One doesn't have to trust the FSF with relicensing of their code. After all, the licensing terms are, in the end, "GPL version [current] or (at your option) any later version published by the FSF". Thus the original license also stands, should a future revision prove unacceptable.
In exchange one avoids falling into the "well I'd like to go with version 3, but can't" trap.
It's a good deal even if the FSF were, right now, composed solely of crooks and bastards.
When computers start zapping people with lasers or literally blowing themselves up with built-in explosives as a tampering deterrent, I expect that the customer ombudsmen the world over will have a bit of a reaction. They already do if a children's toy contains too much residual phenol, for instance, or lead-bearing pigments.
That, and bomb technicians' salaries will increase dramatically.
Of course, who on earth would buy something that threatens to kill them if it suspects wrongdoing? People are already not flocking to purchase Windows Vista because of the well-known activation woes, i.e. the computer declaring the user a criminal. Sheesh.
Notice where this comes from. An university. It's likely that some professor just had the bright idea (also known as a "hallucination") that hey, maybe if we made chips pathologically heterogenous then we'd have workable DRM.
Thing is, Digital Restrictions Management isn't failing because of the technology. Despite it trying to make water not wet, despite all DRM being fundamentally crackable even if that includes taking some innocent children of a DRM root key owner hostage. DRM is failing because no one wants it. One of the few acceptable things about a capitalist economic system is that in general people won't spend money on stuff they find disagreeable.
The only exception is Apple's Itunes, which apparently sells only to technofetishists and monolith-worshippers who especially like to pay for things. That market, as it turns out, is rather static.
Yes yes. We had this discussion back in 1998 with CPRM, and look how it failed to turn up. Treacherous computing has likewise utterly failed to get off the ground.
So... exactly how many "reputable" car salesmen have you known? The kind that sell $5000 cars? Be honest, now. No idealized "reputable" car salesmen here: we both know these do not exist, and thus any argument stipulating such will be essentially equivalent to what-iffing about WW2.
In general, after having paid $5000 for a car, people tend to want to justify their purchase. They don't want to feel like they spent five grand on a heap of shit, even if that is exactly what they did.
Well, for being a programmer who writes the same thing over and over, I guess there isn't much incentive. But then, that's not why we're in this line of work, is it?
Let's face it, source code editors haven't been a viable business since Emacs. That happened 20 years ago.
On the other hand, if you don't censor their videos then everyone may end up seeing that they aren't the horn-headed demons they are depicted as in the tightly-controlled US media.
"I've never seen the material in question, but the material is unquestionably bad and should be deleted and its possessors charged and sentenced to death!"
That's what you're basically saying there, Einstein.
It has value as an experiment, even if it ultimately doesn't turn into much. These people have ideas, and they want to implement them. They aren't maintenance programmers and should not be shoehorned into that task even at the level of J. Random Person On Slashdot's thought.
Remember how reiserfs was the first filesystem to have journaling in Linux, and how some people were ready to state that there is no need to do an ext3 any more?
However, on a Core 2 chip (and presumably its descendants), a RDTSC is sometimes undone by the speculative execution scheduling unit and can, in some circumstances, report time going backwards. Not to mention that on a dualcore processor these counts are not strictly in sync, and do not tick forward predictably enough to be used as a clock.
Good idea though. Unworkable in practice, but good idea.
But you had to have "lightweight processes" aka threads, because apparently even copy-on-write forking was "too expensive". Now what's expensive, you dickbags? Huh? Programmer time or time spent debugging weird implicit sharing bugs?
Of course threads are still quite nice. Problem is, most "programmers" today are little more than monkeys who hurl feces at the computer. These people cannot be expected to understand threads. Most of them do not understand database transactions, or any kind of concurrency!
However, the technology should not be blamed for its misuse by idiots.
Wow. I guess they can't sell anything mentioning Socrates, then. Guy got himself the death penalty for "corrupting the youth". This was like, in ~400 BCE.
Funny thing is that the state found him guilty of corrupting the youth not because of anything he had said, but because he was said to be the wisest man in Greece yet refused the material trappings that the State held that great philosophers should embrace. Back then, if the State had an opinion, then its subjects were obligated to have the same opinion -- not exactly a liberal democracy, but you get the idea. That same kind of control is sought by all governments today, regardless of their commitment to a government by and for the people.
