They do not know that the trademark "Open Source" meant originally Free/Libre Software. They do not know that it is their freedom which is at stake here.
Or, just maybe, most people don't see it that way.
People generally don't consider it a blow against their freedom that their car doesn't come with the required information to make an exact replica of the engine, or when their microwave doesn't come with a circuit diagram, or their music CDs don't come with sheet music.
Why would they see it any differently with software?
People think that they got their morals from their religion because they haven't actually read the so-called morality of the Bible. Current day people (1) don't follow the barbaric morality of the Bible and (2) follow the good morality in the Bible that was stolen from secular morality.
Calm down there and think about what you're saying.
The barbaric stuff is in the old testament. Christianity uses the old testament mainly for context, and really only focuses on the parts that fit with the new testament, like the 10 commandments.
As for your second point, that's completely irrelevant. All that matters is where a person gets the values from now. Or more specifically, where they think they got them from. If everything in the bible happened exactly as written, or if a couple people got high and made it all up, it doesn't change the fact that a large portion of the world today is heavily influenced by it.
I can't believe how gullible and ignorant so many people are. If you don't believe in a character from a 2000+ yr old book you are somehow less of a person. What a load of BS.
I don't think that's it at all.
If you know a candidate is of religion X, you have an idea what their moral values are rooted in. Or at least those they were raised with, even if they have drifted away.
But for an athiest, you don't have a clue, which makes a lot of people much more cautious in giving their trust.
Also, it bugs me that none of the Ubuntu systems have AMD processors! Most of us who run Linux want 64-bit these days, since 64-bit "just works" under Linux, and gives a pretty good performance boost.
I think the issue is Intel offers open source drivers for their integrated video cards. Less legal complications and less software complications that way. Also, the Windows variants of these machines seem to offer ATI graphics cards, which are the most likely to have problems under Linux.
It's up the the BIOS code to figure out what exact model of CPU it is then enable all the neat extra features, like 32 or 64 bit modes SMP and other goodies.
Minor nitpick, but the BIOS doesn't do any of that. The BIOS just does the absolute minimum required to get the CPU going. It sets the clock and loads the microcode, then looks for a boot sector to run. The boot sector code is good old 16 bit code still.
Nope, the BIOS is normal 16 bit x86 code. When the processor powers on, it automatically starts running code at a specific address, which is where the BIOS is located. (The back of my head says there may be one level of indirection, as in the CPU looks for a pointer at a specific address, which is in the BIOS range, then starts running the code it points to, also in the BIOS range).
Anyway, as for the overclocking problem. If the motherboard detects that the CPU completely doesn't work with the settings specified, it automatically sets all the settings to the slowest supported values and tries to boot the CPU again.
If you are getting shocks or seeing sparks when connecting an antenna to a TV set, call a qualified electrician.
I've found another cause for that. When Cablevision installed my cable, they put in a splitter incorrectly. They connected the incoming cable to one of the out ports of the splitter. Everything worked, but the signal quality was lower than it should have been, and I got shocks any time I touched the end of a cable past the splitter. Didn't figure it out until there was a problem on the utility pole that required Cablevision to come fix it.
I once found the text strings stored in the BIOS of my 286. Not far from the standard "Keyboard error, press F1 to continue." message was "CPU not found. System halted."
I always wondered how they intended to display that message.
The Dreamcast controller had an absolutely horrible shape. The sides were curved just enough that it looks like they were trying to make it comfortable, but not enough to actually fit well in your hands.
If you're colorblind how did you monitor the changes for your very precise graphics program? This isn't intended to be a troll, I'm just not sure I'm following you.
First, the colors in use weren't in a color range that I have trouble with. Second, printing debug info to a console helps a lot, colorblind or not.
The hardware might not really be doing it, but the hardware is telling the system it is really doing it. The systems tells the user what the hardware is telling it.
The OS knows what the video card is capable of and operates based on that. In these cases, the monitor is asking the video card for a 24 bit signal and then dithering it. Only the monitor circuitry knows that it's happening.
Certainly this is not an excuse, but is the approach of dithering any more different that three different coloured sub-pixels (RGB) creating the illusion of a single colour any more different?
Yes, it is. The 3 subpixel approach works because that's how your high works. Your eye has receptors in the red, green, and blue wavelengths. Unless you're a female with a pair of the right recessive genes, in which case you have a 4th receptor somewhere between the others...
