I really don't think the future is in self driven cars.
While science fiction, and apparently car companies, suggest that this is a possibility, here are two reasons why this will never happen:
1) All or Nothing. Either ALL cars on the road are self driven, or none are. The moment you get a human interacting with computer driven cars, all chaos will result. No computer system, radar system, and automated response system can anticipate a drunk human driver swerving across 6 lanes of traffic at 100 mph in order to make an exit.
2) Too many degrees of freedom. The car has too many degrees of freedom that affect safety. Tire wear, engine wear, body wear, road conditions, weather conditions and unexpected obstacles like rocks, tree branches, other debris, animals, or other people act against the safe driving of a vehicle. A computer can't take all these degrees of freedom into account. An auto driven car with lousy tires, paired with poor weather and icy roads won't be able to swerve in time to avoid a deer that suddenly dashes out on the road. A human might see the deer emerging from the woods long before it dashes out on the road, a human knows what to do when seeing a deer approach the road. A computer might interpret the deer as a stationary obstacle on the side of the road and take no precautions like slowing down to avoid hitting it if it suddenly moves.
Auto driven cars only work in a few carefully controlled conditions, not in real life. Perhaps an automated highway system is the only application for automated cars, one that prevents external influence like weather and animals and other humans, but it would require billions in infrastructure changes to make highways safe and usable as automated freeways.
The concept just isn't practical. I for one will stop driving if I had to use or contend with computer driven vehicles. While humans are infinitely capable of bad driving, knowing I can react to whatever some brain dead human driver can throw at me makes me feel safe as opposed to allowing a computer to decide how to react to unexpected (and unprogrammed for) conditions.
Not to sound too critical, but this Russian rocket zig-zag pattern is done on purpose right, not because of bad engineering and poor quality construction?
I mean, IRS processes taxes for other billion dollar corporations, so I doubt Bill Gates is any different. This just sounds like a Geek trying to make a joke, except all the other geeks out there take him seriously.
A few years ago Sony made a big to do about Cell Processing, and the ability to do distributed computing across networks. The idea was they were going to put Cell processors in everything from soup to nuts, and these would all combine to make your PS3 more powerful. In addition to this, Sony was describing the ability to connect PS3's together over a network and allow them to combine to create a super-computing gaming system.
The one thing that Sony could do to make their online presence greater then Xbox Live would be to enable some form of shared processing environment, either to directly improve gaming performance, OR even to facilitate using the PS3 to work on global science problems while your not using it, like the slew of _@home distributed scientific projects. Using your PS3 for more then just vapid video gaming would make it appeal to a greater audience as it could find aliens, accurately predict weather, cure cancer, solve world hunger and facilitate world peace. I would buy a game console that could do all that. Xbox360 sucks because it can't do that.
When I last needed to buy a video card update, I basically got the card that had the highest performance/price ratio, which ended up being an ATI x700 card.
Next time, it could be nVidia, or ATI again.
Granted I am not as interested in the $800 video card solutions, but then, no game on earth actually leverages the performance of these cards. My x700 plays HL2 and Doom3 without a glitch, as well as actual graphics intensive games like Dungeon Seige 2 which actually grind my FPS to under 30fps. Since my monitor doesn't support more then 1280 x 1024 resolution, I don't care about video cards that can power 2 1900x1600 screens.
So basically ATI and nVidia are in a competition for bragging rights. But that has little impact in the real world. Except for those people that demand the latest and greatest and have disposible income (probably only 5% of the PC market), the rest of us only care about which cards perform well for the $200 or so we allow ourselves to spend on video cards. If it happens to be an ATI card, we buy ATI, vice versa with nVidia.
Maybe I am just getting mature in life, but I could care less about ATI vs Intel, ATI vs nVidia, or Apple vs Microsoft, etc, etc, etc. I want good value for my money and I think I am not alone in this market.
Unfortunatly, still about 1 in 10 websites I visit REQUIRE I.E. access, including my bank. While I would like to use FireFox, for the last 2 years either the bank isn't working to support FireFox, or FireFox isn't working to support the bank. I have even submitted the bank's url to Mozilla as a web page that doesn't work and contacted the bank to let them know I want to use FireFox.
About 3 in 10 websites don't work properly in FireFox, and ANY built in PDF viewing remains hit or miss. Half the time launching a PDF in FireFox results in it crashing.
So, for the mean time, many of use still require to use I.E. as there is no other choice, hopefully I.E. 7.0 will at least make it safe to have to use it in those cases.
I think if anyone has a shot of making Linux mainstream, it would be Google. Personally, I don't think it matters whose behind it. Putting a new skin and a few novelty features in front of a Linux core hasn't proven at all successful in fazing Windows, I don't see this one as making a difference. The fact that Google is simply building off of Ubuntu suggests they are not making THAT much of an effort. Google really should start off with their own distro from scratch, actually implement some of their search technology into the Linux core rather then as window dressing.
But its true. The way to make Linux successful is to standardize it, remove the hundreds of GNU applications with cryptic names that all start with gnu, install a small set of well used and proven applications, get rid of the development modules and compilers that the average user will never need, and simply make Linux idiot proof (like brainless install/uninstall features for software and drivers).
Lastly though, people are missing the point in why Windows is successful. Games! Video gaming is a multi-billion dollar industry, and as long as there is like a 100 to 1 ratio of PC to any other OS version of a game out there, PC's running Windows will continue to dominate. You could make a Linux desktop that excels as a multimedia server, secure Internet appliance with the power of Google behind it and have equivalent copies of every Windows office application, but without solid gaming support, no other OS will compete against Windows. This is the sole reason why OS X isn't outselling Windows and why Goobuntu won't succeed in the long run as well.
Second, how much maintenance will this require. I don't think mankind has invented a system where gas can remain in an enclosed cavity for an extended period of time without expelling in some way ( or exploding ). If this balloon has to be pulled down every week or month to top it up with gas, will people generally like having their service interrupted frequently? This is opposed to a a fixed metal tower that doesn't need regular maintenance (can last for years without it). Also, too much maintenance will drive up operation costs making it not feasible (look at all them wind power generators in California, 2/3rds of them are down and being dismantled because the maintenance to keep them running became astronomical and time consuming).
