i hav a hunch no one outside of intel knows just yet.
I have a hunch no one outside of Intel's PR department knows. They still haven't gotten their previous "new architecture" EPIC ramped up.
My bet is that such pre-announcements of radically new stuff is mostly a way of freezing the market to stop supercomputer vendors from looking at IBM Cell chips in much the same way Itanium stopped people from using PA-RISC, Alpha, MIPS, etc.
Last time Intel pre-announced a new Chip Architecture there was a lot of strong competitiion in the 64-bit computing space. Leading players were Alpha, PA-RISC, Sparc, MIPS.
Intel announced some fud about EPIC, and except for fujitsu who kept Sparc alive despite Sun's layoffs this FUD wiped out the entire market.
Methinks they saw the power of this approach and if the last round killed 4 leading nplayers, this round will kill off the remaining 2 (IBM & AMD).
Seems LinkSys would have an even huger following if they actively encouraged people to ssh to the box and allow people to customize it.
Regarding the fear of customer support issues, all they'd really need is a ROM of a stable release and a reset-switch that would re-load the flash from the fixed ROM.
I'd definately buy a wireless router that gives me more flexibility of routing & firewalling than the default GUIs offer.
Any reason why LinkSys (and airlink, and Tivo, etc) don't just openly publish their APIs and how to connect?
I still think that's the most impressive CSSification of slashdot because it uses the exact same HTML as this and this and this
and even this very different style. Note that all of those are the exact same HTML page, only the style sheet changed.
If a CSS slashdot were that flexible, we could probably have PDA-friendly styles very easily.
I wouldn't belittle perfume companies.
Coty Beauty Lancaster Group, who bought the fragreence business of Unilever paid close to a billion dollars for that division - is an over $2 billion dollar revenue company.
That's quite a bit larger than Tommy Hilfiger in its entirety, at under 2 billion.
But Tommy.com, the direct sales group of TH is TINY compared to that -- which is all that we're talking about running Windows. No doubt their financials apps are running something else, at least as a database, and at least there you could argue it's a bet the company decision for them.
I'm not belittling their company as a whole - just that they're misrepresenting themselves when Eric sugests that choosing a web server is a "bet the company" matter for Hilfiger.
If he said "be the company" on fashion designers - or china sweatshops - or ad agencies, he might have some credibility.
But the decision of what webserver to run is an insignificant matter -- and the discounts they got on their desktops, or the waiver for having pirated windows's, or the joint press release -- -- or whatever discount Microsoft gave them to incorporate them in their PR campaigns -- is worth far more than whatever the difference in direct-sales's that the OS running their web-server will have on the company.
Exactly! I think you were unintentionally insightful.
The ability to customize an OS is *EXACTLY* the type of criteria important when "betting" a "billion dollar company" on an OS.
If you're "betting" a "billion dollar company" on anything less than the ability to control whatever you're betting on, you're an idiot - and Singleton certainly sounds like he fits the description for using that phrase.
For Tommy Hilfiger, the thing that they actually "bet the company" on, I guarantee you they have the ability to control their destiny. For example, to make changes in the formulas of their fragrences. With an attitude like his, I assure you that Hilfiger's board wouldn't let Eric anywhere near anything they actually bet the company on.
Eric Singleton, chief information officer at retailer Tommy Hilfiger Corp. His company had been running its Web shopping site, Tommy.com, on Linux -- but recently switched it to Microsoft software. He calls Linux "a great product," but adds, "it's got to get the final tier of reliability and predictability that I'm going to bet a multibillion-dollar corporation's future on."
Last I checked Google's a multibillion-dollar corp that actually bet on an OS. Tommy.com, a small fragment of a company that bets on perfumes is nothing of the sort.
Methnks Eric's disapointed that Oracle and MSFT have larger lunch budgets for CIOs than Linux, and doesn't really give a fuck about the "multi-billion dollar" part of the company that has nothing to do with operating systems.
I'm fully confident in Microsoft's ability to put enhancements in IE8 that will break all Google and Yahoo AJAX projects in much the same way their JVM worked.
Or, (with memories brought back by your java reference) for "security reasons" only allowing dynamic content that uses the safe managed code in the CLR/.NET runtime.
