I didn't say oversubscribing customers to limited bandwidth is unfair. What I complained about is when the risk of oversubscription materializes into the customers getting less bandwidth than was advertised, and the ISP doesn't pay any of the costs of that risk materializing, that is unfair.
Well, content production is a legit business, as is royalty collection, management, and other administration. But the foxes are running the henhouse, so hens just see their eggs scrambled. That kills the next generation of chicks - the music biz always comes down to chicks, even when we're talking about money;).
The process needs to be simple, complexly scalable, and auditable by disinterested parties overseen by an accountable government agency. Which means ripping it up by the roots.
I'm glad you don't know the meaning of the word "goodbye". Because now you've finally revealed that you're just another lying, greedy - and sleazy - ISP.
Your homepage describes a guy who's been an ISP for a decade and a half, but never made much money off it. Because you're don't really understand either economics or networking well enough, despite your outraged capitalist strawmen about the necessity of profits and the inappropriate demands of people buying bandwidth.
Meanwhile, I made more money off my own Toronto ISP in 5 years than you'll make in your whole life.
Last free lesson is the real meaning of "goodbye", starting now.
I caught you fantasizing right there in your post.
And I know a lot more, especially than you. You're the one who's denying your fantasies of my penis, babbling bullshit about economics in which you can't even comprehend my post, throwing strawmen about "no profits", and now projecting your zero credibility onto me, who has plenty.
I totally agree (including your modpoint vs replying policy).
I do think the royalties have to be lowered to what I said, $0.0001/audio $0.0002/video, and most importantly, no minimum. The current $0.0007:play, and rising, fee was derived from totally made-up numbers based on the Broadcast.com acquisition by Yahoo for 1990s stock: at least 10x the actual value, and really in now way related (onetime IP purchase vs per-play royalty).
And every play should be logged, with aggregate reports queryable by the collection agencies. There doesn't need to be any more weasel room to screw the people due the royalties.
I'd add that the copyright itself must expire sooner, to reflect the passage of content into folklore. By the time more value is created by the audience in replaying recordings than is recreated by the author, that should be reflected in the copyright term. Authors should register their auditable costs with their copyright, and expire the copyright after probably 10x ROI, or some timespan. The original 17 years (a human generation) for books and songs is probably right, TV and movies shorter - based on how long the transition to folklore takes. If the author can't make an average of 10x in a generation, their content isn't valuable enough to "progress in science and useful arts" to protect their "temporary" monopoly.
This structure would destroy the 20th century "scarcity mogul" content industry model. And replace it with a model of the 21st Century "surplus networks". Creating more value, appropriately (and manageably) monetized. Spreading the money around all the millions of people actually doing work that adds value, while incenting content producers to invest. But without all the political control the old scarcity moguls are using to perpetuate their model and their power.
Second, I used to be an ISP, from 1995-1998, then I just collected the profits through 2001. So I know what I'm talking about.
Meanwhile, even the telcos' own research demonstrates that increasing capacity is a better ROI than is QoS, and it's a better solution to congestion. As we just heard presented to the public in a Network Neutrality hearing by the NY City Council which actually legislates these policies, including the home turf of Verizon.
People like me, and even less clueful people than me, think we're buying, say, 6Mbps download, because that's what the ISPs sell us. They've got all kinds of weaselly lawyer scams to steal back that bandwidth to support their exorbidant profits.
ISPs, like I used to be, of course need to make profits. We also need to reinvest those profits to keep up with always increasing bandwidth demands that we claim to meet. Telcos are making record profits without that reinvestment, preferring as usual to invest in propaganda and legal protections of their profiteering.
I already said this once. But I guess you needed an excuse to tell me you're fantasizing about my penis. Fuck you and all your bullshit.
ISPs hate video on demand because it fills the pipes we bought, so they finally have to deliver the bandwidth guarantees they sold us.
They've been collecting extra money for years by selling us bandwidth we haven't used. They should use that as investment in more capacity to cover their obligations.
