You are confused. HD Netflix is NOT 1080p (it is 720p and sorry to break it to you, most of the titles are only recorded in NTSC - not even 720p). Streaming will NOT work for gaming for a number of reasons (lack of sameness between blocks, can't use buffering, etc). And uncompressing images ALSO takes time too. Sorry, no free lunch and this whole idea is just stupid. Much like cloud computing has been a stupid idea since IBM suggested it in the 1960's and it is still a stupid idea today. If any of this was a good idea, we would all have terminals to IBM mainframes right now instead of the personal computers we have today (in its various forms).
Let's pretend you have a 15 Mbps connection (which I would say is a very atypical connection) and you get it down to 1 frame per second. It still doesn't matter and this is an incredibly slow and stupid system. You need network bandwith equivalent to the video cable spec hooked from your video card to your monitor for this system to work. As far as I know, that WILL never happen while any of us are alive.
Also, please link this 1080p system that works on a 10 Mbps connection? As I pointed out already, HDMI (which is used for all known 1080p in the real universe) is a 10.2 Gbps cable spec (NOT 10 Mbps). The math doesn't work at 10 Mbps - sorry.
Let's look at that for a moment. What compression is going to help this problem or what would you suggest we use? For most real world scenes you are going to get very little benefit from compression. You might get savings of a few percent (and that would be some very excellent compression). The problem is that pixels are usually very different (hence the need to ray trace it in the first place). After all, if the scene were all black, we wouldn't need ray tracing for it. I'm sorry, but I just don't seen any way to get past the network bottle-neck. Any way you pre-position or post-position or imposition this thing, it just doesn't work. You need a much faster network and that isn't going to happen. In 20 years, the typical internet connection may be 10 Mbps unless there is some huge public investment (I'm speaking w/in the US).
Ah cloud computing... pauses to laugh...
Ok, earth to the idiots at Intel - your network latency kills any benefits that could ever be imagined for this system. An average video card nowdays can push 80-100 Gbps, higher end cards are exceeding 150 Gbps and more. Let's look a video cable speeds - HDMI pushes 10.2 Gbps, VGA 10.8 Gbps, DVI 9.9 Gbps . Now lets look at the typical home internet connection today, it's avg 1.5-3 Mbps.
Ok, let's do a thought experiment about how this stupid system would work. I need one frame rendered and let's pretend I can send out a request to all the computing power I need to render it. Let's say the time it takes to ray trace the frame takes almost no (zero) time since I can use the "cloud". Super!!! Now I need to put the frame together and send it back to my computer from the cloud. Uh ho!!! It's going to a HUGE amount of time get the final rendered frame back. Here's the math, let's pick a resolution of 1024 x 768 (yes, I know most of us run much higher than that) and we need 24 bits minimum of color. That's 18,874,368 bits. Using the typical internet connection, it will take 6 - 12 seconds to get each frame assuming it takes no time to render it. Most games run a minimum of 30 frames per second (50-60 frames per second is preferred). Now we have a system in which we get 1 frame every 6-12 seconds. That's a HUGE improvement Intel. Thank you for that.
I worked for Bob for a few years and had alot of admiration for the guy. I left about 2 years ago during the mass layoff and it was the best career move I ever made. Microsoft has become (and was becoming when I left) a horrible place to work. Please, if you are considering a professional career in software development, DO NOT work there. Almost anywhere else is better. I currently work for a small software company as a CTO with about $100million in sales last year and the work environment difference is night and day. The reason Microsoft is faltering is because it has moved from a fun, innovative place to work to a serious personal and professional nightmare. You have to go through a political circus to justify you job there (your two reviews per year) where you have little input in the final determination about your job (the politics of Microsoft). I shudder to think about the years I wasted jumping through those hoops instead of working on product and helping customers. Again, avoid working at Microsoft at all costs.
Exactly. The point is to waste the other guys dime on legal advice while you do as you please. By delaying, filing pointless briefs (if you wish), or whatever you can think of to drive up the cost for the otherside - do it. By the time it is all over, they win nothing and so you have nothing to lose.
