Codecs designed for conversation are limited in how much they can compress because they can't use as much correlation over a long period - to avoid long latencies. The Intelligence agencies have probably designed their own compression algorithm focussed on offline storage.
My guess at the reasons that low-bitrate codecs are export controlled are 1) submarines and 2) covert channels.
Strachey was also the lead programmer behind the programming language CPL, the great-grandfather of C (via BCPL and B). CPL was too ambitious and was never completely implemented - it tried to do everything; a bit like Perl 6 really.
The overview paper:http://comjnl.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/6/2/134 is quite interesting; sadly it is now behind a pay-wall. There are some features of the language, such as type inference, which have not become common until recently. It also has some obvious poor decisions with hindsight - the same character starts and ends blocks; all lower case letters are single-character variable names; multiple-character variable names must be capitalised (this is done to allow implicit multiplication, ie, xyz=x*y*z). I suspect it could be implemented without huge difficulty with modern tools. Unfortunately, the full definition was never published, and only exists in a few copies of 'The CPL Working papers' archived in university libraries. Perhaps one day google will scan it.
There are two councils, one ('the European Council' consisting of the heads of state, which meets rarely. The other, the 'Council of the EU' consisting of representatives of the national governments 'with ministerial authority', is in session for long periods and is part of the EU legislature. This is who we are discussing; they modified this legislation. I believe they should be directly elected. This does not require changing anything to do with how the heads of state are elected.
Demand that your countries council representative be directly elected. This exactly how the US Senate became democratic early last century: Campaigns in Oregon and Nevada forced those states to elect their Senators, and once they had, the rest had eventually to follow suit.
Once a large EU member or a few small ones do this, the same will happen in the EU.
Another reason why this is the best way to reform the EU is that doing it this way does not threaten further integration: the representative would be a creature of national law, not EU law. A 'Top down' reform like the proposed constitution is always difficult because raises the spectre of further integration, but this would not require a change to the treaties.
Hmm, they don't say if this is commercial (0..70) or industrial (-40..85) temperature range - I guess intel chips are normally commercial range, so they've bumped then up to 75.
Train crashes happen much less frequently than car crashes, so trains are, on average, safer. But every single train crash is news, because more people die in an individual event than in an individual car crash.
Cloud apps have the same problem. When google apps or EC2 go does, it's news.
The best way to generate a groundswell against these systems is for websites to warn their uers if they are on an ISP that does this.
For those in the UK worried about the 'phorm' spying system, Richard Clayton has extracted some technical information from them here: http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2008/04/04/the-phorm-webwise-system/ and Gavin Jamie already has a prototype Phorm detector here: http://www.mythic-beasts.com/~gjamie/
Okay, let's suppose my business is to sell ad-space on T-shirts, and give the T-shirt away free. Some proportion of people are going to take the shirts and wear then under a coat, use them to line the dog-bed, or whatever. Once I have given away the T-shirt, do I have the right to say, you must wear my shirt with the ad showing? No! That would be ridiculous.
So, if we want a robot that will do X to anything, we start with a robot that can do X to itself?
Hmm. I want a robot that can clean anything in my house. I guess we should start by designing a robot that can wash itself. After all, it's bound to get dirty cleaning my loo, and I wouldn't want it spreading dirt everywhere.
So, is there any research into self cleaning robots?
..we already have plenty of electric vehicles, no storage required. They're called trains. The real problem is a security/economic one: if you supply electric power to the roads, how do you charge for it?
Maybe some clever geek can figure out how to do it, and make their fortune.
To make this really cheap, what would be useful is a 4 (or even 8) way video chip. Schools apps don't usually need 3d graphics; the same silicon should be spent on multiple framebuffers. Unfortunatly there probably isn't a commercial market for such a chip. I've thought about trying to design one in my spare time, but most of the problem is analog; free fpga design tools don't cut it.
It shouldn't be necessary for people to actually pay 1 cent per email in order to stop spam. You can use the same mechanism (ecash, or rather tokens) without connecting it to the real economy:
Each person (or rather, their email program) sets a 'price' in tokens for incoming mail, depending on how many mails they need to send. They then use the tokens they recieve to 'pay' for their outgoing mail. Everyone refuses to pay more than a certain amount.
