IBM 5 in 5 Predictions: Mind Reading, People Power, Passwords, Junk Mail, DIgital Divide
Watch the Video
It is indeed already amongst us, more than a lot of us realise, indeed there is the neurofeedback games for ADHD-training, and you can already buy a game called “mindflex”, which uses your concentration to manoeuvre a ball across a platform. Sofar they mainly make you control the fan´s speed that is keeping the ball in the air, the more you concentrate, the higher the ball. So sofar mindreading is mainly an extra controller for electric or computer games for very rough movements/decisions, and I doubt that 5 years is enough to refine this controller to a commonly used one, as the other controllers (handmovement: mouse/keyboard, or voice are still quicker and much more precise). However, it does make you phantasize about what else you might control when combined with robotics, smart phones, big data.
And maybe we do not need to make mindreading the same kind of controller as voice or hands but merely a kind of it´s own where it supports decision making, for instance, it might use or surpress reflexes in traffic, or respond to certain moods.
Read the article BUILDING A SMARTER PLANET/The IBM 5 in 5 - Mind reading.
<>
Mind reading is a very interesting development. One of the early applications could be as a lie-detector in areas such as criminal justice, civil cases & corporate governance. It raises big questions for society. And there’s an interesting hurdle to overcome when considering mind control of devices; many of us THINK fleetingly about doing things which we would never actually do.
Read the article BUILDING A SMARTER PLANET/The IBM 5 in 5 - Mind reading.
<>
I very much do not want to have to use my core identity to access every service I might happen to use. I want to use the persona I have selected (or has been assigned to me by an appropriate authority). It’s also not desirable that all access control be directly linked to identity – either from a security or a privacy perspective.
If you can do that with biometrics, I will not object. But you need to prove it.
Read the article BUILDING A SMARTER PLANET/The IBM 5 in 5 - Passwords
<>
We’ve been told for years that, next year, we will be able to consolidate all of our passwords into a single sign-on that would be linked with all applications requiring authentication… it hasn’t happened yet. We all have more passwords now then ever before. It would certainly save a lot of time and increase security significantly if we didn’t need passwords, by using some bio-mechanical method of authentication. So hopefully this will come to fruition within the next five years, but time will tell.
Read the article BUILDING A SMARTER PLANET/The IBM 5 in 5 - Passwords
<>
Please do tie all of your passwords, including financial ones, to one of those nifty password managers with fully automatic features for filling in forms. Tie that manager app to the fingerprint reader in your shiny new thinkpad. Or use a usb-based one if you must. Go use it. Then accidentally cut your finger. Tell us how you fare.
Now imagine the hassle of going through a bureaucracy of getting your fingerprints fixed after you had that little accident. An unbelieving bureaucracy because biometrics are naturally perfect. The telephone attendant may be sympathetic but without a suitable Process in place there's little she can do. Despite that biometrics by definition are easier to fake than to replace (and you leave your fingerprints bloody everywhere too, so no lack of source material to fake with); exactly the wrong properties for most all of the intended purposes other than criminal detection.
It's not the tech, however badly it works (and it works very badly, from what little numbers are available, certainly not from vendors). It's the redress after the whole thing comes off the rails that's the real kicker. Suppose that important and now damaged fingerprint being the lock on your medical insurance.
In that sense, the biometrics thing just does not scale. We assume it does, but the numbers say otherwise. Funny how vendors and governments alike have studiously avoided looking at those.
Read the article THE REGISTER/IBM: 'Your PC will read your mind by 2016'
<>
Biometrics are a great way to enhance the security of a password, but they can not replace the password.
Any security mechinism can be breached, including biometrics. The problem is that it is virtually impossible to change your biometrics after your account has been breached. Even a simple password used in addition to the biometrics allows for the security that is required while also allowing you to change the access code when necessary.
Passwords aren't going away. However I do hope they start to get simpler once again. This garbage of it needing upper case, lower case, a number AND a symbol and be a minimum of 15 characters is getting VERY excessive.
Read the article DAILY TECH/IBM's 5-in-5 predicts the launch of mind reading devices by 2017
Higgs Hunters Find Tantalizing Hint of Elusive Particle
HIGGS BOSON WIKIPEDIA
All the Higgs boson enthusiasts out there should temper their expectations. This particle, if found, should flesh out the Standard Model, at this point a cosmic primer. It is only the first tiny step in investigating endoinfinity in which pure energy is on an electron volt continuum with what our feeble scientific instrumentation define as "matter." It's a misnomer to call the Higgs boson "The God Particle," since the real deal is the bipartite nature of pure energy that accounts for the Big Bang, visible matter, dark energy and matter, black holes and the final Omega implosion.
