Instead of Anand's pictures of PowerPoint slides, here's some actual info from TechReport:
"IDF -- On the heels of Intel's announcement of a single, common CPU architecture intended to drive its mobile, desktop, and server platforms, the company has divulged additional details of that microarchitecture. This dual-core CPU design will, as we've reported, support an array of Intel technologies, including 64-bit EM64T compatibility, virtualization, enhanced security, and active management capabilities. Intel says the new chips will deliver big improvements in performance per watt, especially compared to its Netburst-based offerings.
At 14 stages, the main pipeline will be a little bit longer than current Pentium M processors. The cores will be a wider, more parallel design capable of issuing, executing, and retiring four instructions at once. (Current x86 processors are generally three-issue.) The CPU will, of course, feature out-of-order instruction execution and will also have deeper buffers than current Intel processors. These design changes should give the new architecture significantly more performance per clock, and somewhat consequently, higher performance per watt.
Unlike Intel's current dual-core CPU designs, which don't really share resources or communicate with one another except over the front-side bus, this new design looks to be a much more intentionally multicore design. The on-die L2 cache will be shared between the two cores, and Intel says the relative bandwidth per core will be higher than its current chips. L2 cache size is widely scalable to different sizes for different products. The L1 caches will remain separate and tied to a specific core, but the CPU will be able to transfer data directly from one core's L1 cache to another. Naturally, these CPUs will thus have two cores on a single die.
The first implementation of the architecture will not include Hyper-Threading, but Intel (somewhat cryptically) says to expect additional threads over time. I don't believe that means HT capability will be built into silicon but not initially made active, because Intel expressly cited transistor budget as a reason for excluding HT.
On the memory front, the new architecture is slated to have the ever-present "improved pre-fetch" of data into cache, and it will also include what Intel calls "memory disambiguation." That sounds an awful lot like a NUMA arrangement similar to what's found on AMD's Opteron, but I don't believe it is. This feature seems to be related to a speculative load capability instead..
The server version of the new Intel architecture, code-named Woodcrest, will feature two cores. Intel is also talking about Whitefield, which has as much as twice the L2 cache of Woodcrest and four execution cores.
The company has decided against assigning a codename to this new, common processor microarchitecture, curiously enough. As we've noted, the first CPUs based on this design will be available in the second half of 2006 and built using Intel's 65nm fabrication process. "
How do you balance the right of someone to have his child pornography kept private against the right of children not to be victimized by child pornography? What would your opinion be if it was pictures of your child or if you lived near the defendant?
I am sorry, does the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution say something about child pornography? Like that it does not apply in case of?
You seem to want to make the Consitutional rights of people be conditional on the kind of crimes they are accused of committing. Are you sure you'll want to live in such a society?
If you're that into games, why don't you just get a dedicated game machine, e.g., PS2, Xbox, etc., for games and a Mac to do the rest of your stuff?
I am not the original poster, but games you play on a PC are very different from the ones you play on consoles. If you like MMORPGs (e.g. World of Warcraft), FPSs (e.g. Unreal), RTSs (e.g. Rome: Total War) then having a console does not help you at all.
As for the "rest of your stuff" it very much depends on what kind of stuff this is. For my purposes I am quite happy to have a Windows machine as a gaming/Photoshop/MSOffice box and a Linux machine for heavy lifting. No need for a Mac.
Aside from that, I really don't think Apple cares about the gaming market segment, i.e., teenaged-or-twenty-something males.
The gaming segment by now includes 30-something males and I bet the 20-40 year old demographic has Apple marketers drooling.
Especially considering most people use a color inkjet for photos, which Dye Sub is far superior to.
Ahem. 99% of people who are serious about photography and want to (digitally) print at home use inkjets. The do not use dye-sub printers. Think there's a reason for this?
And no, they are not clueless. There are huge discussions on 'net forums about the minute technical advantages of this printer vs that, the comparative advantages of ink sets, etc. etc. There is no real discussion of whether dye-subs are a viable alternative to, say, Epson Stylus Pro R1800 -- because they aren't.
