I think the poster was talking about an actual wireless monitor, so the compression would have to be done in hardware; And building the amount of compression we're talking about here into the hardware isn't necessarily an easy solution to the latency problem... it would be slow any way you look at it.
If you want to make it essentially a wireless graphical terminal (thus requiring a bunch of processing onboard, and reducing compatibility), there are a lot of tricks we can pull out of the hat. We could even go so far as to have video always decompressed on the far side of the connection. (That's non-trivial: we'd need to get a good collection of embedded processor video codecs going first...)
This hunk of marketspeek reminds me of... Apple.
on
Wireless Monitors?
·
· Score: 2
Yeah, so I'm going to establish a 1-1 relationship with my desktop PC by leaving my desk and accessing my desktop pc at crappy color depth over a low bandwidth network link using terminal server protocols and avoiding video and highly graphical apps?
Okay. Go bankrupt. See what I care.
So, anyway... This bucket of marketing droid spew makes me realise what I most hate about Macs [and now for something completely different] -- It's not really Macs (the kludgey pre-X OS has been mostly replaced, and the hardware isn't so overpriced anymore,) it's just Apple, and its "Reality Distortion Field(TM)" (as the Register calls it)...
Apple goes for really odd technical promotional ploys, like trying to hype the insignificantly (~10%-20%) better performance of their IO interconnect bus over PCland's northbridge/southbridge designs, when their processor bus (single clocked 133mhz) is so slow that they can't even go to DDR SDRAM, because they've already hit the bus bottleneck. (Compare with Athlon's double-pumped 133mhz bus, and Pentium 4's quad-pumped 133mhz bus.) Watch them try to promote their new G4 systems with DDR SDRAM L3 caches but half-speed PC133 ram against systems where the entire main memory is DDR SDRAM; see them try to sneak the "Well, their processors don't have L3 caches, so our platform must be faster." assertion under the radar. It's hilarious!
I'll avoid commenting on their facist intellectual property policy or their monopolistic microsoftian product tying practices. (Oops... Well, I can't take those adjectives back now...)
Anyway, this wouldn't really bother me so much if trade press hacks and clueless consumers didn't so often say that Apple was the most consumer-friendly thing since sliced bread all the time. User friendly? Sure. Consumer friendly? Caveat emptor.
Are the expectations you speak of about mathematical truth? Or about truth in general? If you have expectations about truths about the properties of the universe, I don't see what that has to do with math; perhaps these expectations are less the result of an education in mathematics, and more the result of half an education in mathematics...
Don't confuse mathematics with science. The scientific method likes induction from a limited set of cases. Mathematical methods of proof won't touch that kind of reasoning with an 10-foot pole.
"Anything can be proved with enough flawed mathematics." How does one prove something with flawed mathematics? Certainly, one can attempt to prove something with flawed mathematics, but if the mathematics are flawed, what does it prove?
"Think how many times things have been proven, only to be found flawed later on?" Okay. Zero. See above.
Another TrustE certification I noticed on the linked page... You may delete your account at any time. =)
I just did. Bye bye Yahoo IM, Groups, Maps, etc. accounts. Too bad for them. Maybe if enough people leave over this, they'll change some policies. But if they don't, I'll just keep going about my business elsewhere.
Simply obfuscating the source code before compiling to binaries and releasing it isn't a GPL violation.
However, it still doesn't make any sense. Why?:
1. If the source code compiles to the same program, then it can't be all that incomprehensible, obfuscation or no. Reverse engineering reasonable identifiers and comments into the code wouldn't be that difficult.
2. If the product is GPLed, then it is freely copyable. Its distribution by third parties won't earn the company any additional revenue. So, what does the extra obfuscation accomplish? Except for making it a bit difficult to create derivative works and fork off incompatible versions (but not impossible -- see 1), which wouldn't affect the company much in any case, it doesn't accomplish anything. The company might as well just release the source code unmodified, as it would save the time that would otherwise be wasted on obfuscation.
Presumably, most of the annoyance at Apple in this community comes from the whole whacking-unauthorized-clone-makers-with-a-big-stic k attitude it adopted.
Very hacker-unfriendly, and more monopolist than Microsoft. In PC land, there are almost always at least three suppliers for every major component. (e.g. CPUs: Intel, AMD, VIA, Transmeta; Motherboard chipsets: Intel, AMD, VIA; etc...)
