Spot on, but there's more if the ideas in Neural Darwinism are true - and I think that they are.
Edelman showed that 1) individual circuits are not restricted to a single function, 2) that the operation of any brain circuit has a propagation rate dependent upon electrolytic characteristics at the time the circuit is activated, 3) a signal through the circuit, possible by the electrolytes, changes those electrolytes, 4) the next loop through that circuit will have a different propagation rate than the previous (or next) loop.
Edelman was the guy that first explained the brain as a complex wiring network. He realized his mistake and published to correct it. His frustration was endless, as he was constantly quoted with his own earlier - and wrong - work in ignorance that it was HIS earlier work.
He was the original proponent for the idea that thoughts are not infinite because brain wiring is finite. He later learned that even though the wiring is finite at any one instant, it's not just like the wiring like an electrical circuit - once made the propagation through a copper circuit is predictable and constant (I generalize - it's late, ok?) - but rather brain "wiring" propagation flexible.
It's not hardware, it's not a software neural net equivalent - it's wetware. The closest analogy most/.ers are too young to know about - it's closer to self-modifying code than anything else.
I always love to be proven wrong, but I think the whole exercise of trying to map brain "wiring" is an absolute, total and complete waste of time and is being performed without respect to prior art, and is instead stumblefucking around with the mantra of "Gee Whiz, we know so little about the brain....! We can try anything!"
Reminds me of the clown bitch trying to figure out Stradivarius magic by doing static resonance testing by placing a violin on top of a vibrating cone driver, and seeing what bounced around depending on what frequency she dialed on a function generator. Sadly hilarious. Saw it on PBS or something years ago. She was part of cutting edge research because no had thought of doing that to a violin before - and her excuses were - just like these brain wiring guys and other posters here - we know so little, we have to start somewhere..... In fact, the reason "no one had thought to do that" was because it was totally idiotic.
I wish researchers like this would just start in the unemployment line and free the money for people who stand a chance of accomplishing something.
It's completely true that research HAS to try whacky and novel things. It's also true that research is to search and search again - and these bozos just ain't doing that, as evidenced by a body of work pointing to what's wrong with the whole approach that didn't turn up in their searches - if indeed there were any.
OK, I'm getting worked up and I need to stop. Sloppy work passing as research gets to me that way.
I totally agree with you and cyberpunks3. Immersion: the first SW movie begins with the freaking largest starship any of us had ever seen on the screen. While the "whoas" and "holy shits" were still echoing, and then absolute silence and armrest-strangling while we watched the underbelly of something even larger - by far! - chasing and firing at it, in absolute, complete and total sensory overload.
Welcome to Star Wars.
My take on cyberpunks3 comment - sad isn't it, that now it's just so hip to be able to bitch about just about everything. Nothing at all new there, but come on - I'd like to think there was a time and race of people capable of laughing at even their own pretentions. So now, it's not just the bitching, it's the whiney too-cool-to-like-stuff-like-that attitude that goes along with it.
We're even too cool to say "started to suck" as if clarity were a crime. Now, baby, we're jumping sharks! But that's just me, boooookay?
Let's remember a little history - I'm a geezer geek, so I'll help. AFAIR, Kiss hit the stage in makeup to cover up their day jobs - and it was popular knowledge that one of them was an accountant and they were all white-collar, up and comer types.
Cheech and Chong, in their Alice Bowie schtick, referred to them lyrically as, "And I only know three chords!!" (Or was that Bachman, Turner, Overweight? Another distinction without a difference.)
I knew of NO ONE at the college I attended in the early '70s ever owning, or even tolerating listening to, Kiss.
One of the Marsalis brothers put it succinctly - it's a thing called rhythm. Young or old, college or not, there's a whole planet full of people that get that simple thing.
