So you're saying that it's impossible for a high-energy collision of gold nuclei (which I seriously doubt ever happens in the earth's atmosphere due to cosmic radiation) to produce different results than you get with smaller particles and higher energy?
If you can prove that, I suggest you publish a paper ASAP. I'm sure your Nobel prize will be waiting.
The total mass and energy out of the collision has to match what went in, but as I understand it, the specific details of what goes in have a significant effect on the statistical likelihood of the various possible results.
You're absolutely right regarding consumer interfaces that pass MPEG bits. But I was just talking about wanting a raw digital pixel interface, which is already available on most of the latest computer LCD panels. Since the data isn't compressed, and it doesn't usually match the defined digital TV formats, Hollywood doesn't care about that.
Also, by having a "raw" digital interface, the thing would be more future-proof. If different digital TV broadcast or cable standards show up, you'd just add a different decoder.
Of course, maybe the manufacturer doesn't want to sell tubes that can easily adapt to changing interfaces. Planned obsolescence.
The review mentioned that they couldn't get rid of all the pixel jitter, a phenomenon that those of us with desktop LCD displays with analog interfaces have been suffering with. Why didn't they put a digital interface on this thing? I mean, it's not like they couldn't afford to...
Unfortunately there doesn't yet seem to be consensus on the a single digital interface standard, but there are only a few contenders, and I'm sure as soon as one of them wins, someone will sell converters for those of us that bought the others.
Are you going to bother to say why cosmic radation is irrelevant?
Because I've seen no claims that cosmic radiation produces Quark-Gluon Plasma, the desired/expected result of the RHIC. The article you cite doesn't even make that claim.
It's nice to see that they've apparently added some of the MPEG 2 motion compensation support that ATI has had for a while. But I really wish they would bite the bullet and add a full MPEG 2 decoder. It would only take about a half million transistors; no one would even notice the extra die area.
Software MPEG 2 decoders for Windows basically suck, and there aren't (yet) any real-time decoders for Linux anyhow. Hardware decode is the way to go.
I keep hoping that someone will ship an inexpensive VIP-compatible MPEG 2 decoder daughterboard that I could use with my Asus V3800 TNT2 card, and it hasn't happened yet, but simply building it into the next generation nVidia chip would be even better.
They are not claiming that these conditions haven't existed since the big bang. (That would be absurd.)
Why would it be absurd? Are you suggesting that it is impossible to recreate any of the conditions of the big bang, or that it is impossible for the conditions of the big bang to have not naturally recurred in the universe again since then? You wrote:
Please, reread the bit about cosmic rays. Every day the earth is bombarded by millions (I'm way underestimating here) of cosmic ray particles so energetic that they laugh heartily at the feeble attempts of Brookhaven to match them.
Irrelevant.
As far as whether the conditions the RHIC is intended to reproduce have existed after the big bang, I'd refer you to an authoritative source, the RHIC web site, which states:
While many RHIC collisions will produce interesting results, a rare few might create something even more special: a new form of matter.
Actually, it's not new to the universe, just to human eyes. It's thought to have existed ten millionths of a second after the Big Bang at the dawn of the Universe. It may also exist in the cores of very dense stars called neutron stars.
So what they are saying is that perhaps the conditions only existed at the big bang, or perhaps they also exist in neutron stars. What they are NOT saying is that the conditions naturally occur anywhere nearby.
You wrote:
When we do it in a lab, we can be there to watch. But as far as the earth is concerned, it is very old hat indeed.
As Arnold Rimmer would say: "Wrong, wrong, absolutely brimming over with wrongability."
Anything that RHIC can do has already been done many times by Mother Nature without dire consequences.
To the best of my understanding, this statement is false. The RHIC is designed to recreate conditions that are not believed to have existed at any time since the big bang. So the RHIC may in fact do something that has only been done once before in the history of the universe. And if that event wasn't cataclysmic, I don't know what was!
I'm not suggesting that everyone should panic about RHIC, but trying to write it off as old hat isn't the appropriate response either.
