You're assuming the author changes the license. I'm not. I'm assuming that it stays under the GPL. The GPL license allows you to charge for access to both the binaries and source, just as long as you can get source if you get the binaries.
It also requires that the author allow you to fork the source (not the binaries) and redistribute it.
The article is deader than a doorknob run over by a Mack truck, so I'll just say this:
If the author provides the source code with every copy of the program, he's fine.
If you have to pay to access the program, but source code is provided when you pay for the program, the author is well within his right.
If the author provides a "time limited" or "evaluation" version, but only provides source code upon purchase, then he's in a gray area.
If the author provides no source code, period, and expects the existing code base to be sufficient (assuming he's made changes), then he's in violation.
Assuming this job ad is real, it wouldn't be that big of a surprise. For one, Apple did the same thing amid the rumors that iTunes would be ported to Windows. Apple later confirmed this. For another, I thought that Apple had already stated that video was a direction they were considering taking the iPod. Why are we bothering with this front page post when we already know it's coming?
Besides, Microsoft has already started releasing specs for their own portable multimedia handhelds. Apple announcing that they're working on one doesn't change things a bit. You see, Apple doesn't want to be first. They want to be second so they can learn from their competitor's mistakes. Just like they did with the iPod.:-)
This is old news. Doesn't anyone watch the AOL commercials? They've already attached the AOL optimizer to a wheelchair, a motorcycle, and a hot rod! The hot rod must have hit 88.8 miles per hour (and 1.21 JIGGAWATTS of electricity!) because it went back in time!;-)
As I replied to the original poster, I misunderstood the article. I went back and realized I was reading:
"...has created a fully functional 70 megabit memory chip with transistor switches measuring just 35 nanometers."
as:
"...has created a fully functional 70 megabit memory chip with transistor switches, measuring just 35 nanometers."
A single comma after "memory chip" would have helped make it a bit clearer. i.e.:
"...has created a fully functional 70 megabit memory chip, with transistor switches measuring just 35 nanometers."
Yeah, do you feel like uttering any other ignorance while you are here today? I apologize for being rude, but it seems to me like you are trying to put on an air that you know what you are talking about when it is blatantly obvious you are without a clue.
Seems I'm not having such a great day today. Time for me to stop trying to be (non-)helpful. I'll wait for a day when my reading comprehension is operating a bit better.
Allow me to restate that: They wouldn't be capable of maintaining their charge for long enough to be useful. The DRAM refresh rates can be measures in KHz, as opposed to the CPU which can be measured in GHz. Running at a KHz refresh rate means that they draw orders of magnitude less power than a CPU.
Sorry, I was probably unclear on that.:-/ And yes, SRAM would have been a better example.
"The Santa Clara, Calif.-based company said Monday it has created a fully functional 70 megabit memory chip with transistor switches measuring just 35 nanometers -- about 30 percent smaller than those found on today's state-of-the-art chips."
Now according to Google, there's 10,000,000 nanometers to a cm. Our chip is 35 nm in size. 10,000,000 divided by 35 is 285,714. So we now know that we can put 285,714, 35nm chips in a 1cm strip.
My only mistake appears to be in accepting the parent's figure of ~10 MB. It seems that the actual figure is a bit more like 8MB per chip. Thus we have 2,285,712 MB per 1 cm strip, or ~2.2 TB.
While it's certainly cheaper to pickup 20 Dell PC's for $500 each, an integrated 12-way workstation may signify the beginning of a new desktop computing standard.
I'm certainly not disagreeing with you, but my point to the original poster is that he doesn't need to worry about this in the here and now.
Personally, I don't see this sort of design becoming standard in a Personal Computer any time soon. Too much horsepower for a single user who simply needs more torque. However, I *do* see such designs leading into concepts like a "house computer" where the ability to multitask is more important than raw performance. Just imagine if you could install one computer for ~$2000, and have enough system resources to provide a desktop to a small office building (not to mention your entire extended family).
Such a computer would not only provide a thin client desktop, but also handle multimedia capabilities like PVR, watching movies/TV from the internet, streaming radio stations and purchased music to anywhere in the house, interfacing with digital cameras/camcorders via Bluetooth, etc. It's even possible that such a machine could control aspects of your home via X.10, but I wouldn't count on that being a common use for quite a long time.