Then, there's the rest of the polyester-wearing, mass-media slurping ugly crowd, served by "rock" bands like Kiss (apologies if reading rock and Kiss in the same sentence makes you as sick to read it as it did me to write it). Kiss "music" (translation: drek) seems targeted to only increase the population of the slurping Eloi - it's just part of the 8-track in the brain, endless loop program that most idiots seem to have running around in their heads. I'm sure there's an industry for that, but in the day, we referred to it as Madison Avenue, not the music industry.
Eugene's only real problem (may we call him Eugene?) is that he's going to be the first to whine when his brane-programming revenue is threatened.
Here's another happy slogan from an old college student of the '70s: When the revolution comes, he's going to be among the first with his back to a brick wall being offered the choice of a blindfold - or not.
Hope this clarifies things from a certain point of view.
Mac's get this right more than windows machines do, but even they're a little sluggish at it. I travel a lot, and present a lot (away from home almost full-time since June), using a MacBook Pro. I've never learned the projector brands (and hope to never abuse my brain that way), but those are the problem. 95% of the time, I plug in the monitor cable, use the non-mirroring mode monitor (independent screen resolutions) and I'm good to go - immediately. But every once in a while, the projector system wants to disagree - taking forever to sync, having color problems, scaling problems, etc. In my experience, Mac laptops are far superior to Windows for using a projector, but that difference really started to show when the new generation of (Intel-based) Mac laptops hit.
I think you're maybe seeing some of the 5% crappy projectors........
In the circle concerned with DoD and DOE funding debates, the Air Force guys used to have a saying:
If you gave the fusion project to us, four guys would be in prison for fraud, the taxpayers would have been bilked out out of several hundred million dollars, the project would be two years late - with mods on top of that - and we'd all be driving Mr. Fusions by now!
And once again we see how bad a car analogy can be -... You are absolutely correct - the OP was trying for a Lambourghini-level analogy, but only got as far as a Yugo. It's a real problem on slashdot - there are a lot of Edsels in the comparisons I read daily.
But the part where you mixed cars and oranges is as follows - you're talking about MS losing nothing by swapping a license if the disks are still good....
Dooood - the disks aren't the license. In fact, fancy packaging aside, the disks themselves cost less than the postage required to send you something. MS costs would be in the admin of such a program, the lost face in the market, and the negative ROI for developing Vista.
The only thing physical you have - aside from the license notice itself - for the license is your codeword. Arguing that your codeword has been read and therefore that it couldn't be returned would be like letting just a pound or two of the air out of the tires of a showroom car and then breathing that air - easy for the dealer to get more, and something you've already exhaled.
Since the eye candy is off-loaded to the GPU it doesn't take CPU time, so it is officially safe to ignore the rest of your post as ill-informed. I used to use VirtualPC with Win2k on an older Mac. Then I upgraded to XP. It was a barely-fast-enough machine as it was, but the results were interesting. You could see the classic windows appear and then get painted over by the XP theme (if that's the right word - sorry). So, I set appearance to Classic and it ran way better - almost Win2k like.
I think the interesting thing for me is that when Win98 came out, I recall seeing a lot of "it's still not an OS, it's a still a DOS overlay!" comments, and when XP came out, I *heard* a few stories like mine, but don't recall seeing them in print. Now Vista is here and.... is it really knowable how the eye candy is being dealt with? I'd like to presume that the repainting of classic windows disappeared a long time ago - but with fast-enough hardware, no way I can tell.
I've only heard (since at least Longhorn) how many gazillion lines of code are rewritten and how many bujillion lines are new. Given my examples above, and the source lines of code anecdotes, is there any reason for an outsider to believe the eye-candy is being handled correctly - or even well? I look at my Linux desktop, my OS X desktop, and even an old X11 desktop with Andrew's Window Manager (that's still running great, thanks) with layout and color changes I made so many years ago that I can't recall which files I twiddled - all of which look pretty great - and I wonder what amount of eye-candy is acceptable to require performance hits, either for the GPU or the CPU.
Someone please enlighten me on this.