(FYI, otaku is not a nice word. It inherently carries connotations of creepy, socially-stunted hermits. The term use for obsessed geeks comes from its use by such people who would use it to greet each other (as a polite form of "you") because they couldn't remember other people's names. Don't wear it like a badge of pride.)
William Gibson, Idoru:
"Masahiko is seventeen," Mitsuko said. "He is a 'pathological-techno-fetishist-with-social-deficit,'" this last all strung together like one word, indicating a concept that taxed the lexicon of the ear-clips. Chia wondered briefly if it would be worth running it through her Sandbenders, whose translation functions updated automatically whenever she ported.
"A what?"
"Otaku," Mitsuko said carefully in Japanese. The translation burped its clumsy word string again.
"Oh," Chia said, "we have those, We even use the same word."
the search correlation is that they can now separate the link-clickers from the product buyers. Further, they can gauge your spending habits and further target ads to maximize effectiveness. Your mom's birthday is in august, let's say, and you always buy something online around that time to get over to her.
This all assumes that most online buying will go through Google. That's highly unlikely. My credit cards work perfectly well for buying stuff online and it will be awfully hard for Google to persuade me that their's is a better way.
Besides, sure as hell I won't allow Google to collect info on all my purchases. I already block Google's cookies since they store search history -- what makes you think I will allow them to store and data mine all my spending?
... most of the "decisions" that people complain about around here never go to court... Believe it or not, the US court system does tend to work correctly
You forgot to mention a couple of little details.
Like for example a legal bill for several tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for fighting a case.
Also, consider the payoffs in this game called "let's go to court". If you win, you get moral satifaction. If you lose, you will likely have to declare bankrupcy. A bit skewed, don't you think?
A web page, served with embedded ads, may be considered a work covered by copyright and therefore protected from unauthorized derivative works, e.g. abridgments or ad-free versions.
Nah, I don't think this will fly. At all.
Under this theory, for example, I would be prohibited from doing anything destructive with a book -- e.g. tearing out some pages. This theory would immediately make the fast-forward button on VCRs/DVD players illegal. I guess it would make the mute button on the TV remotes illegal as well.
In fact, given the recent law explicitly giving permission to non-copyright-holders to modify and redistribute movies (primarily to take out cursing/sex/violence) -- I estimate the chances of this theory making it past the appeals court at zero.
Publishers might make a case for Trespass to Chattels, or Trespass, or Unfair Competition, or some other garbage tort that would boil down to "the courts are obliged to support my dumb-ass business model".
There might be a case against someone who strips ads and redistributes web pages (adless) to other people. Not against the end user, though.
Yes, I understand that you could make it a contract case -- make the user explicitly agree to a contract on the first page of the web site and then you can sue him for breaking that contract. However this has to generate so much ill will and bad publicity that I'd actually want to see someone try it..:-)
... program tools to deprive comics of advertising revenue...
Now WTF does *that* mean?
You don't have things like Adblock in mind, do you? Let me point out that no one has a RIGHT to advertising revenue. I am quite sure I don't have any obligation, moral or legal, to look at the ads.
Gone are the days when all you needed to excel at Everquest was a good internet connection and a complete lack of a life...now you need the cash, too. People with money will be better equipped than people with no money...those with no money will quit in disgust, and those with money will lose interest after they run up against enough other players with enough money to equip themselves well.
Hmm... let me rephrase that a bit.
...now you need the time, too. People with free time will be better equipped than people with no time...those with no time will quit in disgust, and those with time will lose interest after they run up against enough other players with enough time to equip themselves well.
So you're prefectly fine with paying for in-game items with time but think paying for them with money is a mortal sin..? Is it by any chance because you have more time than money?
wheter or not nikons raw format.NEF, is fully supported, I would still Buy Nikon. Because All of my lenses are Nikon.
LOL. Well, you're locked-in, so when Nikon decides it wants some fun you HAVE to bend over with a smile. Fortunately, not everyone is in the same position.:-)
What a lot of people seem to forget is that ALL of the Raw formats Implemented By the camera manufacturers are Proprietary and encrypted
All are proprietary, but as far as I know Nikon's is the first one with encrypted parts. Since the encryption is easily broken, its only purpose seems to be to invoke the threat of DMCA.
