Offtopic, but nice collection. I really wish Greg Egan would write more - I believe I have all his scifi works (paperback, though). I'm taking notes of the ones I haven't yet read for the future:)
It seems ridiculous to suggest that he should pay full price to have access to something he already paid full price for.
Just to play devil's advocate, it would be ridiculous to justify stealing a car due to the fact that your car was destroyed in an accident. I'd also mention that when you buy a CD you're buying a CD and not a license, but someone explained that admirably further up.
So Windows is a bloated monster and is wrong for being that way, but dropping some legacy features/compatibility is bad as well? Give you any insight on why Windows is bloated? I thought not.
All YouTube clips get downgraded to the familiar size and quality we know now but they keep the original content on servers unused, same for Google's movies and other sites. Streaming them in high quality to the iTV would make the big difference, it all depends how well they can handle the enormous data transfers.
Is there some reason why Youtube (for example) would make this higher quality content available via iTV when it's not available through any other method?
Imagine this situation. You buy a new PC for your parents for Christmas next year and it ships with Vista. Your PC is still XP. Mom calls and can't figure out why her printer isn't working. You tell her to click here then here... She says, I don't see that. You end up having to make a trip when a phone call used to fix the problem.
Out of all the possibilities, I don't really think that being unable to help your mother is a compelling reason to dislike Vista (feel free to disagree). In cases like this, though, there are actual people whose job it is to help people with their computers (i.e. tech support).
I certainly don't have to imagine that since I was actually working in ISP tech support when XP came out. That was certainly interesting, though a lot less bothersome than some of the marketing campaigns and registration CD issues we had to deal with.
In any case, new things tend to be different, and learning new things is the price of progress (calling Vista progress is probably true, but I don't feel like discussing the extent to which it is true).
I bet in 6 months you'll have severe difficulty finding a new PC with XP on it...
This, at least, is a non-issue. Buying a new PC in 6 months will eliminate the major reasons for wanting to keep XP: a) compatibility (I'm sure most of the major issues would be ironed out in that time) and b) needing a new computer to run it well (this is probably a myth to a certain extent but, duh, you're buying a new computer).
For those who aren't buying a new computer, though, I tend to agree - it's not a compelling upgrade. However, that doesn't mean that most people are going to switch to Apple/Linux/etc - those without a need to upgrade are most likely content with what they have (probably Windows XP).
So, is this doom and gloom for Vista? Almost certainly not. It wont be long before new PC's come with Vista (new computers from Dell, etc already come with the upgrade option) and I'm sure that's where Microsoft makes all it's money anyways.
The killer app won't be YouTube, but a youtube-like service that actually hosts full-length episodes. For example, NBC puts up their own shows for viewing on their website, 24hrs after they air. Other networks are starting to do this as well. To aggregate this content into one place for consumption by iTV owners will be the trick.
I agree. I no longer watch TV live, I download the episodes at my leisure (torrents, etc) and watch them on my computer or TV via my Xbox 360. I'd love to have a central TV repository or something similar where I could go to watch TV on demand. Provided the quality was good, ads would be acceptable.
Will Apple be the first to do this? Maybe, but I'd imagine it would be a pay per download kind of service (this has been established via iTunes). The more interesting notion to me is (and it's obviously speculation) whether this might be the reason why Google bought Youtube - to make such an ad driven, central TV library/service.
Powered by something similar to Apple's Front Row media center software, the iTV is designed to get the media content that's housed on a Mac (music, movies, and photos), streamed to the living room television.
Why the excitement? Ignoring all HTPC's completely (which can do the above and more), the Xbox 360 can do the above with a Windows box with ease (especially with Vista).
However, with its built-in wireless networking (suspected to be the faster 802.11n)
What is this based on? Apple sitting on a wireless technology faster than the newest standard which is allegedly consumer ready and they're saving it for a home theater device? Give me a break. I guess no Apple rumor is complete without completely outrageous claims, though.
I'd appreciate it if someone who was more knowledgable in these matters that I am could comment on the premise: "is a cloned animal actually indistinguishable from its donor?"
Funny you should ask. There is this group called the FDA; they're pretty knowledgeable and they just commented on this very topic.
Based on the description, this parasite will turn that ugly girl next door into a hot, promiscuous girl who might stop pepper spraying me! Sign me up for two!
is going to add a feature that will be used to protect employees from their employers?
