I'm not saying women have no place in the CS world, or in any way saying they should avoid it, and I definately encourage anyone, regardless of sex, to persue what interests them.
on that note..
our society seems to be blind to the fact that, men & women are DIFFERENT. Statistically, we *DO* think differently. The generalization about women being more for details, men being more for abstract thinking is true as a STATISTIC, not a rule.
Am I saying women can't handle CS? No.. I'm saying that statistically, it doesn't interest them.
Do I think women shoudl be paid less than men for doing the same job? No. Do I think a CS position should be filled or not based on sex? Absolutely not.... but our society doesn't have to keep obsessing over why EVERY DAMN OCCUPATION isn't 50% male, 50% female. it will *NEVER* be that way.
Your graphics card *IS* a rendering sub-system. Your Sound card *IS* a band in a box. Your drive controller *DOES* do everything it can. Sure.. SCSI does this much better than IDE, as IDE is basically a raw i/o port, nothing more than a 16 bit buffer/latch...but the controller is on each drive.
The real magic in these co-processor chips, on the Amiga, was the standard platform. Because they were all the same, it was possible for each successive generation of software to be more and more refined, they could bang away on the hardware directly......
yes. Old Amiga Demos still look and sound BETTER and more pleasing to the eye tha many super-high res things these days... but that's because of refinement, and has little to do with the capabilities of the chips themselves.
Okay. I use both NT & Linux as servers. Have for many years. And here is my offered Expert opinion.
Regardless of whatever 'studies', or nit-picking.....
THe big problem is... NT likes to crash when you update software. When you try something new. It wants you to reboot all the time. This may seem normal to NT admins, but really... my VA Server has been rebooted ONCE in the last year, and that's because we had a 24 hour power outage. There is absolutely NO reason to reboot it, unless you are doing hardware modification, or absolutely need to update a driver (which amounts to hardware...) This is the single biggest reason it makes a good server. You can run multiple diferent server applications on it, and work on one without risking the others. In NT, this practice is suicide.
1) Linus doesn't control Transmeta. He is an employee. 2) Linux runs on Transmeta processors just fine. 3) Linus is not 'now in control' of Linux. He has final say on kernel builds, anyone who wants to could maintain their own branch of kernel development, but the fact is, the core kernel developers *like* having linus maintain the tree. In other words linus 'controls' it because nobody else wants the job, which in the OSS world, translates to nobody thinks they can do it better.
4) comparing this to animal farm really stinks. If what you say made any sense, I would say it's insightful.. but your article is just full of inaccuracies. VA bought slashdot? Yes.. and taco & hemos made *SURE* that they had *complete* editorial control over slashdot. THEY decide what happens to it, not VA, VA just gets to say that they own it. It adds percieved value, which is very important for a publicly traded company.
*LOTS* of OSS developers have real jobs, for real companies who do some proprietary software work.. why don't you go tear a strip out of them? As for windows being replaced..you are exactly right. Anyone is free to develop something better. And where does our anger come from, Bob? Those of us who are *very* informed, find that Linux (or indeed, any unix) is MUCH better, in many circumstances, as a server platform than Windows. Our anger stems from the fact that we have this fucking WALL that MS built that stops us from using it.. our managers question us, make us look like zealouts, and have managed to turn the whole NT -vs- Unix game into a political one, not based in reality at all. So get back on your bus and go back to the institute.
1) Linus is only an employee of Transmeta. 2) Linus has contributed greatly to OSS, before we even had this OSS evangelist movement. 3) X86 != windows. Linux will run on these things just fine. 4) The code-morphing is brand-new stuff they have invented. What I want to know is.. have their patents been granted? I remember they applied... if and when the patents are secure, I would imagine they may release more information on the actual chip itself.
Actually, not at all.. There is not necessarily any need to go digital.
Remember Video Disc? those big 2 sided suckers? They were read with a laser... and were completely analog (digital audio tracks did come later, and are now standard). The video was all analog.... it was via modulated beam.
There is no reason an analog circuit cannot be built do accomplish whatever a DSP can accomplish; it's just simpler and more flexible to use a DSP.
