"was a redhat box"... ooh, does us all a lot of good. Redhat's Linux kernel isn't that much different from anyone else's and it may have been RH 4.2 for all I know.
Thanks for the plethora of information.
"Wouldn't want GPL contamination..." or general information contamination either, it seems. Wouldn't want to support your claims at all?
Sure, we all know that xBSD has a better */IP kernel... but why does that make it irrelevant if us Linux people want to know what version you were testing?
Its relevant because some of us might want to know if our versions are suceptible. It does me no good for you to tell me to switch from Linux to FreeBSD does it? No. It makes sense for me to know you were using Redhat 6's 2.2.5 kernel and I'm using 2.2.14 and am better off... (for example).
Umm, hate to disappoint you, but there isn't anonymity with 32 bit addresses either. If you understand "the system", you'll understand that the point of so many addresses isn't to identify each user, but each host.
Sure, you may use the same host all the time, but I bet your ISP will still use DHCP to give you a random-ish address.
Besides, most hacker-type people (like myself) are more interested in getting a stable IP for hosting with... that eliminates privacy and anonymity right away.
Maybe if you took a logic course, you'd understand the term "weighted". In legal terms, you'd be "leading the witness".
The idea is to ask a question with an answer in it... "How often do you beat your wife" infers that you <em>do</em> beat your wife. The question, honestly asked, would be "Do you beat your wife, and if so, how often?"
His comment that to the MPAA this is a piracy issue wasn't a weighted question because it wasn't a question.
No offense to the poster, but if you don't want your posts to look like the one I'm replying to, learn some basic HTML formatting (or at least hit <ENTER>). Oh, and preview your posts.
To start a paragraph, use <p> and when it's done, use </p> (just a formality, really).
If you would like to emphasise a point, use <em> to start the emphatic part and end it with </em>. Do we see a pattern emerging?
<strong> is used to start a section of powerful text (couldn't think of a better word) and, of course, it is ended with </strong>.
Note: intelligent parsers and some search engines use the <em> and <strong> tags to find important words. The simple <b> (bold) and <i> (italic) tags don't have this effect. That, and a browser may decide to render emphatic or strong text with different techniques, depending on country, etc. (ie underline).
If you make a list of items, start each one with the <li> (list item) tag.
Sample HTML:
<P>This paragraph is <em>just a sample</em> of what you would type. The results are shown below.</P> <strong>Note:</strong> <li>How much nicer it is to read.
Results in:
This paragrah is just a sample of what you would type. The results are shown below.
Even more importantly: has anyone thought of doing a really good job of informing the mid-sized movie houses about how they'd save tons of money on DVD creation if they didn't use the CSS encryption enabled DVD creation software?
Yes, a lot of movies come out of the "big guys'" movie houses (think Disney and WB), but there are a lot where they might not be as concerned about foreign-market viewing control. If we can get through to those companies to back us, that is, to not use CSS at all in their DVDs, we'd be laughing!
If Transmeta were to get a cash infusion from Apple, I'm sure they'd be happy to put some ressources into emulating G3 and G4's (and 680x0's too...) in "software" for the Crusoe.
After all, Apple would be better off getting the 'experts' to do the porting (emulation) part, and then just test the results. If nothing else, this would allow for easier creation of Apple clones, as long as Apple licensed the OS.
Can't the EFF appeal the preliminary injunction? Just following Microsoft's tactics here...:-)
I figure the appeals court might be quite willing to hear it on the basis that the judge was prejudiced (bad for judges;-) and didn't hear the expert witness at all.
What kind of software work have you done before this? Have you always been interested in codes and/or code-breaking? Code-breaking isn't the type of thing that everyone figures out easily; do you find yourself a natural? On a side-note, would you take a job from the NSA?:-)
What we need are a whole bunch of people who are willing to be called on by persons like yourself, RMS or Linus (a network thereof) to do phonecalls, letter writing, and newspaper article writing when issues like this come up. They have one article citing someone important on one side... we just have websites that the judge may never see and the public couldn't care less about. We need to be writing articles to the NYT and the like, calling lawmakers and making ourselves heard without just a half dozen people doing all the work.
