"But a re-examination of skeletons using modern technology... showed it had a strong enough pelvis to support a killing blow as it dived at speeds of up to 80kph."
Well, I must concede that I've only gotten as far as the POSIX standard in my computer science curriculum, so I'm not as familiar as I could be with system workings at the operating system level. I certainly agree with you that placing hardware specific code in a part of the operating system meant to generalize the algorithmic interaction with mass storage devices makes very little sense.
My understanding is that there is a logical representation of the bytes available on a physical disk (at which level the file system operates), and device drivers and hardware components translate that in some fashion into physical bytes, possibly generating this translation on the fly rather than as a simple bijection of "fixed logical byte maps to fixed physical byte". Wouldn't an algorithm implemented at these lower levels still be able to use the fact that more data is being written at a time to make more intelligent decisions about where to physically place that data?
A big limitation with flash drives is that repeated reads and writes to a given sector of storage "wear it out" and cause failure more quickly than the same amount of reads and writes to a given sector on a traditional disk device. The generally accepted solution is to use an algorithmic approach to distribute reads and writes evenly throughout the disk (note: transparent to software developers, at least above the kernel level), and this is what the GP is talking about--more time between physical disk writes means that there is more opportunity for an algorithm to decide intelligently where different pieces of the written data should go.
Does anyone else have Folding@Home or another distributed computing project running on their machine? It's not wasted power if the cycles are being donated... TO SCIENCE!!!
Hey now, it's not directly the patent office's fault... yet. They do it wrong from time to time (I understate), but until it's more than just an application, don't go casting false aspersions.
Although one must note that the history of the patent office of granting shoddy software patents probably does contribute to the piles of dreck that show up at their doorstep. After all, companies basically have to file for stupid patents in order to remain competitive against other companies with stupid patents.
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the correspondence between computer programs and the counting numbers via Godel numbering. Basically, given any finite state machine and starting configuration, one can assign a unique natural number to this program (although not every natural number necessarily represents a valid program). So a patent on a computer program is essentially equivalent to a patent on a subset of the counting numbers, up to a choice of numbering scheme.
If you're anything like my parents, then you'll end up with a rather large collection of home videos and other related media by the time you want to look back on it. In my parents' case, they had to transfer hundreds of hours of video from beta-max to DVD, which was a real headache. DVD to a future digital technology may be somewhat quicker to transfer than making the analog-to-digital jump, but swapping out DVDs over and over for days still doesn't seem like a fun prospect. I'd recommend storing data on a convenient medium such as a hard-drive and using redundancy to make sure that your data keeps.
The problem is, will Joe Average and his old Aunt Tillie be tech savvy enough to know or to care that their computers are compromised? There's a rather large portion of the American public that lives with loads of spyware running on their computers, and these sorts of people are not going to be the discerning consumers you suggest.
The whole thing about free and open source software is that it works based on what is called a gift economy. A gift economy is an economic system where resources (in this case computing power and memory) are essentially unlimited. In such a system, resources, the primary moving force in the economy of the real world, are essentially valueless. But then, what is to be gained by participating in the society? In such a system, instead of working for resources, individuals work for other forms of gratification such as the joy of the work or the reputation accrued among others in the community. The "gain" of such a system is related to what a person can give back to the community, thus the name "gift economy".
In the real world, the stakes are prosperity and basic survival, and rational actors make distinctly different decisions in such a situation. Thus your argument that the success of free and open source software over commercial enterprises supports the system of communism in general is somewhat fallacious, since the general conclusion does not exist in the same context as the specific example.
A more detailed look at the idea of a gift economy in relation to free and open source software can be seen in Eric Raymond's essay Homesteading the Noosphere. It's essential reading for those interested in understanding free software, along with the other essays in The Cathedral and the Bazaar.
But in all seriousness, I bet that this article is on to something. In decades past, television has had ubiquitous popularity simply because it's so easy and accessible. But the new availability of quick and easy outlets for creativity is going to enable a shift. In particular, those who aren't already caught up in the status quo will probably tend towards the more interactive and dynamic forms of media.
I know that I personally don't watch television regularly, and I'm guessing that many others are the same way.
But that's what the bottom line is, that's what the expression means.
I understand that that's the common usage of the expression, but it can also be used to mean "the deciding factor", which is what I intended. All I'm suggesting is that in an ideal world perhaps money wouldn't be the only thing that corporations considered when making business decisions.
Wouldn't credit for ads being funneled through a web-browser be given to the website which served them, not the cellular provider which is acting as an ISP? It doesn't seem like ad-blocking would be much of a detriment unless the business plan was to make money off of consumed bandwidth.
Practically speaking, of course, it always is. But in the end, it all comes down to a class war between the wealthy and the not-as-wealthy in society. Anti-competitive trends in a market mean more profits for the "company", which translates primarily to more profits for the wealthy executives and investors associated with the company. Competitive trends, on the other hand, mean better value for the people who use the good or service, which translates to a smaller benefit for a larger group of people. When the wealthy executives and investors are making the choices, clearly the expected outcome is the one we're seeing here.
It seems to me that we're not necessarily disagreeing here.
But if you give software away for free, that makes a more competitive and consumer friendly market! Why do something silly like that when vendor lock-in is such an easy and lucrative way to run a business?
I actually contributed a small amount myself, and I was informed of what was to happen to my contribution if he decided not to run. This was on the 22nd of February.
Slashdot Mirror
Good answer!
"But a re-examination of skeletons using modern technology ... showed it had a strong enough pelvis to support a killing blow as it dived at speeds of up to 80kph."
So... How exactly did this bird kill?
Am I the only one who finds it ironic that there's an ad for the iPhone 3.1 software update at the bottom of parent's linked page?
