Smaller transistor sizes may mean less heat but a smaller chip size is no guarantee. For instance the current Thunderbird is smaller than the P4 but generates more heat than the P4.
As for the less stuff in the waffer vibrating argument, that doesn't really make any sense. The smaller the transistors the higher the gate density and thus the more stuff per unit area vibrating.
The advantage is what you said in your first sentence, lower voltage requirements. With smaller transistors you can operate at lower voltages. The problem is that you can also use higher densities. Thus while heat generated per transistors drops, you have more transistors per unit area and overall heat production rises. This is why the PIII at 106 mm^2 (28+ million transitors) generates more heat than a Pentium which was 161 mm^2 (3+ million transistors). You can realize a temperature drop my spreading the transistors out but then you lose the second advantage of transistor size, yield rate. As you increase the densisty your die size shrinks which causes an increase in yield (the majority of garbage chips are caused by substrate imperfections).
Anyway, by the time AMD releases this thing the P4 will be on 0.13 micron tech as well giving it a size of 116 mm^2. Not much different than the AMD size of 105 mm^2.
Actually they didn't switch to NT from linux. They switched from Sun Solaris to NT. Furthermore, they had switch over to NT because the Cold Fusion port to Solaris was unstable, not because of the operating system.
As far as I can recall from reading their previous server article a year ago the load balancing nodes are the first time Anandtech has used Linux.
Part of this problem may be trademark law itself. SGI has to defend their trademark in order to keep it. You could always ask them if they are willing to award you a limited, non-transferable, license as long as you keep the product free?
Believe it or not, Microsoft ended up doing this once with their BookShelf(tm) trademark. After trademarking the name they came across a program called "Jewish Bookshelf" or something like that which was distributed for free. After a bit of discussion (and some worries about prior art I'm sure) Microsoft ended up offering pretty much an indefinite license for $1. Allowed them to hold the TM and not piss off a fairly large demographic.
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
.
[snip] .
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
I love how you can shamelessly take a 5 word segment, present it completely out of context to prove a false claim, and then tell us to think about it? The "to give any third party" is in relation to the "written offer" that must accompany the "object code or executable form". The provider of the executable is under no obligation to provide this offer sans the executable. All the "third party" bit is meant to do is to allow anyone who does have access to the source to distribute it freely.
In short, if I take a GPL'd piece of code and modify it to my own needs for my own private use, I am under no obligation to provided you or anyone with the new source. On the other hand, if I do happen to give my executable to anyone, they then have the right to demand the source (and freely dsitribute it if they so desire). Until then I have every right to keep my source private. GPL'd or not.
I was once told that one of the major reasons copyright kept getting extended was that the Disney Mickey Mouse copyright kept coming up. There was apparently a lot of concern about opening up one of America's greatest icons to public use (and abuse).
I don't know if it was true but it does make a bit of sense. It also puts a different spin on what the lifespan of a copyright should be. Nobody can argue that Disney isn't still making money off of the little mouse. 96 years doesn't look that long when compared to the corporate lifespan of a company like Disney.
In my opinion copyright should be tied to the last official use of the copyright by the original holder. For example, if Disney for some strange reason stopped using Mickey Mouse in any of it's material (Movie, Print, Amuzement Park, etc) then after a certain period of time it would become Public Domain. Until then though, active use of the copyright would allow them to keep it. Of course this brings up the problem of what 'active' use really means, but we have to keep those lawyers busing doing something.
What if OpenSSH specifically placed a disclaimer in its code stating that OpenSSH was not part of SSH Communications Security? Have a little warning come up each time you run ssh stating it's exact origin. i.e.
[me@localhost]$ ssh slashdot.com
Using OpenSSH (see www.openssh.com for support)
[me@slashdot.com]$
or something. This would help stop some of the confusion since the command for both is 'ssh'. If the OpenSHH version more clearly identified itself as such I don't think there would be a problem.
And finally the main problem I see with this is that SSH has become the defacto protocol name. Just like HTTP, FTP, etc. You don't see CuteFTP complaining that ncftp uses FTP in its name. I don't think SSHCS can either.
It's amazing how much a prevalent technology (and it associated problems) can so overshadow a different less known technology. DVD-RAM is NOT DVDR,CDR,CDRW, or any of the slew of other recordable technologies out there. DVD-RAM is based on the phase-change technology first pioneered by Panasonic and used in the original PD-Drives.
From the very beginning the technology was developed for random access to the information on the disk. The data is not arranged in a spiral but in concentric rings like on a harddrive. The result is a disk mechanism that doesn't need to maintain a carefully aligned spiral and can stop and start at any point on the disk. So if your camera does get knocked while recording, it is
easy enough to rerecord the affected data blocks and continue. Any device worth it's salt would have enough buffer to handle this kind of situation. The media is also optical and thus immune to magnetic fields
As for compatibility, DVD-RAM drives are perfectly capable of reading CD, CDR, CDRW, PD, DVD-ROM and DVD-RAM disks. They use a cartridge/tray mechanism that allows disks without the cartridge to be inserted. In addition most DVD-ROM Drives (computer based) are capabable of reading single sided DVD-RAM disks (the DVD-RAM disk can be removed from the cartridge). I'm not too sure about consumer video players though.
So no, DVD-RAM drives are not susceptible to all the problems we associate with DVDR or CDR. You will still have to build a robust drive mechanism but the media is nowhere near as susceptible to external shocks than people seem to believe.
Slashdot Mirror
Smaller transistor sizes may mean less heat but a smaller chip size is no guarantee. For instance the current Thunderbird is smaller than the P4 but generates more heat than the P4.
