While I prefer AMD processors over Intel's, and I have an x86-PC, as I understand the situation, the Hammer is not a good thing in any way. My understanding being that the Hammer is simply an extension of the x86 architecture from 32 to 64 bits. (in a remarkably similar fashion to how the 80386 was a 32-bit extension to the 80286/8086, which was a 16-bit extension to the 8085, 8080, & 8008. I'm not sure if the 8008 was an 8-bit extension of the 4004 or not; the 4004 was a 4-bit processor, and is considered to be the world's first microprocessor.)
So the x86 architecture/instruction set still has a great deal of commonality with the Altairs running CP/M.
The 'x86' architecture was only intended to be used for a few years. IBM first extended it from the Altair (8085, 64k) to the PC (8086/8, 1M). The popularity of the PC lead to the decision to extend the PC to the AT (80286, 16M). After that, IBM decided that the architecture needed replacement and then tried to kill it. IBM created an entirely new, superior architecture, complete with a new, superior OS. (The PS/2 and OS/2).
This failed miserably. (Not in small part to the fact it was a 'closed' architecture-- just like Macintosh)
Instead most of the world chose to stay with the 'x86' architecture (and the more economical clones), maintain backwards compatibility, and deal with its limitations. (I won't say flaws, because the original architecture was never meant to be extended this far to begin with. Of course, that was back with the 8080 and 8085, 64k (max) memory, the Altair, and CP/M.
And now, the x86 architecture is one extension upon another, finally arriving at the monstrosity we know today.
The Hammer (and Intel's 64-bit extension to the Pentium... NOT the Itanium) will be yet another generation of an architecture originally intended to handle no more than 64k of memory.
It's sick; the best comparison I can think of is if the 'x86' architecture is compared to bare hands, the only tools we have are gloved hands with speed/power assist. No wheel, no lever -- just hands.
The sooner we kill the x86 architecture, the better. It was ancient 15 years ago. Humanity gave up horses and slaves in favor of automobiles and machinery. We can give up the old x86 architecture for something better. Maintaining it is inhumane.
But getting Intel, AMD, and others to cooperate (and share valuable, patented technologies with each other) is like asking Microsoft to GPL the source for Windows.
They are dropping Alpha and PA-RISC for Itanium... baaadddd move!!
One thing you seem to have omitted. The Itanium is a joint HP-Intel processor. HP was intimately involved with the design of the Itanium, and intended it as a replacement for the PA-RISC from the beginning of the design. HP had better 'know-how' in 64-bit RISC, and Intel had the fab facilities to produce the Itanium on a large (and more inexpensive) scale. The Itanium was & has not ever been intended to be a x86 competitor. It was designed to replace the PA-RISC and to compete with MIPS & SPARC, among others. In fact, originally, the Itanium was supposed to be backwards/binary-compatible with the PA-RISC. (I'm not sure of if the final product actually IS, but I lost interest in the Itanium several years ago...)
It was merely hoped that one day the architecture the Itanium uses would finally replace the x86 architecture.
The Alpha, I suspect, is somewhat of a white elephant in HP's acquisition of Compaq, and I suspect we can expect to see many of the Alpha's technologies rolled into next-generation Itaniums.
The FCC is very similar in function to your local Department of Motor Vehicles.
You don't need a licence to walk down the road, but you do for a car. There aren't many rules for what you do when walking around, but there are plenty of laws and rules for driving.
The difference is a matter of risk, organization, and benefit.
People generally don't collide into each other when walking around. If they do, it generally isn't fatal.
However, without motor vehicle laws, the roads would be basically useless, because there's nothing to regulate traffic at an intersection, there would be far more auto accidents, and far more auto-related fatalities. And I hate to imagine the traffic jams.
Since driving requires much more responsibility (from both a 'society' standpoint, and a personal standpoint) than walking does, we require a licence to drive.
Radio is not much different. Without the FCC's rules and regulations, the entire radio spectrum would essentially be a giant traffic jam.
What many people either do not know, or willfully ignore, is that there is a very finite radio spectrum. The entire radio spectrum can only handle transferring a relatively small amount of information. (Compared to, say, a fiber optic cable). And even the latest technologies can only compensate for so much interference. Even spread-spectrum technology fails when too many devices are using the same frequency range.
The FCC does a few things that are absolutely necessary to keep wireless technologies going smoothly. The FCC does a few things:
* They control how the spectrum is divided up, and enforces the separations. This way you don't end up listening to your next-door neighbor's cell phone call while you're trying to watch the super bowl, etc, etc. Basically, they create the "standards" for which frequencies are used for specific purposes. Somewhat similar to saying you drive on the right side of the road (in the US at least).
* They put limits onto how much power can be used to transmit a signal. These limits are to actually keep things local. Otherwise, big rich group X can just transmit with so much power that nobody else can use the frequency. Another good example is a cordless phone. Sure, it would be nice if your cordless phone worked for miles around... But it would limit the number of cordless telephones that could be used at any given time, as they would start interfering with each other. So, the FCC limits the amount of power a cordless phone can transmit with-- which limits its range, but allows for thousands of phones to be in a small area without interfering. Similar to saying a car can only be "this big" and drive on the roads.
* They certify electronic devices; that they don't emit any spurious RF signals. (Meaning, they don't make "background noise" Kinda like emissions testing.
* They have authority to enforce their rules. (Like your average traffic cop)
Radio stations (and TV stations, telecom companies, Ham Radio enthusiasts) all have to pay to recieve a licence to transmit (once a certain amount of power is used)-- and even then they must do so on specific frequencies.
You don't need a licence to use a cell phone, wireless LAN, etc. because they're actually very limited devices. They have short range, so there isn't as much of a problem with interference from other people.
