Lawyer: "I've looked at the agreement. You're pretty much fucked." You: "Is the agreement that bad?" Laywer: "The agreement? No. I'm talking about my fees."
What does it matter if he takes "trade secrets" to WD? Does anyone doubt that WD is able to reverse-engineer Seagate's drives? The reason why they can't copy them isn't that they don't know how they work, it's because Seagate holds the relevant patents (and the same is valid the other way around).
Just like the "face recognition systems" used to spot terrorists, or the "child protection" software that's supposed to recognise porn.
Not only is the success rate well below 90%, but, more importantly, it spits out thousands of false positives.
And this is without even considering their admission that their technique does not work on JPEG images, even at "90% quality". In other words, they admit it won't work at all in 99% of digital pictures.
These are all tasks that need so much computing power such smart algorithms, that the only system that can perform them with acceptable reliability is a trained human brain.
How many functions do you know that use "double-pressing" of keyboard keys? I'm not saying it's not a good idea, in some cases (I've often thought it would be practical myself), but it's just not common, and would probably confuse some people.
In the specific case of caps lock, I don't think it would be a good idea. Too easy to turn on by mistake. I would prefer something like Ctrl+Shift, but of course, that would mean you couldn't use Ctrl+Shift as a modifier for other keys. All things considered, I think it's a good thing that caps lock (the function) and shift (the key) are completely separate.
Most mechanical typewriters did have a caps lock key (or rather, a shift lock key), which was basically a smaller key that "jammed" the shift key. If the shift key jammed itself simply by pressing it, it would be too easy to turn it on by mistake.
Besides, now that Microsoft has patented double-clicking, maybe it's a good thing it's not used.;)
If you hit it by accident, then it's probably in the wrong place. In any case, IMO, a function like "sleep" should be on a timer (i.e., you press the button and, if you don't press anything else for 5 seconds, then the computer goes into sleep mode). Same goes for shutdown / hibernate / etc.
I knew someone must be doing them. Unfortunately the mouse looks too small for my paws, and doesn't seem to have buttons 4 and 5, which no self-respecting gamer can live without.;)
Yes, I know. My old, old Atari ST has some of them too. I meant on PCs / Macs (and supported by Windows / Linux / OS X). Without OS support, no software will use them and no keyboard manufacturers will include them.
RMN ~~~
Keyboard update suggestions
on
Is Caps Lock Dead?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I think keyboards definitely need an update. More important than removing keys, though, is adding keys for some common tasks.
There are several keys that I think should be standard on all keyboards, not just to avoid having to use combinations, but mainly to avoid having a different combination in each program (ex., some programs use Ctrl+Z for undo, others use Alt+Backspace, etc.). Here's my list:
Select - Hold down this key to select items or text. Shift+Select selects from the last selected element to the current one, Control+Select adds the current element to the selection. Alt+Select would invert the selection. It would be placed where Caps Lock currently is. Caps Lock would be moved to the space above the numeric pad, where the Caps Lock LED usually is (make the LED part of the key). The other two "lock" keys would also be moved here.
Cut, Copy and Paste - Self-explanatory. Above Insert / Home / End.
Undo and Redo - Also self-explanatory.. Above Cut, Copy and Paste
Back and Forward - Above the left and right arrow keys. Useful for browsers, media players and wizards, can also work as "turn" keys for games, leaving the side arrows for strafe.
Help - Where F1 currently is. All function keys would move right by 2 keys, leaving Help between Esc and F1, with a space on each side. Alternatively, put it next to Undo.
Sleep - In the "System" section, near an edge of the keyboard (ex., top right), along with Print Screen and Pause / Break. Combined with Shift, Control and Alternate, this key could also be used for Standby / Hibernate / Shutdown.
Most of these keys could simply emulate the most common shotcuts (ex., Help = F1, Cut = Ctrl+X, etc.), so they would automatically be compatible with most existing programs.