Read the article SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN/Tantalizing Hints of Elusive Higgs Particle Announced
<>
In assessing the situation, please keep these well-known shortcomings of the Standard Model of particle physics firmly in mind.
1. The Standard Model is primarily a heuristic model with 26-30 fundamental parameters that have to be put in by hand .
2. The Standard Model cannot predict the masses of the fundamental particles that make up all of the luminous matter that we can observe.
3. The Standard Model did not predict the existence of the dark matter that constitutes the overwhelming majority of matter in the cosmos. The Standard Model describes heuristically the "foam on top of the ocean".
4. The vacuum energy density crisis clearly suggests a fundamental flaw at the very heart of particle physics. The VED crisis involves the fact that the vacuum energy densities predicted or measured by particle physicists (microcosm) and cosmologists (macrocosm) differ by up to 120 orders of magnitude (roughly 1070 to 10120, depending on how one estimates the particle physics VED).
5. The Planck mass is highly unnatural, i.e., it bears no relation to any particle observed in nature, and calls into question the foundations of the quantum chromodynamics sector of the Standard Model.
6. Many of the key particles of the Standard Model have never been directly observed. Rather, their existence is inferred from secondary, or more likely, tertiary decay products. Quantum chromodynamics is entirely built on inference, conjecture and speculation. It is too complex for simple definitive predictions and testing.
RLO
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
Read the article SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN/Tantalizing Hints of Elusive Higgs Particle Announced
<>
Some of the statements by Robert L O, while technically true, are a bit misleading. A few responses.
"The Standard Model cannot predict the masses of the fundamental particles"
True, but it does not attempt to. It does predict relationships between the masses and other properties of the particles, however, and these have been beautifully confirmed by experiment.
"Many of the key particles of the Standard Model have never been directly observed. Rather, their existence is inferred from secondary, or more likely, tertiary decay"
Completely expected, and irrelevant. The model *tells us* there will be no direct way to measure the particles. However there are many many cross-checks that can be performed on the decay products of the particles and they all agree beautifully with predictions. Aside from the Higgs, there is not the slightest doubt left and any of the other standard model particles exist. They all agree perfectly in with predictions in measurements relationships between their mass, production rates, and decay modes, and where measurements are possible spin, electric charge, and lifetime. No exceptions have been found.
There are things that the standard model does not attempt to predict like higher energy phenomena and this could explain dark matter. However everything that it does tell us has been confirmed with amazing precision so far.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/
‘Tantalizing Hints’ but No Direct Proof in Particle Search
<>
It is not correct to say that QCD is built entirely on inference, conjecture, and speculation. There is plenty of experimental evidence to support the idea that hadrons are composed of either 3 quarks or a quark plus an antiquark, that quarks are asymptotically confined, that the color force is mediated by 8 gluons, etc. etc. Your other points are well known and accepted. They do not invalidate the Standard Model. They simply indicate that there is more physics out there to be discovered. The Standard Model remains one of the most successful scientific theories ever, with a large number of confirmed predictions including the top and bottom quark and the W and Z bosons. The only remaining piece predicted but not yet confirmed is the Higgs boson, and if it is confirmed it will be a triumph for the theory.
Read the article SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN/Tantalizing Hints of Elusive Higgs Particle Announced
<>
It's always interesting to see the negative comments that result from articles about basic science. They fall into two categories: "why are we wasting money on this," and, "I took high-school physics, and I can clearly see that the Standard Model is wrong. Here are 12 reasons why..."
These comments are disturbing because they make you wonder what world the commenters are living in. If the Standard Model were wrong, we wouldn't have lasers, transistors, and MRI machines, just to name a few. Cosmology would be set back a hundred years, since we wouldn't know what red-shifts were, nor would we be able to identify the elemental constituents of stars. Quantum mechanics would go from yielding the most accurate predictions about the subatomic world to a complete mystery.
On the cost issue, some say that nothing practical will ever come from understanding more about the nature of the universe. Does this even require a refutation? It assumes that the more ignorant you are the more money you'll save. Believe me, if ignorance saved money we'd be the richest nation on earth.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/
‘Tantalizing Hints’ but No Direct Proof in Particle Search
"The Christmas Planet" - Kepler Mission Finds Planet in "Habitable Zone" of Sun-like Star
This diagram compares our own solar system to Kepler-22, a star system
containing the first "habitable zone" planet discovered by NASA's Kepler
mission. The habitable zone is the sweet spot around a star where temperatures
are right for water to exist in its liquid form. Liquid water is essential for
life on Earth.
