• latest news
  • Car tech
  • Cell phones and smartphones
  • Computers and hardware
  • Digital photo and video
  • Gadgets
  • Gaming
  • Green tech
  • Home theater
  • MP3 and portable video players
  • Televisions
• awards
  • Best of CES
  • People's voice
• video
• photos

About me

My posting summary

1 to 8 of 8

My comments

• "If call upgrading to Windows 7 time consuming, then moving to alternative OS's would be nightmares."
  
  That's worthy of a double post... In reply to: "The new Windows 7 ad is, um, happy"

  September 10, 2009

  0 replies

• I wonder how this sort of solution would play out on an enterprise system, e.g. a SQL box. In particular, do enterprise systems normally use a high enough volume of disk space that an SSD caching solution would be inferior (performance-wise, temperature, failure rate, etc) to a purely SSD storage solution? In reply to: "Intel's 'Braidwood'--Turbo Memory done right?"

  September 3, 2009

  0 replies

• There actually was a reason why TMI was located near population zones. It's the same reason you find nuclear sites near other population zones; nuclear facilities require large amounts of water. People also require lots of water, and you often find cities near large bodies of water. So if you make nuclear plants, there is an inevitable collision for water resources. In reply to: "Where the U.S. government researches a nuclear future"

  July 9, 2009

  0 replies

• Good article. In reply to: "With Iran crisis, Twitter's youth is over"

  June 21, 2009

  0 replies

• I'll be interested to see Google's search relevancy algorithm. But then again, like everyone has said above, Google isn't open source when it comes to their money. Anything at Google that provides their revenue (read: search and ads) is closed source. Of course they don't mind open sourcing things that aren't part of their revenue stream. However, if they open sourced their search engine, then MSFT can go in and rip out all the good parts, beat Google at their own game, and sudden Google goes bankrupt.
  
  Now admittedly, Google going bankrupt is a very unlikely scenario, but that's in no small part because Google isn't going to open source anything related to their revenue stream. It's kinda like the Coca-Cola formula; you just can't let that secret get out, or else you lose your whole company.
  
  The day Google open sources their search engine, then I'll call them an open source company. Until then, they are a closed source company that happens to fund a lot of open source projects. In reply to: "Google keeps tripping over Microsoft's grave"

  June 18, 2009

  0 replies

• Getting rid of patent law is a really bad idea, because it would pretty much mean the end of commercial R+D. It's completely untenable.
  
  The best solution I can think of would be to shorten the duration of patents to something like 3-6 years, depending on how long it takes to recoup R+D investment.
  
  Perhaps a more radical redesign would be appropriate as well. However, if patent law were completely removed, then business would have a strong incentive to conceal their research, which would hinder it from entering the public domain, to the detriment of all.
  
  As for removing copyright law, that would require all content creators (musicians, programmers, artists, authors, etc) to either develop alternative business models or go out of business. The very easy with which people can copy around electronic media makes the problem more difficult. Ultimately, online distribution only really works if there is some mechanism to limit the distribution to those who pay. If there's no copyright, then there's nothing to ensure that the content creators get paid. In reply to: "Ahoy! Pirate Party gets berth in European Parliament"

  June 8, 2009

  0 replies

• @tm_anon: try searching for a product of some sort, audi a4, transformers, etc. You will find a much richer experience on Bing than on Google. In reply to: "Bing off to solid start, but not that good"

  June 6, 2009

  0 replies

• "Yes, a couple of million users from an internet standpoint is very small. Could they have competed vs Firefox's world record setting Firefox 3 download day?"
  
  Firefox 3 = 7.1 MB. Windows = 3.7 GB. As math goes, 1 M Windows downloads x 3.7 GB = 3.7 PB.
  
  3 M Firefox downloads x 7.1 MB = 21 TB. Increasing load by 100x is nontrivial. actually a 3.7 PB load on any website is nontrivial, even according to an "internet standpoint". In reply to: "Where's Windows 7 beta? Microsoft posts, then pulls the download"

  January 9, 2009

  0 replies