I really doubt that chip manufacturers could decrease their costs doing what you're describing. The biggest problem is that every planar processing step is incredibly expensive. For one thing, the fabs themselves cost billions of dollars to construct, and it cost millions more to maintain a clean environment. Secondly, you're not going to find your typical factory worker in a fab: pretty much every worker there will have (at least) a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering or materials science. Basically, every redundant step will cost you millions of dollars in operations costs, so the fewer steps you can do, the better. This is why the size of the wafer used has crept upwards as time has gone on: you can fit more chips on a wafer, and reduce the number of steps. What you're talking about would multiply the number of processing steps, greatly increasing your costs.
You've confused "monopoly" with "being successful." There's a big difference between the two. "Monopoly" implies that the user effectively has no choice but to use your product. Microsoft had a monopoly in Windows because a lot of commercial software and a lot of drivers were available only for Windows, locking the user in to that OS. Google doesn't even have a monopoly, since there are alternative search engines that can be used just as easily.
I'm all for keeping as much liberty as possible, but let's face it: when you get behind the wheel and you've been drinking, it's not a decision that affects only you. In the situation you described, if there's a real emergency, the ambulance can be called. It's one thing to trample on the Bill of Rights invoking terrorism as a reason, but it's quite another to stop "responsible" drinkers from driving (especially when drunk drivers who think that they're "responsible" kill nearly 20,000 people every year).
The first famous report of a Wii strap breaking was on November 20th, the day after the system launched. The strap replacement program was announced on December 15th, almost a full month after the first reports came in. One can only assume that Nintendo though that people would only use the Wiimote as the manual said they should (i.e., not throwing it around and hoping that the strap will hold). That cannot possibly be negligence, as many products are extremely dangerous when used improperly.
Really? I prefer the ASDF standard, as well as the BYOB and the QWERTY. What about the ZVW users, the TYU users, and the QOP users? Won't somebody please think of the QOP users?
I don't know. Would it be fair to call a software guy ignorant because he doesn't know quantum mechanics, and therefore doesn't know how the electrical devices in his computer work? In knowledge, as with everything, there is a tradeoff. Time spent learning one thing is time not spent learning another. I'm a EE guy, and frankly, I couldn't care less about operating systems, so I use Windows. It works for me, and through some registry tweaking, I have my computer exactly how I like it. On the rare occasion that I'll need Linux or Unix for something, I'll even boot in Knoppix. But I digress. The elitism is unwarranted, and if you're about to call someone ignorant for not knowing the details of their operating system, at least make sure you're not the pot calling the kettle black.
Wow, you've actually done that on a commercial computer? I've done it with a computer that I implemented on an FPGA in a computer engineering class, but that was purely academic...
It doesn't need prior art. The patent clearly states that "there is an infra-red output signal transmitted to a receiver for operating the computer." The Wiimote doesn't send its data via IR: it sends it via radio.
I agree with the spirit of your post, but tone done the universal quantifiers. There are always going to be kids who want to learn more about science than what they are taught in class, and will do so. Not everyone is a lost cause.
It would be one thing to memorize it, but when it's put in giant letters at the top of the screen, I would think it to be difficult to not remember it.
Intel doesn't make computers. Intel makes ICs & microprocessors.
Considering that I'm a graduating senior in EE whose focus is in device electronics and have actually made an IC, I should think that I know that.:) Just as a point of clarification, I was using the word "computer" in its most general sense: a Turing-complete device which can execute a series of instructions. My argument is that something which is not Turing-complete (such as something with the Trusted Computing architecture) cannot legally be called a "computer." That is, it would be false advertising, and calling it that would put you in violation of the FTC Act (in the US at least).
Really? I think that you just made that story up. Here's why:
1. I had no such message when I watched Studio 60 on my Tivo last night.
2. Anyone who actually owns a Tivo would know that the list is called "Now Playing," because it's placed very prominently all over the place.
3. The only time that the Macrovision flag was used was a year or so ago on some syndicated King of the Hill episodes in the New York area, which created a huge backlash. Tivo alleged that it was accidental, and it's never been documented by anyone since.
Don't make things up, especially when they're easily falsified.
How do you know what other people buy things for? Once you have bought a product, you're entitled to use it for any legal purpose that you choose.
You may not be looking for a DVR, but Tivo's selling a DVR, and they have every right to make the product as they see fit, just as you are entitled to use it for any purpose you choose. You don't have to buy it if you don't want it.