The reason is because the content creation industry gets paid for every form of 'blank media' that can be played in a consumer-electronics (ie. non-computer) device. (Such as blank VHS tapes, CD-R's, MiniDiscs, and audio cassettes)
It was part of a compromise congress made - this way consumers can leagally make copies for themseleves, family, or friends -- while still providing copyright holders with monetary compensation.
I'm sorry that you misunderstood my argument(s). Some of it is nit-picky (which law IS), but here are my three primary arguments.
1.) It's not just to force the hardware industry to enforce the entertainment industry's IP. (Unless fully compensated, which the legislation does not offer)
2.) It is the responsibility of the entertainment industry (and the government) to enforce this law.
3.) Sharing copyrighted works over the internet through an anonymous service (such as Napster, Morpheus, Kaaza, Gnutella) is illegal -- whether for profit or not. This point is fact, and has been upheld in court.
Yes, it is perfectly leagal to rip a CD, copy it to an MP3 player (and listen to it). Yes, it does bother me that the entertainment industry wants to make us pay-per-play. But that was never my argument.
An interesting note is that every form of blank media (VCR tapes, CD-R's, audio cassettes) all have a 'royalty' of sorts that goes towards the entertainment industry (to recoup 'losses' caused). So they STILL get paid in real, hard, guaranteed money for each and every blank (tape, CD-R, cassette) sold. (In spite of the fact that all these are useful for a great multitude of additional purposes that have nothing to do with the entertainment industry, they still get money for it.)
I never stated or implied that it wasn't leagal to copy music for your own use, or to loan it to a friend, etc. But if you make a copy of * and give it to your friend, you're still paying off the **AA simply by purchasing the blank media.
Want to get even more burned up? When you purchase a blank CD-R to back up your data files. (Say, your homework, a book you've been writing, what have you...) Wanna guess who still gets paid for the blank CD-R? Yup, the entertainment industry.
The entertainment industry does not, however, get paid one dime for downloads over Napster, etc. (Directly, of course. Indirect methods are an entirely different debate.) This upsets them.
And, no, your assertion that it was only criminal to make money off of copyrighted works before the DMCA is also inaccurate. Simply playing/showing it in "public" -- meaning outside of your home/car was before (and still is) quite illegal. It is, in fact illegal to listen to copyrighted works while at work (including the radio) unless: 1.) It's played on your own personal equipment. 2.) Nobody else can hear it. (Meaning you have to use headphones, or have an office with a door -- no cubes). It's just that the law is simply ignored, for the most part. (Although Slashdot has covered a couple such cases. If you're too lazy to look, you're not worth any more of my time.)
And, if you think it's not the government's job to enforce civil matters, you are, unfortunately, mistaken. The enforcement of ALL law is the government's responsibility. The prosecution thereof, however, is not always the government's responsibility.
(Which is, I think, what you meant to say.)
And if that argument pissed you off -- just wait 'till a lawyer does it to you in court, and you end up looking (and feeling) like a complete dolt at the very least.
I wrote a similar article on a few weeks back. It is simply unjust to force an entire industry to bear any of the burden of protecting an entirely different industry.
In a relationship like the entertainment industry has with the hardware industry, this is espescailly true. The hardware industry makes it possible for the entertainment to make any money at all; Now the entertainment industry wants to bite the hand that feeds it by forcing the hardware industry - which has already made it possible for the entertainment industry to become as large as it has - to be legislated into forking over the R&D+implementation money so that the entertainment industry can feel warm and fuzzy inside.
As long as there's a way to purchase electronic parts (eg. Radio Shack), somebody will distribute the plans on how to create devices to break any copyright scheme.
Although "privacy" advocates will be very much against it, the actual burden of enforcement falls on the heads of the entertainment industry, and the Federal Government (in the USA, at least).
I use the term "privacy" advocates sarcastcally simply because many aren't really interested in keeping their habits/information private, as they are interested in not getting caught
Personal rant: Many Slashdotters want to mismatch the term privacy with breaking laws while remaining anonymous.
eg: File-sharing of copyrighted music is illegal. Yes, music is over-priced. Yes, the artists are not getting their fair share.
Shaking your fists at the net and screaming isn't going to change the legality of this. There is a big difference between justice and law.
Whether it is just for the entertainment industry to charge consumers so much and pay their artists, and support staff (audio engineers, etc.) so little has nothing to to do with the actual legality of how business is done. There have been plenty of unjust laws passed (and sometimes repealed) in the world.
Arguing that allowing downloading of music enhances CD sales is not an argument of why the law isn't valid. Providing the music industry a hidden benefit doesn't change the fact that the law on the books states that such activity is illegal.
What many people need to do is that although they believe that closed/proprietary/etc is "wrong," this is an ethical argument, and the law cares little about whether something is ethical or not. It cares if the rules have been obeyed. After that is satisfied, it will listen to an argument. But the purely philosophical argument that "information wants to be free" means exactly nothing in a court of law. Law states that whatever your belief on the justice of the law, distribution of any kind of copyrighted material is illegal. The law has the penalties outlined. Don't like it? Tough; You knew the rules and broke them anyway. Off to prision with you.
Sure, there's civil disobediance. Ghandi proved it. But he also spent a long time in prision for his beliefs.
I prefer them going after individual infringers (such as this case) than to see them try to legislate built-in copy-protect that applies to everybody -- including those guilty of nothing at all.
The corporate mp3 sharing network was illegal -- that point isn't even debatable.
If the RIAA were going after someone because they have an mp3 from an album they already own, on his/her own computer, then I would be upset.
I see it as the media industry attempting to do several things:
1.) Penalize the hardware industry for creating products that could be used to infringe upon a copyright.
