Those spare pairs aren't there for such hacks as you (and, admitedly, I) do. They generally are intended for future improvements such as this one.
Oh, and running two 100 base-T connections in one CAT5e jacket is non-standard... expect cross-pair interference to be a problem if you run any appreciable distance. Yes, we all do this kind of thing in a pinch, and yes, it mostly works. It's when it doesn't that it becomes a bitch -- gonna have to run that extra cable anyway.
Personally, I think POE (power over ethernet) is WAY cool, and useful.
Some people look to a resume to see what qualifications a poster has to make a particular comment.
I am not presently looking for work, but, if, say, someone offered me enough money, sure, I'd bolt. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.
The key, of course, is enough money to make it worthwhile. Right now that is probably more than anyone would be willing to pay.
While there are days where I hate "the job", I love working with MPEG2 video, after spending much of my career in data networking -- it combines fresh professional interests with personal "home-wide media servers" interests. So, I'm not about to leave on a whim.
I suppose, though, for the sake of completeness, I should add ATI experience to my resume.
Sorry, should have noted the fact that I work for ATI, though what I post here (or anywhere, for that matter) is my personal opinion, and does not necessarily reflect the views of ATI.
Still, I don't think anyone is going to get upset over a link to an existing press release.
If these cards are getting so powerful at computations then why do we need a Intel/AMD processor at all? Just make a graphics card with more transistors and drop the traditional processor..."
Now, that press release was about two years old, and you can bet that ATI has advanced beyond that point (though I can't provide details).
Also, while not integrating a serious 3D graphics GPU, there's no reason that this can't be done -- except one -- and the same reason that a powerful CPU isn't integrated: heat dissipation.
But, for a "media processor", it sure is sweet.
Re:The quarter is hard enough
on
Making Change
·
· Score: 1
There are two different stories about two dollar bills, I've heard.
Supposedly, in the U.S. sailors used to be paid in $2 bills at one time, and the story goes that at each transaction, a corner was to be removed (hold the comments about defacing currency, please). When no more corners were left, the bill was to be discarded as to continue to use it was "bad luck".
Now, in Canada the story is a bit different. (Yes, Canada had one and two dollar bills at one time, before it's currency became worthless). Supposedly, no "decent" person wanted to be caught with a $2 bill because it was the going rate to secure the services of a prostitute at one point in the nation's history.
As one myself, I was not justifying the practice of taxation, merely extrapolating the logical conclusion of the poster's argument. Though, the very least redress for the crime of taxation to fund various programs would be for the fruits of those programs to be returned to those who's funds were stolen to pay for them.
And, FWIW, the tax situation in Canada is far worse than that in the U.S.
I would very happily throw away the dubious Canadian citizenship (read: socialist tax slave) that was figuratively stamped on my ass when I had the misfortune to be born in Montreal instead of, say, Manhattan, if I could exchange it for U.S. citizenship, having lived, worked, paid taxes, and raised a family in the U.S. for five years, abiding by all the rules and restrictions related to my work visa.
While I am probably too old for military service unless some great disaster happened, my three year old son is an American citizen and will, of course, register.
So, to answer your question in brief, "Yeah, I would accept the responsibilities as well as the benefits if I had that choice."
The whole internet was developed by American taxpayers dollars - the TCP/IP/UDP etc protocols, the everywhere used BSD stack and many more things.
So I don't have a problem when American companies get their IP rights secured by patents such that the invested taxpayers money will give some revenues
By that reasoning, all American taxpayers should reap the benefits of said patents.
Furthermore despite having to leave the U.S. and return to Canada when my H1B expired (and post-9/11/01, my Labour Cert. as premilinary step for a Green Card was in indefinite limbo), I was and am an American taxpayer, so I too should benefit. Come to think of it, there are a lot of other foreigners who are American taxpayers. (Of course, to soothe your pro-American stance, this isn't quite correct: despite paying American taxes, as a non-citizen I was not entitled to many of the benefits they pay for, i.e. state unemployment insurance, for one. The point about taxpayers in general vs. corporations is correct, though.).
t would seem feasible to put chrunched binaries into the kernel itself, but that would be nasty kernel bloat!
