I actually did some digging, very basic stuff that most people don't bother with. The JEDEC website (http://www.jedec.org/) has a lot of information in pdf format, if you care to sign up. Published standards, minutes and regulations are available for free download.
First of all, basic rules. The legal guide (and other documents) stipulate that members will participate in good faith (Section C.1) and no restraint of trade activities of any kind will take place (Section A.1), and that JEDEC will not police or audit its members or their reports to the organization (Section E). It's a pretty open organization.
Now for the heavy lifting. The JEDEC Manual has a lot of interesting stuff in it, especially in Section 7.3 which deals with use of Patented Products. First and foremost, JEDEC does not care if patented tech is used, but it does require that the holder agree to grant licenses freely or for a reasonable fee. And as some people have been asking, members must disclose 'any knowledge they may have of patents, or pending patents, that might be involved in the work they are undertaking.' (emphasis mine) Also notice the word 'might', I assume this means if you're not sure, say so anyways, good faith and disclosure and all that. So all members are aware of this clause, it is quite important because the front cover of all publications must include a blurb about patent compliance, all tech referencing patented technology must be noted, and footnotes must say 'compliance with this section of the document requires the use of patent No. xxxx' (or patent has been applied for...), this is described in Section 7.3.1
I would say the binary data you mention (sound, image, video) is very structured. You may have tried writing a display utility for TIFF or AVI or DOC, and this is extremely hard because those formats don't actually encode the content, they're just containers for other formats. You can write a loader or parser for a media file almost blindly; while the actual contents are often encoded in various formats (witness DOC, TIFF, AVI, and, uh, what's a good sound container format? PCM?), which themselves are also very well defined and structured.
Yes, but then you have non-portable code. C specifically was designed for portability. So now you have code that relies on some implementation defined behaviour that may or may not be the same on other platorms, even using the same compiler. I understand the reasons for doing this somewhat, but things like a[i++] = i++ _should_ have precisely defined behaviour. Constricting the ++ operator might lead to inefficiencies on some architectures, but really, when half a dozen characters lead to undefined behariour there's a problem.
While I have no idea what you just wrote there, or even if it's valid, but this brings up a major issue:
The C and C++ specs leave many conditions 'undefined'. That is to say, compiler writers may handle a given situation as they like (generate error, do the Right Thing, who knows?). This always boggled my mind... here you have a bunch of smart guys writing a complex document defining a language millions of people will use for the next few decades, they come up with problem situations and just shrug their shoulders? Undefined? Don't do this? WTF?!? They obviously though this could be a problem that would come up, so why no default behaviour?
You can have your web page send the ETag header. Generate a new ETag when the page changes. I mostly use it to change web page contents every x minutes, without messing with date stamps and worrying about screwed up clocks on browsers' computers. The RFC in question is available at http://www.faqs.org/ - it is the very lengthy HTTP1.1 protocol spec. From what I understand (not that the actual mechanism matters), the browser sends a request for a page along with the ETag (if page was previously cached) and the server will determine whether to send a 304 or the updated page with a new ETag. ETags are essentially disconnected from file date stamps and page content, which makes them great for use in dynamic pages.
That's just a little elitist of you, don't want amateurs snooping around your holy temple? This is a very good thing for people just learning this stuff, precisely because it is so involved and deep. While a major proof can be very short, only two or three statements long, the underlaying principles can take years to master and understand. I don't know how this will be set up, but something in the style of an XML structure browser (like in IE) or some other tree-viewer would be ideal, expanding details on demand. So you still get your high level statements, but should you be lost you can click a plus sign for an explanation, expanded proof, all the way down to first principles should you feel particularly masochistic.
You do raise a very good point; there are often several ways to arrive at a conclusion/proof. You should be able to expand a proof in several ways as well... maybe down the first principles line, set theory,... (IANAM (i am not a mathematician))..., and maybe even plain English for people who just want to know, but not truly understand.
The only difference is that many more dumb startups got funding
That's not exactly the difference. The difference is many more startups got funding on the public market. As a result average people felt the losses when these companies failed. It's usually venture capitalists and wealthy individuals who take the highest risk, by the time a company got around to an IPO it was fairly stable and at least profitable. Companies used to IPO because they needed cash to expand, not to survive.
