Intel *deliberately* makes the 32 bit code grudgingly work *just* good enough that stupid people will be able to read their propaganda, buy the chip, and then not be disappointed by its performance because they don't know better.
Then, after enough people have bought in on it, app manufacturers are all going to write 64 bit code (which DOES go a hell of a lot faster). Why would they write programs for a deminishing base of 32 bit users, when the performance on any new processor will be abysmal? Besides, "64 bit" sounds so much better in marketing literature.
Pretty soon, you can only get Windows in a 64-bit version...
And pretty soon, AMD is left out in the cold. How tragic.
... is non-Qwerty keyboards, 28 day months, metric time, metric units AT ALL in the US, GMT to be the standard way to talk about (our new metric) time, a resolution to the reply-to munging debate, ipv6 in some reasonable amount of time, cheap reliable broadband, an end to the telecom company monopolies, a wireless web pad that I don't have to sell a kidney for, HDTV coverage, a truly fair presidential election in the US by the condorcet method, world peace, a cure for cancer, a cure for HIV, a standard way to identify the identity of an individual, an end to Social Security extortion, and justice and liberty for all.
While the knee-jerk reaction is to love the idea of $50 broadband, keep something in mind - Your service quality IS going to suffer. For $50 a month, an ISP has to be very thrifty about how it spends money on you. $50 a month doesn't leave them much room for providing the extras you love - Non-dynamic IP addresses, a router instead of a bridge, web hosting, IP blocks, off-hours customer service, enough of a backbone to support that many high speed users. How would you like to have the option of 384k DSL - with no option to upgrade, even if you were willing to pay more?
I pay a lot more than $50 for my home network, and I'm not mad about a single dime I spend on it. Even though I pay several times that, I have had rock-solid 1.5Mb service for the past couple years, a maximum of 2 hours to resolution on all support cases I've opened (excluding things they couldn't fix, like a telco fiber cut), a routed/24 network, and tech support that takes me seriously when I tell them that there really is a problem, and has *never* tried to tell me that it's because I'm running Unix.
Is that worth the $350 a month we pay for it? For us, absolutely. Would I want to trade to have $50 384k asymetrical dynamic IP dumbass customer service DSL? NEVER. That's why I don't have a Pac Bell DSL line. $50 service may be fine for your average Joe Schmoe Windows-box user who just wants to web surf on a halfway decent connection and play some net games, but there are some of us who want more.
OK, I'm done going off.:-)
I *am* in favor of pushing the telco's around to upgrade their infrastructure so that good service is available everywhere. But I'm not going to say that they have to do it under a certain price cap - It's going to cost them money. You get what you pay for, and I'm willing to pay for what I get.
In order to leave Earth orbit, you have to hit escape velocity. That's a lot faster than Mir is currently going. Slowing it enough to hit the atmosphere requires a lot less juice.
If you don't push it away hard enough, it'll just go into an elliptical orbit.
FYI, the ping times cited - around 400 ms - are going to be true of ANY satellite connection. This is due to the fact that we currently don't have a way to send data faster than the speed of light. The article makes it sound as if this is a drawback of this particular service. It's not. It's a drawback of satellites.
All I can think is, "Hey, look, extra money laying around! Yay! We made it! We're not going to sink along with the dot coms! Quick, pay people more before they disappear."
I think they're worried that the federal workers are going to realize their stock options are worth nothing and jump ship for someplace more profitable.:-)
One good reason not to do this is money. He specified that cost *was* an issue; this is in an academic environment that probably doesn't have extensive funding. Scrounging another computer to be a file server - let alone good quality tape drives and the like to back it up - won't be easy.
This isn't a computer problem, fellas... It's a basic problem with the security in your company.
Let's see. You put your company's soul into a little box. It's really important stuff, and you don't want the bad guys to get it. So, what's a good place to store it?
A) Stick it right dead center on the desk of one of the fanciest offices in the building, which is clearly marked on the door as "Guy Who Has Great Information to Steal".
B) Get a good, solid safe, bolt it into the building, and keep your treasured secrets in it.
This isn't a technological problem. As far as laptops go, sure, good crypto can help you, but not all sensitive data lives on a laptop. You need a plan to deal with data - generically - to protect it.
If your data is really valuable, here are some more tips off the top of my mind:
Good solid locks on the doors of the office
Security cameras monitoring the areas where sensitive information lives
A night-shift security guard. (Is it worth $35k/year to have a guy camp your building at night, to save this lifeblood of your company from being stolen?
