Wow, I thought... DNA sculpture & shopping trolleys, this might be interesting. Then I get to the sculpture images and it's about the most unimaginative uncreative version of such a sculpture I could possibly imagine. A total waste of time and metal.
Obligations to shareholders do not excuse dishonourable conduct. Here's a clue, CEOs are NOT supposed to lie, and not all companies are out to get something for nothing. MOST companies make product or sell services. SCOs business plan is an extortion scam. It is very probably illegal and funded & encouraged in part by Microsoft which is also an illegal anti-competitive move. McBride helped determine this course of action instead of growing SCO on an honest and viable basis.
I don't care what your position is on corporate mores, SCO and McBride's activities go way beyond the pale.
NUMA can be true shared. Especially ccNUMA. You can read from any memory and write to any memory, it can all be addressable from any node. Routing is done transparently through the infrastructure and can be kept low latency. It is true shared memory but I suppose you may be familiar with other implementations that aren't.
He may be law abiding (I'm not convinced) but he's trying to take the freedoms of thousands of developers away. You should not let your politics interfere with your sense of judgement. People who wrote their own software have a right to use it unencumbered by the claims of some shady characters who misrepresent their efforts. The SCO CEO has lied about Linux, he has misrepresented his own claims, he has failed to meet the basic requirements of copyright enforcement by intentionally not stating any lines of infringing code, while impugning the character of independent developers. Nobody has stolen his code and the technical merits of his claims are baseless, absurd and unsupportable notions of copyrights on ABIs and derivative works have been introduced in court and in the press to hype their case.
If he has a claim against the community he should state it with specificity, he has never done this. The community should be given the chance to fix any problems (that's a right under the law) and they have never been given that chance.
SCO does not want this. SCO wants to tax us all for work others have done on copyrights they don't even own if Novell is to be believed.
McBride is a despicable man of low character, he has demonstrated this to most rational thinkers and he deserves the public scorn that is heaped upon him.
The entire pretext of the BayStar investment was the I.P. dispute. So yes, they're betting a huge wad of cash on this horse race. Nothing else about SCO justifies any of the investments made. The money is a war chest to pay lawyers. This is 100% about the copyright dispute. Unfortunately for this grand plan the copyright dispute has been transformed into a pure contract dispute. But infact this is part of SCO's scheme, if SCO wins they'll spin it as a copyright victory and scare the bajesus out of everyone and hike their value in the process. The Press, ever the uneducated dolts will swallow this hook line and sinker and publish SCOs anti-Linux FUD.
This is why SCO are suing the "end users" they chose. They're the only ones SCO has a chance with because they've signed SCO contracts permittig things like audits. Even the end user suits aren't about copyrights, they're about contracts. Should SCO win they'll be hyped as copyright victories too. This is the strategy.
He was going to say "This is like that bank heist in Illinois that went wrong, we had to shoot our way out.", but realized he was talking to the press and not his buddies at Canopy and managed to stop himself just in time with "This is like... nothing".
You're crippling the card. PCI doesn't cut it for me and you can't always get PCI versions of cards either. Even with PCI Express it's not as interesting as PCI Express 16x, so bear that in ming on future PCs that have PCI Express everywhere, you still want the higher bandwidth PCI Express 16X for graphics.
Whaddaya mean don't buy their products. They have a virtual monopoly on good films. If I don't buy their product I can't enjoy a lot of fine entertainment and particimate in huge sections of our common culture. These companies control a lot of the distribution of films and without that distribution many films are not viable financially.
This is a damning indictment of the MPAA and illustrates their contempt for their customers. We're not all crooks and pirates and to pretend that the MPAA has some God given right to demand restrictions on our freedom to support their business model gets things completely backwards.
They might be able to make this work for games but I'm personally more interested by the simple fact that Intel chipsets will support dual PCI Express graphics buses. Hopefully this will be possible on a reasonably proces mobo.
Having 3 slots would be ideal but I won't say no to 2 GFX cards so I can drive two monitors from two independent graphics cards at last.
It doesn't say how this technology will combine the two cards and whether it will need software support from the games. Hopefully it won't but the devil is in the details. I'm pretty skeptical about this at the moment. We need more details on the implementation.
Companies do not perform patent searches on their R&D, the very idea is utterly ludicrous. Infact they studiously avoid it. Adobe for example bans engineers from searching the uspto.gov patent database because if they know about it they are aware of any infringement it tripples damages.
Typically you perform patent searches on stuff you intend to file and that is often after the R&D has been done. This is where due diligence kicks in to make sure you are claiming a novel invention.
I can't emphasize enough how utterly insane it would be to expect engineers to search for patent prior art before writing their own creative code. It's hard enough to do this w.r.t. a specific invention for exampel looking for prior art as it relates to LZW or the latest JPEG claims. However with the scope of things your average engineer touches to produce anything of reasonable complexity it would be impossible to perform a thorough search or even know all the areas you should be searching in.
Let's not let these ignorant fools dictate or change the expectation of what engineering is about and lets not allow them to redefine what due dilligence is.
