Every company in the industry that enters into licensing talks with any other company signs NDA's before doing so. Both parties interested in talking want the NDA.
B&N didnt want to sign the NDA because B&N wasnt interested in talking. Thats does not mean extortion.... what it means is that because B&N have no patents of their own, that they are going to have to pay full price. A lawsuit delays paying for the technology that they use, which is what they want... a delay.
Indeed, 236 GFLOPS on a single CPU is quite impressive. Thats over twice the performance of an OC 2600K (4.6ghz.)
The 8-core VIIIFX chip pushed 128 GFLOPS with 760 million transistors on 45nm.. this IXFX is I guess marketed as a drop-in replacement chip so it must be using a smaller process size to fit in the same socket.
The statistical properties of PRNG's are only guaranteed over the entire sequence, taken in order. Jumping around the sequence in any systematic way weakens those guarantees every time.
But you qualified the re-seeding as 'random'.. which means that you are now outside the realm of typical standard library functions, but the standard library functions were already fine, assuming that you only seed them once, so you have just created even more opportunity to mess up by not going with what worked to begin with.
It's not my theory; maybe you heard about a guy named Kolmogorov that lived in the last century?
You think I'm a noob, doncha?
What happens is this: as you collect more output from a truly random source, the probability of it being compressible goes to zero very fast.
Kolmogorov invented new terminology because he knew that the terms 'random' and 'entropy' didnt fit with his work on describing sequences. Thats why his theory is called 'Kolmogorov Complexity'..... Complexity being short for 'algorithmic entropy'.. not simply entropy.. not simply randomness or stochastic.. specifically algorithmic entropy, aka complexity.
This may seem like splitting hairs to you, but it isn't because this is a technical subject. There is a reason that new terminology was invented and you would do yourself a favor to discover why they were invented.
I am 100% certain that each particle within the ocean follows one very simple rule. They all follow the path of least resistance. Each and every one of them.
The problem with your theory is that a truly random source can and will generate compressible data sometimes, or else it isnt a fucking truly random source.
This is why great minds have coined phrases like "Random numbers are too important to be left to chance" (Robert Coveyou)
In practice people want certain constraints, such as a guarantee not to generate a sequence of 10000 zeros.
"For your convenience we have generated a random PIN for you. Your randomly generated PIN is 0000. Please do not share it with others."
Some employees only accept the "cumbersome and archaic" method.
Payday comes, but the money doesnt arrive in your account. You contact your employers payroll department and they say that the money was transfered and that you should contact the bank. You contact the bank and they say that the money was never transfered and that you should contact the employer.
Now tell me.. where do you light that fire?
When you get a check from your employer, this scenario simply cannot happen. If you deposit the check but the money never materializes, then you know that its the bank at fault. If the check bounces, is canceled, or you never receive it then you know that its the employer at fault. You know exactly where to light the fire in all cases. Even if you personally lose the check, then you still know exactly who to talk to about it to get a new one cut.
The "mobile" stuff I own are a prepaid flip phone from Motorola, and an iPod Nano 3G. Nothing touch screen and no "smart" devices at all.
But if I were to get one of these mobile devices, I would definitely not be teetering on the "almost too big to be considered mobile" edge like the iPad is.
Show me the Intel parts that can compete with AMD's C-50 and E-350. The cost and/or power consumption will be a lot higher to reach performance parity with these two parts.
AMD still doesnt have the market share in the segments where Intel should really be getting their ass handed to them. Why would any manufacturer pick inferior Intel for a netbook or notebook? Makes you wonder.
There is also the theory that 7" is a better size than 9.5" for this market. Beyond a certain size bigger is certainly better, but I dont think this market is in that zone. People want something that they can hold comfortably in one hand for a long period of time.
Remember that this was the year that Microsoft dumped a ton of money on Apple to keep them from going bankrupt. Apple was in serious trouble that year with yearly expenses greater than their revenue + cash reserves. The key announcement at that Macworld (1997) was that Apple wont be going out of business... that was just prior to Jobs introducing Bill Gates himself who gave a live speech over a satellite feed while the audience boo'd and heckled the man that was saving the company.
I'll bet you anything that this code was in the kernel before you signed up here at slashdot. What does that say about your pretense that this was recently thought up?
Definitely for paywalled research indexing sites its quite annoying that Google pushes all the paywalled stuff to the top by matching to their summary, while the actual document (a pdf or ps) that you actually want to read can also be found non-paywalled at some *.edu but its nowhere to be found on the first page of results.
It is not a question of 'if' there will be quakes.. it is only a question of 'when' there will be quakes. Energy is continually building up in the ground and every once in awhile the stresses are too great. The potential increases over time.
