A Fuel cell, if I am not mistaken, is a device for storing hydrogen and extracting electricity from hydrogen once stored.
However the linked article talks about "fuel cells", but then talks about this "fuel cell" as producing hydrogen-- as if for some kind of process that would be used to produce hydrogen for use in fuel cells.
Is the autovectorization (for altivec) also present in Apple's version of GCC4? How does the autovectorization interact with code which already contains veclib calls, if at all?
The fact remains that many people would go to the cinemas if they weren't that pricey and anally-retentive about food and so on. And don't get me started on cell phones.
Personally I stopped going to movies sometime last year despite an unusually high number of movies I really want to see just because the industry seems to be going absolutely out of their way to make it the most unpleasant experience possible. I get bombarded by advertisements from the instant I first enter the theatre-- instead of getting a brief peaceful quiet before the movie starts they now blast explosions and ads at you just to make absolutely sure your nerves are shot by the time the movie starts-- and then even once things start I have to wait through five to fifteen more minutes of commercials before the previews start, and then probably see a smarmy, lying MPAA "DON'T PIRATE FILMS OR WE'LL SHOOT THIS RANDOM STAGEHAND" short.
Ugh. Paying several times the cost of a rental, I don't mind, as movies really are better watched on the big screen and in a group environment, and I can just ignore the consession stand's existence. But at this point they've finally broken me. I'm just going to stick with paying that fraction of ticket prices that a rental costs, and watch it at home where it's nice and quiet and there aren't any commercials, any at all.
I've never so much as considered attempting to download a movie. The amount of effort that goes into pirating such things when you could just drive to a video store and pay a very reasonable couple of bucks boggles my mind. But honestly, at this point I'm inclined to just start pirating movies in bulk without even ever watching a single one of them, just for the purpose of distributing them to others. The movie industry feels like their customers are insidious little criminals out to destroy them? Well fine. Then I want to actually start acting like one.
They shit on the laws of my country, I start shitting on them. It's the least they deserve.
Unless I am mistaken Sony stole Square away from Nintendo by paying them a TON of money to making Playstation and then PS2 only games. In the end Square wound up back with Nintendo and making good RPGs for Gamecube, or so I hear.
As far as I can tell it was more that Nintendo drove Square away by literally gouging them on cartridge manufacturing prices, not catering to any of their needs, not making any attempt to keep them, and basically just acting like Square needed Nintendo not the other way around. (Nintendo had some very haughty management previous to the N64, and this is the main reason they're in the trouble they're in today.)
But whatever.
I would be extremely cautious to compare anything to Sega at all. For one thing Sega's fall out of the hardware market has more to do with consistently truly incompetent management than any real market force. For another thing I think Nintendo can see as well as anyone else that though Sega's irrelevance as a hardware publisher began years before the dreamcast, their irrelivance as a software publisher didn't begin until the dreamcast died. Nintendo's strategy for "keeping afloat" is to simply make more money than they spend, and their console platforms are the bigger part of how they do that.
Since Nintendo's actually (1) making online games now, which will be out this year for the DS and (2) touting the online as an actual serious builtin feature of the N5 rather than just making vague comments and releasing a peripheral too late for it to make any difference, I think it is safe to say things will work differently this time.
That is to say, this time they're actually backing up the marketing with at least something substantial.
"This year's E3 is not Revolution's coming out party."
Which is not at all the same as what the article is saying, which is that the Revolution will not be shown at all.
Here's what Reggie Fils-Aime said in an interview the same month as the single no-context quote CNN provides, which makes what he meant more clear (emphasis is mine):
1UP: Any clue as to how big Revolution's presence will be at E3?
RFA: Revolution will have a major presence in our presentations, but it will not be accessible on the show floor. It's too early. But there might be some key, selected folks who will have an opportunity to see what we've got going on. I suspect you folks will have some representation. But what we will be doing at E3 this year is sharing our vision for Revolution.
(Or, maybe the "Revolution" will be that Nintendo decides that online gaming is a pretty good idea, what with Microsoft and that whole "Live" thing. ^_^)
So I think that to an extent letting Sony and Microsoft have a marketing catfight and then just wowing people with the actual product once it's ready is a good strategy.
