It should be interesting to see the cddb people go after microsoft with this patent. The new windows media player 7 will rip/encode music for you and pulls cd track listings off of an online database, but not from cddb (or freedb for that matter).
So, computers must fit together in hyperspace by your logic.
Seriously, cars are more difficult than computers, by far. Try to change an alternator (or spark plugs for that matter, if the dorks who built your car put stuff in the way of them). Also, if you have to consider electrical distortions when popping in a proc. or video card, then that component has/problems/. Each manufacturer should take care of all those problems in each individual component, so the whole of them will end up not interfering.
Ah, but you are wrong. Windows 2000 does have true alpha blending (or at least a good enough work around to fool me). Download windowFX from stardock and set a window to any translucency, and then hover it over a particularly annoying animated gif -- you will find yourself still annoyed, though on a somewhat shaded level;-).
Hmm, by your logic we shouldn't implement a cursor, text, or graphics for that matter. Not implementing features because windows does goes beyond stupidity, there is literally no word for how dumb your suggestion is.
BTW, this whole alpha blending hack brings up another point concerning a 'linux' (by 'linux' I mean linux+KDE/GNOME+whatever you put together to make a desktop OS). After 4 years of linux, I switched to windows. Why? Because *no one* will take a leadership role. All the software that comes out utilizes work arounds (like this alpha blending hack) to achieve neat effects. Eventually, some project will have to stand up and begin integrating all the pieces, breaking things if they must. The lack of leadership is why we still don't have anti-aliased fonts in X. If we were to change the rendering mechanism, it'd break everything, so for years half of us have been waiting for aa'd fonts, and the other half has been opposing change because it would 'break something'. Someone needs to get out and break stuff to get some momentum going again!
x86 comprises the instruction set used on x86 processors such as AMDs and Intels. It hasn't been abandoned. I don't see how using 'mov' instead of 'move' found on another processor makes a big difference. Sure, there are some irregularities, for instance 'imul' only takes one argument and assumes the source and dest. to be AX, but they're understandable when you know the history behind the processor (in this case, Intel literally couldn't fit a source operand into the instruction). I really don't see how changing 'x86' is going to do a bit of good. No matter what instruction set you use, all you're going to end up doing is juggling registers using different ops. Maybe I'm just missing something, maybe by 'x86' you mean the whole architecture and not the instruction set (though you say SSE2 will move us away from 'x86', so I assume you mean the instruction set). If you do mean the architecture, then, yes, we could do better, but I'm not going to sacrifice compatibility just because someone thinks they know a 'cleaner' way of running a pc. Right now we see one solution to extending the somewhat limited interrupt space of the x86 architecture, that solution being USB. If you mean changing the instruction set, well, I'd like to know a good reason why. You said x86 was introduced in the 386 line, no, x86 is anything 'x86' (thus the reasoning behind the 'x':P), this included the 8086 (not the 80186, really, though because intel decided to break compatiblity, and got screwed because of it). Also, you said that it was meant to solve certain problems. I'm not real sure how an instruction set 'solves' problems. All a processor can do is shuttle around bits of data, it has no means to even recognize code from data (ok, if you use segments correctly it can, but most people set up two overlapping 4 GB segments for their code and data when doing OS programming). A microprocessor is designed to be generic in nature, thus overhauling the instruction set for a specific purpose defeats the original purpose behind the pc microprocessor. What Intel and AMD are doing with extensions such as SSE2, MMX, 3DNow! and the like are the right step to take to optimize certain processes which occur on the processor, while at the same time keeping the processor generic. Maybe if I knew what kind of 'new' problems we're facing now that would warrant an overhaul of a perfectly good instruction set I'd be able to better udnerstand your reasoning. (or maybe you meant the architecture, which in that case, everything I just said was moot)
Not only an IT dept. dream. I'd love to have a legit copy of Word on my box at home, but alas, I can't afford it. Depending on how low their reduced price is, I wouldn't mind shelling out the dough every year to get a newer version. A $20 a year subscription to Word that must be paid yearly is much easier on me than several hundred dollars at once for something that will be old next year.
I don't think tags will make up for an extreme ineptitude at recognizing sarcasm. Similarly, large arrows on a ballot don't make up for the stupidity of the user.