Now, some here that now are aware of the game claim that they can find your real assets and that it would be "easy". I don't think they have any real world experience to back any of that up. I have been sued a number of times and vividly know what can and can't be done. And nothing in the legal system is fast. That is for sure. The cheap seats for even getting into the game is thousands of dollars and it goes up from there fast. The best advice is to be as unhelpful as possible and be ready to lose and give them nothing in the end.
LOL. Somehow it is now illegal to navigate around the system. News flash to all you guys. What I'm doing is not only perfectly legal, it is pretty common and a lot of people do it. Do you think I just came up with this by myself.
What you should be upset about is how much you all waste on lawyers. Welcome to the Law of Lawsuits where everyone has their own lawyer and pays them all their cash. No thanks. I'd rather keep mine and lawyers be d...ed.:)
Interesting. It is wrong to "not" pay lawyers. There is nothing wrong with what I am doing and it is all perfectly legal (other than the I'm not paying lawyers part). I can understand if that bothers them though.
Seriously, give me a break. This I'm going to "pierce the corporate veil" non-sense is silly. You have to prove alot to do that and anyone with half a brain can run circles around you by following the rules. So stop talking non-sense. Your other claim that is illegal is silly and unsupported.
1) You have the right to have foreign holdings including bank accounts.
2) You have the right to form as many corporations as you wish.
3) You have to right to structure your finances however you wish and in your best interests.
4) You have to right to ignore lawsuits.
5) You have to right to bankrupt a corporation.
Nothing I have suggested is illegal - other than the fact that lawyers don't make any money here. And as you can tell, I'm really sad about that.
I have a feeling you have no experience at this. I have doing this successfully for a long time and know all the tricks, so I seriously doubt your claims about how fast you could do anything. It would take you months to get a hearing, let alone progress on any of this. Even if I were willing to play ball with you, which I wouldn't.
In summary people, the best way to deal with the American legal system is avoid, delay, hide, and ignore. Lawyers are overpaid stuffed shirts (and most of them are pretty dumb). What I have suggested comes from personal experience and I have done this successfully for over 20 years. I have been sued half a dozen times, bankrupted 5 companies and reformed them and in business today. Clearly the person posting here has no experience in the real world and I seriously doubt he could do anything he claims.
I agree. This isn't something to just do without some good knowledge of the legal system (if you can call it that nowdays), accounting, and how to set up and properly run a corporation. However, it is inexpensive (lawyers are just too costly and the American legal system is a game of kings only) to deal with law suits this way. If you do anything of consequence, you will be sued. Just be ready for it. If you carefully plan things out, you can handle most opponents. To the OP - some business classes (or an MBA as in my case), a thorough knowledge of accounting, and some good initial legal advice is best (nothing like experience). If you don't have the time for that, find someone that has that knowledge to set you up. But, yes, you can do what you were asking about and basically get away with it if you do it right.
That is where the off-shore account comes into play (not that I've ever needed that and bankrupted 5 companies as a result of being sued). Hiding assets and finding them can be a game all by itself. I do the same thing with my personal assets. The world is a big place (I recommend a well-known carribean country myself) and most lawyers don't have the resources to be chasing you all over the place to get at the real money. Worst case - cash out your holdings (bear bonds is a good vehicle), bankrupt the holding corporation, and start over (and put the bear bonds in a safe deposit box). On paper, you can be personally bankrupt, and all your corporations can be bankrupt and work on a cash basis for a while till the vultures lose interest. What the lawyers are trying to do is run you out of business. Give them what they want (or seem to). Time is on your side. Lawyers aren't cheap and the opposition will eventualy run out of cash or give up (or when they seem to win, they won't have the time to sit around and watch what you do afterwards).:)
I have "re-written" a few programs in my time.
Here is what you need to do:
1) Plan on being sued. You can't avoid it (the big guys use it to keep you from competing).
2) Work around the system. To sue someone, you actually need someone to serve papers to. This the first thing to attack.
Form two S-Corps. One where you transfer all the money (off shore account is a must) and one with all the debts and oh yeah - your public face/address/etc to the world.
