They haven't been tried, convicted, or sentenced yet, so your hysterical '15 years!' crap is way premature.
'Sony is in bed with politicians' - now we are really off in tin-foil hat land. Other than creating a law prohibiting unauthorized use of computers, how exactly are politiicians involved in this? And what makes you think Sony had any hand in crafting that law, or that the overwhelming majority of Americans don't support that law?
15 years is the MAXIMUM sentence they could receive. They have not even been convicted yet, much less sentenced, so you have no idea how much time they will actually get. And I am pretty sure the MAXIMUM sentence for beating up twenty grandmas or stealing 500 million dollars is at least 15 years.
Yes. We live in a civilized society. Being in a civilized society means we all get benefits from it, and we all have responsibilities in it. What those benefits and responsibilites are is certainly subject to debate, but there is pretty much no modern society that places the onus of crime on the victim. If you don't want to live in such a society, remove yourself from it. There is plenty of wilderness in the US, go live in it.
So to sum up your position: victims of crime should bear the full responsibility and costs associated with finding, trying, and punishing the criminals. Gee, I can't imagine why the rest of society does not agree with you.
Again with the stupid rounded corners arguments. There is NO PATENT for a "device with rounded corners". None. What there is is a design patent which says 'a device that looks like this'. Round corners are a part of it, but only in conjunction with smooth front and back, angular edges along the front, radial edges along the back, connectors on the side, back slightly smaller than front, etc.
There were phones, smart phones, and PDAs before iPad. Not one of them looked like an iPad. That is why it was patentable, because it was a NEW DESIGN.
The thing that you seem to forget is that the 'obvious' test is applied BEFORE the patent is made public, not after. EVERYTHING is obvious once someone has done it.
'Obvious' does not mean someone else could have done it. 'Obvious' does not mean that once you see how it is done (or have it described in some way) you could do the same thing. 'Obvious' means basically that there is only one way to do something, and everyone who is skilled in that art already knows what it is.
Quite easy to prove, no need to change anything. There are countries which have no effective patent system. Is a single one of them producing anything new that people want?
In case you are really this stupid though, here is something for you to think about. Look at your cell phone. How many billions of dollars of investment and hard work do you think are in there? I mean in total. Everything from the plastic in the case, to the chips (all the way back to the transistor), to the battery, the tiny magnets in the mics and speakers, the display, the touch screen, the countless manufacturing processes and tools for all those components, etc. Now ask yourself: how much of that stuff would have been invented if the inventor was unable to protect his invention?
In the absense of patents, the only way to protect your stuff is by not telling anyone how you did it. That is not good for anyone.
That is just idiotic. In a contract dispute, is everyone who is party to any contract excluded? No. In an auto accident case, is everyone with a drivers license excluded? No. What is this supposed 'information' he had in his head, and how did it effect his judgment?
Well, yes, that was my point. The workloads run on mainframes are different than the workloads run on other processors. Therefore, there are no benchmarks which can be accurately used to compare them.
These people that keep harping on the 'IBM won't do benchmarks' theme are completely missing the point. It is like saying that because GE Locomotives does not publish 'MPG' or '0 to 60' figures that means that they are hiding something and that obviously a Toyota is a better vehicle. Well, where are the 'fuel consumed per 1000 ton/miles' measurements for Toyota?
The numbers provided by TurboHercules are most certainly complete bullshit. Actual MIPS are determined by running standard benchmarks against simulated workload. A 1200 MIPS machine is going to be driving a whole lot of I/O in those benchmarks, and there is no way that Hercules emulated processor and emulated I/O is going to be able to pull that off.
If they didn't test with IBMs standard LSPR tests, their numbers are useless.
First, nobody who knows anything uses MIPS to compare perfomance between two different architectures. MIPS is only marginally useful in the best of conditions, and even then is only useful as a relative measure between two machines of the same architecture running the same workload.
Second, Core i7 servers execute 178 BILLION instructions every second, on average? Seriously? 80 instructions per clock cycle, sustained? Bullshit.
Third, your nice shiny rack of Core i7 servers doesn't mean anything if it can't run your software.
Fourth, the actual performance of a Z114 processor is around 780 MIPS, not 26. So why do they have that 26 MIPS 'dialed down' model? Because some customer asked for it. Why would a customer pay $800K for a 780 MIPS machine when he only has 26 MIPS of workload? Why would the customer pay software licensing fees for a 780 MIPS machine when he only has 26 MIPS of workload?
Fifth, 'your experience' with IBM mainframes is non-existant, or you wouldn't be making these stupid mistakes and claims.
What exactly are you basing your claims on? Just pulling things out of thin air?
Here are some things that IBMs customers care about, where are the Core i7 Extreme numbers for these?
How many CICS transactions can I process per second? How many IMS updates? How about DB2 transactions? How many SSL transactions? What differences are there in performance for on-line vs batch processing? Can I tune the system to maximize performance for my particular workload?
