According to Apple's web site, they tested their machine against two Dell Intel boxes (Dell Dimension 8300 (P4) and Dell Precision 650 (Dual Xeon)) running Red Hat Linux 9.0 Professional (at Apple's request).
Intel states that Red Hat Linux 9.0 Professional is one of the Linux OS's currently available that "include optimizations for HT Technology and are currently eligible to carry the Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor with HT Technology logo".
Apple commissioned the benchmark from a company called Veritest. The full report (in.PDF format) including all hardware and software used is available from Veritest's web site.
This could make Intel take notice! Of course, this benchmark comes on the same day that Intel announces the 3.2GHz Pentium IV (and Xeon) processors. Go figure!
Of the published data on both (in SPEC processor benchmarks), Apple's Power Mac G5 generated a SPECfp_base2000 score of 840 and SPECint_base2000 score of 800, while Intel claims that their new 3.2 GHz processors get a SPECfp_base2000 score of 1252 and a SPECint_base2000 score of 1221.
I suppose I'd never heard of the problems he had encountered.
Was he using PowerDVD from the 3.x series? I own software from the 2.x series that works as advertised and functions fine in Win98 and 2000 (haven't tried it in XP).
Agreed, the poor quality of this product doesn't justify that closed sourced software is garbage. Open source produces just as much garbage as closed source. There are examples of great pieces of software for both worlds and probably a disproportionate quantity of poorly written and/or designed examples for both worlds as well.
I'm not trying to "FUD" you around with region codes. It was extremely UNCLEAR as to what didn't work for you (in your statement from your post) and I thought you might be referring to the DRM in the program (PowerDVD) causing the problem.
I have never had any problems with PowerDVD playing store-bought DVD's (I've never had the chance to try any copied ones so I was curious if its DRM somehow detects them and crashes on purpose) on any systems I've used... personally, I've switched primarily to a hardware DVD decoder by Sigma Systems...
My computer is more than quick enough to do the software DVD decoding but I get almost no processor hit using the hardware DVD decoder (I've actually rendered 3D video at the same time as watching a DVD (or two) with no additional time taken in the rendering process... since my PC is my only DVD player, I prefer not to lose that functionality when rendering 3D video projects (that takes many hours)).
MS will probably buy some MIGs and go and bomb them.
And, since the MS is an American company they won't be violating American law (as long as we call that Aussie company a member of the Axis of Evil, it's completely kosher to go bomb them!).
I'm sure MS can pony up enough mulla to good 'ol uncle George to get that company on the Axis of Evil list.
You're absolutely right! And, by comparison in the Personal Computer world, how many copies of Windows does Microsoft sell now "off the shelf" vs. the amount they sell to PC Manufacturers who bundle it to their computers? A (relatively to the total amount) insignificant amount!
Apple is also in a very similar boat (more so to IBM or SUN) where most of their OS sales (though they probably sell more OSX "off the shelf" than Microsoft does) come bundled with their hardware.
I really don't think many, if any commercial OS's do the majority of their sales in retail. This brings up an interesting point. If Linux never really gains ground as something bundled (ala Windows or MacOS) on PC's from the manufacturer, they may be the one exception to this!
Linux can do this (and has been doing this (though in the overall figures of yearly PC OS sales, probably a negligibe proportion) for some time (those boxed up RedHat's, Mandrakes, etc.)).
Of course, back when it was mostly geeks using computers at home, software purchases for things like OS's were undoubtedly much higher than they are now. Now that the majority (numerically, not intellectually) of PC users are non-geeks (who generally can't grasp why you'd want to upgrade your OS!) most of the purchases are for games and other *ware.
It seems to me, expanding what you said, that no one makes money selling OS's **directly** to people anymore. Combined with the fact that no one's gonna bundle SCO Unix with computers anymore (yes, Linux probably drove them out of business, combined with the crappiness of their product), SCO (Captain Obvious speaking now:) is just trying to sue (part of) what drove them out of business! Their main intellectual problem is that they don't see their own crappy product as having anything to do with it!
Microsoft was not innovating here! Steve, you guys were just stealing from Apple again!
