When I researched JPEG2000 for a defense contractor in 2001, the word was that ASICs would need at least another generation of improvement before cameras could handle JPEG2000.
Network transfers were viewed as the immediate application for the codec. Modern desktop processors can display JPEG2000 with little if any noticeable latency, and the compression is great for non-broadband networking.
I think the spread of broadband has been fast enough to limit JPEG2000's usefulness on the consumer market until cameras can handle the codec as well. Even then adoption may be slow. I think memory card capacity may be more cost efficient than new ASICs for a good while.
But who says our brains can handle all of that well?
The point about doing it to stay competitive reminds me of an Isaac Asimov short story from the Gold Anthology (believe it was called The Smile of the Chipper). Asimov wrote about a future where some people upgraded their brains with computer power that included the ability to project images onto other people's minds (even those not wired up). Those who were augmented "burned out" in a few years and were left mentally handicapped. Asimov's ideas about competition between the computer-augmented were amusing.
If 2-way communication is accomplished for anything more than a novelty, the testing needed could be huge. Spam's bad enough now, but what if the brain doesn't have defenses at that level to reject direct suggestion? We don't know that much about how thoughts propagate in the mind.
I have a feeling we'll need the kind of hardware security Palladium is supposed to provide, only for our own brains, and I don't trust Microsoft to make it. On the flip side, imagine a security system where your password can actually be one of your own private long term memories as you see it in your head. Easy to remember and virtually impossible to duplicate without using a sniffer.
Take a piece of paper, sit it hanging off the edge of your desk, with a paper weight sitting on top of one side of the paper. On the corner opposite the paper weight, make a series of very small jerks downward on the paper, varying the frequency of the jerks. When the frequency increases, you're doing more work, so you should be making more progress towards pulling the paper off the desk. The paper weight is where a section of the fault is locked, the jerks are the microquakes, and the paper coming off the desk is the large quake.
The earthquake research is basically saying that about a year of these high-frequency microquakes can trigger a large quake. Not saying yet that it's the only trigger or even highly reliable, but if you see many microquakes over 6 to 9 months, you can guess a big one may be coming in a few months.
Do these companies not realize that doing this on a significant scale will create deflationary pressure that will in turn reduce the amount they can make in the US market? Their greed won't get them all that far.
Your typical computer-savvy baseball fan will more likely take a PDA. Journalists and executives in box suites will be more inclined to use laptops there.
"Newport News was named for Christopher Newport, captain of the Susan Constant, the lead ship of the three ship fleet that carried the Jamestown settlers to the new world in 1607. Captain Newport made several more trips between the new world and England. After the Starving Time of 1610, the original colonists abandoned Jamestown and encountered Captain Newport in the James River and learned that reinforcements of men and supplies had arrived, thus prompting their return to Jamestown. The place where that occurred became known for Newport's good news, "Newport's News," and eventually just Newport News."
http://www.newport-news.va.us/intergov/text/newc om er.htm
No, I've never run a business, but that doesn't mean that I don't know what I'm talking about. (My interest doesn't go beyond watching the stock market.) For one thing, I said MOST businesses, not all. My experience has been that manufacturing-oriented businesses tend to have lower profit margins than service-oriented ones.
You're absolutely right about it not being an abuse in terms of the letter of the law, BUT an 89% profit rate is a very strong sign that the market is bearing a heavy price for the monopoly. (Note that 20% profit rates are normally considered very good in most businesses, IIRC. 89% is almost unheard of.) Isn't this type of burden on the market exactly what anti-trust laws were intended to prevent?
"certainly one-liners are a common, almost obligatory, form of logical reponse," said one reader, "but this many makes me want to get in a white van and shoot people at random. do these people think they're funny? its really just in bad taste."
In other news, police suspect a slashdot reader is responsible for recent Washington-area shootings.
This is exactly the type of garbage that has me seriously considering avoiding GNU software entirely. I have no desire to even wrongfully imply my endorsement of their absurd philosophy.
Microsoft puts a monetary price on their software and tries to lock you in.
GNU tries to indoctrinate you. That FAQ is dripping with propaganda and a condescending ideology that demands everyone to believe the FSF philosophy. "Free Software"- software given away at an intellectual price. No thank you. It's politics from a branch of ideology that has consistently led into totalitarianism. It's not free; it's absurd. So what about the FSF philosophy itself? Why is it absurd? Because programmers have to live somehow. We don't live in a communist utopia (ie, communism without the totalitarianism) and never will. I wish we did, but it's against human nature. Face it- the FSF philosophy ultimately boils down to communism.