The game gear also flopped because it wasn't exactly portable. Sure, they *said* it was portable, but portable systems shouldn't suck down batteries, and I should be able to fit it in my pocket. In fact, the only thing that really sticks out in my mind about the game gear was it's mammoth size in comparison to the game boy.
does a hammer stop being a hammer if no one is holding the handle
If you're no longor holding the handle, then you have probably dropped the hammer on your foot, which at that point it becomes a fscking piece of @#$%. So, to answer your question, yes, a hammer is no longer a hammer if you are not holding the handle.
It will cover the glamour of the challenge, the science, the people and companies behind us, as well as the latest stories and opportunities to purchase our merchandise.
I can see it now, AI-Andi the T-Shirt, AI-Andi the matched luggage, AI-Andi the toilet paper, and finally AI-Andi the flame thrower.
Essentially I don't think we'll ever see the headline: Storage Research Halted. Scientists Declare "We Have More Than Enough Room Now"
You're absolutely right. It's human nature to consume, whether we need to or we should. Think a 1 MBit/sec internet connection is good enough, wait a year and see if it still is. I thought my 700 MHz Duron would rock for years to come, but I already want a faster one (preferably of the Athlon variety):-). Basically, we'll never be satisfied until we either a)destroy this place, or b)become amish. I suppose, though, if we destroy this place we still won't be satisfied, there just won't be anyone left to complain.
I know this is a a joke, but it raises a good point. Why do we need ISPs to log what pages kids are going to? If a parent really wants to know why doesn't he/she check the history, or get up off their lazy butt and watch the kid. If you *really* don't trust your kids, install a hidden camera, it's no different then logging their every move online. The fact that we are even *considering* laws to make censorware or logging mandatory shows how lazy our society has become. Most people in America, it seems, would rather let the government do it for them.
It seems like the writer of this article thinks that everyone writing GPL'd code wants to create the ultimate operating system to bring down Microsoft (or whoever we're supposed to be competing with). In reality, most of us are writing code because we *like* to, we're not trying to be part of someone's master plan. Personally, I don't plan on being a part of anyone's 'plan' for linux.
You're right, of course it can't, it already doesn't. Take a look in the linux/arch directory of ther kernel source tree and you'll see the different linux kernels for all the different architectures. If I understand it correctly each different architecture has it's own core kernel (though most are probably strikingly familiar to the i386 one which they were all ported from). Each 'core' kernel provides the same interfaces as the other ones so the rest of linux can be shared among them, but at the very basic level they are all different kernels. I don't foresee it being a problem if we have an entire 'big iron' tree with a specialized kernel core and special modules which meet the requirements of 'big iron'.
The linux kernel can be the best solution on any hardware, you just have to pick the right one.
From the article: a neuron can be in any one of thousands of different states, allowing it to store more information than a transistor Does this not sound like qubits to anyone else?
Ok, we probably already know why this is bad, but I'd like to post an experience I've had with being at a school that chooses to implement censorware.
1. You can't get any real research done. Our censorware is controlled by idiots who block things such as this. I've also found that many pages relating to theoretical physics are blocked (and I know the content of the blocked pages because of google's cache feature, so I know for a fact that there was no good reason to block the page). I really would have no problem with censorware if it just blocked porn, but it doesn't. The censorware installed here not only censors porn, it censors political ideas. 2600.com is blocked, aclu.org is blocked, as are the web sites of many other political groups.
2. Because of our censorware people are scared to even use the internet. Every time you hit a blocked page a nice red screen with large white text appears notifying you of this. This tends to scare people, not just because it is an evil red screen, but also because the *wonderful* stigma attached to the internet.
3. Most of the stuff that *should* be blocked isn't. For example, it took weeks before the *main* back orifice 2000 site was blocked, and all the netbus sites are still accessible (yes, we do play with the censorware, what else is it good for;-) ).
