I'm not particularly interested in whether SSD or magnetomechanical storage is similar for my original point to stand. Hard drive manufacturers are still made up by a large number of people working on different problems. Improving platter density is not mutually exclusive from improving ECC storage efficiency. It's a logical fallacy to assume that platters can't be improved simply by observing that they are thinking about efficiency.
Of course, they claim a 1,000 GB drive = 1 TB which we all know is marketing, um, speak. A real TB = 1,024 GB (and I mean real GB's, not marketing speak GB's).
Speak for yourself. 1TB actually technically is 1000GB, T for tera is an SI prefix defined as 10^9. 1TiB with the prefix tebi is defined as 2^30 which equates to 1024GiB. This is an IEC standard, not marketing speak. It is the computer industry that misused the SI prefixes redefining them as something reasonably close (groups of 1024) to the original definition (groups of 1000) for their convenience.
You can take two drives of the same physical characteristics and by increasing the sector size to 4k you gain hundreds of megabytes on the average 100 gigabyte drive.
For the sake of argument, let's assume "hundreds of megabytes" equates to 500MB. That works out to be a saving of 0.5% of the capacity, which isn't really all that useful. If you are using your 100GB drive at peak capacity where 500MB will allow you to store a worthwhile amount of data, you're going to run into other issues such as considerable file fragmentation as there isn't enough free space to defrag it properly.
When you're doing tricks like this to get a few extra bytes per block it means you have run out of physical media density technologies.
No it doesn't. Hard drive manufacturing companies are not a single person. They can have a group of people working on one problem, and another group working on another problem. There is nothing wrong with having a team trying to improve the efficiency of data formatting while a different team works on improving the hardware capacities. In fact, something like improving the efficiency of data formatting is more of a software problem with the results being reusable across different underlying hardware.
What is a problem, is who will have copyright right to this AI works?
There's only two answers I can think of that might be reasonable. The author of the program, or no-one (public domain). Since it is difficult to claim copyright on the output of a program, chances are public domain makes more sense.
My bad. Being a Kiwi I tend to use British English style spelling by default and didn't realise Orgazmo used a Z. To be fair, the Youtube clips that I watched to remind myself used the same incorrect spelling.
Last I checked, x264 is in the universe repository on Ubuntu's main servers (not in the restricted one) and that was enabled by default. You first suggested that they are trying to keep H.264 out of open source software. The x264 package is open source software, it is out there, it works. I don't really care if it isn't installed by default in your favourite distro, it doesn't have to be to qualify as being open source software in the wild.
I was thinking more from the late stages of KDE 3 series. Konqueror was the default file browser, Dolphin was just another option to try (and introduced late in the game) if you wanted a lighter weight one. Now that Dolphin is more usable and is the default in KDE 4, Konqueror doesn't tend to "invade Dolphins territory" even though it is technically capable of it. That's the gist I was trying to get at.
Legit users generally wouldn't go onto non-VAC servers, but if one did cheat on VAC and got banned, they can at least play against other cheaters rather than be locked out of the game completely.
I don't mind so much if Sony charges me to use their servers (as long as it's not too expensive), as they are paying to maintain them. If this impacted in any way the ability to play single player mode on second hand games, that's completely outrageous.
But that's just the problem. Such a GPU isn't in most portable computers. So if I want to watch something that's HD, I have to leave my armchair and go sit at my desk.
Or choose a portable computer that does actually have one. You said most don't have it, not all.
In the country where Slashdot is operated and hosted, a consortium of about two dozen companies conspires to keep H.264 decoding out of open source software.
You know, that's what modern operating systems with hardware abstraction layers and APIs, and high-level development toolkits are for.
Just because it was designed with that task doesn't mean it works as designed. Not all security issues are deterministic SQL injection prone scripts and can actually be affected by timing issues amongst other things.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not particularly interested in whether SSD or magnetomechanical storage is similar for my original point to stand. Hard drive manufacturers are still made up by a large number of people working on different problems. Improving platter density is not mutually exclusive from improving ECC storage efficiency. It's a logical fallacy to assume that platters can't be improved simply by observing that they are thinking about efficiency.
Er, apologies for the typo, T for tera is 10^12 and Ti for tebi is 2^40 (I listed the giga/gibi values).
Of course, they claim a 1,000 GB drive = 1 TB which we all know is marketing, um, speak. A real TB = 1,024 GB (and I mean real GB's, not marketing speak GB's).
