...he just says that this is deviant from the norm because we do not have any one point upon which everything is based.
Therefore, it is unique and will be harder to bring down than traditional systems. Does that help?
That could make sense if the question was about longevity (and if you can maintain that the likes of IBM, Exxon, Microsoft and the White House have faded into irrelevancy). But look at the original question:
Q: Which new products or services are likely to make the biggest splash?
New products. Which of those will become established? And by whom?
A: Peer-to-peer is key. I mean that in every form conceivable: cell phones without towers, sharing leftover food, bartering, etc
Is it just me or is his answer devoid of reasons why "peer-to-peer is key"?
Nature is pretty good at networks, self-organizing systems. By contrast, social systems are top-down and hierarchical, from which we draw the basic assumption that organization and order can only come from centralism.
I think the value of the tale goes significantly beyond Linux. It's a business story with some template lessons for how to manage venture funding (and how not to).
GD: Besides not having cut costs enough and early enough, I think that the core of the problem was certainly to consider venture cash as revenues, and thus growing the MandrakeSoft structure artificially.
Let us not forget that IBM published the assembly language source code listing for the original PC BIOS in full beginning in 1980.
This "openness" allowed and enabled the first generation of PC developers to see and understand what was going on at the firmware level - literally an open book and manna from heaven for the times.
This was not quite the precursor of today's open source movement though since IBM never granted permission to copy or use the code, but 1 billion PC compatibles later it is easy to see that IBM's approach unlocked at least one aspect of the value of openness.
Dan Bricklin comments thoughtfully about the PC BIOS in his blog. Search for "purple".
Well i think we're getting a shitty deal in the UK when 0.99 euro converts to 65p and UK users have to pay 79p a track!
The pricing strategy is doubtless based on price point psychology rather than exchange rate parity.
Capitalism is like that. The product manager seeks to optimize revenue but his/her choices are constrained by a granularity imposed by price point psychology.
Of course, this phenomenon leads to an obvious argument in favor of common currency in geographically and commercially related regions. That is probably a whole other topic, but one which becomes increasingly relevant when considering sub 100 priced commodities.
Though he acknowledged that a FreeBSD license can be simple to deal with, he thinks the GPL (define) license, under which the Linux kernel is licensed, fosters a better sense of community.
Small enough? No, I meant that I think of PDAs as being too big to fit in shirt pockets.
Sounds like we are talking about different animals with the one term, PDA. Really I was only thinking about iPAQ as PDA. iPAQ are too big for shirt pockets, which is why no phone manufacturers make a phone as big as iPAQ, at least not for volume markets.
Don't get me wrong - I can see that PDAs exist that aren't iPAQ (and that fit in shirt pockets, if that's what you are telling me).
What is interesting about iPAQ is that Hewlett Packard owns the product. What will Hewlett Packard do with iPAQ in years to come?
Who will buy iPAQ in years to come? Not the same people as buy Sony Ericsson since they won't need an iPAQ and won't want to carry around two devices.
Yes, it would be nice if the PDA fit in a shirt pocket too.
If we define a PDA as a handheld mobile device that has a screen too big for a conventional (2004) shirt pocket, that overcomes the semantic issue of having to define the dividing line between PDA and phone. We are left with opportunities for the garment and fashion industries to innovate.
Meanwhile, in geekland in a couple of years we'll just be talking about handheld mobile devices, a Billion of which will have 2 inch screens, and 100 Million or so of which will have 3.5 inch screens.
Oh, and three quarters of a Billion will have big desktop/laptop screens. A relatively small fraction of those will be used as mobile devices.
mobile phone manufactures kept upping the resolution on cell phones screens while increasing their size centimeter by centimeter.
The major limitation of cell phones in that regard is that people want them to be truly portable, so they have to fit in shirt pockets. This constraint means we aren't likely to see phones with a screen size larger than 5 centimeters (2 inches) deployed on any sort of mass scale.
Despite the name, PocketPC is too big to fit in a shirt pocket. But its 9cm (3.5 inch) screen makes the device suitable for applications that mass market phones just can't cut, no matter how many pixels can be squeezed into a 5cm display.