Third, how safe is this? Something tethered to essentially a string will probably be easier to sabotage, or be destroyed because of natural disaster. Just need a good pair of wire cutters and you have disrupted communications for thousands of people.
Fourthly, has anyone looked at the whether patterns? Whether its by global warming or some natural cycle of global weather change, weather is becoming more violent and erratic over the last decade. Will this be an issue where the balloon is rated for category 3 storms, but gets hit by a category 5 storm, snaps off, and kills a family in their mobile home out in Arkansas?
As much as it might be cheaper and easier to float some expensive electronics up in high altitude, having something requiring too much maintenance, too unsafe, and too easy to sabotage just isn't practical.
1) Consumers don't want alternatives (unless your a Californian) 2) Governments don't want alternatives (unless your California) 3) Car companies don't want alternatives (unless you forced to sell in California) 4) Gas companies don't want alternatives. (Because they are Texan)
There are litteraly countless designs out there both to improve fuel efficiency, use alternative fuels or power supplies, or use considerably more environmentally friendly technology then what we use now. They have been around for as long as 30 years or more. I don't understand how the X Prize will be won or even contested when there have been viable alternatives for years. Also this contest is moot because of the 4 conditions above.
Never understand when people say OSS is secure
on
Mitnick on OSS
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You exposing your entire source code for public scrutiny, and this is more secure the closed proprietary software?
How and why?
I think people are deluded into thinking that because a project like Linux is secure, and that Linux is Open Source, ergo Open Source software must be secure. This is convoluted and dangerous logic.
I think OSS is the most insecure software out there. Think of it. Anybody could take RedHat's source code, create their own distro filled with back doors and zombie daemons, and then distribute this OS supposedly under the guise of a secure RedHat release. This goes with any of the countless personalized Linux distros out there. Same goes for Open Office, etc, etc, etc. If you are not careful (and it is easy not to be careful when OSS is distributed largely with P2P software and bit torrents), you can end up purposely installing a corrupted OS or application whose code base as been hacked INTERNALLY and exposes your data to great risk.
Also, your security protocols and measures are all exposed to public scrutiny. Perhaps among the Open Source community that this exposure allows them to create more secure software, by collectively working to plug holes and make the code base rock solid. But this ignores the fact that people with the same skill set but with vastly different intentions can use the same source code to FIND holes and to WRITE exploits using the original source code as its base. Wouldn't it be more difficult to find a security flaw if it uses the original source code as its base.
I just never bought the whole OSS is more secure then proprietary software bit. The fact you have to reverse engineer proprietary software (which is full of guess work) and THEN start to find ways of exploiting it suggests proprietary software is more secure by obscurity. I think people are just making assumptions based on the fact that Windows, a closed OS, is not secure, thus closed software is less secure. Its the same mistake as assuming OSS is more secure because Linux is more secure. OS X isn't open source (for the most part) and it is secure.
In the end, I think that if someone truly wanted to target OSS and make it a victim of hackers they would more easily find exponentially greater security flaws and deliver more damaging payloads simply by the fact they can use the ACTUAL code as a basis for their attacks. OSS has the benefit of being treated with respect by the hacker and OSS communities, its a hobbyist community after all, why sabotate your favourite pasttime? But if OSS produces the dominant OS and applications of choice for the corporate and government communities I think this whole myth of OSS as being more secure will be ended, very quickly.
It may have been a bargaining chip that TS3 be pulled from Disney's immediate plans in order to entice Pixar back into the fold. Perhaps they will give Pixar the suggestion of control for a few years, but once the revenue engines are back in full swing at Pixar (and once Disney starts to restaff key members there), there WILL be sequels of Toy Story along with all other previous Pixar released (barring Cars which looks like crap anyways). Whether its a full fledged movie release, or a made-for DVD sequel remains to be seen, but I think anyone believing Pixar has any control now they are owned by Disney is simply delusional.
Do you know why people get rebates? Its because your allowing your home address, phone number, and/or email address to be sold to mass marketing mailing lists which increases the amoung of telemarketing, jumk mail, and spam you will receive.
Don't be deluded into believing mail-in rebates are beneficial. Even if you get 50% or 80% of the original item cost back in a rebate, this just means that the company your buying from is able to sell your information and make 10 times more profit with that information as opposed to selling the merchandise alone. The manufacturer is BUYING your contact information from you, but choosing to receive the money, you are authorizing your contact information to be sold.
Think of it. If a manfuacturer was truely benign and wanted to sell you a product at a reduced cost, then why not simply drop the MSRP by whatever the rebate amount is. This doesn't benefit the manufacturer. By collecting VALID contact information (i.e. you need to offer your correct mailing address to receive the rebate cheque), they are ensuring they get top dollar for their compiled mailing lists.
ALL REBATE OFFERS are a scam. Sometimes you will notice they say they can use the collected information and pass it to 3rd parties. Even if there is a check box saying you don't want to receive information from the manufacturer or 3rd parties, this isn't the case. Your just saying you don't want information about the product your buying, not in general.
If a manufacturer is offering a substantial rebate on a product, either wait a few months when they actually reduce the MSRP, or go to another store that is offering it for cheaper, but don't buy into mail in rebates unless you love junk mail and telemarketing calls at suppertime.
I actually thought Best Buy WAS thinking in the best interests of their customers by stopping the rebate process altogether, but was dissapointed when they only intend to facilitate quicker and easier collection of contact data using the internet. They will probably require you to provide a valid email address, thus increasing your incoming spam.
Look, at one time I was getting publishers clearing house junk mail every week, along with credit card applications and all kinds of junk mail. The ratio of real mail to junk mail was about 20 to 1. I stopped participating in rebate offers and was more careful about where my contact information is used, and I don't receive even ONE addressed junk mail item in a week.
The Europe isn't known for global technological brilliance. Sure, perhaps in some areas, but not when it comes to the computer hardware and software industry. Heck, Japan isn't even at the fore front of computer software and technology (my sh*t is mostly made in China these days being designed in the US or even Canada). Its the US which make the world's most popular software, and the world just can't stand that.
So the EU feels the only way for EU companies to compete against Microsoft is to rip off MS source code, come out with a cloned Windows product, and then probably undermine the Windows OS market by offering it dirt cheap, using the SAME ANTI-COMPETITIVE business practices that got Microsoft into trouble. (PS EU, you can do that already for FREE with Linux, get a clue!).
