VLIW is just describing the structure of the actual
instructions. Making instructions all the same
size, with the same structure is a RISC concept. It
is true that many current CISC chips have a RISC
core... The pentium's for example run at 128bit
internally (if I'm remembering correctly). Of
course - there's too much hype about more bits
better... just look at game consoles in the 90's:
8bit, 16bit, 64bit... Funny how the neo geo's are
still around;-)
Unlike an Intel processor, the Transmeta chip
is based on a RISC architecture. If you take a
look at a CISC processor, like an Intel chip,
there is a ton of work that just goes into decoding
the instructions. Some instructions are one byte,
others are two, some have data imbedded in various
bits of the instruction, etc. This makes the
decoding and dispatching of instructions quite
complex. On a RISC architecture chip, certain
bits always indicate the instruction, others are
always data. Decoding on these chips is simple.
Now, if you were to double the number of input
bits on a CISC processor - you would have to
duplicated some fairly complex (read power hungry)
circuitry. On a RISC processor, doubling the input
bits simply doubles some simple hardware.
Still, that doesn't explain why 2x the bits
yields an energy saving... The reason for that is
that the concept of doubling the circuitry is a
simplified explanation - some of the hardware
can be shared. Really, they're just going to be
feeding two instructions through in parallel, so
for example, you only need to go through one power
hungry bus cycle to get the data. You only need
to run the dispatch unit once per two instructions,
etc.
Much like an automated car wash that uses a
bunch of water and electricity. If you changed the
design slightly, so that you could run two cars
through at once instead of only one you'll use more
water and electricity then one car but not as much'
as if the two ran through seperately.
25,000 tax records 2 employees inputing them (into what??) 200 records entered/day 12.5 records/man-hour
2000 man hours later... at $5/hr... $10,000.
Could have bought a new machine for that. And certainly have fixed the old one. In fact, what about the backups??? Send it away and get it burnt onto a CD! All of the data is likely in a fixed format record anyway.
Although it is likely:
1) The company that wrote the software went belly-up in 1989. 2) The software isn't Y2K compliant anyway. 2) The backups hadn't actually been backing anything up for the last 4 years (just spinning the tape). 3) A single RAM chip ($1.75) would fix the machine.
Actually, you just have to show up. We recently let the EPA use a section of our warehouse for this program (or one like it). Quite a few people were there to take stuff rather then bring it.
Apparently, they had no problem with this. Too bad I was busy that day!!!
Of course you mean free software, as in beer, not Free Software, as in speech.
I wouldn't really be interested in these programs until I can download, modify, and compile the source myself. In the end, your privacy is only limited by your ability and the ability of those you trust. This spyware debacle is yet another reason to promote the issues tackled by the Free Software movement.
Even if you aren't a software programmer, having the source available allows for public review, and tons of intelligent information on which to make a value based judgement. Spyware, or even cleaned spyware with a closed source does not allow this.
Kurt: This is Studio 360, at my desk is the film editor Doby Dorn and we're talking about all kinds of editing. Millions of "Star Wars" fans were lukewarm about the 1999 prequel "The Phantom Menace". But one disappointed fan actually did something about it. He calls himself the Phantom Editor. And with his personal computer he entirely recut the movie on video and started giving it away. This new phantom edit has become a global phenomenon thanks to the Internet and we invited him to speak publicly for the first time about why he did what he did.
[Starwars soundtrack]
PhantomEditor: The very first day that Phantom Menance premiered that...that afternoon I was thinking "Boy this movie needs a re-edit." I don't know, that afternoon I went up there sat next to a few people who had saw it when they were kidding about bringing their little kid in to see it. I thought "Wow this is really cool." And then the movie started and that sorta went right out the window.
[Jar-Jar-Binks]
PhantomEditor: On the screen there was so much extra material on there that I thought if they could remove some of this extra stuff THAT would actually make a better film. It's not that George Lucas didn't have the technology to do what he wanted to do, it's that he did. And somehow the movie became more about the technology then the storytelling aspect of it. The things that I...I was concerned with... uh... in my edit were the story redundancy, the over-abundance of Jar-Jar antics that didn't seem to carry the story forward, and the presentation of Jake Lloyd as Anakin Skywalker.
[Anikin: "You mean I get to come with you in your staaarshiiip?"]
PhantomEditor: He ends up being the evil character Darth Vader in the other "Star Wars" movies and the actions don't really seem reflective of that character. The blowing up of the droid control ship within the "Phantom Menace" was actually done as a... you know... an accident, where he hit the button and physically he says the word "Oops" at the end of it during the explosion.
