Ummm, no. Its going to take a lot more than that to do Intel in. They've been the leading maker of x86 processors, well, pretty much since there were x86 processors. They are not going to dissappear over night.
So this is the equivilant of reinstalling windows every six months on your computer, I guess. I imagine the spam will begin again after a time.
"I will be unavailable by e-mail for two days while I de-spamify, contact me later."
Of course, you'd like to have that as an auto-reply, but then I guess this wouldn't work.
For me, GO GMAIL SPAM FITLER GO!
Ah, nvir, had fun trying to get that off a Mac OS 7.x network years and years ago. Funnily we had both nvir.A and nvir.B. Frighteningly there were reports that nvir.A and.B sometimes crossbred in the wild to produce a very destructive C strain. Luckily for us, this didn't happen.
Being primarily a Mac user my experience with Winamp was brief, but I had many friends who swore by it. So, what was the cause of Winamp's demise? Is it that Windows Media Player got better? Is it that people just don't care much what play's their MP3's? Did it lose its cool factor or geek appeal?
So, I suppose take Microsoft's philosophy, don't do your job well, and you won't eliminate your own job.
If you're not part of the solution, there's a lot of money to be made in prolonging the problem.
Something dawned on me yesterday. IT is one of the few, if not the only, industry ever created to put its own workers, and the workers of as many other industries as possible, out of a job. That is the purpose of information technology. Kind of sad and kind of neat. IT makes very few truly new products. We create products that do old things a different way (ie. streaming a video over a network, cable or otherwise, so you don't have to go to Blockbuster). So be it.
Whoa there little buddy. The state of the US$ has very little to do with government in a direct sense. The reason the dollar is moving lower is America's large and growing current account deficit caused in large part by America's very low (~1%) savings rate and consumers appetite for debt. The correction in the value of the dollar is necessary to smooth out this imbalance. Dollar devaluation alone will not solve, what is becoming, a current account crisis, but it will help. (The "current account" measure how much we're spending versus how much we're making. To think of it another way, it is the amount of money flowing IN or OUT of the US by trade, aide, or otherwise. A current account deficit means that more money is flowing out than in and the US is essentially getting poorer relative to the rest of the world.)
Thank you for the correction. On the topic of menu systems I just have to rant a bit on Microsoft's new whiz-bang idea for menus...only displaying the most recently used menu items. This drives me insane and I pray it doesn't find its way into Office for Mac. It also breaks just about every UI rule of thumb you can find. Now menu items appear in variable positions in the screen. Additionally you don't see options that you haven't used recently which makes it harder for you to learn what options are available. You may not use Format Page very often, but seeing it there a hundred times on the way to Format Paragraph lets you know its available. While LRU elimination may work for some caching systems it should not be applied to program menus! In short ARGGGG.
People on other websites have pointed out that Jef may be a bit off the mark and is still taking things personally from back when he was on the original Macintosh design team. Reportedly he was against the mouse driven interface and other things we've grown quite used to. It seems to me that Jef is very much an interface purest, promoting the most highly efficient and cleanest interface possible. Unfortunately, this doesn't necessarily translate to the most user friendly experience. I've tried his humane computing environment and while I'm certain that my productivity would jump once I got into the proper thinking mode, I don't really have time to learn the mental model for proper interaction with it. At the end of the day his opinions on interface design tend to me far more academic and far less pragmatic. What he says may be *right*, but impractical for mainstream computing.
Although somewhat redundant of the first reply I think that it will always be a Camera Phone, because people are going to use it more as a phone than a camera and therefore the phone functionality will always been more important. I am a big believer in devices doing one thing and doing it well. If it can do other things well, then do them, but don't half ass it. Digital camera technology isn't quite to the state where you can shove it into a phone and have it be good, the miniturization isn't quite there yet. In two or three years I think that phones and cameras will essentially be one device because both functions are best if mobile, who wants to take pictures of their living room?
