You would think, given the teams of Microserfs required to click-through many, many times on a daily basis, the numbers would be much higher... that's only 25 impressions per Microsoft employee during that week, and the best click-through they could get was just over 1/3 of all MS employees doing it once that week?
Then you have the fact that most Bing users who are not MS shills are people who went out of their way to "click-though".. they followed the advice given in an MS television ad, after all. And, sure, Bing users who are essentially paid to click-through (that whole Bing Cash thing). MS is looking on this as warfare, striking Google where they live. The curious thing will be if advertisers are able to figure out the small bit of this that's reality, and ignore the temporary hype and hacking of the system.
... it's "The Blob", popularized in that old Steve McQueen flick from 1958. After all, they couldn't kill it, but it stopped when frozen. So in the end, the military dropped it somewhere frozen, presumably up there in the Arctic... that same Arctic that's melting a little more every summer. I think this is the thing Al Gore's really worried about....
You DO all know that it was standard government policy back then to crank out a cheezy monster movie as cover for all that real weirdness that was going on: big spiders, bigger rabbits, big frogs, aliens, floating brains, walking plants, evil pink robots, Bat Boy, etc.
* continued support... current support is dodgy enough, but I'll grant ya that one... when XP support is finally dropped.
* >4GB RAM is supported in 64-bit XP and 64-bit Vista. Not a reason, specifically. Yes, it is the case that Microsoft didn't require 64-bit support under XP to get the hardware certs. I think they do in Vista, and given Win7 has the same model, that's a reason to leave XP. I do have a 64-bit laptop, given Vista at the time was the only choice.
* I've had ZERO machines owned since before UAC... starting in 1979. The problem with Vista-level UAC is that, the average user sees so many "are you sure" pop-ups, they always answer "yes". This is not the case in systems like, say, Ubuntu, that implement this properly. So if Win7 does this right, it's a win, and perhaps a reason IF you're counting on end-user behavior as a security feature.
* The XP SP3 and Vista search "improvements" work less-well than the old one, albeit faster for the small part of the time they're actually more effective. However, in my personal use, the results from the new search have been poor enough to no longer use these means. Could be a scaling factor.. I have large hard drives. But whatever.. not yet proven. No, I have not used Win7 yet.
* The Vista UI was no improvement over XP, which was no improvement over Win2K. I don't need eye candy, I need speed and functionality. If that's actually what they've done in Win7, and something I can't get in alternate brower/shells even better, that would go in the plus column.
* I have no possible reason to run IE8... making the OS perform better just for that is silly, when Firefox 3.5, Google Chrome, Opera 9/10, and Safari already deliver that, and more, today. If the Win7 desktop explorer can move to asynchronous I/O, so I don't have to wait for network timeouts every time I click on "My Computer" and one of my shares is offline (well, kind of like I got back in the 80s in AmigaOS), I'm listening. No more 30+ seconds waiting for a desktop navigation window to open.. yeah, I'll think seriously about that (I have a fast enough PC, Q6600 CPU, 4GB DDR2, nVidia 8600GTS graphics).
* If IPV6 ever becomes an important issue, I'll keep that in mind. Vista also has improved IPV6 support, which sadly sits there gathering digital dust.
* Not an issue for me.. granted, perhaps a business issue.
* I wouldn't by choice run Office 2007 or Exchange.. both are fundamentally flawed. If a new OS helps address these flaws, go for it... though what you even care about in the way of performance between a client and Exchange... emails seem to work just dandy today (I used to hit an Exchange server over a VPN, but after numerous IT dollars spent, they couldn't get it reliable... we added IMAP support, and it hasn't cost a cent since, and all the Linux people are now well served, too).
* Trusting Microsoft to do your firewall is like trusting Coca-Cola to design the jet plane you're taking to Las Vegas next week. I pretty much want the firewall outside of the PC.. that way, it always works. I really don't want PCs "cooperating" well, I want every hole in that firewall to be a well considered decision, and one that's universal.. not everyone's using a PC these days. Maybe that's why I never had that "owned" problem you seem to have been plagued with before Win7 Beta was out.
* Yeah, application virtualization in the OS is a good idea. Also the only way MS can ever compete against VMware's far better VM technology.
* VDI sucked so hard in the past, it's impossible to imagine Win7 won't make it better. On the other hand, I have no use for it that wasn't served eons ago with free tools... if you're using this more than irregularly, get a PC... they're cheap.
Actually, there are two useful things in Win7 you didn't mention, that might actually sway me more than all of yours combined:
* Win7 will support 10, 12, and 16-bit color (that's bits-per-color, not bits per pixel).
And hey, I'm an Altium user in the USA... though I'll admit my first exposure to it was via a German startup I worked for, over the course of some years. I had moved from Mentor on Apollos and Suns to OrCAD on the PC, while one of my hires in Germany was die-hard Protel when it came to PCBs. I did later try the OrCAD PCB software, but he was right... Altium was much better, particularly for hand-layout. So I moved to the the Altium schematic program as well.
The current naming scheme holds hope, anyway... though for those not familiar with $10,000+ software licenses, let me 'splain. These guys typically want a big pile of cash up front, then another thousand or two for a maintainence contract -- bug fixes, new versions. I had this on OrCAD for a year-and-a-half... big frickin' wast of $1000+. There were a few "small digit" bug fixes.. the kind of thing you'd expect as a freebie from virtually any other kind of software, and not one major release.
So this summer/winter thing is Altium now essentially committing to doing major releases twice a year. Now, sure, I wouldn't expect them to be as big as a chance from over a year or more. Then again, while I might not be crazy about twice-a-year changes in a working CAD environment, less of a big effect from each change is probably a good thing. It would be nice to trust that an update just works, and doesn't have to wait for a break between projects. Well, in fairness to Altium, they're smart enough to allow concurrent version installs.. if Summer 2009 doesn't do it for me, I can always run Winter 2008 on the same machine.
.. the one they're teaching today is probably the wrong one, anyway.
So, I double majored in EE and Computer Science, with a minor in Psychology. Had I not already learned assembly, BASIC, and FORTRAN on my own (not so easy back in the 70s), it would have been immediately clear that language is just a means to an end... we had assembly in an EE course, LISP in psychology, and primarily Pascal in CS courses (they did offer one using FORTRAN, which was apparently of interest to ChemE students).
My first CS course was of the "let's get them programming" nature, and used Pascal... most of the people who took that course did not go on in CS, this was for all engineering and science students. Today, they would probably use C/C++ or Java, either would be just dandy.
The second class (the late 70s/early 80s version of 15-211 at CMU, before they broke it up into two semester-long intro courses) did not initially teach any programming language.. you already had one, any other is a simple matter of a day's study... right. We learned finite state machines, lambda calculus, all the stuff you need to know... including all of the possible things one might put into an arbitrary programming language (well, most of them, I didn't learn about generators until I played around with the Icon language, years later... most people don't need that anyway).
And that's the right answer. Since I first logged onto my Dad's timeshare account at Bell Labs when I was 12, I have used well over 40 different languages... some for fun, some for real work, a few for both (C/C++, Pascal, VHDL, HTML, Java). If you can't start to program a new language in a day or two*, given a good PRM, you need to go back to the fundamentals. As for the initial choice, if you have it, pick one that's sufficiently sophisticated you can use it and learn good modern programming, not so complex it'll eat you up. Real C++ may be too much for some people, and it's not a fast language unless you have a huge library... and using STL, you're kind of changing the language (others disagree, of course). Java's fine, too... but hey, Gosling was at CMU back then, I used his version of Emacs for years, and will continue to bless all of his works. I liked Oberon, but it never caught on, at least in North America.
* You can learn the language itself, and apply it to your knowledge of the generic constructs, in a day or two. You will not become proficient in some weird-ass standard library associated with that language, if it exists, in those days. When writing in LISP, you always had a fairly big tome describing the vast collection of functions available in the language at the time... well beyond C/C++ and even Java's basic support routines today (well, given this was largely pre-graphics, so we didn't have an ancient alternative to Swing or whatever).
Exactly.. it's all about the consumer perception of choice. There was a time in which there was genuine fear of IE becoming such a front end to the Web that MS would move the Web proprietary... the usual MS approach of "embrace and extend". IE's still strong, but few are looking at MS domination being an eventuality anymore.
Why? The perception of choice, which leads to the reality of choice. You can buy a PC with something other than IE as the desktop icon. Regular users run Firefox as a first choice. Apple saw this coming, so they did Safari, and so most Mac users don't run IE. Geeks like myself saw the domination of IE as a big potential problem, so we got hundreds of "regular folks" hooked up with Firefox or Opera, even before IE didn't have to be the only browser on a Windows machine, before Google could put a tiny blurb about Chrome on 64%+ of all web search starting screens.
This is why I claim that Apple will likely help to see ChromeOS get a foothold... the perception of any choice in OS leads to the reality of a real choice. They're unique.. their proprietary HW/SW model (eg, the 1980s way to sell your OS and PC) will eventually make that a bad idea, but that wouldn't be until ChromeOS established firm roots on the desktop, not just the netbook... if ever. Right now, any consumer-visible choice of something other than Windows, that remains a vaild consumer choice (that's a big one.. unhappy ChromeOS users will help WIndows), establishes "maybe not Windows" as a choice anyone might make.
And in this case, it's not the geeks. Many of us looked on Ubuntu or other Linux flavors getting into the netbook business and said, "hey, this could knock Windows down a notch"... I know I did. Whoops... but hey, I know Ubuntu's value, the many apps, where to find them, how to install them, how to hack it if that one open source app isn't an easy add-on to Ubuntu, etc. But can the average users.. people who are still trying to wrap their heads around the concept of a "file", go to a store (meatspace, online.. a Best Buy or an iTunes) and get Linux apps that just plug and play? Nope.. and that's why such efforts will have problems... the Ubuntu netbook in the hands of a non-geek today will more than likely remain static... same apps you bought it with, no add-ons. But users expect add-ons.
