Yes, because everyone knows that companies would rather ditch all their GPL software and rewrite everything that depends upon it, rather than give up their software patents.
So, they're stuck with continuing to use the GPLv2 software that they already have, but definitely not any new GPLv3 software.
You would likely be surprised at which companies with software patents use GPL software and where they use such software.
I'd say that this would make a hard crunch for some companies in making some serious choices of what they want to do.
Now, for everyone commenting about the whole "If you don't agree with us then you can't play with us." idea of the GPLv3. You have to remember that the GPL has ALWAYS been this way. The attitude of the GPL has quite often been, "If you don't like the terms of the GPL, then write your own code."
This exists for a number of libraries, like libpopt. Software under a license that is not GPL-compatible cannot link into libpopt, because it is protected by the GPL. Thus, if you want to use libpopt, you have to make your program GPL. This right here is an example of the "You can't play with us" attitude that is ALREADY in the GPL community.
So, how does it work that the Itanium2 has 256 registers and is still fully compatible with previous Itanium code?
Please explain.
An accurate mapping of the accessible register window would be very clarifying. I just remember myself that there are a number of registers that are always accessible and don't get shifted through the window (like the gp, the sp, and the rp) But I also know that a number of registers also are in the register shift window. I just don't know where the split is, and how large th window is.
Yeah, well, most people treat whitespace and caps in names as allophonic elements. Meaning that they don't carry specific meaning, they just point out an "accent."
The Apple world seems full of these though, iMac, iPod, AltiVec, OS X, etc, etc, etc.
I'm not confusing architecture with instruction set. If you're talking about the x86 architecture, then you're talking about all x86, not just one specific implementation.
I'll agree that the later designs have been very nice. The Pentium-M and Pentium-D, along with the AMD designs are all incredible.
You say that the x86 design allows you to to take advantage of system busses in ways that many RISC instruction sets don't, but there's nothing that would stop them from doing so, except there's been little incentive to do so.
Yeah, you can make x86 perform well per watt. I'm not arguing that you can't. This is the very reason that Apple is switching to the x86, because Intel's roadmap is focusing on the Performance per Watt.
Like or not, x86 is *NOT* the best. It's just the *FASTEST*. Which does not make it the best. Because "best" encompasses a number of fields where not the majority of it is "fastest" for me.
I have philosophical objections to CISC designs, same as many people have philisophical objections to monolithic kernels. Does this mean that CISC and monolithic are bad? Does it mean that they are slower? No, quite the opposite, they are faster, and they're not "bad". They're just not as good as what could be done.
I think he was intending on saying "OSX Intel". A lot of people are calling it "OS x86" and just assuming that people get that they're talking about Mac OS.
Though, Apple have themselves used "Mac OSX Intel" to refer to OSX running on Intel hardware. Thus, I stick with that moniker.
If by "elegant" you mean "baroque" and "excessively intricate".
Making x86 fast has been perhaps the most incredible feat in the existence of man-kind. And it's also been one of the most damaging. If Intel had never spent a buttload of money and come through with the Pentium and produced a CISC chip that could compete against the RISC chips, because in its core it is a RISC chip, then the world would be walking around with much better performance per watt RISC chips running everything.
Perhaps, we might have even have seen the chip architecture become a commodity (like it really should be) where it was just an accepted fact that there are a ton of architectures out there, and that it's just laziness in programming that a company would target only one architecture.
Seriously. Look at Linux. Except for those proprietary programs that you just can't control, the chief majority of Linux runs on just about every chip that Linux supports (some exceptions can be made for reduced Linuxes, like uCLinux etc)
Now, if the FOSS community can make programs that compile and run correctly across 8 architectures and 8 POSIX operating systems, and Blizzard can make all their games run on Mac OS and Windows.... Just WHAT THE HELL keeps companies from actually making their programs CPU-agnostic?
TFA is talking about Longhorn Server. Longhorn Server does not have a shipping name, and is still under the Longhorn codename.
Vista (being the Longhorn intended for Homes and Small Offices) will likely not support Itanium at all... but don't take my word as gospel on that, I don't know for certain.
But Longhorn Server is most definitely *not* Vista.
Actually, the Itanium design is 32 accessible registers at any given time with a "sliding window" design for accessing some 16~24 of them (I don't remember the raw number off hand).