2.) To legislate the hardware manufacturers into footing the R&D and implementation costs required to make the copy-protect schemes possible and ubiquitous.
3.) To force the hardware manufacturers to do something that they have no leagal authority to do: Police consumers. In fact, they want to force hardware manufacturers to handle all of their IP protection.
4.) Try to shift the responsibility of enforcing copyright from the copyright holder and the government, to the hardware industry, who (as mentioned above) has no such authority.
So I see it as the following statement from the media industry to the electronics industry: You've done a good job of helping us sell our products in the past, but now we're going to force you to do more. We're aware you have problems protecting your own IP, patents, and copyrights, but we believe you should also carry the burdens of protecting our copyrights and IP as well.
And, of course, if we find that your products are unable to stop piracy, we will take even more money from you in court for failing to protect our rights.
It's like a trucking company giving a city a bill for using public roads. "We sure liked using your roads, but if you want to keep those roads open, you'll have to meet our demands."
The hardware industry makes it possible for media companies to make money -- Without hardware makers, they wouldn't be able to sell CD's, DVD's, movies, etc -- because without the player, it's just a plastic disc! Yet the media business is trying to make people believe the opposite-- that without their content, it would be impossible to watch video or hear music/audio on a device.
Too bad anybody can make noise, and hence, audio (some people can even sing or play an instrument, creating various qualities of music) without the input of the media industry.
Don't get me started on video... the media industry has been so tapped for content that they ask for OUR videos, and created gems like "America's Funniest Home Videos."
My vote: The Bresenham Line algorithm. It provides the most efficient method to draw arbitrary lines on a raster (ie. pixel-based) screen. All 3D Graphics are heavily dependant on this beautiful algorithm.
There have been improvements to the Bresenham line, effectively quadrupling the draw speed over the base Bresenham algorithm.
But the base aspect of Bresenham's work is critical: It allowed the drawing of lines on our computer screens using integer, rather than floating point, arithmetic. 3D Graphics wouldn't be the same without his contribution.
The reason is simple: It allows companies to display vaporware as 'the next big thing' at these shows. Obviously it bothered Microsoft that Sony's 'next big thing' actually worked, and that they were comfortable enough about their product that they allowed tinkering.
I personally feel there is a more interesting article that is linked to: http://www.sun.com/executives/realitycheck/headsup 020314.html
details MHz-vs-Speed differences. While not the most interesting for the well-informed, it's great for those who know that MHz doesn't necessarily = speed.
The documentation process alone would amount to something truly revolutionary coming from Microsoft.
It's not that Free & Open-Source Software haven't done API documentation; it's just that the size of Microsoft's entire API would be a rather complex and daunting task.
Are we now being led to believe that because Free Software allows the sharing of ideas and code, then nobody'll invest in research & development of new technologies?
And, moreover, that by releasing gov't sponsored code as GPL, it will somehow cost the government more?
There is a point that the government wouldn't pull in as much tax revenue from MicroSuck as a result.
Boo hoo. Taxpayers come out better without MicroSuck charging them a second time for research they've already paid for.
Moreover - the argument is that nobody will invest in MicroSuck's R&D. This may be very true. I certainly can think of better places to invest R&D money than in MicroSuck. If the market doesn't see value in investing in MicroSuck's R&D, then it should die. It's basic supply and demand. If there is a demand, people will invest in it.
As I recall, Pharmaceutical companies can no longer recieve US Government research money, as the US Congress has deemed it 'corporate welfare' to allow these companies to be given funding for research, and then hold the rights to all the research and its deliverables. So, as a result, the pharmaceutical industry has been on its own for R&D. Interestingly enough, my own observation is that private investment still works, and the drug companies are able to adequately fund their R&D.
So if keeping all rights to and profiting from government research is not acceptable to the pharmaceutical industry, then how does MicroSuck justify it for themselves?
I can see MicroSuck's argument that they should be able to use the research; even in a non-GPL commercial environment. But who honestly believes that it would actually add anything to the price? The IP is free; let any company use it how they want to. There will be a GPL'd version, as well as (several) $0.00 solutions.
If MicroSuck makes it easier to setup, configure, etc. - then sure, they can add a value-added profit to it. But I honestly don't think the inclusion of the technology would raise the final product price significantly. MicroSuck charges what it can get away with -- not a fair price for what their products are worth. It would be like a fattened-up blue whale. Who cares that it's fat? It's still huge.
Of course, there is one question that must be asked: What, exactly, will these clients DO?
I ask, because my university uses a blend of computers -- for different uses.
We have many, many Linux 'kiosks' (essentially HTML/Web TC's), which are scattered around everywhere; They are used for email / web access. They are scattered all over campus, hanging from a wall in a similar way a payphone would. (Complete with plexiglass to allow visibility, but discourage theft).
They are a hit, and serve their intended purpose extremely well -- a fair number of students were clogging the computer labs just to check their e-mail. This allowed students who needed a 'real' computer to use a computer lab to do their homework, whereas those who just want to check email simply walk up to a kiosk & login.
Linux-based TC's used in this way are great -- but only for their purpose.
So consider exactly what the thin-clients will be used for. At a university espescially, there are a great many apps where old PC's can be converted into Linux-based thin-clients, prolonging their lifetime and being easier on the budjet.
It's nice to see somebody doing some real work to help make it easier for the slashdot community to voice their opinions with their 'elected' officials.
I'm also pleased to see none of mine are on the list...
Well, then obviously, we should destroy all thinking machines and rely on only what the human mind can do by itself.
Of course, the solution to the vastly reduced computational power that can be focused at any particular problem is the spice Melange.
Melange is also known for its geriatric properties, sometimes quadrupling a person's lifetime.
