In an experimental attempt to turn the Slashdot effect back on itself using BitTorrent, and exploit my subscriber access, I hereby offer a zip file of the website itself and all of the movies (three of them) I could get off the site before it was slashdotted into oblivion.
Chips are already "stacked". Layer over layer of silicon.
Not really. Modern cmos design fabricates everything from a single silicon wafer using a large number of photoresist layers to create different regions of silicon and toss several layers of metal interconnects on top. All the transistors are on one level, placing an upper limit to the number of gates within a given physical area. What would be exceedingly cool, though, is the ability to stack arbitrary layers of silicon on top, providing the capability to produce transistors on multiple layers.
... Which means the communication between layers of stacked chips would be thousands of times slower.
While it may not be advisable to put time-critical portions of the same circuit on different stacked wafers, it wouldn't be that difficult to seperate time-independent sub-circuits onto different stacked wafers -- envision different stages of the same pipeline, or a floating-point unit, or multiple processors in one package -- SMP in a chip.
A: Like other Xiph.org Foundation codec projects such as Vorbis or
Tarkin, Theora is named after a fictional character. Theora Jones was the
name of Edison Carter's 'controller' on the television series Max
Headroom. She was played by Amanda Pays.
We all know that this works -- just use sshnuke to exploit ssh1 vunerabilities, set the password to "zion", and then you can shut down power nodes 20 to 40.
Congratulations -- your server is about to join it in death.:)
For simple, albeit graphics-intensive, non-commercial sites like this, perhaps using bittorrent to distribute a zip of the site would be indicated. (Maybe one day I'll use my super-special subscriber look-into-the-future ability and save the world. Or something like that.)
Two years ago, I had the privilage of participating in the IEEE Computer Soceity International Design Competition 2001, which gave university students (such as myself) the opportunity to build something useful out of Bluetooth. Back then, Bluetooth had been The Next Big Thing (tm) for maybe a year. The competition gave me a first-hand look at why Bluetooth is still The Next Big Thing (tm), two years later.
Two years ago, Bluetooth seemed to be doing everything right. Created by Ericsson, and supported by 3Com, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Motorola, Nokia and Toshiba, it couldn't help but succeed. In the buzzword-compatible trade press, Bluetooth, and the Personal Area Networks it creates, are destined to change the way our handheld computing devices communicate with each other. That's great -- I'd love to use my Visor to read Slashdot headlines, using my wireless phone for its Internet connection. Bluetooth has a great vision, but (at least two years ago) it lacks something far more important: superior development tools. Without worthwhile development tools, and the documentation to back them up, only those with large pockets and iron wills will succeed. Curious students (like myself two years ago) will turn away sadly, wishing there were more, but doubting anything will ever happen.
Why is it important that the small developers get involved? Palm created the handheld market not only by having a low-cost, easy-to-use handheld, but by allowing any kid in his parents' basement to develop PalmOS applications. Ninty-five percent of them may have been crap, but five percent of all the world's Palm-programming geeks is still a whole lot of stuff to attract the Palm-using masses.
ZigBee looks fascinating, and it's something I'll keep my eye on, but unless they learn from Bluetooth's mistakes, it'll be a lot of radio noise for nothing.
The link in the article is from Google, so the NY Times will let you click through without registering. (Apparently they don't bother checking the referral.)
As the parent comment suggests, VMWare creates a virtual machine, which means it uses the protected memory features of the processor to create the illusion that the guest operating system is running on a full, unencumbered computer. When one runs Windows under Linux using VMWare, Windows actually gets to run x86 instructions directly on the processor. But whenever it attempts to access hardware directly, VMWare grabs control, does whatever needs to be done to convince Windows that the right thing is happening, and Windows doesn't know any better.
Virtual PC, however, creates an entire x86 processor in software, so it can run on any arbitrary hardware. It obviously takes more than one machine instruction to emulate one in software, so software will run much slower, as opposed to only slightly slower in the case of VMWare.
we'd only be teaching kids to handwrite for the sake of handwriting.
It's not already that way? Could have fooled me. I loathed cursive in elementary school, and I was absolutely estatic when I finished sixth grade and no longer had to do anything in cursive. I've never looked back.
Actually spammers do act ethically.... They proactively increase the level of pain in the Internet community. This brings forward the day when some kind of solution is put in place. So they are making the world a better place.
I could moderate you today, but I'm feeling like responding, even if you are trolling.
The ends justify the means? Whether I agree with that depends on the ends, and the means; in this case, I don't agree with you. The ends, in this case, will be a more restrictive Internet and an e-mail system more hardened against spam. The solution won't fix anything more than spam itself. Why should I have to put up with spam now if the only solution spam causes is its elimination?
