What I'm thinking I guess isn't so much "memeory" going away, but perhaps more the HDD going away. What I'm thinking is there would be Flash memeory cards which would be mounted directly to the MOBO (just the RAM is today).
Obviously, there are a number of hurdles to overcome, but if Flash could get RAM levels of performance there could then be say 4 banks to just pop in these Flash modules right on the MOBO. So the Flash takes the place of RAM and there really isn't a seperate HDD. What would then BE REALLY cool is say you have 4 20GB Flash modules in the memeory banks, maybe in BIOS you could set to either use this as one 80GB HDD or maybe 4 seperate 20GB drives with RAID.
Since I'm in dreamland here anyway, one more cool possibility. Have the MOBO positioned in a way so there are slots on the PC case where you can just pop these modules in and out without even opening the case. Then say you have some sort of RAID running, and you are going on vacation you just pop out one of these modules bring it with you and any PC in any coffee shop in the world will accept this Flash module and its just like you are working on your own PC. Yes, the damn hardware config issues like drivers would probably kill this idea, but its my dreamworld damn it and I want it!!!!
I could still be missing something obvious and we certainly aren't there today, but in my dream world this is sounding pretty cool.;-)
Sorry, the previous thread was throwing me for a loop. Its seems someone on/. doesn't know what Flash memory is (or flamebait).
Anyway, you do bring up an interesting point. I think you are right, the main reason we wouldn't use it now is performance. I've run Flash to IDE to use it as a HDD before (just playing around) and the performance of it acting as a HDD really wasn't impressive. No idea the physics behind it, but it seemed to "respond" faster, but actually loading a big file was slower. What I'm trying to say is if I opened a big-ass application, it poped up real fast, but seemed to take longer to actually load everything.
If Flash actually gets to the point of having equal performance to volatile RAM (and these Flash HDDs exist and are reliable), the I wonder what the perpose of "memeory" in the traditional sense would be. I'd think we'd just get rid of it. If the whole HDD has the speed of RAM, I'd think it'd be a "fairly" easy redesign of the MOBO and you would only need the Flash HDD. Am I missing something, or if Flash could get that level of performance and reliablity as a HDD wouldn't "memeory" as we think of it today not be needed?
Because they serve COMPLETELY different purposes. Flash (non-voatile) memory's purpose is to basically work like a HDD. You store the data, unplug it, walk away and take the data with you. With a PCs "traditional" memory, there is NO need for this. That is what your HDD is for (long term storage). Your PCs memory is just needed to provide fast access to the data you are currently using. Once you turn the PC off, you aren't using it anymore and have no need for it there.
Come on, your on/.! Haven't you ever been to the computer section of a bookstore? Most tech books run I'd guess on average from $30-$50. I'm not counting "for Dummies" type books, but real tech books.
If you want to survive then develop a book reader you can use in the bathtub and market it.
I've heard they already have. I think they call them "books" (you know those paper thingys). I've heard if you drop them while in the tub you don't even have to worry about getting electrocuted (not sure if I buy that though).;-)
Dear lord!!!! I'm not in love with MS, but this topic is just TOOO much!
MS and the USGS completely pioneered this technology. MS has had live versions of this basic tech up and running for 10 years (TerraServer)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I got nothing against bashing MS, but for christs sake people in this case its Google which copied MS and just put a nicer implementation out there (plus the Google media buzz made everyone aware of it).
This seems to be true in how they are currently offering this, however MS has been working on this and had live versions available of this basic technology for about 10 years (TerraServer)
Now maybe MS didn't know how to bring this to market in a form people would want to use, but I really wouldn't call this case "following" too much. Yes, they may be following the implementation (pretty simple stuff), but they basically pioneered the technology along with the USGS.
Google's version may look nicer and be better, but I certainly wouldn't acuse MS of really following (at least the technology) in this case. And besides the technology, its just a matter of a simple GUI really so I'm not going to beat up on MS for this one.
Yeah, they have but it has been a little bit overblown. I've spelled this out in great detail in other posts, but with what I think is a VERY conservitive estimate they should still have at least 30 billion at the end of the 4 years (the period of the planned increased dividends and stock buy-back). The estimates I used for these are probably a bit rediculous even for "worst-case" scenerio. I'd guess it'd probably be closer to at least 40 billion.
