I didn't have the VIC20, I had the PET2001; the PET2001 had about 20k RAM if I remember clearly, and that's where I learned to code (well, learned to code BASIC, anyway). However, the PET2001 did not have color, nor the graphics capabilities of the VIC20. The PET2001 was the direct precursor to the C64.
When we got the PET2001, floppy disks were not available. So, lots of tape cassettes... I scoff at people who complain about 15 second load times today.
Telengard, by Avalon Hill, had a load time of about 15 minutes... so I feel your pain:)
I remember playing Q*bert on the VIC20 at a friend's house, also "Blue Meanies" -- tons of fun.
For larger retailers, supply chain is rarely just within the US. Extra formats = more money = less likely to adopt.
Or, what if you are a small(er) operation with retail outlets on multiple continents?
Re: "Spying" on people, the fact remains that someone entering my home (or even outside it) could scan any active RFID chips. Regarding RFID chips on my person, I am very, very wary of any potential for information gathering. It's a slippery slope I'd rather not progress further down, even if their info gathering would be less than perfect at this point.
If you want to work for a non-tech company, certifications become more important.
Like any grading system, they allow a potential employer to assess baseline knowldege, whether or not they themselves have that knowledge.
If you want to work for a large company, or a tech company, they shrink in value -- as the knowledge they pertain to becomes verifiable by the employer directly.
Ex. My sister does tech recruiting for a large supermarket chain; they ignore certifications, as they have the wherewithal to test candidates' knowledge according to their own standards.
Furthermore, they have a very large IT section; jobs are specialized enough that the knowledge set specific to these jobs are more important that the knowledge sets specific to most certifications.
That said, it can't hurt your career to have a certification -- the question is, is it worth paying for.
I am guessing here, but it seems to me that the more glutted with workers the market is, the more important certifications become. If I have 400 resumes for one open position, it is an easy way to weed out a lot of those resumes.
A much better comparison would be the Vic-20 by Commodore.
The C64 was a home computer; the VIC-20 was a console computer. It was primarily used to play games, although it did have word-processing capability (though limited to 22 chars per line), etc. Its display was typically a TV, and IIRC, it came with a joystick.
Price at retail launch (Jan 1981) was $299, which is approximately $610 in today's dollars, making it about the same as the Xbox 360.
Of course, GTA4 in ANSI just doesn't seem as appealing.
My chauffeur is sick, anyone know where to find a driver for this peripheral?
Seriously, the car operating software is not open-source... it's the navigational system software that is. The owner of the company makes a valid point about marketing-driven vs. user-driven software, but I surmise that this is a great example of OS working in the market...
It's cheaper to use open-source in some circumstances.
However, it is very misleading to write that the car is open-source.
Science and finance are enemies, strange bedfellows that hate eachother but rely on eachother, in a bad marriage, with nothing to lose and at times everything to lose.
Since when are science and finance enemies?
They are not strange bedfellows, but allies who use each other to get what they want -- just like any other allies.
You make an interesting point about how computers are not getting closer to being true AI, but I have to disagree with you.
Already, we know that the amount of operations needed to even come close to simulating the human mind is beyond the reach of current technology. Until we can get processor speeds up high enough to perform the necessary amount of calculations per second, we cannot even begin to shift the approach away from processing speeds and binary logic. This shift of approach seems to be what you are saying is necessary for true AI.
And, I believe that finance will eventually drive technology to simulate AI that approaches consciousness -- because there will be a financial incentive to do so.
How can balance come to this nature, to enable true AI to come forward out of the ashes?
Balance doesn't really apply here, science and finance are not really opposing each other. If anything, finance supports science -- by allowing excess resources to be turned into knowledge.
Finance is what allowed Newton, Einstein, Copernicus, and almost any other great scientist to make their discoveries. This couldn't have happened if they were busy planting the crops to survive on.
And as for AI coming out of the ashes, why do we need an apocalypse to see AI develop?
FTA: [Sterling]:"We'll finally stop interfacing with a computer with a keypad," he said. "It's a truly science fiction dream of talking to computers and computers talking back to you."
Great, like I need my computer talking back to me -- I'll be getting enough sass from my teenage daughters by then.
