No no no. We already have Shakespeare, and we all know that is all monkeys are good at. Never understood why people were so intent on recreating Shakespeare. Plus, I believe all monkeys are part of the WGA, so it would be pointless right now anyways.
(1) Yes, Java is a standard. Yes, it's part of Google's repertoire. But it doesn't mean it's the best selection (nor does it mean it's a bad one). I would point out that currently most mobile platforms aren't very good. Does this reflect on Java, the companies, or the market?
Flash is also a widely used platform, but I really wouldn't ever endorse it for anything besides making banner ads involving monkeys getting punched.
(2) Since they are going with Java, it does make sense to go with those technologies. It was more a lament on my part that that was the case. I know, some people really love those environments. And I'm happy for you. I have the personal preference not to (just as I really despise Adobe's Flash environment), and am saddened when I have to use them.
(4) This is a valid point. But I think part of the iPhone vs. Everyone Else fight will boil down to which platform is easier to code for, and which will allow for better environments. For example, if you look through the libraries for the iPhone, there are libraries specifically for gesture support. This means that with the SDK, you'll easily be able to add in things like thing pinch zooming.
If either phone has a large enough percept of apps that are particularly slow, kludgy to use, or generally badly designed, that will reflect poorly on the phone as a whole.
I know many Java enthusiasts say that: (a) Java is much faster nowadays, and (b) slow Java apps are written by bad coders. From personal experience, I've come across many slow Java apps. Maybe they're all written by bad coders. Maybe that Java as a language is great, but it's just that AWT and Swing suck. I don't know.
But, if phones running many processes at the same time (not just a single Java game running in the foreground) and users notice large latencies, then as a platform it's dead. iPhone wins.
If it allows fast development, can match the interface provided by the iPhone (doesn't need to be the same, but as friendly to use), then it wins by the simple fact that there are many more programmers who know Java.
I just downloaded the SDK, so will hopefully have some time to play around with it. It looks potentially very interesting, but here are a few quick thoughts:
(1) It's Java. Sometimes Java is the right tool for the job. Unfortunately, I've never been a big fan of the Java libraries. They always seemed overly complex and verbose to do simple things. I say this comparing it to both the STL/Boost for C++ and Cocoa. Granted, both of those libraries have their issues.
(2) It's eclipse-centric. It looks like they want you to use Eclipse. I'm sure you can do fine without using Eclipse. I'm not sure how dependent it is on creating interfaces etc. So you might do best to ignore this point. Eclipse does some things really well -- taking advantage of being a Java-based editor, it can use RTTI to help in the code-writing process.
That said, I would be very happy if I never had to use Eclipse again. The interface itself is extremely non-intuitive, gets in the way, and caused a great deal of swearing to occur. Nowadays I use either Emacs, Textmate, or XCode. XCode isn't perfect but it does a really good job of not getting in your way, and occasionally actually helping out (like the reference panel that automatically calls up info on the function your cursor is over.. it's on the side so it doesn't get in the way, but it's there if you want it).
(3) Code layout. I'm not sure how much of it being a Java thing, or how much it is google, but the fact that I need to go 3-4 directories in just to get to the source code is very frustrating. I'm pretty sure there's better ways to do that.
(4) I have an iPhone. I'm waiting for the iPhone SDK to be released.. it will be interesting to see how it compares. I really like Cocoa. It's really a great language/libraries for developing windowed systems. Interface Builder is the only GUI builder I think makes sense. I hate code generation, and I hate the weird quirks that come with many others (QT, Visual Studios, WxWidgets, GLADE++). IB just works.
(5) It appears to come with an emulator, which is very cool! That is a major win for fast development times.
Give all my complaints, I'm probably going to try writing an app or two for it ASAP. Code should be fun to write, which will be my major test for how good/bad the platform is. I also wonder how configurable it is. Did they come up with good conventions? If not, can you override them, or will all apps suffer the same?
Yes, security through obfuscation always It seems that perhaps people would learn by now that simply isn't true. Maybe the obfuscation slows down the attacks, but the real issue is how fast the fix can be had. No matter whether the software is open or closed sourced, there will be bugs, and therefore potential attacks on it. At least with open-sourced software anyone can potentially fix the problem, instead of waiting for a company to take potentially very long times to patch it (which is fairly frequent, as documented by/.).
Also, something to consider is that both the HW and OS play a larger role overall in security. It is possible to design a system with automatic sandboxing, such that one program cannot touch the memory of any other program including the OS. You don't need Java for this. If the HW and OS are done correctly, all Java really buys you (in terms of security) are programs that won't segfault (though often exceptions aren't fully handled, which usually gives the same end result).
But considering that at least some iPhones are having issues with their screens cracking, I'm supposing the issues worsens the larger the screen gets. Especially since the screen is getting a lot more physical contact than normal LCDs do.
You can probably strengthen the the front by increasing its width, but that will also add more weight to the laptop.
At another point (early in history) Jobs remarked that one of the things he didn't think was viable about tablets, is that you couldn't get the same resolution due to the protective covering (to prevent scratches from the pen). In the iPhone they solved this issue by putting glass over the screen. I have a suspicion this might be more difficult to do with a laptop, as the screen gets bigger, the glass will likely have to get thicker to keep it from getting too fragile.
However, Jobs is on record as saying that not next release of Macbooks, but the one afterwards, there's going to be a huge major upgrade.
Now there have been rumors that gesture controls were going to be made for the touchpad. Doable. But unexciting, and I'm not sure an awesome idea (it really only works well if the image is right below your fingers, and not on a separate screen).
Apple might be able to get away with having to use glass on a laptop screen, as it gets protected when closed. Or maybe the glass/protective screen isn't really an issue. So one solution Apple has is to not release the standard tablet, but rather a super-sized iPhone.
It's not a perfect solution. Multi-touch interfaces are really awesome. It allows you do things that are just hard to do with a mouse. Or a pen. On the other hand, pens allow you to write. And draw. Which are also really difficult to do with a mouse or fingers.
I've gotten fairly fast at typing on my iPhone with two thumbs. I have no doubt that with a bigger screen, you could get speed not far off from a tradition keyboard when put on a surface. If you are carrying it around, I think you could get tolerable, but not terrific, typing speeds.
It would also be interesting to see if Apple would do away with the keyboard altogether (which is probably the most inline with their aesthetics), let the keyboard get flipped away (I doubt Apple would ever do the twist-and-turn trick.. it's definitely out of line with their aesthetics), or simply have a standard laptop that you can interact with its screen.
