Wouldn't that be really locally, Planck's, Feynman's, ect... quantum physics laws, Newtons somewhat locally, and Einstein's on the global scale?
As someone who was a beta tester for Groove...
on
Peer-to-Peer Goodness
·
· Score: 1
I can attest to what Groove and can't let you do as I was a part of the beta test this summer and early fall. I thought the product was really cool, but it had some problems when I was using it (ie, last week while still in beta).
For one, it was dog slow. My usage was on a celeron 333 with 128 megs of ram on win2k, and it felt quite sluggish. Whenever you want to add more modules or different shared spaces, you need to download them from the Groove servers, update your software, and pray that the other person you are Grooving with has the module. It was quite slow.
Often, I could not connect to other Groove users. This is, of course, to be expected from a beta test, but it was frequently not allowing me to communicate at all with others on Groove. And even on my 384 k dsl line, the VoIP was quite bad.
That being said, I think that Groove is a kick-ass product. The idea is really cool and I believe they are intending to do (at least for a consumer product) branding with Portals and major media names. The idea that the company is just giving out suggestions for how to use it seems promising...they are letting the users (corporate and consumer) figure out how Groove can be a "killer app". Although it seems wasteful, I think they are planning on skinning capabilites so that you could have a "Matrix 2" skin and talk about the Matrix movies with your friends, or a Pepsi skin, and whatnot.
Did I mention it was slow?
Since the announcement today, the servers have been completely bogged down. I imagine this is from all the press they are getting. Anyway, try to get it. I think its cool, just slow...
Oh yeah, its win32 only, but my employee friend told me they have MacOS X and Linux in the works...
Thank you for pointing this out, I had forgotten. It would seem right that RDRAM is being shipped in PC's (by OEMS like Dell and HP and Compaq) due to their licensing deals and not in the homebuilt market because the consumers actually know what's right for them.
Honestly, I just feel that the industry is moving toward narrow and fast technologies (like DRDRAM) and that it will just take time for these things to set in. However, I do NOT like the idea that one company owns all of the intellectual property associated with it. But, Rambus appears to be taking out royalties on non-RDRAM solutions, so it may be that DDR wins, and so does Rambus, and intel just looses horribly...
Not that I would like Intel to dissapear (they won't) as I love the price competition between them and AMD, but I think that the next 18 months are going to be quite rough in terms of getting beaten in performace and price by AMD and Rambus alternatives.
IMHO, Intel's best move right now would be to release a CPU with the DRDRAM controller built into the IC, so that they effectively OWN the Northbridge market (they don't now, look at VIA and Ali and Sis...) for Intel proccessors and so as to get some real performace from a technology that will make them money (RDRAM).
Everyone keeps saying that RDRAM for the PC platform is sooo expensive (I believe a poster before me quoted it at 1000 dollars for a Rimm...sure maybe for 512 megs?) and in fact it really isn't anymore. Yes, it is more expensive, but considering how fast it has dropped, people should reconsider their statements. Right now, a 128 meg PC800 RIMM (Non-ECC) is hovering around $270 and a 128 meg PC100 DIMM (Non-ECC)is about $118. Yes, it is more than 2x in price. However, consider how fast it has dropped.
RDRAM as a technology on the pc platform has only been in production for maybe 9 months. From $1000 for 128 megs to $270 in 9 months is an incredible drop in price.
I agree with this. Allowing Napster to exist as a coporate entity and allowing the product to be legal is nearly the same thing as allowing gun makers to operate business and to sell guns.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Napster doesn't spread copyrighted material, people spread copyrighted material.
This is, of course, not to say that I think guns should be legal. I just feel that while guns are legal, Napster and other tools for sharing information illegaly should be too. Napster itself is not the guilty culprit, it is the users of it (including myself sometimes) who are.
I agree with you - that people should not be forced to pay for sins their ancestors committed. However, I think that corporations should be forced to pay for evil things they have done. This is why neither I nor anyone in my family buys Volkswagon vehicles, Krupps machinery or coffeymakers, Bayer Drugs, ect... These companies used slave labor and forced human test subjects during the Holocaust, for that, they deserve to loose their right to operate business.