Speak for yourself. 1TB actually technically is 1000GB, T for tera is an SI prefix defined as 10^9. 1TiB with the prefix tebi is defined as 2^30 which equates to 1024GiB. This is an IEC standard, not marketing speak. It is the computer industry that misused the SI prefixes redefining them as something reasonably close (groups of 1024) to the original definition (groups of 1000) for their convenience.
It says (4K), they mean (4k). Error is in the correction.
You can take two drives of the same physical characteristics and by increasing the sector size to 4k you gain hundreds of megabytes on the average 100 gigabyte drive.
For the sake of argument, let's assume "hundreds of megabytes" equates to 500MB. That works out to be a saving of 0.5% of the capacity, which isn't really all that useful. If you are using your 100GB drive at peak capacity where 500MB will allow you to store a worthwhile amount of data, you're going to run into other issues such as considerable file fragmentation as there isn't enough free space to defrag it properly.
When you're doing tricks like this to get a few extra bytes per block it means you have run out of physical media density technologies.
No it doesn't. Hard drive manufacturing companies are not a single person. They can have a group of people working on one problem, and another group working on another problem. There is nothing wrong with having a team trying to improve the efficiency of data formatting while a different team works on improving the hardware capacities. In fact, something like improving the efficiency of data formatting is more of a software problem with the results being reusable across different underlying hardware.
What is a problem, is who will have copyright right to this AI works?
There's only two answers I can think of that might be reasonable. The author of the program, or no-one (public domain). Since it is difficult to claim copyright on the output of a program, chances are public domain makes more sense.
My bad. Being a Kiwi I tend to use British English style spelling by default and didn't realise Orgazmo used a Z. To be fair, the Youtube clips that I watched to remind myself used the same incorrect spelling.
You mean like the Orgasmo Ray from the movie Orgasmo?
I downloaded some drivers last week for my laptop from Dell. I didn't get any prompts for a download manager.
There's no technical reason for download managers
Unless you are unfortunate enough to have slow and/or unreliable internet.
Last I checked, x264 is in the universe repository on Ubuntu's main servers (not in the restricted one) and that was enabled by default. You first suggested that they are trying to keep H.264 out of open source software. The x264 package is open source software, it is out there, it works. I don't really care if it isn't installed by default in your favourite distro, it doesn't have to be to qualify as being open source software in the wild.
I was thinking more from the late stages of KDE 3 series. Konqueror was the default file browser, Dolphin was just another option to try (and introduced late in the game) if you wanted a lighter weight one. Now that Dolphin is more usable and is the default in KDE 4, Konqueror doesn't tend to "invade Dolphins territory" even though it is technically capable of it. That's the gist I was trying to get at.
True, and I wouldn't pay if I wanted to use that option.
Legit users generally wouldn't go onto non-VAC servers, but if one did cheat on VAC and got banned, they can at least play against other cheaters rather than be locked out of the game completely.
I don't mind so much if Sony charges me to use their servers (as long as it's not too expensive), as they are paying to maintain them. If this impacted in any way the ability to play single player mode on second hand games, that's completely outrageous.
I thought they only blocked you from getting onto VAC servers but let you play on unsecured ones.
Or in my case, a Kiwi living across the ditch.
But that's just the problem. Such a GPU isn't in most portable computers. So if I want to watch something that's HD, I have to leave my armchair and go sit at my desk.
Or choose a portable computer that does actually have one. You said most don't have it, not all.
In the country where Slashdot is operated and hosted, a consortium of about two dozen companies conspires to keep H.264 decoding out of open source software.
And that consortium has failed. See x264.
Pirates don't steal things because they're making some kind of political statement.
While that might have been true back in the day of CD ripping, it's certainly not true when it comes to draconian DRM for games.
A successful test does not prove the absence of bugs, it just fails to prove the presence of any bugs.
I like to think that a test that finds a bug is a successful test. It means it did its job.
Zero. Then again, I've never met any clients. I'm just a code monkey, someone else deals with meeting the customers.
You know, that's what modern operating systems with hardware abstraction layers and APIs, and high-level development toolkits are for.
Just because it was designed with that task doesn't mean it works as designed. Not all security issues are deterministic SQL injection prone scripts and can actually be affected by timing issues amongst other things.
It's illegal to drive even at 30km/h without a license...