I mean, look at the French/German company trying to rip off Google. When is the EU going to go after Google and force them to post all their development code and trade secrets. Its coming, just wait another year or two, especially if Google doesn't bend over for the EU if they make some smaller demand.
What I feel should happen is Microsoft simply pull out of Europe. Stop selling Windows there, period! I mean, honestly. F*ck the EU! Once Europeans realize they can't get their favourite OS in ANY form, they will pretty much retaliate against the EU and force the EU to let Microsoft do business there, without restriction.
Microsoft is making enough money around the world to hold out and not sell to the EU for a period of time. I don't think it would be long before European computer consumers force the EU to play nice with Micorosft.
I mean, honestly Microsoft doesn't deserve to be played nice with, but at the same time, they suddenly decided to give competitors access to source code, along with 13000 pages of documentation on how to use it. What more does the EU want? It free and handed to them on a silver platter? Get Freakin Real! How about Microsoft just write a competitive OS with 98% of the same source code and hand it over to some French or German or British company and say, "Here you go, NOW can you compete you bloody eurotrash?"
This article was written by a person assuming that game reviewers ACTUALLY play the game, I can say this isn't always the case.
I know of a few Canadian game reviewers in some popular newspapers, grey haired guys or even a few women, that review games, and it is obvious they simply browse through the game's menus and probably spent only a couple of hours playing the game. Just looking at the guys suggest these people can't set their VCR clocks (and the fact they most likely still use VCR's suggests something as well). I actually remember reading a game review where the writer spend more time criticizing the confusing game menu rather then talking about game play. Sure, these are not solid sources for game reviews, but it also suggests that as Wall Street and commercial news services begin to recognize video gaming as being a huge money making industry suddenly your going to get journalists with little to know gaming experience having to review these products. The grey hairs on Wall Street want to read what the grey hairs in the New York Times think of Grand Theft Auto. They of course do not have perspective as to how or why games are played, they are payed to do a job.
But I agree. Like with movie critics, reviewing 100's of products a year probably leaves you with an acid tounge and dried up wit. With so many BAD games on the market, and only a few gems, having to constantly find something positive to say about a game could become strenuous and difficult to accomplish in most cases.
Apple used to be kings of product supply shortages, to inflate demand by introducing artificial limitations on products. The only difference is that there was actual demand for Apple products, Apple was just ensuring the hype would last more then a few days when a new product was released.
Apple has finally realized that it isn't good to limit supply and instead are ensuring lots of stock available before they release a product. I think they found more backlash in announcing a product for sale, and having millions of unhappy customers waiting weeks or even months for it.
VW still insists on limiting supply of various models and model colours on their products, but I think that just gives snobby VW customers the excuse to say their special car is on order and will be available in a few months, as opposed to all those immediately available Corollas in the Toyota lot.
Anyways, its a marketing strategy (and it IS a marketing strategy) that usually doesn't pay off. It might convince a few diehards to rush out and buy the product expecting shortages, but in the end, its usually the best way to ensure that a failed product launch still SOUNDS like its because of more demand then available stock.
I still can't understand though why MS keeps saying they wanted to sell 2.something million units when there was never that many units in existence. It would be different if they had 2 million units sitting in a warehouse, but when they could only get 600,000 made, why even make that statement in the first place. This just smack of the fact that MS rushed the Xbox360 out the door to get a foothold in the next generation console war, but instead they stepped on a landmine!
Uses DRM schemes on their CD's. A Delerium CD was one of the few CD's I could not actually rip in Windows (riped beautifully in iTunes for Mac though). Perhaps Nettwerk feels a little more secure in their ability to prevent unwanted distribution, but they are right up their with the RIAA in terms of limiting individual rights when it comes to how a person wants to listen to the music they purchased. Good to know that they won't resort to suing customers for breaking DRM schemes.
I mean, both Nintendo and Sony have a handheld game platform, why not Microsoft?
Microsoft both has a Mobile version of Windows AND partnerships with mobile platform makers. To make a mobile Xbox platform simply means taking some existing PocketPC device and making it more gaming centric. They even ported DirectX to the mobile platform so there is at least a 3d graphics library to leverage.
Whether or not it will compete well against the dominant Nintendo remains to be seen. The PSP has been struggling to gain acceptance, but then again, Sony struggled to gain dominance over Nintendo's game consoles and succeeded. Microsoft may have learned how Sony failed with the PSP and NOT make those same mistakes.
Both Sony and MS has to realize though that the kinds of games that makes their console platforms popular (sports and multiplayer 3rd person shooters) don't make a handheld system popular. People that like Nintendo Gameboys like puzzle games, RPGs and platformers, as well as novelty games that feature touch screen or card readers, not sports or 3rd person shooters. To compete well against Nintendo means to recognize the types of games that make the Gameboys popular and catering to that audience, rather then simply porting successful game console titles to handheld versions.
It would be interesting to see what MS could come up with. Hopefully they might recognize the idea that by bringing gaming into their existing Pocket PC market, while maintaining PDA like functionality, they could both revamp the PDA industry (make boring PDA's entertaining) and offer something more then a simple time waster (bring functionality to handheld game platforms).
So how does that explain why in the 1800's there was a record hot year?
Few people realize that the planet naturally goes through warming and cooling cycles over decades and thousands of years. Ice records collected in the arctic suggest we are entering a warming trend, naturally.
While I believe that greenhouse gasses may affect localized weather, to affect the entire global climate is kind of arrogant. The fact is we really don't know how the earth will react to increased heat, and that while melting arctic ice will ruin our prized vacation spots, the planet will want to strike a balance and recover from ANY possible human effect.
The planet is heating up naturally, as can be predicted from thousands of years of collected ice record data. Greenhouse gasses might contribute a small percentage to this effect, but that doesn't mean we are responsible for the warming trend.
We need to reduce emissions and pollution for our own personal health reasons, making the air cleaner to breath and being more responsible to the environment. But I think this entire grand standing about us having a global effect on warming the planet needs to be sedated.
