the 32-bit leg-irons will be lifted off, and your MacBook will run way faster thanks to all the advantages of 64-bit data addressing and so forth.
I don't buy this. The 64-bit push to consumers seems to be misguided right now, and a lot of otherwise very intelligent people are falling for it. 64 bit computing increases one and only one thing: numerical precision. This can only help in a very few domains:
* Iterative processes where the precision of one cycle affects the speed of the overall process. Think video encoding or mathematical computation, since the processor can now bite off 64-bit chunks instead of 32-bit ones.
* Situations where one needs to address a larger amount of byte-addressable memory than 4 GB. Granted, this will become important in the future, but very few consumers are feeling the 4GB ceiling over their head, nor will they be anytime soon
Of course none of this applies to the corporate and professional environment, where data processing is more common than web-browsing, and speed at large tasks matters a lot. But the funny thing is that empirical testing is starting to reveal that 64-bit is slower than 32-bit. See this whitepaper and el reg talks a little about it too. The idea is that the extra overhead done using 64 bit integers for most values is almost never offset by the supposed performance gains. The whitepaper found that a native 64-bit linux in a desktop setup performed 37% worse in benchmarks than it's "baby" 32-bit brother. The two didn't match performance until they added 512 users to the test rigs.
Aside from roughly doubling binary size, 64 bit wastes more of your power per cycle than ever before, since unless you're using the full precision (and let's face it, how many programs really even need 32-bit precision?), those fat 64-bit buses running everywhere inside your computer are just sending pad zeros, but they still need to send them, as well as needing doubled power to do it compared with a 32 bit bus.
I will be staying 32 bit until i'm forced to do otherwise, and not falling for the lies of the computer industry like the rest of you sheep. What happened to solving technical issues on their own merit, and not listening to the PR department until they've shown that what they want to sell you will actually DO something? Y'all are like nigel in the seminal classic, This is Spinal Tap: (with blank stare) "these go to 64."
Developers aren't the only ones who miss out because of this restriction. users can also USE those apps. So the market being ignored is not your estimated 60K people, but the much larger segment who would be willing to use such 3rd party apps.
MS is letting the flashiness of their OS speak for itself. I've been using vista RTM for a while now, and I've got to say it's really nice. The built in speech recognition in particular is amazing, allowing one to dictate as if he was speaking to a real person. After a few days of training, I can read the declaration of independence, a document containing hundreds of archaic words I hadn't trained the system on, at faster than normal speed, with nearly 100% accuracy. Vista has hundreds of other updates which are by and large really nice, and I would say that it's MS' best OS yet...
Except for it's absolutely outrageous kowtowing to content providers. The fact that vista requires hardware that 99.9% of the market does not own to view premium content at it's native resolution is the quintessential dealbreaker for me. MS has completely abandoned the consumers' interest with this release and is blatantly selling out to the terrified MPAA and RIAA, as well as other content providers. Vista is a resource hog, and will drastically and unnecessarily increase hardware costs across the board, but particularly for video card manufacturers (What? You didn't want 2-3 of your Pixel shader pipelines devoted to useless en/decryption ? Too bad! Or those of you who appreciated the unified driver models, say goodbye to that.) If I want to watch a bluray video on my top of the line HD-capable system, who is Microsoft to tell me to buy a new monitor which will actively conspire against me?
Governments must not ever implement windows vista, due to its enforcement of so called "tilt bits" which will disable the system if it is not within certain prescribed limits. This is to detect and prevent people tinkering with their systems' insides. These small abberations are normal, and the ability of electronic hardware to withstand them is one of the reasons that it is so robust these days. A small thing like an intentional power surge has the potential to set off these tilt bits and disable any system running Vista.
This schizophrenic tenancy for products we own to be controlled by an external master is criminal and should not be tolerated by anyone who values freedom. I stole Vista in order to test it, and its beauty and usefulness scares me very much. I had hoped that MS would screw up like they usually do, and no one would buy vista. Once most people are using vista, computer users are screwed badly. The funny thing is that they have no one to blame but themselves, for not knowing that it is a wold in sheep's clothing.
