Personally, I believe it has more to do with Intel vs AMD:
There is only 1 manufacturer making the G5.
There is clearly competition between Intel and AMD.
Without any competition, the Power chips have less appeal.
Of course, I personally can't wait for a cell based Linux box. And it's gonna be about $500... time to brush up on vector coding...
Personally, I think that the law should stay firmly out of this arena - it's just too hard to draw a distinction that won't harm us or the technology at some point.
About the only law I imagine I could stomach would be along the lines of full disclosure. In other words, whether the software did something out of the users control and without his/her consent.
Unfortunately, you'd have to do some work around what is always allowed and/or implied. If you download a browser, are you implicitly allowing access to websites? What about sending info back to websites you didn't explicitly select? For instance when images are loaded from another site, with cookies and/or query data (doubleclick, anyone?)
Would that be the fault of the browser?
Such things are extremely hard to define for the general case.
Seriously, the law needs to stay out until a clearly defined problem has enough impact that legislation is appropriate.
I didn't miss anything, and it's obvious that you've actually read the article now - congratulations.
So why you hold on to the mistaken belief that you can get more energy out than you put in is bothersome.
The bottom line is:
If you end up with the same mass that you started with, then the energy out must equal the energy in. Period.
If there is less matter at the end, then you've converted some matter into energy. But there are more effective (and cheaper) ways, like fission.
Basically, when you take matter change change it from it's current state, it takes energy. Like accelerating a particle - you're adding kinetic energy. When the matter returns to it's original state, you get the energy back out.
So effectively, you're storing energy.
Another example is potential energy. When you lift matter, you're adding potential energy. The energy is effectively stored. When the matter is released, it starts to fall, and the energy reappears as kinetic energy.
This is basically the same thing. The goal is not to turn matter into energy, but to create a very compact and verstile energy store.
Nonsense: matter and energy are equivalent.
We are not talking about fusion or fission where we take a minute amount of matter and convert it into a large amount energy.
This is taking a small amount of matter, storing vast amounts of energy into it by converting some of it into antimatter and storing it.
In effect it's like creating a very compact fuel.
Converting matter to antimatter is not the same as converting some matter into energy.
Not only do you end up efectively only storing energy - is "incredibly inefficient" - so you end up getting out far less energy than you put in.
Quite why your comment got modded "insightful" is beyond me - maybe the modder didn't RTFA
We constantly compare the actual written code with our understanding of the intent of the code. We also frequently read incorect code as if it were correct - assuming it matches our model.
We do it with natural language too. Our mind fills in gaps, and silently corrects for syntax and grammer. It's a real bummer when you're proof-reading text, or diagnosing programs.
The way in which we actually create code is much more complex than GP suggests.
For a start we use different approaches to different problems. Most problems have been solved before, so it's a case of recalling an algorithm and applying it to the current context.
When it comes to a problem we haven't solved before, we have to match it, or parts of it, to algorithms we know. This process is very sensitive to the manner in which it is described or understood.
We seldom make great leaps, and actually invent something.
If we knew exactly how the process worked, we'd already have coded programs to do it for us.
I believe you underestimate the general morality of people.
The fact is that more and more people are paying for music downloads.
I don't because I believe the DRM that comes with it should not be supported.
We, the people, should have control. DRM shifts that control to the software and entertainment companies.
Apparently they feel that they don't have enough power.
Regardless, I would much rather pay the artist directly for a download, than I would buy a cd from a store and give money to companies that lobby congress to take away my rights.
Copyright was created as a stimulus, to promote publication.
The cost of publishing had dropped so drastically, that authors and publishers feared that they could not make enough money to cover initial costs, before someone undercut them.
So copyright doesn't protect someone's existing right. No such right ever existed. Copyright gave publishers an incentive to publish, by giving them a legal monopoly on publication (actually to the author, who then had the right to license it).
In this environment, publishing flourished. The availablity of books grew exponentially. This is undoubtedly responsible for a massive general increase in education who's effect cannot be overestimated.
Copyright fulfilled an important need.
But copyright has been expanded and extended. It is longer in effect and wider in extent. It now covers copying, and it covers movies, music, artworks, software etc.
When the constitution was written, it was clear that copyright needed a clear fence around it to maintain the balance.
This balance has totally shifted - and not to authors, or even artists or other creators. The balance has shifted to corporations.
