Sounds like a pump and dump to me. Their stock is at approximately nothing, this claim has no actual details of process. It also violates common sense (complete combustion from a hydrocarbon? They're not zero impurity fuels)
Having RTFA, they actually claim no by-products - by which they mean no smoke. If (and this is a *big* if) the hydrocarbon was burning with 100% efficiency - no soot being produced - then surely the chemical reaction is maximising the amount of CO2 that the engine will then pump out; simple high-school chemistry says that there are byproducts of the combustion, they are just invisible to the human eye. The byproduct is also quite honestly the one that we don't want. Ecologically, from a global warming POV, having diesel *not* emit useless soot is absolutely catastrophic, as the carbon has to go somewhere. It's either soot, or carbon dioxide.
In the normal case, the Hard disk is the bottleneck component. There are some significantly high-throughput applications out there in the niche markets. For instance, I am writing a device driver at the minute for a device which acts as a monitor, but the result ends up getting displayed in a window on your desktop - like this. When capturing 60 frames per second of 1280x1024 at 16bpp, that's a total of 150MB/S, which PCI currently won't handle. The company I work for is quite happy to see the PCI bottleneck removed.
>Nicely put! > >Patents on software is like putting patents on >thoughts or music or math or logic. It shouldn't >be done.
Software algorithms - the "patentable unit" of software - are a way of getting from point A to point B via a set of well defined, logical, steps. As a CPU is pretty much something able to work with numbers, what is the difference between a software algorithm and a mathematical proof? i.e. why should software be patented when mathematical proofs aren't? If we can (but arguably shouldnt) patent software processes, why don't mathematicians feel the need to protect their discoveries with patents? It's not enough to answer this with "they can't; the patent office won't let them", the fact that the patent office doesn't accept patents on mathematical discoveries is surely an indication that no-one's tried to patent one.
So, my assumption is that although software is based on mathematical principles (and is arguably intrinsically mathematically based) it is the fact that software produces something "tangible" (a process to translate a few logically connected numbers into some other, logically connected numbers) that allows a patent. This, to me, is very worrying; what if the person who came up with matrices had patented them; after all, they are a convenient way of transforming a set of logically connected numbers into another set of logically connected numbers via a process (algorithm).
Analogies are generally flawed, but this isn't really an analogy, it's a parallel - we have start states, both of which are described the same way. We go through some "process" to get to an end state, both of which can be described in the same way.
Why, then, should one be patentable, and the other not? Or rather; why should software discoveries be treated any differently to mathematical discoveries given the apparent parallel between the two.
If one was to argue that direct function calls were better, then one could use the Microsoft sanctioned kernel mode direct call interfaces. PCMCIA is one of the main contenders for direct call interfaces, it's used in all the sample code for the IRP minor function IRP_MN_QUERY_INTERFACE.
Simplistically, a driver publishes an interface (a GUID) and registers it. Other drivers which need this interface, do a bit of houskeeping, then send the QUERY_INTERFACE IRP to the target driver, getting a structure full of pointers to functions.
So even NT developers thought that direct call functions were a good idea.
Bzzzt. Wrong. I've got *extremely* poor vision in my left eye (very astigmatic in my left eye, on top of long sightedness in both eyes). With my glasses on, using the crosseyed method I see a 3D image.
I reckon you could do with going to see an optician...
No, it is far from terrorism countermeasures. That's what the ring of steel is for. Although on any given day, it's very easy, or at least as easy as it is to get anywhere in London, to drive into Moorgate (at the bottom of which are some *very* prestigious banks). This charge for driving has also been in the works for a long time before September 11th - I moved from London 2 years ago, and they were thinking about doing it then. Believe me, folks, it's point is to make people think twice about driving in. As an aside, and now with my bikers hat (okay, helmet!) on, does anyone know whether motorbikes get charged? Last I heard before I moved was that they wouldn't be, I'm just curious...
Those people who have Multiprocessor systems already have a bucketload more IRQs than 16 - I'm not sure, but it might even be 256. My video card is currently using IRQ 20, and my SCSI adapter is using IRQ 44. I don't know how (to do with IOAPICS perhaps?) all I know is that's what I'm seeing in use...
Re: Some Comments - a request for re-investigation
on
DeCSS Author Arrested
·
· Score: 1
>As an example the Region 1 disc of The Matrix has additional sound tracks and a follow the white rabbit interactive element >which are not included on the Region 2 disk
Hmmm. *My* region 2 Matrix on DVD has got the follow the white rabbit feature - which works remarkably well, so the above poster must have got a review copy of the disk - my copy was bought on the release date of the DVD. I don't know which additional sound tracks the Region 1 has, and I must admit I haven't looked for any on my region 2 disc, but I'd assume they were there, just simply because you (the original poster) got the white rabbit bit wrong... I've also read in an entertainment magazine (reputable review mag - and *only* one because I don't buy that sort of mag regularly) that some region 2 discs are also getting extra features that region 1 discs didn't get. I don't have the mag with me at work, though:(
I do, however, agree with the BBFC comment at the end of the article. Sometimes, they are just *too* draconian in their cutting room.
Re:Damnit this isn't fair
on
Linux 2.3.0
·
· Score: 1
Okay, I'll rise to this... AIUI, if a story has been posted on the slashdot front page, or as an Ask Slashdot, then that story is deemed to be on-topic, purely by way of it actually making the front page. If a post then comes along saying the story is off topic (despite being on the stories page), that comment itself becomes offtopic, and IMHO, a moderator is perfectly within their remit to moderate it down. I would go as far to say that I would expect a moderator to mark it down.
As has been said previously, if you don't like the Linux stories, just take them out of your stories I want to see list (you *do* have a user login, right?).
FWIW, I expect slashdot to continue to post this sort of thing, purely because it *is* news. And for balance, I do like to see news about other OS releases/bugfixes/service packs - even though I only use Linux. Working in the IT industry, I know I have to keep myself up to date with *all* things IT, not just the stuff I want to hear about.
Slashdot Mirror
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur?
Except the sites that offer HTTPS are the highest traffic sites on the web: facebook, gmail, twitter.
You are dead wrong.
Except that you can't do an image search in HTTPS mode on google. So he may be a little bit more correct than you're giving him credit for...
Sounds like a pump and dump to me. Their stock is at approximately nothing, this claim has no actual details of process. It also violates common sense (complete combustion from a hydrocarbon? They're not zero impurity fuels)
Having RTFA, they actually claim no by-products - by which they mean no smoke. If (and this is a *big* if) the hydrocarbon was burning with 100% efficiency - no soot being produced - then surely the chemical reaction is maximising the amount of CO2 that the engine will then pump out; simple high-school chemistry says that there are byproducts of the combustion, they are just invisible to the human eye. The byproduct is also quite honestly the one that we don't want. Ecologically, from a global warming POV, having diesel *not* emit useless soot is absolutely catastrophic, as the carbon has to go somewhere. It's either soot, or carbon dioxide.
I still call bull on the claims, though...
In the normal case, the Hard disk is the bottleneck component. There are some significantly high-throughput applications out there in the niche markets. For instance, I am writing a device driver at the minute for a device which acts as a monitor, but the result ends up getting displayed in a window on your desktop - like this. When capturing 60 frames per second of 1280x1024 at 16bpp, that's a total of 150MB/S, which PCI currently won't handle. The company I work for is quite happy to see the PCI bottleneck removed.
--
>Nicely put!
>
>Patents on software is like putting patents on
>thoughts or music or math or logic. It shouldn't
>be done.
Software algorithms - the "patentable unit" of software - are a way of getting from point A to point B via a set of well defined, logical, steps. As a CPU is pretty much something able to work with numbers, what is the difference between a software algorithm and a mathematical proof? i.e. why should software be patented when mathematical proofs aren't? If we can (but arguably shouldnt) patent software processes, why don't mathematicians feel the need to protect their discoveries with patents? It's not enough to answer this with "they can't; the patent office won't let them", the fact that the patent office doesn't accept patents on mathematical discoveries is surely an indication that no-one's tried to patent one.
