I'm very puzzled why Via is the only CPU maker that sees the value in adding hardware acceleration for crypto into their CPUs.
Can you expand on what you think the added value is? In this form factor? Seriously. For a processor that is intended to power servers (ssl or vpn or the like) then sure, there is value. And Sun has added it to the Niagra line of processors. But for some little doodad that is itty bitty. What exactly are you planning on doing on this thing that it's basic math primitives won't be more than sufficient?
Could you share with the world what your expertise in child development is? I suspect you don't have any. In fact I would go so far as to suggest that you are no more than 20 years old and still live on your parents bank account.
If providing some kind of filtering on web results is your idea of "a babysitter", then I pray to god that you've already had a horrible accident that tore your testicles from your body. Because raising a kid, even babysitting, a child is about a million times more complex an issue that filtering search results.
On a more serious note, it's not Google's job (nor should it ever) to filter it's results. This idea is horrible - does this guy even understand how the Internet and search engines work???
If Google's shareholders think that is Google's job, then it will be.
Your argument (by implication) that the technology has shit to do with what should be done is completely and utterly stupid. And the premise of the article is a good one. Parents should have the tools to control what their young children do and at least monitor the nature of what their older children do. Really they should. Whether it's a matter of turning the question inside out (mark child safe sites as opposed to marking porn sites) or some other solution, this is something that search engines should be thinking about.
What? Did I make any of the claims you are arguing against? I don't believe I did. Control your spastic knee and make sure that post you are responding to actually makes the arguments you intend to rebut.
What media deigned to even report on it put the attendance at 10% of the true number.
How about, instead of crying that everybody is lying about the number of people who believe in your personal pet projects, you just get those millions and millions of people to vote. The way the system works is, that basically, what the majority is least annoyed by happens. If your personal causes aren't important to everybody else, it doesn't matter how much protesting you do as protests are just a way of saying "we lost so we want to change the rules." Which violates one of the core principles of the country. Does the majority come up with stuff that may be considered (by some) bad? You bet it does. But guess what, that's how it's supposed to work. It's not about creating a billion private utopias, it's about creating a country where the majority gets to live the lives the majority wants.
First of all, how exactly was Iraq "ill-behaved", again?
Um. How about their secret service kidnapping, raping and murdering civilians? How about Hussein's sons torturing their Olympic athletes? Until you're ready for me to shove a two-by-four up your ass, crush your hands and feet with a two pound sledge and scoop out your eyes with a melon baller, I don't want to hear you questioning whether Iraq was "ill-behaved." The Iraqi government was fucked up beyond any rational standard.
As to the question of the response being proper, probably not. An series of assassinations wold have made more sense to me. But that probably doesn't seem right to you either, because in your mind the citizens of Iraq were the personal property of Sadam, Udan, and co. to use as they saw fit.
Other than new systems preinstalled with Vista and Office 2007 (no choice available to the customer)...
A quick glance at Dell, it appears that there is certainly choice other than Vista for your new computer and none of the systems ships with Office 2007 as a default. If the largest PC seller on the planet doesn't follow your claims, I doubt that the little players are any different. You are a liar.
If it is under the GPL, don't we simply need to ask him for it? He is the rights holder of the software. The GPL doesn't apply to him, it applies to you. Even if you ever got a copy from him before he is under no obligation to provide you with anything ever again.
Anyone notice Google's stock price drop last Tues. equaled MS total value?
What? Google's market cap today is $177 billion. Microsoft's market cap is $308 billion. Unless Google dropped 2/3s of its market cap in one day, your comment is bull. Google went from $600 -> $570 on Tuesday, you're either stupid or attempting to deceive the reader. The fact that Google's per share drop was the same as Microsoft's per share price means nothing unless you are willing to consider what portion of the company a share represents. There are 32 times more Microsoft shares on the market than Google. In other words you'd have to own 32 shares of Microsoft to own the same percentage of the company as you own with 1 share of Google. A 32:1 reverse split would put Microsoft's shares at $900. Come back when Google catches up.
Most of the projects I see are run either through benevolent dictatorship or at best by a technocracy.
I'd be interested in seeing single "benevolent dictatorship" project. The obvious example you're going to use will be the Linux kernel, but Linus' doesn't make all the decisions by himself nor is he the single check-in gate keeper on "his" kernel. And a meritocracy of mediocre is still mediocre. And yes except for the projects with a single developer there is always a small amount of informal consensus building.