Image credit:
NASA/Ames/JPL-Caltech
If we were to find one of these 'habitable' planets closer, say within 20 light years, do we have the technology right now, to build a probe that could accelerate to say a tenth of the speed of light and be able to get there in 200 years and beam some data about the system to us? The biggest hurdles I can think of are a power source that could last that long, a powerful enough transmitter and a sensitive enough receiver.
Financially it'd be quite impossible i'm sure. No government would ever justify a science project where the data would be interpreted by our descendants 9 or 10 generations ahead of us, but it's an interesting thought experiment none the less.
Read the article ARS TECHINCA/Sun-like star hosts Kepler's first confirmed habitable zone planet
<>
It would be in the trillions of dollars range, and would have to use nuclear pulse propulsion, which means there would be potential for environmental catastrophe during the launches (it would have to be assembled in space), but we could do it in principle if not in practice.
The more I think about it, I am not sure how impossible that funding goal would really be with the right evidence. We could detect oxygen spectroscopically in the atmosphere in large concentrations, say, which is 100% proof of ongoing photosynthesis. With that kind of "there is definitely, without doubt, life at least passingly similar to that on Earth on this planet" evidence, I can just barely imagine world governments being willing to cough up a collective $10 trillion.
Also, it's completely plausible that Alpha Centauri, only 4 light years away, has a habitable planet or moon. 20 light years is right at the furthest extent of feasibility, but there are better case scenarios where our destination is "right next door."
Read the article ARS TECHINCA/Sun-like star hosts Kepler's first confirmed habitable zone planet
<>
Has anyone yet calculated what the conditions how any large Titan or Europa type moon around Kepler 22 b could be like?
Say, Kepler 22b – or the “Christmas planet” as one of the astronomers called it* – is a gas dwarf that has migrated inwards. If it did have a large moon like Triton or Titan or Ganymede could that moon sustain liquid water and perhaps life?
Would it be protected by the “Xmas Planets” magnetosphere assuming it has one – or instead exposed to more radiation because of its environment, would it get a similar sort of tidal heating as Europa or Io get from Jupiter?
Would it face a significantly greater number of bolide (comet and asteroid) impacts sufficent to make life extinct too frequently to develop past the microbial stage if at all?
Come to think of it, if Kepler 22 b had rings of ice and dust could they still exist or would they evapourate away? Could the “Christmas planet” have rings of droplets of water that freeze around one side when they fall into the planet’s and moon’s shadowsn and melt into raindrop sized spheres of liquid when in the sun Kepler~light again?
Also, please, can somebody, anybody, tell me the primary stars spectral type?
PS. Someone on the last exoplanet thread (andy?) mentioned another more promising planetary candidate – was this the one or was it another one? Vaguely recall one of the Gliese stars mentioned perhaps?
——————–
* Quote from the article linked to my name via Adelaide Now website :
“It’s a great gift,” Borucki (Chief Kepler scientist William Borucki – ed. )
said. “We consider this sort of our Christmas planet.”
Guess its better than a catalogue entry and follows the tradition of Christmas and Easter Islands on Earth
Read the article DISCOVER/Kepler confirms first planet found in the habitable zone of a Sun-like star!
<>
I like how the NASA image shows Kepler-22b as a blue/green planet with clouds. That would be so cool if it were the case... but really we don't know too much about it.
In addition to hbar_squared's post about using wobble to determine further details about this planet, are there any other techniques that we can use to obtain more knowledge?
Or is it simply "wait for FTL or a generational ship to get closer"?
Read the article ARS TECHINCA/Sun-like star hosts Kepler's first confirmed habitable zone planet
<>
"Right now, all we can say about the planet is that it has a radius that's about 2.4 times that of Earth's' "
That's all we can say? Rubbish. We could easily make useful conjectures about the flora and fauna. For example: with the large radius, the mass is likely larger, and therefor gravity is stronger. The inhabitants are therefor squat with thick legs, and likely have kept their tails - for support. Plants are similarly generally low to the ground, to reduce the difficulty of transpiration, otherwise thin and tall and 'foamy' / with very thin fibres. There is little tidal movment because of the pull on the surface water, therefor the coasts are delimited harshly between the water and land, making the 'leap' from water based life to land based life a different kind of developmental story. Most likely (because I've seen these kind of planets over and over again) animal life is mostly of the exoskeletal kind, with mineral exteriors and foamy interiors. Growth occuring by the addition of segments; the mineral scales being formed and pushed out like fingernails. The segments providing 'compression protection', as well as protection from the bright sun (because they're closer to theirs).