BTW, I've used similar techniques on the GBA & DS, turning sprites on and off each video frame, to get a semi-transparent effect. It works well enough, but it's noticeably inferior to actually displaying the proper colors.
I think part of the problem is that Apple makes the OS and the hardware. You've got the OS telling you it's displaying millions of colors when Apple knows the hardware isn't really doing it.
With other manufacturers, they don't have much control over the OS, so there isn't as much integration, therefore, lower expectations.
Furthermore, how much of it is an illusion if the human eye is physically incapable of telling the difference? Are the people filing the lawsuit taking high-quality pictures of their monitors in order to edit the photos? Are the colors being stored any less real? I just don't see the impact, even to higher end artists, if the monitor communicates the information to the human brain.
I did 3D graphics work for Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) work about 4 years ago. One of the projects I did was drawing a line to trace the flow of particles through a model. The line changed color to indicate the change in velocity of the particle. Over the course of the run the color change would be significant, but from pixel to pixel the change was very small (but important). I started on a crappy CRT, but mid project was given a decent (not great) LCD. Even when staring from 2 inches away, I simply could not see the small color changes that were easily visible on the CRT.
So that's one case where the difference is visible and important.
Oh, btw, I have some mild form of color blindness, so I'm sure the difference is even more noticable to other people.
How cute for you but I think that VoIP traffic is completely unnecessary. I already pay for a land line phone as required by my DSL. However, I don't like to pay for videos and I think that your VoIP calls should be able to take a backseat to my 4mbit download of porn from http://empornium.us/
Your porn download doesn't suffer if the packets are given lower priority than the VOIP packets. VOIP is completely unusable if packets aren't given enough priority. Even with priority to VOIP, your porn download is still getting far more of the bandwidth than the VOIP is, so you can't really claim you're being slighted.
Prioritizing packets has very little to do with the total bandwidth. In the end, you've got a few connections connecting the ISP to the net, but thousands of customers connecting to the ISP. You're constantly going to get packets coming in at the same time from customers. The outbound connection has to send them sequentially, so you have to do some sort of prioritization. Your porn download is TCP. It has buffers and windows to come with this. VOIP is realtime, and can't, so it has to get the priority.
And if your porn download is a stream, it gets priority in between VOIP and the download.
Because "The next Intel Chip" isn't very descriptive. They have several designs in progress at once. It gets confusing when your project is "The next next next Intel Chip."
Also, not all designs get released. It confuses all references to "the next next next Intel Chip" when "the next next Intel Chip" gets canceled (see 4.0ghz P4). Likewise, "The next Windows" isn't very descriptive, as MS has separate desktop and server lines. Windows ME would've thrown everything off, as there wasn't originally supposed to be a product in that spot in the lineup.
It is not necessary for the kernel to be 64-bit to support 64-bit executables in user space. It is only necessary for the kernel to know how to manage an MMU that supports 64-bit addressing and for the kernel to maintain all unmapped user-space addresses as 64-bit values. Once mapped into the kernel, the kernel-space representation can safely be a 32-bit value without limiting anything other than the maximum aperture within a 64-bit app that the kernel can directly examine/modify at any one time.
That's fine and dandy in theory, but it doesn't match the x86-64 design. I've got the AMD manuals in front of me now. Read Volume 2 Chapter 1. It says very clearly that the kernel MUST be running as 64 bit code for ANY process to have access to 64 bit functionality. If the kernel isn't running as 64 bit code, it doesn't have access to the control registers and instructions necessary to set up the 64 bit memory management.
Don't forget, if you enable 64 bit mode, the CPU requires exception and interrupt and handlers to be 64 bit code.
See Common 64-bit Myths if you'd like further confirmation.
You should try reading it yourself. It says PowerPC was designed for mixing 32 bit and 64 bit code in the way you're speaking. x86 wasn't. It was designed to mix 16 and 32 bit code in the way you're speaking of though. When you jump to 64 bit mode, it's a clean break.
The new music channels only spoonfeed you crap that the RIAA companies pay lots of money to promote the hell out of, and the classic rock stations (my previous favorites) only play stuff I already have on CDs and can play myself on my iPod.
You should try listening to XM's music channels then. They do have a set of channels that's like you say (most of the 20's), but the rest of there stuff isn't like that. They don't repeat songs often, and play a mix of popular and obscure stuff. They've got a few non-RIAA stations too (or at least used to), but I never cared for them so don't know much about them.