It would be different if the warm temperatures have NEVER been reached in history, that each year becomes warmer then the previous without comparison to any previous year. But the fact that we have human recorded temperature data from previous years, combined with natural ice records that suggest we enter and exit warming trends suggests that in the least, we need to study the effect of greenhouse gasses on our planet more thoroughly, and examine historical data more accurately, before we hit the panic button.
In the end though, I don't mind if countries take a more proactive stance on pollution and greenhouse gasses, even if they think the apocalypse is around the corner, it might finally get countries like Canada and the USA to stop pumping out more SUV's per capita then any other country in the world and find AND ACTUALLY USE more environmentally friendly technologies in our everyday vehicles. That is a good thing overall.
I guess this is Colin Campbell's coming out article as any warm blooded hetero male (i.e. the audience many of these companies often target) are drawn to the booth babes like flies on crap.
This guy also knows nothing about trade show exhibits. Its about getting the audience to your booth so they can see your wares. Offer some gimmick (free something), contests, flashing lights and babes in tight clothing and your going to attract the crowds. Attract enough of a crowd and the audience is perpetual, more are drawn to the congregation to find out what is going on which draws more people. Eventually, some of them are going to look at your product as opposed to your competitor's who are sitting alone in the corner with their bow ties and morals intact.
It may be garish or immoral, but its marketing at its finest!
I mean, there are people trying to get linux to run on a toaster or a fridge, I assume that getting it to run on an Intel based iMac would be child's play. Simply write an EFI module and use the current x86 based Linux distro. In fact, I am sure Red Hat won't be the first to port Linux to the Mactel architecture and someone will port some distro to it in the next month or two.
Getting the OS that 90% of the world's computers runs on to run on a Mac is much bigger news then to get an OS that can run on anything else to run on them.
Someone said that Disney has no creative control over Pixar. Or that Apple probably could have bought Disney.
It just goes to show you how the mythology of Steve Jobs continues, however unfounded it is.
Disney makes about 8 billion in sales, A QUARTER! They make nearly a Billion in net profit A QUARTER.
So yeah, Disney is going to have an effect on Pixar movies. Look, when Pixar finished their 6.5 movie contract with Disney, Disney simply went ahead and created a new computer animation division. The fact that the movie created sucked big time pales in comparison to the fact that Disney could setup an animation studio at the drop of a hat and have a movie out in 2 years, and still earn a billions in profit.
While Pixar may have more creativity in its little finger compared to the whole Disney Empire, Disney still has final say on whether a movie gets release or not. If Toy Story didn't conform to Disney's values, it would have been redone or not released, period. Steve Jobs isn't going to have a say in it (but Steve Jobs has no creative input at Pixar at all, he is just a figure head).
The fact is, Pixar could easily make movies that don't simply target children and the adults that take their kids to the movies. Pixar could become the leading computer special effects studio in Hollywood, or make movies that target an older audience, this will never happen under Disney's umbrella. As long as Disney is at the wheel, Pixar will churn out cutesy kids movie that may have some appeal to adults, but will never reach their full potential. Also expect Toy Story 3, Finding Nemo Again, Monsters Inc 2, A Newts Life, The Incredibles Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. I mean, Disney will milk the creativity out of Pixar and leave them a dried up husk of their former selves.
I do agree that its the people that make Pixar shine, and if Disney decides to suck the life out of this company, those people will up and leave and form a new company (unless Disney imposes some contract conditions on them, then they are stuck). However, Steve Jobs will be the figurehead for a company that he ruined by whoring itself to Disney. His motiviation are based purely on profit. 7 billion from the sale of Pixar will go into Apple. Apple will become the provider of computer technology for the Disney Empire ensuring billions in sales.
In the end, while there may be a few excellent movies that will come out of this partnership, once the Disney marketing engine kicks in, and Disney's and Steve Jobs greed overwhelms Pixar, Disney will ruin another great animation house.
Pixar 1986 - 2006. You made us laugh, and then you made us cry out why! RIP.
And that will happen, when? Apple isn't quick to publish information about firmware, BIOS, etc. So if its going to happen, your going to have to break a few eggs.
Re:Does it pass the ACID test?
on
IE7 Leaked
·
· Score: 1
Does it matter?
I mean, with exception to IE for Mac and I think Safari, most Browsers fail the Acid test. Obviously the standards the ACID test tests for are out of touch with how web browers and web developers are using the web.
So, does it really matter that it doesn't pass the Acid Test? Firefox doesn't, Opera doesn't, why should IE?
If you set your standards too high, and nobody can pass muster, then your standards are simply too high. But considering that there are millions of web pages out there that work on IE, firefox, opera, etc, who cares.
Personally, out of all the next-gen game consoles, the Revolution is the only one I am actively following in terms of online news and hanging on for any tidbit of details.
The Remote Commander may be hit or miss, I am sure there are many games that will use this gimmick to full advantage, as I am sure many users will simply buy a more traditional controller to play other games.
With the ability to play ALL back-library games as well, while the Revolution won't be the first game console to totally leverage it's past gaming success, Nintendo has had a longer history of success and a larger library of games today's gamers still want to actively play. Going back and playing the original NES Super Mario or Metroid, or a slew of NES and Super-NES game franchises is going to make the Revolution shine even if for nostalgia reasons alone.
It's also the simple fact that Nintendo is innovating in their next gen game console. Look, nodoby will deny that there is some great state-of-the-art technology going into the Xbox360 and PS3, but all they are doing is offering better graphics, the games themselves have the same game play and feel as PS2 and Xbox games. Nintendo may win out just because the gaming industry is becoming tired of sequels without new and interesting methods of gameplay. The Remote Commander controller may be just what Nintendo needs to get gamers interested in gaming again.
Whether the novel controller will keep users interested in the Revolution, one can turn to the DS, which I firmly thought was a gimmick and fad that wouldn't last. The DS is still selling well and new and innovative games are coming out to leverage this feature over a year later.
If all the PS3 and Xbox360 offers is superior graphics, I think they may find Nintendo giving them a run for the money. I personally will embrace any new styles of gameplay, I am tired of 3rd person shooters and platform jumpers. The only thing that could ruin Nintendo is their continued belief that only children are interested in gaming. With a heavy focus on cartoony and childish game titles, if Nintendo doesn't start getting adult gamers more interested in their platforms, then no gimmicky feature will save Nintendo in the long run.
