agreed. conflict is the nature of man. when a clear conflict doesn't exist, humans create one.
in my opinion, curiosity is an inherent form of conflict that is resolved by complete annihilation of mystery in regard to the thing one is curious about. Seems conflict would be the way of the nerd as well (if you assume that we are driven by curiosity, which I do).
just because you want to beat them doesn't mean you should show your intent so soon.
"to forage on the enemy's land..."
the browsers can get together and coordinate an attack on IE (firefox is great with extensions and tabbed browsing, small footprint - opera is good for whatever its good for) and chip at the periphery of the IE installation. Once a firm weakness in the market shows, then individual companies can seize advantage.
Wanting to be better and being competitive is different from thumping your chest and declaring open war at tribal council. Both browsers would get further under cover of darkness.
I still haven't seen a firefox for pocket pc (a must if they want to remain relevant).
i agree with the lunar base. quite frankly i don't see what the problem is. It's not new tech to get us to the moon. we can even retrofit some of that vintage shit with new computers and call it a day (oversimplification). Is it a cultural hindrance? Are we not ready as a species to start inhabiting other celestial bodies?
There are biological constraints. Living on the moon for a while means that one will not be able to come back to earth. This is the first time that humans have encountered that constraint. maybe that's what it is?
I'm totally with the lunar base. In fact, they should start with target practice. Send living modules, food, water, and air modules... design them to withstand impact and pockmark the surface of the moon with them. GPS those suckers and design satellites to pick up the signals. Then start landing in the first of several teams. The first team will have four backup modules that have already been launched in case of catastrophic failure. It'll be redundant many times over. Wimax the moon and beam them cable and pr0n so they won't be bored after a long day of lunar mining. The technology ALREADY exists. The only thing is that there is no short or middle term money to be made, which is fine. That's what governments are for.
Re: solar sail. Anyone know if a proof-of-concept has ever flown? What are the practical applications other than for deep space probes?
lol. yeah. they actually do get weaker and are prone to breakage in the future.
unless you go in for some super dense bone therapy, where they flood your body with fluorine. the side effect is that it depresses your thyroid and you die.
lesson: don't break bones if you don't have to.
Re: hackers being responsible for whatever. If easily exploited systems exist, then hackers will arise. It's the chicken-egg argument. Build secure dynamic systems and the cost/benefit model for the average hacker changes so much that it isn't worthwhile to do it anymore. Then you reduce the hacking to those serious enough about their craft. Then you deal with them on a case by case basis.
The other thing is that big companies can literally pay hackers to sell out and get out of the hacking game. There are so many ways to deal with the hacking issue. But the primary one is secure systems.
GM isn't a good example. They produce cars, and arguably have a business culture that is very tied into its (outmoded) production faiclities and capacity. Newer companies, when building out their plants and factories, build inherently more efficent companies by improving on existing models. Platforming is a relatively new strategy for American car companies, whereas Japanese car companies are built on the concept of platforming (which is designing a diverse product line based on a few core foundations and powerplants). Ther was a point and time when each car in GM's line was a distinct vehicle with little common parts with other vehicles (incidentally, this is the problem Boeing is having now with Airbus).
So the ability to innovate in the car business is virtually nil when you're a behemoth the size of GM. It's tantamount to stopping everything, stripping out the factories, and starting over (which incidentally, is what they've announced that they plan to do). GM also could never compete on price or aesthetics.
MS on the other hand, just deals in code. It's insulated from the cost of raw materials and the price of gas (to a degree). They can throw money at a problem. They don't waste time being innovators, because honestly, there's no money in it for the true innovators. The money people come in and capitalize on the innovation. Microsoft's business strategy is to be the second mouse to get to the mousetrap.
i agree with you. it seems a harrowing undertaking for Google to want to assume. It also seems like something that shop owners and businesses should be responsible for. Google can post requirements for the kinds of photographs, etc, that it needs. Or it can generate a side business. Laser Photographers certified by Google to take the right scans/images for the map project.
It just doesn't make sense for google to brute force this. Too costly and extensive and time consuming. I do disagree about them having the resources though. Seen their stock price lately?
Re: money pit. companies regularly throw money away to prevent smaller companies from getting footholds. I actually think that it hasn't been made a bigger point that google has employed many strategies typically considered evil when followed by microsoft. They find small companies and buy them out, borg-style. They crush other innovators by using the search monopoly to gain a foothold in other services. I don't know if anyone's posted how Google will be launching a pay service to compete with Paypal, but they apparently plan on doing so. I'm sure that means that they'll be going into the online auction space. They also plan to launch a Craigslist-type service.
I agree with you totally, and I'm going to take your logic a step further.