It's just common sense, guys. You don't need whiz-bang software to fix this problem.
What happens when your client is testing what it'll be like to run around full-tilt with nerf guns in the office, and he accidentally flies out a window?
Does he suddenly become very disillusioned with how wonderful this new building will be as he craters on the pavement below?
Real security doesn't just come from encryption. Enscryption will protect you from some guy with a sniffer casually dropping in and listening in on you. That significantly raises the bar.
The next question you have to ask is if you trust the operators of your network. Did they (intentionally) hack the ircd to give them a copy of all traffic? Did they (unintentionally) leave some security hole open on one of their servers?
This is a big step forward, but don't think that this protects you from everything.
Recording for personal use is fair use. However, fair use does *not* allow redistribution, rebroadcasting, etc.
Bootleg recordings - and that *is* what they are called, whether you like it or not - are perfectly legitimate. Redistribution of bootleg recordings without the copyright holder's permission is illegal.
The problem is that the RIAA should be going after the people doing the redistribution of the recordings - the people sharing them on Napster - instead of Napster itself. Metallica did this. In all honesty, isn't Metallica's method of dealing with it correct? But that's another can of worms entirely.:-)
I know this isn't what the/. community wants to hear, so I'm probably going to be moderated into oblivion for saying this, but...
Sometimes the right thing to do *IS* to raise hardware expectations, rather than perfecting code. (for the sake of discussion, we'll set aside the issue of whether or not this cache hack is that much of an improvement.)
Writing better code isn't something a software company can just do on a whim. Some guy can't just brainstorm up the idea "Well, jeez, why don't we just rewrite this thing so it doesn't suck?" and have it happen overnight. Producing tight code takes time, and for most companies, it's best to have pretty good programs that work, and ship them out the door, than to write their word processor in hand-optimized assembly to try to make sure that the 1% of people in the world stuck with a 386 won't have to watch it grind slowly along. Say what you want about sticking to your ideals, but software companies have to have priorities.
Open source, community-contributed software projects do a really good job of this, because the developers aren't under time pressure, and they have the leisure to take however long it takes to get it right, and then release it.
The Mozilla project is a perfect example of this. They're taking Netscape, and rewriting it so it doesn't suck. It's smaller, faster, and is guaranteed to attract members of the appropriate sex, but... It's been how many years in the making, now? And even now, it's only 90% ready. It arguably works better at this point than Netscape did, but the project certainly isn't complete. By the time it's released, we're going to have a serious kick butt web browser.
If Netscape was using their developers to do this, and planning on releasing it when it was perfect, they simply wouldn't exist any more. Instead of making it perfect, they would have done the best they could, and shipped it out the door. Bigger and slower than it could have been, but at least they'd have something to offer.
In short, my point is that you optimize the software where it really counts - your kernel, the core of your apps - but at some point, EVEN for open source projects, there's a time when it's better to ship it out the door working, rather than taking forever.
As I posted elsewhere, I've shared an image of the first CD (The one you need to install) on gnutella; free for all, have fun with the bandwidth. (I got the image off debian's site last night before it got slashdotted.) Search for potato-i386-1.raw and you'll find it.
I got the ISO image of the first CD straight from ftp.debian.org last night. Anyone who wants a copy can find it on gnutella - search for potato-i386-1.raw and you'll find it. I have plenty of bandwidth to share around.
Of course, it's shared from a box running potato.:-)
They have to be an implant, or else it wouldn't be fully buzzword compliant.
Come on, ANYONE can produce a wristwatch with some cool new useless features (No names like IBM to be mentioned here), but IMPLANTS, now that's cool stuff!
My privacy concerns with this are not this specific implementation, but rather with the technology in general. Sure, on *this* version you can turn it off, but what about when someone wants to use these as a way of keeping tabs on drug offenders on probation?
That's not the greatest example, but my point is that a technology isn't immune from evil just because the manufacturer says "Oh, no, we'll play nice."
Actually, you can't move the camera position from a driver. The way most 3d card work currently is NOT to render a 3d scene, but rather, the software renders the scene to a 2d wireframe, and then the 3d card just paints textures and such.
Of course, that's just the hardware. The driver itself may be given 3d data to work with, and conceivably you could try moving the camera within that data. That data is most likely incomplete, however, so moving the camera would probably break the image horribly.
What if this bit of legal cruft isn't really about censorship?
