As SuperKendall mentions below, it's not (only) the framebuffers that Tiger would use it for. It is for objects. Core Graphics (Apple's name for this tech) will compost text, window elements, menus, etc, directly in the graphics card, all out of pre-loaded bitmaps.
Given enough memory, it should load every standard GUI element, every character of the default fonts, and then start working on the non-standard or non-default elements. Then it can render each window, to GPU memory, from elements all in GPU memory, then compost them into a full frame buffer and write that to the screeen...
The point is to not send the data to the card. At least, not more than once. You just tell the card to re-use the elements you've already given it.
Actually, Mac OS X 10.4 might be one of the only places where this might make sense. From reading the ArsTechnica article recently linked here, one of the most important points of speedup on OS X is to move all the graphics work to the graphics card. It sounds like at this point there is several levels of graphics process work being stored at the graphics card, with more loaded on as more levels are available.
Then again, unless you are tiling dozens of transparent movies, you probably won't notice this level of overkill.
Oh, I expect they'll make money. It's probably a good strategy for the music companies: Lock the consumer in and have them pay you for the rest of their life. I'm just hoping it doesn't start a trend, because I consider it a waste of money. To that end I'm trying to give arguments you can use when people bring it up.
But yes, nobody has ever gone broke underestimating the average intelligence.
You just made a great argument for getting a music review magazine. You want to be able to tell what music you would like of what is coming out. Good. I like that.
I don't want to spend money on it.
Or, at least, if I do, I want to be able to go back and reevaluate the info later. Maybe I my tastes have changed. Maybe I need a particular song for a particular reason. So, I go back and check the review.
Ok, I know you can do this if you keep your subscription up. But I'm talking about when you don't keep your subscription up.
As for discovering music... I still have regular radio, TV, internet radio, and my friends to help me find stuff. Most of the bands I listen to will actually let you listen to some of their music online too, so I can look them up that way too. Sure, radio/TV are a little heavy on the ads, but I don't have to listen that often.
I can find good music without paying $15 a month for it. And it will cost me just as much to buy it as it will cost you.
(Hmm. I see a business idea here: An online magazine reviewing music, with audio clips embedded... Anyone with enough connections to pull this off reading?)
But, if you look at the economics of it, really my descendants (should I ever have any) would be likely to get both cash money and iTunes files, rather than neither.
Monthly subscription do several things, in this setting: they limit the life of your music, they limit your financial flexibility, and they lock you into a particular vendor. I'm actually less worried about the first and last than the middle choice, from an economic standpoint. (Though they are something I like to avoid as well.)
Under a subscription model I can't decide that this month I'm just a little short, so I should skip buying any music. Or that there is a great investment, for only $20, which I have to have. Or that, this month, I'd rather watch another movie. Sure, $15 sounds like nothing. They add up though, especially over time. And when you are tight on cash anyway...
Look at it this way: With Napster to Go, I have to spend (at least) $15 a month on music. With iTunes/CDs, I can spend $15 a month. Or more. Or less. Or none. It depends on my situation that month. And that is good financial planning.
Do we really want to pay for everything monthly for as long as we live?
I don't mind a monthly fee for something I'll use within that month, or that has a time-based cost component, but you try to bill me monthly for something where I can pay once (even a higher up-front fee) and you'll lose my business. It's not worth it, long term.
Just because something is obvious bunk doesn't mean you shouldn't test it. Occasionally something is 'obvious bunk' but actually works. The rest of the time, the fact that the maker of the bunk can say that [i]they[/i] can prove it works, means you should probably get a counter argument. Sometimes you even learn something from it.
And sometimes, like in this case, you just like to read the write-up.
Actually, I think it was a pretty good one. Hoax that is.
It sounds fairly plausible even now, though there are gaping holes. Most of the holes could be explained by pointing out that he wouldn't really have been an expert on history, (or anything else, really), just a bureaucrat who got a temp assignment.
