If it happens on the order of thousands of times per second (usually less) then it still only consumes a fraction of the available cycles on todays processors.
Its such a pity transputers didnt do better, good C compilers with CSP support would have helped... communicating serial processes are just so much more elegant than threads communicating through shared memory without any other protection against the various possible contentions than the one the programmers try (and inevitably fail) to ensure themselves:(
The only way to use it is to steal it....
on
MP3Pro Released
·
· Score: 1
They wont give a license for Open Sourced implementations, and I really doubt its possible to avoid the patents (or rather avoid getting your ass sued if you try to implement mp3pro any which way, which for anyone without a couple of million to spend in court is just about the same thing) this time around.
Whats wrong with assembly? The arguement that if you go that low you might as well go to VLSI/Semiconductor physics doesnt fly, because with knowledge about assembly instruction&IO latencies&throughput etc the machine is fully defined from a user point of view. The exact workings of the transistors and electrical fields dont change that, thats the beauty of clocked logic... you dont need to know whats happening underneath to know what its going to do.
A good assembly course can learn you the exact behaviour of a machine (and hopefully they teach you how to apply that to other architectures)... C just gives people the illusion of knowing how things work. That just breeds programmers who see "tough jobs that java, perl, lisp, python, etc., etc. are just too high level (and/or too sluggish) for" everywhere, without justification a lot of the time... and one's who cannot use assembly knowledge in C or even assembly directly when C is just too high level and sluggish for the job at hand.
If you want to let them understand how the computer works let them implement something in assembly, for a real or virtual processor (MMIX for instance). I think Knuth's arguements for learning algorithms through low level implementation is a valid one, but it doesnt fly for C IMO.
Go high or low, but dont just pretend to go low... it just breeds programmers who think C is giving them efficiency while at the same time they have never looked at the assembly which actually comes out to check, and even if they did they couldnt interpret it.
If the law doesnt change we will see open e-books
on
The Future Of The Book
·
· Score: 1
If there is enough people willing to buy an e-book for which you can prepare your own content someone will make it, supply and demand.
The only danger is that the powers that be manage to get laws passed which forbid any sort of device capable of representing digital media without the industry sanctioned license-control method du-jour. Even if watermarking technology ever becomes successfull something like the DMCA doesnt allow media companies to force hardware to check for watermarks in open formats. So their only recourse would be to get laws passed which effectively kill off open formats and open hardware. I am convinced they will try to do this as outlandish as it sounds, its their only viable option to get the control they want.
A scientist huh... so for how many papers have you signed away your rights to those evil publishers? If scientists dont like the way the commercial e-publishing works they have alternatives... but I have to admit its a lot easier to let commerce take care of the effort to setup review/publishing/etc infrastructure and hope enough people pay for it while I pirate it.
No it means architecture specific optimizations dont port 1:1 (DUH) and that their compilers still cant optimize DSP code as well as a human... of course the compiler doesnt have that much to work with, a on the fly reverse compiled binary is not exactly the best input for a compiler.
By the looks of it this works exactly as Transmeta, most of the time run binary translated code sometimes revert to emulation (for instance for run-time optimization/running uncommon code/perhaps running code for the first time etc etc).
The record companies can charge whatever they want, if it was a case of price fixing by retailers there might be something worth investigating... but I doubt thats the case.
The issue here is that the EU wants to pretend it doesnt like its legal protection against parallel imports to be abused to rip off EU citizens, if they rip us off as badly as anyone else in the world they wouldnt really care.
I personally dont see why they are making a fuz though... these companies are just using the law that is present to their best advantage, as they will always do. EU should change the law or shutup. Informal questions to multinationals are useless, these companies are amoral and will do and say whatevers best for the company. To me this just seems like politicians playing nice with consumer groups while keeping everything the same.
The feds can investigate till their blue in the face but you aint going to find any evidence worth a damn by internal investigations... if you really wanted this to be investigated you would have to use the CIA too.
There should be no link between the internetnet and this, not even people logging in remotely should be allowed to have their computer on the internet at the same time. Preferrably no computer which ever had been used to get on the internet should be allowed to access their network... but thats kinda hard to enforce. Still it should be easy enough to ensure that they dont have a truly direct link to the internet, there is just no good reason which justifies the risk IMO.
What use is a fast connection anyway if you cant play Quake on it?:) (horrific latency)
They can only pull a couple of hundred people using their full bandwith without service detiriorating... so lets be generous and say they can service a couple of thousand users (if they want to live up to their high bandwith promises). Id be surprised if satellite services are a real alternative for point to point links (microwave land instead of satellite links is an option too) for anything but the most remote and thinly populated regions.
Users only care about one thing, value for money... and its easy to hold a showdown to show which has the best, x86 is best value and will be for the foreseeable future (for most people's purposes AMD's x86 processors BTW, not Intel's).