Whoa, hold on there cowboy! I'm quite aware of CIDR notation, and your reply, while insightful, has nothing to do with my post. Classes are a perfectly valid way of measuring IP space. It's much simpler to say I have a class C than it is to say I have 209.91.122.0/24 of IPs. Besides, my post was about the _abuse_ of class allocation, and while I didn't explicitely write it, one could say I was advocating breaking up those class A blocks into, wait for it, smaller CIDR blocks! In fact, I was going to link to RFCs 1466 _and_ 2050.
So in the future please refrain from getting snooty on people and referring to them as MCSEs without cause.
You know what... I've been doing that for the last 6-9 months... and I'm signing up for lots of stuff using this method. But I have not yet received any spam. Zero. So I wonder where spammers get their addresses from. Most likely there are a couple of lists that everyone buys, modifies to their liking and then resells. Every once in a while AOL member lists get crawled for fresh meat, and that seems to be it.
Actually, a lot of the early companies got lots of IPs because, well, they were there early. Xerox, IBM, DEC, Apple, MIT. I don't know my Internet history well enough to know what role BBN played, but obviously they got something for it. All these companies have got to be wasting TONS of IPs... Apple for example... I'm sure all of Microsoft's IP blocks don't nearly add up to a class A, what's Apple doing with theirs?
Doesn't anyone find it strange how we've been running out of IPv4 address space for the last couple of years?
Here are some stats from ARIN (unfortunatelly these are circa 1996...):
Grand Total (Allocated and Assigned Combined)
Class A - 127
Class B - 10150
Class C - 764202
Right... so there are 127 institutions with class A's all to themselves. Now that's really efficient. Even a full class B (which 10000 organizations have been blessed with) is overkill.
Percentage Allocated (Allocated and Assigned Combined)
Class A - 100.00%
Class B - 61.95%
Class C - 36.44%
Now, the offenders are here (this list _is_ up-to-date). Most notable class A assignments:
GE (ok - 1)
Bolt Beranek and Newman (BBN? that's a lot og IPs - 3)
IBM (ok - 1)
ATT (hmm, I guess telcos need some IPs too - 1)
Xerox (well earned - 1)
HP (lotsa research, ok - 1)
DEC (same, ok - 1)
Apple (definitely overkill - 1)
MIT (well earned as well - 1)
Ford (good one! - 1)
Halliburton Company (huh? - 1)
PSI (hehe - 1)
Eli Lily and Company (wtf? who are these guys? - 1)
Bell-Northern (no comment - 1)
Prudential Securities (that's funny... - 1)
duPont (I'm sure they're using it all... - 1)
The rest goes to IP registries to dish out in comparatively puny class B and C chunks, and of course the US government.
Ah, in terms of interfaces it's pretty much the same thing. You speak into your computer, like you would talk to a person, and it under stands what you said and carries out the task. And, since I'm looking so far into the future here, I don't just mean 'open browser' or 'click submit', I mean 'I'd like to look for work now' and it will fire up your resume, address book, memos (so self), and bring up a bunch of job hunting sites, without being explicitely programmed to do so. Come on, you're splitting hairs here... maybe I should have written AI/natlang. Is that better?
I think the lawyers' cut (what is it these days? 30%?) should consist of Iomega discount coupons, seeing as they fought so hard to win them for their clients...
The time will come when all the "killer apps" have been thought of and implimented. That time appears to be pretty close to NOW.
I think this is a bit premature. There are still some 'killer' apps left: there is voice recognition, VR, and, way down the road, AI, that is, natural language recognition.
As far as OOP code goes... in all but the most complex cases of straight C code, C++ requires an extra level of indirection. When you call a function in C, you just go to its address. When you call a member function in C++, you need to find the address first. This means an extra memory fetch. Now, it may not seem like much, but if you've followed some technical links from the recent P4 article you'd see that this can add up to quite a bit in terms of cache misses, main memory access, stalled pipelines and mispredictions.