We manage potential in other areas, such as lighting forest fires and burning off brush before the potential problem grows too great.
Couldn't it be said that fracking will, at worst, cause an impending quake to happen sooner and thus it will have less potential?
Because the politicians want the perfect excuse of a "threat" of a filibuster in order to explain all the pork they throw in. Instead of trying to get it passed as-is.. use the excuse to add more fucking spending.. "but the evil [opposite party] will filibuster if we dont get a super-majority so we HAVE to give an extra 2 billion to [the state of an otherwise friendly representative that is holding out for more tribute]"
A now classic example of this is the healthcare bill...
Amazing that you think that the government should create jobs. That sort of "busy work" doesnt help the economy.. instead it steals from the tax payers (mostly middle class) and gives it to the rich and poor.
Every time you idiots get that shit passed, its shrinks the middle class. Stop it already. Seriously. Fucking stop it. Learn some fucking economics and the governments role.
Perhaps you should research the facts before you ask others to do rethinking. China is already experiencing some regional and sector-based labor shortages, and has been doing so since 2006.
Its real simple to not open your mouth when you know that you dont know what you are talking about. You knew you didn't know, but you spouted anyways. Pathetic.
Sure.. let solve the problem of workers in some other countries being so desperate for a job that they will work in terrible conditions... by taking the demand for their job away! The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
The best thing that we can do for workers in those countries is to increase the demand for products produced there, leading to a labor shortage that benefits the workers.
Slashdot Mirror
At least we'll finally see what patents Microsoft has been using to strong arm manufacturers of Android based phones into patent licensing.
Here are the 9 patents that Motorola is defending itself from against Microsoft
I mean jesus fucking christ its been a whole fucking year now.. WE KNOW WHAT THE PATENTS ARE ALREADY.
if you are this uninformed, maybe just maybe you shouldnt fucking be discussing things? For christ sakes.
Motorola shot at Apple first on October 6th, 2010.
Apple didnt fire back at Motorola until October 29th, 2010.
Ah, but those are U.S. lawsuits.
We can discuss the ones strictly in Germany, where again Motorola shot first in April, 2011 while Apple didn't fire back until May 27th, 2011.
The facts suck, eh?
Every company in the industry that enters into licensing talks with any other company signs NDA's before doing so. Both parties interested in talking want the NDA.
B&N didnt want to sign the NDA because B&N wasnt interested in talking. Thats does not mean extortion.... what it means is that because B&N have no patents of their own, that they are going to have to pay full price. A lawsuit delays paying for the technology that they use, which is what they want... a delay.
Other companies are playing with the same rules but they don't act that way. Example given: Google.
Funny that Google (aka Motorola Mobility) just won a patent suit against Apple in Germany. Notice that you didn't notice.
what about the principles behind the EUs decision to force microsoft to license protocols for interopability
Microsoft did try to license them. B&N refused to talk. Here we are.
The last time the Mozilla team started playing fast and loose with version numbers was when they skipped Netscape 5.0 and went straight to 6.0.
We all know how THAT turned out.
. A 15-30 minute break every 100 miles is something you will want to do anyway most of the time.
say what?
Indeed, 236 GFLOPS on a single CPU is quite impressive. Thats over twice the performance of an OC 2600K (4.6ghz.)
.. this IXFX is I guess marketed as a drop-in replacement chip so it must be using a smaller process size to fit in the same socket.
The 8-core VIIIFX chip pushed 128 GFLOPS with 760 million transistors on 45nm
The statistical properties of PRNG's are only guaranteed over the entire sequence, taken in order. Jumping around the sequence in any systematic way weakens those guarantees every time.
.. which means that you are now outside the realm of typical standard library functions, but the standard library functions were already fine, assuming that you only seed them once, so you have just created even more opportunity to mess up by not going with what worked to begin with.
But you qualified the re-seeding as 'random'
It's not my theory; maybe you heard about a guy named Kolmogorov that lived in the last century?
You think I'm a noob, doncha?
What happens is this: as you collect more output from a truly random source, the probability of it being compressible goes to zero very fast.
Kolmogorov invented new terminology because he knew that the terms 'random' and 'entropy' didnt fit with his work on describing sequences. Thats why his theory is called 'Kolmogorov Complexity' ..... Complexity being short for 'algorithmic entropy' .. not simply entropy.. not simply randomness or stochastic.. specifically algorithmic entropy, aka complexity.
This may seem like splitting hairs to you, but it isn't because this is a technical subject. There is a reason that new terminology was invented and you would do yourself a favor to discover why they were invented.
