No raster is involved in holography - you get the whole image at once. Of course, with generating the holo pattern that produces the interference you need to generate the 'pixels', but that won't involve the laser. As to colors, it's not that hard - tune the laser and the hologram to the right frequency.
Thet said the big problem was generating the holo pattern quick enough - and this is where they say they outsmarted the previous methods. The rest of the problems are probably technical. Let's hope they will have low-cost solutions, too.
Dude, the NVidia name for the latest cards is in the 6k range (and $400+ price range right now). You're either looped from the future or got some funny vendor rebranded stuff. Judging from the rest of your specs, the first choice is more likely if they fit the $500 bill.
Actually, this is the idea. The interface with the kernel is open source; the closed source code is a binary object that gets linked into the module. Sorry, user mode doesn't really make much sense here, drivers need full hw access and context switching to a different privilege level would only hurt performance.
The rest is pretty much trolling, at this level. NVidia has been so far quite open source friendly when it comes to producing drivers. But I guess there will always be people to complain. Me, I'm happy NVidia has drivers for platforms where theirs is the only accelerated choice, like amd64. Others would say the same about IA64, or FreeBSD. Windows and Linux on x86 aren't the only games in town, you know.
Finally, how do you know they don't stand to lose something by making the drivers fully open source? look only at the whole 12 pipelines vs. 16 pipelines thing going on between the latest NV and ATI cards, with last minute info prompting new cards on both sides. If NVidia releases drivers for their last generation of cards that take the competition a couple of months to disassemble and analyze, they might keep the edge long enough to move on.
Some nitpicking first, as you seem pretty confusing (if not confused):
Software is a process, done physically by a machine.
really, now! Software is a set of instructions. What the GP meant is (I presume) that you can emulate the effect of executing those instructions on a cpu, in your head - very slowly indeed, but that's not the point.
Software and programming is not a feild of technology. It is a feild of mathematics.
This is a pure statement of your opinion, and many many many people would argue you (and win) wrong.
This is a big confusing point. In most industries, the 'research' part and the 'implementation' part are treated separately. The first one is science, the second is engineering. The software industry choses to blur the line between 'computer science' and 'software engineering' to serve their benefits. Thus, while coming up with, say, a better crypto algorithm, belongs to applied math, implementing it belongs to programming.
This leads to the main line of inquiry: which part of the software is being patented, the science one? the engineering one? both? The accepted rule was supposed to be that pure science does not get patented, as that would block scientific progress. This is quite blurred in applied science, which is what makes the debate open.
The other point about software patents is the dynamics of the software field. History showed several times that active fields become stagnant when burdened with long-term patents - a short-term patent system is better for the market, as it forces the inventor to move forward instead of encouraging the current 'patent pooling and litigating' business model.
Whoever modded the parent troll is either a smoker or quite dumb. The GP is the troll here, if anyone is. Complaining that people you're actively hurting with your habits discriminate against you, ah, the injustice!
Actually, on 0.8 it works for links opened in a new window and it doesn't for links opened in a new frame (the secunia injected frame gets its own window/tab).
Well, the bottom line seems to be that a lower level of paranoia for Mozilla users w.r.t. IE ones is a reasonable assumption (it better be, Konqueror is not quite there yet ^_^). I do wish they will get a reasonable signing scheme working with Firefox extensions by the time they reach 1.0 though.
Yes indeed. And anyone else would have carefully made sure that you needed to use that support, too.
this parses as if most/all the other packagers of OSS are just selling crippled versions that you need to continuously support... that does not make much sense. The 'good, low-mantenance server software solution' called Samba (for instance) is the same once properly configured, whether packaged by Apple or some Linux distro.
The population of people who are unwilling to pay an extra $1000 for a good, low-mantenance server software solution tend to be the people who make their own $400 servers. (And then get confused when they die.)
