As a Mozilla Developer, any open, widely accepted new standard and I can guarantee that a unch of new standards would be adopted by Mozilla if it would fully replace the existing ones within a reasonable amount of time. Carrying along two sets of network code wouldn't be pleasant. In order for this to fly, it has to be something that has industry-wide support. That means everyone needs to get their two-cents in before it happens. Any dissenters could wreak havok. The last thing we want is competing standards or people who only half-heartedly adopt. Developers aren't going to even give it a thought until there is full support.
I believe there is only so far you can drag along an outdated system. Rebuilding the internet from scratch is a great idea because it allows us to use our experience to start over. That way, we can simplify any improvements because we don't have to carry along the old outdated protocols, etc for compatibility purposes.
The main thing is that this can't be something spearheaded by Microsoft but needs to be an open standard everyone has input into. I felt like puking when I heard Microsoft wants to license this. It will shut out Linux.
Actually, I'm quite suspicious that he stole that joke from me. If you go to the Mozillazine article, you see I made the joke about the Pinto over an hour before the/. article was run. True, he changed it a bit -- but I at least should get some of the karma points.;-)
No one has yet proven he in fact was crucified. Although I do believe Jesus lived, I have seen nothing more than pure folklore as proof he was crucified. Even the shroud of Turin was carbon-dated to the mid-11th century, right?
The Mazda RX-8 is based on a new rotary design, and appears to be a rather powerful and reliable engine with lots of praise. Hopefully it won't crap out after 20,000 miles (only time will tell, though).
Composer is available in Mozilla, too. Making it stand-alone is going to happen. According to the New Roadmap, the GRE/toolkit will be the basis for all the stand-alone applications such as the browser, mail client, composer, and any other application created using the GRE/toolkit (which could be anything -- as long as it adheres to the MPL). This has been in the works for a long time. I remember hearing about breaking apart the applications way back in early 2002. The GRE was created not soon after, and now we have it being employed to finally create the stand-alone applications that were once fully integrated into the Mozilla process.
Nowadays, it seems you can't come up with any name that isn't already taken. I imagine that's why many car makers are now just giving their cars model numbers as opposed to real names.
Phynd is a way to search network shares. I'm an RPI student and Phynd has been around since when I started going there in 1999. It can search for many kinds of files including zip files, mpgs, documents, text files, and anything else you can imagine within network shares. The fact it also can search for mp3 and has that as a preset option doesn't mean it is designed to allow for the distribution of copyrighted material. MP3s are not inherently copyrighted. I usually convert my own recordings of various things to MP3 to save space on my hard drive. Therefore, the RIAA has no argument and will be made to look like fools by trying to get into a technical battle with the students from one of the best engineering schools in the country.
Just throw in a computer in your campus somewhere (some closet in a wired building basement or something) and enable tunneling through the http port using httptunnel or whatever. Then you can use that computer as your way into the school network, and hopefully no one finds it;-)
Phynd can be used to find anything on the network, and is often used for searching for things like "Lisa Mark's term paper" or even "My discussion about the project.mpe". The students who made Phynd are not responsible for the fact its used to share MP3s.
>On the other hand, interleaved RDRAM has the same >peak theoretical bandwidth of interleaved DDR >SDRAM one quarter its clock rate because RDRAM >chips have one quarter the bus width of SDRAM >chips. 800 MHz RDRAM would be the same speed as >200MHz SDRAM assuming both (or neither) are >interleaved. Many if not most modern SDRAM >controllers support memory interleaving, >including my old abit board which isn't even new >enough to run an athlon XP. Theoretical performance doesn't hold up in practical applications. That is why there is SPEC. Besides, RDRAM is designed so that you can easily make it a multi-channel architecture: Quote: "By moving the core logic to the CPU and thus incorporating the Rambus Memory Controller as a part of the CPU itself, much of the current latency problems plaguing the technology will disappear. Both Sun's upcoming MAJC and the Playstation 2 are examples of embedded solutions with ondie RMCs. Another example is Compaq's upcoming EV7 (Alpha 21364), which also uses 8 channels to support massive bandwidth requirements and to keep latencies down (instead of accessing large volumes of DRDRAM in serial from a single channel, which would increase latencies)."