What this allows one to do is just slide the window further down the line before making a function call, or sliding the window around while doing a loop, so you can perform some loop operations without changing the instruction's declared register usage, but rather just by sliding the window.
As the register window rotates around, and starts colliding with already used hardware registers, the hardware automagically handles storing the values into a stack, and then retrieving them back when the window slide returns.
Thus, you get an architecture that can have literally any number of registers, which is what happened with the Itanium 2. They doubled the number of registers, and put in 256!
I really like this design, and I hate reading all the time that it's dying out. I'd say that maybe if it goes the way of the Alpha, that it would make it easier for me to get my hands on one, but I seriously doubt that would happen.:(
Of course they like tipping. It's just like all the bullshit that people get fed, like recycling, and sales incentives.
I worked for a ISP sales department. When I got there, they had no sales incentives, and people provided fair and accurate service.
Then, a new manager comes on board, and is like, "Why aren't we paying sales incentives?" Suddenly, the job switches from being a relaxed customer oriented job, to a high-pressure if you're not selling the service get of the damned phone job.
I'm not kidding. It completely turned around the way that people were expected to treat the customer, and it was *NOT* towards the customers benefit.
Meanwhile, the employees were fed a line telling them that they had the chance to make awesome rewards out of the program. The first award period someone earned a ridiculous amount of money extra. But this was *one* person, who was probably as enjoyable to deal with as a used-car salesman. The majority of the people earned nothing.
So, let me break it down. Company gets $X to pay out in rewards, but since only Y number of employees even qualify for a reward they only pay some A amount less than X out to those few employees. Thus, rather than pay everyone $X/Y more money and improving everyone's disposition, they only spend $A where AX on a few people who really worked their ass off, but more so than they're being paid extra.
So, let's lay this out. Option A where everyone gets more money, everyone is better off, except the company paying. Option B which is sales incentives, "everyone" who wins is the company and the few sales associates who work their ass to the bone, but worked more than they got back. Hm... let's see here... call me stupid, but I think the company likes Option B, and will try and convince everyone that Option B is better.
How? Just point to the top rewards-earners and say, "You could have earned more money, if only you had worked as hard as him/her!" Which is total bullshit.
The whole idea of commisions and tipping is bullshit. Pay the waiters $10 and hour, and they won't complain about their "loss" from tipping. Stop telling people that tipping and commissions are better for them, because statistically, they're not.
It's like pointing at Bill Gates and telling kids that if they try really hard, that they can be just like him. Bullshit. Statistically, there's a very limited number of children who will turn out to be the next Bill Gates.
This is kind of why I personally think that tipping is bullshit. Of course, I realize that these people require tips to make a living, so I leave a tip.
But that doesn't change the fact that I think that waiters should be paid a real wage, and not have this bullshit run around them where their employers can do this.
Have a slow night, and awesome. You just had a pay cut. Sure, you might have some good days where you earn quite a bit of money more than normal. But you're still being dicked by your employers.
I have the money sitting in a bank account earning interest while we (the main PearPC-devels) decide what will be done with the money.
The donation said that any amount not used for the purpose of suing MXS would be spent for the benefit of PearPC development.
Now, we're looking into possibly donating some to the SFLC (our lawyers, and a good lawyer for any GPL project that needs help). But many of our developers are lacking good money, and could use some money (not in just a "it'd be nice to have it..." but generally as in "you know what'd be good? food.")
So, we'll see what's going to happen. At least some of the money should be going to a charity though.
I ran a donation for the PearPC legal fund against Maui X-Stream (it was on slashdot)
I collected about $1k in a few days, and PayPal calls me up while I'm trying to sleep, and they're like: "Did you know that you have had a large amount of money going into your account?" I'm like "Yeah, last I checked it was exactly this balance..." "Are you done asking me stupid questions now?"
One of my friends had a PayPal Visa card. He says that if he paid for a meal on his PayPal Visa, and left a tip, that paypal would end up automatically denying the payment.
Not his fault, he's willing to pay the amount. PayPal is being the jerk and not paying.
Sure, this worked occationally in my friend's favor (he avoided it, because it felt wrong to him.) But PayPal was ripping on the restaurants.
I'm not quite sure why I picked up hisself, and theirselves. They sounded right at the time.
I guess my mind setup on the whole possessive+self thing, and didn't pay attention to the odd soundingness of hisself and theirselves. Oddly, I can still hear a bit of correctness in them, but then this is why a linguist should never base their ideas soley on their own ear, because you can so expose yourself to some idea that you accept too much, or accept too little.