You may have a point about the jealousy, though. Although my hardware is neither beige nor ugly -- and each of my components was selected at my choosing -- I have to admit that it would be kind of neat to mess around with OS X for a while. Now, if only Apple would let down its sometimes-whimsical sometimes-Microsoft-esque-monopolist schizophrenia for long enough to realize that it could really change the world and make a killing at the same time by entering the PC OS market... But, alas; Star Trek was crushed long ago in favour of the misguided hardware company vision.
Heck... If they leave the price/performance ratio wins and the majority market share to PC land, the Dells of the world will gladly reward Apple with all of the "cover of Time" success it wants. =)
"Even though there are many studies showing Macs having higher ROI, WinTel gets the vote."
And, as we all know, commercial single-sources never have favourable studies cooked up... I have to laugh at such a comment from a Mac fan, who is probably familiar with the amount of marketing drivel that M$ churns out. =)
"The software used to accomplish the clustering for AppleSeeds is Mac MPI, which is based upon the *standard* for parallel computing, MPI."
There are a laundry list of parallel computing standards. MPI is on the list. Hint: MPI is supported directly on linux. I wonder which one has the bigger software repository?
"The reason that the PDF doesn't talk about programming MPI is that there is no need for redundant documentation. Go find a book on MPI if you want to learn to prgram to that API."
Yes. But the poster was trying to indicate that the literature comparison is a bit stacked, no? =)
"as opposed to spending quite a lot of time figuring out how to use the incredubly arcane "apt"."
More gooey distributions (e.g. Red Hat, mandrake, etc.) include gooier automatic updating tools.
(But, presumably, if one has difficulty comprehending a simple debian command-line utility, one is clearly not qualified to understand source code for a particle physics simulation coded in a high level language, and should be thrown off the project, right?)
Wow, they teach concurrency and MPI in grade 6?
on
Macintosh Clustering
·
· Score: 2
Realisticly speaking, how many cluster users are using their cluster for an application that commercial-off-the-shelf software will be available for?
This article is a bit misleading. To clarify, the DOJ et al. are being sued for failing to respond to a FOIA request for information relating to their use of information from the corporate sources mentioned.
But at purchasing-power parity for what? All goods and services? Everything but energy and food? Big Macs? Just communications services? (Obviously not the last one, because that would be missing the point of the comparison.) Throw us a bone here.
A source for the numbers you're putting out would be cool.
Hint: In many places, 101 is an intro to microec. course, useless for this topic.
I'm a former member. EFC always seemed pretty dead. Make a contribution to the EFF instead; it will probably be more effective. (Their web site is at least organized a bit better.)
BTW: It's a donation for bob's sake! If the lack of a deduction bothers you, factor that in and make a smaller donation. Or, if you're actually _charitable_, bite the bullet and go with the full amount.
It looks like some kind of gadgety "computer hat" -- screen flips over so you can wear it and view it at the same time -- of vaguely japanese and vaguely geeky origin.
NB: subject line brought to you by A Halo Called Fred. See IUMA for more info.
No setup, beyond having appropriate kernel headers to match the running image, the right version of X installed, all of the appropriate build software installed, the kernel driver built, the drivers installed correctly, manually modifying the Xfree configuration, etc... Although there are some ditros that have a very streamlined automatic X setup of the Nvidia binary drivers, even the good ones are pretty piecemeal (many are not very good at post-install config changes, for example).
But, the current display architecture sucks even more...
The inherent lack of good support of new chipsets in the Xfree versions in most distros (without a lot of farting around to upgrade to bleeding edge versions) scares away many potential linux users before they have a chance to really _use_ anything.
I'm all for the encapsulation of video hardware functionality (at a high level -- so acceleration is well supported) into kernel drivers. That way, an automatic hardware-to-drivermodule matching system (also would be VERY handy) could take care of installing the right drivers for your hardware.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the poster was talking about an actual wireless monitor, so the compression would have to be done in hardware; And building the amount of compression we're talking about here into the hardware isn't necessarily an easy solution to the latency problem ... it would be slow any way you look at it.
If you want to make it essentially a wireless graphical terminal (thus requiring a bunch of processing onboard, and reducing compatibility), there are a lot of tricks we can pull out of the hat. We could even go so far as to have video always decompressed on the far side of the connection. (That's non-trivial: we'd need to get a good collection of embedded processor video codecs going first...)