This is just another whining ploy by ISPs to force Network Doublecharge, claiming "Qos" is necessary because increased capacity won't work.
Just like in the 1990s the telcos tried to charge everyone extra for "data lines" and "data modems" because they were finally forced to deliver the local loop signal they sold, and were legally required to deliver for decades, but had cheaped out to make extra profit. And just like they whined that they couldn't deliver lots of DSL, or any other whining to protect their cartels from investing their perpetually record profits into delivering the product they're selling.
They're lying again, even the little ones who just want to be in the club with Verizon and AT&T. They should get kicked in the ass again, just like before. Every time that boot flies at them we finally get some innovation and improvement, even though they don't get their guaranteed exorbidant profits.
Sony's put Cells into over 3 million PS3s. The Cell is a 3.5GHz PPC on a cache-coherent onchip bus with 6 usable DSPs for over 200GFLOPS. IBM is putting together workstations to supercomputers of these same (and denser) Cells in parallel. Other chipmakers are following suit. These are not GPUs, but CPUs with embedded DSP that can process graphics: "NGPU", if you will. But actual GPUs use even more embedded DSPs to get something like 10x the specialized performance.
NSP is the way to go only when there's CPU power to burn and DSP is a small share of the CPU duty. Now that CPUs without DSPs are hitting sequential walls, and going parallel, they're parallelizing the NSP HW, with all its overhead, just to handle more DSP tasks. To compete with Sony and others (probably including nVidia), Intel will have to do what they do. Thereby flipping the entire CPU industry to mainly embedded parallel DSPs.
The question is when, and in what form. There's already some demos by Intel of MPP DSP CPUs. But they're not x86 compatible, while the Cell is PPC compatible (reuse PPC code on the PPC core, then port some features to use the DSPs). Let's see what Intel does, and what they show in the next few years that look like Sony/IBM/Toshiba will pioneer.
Like all open/reporting projects, this one is yet again drawing fire from the powerful to the messenger. The mob(s) have the money and IT staff to get this info the same way the Tattle-tale site does, without using the Tattle-tale site.
Because these people whining about publishing it have been irresponsible in not drawing a real line to protect real secrets. Of course, they draw all kinds of lines to protect public info from public view that isn't really secret, but on which their power depends.
So they're incompetent to actually protect secrecy, which any crypto person can tell you first requires minimizing the secret info any way possible, then controlling only secret data with nonsecret logic. While covering up all kinds of info people need and have a right to see.
So of course they react by blasting a mere demonstration of their own blabby, yet prohibitively inconvenient management of public data.
Yes, uh huh, yeah, but these days it's all secrecy; no privacy Shoot first, that' s right... you know Bye bye. Who's listening? Right now somebody is listening to you Keeping their eyes peeled on you Mmm, mmm, what a price, what a price to pay All right. Good night, sleep tight
I'm going to continue my policy of requiring both ID'ed and AC posters to back up their assertions, especially critical ones. How is my statement impolite?
I remind you that responding to ACs who make incited claims demands only the minimum of politeness.
The RIAA's member labels already collect royalties for songs played on the radio. Radio is not exempt from those royalties - in fact, they usually make up the majority of the income a recording produces, now that songs get played over and over, forever, in our pop/classic corporate "rock" broadcast culture.
Those "performance" royalties are collected by whichever agency represents an artist who wrote the songs: BMI, ASCAP are the biggest, the remaining <10% of artists are represented by a couple of "big little" agencies, and then a bunch of really little ones. But those agencies are at least as corrupt as the record labels which collect sales income, then find every excuse to count "expenses" before returning the minimum (if any) share of "profit" to the artists who made the record. Very little of the performance royalty is paid to the artists, and the return to them is pretty random.