So we don't have to "deal with" the cashiers at a store?
The speed they talk about in the article is for warehousing, shipping, and distribution.
Cashiers will still be needed at the store, as some of the other responders to your post have mentioned.
Two of the reasons I didn't see mentioned:
Loss prevention.
Image.
Without face-to-face contact, shoppers are much more likely to try to "pull a fast one." It's much more cost-effective to prevent theft than it is to prosecute it, so even RFID scanners at exits won't be cost-effective at preventing loss.
As for image, shoppers like face-to-face contact (with exceptions, of course). It's hard to maintain your image as the friendly neighborhood megastore without having local employees in visible positions.
Do you think the tags will really be deactivated? The technology is there, but none of the major players in RFID have bothered utilizing it. There is a lot of spec that aftermarket RFID could be big bucks for research firms.
But at Google, it's all about centralization. That's their way. The information they have access to at any given moment is insane, and I think it's the primary reason they believe so strongly in centralization, so that they can collect more information.
Well of course -- without centralization you can't collate the information. Without collation, information is useless.
I just wanted to point out that supply chain savings is perhaps secondary to retail applications of RFID.
I'm not so crazy about having my in-store movements tracked. I may browse the LCD TVs at Best Buy (since I don't shop at Walmart), but that doesn't mean I want to be spammed with ads for them. And you bet I will be, if they know I spent half an hour looking at them.
The second problem with this is that the RFID chips remain live when you leave the store. Those products can be tracked in my home as well as at the store.
Hate to break it to you, but there are competing standards for barcodes, too.
Yes, but the difference for barcodes is not in the medium, but in the language.
It's easy to code a barcode reader for different standards, RFID requires reading different frequencies.
But for supply chain management, where packaging and other material often get in the way of scanning, RFID is ready to take hold now.
There are also problems with packaging etc getting in the way of RFID scanning -- not as bad as bar codes, but still there. One of the problems RFID experiences here moreso than bar codes: scanning of items accidentally.
However, you are correct that RFID is ready to enter the market, but I would stipulate that this only holds for extremely large operations -- for small operations, it's just too expensive for the ROI.
RFID can be advantageous to suuply-chain and distribution management, but there are still several problems that need to be addressed before the bar code will die out.
Standards -- For one thing, there are many different standards (the US & Europe, for example, use different frequencies). Increased globalization of supply chains will make this a royal PITA, and probably not cost-effective, for many retailers.
RFID signals are easily blocked -- often accidentally. Soda Cans, for example, can interfere with RFID to such an extent that only tags on the outside of a pallet will be read.
Developing technology -- as RFID tech becomes more advanced, new capabilities will be put into play, and a lot of these may require software and hardware upgrades both for the tags and the readers. This, of course, can be expensive.
Unreliability -- while bar codes are relatively exensive to use (since they require active scanning within line-of-sight), they are very accurate. RFID tags have a misidentification rate that is higher, and can be compounded by improper placement of the scanned goods, or many other causes (like cell phone and walkie-talkie usage).
IMO, bar codes will be around for a very long while. Sure, Walmart will use RFID for supply-chain management. But, the real reason they are implementing it is:
RFID can be used to track consumers inside a store.
Better product placement, better loss prevention, better tracking of purchases.
Only the plus side, RFID is blocked by tinfoil hats.
I agree wholeheartedly with most of your post, except:
"Our dollar loses more value every day as the Fed inflates our currency.
This quote suggests that inflation is a "bad thing." Out-of-control inflation is, indeed, bad for the economy as a whole. Stagflation is also terrible for the economy: when production remains level or decreases, while the value of the dollar decreases.
However, controlled inflation is good for the economy; it drives future investment. Furthermore, it reduces the burden of debt service many individuals and businesses will have to pay.
Sure, the economy affects how much people spend on luxuries like entertainment.
But the real driver to crappy ticket sales is alternative options for entertainment. Believe me, there were just as many crappy movies when we were young. But, being young, we didn't realize they were bad (perhaps because they were bad in a way we'd never seen before).