The last option in some ways is the most intriguing. There's no compromises as far as getting the full functionality of a laptop, but you get the huge benefit of being able to touch the screen and move things around. Which I've wanted to be able to do for a really long time.
In the end, I would love an Apple tablet where I could just write with a pen on it, draw, or take notes. I don't think the technology is there (though, I never tried inkwell) as you had Jobs quoted as. If that's true, a hybrid would be a nice second place prize.
And it's news that the Pharms would prefer to treat the symptoms rather than cure a disease? There's no money in cures. But keeping people buying pills to treat symptoms - or better yet - reclassifying symptoms as new diseases. Now you're talkin' the shareholder's language baby!
Otherwise it's all just an order for another box of a half-dozen duh's. To go. Yes, one of things many people forget is that pharmas are companies in the end, and companies are out to make money. Not to cure disease, bring world peace, or find new scientific breakthroughs. Even if it's in the companies' name or mission. If it is a publicly traded company, it is legally bound to try to maximize the profit.
To just add to symptoms issue, it is well known that anti-psychotic drugs cause Parkinsonian-like symptoms, due to the decrease is levels of dopamine (both diseases are linked to dopamine). In an animal model it is difficult to test for psychosis, so what the companies do instead is see if the particular drug causes the animal to develop the Parkinsonian-like symptoms.
The thing is, one of the main reason people go off their meds, is that these symptoms can be rather severe and disabilitating. This has long-reaching social issues, as a very large people who are homeless are people who require medication to function normally, but aren't taking them.
Now, coming up with a good model of what's causing the psychosis in the first place, as well as another way to test it in the animal model is hard. Potentially very time consuming, and may or may not have monetary benefits. Is this something a company should tackle? It's likely not to make nearly as much money off it as say.. viagra.
The shareholders in your company will probably have a strong opinion of what the right choice is, but that is very different from the choice which will help out millions of disadvantaged people.
In theory this is where Academia should come in. It is in the situation where it can tackle problems of this complexity without worrying about profit. However, there are a couple issues:
1. The resources are not nearly on the same scale as the pharmas 2. Government funding is a fickle matter, and depends on the economy, current administration, and public sensibilities. 3. Competition
Issue (3) is the most complex of the issues -- there are many labs competing for the same money. The majority of the money that goes to most biology-based science labs is form the NIH (though institutes like the Howard Hughes institute do contribute a good amount). NIH stands for National Institutes of Health, and has the primary function of funding research to.. aid in health. Perfect.
Only, much of the money goes towards general scientific research. Which I won't complain about, because that's where I come from. But if general science and health research are competing for the same money, there's a problem. Money which is supposed to solve health issues is being spent on people who don't really care about solving those health issues.
If you work in say a Neuroscience lab, and if you want funding, you have to link your research to medical conditions. It doesn't matter if you're interested in the medicinal benefits or not. If you work on inhibitory cells, you link it to epilepsy. If you work on NMDA receptors, you link it to memory. That's how you get grant money. But most likely, your research won't have any direct impact on the medical field.. at least not for a long time.
I am a true believer that science is worth doing strictly for the benefit of science. But a large part of our country apparently isn't. So we get labs competing for the same money that probably should have two separate streams of funding.
So, I can totally understand his complaint that academia doesn't seem to be doing anything about.
I have a couple friends at that conference. I should see if they saw his talk..
It isn't necessarily clear from a consumer's perspective why this is advantageous (I suspect we'll have to wait to see an actual product first).
However, there are some big benefits to both Google and the phone companies. For google, they get one step closer to world domination. They get a relationship with the phone companies, and the get to build a solid foundation for mobile devices (which will eventually cover more than just cell phones).
From the article, it sounds like they are planning on creating interfaces for their services. Like many of their services, part of the benefit they get is by simple collecting data on you. I wonder if they'll stick to web based (+Google Gears), or whether they'll make Java interfaces.
I suspect that they'll also create a new interface for Java (something along the lines of GWT, that uses native widgets). This might be a big boon to the cell phone companies which then only have to implement the specifics of the interface per new hardware device. I don't have a strong love of Java, but it's not a bad choice for mobile platforms -- especially considering there are chips have a hardware implementation of the JVM.
So the phone companies get: (1) software tools (Google doesn't have a long history of releasing development tools -- at least publicly, so it will be interesting to see how it actually fairs), (2) fast development of software with little to no licensing fees (OS, web browser, maps program, notepad?, etc.)
Also, an important note.. the partners are the companies that sell the phones, not make them. Which makes me suspect is seen as a good thing by the companies, as it allows them to tailor (i.e. control/limit use) services that they want. This can give them faster launch time for services, and a better way to annoy their users.
Again, no big win obvious for the consumer. However, I think in the end it will be seen by how good the interface is, how good the developer tools, and how things work together. The thing is, and a lot of people seem to forget this, is that phones are much more than just their specs. If the interface sucks, it doesn't matter the hardware, or what OS it's running. Likewise, if either the OS or hardware suck, you're equally screwed.
It will be interesting to see how OpenMoko fairs. I was a Linux user for a very long time. I remember when both KDE and GTK+ started off (and remember Enlightenment anyone?). I am therefore a bit skeptical when it comes to open source interfaces. Considering that they were developed by people on their free time for no money, they are great accomplishments. And at least the last time I used Linux and Windows at the same time (before XP), I could at least say that I preferred their interfaces over Windows any day.
HOWEVER, one of the big issues I observed was the inability to really create new ideas. The window managers seemed to always be a hybrid between Windows and OS X. I think a big reason for that is that innovation of that kind is really hard to do. It's hard because you have to come up with new ideas, and then you have to convince a bunch of people working on the same project that your idea makes sense. In large group projects, unless there is a clear leader, I think often the design ends up being a compromise between people. Which can make for robust interfaces, but not new.
Which is to say, I will be (happily) surprised if OpenMoko ends up giving new that other phone don't have. Google has the advantage of having large resources to throw at the problem, clear leadership on the interface issues, and a lot of people to help innovate. Of course, this still doesn't guarantee anything, but it is a long winded answer to why this is different.
You are completely entitled to your opinions. But I'm sorry. You're wrong. Completely and utterly wrong wrong wrong.
First mistake. Buffy was in fact one of the best televisions shows made. It was witty, had really well written dialogue, complex characters, and story arcs that lasted the entire season (with references that could go back several years). However, because humor was crafted for those who watched the show serially, and so much was lost for people who watched the show occasionally and/or out of order.
