It's not Microsoft recommending anything. This is two independant researchers - leaders in the field - who happen to usually work out of Microsofts Bay Area research center.
They dont work for Microsoft, Microsoft simply provides the grants that fund their research.
If anything their report would tell those who are on the MS payroll to get to work on a cluster offering.
The fact that the user has the ability to select applications one by one... is completely unnecessary and it brings a dreadful Linux-like feeling to the installation
adding useless features like "Stings", application selection and "GCC version choice"
What a dimwit. This is the worst review of anything I've ever read.
Re:What's that other Internet Explorer thing again
on
Mozilla 1.4 RC1
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Thats all we need, another tangled mess of laws to do with frigging online chatrooms and shit.
Listen.
Your virtual house in the Sims is worth nothing. No more than if I kicked in your sandcastle at the beach, or knocked over your chess board in the park.
I can be charged with mischief, or maybe even assault if I threatened you as I knock all your checkers into the sewer grate.
It would solve 99% of the idiocy; clowns like this trying to write law from the bench by way of precedent.
They all have big fat egos, and imagine some hotshot lawyer quoting one of their rulings in a case years from now. Their job is to rule according to the law, but they dont. They look for grey areas so they can fill in the blanks. They are also political appointees, and there is no comeuppance for their ridiculous rulings.
So since they're so keen on tweaking legislation, they should be elected like any other legislator. Then when one of these idiots makes a moronic ruling that hurts citizens, he can be voted out.
You can copy the vob file to your HDD and play it back with powerdvd or other licensed DVD playback softwares.
So you could go ahead and trade around the encrypted movie and watch it, no problem.
Even with a super duper mega unbreakable encryption, you could still framegrab the video and encode it into divx or whatever. You're downsampling and losing quality either way, it's really six of one, half dozen of the other.
This doesnt stop movie trading, it just prevents the MPAA from collecting CSS licensing for DVD playback devices, and takes away their power to impose region locks on the movies.
It's a strawman argument to protect their artificial regional targetted marketting.
Take all the irc channels, ftp pubs, kazaa, usenet. Say 1000 sources with 350 downloads per day.
It sounds about right. No doubt he also includes legitimate downloads like divx.com in his math.
Also realize, though that 99% of that is porn. The number gets pretty realistic, conservative even.
Re:Bathroom effect?? Worst idea ever.
on
A Tour of Pixar
·
· Score: 3, Funny
What's more annoying than the guy standing at the urinal next to you striking up a conversation? The first thing that invariably pops into your head is "is this guy hitting on me? What the hell is he talking to me for when I've got my dick in my hands?"
I mean I'm there to take a piss, not for an ice cream social.
Every time they release something we're treated with another "behind the scenes" story about pixar.
I remember when "behind the scenes" features were cool. The giant life sized dinosaurs used in the first "Jurassic Park". The enormous sets for "Honey I Shrunk the kids". The model mine cart and track for "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom". The thousands of horses and riders used in Braveheart. Actors spending 6 hours in make up to shoot a 5 minute scene.
Even if the movies sucked, it was really cool to see how it was made.
Now we watch some nerd sitting in front of his console. And so its not boring, they all force themselves to act zany and wild throughout the special. Of course it's so obvious they're under orders to ham it up for the camera.
Just face it. With CG, Hollywood just isnt cool anymore.
Linux is a great way for manufacturers to cut costs and widen their profit margins.
It doesn't do much for the consumer though. Except give them a warm fuzzy feeling like they're saving whales or some such shit.
Re:I really want to understand...
on
ClusterKnoppix
·
· Score: 1
It works like a big SMP box, but if something is bound to a local HDD (like a webserver or database) it will run on that node.
So I'm wondering if it could spread something like squid and dansguardian out?
I'm not sure.
The closest thing to something I could actually use it for would be encoding video/audio faster. You know, for fair use backup purposes. If I could find a good multiprocess encoder that can do various different formats that I want to encode, including lots of esoteric ones like bink (for downsizing my fair use PS2 and XBox "backups")
Another question for those with more experience: do all the "nodes" still act as normal workstations? Like if I compiled openmosix support into the various linux boxes I have doing different tasks (a couple of samba servers, print servers, etc), will they still be the machines they are, or do they become one big machine?