Offhand, I could list everything related to Usenet and NNTP, Apache, perl, gopher, python, PGP, BIND, Firefox, archie, AFS, NFS, X, LDAP, MIME, majordomo and mailman, ruby, RCS, CVS, subversion, BSD Unix, Linux, sendmail, postfix, courier, exim, P2P and associated tools, IRC, a bunch of ASF projects, etc., etc., etc.
Um. You're mixing protocols with software. And even a bunch of your protocols come from private industry and were released to the public after being developed by private organizations and consortiums. Additionally if you want to see the technologies that really made the internet take off, you'd be looking at things like network equipment and signaling techniques, all of which seem to lack any open source communities. Technologies like content encoding JPG, MPEG, MP3, etc. all developed by private industry.
If you want to impress anybody then don't give us a list of scripting languages and protocols.
Attaching open source to these statements clouds the issue.
No, attaching open sources makes a lot of sense because of the nature of the beast. It's all done in public, debated, developed by consensus. You get an effect almost identical to american idol. Your "stars" are the most generic, baseline product that sit smack in the center of the comfort zone of the majority of people involved. Many of whom are not particularly well educated or tremendously intelligent, they're average. So you end up with average product.
Is the author so ignorant that he really believe Linus was following in Stallman's footsteps, rather than challenging Andrew Tanenbaum's MINIX microkernel design?
You're inventing a lot of history here. Torvalds didn't set out to challenge anything. He just wrote software. Torvalds in fact has mainly reimplemented what other people did in the first place. Which is exactly what the article was about.
The fact that he threw a tantrum when someone said his design was out-dated doesn't indicate that he was trying to prove some theory. Just shows that he is childish. Which makes the fact that the Linux kernel has slowly adopted a lot of aspects of micro kernels as time has gone by pretty ironic.
Almost all modern operating systems are modeled after Unix... GNU/Linux, OS X, AIX, HP UX, MINIX, etc. Why reinvent the wheel?
Because reinventing the wheel is where things get interesting. Look at Intel, AMD and IBM. All are trying to crank up the clock rate on their CPUs then along comes Sun with the UltraSPARC T-1 & T-2 and they run at half the clock rate, burn half the amount of energy and are able to get more processing completed per unit time because they "reinvented the wheel."
I'd go so far as to say that not only are the majority of open source projects just copies of closed source products, but they are frequently very bad copies. Because the developers doing the work often don't understand the inspiration product very well. And they often are fairly inexperienced and thus frequently make poor decisions about the high level problems being solved.
One of the problems stem from the fact that any whois query can be sniffed (or SNORTed) if it passes over the wrong network hop anyway, so there isn't much you can do unless you're ready on the trigger to register the domain almost immediately.
One problem with this idea is that most DNS registrars are not backbone tier-1 and tier-2 network providers and even those that are will not see that vast majority of traffic.
Sorry, but it's fucking stupid to layer so much abstraction into something that it requires three or four times the computer that a more traditional approach would take. Add in that office applications are exceptionally well understood from the development perspective and it's just asinine to turn your 1 Ghz machine with a Gig of RAM into a glorified dumb terminal. If your dumb terminal has to be smarter and more capable than the high end systems of last year, then you're design is broken and not just a little bit.
This whole market segment is stupid and showing us how desperate some investors are to try and ride another bubble.
Codec is commonly used as a combination of COder-DECoder, not simply COmpressor-DECompressor.
I understand what a codec is and it has always meant coder - decoder. It is a way of transforming data it's not a way of storing data. Data stored in it's native format doesn't need a coding or decoding even though it may not be intuitively obvious what it is or how to interpret it. But it's not been coded via means of a codec pair.
You document the container format and you are done. Your actual data format will be the simplest possible format that will store the necessary information. People bringing up any kind of compressed format just don't understand the problem that is needing solving.
And as I briefly said in my original post, the equipment to read the files and export in a number of currently known formats would be included in the mothballing. As far as formats go... JPEG was developed in 1992 and approved as by an ISO committee in 1994. TIFF comes from even earlier. So even if you chose a compression method, it seems likely that you'd have no problem accessing it five years from now. At which time you upgrade to the then current data formats.
Storing assets other than raw frames and audio tracks, is a completely different story and I agree that it will become hard to manage beyond just packing up the entire workstation, OS and software included. But I suspect that people aren't really going to be wanting to archive that kind of asset in this sense. You don't want to be going back fifty years for a model of Godzilla for use in Godzilla Stomps Salt Lake City in the year 2052. Studios will instead be continually migrating their assets and keeping them in the active library available for immediate use.
Since Article VI, paragraph 2 of the constitution says: "all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution [of any State] or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." The main point here is that GATT was started by the US to promote "free" trade. Of course, some people (read multinational coporations) are more free than others. So, yes in order to get something, essentially a leveler playing field for American business we've (the presumably US multinationals) have given something--a portion of US sovereignty ceded by treaty to the WTO.