You're pretty much dead on. Early on though it was intended to be a streamlined browser, but as I said before, that changed pretty quickly. Except very few people noticed...
Zelda 2 had more RPG elements than other Zelda games, but Zelda 2 isn't much like the rest of the series at all. It's not really worth bringing into a discussion about the series...
That is exactly what I'm saying, but open sourcing would fix it. The only trick: open source flash. I mean the macromedia/adobe thing. You know, that runs your code... And currently it is not OSS. If it would be, we would already have 64bit flash up and working.
No, you wouldn't have it up and running. Look at major projects like OpenOffice and Mozilla. It was years before a significant chunk of work on those projects was done by outside contributors. Compilers are pretty high up the list of difficult things to do. You're living in a fantasy land if you think people would be able to learn how the Flash code base works and write a new compiler for it in a short time period.
Originally, yes. At some point it was increased to 2^48, matching the virtual address space. I'm not sure why since I doubt anyone even server customers were reaching the limit.
Never knew they actually made the change. Must've happened during the switch to the AM2 socket, as they would have to change the socket layout to do it. There wouldn't have been any advantage to limiting it to 2^40 if the socket still had the connections.
Firefox was only leaner than Mozilla back when it was called Phoenix and had only the bare minimum UI necessary to be a web browser.
Mozilla never was slow (at least not after it reached the point that it was good enough to consider using as your standard browser) and really wasn't a memory hog. That perception came about from the people who really didn't want an integrated email program, but absolutely refused to choose "Browser only" when the installer asked what they wanted.
Around the time of the name changed from Phoenix to Firebird, the two browsers were about on par. By the time the name changed to Firefox, it was already more bloated than Mozilla. The project goals moved more towards grabbing attention than being lean.
If Mozilla had just made a theme that blended in to the OS (Classic doesn't do a good enough job of it) and put a link on the download page to an installer that only had the browser included, there never would have been a need for Firefox.
Slashdot Mirror
They do not know that the trademark "Open Source" meant originally Free/Libre Software. They do not know that it is their freedom which is at stake here.
Or, just maybe, most people don't see it that way.
People generally don't consider it a blow against their freedom that their car doesn't come with the required information to make an exact replica of the engine, or when their microwave doesn't come with a circuit diagram, or their music CDs don't come with sheet music.
Why would they see it any differently with software?
People think that they got their morals from their religion because they haven't actually read the so-called morality of the Bible. Current day people (1) don't follow the barbaric morality of the Bible and (2) follow the good morality in the Bible that was stolen from secular morality.
Calm down there and think about what you're saying.
The barbaric stuff is in the old testament. Christianity uses the old testament mainly for context, and really only focuses on the parts that fit with the new testament, like the 10 commandments.
As for your second point, that's completely irrelevant. All that matters is where a person gets the values from now. Or more specifically, where they think they got them from. If everything in the bible happened exactly as written, or if a couple people got high and made it all up, it doesn't change the fact that a large portion of the world today is heavily influenced by it.
I can't believe how gullible and ignorant so many people are. If you don't believe in a character from a 2000+ yr old book you are somehow less of a person. What a load of BS.
I don't think that's it at all.
If you know a candidate is of religion X, you have an idea what their moral values are rooted in. Or at least those they were raised with, even if they have drifted away.
But for an athiest, you don't have a clue, which makes a lot of people much more cautious in giving their trust.
Also, it bugs me that none of the Ubuntu systems have AMD processors! Most of us who run Linux want 64-bit these days, since 64-bit "just works" under Linux, and gives a pretty good performance boost.
I think the issue is Intel offers open source drivers for their integrated video cards. Less legal complications and less software complications that way. Also, the Windows variants of these machines seem to offer ATI graphics cards, which are the most likely to have problems under Linux.
It's up the the BIOS code to figure out what exact model of CPU it is then enable all the neat extra features, like 32 or 64 bit modes SMP and other goodies.
Minor nitpick, but the BIOS doesn't do any of that. The BIOS just does the absolute minimum required to get the CPU going. It sets the clock and loads the microcode, then looks for a boot sector to run. The boot sector code is good old 16 bit code still.
Nope, the BIOS is normal 16 bit x86 code. When the processor powers on, it automatically starts running code at a specific address, which is where the BIOS is located. (The back of my head says there may be one level of indirection, as in the CPU looks for a pointer at a specific address, which is in the BIOS range, then starts running the code it points to, also in the BIOS range).
Anyway, as for the overclocking problem. If the motherboard detects that the CPU completely doesn't work with the settings specified, it automatically sets all the settings to the slowest supported values and tries to boot the CPU again.
If you are getting shocks or seeing sparks when connecting an antenna to a TV set, call a qualified electrician.
I've found another cause for that. When Cablevision installed my cable, they put in a splitter incorrectly. They connected the incoming cable to one of the out ports of the splitter. Everything worked, but the signal quality was lower than it should have been, and I got shocks any time I touched the end of a cable past the splitter. Didn't figure it out until there was a problem on the utility pole that required Cablevision to come fix it.
I once found the text strings stored in the BIOS of my 286. Not far from the standard "Keyboard error, press F1 to continue." message was "CPU not found. System halted."
I always wondered how they intended to display that message.
The Dreamcast controller had an absolutely horrible shape. The sides were curved just enough that it looks like they were trying to make it comfortable, but not enough to actually fit well in your hands.
If you're colorblind how did you monitor the changes for your very precise graphics program?
This isn't intended to be a troll, I'm just not sure I'm following you.
First, the colors in use weren't in a color range that I have trouble with. Second, printing debug info to a console helps a lot, colorblind or not.
The hardware might not really be doing it, but the hardware is telling the system it is really doing it. The systems tells the user what the hardware is telling it.
The OS knows what the video card is capable of and operates based on that. In these cases, the monitor is asking the video card for a 24 bit signal and then dithering it. Only the monitor circuitry knows that it's happening.
Certainly this is not an excuse, but is the approach of dithering any more different that three different coloured sub-pixels (RGB) creating the illusion of a single colour any more different?
Yes, it is. The 3 subpixel approach works because that's how your high works. Your eye has receptors in the red, green, and blue wavelengths. Unless you're a female with a pair of the right recessive genes, in which case you have a 4th receptor somewhere between the others...
BTW, I've used similar techniques on the GBA & DS, turning sprites on and off each video frame, to get a semi-transparent effect. It works well enough, but it's noticeably inferior to actually displaying the proper colors.
The red, green, and blue components are subpixels. Combined, they make a pixel. It's taken advantage of in subpixel text antialiasing.
I think part of the problem is that Apple makes the OS and the hardware. You've got the OS telling you it's displaying millions of colors when Apple knows the hardware isn't really doing it.
With other manufacturers, they don't have much control over the OS, so there isn't as much integration, therefore, lower expectations.
Furthermore, how much of it is an illusion if the human eye is physically incapable of telling the difference? Are the people filing the lawsuit taking high-quality pictures of their monitors in order to edit the photos? Are the colors being stored any less real? I just don't see the impact, even to higher end artists, if the monitor communicates the information to the human brain.
I did 3D graphics work for Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) work about 4 years ago. One of the projects I did was drawing a line to trace the flow of particles through a model. The line changed color to indicate the change in velocity of the particle. Over the course of the run the color change would be significant, but from pixel to pixel the change was very small (but important). I started on a crappy CRT, but mid project was given a decent (not great) LCD. Even when staring from 2 inches away, I simply could not see the small color changes that were easily visible on the CRT.
So that's one case where the difference is visible and important.
Oh, btw, I have some mild form of color blindness, so I'm sure the difference is even more noticable to other people.
How cute for you but I think that VoIP traffic is completely unnecessary. I already pay for a land line phone as required by my DSL. However, I don't like to pay for videos and I think that your VoIP calls should be able to take a backseat to my 4mbit download of porn from http://empornium.us/
Your porn download doesn't suffer if the packets are given lower priority than the VOIP packets. VOIP is completely unusable if packets aren't given enough priority. Even with priority to VOIP, your porn download is still getting far more of the bandwidth than the VOIP is, so you can't really claim you're being slighted.
Prioritizing packets has very little to do with the total bandwidth. In the end, you've got a few connections connecting the ISP to the net, but thousands of customers connecting to the ISP. You're constantly going to get packets coming in at the same time from customers. The outbound connection has to send them sequentially, so you have to do some sort of prioritization. Your porn download is TCP. It has buffers and windows to come with this. VOIP is realtime, and can't, so it has to get the priority.
And if your porn download is a stream, it gets priority in between VOIP and the download.
