I think the timing is appropriate. Netscape has lost the browser war, IE WILL be the vast majority of client browsers in a year's time. That's the year that dotNET needs to establish itself.
Netscape already lost the browser wars years ago, but people still develop websites and web applications to support both. Intranets are usually the exception as target audience isn't such a factor. While, I agree with you that.NET applications will enjoy a good market share on the server, developing web apps, XML services, etc. , replacing Java applets with.NET applets is highly unlikely.
dotNET already has functionality in IE5.
And the reason I know that dotNET has functionality with IE5 is because I just migrated to it.
I hope you're not talking about ASP.NET like our other friend, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. What functionality.NET functionality have you hacked into IE5? Did you create a.NET control and use COMInterop to display it as an ActiveX control in IE5 somehow?
Keep in mind, we're talking about applets or applet like technologies. What applet functionality have you found in IE5 that the rest of us haven't?
Please, don't speak about technologies that you know nothing of. Your comments about why.NET won't make it are not only innacurate, but entirely misleading.
Here's a clue: I've been using dotNET since Beta 1. I currently write ASP based applications and have been doing Windows development for nearly 7 years now.
1. Too Late.
I see. So within the next 6 months the entire world will be using some development language that is so spectacular that they will never choose to switch to.NET Gee, I hope nobody else is looking at creating any new development technologies cause obviously they will all be "too late"
I'm sorry, it is possible that.NET may become popular on the client side in the next 5 years, however in order to make such inroads Java applets have, it has to be available a wide variety platforms. It's going to be a while before this happens.
2. Website Requires IE7???
No,.NET is specifically built to support downlevel browsers and competitors browsers. The server-side controls implemented in ASP.NET automatically generate appropriate client-side code for the targetted browser (including Netscape 4, 6, IE 4, IE 5, and IE6).
You're talking about ASP.NET. We're talking about the potential of.NET applets as a replacement for Java applets, which is what this discussion is all about. BTW, If you play with ASP.NET, you'll find doing things like basic clientside JavaScript to be a pain in the ass, let alone Remote Scripting, which is what we use to grab data from our database without reloading the page.
.NET does not require XP at all. Not to develop, not to deploy, not at all.
No it doesn't, but it does require the runtime which has already developed a decent sized footprint.
3. Java supports tons of platforms and works today for most browsers
See 2..NET does not require a new platform. It works on existing platforms.
Now that you know we're talking about, you can readily agree that in order to run.NET code, you need the.NET runtime, which is currently available for Win32 ONLY. Soon after, we'll see a FreeBSD version. Java on the other hand runs on tons of different platforms.
4. Plug-Ins aren't foreign
What does this have to do with why.NET won't make it?
Now you know we're talking about Java applets and.NET applets, Microsoft has dropped Java support in thier newest browser. However, It is still supported by downloading a plug-in. My point is, because it Java won't be integrated and will require the user to download a plug-in much like Flash does, people won't mind downloading the plug-ins.
Regardless of what people speculate, most web developers tend to design thier applications to target as many browsers as possible.
Even when there is a functionality/accessability trade off, very few are willing to implement it for IE only. If anything, they will set the minimum requirement to Netscape 4.
Why dotNET won't make it:
1. Too late - First of all, dotNET is half a year from being released on the Win32 platform and probably ATLEAST another 6 months for FreeBSD after the Win32 release.
2. Website requires IE7 ??? - It's going to be a while before everybody moves to XP, which BTW doesn't include the dotNET runtime as of yet. Anybody designing a web application is going to reasonably expect a good majority of thier users still using IE5 and Netscape 4+ for the next couple of years.
3. Java supports tons of platforms and works today for most browsers. dotNET MAY be incorporated in IE7 or IE8???
4. Plug-Ins aren't foreign - People download Flash, Adobe, and an assortment of other Plug-ins all the time, often because they get a message box saying this webpage requires it. The installation is usually pretty painless as most plug-in installations don't need to ask many questions, and the users usually go on thier merry way.
M$ is probably pushing things to ActiveX,.NET, ASP or any other proprietary crap they have, I just hope they set a warning that you need a plugin to run Java, or this can backfire on them when DOJ adds this to the list of evidence on the proccess.
1. Sun sued Microsoft into doing this... They settled allowing MS to keep thier implementation of Java 1.1 for up to seven years.
2. ASP is a server side technology that has been duplicated on Apache.
3. Read the article, "After Windows XP is launched in October, users will be directed to download a plug-in from Microsoft's Web site (www.microsoft.com) to make Java-based programs work. "
4. ActiveX is dead for web UI's among MS developers, and dotNET isn't likely.
I absolutely agree. Current applications using Neural Networks can work very efficiently given adequate training using only a fraction of a fraction of artificial neurons that our brain would probably employ.
Unlike the human brain, we can target artificial neural networks to learn functions, pattern recognition, and other specific problem sets with a good degree of accuracy given broad learning data and enough iterations in the learning process.
As AI has been progressively moving ahead, we began to tackle the various aspects of what we define as being intelligent from many differents angles, ranging from audio/visual pattern recognition to reasoning and communication.