4. It's worthless because of open http proxies.
I think a better solution to the 'problem' would be to *gasp* let people report abuse. It's not too terribly difficult to tell if someone surfing for porn on a terminal sitting in the middle of a library (hint: they're called EYES, use them on occasion). Perhaps the push for censorware is just a way to create a scapegoat, so people can say "See, we installed safeguards to keep you out of that" and no longer bother themselves with doing they're job and *watching* what's going on. Censorware is a quick and easy fix to a problem that really isn't that big, and could easily be fixed if we weren't so lazy here in America.
Re:Mr. Chiariglione and Encryption/Watermarking
on
SDMI *NOT* Cracked!?
·
· Score: 1
I think the idea behind SDMI is to use the watermark + SDMI compliant hardware/software to keep the music from being duplicated (though I don't know how a watermark is going to stop 'cp'). Removing the watermark would allow you to copy the music.
I really don't know why this crack SDMI thing is going to matter anyways. I was looking at some sony hardware this morning and it all claimed to be SDMI compliant, so it seems to me that SDMI in it's current state is going to be the official SDMI (or else anyone buying sony hardware is going to have fun upgrading it). I think the SDMI people planned on what we know now as SDMI being the final version, whether it gets cracked or not, and they were not planning on informing anyone if it did get cracked.
Can you please clarify something for me please? I am quite confused by this entire thread. Does this mean that this nifty cool green CD I have labeled "w2k advanced server" isn't legal?
This is amateur criminology; the actual evidence does not support you.
No, these are my personal feelings. If I wanted to kill you I would not give up upon finding that I didn't have a gun, I would go find a knife and kill you, or maybe use a brick to knock you unconcious so I'd have an easier time stabbing you. (Not that I'm going to kill you, this is purely hypothetical).
I almost didn't reply to this because you didn't provide me with any facts reputing my statement. I'd be interested in seeing the evidence. I pray the evidence is not a comparison of murder committed with guns vs. murder committed with knives, as in the current state of things it is much cleaner, easier, and more efficient to kill someone with a gun thank a knife.
your guns are an anachronism and an irrelevancy in the face of the Government you have
The argument that 'you're screwed anyways so why not just give up' doesn't work for me. If you want to take away my freedom, then you're going to have to come to my door and do it. If you come to my door trying to take away my freedom, I'm very likely to shoot you. Also, you people seem to forget that here in America *WE* are the government (by the people, of the people, for the people), although many people would like to shred the document that idea comes from *cough*al gore*cough*. Note that George W. Bush is not my favorite either, due to his lack of any type of environmental policy, but we're going to be out of fossil fuels in 100 yrs. anyhow, so I'm not going to worry to much about that.
Yet again, the guns equals freedom argument rears its ugly head, and yet it is still a strawman argument which adds nothing to rational debate by civilised people.
The world is not civilised, no matter how much you would like it to be. Perhaps here in America we have more civilised people than not, but as a whole the world is not civilised. Why do you think we have terrorists and criminals, and why is crime such a terrible problem worldwide? Why are America's prisons overflowing? I suppose you could try rational debate with a criminal who has just entered your house with every intention to do harm, but I prefer to debate with a gun in these circumstances as without the gun I just can never seem to get the perpetrator's attention.
The only things that your pointless advocacy of penis-extension weaponry serves is the high rate of violent death in America.
No, the high rate of violent death would not change if we did not have guns. Do you think people would stop killing if they didn't have a gun to do so with? No, they would just find a new weapon to kill with, say a knife or an axe. Would you then be crying out for the banishment of all knives from America? I doubt it. Guns do not cause violence to happen, they are the tool of violence. Violent crime in America happens due to this country's complete lack of morals. Note that I'm not saying America needs to become a country of bilbe totin' white suit wearing baptists, I'm saying that we need *some* kind of morals, even if they're as basic as 'work hard in life and try to be somewhat nice to people no matter how much you hate them'. That, I believe, would cut back on many of this country's problems.
You 'anti-gun' people really need to begin debating like you say civilised people should. With the generous helping of personal attacks you lay on every person in this country who believes he should own a gun, it seems as though you are the uncivilised one. I have every right to flame you into oblivion for the way you have insulted me, you have called me a 'gun nut' and derided me calling my guns a 'penis-extension', but I have chosen to debate rationaly with you, like your 'civilised person'. Please afford us, those who believe in their second ammendment rights, the courtesy of holding rational debate.