As for the less stuff in the waffer vibrating argument, that doesn't really make any sense. The smaller the transistors the higher the gate density and thus the more stuff per unit area vibrating.
The advantage is what you said in your first sentence, lower voltage requirements. With smaller transistors you can operate at lower voltages. The problem is that you can also use higher densities. Thus while heat generated per transistors drops, you have more transistors per unit area and overall heat production rises. This is why the PIII at 106 mm^2 (28+ million transitors) generates more heat than a Pentium which was 161 mm^2 (3+ million transistors). You can realize a temperature drop my spreading the transistors out but then you lose the second advantage of transistor size, yield rate. As you increase the densisty your die size shrinks which causes an increase in yield (the majority of garbage chips are caused by substrate imperfections).
Anyway, by the time AMD releases this thing the P4 will be on 0.13 micron tech as well giving it a size of 116 mm^2. Not much different than the AMD size of 105 mm^2.
Myrv
Actually they didn't switch to NT from linux. They switched from Sun Solaris to NT. Furthermore, they had switch over to NT because the Cold Fusion port to Solaris was unstable, not because of the operating system.
As far as I can recall from reading their previous server article a year ago the load balancing nodes are the first time Anandtech has used Linux.
They already sued the parents and won. Only got a piddly few million so now they're going for big money.
Part of this problem may be trademark law itself. SGI has to defend their trademark in order to keep it. You could always ask them if they are willing to award you a limited, non-transferable, license as long as you keep the product free?
Believe it or not, Microsoft ended up doing this once with their BookShelf(tm) trademark. After trademarking the name they came across a program called "Jewish Bookshelf" or something like that which was distributed for free. After a bit of discussion (and some worries about prior art I'm sure) Microsoft ended up offering pretty much an indefinite license for $1. Allowed them to hold the TM and not piss off a fairly large demographic.
- 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
.
.
I love how you can shamelessly take a 5 word segment, present it completely out of context to prove a false claim, and then tell us to think about it? The "to give any third party" is in relation to the "written offer" that must accompany the "object code or executable form". The provider of the executable is under no obligation to provide this offer sans the executable. All the "third party" bit is meant to do is to allow anyone who does have access to the source to distribute it freely.[snip]
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
In short, if I take a GPL'd piece of code and modify it to my own needs for my own private use, I am under no obligation to provided you or anyone with the new source. On the other hand, if I do happen to give my executable to anyone, they then have the right to demand the source (and freely dsitribute it if they so desire). Until then I have every right to keep my source private. GPL'd or not.
I was once told that one of the major reasons copyright kept getting extended was that the Disney Mickey Mouse copyright kept coming up. There was apparently a lot of concern about opening up one of America's greatest icons to public use (and abuse).
I don't know if it was true but it does make a bit of sense. It also puts a different spin on what the lifespan of a copyright should be. Nobody can argue that Disney isn't still making money off of the little mouse. 96 years doesn't look that long when compared to the corporate lifespan of a company like Disney.
In my opinion copyright should be tied to the last official use of the copyright by the original holder. For example, if Disney for some strange reason stopped using Mickey Mouse in any of it's material (Movie, Print, Amuzement Park, etc) then after a certain period of time it would become Public Domain. Until then though, active use of the copyright would allow them to keep it. Of course this brings up the problem of what 'active' use really means, but we have to keep those lawyers busing doing something.
No, it doesn't.
As mentioned in the article the pop can crusher-- using a slightly larger wire in the coil and lower energies--did not self destruct.
Yes, eReferee won the arbitration but then lost the subsequent lawsuit. They were two different preceedings.
What if OpenSSH specifically placed a disclaimer in its code stating that OpenSSH was not part of SSH Communications Security? Have a little warning come up each time you run ssh stating it's exact origin. i.e.
Using OpenSSH (see www.openssh.com for support)
[me@slashdot.com]$
or something. This would help stop some of the confusion since the command for both is 'ssh'. If the OpenSHH version more clearly identified itself as such I don't think there would be a problem.
And finally the main problem I see with this is that SSH has become the defacto protocol name. Just like HTTP, FTP, etc. You don't see CuteFTP complaining that ncftp uses FTP in its name. I don't think SSHCS can either.
It's amazing how much a prevalent technology (and it associated problems) can so overshadow a different less known technology. DVD-RAM is NOT DVDR,CDR,CDRW, or any of the slew of other recordable technologies out there. DVD-RAM is based on the phase-change technology first pioneered by Panasonic and used in the original PD-Drives. From the very beginning the technology was developed for random access to the information on the disk. The data is not arranged in a spiral but in concentric rings like on a harddrive. The result is a disk mechanism that doesn't need to maintain a carefully aligned spiral and can stop and start at any point on the disk. So if your camera does get knocked while recording, it is easy enough to rerecord the affected data blocks and continue. Any device worth it's salt would have enough buffer to handle this kind of situation. The media is also optical and thus immune to magnetic fields As for compatibility, DVD-RAM drives are perfectly capable of reading CD, CDR, CDRW, PD, DVD-ROM and DVD-RAM disks. They use a cartridge/tray mechanism that allows disks without the cartridge to be inserted. In addition most DVD-ROM Drives (computer based) are capabable of reading single sided DVD-RAM disks (the DVD-RAM disk can be removed from the cartridge). I'm not too sure about consumer video players though. So no, DVD-RAM drives are not susceptible to all the problems we associate with DVDR or CDR. You will still have to build a robust drive mechanism but the media is nowhere near as susceptible to external shocks than people seem to believe.