That is where I always expected fuel cells to go. I refrigerator sized unit on the side of my house with a storage tank for the gas it produced during the day from the solar cells on the roof, and I could cut the cord to the power company. Batteries are still the biggest problem for getting off the grid for electricity.
Many people still use their instant messaging, but what I see use a LOT is the Yahoo Groups. It is a simple way for average joes to create private mailing lists. I know that at least 4 of the moms groups for creating kids playdates my wife has joined had their mail list/forum hosted on Yahoo Groups. There email seems fine too.
Just be careful that the screw up manager doesn't realize what you are doing, and replace you on his schedule for someone that isn't going to create a problem for him later. Honestly, if you have a boss that is going to sink you, you are doomed at that job anyway. The only hope at that employer is if you are just cya'ing yourself until you can either get transferred to another department, or the manager leaves the company. Think carefully about whether those are realistic possibilities or not.
I am soooo glad I work for one of those mythical good managers.
One of the stupid things that this points to is that the companies have no problem spending the money and man-hours to train the new hire the business side of the job, but not the money and man-hours to train the existing employee on the new technology. In all but the simplest of environments, the business side is WAY more complex than the technology side, and you have a proven track record with the existing employee, while you are taking a big risk with the new hire.
No kidding, without Jobs' brilliance, Apple might start shipping phones that lose signal if held wrong. They might ship products without cut and paste. They might ship an OS that sometimes shrinks the window when you press a green plus. They might even lose the ability to engineer a battery door in their battery operated products.
Really, Steve Jobs doesn't call BS on half-assed engineering.
If the OS is running on a desktop, how is it not a desktop OS? Or is it not a desktop OS because it is not running on a desktop computer, which isn't a desktop computer because it isn't running a desktop OS, which isn't a desktop OS because it isn't running on a desktop computer which isn't a desktop computer because it isn't running a desktop OS, which isn't a desktop OS because it isn't running on a desktop computer which isn't a desktop computer because it isn't running a desktop OS, which isn't a desktop OS because it isn't running on a desktop computer.....?
ARM is already powerful enough to be a desktop processor. It might not be as fast as even middle of the road PCs, true, but they are fast enough for most users.
The biggest problem with the story is that the difference between a desktop and a tablet is whether it is sitting on a desk or not. My tablet can plug into a monitor, a keyboard and a mouse. It can be left plugged into the wall. How is it not a desktop when it is doing so?
That is why I always find the Windows Admins who want to lock everything down so funny. Most of them are completely unaware that their very jobs were created by people going around admins like them because they couldn't get their jobs done efficiently.
I would expect Android to be the specific Linux flavor to make the first inroads onto the desktop. I also think it will happen faster than you think. People love their phones. It is already being bandied about that the desktop will soon be unnecessary, as the phone will fulfill all of the desktop's roles. I think this is wrong for all but a small segment, but it is not crazy to think that many people will forgo getting a PC because they do believe it. When they find that they really need a keyboard and monitor to do some tasks comfortably, they will plug their phone into the TV, and buy a keyboard + mouse for their phone. They will do the current crop of phones really is powerful enough to handle most peoples computer needs. It is just a poor interface for many of them. I don't see much of a difference between sitting in front of a C64 hooked up to my TV in the 80's, and a phone plugged into my TV today, other than the phone today is far more capable.
Once people start using the phone as their desktop hooked to the TV, most will find, just as they did with their C64s, that the couch and coffee table are terrible places to sit and type in any quantity. This will lead them to set up a spot in their house with a dedicated screen and keyboard. At that point you have linux on the desktop.
I agree with most of what you said. Windows will get surrounded and consumed, although I don't think that people will "switch" to linux when Windows has been marginalized. I think people will just start realizing that they already have more software that runs on a Linux platform than they have running on Windows. Then when the subject comes up, they will start realizing that they no longer need Windows.
Of course, this all depends on Google, not blowing it with Android, and MS not pulling a rabbit out of the hat.
My tablet can display to an external screen, and I already use a USB keyboard with it. It is hardware capable of using a mouse as well. Now, where can I get my flying pony and teenage girls???