Slashdot Mirror
It should be interesting to see the cddb people go after microsoft with this patent. The new windows media player 7 will rip/encode music for you and pulls cd track listings off of an online database, but not from cddb (or freedb for that matter).
So, computers must fit together in hyperspace by your logic. Seriously, cars are more difficult than computers, by far. Try to change an alternator (or spark plugs for that matter, if the dorks who built your car put stuff in the way of them). Also, if you have to consider electrical distortions when popping in a proc. or video card, then that component has /problems/. Each manufacturer should take care of all those problems in each individual component, so the whole of them will end up not interfering.
Ah, but you are wrong. Windows 2000 does have true alpha blending (or at least a good enough work around to fool me). Download windowFX from stardock and set a window to any translucency, and then hover it over a particularly annoying animated gif -- you will find yourself still annoyed, though on a somewhat shaded level ;-).
Hmm, by your logic we shouldn't implement a cursor, text, or graphics for that matter. Not implementing features because windows does goes beyond stupidity, there is literally no word for how dumb your suggestion is. BTW, this whole alpha blending hack brings up another point concerning a 'linux' (by 'linux' I mean linux+KDE/GNOME+whatever you put together to make a desktop OS). After 4 years of linux, I switched to windows. Why? Because *no one* will take a leadership role. All the software that comes out utilizes work arounds (like this alpha blending hack) to achieve neat effects. Eventually, some project will have to stand up and begin integrating all the pieces, breaking things if they must. The lack of leadership is why we still don't have anti-aliased fonts in X. If we were to change the rendering mechanism, it'd break everything, so for years half of us have been waiting for aa'd fonts, and the other half has been opposing change because it would 'break something'. Someone needs to get out and break stuff to get some momentum going again!
x86 comprises the instruction set used on x86 processors such as AMDs and Intels. It hasn't been abandoned. I don't see how using 'mov' instead of 'move' found on another processor makes a big difference. Sure, there are some irregularities, for instance 'imul' only takes one argument and assumes the source and dest. to be AX, but they're understandable when you know the history behind the processor (in this case, Intel literally couldn't fit a source operand into the instruction). I really don't see how changing 'x86' is going to do a bit of good. No matter what instruction set you use, all you're going to end up doing is juggling registers using different ops. Maybe I'm just missing something, maybe by 'x86' you mean the whole architecture and not the instruction set (though you say SSE2 will move us away from 'x86', so I assume you mean the instruction set). If you do mean the architecture, then, yes, we could do better, but I'm not going to sacrifice compatibility just because someone thinks they know a 'cleaner' way of running a pc. Right now we see one solution to extending the somewhat limited interrupt space of the x86 architecture, that solution being USB. If you mean changing the instruction set, well, I'd like to know a good reason why. You said x86 was introduced in the 386 line, no, x86 is anything 'x86' (thus the reasoning behind the 'x' :P), this included the 8086 (not the 80186, really, though because intel decided to break compatiblity, and got screwed because of it). Also, you said that it was meant to solve certain problems. I'm not real sure how an instruction set 'solves' problems. All a processor can do is shuttle around bits of data, it has no means to even recognize code from data (ok, if you use segments correctly it can, but most people set up two overlapping 4 GB segments for their code and data when doing OS programming). A microprocessor is designed to be generic in nature, thus overhauling the instruction set for a specific purpose defeats the original purpose behind the pc microprocessor. What Intel and AMD are doing with extensions such as SSE2, MMX, 3DNow! and the like are the right step to take to optimize certain processes which occur on the processor, while at the same time keeping the processor generic. Maybe if I knew what kind of 'new' problems we're facing now that would warrant an overhaul of a perfectly good instruction set I'd be able to better udnerstand your reasoning. (or maybe you meant the architecture, which in that case, everything I just said was moot)
I seem to be missing something here. Would you please explain why x86 "sucks"?
Not only an IT dept. dream. I'd love to have a legit copy of Word on my box at home, but alas, I can't afford it. Depending on how low their reduced price is, I wouldn't mind shelling out the dough every year to get a newer version. A $20 a year subscription to Word that must be paid yearly is much easier on me than several hundred dollars at once for something that will be old next year.
