Hey that's fine. If you want to forbid that go right ahead however it's rather clear that not all developers think that way. What I take issue with is the parent claiming it's some kind of right to be able to run whatever he wishes on whatever he wishes absent of the new GPL license.
That is right but you do not own the code or the schematics for the design. You have ever right to unsolder the chips and sell them on ebay if you wish or to beat the hardware with a hammer. Your rights end at the hardware; decisions in design belong to the makers of the hardware no matter how entitled you believe yourself to be to it. Your ownership rights end at what you can do with the device you own once it is in your hands it does not force manufacturers to accommodate your whims.
Last year, Richard Dawkins, of The Selfish Gene fame, made a documentary about religion called "Root of All Evil?", where he defines faith as "the process of non-thinking" that can lead to even the worst human condition, like murderous thinking when the fundamentalism make people hate and kill each other. Just like what's happening in Israel right now.
Faith, Paranoia, Nationalism, etc can all do this, for that matter anything that would be more apt to draw an emotional response rather then a rational one, religion is not anything special in this regard.
One of the most interesting things about it is that he tries to talk with several religious leaders about evolution, and they sistematically avoid any rational discussion and undeniable evidence with the same stupid arguments, equivalent to "my book says this and therefore, it must be true".
This doesn't surprise me in the least; those that don't buy the most probable scientific answer to the problem are probably not following the scientific method to derive their answer. While they are certainly those that attempt to prove their beliefs with science (and typically look the fool) the vast majority of those who hold the belief know what they believe goes against what the consensus of science and debating them on science really is sort of foolish on both parties parts.
He brings forth the question "why can't schools just teach science in SCIENCE class?"
Personally I think that it's almost a benefit to the students that it is there. One of the most fundamental things of a science class should instill the student is the ability for them to determine what good science (or logic for that matter) is and likewise what bad science is. If a child cannot see on their own that ID is not science then no knowledge, no equations, no nothing will help this person in the field or in life.
Re:"Could this be lights out for Intel?"
on
IBM Opts for AMD
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Let's see... 100 minus 26... carry the 9... that leaves 74% share left for Intel, right?
1. You cannot compare something that is new to something that is used. There is a large drop in value upon delivery alone; this is true for pretty much anything mass produced.
2. One of the largest factors in value for the plane is the avionics, something those planes are lacking in.
Granted I don't see much value in this other then as a novelty but to be honest most of these classes of planes (lacking large fuel tanks and cabin space) are that too.
Modifying an autopilot by smashing it with a big rock prior to installation might cause a disaster. What safeguards are in place to prevent this? Sure, they might put 1" armor on it, but I'm sure that some high explosive will still damage the device.
Smashing the autopilot with a rock will not crash a plane, even if it's in use at the time. Smashing a autopilot with a rock will leave you without a autopilot, and it would be pretty obvious to the pilot that the autopilot was smashed if it was done by another part, modifying the firmware that is unlikely to be the case. Avionics are designed to shut down and warn the pilot (and if applicable jump to a backup or redundant unit) when there is a failure of the unit, this is done of course though software.
Ultimately the users of safety-critical hardware are the ones most responsible for using it correctly. Their first step should be to screen their vendors for systems that are adequately tested. However, if they feel that they can modify the hardware to make it more suitable they should be able to do so (although they might have to apply for various government certifications in some industries to use the resulting new product). The user has every incentive to exercise due care with the equipment.
Likewise the vendor should right to wash their hands of the end user if they do start screwing around with their firmware in which the company's reputation and liability are tied up in. If they wish to manage their own branch of firmware they should buy uncertified units from a vendor willing to sell them and use those. Carriers are banned from doing this anyway under contract for major computer systems on larger aircraft. This is not something new.
Airlines spend tons of money on maintenance to make sure their planes don't just fall out of the sky. Why would anybody think that they would just start flashing their firmware willy-nilly simply because the hardware allows it. If they did develop their own firmware they would almost certainly test the living daylights out of it and install it under thorough controls. The FAA would be able to tell what firmware was running just by inspecting the aircraft's maintenance logs.