Programming is a valuable skill that provides many of us with a living. When I'm programming for a hobby, I'll gladly give away my code, but I can't give everything away until the supermarket, the real estate agent, etc. start giving away all their goods that I need. Let's face it, I'm not going to make my living from maintaining my code. If I'm doing my job right there shouldn't be much maintainence anyway.
Does that mean I should be able to keep my code proprietary for the rest of my life and my grandchildren's? No, just long enough for me to make a reasonable profit. In this industry, a 5 year copyright with no patents should suffice.
The answer isn't in communist ideology and revolution. It's simple intellectual property reform. Keep it simple, stupid.
Not just in that epoch, but even today miracles are frequently reported and believed in many traditional societies, and ascribed to a number of religious or other supernatural origins. People aren't lying, they are percieving things imaginatively.
I don't agree with your implicit claim that a valuable moral and psychological perspective demands sound underlying physics and epistemology. While wildly deviant metaphysics can have moral/psychological implications, that's hardly the claim here.
I'm not sure that you got my point, but I don't know how to explain it better. We'll just have to agree to disagree here.
Ultimately, in whatever religious and philosophical perspective you take, you are the ultimate authority for what you believe and what you claim to be true, even if the only action you take with your ultimate authority is to cede to a single text or doctrine.
Implicit in what I said before is the idea that, to truely teach morality, a person must be trusted with some authority. If they aren't, the most they can do is point out things that their audience already accepts subconsciously. For example, I agree with Buddha that men must try to live morally good lives, but I do so because I already believed it. I do not accept Buddha as a moral authority, and I disagree with him on concepts like nirvana. I haven't learned anything new from him. But if I consider Christ a "great moral teacher" worthy of trust and authority, then there are many things in the Bible that I don't understand and accept initially but that I find to be true as I study it. There have been plenty of times when I have doubts about Christianity, and at those times I get absolutely nothing out of studying the Bible.
I guess my point is this: to truely learn from a moral teacher, a measure of trust and authority has to be given to them, and this is unwise to do if you don't agree with something as critical and foundational as Christ's claim to divinity.
In all of those cases, it was fraud on someone's part, and everything related to it is suspect (not wrong, just highly questionable). That was part of my point.
No, such a mistake would have to go much deeper than a "philosophical error". Jesus and his disciples claimed a lot of miracles over a significant period of time as signs of their validity. That's not something people come up with repeatedly as part of an innocent error. It's real, delusion, or fraud. It's not a simple mistake by any means.
Jesus's claims to miracles and divinity were fundamental to his teachings and his claims about reality. Morality, the ways we deal with our world and with other people, all have to be grounded in reality for them to do us any good. If you question a person's hold on reality, you have to question their authority to teach morality and interpret the world we live in.
This doesn't mean that there aren't elements of truth for you in the Bible if you don't believe Jesus was God. Even the perceptions of a madman contain elements of truth, but you have to question every bit of it heavily. A madman has no authority to claim truth; you have to evaluate it yourself. You give yourself the actual authority. A great moral teacher is an authority. He is not much of a teacher if you can't trust his every word.
As someone raised in the Church (and I make no claims about my own personal belief), let me say this.
If there is no shred of truth, no grounding in the real world, in the Bible, what value is there in it?
There's a line of thought quite common among Christians that goes something like this:
Once you accept that Jesus of Nazareth was an actual person, and that there is any shred of truth in the Bible at all, then you're faced with two possibilities. Either Jesus and his disciples were insane (or highly devious), and that tends to make the moral authority of their teachings highly suspect and of little or no value, or Jesus really was the Son of God and the Bible is the most valuable message in the world. There's not really any room for middle ground there. If you believe they got it wrong on something as critical as the existence and nature of God, how can you possibly trust them on other issues, where they draw their positions as consequences of that one position you still question?
They have to actively defend it against much more than Mozilla, rather anything else that infringes the trademark. The situation looks pretty awful for Toho.
Since some definitions of P2P networks are broad enough to include the web, I suggest they begin by targeting major nodes here, here, and here. Rumor is they're the worst offenders. Shut them down and maybe everything will be fine again.
November 7, 2002 WASHINGTON, D.C. (AP) -- Yesterday's story incorrectly reported that Mr. Hollings lost a re-election bid. Senator Hollings will not face re-election until 2004. Upon hearing news of the other congressmen's re-election defeats, Mr. Hollings is rumored to have asked the RIAA to increase his bribe to $1 billion. Another rumor stated that the RIAA transferred $1 billion to bank accounts in Belize.
Re:We don't need legislation to stay within the la
on
RIAA Smacked by DoS
·
· Score: 1
Just tomorrow? How about everyday until the RIAA/MPAA legal assault stops? And let's not forget to attack mpaa.org too.
Slashdot Mirror
When I researched JPEG2000 for a defense contractor in 2001, the word was that ASICs would need at least another generation of improvement before cameras could handle JPEG2000.
