After the announcement, Nokia stock price has gone down 15 % from yesterday's closing value at OMX Helsinki. So, not the kind of announcement the market was expecting, it seems.
It's still irrelevant in the context of the prize criteria. If the prize would have been given for creating Linux as an operating system, the GGP would have some point, but TFA explicitly says that creating the *kernel* was the achievement that was found laudable.
I agree with your assessment of TFA. I even went further after reading the fine article: There were 4 commenters, all basically scared of nuclear power, and showing their ignorance in their comments. I wrote a reply to address all of them, but unfortunately I'm not socially networked, so I couldn't actually post it. Sucks to live outside Google, Facebook, Disqus, and so on, I guess. Well, at least I can rant here.
"Hello, This is Anonymous Finland messaging you once again (actually not, the earlier messages were not written nor released by us.)
We have no opinions on any politicians all. We have not hacked any Finnish websites. We find antisec childish, among with lulzsec that was nothing but a bunch of bought exploits."
The GP is correct. Remember how USA didn't need any test for the gun-type bomb before deploying it against Japan? The actual calculations involved aren't too hard; you can do the modelling easily on a home computer in short time, assuming that you know the relevant physical properties (neutron interaction cross-section for the part of neutron spectrum the bomb will use, neutron reflection coefficients if you want to reflectors for improved power, and so on). If you have the materials, you can use them excessively to ensure a decent yield in the construct, as this compression method allows large separation of the fissionable parts, so that you don't have to be limited to 2 x barely sub-critical mass.
Chernobyl was caused partly by operator error. The expert here has clearly an agenda of his own, if he denies that the testing that caused the accident was made outside the original test specs, ie. the power levels when the test was started were way too low, and the operators responding to the unstable conditions caused by the initial power levels were incorrect and ultimately caused the secondary explosion, which was the main cause for the release of the radioactive materials.
The conjecture about overfilled cooling pools is also totally unconfirmed by any other source, as is the claim that the pools drained after the quake. As far as the official story goes, the pools started draining as there was no active cooling (pumps died, like in the reactors) so the stagnating water evaporated by the heat produced by the spent rods, which makes sense as pools drained by the quake would have caused problems immediately, not after a few days.
Actually, it's "Man buys a three cheap monitors and a crappy Compaq, adds a midrange graphics card to it, makes a forum post calling it a gaming beast". The thread on [H]ardForum is actually fun to read for the bashing he gets.
Are you being dense on purpose? Please explain the difference the main differences in hardware in HDCP-capable hardware running Windows vs. the same hardware running Linux. It's fully a software problem, and you can do format shifting and outputting the result to a screen on the fly, too.
The code is about breaking all handshakes in HDCP content protection, so you might there goes your argument in any case.
This was addressed earlier in another post. You get the GPU-monitor and probably optical drive-motherboard (or GPU, if it's "direct" lane)handshakes made, there's (basically) no need for extra hardware, you just need the processing power to get the content decrypted.
We have seen plenty of specific HDCP breaks that can decrypt a limited set of movies; this is the general break, which does not care much about the HW and firmware (optical drive) details.
Yes, and you don't answer the question. If I have two similar computers, both HDCP capable at least on paper, what's the physical difference? HDCP is meant to be fast in the hardware, but it doesn't mean that it's not possible to decrypt it in software; and more to the point, there is no physical difference as the GGGP implies: It's just the same hardware.
Hmm, lost me there. Answer me this: What separates a HDCP capable computer without the software player from a HDCP capable computer with the software player? All the same parts, from Blu-Ray player to the graphics to the monitor.
As both cheap graphics cards and motherboards with HDMI outputs are very much mainstream nowadays, I think your use of the word "specialized" is inaccurate here.
Core 2 Duo P9600 has 2 cores; we have moved much past that stage with six core CPUs and advancements in CPU architecture after C2D, and like mentioned, the code presented is pretty much an early alpha.
Slashdot Mirror
After the announcement, Nokia stock price has gone down 15 % from yesterday's closing value at OMX Helsinki. So, not the kind of announcement the market was expecting, it seems.
It's still irrelevant in the context of the prize criteria. If the prize would have been given for creating Linux as an operating system, the GGP would have some point, but TFA explicitly says that creating the *kernel* was the achievement that was found laudable.
No, because the prize was awarded for developing just the kernel.
