Most of the comments are talking about browsing or otherwise getting infromarmation while sitting in the game. Why not think the other way: stuff going OUT of the park:) Bring a webcam, and you could be sharing the game with others in the world. Heck, pay-per-webcast and you've payed for your ticket with little effort!
I'm not sure what other assets can be sent out of a ballpark, but who knows?
I'd like something simple. Why all the extra baggage when they make these? Tablet PC's, PDA/tablet hybrids, palmtop, they all try to aim too high. I just want a modern day PDA (or pocket PC) with a bigger screen. Is that hard to do? Is there a design problems I'm not getting? My ideal version would be the zaurus 5500 with a big screen. No other changes PERIOD. Sharp? Are you listening? anyone started a hardware hack for that? I guess it's need a bigger battery too, but that's it.
The headline for this one is pretty bad. The device is not an MP3 player. The hack is not even for the device itself. It's for the open-source server software. Now it can be used send remote commands to control video playback on a server PC. Neat hack, but not useful for ANYTHING the headline talks about.
As a side note, not mentioned, but should be possible is using this hack to control a PC's video playback from many different sources. The server software can be controled from browsers, winamp, etc. Right? Anyone know if this can be plugged into that?
Speaking of which, where's the PlayStation2 PCI or AGP card? Actually, I'd rather see console companies capture the PC market that way then try and add PC features to a console, but that's just me...
One thought is that I can see uses for this shape/size of device. I can see it as useful for the video display function for different stuff and as just a good shape for getting a device on your wrist (better than the other tries anyway). And, if you want it more descrete, wear it screen-down like some wear watches anyway...
The other is a gripe. If someone wants a display, why not make it a remote one for something with more power and keep it the size of a watch? make the watch a time-piece AND be able to use it for messages, alarms, etc. from a PDA or something else via bluetooth or maybe even PAN?
OK, there's been a lot of questions and I got lost following all of them. I haven't seent he answers yet that I was hoping for, so I'll muddy the waters a bit more;) It seems like there's 3 faces to compatibility: X11 protocol, driver, and library. I know XOrg is X11 compatible (otherwise it's not an X server), but how about the driver side and library? The driver question seems the most critical for a drop-in replacement to XFree. What about the libraries though? I know an app just has to talk X11 to work, but most do that through a library (and a lot do it throught the xlibs that come with the server). Are those libs going to be affected any? anyone have an opinion?
And, if I'm lost in my thinking, mod me out of sight. I'm used to it:)
From the quick blurb in the article where he talks about that, you could almost say we're already trying to do what he was talking about. He talked specifically about breaking from a generic hardware envirnment where the program runs to physically dividing applications. we do that now in software and hardware both. Think OS's and virtual machines for the software version, and there are hardware versions used in mainframes and other specialty setups. It might be time to jump whole sale away from the architecture since we spend a lot of our timte working around the problems he describes...
The article makes sense if you think in terms of CS (computer science) instead of IT. The IP protocol is what he's talking about, and it has all the problems he describes (both version 4 and 6).
From a consumer, there are some room for improvement (not just needed for military). Think of the headaches of wireless VOIP, mesh networking, p2p, etc. yes they all work, but there are workarounds due to the fixed node-to-node setup of IP. A lot of cool things could be made a lot easier by thinking outside the box a bit now that we've gained experince from the old model. there are tons of projects being thought up which have to tackle the IP nature of networks. If the low-level protocol handled a lot of it already, we could have those projects up and running and then some.
I'd love a protocol that didn't rely on a centralized DB of addresses to allow stuff to talk. That's one of the first things IP demands. How about networks routing based on data the nodes provide? That's just one idea of a different type of network...