But I think this would be a very very stupid idea. An idea stupid enough I wouldn't even think Nintendo would do it. This would go beyond "not going up against Microsoft and Sony's huge marketing budget and hype" and right into the realm of "not going up against Microsoft and Sony in the video console business at all". The result wouldn't be that people would look past Sony and Microsoft's hype and patiently wait for the N5 announcements; the result would be that people would listen to Sony and Microsoft's hype, conclude that the next generation console war will be between Microsoft and Sony only, and ignore whatever Nintendo does five months later as irrelevant.
Nintendo can get away with simply presenting their product to the public but not starting their marketing in earnest until Sony and Microsoft's marketing E3 marketing blitzes have died down. They can't get away with just failing to present the product at all. They've been talking about it too long and the expectations on them are too high.
Because slashdot just absolutely has to print every single rumor without ever once actually saying the rumor is offered without basis...
Nintendo has said multiple times that they will be unveiling the Revolution at E3. They've given warnings along the lines that it may be at an early stage, or that it won't be playable, or that some of the demos may be behind-closed-doors, at E3. But they at least have said they'll be showing it. And this has been said by Nintendo representatives, speaking on the record.
So, what's the source for this article slashdot links, which is saying it won't be?
"Reports". From "Japan".
You'll excuse me if I take repeated statements by official persons speaking for Nintendo more seriously than "reports from Japan".
They developed the file formats, so they own the intellectual property.
Of course, after they developed the file formats they violated United States antitrust law and were found guilty, and in lieu of sentencing agreed to a settlement which (in spirit, even if it contains many loopholes in letter) stipulated they must open up for use by the public the file formats, APIs, etc, which they own.
If I use code that's licensed under the GPL, I have to agree to the terms of the GPL, yes?
No.
From the GPL:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope.
If by "use" you mean "redistribute" then things are more complex, but since at the moment you are trying to compare the GPL to a contract which must be signed in order merely to read a certain document, there does not seem to be any reason to focus on redistribution unless you are trying to change the subject and/or create an aimless flamewar.
A legally binding contractual agreement which you must sign in order to read a document and which restricts both your behavior and what you may do with the information contained in the document is in no way similar to a license attached to a document which says "if you wish to make copies of this document and distribute them to others you must satisfy certain conditions, if you cannot meet these conditions then do not redistribute this document".
Similarly signing an employment contract with the company you work for is not "basically the same" as the "All rights reserved." notice printed on a compact disc you buy.
Gee, I didn't hear people complaining when they opened the source to Open Office, their grid control, or any number of other things.
Yes. In fact, one would not have heard complaining about those things. In fact one would have generally noticed they were welcomed quite enthusiastically.
Yet people seem to be complaining about the CDDL releases quite a lot.
Do you think this maybe might indicate there is some sort of difference between the two situations?
My macintosh is getting quite old and it has dual g4s. Apple found that adding processors is sometimes a more cost-effective way to attain power than just ratcheting up clockrate a long time ago. If you look on store.apple.com you'll find that every single desktop apple sells right now except the iMacs and the lowest level desktop has dual processors.
There is not any really coherent reason to go to dual cores from this point. I am not a definative source on the subject, but from what I see dual core configs are generally a step down from dual proc configs because they must contend for whatever resources are shared instead of duplicated. The only reason to go with dual core over dual proc-- besides things like chip-to-chip communication that I haven't seen real-world use of yet and don't expect to see in significant ways-- is because it's cheaper, and it simplifies what is expected of the motherboard. Neither of these matter to Apple. They are not a low-cost solution and they design their own motherboards (and they get a lot of mileage out of this-- a big part of what makes the G5 so good is that it's got a fairly intelligently designed bus. Wouldn't a dual core G5 config force the cores to share the bus instead of getting their own lines? If so, that would be bad.).
If Apple wanted to sell multiple core computers they could have-- and would have-- done this years and years ago. There have been rumblings about multiple core PPCs working in the lab since before the G4; IBM has done multicore on the POWERs for awhile. Apple hasn't gone with this. I'm assuming at this point they just aren't interested. Maybe they'll decide to use dual core configs if they ever start to do multiprocessor laptops, but other than that, the only reason to care about dual core chips in a laptop is that they're more buzzword compatible.