This is not surprising. I dont' have all the timings in front of me, but the general gist is this.
First, though it looks like a star to you, it's a bus network. I guess if there were a switch instead of a hub, you might get away with calling it a star.
As for your 8Mbps.. that's actually about as high as it's theoretically possible to go. Maybe a wee bit faster, and here's why.
the 100 in 100base (and the 10 in 10base) both describe the signalling rate (or bit rate) of the BASEband medium (the ether in ethernet...). This is different than describing the rate at which 2 hosts can transmit. What this means is that the ethernet, as a single baseband channel, has bits clocked onto it at precicely 100Mhz (or 10), one bit per cycle. Now, as part of that standard, there is a mandatory delay any transciever must obey after putting a frame on the channel. In 10Mbps, this 96 bit times, or 9.6 microseconds. I may be a bit off here, but in 100base, this number is *still* arond 9.6 microseconds, as it is a number based in the time it takes for packets to traverse the network from one end to the other; in the case of 100base, 9.6 microseconds = 960 bit-times. Each ethernet frame consists of an 8 byte 'preamble' (used to synchronize the receiver), the frame header (6 byte source, 6 byte dest) the type/length field (2 bytes) and in the end, a frame check sequence, like a checksum, of 4 bytes. That makes 26 bytes of information, not related to the ethernet data payload, plus a 120 byte inter-frame gap (remember, each bit takes the exact same amount of time on the ethernet, so we can use bits/bytes to reference time). That makes a total of 146 bytes of non-data. If we add to that, say, the IP header, and a UDP header (assuming we are streaming video, with no handshaking, like TCP, as that would mean the response packets would *also* tie up the channel further), you can see that, given the maximum ethernet data payload is 1500 bytes, we are at over 10% of that as overhead. This would put the theoretical maximum at around ( I calced it once..) 89%. Of course, if there is *any* other activity *at all* on your ethernet, this number goes down even further. If you are doing FTP or something, it goes way down....
Now.. I did all this from memory, i'm not 100% sure about the Inter-frame gap on 100base, though I'm sure in 10base. This, of course, doesnt' take into account full-duplex ethernet either...
If your existing wiring could barely handle 10Mbps, it wasn't cabled to Category 5 standards. In short, it must have been crap.
A lot of problems cropped up when people started trying to do 100Mbps with shitty cat5 installs (ie: using category 5 cable, but not installing properly) or older category 4 (or 3, I forget) cable... thinking 'it should work, the plug is the same'.
Also, unless I am mistaken, the collision detection is *still* the same as 10/100 networks. The mechanism doesn't change, though the timings do, and the distance requirements change, I bet, probably require a shorter segment again. The inter-frame gap will be very large compared to the frame size.. hence the maximum speed between any 2 hosts (say, even through a crossover) will probably be a good chunk less than a gigabit, say, 750Mbps.... And the backoff mechanism will still be binary exponential backoff.... so the behaviors are the same.. just different timings.
If your existing wiring could barely handle 10Mbps, it wasn't cabled to Category 5 standards. In short, it must have been crap.
A lot of problems cropped up when people started trying to do 100Mbps with shitty cat5 installs (ie: using category 5 cable, but not installing properly) or older category 4 (or 3, I forget) cable... thinking 'it should work, the plug is the same'.
Yeah.. I remember.... except, Gigabit ethernet = 1000000000 bits/second. and is not based on a power of 2.. so why change it? Powers of 2 only apply, generally, to memory.
They quote the transcievers (CHIPS) at $95/ea in quantities of 1000...
This is not at all the same as saying the *retail cards* will be anywhere near that price. As such a new thing, it wouldn't surprise me if the cards were hundreds of dollars..
Umm.. these laws do not do that. Everyone says that, but can anyone demonstrate someone who wnated to develop a DVD player for linux, but was rejected by the CSS?
Honestly, the one thing that these companies understand is money..... A massive boycott is about the *only* thing that will sway thier opinion.
We had a cable company here, several years ago, that started doing some questionable marketing tactics.. people complained, but the company said 'we're allowed to do this, so beat it'. Translation: If you still pay your bill, what do we care if you like us or not? One week of organized cable revolt (thousands of people calling up and cancelling in a very short period of time)... and the company *IMMEDIATELY* changed it's tune.
