I can tell you that there is no cost effective way to limit a device to FCC restrictions purely in hardware.
Wow, you went through a lot of trouble to justify your case but you seemed to forgot something. The current operating parameters of WiFi are dictated by software. Therefore the hardware has a broad enough design to operate within the parameters dictated by the software.
BTW, yes there is a cost effective way to limit a device to FCC restrictions purely in hardware. I have radio equipment that was designed for different markets and their operation are restricted based on the regulations of their target country of operation. This is accomplished by firmware programmed within the equipment that have several modes of operations stored within it. The manufacture simply uses SMT diodes or zero-ohm resistors (jumpers) to tell the device what region the device should operate within. The placement of these SMT components can be programmed for each target market and be taken care of during board assembly. This method did have one disadvantage. During the early 90's, the FCC was frustrated by how easy it was for the end user to operate the radio device outside legal limits (power and/or frequency) by simply removing a diode. Newgroups were full of HOWTO instructions on how to MOD the radio equipment.
Another method (and more "secure" method) would require placing the current binary blobs into FLASH memory within the device themselves and publish the API so that driver developers can make use of them. Basically this simply moves the binary from a loadable file image to something already on the device. This would go against the current trend, since most (all!) of todays design decisions are based on increasing the profit margin by reducing part count by taking advantage of the host device.
I used telegrams a lot in my previous job (I was an operations representative for one of the largest ocean vessel transportation agency). We switched to MCI because Western Union was too expensive.
Thankfully most ocean cargo vessels are switching to email and satellite telephone services, so telegraphs (that eventually become radiograms) are being replaced by cheaper services (BTW its still expensive, just not as expensive).
I still remember my telegram callback...
Brgds, Bill
Opinions expressed in this posting are not of my current employer, nor should it be consider official communications.
You, my friend, are the reason why Europeans regard Americans as straw-chomping, sister-fucking dullards.
I thought it was because of penis envy... It's true that is why all the beautiful people live in the US
But seriously...(the above was a friendly jab by-the-way)
Despite any public grumblings, the US and EU are still strong allies and all the US would have to do is ask and the EU would be more than willing to help their friend.
This paper is a paper from a Grad Student, with an endorsement from Dr. David Evans. These papers (despite what the author may think) are not definative and MUST be contrasted with other papers on the subject.
With all due respect for the author(s), I have the following questions:
Why the mis-leading chart so early in the paper? I believe a table may have been more appropriate.
Why not have more peer-reviewed references? I see plenty of references from MSDN, and some from some conferences. But it looks like most of the arguments are being supported by non-peer reviewed sources.
Why are there a SMALL number of peer-reviewed articles directly related to JAVA?
Why are the peer-reviewed articles on JAVA so old? And most likely no longer relevant?
What is the deployment history of.NET vs. Java? Market share? Security incidents (in the wild)?
Why the microscopic view of JAVA's flaws and the lack of depth in.NET?
Why isn't the dangers of native code discussed (.NET or JNI)?
I do however like the information in Table 3... but what practical advantages do the "finer grained" security functions provided by.NET give the programmer or the end-user?
I think it is a decent paper that maybe was turned in for an assignment. BTW, if the author has asbestos underwear and reads slashdot. Don't forget a short biography at the end of the paper next time. This gives the paper extra creditability.
Well from a project standpoint, it's a motivational tool to have everything in order within a resonable time. Just because its a community effort does not mean there shouldn't be deadlines.
With a deadline, developers can hurry up and finish their contributions so that the organizer can assess where they are at and set new goals. Deadlines are not just fiscal.
Imagine hiring a contractor to build your house. Wouldn't you set a deadline? Without one how can you plan on the next phase of construction? Imagine having painters standing by waiting for the framers to actually show up (I know its extreme - but hey this is slashdot!).
Auburn University uses Zaurus in its Wireless Engineering program. I see students walking all over the place working on their applications on them.
This made me happy, since I am a long time owner of the SL-5500, and I haven't had a problem with mine. I almost bought the SL-5000, but luckily I was able to pre-order the SL-5500 and waited patiently for its release.
Taking proprietary IP and opening it up is harmful for few (the copyright holder(s)) and useful for many (the general public), while taking free IP and closing it is harmful for many (the general public and the copyright holder(s)) and useful for few (only the ones who close it). The GPL is designed to prevent that from happening.
I fail to see the anology. Unless the original GPL project ceases to exist, I don't see the harm being that great. I do believe the selling GPL'ed code as close source original works is an offense punishable by a good tar and feathering.
Violating a license.. is violating a license. Music or Software the offense is the same. Only in the case of GPL, we can't pretend that the victims are faceless and greedy corporatations...
The problem with Toby's argument is that he is fixated on the speed of the CPU. It doesn't matter how much slower or faster the Network CPU is compared to the Main CPU. It is more important to have the Network CPU fast enough to handle to I/O requirements dictated by the network architecture.