If you believe that he went back to a slightly alternate timeline, it sounds even better. The two points you bring up are good, but can be argued; there are always slightly special cases.
It was a good hoax. His predictions won't come to pass, but he even included that possibility. He convinced a lot of people. He did well.
Me too, though I add one little twist: a Perl script to archive older emails to subfolders, so my threaded sort of current email doesn't slow things down.
It's still all available when I want it, but the day-to-day use is faster.
I actually use them all the time, while reading onscreen. They made sense to me...
I can see what you want though. When I'm writing something like that comes in handy. Usually, I just up/down arrow and arrow over to the correct place.
Of course, I usually write in BBEdit, with paragraph wrapping turned off, so there is always a blank line above and below me, which makes that trick work.
Why do we have to accept campaign contributions at all?
Set up a fund, and have each registered party get access to the fund for campaign publicity. The top two/three parties split 50% of the total funds, the others split the rest.
Anyone can contribute to the fund, or a certain amount will come from taxes.
No other funds may be used for campaign publicity. Take money out of the campaign picture. (It wouldn't be out of the picture entirely; parties could still raise funds for normal operations, but the big push would be blunted.)
I think something along these lines would greatly help America...
The Israelis have an even better idea: a flatbed truck, with a forklift built into the side.
Drive up beside to the misparked car, extend forklift, lift car, retract forklift, lower forklift back into bed of truck, drive off. One person (though they usually have two; one working as spotter), and it takes about a minute.
Pound for pound, model airplane engines have the highest horsepower of any internal combustion engine. Realize they are basic in design, with high-quality tolerances, and the bare minimum of metal to contain and cool. All unnecessary weight is dropped: there is no battery, no starter. The throttle works directly on the airfeed, which pulls the fuel by suction. (Occasionally helped by pressurized tanks.)
They are simple. But they only have to do a simple job, and they do it well.
Sorry, you've probably already lost that one. The prisoner's dilemma is quite useful in normal life, or at least the thinking that gives rise to the solution is. It applies any time there is significant advantage to be gained by working together, but also much advantage to be the one 'cheating'.
For/., try this interpretation: If we both share our source code, we will both will be more productive. If I share my source code, and you don't, you can be more productive. (Assuming you can use mine.) If neither of us share, we both will have to re-create other's work...
Try DesInstaller. It uses the.pkg receipt to remove programs cleanly.
It is a shame this isn't included...
Re:Removing motivation to create innovative IP
on
Is IP Property?
·
· Score: 1
The fact that it is automatically granted does not mean it is not a license.
Re:Removing motivation to create innovative IP
on
Is IP Property?
·
· Score: 1
Is he actually against all financial benefits for it's creation?
Or is he, like many here, against the extended, past-any-financial-reward limitations that exist, and are being proposed, today?
I agree that a limited copyright term is a good thing, because it helps spur creation of ideas. But the operative word is limited. Property ownership is unlimited: you own it until you sell it or it is taken from you. Copy rights shouldn't be.
Copy rights are a license. The owner of the license, for the duration of the license, has sole authorization to distribute the work the license is for. When the license expires, so does the limitation. The fact that the license expires on a certain date does not make it valueless.
Actually... If you would otherwise die from thirst, and you know what you are doing, that is not true. You can drink about a glass a day of saltwater to stay hydrated. (This does not mean stay healthy. It means stay alive...)
Good. So, we've covered the 'Secure' part of the equation. Now, how about the 'Ananomous' part? So that votes can't be paid for, because you can't tell how anyone voted?
Yes, those opposites hold. The point I was trying to make is law should not be built on ethics. Which too many people try to do.
I could probably come up with a contrived case to answer your last, but it would more show the limits of the lawmaking process then any other point. (That is, it would be some exception to the exception to a rarely used rule.)
Slashdot Mirror
Kinesis
As SuperKendall mentions below, it's not (only) the framebuffers that Tiger would use it for. It is for objects. Core Graphics (Apple's name for this tech) will compost text, window elements, menus, etc, directly in the graphics card, all out of pre-loaded bitmaps.