DDR SDRAM is more complicated to design in a multi-channel layout because of timing and motherboard design complexity issues. Besides, DDR SDRAM can't sustain its peak bandwidth even close to as well as RDRAM. Bursting isn't sustained bandwidth.(Remember, to transfer a byte, you have to transfer a QWORD. To transfer the next byte, you have to wait an entire clock cycle). Therefore, it only really allows 1/4 the peak bandwidth in this case.
A very old article from Ace's Hardware says: "The Rambus channel sends out the data twice as fast as the SDRAM, but the SDRAM can send out the first 8 byte without waiting, while Rambus has to transfer 16 bytes. As Rambus can send 2 bytes every cycle, it takes 4 cycles of 2.5 ns to transfer 16 bytes or 10 ns."
Of course, this is regarding 800Mhz RDRAM, and 1066Mhz RDRAM is currently out.
Also, not many applications only send 16 bytes at a time. For random access bursting applications, like servers, this is common. On the other hand, for 3d games, you want a sustained bandwidth to send all that data to the graphics card.
The aforementioned site speaks of examples where DDR SDRAM would be better because of its lower latency. In those cases, though, RDRAM will still be adequate.
Also, I'm curious to see any mentions of RDRAM versus DDR performance on newer chipsets.
> The benchmark you cite shows better performance > for DDR SDRAM on intel's solutions than on the > athlon system, which leads me to believe that > it is possibly cpu-dependent.
Since memory bandwidth depends on FSB, Intel systems should have an advantage.
>The belief that RDRAM is a superior technology to >SDRAM is at best a matter of opinion and at worst >an absurd myth.
Didn't see you try to refute the fact that unused cores shut down (great for power management).
> RDRAM makes great sense when you're not using >very much of it (down in the ~16 MB range...
Comparison: 1GB system.(Picking anything more would severely skew things in RDRAM's favor).
PC3700 DDR vs PC1066 RDRAM source of prices: pricewatch.com
Generally RDRAM comes with two channels, while DDR generally comes with one.
Yes, the motherboards for RDRAM based sets are more expensive, but the memory appears to be bearly more expensive in this case for twice the theoretical bandwidth. The RDRAM 512MB is more expensive than DDR 512MB, but since you usually find RDRAM in higher-channel configurations, this isn't an issue. Comparing prices is difficult since you have to pair RDRAM up.
Why is RDRAM a bad thing for computer users? I think promoting better technology is a good thing for users. If people promoted the better technology instead of the cheaper one, companies couldn't dump their obsolete products on the market in order to decrease sales of the better technology. If people bought a product based on its quality, we would have things like organic LED displays instead of truly obsolete LCD screens and CRT monitors.
I don't know where to stand on the issue of who had prior art, but I have talked to people on both sides and they seem to both have valid arguments. I don't believe any of the companies involved are boyscouts. What I am interseted in is which is the better technology. Obviously, if you look at the specs of Rambus, you will see that although DDR 266 is just a lower stepping of PC133 Ram and the bus is double-pumped. Rambus, on the other hand, has a lot more going for it. Its bus has less traces and allows you to more easily have more than one channel. It is also capable of shutting off portions of itself not in use.
If you look at a Tom's Hardware article It mentions that there is a limitation with using parallel designs due to uncontrolled impedence.
Not to mention that memory benchmarks available on many sites show that DDR can't continiously maintian its bandwidth like Rambus can. Instead, its bandwidth is spurty.
Also, Rambus has many new things on the backburner.
Rambus memory has also become much cheaper. I believe in leaving the decision of whether or not Rambus infringed on patents to the courts and going for what is the best technology so you can give it a boost. What holds back RDRAM in terms of price is that there isn't enough being sold.
Yes, except for three issues: A) You couldn't stop people from making those digital copies if they were listening to it. (Even if they have to feed their "line out" back into the "line in" on their sound card") B) There is no proof that you aren't listening to it at the same time you are sending it out to the media library. C) The government would find that illegal too.
I agree, but then we need to get the word out better. If all the slashdot community boycotted movies, etc (even though its a large community) it still wouldn't put a dent in their wallets. Since we are all technically savvy people, we can create as much noise using our tech skills to get the word out.
Well... My belief in the matter is these companies and organizations have tons of paid lobbyists working for them, while the rest of the US has no paid lobbyists working for them. And we wonder why corporations run our country? I don't think Clinton, etc aloways realize the ramifications of these laws when they sign them because they are sort of tricked by these skilled lobbyists who twist everything for their own good.
