Leakage current has been the dominant issue since the days of the P4 and the first nVidia vacuum cleaner. As the devices have gotten smaller, the leakage has gone up significantly. To combat this, they've stopped increasing clock speed and started to use a lot of clock-gating and power gating where parts of the chip are inactive or even turned off. They are at the point where a higher gate voltage to turn on should not offset the reduced power dissipation due to leakage current.
How can we out innovate when large corporations are selling technology to foreign countries? Think GE selling jet engine designs to China so they can get some short term profit. True, that's stuff that's already been "innovated", but unless you can know and sustain your rate of innovation you should not help the competition.
Totally agree except the part where you the programmers aren't the same - the original fork was done by a bunch of people who left OO.o for Libreoffice, so really only the name has changed.
But to rate software robustness based on a small amount of anecdotal evidence is irresponsible.
Normally I'd agree with that. However, we're talking about opening a largely undocumented file format. MS office should be the gold standard in opening their own files. You save it in word, it should open in word - end of story. For any application to fail that test indicates a lack of something. The fact that people are often able to open their "corrupt" files using another tool indicates that part of the something missing is robustness.
More functions of the program are brought out to the forefront.
No. Open a presentation and try to view it. The button you want is more clicks away than it used to be, and this is the most common feature. The new UI puts everything on a toolbar but then makes you select from different toolbars - er ribbons. And OMFG the file menu is now that big stupid circle. I thought that was a logo for a long time and couldn't find save or print...
Here's what google has to say about it. I thought I had worked through it myself a while back, which would mean it's not hard to prove:-) However, these papers suggest it's not that easy.
First, the discrete logarithm problem is equivalent to factoring - i.e. a problem of one type can be translated into the other. Second, we can construct a binary circuit to compute products, and iteratively apply 3-SAT to narrow down the inputs until we have a factorization. So if 3-SAT is in P, then so is factorization and discrete logarithm. I'm not aware of the opposite being proven - that if factoring is in P, then P==NP does not necessarily follow.
The grid the blogger shows has "standardized" and "development history" columns. These are both completely irrelevant to the discussion at this point. The bitstream of both formats is frozen and available to everyone NOW, so they should be judged as-is. This leave only the implementation and distribution columns, where the only codecs that are fully green are Theora and WebM. And there lies the reason Google wants WebM. It's as simple as that.
You can switch to WebM today and stick with it forever. Or you can go H.264 today and then switch to H.265 when they jack up the royalties before the patents expire and THEN switch to the new patented codec and repeat. Google paid $130M to free the web, and all people want to do is bitch about it. Seems we've forgotten the.gif image disaster and what had to be done.
This will all change when YouTube turns off Flash - HTML5 and WebM are already there.
The devices you buy have the (small) price built in. But when you say "costs me nothing to use on the web" does that mean stuff you upload to YouTube or FaceBook? 'cause it isn't free for those guys to redistribute it.
Cookies got abused enough and should never have been introduced. Now we're going to let them store arbitrary quantities of data locally in a full blown database? That's just fucking stupid.
I was looking at property on lake Huron, and the water levels are down over the last 10 years leading to some undesirable things (nice sandy beach with 200 feet of marsh and then water). Some blame global warming, some blame dredging, and the agent tells me "it will be great when the lake level returns to normal. All the while I'm thinking "It's been receding ever since the glacier melted, what makes you think it's coming back?". We haven't even measured temperature the same way for 40 years.
"There is not debate" is what the people drinking the coolaid say now to refute anyone who denies global warming. Rarely does anyone point to data. The guy in this article is supported by large corporations who are willing to bet large sums of money on what he predicts. In other words, they put their money where HIS mouth is. I don't see anyone betting on Al Gore other than publishers who can profit from his rhetoric right now. If I could bet real money, I'd raise this guy.1 degree C and say temps will decrease 0.3C in ten years (but that has to be hedged for the rise in air traffic in China).
There is an old argument that public key cryptography is weaker than a private key system. In public key systems, one key is out there and inherently contains everything an attacker needs to decode a message. We rely on the security of the crypto system to ensure they can't do that. Contrast this to the SAME system where both keys are kept secret - the attacker now has zero information about the keys. It's a bit of weak argument, since we do rely completely on the cryptosystem, but being obscure on top of being effective does help a little bit. That said, I would argue that the mere existence of alureon.h should convince folks that at least one platform (that is closed source) should be avoided.
Sure Joel is a respected and successful guy. BUT. The linked stuff by Joel talks about when he was a founder working hard to make HIS company successful. There is quite a different motivation there than asking a salaried guy to bust his ass for nothing so the founder can have a successful company.