Yes, the idea of a vampire slayer by the name of Buffy turned off a lot of people from the show. Understandably. My understanding is that originally it was a joke for Joss, and he was going to kill her at the end of the first season (permanently).
Angel was fun, but was never as deep or complex as Buffy. I always suspected it was to counter the seriousness that became Buffy in the later seasons.
Firefly had amazing characters, incredible interplay between those characters, as well thought out plots. While the concept of a space-western might (once again) be a bit strange (and already done [cowboy bebop, for example]), Joss made it is own.
Joss takes big risks. He seems to like to put himself in very difficult situations to make the challenge interesting. For example one Buffy episode had no speech whatsoever, while another was a musical (having never written a musical before). He managed to make those two episodes some of the best episodes in the entire show.
So, yeah, Buffy is a kinda a crazy idea. It was a joke. But he managed to make it amazing. Sure, space cowboys have been done before, but he made a compelling universe of his own to tell the stories. For anyone who is on the fence about these shows, it's well worth watching the shows in order, and really giving them a chance.
So, maybe Dollhouse isn't the best title. And maybe the plot has been done before. But Joss has shown amazing creativity, intelligence, and insight which gives him the ability to turn out some of the best shows ever made.
And maybe this sounds a little too much like a love poem to Joss. Well, maybe it is.
While I am a fan of the "esoteric field of machine learning", as the article mentions, I am also well aware of the countless of disappointments so far (thus no AI..). There have been many designs that can tackle toy problems, but nothing yet that has been able to handle large corpuses of text so far. The big problem being is that to really be able to do proper categorization the program must understand what it's reading. Which, again, requires some type of intelligence.
While methods are available to do categorization based on either static or learned heuristics, they are less than perfect (think about Safe Search in Google images -- it works decently, but definitely not perfectly). In fact, just parsing a single English sentences can be a difficult task for computers (if the sentence doesn't fall into a context free grammar). So the best we can probably hope Twine to do is categorize based off of word frequency (okay, they probably use some higher order stats).
Whenever I read about a new semantic technology, I always think of Wordnet (developed by Miller, who is the same guy responsible for the study showing we can remember 5-7 digits). Wordnet was developed as a database for the hierarchy of all words. Words are defined by their relationship to other words.
While it's a great idea, and useful for some projects, it also far from perfect, as words do not in the end have a static relationship to each other. The semantic web in the end relies on a static relationship between words (either through common usage or through a relationship through words).
Re:Can you use it to upload mails?
on
Free IMAP On Gmail
·
· Score: 5, Informative
There's an option in the settings to pull email from up to 5 (?) sources on the GMail page. There are several settings that allow you to optionally move or copy the emails. I did the move option, so I could check if any mail didn't make it across.
On the whole it worked great, EXCEPT that the date of the mail got messed up, it took the entire day, and the order was a bit strange. I ended up having to sort by date sent rather than date received. It was also a big pain in the ass to get random mail from my old account throughout the day.
On the other hand, once it was finished, I had stored 5 years of emails from my school account. There's still a few emails that never made the transfer, and I'm not completely sure why yet.
Apple also sent the same information to anyone who bothered to file out a bug report about a lack of an SDK. I mention this only to point out that it's nice that Apple actually took the time to listen to its developers (and not just people who pay an annual fee) and respond. So next time if you're wondering whether your bug report gets read, it appears at least in cases like this it does.
I've recently become a complete Apple-convert. I used to hate Apple, and came from a Linux background. I have to say, though, that from a development standpoint their XCode environment is great, their libraries are well thought out, and it comes with a good number of advanced features that keeps coding fun. If you're wondering why people are so excited about developing for the iPhone, these are a few of the reasons.
At one point I played around with the toolchain that was previously being developed by the community hackers. It was relatively easy to put together a simple iPhone app, as the iPhone is running a simplified version of Cocoa. However, the more complex stuff (and interesting parts, like gestures) were not up to par because of lack of documentation.
With the introduction of the SDK, I think we're going to see a batch of really nice 3rd party apps. The current ones are extremely good for what resources are available, but I think everyone would agree there is room for much improvement.
Hopefully Apple will do the right thing in opening up their platform as much as possible. I wouldn't mind getting a free key to sign my code (Google did a similar thing when they opened up their search API). I wonder if they will limit all things internety to WIFI only, as AT&T might complain about random packets flying over their EDGE (even though other phone companies already allow this). I'm still not sure I fully get the malicious code issue, as the iPhone is essentially a dumbed down Macbook with a harder-to-use keyboard. How is the iPhone any more dangerous?
In many ways we're already headed towards the digital cash solution. I pay most of my bills with my credit card online. My credit card company then contacts my bank, and money is transferred. Only without actualy transfer of dollar bills.
The problem is that credit cards are really a bad hack of a digital solution onto our physical-based one. The dollars back up the credits, and the US government (at least in my case) back up the dollars. At this point, I use dollar bills to pay for things that don't take credit card, or for speed. Using dollars are inconvenient because: (a) running out (i.e. need for ATM machines), (b) dealing with change, (c) takes up space. Credit cards are inconvenient because there is the wait for verification and signing your name.
In theory digital cash solves both these issues because it is limited by your bank account and already has a signature (based on cryptography). Additionally, the digital cash is backed in the same way that a dollar bill is. There should be no difference between the worth of the dollar bill and the bytes that make up the digital note.
These issues are extra important in space, as I strongly suspect there won't many ATMs just floating around. Transmission times could be problemtatic, though in reality, if the distances between objects is significant, the transaction is likely not critical. No goods (physical or digital) could easy be transferred between parties anyways. Thus we either have ways of quickly between large distances (making digital communication just as fast), or transactions will necessarily be limited by distances.
A bank ends up being anything institution that has some means to back the credits they issue. This isn't so different from credit card companies or other banks currently. While this could conceivably introduce problems, like different banks credits having different trading values, it would be feasible to set a standard trading value. Therefore, no one central bank is required (though it might be convenient).
Again, because digital money can be printed out, it's always possible to go back to the route of the dollar bill if necessary. More likely, if physical items are to be used for money, it would be actual goods. Food, oxygen, materials, etc. This is because in space distribution of items will most likely be even more difficult than what is used on Earth. Thus space trade would be a hybridization of credit system and a barter system.
I'm a bit torn on this issue. Having actual physical money is somewhat outdated. We're still using it because not everyone has the technology to use it yet, and because its the status quo (our economy and society are set up to use it). However, with the advent of cryptography, methods such as DigiCash allow for completely digital cash.