With L2 cache and DMA being the norm now a days, I don't see what the problem is. Sure the Main CPU will stall if the cache needs to do fetch something from main memory, but hardware can be adjusted to take these possibilities into account.
Having processors dedicated to tasks, frees the CPU to handle any other tasks on its agenda. I see a network ASIC being able to receive the data payload ready for transmission, and do its thing until it interrupts the CPU to report it is done.
Also, the cpu would not have to wait for the network transmission to complete before sending more data. The network device would keep accepting payloads until the buffer was full.
While the Graphics Card is a good example, a better example would to look at the FPU. Floating Point Arithmetic is more CPU intensive than integer. To speed things up, the CPU submits the desired computation to the FPU and the FPU notifies the CPU when the calculation is complete.
Then there is the other omission made by Toby, the bus does not have a 1:1 speed ratio with the CPU. With this in mind and using Toby's logic, the ASIC would only have to match the bus speed not the CPU's.
Toby keeps mentioning why pay for a dedicated CPU when expensive CPU you have can handle the task. I think most engineers would ask why tie up an expensive CPU when a dedicated CPU can do the task.
In other words, lets free our expensive CPUs to perform general computational tasks by off loading some of the mundane labor to dedicated ASICS.
I will say Toby is correct with one thing. In a personal computer, I don't see the advantage to the Network ASIC (other than API), since the CPU is idle most of the time anyway.
However, in Intel's target market. I would like to have the CPU perform the application logic and offload the networking to dedicated processors. The idea being that if more headroom to the CPU is possible with the Network ASICS, I could see an increase to the maximum number of transactions per second. This increase could be just enough to keep me from investing in another blade or even another server.
I intentionally didn't mention Java because it's *not* without restrictions.
I am confused. I didn't know there were any restrictions on applications written in JAVA, except the need for a JVM...
Anyway, you also say the winAPI is mature and you can't say that about any GUI on Linux. Quite the contrary, both Qt and wxWidgets are mature. wxWidgets has been in continuous development since, what, 1992?
Well technically QT was started in 1991. However, it didn't really have the feature set people wanted until QT2.2 was released in 2000. But I will give QT some credit on a good API. However, I still disagree about Windows GUI being crap (No I don't own stock in MSFT).
Two things to add in this civil discussion:
I have the original Blue and White box for Windows/286 that I bought in 1987. I didn't use it much because at the time I liked Digital Research's GEM environment. I also had a windowing API for DOS called Z which looked great. I would even say Z looked better than many of the widgets in use today... Now only if I can find that box (and my 5-1/4 drive).
I was one of the first to upgrade to Windows 3.0 in 1990. I picked it up at the reseller on the release date. It was a big improvement over Win/286.
Anyway since I shorten QT's history to version 2.2, I will shorten Win GUI to version 3.0. By my math Microsoft's API is 10 years older than QT, and 2 years older than wxWindows. If I use the development start dates then Windows 1.0 was announced in 1983 (released in 1985), which makes it 8 years older than the start of QT's development, and 9 years older than the start of wxWindows' development. My point is that I am old and so is the WinAPI;)
As I said in my last post, wxWindows works better as a wrapper to the native GUI. However, it has a couple of more features (I don't remember what they are) if you elect to use the wxWindows code.
Despite what my last post sounded like, I do like the GPL. I don't believe all software should be free. I do believe if the author wants to release something to the public, he should use the GPL to protect his gift to the community. Widgets and smaller routines can use BSD or Public Domain. My biggest gripe is applications.
Case in point, ArgoUML. ArgoUML seems to be stagnant, while the comercial product Poseidon from Gentleware is coming along quite nicely. Needless to say, I feel uncomfortable about giving code to ArgoUML so that Gentleware can make $249 to $3500 on that contribution. Sure Gentleware may have spent some money to make ArgoUML commercially viable, but it doesn't appear that ArgoUML has benefited from it.
Gentleware now says that they are using a different codebase, and to be fair, Gentleware does offer a crippled "community" version of Poseidon for free.
I do believe that ArgoUML would be significantly better than it is now if it was GPLed.
Why put up with the overhead of the support code, when you can easily use the OS' GUI natively? Oh yea, cross-platform compatibility! But if you only want to use Windows, you would be an idiot for not using a mature, well tested, and well document GUI that comes at a very affordable price.... Free!... and unlike QT with no restrictions.
With that said:
I have to agree that a very small number (I can only think of Mozilla, Firefox, Sunbird, Thunderbird, and GIMP at the moment) of good software are cross platformed. But the vast majority are written in Windows which admittingly comes from being the 400lb gorilla of operating systems.
Anyway my points are:
a. come to think of it, most of the really good shit is cross-platform and open source.
Is not much to brag about when the complete population of cross platform software is microscopic when compared to the total population of software applications. And the majority of cross platformed software is proprietory between Windows and Macintosh, which doesn't support your open source argument either. I know I just blasphemed a sacred cow, but facts are facts. It is not my fault that the Windows and Macintosh platform has been around a lot longer than QT or GTK. It is also not my fault that even though UNIX is older, nobody really cared about it until Linux made it affordable. Besides being open source was not the argument, it was the ability to use the GUI library *WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS*. Open source has its place, but not as a straw man for a weak argument.