If you have never seen this: http://www.boycott-riaa.com/
Is there a site for boycotting the MPAA? The old one seems to be gone.
I wish we could also boycott movie ratings. What right do they have telling us what movies we can and can't see? Movie ratings are supposedly voluntary, but the theaters are given an ultimatum (uphold them or don't get the movie). Doesn't sound voluntary to me.
***
Look at this written by the guy in charge of MPAA:
http://www.mpaa.org/movieratings/about/index.htm
By summer of 1966, the national scene was marked by insurrection on the campus, riots in the streets, rise in women's liberation, protest of the young, doubts about the institution of marriage, abandonment of old guiding slogans, and the crumbling of social traditions. It would have been foolish to believe that movies, that most creative of art forms, could have remained unaffected by the change and torment in our society.
A New Kind of American Movie
The result of all this was the emergence of a "new kind" of American movie - frank and open, and made by filmmakers subject to very few self-imposed restraints.
Almost within weeks in my new duties, I was confronted with controversy, neither amiable nor fixable. The first issue was the film "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf," in which, for the first time on the screen, the word "screw" and the phrase "hump the hostess" were heard. In company with the MPAA's general counsel, Louis Nizer, I met with Jack Warner, the legendary chieftain of Warner Bros., and his top aide, Ben Kalmenson. We talked for three hours, and the result was deletion of "screw" and retention of "hump the hostess," but I was uneasy over the meeting.
***
screw! hump the hostess! Oh no, we are all going to die if we hear that, huh? What kind of super-conservative nutcase is he?
And nudity? A PG-13 can have quite a lot of violence (even kids shows have violence), yet it can't have full-frontal nudity? What kind of puritans come up with this stuff?
Slashdot Mirror
As a Mozilla Developer, any open, widely accepted new standard and I can guarantee that a unch of new standards would be adopted by Mozilla if it would fully replace the existing ones within a reasonable amount of time. Carrying along two sets of network code wouldn't be pleasant. In order for this to fly, it has to be something that has industry-wide support. That means everyone needs to get their two-cents in before it happens. Any dissenters could wreak havok. The last thing we want is competing standards or people who only half-heartedly adopt. Developers aren't going to even give it a thought until there is full support.
I believe there is only so far you can drag along an outdated system. Rebuilding the internet from scratch is a great idea because it allows us to use our experience to start over. That way, we can simplify any improvements because we don't have to carry along the old outdated protocols, etc for compatibility purposes.
Its also an extreme waste of natural resources the way they currently do it.
The main thing is that this can't be something spearheaded by Microsoft but needs to be an open standard everyone has input into. I felt like puking when I heard Microsoft wants to license this. It will shut out Linux.
Actually, I'm quite suspicious that he stole that joke from me. If you go to the Mozillazine article, you see I made the joke about the Pinto over an hour before the /. article was run. True, he changed it a bit -- but I at least should get some of the karma points. ;-)
No one has yet proven he in fact was crucified. Although I do believe Jesus lived, I have seen nothing more than pure folklore as proof he was crucified. Even the shroud of Turin was carbon-dated to the mid-11th century, right?
The Mazda RX-8 is based on a new rotary design, and appears to be a rather powerful and reliable engine with lots of praise. Hopefully it won't crap out after 20,000 miles (only time will tell, though).
Composer is available in Mozilla, too. Making it stand-alone is going to happen. According to the New Roadmap, the GRE/toolkit will be the basis for all the stand-alone applications such as the browser, mail client, composer, and any other application created using the GRE/toolkit (which could be anything -- as long as it adheres to the MPL). This has been in the works for a long time. I remember hearing about breaking apart the applications way back in early 2002. The GRE was created not soon after, and now we have it being employed to finally create the stand-alone applications that were once fully integrated into the Mozilla process.
Now we need someone to design some really cool graphics.g i?id=202059
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.c
Nowadays, it seems you can't come up with any name that isn't already taken. I imagine that's why many car makers are now just giving their cars model numbers as opposed to real names.
Volvos are more classy than Thunderbirds and Firebirds.
Phynd is a way to search network shares. I'm an RPI student and Phynd has been around since when I started going there in 1999. It can search for many kinds of files including zip files, mpgs, documents, text files, and anything else you can imagine within network shares. The fact it also can search for mp3 and has that as a preset option doesn't mean it is designed to allow for the distribution of copyrighted material. MP3s are not inherently copyrighted. I usually convert my own recordings of various things to MP3 to save space on my hard drive. Therefore, the RIAA has no argument and will be made to look like fools by trying to get into a technical battle with the students from one of the best engineering schools in the country.
