Ah, gottcha. The idea of scrolling taking CPU doesn't enter the mind much, I usually do kernel compiles out of X (no real need to have multiple terminals to look at), so scrolling is pretty darn free. I need to be less illiterate, I suppose.;)
So, the real solution we're lookin' for here is "make -s -j x", for some appropriate x (-s to make scrolling really not matter, and -j x to enable multiple concurrent jobs).
-s Silent operation; do not print the commands as they are executed.
-j jobs
Specifies the number of jobs (commands) to run simultaneously. If there is more than one -j option, the last one is effective. If the
-j option is given without an argument, make will not limit the number of jobs that can run simultaneously.
I'm not sure what making make silent gets you as far as using SMP for compilation (considering terminal output is pretty free these days), perhaps you meant "make -j"?
Let me get this straight. ATI takes the time to create optimizations in their drivers that make Quake III run faster, and people are unhappy about it?
You're damn right I am. As someone who uses graphics hardware for scientific visualization, any time hardware manufactures spend on making games faster is a complete waste. With the latest cards and drivers from ATI, we've seen this problem en masse. Games run great, but code that we write (that's general OpenGL and works great on GeForce cards) runs slower than hell on the 8500.
So, if all ATI wants to do is sell cards to gamers (and that's certainly a good market), they can go right on ahead and do that. Nvidia takes more time with their drivers and makes them much more optimized for the general case...so they've got my buisness for now.
Just my thoughts. I'm going to skip the part where I tell everyone else that they're being knee-jerk.
Do you have any idea where the name Apache came from? Think about it... Apache Server. A...Pache...Server. A Patchy Server. There you go. So, since Apache is a bunch of patches, shouldn't it be writen from scratch again too, with a different name?
It's a good thing you said "might have" when refering to open source QA. The QA of open source seems to be pretty good, so long as you're a nerd doing nerdy things with it. Trying to get lusers to test open source stuff just doesn't happen much. Any software company can just pay some people for a couple hours for them to try to use their app so they can learn what needs to be QAed. We don't have that kind of luxury. So, yea, I guess my point's just that open source QA is different than closed...both have their strengths. I don't have any concrete evidence of Apache QA vs. IIS QA, so I'm not going to congecture about how effective they are in comparison.
but if you have broken a law, be it the DMCA or any other law, and you are in a public place, then you are running the risk of being identified. Computer imaging doesn't change this, it's been happening for hundereds of years. That's why we have wanted posters in the post office. To encourage citizens to make identifications of known criminals in their area.
Your statements are correct, but you're missing an important issue, magnitude. If I do break the DMCA (an example I'm going to use because it's possible right now), and the FBI notices, it's still not likely that the cops patroling my neighborhood will recognize me for that and bring me in. So, the risk of me going to the grocery store is very minimal. With this system, I could be just another face to match in the system, increasing the risk of going to the grocery store substancially. Let me go along with your example of wanted posters. There's usually a couple wanted posters up on the post office, and people may or may not pick up on that face if they see it. What this kind of survalence system has the potential of doing is acting like a most wanted board with thousands of pictures with its own people out looking around with high probability of recognizing them. Now, if we're talking about a system that only recognizes people who are on those most wanted pictures, then I'm keen...the scope is limited. Personally, I don't really trust those in power to limit themselves.
You don't have kids, do you?
Please don't detract from my point. Answer me this question:
Which would you prefer, a security system that:
a) Protects your children.
b) Protects your children and yourself.
If you answered b, then you agree with me that you were not appealing to logic, but to emotion. If you answered a, I'd worry about going suicidal...
If you've done nothing wrong, you should have nothing to hide, and applaud this system for making the streets safer for our children.
Okay. I was with ya all the way, until you came to this sentence. My problem with part one: depends on the definition of "wrong". Say you've broken the DMCA (something I wouldn't mind doing myself, if I had the time to pull it off). Would it be appropriate for a camera outside of your grocery store to alert the authorites to your location? In essence, what I'm getting at is that this system has the potential for sending even the most minor crimal into complete seclusion.
My problem with part 2: this is just trying to pull at some emotional string. What is it in particular about this kind of system that makes the streets safer for children? Doesn't it claim to make the streets safer for everyone? Doesn't that logically seem like a better type of system? Yet for some reason you've limited it down to a subset of the population with the hope of achieving a bigger impact. Bah. Casts a great big shadow of sillyness on your whole argument (at least in my mind).