I call bullshit on this one. Most of the times (there are exceptions on everything in nature) the do-it-yourself procedure teaches you more than a nice out-of-the-box setup. You'll get confused for a while by new problems in any field, but you learn to solve them (and get some understanding in the process) and move on. Of course, when you have a support line, you never get confused - you get busy calling the support people. Ignorance is bliss. Pray for no security holes ^_^
Now, I'm not saying a nicely set up server with good defaults is not a boon - it sure is, at least for getting started up. Sooner or later, there will always be that screwy special case that requires your getting down and dirty with the configuration settings, but the initial learning curve will be less steep. My argument was rather that a cheaper, unsupported and uncrippled version is really helpful for people that want to learn the ropes. Apple has a grasp of this with edu discounts on desktops, but apparently the servers won't qualify. With Linux, all the distros give you the server packages, some sane defaults and let you go from there, no strings attached. You do get to pay for support, which is something commercial entities are interested in (you should know since you stated being in IT - the need to have someone to point the finger at if things go wrong).
As a side note, not all the people who roll their own are cheapos - lots of large corporate networks have too weird quirks for the (otherwise sane) defaults of their servers to work, so they do in-house configuring and support.
Those willing to spend some money on the server will get X Serves anyway.
Take this statement on its own and see whether you understand how funny it is. Heck, take it in context too. Here's a clue: XServe is not a proven platform yet. See how any server platform that does not have the economy of scale Wintel has had trouble starting up (Linux is the glaring example, until the industry heavyweights started promoting it, it was just a geek toy; *BSD still is to some extent, just because of lack of high-profile commercial support.) Out there Macs are not a majority by any measure and no intelligent CTO will go out and buy XServe just because it hip OSX lineage. It's called best tool for the job under given circumstances.
In short, XServe is not a born winner (nor a born loser, either, but that's not the point). The loyal Mac fans are mostly desktop users, so unless Apple offers some really sweet deals it will have a hard time getting any kind of server market share. Right now, Windows and Linux are the growing server businesses. If Windows integration is a norm and Apple does it with OSS software, then there's not net gain against Linux here (Apple is not the only company smart enough to make efficient config tools, and you're not going to need reconfiguring your servers every other day). And, for that matter, I fail to see why a headless Samba server would need OSX - I could just as well use FreeBSD and have more freedom (and less worry). Or [insert commercial Linux vendor here] for support.
There is no record of any such vulnerability in Firefox...
gee, that makes me feel so much better. Sounds like MS saying that there's no danger until they release a patch (mix a little truth in to make the main fallacy less obvious).
... it simply does not work that way
now that started to sound like the beginning of something... unfortunately it ended before the argument was stated.
[/nitpicking]
the point here would be whether one can bypass the normal install procedure to put a malicious... something (extensions come to mind) in the appropriate mozilla folder. Not proven yet does not mean not possible in general.
A config front-end hardly qualifies as 'tons of value'. Since the heavy lifting is done by free software, they're in the same league with Linux distros here. Which means the big money should be for support, not for the install CD.
Anyone else would have charged something like the desktop price + about $100 for the extra integration for the bare system software and add a premium for support. Apple being Apple, the premium is already in the baseline (and you get a limited number of clients as a perk). Unfortunately, this mentality will only enforce a marketshare cap for OSX Server.
If the picture is anything to judge by, each card has only one power connector. It makes sense, if you think the 2 connector cards are actually the overclocked versions. This way you can use a lower clock for more performance.
Also, keep in mind, this is for workstations so far, so think dual cpu boards, 2-4 hdd raid config and so on). The overall power requirements will add up anyway so you could probably hit something like 600-700W overall.
no-no, you only do it once - I should have made it clearer, no ba/k/tcsh script. Otherwise there's no net ain over the OP's solution of deleting in.bashrc. you don't want to worry abbout email AT ALL, right?
(besides,.bashrc gets sourced way too often to be efficient here).
Who's paying for the RMA? if the natural life span of the pins is about 8 insertions (as the mobo producers seem to claim), then there would be a large number of legitimate breakages that get sent back to the mobo manufacturer. Now, they can either replace the CPU socket (not very funny, I think) or throw away the whole mobo, including the rest of the perfectly good components on it[*]. As oppose do just discarding a defective CPU if its pins break.
[*]like the spankin' new and expensive Intel chipsets. I doubt $150 will happen anytime soon as a mobo price, as even the chipset estimated price seems to be above that. I also doubt mobo manufacturers getting too many returns due to bent socket pins will be very happy about all this - remember, their margins are quite slim these days. The least hurt by this is probably going to be Intel itself.