This formula is also worked against the rounding effect of the sampling for determining royalty payments: either one "representative" hour a day, or one "representative" day a week is usually used, which of course means only the most popular artists have a chance of registering in a sample and getting paid. Since the most popular artists get played so much more (the same goddamn song, year after year, too), only the biggest artists get cut in. To make it even worse, the distribution of top artists in the "random" sample is used to divide the royalty collected from radio stations which pay a subscription fee as if they're playing every artist. So in effect those biggest artists are collecting the share of the littler artists who do get played, but who get rounded down. Those "rarities" and "from the vault's back wall" bands they're playing to keep you listening to the classic rock station so it sounds "fresh", with occasional "new" (30 year old) songs, all get lost in the rounding down of the sampling process. So their most valuable songs return the least share of the royalties to their artists.
And of course the BMI/ASCAP/etc collection agencies just underreport plays and percentages to the artists. I have friends in bands which registered half their artists with BMI, the other half with ASCAP, to see which paid better. For some bands BMI paid their half more, for other bands ASCAP paid their half more, sometimes 5-10x different, when they should all have paid the same. Then, since artists are flaky and move around & disappear on benders (or OD), the agencies often collect money they "don't know how to pay", so they just keep it. This also happens whenever there's the slightest possibility that a contract disagreement or unknown might allow different interpretations of how much should go in the check.
All of those scams are also fed back into the radio station's decicisions of how much to play (and promote) which songs. Since there's money attached, money gets spent on those deciders to influence which songs are played when. And to influence which "random" hour/day is picked to report who gets how much.
So now the RIAA wants to get in on the act. And of course they'll charge (mostly independent) streaming radio station even more than they charge (nearly all corporate) broadcast radio stations. Right when the Copyright Office has just rocketed already insane streaming royalties through the roof, threatening the entire noncommercial and small webcaster industry segments.
Broadcast radio already sucks worse than ever. Streaming was the only hope for people to escape the corporate noose in realtime and archived media delivery. Right as streaming was starting to get a hold in video, presenting an on-demand P2P (or communities small to large) world of all media, both kinds of royalties got jacked up to destroy the free publishers. Right as cameraphones also have the bandwidth (and caches) to play streaming radio, and even upload "news from the street", the media mainstream corporate got yet another life extension from the government, killing
Given the vast majority of uncited rumor posted by ACs is merely vaporware/FUD, replying with
Do you have some citation of something real, rather than just an Anonymous Coward posting an uncited rumor that amounts to nothing more than FUD?
was polite.
Then you turned obnoxious asshole, which was completely consistent with that worthless kind of AC posting.
If you'd just cited your original anonymous claim, or just given the citation in the face of the good reason I asked for it, we could have had an interesting discussion. Now I've learned less than I'd like about a possible Intel direction, and more than I'd like about your bad attitude.
When an Anonymous Coward says something controversial, I ask them for a citation. If I googled every BS an AC posted, especially regarding vaporware, I'd have googled a lot of BS.
When someone makes a counterintuitive claim, they should cite it. When asked politely to cite it, they are obligated to cite it. When they're obnoxious about it, they deserve scorn.
FWIW, "coverage on Slashdot" neither makes a claim common knowledge, nor really offers any substantiation to a claim, unless it that coverage cites reliable sources.
ConEd neither knows nor cares about how to make reliable electric grids. They're a huge $BILLION monopoly on which all of NYC depends every second, every day. When over 100K people in Queens lost power for a week or two last Summer, Bloomberg praised ConEd, which still hasn't figured out what caused the blackout. That's after ConEd's failure to cope with the cascading outages that left NYC dark during the vast 2003 Northeast Blackout.
Now they're getting superconductor money to play with. They probably think it has something to do with trains. Why not? That's another monopoly they can understand.
Yet Sony has bet its own uP and videogame businesses on putting parallel DSPs on the Cell, challenging Intel.
As I mentioned, increasingly large segments of all PC processing are suited for DSP. So others, like Sony, are putting DSPs on the CPU.
I started programming/designing for DSP over a decade and a half ago, about half my programming/designing career, so I can tell you - as I did. Proper design, info architecture, eliminates "crazy deadlock bugs". Or you can design it wrong, on a regular CPU without DSP HW, and really go crazy.
