The speed is measured as a difference between the two objects. It is not an absolute speed.
Your point being?
In a collision, the relative speed of the objects is what's important. If you're going 100mph on the highway and bump into a car in front of you that's going 99mph, then little damage will occur. But if you hit a stopped car at 100mph, it's a whole different story.
For that matter, there's no such thing as an absolute speed...
No matter where you are, at any one time the value is the same.
The concept of "any one time no matter where you are" is inconsistent with general relativity. Granted, GR has not been reconciled with quantum mechanics, but on the scale of galaxies Einstein still hasn't been proven wrong.
You don't think that DRM makes music/move download services successful and that somehow "begs" a business case for DRM? Wierd. The business case for DRM is so freaking obvious... if you control how the music is distributed not just at the point of purchase but beyond you ensure that after market copying is severly limited and in turn help drive purchases back to your store instead of trading with their friends. DRM makes perfect sense from content owner's perspective.
That's all well and good in theory, but DRM doesn't prevent music from showing up on P2P networks. So now users have a choice: Buy songs that are incompatible with half the music players on the market, chained to the PC that downloaded them, unable to be sampled or edited, and bound to eventually disappear. Or get unrestricted songs for free off P2P.
I actually subscribe to a third choice: Neither.
I respect the studio's copyrights, but DRM reduces value for the consumer to the point where I'm not interested in the product anymore.
When the article says "Slow", it means "Slow to market". It's not talking about how fast your computer boots. It's talking about the endless delays getting Vista out the door, while Apple meanwhile has shipped several new operating systems and beat Microsoft to the punch on just about every new feature.
This situtation is very similar to Microsoft's forced downsampling of HD content on non-HDCP-compliant monitors (read: basically every monitor on the market today). So will Microsoft relax the HDCP requirement for Vista? Will Hollywood even let them?
My guess is no, because DVI without HDCP is digital, and Hollywood is obsessed with the lack of generational loss when copying digital data. "Oh noes, the pirates will be able to get an unencumbered HD signal!" As if that's materially worsse than getting an unencumbered SD signal, what with all the camcorder jobs floating around the net...
Somewhere along the line, they must be converting null(value) to "null"(string), which seems like a dumb thing to do.
In C, if you try to print a null string with printf, you get the text "(null)" out, which is arguably better than crashing. It's probably something like this causing the spurious messages to the null@ address.
Seriously, $500 is RIDICULOUS for a PC of that calibur (unless your talking laptops). I can build a moderate gaming computer for that. A no-frills-just-types-prints-and-surfs PC should be possible at around $300.
Keep in mind that the quoted price includes a 17" LCD.
Sure, the RACE to the moon was full of innovation, but other than really proving it wasn't made of cheese, it was a more colossal waste of cash than both Gulf Wars put together!
The cost of the Apollo program was $135 billion in 2005 dollars.
George Sr.'s Gulf war cost $61 billion. The cost of the current Iraq war is in excess of $240 billion and rising. Apollo didn't even come close.
IMHO, bundling products is not Microsoft's most egregious anticompetitive behavior. Not by far.
Patenting the Office XML schema and the FAT file system have got to be up there.
Forcing people to buy a copy of Windows with every new computer is pretty bad too. Declaring that it's illegal to resell such a copy (because it's bound to the PC), and then saying you have to pay for it all over again if you upgrade the motherboard is the icing on the cake.
A shuttle in the smithsonian.. at the Dulles airport location.
Yeah, but Enterprise is just a glide test article that never flew in space. Atlantis would be much cooler to see in the Smithsonian. Yeah, they've got some scorched capsules and such, but nothing that's been to orbit and back 26 times (31 by the time it's retired).
If you choose to take your own CDs and make copies for yourself on your computer or portable music player, that's great. It's your music and we want you to enjoy it at home, at work, in the car and on the jogging trail.
There is another monster growing too, ZipZoomFly. I've never ordered from them, but I heard they are pretty awsome. Look Out!
