems to suggest that other people have done it, but it hasn't been widely deployed. I know next to nothing regarding chips, so I can't personaly separate marketting speak from a real innovation here...:(
But if what you say is true (and I have no reason to doubt you), then that makes that announcement seem almost pointless.
I don't know about MIPS, but isn't PowerPC IBM also (and purchased/licensed by Apple and others)?
Especially IBM, as I believe they're making the processors for not just the XBox 2, but more importantly the Play Station 3, and the next gen Nintendo (unless something's changed) as well.
Slashdot Mirror
check out
http://www.dynebolic.org/
it's a linux live cd that comes with audacity and other tools for multimedia editing/broadcasting etc.
Unless your hardware is exotic, you should just be able to boot and use the software you're interested in.
Be warned that it comes with a more lightweight desktop, but it's probably the easiest way to try out audacity yourself, IMHO.
They're going after different demographics IMHO. The biggest complaint I hear is that you can't tweak the bejesus out of Gnome like you can KDE.
KDE is geared more towards power users who tweak for fun, Gnome is geared towards people who'll probably never change their settings (IMHO with much more sensible and aesthetically pleasing defaults for the thunderhing horde).
I consider myself a power user also, who used to spend tons of time tweaking KDE. It's a matter of preference (before this degenrates into a flame fest) but I ended up realizing that Gnome out of the box behaved and looked like what I would spend hours making KDE look like and behave like. Since Gnome behaves and looks by default in the way I've come to prefer, it's nice to install it and just use it (instead of hunting down icon sets that don't look garish with a given window manager theme, etc.). Maybe things have changed, but when I was running KDE the nicest setup I could put together was with Everardos (sp? Sorry man, cool icons) icons and some sort of crystal theme (I think). Took quite a bit of work to make it pretty though.
So, for me it's all about aesthetics and the much more (again, IMHO) unified look and feel to the Gnome desktop. Functionality is the same for me.
I don't think there's any issues with Gnome's viability. In fact, when/if Linux for the thundering horde takes off, I belive Gnome is much better positioned to be in the majority of linux desktops, since that's been the clear goal of the Gnome group for quite some time: the unwashed masses. The very design decisions that turn off power Linux users are based on serving this demographic, IMHO.
Puppy linux does load completely into RAM, freeing up your burner, btw.
....
It only asks for the CD that it booted from during shutdown to burn the changes.
I've been running it for kicks for the last couple of hours, and I'm very impressed! It's of course minimalist, but very functional (with Gxine and Firefox installed, I'm even streaming music).
If you're going to give it a try, keep in mind that, for me, it ran significantly better after the first reboot (and burn of session). Not sure why that would be
Lots of other people will, though.
:) I'm exactly thinking of people not like us, on Slashdot, but more like my mom who definitely only fires up her PC occasionally. I think people like her and not us are in the majority.
:(
That's actually were we disagree
Besides, aren't we talking about little more than a fridge cam, washing machine cam, etc.? Stuff that the average slashdotter could put together with parts lying around the house?
I guess I still don't see the point.
What's gained in having the option of either walking to the computer or to the washing machine / fridge to see the status of your clothes / milk bottle?
Not much.
If you don't keep your PC on 24/7, it's about useless.
Even if your computer is centrally located and always on, you need to hover and visit either appliance to get at your clothes / milk.
Adding an ethernet port to my Frigidaire doesn't do much for anyone at this point.
It's, sorry to say, not even terribly technically interesting.
I think MS can't wage "Patent War" and come out unscathed -- it might, out of necessity and not good will, really be a defensive stance by MS. Without a patent war chest, they are very vulnerable to an agressive IBM (or others who've been doing software longer and hold key patents or can easily prove prior art). It's not as unlikely nor naive as you seem to believe.
IBM will make things interesting and non trivial for MS to legislate its way out of having to compete with Free Software. It has an interest in Free Software, and it sure has the means to beat MS over the head with patents.
