Clearly this is just the endgame of a clever get rich scheme. They anticipate that a butt load of/.ers will contact them looking for the source code. In a few weeks they'll stop answering their phones, their website will go defunct, and Castle will for all purposes seem to have disappeared. Coincidentally, in a few days after that the number of ebay auctions for blank floppies will go through the roof.
The article has some fairly interesting material, but what really amused me was how the reviewer didn't really seem to understand most of what he was writing about. He seems to have alternated between copying stuff directly from some marketing glossy and what he could get from a comp arch textbook...ususally following up with something like "I'm sure this is good for something or someone somewhere, beats me though!". You can almost see him scratching his head. It all starts when he is confused by the 'Resevered' entry in a table of register settings.
> Not on a modern MB... they'll query the SIMM and ask it what settings it likes.
And that could be wrong. When I asked Corsair tech support why the BIOS was detecting my CAS2 memory as CAS2.5, the reply was: "Nope, that's normal. The SPD is programmed to JEDEC defined standards which is only 2.5. You have to manually set it to run CAS2 in your BIOS."
When I first started getting interested in the kernel I subscribed to the mailing list and was immediately overwhelmed by the traffic. I soon found Kernel Traffic and unsubscribed from the mailing list and was happy.
The truth is, though, that while KT gives a good overview of some areas of the mailing list, it misses a lot. This is obvious, of course; cutting 100's of posts a day down to one moderate weekly summary is going to leave a lot of information. But to be honest, though I admire and appreciate Zach Brown's efforts, I wonder what criteria he uses for deciding what threads to cover. I sometimes feel he has left out some fairly important/interesting stuff while quoting huge gobs of somewhat trivial (imho) threads.
Anyone who is seriously interested in the kernel internals shouldn't really be relying on KT too much. Head over to kernelnewbies and start reading the real list. I recommend a good filternig system to help you separate out the chaff, though.
The linux-kernel mailing list is available via nntp at fa.linux.kernel. If you have a news reader that does scoring (e.g. gnus it makes the traffic all that much more manageable.
Ah, but the nVidia kernel drivers aren't closed source. Only the GLX libraries are. I've looked through the kernel code several times.
Ahh my ass...the drivers are most certainly closed source. There is some open sourced glue that wraps the binary-distributed module.
However you feel like wording it, there winds up being code linked with the kernel that is a total mystery to everyone but Nvidia, and that is what leads to the problem of my original post.
The problem isn't just with the ethics of people who want to use open source software. If you have a closed source module loaded into your kernel and it oopses on you, you only have one recourse: take the oops to Nvidia--even if the crash was in your scsi driver or the network layer. Kernel developers won't touch bug reports from people who have proprietary drivers loaded because there is no way to know what that driver is doing to other parts of the kernel (without disassembling it).
It depends on your specific needs. Are you documenting the source or documenting program usage? For the former, doxygen may be useful to you. Generates HTML and LaTeX, amongs other formats.
This should be a signal to everyone who does support the case against MS. If MS (or perhaps their supporters in this case) feel that at least the perception of what public opinion is is so important, the anti-MS people should take that as a hint to write your congressmen and other government officials to let them know how you feel!
And, yeah, I won't even rant about absurd paradox that goes along with advertising, the advertising model, and sites that depend upon it -- that you cannot, no matter how much you cross your fingers, toes, and wish upon all the stars in the sky -- make a revenue upon a thing -- advertising -- that people simply don't like. I don't know anyone who likes ads.
What the hell are you talking about? Are you saying that NBC isn't making any money? Lots of companies in TV/radio/print rely on this business model and are doing just fine.
Not to say that I necessarily believe one way or the other, but don't you think that arguments like this don't take into the possibility that the human race is something less than it's theoretical 'divine creator'?
What I'm trying to say is that might it not be possible that if we were to create life ourselves, it could only be the product of all that the human race was up to that point. But this being that created us may forever be greater than what we could evolve to(spiritually or whatever). This implies that the human race has more potential than anything we could create at any given point.
If you send it to yourself via registered mail it is much more likely to convince a judge that you did indeed have the idea at the time it was sent. Registered mail provides far more assurance that the envelope hasn't been faked or resealed after receipt.
Disclaimer: all of my knowledge is about USB1.0, but I would think that they only improved on these numbers for the latest version. That said,
2. Even if USB2 runs at 480Mbps, the Firewire folks aren't exactly standing still. Any raw bandwidth advantage of USB2 is sure to be short-lived at best. Especially if USB2 repeats 1.0's feat of only 75% of bandwidth being used for actual data in an ideal situation. (don't know how 1.1 performed).
