This fits into the category between portable laptops and stationary PC:s. It smells like a reversed Origami project really, which is normally a category between a handheld and a portable laptop.
I'm sure it's actually going to be used by some, but there's never going to be a market for a beast like this until we have foldable screens and a maximum of 4 KG (8 pounds) or so. Seriously, even my 23" monitor is portable to some extent, but that's not a reason to carry it under your arm.
People who browse the internet today are not the same people who browsed it a few years ago. Let's face it. Some time ago, it would be easy to let go and discontinue the internet connection simply because people watched TV for news and entertainment, paid their bills the old way, met people in real life and through paper ads, communicated solely by phone (from a distance) and browsed through fat books for information.
At first, most people used internet for information and e-mail, but it has evolved to a new level now. A lot of people work with internet related matters and require a connection. A lot of people have established social connections with friends, mates, lovers, etcetera. We also browse for news several times a day and generally get what we're looking for. Books are no longer needed to find the information we need. Paying bills is more efficient. And now there's a lot of free porn, too!
I honestly doubt that people could cut off the connection just like that. Some people could, of course, but every year that passes by means more reasons to get hooked. Who knows what we're doing with it in five years from now? It's changed radically since 2001 - it's not even comparable to what you can do now that you could not do back then.
So to sum things up, I believe most people will pay a lot more than they think. After all, a hundred bucks a month (if I had to pay that much) isn't really that much for all the things I'm doing with it - or am going to do with it.
Just because one game works so well does mean they should start mass producing/converting all their IP into mmorpgs (even if you are blizzard)
Not sure what you mean by that. You have to realize that if Blizzad makes a lot of money, they will also hire more developers to work on other titles as well. Just because they release a new super title doesn't mean it devours time from other titles that much. Besides, reproducing success is common everywhere and should be repeated as long as it's working. Blizzard know what they're doing and have been ever since the first WarCraft title was released. I really doubt that a previously successful title, transformed into a successful model would suck.
I know some people will buy this because there is always someone who will love even the stupidest of all products.
What I don't get is, if laptop stands for portability, then why is it not really portable? And who would want to show it off anyway? I bet people would only laugh. For heaven's sake, this thing even has a numpad and an LPT port.. Not that it's necessarily a bad thing but..
a) The majority is looking for a laptop with decent hardware yet portable (read: 15" or less).
b) A smaller part wants really tiny laptops with minimal screens that basically fit in large pockets.
c) Another small part of the crowd demands super performance and usually 17". If you need performance beyond that, get a Shuttle computer or something.
As seen above, our 20.1" laptop does not fit in.
Last but not least, a laptop is purchased because..
a) It is portable and runs on batteries, meaning that you can use it everywhere.
b) It is excellent for educational purposes due to its portability.
c) It is great for business purposes due to its portability.
d) It works great as a multimedia station and a node between a network of computers.
Okay, a), so the Acer can be used anywhere, but it's too heavy and too awkward. And b), it is nowhere to be found in schools. You'd probably block the view for everyone behind you. And c), yes, I can imagine the usefulness of this computer for some people but I really doubt that the advantages are that great since the resolution is too small for CAD and such. And finally, d), a multimedia station should be small enough to carry around and small enough to hide in case you want it to serve partially as a music/video station.
Anyway, the day I see someone sitting with this laptop in economy class on a Boeing/Airbus will be the day that I laugh so hard that I pee my pants down.
First of all, we are in the new, improved world of broadband. Bandwidth is hardly an issue as graphics are loaded and stored once and usually on a connection that is capable of some 50 KB/s or more.
I've been contracted to design high quality Vector(Flash)/Pixel(JPEG/GIF) graphics and animations for some of the largest and most exclusive hotels and restaurants in the world, and never have I had to think about limiting content because size is an important factor. As far as I can tell, news sites like CNN go for photographies for their news stories, but other than that, they go with GIF files to fast-loaded content for its 56K users. In other words, if you want to create a web site with smallish content, go for GIF. You can still do wonders with CSS and a piece of imagination.
I for one am confused here. Internet Explorer has been the worst of all large browsers when it comes to implementing new technology. It's still because of Internet Explorer that we can't use PNG as a standard, so good bye alpha channels. And despite this, they want to introduce something new? I don't get it. First, follow the standards thoroughly, THEN innovate.