That's why IMHO IBM donated patents to the Free Software movement: just to keep MS from doing what you suggest. It's a mini warchest of our own.
I think the fact that China is a huuuuge market and companies are salivating, excuse me, *SALIVATING*, at being allowed to cater to this massive market is usually forgotten in these discussions.
It's nowhere near as easy as you seem to think: China has a powerful chip to bargain with. You want to sell there? (and you do, that's a given), you play ball with the Chinese. From everything I've seen, I'd say the Chinese are not behaving like wilting flowers; they're playing hardball because they can afford to.
When Thailand or Vietnam become as important a market, then maybe you can make that comparison, because China is much more than just another 3rd world country that cheaply manufactures our stuff.
In fact, I believe the fact that China just walked out shows that they know they have a lot of companies by the short and curlies, *not* the other way around.
Does no one remember how the world automotive industry (AFAIK, *all* major automotive companies) were elbowing each other to be the first to bow down to this market? These were sweet deals for the Chinese, with a transfer of know how and IP (after a short time). The computer deals recently reported were equally sweet for the Chinese.
I think we in the West tend to seriously overstate our own position in today's world.
Oh, and it's not clear who'd be damaged more by an embargo of Chinese goods (say if the US Gov. were to act), the Chinese economy or the American one. That's not much of an option for the US (the other thing I hear thrown around a lot around here). It's something neither country wants, and it's something that either country can threaten the other with (I understand it as a sort of economic M.A.D.)
Maybe in the US we're just so not used to having to deal with a country on a more even footing that it's hard to understand we're simply not calling all the shots with regards to China anymore.
I agree that if the effect of Bloggers is more communication (esp. communication not coming from the ivory towers of academia or worse yet, commercial "news" on the airwaves), then it's a good thing.
But, that's the question, is this blogger mania communication or mis-information? How many people does it take to claim that the Earth is flat before it becomes "common" knowledge?
To badly paraphrase someone I heard on NPR's "On the Media" a few days ago when they were arguing the same thing: "what happens when you connect everyone up in the world? Is it discourse or is it a mob?"
I think *that's* the interesting question, I don't think it's a given that what we'll get will necessarily resemble factual information or even "homespun" plain-spoken and badly edited news. I think it's just as likely that we'll end up with fiction, especially if everyone's sources are another blogger.
Funny, version 0.93 seems immune to popups from this site as well (Ubuntu rpm package -- didn't upgrade because full screen is broken on Gnome on vanilla firefox it seems).
..
I wonder if Ubuntu is backporting fixes to this ol' Firefox
Ah, you mean "fark" :)
Thanks, I was under the impression that not all the hardware was supported 100% (I probably got the impression from reading /. for what it's worth!)
That's not even remotely the same computer. It's HUUUUUUGE!
... I've not decided. But your comparison sucks. :)
Try making a mini ITX that can sit in the living room (like a Mac Mini) and is of comparable size, *then* you've got yourself a comparison.
I need a new computer. I've been thinking about what to get, and I can go the cheap, huge, noisy, ugly route (like what you posted), or I can go with an mini ITX or something (the Mac mini is sweet and cheap cheap for what you get, but I want to run Linux -- I'm a fan now!). Also, I'm broke so I may have to live with something similar to what you posted.
I can get what I really want and spend 700-800 or so bucks, or the cheap route and spend only a couple hundred
The reason doesn't matter, the fact remains that switching will make things better.
If half of computer users switched, we'd still be better off -- anything would be better than the monoculture we have now.
The fact that Linux/OS X/BSD whatever (as good as they are, and I do think they're innately more secure than MS offerings) aren't perfect either is no reason to stand by and just live with these Microsoft virus/worm problems.
There are valid reasons why it may not make sense for some people to switch, but pointing out that Linux/OS X/etc. aren't perfect (only better) either isn't one of them.
It's not too bad, you can get X11 for Mac OS X from apple:
/
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/x11/download
It doesn't come preinstalled, but I remember it was about as easy as anything else that you need to do on a Mac (that is, pretty straighforward). Just reading the link above, apparently it comes bundled:
Optional install from the third Mac OS X v10.3 Panther CD.