[Anikin: "oops"]
PhantomEditor: Instead of letting him be heroic he ends up being a fumbling goof. All the happy accidents are now diminished.
PhantomEditor: Uh... throughout the whole movie from that battle sequence on Anikan's actions are now motivated by his heroic character. There are no oops's, there are none of the yippee's either...
[Anikan: "yippppeee!"]
PhantomEditor: There's an excessive amount of Jar-Jar antics, and what I mean by that, is the little examples which are almost a showpiece for the ILM special effects... where it takes you out of the story lets him participate in some little antic, and then you have to fight to get back into the story again. By removing alot of those things, I am not taking away from the story, I'm actually helping it by keeping people involved.
[Jar-Jar]
PhantomEditor: Initially when I did this it was for the audience of me and it really started out pretty harmless. The offering of a few copies to friends, who of course had friends who worked somewhere else who wanted to see it, and it began to get talked about. I mean, there was a point where I was getting over 200 emails a day. The first time I got one from New Zealand, that's what really scared the hell out of me, because I'm like "How did you see this?"
[Music swell]
PhantomEditor: First I remained anonymous because I guess that's originally what I wanted to do. You know, it was really a joke between friends, and I'm sure alot of those people knew who I was anyway. But when it got really huge like that it became really overwhelming for somebody like me who had edited this on a low end computer sitting on a $40 computer stand in my apartment. And then I didn't know the legal terms of it. All I knew is that I felt really safe because I wasn't making any profit off of that, but it was becoming aware to me that other people out there were.
[Deathstar music]
PhantomEditor: Initially George Lucas had said in public at the MTV awards that he did want to see it. But then later they put out a press statement that he would not ever watch it. Actually, I do think he should watch it. I just think that those people are making movies with their wallets. And might need a little kick in the butt from somebody like me who is completely at the other end of the scale which is similar to the message which is in the "Star Wars" films, that the underdog, the Luke Skywalker character overpowers the Empire.
[Music swell]
Kurt: Mike J. Nickels is the phantom editor and our story was produced by Michael May. Dody, you know the phantom editor I understand?
Dody: Yeah I've met him a couple times, and I have a copy of the "Phantom Edit". Is that what it's called?
Kurt: That's what it's called yeah.
Dody: [Laugh] and uhh, but I've never watched it.
Kurt: What do you think of... of what he's done? I mean the idea of... of a mere civilian taking a piece of, you know, zillion dollar entertainment and... and by his lights improving it?
Dody: Well, uhm, I think if it's an irrepressable urge.. uh.. uh.. there's no reason why somebody should stop doing something that's an irrepressable urge. I mean why? Why should he, I mean, he's not try to, as he said, not try to make any profit from it. Uh... I understand the irritation of the person who did make it. I... I understand it. But I don't have an answer for that. I don't really have an answer for whether he... I mean, what are the options? Could they come and put him in jail for having done that? I mean, there are over... over time there are examples of.. of other films... I think it's "Once Upon a Time in America" that had the European version where the time structure was all over the place, and then they made an American version that was... much uhm.. I mean obviously these were the people who owned the film, but I doubt seriously if it was the film-maker who wanted it to completely rearrange the time and made it much shorter. And people were critical of it. So I think when something like that is done that it opens... that its a forum for discussion.
Kurt: I understand that "Momento" in a European DVD form was in risk, or is going to be reorganized entirely, is that true?
Dody: Not exactly, uhm... the... I think it's the DVD release in England has an easter egg on it where you can play the film in forward chronology and Chris and I actually have never put the film in forward chronology. So while we were working on "Insomnia" we rented [laugh] the film, and digitized it, and put it in forward chronology. And we were so shocked by the change in how you experience the film; it was a completely different film. Uhm.. the character of.. of Lenard Shelby was now a really bad guy and in the structure that is Chris's design, he is someone who is avenging his wife's horrible murder. So he is a sympathetic character all the way through. And part of the purpose of that in telling the story that Chris wanted to tell is that it is an anti-revenge revenge tale. Because you spend the whole film thinking this is a good guy that we have empathy with who is going to avenge his wife's murder and at the end, or the middle of the story you realize, oh, maybe he is just a psycho.
Dody: And then it makes you question, I'd like to think it makes you question, the whole idea of revenge. Ah... because it's suddenly your perspective has shifted.
Kurt: And when you re-edited it as technology allows us to do and put it in the normal straight forward fasion, it's like you turn a beautiful, amazing, oragami construction into a... just a piece of paper.
Dody: Right, exactly, and it felt suddenly just like a... uh... uh... low rent, you know, film noir.
Kurt: Dody Dorn, thank you very much for joining me today in Studio 360.