I really don't think we need more pixel graphics standards that will take five years to become a standard. New vector graphics technology is fine, because that's where we're heading. And while we're at it, the problem when creating web sites is not visuals, but programming. It's amazing that you have to be an expert to make an IE/FF/SAF/OPE web site.
I for one welcome Intel to the top performance game. I used to be all happy about AMD gradually taking over the market ever since their first Athlon slot CPU:s. This has also caused the pricing war significantly since AMD already knew they kicked Intel in most parts of all reviews.
Now that Intel is back, we can finally see some heavy competition between the two. The Core Duo is a superb processor and I am eagerly awaiting my MacBook to arrive and I can't wait to see the second release of the Core Duo.
Remember what it was like a few years ago? I used to follow the price charts of CPU:s for drops and they were a lot more frequent than they are today. So now it's easy to say that we should get the same competition all over again and I am quite sure that Hector Ruiz at AMD has a backup plan ready to be enrolled this year.
Bloggers are the New Plagiarism Posted by CmdrTaco on Monday May 22, @07:46PM
from the i-think-i've-heard-that-before dept.
mjeppsen writes "PlagiarismToday offers a thought-provoking article that frankly discusses concerns with plagiarism and rote content theft among bloggers. In the section entitled "Block quotes by the Dozen" the author mentions the so-called "gray area". That is PlagiarismToday's classification of the common blogger practice of re-using large blocks of text/content from the original article or source, even when the source is attributed."
The modern world is moving away from cost per minute. Flatrate is what most consumers are looking for. First we had modem connections, then some ISP:s revolutionized the market with flatrate. Then, same thing happened with broadband, although some ISP:s took the flatrate route from the start.
And while we're at it, mobile phone operators are doing pretty much the same thing now.
Going back to the old structure won't work. The ISP:s better stop lowering the prices of the connections now that it seems increasingly unfeasible.
If you replace those words of yours and add it to the music of Louis Armstrong - Wonderful World, it will sound just beautiful. You, Sir, are a hero and.. Nah, f*ck it.
Wiretapping isn't necessarily bad. It's gonna get bad a few times when people find out that it has been misused. Then the politicians will ensure the safety of regular citizens by pumping in more money to security. Then this mistake will occur one more time, some people get fired and that's it. Live with it.
I for one welcome this. I don't really care if they abuse it every now and then because we're only humans, after all. No one here can say that this will aid the terrorism in any way. If anything, this will help us fight terrorism. By how much, I don't care, as long as it does something.
"Expensive, cheap - we don't want you to think of it in terms of game machines... For instance... Is it not nonsense to compare the charge for dinner at the company cafeteria with dinner at a fine restaurant? It's a question of what you can do with that game machine. If you can have an amazing experience, we believe price is not a problem."
That doesn't make sense. I know what he's getting at here but even so, this is a bad example because the average Nintendo player won't afford a fine restaurant. A large part of the targeted audience consists of families with a kid or two and are usually on a tight budget. Then we have the poor students who already have debts to pay.
I think that when parents decide whether they should go for a cheap console or whatever the alternative is, they rarely come to think of that lets-get-the-quality-stuff part. It's purely based on what the kid wants and what they can afford, and usually, the latter part plays the biggest role.
Some people say that Sony has one main advantage with Playstation 2: the games. I agree, BUT, this is 2006 and soon 2007. Things have changed for the better now as publishers rush out games to as many consoles as possible and the exclusives that now exist are equally comparable between the consoles. Nintendo has a lot of classics, but the 360 has a superb development platform allowing many PC developers to switch side with ease. Sony, on the other hand, has a very complicated architecture and from what I hear, developers don't believe in the PS3 as much as they first did when it was on schedule.
So what if Ken is talking about hardware? Is the PS3 really that superior? Is it superior at all? The graphics are equal to the 360, the sound system is about the same. The only real advantage I can think of is the Blu-Ray, which obviously opens for long movie scenarios, but I don't see how that's gonna make anyone spend hundreds of bucks extra.
I feel obliged to tell that I do not dislike the PS3. In fact, I plan to rush out and buy it, but mostly because I already have a 360 and plan to get a Nintendo as well.