Yes, at some point, SOMETHING has to work O.K. in order for the system to boot. But, that something should be small enough and the rest reliable and redundant enough to permit the critical piece to either live in ROM, or floppy.
Thought, bootable live CD distros are handy.
Still, the one time you most desperately need to repair a sick system is also going to be the time you don't have your Swiss-Army utility CD.
Hopefully that one file would not be damaged in fs corruption.
Holy light bulb, Batman! (well, JDizzy, any way, to give proper credit). You've just given me an idea!!
Given that some executables are more important than others in reparing broken filesystems, this situation particularly exacerbated with crunched binaries, why not add error correcting codes to them, and use inteleaving techniques to mitigate single block errors? Yes, they would grow, but not likely to the limit of multiple complete copies.
Also, for sensitive dynamically linked libraries, perhaps the directory structure could be modified to have a common LD_LIBRARY_PATH for some system directories. Heck, never mind a mod: just make the loader sensitive to.ldpath symlinks in the directory of the executible.
I admit my investment is risky, but it was only $10 and the most the RIAA could benefit was limited. Even if Peng pockets any excess, it lets him know the extent to which people think he was "wronged", and might embolden him in the future.
Sometimes you fight the oppressor, and sometimes you help the oppressed.
I, too, consider myself libertarian, and sent him $10.
The monies collected by the RIAA in the settlement will not represent a great proportion of their revenue, nor will they make them a greater threat -- the purpose was to intimidate.
Imagine, if you will if 10,000 people send him $10. Or 100,000. Or, dare we suggest, a mullion? Imagine that he receives significantly more money than it takes to settle. The honourable thing to do would be to realize (a) lots of people support and help me; (b) what can I do in return?
The answer is clear: place the excess funds in a war chest, and issue a plea: "Thanks for the support.... if we can raise $X, I'll do it again (release a file sharing program, not necessarily offer copyright material for distribution) intentionally, and fight them this time."
I can understand the risk/reward ratio to fight this case being estimated as unaceptable. But, this individual now has some (a) celebrity, (b) notoriety, (c) support. If there is any momentum behind this, it may be enough to collectively fight the RIAA.
My $10 was an investment in the possibility of getting that momentum going. As with all investments, it was not without risk. However, unlike the initial situation, I find the risk/reward quite favorable. Lets raise a bounty and go hunt some RIAA ass.
The fact is, capitalism works great if we are all brought into the world as healthy, law abiding, and fully educated adults. This is not the case. If you agree that every person should be offered an education paid for by society because they are a burden to society without one, then you must agree that government funded education makes sense.
I agree that it is a good idea to fund education for everyone. I do not agree that this view should be enforced on those that disagree. So, while I accept your major premise, I do not accept the conclusion, because it allows the use of force to impose my acceptance on others.
This claim makes sense until you realize one very important fact about Canadian health care: those who administer health care in Canada must use that very health care system. So must their wives and children. They can't even go to the U.S. for treatment, because the newspapers would be all over it.
They DO go to the U.S.! At least, politicians routinely go to the U.S. Case in point: Robert Bourassa, for his cancer treatments. Read "Take the Money and Run" and "My Blue Haven" by Alex Doulis, for more of an expose of corruption in Canada.
The fact is, money spent on health care administration in Canada is one third of the amount, per capita, in the U.S. Canadian health care administration is much more lean [umanitoba.ca] than its U.S. counterpart.
Considering the hundreds of health insurers in the U.S. vs. the one state insurer in Canada, you'd expect administrative costs to be far less, then. But, yes, the free market in healthcare in the U.S. results in a complex system that would benefit from some standardization. I have admited this.
"What you endorse adds an element of force to coerce those who do not wish to go along."
Wow, that's right out of a Jan Narveson [uwaterloo.ca] class I took!
You should realize by now that I am a Libertarian. Yes, "big L". I served on the Ethics Commitee of the Libertarian Party of Canada from 1996 to 1998. I don't remember if my copy of "The Libertarian Idea" is autographed by Dr. Narveson, but it may well be.:-) So, er, yeah.
