> pre-set friendly relationship Due to some historic circumstances (occupation of Korea pre-and while WWII), the goverment of (South) Korea did/does not exactly encourage Japanese imports, which have cultural strings attached. (Music, TV, films, computer games).
Motorola also produces microcontrollers, and AFAIK is market leader in that sector. And it is far larger market than the one for desktop-processors.
As they (partly) stated in the article:
"We believe SPS is well positioned to increase its leadership in the end markets it serves, including the networking, communications, transportation and industrial markets," Scott Anderson, president of Motorola SPS, said in a statement.
> If you've murdered someone, I want the government to be able to find out how long it takes for you to shit if it will help them any.
I put the emphasis on a critical point.
The task of the police is to find a suspect, but the juidical system will determine whether he is guilty or not. You grant them the power a priori.
And given the right power, the police most certainly find a perpetrator. The question is, is it the right one?
The part "abridging the freedom of [...] of the press" of the First Amendment is there for a reason.
Free press is there to uncover the wrongs of the goverment/society. If their notes and conversations are not the matter of adequate discretion, they can't uncover anything, because they either cannot make records or noone will speak with them.
Of course, I won't say that this protection is worthy of ultimate protection and has to be compared to the severness to the crime. In the case of murder, I'd tend to favour the prosecution of the murder, but he did not commit murder.
It is a story. IRC, the reason the PATRIOT act was enacted to counter the threats of terrorists and not to erode the rights laid down in your foundation.
To paraphrase a quote: When they came for the terrorists I didn't speak up, because I am no terrorist. When they came for script-kiddies, I didn't speak up, because I write no viruses. When they came for me there was no-one left to speak up for me.
I guess it is not like they want to sell you processors, which you can stack as you like, but for them to make multi-core chips cheaper.
I assume they do it in the same way they do it with the Pentium4 or Athlon-64. Heat-spreaders. They can increase almost arbitrarily the area of the chip (but not the die).
> Why wouldn't 10 miles be in the nothingness that is next to the big bang? Why would it have to be limited to within the bigbang/growing universe(?)?
If you walk for 10 miles, how far will you get? And what if you go on a circle of 1m diameter? Probably not farther than 1m. And what is if the circle has no diameter?
It is similar with space. It has a diameter (the largest distance of any two points in it), because it is wrapped around.
Except that the "circle" is 3 dimensional (or even more) and the diameter of the "circle" is growing. Once the diameter was probably a mere light second, or even a singularity, and now stretching over some light aeons.
Don't try to visualise it in such high dimensions, our brains are not made for this. Instead stay on lower dimensions (circles, orb, tori).
First of, I'm stating it like it is the truth. But in fact, it is a theory, which AFAIK is (or at least was) the most accepted one. Remember all what I say is limited by my lay-mans knowledge.
> Was space a result of the big bang or something? Was distance?
Excactly. So, at one point in time, 10 miles from anywhere could mean 10 times through the universe and back to where you started through a universe with a mile diameter.
That is why there is a uniform background radiation, which are a reminiscence from the Big Bang.
> If there was no material, then where did it come from? Are you assuming that the universe didn't exist before this one (as in, there wasn't a universe that collapsed before it)?
Well, the earlier you get the more uncertain the theories get. I tell you, what I remember. First there was only energy. The energy in form of light yielded material. Two photons hitting on one another can create two particles of matter and anti-matter of equivalent energy (E=mc^2). Interestingly, our universe has is a certain assymmetry. Certain anti-matter particle have a shorter half-life than their matter counterparts. From the massive amounts of energy and the little discrepancy in half-life all matter was produced.
But now, you certainly asks where does the energy and the space come from. But I guess you are not alone, as this is the question physics are discussing about. But before that, the earliest moments of the universe are still a point of research.
The main question is, has this universe a causal beginning, or not.
To understand the past one has to know the future:).
If there is enough matter, the universe will contract and collapse, if there is not, the universe will expand until the end of time.
The current known mass does not suffice to let the universe collapse, and IRC doesn't explain some other thinks. This is why people are searching for "dark matter". Some mass which is not visible.
An ever expanding universe must have a beginning. This poses us with some questions: is there a "before" this universe, or did time came into existance with this universe. Is there another "dimension" where universes come into existance and vanish, and can we possibly understand it? Where from and why did it came into existance?