That is, if there weren't such well-written (and often overly heavy handed) laws about radio broadcasting in both countries... putting out a few hundred terawatts of VHF might not go over too well...
The whole idea (I believe) could be traced to extradition treaties and the like, which are usually used for grabbing a murderer who skipped the country.
But Canada and the USA (and the UK, etc.) tend to cooperate a lot on some laws (like International Copyright acts, etc.) and when legal issues come up that reference those international treaties, we tend to cooperate and allow the pursuing of a person or corporation...
Once you've implemented a caching interface _at all_, you abstract the maintenance of that cache and allow the maintenance system (thread, whatever) to deal with keeping MRU or LRU indexes, or whatever modern DB-based system you want to use for good caching efficiency. In fact, you could try several over time (in a second, how many could a 700Mhz machine try?) in a small section of your cache and evaluate efficiency of each, on average, for a given user -- that's the point of this Chip+Software deal anyway.
Upgrade the caching maintenance code later if you're finding its not good enough... just requires flashing the bios:-)
Some of the best games would be the ones that, in fact, are the easiest to port -- the side-scrollers and overhead ones. They could be enhanced for 3D support where appropriate now (using Z depth instead of stacking layers for moving backgrounds and taking advantage of acceleration).
Examples: The old Commander Keens (yes, big fan, especially #4 and 5) Command and Conquer (who wouldn't!) Sim City x000 (is this being done?) Starcraft (original -- overhead)
So what you're saying, and other communists have been for years, is that people are essentially stupid and shouldn't be allowed to make decisions. People are basically selfish creatures who shouldn't be trusted with the good of society at large as individuals or corporately. They should have decisions forced upon them by the more intelligent and benevolent odd-balls that show up every now and then.
After reading this blurb, I've decided that I have immunity already. I get that feeling in my chest of falling down a hill when I go down a fast one in Descent and never feel disoriented. My system seems to self-adjust to things like quake, looking around, etc. I'm not the type to move my hands while playing SNES either... I let my brain do the work.
I know people who can't do it... but that's fine, i'll enjoy the games:-0
BTW, an experienced assembly coder will always beat or at least equal the optimizing compiler, because if nothing else works he can always look at what the compiler produces and see if he can improve on that. Besides, optimizing compilers are good, but not that good, someone has to write them, and when was the last time that you wrote a program that can solve complex creative problems better than you can?
The problem in your first statement is that you've defined three categories, not two. I would summarise as:
Good ASM coder + Optimising compiler (is better than) Optimising compiler (could be better than) Good ASM coder
After all, without the code produced the the assembler, the coder has to figure out the rest of the optimisations alone.
The second problem is with your question of problem solving. You're probably thinking on a philisophical bent, because you and I both know that software can be written to solve dozens, if not millions of problems faster than we can (digits of PI, etc.).
If it is possible for a programmer to reach 90% efficiency, but after 60% it requires doubling the project length to reach 75%, etc. but the self-profiling program can reach 80% efficiency in milliseconds, which is "better"?
Which reminds me of how big a smile I got when I read Transmeta's processor marketing where they said that efficiency was more important to them than performance and it would not be as fast as a native CPU, but close enough to cut it.
One of the areas that run-time profiling adds to the mix is the ability of the code to adjust "itself" based on processor cache sizes, etc. If I run a program on my K6-200 and then on a K7-700, the program should have loops optimised very differently. That is, my chip has very little cache in comparison to the K7. The K7 could have a large number of long instruction sequences unrolled that would be in L1 cache whereas it would be smarter, if branch prediction works out (again, run-time profiling) to keep those loops rolled up on my CPU.
This is a very good story, yes. I enjoyed their careful and well-researched quoting and references. They include opendvd.org and many others. It was a well-written piece for a one-columner.
Slashdot Mirror
"was a redhat box" ... ooh, does us all a lot of good. Redhat's Linux kernel isn't that much different from anyone else's and it may have been RH 4.2 for all I know.