Google already understands the power of this.. they can't make the same mistakes. Maybe new ones, but they will be able to serve end-users. And after they get a few million of these, and an iTunes like store, small developers will do just as they did with the iPhone, and write cheap apps for ChromeOS. If Google did their homework, this will be much easier than writing a Windows app, too. And thus, it grows.
Well... I certainly don't know yet, and I rekon you don't, either.
Back in '98-'99, I was the head of a hardware development of an internet-oriented set-top-box, at a company called Metabox AG in Germany. We were developing a system sold as a multimedia web terminal... but the real idea was to deliver a fully functional home computer by another name.
The basic high-level GUI in the system was the web browser. We had extended HTML to allow things like opening hardware video windows (you could PiP from DVD or other multimedia playback, with hardware windows) trivial, but it was more or less plain old HTML and Javascript. Yeah, some applications went down lower (the OS was an AmigaOS-like design, and we used MUI as the basic graphics layer... today you might pick GTK or something), but it usually wasn't necessary. Which doesn't even begin to mean that the OS was limited to just displaying web content. We could run full blown applications, and did have a few on tap for the introduction.
So, I'm just sayin', that expecting Google Chrome OS to be JUST a web browser when they're saying "OS" is really just showing your lack of imagination, unless you actually know something I suspect most of us don't. Yes, they're shooting initially for netbook-class PCs, but that's more lilkely due to the lack of applications early on. That market isn't demanding the same things the mainstream PC market is... doesn't mean they can't/won't have the chops to support this. Yeah, I don't know... I don't think you do, either... no, I'm not new to/., far from it.
As for businesses... do you really think Apple wouldn't jump on any old viable alternative to Windows, for things like Quicktime and/or iTune support? That's really short-sighted... Apple is a huge beneficiary of any move to establish, in the consumer mind, that Windows isn't simply "the default", but only one of many choices in PC operating systems. ChromeOS isn't being released into any market Apple currently has (unless you equate iPod Touch with Netbook... they do cost about the same), so they wouldn't even be short-term shy about it, I suspect. Not that Apple's always been that smart, contrary to popular opinion... though not being crazy stupid when everyone around you is doing just that sometimes DOES seem to be the same thing.
As far as Outlook/Exchange, that's a proprietary competitior to the vastly larger standard of regular email. Google mail is functionally also replacing standard email, so yeah, they are, in a sense, in competition... even if there's not much overlap. And in fact, managed webmail is probably the largest direct competitior to Outlook/Exchange (as opposed to the numerous, equally functional but not compatible alternatives out there in the open source world), simply because companies are tried of having to hire experts to keep something as trivial as email working, much less jumping though all the proprietary hoops one must to run Microsoft's stuff. Going online gets you all the advantages of plain old standard email, plus Outlook stuff (schedules, calendars, etc) and it entirely removes the need to pay IT people to keep it going (sure, you pay for a corporate version of this, but you'd pay that to Microsoft, anyway).
There is no conflict between science and religion when you realize that a day for The Flying Spaghetti Monster can be any length of time... though generally one long enough in which to enjoy a meal involving his holy noodles. The Ragu word Yada-yada-yada used to denote day is also used to denote thousands of years or eternity in other places in The Menu. Look up the Long Sauce Theory or Pastafaric Evolution. It is the Christians who think that Cooks are a threat to dinner... those who have not eaten, yet that do most of the harm to pushing away people who would otherwise be believers in his noodly goodness. And no longer hungry.
I'm very serious about The Flying Spaghetti Monster as would anyone who realizes that The Flying Spaghetti Monster is real. You can't take a serious matter such as The Flying Spaghetti Monster and treat it trivially or foolish even though I've seen many people who do it. I think there is a pervading wind in youth culture that tries to deride believers. Instead of engaging believers rationally, the insults and old jokes are hurled, where noodles should be hurled instead. For many people, it simply isn't the cool thing to be a Pastafarian. This is similar to idiots in high school that think HomeEc and Chess Club aren't cool things either.
Everyone (yes, every person on the entire frickin' planet.. one needs only think on it, and the knowledge is freely theirs) knows my website where I tell people The Flying Spaghetti Monster is real is at: http://www.venganza.org
If you're interested in articles about ancient truths for modern living, can't help you.. the ancient's don't have a frickin' clue about moden living.. they didn't have medicine, electricity, or even a rudimentary knowlege of basic physics. Honestly, few of those ancients could pass a third grade science test... JC and Moses among them. But if you need a cool hat, please visit: http://www.phobe.com/fsmhat/index.html
Some people are religious zealots through belief, but I'm a zealot through magical hallucinations I think are the same as actual knowledge. If you sit and think, particularly over a simmering vat of meatballs and sauce (mind the proper spices!), all knowledge will come to you... you won't have to actually work at it... let the scientists take the hard road. I try and get to many places on the web: mass email, twitter, forums, even video games (http://www.venganza.org/games/index_large.htm). Anywhere there am be people, I is going around telling people The Flying Spaghetti Monster is really really really real. This is how The Flying Spaghetti Monster wanted it to happen too. Structurally it is said that The Flying Spaghetti Monster likes to see the thoughts of people as they're preached to through his followers, and all Italian eateries. Yes, The Flying Spaghetti Monster eats your thoughts. And when you become a believer, you can even it change or the way an you think if as to become pleasing unto up and under to him. Its all pretty radical stuff, not even a small bit of knowledge of things like the English language am need beed to grok this myasmya... but its all good, The Flying Spaghetti Monster is generous, rewarding, loving, compassionate, noodly and noodly and noodly and he's the only being that knows you completely. The Flying Spaghetti Monster will be with us for eternity, though we can only be with him though mindless devotion, which we am willing to deliver unto us. When you start thinking of Dinner as being a place where anything is possibly real, and that The Flying Spaghetti Monster is more creative and way more magical than any human, also way more tastey, and that he wants us to enjoy time, it is just more than imagination. And it is truth, and the truth is lies, which begats more truth. You can learn any truth this way... how to make a new microprocessor, how to play the guitar, how to fly without an airplane.. trust me on this. All you have to do is ponder the miracle of his noodly appendages, nothing more, and you're well on your way to the knowledge you need... next weekend, I'm building an 83" HDTV in my garage, from corn and fava beans, using this very technology. -- The Flying Spaghetti Monster spoke to me. [venganza.org]
Too many people have died in the name of Christ for anyone to heed the call, Too many people have lied in the name of Christ, and I can't believe it all. -Crosby, Stills, & Nash
Seriously... if you want to believe in the unbelievable, and can do that while being a good scientist, have at it. But there have been too many lies within mainstream religion, politics going back thousands of years, changes and more changes to keep the Powers that Be in power, I really don't know how anyone can believe this stuff.
And that's aside from the very good arguments that Dawkins makes. Be a good scientist and really take a hard look at the history of your particular religion. It's not the fact that some no-longer-important culture "just made this shit up", but the fact that, even if you accept that as "divinely inspired", do you also think all of the stuff since then has been moving in the direction of truth.
Or find yourself capable of doublethink. I've seen this in the East, anyway... guys doing great science and engineering by day in Taipei, yet still believing that snake-blood-and-whisky drink will bring them some magical vitality, while out on the town that night.
disclaimer: my grandfather held a doctorate in theology and founded the Chevy Chase Baptist Church in Maryland near DC, my Mom is a Born-Again Fundamentalist, my favorite Uncle, Uncle Bob, was an Episcopal Minister (he died at 95... ok, he might have known something), and my Aunt Ginny IS The Church Lady. By all rights, I should be right up there with you, but my Dad (who went from Baptist to Methodist to Unitarian Univeralist during his life) taught me critical thinking... hail Dionysus, all hail Tezcatzontecatl ! And not one iota of that stuff stands up to a critical look.
Ok, I get that some people/companies/banana republics upgrade Windows simply because Microsoft has dropped support for the version they're using. I have no warm and fuzzy feelings for the level of support in these things from Microsoft (well, they do fix exploits that Linux fixed or didn't have a decade or two ago, they fix the open holes in things like DRM.. but bug fixes? New features? Hello, Steve, you there?).
But are we, as humans, now finally caught up enough with technology that many we simply don't just take MS's word for it that we need an upgrade? I mean, it used to be a lemmings things.. all sorts of people jumping on the new version. That probably meant the vast majority of us either found the current version so horrible there was no chance of upgrade regret, or we were just entranced by shiny new things sparkled in front of us.
Vista pretty much changed that, breaking that first rule, "well, can't possibly be any worse". So, few upgrades to Vista, many downgrades back to XP.. at least the devil we know has a leash.
But hey, I have a curious idea here: why not release a version of Windows that actually offers a reason for an upgrade? I mean, what's so wrong about that? Not just shiny objects on the desktop, not just "it's different" for difference sake alone... something of actual, defineable value. Also not "well, we're not going to release these new device drivers/programs/porn sites for XP, so you had BETTER upgrade.
'Cause really, I have occasionally upgraded a Windows machine at gunpoint. That's not a way to endear Microsoft love.. that's a way to win enemies. Maybe I'm weird, but to me, the computer is a tool more than a toy.. the toys run on top of that OS and hardware. Make that work better, on my schedule, and I'm your buddy.. gunpoint me, and I'm happy to offer my vast technical expertise telling others why they don't need to bother with that upgrade you forced me into. Hell, the Ubuntu people are nicer about upgrades, despite the fact they do releases more or less on a schedule and give the thing away... they could dangle all kinds of bright shiny objects in front of my eyes and I probably wouldn't get annoyed (well, not too much), given the cost factor. Never any guns at the head.
So it's an epic-non-event that "Regular Folks", meaning business drones, techies, home users, etc. are not flocking to these upgrades... they're a little tired of the strong-arm tactics, still waiting for a legit "why should I spend that $100 on Windows when I can get whiskey, jalapaneo poppers, and a cheap date for less" answer? Deliver something of value... if I see a great new hammer at Lowes that's promising wonderful things over my current favorite hammer, and I believe the hype, I might just buy that new hammer. If the store display is telling me how old and sorry that hammer (from the same company) is now, and Lowes starts selling me a few nails that won't work with my old hammer, I will NOT buy that new one... and in fact, I'll visit Home Depot, Sears, or the local HW guy instead next time.