I also hear how one of my Macs - the Mini - using an Intel GPU with CPU memory sharing is a total dog, despite the fact that it's optimized for something and is generally loved by the HDTV community, despite being hated by the Gamer community, and I wonder if apples and oranges get mixed up when people discuss GPU vs. OS vs. machine-target-audience. I'm not saying this to be cute or coy, I'm saying it because I don't follow GPU progress - nor do I feel a need to, except when a new Win comes out.
I think the significant thing here is that early adoption is now possible. In a crawl before you walk or run model, this is an important step - it means that it is in fact producable. Typically, you don't go from drawing board to mass production in this industry (or probably any other) - there's a learning curve in materials handling, new processes, etc*a_lot.
The gripe over early adoption costing more - even an exhorbitant amount - really escapes me. It's not like they're setting some precedent or something with this delivery and pricing model.
As to the AP who finds early adopters stupid - weak. What they have is more cash than the average bear. I've early adopted a few products because I cared to get involved in the technology and the standards - nearly broke me at the time, but overall was a boon to my career, so it was a risk that paid off for me. (And I wish I had the cash to buy other toys early, too - but I fall more into the average bear category.) Others adopt early for conspicuous consumption, still others because *they can*. Call names all you like, but it's just sour grapes.
Stupid has nothing to do with it - organizational bandwidth has everything to do with it.
I love my Macs - wouldn't trade 'em. However - there was the bad run of 10.2 CDs for OS X that bricked my iMac, while the laptop and G4 was just fine. Then there were the 3 or 4 automatic updates that required reboot and then wouldn't allow logins or something equally evil - sorry to not recall the specifics on that one, and no intention to exaggerate the true facts. Then there were the early 10.1 updates that temporarily caused our SuperDrives to not work with iDVD.
In my experience - and shared by many longtime OSX users - Apple simply doesn't have the investment in their testing department to really do boundary condition testing. Judging by the paucity of those horror stories over time, I personally think they've improved. But they're far from perfect still - example, if you don't automatically repair permissions after any major update from them, you're nuts. (iTunes updates seem to always be a culprit, btw.)
But if you're expecting them to spend 10 seconds doing a boundary condition test that they don't absolutely need to - think again.
If anything, expect them to maybe brick SOME of the first generation of UNMODIFIED iPhones when the second generation appears and some new update happens - not the first time for any big vendor to suffer that nonsense, but there it is. Expecting them to care about bricking modified product - laughable, my friend, laughable.
IOW.... Never attribute to conspiracy what some lame manager's budget shortfall explains?
You sir, have earned a cigar - a byte was once the addressable unit / accumulator unit of a machine, before 8 bits became the packet of choice. We wax nostalgic....
Just to back that up, compadre, 8bits=byte, 2bytes=word, 4bytes=longword, 8bytes=quadword, 16bytes=paragraph, 256bytes=page, 256pages=64k. Thus the two 8bit x/y addressing registers of a 6502 could address 65536 memory locations. It was pretty good to know that for bit-shifting to get to memory quickly in assembly. Further, the PDP-8 and HP-1000 were both word-addressable, not byte addressable machines and if you used them for data acquistion (common to do in those days, load naked asm from another machine), you used words for your 16bit i/o DACs.
Here - let me sim that in Excel for you.... no, wait.....
I have a Digital Audio G4 - SuperDrive (the very first), Firewire - and you guessed it - 733 MHz performance. It's been on almost constantly since OS X Beta/10.0 roll-out, and it's still running 10.2, waiting, waiting, waiting for the big upgrade./sigh/ Really wanted to Leopard on it.
I know of few people who shut off their machines regularly (and none daily) - power cycling is a bad thing for long term semiconductor reliability. I'm surprised you even know people who don't know that. Sleep/wake cycle is better - and more productive - for daily startup (flash on instead of reboot) and closeup.
Our mileage must vary - my general users are not your general users.
Mathematically the bush-like branching structure created by the universe splitting into parallel versions of itself can explain the probabilistic nature of quantum outcomes. - The Oxford team, led by Dr David Deutsch
My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives. - Hedley Lamarr
(btw - it was late - I'd said pedagoguery instead of demogoguery - evidently, I'm in need of a pedagogue myself!)