I believe the 48 khz in 24/96 digital audio and the 24 khz in DAT refers to the sampling speed, ie, number of times per second it tests the frequency. The 22 khz limit in cds that we refer to is the highest frequency it can replicate. Two different things
I believe it is the other way around. NVIDIA uses a method by which the GPU renders each frame at some multiple of the resoluion (I think between 1.5x and 2x) and then scales down. 3dfx uses a supersampling technique. Each pixel is rendered either twice or four times, with.5 pixel offsets. Then the VSA-100 processor(s) blend them. I believe that at 2x (1.5x for NVIDIA) 3dfx and NVIDIA are about the same, but 3dfx has the definite performance advantage. However, at 4x, a level that NVIDIA cannot offer, the image quality is far better than either implementation of 2x. Check out more info here
Look, you can do whatever you want, stop ads from displaying on your monitor, let advertisers not get your attention, allow the website you are viewing to eventually loose revenue, ect...
But I won't. Why? Because if a trend like this continues, then banner ad propreitors will cease to offer money in exchange for advertising space. What will come of this then? The websites from which you read and (hopefully) appreciate content will discontinue their operations. They will have no source of revenue.
Banner ads may be annoying, they may take up your small amount of bandwidth, they may cause a page to load slower, whatever. But those ads are why you go to whatever websites you are visiting. Without them, there would be no/. and there would be no free internet.
In fact, I'll take the chance and loose whatever moderator points a may have gained from the above words. Without banner ads, there would be no internet as we see it today. There would be no reason for cheap internet access if every site was a pay login site, and if everything was pay as you go. Those ads let the internet prosper.
People will disagree with me, but I hope that I have let others see what I think.
Yep, you are either going to have to buy an external decoder that will downsample the high rez HDTV stream into something that your NTSC television can view, or purchase a whole new television setup.
There are problems, though. I keep hearing about how the US standard for HDTV sucks and the broadcasts don't work very well (people who live behind large buildings can't get any reception at all) so this all may change. Actually, bet on it...
Its simple: They sell services. There is no way in hell that they can either end software piracy nor the open source movement. Therefore, to truly make money a company must sell a service and not an intellectual property product.
In what I would want a perfect world to be, the computer industry would make all software open source. Let other people work on it. Allow others to implement solutions for free, but let them sell the solutions (ie, the integration, support, installation, design of systems, ect) to their customers. Everyone can benefit from this because they can get the core for free, but the implementation for a price. As people find new features, they add to the product and at the same time, acquire a larger customer base wanting expertise in that feature.
MS could open source everything, and be one hell of a consulting firm. I would certainly accept this.
Or, they could split the mofo's up into Business Apps, Consumer Apps, Server Apps, OS, and MSN.
I personally think that by finding features that allow people to do illegal or immoral things will cause the industries (movie, music, ect..) to win their respective trials (dvd-linux and css, mp3 with the RIAA).
When it can be shown to the judge that people are taking advantage of this sort of thing, our (the geek community and anyone who wants freer acess to information and media) credibility and cause will be demerited.
Not being a professional, but a young amature, take my comments with a grain of salt. But...This does seem like a logical step for Linux/OS Unix on the desktop.
Considering that in the upcomming years we probably WON'T see broadband internet connections capable of handling a decent speed X session, this may have some value. Because thin clients don't have as many resources as workstations, desktop machines, or even the standard X terminal, this may provide a new solution.
Also we have to realize that one of the things that keeps Windows popular on the desktop is that it is in one way or another easy to develop for. I know I am going to get hit by lots of experienced programmers telling me that I am wrong and that the Win32 API's suck and all that, but with VB and the whole MS Dev studio together, its pretty simple creating apps.
One aspect of Windows development that I see could be easier than standard Linux/OS Unix development is the UI output. If programmers can save resources by not having to utilize network protocols then maybe the apps that they develop could be either more stable or more feature filled.
All of us complain about having too little memory, or bandwith, or processor speed. If there was one less process going on in our standard desktop apps then maybe we may find other features to use those resources with, or even, *gasp*, just have apps that run more stably and consume less resources?
Any thoughts?
Re:This could get really complicated...
on
RNA Computer
·
· Score: 1
I am not really a computer scientist or a biologist, but just in terms of biomass, I would imagine that you would need 2x or 3x what the RC5-56 computer that a previous poster considered (1 kg). That would be for solving a 56 bit problem(RC5 being a 56 bit key...) I guess. Don't quote me on that, I am probably wayyyy out of my league to say somethig like that.