The main reason the internet caught on is because it had a consistant UI that everyone, even non-computers users, could use.
All links worked the same way and had the same right click menu.
The back button could get you back if you get lost
You could bookmark what you're interested in.
With showcase AJAX applications from leading software vendors all of this is broken.
I can't bookmark. I can't use the back button (I remember when only porn sites used to do this - and now Microsoft sinks so low?). I can't use my right-click menus that I know.
AJAX combines all the inconsistancies and learning curves of desktop applications with all the limitations (bandwidth, limited access to local storage) of the web.
On Google, I bookmarked many of my favorite search results.
Since this silly page always re-uses the same URL (like all-too-many ASP.NET "web applications") core browser functionality like Bookmarks and The Back Button are Broken.
So, waiting for a full analysis is a bad thing now?
And in the mean time, millions - hundreds of millions - of schoolkids were being lied to everwhere.
This _is_ a bad thing.
The result of these lies is that the kids are taught "if you know something, and a bunch of people around you are telling lies, it's OK to play along with the lie and hide the truth from people".
Usenet may still be alive, but it's less and less P2P and more centralized every year. As evidence, for you Usenet feed which peer's too you connect to; and is the usenet data you provide to peers fo a similar scale as the data you recieve from peers?
If you answer is "I get my usenet feeds from one of the large commercial suppliers; and I send my usenet data to no-one" it's really not P2P anymore.
I think it would be really cool to join or set up more traditionally P2P amateur usenet though (with small enough newsgroups that can be handled by a DSL line). If anyone knows of such a project I'd be quite interested in joining.
Reselling Starbucks/T-Mobile can get near free.
on
The Case for Free WiFi?
·
· Score: 0, Troll
I know a guy with a wireless relay set up in his van who parks at Starbucks; buys the day-pass for T-Mobile; and then re-sells that bandwidth back to users in the coffee shop (they all connect to his wireless access point, and he connects to Starbucks's).
It's almost free - he charges 1/2 what T-Mobile charges - so if he gets 3 people using it over a day he makes his money back.
If more people would sign up, his service would converge on free.
however let's remember that corporations "own" assets in ways similar to individuals
"Own"ing assets does not give you absolute power over what you do with them.
Just because an airline owns the plane, it doesn't mean they can throw passengers out the windows. (that's illegal)
Just because a landlord owns an apartment, it doesn't mean he can control his residents setting up wireless networks. (that's the FCC's job)
Just because a telephone company owns some wires doesn't mean they can re-route calls to their prefered customers (as Sprint was accused of doing in Las Vegas when people called prostitutes)
Ownership is one thing - but when you have a customer you have to abide by the contract with your customer. For an ISP ("internet service provider") that means "providing" "internet" "service" -- something that they're breaching if they block the union site..
The part that leaves me with a bad impression is that a lot of core browsr funcationality is broken which makes this really tough to use.
If you do a "local search" it brings up a panel with links - however if you shift-click or right-click on those links there's now way to open the new page in a new window.
If I hit the back button I don't go back to my previous local search results. Heck, somehow they messed with my browser button so the back button never leaves their site. I remember back when porn companies did this, but I don't expect to see reputable organizationos do this.
I can't right-click on the image to bring it up in it's own window -- a normal web-browser feature that is very nice for printing maps without wasting paper&ink on useless headers and footers.
Basically, this page combines all the limitations of a web brosers with all the inconsistancies-and-difficulty-of-use of a PC application.
The one thing that made the Internet easy-enough-to-use to make everyone comfortable with it is that all pages worked the same way (back button works) and all links worked the same way (same right-click-menu). Why does Microsoft feel a need to change this?
These AJAX applications suck when you don't quite finish them; since a lot of core browser functionality that users expect to work stop doing the expected thing.
I can't right-click to open in a new window on the little links in the DHTML popup and I can't use the back button to get to what I looked at previously.
Breaking fundemental core browser funcationality like this really sucks - because that consistancy is really the most important thing that made the Web easy to use in the first place.
Instead of buying a search optimization company for your favorate word, simply IPO and get your ticker symbol to be the word you want. Then you'll show up even more prominantly placed than all the ads.
For example, if you're a consulting company that makes HTML forms, simply buy form factor, and you'll get excellent placement on google for the word form.