I'd urge anyone who has any possibility of using vista, ESPECIALLY those who have sway over it's use in the workplace to read this document by Computer Scientist Peter Guttmann, A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection. It's a great read, and is ablolutely infurating.
Happy new years, Everybody
I heard about this on NPR a couple of weeks ago. The new congress purports to be more open and honest, and c-span is calling them on it. Everybody knew they wouldn't expand coverage. If congress really wanted to open up, they'd put in a bunch of cameras, offer real-time feeds - including votes - to anyone citizen or registered US corporation who wants them, and archive the video footage in a way that could be easily retrieved by any citizen.
You're absolutely wrong. C-SPAN is the bad guy here. If you had RTFA you'd realize that CSPAN wants to use their own cameras to defeat the attempts of people like metavid to have access to and remix CSPAN's footage, which, besides their logo, is the work of US. Government employees in the course of their duties, and as such is public domain. This is the way it should be. Were CSPAN to use their own cameras, true, they could provide more angles, but they would OWN this very important public record. They have already demonstrated (see link) that they are extremely unwilling to allow anyone to use this footage in any way, even though at the moment, the only legal right they have to it is their additions, which amount to their logo and the name of the person speaking.
I have a first person point of view perspective to give about my laptop, and a specific time estimate, as well as a comparison with another product that was mentioned. Would you like to refute my post with a vague, pseudotechnical one that basically amounts to a useless bitch? Fantastic, anonymous Coward. I commend you to the next life.
the new glow-y mosquitoes are sterile. So we're not really doing anything to their evolutionary scale. These insects will mate, fail to produce offspring, and then die, making the world a less itchy, malarial place. No downside that I can see.
Grandparent was suggesting that, when major companies get behind bittorrent, that those dedicated servers that you mention, with their attendant gobs of bandwidth, will just become bittorrent seeders. Thus, you can still get the "500, 800 or even 1000KB/s" from the server, but simultaneously you can download from other peers.
If companies convert some of their existing infrastructure to bittorrent, you should see download speeds at least equal to, but usually in excess of, what you would get via plain ftp or plain http.
You don't have the right to remove them from existence. You have the right to choose not to partake of advertiser-sponsored content, but you are not allowed to partake of the content while using technological trickery to remove the advertising.
Who says I don't have the right? Is there any law that forbids it? If not, then I have the right to do whatever I want with my computer on the connection I paid for.
That's creating a derived work, which is a violation of the author's copyright.
That's the stupidest argument I've ever heard; Hacking a website so it says something else is creating a derived work. Using a program that blocks the ads so you don't have to view them is not.
If you fast forward through ads on your Tivo, is that a derived work? If you tear out the ads in Playboy, is that a derived work? the question of whether or not adblocking is moral or not is subject to debate, but it is certainly not illegal, and if it were, it wouldn't be because of copyright laws.
Yeah! easily! i'm working on a free program that turns a 1KB hash into a 4 GB DVD ISO, or anything else you want! it turns out we don't need to share files, just write the hash down on a piece of paper and you can transmit ANY size file with almost NO bandwidth! and if you hash the hash, it gets smaller and smaller until it's just a zero or a one!
In 200 years, no one will be able to make since of a jpg or png, and these are well known and well understood formats.
Just like our culture forgot how to do Calculus; it's just too old to have been preserved. And too bad no one remembers how to make light bulbs. If only someone had had the foresight to write this stuff down, somewhere!
Anything important will be saved, transferred to the format d'jour. We're not going to forget what a JPG file is, even when they've ceased to be useful. Too much of our electronic heritage is preserved in that format.
You won't be able to read ANY cd that is 20 years old
As another poster said, that is plain old bullshit. If a CD is properly stored, it sure as hell will last 20 years or more. CDs are about 20 years old now, and the only reason any of the original CDs won't read is because they weren't stored correctly.
Your sig's quote was not invented by who you think it was. That quote is by Bender, from the television series Futurama. episode 1ACV02, "The Series Has Landed.
not at all. University of Illinois URH does this. You get about 600MB of unthrottled bandwidth in a 24 hour period; Every hour they add how much bandwidth you've used to the tally and remove the oldest hour's entry. If the 24 hour total is more than 600MB, you throttled proportionally to how much over 600MB you are.