I would expect as intelligent machines near human intelligence it will be based on integrating various technologies, some which are more efficient than a pure artifical nueron approach.
I should have made it clear that my post simply illustrated a simple requirement to simulate an inherently parallel system on a sequential system.
I do realize my simulation would lack a lot of unknown and known phenomenon which may serve a vital role in the basic learning ontology, which would only reassert simulating the brain would take an intense amount of CPU time.
For those of you who want to understand how much
CPU power and memory it would take to simulate a human brain, here are some figures.
Est. 100 billion neurons
Est. 60 to 100 trillion synapses
Est. 1 khz clock speed (times a neuron fires a second)
Assume we assign 32-bits for the given state of a neuron for 100 billion neurons.
Required memory for neurons alone: 400 gigs.
Now, synapses connect two neurons. So we need 2 pointers or index per neuron. Now 32-bits isn't enough as we can only index up to 4 billion some items.
Aftering playing with Excel, I figured we need at the minimum number of bits per address is 50. But because it's faster to work with bits divisable by 8, we'll use a 56 bit addressing system.
So, to connect a synapse to two nuerons, we need 14 (56 / 8 * 2) bytes, for atleast 60 trillion nurons.
Required Memory for synapses: 840 terabytes.
Now, you're job is to write a program that enumerates 840 terabytes of memory, one thousand times a second, performing calulations along the way.
With the competition from Sun and every other vendor providing web services, Microsoft isn't in a position to force content/service providers to use Passport for authenitation, let alone attempt to levy taxes like another nutjob suggested.
Let me reassert this again. Microsoft isn't in a position to tax Webservices when there are so many viable alternatives.
You think Sun, IBM, Borland, and countless others don't support SOAP based webservices?
If you haven't been following the IT industry lately, you'll find that Java has become increasingly popular as a server-side language that has gained the loyal support of millions of developers.
With as much of an uphill battle MS is already having with it's current developers from jumping ship, they are despirately trying to prove that they have a Java like technology that's better. Hence supporting Ximian.
1. As a monopoly, Microsoft is in a position to twist the standards. In particular, they will be able to add proprietary hooks into their tools and services.
No disagreement here, anybody can extend SOAP to whatever degree they want. However, If extending SOAP means only a limited number of people can use you're webservice, nobody's GOING TO USE THEM.
2. So, you send back XML. Is there a possibility that there will be extra Microsoft tags thrown in? You bet. No one will prevent Microsoft from throwing in extra, "user-friendly" tags. If developers exclude these tags, for whatever reason, then they will not get the full benefit of the network.
Let's assume Microsoft adds an option to include additional meta-information in you're "user-friendly" tags in a webservice. If these tags prevent users from using your webservice, as a developer you're probably not going to use them as you're generally trying to reach a large audience.
Now, it is obvious that you cannot easily tax a standard. That is a silly idea and I am not saying that it is possible. Instead, I am saying that you can easily tax access to servers and to data. If Microsoft has your data, and they control the pipes into that data and out of it, then they can make big money.
You do understand that webservices don't rely on Passport, let alone require passport, don't you? So, considering my webservices don't require any services from Microsoft, HOW are they
going to tax my users?
Here's an analogy. Microsoft doesn't need to control the water in the pipes (XML), and they might not even to control the physical pipe itself. If they own the values and the water meters, then they can charge people and companies whatever they want.
If they own the water meters? Where are the water meters? Show me the water meter. It's not Passport, because webservices don't require Passport.
Let's stick with the analogy. If Microsoft gets people to build more pipes and supply more water, then they are going to make more money.
That's assuming they have water meters. Where are these water meters BTW? How can MS leverage themselves to act like an EDI company and meter
webservices, when every other vendor is giving it away with the same standard. You do know that Apache, IBM, Sun, HP, and all the other guys support webservices via SOAP too, don't you?
(1) Yes, absolutely. Microsoft has made it clear that they plan on making money from services, and therefore Passport and Instant Messenger. Indeed, the Hailstorm whitepaper makes it blatantly clear the IM is one of the backbone technologies for developers to move data in and out of Microsoft.
I don't doubt they'll sell subscriptions to Passport to companies who want to use Passport to authenticate users, but you stated that MS is going receive a good chunk of revenue from these services, as much as they will move away from the business of developing software.
If you had been following webservices in the last year, you'll find that the biggest people to benefit webservices are Bricks and Mortar companies, who have REAL services to offer. Try telling them MS is going to tax thier services, and they'll jump to another vendor real quick.
MS has been quietly devising a scheme where they can legally control all of the key services to "valid" communication between all dotNET implementations.
This is pure crap...
All "valid" communications between all dotNET implementaions are W3C standards. They don't require Passport or any other authentication scheme.
You would probably know that if you've written a webservice. You would understand that it's much like writing a web application, but instead of sending HTML to a browser, you're replying to a XML post with XML data via HTTP. Because webservices are as simple as that, you can start writing them in Perl on your Apache server right now.