Safety-critical industries are generally very aware of the impact of the software they use, and since the costs of testing their software right is less than the cost of a planefull of wrongful death lawsuits they're going to be careful about flashing their EPROMS - regardless of vendor support.
One would think that in an ideal world this would be the case and generally this is done. But each year the FAA levies millions in fines to carriers for maintenance violations. Death and injury happen even to this day due to carelessness within the mechanical systems of an aircraft I fail to see software is some sort of different beast. The bigger problem with firmware while any changes in a mechanical system is going to be pretty obvious after a catastrophic failure, the firmware of these systems will likely be destroyed making it not just the carries problem but the manufacturer's when the NTSB rules that a failure of the FMC caused a crash.
If it is a must, why is it not done? Because the fact is, and you'll have to trust me on this, it is not done.
As remote upgradeability becomes more prevalent it will become far more common. Unfortunately I cannot take your word on that because I have been involved in the design of systems that do require cryptographically signed code at the monitor level for the reasons I mentioned before. Besides, The FAA REQUIRES firmware to be locked down on a product as they only approve the current state of the product, changes to the software (or the hardware) require a new STC, the FDA works in a similar way.
In reality, as opposed to in paranoid fantasy, physical access controls and good policy are what prevent anyone from messing with life-critical systems. There is no evidence at all that anyone anywhere has ever been harmed by alternate code being run on such systems.
Once the hardware is out of your hands you have very little control into how it would be modified by the owner. There haven't been any injuries because there isn't a large amount of life-critical systems that use a significant amount of GPLed code. As a matter of fact I can count on one hand the number of life-critical systems that I know of that use GPLed software and I am not aware of any such systems currently in the market and approved for use under their respective regulatory authorities. The companies I have been involved in use closed source shops (not by choice but necessity) so the user really doesn't have access to the code but it's damn rare but I have seen people harmed due to everything from unapproved hack job repairs all the way up to fires being caused due to someone shorting fuses within the product. I don't see how giving these people more ways to injure people helps anyone. If the goal of this is to facilitate research make the requirement that the designer be required to provide a non-approved device in exchange for the Approved one purchased at the owners shipping expense that way we can remove our nameplates and approval tags from the unit.
The invocation of this issue is just an unsubstantiated scare tactic, based on faith rather than evidence.
It's just common sense, exposing yourself to undue risk is pointless. Statistically you probably aren't going to have your house burglarized but it would be pretty damn foolish to leave your savings under the bed as it is a pointless risk. Abridging someone's or a company's right to protect itself from risk regardless if you feel it warranted
The only thing that Linus' is defending is manufacturer's right to prevent anyone from ever running anything they don't approve of. I personally want to be able to run anything I want on my hardware (that's what "my" means) and if the manufacturer has to tell a bunch of lame customers who've broken stuff that they don't get no support, I'm sure that the manufacturers won't have any trouble at all doing that.
That is all well and good until some idiot decides to modify some piece of equipment that is life-critical resulting in injury or worse. The warranty means nothing if you are getting blamed for causing industry. The NTSC would probably not be able to check the firmware signature of some equipment in the event of an aircraft crash and the FDA would probably not be able to tell if the same idiot were to cover the problem up my re-installing approved software. In life-critical applications locking the software is a must in many cases.
I am not the parent but I do know "something". This Dave individual steadfastly refused to release any code, banned users from the forums (after ignoring or being abusive to user's emails) for nearly 6 months and only did after the staff at Limewire got involved did he release a version with chunks of code that would fall under GPL missing. For all I know the software may be in full compliance, but regardless of that fact his attitude towards his responsibilities puts me in the mind profiteer attempting to get something for nothing. It will take a hell of a lot more then following the rules to escape the stigma of that in my book.
Oil only funds bad guys(Big Oil and the Middle Eastern theocracies)
Don't forget Canada. Don't think I'm not on to you Canada with your clean streets and your cheap healthcare! The only logical step from that is world domination. Watch out!
You should get on TV then and then you could show the whole world what kind of cooky freaks these Moon Hoaxer Conspiracy Theorists really are.
Get on TV? You make it sound like a person just walks up to the Studio and they put you on national TV. Most people who are knowledgeable in the subjects probably have little time to deal with getting themselves on TV. It is that reason why there are so many cooks on the TV.