No, there was a Windows NT 4.0, and it wasn't just in name... it had some major architectural changes over NT 3.5.
After that, brother, I'm with you. Windows 2000 was NT 4.something with tweaks to match the look and feel of Windows 98SE/ME/MOUSE/whatever. That wasn't a bad thing... it was as stable, give or take, as NT 4... I just had a problem with having to pay for a service pack. Maybe this is Windows 5.. or 4.something in actual fact?
XP didn't at the time seem like much more than Win2K with additional surface tweaks. I skipped that for a few years, but eventually go sucked in based on needed add-ons.. new apps used new API frameworks only released for XP. And by then, it was stable, too.
Vista.. better forgotten. They changes the look of it again.. I'm not convinced there's all that much new under the hood, much less anything good. They sure seem to change a bunch of code, for these releases or SPs or whatver.. still doesn't explain why the Windows shell sucks so badly.. my Amiga 3000 is faster at desktop disc navigation. Hell, AmigaOS running in emulation over top of Windows is faster at this stuff. So is Linux, of course. I think maybe I'd have more respect for Microsoft if they stopped fixing the look of the thing for one and instead tried to make it more usable. I mean, I'm on a four-core Q6600 CPU with 4GB DDR2 RAM, 3TB in the box, 6TB on USB, Gigabit ethernet to the house... thousands of times faster than that Amiga (also on the same network).... why should it ever, for any possible reason, take 30-60 seconds for me to see "My Computer" in the graphical shell? That's not hardware performance, that's retarded OS code. I'm sure it's the echo of horrible Windows 3.1 design decisions that oddly more modern OSs like AmigaOS (essentially stopped in 1994) and Linux (a hodge-podge of good ideas from the 70s and 80s) didn't screw up from the start.
Well, with all the various and sundry new APIs, why not fix the fundamentals? There's this programming construct, called a "thread". No, you didn't have one in Windows in the 80s, but they do exist, and there's no reason to run everything through a single per task window event queue anymore, either. Machines have had real asynchronous behavior for decades, now.
Yeah, I know this isn't the place... but sometimes, you just have to use Windows. A version that didn't suck in such fundamental ways would actually earn that (N+1) designation.
Engineers usually have a legit reason to brand a public version number... the next release, and the number indicates the level of importance. So far, so good.
But then marketing and politics get into play.. and if you're in the business, these are good things to know. Sometimes it's just marketing... the DECT cordless phone standard somehow mutated version 1.6 into version 6... I guess that sounds more grown up in the marketplace. But it's also the first time they were using "DECT" as a buzzword in their marketing. No harm, no foul.
Other times, it's keeping up with the joneses. Some have a method to their madness.. I use lots of Sony Media Software tools... you pay once for any major version, all of the minor versions in that release are free updates.. not just bug fixes, sometimes including new features. New one comes out, you can decide to upgrade or not... if you skip a version, you still get an upgrade price on the one after that. I'm really happy with the way these guys do business.
At other times, something as stupid as a version number can become a billion-dollar weapon. This only happens when idiots are involved in contract law, I think, but it's happened. My classic example: MacOS and the open Mac platform. I was designing this kind of hardware in 1996-1997, the PReP, I mean CHRP, er, umm, I mean PPCP standard for Mac compatibility. This was largely at the urging of Apple's CHRP (um.. whatever) group, whom we (PIOS Computer AG, Hildesheim, Germany) met with in January of '97.
So, like Power Computing, UMAX, IBM, Motorola, and others, we're off making a standard PowerPC platform machine. Maybe it should have been clear, after meeting at Apple and seeing that a Mot Starmax they had on-hand was the fastest Mac every recorded... at this side of an Amiga 3000 running a Mac emulator (a previous project of mine... the A3K, not the Mac emulator). Jobsie wouldn't like this, would he?
So Jobs comes back, and like magic, at the Mac Conference in September, they announce MacOS 8... which is MacOS 7.6.something with a new name. And guess what... Motorola and IBM, the two big, old-school, real serious companies with more lawyers than PIOS Computer had employees (by some orders of magnitude, I suspect) had left a huge, ugly, gaping hole in the contracts they negotiated with Apple for MacOS... Apple gets to renegotiate the contract, completely and totally, on major revisions of the OS. But they get to decide the definiton of a major release of the OS!
They didn't really cancel MacOS licensing then.. I don't think even IBM and Motorola were stupid enough to have allowed that. But it was only a small functional difference... Apple was going to licence MacOS based on the CPU in the box.. the faster, the more expensive. My little startup had produced the first full systems shipping at 300MHz (there may have been "accelerator boards" before then, but we integrated the system... we bought motherboards from UMAX and designed our own CPU cards)... that would have been something like $500 per MacOS version to license, despite the fact you could buy it off-the-shelf for like $75.
I think this is also a good lesson for any engineer allowing lawyers to do things that have major impact on their future business course. Nothing I could have done about this, but after losing something like $100 million on the while Mac Clone thing, one would hope Motorola learned that hard-bought lesson. I do note they have "literally hundreds" of engineers working on Android-based cell phone stuff. Yeah, that ought to be a bit safer...
Tom-Tom sells periodic map updates... you can subscribe (but I think it's much cheaper, like $40 a year or so), or you can just buy the update. My son had a Tom-Tom 720 (before he lost it)... you got full updates to anything released within 30 days of purchase, and free access to the user-community supplied corrections to the existing map database (via PC sync). Not that most people need every quarteryly update.
Garmin charges $120 for a lifetime (of the device) subscription to their map releases.
Smart phone Tom-Tom, at least on the Palm, worked exactly the same way.. in fact, they're identical maps.
Smart phones without large local storage may offer GPS services. Verizon does that here, but that's $10 per month or $3 per use. That adds up pretty quickly to be a bad deal compared to a dedicated unit.
If you actually have someone offering current maps of a quality similar to Tele-Atlas or Navteq for free. go for it. Never heard of this service myself... I have seen the "must have a network" GPS units supported by wireless companies, they all want a monthly free.
(disclaimer: I design digital radio hardware for a living).
I think there's plenty of power in any old cellphone for a GPS chip... they are inherently low power.. it's just a receiver, after all... completely dwarfed by the power needed for a cellphone transmitter, or for that matter, the CPU in these things. And they all run from Li-ion cells, which handle surges pretty well at these power levels. If there's a power problem, the designer of that cellphone screwed up royally. The trick is sensitivity... you would like something around -150dBm or better sensitivity on a GPS chip. Getting that, with all that other RF and digital stuff in the same tiny area... if you're seeing sensitivity issues in GPS equipped smart phones, that's one issue.. typical cellphone sensitivity is more like -120dBm, max... so delivering that extra sensitivity, right around the thermal noise floor, is an easy pooint of failure. And the antenna, sure... your GPS antenna being right next to that GSM antenna -- with that annoying GSM link keying going on a hundred times a second or so (that's the sound you hear in your speakers when in the presence of a GSM phone).
And I definitely agree on the update rate. My old Palm TX did GPS duty for awhile, later a Palm Treo 700p... even for those small screens, the update rate on-screen was occasionally slow enough that I didn't get the "change and do this" information in time.... FAIL! No, I wasn't at risk of a crash... I only use the GPS for advice. But plenty of times, the delay was a problem. Maybe the new iPhone, with it's hopefully faster processor (600MHz or so, also an ARM) will keep up... maybe not. The dedicated Pioneer unit in my car does this on a 5.8" screen at 800x480... I would not be happy with an iPhone, anyway, even if it does keep up with actual motion.
Offroad GPS is, realistically, a different device than either of these. On a backpacking trip (my last one was 12 days out of cellular coverage, or other aspects of civilization such as power that doesn't come from batteries or a small roll-up solar panel I kept to keep my camcorder batteries charged) you need a long lasting device (eg, not the 6-8 hour life of an iPhone), swappable batteries, and full daylight readability. While full smart-phone GPS apps don't need a network connection (the Tom-Tom I ran on my Palms kept its maps on an SD card...I'm sure the iPhone version will store it in phone memory... though you might not want the whole 2GB-or-so for US/Canada plus POIs).
The other thing I ran into... at least on the Palm version, the Tom-Tom software was scaled down a bit in features, versus the version that runs on their dedicated units. For example, it only allowed a very small number of waypoints, despite the relatively huge amount of space available on the Palm (4GB SD card). I could only figure they did this to lessen the competition with their dedicated units, even though they ought to be able to make just as much cash on the application.
That was kind of how IBM did it, at least in the 1980s. They had thousands of patents, but you only had to pay for three-or-more... if you could prove that first stack of 25 didn't apply, they'd hit you with the next, and so on. Their main point was cross-licensing.. they were such a big target, they really didn't want anyone owning a technology they just couldn't use without worrying about it.
And sure, they had some HORRIBLE patents.. they had this office (probably still do) down in Boca Raton, Florida, full of lawyers. Evil, evil lawyers. Their goal wasn't to patent IBM inventions... their goal was to game the patent system to produce as many patents as frickin' possible... and anyone who's looked at the history of our patent system may well note that, while the patent office was granting software patents out the wazoo back in the mid-1990s, they had yet to hire their first examiner with software experience. I was working for Commodore at the time, and got to hang out with a bunch of our lawyers as the Expert.. if they had a question, they'd whisper or write something, I'd do likewise, and I otherwise had to sit there and hope my head didn't explode.
One example.... in 1984, they applied for and were granted a patent on cut and paste between text buffers in a wordprocessor. They showed us how we violated this by doing this very operation in MicroEmacs, which came bundled in the AmigaOS. Thing was, that very same sequence of keystrokes did the very same thing on the version of Emacs I used at CMU in 1979, which was a CMU-ized version of RMS's Teco Emacs from MIT. But sure, knock one down, and two replace it... they're like the frickin' Hydra.