Funny thing, I use great cross platformed tools that don't use QT or GTK+ (or at least directly) and the authors don't have to worry about restrictions or processor type. It's called JAVA! Seriously, I went from loathing it to almost can't live without it. I still program in C for my embedded stuff, but I use Eclipse to do it (via CDT).
b. I suspect the real reason people still use Microsoft's crappy libraries is inertia.
Shows your lack of understanding of software development. While its true that the Windows GUI is not cross platformed, it was never designed to be! However, it is mature and that is something that can not be said of any GUI on Linux.
If you desire cross-platform compatibility, I recommend wxWindows. I don't use it for any windows only code because it adds a considerable amount of code. However if I am targeting multiple platforms, it is first on my list. I especially like its layout manager (similar to Java), and it doesn't come with all the BS associated with QT.
Given all the alternatives, QT is last on my list of recomendations. Save your money and use wxWindows. It is free, open-sourced, and has absolutely no restrictions (THANK YOU JULIAN SMART). Did I mention it is a damn good library too.
The biggest reason the 15-25 male demographic has been the "big" demographic in video games has more to do with the relatively short history of video gaming in general than anything. You're seeing so many 15-25 year-old males because they're the ones who were playing Nintendo and Sega Master System back when video games really were considered toys for little boys--and by and large the only people playing them were little boys. Now that video games are becoming more mainstream--now that they're no longer seen as the exclusive domain of small children and nerds--you're going to see a much broader market for this kind of thing. Heck, we're seeing it already.
I would have to disagree with your premise. I remember Pong, and I have personally owned a Intellivision, Magnavision, Atari 2600 & 800, Sega and Sega Genesis . I had friends that owned the Colecovision, Comodore 64, and Nintendo. At 37, I have to say that my age group 35-41 are pretty avid gamers. That said, let me make an observation.
I never got a Gameboy, because let's face it most Nintendo games are marketed to the younger crowd. I am more of a Grand Turismo type rather than a Mario-Cart type.
Also I have outgrown the platform games from the 80's, so I tend to go for First Person Games and the like. Sony recognizes this and produce products that appeal to me. They also know that I can afford the extra power required to run these games, so the PSP is born.
I fear that handheld devices are a dying market in general. PDA sales are down for the 3rd year in a row, and I don't see a huge growth market in handheld games. I wish Sony luck in their new venture.
Actually, the long silence is us trying to figure out what the hell this political story posing as a tech story is trying to portray.
The data from the Weather Service has been free for quite a while now. I've been involved with the NWS's SKYWARN program for over a decade, and have witnessed the emancipation of weather data first hand.
I remember when the only source of doppler radar data was Intellicast, and the free data updated every 15 minutes (or more). Starting in 1994, the Modernization Act not only streamlined the NWS and upgraded the radar technology, it also improved the amount of data and its accuracy being presented to the public.
During the Clinton administration, the NWS had initiative to push weather data into all the EMA offices. This resulted in the EMWIN system that provided free satelite weather data, and its internet based system INWIN. Now all the weather services have a homepage that provides the weather observations, now casts, forcast discussions, satellite pictures, and doppler radar data that is updated every 7 minutes (which is impressive, since it takes 7 minutes for the doppler radar to do a full scan).Raw data have been available for quite some time using FTP transfer protocol.
So after witnessing all these improvements during the 8 years of the Clinton administration, am I suppose to pretend that this is a Bush initiative that will happen soon?
Unless your car can travel the globe instantaneously (or that matter traverse an ocean) while getting unlimited gas milage, than I can see your point. But sadly reality makes your point wrong.
I believe what you meant to say is:
That while it is a crime to transport illegal drugs and if caught stiff penalties will be given (including the loss of said vehicle), the vehicle manufacturer themselves are not held accountable for the actions of their consumers.
As for the comparison of TCP/IP to P2P, you can think of TCP and UDP as a vehicle and P2P as the courier service. P2P uses network protocols to ferry their packages around the internet. While the inventor of the vehicle is usually not held liable for any crimes committed with thier product, carrier services are not so lucky. If the carrier knows that their service is being used to commit crimes, they are held accountable.
This is where both your analogies work against you. P2P providers admit that their service is used to distribute pirated material (along with legitamate material), but they argue that they have no direct control of thier clients. By this admission they can be found liable.
Common carriers (in the physical world) go to great lengths to insure that they are not transporting illegal items. In the U.S. they cooperate with Customs, Immigrations, USDA Plant Quaratine, DEA (drug enforcement), ATF (Alcohol Tobacco and firearms), and local law officials (mostly weight restrictions for cargo carried on public highways). When an occasional illegal item makes it way to its destination via a common carrier, the fact that the common carrier has a history of cooperation with law enforcement is used to prove that the courier was not actively involved in the transaction.
