I wonder if you realize that there's no clear line between offensive and defensive applications. Better armor for soldiers means they can attack more aggressively. A missile shield means you can fire missile at the neighbors without being hit. And so on.
Sorry, I've had way too many problems with closed-source drivers (compatibility and all) that they're just not worth the trouble. I get a bit of acceleration with the current open-source ones, so I'm sticking with that....And I'm sure the Intel open-source drivers would beat that -- not the closed-source drivers, I don't care about those. When you have a problem with your Linux machine (if you run Linux) and NVidia drivers, try asking for help on lkml just for fun:-)
Read my post carefully. I'm talking about the open-source drivers because I'm not willing to have my system be unstable because of crappy proprietary drivers (or run into problems anytime I upgrade my kernel). And yes, the open-source ATI/NVidia drivers have at best slow 3D acceleration and at worse no 3D acceleration at all (I'm already lucky to have the former). Considering that, I'm sure an Intel chip could effectively beat the hell out of an ATI/NVidia chip with the existing open-source drivers.
See, the interesting thing is that I wouldn't be surprised if *on Linux" the Intel cards end up beating ATI and NVidia just because of the drivers. I've got ATI cards in both my laptops and I'm not impressed by the speed with the open-source drivers (and I'm unwilling to live with all the trouble involved in the closed-source ones). I'm sure a machine with an Intel chipset and open-source drivers could easily beat both ATI and NVidia on Linux.
That's only one part of the story. DC-DC converters didn't exist (in a practical form, that is), so Edison was using (I think) 12V, whereas AC was already in the order of 100 V (because transformers could easily be used to change the voltage).
No, you can't get around this, because if it's built into the keyboard, then it's a hardware thing, and any software based solution will be insufficient.
Yes, software is sufficient because it has to go through lots of software before it goes out on the Internet (of whereever it's going). If (e.g.) you add jitter in the OS interrupt handler, then the only part that would know about the original message is the CPU hardware and it can't really tell anyone by itself (unless asked to by software).
Actually, active noise cancellation at 17 kHz is nearly impossible to do because the wavelength is too small (~2cm). Cancelling the noise would mean tracking each of you ears to millimeter accuracy (and respond very quickly). I think most noise cancelling devices today are only effective up to a few hundred Hz.
You talk like most people in these countries (Nigeria, Brazil, Argentina, and Thailand) have never seen food in their life or something like that. What these (and other) countries need is not food sent from industrialised countries (which often hurts the local economy more than anything), its means to improve their own economy. This is done (partly) through improved education and that's where OLPC can help. There's no single solution to complex problems. You can focus only on food, just as you can't focus only on computers. But saying OLPC is unnecessary because there are other (possibly more important) problems is missing the point.
Anyone here can tell me whether the GPLv3 allows linking with LGPL v2.1 libraries? What about the opposite, can GPLv2 software be linked against LGPL v3 (that is GPLv3 + LGPL-like permission)?
more stores transition from human clerks to self-service checkout technology, thus reducing the time shoppers spend in line and under the temptation of impulse items
Don't worry, soon you'll be waiting forever in line just to go through the self-service checkout
But breaking the law breaks the law - If you get convicted of "murder"ing your (literally) braindead spouse the day before congress passes an exception for assisted suicide, you still go to prison for murder.
Not sure what what the US constitution says, but in Canada you can't be convicted for something that wasn't a crime when you did it *or* for something that is no longer a crime now.
Sure, that very nice, except that 1) the military are uninterested in great research that doesn't happen to have civilian applications 2) there's lots of stuff (e.g. supersonic stealth bomber type) that cost a huge amount of money and has at best little civilian use (not enough for the price) and 3) yes, it gets used to kill people (even "defensive" stuff means that you can attack more).
Wouldn't it be great if only 10% of the US military budget was spent on useful, non-military research. I bet there's be a lot more useful stuff being developped (and much less money going straight into big defense contractors' pockets).
This new technology can be used to assist with hurricane disaster relief, provide enhanced security of ports and borders, perform science observation missions and improve military communications.
Who wants to bet which of these applications we'll see first?
Thanks. That's something a lot of people forget. Actually, the overhead of the headers is usually 16 kbps, i.e. about as much as the codec data itself. That's also why very low bit-rate ( 8kbps) codecs are (almost always) useless in VoIP.
Actually, I've used Asterisk to pass through 24KHz Speex encoded audio - very impressive sound quality, but only works when the SIP channel is client to client.
Care to provide more info on this. Speex is *not* optimized for 24 kHz so it would probably sound worse than 16 kHz or 32 kHz. If the devs are indeed using 24 kHz, it's probably a bad idea that would be fixed. (BTW, I know what I'm talking about -- I wrote Speex)
That's called wideband speech. It's been around for 10+ years and Speex supported it about 4 years ago. About time people actually use it (i.e. why people are still using narrowband in VoIP is beyond me).
Slashdot Mirror
I think in the end their desire wasn't necessarily to kill a lot of people, but something far more sinister--destroy the largest symbol of capitalism.
So according to the blogger, "destroying the largest symbol of capitalism" is far worse than killing 3000 people?
Yes, especially if it was invaded for "defensive" purposes.
I wonder if you realize that there's no clear line between offensive and defensive applications. Better armor for soldiers means they can attack more aggressively. A missile shield means you can fire missile at the neighbors without being hit. And so on.
What the hell are they afraid of?
