In Natapof's article about the advantages of the electoral college, he sites an interesting example about baseball games. He says that the Pirates won the world series over the Yankees 4-3, but that the Yankees had more home runs that year - and nobody complained that the Yankees should have won. This example is supposed to represent that the electoral college, but it is a very weak argument
People are not like home runs. Home runs are just one aspect of the game, and some home runs are worth more than others. A home run against a weaker team means nothing when it comes down to the world series. Is Mr Natapof trying to tell me that my Maryland vote is worth less than a Florida vote?
He also sites that the electoral system manages to increase voting power by applying a larger value to a winning vote in a close state. If my state wins 51% for candidate X, and 49% for candidate Y, then X gets all the electoral votes. This makes votes more powerful. But he neglects to mention that it makes candidate X votes stronger at the expense of votes for Y.
A better analogy is a more scientific one. Imagine a student measures 2.25ml of fluid in one experiment, and 1.1ml in another. If they round up the total is 3ml + 2ml = 5ml. Do we say this is a more accurate measure than proper rounding of 2ml+1ml = 3ml? Votes are more like fluid, rounded for convenience -- but we cannot lose accuracy. This is a scientific process!
My proposal is that the electoral college stay, but that the votes be given out proportionally. If Florida gets a 51-49 with 21 electoral votes, then the electoral should be given out 11-10. This would decrease the likelihood of electoral votes not matching popular vote, while mantaining the mathematical and political conveniences of the current system. (which I won't delve into now...)
I just talked to some co-workers as soon as I got in this morning. Our project manager (highly intelligent) didn't feel informed enough to vote. But a strongly opinionated, not too bright employee immediately anounced that they voted all one party, and were proud of it. It isn't the non-voters that are the problem, it is the completely partisan ones.
During the conversation, I announced that I looked up our senators voting record, and quoted a few "interesting" votes... the partisan voter's response was "I know where they all stand." Sure -- if you know their party, then you know their opinions, right? How naive...how frustrating...
> This project is then suspected by MS... but it would take illegal reverse engineering or a
> court warrent to confirm... thus another downfall to MS.
Since when was reverse engineering illegal? What country would have jurisdiction anyway?
Let me ask a question from a coder's standpoint: how do I write code to perform operations on a high-frequency 1-bit sample? I can write code to lowpass, highpass, bass boost, mix, compress... 16-bit audio easily. But what happens when I have to write my.S3M player to do these effects on a 1-bit sample? Even if the format is technically superior, I think it may be too hard for the amateur to work with for it to be useful.
But I have yet to really get good info. Sure, tech specs and algorithms are a turn on, but not a sale. Where is the MPEG of it walking around someones house?
The only way sony offers to get detailed specs is to sign up. Is it me, or is this ridiculous? When was the last time you had to give your name address and phone number to a store before they let you shop there? Why would Sony be interesting in turning people away like this? It seems like they are hiding the real info because product isn't half as good as the specs.
This is a question posed by a Linux-wannabe who really knows nothing:
Does Linux have a max # of file handles, after which new handles cannot be created?
Let me pose this another way -- Can I crash a Linux box by opening a whole lot of files? Or is this daemon run as root? Then the new question is why is a daemon that has the capability to automatically update critical software, running as root? Surely it could be spoofed to update a system with poor DLLs?
To a Linux newby, this whole article sounds very scary.
The final results here look like the old RDRAM tests - slower sometimes, faster other times, with no real conclusion. People gave up on RDRAM because it didn't deliver what it promised, results varied, and price was too high.
But these results make no sense. DDR has the same latency, higher bandwidth, but results in speed increases from -5% to +6%? It should be consistently faster, never slower
Intel is behind behind behind in IA-64. MS is releasing their latests compiler soon MSVC 7. No IA-64 support. GCC has no IA-64 support. What about drivers, that need to be written in an assembly that noone knows? Normally, those things take time. With IA-64, it will take 5 times longer than usual due to the insane architecture difference. Intel will need to do much hand holding to prevent alienating x86 developers.
AMD has managed to address some of the major issues without causing major issues. The architecture is a logical next step, not a crazy throw-it-out-the-window change. Many people would love a re-engineering, since it really is time. But 8 more registers, 64-bit support, and a few tidy-ups and we are in business. With technology, simplicity wins most of the time since it is cheaper and easier.