I've ordered from both companies. In my (limited) experience, NewEgg fulfills orders faster. And there's no question that NewEgg's web site is far more informative (but I've been burned before when their site listed the wrong type of RAM for a motherboard, so check the manufacturer's site before buying).
ZZF, on the other hand, has a pretty good selection and free shipping on most items.
My dad bought a TI 99/4A way back in the early 80's. I remember writing TI BASIC when I was eight years old. The language was slow and limited, but the Speech Synthesizer was fun to play with. Well ahead of its time. And of course every TI 99/4A owner played Parsec.
The first computer that was mine was an AMD DX4-100 with a whopping 12MB of RAM and 540MB hard drive. Since then, I've owned a Celeron 400MHz, PIII 1.2GHz, Athlon XP 1800+ (OC'd to 2400+ speed;), and Athlon 64 3000+ (my current machine). But they just don't have the character of the old '80s boxen.
At first I thought the studios were incredibly stupid. The only thing they'll accomplish with their asinine HDCP requirement is eliminate the market for HD content on PCs.
Then I realized it was probably intentional.
Hollywood wants their content as far from your computer as possible.
You can use a large block-size and greatly reduce the ammount of wasted space and overhead (which is rather small to begin with, actually). You've got to expect that kind of overhead from just about any filesystem, and something like journaling will only add more.
If you've got something else in mind, feel free to speak-up.
Using large blocks reduces block list overhead at the cost of internal fragmentation. In other words, big blocks mean more wasted space in the last block of each file.
A better approach would be to patch ext3 to store a list of contiguous extents instead of a list of blocks for each file. With the current file system, the block list might look like this:
Whereas with an extent system (which both NTFS and HFS+ use, incidentally), all you have to store is this:
1-4, 10-20
I did some Googling and apparently some work has already been done to get extents into ext3, motivated by the desire to eliminate slow deletion (which I've noticed... deleting a 160GB hard disk image took minutes on ext3, but was instantaneous on NTFS).
For large sequential writes, nothing could possibly be more reliable or any faster. Your hard drive's pure IO speed will be the bottleneck unless you are writing to multiple files simultaneously, in which case fancy filesystems come in handy.
But ext2 (and ext3) store a block list that grows in proportion to the size of the file itself. That's fine for small or highly fragmented files, but it's a waste of space and I/O bandwidth when you have big, unfragmented files.
Perhaps I am confusing my types of Intellectual Property, but don't you have to show that you are actively defending your IP, or you give up your rights to it?
You are. Trademarks must be defended, but patents don't have to be.
Here is the KB article about the bool marshalling error. There still isn't in a service pack for it for VS2003 (although there is a patch you can beg Microsoft for), and probably never will be.
I brought up Visual Studio.NET and in the "New Project" dialog, you can have a C++.NET project. I've never just taken old Windows C++ code and tried to make it into some sort of.NET app, but I'm sure it woulnd't be hard at all.
C++.NET bears little resemblance to C++. What's more, interoperation between real C++ and Microsoft's bastardized version is totally broken. A few years ago I tried to tie some existing C++ code to a.NET user interface, and I found that "managed" code can't even call native C++ code correctly. The most glaring problem I saw was this: the native function returns "false" and the "managed" function receives "true". It's inconceivable to me that Microsoft could ship a product with such a fundamental flaw (do they test at all?!!), but it took two years to patch it!
IMHO, the.NET languages are total garbage. Maybe they're useful in a vacuum, but they can't be linked reliably with non-CLI code.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh oh, my 1280x1024 display (1,310,720) is too much for my 64MB graphics card! Whatever will I do?
Oh wait, the monitor has a dead pixel on it. So there are only 1,310,719.
Whew, that was a close one.
The speed is measured as a difference between the two objects. It is not an absolute speed.
Your point being?
In a collision, the relative speed of the objects is what's important. If you're going 100mph on the highway and bump into a car in front of you that's going 99mph, then little damage will occur. But if you hit a stopped car at 100mph, it's a whole different story.