In addition to the fact the young people in the US don't vote, the flip side is the music industry putting money behind politicians. In a bipartisan system, it isn't a big issue to put money behind BOTH candidates. Analysis of party lines will notice that there is less of a difference between democrats and republicans than ever and both cater to special interests.
Young people don't vote in presidential elections, but more importantly, they don't vote in local elections for the house and the senate. They don't vote for local councilpeople and for mayors. So it's pretty safe to ignore us.
I wanted to start reversing the trend. I went to an election a year or so ago for local councilmen (I'm in New York). The district had over 500,000 people in it. The guy who won had 580 some-odd votes. I got there and it felt like visitng my grandmother's house. I swear no one under 65 was there... except me.
The fact that we don't vote is teh sux, but the fact that we don't really have a choice in a bipartisan system that harbors the illusion of difference is even worse. I have no answers, but voting democrat/republican is pretty much voting for the same thing.
the bigger issue is the slow uptake for media center PCs. Plus, no one has developed a low to moderate cost media center appliance designed to go into your living room. It doesn't exist, so movie downloading as a business is in the air. At best, mail order movie rentals is a risky business to invest in. The ramp-up time to develop the business (and cost) might be a waste, as one can often not account for public sentiment.
I read an interesting article the other day about J.K. Rowling. She's decided not to release her latest Harry Potter book as an ebook. Her argument: her biggest audience (kids) don't like to read ebooks. WHY? Because no one's developed the right device for reading an ebook. Especially one cheap enough for kids to tote around. Adults read ebooks because they have a litany of devices and/or are will to cobble together a solution. I think it's a similar situation for movies. There's no killer appliance yet to take advantage of the broadband and the content. Downloading movies (I think the movie industry assumes) is a cobbled solution that won't work for the majority (the industry assumes are lazy) of consumers.
For the most part, a living room web-enabled media center that is the killer appliance in terms of form and function just hasn't arrived (at least I can't think of one that's ready for primetime). The other thing is that this device can't cost the equivalent of a high end desktop and it must be able to work with both high end HD screens as well as older tube screens. I'd invest in developing something like that.
I agree. The question isn't IF console gaming will kill PC gaming.
The question is: WHEN WILL CONSOLES KILL PCS. Consoles will become upgradeable multimedia and networking hubs for the wireless household. Thin mobile wireless clients will be the central feature of ubiquitious computing. Software is going to become a server side thing - which will make open source really interesting then. Not only will software companies keep their source closed, they'll no longer actually sell it to you. they'll sell access.
The PC as we know it is on life support. The stroke to put it out of its misery (the killer console) hasn't fallen yet. XBox is on the right track, but they should shoot the moron in marketing who thought that fucking name would age well. Speaking of which, "Playstation" won't scale well either, but I guess you can always substitute other words in the PS acronym.
However, The Gutenberg-Richter Law. Self-Organized Criticality. Systems left to their own devices achieving, on a whole, self organized levels of criticality and complexity.
I never asserted my opinion as fact, merely opinion. I am familiar with Gould. I'll suggest reading, too... Per Bak's Science of Self-Organized Criticality. The idea that simple rules guide generalized criticality and complexity that is intrinsic to our universe.
As evolution is a theory, I cannot be "wrong" as you put it. On the other hand, you cannot dispute the fact that every time evolution has started up on this planet, it has resulted in some form of complexity. I am merely reductionist in my approach. If it results in complexity, by its very nature it must drive towards complexity. Exceptions, such as the ones you describe, only make the rule for me. If one intelligent species arises out of an isolated exercise in evolution, then the goal was complexity... intelligence. To be arrogant about it.... evolution, when discussed by humans, is not about an isolated subset of parasite. It is about us, humans, now on the verge of completely turning evolution on its ear by virtue of our awe inspiring, incredibly complex, infinitely versatile tool. Refutation of my opinion demands that we not exist.
99% of the species that have ever lived have been wiped out. Ok, true... whatever. Survivors had some kind of "fitness"... adaptations that allowed them to overcome the obstacle that otherwise obliterated the rest. After each and ever one of these great extinctions, evolution has started back to work, and with minor diversions, has always worked towards GREATER COMPLEXITY. So I contend that evolution has a direction. I contend history has proven that evolution adheres to adaptation, fitness, and greater complexity where environments allow. I contend that this is accurate because I exist and can contemplate this. I agree that it is just a process, but processes have rules - that's what differentiates a "process" from "chaos". Notwithstanding the foregoing, I never asserted that evolution would protect us from grand calamity or protect us in a grand godlike fashion.
