The paper was titled, "Utilizing Pressure-sensitive Keyboards to Enhance the Realism of Real-Time Sexual Interactions between Three-Dimensional Avatars".
Except that GPU architecture is pretty different from that of a CPU. IANAE(xpert), but from what I understand the GPU is very, very, parallel compared to a CPU thanks to how easily parallelized most graphics problems are. Though CPUs are gaining more cores, I think that the difficulty in parallelizing many problems places a practical limit on the CPU's parallelism.
That's not to say though that a GPU-type parallel core can't be integrated into the CPU package, however. I believe NVIDIA is doing some of this?
3D Realms has announced post-reorganization merger plans with SCO Group. SCO shares were up $0.02/share for a gain of 10000% on the news that they would be suing themselves for non-performance.
Don't take this as a personal criticism, because it's not... For those who want to properly use the phrase "Beg the Question" though, here's a fun explanation:
...We ain't got shit. Seriously though, I was actually in a RS the other day analyzing the store a little while talking to a long-time clerk. People say that RS is trying to compete with Best Buy, et cetera; that's not quite it, in my opinion. What they are really doing here is setting up a national chain of third-party mobile phone stores.
When you walk into the typical RS, the front 30-40% of the store is almost entirely given over to mobiles and accessories. Looking at their website, the first item on the top menu bar is "Phones and Radio Communications" with the first item in that menu being "Accessories" (the highest-margin part of the mobile business). Every time I checkout, I get asked how long I've had my current mobile phone.
Not even considering the classic component selection, the other consumer electronics stuff is a distant second to mobile. The clerk I spoke with said they're lucky to sell a couple TVs per month. And why *would* they do any better than that, when Wal-Mart knocks the shorts off them in price?
Does the new business model piss me off as an electronics hobbyist? Yeah, sure it does. I wanted to get a power MOSFET the other day and the highest-voltage part they had was an IRF510. They carry silver solder, but no flux. Etchant but no copper-clad boards. However, I don't blame them if they aren't making any money selling that stuff.
In my opinion, there's one way left to make money on a retail electronics-as-in-making-them store. Forget about the mall, and set it up as a hobby-type shop where you put on classes, offer support, and so on. Similar in a sense to a traditional 'hobby'-type store like Michael's or Hobby Lobby; they sell cake decorating gear by putting on classes featuring said gear. In the right environment, say a college town, there's no reason that a small, owner-operated hobby electronics shop couldn't make it if they're not having to pay mall rents. Put on an Arduino workshop, and sell those suckers at 150% the usual markup. Passives assortments at $20/pop. Saturday-morning robot showoff session. Have a tiny lab in the store with a couple o-scopes and DMMs where people could come in and work on their projects for some nominal fee. Would it satisfy the profit desires of corporate America? No. But it'd probably pay the owner's mortgage...
Apparently Apple was going to require *two* unusual text characters for the iPwn hack, but Steve Jobs insisted that this would be too complicated for their users.
It's probably instructive to look at which software publishers DO currently allow resale of their licenses. Mainly, it seems to be those selling expensive, niche software who need to convince a portion of their buyers that a portion of their investment can be recouped when it's time to upgrade or if the product doesn't work out. Unfortunately, a $50 or $60 game doesn't have nearly the psychological effect on its purchaser as a $2000 CAD package. Further, given that most games end up in the hands of people who aren't using them to run a business, they're less likely to vote their dollars against someone who doesn't allow resale.
It is interesting though, to consider the competitive advantage that a publisher might gain by allowing resale in a world where the ability to resell isn't the norm. I suppose it is possible that someone would buy FPS #1 over FPS #2 if #1's publisher allowed resale. Too bad that most buy solely on the basis of web hype.
I take issue with this quote: "...but Microsoft has no such restrictions. They could cut console production costs and take control over the entire supply chain in one fell swoop. There would be zero room for publishers to negotiate anything in such a de facto monopoly. The perfect comparison is Wal-Mart. As the world's largest retailer, Wal-Mart is able to demand pretty much whatever it wants of suppliers because it grants access to such large numbers of consumers."
It is quite true that Wal-Mart takes control of aspects of its supply chain much more thoroughly than a typical retailer. That said, consoles are all about the games that are available. Publishers have the right to develop for any console they wish, be it the PS3, XBox 360, Wii, DS, PSP, the PC, and so on. The competitive action doesn't necessarily need to exist on the retailer level for there to still be competition. If a hardware company gets all Hitler on its publishers, they won't develop for that platform, nobody will buy said platform, and the platform will severely suffer for it.