Yeah, so I'm going to establish a 1-1 relationship with my desktop PC by leaving my desk and accessing my desktop pc at crappy color depth over a low bandwidth network link using terminal server protocols and avoiding video and highly graphical apps?
Okay. Go bankrupt. See what I care.
So, anyway... This bucket of marketing droid spew makes me realise what I most hate about Macs [and now for something completely different] -- It's not really Macs (the kludgey pre-X OS has been mostly replaced, and the hardware isn't so overpriced anymore,) it's just Apple, and its "Reality Distortion Field(TM)" (as the Register calls it)...
Apple goes for really odd technical promotional ploys, like trying to hype the insignificantly (~10%-20%) better performance of their IO interconnect bus over PCland's northbridge/southbridge designs, when their processor bus (single clocked 133mhz) is so slow that they can't even go to DDR SDRAM, because they've already hit the bus bottleneck. (Compare with Athlon's double-pumped 133mhz bus, and Pentium 4's quad-pumped 133mhz bus.) Watch them try to promote their new G4 systems with DDR SDRAM L3 caches but half-speed PC133 ram against systems where the entire main memory is DDR SDRAM; see them try to sneak the "Well, their processors don't have L3 caches, so our platform must be faster." assertion under the radar. It's hilarious!
I'll avoid commenting on their facist intellectual property policy or their monopolistic microsoftian product tying practices. (Oops... Well, I can't take those adjectives back now...)
Anyway, this wouldn't really bother me so much if trade press hacks and clueless consumers didn't so often say that Apple was the most consumer-friendly thing since sliced bread all the time. User friendly? Sure. Consumer friendly? Caveat emptor.
Are the expectations you speak of about mathematical truth? Or about truth in general? If you have expectations about truths about the properties of the universe, I don't see what that has to do with math; perhaps these expectations are less the result of an education in mathematics, and more the result of half an education in mathematics...
Don't confuse mathematics with science. The scientific method likes induction from a limited set of cases. Mathematical methods of proof won't touch that kind of reasoning with an 10-foot pole.
"Anything can be proved with enough flawed mathematics." How does one prove something with flawed mathematics? Certainly, one can attempt to prove something with flawed mathematics, but if the mathematics are flawed, what does it prove?
"Think how many times things have been proven, only to be found flawed later on?" Okay. Zero. See above.
Another TrustE certification I noticed on the linked page... You may delete your account at any time. =)
I just did. Bye bye Yahoo IM, Groups, Maps, etc. accounts. Too bad for them. Maybe if enough people leave over this, they'll change some policies. But if they don't, I'll just keep going about my business elsewhere.
This seems to be just a repost of that article... Or is there some change I'm missing?
Simply obfuscating the source code before compiling to binaries and releasing it isn't a GPL violation.
However, it still doesn't make any sense. Why?:
1. If the source code compiles to the same program, then it can't be all that incomprehensible, obfuscation or no. Reverse engineering reasonable identifiers and comments into the code wouldn't be that difficult.
2. If the product is GPLed, then it is freely copyable. Its distribution by third parties won't earn the company any additional revenue. So, what does the extra obfuscation accomplish? Except for making it a bit difficult to create derivative works and fork off incompatible versions (but not impossible -- see 1), which wouldn't affect the company much in any case, it doesn't accomplish anything. The company might as well just release the source code unmodified, as it would save the time that would otherwise be wasted on obfuscation.
Presumably, most of the annoyance at Apple in this community comes from the whole whacking-unauthorized-clone-makers-with-a-big-stic k attitude it adopted.
Very hacker-unfriendly, and more monopolist than Microsoft. In PC land, there are almost always at least three suppliers for every major component. (e.g. CPUs: Intel, AMD, VIA, Transmeta; Motherboard chipsets: Intel, AMD, VIA; etc...)
You may have a point about the jealousy, though. Although my hardware is neither beige nor ugly -- and each of my components was selected at my choosing -- I have to admit that it would be kind of neat to mess around with OS X for a while. Now, if only Apple would let down its sometimes-whimsical sometimes-Microsoft-esque-monopolist schizophrenia for long enough to realize that it could really change the world and make a killing at the same time by entering the PC OS market... But, alas; Star Trek was crushed long ago in favour of the misguided hardware company vision.