This system, while stifling, works better than time-based limits, because it allows students to spend their bandwidth whenever they want. However, its fatal flaw (listen up UI freshmen!) is that it's MAC based. just change your MAC every 600MB, and you'll be fine! until the net techs figure you out...
6881 to 6888 are not mandatory. you can do any port range you desire in most clients; it'll just choose random free ports in the range to use. You need a packet shaper to chose BT traffic effectively
Slashdot Mirror
I don't buy this. The 64-bit push to consumers seems to be misguided right now, and a lot of otherwise very intelligent people are falling for it. 64 bit computing increases one and only one thing: numerical precision. This can only help in a very few domains:
* Iterative processes where the precision of one cycle affects the speed of the overall process. Think video encoding or mathematical computation, since the processor can now bite off 64-bit chunks instead of 32-bit ones.
* Situations where one needs to address a larger amount of byte-addressable memory than 4 GB. Granted, this will become important in the future, but very few consumers are feeling the 4GB ceiling over their head, nor will they be anytime soon
Of course none of this applies to the corporate and professional environment, where data processing is more common than web-browsing, and speed at large tasks matters a lot. But the funny thing is that empirical testing is starting to reveal that 64-bit is slower than 32-bit. See this whitepaper and el reg talks a little about it too. The idea is that the extra overhead done using 64 bit integers for most values is almost never offset by the supposed performance gains. The whitepaper found that a native 64-bit linux in a desktop setup performed 37% worse in benchmarks than it's "baby" 32-bit brother. The two didn't match performance until they added 512 users to the test rigs.
Aside from roughly doubling binary size, 64 bit wastes more of your power per cycle than ever before, since unless you're using the full precision (and let's face it, how many programs really even need 32-bit precision?), those fat 64-bit buses running everywhere inside your computer are just sending pad zeros, but they still need to send them, as well as needing doubled power to do it compared with a 32 bit bus.
I will be staying 32 bit until i'm forced to do otherwise, and not falling for the lies of the computer industry like the rest of you sheep. What happened to solving technical issues on their own merit, and not listening to the PR department until they've shown that what they want to sell you will actually DO something? Y'all are like nigel in the seminal classic, This is Spinal Tap: (with blank stare) "these go to 64."
it's not reading the date that's hard, it's verifying that the date given is true, and not user-set.
Developers aren't the only ones who miss out because of this restriction. users can also USE those apps. So the market being ignored is not your estimated 60K people, but the much larger segment who would be willing to use such 3rd party apps.
MS is letting the flashiness of their OS speak for itself. I've been using vista RTM for a while now, and I've got to say it's really nice. The built in speech recognition in particular is amazing, allowing one to dictate as if he was speaking to a real person. After a few days of training, I can read the declaration of independence, a document containing hundreds of archaic words I hadn't trained the system on, at faster than normal speed, with nearly 100% accuracy. Vista has hundreds of other updates which are by and large really nice, and I would say that it's MS' best OS yet ...
Except for it's absolutely outrageous kowtowing to content providers. The fact that vista requires hardware that 99.9% of the market does not own to view premium content at it's native resolution is the quintessential dealbreaker for me. MS has completely abandoned the consumers' interest with this release and is blatantly selling out to the terrified MPAA and RIAA, as well as other content providers. Vista is a resource hog, and will drastically and unnecessarily increase hardware costs across the board, but particularly for video card manufacturers (What? You didn't want 2-3 of your Pixel shader pipelines devoted to useless en/decryption ? Too bad! Or those of you who appreciated the unified driver models, say goodbye to that.) If I want to watch a bluray video on my top of the line HD-capable system, who is Microsoft to tell me to buy a new monitor which will actively conspire against me?
Governments must not ever implement windows vista, due to its enforcement of so called "tilt bits" which will disable the system if it is not within certain prescribed limits. This is to detect and prevent people tinkering with their systems' insides. These small abberations are normal, and the ability of electronic hardware to withstand them is one of the reasons that it is so robust these days. A small thing like an intentional power surge has the potential to set off these tilt bits and disable any system running Vista.
