Sure. See the fact that XP has only just now been surpassed by 7. Or try interacting with the average person who uses computers because they have to, not because they want to. If you believe I'm wrong, you're out of your mind.
Because they have no reason to. Seriously. Linux offers so little of value over Windows 7 to the average user that would justify dealing with a significant UI change and loss of support. The average user has had a hard enough time moving from XP to 7 (and these are honestly almost identical except for a couple of eye candy tweaks). The differences going over to any of the current Linux distros would be too much.
The argument that Linux could ever take off on the desktop is based on the idea that it's equally easy to use for a complete novice. Unless you regularly deal with people who are genuinely novices, you really don't understand just how much changing things scares them. The support infrastructure for Linux on the desktop is just plain awful compared to that of Windows--OEMs do not support it except under specific circumstances, and the average neighborhood computer geek is far less likely to know how to fix an issue with Linux than with Windows.
Converting to MacOS X happens because of marketing hype and chic factor, but at least there is a decent support infrastructure in place from Apple, and the platform is consistent and stable enough that most issues that arise can be fixed.
Windows "just works" on almost any hardware. MacOS X "just works" on Apple systems. Linux does not, unless you are willing to do some digging.
If "everybody copies", there is a good chance that the concept was "obvious to those skilled in the art", which is the other main reason to invalidate a patent.
Except that when it comes to servers, the differences are far fewer. Target just a few different variations of a Dell or HP motherboard, all with very similar architecture, and the potential for havoc is great.
Nintendo is currently losing money, last quarterly result that I saw. The Wii also has not outsold the 360 for quite some time.
Nintendo would do better to give up on handheld hardware and focus on finding a good way of porting their franchises to Android/iOS instead. It's horribly impractical for most people to bring another device around with them besides their phone.
As opposed to continuing to burn fossil fuels which is actively trashing the planet right now? We've yet to come up with anything cleaner or safer than fission. Just like anything else in life, though, if you cut corners, there are risks. Do it right, and stop worrying about a fucking profit, and your grandkids (and mine) might just live to see their own grandkids grow up.
Scientists very rarely do any of the amazingly awesome stuff they do because they want tons of money. The people who fund the scientists only do so because they expect to make tons of money off of them. This is a very important distinction. Just like politics, if we remove money from the equation, a lot of good can happen. Medical and scientific progress shouldn't depend on the ability to turn a profit.
That's a technicality that is irrelevant. The parent post is correct-if they storm an embassy over something so trivial, then a whole lot of risk is now transferred over to diplomats trying to keep dangerous situations in other countries from blowing up. As soon as something goes awry, nations will have to pull their diplomatic personnel out instead of trying to work through the problem. Otherwise, they run the risk of seeing their people killed in embassy attacks.
If we achieve full automation, there is no risk on the highway. Also, in what way could you possibly be achieving any "drastic" travel time reductions? With fully automated travel on the highway, significantly higher speeds would be achieved. So, again, what is the point of going airborne then?
I just can't see how the math works for this. With fully automated highways/cars, you could approach 100mph or more with safety. The average commute in the US (which is more than in Europe or most other parts of the world) is 16 miles. So, at 100mph on roadways, even allowing for streets where that would not be practical, we are still looking at about 10 minutes travel time. In a flying car, you would again be looking at similar speeds, though perhaps a little greater, while using about twice the fuel. Allowing for travel in a straight line, plus about a minute for combined ascent/descent, maybe you'd reduce that to 7 or 8 minutes. Cool, we've spent twice as much on fuel (not to mention an undoubtedly higher upfront vehicle cost) to save ourselves 30 minutes a week. If you can afford that, and truly feel that your time is worth that kind of money, then congrats for being in the extreme minority of the population, and why the fsck are you still working?
This is perfectly viable IF it is fully automated. But if we reach the point of full automation (and we're damn close to it thanks to Google), why bother with flying anyway? What is there to save? Oh sure, you could theoretically have a shorter distance, but the extra fuel you'd use up by flying instead of driving negates whatever you might have saved in the overwhelming majority of use cases.
