This is the same hype as when phone chat rooms came out, that pedophiles were going to run wild and eat children alive, and kids would be able to play "phone pranks" while running loose in the street, drunk at 2 a.m. while having unprotected sex with seven STD-infested prostitutes. It's all nonsense, cooked up to sell magazines.
You really want to try Ubuntu http://www.ubuntulinux.org/ (try the LiveCD, just pop in the CD and run with it. No need to install anything, no need for 3600 hours of startup, all it takes is a PC restart). Ubuntu seriously addresses all the concerns you listed. For example, it comes with Synaptic (a graphical add/remove programs) and has a very helpful community. My entire system worked perfectly out-of-the-box (even my card-reader, USB toys, and *shock* my iPod, too, no configuration required) and it is so much nicer than Windows. It's actually a pleasure to use, as opposed to Windows where you find yourself constantly yelling at your computer.
Good comments, but I'm not sure this gets to the root of the problem. I think in a lot of respects, Linux has these "cool" factors. Take a look at Ubuntu -- I know a lot of non-technical people who installed Ubuntu just because it was so easy and looked really cool. (They are already bored to death with XP anyway) It's free, and they could try a LiveCD before they dove in.
The results? They loved it. (Now, admittedly, this was because 99% of things worked from the start, but let me continue). Things made much more sense in Linux compared with windows. The GNOME interface was cleaner, nicer, and more "comfortable."
Why did they all switch back to XP then? Well, simple -- it was the little things. Lots of MSIE-only websites don't work at all (think MTV.com). It's hard to do simple things like preview CDs on Amazon.com. All the latest flash movies at Newgrounds.com don't work because they all require Flash 8. Openoffice is slow, crashes, is confusing, and has no grammar checking. There is no Macromedia flash editor for linux. When they find a cool little app they'd like to try online, it's always a ".exe". None of their cool new games run on Linux. In the end, Linux was like that gimmicky flashlight: an impulse buy. Fun for a weekend and then into the drawer, never to be seen again.
What's the real problem here? Simple: Things are built to work on Windows. Corporations and the public at large build everything to be solely dependent on Windows. Even my old college's student website (necessary to log into practically every day) worked only in Internet Explorer. I think this is the real issue.
Content providers need to get off their Microsoft addiction if Linux is going to move forward, because pure emulation is tough and rarely perfect. Unfortunately weaning companies from their Windope will probably never happen, they're hopelessly addicted.
Who cares? These new technologies bring better resolution/better sound/whatever. So what? I mean, unless you can afford a 90 inch plasma screen ultra-resolution television set that costs as much as your car, what's the big deal? Watching television won't be at the HD-DVD or Blu-ray quality (yet, anyway) so why would I pay so much extra to watch movies in a better graphical format?
I think this is why Nintendo is doing so well, they're focusing on new ways to involve the player (in the TV case, the viewer) and new methods of interaction as opposed to the rest of the market, which is saying "BETTER GRAPHICS!" at the top of their lungs, hoping consumers will buy it. I don't care if in Gran Turismo 9 I can see the leather pattern of my car seat or I have reflective glass in my dashboard. Or if I can see droplets of blood when I shoot someone in an FPS. FPS games have lately been linear and monotonous. Run into a room, shoot someone, run into another room, shoot some more people...repeat for 8 hours, finish.
My point is, the entertainment industry is just peddling more crap hoping they can manufacture a need for it when in reality things have pretty much capped as far as necessary graphical quality (IMHO).
Oh, and when it doesn't sell because it's hopelessly crippled by DRM and provides no new content or value, they will just blame "those damned pirates." If it does sell, they'll just say "see, DRM makes those pirates helpless! We need more DRM!"
The difference is, when I am in the mall and I start shouting about Holomorphic Aliens (or whatever) while wearing tinfoil helmet (sorry, obl.) I can see everyone staring at me. I can watch the policeman come up and ask me to leave. I know when I am making public records because I have to physically interact with someone or something in order for that record to be made.
On the internet, the lines between private and public become very hazy, and it's all too easy to silently peek at supposedly "private" information. There needs to be clearer lines between public and private otherwise infringement is free and undetectable. Example? E-mails are today's snail mail, except opening others' e-mails is a snap, whereas the snaily counterpart requires much more serious reasons and makes a loud noise (metaphorically).