This schizophrenic tenancy for products we own to be controlled by an external master is criminal and should not be tolerated by anyone who values freedom. I stole Vista in order to test it, and its beauty and usefulness scares me very much. I had hoped that MS would screw up like they usually do, and no one would buy vista. Once most people are using vista, computer users are screwed badly. The funny thing is that they have no one to blame but themselves, for not knowing that it is a wold in sheep's clothing. I'd urge anyone who has any possibility of using vista, ESPECIALLY those who have sway over it's use in the workplace to read this document by Computer Scientist Peter Guttmann, A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection. It's a great read, and is ablolutely infurating. Happy new years, Everybody
so, not a shareholder, eh?
this is quite common. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors_and _forks for more info.
r or_list has a more or less complete list of sites that use wikipedia's content.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JesseW/Full_mir
those bastards don't even work between version of firefox. in other words, no.
I have a first person point of view perspective to give about my laptop, and a specific time estimate, as well as a comparison with another product that was mentioned. Would you like to refute my post with a vague, pseudotechnical one that basically amounts to a useless bitch? Fantastic, anonymous Coward. I commend you to the next life.
I work for College.
/.ers read fark.com
So I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies.
Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know how to read on your own.
But trust me.... You don't.
I think you just want to make yourself sound literate and technological, when in reality you dont know what you are talking about.
This is not how people learn to read.
If you dont know what symbols on paper are....Dont make yourself sound like you do.
Cuz some
the new glow-y mosquitoes are sterile. So we're not really doing anything to their evolutionary scale. These insects will mate, fail to produce offspring, and then die, making the world a less itchy, malarial place. No downside that I can see.
Grandparent was suggesting that, when major companies get behind bittorrent, that those dedicated servers that you mention, with their attendant gobs of bandwidth, will just become bittorrent seeders. Thus, you can still get the "500, 800 or even 1000KB/s" from the server, but simultaneously you can download from other peers.
If companies convert some of their existing infrastructure to bittorrent, you should see download speeds at least equal to, but usually in excess of, what you would get via plain ftp or plain http.
As if we don't already get enough google news...
it's non-volatile flash memory.
If you fast forward through ads on your Tivo, is that a derived work? If you tear out the ads in Playboy, is that a derived work? the question of whether or not adblocking is moral or not is subject to debate, but it is certainly not illegal, and if it were, it wouldn't be because of copyright laws.
EDonkey Search Window
Gnutella search window
Oh, i could think of a few...
Yeah! easily! i'm working on a free program that turns a 1KB hash into a 4 GB DVD ISO, or anything else you want! it turns out we don't need to share files, just write the hash down on a piece of paper and you can transmit ANY size file with almost NO bandwidth! and if you hash the hash, it gets smaller and smaller until it's just a zero or a one!
I'll make millions!
Anything important will be saved, transferred to the format d'jour. We're not going to forget what a JPG file is, even when they've ceased to be useful. Too much of our electronic heritage is preserved in that format. As another poster said, that is plain old bullshit. If a CD is properly stored, it sure as hell will last 20 years or more. CDs are about 20 years old now, and the only reason any of the original CDs won't read is because they weren't stored correctly.
Your sig's quote was not invented by who you think it was. That quote is by Bender, from the television series Futurama. episode 1ACV02, "The Series Has Landed.
Only you can prevent misattributions.
not at all. University of Illinois URH does this. You get about 600MB of unthrottled bandwidth in a 24 hour period; Every hour they add how much bandwidth you've used to the tally and remove the oldest hour's entry. If the 24 hour total is more than 600MB, you throttled proportionally to how much over 600MB you are.
This system, while stifling, works better than time-based limits, because it allows students to spend their bandwidth whenever they want. However, its fatal flaw (listen up UI freshmen!) is that it's MAC based. just change your MAC every 600MB, and you'll be fine! until the net techs figure you out...
working well; 30% done in 1 min 30 seconds so far.
6881 to 6888 are not mandatory. you can do any port range you desire in most clients; it'll just choose random free ports in the range to use. You need a packet shaper to chose BT traffic effectively
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,65468, 00.html?tw=wn_story_related