I'd think it was something like Testicle's Deviant applied to what I've postulated - Big Blue against nimble valley. (With thanks for the save to my flying monkeys who provided this idea just in time!)
In my mind, it comes down to simple pedagoguery. The readship of his rag - in his mind is more likely to:
a) think highly of themselves as financial decision makers, well versed in the protection of the almighty corporation, and more willing to believe that corporate lawyers rarely go wrong compared to loners b) think that domain knowledge is more important that blind trending
I hope this isn't read as flamebait, but so be it - there exists then, now and always people who believe that engineered solutions come from on high - and then, there are the engineers. This guy plays to the first group - and is still condemned to straightjacket thinking. The phrase, nothing new under the sun, comes to mind for people like this.
That said, I like to read Forbes from time to time, but this guy is a flack, nothing more.
I think Slashdot and Google are hardly the right places to start... OK, that's a gauntlet. (Uhhhhh... nevermind that you're already qualified to answer....)
Based on a comment by a UNM math professor a few decades ago, "I have no idea what language mathematicians will be programming in in a hundred years, but I can tell you this much - it will be called FORTRAN," and putting together just that and the request itself, led to googling by this phrase:
fortran second order wave equation 3d
The results were somewhat interesting.
Never underestimate the power of a good search.
Otherwise, FWIW, you don't come off as patronizing at all - he's asking for quite a bit.....
(Cue snaredrum....) BTW, I myself have been using google in place of math for years....
Please check out the links above and you'll see an on-going problem, IMO. We (whether it's you and I or others) are going to shear on syntax and definition forever w.r.t. fair use because of the nature of the following in law: entitlement, privilege and exception.
Here's what I knew - fair use curtails the rights of the copyright holder. Here's what I knew - rights not specifically granted to an individual (as opposed to constitutional law) may be interpreted by the courts.
Here's what else I knew - over the years, fair use has become accepted and reasonably understood - based on that word, reasonable.
I argued with you because I thought you were wrong w.r.t. fair use - and you were (or, may be), but not for the reasons I'd thought. If I rip a song from a CD to iTunes to iPod for my exclusive use, it's legal. But fair use? Whoa! Here's something that I never RTFA on, but am surprised to discover at this late point:
Fair use isn't just a defense - as I understand you to say. Neither is it a right (anymore) but neither is it merely an exception. It's a nice and gray privilege, granted a codified state in the US Copyright Office - and an interesting only-almost curtailment of the rights of the copyright holder.
I couldn't be right for the same reason that what I took as your narrow argument couldn't be right - fair use now has a mantle of codification outside of previously-understood reasonable. IOW, we can both be right (and are) or wrong (and are) - fair use as presently formulated is nothing more than a new playing field for the litigants. It's so whacked, both sides can posture that they have the moral right on their side, and their attorneys can assure them this is so with a straight face.
Attorneys can - and probably are - continuing the argument you and I have had albeit in a more edified form in juries across the land - with the mantle of codification allowing them to do so with a straight face.
Where court decisions set the reasonableness of fair use before, this won't and can't count now as before. The codification of fair use, in its present form, is simply fucked.
Most people don't realize this - I sure didn't. I only wish we'd had time to have this debate when the subject was still topical and front-page on slashdot. I wish everyone at slashdot could learn what I've learned. I don't know how to submit this as an article (not because I can't read the FAQ) but because I don't know how to make this an article.
I don't know whether to be depressed or pissed off. I wish I'd paid more attention to this years ago, instead of simply assuming.
Thanks! I'll have to talk to my attorneys.... (for the record - we have a large partner requiring copyrights on our trademarks & such - I am not a bad guy < shudder - I just sounded like Nixon! >)
Copyright is automatic in the US where a registered copyright allows you to perfect your right. In other countries, you do perfect your right with registration - you establish it. Frustrating when you have to cross geographic boundaries.