That just the thing though. Children exposed to bad grammar will actually CORRECT that bad grammar.
Now, if you're going to start complaining about colloquial speech, and calling it bad, you're misunderstanding the meaning of grammar.
Functionally there are two types of Grammar. Formalized grammar, and real grammar. Formalized grammar is the stuff that they teach you in school, and define an ideal language usage. Real grammar is what is actually there, and explains why the vast majority of people don't have to be told how to use the reflexive (myself/yourself/hisself/herself/ourselves/theirse lves).
So, children exposed to grammatical garbage (for instance, a pidgin language) will produce a grammatical structure (for instance, a creole)
Children are literally Garbage in, Corrected Information out.
If this system being fed a pidgin does not formulate a proper creole from it, then it's easy to say that it does not use a process similar to what humans use.
Yeah, this whole comment is exactly one of the things that I hate about Windows.
First:) It doesn't really complain enough that data leaves it's area of usage. And heaven forbid if you have a file open on a removable media when you remove the media. The next time you attempt to access the file BLUESCREEN! YES!!!!
Second:) When you know about all this caching stuff, and you realize that you want to eject media from the OS before you remove it, look for where to eject it. Yeah, that's right. I have to go down to the system tray, right click on the removable media icon, this brings up a window, and I highlight the USB keychain HD, then click some button that says basically "Make it safe for me to remove this thing." Then it sits there, does its work, and then I can remove it.
As opposed to OSX, where I can either drag-drop the device on the eject symbol, hit CMD-E with it highlighted, or if I have a Finder window open, I can click the eject button next to the USB device icon.
Wow, even though I explained *THREE* different ways to eject the same device in OSX, it still took less space than the only way I'm aware of to eject the media. I don't think I could come up with something longer in OSX without going off on a tangent. The longest being: "Open up Terminal.app and type 'umount/Volumes/$MediaName'"
I know I had some old 386 or something that didn't even have the minimum 16MiB of RAM required to install the Linux that I downloaded off the BBS. This had to have been before 1998, because that's when I graduated HS, and I know I was in High School at the time.
My parents made me ditch the machine, because it was in my room, and I dunno. Now that I think about it, it's weird that they made me do so. (I mean, I had a TRS-80 in my closet, what's a 386 in my room.)
Anyways, I learned "ed" so that I could modify the files that I was using. I may have written a "Hello World" program, but didn't get around to a lot. Like I said, my parents made me ditch it. I did learn about "man" fairly quickly, so that made things nice.
Next exposure to Linux was in College, where our CS department was using it. I don't quite remember how much/little of Linux I remembered, but I sure as heck can't use "ed" anymore. (I had to relearn it once though, because it was the only editor in/bin, and my/usr partition was down.)
The first time I picked up using linux at home was then in 2000, I believe. Where I installed it on my Japanese laptop, then I might have setup a dual boot for my PC.
Later that same year, I was at a gaming event, (Gammathon) and I installed Counter Strike so many times that I had the key memorized, and I wasn't even trying. I thought: "If Windows is going to be this bad. I'm going all Linux." When I got home, I bought the last Quake 3 for Linux box at Hastings, got home, downloaded UT for Linux, later grabbed WINE, and was able to run both Counter Strike and Starcraft in it. This filled all the games we were playing weekly at our LAN party.
I thus, at that point, lost all need for Windows. Until newer games. And Anarchy Online. and World of Warcraft (though I hear that runs on Cedega.)
So, now I don't run Windows unless I have to, just because I don't really have any more compelling reasons to.
Even if the text moved, you could use "markers" in the text to align the images around the text. Then once they're all alligned perform the compositing step again as you described and done.
Fact is, that if you move ANY of the perterbation of the Captcha you eliminate a lot of it's effectiveness. This is because pulling non-random signal out of random noise in a moving system is a lot easier than in a static singular system.
For instance: Try and pick out a well camo'ed soldier from a picture. Now, have a video tape where the same well camo'ed soldier is moving. I bet you'll spot him in an instant. This is why snipers have to learn how to move without producing visual movement. Movement == death.
Re:Interesting flash-based captcha
on
Defeating Captcha
·
· Score: 1
Snap a series of pictures, and begin to compose them together.
