I think that quantum methods will be good at solving *some* kinds of problems which are by current methods, computationally prohibitive, so I think we'll start seeing "quantum coprocessors", perhaps as add-in cards at first, and then later, probably on the motherboard, and if technically feasible, on the die with the conventional CPU. The conventional CPU will do the tasks it's good at, and the quantum CPU will take on the problems that the API directs at it.
If it's technically cost-prohibitive to put them on every desktop machine, then we'll probably only be using this technology in a "client-server" capacity, where your internet server will have the quantum coprocessor equipment, and you'll have to submit queries via network, but I think due to the nature of the quantum computer, CPU bandwidthe won't be a limiting factor, it will be I/O, or bandwidth of the network to submit queries and yeild results, which will be the main limiting factor, so these machines will necessarily *not* be on commodity hardware (x86), but rather, very high-end mainframe-type systems that can handle all the I/O from the transactions.
These two scenarios, depend on how easy it is to mass produce these processors, and how expensive they are to integrate, and especially, how widespread the technology is. If one corporation "solves" the problem, and patents it, and if nobody can reverse-engineer it (DMCA), then I'm guessing it's utility (which drives demand) will put the price well out of the reach of most mid-sized corporations, and we'll see a very select few VERY large quantum computation service providers arise, of course, outside of government and research applications.
But since this is still largely theoretical, and I'm just a karma whore, not a quantum computation scientist, there may be processing limitations that I'm not aware of that may figure into how this technology gets utilized.
The ironic thing about what you've said is that after CyberDog (unfortunate name) was cancelled, it's die-hard loyal fans wrote an extension to it that replaced the html rendering engine with IE so it would support more modern standards, because CyberDog was left so far in the dust.
very well-thought-out, and I agree. The case for leaving IE with the OS is a strong one.
But I also have to state (again) that the case for separating the apps from the OS is a weak one. Every week, the OS company will attempt to come out with a new product proposal that is going to have to get government approval to be included or not. And what are the standards you judge by? MSOS's new.doc-editor (full-featured word processor) - well, all of MSOS's competitors ship with a bundled office suite, why not us? What about a compiler? Maybe MSOS wants to bundle a compiler with their OS, Linux does it, Sun does it, Mac OS X does it, why can't MSOS? MSAPP will suffer, surely, but in the end, MSOS will end up being the same company MS is now, and the lawyers will be chasing in very expensive circles trying to figure out what the OS company can produce and bundle, and what they can't.
The behavior that needs to be regulated is NOT the tying, but the gestapo tactics, the proprietary protocols and file formats, and the dominance of the OS itself. Break that dominance, and the proprietary protocols and file formats also get broken. There won't be as much of a desire to use those proprietery formats when your main concern is playing nice with the rest of the computing world, which it will be when their marketshare goes below say 50%. Allow any single OS to gain dominance, and they'll do the same exact damn thing. Now, Sun, Apple, IBM are in a different boat, because they also produce their own hardware, I'm not sure how we create equity there, but for damn sure, MS should NOT be able to bully computer manufacturers with threats backed up by their dominance. To do this, simply force MS to only sell their OS according to a set, fair schedule, eliminate preferential treatment towards Gateway, for example, just because Gateway doesn't sell any machines bundled with Linux or BeOS. Make sure everybody pays the same price, maybe scale it based on volume discounts. And make DAMN sure that Microsoft can't deny licenses.
This remedy gives other players a chance in the x86 market, and eventually, several competing OSes will emerge as real players, and if through careful regulation, no single player can obtain overwhelming dominance to the point where they can weild standards like a club, they'll all be compelled to play nice together, then they'll compete on merits, which is really what we all want, right? Diverse choices, interoperability, competition.
Again. I challenge you (or anyone) to create a meaningful, *maintainable*, definition of "OS", and make the split work in a way that's consistent with the way the rest of the computer industry works.
Otherwise, Corel can't sell Linux, Sun can't sell Solaris, and Apple can't sell MacOS (etc. etc.)