Just throw in a computer in your campus somewhere (some closet in a wired building basement or something) and enable tunneling through the http port using httptunnel or whatever. Then you can use that computer as your way into the school network, and hopefully no one finds it ;-)
Phynd can be used to find anything on the network, and is often used for searching for things like "Lisa Mark's term paper" or even "My discussion about the project.mpe". The students who made Phynd are not responsible for the fact its used to share MP3s.
I was thinking about this article, and I was wondering if fuel cells would be a good replacment to current battery technology in laptops.
There are a few, overshadowed by the many. This includes Texas representative Ron Paul who appears to possibly be running as a liberterian in 2004.
>On the other hand, interleaved RDRAM has the same >peak theoretical bandwidth of interleaved DDR >SDRAM one quarter its clock rate because RDRAM >chips have one quarter the bus width of SDRAM >chips. 800 MHz RDRAM would be the same speed as >200MHz SDRAM assuming both (or neither) are >interleaved. Many if not most modern SDRAM >controllers support memory interleaving, >including my old abit board which isn't even new >enough to run an athlon XP.
Theoretical performance doesn't hold up in practical applications. That is why there is SPEC. Besides, RDRAM is designed so that you can easily make it a multi-channel architecture:
Quote: "By moving the core logic to the CPU and thus incorporating the Rambus Memory Controller as a part of the CPU itself, much of the current latency problems plaguing the technology will disappear. Both Sun's upcoming MAJC and the Playstation 2 are examples of embedded solutions with ondie RMCs. Another example is Compaq's upcoming EV7 (Alpha 21364), which also uses 8 channels to support massive bandwidth requirements and to keep latencies down (instead of accessing large volumes of DRDRAM in serial from a single channel, which would increase latencies)."
DDR SDRAM is more complicated to design in a multi-channel layout because of timing and motherboard design complexity issues. Besides, DDR SDRAM can't sustain its peak bandwidth even close to as well as RDRAM. Bursting isn't sustained bandwidth.(Remember, to transfer a byte, you have to transfer a QWORD. To transfer the next byte, you have to wait an entire clock cycle). Therefore, it only really allows 1/4 the peak bandwidth in this case.
A very old article from Ace's Hardware says: "The Rambus channel sends out the data twice as fast as the SDRAM, but the SDRAM can send out the first 8 byte without waiting, while Rambus has to transfer 16 bytes. As Rambus can send 2 bytes every cycle, it takes 4 cycles of 2.5 ns to transfer 16 bytes or 10 ns."
Of course, this is regarding 800Mhz RDRAM, and 1066Mhz RDRAM is currently out.
Also, not many applications only send 16 bytes at a time. For random access bursting applications, like servers, this is common. On the other hand, for 3d games, you want a sustained bandwidth to send all that data to the graphics card.
The aforementioned site speaks of examples where DDR SDRAM would be better because of its lower latency. In those cases, though, RDRAM will still be adequate.
Also, I'm curious to see any mentions of RDRAM versus DDR performance on newer chipsets.
> The benchmark you cite shows better performance > for DDR SDRAM on intel's solutions than on the
> athlon system, which leads me to believe that
> it is possibly cpu-dependent.
Since memory bandwidth depends on FSB, Intel systems should have an advantage.
>The belief that RDRAM is a superior technology to >SDRAM is at best a matter of opinion and at worst >an absurd myth.
Didn't see you try to refute the fact that unused cores shut down (great for power management).
> RDRAM makes great sense when you're not using >very much of it (down in the ~16 MB range...
Comparison: 1GB system.(Picking anything more would severely skew things in RDRAM's favor).
PC3700 DDR vs PC1066 RDRAM
source of prices: pricewatch.com
Generally RDRAM comes with two channels, while DDR generally comes with one.
PC1066 RDRAM theoretical peak bandwidth (2 channels)= 1066*2*2 = 4.3 GB/s
DDR3700 DDR theoretical peak bandwidth (1 channel)= 466 * 8 = 2.98 GB/s
Price:
DDR (512MB modules * 2) = $145 * 2 = $290
RIMM (256MB modules * 4) = $80 * 4 = $320
Yes, the motherboards for RDRAM based sets are more expensive, but the memory appears to be bearly more expensive in this case for twice the theoretical bandwidth. The RDRAM 512MB is more expensive than DDR 512MB, but since you usually find RDRAM in higher-channel configurations, this isn't an issue. Comparing prices is difficult since you have to pair RDRAM up.