The Ubiquitous Reed-Solomon Codes by Barry A. Cipra
Reprinted from SIAM News, Volume 26-1, January 1993
In this so-called Age of Information, no one need be reminded of the importance not only of speed but also of accuracy in the storage, retrieval, and transmission of data. It's more than a question of "Garbage In, Garbage Out." Machines do make errors, and their non-man-made mistakes can turn otherwise flawless programming into worthless, even dangerous, trash. Just as architects design buildings that will remain standing even through an earthquake, their computer counterparts have come up with sophisticated techniques capable of counteracting the digital manifestations of Murphy's Law. What many might be unaware of, though, is the significance, in all this modern technology, of a five-page paper that appeared in 1960 in the Journal of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. The paper, "Polynomial Codes over Certain Finite Fields," by Irving S. Reed and Gustave Solomon, then staff members at MIT's Lincoln Laboratory, introduced ideas that form the core of current error-correcting techniques for everything from computer hard disk drives to CD players. Reed-Solomon codes (plus a lot of engineering wizardry, of course) made possible the stunning pictures of the outer planets sent back by Voyager II. They make it possible to scratch a compact disc and still enjoy the music. And in the not-too-distant future, they will enable the profitmongers of cable television to squeeze more than 500 channels into their systems, making a vast wasteland vaster yet.
"When you talk about CD players and digital audio tape and now digital television, and various other digital imaging systems that are coming--all of those need Reed-Solomon [codes] as an integral part of the system," says Robert McEliece, a coding theorist in the electrical engineering department at Caltech.
Why? Because digital information, virtually by definition, consists of strings of "bits"--0s and 1s--and a physical device, no matter how capably manufactured, may occasionally confuse the two. Voyager II, for example, was transmitting data at incredibly low power--barely a whisper--over tens of millions of miles. Disk drives pack data so densely that a read/write head can (almost) be excused if it can't tell where one bit stops and the next one (or zero) begins. Careful engineering can reduce the error rate to what may sound like a negligible level--the industry standard for hard disk drives is 1 in 10 billion--but given the volume of information processing done these days, that "negligible" level is an invitation to daily disaster. Error-correcting codes are a kind of safety net--mathematical insurance against the vagaries of an imperfect material world.
The key to error correction is redundancy. Indeed, the simplest error-correcting code is simply to repeat everything several times. If, for example, you anticipate no more than one error to occur in transmission, then repeating each bit three times and using "majority vote" at the receiving end will guarantee that the message is heard correctly (e.g., 111 000 011 111 will be correctly heard as 1011). In general, n errors can be compensated for by repeating things 2n + 1 times.
But that kind of brute-force error correction would defeat the purpose of high-speed, high-density information processing. One would prefer an approach that adds only a few extra bits to a given message. Of course, as Mick Jagger reminds us, you can't always get what you want--but if you try, sometimes, you just might find you get what you need. The success of Reed-Solomon codes bears that out.
In 1960, the theory of error-correcting codes was only about a decade old. The basic theory of reliable digital communication had been set forth by Claude Shannon in the late 1940s. At the same time, Richard Hamming introduced an elegant approach to single-error correction and double-error detection. Through the 1950s, a number of researchers began experimenting with a variety of error
Lets say you dont want to burn anything, and just want to hear that new {BAND HERE} song your friend told you about.
Apple cost: 0.99
Real cost: Nothing (included in subscription).
So if you used Apples service, and download 10 songs a month that you later decide arent worth keeping, then you just broke even.
That's a cool thing with the Rhapsody idea. I dont have find out after I payed that I dont like a song/band. I can click on random shit all day just exploring, and listen to all 350,000 tunes if I want, and I dont have to pay unless I plan to keep 'em.
Slashdot Mirror
...how much cock he had to suck for this one.
We all know how the 'design' world works.
Bill has nothing to do with Jack or Hillary (who quit months ago, btw)
He's so much bigger, and I doubt he pays to much attention to their wants.
Your tinfoil hat is too tight.
Slashbot hyporcrisy is easily understood: it runs on linux!
The NPR is not real news, nor is PBS. It's overly biased liberal bullshit.
Slashdot is your best bet for unbiased, informative and insightful news!
And does it play ogg vorbises?
It's not Microsoft recommending anything. This is two independant researchers - leaders in the field - who happen to usually work out of Microsofts Bay Area research center.