I merely stated, and reiterate, that evolution confirms that the fittest in an environment survive. The fact that humans proliferate is further proof of this because intelligence is about the best adaptation to arise. And some might argue that humans are intelligent.
ok. I'll definitely buy that. It only makes sense. Our approach to microbes in general during the 20th century is what has us in this terrified drug resistant disease state that we're in.
how do you think we can do that? gene therapy? cybernetics/nanotech? In other words, do you think we should ever tamper with the genome for these effects, or leave it intact in case we fuck up? Will we ever be able to touch the bible of life... or should we just stick to plugins and extensions when we gain those abilities? You touch on something really interesting, which is that the human species has essentially been like a toddler playing in a pen full of grenades this whole time. Shit man... it's kinda scary.
wow. ok. i'll buy that. so then by extension, should I assume from a religious standpoint that the assertion is that "god" is humanity in the future? Therefore when religious folks are praying, they're really praying to their immortal relatively omnipotent progeny?
I don't know the numbers, but wouldn't it be cheaper to just not support Mac Office and let Apple die as a desktop platform? In the long run, wouldn't they stand to see more cash that way?
And Apple releasing OSX for x86; that seems like a great idea. I'd take that if I were Jobs. Don't want to support Macs? fine. I'll release a more secure and/or stable OS into the x86 marketplace and have you deal with that. That could only be win-win for Apple, right? I might be missing something obvious though. It just seems from the outside that they stand to make way more cash if they offer serious x86 competition, especially with the brand recognition and association with quality that they already have.
I agree with you that there's some mutual blackmail going on, but I think the reasoning on MS's side is different. I think Microsoft keeps them around because Apple can be something the MS can never be. Apple's penchant for innovation is motivated by need: if they don't innovate, they will die. MS cannot innovate because they're too big... too slow. So they need someone to constantly meter the changing needs of the marketplace with new products. If something sticks, MS lumbers over to the honeypot for some sweets.
Agreed. I have a bleeding heart like the next guy, but the tenets of evolution confirm that the fittest survive. My thinking is that our survival now will be determined by several things: defeating viruses before they get too mutated to contain, gene therapy to adapt the human body to our suiting (using aforementioned tamed and redesigned viruses), and making it so that we can safely explore and settle space as a species.
The other thing we need to do is get gene samples for all these "dying" species. Once our privileges get escalated to "godlike" we'll just bring them back and have cool biosphere planets that metahumans can vacation on. We need a biosphere gene bank.
you're missing my point. saying printers are "basically free" doesn't cut it because basically free isn't *free*. At $500, I can get a box, flat screen, keyboard, mouse, and printer. I can go from nothing to *luddite, inc* for $500. At that price point, the mac mini is still a paper weight... It's about practical use at that price point, of which the mac mini has none. That's a really big deal.
unh, dude... the mac mini doesn't cost less when you take into account actual use. justing looking at Dell's website, I saw two entry level desktop systems, complete systems with printers that cost less than the price of the mac mini unit.
Form factor is an area where wintel boxes cannot compete, but they've always been able to beat Apple products on price point and will continue to do so. there is no doubt the issue of form factor, in that one can't find comparable wintel products at that cost. That's an aesthetic issue, however.
As far as your assertion about windows originally being for users who wanted Mac functionality on cheaper hardware, dude that was like twenty years ago. Those economic and social conditions were unique; unfortunately Apple missed its opportunity to dominate the desktop because it tied its hardware to its software. All of which is to say, I seriously doubt a serious dynamic shift in user trends, quite simply because I don't remember a time when it ever happened otherwise. Nobody dropped VHS for Betamax, even though Betamax was a superior format (it's still used sometimes in the film industry). Market penetration is a tough beast to crack, and quite frankly, the Mac Mini isn't going to do it, especially because Jobs hasn't had the guts to openly say that he wants you to stick the thing next to your television.
The desktop is a mature market. It's not going to change. It probably will die. It just seems to make way more sense to me to focus on embedded products and mobile computing. Seems like Apple is behind even Linux in that regard.
In my estimation, Apple's future looks tenuous. Microsoft supporting Office for Macs is a courtesy, seemingly, because I can't imagine that the cost of doing so is worth it to Microsoft. They've become a trend driven company (as even you asserted in your comment about back-to-school popularity), prone to the vagaries of popular culture. That's a really risky business model, in my estimation.
Agreed. The reason our country tends to be innovative is referred to in the article. Innovation comes from diversity of source. Having a myriad of people from disparate backgrounds, all with prodigious problem solving abilities... something good will arise from that. You'll get strong ideas from people used to defending their positions and are thus resistant to peer pressure.
Taking that a step further, you need a leader who KNOWS when the killer idea has been hit upon.
Gonna reveal my geek roots for a minute: When I was a kid I read these cheesy books by a guy named Piers Anthony - called BIO OF A SPACE TYRANT. The guy's name was Hope Hubris and he rose from a small agricultural colony floating in the Jovian atmosphere to become the leader of the Jovian colonies. It was always pointed out in the books that Hope Hubris, in and of himself, was not particularly talented. He was never great at any one thing, other than at getting the best people united under one cause. For some reason, really smart and talented people put their faith in him to lead them, to champion their cause.