There are better ways to spank this unruly child. A split won't fix the problem, and raises too many sticky issues.
Yeah, but without the IE built into Windows crap, how many zillion other companies will start putting serious effort into a browser, now that they know that they have a chance of competing, and all the effort that goes into development won't be wasted when they're quashed by MS.
I'm betting within a year we see a Corel browser (if they don't go tits up), a revival of some kind of Apple browser (maybe Cyberdog for OS X?), and I'm betting, some Adobe monstrosity that replaces HTML with PDF - 'cmon, they've been hinting at it for years. But seriously, I see iCab, Opera, etc, all having a shot at real success once the "obstacle" is removed.
This is great! I've been waiting for this day for YEARS! No, not the Microsoft breakup, free links to NYTimes articles without the crappy free registration!
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
Re:This is the wrong question
on
Linux Failover?
·
· Score: 1
They are that expensive, because people with those kinds of needs are willing to pay that much money.
This is EXACTLY the argument that's been used AGAINST Windows all along, that it's monolithic and bloated, too much overhead that can't be configured and optimized out by the user.
yet, what does a single desktop gamer need with multiuser and security? Or even hard-core stability? (for that matter, why does a gamer need a desktop?) Frankly, if the ONLY purpose you have a computer for is gaming, it makes more sense to stick with DOS. Well, actually, PSX - heh.
Echelon, IIRC, was between the US, UK, and Australia, and the only proof of abuse was against the French (Airbus?). In any case, I think that the UK has more to gain by dumping the partnership with the US and jumping in with their European partners, rather than staying obtuse. The UK shares much more economically with other European countries, now that the EU is in force, including their stance on GM foods, which the US predictably doesn't share.
PS - I'm a US citizen. to quote the bumper sticker, "I love my country, but I fear my government."
Your statement that IBM has PPCs running at faster clock speeds than MOT was a *rumor*. I'm not saying it's true. It's been officially denied, which probably lends it more credibility, but if it's true, the situation is totally wack, and is probably Bill Walker's fault.
It's all Bill Walker's fault. Bill Walker (the Motorola GOON who ordered all PPC-based machines tossed out, and replaced with Dell's containing Intel CPUs, running Windows - hows that Love Bug coming along Bill?) has ordered Motorola's engineers to not release 500Mhz or faster chips because that would threaten Intel, and cause his heavily weighted in INTC stock 401k to plummet. Or maybe Andy Grove is giving him blow jobs. Who knows what is going on in Bill Walker's mind. All I know is that he is a servant of evil. I'm not sure how he engineered the IBM split over Altivec, (thus preventing Apple from telling Moto to go jump in a lake, and sourcing solely from IBM), but he has to have his fingers in there somewhere. Evil bastard! Give me my 1GHz AltiVec G4 dammit!~
There's also a reverse swastika in Hopi petroglyphs, and in Japan, I think it's a symbol for either good luck or bad luck, but there was a Japanese pokemon card (Gengar, I think) that had this symbol on it, and mothers' groups raised a big stink, not realizing that A: it was a reverse image (the thing spun the other way), and B: it was a Japanese cultural thing, not German.
This is the kind of thing that results from ignorance. If you burn all the Nazi flags, no one will know what a real swastika looked like, then we'll all be ignorant.
There's a great bar in Chicago on North Avenue called "The Exit"
That is a great bar. Ah, the days of my youth. Bud-n-mud. Sex-n-violence night. Gwar concerts. Gigi Allen concerts. That was before it moved to North Avenue tho.
How many times have we heard THIS phrase on/. before?
some recent examples: We need to set up our own domain registrar. We need to buy an island and set up our own free government. We need to do this, we need to do that -
I can see where it comes from - the burden of living in a Microsoft world, well, let's roll our own OS, and escape the hegemony. Too bad it doesn't work that way for everything.
