The blurb says it "redesigns TCP/IP", and the article itself specifically says "congestion control". Which is NOT part of TCP/IP design. Congestion control is a routing feature.
I recently completed my individual project for University, which consisted of a cheap device that could store and distribute media to mobile devices (for use in shops, etc). I had huge problems with this project, not because of the protocols, which are actually very well written and offer high transfer rates, but in fact with the lack of utilisation in industry. I was unable to find any mobile phones for example that support FIR or VFIR, meaning they could only transmit at 0.1Mbps. This combined with the low throughput of bluetooth, makes mobile devices terrible for media exchange (i.e. movies, pictures, music, etc).
What I would like to see is more support from manufacturers, so we can provide better applications and uses for this technology.
Now they want to keep and store mobile numbers. I understand why they're doing it, but couldn't another approach be used to limit account generation? (linking to a valid, non-GMail account for example)
So your proposed technique would allow a spammer to register, by providing a valid email account on his own mail server? The phone network is a good choice on Google's part, but not a new idea.
All the spammer needs is a pocket pc phone and a program that can read the SMS, and go to the web page and authenticate it. Easy peasy and all they have to use is a smartphone.
Since Google will inevitably store it, they would no longer allow other users to register with the same phone number. The purpose is not really that of a Turing test, but instead a way of limiting the demands on their resources.
If there is anything that drives me insane, it's people dribling on about what OS they use. Dude, it doesn't matter like it used to 20-30 years ago, we're past the OS era and what Linux or Unix really needs is some good quality, easy to use applications that complement a great graphics engine. Changing the OS is highly unlikely to change the success of a particular system, but changing how you think will...
Although at first sight this card may have no use, think about Apple's Quartz technology that uses the graphics card video memory to hold all viewable window elements so that they can be rendered quickly and efficiently without requiring that data be paged in and out to real memory. With the new Longhorn graphics technology being announced this week, it's probably an emerging market that ATI want to take full advantage of. Plus the scientific applications stand to benefit (but I noticed somebody already mentioned this).
I've been reading today about Iterative and Increment Design (IID) which is based around the principle of breaking a major project up into smaller iterations (of say 1-6 weeks) and at the end of each of these, integrating all the code and demonstrating it to the customer, whose feedback is used to adapt the product development in order to eventually end up with a final release which is useful.
It can even be taken as far as evolutionary delivery, which requires that the software be released into the market, and the feedback from that used to decide what will be in the next release. The time scales of this are much shorter than say, Apple releasing Panther and then Tiger, so not to be mixed up with major product releases.
I only wonder whether the success of Linux as a household brand is compromised by the fact that non-proprietory software does not follow IID and hence doesn't actually deliver what is the customer wants, but in fact what the developers think the customer wants. I know that Microsoft are very much for beta testing on thousands of individuals which is a step closer to this, but from the serious delays in Longhorn, it's also true that maybe they have missed the point as well.
There's no doubt the functionality is there in Linux as the guy mentions but I'm not so sure that the customer really fits into Linux like is required when moving beyond the waterfall model...
It has actually be shown a number of times that fancy features (such as integrating a physics engine into the desktop as so) actually leads to a more complex and harder to use system. I have to congratulate these guys on what they've achieved, but at the same time I have to wonder if this is the right direction to take, especially since Linux's only major flaw is in fact its lack of usability.
If Google wants to be the best in the future, the Internet is definately the way to go about it. However, requiring that its customers run a particular OS is not what the Internet is about, and in my mind not a healthy business plan for a service that doesn't charge.
Their instruction set is different because it is RISC, whereas x86 is CISC. However Intel realised their fault a long time ago, but instead of screwing the vast number of users it chose to convert CISC instructions to RISC on the fly. If you look at the performance of two modern processors, whether it be the G5 or P4, at the same clock speed they're not all that different (cost is much more of an issue). I had the same kind of attitude as you until I did a course on Advanced Computer Architecture this year at University and trust me, until you've read up about multiple-issue speculative superscalar processors with trace caches, etc, your opinion is null and void.
The idea of the early release is to give developers who are willing to pay significant money, a head start in developing their applications so that they use the very latest and greatest features of the new OS (which in case is spotlight, etc). If Apple weren't to take action against piracy like the for-mentioned then these developers would lose faith and it be a lose-lose situation all round (including the end customer/user).
I'd definately agree... In the UK people are more than happy to pay £4 to download a ringtone or music video to their mobile. I don't think £1.50 would be on the minds of anybody who wants a short video of their favourite car, and to put my money where my mouth is, I'm off to download the Golf GTI + NOS demonstration!;-)
Well done fifth gear!
Microsoft employees are encouraged to innovate but until a few years back, their functional departments caused a lot of red tape issues and progress was very slow. This has all changed now and the company has been split up into individual divisions who are allowed to work freely without having to consult the chairman or the CEO on decision making. This will encourage Microsoft to innovate more, but to be honest I was really talking about them since they became successful a long time ago and it's a whole different game when your goal is to remain on top...