Why is it whenever anyone talks about wanting to ban guns because of the "dangers" they pose, they get laughed out of the spotlight and everyone says "guns don't kill people, people kill people". However, when it comes to piracy these idiots seem to be making progress with their message of trying to ban technology.
Repeat after me.
Technology doesn't pirate IP, people pirate IP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No they cannot just wander over and demand it, but they can get a court order from a secret panal of judges (are they actual judges, for some reason I thought I heard them just refered to as "administrative over-sight commitees" either way not important to my point) and then get the records.
I'm not an expert of Patriot-Act or really care about this situtation as I don't see a big problem myself. Just saying, just because you don't store the actual prints doesn't really mean anything.
Exactly, sure there COULD be privacy issues but I'm sure that isn't the intent of this. The most telling couple sentences from TFA are: The three-library system this week signed a $40,646 contract with a local company, U.S. Biometrics Corp., to install fingerprint scanners on 130 computers with Internet access or a time limit on usage.
So the head of this local company happens to know the head of the library. They are out golfing when this conversation takes place.
US Biometrics Chief: "Hey buddy, you know that 2 form authentication you guys use to access your computers?" Library head: "Sure, what about it?" US Biometrics Chief: "Well my company can sell you a new 2 form authentication method which is SOOOOO much cooler. And will only cost you $40,000. Come on what else ya gonna do with the $40,000? Buy books???? Library head: "Ah what the hell! We've already got plenty of books anyway!"
Maybe it cannot be "directly" cross-referenced, that doesn't matter too much. The way this system works is everytime your finger is put through this process it will yield the same number (or it would be useless). All the FBI needs to do is pass all thier fingerprint data through the same "15 point process" and compare the numbers. Not too tricky even for government workers;-)
So, instead of creating a random number with the unix timestamp as a seed, they are creating a random number with your fingerprint as a seed. What is so shocking about that?....There is a difference between requiring fingerprints on record (actually having your fingerprint in a database somewhere) and using your fingerprint to create a random sequence of numbers.
This sure sounds innocent and I'm sure its meant to be, but there is certainly possible abuses which could occur. They store those 15 or more fingerprint points (after converting to a number presumably with some crpyto algorithum). When you want to log into a computer a finger print reader takes your fingerprint again and the same process (converting to numbers) happens. These are then matched up to verify who you are.
The problem is if each "encryption" of the "data" equals the same result then it CAN be used for otherthings. They don't need to actually store your fingerprint anywhere. Patriot-Act could let law enforcement use this database of numerical "fingerprints". All they have to do is feed thier database of fingerprints (or those from a crime scene etc) through the same software as was used to originally "encrypt" the library fingerprints, compare the numbers, and if the numbers match they got their guy. This doesn't require a REAL fingerprint. As long as everytime a fingerprint is put through the algorithim it gives the same result, having the ACTUAL fingerprint on file isn't much of an issue.
Actually, if you are just talking about the kernals, it basically about the same. Otherwise, you are talking about bundled applications which like Linux account for a majority of the patches.
The VAST majority of crap bundled with Windows is just applications which run on the OS, but since (almost) all of them are made by MS$ and always bundled with the OS its easy to think of them as part of the OS. Linux distros are actually moving in that direction as well, but its still a bit easier to tell the applications from the OS (at least if you understand that type of thing).
My guess.... In five years none will remain. OK, maybe a bit over five, but not much. There are already on-line movie services. Just a bit more bandwidth going to the average home or a tech inovation where movies are more compressed with still retaining quality. I'd guess this should come pretty quickly and when it does why get movies in the mail?
I found that a bit strange as well. If there is already a patch for it, why study it? I realized though this could actually be useful info. If they realize there is a certain exploit (though already patched) which is getting taken advantage of a lot, they could beat some admins/users on the head. "Hey you REALLY want to apply this patch", there are a number of admins/users who don't stay up to date with patches (not too smart), but its true. This info could help to "convince" these people to patch the machines.
Still seems a bit strange, but I guess having more info about what is really happening out in the wild cannot hurt.