Yikes. That sure is a $25,000 auction. Massivly over-priced if you ask me... What are the uses for such a machine? 'Bout all I can think of is silly destructive weekend adventures (can be done for cheaper), and competing in BattleBots. However, with this handy clause from the Auction Page:
This offer does not include rights to the name, ranking or image of the bot, therefore it cannot be entered into any future BattleBots competitions.
That kinda takes the competition thing away. But that begs the question, why are the auctioning it, and not competing it next season? I'm taking a guess here, but here's a quote from their FAQ:
5) Why build a walking bot?
The rules for Treasure Island allowed walking bots to be 50% heavier than the wheeled bots in each weight class. If you can design and build a walking bot that is maneuverable and somewhat fast, without adding much weight for the walking assemblies, you end up with extra weight for motors, batteries, and weapons.
...
7) Now that BattleBots changed the walking rules for the next competition what's next?
We were in favor of changing the rules so that there is no weight advantage for a walking bot. The cost of building a competitive walking bot is very high. We have a new design that uses wheels which will be much more destructive.
So, there you are...recouping costs on a robot they can't compete with next time anyway. I'm a bit disillusioned with Whyachi now...it's walker really didn't work all that well, but it gave 'em an extra 50% of weight. I wonder what the bonus is for a bot that doesn't move at all...(a valid strategy for a spinner like Whyachi)
This AMD move is simply about misleading consumers.
Ah, yes, but you have to ask yourself one question: Is misleading misled people nessisarily wrong? People have been mislead into believing the clock speed is a true metric of the speed of the computer. It would take a lot of effort to lead them to a better understanding through teaching them basic architecture. Perhaps a more direct route is to remove that metric from view, so people have to find better ways of comparing speed, like benchmarks (though not perfect, they're certainly better than clock speed.)
I knew something felt dirty as I was writing that. Anyway, I was using this to get to the idea that implementations are tools and tools aren't information. I should really just say that and not try to be wordy about it.
If you disagree with me, disagree with me that computer programs are technically useful information.
Hi, I'd like to disagree with you. I'm going to make an analogy into meat-space, if that scares anyone...well...sorry. So, here we go.
You bought a hammer. Hammers are Technically Useful. You can hit things with hammers. You have the right to let your friend borrow your hammer. Both of you really can't use it at the same time. Them the brakes. If you do want to use it at the same time, buy another hammer.
You figured out by looking at your hammer how to make hammers. Knowing how to make hammers is Technically Useful Information. You can now make all the hammers you want, with the right materials. You can even make one for your friend. Good for you.
Now let's say you bought Really Cool Program, a propriatary arrangement of numbers. You can use it. Most likly, you can't (legally) give it to your friend *and* keep it yourself. Sorry. You have yourself a Technically Useful tool (a hammer).
After using Really Cool Program for a while, you figured out how it works. You know have the Technically Useful Information required to make Really Cool Programs.
My point? Information is something that you can put in your brain. Algorithms and the like, that's information. I know I'd have a very difficult time memorizing the compiled code of just about any program. I'd be very hard streached to call that information. The algorithms and other ideas behind the compiled code, sure, that's something that's easilly handled.
Upshot: Propriatary code is peachy, just realize that people are going to figure out how it works and might just make their own.
Give OpenGL some credit here. In some ways, it's D3D that has to catch up. Here's how it was discribed to be by a Very Smart Person who works with nVidia a lot. nVidia comes to Microsoft saying "we want these features", Microsoft says "Okay, do it this way". The engineers at nVidia get frustrated about being limited by Microsoft's model and implement new features anyway and put them in OpenGL extensions. So, D3D has a better spec (arguably), but OpenGL has access to all the features.
Well, a DHCP server can be used for a direct MAC address to IP mapping. Your ISP is probably set up that way. So, you probably do have an IP assigned to you (test it by releasing your IP and unpluging your box from the net for a while (like a day)). This setup really simplifies the client setup (they don't need to do much of anything, just say "Use DHCP" in most cases). At the same time, this one to one mapping makes sure that the DHCP server will run really fast (no need to check for available addresses).
No, it's gotten really competative. And trust me, one of the things they're being competative about is who can get their stuff made standard. Instead of creating the standard then competing on who can make the standard faster, they're competing to be really fast *first*, then standard second. It goes much faster that way, and good standards do come out of that.
Surely they have a right to see a return on their investment?
Sure, they typically get to have some researchers look into a topic they want them to look into. That's all fine and good. They paid some people to think about something. Great. Peachy.
