Recently, this whole flash drive business has been popping up in the news, with announcements of a whole gob of commercial solid-state drives based on flash technology and the like. Nonetheless, there is a big void in the flash drive world that, at least at first glance, could be easily filled with trivial technology and off the shelf products but no one seems to be paying any attention.
I'm talking about RAID + flash cards.
Flash cards are everywhere and, although their cost per GB is rather high, a 1GB card is easily affordable (1GB microSD card for less than 10 euros) and prices are dropping constantly. If someone decided to build a RAID card reader, we could easily get a foot in the door. For about 60 euros it would be possible to get something between a slowish but reliable 6GB flash drive or a speedy and snappy 1GB flash drive.
So why exactly didn't anyone thought of this? We already have IDE CF card readers, some models supporting 2 drives, that can be had for about 6 euros. Why not a RAID flash card reader?
Is there a particular reason you need the driver to be open-source? Are you planning on re-writing it? I've been hearing the open-source arguement for years but never understood it. Unless you are a driver developer yourself or plan on going through the code line by line, what does it matter?
You sure are distracted. By releasing open source drivers it is possible to support (i.e., new features, bugfixes, security fixes) the same hardware in a larger variety of platforms, some which were never supported officially and others that the hardware maker simply dropped the support. You may not notice it if you are that kind of user who adopted the dominating platform and needlessly upgrades hardware and software every year or so. If someone uses a niche platform along with outdated hardware, you bet that open source drivers are important. They are a life saver.
Oh and by the way, not everyone needs to be "a driver developer planning on going through the code line by line" to make the case for open source drivers. It takes a single user to write a patch that influences the entire community, which means that an isolated contribution by a random user can benefit the whole project and community. For example, do you ever heard about a project called linux?
Why should a commericial company release their intellectual property for free when there are hundreds of people creating these products for a living.
Really? Who, exactly is "earning a living" selling standalone ATI drivers? AMD sure isn't doing it. Oh you mean no one?
This is completely different than FOSS. What if you started giving away what you did for a living?
Just because someone may have found a way of getting paid for doing something it doesn't mean that anyone who intended to do the same thing for free should be barred from doing so. Do you believe that those bastards working on all FLOSS operating systems that release everything for free should just stop doing that just because some poor sap decided to try ask for money after providing that exact same service? Moreover, why exactly do you believe that locking down a driver is a decision that helps the hardware's paying customers? Do you believe that no one should offer something for free, something that undeniably improves the life of the community, just because a poor sap somewhere got rich by selling that exact same service?
I know, no one at slashdot RTFA. Yet, by not reading it, everyone skipped this little gem, which is the tell tale of what is in the mind of the recording industry execs and how they perceive the music business:
Rick Rubin, the "outsider", thinks like this:
Rubin has a bigger idea. To combat the devastating impact of file sharing, he, like others in the music business (Doug Morris and Jimmy Iovine at Universal, for instance), says that the future of the industry is a subscription model, much like paid cable on a television set. "You would subscribe to music," Rubin explained, as he settled on the velvet couch in his library. "You'd pay, say, $19.95 a month, and the music will come anywhere you'd like. In this new world, there will be a virtual library that will be accessible from your car, from your cellphone, from your computer, from your television. Anywhere.blockquote>
That is a really nice, level-headed idea. Rick Rubin acknowledges the obvious fact that the label's present business model is obsolete and if they do not update it back to sanity, the labels will go the way of the buggy whip industry. Yet, his vision of a new business model is based not on oppressing the consumer into compliance. It is based on offering the consumer a service which not only the consumer wants but also its in fact better than everything that ever existed and in the process cutting operational costs. That is,by definition, a good business model to upgrade to.
On the other hand, look at what the established music execs believe is the music industry's salvation
Barnett has other ideas, which he is discussing with Rubin. For instance, asking Columbia artists to give the record company up to 50 percent of their touring, merchandising and online revenue.