Ok, then to truly "opt out" as you suggest, we are talking about returning to a "state of nature", or as it is more commonly referred to, anarchy.
No, I have made it clear that this is not necessary to satisfy me: w.r.t. healthcare, I just want to buy my own, even if I have to fund the public one, and not have a tax tie to the latter if I do not use it. That strikes me as a reasonable compromise between my "extreme" libertarian philosophical view, and present-day society.
I will grant, that the big difficulty facing libertarians is that we are not starting from a state of nature, and it would be foolish to revert all the way to one in order to follow a libertarian path. In effect, there is a cost to change, what may be a very comfortable system, to one that is more free and civilized. Change does not come free.
Now, you may be an advocate of anarchy, but the thing is, you were born into a social contract, which I realize you are now trying to get out of.
Not quite "trying to get out of", as I object most strenousouly only to the most egregious injustices. But your comment smacks of "Zieg Heil! You, Jew, were born into Nazi Germany, now be good about it and die." Being "born into" a society does not make one indebted to it without consent any more than a woman owes her date sex just because he bought her dinner.
I agree that you should have the right to leave that contract, but how is it done?
Well, how's this: if I stop consuming Canadian social services, I should not be liable for tax to pay them. Perhaps there should be an "exit period" where I continue to do so, for some small interval, but there are already a myriad of exit taxes. I know. I paid them the first time I left. I was not credited when I returned. Funny, that.
"Let me be clear: I am willing to fund the public system as well as personal insurance, and not use the public one, to avoid a tax tie if I leave Canada."
I was not aware of the tax-tie situation, and I must admit that I'm not 100% clear on how it works. However, if you're right, then I would agree that it's a needlessly restrictive policy, and should be fixed.
I would argue stronger, that it is, in fact, unconstitutional, even according tothe wimpy Canadian constitution because it undermines persuit of security in the person.
The fact is, capitalism works great if we are all brought into the world as healthy, law abiding, and fully educated adults. This is not the case. If you agree that every person has the right to an education because they are a burden to society without one, then you must agree that government funded education makes sense...
In fact, I do not agree that people have these rights. A right one has, is an obligation that another must fulfil. The only legitimate obligations are those of inaction, because they require no effort: it takes no effort on your part to not kill me, for an extreme example. Just do nothing. The only legitimate rights, then are properly called negative rights: one has the rights to do as one wishes, so long as what the do (note, not "do not do"), harms no one.
Within such a framework, individuals are quite free to pool their resources, to counter rare risks that any one of them might face, that would otherwise be unbearable. This is, in fact, the foundation of insurance: early insurance schemes were very much mutual self-insurance policies.
Parents raise children, and join in communities where they voluntarily provide aid in exchange for community support.
What you endorse adds an element of force to coerce those who do not wish to go along. It is that to which I object: if the scheme is such a good one, why not go along with it? Often the answer is that the scheme is not as good as claimed, or disproportionately costs some far more than others, making it a bad trade.
However, much of society accepts such schemes, so be it. Nevertheless, the degree to which coercion (via law) is used to keep people "in the system" hides just how broken it might be, lest anyone notice.
In Canada, particularly, social services benefit those who administer them far more than the society they are supposed to improve: this creates an incentive to keep the system as inefficient as possible, and thus grow the bureaucracy around it even more.
As to the question of how a society could function without coercion of those who'd otherwise "opt out", consider that cooperation is a two way street: in return for participating, one may partake of things which are truely beneficial, access to a system of courts, perhaps, or public transportation, etc. Shunning also works well as a technique to keep people "in line", and is practiced in many closed communities. However, what we see in advanced socialist societies like Canada is that the incentive is not a real benefit, but rather avoidance of force for non-complience. The system becomes corrupt and morally bankrupt.
