Title
I remember first seeing one of those Microsoft adverts that bleated about "interoperability" like the management had just found a new term that sounds cool.
I had to check the date. Nope, definitely wasn't April 1st.
3500 publicly visible posts • joined 22 Apr 2007
I'm reminded of a somewhat apocryphal story. An engineer, faced with a broken computer.
So he tested the power supply. The motherboard. He had every component out on the table, tracing lines and trying to fix the problem for hours.
His young apprentice came along, popped the back off of the plug, and replaced the blown fuse.
So, sometimes a little knowledge can be dangerous. It's alright being smug and superior, until it's your machine that gets owned. Demand a license for computers, and my machine will go the same way as the TV. Either that or I'll be using the thing illegally. Besides, your ISP's TOS is already an "Internet License". You fuck with the ISP or let your machine become a peadoporn-hosting bot, they cut you off - in principle.
As you can see, it works quite well!!!!1
See here's the problem with analogies: Your computer is not a car. Your router is not a house. The Internet is not a series of tubes.
Until you can show how I can drive my computer at 40mph into a crowd of schoolchildren, I think the idea of a license to use one will be somewhere between "idiocy" and "lunacy". You really think it'll stop boxes getting owned?
I've got a G4 Power Mac sitting upstairs. It has a blown PSU. My desktop machine has a 500w PSU in it that's about the same age and has been chugging away happily for years.
If my PC's PSU blows, I spend maybe £50 at most and get a new one.
A new G4 PSU? That'll be between £150 and £200 please. Same shape, same size, same basic construction, same cheap Chinese manufacturer, but it has a different pin-out for the motherboard plug and a 28v line. "Think Different" my arse.
Just so long as a human has the ultimate authority. I'm reminded of a well-known video of a fly-by-wire passenger aircraft crashing and killing its test crew because the pilot decided to do a low pass at an inkling under 100 feet. The computer was programmed with something like "if (Avionics.altitude < 100){land_now()}" - it performed a perfect landing right into the tree line, despite the pilot's rather ineffectual pulling on the control column.
Computers are only as good as the program they run!
Let's clue you in here:
I don't do the whole Google Dashboard thing. Set and forget, that's me. Last time I even logged into the thing was months ago. I do Google Talk via Pidgin for one person who's paranoid enough to use OTR, but not paranoid enough to give Google a wide berth. So, I don't get the dashboard notifications.. I just get a buddy list.
So I log in yesterday, and what a surprise, Google have got a big splash up saying "TRY BUZZ! (go on, please)". So I tell it to GTFO, go to look up some email that someone insisted on sending to a Googlemail account that I hardly use and only got because people were telling me how lolwonderful it is.
Today, I log in again after checking this story. Now, I'm on dial-up Internet here, so most of the time I use the Basic HTML version of Google Mail. Under Basic HTML, you don't get the "buzz" option on the left-side menu. For some reason though - maybe I was feeling masochistic - I decided to let the horrific, bloated "standard" version load. What do I find?
That's right. Despite clearly opting out once already, I AM A PART OF THE BUZZ PHENOMENON! So, I've found the "turn off buzz" link and clicked that. Time will only tell if opt out really means "opt out until some other way of exposing my details to the public becomes available".
Oh well, offense is the best defense so they say. My profile will soon be laced with so much profanity and political incorrectness it'll make a fisherman's wife blush. Fuck you, Google.
I've been opening .docx for months on my crusty old copy of OO.o 3.0. Office 2007 has been claiming ODF support (and never loading even simple documents right) for about the same length of time.
Most of the time I'll just make things in PortableOO. It works, it exports as PDF, and it doesn't have a crappy ribbon UI - even if it does try to be "clever" like MS Office (FFS, if I want a numbered list, I will tell you to make a numbered list!)
He's going to end up like Arnold Rimmer, the cool version. All of these alternative Bastards, screwing up the multiverse in their own unique ways.
Either that or the PFY is now the BOFH and a new PFY will be appointed. Sort of like the Sith.
Whatever happens I'm sure it'll be fun finding out.