Has it occurred to anyone that perhaps the people who put this into the bill did it not to fight against drugs, but rather, they didn't like the Bankruptcy Reform Act? In an attempt to get the entire thing thrown out, they included this totally unrelated bit of 1st and 4th amendment violating trash in, so that either a) the freedom of speech groups will do their dirty work for them, and get the bill thrown out, or b) the court will throw the thing out as unconstitutional.
Why would they do this instead of just not creating the bill in the first place? When Congress drafts a bill, they agree that they want it, and a subcommittee goes and actually writes out the text. If the subcommittee objects to the bill, they could throw in this little bomb, so that even if the bill passes, they know it'll be taken out later.
And as an added bonus, they're heros! They're helping to fight the war on drugs! Hooray for censorship!
Slashdot Mirror
Intel *deliberately* makes the 32 bit code grudgingly work *just* good enough that stupid people will be able to read their propaganda, buy the chip, and then not be disappointed by its performance because they don't know better.
Then, after enough people have bought in on it, app manufacturers are all going to write 64 bit code (which DOES go a hell of a lot faster). Why would they write programs for a deminishing base of 32 bit users, when the performance on any new processor will be abysmal? Besides, "64 bit" sounds so much better in marketing literature.
Pretty soon, you can only get Windows in a 64-bit version...
And pretty soon, AMD is left out in the cold. How tragic.
Embrace, extend, extinguish.
--Kai
--slashsuckATvegaDOTfurDOTcom
And all I'm going to get is a lump of coal.
--Kai
--slashsuckATvegaDOTfurDOTcom
I pay a lot more than $50 for my home network, and I'm not mad about a single dime I spend on it. Even though I pay several times that, I have had rock-solid 1.5Mb service for the past couple years, a maximum of 2 hours to resolution on all support cases I've opened (excluding things they couldn't fix, like a telco fiber cut), a routed /24 network, and tech support that takes me seriously when I tell them that there really is a problem, and has *never* tried to tell me that it's because I'm running Unix.
Is that worth the $350 a month we pay for it? For us, absolutely. Would I want to trade to have $50 384k asymetrical dynamic IP dumbass customer service DSL? NEVER. That's why I don't have a Pac Bell DSL line. $50 service may be fine for your average Joe Schmoe Windows-box user who just wants to web surf on a halfway decent connection and play some net games, but there are some of us who want more.
OK, I'm done going off. :-)
I *am* in favor of pushing the telco's around to upgrade their infrastructure so that good service is available everywhere. But I'm not going to say that they have to do it under a certain price cap - It's going to cost them money. You get what you pay for, and I'm willing to pay for what I get.
--Kai
--slashsuckATvegaDOTfurDOTcom
If you don't push it away hard enough, it'll just go into an elliptical orbit.
--Kai
--slashsuckATvegaDOTfurDOTcom
--Kai
--slashsuckATvegaDOTfurDOTcom
--Kai
--slashsuckATvegaDOTfurDOTcom
--Kai
--slashsuckATvegaDOTfurDOTcom
I think they're worried that the federal workers are going to realize their stock options are worth nothing and jump ship for someplace more profitable. :-)
--Kai
--slashsuckATvegaDOTfurDOTcom
--Kai
--slashsuckATvegaDOTfurDOTcom
Let's see. You put your company's soul into a little box. It's really important stuff, and you don't want the bad guys to get it. So, what's a good place to store it?
A) Stick it right dead center on the desk of one of the fanciest offices in the building, which is clearly marked on the door as "Guy Who Has Great Information to Steal".
B) Get a good, solid safe, bolt it into the building, and keep your treasured secrets in it.
This isn't a technological problem. As far as laptops go, sure, good crypto can help you, but not all sensitive data lives on a laptop. You need a plan to deal with data - generically - to protect it.
If your data is really valuable, here are some more tips off the top of my mind:
Good solid locks on the doors of the office
Security cameras monitoring the areas where sensitive information lives
A night-shift security guard. (Is it worth $35k/year to have a guy camp your building at night, to save this lifeblood of your company from being stolen?
It's just common sense, guys. You don't need whiz-bang software to fix this problem.
--Kai
--slashsuckATvegaDOTfurDOTcom
Woohoo! It's the world's first virtual Zorb!
--Kai
--slashsuckATvegaDOTfurDOTcom
--Kai
--slashsuckATvegaDOTfurDOTcom
Does he suddenly become very disillusioned with how wonderful this new building will be as he craters on the pavement below?