Dody: Been alot of fun.
Kurt: Starting next month, you can see Dody Dorn's work in the new movie by Christopher Noland "Insomnia". It stars, Al Pacino, Hillary Swank, and Robert Williams. For more information about Dody Dorn, or about anything else you've heard on our program, visit our website, studio360.org.
Kurt: Studio 360 is produced by WNYC along with PRI, public radio international. The production team includes, Julie Berstein, Cary Hillman, Peter Clowny, Jocelyn Gonzolas, Steve Nelson, Michelle Speagle, Lisal Muhas, Andy Lancet, Lou Alcasky, Micheal Rayfield. The music is by David Vantiegams. I'm Kurt Anderson, and I do hope you'll join us next week in Studio 360.
Announcer: Studio 360 is co-produced by WNYC radio and public radio international, and is supported by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, The National Endowment for the Arts, the Tiffany and Company Foundation, and the Horith W. Goldsmith Foundation.
It is strongly recommended that routers which connect enterprises to external networks are set up with appropriate packet and routing filters at both ends of the link in order to prevent packet and routing information leakage. An enterprise should also filter any private networks from inbound routing information in order to protect itself from ambiguous routing situations which can occur if routes to the private address space point outside the enterprise.
If you are connecting your internal LAN using a private address space (10/8, 172.16/12, or 192.168/16) you are obviously using a firewall or router configured with NAT.
These need to be configured correctly for many different reasons, including the prevention of the effect mentioned in this article... Add null routes, or packet filter rules for any outgoing packets containing a destination falling in the RFC1918 address space. Also do the same for the incoming packets. By not doing this, you are flooding your upstream provider (in this case the root DNSs) with tons of bogus *(^@.
A few years ago I was lead engineer for a wireless internet company. Our clients were provided with a raw connection, just as if they had gotten a T1. After doing a week long network audit shortly after starting there, I was amazed to find that over 80% of our customer base had internal configuration problems with their NAT setups. Sniffing on the network, I got to see everything from MS Browse messages, DHCP requests, Netware "burbs", and tons of other stuff that should have never left their LANs.
I finally ended up installing firewalls at each POP site, just to dump out the extra junk... Our network speed increased by over 20% just blocking this nonsense at the POP (tower site) and keeping it from coming over our wireless backbone connections... On a typical 16MB/s link that's over 3MB/s of bandwidth we saved.
I don't think anyone would mind a sourceforge for chip building (especially free nightly builds!)
More on topic and to the point - it is good to see that MOSIX tech is now available opensource (stable anyway). Now we have yet another viable option for speeding up our Beowulfs (MOSIX is generally run with PVM/MPI - not as a replacement).
Yes, I couldn't find a good graph of this reaction. A good amount of information can be found in regards to CaO production - since it is the whole point of sintering in the cement industry.
I did take a little leeway with the calculations - but thats what happens with a napkin and 5 minutes. There were quite a few things I did not account for - all of which would take up energy. For example, the ingestion and extraction of CO2 would need to occur in two seperate units - likely requiring energy to move the CaCO3 between the units. Also, CaO readily absorbs other interesting gases like the SO's, which I'm not going to drag the CRC back out, but I'm assuming they would require even more energy than the CaCO3 to reclaim the CaO.
As far as efficiency goes - a typical fossil fueled power plant is around 30% efficient. Can be up to 40% maybe even 50% if they implement newer heat reclaiming devices. If you managed to reclaim 50% of the heat from the CaCO3 formation, and you have a 50% conversion efficiency in your blast furnace - you end up in the same place as what I gave. That's why I stuck with giving a 100% conversion efficiency example, and didn't account for reclamation of CaCO3 waste heat.
Converting the CaCO3 back into CaO will take a minimum of 176kJ/mol CaCO3. (CaCO3 + 176kJ -> CaO + CO2). Not even getting into thermodynamics, it will actually take more energy than that - since it can't be done in anything other than a CO2 atmosphere (since they want to recover the CO2).
But for sake of argument, we will use the 176kJ figure. Now, it will take an enormous amount of HEAT to to release the CO2. How are we going to create this heat? How about fossil fuels!
Let's say we use gasoline to heat the CaCO3 and recover the CO2. Gasoline is nearly the hotest burning fossil fuel. Oxidation(burning) of gasoline follows 2C8H12 + 25O2 -> 16CO2 + 18H2O + 5249kJ.
Wow that's hot! Problem though - we just released 16CO2's in that reaction! No problem, we'll just scrub them out with all the rest of CO2 in the atmosphere (notice this machine is getting more and more complicated as we speak).
