People can "not be happy" all they want. They are still going to get charged out the ass.
I don't know about you, but I only have two wires coming into my house that can be used for internet connectivity. The phone line and the cable TV line. That means that, eventually, there will only be at most two companies to choose from. In many areas, there will be only one. Yes, yes, there are lots of companies who can use those wires at the moment, but sooner or later, the big boys will successfully lobby to get those priviledges removed, and then we'll have a fine situation where you cannot chose your ISP. Then they can get away with whatever they want.
Just try to find me a laptop that is powered by D cells and a handcrank. Or a laptop without a hard drive. Or a laptop with a screen that switches between color and monochromatic.
The D cell and handcrank thing is probably going to get dropped, and is very likely useless. Anyone without access to electricity probably isn't thinking about laptops. Electricity is more plentiful than people realize. Just take a look at this comment. Like the guy says, these are not going to be used by people in jungles. They'll have power. And why would you want to take the hard drive out? Small ones are incredibly cheap, and good power management software reduces the power consumption considerably. As for the screen, you can hit a button in most OSes and change to monochrome at the software level. I'm not sure what it does for you at the hardware level, beyond powersave, which can be already be done by lowering the backlight brightness.
Why bother with reduced laptops? Because something is better than nothing at all.
That's what used laptops are for.
And in terms of MIT taking credit, they started the whole initiative, did they not? Did they not propogate the idea and get the industry to think about it? Aren't they, in fact, developing some of the technology that will go into the laptop?
In order: Yes, but only by issuing vapourus press releases and photoshopped mockps. Yes, they propagated the idea, but no, they mostly got people outside the industry to think about it. People inside the industry just laughed and went back to work. And no, they aren't "developing" shit, everything is off the shelf or done by someone else. They're even talking about using Quanta to manufacture the things, which is who pretty much everyone else uses. If Quanta were really capable of assembling a $100 laptop, don't you think Dell or Apple or one of their many other customers would have already taken them up on it?
My point about credit is that I easily see the following scenario:
This project goes nowhere.
Eventually, completely independently and not as a result of anything these people did, laptops get really cheap, especially used ones. One day, they get below $100.
People hare happy to have them that cheap
People who started this project say "See! We started this whole thing! We're VISIONARIES! Aren't you glad you have us around to tell you it would be cool to have cheap stuff? Next we'll be telling you it would be cool if the Earth went around the sun! P.S. Here's where we name-drop MIT."
If step 2 comes too soon after step 1, it will look like they had an effect on the industry, even though they didn't. They will be credited with something they had no part in doing.
I think the only thing of value that will come out of this project is the notion that the USD 100 price point breaks a psychological barrier which makes people think "wow, that's cheap -- we could give one to ANYONE!"
Otherwise, I just don't see how these people who know nothing about manufacturing and operations can just waltz in and accomplish what a 100 billion a year industry can't. Everyone in the industry is ALREADY focused on making laptops as cheap and plentiful as possible. If they do eventually get below USD 100, it very likely won't be the result of anything the MIT folks did, although somehow I doubt that will stop them from taking credit for it anyway.
Uh, they only paid a few % over the current trading value of Pixar's stock. In order to have been made a millionaire by this deal, you would have already had to have owned a million dollars worth of Pixar stock, or close to it.
Pixar stock did go up a double digit percentage over the past few months on speculation that this would happen, but that's still not going to make anyone rich unless they were already.
the main point is for Bill Handel to tell you you have no case
Without having actually listened to him at all, I'd suppose if he's too quick to say that, you could probably troll him pretty hard by digging up some obscure historical case and reciting it to him as though it were your own. After he says you have no case, you inform him that what you just described was taken straight from a real case which someone won.
Have you ever read the comments on digg? The level of stupidity is absolutely stunning. That place is a cesspool.
The great thing about slashdot is that, despite all the idiotic stories, there are usually some good comments explaining what's wrong with each story. Alterslash will usually pick a lot of them out for you automatically. If you want both, plus a little bit of del.icio.us thrown in, there's always diggdot.
How about the next big thing being to return support for accessibility and the "back" button to all those sites where they both worked before going AJAX? Wouldn't that be something?
With each advertising minute being more precious, commercials would probably get BETTER, would actually make more of an impression on consumers, and the return on marketing dollar would acutally go up!
Things have already been moving in that direction for 30 years or more. TV Commercials are already minute-for-minute the most expensive type of filmmaking in the world and have been for quite some time. There is already an incredibly intense competition to always be producing the next "it" commercial, the one people talk about and remember, the one that makes the huge impression you refer to.
There is probably a limit to how far things can go in that direction before it no longer becomes worth it. What happens then?