3.There's lots of blather in the USB2 announcement about supporting video cameras etc. but IIRC USB doesn't support the isochronous transfers which are usually considered necessary to serve those markets. Did I miss something? This was in USB1. I can't imagine they got rid of it!
4. Another useful Firewire feature that USB doesn't seem to have is providing power through the same connector used for communications. Again, I may have missed it. Again, USB1 had this, but only for low power devices (2.5W?).
5.I don't remember how many devices USB supports, but I suspect it's less than Firewire. USB1 technically supported 127 devices, but I think you would have been crazy to actually try to use more than 3 at once. Don't know about firewire.
6.I know that USB-based host-to-host networking exists, but it's not clear to me whether it's really as well suited to that task as Firewire. In particular, I wonder how much asymmetry between hosts and devices (a la initiators and targets in SCSI) is built into the protocol, and how round-trip latency compares to other technologies. I always thought that USB was horribly suited to networking, but there seemed to be a lot of people who wanted to do it. So some companies built devices for it. As far as I know, the only solution was to have a hub that all of the network clients would plug into. I never used one or talked to anyone that did, but I would think that for 2 clients the performace was pretty mediocre and for more, abysmal.
Maybe someone can read the new spec an enlighten us. I hope for their sake that it is better written than the first! That was one of the most obfuscating technical specs i've ever read.
According to my math, 16 channels of 32 bits at 96kHz uses less than half the bandwidth of 100Mb. Doesn't it seem like you should be able to get at least 24 channels across the wire? If you are trying to run everything over this medium, channels could quickly become a scarce resource.
Slashdot -------- Old News for Nerds. Stuff that mattered yesterday.
Re:The path to commercial space travel
on
NASA's X-37
·
· Score: 1
Wow...that's really too bad to hear such a pessimistic view from someone close to the industry. I always get excited about the thought of the average joe getting to fly through space some day...and even more excited to think that it would occur in my lifetime. I can't say that if find your testimony suprising, though, given all the crap i've heard about nasa.
I'll keep dreaming, though. Maybe I'll find it easier than you, having not been kicked so hard by nasa.
Perhaps someone at egghead had the insight to say "look, we're not making money as a convential retail business, let's why don't we enter a ring wheere you don't have to turn a profit to be successful, e-commerce!
Slashdot Mirror
Clearly this is just the endgame of a clever get rich scheme. They anticipate that a butt load of /.ers will contact them looking for the source code. In a few weeks they'll stop answering their phones, their website will go defunct, and Castle will for all purposes seem to have disappeared. Coincidentally, in a few days after that the number of ebay auctions for blank floppies will go through the roof.
I think he was referring to playing basketball, not watching it.
Well I guess you're both overgeneralizing. A quick test shows emacs's undo will redo previous undos, but word will not.
The article has some fairly interesting material, but what really amused me was how the reviewer didn't really seem to understand most of what he was writing about. He seems to have alternated between copying stuff directly from some marketing glossy and what he could get from a comp arch textbook...ususally following up with something like "I'm sure this is good for something or someone somewhere, beats me though!". You can almost see him scratching his head. It all starts when he is confused by the 'Resevered' entry in a table of register settings.
There is a distinction between just 'inferior' and defective.
> Not on a modern MB... they'll query the SIMM and ask it what settings it likes.
And that could be wrong. When I asked Corsair tech support why the BIOS was detecting my CAS2 memory as CAS2.5, the reply was: "Nope, that's normal. The SPD is programmed to JEDEC defined standards which is only 2.5. You have to manually set it to run CAS2 in your BIOS."
When I first started getting interested in the kernel I subscribed to the mailing list and was immediately overwhelmed by the traffic. I soon found Kernel Traffic and unsubscribed from the mailing list and was happy.
The truth is, though, that while KT gives a good overview of some areas of the mailing list, it misses a lot. This is obvious, of course; cutting 100's of posts a day down to one moderate weekly summary is going to leave a lot of information. But to be honest, though I admire and appreciate Zach Brown's efforts, I wonder what criteria he uses for deciding what threads to cover. I sometimes feel he has left out some fairly important/interesting stuff while quoting huge gobs of somewhat trivial (imho) threads.
Anyone who is seriously interested in the kernel internals shouldn't really be relying on KT too much. Head over to kernelnewbies and start reading the real list. I recommend a good filternig system to help you separate out the chaff, though.
dan.
The linux-kernel mailing list is available via nntp at fa.linux.kernel. If you have a news reader that does scoring (e.g. gnus it makes the traffic all that much more manageable.
dan.