The only reason anybody is raising complaints is because nikon has not yet released the newest version of their Raw Format to adobe.
It seems pretty clear from the article that Nikon is NOT going to allow Adobe to decrypt the.NEF raw files...
As I said, it's pure Dilbert. Nikon got itself a bazooka, took careful aim at its foot and fired...
" -- Hmm... I know! Let's radically decrease the usefulness of our flagship camera by making it incompatible with the program that probably 90+% of professionals use!
-- Yes, great idea! And if they try to go around it, we'll sue them under DMCA!"
He said they may also be able to set loose a worm to take down command-and-control systems so the enemy is unable to communicate and direct ground forces, or fire surface-to-air missiles, for example.
These things are connected to the internet?
Heh.
"The microlights had been unarmed, stripped to compensate for the weight of a console operator, a prototype deck, and a virus program called Mole IX, the first true virus in the history of cybernetics. Corto and his team had been training for the run for three years. They were through the ice, ready to inject Mole IX, when the emps went off. The Russian pulse guns threw the jockeys into electronic darkness; the Nightwings suffered systems crash, flight circuitry wiped clean. Then the lasers opened up, aiming on infrared, taking out the fragile, radar-transparent assault planes, and Corto and his dead console man fell out of a Siberian sky. Fell and kept falling...."
When you pay your money, you get legal permission from the copyright holder to listen to the music under the terms of copyright law.
I believe you are wrong. When I buy a hammer do I get a license from the manufacturer to use it under the terms of the applicable safety regulations? When I buy a book do I get from the publisher a special license to read it?
In exactly the same way I do not have and do not need any special license to listen to music on the CD I bought.
And if you still think there's a license, perhaps you can point me to its terms..?
It is illegal as it impacts item 4 of sec 107
LOL. The section lists factors to be used in determining whether certain specific use is fair use. Nowhere does it say that anything which impacts any listed item automatically make it not fair use.
In fact this section is written very vaguely on purpose in order to leave the courts with free hands in deciding what's fair use and what's not.
So, no, that's not much support for your position...
However, I have never seen any governmental opinion that it is OK to give someone who is unrelated a copied work.
Well, I've never seen a court opinion saying that it's illegal to give to my buddy a copy of a CD (or tape, or cassete) I own. So we're even:-)
That's actually the exact question we're talking about: can anyone cite a court opinion with regard to the legality of making a copy for a bona fide meatspace friend (as opposed to a gazillion of copies for all my internet friends:-) )?
Yes. As your wife she shares ownership of your license to that music.
Whoa, hold on there. First of all whether my wife automatically shares ownership of everything I buy is, as far as I know, state-dependant -- in some states this is so, and in some states no.
But the main point is, which license? I did not apply for or receive any license. I went into a store and bought a physical object. I did not agree to any contracts. I did not click on any EULAs. So which license are you talking about?
As far as I am concerned I own that particular musical recording. True, law imposes certain restrictions on what can I do with it (e.g. redistribute), but that's common to all kinds of ownership. But there is no licensing involved.
Can I make a copy for my mom who doesn't live with me?
Nope, you've now begun to distribute copyrighted material.
Yeah, I understand that's your position, but how about some support for it? Preferably in the form of a court opinion since that's really the only thing that matters?
Slashdot Mirror
Instead of Anand's pictures of PowerPoint slides, here's some actual info from TechReport:
"IDF -- On the heels of Intel's announcement of a single, common CPU architecture intended to drive its mobile, desktop, and server platforms, the company has divulged additional details of that microarchitecture. This dual-core CPU design will, as we've reported, support an array of Intel technologies, including 64-bit EM64T compatibility, virtualization, enhanced security, and active management capabilities. Intel says the new chips will deliver big improvements in performance per watt, especially compared to its Netburst-based offerings.