The Internet is a playground with no dried up old teachers to tell us not to hang upside down on the monkey bars. But groups and structures based on groups mature just like individuals, only slower. As the Internet evolves it will become self-policing. As we can see already with moderated forums, the relevant information can be made to bubble to the top with some small effort of users of said information. It is in the self interest of all Internet users to make it a viable place to find and exchange information. We are all selfish, and I think we'll get what we want. The other advantage the Internet has is that there are a lot of smart people using it and smart people are even better at figuring out how to get what they want than the average Joe. Perhaps the Internet would have already "collapsed" in a useful sense were it not for Google and others. Where there's a will there's a way.
Its stores it on your computer. Google Desktop doesn't actually interact over the Internet with Google, unless you have it search your gmail account, which I think is an option.
I can comfortably read webpages on a PowerPC G3 300Mhz. This is surely not slower than that. 90% of webpages shouldn't need more than that. Too much useless junk of webpages today.
Of Course Its Expensive
on
OQO For Sale
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Of course this is expensive. Ever notice how most things work on an exponential curve? As you get smaller and smaller the price begins to go up disproportionately. Why? Cause its hard to cram a whole computer into something the size of a 1990 cell phone! If you think this device is too expensive you don't understand the market its aimed at. Its not really for Joe Sixpack. Its for Joseph Suit that wants to take his computer with him and not carry a laptop.
If you want to dethrone a wildly popular product, you have to put one out there that is wildly better or quite a bit cheaper. Companies traditionally haven't been able to compete with Apple very much on the better part (perhaps clock speed, for a while), so they've come out with cheaper products. You are not going to derail the iPod with something that is roughly the same at the same price point. A little more capacity or being compatible with a different set of incompatible standards (WMA DRM vs iTMS).
So yes, I see it as a security vulnerability... because it means that a site has control over software installed on the user's computer and doesn't ask for consent before it goes changing how that software behaves. Maybe for some people it's not a big deal to find that the cut button doesn't work, but who says it'll stop there? What else is the browser going to roll over and obey? Allowing such basic functions to be turned off is a mistake that no software should ever make. It is indeed a security problem.
You seem to misunderstand something. The content that you access through your browser is NOT YOURS. It belongs to someone else and they should be free to restrict your access in whatever way they see fit. I agree that certain functions of a browser shouldn't be able to be modified, but only ones that effect data on your computer. I think by visiting a cite you are implicitly agreeing to certain terms of service, one of which is that the content owner owns and can control access to that content. You can secure Acrobat files so that you can't copy or print them, is this a security flaw in Acrobat? No, and you'd never say that it was because you knew this was possible. Just because you didn't think or know that this could be done with a web browser doesn't make it a security issue.
I think that's pretty much the story of corporations through all time. I think that extends even beyond corporations, to countries.
Let's look at Intel and Microsoft. Both rose to dominance because they had a good product at the right time, with good marketing. (I'm a Mac fan, I think windows is sh*t, but there's no denying that Microsoft has made computers more accessible to a wider audience, although Apple has always made the better product.) Now both are having some problems, why? Three main reasons:
1) Everybody targets the leader - if you're the leader in an industry everyone can see your weaknesses and target them to take you down. You're the guy to beat and people are going to try to do that. 2)The leader is big, and knows it - the leader of an industry is typically big, has big sales, big profits. They spend accordingly and build out accordingly, adjusting to lower profits is harder when you're used to them. 3)The leader is typically slower - 3 follows from 2, in that if you're a bigger company its harder for you to change course and take advantage of new ideas and trends. Firstly, your organization is larger and therefore harder to manage. Secondly, your customers tend to hold you more accountable to servicing them, the underdog gets more leeway, because he's the underdog.
So companies tend to start out small, grow, become too big to adjust quickly to a changing environment and then die or breakup. Some companies (IBM is a good example)manage to just fall into decline for a while and then emerge as a power player again, but this is hard to do for several reasons such as regaining customer confidence, having enough money to engineer the turn around, and the difficulty of changing the corporate culture to fit the reinvented company.
Until the first craft explodes. I mean this quite seriously. I think people will be enamored with the idea of commercial space flight initially, but if the first accident comes early on, its reputation could be damaged for a long time. On the other hand (you have other fingers), if it becomes a pretty accepted thing before the first accident happens, then no big deal, it will be an accident and the industry will recover.
