Most manufacturers are pretty screwd since less and less people must replace their machines.
Interesting point. But they're stuck in a quandry of their own creation- the makers of computer systems have for years pushed the concept of "faster==better" down consumers' throats, and now have no choice but to continue pushing the next generation of systems. Their whole business model depends on it.
By the way, I do believe you- the fastest machine I have is a PIII 550 running XP, and I don't really run many games that need more than that. I have a room full of systems in the 300-400 MHz range that do just dandy- I even run FreeBSD on a 486:).
In fact, I was astonished the other day at how cheap a new 2.X GHz machine was... I don't need one, but damn, they're cheap now.
You could be right- I've been wrong a lot. But I keep coming back to the "cool" factor, and I think that the manufacturers (or some of them) will be shilling these things because of the shiny, candy-like cool factor- "It's cool! It's a Quantum Q2005! And you need it! NOW!"
I don't think that the PC as we know it is in any immediate danger or anything, but when this kind of thing becomes feasible and affordable, you can bet we'll be flooded with them.
Well, you may be waiting for a while on that one... the theory holds that you could pretty much easily defeat what we consider to be "computationally infeasible" now, but that's only theory so far.
As far as I know (and that's not too far) the best proof-of-concept quantum computer was able to factor the number 15.
regular joe bloes will, IMHO, be very comfortable with quad 2GHz HT Pentium 4s... for a decade at least
The entire history of consumer electronics belies this statement. People demonstrably don't by a system because it's sufficient for their needs, they buy it because it's the most powerful one available.
If they make it, they'll buy it. Whether or not there's a good reason for them to need that kind of power. All that will be required is for the manufacturers be able to make it affordable enough or sell it well enough to make people see it as affordable enough.
After all, my cell phone (and maybe my calculator) has more raw memory and computing power than the computer used by the men who flew to the Moon.
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." --Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943
There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." --Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977
Just because you don't see the possibilities inherent in something does not mean that the thing has no value or is not relevant.
Besides, with the way things are moving, I can imagine the possibility of a computer that needs no clumsy interface cables, no removable media, and such... We're moving closer to being able to make systems that truly have no moving parts.
After all, there was a time when computers were built around the size and heat of vacuum tubes. Someday, probably not all that long, the interface mechanisms, storage devices and display systems we use today will be as quaint as a vacuum-tube driven computer programmed by hard-wiring it seems to us now.
We're past due for the major revolution in computing that happens about every 20 years... a lot of the stuff recently seems to be leaning toward quantum computing, not (room-temperature) superconductors, which is what I thought it would be.
I'm trying to imagine what kind of systems we'll be using in 15 or 20 years when this kind of technology matures... it'll be a lot further ahead of what we have now than what we have now is ahead of the ENIAC.
Re:This is about par for the reviews I've seen of
on
Review: Solaris
·
· Score: 1
Another reason for me to go see it myself. The price of a movie ticket isn't so much, after all. Usually if I want anything back after seeing a movie, it's my time, but you can't get that back.
From everything I've seen, it isn't *that* bad.
This is about par for the reviews I've seen of it.
on
Review: Solaris
·
· Score: 1
But I'm still going to see it.
Why, you ask? Because I'm a SF fan, in the worst sense of the word- I go to SF conventions, although I haven't stooped to a Star Trek con.
I had an opportunity to see the teaser trailers for Solaris a few months ago, and pretty much decided I'd see it then. I was afraid that it would be the way the reviewers have painted it, but I had hopes otherwise.
Also, Azathoth help me, I'm a George Clooney fan- since I haven't seen The Perfect Storm, I still am.
Good lord. "Urban Archery"? That's insane. I'm picturing some guy who spends his week behind a desk as a CPA or something and wants to be a stud for the weekend so he gets himself a bow and one of these permits, then puts an arrow into the side of someone's house.
Any information on whether these bow hunters ever nail a person by accident? In an urban area, it'd probably be just about as easy as with a rifle.
Since a lot of them probably reuse their code, that's not going to work well. Also they license stuff from other companies all the time, making it even more difficult.
Besides, most of those games bit the big hard drive platter back in the late 90's, so the code would be pretty out of date now.
Manufacturers of any consumer electronics aren't going to add security features without a quantum shift in the way consumers evaluate technology, for the following reasons:
People are stupid. Consumers don't want security, they want "cool". A cool product that is insecure will always beat a less cool product that is secure. And security isn't cool. The average consumer evaluating a product for purchase will simply get the glazed-eye drools when reading something about security, put down the box and pick up the shiny, candy-like box next to it containing a similar but insecure product.