I doubt this will happen anytime soon, though, since Microsoft is pretty much the only company with the power to dictate a "standard", and the fact that the only new keys to appear in several years are the "winkeys" shows that their idea of a "useful" key is one that has their logo on it, even if it's only used about once a month (or, in my case, not even that).
Also, one thing I'd like to see is a mouse where, instead of a scroll wheel (or two wheels), there was a mini-trackball, that could be used to scroll both vertically and horizontally. I'm surprised no-one has come up with this yet (at least I've never seen one).
First, an article about the shape of the universe, quoting a researcher from the University of Ulm. Then the University Lifestyle Manager (ULM).
I wonder if all this is somehow connected to Johann Gambolputty de von Ausfern Schplenden Schlitter Crasscrenbon Fried Digger Dingle Dangle Dongle Dungle Durstein von Knacker Thrasher Apple Banger Horowitz Ticolensic Grander Knotty Spelltinkle Grandlich Grumblemeyer Spelterwasser Kurstlich Himbleeisen Bahnwagen Gutenabend Bitte Ein Nürnburger Bratwustle Gerspurten Mitz Weimache Luber Hundsfut Gumberaber Shönedanker Kalbsfleisch Mittler Aucher von Hautkopft of Ulm...
Mozilla 1.7 size and performance have improved dramatically with this release. When compared to Mozilla 1.6, Mozilla 1.7 Beta is 7% faster at startup, is 8% faster at window open time, has 9% faster pageloading times, and is 5% smaller in binary size.
Dramatically? I don't know about you, but an 8% increase in speed and 5% decrease in size doesn't seem very dramatic to me. Mozilla is okay, but still fels like a truck compared to Opera.
Hello, Mr. Anonymous Coward. Apparently you don't understand the difference between a render farm and a cluster.
A cluster is something that appears to software as a single computer, and does its own load distribution. Assembling a cluster requires some specialised hardware and software, which are anything but trivial. You can either develop your own (like Cray are currently doing with Opteron CPUs) or you can use ready-made components and just adapt them to your configuration, like Virginia Tech did with their G5 cluster. The fact that the G5 is actually an IBM PPC970 enabled them to use existing technology for the clustering, cutting costs dramatically (compared to a x86 cluster).
A render farm, however, is something completely different. It doesn't require any special hardware or software; just a simple network connection. It's up to the renderer to detect and distribute the tasks by the various nodes. Which any decent 3D rendering package can do. In this situation, the price is just the price of the base system (plus a network card, if one isn't incuded). And this means that, besides being faster, x86 hardware is also cheaper.
If you are interested in the relative performance of different systems in 3D rendering, I recommend visiting this site. It compares over 50 different CPUs, all rendering exactly the same (10) scenes. I suggest comparing a dual G5 to a dual Xeon. And before you complain that Lightwave "isn't properly optimised for Altivec", let me assure you that it is. It just happens to be "properly optimised" for SSE2, too, which I'm sure you agree is only fair.
However, to make the G5 a viable alternative for rendering, Apple (IBM, to be more precise) doesn't need to make it faster. They (Apple) just need to make it cheaper. Unfortunately, the dual Xserve G5 is still overpriced (and not even available yet).
The article says they're replacing their workstations, not their render nodes. Most of the work on a workstation is done by the graphics card. Where you really need cheap CPU power is the render nodes, and x86 still gives more bang for the buck than the PPC970 / G5.
Note that the results shown in the MacWorld article are not normalised. In other words, they are the total number of attacks, not the number of attacks relative to the presence of each OS. Naturally, operating systems that power millions of web servers are more liklely to suffer attacks than operating systems that power only a few thousand (or even hundreds).
It sounds very impressive that "the number of recorded breaches against government servers running BSD or Mac OS X worldwide fell to zero in January 2004", but then you look at the number of government servers actually running OS X, and it becomes pretty clear why they weren't attacked. There are simply very few government servers running OS X (less than 3%).
So this "study" is a joke. I only wonder who comissioned it, Apple or Microsoft...?