At 14 stages, the main pipeline will be a little bit longer than current Pentium M processors. The cores will be a wider, more parallel design capable of issuing, executing, and retiring four instructions at once. (Current x86 processors are generally three-issue.) The CPU will, of course, feature out-of-order instruction execution and will also have deeper buffers than current Intel processors. These design changes should give the new architecture significantly more performance per clock, and somewhat consequently, higher performance per watt.
Unlike Intel's current dual-core CPU designs, which don't really share resources or communicate with one another except over the front-side bus, this new design looks to be a much more intentionally multicore design. The on-die L2 cache will be shared between the two cores, and Intel says the relative bandwidth per core will be higher than its current chips. L2 cache size is widely scalable to different sizes for different products. The L1 caches will remain separate and tied to a specific core, but the CPU will be able to transfer data directly from one core's L1 cache to another. Naturally, these CPUs will thus have two cores on a single die.
The first implementation of the architecture will not include Hyper-Threading, but Intel (somewhat cryptically) says to expect additional threads over time. I don't believe that means HT capability will be built into silicon but not initially made active, because Intel expressly cited transistor budget as a reason for excluding HT.
On the memory front, the new architecture is slated to have the ever-present "improved pre-fetch" of data into cache, and it will also include what Intel calls "memory disambiguation." That sounds an awful lot like a NUMA arrangement similar to what's found on AMD's Opteron, but I don't believe it is. This feature seems to be related to a speculative load capability instead..
The server version of the new Intel architecture, code-named Woodcrest, will feature two cores. Intel is also talking about Whitefield, which has as much as twice the L2 cache of Woodcrest and four execution cores.
The company has decided against assigning a codename to this new, common processor microarchitecture, curiously enough. As we've noted, the first CPUs based on this design will be available in the second half of 2006 and built using Intel's 65nm fabrication process. "
How do you balance the right of someone to have his child pornography kept private against the right of children not to be victimized by child pornography? What would your opinion be if it was pictures of your child or if you lived near the defendant?
I am sorry, does the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution say something about child pornography? Like that it does not apply in case of?
You seem to want to make the Consitutional rights of people be conditional on the kind of crimes they are accused of committing. Are you sure you'll want to live in such a society?
If you're that into games, why don't you just get a dedicated game machine, e.g., PS2, Xbox, etc., for games and a Mac to do the rest of your stuff?
I am not the original poster, but games you play on a PC are very different from the ones you play on consoles. If you like MMORPGs (e.g. World of Warcraft), FPSs (e.g. Unreal), RTSs (e.g. Rome: Total War) then having a console does not help you at all.
As for the "rest of your stuff" it very much depends on what kind of stuff this is. For my purposes I am quite happy to have a Windows machine as a gaming/Photoshop/MSOffice box and a Linux machine for heavy lifting. No need for a Mac.
Aside from that, I really don't think Apple cares about the gaming market segment, i.e., teenaged-or-twenty-something males.
The gaming segment by now includes 30-something males and I bet the 20-40 year old demographic has Apple marketers drooling.
Especially considering most people use a color inkjet for photos, which Dye Sub is far superior to.
Ahem. 99% of people who are serious about photography and want to (digitally) print at home use inkjets. The do not use dye-sub printers. Think there's a reason for this?
And no, they are not clueless. There are huge discussions on 'net forums about the minute technical advantages of this printer vs that, the comparative advantages of ink sets, etc. etc. There is no real discussion of whether dye-subs are a viable alternative to, say, Epson Stylus Pro R1800 -- because they aren't.
I can map my keyboard, with xmodmap on linux, but it is hard to do that on a per user basis on a windows box
m l
Solution A: http://www.sysinternals.com/Utilities/Ctrl2Cap.ht
Solution B: http://www.winstuff.de/show_registry.html?sid=50
(FYI, otaku is not a nice word. It inherently carries connotations of creepy, socially-stunted hermits. The term use for obsessed geeks comes from its use by such people who would use it to greet each other (as a polite form of "you") because they couldn't remember other people's names. Don't wear it like a badge of pride.)