Given enough memory, it should load every standard GUI element, every character of the default fonts, and then start working on the non-standard or non-default elements. Then it can render each window, to GPU memory, from elements all in GPU memory, then compost them into a full frame buffer and write that to the screeen...
The point is to not send the data to the card. At least, not more than once. You just tell the card to re-use the elements you've already given it.
Actually, Mac OS X 10.4 might be one of the only places where this might make sense. From reading the ArsTechnica article recently linked here, one of the most important points of speedup on OS X is to move all the graphics work to the graphics card. It sounds like at this point there is several levels of graphics process work being stored at the graphics card, with more loaded on as more levels are available.
Then again, unless you are tiling dozens of transparent movies, you probably won't notice this level of overkill.
Oh, I expect they'll make money. It's probably a good strategy for the music companies: Lock the consumer in and have them pay you for the rest of their life. I'm just hoping it doesn't start a trend, because I consider it a waste of money. To that end I'm trying to give arguments you can use when people bring it up.
But yes, nobody has ever gone broke underestimating the average intelligence.
You just made a great argument for getting a music review magazine. You want to be able to tell what music you would like of what is coming out. Good. I like that.
I don't want to spend money on it.
Or, at least, if I do, I want to be able to go back and reevaluate the info later. Maybe I my tastes have changed. Maybe I need a particular song for a particular reason. So, I go back and check the review.
Ok, I know you can do this if you keep your subscription up. But I'm talking about when you don't keep your subscription up.
As for discovering music... I still have regular radio, TV, internet radio, and my friends to help me find stuff. Most of the bands I listen to will actually let you listen to some of their music online too, so I can look them up that way too. Sure, radio/TV are a little heavy on the ads, but I don't have to listen that often.
I can find good music without paying $15 a month for it. And it will cost me just as much to buy it as it will cost you.
(Hmm. I see a business idea here: An online magazine reviewing music, with audio clips embedded... Anyone with enough connections to pull this off reading?)
But, if you look at the economics of it, really my descendants (should I ever have any) would be likely to get both cash money and iTunes files, rather than neither.
Monthly subscription do several things, in this setting: they limit the life of your music, they limit your financial flexibility, and they lock you into a particular vendor. I'm actually less worried about the first and last than the middle choice, from an economic standpoint. (Though they are something I like to avoid as well.)
Under a subscription model I can't decide that this month I'm just a little short, so I should skip buying any music. Or that there is a great investment, for only $20, which I have to have. Or that, this month, I'd rather watch another movie. Sure, $15 sounds like nothing. They add up though, especially over time. And when you are tight on cash anyway...
Look at it this way: With Napster to Go, I have to spend (at least) $15 a month on music. With iTunes/CDs, I can spend $15 a month. Or more. Or less. Or none. It depends on my situation that month. And that is good financial planning.
Do we really want to pay for everything monthly for as long as we live?
I don't mind a monthly fee for something I'll use within that month, or that has a time-based cost component, but you try to bill me monthly for something where I can pay once (even a higher up-front fee) and you'll lose my business. It's not worth it, long term.
Just because something is obvious bunk doesn't mean you shouldn't test it. Occasionally something is 'obvious bunk' but actually works. The rest of the time, the fact that the maker of the bunk can say that [i]they[/i] can prove it works, means you should probably get a counter argument. Sometimes you even learn something from it.
And sometimes, like in this case, you just like to read the write-up.
Actually, I think it was a pretty good one. Hoax that is.
It sounds fairly plausible even now, though there are gaping holes. Most of the holes could be explained by pointing out that he wouldn't really have been an expert on history, (or anything else, really), just a bureaucrat who got a temp assignment.
If you believe that he went back to a slightly alternate timeline, it sounds even better. The two points you bring up are good, but can be argued; there are always slightly special cases.
It was a good hoax. His predictions won't come to pass, but he even included that possibility. He convinced a lot of people. He did well.