The Wii is a toy, and the Ipod little more than. The Ipad on the other hand, is supposed to be.. well, what is it supposed to be? A big Ipod? A Tablet PC?
If it's the former then fine. If it's the latter, then before I buy it I want to know that I can scrub whatever is on it, install my own choice of OS and use it as.. well.. a real computer. Anything else is just a toy.
C'mon Jobs, I'm heading for University soon. Give me something that'll last a whole lecture on battery and won't take a big chunk out my my student loan. With a bluetooth keyboard, the Ipad could have been it, and what's more is it could have been my first bona-fide, fruity-logo Mac.
As it is, I guess it's the EeePC for me.
Absolutely. Hence, why I grabbed the emergency cord halfway through the trip - err, product life cycle - and legged it before the conductor could catch me. Now I've got more chance of catching leprosy than buying WGA-crippled software. Or Steam for that matter.
Life is good.
...between the Jesusphone and the Penguinphone, let's see..
Apple: Requires you own a Mac with a more recent version of OS X to develop on it. Good if you have a bottomless wallet. Tough shit if you only have Tiger.
Google: SDK available for Windows, Mac and Linux.
Apple: Works on the Ipod Touch, Iphone and Ipod Maxi (sorry, Ipad).
Google: Works on a fuckzillion Android handsets out there and increasing.
Apple: Uses "Objective C", and an Apple-specific version at that.
Google: Uses Java. You know, that tiny thing that nobody has ever heard of?
..I'm sure that there are other ways in which Android provides a hell of a lot more choice than anything Apple will ever do, but for now I think the above is probably most important to app developers. I'm no fanboi, I don't even have a "smart" phone (nor see the need for one). What I have been doing though, coincidentally, is perusing through the app developer sites for both because someone at the college I'm studying wants to develop Iphone apps.
He doesn't have a Mac.
...and others. Please try implementing the above using only HTML4 or XHTML 1.0 Strict, CSS and Javascript.
I look forward to requiring a Cray supercomputer to run the thing.
Sure, you can do a lot more with DHTML now than you could do, but until HTML5, SVG and all the rest of it become standards supported by Internet Explorer, silly web games will require Flash.
Fortunately, Silverlight doesn't seem to have caught on, at least.
It's "oleophobic". Assuming it's also hydrophobic, this should cover most of the, ahem, substances, that will be getting sponged off of an Ipad.
Though from what I've seen, some people won't even be requiring the porn to achieve that kind of soiling.
Paris, because she's oleophilic.
<<2001: OS X was mocked as a sub OS, some even said it copied windows>>
I don't recall this. I was working with PC World (yes, yes, I know) for two and a half years, and plenty of customers were going "ooh" and "aah" and playing with the shiny Mac toys... before going and spending a quarter of the price on something by HP or e-machines. The mac fans were predictably shooting their proverbial loads all over it. I don't recall anyone saying "it's a sub OS".
<<2001: the iPod was ridiculed as a failure that will hurt apple>>
Really, no.
<<2005: The iPhone was laughed at and ElReg predicted that it will fail and fail badly>>
As above.. though personally when I want a phone, I want something that makes phone calls. With, you know, buttons?
<<2010: iPad, the same dribble is being repeated over again.>>
We will see. The mac fans will gobble it up like they always do, but I don't see masses of people being converted from a laptop to what is effectively a huge Ipod touch. I mean what is it? A computer or a media player? It's way too large to be the latter, and way too restricted to be the former. Plus it doesn't run Windows.
It'll be a toy for people who like to have the latest toys. It won't fail because Steve's legions of fans have more money than sense, but I don't predict Ipod levels of success.
"And any other system that allows you to register and use instantaneously is open to serious abuse."
True, which is why some IRC networks do demand you go through a web-based registration process first.
