Hey dude, if you want to reach the masses use formats they will be able to play.
Alot of people are not that inclined to be front line supporters of "OGG" [read: mp3 format called OGG]. They like to install their real/wmp and go on their way.
If you want to be "smart" why not write a wmp filter for OGG streams. That way they *can* use their media player to play those OGG encoded streams. Naturally the trick would be to convince MS to bundle it. I don't think they would care much since they do bundle an MP3 player with it.
Otherwise you'll suck. That's like moving all the cool shows to DigitalTV from Cable. They will obviously see a drop in viewers [unless you happen to be rich and afford it].
"I don't want to share stuff with rival schools that will just patent this and invalidate my work" more than "I'm elite!".
Look at other fields like math/crypto/Comp sci/etc... They're fairly open and they share their stuff. That's because crypto research is not patentable as profitably [name 10 people who like RC6 for instance...]
"Now, if Intel were to allow you to use their compiler for free (even without source code) for commercial purposes, then perhaps I would start to worry about the future of gcc. But that isn't going to happen, and gcc will continue to chug right along."
I'd say since there has been alot of time invested in GCC [and its vastly more portable], if the Intel compiler was made open source the GCC dudes would just try to merge the intel optimizations in.
Keep in mind that GCC doesn't just compile for x86 processors [its only intel that does]. So even if Intel releases their compiler for free [open source style] that still won't kill GCC.
While you're right that some of the optimizations are higher levels, alot of the stuff GCC doesn't currently optimize is instruction pairing, data prefetching, etc...
That is a lower-level backend issue and won't seriously improve the other backends at all.
The OP has a point though, by upgrading GCC instead of making their own compiler more people will have access to a compiler that makes code tuned for their processor better.
For instance, I have a PIII [I don't but lets say I do]. I write code and build it in GCC. I go out and buy a PIV [roughly same clock rate] I notice that my code is not significantly faster. I get pissed off...
However, I buy the PIV and tell GCC to use PIV specific optimizations, my code turns out faster and I am happy.
have on anything whatsoever? Retard e-business types will still buy.info,.biz,.com,.museum,.org,.net,etc... for their business anyways.
I think while the dude has good intentions he is just wasting time and effort.
If you really want to protest form a new sort of DNS system and make it popular. Then when people stop using closed DNS systems where registration is monopolized you won't have to be a dork and buy
Isn't the basic DoS attack where the return TCP/IP address is invalid [thus wasting server time on the other end]
Wouldn't a trivial fix for servers be to force all outgoing TCP/IP traffic to be legitimate.
As for spam, isn't a quick fix just to turn off all forms of relays? Seriously why can't you just send email to your server and from there directly to the other server.
This isn't the days of using FrontDoor and long distance calling plans. Sending email world-wide is as easy as sending TCP/IP packets world-wide [which is fairly trivial given the infrastructure in place].
By closing relays [or dropping email that was relayed] spammers would have to have their ISP given to the recipient [since there are only two steps in transit, their ISP and your ISP]. That would in turn make black listing bad ISPs easier.
Ah ok that makes more sense. The article [with the funny MRI picture] is very misleading. They showed magical improvement within a single sample set [the picture].
Despite what they think if your source is of low quality no amount of math will increase the accuracy/resolution. You can only make it more visually appealing.
Well are there any papers to read on the subject online? Anyone have citeceer links they want to lend me?
For starters, if human threshold of hearing tapers off at around 20khz (its actually closer to 18khz where at 20khz most audio is fully attenuated... but anyways)...
How will a "new and improved" method of sampling help me hear audio I can't hear anyways?
Nyquist proved that with uniform sampling at 2/T you will lose no spectral information between DC and 1/T.
Somehow I think this is more "Magic Ph.D" material than real science.
The law is always going to be 7 steps behind technology. Besides 99% of the spam in my hotmail box is not from real companies. They are "out of debt", "bigger penis" and "lovely lara" e-mails which are more of a nuance than anything else.
