 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://xkcd.com/548/
I've wanted one of these for years! Now I can get one! :)
(Of course, I'm hoping the entry on Earth will be completed *before*
demolition occurs...)
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 21:26:20 -0800, Chambers wrote:
> http://xkcd.com/548/
>
> I've wanted one of these for years! Now I can get one! :)
>
> (Of course, I'm hoping the entry on Earth will be completed *before*
> demolition occurs...)
Yeah, I saw that as well and laughed myself silly. I didn't want one
before, but now I do, knowing that it's got essentially unrestricted
cellular web access.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguy com> wrote:
> http://xkcd.com/548/
>
> I've wanted one of these for years! Now I can get one! :)
>
> (Of course, I'm hoping the entry on Earth will be completed *before*
> demolition occurs...)
Hey, don't panic! ;)
It also reminds me of those folks in the 50-60s, who thought all computational
needs in the world could be provided by 2 or 3 supercomputers which would
distribute away such computational power to people in their dumb terminals
around the world. It turns out computational power became a commodity and
instead data is far more important today, being routed to all people in the
world indeed.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Yeah, I saw that as well and laughed myself silly. I didn't want one
> before, but now I do, knowing that it's got essentially unrestricted
> cellular web access.
Wouldn't that means that it's very unreliable and slow?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 05:26:20 -0000, Chambers
<ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> did spake thusly:
> http://xkcd.com/548/
>
> I've wanted one of these for years! Now I can get one! :)
>
> (Of course, I'm hoping the entry on Earth will be completed *before*
> demolition occurs...)
Heh not sure I like the fixed keyboard though could have a bigger screen
and a slide out one. Our local Waterstones has a Sony Reader set up on
display which must be the 505 as it still had the keys (bloody Apple
fueling the desire for making everything touch-screen regardless of
practicality?) and one of the things that annoyed me was that you had to
plug it into a PC to get books, update the OS etc. if the Kindle does
manage to get across the pond with the same deal it might prove
irresistable.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 09:11:47 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I saw that as well and laughed myself silly. I didn't want one
>> before, but now I do, knowing that it's got essentially unrestricted
>> cellular web access.
>
> Wouldn't that means that it's very unreliable and slow?
Depends on where you are and what you try to load.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 03:04:44 -0500, nemesis wrote:
> It also reminds me of those folks in the 50-60s, who thought all
> computational needs in the world could be provided by 2 or 3
> supercomputers which would distribute away such computational power to
> people in their dumb terminals around the world. It turns out
> computational power became a commodity and instead data is far more
> important today, being routed to all people in the world indeed.
And yet in the IT world, things tend to go in cycles. We had the
mainframe+dumb terminal, then fat clients, then thin clients with things
like Citrix and LTS.....That's the fun thing about IT, there are few new
ideas it seems, just new applications of old ideas.
The new iteration of terminal services is virtualized machines with a
thin client component. Virtualization has been around a long time in the
mainframe world (discussed earlier in this forum, VMS, anyone?)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> And yet in the IT world, things tend to go in cycles. We had the
> mainframe+dumb terminal, then fat clients, then thin clients with things
> like Citrix and LTS....
Web apps = going back to thin clients. Except they are getting fat
nowadays. :/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 00:49:37 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> And yet in the IT world, things tend to go in cycles. We had the
>> mainframe+dumb terminal, then fat clients, then thin clients with
>> things like Citrix and LTS....
>
> Web apps = going back to thin clients. Except they are getting fat
> nowadays. :/
Yep. It's interesting to see the cycles. It's been my observation that
those who identify the cycles tend to do much better in the IT world - it
means there's less change to deal with, and less change in the IT world
makes it less overwhelming - even if there are implementation
differences, recognising the similarities to older technology can really
help you learn the new stuff.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Yep. It's interesting to see the cycles. It's been my observation that
> those who identify the cycles tend to do much better in the IT world - it
> means there's less change to deal with, and less change in the IT world
> makes it less overwhelming - even if there are implementation
> differences, recognising the similarities to older technology can really
> help you learn the new stuff.
I guess both fat clients and thin clients have advantages? That's why
the industry oscilates between them. When you're using one, the other
looks so much greener. Until you start using it again...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