But in space, you will necessarily be surrounded by computers capable of doing digital transactions. The only downside I can see to this, is if you are far enough away (lightyears), then transmitting information would be costly (i.e. years). In that case being able to trade physical items would be necessary. However, you could still have the option of printing out your own money (and it's valid/legal!)
Firstly, I was only pointing out that labels that exist already. Open source software does not make any guarantees about ones freedom. It has no idealogical pinings, but rather simply describes having the source code available for perusale. If you don't beleive me, take a few seconds to google it.
Free software, as it's name describes, does try to make some guarantee about your freedoms in using it. There are may FOSS licenses out there, each with a slightly different idealogical bent. For example, the LGPL is less restrictive than the GPL, and is often used in libraries rather than applications.
Secondly, it's a common mistake that people make as the lines between Open Source and Free Software are often blurred.
Actually, it is open source software regardless. The open source refers to the fact that the source is open for all to read. It has no implications of freedom. Freedom is only guaranteed with Free Software (or sometimes FOSS). The Free of course refers to your freedom to do what you want with it.
It really depends on whether you are looking from Einstein's world view (God doesn't play dice) or Quantum mechanics world view, in which everything is assigned a probability (and therefore random). IANQM, but my understanding is that the interesting thing is how to scale the very small to the very big -- things which by their nature are ruled almost entirely to probability (particles) to things which have no randomness attached to them (>> particles).
You could in theory construct a truly random number generator based on some property of a particle. I think this has been done already, but for reasons unknown to me (either building the detectors is expensive, or there isn't a large demand for it), you can't get these things commericially. It might be a decent DYI project.
However, the truth of it is, for most things you don't actually need truly random numbers. Another way to look at random, is how much information does an outside observer have? Suppose I have a string of digits which are stored on my computer and I give them out. To someone who didn't previously have access to those digits, then it would most likely appear that they are random. The person receiving the digits might even might plot the numbers and see if they fit a particular distribution. However, even if they (for example) fit a Guassian distribution, doesn't guarantee they are truly random. Only they appear that way.
For getting a good compromise for getting psuedo-random numbers, some people have sample physical phenomena. For example, because of issues related to Chaos theory, taking local temperature readings might provide a good stream of numbers that are difficult for someone not in your immediate vicinity to know (provided you subtract of general trends like the mean 'global' temperature). Such detectors are cheap to produce and can provide large streams of data relatively fast. I want to make one of these for a while, as I run large simulations that require a lot of random numbers. As it turns out, a large part of the simulation time comes from generating those random numbers.
That's the thing that gets me. The amount of effort they put into lawyering could easily be fixed otherwise by making a page that works. And why don't they include whole episodes? It's not rocket science. It's a really simple formula to follow. First take content, then put it on the fucking page, ordered chronologically. Oh, and yeah, please make a decent player.
The thing is, people are lazy. People will watch advertisements. Youtube doesn't usually have entire episodes, the episodes vary in quality, and it can sometimes take a good amount of time to actually find. If they just put the content where people want it (remember that whole economics thing, with supply and demand?), then why not provide it? You can even make money on it. Really.
Not to mention of course, Youtube helps gain popularity for the show. Something called advertisements. Something most companies have to spend a lot of money on.
For Vegas a large number of people were needed. Even if the initial costs go down, only a very small number of people can afford it. Which is fine, as I'm assuming they're not building it very large. But the problem is that there isn't going to be much to do when you are up there. It's an experience, but not a destination. I doubt too many people will return for another time to watch the earth go by.
So, yes, a casino, restaurant, and bar will be needed. But those won't really be possible until some gravity can be established. Not just because zero-g makes everything very difficult (which is a large enough reason), but also for health reasons (like loss of bone-mass issues).
I think this is one of the first steps for a human presence in space. In many ways it follows how international airflight became economical. With that said, there are a couple of issues.
Firstly, unlike international flights, there is no ultimate functional destination (yet). The only reason to be there currently is because you have money to waste. Other business ventures need to be set up to create a supportable ecosystem. Two other businesses that may be sensible would be: research, though getting the government grants to do so would be difficult, so the research would have to have some economical return; and possible mining on the moon (hydrogen).
Longer term, I think it is worthwhile of thinking of the universe being a very large tappable energy source. Large enough to be considered infinite for now. The big issues with this are: (1) how difficult is a particular resource to harvest, (2) how long will it take, (3) can it converted to energy easily, or must it be transferred first to be processed. The last point is important, because the harvesting shuttles themselves could in theory power themselves on these resources. This could extend their distance and speed.
Secondly, zero-g living will only be fun for so long. You can already experience it without going up. While (AFAIK) we still don't have any anti-gravity engines, it is still possible to simulate gravity using centripetal force. Unfortunately, if I remember correctly, this requires a rather large ring rotating at a decent velocity. This will also solve the issue of the toliets.
Re:how connected do we have to be?
on
Smartphone Shootout
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
How useful such a device is to you definately depends on your lifestyle, where you live, and personal preferences. With that said, while I do not expect to do the same type of work on my iphone as my laptop, they both occupy two different needs of mine. Living in NYC requires me to look random things up when I'm walking around. The iPhone is perfect for this. Or random conversations where some rnd factoid was needed, it sre beats pulling out a laptop.
So, yeah not as good as a full-fledged computer for some things, but it's not supposed to be a replacement. That's one of the reasons I never understood all the complaints about the speed of edge. Sure, faster is better, but realistically the amount of web browsing you are going to do is more limited by the small size of it than anything. If you are doing a massive amount of web browsing, then do yourself a favor and get a real computer. If, on the other hand, you are waiting for someone who is late (everyone is around here), if's f'ing great.
Also, in my personal experience, the battery life is great. Which in part due to the lower speed edge chip.
While it's true that Murdoch is in somewhat of a unique position of both owning a largely used website, and a TV station, I question what he'll really be able to do with it. Certainly other stations (NBC and ABC, for example) have some of the content online. It's not well done, and it still a poor replica of what they're doing on the actual broadcast. Though still much better than other stations, such as Comedy Central (which probably should win awards for worse design ever).
The current state of Myspace doesn't speak well of what's to come. If I have to navigate Myspace's space, it will certainly act as a deterient. If they create new content, it seems doubtful to me it will be as good as the broadcast shows (and that's for the most part a fairly low benchmark).