It's bad enough when Microsoft strong-arms other software vendors into submission as a means of thwarting competition. But when it engages in underhanded tactics to intimidate users in order to land a software deal, we have a very disturbing situation on our hands. And someone needs to have the guts to speak out about it.
This is not uncommon. In fact, I don't know any super large company that would not put pressure on vendors and small companies that rely on the bigger ones. This is the case with so many other businesses and occurs everywhere in all countries. I used to work for a small business (~30 employed) and we had only one big client which will remain nameless, but you have all heard of it. Because they knew we needed them to survive, they delayed wirings and pushed us down to a stupid low cost production model. We basically had our salaries cut every year to survive at all. First they told us that they would find someone else or produce it on their own. We were forced to agree. Next, they stripped us down even further by announcing that they would no longer need our services. We were looking at a feasible bankrupcy here. Shortly after, a company affiliate purchased what was left, fired most of the staff and outsourced it.
I might add that this fit perfectly into the schedule of this company. Our products were updated once every 7 months, and it so happened that our services were not needed just after the last shipment. All in all, they just made us desperate, stripped us down and then bought what was left, acquired the technology and kicked most of us out.
I don't feel bad about this today, but I wish to inform you that this is not an uncommon phenomenon.
A year ago I wouldn't believe anyone if they told me Sony was going to get dethroned from the lead position in the console market. Now, all of a sudden, Microsoft has dropped the bomb on Sony by releasing the 360 a full year ahead, and by the looks of it, 360 is - in terms of visuals - fully comparable to PS3.
I personally thought that Nintendo was going down the hill before they announced the Revolution. Now it seems like it gets more attention than the 360 and the PS3, mostly due to its controller. The best part is that it does not seem to be all that mumbo jumbo some people expected the controller to be, so with a few more tweaks before the release, this might make Nintendo sell more consoles than Sony and Microsoft, mostly because the price is so competitive.
I have obviously not decided what to go for, but I am quite sure it won't be a PS3. It's too expensive and doesn't seem to offer much beyond the cheaper 360, except other games. So with features compared, it's going to be PS3 vs 360, a war which MS will probably win due to its one year advantage. Additionally, MS is likely to refine the build process costs and probably push Sony out of the game by offering a cheaper console. And no, Sony won't be able to compete because every sold console is probably a loss for Sony until we buy a game.
Things can be turned around a bit and I might be very wrong, but I really think that Sony is in deep trouble here.
A lot of people seem to be upset about Microsoft every now and then, but this should not be one of the many instances.
1) Internet Explorer is no longer required. Vista will make this a recommended install, not optional. 2) Google and other search engines are not blocked. The only difference here is that Microsoft integrates their own search engine to those who want it there. The rest can simply remove it or leave it where it is. 3) This is only one of many features that are bundled with the operating system of Windows. If Google's argument was true, shouldn't PerfectDisk bitch about the Defrag tool, and perhaps the Google Desktop should be an available option in Windows for searching documents? In fact, why not remove the search function in Windows then since it intrudes on other products? 4) My grandfather uses Google manually, meaning that he visits Google.com. He wasn't even aware that you could search through the integrated Google Toolbar. Point is that putting in a search bar doesn't necessarily make anyone prefer MSN. 5) If anyone is used to Google and prefers Google, that person will notice that MSN differs from Google in many ways and will therefore a) not use the search bar or b) uninstall it. 6) Microsoft isn't intruding Google's space because it bundles the MSN search with Internet Explorer. How come we haven't heard the whine before? After all, MSN is linked by default in all versions of Internet Explorer. This is just a logical step towards an integration of two optional services: MSN and Internet Explorer. 7)Windows is obviously a prominent operating system, but it also serves many purposes; it must fit the Photoshop professional, the programmer, the average web surfer, the gamer, but also the old guy's needs who has no clue what's good and what's not. Rookies don't go download FireFox and they don't navigate Google, because they don't know what it is. If Microsoft leaves functions out to let its customers find it on their own, they will be left out in the dark.
In my opinion, an operating system must include a big bunch of applications, and if a power user is unhappy about something, then there's the option to remove whatever he or she dislikes. It's really that simple. If I buy a new computer for my grand father, I don't want to download and preset FireFox, StuffIt, Google Toolbar, etcetera. It should be there, bundled and ready to be modified - IF you want to do it.