I have to say I find single instruction stream processors (including Gx all the x86's, Alpha etc etc) quite distastefull because they waste huge amounts of transistors for small increases in speed... Id rather have more explicit on chip parallelism. But as far as these go I have to say Intel's P4 is at the moment by far the most innovative of the bunch. Lets for a moment consider what they did, not only did they produce a processor with record breaking clockrates (yes the double clockrate internally still is advantageous, the huge pipeline can be a problem... but thats a compromise which has been decided in longer pipeline's favour ever since the first superscalars), but they also made the first mass market trace processor and will soon make it the first mass market MT processor with Jackson tech. Its lousy value for money of course, but hell as long as we are talking about technical superiority the P beats the G IMO. Lets see that Power4 first, and then well talk again.
Usually companies dont let it come down to that and ensure that there is no way to implement an interface without infringing on a patent instead... but even if that doesnt cover it they can first try to use trade secret (by NDA'ing through shrinkwrap all development information, like 3dfx tried with Glide) and in the end even if it comes down to copyright even if they dont have a real case now who says what a couple of billions worth of lawyers and lobbying can get them.
Since "there" referred to the discussion about the patent system I guess you mean they were were killed over a patent dispute, forgive me for being inconsiderate... I didnt know Hitler killed them over IP rights. Just goes to show, the concept of IP leads to misery.
Why? If they remain innovative they will retain their market share, if they stop innovating why do they deserve rewards just for being the FP'er?
Its all a matter of taste... there is no right or wrong there, only opinion.
The timewarp feature Id be willing to let slide, although Im pretty sure they had simular delay systems in television for JIT editing purposes which could be seen as prior art, but the more algorithmic patents (like the storage format stuff) rubs me the same way as every other algorithmic patent... the wrong one.
Well if you put those words in a sentence like say
"The PLO supplied me with marijuana to sell to get money to buy C-4 from the IRA for suicide bombs to take out the presidents body guards and hijack his plane" Im sure it will ring a couple more bells, still wont work... but at least it will be interesting to see if you get any men in suits staking out your front door if you say it somewhere it could be taken serious.
The cable is already powered... just put the hardware needed for the analysis right there and hijack some packets (preferrably their own dummy packets send through legit channels, so noone else notices packetloss). This could be prevented by encryption of traffic stream as a whole by the fiber company, but I doubt thats the case.
How many cable failures are really just failed taps? They may have the right to tap, but does the law allow them to cause million's of dollar worth of damages in the process?
Sniffing my traffic is one thing, I never really had much trouble with the NSA (apart from the occasional international economically motivated espionage) but disrupting my game of Subspace is quite another issue. Evil NSA.
Slashdot Mirror
If it happens on the order of thousands of times per second (usually less) then it still only consumes a fraction of the available cycles on todays processors.
Its such a pity transputers didnt do better, good C compilers with CSP support would have helped... communicating serial processes are just so much more elegant than threads communicating through shared memory without any other protection against the various possible contentions than the one the programmers try (and inevitably fail) to ensure themselves :(
They wont give a license for Open Sourced implementations, and I really doubt its possible to avoid the patents (or rather avoid getting your ass sued if you try to implement mp3pro any which way, which for anyone without a couple of million to spend in court is just about the same thing) this time around.
Whats wrong with assembly? The arguement that if you go that low you might as well go to VLSI/Semiconductor physics doesnt fly, because with knowledge about assembly instruction&IO latencies&throughput etc the machine is fully defined from a user point of view. The exact workings of the transistors and electrical fields dont change that, thats the beauty of clocked logic... you dont need to know whats happening underneath to know what its going to do.
A good assembly course can learn you the exact behaviour of a machine (and hopefully they teach you how to apply that to other architectures)... C just gives people the illusion of knowing how things work. That just breeds programmers who see "tough jobs that java, perl, lisp, python, etc., etc. are just too high level (and/or too sluggish) for" everywhere, without justification a lot of the time... and one's who cannot use assembly knowledge in C or even assembly directly when C is just too high level and sluggish for the job at hand.
If you want to let them understand how the computer works let them implement something in assembly, for a real or virtual processor (MMIX for instance). I think Knuth's arguements for learning algorithms through low level implementation is a valid one, but it doesnt fly for C IMO.
Go high or low, but dont just pretend to go low... it just breeds programmers who think C is giving them efficiency while at the same time they have never looked at the assembly which actually comes out to check, and even if they did they couldnt interpret it.
If there is enough people willing to buy an e-book for which you can prepare your own content someone will make it, supply and demand.
The only danger is that the powers that be manage to get laws passed which forbid any sort of device capable of representing digital media without the industry sanctioned license-control method du-jour. Even if watermarking technology ever becomes successfull something like the DMCA doesnt allow media companies to force hardware to check for watermarks in open formats. So their only recourse would be to get laws passed which effectively kill off open formats and open hardware. I am convinced they will try to do this as outlandish as it sounds, its their only viable option to get the control they want.
Carry the data you can store on your laptop in human readable format on paper.
A scientist huh... so for how many papers have you signed away your rights to those evil publishers? If scientists dont like the way the commercial e-publishing works they have alternatives... but I have to admit its a lot easier to let commerce take care of the effort to setup review/publishing/etc infrastructure and hope enough people pay for it while I pirate it.
No it means architecture specific optimizations dont port 1:1 (DUH) and that their compilers still cant optimize DSP code as well as a human... of course the compiler doesnt have that much to work with, a on the fly reverse compiled binary is not exactly the best input for a compiler.