One thing I like is that TFA points out that with open source software, you as a customer can competitively select your vendor for maintanence of the software (as you should be able to do in any capatilistic / free-market system). In contast, for NON-F/OSS software you're forced to stick with a single vendor (damn commies)
Cutting the cord and telling Windows user's they must have XP is tough love,
Don't worry - I'm sure they'll make you that much happier next year when they force XP users to upgrade to Longhorn.
This approached worked great for Apple when they went to OS X.
I bet it'll work great for all the Win2000 users who go to OS X as well. If you mean to say that this is good news for windows users because they're being driven to OS X faster, I agree with you 100%. If you mean to say it's good news for people who actually pay for windows - I disagree 100% because MSFT is simply double-charging them for a minor upgrade of the OS that they already bought.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a hunch no one outside of Intel's PR department knows. They still haven't gotten their previous "new architecture" EPIC ramped up.
My bet is that such pre-announcements of radically new stuff is mostly a way of freezing the market to stop supercomputer vendors from looking at IBM Cell chips in much the same way Itanium stopped people from using PA-RISC, Alpha, MIPS, etc.
Intel announced some fud about EPIC, and except for fujitsu who kept Sparc alive despite Sun's layoffs this FUD wiped out the entire market.
Methinks they saw the power of this approach and if the last round killed 4 leading nplayers, this round will kill off the remaining 2 (IBM & AMD).
Regarding the fear of customer support issues, all they'd really need is a ROM of a stable release and a reset-switch that would re-load the flash from the fixed ROM.
I'd definately buy a wireless router that gives me more flexibility of routing & firewalling than the default GUIs offer.
Any reason why LinkSys (and airlink, and Tivo, etc) don't just openly publish their APIs and how to connect?
I still think that's the most impressive CSSification of slashdot because it uses the exact same HTML as this and this and this and even this very different style. Note that all of those are the exact same HTML page, only the style sheet changed.
If a CSS slashdot were that flexible, we could probably have PDA-friendly styles very easily.
But Tommy.com, the direct sales group of TH is TINY compared to that -- which is all that we're talking about running Windows. No doubt their financials apps are running something else, at least as a database, and at least there you could argue it's a bet the company decision for them.
If he said "be the company" on fashion designers - or china sweatshops - or ad agencies, he might have some credibility.
But the decision of what webserver to run is an insignificant matter -- and the discounts they got on their desktops, or the waiver for having pirated windows's, or the joint press release -- -- or whatever discount Microsoft gave them to incorporate them in their PR campaigns -- is worth far more than whatever the difference in direct-sales's that the OS running their web-server will have on the company.
The ability to customize an OS is *EXACTLY* the type of criteria important when "betting" a "billion dollar company" on an OS.
If you're "betting" a "billion dollar company" on anything less than the ability to control whatever you're betting on, you're an idiot - and Singleton certainly sounds like he fits the description for using that phrase.
For Tommy Hilfiger, the thing that they actually "bet the company" on, I guarantee you they have the ability to control their destiny. For example, to make changes in the formulas of their fragrences. With an attitude like his, I assure you that Hilfiger's board wouldn't let Eric anywhere near anything they actually bet the company on.
Last I checked Google's a multibillion-dollar corp that actually bet on an OS. Tommy.com, a small fragment of a company that bets on perfumes is nothing of the sort.
Methnks Eric's disapointed that Oracle and MSFT have larger lunch budgets for CIOs than Linux, and doesn't really give a fuck about the "multi-billion dollar" part of the company that has nothing to do with operating systems.
I'm fully confident in Microsoft's ability to put enhancements in IE8 that will break all Google and Yahoo AJAX projects in much the same way their JVM worked.
Or, (with memories brought back by your java reference) for "security reasons" only allowing dynamic content that uses the safe managed code in the CLR/.NET runtime.
The main reason the internet caught on is because it had a consistant UI that everyone, even non-computers users, could use.
- All links worked the same way and had the same right click menu.
- The back button could get you back if you get lost
- You could bookmark what you're interested in.