This is not about making sense, it's about laws. And the law says that you can't take pictures in a private property without the owner's authorisation. And experience tells me that companies usually do not give that authorisation to their employees.
I think it was a Pepsi employee drinking Coke, actually.
Anyway, this is not the same problem. First because he wasn't using a Mac, or endorsing Macs. Second because Microsoft does not manufacture computers (and, even if they did, it would make perfect sense for them to test the competition's systems). In fact, Microsoft makes software for Mac OS, so they need Macs to develop and test it (and you don't need a picture to know they have them, you just need common sense).
What this guy did was post a picture taken without permission in a private property, quite possibly in an area where it was expressly prohibited to take pictures (and where he may not even have been authorised to be).
I already have it. It was just an example. I want them to play Privateer and Goal! and Syndicate and a lot of other great DOS games too.
People today can see the very first movies ever made on their computer (or their TV), but it takes a lot of work to get an old game to work on a modern computer / OS. It's a bit silly that I can run hundreds of ZX Spectrum games on my system (inside an emulator) but 9 out of 10 DOS games won't work properly unless I boot into DOS (yes, I know about VDMSound, too, but it has its limits). If the hardware changes to the point that DOS won't run, even that is lost.
I guess we can always keep an old Pentium or 486 around for the oldies, but to me that's a bit like having to have a B&W TV (or a film projector) to watch old movies.
As a famous nerdy guy (no, not Bill, the other one, starts with an L) once said, what some people see as x86's weaknesses are actually some of its great strengths, and if you design a very elegant architecture and then start optimising it for the real world, you might be surprised to end up with something that looks a lot like x86.
AMD-64 (x86-64) addresses some of the main problems of x86 (namely the small number of registers). Since virtually no-one codes in assembly anymore, and as long as the compilers are able to produce fast code, who cares if the architecture / instruction set is "elegant" or not? IA64 is "new" and "elegant" and most people I know who work with it say it's hell to work with. Compilers can't optimise, coding by hand takes forever, etc..
AMD-64 (x86 with 16 64-bit GP registers and 16 128-bit SSE registers) sounds like a good thing to me. Backwards compatibility also sounds like a good thing to me (I want my kids to see Ultima VII;-).
Slashdot Mirror
Lawyer: "I've looked at the agreement. You're pretty much fucked."
You: "Is the agreement that bad?"
Laywer: "The agreement? No. I'm talking about my fees."
RMN
~~~
What does it matter if he takes "trade secrets" to WD? Does anyone doubt that WD is able to reverse-engineer Seagate's drives? The reason why they can't copy them isn't that they don't know how they work, it's because Seagate holds the relevant patents (and the same is valid the other way around).
RMN
~~~
In one word: bullshit.
Just like the "face recognition systems" used to spot terrorists, or the "child protection" software that's supposed to recognise porn.
Not only is the success rate well below 90%, but, more importantly, it spits out thousands of false positives.
And this is without even considering their admission that their technique does not work on JPEG images, even at "90% quality". In other words, they admit it won't work at all in 99% of digital pictures.
These are all tasks that need so much computing power such smart algorithms, that the only system that can perform them with acceptable reliability is a trained human brain.
RMN
~~~
How many functions do you know that use "double-pressing" of keyboard keys? I'm not saying it's not a good idea, in some cases (I've often thought it would be practical myself), but it's just not common, and would probably confuse some people.
;)
In the specific case of caps lock, I don't think it would be a good idea. Too easy to turn on by mistake. I would prefer something like Ctrl+Shift, but of course, that would mean you couldn't use Ctrl+Shift as a modifier for other keys. All things considered, I think it's a good thing that caps lock (the function) and shift (the key) are completely separate.
Most mechanical typewriters did have a caps lock key (or rather, a shift lock key), which was basically a smaller key that "jammed" the shift key. If the shift key jammed itself simply by pressing it, it would be too easy to turn it on by mistake.
Besides, now that Microsoft has patented double-clicking, maybe it's a good thing it's not used.