The energy required to suck that CO2 that we just produced back into a bottle is going to cost us 2816kJ. Which leaves us with 2433kJ to extract more CO2. Unfortunately, the world isn't perfect and we are assuming 100% efficiency.
What does that mean in the real world you ask? Well, given a 100% efficient blackbox into which we feed gasoline and air:
To extract 1 ton of CO2, we will use about 1/4 ton of gasoline (.255ton), almost a ton of O2 (.894ton), and will produce nearly a half ton of H2O (.402ton).
So for all our time and effort, we just created a larger demand for fossil fuels for a process which not only removes CO2 from the atmosphere, but also a NEARLY EQUAL AMOUNT OF OXYGEN!!!
The GPL and other licenses are legal documents. Which means common sense does not always apply. By waiting a few months before doing anything, you are setting a precedent of non-enforcement. That gives other license breakers ammunition if they are ever brought to court. ("Your honor, so and so, and so and so did the same thing, and they didn't get yelled at... I thought it was ok.").
Legal contracts, which are precisely what a license is, are not worth the paper they are written on. The real license or contract is what is actively enforced in a courtroom. The legal system is not about who is right and who is wrong, its entirely based on what combinations of words people knowingly agreed to abide by.
Given the already shaky nature of open source licenses in the dog eat dog world of commercialism, it is a GOOD thing that groups like the FSF are "nitpicking" this issue. The only bad thing about all this is the FSF lacks the funding to police the entire open source community - which only weakens the cause.
Re:Google returns 2 distinct sets of results
on
Google to Offer API
·
· Score: 1
When I see the word's "Pay for Placement" I take it to mean the practice of altering the actual search results based on who has paid and who has not.
The sponsored links on Google are not part of the search results. So if there is an API to search Google without going to the website, then you would be getting back either 1) The normal search results, 2) The normal search results plus the sponsored links, or 3) The sponsored links masquerading as part of the search results.
Since the whole point of having an API is to be able to search from a script, and scripts don't read advertisements, the only way you could support this via Pay for Placement would be to use option 3. I don't see Google doing this, since it is one of their big selling points that they are concerned with the integrity of their search results.
More likely they will either charge for the ability to search via this API - or will count on the API to boost the sales of their hardware search solutions by giving companies a taste of what they could do with one.
Re:Pay-per-placement will pay for this...
on
Google to Offer API
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Google does not have a pay for placement plan - if you are making reference to the practice of changing the order of search results based on advertiser dollars.
That was the very thing that turned people onto Google. I very much doubt that they would change that.
Also off topic...
It boils down to company culture and attitude. I've worked for major corporations from both sides of the ballpark. The ones in the middle just don't make it. The ones who are in it to make money end up screwing everyone over and hating their lives. The ones that want to change the world, end up doing just that - but also end up being those few gems out there (usually).
... At a hearing this month, Feinstein showed her colleagues a pirated movie that she said an aide had downloaded from a file-trading service...
I guess the DCMA only applies to us little people, and not to Congress(wo)men themselves. Hurry up and arrest her; there will be one less person behind the War on Copyright Villians!
I'm thinking that the next step is to integrate copyright protection into everyone's watch. It could monitor the electromagnetic environment around the wearer and automatically send those GPS coordinates to the FBI!
Technology will save us from our stupidity. Close your eyes, click your heels together, and say "This can't be hell, this can't be hell...."
Interesting stuff. Is this the same company running out of a PO box in NC? Do they ever decide what their company actually does? Oh, and the last item in that search - a press release submitted December 19, 2001 describing the other product.
They must have an enormous number of people on their team. Three month turn around between reinventing RDMS and solving the world's encryption needs. Amazing!
A few months ago I moved to where I currently live. I called Comcast (the only cable company choice here) and asked if cable modems were available. After getting my address the service rep on the line replied "Absolutely. Would you like to setup cable service now?"
Happy, I went through the process of setting up an account. I was told that once the cable was installed, I could call back and setup the cable modem account.
A week later, cable installed, I call back. "Sorry, they aren't available yet". hmm. I asked when they would be. "Next week." I was disappointed, but hey, only a week.
I called back a week later. Now it was a month. I called back a month later, now they weren't sure, and I got a "Well, people in that call center don't know what they are talking about."
Two months later I call back. Still not available. By this point I had DSL installed (a whole 'nother story). I made one final call to get them to remove service (The only reason I got it to begin with was because of the cable modem!)
BTW, the whole time this was going on, several neighbors and I were all getting fliers from Comcast to sign up for cable modem service.