I could go on about their religious and political development, and cuisine of the moment... but it's all pretty obvious.
Read the article ARS TECHINCA/Sun-like star hosts Kepler's first confirmed habitable zone planet
This artist's conception illustrates Kepler-22b, a planet known to comfortably
circle in the habitable zone of a sun-like star. It is the first planet that
NASA's Kepler mission has confirmed to orbit in a star's habitable zone -- the
region around a star where liquid water, a requirement for life on Earth, could
persist. The planet is 2.4 times the size of Earth, making it the smallest yet
found to orbit in the middle of the habitable zone of a star like our
sun.
Scientists do not yet know if the planet has a predominantly rocky,
gaseous or liquid composition. It's possible that the world would have clouds in
its atmosphere, as depicted here in the artist's interpretation.
Image
credit: NASA/Ames/JPL-Caltech
Why do they exaggerate so much? I'd love to find out that there are other habitable worlds out there but they are underplaying the "habitable zone" and at 21/2 times the size of earth it would not be livable without the distance to its sun which they claim is the same size as our own, places it in an equivalent orbit as our world to our sun. Does 290 days accomplish that? 72^ does sound perfect but I do question the accuracy of this. If only we had a way to visually verify it. An artists rendition may look very appealing but would it look anything like this? At the rate our space program is going, we will never know!
Read the article CNET/Kepler 22-b: NASA confirms another Earth?
<>
Why am I reminded of the dinner scene from Jurassic Park when I think about who will be able to afford to go to these planets...
Gennaro "We can charge anything we want! $2000, $3000 dollars a day and People will pay!"
Hammond "I don't want to cater just to the super rich!"
Gennaro "Fine, we'll have a coupon day or something!"
Read the article CNET/Kepler 22-b: NASA confirms another Earth?
<>
Something people always seem to fail to mention. Does it spin? If the planet is tidally locked to its star, than it is a rock, blistering hot on one side and near absolute zero on the other. The fact that Earth spins is a 1 in 1 billion chance that we were smacked by a Mars sized planet 4 billion years ago, I doubt we’re going to find a “Habitable” planet in the habitable zone any time soon, just too many things need to happen for it to be more than a 1 in 1 billion chance.
Read the article SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN/Kepler 22-b: Another step closer to finding Earth-like worlds
<>
The issue of planet spin is a big one, but not a show stopper. While it’s true that planets in the habitable zone of low-mass (M-dwarf) stars may become tidally locked (day length=year length) due to their proximity to the star, climate models indicate that temperate climates can actually still exist – the so-called “Eyeball Earth” scenario for example (a zone on the sunny side that’s moderately habitable). As for planet spin, I think most of us would say that all planets are likely to be formed with *some* spin, we just don’t know how much. For me the biggest qn right now is just a) whether there is an atmosphere on any of these smaller worlds and b) whether there’s any water, since our current models of planet formation suggest that getting water onto a rocky planet can be a very hit or miss (no pun) thing, i.e. somewhat random.
Read the article SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN/Kepler 22-b: Another step closer to finding Earth-like world
<>
Unfortunately these pictures are simply artistic renderings of what it “might look like” – they’re optimistic and really just guesses – I don’t think they even include a notion of chemistry. We have no images, no data at present on anything other than the diameter of this particular planet and its estimated orbital distance from its star. It exists merely as 3 tiny, tiny dips in the light from the star when the planet blocks it from our point of view. We don’t even know what mass it is!
Nonetheless, it is an important milestone for the Kepler mission, and helps with our statistical estimates of the number of these kinds of worlds out there.
Read the article SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN/Kepler 22-b: Another step closer to finding Earth-like world
<>
All this talk of a habitable zone worries me. Without greenhouse gases and with an albedo of 0.30, the Earth should have a temperature of -18C, not exactly the temperate place we know. And with a global temperature of -18C, the polar ice caps would expand increasing the albedo causing progressively increasing global cooling and an eventual iceball Earth.
With an albedo of 0.70 (due to its atmosphere containing a lot of SO2 and sulphuric acid) and its distance to the Sun, Venus would have a global temperature similar to that of the Earth without greenhouse gases (ie around -18C). Its atmosphere with a lot of CO2 has led to a runaway greenhouse effect.