With all these gags about heat, does anyone realize we're talking about RAM and not CPUs? RAM doesn't usually use that much electricity, so I'm not sure why everyone thinks it's so funny to complain about "heat, heat, heat!".
In case anyone's interested, wikipedia has an article on how DRAM and other memory technologies work. You'll note the use of capacitors. i.e. If the chips were loosing a lot of heat to resistance, the capacitors wouldn't be capable of maintaining their charge.
That's 10MB per (square?) 35 nanometers. If I'm doing my figures correctly, this means that a one centimeter strip would contain 2.8 TB. That's a LOT of memory.:-)
I wouldn't worry too much about it. Even a single processor still tends to outclass the remaining parts in your computer, performance-wise. If you got a machine with 96 processors, you probably wouldn't notice much of a performance difference. i.e. This is only helpful to people who run heavily threaded, CPU intensive applications. Examples include:
- CAD Modeling and testing of areodynamic vehicles - Modeling of Oil Wells - Searching for Extraterrestrial life - Solving very complex math issues - Running realistic simulations (e.g. explosion modeling)
Sound familiar? That would be Sun and SGI's workstation market.
opening the door to atomically precise timekeeping in portable, battery-powered devices for secure wireless communications, more precise navigation and...
is it bad if I liked all the foundation books, and I mean aaaalll of them?
You're going to the third ring of hell for that one! (rolls eyes) Of course it's fine. Everyone has their own tastes. It's not like Asimov writes books with poor handling of touchy subjects like sex and violence. I was downright embarrassed to read "Friday", but none of Asimov's stuff falls in that category.
BTW, if you're looking for a really, really good modern work of fiction, check out Eternity's End by Jeffery Carver. I got a copy from a book club and couldn't put it down. It's one of those books that you really wish wouldn't end. (Yes, it's THAT GOOD.)
It's been out of print for many, many years. It only recently has gone back into print. Thus all the older memebers remember it (and a few people who found it in the library) but it's been "lost" to the younger generation.:-)
From here: "The common law originally developed under the auspices of the adversarial system in historical England from judicial decisions that were based in tradition, custom, and precedent. The form of reasoning used in common law is known as casuistry or case-based reasoning."
If you're going to attribute a source, at least get it right. Pointing to Wikipedia knockoffs just encourages them to maintain out of date info.
Common law is simply the term to describe how the legal system works. It is not a term to describe precedents becoming law. Its antithesis is Civil Law, usually taken from Roman Law.
Certain precedents can sometimes have greater effect than can certain pieces of enacted legislation (e.g. "laws" in the sense I suspect you mean).
A precedent is an interpretation of the law that is considered reasonable and correct. i.e. From wikipedia: "Precedent is the principle in law of using the past in order to assist in current interpretation and decision-making." It is not a law, but rather a proven way of interpreting law. In the case you mentioned, a very real and physical invention was created. Thus it is difficult to argue with the Supreme Court's decision. This set the precedent that the use of software in an invention does not immediatly preclude it from being classified as an invention.
If you read your own article, you'll notice that the real problem was the attempt at clarification in 1990. Instead of requiring a physical device, the court "clarified" their position in such a way as to allow for pure software products to be patented.
"I fail to see how they could have ruled any other way" Are you saying that software patents are not a problem?
Software patents are a problem. Does that mean that all software patents are wrong? That is a difficult statement to make without first going through and demonstrating that an overwhelming majority of such patents are invalid. Keep in mind that you never hear about patents that are fairly granted. You hear about patents that are unfairly granted.
FWIW, I think the real problem is less of an issue with software patents, and more of an issue of the patent office failing to perform proper research. Almost all software patents I have heard people take issue with are a result of poor research and rules application on the part of the Patent Office. e.g. 1-Click checkout is woefully obvious and should not have been granted. Making all software patents invalid is nothing more than an easy way to treat the symptom without solving the problem.
You wouldn't be driving a Cadillac by any chance? I agree. The ride is super-smooth, but the cost of replacing those shocks is outrageous. (Speaking as a former Fleetwood owner.) The part that always amazed me about air-suspension was how nimble the vehicle was while driving. I had a Bonneville before that, and that thing felt HEAVY. The Fleetwood OTOH felt light enough to take it offroading. Not that I was about to try...;-)
they both suspend perfectly, similar to your Mac (suspend in about 2.5, working again in 3sec).
Oh, and they both run NetBSD
Now that is very interesting. I'd nearly given up hope of ever seeing a regular Unix system actually work correctly with a laptop's power management. Any idea if the tech has been/will be ported to FreeBSD? Or does NetBSD simply have a more suitable kernel design?
"However, he has to justify that opinion in his findings, or an appeals court will throw it out." This requirement does not apply to the Supreme Court, however.
This is true. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. The chain of appeals has to end somewhere. Thankfully, the court tends to be very careful about its judgements. That's not to say that bad decisions don't happen, but they are mitigated as much as possible. Notice that more than one judge presides over the cases.
With respect to software patents , the courts created their own law:
The example you gave is a precendent, not a law. Software at the time was not considered patentable or copyrightable since it was neither a physical invention or a work of art. In that specific case, the court ruled that the end product was indeed a physical device and thus may be patented. Given the way the device functioned, I fail to see how they could have ruled any other way. It would be like calling anti-lock brakes a non-existent invention, just because it used software for slip detection.
1. Why is the parent redundant? It's the first post for crying out loud!
2. Is it just me, or do the "normal" cars look like they've got lousy shocks? Sure, some "dive" is to expected when taking a tight corner, but these things practically hit the ground! In the "Demo Course" video, the cars don't even look like they're going that fast. Maybe 30-40 MPH tops.
That being said, the suspension system is impressive. The balance of the Bose equipped car never wavers. Unless I miss my guess, the thing looks gyroscope stabilized. Combined with powered shocks with near-instant response time, I see little reason why this couldn't work. Kudos to Bose!
Slashdot Mirror
What's a Jigga-watt?
An alternate pronunciation of "Gigawatt" which many thought to be incorrect, but is actually valid. Haven't you seen "Back to the Future"?
You're assuming the author changes the license. I'm not. I'm assuming that it stays under the GPL. The GPL license allows you to charge for access to both the binaries and source, just as long as you can get source if you get the binaries.
It also requires that the author allow you to fork the source (not the binaries) and redistribute it.
The article is deader than a doorknob run over by a Mack truck, so I'll just say this:
If the author provides the source code with every copy of the program, he's fine.
If you have to pay to access the program, but source code is provided when you pay for the program, the author is well within his right.
If the author provides a "time limited" or "evaluation" version, but only provides source code upon purchase, then he's in a gray area.
If the author provides no source code, period, and expects the existing code base to be sufficient (assuming he's made changes), then he's in violation.
Only four questions? Yikes! That's not much of an article!
Assuming this job ad is real, it wouldn't be that big of a surprise. For one, Apple did the same thing amid the rumors that iTunes would be ported to Windows. Apple later confirmed this. For another, I thought that Apple had already stated that video was a direction they were considering taking the iPod. Why are we bothering with this front page post when we already know it's coming?
:-)
Besides, Microsoft has already started releasing specs for their own portable multimedia handhelds. Apple announcing that they're working on one doesn't change things a bit. You see, Apple doesn't want to be first. They want to be second so they can learn from their competitor's mistakes. Just like they did with the iPod.
No offense was taken. It was my mistake. Thanks for the correction. :-)
This is old news. Doesn't anyone watch the AOL commercials? They've already attached the AOL optimizer to a wheelchair, a motorcycle, and a hot rod! The hot rod must have hit 88.8 miles per hour (and 1.21 JIGGAWATTS of electricity!) because it went back in time! ;-)
As I replied to the original poster, I misunderstood the article. I went back and realized I was reading:
:-)
"...has created a fully functional 70 megabit memory chip with transistor switches measuring just 35 nanometers."
as:
"...has created a fully functional 70 megabit memory chip with transistor switches, measuring just 35 nanometers."
A single comma after "memory chip" would have helped make it a bit clearer. i.e.:
"...has created a fully functional 70 megabit memory chip, with transistor switches measuring just 35 nanometers."
Yeah, do you feel like uttering any other ignorance while you are here today? I apologize for being rude, but it seems to me like you are trying to put on an air that you know what you are talking about when it is blatantly obvious you are without a clue.
Seems I'm not having such a great day today. Time for me to stop trying to be (non-)helpful. I'll wait for a day when my reading comprehension is operating a bit better.
