No, there is a big difference: region coding is a technical restraint that can be circumvented. Legal or economical restraints, on the other hand, would violate, among other things, anti-trust laws.
The hardware is a big stumbling block that we must overcome before the software can make that quantum leap.
Hardly. Good software can do something worthwhile even on crappy hardware, but there is not, never has been and never will be a hardware that can't be reduced to total ineffectiveness by badly designed or written code.
Damn sure Oracle is a great database. And damn sure you have to pay a lot more money for it than is reasonable if you just need a small- to medium-sized SQL database. And thats where you use MySQL if youre smart and MS SQL Server if youre a suit.
Define "better". And by most resonable definitions, the answer is "no". Linux and BSD are really two sides of the same coin. To the user they are practically impossible to tell apart at first look - both are free *nixes with a shitload of good (and identical) software from the GNU projects.
Actually, the key can be cracked by a brue force factorization. It's just that without a polynomial factoriazation algorithm (believed by many to be non-existant), it takes billions of years to do that...
I never had difficulties writing x86 asm, did YOU have ?
[]
It gives all the power of RISC and the nice things of CISC (variable length instructions).
The point is this: writing assembler code is nowadays not something many people do. A different command set would produce MUCH faster code on the same architecture, especially with good compilers. The thing the x86 are lacking most are general-purpose registers that could be used for compiler optimization.
The fact that x86 processors run at higher MHz than any other should be a hint for your pedantic biased mind.
And the fact that other architectures have higher performance despite running lower clock rates should be a hint to you.
Of course this is slashdot, so maybe I'll get moderated to -1 AGAIN for saying x86 is good.
Go run to your mommy. I'd like to know how many/. readers are using alternative platforms ?
The good thing about x86 is that it's cheap. It's also fast, sure. But it could be a helluvalot faster if the same amount of time and money spent to squeeze some more performance out of a geriatric architecture had been spent on developing a new one.
How is a short and concise statement of the key point in this argument "karma whoring"?
As for "redundant", the whole damn discussion is redundant. If these self-proclaimed "experts" could get my point into their heads, we wouldn't have to re-hash this once again.
AS I understood it, Intel was merely talking about the 64 bit, not the instruction set. After all, if they though it would be standard in 2005 to still have the same stone-age command set, why would the move away from it? And how could the old architecture become standard?
The point is that open source code is checked by a lot more people. Security holes are found more quickly and closed way more quickly. And you can be sure that the company who made it didn't put in any easter eggs.
Apparently it is you who does not have a clue. The x86 architecture has by now become an ugly, horrendous hack job of patches upon patches and desparate attempts to somehow keep something that was designed 20 years ago up-to-date.
Practically every good feature of it is an afterthought that would work much better in a completely new architecture.
The fact alone that all current x86 CPUS are actually internally RISC processors that have to translate a command set that is totally unfit for RISC methods should be telling enough.
This "preview" is pure vapor. There's practically no concrete information on the actual architecture of the chip, and without such information, there can be no real estimation of its performance. If I understand it right, they are in fact keeping the x86 instruction set, and that is a serious performance dampener.
The German government loves the internet. They're way too scared of "falling behind" to implement any of this.
The way people rant here it sounds as if this were at least a formal bill proposal. It is not. It is basically a wish list formulated by record companies. They will come to the legislature saying "could you please do this", and the legislature will reply "Nope, sorry." and that will be that.
You didn't understand the technical concep at all, did you?
The system would work not on individual clients but on the internet infrastructure. You simpla wouldn't be able to connect at all to servers deemed MP3-sources.
Though this is common in North America in Europe its still not fully understood.
There's nothing to "understand" about this. It's simply a quite debatable principle.
To find proof of the matter one only has to look south to Austria, where a Nazi (sic), Joerg Haider, was recently elected into the Aus. gov.. 1/3 of Austria's voters voted for him, and noone was shocked by it. Everyone expectes people in the country to have a bit of Nazi in them anyway. So where were all these anti-Nazi laws then?
Actually, Haider is not a Nazi. He's just a very clever, rhetorically giftend and incredibly slippery guy who will at any point in time say what his current audience wants to hear without the slightest regard for facts, common sense or what he said yesterday.
Sorry folks, the anti-Nazi laws have actually made things even worse.
They allow us to do something against "ideological pyromanicas" before someone gets killed. In what way is that worse than only being able to do something about them after the deed?
I fail to see how the project would in any way be helpful in the development of weapons.
We already have really ugly biological weapons, and making better ones is not really dependant on the knowledge of human genes, it depends on knowing the genes of viruses and bacteria, as well as the structure of the human body. And for the latter, you really dont need the Human Genome project, any good microscope will do.
Re:Are these things really needed?
on
Date Pagers
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, but a gay-basher trying to find gays to bash would have to run around with a pager announcing that he is gay, too. Could lead to interesting situations if two of them meet...