On the otherhand, some smaller carriers who make it a habit to avoid detection by law officials by taking alternate routes, by avoiding inspection points, by knowingly carrying illegal cargo, and by having a customer base made up of mostly criminals are not so lucky...
I am in agreement with the parent of your post. The VCR is not a device capable of distribution therefore its manufacture can not be held liable for the distribution of pirated materials. The premise is that Sony did not engineer the VCR for mass distribution. P2P on the otherhand is designed for distribution, and so is not covered by the Sony Betamax decision.
Service providers like the old Napster, Kazaa, Websites hosting Torrent Links, and Grokster should be held liable for the material that they actively help distribute especially if they knowingly cater to a consumer base that distribute copyrighted material.
Only if these services actively discourage piracy by deleting known material from their directory and blocking (and reporting) customers that posted the material (DISCLAIMERS DON'T COUNT), should these services be found non-liable.
Tools like bittorrent should not be held liable, since even though it was engineered for the distribution of information. Its creator has absolutely no control on what is transfered.
I know my opinion is not popular, but hey get over it.
As someone else has pointed out, a lot of people speed. Should we get rid of speeding offences?
Not necessarily, but we should reconsider what the limits are set at. When 95% of people are driving faster than the limit, the general consensus would seem to be that the limit is too low.
Laws are meant to serve the people, not the other way around.
I bet if you put out a referandum to the population at large and asked what the speed limit on I-95 should be, they wouldn't come up with 55 mph.
There is a flaw in your logic. Just because the majority of the people want to speed, does not mean that they should raise the speed limit.
The NCSA stated that the leading cause of death for ages 3 to 33 in 2002 was Moter Vehicle Traffic Crashes http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/RNote s/2004/809831.pdf.
In fact, Highway fatalities (based on 2002 numbers) are at an all-time high. In Alabama, this can be directly attributed to the lack of state troopers and increasing the speed limit to 75. Now that the speed limit is at 75, motorist (particularly the younger ones) drive at speeds well above 80. I can not travel on the interstate one weekend without driving by at least one fatal (or near fatal accident). To be fair I travel over 500 miles of interstate on a weekend so I have a huge sample base for my observations, but the national statistics do corollate with my observations.
So, in other word, the new legal environment (the DMCA) is attracting more and more profiteers and schemers, like putting cheese attracts mold. It's sad that some people would want to earn a living hurting other people by leveraging a law almost nobody wants...
But the good news is: if automated monitoring of P2P protocols becomes commonplace, you can bet there will be other, new exciting development in P2P technology.
I think the BayTSP service sounds pretty cool, especially the part where they would confirm the contents of the file before issuing C&D orders. They found a need, and attempt to satisfy that need with a novel web based approach. The engineer in me marvels at their concept... (I am not a fan of suing innocent people, but at least the press release gave some indication that measures are available to keep the innocent out of the cross hairs.)
I find it telling that you would encourage piracy, and hope new P2P techniques will be developed to continue said piracy....
To counter your words: It's sad that some people would want to hurt other people by preventing them from earning a living by disregarding a law (and the rights of the author and publisher) through piracy.
What I do find offensive is legitimate file transfer tools are being made a target by the direspect these people show for not only the creator of the art but to the people who use the transfer tools for legitimate purposes.
If someone offers something I like but at a price that I believe is too much, I simply learn to do without or look for a cheaper alternative. When it comes to software, I'll either use lower cost versions (including GPL) or make my own (and maybe even distribute it as GPL'd). When it comes to music or movies, I can do without or just listen to the radio, watch it on cable, or rent it from Blockbuster. Basically, I won't pay over $200 for software, when there is a $50 program that can do the job. I won't spend $50 for a program if a free one will do the job. I don't consider GPL software as totally free, since I feel obligated to help with development (by sending error corrections or making a HOWTO) in return for said programs use.
I live by the simple rule "Earn respect, by respecting others." Whew.. Time to step down from the soap box..
The only reliable way to keep my data safe if someone steals my PDA is . . . well, I don't know if there *is* any reliable way.
A hardware based biometric security device that supplies the "public" key of an encrypted PDA is the best way to go. This way the PDA is a paperweight unless someone spoofs your fingerprint (Use your imagination).
The only way to recover from a faulty fingerprint read or a lost password is to wipe the PDA clean, and reload it with data stored on the corporate server.
I've been using JAVA for quite a while now. I must admit that I was dragged "kicking and screaming" to use JAVA, but once I started using JAVA - I liked it.
I never had the performance problems with any of my JAVA apps that I created or that I used (such as eclipse).
The performance problems referred by others may be related to the abilities of the JAVA programmer more than the JVM.
BTW, just so I can be like everybody in this thread. My brag text is that I've been programming for over 23 years and used ASM, C/C++, Forth, Fortran, PHP, Perl, Haskell, Prolog, Java, and some I rather forget.
I think the parent was unfairly modded as flaimbait.