There are some absolutes in the world. The fact is that not everyone in the world will agree on where to draw the censorship line, but I think pretty much everybody agrees that there IS a line that needs to be drawn somewhere (except pedophiles). Maybe everyone needs their own line, or maybe what the world needs is a dictator to take over, and tell everyone where the line IS. Until that happens, this will always be an ugly unresolvable mess, and you can easily see that, as the/. message count rises past the 650 mark. ..
yeah, but a *totalitarian* world government would probably work.
I'm reminded of a joke by Steven Wright. "You can't have everything. Where would you put it?" (and his converse of that idea) "I own the world's largest seashell collection. I keep it proudly displayed on all the beaches."
"I like that fact that I can discover music from ANY artist there."
Unfortunately, as long as the few dishonest people keep up their behavior, and as long as the RIAA companies keep their current business model, where they need to control ownership of the IP to survive, the presence of illegal material threatens the legal stuff.
I think that on many levels this argument is very similar to the gun-control one. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Napster doesn't pirate copywright-protected music. People do. Legislate behavior. NOt tools. This stuff is already illegal, simply enforce the laws that are already on the books!
Yes, I borrowed money for my house, but only because the interest on the loan helps to offset the high taxes I pay.
Unlike other rich folks, I do not begrudge my taxes though. I have enough to live on, and live well. I could make 10 million dollars, and pay 9 million to the government, and still have more money than I know what to do with. As long as the government is doing something productive with the money, I consider it my duty as a fortunate person, to take some burden off of people who make like $20k/yr. I remember those years, and paying taxes sucked when you couldn't afford rent and groceries.
I have forgotten that what I thought was a simple truth when I was younger, was really a lie. That people *can* make it in this country, and that nobody's really opressed. While it's true, that materialism loses it's charm, the things you own tend to own you, I don't forget my roots, and I don't forget who to thank for my good fortune.
Finally, I don't believe in hell. So I will not see you there. For Christians, there is no Rubicon, because you can always turn back.
"On top of this, they're generating more publicity than they've managed to over the last three years in the last month. RIAA wins, MetalliDre gets new publicity, and the attorney walks away with a fat pay cheque. "
too funny, it's making more economical sense to hire a lawyer to generate publicity than a marketing department.
The thing is, that it's all a game of mindshare. Do you think that the average "buy a CD this week with my allowance mommy gave me" teeney-bopper is going to want to keep track of the hundreds of obscure indie garage bands and their psychotically designed websites to download MP3's? At least a very large part of music enjoyment among many people is cultural conformance. Face it. That might not be what tickles the average slashdotter's musical tastes, but I'm talking about the bulk of the market the RIAA is targeting. This is why the music industry narrows the focus, because it's all about mindshare. Mindshare is limited by the mental capacity of the people in the market, and Napster is a tool that allows a person to INCREASE their ability to keep track of a wider variety of artists, what their music sounds like, how to find more of it, etc. Maybe the config file editing geek doesn't need that kind of help, but 300,000 Metallica fans CAN'T be wrong.
I argue that Napster DOES add a great deal of value to the promotion and distribution, not only for independent artists, but for the artists that are supposedly being harmed by the illegal copying. True, a lot of the indie bands that allow free distribution aren't selling their music because, frankly, they can't, they suck. But that is not the reason they don't have big recording contracts with major labels. There are lots and lots of good unsigned bands out there. Who has time to listen to them all? Let's live by the RIAA's model and only listen to the 5 bands they are promoting this week. That's what you're saying.
I contend that if Napster pulled ALL illegal materials from their database, they would definately lose a large chunk of freeloaders. On the other hand, I think that a great indie scene would thrive there. Especially if these bands began to actively exploit it, instead of posting their stuff on their own Netscape-crashing web pages, and hoping people will stumble onto the URL's.
Slashdot Mirror
Sound Scan^Hm
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
I think that quantum methods will be good at solving *some* kinds of problems which are by current methods, computationally prohibitive, so I think we'll start seeing "quantum coprocessors", perhaps as add-in cards at first, and then later, probably on the motherboard, and if technically feasible, on the die with the conventional CPU. The conventional CPU will do the tasks it's good at, and the quantum CPU will take on the problems that the API directs at it.