I don't think tags will make up for an extreme ineptitude at recognizing sarcasm. Similarly, large arrows on a ballot don't make up for the stupidity of the user.
The game gear also flopped because it wasn't exactly portable. Sure, they *said* it was portable, but portable systems shouldn't suck down batteries, and I should be able to fit it in my pocket. In fact, the only thing that really sticks out in my mind about the game gear was it's mammoth size in comparison to the game boy.
Ok, no jet packs (at least yet), but here is your talking fruit. Just add THC.
If you're no longor holding the handle, then you have probably dropped the hammer on your foot, which at that point it becomes a fscking piece of @#$%. So, to answer your question, yes, a hammer is no longer a hammer if you are not holding the handle.
Cool, how did you get the paper clip to actually *talk* to you?
I can see it now, AI-Andi the T-Shirt, AI-Andi the matched luggage, AI-Andi the toilet paper, and finally AI-Andi the flame thrower.
Jon Katz then sues Roblimo over zero-click geek profiling software.
You're absolutely right. It's human nature to consume, whether we need to or we should. Think a 1 MBit/sec internet connection is good enough, wait a year and see if it still is. I thought my 700 MHz Duron would rock for years to come, but I already want a faster one (preferably of the Athlon variety) :-). Basically, we'll never be satisfied until we either a)destroy this place, or b)become amish. I suppose, though, if we destroy this place we still won't be satisfied, there just won't be anyone left to complain.
If life gives you lemons, make lemonade, but if life gives you nanometer sized fissures and buckeyballs, make transistors.
I know this is a a joke, but it raises a good point. Why do we need ISPs to log what pages kids are going to? If a parent really wants to know why doesn't he/she check the history, or get up off their lazy butt and watch the kid. If you *really* don't trust your kids, install a hidden camera, it's no different then logging their every move online. The fact that we are even *considering* laws to make censorware or logging mandatory shows how lazy our society has become. Most people in America, it seems, would rather let the government do it for them.
It seems like the writer of this article thinks that everyone writing GPL'd code wants to create the ultimate operating system to bring down Microsoft (or whoever we're supposed to be competing with). In reality, most of us are writing code because we *like* to, we're not trying to be part of someone's master plan. Personally, I don't plan on being a part of anyone's 'plan' for linux.
You're right, of course it can't, it already doesn't. Take a look in the linux/arch directory of ther kernel source tree and you'll see the different linux kernels for all the different architectures. If I understand it correctly each different architecture has it's own core kernel (though most are probably strikingly familiar to the i386 one which they were all ported from). Each 'core' kernel provides the same interfaces as the other ones so the rest of linux can be shared among them, but at the very basic level they are all different kernels. I don't foresee it being a problem if we have an entire 'big iron' tree with a specialized kernel core and special modules which meet the requirements of 'big iron'.
The linux kernel can be the best solution on any hardware, you just have to pick the right one.
From the article:
a neuron can be in any one of thousands of different states, allowing it to store more information than a transistor
Does this not sound like qubits to anyone else?
Ok, we probably already know why this is bad, but I'd like to post an experience I've had with being at a school that chooses to implement censorware.
;-) ).
1. You can't get any real research done. Our censorware is controlled by idiots who block things such as this. I've also found that many pages relating to theoretical physics are blocked (and I know the content of the blocked pages because of google's cache feature, so I know for a fact that there was no good reason to block the page). I really would have no problem with censorware if it just blocked porn, but it doesn't. The censorware installed here not only censors porn, it censors political ideas. 2600.com is blocked, aclu.org is blocked, as are the web sites of many other political groups.
2. Because of our censorware people are scared to even use the internet. Every time you hit a blocked page a nice red screen with large white text appears notifying you of this. This tends to scare people, not just because it is an evil red screen, but also because the *wonderful* stigma attached to the internet.