Tech was a spec market in 2000. It is largely no longer so, and the companies that have prospered (with exceptions, of course) are the ones with good management. Marginal value of an exec in a tight market may indeed be far higher than their marginal value in a loose, speculative market.
"Does paying an exec another $400,000 a year make him better? nope. does hiring 4 techs for that amount make IT/IS better? you bet your ass it certianly does.
But, paying him an extra $400k may keep him at your company, and if he's good at his job, that may be worth it. If he's good, maybe he was UNDERvalued in 2000.
Does hiring 4 techs for IT/IS make that much of a difference to the bottom line? Maybe. Maybe not. The question is, do they make as much of a difference as retaining/hiring the exec? My guess is, no. Not at all.
If I recall, a big strategy for startups in the 90s was to bring a product to market, or close to market, and then maneuver to be bought out by Microsoft (either for the patents, or for the -ware itself). Many venture capitalists made a fortune this way.
The difference here: Google doesn't need to bother with buying you out. They just offer an equivalent service for free.
So, how does a small company protect itself? Patentable innovation.
"Guess what, the industry has been typically underpaying by 25% over the past few years. "
I'm pretty sick of people in the tech industry believing that they are underpaid. Just because you were once worth more to an industry, based on heavy speculation and a low supply of workers, doesn't mean you are worth that now.
Quite simply: You are only worth what people are willing to pay you.
If you're looking for intrinsic value of your labor (rather than market value), it is $0. That's correct, zero. Your labor only holds value according to the parameters of your job.
You save your company some cash by writing some clever scripts? Great, that has value to your company. Intrinsic value of that code? Nothing.
Not everyone has the right stuff to be a quality programmer, or troubleshooter, or even janitor.
But at my company, the janitor makes a bigger impact on the bottom line than any of the codemonkeys.
Retailers fully understand that sales of the 360 will be abysmal at a price point of $600 (especially once they've bundled the accessories and games), which is why they've pressured MS to release a scaled-down version.
Base model of the XBox 360 will retail for about $400. Full functionality will require spending another couple hundred bucks -- want to play XBox games? Better have that hard drive. Want a second controller? How about a memory card?
The decision to bundle XBox 360 consoles is made by retailers, but the decision to do so is enabled by MS's pricing and distribution policies -- a limited supply at product release ensures that fanatics will pay whatever the retailer wants.
It remains to be seen if the market will bear a price so high.
IMO, the only reason to purchase the XBox 360 is because of the extra potential that 2nd generation games will (hopefully) utilize. Without buying the full-fledged model, all I can say is... good luck with that.
From a sales standpoint, there is a world of difference between $249 and $399. Much of the market for consumer electronics balks at paying more than $300 for an appliance. I, for one, will not pay more than $200 for a game system, period.
Does this lock me out of a new console for a while? Sure.
But are the games that take full advantage of a console's power available within a year of launch? No way. And until those games are released, I have a better time with tried-and-true games on the previous generation of consoles.
I was referring to the general class of compounds known as amphetamines, not the specific 'amphetamine'. Interestingly enough, this class also includes MDMA (Methylenedionemethamphetamine -- Ecstasy).
They do have very similar effects, but the response differs for a bunch of reasons, including chemical structure, rate of absorption, rate of metabolysis, activity of metabolites, etc.
Methamphetamine happens to have an extremely high affinity for certain alpha-adrenergic receptors, whereas ephedrine and pseudophedrine are less active there.
Dextromethrophan (DXM) is actually an opiate that happens to have high selectivity for the hallucinogenic receptors, rather than the hypnotic and pain receptors that other opiates primarily affect. DXM activity is pretty much unrelated to amphetamine activity.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody said Slashdotters couldn't be optimistic!
I didn't have the VIC20, I had the PET2001; the PET2001 had about 20k RAM if I remember clearly, and that's where I learned to code (well, learned to code BASIC, anyway). However, the PET2001 did not have color, nor the graphics capabilities of the VIC20. The PET2001 was the direct precursor to the C64.
:)
When we got the PET2001, floppy disks were not available. So, lots of tape cassettes... I scoff at people who complain about 15 second load times today.