If it's technically cost-prohibitive to put them on every desktop machine, then we'll probably only be using this technology in a "client-server" capacity, where your internet server will have the quantum coprocessor equipment, and you'll have to submit queries via network, but I think due to the nature of the quantum computer, CPU bandwidthe won't be a limiting factor, it will be I/O, or bandwidth of the network to submit queries and yeild results, which will be the main limiting factor, so these machines will necessarily *not* be on commodity hardware (x86), but rather, very high-end mainframe-type systems that can handle all the I/O from the transactions.
These two scenarios, depend on how easy it is to mass produce these processors, and how expensive they are to integrate, and especially, how widespread the technology is. If one corporation "solves" the problem, and patents it, and if nobody can reverse-engineer it (DMCA), then I'm guessing it's utility (which drives demand) will put the price well out of the reach of most mid-sized corporations, and we'll see a very select few VERY large quantum computation service providers arise, of course, outside of government and research applications.
But since this is still largely theoretical, and I'm just a karma whore, not a quantum computation scientist, there may be processing limitations that I'm not aware of that may figure into how this technology gets utilized.
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
The ironic thing about what you've said is that after CyberDog (unfortunate name) was cancelled, it's die-hard loyal fans wrote an extension to it that replaced the html rendering engine with IE so it would support more modern standards, because CyberDog was left so far in the dust.
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
very well-thought-out, and I agree. The case for leaving IE with the OS is a strong one.
.doc-editor (full-featured word processor) - well, all of MSOS's competitors ship with a bundled office suite, why not us? What about a compiler? Maybe MSOS wants to bundle a compiler with their OS, Linux does it, Sun does it, Mac OS X does it, why can't MSOS? MSAPP will suffer, surely, but in the end, MSOS will end up being the same company MS is now, and the lawyers will be chasing in very expensive circles trying to figure out what the OS company can produce and bundle, and what they can't.
But I also have to state (again) that the case for separating the apps from the OS is a weak one. Every week, the OS company will attempt to come out with a new product proposal that is going to have to get government approval to be included or not. And what are the standards you judge by? MSOS's new
The behavior that needs to be regulated is NOT the tying, but the gestapo tactics, the proprietary protocols and file formats, and the dominance of the OS itself. Break that dominance, and the proprietary protocols and file formats also get broken. There won't be as much of a desire to use those proprietery formats when your main concern is playing nice with the rest of the computing world, which it will be when their marketshare goes below say 50%. Allow any single OS to gain dominance, and they'll do the same exact damn thing.
Now, Sun, Apple, IBM are in a different boat, because they also produce their own hardware, I'm not sure how we create equity there, but for damn sure, MS should NOT be able to bully computer manufacturers with threats backed up by their dominance. To do this, simply force MS to only sell their OS according to a set, fair schedule, eliminate preferential treatment towards Gateway, for example, just because Gateway doesn't sell any machines bundled with Linux or BeOS. Make sure everybody pays the same price, maybe scale it based on volume discounts. And make DAMN sure that Microsoft can't deny licenses.
This remedy gives other players a chance in the x86 market, and eventually, several competing OSes will emerge as real players, and if through careful regulation, no single player can obtain overwhelming dominance to the point where they can weild standards like a club, they'll all be compelled to play nice together, then they'll compete on merits, which is really what we all want, right? Diverse choices, interoperability, competition.
None of that would arise through a split.
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
sigh.
Again. I challenge you (or anyone) to create a meaningful, *maintainable*, definition of "OS", and make the split work in a way that's consistent with the way the rest of the computer industry works.
Otherwise, Corel can't sell Linux, Sun can't sell Solaris, and Apple can't sell MacOS (etc. etc.)
There are better ways to spank this unruly child. A split won't fix the problem, and raises too many sticky issues.
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
Yeah, but without the IE built into Windows crap, how many zillion other companies will start putting serious effort into a browser, now that they know that they have a chance of competing, and all the effort that goes into development won't be wasted when they're quashed by MS.