No, simply because it's often difficult to tell a good troll from someone who's serious, and of course one's person't funniest joke ever is another's yawn.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, machines that can truly convert between the formats are about 20 times as expensive as low-end ones.
No, there is a big difference: region coding is a technical restraint that can be circumvented. Legal or economical restraints, on the other hand, would violate, among other things, anti-trust laws.
Hardly. Good software can do something worthwhile even on crappy hardware, but there is not, never has been and never will be a hardware that can't be reduced to total ineffectiveness by badly designed or written code.
So what? many small apps simply don't need all that fancy stuff.
Damn sure Oracle is a great database. And damn sure you have to pay a lot more money for it than is reasonable if you just need a small- to medium-sized SQL database. And thats where you use MySQL if youre smart and MS SQL Server if youre a suit.
oh, and of course, Slashdot is not a Linux site, just like the IMDB is not a MGM site.
Define "better". And by most resonable definitions, the answer is "no". Linux and BSD are really two sides of the same coin. To the user they are practically impossible to tell apart at first look - both are free *nixes with a shitload of good (and identical) software from the GNU projects.
Actually, the key can be cracked by a brue force factorization. It's just that without a polynomial factoriazation algorithm (believed by many to be non-existant), it takes billions of years to do that...
[]
It gives all the power of RISC and the nice things of CISC (variable length instructions).
The point is this: writing assembler code is nowadays not something many people do. A different command set would produce MUCH faster code on the same architecture, especially with good compilers. The thing the x86 are lacking most are general-purpose registers that could be used for compiler optimization.
The fact that x86 processors run at higher MHz than any other should be a hint for your pedantic biased mind.
And the fact that other architectures have higher performance despite running lower clock rates should be a hint to you.
Of course this is slashdot, so maybe I'll get moderated to -1 AGAIN for saying x86 is good.
Go run to your mommy. I'd like to know how many /. readers are using alternative platforms ?
The good thing about x86 is that it's cheap. It's also fast, sure. But it could be a helluvalot faster if the same amount of time and money spent to squeeze some more performance out of a geriatric architecture had been spent on developing a new one.
Shoot me for not being precise.
As for "redundant", the whole damn discussion is redundant. If these self-proclaimed "experts" could get my point into their heads, we wouldn't have to re-hash this once again.
That is exactly my point...
AS I understood it, Intel was merely talking about the 64 bit, not the instruction set. After all, if they though it would be standard in 2005 to still have the same stone-age command set, why would the move away from it? And how could the old architecture become standard?
The point is that open source code is checked by a lot more people. Security holes are found more quickly and closed way more quickly. And you can be sure that the company who made it didn't put in any easter eggs.
Security through obscurity DOES NOT WORK!
Hm. And just how much can a 90-year-old on steroids achieve?
Practically every good feature of it is an afterthought that would work much better in a completely new architecture.
The fact alone that all current x86 CPUS are actually internally RISC processors that have to translate a command set that is totally unfit for RISC methods should be telling enough.
This "preview" is pure vapor. There's practically no concrete information on the actual architecture of the chip, and without such information, there can be no real estimation of its performance. If I understand it right, they are in fact keeping the x86 instruction set, and that is a serious performance dampener.
The way people rant here it sounds as if this were at least a formal bill proposal. It is not. It is basically a wish list formulated by record companies. They will come to the legislature saying "could you please do this", and the legislature will reply "Nope, sorry." and that will be that.
The system would work not on individual clients but on the internet infrastructure. You simpla wouldn't be able to connect at all to servers deemed MP3-sources.
There's nothing to "understand" about this. It's simply a quite debatable principle.
To find proof of the matter one only has to look south to Austria, where a Nazi (sic), Joerg Haider, was recently elected into the Aus. gov.. 1/3 of Austria's voters voted for him, and noone was shocked by it. Everyone expectes people in the country to have a bit of Nazi in them anyway. So where were all these anti-Nazi laws then?
Actually, Haider is not a Nazi. He's just a very clever, rhetorically giftend and incredibly slippery guy who will at any point in time say what his current audience wants to hear without the slightest regard for facts, common sense or what he said yesterday.
Sorry folks, the anti-Nazi laws have actually made things even worse.
They allow us to do something against "ideological pyromanicas" before someone gets killed. In what way is that worse than only being able to do something about them after the deed?
We already have really ugly biological weapons, and making better ones is not really dependant on the knowledge of human genes, it depends on knowing the genes of viruses and bacteria, as well as the structure of the human body. And for the latter, you really dont need the Human Genome project, any good microscope will do.
Yeah, but a gay-basher trying to find gays to bash would have to run around with a pager announcing that he is gay, too. Could lead to interesting situations if two of them meet...
No, simply because it's often difficult to tell a good troll from someone who's serious, and of course one's person't funniest joke ever is another's yawn.