Yes. My guess is that the "billions" is actually the funding for the organisation that has many projects, including one on damage compensating AI walking robots, which has a task involving looking at how animals cmpensate for lost limbs.
Nice idea but I know that junction. It's quite a long on-ramp and I think you'll need to traverse a couple of hundred yards of rough ground and hopefully find a gap in the crash barrier on the other lane.
Doesn't explain it. Everyone undertood that the 486SX had no FPU and the 486DX did have one. They were all fabbed with the FPU just some of them didn't work. All we need is a sequence number/speed indicator/core count for the name.
It's not just the tissue typing - which does have issues - but also the rejection thing. The anti-rejection drugs cause a lot of issues since by design they weaken the immune system.
Why not? Rockstar developed a lot of techniques for their table tennis game. Granted, they also used the same technology in GTA IV, but that's the point, That, and this are test platforms. MS spend a lot of money on researching all those areas because it's useful to have the technology.
Well, yes, there's not a lot in it and more and more has been handed over to more general purpose hardware. Still, there can't be a lot of use for depth buffer handling and caching (since for a lot of applications memory will be accessed perfectly linearly), or rasterisation, or texture filtering, and I'd have thought there would be some use for the slight extra flexibility from a DSP. Granted, all I can think of is that you have addressable write operations but I'm sure there's more.
Is the specialised 3d hardware really such a tiny part of a chip these days that it doesn't significantly affect the price?
So you have this evidence yet can come up with no possible explanation of how the popular band even knew of your song since it was completely unheard of until after they released it, and is remarkably similar in style to everything else they've produced, and that nobody else ever heard you play.
It's a piece of evidence, not proof. You'd also have witnesses who claim they heard the song before it was stolen, and you'd also be able to demonstrate the similarity in style to other music you've written. None of this is compelling on its own but put it all together and it should be quite convincing.
So why a GPU rather than a dedicated DSP? Seems they do pretty much the same thing except a GPU is optimised for graphics. A DSP offers 32 or even 64 bit integers, have had 64 bit floats for a while now, allow more flexible memory write positions, and can use the previous results of adjacent values in calculations.
Yes, you can find all this information out by reading the article, but if you must do that why have a summary?
Considering the summary could be written "Motorola's 'Droid X' Android based mobile phone has been fitted with an 'eFuse' which will blow if the phone has been tampered with, bricking the phone." which is more terse and contains more information, why not provide the information?
It's about balance of probaiblities, not reasonable doubt. The idea is simply that you create some evidence that you have own the copyright on the creation. Wikipedia tells me that The dutch government and UK patent and trademark office both suggest this method. The organisations that recommend against it seem to be the ones thta make money from copyright registration. (These are a better idea but probably more expensive)
Is it likely that someone posted themselves a special delivery package purely so that in the future they might decide to steal the copyright of an a yet uncreated work from someone else?
Look at it this way - I own the copright to this post. How would you present it to in a sealed envelope that shows you came up with it yesterday? Where are you going to find your pre-sent special delivery envelope? Do you have one spare? I certainly don't.
Are you going to pay for a forensic scientist to take samples of the glue used to seal the envelope, and hold the sticker in place, to prove that it's not just Pritt-stick'd down after unsealing it?
Nope. I don't have to. It's up to my opponents to prove that I did do that. "Might have" isn't enough in a civil case.
I remember reading some time ago about someone actually winning a copyright case over this. I wish I culd remember what. However, what I can tell you is that a self sent registered letter has been used as evidence of deception in a quiz show scandal. Why did the defendants not make the objections you've just made?
Well, the video was from over a year ago. So I'm sure it was faked. The idea was to show the concept. If they could actually do what was in the video they wouldn't need to have spent a year on development.
Isn't the whole reason for the military to protect civilians? The only other reason is to conquer other nations but we consider ourselves to be more civilised than that these days.
It's my understanding that piracy in international waters has always been punishable by any nation that felt threatened by such actions. It's been pretty well established for centuries.
Mind you, punishing the pirates doesn't get to the route of the problem. Deal with overfishing and illegal dumping as well. These people are pirates because they don't have any other choice. There's no way for them to earn an honest living. They become pirates or starve. The risk of being captured and sentenced to life in prison is small compared with the certainty of death. Punish them by all means, but for practical purposes we should provide an opportunity for another way of life.
McBride didn't bring it up himself though. He was talking about some unrelated law and a Linux geek brought up how it might apply to SCO's lawsuit (honestly that was a bit of a stretch). McBride was just responding to that and defending his position.
It's not just that the naming is intuitive. It's also the specified names in the specification published by SCO.
Now, perhaps SCO might argue (and Kevin McBride does) that these were published with a licence to write applications using this interface rather than reimplement it, but it does make the suggestion that these were copied from proprietary code ring somewhat false.
Okay, so I only looked at half a dozen of these. All of them seem to be from headers rather than actual spurce files where it would make sense to copy the code.
Every sinle one I looked at the copied values were variable names. It makes no sense to just copy the variable names unless you're providing a compatible public interface. Since this is part of the elf library I imagine this is what they're doing. If so they had no choice but to do it in exactly the same way.
