This is terrifying. It's an obvious attempt at a communications monopoly- they already have all the suppliers planned out.
The problems with such are obvious. If this is allowed to occur, it would be one company controlling it all as it is what is most availible. Start with low rates to kill the competition, then use the almost-monopoly position to kick the price tag way up.
Only if a design mistake places the vents too low or not aiming upwards. Wait, that would roast a typist's hands. Out the back- no, that would fry whoever's in front of you in close quarters. The front is out for obvious reasons-
This isn't a new idea. Technology has come full circle- the first computers were cooled with fluid pumps, and guess what? We were right the first time.
And the old problems with heat pumps will return- leaks that short out the machine, the added complexity of the design, yet another part to get disconnected, and idiots buring themselves by opening the box and touching the thing after it's been running for days.
Heat sinks are just that- sinks. They hold the heat, they don't disperse it. Almost any heat dispersal method is preferable to heat sinks, which is preferable to no thermal control whatsoever.
But they better make those tubes industrial-strength, especially on laptops. Computers are put through a lot rougher treatment than they're ever specced for; the hoses used for this had better be up to the task.
I can see a very real possibility of a computer springing a leak and shorting itself out, and/or dripping on the user and scalding him/her- and that user very well might have reason to sue.
It's a good idea. Just as it was the first time. But engineers need to take this type of thing into account in the original spec; it can't be slapped on at the end like just another Microsoft UI.
I'll defer to you. I find it more likely for you to be right. This is why I should not post to/. before I've had my morning caffiene.
However, I still can't see as many objects as They seem to imply impacting with Mars. Space is not dense with objects, no matter what sci-fi movies may tell you.
I think we're confusing ourselves here. Carbon dioxide is heavier than our atmospheric gasses; however, Mars does have less of it. I think I'm wrong in my initial post, actually.
My point still stands, however. While it would explain Mars having more impacts than Earth, it wouldn't explain that many.
Mars has a denser atmosphere than Earth. While spaceborne objects would be a nice explanation for these formations- if a bit uncreative- it forgets the element of the atmosphere, which is the only reason Earth doesn't get pounded into rubble every meteor shower.
Such objects tend to burn up in the atmosphere- and those which don't are rather uncommon, even geologically. What would be likely to make it through a thicker atmosphere?
I think this is a long shot, personally. It's a possibility- but for it to be a real possibility, this would have had to somehow occur before Mars had its atmosphere. Which is not impossible- far from it- but not particularly consistent with the data.
Admittedly, it's possible that the atmosphere was carried in a solid-frozen format on said bombardial objects, but that's even more of a stretch.
I agree that you most certainly have a point. If I just want to try a game- or if it's a game that sure, I like, but I don't want to mess with upgrading my system for it- I would pay the $10.00 instead of a Whole Bunch to upgrade my system.
Actually, I already do it. My system is off the charts of lame, now. No 3D card, PII, "only" 40GB HD space, etc. I make no efforts to remain top of the line.
Perhaps the best strategy would be middle-of-the-road. Such a "gamedome" (I would not be surprised if that's what the real name or term becomes) could have both exclusive games and old favorites- play what you can't get, play what you don't get, play what you know and kick the butt of people you don't.
Doing either alone would probably be a mistake, actually. Do both- while the costs would be higher, I'd expect the profit increase to be much, much greater than the cost increase.
I can't see that this would be all that useful. While a very cool upgrade for the sake of very cool upgrades, how is it all that great?
My DSL connection is very high speed. I feel no net slowdown when listening to Shoutcast Radio on a 128Kbps station; even though I'm eating up 1/4 of my downlink, only rarely does it actually have an effect.
The slowdowns are at the other end. The servers are overloaded; its their T3s that need to be upgraded. Although 500,000 hits in the period of an hour would swamp anything, I suppose.
So while this idea has merit, a whole bunch of other stuff would have to improve too if this is to be particularly useful.
This is actually very telling, and I appreciate the example.
Your post just (accidentally?) rubbed it in one simple, undeniable, glaringly obvious fact:
Users don't care what OS they're using as long as it does what they want.
Which would be against the so-called "brand loyalty" that Microsoft has claimed to have built. "Brand hatred" is a lot easier to create, and I think they've made more of that.
I'd observe that this is a nice big hole that will, hopefully, be exploited. Soon, if possible. All that has to be done to beat M$ is to create an OS with more functionality than Windows and at least as gooey of a GUI.
The functionality part is the challenge, as such functionality also includes every single pieces of software ever made for Windows. That's a lot to top.
On the flip side, most of it's pretty inane, and most end-users don't care that much about old software. (I'm a hardcore NetHack player myself, and I prefer EMACS for my editing needs.) So "all" that has to be beaten out or copied is all the new stuff.
Lindows has real potential, especially as a Budget Alternative. But the real trial is if the company has the resources not only to survive until it gets some real market share, but also to survive Microsoft's inevitable FUD attacks (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) and equally inevitable legal attacks.