Now the whole issue of open source and software patents can be brought to the masses. When the blue prints for a physical structure are the valuable part because an auto-builder just reads 'em and builds the house, what is the valuable part? After all, that's how software works. you write some blueprints, and an auto-builder (compiler) makes it into a binary. Could this be the start of finallly making the playing field even? (watch for big companies to start sueing for features in the blue print "just like the feature in our blue print". Can't put in bathroom because then you'd HAVE to have seen our blueprint to build one that works like ours...:)
I love these kinds of quotes:
"TAYLOR: Just because you have more people looking at the code does not guarantee a level of
quality, because those people might not be the most-qualified people to do code review. I'm
not [making] a disparaging comment on the open-source community. I'm just simply saying that
more in number does not mean it's more in quality. Let's just say that. That said, it's
something that we continue to look at to see at what level and how do we open it up and
share. And at the end of the day, there are only about 14 to 25 guys that actually check code
into the Linux kernel. Just because you have a bunch folks out in the community that have the
access to look at open-source product means that, by default, it will be more secure or
higher quality."
Still doesn't get it. It's (at least in part) that the right people CAN get to the code that makes it good. True, just being out there for people to see isn't gonna do it. Good ideas have to be able to find their way in when the idea is ther. Being open means any time is a good time. Just showing your code is not enough (*cough* shared source *cough*) but letting stuff IN is important. That's what open source does: collect ideas. But, becuase it's not predictable when those ideas are gonna come in, corporate mindsets can't figure out how to use it. I'm kinda ranting, kinda laughing. And, yeah, I'm leaving out a lot, I know.
I see a lot of questions why we need this. To me, this is what a PC should be. The boxes we use as PC (Personal Computers, remember?) are way over powered for that. For Gaming, you need power. For workstations you need power. What average PC needs 4GHz and 512RAM with 120GB storage? To me, we could have stopped at the 400MHz PC's and called it good. Personally I would not JUST have one of those myself being a power user. But, the reason I think these are coming out more and more is we had a PC right a while back on the specs. We can now just shrink them more than they first came out. If these can kill the collection of overpowered beige boxes sitting on millions of desks, then good!
And, don't even get me started on the term "Desktop"...
This doesn't have to be used for games. Video conferencing on a playstion2 could be a killer app just by itself. Instead of having to setup a computer with matching apps and protocols and praying the driviers work, here's a way to get person-to-person video phone calls on the game system you've already got in the livingroom.
Sign me up!
My beef with regulating VOIP is its not ready to compete with POTS yet. While there's all kinds of reasons why 911 is a good idea, I think there's reason not to start grouping VOIP there yet.
For example, mandating 911 on it now is just dangerous. POTS is regulated for 911 AND for uptime (along with other things). Suppose you have a VOIP phone as your primary, and popele assuming it's as good as a POTS phone becuase of 911 service. Power goes out. no phone.
no gaurentee of IP services like POTS either. If someone digs up a phone line, there's some real pressure to fix it. If someone digs up your cable line, there isn't that same kind of concern.
VOIP isn't quite ready to be included yet...and by the time it is, we should have a better definition on what a phone system is
What happened to choice? If I don't want to use it, it doesn't matter. Suddenly I'm required to pay for something I may not have wanted. 911 could be required to be available without forcing it. Maybe I just want an extra phone or something. Choice is the problem.
I LOVE multi-head displays. My only problem comes from all the talk of spanning. I never could see a use for spanning itself. the only reason I would us it is because it allowed me to move apps from one monitor to the other. I never saw a use for running one app (or one screen of an app) across that big of a screen. I know games seem like they need it, but mostly what I hear is people dividing up the display. Even having different POV's is still dividing it up in my opinion. Does anyone actually use one big screen? And, also, does anyone know an easy way to move apps without using desktop spanning?
Actually it's next to no effort to give free WiFi access. It's connecting that access to the interent that starts to cost money.
Anyone checked the adverts for that detail?
Yeah, just kidding, but it starts to give me some bussiness ideas....hmmm...
Now we know what Tank was sticking in that funcky disk drive to teach Neo kung-fu. It wasn't some dream-future technology. It was just a really big CF card:) And we thought that was soooo far in the future...
