In this particular instance, there is no song that I'd really want to listen to for which I wouldn't be willing to pay the artist $2. I would have gladly given Elton John hundreds of dollars, instead of his distributor.
As for Waterworld sucking, I am not satisfied to have paid to see it in the first place. As for Judgement at Nuremburg (note: ironic that the authors of which are mostly dead by now, but the copyright still holds), I'm quite happy to give my money for it.
At 80% off, however, I'd be more likely to buy it than at full price. Take Windows for example? It isn't installed ubiquitous because everyone bought a copy. It's ubiquitous because it was copied all to hell. If enforcement of piracy laws were in effect, Windows would be less popular. Why? Because many of the people using it could not afford it, no matter how much they desired to use it.
As for stooping low: Entertainment is entirely subjective. There is no objective pricing of entertainment. If I say it is worth $2 to me, then who can argue with that? I'm willing to pay what something is worth to me, but if I am to be punished for providing myself with entertainment, I'm just as happy to do without it. But when the option to bargain doesn't even exist, and I know I am being exploited, I feel no moral objection to piracy.
It is as difficult to decide the line between coercion and exploitation, as it is from enough money to too much.
I see validity in my concerns in that the hoarding of money results in the stagnation of capitalism and the promotion of single points of failure in the competitive market by creating "big moneys" that can collude, olgopolize or monopolize easily.
Any prescriptions lately? Do you think medicine really cost that much? Not according to the pharmacutical companies that just submitted to charges of collusion.
From what I know about producer/crew relationships, they are generally paid during the production of the movie. They get their money either way.
From where we stand, I can see your argument's clarity. But then we look at a good film maker's real incentive: to entertain. The movie industry is a money making machine, with monetary incentives, not entertainment incentives. The film makers that succeed today are not the film makers that seek to entertain. The film makers of today are those that bring return on the producer's investment.
This is the problem. The solution, at 1:46 in the morning, eludes me.:)
I have a serious qualm with thieving the money of artists. I have no qualm, however, with taking money from the industry that holds the artists down, that represents itself as if it were the artists themselves. I'm speaking of distributers.
All music that I enjoy, I wish I could give the artists money, but from what I have seen, the $1 that an average artists makes on a CD just doesn't justify the $20 I'm going to pay for it, especially when I know that the majority of the manufacturing cost is in the jewel case!
Movies are a more complex, but the problem still exists that a costly movie does not indicate a good movie! See Waterworld. Whereas many cheap movies have been great, see Judgement at Nuremburg. My experience has lead me to believe that the more a movie costs, the more effort has been put into the development of the movie to cover up for lack of acting, or plot, or overall richness of content. But that's subjective, and completely dependent on the genre as well. (Sci-fi benefits from the cash injections.)
My qualm with movies is that Hollywood consistently releases movies I do not enjoy. They still get my money. There is no "pay if you like it", scenario. You do not "get what you pay for", you simply "take it or leave it". However, if I walked out of Fight Club for example, I'd have gladly given $10 for the entertainment value, intellectual stimulation, and overall relaxation induced by taking me away from reality for a few hours. That kind of thing is priceless.
In reality, however, with such high margins, what incentive does a producer have to make a good movie? It's more likely that the movie was brought up to schedule against the desires of the cast, crew, and producer to make a good movie, in an effort to meet a movie season peak.
With less margin, the incentive exists to provide better movies. I see fit to vindicate these wrongs by not paying.
And I fear no reprisal from law enforcement: any law that undermines the morals of the people is of null and void effect. What decent person would punish someone for copying a movie? The producer of the movie comes to mind, but then, if it was a Hollywood movie, they'd likely not care because they have sufficient money. And if the movie bombed, and they made little money in the theatres, advertisements, fast food endorsements, and so on and so forth? I say that it is unlikely that this is a movie I would want to copy, and were it a movie I desired to possess, I would gladly pay a reasonable amount for it.
My time becomes more precious with age, and my interests with mass-produced entertainment dwindle. If anything, the producers of movies will eventually have to pay me to spend my precious time to sit and watch their movie. If the advertisements in the beginning of the movie incite me to spend money on particular products, then everyone is happy.