They've been using those types of phrases for years now!
turbocharged
full-throttle
scorchingly fast
phenomenal speeds
superior I/O performance
unbelievably affordable
tremendous value
rejoice in the fact that there are no controls to adjust
faster than ever
new technologies
massively enhanced
dramatically increases
way faster than USB 2.0
Off-the-charts
fearsomely fast
the ultra fast realm
lightning fast processor speeds
ultra fast
an even faster level
push the digital video envelope beyond its known limits
record time (and I thought it was only Quick time!)
convenient second optical bay at the front
Thrives in a Windows environment (makes you wonder why
you would buy one if it's gonna be all alone in a yucky, non-fearsomely
fast Windows environment?)
Apples legendary SuperDrive (and all this time
I thought it was manufactured elsewhere, I guess Apple must have invented
it after all... I mean, if it were invented by Philips, it'd be called 2x
or 4x DVD-RW... but since Apple invented it, it's a SuperDrive! Yeah
baaaa-by!!!),
also, MacOSX is, according to Apple, the most advanced operating
system on the planet (featuring: Mac OS X Jaguar gives
you advantages like preemptive multitasking, symmetric multiprocessing and
multithreading to take your productivity to new levels!!! Wow, I
sure wish there were other OS's out there like that!)
Heck, all those yummy marketing terms are on just one web page!!! Imagine what the rest of the site or an Apple Store has to offer. Of course, after your diligent work, Microsoft's site is also catching up, I think you'll be proud to know!
Interesting points. I think (and perhaps hope) that the scientists creating AI will be responsible for what they create. What I'm not so sure of is that the AI will be allowed to learn and make their own mistakes.
I think that people may simply pull the plug on AI entities at the first sign of a mistake. This makes me wonder about the contradiction of creating AI... if we create AI entities able to think for themselves (after our initial creation of them, of course) and that are self aware, if we don't take our hands off them at some point and let them lead their lives in whatever direction they see fit, we are denying them the freedoms of self-aware life forms that we enjoy.
Don't our human frailties also define us?
In essence, would we be creating AI for our amusement, to be our slaves, or to create peers that may (and yet, they may not) at some point surpass us in some capacities? I believe that most scientists would create AI for the third reason, but I don't think the rest of the world will (at least initially) see them that way.
We (the rest of the world) may play god and try to change them every time they decide on their own to do something that we do not agree with.
That is, of course, a worst case scenario, but I am afraid that creating AI only to deny it the freedoms of other sentient entities to make their own mistakes and learn from them defeats the point of creating AI.
One more question, you say that "His status of "open source rep" seems only to be of concern to Bruce who has many times asserted himself as a representative of open source."
Clearly, there is no such title (I never claimed there was), does it bother you that ffii.org claims there is? You stated that it is only of concern to Bruce because of his belief that his is one. Do you think it could potentially concern other people without Bruce's political agenda?
In Bruce's article (and the links from the articles) you can see that Bruce was almost directly quoting one of his sources used for his article regarding the OSR title (that of course doesn't exist, I understand this, I was never unclear on that).
In the following quote (a link from Bruce's article that he calls one of his sources): the people who publish the article (ffii.org) call Mr. Taylor, and I quote:
"In a "Joint Statement of the Industry", directed to the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), the presidents of various industry associations, including Graham Taylor from the "Open Forum Europe" as a representative of the Linux/Opensource world, asks the legislators to ensure..."Source
After reading Bruce's article and the material he used as his source, I can only conclude that Bruce was bringing to the attention of people who read his web site that someone is being represented as an OSR (the people representing Mr. Taylor as an OSR are ffii.org)!
Since there is no OSR, I think Bruce feels this is false (he is entitled to, after all, it is an article on HIS personal web site (where he represents his opinions, if you don't agree with them, no one is forcing you to read them, right?), not some sort of press release to the world. THAT was done on/. by the user who posted this story (/. user Onno and the Editor who posted the article, CmdrTaco)).
Regarding "He was quoting Bruce directly (hence the quotes). His opening sentence calls Mr Taylor either a misguided or "False" open source representative." he was not directly quoting Bruce. What I was referring to is that the title of the/. article places the word "False" in quotation marks while it is not that way on Bruce's web site (he (/. user Onno) altered the structure by adding quotation marks to embellish his point of the word "False".)