H.264 is under discriminatory terms today. For the general public surfing the web it costs nothing. For small content providers I think it also cost nothing. For a place like YouTube it cost money. These terms are also subject to change. Googles terms for WebM are less subject to change - if you get it now you're clear even if they change the license for subsequent downloads (your license does not expire). RAND is what ISO has started to accept because every company working on a "standard" wants to get a patent in it and profit.
I predict YouYube will switch exclusively to WebM late this year. At that point, most people will either get a plugin or already have a browser that supports it natively. After that, there is no reason but legacy video support for anyone to use H.264. And there will be zero incentive for anyone to switch to the new patented codec that will replace 264.
Google claims that as far as they know, there are no patents on WebM other than those owned by Google. There are others who have looked at the codec and agree that it's probably unencumbered. As for Google owning it, the license they offer ensures that you will never have to pay for it. H.264 may be free for most people today, but that can change - and will. When H.265 or whatever comes along, they'll start charging sites a lot more for using H.264 than 265 to force everyone to switch. See that? It's a treadmill that you can't get off. Google wants us to change now, and then again only when there is something truely better, as opposed to when they have a fresh set of patents to charge use for.
It would be great if it could be controlled by the impulses to the focus muscles in your eye. Better yet would be a flexible lens replacement that just bends like the real thing - non electronically.
Tomorrow it will be H.265 or something. It will have fresh patents. They will make it available for free while jacking up the licensing on H.264 so everyone will switch. So we can go with Googles efforts to get us to switch to free - permanently. Or we can wait for the next round of pay-or-upgrade from the patent codec folks. Either way things are going to change. Oh, and H.264 will probably be removed from the worlds most popular video site real soon now so "everywhere" is temporary. Oh, and by permanently I mean that if Google wanted to force the web to change codecs again, they could not motivate people by jacking up the licensing fees on WebM - you can (and should) get it today under perpetual royalty-free terms.
What people need is a broadcast of the current energy price, so they can optimize their usage. Reporting peoples usage habits has NO value to either the customer or overall energy consumption. The power company is not going to control the customer usage (except with interruptabe servive).
The birds probably died because they ate some of the dead fish, which suggests the fist were poisoned by something, possibly picked up and dumped in the water by said tornado. Speculation on my part, but there were dead fish too. I don't think I'd drink the water there...
2012 fails in the science. I can believe the global conspiracy to hide the truth while trying to save "selected people", so it must fail in the science (which is crap). So how then does Contact get marked realistic?
Slashdot Mirror
Leakage current has been the dominant issue since the days of the P4 and the first nVidia vacuum cleaner. As the devices have gotten smaller, the leakage has gone up significantly. To combat this, they've stopped increasing clock speed and started to use a lot of clock-gating and power gating where parts of the chip are inactive or even turned off. They are at the point where a higher gate voltage to turn on should not offset the reduced power dissipation due to leakage current.
The problem is that they not only changed the mass, they substituted a muon for an electron. That would probably change the reactivity of anything.
Just think if they received a text or phone call just after the "handler" had rigged everything.
How can we out innovate when large corporations are selling technology to foreign countries? Think GE selling jet engine designs to China so they can get some short term profit. True, that's stuff that's already been "innovated", but unless you can know and sustain your rate of innovation you should not help the competition.
Totally agree except the part where you the programmers aren't the same - the original fork was done by a bunch of people who left OO.o for Libreoffice, so really only the name has changed.
Normally I'd agree with that. However, we're talking about opening a largely undocumented file format. MS office should be the gold standard in opening their own files. You save it in word, it should open in word - end of story. For any application to fail that test indicates a lack of something. The fact that people are often able to open their "corrupt" files using another tool indicates that part of the something missing is robustness.
No. Open a presentation and try to view it. The button you want is more clicks away than it used to be, and this is the most common feature. The new UI puts everything on a toolbar but then makes you select from different toolbars - er ribbons. And OMFG the file menu is now that big stupid circle. I thought that was a logo for a long time and couldn't find save or print...
Here's what google has to say about it. I thought I had worked through it myself a while back, which would mean it's not hard to prove :-) However, these papers suggest it's not that easy.
First, the discrete logarithm problem is equivalent to factoring - i.e. a problem of one type can be translated into the other. Second, we can construct a binary circuit to compute products, and iteratively apply 3-SAT to narrow down the inputs until we have a factorization. So if 3-SAT is in P, then so is factorization and discrete logarithm. I'm not aware of the opposite being proven - that if factoring is in P, then P==NP does not necessarily follow.
The grid the blogger shows has "standardized" and "development history" columns. These are both completely irrelevant to the discussion at this point. The bitstream of both formats is frozen and available to everyone NOW, so they should be judged as-is. This leave only the implementation and distribution columns, where the only codecs that are fully green are Theora and WebM. And there lies the reason Google wants WebM. It's as simple as that. .gif image disaster and what had to be done.
