RDRAM traded latency for speed in a time where latency was the biggest problem. It was slow, and expensive. Then then stole ideas from an open committee of memory manufacturers and patented them. Then they were sued repeatedly.
Why are we so intend to lynch their stooges when the masterminds are getting away scot-free?
1) Because the attempt to stop the masterminds failed. The ACLU sued the US Government but the case was thrown out due to lack of evidence. The ACLU's discovery requests were denied because the government said it was a matter of national security and they could not be released.
Yes the telecoms should be punished...And yet, the truly guilty party are the government officials who made those orders
2) The government cannot give orders, they can only ask. If someone tells you to do something illegal, and you do it, you committed the crime and you are at fault. The telecom companies violated the law.
What's going to happen to you when you say 'No'?
3) Well, take a look at Qwest. They said no. And nothing happened. AT&T said yes, and they are in court.
So what? North America has thousands upon thousands of square miles of unarable, unlivable land that could be put to good use.
There is no such that as unlivable land. Those deserts house tons of life that we just don't see in every day. I suspect that mother nature has a pretty good reason why those deserts are there, and I don't want to find out that reason after we have covered them in a giant parking lot of solar panels. There's plenty of places to put solar panels that don't require us to cover entire deserts. That's just plain dangerous.
On a note of deserts, I prefer the idea that was reported in a recent Popular Science article: transplant endangered African animals to those deserts to repopulate them. While we can't calculate the full effects of that either, it sure beats letting those animals go extinct elsewhere. And it beats assuming that the land is useless and turning it into Coruscant.
The land mass required for those solar cells is immense. But if you covered rooftops with them then you don't need to find as much land. I don't like these plans of covering entire deserts in solar cells. Better that they cover the entire city rooftops with them.
I guess the word "priest" has multiple senses of meaning, but most forms of Christianity really doesn't have priests in the Catholic sense of the word.
That's the ultimate question. My suggestion is don't believe either of us, look for yourself. I suppose this is kind of like Republicans claiming to be conservatives, and Democrats claiming to be progressives. What's in a name?
In theory, the FISA is foreign surveillance only. The problem is that they way we do surveillance today it is just as easy to tap domestic calls as foreign calls. And since there is so little oversight involved there is no way to know if it is happening or not. So it effectively becomes a domestic wiretapping law.
You may disagree with his position on the death penalty, but it is not a flip-flop:
"...there are some crimes--mass murder, the rape and murder of a child--so heinous, so beyond the pale, that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment."
When you vote for a bill you don't get to pick and choose what sections you are voting for. It's all or nothing.
Then it should have been nothing, because there was nothing good in this bill. It did everything Obama said he would stand steadfastly against: it increased government surveillance, reduced civil rights, removed judicial oversight, granted immunity to criminals, AND it was unconstitutional. (Remember: Obama is a constitutional law professor!)
This isn't a bill with 3 good things and 1 bad. It was a bill with multiple bad things, any single one of which would trump even the best legislation.
(we have the technology to produce clean-burning coal plans now)
Be aware that "clean-burning coal" still produces CO2. They just mean that they scrub out some of the nasty components that cause acid rain and stuff like that. So it smells good, but it will still kill us in the end.
Clean-burning coal is red-herring. It's like having a "clean" cigarette that smells good, but still gives you cancer.
There's nothing any 3rd-parties can do. They wax and wane, but it all comes down to the fact that we have a stupid system where everybody has to pick one person. No run-offs, no Condorcet, no nothing. In a country this large you can't have a "majority rules" method for selecting candidates, or it always will boil down to 2 people. But it is a catch-22: As long as the 2 parties are in power they won't let it change, and as long as it doesn't change we will only have 2 parties in power.
The founding fathers were good with politics, but weak on mathematics:)
I might go even further and cheer the fact that Microsoft's TCP/IP implementation was based on the BSD implementation. I have written applications that used TCP/IP on Linux, BSD, and Windows, with no modifications.
I assumed they just meant that someone could move to another workstation without spending days installing stuff. After reading your comment, I figure maybe they mean that people can move from one part of the project to another, which is very common. Rarely does someone work on just one piece of the code all the time.
What are you interpreting "move from one workstation/area of work to another" to mean?
The few dial-up users I knew a few years ago didn't realize how big the difference was. They assumed that if it took 2 minutes to get a page on dial-up, it would be one minute or 30 seconds on high-speed internet. They equated high-speed internet to upgrading a computer. It's prettier and faster, but it is really the same thing. And they were patient.
That changed when they saw my laptop. Sometimes I would click a link and the page would load and they didn't even register that it happened. dial-up -vs- high-speed is like reading a book through a telescope a mile away -vs- reading it up close. And once you go there you can never go back. So I suspect most of those dial-up users who are left just have never seen the alternative.
