MS and Intel can say what they want, I mean, didn't Jobs say once there was no market for portable computers or notebooks?
The important thing to learn is not to be an ass just because you don't like an idea. Big companies can find themselves struggling to catch up to the "stupid ideas" that took off like a rocket because they thought they had everything figured out.
...I mean the industry, is finally moving to embrace online services.
What do you mean finally? Starz and Real have offered this service for years. MovieLink, too.
It's not a matter of the film houses waiting for anything so much as it is content providers waiting for the market to grow.
Movies encoded at decent viewing resolutions are on average 350MB which is totally unreasonable to dowload if you're on anything less than a high speed connection.
Only about half of the Americans who own computers at home have access to highspeed services, but somewhere around 34% actually take advantage of it. When those numbers were much lower, there wasn't really a market that could take advantage of this. Now, there's a little more and everyone else is trying to get their foot in the door.
The second part of this problem is making the movies portable (more than a laptop anyway). In order to do that the movie has to be secured to keep people from (easily) reditributing it, so you've got to have some kind of DRM on there. Ah, but since every content provider wants to use their own DRM, now device manufacturers have to be courted as well and convinced to put the distributor's codec and locks on the device. Unless you're Apple or Sony and build your own devices that work with your own DRM.
That brings us to problem 3- too many devices running too many DRMs that cost too much. As a consumer, this is what pisses me off more than anything about content. Why should I have to spend $300 or more for a device and be locked into buying content only from them? I should be able to buy any PMP or PMD of my choice, go to any content provider of my choice and buy and download any content of my choice.
If you use Xandros the RealPlayer comes as the default media player. This is not a bad deal either, because the Linux player is not crammed full of ads- it does what a media player should: play media. I give the Xandros guys a lot of credit, too, because ever since they started bundling the RealPlayer with their distro, they've been the ones to actually make the install work. Prior to that, Real had (still does I think) it listed as an alpha.
I would think more Linux folks would be attracted to Real, actually, because they have the open source version of the player and server, Helix and last I checked neither Apple nor MS have made their player OSS.
Can you access these Web services without a PC and still have a decent experience?
Or, are we all meant to replace our actually-useful-for-more-than-surfing-the-web boxes with dumb terminals? Maybe, they say everything old is new again.
As someone pointed out earlier, there's simply not enough bandwidth (and I really doubt there ever will be) to move ALL of the apps people use to the Web or a grid computer we access through the web.
Right now, I have to wait for apps on my local box to spin up and god help me if I actually multi-task on several memory intensive apps, can anyone seriously believe this will be better? Can you imagine the pain while waiting for the refresh on a large spread sheet to update?
Anyone who's running Win XP or Linux can get a sneak peek of what this experience would be like right now. Pick your best machine, boot it up and remote desktop or VNC to it over a modem. Enjoy.
Actually, this device WANTS more than games. There's a lot of potential here for all kinds of third party/community apps. Granted, text input is by way of an onscreen "keyboard" which is more like a phone's pad than anything, but with features like WiFi and a browser there are all kinds of things that could be done from the community if Sony would release to the public a (legal, approved) SDK for it.
A couple of things could be done to improve the unit itself, number one being the addition of a larger (in GB, not dimension) hard drive, making some of the buttons more sturdy feeling (R1 and L1 both feel like they could fall right out of the unit) and some other minor things.
I believe you're wrong about Moissanite failing conductivity test.
No, Moissanite does fail conductivity, that's how it's tested- by electrical conductivity. It is silicon carbide and absorbs heat at the same rate a diamond does, this is why it passes diamond testers (which just report diamond or synthetic material based on thermal test) and why Moissanite testers use conductivity tests. Silicon carbide does not conduct electricity in the same way a diamond does, and so this (Moissanite tester) is used if the diamond test passes.
Most (if not all) of the diamond in diamond coated drills are produced through this process.