An collapsing universe on the other hand could be the seed for another universe. This cycle can exists without a beginning and end. This version has obviously less open questions.
Re:NTT's Plans: Good for Linux but Bad for Sun
on
NTT Joins OSDL
·
· Score: 1
> [...] Chinese attempts to recruit Japanese and Korean researchers to build an independent operating system (OS) that is incompatible with Windows or Linux
From your link "Asian trio to replace Windows":
The move to jointly develop a server operating system that's based on Linux began in March with a meeting in Thailand of more than 100 software engineers from the three countries.
(emphasis mine)
So, I'd say NTTs involvement in OSDL seems quite in line with the govermental involvement of China, Japan and Korea.
Space is finite, but has not borders and is expanding.
The best likening I've heard of is the surface (2D) of a baloon.
The surface of the baloon has no borders, you can go around it like you want. Still, its space is finite. And if you pump it up, the space is expanding.
The mistake most people make in imagining the Big Bang is taking it literally. An explosion of material in space. The point is there was no space in which the explosion happened and neither was material. Space happened. Material came even later.
Of course, if the nice policeman asks about my colleagues, business partners, and neighbours, I will joyfully click the heals and report everything he wants to know.
No need for check and balances. What are subpoenas good for but hindering good policemen at their work.
In order to protect our wonderful democratic country, I will report any person, which reads suspicious books, or buys suspicious things.
Now, it is not like you should not cooperate with the police, but the way he speaks of it, he sounds a little bit too similar to the kind of person I imitated.
Scientists know that very strict low-calorie diets can prolong life. But now they report that it does not matter when you start that diet -- at least if you are a fruit fly. The life-prolonging effect kicks in immediately, continues as long as the diet, and is lost as soon as the dieting stops.
> Studies have shown that male animals (of various species) that are kept separated from females all their lifes can live up to 20% longer. In other words having no sex lets you live longer.
It may suprise some people, but being kept seperated from females doesn't mean just no sex. So I'd say, your second statement is not a valid conclusion from the studies figures.
Stress is a known life-shortener, so I'd assume that the associated stress with mating rituals and competition among male animals are more probable reasons than the act of mating itself.
Those people don't have access to clean water, because of technology (or the lack of more technology)
To put it another way: A river usually contains clean water even without the help of technology.
And putting up a infrastructure to sell cellulars even in the most remote areas has more powerful supporters than providing poor people in slums with essential neccessities like clean water.
Explore more fully the probabilistic character of future climate states by developing multiple ensembles of model calculations. The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.
Many aspects of the Earth's climate system are chaotic - its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits predictability of the detailed evolution of weather to about two weeks. However, predictability of climate is not so limited because of the systematic influences on the atmosphere of the more slowly varying components of the climate system. Nevertheless, to be able to make reliable forecasts in the presence of both initial condition and model uncertainty, it is desirable to repeat the prediction many times from different perturbed initial states and using different global models. These ensembles are the basis of probability forecasts of the climate state.
Our overall assessment Coupled models have evolved and improved significantly since the SAR. In general, they provide credible simulations of climate, at least down to sub-continental scales and over temporal scales from seasonal to decadal. The varying sets of strengths and weaknesses that models display lead us to conclude that no single model can be considered "best" and it is important to utilise results from a range of coupled models. We consider coupled models, as a class, to be suitable tools to provide useful projections of future climates.
The problem with taxing petrol is, that you pay the tax in the country where you bought the petrol, not where you drive. You have to remember that the EU is still a collection of states, which may differ greatly in their tax laws.
So, technically, you could buy relatively cheap petrol in, say, France, where they have a toll system, and then drive to, for example, Germany and use their highways without toll system. (I don't know whether petrol in France is actually cheaper than in Germany or not).
> If you even look at the behavior of animals, you will see that they claim property and defend it as their own.
There is a difference, between claiming property and having the right on property.
Among animals, there is the right of the strongest. That is hte "natural" right. The stronger one is able to eat, to bread and to live, the weaker ones die.
> The right to smash someone's face, as you claim, is part of the right to self defense;
No, I said the right to smash someone's face, because one doesn't like it. It is also "natural". But nowadays, we prefer to call it babaric.
> unless you think that next year all teachers should wear clown masks (that's innovative, but not effective).
Words form sentences, sentences make a context and the words convey ideas. Please, don't pluck the words out of the context.
