Aopen released a hybrid tube audio-based motherboard back in... 2002? Perhaps it was 2001 even... My analog brain seems to have problems with old, non-important dates.
Has anyone actually bought this board? Using high-end tubes to preamplify some crappy onboard sound seems kind of silly to me. Last time I listened to sound that was generated by some on-board chip, I even could "hear" the mouse moving across the desktop...
Better use optical S/PDif and external converters, then you can connect a tube-preamp or whatever.
The consultation document itself uses the term "traffic data", but nowhere do I see an explicit indication that this refers to the contents of messages.
This should be clarified. Gathering connection data vs. gathering "all traffic data" is a whole different story, both technically and ethically.
Instead, they seem to be talking about retaining connection logs also after they have been used for billing purposes.
That's an interesting point, too. Because sometimes, you don't even need connection logs for billing (consider "flatrate" connections, for example).
IMO, this law proposal will fail for simple economic reasons. If they really want it mandatory to store ALL traffic data, that would make internet infrastructure more expensive by several orders of magnitude. If business depends heavily on internet infrastructure, and it's several orders of magnitude cheaper elsewhere, business might go there instead.
People will not be upset for being snooped on, but for having to pay too much.
I'm also surprised. Last time I checked, the discussion went about storage of all connection logs, which would already require a huge storage. But storing all traffic data seems virtually impossible to me.
Is it user who is responsible to store all data (including spam email)? Or is it ISP's and teleoperators?
Last time I checked, the ISPs would be responsible. Thats why their organizations (bitkom et al.) protested against the law proposal.
Re:intellectual property is artificial
on
Is IP Property?
·
· Score: 1
the only logical outcome of this tangled mess is that America will no longer be a leader in technological innovation (or scientific innovation, re the patent problem). While this might allow the companies in question to continue to make profits and crush their competition using the government as their paid thug, we, the people of this nation, will lose out as other countries without insane IP laws will spur themselves to outstrip us in their technological advances. We will become nothing more than a second-rate technologically inferior backwater unable to effectively compete on the world market with the superior, more advanced products created by other nations.
You seem to underestimate the fact that the US can use their economical power to impose their IP laws on other countries by the WIPO and "free trade" agreements. The EU for example has just introduced draconian copyright laws and if we have bad luck, they will also introduce software patents here.
Our politicans like the concept of IP, because unqualified labor (production of material goods) can be easily outsourced to "cheap" countries anyway, while only qualified labor (production of "intellectual property") remains in the country. This leads them to the conclusion that "intellectual property" has to be "protected" by all means. Sigh.
Back then, OSes were written in "safe" languages like ALGOL, FORTRAN, and LISP.
Yeah, let's write task schedulers in LISP! ROFL
Generally, you can't do it in Java because the API has been designed to prevent it.
AFAIK, its not the API but the language features (VM and garbage collector) that don't allow deterministic behavior. I'm not saying that C/C++ are better languages but you don't have these problems there.
I apologize if I misinterpreted, but your post did make it sound like you were referring to Java having too poor of performance to act as a platform for things like Device Drivers.
It's not a question of performance, but deterministic behavior and guaranteed maximum latency.
(...) extensions are being worked on for "hard" realtime support. And yes, some people actually write device drivers in Java.
It's interesting that people are working on this. But you wouldn't use that in production systems, would you?
2. People like you WANT it to be slow. I'm sorry, comparing Java programming against device driver writing? That's the height of hypocrisy.
I never wrote about the slowness thing, I just didn't like the "you can do anything in Java" statement made by the parent poster. Because you can't do the low level stuff in Java. If you disagree, there you are, but please don't take it personal.
Wow, different tools for different jobs... who'd have though?
Yes, exactly. That's why it's inappropriate to say "everything you can do in X, you can do in Y"
BTW: of course you could write webapps in C (for example, if your target is a 8-bit micro and doesn't support different languages), but you cannot write device drivers in Java.
I don't have a problem with people who like high-level stuff, but they always seem to take the low-level stuff for granted.
Pfizer has the rights to the specific chemical compound, not the concept. The same thing should happen for software, companies should be able to protect their implementation, but not the general concept.
Just imagine, you spend years coming up with something that ou think is great. Some big company sees it and copies it. They have the money to promote it and they corner the market. You've wasted a couple of years without any return.
Whenever someone's bringing up this argument to defend SW patents, it begins with "Imagine...".
I can tell you why:
there is NO real-world example in the S/W industry to back that up. It's pure fiction.
My current dream is to take a couple years off work, and write an entire operating system in a high-level language. Something where a Python VM is integrated into the kernel.
You don't want to write a whole OS in a high-level language. IMO, you can't write low level stuff such as task scheduling, device drivers and the like in a language that is based on some virtual machine, or even a scripting language.
right. Intel, for instance, specifies a minimum limit of 100.000 block rewrites for their StrataFlash.
