Company Name Microsoft Corporation Name Mr. Tux The penguin Title Linux Mascot Email tux@linux.org Phone # 555.1212 Fax # 555.1212 Those bastards! Thats it, the next kernel should be named Bill_Gates!!!!!!
I would like to know who is the moron moderator who decided that this was redundant? Do you even know what redundant means? Redundant implies that this post was duplicating what someone else had already said. This was post #3, and the first two were "first post" and "hot grits" stuff.
This is a community of free expression. Moderation is they way in which our community can separate this signal from the noise, but we must be careful not to eliminate signal we don't want to hear. Moderating something down, and claiming it is redundant when it is not, is more offensive, and more damaging then letting this post stand.
Speaking of Britany Spears, is she 18 yet? Because I want to see her naked and petrified, while I pour hot grits on myself. (all while i set up a nice beowulf running on her two tits). Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
This is exactly why we need to support mp3 and other easy to produce formats, to eliminate the RI execs, A and R men, managers, and shiest lawyers from taking loads of profits. The recording companies take a tremendous cut of the profits, the artists are the ones being shafted. In addition record execs. seem to only want to produce crap Nsync and Britny Spears type shit. If artists could produce and distribute their work directly, more of them would be heard, and could reach their niche audiances. It would increase artistic diversity. Assuming the cost for this new media would be much cheaper then a current CS, if a system was in place so that the artists could earn the money directly, they would earn even more money then they do now, because no shiesty middle men would take a big cut. Internet music is a way to increase diversity, and to ensure that quality voices are not lost amongst the crap pop music. This is the real reason the RIAA is opposed to mp3 and the like, and the real reason we have to fight them.
I believe they do exactly what you say. And so does the software industry. I have always felt that this is totally rediculous. Just cause I dl some warez, it does not mean I would have paid $.50 for that crap. It is so stupid that companies are allowed to do accounting in this matter, especially because people (running warez sites, for example) can be charged with stealing multi-millions of dollars worth of goods from a company, when the company's actual losses were much much less.
Amazon.com today has applied for and been granted a US patent on a process that they have named "shopping".
According to the patent application, "shopping" is a method by which a "buyer" examines the wares being offered by a "seller", determines that he would like to obtain such wares, and trades money for them.
Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos has claimed that "our patent for 'shopping', along with those we have for 'buying' and 'selling' can combine to form an entierly new way for human beings to obtain and distribute goods. This represents a tremendous leap over the previous system of bartering".
In a related note, Microsoft has been granted a patent for a process they call "seeing", whereby a person uses their eyes to collect sensory information. Accoring to founder Bill Gates "'seeing' is incredible, it provides people with an entierly new way to experience the environment around them. Of course, to recoupe our RD investment, we will have to impose steep usage fees for everyone who 'sees' during the next decade or so, but I doubt consumers will mind considering all the benefits of 'seeing'."
Hi. If I have a piece of GPL code (or any code, for that matter) up on one terminal, and I re-enter it on another terminal, and then tried to release my new copy under a different liscense, that would be a violation(?)
What if the original code was in C and my copy was in Pascal? Does the GPL protect just the source program, or does it protect the algorithm as well?
I wonder if I could release an algorithm (in whatever language) under the GPL and have it be protected, so that commercial software comps. could not include it unless they got a special license ($$$) from me.
UCITA is perhaps the worst thing that could happen to the computing profession, and could be very harmful to OSS.
UCITA essentially gives software manufactures the right to ship completely defective, and dangerous, products with impunity. Yes, users could refuse to purchase software with such restrictive agreements, but who actually reads click agreements when they download the latest plug-in or media player.
And Stallman is also right when it comes to the harm to Free Software. Outlawing reverse engineering would kill any chance for a non-microsoft (or friend) to succeed (OSS or not). M$ could develop a new format, stop supporting all the others, and could be the only comp. that produced viewers/editors for such. Anyone who needs compatibility with M$ products (such as allowing IE to view their websites) would be forced to by their software or loose 90% of computer users.
If this becomes law the effects could be devastating.
