At our company we have introduced the idea of Technical Debt. It allows developers to put a price tag on "bad code that needs cleaning up" and we can better prioritize that against new features with stakeholders. It's a good first step...
LENR has been proven for the last 20 years in many many experiments. Rossi made headlines but he is in no way alone. If you dare to spend a little bit of time researching this you'll find lots and lots of evidence there is really something substantial behind it, even if it may not be explained by physicists. By the way, Rossis secrets are detailed in the two recent patents pusblished. It's all there.
Take a deep breath, accept that you don't know everything and then go here and read about LENR/cold fusion which is about to change the world: http://www.e-catworld.com/ Or just google it...
I don't get why people are so incredibly negative towards a report that shows something positive?
OK, I get that people are afraid of being fooled but why do you let that fear stop you from investigating this?
For me, I'm curious and I've done a lot of reading on this subject and it's very fascinating. If you are curious too, and not just afraid of being wrong, then I suggest you start by going to http://www.lenr-info.com/ and check out which companies, researchers and theories are related to LENR. (Not my web site). My favorite theory is Widom-Larsen, really worth checking out!
It's not like Andrea Rossi is alone in this... He may not even be first to market.
FC2 is junk (or rather, the release management)
on
Fedora Core 2 Review
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I don't see how I'm going to be able to install this junk. I have an Asus P4P800 motherboard which makes the installation trip on bug 121819 (immediate crash/reboot as soon as I hit enter on the first installation screen). That motherboard has got to be one of the most popular in the world and Fedora didn't care enough to fix it before release. Speaks volumes, I think. If I HAD been able to even install this, there's the issue of trashing my Windows XP installation (bug 115980). That's always nice... To top it off, the NVIDIA drivers won't work. That's easily fixed, but it kinda adds up...
802.11 uses too much power to be useful in the niche bluetooth is getting (cameras, PDAs, and especially cellphones). I doubt Bluetooth will be going away anytime soon.
Microsoft is slowly but surely turning your computer into a set top box. A box with "no serviceable parts inside" and which has full control over any and all things that you do to it.
Windows XP is a nice proof of this. More control to Microsoft and no control to you. You just might be as well off buying a real set top box from the start, right? Or a real computer with a real OS...
Eh, well not to be boring or anything, but the watermarking follows the music, no matter what format it has. The hack-challenge was to remove the watermarking, even though I don't know why, since, as you described, it can be copied anyway... Perhaps SDMI was supposed to track every watermarked song you ever purchased so they could sue your ass when they discovered it in the wrong place. How's that for privacy?...
This means that they must do rendering in layers. So why does this matter. IIRC, people were saying that it would be far to inefficient to render a desktop in layers, well obviously it isn't. However, how this works over Xis still up in the air because X has the network export option and all.
Think 3D accelerator cards and OpenGL. These kinds of layers and transparencies can be efficiently generated by a 3D card. That, I would assume, would be the only reasonable way of having a semitransparent window cover a running movie and have all that shadow stuff and still have CPU time left to decode the movie. It's a whole new way of rendering 2D graphics though. To do this efficiently you would need a 3D accelerator that can apply 2D acceleration to textures (so you can scroll text in a window which is being rendered as a texture in a big polygon). I wonder if the current crop of accelerators can do 2D acceleration on textures but I guess they can... This is also one of the few reasonable ways I can envision this being done in X11. You could use the X server to render into virtual windows which are then rendered by the 3D card on screen. Experiments with this has already begun (but I can't find the link to that page...)
1) It has been proved that a wavelets can represent the theoretical minimum information for an image. Proof uses the information's counterpart of the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. That's right folks - you cannot get any more compressed than that - it simply isn't possible.
Uh, not so fast. Compressing an image means making a fake image that looks as much as possible as the original. How much we approach the original is a very subjective thing and would differ from person to person. A good image compression teqhnique would take into account the human visual system and make some kind of average on what people think looks best (and the lossy compression algorithms already do this, JPEG for example compresses black/white information less than color information). There is no optimal image compression as well as there is no optimal sound compression since the compression scheme is adapted to an analogue old-fashioned eye or ear which can differ much from person to person.
Remember how the cheapo motherboards used to be able to allocate some of the system RAM for video RAM? It would be pretty funny if these cards could do the opposite.