(I'm in California, so please make them 18 and 19 please.)
What about ARM, other than power efficiency, is designed for "mobile". It is designed for low power computing, sure. Although that seems to be changing. But, I have see, heard, can imagine, nothing else in the ARM architecture that is specifically designed for "mobile".
I would say that it goes even more fundimental than that. I would say that tech journalists don't consider what a COMPUTER is. In fact, most "techies" don't either. Names are given to basic form factors, but they are all PCs. Portable PCs are nothing new. They have been around almost as long as desktop PCs. Sometimes the only difference between the two was whether there was a handle on the top. A "tablet" is an all in one computer with a battery and a touch screen. Touch screen existed before the "Tablet" market. The huge advancement in screen technology pretty well guarenteed that touch screen would make in roads. As you say, the keyboard is not going anywhere. I doubt the mouse is either, but I could buy that.
I have a ViewSonic gTablet. for $25 bucks, I bought a case that had a built in keyboard for it. So, since the screen fold down onto the keyboard for carrying, and when open, I have a screen and keyboard in the traditional laptop configuration. So, what is it?
I figure that it's name would have went like this:
1980: Micro Computer.
1983: Home Computer
1985: Workstation (only because it is so freaking powerful compared to the "Home Computers of the day")
1990: Laptop
2000: Notebook
2008: Netbook
2010: Tablet
Yes computers form factors will change. More and more things will be packed into them. OSes might change. Processors might change, but they will just be computers, and for some people they will be magic boxes. They will not understand the differences between their current computer, and others that are/were available. For other people, they will understand the differences and make arbitrary categories. Most will not understand that many of the features the insist make it something different, in fact are available in devices they put in different categories. As markets shift, marketers will redefine old products to no longer fit in the current definition, and they will make up new categories to make the same old tech look like a new revolution.
I would say that two pieces that are driving the current "hype" around the name tablet is that screen technology has gotten really good, and processors have gotten good enough. Once computers got good enough to handle 90% of the populations needs, the obvious next direction of improvement is in size and power consumption.
While, it may be true that Mac was first to market, it isn't like they were the only ones on the market for long, and SOMEONE has to be first. It it wasn't Mac, it would have likely been Amiga, or Atari.
The same thing that would happen if someone hacked your robotic washing machine, and set it to not stop pumping water. That's right, there are millions of robot clothes washers in the world. A good many of them are computer controlled.
Your right it's a false dichotomy. For example, you talk about setting boundaries, even though you DO mix work and home life. The fact that you are using electricity that you bought in a facility that you pay for is a very large mixing of personal and business life. Giving up space in your home is a far bigger use of personal resources than a computer.
For you, the boundary is your phone and computer. From your description, it sounds like your employer would abuse those if they had the chance. I don't set that boundry. My employer could call me at 2 in the morning and tell me to drive the 1.5 hours to the office, and I would do it. The number of times they have done this in the last 10 years? 0. That means that if they did, I could be sure that they were not doing it just for convenience, but because there was a real emergency. In exchange, I don't have to ask, or even tell them if I have a middle of the day appointment.
You actually argue in favor of my point, even if you don't realize it. Your deal is better than the person that cannot use their personal home for work use. My deal is better than yours, as I don't have to dedicate extra space in my home to a company computer. I also don't have to install anything special on my system other than VMWare, which I have installed anyway.
Beyond that, as the poster below says, it is great that you and I have really sweet deals with our work, but those jobs are limited in quantity. Many people don't have a choice when it comes to putting limits on work, and for others, the separation really does mean becoming a cube rat.
Heck, if it were not for the threat of massive lawsuit, many wouldn't even have the ability to separate work and having sex. The labor laws pretty well prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that employees frequently don't have a choice.
This is how the arguements go. One reason is given, and when it is pointed out that it is a red herring, it is a different argument, and after a good round of pointing out the flaws in the admin's arguments, the start back at the beginning.