By being at the centre of the authentication scheme, they control who can use all the nifty new services, and who will be excluded. They will also charge a subscription service for every end user, so you can go ahead and use *nix, but you will still have to pay your Pissport fee in order to access any new features offered by any value added internet content provider.
More BS... Passport is a service that is offered to service/content providers. As a provider, I can choose whether to use Passport, Vendor X, Vendor Y, my own authenication scheme, or all four implementaions if I choose to do so.
Because content providers have this choice, there will probably be competition in the authenication service market, making your assertion that MS will be able to charge end users for Passport baseless, let alone control all authentication for web services.
Microsoft doesn't care as much about software as they do controlling network services and collecting payments from various transactions. The idea in this case is to get Ximian to play along so that, ultimately, Microsoft will be able to extract fees from users. Ximian will merely be a small part of the infrastructure that Microsoft controls. That infrastruture will be used to extract new "taxes" from people.
How does Microsoft exactly control an infrastructure specified by the W3C that is OS/Language agnostic to begin with?
While.NET does allow developers to create web services, so does any other development tool that allows you to create web applications. Instead of sending back HTML, you're sending back XML.
Back to the question, how does Microsoft levy taxes on a W3C standard?
Don't they understand that we are kind of like a giant cable company now? We don't care that much about the software and hardware, we care about capturing data from stupid users so that we can extract big money. We know that the margins on software are great now, but they are probably going to decline. However, the margins in services are on the rise.
How did we get to Microsoft being like a giant cable company here? Since when did user data become such a huge market that it would dwarf the market capitalization of the largest software company?
I can agree web services are on the rise insofar as it adds value to a lot of bricks and mortar companies, but what web services can/will Microsoft provide that will capture a huge market share?
Are you under the assumption Microsoft is going to capture revue from Passport and Instant Messaging, or are you misguided assuming MS Office is going to become a web service? (Note: MS Office may not become subscription software, but this doesn't make it a web service)
They're promoting.NET as cross platform and open source.. the one key element, however, that is NOT free and open is the identification service (Passport).. that will have a massive stranglehold, and that will be required by any.NET service to identify who is who.
1. Passport is just a service. It is not
required for the development, use, and indentification by any other.NET service.
You can use Passport to indentify users, Vendor2's
services, Vendor3's services, or all three if you wish. I recommend, you actually TRY the echnology.
2..NET services are mearly like Web applications, replacing the browser and HTML
with SOAP (Simple Object Access Protocol) and XML.
You can write them on your Linux box today with Perl, Python, or anything else that can do basic string manipulation. SOAP and XML are defined by the W3C, so it's an open specification.
If there is any place to make money in this scheme (or control the monopoly), it is this identification service.
I doubt passport is going to do a lot for thier revenue stream.
While Ximian may port the basic chunk of.NET, I doubt they'll be able to offer anything like Visual Studio.NET for Linux anytime soon, which will be the prefered development tool of choice for a.NET developer, and will still sell at about $1000 for the Enterprise license. MSDN subscriptions for the latest toys are extra. (MSDN Universal subscriptions is $3000 a year now adays)
Secondly, Don't forget that Visual Studio for the longest time has a lateral effect for the purchasing of MS SQL Servers, Exchange Servers. This will continue with BizTalk, Commerce Server, SNA server, as long as these tools continue to integrate much like it has in the past.
Personally, I can't imagine how MS can use Passport for anything more than a bullet for thier.NET brocuure, let alone dominate an industry.
Oh sure... Every kid out there is going to cough up $30,000 dollars for thier own PerfectBook machine so they can pirate the latest Grisham novel from Gnutella.
If anything, publishers should love this means of distribution considering it taps into an impulse buying market while lowering inventory costs.
>Isn't calling free code and deccs for free
>speech just bullshit really?
It has *everything* to do with free speach
and your rights to publish any sort of work.
Let's start by pointing out that DECSS is a
set of instructions which allows a third party
to make use of a popular digital format. This
is analogous to someone reverse engineering
Microsoft Word's file format and publishing it
so software developers can create compatible
readers/word processors/report generators, etc.
In case you still don't understand, it's a
set of instructions in a variant mathematical
notation, that TEACHES people how to use a
popular format, much in the same way one
would teach someone not familiar with this
notation using standard mathematical notaion,
english, and/or diagrams.
If it was in English, would you still
NOT call it free speach?
Here's the catcher, the advantage of using
this notation, C souce, is that it can be
converted into a series of instructions
that can be executed by most microprocessors.
Does the fact that there is a tool to which
allows this notation to become functional exempt
it from being free speech? What if there was
a tool that converted the English instructions
to microprocessor code, would it still not be
free speech?
IMO, This is the same as a reputable publishing
company publishing an article in a technical
publication describing how to write software
that reads a Word file, and providing source
code example. (Of course, given Microsoft
didn't publish the word format already)
>Free speech is in the constitution to permit
>people to criticise leaders. This is really
>important in a democracy. If this isn't allowed
>politicians can more easily manipulate the
>public so they don't know whom they really vote
>on or what they stand for.
