Go onto irc.openprojects.net, #nvidia. I found this to be an excellent source of technical support for my problems. They have nVidia staff online to help you out.
Signing up to help the Berlin guys would be difficult; getting up to speed with them would require more than good C++ knowledge. You also need to know CORBA really well, and the implementation of that standard they are using.
All that needs to be done is to define a standardised interface for kernel hardware drivers. Something that Linus and co are quite capable of doing. I even heard a *rumour* once that a universal kernel driver system was in development; a system which would allow the same kernel module to be used in both Windows and Linux. This should be possible, since what does a kernel module need? Direct access to the hardware though IO ports, DMA, and the PCI bus. Also a way of interfacing with the rest of the driver code; the rest of the driver code provides the API for the applications. If it was possible to share driver code across platforms, it would certainly save development time on the part of the manufacturers.
Those phaser thingies would make paint-balling much more fun.
Mahahahahahaaaaaa. >:-)
Seriously though, it would be great for law enforcement; no more having to worry (too much) about hitting innocent civilians, provided that it doesn't hurt too much.
The article about how genetic algorithm managed to evolve a very fast sorting algo is very interesting. But is this necessarily good? Computers and machines have often been used to replace humans because machines are cheaper. Will they end up replacing programmers some day? Will these developments affect the career opportunities of programmers in the near future or distant future? I was under the impression that a computer career was a safe bet. =)
I kinda agree. Unlicensed software? Yes it can be free, but it would be unprotected; anyone could steal it and then try to sell it as their own; closed source, no 'piracy' and all that. The whole purpose of a license is to protect the software and the programmer; at least thats the way I see it.
For me, Quake or 3D rendering (ie Lightwave) benchmarks have often served as quite a good benchmark. (but I guess that has something to do with the fact that I am a 3D nerd, and that is what I care about most when considering hardware =) I would like to see Quake3 or Lightwave results of P3/K7/G4 all side by side. G4s of course run at much less MHz than their x86 counterparts, in which case price would also be an interesting factor. I will certainly be interested in the RioRed (from Silicon Fruit) when it comes out (mobo designed for dual G4, running Yellowdog Linux). That would give me more choice as to what hardware I have in my machine. I get the impression that their isn't much choice with a G4 Mac: I want a 3d accel that is faster than a Rage128, which, I believe, is what you get in a Mac; hardly a match for the mighty G4 CPU!
I am not sure this system would contribute to loss of privacy. From what I can make of the article, it is just a motion tracker. It wont pick your face out of a crowd and alert someone. It is already possible to monitor people with hidden cameras. This system could only track someone's movements. What happens when the target turns around, obscuring his/her face, or whatever part was being tracked? Will it compensate by locking onto a different part of the object/person? What happens if the target becomes obscured? I guess it could be used to follow someone walking down an empty street. The article makes this system sound very capable, but it would be desirable for it to be able to compensate for the above problems (I doubt it would be able to deal with all of those mentioned) for it to be useful to follow someone automatically, anywhere they go.
If it is really capable of what the designers are claiming, it will be really cool. Lets just hope the military or the government don't go and buy it up; if they did, it would disappear from the public domain completely, and forever.
As was stated in this article, we often find ourselves having to work within the bounds of the industry; possibly using tactics similar to theirs, but for our causes. Perhaps a method of working around the software patents problem would be for the FSF to obtain and hold patents for new algorithms and software invented within the opensource community that need to be protected. The FSF would obtain these patents, and then allow OpenSource hackers to use them (obviously). They would then step on the big corporations should they attempt to profit from using the intellectual property. I don't know much about law, so I am unsure of how feasible this idea is, but the problem I see with this idea is the part that involves selectively slamming down on certain organizations, but not others. Overall I do think algorithm and software patents are silly, and should be chucked out of the window ASAP. This idea could be the next best thing, should getting rid of software patents prove to be unfeasible within a reasonable time period. There are always the classic methods (demonstrations, letters to politicians, etc) of getting things changed, but I get the impression that most politicians care more about big corporations than people like us, so some of these methods may not work so well in the future, especially on a matter as big as patent law. It is very heartwarming to hear of the success of the Etoys vs Etoy matter, however, it only involved one big corporation. Similar domain names, is a rather trivial matter when compared to some of the obstacles we are and will be facing in the future. As a result, the OpenSource community will need to look into and research other means to our ends.