I think other companies, like Joost, have the right idea of providing a real client on all the platforms. It works fairly well for the most part, thought it does suffer from frequent pauses. Oh, and lack of content. But besides that, it's a good idea.
Slashdot Mirror
All that ever leads to is bad cat-puppets attacking you.
No no no. We already have Shakespeare, and we all know that is all monkeys are good at. Never understood why people were so intent on recreating Shakespeare. Plus, I believe all monkeys are part of the WGA, so it would be pointless right now anyways.
(1) Yes, Java is a standard. Yes, it's part of Google's repertoire. But it doesn't mean it's the best selection (nor does it mean it's a bad one). I would point out that currently most mobile platforms aren't very good. Does this reflect on Java, the companies, or the market?
Flash is also a widely used platform, but I really wouldn't ever endorse it for anything besides making banner ads involving monkeys getting punched.
(2) Since they are going with Java, it does make sense to go with those technologies. It was more a lament on my part that that was the case. I know, some people really love those environments. And I'm happy for you. I have the personal preference not to (just as I really despise Adobe's Flash environment), and am saddened when I have to use them.
(4) This is a valid point. But I think part of the iPhone vs. Everyone Else fight will boil down to which platform is easier to code for, and which will allow for better environments. For example, if you look through the libraries for the iPhone, there are libraries specifically for gesture support. This means that with the SDK, you'll easily be able to add in things like thing pinch zooming.
If either phone has a large enough percept of apps that are particularly slow, kludgy to use, or generally badly designed, that will reflect poorly on the phone as a whole.
I know many Java enthusiasts say that: (a) Java is much faster nowadays, and (b) slow Java apps are written by bad coders. From personal experience, I've come across many slow Java apps. Maybe they're all written by bad coders. Maybe that Java as a language is great, but it's just that AWT and Swing suck. I don't know.
But, if phones running many processes at the same time (not just a single Java game running in the foreground) and users notice large latencies, then as a platform it's dead. iPhone wins.
If it allows fast development, can match the interface provided by the iPhone (doesn't need to be the same, but as friendly to use), then it wins by the simple fact that there are many more programmers who know Java.
I just downloaded the SDK, so will hopefully have some time to play around with it. It looks potentially very interesting, but here are a few quick thoughts:
.. it's on the side so it doesn't get in the way, but it's there if you want it).
.. it will be interesting to see how it compares. I really like Cocoa. It's really a great language/libraries for developing windowed systems. Interface Builder is the only GUI builder I think makes sense. I hate code generation, and I hate the weird quirks that come with many others (QT, Visual Studios, WxWidgets, GLADE++). IB just works.
(1) It's Java. Sometimes Java is the right tool for the job. Unfortunately, I've never been a big fan of the Java libraries. They always seemed overly complex and verbose to do simple things. I say this comparing it to both the STL/Boost for C++ and Cocoa. Granted, both of those libraries have their issues.
(2) It's eclipse-centric. It looks like they want you to use Eclipse. I'm sure you can do fine without using Eclipse. I'm not sure how dependent it is on creating interfaces etc. So you might do best to ignore this point. Eclipse does some things really well -- taking advantage of being a Java-based editor, it can use RTTI to help in the code-writing process.
That said, I would be very happy if I never had to use Eclipse again. The interface itself is extremely non-intuitive, gets in the way, and caused a great deal of swearing to occur. Nowadays I use either Emacs, Textmate, or XCode. XCode isn't perfect but it does a really good job of not getting in your way, and occasionally actually helping out (like the reference panel that automatically calls up info on the function your cursor is over
(3) Code layout. I'm not sure how much of it being a Java thing, or how much it is google, but the fact that I need to go 3-4 directories in just to get to the source code is very frustrating. I'm pretty sure there's better ways to do that.
(4) I have an iPhone. I'm waiting for the iPhone SDK to be released
(5) It appears to come with an emulator, which is very cool! That is a major win for fast development times.
Give all my complaints, I'm probably going to try writing an app or two for it ASAP. Code should be fun to write, which will be my major test for how good/bad the platform is. I also wonder how configurable it is. Did they come up with good conventions? If not, can you override them, or will all apps suffer the same?
Yes, security through obfuscation always It seems that perhaps people would learn by now that simply isn't true. Maybe the obfuscation slows down the attacks, but the real issue is how fast the fix can be had. No matter whether the software is open or closed sourced, there will be bugs, and therefore potential attacks on it. At least with open-sourced software anyone can potentially fix the problem, instead of waiting for a company to take potentially very long times to patch it (which is fairly frequent, as documented by /.).
Also, something to consider is that both the HW and OS play a larger role overall in security. It is possible to design a system with automatic sandboxing, such that one program cannot touch the memory of any other program including the OS. You don't need Java for this. If the HW and OS are done correctly, all Java really buys you (in terms of security) are programs that won't segfault (though often exceptions aren't fully handled, which usually gives the same end result).
Yes, physically it's possible.
But considering that at least some iPhones are having issues with their screens cracking, I'm supposing the issues worsens the larger the screen gets. Especially since the screen is getting a lot more physical contact than normal LCDs do.
You can probably strengthen the the front by increasing its width, but that will also add more weight to the laptop.
At another point (early in history) Jobs remarked that one of the things he didn't think was viable about tablets, is that you couldn't get the same resolution due to the protective covering (to prevent scratches from the pen). In the iPhone they solved this issue by putting glass over the screen. I have a suspicion this might be more difficult to do with a laptop, as the screen gets bigger, the glass will likely have to get thicker to keep it from getting too fragile.
.. it's definitely out of line with their aesthetics), or simply have a standard laptop that you can interact with its screen.
However, Jobs is on record as saying that not next release of Macbooks, but the one afterwards, there's going to be a huge major upgrade.
Now there have been rumors that gesture controls were going to be made for the touchpad. Doable. But unexciting, and I'm not sure an awesome idea (it really only works well if the image is right below your fingers, and not on a separate screen).
Apple might be able to get away with having to use glass on a laptop screen, as it gets protected when closed. Or maybe the glass/protective screen isn't really an issue. So one solution Apple has is to not release the standard tablet, but rather a super-sized iPhone.
It's not a perfect solution. Multi-touch interfaces are really awesome. It allows you do things that are just hard to do with a mouse. Or a pen. On the other hand, pens allow you to write. And draw. Which are also really difficult to do with a mouse or fingers.
I've gotten fairly fast at typing on my iPhone with two thumbs. I have no doubt that with a bigger screen, you could get speed not far off from a tradition keyboard when put on a surface. If you are carrying it around, I think you could get tolerable, but not terrific, typing speeds.