They dont work for Microsoft, Microsoft simply provides the grants that fund their research.
If anything their report would tell those who are on the MS payroll to get to work on a cluster offering.
Best analogy ever.
It's a VW microbus with four bald tires and a hippie daisies painted all over the sides.
And driving it is, invariably, a fat smelly unwashed guy with greasy hair and a conspiracy theory about everything.
The fact that the user has the ability to select applications one by one ... is completely unnecessary and it brings a dreadful Linux-like feeling to the installation
adding useless features like "Stings", application selection and "GCC version choice"
What a dimwit. This is the worst review of anything I've ever read.
I thought mozilla was a database.
Thats all we need, another tangled mess of laws to do with frigging online chatrooms and shit.
Listen.
Your virtual house in the Sims is worth nothing. No more than if I kicked in your sandcastle at the beach, or knocked over your chess board in the park.
I can be charged with mischief, or maybe even assault if I threatened you as I knock all your checkers into the sewer grate.
No more zany computer laws!
He didnt just toss off while writing it, but Taco did while he was reading it.
Judges should be elected, not appointed.
It would solve 99% of the idiocy; clowns like this trying to write law from the bench by way of precedent.
They all have big fat egos, and imagine some hotshot lawyer quoting one of their rulings in a case years from now. Their job is to rule according to the law, but they dont. They look for grey areas so they can fill in the blanks. They are also political appointees, and there is no comeuppance for their ridiculous rulings.
So since they're so keen on tweaking legislation, they should be elected like any other legislator. Then when one of these idiots makes a moronic ruling that hurts citizens, he can be voted out.
You can copy the vob file to your HDD and play it back with powerdvd or other licensed DVD playback softwares.
So you could go ahead and trade around the encrypted movie and watch it, no problem.
Even with a super duper mega unbreakable encryption, you could still framegrab the video and encode it into divx or whatever. You're downsampling and losing quality either way, it's really six of one, half dozen of the other.
This doesnt stop movie trading, it just prevents the MPAA from collecting CSS licensing for DVD playback devices, and takes away their power to impose region locks on the movies.
It's a strawman argument to protect their artificial regional targetted marketting.
Worldwide?
Take all the irc channels, ftp pubs, kazaa, usenet. Say 1000 sources with 350 downloads per day.
It sounds about right. No doubt he also includes legitimate downloads like divx.com in his math.
Also realize, though that 99% of that is porn. The number gets pretty realistic, conservative even.
What's more annoying than the guy standing at the urinal next to you striking up a conversation? The first thing that invariably pops into your head is "is this guy hitting on me? What the hell is he talking to me for when I've got my dick in my hands?"
I mean I'm there to take a piss, not for an ice cream social.
Every time they release something we're treated with another "behind the scenes" story about pixar.
I remember when "behind the scenes" features were cool. The giant life sized dinosaurs used in the first "Jurassic Park". The enormous sets for "Honey I Shrunk the kids". The model mine cart and track for "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom". The thousands of horses and riders used in Braveheart. Actors spending 6 hours in make up to shoot a 5 minute scene.
Even if the movies sucked, it was really cool to see how it was made.
Now we watch some nerd sitting in front of his console. And so its not boring, they all force themselves to act zany and wild throughout the special. Of course it's so obvious they're under orders to ham it up for the camera.
Just face it. With CG, Hollywood just isnt cool anymore.
Linux is a great way for manufacturers to cut costs and widen their profit margins.
It doesn't do much for the consumer though. Except give them a warm fuzzy feeling like they're saving whales or some such shit.
It works like a big SMP box, but if something is bound to a local HDD (like a webserver or database) it will run on that node.
So I'm wondering if it could spread something like squid and dansguardian out?
I'm not sure.
The closest thing to something I could actually use it for would be encoding video/audio faster. You know, for fair use backup purposes. If I could find a good multiprocess encoder that can do various different formats that I want to encode, including lots of esoteric ones like bink (for downsizing my fair use PS2 and XBox "backups")
Another question for those with more experience: do all the "nodes" still act as normal workstations? Like if I compiled openmosix support into the various linux boxes I have doing different tasks (a couple of samba servers, print servers, etc), will they still be the machines they are, or do they become one big machine?