Personally I'm just bemusedly looking at this dual core thing as the windows world discovering something that my old-ass mac has always had as if it's the most new and amazing thing in the world. (Of course, I'm not saying dual processor configs are at all new in the PC world either.)
Isn't this pretty much exactly what aol and similar "internet enhancer" software has been doing for years?
Other posters who were observing this kind of rewriting technique might be ideal for cell phones or pdas or whatnot are on to something, I think, but I don't expect this will really be at all popular among the "developing world" people they're intending it for.
Think about it: Which would you prefer, the webpages you see now but loading kind of slowly, or webpages that load a bit quicker but look like crap? The former sounds like a much better deal to me at least. Now, think: If people in the first world wouldn't put up with having the internet dumbed down to make webpages load quicker, why would people in the third world?
Anyway, it's too bad the service got slashdotted. It would be interesting to try this on webpages with poorly coded or noncompliant HTML and see if it cleans them up any.
However, mainstream 3-D technology is limited in terms of the viewing angle at which it can display 3-D images, and the images are also tiring to view.
Toshiba's new displays employ an integral imaging system that reproduces light beams similar of those produced by a real object, not its visual representation.
But that's all they say. How does this work? Are they somehow able to emit light waves going out at every point from a flat surface, so that you see a 3D object with correct perspective no matter which direction you look at it from? I guess that isn't that unrealistic; I mean, mirrors do exactly that. But how does it work?
Is this for real or are they just being overenthusiastic in their own press releases?
Slashdot Mirror
A Fuel cell, if I am not mistaken, is a device for storing hydrogen and extracting electricity from hydrogen once stored.
However the linked article talks about "fuel cells", but then talks about this "fuel cell" as producing hydrogen-- as if for some kind of process that would be used to produce hydrogen for use in fuel cells.
What am I missing here?
So chances are you wouldn't have to put up with the smell too long, before you ... die horribly
Well, the point is, you've stopped moving, right?
Well then.
CYROSTASIS WORKS!
Is the autovectorization (for altivec) also present in Apple's version of GCC4? How does the autovectorization interact with code which already contains veclib calls, if at all?
I totally want to set up a web server there and illegally distribute Windows ISOs from there, just so I can be charged with Piracy on the High Seas
Think you're confusing it with BSD.
No, BSD is legal, but merely frowned upon in our current sexually repressive culture.
Just remember to use a safeword.
Wait, wait. You think I was seriously going to do it? Hell no, do you have any idea how much work that would be?
The fact remains that many people would go to the cinemas if they weren't that pricey and anally-retentive about food and so on. And don't get me started on cell phones.
Personally I stopped going to movies sometime last year despite an unusually high number of movies I really want to see just because the industry seems to be going absolutely out of their way to make it the most unpleasant experience possible. I get bombarded by advertisements from the instant I first enter the theatre-- instead of getting a brief peaceful quiet before the movie starts they now blast explosions and ads at you just to make absolutely sure your nerves are shot by the time the movie starts-- and then even once things start I have to wait through five to fifteen more minutes of commercials before the previews start, and then probably see a smarmy, lying MPAA "DON'T PIRATE FILMS OR WE'LL SHOOT THIS RANDOM STAGEHAND" short.
Ugh. Paying several times the cost of a rental, I don't mind, as movies really are better watched on the big screen and in a group environment, and I can just ignore the consession stand's existence. But at this point they've finally broken me. I'm just going to stick with paying that fraction of ticket prices that a rental costs, and watch it at home where it's nice and quiet and there aren't any commercials, any at all.
Otherwise, why even pirate this crap?
I've never so much as considered attempting to download a movie. The amount of effort that goes into pirating such things when you could just drive to a video store and pay a very reasonable couple of bucks boggles my mind. But honestly, at this point I'm inclined to just start pirating movies in bulk without even ever watching a single one of them, just for the purpose of distributing them to others. The movie industry feels like their customers are insidious little criminals out to destroy them? Well fine. Then I want to actually start acting like one.
They shit on the laws of my country, I start shitting on them. It's the least they deserve.