I am not sure how this comes across as selfish. This is my attitude towards a selfish world. My $20 is not worth a 2 hour movie I'd watch three times in my lifetime. My $20 is not worth a single track on a single CD that I enjoy a severely finite number of times. If they want my money, let them barter for it. I'd gladly give $2 for the single track I want to listen to, but cut the crap and give me the things I want at the prices that meets both of our needs. I do not feel the need to be exploited, and will go to great lengths to engage those that attempt it!
It's quite inevitable that, as the exponentially exploding storage devices become suitable to encompass full motion video, and bandwidth opens enough to exploit isosyncronous transfers, the film industry will be in the place of the recording industry. Where would MP3's be just ten years ago when 3-4 of them filled a hard drive; is that not the ratios of movies now?
And truth be told, this bothers me none. The multimillion dollar movie does not help my world at all -- rather the contrary, instead of promoting my health, education, or well being in any way, shape, or form, the Hollywood giants get bigger, the recording industry expands, the money eater eats money, and someone whose daddy was rich, gets richer. And what good are patents, when they directly inhibit a healthy economy by promoting stagnation and monopolies. What good are copyright laws that prevent modern Disney films from being referenced in a text book from which I wish to learn.
What good is music I cannot listen to. And why must the recording industry insist on making people famous, despite their obvious lack of talent, and thereby truncating any forwards my society has fought for local, true, non-mass entertained culture. I say let MP3's thrive, and so will our choice in music, and let true popularity be shown.
And of movies? Movies make money from commercials, food companies, advertising agencies, theatres, rental outlets, and royalties. How much money do they need? Good movies make good money, as they should. But I have been to countless bad movies, whereby my spent money has left me with only the return of bitterness or exhaustion, frustration or sadness. Whomever made the movie, makes their, in my opinion of the movie, undeserved dollar. Is this fair? No.
Then what would be fair? I say let me copy DVD's, let me copy MP3's, let me have that moment of entertainment, without worrying about some rich person's pocket money. I have enough issues with money not to have to think about someone else's whenever I seek to be entertained.
At some point of earning money, I conclude, the possession of more money is fundamentally wrong.
That's an excellent point -- something I wouldn't have thought of had you not pointed it out. One might even be inclined to provide a validation scheme (like Visa numbers) to large documents and such.
Suprisingly enough to me, it would appear as though this was made by humans. For example, the following definition:
3.1.4 (U) Bit Rate. -- A general term used to express the dara transfer rate of binary digital signals.
clearly indicates the spelling error "dara" instead of "data". Well, this proves that, as of 1992, the entire government has not been usurped by artificial or alien intelligence.
However, since 1992, I can make no assurances. Or that dara represents some coset of the coin data, with more specific meaning (or more general meaning), of some purpose I cannot yet surmise.
Looks like artifical life might be a predecessor to artifical intelligence. I suspect these two children of humanity will grow somewhat in parallel, however.
Irregardless of which comes first, we are slowly gaining the ability to replicate in ways outside the paradigm of history, so far as we know it. Be it artifical life, such as nanites, with the ability to self replicate on that nanotechnological scale, or artifial intelligence, with the ability to desire and feel and react and think and communicate. (MIT's COG, for example)
And for our next trick, we humans will make artificial life with artifical intelligence and make ourselves completely obsolete! Yay us! We're winners! lol
It's very likely that their contract was negated over time (I believe they may have had exclusive rights to the bt738 ). Since they are the largest Video Card manufacturer now, they might be more heavy handed with negotiations.
Given sufficient demand, as well, I'm sure that it's come to the attention of the executive and board of directors, that at some point, ATI will lose money, so it's also possible that ATI bought out the contract (hence terminating it).
It's all about the name. Windows may be popular, but I am hard pressed to find people who actually like it. Windows is popular because it's on every box, and I'd be quite happy to have ATI exploit the Penguin.
Getting that little logo on a few million boxes might just be the chaotic incentive that moves an individual to investigate the world of Linux, and if that little curiosity brings in a million Linux users, or even just one, all the power to ATI.:)
The day when we can walk into a store full of Penguins is now in our sights. This is a paradigm shift.
A few years ago, Tux on a mainstream video card box would have been mock humour.
My guess is that ATI has been paying attention not only to the news, but to the polite, sensitive and complimentary emails that I and others have been sending them to motion them in this direction.
We need only make sure that hardware vendors are aware of the demand, in order to have their support. They are more than willing, trade secrets aside, to give in to numbers, and ladies and gentlemen, we have numbers.