Also unlike a retailer such as Wal-Mart, a gaming platform's life is measured in years. There are also a lot more gaming platforms than there are discount retailers, and there's always a new one on the horizon. Given that a platform's 'semi-captive' audience is relatively short-lived, I don't think that there's too much to worry about with regard to monopoly behavior on top of a downloadable model any more than there is with today's physical distribution.
Also, the part of the argument that states, "They could cut console production costs and take control over the entire supply chain in one fell swoop." is bullshit. C'mon guys...
I've never been impressed with the concept of selling used games. I respect and think that that the right to do so is important, but given how incredibly crappy the return on one's investment is I've never even considered selling a game. Today's used video games are yesterday's baseball cards. I remember the exact same predatory purchasing behavior going on at my local mall in the 1980s. If it could happen without tarnishing our right to resell a game, I'd be more than happy to see this 'business' model fall apart.
Due to the above, I think people shouldn't focus so much on the used game sales and instead consider the net benefit that *might* be had if the physical distribution model went away altogether. First off, no more disc-based DRM schemes. Secondly, buying direct has the *possibility* of driving down prices. Obviously, if Sony, MS, et al decided en masse to keep game prices high they could do so, but they would at least have more flexibility by not being beholden to the retailers. If there's one lesson to be learned from the last several hundred years of product distribution, it's that there's always a better deal to be had by skipping the middleman.
If the publishers did decide to engage in price-fixing, there is a strong argument that could be brought against such behavior. Let's say that a game today sells for $50. Now, tomorrow the physical distribution model evaporates, we're all buying direct, and the publishers refuse to take advantage of the opportunity to undercut one another to gain a competitive advantage. This is obviously not free-market behavior, and the only question that would need to be asked is, "How can you claim to sell something for the same price as you did yesterday, when the distributor and retailer markup is gone?"
The answer to that question, of course, would depend on how strong the gaming publisher lobby is...
Frankly, I've always assumed that Apple's agreements with the carriers have provisions to limit both the types of usage as well as the amount. If I was coming at this with a carrier's motivations, that's exactly what I'd be looking for.
Evidence the pulling of Google Voice apps with the explanation that they duplicate functionality. Who's functionality? Apples? No, the networks'.
Also obvious is the incessant nagging, turned on by default, wherein the iPhone insists upon connecting to nearby WiFI networks. Most users would probably rather pass on being harassed to join said networks for an unnoticable increase in speed for most apps. On the other hand, AT&T is probably thinking that those bytes add up and any they can foist off on another network is a good thing.
Finally, the limit on apps and songs wherein those over a certain size (I think 10MB) *must* be downloaded over WiFi. At least they got rid of the WiFi-only nature of the ITMS...
First off, the argument of a jailbroken iPhone causing damage to cell towers is a red herring. Given that most iPhone jailbreakers are likely subscribers of Apple's preferred providers, a fairly small proportion of them ever even touch the baseband. The Copyright Office could easily make a decision that states the OS of the iPhone is fair game while leaving the baseband off-limits. To use a baseband argument to pitch out the entire jailbreak issue does not follow valid logic. Furthermore, it's not hard to imagine that any hacker capable of doing damage with a jailbroken iPhone would also have the ability to create a custom platform capable of said damage. In today's world of software radios, published standards, et cetera, one hardly needs an Apple product to generate malevolent radio signals.
Secondly, it's possible that the decision has already been made. Oftentimes, arguments like this (especially ridiculous ones like the one in question) are merely 'cover' for government officials to make publicly-unpopular decisions. I'm not saying that's necessarily what's going on here, but it is certainly possible. The major evidence in favor of this, and the thing that made me think of the possibility at all, is the 'leading' nature of the questions provided to Apple from the Copyright Office. For example:
Does jailbreaking violate a license agreement between Apple and the purchaser of an iPhone? If so, please explain what provision it violates and whether jailbreaking constitutes copyright infringement?
Does the iPhone licensing agreement distinguish between the ownership of the computer program and the ownership of the particular copy of the program that exists on the iPhone?
Does any licensing agreement specifically place terms on the copy of the computer program, or do the license terms relate to the computer program generally?
Et cetera...
