Agreed. For the desktop PC part. I just figured that was part of a larger picture. The other poster saying it's named after a river in Texas really deflated my hope too.
I'm shocked that the press hasn't gone wild with speculation on the name "trinity" which implies 3 of something. My guesses are as follows:
1) They integrate CPU, GPU, and "system" on a chip - not really worthy of the name
2) They integrate 3 distinct CPU architectures in APUs. Bulldozer, Bobcat, Power. Or x86, Power, ARM.
3) They are aiming for PC, Apple, and Console markets with the stuff in #2 (consoles require Power arch for backward compatibility).
My bet is that Wii U will have an IBM CPU and AMD GPU on the same die manufactured at GF. The only thing not official there is the integration.
It's also insane for Apple not to go with Trinity and there have been rumors. AMD has canceled product and delayed (public) availability of Trinity even though they claimed it was ramping and on track (last fall) for early 2012. This suggests they're stockpiling for a large customer.
That's just my speculation based on Googling of course. So they either have something big and have kept it very quiet, or the just suck.
Also, there is a big difference between "taking a photo" and "taking a photo and using it to make money."
No, no there is not. Can you take photos of the pages of a book if you're not going to sell them? No. Buildings are not copyrightable in the US. In Canada, I was going to take a picture of my wife in front of a fountain inside casino windsor and was asked to put the camera away due to copyright. You really seem to be in with the copyright lobby. Let me just ask a simple question:
Is is OK to go to London (stupid American, I think that's where the photo in the article is from), stand by those stairs (or even the side of the road - the shots are from very different angles and with different lens), set my camera to "black and white -except red" and take a picture of a bus?
And now some extra questions:
Can I sell it? Can I get a large print and hang it on my wall? Can I set the camera to yellow and wait for a taxi? In new york? Where exactly IS the line that this guy is supposed to have crossed?
You think an image of the whole earth might make people feel insignificant, but I suspect having a nice visual aid actually helps people in power feel they are more in control - they can see the big picture and feel a stronger sense of ownership;-) I know it helps me grasp the concept of the "whole world" even if the scale is so foreign you can't conceive of a person's size in the picture.
The one on top looks like a picture of the bridge with the city in the background with a red bus (not sure why that's red). The bottom one looks like a picture of a red bus with the city in the background. There are some similarities, but these pictures don't even feel the same to me. I could believe they were taken by the same guy on the same day with the same camera that can be told to automatically make everything black and white and highlight red (there are cheap cameras that can do that you know). But these are clearly not the same image or even close to the same image.
I see so you're an expert in art? I've studied photography pretty seriously for years, and I can tell you that there's a lot more that goes on than just capturing what you see. Seeing it is a talent that requires a lot of study, but most photographers, even most nature photographers and some photojournalists, stage the photos. Just because the medium requires a click at the end does not suggest that any less work went into the photo than a comparable painting.
The truly talented can end up going months between inception and creation.
So as an expert, you've undoubtedly had some formal training in photography. Or at least studied different techniques online, or in some way learned your technique from others rather than figured it all out yourself. If you want to claim that the composition and post-processing of a photograph are copyrightable that's very close to putting yourself out of business since someone else developed those methods and you learned from them. When the techniques become property, you're all infringing. When publicly visible scenes and objects are copyrightable, you're all infringing (the try to make some of these claims in Canada - that buildings are copyrighted and you can't take a picture of them).
The term "work" in copyright refers to the product, not the "effort that went into making it". If someone else wants to put in the effort, then they can create a new "work" that is distinct from the original and not infringing. The problem with moving beyond this simple (or even simplistic) definition is that it become fuzzy and the guys with the most money will eventually win. Say you have a really nice photo of a snow covered mountain with a 1/4 moon in some arrangement. Some guy sees it and takes a similarly arranged scene but with a different but similar looking mountain in another geographic location. What now? If that's infringing, what about people who paint portraits? How many possible poses do you think there are? What about painting a standard head and shoulders of the subject? Once you move the line beyond literal copying of the actual photo you open the door for "interpretation" and the line will be continually moved further and further until you reach a point where no one can take a picture. They'll get around this practical problem by ruling that "personal use" of your "own" photos is OK. That way the public won't have to worry about family vacation pictures, and hence bring the absurdity of this to the masses.
We also have precedent in the software world that you can't copyright the "look and feel" of a program - see Apple vs Microsoft.
Someone probably used a default password on the device and changed it to something that would call attention to the poor security. Not a great choice of words, but it seems to have drawn attention. If the router allows changes over a wireless connection, then such person will probably never be found since they could have made the change from anywhere in the area.