So it also has nothing to do with speaking
about my religion, philosophy, exhibiting art,
publishing books which have a controversial
element? Free Speech has nothing to do with
teaching people how to write software that
is compatible with CSS, either by lecturing,
written, or providing example source code?
The ability to criticise a leader is
important, but even more important is the freedom
to educate the people especially if the curriculum
is contrary to what the leaders advocate. More
importantly, it is the freedom to educate is
nessecary as it is the best tool we have to keep
the public less susceptible to industry/political
manipulation.
>How have ripping of DVD anything to do with this?
Lastly This has NOTHING to do with ripping of DVD's, it
has everything to do with the freedom of writing
software that can read DVD's, just like the
freedom of writing software that can read Word files.
The reason the MPAA is pissed is because there are
alternative formats which would dramatically
reduce the footprint of a DVD, making it more
convienant to pirate, and because the encryption
scheme is a tradesecret from which they derive
revenue selling the "secret" to companies.
>Had they done their extensions in a way that
>remained compatible with Sun's or IBM's VM, I
>wouldn't have minded so much -- it may have
>spurred Sun to make a better product -- but they
>didn't.
What could you run on Sun's VM that you couldn't on Microsoft's, and how did the inclusion of JDirect break that compatability?
> Java (using one of those two refered to) was
> VERY well defined, and there are many good
> implimentations. What was 'incomplete' about
> this standard which forced them to break it.
> And not only do they modify the standard, but
> they can't even impliment it correctly without
> a discusting number of bugs.
I don't think he denied that Java wasn't a well defined standard, instead he pointed out that most standards aren't well defined.
Last time I checked, Java isn't a standard, but rather Sun's IP, which will probably explain why Java is SO well defined (which supports Doug's rule of thumb).
Like Doug mentioned, every software company and even non-companies add something to standards to make them more useful. In the MS/Java situation, Microsoft added JDirect which allowed Java to talk to Windows components much more efficient than JNI.
The fact is that Microsoft was doing a great job supporting Java and providing a way for Java to interoperate with legacy Win apps, which was seriously threatening Sun's revenue stream.
If Sun hadn't stepped in to bar Microsoft from supporting Java, they would have lost all control and revenue as they struggled to keep up with MS and everybody else.
The fact is that MS does a decent job implementing standards (consider how many they've had to implement), which is not to say they don't extend the standards with thier own stuff, but they RARELY feel like the must or even can BREAK the standards without consequences.
To break the standards would to depreciate the value of the technology while extending the standard would give the customer or developer incentive to use thier proprietary extentions.
This is how things work with most other software companies and is a fact of life, to expect otherwise is setting yourself up for dissapointment.
Does the NSA already have a poop load of these?
on
FPGA Supercomputers
·
· Score: 1
For some reason, I don't the fundamental idea is something new under the sun, as I when I was first introduced to FPGAs, as the first killer application I thought of was creating an array of these to solve otherwise CPU intensive, but memory limited problems.
I always thought that if the NSA was serious about finding prime numbers, they would get thier EE's to write up some HDL (Hardware Definition Language) and code up an array of LPGA. I always thought LPGAs would be great for this, however I could be wrong.
I never considered a commercial market for a FPGA arrays outside of board logic though. Maybe this could start a micro-industry that may prove invaluable to research in 5 to 10 years???
Of course, this may inspire a brash young EE to design a lightweight version of this on a single PCI board for general research use.
Question: Why would they choose LPGAs over CPLDs?
Re:Loss of computers == America as 3rd world count
on
Rebooting The World?
·
· Score: 1
neo-
prefix
1. New; recent: Neolithic.
2.
a. New and different: neoimpressionism.
b. New and abnormal: neoplasm.
A document delivery architecture dynamically generates a private Uniform Resource Locator (URL) to distribute information. Each private URL ("PURL") uniquely identifies an intended recipient of a document, the document or set of documents to be delivered, and (optionally) other parameters specific to the delivery process. The intended recipient of a document uses the PURL to retrieve the document. The server, upon retrieval of the document, customizes the behavior of the retrieval based upon attributes included in the PURL, as well as log information associated with the retrieval in a data base. This architecture and usage of PURLs enables secure document delivery and tracking of document receipt.
What is claimed:
What is claimed is:
1. A document delivery system for delivering one or more documents between a sender and at least one recipient, said system comprising:
* a server that temporarily stores said documents, wherein said server generates a URL for each intended recipient of said documents, the URL unique to each recipient, and sends each of the URLs to each respective intended recipient; and
* a database which is associated with said server and which records log data describing which recipients accessed said documents;
* wherein said server sends the log data to the sender of said documents.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the timing is appropriate. Netscape has lost the browser war, IE WILL be the vast majority of client browsers in a year's time. That's the year that dotNET needs to establish itself.
.NET applications will enjoy a good market share on the server, developing web apps, XML services, etc. , replacing Java applets with .NET applets is highly unlikely.
.NET functionality have you hacked into IE5? Did you create a .NET control and use COMInterop to display it as an ActiveX control in IE5 somehow?