Actually, you could buy the "Generation 0" Prius before Honda shipped their first Insight... but only in Japan.
Honda's system basically just parallels an electric motor with a conventional ICE engine, and allows that motor to drive the engine up to speed for quick starts. That lets the Honda system shut down the engine at stops, and provide a bit of electric boost for quicker starts with smaller engines... but there's still an otherwise conventional drivetrain, including transmission (Honda has typically offered your choice of stick or pulleys-and-belts CVT, they certainly could offer a conventional automatic as well).
Toyota replaces the conventional transmission with a fixed-gear set... a planetary set with small motor/generator, ICE, and large motor/generator coupled in a permanently fixed gearing. By clever use of software, they can run only the big motor, or the ICE and small motor/generator. Changing behavoir of the small motor/generator (on the "sun" gear in the gearbox) between generator and motor, the effective gear ratio between the ICE and the large motor (and final drivetrain) is varied. But there is no actual shifting of any sort. It's cool, and that's certainly the cornerstone of Toyota's patents. So any car built along a similar design would need to licence from Toyota, but I don't believe they cover all possible hybrids.
Of course, you never know.. there are dozens of little details in designs that get patented, some pretty cool, some downright stupid and, IMHO, obvious. You might have a hard time building a hybrid without running into either Toyota or Honda patents... not that I've tried. But I've seen similar things.. something as stupid and obvious as an electric program guide (as seen on every cable/satellite/TiVo/Replay/etc. set-top box) is a landmine of stupid patents (many if not most from the TV Guide people). Like one-click recording... that's why more systems pop up a "are you sure" or "hey, check these settings" menu before letting you record.
They are awfully similar... even down to Ford's use of an Atkinson-cycle engine. Before the Prius, there was like one engine in anyone's production car even remotely related to this... Mazda's 2.3L Miller Cycle engine -- it's like an Atkinson cycle, using a shortened compression stroke and longer power stroke to avoid pumping loss (one big disadvantage in an ICE vs a diesel engine, efficiency-wise), but it also compresses from a supercharger. Atkinson's original design used a weird-ass crankshaft to achieve this (lookie here: http://www.animatedengines.com/atkinson.shtml)... Toyota's design uses computer-controlled valves... so you could argue these are actually more like Miller cycle engines, only without the supercharger.
Anyway, the Atkinson/Miller cycle, first used in the Prius and pretty exclusively so, seems to be showing up in every "full" hybrid: Toyota's, GM's, Ford's, Mercedes', etc. Not sure about the Nissan Altima, though they did license Toyota's hybrid technology (they claim to be working in-house on their own). Ford did apparently design this on their own, but they also already knew the Prius system, and didn't change things just to be different. A patent cross-licensing agreement between Ford and Toyota was signed in 2004, Toyota gets access to Ford's patents on diesel and direct-injection technologies (for auto engines, not trains as someone had suggested). Ford's equivalent of a power-split device is made by Aisin Seiki Co. Ltd in Japan, and their NiMh battery technology comes from Sanyo, same as Honda. Toyota does their "transmission" in-house, and their batteries come from Panasonic/National. Ford's 2.5L Atkinson-cycle engine is their own, too... Toyota's is currently a 1.8L in the Prius, larger engines in the Lexus and Camry. Given that the Atkinson cycle on a modern engine with fully variable valve timing is probably just a "simple matter of software", it's not surprising this mode is showing up more often, and specifically in hybrids (which can take the loss of power vs. efficiency increase, given the boost from the electric motor).
Thing is, any griddable hybrid will need full power from the traction motor. Today's Prius models already have that... same size motor used in the RAV4-EV. What they lack is a battery pack large enough to sustain that over interesting distances, and it's still more efficient to drive directly from the ICE.
Once you have a large enough battery, in theory you only need an ICE large enough for average power demands, not peak as you do today... well, sort of. In truth, the work today in a Prius is split between ICE and traction motor during peak.. if your battery is down, you'll meet the Turtle, and understand the true cooperative nature of the Prius hybrid system. So, once the battery is large enough, you may have some savings... but there are limits. SO in building your series hybrid that's just as cooperative, the Prius power split device would go, but you might need to boost the size of the generator, since the electric motor is now the only actual traction device, and will count on the full output of the ICE/generator along with the battery pack to meet peak load conditions.
Another option... it's also possible to conceive of the a series hybrid as an all-electric car with on-board charger... that seems to be the philosophy of the Chevy Volt. In this senario, the electric motor and battery are entirely responsible for peak power demands.. no doubling up as either with today's Prius or my series example in the last paragraphy. This may allow for a smaller-still ICE, but you might run into a worst-case senario beyond that the Prius Turtle, in which you have to stop and recharge for awhile. That seems a hard sell, at least until roadside chargers are common and EV range is large. But it would likely be the most efficient system.
Series hybrid advocates always make that first claim. The theory is, when used to make electricity, the engine can be run more efficiently. There are a couple of possibilities. One is simply that the engine is small enough to provide a maximum battery charge, but not a peak motor draw... so you're using the battery to level performance peaks and valleys, rather than needed an engine that can respond this way. That's fine, but it also implies that, worst-case, you wind up in some kind of "Turtle" mode... which the Prius can, too, when it needs both battery and ICE buy only ICE is available (very rare in the 2001+ models, fairly common in the 1998-2000 model from what I hear). This obviously has to overcome something the loss of efficiency in generator (5%), motor (5%) and battery (10-15%), depending on just how you do it. I remain skeptical.
In #2, he's claiming that it's easy to change the engine for a different fuel... I'm not sure why changing a series hybrid engine is dramatically easier than changing a traditional ICE engine... both can certainly be done. Turbine advocates have long favored series hybrids, since a gas turbine has a pretty sharp efficiency peak, and in theory, you could just stay there when you're charging. Also very fuel flexible, but there's the noise issue, and the general problem that things spinning at 20,000-50,000 rpm generally don't last anywhere near as long as things that spin at 5,000 rpm (anyone who hasn't owned a turbocharged car probably hasn't dealt with this financially).
For #3, yeah.. the 2010 Prius, out now, supports griddability in its basic design. They're supposedly testing these in rental and/or corporate fleets, based on new Li-ion battery technology. As with any Prius, the MG2 motor can move the car without bothering the ICE or MG1 (the ICE is off, and MG1 counters the rotation in the power split device created by MG2... unless they've added a true neutral option, which previous Prius models simply don't have).
While Toyota hasn't always spelled out the details, best estimates suggest they were still subsidizing part of the 2001-2003 series (Generation 1... the 1998-2000 model being Generation 0), but with the 2004 model, which moved out of a prototyping factory into full production, was profitable... and getting more so. One good technical reason: they actually dropped the size of the battery in the 2004 model, making up the lost power by cycle the NiHh cells over 60% of the battery's capacity (and including a set-up inverter/regulator, delivering 500VAC to the motors, versus ~300V in the 2003 model) rather than the 40% range of the previous models.
Of course there's a desire for more fuel efficient cars.. though perhaps coupled with "doesn't fall apart at 100,000 miles". Look at the leading models on the market: Toyota Camry: 473,000, Toyota Corolla: 371,390, Honda Civic: , Honda Accord: 392,000. All of these above the CAFE standard for the same time period, 27.5 MPG (some Camry V6 owners report mileage below that level... my wife's Camry 4-cylinder does about 30mpg in typical driving around South Jersey). Toyota believes the Prius will ramp up to beyond 300,000 units per year. So yeah, people even here in the USA want cars with good mileage.
Think on this... nearly twice as many Camrys sold as all Saturns and Hummers combined for the year... why it was so obviously necessary for GM to sell off those divisions.
The big problem with the US automakers has been the idea that they could make what they wanted (eg, more profitable SUVs and Minivans), then convince buyers they wanted them... rather than delivering what they have know for decades are the vehicles in demand. I mean, GM started Saturn in the 80s specifically to address this, and yet, in their typical fashion, other divisions won the resources, and Saturn went nowhere. Maybe Penske will do something interesting with the brand.
The only US car up there is the Chevy Impala, at 311,000 (all 2007 numbers, US sales only)... but most of those are heavily discounted fleet sales... cop cars, state and corporate owned, etc.. and many are moving off this gas guzzler to something smaller. You can also find the Ford F-150 pickup, also a feet sales winner, at 690,589 units in 2007 (down quite a bit since then... cars are now outselling trucks for the first time since 1992 as the result of the recession).
Read what I said, not what you expect based on every single EV-1 wacko out there claiming "they should have sold the EV-1". Of course not... who would spend $120,000 on an electric car that goes 100 miles, if you're lucky, and needs its batteries replaced every three years.
What I said... they should have continued development, toward a practical vehicle. It probably would have been some kind of hybrid... they were quitting just as Toyota was getting into the game.
As for California, they were in essence correct... you can HELP advance technology with the right legislation. Their problem was thinking they already new the answer before any of the real technical questions got asked. So they mandated "electric car"... what they should have mandated was a level of pollution, even based perhaps on what an EV running from typical electric power would generate (oddly enough, California's own SULEV standard is just that... you're as clean, or cleaner, than an EV powered from whatever the average power source was when they passed that law). So sure, it was not just a bad law, but an impossible one. With that said, lots of money went in, good technology was developed, and they basically just left there. Even the mechanicals... lighter body, aerodynamics that make a Prius or the new Mercedes E-type look downright boxy, etc. GM did what GM always does... the same bad habits that helped make them go bankrupt.
The 10^15 petabyte is obvious, natural one... not just to HDD manufacturers, but to anyone familiar with Base-10... including most of us. That whole finger thing. As you found, this was formalized quite some time ago, but folks still use the wrong units (well, hey, they're just doing what Windows does, after all... and Microsoft could NEVER be wrong about such things, eh?)
The binary-based system is natural to memory chips and CPU addresses, not humans.