A lawsuit has been filed against all the county District Attorneys as well as the Attorney General of Oregon to block enforcement of a new law that restricts the sale of 'sexually explicit' material to people under the age of 18.
So from now on, only minors can buy porn in Oregon? Wow, that is harsh.
Depends how early the chips can be tested with regard to when they're bonded. If they're tested after bonding and one turns out to be a dud, then the whole chip is wasted, both dies and everything... this drove the Pentium Pro's price up: the L2 cache was on a separate module that couldn't be verified before bonding so a dud in either cost quite a bit.
But given how many Netburst "dual-cores" Intel put out a few years ago, I'd think they would have the manufacturing process at some reasonable level. Or maybe they only start producing quad-core chips on lines that're known to produce few enough duds for the cost not to matter so much... the dies aren't as big as they were in the PPro days IIRC.
AMD systems are already radically different from how PCs used to be constructed ten years ago. Memory controller integration (NUMA in a multi-socket configuration) and a non-shared front-side bus come to mind, as does the point-to-point bus used between the processor and the south bridge (HyperTransport).
Contrast with Intel's "solution" which involves two sets or north and south bridges. Hardly elegant, and fails to expose the NUMA properties that the north bridges mitigate between one another.
Once AMD gets the clockspeed bit tuned in, I expect Phenoms to hit the high-performance market like a bar of soap in a sock. HPC likes memory bandwidth, but they like low memory latency even more and that's where AMD has Intel by the goolies. (ever wonder why even Athlon X2s hold their own in game benchmarks? doesn't matter how many gigahertz there are in the chip, games have datasets far larger than that 6-meg L2 cache.)
Slashdot Mirror
Just go read the GPL FAQ, you double nigger.
There's no increased load. IP is a stateless protocol.
Back to school with ye.
Dude.
The Local is an Internet newspaper. As in, it mostly circulates on the Intarbutts.
Pay a little more attention please.
C++ with a twist of horseshit, is the expression I've been hearing.
One doesn't have to trust the FSF with relicensing of their code. After all, the licensing terms are, in the end, "GPL version [current] or (at your option) any later version published by the FSF". Thus the original license also stands, should a future revision prove unacceptable.
In exchange one avoids falling into the "well I'd like to go with version 3, but can't" trap.
It's a good deal even if the FSF were, right now, composed solely of crooks and bastards.
Can I use it to demagnetize my video tapes too? Because after 70 viewings, they're starting to look sort of noisy.
I'll show you later.
When computers start zapping people with lasers or literally blowing themselves up with built-in explosives as a tampering deterrent, I expect that the customer ombudsmen the world over will have a bit of a reaction. They already do if a children's toy contains too much residual phenol, for instance, or lead-bearing pigments.
That, and bomb technicians' salaries will increase dramatically.
Of course, who on earth would buy something that threatens to kill them if it suspects wrongdoing? People are already not flocking to purchase Windows Vista because of the well-known activation woes, i.e. the computer declaring the user a criminal. Sheesh.
Notice where this comes from. An university. It's likely that some professor just had the bright idea (also known as a "hallucination") that hey, maybe if we made chips pathologically heterogenous then we'd have workable DRM.
Thing is, Digital Restrictions Management isn't failing because of the technology. Despite it trying to make water not wet, despite all DRM being fundamentally crackable even if that includes taking some innocent children of a DRM root key owner hostage. DRM is failing because no one wants it. One of the few acceptable things about a capitalist economic system is that in general people won't spend money on stuff they find disagreeable.
The only exception is Apple's Itunes, which apparently sells only to technofetishists and monolith-worshippers who especially like to pay for things. That market, as it turns out, is rather static.
Yes yes. We had this discussion back in 1998 with CPRM, and look how it failed to turn up. Treacherous computing has likewise utterly failed to get off the ground.
Live in fear if you want to. I won't.
So... exactly how many "reputable" car salesmen have you known? The kind that sell $5000 cars? Be honest, now. No idealized "reputable" car salesmen here: we both know these do not exist, and thus any argument stipulating such will be essentially equivalent to what-iffing about WW2.
