Intel has a serious problem in that they are perceived, and rightly so that to be a technical laggard. They are bleeding market share and their stock price has dived.
As a result Intel is trying to revamp their product line to become more competitive - but to keep from losing customers they are trying to darken the sky with marketing. This will work for a while because Intel has some credibility amassed from its earlier successes.
But if they fail to deliver at least parity with the next round of designs they are going to lose market share as fast as AMD can build Fabs. And right now they are running the risk of the 'Osborne Effect' - promising new product so attractive that the company loses large sales volume on current sales.
So Intel is making some really big bets here. If we get into the same time frame in 2007 with AMD still having a clear technical lead we could see AMD and Intel all of a sudden having a 40/60 split in market share, and a duopoly where once there was a monopoly.
The intervening network is there for non-QTCP protocol support, say if you need to use Windows which doesn't implement QTCP. Packets are needed to support the quantization step.
What I want is QTCP, quantum transport control protocol where the packets arrive at the destination without having to go through the intervening network.
So you are trusting these reporters to convey what Mr. Ferguson actually said? More likely he just flat out admitted that they are installing a set of keys for the NSA and are being more careful about choosing registry names for the keys this time.
Fortunately they are not quantum security holes that would reveal information that hasn't been discovered yet - for example the credit card number for an account that you haven't applied for yet.
1. A method for users to create and maintain a rich-media application on said host website via the Internet comprising:
creating a user account; accessing a user account; and viewing available options for creating rich-media applications,
wherein said accessing a user account comprises one or more of the following: accessing account information; creating a new rich-media application; modifying an existing rich-media application; and accessing statistics from an existing rich-media application;
wherein accessing a user account comprises modifying an existing rich-media application and wherein said modifying an existing rich-media application comprises one or more of the following: accessing account information; accessing rich-media application information; accessing rich-media application specification information; saving said rich-media application; closing said rich-media application; deleting said rich-media application; publishing said rich-media application; previewing said rich-media application; accessing components used in the construction of said rich-media application; accessing component-editing graphical user interfaces; and accessing a scene of said rich-media application; and
wherein said modifying an existing rich-media application comprises publishing said rich-media application and wherein said publishing said rich-media application comprises downloading said rich-media application from said host computer to the user's remote computer system.
In other words this patent covers creating rich - media applications through what is essentially an application server. It is MUCH narrower than the stupid article claims. It is unbelievable that with all the patent related stories that Slahsdot publishes the editiors STILL don't have the foggiest clue as to how to read a patent.
Oh, and by the way, this application is a Continuation-in-part of an older application filed in Nov 2000, so the priority date is not February 9, 2001 either.
I used to have an elaborate home network but found that it interfered with having a life, so I've been consolidating. I'm down to the following:
1 Windows Laptop 1 Linux Laptop 1 dual core x1 CPU Linux workstation 1 Samsung CLP-550 color laser printer 1 HP Jetdirect print server 1 8 port GB switch 1 Cisco PIX501 firewall 1 Wireless Access Point
The workstation, Cisco and switch (and calbemodem) are the only things that are left on 24x7. The workstation is pretty heavily optimized to minimize power consumption so the the whole set runs on about 100W idle. That works out to less than $100/yr where I live.
Yes, there are limits as to how far things can be paralellized. However for most common uses of computers we are far from those limits - even many of the languages that are commonly used don't support threading as a standard feature, or the support is not robust. How many languages support loop parallelization as a standard optimization?
Progress is being made though - for example computing languages such as Java have been adding support for atomic variables and other faciliites that reduce or eliminate the need for serialization.
AMD has been licensing technologies from IBM for many years, including SOI etc. It hasn't seemed to hurt them much. Sometimes leveraging R&D across multiple manufacturers is a bvery good thing because if makes more money available for research.
Also, as far as trade secrets go, there are laws designed to protect those.
These laws are a joke in the face of international organized crime. I did some work for a company looking to protect the processes it used to manufacture authenticity seals - i.e. holographic foils etc.
The security measures needed were mind boggling, and would have been unneeded if DRM had been available.
DRM is a huge benefit in many areas, not just copyright protection.
Not always. I had to fsck.reiserfs --rebuild-tree this morning on my laptop. Thankfully that wasn't a full petabyte drive, merely a fractional petabyte drive.
Spin is quantized, either 1/2 up or down. Electrons also can't have all 4 quantum numbers the same, so electron pairs have one +1/2 spin and one -1/2 spin. You can't change that so long as electrons are Fermions.
This guy is trying to tell people he can control electron spin? That would be quite a trick.
Slashdot Mirror
Intel has a serious problem in that they are perceived, and rightly so that to be a technical laggard. They are bleeding market share and their stock price has dived.
As a result Intel is trying to revamp their product line to become more competitive - but to keep from losing customers they are trying to darken the sky with marketing. This will work for a while because Intel has some credibility amassed from its earlier successes.
But if they fail to deliver at least parity with the next round of designs they are going to lose market share as fast as AMD can build Fabs. And right now they are running the risk of the 'Osborne Effect' - promising new product so attractive that the company loses large sales volume on current sales.