I've noticed that most people who are great at designing widgets have a noted inability to grasp the bigger picture. I think it's really true that for the most part, leaders and innovators can't be taught. They arise as a consequence of conditions.
I also agree with you in regards to test scores. Test scores don't measure the quality of our innovation... they measure the quality of our work force. That said, if the United States ceases to innovate, we become inherently disadvantaged because of the inferior workforce we produce because of our less regimented education system.
In regards to innovation, our society seeks to crush that too... through homogeniety (sp). Stifle immigration and champion media culture, and you have everyone thinking the same things... doing the same thing... being the same things. That again robs us of innovation. Somewhere, some really innovative person has just discovered video games, or MTV, and it's a wrap for that guy.
In other words, *and I can't believe that I'm saying this* some concepts of the traditionally republican ideal make sense. Free capitalism.... leave everyone to their own devices - make everyone hustle for everything that they have, and you have an efficient economy. This makes sense. Unfortunately, we live in a very decadent society. Everyone has too much (even "poor" people), and this makes for satisfied people. Satisfied people don't innovate. Therein lies the trouble, and why we have much to fear from countries like India and China (Africa is next - they also have a billion people, and AIDS is stabilizing. It actually is on the decline in urban centers. If they lose a quarter of their population, they still have 3/4 of a billion people rapidly migrating to urban centers and embracing education. On top of that, the African continent has a treasure trove of natural resources left untapped because of civil strife. China will always be hindered because it cannot power it's population. India will be hindered because most of its population practices a religion diametrically opposed to the ideals of capitalism. Africa can both power and feed itself, and is rapidly embracing Catholicism and Christianity). I'm rambling.
See, What you said about field data collection units and using tech in disparate fields is great shit. I'll try and take it a step further.
We should have a species gene database. We should catalog every species, google style, by taking at least one sample of genetic material from each gender of each species, a digital noah's ark as it were.
We should post our genome too. Once a year or so, we cut and paste the whole database to some removable storage medium with a brief description of what it is. Then we shoot the copy into deep space. This way, we can assure the possibility of future generations given even the complete annihilation of current ones.
It's a noble pursuit, I think, and one that can be readily done. It might already be done, and I might benefit from a healthy session of google querying. All of which is to say, I see no need to get up in arms about the extinction of a species today when we have the technology to bring extinct species back.
I'm not sure about that. The introduction of an XBox Live Silver tier (read: free) service is so that they can get hoards of gamers gaming online.
Modding your X-Box going forward isn't going to be much of an issue for Microsoft. You can't use X-Box Live with a modded XBox and Microsoft wants to ensure that everyone is online. So all their games with be Live enabled. Microsoft is going to use Live to distribute levels and authenticate games, even if you're not playing online at the time. Modding your XBox to pirate games will make it useless. Media-Center mods? Well, Microsoft already supports that for XB1. To that end, there's no need to dissuade would-be modders. Ancillary mods, like upgrades to video cards, etc.. will most likely be supported by Microsoft, and they'll benefit from the secondary market that arises because of it. There's just no need for obfuscation as far as an OS is concerned.
By the time XBox 720 debuts, we won't be buying discs anymore. We'll be downloading our games onto our 2TB hard drives. Oh, the Xbox 720 will have nine cores instead of the three it has now, and the extra cores will run the thin clients and tablets on the local network. It will be backwards compatible with all previous XBox games, but since there likely won't be a media drive, you'll need the "Classic" subscription (several tiers, of course) in order to play them. Oh yeah, and they would have nicely sidestepped the death of the PC in the first world.
Yup, I'll co-sign on this. 500 years ago, these two would have volunteered to get on ships led by some guy that had a dream saying, "go THAT way."
Risk takers move the species ahead. That said, history has proven that most risk takers are men, as evolution produces enough to withstand the loss of many to the consequences of risk-taking. So it would seem that the girl being hurt in this stunt is uncommon, and a significant tragedy in that regard. That said, I hope both fully recover.
It's a generational thing, I think. Older folks always wanna say, "look at those stupid youngsters!" I'm keen to say... "look at these piss-poor fucking role models." Stupid younger people don't come out of the ether. They had shitty parents and witless teachers. But I digress.
Slashdot Mirror
agreed. conflict is the nature of man. when a clear conflict doesn't exist, humans create one.
in my opinion, curiosity is an inherent form of conflict that is resolved by complete annihilation of mystery in regard to the thing one is curious about. Seems conflict would be the way of the nerd as well (if you assume that we are driven by curiosity, which I do).
just because you want to beat them doesn't mean you should show your intent so soon.