Hence, as I said:
"Incidentally, the article to/. was not posted by Bruce. The person who posted it chose to accentuate the "False" in quotation marks... Wouldn't that person be the one embellishing their point?"
Well, by your logic "There is no such title, Bruce should know better", there is no TRUE "Open Source Representative". Therefore, wouldn't Mr. Taylor be a "False Open Source Representative" (as Bruce titles his article on his web site)? Do you think it would be less imflammatory to you and many others if Bruce had named his article "Puported Open Source Representative..." or "Who is this supposed Open Source Representative..."
Incidentally, the article to/. was not posted by Bruce. The person who posted it chose to accentuate the "False" in quotation marks... Wouldn't that person be the one embellishing their point?
Well, fine, but you are killing the messenger in this case.
Mr. Taylor wasn't on the general ballot for "Representative of the entire O.S.S. Community"... perhaps he was and we just missed the election (he might have been the only person voting, in which case, I suppose he is the elected Representative)?
Because there is no REAL one (and likely never will be given the nature of such incredibly different people worldwide contributing to O.S.S. projects).
The European courts may believe that this guy is. If they are convinced otherwise (that this guy is not a representative), they will simply believe there is no organization at all and as such hose us all because there is no organization of people to present a united front of complaint (If there are 1 billion O.S.S. developers complaining, there are likely to be more than 1 billion unique and different arguments presented... legislators look for the large groups of uniform complaints to take seriously and the rest, they figure they can't please everyone no matter what they do).
Do you remember when every word in the English language was registered by people sitting with a dictionary in front of them with InterNIC on their web browser?
If people can patent concepts so abstract as the patent for frames (which as I read it, and IANAL, I can apply that to any user interface on a computer I've ever seen) what happens to innovation?
Will people be allowed to claim they've invented something (and make money off of their invention if they choose to) if a lawyer can prove in court that a corporation (or a corporation the corporation bought) patented an idea so abstract and all encompassing that they REALLY invented it and your are infringing on their copyright.
Congratulations, your hard work and investment (your time is an investment, even in a "labor of love") have just provided a new way for a corporation to make money that will never reimburse you for your investment.
I think patents are potentially a wonderful concept, unfortunately, when companies hold almost all the patents (or have bought the rights to the rest) will the only innovation allowed be from the corporate world?
I want to be able to innovate. If I choose to give away my innovation, I don't want to be sued into oblivion by a company that has bought the right to say that they own my inventions (via an abstact, all encompassing patent) without even giving me a reach around! Yikes!
Very true, it seems that companies (well, at least hiring managers) are seeking people that require minimal training to do their jobs.
They seek a jack of all trades and expect to pay them less than what used to get higher wages for far less responsibilities.
Companies are trying to reach an equilibrium... right now they are pushing as hard as they can on IT personnel to see how much they can accomplish with the fewest amount of people. Of course, the chances of effective organized labor to bring the balance back will likely never materialize when the company holds the threat of deportation over the heads of non-US citizen workers that are being sponsored by the company.
I think that economic slumps or dumps in a sector (or economy-wide) are the natural way to purge and expose businesses with poor leadership and inefficient ways.
The companies that survived the dot bomb are alive and running as efficiently as possible to cling to life. This is great news for them once the market recovers a bit! Look at how efficient Dell has become... because of their business deals and efficiency, they've been able to STILL be highly profitable despite the current economy.
Once their is increased consumer and business spending again the survivor companies will see record profits and may begin hiring people again (but truly, will they learn from their mistakes and hire again based on needs, not because of their success?) Only time will tell.
I will be impressed when computers start to refine their algorithms without any further human input. When they begin to create, define, and refine their own skills.
As long as humans are writing the programs that "think" for computers and create the pattern matching and are the ones that are refining the algorithms and programs WE are the intelligence and THEY are just the tools.
Of course, this is the question that echoes through almost every SCI-FI movie involving "AI". When does a machine or bit of code become sentient, curious, ambitious, self-aware, etc. The corresponding problem is that if / when computers ever achieve true "AI", it will be thanks to the work of humans, who will then fall into the role of being deities to the "AI" (rather than peers because our egos won't permit our creations to become our peers, even if they are ever qualified to be our peers).