*sigh* Yes. Unfortunately we do. If the prosecution were claiming that the decryption method itself was protected by copyright, and basing their suit on that, you would have a very good point.
Unfortunately, they are suing under the DMCA, which tries to outlaw Mechanisms/Devices/Methods of circumventing a technical copy protection mechanism.
They'll do it the same way the U.S. sues other countries and foreigners!
How can they enforce the verdict? Well.. it's not too hard actually..
Can they *make* the US pay, under threat of prison? Of course not... Can they change national policy and not deal with the US until the US pays up? Sure they can.
Did iCrave-TV obey a US court order, even though they are in Canada? Sure they did.. why? Not because the US troops could march in and get them, but because it seems liket he *proper* thing to do: defend themselves.
I believe you are misreading the case. The court ruled that, in this case, it was an 'unreasonable search and siezure', therefore, against the 4th, and that, as the material the court *forced the person to either produce, or be marked as having 'confessed' to his charges*, violated the 5th. (and was also used improperly)
Having just read the document you reference, can be summarized as follows.
If you read the whole thing.. the supreme court ruled that:
1) Forcing defendant to either bring his papers in voluntarily, or to be considered having confessed to the charge at hand violated the 5th.
2) That the act used to obtain the warrant did not in fact give any power of search and siezure, and therefore that search and siezure constituted a violation of the 4th.
It does not in any way say that you can never have your personal papers admitted to evidence. Specifically, the act in question, that was used to obtain a warrant, dealt specifically with *NON-CRIMINAL* matters, mainly customs.
What about the judge that issued the search warrant? Or the police that served the warrant? Is NorthWest to be blamed for aksing, and receiving permission from the justice system to do it? What about the lawyers? Who's to blame?
What about the employees who decide to rebel out and all call in sick for new years... gee... that's really grown up.
If there is 1) Law that has potentially been broken and 2) Reasonable evidence to suggest that evidence would be found on people's home PC's, and the 'data' being looked for can be specified clearly.
then I can see how this can happen. The law probably allows it.
Personally, it seems totally wrong. It's private communications.
You know.. the reason used to be efficiency. It's supposed to be heirarchial.... but it's such a damn flat database now... why the hell not? Sure.. they should open up tons of TLD's.. take away the artifical value of these domains. The only thing that gives them value is their artifical scarcity.... Hmm.. DeBeers anyone?
Just so you know..... .ca is about to be deregulated. I think the current system we have is excellent, and shouldn't change.. it's a perfect example of how *not* to exploit the DNS. You must be in at least 2 provinces to get a.ca, you can get a.province.ca if you are provincially locate.d.. anyone can get a.municipality.province.ca, but the name you get must be related to your name/organization name. There are no fees. Only 1 domain per legal entity is allowed (so you can't register 10. This serves the original purpose of DNS.. to delegate a second-level domain (or third.. or fourth) so it can be further subdomained as per the network toplogy.
1) Nothing prevents microsft from doing this.. and though it seems wierd, they are welcome to do it.
2) Adherence to open standards will still save us. Microsoft banks on all their proprietary software to keep people buying nothing but MS. If they were to bring out a linux platform, they would lose that edge. Anyone could develop apps...
But what.. you say.. if MS uses the linux kernel, a full complement of linux apps, and then puts their own proprietary UI on it? Well... good for them. Is it X compatable? If not, it might not fly. If it is... that's just fine with me. What if they develop all their apps to require their proprietary GUI, and others do as well? Hmm... this is a bit outside of the OSS stuff we are use dto.. but they still don't control the back end. The choice of the MS GUI over others *would* be based on performance. If make a package that lets the windows destop work with linux behind the scenes... all the better for me. Developers would be *very* quick to use the image of a 'windows' platform with the ease of development of a unix backend to create some cool apps.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not saying women have no place in the CS world, or in any way saying they should avoid it, and I definately encourage anyone, regardless of sex, to persue what interests them.
on that note..
our society seems to be blind to the fact that, men & women are DIFFERENT. Statistically, we *DO* think differently. The generalization about women being more for details, men being more for abstract thinking is true as a STATISTIC, not a rule.
