Microsoft and Apple are smart. Disk based DRM is doomed since you can't actually upgrade disk drives and disk media that easily, even with encryption programs written dynamically on the disk.
So as disk-based DRM is consistently wrecked, but can't be updated until the next hardware cycle (~7-8 years at least), which alternative becomes obvious?
Software based DRM via network downloads. You can update the DRM-ed player in the next software patch, automated via Internet distribution. Apple is covered with their iTunes store, and Microsoft has been working frantically on heavy DRM in Vista and WMP.
This, however, is an act of government overstepping its bounds. DRM is in its infancy and it's going to take awhile to get right. There are several other options out there for people that find Apple's system too onerous.
Yes, DRM is a pain sometimes (primarily because I have to use iTunes or an Ipod to play ITMS music). It would be nice to be able to play this stuff on my SONOS music system directly and other players....
Yes, I'm sure Apple benefits as a result of its lock-in.
However, I also suspect that it is unlikely that Apple could securely share (without people leaking) the specifications with a half-dozen different manufacturers and also keep all those different software/devices in sync with the latest DRM state (so that they could stay one-step ahead of the crackers... at least as far as the average user is concerned)...
Yes, I know some of you anti-IP people couldn't give a damn about the rights of the industry to protect its own property from illegal distribution, but this voter couldn't disagree more strongly. I'd rather face the lock-in with Apple (which, imho, still has a very good and product overall) than risk losing an effective DRM system entirely. It's possible that various copyright owners may survive without DRM, but I'd rather preserve the option (which requires avoiding hamhanded government regulation) and allow things to evolve before contemplating regulation like this.
We know EU also sues Microsoft for very similar reasons. I took the liberty to replace just few words from the above and see what happens:
This, however, is an act of government overstepping its bounds. Mainstream computing is in its infancy and it's going to take awhile to get right. There are several other options out there for people that find Microsoft's operating system too onerous.
Yes, the lock-in is a pain sometimes (primarily because I have to use Windows to run Windows software). It would be nice to be able to run this stuff on my BSD computer system directly and other systems....
Yes, I'm sure Microsoft benefits as a result of its lock-in.
However, I also suspect that it is unlikely that Microsoft could securely share (without people leaking) the specifications with a half-dozen different software vendors and also keep all those different software/devices in sync with the latest Windows technology state (so that they could stay one-step ahead of the competition... at least as far as the average user is concerned)....
Yes, I know some of you anti-IP people couldn't give a damn about the rights of the industry to protect its own property from illegal distribution, but this voter couldn't disagree more strongly. I'd rather face the lock-in with Microsoft (which, imho, still has a very good and product overall) than risk losing an effective OS entirely. It's possible that various software vendors may survive without targeting Windows, but I'd rather preserve the option (which requires avoiding hamhanded government regulation) and allow things to evolve before contemplating regulation like this.
By the way:
You can mark me -5 TROLL now. Disagreeing with Slashdot Dogma: pro-DRM (-1) pro-IP (-1) pro-US (-1) pro-mainstream platform (-1) anti- "consumer" (-1)
I think everyone who's obviously appealing to the Slashdot subculture (hates Microsoft, loves Apple, hates Sony, loves Google etc.) and claims "mod me down now!" should be modded down for the sneaky manipulation that many hapless moderators fall for. You don't have to tell people by reverse psychology what to do. What they'll do, they'll do anyway...
I don't know why they think they can succeed this time.
Remember when AMD made Intel clones down to the very chip architecture and it didn't matter which manifacturer you bought from?
Remember how AMD K5 sucked and people started leaning towards Intels? And then Pentium 4 happened, and AMD's new architecture was much superior? And then Core turned things on their head again?
Things change. I don't think we're using 3DFX cards anymore either too. They used to be ahead of everyone.
The speed of light in a vacuum (c) is the absolute maximum speed at which information can travel. It doesn't matter how much you cool the chip or what materials you make it out of, given our current understanding of physics* you can't push anything through it faster than 3*10**8 m/s.
I wonder though. If 8 GHz (in two steps effectively 16 GHz) is bordering on impossible due to lightspeed... why was Intel claiming to have 10 GHz chips back then?