The ocean does not do what it is told
I am 100% certain that each particle within the ocean follows one very simple rule. They all follow the path of least resistance. Each and every one of them.
You can re-seed them anytime if you're paranoid.
Certainly not. Thats one of the worst things that you can do. Seed it once and then use it. Period.
No, sorry.
The problem with your theory is that a truly random source can and will generate compressible data sometimes, or else it isnt a fucking truly random source.
This is why great minds have coined phrases like "Random numbers are too important to be left to chance" (Robert Coveyou)
In practice people want certain constraints, such as a guarantee not to generate a sequence of 10000 zeros.
"For your convenience we have generated a random PIN for you. Your randomly generated PIN is 0000. Please do not share it with others."
Some employees only accept the "cumbersome and archaic" method.
Payday comes, but the money doesnt arrive in your account. You contact your employers payroll department and they say that the money was transfered and that you should contact the bank. You contact the bank and they say that the money was never transfered and that you should contact the employer.
Now tell me.. where do you light that fire?
When you get a check from your employer, this scenario simply cannot happen. If you deposit the check but the money never materializes, then you know that its the bank at fault. If the check bounces, is canceled, or you never receive it then you know that its the employer at fault. You know exactly where to light the fire in all cases. Even if you personally lose the check, then you still know exactly who to talk to about it to get a new one cut.
Well they certainly arent my sour grapes.
The "mobile" stuff I own are a prepaid flip phone from Motorola, and an iPod Nano 3G. Nothing touch screen and no "smart" devices at all.
But if I were to get one of these mobile devices, I would definitely not be teetering on the "almost too big to be considered mobile" edge like the iPad is.
Show me the Intel parts that can compete with AMD's C-50 and E-350. The cost and/or power consumption will be a lot higher to reach performance parity with these two parts.
AMD still doesnt have the market share in the segments where Intel should really be getting their ass handed to them. Why would any manufacturer pick inferior Intel for a netbook or notebook? Makes you wonder.
There is also the theory that 7" is a better size than 9.5" for this market. Beyond a certain size bigger is certainly better, but I dont think this market is in that zone. People want something that they can hold comfortably in one hand for a long period of time.
I wouldn't go that far.
Remember that this was the year that Microsoft dumped a ton of money on Apple to keep them from going bankrupt. Apple was in serious trouble that year with yearly expenses greater than their revenue + cash reserves. The key announcement at that Macworld (1997) was that Apple wont be going out of business... that was just prior to Jobs introducing Bill Gates himself who gave a live speech over a satellite feed while the audience boo'd and heckled the man that was saving the company.
Hello Mr Low ID number.
I'll bet you anything that this code was in the kernel before you signed up here at slashdot. What does that say about your pretense that this was recently thought up?
I await your snarky reply.
Definitely for paywalled research indexing sites its quite annoying that Google pushes all the paywalled stuff to the top by matching to their summary, while the actual document (a pdf or ps) that you actually want to read can also be found non-paywalled at some *.edu but its nowhere to be found on the first page of results.
It is not a question of 'if' there will be quakes.. it is only a question of 'when' there will be quakes. Energy is continually building up in the ground and every once in awhile the stresses are too great. The potential increases over time.
We manage potential in other areas, such as lighting forest fires and burning off brush before the potential problem grows too great.
Couldn't it be said that fracking will, at worst, cause an impending quake to happen sooner and thus it will have less potential?
Because the politicians want the perfect excuse of a "threat" of a filibuster in order to explain all the pork they throw in. Instead of trying to get it passed as-is.. use the excuse to add more fucking spending.. "but the evil [opposite party] will filibuster if we dont get a super-majority so we HAVE to give an extra 2 billion to [the state of an otherwise friendly representative that is holding out for more tribute]"
A now classic example of this is the healthcare bill...
Amazing that you think that the government should create jobs. That sort of "busy work" doesnt help the economy.. instead it steals from the tax payers (mostly middle class) and gives it to the rich and poor.
Every time you idiots get that shit passed, its shrinks the middle class. Stop it already. Seriously. Fucking stop it. Learn some fucking economics and the governments role.
Perhaps you should research the facts before you ask others to do rethinking. China is already experiencing some regional and sector-based labor shortages, and has been doing so since 2006.
Its real simple to not open your mouth when you know that you dont know what you are talking about. You knew you didn't know, but you spouted anyways. Pathetic.
Sure.. let solve the problem of workers in some other countries being so desperate for a job that they will work in terrible conditions... by taking the demand for their job away! The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
The best thing that we can do for workers in those countries is to increase the demand for products produced there, leading to a labor shortage that benefits the workers.