Reading the comments above made me realize that a lot of people don't understand what NVIDIA has done here. Let me point out a few things for you:
* This is not hardware for the mass market. In fact, even the dual SLI setup is overkill and mainly used as "we knew how to do it and so we did it to prove it". * This system is not supposed to be cheap and most definitely not intended to be the most effective cost per fps solution. * Although only a few will buy this, it is far more valuable for NVIDIA to kill ATI:s chances of de-throning them from the performance top. * Such excessive memory bandwidth is suitable for extreme resolutions that are currently unsupported by over 95 percent of the monitors, but the point is not that we should play our games at these levels, but to prove that it is possible. * NVIDIA gets an edge over ATI along game developers because, performance-wise, they will be able to run the future games on setups comparable to single cards that are two or even three generations away. * Yes, it's a waste of electricity, but if you're a member of Green Peace, then wait a few more generations before you buy a cow approved graphics card that fits into this category. * One user was upset, claiming that it would be stupid to waste $1000 on a setup like this. I agree, but if you happen to drive a Ferrari and if you are debt free and got a few million bucks stored, then why not settle for the best if you can afford it? And you can obviously get your 17-year-old Slashdot-reading neighbour to put in watercooling or whatever to make it silent, too. Point is, some people will buy this, and being able to afford something isn't being stupid.
Last but not least, we should all remember that the CPU is the new bottleneck now. It will be interesting to see what a CPU a year from now can do to this rig.
So what now? Are we gonna see hundreds of Star Wars nerds in costumes outside the TV production offices, or are they gonna rally up at the local TV store before every new episode?
I hope I don't offend you by saying that the majority of all people buy graphics cards based on performance, features and possibly game packs. I understand that you probably have a see-through case, but the people who actually give a squat about such things is outnumbered and almost insignificant. I think the majority who buy this card expect great performance and not too much noise. Look at the size of this thing. It's not really taking up much space, so it could be a decent HTPC component!
On the other hand, I think it's rather sad to see new cooling solutions added to graphics cards. I don't want peltiers, huge fans, big blocks of copper or whatever the engineers come to think of. I want the source of this problem to tackle it. Take the approach of Intel, to increase performance per cycle instead and make such chip mainstream and then let the rich gamers have their noise makers.:)
I remember the times when a CPU was a fanless construction, and prior to that, even no heatsinks. Where's the technology going and how long do we have to wait before the Bush administration admits that the global warming effect is in fact caused by overheated computer components?
My main concern about this theory is not the fact that it may or may not be possible for micro organisms to travel, but probability.
First, something must force these organisms out in space. Then, when that "easy" job is done and without burning the organisms too much, they have to undergo years of travelling through space and supposedly surface on a planet which is habitable and warm enough. Then there's also an impact - a great amount of energy released when the dust, rock or meteor hits the ground.
I think you have a better chance of dropping a large object from space and hit a whale. After all, space is rather big and at least twice as big as anyone's living room.
I am happy to see that Internet Explorer 7 passes the ACID2 test somewhat better now. It is actually possible to see the resemblance of a happy face now. Good job, Microsoft!
I personally believe that the most recent development in home theater equipment is what makes people stay at home instead of going to the movies.
Think about it:
- HDTV has surfaced for real.
- Large TV sets and projectors with much better image quality are here.
- DVD prices are pretty much staying where they are.
- Going to the movies is becoming more and more expensive.
- Spending money on a home theater is widely acceptable and considered a high status item.
The main reason I don't go to the movies is because I already have a good system at home. I prefer to sit there by myself, with my friends or with my girlfriend rather than sitting next to a fat guy who devours chips throughout the whole movie. And besides, it's actually cheaper to buy a DVD.
In ten years, when HDTV is passé and when people are used to super quality at 100 inch screens or more, who will actually go to the movies?
Last but not least, movies have kinda sucked lately. There's been a few good ones of course, but to me, quality is down. It would be interesting to see how the movie ratings have developed on IMDB during the past five years. Does anyone have stats on that?
You mean like the packet installation of Office? It's been there for quite some time now and lets you choose whatever you want. Plus, the menus are quite customizable nowadays.
I honestly don't know how they could succeed with such format. There are already a lot of standards out there and I doubt that this will go off without some heavy support from the major IT tech companies (MS, etc).