So MS$ shouldn't fix problems in IE until an exploit has been shown for it?
It's better to wait and see before fixing something that may not matter later.
Its better to just fix it and be safe than wait and see if something happens later. It may not be top priority, but remember this "wait and see" approach to security is exactly what got MS$ into so much trouble with users. We don't need the same for Linux.
The New York Times announced yesterday that it would offer a new subscription-based service on its Web site, charging users an annual fee to read its Op-Ed and news columnists, as the newspaper seeks ways to capitalize on the site's popularity.
Press Release (nytco.com) Most material on the Web site, NYTimes.com, will remain free to users, The Times said, but columnists from The Times and The International Herald Tribune will be available only to users who sign up for TimesSelect, which will cost $49.95 a year. The service will also include access to The Times's online archives, as well as other features.
The service, which is scheduled to start in September, will be provided free to home-delivery subscribers of the newspaper.
A decision by The Times about charging users for portions of its Web site had been expected for months in the media industry. While some efforts by other newspapers to charge for content online have worked, others have been withdrawn, including most recently one by The Los Angeles Times, which decided last week to stop charging users a fee for its online entertainment listings, reviews and criticism.
Though advertising on Web sites accounts for only 2 to 3 percent of the revenues of most newspapers, it is the fastest-growing source of revenue. Still, many newspaper Web sites fear that charging money for Internet content may send readers to free sites, with advertisers following close behind.
The New York Times's decision to charge a fee came after about a year of study, said Arthur Sulzberger Jr., chairman of the Times Company and publisher of the newspaper.
Mr. Sulzberger said that while some Internet users accustomed to free content might not be willing to pay, many others would be attracted by the online package of columnists, archives and other material.
"The advertising growth on the Web has been just spectacular the last few years," he said. "But like any business, it's going to mature over time, and when that happens, it will flatten and then you'll get into the normal cycles just like we do it on print. And at that point you're really going to need to have another revenue model."
He added, "This is going to help sustain the quality of the information that we make available."
Alexia S. Quadrani, a senior managing director at Bear, Stearns who follows the publishing and advertising industries, said The Times's plan made sense as a business model.
"All newspapers are looking for new advertising revenue and The New York Times realizes they have high-quality content and are looking at other ways to capitalize on it," she said. "The key is to that you want to maximize the dollars you get on the Internet without alienating the people."
In April, The Times's Web site had 1.7 million unique daily visitors. Its daily newspaper circulation in March 2005, the most recent month available, was 1,136,433.
The Times already charges for some content, including its crossword puzzle, news alerts and online archive. Articles are free for seven days after publication; a fee is charged once they are archived.
TimesSelect will also provide subscribers access to TimesPast, the paper's archives; exclusive multimedia, including audio and photo essays and video; TimesFile, a tool that will help users organize articles; and Ahead of The Times, which will allow subscribers to take an early look at articles that will appear in The New York Times Magazine, and the newspaper's Travel, Sunday Arts and Real Estate sections.
Martha Goldstein, a spokeswoman for The Los Angeles Times, said the paper still might charge for certain portions of its site.
Caroline Little, publisher of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, the online media subsidiary of the Washington Post Company, said a fee is "something we're looking at very carefully," but added, "there haven't really been a lot of successful ventures."
The Wall Street Journal, which is the only national paper to charge for all of its online content,
Pssst... The "fanatics and lunatics associated with Linux and Open Source" you like being associated with....They consider themselves normal too. Fanatics and lunatics don't regularly consider themselves as such.
I say this very respectfully, so please don't try to kill me!;-)
but kindly piss off unless you actually have something to say
I don't get it. GP make it sound as if there was an impending end of xbox games. This guy then pointed out this wasn't true and even quoted a very relevant quote. What more was he supposed to say?