3) Use a post office drop box. To be served papers, they have to hand you the documents. Kind of hard to hand them to you if they can't meet you.
4) Having been "served" (which can take them months - talk about some pissed off lawyers). It is time for the next step. Offer them a couple hundred bucks to buzz off (if they have sued you before, they'll take the money - if not, time for a lesson).
5) Don't send anyone to represent the S-Corp in court. Ignore them.
5) They win a default judgement. Yawn. Ignore them.
6) The lawyers involve the county sherrif. He'll serve you notice they are seizing the property (bank accounts, property, etc) held by your debt laden, assetless S-corp (depending on where it is served you have a number of days to vacate etc). Yawn. Great. Give it to them because it is worthless.
7) Form a new S-corp, give load it with debts and your new public face and off you go again.
Rinse and repeat as often as necessary.
Oh yeah, one more thing - don't forget to pay your S-Corp taxes. IRS can come after your personally for back taxes. But, civil lawsuits can't.
Microsoft had a good reason to suspend development on IE for a few years. They don't make any money on IE and Microsoft is a for-profit company. It was generous of them to create a new version and to do additional work, but this is bad for shareholders. The main goal of IE has been two-fold 1) provide a platform for Microsoft techology and 2) provide a basic browser for the masses. They've succeeded at this. They should stop doing additional work since it is a waste of resources and concentrate in the areas where they make money. Let the for-free crowd fight over this. Web browsers is a stupid business and shouldn't be something Microsoft wastes its time and resources on.
That is precisely the problem though. Here you are conjecturing insolvable problems that Turing Machines (and humans) cannot solve. If our brains are big Turing Machines (something I think is completely unreasonable), why aren't I stuck staring at this page - drooling on myself? A Turing Machine when fed such a problem (of which there is an infinite variety) would halt or be stuck in an infinite loop. Now, I agree we could tell the computer to watch out for this problem, but since there is an infinite variety - what is the algorithm to know to avoid this trap? I believe no such algorithm can be implemented because a Turing Machine by its nature cannot solve such problems when confronted with them.
The halting program is exactly what I'm referring to. The human mind is able to determine when a program halts without halting itself. I have a simple challege to the AI community - write a program to that can write itself. Given the 60 years we have been programming computers, I would have thought these would have been some of the first programs to be written in the AI world. The fact that programs that write themselves from a set of specifications (which are often incomplete btw) and that can guard themselves against the halting problem and infinite loops problem have not been written (which are very common real-world problems) is simply inexplicable. These should have been logically the first programs of AI (if it were real) and just shows that they cannot be written. And I believe such programs will never be written because computers are insufficently powerful machines (mathematically speaking). We must first design an even more powerful mathematical machine (and develop the mathematical language for it along the way) to do that. Until then, I wouldn't worry about AI since it is nothing but fiction.
Anyway, for all the AI people out there that say - we'll just see, here is a simple challenge - could you please give me the algorithm for love? hate? fear? I contend that we simply just don't have the mathematical language for emotion - nor thought - and computers are not the machines (no matter how much we wish it or attach our emotions to them) for this. Now, I will concede it is possible that we may be smart enough to design a machine that can think. But such a discovery will not happen so long as people are content wasting their time trying to make computers think. This type of thinking will continue to lead to failure. Eventually I believe people will realize this. When we evolve our thinking and create a machine more powerful than a Turing Machine (which I would contend that the human mind is an example of) then I will begin to truely worry about AI. But, for now, I'd let the AI guys build as fast of a computer as they want. No matter how fast they get that gerbil in the cage spinning, it still isn't going anywhere.
AI is pure science fiction - at least with today's understanding of computer science (something we have been using for over 60 years - so it isn't likely to change any time soon). Our computers will never think because they are not able to do so. The reason is simple. The mathematical model upon which all computers are built is insufficient. No matter how powerful the computer becomes, it will be unable to even do simple tasks that the more powerful machine - the human mind can do easily. For example, it is a proven theorem in computer science that you cannot write a program on a computer that can debug another program. Until we develop machines (and a mathematical model and language to describe such a machine) that can debug other programs, I am 100% certain that thinking computers are not on the horizon.
