"Full how to is available on there site for those brave enough to bask in what many say could be Apples greatest folly, and a blow to Linux."
I don't think their is any exclusivity to Apple's agreement with Intel, so conceivably some models could continue to be PowerPC/Cell based while others move to Intel. Seems like Apple would then be in a good position, if IBM's Cell processors are compelling, to keep some of its machines based on that platform. This could work out for both Apple and consumers.
"The only difference is in capitalism, making others poorer is in your best interest while in communism making everyone equal is in your best interest. Communism works on equality while capitalism works on inequality."
The problem with that analysis is that it leaves out that pesky problem of free will. Communism is merely a dressed up form of slavery. While capitalism can also lead to forced servitude in the form that we see today, excessively onerous loan terms and scarcity of affordable housing. It at least makes freedom possible when there are plentiful natural resources available. As the founding fathers of the US realized freedom and prosperity are intimately linked to the availability of cheap/free arable land. With communism though, you will never be free.
Did they run into trouble or did they pull resources away from G5 to start making the version for the next generation consoles?
Speaking of wild speculation, with three platforms coming out based upon the Power PC, then wouldn't it make sense for IBM to start pushing a common PC hardware platform based on the new processor to go along with their linux push. Something along the lines of an updated version of their old CHRP (Common Hardware Reference Platform). The processors that power the next generation of consoles should be very competitive with Intel processors, especially with multi cpu capabilities. A generic box based upon multiple cell processors and running linux would be very competitive for both desktop PCs and servers.
It wasn't clear that a failure of 1 motor would be critical failure. Perhaps a car could limp along with 3 motors or 2. I would think that a good design would have enough with two motors to at least propel the car enough to get to a service station. or even be enough to get around town for a while at low speeds and slow accelerations.
The thing that is holding LCD back from filling the 3d stereoscopic role is the refresh rate. OLED screens inherently have a much higher refresh rate and manufacturers are just starting to come out with products.
This Company is coming out with a 3d stereoscopic visor (HMD) for just the type of application that the poster mentions.
The OLEDs will certainly be higher end to start like every other new technology, including LCD. But I think we should see OLEDs being the best of both worlds with fast refresh rates and very high resolution.
Jarjar eh... I think "Revenge of the Sith" shows us just how much Jarjar screwed up the movies. Not just being annoying, he played a crucial role dimwittingly supporting the rise of the Sith while he was filling in for Amadala in the Senate... showing everyone that we really had good cause hating Jarjar all along.
I think that "one-way" part is a bit silly. Essentially it is a lossy compression algorithm. Which when run on the image of your fingerprint will give you the same code everytime. It is repeatable, otherwise it would serve no purpose for identification. So, you cannot reverse the algorithm to create a full finger print, but you could theoretically reverse it enough to create a partial print which is apparently good enough to identify a person for access control. So, would probably stand up in court.
"There is a difference between requiring fingerprints on record (actually having your fingerprint in a database somewhere) and using your fingerprint to create a random sequence of numbers. If you cannot see that, then you are forcing yourself to be blind to it."
If it was random it would be useless as a means of access control. Essentially, they are requiring partial finger prints to be on record. Which you most certainly could cross reference, with one extra step with any finger print database you choose. Don't sugar coat this with incorrect information.
Officials promise to protect the confidentiality of the fingerprint records.
Is that really best? Wouldn't an open access list be better than a list which only a few have access to? Restricted access to information is just misleading to people and would give certain people, librarians and some staff access to the names of people that access computers. I remember they used to have cards in sleaves in the books that showed you everyone that had it before you, isn't it better to know that your name will be knowable to all rather than not know who could know.
Space will progress just like everything else has: the military pours money into advancing technology, then when technology is sufficiently advanced private industry picks it up and innovates more.
And the military has already done what you say. The military has enough money to pour into existing launch technologies and has significant incentive (keeping other countries from easily spying on us or being able to launch ICBMs) to keep newer technologies from making space more easily accessible. This is the time when the market needs to drive inexpensive technologies for greater accessibility for commercial purposes (ie for the benefit of people, through exploitation of resources).
Besides when the Pentagon talks about weaponization of space, they are talking about the space just around the earth where hundreds of satelites are currently in orbit and being launched many times each year. They just want to be able to control the space around the planet so the Pentagon can protect its assets and destroy the other guy's communication, spy sats and gps capabilities.
You give good examples of how evolution can be a bad thing for a species, but a lot of people associate evolution with only good effects. There are a lot of evolutionary dead ends on the path of evolution. Yet a lot of people see evolution as moving us towards some angelic state of perfection. Many species are left high and dry when their environment changes and they have become so adpated and specialized that they can no longer survive under new conditions.
What we really need as a species is not further evolution, but rather a better understanding of genetic abnormalities and a means to fix them through germline gene therapy.
Unless you typed "wolf" by accident you need to re-read my post, wolves are currently not a problem, barring rabies. Moutain lions and other cats are currently the problem. Hell the cats take adults every so often not just kids. Witness the bicyclist attack in southern california last year.
Not by accident, my point was that wolves need to be reintroduced in areas where they were exterminated. So saying that there are no incidents with Wolves wouldn't exactly support my argument.
I'd really like you to quantify your argument to justify it as something other than paranoia. Citing one incident last year hardly makes for a problem. By your reasoning we should just exterminate the deer populations since they cause many injuries due to collisions.
What about Moose? And how many deaths are caused by people swerving to avoid fuzzy rabbits? You know the ones with the big teeth... bite your head off, they will.
"Wow. Do you have any friends? Seriously, if you do, they must hate going to dinner with you. I'd really hate to see you at a bar. Buying a friend a drink doesn't make you a slave. Do you charge people money to watch TV with you? "
You think "sharing" is telling someone that they have too much money and that they need to give it to you?
Well, I don't tell my friends they need to buy me a beer because they don't need their money with an implicit threat. Sharing is done freely, not by threat or force.
That type of "sharing" that the previous poster was talking about was the same as the "protection" you get from the mafia. Which either way ultimately amounts to slavery, which is simply work done under threat.
"I know a lot of city-dwellers who have no problemm with large predators in the country. I can't think of any country-dwellers who are all that enamoured of the idea of having cougars in the backyard. (my inlaws had cougars in their backyard from time to time back when my wife was born - according to them, it was not a comfortable feeling to have a big cat that near the baby)"
I had a cougar come through my yard when I was a kid. He looked at me I looked at him and he went in the other direction.
I know the type you are talking about, the Starbuck's environmentalist, ready to impose the whim of the day on poor country people because of his fantasy about a garden of eden in contrast to his concrete jungle. I am not him.
"We have a 100+ years of good documentation on that."
You need a 100 years of documentation because occurances are so rare. Yes, shark attacks happen too. And getting hit by lightning. And a thousand other things that we don't respond to by eradicating a species or cowering in our homes.
Having your children abducted by a human predator is far more likely than a wolf and the precautions would be very similar.
"People like you really need to learn about this concept called sharing. Think back... you should have learned about it in pre-school. Maybe you need a refresher course?"
Well, those of us that got more than a pre-school education know that the kind of "sharing" and "equality" that those of your ilk would really like to see is called slavery.
"And of course, he will say, "Oh silly me, you're right! Never mind!"
Actually a lot of times confrontation will make the person realized they were out of line. Just keep it simple straightforward and as impersonal as possible. If the person acknowledges their fault, don't press it. Even if they don't then don't press it because it might just take some time to sink in. Threats or insinuation on their part ultimately will only make them look bad. the key is not to escalate any tensions. Leaving a job can place great stress, especially in a small company. It is always best to be as understanding as possible without compromising anything important.
What do you mean nobody wants cougars or wolves near their towns? There are a lot of us willing to allow larger predators back where they belong. We may or may not be a minority, but I know we are a far cry from "No one"
I am not against hunting deer. Nor against hunting deer via robot hunters as long as the venison is taken with the intention of consumption.
But the argument that it is either hunting or letting the big bad wolf eat your children is not going to scare all of us. People can exists with cougars and wolfs just fine with the proper precautions.
The results of killing all the wolves has had bad effect in the hundred years since their elimination. As you say biodiversity has been harmed by largely unrestrained deer populations in some areas, but increasing hunting allowances is not the only answer.
"Currently, the most common and uniform form of identity in the United States is the Social Security Card / SSN. This common and uniform (and important) piece of information is also the root cause of the majority of identity theft in the US."
I would add that social security (the tax id) is the reason for identity theft in the first place. Identity theft for the most part is so that illigal immigrants can work to support themselves and their families.
Marketers have just thrown in credit card theft under the umbrella of the term "identity theft" to make it sound more insidious. Really this is about government control over individuals for purpsoes of taxation not about protecting people from thieves and terrorists.
Do Google's apparent "good" intentions and contributions to the Internet make their plans more insidious? Does doing something in the open make something that isn't in our best interest even harder to stop. As has been pointed out other companies have gone about doing the same types of things for many years, accumulating credit card purchasing information, merging databases tracking each and every one of us electronically all for the purpose of getting us to buy more stuff at greater profit for the seller. The sellers see this as helping us buy what we otherwise want or need, but I see it as tilting the balance of information too far in favor of the seller. Everyone has weekness, some more than others. Many of us have the same weeknesses. Google provides the sellers an opportunity to have a more perfect picture of the buyer.
How many of us will think twice about doing a google search about even our most secret interest? Even when they start collecting search interests and link it together with your google login how many people will care? Sure at some point people need to take responsibilities for their own lives and just say no to things we don't really need or want, but there are some things that we just need to live or have been made to believe we need through long term marketing campaigns.
Google has been on balance good for buyers so far in that it gives us great ability to get more information than was ever before possible. But that balance could begin to shift back as the sellers start to learn more about us as individuals than was possible before.
"then fill it with images which he took from their website (which is wrong in the internet community)"
And where exactly did slashdot get the image of Bill Gates in the Borg shot? Or any one of the other images? Copying an image, etc and using it on your site is fair use in news, parody and commentary.
"because the people who shop at Wal-Mart care about one thing, and one thing only: low prices. As long as this suit doesn't lead to higher prices, Wal-Mart will come out of it financially unscathed."
well, I think they care about the perception of low prices more than actual low prices. The low prices that they care about most are those of it suppliers.
I believe you are incorrect. From the article, the "lack of consumer information" was not the thrust of the ruling, but rather a secondary point. The main point was essentially that some form of "fair use" superceded manufacturers ability to impose copy prevention.
Of course, it should be assumed that copy prevention technology should be properly marked or else consumers should be allowed to return the product whenever they find out. This ruling went much farther than that.
Professionals won't go home they will just buy a more expensive camera. Which might be exactly what the "pinhead MBAs" want.
A lot of times when you pay for a device that has more features, what really costs extra is to disable those features on the cheaper version.
That is why competition is so important, because a company will always try to upsell you on one of their other products, even if that means that they intentionally create lower quality versions of a product which don't actually cost any less to manufacturer than their higher quality versions.
With competition hopefully those camera companies that open their formats will get a competative advantage, but it is up to the consumer to demand it otherwise you will only see this on professional and higher end versions.
I agree, the french are right though in this case that consumers have a right to copy, but they also should recognize the freedom of speech issue involved that people should be able to produce any content they wish, including DRM'd content. I or any content distributor should be able to send out any encrypted content, since after all encryption is content, but it is also right that people have a right to unencrypt it however they choose. DRM should be legal, but so should any tool to circumvent it.
The logic in this case's ruling is a Pyrrhic victory.
Slashdot Mirror
"Full how to is available on there site for those brave enough to bask in what many say could be Apples greatest folly, and a blow to Linux."
h tml
I don't think their is any exclusivity to Apple's agreement with Intel, so conceivably some models could continue to be PowerPC/Cell based while others move to Intel. Seems like Apple would then be in a good position, if IBM's Cell processors are compelling, to keep some of its machines based on that platform. This could work out for both Apple and consumers.
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.
"The only difference is in capitalism, making others poorer is in your best interest while in communism making everyone equal is in your best interest. Communism works on equality while capitalism works on inequality."
The problem with that analysis is that it leaves out that pesky problem of free will. Communism is merely a dressed up form of slavery. While capitalism can also lead to forced servitude in the form that we see today, excessively onerous loan terms and scarcity of affordable housing. It at least makes freedom possible when there are plentiful natural resources available. As the founding fathers of the US realized freedom and prosperity are intimately linked to the availability of cheap/free arable land. With communism though, you will never be free.
"Then IBM ran into trouble with G5 production."
Did they run into trouble or did they pull resources away from G5 to start making the version for the next generation consoles?
Speaking of wild speculation, with three platforms coming out based upon the Power PC, then wouldn't it make sense for IBM to start pushing a common PC hardware platform based on the new processor to go along with their linux push. Something along the lines of an updated version of their old CHRP (Common Hardware Reference Platform). The processors that power the next generation of consoles should be very competitive with Intel processors, especially with multi cpu capabilities. A generic box based upon multiple cell processors and running linux would be very competitive for both desktop PCs and servers.
It wasn't clear that a failure of 1 motor would be critical failure. Perhaps a car could limp along with 3 motors or 2. I would think that a good design would have enough with two motors to at least propel the car enough to get to a service station. or even be enough to get around town for a while at low speeds and slow accelerations.
The thing that is holding LCD back from filling the 3d stereoscopic role is the refresh rate. OLED screens inherently have a much higher refresh rate and manufacturers are just starting to come out with products.
This Company is coming out with a 3d stereoscopic visor (HMD) for just the type of application that the poster mentions.
The OLEDs will certainly be higher end to start like every other new technology, including LCD. But I think we should see OLEDs being the best of both worlds with fast refresh rates and very high resolution.
Jarjar eh... I think "Revenge of the Sith" shows us just how much Jarjar screwed up the movies. Not just being annoying, he played a crucial role dimwittingly supporting the rise of the Sith while he was filling in for Amadala in the Senate... showing everyone that we really had good cause hating Jarjar all along.
"As he states - it is a one-way algorithm."
I think that "one-way" part is a bit silly. Essentially it is a lossy compression algorithm. Which when run on the image of your fingerprint will give you the same code everytime. It is repeatable, otherwise it would serve no purpose for identification. So, you cannot reverse the algorithm to create a full finger print, but you could theoretically reverse it enough to create a partial print which is apparently good enough to identify a person for access control. So, would probably stand up in court.
"There is a difference between requiring fingerprints on record (actually having your fingerprint in a database somewhere) and using your fingerprint to create a random sequence of numbers. If you cannot see that, then you are forcing yourself to be blind to it."
If it was random it would be useless as a means of access control. Essentially, they are requiring partial finger prints to be on record. Which you most certainly could cross reference, with one extra step with any finger print database you choose. Don't sugar coat this with incorrect information.
Officials promise to protect the confidentiality of the fingerprint records.
Is that really best? Wouldn't an open access list be better than a list which only a few have access to? Restricted access to information is just misleading to people and would give certain people, librarians and some staff access to the names of people that access computers. I remember they used to have cards in sleaves in the books that showed you everyone that had it before you, isn't it better to know that your name will be knowable to all rather than not know who could know.
Space will progress just like everything else has: the military pours money into advancing technology, then when technology is sufficiently advanced private industry picks it up and innovates more.
And the military has already done what you say. The military has enough money to pour into existing launch technologies and has significant incentive (keeping other countries from easily spying on us or being able to launch ICBMs) to keep newer technologies from making space more easily accessible. This is the time when the market needs to drive inexpensive technologies for greater accessibility for commercial purposes (ie for the benefit of people, through exploitation of resources).
Besides when the Pentagon talks about weaponization of space, they are talking about the space just around the earth where hundreds of satelites are currently in orbit and being launched many times each year. They just want to be able to control the space around the planet so the Pentagon can protect its assets and destroy the other guy's communication, spy sats and gps capabilities.
You give good examples of how evolution can be a bad thing for a species, but a lot of people associate evolution with only good effects. There are a lot of evolutionary dead ends on the path of evolution. Yet a lot of people see evolution as moving us towards some angelic state of perfection. Many species are left high and dry when their environment changes and they have become so adpated and specialized that they can no longer survive under new conditions.
What we really need as a species is not further evolution, but rather a better understanding of genetic abnormalities and a means to fix them through germline gene therapy.
Unless you typed "wolf" by accident you need to re-read my post, wolves are currently not a problem, barring rabies. Moutain lions and other cats are currently the problem. Hell the cats take adults every so often not just kids. Witness the bicyclist attack in southern california last year.
Not by accident, my point was that wolves need to be reintroduced in areas where they were exterminated. So saying that there are no incidents with Wolves wouldn't exactly support my argument.
I'd really like you to quantify your argument to justify it as something other than paranoia. Citing one incident last year hardly makes for a problem. By your reasoning we should just exterminate the deer populations since they cause many injuries due to collisions.
What about Moose? And how many deaths are caused by people swerving to avoid fuzzy rabbits? You know the ones with the big teeth... bite your head off, they will.
"Wow. Do you have any friends? Seriously, if you do, they must hate going to dinner with you. I'd really hate to see you at a bar. Buying a friend a drink doesn't make you a slave. Do you charge people money to watch TV with you? "
You think "sharing" is telling someone that they have too much money and that they need to give it to you?
Well, I don't tell my friends they need to buy me a beer because they don't need their money with an implicit threat. Sharing is done freely, not by threat or force.
That type of "sharing" that the previous poster was talking about was the same as the "protection" you get from the mafia. Which either way ultimately amounts to slavery, which is simply work done under threat.
"I know a lot of city-dwellers who have no problemm with large predators in the country. I can't think of any country-dwellers who are all that enamoured of the idea of having cougars in the backyard. (my inlaws had cougars in their backyard from time to time back when my wife was born - according to them, it was not a comfortable feeling to have a big cat that near the baby)"
I had a cougar come through my yard when I was a kid. He looked at me I looked at him and he went in the other direction.
I know the type you are talking about, the Starbuck's environmentalist, ready to impose the whim of the day on poor country people because of his fantasy about a garden of eden in contrast to his concrete jungle. I am not him.
"We have a 100+ years of good documentation on that."
You need a 100 years of documentation because occurances are so rare. Yes, shark attacks happen too. And getting hit by lightning. And a thousand other things that we don't respond to by eradicating a species or cowering in our homes.
Having your children abducted by a human predator is far more likely than a wolf and the precautions would be very similar.
"People like you really need to learn about this concept called sharing. Think back... you should have learned about it in pre-school. Maybe you need a refresher course?"
Well, those of us that got more than a pre-school education know that the kind of "sharing" and "equality" that those of your ilk would really like to see is called slavery.
"And of course, he will say, "Oh silly me, you're right! Never mind!"
Actually a lot of times confrontation will make the person realized they were out of line. Just keep it simple straightforward and as impersonal as possible. If the person acknowledges their fault, don't press it. Even if they don't then don't press it because it might just take some time to sink in. Threats or insinuation on their part ultimately will only make them look bad. the key is not to escalate any tensions. Leaving a job can place great stress, especially in a small company. It is always best to be as understanding as possible without compromising anything important.
What do you mean nobody wants cougars or wolves near their towns? There are a lot of us willing to allow larger predators back where they belong. We may or may not be a minority, but I know we are a far cry from "No one"
I am not against hunting deer. Nor against hunting deer via robot hunters as long as the venison is taken with the intention of consumption.
But the argument that it is either hunting or letting the big bad wolf eat your children is not going to scare all of us. People can exists with cougars and wolfs just fine with the proper precautions.
The results of killing all the wolves has had bad effect in the hundred years since their elimination. As you say biodiversity has been harmed by largely unrestrained deer populations in some areas, but increasing hunting allowances is not the only answer.
"Currently, the most common and uniform form of identity in the United States is the Social Security Card / SSN. This common and uniform (and important) piece of information is also the root cause of the majority of identity theft in the US."
I would add that social security (the tax id) is the reason for identity theft in the first place. Identity theft for the most part is so that illigal immigrants can work to support themselves and their families.
Marketers have just thrown in credit card theft under the umbrella of the term "identity theft" to make it sound more insidious. Really this is about government control over individuals for purpsoes of taxation not about protecting people from thieves and terrorists.
Do Google's apparent "good" intentions and contributions to the Internet make their plans more insidious? Does doing something in the open make something that isn't in our best interest even harder to stop. As has been pointed out other companies have gone about doing the same types of things for many years, accumulating credit card purchasing information, merging databases tracking each and every one of us electronically all for the purpose of getting us to buy more stuff at greater profit for the seller. The sellers see this as helping us buy what we otherwise want or need, but I see it as tilting the balance of information too far in favor of the seller. Everyone has weekness, some more than others. Many of us have the same weeknesses. Google provides the sellers an opportunity to have a more perfect picture of the buyer.
How many of us will think twice about doing a google search about even our most secret interest? Even when they start collecting search interests and link it together with your google login how many people will care? Sure at some point people need to take responsibilities for their own lives and just say no to things we don't really need or want, but there are some things that we just need to live or have been made to believe we need through long term marketing campaigns.
Google has been on balance good for buyers so far in that it gives us great ability to get more information than was ever before possible. But that balance could begin to shift back as the sellers start to learn more about us as individuals than was possible before.
"then fill it with images which he took from their website (which is wrong in the internet community)"
And where exactly did slashdot get the image of Bill Gates in the Borg shot? Or any one of the other images? Copying an image, etc and using it on your site is fair use in news, parody and commentary.
Even in "the internet community"
"because the people who shop at Wal-Mart care about one thing, and one thing only: low prices. As long as this suit doesn't lead to higher prices, Wal-Mart will come out of it financially unscathed."
well, I think they care about the perception of low prices more than actual low prices. The low prices that they care about most are those of it suppliers.
I believe you are incorrect. From the article, the "lack of consumer information" was not the thrust of the ruling, but rather a secondary point. The main point was essentially that some form of "fair use" superceded manufacturers ability to impose copy prevention.
Of course, it should be assumed that copy prevention technology should be properly marked or else consumers should be allowed to return the product whenever they find out. This ruling went much farther than that.
Professionals won't go home they will just buy a more expensive camera. Which might be exactly what the "pinhead MBAs" want.
A lot of times when you pay for a device that has more features, what really costs extra is to disable those features on the cheaper version.
That is why competition is so important, because a company will always try to upsell you on one of their other products, even if that means that they intentionally create lower quality versions of a product which don't actually cost any less to manufacturer than their higher quality versions.
With competition hopefully those camera companies that open their formats will get a competative advantage, but it is up to the consumer to demand it otherwise you will only see this on professional and higher end versions.
I agree, the french are right though in this case that consumers have a right to copy, but they also should recognize the freedom of speech issue involved that people should be able to produce any content they wish, including DRM'd content. I or any content distributor should be able to send out any encrypted content, since after all encryption is content, but it is also right that people have a right to unencrypt it however they choose. DRM should be legal, but so should any tool to circumvent it.
The logic in this case's ruling is a Pyrrhic victory.
" Analog TV emission is wasteful."
Drop the "Analog" part of that statement and we can agree.