So a feature that prevents you from looking at porn at work is protecting employees from their employers? More like protecting employees from their inadvertent stupidity.
Regardless, I doubt this would be something implemented by any of the major browsers. Extensions/addons maybe?
What the heck is the first T you keep throwing in for?
In any case, I think the whole point would be having the browser hide the content while indicating that said content was hidden, possibly along the same lines as a popup blocker. You could then choose whether to display it or not. Doesn't seem so mind blowing to me.
It wont be called iPhone because Cisco/Linksys has already released one and owns the trademark for iPhone. The Canadian trademark is controlled by Comwave, I believe (someone linked to them defending the trademark against Apple in another article but I can't find it now).
MacPhone perhaps? That seems to be more in line with some of their recent naming conventions as well.
We also have a coffee machine that is notorious for making anything but coffee. Of the 3 times i used it, first it gave me coffee with no milk, second it gave me coffee without a cup (which was quite embarrasing, and no i did not press the "byo mug" button) and the third time also yielded coffee with no milk.
This famous non-coffee making coffee machine seems to have a problem - it makes coffee.
and the machine is powered by the flow of tears from green party members.
Why? This would potentially be better for the environment. Rather than a publisher printing X copies of a book, Y of which wont sell (Y may not be much smaller than X, depending on the book) a book is only printed when someone actually wants to buy it. No overstock, no waste.
The vulnerable code is present in Windows 2000, XP, 2003 and Vista.
Another case of Microsoft getting burned by legacy code? You have to wonder how many problems would be solved if they actually started fresh, rather than propping up the compatibility bridge continuously. Probably a lot, but I doubt they want to damage their market share to the extent that such a move would likely make.
On the other hand, if they were smart, they would hire talented hackers *upstream*, i.e. during the development process, and offer them the same insane amounts of money on a per-exploit-found basis (at "black market rate" if you will), only these hackers would be working for MS perfectly legally: they would get the same money, trouble-free, and Microsoft could boast they subject their products to the most stringent tests before release.
This has come up before in other articles, but I'll rehash the old arguments. It's tough to trust someone who has been maliciously attacking your business for years i.e. banks hiring bank robbers, software companies hiring blackhats, etc etc. Sure it happens and their knowledge is probably extremely valuable, but putting someone in a position of trust in an industry where they have committed crimes is hardly a straightforward proposition.
PreacherTom [google.com] is an astroturfer for BusinessWeek magazine.
So...he links to BusinessWeek and presumably makes some money doing so. This is somehow morally reprehensible? I really don't care where the stories come from, as long as they are interesting (i.e. News for nerds, stuff that matters). I have no problems if he manages to eke out of living submitting stories from BuisnessWeek, just like I have no problems with Slashdot making money from this website.
Now, if stories submitted by this guy get preferential treatment in anyway, now that is a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Offtopic, but nice collection. I really wish Greg Egan would write more - I believe I have all his scifi works (paperback, though). I'm taking notes of the ones I haven't yet read for the future :)
I thought George Harrison has passed away? Or are they bringing him back as well as Indy? Just amazing what those boys at ILM can do...
...but it's even more amazing what a single comma can do.
I'm guessing it was the Slashdoting.
Just to play devil's advocate, it would be ridiculous to justify stealing a car due to the fact that your car was destroyed in an accident. I'd also mention that when you buy a CD you're buying a CD and not a license, but someone explained that admirably further up.
Well, you certainly sound as arrogant as the Americans.
So Windows is a bloated monster and is wrong for being that way, but dropping some legacy features/compatibility is bad as well? Give you any insight on why Windows is bloated? I thought not.
Is there some reason why Youtube (for example) would make this higher quality content available via iTV when it's not available through any other method?
Out of all the possibilities, I don't really think that being unable to help your mother is a compelling reason to dislike Vista (feel free to disagree). In cases like this, though, there are actual people whose job it is to help people with their computers (i.e. tech support).
I certainly don't have to imagine that since I was actually working in ISP tech support when XP came out. That was certainly interesting, though a lot less bothersome than some of the marketing campaigns and registration CD issues we had to deal with.
In any case, new things tend to be different, and learning new things is the price of progress (calling Vista progress is probably true, but I don't feel like discussing the extent to which it is true).
