No, thats what is probably causing this.... The light from the sun is absorbed by the junk we blow into the atmosphere and thus doesn't reach earth. The energy is still absorbed by the earth as a whole....
$5 might not be much to you, to someone else it might mean not being able to afford it..... And who says it going to be $5??? They have the patent, so they could ask 5 Million for it or opt to not sell it at all...
No, they only have to include a written offer for source. Any third party can claim the source once they get there hands on this offer (which ultimatly boils down to just about everyboddy when you distribute a few million phones but its not the same)
Since the second lasts longer there it will be faster (more time to spend moving) Better yet: Since mars is smaller than earth some idiot is going to sugest redifining the meter on mars to be smaller and thus making your cars speed even faster. The same idiot is probably also going to redefine G to be the same as the gravity on the surface of mars and thus your car will not only have a ridicilous top speed it will also be able to accelerate really fast.....
The only thing one could learn from this is which part nvidia didn't do in hardware but in software.... Still if you needed to learn that from nvidia you are several generations behind them and thus not a problem. As for the parts done in software they are not special, software 3d processing has been done many times and there is nothing revolutionary nvidia is doing here.
It might be typical for zealots to whine for improvement... but the rest of your logic is flawed: There is not improvement, nvidia still doesn't support linux. All they did is shut up some of the kiddies that think linux support means being able to play quake3 on their x86 box with a standard kernel.
As soon as you do anything nvidia doesn't care about you still got nothing, so yes having no drivers at all would not make a difference for linux.
It does help you to, if you submit a bug report from a tainted kernel panic you are going to get laughed at. Kernel developers just can't use your report as they don't have the source to your black box driver.
Only when you measure support in official drivers from the vendor. For linux good support means good documentation or source code and in that ATi is far better than nVidia.
Linux will get is name far faster by being accepted on the corporate desktop. There you don't need gaming performance, you don't need 3d performance. What good is acceptance if it means a ton of binary only drivers? Acceptance is useless if you lose the biggest advantage linux has: free (speach) SOURCECODE!!!
In most cases hardware/software is believed to be the next best thing since sliced bread by management..... Most drivers do NOTHING that justifies keeping the code under lock like it is done today. Most drivers simply push data to the right place and fiddle with registers in the right way. There is nothing the competitor wouldn't have already thought off. If youre competitor has to learn from your driver they are atleast two generations behind you and you have nothing to fear. Its a corporate culture that is the problem, not patents (which already are open for anybody to see anyway), trademarks or trade secrets.
Meanwhile I'd like to know how are things with the ATI camp, probably not much better.
Actually I just bought an ati card... Although not a perfect situation it is better than with nvidia. Ati have released enough specs to allow the gatos project to produce some good drivers which even have 3d support and most important for me tv-out support.
When binary modules are allowed it doesn't help linux in any way....
Just look at the nvidia drivers: The only thing you get are kiddies yelling that nvidia has such great linux support. Meanwhile linux didn't get any better from it, kernel developers get lots of bug reports caused by the nvidia black box (One of the reasons the 'tainted' flag was introduced), I still can't use the nvidia cards on platform not-quite-obscure-nividia-just-didnt-bother-compil ing-their-driver-for-it, and most importantly you don't know what the driver is doing on your system (its a black box afterall)
However intel have publicly stated that they would have linux support for their centrino chipset... (which the pro wireless 2100 is part off) That turned out to be one big lie.
That would be a good analogy if these cards were able to produce just about any frequency and any power.... Thats not true. The differences are in the specific channels available for various regions and even then it is a difference of only a few channels at most. The power is also limited by the hardware, you can't just push it way over the limits just by software. The amount of interference you could produce is comparable with a car that can go slightly faster then the speed limit, not some suppercharged hot rod.btw since when are cars modified to go over 250 km/h outlawed? (Assuming the modifications don't involve removing stuff required for safety)
They will probably promise to provide Linux driver like with the centrino chipset and then not even make specs available. You will get all kind of lame excuses: - We are working on a driver.... (For half a year already) - We can't tell you how to operate it because the FCC won't let us (Complete bullshit but sounds nice: 'linux hackers want to interfere with police radio') - They might release some binary only modules... (Redhat version bla.bla, kernel version bla.bla and nothing else)
For any effective shielding in the higher frequency ranges they would have to be twisted every few centimeters (as CAT5 is). Power cables are nowhere near UTP. Often they are not twisted at all (not needed for 50Hz) UTP also has a known impedance (100 Ohm for unshielded CAT5), power cables have unknown (and thus unmatched) impedance for high frequencies since there is no standard for that. High frequency interference is not addressed because it never was an issue, its that simple.
