You know, I remember eBay motors working that way as well. The idea was that the auctions would be used to set a sale price prior to the finalization of the contract, subject to an agreeable price and inspection of the vehicle. However, eBay must have changed things because I can't find any references to the eBay car auctions being non-binding.
I imagine that eBay decided it was better to offer VIN lookup services rather than deal with the hassle of bids that don't go through.
whenever there is a super low bid (lets say sum equal to a few dollars) because somebody forgets to set a minimum price, the court usually decides that the auction is a salesman's mistake and voids it.
That's what's known as "consideration". Whenever there is a contract, it should provide some sort of benefit to both parties of the contract. If the contract is heavily lopsided toward one party, the judge may decide that it's unreasonable as no "consideration" is given to the other party.
Since we're talking about a legal topic here, I suppose I should add that this is not legal advice and I am not a lawyer. Insert funny quip about Holiday Inn Express, Play one on TV, etc. here.
Once the auction is complete, it's a sale. Sales are sales, and cannot be reversed after the fact without willingness of both parties, or extenuating circumstances such as a faulty product.
What you're talking about (e.g. "No, you can't have another beer") would actually be the pre-sale negotiations. After the money has been handed over in a store and accepted, the sale has been started. So the bartender had better either give you your beer, or have a good reason under contract law for not doing so. (e.g. If a contract is impossible to fulfill, it can often be reversed. For example: If I sold you a beer, but another employee just drew the last pint for another customer, I would return you your money as it's now impossible for me to give you the beer you ordered.)
The big difference between a bar and eBay is that the contract is agreed to by both parties as soon as the auction ends. Thus the money doesn't have to change hands before the contract goes into effect. This is similar to a sit-down restaurant where you order and consume your food prior to paying. As soon as you order and your order is accepted, the contract is in effect. You imply that you agree to pay for your meal when you order.
My point is that performance has been a hot-button issue against microkernel design. That's why it has taken so long to realize the stability and security advantages of a hybrid kernel. If microkernels didn't have such a bad rep, Linux would have been hybridized as much as a decade ago.:-)
You need to watch more TV and read more books. Aliens always abduct people and put them in competitions that would be pointless under any circumstance other than a fourth-wall breech of the universe by all-knowing aliens. And if you don't believe me, try reading Walter Farley's Black Stallion series. When he wanted to do a cross-over between Black and the "secret" Island Horse flame, who fixed the continuity problems so they could both race? That's right, aliens did it.
You'd think that a race of beings with technology superior enough to travel between universes would have something better to do than kidnap folks from their homes and force them to participate in some sort of competition. (A competition that the contestants always seem more than willing to compete in?)
Performance isn't really the most important thing.
It's important in that performance was what killed the Microkernel. After Mach came up with such pitiful performance numbers, all the OS developers* who had been looking to embrace microkernel architecture ran the other way. At the time, the performance vs. security/stablity tradeoffs weren't worth it. Now with ultra-modern machines running on an insecure internet, things are *starting* to turn around.:-)
* There were a few exceptions, of course. NeXT adopted Mach regardless of the performance issues. They spent a lot of time upgrading it into the hybrid XNU kernal. QNX was a microkernel because the guys who wrote it were very clever and didn't know any better. NT shows the basic design concepts behind a microkernel, but all the servers ended up getting shoved into kernel space for performance. So NT just barely scrapes by as a hybrid.
I think it's pretty clear that it's only the pace at which hardware has advanced in the last decade or so that has allowed Linux to continue monolithically.
What'choo talking 'bout Willis? Over the past couple of years, Linux has been slowly evolving toward a hybrid kernel design. Between the common use of FUSE for powerful new file systems and the recent merging of user space driver support into the kernel, Linux is showing more and more Microkernel attributes every day.
In a sense, Tanenbaum wasn't really wrong. It's just that like most researchers, he was ahead of his time. Facets of Microkernel technology have made their way into nearly every major operating system on the market today. From Windows to Mac OS X to Linux, hybrid kernel design is proving to be a valuable feature that every moden operating system should have.