Unless I am mistaken Sony stole Square away from Nintendo by paying them a TON of money to making Playstation and then PS2 only games. In the end Square wound up back with Nintendo and making good RPGs for Gamecube, or so I hear.
As far as I can tell it was more that Nintendo drove Square away by literally gouging them on cartridge manufacturing prices, not catering to any of their needs, not making any attempt to keep them, and basically just acting like Square needed Nintendo not the other way around. (Nintendo had some very haughty management previous to the N64, and this is the main reason they're in the trouble they're in today.)
But whatever.
I would be extremely cautious to compare anything to Sega at all. For one thing Sega's fall out of the hardware market has more to do with consistently truly incompetent management than any real market force. For another thing I think Nintendo can see as well as anyone else that though Sega's irrelevance as a hardware publisher began years before the dreamcast, their irrelivance as a software publisher didn't begin until the dreamcast died. Nintendo's strategy for "keeping afloat" is to simply make more money than they spend, and their console platforms are the bigger part of how they do that.
Since Nintendo's actually (1) making online games now, which will be out this year for the DS and (2) touting the online as an actual serious builtin feature of the N5 rather than just making vague comments and releasing a peripheral too late for it to make any difference, I think it is safe to say things will work differently this time.
That is to say, this time they're actually backing up the marketing with at least something substantial.
Which is not at all the same as what the article is saying, which is that the Revolution will not be shown at all.
Here's what Reggie Fils-Aime said in an interview the same month as the single no-context quote CNN provides, which makes what he meant more clear (emphasis is mine):
(Or, maybe the "Revolution" will be that Nintendo decides that online gaming is a pretty good idea, what with Microsoft and that whole "Live" thing. ^_^)
Nintendo has already publicly announced that the Revolution will utilize internet gameplay via built-in wi-fi. So whatever the gimmick on the Revolution is, it's something else.
So I think that to an extent letting Sony and Microsoft have a marketing catfight and then just wowing people with the actual product once it's ready is a good strategy.
But I think this would be a very very stupid idea. An idea stupid enough I wouldn't even think Nintendo would do it. This would go beyond "not going up against Microsoft and Sony's huge marketing budget and hype" and right into the realm of "not going up against Microsoft and Sony in the video console business at all". The result wouldn't be that people would look past Sony and Microsoft's hype and patiently wait for the N5 announcements; the result would be that people would listen to Sony and Microsoft's hype, conclude that the next generation console war will be between Microsoft and Sony only, and ignore whatever Nintendo does five months later as irrelevant.
Nintendo can get away with simply presenting their product to the public but not starting their marketing in earnest until Sony and Microsoft's marketing E3 marketing blitzes have died down. They can't get away with just failing to present the product at all. They've been talking about it too long and the expectations on them are too high.
But of course this among other reasons is why I believe this slashdot article is 100% wrong.
Because slashdot just absolutely has to print every single rumor without ever once actually saying the rumor is offered without basis...
Nintendo has said multiple times that they will be unveiling the Revolution at E3. They've given warnings along the lines that it may be at an early stage, or that it won't be playable, or that some of the demos may be behind-closed-doors, at E3. But they at least have said they'll be showing it. And this has been said by Nintendo representatives, speaking on the record.
So, what's the source for this article slashdot links, which is saying it won't be?
"Reports". From "Japan".
You'll excuse me if I take repeated statements by official persons speaking for Nintendo more seriously than "reports from Japan".
They developed the file formats, so they own the intellectual property.
Of course, after they developed the file formats they violated United States antitrust law and were found guilty, and in lieu of sentencing agreed to a settlement which (in spirit, even if it contains many loopholes in letter) stipulated they must open up for use by the public the file formats, APIs, etc, which they own.
But, y'know, little niggling details.
No.
From the GPL:If by "use" you mean "redistribute" then things are more complex, but since at the moment you are trying to compare the GPL to a contract which must be signed in order merely to read a certain document, there does not seem to be any reason to focus on redistribution unless you are trying to change the subject and/or create an aimless flamewar.
No.