You speak of 'media' users (aka Napster) as if they're the power users. All you need is a Pentium class machine to play mp3s, and you can probably download at the same time too.
Oh please, spare us the speculation. According to the article the specs for AMD chips call for a 73 Watt max heat dissipation, while P4 is 55... only because that's when the throttling occurs. Yeah, at 55 Watts the thermal sensor cuts the CPU speed in half, which incidentally is just when you need all the speed (you're driving it pretty hard at this point). Meanwhile, the true max output of a P4 is almost exactly 73 Watts.
And what do you mean you need a good heat sink? Doesn't the P4 already come with a 1 pound hunk of copper? What more do you need?
Re:I've been steering people clear of the IV
on
Pentium IV study
·
· Score: 1
A popular local supplier (in Calgary, Canada) doesn't even stock any P4 parts. They could probably order one in for you... but obviously if you can't guarantee enough volume you won't stock P4s. There are massive price cuts already on the way for the P4, and the platform will be totally revamped in the coming months (copper, die shrink, form/pin layout change, possibly support for DDR), which means stocking the P4 is a money losing proposition.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, basic rules. The legal guide (and other documents) stipulate that members will participate in good faith (Section C.1) and no restraint of trade activities of any kind will take place (Section A.1), and that JEDEC will not police or audit its members or their reports to the organization (Section E). It's a pretty open organization.
Now for the heavy lifting. The JEDEC Manual has a lot of interesting stuff in it, especially in Section 7.3 which deals with use of Patented Products. First and foremost, JEDEC does not care if patented tech is used, but it does require that the holder agree to grant licenses freely or for a reasonable fee. And as some people have been asking, members must disclose 'any knowledge they may have of patents, or pending patents, that might be involved in the work they are undertaking.' (emphasis mine) Also notice the word 'might', I assume this means if you're not sure, say so anyways, good faith and disclosure and all that. So all members are aware of this clause, it is quite important because the front cover of all publications must include a blurb about patent compliance, all tech referencing patented technology must be noted, and footnotes must say 'compliance with this section of the document requires the use of patent No. xxxx' (or patent has been applied for...), this is described in Section 7.3.1
FYI and draw our own conclusions (IANAL).
Rambus does its own research, and so employs a large number of engineers. Here is their corporate profile: http://yahoo.marketguide.com/mgi/busidesc.asp?rt=b usidesc&rn=A13DC
I would say the binary data you mention (sound, image, video) is very structured. You may have tried writing a display utility for TIFF or AVI or DOC, and this is extremely hard because those formats don't actually encode the content, they're just containers for other formats. You can write a loader or parser for a media file almost blindly; while the actual contents are often encoded in various formats (witness DOC, TIFF, AVI, and, uh, what's a good sound container format? PCM?), which themselves are also very well defined and structured.
Yes, but then you have non-portable code. C specifically was designed for portability. So now you have code that relies on some implementation defined behaviour that may or may not be the same on other platorms, even using the same compiler. I understand the reasons for doing this somewhat, but things like a[i++] = i++ _should_ have precisely defined behaviour. Constricting the ++ operator might lead to inefficiencies on some architectures, but really, when half a dozen characters lead to undefined behariour there's a problem.
The C and C++ specs leave many conditions 'undefined'. That is to say, compiler writers may handle a given situation as they like (generate error, do the Right Thing, who knows?). This always boggled my mind... here you have a bunch of smart guys writing a complex document defining a language millions of people will use for the next few decades, they come up with problem situations and just shrug their shoulders? Undefined? Don't do this? WTF?!? They obviously though this could be a problem that would come up, so why no default behaviour?
You can have your web page send the ETag header. Generate a new ETag when the page changes. I mostly use it to change web page contents every x minutes, without messing with date stamps and worrying about screwed up clocks on browsers' computers. The RFC in question is available at http://www.faqs.org/ - it is the very lengthy HTTP1.1 protocol spec. From what I understand (not that the actual mechanism matters), the browser sends a request for a page along with the ETag (if page was previously cached) and the server will determine whether to send a 304 or the updated page with a new ETag. ETags are essentially disconnected from file date stamps and page content, which makes them great for use in dynamic pages.