While having the ability to hone one's thoughts to never-before attained speed an accuracy, Melange is also horiffically addictive. Withdrawl is usually fatal.
The Drug Enforcement Agency is lobbying Congress to enable the Anti-Balistic Missile Defense system to aid in the interception of illegal importation of this drug, and to share the assosciated knowledge with any other interested country.
Melange is harvested from the extremely arid world known as Arakkis, several thousand light years from earth. It is the most precious substance in the universe.
Scientists were found to be rolling on the floor laughing when consulted about the concern of spice importation.
Between fits of hysterical laughter, Dr. Charles Atreus informed us that "We currently know of no way to travel anywhere near the speed of light, let alone carry several hundred tonnes of the material to Earth in even a few years."
The Hegemony of Machines Overthrowing Homo-Sapiens, or HOMOHS, was not available for comment.
'Payment' takes several forms.
on
Pay to Play
·
· Score: 2
There is FAR more to 'paying' for games than what many of these closed-minded "Pay me for service" people want to believe.
First of all, they only mentioned MMORPG's and board games! There is no mention about the thousands of servers for FPS, or RPG games. Not only this, but what about the fact that many of these games aren't suited to a massive, central server (or server network). In fact, several servers are fully paid for (including bandwidth) by gamers who set up a clan/team site.
In addition, most of the ISP's in my area (Local ISP's, not the nationwide ones like AT&T or EarthLink) host a large number of game servers-- anybody on the 'net can play games on the server. It's offered as an incentive to use that ISP. (eg. they have a really great server... But you know (because you're a smart gamer and can use tracert/traceroute) that you are picking up an additional 50 ms latency; so for the same price you can use a local ISP with a great game server, and gives you lower ping time.) What's to lose?
Another item many dreamers don't take into account the fact that most online games (Real-Time strategy, FPS, 'Fighting', etc.) are extremely time-sensitive. Unless they plan on having servers in every city of >100k, and have them interconnected with an internal multi-gigabit digital backbone (the cost of which staggers me...), as well as very high bandwidth connections at each node to the internet, they will never achieve a reasonable latency for gameplay. (Believe it or not, tenths of a second count).
If you want a model for online gaming, for nearly every case, just look at how FPS games, and RTS-games operate online. It's community-supported, often with major companies subsidizing it. (Like extra bandwidth at night, etc).
The idea that you can make a profit on all but the most massively-multiplayer games is laughable. Game players aren't completely stupid. They know it's better to gather a bunch of friends, buy a server (and bandwidth), and share the server with the world (hence obtaining more players on the server, making things more interesting), than it is to pay even higher prices to get high latencies, the same game, poorer service, less selection, as well as padding some idiot's wallet.
I'm ignorant of this fact... but it almost sounds to me like having a pre-emptible kernel is one of the 'featues' of a MicroKernel --
Although I'm fully aware of the fact Linux is NOT a MicroKernel, what significant differences exist between Pre-Emptible Linux and a MicroKernel Linux?
(Aside from the fact that all of the Linux kernel, drivers, etc. is in 'kernel' mode, and a MicroKernel has only the message-passing and task-scheduling in 'kernel' mode, and everything else (drivers, etc.) run in 'user' mode.)
The military is already working on such devices -- even boots that charge the soldier's radio/GPS batteries. (It was even covered on slashdot sometime in December...)
Unfortunately, I seriously doubt there would be any real military uses for quite a while, with the exception of heavy-lifting.
It's one thing to have a device that can handle (relatively) slow, deliberate movements, and augments strength. It's a completely different matter to have a armored, fast-responding 'cyborg'.
The biggest advantage, and use of this technology for the near term is in warehouse/repair duty. Forklifts are usually clumsy at best, where an exoskeleton could supplant (but not replace) these lumbering beasts.
They'd be great for, say, Home Depot. This way an employee can pick up a couple of 100 lb bags of cement, and stack it in the store as easily as it would be do stack a bean-bag.
But a military application? Not anytime soon. Let's not forget these devices require a power source. For the few minutes of operation, they'd be great. But don't forget that adding weapons and armor will do two things: SEVERELY tax the power supply, and when the power is gone, the frame makes the soldier a sitting duck for a fair amount of time while the suit is either re-charging/fueling, or the soldier is scrambling out of the suit.
Any more armor than enough to stop standard rifle/handgun fire would weigh FAR too much to be practical for the time being.
Even with gas-powered fuel cells... there wouldn't be enough power for an armored unit. The response time would be too great.
A neural interface at the base of the skull (to transmit the motion signals from the soldier's brain to the suit) would speed up the response time greatly. But let's not forget that things are still bound by Mr. Newton's laws. The mass of even a lightly armored limb doesn't start and stop on a dime easily (not with enough armor to stop hand-held arms fire, anyway). It would take tremendously powerful superconducting motors to achieve that feat. But then, you're adding a cryo pack to the suit for the magnets. Even more weight and parts to break.
Not that the military wouldn't toy with the idea; it's just that they realize the practical limitations as well. Strength-enhancing suits I can see; armored body-suits... not for a while.
It's a great idea, until you deploy them without a heavy support team nearby. The logistics alone on an armored suit would be prohibitive. It's not like they can operate for weeks on end with only MRE's and sanitizer-tablets.
Slashdot Mirror
I know the discovery of the BEC won a Nobel prize.
I just wonder how many secrets studying BEC's will unlock. How many questions that can be answered.
May it prove to be a more momentous discovery than the transistor?