And here I was hoping for terabytes of RAM.
Ah, I see. I misread the text as "35nm chip" instead of "a chip with 35nm switches". Mod my original post down. ;-(
Allow me to restate that: They wouldn't be capable of maintaining their charge for long enough to be useful. The DRAM refresh rates can be measures in KHz, as opposed to the CPU which can be measured in GHz. Running at a KHz refresh rate means that they draw orders of magnitude less power than a CPU.
:-/ And yes, SRAM would have been a better example.
Sorry, I was probably unclear on that.
Why "wrong"? From the Yahoo article:
"The Santa Clara, Calif.-based company said Monday it has created a fully functional 70 megabit memory chip with transistor switches measuring just 35 nanometers -- about 30 percent smaller than those found on today's state-of-the-art chips."
Now according to Google, there's 10,000,000 nanometers to a cm. Our chip is 35 nm in size. 10,000,000 divided by 35 is 285,714. So we now know that we can put 285,714, 35nm chips in a 1cm strip.
My only mistake appears to be in accepting the parent's figure of ~10 MB. It seems that the actual figure is a bit more like 8MB per chip. Thus we have 2,285,712 MB per 1 cm strip, or ~2.2 TB.
Any questions?
While it's certainly cheaper to pickup 20 Dell PC's for $500 each, an integrated 12-way workstation may signify the beginning of a new desktop computing standard.
I'm certainly not disagreeing with you, but my point to the original poster is that he doesn't need to worry about this in the here and now.
Personally, I don't see this sort of design becoming standard in a Personal Computer any time soon. Too much horsepower for a single user who simply needs more torque. However, I *do* see such designs leading into concepts like a "house computer" where the ability to multitask is more important than raw performance. Just imagine if you could install one computer for ~$2000, and have enough system resources to provide a desktop to a small office building (not to mention your entire extended family).
Such a computer would not only provide a thin client desktop, but also handle multimedia capabilities like PVR, watching movies/TV from the internet, streaming radio stations and purchased music to anywhere in the house, interfacing with digital cameras/camcorders via Bluetooth, etc. It's even possible that such a machine could control aspects of your home via X.10, but I wouldn't count on that being a common use for quite a long time.
With all these gags about heat, does anyone realize we're talking about RAM and not CPUs? RAM doesn't usually use that much electricity, so I'm not sure why everyone thinks it's so funny to complain about "heat, heat, heat!".
In case anyone's interested, wikipedia has an article on how DRAM and other memory technologies work. You'll note the use of capacitors. i.e. If the chips were loosing a lot of heat to resistance, the capacitors wouldn't be capable of maintaining their charge.
That's 10MB per (square?) 35 nanometers. If I'm doing my figures correctly, this means that a one centimeter strip would contain 2.8 TB. That's a LOT of memory. :-)
I wouldn't worry too much about it. Even a single processor still tends to outclass the remaining parts in your computer, performance-wise. If you got a machine with 96 processors, you probably wouldn't notice much of a performance difference. i.e. This is only helpful to people who run heavily threaded, CPU intensive applications. Examples include:
- CAD Modeling and testing of areodynamic vehicles
- Modeling of Oil Wells
- Searching for Extraterrestrial life
- Solving very complex math issues
- Running realistic simulations (e.g. explosion modeling)
Sound familiar? That would be Sun and SGI's workstation market.
Cooling?
Any ideas?
I've got one!
96 processors on the motherboard,
96 processors on the motherboard,
take one down,
pass it around,
95 processors on the motherboard...
opening the door to atomically precise timekeeping in portable, battery-powered devices for secure wireless communications, more precise navigation and...
Video games!
is it bad if I liked all the foundation books, and I mean aaaalll of them?
You're going to the third ring of hell for that one! (rolls eyes) Of course it's fine. Everyone has their own tastes. It's not like Asimov writes books with poor handling of touchy subjects like sex and violence. I was downright embarrassed to read "Friday", but none of Asimov's stuff falls in that category.
BTW, if you're looking for a really, really good modern work of fiction, check out Eternity's End by Jeffery Carver. I got a copy from a book club and couldn't put it down. It's one of those books that you really wish wouldn't end. (Yes, it's THAT GOOD.)
