The CRC ownership of the intellectual property is the issue under debate. It's all about derivative works. Is the website a derivative work of the CDROM, is the CDROM a derivative work of the website, or neither way round?
Personally I find the idea of something that has been under constant development since the early nineties (I remember when it had next to no graphics, back in 1993!) being 'derivative' of something that was published in 1999 pretty darned absurd.
The first amendment may refer to the "press" side of the communication issue, however the right that is being codified is also that of the reader. A press which can print its material but is forbidden from letting anyone view that material is still having 1st amendment right violated, even though the ink is hitting paper.
If you believe that Eric Weisstein was the rightful owner of the Mathworld 'work' (copyright-law term), not CRC, then his right to publish his work was being violated. This is the stance I've had all along, but CRC seemed to view Mathworld as a derivative work of the Encyclopaedia, and thus Eric would have no such right, as he would no longer be the owner of the work.
FatPhil
(not a lawyer, nor an American, but interested in such issues.)
For the last year, I've had as my email signature a comment about the CRC/Weisstein case ("mathematics should not involve martyrdom"). Yesterday altavista lost my sig settings - I was annoyed! However, it was obviously a good omen!
I am _buzzing_, I'm so happy.
Now you've got to remember that the encyclopaedia is still taking shape - get contributing guys and gals! (I'm gonna give the factoring algorithms a face-lift, methinks.)
Nicely cynical - I like that.
However, do remember that this is the guy who went against one of the tightest closed-doors self-defending lie-if-we-need-to institutions in the land in the outrageously high-profile North case. He's already reached the big time, _and_ he's perfect for the job. This is about as good as it gets at this stage of procedings/
As a user of W3M (text-mode browser, like Lynx but better), I have about a dozen words to say: I'll never get to see these marvelous websites, I feel gutted.
Where I live (Finland) if people want a non-"high-end" machine then a Duron system is about as cheapas you can get.
And if they want a "high-end" machine, by bang-per-buck a Thunderbird does the business (a whole system for less than the price of a P4 chip.)
The average consumer is basically either miguided or wrong. Or both.
While people still think there's any value at all in an "intel inside" sticker then no amount of processor smarts will make AMD the processor of choice.
I hope that the losses are nothing but streamlining, as I buy chips on processor-smarts.
Amazingly I may know dozens of equally or more savvy guys, but that's dwarfed by the corporate and man-on-the-street market. Intel's marketting is bullshit, and the fuckwits who sign checks fall for it. Having said that AMD are turning to BS marketting now too - I don't know if I want that to work or not.
FatPhil
(did I mention my main machine is a DEC Alpha?)
MHz, SchmHz!
However, the skew was disgustingly pro-intel.
Anandtech had reviews of the 1.1GHz Athlon _11_ months ago, and modern variations of Moore's Law tell us a lot about periods that long.
Also note that the Athlon chosen was using previous-generation memory technology.
I want to see a Q3 2001 AMD result, i.e. 1.4GHz/266MHz DDR. Anything else is a con.
Where I've worked, where we wanted lots of (independent, not clustered in any way) PPC chips, we've used 1U configurations. We've also used 17 boards vertically mounted in a 8U subrack (less powerful processors, with undoubtedly easier cooling).
Blocky (rectangular). Small. Functional.
No colour, no logo, no curves.
Trust me - PPCs still work in the above configuration. TBH, a fully populated 8U subrack looked _sweet_ (but rectangular and 'boring' to those who can't appreciate the aesthetics of practical designs). When I see the cluster in the story I think "waste of 3D-volume" (the words I think are "waste of space"! But I don't want you to think that I don't like the idea of that many AltiVec enabled CPUs in one place. I love the idea, I really do. Mathematical computation is _my_bag_.)
(Hmmm, thinking about it, there was a 1U Fan subrack above the 8U processor subrack, so the whole thing required 9U)
Yes, we do build our own hardware. No you can't buy one.
You could save money by not wasting your dough on flashy-stylish see-thru' cases with Apple logos on. Look at the picture - the machines are abutting side-to-side. You _don't_ need see through cases or Apple logos if you can't even _see_ the sides.
It's nice to see small G4 clusters put together, as Alphas and x86 seem to have been having all the fun in recent years. However, I get the feeling it was done more for the press (nothing wrong in being first) than for the practicality of it.
What's the difference between pointing people towards General Motors and copying the entire Ford website?
I know it's a straw man argument, but your question really comes over as equally misguided.
It's a 'button' that 1% of people will use in 1% of their code. So I'll not be happy until they've added 10000 such buttons, as then they'll have added something for everyone to use everywhere!
Yes, but did you also notice that SGI supplied 44x the ammount of storage that was required, Compaq only supplied 13x. I.e to put then level you could decrease the SGI cost from 300k to 100k. They also supplied a 30K UPS, which Compaq didn't bother to include. The whole system was overspec'ed, and not in directions that actually aid the performance.
(you don't need 4 monitors to run a DB server, for example...)
FP.
-
--
Re:GCC optimizations and benchmarking
on
Kernel Benchmarks
·
· Score: 1
And I've always barfed at the line
-fomit-frame-pointer.
With Sony having its hands in both licensing and the display technology, you're just gonna have to look at making your own, unless...
...well, let's think.
The 'ingredients' are a bunch of small companies, from tiger economy countries.
The 'cooking time' is maybe 10-15 years (before this crypto-nonsense technology becomes as standard as DVD).
The 'recipe' is wait. That's all.
They've (the smaller IT eqpt. manufacturing companies) seen that there's a huge consumer market for being able to just do things unencumbered. CD-Rs for example. Everyone wants one, they're everywhere now. By the time this technology becomes mainstream, there'll be a bunch of people making 'incompatible' hardware that will just output the stuff unencrypted. They will because they can, and because there's money in it, and thirdly because they're _not governed by US law_.
I translated it as "if we force people to use something new they'll say 'get stuffed' as there's too much inertia. and then we won't sell any, and then we'll not make any money from it. hmmm, moneyyyy...".
Slashdot Mirror
Who was it who said:
"Those who think that they can achieve security through encryption know nothing about security, or encryption."
FP.
Remind me how he can be sure he hasn't been owned for 10 days or more already?
I swear wu-ftpd has had more exploits than any other package I have on my system. Shame on the programmers, a bunch of bodgers.
FP.
Person X says "Debian doesn't ..."
Jerkoff Y says "I can't speak for Debian... this isn't totally correct" and gets modded _up_ for spouting non-sequitor shite?
Moderator on crack?
FP.
You're right. And that's coming from an ardent Linux spazza (~3 yrs without 'doze)
The final words may well have been "I'm keeping windows off my computer", but if so - that's whet the article should have said.
Well spotted.
FP
The CRC ownership of the intellectual property is the issue under debate. It's all about derivative works. Is the website a derivative work of the CDROM, is the CDROM a derivative work of the website, or neither way round?
Personally I find the idea of something that has been under constant development since the early nineties (I remember when it had next to no graphics, back in 1993!) being 'derivative' of something that was published in 1999 pretty darned absurd.
However, I'm not CRC.
FatPhil
The first amendment may refer to the "press" side of the communication issue, however the right that is being codified is also that of the reader. A press which can print its material but is forbidden from letting anyone view that material is still having 1st amendment right violated, even though the ink is hitting paper.
If you believe that Eric Weisstein was the rightful owner of the Mathworld 'work' (copyright-law term), not CRC, then his right to publish his work was being violated. This is the stance I've had all along, but CRC seemed to view Mathworld as a derivative work of the Encyclopaedia, and thus Eric would have no such right, as he would no longer be the owner of the work.
FatPhil
(not a lawyer, nor an American, but interested in such issues.)
For the last year, I've had as my email signature a comment about the CRC/Weisstein case ("mathematics should not involve martyrdom"). Yesterday altavista lost my sig settings - I was annoyed! However, it was obviously a good omen!
:-) )
I am _buzzing_, I'm so happy.
Now you've got to remember that the encyclopaedia is still taking shape - get contributing guys and gals! (I'm gonna give the factoring algorithms a face-lift, methinks.)
FatPhil (feeling particularly fat
Nicely cynical - I like that.
However, do remember that this is the guy who went against one of the tightest closed-doors self-defending lie-if-we-need-to institutions in the land in the outrageously high-profile North case. He's already reached the big time, _and_ he's perfect for the job. This is about as good as it gets at this stage of procedings/
FatPhil
As a user of W3M (text-mode browser, like Lynx but better), I have about a dozen words to say: I'll never get to see these marvelous websites, I feel gutted.
FatPhil
Where I live (Finland) if people want a non-"high-end" machine then a Duron system is about as cheapas you can get.
And if they want a "high-end" machine, by bang-per-buck a Thunderbird does the business (a whole system for less than the price of a P4 chip.)
The average consumer is basically either miguided or wrong. Or both.
While people still think there's any value at all in an "intel inside" sticker then no amount of processor smarts will make AMD the processor of choice.
I hope that the losses are nothing but streamlining, as I buy chips on processor-smarts.
Amazingly I may know dozens of equally or more savvy guys, but that's dwarfed by the corporate and man-on-the-street market. Intel's marketting is bullshit, and the fuckwits who sign checks fall for it. Having said that AMD are turning to BS marketting now too - I don't know if I want that to work or not.
FatPhil
(did I mention my main machine is a DEC Alpha?)
MHz, SchmHz!
However, the skew was disgustingly pro-intel.
Anandtech had reviews of the 1.1GHz Athlon _11_ months ago, and modern variations of Moore's Law tell us a lot about periods that long.
Also note that the Athlon chosen was using previous-generation memory technology.
I want to see a Q3 2001 AMD result, i.e. 1.4GHz/266MHz DDR. Anything else is a con.
FP
Where I've worked, where we wanted lots of (independent, not clustered in any way) PPC chips, we've used 1U configurations. We've also used 17 boards vertically mounted in a 8U subrack (less powerful processors, with undoubtedly easier cooling).
Blocky (rectangular). Small. Functional.
No colour, no logo, no curves.
Trust me - PPCs still work in the above configuration. TBH, a fully populated 8U subrack looked _sweet_ (but rectangular and 'boring' to those who can't appreciate the aesthetics of practical designs). When I see the cluster in the story I think "waste of 3D-volume" (the words I think are "waste of space"! But I don't want you to think that I don't like the idea of that many AltiVec enabled CPUs in one place. I love the idea, I really do. Mathematical computation is _my_bag_.)
(Hmmm, thinking about it, there was a 1U Fan subrack above the 8U processor subrack, so the whole thing required 9U)
Yes, we do build our own hardware. No you can't buy one.
FP.
--
The spelling of Bill Getes' name was never in doubt though.
FP.
(If you can't see it's a +1 Funny I'm fishing for, then at least be inventive with your choice of -1. Thank you.)
--
Fuck, I'm mod, but have posted already.
Moderators - put down the spoon/inner-tube/whatever, and get upmodding!
--
You could save money by not wasting your dough on flashy-stylish see-thru' cases with Apple logos on. Look at the picture - the machines are abutting side-to-side. You _don't_ need see through cases or Apple logos if you can't even _see_ the sides.
It's nice to see small G4 clusters put together, as Alphas and x86 seem to have been having all the fun in recent years. However, I get the feeling it was done more for the press (nothing wrong in being first) than for the practicality of it.
FP.
--
June 22nd perhaps?
(a wait of 42 days (I hope) for reference)
FP.
--
FP.
--
Bzzzt! Try again!
Read further. 'are' may well be introduced as a synonym for 'is'. The editorial comment was a forward-looking one, was it not?
FP.
--
It's a 'button' that 1% of people will use in 1% of their code. So I'll not be happy until they've added 10000 such buttons, as then they'll have added something for everyone to use everywhere!
FP.
--
Yes, but did you also notice that SGI supplied 44x the ammount of storage that was required, Compaq only supplied 13x. I.e to put then level you could decrease the SGI cost from 300k to 100k. They also supplied a 30K UPS, which Compaq didn't bother to include. The whole system was overspec'ed, and not in directions that actually aid the performance.
(you don't need 4 monitors to run a DB server, for example...)
FP.
-
--
And I've always barfed at the line
-fomit-frame-pointer.
It just _reads_ badly when I see it.
FP.
--
Yup, and therefore has turned the thing into 1 triple-handshake rather than 22. Maybe saved on 21 forks too.
FP.
--
" ...
according to Moore's Law, harddisks will
"
Great troll! Someone mod that up!
Moore's law pertaining to hard disks, great, classic...
FP.
--
With Sony having its hands in both licensing and the display technology, you're just gonna have to look at making your own, unless...
...well, let's think.
The 'ingredients' are a bunch of small companies, from tiger economy countries.
The 'cooking time' is maybe 10-15 years (before this crypto-nonsense technology becomes as standard as DVD).
The 'recipe' is wait. That's all.
They've (the smaller IT eqpt. manufacturing companies) seen that there's a huge consumer market for being able to just do things unencumbered. CD-Rs for example. Everyone wants one, they're everywhere now. By the time this technology becomes mainstream, there'll be a bunch of people making 'incompatible' hardware that will just output the stuff unencrypted. They will because they can, and because there's money in it, and thirdly because they're _not governed by US law_.
That's what Sony are forgetting...
FP.
--
I translated it as "if we force people to use something new they'll say 'get stuffed' as there's too much inertia. and then we won't sell any, and then we'll not make any money from it. hmmm, moneyyyy...".
FP.
--