Slashdot Mirror
Spot on, but there's more if the ideas in Neural Darwinism are true - and I think that they are.
/.ers are too young to know about - it's closer to self-modifying code than anything else.
Edelman showed that 1) individual circuits are not restricted to a single function, 2) that the operation of any brain circuit has a propagation rate dependent upon electrolytic characteristics at the time the circuit is activated, 3) a signal through the circuit, possible by the electrolytes, changes those electrolytes, 4) the next loop through that circuit will have a different propagation rate than the previous (or next) loop.
Here's the obligatory Wiki teaser: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_Darwinism
Edelman was the guy that first explained the brain as a complex wiring network. He realized his mistake and published to correct it. His frustration was endless, as he was constantly quoted with his own earlier - and wrong - work in ignorance that it was HIS earlier work.
He was the original proponent for the idea that thoughts are not infinite because brain wiring is finite. He later learned that even though the wiring is finite at any one instant, it's not just like the wiring like an electrical circuit - once made the propagation through a copper circuit is predictable and constant (I generalize - it's late, ok?) - but rather brain "wiring" propagation flexible.
It's not hardware, it's not a software neural net equivalent - it's wetware. The closest analogy most
I always love to be proven wrong, but I think the whole exercise of trying to map brain "wiring" is an absolute, total and complete waste of time and is being performed without respect to prior art, and is instead stumblefucking around with the mantra of "Gee Whiz, we know so little about the brain....! We can try anything!"
Reminds me of the clown bitch trying to figure out Stradivarius magic by doing static resonance testing by placing a violin on top of a vibrating cone driver, and seeing what bounced around depending on what frequency she dialed on a function generator. Sadly hilarious. Saw it on PBS or something years ago. She was part of cutting edge research because no had thought of doing that to a violin before - and her excuses were - just like these brain wiring guys and other posters here - we know so little, we have to start somewhere..... In fact, the reason "no one had thought to do that" was because it was totally idiotic.
I wish researchers like this would just start in the unemployment line and free the money for people who stand a chance of accomplishing something.
It's completely true that research HAS to try whacky and novel things. It's also true that research is to search and search again - and these bozos just ain't doing that, as evidenced by a body of work pointing to what's wrong with the whole approach that didn't turn up in their searches - if indeed there were any.
OK, I'm getting worked up and I need to stop. Sloppy work passing as research gets to me that way.
I love the XO project - the idea, what the product is shaping into, its goals.
But I'm cynical - a lot. If you care to see another point of view, or just have a good laugh, I suggest:
http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/2007/09/hundred-dollar-laptop-now-400-and-for.html
http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/2007/09/ibm-plans-1-billion-commitment-to-xo.html
http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/2007/09/finally-customer.html
http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/search/label/OLPC
I totally agree with you and cyberpunks3. Immersion: the first SW movie begins with the freaking largest starship any of us had ever seen on the screen. While the "whoas" and "holy shits" were still echoing, and then absolute silence and armrest-strangling while we watched the underbelly of something even larger - by far! - chasing and firing at it, in absolute, complete and total sensory overload.
Welcome to Star Wars.
My take on cyberpunks3 comment - sad isn't it, that now it's just so hip to be able to bitch about just about everything. Nothing at all new there, but come on - I'd like to think there was a time and race of people capable of laughing at even their own pretentions. So now, it's not just the bitching, it's the whiney too-cool-to-like-stuff-like-that attitude that goes along with it.
We're even too cool to say "started to suck" as if clarity were a crime. Now, baby, we're jumping sharks! But that's just me, boooookay?
Let's remember a little history - I'm a geezer geek, so I'll help. AFAIR, Kiss hit the stage in makeup to cover up their day jobs - and it was popular knowledge that one of them was an accountant and they were all white-collar, up and comer types.
Cheech and Chong, in their Alice Bowie schtick, referred to them lyrically as, "And I only know three chords!!" (Or was that Bachman, Turner, Overweight? Another distinction without a difference.)