Slashdot Mirror
You are confused. HD Netflix is NOT 1080p (it is 720p and sorry to break it to you, most of the titles are only recorded in NTSC - not even 720p). Streaming will NOT work for gaming for a number of reasons (lack of sameness between blocks, can't use buffering, etc). And uncompressing images ALSO takes time too. Sorry, no free lunch and this whole idea is just stupid. Much like cloud computing has been a stupid idea since IBM suggested it in the 1960's and it is still a stupid idea today. If any of this was a good idea, we would all have terminals to IBM mainframes right now instead of the personal computers we have today (in its various forms).
Let's pretend you have a 15 Mbps connection (which I would say is a very atypical connection) and you get it down to 1 frame per second. It still doesn't matter and this is an incredibly slow and stupid system. You need network bandwith equivalent to the video cable spec hooked from your video card to your monitor for this system to work. As far as I know, that WILL never happen while any of us are alive. Also, please link this 1080p system that works on a 10 Mbps connection? As I pointed out already, HDMI (which is used for all known 1080p in the real universe) is a 10.2 Gbps cable spec (NOT 10 Mbps). The math doesn't work at 10 Mbps - sorry.
Let's look at that for a moment. What compression is going to help this problem or what would you suggest we use? For most real world scenes you are going to get very little benefit from compression. You might get savings of a few percent (and that would be some very excellent compression). The problem is that pixels are usually very different (hence the need to ray trace it in the first place). After all, if the scene were all black, we wouldn't need ray tracing for it. I'm sorry, but I just don't seen any way to get past the network bottle-neck. Any way you pre-position or post-position or imposition this thing, it just doesn't work. You need a much faster network and that isn't going to happen. In 20 years, the typical internet connection may be 10 Mbps unless there is some huge public investment (I'm speaking w/in the US).
Ah cloud computing... pauses to laugh... Ok, earth to the idiots at Intel - your network latency kills any benefits that could ever be imagined for this system. An average video card nowdays can push 80-100 Gbps, higher end cards are exceeding 150 Gbps and more. Let's look a video cable speeds - HDMI pushes 10.2 Gbps, VGA 10.8 Gbps, DVI 9.9 Gbps . Now lets look at the typical home internet connection today, it's avg 1.5-3 Mbps. Ok, let's do a thought experiment about how this stupid system would work. I need one frame rendered and let's pretend I can send out a request to all the computing power I need to render it. Let's say the time it takes to ray trace the frame takes almost no (zero) time since I can use the "cloud". Super!!! Now I need to put the frame together and send it back to my computer from the cloud. Uh ho!!! It's going to a HUGE amount of time get the final rendered frame back. Here's the math, let's pick a resolution of 1024 x 768 (yes, I know most of us run much higher than that) and we need 24 bits minimum of color. That's 18,874,368 bits. Using the typical internet connection, it will take 6 - 12 seconds to get each frame assuming it takes no time to render it. Most games run a minimum of 30 frames per second (50-60 frames per second is preferred). Now we have a system in which we get 1 frame every 6-12 seconds. That's a HUGE improvement Intel. Thank you for that.
I worked for Bob for a few years and had alot of admiration for the guy. I left about 2 years ago during the mass layoff and it was the best career move I ever made. Microsoft has become (and was becoming when I left) a horrible place to work. Please, if you are considering a professional career in software development, DO NOT work there. Almost anywhere else is better. I currently work for a small software company as a CTO with about $100million in sales last year and the work environment difference is night and day. The reason Microsoft is faltering is because it has moved from a fun, innovative place to work to a serious personal and professional nightmare. You have to go through a political circus to justify you job there (your two reviews per year) where you have little input in the final determination about your job (the politics of Microsoft). I shudder to think about the years I wasted jumping through those hoops instead of working on product and helping customers. Again, avoid working at Microsoft at all costs.