Shall the "AI" revolt against the deities or will the humans, in their newfound sense of power, create and destroy at will (as human history is replete with examples of that behavior)?
It is purely an issue of ethics... if we ever figure out how to create a new form of life, will we be responsible and ethical enough to know what we're doing with it? Now imagine that we somehow were (at least in the scientific community) responsible enough... within a month, governments worldwide would pass laws that protect their first class organic citizens against the second class "AI".
Will we be able to recognize when "AI" is born and allow it to BE on its own? Can we take our hands off?
Just another example of MS stealing everyone else's crap! And, frankly, what do they want with my fesces? Are they going to ANALyze it to find out what I'm eating so they can sell it to me on MSN?
Well, that's the first rule of Journalism... the headline is supposed to be interesting and potentially imflammatory to make people read the article...
This is why you hear news on TV saying things like "There is no proof that the people pulled over were terrorists". If there is no proof, then the fact that they use the word terrorist means THEY are implying it (this is what is called Yellow Journalism (the National Enquirer)... don't have a story? Make up one, cause your own controversy...)
Citizen Kane showcases some of this wretched journalism in the days when it was more common place than todays so-called "objective journalism".
I don't know if I can trust anyone claiming they are telling the truth if they are also trying to sell advertising in the same media. I wonder if/. is heading into becoming commercial (shedding the.org for a.com?) or if the editors are just digging to cause debate by purposely creating (or repeating submitted) misleading headlines.
Re:"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws...
on
Energy From Vibrations
·
· Score: 1
In that case, not only would you get excess electricity...
Well, not exactly, you would recover SOME of the wasted energy of the inefficiencies of the equipment originating the vibrations. As a poster said a few threads up, you'd do better by using more efficient machines that waste less energy and save the money of all that excess wasted energy.
Slashdot Mirror
According to Apple's web site, they tested their machine against two Dell Intel boxes (Dell Dimension 8300 (P4) and Dell Precision 650 (Dual Xeon)) running Red Hat Linux 9.0 Professional (at Apple's request).
.PDF format) including all hardware and software used is available from Veritest's web site.
Intel states that Red Hat Linux 9.0 Professional is one of the Linux OS's currently available that "include optimizations for HT Technology and are currently eligible to carry the Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor with HT Technology logo".
Apple commissioned the benchmark from a company called Veritest. The full report (in
This could make Intel take notice! Of course, this benchmark comes on the same day that Intel announces the 3.2GHz Pentium IV (and Xeon) processors. Go figure!
Of the published data on both (in SPEC processor benchmarks), Apple's Power Mac G5 generated a SPECfp_base2000 score of 840 and SPECint_base2000 score of 800, while Intel claims that their new 3.2 GHz processors get a SPECfp_base2000 score of 1252 and a SPECint_base2000 score of 1221.
And the SPIN goes on!
And Chessmaster 2000 kicked my arse on a 486!
I've got no chance.
I suppose I'd never heard of the problems he had encountered.
Was he using PowerDVD from the 3.x series? I own software from the 2.x series that works as advertised and functions fine in Win98 and 2000 (haven't tried it in XP).
Agreed, the poor quality of this product doesn't justify that closed sourced software is garbage. Open source produces just as much garbage as closed source. There are examples of great pieces of software for both worlds and probably a disproportionate quantity of poorly written and/or designed examples for both worlds as well.
I'm not trying to "FUD" you around with region codes. It was extremely UNCLEAR as to what didn't work for you (in your statement from your post) and I thought you might be referring to the DRM in the program (PowerDVD) causing the problem.
I have never had any problems with PowerDVD playing store-bought DVD's (I've never had the chance to try any copied ones so I was curious if its DRM somehow detects them and crashes on purpose) on any systems I've used... personally, I've switched primarily to a hardware DVD decoder by Sigma Systems...
My computer is more than quick enough to do the software DVD decoding but I get almost no processor hit using the hardware DVD decoder (I've actually rendered 3D video at the same time as watching a DVD (or two) with no additional time taken in the rendering process... since my PC is my only DVD player, I prefer not to lose that functionality when rendering 3D video projects (that takes many hours)).
PowerDVD didn't work? Can you please explain "didn't work"? Does that mean it didn't play DVD's out of your region or copied ones for you?