Now, I'm not a paid copyright expert but even *I* can spend 15 minutes with Apple's EULA and find out the answers to these questions. I also refuse to believe that, as incapable as the Copyright Office seems to be sometimes, they didn't know the answers to these questions before they asked them. Where instead are questions that frame the issue in terms of Fair Use? Apple did handily take advantage of Question 1 to dispute Fair Use, since it's always easier to frame such answers without the context of a question specifically probing said topic.
The above is obviously fairly speculative, and I fully disclaim any idea that it's not. However, even if the decision hasn't been made I believe that we may have an idea which way they're leaning.
This is why HDCP exists. It ensures an encrypted pathway all the way to the electronics that drive the display pixels. You could capture at this point, but it would be a mammoth task in terms of data-acquisition. That said, HDCP is evil.
Your mom is a SMART lady. Kudos to her for making the right decision; she saved you from a lot of potential misery.
I represent the flip side of that situation. I skipped 2nd grade at one of the more rural schools in the district. Let me tell you, kids are MEAN. They don't take kindly to a strange, young kid coming into their midst, especially one that's smarter than they are (like you, I probably could have skipped 3rd too). The whole thing set me up to be an outcast, and I wound up even more socially awkward than I already was. It wasn't until I finally got to college that I finally started to feel comfortable, like I had a real peer group with people that didn't resent me. High school wasn't terrible, but junior high and elementary school were hell.
If my kids wind up in the position to skip a grade, no way. Parents feel 'proud' of their kids but it's not worth the pain just to pat yourself on the back that your kid skipped a grade. DON'T DO IT!
Also, I should mention that the reason I drug the whole Intel RAID into the mix is that ESX/ESXi does not support software RAID, so if you want RAID you *have* to have some sort of hardware solution (even if the processing is done on the host CPU). So, for those that are experimenting it would be nice to support the Intel RAID since it's free for the having on most recent boards.
For the reasons detailed above in both our posts, it would be even nicer if ESX/ESXi supported software RAID. However, given its enterprise purpose I highly doubt we'll see this in the near future.
Slashdot Mirror
The paper was titled, "Utilizing Pressure-sensitive Keyboards to Enhance the Realism of Real-Time Sexual Interactions between Three-Dimensional Avatars".
nt
...it's a space st.
Except that GPU architecture is pretty different from that of a CPU. IANAE(xpert), but from what I understand the GPU is very, very, parallel compared to a CPU thanks to how easily parallelized most graphics problems are. Though CPUs are gaining more cores, I think that the difficulty in parallelizing many problems places a practical limit on the CPU's parallelism.
That's not to say though that a GPU-type parallel core can't be integrated into the CPU package, however. I believe NVIDIA is doing some of this?
It says "My Computer" 'cause Bill thinks putting MS software on it makes it his.
Obviously. Later post-Bill versions of Windows changed it to just, "Computer"...
I dunno, if you're talking about this "The Sun" (NSFW) you might have something there...
http://xkcd.com/538/
And that's all I have to say about that.
What, no love for XENIX? :-)
3D Realms has announced post-reorganization merger plans with SCO Group. SCO shares were up $0.02/share for a gain of 10000% on the news that they would be suing themselves for non-performance.
...unless you're a lawyer. Look at the RIAA, SCO, et al. Their 'businesses' are all suffering while the lawyers laugh all the way to the bank.
It's a damn shame that the trial lawyer lobby is so strong.
Don't take this as a personal criticism, because it's not... For those who want to properly use the phrase "Beg the Question" though, here's a fun explanation:
http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=693
...We ain't got shit. Seriously though, I was actually in a RS the other day analyzing the store a little while talking to a long-time clerk. People say that RS is trying to compete with Best Buy, et cetera; that's not quite it, in my opinion. What they are really doing here is setting up a national chain of third-party mobile phone stores.
When you walk into the typical RS, the front 30-40% of the store is almost entirely given over to mobiles and accessories. Looking at their website, the first item on the top menu bar is "Phones and Radio Communications" with the first item in that menu being "Accessories" (the highest-margin part of the mobile business). Every time I checkout, I get asked how long I've had my current mobile phone.
Not even considering the classic component selection, the other consumer electronics stuff is a distant second to mobile. The clerk I spoke with said they're lucky to sell a couple TVs per month. And why *would* they do any better than that, when Wal-Mart knocks the shorts off them in price?
Does the new business model piss me off as an electronics hobbyist? Yeah, sure it does. I wanted to get a power MOSFET the other day and the highest-voltage part they had was an IRF510. They carry silver solder, but no flux. Etchant but no copper-clad boards. However, I don't blame them if they aren't making any money selling that stuff.