:
t ,'" this last all strung together like one word, indicating a concept that taxed the lexicon of the ear-clips. Chia wondered briefly if it would be worth running it through her Sandbenders, whose translation functions updated automatically whenever she ported.
William Gibson, Idoru
"Masahiko is seventeen," Mitsuko said. "He is a 'pathological-techno-fetishist-with-social-defici
"A what?"
"Otaku," Mitsuko said carefully in Japanese. The translation burped its clumsy word string again.
"Oh," Chia said, "we have those, We even use the same word."
Opinion by Justice Souter: http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/04-480P.ZO.pdf
Concurrence by Justice Ginsberg:
http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/04-480P.ZC.pdf
Concurrence by Justice Breyer:
http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/04-480P.ZC1.pdf
the search correlation is that they can now separate the link-clickers from the product buyers. Further, they can gauge your spending habits and further target ads to maximize effectiveness. Your mom's birthday is in august, let's say, and you always buy something online around that time to get over to her.
This all assumes that most online buying will go through Google. That's highly unlikely. My credit cards work perfectly well for buying stuff online and it will be awfully hard for Google to persuade me that their's is a better way.
Besides, sure as hell I won't allow Google to collect info on all my purchases. I already block Google's cookies since they store search history -- what makes you think I will allow them to store and data mine all my spending?
On the surface it sounds a little like something that could evolve into the micropayment structure that could end spam.
NO.
I'm not willing to have a micropayments system for email. I'll take spam over having to pay to send email any time.
... most of the "decisions" that people complain about around here never go to court ... Believe it or not, the US court system does tend to work correctly
You forgot to mention a couple of little details.
Like for example a legal bill for several tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for fighting a case.
Also, consider the payoffs in this game called "let's go to court". If you win, you get moral satifaction. If you lose, you will likely have to declare bankrupcy. A bit skewed, don't you think?
A web page, served with embedded ads, may be considered a work covered by copyright and therefore protected from unauthorized derivative works, e.g. abridgments or ad-free versions.
:-)
Nah, I don't think this will fly. At all.
Under this theory, for example, I would be prohibited from doing anything destructive with a book -- e.g. tearing out some pages. This theory would immediately make the fast-forward button on VCRs/DVD players illegal. I guess it would make the mute button on the TV remotes illegal as well.
In fact, given the recent law explicitly giving permission to non-copyright-holders to modify and redistribute movies (primarily to take out cursing/sex/violence) -- I estimate the chances of this theory making it past the appeals court at zero.
Publishers might make a case for Trespass to Chattels, or Trespass, or Unfair Competition, or some other garbage tort that would boil down to "the courts are obliged to support my dumb-ass business model".
There might be a case against someone who strips ads and redistributes web pages (adless) to other people. Not against the end user, though.
Yes, I understand that you could make it a contract case -- make the user explicitly agree to a contract on the first page of the web site and then you can sue him for breaking that contract. However this has to generate so much ill will and bad publicity that I'd actually want to see someone try it..
... program tools to deprive comics of advertising revenue ...
Now WTF does *that* mean?
You don't have things like Adblock in mind, do you? Let me point out that no one has a RIGHT to advertising revenue. I am quite sure I don't have any obligation, moral or legal, to look at the ads.
So what else do you save money on? You probably prefer inflatable dolls over the real thing?
Oh, so the real thing for you costs $80..?
Especially babies!
Hmm... let me rephrase that a bit.
...now you need the time, too. People with free time will be better equipped than people with no time...those with no time will quit in disgust, and those with time will lose interest after they run up against enough other players with enough time to equip themselves well.
So you're prefectly fine with paying for in-game items with time but think paying for them with money is a mortal sin..? Is it by any chance because you have more time than money?
All you guys looking for bright and shiny net future under the enlightened rule of Google should go and google for the "philosopher-king" meme...
wheter or not nikons raw format .NEF, is fully supported, I would still Buy Nikon. Because All of my lenses are Nikon.
:-)
.NEF raw files...
LOL. Well, you're locked-in, so when Nikon decides it wants some fun you HAVE to bend over with a smile. Fortunately, not everyone is in the same position.