Because "The next Intel Chip" isn't very descriptive. They have several designs in progress at once. It gets confusing when your project is "The next next next Intel Chip."
Also, not all designs get released. It confuses all references to "the next next next Intel Chip" when "the next next Intel Chip" gets canceled (see 4.0ghz P4). Likewise, "The next Windows" isn't very descriptive, as MS has separate desktop and server lines. Windows ME would've thrown everything off, as there wasn't originally supposed to be a product in that spot in the lineup.
It is not necessary for the kernel to be 64-bit to support 64-bit executables in user space. It is only necessary for the kernel to know how to manage an MMU that supports 64-bit addressing and for the kernel to maintain all unmapped user-space addresses as 64-bit values. Once mapped into the kernel, the kernel-space representation can safely be a 32-bit value without limiting anything other than the maximum aperture within a 64-bit app that the kernel can directly examine/modify at any one time.
That's fine and dandy in theory, but it doesn't match the x86-64 design. I've got the AMD manuals in front of me now. Read Volume 2 Chapter 1. It says very clearly that the kernel MUST be running as 64 bit code for ANY process to have access to 64 bit functionality. If the kernel isn't running as 64 bit code, it doesn't have access to the control registers and instructions necessary to set up the 64 bit memory management.
Don't forget, if you enable 64 bit mode, the CPU requires exception and interrupt and handlers to be 64 bit code.
See Common 64-bit Myths if you'd like further confirmation.
You should try reading it yourself. It says PowerPC was designed for mixing 32 bit and 64 bit code in the way you're speaking. x86 wasn't. It was designed to mix 16 and 32 bit code in the way you're speaking of though. When you jump to 64 bit mode, it's a clean break.
The new music channels only spoonfeed you crap that the RIAA companies pay lots of money to promote the hell out of, and the classic rock stations (my previous favorites) only play stuff I already have on CDs and can play myself on my iPod.
You should try listening to XM's music channels then. They do have a set of channels that's like you say (most of the 20's), but the rest of there stuff isn't like that. They don't repeat songs often, and play a mix of popular and obscure stuff. They've got a few non-RIAA stations too (or at least used to), but I never cared for them so don't know much about them.
Beaten it several times. Don't have anything against it at all.
But the series has at least a dozen games, and they all have the same core design except for 2...
The only place where a binary base (2^30 etc) makes sense is when dealing with memory systems that use binary addresses.
Such as, say, hard disks, which operate on units of 2^9 bytes (and soon to be 2^12).
You're pretty much dead on. Early on though it was intended to be a streamlined browser, but as I said before, that changed pretty quickly. Except very few people noticed...
Zelda 2 had more RPG elements than other Zelda games, but Zelda 2 isn't much like the rest of the series at all. It's not really worth bringing into a discussion about the series...
That is exactly what I'm saying, but open sourcing would fix it. The only trick: open source flash. I mean the macromedia/adobe thing. You know, that runs your code... And currently it is not OSS. If it would be, we would already have 64bit flash up and working.
No, you wouldn't have it up and running. Look at major projects like OpenOffice and Mozilla. It was years before a significant chunk of work on those projects was done by outside contributors. Compilers are pretty high up the list of difficult things to do. You're living in a fantasy land if you think people would be able to learn how the Flash code base works and write a new compiler for it in a short time period.
Originally, yes. At some point it was increased to 2^48, matching the virtual address space. I'm not sure why since I doubt anyone even server customers were reaching the limit.
Never knew they actually made the change. Must've happened during the switch to the AM2 socket, as they would have to change the socket layout to do it. There wouldn't have been any advantage to limiting it to 2^40 if the socket still had the connections.
Firefox was only leaner than Mozilla back when it was called Phoenix and had only the bare minimum UI necessary to be a web browser.
Mozilla never was slow (at least not after it reached the point that it was good enough to consider using as your standard browser) and really wasn't a memory hog. That perception came about from the people who really didn't want an integrated email program, but absolutely refused to choose "Browser only" when the installer asked what they wanted.
Around the time of the name changed from Phoenix to Firebird, the two browsers were about on par. By the time the name changed to Firefox, it was already more bloated than Mozilla. The project goals moved more towards grabbing attention than being lean.
If Mozilla had just made a theme that blended in to the OS (Classic doesn't do a good enough job of it) and put a link on the download page to an installer that only had the browser included, there never would have been a need for Firefox.