Exactly. The point is to waste the other guys dime on legal advice while you do as you please. By delaying, filing pointless briefs (if you wish), or whatever you can think of to drive up the cost for the otherside - do it. By the time it is all over, they win nothing and so you have nothing to lose. Now, some here that now are aware of the game claim that they can find your real assets and that it would be "easy". I don't think they have any real world experience to back any of that up. I have been sued a number of times and vividly know what can and can't be done. And nothing in the legal system is fast. That is for sure. The cheap seats for even getting into the game is thousands of dollars and it goes up from there fast. The best advice is to be as unhelpful as possible and be ready to lose and give them nothing in the end.
LOL. Somehow it is now illegal to navigate around the system. News flash to all you guys. What I'm doing is not only perfectly legal, it is pretty common and a lot of people do it. Do you think I just came up with this by myself. What you should be upset about is how much you all waste on lawyers. Welcome to the Law of Lawsuits where everyone has their own lawyer and pays them all their cash. No thanks. I'd rather keep mine and lawyers be d...ed. :)
Interesting. It is wrong to "not" pay lawyers. There is nothing wrong with what I am doing and it is all perfectly legal (other than the I'm not paying lawyers part). I can understand if that bothers them though.
Seriously, give me a break. This I'm going to "pierce the corporate veil" non-sense is silly. You have to prove alot to do that and anyone with half a brain can run circles around you by following the rules. So stop talking non-sense. Your other claim that is illegal is silly and unsupported. 1) You have the right to have foreign holdings including bank accounts. 2) You have the right to form as many corporations as you wish. 3) You have to right to structure your finances however you wish and in your best interests. 4) You have to right to ignore lawsuits. 5) You have to right to bankrupt a corporation. Nothing I have suggested is illegal - other than the fact that lawyers don't make any money here. And as you can tell, I'm really sad about that.
I have a feeling you have no experience at this. I have doing this successfully for a long time and know all the tricks, so I seriously doubt your claims about how fast you could do anything. It would take you months to get a hearing, let alone progress on any of this. Even if I were willing to play ball with you, which I wouldn't. In summary people, the best way to deal with the American legal system is avoid, delay, hide, and ignore. Lawyers are overpaid stuffed shirts (and most of them are pretty dumb). What I have suggested comes from personal experience and I have done this successfully for over 20 years. I have been sued half a dozen times, bankrupted 5 companies and reformed them and in business today. Clearly the person posting here has no experience in the real world and I seriously doubt he could do anything he claims.
I agree. This isn't something to just do without some good knowledge of the legal system (if you can call it that nowdays), accounting, and how to set up and properly run a corporation. However, it is inexpensive (lawyers are just too costly and the American legal system is a game of kings only) to deal with law suits this way. If you do anything of consequence, you will be sued. Just be ready for it. If you carefully plan things out, you can handle most opponents. To the OP - some business classes (or an MBA as in my case), a thorough knowledge of accounting, and some good initial legal advice is best (nothing like experience). If you don't have the time for that, find someone that has that knowledge to set you up. But, yes, you can do what you were asking about and basically get away with it if you do it right.
That is where the off-shore account comes into play (not that I've ever needed that and bankrupted 5 companies as a result of being sued). Hiding assets and finding them can be a game all by itself. I do the same thing with my personal assets. The world is a big place (I recommend a well-known carribean country myself) and most lawyers don't have the resources to be chasing you all over the place to get at the real money. Worst case - cash out your holdings (bear bonds is a good vehicle), bankrupt the holding corporation, and start over (and put the bear bonds in a safe deposit box). On paper, you can be personally bankrupt, and all your corporations can be bankrupt and work on a cash basis for a while till the vultures lose interest. What the lawyers are trying to do is run you out of business. Give them what they want (or seem to). Time is on your side. Lawyers aren't cheap and the opposition will eventualy run out of cash or give up (or when they seem to win, they won't have the time to sit around and watch what you do afterwards). :)
I have "re-written" a few programs in my time. Here is what you need to do: 1) Plan on being sued. You can't avoid it (the big guys use it to keep you from competing). 2) Work around the system. To sue someone, you actually need someone to serve papers to. This the first thing to attack. Form two S-Corps. One where you transfer all the money (off shore account is a must) and one with all the debts and oh yeah - your public face/address/etc to the world. 3) Use a post office drop box. To be served papers, they have to hand you the documents. Kind of hard to hand them to you if they can't meet you. 4) Having been "served" (which can take them months - talk about some pissed off lawyers). It is time for the next step. Offer them a couple hundred bucks to buzz off (if they have sued you before, they'll take the money - if not, time for a lesson). 5) Don't send anyone to represent the S-Corp in court. Ignore them. 5) They win a default judgement. Yawn. Ignore them. 6) The lawyers involve the county sherrif. He'll serve you notice they are seizing the property (bank accounts, property, etc) held by your debt laden, assetless S-corp (depending on where it is served you have a number of days to vacate etc). Yawn. Great. Give it to them because it is worthless. 7) Form a new S-corp, give load it with debts and your new public face and off you go again. Rinse and repeat as often as necessary. Oh yeah, one more thing - don't forget to pay your S-Corp taxes. IRS can come after your personally for back taxes. But, civil lawsuits can't.