This time, though, I don't think they want anyone knowing exactly how their mining code works, lest someone figure out a way to wreak havoc on the system. For example, the idea of someone making records invisible to the data miner probably has them spooked (I know, code it well and this'll never happen, but you can "never be too careful"). Just my two cents.
My college tried this approach, didn't fly. First they tried "lending" laptops to students. Guess what happend? Broken laptops. Lots. So they had to buy them from then on.
You're taking the intelligent route and making them pay for them on their own, though, so that's a step in the right direction.
Generally the feedback was students liked the mobility but hated being forced into buying a laptop.
Licenses weren't hard; they worked just like a normal lab environment, licensces are obtained from a central license server either on campus or a trusted facility of the software vendor.
As for the malware thing, in order for a laptop to get on the network, it had to prove it was up-to-date each time, and had to prove it was running university-approved, up-to-date anti-malware (provided free by the institute). This worked marginally well with only a few outbreaks.
The downside? Tech support, and lots of it. Students got confused, broke stuff, or generally got mad when things didn't work on the first try. The solution is a tech help desk, staffed by students or well-informed tech support people, where you can simply bring your laptop in and have it checked out by a "professional." That seems to clear up most of the problems.
Art students had little to no trouble, as they all bought macs.:)
I think you've nailed it here -- the only real difference I notice with surround music versus ordinary is that with classical music you get the whole "in the concert hall" feel. That's kinda cool, but not something I'd go out and buy a surround sound system for.
The whole surround-sound music mania smacks of a gimmick to me; something that there is a manufactured "need" for. Since headphones are rapidly becoming the primary listening devices for many consumers I think higher bitrate/better quality (provided their headphones aren't cheap and distorting the hell out of their music) is all people will actually care about when push comes to shove, although I think they could be artificially convinced that surround sound makes music sound better.
You are clearly confused. I was replying to the parent who was asking why permanent magnets are commonly mentioned in connection with proposed PMMs. All I was explaining is the basic idea behind the many proposed manget-powered PMMs and I said nothing about this article referring to a PMM.
The reason for all the commotion about permanent magnets is their seemingly unending supply of energy. From a simplistic point of view, this could mean an easy path to a PMM. Example: you can envision putting a magnet on your fridge. It sticks until you take it off. Put a piece of paper on your fridge, it just slides to the ground. The magnet has to exert force all the time to keep itself from falling, right? What if we could harness this incessant force somehow? Great Scott, we'd have a perpetual motion machine!
Of course, in real life this doesn't work because a constant magnetic field doesn't actually do any work -- a changing magnetic field does, but you need to sustain this change somehow, which does take work.
So to sum it up, it's highly unlikely that permanent magnets are secretly PMMs just waiting to be discovered.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the same hype as when phone chat rooms came out, that pedophiles were going to run wild and eat children alive, and kids would be able to play "phone pranks" while running loose in the street, drunk at 2 a.m. while having unprotected sex with seven STD-infested prostitutes. It's all nonsense, cooked up to sell magazines.
Anyway, good call.
Finally you and your PC can be friends again! ;)
The results? They loved it. (Now, admittedly, this was because 99% of things worked from the start, but let me continue). Things made much more sense in Linux compared with windows. The GNOME interface was cleaner, nicer, and more "comfortable."
Why did they all switch back to XP then? Well, simple -- it was the little things. Lots of MSIE-only websites don't work at all (think MTV.com). It's hard to do simple things like preview CDs on Amazon.com. All the latest flash movies at Newgrounds.com don't work because they all require Flash 8. Openoffice is slow, crashes, is confusing, and has no grammar checking. There is no Macromedia flash editor for linux. When they find a cool little app they'd like to try online, it's always a ".exe". None of their cool new games run on Linux. In the end, Linux was like that gimmicky flashlight: an impulse buy. Fun for a weekend and then into the drawer, never to be seen again.
What's the real problem here? Simple: Things are built to work on Windows. Corporations and the public at large build everything to be solely dependent on Windows. Even my old college's student website (necessary to log into practically every day) worked only in Internet Explorer. I think this is the real issue.