On the whole "Its" thing, it's not going to work because the meanings for its letter triple, i-t-s, are way too confusing already.
I say stick with the old term. As far as I'm concerned, they're still suits even if they don't wear 'em. Just like main memory is still "core" even though it's no longer made up of little donuts.
So anybody already using RSA's algorithms (which are mandatory for SSL, as near as I an tell)
Let's hope that Netscape/AOL doesn't sell the SSL patent to RSADSI. So far I haven't heard of any plans on the part of Netscape/AOL to enforce the patent, but I'm sure RSADSI would love to get their hands on that patent and charge everyone running SSL big bucks. Then they would be able to do the same thing as far as only licensing their own implementation.
Is it the #1 politician pass-time to name years, months and days. It's really useless.
It is most decidedly NOT useless. If they weren't spending their time passing resolutions to make October 5 be National Techie Day, they would instead be passing even more laws to increase our taxes and restrict our liberties.
Be thankful that we don't actually get all the government we pay for! I cringe whenever I hear people talking about eliminating waste in government, because I don't want them becoming more efficient at taxing me and trampling my rights.
The issue wasn't the utilization of the Hudson plant. The issue was the ownership of the Hudson plant. DEC/Compaq didn't want to rely on Intel for Alpha chips, even though Intel is contractually obligated to produce them. If I were a manager at DEC, I would have been worried that Intel might tell me, "Oops, sorry, that was a zero-yeild run. Maybe we'll have better luck next time." (I haven't heard of Intel doing that, but another semiconductor vendor did that to one of my previous employers.)
Anyhow, they signed up Mitsubishi as a second source, but Mitsubishi is extremely difficult to deal with (as I discovered at a different former employer), so it's no surprise to me that the deal didn't last.
Now they've got Samsung making them, and Samsung seems to be much more committed than Mitsubishi ever was. And there are the rumors about IBM, but if there have been any official announcements I've missed them.
I can only surmise that the reason the rumored DEC/AMD deal didn't happen was that back at that time, AMD did not have the extra fab capacity. Now that they've opened the new Dresden fab, apparently they have too much.
If they aren't going to support them, maybe they could be convinced to release them under the GPL, or some other license less restrictive than the SCSL.
Although the SCSL is arguably better than no sources at all. (Some people may disagree.)
However, today collections of data ARE a product of intellect. The value isn't in the data itself, but in the sheer volume and ease of manipulation OF that data.
Neither the sheer volume nore the ease of manipulation make the data a "product of intellect".
I'm not saying that there aren't things that could be done to a collection of data that might make it a "product of intellect", but simply amassing a huge amount of data and putting it in e.g. Microsoft Access (which presumably makes it easy to manipulate does not make the data any more a "product of intellect" than it was to start with.
If a person added their own commentary or ratings to the data, for instance, that would be a "product of intellect", and they should get a copyright on their additions, which are, of course, not raw data.
''Why would anyone spend $2 million to create a database if it's not going to be protected?'' said David Mirchin, of SilverPlatter Information, a database publisher in Norton, Mass.
This is almost always the argument used to justify imposing new, stricter intellectual property laws of any sort (copyright, trademark, patent, etc.).
And it's completely obvious to anyone that thinks about it for five seconds that it's both misleading and irrelevant.
The fact is that people have always compiled databases in the past, without this supposedly essential legal protection, and there is no real reason to believe that they won't continue to do so in the future.
They like to act like there's been some fundamental change in technology that destroys their business model. I'd be the first to agree that the Internet is influential and has changed a lot of things. But no one is forcing the people that compile databases to make them available on the internet in a form that is easily copied by their competitors. If they're so concerned about "wholesale" copying of their database, they could, for instance, restrict the number of queries and query results from a given IP address per day. Or, perhaps even more expedient, they could simply require their customers to sign a license agreement before accessing their database.
