I should point out that NES cartridges had DRM. As did most game floppies of the era. Just because the tech is possibly more fragile doesn't mean we're looking at anything new here.
Anyway, in 20 years I suspect that any current DRM will be thoroughly cracked.
Magma's not hot enough to melt steel or titanium. I've always wondered why laying pipe near/inside volcanoes couldn't solve all our energy needs. I'm sure it's not easy, but it seems easier than, say, putting a man on the moon.
Okay, what if you propose a bill with an education budget of $1? Then the choices are either $1 or nothing. It totally eliminates the opportunity to tweak/compromise on good bills that actually need to get implemented.
I think your 1 and 2 are much better ideas than the original no-do-over idea.
The only problem I see with this - one legislator hates, say, education. So he puts forward the "Fund education and also shove a baseball bat up everybody's ass bill of 2008". Bam, no education funding for the next five years.
A PAL disc and a NTSC disc are identical, except for minor differences such as frame rate and resolution. A computer can play either format.
It sounds like the TOC was corrupted, in which case you could still get the data pretty easy by doing something along the lines of cat/dev/dvd | mplayer -
GP is correct, it's highly counterproductive to put 1337 hax into every line of code you write. This is why you write clear, correct code and then run a profiler. Then 1337hax the few lines that eat the most cycles.
You're never going to have clock frequencies in the light range, for the simple fact that light waves are shorter than the diameter of an atom and thus bigger than any transistor.
Luckily switching light doesn't require transistors that fast. For example, an LCD display switches light directly, without first converting it to electrons. That uses electricity to switch light, but the idea has already been extended to switching light with light in the lab.
Now that the format war has come down to Blu-ray vs Netflix, I'm sure Microsoft is pushing to get more titles on the 360. They claim it was their plan all along, which is why they half-assed their HDDVD support.
I think the solution here is to go a bit more fine-grained when defining the "commodity". This seems to be what IBM is doing. Their current strategy is, "we have a sweet-ass core design, you're welcome to slap it on whatever chip you can dream up."
Thus the "commodity" is the IP design, not the finished chip. If everybody else is doing a chip with 128 cores and one interconnect, they'll be happy to fab you a chip with one core and 128 interconnects.
That makes sense if you're used to being screwed by your ISP. But the CORRECT response would be to actually supply the amount of bandwidth that they advertise.
Ten years ago people only maxed out their connections 5% of the time. Nobody promised it would be like that forever.
The number of cycles needed to convert decimal to binary and back is completely trivial compared to how much easier binary makes all the actual computations.
I'm sure that they will use 2^n states and consider them as groups of bits.
This would seem to suggest that all efforts to make software easier to use will hurt the company's bottom line.
I'm not convinced. They might be able to count on the existing customer base to be stuck with their crapware, but they always have to compete for NEW customers and that means making the product better/easier.
I agree, I should have been more clear. People find it hard to swallow that information conditions probability. See also: all the supposedly-educated people that wrote in to tell Marilyn vos Savant she was wrong about the Monty Hall problem.
That's exactly what I'm getting at. There's already a name for it (sorry, lol), it's conditional probability. The a priori probability is 1/52!, but the a posteriori probability is 1.
Same with the universe: Pr[life is possible|we exist] = 1, even though the a priori odds of life being possible could be next to nothing. We just don't know, we only have one sample in the ensemble.
I feel I must point out that the quantum 'observer' is nothing like the 'conscious' observer. A quantum observer is any particle(s) whose wavefunction entangles with that of the observed particle. A rock or a molecule can be an observer. Neither are conscious.
Right of course, I mean guaranteed in the engineering/horseracing sense - if every sentient lifeform shuffles from now until the universe runs out of useful thermodynamic entropy the odds of that shuffle popping up again are still very thin. My bad for not being precise.
Of course, it also doesn't rely on the existence of multiple universes.
Thank you! I've been waiting for someone to point out that important fact. Shuffle a deck of cards and lay it out. Then think wow, what are the odds of this exact order? Well, the odds are 1/(52!) which is small enough that it is guaranteed not to happen ever again until the end of time.
You only need one draw to create an absurdly unlikely sample.
Slashdot Mirror
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10NES
I should point out that NES cartridges had DRM. As did most game floppies of the era. Just because the tech is possibly more fragile doesn't mean we're looking at anything new here.
Anyway, in 20 years I suspect that any current DRM will be thoroughly cracked.
That's only because there's a blanket of insulating rock holding the heat in. Hence the need for volcano-pipes.