What the fuck does a music distributor, a service that consists of distributing music, has to do with the artist's other lines of revenue? What the fuck entitles a record exec to get a cut of an artist's each and every performances? And more importantly, how exactly does this save the impeding disaster where the record labels are directed to? The only thing this accomplishes is screwing the artist even more and, more importantly, once again makes the case that ALL ARTISTS are better off not involving themselves with any record label whatsoever.
This is the reason why the record industry is becoming irrelevant and obsolete. Their execs aren't capable of thinking for themselves and understanding their market. The only thing that they learnt and ever know is that they earn their money by screwing the artist and if they aren't making more money then they aren't screwing the artist or the market enough.
Wrong. It's the software developer that is responsible for his product's quality. If someone writes software that is buggy then it is that person's fault that the bugs are there in the first place, not some random 3rd party that isn't even a client and has absolutely no say or vested interest in the development of said product.
And I guarantee that four "nodes", aka Linux PCs, are cheaper than $2500.
Indeed. After I saw the component prices I was left dumbfounded. I mean, AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ processors at 165 dollars a pop? A kingston 1GB DDR-667 stick of RAM at 124 dollars? Are they on drugs? I mean, I've just bought an Athlon 64 X2 4000+ EE for 68euros (the 3800+ was selling for 59 euros) and each kingston 1GB DDR-800 stick for 46 euros. Where did all the rest of the money went?
Apple already bases its entire product line on Intel x86 systems, i.e., IBM PC compatible, i.e., PCs. Why should apple buy some company just to be able to do the exact same thing that it is already doing for the past year or so?
Really the only questions are how was the German vote subverted?
Basically, Microsoft directed a global filibuster campaign in order to force MS's OOXML specifications down ISO's throat. What happened in Germany was largely the same thing that happened in other countries like Portugal, Italy and IIRC Spain.
As I'm portuguese, I've followed the portuguese case a bit closer. In that case, the modus operandi was basically to force the participation of entities as MS business partners in order to stuff the ballot, with the shockingly weird twist of barring the participation of entities like IBM and Sun due to some petty arbitrary justifications (not having enough chairs in a room, mind you). So, to sum things up, MS highjacked the process, successfully barred other entities from participating and, ignoring all technical problems and inconsistencies, proceeded to vote in favour of MS's OOXML for, IIRC, a margin of 12-6 (prior to MS the vote standed at 1-6).
You are absolutely right. I clearly mixed up the values as the Intel-based system obviously outperforms AMD's. Oops.
you might think that 30 fps is "decent" but then 60 fps will give you a smoother ride
The thing is, the performance difference between an Intel-based system and an AMD-based system isn't in the 30 fps Vs 60 fps range. Some benchmarks have showed that the AMD Athlon 64 X2-based systems run games like F.E.A.R. at about 100 fps while an Intel Core 2 Duo-based system runs them at about 120fps. Naturally the C2D system outperforms the AMD X2 system but let's face it. That increase in performance (120 fps Vs 100fps) is, in fact, irrelevant and it cannot possibly justify a price tag which is twice as much as AMD's.
I decided recently to abandon my "desktop-replacement" laptop and migrate to a real desktop. As I already had a few components (case, HD, CD-R, irrelevant peripherals like mouse and keyboard) I only had to shop for a monitor, CPU, motherboard and RAM. After browsing the local stores, I realized that an AMD Athlon 64 X2 3600+ 65W was selling for 60 euros and the 4000+ was selling for 69 euros. How much for Intel's Core 2 Duo? The lame E4300 was selling for over 120 euros and the E6550 for over 160 euros. Ouch.
Obviously I opted for the AMD processors. The AMD processors enabled me to spend for the whole system (CPU, Asus M2NPV-MX motherboard, 1GB of Kingston DDR2 PC2-6400) almost as much as a single Intel processor was selling for. I mean, I spent 180 euros for a virtually brand new desktop while the Intel processor alone was selling for over 160 euros.