What are those applications? Some mapping applications, some Location Based Solutions applications, some kinds of documents viewing to name some.
I don't have any experience with pornography, but there may be some kinds of pornographic content that work better on a 3.5 inch screen than a 2 inch screen.
I think the major reason "PDAs" are dying is because virtually every cellphone on sale these days has most of the functionality PDAs are generally used for, with the exception of...
Because of Moore's law, the gap between PDA and phone has narrowed to the extent that there really isn't one in terms of computing power.
What then, is the difference between a phone and a PDA? Apart from the telephony aspect, the only significant difference is one that will endure - the screen size. When is that significant?
Phones have a maximum screen size of 2 inches. This isn't likely to expand because that's the limit of most peoples pockets, and phones will always have to fit in pockets. PDA's like iPAQ have a screen size of 3.5 inches. When it comes to document and map viewing, that's a lot more than a phone.
PDAs will continue to exist to the extent that map and document viewing proliferates - at least, to the extent that mobile mapping and document viewing applications proliferate that require 3.5 inch displays.
Informative?
Jesus fucking christ. It's supposed to be funny. PLEASE read the post before modding it up.
Whilst I can understand your interpretation of "funny", I'm not entirely sure what your objection is to the mod for "informative".
Recall the original poster's comments:
I'd love to see a picture of this as I don't know much about antennae.
To a genuine request like that, expressed with such enthusiasm, what could be more informative than a picture of the most beautiful antenna in the world, from one of the most romantic cities in the world, no less?
"The technology is completely scalable: Take the component values and divide them by two, and you get twice the frequency; take all the component values and multiply them by two, and you are at half the frequency," said Vincent.
Slashdot Mirror
Therefore, it is unique and will be harder to bring down than traditional systems. Does that help?
That could make sense if the question was about longevity (and if you can maintain that the likes of IBM, Exxon, Microsoft and the White House have faded into irrelevancy). But look at the original question:
Q: Which new products or services are likely to make the biggest splash?
New products. Which of those will become established? And by whom?
A: Peer-to-peer is key. I mean that in every form conceivable: cell phones without towers, sharing leftover food, bartering, etc
Is it just me or is his answer devoid of reasons why "peer-to-peer is key"?Nature is pretty good at networks, self-organizing systems. By contrast, social systems are top-down and hierarchical, from which we draw the basic assumption that organization and order can only come from centralism.
Ok... so, why is "peer-to-peer key"?
Key to what?
I think the value of the tale goes significantly beyond Linux. It's a business story with some template lessons for how to manage venture funding (and how not to).
Easy lessons. Hard to learn.
GD: Besides not having cut costs enough and early enough, I think that the core of the problem was certainly to consider venture cash as revenues, and thus growing the MandrakeSoft structure artificially.
Yes. Worth remembering, that one.
Éric Lévénez did this already.
We have had his poster on our wall since last year.
Let us not forget that IBM published the assembly language source code listing for the original PC BIOS in full beginning in 1980.
This "openness" allowed and enabled the first generation of PC developers to see and understand what was going on at the firmware level - literally an open book and manna from heaven for the times.
This was not quite the precursor of today's open source movement though since IBM never granted permission to copy or use the code, but 1 billion PC compatibles later it is easy to see that IBM's approach unlocked at least one aspect of the value of openness.
Dan Bricklin comments thoughtfully about the PC BIOS in his blog. Search for "purple".
Well i think we're getting a shitty deal in the UK when 0.99 euro converts to 65p and UK users have to pay 79p a track!
The pricing strategy is doubtless based on price point psychology rather than exchange rate parity.
Capitalism is like that. The product manager seeks to optimize revenue but his/her choices are constrained by a granularity imposed by price point psychology.
Of course, this phenomenon leads to an obvious argument in favor of common currency in geographically and commercially related regions. That is probably a whole other topic, but one which becomes increasingly relevant when considering sub 100 priced commodities.
Because Sony wants to sell some.
These things will remain rich men's toys for the forseeable future.
Will rich women be allowed to buy them too? After all, they are a growing demographic.
they are looking for a summer intern in Boston.