Composure process:
Start with a white canvas the same size as the captcha for the composed image
If a pixel is white on a picture, don't do anything to the composed image (keep it the color it is)
If a pixel is non-white in a picture, then draw a black pixel on the composed image.
After a while, you have a simple OCR problem with white text, on a black background.
It's like the fact that more Ikea catalogs get printed every year than Bibles.
It's damned strange to hear, and you wouldn't believe it, but if you actually bother to do the math, and look at where the things are going, you find out that it's got some darn good proof.
As for real proof. No, I don't have any concrete proof, but I do know that IBM is the largest chip manufacturer in the world, and a large part of their production is PowerPC. Just like I said, they go into cars and other vehicles, not desktop computers.
Still, even were there less PowerPCs than x86 chips, the point still stands that Apple was not the major consumer of PowerPC chips... just the most notable to date.
The thing was actually, that Apple was even a niche market within that niche market.
This is why Apple couldn't pull any leverage against IBM or Motorola or FreeScale to actually make the chips that they wanted.
Even Apple wasn't that big a market share in the PowerPC world. In fact, there are more PowerPCs out there than there are x86 chips. "Where are they?" you ask? They're in things like your car, and other embedded devices.
It's like ARM. You just don't realize how pervasive they already are, because the only CPUs you usually ever hear about are desktops.
That their existing software is all written for it.
True, they could recompile for a different architecture, but that costs money, and test time.
So, they're better off continuing with PowerPC hardware.
So, pull your head out of your ass that everyone can just jump ship from a chip design when it isn't going well for them, and shut up.
Interestingly enough, the newest Apache modifications (that I had heard about, this was Spring 2001) put a Voodoo 4 in for the HUD displays. So, again, the question, "what shit can they accomplish with a Voodoo 4, that they can't with something else?"
Nothing, but their contract says they're doing the project at a certain price and they've already made their choice, and bought the chips.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, because everyone knows that companies would rather ditch all their GPL software and rewrite everything that depends upon it, rather than give up their software patents.
So, they're stuck with continuing to use the GPLv2 software that they already have, but definitely not any new GPLv3 software.
You would likely be surprised at which companies with software patents use GPL software and where they use such software.
I'd say that this would make a hard crunch for some companies in making some serious choices of what they want to do.
Now, for everyone commenting about the whole "If you don't agree with us then you can't play with us." idea of the GPLv3. You have to remember that the GPL has ALWAYS been this way. The attitude of the GPL has quite often been, "If you don't like the terms of the GPL, then write your own code."
This exists for a number of libraries, like libpopt. Software under a license that is not GPL-compatible cannot link into libpopt, because it is protected by the GPL. Thus, if you want to use libpopt, you have to make your program GPL. This right here is an example of the "You can't play with us" attitude that is ALREADY in the GPL community.
Don't act like this is something new.
So, how does it work that the Itanium2 has 256 registers and is still fully compatible with previous Itanium code?
Please explain.
An accurate mapping of the accessible register window would be very clarifying. I just remember myself that there are a number of registers that are always accessible and don't get shifted through the window (like the gp, the sp, and the rp) But I also know that a number of registers also are in the register shift window. I just don't know where the split is, and how large th window is.
Yeah, well, most people treat whitespace and caps in names as allophonic elements. Meaning that they don't carry specific meaning, they just point out an "accent."
The Apple world seems full of these though, iMac, iPod, AltiVec, OS X, etc, etc, etc.
I'm not confusing architecture with instruction set. If you're talking about the x86 architecture, then you're talking about all x86, not just one specific implementation.
I'll agree that the later designs have been very nice. The Pentium-M and Pentium-D, along with the AMD designs are all incredible.
You say that the x86 design allows you to to take advantage of system busses in ways that many RISC instruction sets don't, but there's nothing that would stop them from doing so, except there's been little incentive to do so.
Yeah, you can make x86 perform well per watt. I'm not arguing that you can't. This is the very reason that Apple is switching to the x86, because Intel's roadmap is focusing on the Performance per Watt.
Like or not, x86 is *NOT* the best. It's just the *FASTEST*. Which does not make it the best. Because "best" encompasses a number of fields where not the majority of it is "fastest" for me.
I have philosophical objections to CISC designs, same as many people have philisophical objections to monolithic kernels. Does this mean that CISC and monolithic are bad? Does it mean that they are slower? No, quite the opposite, they are faster, and they're not "bad". They're just not as good as what could be done.