While the parent post may seem brash, it did make a couple of points.
I agree the "review" did read too much like a rant, used operational details as filler text as opposed using it as supplimental information, and made some huge generalities of the technology used within Yellow Dog
Basically, this was a average to below average article.
But to be fair... The reviewer could seem brash, and made some valid points too.;)
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, you went through a lot of trouble to justify your case but you seemed to forgot something. The current operating parameters of WiFi are dictated by software. Therefore the hardware has a broad enough design to operate within the parameters dictated by the software.
BTW, yes there is a cost effective way to limit a device to FCC restrictions purely in hardware. I have radio equipment that was designed for different markets and their operation are restricted based on the regulations of their target country of operation. This is accomplished by firmware programmed within the equipment that have several modes of operations stored within it. The manufacture simply uses SMT diodes or zero-ohm resistors (jumpers) to tell the device what region the device should operate within. The placement of these SMT components can be programmed for each target market and be taken care of during board assembly. This method did have one disadvantage. During the early 90's, the FCC was frustrated by how easy it was for the end user to operate the radio device outside legal limits (power and/or frequency) by simply removing a diode. Newgroups were full of HOWTO instructions on how to MOD the radio equipment.
Another method (and more "secure" method) would require placing the current binary blobs into FLASH memory within the device themselves and publish the API so that driver developers can make use of them. Basically this simply moves the binary from a loadable file image to something already on the device. This would go against the current trend, since most (all!) of todays design decisions are based on increasing the profit margin by reducing part count by taking advantage of the host device.
Brgds, Bill
Errrrrr. Wrong!
The public won't get 'ownership' until the copyright expires...
I used telegrams a lot in my previous job (I was an operations representative for one of the largest ocean vessel transportation agency). We switched to MCI because Western Union was too expensive.
Thankfully most ocean cargo vessels are switching to email and satellite telephone services, so telegraphs (that eventually become radiograms) are being replaced by cheaper services (BTW its still expensive, just not as expensive).
I still remember my telegram callback...
Brgds,
Bill
Opinions expressed in this posting are not of my current employer, nor should it be consider official communications.
You, my friend, are the reason why Europeans regard Americans as straw-chomping, sister-fucking dullards.
I thought it was because of penis envy... It's true that is why all the beautiful people live in the US
But seriously...(the above was a friendly jab by-the-way)
Despite any public grumblings, the US and EU are still strong allies and all the US would have to do is ask and the EU would be more than willing to help their friend.
With all due respect for the author(s), I have the following questions:
Why the mis-leading chart so early in the paper? I believe a table may have been more appropriate.
Why not have more peer-reviewed references? I see plenty of references from MSDN, and some from some conferences. But it looks like most of the arguments are being supported by non-peer reviewed sources.
Why are there a SMALL number of peer-reviewed articles directly related to JAVA?
Why are the peer-reviewed articles on JAVA so old? And most likely no longer relevant?
What is the deployment history of .NET vs. Java? Market share? Security incidents (in the wild)?
Why the microscopic view of JAVA's flaws and the lack of depth in .NET?
Why isn't the dangers of native code discussed (.NET or JNI)?
I do however like the information in Table 3... but what practical advantages do the "finer grained" security functions provided by .NET give the programmer or the end-user?
I think it is a decent paper that maybe was turned in for an assignment. BTW, if the author has asbestos underwear and reads slashdot. Don't forget a short biography at the end of the paper next time. This gives the paper extra creditability.
Regards, Bill
I still doubt the correctness of you message.
Well from a project standpoint, it's a motivational tool to have everything in order within a resonable time. Just because its a community effort does not mean there shouldn't be deadlines.
With a deadline, developers can hurry up and finish their contributions so that the organizer can assess where they are at and set new goals. Deadlines are not just fiscal.
Imagine hiring a contractor to build your house. Wouldn't you set a deadline? Without one how can you plan on the next phase of construction? Imagine having painters standing by waiting for the framers to actually show up (I know its extreme - but hey this is slashdot!).
This made me happy, since I am a long time owner of the SL-5500, and I haven't had a problem with mine. I almost bought the SL-5000, but luckily I was able to pre-order the SL-5500 and waited patiently for its release.
War Eagle!
You have confused Open Source with GPL. There is nothing wrong with using Open Source in applications as long as the license permits it.
Why should Microsoft be singled out for it? Expecially when we had people taking GPL'ed code and selling it as closed source...
Crap.. It's too early in the morning.. ;)
*corporations... Need to spell check more often ;)
I fail to see the anology. Unless the original GPL project ceases to exist, I don't see the harm being that great. I do believe the selling GPL'ed code as close source original works is an offense punishable by a good tar and feathering.
Violating a license.. is violating a license. Music or Software the offense is the same. Only in the case of GPL, we can't pretend that the victims are faceless and greedy corporatations...
Wow.. Someone always brings up MP3s..
Brgds,
Bill
OK I'll bite...