The issue with a product idea (I have one) is getting production, distribution, and sales all lined up without having it stolen and while still getting a decent amount of money - each of those 3 entities is going to want a cut. I thought Walmart was always open to people pitching stuff, so it's really the production (who has ties to china?) that's a problem. And I do mean China, you're not going to have a Walmart price point unless you can get it made at very low cost. So is Walmart going to put you in touch with manufacturers if you "win" the competition?
Composites are different than aluminium. What constitutes "normal" is different than the old stuff. Perhaps people need to do some learning? I'm not a materials engineer, so I don't know - but apparently neither do the people raising the red flag.
You need to google it. It's aviation oriented, but there are workshops where you get to build things too using a variety of tools and materials. My local EAA chapter gets enough YE points to sponsor a couple kids each year and we have them come back to give a report in the fall. Every one of them has had an awesome time.
If you really like flight sims, X-plane is the way to go. They have lots of free 3rd party content. If cheap is what you like, FlightGear is the way to go - open source with tons of add-ons, downloadable scenerey, but the graphics are not as pretty. Both have a linux (and mac?) version of course.
If Stallman comes across as a nutjob, no one will listen to him. And why should they? There are tons of nutjobs in the media, and you'd die of old age before you could listen to and analyze everything they had to say.
Nobody could analyze *everything* *they* have to say. However, it only takes a short time to analyze everything Stallman has to say. He's really only pushing one thing. He's got several stories and several things he'd like people to oppose, but understanding where he's coming from does not take long. He's also one of the only people in the tech world with such a strong opinion, so it's not like he blends in with all the other tech-nuts. Every reader of slashdot should understand Stallmans position by now. You don't have to agree with it, but we should all understand it. Unfortunately even that is difficult for a lot of people.
It's now possible to make a native client of MAME...which...already was native... uhhh, hmm.
Yeah, but instead of running MAME full-screen, you can now run it inside a web browser. Awesome! I want all my apps to sprout web interface features. Not.
In works zones some times you see lines all over the place will the AI be smart and auto trun off when it sees that?
Also on new pavement you see the temp lines that may not be picked up the AI.
If this is the system I think it is, then it is fully capable of autonomous driving at highway speeds on dirt roads. I've seen in-car video and that was over 5 years ago. The safety and legal concerns have limited the practical use of such systems to passive lane departure warnings and mild lane keeping assist.
Why the heck all the Linux Window managers are copying Windows 95-XP with the placement of the window close/minimize/maximize buttons ?
I totally agree. With the advent of wide-screen monitors the layout is all wrong. Vertical space is at a premium, so the "panel" should be to one side or the other. I have a number of ideas on how this should be laid out to make it useful. Notice that browsers have adopted "tabs" because the traditional win95 method of switching tasks sucks - or they maximize the browser because they need the vertical space. I've been meaning to do a mock-up of this layout that's stuck in my head.
You realize we're talking about source code and not human rights, right?
Yes I do. Specifically we're talking about the right of the software users to modify the software they are using. People who like a BSD type license enjoy the right to modify software they get from others, but do not want to offer that option to other people. So no, I'm not talking about human rights, I'm talking about hypocrisy.
That said, I love the warnings that people put on the ends of their email, how it is a "crime" if you distribute the email. Nothing could be more laughable and unenforceable. If you don't want me distributing something you sent, get me to sign a non-disclosure. Otherwise, if it is in my inbox, it's mine.
Wow, you're really unaware of how copyright works. An email falls under copyright of the author. Your copy belongs to you. One can argue that you both have some right to it because it was created for you. Posting pictures on Facebook is another story. The photographer owns the copyright and that doesn't change when they put it up for people to view. Your assertion that possession is all that matter is woefully lacking any legal basis.
Do you have any idea how much methane is already simply flared, instead of being collected? You seriously believe it will ever be economically recovered from such a disperse source?
Wow. Methane is flared because there isn't a good process in place to use it and there's not that much. If there were a lot, they'd build a power plant instead of burning it off. Also, the methane trapped on the seafloor could be collected in much higher concentration by going down there and getting it instead of trying to catch what naturally seeps out. Oil seeps in the gulf of Mexico, but we don't try to catch it, we go down there and actively retrieve it. Kudos to the parent for trying to figure out a way to use methane.
So, 20 years of beating around the Arctics and seeing seepings of 10s m in diameter and, unlucky them, it is only recently that they found the larger ones... What are the chances? I mean, pretty hard luck to miss something that large and find only the smaller ones for 20 years... I wonder why the International Arctic Research Centre at the University of Alaska Fairbanks keeps such unlucky researchers on its payroll?
Yeah, and the guys who've been measuring the height of waves in Fukushima for the last 500 years got a big surprise last year too. 20 years does not constitute a historical record in geological terms - ever. I hate when people see something "new" and assume it's the first time it ever happened. I'm not saying this isn't actually new, just that the guy seems a bit alarmist over his findings.
