The parent post was discussing that more stuff should be put under the GPL, and that the BSD license is not as good. What I was trying to get across is that the BSD license is a good license, but the GPL is the flavor of the moment because of all of the hype surrounding linux. I was making examples of the fact that A LOT OF PEOPLE USE THE BSD License. It wasn't really a comparison of operating systems, as saying, BSD is a good license too, why does it always have to be GPL around here? Get it?
Wouldn't it be cheaper just to subscribe to wireless access with your local ISP? There are existing wireless systems with pretty good bandwidth that don't require line of sight, and daggon if they don't have to cost less than 16 cell phones.
On the other hand, it is cool...
Still, this isn't a quake playing connection, this is a, I'm downloading pictures off webpages connection.
I think that filming entire films digitally is an exciting concept, one that is sure to see many innovations and have it's ups and downs. The obvious ups are the ease of editting and the fact that editting is lossless, and the with which equipment can be developed. Also, the media is probably about half of the cost of film (real cost, not inflated "I've got the first one" cost).
Downs, the colors are a bit off (black specifically, which has to do with the projection, not the capture, and of course is easy enough to fix digitally) at the moment, and film can probably do better resolution with less effort (but who knows, what are the specs on the CCDs used in these cameras)?
They've gone up to 886, and stuck with the pentium name, which just implies 5... It's hard to come up with names that simply mean "It's bigger" when that was what the last one meant. I mean, they'll name one "The telescope to end all telescopes" which will be followed by "The telescope to end all TEAT (Telescope to End All Telescope) class telescopes" or "TEATEATCT."
True, but how many research machines, supercomputers, massively distributed systems, that sort of thing run it? How many machines are designed to run it? More these days, but most of them were designed with a version of unix that comes along with it. Look at the riscstations, the sun systems, the new processors.
In my opinion, these processors are better suited to be the high power processors of yet smaller devices. The laptop industry has moved beyond the speeds of the crusoe processors, but smaller devices where more power is desireable are really where the 1st generation crusoe's belong. A couple months ago, though, the crusoe's would have really given Intel a run for their money (they still are with the whole power consumption deal, but I am willing to bet that the GHz notebooks will be out soon). Also, in cost, they seem to have Intel beat in value for the buck.
I have an active interest in artificial intelligence. I study it as part of my major, and hope to do research in it in the future. As a young man coming up in the world, I am hoping to enter into research eventually, am entering into research at my university (WVU).
Your project reminds me of several projects/theories that have been discussed before. In the psychological debate, your system depends entirely upon nurture, it would seem. I like that kind of system and research. I do have a few questions.
1) What separates this from other projects in the field? 2) Where did you draw your inspiration for this project? 3) What kind of support staff do you recommend to an individual who has never led research before, but would like to? (I ask this of many of my professors who conduct research) 4) Where are you getting the bulk of your input for this project? 5) What do you hope to learn from this project? 6) At what time will you consider this project a success?
I know that I posed a lot of questions, but several could be answered in combination, I just didn't want to ask 2 questions at the same time.
I meant to make that a comment on the amount of stuff released under it, and that a lot of people like that part of the license. Personally, I like to think that I could release some prelim version of my code, get people using it, a free release, and still use my code in a commercial form as well, and allow the source to be open. I kind of like the feature that lets me make closed software (not a popular POV around here, I know). Of course, other people can too, which isn't necessarily a bad thing either.
I didn't mean, "It's better," what I mean is, people have been using it for a long time, a lot of senior people who make decisions have used it on their machines. It's more commonly used in universities than Linux (IE, at WVU, we use SysV with the BSD compat package installed). I didn't mean, "Gee, BSD is great." I meant, "Gee, BSD has been around for a long time, and is used a lot more than people say it is."
It was a small message board, with few users. The potential error was minimal. I should say, "Was working on." Because we never really used a finished state of it. We're going to start back on the same project in the fall.
I kinda like the BSD license. Yeah, it doesn't have the hype that the GPL does, but BSD has been around for a LOT longer, and while Linux is the flavor of the moment, BSD has a MUCH more in set base of users and administrators and servers. (Linux has all of the neat new stuff though, but BSD has compatibility so...)
1) Are more people moving from their traditional licenses to the GPL? A lot of license bingo has been going on lately.
2) Differences between postgress and MySQL.