"to forage on the enemy's land..."
the browsers can get together and coordinate an attack on IE (firefox is great with extensions and tabbed browsing, small footprint - opera is good for whatever its good for) and chip at the periphery of the IE installation. Once a firm weakness in the market shows, then individual companies can seize advantage.
Wanting to be better and being competitive is different from thumping your chest and declaring open war at tribal council. Both browsers would get further under cover of darkness.
I still haven't seen a firefox for pocket pc (a must if they want to remain relevant).
i agree with the lunar base. quite frankly i don't see what the problem is. It's not new tech to get us to the moon. we can even retrofit some of that vintage shit with new computers and call it a day (oversimplification). Is it a cultural hindrance? Are we not ready as a species to start inhabiting other celestial bodies?
There are biological constraints. Living on the moon for a while means that one will not be able to come back to earth. This is the first time that humans have encountered that constraint. maybe that's what it is?
I'm totally with the lunar base. In fact, they should start with target practice. Send living modules, food, water, and air modules... design them to withstand impact and pockmark the surface of the moon with them. GPS those suckers and design satellites to pick up the signals. Then start landing in the first of several teams. The first team will have four backup modules that have already been launched in case of catastrophic failure. It'll be redundant many times over. Wimax the moon and beam them cable and pr0n so they won't be bored after a long day of lunar mining. The technology ALREADY exists. The only thing is that there is no short or middle term money to be made, which is fine. That's what governments are for.
Re: solar sail. Anyone know if a proof-of-concept has ever flown? What are the practical applications other than for deep space probes?
lol. yeah. they actually do get weaker and are prone to breakage in the future.
unless you go in for some super dense bone therapy, where they flood your body with fluorine. the side effect is that it depresses your thyroid and you die.
lesson: don't break bones if you don't have to.
Re: hackers being responsible for whatever. If easily exploited systems exist, then hackers will arise. It's the chicken-egg argument. Build secure dynamic systems and the cost/benefit model for the average hacker changes so much that it isn't worthwhile to do it anymore. Then you reduce the hacking to those serious enough about their craft. Then you deal with them on a case by case basis.
The other thing is that big companies can literally pay hackers to sell out and get out of the hacking game. There are so many ways to deal with the hacking issue. But the primary one is secure systems.
GM isn't a good example. They produce cars, and arguably have a business culture that is very tied into its (outmoded) production faiclities and capacity. Newer companies, when building out their plants and factories, build inherently more efficent companies by improving on existing models. Platforming is a relatively new strategy for American car companies, whereas Japanese car companies are built on the concept of platforming (which is designing a diverse product line based on a few core foundations and powerplants). Ther was a point and time when each car in GM's line was a distinct vehicle with little common parts with other vehicles (incidentally, this is the problem Boeing is having now with Airbus).
So the ability to innovate in the car business is virtually nil when you're a behemoth the size of GM. It's tantamount to stopping everything, stripping out the factories, and starting over (which incidentally, is what they've announced that they plan to do). GM also could never compete on price or aesthetics.
MS on the other hand, just deals in code. It's insulated from the cost of raw materials and the price of gas (to a degree). They can throw money at a problem. They don't waste time being innovators, because honestly, there's no money in it for the true innovators. The money people come in and capitalize on the innovation. Microsoft's business strategy is to be the second mouse to get to the mousetrap.
i agree with you. it seems a harrowing undertaking for Google to want to assume. It also seems like something that shop owners and businesses should be responsible for. Google can post requirements for the kinds of photographs, etc, that it needs. Or it can generate a side business. Laser Photographers certified by Google to take the right scans/images for the map project.
It just doesn't make sense for google to brute force this. Too costly and extensive and time consuming. I do disagree about them having the resources though. Seen their stock price lately?
Re: money pit. companies regularly throw money away to prevent smaller companies from getting footholds. I actually think that it hasn't been made a bigger point that google has employed many strategies typically considered evil when followed by microsoft. They find small companies and buy them out, borg-style. They crush other innovators by using the search monopoly to gain a foothold in other services. I don't know if anyone's posted how Google will be launching a pay service to compete with Paypal, but they apparently plan on doing so. I'm sure that means that they'll be going into the online auction space. They also plan to launch a Craigslist-type service.
*shrugs*
I agree with you totally, and I'm going to take your logic a step further.
In addition to the fact the young people in the US don't vote, the flip side is the music industry putting money behind politicians. In a bipartisan system, it isn't a big issue to put money behind BOTH candidates. Analysis of party lines will notice that there is less of a difference between democrats and republicans than ever and both cater to special interests.
Young people don't vote in presidential elections, but more importantly, they don't vote in local elections for the house and the senate. They don't vote for local councilpeople and for mayors. So it's pretty safe to ignore us.