People are miserly. They won't pay more for security until they've been burned. Since a company that makes secure products would have to charge more for them, they'd basically be putting the barrel of the shotgun in their own mouth and inviting the consumer to pull the trigger by buying the other guy's cheaper, but insecure, product.
Consumers are stupid- I know I said this once, but it bears repeating. Companies that make consumer electronics will continue to make shoddy, insecure products as long as the first-stringers for the dung-flinging Olympics keep buying them. And there's no reason to suspect they won't keep doing so.
Slashdot Mirror
Most manufacturers are pretty screwd since less and less people must replace their machines.
Interesting point. But they're stuck in a quandry of their own creation- the makers of computer systems have for years pushed the concept of "faster==better" down consumers' throats, and now have no choice but to continue pushing the next generation of systems. Their whole business model depends on it.
By the way, I do believe you- the fastest machine I have is a PIII 550 running XP, and I don't really run many games that need more than that. I have a room full of systems in the 300-400 MHz range that do just dandy- I even run FreeBSD on a 486 :).
In fact, I was astonished the other day at how cheap a new 2.X GHz machine was... I don't need one, but damn, they're cheap now.
You could be right- I've been wrong a lot. But I keep coming back to the "cool" factor, and I think that the manufacturers (or some of them) will be shilling these things because of the shiny, candy-like cool factor- "It's cool! It's a Quantum Q2005! And you need it! NOW!"
I don't think that the PC as we know it is in any immediate danger or anything, but when this kind of thing becomes feasible and affordable, you can bet we'll be flooded with them.
Should be interesting to watch, actually...
Well, you may be waiting for a while on that one... the theory holds that you could pretty much easily defeat what we consider to be "computationally infeasible" now, but that's only theory so far.
As far as I know (and that's not too far) the best proof-of-concept quantum computer was able to factor the number 15.
But the possibilities are pretty cool.
regular joe bloes will, IMHO, be very comfortable with quad 2GHz HT Pentium 4s... for a decade at least
The entire history of consumer electronics belies this statement. People demonstrably don't by a system because it's sufficient for their needs, they buy it because it's the most powerful one available.
If they make it, they'll buy it. Whether or not there's a good reason for them to need that kind of power. All that will be required is for the manufacturers be able to make it affordable enough or sell it well enough to make people see it as affordable enough.
After all, my cell phone (and maybe my calculator) has more raw memory and computing power than the computer used by the men who flew to the Moon.
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." --Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943
There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." --Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977
Just because you don't see the possibilities inherent in something does not mean that the thing has no value or is not relevant.
Besides, with the way things are moving, I can imagine the possibility of a computer that needs no clumsy interface cables, no removable media, and such... We're moving closer to being able to make systems that truly have no moving parts.
After all, there was a time when computers were built around the size and heat of vacuum tubes. Someday, probably not all that long, the interface mechanisms, storage devices and display systems we use today will be as quaint as a vacuum-tube driven computer programmed by hard-wiring it seems to us now.
We're past due for the major revolution in computing that happens about every 20 years... a lot of the stuff recently seems to be leaning toward quantum computing, not (room-temperature) superconductors, which is what I thought it would be.
I'm trying to imagine what kind of systems we'll be using in 15 or 20 years when this kind of technology matures... it'll be a lot further ahead of what we have now than what we have now is ahead of the ENIAC.
Another reason for me to go see it myself. The price of a movie ticket isn't so much, after all. Usually if I want anything back after seeing a movie, it's my time, but you can't get that back.
From everything I've seen, it isn't *that* bad.
But I'm still going to see it.
Why, you ask? Because I'm a SF fan, in the worst sense of the word- I go to SF conventions, although I haven't stooped to a Star Trek con.
I had an opportunity to see the teaser trailers for Solaris a few months ago, and pretty much decided I'd see it then. I was afraid that it would be the way the reviewers have painted it, but I had hopes otherwise.
Also, Azathoth help me, I'm a George Clooney fan- since I haven't seen The Perfect Storm, I still am.
Good lord. "Urban Archery"? That's insane. I'm picturing some guy who spends his week behind a desk as a CPA or something and wants to be a stud for the weekend so he gets himself a bow and one of these permits, then puts an arrow into the side of someone's house.
Any information on whether these bow hunters ever nail a person by accident? In an urban area, it'd probably be just about as easy as with a rifle.
What's Activision?
For that matter, what's Infocom?
Did they make games once or something?
Since a lot of them probably reuse their code, that's not going to work well. Also they license stuff from other companies all the time, making it even more difficult.
Besides, most of those games bit the big hard drive platter back in the late 90's, so the code would be pretty out of date now.
On slashdot?
really?
Nah.... never happen.
Manufacturers of any consumer electronics aren't going to add security features without a quantum shift in the way consumers evaluate technology, for the following reasons: