It needs to be more than the legal costs though. Maybe 10x the costs. Just paying the defense costs is not enough of a deterrent to a corporation like Apple Computer. These penalties need potentially to reach into the millions, to stop this kind of practice.
What we need is legislation to punish corporations that bring this kind of "strategic lawsuit". The suit likely cannot stand on its own merit, but the cost of proving that in court is prohibitive to the defendant. Of course, it would be difficult getting something like this enacted, since the lawyers profit on every case brought to court, frivolous or not.
Game design is an art form. Currently, it's all to common for new-release games to sport the latest whiz-bang 3D graphics and sound, while the game itself is absolute crap. Obviously none of the games from the 80s would win any awards today for technical excellence, but what made the classics great in their time was solid design and attention to gameplay. Game designers of today ought to study the history of games as well as the latest version of DirectX. That's why we need to keep these old games around.
This is important - either you encrypt everything, even non-sensitive material, or you encrypt nothing and rely on stenography. I like stenography better myself...
Do you mean steganography? Or should we start working on an RFC for SHTP (Shorthand Transport Protocol)?
Well, one difference is that in the US, labeling laws require nutritional information on any processed food sold. It's probably illegal for that reason to sell the candy individually. I don't think it's a nefarious scheme by the candy company to increase their profit margin.
No, relativity is very precise about this. It doesn't say that "two events cannot happen simultaneously, at locations very far apart in space". It says that the very concept of "the same time" has no meaning as the distances involved become very large. There's no such thing as "the same time"; it depends on where you are watching from, and how fast you're moving, and in what direction (relative to the events in question, of course). There is no such thing as an absolute time that is valid at all points in space. Go to the Science section of your local used bookstore and get an introductory book on relativity if you're interested in understanding this extremely interesting aspect of the universe we live in.
So, the events which led to intelligence happened "simultaneously" (let's suspend our disbelief for a moment, ignoring that according to relativity there's no such thing as simultaneity across such long distances in space) on all homeworlds. I guess that means that we humans are cosmic underacheivers, since the aliens are so much farther advanced than we are?
The article on this claims that the nuclear weapons in America's arsenal today were simulated in two dimensions on computers less powerful than a G3. So, my question is this: now that we can simulate in three dimensions, what added capabilities will our new, advanced little bundles of death have that the current ones don't?
One thing that occurs to me immediately is that the amount of bandwitdth potential is proportional to the frequency used. Advances in technology can and will increase the bandwidth you can get per Hz, but more Hz will always give you more bandwidth. I guess there would come a point where a "maximum frequency" would be reached, due to reasons of economy (takes too much energy to transmit) or safety (it fries everyone within a 3 mile radius). The question of how much bandwidth we can squeeze in per Hz is much thornier and I have no qualification whatsoever to address it. There probably is a theoretical maximum, although I seem to remember that 28.8k was the theoretical maximum for modems, too. Whatever trick was used to double that over the telephone network might not translate to the ether, though.
It's true that technology, once unleashed, is difficult or impossible to restrain. And there are examples in the past of technology which produced changes which were considered unthinkable by the people of the time. If those people could see what we are now, they would likely be horrified. So, the doomsayers are right in a sense. This technology will probably be one of the most significant discoveries in history in terms of fundamentally altering the way we think about and experience a great many things. It's not the end of The World, but maybe the end of Our world. It's called Change.
This guy claims that Nike was negligent by only using mail-from authorization with Network Solutions, allowing anyone who can spoof an email to hijack their domain. Apparently, if Nike is to be believed, they had crypt-pw security, but NSI simply ignored it. The article claims that NSI has done this before. If all this is true, then I'd say the guy has a pretty good case against NSI, and that Nike probably does as well.
I've read a little bit about mechanisms to correct for atmospheric distortion using adaptive optics. To what degree can these systems reduce the distortion that an earth-based telescope suffers? Will advances in this area make it less attractive to put an optical telescope in space, given that the cost of lifting it into orbit can instead be used for corrective systems, and to build a larger instrument?
...and I'wondering if the titles ("Will BXXP replace HTTP?") are designed to make it easy to discern who read the article and who didn't. As I understand it, BXXP mainly functions as a platform on which to build other protocols, with most of the "dirty work" abstracted away for you, not just some replacement for an existing protocol. Sounds pretty nifty to me.
I think the number of XML tags would be relatively small, compared to a more data-centric application of XML that is trying to tag every unit of data in the trasnfer. Surely nothing inside the "payload" itself would be tagged in XML by the BXXP protocol, so the performance hit wouldn't be as large as it is in other XML applications.
Doesn't this proposal go counter to the Safe Harbor notion that ISPs are not liable for what their customers post? I understand it's not an exact application of the law, but the concept is similar. It's not fair for the ISP to be burdened with determining the legality of everything posted through their systems; similarly, I believe it isn't fair for a site owner to be burdened with checking the legality of all the other sites he happens to be linked to.
No it is not, you are not moving twice as much data. The data rate is still the same. what has increased is the total amount of memory.
Actually, my original post is correct. Since the RAM latency we're talking about is on the back end of the RAM-doubling chip, we're only moving half (or whatever fraction) of the data to the physical RAM. You are correct that we're still moving the same amount of data over the bus, but the bus is not where the latency lies.
I believe that most ASIC's (other than moster graphics processors) consume far less power and produce far less heat than the main CPU (or a hard drive for that matter). Any increase in power use and/or heat production of this technology as compared to the RAM it's replacing will be trivial relative to that of the system as a whole.
Call me a pessimist, but memory right now is around 6ns for PC133. Now, assuming a very conservative 2ns to decode the data, that's 8ns, which is a 25% performance hit.
Well, let's say that the stated 2:1 compression ratio is acheived. Now we're moving twice as much data in 133% of the time, which is a 33% performance gain. (2x the data in 8ns, equivalent to same data in 4ns, as compared to the original 6ns.) The break-even point for 2:1 compression is a 2:1 slowdown in performance. If the compression averages 1.5:1, then the performance must be no worse than 1.5x as slow in order to avoid degrading access time. Can the average performance cost ratio go below the average compression gain ratio, and actually increase performance? If not, then how close is tolerable? I'd say there's room for this technology to be of value, especially as stated in the article, in servers with enormous amounts of RAM.
What's so new is that it's implemented in hardware. The article claims approximately 4 orders of magnitude better performance than a software solution. Of course, whether that's enough to make it worthwhile is not addressed.
IANAHardware Engineer, but it seems to me that RAM is already designed to do one simple thing (okay, two things: peek and poke) and to do it absolutely as fast as possible. This technology inevitably will degrade RAM performance by a finite amount. Is their chip fast enough that this degredation will be negligible? If so, then this will be Extremely Cool. If not, then no thanks, I'll just shell out for the extra RAM. Of course, the economics on a huge server with 100GB of RAM are most likely compeletely different.
I've already reserved the domain name and patents for my new site, geneticmapquest.com. All you have to do is enter a starting and destination genome, such as pig -> elephant, and the system gives you a generation-by-genration breeding and genetic modification roadmap. Of course I'm only leasing the directions to you, and any derivative work remains my property.
Fairness and Transparency are the foundations of privacy policy in the European Union. They're good ideas.
Personal information is given for a particular purpose. The notion of Fairness is an extension of the conviction that doctors, lawyers, accountants, and other professionals hold, that information received during the rendering of a service should be held confidential.
As far as Transparency goes, do you not find it creepy that you have no right to see what personal information about you a company is holding? No way to know if your medical records have been leaked, or your attorney-client privlege has been breached? This is plain wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
...allows us to crack Chinese military codes...er...look for E.T. more efficiently than ever before.
It needs to be more than the legal costs though. Maybe 10x the costs. Just paying the defense costs is not enough of a deterrent to a corporation like Apple Computer. These penalties need potentially to reach into the millions, to stop this kind of practice.
What we need is legislation to punish corporations that bring this kind of "strategic lawsuit". The suit likely cannot stand on its own merit, but the cost of proving that in court is prohibitive to the defendant. Of course, it would be difficult getting something like this enacted, since the lawyers profit on every case brought to court, frivolous or not.
Game design is an art form. Currently, it's all to common for new-release games to sport the latest whiz-bang 3D graphics and sound, while the game itself is absolute crap. Obviously none of the games from the 80s would win any awards today for technical excellence, but what made the classics great in their time was solid design and attention to gameplay. Game designers of today ought to study the history of games as well as the latest version of DirectX. That's why we need to keep these old games around.
This is important - either you encrypt everything, even non-sensitive material, or you encrypt nothing and rely on stenography. I like stenography better myself...
Do you mean steganography? Or should we start working on an RFC for SHTP (Shorthand Transport Protocol)?
:)
Well, one difference is that in the US, labeling laws require nutritional information on any processed food sold. It's probably illegal for that reason to sell the candy individually. I don't think it's a nefarious scheme by the candy company to increase their profit margin.
No, relativity is very precise about this. It doesn't say that "two events cannot happen simultaneously, at locations very far apart in space". It says that the very concept of "the same time" has no meaning as the distances involved become very large. There's no such thing as "the same time"; it depends on where you are watching from, and how fast you're moving, and in what direction (relative to the events in question, of course). There is no such thing as an absolute time that is valid at all points in space. Go to the Science section of your local used bookstore and get an introductory book on relativity if you're interested in understanding this extremely interesting aspect of the universe we live in.
So, the events which led to intelligence happened "simultaneously" (let's suspend our disbelief for a moment, ignoring that according to relativity there's no such thing as simultaneity across such long distances in space) on all homeworlds. I guess that means that we humans are cosmic underacheivers, since the aliens are so much farther advanced than we are?
...Mark's claim that 99% of Fortune 2000 companies -- including Microsoft -- use Linux in one way or another.
Ninety-nine percent...as in, all but 20? Which 20 are those, I wonder?
The article on this claims that the nuclear weapons in America's arsenal today were simulated in two dimensions on computers less powerful than a G3. So, my question is this: now that we can simulate in three dimensions, what added capabilities will our new, advanced little bundles of death have that the current ones don't?
One thing that occurs to me immediately is that the amount of bandwitdth potential is proportional to the frequency used. Advances in technology can and will increase the bandwidth you can get per Hz, but more Hz will always give you more bandwidth. I guess there would come a point where a "maximum frequency" would be reached, due to reasons of economy (takes too much energy to transmit) or safety (it fries everyone within a 3 mile radius). The question of how much bandwidth we can squeeze in per Hz is much thornier and I have no qualification whatsoever to address it. There probably is a theoretical maximum, although I seem to remember that 28.8k was the theoretical maximum for modems, too. Whatever trick was used to double that over the telephone network might not translate to the ether, though.
It's true that technology, once unleashed, is difficult or impossible to restrain. And there are examples in the past of technology which produced changes which were considered unthinkable by the people of the time. If those people could see what we are now, they would likely be horrified. So, the doomsayers are right in a sense. This technology will probably be one of the most significant discoveries in history in terms of fundamentally altering the way we think about and experience a great many things. It's not the end of The World, but maybe the end of Our world. It's called Change.
This guy claims that Nike was negligent by only using mail-from authorization with Network Solutions, allowing anyone who can spoof an email to hijack their domain. Apparently, if Nike is to be believed, they had crypt-pw security, but NSI simply ignored it. The article claims that NSI has done this before. If all this is true, then I'd say the guy has a pretty good case against NSI, and that Nike probably does as well.
It will be a momentous day when I can surf the web and take a dump at the same time.
I've read a little bit about mechanisms to correct for atmospheric distortion using adaptive optics. To what degree can these systems reduce the distortion that an earth-based telescope suffers? Will advances in this area make it less attractive to put an optical telescope in space, given that the cost of lifting it into orbit can instead be used for corrective systems, and to build a larger instrument?
...and I'wondering if the titles ("Will BXXP replace HTTP?") are designed to make it easy to discern who read the article and who didn't. As I understand it, BXXP mainly functions as a platform on which to build other protocols, with most of the "dirty work" abstracted away for you, not just some replacement for an existing protocol. Sounds pretty nifty to me.
I think the number of XML tags would be relatively small, compared to a more data-centric application of XML that is trying to tag every unit of data in the trasnfer. Surely nothing inside the "payload" itself would be tagged in XML by the BXXP protocol, so the performance hit wouldn't be as large as it is in other XML applications.
Doesn't this proposal go counter to the Safe Harbor notion that ISPs are not liable for what their customers post? I understand it's not an exact application of the law, but the concept is similar. It's not fair for the ISP to be burdened with determining the legality of everything posted through their systems; similarly, I believe it isn't fair for a site owner to be burdened with checking the legality of all the other sites he happens to be linked to.
No it is not, you are not moving twice as much data. The data rate is still the same. what has increased is the total amount of memory.
Actually, my original post is correct. Since the RAM latency we're talking about is on the back end of the RAM-doubling chip, we're only moving half (or whatever fraction) of the data to the physical RAM. You are correct that we're still moving the same amount of data over the bus, but the bus is not where the latency lies.
I believe that most ASIC's (other than moster graphics processors) consume far less power and produce far less heat than the main CPU (or a hard drive for that matter). Any increase in power use and/or heat production of this technology as compared to the RAM it's replacing will be trivial relative to that of the system as a whole.
Call me a pessimist, but memory right now is around 6ns for PC133. Now, assuming a very conservative 2ns to decode the data, that's 8ns, which is a 25% performance hit.
Well, let's say that the stated 2:1 compression ratio is acheived. Now we're moving twice as much data in 133% of the time, which is a 33% performance gain. (2x the data in 8ns, equivalent to same data in 4ns, as compared to the original 6ns.) The break-even point for 2:1 compression is a 2:1 slowdown in performance. If the compression averages 1.5:1, then the performance must be no worse than 1.5x as slow in order to avoid degrading access time. Can the average performance cost ratio go below the average compression gain ratio, and actually increase performance? If not, then how close is tolerable? I'd say there's room for this technology to be of value, especially as stated in the article, in servers with enormous amounts of RAM.
What's so new is that it's implemented in hardware. The article claims approximately 4 orders of magnitude better performance than a software solution. Of course, whether that's enough to make it worthwhile is not addressed.
IANAHardware Engineer, but it seems to me that RAM is already designed to do one simple thing (okay, two things: peek and poke) and to do it absolutely as fast as possible. This technology inevitably will degrade RAM performance by a finite amount. Is their chip fast enough that this degredation will be negligible? If so, then this will be Extremely Cool. If not, then no thanks, I'll just shell out for the extra RAM. Of course, the economics on a huge server with 100GB of RAM are most likely compeletely different.
I've already reserved the domain name and patents for my new site, geneticmapquest.com. All you have to do is enter a starting and destination genome, such as pig -> elephant, and the system gives you a generation-by-genration breeding and genetic modification roadmap. Of course I'm only leasing the directions to you, and any derivative work remains my property.
Fairness and Transparency are the foundations of privacy policy in the European Union. They're good ideas.
Personal information is given for a particular purpose. The notion of Fairness is an extension of the conviction that doctors, lawyers, accountants, and other professionals hold, that information received during the rendering of a service should be held confidential.
As far as Transparency goes, do you not find it creepy that you have no right to see what personal information about you a company is holding? No way to know if your medical records have been leaked, or your attorney-client privlege has been breached? This is plain wrong.