It may be faster but it does little more than can be done with a flat text file and Perl. Suicide
Oh really? I'd like to see someone run a major MMORPG off of a flat text file and Perl. Mythic's "Dark Age of Camelot" uses MySQL on Linux for its database.
I don't mean this in a snotty way, but, a job like what? Flipping burgers at McDonalds?
I think you have an unrealisticly narrow view of how specialized tech workers are. There is plenty of room for most tech workers to work in their field without working in competition with what they did at their prior job.
you moron!!! it did software ECC!!!! god you are an idiot. it did ECC is software and STIL GOT THOSE SCORES!!!
You are totally clueless, aren't you? Their software error handling scheme is fine for benchmarks. It wasn't fine for real work. They built it, ran the benchmarks, and then took it apart and sold the parts, and are now building a new one, with hardware that is suitable for doing science.
"Well with the concept proven we now had to make sure we had a system capable of conducting scientific computation. We needed to upgrade the system to something with error correcting code (ECC) RAM. The Power Macs did not support it and the XServes were coming. So in January we tore the system down and started prepping for the XServes."
umm, it was fully capable of scientific work you moron. that is why it was built. christ you are stupid
No, it was crippled from the start because it didn't have ECC. They said that they could work around this in software, but now if you read their site as they build the new cluster, using XServes (which have ECC), they say that the original cluster was never intended to do production work. It was just a test.
So, basically, the original cluster was built, ran the benchmarks to get on the list, and was never intended to do serious science, and was torn down and sold off.
Outside of academic circles, this is called a "publicity stunt". It was not built to do science, and never did any science in its short existence.
Can anyone point out any significant advantage of the Itanium that justifies the fact that it costs ridiculously more than its competition (i.e. AMD Opteron)?
to number 4 next time because of this sucker. it has 2 times the nodes as the earth simulator!!
The VT cluster that made #3 won't be on the list, since it was taken apart and the parts sold off. They are building a new cluster, with hardware that is capable of actually doing science this time, rather than just running benchmarks.
Even if they had kept the first cluster, it wouldn't be #4. Besides the cluster in this slashdot story, there is also Thunder, and that IBM cluster being built for the army, that are all faster than the first VT cluster.
When Apple licensed clones of their computers, it was intended to broaden the MacOS userbase. What happened instead was the MacOS userbase remained the same size, and Apple lost money to the clonemakers
Indeed, and the reason for this is that the cloners were very limited in what they were allowed to do. They weren't allowed to design their own motherboards, for example, but rather had to buy them from Apple. The rest of their design had to be approved by Apple.
So it is not surprising they failed to grow the Mac userbase, since Apple would only let them produce machines that were essentially exactly the same as Apple's Macs. One of the cloners (Power Computing, I believe) showed off at trade shows a couple prototypes, including a cool laptop back when Apple didn't have any cool PPC laptops, that would have taken the Mac to new markets, and begged Apple to allow them to sell them, but Apple said no.
If you bought something, then you bought it. That can't be taken away by the seller writing 'oh by the way you didn't actually buy this' inside the box
For an MMOG, all that is in the box is the game client and perhaps some documentation. To play the game, you'll need to sign up for the service, which is not inside the box.
Both my previous cellular provider (AT&T) had and my current provider (Sprint) has a web page that anyone can go to and fill out a form to send a text message to one of their phones, given the phone number.
So I simply went to that page, examined the form to see how it worked, and then wrote a simple little Perl script to do the same thing.
I can then invoke that Perl script from procmail to send me notices when I receive email I'm particularly interested in.
RTFA on this one. They say the stated capacity and battery life only happens when you convert to such a poor quality of file that it sounds like wet dog shit
Uhm RTFing post you are responding to. He's not asking just about the Sony, but about why so many other players get better batter life. Only the Sony requires conversion to ATRAC. The Dell and the iRiver players, for example, get about 16 hours on MP3 at decent bitrates. The iRiver is also basically the same size as the iPod, with the same capacity.
The lawyers, as usual. In every class action lawsuit that I've been a part of (as a member of the class), they're the only ones making any money
What are their costs in bringing and conducting the class action? Those are among the most expensive litigation. How many class actions don't end up going anywhere, leaving the lawyers with a big loss, since preparing for a class action is expensive?
A 12-song player is not all that exciting. However, if they make it so you can download songs to it over the phone, then it becomes a lot more interesting. Keep your collection on your home computer with your always-on broadband connection, and grab songs 12 at a time for playback on the phone.
I'll get flamed for that but I thought they were the most customer-oriented company in the world, which means they could provide SDKs for anyone to download everything on their iPods
They might think that if the thing is too open, bad things can happen. There is precedent. Think of video game consoles. In the late 70's, early 80's, video games were big. There were arcades all over the place, and Atari, Mattel, and Coleco were thriving.
In 1982, the market collapsed. People stopped buying games. (And I got laid off as my cool Intellivision programming job at APh (the company that designed the Intellivision for Mattel) went away).
Years later, when Nintendo was considering coming out with the NES, they did a thourough study of what had caused that market collapse, so that they could avoid it.