I'm betting within a year we see a Corel browser (if they don't go tits up), a revival of some kind of Apple browser (maybe Cyberdog for OS X?), and I'm betting, some Adobe monstrosity that replaces HTML with PDF - 'cmon, they've been hinting at it for years. But seriously, I see iCab, Opera, etc, all having a shot at real success once the "obstacle" is removed.
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
This is great! I've been waiting for this day for YEARS! No, not the Microsoft breakup, free links to NYTimes articles without the crappy free registration!
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
They are that expensive, because people with those kinds of needs are willing to pay that much money.
It's the same everywhere, where have you been?
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
I was being facetious, you moron!
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
Well shit, there's always TEMPEST. . .
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
perhaps the BEST thing about this is that the worldwide standard, whatever it ends up being, won't be dictated by Microsoft.
Maybe it's serendipity, maybe it's by design. But damn, it's a good feeling!
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
Waitaminit.
This is EXACTLY the argument that's been used AGAINST Windows all along, that it's monolithic and bloated, too much overhead that can't be configured and optimized out by the user.
yet, what does a single desktop gamer need with multiuser and security? Or even hard-core stability? (for that matter, why does a gamer need a desktop?) Frankly, if the ONLY purpose you have a computer for is gaming, it makes more sense to stick with DOS. Well, actually, PSX - heh.
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
Echelon, IIRC, was between the US, UK, and Australia, and the only proof of abuse was against the French (Airbus?). In any case, I think that the UK has more to gain by dumping the partnership with the US and jumping in with their European partners, rather than staying obtuse.
The UK shares much more economically with other European countries, now that the EU is in force, including their stance on GM foods, which the US predictably doesn't share.
PS - I'm a US citizen. to quote the bumper sticker, "I love my country, but I fear my government."
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
another correction:
Your statement that IBM has PPCs running at faster clock speeds than MOT was a *rumor*. I'm not saying it's true. It's been officially denied, which probably lends it more credibility, but if it's true, the situation is totally wack, and is probably Bill Walker's fault.
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
It's all Bill Walker's fault. Bill Walker (the Motorola GOON who ordered all PPC-based machines tossed out, and replaced with Dell's containing Intel CPUs, running Windows - hows that Love Bug coming along Bill?) has ordered Motorola's engineers to not release 500Mhz or faster chips because that would threaten Intel, and cause his heavily weighted in INTC stock 401k to plummet. Or maybe Andy Grove is giving him blow jobs. Who knows what is going on in Bill Walker's mind. All I know is that he is a servant of evil. I'm not sure how he engineered the IBM split over Altivec, (thus preventing Apple from telling Moto to go jump in a lake, and sourcing solely from IBM), but he has to have his fingers in there somewhere. Evil bastard! Give me my 1GHz AltiVec G4 dammit!~
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
There's also a reverse swastika in Hopi petroglyphs, and in Japan, I think it's a symbol for either good luck or bad luck, but there was a Japanese pokemon card (Gengar, I think) that had this symbol on it, and mothers' groups raised a big stink, not realizing that A: it was a reverse image (the thing spun the other way), and B: it was a Japanese cultural thing, not German.
This is the kind of thing that results from ignorance. If you burn all the Nazi flags, no one will know what a real swastika looked like, then we'll all be ignorant.
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
There's a great bar in Chicago on North Avenue called "The Exit"
That is a great bar. Ah, the days of my youth. Bud-n-mud. Sex-n-violence night. Gwar concerts. Gigi Allen concerts. That was before it moved to North Avenue tho.
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
What we need to do. . .
/. before?
/. message count rises past the 650 mark. . .
How many times have we heard THIS phrase on
some recent examples:
We need to set up our own domain registrar.
We need to buy an island and set up our own free government.
We need to do this,
we need to do that -
I can see where it comes from - the burden of living in a Microsoft world, well, let's roll our own OS, and escape the hegemony.
Too bad it doesn't work that way for everything.