And in the end, they didn't produce them due to various issues, like heat, power consumption and so on. No one mentioned speed of information travel.. Weird huh...?
Did they plan to make the chips a lot smaller at that time?
Yup.. I was wrong in the end, not him. Thus proving once more than moderators mod you up if you sound right, although you may be wrong. The original poster got modded down... Ain't that ironic:P
Of course maybe it'll be regulated out in time as people hit the clarification posts.
Indeed. Light travels just under 2 centimetres in the 16 GHz period. The Pentium 4 core is not much smaller than this... it seems like they're pushing their luck on order-of-magnitude estimates alone.
Actually it travels around 18.7 meters in that 16GHz period. It'd travel just under 2 cm for a 16 THz chip. You're making light way too slow. If it were THAT slow, then even 100 MHz chips would be impossible.
So: yea, sorry to break it for you, but a 16 THz chip maybe will never be possible (unless it's super tiny, I guess...).
We have to have some priorities here. The telecoms want to charge content providers *now* and want to push independent publishers in an invisible slow tier *now*. So we need a solution to this.
And we also have this concern that a bill would hinder eventually, at some point, innovation.
Well here what: there's tons of innovation to be done that won't be against a law mandating net neutrality. We have a solution that works, is neutral and can be improved hell of a lot, before we hit some eventual obstacle to further innovation.
So I say: let's solve the issue at hand, and when this hypothetical so-much-better and incompatible with neutrality network is invented, we can change the law and adapt to it.
I mean, putting a law doesn't set it in stone. Even the constitution can be amended or altered if changes in our reality demand so. It's stupid not to take the obvious steps and save what we have right now, only because we've not yet found the absolutely perfect solution.
There's no absolutely perfect solution. There's just people who realize we need one, and people who wanna argue about it forever.
You're claiming Java and QT are generic solution to the multi-OS problem (I wonder: what IF you're the one writing the JRE... but that's another topic)
Oh my god, what is Adobe doing! They spent so much resources to port that port Flash to Linux properly, while they could've just used Java or QT!?
And all their other software! And Mac software, why isn't it all written in Java so we poor Windows users can run it?
We all agree one major platform is better than many wildly different platforms right?
I don't
One processor architecture (x86) is better than four completely different
I disagree
and one computer platform (PC) is better than many (even Apple understood that.. and effectively sells shiny PC-s loaded with OSX right now)
I don't agree here either.
You will, if you have to develop software targeting multiple OS/CPU vs one (and I don't mean making a web page in Python or PHP, but actual programming, say C++).
No, having interoperability and standards is better than one major OS in my opinion.
Have you heard of why "design by committee" is bad? It's slow? It's the least common denominator of all benefits? The option that won't "offend" anyone?
So, Microsoft is very evil. Ok. I've wondered though, if it weren't for Microsoft, would the world be a better place for IT?
We all agree one major platform is better than many wildly different platforms right? One processor architecture (x86) is better than four completely different, and one computer platform (PC) is better than many (even Apple understood that.. and effectively sells shiny PC-s loaded with OSX right now).
So one major OS is better. But Microsoft sucks, so which one.
I hope it won't be *nix if-I-can-do-it-so-can-my-grandma, or especially Linux its-only-kernel-but-pick-one-of-the-500-distros.
Given Apple's attitude to keeps things locked and proprietary (and dumbed down), I hope it won't be OSX either (can you imagine being FORCED to buy Apple hardware? No competition for OSX hardware? bad.. bad).
Maybe we'd all run on FreeDOS, or AmigaOS4.. I don't know...
what is the worst that will happen to MS? And are they really concerned...ever?
No, they're not concerned at all. They are not human beings running a software business in a very hostile environment (geeks/early adopters/ hate them, antitrust lawsuits flying from everywhere, huge burden of backwards compatibility to a decade of poorly conceived obsolete software, competition implementing features you can't, since you're not "trusted",.. and so on and so on).
They in fact are evil alien creatures from the underworld, wearing long black capes, waving angrily their fists and shouting at the end of every episode "I'll get you next time, EU!!!".
I'm afraid the way EU "handles" Microsoft is doing us all a major disservice.
1. Microsoft is monopoly since the majority of people use Windows/Office, despite the availability of competition (i.e. not exactly a classical monopoly, despite preinstallations and so on).
2. EU decides Microsoft should be treated completely differently to say, OSX, Solaris, Unix and Linux vendors, by demanding the core of Microsoft's IP is forced in the public domain.
3. Competition advances with features Microsoft can't implement due to "antitrust" (remember the craplets that laptop vendors install on Windows machines?).
4. Microsoft fights to keep their IP private, and employ bigger and bigger army of lawyers and spends more and more resources on workarounds.
5. This and insane fines (2 million/day???) affect the bottom line of Microsoft.
6. Microsoft takes further steps to protect their IP so they can get their lost money back from profits. This further cements Microsoft's market position.
you'll see that Firefox usage has climbed from 8% in October (the month before the releases of Firefox 2 and IE7) to 11% in January, and that total MSIE use has dropped from 87% to 84% in that same period of time.
That's kinda natural since when you add them up they still gotta make 100%;)
Also you're understimating a major factor for a "trend" here: you're looking at a pre-IE7 trend. Most people who installed Firefox fell in two groups: developers, AND companies/home users fed Firefox by developer suggestion (for security reasons).
Now that IE7 is out, and Vista is about to be out officially (not the "fake" early launch) this trend may reverse itself.
Browsing with Firefox is a pain. Few tabs and it's stuck. I personally use Firefox for development and Opera 9 for other browsing. The difference in speed and resource usage is incredible.
And gotta tell you, IE7 is much closer to Opera in that respect (speed, resources) than to Firefox.
TheCounter gets a very good sample of the Internet userbase, so instead of arguing like retarded kids what "X downloads for IE and Y downloads for Firefox means" we can see what people USE:
Given that piracy is so rife in that area that they're going to sell 3 games, and the system relies on selling games to make a measureable profit, why bother to launch at all?
Especially as it seems they need to go through a lot of very expensive hassle to do so.
Few tihngs: they lan uch in China only now, and they lost money on launch, maybe they no longer lose money. Even if they break even, it's a win.
Second, the items in the xbox shop are much cheaper and at the same time harder to pirate. They can win from that.
And I've not played on an xbox360 a lot yet, but I bet they have some ads/trailers in the live feature that brings them extra revenue. China is huge, lots of "eyeballs". Eyeballs = good:)
Not really. AMD's primarily targeting the mobile market with Fusion
And...? I use a laptop, for example.
Also multiple CPU-s was primarily targeting the server market.. but look at the processors now. Two fully functional CPU cores in one processor, even for non-pro desktop machines.
"Setup YouTube, drop any of the digital content you own in YouTube... and Tubes will setup a shared network between all the users in YouTube... you now will have a pipeline for all content in YouTube..."
I *know* he says "your tube" every single time, but this is how it comes out of his mouth.. marketing hurts my brain:(
I am the marketer at TubesNow.com and my name is Steve.
Hello, Steve. I wanna give you a tip in the marketing of Tubes: don't market it for serious use (i.e. in companies, for business files), because you have a giant flaw in the entire concept: versioning conflict without central "resolution" authority.
In versioning systems, when two people update a file at once, a central authority (the versioning system server responsible for the entire repository) messages back the clients so they can properly resolve the conflicts *before* they are submitted. The operations are guaranteed to be properly sequenced and atomic.
In your system, which is based on P2P, it's possible to submit changes from two clients and they content is sent through various "tubes" before two conflicting changes "meet" somewhere along the "tubes".
This is a maintenance nightmare. But of course, it may be good for a couple of friends to share few small files that don't change a lot.
Every time I see a study where they can't make the difference between two causes, or cause and effect, or effect and cause... it makes me sad for the state of our scientific research.
That said it's still relatively to weed out the "scientific" spam by ignoring those research papers as if they never existed.
It'd be nice if Slashdot did too.
Re:Performance, anyone?
on
Lisp and Ruby
·
· Score: 1
What are you trying to do with Ruby that's making it so much slower than PHP? The great computer language shoot out seems to indicate it's very close (i.e. PHP only performs >5x better than ruby on one task), although ruby's memory usage seems to be regularly better.