Why is RDRAM a bad thing for computer users? I think promoting better technology is a good thing for users. If people promoted the better technology instead of the cheaper one, companies couldn't dump their obsolete products on the market in order to decrease sales of the better technology. If people bought a product based on its quality, we would have things like organic LED displays instead of truly obsolete LCD screens and CRT monitors.
I don't know where to stand on the issue of who had prior art, but I have talked to people on both sides and they seem to both have valid arguments. I don't believe any of the companies involved are boyscouts. What I am interseted in is which is the better technology. Obviously, if you look at the specs of Rambus, you will see that although DDR 266 is just a lower stepping of PC133 Ram and the bus is double-pumped. Rambus, on the other hand, has a lot more going for it. Its bus has less traces and allows you to more easily have more than one channel. It is also capable of shutting off portions of itself not in use.
If you look at a Tom's Hardware article It mentions that there is a limitation with using parallel designs due to uncontrolled impedence.
Not to mention that memory benchmarks available on many sites show that DDR can't continiously maintian its bandwidth like Rambus can. Instead, its bandwidth is spurty.
Also, Rambus has many new things on the backburner.
Rambus memory has also become much cheaper. I believe in leaving the decision of whether or not
Rambus infringed on patents to the courts and going for what is the best technology so you can give it a boost. What holds back RDRAM in terms of price is that there isn't enough being sold.
Sorry, I meant a CGI with a copyright that dates prior to 1996.
Just get any CGI with a patent that dates prior to 1996.
This patent is ridiculous bully-boy tactics.
Yes, except for three issues:
A) You couldn't stop people from making those digital copies if they were listening to it. (Even if they have to feed their "line out" back into the "line in" on their sound card")
B) There is no proof that you aren't listening to it at the same time you are sending it out to the media library.
C) The government would find that illegal too.
I agree. Removing money from the US economy by moving out of the country with all of it is the way to pay the bastard government back.
I agree, but then we need to get the word out better. If all the slashdot community boycotted movies, etc (even though its a large community) it still wouldn't put a dent in their wallets. Since we are all technically savvy people, we can create as much noise using our tech skills to get the word out.
Well... My belief in the matter is these companies and organizations have tons of paid lobbyists working for them, while the rest of the US has no paid lobbyists working for them. And we wonder why corporations run our country? I don't think Clinton, etc aloways realize the ramifications of these laws when they sign them because they are sort of tricked by these skilled lobbyists who twist everything for their own good.
If you have never seen this:
m
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/
Is there a site for boycotting the MPAA? The old one seems to be gone.
I wish we could also boycott movie ratings. What right do they have telling us what movies we can and can't see? Movie ratings are supposedly voluntary, but the theaters are given an ultimatum (uphold them or don't get the movie). Doesn't sound voluntary to me.
***
Look at this written by the guy in charge of MPAA:
http://www.mpaa.org/movieratings/about/index.ht
By summer of 1966, the national scene was marked by insurrection on the campus, riots in the streets, rise in women's liberation, protest of the young, doubts about the institution of marriage, abandonment of old guiding slogans, and the crumbling of social traditions. It would have been foolish to believe that movies, that most creative of art forms, could have remained unaffected by the change and torment in our society.
A New Kind of American Movie
The result of all this was the emergence of a "new kind" of American movie - frank and open, and made by filmmakers subject to very few self-imposed restraints.
Almost within weeks in my new duties, I was confronted with controversy, neither amiable nor fixable. The first issue was the film "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf," in which, for the first time on the screen, the word "screw" and the phrase "hump the hostess" were heard. In company with the MPAA's general counsel, Louis Nizer, I met with Jack Warner, the legendary chieftain of Warner Bros., and his top aide, Ben Kalmenson. We talked for three hours, and the result was deletion of "screw" and retention of "hump the hostess," but I was uneasy over the meeting.
***
screw! hump the hostess! Oh no, we are all going to die if we hear that, huh? What kind of super-conservative nutcase is he?
And nudity? A PG-13 can have quite a lot of violence (even kids shows have violence), yet it can't have full-frontal nudity? What kind of puritans come up with this stuff?