I seriously doubt that most spam people get are actually from huge companies [with money, worth sueing] who hire oversees people.
My scheme benefits from the ability to work regardless of the law. So people in Canada can benefit just as much from it as people from China.
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't a native compiler defeat the whole purpose of Java?
I mean C is fairly portable in the sense that any console mode app will virtually build anywhere.
If they are moving Java to a "machine code" type system how would it improve on C [in ways that C++ didn't?]
Personally I'm a huge C fan, I can appreciate C++ and Java too. But this going full circle crap is just stupid.
Tom
All your base,
are belong to us.
Tom
Oh you're one of those people who thinks "linux" is more user friendly?
Regardless of the fact Linux *might* be more technically advanced, if it is not user friendly it doesn't matter.
Tom
Yes, but the people they are targetting are not idiots like you. They can easily click on "Download Now" and run the installer.
:-)
Besides I listen to my quicktime audio streams through Winamp
Tom
Insightful?
Hey dude, if you want to reach the masses use formats they will be able to play.
Alot of people are not that inclined to be front line supporters of "OGG" [read: mp3 format called OGG]. They like to install their real/wmp and go on their way.
If you want to be "smart" why not write a wmp filter for OGG streams. That way they *can* use their media player to play those OGG encoded streams. Naturally the trick would be to convince MS to bundle it. I don't think they would care much since they do bundle an MP3 player with it.
Otherwise you'll suck. That's like moving all the cool shows to DigitalTV from Cable. They will obviously see a drop in viewers [unless you happen to be rich and afford it].
What a concept....
I betcha its more the case of
"I don't want to share stuff with rival schools that will just patent this and invalidate my work" more than "I'm elite!".
Look at other fields like math/crypto/Comp sci/etc... They're fairly open and they share their stuff. That's because crypto research is not patentable as profitably [name 10 people who like RC6 for instance...]
Tom
If intel releases there optimizer design for free use, I'd bet the GCC developers would jump at it.
Anyways, in general people should stop bitching. GCC is a very good, stable, portable compiler given that its *entirely* free.
"Now, if Intel were to allow you to use their compiler for free (even without source code) for commercial purposes, then perhaps I would start to worry about the future of gcc. But that isn't going to happen, and gcc will continue to chug right along."
I'd say since there has been alot of time invested in GCC [and its vastly more portable], if the Intel compiler was made open source the GCC dudes would just try to merge the intel optimizations in.
Keep in mind that GCC doesn't just compile for x86 processors [its only intel that does]. So even if Intel releases their compiler for free [open source style] that still won't kill GCC.
Tom
Well, you 'free' to go out and spend hundreds of dollars on the intel compiler.
I'll just use my decently optimizing copy of MingW for free.
Ooops, I guess you didn't think of that.
While you're right that some of the optimizations are higher levels, alot of the stuff GCC doesn't currently optimize is instruction pairing, data prefetching, etc...
That is a lower-level backend issue and won't seriously improve the other backends at all.
The OP has a point though, by upgrading GCC instead of making their own compiler more people will have access to a compiler that makes code tuned for their processor better.
For instance, I have a PIII [I don't but lets say I do]. I write code and build it in GCC. I go out and buy a PIV [roughly same clock rate] I notice that my code is not significantly faster. I get pissed off...
However, I buy the PIV and tell GCC to use PIV specific optimizations, my code turns out faster and I am happy.
Tom
Sure Intels compiler might be super good at optimizing, but are they forgetting any 12 yr old trying to learn C can pick up GCC for **free**?
Tom
"Most DOS games used Watcom"
That's because Watcom was stable before DJGPP was.
Note how Allegro and Quake [two prominent program items] started in DJGPP not in Watcom.
"faster than the dpmi used by djgpp. "
While DJGPP came with a DPMI server [cwsdpmi] you were free to use anything else [including PMODE/W and WDOSX].