Slashdot Mirror
VLIW is just describing the structure of the actual instructions. Making instructions all the same size, with the same structure is a RISC concept. It is true that many current CISC chips have a RISC core... The pentium's for example run at 128bit internally (if I'm remembering correctly). Of course - there's too much hype about more bits better... just look at game consoles in the 90's: 8bit, 16bit, 64bit... Funny how the neo geo's are still around ;-)
Unlike an Intel processor, the Transmeta chip is based on a RISC architecture. If you take a look at a CISC processor, like an Intel chip, there is a ton of work that just goes into decoding the instructions. Some instructions are one byte, others are two, some have data imbedded in various bits of the instruction, etc. This makes the decoding and dispatching of instructions quite complex. On a RISC architecture chip, certain bits always indicate the instruction, others are always data. Decoding on these chips is simple.
Now, if you were to double the number of input bits on a CISC processor - you would have to duplicated some fairly complex (read power hungry) circuitry. On a RISC processor, doubling the input bits simply doubles some simple hardware.
Still, that doesn't explain why 2x the bits yields an energy saving... The reason for that is that the concept of doubling the circuitry is a simplified explanation - some of the hardware can be shared. Really, they're just going to be feeding two instructions through in parallel, so for example, you only need to go through one power hungry bus cycle to get the data. You only need to run the dispatch unit once per two instructions, etc.
Much like an automated car wash that uses a bunch of water and electricity. If you changed the design slightly, so that you could run two cars through at once instead of only one you'll use more water and electricity then one car but not as much' as if the two ran through seperately.
Let's see...
25,000 tax records
2 employees inputing them (into what??)
200 records entered/day
12.5 records/man-hour
2000 man hours later...
at $5/hr... $10,000.
Could have bought a new machine for that. And certainly have fixed the old one. In fact, what about the backups??? Send it away and get it burnt onto a CD! All of the data is likely in a fixed format record anyway.
Although it is likely:
1) The company that wrote the software went belly-up in 1989.
2) The software isn't Y2K compliant anyway.
2) The backups hadn't actually been backing anything up for the last 4 years (just spinning the tape).
3) A single RAM chip ($1.75) would fix the machine.
Actually, you just have to show up. We recently let the EPA use a section of our warehouse for this program (or one like it). Quite a few people were there to take stuff rather then bring it.
Apparently, they had no problem with this. Too bad I was busy that day!!!
Of course you mean free software, as in beer, not Free Software, as in speech. I wouldn't really be interested in these programs until I can download, modify, and compile the source myself. In the end, your privacy is only limited by your ability and the ability of those you trust. This spyware debacle is yet another reason to promote the issues tackled by the Free Software movement. Even if you aren't a software programmer, having the source available allows for public review, and tons of intelligent information on which to make a value based judgement. Spyware, or even cleaned spyware with a closed source does not allow this.
Sorry for everyone's mispelled names...
Kurt: This is Studio 360, at my desk is the film editor Doby Dorn and we're talking about all kinds of editing. Millions of "Star Wars" fans were lukewarm about the 1999 prequel "The Phantom Menace". But one disappointed fan actually did something about it. He calls himself the Phantom Editor. And with his personal computer he entirely recut the movie on video and started giving it away. This new phantom edit has become a global phenomenon thanks to the Internet and we invited him to speak publicly for the first time about why he did what he did.
[Starwars soundtrack]
PhantomEditor: The very first day that Phantom Menance premiered that...that afternoon I was thinking "Boy this movie needs a re-edit." I don't know, that afternoon I went up there sat next to a few people who had saw it when they were kidding about bringing their little kid in to see it. I thought "Wow this is really cool." And then the movie started and that sorta went right out the window.
[Jar-Jar-Binks]
PhantomEditor: On the screen there was so much extra material on there that I thought if they could remove some of this extra stuff THAT would actually make a better film. It's not that George Lucas didn't have the technology to do what he wanted to do, it's that he did. And somehow the movie became more about the technology then the storytelling aspect of it. The things that I...I was concerned with... uh... in my edit were the story redundancy, the over-abundance of Jar-Jar antics that didn't seem to carry the story forward, and the presentation of Jake Lloyd as Anakin Skywalker.
[Anikin: "You mean I get to come with you in your staaarshiiip?"]
PhantomEditor: He ends up being the evil character Darth Vader in the other "Star Wars" movies and the actions don't really seem reflective of that character. The blowing up of the droid control ship within the "Phantom Menace" was actually done as a... you know... an accident, where he hit the button and physically he says the word "Oops" at the end of it during the explosion.
[Anikin: "oops"]
PhantomEditor: Instead of letting him be heroic he ends up being a fumbling goof. All the happy accidents are now diminished.