In my opinion, there's one way left to make money on a retail electronics-as-in-making-them store. Forget about the mall, and set it up as a hobby-type shop where you put on classes, offer support, and so on. Similar in a sense to a traditional 'hobby'-type store like Michael's or Hobby Lobby; they sell cake decorating gear by putting on classes featuring said gear. In the right environment, say a college town, there's no reason that a small, owner-operated hobby electronics shop couldn't make it if they're not having to pay mall rents. Put on an Arduino workshop, and sell those suckers at 150% the usual markup. Passives assortments at $20/pop. Saturday-morning robot showoff session. Have a tiny lab in the store with a couple o-scopes and DMMs where people could come in and work on their projects for some nominal fee. Would it satisfy the profit desires of corporate America? No. But it'd probably pay the owner's mortgage...
Well the jerk store called, and they're running out of...[iPhone Restarting]
Apparently Apple was going to require *two* unusual text characters for the iPwn hack, but Steve Jobs insisted that this would be too complicated for their users.
" 'The mere act of swimming implies that some water travels with the swimmer," said CalTech engineer Kakani Katija"
Temporary vortices aside, I think that Sir Isaac Newton might take issue with this statement.
And $500,000 for the porn, also to government specs...
Except that said agreements are probably protected, in which case Apple couldn't tell us if they wanted to...
It's probably instructive to look at which software publishers DO currently allow resale of their licenses. Mainly, it seems to be those selling expensive, niche software who need to convince a portion of their buyers that a portion of their investment can be recouped when it's time to upgrade or if the product doesn't work out. Unfortunately, a $50 or $60 game doesn't have nearly the psychological effect on its purchaser as a $2000 CAD package. Further, given that most games end up in the hands of people who aren't using them to run a business, they're less likely to vote their dollars against someone who doesn't allow resale.
It is interesting though, to consider the competitive advantage that a publisher might gain by allowing resale in a world where the ability to resell isn't the norm. I suppose it is possible that someone would buy FPS #1 over FPS #2 if #1's publisher allowed resale. Too bad that most buy solely on the basis of web hype.
I take issue with this quote: "...but Microsoft has no such restrictions. They could cut console production costs and take control over the entire supply chain in one fell swoop. There would be zero room for publishers to negotiate anything in such a de facto monopoly. The perfect comparison is Wal-Mart. As the world's largest retailer, Wal-Mart is able to demand pretty much whatever it wants of suppliers because it grants access to such large numbers of consumers."
It is quite true that Wal-Mart takes control of aspects of its supply chain much more thoroughly than a typical retailer. That said, consoles are all about the games that are available. Publishers have the right to develop for any console they wish, be it the PS3, XBox 360, Wii, DS, PSP, the PC, and so on. The competitive action doesn't necessarily need to exist on the retailer level for there to still be competition. If a hardware company gets all Hitler on its publishers, they won't develop for that platform, nobody will buy said platform, and the platform will severely suffer for it.
Also unlike a retailer such as Wal-Mart, a gaming platform's life is measured in years. There are also a lot more gaming platforms than there are discount retailers, and there's always a new one on the horizon. Given that a platform's 'semi-captive' audience is relatively short-lived, I don't think that there's too much to worry about with regard to monopoly behavior on top of a downloadable model any more than there is with today's physical distribution.
Also, the part of the argument that states, "They could cut console production costs and take control over the entire supply chain in one fell swoop." is bullshit. C'mon guys...
I've never been impressed with the concept of selling used games. I respect and think that that the right to do so is important, but given how incredibly crappy the return on one's investment is I've never even considered selling a game. Today's used video games are yesterday's baseball cards. I remember the exact same predatory purchasing behavior going on at my local mall in the 1980s. If it could happen without tarnishing our right to resell a game, I'd be more than happy to see this 'business' model fall apart.
Due to the above, I think people shouldn't focus so much on the used game sales and instead consider the net benefit that *might* be had if the physical distribution model went away altogether. First off, no more disc-based DRM schemes. Secondly, buying direct has the *possibility* of driving down prices. Obviously, if Sony, MS, et al decided en masse to keep game prices high they could do so, but they would at least have more flexibility by not being beholden to the retailers. If there's one lesson to be learned from the last several hundred years of product distribution, it's that there's always a better deal to be had by skipping the middleman.