For that matter, there's no such thing as an absolute speed...
... before Creative Labs asserts a patent over this?
No matter where you are, at any one time the value is the same.
The concept of "any one time no matter where you are" is inconsistent with general relativity. Granted, GR has not been reconciled with quantum mechanics, but on the scale of galaxies Einstein still hasn't been proven wrong.
You don't think that DRM makes music/move download services successful and that somehow "begs" a business case for DRM? Wierd. The business case for DRM is so freaking obvious... if you control how the music is distributed not just at the point of purchase but beyond you ensure that after market copying is severly limited and in turn help drive purchases back to your store instead of trading with their friends. DRM makes perfect sense from content owner's perspective.
That's all well and good in theory, but DRM doesn't prevent music from showing up on P2P networks. So now users have a choice: Buy songs that are incompatible with half the music players on the market, chained to the PC that downloaded them, unable to be sampled or edited, and bound to eventually disappear. Or get unrestricted songs for free off P2P.
I actually subscribe to a third choice: Neither.
I respect the studio's copyrights, but DRM reduces value for the consumer to the point where I'm not interested in the product anymore.
When the article says "Slow", it means "Slow to market". It's not talking about how fast your computer boots. It's talking about the endless delays getting Vista out the door, while Apple meanwhile has shipped several new operating systems and beat Microsoft to the punch on just about every new feature.
This situtation is very similar to Microsoft's forced downsampling of HD content on non-HDCP-compliant monitors (read: basically every monitor on the market today). So will Microsoft relax the HDCP requirement for Vista? Will Hollywood even let them?
My guess is no, because DVI without HDCP is digital, and Hollywood is obsessed with the lack of generational loss when copying digital data. "Oh noes, the pirates will be able to get an unencumbered HD signal!" As if that's materially worsse than getting an unencumbered SD signal, what with all the camcorder jobs floating around the net...
Intel GMA950 Integrated Video.
Now the tyrrany of Intel Integrated Video invades the Mac world too. *shudder*
Ironic considering Apple used the dedicated video RAM on the PPC Mini as a selling point...
I want to have the option to keep transfering files if one fails to copy.
Amen to that. But until Microsoft comes to its senses, here's an open-source utility that will do that for you.
Somewhere along the line, they must be converting null(value) to "null"(string), which seems like a dumb thing to do.
In C, if you try to print a null string with printf, you get the text "(null)" out, which is arguably better than crashing. It's probably something like this causing the spurious messages to the null@ address.
Seriously, $500 is RIDICULOUS for a PC of that calibur (unless your talking laptops). I can build a moderate gaming computer for that. A no-frills-just-types-prints-and-surfs PC should be possible at around $300.
Keep in mind that the quoted price includes a 17" LCD.
The judge CANNOT reasonably set damages at $1. The law guarantees that NTP will receive at minimum a "reasonable royalty". This is a MINIMUM.
RIM has to pay reasonable royalties for a bunch of invalid patents?!
Sure, the RACE to the moon was full of innovation, but other than really proving it wasn't made of cheese, it was a more colossal waste of cash than both Gulf Wars put together!
The cost of the Apollo program was $135 billion in 2005 dollars.
George Sr.'s Gulf war cost $61 billion. The cost of the current Iraq war is in excess of $240 billion and rising. Apollo didn't even come close.
IMHO, bundling products is not Microsoft's most egregious anticompetitive behavior. Not by far.
Patenting the Office XML schema and the FAT file system have got to be up there.
Forcing people to buy a copy of Windows with every new computer is pretty bad too. Declaring that it's illegal to resell such a copy (because it's bound to the PC), and then saying you have to pay for it all over again if you upgrade the motherboard is the icing on the cake.
Why do all the antitrust suits focus on bundling?
Yeah, but Enterprise is just a glide test article that never flew in space. Atlantis would be much cooler to see in the Smithsonian. Yeah, they've got some scorched capsules and such, but nothing that's been to orbit and back 26 times (31 by the time it's retired).