This could get really complicated...
on
RNA Computer
·
· Score: 1
I am certainly not a real computer scientist, or for that matter, a real biologist, but while reading this article, I had some interesting thoughts. What if a biocomputer scientist (that would be the correct term for this kind of situation, right?) could encode a DNA strand that coded (coding meaning the DNA -> RNA -> protein translation coding) for specific "computing" proteins. These proteins could would theoretically be able to do "normal" computing fucntions such as add, subtract, multiply... The biocomputer scientist then makes a DNA strand with a "program" encoded in it. This strand would have base pairs that would code for something like computer functions (eg. the variables, what needs to be checked in the variables, ect...). Now, if the first strand could run adds, subtracts, multiplies, ect, on the second strand, then that biocomputer scientist could have a semi-functioning biocomputer. The idea could get more and more complicated if you had a "bio-operating system". This would be able to take and save data for other uses on other D/RNA strands. It could modify that data. That biocomputer scientist could have a bath of these computing proteins and D/RNA strands running all kinds of problems, making and saving data, editing that data, analyzing that data, ect... You could even Or maybe i just sound like a siily high-school optimist kid who dreams too much. What do you think?
Slashdot Mirror
For one, it was dog slow. My usage was on a celeron 333 with 128 megs of ram on win2k, and it felt quite sluggish. Whenever you want to add more modules or different shared spaces, you need to download them from the Groove servers, update your software, and pray that the other person you are Grooving with has the module. It was quite slow.
Often, I could not connect to other Groove users. This is, of course, to be expected from a beta test, but it was frequently not allowing me to communicate at all with others on Groove. And even on my 384 k dsl line, the VoIP was quite bad.
That being said, I think that Groove is a kick-ass product. The idea is really cool and I believe they are intending to do (at least for a consumer product) branding with Portals and major media names. The idea that the company is just giving out suggestions for how to use it seems promising...they are letting the users (corporate and consumer) figure out how Groove can be a "killer app". Although it seems wasteful, I think they are planning on skinning capabilites so that you could have a "Matrix 2" skin and talk about the Matrix movies with your friends, or a Pepsi skin, and whatnot.
Did I mention it was slow?
Since the announcement today, the servers have been completely bogged down. I imagine this is from all the press they are getting. Anyway, try to get it. I think its cool, just slow... Oh yeah, its win32 only, but my employee friend told me they have MacOS X and Linux in the works...
Honestly, I just feel that the industry is moving toward narrow and fast technologies (like DRDRAM) and that it will just take time for these things to set in. However, I do NOT like the idea that one company owns all of the intellectual property associated with it. But, Rambus appears to be taking out royalties on non-RDRAM solutions, so it may be that DDR wins, and so does Rambus, and intel just looses horribly...
Not that I would like Intel to dissapear (they won't) as I love the price competition between them and AMD, but I think that the next 18 months are going to be quite rough in terms of getting beaten in performace and price by AMD and Rambus alternatives.
IMHO, Intel's best move right now would be to release a CPU with the DRDRAM controller built into the IC, so that they effectively OWN the Northbridge market (they don't now, look at VIA and Ali and Sis...) for Intel proccessors and so as to get some real performace from a technology that will make them money (RDRAM).
Just a thought....
RDRAM as a technology on the pc platform has only been in production for maybe 9 months. From $1000 for 128 megs to $270 in 9 months is an incredible drop in price.
Nice to hear that you want to vote for a nazi....
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Napster doesn't spread copyrighted material, people spread copyrighted material.
This is, of course, not to say that I think guns should be legal. I just feel that while guns are legal, Napster and other tools for sharing information illegaly should be too. Napster itself is not the guilty culprit, it is the users of it (including myself sometimes) who are.
I agree with you - that people should not be forced to pay for sins their ancestors committed. However, I think that corporations should be forced to pay for evil things they have done. This is why neither I nor anyone in my family buys Volkswagon vehicles, Krupps machinery or coffeymakers, Bayer Drugs, ect... These companies used slave labor and forced human test subjects during the Holocaust, for that, they deserve to loose their right to operate business.
Make that PC512 - PC600 memory actually runs at 256mhz ddr, offering a small 1024 megabytes of memory bandwidth per second.
I believe these lyrics are to be sung to the song called "Particle Man" by They Might Be Giants.