Another file was the header for a kenrel implementation of the strings library. This is based of the ANSI specification.
Every copied line I saw was one of the following:
an include directive
a function name
a structure member name
a enumerated type value
a return of an enumerated type
Every single one of these must be written in exactly that way for it to be compatible in the first place. All of it is in public specifications. If we look at the surrounding code though, Linux seems to be different every time. Linux uses named variables in headers. Linux will perform several tests using the || operator whereas SCO use separate if() statements. Linux uses hard magic numbers for array sizes, SCO uses defined values. They use different variable names. Linux is more inclined to use if(!variable) whereas SCO is more likely to use if(variable == 0). So McBride thinks that the core of the code is in the variable names and someone would flagrantly copy them while changing the implementation?
It was successful despite heavy piracy for at least 5 years. Hell, most people I knew bought at least a few games and only owned the hardware because pirate games were so easy to come by. The thing that really killed the Amiga seemed to be that it didn't have the horsepower for texture mapped 3D graphics.
I'm not quite as mean as I once was. I realised these guys are just doing a job they hate. And while I can't say I approve, I really don't know their situation well enough to judge. Being friendly and chatty works will. If they're amused by the call they'll willingly assist me in wasting their employers time.
I can buy an FM radio for £2.99. A cheap digital radio costs 10 times that and doesn't offer any significant advantage - Most people want to listen to BBC or just have some background music where there's adequate choice wherever you are. To them, digital means they have the additional benefit of 6 Music and Jazz FM. A few years ago these were even more expensive. Also, radios last a very long time. They pretty much never go wrong. The only moving parts are the buttons, tuning control and speakers. So they don't get replaced very often. And prices have plummeted in recent years. Last time I looked you couldn't buy a DAB radio for less than £49.99. 25 years ago I could buy a radio for £10.
Is government regulation anything to do with this?
And we have a standard. It's a decent enough widely adopted standard that is popular with a lot of manufacturers. DAB adoption is now entirely in the hands of the private sector. It's not like DVB-T was a flop, and that was largely in the hands of state broadcasters as well.
You just need to learn to make wasting time more valuable.
I love wasting the time of these people.
One time I had someone getting very defensive when I managed to get them to agree they'd started with what was essentially a lie (I'd "won" something). Another time I shifted the conversation onto what colour underwear the caller was wearing.
I make a game of it. Do I have nothing better to do? Well, I could be reading Slashdot or watching TV - in other words, nope.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. My guess is that the "billions" is actually the funding for the organisation that has many projects, including one on damage compensating AI walking robots, which has a task involving looking at how animals cmpensate for lost limbs.
Nice idea but I know that junction. It's quite a long on-ramp and I think you'll need to traverse a couple of hundred yards of rough ground and hopefully find a gap in the crash barrier on the other lane.
Doesn't explain it. Everyone undertood that the 486SX had no FPU and the 486DX did have one. They were all fabbed with the FPU just some of them didn't work. All we need is a sequence number/speed indicator/core count for the name.
It's not just the tissue typing - which does have issues - but also the rejection thing. The anti-rejection drugs cause a lot of issues since by design they weaken the immune system.
And nobody forces you to use Windows
Actually, uhm.. yes they do. My employer does for one.
It amuses me that you deduce I'm a naive idiot because you happen to be too stupid to recognise irony.
Why not? Rockstar developed a lot of techniques for their table tennis game. Granted, they also used the same technology in GTA IV, but that's the point, That, and this are test platforms. MS spend a lot of money on researching all those areas because it's useful to have the technology.
Well, yes, there's not a lot in it and more and more has been handed over to more general purpose hardware. Still, there can't be a lot of use for depth buffer handling and caching (since for a lot of applications memory will be accessed perfectly linearly), or rasterisation, or texture filtering, and I'd have thought there would be some use for the slight extra flexibility from a DSP. Granted, all I can think of is that you have addressable write operations but I'm sure there's more.
Is the specialised 3d hardware really such a tiny part of a chip these days that it doesn't significantly affect the price?
So you have this evidence yet can come up with no possible explanation of how the popular band even knew of your song since it was completely unheard of until after they released it, and is remarkably similar in style to everything else they've produced, and that nobody else ever heard you play.
It's a piece of evidence, not proof. You'd also have witnesses who claim they heard the song before it was stolen, and you'd also be able to demonstrate the similarity in style to other music you've written. None of this is compelling on its own but put it all together and it should be quite convincing.
So why a GPU rather than a dedicated DSP? Seems they do pretty much the same thing except a GPU is optimised for graphics. A DSP offers 32 or even 64 bit integers, have had 64 bit floats for a while now, allow more flexible memory write positions, and can use the previous results of adjacent values in calculations.
The point was it was a bad summary.
Yes, you can find all this information out by reading the article, but if you must do that why have a summary?
Considering the summary could be written "Motorola's 'Droid X' Android based mobile phone has been fitted with an 'eFuse' which will blow if the phone has been tampered with, bricking the phone." which is more terse and contains more information, why not provide the information?