Telengard, by Avalon Hill, had a load time of about 15 minutes... so I feel your pain
I remember playing Q*bert on the VIC20 at a friend's house, also "Blue Meanies" -- tons of fun.
Key phrase there: "everyone in the US"
For larger retailers, supply chain is rarely just within the US. Extra formats = more money = less likely to adopt.
Or, what if you are a small(er) operation with retail outlets on multiple continents?
Re: "Spying" on people, the fact remains that someone entering my home (or even outside it) could scan any active RFID chips. Regarding RFID chips on my person, I am very, very wary of any potential for information gathering. It's a slippery slope I'd rather not progress further down, even if their info gathering would be less than perfect at this point.
If you want to work for a non-tech company, certifications become more important.
Like any grading system, they allow a potential employer to assess baseline knowldege, whether or not they themselves have that knowledge.
If you want to work for a large company, or a tech company, they shrink in value -- as the knowledge they pertain to becomes verifiable by the employer directly.
Ex. My sister does tech recruiting for a large supermarket chain; they ignore certifications, as they have the wherewithal to test candidates' knowledge according to their own standards.
Furthermore, they have a very large IT section; jobs are specialized enough that the knowledge set specific to these jobs are more important that the knowledge sets specific to most certifications.
That said, it can't hurt your career to have a certification -- the question is, is it worth paying for.
I am guessing here, but it seems to me that the more glutted with workers the market is, the more important certifications become. If I have 400 resumes for one open position, it is an easy way to weed out a lot of those resumes.
A much better comparison would be the Vic-20 by Commodore.
The C64 was a home computer; the VIC-20 was a console computer. It was primarily used to play games, although it did have word-processing capability (though limited to 22 chars per line), etc. Its display was typically a TV, and IIRC, it came with a joystick.
Price at retail launch (Jan 1981) was $299, which is approximately $610 in today's dollars, making it about the same as the Xbox 360.
Of course, GTA4 in ANSI just doesn't seem as appealing.
My chauffeur is sick, anyone know where to find a driver for this peripheral?
Seriously, the car operating software is not open-source... it's the navigational system software that is. The owner of the company makes a valid point about marketing-driven vs. user-driven software, but I surmise that this is a great example of OS working in the market...
It's cheaper to use open-source in some circumstances.
However, it is very misleading to write that the car is open-source.
Science and finance are enemies, strange bedfellows that hate eachother but rely on eachother, in a bad marriage, with nothing to lose and at times everything to lose.
Since when are science and finance enemies?
They are not strange bedfellows, but allies who use each other to get what they want -- just like any other allies.
You make an interesting point about how computers are not getting closer to being true AI, but I have to disagree with you.
Already, we know that the amount of operations needed to even come close to simulating the human mind is beyond the reach of current technology. Until we can get processor speeds up high enough to perform the necessary amount of calculations per second, we cannot even begin to shift the approach away from processing speeds and binary logic. This shift of approach seems to be what you are saying is necessary for true AI.
And, I believe that finance will eventually drive technology to simulate AI that approaches consciousness -- because there will be a financial incentive to do so.
How can balance come to this nature, to enable true AI to come forward out of the ashes?
Balance doesn't really apply here, science and finance are not really opposing each other. If anything, finance supports science -- by allowing excess resources to be turned into knowledge.
Finance is what allowed Newton, Einstein, Copernicus, and almost any other great scientist to make their discoveries. This couldn't have happened if they were busy planting the crops to survive on.
And as for AI coming out of the ashes, why do we need an apocalypse to see AI develop?
FTA: [Sterling]:"We'll finally stop interfacing with a computer with a keypad," he said. "It's a truly science fiction dream of talking to computers and computers talking back to you."
Great, like I need my computer talking back to me -- I'll be getting enough sass from my teenage daughters by then.
So we don't have to "deal with" the cashiers at a store?
The speed they talk about in the article is for warehousing, shipping, and distribution.
Cashiers will still be needed at the store, as some of the other responders to your post have mentioned.
Two of the reasons I didn't see mentioned:
Loss prevention.
Image.
Without face-to-face contact, shoppers are much more likely to try to "pull a fast one." It's much more cost-effective to prevent theft than it is to prosecute it, so even RFID scanners at exits won't be cost-effective at preventing loss.