It would also be interesting to see if Apple would do away with the keyboard altogether (which is probably the most inline with their aesthetics), let the keyboard get flipped away (I doubt Apple would ever do the twist-and-turn trick
The last option in some ways is the most intriguing. There's no compromises as far as getting the full functionality of a laptop, but you get the huge benefit of being able to touch the screen and move things around. Which I've wanted to be able to do for a really long time.
In the end, I would love an Apple tablet where I could just write with a pen on it, draw, or take notes. I don't think the technology is there (though, I never tried inkwell) as you had Jobs quoted as. If that's true, a hybrid would be a nice second place prize.
Otherwise it's all just an order for another box of a half-dozen duh's. To go. Yes, one of things many people forget is that pharmas are companies in the end, and companies are out to make money. Not to cure disease, bring world peace, or find new scientific breakthroughs. Even if it's in the companies' name or mission. If it is a publicly traded company, it is legally bound to try to maximize the profit.
To just add to symptoms issue, it is well known that anti-psychotic drugs cause Parkinsonian-like symptoms, due to the decrease is levels of dopamine (both diseases are linked to dopamine). In an animal model it is difficult to test for psychosis, so what the companies do instead is see if the particular drug causes the animal to develop the Parkinsonian-like symptoms.
The thing is, one of the main reason people go off their meds, is that these symptoms can be rather severe and disabilitating. This has long-reaching social issues, as a very large people who are homeless are people who require medication to function normally, but aren't taking them.
Now, coming up with a good model of what's causing the psychosis in the first place, as well as another way to test it in the animal model is hard. Potentially very time consuming, and may or may not have monetary benefits. Is this something a company should tackle? It's likely not to make nearly as much money off it as say
The shareholders in your company will probably have a strong opinion of what the right choice is, but that is very different from the choice which will help out millions of disadvantaged people.
In theory this is where Academia should come in. It is in the situation where it can tackle problems of this complexity without worrying about profit. However, there are a couple issues:
1. The resources are not nearly on the same scale as the pharmas
2. Government funding is a fickle matter, and depends on the economy, current administration, and public sensibilities.
3. Competition
Issue (3) is the most complex of the issues -- there are many labs competing for the same money. The majority of the money that goes to most biology-based science labs is form the NIH (though institutes like the Howard Hughes institute do contribute a good amount). NIH stands for National Institutes of Health, and has the primary function of funding research to
Only, much of the money goes towards general scientific research. Which I won't complain about, because that's where I come from. But if general science and health research are competing for the same money, there's a problem. Money which is supposed to solve health issues is being spent on people who don't really care about solving those health issues.
If you work in say a Neuroscience lab, and if you want funding, you have to link your research to medical conditions. It doesn't matter if you're interested in the medicinal benefits or not. If you work on inhibitory cells, you link it to epilepsy. If you work on NMDA receptors, you link it to memory. That's how you get grant money. But most likely, your research won't have any direct impact on the medical field
I am a true believer that science is worth doing strictly for the benefit of science. But a large part of our country apparently isn't. So we get labs competing for the same money that probably should have two separate streams of funding.
So, I can totally understand his complaint that academia doesn't seem to be doing anything about.
I have a couple friends at that conference. I should see if they saw his talk..
It isn't necessarily clear from a consumer's perspective why this is advantageous (I suspect we'll have to wait to see an actual product first).
.. the partners are the companies that sell the phones, not make them. Which makes me suspect is seen as a good thing by the companies, as it allows them to tailor (i.e. control/limit use) services that they want. This can give them faster launch time for services, and a better way to annoy their users.
However, there are some big benefits to both Google and the phone companies. For google, they get one step closer to world domination. They get a relationship with the phone companies, and the get to build a solid foundation for mobile devices (which will eventually cover more than just cell phones).
From the article, it sounds like they are planning on creating interfaces for their services. Like many of their services, part of the benefit they get is by simple collecting data on you. I wonder if they'll stick to web based (+Google Gears), or whether they'll make Java interfaces.
I suspect that they'll also create a new interface for Java (something along the lines of GWT, that uses native widgets). This might be a big boon to the cell phone companies which then only have to implement the specifics of the interface per new hardware device. I don't have a strong love of Java, but it's not a bad choice for mobile platforms -- especially considering there are chips have a hardware implementation of the JVM.
So the phone companies get: (1) software tools (Google doesn't have a long history of releasing development tools -- at least publicly, so it will be interesting to see how it actually fairs), (2) fast development of software with little to no licensing fees (OS, web browser, maps program, notepad?, etc.)
Also, an important note
Again, no big win obvious for the consumer. However, I think in the end it will be seen by how good the interface is, how good the developer tools, and how things work together. The thing is, and a lot of people seem to forget this, is that phones are much more than just their specs. If the interface sucks, it doesn't matter the hardware, or what OS it's running. Likewise, if either the OS or hardware suck, you're equally screwed.
It will be interesting to see how OpenMoko fairs. I was a Linux user for a very long time. I remember when both KDE and GTK+ started off (and remember Enlightenment anyone?). I am therefore a bit skeptical when it comes to open source interfaces. Considering that they were developed by people on their free time for no money, they are great accomplishments. And at least the last time I used Linux and Windows at the same time (before XP), I could at least say that I preferred their interfaces over Windows any day.
HOWEVER, one of the big issues I observed was the inability to really create new ideas. The window managers seemed to always be a hybrid between Windows and OS X. I think a big reason for that is that innovation of that kind is really hard to do. It's hard because you have to come up with new ideas, and then you have to convince a bunch of people working on the same project that your idea makes sense. In large group projects, unless there is a clear leader, I think often the design ends up being a compromise between people. Which can make for robust interfaces, but not new.
Which is to say, I will be (happily) surprised if OpenMoko ends up giving new that other phone don't have. Google has the advantage of having large resources to throw at the problem, clear leadership on the interface issues, and a lot of people to help innovate. Of course, this still doesn't guarantee anything, but it is a long winded answer to why this is different.
You are completely entitled to your opinions. But I'm sorry. You're wrong. Completely and utterly wrong wrong wrong.
First mistake. Buffy was in fact one of the best televisions shows made. It was witty, had really well written dialogue, complex characters, and story arcs that lasted the entire season (with references that could go back several years). However, because humor was crafted for those who watched the show serially, and so much was lost for people who watched the show occasionally and/or out of order.