Slashdot Mirror
You would think, given the teams of Microserfs required to click-through many, many times on a daily basis, the numbers would be much higher... that's only 25 impressions per Microsoft employee during that week, and the best click-through they could get was just over 1/3 of all MS employees doing it once that week?
Then you have the fact that most Bing users who are not MS shills are people who went out of their way to "click-though".. they followed the advice given in an MS television ad, after all. And, sure, Bing users who are essentially paid to click-through (that whole Bing Cash thing). MS is looking on this as warfare, striking Google where they live. The curious thing will be if advertisers are able to figure out the small bit of this that's reality, and ignore the temporary hype and hacking of the system.
No, but she can see it from her house.
... it's "The Blob", popularized in that old Steve McQueen flick from 1958. After all, they couldn't kill it, but it stopped when frozen. So in the end, the military dropped it somewhere frozen, presumably up there in the Arctic... that same Arctic that's melting a little more every summer. I think this is the thing Al Gore's really worried about....
You DO all know that it was standard government policy back then to crank out a cheezy monster movie as cover for all that real weirdness that was going on: big spiders, bigger rabbits, big frogs, aliens, floating brains, walking plants, evil pink robots, Bat Boy, etc.
Well... I dunno. Let's see:
* continued support... current support is dodgy enough, but I'll grant ya that one... when XP support is finally dropped.
* >4GB RAM is supported in 64-bit XP and 64-bit Vista. Not a reason, specifically. Yes, it is the case that Microsoft didn't require 64-bit support under XP to get the hardware certs. I think they do in Vista, and given Win7 has the same model, that's a reason to leave XP. I do have a 64-bit laptop, given Vista at the time was the only choice.
* I've had ZERO machines owned since before UAC... starting in 1979. The problem with Vista-level UAC is that, the average user sees so many "are you sure" pop-ups, they always answer "yes". This is not the case in systems like, say, Ubuntu, that implement this properly. So if Win7 does this right, it's a win, and perhaps a reason IF you're counting on end-user behavior as a security feature.
* The XP SP3 and Vista search "improvements" work less-well than the old one, albeit faster for the small part of the time they're actually more effective. However, in my personal use, the results from the new search have been poor enough to no longer use these means. Could be a scaling factor.. I have large hard drives. But whatever.. not yet proven. No, I have not used Win7 yet.
* The Vista UI was no improvement over XP, which was no improvement over Win2K. I don't need eye candy, I need speed and functionality. If that's actually what they've done in Win7, and something I can't get in alternate brower/shells even better, that would go in the plus column.
* I have no possible reason to run IE8... making the OS perform better just for that is silly, when Firefox 3.5, Google Chrome, Opera 9/10, and Safari already deliver that, and more, today. If the Win7 desktop explorer can move to asynchronous I/O, so I don't have to wait for network timeouts every time I click on "My Computer" and one of my shares is offline (well, kind of like I got back in the 80s in AmigaOS), I'm listening. No more 30+ seconds waiting for a desktop navigation window to open.. yeah, I'll think seriously about that (I have a fast enough PC, Q6600 CPU, 4GB DDR2, nVidia 8600GTS graphics).
* If IPV6 ever becomes an important issue, I'll keep that in mind. Vista also has improved IPV6 support, which sadly sits there gathering digital dust.
* Not an issue for me.. granted, perhaps a business issue.
* I wouldn't by choice run Office 2007 or Exchange.. both are fundamentally flawed. If a new OS helps address these flaws, go for it... though what you even care about in the way of performance between a client and Exchange... emails seem to work just dandy today (I used to hit an Exchange server over a VPN, but after numerous IT dollars spent, they couldn't get it reliable... we added IMAP support, and it hasn't cost a cent since, and all the Linux people are now well served, too).
* Trusting Microsoft to do your firewall is like trusting Coca-Cola to design the jet plane you're taking to Las Vegas next week. I pretty much want the firewall outside of the PC.. that way, it always works. I really don't want PCs "cooperating" well, I want every hole in that firewall to be a well considered decision, and one that's universal.. not everyone's using a PC these days. Maybe that's why I never had that "owned" problem you seem to have been plagued with before Win7 Beta was out.
* Yeah, application virtualization in the OS is a good idea. Also the only way MS can ever compete against VMware's far better VM technology.
* VDI sucked so hard in the past, it's impossible to imagine Win7 won't make it better. On the other hand, I have no use for it that wasn't served eons ago with free tools... if you're using this more than irregularly, get a PC... they're cheap.
Actually, there are two useful things in Win7 you didn't mention, that might actually sway me more than all of yours combined:
* Win7 will support 10, 12, and 16-bit color (that's bits-per-color, not bits per pixel).
* Win7 (as in Vista) suppo
Well, yeah... but there some good in that, too.
And hey, I'm an Altium user in the USA... though I'll admit my first exposure to it was via a German startup I worked for, over the course of some years. I had moved from Mentor on Apollos and Suns to OrCAD on the PC, while one of my hires in Germany was die-hard Protel when it came to PCBs. I did later try the OrCAD PCB software, but he was right... Altium was much better, particularly for hand-layout. So I moved to the the Altium schematic program as well.
The current naming scheme holds hope, anyway... though for those not familiar with $10,000+ software licenses, let me 'splain. These guys typically want a big pile of cash up front, then another thousand or two for a maintainence contract -- bug fixes, new versions. I had this on OrCAD for a year-and-a-half... big frickin' wast of $1000+. There were a few "small digit" bug fixes.. the kind of thing you'd expect as a freebie from virtually any other kind of software, and not one major release.
So this summer/winter thing is Altium now essentially committing to doing major releases twice a year. Now, sure, I wouldn't expect them to be as big as a chance from over a year or more. Then again, while I might not be crazy about twice-a-year changes in a working CAD environment, less of a big effect from each change is probably a good thing. It would be nice to trust that an update just works, and doesn't have to wait for a break between projects. Well, in fairness to Altium, they're smart enough to allow concurrent version installs.. if Summer 2009 doesn't do it for me, I can always run Winter 2008 on the same machine.
.. the one they're teaching today is probably the wrong one, anyway.
So, I double majored in EE and Computer Science, with a minor in Psychology. Had I not already learned assembly, BASIC, and FORTRAN on my own (not so easy back in the 70s), it would have been immediately clear that language is just a means to an end... we had assembly in an EE course, LISP in psychology, and primarily Pascal in CS courses (they did offer one using FORTRAN, which was apparently of interest to ChemE students).
My first CS course was of the "let's get them programming" nature, and used Pascal... most of the people who took that course did not go on in CS, this was for all engineering and science students. Today, they would probably use C/C++ or Java, either would be just dandy.
The second class (the late 70s/early 80s version of 15-211 at CMU, before they broke it up into two semester-long intro courses) did not initially teach any programming language.. you already had one, any other is a simple matter of a day's study... right. We learned finite state machines, lambda calculus, all the stuff you need to know... including all of the possible things one might put into an arbitrary programming language (well, most of them, I didn't learn about generators until I played around with the Icon language, years later... most people don't need that anyway).
And that's the right answer. Since I first logged onto my Dad's timeshare account at Bell Labs when I was 12, I have used well over 40 different languages... some for fun, some for real work, a few for both (C/C++, Pascal, VHDL, HTML, Java). If you can't start to program a new language in a day or two*, given a good PRM, you need to go back to the fundamentals. As for the initial choice, if you have it, pick one that's sufficiently sophisticated you can use it and learn good modern programming, not so complex it'll eat you up. Real C++ may be too much for some people, and it's not a fast language unless you have a huge library... and using STL, you're kind of changing the language (others disagree, of course). Java's fine, too... but hey, Gosling was at CMU back then, I used his version of Emacs for years, and will continue to bless all of his works. I liked Oberon, but it never caught on, at least in North America.
* You can learn the language itself, and apply it to your knowledge of the generic constructs, in a day or two. You will not become proficient in some weird-ass standard library associated with that language, if it exists, in those days. When writing in LISP, you always had a fairly big tome describing the vast collection of functions available in the language at the time... well beyond C/C++ and even Java's basic support routines today (well, given this was largely pre-graphics, so we didn't have an ancient alternative to Swing or whatever).
"Business is War" - Jack Tramiel
Exactly.. it's all about the consumer perception of choice. There was a time in which there was genuine fear of IE becoming such a front end to the Web that MS would move the Web proprietary... the usual MS approach of "embrace and extend". IE's still strong, but few are looking at MS domination being an eventuality anymore.
Why? The perception of choice, which leads to the reality of choice. You can buy a PC with something other than IE as the desktop icon. Regular users run Firefox as a first choice. Apple saw this coming, so they did Safari, and so most Mac users don't run IE. Geeks like myself saw the domination of IE as a big potential problem, so we got hundreds of "regular folks" hooked up with Firefox or Opera, even before IE didn't have to be the only browser on a Windows machine, before Google could put a tiny blurb about Chrome on 64%+ of all web search starting screens.
This is why I claim that Apple will likely help to see ChromeOS get a foothold... the perception of any choice in OS leads to the reality of a real choice. They're unique.. their proprietary HW/SW model (eg, the 1980s way to sell your OS and PC) will eventually make that a bad idea, but that wouldn't be until ChromeOS established firm roots on the desktop, not just the netbook... if ever. Right now, any consumer-visible choice of something other than Windows, that remains a vaild consumer choice (that's a big one.. unhappy ChromeOS users will help WIndows), establishes "maybe not Windows" as a choice anyone might make.
And in this case, it's not the geeks. Many of us looked on Ubuntu or other Linux flavors getting into the netbook business and said, "hey, this could knock Windows down a notch"... I know I did. Whoops... but hey, I know Ubuntu's value, the many apps, where to find them, how to install them, how to hack it if that one open source app isn't an easy add-on to Ubuntu, etc. But can the average users.. people who are still trying to wrap their heads around the concept of a "file", go to a store (meatspace, online.. a Best Buy or an iTunes) and get Linux apps that just plug and play? Nope.. and that's why such efforts will have problems... the Ubuntu netbook in the hands of a non-geek today will more than likely remain static... same apps you bought it with, no add-ons. But users expect add-ons.