Where we get into trouble is when companys try to pay people to think about a topic in a certain way. Like say you're a researcher and some company pays you to evaluate product X for them. Product X happens to suck, so your evaluation comes out bad. Has the company seen a return on their investment? Probably not. Is that the researcher's fault? Absolutly not, they got what they paid for -- someone to evaluate their product. Just because I may invest in some stock doesn't mean I have a right to a return on it, it could lose all value. But, I got what I paid for, right?
4a: Ownership. Unless subject to any of the exceptions specified below or in Section 4(c), creators retain all rights to traditional academic copyrightable works as defined in Section 2(b) above.
4c: Student Works. Unless subject to the provisions of paragraph (a) or provided otherwise by written agreement, copyrightable works prepared by students as part of the requirements for a university degree program are deemed to be the property of the student but are subject to the following provisions:
4c 1&2 regard thesis work, which the University does take some credit in, seeing that it's the degree, basically.
Thanks for the document, I was about to start a similar search, I'm starting at UIUC in the fall.
When the Founding Fathers broke away from England and enacted the bill of rights, they didn't intend for it to apply to this sort of situation.
How the hell do you know? How many of them have you asked about this specific case. I just love people who claim to know other's intents.
Other than that, sure, the University has all the rights in the world to pull his site. There's much more too it, however. They should not expel him or bring him up on criminal charges. They really shouldn't be claiming ownership of his work. Ug.
(Disclaimers: I haven't worked on Slash, I'm just defending the poster. I do agree with you that the MPAA is doing the right thing for them (for once))
You have a point. Perhaps the Einsteins of the world shouldn't use advanced graphics. However, for the rest of us, it helps a whole lot. So, this is not an effort to help the best and brightest achieve their best, they'll do that no matter what. Rather, this is an effort to help everyone else.
And you really don't have to bring your religon into things to make a point...
Well, you just *completely* missed that one. This *story* has been some guy's sig for some time. That Sigmund Freud quote has been my sig for, uh, years. I guess the quote is pretty twisted. I don't even remember where I got it. Oh well.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to be an anal bastard, but that should be cousin... (ref. Fellowship, pg 1)
Ah, gottcha. The idea of scrolling taking CPU doesn't enter the mind much, I usually do kernel compiles out of X (no real need to have multiple terminals to look at), so scrolling is pretty darn free. I need to be less illiterate, I suppose. ;)
So, the real solution we're lookin' for here is "make -s -j x", for some appropriate x (-s to make scrolling really not matter, and -j x to enable multiple concurrent jobs).
From "man make"
-s Silent operation; do not print the commands as they are executed.
-j jobs
Specifies the number of jobs (commands) to run simultaneously. If there is more than one -j option, the last one is effective. If the
-j option is given without an argument, make will not limit the number of jobs that can run simultaneously.
I'm not sure what making make silent gets you as far as using SMP for compilation (considering terminal output is pretty free these days), perhaps you meant "make -j"?
Ever want a harddrive hooked up to your brain? That whole memorization thing becomes irrelevant. First, of course, you need an interface.
Let me get this straight. ATI takes the time to create optimizations in their drivers that make Quake III run faster, and people are unhappy about it?
You're damn right I am. As someone who uses graphics hardware for scientific visualization, any time hardware manufactures spend on making games faster is a complete waste. With the latest cards and drivers from ATI, we've seen this problem en masse. Games run great, but code that we write (that's general OpenGL and works great on GeForce cards) runs slower than hell on the 8500.
So, if all ATI wants to do is sell cards to gamers (and that's certainly a good market), they can go right on ahead and do that. Nvidia takes more time with their drivers and makes them much more optimized for the general case...so they've got my buisness for now.
Just my thoughts. I'm going to skip the part where I tell everyone else that they're being knee-jerk.
Do you have any idea where the name Apache came from? Think about it... Apache Server. A...Pache...Server. A Patchy Server. There you go. So, since Apache is a bunch of patches, shouldn't it be writen from scratch again too, with a different name?
It's a good thing you said "might have" when refering to open source QA. The QA of open source seems to be pretty good, so long as you're a nerd doing nerdy things with it. Trying to get lusers to test open source stuff just doesn't happen much. Any software company can just pay some people for a couple hours for them to try to use their app so they can learn what needs to be QAed. We don't have that kind of luxury. So, yea, I guess my point's just that open source QA is different than closed...both have their strengths. I don't have any concrete evidence of Apache QA vs. IIS QA, so I'm not going to congecture about how effective they are in comparison.
but if you have broken a law, be it the DMCA or any other law, and you are in a public place, then you are running the risk of being identified. Computer imaging doesn't change this, it's been happening for hundereds of years. That's why we have wanted posters in the post office. To encourage citizens to make identifications of known criminals in their area.