I have found that, in the U.S., many more services are handled at local (city and county) levels, including education: American schools put Canadian schools to shame from an infrastructure and suppport perspective (the actual material taught may be a different matter for a different debate) -- they are funded almost exclusively from local property taxes. Poor communities generally receive some subsidy via "Robin Hood" programs, but it is modest. The point is that even though these systems are tax-based (and therefore involuntary), the freedoms people have to move means that communities have to compete on the basis of tax-efficiency (lest they lose their tax base), and the results are generally encouraging. Canada, on the other hand, has this massive federal redistributive scheme, which means that any province (and within a
Slashdot Mirror
That's why you aren't supposed to do that.
Those spare pairs aren't there for such hacks as you (and, admitedly, I) do. They generally are intended for future improvements such as this one.
Oh, and running two 100 base-T connections in one CAT5e jacket is non-standard... expect cross-pair interference to be a problem if you run any appreciable distance. Yes, we all do this kind of thing in a pinch, and yes, it mostly works. It's when it doesn't that it becomes a bitch -- gonna have to run that extra cable anyway.
Personally, I think POE (power over ethernet) is WAY cool, and useful.
I am not presently looking for work, but, if, say, someone offered me enough money, sure, I'd bolt. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.
The key, of course, is enough money to make it worthwhile. Right now that is probably more than anyone would be willing to pay.
While there are days where I hate "the job", I love working with MPEG2 video, after spending much of my career in data networking -- it combines fresh professional interests with personal "home-wide media servers" interests. So, I'm not about to leave on a whim.
I suppose, though, for the sake of completeness, I should add ATI experience to my resume.
Still, I don't think anyone is going to get upset over a link to an existing press release.
You mean like: this?
Now, that press release was about two years old, and you can bet that ATI has advanced beyond that point (though I can't provide details).
Also, while not integrating a serious 3D graphics GPU, there's no reason that this can't be done -- except one -- and the same reason that a powerful CPU isn't integrated: heat dissipation.
But, for a "media processor", it sure is sweet.
Supposedly, in the U.S. sailors used to be paid in $2 bills at one time, and the story goes that at each transaction, a corner was to be removed (hold the comments about defacing currency, please). When no more corners were left, the bill was to be discarded as to continue to use it was "bad luck".
Now, in Canada the story is a bit different. (Yes, Canada had one and two dollar bills at one time, before it's currency became worthless). Supposedly, no "decent" person wanted to be caught with a $2 bill because it was the going rate to secure the services of a prostitute at one point in the nation's history.
Hmm. Perhaps your eligibility for American citizenship, by virtue of marriage to an American citizen, also made you available for military service.
As one myself, I was not justifying the practice of taxation, merely extrapolating the logical conclusion of the poster's argument. Though, the very least redress for the crime of taxation to fund various programs would be for the fruits of those programs to be returned to those who's funds were stolen to pay for them.
And, FWIW, the tax situation in Canada is far worse than that in the U.S.
While I am probably too old for military service unless some great disaster happened, my three year old son is an American citizen and will, of course, register.
So, to answer your question in brief, "Yeah, I would accept the responsibilities as well as the benefits if I had that choice."
So I don't have a problem when American companies get their IP rights secured by patents such that the invested taxpayers money will give some revenues
By that reasoning, all American taxpayers should reap the benefits of said patents.
Furthermore despite having to leave the U.S. and return to Canada when my H1B expired (and post-9/11/01, my Labour Cert. as premilinary step for a Green Card was in indefinite limbo), I was and am an American taxpayer, so I too should benefit. Come to think of it, there are a lot of other foreigners who are American taxpayers. (Of course, to soothe your pro-American stance, this isn't quite correct: despite paying American taxes, as a non-citizen I was not entitled to many of the benefits they pay for, i.e. state unemployment insurance, for one. The point about taxpayers in general vs. corporations is correct, though.).
There. That'll stop EDOOFUS from appearing in sanitized corporate source code...
Until the day when...
O.K., I accept my karma-lashing for my bit of sillyness.
+5 Informative, -5 Non-insightful, +100 First Post. I win!
I was thinking the same thing... something about barn doors, horses, and bolting.
When I was laid off, I made looking for a job a full time job.
Yes, at some point, SOMETHING has to work O.K. in order for the system to boot. But, that something should be small enough and the rest reliable and redundant enough to permit the critical piece to either live in ROM, or floppy.