By the way, let me explain in more detail the reason that I make the distinction between "computer" and "DVR." I don't believe that the likes of Intel necessarily have the right to build that "Trusted Computing" nonsense into their processors. You see, in my view, if you make a processor no longer able to run any program the user wants, it is no longer a universal Turing machine, and cannot be called a "computer." That is false advertising. On the other hand, Tivo doesn't advertise their hardware as a computer: they advertise it as a DVR. Its nature doesn't require it to be Turing-complete. It just so happens that it is relatively cheap and simple to use a computer processor inside the DVR, but that's irrelevant, since the functionality doesn't require it.
Commercial skip: Still works on the Tivo, except now you have to push a six-button sequence every couple months to get it to work. Ads: Barely visible. They either appear on the bottom of the Now Playing screen, in which case they're optional, or it takes up an eighth of the screen during the commercial for the product being shown. In essence, the latter are only visible in the short time while you're fast-forwarding, showing you a stationary ad for a couple seconds. Those ads are exceedingly rare anyway. (I saw one for the Wii yesterday during primetime, but that's the first I've seen in weeks.)
It seems to me that many people on Slashdot, the Richard Stallman crowd especially, act like Tivo is most evil company on the planet for a few very minor faults (especially when it comes to DRM). In reality, I like Tivo because while they do pay lip service to the likes of the RIAA and the MPAA, it is only lip service. They didn't actually remove the commerical-skip feature: they just put in an easy workaround to get it. They included DRM to prevent themselves from getting sued, but it is extremely minimal DRM that is easily circumvented by the owner of the Tivo with a single DirectShow filter. If ReplayTV had paid lip service, it might still be around.
In fact, Tivo even does things that most Slashdotters would applaud, but are villainized nonetheless. Though they have a few patents, a lot of it is for innovative hardware. They aren't like some of the patent-whores who patent things invented fifteen years ago: they basically co-invented the DVR, and made a damn good one. They even use Linux and released their code under the GPL. And yet, we still hear Stallman complaining about the fact that the Tivo hardware locks you out from changing the software. What he (and many others) apparently miss is that when you buy a Tivo, you're not buying a general purpose computer: you're buying a DVR. I mean, God forbid that they prevent users from running them out of business by buying the hardware for far less than it costs Tivo to make it and loading MythTV onto it. (Yes, Tivo subsidizes the cost of the hardware, but only because you are agreeing to pay for the service.)
In retrospect, if you meant that discretizing an analog pressure wave to make a digital representation of it will introduce loss, you're right. However, as long as you use enough bits to go below the noise threshold, it will still be lossless.
Not as far as the the human ear is concerned, anyway. We humans can only hear in the range of 2 kHz to 20 kHz. Nyquist's theorem says that an A/D conversion will be lossless if and only if the sampling frequency is at least twice the bandwidth. For a CD sampled at 44 kHz, this is not a problem, unless you can hear above 22 kHz (which almost no one can).
We humans can only hear in the range of 2 kHz to 20 kHz. Nyquist's criterion says that an A/D conversion will be lossless if and only if the sampling frequency is at least twice the bandwidth. For a CD sampled at 44 kHz, this is not a problem, unless you can hear above 22 kHz (which almost no one can).
It's like those two fruitcakes which are perpetually regifted. Instead of being regifted, the second that someone wins one on eBay, they turn around and resell it.
That method's pretty good, but it still has a major flaw. Namely, what happens if the thing being patented isn't so much the solution to a problem, but a solution without a problem? If that is the case, the solution might be obvious once the problem is clarified, even though the problem itself won't be. Let me clarify what I mean by this by providing an example: Post-It notes. If you assembled a panel of experts thirty years ago to examine the patent, and asked them, "How would you make some cheap notes that can be conveniently placed anywhere," you'd probably get someone to say that you should use some weak glue. And yet, using your standard, this would make the Post-It note obvious. If that was the case, though, why hadn't anyone created them yet? Clearly, it wasn't an obvious invention.
Great for kids, of course, but for the older crowd, a system like that tends to get a bit tedious.
Well, that depends. Personally, I find it a real turn-off when 12-year-olds curse you out using l337 speak online. Yes, you can usually get around it by blocking them or turning off chat, but what if you can't stand the way that your own teammate speaks? Turning the chat off puts you at a significant disadvantage. At least with Nintendo's way, everyone has that disadvantage. I'm not saying that it doesn't come at a cost, but it's a cost that I'm willing to pay for a more pleasant experience.