3. Most of the stuff that *should* be blocked isn't. For example, it took weeks before the *main* back orifice 2000 site was blocked, and all the netbus sites are still accessible (yes, we do play with the censorware, what else is it good for
4. It's worthless because of open http proxies.
I think a better solution to the 'problem' would be to *gasp* let people report abuse. It's not too terribly difficult to tell if someone surfing for porn on a terminal sitting in the middle of a library (hint: they're called EYES, use them on occasion). Perhaps the push for censorware is just a way to create a scapegoat, so people can say "See, we installed safeguards to keep you out of that" and no longer bother themselves with doing they're job and *watching* what's going on. Censorware is a quick and easy fix to a problem that really isn't that big, and could easily be fixed if we weren't so lazy here in America.
I think the idea behind SDMI is to use the watermark + SDMI compliant hardware/software to keep the music from being duplicated (though I don't know how a watermark is going to stop 'cp'). Removing the watermark would allow you to copy the music.
I really don't know why this crack SDMI thing is going to matter anyways. I was looking at some sony hardware this morning and it all claimed to be SDMI compliant, so it seems to me that SDMI in it's current state is going to be the official SDMI (or else anyone buying sony hardware is going to have fun upgrading it). I think the SDMI people planned on what we know now as SDMI being the final version, whether it gets cracked or not, and they were not planning on informing anyone if it did get cracked.
Sorry about the double post.
Can you please clarify something for me please? I am quite confused by this entire thread. Does this mean that this nifty cool green CD I have labeled "w2k advanced server" isn't legal?
This is amateur criminology; the actual evidence does not support you.
No, these are my personal feelings. If I wanted to kill you I would not give up upon finding that I didn't have a gun, I would go find a knife and kill you, or maybe use a brick to knock you unconcious so I'd have an easier time stabbing you. (Not that I'm going to kill you, this is purely hypothetical).
I almost didn't reply to this because you didn't provide me with any facts reputing my statement. I'd be interested in seeing the evidence. I pray the evidence is not a comparison of murder committed with guns vs. murder committed with knives, as in the current state of things it is much cleaner, easier, and more efficient to kill someone with a gun thank a knife.
your guns are an anachronism and an irrelevancy in the face of the Government you have
The argument that 'you're screwed anyways so why not just give up' doesn't work for me. If you want to take away my freedom, then you're going to have to come to my door and do it. If you come to my door trying to take away my freedom, I'm very likely to shoot you. Also, you people seem to forget that here in America *WE* are the government (by the people, of the people, for the people), although many people would like to shred the document that idea comes from *cough*al gore*cough*. Note that George W. Bush is not my favorite either, due to his lack of any type of environmental policy, but we're going to be out of fossil fuels in 100 yrs. anyhow, so I'm not going to worry to much about that.
Yet again, the guns equals freedom argument rears its ugly head, and yet it is still a strawman argument which adds nothing to rational debate by civilised people.
The world is not civilised, no matter how much you would like it to be. Perhaps here in America we have more civilised people than not, but as a whole the world is not civilised. Why do you think we have terrorists and criminals, and why is crime such a terrible problem worldwide? Why are America's prisons overflowing? I suppose you could try rational debate with a criminal who has just entered your house with every intention to do harm, but I prefer to debate with a gun in these circumstances as without the gun I just can never seem to get the perpetrator's attention.
The only things that your pointless advocacy of penis-extension weaponry serves is the high rate of violent death in America.
No, the high rate of violent death would not change if we did not have guns. Do you think people would stop killing if they didn't have a gun to do so with? No, they would just find a new weapon to kill with, say a knife or an axe. Would you then be crying out for the banishment of all knives from America? I doubt it. Guns do not cause violence to happen, they are the tool of violence. Violent crime in America happens due to this country's complete lack of morals. Note that I'm not saying America needs to become a country of bilbe totin' white suit wearing baptists, I'm saying that we need *some* kind of morals, even if they're as basic as 'work hard in life and try to be somewhat nice to people no matter how much you hate them'. That, I believe, would cut back on many of this country's problems.
You 'anti-gun' people really need to begin debating like you say civilised people should. With the generous helping of personal attacks you lay on every person in this country who believes he should own a gun, it seems as though you are the uncivilised one. I have every right to flame you into oblivion for the way you have insulted me, you have called me a 'gun nut' and derided me calling my guns a 'penis-extension', but I have chosen to debate rationaly with you, like your 'civilised person'. Please afford us, those who believe in their second ammendment rights, the courtesy of holding rational debate.