Their conclusion was that the problem was too many companies were making games. Originally, only Mattel could product Intellivision games. Only Atari could make Atari games, and so on.
Later, Activision and Imagic were able to make games, but that was cool, because those companies were full of ex-Atari and ex-Mattel and ex-APh people. Their games were good, and the market grew.
After that, dozens of companies figured out how to make games for these systems, and they were crap. Nintendo's conclusion was that consumers just got tired of going in, plunking down a lot of cash for a game, and finding that it sucked. They couldn't tell the good stuff from the junk, and so stopped buying.
So Nintendo decided that for the NES to be viable, they had to be able to determine who could program for it. Perhaps Apple has decided that the same thing applies to portable music players.
Does the good professor seriously think that people -- especially people who are aware that their camera utilizes this technology -- *only* take pictures by putting their eye to the camera when they click? Ha!
You've got it backwards. The situation where this would be useful would be where you are taking a picture of something, and you want to protect against someone else altering it and claiming that the altered picture is the one you took, or you want to otherwise prove at some future time that you took it. In this situation, you'd want to make sure that the camera sees your iris.
For example, consider a cop taking a photo of a crime scene. Later, at a trial, proving that the cop took the photo could become an issue. If the cop made sure that it was stamped with his iris information, that would be very useful.
Oddly enough, by the same logic he's using in this legislation prescription drugs should be illegal because they can be abused as well.
No. Go actually read the bill. It's only 1/4 of a page, so it shouldn't be to hard. Why are so many people here unable to do this?
A drug company would in fact get in serious trouble under current law if they were intentionally promoting the misuse of their drugs, so not only does you analogy fail to make the point you intend, it provides a good argument that the INDUCE Act is in fact not the big scary boogeyman that most people here are making it out to be.
And no prosecutor, corporate attorney, judge, or jury would ever decide that some bloke had really intended to induce piracy when he was just developing a new gadget or program that made it easier to copy stuff. I mean, when VCRs came out was it really obvious that they weren't intended to promote copyright violations?
We have a legal system that has, for over 200 years, been determining just this kind of thing. I see no reason to believe that it will suddenly completely break down if asked to determine intent in this situation.
Jesus christ, people. Go read the act itself. It is only about 8 sentences or so. It wouldn't outlaw iPods or MP3 players or VCRs or PVRs. All it seems to do is make it so that if you sell something with the intent that it be used for copyright infringement, you can't use the fact that it is also possible to use it in a non-infringing way as a defense. Take iPods. Apple sells them so you can listen to iTMS music, and music that you rip from CDs you buy, and audiobooks you buy from Audible.com. So, Apple is perfectly safe.
Under Betamax, if a technology has both infringing and non-infringing uses, the legitimate uses win out, and the technology is allowed. Induce turns this on its head: if a technology has both infringing and non-infringing uses, the infringing use wins out, and the teechnology is illegal
I didn't see this when I read the bill. Here is basically the whole thing:
Section 501 of title 17, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(g)(1) In this subsection, the term `intentionally induces' means intentionally aids, abets, induces, or procures, and intent may be shown by acts from which a reasonable person would find intent to induce infringement based upon all relevant information about such acts then reasonably available to the actor, including whether the activity relies on infringement for its commercial viability.
`(2) Whoever intentionally induces any violation identified in subsection (a) shall be liable as an infringer.
`(3) Nothing in this subsection shall enlarge or diminish the doctrines of vicarious and contributory liability for copyright infringement or require any court to unjustly withhold or impose any secondary liability for copyright infringement.'
Apple, for example, is not going to run into any trouble with the iPod from this. The intent of the iPod is to play music that the iPod owner has legally acquired.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh really? I'd like to see someone run a major MMORPG off of a flat text file and Perl. Mythic's "Dark Age of Camelot" uses MySQL on Linux for its database.
Not really...note from the story that there was a support minivan in front of him, and another behind him. That's pretty good protection.
He lost control, and crossed the lane into oncoming traffic. That would likely have been fatal on a motorcycle, or even many smaller regular cars.
Why not?
If we don't let people use deceptive or fraudulent naming in real life, why should we let them do so in virtual space?
I think you have an unrealisticly narrow view of how specialized tech workers are. There is plenty of room for most tech workers to work in their field without working in competition with what they did at their prior job.
You are totally clueless, aren't you? Their software error handling scheme is fine for benchmarks. It wasn't fine for real work. They built it, ran the benchmarks, and then took it apart and sold the parts, and are now building a new one, with hardware that is suitable for doing science.
Here is a clue for you:
The don't prevent a worker from working in general. The worker is free to take a job that doesn't compete with the original.
No, it was crippled from the start because it didn't have ECC. They said that they could work around this in software, but now if you read their site as they build the new cluster, using XServes (which have ECC), they say that the original cluster was never intended to do production work. It was just a test.
So, basically, the original cluster was built, ran the benchmarks to get on the list, and was never intended to do serious science, and was torn down and sold off.
Outside of academic circles, this is called a "publicity stunt". It was not built to do science, and never did any science in its short existence.
It does floating point a lot faster than Opteron.