A legally binding contractual agreement which you must sign in order to read a document and which restricts both your behavior and what you may do with the information contained in the document is in no way similar to a license attached to a document which says "if you wish to make copies of this document and distribute them to others you must satisfy certain conditions, if you cannot meet these conditions then do not redistribute this document".
Similarly signing an employment contract with the company you work for is not "basically the same" as the "All rights reserved." notice printed on a compact disc you buy.
Have a nice day.
Gee, I didn't hear people complaining when they opened the source to Open Office, their grid control, or any number of other things.
Yes. In fact, one would not have heard complaining about those things. In fact one would have generally noticed they were welcomed quite enthusiastically.
Yet people seem to be complaining about the CDDL releases quite a lot.
Do you think this maybe might indicate there is some sort of difference between the two situations?
Logging in is REALLY hard to sell
OS X seems to do okay with it. Of course, they still have a default user when the computer switches on.
OS X of course doesn't even have a root user. As in, there's no root account. There are only accounts which happen to have sudo access.
Yes, there is - all the benefits of dual processors (for 99% of cases) at the same price level as a single processor machine.
So, um, is silicon free now?
It certainly sounds like you are.
Well, it is not my fault if you wish to imagine meaning in my post rather than reading what I said.
My macintosh is getting quite old and it has dual g4s. Apple found that adding processors is sometimes a more cost-effective way to attain power than just ratcheting up clockrate a long time ago. If you look on store.apple.com you'll find that every single desktop apple sells right now except the iMacs and the lowest level desktop has dual processors.
There is not any really coherent reason to go to dual cores from this point. I am not a definative source on the subject, but from what I see dual core configs are generally a step down from dual proc configs because they must contend for whatever resources are shared instead of duplicated. The only reason to go with dual core over dual proc-- besides things like chip-to-chip communication that I haven't seen real-world use of yet and don't expect to see in significant ways-- is because it's cheaper, and it simplifies what is expected of the motherboard. Neither of these matter to Apple. They are not a low-cost solution and they design their own motherboards (and they get a lot of mileage out of this-- a big part of what makes the G5 so good is that it's got a fairly intelligently designed bus. Wouldn't a dual core G5 config force the cores to share the bus instead of getting their own lines? If so, that would be bad.).
If Apple wanted to sell multiple core computers they could have-- and would have-- done this years and years ago. There have been rumblings about multiple core PPCs working in the lab since before the G4; IBM has done multicore on the POWERs for awhile. Apple hasn't gone with this. I'm assuming at this point they just aren't interested. Maybe they'll decide to use dual core configs if they ever start to do multiprocessor laptops, but other than that, the only reason to care about dual core chips in a laptop is that they're more buzzword compatible.
Personally I'm just bemusedly looking at this dual core thing as the windows world discovering something that my old-ass mac has always had as if it's the most new and amazing thing in the world. (Of course, I'm not saying dual processor configs are at all new in the PC world either.)
Isn't this pretty much exactly what aol and similar "internet enhancer" software has been doing for years?
Other posters who were observing this kind of rewriting technique might be ideal for cell phones or pdas or whatnot are on to something, I think, but I don't expect this will really be at all popular among the "developing world" people they're intending it for.
Think about it: Which would you prefer, the webpages you see now but loading kind of slowly, or webpages that load a bit quicker but look like crap? The former sounds like a much better deal to me at least. Now, think: If people in the first world wouldn't put up with having the internet dumbed down to make webpages load quicker, why would people in the third world?
Anyway, it's too bad the service got slashdotted. It would be interesting to try this on webpages with poorly coded or noncompliant HTML and see if it cleans them up any.
However, mainstream 3-D technology is limited in terms of the viewing angle at which it can display 3-D images, and the images are also tiring to view.
Toshiba's new displays employ an integral imaging system that reproduces light beams similar of those produced by a real object, not its visual representation.
But that's all they say. How does this work? Are they somehow able to emit light waves going out at every point from a flat surface, so that you see a 3D object with correct perspective no matter which direction you look at it from? I guess that isn't that unrealistic; I mean, mirrors do exactly that. But how does it work?
Is this for real or are they just being overenthusiastic in their own press releases?
But the RIAA isn't a law enforcement authority
Yet
That'll do it, yeah