Commercial space flight is important for space flight in general. As soon as it becomes something that people want to do, private industry will pour money into developing better travel methods, and will spend that money better than the government. With a little luck, NASA's research budget won't have to as big, because innovations from private industry will get some of the work done for them.
Let me answer that for you, NO. Before OS X I thought the command line was a primitive and clunky tool. Boy, was I ever wrong, I wonder today how I lived without it.
Hey jack nuts, I posted this. I like Cray, because I think companies that put a lot of thought into their product and make great ones deserve a cheering section. Of course you're a BC kid, so I'll forgive you, we (BU) spanks you enough in hockey to let you have a shot here and there.
Problems run on clusters have to be able to be broken down into small pieces that don't need to interact with the other pieces very much. This is so because of communication latency in such a system. Someone mentioned SETI, which runs great on a cluster, because looking at the signal from one piece of sky requires no information about the surrounding sky. However, something like a nuclear explosion, broken into pieces, requires lots of information about the surrounding environment. What's worse is that as you make the pieces smaller when simulating a nuclear explosion, your need for knowledge about the surrounding increases! Such simulations require a much more tightly coupled system, a 'traditional' super computer.
HP got what they deserved. They toddled over to Intel for the Itanium and knifed the Alpha when Alpha was the better technology. Now they get the egg on their face as they run to join AMD's game. I'm happy for AMD, they're a good company (and I own their stock), but HA HA for HP.
allofmp3's legality is questionable, at best. Besides that their behavior isn't ethical, even if legal. They are exploiting a loophole in Russian copyright law that allows for the broadcast or cable transmission of music without authorization of the copyright holder. It can be interpretted that you downloading a file over the Internet is only a special kind of broadcast or transmission, and that you happen to be "listening" to it with a device capable of recording it. It is not clear whether under the laws of the US or Europe that this is illegal, but could easily be made so.
Allofmp3 legal? Maybe. Ethical? No
Slashdot Mirror
Ummm, no. Its going to take a lot more than that to do Intel in. They've been the leading maker of x86 processors, well, pretty much since there were x86 processors. They are not going to dissappear over night.
So this is the equivilant of reinstalling windows every six months on your computer, I guess. I imagine the spam will begin again after a time. "I will be unavailable by e-mail for two days while I de-spamify, contact me later." Of course, you'd like to have that as an auto-reply, but then I guess this wouldn't work. For me, GO GMAIL SPAM FITLER GO!
Ah, nvir, had fun trying to get that off a Mac OS 7.x network years and years ago. Funnily we had both nvir.A and nvir.B. Frighteningly there were reports that nvir.A and .B sometimes crossbred in the wild to produce a very destructive C strain. Luckily for us, this didn't happen.
Being primarily a Mac user my experience with Winamp was brief, but I had many friends who swore by it. So, what was the cause of Winamp's demise? Is it that Windows Media Player got better? Is it that people just don't care much what play's their MP3's? Did it lose its cool factor or geek appeal?
So, I suppose take Microsoft's philosophy, don't do your job well, and you won't eliminate your own job. If you're not part of the solution, there's a lot of money to be made in prolonging the problem.
Something dawned on me yesterday. IT is one of the few, if not the only, industry ever created to put its own workers, and the workers of as many other industries as possible, out of a job. That is the purpose of information technology. Kind of sad and kind of neat. IT makes very few truly new products. We create products that do old things a different way (ie. streaming a video over a network, cable or otherwise, so you don't have to go to Blockbuster). So be it.
Whoa there little buddy. The state of the US$ has very little to do with government in a direct sense. The reason the dollar is moving lower is America's large and growing current account deficit caused in large part by America's very low (~1%) savings rate and consumers appetite for debt. The correction in the value of the dollar is necessary to smooth out this imbalance. Dollar devaluation alone will not solve, what is becoming, a current account crisis, but it will help. (The "current account" measure how much we're spending versus how much we're making. To think of it another way, it is the amount of money flowing IN or OUT of the US by trade, aide, or otherwise. A current account deficit means that more money is flowing out than in and the US is essentially getting poorer relative to the rest of the world.)