In general, I agree. But I can cite one case where it is already done, and another where it is done manually.
Microsoft does an iterative optimization in their linker. They have a tool that runs the application and records what routines are called from which other routines most often. This list is then passed into the linker and routines are located in the EXE/DLL files so that they are closer. (There's a compiler flag in the Microsoft linker that lets you pass in a text file with a name of functions, in what order they are to be linked.) This helps cache coherency.
Video games often have some crucial inner-loops optimized for specific CPU architectures. If they could leave the compiler running overnight on each type of CPU they target and have the compiler automatically optimize, that would be well worth it.
You are correct, but you spun it wrong. Ron Paul got 5% and was included in all the debates. All the people who didn't get 5% -- you never heard about them.
Since Telecom Amnesty is the only relevant part of the bill (the rest is just fluff that really says things like "you can't violate this law" and "this is the only law that can be used to wiretap") voting for the bill with the amnesty clause included really is supporting Amnesty. There's no other reason to vote for it. Oh, unless Obama is also supporting establishing secret courts. That's the other thing it does.
Is the goal to express disgust? Or to make someone lose? Those aren't the goals. The goal is to give the power to those who would use it properly, to select a prsident, and to decide which parties have enough support to be given the recognition and funding to participate in the debate.
Any party that gets 5% of the vote gets federal funding and is likely to be in the debates. Since 50% of the people don't vote at all, that's a lot of potential for the green or libertarian parties to get noticed. Heck, if those 50% just voted completely randomly, it would be a landslide change in politics.
The President...he shall have power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Congress can't grant a pardon. So is it okay if they pass a law that says "well... anyone who did something illegal, and was asked by the president, during a specified time, and has 2 T's and an A and an and sign in there name did not actually commit a crime in the first place." --- Is that not a pardon?
Obama will be heavily attacked this fall for any appearance of being 'soft' on terrorism.
The real mistake here is that they have failed to communicate with the public. This bill does not help counter-terrorism, but they never seemed to have even tried to send that message. They live in a world of neocon spin, and by accepting it they trap themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Your history of Rambus is totally wrong.
RDRAM traded latency for speed in a time where latency was the biggest problem. It was slow, and expensive. Then then stole ideas from an open committee of memory manufacturers and patented them. Then they were sued repeatedly.
Why are we so intend to lynch their stooges when the masterminds are getting away scot-free?
1) Because the attempt to stop the masterminds failed. The ACLU sued the US Government but the case was thrown out due to lack of evidence. The ACLU's discovery requests were denied because the government said it was a matter of national security and they could not be released.
Yes the telecoms should be punished...And yet, the truly guilty party are the government officials who made those orders
2) The government cannot give orders, they can only ask. If someone tells you to do something illegal, and you do it, you committed the crime and you are at fault. The telecom companies violated the law.
What's going to happen to you when you say 'No'?
3) Well, take a look at Qwest. They said no. And nothing happened. AT&T said yes, and they are in court.
So what? North America has thousands upon thousands of square miles of unarable, unlivable land that could be put to good use.
There is no such that as unlivable land. Those deserts house tons of life that we just don't see in every day. I suspect that mother nature has a pretty good reason why those deserts are there, and I don't want to find out that reason after we have covered them in a giant parking lot of solar panels. There's plenty of places to put solar panels that don't require us to cover entire deserts. That's just plain dangerous.
On a note of deserts, I prefer the idea that was reported in a recent Popular Science article: transplant endangered African animals to those deserts to repopulate them. While we can't calculate the full effects of that either, it sure beats letting those animals go extinct elsewhere. And it beats assuming that the land is useless and turning it into Coruscant.
According to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, they do. And there are four principles that all broadband providers must implement.
The land mass required for those solar cells is immense. But if you covered rooftops with them then you don't need to find as much land. I don't like these plans of covering entire deserts in solar cells. Better that they cover the entire city rooftops with them.
Check out camperdave's reply.
I guess the word "priest" has multiple senses of meaning, but most forms of Christianity really doesn't have priests in the Catholic sense of the word.
who should I believe?
That's the ultimate question. My suggestion is don't believe either of us, look for yourself. I suppose this is kind of like Republicans claiming to be conservatives, and Democrats claiming to be progressives. What's in a name?
In theory, the FISA is foreign surveillance only. The problem is that they way we do surveillance today it is just as easy to tap domestic calls as foreign calls. And since there is so little oversight involved there is no way to know if it is happening or not. So it effectively becomes a domestic wiretapping law.
You may disagree with his position on the death penalty, but it is not a flip-flop:
"...there are some crimes--mass murder, the rape and murder of a child--so heinous, so beyond the pale, that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment."