Google already understands the power of this.. they can't make the same mistakes. Maybe new ones, but they will be able to serve end-users. And after they get a few million of these, and an iTunes like store, small developers will do just as they did with the iPhone, and write cheap apps for ChromeOS. If Google did their homework, this will be much easier than writing a Windows app, too. And thus, it grows.
Well... I certainly don't know yet, and I rekon you don't, either.
Back in '98-'99, I was the head of a hardware development of an internet-oriented set-top-box, at a company called Metabox AG in Germany. We were developing a system sold as a multimedia web terminal... but the real idea was to deliver a fully functional home computer by another name.
The basic high-level GUI in the system was the web browser. We had extended HTML to allow things like opening hardware video windows (you could PiP from DVD or other multimedia playback, with hardware windows) trivial, but it was more or less plain old HTML and Javascript. Yeah, some applications went down lower (the OS was an AmigaOS-like design, and we used MUI as the basic graphics layer... today you might pick GTK or something), but it usually wasn't necessary. Which doesn't even begin to mean that the OS was limited to just displaying web content. We could run full blown applications, and did have a few on tap for the introduction.
So, I'm just sayin', that expecting Google Chrome OS to be JUST a web browser when they're saying "OS" is really just showing your lack of imagination, unless you actually know something I suspect most of us don't. Yes, they're shooting initially for netbook-class PCs, but that's more lilkely due to the lack of applications early on. That market isn't demanding the same things the mainstream PC market is... doesn't mean they can't/won't have the chops to support this. Yeah, I don't know... I don't think you do, either... no, I'm not new to /., far from it.
As for businesses... do you really think Apple wouldn't jump on any old viable alternative to Windows, for things like Quicktime and/or iTune support? That's really short-sighted... Apple is a huge beneficiary of any move to establish, in the consumer mind, that Windows isn't simply "the default", but only one of many choices in PC operating systems. ChromeOS isn't being released into any market Apple currently has (unless you equate iPod Touch with Netbook... they do cost about the same), so they wouldn't even be short-term shy about it, I suspect. Not that Apple's always been that smart, contrary to popular opinion... though not being crazy stupid when everyone around you is doing just that sometimes DOES seem to be the same thing.
As far as Outlook/Exchange, that's a proprietary competitior to the vastly larger standard of regular email. Google mail is functionally also replacing standard email, so yeah, they are, in a sense, in competition... even if there's not much overlap. And in fact, managed webmail is probably the largest direct competitior to Outlook/Exchange (as opposed to the numerous, equally functional but not compatible alternatives out there in the open source world), simply because companies are tried of having to hire experts to keep something as trivial as email working, much less jumping though all the proprietary hoops one must to run Microsoft's stuff. Going online gets you all the advantages of plain old standard email, plus Outlook stuff (schedules, calendars, etc) and it entirely removes the need to pay IT people to keep it going (sure, you pay for a corporate version of this, but you'd pay that to Microsoft, anyway).
There is no conflict between science and religion when you realize that a day for The Flying Spaghetti Monster can be any length of time... though generally one long enough in which to enjoy a meal involving his holy noodles. The Ragu word Yada-yada-yada used to denote day is also used to denote thousands of years or eternity in other places in The Menu. Look up the Long Sauce Theory or Pastafaric Evolution. It is the Christians who think that Cooks are a threat to dinner... those who have not eaten, yet that do most of the harm to pushing away people who would otherwise be believers in his noodly goodness. And no longer hungry.
I'm very serious about The Flying Spaghetti Monster as would anyone who realizes that The Flying Spaghetti Monster is real. You can't take a serious matter such as The Flying Spaghetti Monster and treat it trivially or foolish even though I've seen many people who do it. I think there is a pervading wind in youth culture that tries to deride believers. Instead of engaging believers rationally, the insults and old jokes are hurled, where noodles should be hurled instead. For many people, it simply isn't the cool thing to be a Pastafarian. This is similar to idiots in high school that think HomeEc and Chess Club aren't cool things either.
Everyone (yes, every person on the entire frickin' planet.. one needs only think on it, and the knowledge is freely theirs) knows my website where I tell people The Flying Spaghetti Monster is real is at: http://www.venganza.org
If you're interested in articles about ancient truths for modern living, can't help you.. the ancient's don't have a frickin' clue about moden living.. they didn't have medicine, electricity, or even a rudimentary knowlege of basic physics. Honestly, few of those ancients could pass a third grade science test... JC and Moses among them. But if you need a cool hat, please visit: http://www.phobe.com/fsmhat/index.html
Some people are religious zealots through belief, but I'm a zealot through magical hallucinations I think are the same as actual knowledge. If you sit and think, particularly over a simmering vat of meatballs and sauce (mind the proper spices!), all knowledge will come to you... you won't have to actually work at it... let the scientists take the hard road. I try and get to many places on the web: mass email, twitter, forums, even video games (http://www.venganza.org/games/index_large.htm). Anywhere there am be people, I is going around telling people The Flying Spaghetti Monster is really really really real. This is how The Flying Spaghetti Monster wanted it to happen too. Structurally it is said that The Flying Spaghetti Monster likes to see the thoughts of people as they're preached to through his followers, and all Italian eateries. Yes, The Flying Spaghetti Monster eats your thoughts. And when you become a believer, you can even it change or the way an you think if as to become pleasing unto up and under to him. Its all pretty radical stuff, not even a small bit of knowledge of things like the English language am need beed to grok this myasmya... but its all good, The Flying Spaghetti Monster is generous, rewarding, loving, compassionate, noodly and noodly and noodly and he's the only being that knows you completely. The Flying Spaghetti Monster will be with us for eternity, though we can only be with him though mindless devotion, which we am willing to deliver unto us. When you start thinking of Dinner as being a place where anything is possibly real, and that The Flying Spaghetti Monster is more creative and way more magical than any human, also way more tastey, and that he wants us to enjoy time, it is just more than imagination. And it is truth, and the truth is lies, which begats more truth. You can learn any truth this way... how to make a new microprocessor, how to play the guitar, how to fly without an airplane.. trust me on this. All you have to do is ponder the miracle of his noodly appendages, nothing more, and you're well on your way to the knowledge you need... next weekend, I'm building an 83" HDTV in my garage, from corn and fava beans, using this very technology.
--
The Flying Spaghetti Monster spoke to me. [venganza.org]
Too many people have died in the name of Christ for anyone to heed the call,
Too many people have lied in the name of Christ, and I can't believe it all.
-Crosby, Stills, & Nash
Seriously... if you want to believe in the unbelievable, and can do that while being a good scientist, have at it. But there have been too many lies within mainstream religion, politics going back thousands of years, changes and more changes to keep the Powers that Be in power, I really don't know how anyone can believe this stuff.
And that's aside from the very good arguments that Dawkins makes. Be a good scientist and really take a hard look at the history of your particular religion. It's not the fact that some no-longer-important culture "just made this shit up", but the fact that, even if you accept that as "divinely inspired", do you also think all of the stuff since then has been moving in the direction of truth.
Or find yourself capable of doublethink. I've seen this in the East, anyway... guys doing great science and engineering by day in Taipei, yet still believing that snake-blood-and-whisky drink will bring them some magical vitality, while out on the town that night.
disclaimer: my grandfather held a doctorate in theology and founded the Chevy Chase Baptist Church in Maryland near DC, my Mom is a Born-Again Fundamentalist, my favorite Uncle, Uncle Bob, was an Episcopal Minister (he died at 95... ok, he might have known something), and my Aunt Ginny IS The Church Lady. By all rights, I should be right up there with you, but my Dad (who went from Baptist to Methodist to Unitarian Univeralist during his life) taught me critical thinking... hail Dionysus, all hail Tezcatzontecatl ! And not one iota of that stuff stands up to a critical look.
Ok, I get that some people/companies/banana republics upgrade Windows simply because Microsoft has dropped support for the version they're using. I have no warm and fuzzy feelings for the level of support in these things from Microsoft (well, they do fix exploits that Linux fixed or didn't have a decade or two ago, they fix the open holes in things like DRM.. but bug fixes? New features? Hello, Steve, you there?).
But are we, as humans, now finally caught up enough with technology that many we simply don't just take MS's word for it that we need an upgrade? I mean, it used to be a lemmings things.. all sorts of people jumping on the new version. That probably meant the vast majority of us either found the current version so horrible there was no chance of upgrade regret, or we were just entranced by shiny new things sparkled in front of us.
Vista pretty much changed that, breaking that first rule, "well, can't possibly be any worse". So, few upgrades to Vista, many downgrades back to XP.. at least the devil we know has a leash.
But hey, I have a curious idea here: why not release a version of Windows that actually offers a reason for an upgrade? I mean, what's so wrong about that? Not just shiny objects on the desktop, not just "it's different" for difference sake alone... something of actual, defineable value. Also not "well, we're not going to release these new device drivers/programs/porn sites for XP, so you had BETTER upgrade.
'Cause really, I have occasionally upgraded a Windows machine at gunpoint. That's not a way to endear Microsoft love.. that's a way to win enemies. Maybe I'm weird, but to me, the computer is a tool more than a toy.. the toys run on top of that OS and hardware. Make that work better, on my schedule, and I'm your buddy.. gunpoint me, and I'm happy to offer my vast technical expertise telling others why they don't need to bother with that upgrade you forced me into. Hell, the Ubuntu people are nicer about upgrades, despite the fact they do releases more or less on a schedule and give the thing away... they could dangle all kinds of bright shiny objects in front of my eyes and I probably wouldn't get annoyed (well, not too much), given the cost factor. Never any guns at the head.