Re:1996 called. It wants its article back.
on
When Beige Won't Do
·
· Score: 1
Slashdot Mirror
I really doubt that chip manufacturers could decrease their costs doing what you're describing. The biggest problem is that every planar processing step is incredibly expensive. For one thing, the fabs themselves cost billions of dollars to construct, and it cost millions more to maintain a clean environment. Secondly, you're not going to find your typical factory worker in a fab: pretty much every worker there will have (at least) a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering or materials science. Basically, every redundant step will cost you millions of dollars in operations costs, so the fewer steps you can do, the better. This is why the size of the wafer used has crept upwards as time has gone on: you can fit more chips on a wafer, and reduce the number of steps. What you're talking about would multiply the number of processing steps, greatly increasing your costs.
You've confused "monopoly" with "being successful." There's a big difference between the two. "Monopoly" implies that the user effectively has no choice but to use your product. Microsoft had a monopoly in Windows because a lot of commercial software and a lot of drivers were available only for Windows, locking the user in to that OS. Google doesn't even have a monopoly, since there are alternative search engines that can be used just as easily.
Yes, it seems to be another instance of RAS syndrome.
I'm all for keeping as much liberty as possible, but let's face it: when you get behind the wheel and you've been drinking, it's not a decision that affects only you. In the situation you described, if there's a real emergency, the ambulance can be called. It's one thing to trample on the Bill of Rights invoking terrorism as a reason, but it's quite another to stop "responsible" drinkers from driving (especially when drunk drivers who think that they're "responsible" kill nearly 20,000 people every year).
The first famous report of a Wii strap breaking was on November 20th, the day after the system launched. The strap replacement program was announced on December 15th, almost a full month after the first reports came in. One can only assume that Nintendo though that people would only use the Wiimote as the manual said they should (i.e., not throwing it around and hoping that the strap will hold). That cannot possibly be negligence, as many products are extremely dangerous when used improperly.
Why bother with that when I've got a perfect drug I can sell you? It's called Plasibeau, and it works wonders on all sorts of ailments!
Really? I prefer the ASDF standard, as well as the BYOB and the QWERTY. What about the ZVW users, the TYU users, and the QOP users? Won't somebody please think of the QOP users?
I don't know. Would it be fair to call a software guy ignorant because he doesn't know quantum mechanics, and therefore doesn't know how the electrical devices in his computer work? In knowledge, as with everything, there is a tradeoff. Time spent learning one thing is time not spent learning another. I'm a EE guy, and frankly, I couldn't care less about operating systems, so I use Windows. It works for me, and through some registry tweaking, I have my computer exactly how I like it. On the rare occasion that I'll need Linux or Unix for something, I'll even boot in Knoppix. But I digress. The elitism is unwarranted, and if you're about to call someone ignorant for not knowing the details of their operating system, at least make sure you're not the pot calling the kettle black.
Adult mammals aren't supposed to seek out sources of milk
I see about a billion websites that beg to differ...
Wow, you've actually done that on a commercial computer? I've done it with a computer that I implemented on an FPGA in a computer engineering class, but that was purely academic...
It doesn't need prior art. The patent clearly states that "there is an infra-red output signal transmitted to a receiver for operating the computer." The Wiimote doesn't send its data via IR: it sends it via radio.
I agree with the spirit of your post, but tone done the universal quantifiers. There are always going to be kids who want to learn more about science than what they are taught in class, and will do so. Not everyone is a lost cause.
It would be one thing to memorize it, but when it's put in giant letters at the top of the screen, I would think it to be difficult to not remember it.
Intel doesn't make computers. Intel makes ICs & microprocessors.
:) Just as a point of clarification, I was using the word "computer" in its most general sense: a Turing-complete device which can execute a series of instructions. My argument is that something which is not Turing-complete (such as something with the Trusted Computing architecture) cannot legally be called a "computer." That is, it would be false advertising, and calling it that would put you in violation of the FTC Act (in the US at least).
Considering that I'm a graduating senior in EE whose focus is in device electronics and have actually made an IC, I should think that I know that.
Really? I think that you just made that story up. Here's why:
1. I had no such message when I watched Studio 60 on my Tivo last night.
2. Anyone who actually owns a Tivo would know that the list is called "Now Playing," because it's placed very prominently all over the place.
3. The only time that the Macrovision flag was used was a year or so ago on some syndicated King of the Hill episodes in the New York area, which created a huge backlash. Tivo alleged that it was accidental, and it's never been documented by anyone since.
Don't make things up, especially when they're easily falsified.
How do you know what other people buy things for? Once you have bought a product, you're entitled to use it for any legal purpose that you choose.
You may not be looking for a DVR, but Tivo's selling a DVR, and they have every right to make the product as they see fit, just as you are entitled to use it for any purpose you choose. You don't have to buy it if you don't want it.