Network transfers were viewed as the immediate application for the codec. Modern desktop processors can display JPEG2000 with little if any noticeable latency, and the compression is great for non-broadband networking.
I think the spread of broadband has been fast enough to limit JPEG2000's usefulness on the consumer market until cameras can handle the codec as well. Even then adoption may be slow. I think memory card capacity may be more cost efficient than new ASICs for a good while.
But who says our brains can handle all of that well?
The point about doing it to stay competitive reminds me of an Isaac Asimov short story from the Gold Anthology (believe it was called The Smile of the Chipper). Asimov wrote about a future where some people upgraded their brains with computer power that included the ability to project images onto other people's minds (even those not wired up). Those who were augmented "burned out" in a few years and were left mentally handicapped. Asimov's ideas about competition between the computer-augmented were amusing.
If 2-way communication is accomplished for anything more than a novelty, the testing needed could be huge. Spam's bad enough now, but what if the brain doesn't have defenses at that level to reject direct suggestion? We don't know that much about how thoughts propagate in the mind.
I have a feeling we'll need the kind of hardware security Palladium is supposed to provide, only for our own brains, and I don't trust Microsoft to make it. On the flip side, imagine a security system where your password can actually be one of your own private long term memories as you see it in your head. Easy to remember and virtually impossible to duplicate without using a sniffer.
Did you RTFA?
Here's a (very) simplistic analogy:
Take a piece of paper, sit it hanging off the edge of your desk, with a paper weight sitting on top of one side of the paper. On the corner opposite the paper weight, make a series of very small jerks downward on the paper, varying the frequency of the jerks. When the frequency increases, you're doing more work, so you should be making more progress towards pulling the paper off the desk. The paper weight is where a section of the fault is locked, the jerks are the microquakes, and the paper coming off the desk is the large quake.
The earthquake research is basically saying that about a year of these high-frequency microquakes can trigger a large quake. Not saying yet that it's the only trigger or even highly reliable, but if you see many microquakes over 6 to 9 months, you can guess a big one may be coming in a few months.
Do these companies not realize that doing this on a significant scale will create deflationary pressure that will in turn reduce the amount they can make in the US market? Their greed won't get them all that far.
Seriously, when I first read the headline I transposed the letters... Bitch Mainwol.
Your typical computer-savvy baseball fan will more likely take a PDA. Journalists and executives in box suites will be more inclined to use laptops there.
"Newport News was named for Christopher Newport, captain of the Susan Constant, the lead ship of the three ship fleet that carried the Jamestown settlers to the new world in 1607. Captain Newport made several more trips between the new world and England. After the Starving Time of 1610, the original colonists abandoned Jamestown and encountered Captain Newport in the James River and learned that reinforcements of men and supplies had arrived, thus prompting their return to Jamestown. The place where that occurred became known for Newport's good news, "Newport's News," and eventually just Newport News."
c om er.htm
http://www.newport-news.va.us/intergov/text/new
No, I've never run a business, but that doesn't mean that I don't know what I'm talking about. (My interest doesn't go beyond watching the stock market.) For one thing, I said MOST businesses, not all. My experience has been that manufacturing-oriented businesses tend to have lower profit margins than service-oriented ones.
If you do a quick Google search for profit margins, you'll find results like the highest profit margins in Houston and the top businesses in Massachusetts. Funny, 20% gets you in or near the top 20 in those localities. I suppose all the businesses there are dying quickly.
You're absolutely right about it not being an abuse in terms of the letter of the law, BUT an 89% profit rate is a very strong sign that the market is bearing a heavy price for the monopoly. (Note that 20% profit rates are normally considered very good in most businesses, IIRC. 89% is almost unheard of.) Isn't this type of burden on the market exactly what anti-trust laws were intended to prevent?
In other news, police suspect a slashdot reader is responsible for recent Washington-area shootings.
Saturday on DIY: How to make a cheap, stable, secure, user-friendly operating system from Microsoft Windows.
This is exactly the type of garbage that has me seriously considering avoiding GNU software entirely. I have no desire to even wrongfully imply my endorsement of their absurd philosophy.
Microsoft puts a monetary price on their software and tries to lock you in.
GNU tries to indoctrinate you. That FAQ is dripping with propaganda and a condescending ideology that demands everyone to believe the FSF philosophy. "Free Software"- software given away at an intellectual price. No thank you. It's politics from a branch of ideology that has consistently led into totalitarianism. It's not free; it's absurd.
So what about the FSF philosophy itself? Why is it absurd? Because programmers have to live somehow. We don't live in a communist utopia (ie, communism without the totalitarianism) and never will. I wish we did, but it's against human nature. Face it- the FSF philosophy ultimately boils down to communism.