Perhaps those two scenarios (StarOffice, Netscape) demonstrate not that the closed source model is broken, but that companies use "open source" as a dumping ground for failed projects, hence the shittiness of their code.
Closed source produces a lot of good code, but you never get to see it (unless you work on it) becuase it stays closed.
Well, the MIT media lab is currently at the "no computer" stage, seeing as how this project is still vaporware and does not exist.
If they ever actually build the thing, we'll talk more about it then. Until that day comes, we might as well talk about unicorns or fairies, because they are about the same level of reality. (And if the do really build it, I doubt it will cost as little as even $400, let alone $100.)
Both the HD-DVD and Blu-Ray specs require H.264 playback capability in all players, so it's not like they'd be asking them to do something they weren't already supposed to.
(or they could just admit that the whole thing is a giant pile of vapourware and has only gotten any attention because it has the MIT name associated with it -- just like everything else the Media Center "produces")
You are correct that macs (and many other non-windows OSes) are much more hardened against #1. But what about #2? What about when someone tricks you into downloading and installing something that turns out to be malicious? There is virtually no defense against that, aside from educating the user to stay with trusted sources for software, and we all know there are some people who can only learn such lessons the hard way, if at all.
Currently #2 is not a problem for macs, but it could become one if they get so popular that a critical mass of people with poor judgement are using them. At that point, malware authors will start targeting mac users, and then we'll see what's what.
It could be in the way you approach it. Be careful there isn't a subtle implication that the user is stupid for not switching sooner, or for using IE in the first place. Such an implication, real or perceived, will couple the act of switching with admission of being wrong or stupid. If they make that connection in their heads, right or wrong, they won't switch. You'll have to find a way to break that connection.
We're already within the first one of those two generations. Our overseas labor pools will become our economic masters in 30 years. America is about to descend, and the entire rest of the world is absolutely gunning for it to happen.
"Poor guy. Did he not get the memo? This is what open source software is all about: creating knockoffs and giving them away, destroying the value of whatever the other guy is selling."
Well, he's right. GNU is a copy of commercial Unix offerings, Linux is a copy of commercial Unix kernels, Gimp is copy of Photoshop, OpenOffice is a copy of MS Office, etc. Some apps, like mplayer and wine, even require you to use binary libraries from the products they are trying to replace.
What's better, to lose half the users due to crapflooding, or lose a handful as collateral damage while blocking bad apples?
If any of their clumsy methods actually cut down on crapflooding, then you might have a point. But they don't, so you don't.
Oh and here's a question: if Slashdot is so amazingly sophisticated, why is it still possibile to crapflood it, while it's basically impossible to crapflood a place like fark.com?
And it's hilarious and sad the way investors actually chastise the Costco CEO for paying his employees "too much". That attitude will be the downfall of the US.
I thought every country outside the US was an enlightened paradise where everything is wonderful! Only poor stupid Americans have to put up with crap like you describe. I know it's true because every English-speaking non-US resident on the entire internet says so all the time!
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about you, but I only have two wires coming into my house that can be used for internet connectivity. The phone line and the cable TV line. That means that, eventually, there will only be at most two companies to choose from. In many areas, there will be only one. Yes, yes, there are lots of companies who can use those wires at the moment, but sooner or later, the big boys will successfully lobby to get those priviledges removed, and then we'll have a fine situation where you cannot chose your ISP. Then they can get away with whatever they want.
It's going to happen; you can bet on it.
Just try to find me a laptop that is powered by D cells and a handcrank. Or a laptop without a hard drive. Or a laptop with a screen that switches between color and monochromatic.
The D cell and handcrank thing is probably going to get dropped, and is very likely useless. Anyone without access to electricity probably isn't thinking about laptops. Electricity is more plentiful than people realize. Just take a look at this comment. Like the guy says, these are not going to be used by people in jungles. They'll have power. And why would you want to take the hard drive out? Small ones are incredibly cheap, and good power management software reduces the power consumption considerably. As for the screen, you can hit a button in most OSes and change to monochrome at the software level. I'm not sure what it does for you at the hardware level, beyond powersave, which can be already be done by lowering the backlight brightness.
Why bother with reduced laptops? Because something is better than nothing at all.
That's what used laptops are for.
And in terms of MIT taking credit, they started the whole initiative, did they not? Did they not propogate the idea and get the industry to think about it? Aren't they, in fact, developing some of the technology that will go into the laptop?