For mailing lists you *want*, you simply configure your mail program to accept it without paying.
It may be much less costly to build such a system than to connect to the real economy, because:
1) there are various checks required by the regulators for currencies connected to the real economy
2) real cash can only by double spent by some percentage before the economy collapses. email tokens could be 'double' spent 100 or 1000 times and still spammers would not be able to send enough out. Maybe crypto experts can devise cheaper ecash mechanisms which take advantage of this.
...because the 'email' economy doesn't have to connect to the real economy, as long as you (or your ISP) sends roughly as many emails as you receive. Which is true of personal emails. Genuine mailing lists would need a free pass, which could be set up when you opt in. ISPs
Of course, an ecash mechanism imposes a cost in CPU cycles. But spam prevention doesn't need as strong a mechanism as the real economy: even if the spammer manages to spend each incoming email 100 or even 1000 times, they still can't send enough to make money. Maybe an ecash algorithm can be devised to take advantage of that.
The real problem is adoption. Unlike filtering, the above has to be applied to all or most of the email system; people can't adopt it on their own and expect to get any benefit.
Here is how IBM could stop SCO from spreading all this FUD: offer anti-SCO legal liability insurance to linunx users, for some amount much less than SCO is attempting to extort. Say, 20 cents a copy. This would send a powerful signal to the market that SCO is unlikely to prevail.
This wouldn't cost IBM much, since they are footing the legal bill anyway. Any it would deprive SCO of the revenue stream which they would probably use to further the suit.
Currently the trial date is set for 2005. We don't want the FUD to continue that long.
Slashdot Mirror
Codecs designed for conversation are limited in how much they can compress because they can't use as much correlation over a long period - to avoid long latencies. The Intelligence agencies have probably designed their own compression algorithm focussed on offline storage. My guess at the reasons that low-bitrate codecs are export controlled are 1) submarines and 2) covert channels.
Feel free to pay to have that done. the algorithmic versions (PESQ, POLQA) are proprietary, and doing it with real people is also pretty expensive.
We don't need the google translate version, there is an official one: http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/george-church-explains-how-dna-will-be-construction-material-of-the-future-a-877634.html
Yes, EXCEPT it's not just the servers' IPv6 connectivity that has to be reliable - the clients has to as well.
Knuth says no to email. You think that means his views should be discounted as well?
Strachey was also the lead programmer behind the programming language CPL, the great-grandfather of C (via BCPL and B). CPL was too ambitious and was never completely implemented - it tried to do everything; a bit like Perl 6 really.
The overview paper:http://comjnl.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/6/2/134 is quite interesting; sadly it is now behind a pay-wall. There are some features of the language, such as type inference, which have not become common until recently. It also has some obvious poor decisions with hindsight - the same character starts and ends blocks; all lower case letters are single-character variable names; multiple-character variable names must be capitalised (this is done to allow implicit multiplication, ie, xyz=x*y*z). I suspect it could be implemented without huge difficulty with modern tools. Unfortunately, the full definition was never published, and only exists in a few copies of 'The CPL Working papers' archived in university libraries. Perhaps one day google will scan it.
No, this is a common mistake.
There are two councils, one ('the European Council' consisting of the heads of state, which meets rarely. The other, the 'Council of the EU' consisting of representatives of the national governments 'with ministerial authority', is in session for long periods and is part of the EU legislature. This is who we are discussing; they modified this legislation. I believe they should be directly elected. This does not require changing anything to do with how the heads of state are elected.
Demand that your countries council representative be directly elected. This exactly how the US Senate became democratic early last century: Campaigns in Oregon and Nevada forced those states to elect their Senators, and once they had, the rest had eventually to follow suit.
Once a large EU member or a few small ones do this, the same will happen in the EU.
Another reason why this is the best way to reform the EU is that doing it this way does not threaten further integration: the representative would be a creature of national law, not EU law. A 'Top down' reform like the proposed constitution is always difficult because raises the spectre of further integration, but this would not require a change to the treaties.