It's kind of historical. But, what are we saving exactly? And what is the petition for? It's already been dissassembled. It's rusting. It's poisonous. What do we gain by keeping it? Also, what good does a petition do? Am I missing something? From reading the article, the question is more one of money: it's going to cost more and more the longer we keep it. The goal now is to take care of it sooner and cheaper. So how does signing a petition do anything? does each signature include a donation? NASA did the right thing and held off yet again to give interested groups time to act. Act means money. What does the petition do? All that does is ask NASA to do something they can't do for legal (environmental) reasons and for budget reasons. Signing a petition is going to change what? Will that make it suddenly cheaper and more feasible? My post is sounding kinda negative, but I'm actually curious. I feel the article stated a problem and then brought up a petition which is a solution to some other problem. Is there a connection?
So, this wonderful advice covers favorites how? I suppose they will issue a warning to click on properties of your bookmarks instead of just clicking them, right? By the time they get done issuing workarounds, they will have lost the benefit of the wonderful GUI that they put so much stock in.
This has been a thought of mine for a while: The local PC is just a place to run the interface which is really just an AI program aimed at interaction. AI doesn't have to be sentient or anything, just something that can process some complicated stuff. Put the rest of your tasks elsewhere (you program actually runs somewhere else, but it talks to the AI which talk to you). Then, you could have all kinds of interactions available from a keyboard to voice to even REAL gesture recognition. The binary details are handled by the AI and translated. Hey, I can dream, right?
This might work good for city vehicals on good roads, but even then what about shocks? Can the engine itself take much of a bump without damage? the wheel is gonna weigh a lot more also. Seems like adding complexity to what is esentially a replacable part now would affect cost of running over time...
I agree with this idea. They are already talkign about building a brand new unmanned craft just to safely de-orbit hubble (due to the shuttle not being as sure of an option now) Why not have this craft push Hubble outward using an ion engine instead of de-obiting it? what would be the harm?
Slashdot Mirror
Most of the comments are talking about browsing or otherwise getting infromarmation while sitting in the game. Why not think the other way: stuff going OUT of the park :) Bring a webcam, and you could be sharing the game with others in the world. Heck, pay-per-webcast and you've payed for your ticket with little effort!
I'm not sure what other assets can be sent out of a ballpark, but who knows?
I'd like something simple. Why all the extra baggage when they make these? Tablet PC's, PDA/tablet hybrids, palmtop, they all try to aim too high. I just want a modern day PDA (or pocket PC) with a bigger screen. Is that hard to do? Is there a design problems I'm not getting?
My ideal version would be the zaurus 5500 with a big screen. No other changes PERIOD. Sharp? Are you listening? anyone started a hardware hack for that? I guess it's need a bigger battery too, but that's it.
The headline for this one is pretty bad. The device is not an MP3 player. The hack is not even for the device itself. It's for the open-source server software. Now it can be used send remote commands to control video playback on a server PC. Neat hack, but not useful for ANYTHING the headline talks about.
As a side note, not mentioned, but should be possible is using this hack to control a PC's video playback from many different sources. The server software can be controled from browsers, winamp, etc. Right? Anyone know if this can be plugged into that?
Speaking of which, where's the PlayStation2 PCI or AGP card? ...
Actually, I'd rather see console companies capture the PC market that way then try and add PC features to a console, but that's just me
One thought is that I can see uses for this shape/size of device. I can see it as useful for the video display function for different stuff and as just a good shape for getting a device on your wrist (better than the other tries anyway). And, if you want it more descrete, wear it screen-down like some wear watches anyway...
The other is a gripe. If someone wants a display, why not make it a remote one for something with more power and keep it the size of a watch? make the watch a time-piece AND be able to use it for messages, alarms, etc. from a PDA or something else via bluetooth or maybe even PAN?