Are we sure this is a good sales technique? :-)
--Kai
--slashsuckATvegaDOTfurDOTcom
The next question you have to ask is if you trust the operators of your network. Did they (intentionally) hack the ircd to give them a copy of all traffic? Did they (unintentionally) leave some security hole open on one of their servers?
This is a big step forward, but don't think that this protects you from everything.
--Kai
--slashsuckATvegaDOTfurDOTcom
Bootleg recordings - and that *is* what they are called, whether you like it or not - are perfectly legitimate. Redistribution of bootleg recordings without the copyright holder's permission is illegal.
The problem is that the RIAA should be going after the people doing the redistribution of the recordings - the people sharing them on Napster - instead of Napster itself. Metallica did this. In all honesty, isn't Metallica's method of dealing with it correct? But that's another can of worms entirely. :-)
--Kai
--slashsuckATvegaDOTfurDOTcom
Sometimes the right thing to do *IS* to raise hardware expectations, rather than perfecting code. (for the sake of discussion, we'll set aside the issue of whether or not this cache hack is that much of an improvement.)
Writing better code isn't something a software company can just do on a whim. Some guy can't just brainstorm up the idea "Well, jeez, why don't we just rewrite this thing so it doesn't suck?" and have it happen overnight. Producing tight code takes time, and for most companies, it's best to have pretty good programs that work, and ship them out the door, than to write their word processor in hand-optimized assembly to try to make sure that the 1% of people in the world stuck with a 386 won't have to watch it grind slowly along. Say what you want about sticking to your ideals, but software companies have to have priorities.
Open source, community-contributed software projects do a really good job of this, because the developers aren't under time pressure, and they have the leisure to take however long it takes to get it right, and then release it.
The Mozilla project is a perfect example of this. They're taking Netscape, and rewriting it so it doesn't suck. It's smaller, faster, and is guaranteed to attract members of the appropriate sex, but... It's been how many years in the making, now? And even now, it's only 90% ready. It arguably works better at this point than Netscape did, but the project certainly isn't complete. By the time it's released, we're going to have a serious kick butt web browser.
If Netscape was using their developers to do this, and planning on releasing it when it was perfect, they simply wouldn't exist any more. Instead of making it perfect, they would have done the best they could, and shipped it out the door. Bigger and slower than it could have been, but at least they'd have something to offer.
In short, my point is that you optimize the software where it really counts - your kernel, the core of your apps - but at some point, EVEN for open source projects, there's a time when it's better to ship it out the door working, rather than taking forever.
Linux is still written in C.
--Kai
--slashsuckATvegaDOTfurDOTcom
Have fun. :-)
--Kai
--slashsuckATvegaDOTfurDOTcom
Of course, it's shared from a box running potato. :-)
Have fun, all!
--Kai
--slashsuckATvegaDOTfurDOTcom
Come on, ANYONE can produce a wristwatch with some cool new useless features (No names like IBM to be mentioned here), but IMPLANTS, now that's cool stuff!
--Kai
--slashsuckATvegaDOTfurDOTcom
That's not the greatest example, but my point is that a technology isn't immune from evil just because the manufacturer says "Oh, no, we'll play nice."
--Kai
--slashsuckATvegaDOTfurDOTcom
Of course, that's just the hardware. The driver itself may be given 3d data to work with, and conceivably you could try moving the camera within that data. That data is most likely incomplete, however, so moving the camera would probably break the image horribly.
Of course, this in itself might be fun. FWIW.
--Kai ( slashsuckATvegaDOTfurDOTcom )
Has it occurred to anyone that perhaps the people who put this into the bill did it not to fight against drugs, but rather, they didn't like the Bankruptcy Reform Act? In an attempt to get the entire thing thrown out, they included this totally unrelated bit of 1st and 4th amendment violating trash in, so that either a) the freedom of speech groups will do their dirty work for them, and get the bill thrown out, or b) the court will throw the thing out as unconstitutional.
Why would they do this instead of just not creating the bill in the first place? When Congress drafts a bill, they agree that they want it, and a subcommittee goes and actually writes out the text. If the subcommittee objects to the bill, they could throw in this little bomb, so that even if the bill passes, they know it'll be taken out later.
And as an added bonus, they're heros! They're helping to fight the war on drugs! Hooray for censorship!
IANAL, but it's food for thought.
--Kai
( slashsuckATvegaDOTfurDOTcom )