Somehow you've managed to disagree with me, by arguing points I did not discuss. Bizarre.
You haven't clarified what industry spokespeople really are. Company spokespeople? Mass media? Internet media? Do we mean ZD Net or Dr. Dobbs Journal or Larry Wall? The paradigm shift I believe you are speaking of is the one away from a particular model of software development, whereas all other effects are peripherial.
The mass media (ie. ZD) is being forced to change after years of stagnant recicitation of statistics and useless information about Microsoft's software and such. The software changed because it was horrible. I write software for a living, and I have seen code with commercial deadlines. There is no great metaphor, but the easiest thing I can compare it to is strapping on extra engines on an airplane, then to keep the plane fueled, strapping extra fuel tanks onto with duct tape, and so on and so forth. It's a top down approach.
Either way, Linux and BSD are popular because they have merit, and they would not be popular with large corporations if "industry spokespeople" did not speak about it, in some way, shape or form.
What you did note, however, was that there is a conflict of opinion, and people take groups, such as Gartner with a grain of salt. Particularly because these groups lack the education and foresight to make adequate decisions about a particular topic in this industry, so they make pot shots or they follow "industry leaders".
Either way, Linux and Apache in particular are somewhat immune to market forces, given their benign state of monetary dependence. It grows whether or not Gartner group think's it's good.
No one has really critized the model of developing for Linux yet. Why not? Because it is very difficult to critize, given it's success. Critiques of the product are very different from critiques of the model of development. This alone is something to be proud of, reflecting something that cannot be taken away, and idealizing the fact that we have something that is very difficult to usurp.
This article addresses many temporal issues, things that are relevent now, but are bound to change over a given period of time (evolution). It is inevitable that a consistently improving operating system will evolve, when compared to a legacy operating system, which by definition, remains stagnant.
There are issues to be dealt with, and industry spokespeople from magazines and publications provide excellent points, in roundabout ways. Largely, however, the we must be thankful for the time that industry critics provide in giving leverage against corporate dominance of this system.
Everyone should be aware: When Linux reaches a certain level of corporate involvement, it loses the development model.
You jest, but in reality, moving away from linear processes into biological models would likely lead to a process for every RGB byte on for each pixel of every framebuffer.
IE. 1024x768 = 786432 x 3 (bytes RGB) = 2359296 x 4 framebuffers = 9,437,184 processes. It is, in pure theory, a great way to do OCR and pattern recognition (bottom up, vs. top down fuzzy algos which are most common right now)
Text based log files are not remotely administrable, so you must establish some form of secure local administration practice such as ssh to manage them. That doesn't scale if you have to manage (say) 1,000 servers.
Sure you can. You just have to be able to write perl or awk or shell scripts. Something one finds less than trivial than NT.
In odd comparison, We have a dual celeron 300 running Windows 2000, and a Linux box running a P2@360. A strange thing to look at, but in terms of nice processes, the Win2000 box gets 1800 kkeys, whereas the 360 gets 1000 kkeys per second.
For comparison purposes, NT equiv. to Win2000.
So we will not compare performance. NTFS is slower, but journaled, compared to faster ext2, but crashable (like Fat).
If you compare memory usage, NT leaks, Linux doesn't. If you look at video IO, NT is faster, but it's right in the kernel so if it's not that stable (driver dependent) everything can go down, and isn't an Xclient or Xserver. But the Xserver/client model is by necessity slower, more stable, but still crashable, but not that low in the ring.
Self awareness. This is the first step to an artificial consciousness. But in reality, the nuances of intelligence may be beyond the scope of artificial replication.
We may create a computer fully aware of itself and others, conscious of all entities in the scope of its senses, capable of reactions and interactions. Capable of solving problems outside a static finite state automaton (or chatoically complex enough to make the states fuzzy).
Emotions and curiosity and multivalent solutions are all within the scope of its abilities. Morality and sensibility can be replicated. Truth and beauty are open to consciousness.
But will it be able to comprehend the abstract natures, the duality between non-linear mathematics and temporal reality. We have never solved these problems to the satisfaction of prediction. (See the satellites slowing down article...). Will our successor be able to comprehend these things?
If not, will another iteration of intelligence, perhaps an induced wet-matter being to succeed our artificial intelligence, be able to solve these problems?