When I have been on projects where money has been an issue I typically go to local plastic injection mould manufactures, usually the smaller the shop the better luck I have and simply talk to them about the project. Unless they are swamped with work they are usually very helpful and I have even on a few occasions had them make me a prototype case for next to nothing. After all these guys know you do need financing make things a reality. A single injection mould will cost you around $250,000 depending on the size and complexity.
Really nothing beats being able to meet someone face to face with your ideas and concepts you will be surprised at all the cool stuff these guys can do with plastics.
It has been awhile since I have bought a mac but when I did the keyboard had 2 ports on it. One for the mouse and one to make up for the port you lost.
Sure, vendors (NVIDIA etc.) could provide their own OpenGL-implementation, but that means that the spiffy 3D-desktop Vista has would not work anymore. In other words: Microsoft is making sure that OpenGL is as undesireable as possible in Vista.
Could make custom drivers? They Do and have for almost as long as 3d accelerators have been around. There is no reason why card makers can not support both OpenGL and DX, they do now with out much problem. When you are using your desktop the spiffiness uses DX and when you play your game it uses OpenGL the only time this would be an issue is when running OpenGL in a window, something that isn't that popular in most games.
Cripple OpenGL how, not including a generic driver? Video card manufacturers develop their own implementation of OpenGL in their drivers, and have to for years; there is not a whole lot of need for generic drivers that do not have all the extensions needed for the card. Crippled is running a generic driver.
Besides going back to the stone-ages... when we didn't have factories, cars, or the need for manufacturing, what do you honestly think can be done? Nothing... so it doesn't matter.
First of all going back to the stone-ages would make things worse rather then better without significant loss of population.
Second greenhouse gasses typically are pretty short lived so any improvement in efficiency of any of those things you list above will be a benefit. Just because you cannot fix something overnight doesn't me that no attempts should be made and it doesn't matter.
Well then, I sit corrected. Console gaming might just be the thing that saves OpenGL's ass.
Even without the gaming market OpenGL would have little to worry about. For the professional sector (Video/Cine, Research, etc.) it really has really no competition. OpenGL was originally designed for 3d workstations whereas DirectX(3D) is a game API plain and simple, in OpenGL only about 1/3rd of the API is appropriate for games and for the most part those parts of the spec arn't supported on your Geforce or Radeon.
Seriously though, OpenGL is not making any serious competition with DirectX. Apple is nowhere in gaming, I don't know of any game consoles that use OpenGL as their primary 3D API, and Microsoft is all but dropping it (though they have provided Software OpenGL for years.)
Acording to wikipedia Sony is using it for the PS3 and Nintendo uses it. It only makes sense that MS is dropping it, no one uses the drivers that MS makes as video card companies develop their own drivers and have for a long while.
My concern would be a compromised firmware &&|| microcode in the chipset.
There is very little that either of these can do other then screw with security features which would be visible eventually.
If you comprimise the chipset you can do almost anything.
That ball would be in the chipset manufacturer's court as they manufacture the chipset. In this case they use intel's Centrino chipset.
NOR flash cells are a compatible process with logic cells (NAND is not). So there is no reason that you can't make chipsets with a gob of flash memory hidden on-die.
1. You don't have the chipset IP
2. Even if you could putting a lot of flash on something for no reason would be expensive.
You could even obfsucate the existance of the array by placing random metal lines on higher layers, thus hiding the orderly row and collumn arrangement of a memory array.
Any meaningful amount of flash memory would have a lot of surface area, even if attempts were made to obfuscate it would be pretty obvious by the surface area of the chip that something is up. It wouldn't be hard for you to bury a few K of flash in a design but for something meaningful you are talking about dramatically increasing the size of the die perhaps to the point of doubling it or more.
People who like to run games normally have higher screen resolution than "normal" people. Ecommerce is targeted to the standard Joe with an XP default install of 800x600. That resolution is much more common than 14%.
First of all the site provides games. Second of all I have posted a link with the details got something contradictory? Prove it.
At 800x600 I have to use the horizontal scroll bar to read that page. It is very annoying. Almost 50% of the world uses 800x600. It might be that your clients would have higher resolution, but for commercial design it best to try to satisfy at least 90% of all visitors.