Keep in mind, we're talking about applets or applet like technologies. What applet functionality have you found in IE5 that the rest of us haven't?
Netscape already lost the browser wars years ago, but people still develop websites and web applications to support both. Intranets are usually the exception as target audience isn't such a factor. While, I agree with you that
dotNET already has functionality in IE5. And the reason I know that dotNET has functionality with IE5 is because I just migrated to it.
I hope you're not talking about ASP.NET like our other friend, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. What functionality
Please, don't speak about technologies that you know nothing of. Your comments about why .NET won't make it are not only innacurate, but entirely misleading.
.NET Gee, I hope nobody else is looking at creating any new development technologies cause obviously they will all be "too late"
.NET may become popular on the client side in the next 5 years, however in order to make such inroads Java applets have, it has to be available a wide variety platforms. It's going to be a while before this happens.
.NET is specifically built to support downlevel browsers and competitors browsers. The server-side controls implemented in ASP.NET automatically generate appropriate client-side code for the targetted browser (including Netscape 4, 6, IE 4, IE 5, and IE6).
.NET applets as a replacement for Java applets, which is what this discussion is all about. BTW, If you play with ASP.NET, you'll find doing things like basic clientside JavaScript to be a pain in the ass, let alone Remote Scripting, which is what we use to grab data from our database without reloading the page.
.NET does not require a new platform. It works on existing platforms.
.NET code, you need the .NET runtime, which is currently available for Win32 ONLY. Soon after, we'll see a FreeBSD version. Java on the other hand runs on tons of different platforms.
.NET won't make it?
.NET applets, Microsoft has dropped Java support in thier newest browser. However, It is still supported by downloading a plug-in. My point is, because it Java won't be integrated and will require the user to download a plug-in much like Flash does, people won't mind downloading the plug-ins.
Here's a clue: I've been using dotNET since Beta 1. I currently write ASP based applications and have been doing Windows development for nearly 7 years now.
1. Too Late.
I see. So within the next 6 months the entire world will be using some development language that is so spectacular that they will never choose to switch to
I'm sorry, it is possible that
2. Website Requires IE7???
No,
You're talking about ASP.NET. We're talking about the potential of
.NET does not require XP at all. Not to develop, not to deploy, not at all.
No it doesn't, but it does require the runtime which has already developed a decent sized footprint.
3. Java supports tons of platforms and works today for most browsers
See 2.
Now that you know we're talking about, you can readily agree that in order to run
4. Plug-Ins aren't foreign
What does this have to do with why
Now you know we're talking about Java applets and
You wanna explain why ''dotnet isn't likely''?
Regardless of what people speculate, most web developers tend to design thier applications to target as many browsers as possible.
Even when there is a functionality/accessability trade off, very few are willing to implement it for IE only. If anything, they will set the minimum requirement to Netscape 4.
Why dotNET won't make it:
1. Too late - First of all, dotNET is half a year from being released on the Win32 platform and probably ATLEAST another 6 months for FreeBSD after the Win32 release.
2. Website requires IE7 ??? - It's going to be a while before everybody moves to XP, which BTW doesn't include the dotNET runtime as of yet. Anybody designing a web application is going to reasonably expect a good majority of thier users still using IE5 and Netscape 4+ for the next couple of years.
3. Java supports tons of platforms and works today for most browsers. dotNET MAY be incorporated in IE7 or IE8???
4. Plug-Ins aren't foreign - People download Flash, Adobe, and an assortment of other Plug-ins all the time, often because they get a message box saying this webpage requires it. The installation is usually pretty painless as most plug-in installations don't need to ask many questions, and the users usually go on thier merry way.
M$ is probably pushing things to ActiveX, .NET, ASP or any other proprietary crap they have, I just hope they set a warning that you need a plugin to run Java, or this can backfire on them when DOJ adds this to the list of evidence on the proccess.
1. Sun sued Microsoft into doing this... They settled allowing MS to keep thier implementation of Java 1.1 for up to seven years.
2. ASP is a server side technology that has been duplicated on Apache.
3. Read the article, "After Windows XP is launched in October, users will be directed to download a plug-in from Microsoft's Web site (www.microsoft.com) to make Java-based programs work. "
4. ActiveX is dead for web UI's among MS developers, and dotNET isn't likely.
I absolutely agree. Current applications using Neural Networks can work very efficiently given adequate training using only a fraction of a fraction of artificial neurons that our brain would probably employ.
Unlike the human brain, we can target artificial neural networks to learn functions, pattern recognition, and other specific problem sets with a good degree of accuracy given broad learning data and enough iterations in the learning process.
As AI has been progressively moving ahead, we began to tackle the various aspects of what we define as being intelligent from many differents angles, ranging from audio/visual pattern recognition to reasoning and communication.
I would expect as intelligent machines near human intelligence it will be based on integrating various technologies, some which are more efficient than a pure artifical nueron approach.
I definitely agree with your assertions.
I should have made it clear that my post simply illustrated a simple requirement to simulate an inherently parallel system on a sequential system.