Thank you for the correction. On the topic of menu systems I just have to rant a bit on Microsoft's new whiz-bang idea for menus...only displaying the most recently used menu items. This drives me insane and I pray it doesn't find its way into Office for Mac. It also breaks just about every UI rule of thumb you can find. Now menu items appear in variable positions in the screen. Additionally you don't see options that you haven't used recently which makes it harder for you to learn what options are available. You may not use Format Page very often, but seeing it there a hundred times on the way to Format Paragraph lets you know its available. While LRU elimination may work for some caching systems it should not be applied to program menus! In short ARGGGG.
People on other websites have pointed out that Jef may be a bit off the mark and is still taking things personally from back when he was on the original Macintosh design team. Reportedly he was against the mouse driven interface and other things we've grown quite used to. It seems to me that Jef is very much an interface purest, promoting the most highly efficient and cleanest interface possible. Unfortunately, this doesn't necessarily translate to the most user friendly experience. I've tried his humane computing environment and while I'm certain that my productivity would jump once I got into the proper thinking mode, I don't really have time to learn the mental model for proper interaction with it. At the end of the day his opinions on interface design tend to me far more academic and far less pragmatic. What he says may be *right*, but impractical for mainstream computing.
Although somewhat redundant of the first reply I think that it will always be a Camera Phone, because people are going to use it more as a phone than a camera and therefore the phone functionality will always been more important. I am a big believer in devices doing one thing and doing it well. If it can do other things well, then do them, but don't half ass it. Digital camera technology isn't quite to the state where you can shove it into a phone and have it be good, the miniturization isn't quite there yet. In two or three years I think that phones and cameras will essentially be one device because both functions are best if mobile, who wants to take pictures of their living room?
The Internet is a playground with no dried up old teachers to tell us not to hang upside down on the monkey bars. But groups and structures based on groups mature just like individuals, only slower. As the Internet evolves it will become self-policing. As we can see already with moderated forums, the relevant information can be made to bubble to the top with some small effort of users of said information. It is in the self interest of all Internet users to make it a viable place to find and exchange information. We are all selfish, and I think we'll get what we want. The other advantage the Internet has is that there are a lot of smart people using it and smart people are even better at figuring out how to get what they want than the average Joe. Perhaps the Internet would have already "collapsed" in a useful sense were it not for Google and others. Where there's a will there's a way.
Its stores it on your computer. Google Desktop doesn't actually interact over the Internet with Google, unless you have it search your gmail account, which I think is an option.
I can comfortably read webpages on a PowerPC G3 300Mhz. This is surely not slower than that. 90% of webpages shouldn't need more than that. Too much useless junk of webpages today.
Of course this is expensive. Ever notice how most things work on an exponential curve? As you get smaller and smaller the price begins to go up disproportionately. Why? Cause its hard to cram a whole computer into something the size of a 1990 cell phone! If you think this device is too expensive you don't understand the market its aimed at. Its not really for Joe Sixpack. Its for Joseph Suit that wants to take his computer with him and not carry a laptop.
If you want to dethrone a wildly popular product, you have to put one out there that is wildly better or quite a bit cheaper. Companies traditionally haven't been able to compete with Apple very much on the better part (perhaps clock speed, for a while), so they've come out with cheaper products. You are not going to derail the iPod with something that is roughly the same at the same price point. A little more capacity or being compatible with a different set of incompatible standards (WMA DRM vs iTMS).
So yes, I see it as a security vulnerability... because it means that a site has control over software installed on the user's computer and doesn't ask for consent before it goes changing how that software behaves. Maybe for some people it's not a big deal to find that the cut button doesn't work, but who says it'll stop there? What else is the browser going to roll over and obey? Allowing such basic functions to be turned off is a mistake that no software should ever make. It is indeed a security problem.