Barack Obama, "The Audacity of Hope", 2006
When you vote for a bill you don't get to pick and choose what sections you are voting for. It's all or nothing.
Then it should have been nothing, because there was nothing good in this bill. It did everything Obama said he would stand steadfastly against: it increased government surveillance, reduced civil rights, removed judicial oversight, granted immunity to criminals, AND it was unconstitutional. (Remember: Obama is a constitutional law professor!)
This isn't a bill with 3 good things and 1 bad. It was a bill with multiple bad things, any single one of which would trump even the best legislation.
Catholicism != Christianity.
Christianity has no priests.
(we have the technology to produce clean-burning coal plans now)
Be aware that "clean-burning coal" still produces CO2. They just mean that they scrub out some of the nasty components that cause acid rain and stuff like that. So it smells good, but it will still kill us in the end.
Clean-burning coal is red-herring. It's like having a "clean" cigarette that smells good, but still gives you cancer.
There's nothing any 3rd-parties can do. They wax and wane, but it all comes down to the fact that we have a stupid system where everybody has to pick one person. No run-offs, no Condorcet, no nothing. In a country this large you can't have a "majority rules" method for selecting candidates, or it always will boil down to 2 people. But it is a catch-22: As long as the 2 parties are in power they won't let it change, and as long as it doesn't change we will only have 2 parties in power.
The founding fathers were good with politics, but weak on mathematics :)
I might go even further and cheer the fact that Microsoft's TCP/IP implementation was based on the BSD implementation. I have written applications that used TCP/IP on Linux, BSD, and Windows, with no modifications.
I assumed they just meant that someone could move to another workstation without spending days installing stuff. After reading your comment, I figure maybe they mean that people can move from one part of the project to another, which is very common. Rarely does someone work on just one piece of the code all the time.
What are you interpreting "move from one workstation/area of work to another" to mean?
That is not akin to how a chess master beats a computer. In chess there is no bluffing and no chance.
The few dial-up users I knew a few years ago didn't realize how big the difference was. They assumed that if it took 2 minutes to get a page on dial-up, it would be one minute or 30 seconds on high-speed internet. They equated high-speed internet to upgrading a computer. It's prettier and faster, but it is really the same thing. And they were patient.
That changed when they saw my laptop. Sometimes I would click a link and the page would load and they didn't even register that it happened. dial-up -vs- high-speed is like reading a book through a telescope a mile away -vs- reading it up close. And once you go there you can never go back. So I suspect most of those dial-up users who are left just have never seen the alternative.
In general, I agree. But I can cite one case where it is already done, and another where it is done manually.
Microsoft does an iterative optimization in their linker. They have a tool that runs the application and records what routines are called from which other routines most often. This list is then passed into the linker and routines are located in the EXE/DLL files so that they are closer. (There's a compiler flag in the Microsoft linker that lets you pass in a text file with a name of functions, in what order they are to be linked.) This helps cache coherency.
Video games often have some crucial inner-loops optimized for specific CPU architectures. If they could leave the compiler running overnight on each type of CPU they target and have the compiler automatically optimize, that would be well worth it.
You are correct, but you spun it wrong. Ron Paul got 5% and was included in all the debates. All the people who didn't get 5% -- you never heard about them.
Since Telecom Amnesty is the only relevant part of the bill (the rest is just fluff that really says things like "you can't violate this law" and "this is the only law that can be used to wiretap") voting for the bill with the amnesty clause included really is supporting Amnesty. There's no other reason to vote for it. Oh, unless Obama is also supporting establishing secret courts. That's the other thing it does.
Is the goal to express disgust? Or to make someone lose? Those aren't the goals. The goal is to give the power to those who would use it properly, to select a prsident, and to decide which parties have enough support to be given the recognition and funding to participate in the debate.
Any party that gets 5% of the vote gets federal funding and is likely to be in the debates. Since 50% of the people don't vote at all, that's a lot of potential for the green or libertarian parties to get noticed. Heck, if those 50% just voted completely randomly, it would be a landslide change in politics.
With a VPN, the ISP can't tell the IP addresses you are connecting to. Nice try though.
That's not all.
US Constitution, Article 2, Section 2.
The President...he shall have power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Congress can't grant a pardon. So is it okay if they pass a law that says "well... anyone who did something illegal, and was asked by the president, during a specified time, and has 2 T's and an A and an and sign in there name did not actually commit a crime in the first place." --- Is that not a pardon?
I'm old enough to remember when the republican party was the conservative party. Maybe about 8 years ago or so.
Obama will be heavily attacked this fall for any appearance of being 'soft' on terrorism.
The real mistake here is that they have failed to communicate with the public. This bill does not help counter-terrorism, but they never seemed to have even tried to send that message. They live in a world of neocon spin, and by accepting it they trap themselves.