Nonetheless, the diehard benchmark fans may state that a system based on the Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 could easily outperform my AMD 64 X2 4000+. Yet, what does that mean? If we take a serious look into those benchmarks we notice that, in practice, they render Intel's offering as irrelevant. I mean, what is stated in those benchmarks is that, for example, an Intel C2D E6550 system runs games at about 100fps while my AMD system runs them at about 120fps. Knowing that any frame rate over 30fps is lost on human eyes, what justification is there for the extra 100 on the processor? Another example are those mp3 and video encoding benchmarks. Those state that a E6550 system encodes HD video clip about 20 seconds faster than a AMD 64 X2 4000+ system. Does that 20 second difference in a task that any normal user does not even perform justifies the extra 100 euros price tag?
So the truth is that, although the current Intel CPU offering outperforms AMD's CPUs, in the real world that performance difference is completely irrelevant. The average pc user, even gamers, do not get any relevant benefit from the bigger price tag that comes with Intel's. So why even bother with Intel's expensive CPUs when AMD churns out virtually the same thing for a fraction of the price?
In the USA it is legal to make personal copies of copyrighted works. There is even less doubts about the legality of torrents due to the simple fact that a torrent is not the copyrighted work but simply a pointer to that copyrighted work. Can you please explain to everyone interested where in the world is it illegal to offer directions to a copyrighted work?
I love how you try to pull the retarded slippery slope allegation by claiming that downloading MP3s or tv shows will lead to loss of anonymity. Yeah, because the people who are pulling for the end of anonymity are doing it because of MP3s. Countries like China simply do not want any of it's citizens downloading ricky martin songs without paying for them. That must be really it.
You want to whine and try to sell the idea that the monopolization and capitalization of culture and education is in everyone's best interest? Please do so. Yet, at least try to argue with some facts and rational reasoning instead of trying to pull totally groundless "big bad wolf" and "slippery slope" scare tactics.
Except that you fail to notice that while the chinese assemble the equipment bought from the West, they also learn how to do it themselves. Meanwhile, as that sector gradually moves away from the West, it loses both technical expertise and power. So in effect the West is contributing to China's technological and industrial advance while the only thing that it profits from that arrangement is the loss of technical capabilities and cutting a bit of costs in the manufacturing process. Not a good deal.
Hey, don't take my word for it. Look at Thailand and it's neighbours. A couple of decades ago, "made in Thailand" meant cheap plastic toys which broke in the first week of use. Now it is where virtually all computer components which are sold today are built, not to mention quite a bit of companies which are holding their own in the market like VIA, ASUS and even Acer, one of the top computer manufacturers in the world.
On the other hand, how many leading electronics companies popped out of Europe recently? And the US?
Therefore it is easy to see that the West absolutely needs to protect it's industry. If it doesn't, it will simply vanish under economic pressure and once it loses and all those third world giants gets to both lead and control those capabilites, the West will be in a very tough place.
If I had never dropped out, I would have never dropped in on this calligraphy class, and personal computers might not have the wonderful typography that they do.
Oh I see. All this time I was lead to believe that Donald Knuth created TeX to satisfy the desperate need for a half decent digital typography tool and after all it must have been due to some class that steve jobs took when he dropped out of college. Knowing that TeX remains to this day the best typesetting system and knowing a bit about Adobe and the history of PostScript, I guess that that half baked assertion makes sense and must be true.
...or maybe not.
Please. Steve Jobs doesn't walk over water, nor is he behind every single thing which can be accounted as progress in the computer world. This whole jobs-worshiping thing is starting to become ridiculous.
If you had read the wikipedia quote you supplied you would've notice that what you pasted wasn't a description of what mathematics is. What you pasted here is simply some author's limited interpretation of one example of where the science of mathematics is centered on. If you paid a bit more attention and you kept reading the following sentence, you would've read that:
Benjamin Peirce called it "the science that draws necessary conclusions".
or even
mathematics is the science of pattern, that mathematicians seek out patterns whether found in numbers, space, science, computers, imaginary abstractions, or elsewhere.