..." or general information contamination either, it seems. Wouldn't want to support your claims at all?
... but why does that make it irrelevant if us Linux people want to know what version you were testing?
Thanks for the plethora of information.
"Wouldn't want GPL contamination
Sure, we all know that xBSD has a better */IP kernel
Its relevant because some of us might want to know if our versions are suceptible. It does me no good for you to tell me to switch from Linux to FreeBSD does it? No. It makes sense for me to know you were using Redhat 6's 2.2.5 kernel and I'm using 2.2.14 and am better off ... (for example).
Umm, hate to disappoint you, but there isn't anonymity with 32 bit addresses either. If you understand "the system", you'll understand that the point of so many addresses isn't to identify each user, but each host.
... that eliminates privacy and anonymity right away.
Sure, you may use the same host all the time, but I bet your ISP will still use DHCP to give you a random-ish address.
Besides, most hacker-type people (like myself) are more interested in getting a stable IP for hosting with
Maybe if you took a logic course, you'd understand the term "weighted". In legal terms, you'd be "leading the witness".
... "How often do you beat your wife" infers that you <em>do</em> beat your wife. The question, honestly asked, would be "Do you beat your wife, and if so, how often?"
The idea is to ask a question with an answer in it
His comment that to the MPAA this is a piracy issue wasn't a weighted question because it wasn't a question.
Period.
No offense to the poster, but if you don't want your posts to look like the one I'm replying to, learn some basic HTML formatting (or at least hit <ENTER>). Oh, and preview your posts.
To start a paragraph, use <p> and when it's done, use </p> (just a formality, really).
If you would like to emphasise a point, use <em> to start the emphatic part and end it with </em>. Do we see a pattern emerging?
<strong> is used to start a section of powerful text (couldn't think of a better word) and, of course, it is ended with </strong>.
Note: intelligent parsers and some search engines use the <em> and <strong> tags to find important words. The simple <b> (bold) and <i> (italic) tags don't have this effect. That, and a browser may decide to render emphatic or strong text with different techniques, depending on country, etc. (ie underline).
If you make a list of items, start each one with the <li> (list item) tag.
Sample HTML:
<P>This paragraph is <em>just a sample</em> of what you would type. The results are shown below.</P>
<strong>Note:</strong>
<li>How much nicer it is to read.
Results in:
This paragrah is just a sample of what you would type. The results are shown below.
Note:How much nicer it is to read.
What did you do, follow my homepage link hoping for a link related to my post?
Even more importantly: has anyone thought of doing a really good job of informing the mid-sized movie houses about how they'd save tons of money on DVD creation if they didn't use the CSS encryption enabled DVD creation software?
Yes, a lot of movies come out of the "big guys'" movie houses (think Disney and WB), but there are a lot where they might not be as concerned about foreign-market viewing control. If we can get through to those companies to back us, that is, to not use CSS at all in their DVDs, we'd be laughing!
You do of course realise that ripping DVDs doesn't require any decryption, right?
Only <em>playing or editing</em> the movie requires decryption.
Thus, the decryption system is for those who wish to play their movies, not for those who wish to pirate.
Period.
If Transmeta were to get a cash infusion from Apple, I'm sure they'd be happy to put some ressources into emulating G3 and G4's (and 680x0's too ...) in "software" for the Crusoe.
After all, Apple would be better off getting the 'experts' to do the porting (emulation) part, and then just test the results. If nothing else, this would allow for easier creation of Apple clones, as long as Apple licensed the OS.
Can't the EFF appeal the preliminary injunction? Just following Microsoft's tactics here ... :-)
;-) and didn't hear the expert witness at all.
I figure the appeals court might be quite willing to hear it on the basis that the judge was prejudiced (bad for judges
What kind of software work have you done before this? Have you always been interested in codes and/or code-breaking? Code-breaking isn't the type of thing that everyone figures out easily; do you find yourself a natural? On a side-note, would you take a job from the NSA? :-)
What we need are a whole bunch of people who are willing to be called on by persons like yourself, RMS or Linus (a network thereof) to do phonecalls, letter writing, and newspaper article writing when issues like this come up. They have one article citing someone important on one side ... we just have websites that the judge may never see and the public couldn't care less about. We need to be writing articles to the NYT and the like, calling lawmakers and making ourselves heard without just a half dozen people doing all the work.
