Um... I just thought its interesting that AOL cares what we're thinking.
For us, it's a good thing.
As for the fact we didn't do anything... so?
Posting on Slashdot does not equals to doing something, its just to put stuff out so people know about them. And in this case, we cause enough attention to the company that they clarified things for us, which I thought is good.
You think you're mad. How about people here in US that're trying to stop them from pulling similar crap? For one, we're pissed that our government is making the world pissed at us. Yet despite everything we try that's legal (no terrorism, that's not gonna help), the government simply won't listen because we're not rich enough to make "campaign contribution".
However, copyright infringement is international. So extradition might be necessary if the victim country is not the one the perpetrator reside in. I'm not very well informed on the said treaty you said, could you elaborate (why wouldn't US sign a treaty allowing prosecution of War Crimes... wait... Bush...)
Dude. A lot of us care what the rest think about. It's just that a lot of us don't have deep enough pocket to tell politicians what we want them to do. That and there're not enough smart people to vote for good candidates.
It could, but real world simulations/calculations might involve millions of object to object interaction that would require a super-computer. So I doubt this kind of card would help.
On the other hand, if you just want to see a bowling bowl slamming into a car in slow motion with different variables, it would help.
In another word, PPU might not be used for truly serious simulations, but for other, more casual or academic stuff, yes.
CPU are designed at its core to be a simple calculator that calculates really fast. A physics modelling also requires vectoring similar to graphics (objects interact in three dimensions, add in several more properties such as rigidity, flexibility, mass, texture and such). The problem is that object to object interaction has a complexity of N! (n factorial), which mean even a small amount of object will strain CPU significantly. A dedicated PPU might break down different componenet of the interaction into several parallizable parts (velocity/momentum, deformation, or fluid dynamics). In a sense, GPU handles visual perception, PPU simulates the environment, and CPU handles how player/characters interact with said environment.
I won't say dumber. With an advant of a physics dedicated engine, it opens a whole new possibility. There's a good chance that games will use the physics engine to promote problem solving. In the past, all the games are restricted to scripted event simply because the computer aren't powerful enough to handle dynamic environment. Heavy emphasis on Visual and Aural also drives processing power away from handling a dynamic environment. A powerful physics engine might help stimulate software design that promotes lateral thinking.
The point is dedicated processing. GPU handles graphic well, but as its name say, GPU's main purpose is Graphics Processing, which inherently mean optic-to-object simulations (You see mirror, you see own reflection, you see mirror in corner, you see around corner). PPU's main purpose is object-to-object simulation (You see mirror, you shoot and break said mirror, mirror shatters and hit you, you got injured).
Um... please read the article. The chip design is meant for gaming, which currently are going for SIMULATION of more interaction then the CPU can handle. Space rover don't need to simulate those since their sensor can already pick up REAL world interaction.
The point for these robot is to demonstrate the possible use of artificial muscles. Any "decent" engineer will either go electric motors for speed, steeper motor/hydraulic for brite force. But the problem here is that electric motors got too little torque and hydraulics/steeper motor system are too heavy to be used in prothetics.
But nor should we bash them about it. Version 1.0 in software (at least in free softwareds) means the core code themselves, not necessarily the graphics, are relatively bug-free. It is still a work in progress, give them time will ya?
P.S. My idea, if you didn't pay for it, help in it, you have no right to bitch about problems.
Hear hear. Like it or not, Copyrights are necessary in order to promote innovations. Of course, there should be a legal equivalent of the Creative Common License (hey, sometimes people just want to get their stuff out there).
The current beef I have is that the Recording Industries are constantly ripping off their artists by keeping a LARGE portion of the music sale to themselves. And the current copyright licenses are a bit over the board (90 years? Whoa.) Artistic expression, sometimes music, but especially computer programs, are inherently built upon past expressions, having a long copyright is ridiculous for certain form of expressions.