Heck... If they leave the price/performance ratio wins and the majority market share to PC land, the Dells of the world will gladly reward Apple with all of the "cover of Time" success it wants. =)
"had to write a custom 64-bit filesystem to deal with the massive amounts of data to cross reference."
The fact that a sufficiently robust 64-bit file system isn't available on an Apple OS is a pretty good illustration of this guy's point.
"Even though there are many studies showing Macs having higher ROI, WinTel gets the vote."
And, as we all know, commercial single-sources never have favourable studies cooked up... I have to laugh at such a comment from a Mac fan, who is probably familiar with the amount of marketing drivel that M$ churns out. =)
"The software used to accomplish the clustering for AppleSeeds is Mac MPI, which is based upon the *standard* for parallel computing, MPI."
There are a laundry list of parallel computing standards. MPI is on the list. Hint: MPI is supported directly on linux. I wonder which one has the bigger software repository?
"The reason that the PDF doesn't talk about programming MPI is that there is no need for redundant documentation. Go find a book on MPI if you want to learn to prgram to that API."
Yes. But the poster was trying to indicate that the literature comparison is a bit stacked, no? =)
"as opposed to spending quite a lot of time figuring out how to use the incredubly arcane "apt"."
More gooey distributions (e.g. Red Hat, mandrake, etc.) include gooier automatic updating tools.
(But, presumably, if one has difficulty comprehending a simple debian command-line utility, one is clearly not qualified to understand source code for a particle physics simulation coded in a high level language, and should be thrown off the project, right?)
Realisticly speaking, how many cluster users are using their cluster for an application that commercial-off-the-shelf software will be available for?
This article is a bit misleading. To clarify, the DOJ et al. are being sued for failing to respond to a FOIA request for information relating to their use of information from the corporate sources mentioned.
AIP News is reporting the first observations of quantum gravitational states by researchers in Grenoble using a beam of ultra cold neurons.
These "quantum gravitational states" sound trippy. What are these "researchers" on and where can I get some?
Data lost? Did you read the article? No, you didn't. Hang your head in shame! =)
p.s. We'll settle for you going away and never coming back. =)
Why would you need a computer? You can do it at your bank.
double-plus-roflmao.
But at purchasing-power parity for what? All goods and services? Everything but energy and food? Big Macs? Just communications services? (Obviously not the last one, because that would be missing the point of the comparison.) Throw us a bone here.
A source for the numbers you're putting out would be cool.
Hint: In many places, 101 is an intro to microec. course, useless for this topic.
I'm a former member. EFC always seemed pretty dead. Make a contribution to the EFF instead; it will probably be more effective. (Their web site is at least organized a bit better.)
BTW: It's a donation for bob's sake! If the lack of a deduction bothers you, factor that in and make a smaller donation. Or, if you're actually _charitable_, bite the bullet and go with the full amount.
It looks like some kind of gadgety "computer hat" -- screen flips over so you can wear it and view it at the same time -- of vaguely japanese and vaguely geeky origin.
NB: subject line brought to you by A Halo Called Fred. See IUMA for more info.
Dude! CA$1800 = US$1100.
Perhaps the article's comment that the original iMac sells for CA$1200 confused you? =)
New code. Coolness. Now where's that remove-double-posts feature? =)
Is restless product placement for cheese slices? Answer carefully.
(Know or do not... don't worry if this doesn't click.)
Any more significant plot explanations will also be accepted with glee. Especially those involving erotic writing. Fnord.
How is releasing this information unfair competition to Apple? Are they releasing this information on their site somewhere? =)
Binary drivers suck...
"Needs no setup." Famous last words.
No setup, beyond having appropriate kernel headers to match the running image, the right version of X installed, all of the appropriate build software installed, the kernel driver built, the drivers installed correctly, manually modifying the Xfree configuration, etc... Although there are some ditros that have a very streamlined automatic X setup of the Nvidia binary drivers, even the good ones are pretty piecemeal (many are not very good at post-install config changes, for example).
But, the current display architecture sucks even more...
The inherent lack of good support of new chipsets in the Xfree versions in most distros (without a lot of farting around to upgrade to bleeding edge versions) scares away many potential linux users before they have a chance to really _use_ anything.
I'm all for the encapsulation of video hardware functionality (at a high level -- so acceleration is well supported) into kernel drivers. That way, an automatic hardware-to-drivermodule matching system (also would be VERY handy) could take care of installing the right drivers for your hardware.