Your statements are correct, but you're missing an important issue, magnitude. If I do break the DMCA (an example I'm going to use because it's possible right now), and the FBI notices, it's still not likely that the cops patroling my neighborhood will recognize me for that and bring me in. So, the risk of me going to the grocery store is very minimal. With this system, I could be just another face to match in the system, increasing the risk of going to the grocery store substancially. Let me go along with your example of wanted posters. There's usually a couple wanted posters up on the post office, and people may or may not pick up on that face if they see it. What this kind of survalence system has the potential of doing is acting like a most wanted board with thousands of pictures with its own people out looking around with high probability of recognizing them. Now, if we're talking about a system that only recognizes people who are on those most wanted pictures, then I'm keen...the scope is limited. Personally, I don't really trust those in power to limit themselves.
You don't have kids, do you?
Please don't detract from my point. Answer me this question:
Which would you prefer, a security system that:
a) Protects your children.
b) Protects your children and yourself.
If you answered b, then you agree with me that you were not appealing to logic, but to emotion. If you answered a, I'd worry about going suicidal...
If you've done nothing wrong, you should have nothing to hide, and applaud this system for making the streets safer for our children.
Okay. I was with ya all the way, until you came to this sentence. My problem with part one: depends on the definition of "wrong". Say you've broken the DMCA (something I wouldn't mind doing myself, if I had the time to pull it off). Would it be appropriate for a camera outside of your grocery store to alert the authorites to your location? In essence, what I'm getting at is that this system has the potential for sending even the most minor crimal into complete seclusion.
My problem with part 2: this is just trying to pull at some emotional string. What is it in particular about this kind of system that makes the streets safer for children? Doesn't it claim to make the streets safer for everyone? Doesn't that logically seem like a better type of system? Yet for some reason you've limited it down to a subset of the population with the hope of achieving a bigger impact. Bah. Casts a great big shadow of sillyness on your whole argument (at least in my mind).
Yikes. That sure is a $25,000 auction. Massivly over-priced if you ask me... What are the uses for such a machine? 'Bout all I can think of is silly destructive weekend adventures (can be done for cheaper), and competing in BattleBots. However, with this handy clause from the Auction Page:
This offer does not include rights to the name, ranking or image of the bot, therefore it cannot be entered into any future BattleBots competitions.
That kinda takes the competition thing away. But that begs the question, why are the auctioning it, and not competing it next season? I'm taking a guess here, but here's a quote from their FAQ:
5) Why build a walking bot?
The rules for Treasure Island allowed walking bots to be 50% heavier than the wheeled bots in each weight class. If you can design and build a walking bot that is maneuverable and somewhat fast, without adding much weight for the walking assemblies, you end up with extra weight for motors, batteries, and weapons.
...
7) Now that BattleBots changed the walking rules for the next competition what's next?
We were in favor of changing the rules so that there is no weight advantage for a walking bot. The cost of building a competitive walking bot is very high. We have a new design that uses wheels which will be much more destructive.
So, there you are...recouping costs on a robot they can't compete with next time anyway. I'm a bit disillusioned with Whyachi now...it's walker really didn't work all that well, but it gave 'em an extra 50% of weight. I wonder what the bonus is for a bot that doesn't move at all...(a valid strategy for a spinner like Whyachi)
This AMD move is simply about misleading consumers.
Ah, yes, but you have to ask yourself one question: Is misleading misled people nessisarily wrong? People have been mislead into believing the clock speed is a true metric of the speed of the computer. It would take a lot of effort to lead them to a better understanding through teaching them basic architecture. Perhaps a more direct route is to remove that metric from view, so people have to find better ways of comparing speed, like benchmarks (though not perfect, they're certainly better than clock speed.)
I knew something felt dirty as I was writing that. Anyway, I was using this to get to the idea that implementations are tools and tools aren't information. I should really just say that and not try to be wordy about it.
If you disagree with me, disagree with me that computer programs are technically useful information.
Hi, I'd like to disagree with you. I'm going to make an analogy into meat-space, if that scares anyone...well...sorry. So, here we go.
You bought a hammer. Hammers are Technically Useful. You can hit things with hammers. You have the right to let your friend borrow your hammer. Both of you really can't use it at the same time. Them the brakes. If you do want to use it at the same time, buy another hammer.
You figured out by looking at your hammer how to make hammers. Knowing how to make hammers is Technically Useful Information. You can now make all the hammers you want, with the right materials. You can even make one for your friend. Good for you.