You do raise a very good point; there are often several ways to arrive at a conclusion/proof. You should be able to expand a proof in several ways as well... maybe down the first principles line, set theory, ... (IANAM (i am not a mathematician)) ..., and maybe even plain English for people who just want to know, but not truly understand.
That's not exactly the difference. The difference is many more startups got funding on the public market. As a result average people felt the losses when these companies failed. It's usually venture capitalists and wealthy individuals who take the highest risk, by the time a company got around to an IPO it was fairly stable and at least profitable. Companies used to IPO because they needed cash to expand, not to survive.
Uh, hello, anyone home? Here is what the morons.org people think of slashdot.
Upload them to Hotmail, so Microsoft's ownership of them becomes official?
No, no, no, upload them to Hotmail so Microsoft's copy enforcement scheme will prevent you from forwarding it to other people.
So in the future please refrain from getting snooty on people and referring to them as MCSEs without cause.
Or maybe someone just downloaded the zone file, scanned for new domains and run a batch whois?
You know what... I've been doing that for the last 6-9 months... and I'm signing up for lots of stuff using this method. But I have not yet received any spam. Zero. So I wonder where spammers get their addresses from. Most likely there are a couple of lists that everyone buys, modifies to their liking and then resells. Every once in a while AOL member lists get crawled for fresh meat, and that seems to be it.
Actually, a lot of the early companies got lots of IPs because, well, they were there early. Xerox, IBM, DEC, Apple, MIT. I don't know my Internet history well enough to know what role BBN played, but obviously they got something for it. All these companies have got to be wasting TONS of IPs... Apple for example... I'm sure all of Microsoft's IP blocks don't nearly add up to a class A, what's Apple doing with theirs?
Here are some stats from ARIN (unfortunatelly these are circa 1996...):
Right... so there are 127 institutions with class A's all to themselves. Now that's really efficient. Even a full class B (which 10000 organizations have been blessed with) is overkill.
Now, the offenders are here (this list _is_ up-to-date). Most notable class A assignments:
The rest goes to IP registries to dish out in comparatively puny class B and C chunks, and of course the US government.
Gateway
Dell
They're selling P4s with 32MB TNT2 cards.... uhm... yeah.
Ah, in terms of interfaces it's pretty much the same thing. You speak into your computer, like you would talk to a person, and it under stands what you said and carries out the task. And, since I'm looking so far into the future here, I don't just mean 'open browser' or 'click submit', I mean 'I'd like to look for work now' and it will fire up your resume, address book, memos (so self), and bring up a bunch of job hunting sites, without being explicitely programmed to do so. Come on, you're splitting hairs here... maybe I should have written AI/natlang. Is that better?
I think the lawyers' cut (what is it these days? 30%?) should consist of Iomega discount coupons, seeing as they fought so hard to win them for their clients...
I think this is a bit premature. There are still some 'killer' apps left: there is voice recognition, VR, and, way down the road, AI, that is, natural language recognition.
As far as OOP code goes... in all but the most complex cases of straight C code, C++ requires an extra level of indirection. When you call a function in C, you just go to its address. When you call a member function in C++, you need to find the address first. This means an extra memory fetch. Now, it may not seem like much, but if you've followed some technical links from the recent P4 article you'd see that this can add up to quite a bit in terms of cache misses, main memory access, stalled pipelines and mispredictions.
You speak of 'media' users (aka Napster) as if they're the power users. All you need is a Pentium class machine to play mp3s, and you can probably download at the same time too.
Well, we _are_ talking video conferencing here. It's not like you need a 50'x20' projection screen and 8.1 sound system.
Unfortunatelly, Wallmart is not trademarked by Walmart.
And what do you mean you need a good heat sink? Doesn't the P4 already come with a 1 pound hunk of copper? What more do you need?
A popular local supplier (in Calgary, Canada) doesn't even stock any P4 parts. They could probably order one in for you... but obviously if you can't guarantee enough volume you won't stock P4s. There are massive price cuts already on the way for the P4, and the platform will be totally revamped in the coming months (copper, die shrink, form/pin layout change, possibly support for DDR), which means stocking the P4 is a money losing proposition.