The problem with Toby's argument is that he is fixated on the speed of the CPU. It doesn't matter how much slower or faster the Network CPU is compared to the Main CPU. It is more important to have the Network CPU fast enough to handle to I/O requirements dictated by the network architecture.
With L2 cache and DMA being the norm now a days, I don't see what the problem is. Sure the Main CPU will stall if the cache needs to do fetch something from main memory, but hardware can be adjusted to take these possibilities into account.
Having processors dedicated to tasks, frees the CPU to handle any other tasks on its agenda. I see a network ASIC being able to receive the data payload ready for transmission, and do its thing until it interrupts the CPU to report it is done.
Also, the cpu would not have to wait for the network transmission to complete before sending more data. The network device would keep accepting payloads until the buffer was full.
While the Graphics Card is a good example, a better example would to look at the FPU. Floating Point Arithmetic is more CPU intensive than integer. To speed things up, the CPU submits the desired computation to the FPU and the FPU notifies the CPU when the calculation is complete.
Then there is the other omission made by Toby, the bus does not have a 1:1 speed ratio with the CPU. With this in mind and using Toby's logic, the ASIC would only have to match the bus speed not the CPU's.
Toby keeps mentioning why pay for a dedicated CPU when expensive CPU you have can handle the task. I think most engineers would ask why tie up an expensive CPU when a dedicated CPU can do the task.
In other words, lets free our expensive CPUs to perform general computational tasks by off loading some of the mundane labor to dedicated ASICS.
I will say Toby is correct with one thing. In a personal computer, I don't see the advantage to the Network ASIC (other than API), since the CPU is idle most of the time anyway.
However, in Intel's target market. I would like to have the CPU perform the application logic and offload the networking to dedicated processors. The idea being that if more headroom to the CPU is possible with the Network ASICS, I could see an increase to the maximum number of transactions per second. This increase could be just enough to keep me from investing in another blade or even another server.
Then again.. I may need more sleep.
Best Regards,
Bill
I am confused. I didn't know there were any restrictions on applications written in JAVA, except the need for a JVM...
Anyway, you also say the winAPI is mature and you can't say that about any GUI on Linux. Quite the contrary, both Qt and wxWidgets are mature. wxWidgets has been in continuous development since, what, 1992?
Well technically QT was started in 1991. However, it didn't really have the feature set people wanted until QT2.2 was released in 2000. But I will give QT some credit on a good API. However, I still disagree about Windows GUI being crap (No I don't own stock in MSFT).
Two things to add in this civil discussion:
I have the original Blue and White box for Windows/286 that I bought in 1987. I didn't use it much because at the time I liked Digital Research's GEM environment. I also had a windowing API for DOS called Z which looked great. I would even say Z looked better than many of the widgets in use today... Now only if I can find that box (and my 5-1/4 drive).
I was one of the first to upgrade to Windows 3.0 in 1990. I picked it up at the reseller on the release date. It was a big improvement over Win/286.
Anyway since I shorten QT's history to version 2.2, I will shorten Win GUI to version 3.0. By my math Microsoft's API is 10 years older than QT, and 2 years older than wxWindows. If I use the development start dates then Windows 1.0 was announced in 1983 (released in 1985), which makes it 8 years older than the start of QT's development, and 9 years older than the start of wxWindows' development. My point is that I am old and so is the WinAPI ;)
As I said in my last post, wxWindows works better as a wrapper to the native GUI. However, it has a couple of more features (I don't remember what they are) if you elect to use the wxWindows code.
Despite what my last post sounded like, I do like the GPL. I don't believe all software should be free. I do believe if the author wants to release something to the public, he should use the GPL to protect his gift to the community. Widgets and smaller routines can use BSD or Public Domain. My biggest gripe is applications.
Case in point, ArgoUML. ArgoUML seems to be stagnant, while the comercial product Poseidon from Gentleware is coming along quite nicely. Needless to say, I feel uncomfortable about giving code to ArgoUML so that Gentleware can make $249 to $3500 on that contribution. Sure Gentleware may have spent some money to make ArgoUML commercially viable, but it doesn't appear that ArgoUML has benefited from it.
Gentleware now says that they are using a different codebase, and to be fair, Gentleware does offer a crippled "community" version of Poseidon for free.
I do believe that ArgoUML would be significantly better than it is now if it was GPLed.
Anyway, I am starting to go a little off topic...
Brgds. Bill
Why put up with the overhead of the support code, when you can easily use the OS' GUI natively? Oh yea, cross-platform compatibility! But if you only want to use Windows, you would be an idiot for not using a mature, well tested, and well document GUI that comes at a very affordable price.... Free!... and unlike QT with no restrictions.
With that said:
I have to agree that a very small number (I can only think of Mozilla, Firefox, Sunbird, Thunderbird, and GIMP at the moment) of good software are cross platformed. But the vast majority are written in Windows which admittingly comes from being the 400lb gorilla of operating systems.
Anyway my points are:
a. come to think of it, most of the really good shit is cross-platform and open source.