PhantomEditor: Uh... throughout the whole movie from that battle sequence on Anikan's actions are now motivated by his heroic character. There are no oops's, there are none of the yippee's either...
[Anikan: "yippppeee!"]
PhantomEditor: There's an excessive amount of Jar-Jar antics, and what I mean by that, is the little examples which are almost a showpiece for the ILM special effects... where it takes you out of the story lets him participate in some little antic, and then you have to fight to get back into the story again. By removing alot of those things, I am not taking away from the story, I'm actually helping it by keeping people involved.
[Jar-Jar]
PhantomEditor: Initially when I did this it was for the audience of me and it really started out pretty harmless. The offering of a few copies to friends, who of course had friends who worked somewhere else who wanted to see it, and it began to get talked about. I mean, there was a point where I was getting over 200 emails a day. The first time I got one from New Zealand, that's what really scared the hell out of me, because I'm like "How did you see this?"
[Music swell]
PhantomEditor: First I remained anonymous because I guess that's originally what I wanted to do. You know, it was really a joke between friends, and I'm sure alot of those people knew who I was anyway. But when it got really huge like that it became really overwhelming for somebody like me who had edited this on a low end computer sitting on a $40 computer stand in my apartment. And then I didn't know the legal terms of it. All I knew is that I felt really safe because I wasn't making any profit off of that, but it was becoming aware to me that other people out there were.
[Deathstar music]
PhantomEditor: Initially George Lucas had said in public at the MTV awards that he did want to see it. But then later they put out a press statement that he would not ever watch it. Actually, I do think he should watch it. I just think that those people are making movies with their wallets. And might need a little kick in the butt from somebody like me who is completely at the other end of the scale which is similar to the message which is in the "Star Wars" films, that the underdog, the Luke Skywalker character overpowers the Empire.
[Music swell]
Kurt: Mike J. Nickels is the phantom editor and our story was produced by Michael May. Dody, you know the phantom editor I understand?
Dody: Yeah I've met him a couple times, and I have a copy of the "Phantom Edit". Is that what it's called?
Kurt: That's what it's called yeah.
Dody: [Laugh] and uhh, but I've never watched it.
Kurt: What do you think of... of what he's done? I mean the idea of... of a mere civilian taking a piece of, you know, zillion dollar entertainment and... and by his lights improving it?
Dody: Well, uhm, I think if it's an irrepressable urge.. uh.. uh.. there's no reason why somebody should stop doing something that's an irrepressable urge. I mean why? Why should he, I mean, he's not try to, as he said, not try to make any profit from it. Uh... I understand the irritation of the person who did make it. I... I understand it. But I don't have an answer for that. I don't really have an answer for whether he... I mean, what are the options? Could they come and put him in jail for having done that? I mean, there are over... over time there are examples of.. of other films... I think it's "Once Upon a Time in America" that had the European version where the time structure was all over the place, and then they made an American version that was... much uhm.. I mean obviously these were the people who owned the film, but I doubt seriously if it was the film-maker who wanted it to completely rearrange the time and made it much shorter. And people were critical of it. So I think when something like that is done that it opens... that its a forum for discussion.
Kurt: I understand that "Momento" in a European DVD form was in risk, or is going to be reorganized entirely, is that true?
Dody: Not exactly, uhm... the... I think it's the DVD release in England has an easter egg on it where you can play the film in forward chronology and Chris and I actually have never put the film in forward chronology. So while we were working on "Insomnia" we rented [laugh] the film, and digitized it, and put it in forward chronology. And we were so shocked by the change in how you experience the film; it was a completely different film. Uhm.. the character of.. of Lenard Shelby was now a really bad guy and in the structure that is Chris's design, he is someone who is avenging his wife's horrible murder. So he is a sympathetic character all the way through. And part of the purpose of that in telling the story that Chris wanted to tell is that it is an anti-revenge revenge tale. Because you spend the whole film thinking this is a good guy that we have empathy with who is going to avenge his wife's murder and at the end, or the middle of the story you realize, oh, maybe he is just a psycho.
Dody: And then it makes you question, I'd like to think it makes you question, the whole idea of revenge. Ah... because it's suddenly your perspective has shifted.
Kurt: And when you re-edited it as technology allows us to do and put it in the normal straight forward fasion, it's like you turn a beautiful, amazing, oragami construction into a... just a piece of paper.
Dody: Right, exactly, and it felt suddenly just like a... uh... uh... low rent, you know, film noir.
Kurt: Dody Dorn, thank you very much for joining me today in Studio 360.
Dody: Been alot of fun.