It is within our capability to do pinch a touch of mathematics and draw out reasonable truths. If the artificial intelligence does not draw these out, will it create intelligence that can? Knowingly doing so might undermine self-preservation, just as our procreation of artificial life undermines our own survival as the dominant species.
Lucifux : Latest hardcore fundamentalist Anti-Christ OS available!
Kill referenced in every man page. Killall referenced in every man page. Random thread kills. Threads scream in pain when killed. Suicide replaces old shutdown command. Anal probe replaces ping. All threads given daemon privaleges. Sporadically downloads and plays Marilyn Manson mp3's. CD-ROM drive spins backwards. Pornographic links hardcoded into Lynx, the only true fundamentalist browser. Software written by heterosexuals or women will only be permitted if they are sent email informing them of their transgressions against pleasure. Mastrubration is a form of pennance.
Ok, we're all satisfied. I'm going to hell. No doubt about it. But I bed a DAMNED someone out there got a chuckle out of this parody! Extremism with extremism never works, the exception being when one extreme is humour.
Autism can be very frustrating. It is to be noted, however, that the greatest of puzzles of the mind, puzzles that drive normal men mad (Gregor Cantor, for example), may be open only to those who are autistic. Circumstantially, it can be a trade off between social and logical strengths.
Some day, past the moral barriers that may arise, we may induce a form of autism by choice, to reap the benefits of such intelligence. Presumably without the costs. It is a strange entity. But do not sell it short; it is to be dealt with in a unique way, with generous amounts of attention.
Makes one wonder about the French nuclear bombs. I mean, they were all tested underground, so what's to say that they wern't looking at contriving earthquakes by detonating nukes on fault lines (ironically, the only fault line in the whole of New Brunswick, Canada, has a CANDU reactor built right on it.)
And then, one must ask, how would the French use this technology? Well, all the conspiracy theorists out there are glancing at Taiwan... 35% of the world's silicon. That's as close to a weak link that you can get, now isn't it!
We'll omit, of course, the whole Pacific ring of fire status.
Actually, you will likely find lower heart attack statistics in France than anywhere in the world. Red wine being cheaper than the water it's fermented in, and all, they should have plumbing innards like ducts in a nuclear power plant.
If you know German, go to Munich State University if you have any interest in AI, AR, ATP's, FOL, or HOL. All German universities are years ahead of the rest of the world in AI.
If your primary interests are mathematics or theory, you still cannot beat Moscow State University, if you have the Russian tongue under your belt, and the guts to go there.
For data communication, there is little more impressive than many Canadian universities, particularly U. of Waterloo. (Though that may be in dispute after layoffs and golden handshakes there, as of late.)
If you have interests in parallel and distributed processing, Australia is definantly the way to go (particularly Sydney), and like Canada, there is no english language barrier.
In general, for hardware and technics, Japan is the way to go. If you want to go hardcore in hardware, go all the way and join the US Army. Other than that, go with Japan.
For up-and-coming university names, try Scotland and Ireland, with a free higher education system they are compounding quite rapidly, and will likely emerge as leaders in various fields in the next few years.
You might find various universities throughout the US and Mexico, but I find they are less worthy of mention than the laboratories. If your primary interests are in research, check Argonne National Labs, and Palo Alto Research Centre, and the other few familiar facilities throughout the US.
If you don't know what you're looking for, I suggest you examine your marks. Go with what you do best in, but take into account the life experiences that accompany a post-graduate decision, and for the sake of diversity, try and displace geographically as much as possible, for the sake of posterity, do what you do that blends best between enjoyment and payoffs.
Pascal was a horrible philosopher, and a great mathematician. We remember him for what he did, not for what he enjoyed. We do not historically, only in works of fiction and various extracts of past legacies, take the pleasures of Men and Mice under our belt as memorable.
Slashdot Mirror
As for Waterworld sucking, I am not satisfied to have paid to see it in the first place. As for Judgement at Nuremburg (note: ironic that the authors of which are mostly dead by now, but the copyright still holds), I'm quite happy to give my money for it.
At 80% off, however, I'd be more likely to buy it than at full price. Take Windows for example? It isn't installed ubiquitous because everyone bought a copy. It's ubiquitous because it was copied all to hell. If enforcement of piracy laws were in effect, Windows would be less popular. Why? Because many of the people using it could not afford it, no matter how much they desired to use it.