I wanted to start reversing the trend. I went to an election a year or so ago for local councilmen (I'm in New York). The district had over 500,000 people in it. The guy who won had 580 some-odd votes. I got there and it felt like visitng my grandmother's house. I swear no one under 65 was there... except me.
The fact that we don't vote is teh sux, but the fact that we don't really have a choice in a bipartisan system that harbors the illusion of difference is even worse. I have no answers, but voting democrat/republican is pretty much voting for the same thing.
exactly.
the bigger issue is the slow uptake for media center PCs. Plus, no one has developed a low to moderate cost media center appliance designed to go into your living room. It doesn't exist, so movie downloading as a business is in the air. At best, mail order movie rentals is a risky business to invest in. The ramp-up time to develop the business (and cost) might be a waste, as one can often not account for public sentiment.
I read an interesting article the other day about J.K. Rowling. She's decided not to release her latest Harry Potter book as an ebook. Her argument: her biggest audience (kids) don't like to read ebooks. WHY? Because no one's developed the right device for reading an ebook. Especially one cheap enough for kids to tote around. Adults read ebooks because they have a litany of devices and/or are will to cobble together a solution. I think it's a similar situation for movies. There's no killer appliance yet to take advantage of the broadband and the content. Downloading movies (I think the movie industry assumes) is a cobbled solution that won't work for the majority (the industry assumes are lazy) of consumers.
For the most part, a living room web-enabled media center that is the killer appliance in terms of form and function just hasn't arrived (at least I can't think of one that's ready for primetime). The other thing is that this device can't cost the equivalent of a high end desktop and it must be able to work with both high end HD screens as well as older tube screens. I'd invest in developing something like that.
right! that was exactly my point! exactly.
It's why the monoliths keep saying that they're not worried about open source. exactly.
I agree. The question isn't IF console gaming will kill PC gaming.
The question is: WHEN WILL CONSOLES KILL PCS. Consoles will become upgradeable multimedia and networking hubs for the wireless household. Thin mobile wireless clients will be the central feature of ubiquitious computing. Software is going to become a server side thing - which will make open source really interesting then. Not only will software companies keep their source closed, they'll no longer actually sell it to you. they'll sell access.
The PC as we know it is on life support. The stroke to put it out of its misery (the killer console) hasn't fallen yet. XBox is on the right track, but they should shoot the moron in marketing who thought that fucking name would age well. Speaking of which, "Playstation" won't scale well either, but I guess you can always substitute other words in the PS acronym.
Any suggestions?
I don't disagree with any of your assertions.
However, The Gutenberg-Richter Law. Self-Organized Criticality. Systems left to their own devices achieving, on a whole, self organized levels of criticality and complexity.
I never asserted my opinion as fact, merely opinion. I am familiar with Gould. I'll suggest reading, too... Per Bak's Science of Self-Organized Criticality. The idea that simple rules guide generalized criticality and complexity that is intrinsic to our universe.
As evolution is a theory, I cannot be "wrong" as you put it. On the other hand, you cannot dispute the fact that every time evolution has started up on this planet, it has resulted in some form of complexity. I am merely reductionist in my approach. If it results in complexity, by its very nature it must drive towards complexity. Exceptions, such as the ones you describe, only make the rule for me. If one intelligent species arises out of an isolated exercise in evolution, then the goal was complexity... intelligence. To be arrogant about it.... evolution, when discussed by humans, is not about an isolated subset of parasite. It is about us, humans, now on the verge of completely turning evolution on its ear by virtue of our awe inspiring, incredibly complex, infinitely versatile tool. Refutation of my opinion demands that we not exist.
semantics.
... adaptations that allowed them to overcome the obstacle that otherwise obliterated the rest. After each and ever one of these great extinctions, evolution has started back to work, and with minor diversions, has always worked towards GREATER COMPLEXITY. So I contend that evolution has a direction. I contend history has proven that evolution adheres to adaptation, fitness, and greater complexity where environments allow. I contend that this is accurate because I exist and can contemplate this. I agree that it is just a process, but processes have rules - that's what differentiates a "process" from "chaos". Notwithstanding the foregoing, I never asserted that evolution would protect us from grand calamity or protect us in a grand godlike fashion.
99% of the species that have ever lived have been wiped out. Ok, true... whatever. Survivors had some kind of "fitness"
I merely stated, and reiterate, that evolution confirms that the fittest in an environment survive. The fact that humans proliferate is further proof of this because intelligence is about the best adaptation to arise. And some might argue that humans are intelligent.
ok. I'll definitely buy that. It only makes sense. Our approach to microbes in general during the 20th century is what has us in this terrified drug resistant disease state that we're in.
how do you think we can do that? gene therapy? cybernetics/nanotech? In other words, do you think we should ever tamper with the genome for these effects, or leave it intact in case we fuck up? Will we ever be able to touch the bible of life... or should we just stick to plugins and extensions when we gain those abilities? You touch on something really interesting, which is that the human species has essentially been like a toddler playing in a pen full of grenades this whole time. Shit man... it's kinda scary.
lol. right. I'll buy that.