Content providers need to get off their Microsoft addiction if Linux is going to move forward, because pure emulation is tough and rarely perfect. Unfortunately weaning companies from their Windope will probably never happen, they're hopelessly addicted.
I think this is why Nintendo is doing so well, they're focusing on new ways to involve the player (in the TV case, the viewer) and new methods of interaction as opposed to the rest of the market, which is saying "BETTER GRAPHICS!" at the top of their lungs, hoping consumers will buy it. I don't care if in Gran Turismo 9 I can see the leather pattern of my car seat or I have reflective glass in my dashboard. Or if I can see droplets of blood when I shoot someone in an FPS. FPS games have lately been linear and monotonous. Run into a room, shoot someone, run into another room, shoot some more people...repeat for 8 hours, finish.
My point is, the entertainment industry is just peddling more crap hoping they can manufacture a need for it when in reality things have pretty much capped as far as necessary graphical quality (IMHO).
Oh, and when it doesn't sell because it's hopelessly crippled by DRM and provides no new content or value, they will just blame "those damned pirates." If it does sell, they'll just say "see, DRM makes those pirates helpless! We need more DRM!"
Bastards.
The difference is, when I am in the mall and I start shouting about Holomorphic Aliens (or whatever) while wearing tinfoil helmet (sorry, obl.) I can see everyone staring at me. I can watch the policeman come up and ask me to leave. I know when I am making public records because I have to physically interact with someone or something in order for that record to be made.
On the internet, the lines between private and public become very hazy, and it's all too easy to silently peek at supposedly "private" information. There needs to be clearer lines between public and private otherwise infringement is free and undetectable.
Example? E-mails are today's snail mail, except opening others' e-mails is a snap, whereas the snaily counterpart requires much more serious reasons and makes a loud noise (metaphorically).
This time, though, I don't think they want anyone knowing exactly how their mining code works, lest someone figure out a way to wreak havoc on the system. For example, the idea of someone making records invisible to the data miner probably has them spooked (I know, code it well and this'll never happen, but you can "never be too careful"). Just my two cents.
You're taking the intelligent route and making them pay for them on their own, though, so that's a step in the right direction.
Generally the feedback was students liked the mobility but hated being forced into buying a laptop.
Licenses weren't hard; they worked just like a normal lab environment, licensces are obtained from a central license server either on campus or a trusted facility of the software vendor.
As for the malware thing, in order for a laptop to get on the network, it had to prove it was up-to-date each time, and had to prove it was running university-approved, up-to-date anti-malware (provided free by the institute). This worked marginally well with only a few outbreaks.
The downside? Tech support, and lots of it. Students got confused, broke stuff, or generally got mad when things didn't work on the first try. The solution is a tech help desk, staffed by students or well-informed tech support people, where you can simply bring your laptop in and have it checked out by a "professional." That seems to clear up most of the problems.
Art students had little to no trouble, as they all bought macs. :)
The whole surround-sound music mania smacks of a gimmick to me; something that there is a manufactured "need" for. Since headphones are rapidly becoming the primary listening devices for many consumers I think higher bitrate/better quality (provided their headphones aren't cheap and distorting the hell out of their music) is all people will actually care about when push comes to shove, although I think they could be artificially convinced that surround sound makes music sound better.
You are clearly confused. I was replying to the parent who was asking why permanent magnets are commonly mentioned in connection with proposed PMMs. All I was explaining is the basic idea behind the many proposed manget-powered PMMs and I said nothing about this article referring to a PMM.
The reason for all the commotion about permanent magnets is their seemingly unending supply of energy. From a simplistic point of view, this could mean an easy path to a PMM. Example: you can envision putting a magnet on your fridge. It sticks until you take it off. Put a piece of paper on your fridge, it just slides to the ground. The magnet has to exert force all the time to keep itself from falling, right? What if we could harness this incessant force somehow? Great Scott, we'd have a perpetual motion machine! Of course, in real life this doesn't work because a constant magnetic field doesn't actually do any work -- a changing magnetic field does, but you need to sustain this change somehow, which does take work. So to sum it up, it's highly unlikely that permanent magnets are secretly PMMs just waiting to be discovered.