RMN
~~~
If you hit it by accident, then it's probably in the wrong place. In any case, IMO, a function like "sleep" should be on a timer (i.e., you press the button and, if you don't press anything else for 5 seconds, then the computer goes into sleep mode). Same goes for shutdown / hibernate / etc.
RMN
~~~
I knew someone must be doing them. Unfortunately the mouse looks too small for my paws, and doesn't seem to have buttons 4 and 5, which no self-respecting gamer can live without. ;)
RMN
~~~
Yes, I know. My old, old Atari ST has some of them too. I meant on PCs / Macs (and supported by Windows / Linux / OS X). Without OS support, no software will use them and no keyboard manufacturers will include them.
RMN
~~~
There are several keys that I think should be standard on all keyboards, not just to avoid having to use combinations, but mainly to avoid having a different combination in each program (ex., some programs use Ctrl+Z for undo, others use Alt+Backspace, etc.). Here's my list:
Most of these keys could simply emulate the most common shotcuts (ex., Help = F1, Cut = Ctrl+X, etc.), so they would automatically be compatible with most existing programs.
I doubt this will happen anytime soon, though, since Microsoft is pretty much the only company with the power to dictate a "standard", and the fact that the only new keys to appear in several years are the "winkeys" shows that their idea of a "useful" key is one that has their logo on it, even if it's only used about once a month (or, in my case, not even that).
Also, one thing I'd like to see is a mouse where, instead of a scroll wheel (or two wheels), there was a mini-trackball, that could be used to scroll both vertically and horizontally. I'm surprised no-one has come up with this yet (at least I've never seen one).
RMN
~~~
...a beowulf cluster of these? Pew!
First, an article about the shape of the universe, quoting a researcher from the University of Ulm. Then the University Lifestyle Manager (ULM).
I wonder if all this is somehow connected to Johann Gambolputty de von Ausfern Schplenden Schlitter Crasscrenbon Fried Digger Dingle Dangle Dongle Dungle Durstein von Knacker Thrasher Apple Banger Horowitz Ticolensic Grander Knotty Spelltinkle Grandlich Grumblemeyer Spelterwasser Kurstlich Himbleeisen Bahnwagen Gutenabend Bitte Ein Nürnburger Bratwustle Gerspurten Mitz Weimache Luber Hundsfut Gumberaber Shönedanker Kalbsfleisch Mittler Aucher von Hautkopft of Ulm...
"Lindos" means "beautiful" in Portuguese.
RMN
~~~
AOL is putting up a Porsche it seized from a spammer last year in a sweepstakes.
And of course, they're telling everyone about it by sending out mass e-mails.
RMN
~~~
It's good to see them impose some standards on the military.
Mozilla 1.7 size and performance have improved dramatically with this release. When compared to Mozilla 1.6, Mozilla 1.7 Beta is 7% faster at startup, is 8% faster at window open time, has 9% faster pageloading times, and is 5% smaller in binary size.
Dramatically? I don't know about you, but an 8% increase in speed and 5% decrease in size doesn't seem very dramatic to me. Mozilla is okay, but still fels like a truck compared to Opera.
RMN
~~~
Hello, Mr. Anonymous Coward. Apparently you don't understand the difference between a render farm and a cluster.
A cluster is something that appears to software as a single computer, and does its own load distribution. Assembling a cluster requires some specialised hardware and software, which are anything but trivial. You can either develop your own (like Cray are currently doing with Opteron CPUs) or you can use ready-made components and just adapt them to your configuration, like Virginia Tech did with their G5 cluster. The fact that the G5 is actually an IBM PPC970 enabled them to use existing technology for the clustering, cutting costs dramatically (compared to a x86 cluster).
A render farm, however, is something completely different. It doesn't require any special hardware or software; just a simple network connection. It's up to the renderer to detect and distribute the tasks by the various nodes. Which any decent 3D rendering package can do. In this situation, the price is just the price of the base system (plus a network card, if one isn't incuded). And this means that, besides being faster, x86 hardware is also cheaper.