No, you just made some anonymous claim with minimal info content. I politely asked you for a citation so I could learn more.
Then, like the classic Anonymous Coward asshole, you turned totally obnoxious. So I can tell without any further help from you that you are indeed that stupid.
In our universe, everything can be characterized as a signal. In our society, practically all signals can be usefully digitized. That doesn't mean DSPs are right for everything, because DSPs aren't good at all signal processing, just some - repeated loops of simple, if cumbersome, linear equations.
DSP is fast math at the expense of fast logic. Web apps have at least as much logic as math, intractably intertwined. DSP of Web apps is inappropriate. DSPs on a chip with fast logic would be good for Web apps and everything else. Intel sells lots of CPUs to process Web apps. And IBM/Toshiba/Sony is planning to sell lots of Cells to do so.
I know what you're talking about. And I know that you don't.
DSP is indeed a "Digital Signal Processor". It's a chip specialized for... processing digital signals. Which nowadays nearly always means running a lot of repeated simple linear transformations of the same basic form on a stream of data. Usually it's a "Multiply/Accumulate" ("MAC" or "MADD"), of the form y=m*x+b, run very fast (billions of times a second), with lots of arithmetic support like zero-delay increments/looping. Also usually at the sacrifice of some performance, or even existence, of some logic operations.
It's a microprocessor with a very fast ALU (math) and corresponding IO, but usually with a much slower CLU (branches/loops/comparisons etc). And since so much computation is in the ALU, not the CLU, it's increasingly popular for more processing than just an optional chip on a bus from the CPU can deliver.
What would you suggest I "google", Anonymous idjit Coward? When I google "dimwit" all I get is "Anonymous Coward".
Congratulations! You've won the "Stupidest Passive-Aggressive Slashdotter of the Hour" award. You win a crusty old 1990s joke to add to your collection.
Yes to all that, but I believe the two different spin states have different energy levels - even if the subatomic mechanics are currently unknown. And that it takes energy, however small, to change the states - but that one "direction" of change requires more, and that perhaps the other direction returns at least some of that energy.
There is a mechanical change, some "stuff" is in a different physical location, when changing electron spin. The two states might have the same energy level, changing between them might be "frictionless" and thereby consume the same amount of energy for a single cycle as for a trillion. But this is matter/energy in space, like anything else.
I'll keep looking for the precise answer to my half-informed question.
Intel putting parallel DSPs on their uPs is not driven by mere "efficiency". Intel demonstrates, even defines, both the CS and economics that are forcing competitors, thereby Intel, too, to put DSP in their cores (literally and figuratively).
And there's not much sense in Web apps being processed by an FIR or full-spectrum mixer.
All I really get from your comment is that you don't know what DSPs do, or what Intel does - or maybe how Web apps work.
Yes, the new ownerr can (and must, through "vigorous defense") stop the previous owner from using the mark.
That is the entire point. The trademark is designed to serve the market, by clearly identifying the distinct product/service offered in trade. It is not just another arbitrary piece of property that is purely an asset to its owner (the registrant).
If everyone buying beverages thinks "Coca-Cola" means the stuff I brew in my bathtub, because I've advertised it for years without the Coke Corporation even telling me to stop, let alone out-advertise me, why should the Coke Corporation peddle their crap to people looking for that genuine bathtub taste?
Intel devastated the entire DSP industry in the late 1990s when they staked out the NSP ("Native Signal Processing") strategy of faster clockrates to run DSP in SW instead of in HW. But now they're up against new Cell chips from IBM which multiprocess with parallel DSPs onchip, and even GSPs ("Graphics Signal Processors") threaten new competition from first nVidia, then TI and other old surviving rivals, as GPGPU techiniques become more sophisticated and applicable.
All because DSP is more parallelizable than true general purpose processing, as parallelization is the best solution to increasing CPU power, just as the data to be processed is inherently more parallel, and more simply streams of "signals", as multimedia convergence redefines computing.
So when will Intel reverse its epoch of NSP, and deliver new uPs with embedded DSP in HW?
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say oversubscribing customers to limited bandwidth is unfair. What I complained about is when the risk of oversubscription materializes into the customers getting less bandwidth than was advertised, and the ISP doesn't pay any of the costs of that risk materializing, that is unfair.
Well, content production is a legit business, as is royalty collection, management, and other administration. But the foxes are running the henhouse, so hens just see their eggs scrambled. That kills the next generation of chicks - the music biz always comes down to chicks, even when we're talking about money ;).
The process needs to be simple, complexly scalable, and auditable by disinterested parties overseen by an accountable government agency. Which means ripping it up by the roots.
I'm glad you don't know the meaning of the word "goodbye". Because now you've finally revealed that you're just another lying, greedy - and sleazy - ISP.
Your homepage describes a guy who's been an ISP for a decade and a half, but never made much money off it. Because you're don't really understand either economics or networking well enough, despite your outraged capitalist strawmen about the necessity of profits and the inappropriate demands of people buying bandwidth.
Meanwhile, I made more money off my own Toronto ISP in 5 years than you'll make in your whole life.
Last free lesson is the real meaning of "goodbye", starting now.
I caught you fantasizing right there in your post.
And I know a lot more, especially than you. You're the one who's denying your fantasies of my penis, babbling bullshit about economics in which you can't even comprehend my post, throwing strawmen about "no profits", and now projecting your zero credibility onto me, who has plenty.
Goodbye, troll.
I totally agree (including your modpoint vs replying policy).
I do think the royalties have to be lowered to what I said, $0.0001/audio $0.0002/video, and most importantly, no minimum. The current $0.0007:play, and rising, fee was derived from totally made-up numbers based on the Broadcast.com acquisition by Yahoo for 1990s stock: at least 10x the actual value, and really in now way related (onetime IP purchase vs per-play royalty).
And every play should be logged, with aggregate reports queryable by the collection agencies. There doesn't need to be any more weasel room to screw the people due the royalties.
I'd add that the copyright itself must expire sooner, to reflect the passage of content into folklore. By the time more value is created by the audience in replaying recordings than is recreated by the author, that should be reflected in the copyright term. Authors should register their auditable costs with their copyright, and expire the copyright after probably 10x ROI, or some timespan. The original 17 years (a human generation) for books and songs is probably right, TV and movies shorter - based on how long the transition to folklore takes. If the author can't make an average of 10x in a generation, their content isn't valuable enough to "progress in science and useful arts" to protect their "temporary" monopoly.
This structure would destroy the 20th century "scarcity mogul" content industry model. And replace it with a model of the 21st Century "surplus networks". Creating more value, appropriately (and manageably) monetized. Spreading the money around all the millions of people actually doing work that adds value, while incenting content producers to invest. But without all the political control the old scarcity moguls are using to perpetuate their model and their power.
First, stop fantasizing about my penis.
Second, I used to be an ISP, from 1995-1998, then I just collected the profits through 2001. So I know what I'm talking about.
Meanwhile, even the telcos' own research demonstrates that increasing capacity is a better ROI than is QoS, and it's a better solution to congestion. As we just heard presented to the public in a Network Neutrality hearing by the NY City Council which actually legislates these policies, including the home turf of Verizon.
People like me, and even less clueful people than me, think we're buying, say, 6Mbps download, because that's what the ISPs sell us. They've got all kinds of weaselly lawyer scams to steal back that bandwidth to support their exorbidant profits.
ISPs, like I used to be, of course need to make profits. We also need to reinvest those profits to keep up with always increasing bandwidth demands that we claim to meet. Telcos are making record profits without that reinvestment, preferring as usual to invest in propaganda and legal protections of their profiteering.
I already said this once. But I guess you needed an excuse to tell me you're fantasizing about my penis. Fuck you and all your bullshit.
ISPs hate video on demand because it fills the pipes we bought, so they finally have to deliver the bandwidth guarantees they sold us.
They've been collecting extra money for years by selling us bandwidth we haven't used. They should use that as investment in more capacity to cover their obligations.
This is just another whining ploy by ISPs to force Network Doublecharge, claiming "Qos" is necessary because increased capacity won't work.
Just like in the 1990s the telcos tried to charge everyone extra for "data lines" and "data modems" because they were finally forced to deliver the local loop signal they sold, and were legally required to deliver for decades, but had cheaped out to make extra profit. And just like they whined that they couldn't deliver lots of DSL, or any other whining to protect their cartels from investing their perpetually record profits into delivering the product they're selling.
They're lying again, even the little ones who just want to be in the club with Verizon and AT&T. They should get kicked in the ass again, just like before. Every time that boot flies at them we finally get some innovation and improvement, even though they don't get their guaranteed exorbidant profits.
Thank you for finally backing up what I've said about you all along.
Cunt.
Sony's put Cells into over 3 million PS3s. The Cell is a 3.5GHz PPC on a cache-coherent onchip bus with 6 usable DSPs for over 200GFLOPS. IBM is putting together workstations to supercomputers of these same (and denser) Cells in parallel. Other chipmakers are following suit. These are not GPUs, but CPUs with embedded DSP that can process graphics: "NGPU", if you will. But actual GPUs use even more embedded DSPs to get something like 10x the specialized performance.
NSP is the way to go only when there's CPU power to burn and DSP is a small share of the CPU duty. Now that CPUs without DSPs are hitting sequential walls, and going parallel, they're parallelizing the NSP HW, with all its overhead, just to handle more DSP tasks. To compete with Sony and others (probably including nVidia), Intel will have to do what they do. Thereby flipping the entire CPU industry to mainly embedded parallel DSPs.
The question is when, and in what form. There's already some demos by Intel of MPP DSP CPUs. But they're not x86 compatible, while the Cell is PPC compatible (reuse PPC code on the PPC core, then port some features to use the DSPs). Let's see what Intel does, and what they show in the next few years that look like Sony/IBM/Toshiba will pioneer.
Because these people whining about publishing it have been irresponsible in not drawing a real line to protect real secrets. Of course, they draw all kinds of lines to protect public info from public view that isn't really secret, but on which their power depends.
So they're incompetent to actually protect secrecy, which any crypto person can tell you first requires minimizing the secret info any way possible, then controlling only secret data with nonsecret logic. While covering up all kinds of info people need and have a right to see.
So of course they react by blasting a mere demonstration of their own blabby, yet prohibitively inconvenient management of public data.
"Fingerprint File", by The Rolling Stones
I'm going to continue my policy of requiring both ID'ed and AC posters to back up their assertions, especially critical ones. How is my statement impolite?
I remind you that responding to ACs who make incited claims demands only the minimum of politeness.
The RIAA's member labels already collect royalties for songs played on the radio. Radio is not exempt from those royalties - in fact, they usually make up the majority of the income a recording produces, now that songs get played over and over, forever, in our pop/classic corporate "rock" broadcast culture.
Those "performance" royalties are collected by whichever agency represents an artist who wrote the songs: BMI, ASCAP are the biggest, the remaining <10% of artists are represented by a couple of "big little" agencies, and then a bunch of really little ones. But those agencies are at least as corrupt as the record labels which collect sales income, then find every excuse to count "expenses" before returning the minimum (if any) share of "profit" to the artists who made the record. Very little of the performance royalty is paid to the artists, and the return to them is pretty random.