What a lot of people seem to forget is that ALL of the Raw formats Implemented By the camera manufacturers are Proprietary and encrypted
All are proprietary, but as far as I know Nikon's is the first one with encrypted parts. Since the encryption is easily broken, its only purpose seems to be to invoke the threat of DMCA.
The only reason anybody is raising complaints is because nikon has not yet released the newest version of their Raw Format to adobe.
It seems pretty clear from the article that Nikon is NOT going to allow Adobe to decrypt the
As I said, it's pure Dilbert. Nikon got itself a bazooka, took careful aim at its foot and fired...
Can someone in this fine, family type forum please assure me that I'm not in the Twilight Zone?
:-)
Yes, I can assure you that you are not in the Twilight Zone.
You're in a Dilbert cartoon
So I wonder if Adobe feels there's a lesson to be learned here...
Unfortunately, it's not Adobe who'll be suffering. This is a pure case of Nikon shooting themselves in the foot. With a bazooka, might I add...
Dilbert is a reality show.
" -- Hmm... I know! Let's radically decrease the usefulness of our flagship camera by making it incompatible with the program that probably 90+% of professionals use!
-- Yes, great idea! And if they try to go around it, we'll sue them under DMCA!"
He said they may also be able to set loose a worm to take down command-and-control systems so the enemy is unable to communicate and direct ground forces, or fire surface-to-air missiles, for example.
These things are connected to the internet?
Heh.
"The microlights had been unarmed, stripped to compensate for the weight of a console operator, a prototype deck, and a virus program called Mole IX, the first true virus in the history of cybernetics. Corto and his team had been training for the run for three years. They were through the ice, ready to inject Mole IX, when the emps went off. The Russian pulse guns threw the jockeys into electronic darkness; the Nightwings suffered systems crash, flight circuitry wiped clean. Then the lasers opened up, aiming on infrared, taking out the fragile, radar-transparent assault planes, and Corto and his dead console man fell out of a Siberian sky. Fell and kept falling...."
-- William Gibson, Neuromancer
When you pay your money, you get legal permission from the copyright holder to listen to the music under the terms of copyright law.
I believe you are wrong. When I buy a hammer do I get a license from the manufacturer to use it under the terms of the applicable safety regulations? When I buy a book do I get from the publisher a special license to read it?
In exactly the same way I do not have and do not need any special license to listen to music on the CD I bought.
And if you still think there's a license, perhaps you can point me to its terms..?
It is illegal as it impacts item 4 of sec 107
LOL. The section lists factors to be used in determining whether certain specific use is fair use. Nowhere does it say that anything which impacts any listed item automatically make it not fair use.
In fact this section is written very vaguely on purpose in order to leave the courts with free hands in deciding what's fair use and what's not.
So, no, that's not much support for your position...
However, I have never seen any governmental opinion that it is OK to give someone who is unrelated a copied work.
:-)
:-) )?
Well, I've never seen a court opinion saying that it's illegal to give to my buddy a copy of a CD (or tape, or cassete) I own. So we're even
That's actually the exact question we're talking about: can anyone cite a court opinion with regard to the legality of making a copy for a bona fide meatspace friend (as opposed to a gazillion of copies for all my internet friends
Yes. As your wife she shares ownership of your license to that music.
Whoa, hold on there. First of all whether my wife automatically shares ownership of everything I buy is, as far as I know, state-dependant -- in some states this is so, and in some states no.
But the main point is, which license? I did not apply for or receive any license. I went into a store and bought a physical object. I did not agree to any contracts. I did not click on any EULAs. So which license are you talking about?
As far as I am concerned I own that particular musical recording. True, law imposes certain restrictions on what can I do with it (e.g. redistribute), but that's common to all kinds of ownership. But there is no licensing involved.
Can I make a copy for my mom who doesn't live with me?
Nope, you've now begun to distribute copyrighted material.
Yeah, I understand that's your position, but how about some support for it? Preferably in the form of a court opinion since that's really the only thing that matters?