Your AMD jab is a troll. As far as they stated so far, the Opteron socket stays put for the foreseeable future (meaning at least one year). They will have no incentive to move to a pinless package unless it shows some solid advantage. Even Intel might have to back down on this if the hw producers get to unhappy (and they already have enough grief with the BTX form factor).
Finally - pins break. It's called mechanical stress. How many times do you think you can 'carefully' insert and remove a CPU in its socket before some pin gives in? At least, for the old sockets, all you had to do is match pins and holes ; now, with only point contacts, bending can come so much easier.
Well, I'm not sure VCR users will be affected. Technically, that would have been an infreingement even without this and the present attitude doesn't have to change. On the other hand, here's something that won't offend most consumers, but might hit/. readers hard in the head. The bill says:
Intentional Inducement of Infringement.-Whoever intentionally induces any violation identified in subsection (a) of this section shall be liable as an infringer.
In subsection (g), "intentionally induces" means intentionally aids, abets, induces, counsels, or procures
Well, if you thought the DeCSS lawsuits were frivolous, you're in for a new type. This would effectively ban the LAME-type projects that are source-only in order to avoid copyright infringement. Yep - you're 'inducing' violations by providing a means to distribute illegal copies of copyright materials. What about audio rippers? Well, if they can be inducing violations, they're infringing. Forget about fair use. All you need to ban some product is an example of its use for copyright infringement and a benevolent judge that would accept some broader definition for 'intentional'.
Also, this will be a generalized ban for any devices non-compliant with future equivalents of the broadcast flag in other fields. Maybe even selling the old non-compliant devices, as they're sure to be used for an infringing purpose.
I hope I'm wrong, but remember, if the wording of the law allows it, sooner or later someone WILL use it.
combining the idea of the electromagnetic photon with the hypothetical graviton
'light' is not just the photon. Look at the elevtroweak theory - the photon is the result of breaking the symmetry of a higher-order field. You can in principle add the graviton to this, but to start to observe whether your toy model actually means anything you'd have to go past the symmetry-breaking point in energy. Meaning not in your lifetime, and that's being fairly optimistic.
Most likely it will also do away with the idea of particles in favor of waves as a concept for modelling.
Nonsense. To even observe anything you need interactions, which are particle-like wavefunctin collapses. 'Waves' and 'particles' are eigenstates of operators with incompatible symmetries (aka non-commuting). Unless you do away with the position operator (and hence with space) you're stuck with a valid particle picture; similarly, you'd have to do away with momentum to get rid of the wave picture.
A wave-model in this way would only represent the phenomena that can be predicted using it.
well, duh. Also, bear in mind that mass is still an open question - the Higgs hasn't been positively observed yet.
This puts inertia in a rather new light, and when I figure out how that works, I'm sure I'll reach enlightment.
Inertia can be trivially connected to the wave picture. It means conservation of momentum, which is to say preserving the symmetry of the momentum space (wave picture). To break that symmetry you need an interaction, which in terms of classical physics is represented by a force. Mass should come from the coupling constant for that interaction (the question being understanding the how's). There, are you half-way to enlightnment already?
move your particle as far as you like - this is the information carrying process, as you carry the information about the state of the total system
make a measurement on your particle and 'know' the state of the other - this is just your prior knowledge of the total system; also, note that at this step you disentangled the system, so any further attempts to guess states at the other end are meaningless from either side
Actually no. There are 2 steps to the process: the 'teleportation' one (collapsing the remote state) and the 'turtle' one (tell the other party what result you measured so that he can rotate his collapsed state to the right one). The second phase is the actual information transmission and it's slower-than-light. Also, you can't skip it by 'guessing', as the possible values for the collapsed state do not even form an orthogonal state[*]. Sorry.
[*] for 2-state particles (simplest case), the measurement of the unknown+transmitter system has 4 possible outcomes, so the receiver can be in one of 4 states in a 2d space => non orthogonal, there's no measurement that will preserve all of them simultaneously, hence there's no knowing whether you destroyed the state or not by only measuring the receiver.
Slashdot Mirror
No raster is involved in holography - you get the whole image at once. Of course, with generating the holo pattern that produces the interference you need to generate the 'pixels', but that won't involve the laser. As to colors, it's not that hard - tune the laser and the hologram to the right frequency.