I knew of NO ONE at the college I attended in the early '70s ever owning, or even tolerating listening to, Kiss.
One of the Marsalis brothers put it succinctly - it's a thing called rhythm. Young or old, college or not, there's a whole planet full of people that get that simple thing.
Then, there's the rest of the polyester-wearing, mass-media slurping ugly crowd, served by "rock" bands like Kiss (apologies if reading rock and Kiss in the same sentence makes you as sick to read it as it did me to write it). Kiss "music" (translation: drek) seems targeted to only increase the population of the slurping Eloi - it's just part of the 8-track in the brain, endless loop program that most idiots seem to have running around in their heads. I'm sure there's an industry for that, but in the day, we referred to it as Madison Avenue, not the music industry.
Eugene's only real problem (may we call him Eugene?) is that he's going to be the first to whine when his brane-programming revenue is threatened.
Here's another happy slogan from an old college student of the '70s: When the revolution comes, he's going to be among the first with his back to a brick wall being offered the choice of a blindfold - or not.
Hope this clarifies things from a certain point of view.
I think you're maybe seeing some of the 5% crappy projectors........
In the circle concerned with DoD and DOE funding debates, the Air Force guys used to have a saying:
If you gave the fusion project to us, four guys would be in prison for fraud, the taxpayers would have been bilked out out of several hundred million dollars, the project would be two years late - with mods on top of that - and we'd all be driving Mr. Fusions by now!
That was in the late 80s - twenty years ago.
Lot of truth to that way of thinking.....
---
Over thirty means near-recent history.
But the part where you mixed cars and oranges is as follows - you're talking about MS losing nothing by swapping a license if the disks are still good....
Dooood - the disks aren't the license. In fact, fancy packaging aside, the disks themselves cost less than the postage required to send you something. MS costs would be in the admin of such a program, the lost face in the market, and the negative ROI for developing Vista.
The only thing physical you have - aside from the license notice itself - for the license is your codeword. Arguing that your codeword has been read and therefore that it couldn't be returned would be like letting just a pound or two of the air out of the tires of a showroom car and then breathing that air - easy for the dealer to get more, and something you've already exhaled.
I think the interesting thing for me is that when Win98 came out, I recall seeing a lot of "it's still not an OS, it's a still a DOS overlay!" comments, and when XP came out, I *heard* a few stories like mine, but don't recall seeing them in print. Now Vista is here and
I've only heard (since at least Longhorn) how many gazillion lines of code are rewritten and how many bujillion lines are new. Given my examples above, and the source lines of code anecdotes, is there any reason for an outsider to believe the eye-candy is being handled correctly - or even well? I look at my Linux desktop, my OS X desktop, and even an old X11 desktop with Andrew's Window Manager (that's still running great, thanks) with layout and color changes I made so many years ago that I can't recall which files I twiddled - all of which look pretty great - and I wonder what amount of eye-candy is acceptable to require performance hits, either for the GPU or the CPU.
Someone please enlighten me on this.
I also hear how one of my Macs - the Mini - using an Intel GPU with CPU memory sharing is a total dog, despite the fact that it's optimized for something and is generally loved by the HDTV community, despite being hated by the Gamer community, and I wonder if apples and oranges get mixed up when people discuss GPU vs. OS vs. machine-target-audience. I'm not saying this to be cute or coy, I'm saying it because I don't follow GPU progress - nor do I feel a need to, except when a new Win comes out.
I think the significant thing here is that early adoption is now possible. In a crawl before you walk or run model, this is an important step - it means that it is in fact producable. Typically, you don't go from drawing board to mass production in this industry (or probably any other) - there's a learning curve in materials handling, new processes, etc*a_lot.
The gripe over early adoption costing more - even an exhorbitant amount - really escapes me. It's not like they're setting some precedent or something with this delivery and pricing model.