The analytical rigour of mathematics can be powerful enough to produce quantitative results but that doesn't mean that metrics is the only thing that math is capable of. To put it in other words, just because it can help you measure things that doesn't mean that's the only thing it is capable of.
But you don't engineer a bridge by thinking about the interaction of individual atoms, not because that isn't the "right" way of doing it, but because it takes too long and is too expensive.
Well, actually you do and in multiple aspects too. Whether to design and evaluate the longevity of the applied materials, to the interaction between components, those aspects must be considered in multi-milion dollar projects where bridge building is included.
Besides that, civil and structural engineers also have to consider the mechanics of materials and also wave propagation. What field of science covers that? Physics, of course.
The article makes a good point saying that the obsession with mathematics at the exclusion of all else in computational theory is not necessarily a good thing for the IT field.
No it doesn't. The only point it makes is that the author does not have a clue about what mathematics is. Mathematics isn't algebra or calculus. Math isn't adding up numbers or multiplying things. Mathematics is structured deductive reasoning, which builds up from a solid starting point (axioms) and serves to represent, communicate and help with the construction of ideas. Those tasks are the basis of computer science, whether you are writing an operating system, designing a database, building a network or even creating a new language/protocol. If you take math out of the picture, you simply cannot do anything in CS, whether you actually know you are applying mathematical concepts or not.
I find it very troubling that this whole new "anti-cheating" technology looks a lot like some beefed up hardware keylogger which not only will be present in every computer out there but also will not come with an off switch. Sure, the reason to push this new trusted computing feature is those damn cheater punks who enjoy them unlawful fragging or that pesky spyware, which only affects ill-managed insecure platforms. Yet, what about the danger that this new feature presents to privacy? I mean, it's a keylogger paired with a communications component which will be present in virtually all desktop PCs. Does gaming free of the occasional cheater trump privacy nowadays?
I read the article pretty carefully. I don't see any actual numbers to back up this "debunking".
That's because you are gullible enough to believe the hype, aggravated by your lack of will to perform a basic search for the facts. Here is a bit of debunking from a quick google search.
Those are real world facts supported on real world evidence which is freely available to the public. It isn't a random blog entry which is based on god knows what data which is only known by the author and possibly doesn't even exist. So where in fact is there a need to "debunk" a moronic, unsubstantiated claim made by some microsoft employee, specially when there is all that evidence right in front of everyone's face?
I wonder how much of these problems are really due to lack of funding and how much are just tactics to yank an even bigger chunk of money from the guys in Washington. After all, the problems that they describe should only exist if the person in charge purposedly screwed up the budget.
Maybe you should search for some numbers to support your argument... just by stating "I don't buy it, C++ is still faster" it doesn't become reality.
Indeed. Thankfully, there is quite a lot of information about the lagging performance of Java compared to other languages, including C++. Care for some benchmarks? Then check this one out: g++ C++ Vs Java JDK client benchmarks.
You see, just by stating "Java is as fast if not faster than C++" it doesn't become reality.
Correction: the RIAA will kill off internet radio FROM THE US of A. The RIAA is an american business association which lobbies the US government institutions to implement policies in order for their associates' business to thrive. It's influence outside of the US isn't felt, specially in countries where fair use rights are acknowledged and respected. So the only thing that the RIAA's antics will produce is effectively strangling the US market.
If you failed to understand what I said then I suggest you at least try to read what I wrote. You claim that the record labels produce some kind of added value although the only thing that they provide is a distribution system and, in some cases, marketing. The record labels aren't the ones composing or performing the songs. The artists are the ones who do that. The record labels are simply corporations which earn money by selling a recording done by the author, selling it at overinflated prices and paying the artist a small fraction of the income generated by the artist's own work.
And please don't insist on bring here that whole "oh if you download then you must pay" load of crap. Let's not even discuss the fact that downloads increase record sales. Let's just focus on the simple fact that in some countries, where the access to culture is viewed as fundamental right and not another possible source of revenue, the access to any work of art for non-profit personal use without the express authorization by the rights holder is not only perfectly legal but also protected by law. That includes downloading MP3, photocopying books and even copying DVDs. That's because works of art should be accessed by anyone. Art is not a consumer product.