By George! You've figured it out. All Bush has to do is sign some treaty with Buttfuckistan saying he's President Forever and suddenly out go those term limits! Woot!
Except that is not how it really works. Read it again and talk to some legal scholars to get an actual understanding of what that clause is understood to mean. In the end the Constitution is the law of the land and always will be and treaty will not over turn that.
OH! How far out would be to imagine Antiguan authorities shutting you down because they are limited to $21 million per year. Which is definitely going to go to some local old boys network and not some nerds from out of the country. Try not to let your misplaced excitement cause stains.
Slashdot Mirror
So... you already took your ball and went home, now you're going to continue to stay home?
Can you expand on what you think the added value is? In this form factor? Seriously. For a processor that is intended to power servers (ssl or vpn or the like) then sure, there is value. And Sun has added it to the Niagra line of processors. But for some little doodad that is itty bitty. What exactly are you planning on doing on this thing that it's basic math primitives won't be more than sufficient?
Yes I fail to see you posting a single bit of supporting evidence that you actually have any child development expertise. Please provide. Thank you.
Could you share with the world what your expertise in child development is? I suspect you don't have any. In fact I would go so far as to suggest that you are no more than 20 years old and still live on your parents bank account.
If providing some kind of filtering on web results is your idea of "a babysitter", then I pray to god that you've already had a horrible accident that tore your testicles from your body. Because raising a kid, even babysitting, a child is about a million times more complex an issue that filtering search results.
If Google's shareholders think that is Google's job, then it will be.
Your argument (by implication) that the technology has shit to do with what should be done is completely and utterly stupid. And the premise of the article is a good one. Parents should have the tools to control what their young children do and at least monitor the nature of what their older children do. Really they should. Whether it's a matter of turning the question inside out (mark child safe sites as opposed to marking porn sites) or some other solution, this is something that search engines should be thinking about.
What? Did I make any of the claims you are arguing against? I don't believe I did. Control your spastic knee and make sure that post you are responding to actually makes the arguments you intend to rebut.
The majority did not want slaves.
How about, instead of crying that everybody is lying about the number of people who believe in your personal pet projects, you just get those millions and millions of people to vote. The way the system works is, that basically, what the majority is least annoyed by happens. If your personal causes aren't important to everybody else, it doesn't matter how much protesting you do as protests are just a way of saying "we lost so we want to change the rules." Which violates one of the core principles of the country. Does the majority come up with stuff that may be considered (by some) bad? You bet it does. But guess what, that's how it's supposed to work. It's not about creating a billion private utopias, it's about creating a country where the majority gets to live the lives the majority wants.
Um. How about their secret service kidnapping, raping and murdering civilians? How about Hussein's sons torturing their Olympic athletes? Until you're ready for me to shove a two-by-four up your ass, crush your hands and feet with a two pound sledge and scoop out your eyes with a melon baller, I don't want to hear you questioning whether Iraq was "ill-behaved." The Iraqi government was fucked up beyond any rational standard.
As to the question of the response being proper, probably not. An series of assassinations wold have made more sense to me. But that probably doesn't seem right to you either, because in your mind the citizens of Iraq were the personal property of Sadam, Udan, and co. to use as they saw fit.
A quick glance at Dell, it appears that there is certainly choice other than Vista for your new computer and none of the systems ships with Office 2007 as a default. If the largest PC seller on the planet doesn't follow your claims, I doubt that the little players are any different. You are a liar.
What? Google's market cap today is $177 billion. Microsoft's market cap is $308 billion. Unless Google dropped 2/3s of its market cap in one day, your comment is bull. Google went from $600 -> $570 on Tuesday, you're either stupid or attempting to deceive the reader. The fact that Google's per share drop was the same as Microsoft's per share price means nothing unless you are willing to consider what portion of the company a share represents. There are 32 times more Microsoft shares on the market than Google. In other words you'd have to own 32 shares of Microsoft to own the same percentage of the company as you own with 1 share of Google. A 32:1 reverse split would put Microsoft's shares at $900. Come back when Google catches up.
Given that the RIAA has not sued anyone who has just ripped their CDs and uploaded to their iPods, I would suggest that your comment is erroneous.
What does that say about the GPL and various developers who have threatened to sue companies that might be violating the license?
Why don't you do this on your recent linux box:
[user@machine]$ ps -ef | grep \\[ | wc -l
58 (nfs, ksoftirqd, migration, events, cqueue, khubd, kseriod, kswapd, aio, ata_aux, scsi_eh_0..6, kjournald, etc.)