While I prefer AMD processors over Intel's, and I have an x86-PC, as I understand the situation, the Hammer is not a good thing in any way. My understanding being that the Hammer is simply an extension of the x86 architecture from 32 to 64 bits. (in a remarkably similar fashion to how the 80386 was a 32-bit extension to the 80286/8086, which was a 16-bit extension to the 8085, 8080, & 8008. I'm not sure if the 8008 was an 8-bit extension of the 4004 or not; the 4004 was a 4-bit processor, and is considered to be the world's first microprocessor.)
So the x86 architecture/instruction set still has a great deal of commonality with the Altairs running CP/M.
The 'x86' architecture was only intended to be used for a few years. IBM first extended it from the Altair (8085, 64k) to the PC (8086/8, 1M). The popularity of the PC lead to the decision to extend the PC to the AT (80286, 16M). After that, IBM decided that the architecture needed replacement and then tried to kill it. IBM created an entirely new, superior architecture, complete with a new, superior OS. (The PS/2 and OS/2).
This failed miserably. (Not in small part to the fact it was a 'closed' architecture-- just like Macintosh)
Instead most of the world chose to stay with the 'x86' architecture (and the more economical clones), maintain backwards compatibility, and deal with its limitations. (I won't say flaws, because the original architecture was never meant to be extended this far to begin with. Of course, that was back with the 8080 and 8085, 64k (max) memory, the Altair, and CP/M.
And now, the x86 architecture is one extension upon another, finally arriving at the monstrosity we know today.
The Hammer (and Intel's 64-bit extension to the Pentium... NOT the Itanium) will be yet another generation of an architecture originally intended to handle no more than 64k of memory.
It's sick; the best comparison I can think of is if the 'x86' architecture is compared to bare hands, the only tools we have are gloved hands with speed/power assist. No wheel, no lever -- just hands.
The sooner we kill the x86 architecture, the better. It was ancient 15 years ago. Humanity gave up horses and slaves in favor of automobiles and machinery. We can give up the old x86 architecture for something better. Maintaining it is inhumane.
But getting Intel, AMD, and others to cooperate (and share valuable, patented technologies with each other) is like asking Microsoft to GPL the source for Windows.
They are dropping Alpha and PA-RISC for Itanium... baaadddd move!!
One thing you seem to have omitted. The Itanium is a joint HP-Intel processor. HP was intimately involved with the design of the Itanium, and intended it as a replacement for the PA-RISC from the beginning of the design. HP had better 'know-how' in 64-bit RISC, and Intel had the fab facilities to produce the Itanium on a large (and more inexpensive) scale. The Itanium was & has not ever been intended to be a x86 competitor. It was designed to replace the PA-RISC and to compete with MIPS & SPARC, among others. In fact, originally, the Itanium was supposed to be backwards/binary-compatible with the PA-RISC. (I'm not sure of if the final product actually IS, but I lost interest in the Itanium several years ago...)
It was merely hoped that one day the architecture the Itanium uses would finally replace the x86 architecture.
The Alpha, I suspect, is somewhat of a white elephant in HP's acquisition of Compaq, and I suspect we can expect to see many of the Alpha's technologies rolled into next-generation Itaniums.
The FCC is very similar in function to your local Department of Motor Vehicles.
You don't need a licence to walk down the road, but you do for a car. There aren't many rules for what you do when walking around, but there are plenty of laws and rules for driving.
The difference is a matter of risk, organization, and benefit.
People generally don't collide into each other when walking around. If they do, it generally isn't fatal.
However, without motor vehicle laws, the roads would be basically useless, because there's nothing to regulate traffic at an intersection, there would be far more auto accidents, and far more auto-related fatalities. And I hate to imagine the traffic jams.
Since driving requires much more responsibility (from both a 'society' standpoint, and a personal standpoint) than walking does, we require a licence to drive.
Radio is not much different. Without the FCC's rules and regulations, the entire radio spectrum would essentially be a giant traffic jam.
What many people either do not know, or willfully ignore, is that there is a very finite radio spectrum. The entire radio spectrum can only handle transferring a relatively small amount of information. (Compared to, say, a fiber optic cable). And even the latest technologies can only compensate for so much interference. Even spread-spectrum technology fails when too many devices are using the same frequency range.
The FCC does a few things that are absolutely necessary to keep wireless technologies going smoothly. The FCC does a few things:
* They control how the spectrum is divided up, and enforces the separations. This way you don't end up listening to your next-door neighbor's cell phone call while you're trying to watch the super bowl, etc, etc. Basically, they create the "standards" for which frequencies are used for specific purposes. Somewhat similar to saying you drive on the right side of the road (in the US at least).
* They put limits onto how much power can be used to transmit a signal. These limits are to actually keep things local. Otherwise, big rich group X can just transmit with so much power that nobody else can use the frequency. Another good example is a cordless phone. Sure, it would be nice if your cordless phone worked for miles around... But it would limit the number of cordless telephones that could be used at any given time, as they would start interfering with each other. So, the FCC limits the amount of power a cordless phone can transmit with-- which limits its range, but allows for thousands of phones to be in a small area without interfering. Similar to saying a car can only be "this big" and drive on the roads.
* They certify electronic devices; that they don't emit any spurious RF signals. (Meaning, they don't make "background noise" Kinda like emissions testing.
* They have authority to enforce their rules. (Like your average traffic cop)
Radio stations (and TV stations, telecom companies, Ham Radio enthusiasts) all have to pay to recieve a licence to transmit (once a certain amount of power is used)-- and even then they must do so on specific frequencies.
You don't need a licence to use a cell phone, wireless LAN, etc. because they're actually very limited devices. They have short range, so there isn't as much of a problem with interference from other people.
The scary thing is doing things like this does sound like a government contract... It's probably been done.