Is not much to brag about when the complete population of cross platform software is microscopic when compared to the total population of software applications. And the majority of cross platformed software is proprietory between Windows and Macintosh, which doesn't support your open source argument either. I know I just blasphemed a sacred cow, but facts are facts. It is not my fault that the Windows and Macintosh platform has been around a lot longer than QT or GTK. It is also not my fault that even though UNIX is older, nobody really cared about it until Linux made it affordable. Besides being open source was not the argument, it was the ability to use the GUI library *WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS*. Open source has its place, but not as a straw man for a weak argument.
Funny thing, I use great cross platformed tools that don't use QT or GTK+ (or at least directly) and the authors don't have to worry about restrictions or processor type. It's called JAVA! Seriously, I went from loathing it to almost can't live without it. I still program in C for my embedded stuff, but I use Eclipse to do it (via CDT).
b. I suspect the real reason people still use Microsoft's crappy libraries is inertia.
Shows your lack of understanding of software development. While its true that the Windows GUI is not cross platformed, it was never designed to be! However, it is mature and that is something that can not be said of any GUI on Linux.
If you desire cross-platform compatibility, I recommend wxWindows. I don't use it for any windows only code because it adds a considerable amount of code. However if I am targeting multiple platforms, it is first on my list. I especially like its layout manager (similar to Java), and it doesn't come with all the BS associated with QT.
Given all the alternatives, QT is last on my list of recomendations. Save your money and use wxWindows. It is free, open-sourced, and has absolutely no restrictions (THANK YOU JULIAN SMART). Did I mention it is a damn good library too.
Brgds.
I would have to disagree with your premise. I remember Pong, and I have personally owned a Intellivision, Magnavision, Atari 2600 & 800, Sega and Sega Genesis . I had friends that owned the Colecovision, Comodore 64, and Nintendo. At 37, I have to say that my age group 35-41 are pretty avid gamers. That said, let me make an observation.
I never got a Gameboy, because let's face it most Nintendo games are marketed to the younger crowd. I am more of a Grand Turismo type rather than a Mario-Cart type.
Also I have outgrown the platform games from the 80's, so I tend to go for First Person Games and the like. Sony recognizes this and produce products that appeal to me. They also know that I can afford the extra power required to run these games, so the PSP is born.
I fear that handheld devices are a dying market in general. PDA sales are down for the 3rd year in a row, and I don't see a huge growth market in handheld games. I wish Sony luck in their new venture.
Actually, the long silence is us trying to figure out what the hell this political story posing as a tech story is trying to portray.
The data from the Weather Service has been free for quite a while now. I've been involved with the NWS's SKYWARN program for over a decade, and have witnessed the emancipation of weather data first hand.
I remember when the only source of doppler radar data was Intellicast, and the free data updated every 15 minutes (or more). Starting in 1994, the Modernization Act not only streamlined the NWS and upgraded the radar technology, it also improved the amount of data and its accuracy being presented to the public.
During the Clinton administration, the NWS had initiative to push weather data into all the EMA offices. This resulted in the EMWIN system that provided free satelite weather data, and its internet based system INWIN. Now all the weather services have a homepage that provides the weather observations, now casts, forcast discussions, satellite pictures, and doppler radar data that is updated every 7 minutes (which is impressive, since it takes 7 minutes for the doppler radar to do a full scan).Raw data have been available for quite some time using FTP transfer protocol.
So after witnessing all these improvements during the 8 years of the Clinton administration, am I suppose to pretend that this is a Bush initiative that will happen soon?
Unless your car can travel the globe instantaneously (or that matter traverse an ocean) while getting unlimited gas milage, than I can see your point. But sadly reality makes your point wrong.
I believe what you meant to say is:
That while it is a crime to transport illegal drugs and if caught stiff penalties will be given (including the loss of said vehicle), the vehicle manufacturer themselves are not held accountable for the actions of their consumers.
As for the comparison of TCP/IP to P2P, you can think of TCP and UDP as a vehicle and P2P as the courier service. P2P uses network protocols to ferry their packages around the internet. While the inventor of the vehicle is usually not held liable for any crimes committed with thier product, carrier services are not so lucky. If the carrier knows that their service is being used to commit crimes, they are held accountable.
This is where both your analogies work against you. P2P providers admit that their service is used to distribute pirated material (along with legitamate material), but they argue that they have no direct control of thier clients. By this admission they can be found liable.
Common carriers (in the physical world) go to great lengths to insure that they are not transporting illegal items. In the U.S. they cooperate with Customs, Immigrations, USDA Plant Quaratine, DEA (drug enforcement), ATF (Alcohol Tobacco and firearms), and local law officials (mostly weight restrictions for cargo carried on public highways). When an occasional illegal item makes it way to its destination via a common carrier, the fact that the common carrier has a history of cooperation with law enforcement is used to prove that the courier was not actively involved in the transaction.