There are some absolutes in the world. The fact is that not everyone in the world will agree on where to draw the censorship line, but I think pretty much everybody agrees that there IS a line that needs to be drawn somewhere (except pedophiles). Maybe everyone needs their own line, or maybe what the world needs is a dictator to take over, and tell everyone where the line IS. Until that happens, this will always be an ugly unresolvable mess, and you can easily see that, as the
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
i dunno, any country that allows boobs on TV is okay with me.
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
yeah, but a *totalitarian* world government would probably work.
I'm reminded of a joke by Steven Wright.
"You can't have everything. Where would you put it?"
(and his converse of that idea)
"I own the world's largest seashell collection. I keep it proudly displayed on all the beaches."
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
"I like that fact that I can discover music from ANY artist there."
Unfortunately, as long as the few dishonest people keep up their behavior, and as long as the RIAA companies keep their current business model, where they need to control ownership of the IP to survive, the presence of illegal material threatens the legal stuff.
I think that on many levels this argument is very similar to the gun-control one. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Napster doesn't pirate copywright-protected music. People do. Legislate behavior. NOt tools. This stuff is already illegal, simply enforce the laws that are already on the books!
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
I owe nothing.
Yes, I borrowed money for my house, but only because the interest on the loan helps to offset the high taxes I pay.
Unlike other rich folks, I do not begrudge my taxes though. I have enough to live on, and live well. I could make 10 million dollars, and pay 9 million to the government, and still have more money than I know what to do with. As long as the government is doing something productive with the money, I consider it my duty as a fortunate person, to take some burden off of people who make like $20k/yr. I remember those years, and paying taxes sucked when you couldn't afford rent and groceries.
I have forgotten that what I thought was a simple truth when I was younger, was really a lie. That people *can* make it in this country, and that nobody's really opressed. While it's true, that materialism loses it's charm, the things you own tend to own you, I don't forget my roots, and I don't forget who to thank for my good fortune.
Finally, I don't believe in hell. So I will not see you there. For Christians, there is no Rubicon, because you can always turn back.
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
"On top of this, they're generating more publicity than they've managed to over the last three
years in the last month. RIAA wins, MetalliDre gets new publicity, and the attorney walks away
with a fat pay cheque. "
too funny, it's making more economical sense to hire a lawyer to generate publicity than a marketing department.
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
The thing is, that it's all a game of mindshare. Do you think that the average "buy a CD this week with my allowance mommy gave me" teeney-bopper is going to want to keep track of the hundreds of obscure indie garage bands and their psychotically designed websites to download MP3's? At least a very large part of music enjoyment among many people is cultural conformance. Face it. That might not be what tickles the average slashdotter's musical tastes, but I'm talking about the bulk of the market the RIAA is targeting. This is why the music industry narrows the focus, because it's all about mindshare. Mindshare is limited by the mental capacity of the people in the market, and Napster is a tool that allows a person to INCREASE their ability to keep track of a wider variety of artists, what their music sounds like, how to find more of it, etc. Maybe the config file editing geek doesn't need that kind of help, but 300,000 Metallica fans CAN'T be wrong.
I argue that Napster DOES add a great deal of value to the promotion and distribution, not only for independent artists, but for the artists that are supposedly being harmed by the illegal copying.
True, a lot of the indie bands that allow free distribution aren't selling their music because, frankly, they can't, they suck. But that is not the reason they don't have big recording contracts with major labels. There are lots and lots of good unsigned bands out there. Who has time to listen to them all? Let's live by the RIAA's model and only listen to the 5 bands they are promoting this week. That's what you're saying.
I contend that if Napster pulled ALL illegal materials from their database, they would definately lose a large chunk of freeloaders. On the other hand, I think that a great indie scene would thrive there. Especially if these bands began to actively exploit it, instead of posting their stuff on their own Netscape-crashing web pages, and hoping people will stumble onto the URL's.
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
I'm hiding my Nazi war-criminal because he's an absolute WIZ at keeping my vintage porsche running.
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .