What part of copyright law and all the extensions and updates for various lobbying groups is "the democratic process".
Google is playing the same game that everyone who has a serious monetary interest in copyright has been playing for years or even decades. Having them to following "the democratic process" seems like a very glaring double standard in this regard.
A quick touch on patents, almost every major corporation on earth finds it cheaper to build a war chest of counter patents than to litigate why don't they all follow "the democratic process" and get the patents overturned instead of just cross-licensing? That procedure locks out all the small players that don't have a matching war chest which sounds allot like what you advocating against for copyright.
And if google gives the works away by offering it for free on their site (ad-supported to run the infrastructure) are they still wrong'ing society? I see a net gain by society as a whole. Even if you assume google destroys all their copies, the benefit to universities is that they can now offer it to their students in digital form which increases the amount of people that can benefit from the work.
If you limit the view to the digitization process, you can conclude that google took a calculated risk that I can easily see in their view had the potential to become a huge benefit to society as a whole. As a side note, when trying to lobby for a point-of-view having actual examples to show how a change could be beneficial has a huge impact on it succeeding.
It would be short sighted to not build in extra capacity to handle bursts and natural growth, ever see anyone on the top500 drastically increase their capacity? If the poster's company have a HPC and are upgrading then business must be good to the point that the current infrastructure is loaded (possibly overloaded). Rollouts like these are not exactly quick and easy, so whatever goes in now has to be able to do what they want for at least as long as it takes to demonstrate ROI.
Amazon is probably the poster child for this mindset. They built in enough capacity and redundancy to handle the seasonal spikes in traffic around the holidays, the result of the extra capacity? EC2, which sounds eerily similar to what the poster hopes to do.
A bit off-topic question, where did the assumption that the US federal government (or any government entity) is paying for this? Last news I heard on this matter is that quite a few government data centers were being shutdown http://www.informationweek.com/news/government/leadership/231002215 so it seems unlikely that they would now be setting up such a large one (especially since that would create a large single point of failure in a hurricane prone area). Also if the government is paying for it why would the poster care about recouping some of the costs?
"We primarily do life-science/health/biology related tasks on our existing (fairly small) HPC. We intend to continue this usage, but to also open it up for new uses (energy comes to mind)."
They are upgrading and to help recoup the costs it would be nice if it could do some other stuff as well, what do you suggest...
I'm sorry but other than saying I have hard proof I would not use fax, especially for a diagram.
The resolution of most faxes is so pitifully poor I can hardly read a printout far less someone's handwriting. Which at least somewhat has to make the point of signatures at least somewhat moot.
And I've worked with lots of fax machines that do the same thing.
I've used one brother fax machine that I literally had to stand there and place the next sheet in just as the current sheet fed through because if you put in more than a few sheets of paper all would feed through. This was supposedly one of their business class models too.
Best thing is do away with the paper. For legal reasons I can't see needing to print the entire document if all you are going to sign is the last page anyway, at least that way you minimize how many trees you kill. If its of any interest, this was for a doctors office and we helped out the attorney next door so I think it fits most some of the most demanding use cases (short of government).
Can't prior art be shown from Nature? I've found rounded corners on rocks by the river quite a few times...
Hmm, I wonder if you can use Mother Nature in this way? Reduce the design to a Fibonacci series or based on the golden ratio somehow and you are set. I know most aspect ratios are at least loosely based on the golden ratio so it can't be too far fetched.
What may be a better solution in the short term would be to examine the policies of browser / OS certificate acceptance policies. After something like this if it is found to be negligent or worse yet malicious on the part of the CA, they get dropped temporarily. As the number of offenses increases the drop time increases, if they behave good for a while the drop time is reduced. Similar to BGP dampening, where any sort of instability must be removed as soon as possible to prevent the whole system from crashing down.
If they seriously start screwing up they will be out of business long before any sort of threshold is reached that they should be removed as a registry (why bother the regulators, let business forces rip them apart, always a more effective solution).
Given that the standard procedure for getting a certificate for the domain issued (at least for GoDaddy, I assume others as well) is to ask the technical contact for the domain itself for authorization to grant the certificate I don't think a change to procedure is necessary.
This procedure alone would alert someone within the organization (I assume with a brain) even if someone within the organization is doing something dangerous to the organization (If you don't know the company or the individual making the request shouldn't be doing anything of this nature why would you approve it?). If the CA fails to follow this procedure then they need to be removed.
A CEO that isn't managing the company, and is instead following orders to boost the stock value, is a shitty CEO in the eyes of everyone except stockholders. I don't know why you're defending that. And you are defending it, when you say "That's how the world works"
As CEO you are the highest manager, you don't answer to any of the lower managers (you can choose to take their advice, you are in no way obliged to), nor do you answer to anyone else in the company. Which leaves the the board of directors (if present, otherwise the shareholders themselves), which represents the shareholders. So as far as the people who the shitty CEO answer to care, the shitty CEO is worth his weight in gold.
Look at the structure of any company that has a structure with a CEO position and you will find that unless such a sentiment is shared by the shareholders as well then the conclusion of the GP is the most likely outcome.
Its pretty well known that ATI / AMD cards aren't as good at tessellation as Nvidia cards. The question that prompted this is the one thats killing your graphics cards doesn't really look that much better than the one thats not (I'm not comparing cards here, this is DX9 vs DX11), thats a pretty clear sign that something fishy is going on.
The whole point of perfstudio (or any other debugger / profiler) is to determine why. The advantage of PerfStudio over say Visual Studio's built in debugger is that it understands the direct X calls and can interpret them for you so you can see where your GPU time is going (a nice comparison of this is using the profiler in visual studio vs gdb / gprof). In this case it is a complete waste of GPU time to render to thy kingdom come something that will never been seen, whether you consider that a worthwhile piece of info or don't really care is up to you.
Personally I consider this a problem because even Nvidia cards take a hit from this as the article states "The guys at Hardware.fr found that enabling tessellation dropped the frame rates on recent Radeons by 31-38%. The competing GeForces only suffered slowdowns of 17-21%." 17% of 60fps is 10 fps which is a big hit for something that doesn't help much if at all.
I would question that GC = multicore. The fact that the GC would be across all threads makes it a shared resource which means it must be locked and lock what it is working on which will bottleneck the code it is GCing for or for any app that cycles through objects quickly be constantly playing catch up (with all the implications, including the ridiculous memory usage I often see on java servlets).
I'll agree that a multi-core system will handle GC better than a single core I hardly think that qualifies it as multi-core optimized.
If you are about to die in a war over fossil fuels, why would you leave something for them to take? Especially if all it takes is a spark. Any sane general / commander when retreating destroys anything that can help the enemy. You have to be assuming some serious idiots will be in charge when such a strategy has been used in every major war for the past couple centuries.
Secondly will a war increase the rate of usage or decrease it? I'll make the assumption that it will increase (I'd love to hear how it can decrease) so you will end up with less at the end of the war and even in times of peace you have the tragedy of the commons at work which will inevitably lead to another war. As scarcity enters a market it inevitably leads to conflict.
If there is a manufacturing price difference wouldn't the cheaper chip be more expensive to manufacture? It has all the features of the more expensive one + locks for the features.
Why would they be higher in terms of R&D? They shot for Saturn and landed on Mars, in most industries that's deemed a failure and they get nothing. The R&D money was for the trip to Saturn not a trip to Mars. They get to sell the failure to offset the cost of the mission anyway so they are not exactly losing. Unless you count the R&D invested in creating the locks, which will only start increasing the cost of the cheaper chip towards the more expensive chip.
Your 2nd point can stand (I actually agree with it, as well as your conclusion) but your 1st cannot.
If someone buys a gun / car / cement truck / mace / baseball bat / etc and damages other human beings with it by intentionally misusing it although they may have whatever license / training (if applicable) to use it how is the seller at fault? Unless the buyer can prove the car's brakes weren't working or the baseball bat had a crack that caused the top to break off and hit that old lady in the head at the time of sale then the seller can't be held accountable, they are also freed of any need to honor the warranty (if applicable) in exchange for the rights to use the item as the buyer pleases.
The "I own it I can do what I want with it" attitude is the basis of every modding / hacker / fair use community in existence, a company can't always know what the user will decide to do with the product which is why they are protected if the user misuses / heavily modifies the product.
To use your two examples, if the cops pull you over for drunk driving was it because Chevy or Nissan put out a APB for your arrest for misusing their product? If you shoot someone can Colt be sued for selling you the gun even though you have a valid firearms license? That is the realm of regulation of something that is considered dangerous to society, the individual dealers can be sued for not checking your papers thoroughly but the manufacturer cannot.
Even where there is no regulation of the product the seller can't be legally challenged, I'd pay to get front row seats for the lawsuit against IKEA for selling knives to someone who went on a rampage and murdered a couple people, or the some average joe who sold their house to someone who ended up setting up a brothel.
Sustain a huge population of a couple billion vs humans surviving / thriving seems a odd comparison.
Humans were on the planet for a couple centuries before we found fossil fuels so the original claim stands, this planet is inhabitable without it. Also large populations can be sustained without fossil fuels (see Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, the various Chinese dynasties, Persians, Mayans, Aztecs) to which I will concede that once you pass the couple hundred millions in population machinery and by extension fuel become increasingly important to maintain the lifestyle.
Hardly a fair claim, The important distinction is that everything needed for life exists here, in outer space none of it exist and has to be transported there and refreshed periodically (you always need a lifeline, at least for now).
While I do agree cheap hydrocarbons have lead to improved living conditions for at least part of the planet and the improved transportation / food preservation techniques have allowed humans to live in increasing larger clusters further away from the agriculture centers (you can see this as good or bad), I do not see this as being the only viable course of action this civilization could have taken.
Oil (or any other fosil fuel) has been developed for well over 100 years by pretty much every country in the world, primarily due to its importance for machinery. Had some other fuel been developed instead that didn't have a usability limit (soya, corn, nuclear, etc) we could have come out way ahead, especially if the agriculture based fuels were developed as there would be effectively a zero carbon footprint.
I believe thats part of the point, BECAUSE we have cheap access to hydrocarbons no one is particularly interested in developing alternatives which could lead towards the conclusion you provide.
The other option is due to ever increasing demands for hydrocarbons, wars break out that wipe out a major part of the planets population, bringing us back down to a population that can survive without fossil fuels and we are pretty much back to the pre-industrial revolution days, hopefully wiser of what not to do.
If the regulation is that wide ranging that such a disclaimer is void it would kill any sort of hobbyist or if you don't care about that, any sort of research in the industry until a full solution (with ALL risks calculated) can be developed, last I checked no industry can claim such mastery far less a particular member of an industry.
The great news about that world is that we wouldn't need patents because no one would release their product till they knew they could dominate the market.
Slashdot Mirror
Normally changing the law, but with the amount of money stacked on the other side that does not apply in this case.
What part of copyright law and all the extensions and updates for various lobbying groups is "the democratic process".
Google is playing the same game that everyone who has a serious monetary interest in copyright has been playing for years or even decades. Having them to following "the democratic process" seems like a very glaring double standard in this regard.
A quick touch on patents, almost every major corporation on earth finds it cheaper to build a war chest of counter patents than to litigate why don't they all follow "the democratic process" and get the patents overturned instead of just cross-licensing? That procedure locks out all the small players that don't have a matching war chest which sounds allot like what you advocating against for copyright.
And if google gives the works away by offering it for free on their site (ad-supported to run the infrastructure) are they still wrong'ing society? I see a net gain by society as a whole. Even if you assume google destroys all their copies, the benefit to universities is that they can now offer it to their students in digital form which increases the amount of people that can benefit from the work.
If you limit the view to the digitization process, you can conclude that google took a calculated risk that I can easily see in their view had the potential to become a huge benefit to society as a whole. As a side note, when trying to lobby for a point-of-view having actual examples to show how a change could be beneficial has a huge impact on it succeeding.
It would be short sighted to not build in extra capacity to handle bursts and natural growth, ever see anyone on the top500 drastically increase their capacity? If the poster's company have a HPC and are upgrading then business must be good to the point that the current infrastructure is loaded (possibly overloaded). Rollouts like these are not exactly quick and easy, so whatever goes in now has to be able to do what they want for at least as long as it takes to demonstrate ROI.
Amazon is probably the poster child for this mindset. They built in enough capacity and redundancy to handle the seasonal spikes in traffic around the holidays, the result of the extra capacity? EC2, which sounds eerily similar to what the poster hopes to do.
A bit off-topic question, where did the assumption that the US federal government (or any government entity) is paying for this? Last news I heard on this matter is that quite a few government data centers were being shutdown http://www.informationweek.com/news/government/leadership/231002215 so it seems unlikely that they would now be setting up such a large one (especially since that would create a large single point of failure in a hurricane prone area). Also if the government is paying for it why would the poster care about recouping some of the costs?
I was wondering what code "W5921XD - bitten by turtle, subsequent encounter" was for...
I see you didn't read the summary...
"We primarily do life-science/health/biology related tasks on our existing (fairly small) HPC. We intend to continue this usage, but to also open it up for new uses (energy comes to mind)."
They are upgrading and to help recoup the costs it would be nice if it could do some other stuff as well, what do you suggest...
Not if you are picking the top of the line of both companies.
Have never heard that, other than the Atoms Intel chips almost always consume more power and as a side effect tend to run warmer.
I'm sorry but other than saying I have hard proof I would not use fax, especially for a diagram.
The resolution of most faxes is so pitifully poor I can hardly read a printout far less someone's handwriting. Which at least somewhat has to make the point of signatures at least somewhat moot.
And I've worked with lots of fax machines that do the same thing.
I've used one brother fax machine that I literally had to stand there and place the next sheet in just as the current sheet fed through because if you put in more than a few sheets of paper all would feed through. This was supposedly one of their business class models too.
Best thing is do away with the paper. For legal reasons I can't see needing to print the entire document if all you are going to sign is the last page anyway, at least that way you minimize how many trees you kill. If its of any interest, this was for a doctors office and we helped out the attorney next door so I think it fits most some of the most demanding use cases (short of government).
Can't prior art be shown from Nature? I've found rounded corners on rocks by the river quite a few times...
Hmm, I wonder if you can use Mother Nature in this way? Reduce the design to a Fibonacci series or based on the golden ratio somehow and you are set. I know most aspect ratios are at least loosely based on the golden ratio so it can't be too far fetched.
What may be a better solution in the short term would be to examine the policies of browser / OS certificate acceptance policies. After something like this if it is found to be negligent or worse yet malicious on the part of the CA, they get dropped temporarily. As the number of offenses increases the drop time increases, if they behave good for a while the drop time is reduced. Similar to BGP dampening, where any sort of instability must be removed as soon as possible to prevent the whole system from crashing down.
If they seriously start screwing up they will be out of business long before any sort of threshold is reached that they should be removed as a registry (why bother the regulators, let business forces rip them apart, always a more effective solution).
Given that the standard procedure for getting a certificate for the domain issued (at least for GoDaddy, I assume others as well) is to ask the technical contact for the domain itself for authorization to grant the certificate I don't think a change to procedure is necessary.
This procedure alone would alert someone within the organization (I assume with a brain) even if someone within the organization is doing something dangerous to the organization (If you don't know the company or the individual making the request shouldn't be doing anything of this nature why would you approve it?). If the CA fails to follow this procedure then they need to be removed.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-9803689-56.html
Not sure if I'm misunderstanding your statement but getting an ownership stake in facebook seems like a pretty big peep.
A CEO that isn't managing the company, and is instead following orders to boost the stock value, is a shitty CEO in the eyes of everyone except stockholders. I don't know why you're defending that. And you are defending it, when you say "That's how the world works"
As CEO you are the highest manager, you don't answer to any of the lower managers (you can choose to take their advice, you are in no way obliged to), nor do you answer to anyone else in the company. Which leaves the the board of directors (if present, otherwise the shareholders themselves), which represents the shareholders. So as far as the people who the shitty CEO answer to care, the shitty CEO is worth his weight in gold.
Look at the structure of any company that has a structure with a CEO position and you will find that unless such a sentiment is shared by the shareholders as well then the conclusion of the GP is the most likely outcome.
If it hurts them more than it hurts you, then thats a good thing.... I guess...
Its pretty well known that ATI / AMD cards aren't as good at tessellation as Nvidia cards. The question that prompted this is the one thats killing your graphics cards doesn't really look that much better than the one thats not (I'm not comparing cards here, this is DX9 vs DX11), thats a pretty clear sign that something fishy is going on.
The whole point of perfstudio (or any other debugger / profiler) is to determine why. The advantage of PerfStudio over say Visual Studio's built in debugger is that it understands the direct X calls and can interpret them for you so you can see where your GPU time is going (a nice comparison of this is using the profiler in visual studio vs gdb / gprof). In this case it is a complete waste of GPU time to render to thy kingdom come something that will never been seen, whether you consider that a worthwhile piece of info or don't really care is up to you.
Personally I consider this a problem because even Nvidia cards take a hit from this as the article states "The guys at Hardware.fr found that enabling tessellation dropped the frame rates on recent Radeons by 31-38%. The competing GeForces only suffered slowdowns of 17-21%." 17% of 60fps is 10 fps which is a big hit for something that doesn't help much if at all.
I would question that GC = multicore. The fact that the GC would be across all threads makes it a shared resource which means it must be locked and lock what it is working on which will bottleneck the code it is GCing for or for any app that cycles through objects quickly be constantly playing catch up (with all the implications, including the ridiculous memory usage I often see on java servlets).
I'll agree that a multi-core system will handle GC better than a single core I hardly think that qualifies it as multi-core optimized.
If you are about to die in a war over fossil fuels, why would you leave something for them to take? Especially if all it takes is a spark. Any sane general / commander when retreating destroys anything that can help the enemy. You have to be assuming some serious idiots will be in charge when such a strategy has been used in every major war for the past couple centuries.
Secondly will a war increase the rate of usage or decrease it? I'll make the assumption that it will increase (I'd love to hear how it can decrease) so you will end up with less at the end of the war and even in times of peace you have the tragedy of the commons at work which will inevitably lead to another war. As scarcity enters a market it inevitably leads to conflict.
If there is a manufacturing price difference wouldn't the cheaper chip be more expensive to manufacture? It has all the features of the more expensive one + locks for the features.
Why would they be higher in terms of R&D? They shot for Saturn and landed on Mars, in most industries that's deemed a failure and they get nothing. The R&D money was for the trip to Saturn not a trip to Mars. They get to sell the failure to offset the cost of the mission anyway so they are not exactly losing. Unless you count the R&D invested in creating the locks, which will only start increasing the cost of the cheaper chip towards the more expensive chip.
Your 2nd point can stand (I actually agree with it, as well as your conclusion) but your 1st cannot.
If someone buys a gun / car / cement truck / mace / baseball bat / etc and damages other human beings with it by intentionally misusing it although they may have whatever license / training (if applicable) to use it how is the seller at fault? Unless the buyer can prove the car's brakes weren't working or the baseball bat had a crack that caused the top to break off and hit that old lady in the head at the time of sale then the seller can't be held accountable, they are also freed of any need to honor the warranty (if applicable) in exchange for the rights to use the item as the buyer pleases.
The "I own it I can do what I want with it" attitude is the basis of every modding / hacker / fair use community in existence, a company can't always know what the user will decide to do with the product which is why they are protected if the user misuses / heavily modifies the product.
To use your two examples, if the cops pull you over for drunk driving was it because Chevy or Nissan put out a APB for your arrest for misusing their product? If you shoot someone can Colt be sued for selling you the gun even though you have a valid firearms license? That is the realm of regulation of something that is considered dangerous to society, the individual dealers can be sued for not checking your papers thoroughly but the manufacturer cannot.
Even where there is no regulation of the product the seller can't be legally challenged, I'd pay to get front row seats for the lawsuit against IKEA for selling knives to someone who went on a rampage and murdered a couple people, or the some average joe who sold their house to someone who ended up setting up a brothel.
Sustain a huge population of a couple billion vs humans surviving / thriving seems a odd comparison.
Humans were on the planet for a couple centuries before we found fossil fuels so the original claim stands, this planet is inhabitable without it. Also large populations can be sustained without fossil fuels (see Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, the various Chinese dynasties, Persians, Mayans, Aztecs) to which I will concede that once you pass the couple hundred millions in population machinery and by extension fuel become increasingly important to maintain the lifestyle.
Hardly a fair claim, The important distinction is that everything needed for life exists here, in outer space none of it exist and has to be transported there and refreshed periodically (you always need a lifeline, at least for now).
While I do agree cheap hydrocarbons have lead to improved living conditions for at least part of the planet and the improved transportation / food preservation techniques have allowed humans to live in increasing larger clusters further away from the agriculture centers (you can see this as good or bad), I do not see this as being the only viable course of action this civilization could have taken.
Oil (or any other fosil fuel) has been developed for well over 100 years by pretty much every country in the world, primarily due to its importance for machinery. Had some other fuel been developed instead that didn't have a usability limit (soya, corn, nuclear, etc) we could have come out way ahead, especially if the agriculture based fuels were developed as there would be effectively a zero carbon footprint.
I believe thats part of the point, BECAUSE we have cheap access to hydrocarbons no one is particularly interested in developing alternatives which could lead towards the conclusion you provide.
The other option is due to ever increasing demands for hydrocarbons, wars break out that wipe out a major part of the planets population, bringing us back down to a population that can survive without fossil fuels and we are pretty much back to the pre-industrial revolution days, hopefully wiser of what not to do.
If the regulation is that wide ranging that such a disclaimer is void it would kill any sort of hobbyist or if you don't care about that, any sort of research in the industry until a full solution (with ALL risks calculated) can be developed, last I checked no industry can claim such mastery far less a particular member of an industry.
The great news about that world is that we wouldn't need patents because no one would release their product till they knew they could dominate the market.