Programming is a valuable skill that provides many of us with a living. When I'm programming for a hobby, I'll gladly give away my code, but I can't give everything away until the supermarket, the real estate agent, etc. start giving away all their goods that I need. Let's face it, I'm not going to make my living from maintaining my code. If I'm doing my job right there shouldn't be much maintainence anyway.
Does that mean I should be able to keep my code proprietary for the rest of my life and my grandchildren's? No, just long enough for me to make a reasonable profit. In this industry, a 5 year copyright with no patents should suffice.
The answer isn't in communist ideology and revolution. It's simple intellectual property reform. Keep it simple, stupid.
You mean the companies owned or ran by soulless, grinning, moneygrabbing lawyers?
...so that have to distribute the negatives or highest quality digital copies? Great, now we get the 5 megapixel shots.
I'm not sure that you got my point, but I don't know how to explain it better. We'll just have to agree to disagree here.
Ultimately, in whatever religious and philosophical perspective you take, you are the ultimate authority for what you believe and what you claim to be true, even if the only action you take with your ultimate authority is to cede to a single text or doctrine.Implicit in what I said before is the idea that, to truely teach morality, a person must be trusted with some authority. If they aren't, the most they can do is point out things that their audience already accepts subconsciously. For example, I agree with Buddha that men must try to live morally good lives, but I do so because I already believed it. I do not accept Buddha as a moral authority, and I disagree with him on concepts like nirvana. I haven't learned anything new from him. But if I consider Christ a "great moral teacher" worthy of trust and authority, then there are many things in the Bible that I don't understand and accept initially but that I find to be true as I study it. There have been plenty of times when I have doubts about Christianity, and at those times I get absolutely nothing out of studying the Bible.
I guess my point is this: to truely learn from a moral teacher, a measure of trust and authority has to be given to them, and this is unwise to do if you don't agree with something as critical and foundational as Christ's claim to divinity.
In all of those cases, it was fraud on someone's part, and everything related to it is suspect (not wrong, just highly questionable). That was part of my point.
No, such a mistake would have to go much deeper than a "philosophical error". Jesus and his disciples claimed a lot of miracles over a significant period of time as signs of their validity. That's not something people come up with repeatedly as part of an innocent error. It's real, delusion, or fraud. It's not a simple mistake by any means.
Jesus's claims to miracles and divinity were fundamental to his teachings and his claims about reality. Morality, the ways we deal with our world and with other people, all have to be grounded in reality for them to do us any good. If you question a person's hold on reality, you have to question their authority to teach morality and interpret the world we live in.
This doesn't mean that there aren't elements of truth for you in the Bible if you don't believe Jesus was God. Even the perceptions of a madman contain elements of truth, but you have to question every bit of it heavily. A madman has no authority to claim truth; you have to evaluate it yourself. You give yourself the actual authority. A great moral teacher is an authority. He is not much of a teacher if you can't trust his every word.
As someone raised in the Church (and I make no claims about my own personal belief), let me say this.
If there is no shred of truth, no grounding in the real world, in the Bible, what value is there in it?
There's a line of thought quite common among Christians that goes something like this:
Once you accept that Jesus of Nazareth was an actual person, and that there is any shred of truth in the Bible at all, then you're faced with two possibilities. Either Jesus and his disciples were insane (or highly devious), and that tends to make the moral authority of their teachings highly suspect and of little or no value, or Jesus really was the Son of God and the Bible is the most valuable message in the world. There's not really any room for middle ground there. If you believe they got it wrong on something as critical as the existence and nature of God, how can you possibly trust them on other issues, where they draw their positions as consequences of that one position you still question?
Vulcan Subcommander T'Pol did bleed green in Shadows of P'Jem this past year, so the idea hasn't been forgotten.
They have to actively defend it against much more than Mozilla, rather anything else that infringes the trademark. The situation looks pretty awful for Toho.
Since some definitions of P2P networks are broad enough to include the web, I suggest they begin by targeting major nodes here, here, and here. Rumor is they're the worst offenders. Shut them down and maybe everything will be fine again.
James Madison did: info here
November 7, 2002 WASHINGTON, D.C. (AP) -- Yesterday's story incorrectly reported that Mr. Hollings lost a re-election bid. Senator Hollings will not face re-election until 2004. Upon hearing news of the other congressmen's re-election defeats, Mr. Hollings is rumored to have asked the RIAA to increase his bribe to $1 billion. Another rumor stated that the RIAA transferred $1 billion to bank accounts in Belize.
Just tomorrow? How about everyday until the RIAA/MPAA legal assault stops? And let's not forget to attack mpaa.org too.
... then Win 9x boxes are born full-grown and about 35 years old.