On the otherhand, some smaller carriers who make it a habit to avoid detection by law officials by taking alternate routes, by avoiding inspection points, by knowingly carrying illegal cargo, and by having a customer base made up of mostly criminals are not so lucky...
I am in agreement with the parent of your post. The VCR is not a device capable of distribution therefore its manufacture can not be held liable for the distribution of pirated materials. The premise is that Sony did not engineer the VCR for mass distribution. P2P on the otherhand is designed for distribution, and so is not covered by the Sony Betamax decision.
Service providers like the old Napster, Kazaa, Websites hosting Torrent Links, and Grokster should be held liable for the material that they actively help distribute especially if they knowingly cater to a consumer base that distribute copyrighted material.
Only if these services actively discourage piracy by deleting known material from their directory and blocking (and reporting) customers that posted the material (DISCLAIMERS DON'T COUNT), should these services be found non-liable.
Tools like bittorrent should not be held liable, since even though it was engineered for the distribution of information. Its creator has absolutely no control on what is transfered.
I know my opinion is not popular, but hey get over it.
As someone else has pointed out, a lot of people speed. Should we get rid of speeding offences?
Not necessarily, but we should reconsider what the limits are set at. When 95% of people are driving faster than the limit, the general consensus would seem to be that the limit is too low.
Laws are meant to serve the people, not the other way around.
I bet if you put out a referandum to the population at large and asked what the speed limit on I-95 should be, they wouldn't come up with 55 mph.
There is a flaw in your logic. Just because the majority of the people want to speed, does not mean that they should raise the speed limit.
The NCSA stated that the leading cause of death for ages 3 to 33 in 2002 was Moter Vehicle Traffic Crashes http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/RNote s/2004/809831.pdf.
In fact, Highway fatalities (based on 2002 numbers) are at an all-time high. In Alabama, this can be directly attributed to the lack of state troopers and increasing the speed limit to 75. Now that the speed limit is at 75, motorist (particularly the younger ones) drive at speeds well above 80. I can not travel on the interstate one weekend without driving by at least one fatal (or near fatal accident). To be fair I travel over 500 miles of interstate on a weekend so I have a huge sample base for my observations, but the national statistics do corollate with my observations.
So, in other word, the new legal environment (the DMCA) is attracting more and more profiteers and schemers, like putting cheese attracts mold. It's sad that some people would want to earn a living hurting other people by leveraging a law almost nobody wants...
But the good news is: if automated monitoring of P2P protocols becomes commonplace, you can bet there will be other, new exciting development in P2P technology.
I think the BayTSP service sounds pretty cool, especially the part where they would confirm the contents of the file before issuing C&D orders. They found a need, and attempt to satisfy that need with a novel web based approach. The engineer in me marvels at their concept... (I am not a fan of suing innocent people, but at least the press release gave some indication that measures are available to keep the innocent out of the cross hairs.)
I find it telling that you would encourage piracy, and hope new P2P techniques will be developed to continue said piracy....
To counter your words: It's sad that some people would want to hurt other people by preventing them from earning a living by disregarding a law (and the rights of the author and publisher) through piracy.
What I do find offensive is legitimate file transfer tools are being made a target by the direspect these people show for not only the creator of the art but to the people who use the transfer tools for legitimate purposes.
If someone offers something I like but at a price that I believe is too much, I simply learn to do without or look for a cheaper alternative. When it comes to software, I'll either use lower cost versions (including GPL) or make my own (and maybe even distribute it as GPL'd). When it comes to music or movies, I can do without or just listen to the radio, watch it on cable, or rent it from Blockbuster. Basically, I won't pay over $200 for software, when there is a $50 program that can do the job. I won't spend $50 for a program if a free one will do the job. I don't consider GPL software as totally free, since I feel obligated to help with development (by sending error corrections or making a HOWTO) in return for said programs use.
I live by the simple rule "Earn respect, by respecting others." Whew.. Time to step down from the soap box..
A hardware based biometric security device that supplies the "public" key of an encrypted PDA is the best way to go. This way the PDA is a paperweight unless someone spoofs your fingerprint (Use your imagination).
The only way to recover from a faulty fingerprint read or a lost password is to wipe the PDA clean, and reload it with data stored on the corporate server.
I never had the performance problems with any of my JAVA apps that I created or that I used (such as eclipse).
The performance problems referred by others may be related to the abilities of the JAVA programmer more than the JVM.
BTW, just so I can be like everybody in this thread. My brag text is that I've been programming for over 23 years and used ASM, C/C++, Forth, Fortran, PHP, Perl, Haskell, Prolog, Java, and some I rather forget.
YES!
So you would have no problems with me coming over and stealing your car...
What? You think you have a god given right to actually have exclusive use of your property?
While the parent post may seem brash, it did make a couple of points.
I agree the "review" did read too much like a rant, used operational details as filler text as opposed using it as supplimental information, and made some huge generalities of the technology used within Yellow Dog
Basically, this was a average to below average article.
But to be fair... The reviewer could seem brash, and made some valid points too. ;)