In conclusion? If you could create and advertise a breed of octopus that actually did do everything that Windows did, and costs less, it would sell.
I think you- and a LOT of people on/. - are misinterpreting what was said. This painfully limited restriction is for the websites, not the readers.
While somebody who doesn't use the Address Bar could hypothetically get stuck when wandering in to a.kids.us domain, I didn't read this as stating that until you're age X, you may not browse out of kids.us. I read it as "kids.us is a safe playground for children," not as "kids.us is a safe prison for children."
On that note, I think it's an interesting idea with some merit, but it will flop totally when people discover how very restrictive it's likely to be. A danger mentioned earlier would also be present- that schools would lock everything not in.kids.us, leaving the Internet almost unusable, as I sincerely doubt that comprehensive reference sites would make the cut. They have to show their references, and other content may be "unsuitable for children."
You have a point, but ask it to yourself. Would You Rather:
1. Spend $10.00 (plus tax) to go to a rennovated theatre and play a game that you already own at home for a limited time, but you're good at it and know you'll do great
2. Spend $10.00 (plus tax) to go to a rennovated theatre and play a game that is not availible through any other legal channel, knowing you've never played it before (unless you've gone before) and aren't sure what you're in for, so you might stink in public at something new
Both sides have pros and cons. I'd expect #2 to be the more popular mentality, which therefore is the more profitible path; however, I also see the "I don't want to stink in public" mentality you pointed out.
Which would do better? I honestly don't know. It's an experiment that should be tried someday by a large company; while I would not pay $10.00 to play a game I already own, I do not know if I am in the majority.
I'd observe that there's a little problem with this theory: a lot of people won't pay 1/5 the cost of a game just to play it for two hours with people they know. Perhaps for 2h. with people they don't- but then, that's what netplay is for.
A version which would be far more likely to be succesful would be where the games are exclusive to the "gamevie halls-" not released to the public yet, and it won't be until it goes out of the game theatres. (Sort of like movies that go to home video, as opposed to those released to video the day they go to the movie theatre. Which gets a better turnout?)
I'd wonder what percentage of (l)users buy one of these, boot them up, and then say...
"Hey, what's wrong with this thing?"
when it doesn't greet them with any variant of "Windows is now booting."
Re:This man didn't invent Bigfoot!
on
Bigfoot A Hoax?
·
· Score: 1
Slashdot Mirror
This is terrifying. It's an obvious attempt at a communications monopoly- they already have all the suppliers planned out.
The problems with such are obvious. If this is allowed to occur, it would be one company controlling it all as it is what is most availible. Start with low rates to kill the competition, then use the almost-monopoly position to kick the price tag way up.
Wait, that sounds like M$.
Only if a design mistake places the vents too low or not aiming upwards. Wait, that would roast a typist's hands. Out the back- no, that would fry whoever's in front of you in close quarters. The front is out for obvious reasons-
I think the engineers missed something here.
This isn't a new idea. Technology has come full circle- the first computers were cooled with fluid pumps, and guess what? We were right the first time.
And the old problems with heat pumps will return- leaks that short out the machine, the added complexity of the design, yet another part to get disconnected, and idiots buring themselves by opening the box and touching the thing after it's been running for days.
Heat sinks are just that- sinks. They hold the heat, they don't disperse it. Almost any heat dispersal method is preferable to heat sinks, which is preferable to no thermal control whatsoever.
But they better make those tubes industrial-strength, especially on laptops. Computers are put through a lot rougher treatment than they're ever specced for; the hoses used for this had better be up to the task.
I can see a very real possibility of a computer springing a leak and shorting itself out, and/or dripping on the user and scalding him/her- and that user very well might have reason to sue.
It's a good idea. Just as it was the first time. But engineers need to take this type of thing into account in the original spec; it can't be slapped on at the end like just another Microsoft UI.
I'll defer to you. I find it more likely for you to be right. This is why I should not post to /. before I've had my morning caffiene.
However, I still can't see as many objects as They seem to imply impacting with Mars. Space is not dense with objects, no matter what sci-fi movies may tell you.
I think we're confusing ourselves here. Carbon dioxide is heavier than our atmospheric gasses; however, Mars does have less of it. I think I'm wrong in my initial post, actually.
My point still stands, however. While it would explain Mars having more impacts than Earth, it wouldn't explain that many.
Sadly, that's one of the smarter things that Quayle said.
Mars has a denser atmosphere than Earth. While spaceborne objects would be a nice explanation for these formations- if a bit uncreative- it forgets the element of the atmosphere, which is the only reason Earth doesn't get pounded into rubble every meteor shower.
Such objects tend to burn up in the atmosphere- and those which don't are rather uncommon, even geologically. What would be likely to make it through a thicker atmosphere?
I think this is a long shot, personally. It's a possibility- but for it to be a real possibility, this would have had to somehow occur before Mars had its atmosphere. Which is not impossible- far from it- but not particularly consistent with the data.
Admittedly, it's possible that the atmosphere was carried in a solid-frozen format on said bombardial objects, but that's even more of a stretch.