As for image, shoppers like face-to-face contact (with exceptions, of course). It's hard to maintain your image as the friendly neighborhood megastore without having local employees in visible positions.
Do you think the tags will really be deactivated? The technology is there, but none of the major players in RFID have bothered utilizing it. There is a lot of spec that aftermarket RFID could be big bucks for research firms.
But at Google, it's all about centralization. That's their way. The information they have access to at any given moment is insane, and I think it's the primary reason they believe so strongly in centralization, so that they can collect more information.
Well of course -- without centralization you can't collate the information. Without collation, information is useless.
I just wanted to point out that supply chain savings is perhaps secondary to retail applications of RFID.
I'm not so crazy about having my in-store movements tracked. I may browse the LCD TVs at Best Buy (since I don't shop at Walmart), but that doesn't mean I want to be spammed with ads for them. And you bet I will be, if they know I spent half an hour looking at them.
The second problem with this is that the RFID chips remain live when you leave the store. Those products can be tracked in my home as well as at the store.
I like my privacy.
Hate to break it to you, but there are competing standards for barcodes, too.
Yes, but the difference for barcodes is not in the medium, but in the language.
It's easy to code a barcode reader for different standards, RFID requires reading different frequencies.
But for supply chain management, where packaging and other material often get in the way of scanning, RFID is ready to take hold now.
There are also problems with packaging etc getting in the way of RFID scanning -- not as bad as bar codes, but still there. One of the problems RFID experiences here moreso than bar codes: scanning of items accidentally.
However, you are correct that RFID is ready to enter the market, but I would stipulate that this only holds for extremely large operations -- for small operations, it's just too expensive for the ROI.
RFID can be advantageous to suuply-chain and distribution management, but there are still several problems that need to be addressed before the bar code will die out.
Standards -- For one thing, there are many different standards (the US & Europe, for example, use different frequencies). Increased globalization of supply chains will make this a royal PITA, and probably not cost-effective, for many retailers.
RFID signals are easily blocked -- often accidentally. Soda Cans, for example, can interfere with RFID to such an extent that only tags on the outside of a pallet will be read.
Developing technology -- as RFID tech becomes more advanced, new capabilities will be put into play, and a lot of these may require software and hardware upgrades both for the tags and the readers. This, of course, can be expensive.
Unreliability -- while bar codes are relatively exensive to use (since they require active scanning within line-of-sight), they are very accurate. RFID tags have a misidentification rate that is higher, and can be compounded by improper placement of the scanned goods, or many other causes (like cell phone and walkie-talkie usage).
IMO, bar codes will be around for a very long while. Sure, Walmart will use RFID for supply-chain management. But, the real reason they are implementing it is:
RFID can be used to track consumers inside a store.
Better product placement, better loss prevention, better tracking of purchases.
Only the plus side, RFID is blocked by tinfoil hats.
Too much of a good thing is NEVER beneficial. ... Except sex, that is.
Chafing. Lubricant.
I didn't say that inflation is not caused by government action. I was just contesting the implication that inflation is inherently a bad thing.
Savings, and hard metal currency (by which, I think you mean a fixed amount of currency), do cause inhibition of inflationary pressure.
Assuming all else is static, what really causes inflation is consumption being greater than (production + savings).
I agree wholeheartedly with most of your post, except:
"Our dollar loses more value every day as the Fed inflates our currency.
This quote suggests that inflation is a "bad thing." Out-of-control inflation is, indeed, bad for the economy as a whole. Stagflation is also terrible for the economy: when production remains level or decreases, while the value of the dollar decreases.
However, controlled inflation is good for the economy; it drives future investment. Furthermore, it reduces the burden of debt service many individuals and businesses will have to pay.
Sure, the economy affects how much people spend on luxuries like entertainment.
But the real driver to crappy ticket sales is alternative options for entertainment. Believe me, there were just as many crappy movies when we were young. But, being young, we didn't realize they were bad (perhaps because they were bad in a way we'd never seen before).
Man, wish I had thought of that first.