Thought, bootable live CD distros are handy.
Still, the one time you most desperately need to repair a sick system is also going to be the time you don't have your Swiss-Army utility CD.
Take note, though. Timing matters.
Hmm... there was something, it's just at the edge of my memory... damn. Think, think, thinkkkk!. Some kind of danger, but what was it...
Ah!
Holy light bulb, Batman! (well, JDizzy, any way, to give proper credit). You've just given me an idea!!
Given that some executables are more important than others in reparing broken filesystems, this situation particularly exacerbated with crunched binaries, why not add error correcting codes to them, and use inteleaving techniques to mitigate single block errors? Yes, they would grow, but not likely to the limit of multiple complete copies.
Also, for sensitive dynamically linked libraries, perhaps the directory structure could be modified to have a common LD_LIBRARY_PATH for some system directories. Heck, never mind a mod: just make the loader sensitive to .ldpath symlinks in the directory of the executible.
IANAL, but this really looks like common sense.
Oh wait, the **AAs have none of that. Gee, this ruling IS interesting.
Sometimes you fight the oppressor, and sometimes you help the oppressed.
As to the EFF, I already support them.
It would send a powerful message if their "victim" got more than that in "help".
Yes, it is risky. FWIW, I also donate to the EFF. Sometimes a risky investment pays off though. The trick is to diversify :-)
I, too, consider myself libertarian, and sent him $10.
The monies collected by the RIAA in the settlement will not represent a great proportion of their revenue, nor will they make them a greater threat -- the purpose was to intimidate.
Imagine, if you will if 10,000 people send him $10. Or 100,000. Or, dare we suggest, a mullion? Imagine that he receives significantly more money than it takes to settle. The honourable thing to do would be to realize (a) lots of people support and help me; (b) what can I do in return?
The answer is clear: place the excess funds in a war chest, and issue a plea: "Thanks for the support.... if we can raise $X, I'll do it again (release a file sharing program, not necessarily offer copyright material for distribution) intentionally, and fight them this time."
I can understand the risk/reward ratio to fight this case being estimated as unaceptable. But, this individual now has some (a) celebrity, (b) notoriety, (c) support. If there is any momentum behind this, it may be enough to collectively fight the RIAA.
My $10 was an investment in the possibility of getting that momentum going. As with all investments, it was not without risk. However, unlike the initial situation, I find the risk/reward quite favorable. Lets raise a bounty and go hunt some RIAA ass.
I agree that it is a good idea to fund education for everyone. I do not agree that this view should be enforced on those that disagree. So, while I accept your major premise, I do not accept the conclusion, because it allows the use of force to impose my acceptance on others. This claim makes sense until you realize one very important fact about Canadian health care: those who administer health care in Canada must use that very health care system. So must their wives and children. They can't even go to the U.S. for treatment, because the newspapers would be all over it.
They DO go to the U.S.! At least, politicians routinely go to the U.S. Case in point: Robert Bourassa, for his cancer treatments. Read "Take the Money and Run" and "My Blue Haven" by Alex Doulis, for more of an expose of corruption in Canada.
The fact is, money spent on health care administration in Canada is one third of the amount, per capita, in the U.S. Canadian health care administration is much more lean [umanitoba.ca] than its U.S. counterpart.
Considering the hundreds of health insurers in the U.S. vs. the one state insurer in Canada, you'd expect administrative costs to be far less, then. But, yes, the free market in healthcare in the U.S. results in a complex system that would benefit from some standardization. I have admited this.
"What you endorse adds an element of force to coerce those who do not wish to go along."
Wow, that's right out of a Jan Narveson [uwaterloo.ca] class I took!
You should realize by now that I am a Libertarian. Yes, "big L". I served on the Ethics Commitee of the Libertarian Party of Canada from 1996 to 1998. I don't remember if my copy of "The Libertarian Idea" is autographed by Dr. Narveson, but it may well be. :-) So, er, yeah.
Ok, then to truly "opt out" as you suggest, we are talking about returning to a "state of nature", or as it is more commonly referred to, anarchy.