Slashdot Mirror
This fits into the category between portable laptops and stationary PC:s. It smells like a reversed Origami project really, which is normally a category between a handheld and a portable laptop.
I'm sure it's actually going to be used by some, but there's never going to be a market for a beast like this until we have foldable screens and a maximum of 4 KG (8 pounds) or so. Seriously, even my 23" monitor is portable to some extent, but that's not a reason to carry it under your arm.
People who browse the internet today are not the same people who browsed it a few years ago. Let's face it. Some time ago, it would be easy to let go and discontinue the internet connection simply because people watched TV for news and entertainment, paid their bills the old way, met people in real life and through paper ads, communicated solely by phone (from a distance) and browsed through fat books for information.
At first, most people used internet for information and e-mail, but it has evolved to a new level now. A lot of people work with internet related matters and require a connection. A lot of people have established social connections with friends, mates, lovers, etcetera. We also browse for news several times a day and generally get what we're looking for. Books are no longer needed to find the information we need. Paying bills is more efficient. And now there's a lot of free porn, too!
I honestly doubt that people could cut off the connection just like that. Some people could, of course, but every year that passes by means more reasons to get hooked. Who knows what we're doing with it in five years from now? It's changed radically since 2001 - it's not even comparable to what you can do now that you could not do back then.
So to sum things up, I believe most people will pay a lot more than they think. After all, a hundred bucks a month (if I had to pay that much) isn't really that much for all the things I'm doing with it - or am going to do with it.
Just because one game works so well does mean they should start mass producing/converting all their IP into mmorpgs (even if you are blizzard)
Not sure what you mean by that. You have to realize that if Blizzad makes a lot of money, they will also hire more developers to work on other titles as well. Just because they release a new super title doesn't mean it devours time from other titles that much. Besides, reproducing success is common everywhere and should be repeated as long as it's working. Blizzard know what they're doing and have been ever since the first WarCraft title was released. I really doubt that a previously successful title, transformed into a successful model would suck.
I know some people will buy this because there is always someone who will love even the stupidest of all products.
What I don't get is, if laptop stands for portability, then why is it not really portable? And who would want to show it off anyway? I bet people would only laugh. For heaven's sake, this thing even has a numpad and an LPT port.. Not that it's necessarily a bad thing but..
a) The majority is looking for a laptop with decent hardware yet portable (read: 15" or less).
b) A smaller part wants really tiny laptops with minimal screens that basically fit in large pockets.
c) Another small part of the crowd demands super performance and usually 17". If you need performance beyond that, get a Shuttle computer or something.
As seen above, our 20.1" laptop does not fit in. Last but not least, a laptop is purchased because.. a) It is portable and runs on batteries, meaning that you can use it everywhere.
b) It is excellent for educational purposes due to its portability.
c) It is great for business purposes due to its portability.
d) It works great as a multimedia station and a node between a network of computers.
Okay, a), so the Acer can be used anywhere, but it's too heavy and too awkward. And b), it is nowhere to be found in schools. You'd probably block the view for everyone behind you. And c), yes, I can imagine the usefulness of this computer for some people but I really doubt that the advantages are that great since the resolution is too small for CAD and such. And finally, d), a multimedia station should be small enough to carry around and small enough to hide in case you want it to serve partially as a music/video station.
Anyway, the day I see someone sitting with this laptop in economy class on a Boeing/Airbus will be the day that I laugh so hard that I pee my pants down.
First of all, we are in the new, improved world of broadband. Bandwidth is hardly an issue as graphics are loaded and stored once and usually on a connection that is capable of some 50 KB/s or more.
I've been contracted to design high quality Vector(Flash)/Pixel(JPEG/GIF) graphics and animations for some of the largest and most exclusive hotels and restaurants in the world, and never have I had to think about limiting content because size is an important factor. As far as I can tell, news sites like CNN go for photographies for their news stories, but other than that, they go with GIF files to fast-loaded content for its 56K users. In other words, if you want to create a web site with smallish content, go for GIF. You can still do wonders with CSS and a piece of imagination.
I for one am confused here. Internet Explorer has been the worst of all large browsers when it comes to implementing new technology. It's still because of Internet Explorer that we can't use PNG as a standard, so good bye alpha channels. And despite this, they want to introduce something new? I don't get it. First, follow the standards thoroughly, THEN innovate.