It is not an innovative idea in the context we are speaking, unless the clown masks are embedded in a paedological program, in which case it might be innovative, and should it yield better education it is worth. Worth is determined by the result.
> but innovation is not worth much in and of itself
Well, before Microsoft came, innovation usually meant development, progress. One could argue that progress is not much worth, but I'd say it is up to the society to decide.
I assume you are not argueing against technological progress.
> I'm sorry, did we get away from human rights?
Sorry, wrong wording on my side. (I'm not a native speaker). Of course, I did not meant that the idea deserves the right, but the one who creates the idea.
> In other words, for the person with money, with power, so that they can have more money, more power.
Well, as Karl Marx has already noted a century ago, this is intrinsic to capitalism and I won't deny that this is a conceptual problem inherent to the system.
So, are you suggesting, the fruits of research by companies should not be protected by the goverment? So, who will then publish the research? I'd say this leaves the goverment to fund it.
> thus, you are dealing not with rights, but with protection
You say, they are seperable? I always had the (mis?)conception, that in a just society, rights have to be protected.
> fine as long as you don't put the force of government behind it
Why? The whole point of a goverment is for the society to exert force collectivly.
> There are natural rights, and there are granted rights.
What makes "right on property" a natural right? Isn't your naming a bit suggestive, and your selection arbitary?
Doesn't the goverment grant me the right own a thing, and denies other people to take it away from me? What about the "right to smash the next persons head, because I don't like his face"? Considering the history of humankind, I think that is a natural right, too.
> Unfortunately, I'm seeing this happen in the EU, so I don't expect the union to last.
How are you seeing this happening in the EU, especiallly in comparison to the US?
Nationalism? Bad economy? Unofficial economy? Violent Crime? Social unrest?
> It's what's wrong with patents in general
The idea was, in order to drive innovation a innovative idea deserves the right to be protected, so that the work or the genius in finding it pays of for the one investing it. What is wrong with this logic? Because it "takes away natural rights in order to grant rights, which makes society instable"?
The problem is, most patents are neither innovative, nor was work invested to find the idea and mostly they stifle innovation as they prohibit most people to work on various matters because they create a "patent minefield".
Actually, I'd say there is nothing wrong with the idea of patents, but with their application.
Slashdot Mirror
> pre-set friendly relationship
Due to some historic circumstances (occupation of Korea pre-and while WWII), the goverment of (South) Korea did/does not exactly encourage Japanese imports, which have cultural strings attached. (Music, TV, films, computer games).
Here some headlines from Asahi Shinbun (in English):
Further easing of Japan culture ban
Dated: September 17, 2003
This stance (banning Japanese culture) may not reflect the public opinion. Still, it is not something I've heard about Canada/US/Mexico.
As they (partly) stated in the article:
How does it compare to Cardiff?
According to one source, the Chinese aren't to blame for this, but the imperialistic press.
Overview of Amendment I: Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition.
> If you've murdered someone, I want the government to be able to find out how long it takes for you to shit if it will help them any.
I put the emphasis on a critical point.
The task of the police is to find a suspect, but the juidical system will determine whether he is guilty or not. You grant them the power a priori.
And given the right power, the police most certainly find a perpetrator. The question is, is it the right one?
The part "abridging the freedom of [...] of the press" of the First Amendment is there for a reason.
Free press is there to uncover the wrongs of the goverment/society. If their notes and conversations are not the matter of adequate discretion, they can't uncover anything, because they either cannot make records or noone will speak with them.
Of course, I won't say that this protection is worthy of ultimate protection and has to be compared to the severness to the crime.
In the case of murder, I'd tend to favour the prosecution of the murder, but he did not commit murder.
It is a story. IRC, the reason the PATRIOT act was enacted to counter the threats of terrorists and not to erode the rights laid down in your foundation.
To paraphrase a quote:
When they came for the terrorists I didn't speak up, because I am no terrorist. When they came for script-kiddies, I didn't speak up, because I write no viruses. When they came for me there was no-one left to speak up for me.
> Anyone know?
I guess it is not like they want to sell you processors, which you can stack as you like, but for them to make multi-core chips cheaper.
I assume they do it in the same way they do it with the Pentium4 or Athlon-64. Heat-spreaders. They can increase almost arbitrarily the area of the chip (but not the die).