Am I saying women can't handle CS? No.. I'm saying that statistically, it doesn't interest them.
Do I think women shoudl be paid less than men for doing the same job? No. Do I think a CS position should be filled or not based on sex? Absolutely not....
but our society doesn't have to keep obsessing over why EVERY DAMN OCCUPATION isn't 50% male, 50% female. it will *NEVER* be that way.
Look up usenix/sage
Your graphics card *IS* a rendering sub-system. Your Sound card *IS* a band in a box.
Your drive controller *DOES* do everything it can. Sure.. SCSI does this much better than IDE, as IDE is basically a raw i/o port, nothing more than a 16 bit buffer/latch...but the controller is on each drive.
The real magic in these co-processor chips, on the Amiga, was the standard platform. Because they were all the same, it was possible for each successive generation of software to be more and more refined, they could bang away on the hardware directly......
yes. Old Amiga Demos still look and sound BETTER and more pleasing to the eye tha many super-high res things these days... but that's because of refinement, and has little to do with the capabilities of the chips themselves.
The one thing I have to say is we have to make DAMN SURE that BUYNet doesn't dictate what the internet, as a whole is..
Ipv6 will save us anyway..
Okay. I use both NT & Linux as servers. Have for many years. And here is my offered Expert opinion.
Regardless of whatever 'studies', or nit-picking.....
THe big problem is... NT likes to crash when you update software. When you try something new. It wants you to reboot all the time. This may seem normal to NT admins, but really... my VA Server has been rebooted ONCE in the last year, and that's because we had a 24 hour power outage. There is absolutely NO reason to reboot it, unless you are doing hardware modification, or absolutely need to update a driver (which amounts to hardware...) This is the single biggest reason it makes a good server. You can run multiple diferent server applications on it, and work on one without risking the others. In NT, this practice is suicide.
1) Linus doesn't control Transmeta. He is an employee.
2) Linux runs on Transmeta processors just fine.
3) Linus is not 'now in control' of Linux. He has final say on kernel builds, anyone who wants to could maintain their own branch of kernel development, but the fact is, the core kernel developers *like* having linus maintain the tree. In other words linus 'controls' it because nobody else wants the job, which in the OSS world, translates to nobody thinks they can do it better.
4) comparing this to animal farm really stinks. If what you say made any sense, I would say it's insightful.. but your article is just full of inaccuracies. VA bought slashdot? Yes.. and taco & hemos made *SURE* that they had *complete* editorial control over slashdot. THEY decide what happens to it, not VA, VA just gets to say that they own it. It adds percieved value, which is very important for a publicly traded company.
*LOTS* of OSS developers have real jobs, for real companies who do some proprietary software work.. why don't you go tear a strip out of them?
As for windows being replaced..you are exactly right. Anyone is free to develop something better. And where does our anger come from, Bob? Those of us who are *very* informed, find that Linux (or indeed, any unix) is MUCH better, in many circumstances, as a server platform than Windows. Our anger stems from the fact that we have this fucking WALL that MS built that stops us from using it.. our managers question us, make us look like zealouts, and have managed to turn the whole NT -vs- Unix game into a political one, not based in reality at all.
So get back on your bus and go back to the institute.
1) Linus is only an employee of Transmeta.
2) Linus has contributed greatly to OSS, before we even had this OSS evangelist movement.
3) X86 != windows. Linux will run on these things just fine.
4) The code-morphing is brand-new stuff they have invented. What I want to know is.. have their patents been granted? I remember they applied...
if and when the patents are secure, I would imagine they may release more information on the actual chip itself.
Actually, not at all..
There is not necessarily any need to go digital.
Remember Video Disc? those big 2 sided suckers? They were read with a laser... and were completely analog (digital audio tracks did come later, and are now standard). The video was all analog....
it was via modulated beam.
There is no reason an analog circuit cannot be built do accomplish whatever a DSP can accomplish; it's just simpler and more flexible to use a DSP.
This is not surprising. I dont' have all the timings in front of me, but the general gist is this.