So, as to stopping someone from copying ten years of diplomatic cables, the answer is that first you need to determine the kind of information you are trying to protects. Most businesses are NOT government agencies trying to protect international secrets. Second, keeping people from connecting their own laptops isn't even the start of what needs to be done to protect against employees taking data. You need to ban cameras, including phones with cameras, you need to deny unmonitored people from accessing systems, you need to treat your entire facility like it is a military installation.
That just isn't cost effective for most of the businesses out there to protect a client list, or some internal memos. Recognizing the difference between a medical facility, a financial facility and a steel mill is key to properly setting up security.
So, unless your protecting national secrets, your example is pure FUD.
It sounds like you have a problem that is totally unrelated to technology. I can drive onto my employers property with my personal car. If I start doing donuts in the parking lot, they will tell me that I cannot do that anymore. They will NOT make a corporate policy banning personal cars in the parking lot. Why? Because the problem isn't that there are personal cars in the parking lot.
Maybe better would be that, I could take my personal car to the local porn shop, full the back seat up with porn and various other 'marital aids'. I could fill it to the brim. If I drive that car onto the employers property, it will be considered a serious problem if I get out of my car, and a pile of hard core fetish porn spills out of the door, and a half dozen devices start buzzing across the ground, just the most easily offended female office worker is walking by. Again, no one is going to blame the problem on the fact that employees can park their personal cars on company property. It will be seen as a person problem.
The fact is that most jobs require their employees to use some of their own personal property in doing their job. Even if that is the pants I wear to keep from scaring my co-workers. I know the knee jerk response is to say "that's different". Well, it isn't. Not all jobs require employees to supply their own clothing. Pretty much all of the jobs that might entail using your own laptop, but there are lots that supply their employees with company issued pants.
This whole debate boils down to "it's on a computer so it's totally different than all of the exact same things that are not on a computer".
Slashdot Mirror
Because you cannot count on the streaming movies to always be there. Sometimes they disappear from the streaming service.
That is where I always expected fuel cells to go. I refrigerator sized unit on the side of my house with a storage tank for the gas it produced during the day from the solar cells on the roof, and I could cut the cord to the power company. Batteries are still the biggest problem for getting off the grid for electricity.
Many people still use their instant messaging, but what I see use a LOT is the Yahoo Groups. It is a simple way for average joes to create private mailing lists. I know that at least 4 of the moms groups for creating kids playdates my wife has joined had their mail list/forum hosted on Yahoo Groups. There email seems fine too.
The primary fear of unionizing IT in the US is not a fear of management, but a fear that the union turn out like every other union in the US.
Just be careful that the screw up manager doesn't realize what you are doing, and replace you on his schedule for someone that isn't going to create a problem for him later. Honestly, if you have a boss that is going to sink you, you are doomed at that job anyway. The only hope at that employer is if you are just cya'ing yourself until you can either get transferred to another department, or the manager leaves the company. Think carefully about whether those are realistic possibilities or not.
I am soooo glad I work for one of those mythical good managers.
One of the stupid things that this points to is that the companies have no problem spending the money and man-hours to train the new hire the business side of the job, but not the money and man-hours to train the existing employee on the new technology. In all but the simplest of environments, the business side is WAY more complex than the technology side, and you have a proven track record with the existing employee, while you are taking a big risk with the new hire.
No kidding, without Jobs' brilliance, Apple might start shipping phones that lose signal if held wrong. They might ship products without cut and paste. They might ship an OS that sometimes shrinks the window when you press a green plus. They might even lose the ability to engineer a battery door in their battery operated products.
Really, Steve Jobs doesn't call BS on half-assed engineering.
If the OS is running on a desktop, how is it not a desktop OS? Or is it not a desktop OS because it is not running on a desktop computer, which isn't a desktop computer because it isn't running a desktop OS, which isn't a desktop OS because it isn't running on a desktop computer which isn't a desktop computer because it isn't running a desktop OS, which isn't a desktop OS because it isn't running on a desktop computer which isn't a desktop computer because it isn't running a desktop OS, which isn't a desktop OS because it isn't running on a desktop computer.....?
ARM is already powerful enough to be a desktop processor. It might not be as fast as even middle of the road PCs, true, but they are fast enough for most users.