Does anyone else find it amusing that the number of days this great and horrible tragedy took happens to be the answer to life, the universe, and everything? Douglas Adams, anyone?
Sometimes I forget which of my plethora of xterms currently has focus and start typing in the wrong one. Focus follows mouse is nice (especially if it serves to endlessly confuse those who borrow my console), but sometimes I wonder if there is a better way. Focus follows eyes sounds like a good idea until I remember that sometimes I'm looking at a different window. So I have a brilliant new idea: Focus Follows Thought! My window manager will read my mind to decide which window to focus. Now, if only I can keep it from pulling up porn during the middle of the day...
It's been a while since I took civics, but I remember one thing for sure: Constutional Ammendments are, for all intents and purposes, on equal footing to the rest of the Constution. Ammendments are not "less authoritative" than the rest of the Constution; they are, legally, exactly the same thing.
I agree, in principle, with your statement that the First Ammendment is not relevant to this discussion. However, fair use is. In my opinion, fair use applies to this issue, and AOL/Time Warner has no case.
Having rejected DOS, we're paranoid about anything that isn't "user-friendly," that requires some adjustment on our part and a commitment to meet the technology halfway. It's as if Henry Ford rigged a bridle and set of leather reins to his Model T instead of a steering wheel and clutch, and to this day we were still driving our cars the way a 19th century groomsman would handle a horse and buggy.
Most implementations are proprietary, so they have to be compiled in as a (tainted) module. The advantage if those implementations, though, is that you don't have to share your/dev/girl with anyone else, which many people tend to prefer.
...if we could get a hold of him in... wherever dead actors go...
I'm sensing a special episode of Crossing Over with John Edwards coming up. And for the first time in the show's history, it would actually have something to do with the channel it's airing on.
Sounds like good science to me. They started with a hypothesis, which they then set out to prove or disprove. After pouring through "millions of millions of pages of data", they came up with evidence that seems to match what they were trying to find. So they do what all good scientists do -- publish their results, and let the rest of the scientific community review their findings.
I'm not sure where you learned the scientific method, but I recall "Come up with a hypothesis" as the number one step. A hypothesis is not a conclusion, otherwise there is no point to going through the rest of the experiment.
if you're selling hardware, sell the hardware. give away the software--it's no good without the hardware anyway.
I personally agree with you, but I can see two reasons why companies might think this is a bad idea:
Suppose most of the interesting work takes place in the driver (as in the case of a software printer or modem -- although I imagine this could be the case in other devices as well). The driver then provides an emulation layer between the rest of the operating system and the hardware. Some enterprising clone maker could easily throw a DSP, a transformer, and an RJ-11 jack on a PCI card, copy the driver, and sell a software modem for far less than the original manufacturer.
There are plenty of companies in the world who still think that it is possible to ship a device that cannot be reverse-engineered, and that any additional information released to the general public is additional information that the Asian clone manufacturerers will use to screw them in the marketplace. They ignore the fact that said Asian clone manufacturerers have enough manpower to disassemble their drivers line-by-line and pour over wall-sized X-ray blowups of their chips to reverse-engineer the silicon at a transistor level. The only people they're hurting in this situation are those who use free operating systems -- and, by extention, their own market share, because those who use free operating systems won't buy their products.
Slashdot Mirror
In an experimental attempt to turn the Slashdot effect back on itself using BitTorrent, and exploit my subscriber access, I hereby offer a zip file of the website itself and all of the movies (three of them) I could get off the site before it was slashdotted into oblivion.
Only if you count your cellmate Bubba.
Not really. Modern cmos design fabricates everything from a single silicon wafer using a large number of photoresist layers to create different regions of silicon and toss several layers of metal interconnects on top. All the transistors are on one level, placing an upper limit to the number of gates within a given physical area. What would be exceedingly cool, though, is the ability to stack arbitrary layers of silicon on top, providing the capability to produce transistors on multiple layers.
While it may not be advisable to put time-critical portions of the same circuit on different stacked wafers, it wouldn't be that difficult to seperate time-independent sub-circuits onto different stacked wafers -- envision different stages of the same pipeline, or a floating-point unit, or multiple processors in one package -- SMP in a chip.
Read the FAQ. If you're too lazy to click:
We all know that this works -- just use sshnuke to exploit ssh1 vunerabilities, set the password to "zion", and then you can shut down power nodes 20 to 40.
Or was that just a movie?