If I had mod points, you'd get em
Oh, great, get a few of these and we have a whole robotic Flock of Seagulls.
Talk about modern warfare, it's a whole new wave of drones.
... a trend in Microsoft history where every product was either a stolen or bought-out design...
I don't recall people bitching about this too much when they were the ones having products bought out. This was the business model for many a startup.
The people who had things stolen didn't protect themselves properly, or fell victim to Microsoft's natural monopoly.
Dude, you get a clue.
Tech was a spec market in 2000. It is largely no longer so, and the companies that have prospered (with exceptions, of course) are the ones with good management. Marginal value of an exec in a tight market may indeed be far higher than their marginal value in a loose, speculative market.
"Does paying an exec another $400,000 a year make him better? nope. does hiring 4 techs for that amount make IT/IS better? you bet your ass it certianly does.
But, paying him an extra $400k may keep him at your company, and if he's good at his job, that may be worth it. If he's good, maybe he was UNDERvalued in 2000.
Does hiring 4 techs for IT/IS make that much of a difference to the bottom line? Maybe. Maybe not. The question is, do they make as much of a difference as retaining/hiring the exec? My guess is, no. Not at all.
If I recall, a big strategy for startups in the 90s was to bring a product to market, or close to market, and then maneuver to be bought out by Microsoft (either for the patents, or for the -ware itself). Many venture capitalists made a fortune this way.
The difference here: Google doesn't need to bother with buying you out. They just offer an equivalent service for free.
So, how does a small company protect itself? Patentable innovation.
Properly administered patents are your friend.
"Guess what, the industry has been typically underpaying by 25% over the past few years. "
I'm pretty sick of people in the tech industry believing that they are underpaid. Just because you were once worth more to an industry, based on heavy speculation and a low supply of workers, doesn't mean you are worth that now.
Quite simply: You are only worth what people are willing to pay you.
If you're looking for intrinsic value of your labor (rather than market value), it is $0. That's correct, zero. Your labor only holds value according to the parameters of your job.
You save your company some cash by writing some clever scripts? Great, that has value to your company. Intrinsic value of that code? Nothing.
Not everyone has the right stuff to be a quality programmer, or troubleshooter, or even janitor.
But at my company, the janitor makes a bigger impact on the bottom line than any of the codemonkeys.
Retailers fully understand that sales of the 360 will be abysmal at a price point of $600 (especially once they've bundled the accessories and games), which is why they've pressured MS to release a scaled-down version.
Base model of the XBox 360 will retail for about $400. Full functionality will require spending another couple hundred bucks -- want to play XBox games? Better have that hard drive. Want a second controller? How about a memory card?
The decision to bundle XBox 360 consoles is made by retailers, but the decision to do so is enabled by MS's pricing and distribution policies -- a limited supply at product release ensures that fanatics will pay whatever the retailer wants.
It remains to be seen if the market will bear a price so high.
IMO, the only reason to purchase the XBox 360 is because of the extra potential that 2nd generation games will (hopefully) utilize. Without buying the full-fledged model, all I can say is... good luck with that.
From a sales standpoint, there is a world of difference between $249 and $399. Much of the market for consumer electronics balks at paying more than $300 for an appliance. I, for one, will not pay more than $200 for a game system, period.
Does this lock me out of a new console for a while? Sure.
But are the games that take full advantage of a console's power available within a year of launch? No way. And until those games are released, I have a better time with tried-and-true games on the previous generation of consoles.
I was referring to the general class of compounds known as amphetamines, not the specific 'amphetamine'. Interestingly enough, this class also includes MDMA (Methylenedionemethamphetamine -- Ecstasy).
They do have very similar effects, but the response differs for a bunch of reasons, including chemical structure, rate of absorption, rate of metabolysis, activity of metabolites, etc.
Methamphetamine happens to have an extremely high affinity for certain alpha-adrenergic receptors, whereas ephedrine and pseudophedrine are less active there.
Dextromethrophan (DXM) is actually an opiate that happens to have high selectivity for the hallucinogenic receptors, rather than the hypnotic and pain receptors that other opiates primarily affect. DXM activity is pretty much unrelated to amphetamine activity.