So, you're comparing a ridiculous configuration of a nitrogen-cooled, over-clocked processor that will maybe run long enough to get a screen shot of it running, to a commercial processor that is designed to run at that speed non-stop for years and years? Yeah, that makes sense.
The mythbusters had no point except to provide entertainment. Everybody, including the FAA, knows that SOME devices are left on, and it has not been proven as of yet to have caused a crash. What the FAA (and I am guessing the mythbusters) have not been willing to say is that if ALL of the devices were left on (including ones that are not operating properly or have been damaged or modified) there is no concern.
Try this: ask the mythbusters to state that they guarantee (ie they have liability) no lives will be lost if everyone uses their devices. If they are not willing to make that guarantee then they have proved nothing.
How long would you have to flip a coin until in comes up heads 5 times in a row? Now have a whole plane full of people flip coins. I bet 5 heads in a row occurs much more frequently, per plane.
That is not liability, it is a warrantee. Liability does not change based on how much someone paid for something, ever. What you (and the other posters) are attempting to do is make special rules, such that two people engaging in the same activity are held to different laws. If your code can cause damage of a million dollars to some user, and the coder is 'liable' for that damage, it does not matter at all how much was paid for the code. A million dollars damage is a million dollars damage.
Say what? People give other people (friends, carpools, etc) free rides every day. And yes, the drivers (or estates) of vehicles who injure passengers do get sued.
Why, exactly, should FOSS get a free pass? If FOSS can't survive on it's own merits, that is it's problem. Making special rules just for FOSS is just silly.
First, that puts FOSS at a huge disadvantage. If a customer uses 'commercial software' (whatever that is), they can sue if something goes wrong. If they use FOSS - too bad?
Second, define 'commercial software', and more importantly 'commercial developers'. What about the large amount of FOSS that is developed by 'commercial' developers (IBM, Red Hat, etc)? What about FOSS that is 'sold' (RHEL, SuSE)? Do those companies get a free pass on selling crap, or are the developers of the stuff they are selling going to be held responsible, no matter who they are?
And while we're at it, why don't we apply that silly theory to everyday life? If you a cab driver and kill a passenger, you can get sued. But if you just give someone a ride and kill them, too bad? It makes no sense. The law applies equally to everyone, not just some class of people you happen to not like and want to punish.
Slashdot Mirror
They haven't been tried, convicted, or sentenced yet, so your hysterical '15 years!' crap is way premature.
'Sony is in bed with politicians' - now we are really off in tin-foil hat land. Other than creating a law prohibiting unauthorized use of computers, how exactly are politiicians involved in this? And what makes you think Sony had any hand in crafting that law, or that the overwhelming majority of Americans don't support that law?
15 years is the MAXIMUM sentence they could receive. They have not even been convicted yet, much less sentenced, so you have no idea how much time they will actually get. And I am pretty sure the MAXIMUM sentence for beating up twenty grandmas or stealing 500 million dollars is at least 15 years.
Yes. We live in a civilized society. Being in a civilized society means we all get benefits from it, and we all have responsibilities in it. What those benefits and responsibilites are is certainly subject to debate, but there is pretty much no modern society that places the onus of crime on the victim. If you don't want to live in such a society, remove yourself from it. There is plenty of wilderness in the US, go live in it.
OK, I'll help you out with that: EVERY system that contains your data, including the systems you personally control, is vulnerable.
Uh, yeah. "Protected" means protected by the law, not technical measures.
So to sum up your position: victims of crime should bear the full responsibility and costs associated with finding, trying, and punishing the criminals. Gee, I can't imagine why the rest of society does not agree with you.
Again with the stupid rounded corners arguments. There is NO PATENT for a "device with rounded corners". None. What there is is a design patent which says 'a device that looks like this'. Round corners are a part of it, but only in conjunction with smooth front and back, angular edges along the front, radial edges along the back, connectors on the side, back slightly smaller than front, etc.
There were phones, smart phones, and PDAs before iPad. Not one of them looked like an iPad. That is why it was patentable, because it was a NEW DESIGN.
The thing that you seem to forget is that the 'obvious' test is applied BEFORE the patent is made public, not after. EVERYTHING is obvious once someone has done it.
'Obvious' does not mean someone else could have done it. 'Obvious' does not mean that once you see how it is done (or have it described in some way) you could do the same thing. 'Obvious' means basically that there is only one way to do something, and everyone who is skilled in that art already knows what it is.
Quite easy to prove, no need to change anything. There are countries which have no effective patent system. Is a single one of them producing anything new that people want?
In case you are really this stupid though, here is something for you to think about. Look at your cell phone. How many billions of dollars of investment and hard work do you think are in there? I mean in total. Everything from the plastic in the case, to the chips (all the way back to the transistor), to the battery, the tiny magnets in the mics and speakers, the display, the touch screen, the countless manufacturing processes and tools for all those components, etc. Now ask yourself: how much of that stuff would have been invented if the inventor was unable to protect his invention?
In the absense of patents, the only way to protect your stuff is by not telling anyone how you did it. That is not good for anyone.