Almost 50%? Perhaps in 2002 but browser news peg 800x600 around 14%. Since his target market is english speaking people with an interest in games I am sure looking at his site statistics will be well within the 90%
I can certainly understand that happening. However it really doesn't much matter to the service provider since at the worst case a court would rule that there was no meeting of minds (Consensus ad idem) and the contract would be nullified putting everyone where they started in the first place. For a user of a free service they would have wasted a ton of time and money for nothing which really doesn't make much sense.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey that's fine. If you want to forbid that go right ahead however it's rather clear that not all developers think that way. What I take issue with is the parent claiming it's some kind of right to be able to run whatever he wishes on whatever he wishes absent of the new GPL license.
That is right but you do not own the code or the schematics for the design. You have ever right to unsolder the chips and sell them on ebay if you wish or to beat the hardware with a hammer. Your rights end at the hardware; decisions in design belong to the makers of the hardware no matter how entitled you believe yourself to be to it. Your ownership rights end at what you can do with the device you own once it is in your hands it does not force manufacturers to accommodate your whims.
Where the heck do you get the idea that it's your right for manufacturers to facilitate your desire to modify firmware or embedded software?
This doesn't surprise me in the least; those that don't buy the most probable scientific answer to the problem are probably not following the scientific method to derive their answer. While they are certainly those that attempt to prove their beliefs with science (and typically look the fool) the vast majority of those who hold the belief know what they believe goes against what the consensus of science and debating them on science really is sort of foolish on both parties parts.
Personally I think that it's almost a benefit to the students that it is there. One of the most fundamental things of a science class should instill the student is the ability for them to determine what good science (or logic for that matter) is and likewise what bad science is. If a child cannot see on their own that ID is not science then no knowledge, no equations, no nothing will help this person in the field or in life.
Nope, Intel has 72.9%.
1. You cannot compare something that is new to something that is used. There is a large drop in value upon delivery alone; this is true for pretty much anything mass produced. 2. One of the largest factors in value for the plane is the avionics, something those planes are lacking in. Granted I don't see much value in this other then as a novelty but to be honest most of these classes of planes (lacking large fuel tanks and cabin space) are that too.
Likewise the vendor should right to wash their hands of the end user if they do start screwing around with their firmware in which the company's reputation and liability are tied up in. If they wish to manage their own branch of firmware they should buy uncertified units from a vendor willing to sell them and use those. Carriers are banned from doing this anyway under contract for major computer systems on larger aircraft. This is not something new.
One would think that in an ideal world this would be the case and generally this is done. But each year the FAA levies millions in fines to carriers for maintenance violations. Death and injury happen even to this day due to carelessness within the mechanical systems of an aircraft I fail to see software is some sort of different beast. The bigger problem with firmware while any changes in a mechanical system is going to be pretty obvious after a catastrophic failure, the firmware of these systems will likely be destroyed making it not just the carries problem but the manufacturer's when the NTSB rules that a failure of the FMC caused a crash.
Once the hardware is out of your hands you have very little control into how it would be modified by the owner. There haven't been any injuries because there isn't a large amount of life-critical systems that use a significant amount of GPLed code. As a matter of fact I can count on one hand the number of life-critical systems that I know of that use GPLed software and I am not aware of any such systems currently in the market and approved for use under their respective regulatory authorities. The companies I have been involved in use closed source shops (not by choice but necessity) so the user really doesn't have access to the code but it's damn rare but I have seen people harmed due to everything from unapproved hack job repairs all the way up to fires being caused due to someone shorting fuses within the product. I don't see how giving these people more ways to injure people helps anyone. If the goal of this is to facilitate research make the requirement that the designer be required to provide a non-approved device in exchange for the Approved one purchased at the owners shipping expense that way we can remove our nameplates and approval tags from the unit.