The big question is "Can AMD release this before Intel steals the idea and make their own version?":)
VHS won out because "The cartridge was smaller" thus easier. IA-64 is a behemoth, and the timetable doesn't look good.
My preferred news format is for the media to give us the facts, and let the people discuss it. That's why Slashdot is great. The little opinions tacked onto the articles are annoying, and this one went too far. Sadly, Commander Taco even said that he posted it! "This has no relevance, but I'm abusing Slashdot to say..." If it had no relevance, why did you say it?
From the comments thus far, it seems that this will is of more concern to readers that the actual article. That just shows how innappropriate it is.
I thought ZDNet was a 10+ year old large media company putting out a dozen print magazines with significant online resources and ad revenue. And that CNET is a 2 year old startup trying to make money off web banners.
Is it truly necessary to release open sourced drivers? Or is it just necessary to release good drivers? Cant binary drivers be made compatible across Linux distros? If not, it seems like this is something that is truly necessary.
How different is *BSD from Linux as far as drivers go? Is it REALLY that hard to recompile drivers to make everyone happy?
Don't just stop at speaking out against the bill - speak out against those who wrote it. I plan on looking up the members of the commitee who brought this up and find who tacked the rider on. Doesn't anyone publish this stuff? I'd love to see the Washington Post list each congress member, their voting record, and how many riders they attached to bills. THAT would affect my vote.
The problem here is that there are no details. The article indicates that Rambus has a patent on some technology that was already in use 10 years ago. It also hints that they participated in open discussions then walked out of the discussions and patented what the consortium came up with.
Problem is, we don't really know. Any enterprising individual want to lookup the patent and translate it for us Slashdotters? Until we get those details, we cannot make an informed evaluation.
I didn't know that open source code meant anything except that the code was released? Since when was a project not open source if it had a specification, and went through bugtesting?
I currently work at a company that spent 40% of the development cycle on documentation, and will spend 20% on testing when the development team completes. So if we release the source code, it's no good?
Point is, just because it is open source doesn't mean you cannot do these things.
Intel understands memory latency. 5 years ago, back when they had control, they started talking new architecture. In the first draft spec for a 64bit VLIW chip, they included special instructions for minimizing memory latency. Merced includes an instruction to prefetch a memory page based on an instruction that has yet to be executed. One step beyond branch prediction, they wanted memory prediction. They goal was to blow away the competition by making memory latency a thing of the past, and making bandwidth the issue. Everybody would have to rethink design, and Intel would be ahead.
In this spirit, Intel backed Rambus, knowing full well that it would be slower to start. The idea is to use their industry control to fill the market with Rambus. When Merced comes out, the base is already laid for high bandwidth high latency memory. With a chip where latency is no longer an issue, Intel would be king.
I doubt it will work. Rambus has had technical problems in addition to performance problems. Intel is no longer unquestioned king, so they cannot force the market like they originally planned. When Merced comes out, and Rambus is not ready, they will fall behind.
I'm amazed at how quickly people jump to the defense of Linux by saying it has more overhead, and doesn't let the game have total system control. I thought Windows was huge and bloated! I thought it could never be as efficient as Linux, in terms of CPU time given to an application -vs- OS overhead. I read that distributed.net clients ran faster in Linux than Windows! This reminds me of the Mindcraft scenario, where noone could live up to Linux having a flaw. (In that case, the IP stack)
That having been said, the lesson we need to fess up to is that if Linux is to compete on the desktop, development in these areas needs to progress. Microsoft is behind in servers, and reliability. Linux is behind on the desktop. Both are working toward improving in the strengths of the other.
Business can prioritize, attack, and resolve. Open source must do the same. If we continue to cop-out the problem will not be solved, and open source will get a scar for being unwilling(not unable) to see the big picture.
They are VERY interested in the legal aspects, and having seen how they ranked NSI, I may just be switching registrars.
Anyone else get paranoid over the little ownership and transferrence clauses? I sure as heck am not interested giving someone else the right to revoke my domain!
Actually, I find this review incredibly timely. I am trying to get a good 3D + tv in + DVD + vidcapt board. Tie seems to be between a Matrox G400-TV and an ASUS V6800. The problem is the ASUS uses a GeForce 256, which is definitely superior to a G400. But the Matrox card is the only card I've seen listed (other than the Ati all-in-wonder) that has _good_ TV in support.