The only reason Watcom was more popular than DJGPP initially [i'd argue it isn't anymore] is that it came out first.
"gcc is not known for handling C++ especially well"
Or do you mean "gcc is not known to compile invalid standard non-compliant code well".
Both borland and MSVC diverge from the standards much more than GCC ever would.
Tom
"Many people argued the speed/size benefits of Watcom's DOS compilers compared to DJGPP, the (DOS port GCC)"
Many people such as? GCC optimizes just as much as Watcom [and much more than MSVC].
For example, my crypto library
http://libtomcrypt.sunsite.dk
Includes both MSVC and GCC make files. Compare the timings [ciphers] for yourself!
ah rock on. Thanks for the info.
Tom
Meh. As soon as mozilla gets a killfile for usenet I will make the move from MS IE.
Tom
What effect does buying
.info,.biz,.com,.museum,.org,.net,etc... for their business anyways.
bizsucks.biz
have on anything whatsoever? Retard e-business types will still buy
I think while the dude has good intentions he is just wasting time and effort.
If you really want to protest form a new sort of DNS system and make it popular. Then when people stop using closed DNS systems where registration is monopolized you won't have to be a dork and buy
bizsucks.com
bizsucks.net
bizsucks.org
...etc...
Tom
Isn't the basic DoS attack where the return TCP/IP address is invalid [thus wasting server time on the other end]
Wouldn't a trivial fix for servers be to force all outgoing TCP/IP traffic to be legitimate.
As for spam, isn't a quick fix just to turn off all forms of relays? Seriously why can't you just send email to your server and from there directly to the other server.
This isn't the days of using FrontDoor and long distance calling plans. Sending email world-wide is as easy as sending TCP/IP packets world-wide [which is fairly trivial given the infrastructure in place].
By closing relays [or dropping email that was relayed] spammers would have to have their ISP given to the recipient [since there are only two steps in transit, their ISP and your ISP]. That would in turn make black listing bad ISPs easier.
Whoa...
Tom
Ah ok that makes more sense. The article [with the funny MRI picture] is very misleading. They showed magical improvement within a single sample set [the picture].
Despite what they think if your source is of low quality no amount of math will increase the accuracy/resolution. You can only make it more visually appealing.
Well are there any papers to read on the subject online? Anyone have citeceer links they want to lend me?
Tom
For starters, if human threshold of hearing tapers off at around 20khz (its actually closer to 18khz where at 20khz most audio is fully attenuated... but anyways)...
How will a "new and improved" method of sampling help me hear audio I can't hear anyways?
Nyquist proved that with uniform sampling at 2/T you will lose no spectral information between DC and 1/T.
Somehow I think this is more "Magic Ph.D" material than real science.
Tom
If you just encrypt your email then screening would be harder.
Does the new law prevent the usage of PGP?
The law is always going to be 7 steps behind technology. Besides 99% of the spam in my hotmail box is not from real companies. They are "out of debt", "bigger penis" and "lovely lara" e-mails which are more of a nuance than anything else.
I seriously doubt that most spam people get are actually from huge companies [with money, worth sueing] who hire oversees people.
My scheme benefits from the ability to work regardless of the law. So people in Canada can benefit just as much from it as people from China.
Tom
http://tomstdenis.home.dhs.org/papers/nspam.pdf
Is that clear enough? [yes I know its a very rough draft but it outlines the idea]
"You don't state that the client does the work CLEARLY in your origional post. "
Yes I did.
"What surprises me, is that you seem incapable of admitting that the task is VERY DAUNTING!"
And you think passing internationally accepted legislation is any easier?
Tom
"Your post doesn't specify with _ANY_ degree of certainty who generates the "cypher"... "
You are really trolling now. It's rather obvious how my scheme works. Its the email *CLIENTS* that do the work.
Ah, whatever, fuck off.