I guess you'd want terraiops, then. (trillion integer operations per second)
Congratulations -- your server is about to join it in death. :)
For simple, albeit graphics-intensive, non-commercial sites like this, perhaps using bittorrent to distribute a zip of the site would be indicated. (Maybe one day I'll use my super-special subscriber look-into-the-future ability and save the world. Or something like that.)
Just for the record, John Edward is the guy who talks to the dead, while John Edwards is running for president.
Two years ago, I had the privilage of participating in the IEEE Computer Soceity International Design Competition 2001, which gave university students (such as myself) the opportunity to build something useful out of Bluetooth. Back then, Bluetooth had been The Next Big Thing (tm) for maybe a year. The competition gave me a first-hand look at why Bluetooth is still The Next Big Thing (tm), two years later.
Two years ago, Bluetooth seemed to be doing everything right. Created by Ericsson, and supported by 3Com, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Motorola, Nokia and Toshiba, it couldn't help but succeed. In the buzzword-compatible trade press, Bluetooth, and the Personal Area Networks it creates, are destined to change the way our handheld computing devices communicate with each other. That's great -- I'd love to use my Visor to read Slashdot headlines, using my wireless phone for its Internet connection. Bluetooth has a great vision, but (at least two years ago) it lacks something far more important: superior development tools. Without worthwhile development tools, and the documentation to back them up, only those with large pockets and iron wills will succeed. Curious students (like myself two years ago) will turn away sadly, wishing there were more, but doubting anything will ever happen.
Why is it important that the small developers get involved? Palm created the handheld market not only by having a low-cost, easy-to-use handheld, but by allowing any kid in his parents' basement to develop PalmOS applications. Ninty-five percent of them may have been crap, but five percent of all the world's Palm-programming geeks is still a whole lot of stuff to attract the Palm-using masses.
ZigBee looks fascinating, and it's something I'll keep my eye on, but unless they learn from Bluetooth's mistakes, it'll be a lot of radio noise for nothing.
The link in the article is from Google, so the NY Times will let you click through without registering. (Apparently they don't bother checking the referral.)
As the parent comment suggests, VMWare creates a virtual machine, which means it uses the protected memory features of the processor to create the illusion that the guest operating system is running on a full, unencumbered computer. When one runs Windows under Linux using VMWare, Windows actually gets to run x86 instructions directly on the processor. But whenever it attempts to access hardware directly, VMWare grabs control, does whatever needs to be done to convince Windows that the right thing is happening, and Windows doesn't know any better.
Virtual PC, however, creates an entire x86 processor in software, so it can run on any arbitrary hardware. It obviously takes more than one machine instruction to emulate one in software, so software will run much slower, as opposed to only slightly slower in the case of VMWare.
It's not already that way? Could have fooled me. I loathed cursive in elementary school, and I was absolutely estatic when I finished sixth grade and no longer had to do anything in cursive. I've never looked back.
Vaporize.
I could moderate you today, but I'm feeling like responding, even if you are trolling.
The ends justify the means? Whether I agree with that depends on the ends, and the means; in this case, I don't agree with you. The ends, in this case, will be a more restrictive Internet and an e-mail system more hardened against spam. The solution won't fix anything more than spam itself. Why should I have to put up with spam now if the only solution spam causes is its elimination?
Does anyone else find it amusing that the number of days this great and horrible tragedy took happens to be the answer to life, the universe, and everything? Douglas Adams, anyone?
Top 40? That sounds like a waste of perfectly good media to me. I'd sooner have my ears ripped off my head than listen to that crap.
Sometimes I forget which of my plethora of xterms currently has focus and start typing in the wrong one. Focus follows mouse is nice (especially if it serves to endlessly confuse those who borrow my console), but sometimes I wonder if there is a better way. Focus follows eyes sounds like a good idea until I remember that sometimes I'm looking at a different window. So I have a brilliant new idea: Focus Follows Thought! My window manager will read my mind to decide which window to focus. Now, if only I can keep it from pulling up porn during the middle of the day...
It's been a while since I took civics, but I remember one thing for sure: Constutional Ammendments are, for all intents and purposes, on equal footing to the rest of the Constution. Ammendments are not "less authoritative" than the rest of the Constution; they are, legally, exactly the same thing.
I agree, in principle, with your statement that the First Ammendment is not relevant to this discussion. However, fair use is. In my opinion, fair use applies to this issue, and AOL/Time Warner has no case.
I'm sensing a special episode of Crossing Over with John Edwards coming up. And for the first time in the show's history, it would actually have something to do with the channel it's airing on.
I'm not sure where you learned the scientific method, but I recall "Come up with a hypothesis" as the number one step. A hypothesis is not a conclusion, otherwise there is no point to going through the rest of the experiment.
Ever play Black and White?