Hmm, they don't say if this is commercial (0..70) or industrial (-40..85) temperature range - I guess intel chips are normally commercial range, so they've bumped then up to 75.
Sounds like tahoe could be what you want. However, it's pretty young, so I wouldn't necessarily rely on it yet.
Cloud apps have the same problem. When google apps or EC2 go does, it's news.
Okay, so what's wrong with spotted owls, from a republican point of view?
The best way to generate a groundswell against these systems is for websites to warn their uers if they are on an ISP that does this. For those in the UK worried about the 'phorm' spying system, Richard Clayton has extracted some technical information from them here: http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2008/04/04/the-phorm-webwise-system/ and Gavin Jamie already has a prototype Phorm detector here: http://www.mythic-beasts.com/~gjamie/
Okay, let's suppose my business is to sell ad-space on T-shirts, and give the T-shirt away free. Some proportion of people are going to take the shirts and wear then under a coat, use them to line the dog-bed, or whatever. Once I have given away the T-shirt, do I have the right to say, you must wear my shirt with the ad showing? No! That would be ridiculous.
Not really; the Z80 is a pretty strange processor.
So, if we want a robot that will do X to anything, we start with a robot that can do X to itself?
Hmm. I want a robot that can clean anything in my house. I guess we should start by designing a robot that can wash itself. After all, it's bound to get dirty cleaning my loo, and I wouldn't want it spreading dirt everywhere.
So, is there any research into self cleaning robots?
..we already have plenty of electric vehicles, no storage required. They're called trains. The real problem is a security/economic one: if you supply electric power to the roads, how do you charge for it?
Maybe some clever geek can figure out how to do it, and make their fortune.
How soon before MS frontpage puts this in all URLs, to nobble google...
To make this really cheap, what would be useful is a 4 (or even 8) way video chip. Schools apps don't usually need 3d graphics; the same silicon should be spent on multiple framebuffers. Unfortunatly there probably isn't a commercial market for such a chip. I've thought about trying to design one in my spare time, but most of the problem is analog; free fpga design tools don't cut it.
It shouldn't be necessary for people to actually pay 1 cent per email in order to stop spam. You can use the same mechanism (ecash, or rather tokens) without connecting it to the real economy:
Each person (or rather, their email program) sets a 'price' in tokens for incoming mail, depending on how many mails they need to send. They then use the tokens they recieve to 'pay' for their outgoing mail. Everyone refuses to pay more than a certain amount.
For mailing lists you *want*, you simply configure your mail program to accept it without paying.
It may be much less costly to build such a system than to connect to the real economy, because:
1) there are various checks required by the regulators for currencies connected to the real economy
2) real cash can only by double spent by some percentage before the economy collapses. email tokens could be 'double' spent 100 or 1000 times and still spammers would not be able to send enough out. Maybe crypto experts can devise cheaper ecash mechanisms which take advantage of this.
...because the 'email' economy doesn't have to connect to the real economy, as long as you (or your ISP) sends roughly as many emails as you receive. Which is true of personal emails. Genuine mailing lists would need a free pass, which could be set up when you opt in. ISPs Of course, an ecash mechanism imposes a cost in CPU cycles. But spam prevention doesn't need as strong a mechanism as the real economy: even if the spammer manages to spend each incoming email 100 or even 1000 times, they still can't send enough to make money. Maybe an ecash algorithm can be devised to take advantage of that. The real problem is adoption. Unlike filtering, the above has to be applied to all or most of the email system; people can't adopt it on their own and expect to get any benefit.
Here is how IBM could stop SCO from spreading all this FUD: offer anti-SCO legal liability insurance to linunx users, for some amount much less than SCO is attempting to extort. Say, 20 cents a copy. This would send a powerful signal to the market that SCO is unlikely to prevail.
This wouldn't cost IBM much, since they are footing the legal bill anyway. Any it would deprive SCO of the revenue stream which they would probably use to further the suit.
Currently the trial date is set for 2005. We don't want the FUD to continue that long.
It's presumably to reduce peppercoins processing costs - they don't have to keep track of each merchant individually.