Microsoft had a good reason to suspend development on IE for a few years. They don't make any money on IE and Microsoft is a for-profit company. It was generous of them to create a new version and to do additional work, but this is bad for shareholders. The main goal of IE has been two-fold 1) provide a platform for Microsoft techology and 2) provide a basic browser for the masses. They've succeeded at this. They should stop doing additional work since it is a waste of resources and concentrate in the areas where they make money. Let the for-free crowd fight over this. Web browsers is a stupid business and shouldn't be something Microsoft wastes its time and resources on.
That is precisely the problem though. Here you are conjecturing insolvable problems that Turing Machines (and humans) cannot solve. If our brains are big Turing Machines (something I think is completely unreasonable), why aren't I stuck staring at this page - drooling on myself? A Turing Machine when fed such a problem (of which there is an infinite variety) would halt or be stuck in an infinite loop. Now, I agree we could tell the computer to watch out for this problem, but since there is an infinite variety - what is the algorithm to know to avoid this trap? I believe no such algorithm can be implemented because a Turing Machine by its nature cannot solve such problems when confronted with them.
The halting program is exactly what I'm referring to. The human mind is able to determine when a program halts without halting itself. I have a simple challege to the AI community - write a program to that can write itself. Given the 60 years we have been programming computers, I would have thought these would have been some of the first programs to be written in the AI world. The fact that programs that write themselves from a set of specifications (which are often incomplete btw) and that can guard themselves against the halting problem and infinite loops problem have not been written (which are very common real-world problems) is simply inexplicable. These should have been logically the first programs of AI (if it were real) and just shows that they cannot be written. And I believe such programs will never be written because computers are insufficently powerful machines (mathematically speaking). We must first design an even more powerful mathematical machine (and develop the mathematical language for it along the way) to do that. Until then, I wouldn't worry about AI since it is nothing but fiction. Anyway, for all the AI people out there that say - we'll just see, here is a simple challenge - could you please give me the algorithm for love? hate? fear? I contend that we simply just don't have the mathematical language for emotion - nor thought - and computers are not the machines (no matter how much we wish it or attach our emotions to them) for this. Now, I will concede it is possible that we may be smart enough to design a machine that can think. But such a discovery will not happen so long as people are content wasting their time trying to make computers think. This type of thinking will continue to lead to failure. Eventually I believe people will realize this. When we evolve our thinking and create a machine more powerful than a Turing Machine (which I would contend that the human mind is an example of) then I will begin to truely worry about AI. But, for now, I'd let the AI guys build as fast of a computer as they want. No matter how fast they get that gerbil in the cage spinning, it still isn't going anywhere.
AI is pure science fiction - at least with today's understanding of computer science (something we have been using for over 60 years - so it isn't likely to change any time soon). Our computers will never think because they are not able to do so. The reason is simple. The mathematical model upon which all computers are built is insufficient. No matter how powerful the computer becomes, it will be unable to even do simple tasks that the more powerful machine - the human mind can do easily. For example, it is a proven theorem in computer science that you cannot write a program on a computer that can debug another program. Until we develop machines (and a mathematical model and language to describe such a machine) that can debug other programs, I am 100% certain that thinking computers are not on the horizon.