With showcase AJAX applications from leading software vendors all of this is broken. I can't bookmark. I can't use the back button (I remember when only porn sites used to do this - and now Microsoft sinks so low?). I can't use my right-click menus that I know.AJAX combines all the inconsistancies and learning curves of desktop applications with all the limitations (bandwidth, limited access to local storage) of the web.
Please make it stop.
On Google, I bookmarked many of my favorite search results. Since this silly page always re-uses the same URL (like all-too-many ASP.NET "web applications") core browser functionality like Bookmarks and The Back Button are Broken.
Consider their desire to not bother supporting standards in their browsers.
This Anon Coward guy seems pretty smart, so I think Journalists should just listen to him.
When you find obvious lies in the Get The Facts material, how proactive are you at correcting them?
More directly: I haven't noticed any corrections or retractions about Get The Facts FUD from your lab yet. Why not?
And in the mean time, millions - hundreds of millions - of schoolkids were being lied to everwhere.
This _is_ a bad thing.
The result of these lies is that the kids are taught "if you know something, and a bunch of people around you are telling lies, it's OK to play along with the lie and hide the truth from people".
If you answer is "I get my usenet feeds from one of the large commercial suppliers; and I send my usenet data to no-one" it's really not P2P anymore.
I think it would be really cool to join or set up more traditionally P2P amateur usenet though (with small enough newsgroups that can be handled by a DSL line). If anyone knows of such a project I'd be quite interested in joining.
It's almost free - he charges 1/2 what T-Mobile charges - so if he gets 3 people using it over a day he makes his money back.
If more people would sign up, his service would converge on free.
"Own"ing assets does not give you absolute power over what you do with them.
- Just because an airline owns the plane, it doesn't mean they can throw passengers out the windows. (that's illegal)
- Just because a landlord owns an apartment, it doesn't mean he can control his residents setting up wireless networks. (that's the FCC's job)
- Just because a telephone company owns some wires doesn't mean they can re-route calls to their prefered customers (as Sprint was accused of doing in Las Vegas when people called prostitutes)
Ownership is one thing - but when you have a customer you have to abide by the contract with your customer. For an ISP ("internet service provider") that means "providing" "internet" "service" -- something that they're breaching if they block the union site..- If you do a "local search" it brings up a panel with links - however if you shift-click or right-click on those links there's now way to open the new page in a new window.
- If I hit the back button I don't go back to my previous local search results. Heck, somehow they messed with my browser button so the back button never leaves their site. I remember back when porn companies did this, but I don't expect to see reputable organizationos do this.
- I can't right-click on the image to bring it up in it's own window -- a normal web-browser feature that is very nice for printing maps without wasting paper&ink on useless headers and footers.
Basically, this page combines all the limitations of a web brosers with all the inconsistancies-and-difficulty-of-use of a PC application.The one thing that made the Internet easy-enough-to-use to make everyone comfortable with it is that all pages worked the same way (back button works) and all links worked the same way (same right-click-menu). Why does Microsoft feel a need to change this?
I can't right-click to open in a new window on the little links in the DHTML popup and I can't use the back button to get to what I looked at previously.
Breaking fundemental core browser funcationality like this really sucks - because that consistancy is really the most important thing that made the Web easy to use in the first place.
Instead of buying a search optimization company for your favorate word, simply IPO and get your ticker symbol to be the word you want. Then you'll show up even more prominantly placed than all the ads. For example, if you're a consulting company that makes HTML forms, simply buy form factor, and you'll get excellent placement on google for the word form.
One thing I like is that TFA points out that with open source software, you as a customer can competitively select your vendor for maintanence of the software (as you should be able to do in any capatilistic / free-market system). In contast, for NON-F/OSS software you're forced to stick with a single vendor (damn commies)
Don't worry - I'm sure they'll make you that much happier next year when they force XP users to upgrade to Longhorn.
This approached worked great for Apple when they went to OS X.
I bet it'll work great for all the Win2000 users who go to OS X as well. If you mean to say that this is good news for windows users because they're being driven to OS X faster, I agree with you 100%. If you mean to say it's good news for people who actually pay for windows - I disagree 100% because MSFT is simply double-charging them for a minor upgrade of the OS that they already bought.
Are you suggesting microsoft technology matters more than microsoft marketing?
LOL!
Hasn't the reality been that Microsoft's marketing has always mattered far more than any of the technical components they release?