I think he was intending on saying "OSX Intel". A lot of people are calling it "OS x86" and just assuming that people get that they're talking about Mac OS.
Though, Apple have themselves used "Mac OSX Intel" to refer to OSX running on Intel hardware. Thus, I stick with that moniker.
If by "elegant" you mean "baroque" and "excessively intricate".
Making x86 fast has been perhaps the most incredible feat in the existence of man-kind. And it's also been one of the most damaging. If Intel had never spent a buttload of money and come through with the Pentium and produced a CISC chip that could compete against the RISC chips, because in its core it is a RISC chip, then the world would be walking around with much better performance per watt RISC chips running everything.
Perhaps, we might have even have seen the chip architecture become a commodity (like it really should be) where it was just an accepted fact that there are a ton of architectures out there, and that it's just laziness in programming that a company would target only one architecture.
Seriously. Look at Linux. Except for those proprietary programs that you just can't control, the chief majority of Linux runs on just about every chip that Linux supports (some exceptions can be made for reduced Linuxes, like uCLinux etc)
Now, if the FOSS community can make programs that compile and run correctly across 8 architectures and 8 POSIX operating systems, and Blizzard can make all their games run on Mac OS and Windows.... Just WHAT THE HELL keeps companies from actually making their programs CPU-agnostic?
TFA is talking about Longhorn Server. Longhorn Server does not have a shipping name, and is still under the Longhorn codename.
Vista (being the Longhorn intended for Homes and Small Offices) will likely not support Itanium at all... but don't take my word as gospel on that, I don't know for certain.
But Longhorn Server is most definitely *not* Vista.
Actually, the Itanium design is 32 accessible registers at any given time with a "sliding window" design for accessing some 16~24 of them (I don't remember the raw number off hand).
:(
What this allows one to do is just slide the window further down the line before making a function call, or sliding the window around while doing a loop, so you can perform some loop operations without changing the instruction's declared register usage, but rather just by sliding the window.
As the register window rotates around, and starts colliding with already used hardware registers, the hardware automagically handles storing the values into a stack, and then retrieving them back when the window slide returns.
Thus, you get an architecture that can have literally any number of registers, which is what happened with the Itanium 2. They doubled the number of registers, and put in 256!
I really like this design, and I hate reading all the time that it's dying out. I'd say that maybe if it goes the way of the Alpha, that it would make it easier for me to get my hands on one, but I seriously doubt that would happen.
Of course they like tipping. It's just like all the bullshit that people get fed, like recycling, and sales incentives.
I worked for a ISP sales department. When I got there, they had no sales incentives, and people provided fair and accurate service.
Then, a new manager comes on board, and is like, "Why aren't we paying sales incentives?" Suddenly, the job switches from being a relaxed customer oriented job, to a high-pressure if you're not selling the service get of the damned phone job.
I'm not kidding. It completely turned around the way that people were expected to treat the customer, and it was *NOT* towards the customers benefit.
Meanwhile, the employees were fed a line telling them that they had the chance to make awesome rewards out of the program. The first award period someone earned a ridiculous amount of money extra. But this was *one* person, who was probably as enjoyable to deal with as a used-car salesman. The majority of the people earned nothing.
So, let me break it down. Company gets $X to pay out in rewards, but since only Y number of employees even qualify for a reward they only pay some A amount less than X out to those few employees. Thus, rather than pay everyone $X/Y more money and improving everyone's disposition, they only spend $A where AX on a few people who really worked their ass off, but more so than they're being paid extra.
So, let's lay this out. Option A where everyone gets more money, everyone is better off, except the company paying. Option B which is sales incentives, "everyone" who wins is the company and the few sales associates who work their ass to the bone, but worked more than they got back. Hm... let's see here... call me stupid, but I think the company likes Option B, and will try and convince everyone that Option B is better.
How? Just point to the top rewards-earners and say, "You could have earned more money, if only you had worked as hard as him/her!" Which is total bullshit.
The whole idea of commisions and tipping is bullshit. Pay the waiters $10 and hour, and they won't complain about their "loss" from tipping. Stop telling people that tipping and commissions are better for them, because statistically, they're not.
It's like pointing at Bill Gates and telling kids that if they try really hard, that they can be just like him. Bullshit. Statistically, there's a very limited number of children who will turn out to be the next Bill Gates.