I do realize my simulation would lack a lot of unknown and known phenomenon which may serve a vital role in the basic learning ontology, which would only reassert simulating the brain would take an intense amount of CPU time.
For those of you who want to understand how much CPU power and memory it would take to simulate a human brain, here are some figures.
Est. 100 billion neurons
Est. 60 to 100 trillion synapses
Est. 1 khz clock speed (times a neuron fires a second)
Assume we assign 32-bits for the given state of a neuron for 100 billion neurons.
Required memory for neurons alone: 400 gigs.
Now, synapses connect two neurons. So we need 2 pointers or index per neuron. Now 32-bits isn't enough as we can only index up to 4 billion some items.
Aftering playing with Excel, I figured we need at the minimum number of bits per address is 50. But because it's faster to work with bits divisable by 8, we'll use a 56 bit addressing system.
So, to connect a synapse to two nuerons, we need 14 (56 / 8 * 2) bytes, for atleast 60 trillion nurons.
Required Memory for synapses: 840 terabytes.
Now, you're job is to write a program that enumerates 840 terabytes of memory, one thousand times a second, performing calulations along the way.
With the competition from Sun and every other vendor providing web services, Microsoft isn't in a position to force content/service providers to use Passport for authenitation, let alone attempt to levy taxes like another nutjob suggested.
Let me reassert this again. Microsoft isn't in a position to tax Webservices when there are so many viable alternatives.
You think Sun, IBM, Borland, and countless others don't support SOAP based webservices?
If you haven't been following the IT industry lately, you'll find that Java has become increasingly popular as a server-side language that has gained the loyal support of millions of developers.
With as much of an uphill battle MS is already having with it's current developers from jumping ship, they are despirately trying to prove that they have a Java like technology that's better. Hence supporting Ximian.
1. As a monopoly, Microsoft is in a position to twist the standards. In particular, they will be able to add proprietary hooks into their tools and services.
No disagreement here, anybody can extend SOAP to whatever degree they want. However, If extending SOAP means only a limited number of people can use you're webservice, nobody's GOING TO USE THEM.
2. So, you send back XML. Is there a possibility that there will be extra Microsoft tags thrown in? You bet. No one will prevent Microsoft from throwing in extra, "user-friendly" tags. If developers exclude these tags, for whatever reason, then they will not get the full benefit of the network.
Let's assume Microsoft adds an option to include additional meta-information in you're "user-friendly" tags in a webservice. If these tags prevent users from using your webservice, as a developer you're probably not going to use them as you're generally trying to reach a large audience.
Now, it is obvious that you cannot easily tax a standard. That is a silly idea and I am not saying that it is possible. Instead, I am saying that you can easily tax access to servers and to data. If Microsoft has your data, and they control the pipes into that data and out of it, then they can make big money.
You do understand that webservices don't rely on Passport, let alone require passport, don't you? So, considering my webservices don't require any services from Microsoft, HOW are they going to tax my users?
Here's an analogy. Microsoft doesn't need to control the water in the pipes (XML), and they might not even to control the physical pipe itself. If they own the values and the water meters, then they can charge people and companies whatever they want.
If they own the water meters? Where are the water meters? Show me the water meter. It's not Passport, because webservices don't require Passport.
Let's stick with the analogy. If Microsoft gets people to build more pipes and supply more water, then they are going to make more money.
That's assuming they have water meters. Where are these water meters BTW? How can MS leverage themselves to act like an EDI company and meter webservices, when every other vendor is giving it away with the same standard.
You do know that Apache, IBM, Sun, HP, and all the other guys support webservices via SOAP too, don't you?
(1) Yes, absolutely. Microsoft has made it clear that they plan on making money from services, and therefore Passport and Instant Messenger. Indeed, the Hailstorm whitepaper makes it blatantly clear the IM is one of the backbone technologies for developers to move data in and out of Microsoft.
I don't doubt they'll sell subscriptions to Passport to companies who want to use Passport to authenticate users, but you stated that MS is going receive a good chunk of revenue from these services, as much as they will move away from the business of developing software.
If you had been following webservices in the last year, you'll find that the biggest people to benefit webservices are Bricks and Mortar companies, who have REAL services to offer. Try telling them MS is going to tax thier services, and they'll jump to another vendor real quick.
dotNET applications do not require the use of ANY authentication service. Webserices do not require the use of ANY authenication service.
So... Feel free to use XNS
MS has been quietly devising a scheme where they can legally control all of the key services to "valid" communication between all dotNET implementations.
This is pure crap...
All "valid" communications between all dotNET implementaions are W3C standards. They don't require Passport or any other authentication scheme.
You would probably know that if you've written a webservice. You would understand that it's much like writing a web application, but instead of sending HTML to a browser, you're replying to a XML post with XML data via HTTP. Because webservices are as simple as that, you can start writing them in Perl on your Apache server right now.
By being at the centre of the authentication scheme, they control who can use all the nifty new services, and who will be excluded. They will also charge a subscription service for every end user, so you can go ahead and use *nix, but you will still have to pay your Pissport fee in order to access any new features offered by any value added internet content provider.