Then come back and tell me how different kernel tasks aren't being spun off into their own processes.
I'd be interested in seeing single "benevolent dictatorship" project. The obvious example you're going to use will be the Linux kernel, but Linus' doesn't make all the decisions by himself nor is he the single check-in gate keeper on "his" kernel. And a meritocracy of mediocre is still mediocre. And yes except for the projects with a single developer there is always a small amount of informal consensus building.
Um. You're mixing protocols with software. And even a bunch of your protocols come from private industry and were released to the public after being developed by private organizations and consortiums. Additionally if you want to see the technologies that really made the internet take off, you'd be looking at things like network equipment and signaling techniques, all of which seem to lack any open source communities. Technologies like content encoding JPG, MPEG, MP3, etc. all developed by private industry.
If you want to impress anybody then don't give us a list of scripting languages and protocols.
No, attaching open sources makes a lot of sense because of the nature of the beast. It's all done in public, debated, developed by consensus. You get an effect almost identical to american idol. Your "stars" are the most generic, baseline product that sit smack in the center of the comfort zone of the majority of people involved. Many of whom are not particularly well educated or tremendously intelligent, they're average. So you end up with average product.
You're inventing a lot of history here. Torvalds didn't set out to challenge anything. He just wrote software. Torvalds in fact has mainly reimplemented what other people did in the first place. Which is exactly what the article was about.
The fact that he threw a tantrum when someone said his design was out-dated doesn't indicate that he was trying to prove some theory. Just shows that he is childish. Which makes the fact that the Linux kernel has slowly adopted a lot of aspects of micro kernels as time has gone by pretty ironic.
Because reinventing the wheel is where things get interesting. Look at Intel, AMD and IBM. All are trying to crank up the clock rate on their CPUs then along comes Sun with the UltraSPARC T-1 & T-2 and they run at half the clock rate, burn half the amount of energy and are able to get more processing completed per unit time because they "reinvented the wheel."
I'd go so far as to say that not only are the majority of open source projects just copies of closed source products, but they are frequently very bad copies. Because the developers doing the work often don't understand the inspiration product very well. And they often are fairly inexperienced and thus frequently make poor decisions about the high level problems being solved.
One problem with this idea is that most DNS registrars are not backbone tier-1 and tier-2 network providers and even those that are will not see that vast majority of traffic.
Sorry, but it's fucking stupid to layer so much abstraction into something that it requires three or four times the computer that a more traditional approach would take. Add in that office applications are exceptionally well understood from the development perspective and it's just asinine to turn your 1 Ghz machine with a Gig of RAM into a glorified dumb terminal. If your dumb terminal has to be smarter and more capable than the high end systems of last year, then you're design is broken and not just a little bit.
This whole market segment is stupid and showing us how desperate some investors are to try and ride another bubble.
I understand what a codec is and it has always meant coder - decoder. It is a way of transforming data it's not a way of storing data. Data stored in it's native format doesn't need a coding or decoding even though it may not be intuitively obvious what it is or how to interpret it. But it's not been coded via means of a codec pair.
You document the container format and you are done. Your actual data format will be the simplest possible format that will store the necessary information. People bringing up any kind of compressed format just don't understand the problem that is needing solving.
And as I briefly said in my original post, the equipment to read the files and export in a number of currently known formats would be included in the mothballing. As far as formats go... JPEG was developed in 1992 and approved as by an ISO committee in 1994. TIFF comes from even earlier. So even if you chose a compression method, it seems likely that you'd have no problem accessing it five years from now. At which time you upgrade to the then current data formats.
Storing assets other than raw frames and audio tracks, is a completely different story and I agree that it will become hard to manage beyond just packing up the entire workstation, OS and software included. But I suspect that people aren't really going to be wanting to archive that kind of asset in this sense. You don't want to be going back fifty years for a model of Godzilla for use in Godzilla Stomps Salt Lake City in the year 2052. Studios will instead be continually migrating their assets and keeping them in the active library available for immediate use.
By George! You've figured it out. All Bush has to do is sign some treaty with Buttfuckistan saying he's President Forever and suddenly out go those term limits! Woot!
Except that is not how it really works. Read it again and talk to some legal scholars to get an actual understanding of what that clause is understood to mean. In the end the Constitution is the law of the land and always will be and treaty will not over turn that.
OH! How far out would be to imagine Antiguan authorities shutting you down because they are limited to $21 million per year. Which is definitely going to go to some local old boys network and not some nerds from out of the country. Try not to let your misplaced excitement cause stains.