Anyhow, there's already a significant legal distinction between databases that are just "raw data", and works (including compilations) that are "creative works" (i.e., show signs that some thought process was involved in their creation, such as an editor choosing which papers to publish in a book). Peronally I have little sympathy for people that think that they have a god-given right to profit from a collection of raw data. By which I mean that I'm not the least bit opposed to them selling the data, but when they start whining about needing broad new legal protections, I think they're out of control.
Note that many of the companies that are pushing for these new protections haven't actually invested their own money in creating the databases anyhow. What they really want is to be able to copyright databases that have been compiled by the US Government at taxpayer expense. They very nearly got their legislation passed in the last congress; they'll keep trying until they do. It is important that we keep letting our legislators know that we won't put up with this sort of BS. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
The Philippine government has observed that grocery stores are among the most popular places for drug pushers and users to buy groceries, so they are imposing a curfew on grocery stores for minors.
a) They have a second key as a backup, in case the first key would get compromised (such as being published by a pissed off M$ employee for example, or more likely, being cracked by some guys at l0pht:).
Since they don't appear to have a key revocation mechanism, the second key does not serve any useful "backup" purpose relating to a compromise of the first key.
With the second key they could sign some update which installs yet another new key.
Or, with the first key they could sign some update... Again, this doesn't justify the second key as a "backup".
MS seems to always insist that the only reason they are in court is that they bundled Explorer with Windows.
And given that MS executives have expounded on how this is not anti-competitive until they're blue in the face, I've got to wonder whether those same executives aren't kicking themselves now. They now can't make a credible claim that Sun giving away StarOffice is anticompetitive.
As a US citizen, I wouldn't count on nitpicky details like that to protect me. If the government wanted to bust someone for crypto export, they won't be deterred by this kind of thing. Someone might eventually be acquitted, but only after a lot of legal hassle. Better not to subject oneself to that kind of trouble.
"Skipjack", has now been released and cryptoanalyzed by the public cryptography community. Interestingly, it has been found to have possible exploits at 14 rounds, and has exactly 15 rounds.
The specific law is the Computer Software Rental Amendments Act if 1990, 17 USC Sec. 109. I quote:
(b)(1)(A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), unless authorized by the owners of copyright in the sound recording or the owner of copyright in a computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program), and in the case of a sound recording in the musical works embodied therein, neither the owner of a particular phonorecord nor any person in possession of a particular copy of a computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program), may, for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage, dispose of, or authorize the disposal of, the possession of that phonorecord or computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program) by rental, lease, or lending, or by any other act or practice in the nature of rental, lease, or lending.
For the sake of brevity, I've omitted further material including certain exceptions.
It's obvious that what the software industry wanted (and got) was a different pricing model from the motion picture industry. The studios sell tapes to video rental stores, and usually do not receive a cut of the rental price. Software companies didn't want there to be any rental unless they were the renter and received the entire rental fee.
Slashdot Mirror
If you can prove that, I suggest you publish a paper ASAP. I'm sure your Nobel prize will be waiting.
The total mass and energy out of the collision has to match what went in, but as I understand it, the specific details of what goes in have a significant effect on the statistical likelihood of the various possible results.
Also, by having a "raw" digital interface, the thing would be more future-proof. If different digital TV broadcast or cable standards show up, you'd just add a different decoder.
Of course, maybe the manufacturer doesn't want to sell tubes that can easily adapt to changing interfaces. Planned obsolescence.
Unfortunately there doesn't yet seem to be consensus on the a single digital interface standard, but there are only a few contenders, and I'm sure as soon as one of them wins, someone will sell converters for those of us that bought the others.
Sigh.
Software MPEG 2 decoders for Windows basically suck, and there aren't (yet) any real-time decoders for Linux anyhow. Hardware decode is the way to go.
I keep hoping that someone will ship an inexpensive VIP-compatible MPEG 2 decoder daughterboard that I could use with my Asus V3800 TNT2 card, and it hasn't happened yet, but simply building it into the next generation nVidia chip would be even better.