If the MAFIAA provides a valuable service to you, and expects money in exchange, it seems reasonable that you should give them money.
Oh really? So you should give your money away to anyone, independent of any rational reason, just because they "expect you to"? Since when does "profit expectancy" entitles anyone to take your hard-earned money away from you? It doesn't.
If they aren't providing a valueable service, then don't pirate their garbage.
Due to the technological advances that we have been blessed in these past two decades, the music labels' potential to offer any remotely "valuable service" died. Plain and simple. The only thing that they were capable of offering was a means to sell a product: the sound recording. They offered a way to record the music, the logistic system to distribute the music to points of sale and, only in some cases, the marketing push to gather more public attention. Now they are no longer necessary. Anyone with 5 year old PC and a few hundred s can just as easily record their music even at their own room. Anyone with an internet connection can distribute their work. Heck, if the artist is good enough the marketing generates itself.
So right now the record labels are redundant. Redundant and extremely expensive/costly to the artist. Plain in simple. To the true artists and musicians, the record labels were simply the middle man that handled one possible extra line of income: the record sale. They now have been rendered irrelevant and obsolete since the service that they charge their weight in gold for is not only prohibitively expensive but also of lesser quality than the artist can do it themselves.
And by the way, there are countries in the world where file sharing is not only legal but also protected by law.
Cyrillic? You mean the alphabet which adopted symbols with both the greek and the latin alphabet? Do you really believe that it is better suited than the greek alphabet?
Slashdot Mirror
Recently, this whole flash drive business has been popping up in the news, with announcements of a whole gob of commercial solid-state drives based on flash technology and the like. Nonetheless, there is a big void in the flash drive world that, at least at first glance, could be easily filled with trivial technology and off the shelf products but no one seems to be paying any attention.
I'm talking about RAID + flash cards.
Flash cards are everywhere and, although their cost per GB is rather high, a 1GB card is easily affordable (1GB microSD card for less than 10 euros) and prices are dropping constantly. If someone decided to build a RAID card reader, we could easily get a foot in the door. For about 60 euros it would be possible to get something between a slowish but reliable 6GB flash drive or a speedy and snappy 1GB flash drive.
So why exactly didn't anyone thought of this? We already have IDE CF card readers, some models supporting 2 drives, that can be had for about 6 euros. Why not a RAID flash card reader?
You sure are distracted. By releasing open source drivers it is possible to support (i.e., new features, bugfixes, security fixes) the same hardware in a larger variety of platforms, some which were never supported officially and others that the hardware maker simply dropped the support. You may not notice it if you are that kind of user who adopted the dominating platform and needlessly upgrades hardware and software every year or so. If someone uses a niche platform along with outdated hardware, you bet that open source drivers are important. They are a life saver.
Oh and by the way, not everyone needs to be "a driver developer planning on going through the code line by line" to make the case for open source drivers. It takes a single user to write a patch that influences the entire community, which means that an isolated contribution by a random user can benefit the whole project and community. For example, do you ever heard about a project called linux?
Really? Who, exactly is "earning a living" selling standalone ATI drivers? AMD sure isn't doing it. Oh you mean no one?
Just because someone may have found a way of getting paid for doing something it doesn't mean that anyone who intended to do the same thing for free should be barred from doing so. Do you believe that those bastards working on all FLOSS operating systems that release everything for free should just stop doing that just because some poor sap decided to try ask for money after providing that exact same service? Moreover, why exactly do you believe that locking down a driver is a decision that helps the hardware's paying customers? Do you believe that no one should offer something for free, something that undeniably improves the life of the community, just because a poor sap somewhere got rich by selling that exact same service?