It's about balance of probaiblities, not reasonable doubt. The idea is simply that you create some evidence that you have own the copyright on the creation. Wikipedia tells me that The dutch government and UK patent and trademark office both suggest this method. The organisations that recommend against it seem to be the ones thta make money from copyright registration. (These are a better idea but probably more expensive)
Is it likely that someone posted themselves a special delivery package purely so that in the future they might decide to steal the copyright of an a yet uncreated work from someone else?
Look at it this way - I own the copright to this post. How would you present it to in a sealed envelope that shows you came up with it yesterday? Where are you going to find your pre-sent special delivery envelope? Do you have one spare? I certainly don't.
Are you going to pay for a forensic scientist to take samples of the glue used to seal the envelope, and hold the sticker in place, to prove that it's not just Pritt-stick'd down after unsealing it?
Nope. I don't have to. It's up to my opponents to prove that I did do that. "Might have" isn't enough in a civil case.
I remember reading some time ago about someone actually winning a copyright case over this. I wish I culd remember what. However, what I can tell you is that a self sent registered letter has been used as evidence of deception in a quiz show scandal. Why did the defendants not make the objections you've just made?
Well, the video was from over a year ago. So I'm sure it was faked. The idea was to show the concept. If they could actually do what was in the video they wouldn't need to have spent a year on development.
The news is they've now finished.
Isn't the whole reason for the military to protect civilians? The only other reason is to conquer other nations but we consider ourselves to be more civilised than that these days.
It's my understanding that piracy in international waters has always been punishable by any nation that felt threatened by such actions. It's been pretty well established for centuries.
Mind you, punishing the pirates doesn't get to the route of the problem. Deal with overfishing and illegal dumping as well. These people are pirates because they don't have any other choice. There's no way for them to earn an honest living. They become pirates or starve. The risk of being captured and sentenced to life in prison is small compared with the certainty of death. Punish them by all means, but for practical purposes we should provide an opportunity for another way of life.
If he refuses to return it you should be able to contact the police and get it back. At least this is the case in other common law jurisdictions.
Are you suggesting the Amiga wasn't killed. It's hardly a viable platform any more, and it's pretty hard to get hold of.
McBride didn't bring it up himself though. He was talking about some unrelated law and a Linux geek brought up how it might apply to SCO's lawsuit (honestly that was a bit of a stretch). McBride was just responding to that and defending his position.
It's not just that the naming is intuitive. It's also the specified names in the specification published by SCO.
Now, perhaps SCO might argue (and Kevin McBride does) that these were published with a licence to write applications using this interface rather than reimplement it, but it does make the suggestion that these were copied from proprietary code ring somewhat false.
Every sinle one I looked at the copied values were variable names. It makes no sense to just copy the variable names unless you're providing a compatible public interface. Since this is part of the elf library I imagine this is what they're doing. If so they had no choice but to do it in exactly the same way.
Another file was the header for a kenrel implementation of the strings library. This is based of the ANSI specification.
Every copied line I saw was one of the following:
SCO was blowing smoke.
It was successful despite heavy piracy for at least 5 years. Hell, most people I knew bought at least a few games and only owned the hardware because pirate games were so easy to come by. The thing that really killed the Amiga seemed to be that it didn't have the horsepower for texture mapped 3D graphics.
CD burners were only just becoming common by that time.
Hardly anyone even bought the console. The competition was the PS2, which came with a built in DVD player.
I'm not quite as mean as I once was. I realised these guys are just doing a job they hate. And while I can't say I approve, I really don't know their situation well enough to judge. Being friendly and chatty works will. If they're amused by the call they'll willingly assist me in wasting their employers time.
I can buy an FM radio for £2.99. A cheap digital radio costs 10 times that and doesn't offer any significant advantage - Most people want to listen to BBC or just have some background music where there's adequate choice wherever you are. To them, digital means they have the additional benefit of 6 Music and Jazz FM. A few years ago these were even more expensive. Also, radios last a very long time. They pretty much never go wrong. The only moving parts are the buttons, tuning control and speakers. So they don't get replaced very often. And prices have plummeted in recent years. Last time I looked you couldn't buy a DAB radio for less than £49.99. 25 years ago I could buy a radio for £10.
Is government regulation anything to do with this?
And we have a standard. It's a decent enough widely adopted standard that is popular with a lot of manufacturers. DAB adoption is now entirely in the hands of the private sector. It's not like DVB-T was a flop, and that was largely in the hands of state broadcasters as well.
I'd have thought that would be the case. Yet for some reason the US telemarketing companies always object to a Do Not Call list.
You just need to learn to make wasting time more valuable. I love wasting the time of these people.
One time I had someone getting very defensive when I managed to get them to agree they'd started with what was essentially a lie (I'd "won" something). Another time I shifted the conversation onto what colour underwear the caller was wearing.
I make a game of it. Do I have nothing better to do? Well, I could be reading Slashdot or watching TV - in other words, nope.