The biggest problem with the story is that the difference between a desktop and a tablet is whether it is sitting on a desk or not. My tablet can plug into a monitor, a keyboard and a mouse. It can be left plugged into the wall. How is it not a desktop when it is doing so?
That is why I always find the Windows Admins who want to lock everything down so funny. Most of them are completely unaware that their very jobs were created by people going around admins like them because they couldn't get their jobs done efficiently.
I would expect Android to be the specific Linux flavor to make the first inroads onto the desktop. I also think it will happen faster than you think. People love their phones. It is already being bandied about that the desktop will soon be unnecessary, as the phone will fulfill all of the desktop's roles. I think this is wrong for all but a small segment, but it is not crazy to think that many people will forgo getting a PC because they do believe it. When they find that they really need a keyboard and monitor to do some tasks comfortably, they will plug their phone into the TV, and buy a keyboard + mouse for their phone. They will do the current crop of phones really is powerful enough to handle most peoples computer needs. It is just a poor interface for many of them. I don't see much of a difference between sitting in front of a C64 hooked up to my TV in the 80's, and a phone plugged into my TV today, other than the phone today is far more capable.
Once people start using the phone as their desktop hooked to the TV, most will find, just as they did with their C64s, that the couch and coffee table are terrible places to sit and type in any quantity. This will lead them to set up a spot in their house with a dedicated screen and keyboard. At that point you have linux on the desktop.
I agree with most of what you said. Windows will get surrounded and consumed, although I don't think that people will "switch" to linux when Windows has been marginalized. I think people will just start realizing that they already have more software that runs on a Linux platform than they have running on Windows. Then when the subject comes up, they will start realizing that they no longer need Windows.
Of course, this all depends on Google, not blowing it with Android, and MS not pulling a rabbit out of the hat.
My tablet can display to an external screen, and I already use a USB keyboard with it. It is hardware capable of using a mouse as well. Now, where can I get my flying pony and teenage girls???
(I'm in California, so please make them 18 and 19 please.)
What about ARM, other than power efficiency, is designed for "mobile". It is designed for low power computing, sure. Although that seems to be changing. But, I have see, heard, can imagine, nothing else in the ARM architecture that is specifically designed for "mobile".
I would say that it goes even more fundimental than that. I would say that tech journalists don't consider what a COMPUTER is. In fact, most "techies" don't either. Names are given to basic form factors, but they are all PCs. Portable PCs are nothing new. They have been around almost as long as desktop PCs. Sometimes the only difference between the two was whether there was a handle on the top. A "tablet" is an all in one computer with a battery and a touch screen. Touch screen existed before the "Tablet" market. The huge advancement in screen technology pretty well guarenteed that touch screen would make in roads. As you say, the keyboard is not going anywhere. I doubt the mouse is either, but I could buy that.
I have a ViewSonic gTablet. for $25 bucks, I bought a case that had a built in keyboard for it. So, since the screen fold down onto the keyboard for carrying, and when open, I have a screen and keyboard in the traditional laptop configuration. So, what is it?
I figure that it's name would have went like this:
1980: Micro Computer.
1983: Home Computer
1985: Workstation (only because it is so freaking powerful compared to the "Home Computers of the day")
1990: Laptop
2000: Notebook
2008: Netbook
2010: Tablet
Yes computers form factors will change. More and more things will be packed into them. OSes might change. Processors might change, but they will just be computers, and for some people they will be magic boxes. They will not understand the differences between their current computer, and others that are/were available. For other people, they will understand the differences and make arbitrary categories. Most will not understand that many of the features the insist make it something different, in fact are available in devices they put in different categories. As markets shift, marketers will redefine old products to no longer fit in the current definition, and they will make up new categories to make the same old tech look like a new revolution.
I would say that two pieces that are driving the current "hype" around the name tablet is that screen technology has gotten really good, and processors have gotten good enough. Once computers got good enough to handle 90% of the populations needs, the obvious next direction of improvement is in size and power consumption.
Mac: 1984
Windows: 1985
Amiga: 1985
Atari ST: 1985
C64 Geos: 1986
While, it may be true that Mac was first to market, it isn't like they were the only ones on the market for long, and SOMEONE has to be first. It it wasn't Mac, it would have likely been Amiga, or Atari.