I installed it on my woman's laptop so that she could try out OpenOffice before forking cash over for MS Office. Sadly, it didn't handle the extremely complicated spreadsheets she uses at work (I realize she's somewhat of an exception, she does use/create very complicated spreadsheets and little inconsistencies made the graphs not always work out. Oh well, she had to feed the beast.)
I had no idea of a native OpenOffice.
My understanding is that open source works on meritocracy, so it's great for the technical aspects of software.
It's hard to have a meritocracy with something as innately subjective as art. With technical stuff, it's usually provable what works better.
You can't submit patches to fix someone's crappy storyline (and if you did, I imagine chaos as no one agrees on whether your "story patch" actually improves the story or makes it too long, or too short, or hurts the original author's feelings, etc.). Can you imagine a bugzilla for "ugliness bugs" in the backgrounds, icons, monster design, etc. in a large game? Who gets to decide when a "garishness bug" is closed? Or that a "cacophonous section bug" in the soundtrack has been resolved?
It's always seemed this way to me, hence for a long time Linux ran great (the technical part of it), but the default icons, themes, etc. often left a lot to be desired. I think it wasn't until companies started throwing money at Linux that it started getting pretty.
It's now easy for me to imagine a complicated piece of software put together by committee (the proof was in the Linux pudding), but not a musical score (the proof again was in the Linux pudding).
I think maybe Stallman is just being practical*.
Back on topic, for these reasons I've long thought that games was one area where OSS would have a hard time competing with commercial software companies, since the important part of video games isn't the technical part, but the artistic parts where it's hard (if not impossible) to have a working meritocracy. You can't (I believe) have "bazaar like development" with 100 artists working on video games as you can with 100 programmers working on a web browser.
* OTOH, it's also only with software that not having source code means you fundamentally don't know (or can easily tell) what the software is *really * up to, hence the GPL. This is not the case with art. It could therefore also be that Stallman is just being steadfast with his freedom thing (that sadly, a lot of people criticize), which is not as meaningful with a game's soundtrack for instance.
OK, fair enough but let's focus on the reason why Einstein is considered "great". He contributed (and launched entire fields of study in some cases) on the smallest (QM) to the largest scales (cosmology), and changed the foundations of physics by increasing our understanding of basic concepts like time and space. That's simply not a claim that any other physicist can come close to making (arguably since Newton).
I see it this way, before Einstein (and after Newton), we gradually, systematically and slowly added to our knowledge and understanding. Along comes Einstein and shows that the most basic of assumptions used by everyone to build up on physics were wrong, and then uses his insights to also push out the frontiers of science on a scale and scope since umatched. After Einstein's push, we've gone back to gradually and systematically (and slowly!) adding to our knowledge of nature.
That's a pretty big deal!
I would actually argue that the coverage regarding the bomb hurt Einstein in the eyes of science geeks (generally speaking), as it has obscured everything else he's done. I myself only "knew" that Einstein was famous for relativity until I read more and understood the scope of what he did. I'd argue that the entirety of the repercussions of time not being absolute and varying with speed, gravity, etc. is not only seriously weird but is much more important than the first "practical" outcomes of the nuclear bomb or nuclear power (as important as those are).
PS
I'm a big fan of Feynman myself, aside from his technical credentials I think it also takes a special kind of genius to explain things so eloquently! But, he's added to the pile of knowledge -- not shifted the basic principles of physics (time and space is pretty far-reaching after all!). I'm not even sure he was as prolific as Einstein, in a "minor" discovery to "minor" discovery comparison. Not meant to put down people much much smarter than I could ever hope to be, but I can't think of something more important (fundamental) than what Einstein did that can be attributed to another person (again, except for Newton). The smartest and most famous of physicists compare to Einstein's "minor" works only (which he had plenty of) IMHO and therefore he does stand alone and unchallenged.
or it survives because it's a monopoly and normal free market forces don't apply? :)
I think MS can be toppled, it's just harder than if they competed just on merit.