I know, no one at slashdot RTFA. Yet, by not reading it, everyone skipped this little gem, which is the tell tale of what is in the mind of the recording industry execs and how they perceive the music business:
Rick Rubin, the "outsider", thinks like this:
Wrong. It's the software developer that is responsible for his product's quality. If someone writes software that is buggy then it is that person's fault that the bugs are there in the first place, not some random 3rd party that isn't even a client and has absolutely no say or vested interest in the development of said product.
Indeed. After I saw the component prices I was left dumbfounded. I mean, AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ processors at 165 dollars a pop? A kingston 1GB DDR-667 stick of RAM at 124 dollars? Are they on drugs? I mean, I've just bought an Athlon 64 X2 4000+ EE for 68euros (the 3800+ was selling for 59 euros) and each kingston 1GB DDR-800 stick for 46 euros. Where did all the rest of the money went?
Apple already bases its entire product line on Intel x86 systems, i.e., IBM PC compatible, i.e., PCs. Why should apple buy some company just to be able to do the exact same thing that it is already doing for the past year or so?
Basically, Microsoft directed a global filibuster campaign in order to force MS's OOXML specifications down ISO's throat. What happened in Germany was largely the same thing that happened in other countries like Portugal, Italy and IIRC Spain.
As I'm portuguese, I've followed the portuguese case a bit closer. In that case, the modus operandi was basically to force the participation of entities as MS business partners in order to stuff the ballot, with the shockingly weird twist of barring the participation of entities like IBM and Sun due to some petty arbitrary justifications (not having enough chairs in a room, mind you). So, to sum things up, MS highjacked the process, successfully barred other entities from participating and, ignoring all technical problems and inconsistencies, proceeded to vote in favour of MS's OOXML for, IIRC, a margin of 12-6 (prior to MS the vote standed at 1-6).
You are absolutely right. I clearly mixed up the values as the Intel-based system obviously outperforms AMD's. Oops.
The thing is, the performance difference between an Intel-based system and an AMD-based system isn't in the 30 fps Vs 60 fps range. Some benchmarks have showed that the AMD Athlon 64 X2-based systems run games like F.E.A.R. at about 100 fps while an Intel Core 2 Duo-based system runs them at about 120fps. Naturally the C2D system outperforms the AMD X2 system but let's face it. That increase in performance (120 fps Vs 100fps) is, in fact, irrelevant and it cannot possibly justify a price tag which is twice as much as AMD's.
Indeed. In fact, I have a similar story.
I decided recently to abandon my "desktop-replacement" laptop and migrate to a real desktop. As I already had a few components (case, HD, CD-R, irrelevant peripherals like mouse and keyboard) I only had to shop for a monitor, CPU, motherboard and RAM. After browsing the local stores, I realized that an AMD Athlon 64 X2 3600+ 65W was selling for 60 euros and the 4000+ was selling for 69 euros. How much for Intel's Core 2 Duo? The lame E4300 was selling for over 120 euros and the E6550 for over 160 euros. Ouch.
Obviously I opted for the AMD processors. The AMD processors enabled me to spend for the whole system (CPU, Asus M2NPV-MX motherboard, 1GB of Kingston DDR2 PC2-6400) almost as much as a single Intel processor was selling for. I mean, I spent 180 euros for a virtually brand new desktop while the Intel processor alone was selling for over 160 euros.
Nonetheless, the diehard benchmark fans may state that a system based on the Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 could easily outperform my AMD 64 X2 4000+. Yet, what does that mean? If we take a serious look into those benchmarks we notice that, in practice, they render Intel's offering as irrelevant. I mean, what is stated in those benchmarks is that, for example, an Intel C2D E6550 system runs games at about 100fps while my AMD system runs them at about 120fps. Knowing that any frame rate over 30fps is lost on human eyes, what justification is there for the extra 100 on the processor? Another example are those mp3 and video encoding benchmarks. Those state that a E6550 system encodes HD video clip about 20 seconds faster than a AMD 64 X2 4000+ system. Does that 20 second difference in a task that any normal user does not even perform justifies the extra 100 euros price tag?