Slashdot Mirror
I really don't think the future is in self driven cars.
While science fiction, and apparently car companies, suggest that this is a possibility, here are two reasons why this will never happen:
1) All or Nothing. Either ALL cars on the road are self driven, or none are. The moment you get a human interacting with computer driven cars, all chaos will result. No computer system, radar system, and automated response system can anticipate a drunk human driver swerving across 6 lanes of traffic at 100 mph in order to make an exit.
2) Too many degrees of freedom. The car has too many degrees of freedom that affect safety. Tire wear, engine wear, body wear, road conditions, weather conditions and unexpected obstacles like rocks, tree branches, other debris, animals, or other people act against the safe driving of a vehicle. A computer can't take all these degrees of freedom into account. An auto driven car with lousy tires, paired with poor weather and icy roads won't be able to swerve in time to avoid a deer that suddenly dashes out on the road. A human might see the deer emerging from the woods long before it dashes out on the road, a human knows what to do when seeing a deer approach the road. A computer might interpret the deer as a stationary obstacle on the side of the road and take no precautions like slowing down to avoid hitting it if it suddenly moves.
Auto driven cars only work in a few carefully controlled conditions, not in real life. Perhaps an automated highway system is the only application for automated cars, one that prevents external influence like weather and animals and other humans, but it would require billions in infrastructure changes to make highways safe and usable as automated freeways.
The concept just isn't practical. I for one will stop driving if I had to use or contend with computer driven vehicles. While humans are infinitely capable of bad driving, knowing I can react to whatever some brain dead human driver can throw at me makes me feel safe as opposed to allowing a computer to decide how to react to unexpected (and unprogrammed for) conditions.
Not to sound too critical, but this Russian rocket zig-zag pattern is done on purpose right, not because of bad engineering and poor quality construction?
I mean, IRS processes taxes for other billion dollar corporations, so I doubt Bill Gates is any different. This just sounds like a Geek trying to make a joke, except all the other geeks out there take him seriously.
A few years ago Sony made a big to do about Cell Processing, and the ability to do distributed computing across networks. The idea was they were going to put Cell processors in everything from soup to nuts, and these would all combine to make your PS3 more powerful. In addition to this, Sony was describing the ability to connect PS3's together over a network and allow them to combine to create a super-computing gaming system.
The one thing that Sony could do to make their online presence greater then Xbox Live would be to enable some form of shared processing environment, either to directly improve gaming performance, OR even to facilitate using the PS3 to work on global science problems while your not using it, like the slew of _@home distributed scientific projects. Using your PS3 for more then just vapid video gaming would make it appeal to a greater audience as it could find aliens, accurately predict weather, cure cancer, solve world hunger and facilitate world peace. I would buy a game console that could do all that. Xbox360 sucks because it can't do that.
When I last needed to buy a video card update, I basically got the card that had the highest performance/price ratio, which ended up being an ATI x700 card.
Next time, it could be nVidia, or ATI again.
Granted I am not as interested in the $800 video card solutions, but then, no game on earth actually leverages the performance of these cards. My x700 plays HL2 and Doom3 without a glitch, as well as actual graphics intensive games like Dungeon Seige 2 which actually grind my FPS to under 30fps. Since my monitor doesn't support more then 1280 x 1024 resolution, I don't care about video cards that can power 2 1900x1600 screens.
So basically ATI and nVidia are in a competition for bragging rights. But that has little impact in the real world. Except for those people that demand the latest and greatest and have disposible income (probably only 5% of the PC market), the rest of us only care about which cards perform well for the $200 or so we allow ourselves to spend on video cards. If it happens to be an ATI card, we buy ATI, vice versa with nVidia.
Maybe I am just getting mature in life, but I could care less about ATI vs Intel, ATI vs nVidia, or Apple vs Microsoft, etc, etc, etc. I want good value for my money and I think I am not alone in this market.
Unfortunatly, still about 1 in 10 websites I visit REQUIRE I.E. access, including my bank. While I would like to use FireFox, for the last 2 years either the bank isn't working to support FireFox, or FireFox isn't working to support the bank. I have even submitted the bank's url to Mozilla as a web page that doesn't work and contacted the bank to let them know I want to use FireFox.
About 3 in 10 websites don't work properly in FireFox, and ANY built in PDF viewing remains hit or miss. Half the time launching a PDF in FireFox results in it crashing.
So, for the mean time, many of use still require to use I.E. as there is no other choice, hopefully I.E. 7.0 will at least make it safe to have to use it in those cases.
I think if anyone has a shot of making Linux mainstream, it would be Google. Personally, I don't think it matters whose behind it. Putting a new skin and a few novelty features in front of a Linux core hasn't proven at all successful in fazing Windows, I don't see this one as making a difference. The fact that Google is simply building off of Ubuntu suggests they are not making THAT much of an effort. Google really should start off with their own distro from scratch, actually implement some of their search technology into the Linux core rather then as window dressing.
But its true. The way to make Linux successful is to standardize it, remove the hundreds of GNU applications with cryptic names that all start with gnu, install a small set of well used and proven applications, get rid of the development modules and compilers that the average user will never need, and simply make Linux idiot proof (like brainless install/uninstall features for software and drivers).
Lastly though, people are missing the point in why Windows is successful. Games! Video gaming is a multi-billion dollar industry, and as long as there is like a 100 to 1 ratio of PC to any other OS version of a game out there, PC's running Windows will continue to dominate. You could make a Linux desktop that excels as a multimedia server, secure Internet appliance with the power of Google behind it and have equivalent copies of every Windows office application, but without solid gaming support, no other OS will compete against Windows. This is the sole reason why OS X isn't outselling Windows and why Goobuntu won't succeed in the long run as well.
I mean, balloons to float expensive electronics.
First, aircraft, think of the aircraft.
Second, how much maintenance will this require. I don't think mankind has invented a system where gas can remain in an enclosed cavity for an extended period of time without expelling in some way ( or exploding ). If this balloon has to be pulled down every week or month to top it up with gas, will people generally like having their service interrupted frequently? This is opposed to a a fixed metal tower that doesn't need regular maintenance (can last for years without it). Also, too much maintenance will drive up operation costs making it not feasible (look at all them wind power generators in California, 2/3rds of them are down and being dismantled because the maintenance to keep them running became astronomical and time consuming).