Check out the article, no one claimed that he did it himself (and I certainly didn't). No one can think that.
And there have been other smart people. To say he was smarter (or contributed more) doesn't take away from the other brilliant physicists in the world.
It's also disingenous to claim that all physicists have contributed the same, or had the same skills. No one has been at the cutting edge of physics for so long or over such a wide range of topics. We're still working on what he couldn't solve (even the ground work for string theory was his).
Serioulsy, check out the article. The author expresses an opinion, and goes on to chronicle why he believes so (including the opinion of other physicists and historians).
I agree with the general sentiment (physicists being lauded as great when they're actually more average, I would have picked Hawking as an actual example as opposed to Einstein, that's all). Other than Newton, Einstein is probably the only person who deserves to be on the highest pedestal in physics, and it's not clear who else might even be close. This doesn't mean that they had to do everything themselves -- and of course they benefitted from a world of thinkers. I don't see how this means they couldn't still be the greatest, however.
Democracy and free speech are also ideologies.
Choosing what works best includes letting commercial software actually compete on merit, not on who's got the most cash for patents or who's been smarter at leveraging propietary data formats.
I'm afraid that even here in the US we'd *need* government intervention to have a situation where software is chosen because it really is better.
I think if commercial software can really compete against OSS, it should do so based on merit, and not have proprietary file formats and (obvious, over reaching) software patents to shove it down our throats.
The latter two is where the government comes in.
The problem with Einstein (if you can call it a problem) is that he *was* the most important physicist since Newton.
He stands completely unchallenged in the scope and quantity of contributions he's made to physics. He's the poster boy not because of the media, but because to this day the problems he couldn't solve are the problems we're still working on today, and no one single-handedly has so much changed the way we look at the universe (except for Newton).
At least for him, he _was_ "the opera singer super model brain surgeon sports star" of physics.
I've linked this article a lot (I think it's fascinating), but it specifically talks about physicists trying to "measure up" to other greats. But, trying to measure up against Einstein is a sort of dream:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/
I Agree.
according to:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/
"Einstein's work anchors the most shocking idea in twentieth century physics: we live in a quantum universe, one built out of tiny, discrete chunks of energy and matter."
"Before anyone else, Einstein recognizes the essential dualism in nature, the co-existence of particles and waves at the level of quanta. In 1911 he declares resolving the quantum issue to be the central problem of physics."
He disliked the theory, he didn't disbelieve it -- it was his search for a more fundamental theory that led him to the ground work that string theory is based on. Basically, unless someone can prove that string theories are wrong (or that there will never be a grand unified theory), you can't really say Einstein was "wrong" about quantum mechanics. For him to be wrong, QM would have to be the final and most fundamental explanation of our universe -- he felt there was more underneath that could explain QM (like the grand unified theory). AFAIK that's still the "cutting edge" physicists are working on still today.
Fascinating article, btw. Apparently, the questions he couldn't answer still define to this day the cutting edge of physics. That, and the fact that no other physicist has had as long a ride in the cutting edge is why Einstein is remembered as the greatest physicist since Newton.
We can just explain that it's libre as in Spanish, not French.
you know, the article then continues with:
... :(
"The company expects SOI to eventually replace bulk CMOS as the most commonly used substrate for advanced CMOS in mainstream microprocessors and other emerging wireless electronic devices requiring low power."
Which seems to suggest that other people have done it, but it hasn't been widely deployed. I know next to nothing regarding chips, so I can't personaly separate marketting speak from a real innovation here
But if what you say is true (and I have no reason to doubt you), then that makes that announcement seem almost pointless.
I don't know about MIPS, but isn't PowerPC IBM also (and purchased/licensed by Apple and others)?
Especially IBM, as I believe they're making the processors for not just the XBox 2, but more importantly the Play Station 3, and the next gen Nintendo (unless something's changed) as well.