As far as blue-ray, it think it will be a cool extra. However, at this point I think the extra storage is a bit of an after-thought for Sony. XBox 360 I've heard is going to require all games to be HD while Sony isn't. Not that its a big deal, but with that info I doubt many games will require more than one DVD even with HD (otherwise MS is going to annoy a lot of people with having every game require more than one DVD). The reason Sony is including Blu-Ray is to push thier standard. Right now there is competion for the next DVD standard and Sony being able to ship millions of units including Blu-Ray will certainly tip the contest in thier favor. This is smart and good. I'm guessing they will need to make price competitive with XBox, so I'd guess they'll even include Blu-Ray at a loss to keep the price down. They can easily recoup this if Blu-Ray wins the standards war through licensing. Now if this is the case, it could be a great chance to get the "next" DVD player at a great price and makes the PS3 even more appealing, but I don't see it as an issue in game play.
OK we've found something we can agree on, the Corrs are AWSOME (and yeah pretty easy on the eyes)!!!!;-)
I've never said it couldn't happen. If fact many times in this thread I specifically said it could (perhaps not in this direct thread though, not sure). My whole point was stating the obvious fact MS has advantages (to the original poster saying they didn't).
However, I completely agree it could happen. There are tons of reasons it could happen, but in any sequence of events thier current position will give them "cusion". They will have to screw up pretty massively over an extended period of time to fall. Certainly, the arguement can be made they they already have been screwing up massively for an extended period of time. However, there profits are still growing and thier influence is expanding during that period. So it will need to get much worse before they even begin to fall. Could the fall begin soon? Sure. Looking at market share of individual products, you could say it has already begun. Though looking at financials and market share over thier entire product line, I'd probably argue it hasn't really begun yet. That said, the "entire product line" view probably doesn't really work since Windows on the desktop is the key to the company at this point. I haven't seen any numbers showing that is in any immediate jeopordy, but if that falls drastically you'd probably see the whole house of cards begin to fall (unless they make some pretty major shifts).
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I didn't explain my thought very well ;-)
;-)
What I'm thinking I guess isn't so much "memeory" going away, but perhaps more the HDD going away. What I'm thinking is there would be Flash memeory cards which would be mounted directly to the MOBO (just the RAM is today).
Obviously, there are a number of hurdles to overcome, but if Flash could get RAM levels of performance there could then be say 4 banks to just pop in these Flash modules right on the MOBO. So the Flash takes the place of RAM and there really isn't a seperate HDD. What would then BE REALLY cool is say you have 4 20GB Flash modules in the memeory banks, maybe in BIOS you could set to either use this as one 80GB HDD or maybe 4 seperate 20GB drives with RAID.
Since I'm in dreamland here anyway, one more cool possibility. Have the MOBO positioned in a way so there are slots on the PC case where you can just pop these modules in and out without even opening the case. Then say you have some sort of RAID running, and you are going on vacation you just pop out one of these modules bring it with you and any PC in any coffee shop in the world will accept this Flash module and its just like you are working on your own PC. Yes, the damn hardware config issues like drivers would probably kill this idea, but its my dreamworld damn it and I want it!!!! I could still be missing something obvious and we certainly aren't there today, but in my dream world this is sounding pretty cool.
Sorry, the previous thread was throwing me for a loop. Its seems someone on /. doesn't know what Flash memory is (or flamebait).
Anyway, you do bring up an interesting point. I think you are right, the main reason we wouldn't use it now is performance. I've run Flash to IDE to use it as a HDD before (just playing around) and the performance of it acting as a HDD really wasn't impressive. No idea the physics behind it, but it seemed to "respond" faster, but actually loading a big file was slower. What I'm trying to say is if I opened a big-ass application, it poped up real fast, but seemed to take longer to actually load everything.
If Flash actually gets to the point of having equal performance to volatile RAM (and these Flash HDDs exist and are reliable), the I wonder what the perpose of "memeory" in the traditional sense would be. I'd think we'd just get rid of it. If the whole HDD has the speed of RAM, I'd think it'd be a "fairly" easy redesign of the MOBO and you would only need the Flash HDD. Am I missing something, or if Flash could get that level of performance and reliablity as a HDD wouldn't "memeory" as we think of it today not be needed?
Dude, are you serious????
Because they serve COMPLETELY different purposes. Flash (non-voatile) memory's purpose is to basically work like a HDD. You store the data, unplug it, walk away and take the data with you. With a PCs "traditional" memory, there is NO need for this. That is what your HDD is for (long term storage). Your PCs memory is just needed to provide fast access to the data you are currently using. Once you turn the PC off, you aren't using it anymore and have no need for it there.