More BS... Passport is a service that is offered to service/content providers. As a provider, I can choose whether to use Passport, Vendor X, Vendor Y, my own authenication scheme, or all four implementaions if I choose to do so.
Because content providers have this choice, there will probably be competition in the authenication service market, making your assertion that MS will be able to charge end users for Passport baseless, let alone control all authentication for web services.
Microsoft doesn't care as much about software as they do controlling network services and collecting payments from various transactions. The idea in this case is to get Ximian to play along so that, ultimately, Microsoft will be able to extract fees from users. Ximian will merely be a small part of the infrastructure that Microsoft controls. That infrastruture will be used to extract new "taxes" from people.
.NET does allow developers to create web services, so does any other development tool that allows you to create web applications. Instead of sending back HTML, you're sending back XML.
How does Microsoft exactly control an infrastructure specified by the W3C that is OS/Language agnostic to begin with?
While
Back to the question, how does Microsoft levy taxes on a W3C standard?
Don't they understand that we are kind of like a giant cable company now? We don't care that much about the software and hardware, we care about capturing data from stupid users so that we can extract big money. We know that the margins on software are great now, but they are probably going to decline. However, the margins in services are on the rise.
How did we get to Microsoft being like a giant cable company here? Since when did user data become such a huge market that it would dwarf the market capitalization of the largest software company?
I can agree web services are on the rise insofar as it adds value to a lot of bricks and mortar companies, but what web services can/will Microsoft provide that will capture a huge market share?
Are you under the assumption Microsoft is going to capture revue from Passport and Instant Messaging, or are you misguided assuming MS Office is going to become a web service? (Note: MS Office may not become subscription software, but this doesn't make it a web service)
They're promoting .NET as cross platform and open source.. the one key element, however, that is NOT free and open is the identification service (Passport).. that will have a massive stranglehold, and that will be required by any .NET service to identify who is who.
.NET service.
You can use Passport to indentify users, Vendor2's
services, Vendor3's services, or all three if you wish. I recommend, you actually TRY the echnology.
.NET services are mearly like Web applications, replacing the browser and HTML
with SOAP (Simple Object Access Protocol) and XML.
You can write them on your Linux box today with Perl, Python, or anything else that can do basic string manipulation. SOAP and XML are defined by the W3C, so it's an open specification.
.NET, I doubt they'll be able to offer anything like Visual Studio .NET for Linux anytime soon, which will be the prefered development tool of choice for a .NET developer, and will still sell at about $1000 for the Enterprise license. MSDN subscriptions for the latest toys are extra. (MSDN Universal subscriptions is $3000 a year now adays)
.NET brocuure, let alone dominate an industry.
1. Passport is just a service. It is not required for the development, use, and indentification by any other
2.
If there is any place to make money in this scheme (or control the monopoly), it is this identification service.
I doubt passport is going to do a lot for thier revenue stream.
While Ximian may port the basic chunk of
Secondly, Don't forget that Visual Studio for the longest time has a lateral effect for the purchasing of MS SQL Servers, Exchange Servers. This will continue with BizTalk, Commerce Server, SNA server, as long as these tools continue to integrate much like it has in the past.
Personally, I can't imagine how MS can use Passport for anything more than a bullet for thier
Also, is it known whether Microsoft will/could enforce copyright restrictions on it if the Linux community tries to improve on the MS design?
.NET technology after it's standardized?
You mean like how Sun did with Microsoft, after Sun opted out of the ECMA standardization when it was clear they couldn't retain thier copyright?
The better questions asked is: How could Microsoft enforce thier copyright of the underline
An even better question: Which associated technologies will retain copyrights? ADO.NET? ASP.NET? WinForms?
Oh sure... Every kid out there is going to cough up $30,000 dollars for thier own PerfectBook machine so they can pirate the latest Grisham novel from Gnutella.
If anything, publishers should love this means of distribution considering it taps into an impulse buying market while lowering inventory costs.
>Isn't calling free code and deccs for free
>speech just bullshit really?
It has *everything* to do with free speach
and your rights to publish any sort of work.
Let's start by pointing out that DECSS is a
set of instructions which allows a third party
to make use of a popular digital format. This
is analogous to someone reverse engineering
Microsoft Word's file format and publishing it
so software developers can create compatible
readers/word processors/report generators, etc.
In case you still don't understand, it's a
set of instructions in a variant mathematical
notation, that TEACHES people how to use a
popular format, much in the same way one
would teach someone not familiar with this
notation using standard mathematical notaion,
english, and/or diagrams.
If it was in English, would you still
NOT call it free speach?
Here's the catcher, the advantage of using
this notation, C souce, is that it can be
converted into a series of instructions
that can be executed by most microprocessors.
Does the fact that there is a tool to which
allows this notation to become functional exempt
it from being free speech? What if there was
a tool that converted the English instructions
to microprocessor code, would it still not be
free speech?