Yes, the idea of a vampire slayer by the name of Buffy turned off a lot of people from the show. Understandably. My understanding is that originally it was a joke for Joss, and he was going to kill her at the end of the first season (permanently).
Angel was fun, but was never as deep or complex as Buffy. I always suspected it was to counter the seriousness that became Buffy in the later seasons.
Firefly had amazing characters, incredible interplay between those characters, as well thought out plots. While the concept of a space-western might (once again) be a bit strange (and already done [cowboy bebop, for example]), Joss made it is own.
Joss takes big risks. He seems to like to put himself in very difficult situations to make the challenge interesting. For example one Buffy episode had no speech whatsoever, while another was a musical (having never written a musical before). He managed to make those two episodes some of the best episodes in the entire show.
So, yeah, Buffy is a kinda a crazy idea. It was a joke. But he managed to make it amazing. Sure, space cowboys have been done before, but he made a compelling universe of his own to tell the stories. For anyone who is on the fence about these shows, it's well worth watching the shows in order, and really giving them a chance.
So, maybe Dollhouse isn't the best title. And maybe the plot has been done before. But Joss has shown amazing creativity, intelligence, and insight which gives him the ability to turn out some of the best shows ever made.
And maybe this sounds a little too much like a love poem to Joss. Well, maybe it is.
While I am a fan of the "esoteric field of machine learning", as the article mentions, I am also well aware of the countless of disappointments so far (thus no AI..). There have been many designs that can tackle toy problems, but nothing yet that has been able to handle large corpuses of text so far. The big problem being is that to really be able to do proper categorization the program must understand what it's reading. Which, again, requires some type of intelligence.
While methods are available to do categorization based on either static or learned heuristics, they are less than perfect (think about Safe Search in Google images -- it works decently, but definitely not perfectly). In fact, just parsing a single English sentences can be a difficult task for computers (if the sentence doesn't fall into a context free grammar). So the best we can probably hope Twine to do is categorize based off of word frequency (okay, they probably use some higher order stats).
Whenever I read about a new semantic technology, I always think of Wordnet (developed by Miller, who is the same guy responsible for the study showing we can remember 5-7 digits). Wordnet was developed as a database for the hierarchy of all words. Words are defined by their relationship to other words.
While it's a great idea, and useful for some projects, it also far from perfect, as words do not in the end have a static relationship to each other. The semantic web in the end relies on a static relationship between words (either through common usage or through a relationship through words).
There's an option in the settings to pull email from up to 5 (?) sources on the GMail page. There are several settings that allow you to optionally move or copy the emails. I did the move option, so I could check if any mail didn't make it across.
On the whole it worked great, EXCEPT that the date of the mail got messed up, it took the entire day, and the order was a bit strange. I ended up having to sort by date sent rather than date received. It was also a big pain in the ass to get random mail from my old account throughout the day.
On the other hand, once it was finished, I had stored 5 years of emails from my school account. There's still a few emails that never made the transfer, and I'm not completely sure why yet.
Apple also sent the same information to anyone who bothered to file out a bug report about a lack of an SDK. I mention this only to point out that it's nice that Apple actually took the time to listen to its developers (and not just people who pay an annual fee) and respond. So next time if you're wondering whether your bug report gets read, it appears at least in cases like this it does.
I've recently become a complete Apple-convert. I used to hate Apple, and came from a Linux background. I have to say, though, that from a development standpoint their XCode environment is great, their libraries are well thought out, and it comes with a good number of advanced features that keeps coding fun. If you're wondering why people are so excited about developing for the iPhone, these are a few of the reasons.
At one point I played around with the toolchain that was previously being developed by the community hackers. It was relatively easy to put together a simple iPhone app, as the iPhone is running a simplified version of Cocoa. However, the more complex stuff (and interesting parts, like gestures) were not up to par because of lack of documentation.
With the introduction of the SDK, I think we're going to see a batch of really nice 3rd party apps. The current ones are extremely good for what resources are available, but I think everyone would agree there is room for much improvement.
Hopefully Apple will do the right thing in opening up their platform as much as possible. I wouldn't mind getting a free key to sign my code (Google did a similar thing when they opened up their search API). I wonder if they will limit all things internety to WIFI only, as AT&T might complain about random packets flying over their EDGE (even though other phone companies already allow this). I'm still not sure I fully get the malicious code issue, as the iPhone is essentially a dumbed down Macbook with a harder-to-use keyboard. How is the iPhone any more dangerous?
In many ways we're already headed towards the digital cash solution. I pay most of my bills with my credit card online. My credit card company then contacts my bank, and money is transferred. Only without actualy transfer of dollar bills.
The problem is that credit cards are really a bad hack of a digital solution onto our physical-based one. The dollars back up the credits, and the US government (at least in my case) back up the dollars. At this point, I use dollar bills to pay for things that don't take credit card, or for speed. Using dollars are inconvenient because: (a) running out (i.e. need for ATM machines), (b) dealing with change, (c) takes up space. Credit cards are inconvenient because there is the wait for verification and signing your name.
In theory digital cash solves both these issues because it is limited by your bank account and already has a signature (based on cryptography). Additionally, the digital cash is backed in the same way that a dollar bill is. There should be no difference between the worth of the dollar bill and the bytes that make up the digital note.
These issues are extra important in space, as I strongly suspect there won't many ATMs just floating around. Transmission times could be problemtatic, though in reality, if the distances between objects is significant, the transaction is likely not critical. No goods (physical or digital) could easy be transferred between parties anyways. Thus we either have ways of quickly between large distances (making digital communication just as fast), or transactions will necessarily be limited by distances.
A bank ends up being anything institution that has some means to back the credits they issue. This isn't so different from credit card companies or other banks currently. While this could conceivably introduce problems, like different banks credits having different trading values, it would be feasible to set a standard trading value. Therefore, no one central bank is required (though it might be convenient).
Again, because digital money can be printed out, it's always possible to go back to the route of the dollar bill if necessary. More likely, if physical items are to be used for money, it would be actual goods. Food, oxygen, materials, etc. This is because in space distribution of items will most likely be even more difficult than what is used on Earth. Thus space trade would be a hybridization of credit system and a barter system.
I'm a bit torn on this issue. Having actual physical money is somewhat outdated. We're still using it because not everyone has the technology to use it yet, and because its the status quo (our economy and society are set up to use it). However, with the advent of cryptography, methods such as DigiCash allow for completely digital cash.