As for stooping low: Entertainment is entirely subjective. There is no objective pricing of entertainment. If I say it is worth $2 to me, then who can argue with that? I'm willing to pay what something is worth to me, but if I am to be punished for providing myself with entertainment, I'm just as happy to do without it. But when the option to bargain doesn't even exist, and I know I am being exploited, I feel no moral objection to piracy.
I see validity in my concerns in that the hoarding of money results in the stagnation of capitalism and the promotion of single points of failure in the competitive market by creating "big moneys" that can collude, olgopolize or monopolize easily.
Any prescriptions lately? Do you think medicine really cost that much? Not according to the pharmacutical companies that just submitted to charges of collusion.
From where we stand, I can see your argument's clarity. But then we look at a good film maker's real incentive: to entertain. The movie industry is a money making machine, with monetary incentives, not entertainment incentives. The film makers that succeed today are not the film makers that seek to entertain. The film makers of today are those that bring return on the producer's investment.
This is the problem. The solution, at 1:46 in the morning, eludes me. :)
Cheers!
All music that I enjoy, I wish I could give the artists money, but from what I have seen, the $1 that an average artists makes on a CD just doesn't justify the $20 I'm going to pay for it, especially when I know that the majority of the manufacturing cost is in the jewel case!
Movies are a more complex, but the problem still exists that a costly movie does not indicate a good movie! See Waterworld. Whereas many cheap movies have been great, see Judgement at Nuremburg. My experience has lead me to believe that the more a movie costs, the more effort has been put into the development of the movie to cover up for lack of acting, or plot, or overall richness of content. But that's subjective, and completely dependent on the genre as well. (Sci-fi benefits from the cash injections.)
My qualm with movies is that Hollywood consistently releases movies I do not enjoy. They still get my money. There is no "pay if you like it", scenario. You do not "get what you pay for", you simply "take it or leave it". However, if I walked out of Fight Club for example, I'd have gladly given $10 for the entertainment value, intellectual stimulation, and overall relaxation induced by taking me away from reality for a few hours. That kind of thing is priceless.
In reality, however, with such high margins, what incentive does a producer have to make a good movie? It's more likely that the movie was brought up to schedule against the desires of the cast, crew, and producer to make a good movie, in an effort to meet a movie season peak.
With less margin, the incentive exists to provide better movies. I see fit to vindicate these wrongs by not paying.
And I fear no reprisal from law enforcement: any law that undermines the morals of the people is of null and void effect. What decent person would punish someone for copying a movie? The producer of the movie comes to mind, but then, if it was a Hollywood movie, they'd likely not care because they have sufficient money. And if the movie bombed, and they made little money in the theatres, advertisements, fast food endorsements, and so on and so forth? I say that it is unlikely that this is a movie I would want to copy, and were it a movie I desired to possess, I would gladly pay a reasonable amount for it.
My time becomes more precious with age, and my interests with mass-produced entertainment dwindle. If anything, the producers of movies will eventually have to pay me to spend my precious time to sit and watch their movie. If the advertisements in the beginning of the movie incite me to spend money on particular products, then everyone is happy.
I am not sure how this comes across as selfish. This is my attitude towards a selfish world. My $20 is not worth a 2 hour movie I'd watch three times in my lifetime. My $20 is not worth a single track on a single CD that I enjoy a severely finite number of times. If they want my money, let them barter for it. I'd gladly give $2 for the single track I want to listen to, but cut the crap and give me the things I want at the prices that meets both of our needs. I do not feel the need to be exploited, and will go to great lengths to engage those that attempt it!
And truth be told, this bothers me none. The multimillion dollar movie does not help my world at all -- rather the contrary, instead of promoting my health, education, or well being in any way, shape, or form, the Hollywood giants get bigger, the recording industry expands, the money eater eats money, and someone whose daddy was rich, gets richer. And what good are patents, when they directly inhibit a healthy economy by promoting stagnation and monopolies. What good are copyright laws that prevent modern Disney films from being referenced in a text book from which I wish to learn.
What good is music I cannot listen to. And why must the recording industry insist on making people famous, despite their obvious lack of talent, and thereby truncating any forwards my society has fought for local, true, non-mass entertained culture. I say let MP3's thrive, and so will our choice in music, and let true popularity be shown.