The reason is, these corporations have the money to buy opinion in congress and the power to exclude creators from publishing their own works. And what they've bought in congress is a copyright system which effectively does not end.
What we need is a reasonable copyright system that recognizes the needs of the public and the creative and innovative people.
I believe it should, for example, be illegal for a corporation to own a copyright - the indiviuals should maintain their monopoly until the copyright term. And the copyright term should be reasonable for the kind of material involved.
The point is, that we have the power to change the system to benefit all of us.
ESR has claimed in the past that Open Source differs from Free Software in it's rhetoric.
This is clearly bunk.
The reason ESR is now bitching about the GPL now is obviously that he's noticed the GPL is more than a license. It's RMSs creed.
ESR has observed the recent publicity about the GPL3 and realized that some of the principals the GPL stands for are ones he does not share.
If he thinks Open Source would succeed faster without the GPL, I think RMS would probably happily agree!
The GPL is not there to promote Open Source. It's there to protect Free Software.
If he wants to drive a stake into an already divided community, he's succeeding.
But he needs to wake up and realize that he's hurting the whole industry by doing it.
Just at the point when the GPL has gained traction in some of the biggest corporations in the industry, ESR comes out and slams it; inviting people to create their own licenses.
There are already far too many incompatible Free and Open Source Software licenses.
The last thing we need is someone trashing the license with the biggest share.
What we do need is the ability to mix and match source code from all over. To take ideas a freely mix them with existing code and make something new.
We need fewer licenses.
While I thoroughly respect ESR and some of what he has done, this is a very bad move.
He's sending the message that it just fine to drop the principals of freedom for accelerated growth or wider acceptance.
While it's clear he and some others believe it, he does not speak for us all; and should shut the hell up.
The GPL is the pillar that Free Software has stood upon. It has withstood all attacks from the largest and meanest enemies. If it's defeated and Free Software goes away, Open Source will shortly thereafter follow.
Ballmer says: does anyone believe that search will be the same as it is in ten years time?
Well, search technology has reached the end of the road in relevancy - until one technology progresses:
Natural language processing.
Currently, all searches require human processing. Google realized this and created a system which pulls human cues into a database. A truly great idea: people rank websites by linking to them. Amazing - an original idea.
But it's here, and it's the terminus.
Microsoft can posit and pose and yell and scream. They could even, however unlikely, write a system which is equal.
But all that won't change anything until programs can efficiently determine subject matter, context, relevancy, originality and so on. That is all a long way off.
No. He isn't admitting that MS is irrelevent. He is admiting that MS is losing in places, hence has competition, hence is not a monopoly. MS NEEDS to look like they are losing a bit, because when they were winning everything (in the eyes of many people) they were getting attacked.
Saying things like that are a calculated gamble, words like that can send stock prices down, so there has to be a reason for it. "Honesty" aside, it is business.
Microsoft may be losing ground in some areas - like the browser market (some sites are already showing almost 50% firefox - way to go!), but that is far from not being a monopoly in a legal sense.
Microsoft will continue to be scrutinized until long after they can actually prove they are no longer a monopoly.
This is a big PR campaign. But it's not aimed at the justice department or the EU.
This is aimed at business partners. It becomes clear that Microsoft partners are not willing to be pushed around like they used to be. And customers are waking up to the dangers of the monopoly - vendor lockin and interoperability have had lots of press recently.
This is great news - when their customers and business partners are pushing for change, then Microsoft might start to listen.
Of course - even after I've seen it, I still won't believe it. This is Microsoft!
Re:from the oxymoron dept...
on
Effective C#
·
· Score: 1
Remember, just because it's from Microsoft doesn't automatically negate it;)
But is does make you think at least thirteen times before considering it.
Eclipse is a shell IDE. Shell as in framework or platform. The idea is that all the languages, tools and environments it supports are achieved by plugins.
A plugin for C/C++, a plugin for HTML, a plugin for Java (supplied).
The best part is that the user interface remains standardized across all the plugins. So there's a very short learning curve for each new tool.
Many vendors are supporting Eclipse now - I used to use Slickedit, sure enough there's a Slickedit plugin.
Slashdot Mirror
There is only 1 manufacturer making the G5.
There is clearly competition between Intel and AMD.
Without any competition, the Power chips have less appeal.
Of course, I personally can't wait for a cell based Linux box. And it's gonna be about $500... time to brush up on vector coding...