You can switch to WebM today and stick with it forever. Or you can go H.264 today and then switch to H.265 when they jack up the royalties before the patents expire and THEN switch to the new patented codec and repeat. Google paid $130M to free the web, and all people want to do is bitch about it. Seems we've forgotten the
This will all change when YouTube turns off Flash - HTML5 and WebM are already there.
The devices you buy have the (small) price built in. But when you say "costs me nothing to use on the web" does that mean stuff you upload to YouTube or FaceBook? 'cause it isn't free for those guys to redistribute it.
Cookies got abused enough and should never have been introduced. Now we're going to let them store arbitrary quantities of data locally in a full blown database? That's just fucking stupid.
Who would even do an experiment with such things?
I was looking at property on lake Huron, and the water levels are down over the last 10 years leading to some undesirable things (nice sandy beach with 200 feet of marsh and then water). Some blame global warming, some blame dredging, and the agent tells me "it will be great when the lake level returns to normal. All the while I'm thinking "It's been receding ever since the glacier melted, what makes you think it's coming back?". We haven't even measured temperature the same way for 40 years.
"There is not debate" is what the people drinking the coolaid say now to refute anyone who denies global warming. Rarely does anyone point to data. The guy in this article is supported by large corporations who are willing to bet large sums of money on what he predicts. In other words, they put their money where HIS mouth is. I don't see anyone betting on Al Gore other than publishers who can profit from his rhetoric right now. If I could bet real money, I'd raise this guy .1 degree C and say temps will decrease 0.3C in ten years (but that has to be hedged for the rise in air traffic in China).
There is an old argument that public key cryptography is weaker than a private key system. In public key systems, one key is out there and inherently contains everything an attacker needs to decode a message. We rely on the security of the crypto system to ensure they can't do that. Contrast this to the SAME system where both keys are kept secret - the attacker now has zero information about the keys. It's a bit of weak argument, since we do rely completely on the cryptosystem, but being obscure on top of being effective does help a little bit. That said, I would argue that the mere existence of alureon.h should convince folks that at least one platform (that is closed source) should be avoided.
Sure Joel is a respected and successful guy. BUT. The linked stuff by Joel talks about when he was a founder working hard to make HIS company successful. There is quite a different motivation there than asking a salaried guy to bust his ass for nothing so the founder can have a successful company.
That's what WebM is supposed to be. They paid $130 Million dollars for it, so we could reach that goal and all people seem to do is complain about it.
I predict YouYube will switch exclusively to WebM late this year. At that point, most people will either get a plugin or already have a browser that supports it natively. After that, there is no reason but legacy video support for anyone to use H.264. And there will be zero incentive for anyone to switch to the new patented codec that will replace 264.
Google claims that as far as they know, there are no patents on WebM other than those owned by Google. There are others who have looked at the codec and agree that it's probably unencumbered. As for Google owning it, the license they offer ensures that you will never have to pay for it. H.264 may be free for most people today, but that can change - and will. When H.265 or whatever comes along, they'll start charging sites a lot more for using H.264 than 265 to force everyone to switch. See that? It's a treadmill that you can't get off. Google wants us to change now, and then again only when there is something truely better, as opposed to when they have a fresh set of patents to charge use for.
It would be great if it could be controlled by the impulses to the focus muscles in your eye. Better yet would be a flexible lens replacement that just bends like the real thing - non electronically.
Tomorrow it will be H.265 or something. It will have fresh patents. They will make it available for free while jacking up the licensing on H.264 so everyone will switch. So we can go with Googles efforts to get us to switch to free - permanently. Or we can wait for the next round of pay-or-upgrade from the patent codec folks. Either way things are going to change. Oh, and H.264 will probably be removed from the worlds most popular video site real soon now so "everywhere" is temporary. Oh, and by permanently I mean that if Google wanted to force the web to change codecs again, they could not motivate people by jacking up the licensing fees on WebM - you can (and should) get it today under perpetual royalty-free terms.
What people need is a broadcast of the current energy price, so they can optimize their usage. Reporting peoples usage habits has NO value to either the customer or overall energy consumption. The power company is not going to control the customer usage (except with interruptabe servive).
The birds probably died because they ate some of the dead fish, which suggests the fist were poisoned by something, possibly picked up and dumped in the water by said tornado. Speculation on my part, but there were dead fish too. I don't think I'd drink the water there...
2012 fails in the science. I can believe the global conspiracy to hide the truth while trying to save "selected people", so it must fail in the science (which is crap). So how then does Contact get marked realistic?