You weren't being serious though were you????
Come on, your on /.! Haven't you ever been to the computer section of a bookstore? Most tech books run I'd guess on average from $30-$50. I'm not counting "for Dummies" type books, but real tech books.
If you want to survive then develop a book reader you can use in the bathtub and market it.
;-)
I've heard they already have. I think they call them "books" (you know those paper thingys). I've heard if you drop them while in the tub you don't even have to worry about getting electrocuted (not sure if I buy that though).
Dear lord!!!! I'm not in love with MS, but this topic is just TOOO much!
MS and the USGS completely pioneered this technology. MS has had live versions of this basic tech up and running for 10 years (TerraServer)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I got nothing against bashing MS, but for christs sake people in this case its Google which copied MS and just put a nicer implementation out there (plus the Google media buzz made everyone aware of it).
Here ya go.
The above is a link to TerraServer's web-service interface. Its only been available for about 10 years so I forgive you for missing it.
This seems to be true in how they are currently offering this, however MS has been working on this and had live versions available of this basic technology for about 10 years (TerraServer)
Now maybe MS didn't know how to bring this to market in a form people would want to use, but I really wouldn't call this case "following" too much. Yes, they may be following the implementation (pretty simple stuff), but they basically pioneered the technology along with the USGS.
Google's version may look nicer and be better, but I certainly wouldn't acuse MS of really following (at least the technology) in this case. And besides the technology, its just a matter of a simple GUI really so I'm not going to beat up on MS for this one.
Yeah, they have but it has been a little bit overblown. I've spelled this out in great detail in other posts, but with what I think is a VERY conservitive estimate they should still have at least 30 billion at the end of the 4 years (the period of the planned increased dividends and stock buy-back). The estimates I used for these are probably a bit rediculous even for "worst-case" scenerio. I'd guess it'd probably be closer to at least 40 billion.
I'd like to think I'm more than just the information patterns in my brain.
Me too. Fucking science is always screwing with my delusions!!!
OK, it was funnier in my head.. er I mean brain.. er I mean consciousness... er I mean soul. Screw it, you get the point.
Why is it whenever anyone talks about wanting to ban guns because of the "dangers" they pose, they get laughed out of the spotlight and everyone says "guns don't kill people, people kill people". However, when it comes to piracy these idiots seem to be making progress with their message of trying to ban technology.
Repeat after me.
Technology doesn't pirate IP, people pirate IP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No they cannot just wander over and demand it, but they can get a court order from a secret panal of judges (are they actual judges, for some reason I thought I heard them just refered to as "administrative over-sight commitees" either way not important to my point) and then get the records.
I'm not an expert of Patriot-Act or really care about this situtation as I don't see a big problem myself. Just saying, just because you don't store the actual prints doesn't really mean anything.
Exactly, sure there COULD be privacy issues but I'm sure that isn't the intent of this. The most telling couple sentences from TFA are:
The three-library system this week signed a $40,646 contract with a local company, U.S. Biometrics Corp., to install fingerprint scanners on 130 computers with Internet access or a time limit on usage.
So the head of this local company happens to know the head of the library. They are out golfing when this conversation takes place.
US Biometrics Chief: "Hey buddy, you know that 2 form authentication you guys use to access your computers?"
Library head: "Sure, what about it?"
US Biometrics Chief: "Well my company can sell you a new 2 form authentication method which is SOOOOO much cooler. And will only cost you $40,000. Come on what else ya gonna do with the $40,000? Buy books????
Library head: "Ah what the hell! We've already got plenty of books anyway!"
Maybe it cannot be "directly" cross-referenced, that doesn't matter too much. The way this system works is everytime your finger is put through this process it will yield the same number (or it would be useless). All the FBI needs to do is pass all thier fingerprint data through the same "15 point process" and compare the numbers. Not too tricky even for government workers ;-)
So, instead of creating a random number with the unix timestamp as a seed, they are creating a random number with your fingerprint as a seed. What is so shocking about that?....There is a difference between requiring fingerprints on record (actually having your fingerprint in a database somewhere) and using your fingerprint to create a random sequence of numbers.