*1)* > Any process of copying involves a decode step and an encode step... Only if you wish to segment it. Not disagreeing, just clarifying.
*2)* Can you segment without deCSS? Even without decoding the file, could you split it up? If you can get structural info without decoding the frames, then it is no problem. How much can you read of a DVD without decrypting?
I'm sorry to disagree with the vehement sentiment here, but I agree with the guy. Not in general now, but in this interview. The problem is that we asked the wrong questions.
In the case of iCraveTV, who can diagree with him? iCraveTV is taking copyrighted material, and broadband distributing it without a license. That is, without question, illegal. TV and radio stations cannot deliver whatever they like, only what they pay for. Remember that nice little "FBI Warning" that shows at the beginning of VCR tapes? That says that the owner is licensed for personal use, not distribution. The same applies to TV and radio broadcasts.
A more reasonable question is about DeCSS. He seems to want to legitimately distribute movies, but does not recognize the need to allow people to write playback software. I doubt he realizes that that there are people who cannot get playback software because of CSS. Put it in terms Jack Valentini understands: Do you know how many millions of Linux users cannot see these movies because of CSS? Do you know that you can copy movies without CSS, and that DeCSS only opens up a new market? Let him respond to that. These people must understand that DeCSS does not make them lose money, but helps them to make it. But when the hacker mentality surrounds it, they cannot hear the clear facts.
Here is the question that hit the nail on the head: "How do you propose to stop 'pilfering?'" I don't know.
This question refers to the larger issue of Internet distrubtion, and that is a legit answer. How do you allow for legal, copyrighted content distribution, without piracy? If I may coin a phrase, that is the "The Internet Dilemma." Noone is quite sure. We can talk about PKI and encryption, but we just don't know. And whoever can DEFINITIVELY answer this, will solve a monstrous problem.
Slashdot Mirror
In Natapof's article about the advantages of the electoral college, he sites an interesting example about baseball games. He says that the Pirates won the world series over the Yankees 4-3, but that the Yankees had more home runs that year - and nobody complained that the Yankees should have won. This example is supposed to represent that the electoral college, but it is a very weak argument
People are not like home runs. Home runs are just one aspect of the game, and some home runs are worth more than others. A home run against a weaker team means nothing when it comes down to the world series. Is Mr Natapof trying to tell me that my Maryland vote is worth less than a Florida vote?
He also sites that the electoral system manages to increase voting power by applying a larger value to a winning vote in a close state. If my state wins 51% for candidate X, and 49% for candidate Y, then X gets all the electoral votes. This makes votes more powerful. But he neglects to mention that it makes candidate X votes stronger at the expense of votes for Y.
A better analogy is a more scientific one. Imagine a student measures 2.25ml of fluid in one experiment, and 1.1ml in another. If they round up the total is 3ml + 2ml = 5ml. Do we say this is a more accurate measure than proper rounding of 2ml+1ml = 3ml? Votes are more like fluid, rounded for convenience -- but we cannot lose accuracy. This is a scientific process!
My proposal is that the electoral college stay, but that the votes be given out proportionally. If Florida gets a 51-49 with 21 electoral votes, then the electoral should be given out 11-10. This would decrease the likelihood of electoral votes not matching popular vote, while mantaining the mathematical and political conveniences of the current system. (which I won't delve into now...)
During the conversation, I announced that I looked up our senators voting record, and quoted a few "interesting" votes... the partisan voter's response was "I know where they all stand." Sure -- if you know their party, then you know their opinions, right? How naive...how frustrating...
> This project is then suspected by MS ... but it would take illegal reverse engineering or a
... thus another downfall to MS.
> court warrent to confirm
Since when was reverse engineering illegal? What country would have jurisdiction anyway?
MPEGs are cool, but does anyone know where I can find a transcript?
I love these phony questions. Would anyone answer yes to a question asking if misuse is okay? Clearly, the question answers itself!
Let me ask a question from a coder's standpoint: how do I write code to perform operations on a high-frequency 1-bit sample? I can write code to lowpass, highpass, bass boost, mix, compress... 16-bit audio easily. But what happens when I have to write my .S3M player to do these effects on a 1-bit sample? Even if the format is technically superior, I think it may be too hard for the amateur to work with for it to be useful.