As to the AP who finds early adopters stupid - weak. What they have is more cash than the average bear. I've early adopted a few products because I cared to get involved in the technology and the standards - nearly broke me at the time, but overall was a boon to my career, so it was a risk that paid off for me. (And I wish I had the cash to buy other toys early, too - but I fall more into the average bear category.) Others adopt early for conspicuous consumption, still others because *they can*. Call names all you like, but it's just sour grapes.
Stupid has nothing to do with it - organizational bandwidth has everything to do with it.
.... Never attribute to conspiracy what some lame manager's budget shortfall explains?
I love my Macs - wouldn't trade 'em. However - there was the bad run of 10.2 CDs for OS X that bricked my iMac, while the laptop and G4 was just fine. Then there were the 3 or 4 automatic updates that required reboot and then wouldn't allow logins or something equally evil - sorry to not recall the specifics on that one, and no intention to exaggerate the true facts. Then there were the early 10.1 updates that temporarily caused our SuperDrives to not work with iDVD.
In my experience - and shared by many longtime OSX users - Apple simply doesn't have the investment in their testing department to really do boundary condition testing. Judging by the paucity of those horror stories over time, I personally think they've improved. But they're far from perfect still - example, if you don't automatically repair permissions after any major update from them, you're nuts. (iTunes updates seem to always be a culprit, btw.)
But if you're expecting them to spend 10 seconds doing a boundary condition test that they don't absolutely need to - think again.
If anything, expect them to maybe brick SOME of the first generation of UNMODIFIED iPhones when the second generation appears and some new update happens - not the first time for any big vendor to suffer that nonsense, but there it is. Expecting them to care about bricking modified product - laughable, my friend, laughable.
IOW
You sir, have earned a cigar - a byte was once the addressable unit / accumulator unit of a machine, before 8 bits became the packet of choice. We wax nostalgic....
Just to back that up, compadre, 8bits=byte, 2bytes=word, 4bytes=longword, 8bytes=quadword, 16bytes=paragraph, 256bytes=page, 256pages=64k. Thus the two 8bit x/y addressing registers of a 6502 could address 65536 memory locations. It was pretty good to know that for bit-shifting to get to memory quickly in assembly. Further, the PDP-8 and HP-1000 were both word-addressable, not byte addressable machines and if you used them for data acquistion (common to do in those days, load naked asm from another machine), you used words for your 16bit i/o DACs.
.... no, wait .....
Here - let me sim that in Excel for you
I ****highly**** recommend GLTerm.
http://www.pollet.net/GLterm/
I've used it for years, paid for it within days of first use. hth.
That's high-tech low-life to you, fella.
I have a Digital Audio G4 - SuperDrive (the very first), Firewire - and you guessed it - 733 MHz performance. It's been on almost constantly since OS X Beta/10.0 roll-out, and it's still running 10.2, waiting, waiting, waiting for the big upgrade. /sigh/ Really wanted to Leopard on it.
I know of few people who shut off their machines regularly (and none daily) - power cycling is a bad thing for long term semiconductor reliability. I'm surprised you even know people who don't know that. Sleep/wake cycle is better - and more productive - for daily startup (flash on instead of reboot) and closeup.
Our mileage must vary - my general users are not your general users.
Mathematically the bush-like branching structure created by the universe splitting into parallel versions of itself can explain the probabilistic nature of quantum outcomes. - The Oxford team, led by Dr David Deutsch
My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives. - Hedley Lamarr
You raise a very good point!
(btw - it was late - I'd said pedagoguery instead of demogoguery - evidently, I'm in need of a pedagogue myself!)
I'd think it was something like Testicle's Deviant applied to what I've postulated - Big Blue against nimble valley. (With thanks for the save to my flying monkeys who provided this idea just in time!)
In my mind, it comes down to simple pedagoguery. The readship of his rag - in his mind is more likely to:
a) think highly of themselves as financial decision makers, well versed in the protection of the almighty corporation, and more willing to believe that corporate lawyers rarely go wrong compared to loners
b) think that domain knowledge is more important that blind trending
I hope this isn't read as flamebait, but so be it - there exists then, now and always people who believe that engineered solutions come from on high - and then, there are the engineers. This guy plays to the first group - and is still condemned to straightjacket thinking. The phrase, nothing new under the sun, comes to mind for people like this.