Dream on.... Radio is far from outmoded, cellphones use radio.... Wifi (a very popular 'cheap and plentiful' way of internet access) also uses radio.
Although both mostly in parts of the spectrum not affected by current powerline experiments radio is very much alive! If you want to communicate to the other side of the world without being dependant on a whole array of failure prone infrastructure short wave radio is about the only viable thing. Don't dismiss a technology just because you think you have no use for it. Most people won't realize how much they do depend on that part of the spectrum... Ever wondered how many garage door openeners are in the affected part of the rf spectrum? (just one example)
Exactly... That is the not much part of my earlier post.
What you are refering to is Shannon's law which describes the relation between the energy per bit, the noise and the resulting signal to noise ratio. In this equation a larger bandwidth results in more noise (as noise is spread accross the entire spectrum).
The only way to increase the bitrate (which is what we want) is by building a better receiver (which can cope with a lower SNR) or by using more power. You can get a greater bitrate without more bandwidth by sending multiple bits at a time (stacking them on top of eachother or on different phases such as QAM) but that results in less power per bit and thus a lower SNR. Technically the amount of power you can use on powerlines will be limited because you should not interfere with 'normal use' and thus you cannot send unlimited bits at a time.
Atleast they were designed for signals in the Khz range instead of 50/60Hz. And modern telephone lines are twisted pair and often underground (atleast here) and are thus fare better suited for higher frequency uses.
Slashdot Mirror
No, thats what is probably causing this....
The light from the sun is absorbed by the junk we blow into the atmosphere and thus doesn't reach earth. The energy is still absorbed by the earth as a whole....
Jeroen
$5 might not be much to you, to someone else it might mean not being able to afford it.....
And who says it going to be $5???
They have the patent, so they could ask 5 Million for it or opt to not sell it at all...
If you had cancer would you argue that?
Jeroen
No, they only have to include a written offer for source. Any third party can claim the source once they get there hands on this offer (which ultimatly boils down to just about everyboddy when you distribute a few million phones but its not the same)
Jeroen
In that case I would install a Neptune speedo in my car....
With a Martion speedo the police would get you off the road for driving to slow.....
Jeroen
Since the second lasts longer there it will be faster (more time to spend moving)
Better yet: Since mars is smaller than earth some idiot is going to sugest redifining the meter on mars to be smaller and thus making your cars speed even faster.
The same idiot is probably also going to redefine G to be the same as the gravity on the surface of mars and thus your car will not only have a ridicilous top speed it will also be able to accelerate really fast.....
Jeroen
Sure, instead of connecting just two seismic active regions add a vulcano to its path to :)
Jeroen
The only thing one could learn from this is which part nvidia didn't do in hardware but in software.... Still if you needed to learn that from nvidia you are several generations behind them and thus not a problem.
As for the parts done in software they are not special, software 3d processing has been done many times and there is nothing revolutionary nvidia is doing here.
Jeroen
It might be typical for zealots to whine for improvement... but the rest of your logic is flawed:
There is not improvement, nvidia still doesn't support linux. All they did is shut up some of the kiddies that think linux support means being able to play quake3 on their x86 box with a standard kernel.
As soon as you do anything nvidia doesn't care about you still got nothing, so yes having no drivers at all would not make a difference for linux.
Jeroen
How many average desktop users have jobs involving 3d graphics? (besides 'funny' screensavers)
Jeroen
It does help you to, if you submit a bug report from a tainted kernel panic you are going to get laughed at.
Kernel developers just can't use your report as they don't have the source to your black box driver.
Jeroen
So how exactly did linux get better from this???
The only thing I see is it being mentioned in a press release.... Sure digital domain got better from it, nvidia got better from it, but not linux.
Ati is different as they released at least some specs.... enough to produce usable drivers.
That is infinitly more than nvidia did.
Jeroen
Only when you measure support in official drivers from the vendor. For linux good support means good documentation or source code and in that ATi is far better than nVidia.
Jeroen
Linux will get is name far faster by being accepted on the corporate desktop. There you don't need gaming performance, you don't need 3d performance.
What good is acceptance if it means a ton of binary only drivers? Acceptance is useless if you lose the biggest advantage linux has: free (speach) SOURCECODE!!!