IMO, This is the same as a reputable publishing
company publishing an article in a technical
publication describing how to write software
that reads a Word file, and providing source
code example. (Of course, given Microsoft
didn't publish the word format already)
>Free speech is in the constitution to permit
>people to criticise leaders. This is really
>important in a democracy. If this isn't allowed
>politicians can more easily manipulate the
>public so they don't know whom they really vote
>on or what they stand for.
So it also has nothing to do with speaking
about my religion, philosophy, exhibiting art,
publishing books which have a controversial
element? Free Speech has nothing to do with
teaching people how to write software that
is compatible with CSS, either by lecturing,
written, or providing example source code?
The ability to criticise a leader is
important, but even more important is the freedom
to educate the people especially if the curriculum
is contrary to what the leaders advocate. More
importantly, it is the freedom to educate is
nessecary as it is the best tool we have to keep
the public less susceptible to industry/political
manipulation.
>How have ripping of DVD anything to do with this?
Lastly This has NOTHING to do with ripping of DVD's, it
has everything to do with the freedom of writing
software that can read DVD's, just like the
freedom of writing software that can read Word files.
The reason the MPAA is pissed is because there are
alternative formats which would dramatically
reduce the footprint of a DVD, making it more
convienant to pirate, and because the encryption
scheme is a tradesecret from which they derive
revenue selling the "secret" to companies.
Not like you knew that...
>Had they done their extensions in a way that
>remained compatible with Sun's or IBM's VM, I
>wouldn't have minded so much -- it may have
>spurred Sun to make a better product -- but they
>didn't.
What could you run on Sun's VM that you couldn't on Microsoft's, and how did the inclusion of JDirect break that compatability?
> Java (using one of those two refered to) was
> VERY well defined, and there are many good
> implimentations. What was 'incomplete' about
> this standard which forced them to break it.
> And not only do they modify the standard, but
> they can't even impliment it correctly without
> a discusting number of bugs.
I don't think he denied that Java wasn't a well defined standard, instead he pointed out that most standards aren't well defined.
Last time I checked, Java isn't a standard, but rather Sun's IP, which will probably explain why Java is SO well defined (which supports Doug's rule of thumb).
Like Doug mentioned, every software company and even non-companies add something to standards to make them more useful. In the MS/Java situation, Microsoft added JDirect which allowed Java to talk to Windows components much more efficient than JNI.
The fact is that Microsoft was doing a great job supporting Java and providing a way for Java to interoperate with legacy Win apps, which was seriously threatening Sun's revenue stream.
If Sun hadn't stepped in to bar Microsoft from supporting Java, they would have lost all control and revenue as they struggled to keep up with MS and everybody else.
The fact is that MS does a decent job implementing standards (consider how many they've had to implement), which is not to say they don't extend the standards with thier own stuff, but they RARELY feel like the must or even can BREAK the standards without consequences.
To break the standards would to depreciate the value of the technology while extending the standard would give the customer or developer incentive to use thier proprietary extentions.
This is how things work with most other software companies and is a fact of life, to expect otherwise is setting yourself up for dissapointment.
Thanks for the story and link...
For some reason, I don't the fundamental idea is something new under the sun, as I when I was first introduced to FPGAs, as the first killer application I thought of was creating an array of these to solve otherwise CPU intensive, but memory limited problems.
I always thought that if the NSA was serious about finding prime numbers, they would get thier EE's to write up some HDL (Hardware Definition Language) and code up an array of LPGA. I always thought LPGAs would be great for this, however I could be wrong.
I never considered a commercial market for a FPGA arrays outside of board logic though. Maybe this could start a micro-industry that may prove invaluable to research in 5 to 10 years???
Of course, this may inspire a brash young EE to design a lightweight version of this on a single PCI board for general research use.
Question: Why would they choose LPGAs over CPLDs?
neo-
prefix
1. New; recent: Neolithic.
2.
a. New and different: neoimpressionism.
b. New and abnormal: neoplasm.
Ex: New World: Neotropical and Neo-Dark Ages
I like to know people's experiences with technology like this.
It was filed in 1997
Here's the patent URL...
http://www.delphion.com/details?pn=US06192407__
Here's the Abstract...
A document delivery architecture dynamically generates a private Uniform Resource Locator (URL) to distribute information. Each private URL ("PURL") uniquely identifies an intended recipient of a document, the document or set of documents to be delivered, and (optionally) other parameters specific to the delivery process. The intended recipient of a document uses the PURL to retrieve the document. The server, upon retrieval of the document, customizes the behavior of the retrieval based upon attributes included in the PURL, as well as log information associated with the retrieval in a data base. This architecture and usage of PURLs enables secure document delivery and tracking of document receipt.
What is claimed:
What is claimed is:
1. A document delivery system for delivering one or more documents between a sender and at least one recipient, said system comprising:
* a server that temporarily stores said documents, wherein said server generates a URL for each intended recipient of said documents, the URL unique to each recipient, and sends each of the URLs to each respective intended recipient; and
* a database which is associated with said server and which records log data describing which recipients accessed said documents;
* wherein said server sends the log data to the sender of said documents.