Four drills, one attached to each handle, all attached to linear actuators that pull the bars back and forth.
All constantly spin and move back and forth fast enough that it's virtually impossible for a ball to get past it.
No AI needed. This is an overdesign, typical of nerd projects.
I can run Duke Nukem on a Cue Cat.
The Ubiquitous Reed-Solomon Codes
by Barry A. Cipra
Reprinted from SIAM News, Volume 26-1, January 1993
In this so-called Age of Information, no one need be reminded of the importance not only of speed but also of accuracy in the storage, retrieval, and transmission of data. It's more than a question of "Garbage In, Garbage Out." Machines do make errors, and their non-man-made mistakes can turn otherwise flawless programming into worthless, even dangerous, trash. Just as architects design buildings that will remain standing even through an earthquake, their computer counterparts have come up with sophisticated techniques capable of counteracting the digital manifestations of Murphy's Law.
What many might be unaware of, though, is the significance, in all this modern technology, of a five-page paper that appeared in 1960 in the Journal of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. The paper, "Polynomial Codes over Certain Finite Fields," by Irving S. Reed and Gustave Solomon, then staff members at MIT's Lincoln Laboratory, introduced ideas that form the core of current error-correcting techniques for everything from computer hard disk drives to CD players. Reed-Solomon codes (plus a lot of engineering wizardry, of course) made possible the stunning pictures of the outer planets sent back by Voyager II. They make it possible to scratch a compact disc and still enjoy the music. And in the not-too-distant future, they will enable the profitmongers of cable television to squeeze more than 500 channels into their systems, making a vast wasteland vaster yet.
"When you talk about CD players and digital audio tape and now digital television, and various other digital imaging systems that are coming--all of those need Reed-Solomon [codes] as an integral part of the system," says Robert McEliece, a coding theorist in the electrical engineering department at Caltech.
Why? Because digital information, virtually by definition, consists of strings of "bits"--0s and 1s--and a physical device, no matter how capably manufactured, may occasionally confuse the two. Voyager II, for example, was transmitting data at incredibly low power--barely a whisper--over tens of millions of miles. Disk drives pack data so densely that a read/write head can (almost) be excused if it can't tell where one bit stops and the next one (or zero) begins. Careful engineering can reduce the error rate to what may sound like a negligible level--the industry standard for hard disk drives is 1 in 10 billion--but given the volume of information processing done these days, that "negligible" level is an invitation to daily disaster. Error-correcting codes are a kind of safety net--mathematical insurance against the vagaries of an imperfect material world.
The key to error correction is redundancy. Indeed, the simplest error-correcting code is simply to repeat everything several times. If, for example, you anticipate no more than one error to occur in transmission, then repeating each bit three times and using "majority vote" at the receiving end will guarantee that the message is heard correctly (e.g., 111 000 011 111 will be correctly heard as 1011). In general, n errors can be compensated for by repeating things 2n + 1 times.
But that kind of brute-force error correction would defeat the purpose of high-speed, high-density information processing. One would prefer an approach that adds only a few extra bits to a given message. Of course, as Mick Jagger reminds us, you can't always get what you want--but if you try, sometimes, you just might find you get what you need. The success of Reed-Solomon codes bears that out.
In 1960, the theory of error-correcting codes was only about a decade old. The basic theory of reliable digital communication had been set forth by Claude Shannon in the late 1940s. At the same time, Richard Hamming introduced an elegant approach to single-error correction and double-error detection. Through the 1950s, a number of researchers began experimenting with a variety of error
You can listen to songs all you want. You can sample and hear each of the 350,000, and perhaps might find 50 that you'd like. Perhaps not.
To do this with Apples service would cost you $350,000.
Lets say you dont want to burn anything, and just want to hear that new {BAND HERE} song your friend told you about.
Apple cost:
0.99
Real cost:
Nothing (included in subscription).
So if you used Apples service, and download 10 songs a month that you later decide arent worth keeping, then you just broke even.
That's a cool thing with the Rhapsody idea. I dont have find out after I payed that I dont like a song/band. I can click on random shit all day just exploring, and listen to all 350,000 tunes if I want, and I dont have to pay unless I plan to keep 'em.
Wrong?
Or perhaps SO RIGHT that you can't HANDLE IT!
Crush Apple.
and Post first