There are several processes for putting diamond onto the lap/saw/drill. Some diamonds (natural or synthetic) are brazed onto the material, many saws and diamond wheels actually have diamond impregnated metal so as it wears, cutting action is not degraded and the cheapest method is really close to gluing the damn things to the material. In this instance, it is almost always synthetic. In gem faceting, diamond powder is actually sprinkled onto a lap and rolled into it or used as a slurry.
But as far as "most" goes, "most" diamond tools are not diamond at all but silicon carbide. And even then, it depends on the application for the lap, drill or saw. Depending on the material you are cutting or polishing, natural diamond is preferred to synthetic. This is the case when polishing diamonds and sapphires.
Also, there are a number of "fake" diamonds in the market already, none of which have had any impact on the diamond as a gem. The most common are CZ (cubic zirconia) and Moissanite which is a compressed carbon, also known as silicon carbide, and naturally occurring in meteorites but made for the market in labs. Other "brands" of fake diamonds are usually Moissanite. In diamond testing, cz fails thermal tests, Moissanite passes but fails on conductivity.
Yeah, that's probably it. I can start with a crate and add stuff to it as I need (wheels, handle, linkage for more crates), but maybe the rig is better in the long run if I think I will need things like an engine, cab and bigger load capacity.
Analogy aside, some have said that JBoss is the way to go if we need EJBs. If we didn't need that right away, we could use Tomcat now and later add in OpenEJB. On the surface at least that means that either would be acceptable. I guess what I wanted to know was if someone had a preference for using one or the other, what was it and why? Usually people have some insight on configuration or deployment woes, ease of use and integration problems with other systems and so forth.
I'm thinking about using apple boxes to package some goods. A buddy likes apple boxes, but I've only used orange crates. What are the benefits of apple boxes over orange crates?
Clearly there are differences, and yet they have the same purpose: to hold fruit. Apple boxes may be better for a number of reasons, orange crates may be better for a number of reasons and all I'm asking is what those are.
I am working a couple of other people on a startup, and we were thinking of going the JBoss route. One of them prefers JBboss, I've never used it, but have used Tomcat. We'll likely be running on multi proc AMD servers.
Has anyone used both? What are the benefits of one over the other? Do you like the way one does something better? Caveats? Pitfalls? Problems in deployment?
But it's not about who has done what in the past, it's about who is going to do better in the future.
Granted Google hasn't done nearly as much as Microsoft (but hasn't been around nearly as long either) but Google still has the advantage: they can learn from the mistakes of others.
Their current line of software is based on their experience- the Web. But with the talent they've slurped up, who's to say there will never be a Google OS?
In my opinion, what Microsoft seems to suffer from is getting things to market as fast as possible to remain (or at least appear to remain) competitive. The problem is, that once a product is in the wild, a lot of bugs and security flaws turn up which results in patching the software for the remainder of the time you own it.
The release and patch process is what the Mozilla Foundation seems to be falling into lately as well.
Google, on the other hand, seems to take a more "future use" approach to what they do, giving their products better longevity and as a result, a better experience to their users.
If they (Google) can "get it right" with a parallel network, they basically trump everyone in the market today who has laid claim to making the Internet better. If Google applies their anti-spam engine to network nodes, spam virtually faces extinction. And you know, if they watch what I surf and how I surf and it results in a better experience for me then I for one welcome our new Google overlords.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd take a Walmart bag any day over the "fine" veneer craftsmanship of Peter Kinne.
MS and Intel can say what they want, I mean, didn't Jobs say once there was no market for portable computers or notebooks?
The important thing to learn is not to be an ass just because you don't like an idea. Big companies can find themselves struggling to catch up to the "stupid ideas" that took off like a rocket because they thought they had everything figured out.
What do you mean finally? Starz and Real have offered this service for years. MovieLink, too.
It's not a matter of the film houses waiting for anything so much as it is content providers waiting for the market to grow.
Movies encoded at decent viewing resolutions are on average 350MB which is totally unreasonable to dowload if you're on anything less than a high speed connection.
Only about half of the Americans who own computers at home have access to highspeed services, but somewhere around 34% actually take advantage of it. When those numbers were much lower, there wasn't really a market that could take advantage of this. Now, there's a little more and everyone else is trying to get their foot in the door.