This is kind of why I personally think that tipping is bullshit. Of course, I realize that these people require tips to make a living, so I leave a tip.
But that doesn't change the fact that I think that waiters should be paid a real wage, and not have this bullshit run around them where their employers can do this.
Have a slow night, and awesome. You just had a pay cut. Sure, you might have some good days where you earn quite a bit of money more than normal. But you're still being dicked by your employers.
I have the money sitting in a bank account earning interest while we (the main PearPC-devels) decide what will be done with the money.
The donation said that any amount not used for the purpose of suing MXS would be spent for the benefit of PearPC development.
Now, we're looking into possibly donating some to the SFLC (our lawyers, and a good lawyer for any GPL project that needs help). But many of our developers are lacking good money, and could use some money (not in just a "it'd be nice to have it..." but generally as in "you know what'd be good? food.")
So, we'll see what's going to happen. At least some of the money should be going to a charity though.
I ran a donation for the PearPC legal fund against Maui X-Stream (it was on slashdot)
I collected about $1k in a few days, and PayPal calls me up while I'm trying to sleep, and they're like: "Did you know that you have had a large amount of money going into your account?" I'm like "Yeah, last I checked it was exactly this balance..." "Are you done asking me stupid questions now?"
One of my friends had a PayPal Visa card. He says that if he paid for a meal on his PayPal Visa, and left a tip, that paypal would end up automatically denying the payment.
Not his fault, he's willing to pay the amount. PayPal is being the jerk and not paying.
Sure, this worked occationally in my friend's favor (he avoided it, because it felt wrong to him.) But PayPal was ripping on the restaurants.
I find the posting of old news to be much more annoying about Slashdot.
I mean, Neanderthals and Modern Man living together for 1,000 years in northern Europe? I mean, come on, that's some 10,000 years old!
WHERE'S THE NEW IN OUR NEWS?!
I'm not quite sure why I picked up hisself, and theirselves. They sounded right at the time.
I guess my mind setup on the whole possessive+self thing, and didn't pay attention to the odd soundingness of hisself and theirselves. Oddly, I can still hear a bit of correctness in them, but then this is why a linguist should never base their ideas soley on their own ear, because you can so expose yourself to some idea that you accept too much, or accept too little.
That just the thing though. Children exposed to bad grammar will actually CORRECT that bad grammar.
e lves).
Now, if you're going to start complaining about colloquial speech, and calling it bad, you're misunderstanding the meaning of grammar.
Functionally there are two types of Grammar. Formalized grammar, and real grammar. Formalized grammar is the stuff that they teach you in school, and define an ideal language usage. Real grammar is what is actually there, and explains why the vast majority of people don't have to be told how to use the reflexive (myself/yourself/hisself/herself/ourselves/theirs
So, children exposed to grammatical garbage (for instance, a pidgin language) will produce a grammatical structure (for instance, a creole)
Children are literally Garbage in, Corrected Information out.
If this system being fed a pidgin does not formulate a proper creole from it, then it's easy to say that it does not use a process similar to what humans use.
Yeah, this whole comment is exactly one of the things that I hate about Windows.
/Volumes/$MediaName'"
First:) It doesn't really complain enough that data leaves it's area of usage. And heaven forbid if you have a file open on a removable media when you remove the media. The next time you attempt to access the file BLUESCREEN! YES!!!!
Second:) When you know about all this caching stuff, and you realize that you want to eject media from the OS before you remove it, look for where to eject it. Yeah, that's right. I have to go down to the system tray, right click on the removable media icon, this brings up a window, and I highlight the USB keychain HD, then click some button that says basically "Make it safe for me to remove this thing." Then it sits there, does its work, and then I can remove it.
As opposed to OSX, where I can either drag-drop the device on the eject symbol, hit CMD-E with it highlighted, or if I have a Finder window open, I can click the eject button next to the USB device icon.
Wow, even though I explained *THREE* different ways to eject the same device in OSX, it still took less space than the only way I'm aware of to eject the media. I don't think I could come up with something longer in OSX without going off on a tangent. The longest being: "Open up Terminal.app and type 'umount
Damn, even *THAT* didn't take that much space.
I know I had some old 386 or something that didn't even have the minimum 16MiB of RAM required to install the Linux that I downloaded off the BBS. This had to have been before 1998, because that's when I graduated HS, and I know I was in High School at the time.