First, though it looks like a star to you, it's a bus network. I guess if there were a switch instead of a hub, you might get away with calling it a star.
As for your 8Mbps.. that's actually about as high as it's theoretically possible to go. Maybe a wee bit faster, and here's why.
the 100 in 100base (and the 10 in 10base) both describe the signalling rate (or bit rate) of the BASEband medium (the ether in ethernet...). This is different than describing the rate at which 2 hosts can transmit.
What this means is that the ethernet, as a single baseband channel, has bits clocked onto it at precicely 100Mhz (or 10), one bit per cycle.
Now, as part of that standard, there is a mandatory delay any transciever must obey after putting a frame on the channel. In 10Mbps, this 96 bit times, or 9.6 microseconds. I may be a bit off here, but in 100base, this number is *still* arond 9.6 microseconds, as it is a number based in the time it takes for packets to traverse the network from one end to the other; in the case of 100base, 9.6 microseconds = 960 bit-times.
Each ethernet frame consists of an 8 byte 'preamble' (used to synchronize the receiver), the frame header (6 byte source, 6 byte dest) the type/length field (2 bytes) and in the end, a frame check sequence, like a checksum, of 4 bytes. That makes 26 bytes of information, not related to the ethernet data payload, plus a 120 byte inter-frame gap (remember, each bit takes the exact same amount of time on the ethernet, so we can use bits/bytes to reference time).
That makes a total of 146 bytes of non-data. If we add to that, say, the IP header, and a UDP header (assuming we are streaming video, with no handshaking, like TCP, as that would mean the response packets would *also* tie up the channel further), you can see that, given the maximum ethernet data payload is 1500 bytes, we are at over 10% of that as overhead.
This would put the theoretical maximum at around ( I calced it once..) 89%.
Of course, if there is *any* other activity *at all* on your ethernet, this number goes down even further. If you are doing FTP or something, it goes way down....
Now.. I did all this from memory, i'm not 100% sure about the Inter-frame gap on 100base, though I'm sure in 10base. This, of course, doesnt' take into account full-duplex ethernet either...
If your existing wiring could barely handle 10Mbps, it wasn't cabled to Category 5 standards. In short, it must have been crap.
A lot of problems cropped up when people started trying to do 100Mbps with shitty cat5 installs (ie: using category 5 cable, but not installing properly) or older category 4 (or 3, I forget) cable... thinking 'it should work, the plug is the same'.
Also, unless I am mistaken, the collision detection is *still* the same as 10/100 networks. The mechanism doesn't change, though the timings do, and the distance requirements change, I bet, probably require a shorter segment again.
The inter-frame gap will be very large compared to the frame size.. hence the maximum speed between any 2 hosts (say, even through a crossover) will probably be a good chunk less than a gigabit, say, 750Mbps....
And the backoff mechanism will still be binary exponential backoff.... so the behaviors are the same.. just different timings.
If your existing wiring could barely handle 10Mbps, it wasn't cabled to Category 5 standards. In short, it must have been crap.
A lot of problems cropped up when people started trying to do 100Mbps with shitty cat5 installs (ie: using category 5 cable, but not installing properly) or older category 4 (or 3, I forget) cable... thinking 'it should work, the plug is the same'.
Yeah.. I remember....
except, Gigabit ethernet = 1000000000 bits/second. and is not based on a power of 2.. so why change it?
Powers of 2 only apply, generally, to memory.
They quote the transcievers (CHIPS) at $95/ea in quantities of 1000...
This is not at all the same as saying the *retail cards* will be anywhere near that price.
As such a new thing, it wouldn't surprise me if the cards were hundreds of dollars..
Hmm? "Next time, we'll do it right?".
Gee.. where have I heard that before?
Umm.. these laws do not do that. Everyone says that, but can anyone demonstrate someone who wnated to develop a DVD player for linux, but was rejected by the CSS?
Honestly, the one thing that these companies understand is money.....
A massive boycott is about the *only* thing that will sway thier opinion.
We had a cable company here, several years ago, that started doing some questionable marketing tactics.. people complained, but the company said 'we're allowed to do this, so beat it'.
Translation: If you still pay your bill, what do we care if you like us or not?