It's not as if the waters where these were found were terra incognito - or mare incognito - the arctic has been peopled for thousands of years, particularly by the Russians, which is how they came to possess not just Siberia but Alaska. So when a Russian, in particular, says the like has not been seen before, that's someone reporting from a culture which has a good historical knowledge of what's been there to be seen. Sort of like getting a report on the normalcy or not of current tornadoes from someone with deep roots in Oklahoma.
Wow, you make it sound like the Russians have been surveying methane plumes in the arctic sea for ages. You're making the same error the scientist made - not providing any actual data to support the assertion that this is a new phenomenon.
So if we leave nature alone we *should expect* to go back into an ice age. I'd much rather try everything we can to keep the temperature up and prevent that. The northern latitudes have plenty of undeveloped land to move to if it gets warmer. Moving south in the freeze isn't so much an option.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. For the desktop PC part. I just figured that was part of a larger picture. The other poster saying it's named after a river in Texas really deflated my hope too.
I'm shocked that the press hasn't gone wild with speculation on the name "trinity" which implies 3 of something. My guesses are as follows:
1) They integrate CPU, GPU, and "system" on a chip - not really worthy of the name
2) They integrate 3 distinct CPU architectures in APUs. Bulldozer, Bobcat, Power. Or x86, Power, ARM.
3) They are aiming for PC, Apple, and Console markets with the stuff in #2 (consoles require Power arch for backward compatibility).
My bet is that Wii U will have an IBM CPU and AMD GPU on the same die manufactured at GF. The only thing not official there is the integration.
It's also insane for Apple not to go with Trinity and there have been rumors. AMD has canceled product and delayed (public) availability of Trinity even though they claimed it was ramping and on track (last fall) for early 2012. This suggests they're stockpiling for a large customer.
That's just my speculation based on Googling of course. So they either have something big and have kept it very quiet, or the just suck.
Compounds in saliva promote healing and immune response. Are those drugs? Will they soon be regulating the practice of licking wounds?
No, no there is not. Can you take photos of the pages of a book if you're not going to sell them? No. Buildings are not copyrightable in the US. In Canada, I was going to take a picture of my wife in front of a fountain inside casino windsor and was asked to put the camera away due to copyright. You really seem to be in with the copyright lobby. Let me just ask a simple question:
Is is OK to go to London (stupid American, I think that's where the photo in the article is from), stand by those stairs (or even the side of the road - the shots are from very different angles and with different lens), set my camera to "black and white -except red" and take a picture of a bus?
And now some extra questions:
Can I sell it? Can I get a large print and hang it on my wall? Can I set the camera to yellow and wait for a taxi? In new york? Where exactly IS the line that this guy is supposed to have crossed?
Will they be producing a new higher resolution version of the cloud-free earth? That would be nice - more pixels and more up to date.
You think an image of the whole earth might make people feel insignificant, but I suspect having a nice visual aid actually helps people in power feel they are more in control - they can see the big picture and feel a stronger sense of ownership ;-) I know it helps me grasp the concept of the "whole world" even if the scale is so foreign you can't conceive of a person's size in the picture.
The one on top looks like a picture of the bridge with the city in the background with a red bus (not sure why that's red). The bottom one looks like a picture of a red bus with the city in the background. There are some similarities, but these pictures don't even feel the same to me. I could believe they were taken by the same guy on the same day with the same camera that can be told to automatically make everything black and white and highlight red (there are cheap cameras that can do that you know). But these are clearly not the same image or even close to the same image.
So as an expert, you've undoubtedly had some formal training in photography. Or at least studied different techniques online, or in some way learned your technique from others rather than figured it all out yourself. If you want to claim that the composition and post-processing of a photograph are copyrightable that's very close to putting yourself out of business since someone else developed those methods and you learned from them. When the techniques become property, you're all infringing. When publicly visible scenes and objects are copyrightable, you're all infringing (the try to make some of these claims in Canada - that buildings are copyrighted and you can't take a picture of them).
The term "work" in copyright refers to the product, not the "effort that went into making it". If someone else wants to put in the effort, then they can create a new "work" that is distinct from the original and not infringing. The problem with moving beyond this simple (or even simplistic) definition is that it become fuzzy and the guys with the most money will eventually win. Say you have a really nice photo of a snow covered mountain with a 1/4 moon in some arrangement. Some guy sees it and takes a similarly arranged scene but with a different but similar looking mountain in another geographic location. What now? If that's infringing, what about people who paint portraits? How many possible poses do you think there are? What about painting a standard head and shoulders of the subject? Once you move the line beyond literal copying of the actual photo you open the door for "interpretation" and the line will be continually moved further and further until you reach a point where no one can take a picture. They'll get around this practical problem by ruling that "personal use" of your "own" photos is OK. That way the public won't have to worry about family vacation pictures, and hence bring the absurdity of this to the masses.