Microsoft is rumored to be in negotiations
This is actually true - when you realise that "people" = "Microsoft" and "their computers" = "everyone else's computers"
About the only law I imagine I could stomach would be along the lines of full disclosure. In other words, whether the software did something out of the users control and without his/her consent.
Unfortunately, you'd have to do some work around what is always allowed and/or implied. If you download a browser, are you implicitly allowing access to websites? What about sending info back to websites you didn't explicitly select? For instance when images are loaded from another site, with cookies and/or query data (doubleclick, anyone?)
Would that be the fault of the browser?
Such things are extremely hard to define for the general case.
Seriously, the law needs to stay out until a clearly defined problem has enough impact that legislation is appropriate.
Otherwise, we'd be hampered more than helped...
So why you hold on to the mistaken belief that you can get more energy out than you put in is bothersome.
The bottom line is:
If you end up with the same mass that you started with, then the energy out must equal the energy in. Period.
If there is less matter at the end, then you've converted some matter into energy. But there are more effective (and cheaper) ways, like fission.
Basically, when you take matter change change it from it's current state, it takes energy. Like accelerating a particle - you're adding kinetic energy. When the matter returns to it's original state, you get the energy back out.
So effectively, you're storing energy.
Another example is potential energy. When you lift matter, you're adding potential energy. The energy is effectively stored. When the matter is released, it starts to fall, and the energy reappears as kinetic energy.
This is basically the same thing. The goal is not to turn matter into energy, but to create a very compact and verstile energy store.
Nonsense: matter and energy are equivalent.
We are not talking about fusion or fission where we take a minute amount of matter and convert it into a large amount energy.
This is taking a small amount of matter, storing vast amounts of energy into it by converting some of it into antimatter and storing it.
In effect it's like creating a very compact fuel.
Converting matter to antimatter is not the same as converting some matter into energy.
Not only do you end up efectively only storing energy - is "incredibly inefficient" - so you end up getting out far less energy than you put in.
Quite why your comment got modded "insightful" is beyond me - maybe the modder didn't RTFA
What did you expect? More energy out than you put in?
We constantly compare the actual written code with our understanding of the intent of the code. We also frequently read incorect code as if it were correct - assuming it matches our model.
We do it with natural language too. Our mind fills in gaps, and silently corrects for syntax and grammer. It's a real bummer when you're proof-reading text, or diagnosing programs.
The way in which we actually create code is much more complex than GP suggests.
For a start we use different approaches to different problems. Most problems have been solved before, so it's a case of recalling an algorithm and applying it to the current context.
When it comes to a problem we haven't solved before, we have to match it, or parts of it, to algorithms we know. This process is very sensitive to the manner in which it is described or understood.
We seldom make great leaps, and actually invent something.
If we knew exactly how the process worked, we'd already have coded programs to do it for us.
- Install squid
- Add rules for excluding IE from everything with certain exceptions (can do this with "user agent" string)
- Exclude other things (regardless of browser) - like known spyware domains (download a list from the internet)
- Point IE to proxy (127.0.0.1:3125 or whatever)
- Point Firefox et al to proxy.
- Set up all kinds of access controls...
You can also install Privoxy, and point Squid to it as a parent proxy. That'll give even tighter controls.Certain applications (Mor*cough*pheus) use IE to pull stuff from the web. Such programs will now use the proxy which will deny access.
This kind of system is in direct opposition to the nature of a free society, and cannot be accepted.
The fact that people are not demonstrating all over the country is enough to turn my hair white.
...couldn't you just use a cheap ups that cleans up the output?
He just guessed every digit.
Or:
Dude, are you sure you want to shoot yourself in the head?
Click Yes if you do, and No if you don't.
[OK][Cancel]
The fact is that more and more people are paying for music downloads.
I don't because I believe the DRM that comes with it should not be supported.
We, the people, should have control. DRM shifts that control to the software and entertainment companies.
Apparently they feel that they don't have enough power.
Regardless, I would much rather pay the artist directly for a download, than I would buy a cd from a store and give money to companies that lobby congress to take away my rights.
Personally, I think the 360 will be a dismal failure in the face of the PS3. It's an entire freaking supercomputer and entertainment system.
Name something it can't do!
Copyright was created as a stimulus, to promote publication.
The cost of publishing had dropped so drastically, that authors and publishers feared that they could not make enough money to cover initial costs, before someone undercut them.
So copyright doesn't protect someone's existing right. No such right ever existed. Copyright gave publishers an incentive to publish, by giving them a legal monopoly on publication (actually to the author, who then had the right to license it).