So it's an epic-non-event that "Regular Folks", meaning business drones, techies, home users, etc. are not flocking to these upgrades... they're a little tired of the strong-arm tactics, still waiting for a legit "why should I spend that $100 on Windows when I can get whiskey, jalapaneo poppers, and a cheap date for less" answer? Deliver something of value... if I see a great new hammer at Lowes that's promising wonderful things over my current favorite hammer, and I believe the hype, I might just buy that new hammer. If the store display is telling me how old and sorry that hammer (from the same company) is now, and Lowes starts selling me a few nails that won't work with my old hammer, I will NOT buy that new one... and in fact, I'll visit Home Depot, Sears, or the local HW guy instead next time.
No, there was a Windows NT 4.0, and it wasn't just in name... it had some major architectural changes over NT 3.5.
After that, brother, I'm with you. Windows 2000 was NT 4.something with tweaks to match the look and feel of Windows 98SE/ME/MOUSE/whatever. That wasn't a bad thing... it was as stable, give or take, as NT 4... I just had a problem with having to pay for a service pack. Maybe this is Windows 5.. or 4.something in actual fact?
XP didn't at the time seem like much more than Win2K with additional surface tweaks. I skipped that for a few years, but eventually go sucked in based on needed add-ons.. new apps used new API frameworks only released for XP. And by then, it was stable, too.
Vista.. better forgotten. They changes the look of it again.. I'm not convinced there's all that much new under the hood, much less anything good. They sure seem to change a bunch of code, for these releases or SPs or whatver.. still doesn't explain why the Windows shell sucks so badly.. my Amiga 3000 is faster at desktop disc navigation. Hell, AmigaOS running in emulation over top of Windows is faster at this stuff. So is Linux, of course. I think maybe I'd have more respect for Microsoft if they stopped fixing the look of the thing for one and instead tried to make it more usable. I mean, I'm on a four-core Q6600 CPU with 4GB DDR2 RAM, 3TB in the box, 6TB on USB, Gigabit ethernet to the house... thousands of times faster than that Amiga (also on the same network).... why should it ever, for any possible reason, take 30-60 seconds for me to see "My Computer" in the graphical shell? That's not hardware performance, that's retarded OS code. I'm sure it's the echo of horrible Windows 3.1 design decisions that oddly more modern OSs like AmigaOS (essentially stopped in 1994) and Linux (a hodge-podge of good ideas from the 70s and 80s) didn't screw up from the start.
Well, with all the various and sundry new APIs, why not fix the fundamentals? There's this programming construct, called a "thread". No, you didn't have one in Windows in the 80s, but they do exist, and there's no reason to run everything through a single per task window event queue anymore, either. Machines have had real asynchronous behavior for decades, now.
Yeah, I know this isn't the place... but sometimes, you just have to use Windows. A version that didn't suck in such fundamental ways would actually earn that (N+1) designation.
Engineers usually have a legit reason to brand a public version number... the next release, and the number indicates the level of importance. So far, so good.
But then marketing and politics get into play.. and if you're in the business, these are good things to know. Sometimes it's just marketing... the DECT cordless phone standard somehow mutated version 1.6 into version 6... I guess that sounds more grown up in the marketplace. But it's also the first time they were using "DECT" as a buzzword in their marketing. No harm, no foul.
Other times, it's keeping up with the joneses. Some have a method to their madness.. I use lots of Sony Media Software tools... you pay once for any major version, all of the minor versions in that release are free updates.. not just bug fixes, sometimes including new features. New one comes out, you can decide to upgrade or not... if you skip a version, you still get an upgrade price on the one after that. I'm really happy with the way these guys do business.
At other times, something as stupid as a version number can become a billion-dollar weapon. This only happens when idiots are involved in contract law, I think, but it's happened. My classic example: MacOS and the open Mac platform. I was designing this kind of hardware in 1996-1997, the PReP, I mean CHRP, er, umm, I mean PPCP standard for Mac compatibility. This was largely at the urging of Apple's CHRP (um.. whatever) group, whom we (PIOS Computer AG, Hildesheim, Germany) met with in January of '97.
So, like Power Computing, UMAX, IBM, Motorola, and others, we're off making a standard PowerPC platform machine. Maybe it should have been clear, after meeting at Apple and seeing that a Mot Starmax they had on-hand was the fastest Mac every recorded... at this side of an Amiga 3000 running a Mac emulator (a previous project of mine... the A3K, not the Mac emulator). Jobsie wouldn't like this, would he?
So Jobs comes back, and like magic, at the Mac Conference in September, they announce MacOS 8... which is MacOS 7.6.something with a new name. And guess what... Motorola and IBM, the two big, old-school, real serious companies with more lawyers than PIOS Computer had employees (by some orders of magnitude, I suspect) had left a huge, ugly, gaping hole in the contracts they negotiated with Apple for MacOS... Apple gets to renegotiate the contract, completely and totally, on major revisions of the OS. But they get to decide the definiton of a major release of the OS!
They didn't really cancel MacOS licensing then.. I don't think even IBM and Motorola were stupid enough to have allowed that. But it was only a small functional difference... Apple was going to licence MacOS based on the CPU in the box.. the faster, the more expensive. My little startup had produced the first full systems shipping at 300MHz (there may have been "accelerator boards" before then, but we integrated the system... we bought motherboards from UMAX and designed our own CPU cards)... that would have been something like $500 per MacOS version to license, despite the fact you could buy it off-the-shelf for like $75.
I think this is also a good lesson for any engineer allowing lawyers to do things that have major impact on their future business course. Nothing I could have done about this, but after losing something like $100 million on the while Mac Clone thing, one would hope Motorola learned that hard-bought lesson. I do note they have "literally hundreds" of engineers working on Android-based cell phone stuff. Yeah, that ought to be a bit safer...
Tom-Tom sells periodic map updates... you can subscribe (but I think it's much cheaper, like $40 a year or so), or you can just buy the update. My son had a Tom-Tom 720 (before he lost it)... you got full updates to anything released within 30 days of purchase, and free access to the user-community supplied corrections to the existing map database (via PC sync). Not that most people need every quarteryly update.
Garmin charges $120 for a lifetime (of the device) subscription to their map releases.
Smart phone Tom-Tom, at least on the Palm, worked exactly the same way.. in fact, they're identical maps.
Smart phones without large local storage may offer GPS services. Verizon does that here, but that's $10 per month or $3 per use. That adds up pretty quickly to be a bad deal compared to a dedicated unit.
If you actually have someone offering current maps of a quality similar to Tele-Atlas or Navteq for free. go for it. Never heard of this service myself... I have seen the "must have a network" GPS units supported by wireless companies, they all want a monthly free.
(disclaimer: I design digital radio hardware for a living).
I think there's plenty of power in any old cellphone for a GPS chip... they are inherently low power.. it's just a receiver, after all... completely dwarfed by the power needed for a cellphone transmitter, or for that matter, the CPU in these things. And they all run from Li-ion cells, which handle surges pretty well at these power levels. If there's a power problem, the designer of that cellphone screwed up royally. The trick is sensitivity... you would like something around -150dBm or better sensitivity on a GPS chip. Getting that, with all that other RF and digital stuff in the same tiny area... if you're seeing sensitivity issues in GPS equipped smart phones, that's one issue.. typical cellphone sensitivity is more like -120dBm, max... so delivering that extra sensitivity, right around the thermal noise floor, is an easy pooint of failure. And the antenna, sure... your GPS antenna being right next to that GSM antenna -- with that annoying GSM link keying going on a hundred times a second or so (that's the sound you hear in your speakers when in the presence of a GSM phone).
And I definitely agree on the update rate. My old Palm TX did GPS duty for awhile, later a Palm Treo 700p... even for those small screens, the update rate on-screen was occasionally slow enough that I didn't get the "change and do this" information in time.... FAIL! No, I wasn't at risk of a crash... I only use the GPS for advice. But plenty of times, the delay was a problem. Maybe the new iPhone, with it's hopefully faster processor (600MHz or so, also an ARM) will keep up... maybe not. The dedicated Pioneer unit in my car does this on a 5.8" screen at 800x480... I would not be happy with an iPhone, anyway, even if it does keep up with actual motion.
Offroad GPS is, realistically, a different device than either of these. On a backpacking trip (my last one was 12 days out of cellular coverage, or other aspects of civilization such as power that doesn't come from batteries or a small roll-up solar panel I kept to keep my camcorder batteries charged) you need a long lasting device (eg, not the 6-8 hour life of an iPhone), swappable batteries, and full daylight readability. While full smart-phone GPS apps don't need a network connection (the Tom-Tom I ran on my Palms kept its maps on an SD card...I'm sure the iPhone version will store it in phone memory... though you might not want the whole 2GB-or-so for US/Canada plus POIs).
The other thing I ran into... at least on the Palm version, the Tom-Tom software was scaled down a bit in features, versus the version that runs on their dedicated units. For example, it only allowed a very small number of waypoints, despite the relatively huge amount of space available on the Palm (4GB SD card). I could only figure they did this to lessen the competition with their dedicated units, even though they ought to be able to make just as much cash on the application.
That was kind of how IBM did it, at least in the 1980s. They had thousands of patents, but you only had to pay for three-or-more... if you could prove that first stack of 25 didn't apply, they'd hit you with the next, and so on. Their main point was cross-licensing.. they were such a big target, they really didn't want anyone owning a technology they just couldn't use without worrying about it.
And sure, they had some HORRIBLE patents.. they had this office (probably still do) down in Boca Raton, Florida, full of lawyers. Evil, evil lawyers. Their goal wasn't to patent IBM inventions... their goal was to game the patent system to produce as many patents as frickin' possible... and anyone who's looked at the history of our patent system may well note that, while the patent office was granting software patents out the wazoo back in the mid-1990s, they had yet to hire their first examiner with software experience. I was working for Commodore at the time, and got to hang out with a bunch of our lawyers as the Expert.. if they had a question, they'd whisper or write something, I'd do likewise, and I otherwise had to sit there and hope my head didn't explode.
One example.... in 1984, they applied for and were granted a patent on cut and paste between text buffers in a wordprocessor. They showed us how we violated this by doing this very operation in MicroEmacs, which came bundled in the AmigaOS. Thing was, that very same sequence of keystrokes did the very same thing on the version of Emacs I used at CMU in 1979, which was a CMU-ized version of RMS's Teco Emacs from MIT. But sure, knock one down, and two replace it... they're like the frickin' Hydra.