The VT cluster that made #3 won't be on the list, since it was taken apart and the parts sold off. They are building a new cluster, with hardware that is capable of actually doing science this time, rather than just running benchmarks.
Even if they had kept the first cluster, it wouldn't be #4. Besides the cluster in this slashdot story, there is also Thunder, and that IBM cluster being built for the army, that are all faster than the first VT cluster.
Indeed, and the reason for this is that the cloners were very limited in what they were allowed to do. They weren't allowed to design their own motherboards, for example, but rather had to buy them from Apple. The rest of their design had to be approved by Apple.
So it is not surprising they failed to grow the Mac userbase, since Apple would only let them produce machines that were essentially exactly the same as Apple's Macs. One of the cloners (Power Computing, I believe) showed off at trade shows a couple prototypes, including a cool laptop back when Apple didn't have any cool PPC laptops, that would have taken the Mac to new markets, and begged Apple to allow them to sell them, but Apple said no.
For an MMOG, all that is in the box is the game client and perhaps some documentation. To play the game, you'll need to sign up for the service, which is not inside the box.
So I simply went to that page, examined the form to see how it worked, and then wrote a simple little Perl script to do the same thing.
I can then invoke that Perl script from procmail to send me notices when I receive email I'm particularly interested in.
Uhm RTFing post you are responding to. He's not asking just about the Sony, but about why so many other players get better batter life. Only the Sony requires conversion to ATRAC. The Dell and the iRiver players, for example, get about 16 hours on MP3 at decent bitrates. The iRiver is also basically the same size as the iPod, with the same capacity.
HFS+ is journaled, and NTFS has sort-of journaling HFS+ and NTFS use exactly the same kind of journaling.
What are their costs in bringing and conducting the class action? Those are among the most expensive litigation. How many class actions don't end up going anywhere, leaving the lawyers with a big loss, since preparing for a class action is expensive?
Weird Al gets permission.
A 12-song player is not all that exciting. However, if they make it so you can download songs to it over the phone, then it becomes a lot more interesting. Keep your collection on your home computer with your always-on broadband connection, and grab songs 12 at a time for playback on the phone.
They might think that if the thing is too open, bad things can happen. There is precedent. Think of video game consoles. In the late 70's, early 80's, video games were big. There were arcades all over the place, and Atari, Mattel, and Coleco were thriving.
In 1982, the market collapsed. People stopped buying games. (And I got laid off as my cool Intellivision programming job at APh (the company that designed the Intellivision for Mattel) went away).
Years later, when Nintendo was considering coming out with the NES, they did a thourough study of what had caused that market collapse, so that they could avoid it.
Their conclusion was that the problem was too many companies were making games. Originally, only Mattel could product Intellivision games. Only Atari could make Atari games, and so on.
Later, Activision and Imagic were able to make games, but that was cool, because those companies were full of ex-Atari and ex-Mattel and ex-APh people. Their games were good, and the market grew.
After that, dozens of companies figured out how to make games for these systems, and they were crap. Nintendo's conclusion was that consumers just got tired of going in, plunking down a lot of cash for a game, and finding that it sucked. They couldn't tell the good stuff from the junk, and so stopped buying.
So Nintendo decided that for the NES to be viable, they had to be able to determine who could program for it. Perhaps Apple has decided that the same thing applies to portable music players.
You've got it backwards. The situation where this would be useful would be where you are taking a picture of something, and you want to protect against someone else altering it and claiming that the altered picture is the one you took, or you want to otherwise prove at some future time that you took it. In this situation, you'd want to make sure that the camera sees your iris.
For example, consider a cop taking a photo of a crime scene. Later, at a trial, proving that the cop took the photo could become an issue. If the cop made sure that it was stamped with his iris information, that would be very useful.
No. Go actually read the bill. It's only 1/4 of a page, so it shouldn't be to hard. Why are so many people here unable to do this?
A drug company would in fact get in serious trouble under current law if they were intentionally promoting the misuse of their drugs, so not only does you analogy fail to make the point you intend, it provides a good argument that the INDUCE Act is in fact not the big scary boogeyman that most people here are making it out to be.
We have a legal system that has, for over 200 years, been determining just this kind of thing. I see no reason to believe that it will suddenly completely break down if asked to determine intent in this situation.
No it wouldn't. Go read the bill.
Jesus christ, people. Go read the act itself. It is only about 8 sentences or so. It wouldn't outlaw iPods or MP3 players or VCRs or PVRs. All it seems to do is make it so that if you sell something with the intent that it be used for copyright infringement, you can't use the fact that it is also possible to use it in a non-infringing way as a defense. Take iPods. Apple sells them so you can listen to iTMS music, and music that you rip from CDs you buy, and audiobooks you buy from Audible.com. So, Apple is perfectly safe.
So he's like a big jam doughnut with cream on the top?
But does he shine out like a shaft of gold when all around is dark?
I didn't see this when I read the bill. Here is basically the whole thing:
Apple, for example, is not going to run into any trouble with the iPod from this. The intent of the iPod is to play music that the iPod owner has legally acquired.