When it comes down to it, microkernels just make sense. It's in many ways simpler to develop than a monolithic kernel, and provides an easy-to-implement yet powerful firewall between the computer's subsystems. The catch is that early reseach ran into performance problems inherent in task switching on every system call. Hybrid kernels attempt to minimize that by designing around the monolithic "kernel space" vs. "user space" division already present in most OSes. Because the division already exists, the performance hit can be quite minimal for certain forms of application. (I haven't kept track to know if such performance has actually been achieved in any Linux hybrid code, so take a grain of salt with this.) Pure device drivers would still have performance problems due to the data bubbling up from the kernel rather than executing entirely in kernel space. Thus hybrid features are more useful for subsystems that already interact with userspace. (e.g. A new filesystem.)
If Apple didn't attend the panel with the excuse that they "don't believe there is a crisis", you or someone else here would ask, "Why didn't Apple attend to make their point of view heard?"
When there's a prominent industry function, it should be a matter of course that the industry leaders would attend to make sure their views are heard. Suggesting that they should or shouldn't go because of their views can create an impossible double-standard.
They have interests that are being discussed at the panel. Therefore they should attend. End of story.
So you married the first woman that came along that didn't gag in your presence.
If by "first woman" you mean, the first woman to captivate me with her beauty, grace, and intelligence, then I suppose you could say that. Certainly, I was never attracted to the types of airheads that less honorable boys find so easy to "get in the sack". When a girl took several weeks before she finally got the punchline to "there are three types of people in the world", I did not find it charming or cute. I found it horrifying, and would rather have stayed a virgin for the rest of my life than try to build a relationship with someone like that.
If all you want in a mate is someone to have sex with, then that is your choice. I believe that God gave me a brain to think with and make intelligent decisions, not allow my loins to drive me. One of those decisions was staying true to who I am when finding a woman to spend my life with. And wouldn't you know it, the woman I chose was also the type to want more than just a physical relationship. She could have had any man she wanted, but she didn't. She chose me instead.
A relationship like that makes one remember how unique that other person is. And how important it is to make the time, put in the effort, and give the attention necessary to keep that relationship thriving over the years.
It's easy for me to give a flippant answer to a flippant statement, but I'd rather say something that will actually *help* people. And if there is one thing I can say, it's this: Relationships are about commitment. The best method of telling if someone is for you or not is not their looks or any "compatibility" tests. It's asking yourself if you're willing to devote the rest of your life to them and them to you. THAT is the true test of a relationship.
Slashdot readers have such high IQs that they realize that sex leads to babies, contraceptives don't work 100%, having intimate contact with some random person is a good way to get disease, and that one should save themselves for a life-partner so that they're ready for the responsibilities that come with sex while simultaneously avoiding the issue of STDs. So they don't have sex as teens.
their first claim is that it is a PLURALITY of PROCESSORS. Not CORES. the cell is ONE processor, multiple cores.
Not to interrupt a perfectly good rant, but the Cell is one processor, one core, and many processor units. Each processor unit is not a complete core, but a MIMD-style mini-processor capable of limited SIMD execution. So their patent holds up just fine on this point.
That and the fact that the cell processor is covered by its own set of patents several of which even reference this one
Maybe I'm losing it, but I believe that helps their case against Sony?
It wasn't the plantiff (RIAA) that called in the federal dogs, it was the defendent. I'm reading through the defense's response and counterclaims right now. The issue is that the law requires that the Feds be notified about an accusation of an unconstitutional claim. The dependent therefore demanded that the government intervene to decide on the RIAA's claimed price of $750.
FWIW, this document is wonderful reading. The lawyer is throwing every book on his shelf at the RIAA, and when he runs out he heads over to Barnes and Noble and keeps chucking. He's got everything from Lachs, Estoppel, Waivers, Unclean Hands, Racketeering, Statue of Limitations, Failure to Mitigate, Copyright Misuse, Failure to register copyrights, Failure to prove copyrights, Failure to provide notice of a subpoena, insufficient service of process, failure to join necessary and indispensable parties, lack of standing, failure to state a claim, and good God my fingers are getting tired.
If this document is any indication of the caliber of lawyer Mr. Boggs has hired, than I'd say the RIAA will soon be running away at top speed with its tail between its legs. Huzzah!
I'm by no means an expert on MIMD design, but my understanding is that MIMD and VLIW are different technologies. VLIW is about creating a processor that is capable of executing common combinations of instructions in parallel. MIMD is different in that it's about using a network of processors, each running its own program. These processing units then chew the same or different data in turn, some of it in parallel and some of it in series. (Depending on the data set.)