And of movies? Movies make money from commercials, food companies, advertising agencies, theatres, rental outlets, and royalties. How much money do they need? Good movies make good money, as they should. But I have been to countless bad movies, whereby my spent money has left me with only the return of bitterness or exhaustion, frustration or sadness. Whomever made the movie, makes their, in my opinion of the movie, undeserved dollar. Is this fair? No.
Then what would be fair? I say let me copy DVD's, let me copy MP3's, let me have that moment of entertainment, without worrying about some rich person's pocket money. I have enough issues with money not to have to think about someone else's whenever I seek to be entertained.
At some point of earning money, I conclude, the possession of more money is fundamentally wrong.
That's an excellent point -- something I wouldn't have thought of had you not pointed it out. One might even be inclined to provide a validation scheme (like Visa numbers) to large documents and such.
3.1.4 (U) Bit Rate. -- A general term used to express the dara transfer rate of binary digital signals.
clearly indicates the spelling error "dara" instead of "data". Well, this proves that, as of 1992, the entire government has not been usurped by artificial or alien intelligence.
However, since 1992, I can make no assurances. Or that dara represents some coset of the coin data, with more specific meaning (or more general meaning), of some purpose I cannot yet surmise.
Irregardless of which comes first, we are slowly gaining the ability to replicate in ways outside the paradigm of history, so far as we know it. Be it artifical life, such as nanites, with the ability to self replicate on that nanotechnological scale, or artifial intelligence, with the ability to desire and feel and react and think and communicate. (MIT's COG, for example)
And for our next trick, we humans will make artificial life with artifical intelligence and make ourselves completely obsolete! Yay us! We're winners! lol
How do I view this thing in Linux?
Not to harass the matter, but I am quite curious as to the state of Quicktime support for Linux . . .
Given sufficient demand, as well, I'm sure that it's come to the attention of the executive and board of directors, that at some point, ATI will lose money, so it's also possible that ATI bought out the contract (hence terminating it).
But I couldn't say for sure.
Getting that little logo on a few million boxes might just be the chaotic incentive that moves an individual to investigate the world of Linux, and if that little curiosity brings in a million Linux users, or even just one, all the power to ATI. :)
The day when we can walk into a store full of Penguins is now in our sights. This is a paradigm shift.
A few years ago, Tux on a mainstream video card box would have been mock humour.
We need only make sure that hardware vendors are aware of the demand, in order to have their support. They are more than willing, trade secrets aside, to give in to numbers, and ladies and gentlemen, we have numbers.
You haven't clarified what industry spokespeople really are. Company spokespeople? Mass media? Internet media? Do we mean ZD Net or Dr. Dobbs Journal or Larry Wall? The paradigm shift I believe you are speaking of is the one away from a particular model of software development, whereas all other effects are peripherial.
The mass media (ie. ZD) is being forced to change after years of stagnant recicitation of statistics and useless information about Microsoft's software and such. The software changed because it was horrible. I write software for a living, and I have seen code with commercial deadlines. There is no great metaphor, but the easiest thing I can compare it to is strapping on extra engines on an airplane, then to keep the plane fueled, strapping extra fuel tanks onto with duct tape, and so on and so forth. It's a top down approach.
Either way, Linux and BSD are popular because they have merit, and they would not be popular with large corporations if "industry spokespeople" did not speak about it, in some way, shape or form.
What you did note, however, was that there is a conflict of opinion, and people take groups, such as Gartner with a grain of salt. Particularly because these groups lack the education and foresight to make adequate decisions about a particular topic in this industry, so they make pot shots or they follow "industry leaders".
Either way, Linux and Apache in particular are somewhat immune to market forces, given their benign state of monetary dependence. It grows whether or not Gartner group think's it's good.
This article addresses many temporal issues, things that are relevent now, but are bound to change over a given period of time (evolution). It is inevitable that a consistently improving operating system will evolve, when compared to a legacy operating system, which by definition, remains stagnant.
There are issues to be dealt with, and industry spokespeople from magazines and publications provide excellent points, in roundabout ways. Largely, however, the we must be thankful for the time that industry critics provide in giving leverage against corporate dominance of this system.
Everyone should be aware: When Linux reaches a certain level of corporate involvement, it loses the development model.