Yarr... Indeed, but don't forget to mention cursed booty.
"I'm not a crazed gunman, Dad, I'm an assassin! The difference being, one is a job and the other's mental sickness!"
Well, I must concede that I've only gotten as far as the POSIX standard in my computer science curriculum, so I'm not as familiar as I could be with system workings at the operating system level. I certainly agree with you that placing hardware specific code in a part of the operating system meant to generalize the algorithmic interaction with mass storage devices makes very little sense.
My understanding is that there is a logical representation of the bytes available on a physical disk (at which level the file system operates), and device drivers and hardware components translate that in some fashion into physical bytes, possibly generating this translation on the fly rather than as a simple bijection of "fixed logical byte maps to fixed physical byte". Wouldn't an algorithm implemented at these lower levels still be able to use the fact that more data is being written at a time to make more intelligent decisions about where to physically place that data?
A big limitation with flash drives is that repeated reads and writes to a given sector of storage "wear it out" and cause failure more quickly than the same amount of reads and writes to a given sector on a traditional disk device. The generally accepted solution is to use an algorithmic approach to distribute reads and writes evenly throughout the disk (note: transparent to software developers, at least above the kernel level), and this is what the GP is talking about--more time between physical disk writes means that there is more opportunity for an algorithm to decide intelligently where different pieces of the written data should go.
Does anyone else have Folding@Home or another distributed computing project running on their machine? It's not wasted power if the cycles are being donated... TO SCIENCE!!!
Hey now, it's not directly the patent office's fault... yet. They do it wrong from time to time (I understate), but until it's more than just an application, don't go casting false aspersions.
Although one must note that the history of the patent office of granting shoddy software patents probably does contribute to the piles of dreck that show up at their doorstep. After all, companies basically have to file for stupid patents in order to remain competitive against other companies with stupid patents.
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the correspondence between computer programs and the counting numbers via Godel numbering. Basically, given any finite state machine and starting configuration, one can assign a unique natural number to this program (although not every natural number necessarily represents a valid program). So a patent on a computer program is essentially equivalent to a patent on a subset of the counting numbers, up to a choice of numbering scheme.
Bit of a slow day on Slashdot, isn't it?
If you're anything like my parents, then you'll end up with a rather large collection of home videos and other related media by the time you want to look back on it. In my parents' case, they had to transfer hundreds of hours of video from beta-max to DVD, which was a real headache. DVD to a future digital technology may be somewhat quicker to transfer than making the analog-to-digital jump, but swapping out DVDs over and over for days still doesn't seem like a fun prospect. I'd recommend storing data on a convenient medium such as a hard-drive and using redundancy to make sure that your data keeps.
The problem is, will Joe Average and his old Aunt Tillie be tech savvy enough to know or to care that their computers are compromised? There's a rather large portion of the American public that lives with loads of spyware running on their computers, and these sorts of people are not going to be the discerning consumers you suggest.
The whole thing about free and open source software is that it works based on what is called a gift economy. A gift economy is an economic system where resources (in this case computing power and memory) are essentially unlimited. In such a system, resources, the primary moving force in the economy of the real world, are essentially valueless. But then, what is to be gained by participating in the society? In such a system, instead of working for resources, individuals work for other forms of gratification such as the joy of the work or the reputation accrued among others in the community. The "gain" of such a system is related to what a person can give back to the community, thus the name "gift economy".
In the real world, the stakes are prosperity and basic survival, and rational actors make distinctly different decisions in such a situation. Thus your argument that the success of free and open source software over commercial enterprises supports the system of communism in general is somewhat fallacious, since the general conclusion does not exist in the same context as the specific example.
A more detailed look at the idea of a gift economy in relation to free and open source software can be seen in Eric Raymond's essay Homesteading the Noosphere. It's essential reading for those interested in understanding free software, along with the other essays in The Cathedral and the Bazaar.
Anybody read this other Slashdot article? Mining the Cognitive Surplus
It seems to me that this would be as good a use of bored individuals as any, if the system were properly engineered.
Hey! This guy knows!
But in all seriousness, I bet that this article is on to something. In decades past, television has had ubiquitous popularity simply because it's so easy and accessible. But the new availability of quick and easy outlets for creativity is going to enable a shift. In particular, those who aren't already caught up in the status quo will probably tend towards the more interactive and dynamic forms of media.
I know that I personally don't watch television regularly, and I'm guessing that many others are the same way.
But that's what the bottom line is, that's what the expression means.
I understand that that's the common usage of the expression, but it can also be used to mean "the deciding factor", which is what I intended. All I'm suggesting is that in an ideal world perhaps money wouldn't be the only thing that corporations considered when making business decisions.
Wouldn't credit for ads being funneled through a web-browser be given to the website which served them, not the cellular provider which is acting as an ISP? It doesn't seem like ad-blocking would be much of a detriment unless the business plan was to make money off of consumed bandwidth.
Should the bottom line always be profits?
Practically speaking, of course, it always is. But in the end, it all comes down to a class war between the wealthy and the not-as-wealthy in society. Anti-competitive trends in a market mean more profits for the "company", which translates primarily to more profits for the wealthy executives and investors associated with the company. Competitive trends, on the other hand, mean better value for the people who use the good or service, which translates to a smaller benefit for a larger group of people. When the wealthy executives and investors are making the choices, clearly the expected outcome is the one we're seeing here.
It seems to me that we're not necessarily disagreeing here.
But if you give software away for free, that makes a more competitive and consumer friendly market! Why do something silly like that when vendor lock-in is such an easy and lucrative way to run a business?
I actually contributed a small amount myself, and I was informed of what was to happen to my contribution if he decided not to run. This was on the 22nd of February.