Thet said the big problem was generating the holo pattern quick enough - and this is where they say they outsmarted the previous methods. The rest of the problems are probably technical. Let's hope they will have low-cost solutions, too.
Dude, the NVidia name for the latest cards is in the 6k range (and $400+ price range right now). You're either looped from the future or got some funny vendor rebranded stuff. Judging from the rest of your specs, the first choice is more likely if they fit the $500 bill.
Actually, this is the idea. The interface with the kernel is open source; the closed source code is a binary object that gets linked into the module. Sorry, user mode doesn't really make much sense here, drivers need full hw access and context switching to a different privilege level would only hurt performance.
The rest is pretty much trolling, at this level. NVidia has been so far quite open source friendly when it comes to producing drivers. But I guess there will always be people to complain. Me, I'm happy NVidia has drivers for platforms where theirs is the only accelerated choice, like amd64. Others would say the same about IA64, or FreeBSD. Windows and Linux on x86 aren't the only games in town, you know.
Finally, how do you know they don't stand to lose something by making the drivers fully open source? look only at the whole 12 pipelines vs. 16 pipelines thing going on between the latest NV and ATI cards, with last minute info prompting new cards on both sides. If NVidia releases drivers for their last generation of cards that take the competition a couple of months to disassemble and analyze, they might keep the edge long enough to move on.
Some nitpicking first, as you seem pretty confusing (if not confused):
Software is a process, done physically by a machine.
really, now! Software is a set of instructions. What the GP meant is (I presume) that you can emulate the effect of executing those instructions on a cpu, in your head - very slowly indeed, but that's not the point.
Software and programming is not a feild of technology. It is a feild of mathematics.
This is a pure statement of your opinion, and many many many people would argue you (and win) wrong.
This is a big confusing point. In most industries, the 'research' part and the 'implementation' part are treated separately. The first one is science, the second is engineering. The software industry choses to blur the line between 'computer science' and 'software engineering' to serve their benefits. Thus, while coming up with, say, a better crypto algorithm, belongs to applied math, implementing it belongs to programming.
This leads to the main line of inquiry: which part of the software is being patented, the science one? the engineering one? both? The accepted rule was supposed to be that pure science does not get patented, as that would block scientific progress. This is quite blurred in applied science, which is what makes the debate open.
The other point about software patents is the dynamics of the software field. History showed several times that active fields become stagnant when burdened with long-term patents - a short-term patent system is better for the market, as it forces the inventor to move forward instead of encouraging the current 'patent pooling and litigating' business model.
Whoever modded the parent troll is either a smoker or quite dumb. The GP is the troll here, if anyone is. Complaining that people you're actively hurting with your habits discriminate against you, ah, the injustice!
Actually, on 0.8 it works for links opened in a new window and it doesn't for links opened in a new frame (the secunia injected frame gets its own window/tab).
Well, the bottom line seems to be that a lower level of paranoia for Mozilla users w.r.t. IE ones is a reasonable assumption (it better be, Konqueror is not quite there yet ^_^). I do wish they will get a reasonable signing scheme working with Firefox extensions by the time they reach 1.0 though.
Yes indeed. And anyone else would have carefully made sure that you needed to use that support, too.
... that does not make much sense. The 'good, low-mantenance server software solution' called Samba (for instance) is the same once properly configured, whether packaged by Apple or some Linux distro.
this parses as if most/all the other packagers of OSS are just selling crippled versions that you need to continuously support
The population of people who are unwilling to pay an extra $1000 for a good, low-mantenance server software solution tend to be the people who make their own $400 servers. (And then get confused when they die.)