Eric
As far as whether the conditions the RHIC is intended to reproduce have existed after the big bang, I'd refer you to an authoritative source, the RHIC web site, which states:
So what they are saying is that perhaps the conditions only existed at the big bang, or perhaps they also exist in neutron stars. What they are NOT saying is that the conditions naturally occur anywhere nearby.You wrote:
As Arnold Rimmer would say: "Wrong, wrong, absolutely brimming over with wrongability."I'm not suggesting that everyone should panic about RHIC, but trying to write it off as old hat isn't the appropriate response either.
Be thankful that we don't actually get all the government we pay for! I cringe whenever I hear people talking about eliminating waste in government, because I don't want them becoming more efficient at taxing me and trampling my rights.
Every day is a techie day in my household!
And, perhaps more interesting yet, would Sun survive if Java was free?
Anyhow, they signed up Mitsubishi as a second source, but Mitsubishi is extremely difficult to deal with (as I discovered at a different former employer), so it's no surprise to me that the deal didn't last.
Now they've got Samsung making them, and Samsung seems to be much more committed than Mitsubishi ever was. And there are the rumors about IBM, but if there have been any official announcements I've missed them.
I can only surmise that the reason the rumored DEC/AMD deal didn't happen was that back at that time, AMD did not have the extra fab capacity. Now that they've opened the new Dresden fab, apparently they have too much.
Although the SCSL is arguably better than no sources at all. (Some people may disagree.)
It seems like everyone looking for excess state-of-the-art fab capacity is going to AMD.
I'm not saying that there aren't things that could be done to a collection of data that might make it a "product of intellect", but simply amassing a huge amount of data and putting it in e.g. Microsoft Access (which presumably makes it easy to manipulate does not make the data any more a "product of intellect" than it was to start with.
If a person added their own commentary or ratings to the data, for instance, that would be a "product of intellect", and they should get a copyright on their additions, which are, of course, not raw data.
And it's completely obvious to anyone that thinks about it for five seconds that it's both misleading and irrelevant.
The fact is that people have always compiled databases in the past, without this supposedly essential legal protection, and there is no real reason to believe that they won't continue to do so in the future.
They like to act like there's been some fundamental change in technology that destroys their business model. I'd be the first to agree that the Internet is influential and has changed a lot of things. But no one is forcing the people that compile databases to make them available on the internet in a form that is easily copied by their competitors. If they're so concerned about "wholesale" copying of their database, they could, for instance, restrict the number of queries and query results from a given IP address per day. Or, perhaps even more expedient, they could simply require their customers to sign a license agreement before accessing their database.
Anyhow, there's already a significant legal distinction between databases that are just "raw data", and works (including compilations) that are "creative works" (i.e., show signs that some thought process was involved in their creation, such as an editor choosing which papers to publish in a book). Peronally I have little sympathy for people that think that they have a god-given right to profit from a collection of raw data. By which I mean that I'm not the least bit opposed to them selling the data, but when they start whining about needing broad new legal protections, I think they're out of control.
Note that many of the companies that are pushing for these new protections haven't actually invested their own money in creating the databases anyhow. What they really want is to be able to copyright databases that have been compiled by the US Government at taxpayer expense. They very nearly got their legislation passed in the last congress; they'll keep trying until they do. It is important that we keep letting our legislators know that we won't put up with this sort of BS. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
The Philippine government has observed that grocery stores are among the most popular places for drug pushers and users to buy groceries, so they are imposing a curfew on grocery stores for minors.
Unless, that is, you want to star in a test case.
17 USC Sec. 109
For the full section, use the search page of the U.S. House of Representatives Office of Law Revision Council, enter "17" for title, and "software rent" for the search term. The first hit will be 17 USC Sec. 109.
It's obvious that what the software industry wanted (and got) was a different pricing model from the motion picture industry. The studios sell tapes to video rental stores, and usually do not receive a cut of the rental price. Software companies didn't want there to be any rental unless they were the renter and received the entire rental fee.