Kurt: Starting next month, you can see Dody Dorn's work in the new movie by Christopher Noland "Insomnia". It stars, Al Pacino, Hillary Swank, and Robert Williams. For more information about Dody Dorn, or about anything else you've heard on our program, visit our website, studio360.org.
Kurt: Studio 360 is produced by WNYC along with PRI, public radio international. The production team includes, Julie Berstein, Cary Hillman, Peter Clowny, Jocelyn Gonzolas, Steve Nelson, Michelle Speagle, Lisal Muhas, Andy Lancet, Lou Alcasky, Micheal Rayfield. The music is by David Vantiegams. I'm Kurt Anderson, and I do hope you'll join us next week in Studio 360.
Announcer: Studio 360 is co-produced by WNYC radio and public radio international, and is supported by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, The National Endowment for the Arts, the Tiffany and Company Foundation, and the Horith W. Goldsmith Foundation.
[PRI sound]
To quote from RFC1918:
It is strongly recommended that routers which connect enterprises to external networks are set up with appropriate packet and routing filters at both ends of the link in order to prevent packet and routing information leakage. An enterprise should also filter any private networks from inbound routing information in order to protect itself from ambiguous routing situations which can occur if routes to the private address space point outside the enterprise.
If you are connecting your internal LAN using a private address space (10/8, 172.16/12, or 192.168/16) you are obviously using a firewall or router configured with NAT.
These need to be configured correctly for many different reasons, including the prevention of the effect mentioned in this article... Add null routes, or packet filter rules for any outgoing packets containing a destination falling in the RFC1918 address space. Also do the same for the incoming packets. By not doing this, you are flooding your upstream provider (in this case the root DNSs) with tons of bogus *(^@.
A few years ago I was lead engineer for a wireless internet company. Our clients were provided with a raw connection, just as if they had gotten a T1. After doing a week long network audit shortly after starting there, I was amazed to find that over 80% of our customer base had internal configuration problems with their NAT setups. Sniffing on the network, I got to see everything from MS Browse messages, DHCP requests, Netware "burbs", and tons of other stuff that should have never left their LANs.
I finally ended up installing firewalls at each POP site, just to dump out the extra junk... Our network speed increased by over 20% just blocking this nonsense at the POP (tower site) and keeping it from coming over our wireless backbone connections... On a typical 16MB/s link that's over 3MB/s of bandwidth we saved.
Darn... I thought this said openMOSIS.
I don't think anyone would mind a sourceforge for chip building (especially free nightly builds!)
More on topic and to the point - it is good to see that MOSIX tech is now available opensource (stable anyway). Now we have yet another viable option for speeding up our Beowulfs (MOSIX is generally run with PVM/MPI - not as a replacement).
Yes, I couldn't find a good graph of this reaction. A good amount of information can be found in regards to CaO production - since it is the whole point of sintering in the cement industry.
I did take a little leeway with the calculations - but thats what happens with a napkin and 5 minutes. There were quite a few things I did not account for - all of which would take up energy. For example, the ingestion and extraction of CO2 would need to occur in two seperate units - likely requiring energy to move the CaCO3 between the units. Also, CaO readily absorbs other interesting gases like the SO's, which I'm not going to drag the CRC back out, but I'm assuming they would require even more energy than the CaCO3 to reclaim the CaO.
As far as efficiency goes - a typical fossil fueled power plant is around 30% efficient. Can be up to 40% maybe even 50% if they implement newer heat reclaiming devices. If you managed to reclaim 50% of the heat from the CaCO3 formation, and you have a 50% conversion efficiency in your blast furnace - you end up in the same place as what I gave. That's why I stuck with giving a 100% conversion efficiency example, and didn't account for reclamation of CaCO3 waste heat.
Lets take the chemistry a bit further...
Converting the CaCO3 back into CaO will take a minimum of 176kJ/mol CaCO3. (CaCO3 + 176kJ -> CaO + CO2). Not even getting into thermodynamics, it will actually take more energy than that - since it can't be done in anything other than a CO2 atmosphere (since they want to recover the CO2).
But for sake of argument, we will use the 176kJ figure. Now, it will take an enormous amount of HEAT to to release the CO2. How are we going to create this heat? How about fossil fuels!
Let's say we use gasoline to heat the CaCO3 and recover the CO2. Gasoline is nearly the hotest burning fossil fuel. Oxidation(burning) of gasoline follows 2C8H12 + 25O2 -> 16CO2 + 18H2O + 5249kJ.
Wow that's hot! Problem though - we just released 16CO2's in that reaction! No problem, we'll just scrub them out with all the rest of CO2 in the atmosphere (notice this machine is getting more and more complicated as we speak).