As an example, let's say you needed to perform 3 operations on a large set of data. Well, you could configure the processing units to each perform one of the operations before passing the data on to the next processor for the next operation. Meanwhile, you can have another stream performing a separate set of 3 computations along a parallel pathway of processors. Or you could have the two streams needing overlapping computations based on the data being passed through, so the data can be "switched" between PU nodes depending on the processing operation that needs to be done.
Basically, it's a form of distributed computing on a chip. At least, that's my understanding of it. If someone else has a better explanation, I'm all ears.
Which makes little to no difference to patent applications. If you own a patent, the damages are in lost licensing fees for the patented technology. That's how inventors get rich. They patent an idea, then sell the rights to use the patent. Meanwhile, they get to stop working on their invention and rake in the dough.
My point about their business muddying the waters is that their business adds a certain amount of legitimacy to their claims of owning the rights to and licensing such technologies. It does not matter if they produce the tech themselves or not.
No. Their patent appears to be directed at a specific subset of multiprocessing known as MIMD (Multiple Instruction Multiple Data) processors. The key to their "invention" is a processor that sits in front of the various processing elements and divvies up the chores to ensure that all processor elements are well fed.
To be perfectly honest, I don't understand why they're suing Sony and not IBM. I suppose it's probably tactical, especially since Sony is actually selling the chips as opposed to IBM who's mostly talking about them at this point. (IBM fabs the chips on Sony's behalf.)
It's hard to be sure, but this sounds like a patent troll case. The only thing that muddies the waters a bit is that this "International Parallel Machines, Inc." actually exists and sells products:
Actually I meant to say KPL. That was very bad of me. *whacks wrist*
Last time *I* checked, British road signs were in Imperial, not Metric measurements......
You're kidding me? I though that Britain had completely switched to Metric for such things? Don't you guys pump the gas in litres? I suppose I should have said MPL then. Screwy.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, I remember eBay motors working that way as well. The idea was that the auctions would be used to set a sale price prior to the finalization of the contract, subject to an agreeable price and inspection of the vehicle. However, eBay must have changed things because I can't find any references to the eBay car auctions being non-binding.
I imagine that eBay decided it was better to offer VIN lookup services rather than deal with the hassle of bids that don't go through.
That's what's known as "consideration". Whenever there is a contract, it should provide some sort of benefit to both parties of the contract. If the contract is heavily lopsided toward one party, the judge may decide that it's unreasonable as no "consideration" is given to the other party.
Since we're talking about a legal topic here, I suppose I should add that this is not legal advice and I am not a lawyer. Insert funny quip about Holiday Inn Express, Play one on TV, etc. here.
Once the auction is complete, it's a sale. Sales are sales, and cannot be reversed after the fact without willingness of both parties, or extenuating circumstances such as a faulty product.
What you're talking about (e.g. "No, you can't have another beer") would actually be the pre-sale negotiations. After the money has been handed over in a store and accepted, the sale has been started. So the bartender had better either give you your beer, or have a good reason under contract law for not doing so. (e.g. If a contract is impossible to fulfill, it can often be reversed. For example: If I sold you a beer, but another employee just drew the last pint for another customer, I would return you your money as it's now impossible for me to give you the beer you ordered.)
The big difference between a bar and eBay is that the contract is agreed to by both parties as soon as the auction ends. Thus the money doesn't have to change hands before the contract goes into effect. This is similar to a sit-down restaurant where you order and consume your food prior to paying. As soon as you order and your order is accepted, the contract is in effect. You imply that you agree to pay for your meal when you order.
My point is that performance has been a hot-button issue against microkernel design. That's why it has taken so long to realize the stability and security advantages of a hybrid kernel. If microkernels didn't have such a bad rep, Linux would have been hybridized as much as a decade ago. :-)
Aliens.
You need to watch more TV and read more books. Aliens always abduct people and put them in competitions that would be pointless under any circumstance other than a fourth-wall breech of the universe by all-knowing aliens. And if you don't believe me, try reading Walter Farley's Black Stallion series. When he wanted to do a cross-over between Black and the "secret" Island Horse flame, who fixed the continuity problems so they could both race? That's right, aliens did it.