That they won't be able to sell you the same tune for an Nth time in the form of an "official" (and often crappy) guitar translation.
Thanks. You're confirming what I strongly suspected. Wish I had such a chipset as well.
Sorry, I've had way too many problems with closed-source drivers (compatibility and all) that they're just not worth the trouble. I get a bit of acceleration with the current open-source ones, so I'm sticking with that. ...And I'm sure the Intel open-source drivers would beat that -- not the closed-source drivers, I don't care about those. When you have a problem with your Linux machine (if you run Linux) and NVidia drivers, try asking for help on lkml just for fun :-)
Read my post carefully. I'm talking about the open-source drivers because I'm not willing to have my system be unstable because of crappy proprietary drivers (or run into problems anytime I upgrade my kernel). And yes, the open-source ATI/NVidia drivers have at best slow 3D acceleration and at worse no 3D acceleration at all (I'm already lucky to have the former). Considering that, I'm sure an Intel chip could effectively beat the hell out of an ATI/NVidia chip with the existing open-source drivers.
See, the interesting thing is that I wouldn't be surprised if *on Linux" the Intel cards end up beating ATI and NVidia just because of the drivers. I've got ATI cards in both my laptops and I'm not impressed by the speed with the open-source drivers (and I'm unwilling to live with all the trouble involved in the closed-source ones). I'm sure a machine with an Intel chipset and open-source drivers could easily beat both ATI and NVidia on Linux.
That's only one part of the story. DC-DC converters didn't exist (in a practical form, that is), so Edison was using (I think) 12V, whereas AC was already in the order of 100 V (because transformers could easily be used to change the voltage).
No, you can't get around this, because if it's built into the keyboard, then it's a hardware thing, and any software based solution will be insufficient.
Yes, software is sufficient because it has to go through lots of software before it goes out on the Internet (of whereever it's going). If (e.g.) you add jitter in the OS interrupt handler, then the only part that would know about the original message is the CPU hardware and it can't really tell anyone by itself (unless asked to by software).
Actually, active noise cancellation at 17 kHz is nearly impossible to do because the wavelength is too small (~2cm). Cancelling the noise would mean tracking each of you ears to millimeter accuracy (and respond very quickly). I think most noise cancelling devices today are only effective up to a few hundred Hz.
Care to provide an example of that happening? I have yet to see someone selling a rebranded version of Firefox (not that it would be bad either).
OpenInquisition
Risk taking can be a service. We can have a contract to exchange your money for my risk taking in order to further some purpose.
Up to a point. Try enforcing a contract that says "I pay you $X to play russian roulette".
You talk like most people in these countries (Nigeria, Brazil, Argentina, and Thailand) have never seen food in their life or something like that. What these (and other) countries need is not food sent from industrialised countries (which often hurts the local economy more than anything), its means to improve their own economy. This is done (partly) through improved education and that's where OLPC can help. There's no single solution to complex problems. You can focus only on food, just as you can't focus only on computers. But saying OLPC is unnecessary because there are other (possibly more important) problems is missing the point.
Anyone here can tell me whether the GPLv3 allows linking with LGPL v2.1 libraries? What about the opposite, can GPLv2 software be linked against LGPL v3 (that is GPLv3 + LGPL-like permission)?
more stores transition from human clerks to self-service checkout technology, thus reducing the time shoppers spend in line and under the temptation of impulse items
Don't worry, soon you'll be waiting forever in line just to go through the self-service checkout
But breaking the law breaks the law - If you get convicted of "murder"ing your (literally) braindead spouse the day before congress passes an exception for assisted suicide, you still go to prison for murder.
Not sure what what the US constitution says, but in Canada you can't be convicted for something that wasn't a crime when you did it *or* for something that is no longer a crime now.
Sure, that very nice, except that 1) the military are uninterested in great research that doesn't happen to have civilian applications 2) there's lots of stuff (e.g. supersonic stealth bomber type) that cost a huge amount of money and has at best little civilian use (not enough for the price) and 3) yes, it gets used to kill people (even "defensive" stuff means that you can attack more).
Wouldn't it be great if only 10% of the US military budget was spent on useful, non-military research. I bet there's be a lot more useful stuff being developped (and much less money going straight into big defense contractors' pockets).
This new technology can be used to assist with hurricane disaster relief, provide enhanced security of ports and borders, perform science observation missions and improve military communications.
Who wants to bet which of these applications we'll see first?
Thanks. That's something a lot of people forget. Actually, the overhead of the headers is usually 16 kbps, i.e. about as much as the codec data itself. That's also why very low bit-rate ( 8kbps) codecs are (almost always) useless in VoIP.
Actually, I've used Asterisk to pass through 24KHz Speex encoded audio - very impressive sound quality, but only works when the SIP channel is client to client.
Care to provide more info on this. Speex is *not* optimized for 24 kHz so it would probably sound worse than 16 kHz or 32 kHz. If the devs are indeed using 24 kHz, it's probably a bad idea that would be fixed. (BTW, I know what I'm talking about -- I wrote Speex)
That's called wideband speech. It's been around for 10+ years and Speex supported it about 4 years ago. About time people actually use it (i.e. why people are still using narrowband in VoIP is beyond me).
They are blocking people who have names that match the Federal list of suspected terrorists.
I sure hope there's no terrorist named John Smith.
Yet, it's probably less money than they gained from their anti-competitive practices during that time.