That is just idiotic. In a contract dispute, is everyone who is party to any contract excluded? No. In an auto accident case, is everyone with a drivers license excluded? No. What is this supposed 'information' he had in his head, and how did it effect his judgment?
Where does IBM rate their machine in MIPS?
Well, yes, that was my point. The workloads run on mainframes are different than the workloads run on other processors. Therefore, there are no benchmarks which can be accurately used to compare them.
These people that keep harping on the 'IBM won't do benchmarks' theme are completely missing the point. It is like saying that because GE Locomotives does not publish 'MPG' or '0 to 60' figures that means that they are hiding something and that obviously a Toyota is a better vehicle. Well, where are the 'fuel consumed per 1000 ton/miles' measurements for Toyota?
And non-I/O workloads are ever so common in enterprise computing.
The numbers provided by TurboHercules are most certainly complete bullshit. Actual MIPS are determined by running standard benchmarks against simulated workload. A 1200 MIPS machine is going to be driving a whole lot of I/O in those benchmarks, and there is no way that Hercules emulated processor and emulated I/O is going to be able to pull that off.
If they didn't test with IBMs standard LSPR tests, their numbers are useless.
OK, let's put some of this stupidity to rest.
First, nobody who knows anything uses MIPS to compare perfomance between two different architectures. MIPS is only marginally useful in the best of conditions, and even then is only useful as a relative measure between two machines of the same architecture running the same workload.
Second, Core i7 servers execute 178 BILLION instructions every second, on average? Seriously? 80 instructions per clock cycle, sustained? Bullshit.
Third, your nice shiny rack of Core i7 servers doesn't mean anything if it can't run your software.
Fourth, the actual performance of a Z114 processor is around 780 MIPS, not 26. So why do they have that 26 MIPS 'dialed down' model? Because some customer asked for it. Why would a customer pay $800K for a 780 MIPS machine when he only has 26 MIPS of workload? Why would the customer pay software licensing fees for a 780 MIPS machine when he only has 26 MIPS of workload?
Fifth, 'your experience' with IBM mainframes is non-existant, or you wouldn't be making these stupid mistakes and claims.
What exactly are you basing your claims on? Just pulling things out of thin air?
Here are some things that IBMs customers care about, where are the Core i7 Extreme numbers for these?
How many CICS transactions can I process per second? How many IMS updates? How about DB2 transactions? How many SSL transactions? What differences are there in performance for on-line vs batch processing? Can I tune the system to maximize performance for my particular workload?
So, you're comparing a ridiculous configuration of a nitrogen-cooled, over-clocked processor that will maybe run long enough to get a screen shot of it running, to a commercial processor that is designed to run at that speed non-stop for years and years? Yeah, that makes sense.
They were at 40000 feet when the calls were made.
The mythbusters had no point except to provide entertainment. Everybody, including the FAA, knows that SOME devices are left on, and it has not been proven as of yet to have caused a crash. What the FAA (and I am guessing the mythbusters) have not been willing to say is that if ALL of the devices were left on (including ones that are not operating properly or have been damaged or modified) there is no concern.
Try this: ask the mythbusters to state that they guarantee (ie they have liability) no lives will be lost if everyone uses their devices. If they are not willing to make that guarantee then they have proved nothing.
How long would you have to flip a coin until in comes up heads 5 times in a row? Now have a whole plane full of people flip coins. I bet 5 heads in a row occurs much more frequently, per plane.
Of course they do. Remember the 'let's roll' cell phone call on 9/11?
Well, since as soon as you land you are free to use your phone (and many people do), I think your faraday cage does not do what you think it does.
That is not liability, it is a warrantee. Liability does not change based on how much someone paid for something, ever. What you (and the other posters) are attempting to do is make special rules, such that two people engaging in the same activity are held to different laws. If your code can cause damage of a million dollars to some user, and the coder is 'liable' for that damage, it does not matter at all how much was paid for the code. A million dollars damage is a million dollars damage.
Say what? People give other people (friends, carpools, etc) free rides every day. And yes, the drivers (or estates) of vehicles who injure passengers do get sued.
Why, exactly, should FOSS get a free pass? If FOSS can't survive on it's own merits, that is it's problem. Making special rules just for FOSS is just silly.
That makes no sense at all.
First, that puts FOSS at a huge disadvantage. If a customer uses 'commercial software' (whatever that is), they can sue if something goes wrong. If they use FOSS - too bad?
Second, define 'commercial software', and more importantly 'commercial developers'. What about the large amount of FOSS that is developed by 'commercial' developers (IBM, Red Hat, etc)? What about FOSS that is 'sold' (RHEL, SuSE)? Do those companies get a free pass on selling crap, or are the developers of the stuff they are selling going to be held responsible, no matter who they are?
And while we're at it, why don't we apply that silly theory to everyday life? If you a cab driver and kill a passenger, you can get sued. But if you just give someone a ride and kill them, too bad? It makes no sense. The law applies equally to everyone, not just some class of people you happen to not like and want to punish.
Uh, Arbor Day is in April. 26dec is boxing day.