IE. 1024x768 = 786432 x 3 (bytes RGB) = 2359296 x 4 framebuffers = 9,437,184 processes. It is, in pure theory, a great way to do OCR and pattern recognition (bottom up, vs. top down fuzzy algos which are most common right now)
Just thought I'd throw numbers around. :)
Sure you can. You just have to be able to write perl or awk or shell scripts. Something one finds less than trivial than NT.
For comparison purposes, NT equiv. to Win2000.
So we will not compare performance. NTFS is slower, but journaled, compared to faster ext2, but crashable (like Fat).
If you compare memory usage, NT leaks, Linux doesn't. If you look at video IO, NT is faster, but it's right in the kernel so if it's not that stable (driver dependent) everything can go down, and isn't an Xclient or Xserver. But the Xserver/client model is by necessity slower, more stable, but still crashable, but not that low in the ring.
Just a blurb. :)
We may create a computer fully aware of itself and others, conscious of all entities in the scope of its senses, capable of reactions and interactions. Capable of solving problems outside a static finite state automaton (or chatoically complex enough to make the states fuzzy).
Emotions and curiosity and multivalent solutions are all within the scope of its abilities. Morality and sensibility can be replicated. Truth and beauty are open to consciousness.
But will it be able to comprehend the abstract natures, the duality between non-linear mathematics and temporal reality. We have never solved these problems to the satisfaction of prediction. (See the satellites slowing down article ...). Will our successor be able to comprehend these things?
If not, will another iteration of intelligence, perhaps an induced wet-matter being to succeed our artificial intelligence, be able to solve these problems?
It is within our capability to do pinch a touch of mathematics and draw out reasonable truths. If the artificial intelligence does not draw these out, will it create intelligence that can? Knowingly doing so might undermine self-preservation, just as our procreation of artificial life undermines our own survival as the dominant species.
Kill referenced in every man page.
Killall referenced in every man page.
Random thread kills. Threads scream in pain when killed.
Suicide replaces old shutdown command.
Anal probe replaces ping.
All threads given daemon privaleges.
Sporadically downloads and plays Marilyn Manson mp3's.
CD-ROM drive spins backwards.
Pornographic links hardcoded into Lynx, the only true fundamentalist browser.
Software written by heterosexuals or women will only be permitted if they are sent email informing them of their transgressions against pleasure. Mastrubration is a form of pennance.
Ok, we're all satisfied. I'm going to hell. No doubt about it. But I bed a DAMNED someone out there got a chuckle out of this parody! Extremism with extremism never works, the exception being when one extreme is humour.
Some day, past the moral barriers that may arise, we may induce a form of autism by choice, to reap the benefits of such intelligence. Presumably without the costs. It is a strange entity. But do not sell it short; it is to be dealt with in a unique way, with generous amounts of attention.
And then, one must ask, how would the French use this technology? Well, all the conspiracy theorists out there are glancing at Taiwan ... 35% of the world's silicon. That's as close to a weak link that you can get, now isn't it!
We'll omit, of course, the whole Pacific ring of fire status.
(can we say off topic?)
If your primary interests are mathematics or theory, you still cannot beat Moscow State University, if you have the Russian tongue under your belt, and the guts to go there.
For data communication, there is little more impressive than many Canadian universities, particularly U. of Waterloo. (Though that may be in dispute after layoffs and golden handshakes there, as of late.)
If you have interests in parallel and distributed processing, Australia is definantly the way to go (particularly Sydney), and like Canada, there is no english language barrier.
In general, for hardware and technics, Japan is the way to go. If you want to go hardcore in hardware, go all the way and join the US Army. Other than that, go with Japan.
For up-and-coming university names, try Scotland and Ireland, with a free higher education system they are compounding quite rapidly, and will likely emerge as leaders in various fields in the next few years.
You might find various universities throughout the US and Mexico, but I find they are less worthy of mention than the laboratories. If your primary interests are in research, check Argonne National Labs, and Palo Alto Research Centre, and the other few familiar facilities throughout the US.
If you don't know what you're looking for, I suggest you examine your marks. Go with what you do best in, but take into account the life experiences that accompany a post-graduate decision, and for the sake of diversity, try and displace geographically as much as possible, for the sake of posterity, do what you do that blends best between enjoyment and payoffs.
Pascal was a horrible philosopher, and a great mathematician. We remember him for what he did, not for what he enjoyed. We do not historically, only in works of fiction and various extracts of past legacies, take the pleasures of Men and Mice under our belt as memorable.
B.