However, there are special flash filesystems (jffs2 for example) with wearleveling.
Slashdot Mirror
Aopen released a hybrid tube audio-based motherboard back in... 2002? Perhaps it was 2001 even... My analog brain seems to have problems with old, non-important dates.
Has anyone actually bought this board? Using high-end tubes to preamplify some crappy onboard sound seems kind of silly to me. Last time I listened to sound that was generated by some on-board chip, I even could "hear" the mouse moving across the desktop...
Better use optical S/PDif and external converters, then you can connect a tube-preamp or whatever.
The consultation document itself uses the term "traffic data", but nowhere do I see an explicit indication that this refers to the contents of messages.
This should be clarified. Gathering connection data vs. gathering "all traffic data" is a whole different story, both technically and ethically.
Instead, they seem to be talking about retaining connection logs also after they have been used for billing purposes.
That's an interesting point, too. Because sometimes, you don't even need connection logs for billing (consider "flatrate" connections, for example).
IMO, this law proposal will fail for simple economic reasons. If they really want it mandatory to store ALL traffic data, that would make internet infrastructure more expensive by several orders of magnitude. If business depends heavily on internet infrastructure, and it's several orders of magnitude cheaper elsewhere, business might go there instead.
People will not be upset for being snooped on, but for having to pay too much.
I'm also surprised. Last time I checked, the discussion went about storage of all connection logs, which would already require a huge storage. But storing all traffic data seems virtually impossible to me.
Is it user who is responsible to store all data (including spam email)? Or is it ISP's and teleoperators?
Last time I checked, the ISPs would be responsible. Thats why their organizations (bitkom et al.) protested against the law proposal.
the only logical outcome of this tangled mess is that America will no longer be a leader in technological innovation (or scientific innovation, re the patent problem). While this might allow the companies in question to continue to make profits and crush their competition using the government as their paid thug, we, the people of this nation, will lose out as other countries without insane IP laws will spur themselves to outstrip us in their technological advances. We will become nothing more than a second-rate technologically inferior backwater unable to effectively compete on the world market with the superior, more advanced products created by other nations.
You seem to underestimate the fact that the US can use their economical power to impose their IP laws on other countries by the WIPO and "free trade" agreements. The EU for example has just introduced draconian copyright laws and if we have bad luck, they will also introduce software patents here.
Our politicans like the concept of IP, because unqualified labor (production of material goods) can be easily outsourced to "cheap" countries anyway, while only qualified labor (production of "intellectual property") remains in the country. This leads them to the conclusion that "intellectual property" has to be "protected" by all means. Sigh.
Back then, OSes were written in "safe" languages like ALGOL, FORTRAN, and LISP.
Yeah, let's write task schedulers in LISP! ROFL
Generally, you can't do it in Java because the API has been designed to prevent it.
AFAIK, its not the API but the language features (VM and garbage collector) that don't allow deterministic behavior. I'm not saying that C/C++ are better languages but you don't have these problems there.
I apologize if I misinterpreted, but your post did make it sound like you were referring to Java having too poor of performance to act as a platform for things like Device Drivers.
It's not a question of performance, but deterministic behavior and guaranteed maximum latency.
(...) extensions are being worked on for "hard" realtime support. And yes, some people actually write device drivers in Java.
It's interesting that people are working on this. But you wouldn't use that in production systems, would you?
2. People like you WANT it to be slow. I'm sorry, comparing Java programming against device driver writing? That's the height of hypocrisy.
I never wrote about the slowness thing, I just didn't like the "you can do anything in Java" statement made by the parent poster. Because you can't do the low level stuff in Java. If you disagree, there you are, but please don't take it personal.
Wow, different tools for different jobs... who'd have though?
Yes, exactly. That's why it's inappropriate to say "everything you can do in X, you can do in Y"
BTW: of course you could write webapps in C (for example, if your target is a 8-bit micro and doesn't support different languages), but you cannot write device drivers in Java.
I don't have a problem with people who like high-level stuff, but they always seem to take the low-level stuff for granted.
Anyway my point is that I find Java can do anything that C/C++ can do
you never did device drivers or realtime systems, did you?
Pfizer has the rights to the specific chemical compound, not the concept. The same thing should happen for software, companies should be able to protect their implementation, but not the general concept.
This is already the case. It's called copyright.
You don't want to write a whole OS in a high-level language. IMO, you can't write low level stuff such as task scheduling, device drivers and the like in a language that is based on some virtual machine, or even a scripting language.
right. Intel, for instance, specifies a minimum limit of 100.000 block rewrites for their StrataFlash. However, there are special flash filesystems (jffs2 for example) with wearleveling.