Well, now is a good time to start the debate, which do you like better and why? I like them both equally, but then again, I've only run MySQL in enterprise, how does postgress hold up to real strain?
Microsoft was never really the dominant power that it has had the image of being. I think that the world and the company was under the illusion that they were, but you'll notice that NT has never been the true dominant enterprise server, that there really are more machines that at least look like unix than ones the run windows, and that standards really do reign. What M$ had power over was their users, which while that was the significant desktop market, that has never been where the REAL power in computing was. For M$ to ever be a real dominant company in the computer science realm, you would have to see supercomputers and mainframes that run windows, and you don't, because it's not a suitable market for them. Microsoft has always had to at least meet the standards part way, otherwise nothing would ever have worked under windows. The real problem is where they "embrace and extend" things into the proprietary realm, which has been destroying good standards for some time now. I think that they are learning the lesson that you don't take, for instance, Java, and make it only work under windows. We may start looking at an era where M$ is a real rival and not just a company that holds a bigger market share (no offense guys, it just pisses people off when you wreck our perfectly good software).
Yeah, we used to put the wrong dates on our timecards just to avoid managerial and legal tussle too. It happens.
As for the spec. I think that Microsoft realizes that nobody will adopt their software if it doesn't work in the existing infastructure, and doesn't conform. I mean, I can call Java C++ all I want, but it doesn't mean that Java is C++, and programmers trying to use it to write C++ will go with a different compiler. Get it? Whether they found it morally right or wrong, they are beginning to see that they have to start playing nice, or die after they are split up.
Not going to happen any time soon. Too many script kiddies out there. They want to be cool and 1337. What dweebs, they dun even know what it means. I know one that I'd like to pop in the mouth just because he bugs me so much.
I think that the central idea behind the protocal is that you can provide additional layers of abstraction (for those not in the know, "libaries" and "objects") between the protocol and the programmer (hence the "extensible" part of it). This would make it easier to write programs that work in similar ways since you could embed all of the protocol work into simple functions. This would make the prototyping of programs much quicker. Always to be remembered is that more function calls mean more overhead, but if the overall functionality and efficiency is increased, this is well justified. Sounds like a great idea to me, as a person who like it when everyone is on the same page (and this would make that a lot easier when designing web apps).
It's very clear cut for us. When you have angry businesses yelling at judges about it, it gets sticky. That's what I meant. If you've been reading along, a ruling in China decided that deep linking can be illegal in some cases. If that doesn't making linking a little bit sticky, tell that to the Chinese...
Well, linking can be a sticky issue. Nobody wants to be paying for content, only to have it become the highlight of another, more popular page, such as linking a bunch of porn to your site. Cases such as DEEP LINKING are the real toughies, but it should only be the providers of the content who have the ability to sue, if anybody, not a third party, not if they are not authorized by the providers.
On the other hand, linking is what makes the web what it is. It can't exist without it. A ruling against linking would have to be very careful to state what constitutes illegal linking, and it would have to specify legal uses as well.
Would it be illegal, for instance, for altavista to put a page in their engine, after pepsi has submitted it?
I get nervous when judges come near the internet. Our fears, however, can be a little alleviated in that, supposing that people actually want the internet around, they can't outright stop us from linking to each other, the only issue might be a few trivial lawsuits which would overturn such a foolish decision.
In cases such as this one, RIAA should be suing the actual providers, if anybody. The person hosting the sites might be aiding and abetting, but it is the person hosting the copyrighted material who is committing the crime.
I have heard of high school students that can get people to sign petitions to ban dihydrogen oxide because it has poisonous chemicals in it as well as flammable ones.
People are pretty click-happy on the net, which is why so many people want idiot protection laws and such, and others are willing to give up their credit card numbers to geocities sites...
So, hrmm, who knows? It could even work to get people to pass laws that are sensible too... Of course, so could the legal system.
Also, is this just to sidestep moves on crypto laws?
Supposing that you can afford sufficient memory, wouldn't you rather go with uncompressed memory? Maybe put one module of compressed in last just to make sure? I could picture this memory serving THAT purpose, but surely you would prefer to have the fastest memory possible GIVEN that it is of satisfactory quantity.
Slashdot Mirror
The parent post was discussing that more stuff should be put under the GPL, and that the BSD license is not as good. What I was trying to get across is that the BSD license is a good license, but the GPL is the flavor of the moment because of all of the hype surrounding linux. I was making examples of the fact that A LOT OF PEOPLE USE THE BSD License. It wasn't really a comparison of operating systems, as saying, BSD is a good license too, why does it always have to be GPL around here? Get it?