> Why wouldn't 10 miles be in the nothingness that is next to the big bang? Why would it have to be limited to within the bigbang/growing universe(?)?
If you walk for 10 miles, how far will you get? And what if you go on a circle of 1m diameter? Probably not farther than 1m. And what is if the circle has no diameter?
It is similar with space. It has a diameter (the largest distance of any two points in it), because it is wrapped around.
Except that the "circle" is 3 dimensional (or even more) and the diameter of the "circle" is growing. Once the diameter was probably a mere light second, or even a singularity, and now stretching over some light aeons.
Don't try to visualise it in such high dimensions, our brains are not made for this. Instead stay on lower dimensions (circles, orb, tori).
> IRC doesn't explain some other thinks
IRC doesn't explain some other things.
For example, my spelling mistakes. I know there others left, but this one makes the text hard to understand.
First of, I'm stating it like it is the truth. But in fact, it is a theory, which AFAIK is (or at least was) the most accepted one. Remember all what I say is limited by my lay-mans knowledge.
:).
> Was space a result of the big bang or something? Was distance?
Excactly. So, at one point in time, 10 miles from anywhere could mean 10 times through the universe and back to where you started through a universe with a mile diameter.
That is why there is a uniform background radiation, which are a reminiscence from the Big Bang.
> If there was no material, then where did it come from? Are you assuming that the universe didn't exist before this one (as in, there wasn't a universe that collapsed before it)?
Well, the earlier you get the more uncertain the theories get.
I tell you, what I remember.
First there was only energy. The energy in form of light yielded material. Two photons hitting on one another can create two particles of matter and anti-matter of equivalent energy (E=mc^2).
Interestingly, our universe has is a certain assymmetry. Certain anti-matter particle have a shorter half-life than their matter counterparts.
From the massive amounts of energy and the little discrepancy in half-life all matter was produced.
But now, you certainly asks where does the energy and the space come from. But I guess you are not alone, as this is the question physics are discussing about. But before that, the earliest moments of the universe are still a point of research.
The main question is, has this universe a causal beginning, or not.
To understand the past one has to know the future
If there is enough matter, the universe will contract and collapse, if there is not, the universe will expand until the end of time.
The current known mass does not suffice to let the universe collapse, and IRC doesn't explain some other thinks. This is why people are searching for "dark matter". Some mass which is not visible.
An ever expanding universe must have a beginning.
This poses us with some questions: is there a "before" this universe, or did time came into existance with this universe. Is there another "dimension" where universes come into existance and vanish, and can we possibly understand it?
Where from and why did it came into existance?
An collapsing universe on the other hand could be the seed for another universe. This cycle can exists without a beginning and end.
This version has obviously less open questions.
From your link "Asian trio to replace Windows":
(emphasis mine)
So, I'd say NTTs involvement in OSDL seems quite in line with the govermental involvement of China, Japan and Korea.
Space is finite, but has not borders and is expanding.
The best likening I've heard of is the surface (2D) of a baloon.
The surface of the baloon has no borders, you can go around it like you want. Still, its space is finite. And if you pump it up, the space is expanding.
The mistake most people make in imagining the Big Bang is taking it literally. An explosion of material in space.
The point is there was no space in which the explosion happened and neither was material. Space happened. Material came even later.
Sorry, I was wrong. It is a MIPS-esque instruction set.
Since it (the Dragon processor) is x86 compatible, they do not need to write either.
Of course, if the nice policeman asks about my colleagues, business partners, and neighbours, I will joyfully click the heals and report everything he wants to know.
No need for check and balances. What are subpoenas good for but hindering good policemen at their work.
In order to protect our wonderful democratic country, I will report any person, which reads suspicious books, or buys suspicious things.
Now, it is not like you should not cooperate with the police, but the way he speaks of it, he sounds a little bit too similar to the kind of person I imitated.
I think that this is fairly non-obvious.
> Studies have shown that male animals (of various species) that are kept separated from females all their lifes can live up to 20% longer. In other words having no sex lets you live longer.
It may suprise some people, but being kept seperated from females doesn't mean just no sex. So I'd say, your second statement is not a valid conclusion from the studies figures.
Stress is a known life-shortener, so I'd assume that the associated stress with mating rituals and competition among male animals are more probable reasons than the act of mating itself.