The energy required to suck that CO2 that we just produced back into a bottle is going to cost us 2816kJ. Which leaves us with 2433kJ to extract more CO2. Unfortunately, the world isn't perfect and we are assuming 100% efficiency.
What does that mean in the real world you ask? Well, given a 100% efficient blackbox into which we feed gasoline and air:
To extract 1 ton of CO2, we will use about 1/4 ton of gasoline (.255ton), almost a ton of O2 (.894ton), and will produce nearly a half ton of H2O (.402ton).
So for all our time and effort, we just created a larger demand for fossil fuels for a process which not only removes CO2 from the atmosphere, but also a NEARLY EQUAL AMOUNT OF OXYGEN!!!
The GPL and other licenses are legal documents. Which means common sense does not always apply. By waiting a few months before doing anything, you are setting a precedent of non-enforcement. That gives other license breakers ammunition if they are ever brought to court. ("Your honor, so and so, and so and so did the same thing, and they didn't get yelled at... I thought it was ok.").
Legal contracts, which are precisely what a license is, are not worth the paper they are written on. The real license or contract is what is actively enforced in a courtroom. The legal system is not about who is right and who is wrong, its entirely based on what combinations of words people knowingly agreed to abide by.
Given the already shaky nature of open source licenses in the dog eat dog world of commercialism, it is a GOOD thing that groups like the FSF are "nitpicking" this issue. The only bad thing about all this is the FSF lacks the funding to police the entire open source community - which only weakens the cause.
When I see the word's "Pay for Placement" I take it to mean the practice of altering the actual search results based on who has paid and who has not. The sponsored links on Google are not part of the search results. So if there is an API to search Google without going to the website, then you would be getting back either 1) The normal search results, 2) The normal search results plus the sponsored links, or 3) The sponsored links masquerading as part of the search results. Since the whole point of having an API is to be able to search from a script, and scripts don't read advertisements, the only way you could support this via Pay for Placement would be to use option 3. I don't see Google doing this, since it is one of their big selling points that they are concerned with the integrity of their search results. More likely they will either charge for the ability to search via this API - or will count on the API to boost the sales of their hardware search solutions by giving companies a taste of what they could do with one.
Google does not have a pay for placement plan - if you are making reference to the practice of changing the order of search results based on advertiser dollars.
That was the very thing that turned people onto Google. I very much doubt that they would change that.
Also off topic... It boils down to company culture and attitude. I've worked for major corporations from both sides of the ballpark. The ones in the middle just don't make it. The ones who are in it to make money end up screwing everyone over and hating their lives. The ones that want to change the world, end up doing just that - but also end up being those few gems out there (usually).
I guess the DCMA only applies to us little people, and not to Congress(wo)men themselves. Hurry up and arrest her; there will be one less person behind the War on Copyright Villians!
I'm thinking that the next step is to integrate copyright protection into everyone's watch. It could monitor the electromagnetic environment around the wearer and automatically send those GPS coordinates to the FBI!
Technology will save us from our stupidity. Close your eyes, click your heels together, and say "This can't be hell, this can't be hell...."
--ipsuid
I'd be interested to know what the tech to management/pr ratio looks like for this company.
Curious about how fly by night they are? I know I am. I couldn't find them on USPTO or Strategis.
The actual name of the company is "Prescient International, Inc." - which is probably owned by an LLC. Here's an interesting google search based on that.
Interesting stuff. Is this the same company running out of a PO box in NC? Do they ever decide what their company actually does? Oh, and the last item in that search - a press release submitted December 19, 2001 describing the other product.
They must have an enormous number of people on their team. Three month turn around between reinventing RDMS and solving the world's encryption needs. Amazing!
--ipsuid
A few months ago I moved to where I currently live. I called Comcast (the only cable company choice here) and asked if cable modems were available. After getting my address the service rep on the line replied "Absolutely. Would you like to setup cable service now?"
Happy, I went through the process of setting up an account. I was told that once the cable was installed, I could call back and setup the cable modem account.
A week later, cable installed, I call back. "Sorry, they aren't available yet". hmm. I asked when they would be. "Next week." I was disappointed, but hey, only a week.
I called back a week later. Now it was a month. I called back a month later, now they weren't sure, and I got a "Well, people in that call center don't know what they are talking about."
Two months later I call back. Still not available. By this point I had DSL installed (a whole 'nother story). I made one final call to get them to remove service (The only reason I got it to begin with was because of the cable modem!)
BTW, the whole time this was going on, several neighbors and I were all getting fliers from Comcast to sign up for cable modem service.