A compiler is just a machine that transforms a parse tree into machine code by following certain rules, so yes, there will always be situations where an ASM coder can best a compiler on a small section of code. However, the strength of a compiler is that it can automate tasks which would be very prone to error if done manually, such a loop unrolling, instruction schedulling to avoid branch and structural delays, etc. Today's large software systems, > 10 million instructions, would have taken 100 times longer and cost 100 times as much if written in ASM by hand. For hard real-time systems, where every cycle counts, humans will still need to write ASM, but for almost every other application, using a compiler is much better. rmstar - the following is not directed at you, but to the slashdot community in general and I just included it here to avoid having to post twice. Often, especially on technical threads, many slashdotters post on topics that they seem to not know anything about (i.e. someone above who did not know that compilers performed optimizations,e tc.). Everyone is entitled to have their own opinions, and not everyone has the same degree of expertise on a particular topic, but it is a waste of time for someone who has no idea what a compiler or assembly language is to post their "thoughts" on this topic. Ask a question, yes, but if you don't know what you are talking about, please don't write about it.
I have to disagree. Just search monster.com and see how many jobs there are for ASM programmers. Some people will always be needed for special ASM work, but today's software is way too complex to be coded in ASM and today's hardware is way to complex for a human to code.
MOD UP: Re:The Ultimate Compression Algorithm?
on
RIAA Sues MP3.com
·
· Score: 1
this is pretty good. you should forward this to the defense team. Mod this up, someone.!!!
Someone could really make a fortune selling life like (and also 1/2 and 1/4 scale) models of dinosaur bones. For 1000 bucks who would not buy one? I would also like a wooly mammoth kit, but according to something i read somewhere, soon i will be able to buy the real thing.
Undecidability (i.e. problems that cannot be solved by a Turing Machine) has very little to do with 'this whole NP!=P thing'.
An NP problem can easily be solved on a TM, it just might take a very, very, long time to do it.
This is entierly different than saying something can never be solved by a machine. There is a whole class of functions that would be very useful (the standard halting problem example for one), but which can never be computed.
i would have bought a tee shirt but those are the uglyiest ones i have ever seen. the need to design new ones quick, before paramount, et. al. go after them too.
I heard that tv stations do this during the broadcast of sports events (yankee games at least) where they would use CGI to change a billboard in the statdium to that of one of their advertisers.
That seems a little more tricky then this case, the stadium advertisers paid for those signs believeing that they would be seen on TV also (their contract might have stated otherwise, i don't really know).
I've very suprised they did not pay him. They probably could have negotiated down the 100K figure to something more reasonable, and would have avoided this terrible embarrasment. Of course, the would need some kind of assurance that the CC numbers would not be released even if he was paid, but if you have a reputable lawyer approach the company for you, usually a deal can be worked out. I know a someone who turned a similar exploit into a very high paying job. This does not mean the kid is in anyway excused of his criminal acts, but a business which relies on consumer trust does not need this kind of publicity.
nothing is stopping compilers from optiming risc ops To achieve ILP (instruction level parallelism), most RISC machines utilize what is know as a superscalar pipeline, i.e. they have multiple copies of functional units, operating in parallel in two (or more) pipelines. To ensure that those instructions can be run in parallel ($1 = $3 + $5; $10 = $1) the hardware has to do a lot of expensive checking. EPIC machines are much simpler. They achieve ILP by having VLIWs (very large instruction words) of multiple instructions that can be executed simultaneously. The hardware does no checking, it is up to the compiler to schedule instructions to avoid conflicts. This makes the hardware simpler, saving transistors for other things (more functional units), and much much faster. EPIC is the future, and it is a shame to see M$ slowing down intel because they want to have an OS to ship when the chips come out.
Compiler Technology (Linux version too)
on
News on Pentium IV
·
· Score: 1
A bunch of scientist have been working on compilers for EPIC processors for quite some time now. Check out the Trimaran project. They have a version for Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
Company Name Microsoft Corporation Name Mr. Tux The penguin Title Linux Mascot Email tux@linux.org Phone # 555.1212 Fax # 555.1212 Those bastards! Thats it, the next kernel should be named Bill_Gates!!!!!!
Hi.