Magma's not hot enough to melt steel or titanium. I've always wondered why laying pipe near/inside volcanoes couldn't solve all our energy needs. I'm sure it's not easy, but it seems easier than, say, putting a man on the moon.
They're not the three most desirable apps on Linux, they're the three apps that hadn't yet gone 64-bit.
Okay, what if you propose a bill with an education budget of $1? Then the choices are either $1 or nothing. It totally eliminates the opportunity to tweak/compromise on good bills that actually need to get implemented.
I think your 1 and 2 are much better ideas than the original no-do-over idea.
The only problem I see with this - one legislator hates, say, education. So he puts forward the "Fund education and also shove a baseball bat up everybody's ass bill of 2008". Bam, no education funding for the next five years.
A PAL disc and a NTSC disc are identical, except for minor differences such as frame rate and resolution. A computer can play either format.
/dev/dvd | mplayer -
It sounds like the TOC was corrupted, in which case you could still get the data pretty easy by doing something along the lines of cat
Prohibitive? Try "implemented". http://www.inhabitat.com/2008/04/10/mojave-desert-solar-power-fields/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl's_law
GP is correct, it's highly counterproductive to put 1337 hax into every line of code you write. This is why you write clear, correct code and then run a profiler. Then 1337hax the few lines that eat the most cycles.
You're never going to have clock frequencies in the light range, for the simple fact that light waves are shorter than the diameter of an atom and thus bigger than any transistor.
Luckily switching light doesn't require transistors that fast. For example, an LCD display switches light directly, without first converting it to electrons. That uses electricity to switch light, but the idea has already been extended to switching light with light in the lab.
Now that the format war has come down to Blu-ray vs Netflix, I'm sure Microsoft is pushing to get more titles on the 360. They claim it was their plan all along, which is why they half-assed their HDDVD support.
I think the solution here is to go a bit more fine-grained when defining the "commodity". This seems to be what IBM is doing. Their current strategy is, "we have a sweet-ass core design, you're welcome to slap it on whatever chip you can dream up."
Thus the "commodity" is the IP design, not the finished chip. If everybody else is doing a chip with 128 cores and one interconnect, they'll be happy to fab you a chip with one core and 128 interconnects.
This wouldn't do anything to improve SNR, but two ordinary telescopes 7e+10 m apart have the same resolving power as one giant one.
That makes sense if you're used to being screwed by your ISP. But the CORRECT response would be to actually supply the amount of bandwidth that they advertise.
Ten years ago people only maxed out their connections 5% of the time. Nobody promised it would be like that forever.
The number of cycles needed to convert decimal to binary and back is completely trivial compared to how much easier binary makes all the actual computations.
I'm sure that they will use 2^n states and consider them as groups of bits.
This would seem to suggest that all efforts to make software easier to use will hurt the company's bottom line.
I'm not convinced. They might be able to count on the existing customer base to be stuck with their crapware, but they always have to compete for NEW customers and that means making the product better/easier.
I agree, I should have been more clear. People find it hard to swallow that information conditions probability. See also: all the supposedly-educated people that wrote in to tell Marilyn vos Savant she was wrong about the Monty Hall problem.
That's exactly what I'm getting at. There's already a name for it (sorry, lol), it's conditional probability. The a priori probability is 1/52!, but the a posteriori probability is 1.
Same with the universe: Pr[life is possible|we exist] = 1, even though the a priori odds of life being possible could be next to nothing. We just don't know, we only have one sample in the ensemble.
I feel I must point out that the quantum 'observer' is nothing like the 'conscious' observer. A quantum observer is any particle(s) whose wavefunction entangles with that of the observed particle. A rock or a molecule can be an observer. Neither are conscious.
Karma whoring here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu-144
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_(spacecraft)
Interesting reads both. As I understand it the aerodynamic shapes were copied from photos, but the guts were completely different.
Bah!! We can't trust NASA to burn our gold, there's special agencies for dealing with this sorta thing!
If life has had enough time to fill the air with oxygen, it's had enough time to fill the oceans with pee.
Right of course, I mean guaranteed in the engineering/horseracing sense - if every sentient lifeform shuffles from now until the universe runs out of useful thermodynamic entropy the odds of that shuffle popping up again are still very thin. My bad for not being precise.
Of course, it also doesn't rely on the existence of multiple universes.
Thank you! I've been waiting for someone to point out that important fact. Shuffle a deck of cards and lay it out. Then think wow, what are the odds of this exact order? Well, the odds are 1/(52!) which is small enough that it is guaranteed not to happen ever again until the end of time.
You only need one draw to create an absurdly unlikely sample.