I guess going back to the "source" would be the punchline, right?
wow. ok. i'll buy that. so then by extension, should I assume from a religious standpoint that the assertion is that "god" is humanity in the future? Therefore when religious folks are praying, they're really praying to their immortal relatively omnipotent progeny?
i'll buy that.
I don't know the numbers, but wouldn't it be cheaper to just not support Mac Office and let Apple die as a desktop platform? In the long run, wouldn't they stand to see more cash that way?
And Apple releasing OSX for x86; that seems like a great idea. I'd take that if I were Jobs. Don't want to support Macs? fine. I'll release a more secure and/or stable OS into the x86 marketplace and have you deal with that. That could only be win-win for Apple, right? I might be missing something obvious though. It just seems from the outside that they stand to make way more cash if they offer serious x86 competition, especially with the brand recognition and association with quality that they already have.
I agree with you that there's some mutual blackmail going on, but I think the reasoning on MS's side is different. I think Microsoft keeps them around because Apple can be something the MS can never be. Apple's penchant for innovation is motivated by need: if they don't innovate, they will die. MS cannot innovate because they're too big... too slow. So they need someone to constantly meter the changing needs of the marketplace with new products. If something sticks, MS lumbers over to the honeypot for some sweets.
lol. it does seem a little self-indulgent doesn't it. It's probably just a first world syndrome, too.
I can imagine this asperger guy looking for a syndrome to name after himself in frustration. All the good shit was taken, i guess.
Agreed. I have a bleeding heart like the next guy, but the tenets of evolution confirm that the fittest survive. My thinking is that our survival now will be determined by several things: defeating viruses before they get too mutated to contain, gene therapy to adapt the human body to our suiting (using aforementioned tamed and redesigned viruses), and making it so that we can safely explore and settle space as a species.
The other thing we need to do is get gene samples for all these "dying" species. Once our privileges get escalated to "godlike" we'll just bring them back and have cool biosphere planets that metahumans can vacation on. We need a biosphere gene bank.
I too, am INTJ. I've also read that Asperger's is a clinical diagnosis encompassing no single factor or group of factors. how does one gauge?
you're missing my point. saying printers are "basically free" doesn't cut it because basically free isn't *free*. At $500, I can get a box, flat screen, keyboard, mouse, and printer. I can go from nothing to *luddite, inc* for $500. At that price point, the mac mini is still a paper weight... It's about practical use at that price point, of which the mac mini has none. That's a really big deal.
unh, dude... the mac mini doesn't cost less when you take into account actual use. justing looking at Dell's website, I saw two entry level desktop systems, complete systems with printers that cost less than the price of the mac mini unit.
Form factor is an area where wintel boxes cannot compete, but they've always been able to beat Apple products on price point and will continue to do so. there is no doubt the issue of form factor, in that one can't find comparable wintel products at that cost. That's an aesthetic issue, however.
As far as your assertion about windows originally being for users who wanted Mac functionality on cheaper hardware, dude that was like twenty years ago. Those economic and social conditions were unique; unfortunately Apple missed its opportunity to dominate the desktop because it tied its hardware to its software. All of which is to say, I seriously doubt a serious dynamic shift in user trends, quite simply because I don't remember a time when it ever happened otherwise. Nobody dropped VHS for Betamax, even though Betamax was a superior format (it's still used sometimes in the film industry). Market penetration is a tough beast to crack, and quite frankly, the Mac Mini isn't going to do it, especially because Jobs hasn't had the guts to openly say that he wants you to stick the thing next to your television.
The desktop is a mature market. It's not going to change. It probably will die. It just seems to make way more sense to me to focus on embedded products and mobile computing. Seems like Apple is behind even Linux in that regard.
In my estimation, Apple's future looks tenuous. Microsoft supporting Office for Macs is a courtesy, seemingly, because I can't imagine that the cost of doing so is worth it to Microsoft. They've become a trend driven company (as even you asserted in your comment about back-to-school popularity), prone to the vagaries of popular culture. That's a really risky business model, in my estimation.
YOU CAN'T TEACH INNOVATION IN SCHOOL....
Agreed. The reason our country tends to be innovative is referred to in the article. Innovation comes from diversity of source. Having a myriad of people from disparate backgrounds, all with prodigious problem solving abilities... something good will arise from that. You'll get strong ideas from people used to defending their positions and are thus resistant to peer pressure.
Taking that a step further, you need a leader who KNOWS when the killer idea has been hit upon.