I agree with your assessment of TFA. I even went further after reading the fine article: There were 4 commenters, all basically scared of nuclear power, and showing their ignorance in their comments. I wrote a reply to address all of them, but unfortunately I'm not socially networked, so I couldn't actually post it. Sucks to live outside Google, Facebook, Disqus, and so on, I guess. Well, at least I can rant here.
"Quantum levitation" is just trying to make old superconductivity effects somehow sound even more cool. Try Meissner effect and flux pinning instead.
"Hello,
This is Anonymous Finland messaging you once again (actually not, the earlier messages were not written nor released by us.)
We have no opinions on any politicians all.
We have not hacked any Finnish websites.
We find antisec childish, among with lulzsec that was nothing but a bunch of bought exploits."
http://pastebin.com/X98zQ4Ea
Klaus Fuchs and Vladimir Fock welcome the news, though they still hope a deeper penetration into the data.
The GP is correct. Remember how USA didn't need any test for the gun-type bomb before deploying it against Japan? The actual calculations involved aren't too hard; you can do the modelling easily on a home computer in short time, assuming that you know the relevant physical properties (neutron interaction cross-section for the part of neutron spectrum the bomb will use, neutron reflection coefficients if you want to reflectors for improved power, and so on). If you have the materials, you can use them excessively to ensure a decent yield in the construct, as this compression method allows large separation of the fissionable parts, so that you don't have to be limited to 2 x barely sub-critical mass.
Technetium-99 has a half-life of over 200k years. Of course, it's still days, just a lot of them.
Chernobyl was caused partly by operator error. The expert here has clearly an agenda of his own, if he denies that the testing that caused the accident was made outside the original test specs, ie. the power levels when the test was started were way too low, and the operators responding to the unstable conditions caused by the initial power levels were incorrect and ultimately caused the secondary explosion, which was the main cause for the release of the radioactive materials.
The conjecture about overfilled cooling pools is also totally unconfirmed by any other source, as is the claim that the pools drained after the quake. As far as the official story goes, the pools started draining as there was no active cooling (pumps died, like in the reactors) so the stagnating water evaporated by the heat produced by the spent rods, which makes sense as pools drained by the quake would have caused problems immediately, not after a few days.
March 26, if the info here is correct: http://www.icjt.org/npp/podrobnosti.php?drzava=14&lokacija=818
Actually, it's "Man buys a three cheap monitors and a crappy Compaq, adds a midrange graphics card to it, makes a forum post calling it a gaming beast". The thread on [H]ardForum is actually fun to read for the bashing he gets.
It took only two and a half months for this to get on /., it's yesterday's news tomorrow, as usual.
The figure is now over 10k withdrawals from the church since the debate; €1.5M was the estimate for about half that number.
So, what's stopping Linux from using the HDCP-encrypted content then, if the hardware (regardless of the OS) does all the job?
Are you being dense on purpose? Please explain the difference the main differences in hardware in HDCP-capable hardware running Windows vs. the same hardware running Linux. It's fully a software problem, and you can do format shifting and outputting the result to a screen on the fly, too.
The code is about breaking all handshakes in HDCP content protection, so you might there goes your argument in any case.
Why don't you start by explaining how HDCP content over HDMI is different in Windows as compared to Linux?
This was addressed earlier in another post. You get the GPU-monitor and probably optical drive-motherboard (or GPU, if it's "direct" lane)handshakes made, there's (basically) no need for extra hardware, you just need the processing power to get the content decrypted.
We have seen plenty of specific HDCP breaks that can decrypt a limited set of movies; this is the general break, which does not care much about the HW and firmware (optical drive) details.
Yes, and you don't answer the question. If I have two similar computers, both HDCP capable at least on paper, what's the physical difference? HDCP is meant to be fast in the hardware, but it doesn't mean that it's not possible to decrypt it in software; and more to the point, there is no physical difference as the GGGP implies: It's just the same hardware.
Hmm, lost me there. Answer me this: What separates a HDCP capable computer without the software player from a HDCP capable computer with the software player? All the same parts, from Blu-Ray player to the graphics to the monitor.
As both cheap graphics cards and motherboards with HDMI outputs are very much mainstream nowadays, I think your use of the word "specialized" is inaccurate here.
Core 2 Duo P9600 has 2 cores; we have moved much past that stage with six core CPUs and advancements in CPU architecture after C2D, and like mentioned, the code presented is pretty much an early alpha.
Great stuff! Shows Intel's representative's earlier comments about software implementation not being feasible quite wrong.
I know you are trying to be funny, but you still should have replied the GP here, not me.
Absolutely right, emphasis on the tiny chance. Where are my mod points...