They could end up owning them outright if they press their redemption of preferred options in court. They're now owed more cash than SCO has left in the piggy bank.
No, you must settle after 2 weeks. They don't buy back because they have no margin, that's just a margin call and can happen any time. They buy back because they must within 14 days to settle, they have all promised to sell someone the stock at the price when they shorted the stock. 2 weeks is a short period of time, that's why it's called a "short" position.
They've just managed to half their money with this deal, rather than try to get blood out of the SCO stone they're converting to common stock which they're entitled to do, but if you look at the numbers each $1000 preferred share becomes several shares of common stock valued at around $440. Excuse me for finding this hillarious. They thought they could make a quick buck by funsing a viscious and meritless intellectual property attack on IBM and the Linux community in general. Now they're paying the price. I just hope SCO stock tanks some more before these Canadian vultures can cash out.
As for Baystar trying to get blood out of the stone they helped forge, same story, let's hope they never recoup their cash. Maybe it'll be a lesson to the next bunch of greedy S.O.B.s who think about funding the next group of crooks to come along.
RAMBUS seems to be arguing that industry leaders cannot partner to develop technologies that are unencumbered by I.P. license fees. This is a very common practice in the industry and saves us all a fortune in I.P. tax that would go to greedy non producers.
Sigh, OpenGL is not dead but that doesn't mean your assertions in this post are correct. I'd dispute that D3D has more features. Occasionally there's one or two features that they might have that lead OpenGL but the reverse is also true. OpenGL is certainly keeping pace with D3D but the consolidation to a common ARB api can add some lag, at this moment all of the significant stuff is in place.
The reference manual is not what you should be interested in for learning. The specs are available online and can be downloaded easily. For learning you need to get the official OpenGL Programming Guide a.k.a. the Red Book.
Infact some editions of teh red book are even available online in electronic format for example here:
I think you underestimate AMD's margins, and underestimate Dell's margins. Dell likes it's cushy deal with Intel because the discounts help their model, but at some point if the price/performance gap remains open for long enough Dell has to make the leap or risk losing volume.
Despite Intel haveing an exclusive with the worlds largest PC maker AMD still beat them. I wonder how things would have looked if Dell gave them a fair shake.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, I thought... DNA sculpture & shopping trolleys, this might be interesting. Then I get to the sculpture images and it's about the most unimaginative uncreative version of such a sculpture I could possibly imagine. A total waste of time and metal.
Obligations to shareholders do not excuse dishonourable conduct. Here's a clue, CEOs are NOT supposed to lie, and not all companies are out to get something for nothing. MOST companies make product or sell services. SCOs business plan is an extortion scam. It is very probably illegal and funded & encouraged in part by Microsoft which is also an illegal anti-competitive move. McBride helped determine this course of action instead of growing SCO on an honest and viable basis.
I don't care what your position is on corporate mores, SCO and McBride's activities go way beyond the pale.
NUMA can be true shared. Especially ccNUMA. You can read from any memory and write to any memory, it can all be addressable from any node. Routing is done transparently through the infrastructure and can be kept low latency. It is true shared memory but I suppose you may be familiar with other implementations that aren't.
He may be law abiding (I'm not convinced) but he's trying to take the freedoms of thousands of developers away. You should not let your politics interfere with your sense of judgement. People who wrote their own software have a right to use it unencumbered by the claims of some shady characters who misrepresent their efforts. The SCO CEO has lied about Linux, he has misrepresented his own claims, he has failed to meet the basic requirements of copyright enforcement by intentionally not stating any lines of infringing code, while impugning the character of independent developers. Nobody has stolen his code and the technical merits of his claims are baseless, absurd and unsupportable notions of copyrights on ABIs and derivative works have been introduced in court and in the press to hype their case.
If he has a claim against the community he should state it with specificity, he has never done this. The community should be given the chance to fix any problems (that's a right under the law) and they have never been given that chance.
SCO does not want this. SCO wants to tax us all for work others have done on copyrights they don't even own if Novell is to be believed.
McBride is a despicable man of low character, he has demonstrated this to most rational thinkers and he deserves the public scorn that is heaped upon him.
The entire pretext of the BayStar investment was the I.P. dispute. So yes, they're betting a huge wad of cash on this horse race. Nothing else about SCO justifies any of the investments made. The money is a war chest to pay lawyers. This is 100% about the copyright dispute. Unfortunately for this grand plan the copyright dispute has been transformed into a pure contract dispute. But infact this is part of SCO's scheme, if SCO wins they'll spin it as a copyright victory and scare the bajesus out of everyone and hike their value in the process. The Press, ever the uneducated dolts will swallow this hook line and sinker and publish SCOs anti-Linux FUD.
This is why SCO are suing the "end users" they chose. They're the only ones SCO has a chance with because they've signed SCO contracts permittig things like audits. Even the end user suits aren't about copyrights, they're about contracts. Should SCO win they'll be hyped as copyright victories too. This is the strategy.