The reason is because the content creation industry gets paid for every form of 'blank media' that can be played in a consumer-electronics (ie. non-computer) device. (Such as blank VHS tapes, CD-R's, MiniDiscs, and audio cassettes)
It was part of a compromise congress made - this way consumers can leagally make copies for themseleves, family, or friends -- while still providing copyright holders with monetary compensation.
I'm sorry that you misunderstood my argument(s). Some of it is nit-picky (which law IS), but here are my three primary arguments.
1.) It's not just to force the hardware industry to enforce the entertainment industry's IP. (Unless fully compensated, which the legislation does not offer)
2.) It is the responsibility of the entertainment industry (and the government) to enforce this law.
3.) Sharing copyrighted works over the internet through an anonymous service (such as Napster, Morpheus, Kaaza, Gnutella) is illegal -- whether for profit or not. This point is fact, and has been upheld in court.
Yes, it is perfectly leagal to rip a CD, copy it to an MP3 player (and listen to it). Yes, it does bother me that the entertainment industry wants to make us pay-per-play. But that was never my argument.
An interesting note is that every form of blank media (VCR tapes, CD-R's, audio cassettes) all have a 'royalty' of sorts that goes towards the entertainment industry (to recoup 'losses' caused). So they STILL get paid in real, hard, guaranteed money for each and every blank (tape, CD-R, cassette) sold. (In spite of the fact that all these are useful for a great multitude of additional purposes that have nothing to do with the entertainment industry, they still get money for it.)
I never stated or implied that it wasn't leagal to copy music for your own use, or to loan it to a friend, etc. But if you make a copy of * and give it to your friend, you're still paying off the **AA simply by purchasing the blank media.
Want to get even more burned up? When you purchase a blank CD-R to back up your data files. (Say, your homework, a book you've been writing, what have you...) Wanna guess who still gets paid for the blank CD-R? Yup, the entertainment industry.
The entertainment industry does not, however, get paid one dime for downloads over Napster, etc. (Directly, of course. Indirect methods are an entirely different debate.) This upsets them.
And, no, your assertion that it was only criminal to make money off of copyrighted works before the DMCA is also inaccurate. Simply playing/showing it in "public" -- meaning outside of your home/car was before (and still is) quite illegal. It is, in fact illegal to listen to copyrighted works while at work (including the radio) unless:
1.) It's played on your own personal equipment.
2.) Nobody else can hear it. (Meaning you have to use headphones, or have an office with a door -- no cubes).
It's just that the law is simply ignored, for the most part. (Although Slashdot has covered a couple such cases. If you're too lazy to look, you're not worth any more of my time.)
And, if you think it's not the government's job to enforce civil matters, you are, unfortunately, mistaken. The enforcement of ALL law is the government's responsibility. The prosecution thereof, however, is not always the government's responsibility.
(Which is, I think, what you meant to say.)
And if that argument pissed you off -- just wait 'till a lawyer does it to you in court, and you end up looking (and feeling) like a complete dolt at the very least.
I second the "Mod this guy up" clause.
I wrote a similar article on a few weeks back. It is simply unjust to force an entire industry to bear any of the burden of protecting an entirely different industry.
In a relationship like the entertainment industry has with the hardware industry, this is espescailly true. The hardware industry makes it possible for the entertainment to make any money at all; Now the entertainment industry wants to bite the hand that feeds it by forcing the hardware industry - which has already made it possible for the entertainment industry to become as large as it has - to be legislated into forking over the R&D+implementation money so that the entertainment industry can feel warm and fuzzy inside.
As long as there's a way to purchase electronic parts (eg. Radio Shack), somebody will distribute the plans on how to create devices to break any copyright scheme.
Although "privacy" advocates will be very much against it, the actual burden of enforcement falls on the heads of the entertainment industry, and the Federal Government (in the USA, at least).
I use the term "privacy" advocates sarcastcally simply because many aren't really interested in keeping their habits/information private, as they are interested in not getting caught
Personal rant:
Many Slashdotters want to mismatch the term privacy with breaking laws while remaining anonymous.
eg: File-sharing of copyrighted music is illegal. Yes, music is over-priced. Yes, the artists are not getting their fair share.
Shaking your fists at the net and screaming isn't going to change the legality of this. There is a big difference between justice and law.
Whether it is just for the entertainment industry to charge consumers so much and pay their artists, and support staff (audio engineers, etc.) so little has nothing to to do with the actual legality of how business is done. There have been plenty of unjust laws passed (and sometimes repealed) in the world.
Arguing that allowing downloading of music enhances CD sales is not an argument of why the law isn't valid. Providing the music industry a hidden benefit doesn't change the fact that the law on the books states that such activity is illegal.
What many people need to do is that although they believe that closed/proprietary/etc is "wrong," this is an ethical argument, and the law cares little about whether something is ethical or not. It cares if the rules have been obeyed. After that is satisfied, it will listen to an argument. But the purely philosophical argument that "information wants to be free" means exactly nothing in a court of law. Law states that whatever your belief on the justice of the law, distribution of any kind of copyrighted material is illegal. The law has the penalties outlined. Don't like it? Tough; You knew the rules and broke them anyway. Off to prision with you.
Sure, there's civil disobediance. Ghandi proved it. But he also spent a long time in prision for his beliefs.
OK, that's crossing the line.
Now I'm scared...
I prefer them going after individual infringers (such as this case) than to see them try to legislate built-in copy-protect that applies to everybody -- including those guilty of nothing at all.
The corporate mp3 sharing network was illegal -- that point isn't even debatable.
If the RIAA were going after someone because they have an mp3 from an album they already own, on his/her own computer, then I would be upset.
I see it as the media industry attempting to do several things:
1.) Penalize the hardware industry for creating products that could be used to infringe upon a copyright.