Me too, though I add one little twist: a Perl script to archive older emails to subfolders, so my threaded sort of current email doesn't slow things down.
It's still all available when I want it, but the day-to-day use is faster.
I actually use them all the time, while reading onscreen. They made sense to me...
I can see what you want though. When I'm writing something like that comes in handy. Usually, I just up/down arrow and arrow over to the correct place.
Of course, I usually write in BBEdit, with paragraph wrapping turned off, so there is always a blank line above and below me, which makes that trick work.
Why do we have to accept campaign contributions at all?
Set up a fund, and have each registered party get access to the fund for campaign publicity. The top two/three parties split 50% of the total funds, the others split the rest.
Anyone can contribute to the fund, or a certain amount will come from taxes.
No other funds may be used for campaign publicity. Take money out of the campaign picture. (It wouldn't be out of the picture entirely; parties could still raise funds for normal operations, but the big push would be blunted.)
I think something along these lines would greatly help America...
The Israelis have an even better idea: a flatbed truck, with a forklift built into the side.
Drive up beside to the misparked car, extend forklift, lift car, retract forklift, lower forklift back into bed of truck, drive off. One person (though they usually have two; one working as spotter), and it takes about a minute.
Ok, so here's the question I'm trying to find the answer to:
How much do they cost?
They don't seem to to want to tell you... (A bad sign.)
There are two types of people who visit /.. One type reads the articles linked to for the news content. The other comments here for the fun of it.
Someday the two shall meet, and the gates of hell will open...
Rocket engines are not internal combustion. They are external combustion.
There are other external combustion engines with higher thrust/weight ratios as well, but no better internal combustion engines.
Pound for pound, model airplane engines have the highest horsepower of any internal combustion engine. Realize they are basic in design, with high-quality tolerances, and the bare minimum of metal to contain and cool. All unnecessary weight is dropped: there is no battery, no starter. The throttle works directly on the airfeed, which pulls the fuel by suction. (Occasionally helped by pressurized tanks.)
They are simple. But they only have to do a simple job, and they do it well.
I had noticed that. ;)
You'll notice how well it is doing...
Sorry, you've probably already lost that one. The prisoner's dilemma is quite useful in normal life, or at least the thinking that gives rise to the solution is. It applies any time there is significant advantage to be gained by working together, but also much advantage to be the one 'cheating'.
/., try this interpretation:
For
If we both share our source code, we will both will be more productive.
If I share my source code, and you don't, you can be more productive. (Assuming you can use mine.)
If neither of us share, we both will have to re-create other's work...
Try DesInstaller. It uses the .pkg receipt to remove programs cleanly.
It is a shame this isn't included...
The fact that it is automatically granted does not mean it is not a license.
Is he actually against all financial benefits for it's creation?
Or is he, like many here, against the extended, past-any-financial-reward limitations that exist, and are being proposed, today?
I agree that a limited copyright term is a good thing, because it helps spur creation of ideas. But the operative word is limited. Property ownership is unlimited: you own it until you sell it or it is taken from you. Copy rights shouldn't be.
Copy rights are a license. The owner of the license, for the duration of the license, has sole authorization to distribute the work the license is for. When the license expires, so does the limitation. The fact that the license expires on a certain date does not make it valueless.
Actually... If you would otherwise die from thirst, and you know what you are doing, that is not true. You can drink about a glass a day of saltwater to stay hydrated. (This does not mean stay healthy. It means stay alive...)
More info at this Survival at Sea site.
Good. So, we've covered the 'Secure' part of the equation. Now, how about the 'Ananomous' part? So that votes can't be paid for, because you can't tell how anyone voted?
Yes, those opposites hold. The point I was trying to make is law should not be built on ethics. Which too many people try to do.
I could probably come up with a contrived case to answer your last, but it would more show the limits of the lawmaking process then any other point. (That is, it would be some exception to the exception to a rarely used rule.)