In strictest terms, yes, those are discrete models. However, the ipad 2/iphone 3gs/4 are "last years" models. That's the difference - Apple is not actively developing multiple models at the same time the way that the other phone manufacturers do, such as Galaxy S, Galaxy Note, etc. Apple has one line of phone, one line of tablet (maybe two starting next month if the rumors are true, though).
It certainly makes sense to continue producing an older version of the phone/tablet to offer at a lower price if you can continue making a profit that way--no engineering has to be wasted on it. Unlike the duplication of effort that exists when you have multiple different phones and tablets being designed at the same time.
I think that MS/Sony/Nintendo are starting to recognize that 5-6 years is about the max they can push a console before sales begin to dry up dramatically. The PS2 was an anomaly, simply because it had a near-monopoly on the market for so long, meaning a huge number of exclusives. In the current generation, there aren't enough exclusives on any one console to hold people over. If the PS3/360 can drop to the impulse-buy level of $100-$150, it might bring a little life back into sales, but for right now, I think most people are either set with what they have, or would rather wait for the next generation.
Not sure if you're being serious, but I'm fairly certain you can't just start/stop massive electrical plants like that. They're not designed for the stresses of it, and it's likely that you'd not see any significant fuel savings as a result.
640x800 seems low, but you're talking about a screen that is half the size (or less) of a modern cell phone - I suspect that, even being only an inch or two from your eye, you won't be making out individual pixels very easily.
If done right, a pair of AA batteries will last in a wireless keyboard/mouse for nearly a year, so it's not as dramatic an issue as you might think. I still can't see many offices using these by default, but no doubt consumers will like them.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously, a lot of people care about why - otherwise nobody would be posting comments here regarding Linux when the "story" wasn't even about Linux.
Name something Linux does that Windows doesn't. Or something that Linux does better than Windows.
Sure. See the fact that XP has only just now been surpassed by 7. Or try interacting with the average person who uses computers because they have to, not because they want to. If you believe I'm wrong, you're out of your mind.
Because they have no reason to. Seriously. Linux offers so little of value over Windows 7 to the average user that would justify dealing with a significant UI change and loss of support. The average user has had a hard enough time moving from XP to 7 (and these are honestly almost identical except for a couple of eye candy tweaks). The differences going over to any of the current Linux distros would be too much.
The argument that Linux could ever take off on the desktop is based on the idea that it's equally easy to use for a complete novice. Unless you regularly deal with people who are genuinely novices, you really don't understand just how much changing things scares them. The support infrastructure for Linux on the desktop is just plain awful compared to that of Windows--OEMs do not support it except under specific circumstances, and the average neighborhood computer geek is far less likely to know how to fix an issue with Linux than with Windows.
Converting to MacOS X happens because of marketing hype and chic factor, but at least there is a decent support infrastructure in place from Apple, and the platform is consistent and stable enough that most issues that arise can be fixed.
Windows "just works" on almost any hardware. MacOS X "just works" on Apple systems. Linux does not, unless you are willing to do some digging.
If "everybody copies", there is a good chance that the concept was "obvious to those skilled in the art", which is the other main reason to invalidate a patent.
Except that when it comes to servers, the differences are far fewer. Target just a few different variations of a Dell or HP motherboard, all with very similar architecture, and the potential for havoc is great.
Well then perhaps Apple should spend more of that massive amount of cash they have sitting around.
Nintendo is currently losing money, last quarterly result that I saw. The Wii also has not outsold the 360 for quite some time.
Nintendo would do better to give up on handheld hardware and focus on finding a good way of porting their franchises to Android/iOS instead. It's horribly impractical for most people to bring another device around with them besides their phone.
As opposed to continuing to burn fossil fuels which is actively trashing the planet right now? We've yet to come up with anything cleaner or safer than fission. Just like anything else in life, though, if you cut corners, there are risks. Do it right, and stop worrying about a fucking profit, and your grandkids (and mine) might just live to see their own grandkids grow up.