I really don't think we need more pixel graphics standards that will take five years to become a standard. New vector graphics technology is fine, because that's where we're heading. And while we're at it, the problem when creating web sites is not visuals, but programming. It's amazing that you have to be an expert to make an IE/FF/SAF/OPE web site.
There are quite a few of them out there. Here's one for CPU:
p hp/3607116
p hp/3607991
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/guides/WCPG/article.
And here's one for RAM:
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/guides/WMPG/article.
I for one welcome Intel to the top performance game. I used to be all happy about AMD gradually taking over the market ever since their first Athlon slot CPU:s. This has also caused the pricing war significantly since AMD already knew they kicked Intel in most parts of all reviews.
Now that Intel is back, we can finally see some heavy competition between the two. The Core Duo is a superb processor and I am eagerly awaiting my MacBook to arrive and I can't wait to see the second release of the Core Duo.
Remember what it was like a few years ago? I used to follow the price charts of CPU:s for drops and they were a lot more frequent than they are today. So now it's easy to say that we should get the same competition all over again and I am quite sure that Hector Ruiz at AMD has a backup plan ready to be enrolled this year.
So once again, welcome, Intel!
The modern world is moving away from cost per minute. Flatrate is what most consumers are looking for. First we had modem connections, then some ISP:s revolutionized the market with flatrate. Then, same thing happened with broadband, although some ISP:s took the flatrate route from the start.
And while we're at it, mobile phone operators are doing pretty much the same thing now.
Going back to the old structure won't work. The ISP:s better stop lowering the prices of the connections now that it seems increasingly unfeasible.
If you replace those words of yours and add it to the music of Louis Armstrong - Wonderful World, it will sound just beautiful. You, Sir, are a hero and.. Nah, f*ck it.
Wiretapping isn't necessarily bad. It's gonna get bad a few times when people find out that it has been misused. Then the politicians will ensure the safety of regular citizens by pumping in more money to security. Then this mistake will occur one more time, some people get fired and that's it. Live with it.
I for one welcome this. I don't really care if they abuse it every now and then because we're only humans, after all. No one here can say that this will aid the terrorism in any way. If anything, this will help us fight terrorism. By how much, I don't care, as long as it does something.
"Expensive, cheap - we don't want you to think of it in terms of game machines ... For instance ... Is it not nonsense to compare the charge for dinner at the company cafeteria with dinner at a fine restaurant? It's a question of what you can do with that game machine. If you can have an amazing experience, we believe price is not a problem."
That doesn't make sense. I know what he's getting at here but even so, this is a bad example because the average Nintendo player won't afford a fine restaurant. A large part of the targeted audience consists of families with a kid or two and are usually on a tight budget. Then we have the poor students who already have debts to pay. I think that when parents decide whether they should go for a cheap console or whatever the alternative is, they rarely come to think of that lets-get-the-quality-stuff part. It's purely based on what the kid wants and what they can afford, and usually, the latter part plays the biggest role. Some people say that Sony has one main advantage with Playstation 2: the games. I agree, BUT, this is 2006 and soon 2007. Things have changed for the better now as publishers rush out games to as many consoles as possible and the exclusives that now exist are equally comparable between the consoles. Nintendo has a lot of classics, but the 360 has a superb development platform allowing many PC developers to switch side with ease. Sony, on the other hand, has a very complicated architecture and from what I hear, developers don't believe in the PS3 as much as they first did when it was on schedule. So what if Ken is talking about hardware? Is the PS3 really that superior? Is it superior at all? The graphics are equal to the 360, the sound system is about the same. The only real advantage I can think of is the Blu-Ray, which obviously opens for long movie scenarios, but I don't see how that's gonna make anyone spend hundreds of bucks extra. I feel obliged to tell that I do not dislike the PS3. In fact, I plan to rush out and buy it, but mostly because I already have a 360 and plan to get a Nintendo as well.
It's bad enough when Microsoft strong-arms other software vendors into submission as a means of thwarting competition. But when it engages in underhanded tactics to intimidate users in order to land a software deal, we have a very disturbing situation on our hands. And someone needs to have the guts to speak out about it.