This formula is also worked against the rounding effect of the sampling for determining royalty payments: either one "representative" hour a day, or one "representative" day a week is usually used, which of course means only the most popular artists have a chance of registering in a sample and getting paid. Since the most popular artists get played so much more (the same goddamn song, year after year, too), only the biggest artists get cut in. To make it even worse, the distribution of top artists in the "random" sample is used to divide the royalty collected from radio stations which pay a subscription fee as if they're playing every artist. So in effect those biggest artists are collecting the share of the littler artists who do get played, but who get rounded down. Those "rarities" and "from the vault's back wall" bands they're playing to keep you listening to the classic rock station so it sounds "fresh", with occasional "new" (30 year old) songs, all get lost in the rounding down of the sampling process. So their most valuable songs return the least share of the royalties to their artists.
And of course the BMI/ASCAP/etc collection agencies just underreport plays and percentages to the artists. I have friends in bands which registered half their artists with BMI, the other half with ASCAP, to see which paid better. For some bands BMI paid their half more, for other bands ASCAP paid their half more, sometimes 5-10x different, when they should all have paid the same. Then, since artists are flaky and move around & disappear on benders (or OD), the agencies often collect money they "don't know how to pay", so they just keep it. This also happens whenever there's the slightest possibility that a contract disagreement or unknown might allow different interpretations of how much should go in the check.
All of those scams are also fed back into the radio station's decicisions of how much to play (and promote) which songs. Since there's money attached, money gets spent on those deciders to influence which songs are played when. And to influence which "random" hour/day is picked to report who gets how much.
So now the RIAA wants to get in on the act. And of course they'll charge (mostly independent) streaming radio station even more than they charge (nearly all corporate) broadcast radio stations. Right when the Copyright Office has just rocketed already insane streaming royalties through the roof, threatening the entire noncommercial and small webcaster industry segments.
Broadcast radio already sucks worse than ever. Streaming was the only hope for people to escape the corporate noose in realtime and archived media delivery. Right as streaming was starting to get a hold in video, presenting an on-demand P2P (or communities small to large) world of all media, both kinds of royalties got jacked up to destroy the free publishers. Right as cameraphones also have the bandwidth (and caches) to play streaming radio, and even upload "news from the street", the media mainstream corporate got yet another life extension from the government, killing
was polite.
Then you turned obnoxious asshole, which was completely consistent with that worthless kind of AC posting.
If you'd just cited your original anonymous claim, or just given the citation in the face of the good reason I asked for it, we could have had an interesting discussion. Now I've learned less than I'd like about a possible Intel direction, and more than I'd like about your bad attitude.
When an Anonymous Coward says something controversial, I ask them for a citation. If I googled every BS an AC posted, especially regarding vaporware, I'd have googled a lot of BS.
When someone makes a counterintuitive claim, they should cite it. When asked politely to cite it, they are obligated to cite it. When they're obnoxious about it, they deserve scorn.
FWIW, "coverage on Slashdot" neither makes a claim common knowledge, nor really offers any substantiation to a claim, unless it that coverage cites reliable sources.
ConEd neither knows nor cares about how to make reliable electric grids. They're a huge $BILLION monopoly on which all of NYC depends every second, every day. When over 100K people in Queens lost power for a week or two last Summer, Bloomberg praised ConEd, which still hasn't figured out what caused the blackout. That's after ConEd's failure to cope with the cascading outages that left NYC dark during the vast 2003 Northeast Blackout.
Now they're getting superconductor money to play with. They probably think it has something to do with trains. Why not? That's another monopoly they can understand.
Yet Sony has bet its own uP and videogame businesses on putting parallel DSPs on the Cell, challenging Intel.
As I mentioned, increasingly large segments of all PC processing are suited for DSP. So others, like Sony, are putting DSPs on the CPU.
I started programming/designing for DSP over a decade and a half ago, about half my programming/designing career, so I can tell you - as I did. Proper design, info architecture, eliminates "crazy deadlock bugs". Or you can design it wrong, on a regular CPU without DSP HW, and really go crazy.
No, you just made some anonymous claim with minimal info content. I politely asked you for a citation so I could learn more.
Then, like the classic Anonymous Coward asshole, you turned totally obnoxious. So I can tell without any further help from you that you are indeed that stupid.