Now let's say you bought Really Cool Program, a propriatary arrangement of numbers. You can use it. Most likly, you can't (legally) give it to your friend *and* keep it yourself. Sorry. You have yourself a Technically Useful tool (a hammer).
After using Really Cool Program for a while, you figured out how it works. You know have the Technically Useful Information required to make Really Cool Programs.
My point? Information is something that you can put in your brain. Algorithms and the like, that's information. I know I'd have a very difficult time memorizing the compiled code of just about any program. I'd be very hard streached to call that information. The algorithms and other ideas behind the compiled code, sure, that's something that's easilly handled.
Upshot: Propriatary code is peachy, just realize that people are going to figure out how it works and might just make their own.
Ummm. no one can. 32 bit color and 24 bit color both use 8 bits for red, green, and blue.
Well, and even if 32 bit used more bits for each color, 24 bit already stores more colors then us mere humans are able to see (typically).
Give OpenGL some credit here. In some ways, it's D3D that has to catch up. Here's how it was discribed to be by a Very Smart Person who works with nVidia a lot. nVidia comes to Microsoft saying "we want these features", Microsoft says "Okay, do it this way". The engineers at nVidia get frustrated about being limited by Microsoft's model and implement new features anyway and put them in OpenGL extensions. So, D3D has a better spec (arguably), but OpenGL has access to all the features.
Well, a DHCP server can be used for a direct MAC address to IP mapping. Your ISP is probably set up that way. So, you probably do have an IP assigned to you (test it by releasing your IP and unpluging your box from the net for a while (like a day)). This setup really simplifies the client setup (they don't need to do much of anything, just say "Use DHCP" in most cases). At the same time, this one to one mapping makes sure that the DHCP server will run really fast (no need to check for available addresses).
The video-card industry has gotten really awful.
No, it's gotten really competative. And trust me, one of the things they're being competative about is who can get their stuff made standard. Instead of creating the standard then competing on who can make the standard faster, they're competing to be really fast *first*, then standard second. It goes much faster that way, and good standards do come out of that.
Surely they have a right to see a return on their investment?
Sure, they typically get to have some researchers look into a topic they want them to look into. That's all fine and good. They paid some people to think about something. Great. Peachy.
Where we get into trouble is when companys try to pay people to think about a topic in a certain way. Like say you're a researcher and some company pays you to evaluate product X for them. Product X happens to suck, so your evaluation comes out bad. Has the company seen a return on their investment? Probably not. Is that the researcher's fault? Absolutly not, they got what they paid for -- someone to evaluate their product. Just because I may invest in some stock doesn't mean I have a right to a return on it, it could lose all value. But, I got what I paid for, right?
4a: Ownership. Unless subject to any of the exceptions specified below or in Section 4(c), creators retain all rights to traditional academic copyrightable works as defined in Section 2(b) above.
4c: Student Works. Unless subject to the provisions of paragraph (a) or provided otherwise by written agreement, copyrightable works prepared by students as part of the requirements for a university degree program are deemed to be the property of the student but are subject to the following provisions:
4c 1&2 regard thesis work, which the University does take some credit in, seeing that it's the degree, basically.
Thanks for the document, I was about to start a similar search, I'm starting at UIUC in the fall.
Having said that, this is the first time (that I can remember) that I've seen an officially-planned x.0.1 bugfix release announced at the same time :)
Hence the spooky part.
When the Founding Fathers broke away from England and enacted the bill of rights, they didn't intend for it to apply to this sort of situation.
How the hell do you know? How many of them have you asked about this specific case. I just love people who claim to know other's intents.
Other than that, sure, the University has all the rights in the world to pull his site. There's much more too it, however. They should not expel him or bring him up on criminal charges. They really shouldn't be claiming ownership of his work. Ug.
How would you feel if something you'd spent 6-months of your life creating was being given away free?
What, like Slash?
(Disclaimers: I haven't worked on Slash, I'm just defending the poster. I do agree with you that the MPAA is doing the right thing for them (for once))
You have a point. Perhaps the Einsteins of the world shouldn't use advanced graphics. However, for the rest of us, it helps a whole lot. So, this is not an effort to help the best and brightest achieve their best, they'll do that no matter what. Rather, this is an effort to help everyone else.
And you really don't have to bring your religon into things to make a point...
Well, you just *completely* missed that one. This *story* has been some guy's sig for some time. That Sigmund Freud quote has been my sig for, uh, years. I guess the quote is pretty twisted. I don't even remember where I got it. Oh well.
This has been some guy's sig for the past few weeks (at least). I can't believe you missed it.
Don't assume. They did state anything with an OS would need it... Time to open an OS reseller in Texas.