Wouldn't it be cheaper just to subscribe to wireless access with your local ISP? There are existing wireless systems with pretty good bandwidth that don't require line of sight, and daggon if they don't have to cost less than 16 cell phones.
On the other hand, it is cool...
Still, this isn't a quake playing connection, this is a, I'm downloading pictures off webpages connection.
I think that filming entire films digitally is an exciting concept, one that is sure to see many innovations and have it's ups and downs. The obvious ups are the ease of editting and the fact that editting is lossless, and the with which equipment can be developed. Also, the media is probably about half of the cost of film (real cost, not inflated "I've got the first one" cost).
Downs, the colors are a bit off (black specifically, which has to do with the projection, not the capture, and of course is easy enough to fix digitally) at the moment, and film can probably do better resolution with less effort (but who knows, what are the specs on the CCDs used in these cameras)?
Pentium, Pentium II, Pentium III.
They've gone up to 886, and stuck with the pentium name, which just implies 5... It's hard to come up with names that simply mean "It's bigger" when that was what the last one meant. I mean, they'll name one "The telescope to end all telescopes" which will be followed by "The telescope to end all TEAT (Telescope to End All Telescope) class telescopes" or "TEATEATCT."
True, but how many research machines, supercomputers, massively distributed systems, that sort of thing run it? How many machines are designed to run it? More these days, but most of them were designed with a version of unix that comes along with it. Look at the riscstations, the sun systems, the new processors.
see subject line :-)
In my opinion, these processors are better suited to be the high power processors of yet smaller devices. The laptop industry has moved beyond the speeds of the crusoe processors, but smaller devices where more power is desireable are really where the 1st generation crusoe's belong. A couple months ago, though, the crusoe's would have really given Intel a run for their money (they still are with the whole power consumption deal, but I am willing to bet that the GHz notebooks will be out soon). Also, in cost, they seem to have Intel beat in value for the buck.
I have an active interest in artificial intelligence. I study it as part of my major, and hope to do research in it in the future. As a young man coming up in the world, I am hoping to enter into research eventually, am entering into research at my university (WVU).
Your project reminds me of several projects/theories that have been discussed before. In the psychological debate, your system depends entirely upon nurture, it would seem. I like that kind of system and research. I do have a few questions.
1) What separates this from other projects in the field?
2) Where did you draw your inspiration for this project?
3) What kind of support staff do you recommend to an individual who has never led research before, but would like to? (I ask this of many of my professors who conduct research)
4) Where are you getting the bulk of your input for this project?
5) What do you hope to learn from this project?
6) At what time will you consider this project a success?
I know that I posed a lot of questions, but several could be answered in combination, I just didn't want to ask 2 questions at the same time.
I meant to make that a comment on the amount of stuff released under it, and that a lot of people like that part of the license. Personally, I like to think that I could release some prelim version of my code, get people using it, a free release, and still use my code in a commercial form as well, and allow the source to be open. I kind of like the feature that lets me make closed software (not a popular POV around here, I know). Of course, other people can too, which isn't necessarily a bad thing either.
I didn't mean, "It's better," what I mean is, people have been using it for a long time, a lot of senior people who make decisions have used it on their machines. It's more commonly used in universities than Linux (IE, at WVU, we use SysV with the BSD compat package installed). I didn't mean, "Gee, BSD is great." I meant, "Gee, BSD has been around for a long time, and is used a lot more than people say it is."
It was a small message board, with few users. The potential error was minimal. I should say, "Was working on." Because we never really used a finished state of it. We're going to start back on the same project in the fall.
I kinda like the BSD license. Yeah, it doesn't have the hype that the GPL does, but BSD has been around for a LOT longer, and while Linux is the flavor of the moment, BSD has a MUCH more in set base of users and administrators and servers. (Linux has all of the neat new stuff though, but BSD has compatibility so...)
1) Are more people moving from their traditional licenses to the GPL? A lot of license bingo has been going on lately.
2) Differences between postgress and MySQL.
Well, now is a good time to start the debate, which do you like better and why? I like them both equally, but then again, I've only run MySQL in enterprise, how does postgress hold up to real strain?