You'd think that a race of beings with technology superior enough to travel between universes would have something better to do than kidnap folks from their homes and force them to participate in some sort of competition. (A competition that the contestants always seem more than willing to compete in?)
See also: A wizard did it!
It's important in that performance was what killed the Microkernel. After Mach came up with such pitiful performance numbers, all the OS developers* who had been looking to embrace microkernel architecture ran the other way. At the time, the performance vs. security/stablity tradeoffs weren't worth it. Now with ultra-modern machines running on an insecure internet, things are *starting* to turn around.
* There were a few exceptions, of course. NeXT adopted Mach regardless of the performance issues. They spent a lot of time upgrading it into the hybrid XNU kernal. QNX was a microkernel because the guys who wrote it were very clever and didn't know any better. NT shows the basic design concepts behind a microkernel, but all the servers ended up getting shoved into kernel space for performance. So NT just barely scrapes by as a hybrid.
It's a feature, not a bug!
(No really, it is. Just like hard drive fragmentation was originally a feature. Funny how such features have ways of biting us in the posterior, eh?)
What'choo talking 'bout Willis? Over the past couple of years, Linux has been slowly evolving toward a hybrid kernel design. Between the common use of FUSE for powerful new file systems and the recent merging of user space driver support into the kernel, Linux is showing more and more Microkernel attributes every day.
In a sense, Tanenbaum wasn't really wrong. It's just that like most researchers, he was ahead of his time. Facets of Microkernel technology have made their way into nearly every major operating system on the market today. From Windows to Mac OS X to Linux, hybrid kernel design is proving to be a valuable feature that every moden operating system should have.
When it comes down to it, microkernels just make sense. It's in many ways simpler to develop than a monolithic kernel, and provides an easy-to-implement yet powerful firewall between the computer's subsystems. The catch is that early reseach ran into performance problems inherent in task switching on every system call. Hybrid kernels attempt to minimize that by designing around the monolithic "kernel space" vs. "user space" division already present in most OSes. Because the division already exists, the performance hit can be quite minimal for certain forms of application. (I haven't kept track to know if such performance has actually been achieved in any Linux hybrid code, so take a grain of salt with this.) Pure device drivers would still have performance problems due to the data bubbling up from the kernel rather than executing entirely in kernel space. Thus hybrid features are more useful for subsystems that already interact with userspace. (e.g. A new filesystem.)
I made this post three years ago as a gag. The scary part is that it's still as relevant today as it was then...
If Apple didn't attend the panel with the excuse that they "don't believe there is a crisis", you or someone else here would ask, "Why didn't Apple attend to make their point of view heard?"
When there's a prominent industry function, it should be a matter of course that the industry leaders would attend to make sure their views are heard. Suggesting that they should or shouldn't go because of their views can create an impossible double-standard.
They have interests that are being discussed at the panel. Therefore they should attend. End of story.
My comment is a gag from the Halo-inspired show "Red v. Blue". I thought it was appropriate for the subject matter. :P
If by "first woman" you mean, the first woman to captivate me with her beauty, grace, and intelligence, then I suppose you could say that. Certainly, I was never attracted to the types of airheads that less honorable boys find so easy to "get in the sack". When a girl took several weeks before she finally got the punchline to "there are three types of people in the world", I did not find it charming or cute. I found it horrifying, and would rather have stayed a virgin for the rest of my life than try to build a relationship with someone like that.
If all you want in a mate is someone to have sex with, then that is your choice. I believe that God gave me a brain to think with and make intelligent decisions, not allow my loins to drive me. One of those decisions was staying true to who I am when finding a woman to spend my life with. And wouldn't you know it, the woman I chose was also the type to want more than just a physical relationship. She could have had any man she wanted, but she didn't. She chose me instead.
A relationship like that makes one remember how unique that other person is. And how important it is to make the time, put in the effort, and give the attention necessary to keep that relationship thriving over the years.
It's easy for me to give a flippant answer to a flippant statement, but I'd rather say something that will actually *help* people. And if there is one thing I can say, it's this: Relationships are about commitment. The best method of telling if someone is for you or not is not their looks or any "compatibility" tests. It's asking yourself if you're willing to devote the rest of your life to them and them to you. THAT is the true test of a relationship.