..."
"Hi, I'm calling on behalf of
You want a good one? Check out the Government of Canada vs. the US tobacco firms.
:-)
Good case
They failed in their suit over betamax allowing time and space-shifting of movies on TV in the 70's ... another try.
That is, if there weren't such well-written (and often overly heavy handed) laws about radio broadcasting in both countries ... putting out a few hundred terawatts of VHF might not go over too well ...
The whole idea (I believe) could be traced to extradition treaties and the like, which are usually used for grabbing a murderer who skipped the country.
...
But Canada and the USA (and the UK, etc.) tend to cooperate a lot on some laws (like International Copyright acts, etc.) and when legal issues come up that reference those international treaties, we tend to cooperate and allow the pursuing of a person or corporation
Once you've implemented a caching interface _at all_, you abstract the maintenance of that cache and allow the maintenance system (thread, whatever) to deal with keeping MRU or LRU indexes, or whatever modern DB-based system you want to use for good caching efficiency. In fact, you could try several over time (in a second, how many could a 700Mhz machine try?) in a small section of your cache and evaluate efficiency of each, on average, for a given user -- that's the point of this Chip+Software deal anyway.
... just requires flashing the bios :-)
Upgrade the caching maintenance code later if you're finding its not good enough
Some of the best games would be the ones that, in fact, are the easiest to port -- the side-scrollers and overhead ones. They could be enhanced for 3D support where appropriate now (using Z depth instead of stacking layers for moving backgrounds and taking advantage of acceleration).
Examples:
The old Commander Keens (yes, big fan, especially #4 and 5)
Command and Conquer (who wouldn't!)
Sim City x000 (is this being done?)
Starcraft (original -- overhead)
So what you're saying, and other communists have been for years, is that people are essentially stupid and shouldn't be allowed to make decisions. People are basically selfish creatures who shouldn't be trusted with the good of society at large as individuals or corporately. They should have decisions forced upon them by the more intelligent and benevolent odd-balls that show up every now and then.
... we've got voting for now ... :-)
Oh well
After reading this blurb, I've decided that I have immunity already. I get that feeling in my chest of falling down a hill when I go down a fast one in Descent and never feel disoriented. My system seems to self-adjust to things like quake, looking around, etc. I'm not the type to move my hands while playing SNES either ... I let my brain do the work.
... but that's fine, i'll enjoy the games :-0
I know people who can't do it
The problem in your first statement is that you've defined three categories, not two. I would summarise as:
Good ASM coder + Optimising compiler
(is better than)
Optimising compiler
(could be better than)
Good ASM coder
After all, without the code produced the the assembler, the coder has to figure out the rest of the optimisations alone.
The second problem is with your question of problem solving. You're probably thinking on a philisophical bent, because you and I both know that software can be written to solve dozens, if not millions of problems faster than we can (digits of PI, etc.).
If it is possible for a programmer to reach 90% efficiency, but after 60% it requires doubling the project length to reach 75%, etc. but the self-profiling program can reach 80% efficiency in milliseconds, which is "better"?
Which reminds me of how big a smile I got when I read Transmeta's processor marketing where they said that efficiency was more important to them than performance and it would not be as fast as a native CPU, but close enough to cut it.
One of the areas that run-time profiling adds to the mix is the ability of the code to adjust "itself" based on processor cache sizes, etc. If I run a program on my K6-200 and then on a K7-700, the program should have loops optimised very differently. That is, my chip has very little cache in comparison to the K7. The K7 could have a large number of long instruction sequences unrolled that would be in L1 cache whereas it would be smarter, if branch prediction works out (again, run-time profiling) to keep those loops rolled up on my CPU.
This is a very good story, yes. I enjoyed their careful and well-researched quoting and references. They include opendvd.org and many others. It was a well-written piece for a one-columner.