We also have precedent in the software world that you can't copyright the "look and feel" of a program - see Apple vs Microsoft.
This isn't someones personal access point. It's at a rec center. Either an employee did it, or someone changed it via poor security.
Someone probably used a default password on the device and changed it to something that would call attention to the poor security. Not a great choice of words, but it seems to have drawn attention. If the router allows changes over a wireless connection, then such person will probably never be found since they could have made the change from anywhere in the area.
The issue with a product idea (I have one) is getting production, distribution, and sales all lined up without having it stolen and while still getting a decent amount of money - each of those 3 entities is going to want a cut. I thought Walmart was always open to people pitching stuff, so it's really the production (who has ties to china?) that's a problem. And I do mean China, you're not going to have a Walmart price point unless you can get it made at very low cost. So is Walmart going to put you in touch with manufacturers if you "win" the competition?
Composites are different than aluminium. What constitutes "normal" is different than the old stuff. Perhaps people need to do some learning? I'm not a materials engineer, so I don't know - but apparently neither do the people raising the red flag.
You need to google it. It's aviation oriented, but there are workshops where you get to build things too using a variety of tools and materials. My local EAA chapter gets enough YE points to sponsor a couple kids each year and we have them come back to give a report in the fall. Every one of them has had an awesome time.
If you really like flight sims, X-plane is the way to go. They have lots of free 3rd party content. If cheap is what you like, FlightGear is the way to go - open source with tons of add-ons, downloadable scenerey, but the graphics are not as pretty. Both have a linux (and mac?) version of course.
Nobody could analyze *everything* *they* have to say. However, it only takes a short time to analyze everything Stallman has to say. He's really only pushing one thing. He's got several stories and several things he'd like people to oppose, but understanding where he's coming from does not take long. He's also one of the only people in the tech world with such a strong opinion, so it's not like he blends in with all the other tech-nuts. Every reader of slashdot should understand Stallmans position by now. You don't have to agree with it, but we should all understand it. Unfortunately even that is difficult for a lot of people.
Yeah, but instead of running MAME full-screen, you can now run it inside a web browser. Awesome! I want all my apps to sprout web interface features. Not.
If this is the system I think it is, then it is fully capable of autonomous driving at highway speeds on dirt roads. I've seen in-car video and that was over 5 years ago. The safety and legal concerns have limited the practical use of such systems to passive lane departure warnings and mild lane keeping assist.
I totally agree. With the advent of wide-screen monitors the layout is all wrong. Vertical space is at a premium, so the "panel" should be to one side or the other. I have a number of ideas on how this should be laid out to make it useful. Notice that browsers have adopted "tabs" because the traditional win95 method of switching tasks sucks - or they maximize the browser because they need the vertical space. I've been meaning to do a mock-up of this layout that's stuck in my head.
Yes I do. Specifically we're talking about the right of the software users to modify the software they are using. People who like a BSD type license enjoy the right to modify software they get from others, but do not want to offer that option to other people. So no, I'm not talking about human rights, I'm talking about hypocrisy.
Wow, you're really unaware of how copyright works. An email falls under copyright of the author. Your copy belongs to you. One can argue that you both have some right to it because it was created for you. Posting pictures on Facebook is another story. The photographer owns the copyright and that doesn't change when they put it up for people to view. Your assertion that possession is all that matter is woefully lacking any legal basis.
The freedom to deny others the same freedoms you enjoy is not part of a free society.
Wow. Methane is flared because there isn't a good process in place to use it and there's not that much. If there were a lot, they'd build a power plant instead of burning it off. Also, the methane trapped on the seafloor could be collected in much higher concentration by going down there and getting it instead of trying to catch what naturally seeps out. Oil seeps in the gulf of Mexico, but we don't try to catch it, we go down there and actively retrieve it. Kudos to the parent for trying to figure out a way to use methane.
Yeah, and the guys who've been measuring the height of waves in Fukushima for the last 500 years got a big surprise last year too. 20 years does not constitute a historical record in geological terms - ever. I hate when people see something "new" and assume it's the first time it ever happened. I'm not saying this isn't actually new, just that the guy seems a bit alarmist over his findings.
Wow, you make it sound like the Russians have been surveying methane plumes in the arctic sea for ages. You're making the same error the scientist made - not providing any actual data to support the assertion that this is a new phenomenon.
So if we leave nature alone we *should expect* to go back into an ice age. I'd much rather try everything we can to keep the temperature up and prevent that. The northern latitudes have plenty of undeveloped land to move to if it gets warmer. Moving south in the freeze isn't so much an option.