So Intel is making some really big bets here. If we get into the same time frame in 2007 with AMD still having a clear technical lead we could see AMD and Intel all of a sudden having a 40/60 split in market share, and a duopoly where once there was a monopoly.
The intervening network is there for non-QTCP protocol support, say if you need to use Windows which doesn't implement QTCP. Packets are needed to support the quantization step.
The New AT&T could probably buy Lucent for a medium sized bag of P-type ringers.
What I want is QTCP, quantum transport control protocol where the packets arrive at the destination without having to go through the intervening network.
So you are trusting these reporters to convey what Mr. Ferguson actually said? More likely he just flat out admitted that they are installing a set of keys for the NSA and are being more careful about choosing registry names for the keys this time.
These prizes already exist. They are called patents.
Fortunately they are not quantum security holes that would reveal information that hasn't been discovered yet - for example the credit card number for an account that you haven't applied for yet.
Right. The infinite improabability CPU.
Imagine a Beowolf cluster of computers that give answers without even having to run the programs! Oh... Nevermind..
I can just see the next article - "Quantum Software Works Better Without A Computer".
And the followup:
"Quantum Software Works Better Before Writing the Code Than After Writing the Code".
Claim 1 is actually what is patented:
1. A method for users to create and maintain a rich-media application on said host website via the Internet comprising:
creating a user account; accessing a user account; and viewing available options for creating rich-media applications,
wherein said accessing a user account comprises one or more of the following: accessing account information; creating a new rich-media application; modifying an existing rich-media application; and accessing statistics from an existing rich-media application;
wherein accessing a user account comprises modifying an existing rich-media application and wherein said modifying an existing rich-media application comprises one or more of the following: accessing account information; accessing rich-media application information; accessing rich-media application specification information; saving said rich-media application; closing said rich-media application; deleting said rich-media application; publishing said rich-media application; previewing said rich-media application; accessing components used in the construction of said rich-media application; accessing component-editing graphical user interfaces; and accessing a scene of said rich-media application; and
wherein said modifying an existing rich-media application comprises publishing said rich-media application and wherein said publishing said rich-media application comprises downloading said rich-media application from said host computer to the user's remote computer system.
In other words this patent covers creating rich - media applications through what is essentially an application server. It is MUCH narrower than the stupid article claims. It is unbelievable that with all the patent related stories that Slahsdot publishes the editiors STILL don't have the foggiest clue as to how to read a patent.
Oh, and by the way, this application is a Continuation-in-part of an older application filed in Nov 2000, so the priority date is not February 9, 2001 either.
I used to have an elaborate home network but found that it interfered with having a life, so I've been consolidating. I'm down to the following:
1 Windows Laptop
1 Linux Laptop
1 dual core x1 CPU Linux workstation
1 Samsung CLP-550 color laser printer
1 HP Jetdirect print server
1 8 port GB switch
1 Cisco PIX501 firewall
1 Wireless Access Point
The workstation, Cisco and switch (and calbemodem) are the only things that are left on 24x7. The workstation is pretty heavily optimized to minimize power consumption so the the whole set runs on about 100W idle. That works out to less than $100/yr where I live.
Why are we bombarded by these nonsense articles? This sort of thing should be recognized as B.S. by even a reasonable competent High School student.
Yes, there are limits as to how far things can be paralellized. However for most common uses of computers we are far from those limits - even many of the languages that are commonly used don't support threading as a standard feature, or the support is not robust. How many languages support loop parallelization as a standard optimization?
Progress is being made though - for example computing languages such as Java have been adding support for atomic variables and other faciliites that reduce or eliminate the need for serialization.
AMD has been licensing technologies from IBM for many years, including SOI etc. It hasn't seemed to hurt them much. Sometimes leveraging R&D across multiple manufacturers is a bvery good thing because if makes more money available for research.
Citizen is selling a watch in Japan that is powered both by the temperature difference between your arm and the air and photoelectric cells.
Omega Speedmaster Pro - only watch worn on the moon
HP-001 - only RPN calculator watch
Nixie Watch - only watch based on vacuum tubes
20 years. A lot of things are not patented because of the time restriction i.e. the Coke formula. People use trade secrets instead.
Also, as far as trade secrets go, there are laws designed to protect those.
These laws are a joke in the face of international organized crime. I did some work for a company looking to protect the processes it used to manufacture authenticity seals - i.e. holographic foils etc.
The security measures needed were mind boggling, and would have been unneeded if DRM had been available.
DRM is a huge benefit in many areas, not just copyright protection.
They will not allow you to snoop into their protection mechanism.
Ultimately this will not work - the only way security implementations become accepted as effective is through open review.
Remember, this guy is talking about controlling the spins of INDIVIDUAL electrons.
Not always. I had to fsck.reiserfs --rebuild-tree this morning on my laptop. Thankfully that wasn't a full petabyte drive, merely a fractional petabyte drive.
This is ok in it's limited way, but since it doesn't let you predict tertiary structure you can't use it to build anything cool, like a life form.
Spin is quantized, either 1/2 up or down. Electrons also can't have all 4 quantum numbers the same, so electron pairs have one +1/2 spin and one -1/2 spin. You can't change that so long as electrons are Fermions.
This guy is trying to tell people he can control electron spin? That would be quite a trick.
On a hard disk you could fsck forever.