This sure sounds innocent and I'm sure its meant to be, but there is certainly possible abuses which could occur. They store those 15 or more fingerprint points (after converting to a number presumably with some crpyto algorithum). When you want to log into a computer a finger print reader takes your fingerprint again and the same process (converting to numbers) happens. These are then matched up to verify who you are.
The problem is if each "encryption" of the "data" equals the same result then it CAN be used for otherthings. They don't need to actually store your fingerprint anywhere. Patriot-Act could let law enforcement use this database of numerical "fingerprints". All they have to do is feed thier database of fingerprints (or those from a crime scene etc) through the same software as was used to originally "encrypt" the library fingerprints, compare the numbers, and if the numbers match they got their guy. This doesn't require a REAL fingerprint. As long as everytime a fingerprint is put through the algorithim it gives the same result, having the ACTUAL fingerprint on file isn't much of an issue.
Actually, if you are just talking about the kernals, it basically about the same. Otherwise, you are talking about bundled applications which like Linux account for a majority of the patches.
The VAST majority of crap bundled with Windows is just applications which run on the OS, but since (almost) all of them are made by MS$ and always bundled with the OS its easy to think of them as part of the OS. Linux distros are actually moving in that direction as well, but its still a bit easier to tell the applications from the OS (at least if you understand that type of thing).
In five years, only one will remain.
My guess.... In five years none will remain. OK, maybe a bit over five, but not much. There are already on-line movie services. Just a bit more bandwidth going to the average home or a tech inovation where movies are more compressed with still retaining quality. I'd guess this should come pretty quickly and when it does why get movies in the mail?
I found that a bit strange as well. If there is already a patch for it, why study it? I realized though this could actually be useful info. If they realize there is a certain exploit (though already patched) which is getting taken advantage of a lot, they could beat some admins/users on the head. "Hey you REALLY want to apply this patch", there are a number of admins/users who don't stay up to date with patches (not too smart), but its true. This info could help to "convince" these people to patch the machines.
Still seems a bit strange, but I guess having more info about what is really happening out in the wild cannot hurt.
Oh come on man, don't be that guy ;-)
So MS$ shouldn't fix problems in IE until an exploit has been shown for it?
It's better to wait and see before fixing something that may not matter later.
Its better to just fix it and be safe than wait and see if something happens later. It may not be top priority, but remember this "wait and see" approach to security is exactly what got MS$ into so much trouble with users. We don't need the same for Linux.
The New York Times announced yesterday that it would offer a new subscription-based service on its Web site, charging users an annual fee to read its Op-Ed and news columnists, as the newspaper seeks ways to capitalize on the site's popularity.
Press Release (nytco.com) Most material on the Web site, NYTimes.com, will remain free to users, The Times said, but columnists from The Times and The International Herald Tribune will be available only to users who sign up for TimesSelect, which will cost $49.95 a year. The service will also include access to The Times's online archives, as well as other features.
The service, which is scheduled to start in September, will be provided free to home-delivery subscribers of the newspaper.
A decision by The Times about charging users for portions of its Web site had been expected for months in the media industry. While some efforts by other newspapers to charge for content online have worked, others have been withdrawn, including most recently one by The Los Angeles Times, which decided last week to stop charging users a fee for its online entertainment listings, reviews and criticism.
Though advertising on Web sites accounts for only 2 to 3 percent of the revenues of most newspapers, it is the fastest-growing source of revenue. Still, many newspaper Web sites fear that charging money for Internet content may send readers to free sites, with advertisers following close behind.
The New York Times's decision to charge a fee came after about a year of study, said Arthur Sulzberger Jr., chairman of the Times Company and publisher of the newspaper.
Mr. Sulzberger said that while some Internet users accustomed to free content might not be willing to pay, many others would be attracted by the online package of columnists, archives and other material.
"The advertising growth on the Web has been just spectacular the last few years," he said. "But like any business, it's going to mature over time, and when that happens, it will flatten and then you'll get into the normal cycles just like we do it on print. And at that point you're really going to need to have another revenue model."
He added, "This is going to help sustain the quality of the information that we make available."