In order: Yes, but only by issuing vapourus press releases and photoshopped mockps. Yes, they propagated the idea, but no, they mostly got people outside the industry to think about it. People inside the industry just laughed and went back to work. And no, they aren't "developing" shit, everything is off the shelf or done by someone else. They're even talking about using Quanta to manufacture the things, which is who pretty much everyone else uses. If Quanta were really capable of assembling a $100 laptop, don't you think Dell or Apple or one of their many other customers would have already taken them up on it?
My point about credit is that I easily see the following scenario:
If step 2 comes too soon after step 1, it will look like they had an effect on the industry, even though they didn't. They will be credited with something they had no part in doing.
Otherwise, I just don't see how these people who know nothing about manufacturing and operations can just waltz in and accomplish what a 100 billion a year industry can't. Everyone in the industry is ALREADY focused on making laptops as cheap and plentiful as possible. If they do eventually get below USD 100, it very likely won't be the result of anything the MIT folks did, although somehow I doubt that will stop them from taking credit for it anyway.
Pixar stock did go up a double digit percentage over the past few months on speculation that this would happen, but that's still not going to make anyone rich unless they were already.
Without having actually listened to him at all, I'd suppose if he's too quick to say that, you could probably troll him pretty hard by digging up some obscure historical case and reciting it to him as though it were your own. After he says you have no case, you inform him that what you just described was taken straight from a real case which someone won.
I just shake my head every time someone says "Just use ThePirateBay, d00d! Free stuff!". I don't want one of those letters showing up in my mailbox.
The great thing about slashdot is that, despite all the idiotic stories, there are usually some good comments explaining what's wrong with each story. Alterslash will usually pick a lot of them out for you automatically. If you want both, plus a little bit of del.icio.us thrown in, there's always diggdot.
How about the next big thing being to return support for accessibility and the "back" button to all those sites where they both worked before going AJAX? Wouldn't that be something?
Things have already been moving in that direction for 30 years or more. TV Commercials are already minute-for-minute the most expensive type of filmmaking in the world and have been for quite some time. There is already an incredibly intense competition to always be producing the next "it" commercial, the one people talk about and remember, the one that makes the huge impression you refer to.
There is probably a limit to how far things can go in that direction before it no longer becomes worth it. What happens then?
Yeah, a lot more people would have cancer, probably.
Closed source produces a lot of good code, but you never get to see it (unless you work on it) becuase it stays closed.
If they ever actually build the thing, we'll talk more about it then. Until that day comes, we might as well talk about unicorns or fairies, because they are about the same level of reality. (And if the do really build it, I doubt it will cost as little as even $400, let alone $100.)
Both the HD-DVD and Blu-Ray specs require H.264 playback capability in all players, so it's not like they'd be asking them to do something they weren't already supposed to.
The courts would never side against the RIAA. They know which side their bread is buttered on. The media companies own this country.
OOooooooOOOOh!
You're such a rebel, man. You keep fightn' that good fight, for freedom, justice, and free music that you don't have to pay for. Keep the dream alive!
(or they could just admit that the whole thing is a giant pile of vapourware and has only gotten any attention because it has the MIT name associated with it -- just like everything else the Media Center "produces")
Which means it also invalidates the GPL, since that too, is a license.
You are correct that macs (and many other non-windows OSes) are much more hardened against #1. But what about #2? What about when someone tricks you into downloading and installing something that turns out to be malicious? There is virtually no defense against that, aside from educating the user to stay with trusted sources for software, and we all know there are some people who can only learn such lessons the hard way, if at all.
Currently #2 is not a problem for macs, but it could become one if they get so popular that a critical mass of people with poor judgement are using them. At that point, malware authors will start targeting mac users, and then we'll see what's what.
I didn't know that was a synonym for "download via bittorrent".
It could be in the way you approach it. Be careful there isn't a subtle implication that the user is stupid for not switching sooner, or for using IE in the first place. Such an implication, real or perceived, will couple the act of switching with admission of being wrong or stupid. If they make that connection in their heads, right or wrong, they won't switch. You'll have to find a way to break that connection.
We're already within the first one of those two generations. Our overseas labor pools will become our economic masters in 30 years. America is about to descend, and the entire rest of the world is absolutely gunning for it to happen.
If any of their clumsy methods actually cut down on crapflooding, then you might have a point. But they don't, so you don't.
Oh and here's a question: if Slashdot is so amazingly sophisticated, why is it still possibile to crapflood it, while it's basically impossible to crapflood a place like fark.com?
And it's hilarious and sad the way investors actually chastise the Costco CEO for paying his employees "too much". That attitude will be the downfall of the US.
I thought every country outside the US was an enlightened paradise where everything is wonderful! Only poor stupid Americans have to put up with crap like you describe. I know it's true because every English-speaking non-US resident on the entire internet says so all the time!