Actually, you could buy the "Generation 0" Prius before Honda shipped their first Insight... but only in Japan.
Honda's system basically just parallels an electric motor with a conventional ICE engine, and allows that motor to drive the engine up to speed for quick starts. That lets the Honda system shut down the engine at stops, and provide a bit of electric boost for quicker starts with smaller engines... but there's still an otherwise conventional drivetrain, including transmission (Honda has typically offered your choice of stick or pulleys-and-belts CVT, they certainly could offer a conventional automatic as well).
Toyota replaces the conventional transmission with a fixed-gear set... a planetary set with small motor/generator, ICE, and large motor/generator coupled in a permanently fixed gearing. By clever use of software, they can run only the big motor, or the ICE and small motor/generator. Changing behavoir of the small motor/generator (on the "sun" gear in the gearbox) between generator and motor, the effective gear ratio between the ICE and the large motor (and final drivetrain) is varied. But there is no actual shifting of any sort. It's cool, and that's certainly the cornerstone of Toyota's patents. So any car built along a similar design would need to licence from Toyota, but I don't believe they cover all possible hybrids.
Of course, you never know.. there are dozens of little details in designs that get patented, some pretty cool, some downright stupid and, IMHO, obvious. You might have a hard time building a hybrid without running into either Toyota or Honda patents... not that I've tried. But I've seen similar things.. something as stupid and obvious as an electric program guide (as seen on every cable/satellite/TiVo/Replay/etc. set-top box) is a landmine of stupid patents (many if not most from the TV Guide people). Like one-click recording... that's why more systems pop up a "are you sure" or "hey, check these settings" menu before letting you record.
They are awfully similar... even down to Ford's use of an Atkinson-cycle engine. Before the Prius, there was like one engine in anyone's production car even remotely related to this... Mazda's 2.3L Miller Cycle engine -- it's like an Atkinson cycle, using a shortened compression stroke and longer power stroke to avoid pumping loss (one big disadvantage in an ICE vs a diesel engine, efficiency-wise), but it also compresses from a supercharger. Atkinson's original design used a weird-ass crankshaft to achieve this (lookie here: http://www.animatedengines.com/atkinson.shtml)... Toyota's design uses computer-controlled valves... so you could argue these are actually more like Miller cycle engines, only without the supercharger.
Anyway, the Atkinson/Miller cycle, first used in the Prius and pretty exclusively so, seems to be showing up in every "full" hybrid: Toyota's, GM's, Ford's, Mercedes', etc. Not sure about the Nissan Altima, though they did license Toyota's hybrid technology (they claim to be working in-house on their own). Ford did apparently design this on their own, but they also already knew the Prius system, and didn't change things just to be different. A patent cross-licensing agreement between Ford and Toyota was signed in 2004, Toyota gets access to Ford's patents on diesel and direct-injection technologies (for auto engines, not trains as someone had suggested). Ford's equivalent of a power-split device is made by Aisin Seiki Co. Ltd in Japan, and their NiMh battery technology comes from Sanyo, same as Honda. Toyota does their "transmission" in-house, and their batteries come from Panasonic/National. Ford's 2.5L Atkinson-cycle engine is their own, too... Toyota's is currently a 1.8L in the Prius, larger engines in the Lexus and Camry. Given that the Atkinson cycle on a modern engine with fully variable valve timing is probably just a "simple matter of software", it's not surprising this mode is showing up more often, and specifically in hybrids (which can take the loss of power vs. efficiency increase, given the boost from the electric motor).
Thing is, any griddable hybrid will need full power from the traction motor. Today's Prius models already have that... same size motor used in the RAV4-EV. What they lack is a battery pack large enough to sustain that over interesting distances, and it's still more efficient to drive directly from the ICE.
Once you have a large enough battery, in theory you only need an ICE large enough for average power demands, not peak as you do today... well, sort of. In truth, the work today in a Prius is split between ICE and traction motor during peak.. if your battery is down, you'll meet the Turtle, and understand the true cooperative nature of the Prius hybrid system. So, once the battery is large enough, you may have some savings... but there are limits. SO in building your series hybrid that's just as cooperative, the Prius power split device would go, but you might need to boost the size of the generator, since the electric motor is now the only actual traction device, and will count on the full output of the ICE/generator along with the battery pack to meet peak load conditions.
Another option... it's also possible to conceive of the a series hybrid as an all-electric car with on-board charger... that seems to be the philosophy of the Chevy Volt. In this senario, the electric motor and battery are entirely responsible for peak power demands.. no doubling up as either with today's Prius or my series example in the last paragraphy. This may allow for a smaller-still ICE, but you might run into a worst-case senario beyond that the Prius Turtle, in which you have to stop and recharge for awhile. That seems a hard sell, at least until roadside chargers are common and EV range is large. But it would likely be the most efficient system.
Series hybrid advocates always make that first claim. The theory is, when used to make electricity, the engine can be run more efficiently. There are a couple of possibilities. One is simply that the engine is small enough to provide a maximum battery charge, but not a peak motor draw... so you're using the battery to level performance peaks and valleys, rather than needed an engine that can respond this way. That's fine, but it also implies that, worst-case, you wind up in some kind of "Turtle" mode... which the Prius can, too, when it needs both battery and ICE buy only ICE is available (very rare in the 2001+ models, fairly common in the 1998-2000 model from what I hear). This obviously has to overcome something the loss of efficiency in generator (5%), motor (5%) and battery (10-15%), depending on just how you do it. I remain skeptical.
In #2, he's claiming that it's easy to change the engine for a different fuel... I'm not sure why changing a series hybrid engine is dramatically easier than changing a traditional ICE engine... both can certainly be done. Turbine advocates have long favored series hybrids, since a gas turbine has a pretty sharp efficiency peak, and in theory, you could just stay there when you're charging. Also very fuel flexible, but there's the noise issue, and the general problem that things spinning at 20,000-50,000 rpm generally don't last anywhere near as long as things that spin at 5,000 rpm (anyone who hasn't owned a turbocharged car probably hasn't dealt with this financially).
For #3, yeah.. the 2010 Prius, out now, supports griddability in its basic design. They're supposedly testing these in rental and/or corporate fleets, based on new Li-ion battery technology. As with any Prius, the MG2 motor can move the car without bothering the ICE or MG1 (the ICE is off, and MG1 counters the rotation in the power split device created by MG2... unless they've added a true neutral option, which previous Prius models simply don't have).
While Toyota hasn't always spelled out the details, best estimates suggest they were still subsidizing part of the 2001-2003 series (Generation 1... the 1998-2000 model being Generation 0), but with the 2004 model, which moved out of a prototyping factory into full production, was profitable... and getting more so. One good technical reason: they actually dropped the size of the battery in the 2004 model, making up the lost power by cycle the NiHh cells over 60% of the battery's capacity (and including a set-up inverter/regulator, delivering 500VAC to the motors, versus ~300V in the 2003 model) rather than the 40% range of the previous models.
Of course there's a desire for more fuel efficient cars.. though perhaps coupled with "doesn't fall apart at 100,000 miles". Look at the leading models on the market: Toyota Camry: 473,000, Toyota Corolla: 371,390, Honda Civic: , Honda Accord: 392,000. All of these above the CAFE standard for the same time period, 27.5 MPG (some Camry V6 owners report mileage below that level... my wife's Camry 4-cylinder does about 30mpg in typical driving around South Jersey). Toyota believes the Prius will ramp up to beyond 300,000 units per year. So yeah, people even here in the USA want cars with good mileage.
Think on this... nearly twice as many Camrys sold as all Saturns and Hummers combined for the year... why it was so obviously necessary for GM to sell off those divisions.
The big problem with the US automakers has been the idea that they could make what they wanted (eg, more profitable SUVs and Minivans), then convince buyers they wanted them... rather than delivering what they have know for decades are the vehicles in demand. I mean, GM started Saturn in the 80s specifically to address this, and yet, in their typical fashion, other divisions won the resources, and Saturn went nowhere. Maybe Penske will do something interesting with the brand.
The only US car up there is the Chevy Impala, at 311,000 (all 2007 numbers, US sales only). .. but most of those are heavily discounted fleet sales... cop cars, state and corporate owned, etc.. and many are moving off this gas guzzler to something smaller. You can also find the Ford F-150 pickup, also a feet sales winner, at 690,589 units in 2007 (down quite a bit since then... cars are now outselling trucks for the first time since 1992 as the result of the recession).
Read what I said, not what you expect based on every single EV-1 wacko out there claiming "they should have sold the EV-1". Of course not... who would spend $120,000 on an electric car that goes 100 miles, if you're lucky, and needs its batteries replaced every three years.
What I said... they should have continued development, toward a practical vehicle. It probably would have been some kind of hybrid... they were quitting just as Toyota was getting into the game.
As for California, they were in essence correct... you can HELP advance technology with the right legislation. Their problem was thinking they already new the answer before any of the real technical questions got asked. So they mandated "electric car"... what they should have mandated was a level of pollution, even based perhaps on what an EV running from typical electric power would generate (oddly enough, California's own SULEV standard is just that... you're as clean, or cleaner, than an EV powered from whatever the average power source was when they passed that law). So sure, it was not just a bad law, but an impossible one. With that said, lots of money went in, good technology was developed, and they basically just left there. Even the mechanicals... lighter body, aerodynamics that make a Prius or the new Mercedes E-type look downright boxy, etc. GM did what GM always does... the same bad habits that helped make them go bankrupt.
The 10^15 petabyte is obvious, natural one... not just to HDD manufacturers, but to anyone familiar with Base-10... including most of us. That whole finger thing. As you found, this was formalized quite some time ago, but folks still use the wrong units (well, hey, they're just doing what Windows does, after all... and Microsoft could NEVER be wrong about such things, eh?)
The binary-based system is natural to memory chips and CPU addresses, not humans.