But in space, you will necessarily be surrounded by computers capable of doing digital transactions. The only downside I can see to this, is if you are far enough away (lightyears), then transmitting information would be costly (i.e. years). In that case being able to trade physical items would be necessary. However, you could still have the option of printing out your own money (and it's valid/legal!)
He did .. didn't you see last episode of Heroes?
but don't worry, it will regain the weight after a couple of months.
Firstly, I was only pointing out that labels that exist already. Open source software does not make any guarantees about ones freedom. It has no idealogical pinings, but rather simply describes having the source code available for perusale. If you don't beleive me, take a few seconds to google it.
.. where did my argument collapse?
Free software, as it's name describes, does try to make some guarantee about your freedoms in using it. There are may FOSS licenses out there, each with a slightly different idealogical bent. For example, the LGPL is less restrictive than the GPL, and is often used in libraries rather than applications.
Secondly, it's a common mistake that people make as the lines between Open Source and Free Software are often blurred.
So
Actually, it is open source software regardless. The open source refers to the fact that the source is open for all to read. It has no implications of freedom. Freedom is only guaranteed with Free Software (or sometimes FOSS). The Free of course refers to your freedom to do what you want with it.
It really depends on whether you are looking from Einstein's world view (God doesn't play dice) or Quantum mechanics world view, in which everything is assigned a probability (and therefore random). IANQM, but my understanding is that the interesting thing is how to scale the very small to the very big -- things which by their nature are ruled almost entirely to probability (particles) to things which have no randomness attached to them (>> particles).
You could in theory construct a truly random number generator based on some property of a particle. I think this has been done already, but for reasons unknown to me (either building the detectors is expensive, or there isn't a large demand for it), you can't get these things commericially. It might be a decent DYI project.
However, the truth of it is, for most things you don't actually need truly random numbers. Another way to look at random, is how much information does an outside observer have? Suppose I have a string of digits which are stored on my computer and I give them out. To someone who didn't previously have access to those digits, then it would most likely appear that they are random. The person receiving the digits might even might plot the numbers and see if they fit a particular distribution. However, even if they (for example) fit a Guassian distribution, doesn't guarantee they are truly random. Only they appear that way.
For getting a good compromise for getting psuedo-random numbers, some people have sample physical phenomena. For example, because of issues related to Chaos theory, taking local temperature readings might provide a good stream of numbers that are difficult for someone not in your immediate vicinity to know (provided you subtract of general trends like the mean 'global' temperature). Such detectors are cheap to produce and can provide large streams of data relatively fast. I want to make one of these for a while, as I run large simulations that require a lot of random numbers. As it turns out, a large part of the simulation time comes from generating those random numbers.
That's the thing that gets me. The amount of effort they put into lawyering could easily be fixed otherwise by making a page that works. And why don't they include whole episodes? It's not rocket science. It's a really simple formula to follow. First take content, then put it on the fucking page, ordered chronologically. Oh, and yeah, please make a decent player.
The thing is, people are lazy. People will watch advertisements. Youtube doesn't usually have entire episodes, the episodes vary in quality, and it can sometimes take a good amount of time to actually find. If they just put the content where people want it (remember that whole economics thing, with supply and demand?), then why not provide it? You can even make money on it. Really.
Not to mention of course, Youtube helps gain popularity for the show. Something called advertisements. Something most companies have to spend a lot of money on.
For Vegas a large number of people were needed. Even if the initial costs go down, only a very small number of people can afford it. Which is fine, as I'm assuming they're not building it very large. But the problem is that there isn't going to be much to do when you are up there. It's an experience, but not a destination. I doubt too many people will return for another time to watch the earth go by.
So, yes, a casino, restaurant, and bar will be needed. But those won't really be possible until some gravity can be established. Not just because zero-g makes everything very difficult (which is a large enough reason), but also for health reasons (like loss of bone-mass issues).
I think this is one of the first steps for a human presence in space. In many ways it follows how international airflight became economical. With that said, there are a couple of issues.
Firstly, unlike international flights, there is no ultimate functional destination (yet). The only reason to be there currently is because you have money to waste. Other business ventures need to be set up to create a supportable ecosystem. Two other businesses that may be sensible would be: research, though getting the government grants to do so would be difficult, so the research would have to have some economical return; and possible mining on the moon (hydrogen).
Longer term, I think it is worthwhile of thinking of the universe being a very large tappable energy source. Large enough to be considered infinite for now. The big issues with this are: (1) how difficult is a particular resource to harvest, (2) how long will it take, (3) can it converted to energy easily, or must it be transferred first to be processed. The last point is important, because the harvesting shuttles themselves could in theory power themselves on these resources. This could extend their distance and speed.
Secondly, zero-g living will only be fun for so long. You can already experience it without going up. While (AFAIK) we still don't have any anti-gravity engines, it is still possible to simulate gravity using centripetal force. Unfortunately, if I remember correctly, this requires a rather large ring rotating at a decent velocity. This will also solve the issue of the toliets.
How useful such a device is to you definately depends on your lifestyle, where you live, and personal preferences. With that said, while I do not expect to do the same type of work on my iphone as my laptop, they both occupy two different needs of mine. Living in NYC requires me to look random things up when I'm walking around. The iPhone is perfect for this. Or random conversations where some rnd factoid was needed, it sre beats pulling out a laptop.
So, yeah not as good as a full-fledged computer for some things, but it's not supposed to be a replacement. That's one of the reasons I never understood all the complaints about the speed of edge. Sure, faster is better, but realistically the amount of web browsing you are going to do is more limited by the small size of it than anything. If you are doing a massive amount of web browsing, then do yourself a favor and get a real computer. If, on the other hand, you are waiting for someone who is late (everyone is around here), if's f'ing great.
Also, in my personal experience, the battery life is great. Which in part due to the lower speed edge chip.
While it's true that Murdoch is in somewhat of a unique position of both owning a largely used website, and a TV station, I question what he'll really be able to do with it. Certainly other stations (NBC and ABC, for example) have some of the content online. It's not well done, and it still a poor replica of what they're doing on the actual broadcast. Though still much better than other stations, such as Comedy Central (which probably should win awards for worse design ever).
The current state of Myspace doesn't speak well of what's to come. If I have to navigate Myspace's space, it will certainly act as a deterient. If they create new content, it seems doubtful to me it will be as good as the broadcast shows (and that's for the most part a fairly low benchmark).
I think other companies, like Joost, have the right idea of providing a real client on all the platforms. It works fairly well for the most part, thought it does suffer from frequent pauses. Oh, and lack of content. But besides that, it's a good idea.