But I have yet to really get good info. Sure, tech specs and algorithms are a turn on, but not a sale. Where is the MPEG of it walking around someones house?
The only way sony offers to get detailed specs is to sign up. Is it me, or is this ridiculous? When was the last time you had to give your name address and phone number to a store before they let you shop there? Why would Sony be interesting in turning people away like this? It seems like they are hiding the real info because product isn't half as good as the specs.
This is a question posed by a Linux-wannabe who really knows nothing:
Does Linux have a max # of file handles, after which new handles cannot be created?
Let me pose this another way -- Can I crash a Linux box by opening a whole lot of files? Or is this daemon run as root? Then the new question is why is a daemon that has the capability to automatically update critical software, running as root? Surely it could be spoofed to update a system with poor DLLs?
To a Linux newby, this whole article sounds very scary.
The final results here look like the old RDRAM tests - slower sometimes, faster other times, with no real conclusion. People gave up on RDRAM because it didn't deliver what it promised, results varied, and price was too high.
But these results make no sense. DDR has the same latency, higher bandwidth, but results in speed increases from -5% to +6%? It should be consistently faster, never slower
Intel is behind behind behind in IA-64. MS is releasing their latests compiler soon MSVC 7. No IA-64 support. GCC has no IA-64 support. What about drivers, that need to be written in an assembly that noone knows? Normally, those things take time. With IA-64, it will take 5 times longer than usual due to the insane architecture difference. Intel will need to do much hand holding to prevent alienating x86 developers.
:)
AMD has managed to address some of the major issues without causing major issues. The architecture is a logical next step, not a crazy throw-it-out-the-window change. Many people would love a re-engineering, since it really is time. But 8 more registers, 64-bit support, and a few tidy-ups and we are in business. With technology, simplicity wins most of the time since it is cheaper and easier.
The big question is "Can AMD release this before Intel steals the idea and make their own version?"
VHS won out because "The cartridge was smaller" thus easier. IA-64 is a behemoth, and the timetable doesn't look good.
The article seems like a rant - no details. What were the charges? Why do they not know his exact bail?
My preferred news format is for the media to give us the facts, and let the people discuss it. That's why Slashdot is great. The little opinions tacked onto the articles are annoying, and this one went too far. Sadly, Commander Taco even said that he posted it! "This has no relevance, but I'm abusing Slashdot to say..." If it had no relevance, why did you say it?
From the comments thus far, it seems that this will is of more concern to readers that the actual article. That just shows how innappropriate it is.
I was about to install Ultimate Bulletin Board on there! Whoever took it down is the ultimate definition of loser.
1 M A KEWL HAXOR. I TOOK DOWN THIS SITE WITH MICRO$OFT TELNET! THE ULTIMATE IN HAXORING DOOD! PHEAR ME!
I thought ZDNet was a 10+ year old large media company putting out a dozen print magazines with significant online resources and ad revenue. And that CNET is a 2 year old startup trying to make money off web banners.
How did this happen?
Is it truly necessary to release open sourced drivers? Or is it just necessary to release good drivers? Cant binary drivers be made compatible across Linux distros? If not, it seems like this is something that is truly necessary.
How different is *BSD from Linux as far as drivers go? Is it REALLY that hard to recompile drivers to make everyone happy?
Don't just stop at speaking out against the bill - speak out against those who wrote it. I plan on looking up the members of the commitee who brought this up and find who tacked the rider on. Doesn't anyone publish this stuff? I'd love to see the Washington Post list each congress member, their voting record, and how many riders they attached to bills. THAT would affect my vote.
The problem here is that there are no details. The article indicates that Rambus has a patent on some technology that was already in use 10 years ago. It also hints that they participated in open discussions then walked out of the discussions and patented what the consortium came up with.
Problem is, we don't really know. Any enterprising individual want to lookup the patent and translate it for us Slashdotters? Until we get those details, we cannot make an informed evaluation.
I've been tellign AOL users this stuff sucked for years! Just change darnit! (See: free-market-economy)
I didn't know that open source code meant anything except that the code was released? Since when was a project not open source if it had a specification, and went through bugtesting?