I assume it already can. Of all the video boards I've worked with, they've all had memory mapped frame buffers so if you want to, you can use it like any normal RAM. Although you wouldn't like to because reads from framebuffers are usually slow as hell (the cards are constructed for receiving a lot of writes, not servicing reads).
Slashdot Mirror
At our company we have introduced the idea of Technical Debt. It allows developers to put a price tag on "bad code that needs cleaning up" and we can better prioritize that against new features with stakeholders. It's a good first step...
LENR has been proven for the last 20 years in many many experiments. Rossi made headlines but he is in no way alone. If you dare to spend a little bit of time researching this you'll find lots and lots of evidence there is really something substantial behind it, even if it may not be explained by physicists. By the way, Rossis secrets are detailed in the two recent patents pusblished. It's all there.
Take a deep breath, accept that you don't know everything and then go here and read about LENR/cold fusion which is about to change the world:
http://www.e-catworld.com/
Or just google it...
I don't get why people are so incredibly negative towards a report that shows something positive?
OK, I get that people are afraid of being fooled but why do you let that fear stop you from investigating this?
For me, I'm curious and I've done a lot of reading on this subject and it's very fascinating. If you are curious too, and not just afraid of being wrong, then I suggest you start by going to http://www.lenr-info.com/ and check out which companies, researchers and theories are related to LENR. (Not my web site). My favorite theory is Widom-Larsen, really worth checking out!
It's not like Andrea Rossi is alone in this... He may not even be first to market.
If I HAD been able to even install this, there's the issue of trashing my Windows XP installation (bug 115980). That's always nice...
To top it off, the NVIDIA drivers won't work. That's easily fixed, but it kinda adds up...
JUNK!
802.11 uses too much power to be useful in the niche bluetooth is getting (cameras, PDAs, and especially cellphones). I doubt Bluetooth will be going away anytime soon.
Microsoft is slowly but surely turning your computer into a set top box. A box with "no serviceable parts inside" and which has full control over any and all things that you do to it.
Windows XP is a nice proof of this. More control to Microsoft and no control to you. You just might be as well off buying a real set top box from the start, right? Or a real computer with a real OS...
Eh, well not to be boring or anything, but the watermarking follows the music, no matter what format it has. The hack-challenge was to remove the watermarking, even though I don't know why, since, as you described, it can be copied anyway... Perhaps SDMI was supposed to track every watermarked song you ever purchased so they could sue your ass when they discovered it in the wrong place. How's that for privacy?...
This means that they must do rendering in layers. So why does this matter. IIRC, people were saying that it would be far to inefficient to render a desktop in layers, well obviously it isn't. However, how this works over Xis still up in the air because X has the network export option and all.
Think 3D accelerator cards and OpenGL. These kinds of layers and transparencies can be efficiently generated by a 3D card. That, I would assume, would be the only reasonable way of having a semitransparent window cover a running movie and have all that shadow stuff and still have CPU time left to decode the movie. It's a whole new way of rendering 2D graphics though. To do this efficiently you would need a 3D accelerator that can apply 2D acceleration to textures (so you can scroll text in a window which is being rendered as a texture in a big polygon). I wonder if the current crop of accelerators can do 2D acceleration on textures but I guess they can...
This is also one of the few reasonable ways I can envision this being done in X11. You could use the X server to render into virtual windows which are then rendered by the 3D card on screen. Experiments with this has already begun (but I can't find the link to that page...)
1) It has been proved that a wavelets can represent the theoretical minimum information for an image. Proof uses the information's counterpart of the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. That's right folks - you cannot get any more compressed than that - it simply isn't possible.
Uh, not so fast. Compressing an image means making a fake image that looks as much as possible as the original. How much we approach the original is a very subjective thing and would differ from person to person. A good image compression teqhnique would take into account the human visual system and make some kind of average on what people think looks best (and the lossy compression algorithms already do this, JPEG for example compresses black/white information less than color information). There is no optimal image compression as well as there is no optimal sound compression since the compression scheme is adapted to an analogue old-fashioned eye or ear which can differ much from person to person.
I assume it already can. Of all the video boards I've worked with, they've all had memory mapped frame buffers so if you want to, you can use it like any normal RAM. Although you wouldn't like to because reads from framebuffers are usually slow as hell (the cards are constructed for receiving a lot of writes, not servicing reads).