So it’s the atmosphere that’s critical in determining whether a planet is habitable or not, not its distance to its star.
And the Earth is habitable for reasons other than its distance to the Sun and its atmosphere. Very early in its history, it collided with a Mars-sized planet which had formed in the same orbit with relatively low velocity causing the two to merge ejecting lighter crust material to form the Moon, and resulting in the Earth have less crust, more core.
Having a relatively large satellite in the Moon stabilizes the Earth’s tilt like a gyroscope, allowing relatively stable seasons. Having a thin crust allows tectonic plates and hence volcanos both of which cycle carbon in the form of CO2 and carbonate rocks from the atmosphere to the Earth’s crust and mantle and back again, again tending to stablise the greenhouse effect (over broad ranges!). Having more iron/nickel core means more of a magnetic effect diverting electrically charged radiation from the Earth’s surface.
So from our series of one (the Earth/Moon) we ‘know’ that having a large satellite is critical for the development of intelligent life.
Kepler-22 could be freezing cold or stifling hot. There’s no way of telling on the current figures.
Read the article DISCOVER/Kepler confirms first planet found in the habitable zone of a Sun-like star!
<>
I remember reading somewhere that there are other ways the Earth’s tilt would be stabilized (particularly if we never got knocked off-kilter in the first place by the Mars-sized planet). According to the book I have here, Mercury’s obliquity is 0.1 degrees. I grant you it’s in a resonance with the Sun, but there you go. Venus is 3 degrees if you ignore that it’s upside down.
But anyway, there are apparently several fallacies with the rare earth hypothesis that stem from assuming a solar system like ours but minus ONE THING could reasonably exist. For instance, if we didn’t have a Jupiter (or Saturn) to catch comets for us, Earth would have been more frequently bombarded. At the same time, though, a system without a Jupiter would probably have had less material in it to begin with, and thus fewer comets to do the bombarding, and the Earth is back to being OK.
We just don’t know enough about planetary system formation to really answer the question of whether the Earth is rare. In light of that, the paper argued that it’s not reasonable to speculate what would happen in a system like ours but with ONE change- there are probably feedbacks we haven’t considered.
Read the article DISCOVER/Kepler confirms first planet found in the habitable zone of a Sun-like star!
Mission Critical: Russia Races to Save Mars Moon Probe
This may be an excellent opportunity for global cooperation and good will building by releasing documentation and requesting assistance from all quarters, amateur and expert alike. Motivation could be increased by considering that, if we ever do a manned Mars mission at the edge of our competency, the more data available and assets in theater, the higher likelihood of success or recovery from catastrophe.
Read the article SPACE.COM/Russia Races to Save Mars Moon Probe from Space Junk Fate
<>
Thank you, Emily; this was a great summary.
One lesson I do hope that will be learned for the future (and I very much hope there WILL be future Russian planetary missions!!!) is that a global launch & early orbit uplink/downlink capability is a must. If constructing same is not cost-effective, surely it can be leased...or even negotiated & donated.
If F-G fails for lack of this--though we may never know if that was the case or not-- it is a tragedy. But it can also be a most valuable lesson learned.
In any case, I wish the F-G team all the best, and my heart is with them; I want nothing more than their success during this most difficult time.
Read the article PLANETARY SOCIETY/Phobus-Grunt status
<>
Yes this is a most unfortunate turn of events. As you note, space flight is still really, really hard and it is this fact that makes our successes all the more remarkable.
The outstanding accomplishments we have already achieved such as landing men on the moon, placing orbiters and rovers at Mars, and sending robotic probes across the solar system are all the more remarkable for having been achieved using chemical rockets that were barely capable of achieving those objectives.
As Arthur C. Clarke so astutely observed prior to his death in 2008, the the space age has yet to really get underway, and will only come to fruition with the development of nuclear powered vehicles possessing sufficient energy density to effortlessly spread mankind and his robotic minions across the solar system and beyond. The NERVA engines developed by Westinghouse Electric and Aerojet General between 1959 and 1972 were the first generation of such engines.
James Dewar's recent proposals for commercializing the development of such NERVA technology is very promising indeed. The work by Freeman Dyson and others on Project Orion between 1955 and 1963 also showed promise toward future development of a fission fragment propulsion strategy. More recent work by the late Robert Bussard and others on nuclear fusion by electrostatic confinement, and Dr. Zubrin's very interesting proposal for the nuclear salt water rocket all offer promising pathways into the future. The current Project Icarus study by the British Interplanetary Society, a follow-on to their earlier Daedelus study, is also reinvigorating creative thinking about what is possible when we seriously engage the potential of unleashing the full potential of the atom for enabling even interstellar travel.