No, I have made it clear that this is not necessary to satisfy me: w.r.t. healthcare, I just want to buy my own, even if I have to fund the public one, and not have a tax tie to the latter if I do not use it. That strikes me as a reasonable compromise between my "extreme" libertarian philosophical view, and present-day society.
I will grant, that the big difficulty facing libertarians is that we are not starting from a state of nature, and it would be foolish to revert all the way to one in order to follow a libertarian path. In effect, there is a cost to change, what may be a very comfortable system, to one that is more free and civilized. Change does not come free.
Now, you may be an advocate of anarchy, but the thing is, you were born into a social contract, which I realize you are now trying to get out of.
Not quite "trying to get out of", as I object most strenousouly only to the most egregious injustices. But your comment smacks of "Zieg Heil! You, Jew, were born into Nazi Germany, now be good about it and die." Being "born into" a society does not make one indebted to it without consent any more than a woman owes her date sex just because he bought her dinner.
I agree that you should have the right to leave that contract, but how is it done?
Well, how's this: if I stop consuming Canadian social services, I should not be liable for tax to pay them. Perhaps there should be an "exit period" where I continue to do so, for some small interval, but there are already a myriad of exit taxes. I know. I paid them the first time I left. I was not credited when I returned. Funny, that.
The U
I was not aware of the tax-tie situation, and I must admit that I'm not 100% clear on how it works. However, if you're right, then I would agree that it's a needlessly restrictive policy, and should be fixed.
I would argue stronger, that it is, in fact, unconstitutional, even according tothe wimpy Canadian constitution because it undermines persuit of security in the person.
The fact is, capitalism works great if we are all brought into the world as healthy, law abiding, and fully educated adults. This is not the case. If you agree that every person has the right to an education because they are a burden to society without one, then you must agree that government funded education makes sense...
In fact, I do not agree that people have these rights. A right one has, is an obligation that another must fulfil. The only legitimate obligations are those of inaction, because they require no effort: it takes no effort on your part to not kill me, for an extreme example. Just do nothing. The only legitimate rights, then are properly called negative rights: one has the rights to do as one wishes, so long as what the do (note, not "do not do"), harms no one.
Within such a framework, individuals are quite free to pool their resources, to counter rare risks that any one of them might face, that would otherwise be unbearable. This is, in fact, the foundation of insurance: early insurance schemes were very much mutual self-insurance policies.
Parents raise children, and join in communities where they voluntarily provide aid in exchange for community support.
What you endorse adds an element of force to coerce those who do not wish to go along. It is that to which I object: if the scheme is such a good one, why not go along with it? Often the answer is that the scheme is not as good as claimed, or disproportionately costs some far more than others, making it a bad trade.
However, much of society accepts such schemes, so be it. Nevertheless, the degree to which coercion (via law) is used to keep people "in the system" hides just how broken it might be, lest anyone notice.
In Canada, particularly, social services benefit those who administer them far more than the society they are supposed to improve: this creates an incentive to keep the system as inefficient as possible, and thus grow the bureaucracy around it even more.
As to the question of how a society could function without coercion of those who'd otherwise "opt out", consider that cooperation is a two way street: in return for participating, one may partake of things which are truely beneficial, access to a system of courts, perhaps, or public transportation, etc. Shunning also works well as a technique to keep people "in line", and is practiced in many closed communities. However, what we see in advanced socialist societies like Canada is that the incentive is not a real benefit, but rather avoidance of force for non-complience. The system becomes corrupt and morally bankrupt.
I have found that, in the U.S., many more services are handled at local (city and county) levels, including education: American schools put Canadian schools to shame from an infrastructure and suppport perspective (the actual material taught may be a different matter for a different debate) -- they are funded almost exclusively from local property taxes. Poor communities generally receive some subsidy via "Robin Hood" programs, but it is modest. The point is that even though these systems are tax-based (and therefore involuntary), the freedoms people have to move means that communities have to compete on the basis of tax-efficiency (lest they lose their tax base), and the results are generally encouraging. Canada, on the other hand, has this massive federal redistributive scheme, which means that any province (and within a