Alexia S. Quadrani, a senior managing director at Bear, Stearns who follows the publishing and advertising industries, said The Times's plan made sense as a business model.
"All newspapers are looking for new advertising revenue and The New York Times realizes they have high-quality content and are looking at other ways to capitalize on it," she said. "The key is to that you want to maximize the dollars you get on the Internet without alienating the people."
In April, The Times's Web site had 1.7 million unique daily visitors. Its daily newspaper circulation in March 2005, the most recent month available, was 1,136,433.
The Times already charges for some content, including its crossword puzzle, news alerts and online archive. Articles are free for seven days after publication; a fee is charged once they are archived.
TimesSelect will also provide subscribers access to TimesPast, the paper's archives; exclusive multimedia, including audio and photo essays and video; TimesFile, a tool that will help users organize articles; and Ahead of The Times, which will allow subscribers to take an early look at articles that will appear in The New York Times Magazine, and the newspaper's Travel, Sunday Arts and Real Estate sections.
Martha Goldstein, a spokeswoman for The Los Angeles Times, said the paper still might charge for certain portions of its site.
Caroline Little, publisher of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, the online media subsidiary of the Washington Post Company, said a fee is "something we're looking at very carefully," but added, "there haven't really been a lot of successful ventures."
The Wall Street Journal, which is the only national paper to charge for all of its online content,
Pssst... The "fanatics and lunatics associated with Linux and Open Source" you like being associated with....They consider themselves normal too. Fanatics and lunatics don't regularly consider themselves as such.
;-)
I say this very respectfully, so please don't try to kill me!
but kindly piss off unless you actually have something to say
I don't get it. GP make it sound as if there was an impending end of xbox games. This guy then pointed out this wasn't true and even quoted a very relevant quote. What more was he supposed to say?
As far as blue-ray, it think it will be a cool extra. However, at this point I think the extra storage is a bit of an after-thought for Sony. XBox 360 I've heard is going to require all games to be HD while Sony isn't. Not that its a big deal, but with that info I doubt many games will require more than one DVD even with HD (otherwise MS is going to annoy a lot of people with having every game require more than one DVD). The reason Sony is including Blu-Ray is to push thier standard. Right now there is competion for the next DVD standard and Sony being able to ship millions of units including Blu-Ray will certainly tip the contest in thier favor. This is smart and good. I'm guessing they will need to make price competitive with XBox, so I'd guess they'll even include Blu-Ray at a loss to keep the price down. They can easily recoup this if Blu-Ray wins the standards war through licensing. Now if this is the case, it could be a great chance to get the "next" DVD player at a great price and makes the PS3 even more appealing, but I don't see it as an issue in game play.
What concessions did the "other side" make?
;-)
To stop bitching quite as loudly for a little while
I think this article shows how stupid many people are.
/. (and that says something) ;-)
There is NO WAY this will happen. There is a MUCH better chance of Saddam Hussien being elected president of the USA.
Some people want sooooo badly for someone to pay attention to them, they'll say anything to get a little attention!
This may be the stupidest thing I've ever read on
OK we've found something we can agree on, the Corrs are AWSOME (and yeah pretty easy on the eyes)!!!! ;-)
I've never said it couldn't happen. If fact many times in this thread I specifically said it could (perhaps not in this direct thread though, not sure). My whole point was stating the obvious fact MS has advantages (to the original poster saying they didn't).
However, I completely agree it could happen. There are tons of reasons it could happen, but in any sequence of events thier current position will give them "cusion". They will have to screw up pretty massively over an extended period of time to fall. Certainly, the arguement can be made they they already have been screwing up massively for an extended period of time. However, there profits are still growing and thier influence is expanding during that period. So it will need to get much worse before they even begin to fall. Could the fall begin soon? Sure. Looking at market share of individual products, you could say it has already begun. Though looking at financials and market share over thier entire product line, I'd probably argue it hasn't really begun yet. That said, the "entire product line" view probably doesn't really work since Windows on the desktop is the key to the company at this point. I haven't seen any numbers showing that is in any immediate jeopordy, but if that falls drastically you'd probably see the whole house of cards begin to fall (unless they make some pretty major shifts).