You seem to misunderstand something. The content that you access through your browser is NOT YOURS. It belongs to someone else and they should be free to restrict your access in whatever way they see fit. I agree that certain functions of a browser shouldn't be able to be modified, but only ones that effect data on your computer. I think by visiting a cite you are implicitly agreeing to certain terms of service, one of which is that the content owner owns and can control access to that content. You can secure Acrobat files so that you can't copy or print them, is this a security flaw in Acrobat? No, and you'd never say that it was because you knew this was possible. Just because you didn't think or know that this could be done with a web browser doesn't make it a security issue.
I think that's pretty much the story of corporations through all time. I think that extends even beyond corporations, to countries.
Let's look at Intel and Microsoft. Both rose to dominance because they had a good product at the right time, with good marketing. (I'm a Mac fan, I think windows is sh*t, but there's no denying that Microsoft has made computers more accessible to a wider audience, although Apple has always made the better product.) Now both are having some problems, why? Three main reasons:
1) Everybody targets the leader - if you're the leader in an industry everyone can see your weaknesses and target them to take you down. You're the guy to beat and people are going to try to do that.
2)The leader is big, and knows it - the leader of an industry is typically big, has big sales, big profits. They spend accordingly and build out accordingly, adjusting to lower profits is harder when you're used to them.
3)The leader is typically slower - 3 follows from 2, in that if you're a bigger company its harder for you to change course and take advantage of new ideas and trends. Firstly, your organization is larger and therefore harder to manage. Secondly, your customers tend to hold you more accountable to servicing them, the underdog gets more leeway, because he's the underdog.
So companies tend to start out small, grow, become too big to adjust quickly to a changing environment and then die or breakup. Some companies (IBM is a good example)manage to just fall into decline for a while and then emerge as a power player again, but this is hard to do for several reasons such as regaining customer confidence, having enough money to engineer the turn around, and the difficulty of changing the corporate culture to fit the reinvented company.
Until the first craft explodes. I mean this quite seriously. I think people will be enamored with the idea of commercial space flight initially, but if the first accident comes early on, its reputation could be damaged for a long time. On the other hand (you have other fingers), if it becomes a pretty accepted thing before the first accident happens, then no big deal, it will be an accident and the industry will recover.
Commercial space flight is important for space flight in general. As soon as it becomes something that people want to do, private industry will pour money into developing better travel methods, and will spend that money better than the government. With a little luck, NASA's research budget won't have to as big, because innovations from private industry will get some of the work done for them.
Let me answer that for you, NO. Before OS X I thought the command line was a primitive and clunky tool. Boy, was I ever wrong, I wonder today how I lived without it.
Hey jack nuts, I posted this. I like Cray, because I think companies that put a lot of thought into their product and make great ones deserve a cheering section. Of course you're a BC kid, so I'll forgive you, we (BU) spanks you enough in hockey to let you have a shot here and there.
SGI does not own CRAY. They did buy them back in 1996. SGI sold its Cray unit in 2000 to Tera Computer.
At the university of Boston
Its Boston University, my alma mater.
Problems run on clusters have to be able to be broken down into small pieces that don't need to interact with the other pieces very much. This is so because of communication latency in such a system. Someone mentioned SETI, which runs great on a cluster, because looking at the signal from one piece of sky requires no information about the surrounding sky. However, something like a nuclear explosion, broken into pieces, requires lots of information about the surrounding environment. What's worse is that as you make the pieces smaller when simulating a nuclear explosion, your need for knowledge about the surrounding increases! Such simulations require a much more tightly coupled system, a 'traditional' super computer.
HP got what they deserved. They toddled over to Intel for the Itanium and knifed the Alpha when Alpha was the better technology. Now they get the egg on their face as they run to join AMD's game. I'm happy for AMD, they're a good company (and I own their stock), but HA HA for HP.
allofmp3's legality is questionable, at best. Besides that their behavior isn't ethical, even if legal. They are exploiting a loophole in Russian copyright law that allows for the broadcast or cable transmission of music without authorization of the copyright holder. It can be interpretted that you downloading a file over the Internet is only a special kind of broadcast or transmission, and that you happen to be "listening" to it with a device capable of recording it. It is not clear whether under the laws of the US or Europe that this is illegal, but could easily be made so. Allofmp3 legal? Maybe. Ethical? No