If you are interested in the relative performance of different systems in 3D rendering, I recommend visiting this site. It compares over 50 different CPUs, all rendering exactly the same (10) scenes. I suggest comparing a dual G5 to a dual Xeon. And before you complain that Lightwave "isn't properly optimised for Altivec", let me assure you that it is. It just happens to be "properly optimised" for SSE2, too, which I'm sure you agree is only fair.
However, to make the G5 a viable alternative for rendering, Apple (IBM, to be more precise) doesn't need to make it faster. They (Apple) just need to make it cheaper. Unfortunately, the dual Xserve G5 is still overpriced (and not even available yet).
The article says they're replacing their workstations, not their render nodes. Most of the work on a workstation is done by the graphics card. Where you really need cheap CPU power is the render nodes, and x86 still gives more bang for the buck than the PPC970 / G5.
Note that the results shown in the MacWorld article are not normalised. In other words, they are the total number of attacks, not the number of attacks relative to the presence of each OS. Naturally, operating systems that power millions of web servers are more liklely to suffer attacks than operating systems that power only a few thousand (or even hundreds).
It sounds very impressive that "the number of recorded breaches against government servers running BSD or Mac OS X worldwide fell to zero in January 2004", but then you look at the number of government servers actually running OS X, and it becomes pretty clear why they weren't attacked. There are simply very few government servers running OS X (less than 3%).
So this "study" is a joke. I only wonder who comissioned it, Apple or Microsoft...?
Yes.
Never trust a programmer who didn't play with Lego when (s)he was a kid.
RMN
~~~
Here's a good article about this situation. Turns out he's actually a Xerox employee, too.
This is not about making sense, it's about laws. And the law says that you can't take pictures in a private property without the owner's authorisation. And experience tells me that companies usually do not give that authorisation to their employees.
I wasn't aware that Microsoft's campus was public property. When did they become the government...?
I think it was a Pepsi employee drinking Coke, actually.
Anyway, this is not the same problem. First because he wasn't using a Mac, or endorsing Macs. Second because Microsoft does not manufacture computers (and, even if they did, it would make perfect sense for them to test the competition's systems). In fact, Microsoft makes software for Mac OS, so they need Macs to develop and test it (and you don't need a picture to know they have them, you just need common sense).
What this guy did was post a picture taken without permission in a private property, quite possibly in an area where it was expressly prohibited to take pictures (and where he may not even have been authorised to be).
I already have it. It was just an example. I want them to play Privateer and Goal! and Syndicate and a lot of other great DOS games too.
People today can see the very first movies ever made on their computer (or their TV), but it takes a lot of work to get an old game to work on a modern computer / OS. It's a bit silly that I can run hundreds of ZX Spectrum games on my system (inside an emulator) but 9 out of 10 DOS games won't work properly unless I boot into DOS (yes, I know about VDMSound, too, but it has its limits). If the hardware changes to the point that DOS won't run, even that is lost.
I guess we can always keep an old Pentium or 486 around for the oldies, but to me that's a bit like having to have a B&W TV (or a film projector) to watch old movies.
As a famous nerdy guy (no, not Bill, the other one, starts with an L) once said, what some people see as x86's weaknesses are actually some of its great strengths, and if you design a very elegant architecture and then start optimising it for the real world, you might be surprised to end up with something that looks a lot like x86.
;-).
AMD-64 (x86-64) addresses some of the main problems of x86 (namely the small number of registers). Since virtually no-one codes in assembly anymore, and as long as the compilers are able to produce fast code, who cares if the architecture / instruction set is "elegant" or not? IA64 is "new" and "elegant" and most people I know who work with it say it's hell to work with. Compilers can't optimise, coding by hand takes forever, etc..
AMD-64 (x86 with 16 64-bit GP registers and 16 128-bit SSE registers) sounds like a good thing to me. Backwards compatibility also sounds like a good thing to me (I want my kids to see Ultima VII