In general, after having paid $5000 for a car, people tend to want to justify their purchase. They don't want to feel like they spent five grand on a heap of shit, even if that is exactly what they did.
I think you mean the Trabant.
Parts of it were actually made of laminated industrial cardboard.
Well, for being a programmer who writes the same thing over and over, I guess there isn't much incentive. But then, that's not why we're in this line of work, is it?
Let's face it, source code editors haven't been a viable business since Emacs. That happened 20 years ago.
You've never used Valgrind, have you? There's nothing, nothing in the proprietary sphere that even comes close to it.
That's assuming the $5000 car doesn't itself need more than $3000 in repairs over the next six months.
On the other hand, if you don't censor their videos then everyone may end up seeing that they aren't the horn-headed demons they are depicted as in the tightly-controlled US media.
Do you think this senator is stupid?
"I've never seen the material in question, but the material is unquestionably bad and should be deleted and its possessors charged and sentenced to death!"
That's what you're basically saying there, Einstein.
You wouldn't take a fox's vegetarian food recipes without a barrel of salt either, would you.
Also in b4 blogspamwhoring is called, because I'm calling it first right here.
It has value as an experiment, even if it ultimately doesn't turn into much. These people have ideas, and they want to implement them. They aren't maintenance programmers and should not be shoehorned into that task even at the level of J. Random Person On Slashdot's thought.
Remember how reiserfs was the first filesystem to have journaling in Linux, and how some people were ready to state that there is no need to do an ext3 any more?
However, on a Core 2 chip (and presumably its descendants), a RDTSC is sometimes undone by the speculative execution scheduling unit and can, in some circumstances, report time going backwards. Not to mention that on a dualcore processor these counts are not strictly in sync, and do not tick forward predictably enough to be used as a clock.
Good idea though. Unworkable in practice, but good idea.
But you had to have "lightweight processes" aka threads, because apparently even copy-on-write forking was "too expensive". Now what's expensive, you dickbags? Huh? Programmer time or time spent debugging weird implicit sharing bugs?
Of course threads are still quite nice. Problem is, most "programmers" today are little more than monkeys who hurl feces at the computer. These people cannot be expected to understand threads. Most of them do not understand database transactions, or any kind of concurrency!
However, the technology should not be blamed for its misuse by idiots.
Wow. I guess they can't sell anything mentioning Socrates, then. Guy got himself the death penalty for "corrupting the youth". This was like, in ~400 BCE.
Funny thing is that the state found him guilty of corrupting the youth not because of anything he had said, but because he was said to be the wisest man in Greece yet refused the material trappings that the State held that great philosophers should embrace. Back then, if the State had an opinion, then its subjects were obligated to have the same opinion -- not exactly a liberal democracy, but you get the idea. That same kind of control is sought by all governments today, regardless of their commitment to a government by and for the people.
So from now on, only minors can buy porn in Oregon? Wow, that is harsh.
Depends how early the chips can be tested with regard to when they're bonded. If they're tested after bonding and one turns out to be a dud, then the whole chip is wasted, both dies and everything... this drove the Pentium Pro's price up: the L2 cache was on a separate module that couldn't be verified before bonding so a dud in either cost quite a bit.
But given how many Netburst "dual-cores" Intel put out a few years ago, I'd think they would have the manufacturing process at some reasonable level. Or maybe they only start producing quad-core chips on lines that're known to produce few enough duds for the cost not to matter so much... the dies aren't as big as they were in the PPro days IIRC.
AMD systems are already radically different from how PCs used to be constructed ten years ago. Memory controller integration (NUMA in a multi-socket configuration) and a non-shared front-side bus come to mind, as does the point-to-point bus used between the processor and the south bridge (HyperTransport).
Contrast with Intel's "solution" which involves two sets or north and south bridges. Hardly elegant, and fails to expose the NUMA properties that the north bridges mitigate between one another.
Once AMD gets the clockspeed bit tuned in, I expect Phenoms to hit the high-performance market like a bar of soap in a sock. HPC likes memory bandwidth, but they like low memory latency even more and that's where AMD has Intel by the goolies. (ever wonder why even Athlon X2s hold their own in game benchmarks? doesn't matter how many gigahertz there are in the chip, games have datasets far larger than that 6-meg L2 cache.)