If the OpenSource community want Linux to ever become mainstream the UI has definately got to improve (like you mentioned) and people need to start thinking about what new things we might do with our available resources. Since OpenSource isn't driven like a commercial entity, I'd be surprised if the level of innovation could ever match those of companies like 3M, Cisco, etc, which questions whether they'll ever be an opportunity to "take down Microsoft". But isn't it worth trying?
I'm not quite sure why you want to move away from Java? Is it because you want to lock people into using your platform (which is of course the key to success)?
Since everything in the proprietary world of Microsoft and MacOS has to be copied or rejuvinated within the OpenSource community, is it possible that people are forgetting about innovation and focusing too much on mirroring what others do? Apple have come a long way simply through innovating, just like many modern successful businesses but without major goals of innovation, isn't it possible that the OpenSource community may be stuck forever in a game of catch up?
Nooooooooooooo! I can't believe this, they were so good! lol... I used them for years whenever I ran out of credit on the iTunes store, cause well your 2p always went along way there!
No wait, have I just incriminated myself?!?
Personally I would just like to see Microsoft do something really well for the first time. They seem to take the approach I use at University: Do it as quickly as possible and put effort in where it can be seen. This is not what I would expect when it comes to a commercial product, and only works for proof on concepts. Now 21 years later, it's pretty clear Windows isn't a POC, so buck up and give us something we can really love. (For more information, visit www.apple.com)
It seems that more memory will always be utilised, but not necessarily for anything more useful. Obviously the more memory you provide programmers with, the less difficult their job but I am in the middle of my individual project at University at the moment which requires me to implement an IrDA master and slave in 2KB of memory and it's tough, but isn't kind of the point?
People have been throwing around comments about simulations, etc, but isn't it the consumer that drives these developments, and the average consumer doesn't run these kinds of tasks. The only use for memory in the public domain at this time is video (and audio?), and I eagerly await the next "necessary" media that will make use of all this extra capacity.
Slashdot Mirror
The blurb says it "redesigns TCP/IP", and the article itself specifically says "congestion control". Which is NOT part of TCP/IP design. Congestion control is a routing feature.
Seriously, it's both incredible how wrong you are with that statement and that somebody rated it as informative. I suggest you read up on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCP_congestion_avoidance_algorithm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congestion_window http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5681
All the C programmers are busy over at bufferoverflow.com
I recently completed my individual project for University, which consisted of a cheap device that could store and distribute media to mobile devices (for use in shops, etc). I had huge problems with this project, not because of the protocols, which are actually very well written and offer high transfer rates, but in fact with the lack of utilisation in industry. I was unable to find any mobile phones for example that support FIR or VFIR, meaning they could only transmit at 0.1Mbps. This combined with the low throughput of bluetooth, makes mobile devices terrible for media exchange (i.e. movies, pictures, music, etc).
What I would like to see is more support from manufacturers, so we can provide better applications and uses for this technology.
Now they want to keep and store mobile numbers. I understand why they're doing it, but couldn't another approach be used to limit account generation? (linking to a valid, non-GMail account for example)
So your proposed technique would allow a spammer to register, by providing a valid email account on his own mail server? The phone network is a good choice on Google's part, but not a new idea.All the spammer needs is a pocket pc phone and a program that can read the SMS, and go to the web page and authenticate it. Easy peasy and all they have to use is a smartphone.
Since Google will inevitably store it, they would no longer allow other users to register with the same phone number. The purpose is not really that of a Turing test, but instead a way of limiting the demands on their resources.
I'd hope to see the whole browser...
If there is anything that drives me insane, it's people dribling on about what OS they use. Dude, it doesn't matter like it used to 20-30 years ago, we're past the OS era and what Linux or Unix really needs is some good quality, easy to use applications that complement a great graphics engine. Changing the OS is highly unlikely to change the success of a particular system, but changing how you think will...
Although at first sight this card may have no use, think about Apple's Quartz technology that uses the graphics card video memory to hold all viewable window elements so that they can be rendered quickly and efficiently without requiring that data be paged in and out to real memory. With the new Longhorn graphics technology being announced this week, it's probably an emerging market that ATI want to take full advantage of. Plus the scientific applications stand to benefit (but I noticed somebody already mentioned this).
10 years ago... I was 11.
I've been reading today about Iterative and Increment Design (IID) which is based around the principle of breaking a major project up into smaller iterations (of say 1-6 weeks) and at the end of each of these, integrating all the code and demonstrating it to the customer, whose feedback is used to adapt the product development in order to eventually end up with a final release which is useful.
It can even be taken as far as evolutionary delivery, which requires that the software be released into the market, and the feedback from that used to decide what will be in the next release. The time scales of this are much shorter than say, Apple releasing Panther and then Tiger, so not to be mixed up with major product releases.