I believe it is the other way around. NVIDIA uses a method by which the GPU renders each frame at some multiple of the resoluion (I think between 1.5x and 2x) and then scales down. 3dfx uses a supersampling technique. Each pixel is rendered either twice or four times, with .5 pixel offsets. Then the VSA-100 processor(s) blend them. I believe that at 2x (1.5x for NVIDIA) 3dfx and NVIDIA are about the same, but 3dfx has the definite performance advantage. However, at 4x, a level that NVIDIA cannot offer, the image quality is far better than either implementation of 2x. Check out more info here
But I won't. Why? Because if a trend like this continues, then banner ad propreitors will cease to offer money in exchange for advertising space. What will come of this then? The websites from which you read and (hopefully) appreciate content will discontinue their operations. They will have no source of revenue.
Banner ads may be annoying, they may take up your small amount of bandwidth, they may cause a page to load slower, whatever. But those ads are why you go to whatever websites you are visiting. Without them, there would be no /. and there would be no free internet.
In fact, I'll take the chance and loose whatever moderator points a may have gained from the above words. Without banner ads, there would be no internet as we see it today. There would be no reason for cheap internet access if every site was a pay login site, and if everything was pay as you go. Those ads let the internet prosper.
People will disagree with me, but I hope that I have let others see what I think.
There are problems, though. I keep hearing about how the US standard for HDTV sucks and the broadcasts don't work very well (people who live behind large buildings can't get any reception at all) so this all may change. Actually, bet on it...
Isn't the reason that AT&T and other companies spin off smaller companies that they make more money that way?
In what I would want a perfect world to be, the computer industry would make all software open source. Let other people work on it. Allow others to implement solutions for free, but let them sell the solutions (ie, the integration, support, installation, design of systems, ect) to their customers. Everyone can benefit from this because they can get the core for free, but the implementation for a price. As people find new features, they add to the product and at the same time, acquire a larger customer base wanting expertise in that feature.
MS could open source everything, and be one hell of a consulting firm. I would certainly accept this.
Or, they could split the mofo's up into Business Apps, Consumer Apps, Server Apps, OS, and MSN.
When it can be shown to the judge that people are taking advantage of this sort of thing, our (the geek community and anyone who wants freer acess to information and media) credibility and cause will be demerited.
My guess is no.
Considering that in the upcomming years we probably WON'T see broadband internet connections capable of handling a decent speed X session, this may have some value. Because thin clients don't have as many resources as workstations, desktop machines, or even the standard X terminal, this may provide a new solution.
Also we have to realize that one of the things that keeps Windows popular on the desktop is that it is in one way or another easy to develop for. I know I am going to get hit by lots of experienced programmers telling me that I am wrong and that the Win32 API's suck and all that, but with VB and the whole MS Dev studio together, its pretty simple creating apps.
One aspect of Windows development that I see could be easier than standard Linux/OS Unix development is the UI output. If programmers can save resources by not having to utilize network protocols then maybe the apps that they develop could be either more stable or more feature filled.
All of us complain about having too little memory, or bandwith, or processor speed. If there was one less process going on in our standard desktop apps then maybe we may find other features to use those resources with, or even, *gasp*, just have apps that run more stably and consume less resources?
Any thoughts?
I am not really a computer scientist or a biologist, but just in terms of biomass, I would imagine that you would need 2x or 3x what the RC5-56 computer that a previous poster considered (1 kg). That would be for solving a 56 bit problem(RC5 being a 56 bit key...) I guess. Don't quote me on that, I am probably wayyyy out of my league to say somethig like that.
I am certainly not a real computer scientist, or for that matter, a real biologist, but while reading this article, I had some interesting thoughts. What if a biocomputer scientist (that would be the correct term for this kind of situation, right?) could encode a DNA strand that coded (coding meaning the DNA -> RNA -> protein translation coding) for specific "computing" proteins. These proteins could would theoretically be able to do "normal" computing fucntions such as add, subtract, multiply... The biocomputer scientist then makes a DNA strand with a "program" encoded in it. This strand would have base pairs that would code for something like computer functions (eg. the variables, what needs to be checked in the variables, ect...). Now, if the first strand could run adds, subtracts, multiplies, ect, on the second strand, then that biocomputer scientist could have a semi-functioning biocomputer. The idea could get more and more complicated if you had a "bio-operating system". This would be able to take and save data for other uses on other D/RNA strands. It could modify that data. That biocomputer scientist could have a bath of these computing proteins and D/RNA strands running all kinds of problems, making and saving data, editing that data, analyzing that data, ect... You could even Or maybe i just sound like a siily high-school optimist kid who dreams too much. What do you think?