Slashdot Mirror
Go onto irc.openprojects.net, #nvidia. I found this to be an excellent source of technical support for my problems. They have nVidia staff online to help you out.
Signing up to help the Berlin guys would be difficult; getting up to speed with them would require more than good C++ knowledge. You also need to know CORBA really well, and the implementation of that standard they are using.
All that needs to be done is to define a standardised interface for kernel hardware drivers. Something that Linus and co are quite capable of doing.
I even heard a *rumour* once that a universal kernel driver system was in development; a system which would allow the same kernel module to be used in both Windows and Linux. This should be possible, since what does a kernel module need? Direct access to the hardware though IO ports, DMA, and the PCI bus. Also a way of interfacing with the rest of the driver code; the rest of the driver code provides the API for the applications.
If it was possible to share driver code across platforms, it would certainly save development time on the part of the manufacturers.
Just my 2 cents.
- Mr. Meanie
Those phaser thingies would make paint-balling much more fun.
Mahahahahahaaaaaa. >:-)
Seriously though, it would be great for law enforcement; no more having to worry (too much) about hitting innocent civilians, provided that it doesn't hurt too much.
The article about how genetic algorithm managed to evolve a very fast sorting algo is very interesting. But is this necessarily good? Computers and machines have often been used to replace humans because machines are cheaper. Will they end up replacing programmers some day? Will these developments affect the career opportunities of programmers in the near future or distant future? I was under the impression that a computer career was a safe bet. =)
I kinda agree. Unlicensed software? Yes it can be free, but it would be unprotected; anyone could steal it and then try to sell it as their own; closed source, no 'piracy' and all that. The whole purpose of a license is to protect the software and the programmer; at least thats the way I see it.
For me, Quake or 3D rendering (ie Lightwave) benchmarks have often served as quite a good benchmark. (but I guess that has something to do with the fact that I am a 3D nerd, and that is what I care about most when considering hardware =) I would like to see Quake3 or Lightwave results of P3/K7/G4 all side by side. G4s of course run at much less MHz than their x86 counterparts, in which case price would also be an interesting factor.
I will certainly be interested in the RioRed (from Silicon Fruit) when it comes out (mobo designed for dual G4, running Yellowdog Linux). That would give me more choice as to what hardware I have in my machine. I get the impression that their isn't much choice with a G4 Mac: I want a 3d accel that is faster than a Rage128, which, I believe, is what you get in a Mac; hardly a match for the mighty G4 CPU!
I am not sure this system would contribute to loss of privacy. From what I can make of the article, it is just a motion tracker. It wont pick your face out of a crowd and alert someone.
It is already possible to monitor people with hidden cameras. This system could only track someone's movements.
What happens when the target turns around, obscuring his/her face, or whatever part was being tracked? Will it compensate by locking onto a different part of the object/person? What happens if the target becomes obscured?
I guess it could be used to follow someone walking down an empty street.
The article makes this system sound very capable, but it would be desirable for it to be able to compensate for the above problems (I doubt it would be able to deal with all of those mentioned) for it to be useful to follow someone automatically, anywhere they go.
If it is really capable of what the designers are claiming, it will be really cool.
Lets just hope the military or the government don't go and buy it up; if they did, it would disappear from the public domain completely, and forever.
As was stated in this article, we often find ourselves having to work within the bounds of the industry; possibly using tactics similar to theirs, but for our causes.
Perhaps a method of working around the software patents problem would be for the FSF to obtain and hold patents for new algorithms and software invented within the opensource community that need to be protected.
The FSF would obtain these patents, and then allow OpenSource hackers to use them (obviously). They would then step on the big corporations should they attempt to profit from using the intellectual property.
I don't know much about law, so I am unsure of how feasible this idea is, but the problem I see with this idea is the part that involves selectively slamming down on certain organizations, but not others.
Overall I do think algorithm and software patents are silly, and should be chucked out of the window ASAP. This idea could be the next best thing, should getting rid of software patents prove to be unfeasible within a reasonable time period.
There are always the classic methods (demonstrations, letters to politicians, etc) of getting things changed, but I get the impression that most politicians care more about big corporations than people like us, so some of these methods may not work so well in the future, especially on a matter as big as patent law.
It is very heartwarming to hear of the success of the Etoys vs Etoy matter, however, it only involved one big corporation. Similar domain names, is a rather trivial matter when compared to some of the obstacles we are and will be facing in the future. As a result, the OpenSource community will need to look into and research other means to our ends.