I only wonder whether the success of Linux as a household brand is compromised by the fact that non-proprietory software does not follow IID and hence doesn't actually deliver what is the customer wants, but in fact what the developers think the customer wants. I know that Microsoft are very much for beta testing on thousands of individuals which is a step closer to this, but from the serious delays in Longhorn, it's also true that maybe they have missed the point as well.
There's no doubt the functionality is there in Linux as the guy mentions but I'm not so sure that the customer really fits into Linux like is required when moving beyond the waterfall model...
It has actually be shown a number of times that fancy features (such as integrating a physics engine into the desktop as so) actually leads to a more complex and harder to use system. I have to congratulate these guys on what they've achieved, but at the same time I have to wonder if this is the right direction to take, especially since Linux's only major flaw is in fact its lack of usability.
If Google wants to be the best in the future, the Internet is definately the way to go about it. However, requiring that its customers run a particular OS is not what the Internet is about, and in my mind not a healthy business plan for a service that doesn't charge.
Come on Google, what about the rest of us?
Their instruction set is different because it is RISC, whereas x86 is CISC. However Intel realised their fault a long time ago, but instead of screwing the vast number of users it chose to convert CISC instructions to RISC on the fly. If you look at the performance of two modern processors, whether it be the G5 or P4, at the same clock speed they're not all that different (cost is much more of an issue). I had the same kind of attitude as you until I did a course on Advanced Computer Architecture this year at University and trust me, until you've read up about multiple-issue speculative superscalar processors with trace caches, etc, your opinion is null and void.
The idea of the early release is to give developers who are willing to pay significant money, a head start in developing their applications so that they use the very latest and greatest features of the new OS (which in case is spotlight, etc). If Apple weren't to take action against piracy like the for-mentioned then these developers would lose faith and it be a lose-lose situation all round (including the end customer/user).
I'd definately agree... In the UK people are more than happy to pay £4 to download a ringtone or music video to their mobile. I don't think £1.50 would be on the minds of anybody who wants a short video of their favourite car, and to put my money where my mouth is, I'm off to download the Golf GTI + NOS demonstration! ;-)
Well done fifth gear!
Microsoft employees are encouraged to innovate but until a few years back, their functional departments caused a lot of red tape issues and progress was very slow. This has all changed now and the company has been split up into individual divisions who are allowed to work freely without having to consult the chairman or the CEO on decision making. This will encourage Microsoft to innovate more, but to be honest I was really talking about them since they became successful a long time ago and it's a whole different game when your goal is to remain on top... If the OpenSource community want Linux to ever become mainstream the UI has definately got to improve (like you mentioned) and people need to start thinking about what new things we might do with our available resources. Since OpenSource isn't driven like a commercial entity, I'd be surprised if the level of innovation could ever match those of companies like 3M, Cisco, etc, which questions whether they'll ever be an opportunity to "take down Microsoft". But isn't it worth trying? I'm not quite sure why you want to move away from Java? Is it because you want to lock people into using your platform (which is of course the key to success)?
Since everything in the proprietary world of Microsoft and MacOS has to be copied or rejuvinated within the OpenSource community, is it possible that people are forgetting about innovation and focusing too much on mirroring what others do? Apple have come a long way simply through innovating, just like many modern successful businesses but without major goals of innovation, isn't it possible that the OpenSource community may be stuck forever in a game of catch up?
Sorry, I must admit I read that wrong... now I am impressed!
Do you really want to sacrifice clarity for an extra 11 minutes of usage?
"if you keep the phone off, otherwise about half that"
uh huh, because it's not like I'd be expecting to receive calls with this phone thing...
Nooooooooooooo! I can't believe this, they were so good! lol... I used them for years whenever I ran out of credit on the iTunes store, cause well your 2p always went along way there! No wait, have I just incriminated myself?!?
Personally I would just like to see Microsoft do something really well for the first time. They seem to take the approach I use at University: Do it as quickly as possible and put effort in where it can be seen. This is not what I would expect when it comes to a commercial product, and only works for proof on concepts. Now 21 years later, it's pretty clear Windows isn't a POC, so buck up and give us something we can really love. (For more information, visit www.apple.com)
It seems that more memory will always be utilised, but not necessarily for anything more useful. Obviously the more memory you provide programmers with, the less difficult their job but I am in the middle of my individual project at University at the moment which requires me to implement an IrDA master and slave in 2KB of memory and it's tough, but isn't kind of the point?
People have been throwing around comments about simulations, etc, but isn't it the consumer that drives these developments, and the average consumer doesn't run these kinds of tasks. The only use for memory in the public domain at this time is video (and audio?), and I eagerly await the next "necessary" media that will make use of all this extra capacity.
How about this? http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/26/ 2314244&from=rss