That said, I like to read Forbes from time to time, but this guy is a flack, nothing more.
Based on a comment by a UNM math professor a few decades ago, "I have no idea what language mathematicians will be programming in in a hundred years, but I can tell you this much - it will be called FORTRAN," and putting together just that and the request itself, led to googling by this phrase:
fortran second order wave equation 3d
The results were somewhat interesting.
Never underestimate the power of a good search.
Otherwise, FWIW, you don't come off as patronizing at all - he's asking for quite a bit.....
(Cue snaredrum....) BTW, I myself have been using google in place of math for years....
Lunch money? Uhhhhh.... how 'bout some self-sealing stem bolts? (Been trying to get rid of those for a while now...)
First, thanks for continuing the dialog. As it turns out, we have the same understanding of a right. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights )
. html http://www.brown.edu/Administration/Copyright/prin ciples.html http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/objectID/C3E49F67- 1AA3-4293-9312FE5C119B5806/ )
However, I was just all wet about fair use. ( http://www.brown.edu/Administration/Copyright/faq
Please check out the links above and you'll see an on-going problem, IMO. We (whether it's you and I or others) are going to shear on syntax and definition forever w.r.t. fair use because of the nature of the following in law: entitlement, privilege and exception.
Here's what I knew - fair use curtails the rights of the copyright holder. Here's what I knew - rights not specifically granted to an individual (as opposed to constitutional law) may be interpreted by the courts.
Here's what else I knew - over the years, fair use has become accepted and reasonably understood - based on that word, reasonable.
I argued with you because I thought you were wrong w.r.t. fair use - and you were (or, may be), but not for the reasons I'd thought. If I rip a song from a CD to iTunes to iPod for my exclusive use, it's legal. But fair use? Whoa! Here's something that I never RTFA on, but am surprised to discover at this late point:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
Fair use isn't just a defense - as I understand you to say. Neither is it a right (anymore) but neither is it merely an exception. It's a nice and gray privilege, granted a codified state in the US Copyright Office - and an interesting only-almost curtailment of the rights of the copyright holder.
I couldn't be right for the same reason that what I took as your narrow argument couldn't be right - fair use now has a mantle of codification outside of previously-understood reasonable. IOW, we can both be right (and are) or wrong (and are) - fair use as presently formulated is nothing more than a new playing field for the litigants. It's so whacked, both sides can posture that they have the moral right on their side, and their attorneys can assure them this is so with a straight face.
Attorneys can - and probably are - continuing the argument you and I have had albeit in a more edified form in juries across the land - with the mantle of codification allowing them to do so with a straight face.
Where court decisions set the reasonableness of fair use before, this won't and can't count now as before. The codification of fair use, in its present form, is simply fucked.
Most people don't realize this - I sure didn't. I only wish we'd had time to have this debate when the subject was still topical and front-page on slashdot. I wish everyone at slashdot could learn what I've learned. I don't know how to submit this as an article (not because I can't read the FAQ) but because I don't know how to make this an article.
I don't know whether to be depressed or pissed off. I wish I'd paid more attention to this years ago, instead of simply assuming.
Thanks! I'll have to talk to my attorneys.... (for the record - we have a large partner requiring copyrights on our trademarks & such - I am not a bad guy < shudder - I just sounded like Nixon! >)
Copyright is automatic in the US where a registered copyright allows you to perfect your right. In other countries, you do perfect your right with registration - you establish it. Frustrating when you have to cross geographic boundaries.
Flamebait, hell - it was a concise, precise and very well-tempered flame. IOW, a good one and very well deserved by Andrew Burt.
Anybody who knows anything about shoes knows that's his target.
Mod the man up, ferchrissakes - brevity is the soul of wit.
(Squeeze the wheeze!)