I would like to know who is the moron moderator who decided that this was redundant? Do you even know what redundant means? Redundant implies that this post was duplicating what someone else had already said. This was post #3, and the first two were "first post" and "hot grits" stuff.
This is a community of free expression. Moderation is they way in which our community can separate this signal from the noise, but we must be careful not to eliminate signal we don't want to hear. Moderating something down, and claiming it is redundant when it is not, is more offensive, and more damaging then letting this post stand.
Shame on you moderator!
Speaking of Britany Spears, is she 18 yet?
Because I want to see her naked and petrified, while I pour hot grits on myself. (all while i set up a nice beowulf running on her two tits).
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
This is exactly why we need to support mp3 and other easy to produce formats, to eliminate the RI execs, A and R men, managers, and shiest lawyers from taking loads of profits.
The recording companies take a tremendous cut of the profits, the artists are the ones being shafted. In addition record execs. seem to only want to produce crap Nsync and Britny Spears type shit.
If artists could produce and distribute their work directly, more of them would be heard, and could reach their niche audiances. It would increase artistic diversity. Assuming the cost for this new media would be much cheaper then a current CS, if a system was in place so that the artists could earn the money directly, they would earn even more money then they do now, because no shiesty middle men would take a big cut.
Internet music is a way to increase diversity, and to ensure that quality voices are not lost amongst the crap pop music. This is the real reason the RIAA is opposed to mp3 and the like, and the real reason we have to fight them.
I believe they do exactly what you say. And so does the software industry.
I have always felt that this is totally rediculous. Just cause I dl some warez, it does not mean I would have paid $.50 for that crap.
It is so stupid that companies are allowed to do accounting in this matter, especially because people (running warez sites, for example) can be charged with stealing multi-millions of dollars worth of goods from a company, when the company's actual losses were much much less.
Amazon.com today has applied for and been granted a US patent on a process that they have named "shopping".
According to the patent application, "shopping" is a method by which a "buyer" examines the wares being offered by a "seller", determines that he would like to obtain such wares, and trades money for them.
Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos has claimed that "our patent for 'shopping', along with those we have for 'buying' and 'selling' can combine to form an entierly new way for human beings to obtain and distribute goods. This represents a tremendous leap over the previous system of bartering".
In a related note, Microsoft has been granted a patent for a process they call "seeing", whereby a person uses their eyes to collect sensory information. Accoring to founder Bill Gates "'seeing' is incredible, it provides people with an entierly new way to experience the environment around them. Of course, to recoupe our RD investment, we will have to impose steep usage fees for everyone who 'sees' during the next decade or so, but I doubt consumers will mind considering all the benefits of 'seeing'."
Hi.
If I have a piece of GPL code (or any code, for that matter) up on one terminal, and I re-enter it on another terminal, and then tried to release my new copy under a different liscense, that would be a violation(?)
What if the original code was in C and my copy was in Pascal? Does the GPL protect just the source program, or does it protect the algorithm as well?
I wonder if I could release an algorithm (in whatever language) under the GPL and have it be protected, so that commercial software comps. could not include it unless they got a special license ($$$) from me.
Any ideas?
Check out http://www.badsoftware.com/oppose.htm.
It seems that the MPAA and RIAA have taken vocal stands against UCITA.
I guess they want to eat their cake and have it too (the logical way to phrase that cliche).
We have one, the EFF. You should join.
I have to agree with RMS on this one.
UCITA is perhaps the worst thing that could happen to the computing profession, and could be very harmful to OSS.
UCITA essentially gives software manufactures the right to ship completely defective, and dangerous, products with impunity. Yes, users could refuse to purchase software with such restrictive agreements, but who actually reads click agreements when they download the latest plug-in or media player.
And Stallman is also right when it comes to the harm to Free Software. Outlawing reverse engineering would kill any chance for a non-microsoft (or friend) to succeed (OSS or not). M$ could develop a new format, stop supporting all the others, and could be the only comp. that produced viewers/editors for such. Anyone who needs compatibility with M$ products (such as allowing IE to view their websites) would be forced to by their software or loose 90% of computer users.
If this becomes law the effects could be devastating.