One week of organized cable revolt (thousands of people calling up and cancelling in a very short period of time)... and the company *IMMEDIATELY* changed it's tune.
*sigh* Yes. Unfortunately we do.
If the prosecution were claiming that the decryption method itself was protected by copyright, and basing their suit on that, you would have a very good point.
Unfortunately, they are suing under the DMCA, which tries to outlaw Mechanisms/Devices/Methods of circumventing a technical copy protection mechanism.
They'll do it the same way the U.S. sues other countries and foreigners!
How can they enforce the verdict? Well.. it's not too hard actually..
Can they *make* the US pay, under threat of prison? Of course not...
Can they change national policy and not deal with the US until the US pays up? Sure they can.
Did iCrave-TV obey a US court order, even though they are in Canada? Sure they did.. why? Not because the US troops could march in and get them, but because it seems liket he *proper* thing to do: defend themselves.
I believe you are misreading the case. The court ruled that, in this case, it was an 'unreasonable search and siezure', therefore, against the 4th, and that, as the material the court *forced the person to either produce, or be marked as having 'confessed' to his charges*, violated the 5th. (and was also used improperly)
Having just read the document you reference, can be summarized as follows.
If you read the whole thing.. the supreme court ruled that:
1) Forcing defendant to either bring his papers in voluntarily, or to be considered having confessed to the charge at hand violated the 5th.
2) That the act used to obtain the warrant did not in fact give any power of search and siezure, and therefore that search and siezure constituted a violation of the 4th.
It does not in any way say that you can never have your personal papers admitted to evidence. Specifically, the act in question, that was used to obtain a warrant, dealt specifically with *NON-CRIMINAL* matters, mainly customs.
What about the judge that issued the search warrant? Or the police that served the warrant?
Is NorthWest to be blamed for aksing, and receiving permission from the justice system to do it? What about the lawyers? Who's to blame?
What about the employees who decide to rebel out and all call in sick for new years... gee... that's really grown up.
If there is
1) Law that has potentially been broken
and
2) Reasonable evidence to suggest that evidence would be found on people's home PC's, and the 'data' being looked for can be specified clearly.
then I can see how this can happen. The law probably allows it.
Personally, it seems totally wrong. It's private communications.
Another reason why encryption is necessary.
You know.. the reason used to be efficiency. It's supposed to be heirarchial....
but it's such a damn flat database now... why the hell not? Sure.. they should open up tons of TLD's.. take away the artifical value of these domains. The only thing that gives them value is their artifical scarcity....
Hmm.. DeBeers anyone?
Just so you know..... .ca, you can get a .province.ca if you are provincially locate.d.. anyone can get a .municipality.province.ca, but the name you get must be related to your name/organization name.
.com is it is too flat.
.ca is about to be deregulated. I think the current system we have is excellent, and shouldn't change.. it's a perfect example of how *not* to exploit the DNS.
You must be in at least 2 provinces to get a
There are no fees.
Only 1 domain per legal entity is allowed (so you can't register 10.
This serves the original purpose of DNS.. to delegate a second-level domain (or third.. or fourth) so it can be further subdomained as per the network toplogy.
The problem with
Wanna be outraged? check out internic.ca
You don't copyright names.
You copyright original creative works.
1) Nothing prevents microsft from doing this.. and though it seems wierd, they are welcome to do it.
2) Adherence to open standards will still save us.
Microsoft banks on all their proprietary software to keep people buying nothing but MS.
If they were to bring out a linux platform, they would lose that edge. Anyone could develop apps...
But what.. you say.. if MS uses the linux kernel, a full complement of linux apps, and then puts their own proprietary UI on it? Well... good for them. Is it X compatable? If not, it might not fly. If it is... that's just fine with me. What if they develop all their apps to require their proprietary GUI, and others do as well? Hmm... this is a bit outside of the OSS stuff we are use dto.. but they still don't control the back end. The choice of the MS GUI over others *would* be based on performance. If make a package that lets the windows destop work with linux behind the scenes... all the better for me. Developers would be *very* quick to use the image of a 'windows' platform with the ease of development of a unix backend to create some cool apps.