I did not nominate that woman.Though he acknowledged that a FreeBSD license can be simple to deal with, he thinks the GPL (define) license, under which the Linux kernel is licensed, fosters a better sense of community.
Right.
Small enough? No, I meant that I think of PDAs as being too big to fit in shirt pockets.
Sounds like we are talking about different animals with the one term, PDA. Really I was only thinking about iPAQ as PDA. iPAQ are too big for shirt pockets, which is why no phone manufacturers make a phone as big as iPAQ, at least not for volume markets.
Don't get me wrong - I can see that PDAs exist that aren't iPAQ (and that fit in shirt pockets, if that's what you are telling me).
What is interesting about iPAQ is that Hewlett Packard owns the product. What will Hewlett Packard do with iPAQ in years to come?
Who will buy iPAQ in years to come? Not the same people as buy Sony Ericsson since they won't need an iPAQ and won't want to carry around two devices.
Yes, it would be nice if the PDA fit in a shirt pocket too.
If we define a PDA as a handheld mobile device that has a screen too big for a conventional (2004) shirt pocket, that overcomes the semantic issue of having to define the dividing line between PDA and phone. We are left with opportunities for the garment and fashion industries to innovate.
Meanwhile, in geekland in a couple of years we'll just be talking about handheld mobile devices, a Billion of which will have 2 inch screens, and 100 Million or so of which will have 3.5 inch screens.
Oh, and three quarters of a Billion will have big desktop/laptop screens. A relatively small fraction of those will be used as mobile devices.
mobile phone manufactures kept upping the resolution on cell phones screens while increasing their size centimeter by centimeter.
The major limitation of cell phones in that regard is that people want them to be truly portable, so they have to fit in shirt pockets. This constraint means we aren't likely to see phones with a screen size larger than 5 centimeters (2 inches) deployed on any sort of mass scale.
Despite the name, PocketPC is too big to fit in a shirt pocket. But its 9cm (3.5 inch) screen makes the device suitable for applications that mass market phones just can't cut, no matter how many pixels can be squeezed into a 5cm display.
What are those applications? Some mapping applications, some Location Based Solutions applications, some kinds of documents viewing to name some.
I don't have any experience with pornography, but there may be some kinds of pornographic content that work better on a 3.5 inch screen than a 2 inch screen.
I think the major reason "PDAs" are dying is because virtually every cellphone on sale these days has most of the functionality PDAs are generally used for, with the exception of...
Maps! These work better with a larger screen.
Because of Moore's law, the gap between PDA and phone has narrowed to the extent that there really isn't one in terms of computing power.
What then, is the difference between a phone and a PDA? Apart from the telephony aspect, the only significant difference is one that will endure - the screen size. When is that significant?
Phones have a maximum screen size of 2 inches. This isn't likely to expand because that's the limit of most peoples pockets, and phones will always have to fit in pockets. PDA's like iPAQ have a screen size of 3.5 inches. When it comes to document and map viewing, that's a lot more than a phone.
PDAs will continue to exist to the extent that map and document viewing proliferates - at least, to the extent that mobile mapping and document viewing applications proliferate that require 3.5 inch displays.
goto BUSH hehe - Jeb
No, what the poster said was,
I'd love to see a picture of this as I don't know much about antennae.
OK, I follow you.
Thanks for that.
Informative? Jesus fucking christ. It's supposed to be funny. PLEASE read the post before modding it up.
Whilst I can understand your interpretation of "funny", I'm not entirely sure what your objection is to the mod for "informative".
Recall the original poster's comments:
I'd love to see a picture of this as I don't know much about antennae.
To a genuine request like that, expressed with such enthusiasm, what could be more informative than a picture of the most beautiful antenna in the world, from one of the most romantic cities in the world, no less?
I'd love to see a picture of this as I don't know much about antennae.
Here."The technology is completely scalable: Take the component values and divide them by two, and you get twice the frequency; take all the component values and multiply them by two, and you are at half the frequency," said Vincent.
That's been known for quite some time.Creepy.
Sorry, my dog ate it.
That is virtuoso documentation of the methods used to analyse the documentation of the code credits.
Someone that talented should be writing code.