Jeroen
In most cases hardware/software is believed to be the next best thing since sliced bread by management.....
Most drivers do NOTHING that justifies keeping the code under lock like it is done today.
Most drivers simply push data to the right place and fiddle with registers in the right way. There is nothing the competitor wouldn't have already thought off.
If youre competitor has to learn from your driver they are atleast two generations behind you and you have nothing to fear.
Its a corporate culture that is the problem, not patents (which already are open for anybody to see anyway), trademarks or trade secrets.
Jeroen
Meanwhile I'd like to know how are things with the ATI camp, probably not much better.
Actually I just bought an ati card...
Although not a perfect situation it is better than with nvidia. Ati have released enough specs to allow the gatos project to produce some good drivers which even have 3d support and most important for me tv-out support.
Jeroen
When binary modules are allowed it doesn't help linux in any way....
l ing-their-driver-for-it, and most importantly you don't know what the driver is doing on your system (its a black box afterall)
Just look at the nvidia drivers: The only thing you get are kiddies yelling that nvidia has such great linux support. Meanwhile linux didn't get any better from it, kernel developers get lots of bug reports caused by the nvidia black box (One of the reasons the 'tainted' flag was introduced), I still can't use the nvidia cards on platform not-quite-obscure-nividia-just-didnt-bother-compi
Jeroen
However intel have publicly stated that they would have linux support for their centrino chipset...
(which the pro wireless 2100 is part off)
That turned out to be one big lie.
Jeroen
That would be a good analogy if these cards were able to produce just about any frequency and any power.... Thats not true.
The differences are in the specific channels available for various regions and even then it is a difference of only a few channels at most. The power is also limited by the hardware, you can't just push it way over the limits just by software.
The amount of interference you could produce is comparable with a car that can go slightly faster then the speed limit, not some suppercharged hot rod.btw since when are cars modified to go over 250 km/h outlawed? (Assuming the modifications don't involve removing stuff required for safety)
Jeroen
They will probably promise to provide Linux driver like with the centrino chipset and then not even make specs available.
You will get all kind of lame excuses:
- We are working on a driver.... (For half a year already)
- We can't tell you how to operate it because the FCC won't let us (Complete bullshit but sounds nice: 'linux hackers want to interfere with police radio')
- They might release some binary only modules... (Redhat version bla.bla, kernel version bla.bla and nothing else)
Jeroen
And not even that, about half the year there is an hour difference between the two.
Jeroen
For any effective shielding in the higher frequency ranges they would have to be twisted every few centimeters (as CAT5 is).
Power cables are nowhere near UTP.
Often they are not twisted at all (not needed for 50Hz)
UTP also has a known impedance (100 Ohm for unshielded CAT5), power cables have unknown (and thus unmatched) impedance for high frequencies since there is no standard for that.
High frequency interference is not addressed because it never was an issue, its that simple.
Jeroen
Dream on....
Radio is far from outmoded, cellphones use radio....
Wifi (a very popular 'cheap and plentiful' way of internet access) also uses radio.
Although both mostly in parts of the spectrum not affected by current powerline experiments radio is very much alive!
If you want to communicate to the other side of the world without being dependant on a whole array of failure prone infrastructure short wave radio is about the only viable thing.
Don't dismiss a technology just because you think you have no use for it.
Most people won't realize how much they do depend on that part of the spectrum... Ever wondered how many garage door openeners are in the affected part of the rf spectrum? (just one example)
Jeroen
Exactly... That is the not much part of my earlier post.
What you are refering to is Shannon's law which describes the relation between the energy per bit, the noise and the resulting signal to noise ratio.
In this equation a larger bandwidth results in more noise (as noise is spread accross the entire spectrum).
The only way to increase the bitrate (which is what we want) is by building a better receiver (which can cope with a lower SNR) or by using more power.
You can get a greater bitrate without more bandwidth by sending multiple bits at a time (stacking them on top of eachother or on different phases such as QAM) but that results in less power per bit and thus a lower SNR.
Technically the amount of power you can use on powerlines will be limited because you should not interfere with 'normal use' and thus you cannot send unlimited bits at a time.
Jeroen
Atleast they were designed for signals in the Khz range instead of 50/60Hz.
And modern telephone lines are twisted pair and often underground (atleast here) and are thus fare better suited for higher frequency uses.
Jeroen
CB will have interference as well....
It will interfere with anything in those frequency ranges... HAM, CB and tons of commercial applications....
Jeroen