So, my assumption is that although software is based on mathematical principles (and is arguably intrinsically mathematically based) it is the fact that software produces something "tangible" (a process to translate a few logically connected numbers into some other, logically connected numbers) that allows a patent.
This, to me, is very worrying; what if the person who came up with matrices had patented them; after all, they are a convenient way of transforming a set of logically connected numbers into another set of logically connected numbers via a process (algorithm).
Analogies are generally flawed, but this isn't really an analogy, it's a parallel - we have start states, both of which are described the same way. We go through some "process" to get to an end state, both of which can be described in the same way.
Why, then, should one be patentable, and the other not? Or rather; why should software discoveries be treated any differently to mathematical discoveries given the apparent parallel between the two.
--
If one was to argue that direct function calls were better, then one could use the Microsoft sanctioned kernel mode direct call interfaces. PCMCIA is one of the main contenders for direct call interfaces, it's used in all the sample code for the IRP minor function IRP_MN_QUERY_INTERFACE.
Simplistically, a driver publishes an interface (a GUID) and registers it. Other drivers which need this interface, do a bit of houskeeping, then send the QUERY_INTERFACE IRP to the target driver, getting a structure full of pointers to functions.
So even NT developers thought that direct call functions were a good idea.
--
Bzzzt. Wrong. I've got *extremely* poor vision in my left eye (very astigmatic in my left eye, on top of long sightedness in both eyes). With my glasses on, using the crosseyed method I see a 3D image.
I reckon you could do with going to see an optician...
No, it is far from terrorism countermeasures. That's what the ring of steel is for. Although on any given day, it's very easy, or at least as easy as it is to get anywhere in London, to drive into Moorgate (at the bottom of which are some *very* prestigious banks). This charge for driving has also been in the works for a long time before September 11th - I moved from London 2 years ago, and they were thinking about doing it then. Believe me, folks, it's point is to make people think twice about driving in.
As an aside, and now with my bikers hat (okay, helmet!) on, does anyone know whether motorbikes get charged? Last I heard before I moved was that they wouldn't be, I'm just curious...
Cheers,
Dave.
Those people who have Multiprocessor systems already have a bucketload more IRQs than 16 - I'm not sure, but it might even be 256. My video card is currently using IRQ 20, and my SCSI adapter is using IRQ 44. I don't know how (to do with IOAPICS perhaps?) all I know is that's what I'm seeing in use...
>As an example the Region 1 disc of The Matrix has additional sound tracks and a follow the white rabbit interactive element
:(
>which are not included on the Region 2 disk
Hmmm. *My* region 2 Matrix on DVD has got the follow the white rabbit feature - which works remarkably well, so the above poster must have got a review copy of the disk - my copy was bought on the release date of the DVD. I don't know which additional sound tracks the Region 1 has, and I must admit I haven't looked for any on my region 2 disc, but I'd assume they were there, just simply because you (the original poster) got the white rabbit bit wrong...
I've also read in an entertainment magazine (reputable review mag - and *only* one because I don't buy that sort of mag regularly) that some region 2 discs are also getting extra features that region 1 discs didn't get. I don't have the mag with me at work, though
I do, however, agree with the BBFC comment at the end of the article. Sometimes, they are just *too* draconian in their cutting room.
Okay, I'll rise to this...
AIUI, if a story has been posted on the slashdot front page, or as an Ask Slashdot, then that story is deemed to be on-topic, purely by way of it actually making the front page. If a post then comes along saying the story is off topic (despite being on the stories page), that comment itself becomes offtopic, and IMHO, a moderator is perfectly within their remit to moderate it down. I would go as far to say that I would expect a moderator to mark it down.
As has been said previously, if you don't like the Linux stories, just take them out of your stories I want to see list (you *do* have a user login, right?).
FWIW, I expect slashdot to continue to post this sort of thing, purely because it *is* news. And for balance, I do like to see news about other OS releases/bugfixes/service packs - even though I only use Linux. Working in the IT industry, I know I have to keep myself up to date with *all* things IT, not just the stuff I want to hear about.
Normal service will now be resumed...