If the publishers did decide to engage in price-fixing, there is a strong argument that could be brought against such behavior. Let's say that a game today sells for $50. Now, tomorrow the physical distribution model evaporates, we're all buying direct, and the publishers refuse to take advantage of the opportunity to undercut one another to gain a competitive advantage. This is obviously not free-market behavior, and the only question that would need to be asked is, "How can you claim to sell something for the same price as you did yesterday, when the distributor and retailer markup is gone?"
The answer to that question, of course, would depend on how strong the gaming publisher lobby is...
Frankly, I've always assumed that Apple's agreements with the carriers have provisions to limit both the types of usage as well as the amount. If I was coming at this with a carrier's motivations, that's exactly what I'd be looking for. Evidence the pulling of Google Voice apps with the explanation that they duplicate functionality. Who's functionality? Apples? No, the networks'. Also obvious is the incessant nagging, turned on by default, wherein the iPhone insists upon connecting to nearby WiFI networks. Most users would probably rather pass on being harassed to join said networks for an unnoticable increase in speed for most apps. On the other hand, AT&T is probably thinking that those bytes add up and any they can foist off on another network is a good thing. Finally, the limit on apps and songs wherein those over a certain size (I think 10MB) *must* be downloaded over WiFi. At least they got rid of the WiFi-only nature of the ITMS...
First off, the argument of a jailbroken iPhone causing damage to cell towers is a red herring. Given that most iPhone jailbreakers are likely subscribers of Apple's preferred providers, a fairly small proportion of them ever even touch the baseband. The Copyright Office could easily make a decision that states the OS of the iPhone is fair game while leaving the baseband off-limits. To use a baseband argument to pitch out the entire jailbreak issue does not follow valid logic. Furthermore, it's not hard to imagine that any hacker capable of doing damage with a jailbroken iPhone would also have the ability to create a custom platform capable of said damage. In today's world of software radios, published standards, et cetera, one hardly needs an Apple product to generate malevolent radio signals.
Secondly, it's possible that the decision has already been made. Oftentimes, arguments like this (especially ridiculous ones like the one in question) are merely 'cover' for government officials to make publicly-unpopular decisions. I'm not saying that's necessarily what's going on here, but it is certainly possible. The major evidence in favor of this, and the thing that made me think of the possibility at all, is the 'leading' nature of the questions provided to Apple from the Copyright Office. For example:
Now, I'm not a paid copyright expert but even *I* can spend 15 minutes with Apple's EULA and find out the answers to these questions. I also refuse to believe that, as incapable as the Copyright Office seems to be sometimes, they didn't know the answers to these questions before they asked them. Where instead are questions that frame the issue in terms of Fair Use? Apple did handily take advantage of Question 1 to dispute Fair Use, since it's always easier to frame such answers without the context of a question specifically probing said topic.
The above is obviously fairly speculative, and I fully disclaim any idea that it's not. However, even if the decision hasn't been made I believe that we may have an idea which way they're leaning.
This is why HDCP exists. It ensures an encrypted pathway all the way to the electronics that drive the display pixels. You could capture at this point, but it would be a mammoth task in terms of data-acquisition. That said, HDCP is evil.
Your mom is a SMART lady. Kudos to her for making the right decision; she saved you from a lot of potential misery. I represent the flip side of that situation. I skipped 2nd grade at one of the more rural schools in the district. Let me tell you, kids are MEAN. They don't take kindly to a strange, young kid coming into their midst, especially one that's smarter than they are (like you, I probably could have skipped 3rd too). The whole thing set me up to be an outcast, and I wound up even more socially awkward than I already was. It wasn't until I finally got to college that I finally started to feel comfortable, like I had a real peer group with people that didn't resent me. High school wasn't terrible, but junior high and elementary school were hell. If my kids wind up in the position to skip a grade, no way. Parents feel 'proud' of their kids but it's not worth the pain just to pat yourself on the back that your kid skipped a grade. DON'T DO IT!
Also, I should mention that the reason I drug the whole Intel RAID into the mix is that ESX/ESXi does not support software RAID, so if you want RAID you *have* to have some sort of hardware solution (even if the processing is done on the host CPU). So, for those that are experimenting it would be nice to support the Intel RAID since it's free for the having on most recent boards.
For the reasons detailed above in both our posts, it would be even nicer if ESX/ESXi supported software RAID. However, given its enterprise purpose I highly doubt we'll see this in the near future.