OK, there's been a lot of questions and I got lost following all of them. I haven't seent he answers yet that I was hoping for, so I'll muddy the waters a bit more ;)
:)
It seems like there's 3 faces to compatibility: X11 protocol, driver, and library. I know XOrg is X11 compatible (otherwise it's not an X server), but how about the driver side and library? The driver question seems the most critical for a drop-in replacement to XFree. What about the libraries though? I know an app just has to talk X11 to work, but most do that through a library (and a lot do it throught the xlibs that come with the server). Are those libs going to be affected any? anyone have an opinion?
And, if I'm lost in my thinking, mod me out of sight. I'm used to it
From the quick blurb in the article where he talks about that, you could almost say we're already trying to do what he was talking about. He talked specifically about breaking from a generic hardware envirnment where the program runs to physically dividing applications. we do that now in software and hardware both. Think OS's and virtual machines for the software version, and there are hardware versions used in mainframes and other specialty setups. It might be time to jump whole sale away from the architecture since we spend a lot of our timte working around the problems he describes...
The article makes sense if you think in terms of CS (computer science) instead of IT. The IP protocol is what he's talking about, and it has all the problems he describes (both version 4 and 6).
From a consumer, there are some room for improvement (not just needed for military). Think of the headaches of wireless VOIP, mesh networking, p2p, etc. yes they all work, but there are workarounds due to the fixed node-to-node setup of IP. A lot of cool things could be made a lot easier by thinking outside the box a bit now that we've gained experince from the old model. there are tons of projects being thought up which have to tackle the IP nature of networks. If the low-level protocol handled a lot of it already, we could have those projects up and running and then some.
I'd love a protocol that didn't rely on a centralized DB of addresses to allow stuff to talk. That's one of the first things IP demands. How about networks routing based on data the nodes provide? That's just one idea of a different type of network...
Uh...horses already do that themselves... :)
Now the whole issue of open source and software patents can be brought to the masses. When the blue prints for a physical structure are the valuable part because an auto-builder just reads 'em and builds the house, what is the valuable part? :)
After all, that's how software works. you write some blueprints, and an auto-builder (compiler) makes it into a binary. Could this be the start of finallly making the playing field even? (watch for big companies to start sueing for features in the blue print "just like the feature in our blue print". Can't put in bathroom because then you'd HAVE to have seen our blueprint to build one that works like ours...
I love these kinds of quotes: "TAYLOR: Just because you have more people looking at the code does not guarantee a level of quality, because those people might not be the most-qualified people to do code review. I'm not [making] a disparaging comment on the open-source community. I'm just simply saying that more in number does not mean it's more in quality. Let's just say that. That said, it's something that we continue to look at to see at what level and how do we open it up and share. And at the end of the day, there are only about 14 to 25 guys that actually check code into the Linux kernel. Just because you have a bunch folks out in the community that have the access to look at open-source product means that, by default, it will be more secure or higher quality." Still doesn't get it. It's (at least in part) that the right people CAN get to the code that makes it good. True, just being out there for people to see isn't gonna do it. Good ideas have to be able to find their way in when the idea is ther. Being open means any time is a good time. Just showing your code is not enough (*cough* shared source *cough*) but letting stuff IN is important. That's what open source does: collect ideas. But, becuase it's not predictable when those ideas are gonna come in, corporate mindsets can't figure out how to use it. I'm kinda ranting, kinda laughing. And, yeah, I'm leaving out a lot, I know.
I see a lot of questions why we need this. To me, this is what a PC should be. The boxes we use as PC (Personal Computers, remember?) are way over powered for that. For Gaming, you need power. For workstations you need power. What average PC needs 4GHz and 512RAM with 120GB storage? To me, we could have stopped at the 400MHz PC's and called it good. Personally I would not JUST have one of those myself being a power user. But, the reason I think these are coming out more and more is we had a PC right a while back on the specs. We can now just shrink them more than they first came out. If these can kill the collection of overpowered beige boxes sitting on millions of desks, then good! And, don't even get me started on the term "Desktop"...
This doesn't have to be used for games. Video conferencing on a playstion2 could be a killer app just by itself. Instead of having to setup a computer with matching apps and protocols and praying the driviers work, here's a way to get person-to-person video phone calls on the game system you've already got in the livingroom. Sign me up!