Third, how safe is this? Something tethered to essentially a string will probably be easier to sabotage, or be destroyed because of natural disaster. Just need a good pair of wire cutters and you have disrupted communications for thousands of people.
Fourthly, has anyone looked at the whether patterns? Whether its by global warming or some natural cycle of global weather change, weather is becoming more violent and erratic over the last decade. Will this be an issue where the balloon is rated for category 3 storms, but gets hit by a category 5 storm, snaps off, and kills a family in their mobile home out in Arkansas?
As much as it might be cheaper and easier to float some expensive electronics up in high altitude, having something requiring too much maintenance, too unsafe, and too easy to sabotage just isn't practical.
1) Consumers don't want alternatives (unless your a Californian)
2) Governments don't want alternatives (unless your California)
3) Car companies don't want alternatives (unless you forced to sell in California)
4) Gas companies don't want alternatives. (Because they are Texan)
There are litteraly countless designs out there both to improve fuel efficiency, use alternative fuels or power supplies, or use considerably more environmentally friendly technology then what we use now. They have been around for as long as 30 years or more. I don't understand how the X Prize will be won or even contested when there have been viable alternatives for years. Also this contest is moot because of the 4 conditions above.
You exposing your entire source code for public scrutiny, and this is more secure the closed proprietary software?
How and why?
I think people are deluded into thinking that because a project like Linux is secure, and that Linux is Open Source, ergo Open Source software must be secure. This is convoluted and dangerous logic.
I think OSS is the most insecure software out there. Think of it. Anybody could take RedHat's source code, create their own distro filled with back doors and zombie daemons, and then distribute this OS supposedly under the guise of a secure RedHat release. This goes with any of the countless personalized Linux distros out there. Same goes for Open Office, etc, etc, etc. If you are not careful (and it is easy not to be careful when OSS is distributed largely with P2P software and bit torrents), you can end up purposely installing a corrupted OS or application whose code base as been hacked INTERNALLY and exposes your data to great risk.
Also, your security protocols and measures are all exposed to public scrutiny. Perhaps among the Open Source community that this exposure allows them to create more secure software, by collectively working to plug holes and make the code base rock solid. But this ignores the fact that people with the same skill set but with vastly different intentions can use the same source code to FIND holes and to WRITE exploits using the original source code as its base. Wouldn't it be more difficult to find a security flaw if it uses the original source code as its base.
I just never bought the whole OSS is more secure then proprietary software bit. The fact you have to reverse engineer proprietary software (which is full of guess work) and THEN start to find ways of exploiting it suggests proprietary software is more secure by obscurity. I think people are just making assumptions based on the fact that Windows, a closed OS, is not secure, thus closed software is less secure. Its the same mistake as assuming OSS is more secure because Linux is more secure. OS X isn't open source (for the most part) and it is secure.
In the end, I think that if someone truly wanted to target OSS and make it a victim of hackers they would more easily find exponentially greater security flaws and deliver more damaging payloads simply by the fact they can use the ACTUAL code as a basis for their attacks. OSS has the benefit of being treated with respect by the hacker and OSS communities, its a hobbyist community after all, why sabotate your favourite pasttime? But if OSS produces the dominant OS and applications of choice for the corporate and government communities I think this whole myth of OSS as being more secure will be ended, very quickly.
It may have been a bargaining chip that TS3 be pulled from Disney's immediate plans in order to entice Pixar back into the fold. Perhaps they will give Pixar the suggestion of control for a few years, but once the revenue engines are back in full swing at Pixar (and once Disney starts to restaff key members there), there WILL be sequels of Toy Story along with all other previous Pixar released (barring Cars which looks like crap anyways). Whether its a full fledged movie release, or a made-for DVD sequel remains to be seen, but I think anyone believing Pixar has any control now they are owned by Disney is simply delusional.
Do you know why people get rebates? Its because your allowing your home address, phone number, and/or email address to be sold to mass marketing mailing lists which increases the amoung of telemarketing, jumk mail, and spam you will receive.
Don't be deluded into believing mail-in rebates are beneficial. Even if you get 50% or 80% of the original item cost back in a rebate, this just means that the company your buying from is able to sell your information and make 10 times more profit with that information as opposed to selling the merchandise alone. The manufacturer is BUYING your contact information from you, but choosing to receive the money, you are authorizing your contact information to be sold.
Think of it. If a manfuacturer was truely benign and wanted to sell you a product at a reduced cost, then why not simply drop the MSRP by whatever the rebate amount is. This doesn't benefit the manufacturer. By collecting VALID contact information (i.e. you need to offer your correct mailing address to receive the rebate cheque), they are ensuring they get top dollar for their compiled mailing lists.
ALL REBATE OFFERS are a scam. Sometimes you will notice they say they can use the collected information and pass it to 3rd parties. Even if there is a check box saying you don't want to receive information from the manufacturer or 3rd parties, this isn't the case. Your just saying you don't want information about the product your buying, not in general.
If a manufacturer is offering a substantial rebate on a product, either wait a few months when they actually reduce the MSRP, or go to another store that is offering it for cheaper, but don't buy into mail in rebates unless you love junk mail and telemarketing calls at suppertime.
I actually thought Best Buy WAS thinking in the best interests of their customers by stopping the rebate process altogether, but was dissapointed when they only intend to facilitate quicker and easier collection of contact data using the internet. They will probably require you to provide a valid email address, thus increasing your incoming spam.
Look, at one time I was getting publishers clearing house junk mail every week, along with credit card applications and all kinds of junk mail. The ratio of real mail to junk mail was about 20 to 1. I stopped participating in rebate offers and was more careful about where my contact information is used, and I don't receive even ONE addressed junk mail item in a week.
I mean, can we say irrational here?
The Europe isn't known for global technological brilliance. Sure, perhaps in some areas, but not when it comes to the computer hardware and software industry. Heck, Japan isn't even at the fore front of computer software and technology (my sh*t is mostly made in China these days being designed in the US or even Canada). Its the US which make the world's most popular software, and the world just can't stand that.
So the EU feels the only way for EU companies to compete against Microsoft is to rip off MS source code, come out with a cloned Windows product, and then probably undermine the Windows OS market by offering it dirt cheap, using the SAME ANTI-COMPETITIVE business practices that got Microsoft into trouble. (PS EU, you can do that already for FREE with Linux, get a clue!).