I've used PowerDVD for many years now and it works just fine with commercial, region 1 DVDs. Which DVD's didn't PowerDVD work with?
You're right,
MS will probably buy some MIGs and go and bomb them.
And, since the MS is an American company they won't be violating American law (as long as we call that Aussie company a member of the Axis of Evil, it's completely kosher to go bomb them!).
I'm sure MS can pony up enough mulla to good 'ol uncle George to get that company on the Axis of Evil list.
Use three LCD overlapping projectors instead on a panoramic projection screen. Probably cheaper than buying all those monitors!
How about using this one?
When you crash in Flight Simulator, you don't die.
You're absolutely right! And, by comparison in the Personal Computer world, how many copies of Windows does Microsoft sell now "off the shelf" vs. the amount they sell to PC Manufacturers who bundle it to their computers? A (relatively to the total amount) insignificant amount!
Apple is also in a very similar boat (more so to IBM or SUN) where most of their OS sales (though they probably sell more OSX "off the shelf" than Microsoft does) come bundled with their hardware.
I really don't think many, if any commercial OS's do the majority of their sales in retail. This brings up an interesting point. If Linux never really gains ground as something bundled (ala Windows or MacOS) on PC's from the manufacturer, they may be the one exception to this!
Linux can do this (and has been doing this (though in the overall figures of yearly PC OS sales, probably a negligibe proportion) for some time (those boxed up RedHat's, Mandrakes, etc.)).
Of course, back when it was mostly geeks using computers at home, software purchases for things like OS's were undoubtedly much higher than they are now. Now that the majority (numerically, not intellectually) of PC users are non-geeks (who generally can't grasp why you'd want to upgrade your OS!) most of the purchases are for games and other *ware.
It seems to me, expanding what you said, that no one makes money selling OS's **directly** to people anymore. Combined with the fact that no one's gonna bundle SCO Unix with computers anymore (yes, Linux probably drove them out of business, combined with the crappiness of their product), SCO (Captain Obvious speaking now:) is just trying to sue (part of) what drove them out of business! Their main intellectual problem is that they don't see their own crappy product as having anything to do with it!
Maybe they should sue themselves too!
That was a great article on dealing with non-responsive technical support!
I've forwarded it on to some of my friends!!!
Wow,
Microsoft was not innovating here! Steve, you guys were just stealing from Apple again!
They've been using those types of phrases for years now!
turbocharged
full-throttle
scorchingly fast
phenomenal speeds
superior I/O performance
unbelievably affordable
tremendous value
rejoice in the fact that there are no controls to adjust
faster than ever
new technologies
massively enhanced
dramatically increases
way faster than USB 2.0
Off-the-charts
fearsomely fast
the ultra fast realm
lightning fast processor speeds
ultra fast
an even faster level
push the digital video envelope beyond its known limits
record time (and I thought it was only Quick time!)
convenient second optical bay at the front
Thrives in a Windows environment (makes you wonder why you would buy one if it's gonna be all alone in a yucky, non-fearsomely fast Windows environment?)
Apples legendary SuperDrive (and all this time I thought it was manufactured elsewhere, I guess Apple must have invented it after all... I mean, if it were invented by Philips, it'd be called 2x or 4x DVD-RW... but since Apple invented it, it's a SuperDrive! Yeah baaaa-by!!!),
also, MacOSX is, according to Apple, the most advanced operating system on the planet (featuring: Mac OS X Jaguar gives you advantages like preemptive multitasking, symmetric multiprocessing and multithreading to take your productivity to new levels!!! Wow, I sure wish there were other OS's out there like that!)
Heck, all those yummy marketing terms are on just one web page!!! Imagine what the rest of the site or an Apple Store has to offer. Of course, after your diligent work, Microsoft's site is also catching up, I think you'll be proud to know!
Interesting points. I think (and perhaps hope) that the scientists creating AI will be responsible for what they create. What I'm not so sure of is that the AI will be allowed to learn and make their own mistakes.
I think that people may simply pull the plug on AI entities at the first sign of a mistake. This makes me wonder about the contradiction of creating AI... if we create AI entities able to think for themselves (after our initial creation of them, of course) and that are self aware, if we don't take our hands off them at some point and let them lead their lives in whatever direction they see fit, we are denying them the freedoms of self-aware life forms that we enjoy.