Microsoft was never really the dominant power that it has had the image of being. I think that the world and the company was under the illusion that they were, but you'll notice that NT has never been the true dominant enterprise server, that there really are more machines that at least look like unix than ones the run windows, and that standards really do reign. What M$ had power over was their users, which while that was the significant desktop market, that has never been where the REAL power in computing was. For M$ to ever be a real dominant company in the computer science realm, you would have to see supercomputers and mainframes that run windows, and you don't, because it's not a suitable market for them. Microsoft has always had to at least meet the standards part way, otherwise nothing would ever have worked under windows. The real problem is where they "embrace and extend" things into the proprietary realm, which has been destroying good standards for some time now. I think that they are learning the lesson that you don't take, for instance, Java, and make it only work under windows. We may start looking at an era where M$ is a real rival and not just a company that holds a bigger market share (no offense guys, it just pisses people off when you wreck our perfectly good software).
Yeah, we used to put the wrong dates on our timecards just to avoid managerial and legal tussle too. It happens.
As for the spec. I think that Microsoft realizes that nobody will adopt their software if it doesn't work in the existing infastructure, and doesn't conform. I mean, I can call Java C++ all I want, but it doesn't mean that Java is C++, and programmers trying to use it to write C++ will go with a different compiler. Get it? Whether they found it morally right or wrong, they are beginning to see that they have to start playing nice, or die after they are split up.
A little bit more $$$ in my bank account, and this would be a great little system to develop projects on.
Now we just knock down the cost of 802.11 a notch, and those pads start to look pretty darn nice :-)
i think we can handle this IF WE ALL GET MATURE.
Not going to happen any time soon. Too many script kiddies out there. They want to be cool and 1337. What dweebs, they dun even know what it means. I know one that I'd like to pop in the mouth just because he bugs me so much.
I think that the central idea behind the protocal is that you can provide additional layers of abstraction (for those not in the know, "libaries" and "objects") between the protocol and the programmer (hence the "extensible" part of it). This would make it easier to write programs that work in similar ways since you could embed all of the protocol work into simple functions. This would make the prototyping of programs much quicker. Always to be remembered is that more function calls mean more overhead, but if the overall functionality and efficiency is increased, this is well justified. Sounds like a great idea to me, as a person who like it when everyone is on the same page (and this would make that a lot easier when designing web apps).
It's very clear cut for us. When you have angry businesses yelling at judges about it, it gets sticky. That's what I meant. If you've been reading along, a ruling in China decided that deep linking can be illegal in some cases. If that doesn't making linking a little bit sticky, tell that to the Chinese...
Well, linking can be a sticky issue. Nobody wants to be paying for content, only to have it become the highlight of another, more popular page, such as linking a bunch of porn to your site. Cases such as DEEP LINKING are the real toughies, but it should only be the providers of the content who have the ability to sue, if anybody, not a third party, not if they are not authorized by the providers.
On the other hand, linking is what makes the web what it is. It can't exist without it. A ruling against linking would have to be very careful to state what constitutes illegal linking, and it would have to specify legal uses as well.
Would it be illegal, for instance, for altavista to put a page in their engine, after pepsi has submitted it?
I get nervous when judges come near the internet. Our fears, however, can be a little alleviated in that, supposing that people actually want the internet around, they can't outright stop us from linking to each other, the only issue might be a few trivial lawsuits which would overturn such a foolish decision.
In cases such as this one, RIAA should be suing the actual providers, if anybody. The person hosting the sites might be aiding and abetting, but it is the person hosting the copyrighted material who is committing the crime.
1) Heavy processing, obviously. Crypto, graphics...
2) Bunch of servers in 1 box.
3) Gaming ^_^
I have heard of high school students that can get people to sign petitions to ban dihydrogen oxide because it has poisonous chemicals in it as well as flammable ones.
People are pretty click-happy on the net, which is why so many people want idiot protection laws and such, and others are willing to give up their credit card numbers to geocities sites...
So, hrmm, who knows? It could even work to get people to pass laws that are sensible too... Of course, so could the legal system.
Also, is this just to sidestep moves on crypto laws?
Supposing that you can afford sufficient memory, wouldn't you rather go with uncompressed memory? Maybe put one module of compressed in last just to make sure? I could picture this memory serving THAT purpose, but surely you would prefer to have the fastest memory possible GIVEN that it is of satisfactory quantity.
That glances over the point entirely, when what I was saying was that faster RAM == BETTER RAM, and you know it.