So the truth is that, although the current Intel CPU offering outperforms AMD's CPUs, in the real world that performance difference is completely irrelevant. The average pc user, even gamers, do not get any relevant benefit from the bigger price tag that comes with Intel's. So why even bother with Intel's expensive CPUs when AMD churns out virtually the same thing for a fraction of the price?
In the USA it is legal to make personal copies of copyrighted works. There is even less doubts about the legality of torrents due to the simple fact that a torrent is not the copyrighted work but simply a pointer to that copyrighted work. Can you please explain to everyone interested where in the world is it illegal to offer directions to a copyrighted work?
I love how you try to pull the retarded slippery slope allegation by claiming that downloading MP3s or tv shows will lead to loss of anonymity. Yeah, because the people who are pulling for the end of anonymity are doing it because of MP3s. Countries like China simply do not want any of it's citizens downloading ricky martin songs without paying for them. That must be really it.
You want to whine and try to sell the idea that the monopolization and capitalization of culture and education is in everyone's best interest? Please do so. Yet, at least try to argue with some facts and rational reasoning instead of trying to pull totally groundless "big bad wolf" and "slippery slope" scare tactics.
Except that you fail to notice that while the chinese assemble the equipment bought from the West, they also learn how to do it themselves. Meanwhile, as that sector gradually moves away from the West, it loses both technical expertise and power. So in effect the West is contributing to China's technological and industrial advance while the only thing that it profits from that arrangement is the loss of technical capabilities and cutting a bit of costs in the manufacturing process. Not a good deal.
Hey, don't take my word for it. Look at Thailand and it's neighbours. A couple of decades ago, "made in Thailand" meant cheap plastic toys which broke in the first week of use. Now it is where virtually all computer components which are sold today are built, not to mention quite a bit of companies which are holding their own in the market like VIA, ASUS and even Acer, one of the top computer manufacturers in the world.
On the other hand, how many leading electronics companies popped out of Europe recently? And the US?
Therefore it is easy to see that the West absolutely needs to protect it's industry. If it doesn't, it will simply vanish under economic pressure and once it loses and all those third world giants gets to both lead and control those capabilites, the West will be in a very tough place.
Oh I see. All this time I was lead to believe that Donald Knuth created TeX to satisfy the desperate need for a half decent digital typography tool and after all it must have been due to some class that steve jobs took when he dropped out of college. Knowing that TeX remains to this day the best typesetting system and knowing a bit about Adobe and the history of PostScript, I guess that that half baked assertion makes sense and must be true.
...or maybe not.
Please. Steve Jobs doesn't walk over water, nor is he behind every single thing which can be accounted as progress in the computer world. This whole jobs-worshiping thing is starting to become ridiculous.
or even
The analytical rigour of mathematics can be powerful enough to produce quantitative results but that doesn't mean that metrics is the only thing that math is capable of. To put it in other words, just because it can help you measure things that doesn't mean that's the only thing it is capable of.
Well, actually you do and in multiple aspects too. Whether to design and evaluate the longevity of the applied materials, to the interaction between components, those aspects must be considered in multi-milion dollar projects where bridge building is included.
Besides that, civil and structural engineers also have to consider the mechanics of materials and also wave propagation. What field of science covers that? Physics, of course.
No it doesn't. The only point it makes is that the author does not have a clue about what mathematics is. Mathematics isn't algebra or calculus. Math isn't adding up numbers or multiplying things. Mathematics is structured deductive reasoning, which builds up from a solid starting point (axioms) and serves to represent, communicate and help with the construction of ideas. Those tasks are the basis of computer science, whether you are writing an operating system, designing a database, building a network or even creating a new language/protocol. If you take math out of the picture, you simply cannot do anything in CS, whether you actually know you are applying mathematical concepts or not.