As for the monkey with the "IRC isn't Telnet" comment: duh! We know. You probably know. I think the commenter you replied to was trying to outline that IRC is not a complex protocol. You send an auth string in ASCII, and the server spits out craploads of messages at you prefixed by numbers. So long as you receive the incoming server PING message (not to be confused with a CTCP PING) and reply with your own, your connection will stay up. I've worked with the IRC protocol, I've implemented a reasonable subset of the client-side. I've scratched my head writing a parser for the 005 "BOUNCE" message that seems to have been hijacked and turned into a generic "Server Capabilities" message on most IRC daemons.
Point is, if you can make a bit of software - be it a web browser, email client or whatever - send arbitrary strings to an arbitrary port, you can make an IRC client out of it. Like Tom 7 here says, the basic problem is how IRC (or most IRC networks) is set up. Provide a web-based reg system with a CAPTCHA and require the user to auth themselves with nickserv before any PRIVMSG commands to anywhere _other_ than nickserv get parsed, and you've fixed this little problem.
Also, not clicking on every link that strange people send to you would help.
As I recall, vanilla Lithium Ion has a nice energy density, but a very crappy maximum dump current. That's why it's used in mobile phones and laptops, but not in anything that requires any real amounts of juice (I'm thinking RC models that require 30A to 100A of current.. or perhaps cyborg exoskeletons). Attempting to drag more current out of a Li-Ion than it is rated for will give you either a very expensive balloon, or a very expensive exothermic reaction.
Perhaps you mean Lithium Polymer, the technology that routinely allows a 25-30C dump rate? (That's C for capacity, so a 5Ah lipo pack with 30C maximum dump will give you 150A of juice before it either balloons or goes up in flames).
Average Joe probably has a copy of Windows that their friend "who knows computers" placed on there. There are a crapton of unauthorised copies of Windows out there, and Microsoft knows this. I don't think they really care so long as people are using Windows and not some other OS. Keeps people addicted, yaknow?
Personally I would love to see Microsoft come up with a completely fool-proof way of preventing people from making unauthorised copies of their "operating" system (quotes inserted for sarcasm). It'd be the worst business move they'd ever make.
Tux, because Average Joe actually quite likes Ubuntu every time I've showed it to him.
See, all the people who would vote to bring back the judicial killing of prisoners can do so. Their vote is recorded, tied in against their details and if such a new law is introduced, their name goes on a list.
Now, when it's time to give someone a go on the old neck-stretching machine, the person to do the dirty work gets their name pulled from that list. Compliance is compulsory - consider it like jury service if you will. Hey, if you voted for it, you'll have no problem with watching someone die by your own hands, right?
And if the victim is proven post-mortem to be innocent, the executioner gets to be told about that too.
I'm almost beginning to like this idea. Almost.
Two hundred and thirty five patents.
I will always feel happy when Microsoft is found guilty of "Intellectual Property" violations, as much as I dislike software patents. They've played this game themselves for decades and built a whole business model around it. They deserve every single lawsuit, and I have absolutely no pity for them.
You should know that for high-tech items, $1 US = £1 GB, regardless of what the exchange rate might say.
Still, if it were released at a more honest £70 or so, I could see it being snapped up PDQ. Even with Linux on it, if it's sold as an "Internet Machine" rather than "A Computer", there shouldn't be much of a problem with Joe Public going "but I can't run Microsoft Word on it :(".
Plus people who actually know their shit can have an Oh Orgasmic little gadget to play with. Five watts you say? Plenty of uses, above and beyond the overnight download box someone's already suggested. Router/home server perhaps? Add a USB HDD to make a NAS? Brain for some kind of robot?
And all on the merest sniff of an electron. I like.
Gigahertz isn't always everything. I've got a four and a half year old AMD64 laptop with 1GB RAM here that's quite capable of running Flash crap AND compiz all at the same time. Previous to that, it was ye olde Athlon XP on a 512MB desktop machine. Equally capable of running Flash stuff. If it has a halfway-competent GPU (as in, one as powerful as the Geforce Go MX440 in this thing), I imagine it'll cope well enough with Macromedia FlashyBollocks.
More of a problem would be the complete lack of support for Shockwave (rather than Flash) for Linux. Oh noes, no Habbo Hotel! You can tell I'm really disappointed by that!
Still, at least it should run www.fantasticcontraption.com