I mean, look at the French/German company trying to rip off Google. When is the EU going to go after Google and force them to post all their development code and trade secrets. Its coming, just wait another year or two, especially if Google doesn't bend over for the EU if they make some smaller demand.
What I feel should happen is Microsoft simply pull out of Europe. Stop selling Windows there, period! I mean, honestly. F*ck the EU! Once Europeans realize they can't get their favourite OS in ANY form, they will pretty much retaliate against the EU and force the EU to let Microsoft do business there, without restriction.
Microsoft is making enough money around the world to hold out and not sell to the EU for a period of time. I don't think it would be long before European computer consumers force the EU to play nice with Micorosft.
I mean, honestly Microsoft doesn't deserve to be played nice with, but at the same time, they suddenly decided to give competitors access to source code, along with 13000 pages of documentation on how to use it. What more does the EU want? It free and handed to them on a silver platter? Get Freakin Real! How about Microsoft just write a competitive OS with 98% of the same source code and hand it over to some French or German or British company and say, "Here you go, NOW can you compete you bloody eurotrash?"
This article was written by a person assuming that game reviewers ACTUALLY play the game, I can say this isn't always the case.
I know of a few Canadian game reviewers in some popular newspapers, grey haired guys or even a few women, that review games, and it is obvious they simply browse through the game's menus and probably spent only a couple of hours playing the game. Just looking at the guys suggest these people can't set their VCR clocks (and the fact they most likely still use VCR's suggests something as well). I actually remember reading a game review where the writer spend more time criticizing the confusing game menu rather then talking about game play. Sure, these are not solid sources for game reviews, but it also suggests that as Wall Street and commercial news services begin to recognize video gaming as being a huge money making industry suddenly your going to get journalists with little to know gaming experience having to review these products. The grey hairs on Wall Street want to read what the grey hairs in the New York Times think of Grand Theft Auto. They of course do not have perspective as to how or why games are played, they are payed to do a job.
But I agree. Like with movie critics, reviewing 100's of products a year probably leaves you with an acid tounge and dried up wit. With so many BAD games on the market, and only a few gems, having to constantly find something positive to say about a game could become strenuous and difficult to accomplish in most cases.
Apple used to be kings of product supply shortages, to inflate demand by introducing artificial limitations on products. The only difference is that there was actual demand for Apple products, Apple was just ensuring the hype would last more then a few days when a new product was released.
Apple has finally realized that it isn't good to limit supply and instead are ensuring lots of stock available before they release a product. I think they found more backlash in announcing a product for sale, and having millions of unhappy customers waiting weeks or even months for it.
VW still insists on limiting supply of various models and model colours on their products, but I think that just gives snobby VW customers the excuse to say their special car is on order and will be available in a few months, as opposed to all those immediately available Corollas in the Toyota lot.
Anyways, its a marketing strategy (and it IS a marketing strategy) that usually doesn't pay off. It might convince a few diehards to rush out and buy the product expecting shortages, but in the end, its usually the best way to ensure that a failed product launch still SOUNDS like its because of more demand then available stock.
I still can't understand though why MS keeps saying they wanted to sell 2.something million units when there was never that many units in existence. It would be different if they had 2 million units sitting in a warehouse, but when they could only get 600,000 made, why even make that statement in the first place. This just smack of the fact that MS rushed the Xbox360 out the door to get a foothold in the next generation console war, but instead they stepped on a landmine!
Uses DRM schemes on their CD's. A Delerium CD was one of the few CD's I could not actually rip in Windows (riped beautifully in iTunes for Mac though). Perhaps Nettwerk feels a little more secure in their ability to prevent unwanted distribution, but they are right up their with the RIAA in terms of limiting individual rights when it comes to how a person wants to listen to the music they purchased. Good to know that they won't resort to suing customers for breaking DRM schemes.
I mean, both Nintendo and Sony have a handheld game platform, why not Microsoft?
Microsoft both has a Mobile version of Windows AND partnerships with mobile platform makers. To make a mobile Xbox platform simply means taking some existing PocketPC device and making it more gaming centric. They even ported DirectX to the mobile platform so there is at least a 3d graphics library to leverage.
Whether or not it will compete well against the dominant Nintendo remains to be seen. The PSP has been struggling to gain acceptance, but then again, Sony struggled to gain dominance over Nintendo's game consoles and succeeded. Microsoft may have learned how Sony failed with the PSP and NOT make those same mistakes.
Both Sony and MS has to realize though that the kinds of games that makes their console platforms popular (sports and multiplayer 3rd person shooters) don't make a handheld system popular. People that like Nintendo Gameboys like puzzle games, RPGs and platformers, as well as novelty games that feature touch screen or card readers, not sports or 3rd person shooters. To compete well against Nintendo means to recognize the types of games that make the Gameboys popular and catering to that audience, rather then simply porting successful game console titles to handheld versions.
It would be interesting to see what MS could come up with. Hopefully they might recognize the idea that by bringing gaming into their existing Pocket PC market, while maintaining PDA like functionality, they could both revamp the PDA industry (make boring PDA's entertaining) and offer something more then a simple time waster (bring functionality to handheld game platforms).
So how does that explain why in the 1800's there was a record hot year?
Few people realize that the planet naturally goes through warming and cooling cycles over decades and thousands of years. Ice records collected in the arctic suggest we are entering a warming trend, naturally.
While I believe that greenhouse gasses may affect localized weather, to affect the entire global climate is kind of arrogant. The fact is we really don't know how the earth will react to increased heat, and that while melting arctic ice will ruin our prized vacation spots, the planet will want to strike a balance and recover from ANY possible human effect.
The planet is heating up naturally, as can be predicted from thousands of years of collected ice record data. Greenhouse gasses might contribute a small percentage to this effect, but that doesn't mean we are responsible for the warming trend.
We need to reduce emissions and pollution for our own personal health reasons, making the air cleaner to breath and being more responsible to the environment. But I think this entire grand standing about us having a global effect on warming the planet needs to be sedated.