Read the article MSNBC/Hopes are fading for Russia's Mars moon probe
Windows XP at the 10-Year Benchmark
I've noticed that all the people I personally know who are stubbornly sticking with XP are OLD. They just hate learning new things. And Vista legitimized this for them.
Which is pretty funny, since I'm actually older than quite a few of them, but I was happy to move up and on once Win7 came out. A huge sticking point for them is usually the taskbar, which is different than what they've been using for eight years, and it's right up front and obvious, so it causes an immediate aneurysm - I gave it a week, learned all the new features it has to offer, and now I love it. So much more productive.
But... fear of the unknown. Which I guess is understandable if you've spend 8 years learning all the quirks of your old girlfriend.
Read the article ARS TECHNICA/What does Windows XP's tenth birthday mean to you?
<>
Yes, we will continue to use it for years to come.
Manufacturing equipment and programs do NOT get updated very quickly to new OSes. I have machines that still run on Windows 2000 with proprietary controllers that cannot be run virtual. You have to run it on iron or nothing on these things. The same goes for Windows XP. Did I mention that some of these machines still use DOS?
You don't go chucking out $500,000 to $3,000,000+ equipment just because an OS is old.
The workstations that interface with these machines are like-wise stuck with the older OS because the software will not run or are not supported on a newer OS.
The office machines will be updated to a new OS as the physical hardware gets replaced. The migration schedule has really slowed down in this economy.
I will get to support DOS and Windows 2000 through 7 for years and years to come.
The good news is I can keep most of that equipment off the Internet. The rest can be restricted to just the site or sites they need.
Read the article ARS TECHNICA/What does Windows XP's tenth birthday mean to you?
<>
It showed the danger when there is a lack of real competition in a market place, when one company has a near dominance of a product category. XP was a fine operating system for it's time but it would never have been allowed to stay around for so long had there been real competition from Apple or another vendor.
It also coexisted alongside the abomination that was IE 6 and they showed little urgency in producing decent successors for those products. You wonder how long it would have taken for Microsoft to release IE 7 (and the much better IE 8) had it not been for Firefox. They let XP live for ages because even after OSX became a better OS it wasn't going to make inroads into Microsoft's bread and butter - the enterprise market. (It seems unbelievable now that there were sites that only worked in IE 6)
Thankfully Microsoft are now much better. Windows 7 is a great OS, IE 9 is a pretty decent browser and doesn't break the web, and they are committing to more frequent releases of those products. However when fanboys are dismissing the competition we should remember what happens when their is none. Would iOS have developed at the same pace were it not for Android? Would we all be stuck with crappy phone software and Windows Mobile 6.5 had it not been for the iPhone?
Read the article ARS TECHNICA/What does Windows XP's tenth birthday mean to you?
<>
Works "just"? What planet is this guy from?
XP is still so widely used because it actually does work. Clunky? Need better software? Why?
For most of us, just being able to use Office apps, a browser, and look at photos, music and some basic video is all we do with a computer. This ongoing insistence by the tech heads (and Microsoft, and Apple), that they need to keep "improving our experience" is nothing short of irritating.
With each new incarnation, the systems are more bloated irritating to use. Stop hiding things. Stop embedding features I don't need.
Leave it alone. NT was awesome. It was fast as lightening on a lowly 400 MHz P3. Now, it takes a processor with 10 times the throughput just to make it so Windows can open a directory window or the START menu as fast as NT did.
Newer systems = newer features.... not necessarily "better" features, or even "necessary" features.
Just make the darn thing stable, simple, and secure. Stop worrying about transparent menu pop-ups.
Read the article ARS TECHNICA/What does Windows XP's tenth birthday mean to you?
<>
Reminds me how I miss Windows 98 SE.
Which in turn reminds me how I miss Windows 95.
Which in turn reminds me how I miss Amiga OS
Which in turn reminds me how I miss my Amstrad CPC
Which in turn reminds me how I miss my ZX81
Which in turn reminds me how I miss my Atari
Which then makes me cry, because then I miss Hill Street Blues, and dancing to disco as a nipper with my mum.
*sobs*
Read the article ARS TECHNICA/What does Windows XP's tenth birthday mean to you?
READ MORE TOP COMMENTS: October 2011