This is not uncommon. In fact, I don't know any super large company that would not put pressure on vendors and small companies that rely on the bigger ones. This is the case with so many other businesses and occurs everywhere in all countries. I used to work for a small business (~30 employed) and we had only one big client which will remain nameless, but you have all heard of it. Because they knew we needed them to survive, they delayed wirings and pushed us down to a stupid low cost production model. We basically had our salaries cut every year to survive at all. First they told us that they would find someone else or produce it on their own. We were forced to agree. Next, they stripped us down even further by announcing that they would no longer need our services. We were looking at a feasible bankrupcy here. Shortly after, a company affiliate purchased what was left, fired most of the staff and outsourced it.
I might add that this fit perfectly into the schedule of this company. Our products were updated once every 7 months, and it so happened that our services were not needed just after the last shipment. All in all, they just made us desperate, stripped us down and then bought what was left, acquired the technology and kicked most of us out.
I don't feel bad about this today, but I wish to inform you that this is not an uncommon phenomenon.
This is great, but who cares that he's turned 30? What we want to know is, how many Vulcanian years old is he? Romulan is accepted too.
A year ago I wouldn't believe anyone if they told me Sony was going to get dethroned from the lead position in the console market. Now, all of a sudden, Microsoft has dropped the bomb on Sony by releasing the 360 a full year ahead, and by the looks of it, 360 is - in terms of visuals - fully comparable to PS3.
I personally thought that Nintendo was going down the hill before they announced the Revolution. Now it seems like it gets more attention than the 360 and the PS3, mostly due to its controller. The best part is that it does not seem to be all that mumbo jumbo some people expected the controller to be, so with a few more tweaks before the release, this might make Nintendo sell more consoles than Sony and Microsoft, mostly because the price is so competitive.
I have obviously not decided what to go for, but I am quite sure it won't be a PS3. It's too expensive and doesn't seem to offer much beyond the cheaper 360, except other games. So with features compared, it's going to be PS3 vs 360, a war which MS will probably win due to its one year advantage. Additionally, MS is likely to refine the build process costs and probably push Sony out of the game by offering a cheaper console. And no, Sony won't be able to compete because every sold console is probably a loss for Sony until we buy a game.
Things can be turned around a bit and I might be very wrong, but I really think that Sony is in deep trouble here.
I work at Apple and can confirm that there will be Intel processors in this line-up of notebooks. Hope this valuable information helps.
A lot of people seem to be upset about Microsoft every now and then, but this should not be one of the many instances.
1) Internet Explorer is no longer required. Vista will make this a recommended install, not optional.
2) Google and other search engines are not blocked. The only difference here is that Microsoft integrates their own search engine to those who want it there. The rest can simply remove it or leave it where it is.
3) This is only one of many features that are bundled with the operating system of Windows. If Google's argument was true, shouldn't PerfectDisk bitch about the Defrag tool, and perhaps the Google Desktop should be an available option in Windows for searching documents? In fact, why not remove the search function in Windows then since it intrudes on other products?
4) My grandfather uses Google manually, meaning that he visits Google.com. He wasn't even aware that you could search through the integrated Google Toolbar. Point is that putting in a search bar doesn't necessarily make anyone prefer MSN.
5) If anyone is used to Google and prefers Google, that person will notice that MSN differs from Google in many ways and will therefore a) not use the search bar or b) uninstall it.
6) Microsoft isn't intruding Google's space because it bundles the MSN search with Internet Explorer. How come we haven't heard the whine before? After all, MSN is linked by default in all versions of Internet Explorer. This is just a logical step towards an integration of two optional services: MSN and Internet Explorer.
7)Windows is obviously a prominent operating system, but it also serves many purposes; it must fit the Photoshop professional, the programmer, the average web surfer, the gamer, but also the old guy's needs who has no clue what's good and what's not. Rookies don't go download FireFox and they don't navigate Google, because they don't know what it is. If Microsoft leaves functions out to let its customers find it on their own, they will be left out in the dark.
In my opinion, an operating system must include a big bunch of applications, and if a power user is unhappy about something, then there's the option to remove whatever he or she dislikes. It's really that simple. If I buy a new computer for my grand father, I don't want to download and preset FireFox, StuffIt, Google Toolbar, etcetera. It should be there, bundled and ready to be modified - IF you want to do it.