In our universe, everything can be characterized as a signal. In our society, practically all signals can be usefully digitized. That doesn't mean DSPs are right for everything, because DSPs aren't good at all signal processing, just some - repeated loops of simple, if cumbersome, linear equations.
DSP is fast math at the expense of fast logic. Web apps have at least as much logic as math, intractably intertwined. DSP of Web apps is inappropriate. DSPs on a chip with fast logic would be good for Web apps and everything else. Intel sells lots of CPUs to process Web apps. And IBM/Toshiba/Sony is planning to sell lots of Cells to do so.
I know what you're talking about. And I know that you don't.
DSP is indeed a "Digital Signal Processor". It's a chip specialized for... processing digital signals. Which nowadays nearly always means running a lot of repeated simple linear transformations of the same basic form on a stream of data. Usually it's a "Multiply/Accumulate" ("MAC" or "MADD"), of the form y=m*x+b, run very fast (billions of times a second), with lots of arithmetic support like zero-delay increments/looping. Also usually at the sacrifice of some performance, or even existence, of some logic operations.
It's a microprocessor with a very fast ALU (math) and corresponding IO, but usually with a much slower CLU (branches/loops/comparisons etc). And since so much computation is in the ALU, not the CLU, it's increasingly popular for more processing than just an optional chip on a bus from the CPU can deliver.
What would you suggest I "google", Anonymous idjit Coward? When I google "dimwit" all I get is "Anonymous Coward".
Congratulations! You've won the "Stupidest Passive-Aggressive Slashdotter of the Hour" award. You win a crusty old 1990s joke to add to your collection.
Yes to all that, but I believe the two different spin states have different energy levels - even if the subatomic mechanics are currently unknown. And that it takes energy, however small, to change the states - but that one "direction" of change requires more, and that perhaps the other direction returns at least some of that energy.
There is a mechanical change, some "stuff" is in a different physical location, when changing electron spin. The two states might have the same energy level, changing between them might be "frictionless" and thereby consume the same amount of energy for a single cycle as for a trillion. But this is matter/energy in space, like anything else.
I'll keep looking for the precise answer to my half-informed question.
Do you have some citation of something real, rather than just an Anonymous Coward posting an uncited rumor that amounts to nothing more than FUD?
Intel putting parallel DSPs on their uPs is not driven by mere "efficiency". Intel demonstrates, even defines, both the CS and economics that are forcing competitors, thereby Intel, too, to put DSP in their cores (literally and figuratively).
And there's not much sense in Web apps being processed by an FIR or full-spectrum mixer.
All I really get from your comment is that you don't know what DSPs do, or what Intel does - or maybe how Web apps work.
Yes, the new ownerr can (and must, through "vigorous defense") stop the previous owner from using the mark.
That is the entire point. The trademark is designed to serve the market, by clearly identifying the distinct product/service offered in trade. It is not just another arbitrary piece of property that is purely an asset to its owner (the registrant).
If everyone buying beverages thinks "Coca-Cola" means the stuff I brew in my bathtub, because I've advertised it for years without the Coke Corporation even telling me to stop, let alone out-advertise me, why should the Coke Corporation peddle their crap to people looking for that genuine bathtub taste?
Intel devastated the entire DSP industry in the late 1990s when they staked out the NSP ("Native Signal Processing") strategy of faster clockrates to run DSP in SW instead of in HW. But now they're up against new Cell chips from IBM which multiprocess with parallel DSPs onchip, and even GSPs ("Graphics Signal Processors") threaten new competition from first nVidia, then TI and other old surviving rivals, as GPGPU techiniques become more sophisticated and applicable.
All because DSP is more parallelizable than true general purpose processing, as parallelization is the best solution to increasing CPU power, just as the data to be processed is inherently more parallel, and more simply streams of "signals", as multimedia convergence redefines computing.
So when will Intel reverse its epoch of NSP, and deliver new uPs with embedded DSP in HW?