My beef with regulating VOIP is its not ready to compete with POTS yet. While there's all kinds of reasons why 911 is a good idea, I think there's reason not to start grouping VOIP there yet. For example, mandating 911 on it now is just dangerous. POTS is regulated for 911 AND for uptime (along with other things). Suppose you have a VOIP phone as your primary, and popele assuming it's as good as a POTS phone becuase of 911 service. Power goes out. no phone. no gaurentee of IP services like POTS either. If someone digs up a phone line, there's some real pressure to fix it. If someone digs up your cable line, there isn't that same kind of concern. VOIP isn't quite ready to be included yet...and by the time it is, we should have a better definition on what a phone system is
What happened to choice? If I don't want to use it, it doesn't matter. Suddenly I'm required to pay for something I may not have wanted. 911 could be required to be available without forcing it. Maybe I just want an extra phone or something. Choice is the problem.
I LOVE multi-head displays. My only problem comes from all the talk of spanning. I never could see a use for spanning itself. the only reason I would us it is because it allowed me to move apps from one monitor to the other. I never saw a use for running one app (or one screen of an app) across that big of a screen. I know games seem like they need it, but mostly what I hear is people dividing up the display. Even having different POV's is still dividing it up in my opinion. Does anyone actually use one big screen? And, also, does anyone know an easy way to move apps without using desktop spanning?
Actually it's next to no effort to give free WiFi access. It's connecting that access to the interent that starts to cost money. Anyone checked the adverts for that detail? Yeah, just kidding, but it starts to give me some bussiness ideas....hmmm...
Now we know what Tank was sticking in that funcky disk drive to teach Neo kung-fu. It wasn't some dream-future technology. It was just a really big CF card :) And we thought that was soooo far in the future...
It's kind of historical. But, what are we saving exactly? And what is the petition for? It's already been dissassembled. It's rusting. It's poisonous. What do we gain by keeping it?
Also, what good does a petition do? Am I missing something? From reading the article, the question is more one of money: it's going to cost more and more the longer we keep it. The goal now is to take care of it sooner and cheaper. So how does signing a petition do anything? does each signature include a donation? NASA did the right thing and held off yet again to give interested groups time to act. Act means money. What does the petition do? All that does is ask NASA to do something they can't do for legal (environmental) reasons and for budget reasons. Signing a petition is going to change what? Will that make it suddenly cheaper and more feasible?
My post is sounding kinda negative, but I'm actually curious. I feel the article stated a problem and then brought up a petition which is a solution to some other problem. Is there a connection?
So, this wonderful advice covers favorites how? I suppose they will issue a warning to click on properties of your bookmarks instead of just clicking them, right?
By the time they get done issuing workarounds, they will have lost the benefit of the wonderful GUI that they put so much stock in.
Didn't they just start picking at a rock? It got ticked off and bit the rover!! Life has been found!!
This has been a thought of mine for a while: The local PC is just a place to run the interface which is really just an AI program aimed at interaction. AI doesn't have to be sentient or anything, just something that can process some complicated stuff. Put the rest of your tasks elsewhere (you program actually runs somewhere else, but it talks to the AI which talk to you). Then, you could have all kinds of interactions available from a keyboard to voice to even REAL gesture recognition. The binary details are handled by the AI and translated.
Hey, I can dream, right?
This might work good for city vehicals on good roads, but even then what about shocks? Can the engine itself take much of a bump without damage? the wheel is gonna weigh a lot more also. Seems like adding complexity to what is esentially a replacable part now would affect cost of running over time...
How about this: http://www.tinmith.net/arquake.htm It's a site for Augmented Reality Quake, which is exactly what you're talking about
I agree with this idea. They are already talkign about building a brand new unmanned craft just to safely de-orbit hubble (due to the shuttle not being as sure of an option now) Why not have this craft push Hubble outward using an ion engine instead of de-obiting it? what would be the harm?