Reading the comments above made me realize that a lot of people don't understand what NVIDIA has done here. Let me point out a few things for you:
* This is not hardware for the mass market. In fact, even the dual SLI setup is overkill and mainly used as "we knew how to do it and so we did it to prove it".
* This system is not supposed to be cheap and most definitely not intended to be the most effective cost per fps solution.
* Although only a few will buy this, it is far more valuable for NVIDIA to kill ATI:s chances of de-throning them from the performance top.
* Such excessive memory bandwidth is suitable for extreme resolutions that are currently unsupported by over 95 percent of the monitors, but the point is not that we should play our games at these levels, but to prove that it is possible.
* NVIDIA gets an edge over ATI along game developers because, performance-wise, they will be able to run the future games on setups comparable to single cards that are two or even three generations away.
* Yes, it's a waste of electricity, but if you're a member of Green Peace, then wait a few more generations before you buy a cow approved graphics card that fits into this category.
* One user was upset, claiming that it would be stupid to waste $1000 on a setup like this. I agree, but if you happen to drive a Ferrari and if you are debt free and got a few million bucks stored, then why not settle for the best if you can afford it? And you can obviously get your 17-year-old Slashdot-reading neighbour to put in watercooling or whatever to make it silent, too. Point is, some people will buy this, and being able to afford something isn't being stupid.
Last but not least, we should all remember that the CPU is the new bottleneck now. It will be interesting to see what a CPU a year from now can do to this rig.
Finally a web site that matches my underwear.
So what now? Are we gonna see hundreds of Star Wars nerds in costumes outside the TV production offices, or are they gonna rally up at the local TV store before every new episode?
I hope I don't offend you by saying that the majority of all people buy graphics cards based on performance, features and possibly game packs. I understand that you probably have a see-through case, but the people who actually give a squat about such things is outnumbered and almost insignificant. I think the majority who buy this card expect great performance and not too much noise. Look at the size of this thing. It's not really taking up much space, so it could be a decent HTPC component!
:)
I remember the times when a CPU was a fanless construction, and prior to that, even no heatsinks. Where's the technology going and how long do we have to wait before the Bush administration admits that the global warming effect is in fact caused by overheated computer components?
On the other hand, I think it's rather sad to see new cooling solutions added to graphics cards. I don't want peltiers, huge fans, big blocks of copper or whatever the engineers come to think of. I want the source of this problem to tackle it. Take the approach of Intel, to increase performance per cycle instead and make such chip mainstream and then let the rich gamers have their noise makers.
My main concern about this theory is not the fact that it may or may not be possible for micro organisms to travel, but probability.
First, something must force these organisms out in space. Then, when that "easy" job is done and without burning the organisms too much, they have to undergo years of travelling through space and supposedly surface on a planet which is habitable and warm enough. Then there's also an impact - a great amount of energy released when the dust, rock or meteor hits the ground.
I think you have a better chance of dropping a large object from space and hit a whale. After all, space is rather big and at least twice as big as anyone's living room.
I am happy to see that Internet Explorer 7 passes the ACID2 test somewhat better now. It is actually possible to see the resemblance of a happy face now. Good job, Microsoft!
I personally believe that the most recent development in home theater equipment is what makes people stay at home instead of going to the movies.
Think about it:
- HDTV has surfaced for real. - Large TV sets and projectors with much better image quality are here. - DVD prices are pretty much staying where they are. - Going to the movies is becoming more and more expensive. - Spending money on a home theater is widely acceptable and considered a high status item.
The main reason I don't go to the movies is because I already have a good system at home. I prefer to sit there by myself, with my friends or with my girlfriend rather than sitting next to a fat guy who devours chips throughout the whole movie. And besides, it's actually cheaper to buy a DVD.
In ten years, when HDTV is passé and when people are used to super quality at 100 inch screens or more, who will actually go to the movies?
Last but not least, movies have kinda sucked lately. There's been a few good ones of course, but to me, quality is down. It would be interesting to see how the movie ratings have developed on IMDB during the past five years. Does anyone have stats on that?
You mean like the packet installation of Office? It's been there for quite some time now and lets you choose whatever you want. Plus, the menus are quite customizable nowadays.
I honestly don't know how they could succeed with such format. There are already a lot of standards out there and I doubt that this will go off without some heavy support from the major IT tech companies (MS, etc).