D'oh! I misread that - I read 'faster than 802.11n'; my mistake. I clearly need some sleep :)
This, at least, is a non-issue. Buying a new PC in 6 months will eliminate the major reasons for wanting to keep XP: a) compatibility (I'm sure most of the major issues would be ironed out in that time) and b) needing a new computer to run it well (this is probably a myth to a certain extent but, duh, you're buying a new computer).
For those who aren't buying a new computer, though, I tend to agree - it's not a compelling upgrade. However, that doesn't mean that most people are going to switch to Apple/Linux/etc - those without a need to upgrade are most likely content with what they have (probably Windows XP).
So, is this doom and gloom for Vista? Almost certainly not. It wont be long before new PC's come with Vista (new computers from Dell, etc already come with the upgrade option) and I'm sure that's where Microsoft makes all it's money anyways.
I agree. I no longer watch TV live, I download the episodes at my leisure (torrents, etc) and watch them on my computer or TV via my Xbox 360. I'd love to have a central TV repository or something similar where I could go to watch TV on demand. Provided the quality was good, ads would be acceptable.
Will Apple be the first to do this? Maybe, but I'd imagine it would be a pay per download kind of service (this has been established via iTunes). The more interesting notion to me is (and it's obviously speculation) whether this might be the reason why Google bought Youtube - to make such an ad driven, central TV library/service.
Why the excitement? Ignoring all HTPC's completely (which can do the above and more), the Xbox 360 can do the above with a Windows box with ease (especially with Vista).
What is this based on? Apple sitting on a wireless technology faster than the newest standard which is allegedly consumer ready and they're saving it for a home theater device? Give me a break. I guess no Apple rumor is complete without completely outrageous claims, though.
Funny you should ask. There is this group called the FDA; they're pretty knowledgeable and they just commented on this very topic.
Based on the description, this parasite will turn that ugly girl next door into a hot, promiscuous girl who might stop pepper spraying me! Sign me up for two!
So a feature that prevents you from looking at porn at work is protecting employees from their employers? More like protecting employees from their inadvertent stupidity.
Regardless, I doubt this would be something implemented by any of the major browsers. Extensions/addons maybe?
What the heck is the first T you keep throwing in for?
In any case, I think the whole point would be having the browser hide the content while indicating that said content was hidden, possibly along the same lines as a popup blocker. You could then choose whether to display it or not. Doesn't seem so mind blowing to me.
It wont be called iPhone because Cisco/Linksys has already released one and owns the trademark for iPhone. The Canadian trademark is controlled by Comwave, I believe (someone linked to them defending the trademark against Apple in another article but I can't find it now).
MacPhone perhaps? That seems to be more in line with some of their recent naming conventions as well.
This famous non-coffee making coffee machine seems to have a problem - it makes coffee.
Why? This would potentially be better for the environment. Rather than a publisher printing X copies of a book, Y of which wont sell (Y may not be much smaller than X, depending on the book) a book is only printed when someone actually wants to buy it. No overstock, no waste.
Robot seals.......overlords....come on, this story obviously needs such a post.
Ah, ok. Just idle curiosity. Speaking of which, if I was modded offtopic, shouldn't you be as well? :)
Offtopic Parallels question: why is the PC/Linux version $30 cheaper than the version for OSX? They both look like basically the same program to me.
From the article:
Another case of Microsoft getting burned by legacy code? You have to wonder how many problems would be solved if they actually started fresh, rather than propping up the compatibility bridge continuously. Probably a lot, but I doubt they want to damage their market share to the extent that such a move would likely make.
This has come up before in other articles, but I'll rehash the old arguments. It's tough to trust someone who has been maliciously attacking your business for years i.e. banks hiring bank robbers, software companies hiring blackhats, etc etc. Sure it happens and their knowledge is probably extremely valuable, but putting someone in a position of trust in an industry where they have committed crimes is hardly a straightforward proposition.
So...he links to BusinessWeek and presumably makes some money doing so. This is somehow morally reprehensible? I really don't care where the stories come from, as long as they are interesting (i.e. News for nerds, stuff that matters). I have no problems if he manages to eke out of living submitting stories from BuisnessWeek, just like I have no problems with Slashdot making money from this website.
Now, if stories submitted by this guy get preferential treatment in anyway, now that is a problem.