I find it very troubling that this whole new "anti-cheating" technology looks a lot like some beefed up hardware keylogger which not only will be present in every computer out there but also will not come with an off switch. Sure, the reason to push this new trusted computing feature is those damn cheater punks who enjoy them unlawful fragging or that pesky spyware, which only affects ill-managed insecure platforms. Yet, what about the danger that this new feature presents to privacy? I mean, it's a keylogger paired with a communications component which will be present in virtually all desktop PCs. Does gaming free of the occasional cheater trump privacy nowadays?
That's because you are gullible enough to believe the hype, aggravated by your lack of will to perform a basic search for the facts. Here is a bit of debunking from a quick google search.
From Secunia's advisory atatistics:
Those are real world facts supported on real world evidence which is freely available to the public. It isn't a random blog entry which is based on god knows what data which is only known by the author and possibly doesn't even exist. So where in fact is there a need to "debunk" a moronic, unsubstantiated claim made by some microsoft employee, specially when there is all that evidence right in front of everyone's face?
I wonder how much of these problems are really due to lack of funding and how much are just tactics to yank an even bigger chunk of money from the guys in Washington. After all, the problems that they describe should only exist if the person in charge purposedly screwed up the budget.
Meanwhile back in the real world AMD produces Athlon 64 X2s with a TDP of 35W, while the lowest Intel can produce is 65W.
Indeed. Thankfully, there is quite a lot of information about the lagging performance of Java compared to other languages, including C++. Care for some benchmarks? Then check this one out: g++ C++ Vs Java JDK client benchmarks.
You see, just by stating "Java is as fast if not faster than C++" it doesn't become reality.
Correction: the RIAA will kill off internet radio FROM THE US of A. The RIAA is an american business association which lobbies the US government institutions to implement policies in order for their associates' business to thrive. It's influence outside of the US isn't felt, specially in countries where fair use rights are acknowledged and respected. So the only thing that the RIAA's antics will produce is effectively strangling the US market.
If you failed to understand what I said then I suggest you at least try to read what I wrote. You claim that the record labels produce some kind of added value although the only thing that they provide is a distribution system and, in some cases, marketing. The record labels aren't the ones composing or performing the songs. The artists are the ones who do that. The record labels are simply corporations which earn money by selling a recording done by the author, selling it at overinflated prices and paying the artist a small fraction of the income generated by the artist's own work.
And please don't insist on bring here that whole "oh if you download then you must pay" load of crap. Let's not even discuss the fact that downloads increase record sales. Let's just focus on the simple fact that in some countries, where the access to culture is viewed as fundamental right and not another possible source of revenue, the access to any work of art for non-profit personal use without the express authorization by the rights holder is not only perfectly legal but also protected by law. That includes downloading MP3, photocopying books and even copying DVDs. That's because works of art should be accessed by anyone. Art is not a consumer product.
Oh really? So you should give your money away to anyone, independent of any rational reason, just because they "expect you to"? Since when does "profit expectancy" entitles anyone to take your hard-earned money away from you? It doesn't.
Due to the technological advances that we have been blessed in these past two decades, the music labels' potential to offer any remotely "valuable service" died. Plain and simple. The only thing that they were capable of offering was a means to sell a product: the sound recording. They offered a way to record the music, the logistic system to distribute the music to points of sale and, only in some cases, the marketing push to gather more public attention. Now they are no longer necessary. Anyone with 5 year old PC and a few hundred s can just as easily record their music even at their own room. Anyone with an internet connection can distribute their work. Heck, if the artist is good enough the marketing generates itself.
So right now the record labels are redundant. Redundant and extremely expensive/costly to the artist. Plain in simple. To the true artists and musicians, the record labels were simply the middle man that handled one possible extra line of income: the record sale. They now have been rendered irrelevant and obsolete since the service that they charge their weight in gold for is not only prohibitively expensive but also of lesser quality than the artist can do it themselves.
And by the way, there are countries in the world where file sharing is not only legal but also protected by law.
Cyrillic? You mean the alphabet which adopted symbols with both the greek and the latin alphabet? Do you really believe that it is better suited than the greek alphabet?
Photos of processor dies? WTF is this? Some kind of porn for uber-geeks?