General, these should have long or un-limited licenses... Book, Painting, works that generally leave behind a physical copy. These should have a sufficiently long license... Music, Films (might fall under previous one). This should DEFINITELY have a short copyright span... Softwares
The fine is levied in violation of indecency act. It's illegal to show nipple in public places, so its just as illegal to show it on a public television. Now if it was a cable, they might get away with it.
The reason for such seeminly disproportional punishment is because they're two seperate agency, both of which might have done some research and arrived at that number.
One must note that punishment for accidents are inherently small. Since for one with no amunt of safety/preventive measures could anyone eliminate all accidents. Also potential of a fine might drastically drive up price of utility in the case of nuclear plants, completely make them unprofitable to operate and therefore no company will undertake it. Secondary is the reputation factor. Obscenity on air will only get negative reputatin from those that really cared. For kids and people who don't mine, those obscenity doesn't matter. Sometimes such obsenity will increase viewership (more male audience if Janet Jackson's boob is shown), hence the heavy negative fine is needed to counter the "positive" effect on viewership such indency entails.
I think its just a badly phrased sentence. I think he's trying to say the the LA sheriff told him that those thief done those thing to 700 other people. Not the sheriff said they (the sheriff) did.
Not likely. A class action lawsuit rarely requires all the plaintiff named in the suit to appear in court (especially when that number reached 100,000+). And I seriously doubt that the settlement would be capped to that low an amount. Imagine the outrage.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps Google is only scanning in books that have their copyrights already expired? That way they will not violate any copyright laws.
Um... so instead of screwing up the present and the immediate future, you want the government to screw up more thing EVEN more farther down the road?
Um... I just thought its interesting that AOL cares what we're thinking.
For us, it's a good thing.
As for the fact we didn't do anything... so?
Posting on Slashdot does not equals to doing something, its just to put stuff out so people know about them. And in this case, we cause enough attention to the company that they clarified things for us, which I thought is good.
... wow... that was really f**ked up...
... unbelievable...
So basically, I could just commit a murder, MAKE SURE I leave a shitload of evidence behind, and I'll get acquitted in Australia?
You think you're mad. How about people here in US that're trying to stop them from pulling similar crap? For one, we're pissed that our government is making the world pissed at us. Yet despite everything we try that's legal (no terrorism, that's not gonna help), the government simply won't listen because we're not rich enough to make "campaign contribution".
However, copyright infringement is international. So extradition might be necessary if the victim country is not the one the perpetrator reside in. I'm not very well informed on the said treaty you said, could you elaborate (why wouldn't US sign a treaty allowing prosecution of War Crimes... wait... Bush...)
Dude. A lot of us care what the rest think about. It's just that a lot of us don't have deep enough pocket to tell politicians what we want them to do. That and there're not enough smart people to vote for good candidates.
That would kind of defeat the fact that they need you to at least leave a signature, not a dead harddrive.
Now that's what I call thinking out-side of the box.
Come to think about it, they never did say you can't just go there, rip the hard-drive out, screw with it, and promptly trash the server physically.
I remember there's a place where you can use IP to track down physical addresses...
I thik they'll know when thousands of people start trying to break through their server and the same time.
It could, but real world simulations/calculations might involve millions of object to object interaction that would require a super-computer. So I doubt this kind of card would help.
On the other hand, if you just want to see a bowling bowl slamming into a car in slow motion with different variables, it would help.
In another word, PPU might not be used for truly serious simulations, but for other, more casual or academic stuff, yes.
CPU are designed at its core to be a simple calculator that calculates really fast. A physics modelling also requires vectoring similar to graphics (objects interact in three dimensions, add in several more properties such as rigidity, flexibility, mass, texture and such). The problem is that object to object interaction has a complexity of N! (n factorial), which mean even a small amount of object will strain CPU significantly. A dedicated PPU might break down different componenet of the interaction into several parallizable parts (velocity/momentum, deformation, or fluid dynamics). In a sense, GPU handles visual perception, PPU simulates the environment, and CPU handles how player/characters interact with said environment.