Those people don't have access to clean water, because of technology (or the lack of more technology)
To put it another way: A river usually contains clean water even without the help of technology.
And putting up a infrastructure to sell cellulars even in the most remote areas has more powerful supporters than providing poor people in slums with essential neccessities like clean water.
And another quote introduction to the technical summary, which gives a little background for the afformentioned quote:
From "8.10 Sources of Uncertainty and Levels of Confidence in Coupled Models":
Now, feel free to bash the IPCC in general.
The problem with taxing petrol is, that you pay the tax in the country where you bought the petrol, not where you drive.
You have to remember that the EU is still a collection of states, which may differ greatly in their tax laws.
So, technically, you could buy relatively cheap petrol in, say, France, where they have a toll system, and then drive to, for example, Germany and use their highways without toll system.
(I don't know whether petrol in France is actually cheaper than in Germany or not).
> If you even look at the behavior of animals, you will see that they claim property and defend it as their own.
There is a difference, between claiming property and having the right on property.
Among animals, there is the right of the strongest. That is hte "natural" right. The stronger one is able to eat, to bread and to live, the weaker ones die.
> The right to smash someone's face, as you claim, is part of the right to self defense;
No, I said the right to smash someone's face, because one doesn't like it. It is also "natural". But nowadays, we prefer to call it babaric.
> unless you think that next year all teachers should wear clown masks (that's innovative, but not effective).
Words form sentences, sentences make a context and the words convey ideas. Please, don't pluck the words out of the context.
It is not an innovative idea in the context we are speaking, unless the clown masks are embedded in a paedological program, in which case it might be innovative, and should it yield better education it is worth. Worth is determined by the result.
> but innovation is not worth much in and of itself
Well, before Microsoft came, innovation usually meant development, progress. One could argue that progress is not much worth, but I'd say it is up
to the society to decide.
I assume you are not argueing against technological progress.
> I'm sorry, did we get away from human rights?
Sorry, wrong wording on my side. (I'm not a native speaker). Of course, I did not meant that the idea deserves the right, but the one who creates the idea.
> In other words, for the person with money, with power, so that they can have more money, more power.
Well, as Karl Marx has already noted a century ago, this is intrinsic to capitalism and I won't deny that this is a conceptual problem inherent to the system.
So, are you suggesting, the fruits of research by companies should not be protected by the goverment? So, who will then publish the research? I'd say this leaves the goverment to fund it.
> thus, you are dealing not with rights, but with protection
You say, they are seperable? I always had the (mis?)conception, that in a just society, rights have to be protected.
> fine as long as you don't put the force of government behind it
Why? The whole point of a goverment is for the society to exert force collectivly.
> There are natural rights, and there are granted rights.
What makes "right on property" a natural right? Isn't your naming a bit suggestive, and your selection arbitary?
Doesn't the goverment grant me the right own a thing, and denies other people to take it away from me?
What about the "right to smash the next persons head, because I don't like his face"?
Considering the history of humankind, I think that is a natural right, too.
> Unfortunately, I'm seeing this happen in the EU, so I don't expect the union to last.
How are you seeing this happening in the EU, especiallly in comparison to the US?
Nationalism? Bad economy? Unofficial economy? Violent Crime? Social unrest?
> It's what's wrong with patents in general
The idea was, in order to drive innovation a innovative idea deserves the right to be protected, so that the work or the genius in finding it pays of for the one investing it. What is wrong with this logic? Because it "takes away natural rights in order to grant rights, which makes society instable"?
The problem is, most patents are neither innovative, nor was work invested to find the idea and mostly they stifle innovation as they prohibit most people to work on various matters because they create a "patent minefield".
Actually, I'd say there is nothing wrong with the idea of patents, but with their application.
> It's 64bit, supports more memory physically
The G5 is 64bit, too, can address 42bit of memory and provides 64bit virtual address-space.
The Opteron has address-space of 40 bit and 48 bit virtual per CPU.
Not that it currently makes a lot of difference.
Interesting, according to the same source the US has an external debt of:
$862 billion (1995 est.)
Um, South Korea is democratic since 1987 due to constant protest of students, of whom several where arrested, some tortured and even killed.
And I say the crippled newborns over decades, and the dead soldiers and civilians on both sides are the tragedy.
I consider that the American public acchieved to get their goverment to withdraw from Viet Nam actually as a victory.