I call bullshit on this one. Most of the times (there are exceptions on everything in nature) the do-it-yourself procedure teaches you more than a nice out-of-the-box setup. You'll get confused for a while by new problems in any field, but you learn to solve them (and get some understanding in the process) and move on. Of course, when you have a support line, you never get confused - you get busy calling the support people. Ignorance is bliss. Pray for no security holes ^_^
Now, I'm not saying a nicely set up server with good defaults is not a boon - it sure is, at least for getting started up. Sooner or later, there will always be that screwy special case that requires your getting down and dirty with the configuration settings, but the initial learning curve will be less steep. My argument was rather that a cheaper, unsupported and uncrippled version is really helpful for people that want to learn the ropes. Apple has a grasp of this with edu discounts on desktops, but apparently the servers won't qualify. With Linux, all the distros give you the server packages, some sane defaults and let you go from there, no strings attached. You do get to pay for support, which is something commercial entities are interested in (you should know since you stated being in IT - the need to have someone to point the finger at if things go wrong).
As a side note, not all the people who roll their own are cheapos - lots of large corporate networks have too weird quirks for the (otherwise sane) defaults of their servers to work, so they do in-house configuring and support.
Those willing to spend some money on the server will get X Serves anyway.
Take this statement on its own and see whether you understand how funny it is. Heck, take it in context too. Here's a clue: XServe is not a proven platform yet. See how any server platform that does not have the economy of scale Wintel has had trouble starting up (Linux is the glaring example, until the industry heavyweights started promoting it, it was just a geek toy; *BSD still is to some extent, just because of lack of high-profile commercial support.) Out there Macs are not a majority by any measure and no intelligent CTO will go out and buy XServe just because it hip OSX lineage. It's called best tool for the job under given circumstances.
In short, XServe is not a born winner (nor a born loser, either, but that's not the point). The loyal Mac fans are mostly desktop users, so unless Apple offers some really sweet deals it will have a hard time getting any kind of server market share. Right now, Windows and Linux are the growing server businesses. If Windows integration is a norm and Apple does it with OSS software, then there's not net gain against Linux here (Apple is not the only company smart enough to make efficient config tools, and you're not going to need reconfiguring your servers every other day). And, for that matter, I fail to see why a headless Samba server would need OSX - I could just as well use FreeBSD and have more freedom (and less worry). Or [insert commercial Linux vendor here] for support.
gee, that makes me feel so much better. Sounds like MS saying that there's no danger until they release a patch (mix a little truth in to make the main fallacy less obvious).
now that started to sound like the beginning of something
[/nitpicking]
the point here would be whether one can bypass the normal install procedure to put a malicious
Not just ActiveX, but also JScript or VBScript (particularly when used for dhtml). Quite annoying at times.
erm ... this says the html is not valid 4.01. Also, the w3c css validator complains rather heavily on it. So much for standard support ^_^
they are adding tons of value to samba.
A config front-end hardly qualifies as 'tons of value'. Since the heavy lifting is done by free software, they're in the same league with Linux distros here. Which means the big money should be for support, not for the install CD.
Anyone else would have charged something like the desktop price + about $100 for the extra integration for the bare system software and add a premium for support. Apple being Apple, the premium is already in the baseline (and you get a limited number of clients as a perk). Unfortunately, this mentality will only enforce a marketshare cap for OSX Server.
I guess if you really want SSE3 or the only game you play is Quake3 it's a good deal, but otherwise there's no point.
Actually, SSE2, too - AthlonXP has only SSE. However, these being budget chips, you really shouldn't care too much about SSE stuff.
the outstanding question is what happens to the Durons next?
If the picture is anything to judge by, each card has only one power connector. It makes sense, if you think the 2 connector cards are actually the overclocked versions. This way you can use a lower clock for more performance.
Also, keep in mind, this is for workstations so far, so think dual cpu boards, 2-4 hdd raid config and so on). The overall power requirements will add up anyway so you could probably hit something like 600-700W overall.
to complete the answers you have so far
3. see here for documentation on how to make your own Mozilla search plugins.
5. Besides the already-mentioned Adblock plugin, use Flash Click To View to replace flash with a button you can 'click to view'.
no-no, you only do it once - I should have made it clearer, no ba/k/tcsh script. Otherwise there's no net ain over the OP's solution of deleting in .bashrc. you don't want to worry abbout email AT ALL, right?
.bashrc gets sourced way too often to be efficient here).
(besides,
and you will have email peace forever. ^_^
There are some points you're missing about this.
Who's paying for the RMA? if the natural life span of the pins is about 8 insertions (as the mobo producers seem to claim), then there would be a large number of legitimate breakages that get sent back to the mobo manufacturer. Now, they can either replace the CPU socket (not very funny, I think) or throw away the whole mobo, including the rest of the perfectly good components on it[*]. As oppose do just discarding a defective CPU if its pins break.