I won't say dumber. With an advant of a physics dedicated engine, it opens a whole new possibility. There's a good chance that games will use the physics engine to promote problem solving. In the past, all the games are restricted to scripted event simply because the computer aren't powerful enough to handle dynamic environment. Heavy emphasis on Visual and Aural also drives processing power away from handling a dynamic environment. A powerful physics engine might help stimulate software design that promotes lateral thinking.
The point is dedicated processing. GPU handles graphic well, but as its name say, GPU's main purpose is Graphics Processing, which inherently mean optic-to-object simulations (You see mirror, you see own reflection, you see mirror in corner, you see around corner). PPU's main purpose is object-to-object simulation (You see mirror, you shoot and break said mirror, mirror shatters and hit you, you got injured).
Um... please read the article. The chip design is meant for gaming, which currently are going for SIMULATION of more interaction then the CPU can handle. Space rover don't need to simulate those since their sensor can already pick up REAL world interaction.
The world might not be interested (unless you're a celebrity). But I would bet someone out there is interested.
Techinically, yes. But it might be more cost/efficient (accuracy wise) to do a software simulation on a super computer.
The point for these robot is to demonstrate the possible use of artificial muscles. Any "decent" engineer will either go electric motors for speed, steeper motor/hydraulic for brite force. But the problem here is that electric motors got too little torque and hydraulics/steeper motor system are too heavy to be used in prothetics.
No it doesn't.
But nor should we bash them about it. Version 1.0 in software (at least in free softwareds) means the core code themselves, not necessarily the graphics, are relatively bug-free. It is still a work in progress, give them time will ya?
P.S. My idea, if you didn't pay for it, help in it, you have no right to bitch about problems.
Hear hear. Like it or not, Copyrights are necessary in order to promote innovations. Of course, there should be a legal equivalent of the Creative Common License (hey, sometimes people just want to get their stuff out there).
The current beef I have is that the Recording Industries are constantly ripping off their artists by keeping a LARGE portion of the music sale to themselves. And the current copyright licenses are a bit over the board (90 years? Whoa.) Artistic expression, sometimes music, but especially computer programs, are inherently built upon past expressions, having a long copyright is ridiculous for certain form of expressions.
General, these should have long or un-limited licenses...
Book, Painting, works that generally leave behind a physical copy.
These should have a sufficiently long license...
Music, Films (might fall under previous one).
This should DEFINITELY have a short copyright span...
Softwares
Unusual activity as in...
Hey, this guy, who never spend more then $1,000 dollars on credit card, is suddenly spending $10,000 a day. Unusual activity, flagged.
Even if they did, they still got the original. Note they're backup tapes.
The fine is levied in violation of indecency act. It's illegal to show nipple in public places, so its just as illegal to show it on a public television. Now if it was a cable, they might get away with it.
The reason for such seeminly disproportional punishment is because they're two seperate agency, both of which might have done some research and arrived at that number.
One must note that punishment for accidents are inherently small. Since for one with no amunt of safety/preventive measures could anyone eliminate all accidents. Also potential of a fine might drastically drive up price of utility in the case of nuclear plants, completely make them unprofitable to operate and therefore no company will undertake it. Secondary is the reputation factor. Obscenity on air will only get negative reputatin from those that really cared. For kids and people who don't mine, those obscenity doesn't matter. Sometimes such obsenity will increase viewership (more male audience if Janet Jackson's boob is shown), hence the heavy negative fine is needed to counter the "positive" effect on viewership such indency entails.
I think its just a badly phrased sentence. I think he's trying to say the the LA sheriff told him that those thief done those thing to 700 other people. Not the sheriff said they (the sheriff) did.
Not likely. A class action lawsuit rarely requires all the plaintiff named in the suit to appear in court (especially when that number reached 100,000+). And I seriously doubt that the settlement would be capped to that low an amount. Imagine the outrage.