I currently work at a company that spent 40% of the development cycle on documentation, and will spend 20% on testing when the development team completes. So if we release the source code, it's no good?
Point is, just because it is open source doesn't mean you cannot do these things.
Intel understands memory latency. 5 years ago, back when they had control, they started talking new architecture. In the first draft spec for a 64bit VLIW chip, they included special instructions for minimizing memory latency. Merced includes an instruction to prefetch a memory page based on an instruction that has yet to be executed. One step beyond branch prediction, they wanted memory prediction. They goal was to blow away the competition by making memory latency a thing of the past, and making bandwidth the issue. Everybody would have to rethink design, and Intel would be ahead.
In this spirit, Intel backed Rambus, knowing full well that it would be slower to start. The idea is to use their industry control to fill the market with Rambus. When Merced comes out, the base is already laid for high bandwidth high latency memory. With a chip where latency is no longer an issue, Intel would be king.
I doubt it will work. Rambus has had technical problems in addition to performance problems. Intel is no longer unquestioned king, so they cannot force the market like they originally planned. When Merced comes out, and Rambus is not ready, they will fall behind.
I'm amazed at how quickly people jump to the defense of Linux by saying it has more overhead, and doesn't let the game have total system control. I thought Windows was huge and bloated! I thought it could never be as efficient as Linux, in terms of CPU time given to an application -vs- OS overhead. I read that distributed.net clients ran faster in Linux than Windows! This reminds me of the Mindcraft scenario, where noone could live up to Linux having a flaw. (In that case, the IP stack)
That having been said, the lesson we need to fess up to is that if Linux is to compete on the desktop, development in these areas needs to progress. Microsoft is behind in servers, and reliability. Linux is behind on the desktop. Both are working toward improving in the strengths of the other.
Business can prioritize, attack, and resolve. Open source must do the same. If we continue to cop-out the problem will not be solved, and open source will get a scar for being unwilling(not unable) to see the big picture.
They are VERY interested in the legal aspects, and having seen how they ranked NSI, I may just be switching registrars.
Anyone else get paranoid over the little ownership and transferrence clauses? I sure as heck am not interested giving someone else the right to revoke my domain!
Actually, I find this review incredibly timely. I am trying to get a good 3D + tv in + DVD + vidcapt board. Tie seems to be between a Matrox G400-TV and an ASUS V6800. The problem is the ASUS uses a GeForce 256, which is definitely superior to a G400. But the Matrox card is the only card I've seen listed (other than the Ati all-in-wonder) that has _good_ TV in support.
*1)*
> Any process of copying involves a decode step and an encode step...
Only if you wish to segment it. Not disagreeing, just clarifying.
*2)*
Can you segment without deCSS? Even without decoding the file, could you split it up? If you can get structural info without decoding the frames, then it is no problem. How much can you read of a DVD without decrypting?
I'm sorry to disagree with the vehement sentiment here, but I agree with the guy. Not in general now, but in this interview. The problem is that we asked the wrong questions.
In the case of iCraveTV, who can diagree with him? iCraveTV is taking copyrighted material, and broadband distributing it without a license. That is, without question, illegal. TV and radio stations cannot deliver whatever they like, only what they pay for. Remember that nice little "FBI Warning" that shows at the beginning of VCR tapes? That says that the owner is licensed for personal use, not distribution. The same applies to TV and radio broadcasts.
A more reasonable question is about DeCSS. He seems to want to legitimately distribute movies, but does not recognize the need to allow people to write playback software. I doubt he realizes that that there are people who cannot get playback software because of CSS. Put it in terms Jack Valentini understands: Do you know how many millions of Linux users cannot see these movies because of CSS? Do you know that you can copy movies without CSS, and that DeCSS only opens up a new market? Let him respond to that. These people must understand that DeCSS does not make them lose money, but helps them to make it. But when the hacker mentality surrounds it, they cannot hear the clear facts.
Here is the question that hit the nail on the head:
"How do you propose to stop 'pilfering?'"
I don't know.
This question refers to the larger issue of Internet distrubtion, and that is a legit answer. How do you allow for legal, copyrighted content distribution, without piracy? If I may coin a phrase, that is the "The Internet Dilemma." Noone is quite sure. We can talk about PKI and encryption, but we just don't know. And whoever can DEFINITIVELY answer this, will solve a monstrous problem.