However you feel like wording it, there winds up being code linked with the kernel that is a total mystery to everyone but Nvidia, and that is what leads to the problem of my original post.
dan.
The problem isn't just with the ethics of people who want to use open source software. If you have a closed source module loaded into your kernel and it oopses on you, you only have one recourse: take the oops to Nvidia--even if the crash was in your scsi driver or the network layer. Kernel developers won't touch bug reports from people who have proprietary drivers loaded because there is no way to know what that driver is doing to other parts of the kernel (without disassembling it).
dan.
It depends on your specific needs. Are you documenting the source or documenting program usage? For the former, doxygen may be useful to you. Generates HTML and LaTeX, amongs other formats.
dan.
Maybe Roscoe should keep a better eye on him. :-)
Well sure, they used praseodymium. It isn't so impressive once you realize that. Anyone could do it if that had some praseodymium.
Tell your sister it's just a movie and not to be scared.
This should be a signal to everyone who does support the case against MS. If MS (or perhaps their supporters in this case) feel that at least the perception of what public opinion is is so important, the anti-MS people should take that as a hint to write your congressmen and other government officials to let them know how you feel!
I don't know why others don't, though. I wouldn't have trouble believing that it is harder for a 2 year college to get a
Not to say that I necessarily believe one way or the other, but don't you think that arguments like this don't take into the possibility that the human race is something less than it's theoretical 'divine creator'?
What I'm trying to say is that might it not be possible that if we were to create life ourselves, it could only be the product of all that the human race was up to that point. But this being that created us may forever be greater than what we could evolve to(spiritually or whatever). This implies that the human race has more potential than anything we could create at any given point.
Just a thought.
dan
If you send it to yourself via registered mail it is much more likely to convince a judge that you did indeed have the idea at the time it was sent. Registered mail provides far more assurance that the envelope hasn't been faked or resealed after receipt.
Disclaimer: all of my knowledge is about USB1.0, but I would think that they only improved on these numbers for the latest version. That said,
.There's lots of blather in the USB2 announcement about supporting video cameras etc. but IIRC USB doesn't support the isochronous
2. Even if USB2 runs at 480Mbps, the Firewire folks aren't exactly standing still. Any raw bandwidth advantage of USB2 is sure to be
short-lived at best.
Especially if USB2 repeats 1.0's feat of only 75% of bandwidth being used for actual data in an ideal situation. (don't know how 1.1 performed).
3
transfers which are usually considered necessary to serve those markets. Did I miss something?
This was in USB1. I can't imagine they got rid of it!
4. Another useful Firewire feature that USB doesn't seem to have is providing power through the same connector used for communications.
Again, I may have missed it.
Again, USB1 had this, but only for low power devices (2.5W?).
5.I don't remember how many devices USB supports, but I suspect it's less than Firewire.
USB1 technically supported 127 devices, but I think you would have been crazy to actually try to use more than 3 at once. Don't know about firewire.
6.I know that USB-based host-to-host networking exists, but it's not clear to me whether it's really as well suited to that task as Firewire. In
particular, I wonder how much asymmetry between hosts and devices (a la initiators and targets in SCSI) is built into the protocol, and how
round-trip latency compares to other technologies.
I always thought that USB was horribly suited to networking, but there seemed to be a lot of people who wanted to do it. So some companies built devices for it. As far as I know, the only solution was to have a hub that all of the network clients would plug into. I never used one or talked to anyone that did, but I would think that for 2 clients the performace was pretty mediocre and for more, abysmal.
Maybe someone can read the new spec an enlighten us. I hope for their sake that it is better written than the first! That was one of the most obfuscating technical specs i've ever read.
dan
anyone else notice that their dual alpha running redhat is not running an smp kernel?
gee, that shows off their server real well!
According to my math, 16 channels of 32 bits at 96kHz uses less than half the bandwidth of 100Mb. Doesn't it seem like you should be able to get at least 24 channels across the wire? If you are trying to run everything over this medium, channels could quickly become a scarce resource.
Slashdot
--------
Old News for Nerds. Stuff that mattered yesterday.
Wow...that's really too bad to hear such a pessimistic view from someone close to the industry. I always get excited about the thought of the average joe getting to fly through space some day...and even more excited to think that it would occur in my lifetime. I can't say that if find your testimony suprising, though, given all the crap i've heard about nasa.
I'll keep dreaming, though. Maybe I'll find it easier than you, having not been kicked so hard by nasa.
Perhaps someone at egghead had the insight to say "look, we're not making money as a convential retail business, let's why don't we enter a ring wheere you don't have to turn a profit to be successful, e-commerce!