If you choose to take your own CDs and make copies for yourself on your computer or portable music player, that's great. It's your music and we want you to enjoy it at home, at work, in the car and on the jogging trail.
Source
There is another monster growing too, ZipZoomFly. I've never ordered from them, but I heard they are pretty awsome. Look Out!
I've ordered from both companies. In my (limited) experience, NewEgg fulfills orders faster. And there's no question that NewEgg's web site is far more informative (but I've been burned before when their site listed the wrong type of RAM for a motherboard, so check the manufacturer's site before buying).
ZZF, on the other hand, has a pretty good selection and free shipping on most items.
My dad bought a TI 99/4A way back in the early 80's. I remember writing TI BASIC when I was eight years old. The language was slow and limited, but the Speech Synthesizer was fun to play with. Well ahead of its time. And of course every TI 99/4A owner played Parsec.
;), and Athlon 64 3000+ (my current machine). But they just don't have the character of the old '80s boxen.
The first computer that was mine was an AMD DX4-100 with a whopping 12MB of RAM and 540MB hard drive. Since then, I've owned a Celeron 400MHz, PIII 1.2GHz, Athlon XP 1800+ (OC'd to 2400+ speed
At first I thought the studios were incredibly stupid. The only thing they'll accomplish with their asinine HDCP requirement is eliminate the market for HD content on PCs.
Then I realized it was probably intentional.
Hollywood wants their content as far from your computer as possible.
You can use a large block-size and greatly reduce the ammount of wasted space and overhead (which is rather small to begin with, actually). You've got to expect that kind of overhead from just about any filesystem, and something like journaling will only add more.
If you've got something else in mind, feel free to speak-up.
Using large blocks reduces block list overhead at the cost of internal fragmentation. In other words, big blocks mean more wasted space in the last block of each file.
A better approach would be to patch ext3 to store a list of contiguous extents instead of a list of blocks for each file. With the current file system, the block list might look like this:
1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
Whereas with an extent system (which both NTFS and HFS+ use, incidentally), all you have to store is this:
1-4, 10-20
I did some Googling and apparently some work has already been done to get extents into ext3, motivated by the desire to eliminate slow deletion (which I've noticed... deleting a 160GB hard disk image took minutes on ext3, but was instantaneous on NTFS).
Ext2fs mounted with the 'sync' option.
For large sequential writes, nothing could possibly be more reliable or any faster. Your hard drive's pure IO speed will be the bottleneck unless you are writing to multiple files simultaneously, in which case fancy filesystems come in handy.
But ext2 (and ext3) store a block list that grows in proportion to the size of the file itself. That's fine for small or highly fragmented files, but it's a waste of space and I/O bandwidth when you have big, unfragmented files.
This doesn't foster innovation - this fosters corporate muggings.
I agree wholeheartedly... but unfortunately, that's just the way things are. IMHO, patents should be abolished entirely.
Perhaps I am confusing my types of Intellectual Property, but don't you have to show that you are actively defending your IP, or you give up your rights to it?
You are. Trademarks must be defended, but patents don't have to be.
Here is the KB article about the bool marshalling error. There still isn't in a service pack for it for VS2003 (although there is a patch you can beg Microsoft for), and probably never will be.
I brought up Visual Studio .NET and in the "New Project" dialog, you can have a C++.NET project. I've never just taken old Windows C++ code and tried to make it into some sort of .NET app, but I'm sure it woulnd't be hard at all.
.NET user interface, and I found that "managed" code can't even call native C++ code correctly. The most glaring problem I saw was this: the native function returns "false" and the "managed" function receives "true". It's inconceivable to me that Microsoft could ship a product with such a fundamental flaw (do they test at all?!!), but it took two years to patch it!
.NET languages are total garbage. Maybe they're useful in a vacuum, but they can't be linked reliably with non-CLI code.
C++.NET bears little resemblance to C++. What's more, interoperation between real C++ and Microsoft's bastardized version is totally broken. A few years ago I tried to tie some existing C++ code to a
IMHO, the