The second part of this problem is making the movies portable (more than a laptop anyway). In order to do that the movie has to be secured to keep people from (easily) reditributing it, so you've got to have some kind of DRM on there. Ah, but since every content provider wants to use their own DRM, now device manufacturers have to be courted as well and convinced to put the distributor's codec and locks on the device. Unless you're Apple or Sony and build your own devices that work with your own DRM.
That brings us to problem 3- too many devices running too many DRMs that cost too much. As a consumer, this is what pisses me off more than anything about content. Why should I have to spend $300 or more for a device and be locked into buying content only from them? I should be able to buy any PMP or PMD of my choice, go to any content provider of my choice and buy and download any content of my choice.
Till then I'll keep renting and buying DVDs.
They do this on purpose, you know. Think about it- which would you prefer? Go hunting with Dick Cheney or have your civil liberties restricted?
Not sure the DRM applies here- the music is streamed into a player, not downloaded for playback later.
Will Linux users use Real's product?
If you use Xandros the RealPlayer comes as the default media player. This is not a bad deal either, because the Linux player is not crammed full of ads- it does what a media player should: play media. I give the Xandros guys a lot of credit, too, because ever since they started bundling the RealPlayer with their distro, they've been the ones to actually make the install work. Prior to that, Real had (still does I think) it listed as an alpha.
I would think more Linux folks would be attracted to Real, actually, because they have the open source version of the player and server, Helix and last I checked neither Apple nor MS have made their player OSS.
I figured iTunes worked on Mac's.. guess I know less about Apple Strategery than I thought.
iTunes is not a subscription service. From the headline - "...it brings the first real subscription music service to Mac and Linux-based products."
I believe it also said something about SuicideGirls.
Which is right here
Do Bears shit in the woods?
When it's cheaper than paying for a quality shit somewhere else.
...It's a credit card you'll need to enter.
Can you access these Web services without a PC and still have a decent experience?
Or, are we all meant to replace our actually-useful-for-more-than-surfing-the-web boxes with dumb terminals? Maybe, they say everything old is new again.
As someone pointed out earlier, there's simply not enough bandwidth (and I really doubt there ever will be) to move ALL of the apps people use to the Web or a grid computer we access through the web.
Right now, I have to wait for apps on my local box to spin up and god help me if I actually multi-task on several memory intensive apps, can anyone seriously believe this will be better? Can you imagine the pain while waiting for the refresh on a large spread sheet to update?
Anyone who's running Win XP or Linux can get a sneak peek of what this experience would be like right now. Pick your best machine, boot it up and remote desktop or VNC to it over a modem. Enjoy.
Actually, this device WANTS more than games. There's a lot of potential here for all kinds of third party/community apps. Granted, text input is by way of an onscreen "keyboard" which is more like a phone's pad than anything, but with features like WiFi and a browser there are all kinds of things that could be done from the community if Sony would release to the public a (legal, approved) SDK for it.
A couple of things could be done to improve the unit itself, number one being the addition of a larger (in GB, not dimension) hard drive, making some of the buttons more sturdy feeling (R1 and L1 both feel like they could fall right out of the unit) and some other minor things.
I believe you're wrong about Moissanite failing conductivity test.
No, Moissanite does fail conductivity, that's how it's tested- by electrical conductivity. It is silicon carbide and absorbs heat at the same rate a diamond does, this is why it passes diamond testers (which just report diamond or synthetic material based on thermal test) and why Moissanite testers use conductivity tests. Silicon carbide does not conduct electricity in the same way a diamond does, and so this (Moissanite tester) is used if the diamond test passes.
More information thatn you ever wish you had on Moissanite testing.
Most (if not all) of the diamond in diamond coated drills are produced through this process.
There are several processes for putting diamond onto the lap/saw/drill. Some diamonds (natural or synthetic) are brazed onto the material, many saws and diamond wheels actually have diamond impregnated metal so as it wears, cutting action is not degraded and the cheapest method is really close to gluing the damn things to the material. In this instance, it is almost always synthetic. In gem faceting, diamond powder is actually sprinkled onto a lap and rolled into it or used as a slurry.