Yes, but you don't have to be connected to the internet to have something hacked. It just requires more effort by the hacker if it isn't.
The same thing that would happen if someone hacked your robotic washing machine, and set it to not stop pumping water. That's right, there are millions of robot clothes washers in the world. A good many of them are computer controlled.
Your right it's a false dichotomy. For example, you talk about setting boundaries, even though you DO mix work and home life. The fact that you are using electricity that you bought in a facility that you pay for is a very large mixing of personal and business life. Giving up space in your home is a far bigger use of personal resources than a computer.
For you, the boundary is your phone and computer. From your description, it sounds like your employer would abuse those if they had the chance. I don't set that boundry. My employer could call me at 2 in the morning and tell me to drive the 1.5 hours to the office, and I would do it. The number of times they have done this in the last 10 years? 0. That means that if they did, I could be sure that they were not doing it just for convenience, but because there was a real emergency. In exchange, I don't have to ask, or even tell them if I have a middle of the day appointment.
You actually argue in favor of my point, even if you don't realize it. Your deal is better than the person that cannot use their personal home for work use. My deal is better than yours, as I don't have to dedicate extra space in my home to a company computer. I also don't have to install anything special on my system other than VMWare, which I have installed anyway.
Beyond that, as the poster below says, it is great that you and I have really sweet deals with our work, but those jobs are limited in quantity. Many people don't have a choice when it comes to putting limits on work, and for others, the separation really does mean becoming a cube rat.
Heck, if it were not for the threat of massive lawsuit, many wouldn't even have the ability to separate work and having sex. The labor laws pretty well prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that employees frequently don't have a choice.
I would guess the answer would be in looking at how elephants treat their offspring when their offspring are born with birth defects.
I don't know why that posted anonymously, I was logged in when I posted it...
The real one. Any place that has a 5% daily infection rate doesn't happen by accident. Not in the real world.
This is how the arguements go. One reason is given, and when it is pointed out that it is a red herring, it is a different argument, and after a good round of pointing out the flaws in the admin's arguments, the start back at the beginning.
So, as to stopping someone from copying ten years of diplomatic cables, the answer is that first you need to determine the kind of information you are trying to protects. Most businesses are NOT government agencies trying to protect international secrets. Second, keeping people from connecting their own laptops isn't even the start of what needs to be done to protect against employees taking data. You need to ban cameras, including phones with cameras, you need to deny unmonitored people from accessing systems, you need to treat your entire facility like it is a military installation.
That just isn't cost effective for most of the businesses out there to protect a client list, or some internal memos. Recognizing the difference between a medical facility, a financial facility and a steel mill is key to properly setting up security.
So, unless your protecting national secrets, your example is pure FUD.
Of course it doesn't ring. Your sitting in a cube in a completely different building than your wife.
It sounds like you have a problem that is totally unrelated to technology. I can drive onto my employers property with my personal car. If I start doing donuts in the parking lot, they will tell me that I cannot do that anymore. They will NOT make a corporate policy banning personal cars in the parking lot. Why? Because the problem isn't that there are personal cars in the parking lot.
Maybe better would be that, I could take my personal car to the local porn shop, full the back seat up with porn and various other 'marital aids'. I could fill it to the brim. If I drive that car onto the employers property, it will be considered a serious problem if I get out of my car, and a pile of hard core fetish porn spills out of the door, and a half dozen devices start buzzing across the ground, just the most easily offended female office worker is walking by. Again, no one is going to blame the problem on the fact that employees can park their personal cars on company property. It will be seen as a person problem.
The fact is that most jobs require their employees to use some of their own personal property in doing their job. Even if that is the pants I wear to keep from scaring my co-workers. I know the knee jerk response is to say "that's different". Well, it isn't. Not all jobs require employees to supply their own clothing. Pretty much all of the jobs that might entail using your own laptop, but there are lots that supply their employees with company issued pants.
This whole debate boils down to "it's on a computer so it's totally different than all of the exact same things that are not on a computer".