See, funny thing, that. I'm married. Two kids. And my wife thinks I'm quite amusing at times. Even when she groans at my terrible gags.
So what's this about your luck with women... ?
Slashdot readers have such high IQs that they realize that sex leads to babies, contraceptives don't work 100%, having intimate contact with some random person is a good way to get disease, and that one should save themselves for a life-partner so that they're ready for the responsibilities that come with sex while simultaneously avoiding the issue of STDs. So they don't have sex as teens.
HAHAHAHA! Isn't that funny?
Anyone?
Bow-chicka-bow-wow!
The RIAA has got the lumps to prove it!
Not to interrupt a perfectly good rant, but the Cell is one processor, one core, and many processor units. Each processor unit is not a complete core, but a MIMD-style mini-processor capable of limited SIMD execution. So their patent holds up just fine on this point.
Maybe I'm losing it, but I believe that helps their case against Sony?
Now if only I could speel defendant. Geez, I even spelled it dependent once! :P
It wasn't the plantiff (RIAA) that called in the federal dogs, it was the defendent. I'm reading through the defense's response and counterclaims right now. The issue is that the law requires that the Feds be notified about an accusation of an unconstitutional claim. The dependent therefore demanded that the government intervene to decide on the RIAA's claimed price of $750.
FWIW, this document is wonderful reading. The lawyer is throwing every book on his shelf at the RIAA, and when he runs out he heads over to Barnes and Noble and keeps chucking. He's got everything from Lachs, Estoppel, Waivers, Unclean Hands, Racketeering, Statue of Limitations, Failure to Mitigate, Copyright Misuse, Failure to register copyrights, Failure to prove copyrights, Failure to provide notice of a subpoena, insufficient service of process, failure to join necessary and indispensable parties, lack of standing, failure to state a claim, and good God my fingers are getting tired.
If this document is any indication of the caliber of lawyer Mr. Boggs has hired, than I'd say the RIAA will soon be running away at top speed with its tail between its legs. Huzzah!
Oh, and if your interpretation was correct, then this paper about combining VLIW and MIMD architectures wouldn't make a whole lot of sense.
I'm by no means an expert on MIMD design, but my understanding is that MIMD and VLIW are different technologies. VLIW is about creating a processor that is capable of executing common combinations of instructions in parallel. MIMD is different in that it's about using a network of processors, each running its own program. These processing units then chew the same or different data in turn, some of it in parallel and some of it in series. (Depending on the data set.)
As an example, let's say you needed to perform 3 operations on a large set of data. Well, you could configure the processing units to each perform one of the operations before passing the data on to the next processor for the next operation. Meanwhile, you can have another stream performing a separate set of 3 computations along a parallel pathway of processors. Or you could have the two streams needing overlapping computations based on the data being passed through, so the data can be "switched" between PU nodes depending on the processing operation that needs to be done.
Basically, it's a form of distributed computing on a chip. At least, that's my understanding of it. If someone else has a better explanation, I'm all ears.
Which makes little to no difference to patent applications. If you own a patent, the damages are in lost licensing fees for the patented technology. That's how inventors get rich. They patent an idea, then sell the rights to use the patent. Meanwhile, they get to stop working on their invention and rake in the dough.
My point about their business muddying the waters is that their business adds a certain amount of legitimacy to their claims of owning the rights to and licensing such technologies. It does not matter if they produce the tech themselves or not.
No. Their patent appears to be directed at a specific subset of multiprocessing known as MIMD (Multiple Instruction Multiple Data) processors. The key to their "invention" is a processor that sits in front of the various processing elements and divvies up the chores to ensure that all processor elements are well fed.
To be perfectly honest, I don't understand why they're suing Sony and not IBM. I suppose it's probably tactical, especially since Sony is actually selling the chips as opposed to IBM who's mostly talking about them at this point. (IBM fabs the chips on Sony's behalf.)
It's hard to be sure, but this sounds like a patent troll case. The only thing that muddies the waters a bit is that this "International Parallel Machines, Inc." actually exists and sells products:
http://www.ipmiplc.com/
That's what I was trying to say. :-P
:-/
I tried to look it up in the dictionary, but it only had one tense. Stupid dictionaries.
You're kidding me? I though that Britain had completely switched to Metric for such things? Don't you guys pump the gas in litres? I suppose I should have said MPL then. Screwy.