/bin, and my /usr partition was down.)
My parents made me ditch the machine, because it was in my room, and I dunno. Now that I think about it, it's weird that they made me do so. (I mean, I had a TRS-80 in my closet, what's a 386 in my room.)
Anyways, I learned "ed" so that I could modify the files that I was using. I may have written a "Hello World" program, but didn't get around to a lot. Like I said, my parents made me ditch it. I did learn about "man" fairly quickly, so that made things nice.
Next exposure to Linux was in College, where our CS department was using it. I don't quite remember how much/little of Linux I remembered, but I sure as heck can't use "ed" anymore. (I had to relearn it once though, because it was the only editor in
The first time I picked up using linux at home was then in 2000, I believe. Where I installed it on my Japanese laptop, then I might have setup a dual boot for my PC.
Later that same year, I was at a gaming event, (Gammathon) and I installed Counter Strike so many times that I had the key memorized, and I wasn't even trying. I thought: "If Windows is going to be this bad. I'm going all Linux." When I got home, I bought the last Quake 3 for Linux box at Hastings, got home, downloaded UT for Linux, later grabbed WINE, and was able to run both Counter Strike and Starcraft in it. This filled all the games we were playing weekly at our LAN party.
I thus, at that point, lost all need for Windows. Until newer games. And Anarchy Online. and World of Warcraft (though I hear that runs on Cedega.)
So, now I don't run Windows unless I have to, just because I don't really have any more compelling reasons to.
ok, you misread. Partly because I spoke poorly.
static singular system = a single snapshot of time from a system.
Try doing Spread-Spectrum Communications when given a singular RF pulse. Tell me who sent what, and what they were trying to say.
Can't be done. But now give them regular modulations and movement, and add a time factor, and you can pick it up.
Even if the text moved, you could use "markers" in the text to align the images around the text. Then once they're all alligned perform the compositing step again as you described and done.
Fact is, that if you move ANY of the perterbation of the Captcha you eliminate a lot of it's effectiveness. This is because pulling non-random signal out of random noise in a moving system is a lot easier than in a static singular system.
For instance: Try and pick out a well camo'ed soldier from a picture. Now, have a video tape where the same well camo'ed soldier is moving. I bet you'll spot him in an instant. This is why snipers have to learn how to move without producing visual movement. Movement == death.
Snap a series of pictures, and begin to compose them together.
Composure process:
Start with a white canvas the same size as the captcha for the composed image
If a pixel is white on a picture, don't do anything to the composed image (keep it the color it is)
If a pixel is non-white in a picture, then draw a black pixel on the composed image.
After a while, you have a simple OCR problem with white text, on a black background.
It's like the fact that more Ikea catalogs get printed every year than Bibles.
It's damned strange to hear, and you wouldn't believe it, but if you actually bother to do the math, and look at where the things are going, you find out that it's got some darn good proof.
As for real proof. No, I don't have any concrete proof, but I do know that IBM is the largest chip manufacturer in the world, and a large part of their production is PowerPC. Just like I said, they go into cars and other vehicles, not desktop computers.
Still, even were there less PowerPCs than x86 chips, the point still stands that Apple was not the major consumer of PowerPC chips... just the most notable to date.
The thing was actually, that Apple was even a niche market within that niche market.
This is why Apple couldn't pull any leverage against IBM or Motorola or FreeScale to actually make the chips that they wanted.
Even Apple wasn't that big a market share in the PowerPC world. In fact, there are more PowerPCs out there than there are x86 chips. "Where are they?" you ask? They're in things like your car, and other embedded devices.
It's like ARM. You just don't realize how pervasive they already are, because the only CPUs you usually ever hear about are desktops.
That their existing software is all written for it.
True, they could recompile for a different architecture, but that costs money, and test time.
So, they're better off continuing with PowerPC hardware.
So, pull your head out of your ass that everyone can just jump ship from a chip design when it isn't going well for them, and shut up.
Interestingly enough, the newest Apache modifications (that I had heard about, this was Spring 2001) put a Voodoo 4 in for the HUD displays. So, again, the question, "what shit can they accomplish with a Voodoo 4, that they can't with something else?"
Nothing, but their contract says they're doing the project at a certain price and they've already made their choice, and bought the chips.
She's talking about code-monkeys,
Hey, I am a code-monkey you insensitive clod!