By the way, let me explain in more detail the reason that I make the distinction between "computer" and "DVR." I don't believe that the likes of Intel necessarily have the right to build that "Trusted Computing" nonsense into their processors. You see, in my view, if you make a processor no longer able to run any program the user wants, it is no longer a universal Turing machine, and cannot be called a "computer." That is false advertising. On the other hand, Tivo doesn't advertise their hardware as a computer: they advertise it as a DVR. Its nature doesn't require it to be Turing-complete. It just so happens that it is relatively cheap and simple to use a computer processor inside the DVR, but that's irrelevant, since the functionality doesn't require it.
Commercial skip: Still works on the Tivo, except now you have to push a six-button sequence every couple months to get it to work.
Ads: Barely visible. They either appear on the bottom of the Now Playing screen, in which case they're optional, or it takes up an eighth of the screen during the commercial for the product being shown. In essence, the latter are only visible in the short time while you're fast-forwarding, showing you a stationary ad for a couple seconds. Those ads are exceedingly rare anyway. (I saw one for the Wii yesterday during primetime, but that's the first I've seen in weeks.)
It seems to me that many people on Slashdot, the Richard Stallman crowd especially, act like Tivo is most evil company on the planet for a few very minor faults (especially when it comes to DRM). In reality, I like Tivo because while they do pay lip service to the likes of the RIAA and the MPAA, it is only lip service. They didn't actually remove the commerical-skip feature: they just put in an easy workaround to get it. They included DRM to prevent themselves from getting sued, but it is extremely minimal DRM that is easily circumvented by the owner of the Tivo with a single DirectShow filter. If ReplayTV had paid lip service, it might still be around.
In fact, Tivo even does things that most Slashdotters would applaud, but are villainized nonetheless. Though they have a few patents, a lot of it is for innovative hardware. They aren't like some of the patent-whores who patent things invented fifteen years ago: they basically co-invented the DVR, and made a damn good one. They even use Linux and released their code under the GPL. And yet, we still hear Stallman complaining about the fact that the Tivo hardware locks you out from changing the software. What he (and many others) apparently miss is that when you buy a Tivo, you're not buying a general purpose computer: you're buying a DVR. I mean, God forbid that they prevent users from running them out of business by buying the hardware for far less than it costs Tivo to make it and loading MythTV onto it. (Yes, Tivo subsidizes the cost of the hardware, but only because you are agreeing to pay for the service.)
Actually, it would probably be worse than that. The higher frequencies that they're used to will alias and become lower frequencies.
In retrospect, if you meant that discretizing an analog pressure wave to make a digital representation of it will introduce loss, you're right. However, as long as you use enough bits to go below the noise threshold, it will still be lossless.
Not as far as the the human ear is concerned, anyway. We humans can only hear in the range of 2 kHz to 20 kHz. Nyquist's theorem says that an A/D conversion will be lossless if and only if the sampling frequency is at least twice the bandwidth. For a CD sampled at 44 kHz, this is not a problem, unless you can hear above 22 kHz (which almost no one can).
We humans can only hear in the range of 2 kHz to 20 kHz. Nyquist's criterion says that an A/D conversion will be lossless if and only if the sampling frequency is at least twice the bandwidth. For a CD sampled at 44 kHz, this is not a problem, unless you can hear above 22 kHz (which almost no one can).
It's like those two fruitcakes which are perpetually regifted. Instead of being regifted, the second that someone wins one on eBay, they turn around and resell it.
That method's pretty good, but it still has a major flaw. Namely, what happens if the thing being patented isn't so much the solution to a problem, but a solution without a problem? If that is the case, the solution might be obvious once the problem is clarified, even though the problem itself won't be. Let me clarify what I mean by this by providing an example: Post-It notes. If you assembled a panel of experts thirty years ago to examine the patent, and asked them, "How would you make some cheap notes that can be conveniently placed anywhere," you'd probably get someone to say that you should use some weak glue. And yet, using your standard, this would make the Post-It note obvious. If that was the case, though, why hadn't anyone created them yet? Clearly, it wasn't an obvious invention.
Great for kids, of course, but for the older crowd, a system like that tends to get a bit tedious.
Well, that depends. Personally, I find it a real turn-off when 12-year-olds curse you out using l337 speak online. Yes, you can usually get around it by blocking them or turning off chat, but what if you can't stand the way that your own teammate speaks? Turning the chat off puts you at a significant disadvantage. At least with Nintendo's way, everyone has that disadvantage. I'm not saying that it doesn't come at a cost, but it's a cost that I'm willing to pay for a more pleasant experience.
1995 called. It wants its slang back.