You're right.
I agree that you most certainly have a point. If I just want to try a game- or if it's a game that sure, I like, but I don't want to mess with upgrading my system for it- I would pay the $10.00 instead of a Whole Bunch to upgrade my system.
Actually, I already do it. My system is off the charts of lame, now. No 3D card, PII, "only" 40GB HD space, etc. I make no efforts to remain top of the line.
Perhaps the best strategy would be middle-of-the-road. Such a "gamedome" (I would not be surprised if that's what the real name or term becomes) could have both exclusive games and old favorites- play what you can't get, play what you don't get, play what you know and kick the butt of people you don't.
Doing either alone would probably be a mistake, actually. Do both- while the costs would be higher, I'd expect the profit increase to be much, much greater than the cost increase.
Not that we have anything to compare it to.
I can't see that this would be all that useful. While a very cool upgrade for the sake of very cool upgrades, how is it all that great?
My DSL connection is very high speed. I feel no net slowdown when listening to Shoutcast Radio on a 128Kbps station; even though I'm eating up 1/4 of my downlink, only rarely does it actually have an effect.
The slowdowns are at the other end. The servers are overloaded; its their T3s that need to be upgraded. Although 500,000 hits in the period of an hour would swamp anything, I suppose.
So while this idea has merit, a whole bunch of other stuff would have to improve too if this is to be particularly useful.
This is actually very telling, and I appreciate the example.
Your post just (accidentally?) rubbed it in one simple, undeniable, glaringly obvious fact:
Users don't care what OS they're using as long as it does what they want.
Which would be against the so-called "brand loyalty" that Microsoft has claimed to have built. "Brand hatred" is a lot easier to create, and I think they've made more of that.
I'd observe that this is a nice big hole that will, hopefully, be exploited. Soon, if possible. All that has to be done to beat M$ is to create an OS with more functionality than Windows and at least as gooey of a GUI.
The functionality part is the challenge, as such functionality also includes every single pieces of software ever made for Windows. That's a lot to top.
On the flip side, most of it's pretty inane, and most end-users don't care that much about old software. (I'm a hardcore NetHack player myself, and I prefer EMACS for my editing needs.) So "all" that has to be beaten out or copied is all the new stuff.
Lindows has real potential, especially as a Budget Alternative. But the real trial is if the company has the resources not only to survive until it gets some real market share, but also to survive Microsoft's inevitable FUD attacks (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) and equally inevitable legal attacks.
In conclusion? If you could create and advertise a breed of octopus that actually did do everything that Windows did, and costs less, it would sell.
I think you- and a LOT of people on /. - are misinterpreting what was said. This painfully limited restriction is for the websites, not the readers.
.kids.us domain, I didn't read this as stating that until you're age X, you may not browse out of kids.us. I read it as "kids.us is a safe playground for children," not as "kids.us is a safe prison for children."
.kids.us, leaving the Internet almost unusable, as I sincerely doubt that comprehensive reference sites would make the cut. They have to show their references, and other content may be "unsuitable for children."
While somebody who doesn't use the Address Bar could hypothetically get stuck when wandering in to a
On that note, I think it's an interesting idea with some merit, but it will flop totally when people discover how very restrictive it's likely to be. A danger mentioned earlier would also be present- that schools would lock everything not in
You have a point, but ask it to yourself. Would You Rather:
1. Spend $10.00 (plus tax) to go to a rennovated theatre and play a game that you already own at home for a limited time, but you're good at it and know you'll do great
2. Spend $10.00 (plus tax) to go to a rennovated theatre and play a game that is not availible through any other legal channel, knowing you've never played it before (unless you've gone before) and aren't sure what you're in for, so you might stink in public at something new
Both sides have pros and cons. I'd expect #2 to be the more popular mentality, which therefore is the more profitible path; however, I also see the "I don't want to stink in public" mentality you pointed out.
Which would do better? I honestly don't know. It's an experiment that should be tried someday by a large company; while I would not pay $10.00 to play a game I already own, I do not know if I am in the majority.
Calm down. I should have left the (l) completely off; I'd probably have been fine then.
That "Where's Windows?" comment was heard from one of my less technologically-inclined friends when I booted my Red Hat partition.
I'm thinking that M$ may have had a point when they tried to kill Lindows by saying it's designed to confuse people.
Stupid as it seemed at the time, it just might have been right.
I'd observe that there's a little problem with this theory: a lot of people won't pay 1/5 the cost of a game just to play it for two hours with people they know. Perhaps for 2h. with people they don't- but then, that's what netplay is for.
A version which would be far more likely to be succesful would be where the games are exclusive to the "gamevie halls-" not released to the public yet, and it won't be until it goes out of the game theatres. (Sort of like movies that go to home video, as opposed to those released to video the day they go to the movie theatre. Which gets a better turnout?)
I'd wonder what percentage of (l)users buy one of these, boot them up, and then say... "Hey, what's wrong with this thing?" when it doesn't greet them with any variant of "Windows is now booting."
Pranksters are global, and memes spread.