A compiler is just a machine that transforms a parse tree into machine code by following certain rules, so yes, there will always be situations where an ASM coder can best a compiler on a small section of code.
However, the strength of a compiler is that it can automate tasks which would be very prone to error if done manually, such a loop unrolling, instruction schedulling to avoid branch and structural delays, etc.
Today's large software systems, > 10 million instructions, would have taken 100 times longer and cost 100 times as much if written in ASM by hand. For hard real-time systems, where every cycle counts, humans will still need to write ASM, but for almost every other application, using a compiler is much better.
rmstar - the following is not directed at you, but to the slashdot community in general and I just included it here to avoid having to post twice.
Often, especially on technical threads, many slashdotters post on topics that they seem to not know anything about (i.e. someone above who did not know that compilers performed optimizations,e tc.).
Everyone is entitled to have their own opinions, and not everyone has the same degree of expertise on a particular topic, but it is a waste of time for someone who has no idea what a compiler or assembly language is to post their "thoughts" on this topic. Ask a question, yes, but if you don't know what you are talking about, please don't write about it.
I have to disagree.
Just search monster.com and see how many jobs there are for ASM programmers.
Some people will always be needed for special ASM work, but today's software is way too complex to be coded in ASM and today's hardware is way to complex for a human to code.
this is pretty good. you should forward this to the defense team. Mod this up, someone.!!!
everyone is allowed their own tastes but that is the creepiest thing i have ever seen.
Someone could really make a fortune selling life like (and also 1/2 and 1/4 scale) models of dinosaur bones. For 1000 bucks who would not buy one?
I would also like a wooly mammoth kit, but according to something i read somewhere, soon i will be able to buy the real thing.
Undecidability (i.e. problems that cannot be solved by a Turing Machine) has very little to do with 'this whole NP!=P thing'.
An NP problem can easily be solved on a TM, it just might take a very, very, long time to do it.
This is entierly different than saying something can never be solved by a machine. There is a whole class of functions that would be very useful (the standard halting problem example for one), but which can never be computed.
i would have bought a tee shirt but those are the uglyiest ones i have ever seen. the need to design new ones quick, before paramount, et. al. go after them too.
I heard that tv stations do this during the broadcast of sports events (yankee games at least) where they would use CGI to change a billboard in the statdium to that of one of their advertisers.
That seems a little more tricky then this case, the stadium advertisers paid for those signs believeing that they would be seen on TV also (their contract might have stated otherwise, i don't really know).
Anyone know more about this?
For an example of a clueless reporter, check out this article in today's NY Times.
I don't know if the reporters are dumb, or the write for dumbies, or both.
I've very suprised they did not pay him. They probably could have negotiated down the 100K figure to something more reasonable, and would have avoided this terrible embarrasment. Of course, the would need some kind of assurance that the CC numbers would not be released even if he was paid, but if you have a reputable lawyer approach the company for you, usually a deal can be worked out. I know a someone who turned a similar exploit into a very high paying job. This does not mean the kid is in anyway excused of his criminal acts, but a business which relies on consumer trust does not need this kind of publicity.
what an awesome bong these would make.
nothing is stopping compilers from optiming risc ops
To achieve ILP (instruction level parallelism), most RISC machines utilize what is know as a superscalar pipeline, i.e. they have multiple copies of functional units, operating in parallel in two (or more) pipelines. To ensure that those instructions can be run in parallel ($1 = $3 + $5; $10 = $1) the hardware has to do a lot of expensive checking.
EPIC machines are much simpler. They achieve ILP by having VLIWs (very large instruction words) of multiple instructions that can be executed simultaneously. The hardware does no checking, it is up to the compiler to schedule instructions to avoid conflicts. This makes the hardware simpler, saving transistors for other things (more functional units), and much much faster.
EPIC is the future, and it is a shame to see M$ slowing down intel because they want to have an OS to ship when the chips come out.
A bunch of scientist have been working on compilers for EPIC processors for quite some time now.
Check out the Trimaran project. They have a version for Linux.
very very good CS
Do you think I can wire up a bunch of geeks and nerds together and run an awesome Beowulf on 'em?
(Has linux been ported to nerds yet, or does it still only run on geeks?)