[*]like the spankin' new and expensive Intel chipsets. I doubt $150 will happen anytime soon as a mobo price, as even the chipset estimated price seems to be above that. I also doubt mobo manufacturers getting too many returns due to bent socket pins will be very happy about all this - remember, their margins are quite slim these days. The least hurt by this is probably going to be Intel itself.
Your AMD jab is a troll. As far as they stated so far, the Opteron socket stays put for the foreseeable future (meaning at least one year). They will have no incentive to move to a pinless package unless it shows some solid advantage. Even Intel might have to back down on this if the hw producers get to unhappy (and they already have enough grief with the BTX form factor).
Finally - pins break. It's called mechanical stress. How many times do you think you can 'carefully' insert and remove a CPU in its socket before some pin gives in? At least, for the old sockets, all you had to do is match pins and holes ; now, with only point contacts, bending can come so much easier.
It's been working ('experimental') for a while now - judging from this help page, for almost a year.
It's quite nice, too. Check the above link and see. I was impressed when I first saw it.
arXiv.org has RSS feeds itself - you can get the hep-ex one as:
http://arxiv.org/rss/hep-ex?version=2.0
Well, if you thought the DeCSS lawsuits were frivolous, you're in for a new type. This would effectively ban the LAME-type projects that are source-only in order to avoid copyright infringement. Yep - you're 'inducing' violations by providing a means to distribute illegal copies of copyright materials. What about audio rippers? Well, if they can be inducing violations, they're infringing. Forget about fair use. All you need to ban some product is an example of its use for copyright infringement and a benevolent judge that would accept some broader definition for 'intentional'.
Also, this will be a generalized ban for any devices non-compliant with future equivalents of the broadcast flag in other fields. Maybe even selling the old non-compliant devices, as they're sure to be used for an infringing purpose.
I hope I'm wrong, but remember, if the wording of the law allows it, sooner or later someone WILL use it.
"What's the best tool, a screwdriver or a hammer?"
how big a hole do you need to punch?
combining the idea of the electromagnetic photon with the hypothetical graviton
'light' is not just the photon. Look at the elevtroweak theory - the photon is the result of breaking the symmetry of a higher-order field. You can in principle add the graviton to this, but to start to observe whether your toy model actually means anything you'd have to go past the symmetry-breaking point in energy. Meaning not in your lifetime, and that's being fairly optimistic.
Most likely it will also do away with the idea of particles in favor of waves as a concept for modelling.
Nonsense. To even observe anything you need interactions, which are particle-like wavefunctin collapses. 'Waves' and 'particles' are eigenstates of operators with incompatible symmetries (aka non-commuting). Unless you do away with the position operator (and hence with space) you're stuck with a valid particle picture; similarly, you'd have to do away with momentum to get rid of the wave picture.
A wave-model in this way would only represent the phenomena that can be predicted using it.
well, duh. Also, bear in mind that mass is still an open question - the Higgs hasn't been positively observed yet.
This puts inertia in a rather new light, and when I figure out how that works, I'm sure I'll reach enlightment.
Inertia can be trivially connected to the wave picture. It means conservation of momentum, which is to say preserving the symmetry of the momentum space (wave picture). To break that symmetry you need an interaction, which in terms of classical physics is represented by a force. Mass should come from the coupling constant for that interaction (the question being understanding the how's). There, are you half-way to enlightnment already?
Actually no. There are 2 steps to the process: the 'teleportation' one (collapsing the remote state) and the 'turtle' one (tell the other party what result you measured so that he can rotate his collapsed state to the right one). The second phase is the actual information transmission and it's slower-than-light. Also, you can't skip it by 'guessing', as the possible values for the collapsed state do not even form an orthogonal state[*]. Sorry.
[*] for 2-state particles (simplest case), the measurement of the unknown+transmitter system has 4 possible outcomes, so the receiver can be in one of 4 states in a 2d space => non orthogonal, there's no measurement that will preserve all of them simultaneously, hence there's no knowing whether you destroyed the state or not by only measuring the receiver.