Don't our human frailties also define us?
In essence, would we be creating AI for our amusement, to be our slaves, or to create peers that may (and yet, they may not) at some point surpass us in some capacities? I believe that most scientists would create AI for the third reason, but I don't think the rest of the world will (at least initially) see them that way.
We (the rest of the world) may play god and try to change them every time they decide on their own to do something that we do not agree with.
That is, of course, a worst case scenario, but I am afraid that creating AI only to deny it the freedoms of other sentient entities to make their own mistakes and learn from them defeats the point of creating AI.
One more question, you say that "His status of "open source rep" seems only to be of concern to Bruce who has many times asserted himself as a representative of open source."
Clearly, there is no such title (I never claimed there was), does it bother you that ffii.org claims there is? You stated that it is only of concern to Bruce because of his belief that his is one. Do you think it could potentially concern other people without Bruce's political agenda?
In Bruce's article (and the links from the articles) you can see that Bruce was almost directly quoting one of his sources used for his article regarding the OSR title (that of course doesn't exist, I understand this, I was never unclear on that).
In the following quote (a link from Bruce's article that he calls one of his sources): the people who publish the article (ffii.org) call Mr. Taylor, and I quote:
"In a "Joint Statement of the Industry", directed to the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), the presidents of various industry associations, including Graham Taylor from the "Open Forum Europe" as a representative of the Linux/Opensource world, asks the legislators to ensure..." Source
After reading Bruce's article and the material he used as his source, I can only conclude that Bruce was bringing to the attention of people who read his web site that someone is being represented as an OSR (the people representing Mr. Taylor as an OSR are ffii.org)!
Since there is no OSR, I think Bruce feels this is false (he is entitled to, after all, it is an article on HIS personal web site (where he represents his opinions, if you don't agree with them, no one is forcing you to read them, right?), not some sort of press release to the world. THAT was done on /. by the user who posted this story (/. user Onno and the Editor who posted the article, CmdrTaco)).
Regarding "He was quoting Bruce directly (hence the quotes). His opening sentence calls Mr Taylor either a misguided or "False" open source representative." he was not directly quoting Bruce. What I was referring to is that the title of the /. article places the word "False" in quotation marks while it is not that way on Bruce's web site (he (/. user Onno) altered the structure by adding quotation marks to embellish his point of the word "False".)
Hence, as I said:
"Incidentally, the article to /. was not posted by Bruce. The person who posted it chose to accentuate the "False" in quotation marks... Wouldn't that person be the one embellishing their point?"
Well, by your logic "There is no such title, Bruce should know better", there is no TRUE "Open Source Representative". Therefore, wouldn't Mr. Taylor be a "False Open Source Representative" (as Bruce titles his article on his web site)? Do you think it would be less imflammatory to you and many others if Bruce had named his article "Puported Open Source Representative..." or "Who is this supposed Open Source Representative..."
Incidentally, the article to /. was not posted by Bruce. The person who posted it chose to accentuate the "False" in quotation marks... Wouldn't that person be the one embellishing their point?
Well, fine, but you are killing the messenger in this case.
Mr. Taylor wasn't on the general ballot for "Representative of the entire O.S.S. Community"... perhaps he was and we just missed the election (he might have been the only person voting, in which case, I suppose he is the elected Representative)?
Because there is no REAL one (and likely never will be given the nature of such incredibly different people worldwide contributing to O.S.S. projects).
The European courts may believe that this guy is. If they are convinced otherwise (that this guy is not a representative), they will simply believe there is no organization at all and as such hose us all because there is no organization of people to present a united front of complaint (If there are 1 billion O.S.S. developers complaining, there are likely to be more than 1 billion unique and different arguments presented... legislators look for the large groups of uniform complaints to take seriously and the rest, they figure they can't please everyone no matter what they do).
Do you remember when every word in the English language was registered by people sitting with a dictionary in front of them with InterNIC on their web browser?
If people can patent concepts so abstract as the patent for frames (which as I read it, and IANAL, I can apply that to any user interface on a computer I've ever seen) what happens to innovation?