It's just common sense, exposing yourself to undue risk is pointless. Statistically you probably aren't going to have your house burglarized but it would be pretty damn foolish to leave your savings under the bed as it is a pointless risk. Abridging someone's or a company's right to protect itself from risk regardless if you feel it warranted
I am not the parent but I do know "something". This Dave individual steadfastly refused to release any code, banned users from the forums (after ignoring or being abusive to user's emails) for nearly 6 months and only did after the staff at Limewire got involved did he release a version with chunks of code that would fall under GPL missing. For all I know the software may be in full compliance, but regardless of that fact his attitude towards his responsibilities puts me in the mind profiteer attempting to get something for nothing. It will take a hell of a lot more then following the rules to escape the stigma of that in my book.
The real problem becomes scanning a barcode 2 boxes deep in a pallet of 80 boxes. That is where RFIDs excell.
When I have been on projects where money has been an issue I typically go to local plastic injection mould manufactures, usually the smaller the shop the better luck I have and simply talk to them about the project. Unless they are swamped with work they are usually very helpful and I have even on a few occasions had them make me a prototype case for next to nothing. After all these guys know you do need financing make things a reality. A single injection mould will cost you around $250,000 depending on the size and complexity. Really nothing beats being able to meet someone face to face with your ideas and concepts you will be surprised at all the cool stuff these guys can do with plastics.
It has been awhile since I have bought a mac but when I did the keyboard had 2 ports on it. One for the mouse and one to make up for the port you lost.
Cripple OpenGL how, not including a generic driver? Video card manufacturers develop their own implementation of OpenGL in their drivers, and have to for years; there is not a whole lot of need for generic drivers that do not have all the extensions needed for the card. Crippled is running a generic driver.
Second greenhouse gasses typically are pretty short lived so any improvement in efficiency of any of those things you list above will be a benefit. Just because you cannot fix something overnight doesn't me that no attempts should be made and it doesn't matter.
Even without the gaming market OpenGL would have little to worry about. For the professional sector (Video/Cine, Research, etc.) it really has really no competition. OpenGL was originally designed for 3d workstations whereas DirectX(3D) is a game API plain and simple, in OpenGL only about 1/3rd of the API is appropriate for games and for the most part those parts of the spec arn't supported on your Geforce or Radeon.
Acording to wikipedia Sony is using it for the PS3 and Nintendo uses it. It only makes sense that MS is dropping it, no one uses the drivers that MS makes as video card companies develop their own drivers and have for a long while.
My concern would be a compromised firmware &&|| microcode in the chipset.
There is very little that either of these can do other then screw with security features which would be visible eventually.
If you comprimise the chipset you can do almost anything.
That ball would be in the chipset manufacturer's court as they manufacture the chipset. In this case they use intel's Centrino chipset.
NOR flash cells are a compatible process with logic cells (NAND is not). So there is no reason that you can't make chipsets with a gob of flash memory hidden on-die.
1. You don't have the chipset IP
2. Even if you could putting a lot of flash on something for no reason would be expensive.
You could even obfsucate the existance of the array by placing random metal lines on higher layers, thus hiding the orderly row and collumn arrangement of a memory array.
Any meaningful amount of flash memory would have a lot of surface area, even if attempts were made to obfuscate it would be pretty obvious by the surface area of the chip that something is up. It wouldn't be hard for you to bury a few K of flash in a design but for something meaningful you are talking about dramatically increasing the size of the die perhaps to the point of doubling it or more.
People who like to run games normally have higher screen resolution than "normal" people. Ecommerce is targeted to the standard Joe with an XP default install of 800x600. That resolution is much more common than 14%.
First of all the site provides games. Second of all I have posted a link with the details got something contradictory? Prove it.
At 800x600 I have to use the horizontal scroll bar to read that page. It is very annoying. Almost 50% of the world uses 800x600. It might be that your clients would have higher resolution, but for commercial design it best to try to satisfy at least 90% of all visitors.
Almost 50%? Perhaps in 2002 but browser news peg 800x600 around 14%. Since his target market is english speaking people with an interest in games I am sure looking at his site statistics will be well within the 90%
I can certainly understand that happening. However it really doesn't much matter to the service provider since at the worst case a court would rule that there was no meeting of minds (Consensus ad idem) and the contract would be nullified putting everyone where they started in the first place. For a user of a free service they would have wasted a ton of time and money for nothing which really doesn't make much sense.