He was going to say "This is like that bank heist in Illinois that went wrong, we had to shoot our way out.", but realized he was talking to the press and not his buddies at Canopy and managed to stop himself just in time with "This is like... nothing".
You're crippling the card. PCI doesn't cut it for me and you can't always get PCI versions of cards either. Even with PCI Express it's not as interesting as PCI Express 16x, so bear that in ming on future PCs that have PCI Express everywhere, you still want the higher bandwidth PCI Express 16X for graphics.
Whaddaya mean don't buy their products. They have a virtual monopoly on good films. If I don't buy their product I can't enjoy a lot of fine entertainment and particimate in huge sections of our common culture. These companies control a lot of the distribution of films and without that distribution many films are not viable financially.
This is a damning indictment of the MPAA and illustrates their contempt for their customers. We're not all crooks and pirates and to pretend that the MPAA has some God given right to demand restrictions on our freedom to support their business model gets things completely backwards.
They might be able to make this work for games but I'm personally more interested by the simple fact that Intel chipsets will support dual PCI Express graphics buses. Hopefully this will be possible on a reasonably proces mobo.
Having 3 slots would be ideal but I won't say no to 2 GFX cards so I can drive two monitors from two independent graphics cards at last.
It doesn't say how this technology will combine the two cards and whether it will need software support from the games. Hopefully it won't but the devil is in the details. I'm pretty skeptical about this at the moment. We need more details on the implementation.
That's shockwave theory and it isn't entirely established. Some think it's good old gravity that creates stars y'know.
Companies do not perform patent searches on their R&D, the very idea is utterly ludicrous. Infact they studiously avoid it. Adobe for example bans engineers from searching the uspto.gov patent database because if they know about it they are aware of any infringement it tripples damages.
Typically you perform patent searches on stuff you intend to file and that is often after the R&D has been done. This is where due diligence kicks in to make sure you are claiming a novel invention.
I can't emphasize enough how utterly insane it would be to expect engineers to search for patent prior art before writing their own creative code. It's hard enough to do this w.r.t. a specific invention for exampel looking for prior art as it relates to LZW or the latest JPEG claims. However with the scope of things your average engineer touches to produce anything of reasonable complexity it would be impossible to perform a thorough search or even know all the areas you should be searching in.
Let's not let these ignorant fools dictate or change the expectation of what engineering is about and lets not allow them to redefine what due dilligence is.
Hmm never knew this, thanks for the info. I'd have shorted them myself had I known.
They could end up owning them outright if they press their redemption of preferred options in court. They're now owed more cash than SCO has left in the piggy bank.
No, you must settle after 2 weeks. They don't buy back because they have no margin, that's just a margin call and can happen any time. They buy back because they must within 14 days to settle, they have all promised to sell someone the stock at the price when they shorted the stock. 2 weeks is a short period of time, that's why it's called a "short" position.
Um yea... riiiight, they've just managed to half their investment, that's real shrewd of them.
They've just managed to half their money with this deal, rather than try to get blood out of the SCO stone they're converting to common stock which they're entitled to do, but if you look at the numbers each $1000 preferred share becomes several shares of common stock valued at around $440. Excuse me for finding this hillarious. They thought they could make a quick buck by funsing a viscious and meritless intellectual property attack on IBM and the Linux community in general. Now they're paying the price. I just hope SCO stock tanks some more before these Canadian vultures can cash out.
As for Baystar trying to get blood out of the stone they helped forge, same story, let's hope they never recoup their cash. Maybe it'll be a lesson to the next bunch of greedy S.O.B.s who think about funding the next group of crooks to come along.
RAMBUS seems to be arguing that industry leaders cannot partner to develop technologies that are unencumbered by I.P. license fees. This is a very common practice in the industry and saves us all a fortune in I.P. tax that would go to greedy non producers.
Sigh, OpenGL is not dead but that doesn't mean your assertions in this post are correct. I'd dispute that D3D has more features. Occasionally there's one or two features that they might have that lead OpenGL but the reverse is also true. OpenGL is certainly keeping pace with D3D but the consolidation to a common ARB api can add some lag, at this moment all of the significant stuff is in place.
D3D does not wrap OpenGL.
The reference manual is not what you should be interested in for learning. The specs are available online and can be downloaded easily. For learning you need to get the official OpenGL Programming Guide a.k.a. the Red Book.
Infact some editions of teh red book are even available online in electronic format for example here:
http://fly.cc.fer.hr/~unreal/theredbook/
OpenGL 1.5 is already upon us looks like the authors can't keep up with the spec any more.
I think you underestimate AMD's margins, and underestimate Dell's margins. Dell likes it's cushy deal with Intel because the discounts help their model, but at some point if the price/performance gap remains open for long enough Dell has to make the leap or risk losing volume.
Despite Intel haveing an exclusive with the worlds largest PC maker AMD still beat them. I wonder how things would have looked if Dell gave them a fair shake.
Relatively few bittorrent users can do this.
Yes I know, that was my point, I assume everyone knows that bittorrent automatically uploads. You don't get a choice in this.