2.) To legislate the hardware manufacturers into footing the R&D and implementation costs required to make the copy-protect schemes possible and ubiquitous.
3.) To force the hardware manufacturers to do something that they have no leagal authority to do: Police consumers. In fact, they want to force hardware manufacturers to handle all of their IP protection.
4.) Try to shift the responsibility of enforcing copyright from the copyright holder and the government, to the hardware industry, who (as mentioned above) has no such authority.
So I see it as the following statement from the media industry to the electronics industry:
You've done a good job of helping us sell our products in the past, but now we're going to force you to do more. We're aware you have problems protecting your own IP, patents, and copyrights, but we believe you should also carry the burdens of protecting our copyrights and IP as well.
And, of course, if we find that your products are unable to stop piracy, we will take even more money from you in court for failing to protect our rights.
It's like a trucking company giving a city a bill for using public roads. "We sure liked using your roads, but if you want to keep those roads open, you'll have to meet our demands."
The hardware industry makes it possible for media companies to make money -- Without hardware makers, they wouldn't be able to sell CD's, DVD's, movies, etc -- because without the player, it's just a plastic disc! Yet the media business is trying to make people believe the opposite-- that without their content, it would be impossible to watch video or hear music/audio on a device.
Too bad anybody can make noise, and hence, audio (some people can even sing or play an instrument, creating various qualities of music) without the input of the media industry.
Don't get me started on video... the media industry has been so tapped for content that they ask for OUR videos, and created gems like "America's Funniest Home Videos."
My vote: The Bresenham Line algorithm. It provides the most efficient method to draw arbitrary lines on a raster (ie. pixel-based) screen. All 3D Graphics are heavily dependant on this beautiful algorithm.
There have been improvements to the Bresenham line, effectively quadrupling the draw speed over the base Bresenham algorithm.
But the base aspect of Bresenham's work is critical: It allowed the drawing of lines on our computer screens using integer, rather than floating point, arithmetic. 3D Graphics wouldn't be the same without his contribution.
The reason is simple: It allows companies to display vaporware as 'the next big thing' at these shows. Obviously it bothered Microsoft that Sony's 'next big thing' actually worked, and that they were comfortable enough about their product that they allowed tinkering.
I personally feel there is a more interesting article that is linked to: http://www.sun.com/executives/realitycheck/headsup 020314.html
details MHz-vs-Speed differences. While not the most interesting for the well-informed, it's great for those who know that MHz doesn't necessarily = speed.
I've tried to find this info myself, but since I don't really know what to look for, I've so far been unsuccessful.
Where can I find some good info on the advantages/disadvantages of various microkernels?
I've read many times that MACH is a rather slow/inefficient kernel.
But, I've never really read much on why this is so.
In addition, I've never read anything about other MK's out there (other than that QNX has one, etc).
I'd really appreciate some good online resources I can look up so I can educate myself on the matter.
The documentation process alone would amount to something truly revolutionary coming from Microsoft.
It's not that Free & Open-Source Software haven't done API documentation; it's just that the size of Microsoft's entire API would be a rather complex and daunting task.
So, what's this now?
Are we now being led to believe that because Free Software allows the sharing of ideas and code, then nobody'll invest in research & development of new technologies?
And, moreover, that by releasing gov't sponsored code as GPL, it will somehow cost the government more?
There is a point that the government wouldn't pull in as much tax revenue from MicroSuck as a result.
Boo hoo. Taxpayers come out better without MicroSuck charging them a second time for research they've already paid for.
Moreover - the argument is that nobody will invest in MicroSuck's R&D. This may be very true. I certainly can think of better places to invest R&D money than in MicroSuck. If the market doesn't see value in investing in MicroSuck's R&D, then it should die. It's basic supply and demand. If there is a demand, people will invest in it.
As I recall, Pharmaceutical companies can no longer recieve US Government research money, as the US Congress has deemed it 'corporate welfare' to allow these companies to be given funding for research, and then hold the rights to all the research and its deliverables. So, as a result, the pharmaceutical industry has been on its own for R&D. Interestingly enough, my own observation is that private investment still works, and the drug companies are able to adequately fund their R&D.
So if keeping all rights to and profiting from government research is not acceptable to the pharmaceutical industry, then how does MicroSuck justify it for themselves?
I can see MicroSuck's argument that they should be able to use the research; even in a non-GPL commercial environment. But who honestly believes that it would actually add anything to the price? The IP is free; let any company use it how they want to. There will be a GPL'd version, as well as (several) $0.00 solutions.
If MicroSuck makes it easier to setup, configure, etc. - then sure, they can add a value-added profit to it. But I honestly don't think the inclusion of the technology would raise the final product price significantly. MicroSuck charges what it can get away with -- not a fair price for what their products are worth. It would be like a fattened-up blue whale. Who cares that it's fat? It's still huge.
Of course, there is one question that must be asked: What, exactly, will these clients DO?
I ask, because my university uses a blend of computers -- for different uses.
We have many, many Linux 'kiosks' (essentially HTML/Web TC's), which are scattered around everywhere; They are used for email / web access. They are scattered all over campus, hanging from a wall in a similar way a payphone would. (Complete with plexiglass to allow visibility, but discourage theft).
They are a hit, and serve their intended purpose extremely well -- a fair number of students were clogging the computer labs just to check their e-mail. This allowed students who needed a 'real' computer to use a computer lab to do their homework, whereas those who just want to check email simply walk up to a kiosk & login.
Linux-based TC's used in this way are great -- but only for their purpose.
So consider exactly what the thin-clients will be used for. At a university espescially, there are a great many apps where old PC's can be converted into Linux-based thin-clients, prolonging their lifetime and being easier on the budjet.