Gonna reveal my geek roots for a minute: When I was a kid I read these cheesy books by a guy named Piers Anthony - called BIO OF A SPACE TYRANT. The guy's name was Hope Hubris and he rose from a small agricultural colony floating in the Jovian atmosphere to become the leader of the Jovian colonies. It was always pointed out in the books that Hope Hubris, in and of himself, was not particularly talented. He was never great at any one thing, other than at getting the best people united under one cause. For some reason, really smart and talented people put their faith in him to lead them, to champion their cause.
I've noticed that most people who are great at designing widgets have a noted inability to grasp the bigger picture. I think it's really true that for the most part, leaders and innovators can't be taught. They arise as a consequence of conditions.
I also agree with you in regards to test scores. Test scores don't measure the quality of our innovation... they measure the quality of our work force. That said, if the United States ceases to innovate, we become inherently disadvantaged because of the inferior workforce we produce because of our less regimented education system.
In regards to innovation, our society seeks to crush that too... through homogeniety (sp). Stifle immigration and champion media culture, and you have everyone thinking the same things... doing the same thing... being the same things. That again robs us of innovation. Somewhere, some really innovative person has just discovered video games, or MTV, and it's a wrap for that guy.
In other words, *and I can't believe that I'm saying this* some concepts of the traditionally republican ideal make sense. Free capitalism.... leave everyone to their own devices - make everyone hustle for everything that they have, and you have an efficient economy. This makes sense.
Unfortunately, we live in a very decadent society. Everyone has too much (even "poor" people), and this makes for satisfied people. Satisfied people don't innovate. Therein lies the trouble, and why we have much to fear from countries like India and China (Africa is next - they also have a billion people, and AIDS is stabilizing. It actually is on the decline in urban centers. If they lose a quarter of their population, they still have 3/4 of a billion people rapidly migrating to urban centers and embracing education. On top of that, the African continent has a treasure trove of natural resources left untapped because of civil strife. China will always be hindered because it cannot power it's population. India will be hindered because most of its population practices a religion diametrically opposed to the ideals of capitalism. Africa can both power and feed itself, and is rapidly embracing Catholicism and Christianity). I'm rambling.
See, What you said about field data collection units and using tech in disparate fields is great shit. I'll try and take it a step further.
We should have a species gene database. We should catalog every species, google style, by taking at least one sample of genetic material from each gender of each species, a digital noah's ark as it were.
We should post our genome too. Once a year or so, we cut and paste the whole database to some removable storage medium with a brief description of what it is. Then we shoot the copy into deep space. This way, we can assure the possibility of future generations given even the complete annihilation of current ones.
It's a noble pursuit, I think, and one that can be readily done. It might already be done, and I might benefit from a healthy session of google querying. All of which is to say, I see no need to get up in arms about the extinction of a species today when we have the technology to bring extinct species back.
I'm not sure about that. The introduction of an XBox Live Silver tier (read: free) service is so that they can get hoards of gamers gaming online.
Modding your X-Box going forward isn't going to be much of an issue for Microsoft. You can't use X-Box Live with a modded XBox and Microsoft wants to ensure that everyone is online. So all their games with be Live enabled. Microsoft is going to use Live to distribute levels and authenticate games, even if you're not playing online at the time. Modding your XBox to pirate games will make it useless. Media-Center mods? Well, Microsoft already supports that for XB1. To that end, there's no need to dissuade would-be modders. Ancillary mods, like upgrades to video cards, etc.. will most likely be supported by Microsoft, and they'll benefit from the secondary market that arises because of it. There's just no need for obfuscation as far as an OS is concerned.
By the time XBox 720 debuts, we won't be buying discs anymore. We'll be downloading our games onto our 2TB hard drives. Oh, the Xbox 720 will have nine cores instead of the three it has now, and the extra cores will run the thin clients and tablets on the local network. It will be backwards compatible with all previous XBox games, but since there likely won't be a media drive, you'll need the "Classic" subscription (several tiers, of course) in order to play them. Oh yeah, and they would have nicely sidestepped the death of the PC in the first world.
If you think they're evil now... *shrugs*
I'm gonna buy a Nintendo Revolution.
Yup, I'll co-sign on this. 500 years ago, these two would have volunteered to get on ships led by some guy that had a dream saying, "go THAT way."
Risk takers move the species ahead. That said, history has proven that most risk takers are men, as evolution produces enough to withstand the loss of many to the consequences of risk-taking. So it would seem that the girl being hurt in this stunt is uncommon, and a significant tragedy in that regard. That said, I hope both fully recover.
It's a generational thing, I think. Older folks always wanna say, "look at those stupid youngsters!" I'm keen to say... "look at these piss-poor fucking role models." Stupid younger people don't come out of the ether. They had shitty parents and witless teachers. But I digress.