Will people be allowed to claim they've invented something (and make money off of their invention if they choose to) if a lawyer can prove in court that a corporation (or a corporation the corporation bought) patented an idea so abstract and all encompassing that they REALLY invented it and your are infringing on their copyright.
Congratulations, your hard work and investment (your time is an investment, even in a "labor of love") have just provided a new way for a corporation to make money that will never reimburse you for your investment.
I think patents are potentially a wonderful concept, unfortunately, when companies hold almost all the patents (or have bought the rights to the rest) will the only innovation allowed be from the corporate world?
I want to be able to innovate. If I choose to give away my innovation, I don't want to be sued into oblivion by a company that has bought the right to say that they own my inventions (via an abstact, all encompassing patent) without even giving me a reach around! Yikes!
Very true, it seems that companies (well, at least hiring managers) are seeking people that require minimal training to do their jobs.
They seek a jack of all trades and expect to pay them less than what used to get higher wages for far less responsibilities.
Companies are trying to reach an equilibrium... right now they are pushing as hard as they can on IT personnel to see how much they can accomplish with the fewest amount of people. Of course, the chances of effective organized labor to bring the balance back will likely never materialize when the company holds the threat of deportation over the heads of non-US citizen workers that are being sponsored by the company.
Agreed.
I think that economic slumps or dumps in a sector (or economy-wide) are the natural way to purge and expose businesses with poor leadership and inefficient ways.
The companies that survived the dot bomb are alive and running as efficiently as possible to cling to life. This is great news for them once the market recovers a bit! Look at how efficient Dell has become... because of their business deals and efficiency, they've been able to STILL be highly profitable despite the current economy.
Once their is increased consumer and business spending again the survivor companies will see record profits and may begin hiring people again (but truly, will they learn from their mistakes and hire again based on needs, not because of their success?) Only time will tell.
I will be impressed when computers start to refine their algorithms without any further human input. When they begin to create, define, and refine their own skills.
As long as humans are writing the programs that "think" for computers and create the pattern matching and are the ones that are refining the algorithms and programs WE are the intelligence and THEY are just the tools.
Of course, this is the question that echoes through almost every SCI-FI movie involving "AI". When does a machine or bit of code become sentient, curious, ambitious, self-aware, etc. The corresponding problem is that if / when computers ever achieve true "AI", it will be thanks to the work of humans, who will then fall into the role of being deities to the "AI" (rather than peers because our egos won't permit our creations to become our peers, even if they are ever qualified to be our peers).
Shall the "AI" revolt against the deities or will the humans, in their newfound sense of power, create and destroy at will (as human history is replete with examples of that behavior)?
It is purely an issue of ethics... if we ever figure out how to create a new form of life, will we be responsible and ethical enough to know what we're doing with it? Now imagine that we somehow were (at least in the scientific community) responsible enough... within a month, governments worldwide would pass laws that protect their first class organic citizens against the second class "AI".
Will we be able to recognize when "AI" is born and allow it to BE on its own? Can we take our hands off?
Didn't Apple invent this?
Just another example of MS stealing everyone else's crap! And, frankly, what do they want with my fesces? Are they going to ANALyze it to find out what I'm eating so they can sell it to me on MSN?
Time to start eating more Corn on the Cob.
Well, that's the first rule of Journalism... the headline is supposed to be interesting and potentially imflammatory to make people read the article...
/. is heading into becoming commercial (shedding the .org for a .com?) or if the editors are just digging to cause debate by purposely creating (or repeating submitted) misleading headlines.
This is why you hear news on TV saying things like "There is no proof that the people pulled over were terrorists". If there is no proof, then the fact that they use the word terrorist means THEY are implying it (this is what is called Yellow Journalism (the National Enquirer)... don't have a story? Make up one, cause your own controversy...)
Citizen Kane showcases some of this wretched journalism in the days when it was more common place than todays so-called "objective journalism".
I don't know if I can trust anyone claiming they are telling the truth if they are also trying to sell advertising in the same media. I wonder if
In that case, not only would you get excess electricity...
Well, not exactly, you would recover SOME of the wasted energy of the inefficiencies of the equipment originating the vibrations. As a poster said a few threads up, you'd do better by using more efficient machines that waste less energy and save the money of all that excess wasted energy.