Scientists very rarely do any of the amazingly awesome stuff they do because they want tons of money. The people who fund the scientists only do so because they expect to make tons of money off of them. This is a very important distinction. Just like politics, if we remove money from the equation, a lot of good can happen. Medical and scientific progress shouldn't depend on the ability to turn a profit.
Integrity? On the Internet?
You must be new here...
That's a technicality that is irrelevant. The parent post is correct-if they storm an embassy over something so trivial, then a whole lot of risk is now transferred over to diplomats trying to keep dangerous situations in other countries from blowing up. As soon as something goes awry, nations will have to pull their diplomatic personnel out instead of trying to work through the problem. Otherwise, they run the risk of seeing their people killed in embassy attacks.
We're not blaming the tools, we're blaming the system and the policies.
So enjoy your helicopter/private jet?
If we achieve full automation, there is no risk on the highway. Also, in what way could you possibly be achieving any "drastic" travel time reductions? With fully automated travel on the highway, significantly higher speeds would be achieved. So, again, what is the point of going airborne then?
I just can't see how the math works for this. With fully automated highways/cars, you could approach 100mph or more with safety. The average commute in the US (which is more than in Europe or most other parts of the world) is 16 miles. So, at 100mph on roadways, even allowing for streets where that would not be practical, we are still looking at about 10 minutes travel time. In a flying car, you would again be looking at similar speeds, though perhaps a little greater, while using about twice the fuel. Allowing for travel in a straight line, plus about a minute for combined ascent/descent, maybe you'd reduce that to 7 or 8 minutes. Cool, we've spent twice as much on fuel (not to mention an undoubtedly higher upfront vehicle cost) to save ourselves 30 minutes a week. If you can afford that, and truly feel that your time is worth that kind of money, then congrats for being in the extreme minority of the population, and why the fsck are you still working?
This is perfectly viable IF it is fully automated. But if we reach the point of full automation (and we're damn close to it thanks to Google), why bother with flying anyway? What is there to save? Oh sure, you could theoretically have a shorter distance, but the extra fuel you'd use up by flying instead of driving negates whatever you might have saved in the overwhelming majority of use cases.
Actually, you'd get caught simply because the transmitter you need to do this isn't small enough to hide.
If hacking Curiosity is all that is required for a ticket to Mars (one way or otherwise), the line of geeks scrambling to hack it will be a mile long.
So, still no intelligent life. Bummer.
In strictest terms, yes, those are discrete models. However, the ipad 2/iphone 3gs/4 are "last years" models. That's the difference - Apple is not actively developing multiple models at the same time the way that the other phone manufacturers do, such as Galaxy S, Galaxy Note, etc. Apple has one line of phone, one line of tablet (maybe two starting next month if the rumors are true, though).
It certainly makes sense to continue producing an older version of the phone/tablet to offer at a lower price if you can continue making a profit that way--no engineering has to be wasted on it. Unlike the duplication of effort that exists when you have multiple different phones and tablets being designed at the same time.
I think that MS/Sony/Nintendo are starting to recognize that 5-6 years is about the max they can push a console before sales begin to dry up dramatically. The PS2 was an anomaly, simply because it had a near-monopoly on the market for so long, meaning a huge number of exclusives. In the current generation, there aren't enough exclusives on any one console to hold people over. If the PS3/360 can drop to the impulse-buy level of $100-$150, it might bring a little life back into sales, but for right now, I think most people are either set with what they have, or would rather wait for the next generation.
What do you mean "when"? China is already engaged in massive cyber-espionage with us.
Marketing isn't just about how much money you throw at it - your ads have to actually be good. The WP7/Bing ads have been awful.
Not sure if you're being serious, but I'm fairly certain you can't just start/stop massive electrical plants like that. They're not designed for the stresses of it, and it's likely that you'd not see any significant fuel savings as a result.
640x800 seems low, but you're talking about a screen that is half the size (or less) of a modern cell phone - I suspect that, even being only an inch or two from your eye, you won't be making out individual pixels very easily.
If done right, a pair of AA batteries will last in a wireless keyboard/mouse for nearly a year, so it's not as dramatic an issue as you might think. I still can't see many offices using these by default, but no doubt consumers will like them.