But as far as "most" goes, "most" diamond tools are not diamond at all but silicon carbide. And even then, it depends on the application for the lap, drill or saw. Depending on the material you are cutting or polishing, natural diamond is preferred to synthetic. This is the case when polishing diamonds and sapphires.
Also, there are a number of "fake" diamonds in the market already, none of which have had any impact on the diamond as a gem. The most common are CZ (cubic zirconia) and Moissanite which is a compressed carbon, also known as silicon carbide, and naturally occurring in meteorites but made for the market in labs. Other "brands" of fake diamonds are usually Moissanite. In diamond testing, cz fails thermal tests, Moissanite passes but fails on conductivity.
Awesome, this is what I was after. Even if it's biased
Thanks. On the EJB point though, when does it (?) make more sense to use JBoss than Tomcat and OpenEJB?
I'll take a look at the Tomcat, Spring Hibernate combination. Hibernate is used in JBoss app server as well.
Yeah, that's probably it. I can start with a crate and add stuff to it as I need (wheels, handle, linkage for more crates), but maybe the rig is better in the long run if I think I will need things like an engine, cab and bigger load capacity.
Analogy aside, some have said that JBoss is the way to go if we need EJBs. If we didn't need that right away, we could use Tomcat now and later add in OpenEJB. On the surface at least that means that either would be acceptable. I guess what I wanted to know was if someone had a preference for using one or the other, what was it and why? Usually people have some insight on configuration or deployment woes, ease of use and integration problems with other systems and so forth.
... when Wonder Bread became healthy.
Actually it goes more like this:
I'm thinking about using apple boxes to package some goods. A buddy likes apple boxes, but I've only used orange crates. What are the benefits of apple boxes over orange crates?
Clearly there are differences, and yet they have the same purpose: to hold fruit. Apple boxes may be better for a number of reasons, orange crates may be better for a number of reasons and all I'm asking is what those are.
So, thanks anyway.
I am working a couple of other people on a startup, and we were thinking of going the JBoss route. One of them prefers JBboss, I've never used it, but have used Tomcat. We'll likely be running on multi proc AMD servers.
Has anyone used both? What are the benefits of one over the other? Do you like the way one does something better? Caveats? Pitfalls? Problems in deployment?
Thanx in advance.
But it's not about who has done what in the past, it's about who is going to do better in the future.
Granted Google hasn't done nearly as much as Microsoft (but hasn't been around nearly as long either) but Google still has the advantage: they can learn from the mistakes of others.
Their current line of software is based on their experience- the Web. But with the talent they've slurped up, who's to say there will never be a Google OS?
...They get it right.
In my opinion, what Microsoft seems to suffer from is getting things to market as fast as possible to remain (or at least appear to remain) competitive. The problem is, that once a product is in the wild, a lot of bugs and security flaws turn up which results in patching the software for the remainder of the time you own it.
The release and patch process is what the Mozilla Foundation seems to be falling into lately as well.
Google, on the other hand, seems to take a more "future use" approach to what they do, giving their products better longevity and as a result, a better experience to their users.
If they (Google) can "get it right" with a parallel network, they basically trump everyone in the market today who has laid claim to making the Internet better. If Google applies their anti-spam engine to network nodes, spam virtually faces extinction. And you know, if they watch what I surf and how I surf and it results in a better experience for me then I for one welcome our new Google overlords.
and we'll call it even
I mean, my friend says he'll bring the guy in and he and the feds can call it even...
As far as I know, AIM is the last IM client you can't spam members of. That's probably the real reason behind this.
I used to use ICQ until the ability to leave messages waiting spawned the worst spam ever on an IM client.
I've used AIM since 98 or 99. Know what the total number of unsolicited IMs I've received to date is?
0
How is using a different layout going to prevent RSI? Isn't the use of ANY keyboard going to be repetitive?
BTW, doesn't most of the pain come from using the mouse at improper angles?
It's all moot if you slouch in your chair or are way above it, start with getting sitting right, then go from there.