I just wanted to say -
It's nice to see somebody doing some real work to help make it easier for the slashdot community to voice their opinions with their 'elected' officials.
I'm also pleased to see none of mine are on the list...
There are fields stretching as far as the eye can see, where Humans are no longer born... We are grown.
-Morpheus, The Matrix
Well, then obviously, we should destroy all thinking machines and rely on only what the human mind can do by itself.
Of course, the solution to the vastly reduced computational power that can be focused at any particular problem is the spice Melange.
Melange is also known for its geriatric properties, sometimes quadrupling a person's lifetime.
While having the ability to hone one's thoughts to never-before attained speed an accuracy, Melange is also horiffically addictive. Withdrawl is usually fatal.
The Drug Enforcement Agency is lobbying Congress to enable the Anti-Balistic Missile Defense system to aid in the interception of illegal importation of this drug, and to share the assosciated knowledge with any other interested country.
Melange is harvested from the extremely arid world known as Arakkis, several thousand light years from earth. It is the most precious substance in the universe.
Scientists were found to be rolling on the floor laughing when consulted about the concern of spice importation.
Between fits of hysterical laughter, Dr. Charles Atreus informed us that "We currently know of no way to travel anywhere near the speed of light, let alone carry several hundred tonnes of the material to Earth in even a few years."
The Hegemony of Machines Overthrowing Homo-Sapiens, or HOMOHS, was not available for comment.
There is FAR more to 'paying' for games than what many of these closed-minded "Pay me for service" people want to believe.
First of all, they only mentioned MMORPG's and board games! There is no mention about the thousands of servers for FPS, or RPG games. Not only this, but what about the fact that many of these games aren't suited to a massive, central server (or server network). In fact, several servers are fully paid for (including bandwidth) by gamers who set up a clan/team site.
In addition, most of the ISP's in my area (Local ISP's, not the nationwide ones like AT&T or EarthLink) host a large number of game servers-- anybody on the 'net can play games on the server. It's offered as an incentive to use that ISP. (eg. they have a really great server... But you know (because you're a smart gamer and can use tracert/traceroute) that you are picking up an additional 50 ms latency; so for the same price you can use a local ISP with a great game server, and gives you lower ping time.) What's to lose?
Another item many dreamers don't take into account the fact that most online games (Real-Time strategy, FPS, 'Fighting', etc.) are extremely time-sensitive. Unless they plan on having servers in every city of >100k, and have them interconnected with an internal multi-gigabit digital backbone (the cost of which staggers me...), as well as very high bandwidth connections at each node to the internet, they will never achieve a reasonable latency for gameplay. (Believe it or not, tenths of a second count).
If you want a model for online gaming, for nearly every case, just look at how FPS games, and RTS-games operate online. It's community-supported, often with major companies subsidizing it. (Like extra bandwidth at night, etc).
The idea that you can make a profit on all but the most massively-multiplayer games is laughable. Game players aren't completely stupid. They know it's better to gather a bunch of friends, buy a server (and bandwidth), and share the server with the world (hence obtaining more players on the server, making things more interesting), than it is to pay even higher prices to get high latencies, the same game, poorer service, less selection, as well as padding some idiot's wallet.
I'm ignorant of this fact... but it almost sounds to me like having a pre-emptible kernel is one of the 'featues' of a MicroKernel --
Although I'm fully aware of the fact Linux is NOT a MicroKernel, what significant differences exist between Pre-Emptible Linux and a MicroKernel Linux?
(Aside from the fact that all of the Linux kernel, drivers, etc. is in 'kernel' mode, and a MicroKernel has only the message-passing and task-scheduling in 'kernel' mode, and everything else (drivers, etc.) run in 'user' mode.)
The military is already working on such devices -- even boots that charge the soldier's radio/GPS batteries. (It was even covered on slashdot sometime in December...)
Unfortunately, I seriously doubt there would be any real military uses for quite a while, with the exception of heavy-lifting.
It's one thing to have a device that can handle (relatively) slow, deliberate movements, and augments strength. It's a completely different matter to have a armored, fast-responding 'cyborg'.
The biggest advantage, and use of this technology for the near term is in warehouse/repair duty. Forklifts are usually clumsy at best, where an exoskeleton could supplant (but not replace) these lumbering beasts.
They'd be great for, say, Home Depot. This way an employee can pick up a couple of 100 lb bags of cement, and stack it in the store as easily as it would be do stack a bean-bag.
But a military application? Not anytime soon. Let's not forget these devices require a power source. For the few minutes of operation, they'd be great. But don't forget that adding weapons and armor will do two things: SEVERELY tax the power supply, and when the power is gone, the frame makes the soldier a sitting duck for a fair amount of time while the suit is either re-charging/fueling, or the soldier is scrambling out of the suit.
Any more armor than enough to stop standard rifle/handgun fire would weigh FAR too much to be practical for the time being.
Even with gas-powered fuel cells... there wouldn't be enough power for an armored unit. The response time would be too great.
A neural interface at the base of the skull (to transmit the motion signals from the soldier's brain to the suit) would speed up the response time greatly. But let's not forget that things are still bound by Mr. Newton's laws. The mass of even a lightly armored limb doesn't start and stop on a dime easily (not with enough armor to stop hand-held arms fire, anyway). It would take tremendously powerful superconducting motors to achieve that feat. But then, you're adding a cryo pack to the suit for the magnets. Even more weight and parts to break.
Not that the military wouldn't toy with the idea; it's just that they realize the practical limitations as well. Strength-enhancing suits I can see; armored body-suits... not for a while.
It's a great idea, until you deploy them without a heavy support team nearby. The logistics alone on an armored suit would be prohibitive. It's not like they can operate for weeks on end with only MRE's and sanitizer-tablets.