It would be different if the warm temperatures have NEVER been reached in history, that each year becomes warmer then the previous without comparison to any previous year. But the fact that we have human recorded temperature data from previous years, combined with natural ice records that suggest we enter and exit warming trends suggests that in the least, we need to study the effect of greenhouse gasses on our planet more thoroughly, and examine historical data more accurately, before we hit the panic button.
In the end though, I don't mind if countries take a more proactive stance on pollution and greenhouse gasses, even if they think the apocalypse is around the corner, it might finally get countries like Canada and the USA to stop pumping out more SUV's per capita then any other country in the world and find AND ACTUALLY USE more environmentally friendly technologies in our everyday vehicles. That is a good thing overall.
I guess this is Colin Campbell's coming out article as any warm blooded hetero male (i.e. the audience many of these companies often target) are drawn to the booth babes like flies on crap.
This guy also knows nothing about trade show exhibits. Its about getting the audience to your booth so they can see your wares. Offer some gimmick (free something), contests, flashing lights and babes in tight clothing and your going to attract the crowds. Attract enough of a crowd and the audience is perpetual, more are drawn to the congregation to find out what is going on which draws more people. Eventually, some of them are going to look at your product as opposed to your competitor's who are sitting alone in the corner with their bow ties and morals intact.
It may be garish or immoral, but its marketing at its finest!
Why is this news?
I mean, there are people trying to get linux to run on a toaster or a fridge, I assume that getting it to run on an Intel based iMac would be child's play. Simply write an EFI module and use the current x86 based Linux distro. In fact, I am sure Red Hat won't be the first to port Linux to the Mactel architecture and someone will port some distro to it in the next month or two.
Getting the OS that 90% of the world's computers runs on to run on a Mac is much bigger news then to get an OS that can run on anything else to run on them.
Someone said that Disney has no creative control over Pixar. Or that Apple probably could have bought Disney.
It just goes to show you how the mythology of Steve Jobs continues, however unfounded it is.
Disney makes about 8 billion in sales, A QUARTER! They make nearly a Billion in net profit A QUARTER.
So yeah, Disney is going to have an effect on Pixar movies. Look, when Pixar finished their 6.5 movie contract with Disney, Disney simply went ahead and created a new computer animation division. The fact that the movie created sucked big time pales in comparison to the fact that Disney could setup an animation studio at the drop of a hat and have a movie out in 2 years, and still earn a billions in profit.
While Pixar may have more creativity in its little finger compared to the whole Disney Empire, Disney still has final say on whether a movie gets release or not. If Toy Story didn't conform to Disney's values, it would have been redone or not released, period. Steve Jobs isn't going to have a say in it (but Steve Jobs has no creative input at Pixar at all, he is just a figure head).
The fact is, Pixar could easily make movies that don't simply target children and the adults that take their kids to the movies. Pixar could become the leading computer special effects studio in Hollywood, or make movies that target an older audience, this will never happen under Disney's umbrella. As long as Disney is at the wheel, Pixar will churn out cutesy kids movie that may have some appeal to adults, but will never reach their full potential. Also expect Toy Story 3, Finding Nemo Again, Monsters Inc 2, A Newts Life, The Incredibles Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. I mean, Disney will milk the creativity out of Pixar and leave them a dried up husk of their former selves.
I do agree that its the people that make Pixar shine, and if Disney decides to suck the life out of this company, those people will up and leave and form a new company (unless Disney imposes some contract conditions on them, then they are stuck). However, Steve Jobs will be the figurehead for a company that he ruined by whoring itself to Disney. His motiviation are based purely on profit. 7 billion from the sale of Pixar will go into Apple. Apple will become the provider of computer technology for the Disney Empire ensuring billions in sales.
In the end, while there may be a few excellent movies that will come out of this partnership, once the Disney marketing engine kicks in, and Disney's and Steve Jobs greed overwhelms Pixar, Disney will ruin another great animation house.
Pixar 1986 - 2006. You made us laugh, and then you made us cry out why! RIP.
And that will happen, when? Apple isn't quick to publish information about firmware, BIOS, etc. So if its going to happen, your going to have to break a few eggs.
Does it matter?
I mean, with exception to IE for Mac and I think Safari, most Browsers fail the Acid test. Obviously the standards the ACID test tests for are out of touch with how web browers and web developers are using the web.
So, does it really matter that it doesn't pass the Acid Test? Firefox doesn't, Opera doesn't, why should IE?
If you set your standards too high, and nobody can pass muster, then your standards are simply too high. But considering that there are millions of web pages out there that work on IE, firefox, opera, etc, who cares.
Seems like all the news today is Slashdot asking us if something will happen.
Personally, out of all the next-gen game consoles, the Revolution is the only one I am actively following in terms of online news and hanging on for any tidbit of details.
The Remote Commander may be hit or miss, I am sure there are many games that will use this gimmick to full advantage, as I am sure many users will simply buy a more traditional controller to play other games.
With the ability to play ALL back-library games as well, while the Revolution won't be the first game console to totally leverage it's past gaming success, Nintendo has had a longer history of success and a larger library of games today's gamers still want to actively play. Going back and playing the original NES Super Mario or Metroid, or a slew of NES and Super-NES game franchises is going to make the Revolution shine even if for nostalgia reasons alone.
It's also the simple fact that Nintendo is innovating in their next gen game console. Look, nodoby will deny that there is some great state-of-the-art technology going into the Xbox360 and PS3, but all they are doing is offering better graphics, the games themselves have the same game play and feel as PS2 and Xbox games. Nintendo may win out just because the gaming industry is becoming tired of sequels without new and interesting methods of gameplay. The Remote Commander controller may be just what Nintendo needs to get gamers interested in gaming again.
Whether the novel controller will keep users interested in the Revolution, one can turn to the DS, which I firmly thought was a gimmick and fad that wouldn't last. The DS is still selling well and new and innovative games are coming out to leverage this feature over a year later.
If all the PS3 and Xbox360 offers is superior graphics, I think they may find Nintendo giving them a run for the money. I personally will embrace any new styles of gameplay, I am tired of 3rd person shooters and platform jumpers. The only thing that could ruin Nintendo is their continued belief that only children are interested in gaming. With a heavy focus on cartoony and childish game titles, if Nintendo doesn't start getting adult gamers more interested in their platforms, then no gimmicky feature will save Nintendo in the long run.