In this environment, publishing flourished. The availablity of books grew exponentially. This is undoubtedly responsible for a massive general increase in education who's effect cannot be overestimated.
Copyright fulfilled an important need.
But copyright has been expanded and extended. It is longer in effect and wider in extent. It now covers copying, and it covers movies, music, artworks, software etc.
When the constitution was written, it was clear that copyright needed a clear fence around it to maintain the balance.
This balance has totally shifted - and not to authors, or even artists or other creators. The balance has shifted to corporations.
The reason is, these corporations have the money to buy opinion in congress and the power to exclude creators from publishing their own works.
And what they've bought in congress is a copyright system which effectively does not end.
What we need is a reasonable copyright system that recognizes the needs of the public and the creative and innovative people.
I believe it should, for example, be illegal for a corporation to own a copyright - the indiviuals should maintain their monopoly until the copyright term. And the copyright term should be reasonable for the kind of material involved.
The point is, that we have the power to change the system to benefit all of us.
ESR has claimed in the past that Open Source differs from Free Software in it's rhetoric.
This is clearly bunk.
The reason ESR is now bitching about the GPL now is obviously that he's noticed the GPL is more than a license. It's RMSs creed.
ESR has observed the recent publicity about the GPL3 and realized that some of the principals the GPL stands for are ones he does not share.
If he thinks Open Source would succeed faster without the GPL, I think RMS would probably happily agree!
The GPL is not there to promote Open Source. It's there to protect Free Software.
If he wants to drive a stake into an already divided community, he's succeeding.
But he needs to wake up and realize that he's hurting the whole industry by doing it.
Just at the point when the GPL has gained traction in some of the biggest corporations in the industry, ESR comes out and slams it; inviting people to create their own licenses.
There are already far too many incompatible Free and Open Source Software licenses.
The last thing we need is someone trashing the license with the biggest share.
What we do need is the ability to mix and match source code from all over. To take ideas a freely mix them with existing code and make something new.
We need fewer licenses.
While I thoroughly respect ESR and some of what he has done, this is a very bad move.
He's sending the message that it just fine to drop the principals of freedom for accelerated growth or wider acceptance.
While it's clear he and some others believe it, he does not speak for us all; and should shut the hell up.
The GPL is the pillar that Free Software has stood upon. It has withstood all attacks from the largest and meanest enemies.
If it's defeated and Free Software goes away, Open Source will shortly thereafter follow.
And when it does - I'll be happy to spend an extra $100-$200 for a decent hard drive and Linux.
Even $600 would be cheap for the kind of computer you're getting.
My aging 2ghz PC running Windoze will become my wife's permanently, and my kids are gonna have a hard time kicking me off the PS3.
I'm already reading up on vector processing.
I did see it was good ole Roland, and followed your link anyway not getting the joke.
'Till I discovered where it lead.
Maybe next time you can make it a bit more obvious for morons like me!
Well, search technology has reached the end of the road in relevancy - until one technology progresses:
Natural language processing.
Currently, all searches require human processing. Google realized this and created a system which pulls human cues into a database. A truly great idea: people rank websites by linking to them. Amazing - an original idea.
But it's here, and it's the terminus.
Microsoft can posit and pose and yell and scream. They could even, however unlikely, write a system which is equal.
But all that won't change anything until programs can efficiently determine subject matter, context, relevancy, originality and so on. That is all a long way off.
I thought we were talking about Microsoft!
Microsoft will continue to be scrutinized until long after they can actually prove they are no longer a monopoly.
This is a big PR campaign. But it's not aimed at the justice department or the EU.
This is aimed at business partners. It becomes clear that Microsoft partners are not willing to be pushed around like they used to be.
And customers are waking up to the dangers of the monopoly - vendor lockin and interoperability have had lots of press recently.
This is great news - when their customers and business partners are pushing for change, then Microsoft might start to listen.
Of course - even after I've seen it, I still won't believe it. This is Microsoft!
But you have to be a geek to really appreciate his work.
The idea is that all the languages, tools and environments it supports are achieved by plugins.
A plugin for C/C++, a plugin for HTML, a plugin for Java (supplied).
The best part is that the user interface remains standardized across all the plugins. So there's a very short learning curve for each new tool.
Many vendors are supporting Eclipse now - I used to use Slickedit, sure enough there's a Slickedit plugin.
And it's completely open source.