By the looks of it this works exactly as Transmeta, most of the time run binary translated code sometimes revert to emulation (for instance for run-time optimization/running uncommon code/perhaps running code for the first time etc etc).
The record companies can charge whatever they want, if it was a case of price fixing by retailers there might be something worth investigating... but I doubt thats the case.
The issue here is that the EU wants to pretend it doesnt like its legal protection against parallel imports to be abused to rip off EU citizens, if they rip us off as badly as anyone else in the world they wouldnt really care.
I personally dont see why they are making a fuz though... these companies are just using the law that is present to their best advantage, as they will always do. EU should change the law or shutup. Informal questions to multinationals are useless, these companies are amoral and will do and say whatevers best for the company. To me this just seems like politicians playing nice with consumer groups while keeping everything the same.
The feds can investigate till their blue in the face but you aint going to find any evidence worth a damn by internal investigations... if you really wanted this to be investigated you would have to use the CIA too.
There should be no link between the internetnet and this, not even people logging in remotely should be allowed to have their computer on the internet at the same time. Preferrably no computer which ever had been used to get on the internet should be allowed to access their network... but thats kinda hard to enforce. Still it should be easy enough to ensure that they dont have a truly direct link to the internet, there is just no good reason which justifies the risk IMO.
What use is a fast connection anyway if you cant play Quake on it? :) (horrific latency)
They can only pull a couple of hundred people using their full bandwith without service detiriorating... so lets be generous and say they can service a couple of thousand users (if they want to live up to their high bandwith promises). Id be surprised if satellite services are a real alternative for point to point links (microwave land instead of satellite links is an option too) for anything but the most remote and thinly populated regions.
So that would only come to 300K a month for continuous access, cool... where do I sign up?
Oh well at least we have more chance of one of them hitting the Taco Bell platform due to the sheer numbers.
Users only care about one thing, value for money... and its easy to hold a showdown to show which has the best, x86 is best value and will be for the foreseeable future (for most people's purposes AMD's x86 processors BTW, not Intel's).
I have to say I find single instruction stream processors (including Gx all the x86's, Alpha etc etc) quite distastefull because they waste huge amounts of transistors for small increases in speed... Id rather have more explicit on chip parallelism. But as far as these go I have to say Intel's P4 is at the moment by far the most innovative of the bunch. Lets for a moment consider what they did, not only did they produce a processor with record breaking clockrates (yes the double clockrate internally still is advantageous, the huge pipeline can be a problem... but thats a compromise which has been decided in longer pipeline's favour ever since the first superscalars), but they also made the first mass market trace processor and will soon make it the first mass market MT processor with Jackson tech. Its lousy value for money of course, but hell as long as we are talking about technical superiority the P beats the G IMO. Lets see that Power4 first, and then well talk again.
That depends on who's morals you use as the yardstick.
Common sense says no, but what does the law say?
Usually companies dont let it come down to that and ensure that there is no way to implement an interface without infringing on a patent instead... but even if that doesnt cover it they can first try to use trade secret (by NDA'ing through shrinkwrap all development information, like 3dfx tried with Glide) and in the end even if it comes down to copyright even if they dont have a real case now who says what a couple of billions worth of lawyers and lobbying can get them.
I dont know about artificial, but for real intelligence neural nets seem to work pretty well.
Since "there" referred to the discussion about the patent system I guess you mean they were were killed over a patent dispute, forgive me for being inconsiderate... I didnt know Hitler killed them over IP rights. Just goes to show, the concept of IP leads to misery.
Why? If they remain innovative they will retain their market share, if they stop innovating why do they deserve rewards just for being the FP'er?
Its all a matter of taste... there is no right or wrong there, only opinion.
The timewarp feature Id be willing to let slide, although Im pretty sure they had simular delay systems in television for JIT editing purposes which could be seen as prior art, but the more algorithmic patents (like the storage format stuff) rubs me the same way as every other algorithmic patent... the wrong one.
Well if you put those words in a sentence like say
"The PLO supplied me with marijuana to sell to get money to buy C-4 from the IRA for suicide bombs to take out the presidents body guards and hijack his plane" Im sure it will ring a couple more bells, still wont work... but at least it will be interesting to see if you get any men in suits staking out your front door if you say it somewhere it could be taken serious.
The cable is already powered... just put the hardware needed for the analysis right there and hijack some packets (preferrably their own dummy packets send through legit channels, so noone else notices packetloss). This could be prevented by encryption of traffic stream as a whole by the fiber company, but I doubt thats the case.
How many cable failures are really just failed taps? They may have the right to tap, but does the law allow them to cause million's of dollar worth of damages in the process?
Sniffing my traffic is one thing, I never really had much trouble with the NSA (apart from the occasional international economically motivated espionage) but disrupting my game of Subspace is quite another issue. Evil NSA.
An innovative idea, not an algorithmic patent... as far as Im concerned this deserves a patent.
They are a company, they only need one reason...
Slashdot is alway so overrun with laissez fair capitalistic liberalists, did they all change their hats in this thread or what?