It's been out of print for many, many years. It only recently has gone back into print. Thus all the older memebers remember it (and a few people who found it in the library) but it's been "lost" to the younger generation. :-)
(Did you mean "precedent"?)
Yes. That's a typo.
From here:
"The common law originally developed under the auspices of the adversarial system in historical England from judicial decisions that were based in tradition, custom, and precedent. The form of reasoning used in common law is known as casuistry or case-based reasoning."
If you're going to attribute a source, at least get it right. Pointing to Wikipedia knockoffs just encourages them to maintain out of date info.
Common law is simply the term to describe how the legal system works. It is not a term to describe precedents becoming law. Its antithesis is Civil Law, usually taken from Roman Law.
Certain precedents can sometimes have greater effect than can certain pieces of enacted legislation (e.g. "laws" in the sense I suspect you mean).
A precedent is an interpretation of the law that is considered reasonable and correct. i.e. From wikipedia: "Precedent is the principle in law of using the past in order to assist in current interpretation and decision-making." It is not a law, but rather a proven way of interpreting law. In the case you mentioned, a very real and physical invention was created. Thus it is difficult to argue with the Supreme Court's decision. This set the precedent that the use of software in an invention does not immediatly preclude it from being classified as an invention.
If you read your own article, you'll notice that the real problem was the attempt at clarification in 1990. Instead of requiring a physical device, the court "clarified" their position in such a way as to allow for pure software products to be patented.
"I fail to see how they could have ruled any other way"
Are you saying that software patents are not a problem?
Software patents are a problem. Does that mean that all software patents are wrong? That is a difficult statement to make without first going through and demonstrating that an overwhelming majority of such patents are invalid. Keep in mind that you never hear about patents that are fairly granted. You hear about patents that are unfairly granted.
FWIW, I think the real problem is less of an issue with software patents, and more of an issue of the patent office failing to perform proper research. Almost all software patents I have heard people take issue with are a result of poor research and rules application on the part of the Patent Office. e.g. 1-Click checkout is woefully obvious and should not have been granted. Making all software patents invalid is nothing more than an easy way to treat the symptom without solving the problem.
You wouldn't be driving a Cadillac by any chance? I agree. The ride is super-smooth, but the cost of replacing those shocks is outrageous. (Speaking as a former Fleetwood owner.) The part that always amazed me about air-suspension was how nimble the vehicle was while driving. I had a Bonneville before that, and that thing felt HEAVY. The Fleetwood OTOH felt light enough to take it offroading. Not that I was about to try... ;-)
they both suspend perfectly, similar to your Mac (suspend in about 2.5, working again in 3sec).
Oh, and they both run NetBSD
Now that is very interesting. I'd nearly given up hope of ever seeing a regular Unix system actually work correctly with a laptop's power management. Any idea if the tech has been/will be ported to FreeBSD? Or does NetBSD simply have a more suitable kernel design?
"However, he has to justify that opinion in his findings, or an appeals court will throw it out."
This requirement does not apply to the Supreme Court, however.
This is true. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. The chain of appeals has to end somewhere. Thankfully, the court tends to be very careful about its judgements. That's not to say that bad decisions don't happen, but they are mitigated as much as possible. Notice that more than one judge presides over the cases.
With respect to software patents , the courts created their own law:
The example you gave is a precendent, not a law. Software at the time was not considered patentable or copyrightable since it was neither a physical invention or a work of art. In that specific case, the court ruled that the end product was indeed a physical device and thus may be patented. Given the way the device functioned, I fail to see how they could have ruled any other way. It would be like calling anti-lock brakes a non-existent invention, just because it used software for slip detection.
That's why I pointed to the "Demo Course" video. That one appears to be in real-time.
1. Why is the parent redundant? It's the first post for crying out loud!
2. Is it just me, or do the "normal" cars look like they've got lousy shocks? Sure, some "dive" is to expected when taking a tight corner, but these things practically hit the ground! In the "Demo Course" video, the cars don't even look like they're going that fast. Maybe 30-40 MPH tops.
That being said, the suspension system is impressive. The balance of the Bose equipped car never wavers. Unless I miss my guess, the thing looks gyroscope stabilized. Combined with powered shocks with near-instant response time, I see little reason why this couldn't work. Kudos to Bose!