Single when should a language be >5x better to be considered "faster"? With the exception of the new meteour test (which I saw the PHP code for is poor and soon will be updated I guess), PHP is on average 2-3 times faster than Ruby.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft and Apple are smart. Disk based DRM is doomed since you can't actually upgrade disk drives and disk media that easily, even with encryption programs written dynamically on the disk.
So as disk-based DRM is consistently wrecked, but can't be updated until the next hardware cycle (~7-8 years at least), which alternative becomes obvious?
Software based DRM via network downloads. You can update the DRM-ed player in the next software patch, automated via Internet distribution. Apple is covered with their iTunes store, and Microsoft has been working frantically on heavy DRM in Vista and WMP.
Now you know why.
This, however, is an act of government overstepping its bounds. DRM is in its infancy and it's going to take awhile to get right. There are several other options out there for people that find Apple's system too onerous.
...
Yes, DRM is a pain sometimes (primarily because I have to use iTunes or an Ipod to play ITMS music). It would be nice to be able to play this stuff on my SONOS music system directly and other players....
Yes, I'm sure Apple benefits as a result of its lock-in.
However, I also suspect that it is unlikely that Apple could securely share (without people leaking) the specifications with a half-dozen different manufacturers and also keep all those different software/devices in sync with the latest DRM state (so that they could stay one-step ahead of the crackers... at least as far as the average user is concerned)...
Yes, I know some of you anti-IP people couldn't give a damn about the rights of the industry to protect its own property from illegal distribution, but this voter couldn't disagree more strongly. I'd rather face the lock-in with Apple (which, imho, still has a very good and product overall) than risk losing an effective DRM system entirely. It's possible that various copyright owners may survive without DRM, but I'd rather preserve the option (which requires avoiding hamhanded government regulation) and allow things to evolve before contemplating regulation like this.
We know EU also sues Microsoft for very similar reasons. I took the liberty to replace just few words from the above and see what happens:
This, however, is an act of government overstepping its bounds. Mainstream computing is in its infancy and it's going to take awhile to get right. There are several other options out there for people that find Microsoft's operating system too onerous.
Yes, the lock-in is a pain sometimes (primarily because I have to use Windows to run Windows software). It would be nice to be able to run this stuff on my BSD computer system directly and other systems....
Yes, I'm sure Microsoft benefits as a result of its lock-in.
However, I also suspect that it is unlikely that Microsoft could securely share (without people leaking) the specifications with a half-dozen different software vendors and also keep all those different software/devices in sync with the latest Windows technology state (so that they could stay one-step ahead of the competition... at least as far as the average user is concerned).
Yes, I know some of you anti-IP people couldn't give a damn about the rights of the industry to protect its own property from illegal distribution, but this voter couldn't disagree more strongly. I'd rather face the lock-in with Microsoft (which, imho, still has a very good and product overall) than risk losing an effective OS entirely. It's possible that various software vendors may survive without targeting Windows, but I'd rather preserve the option (which requires avoiding hamhanded government regulation) and allow things to evolve before contemplating regulation like this.
By the way:
You can mark me -5 TROLL now.
Disagreeing with Slashdot Dogma:
pro-DRM (-1)
pro-IP (-1)
pro-US (-1)
pro-mainstream platform (-1)
anti- "consumer" (-1)
I think everyone who's obviously appealing to the Slashdot subculture (hates Microsoft, loves Apple, hates Sony, loves Google etc.) and claims "mod me down now!" should be modded down for the sneaky manipulation that many hapless moderators fall for. You don't have to tell people by reverse psychology what to do. What they'll do, they'll do anyway...
I don't know why they think they can succeed this time.
Remember when AMD made Intel clones down to the very chip architecture and it didn't matter which manifacturer you bought from?
Remember how AMD K5 sucked and people started leaning towards Intels? And then Pentium 4 happened, and AMD's new architecture was much superior? And then Core turned things on their head again?
Things change. I don't think we're using 3DFX cards anymore either too. They used to be ahead of everyone.
The speed of light in a vacuum (c) is the absolute maximum speed at which information can travel. It doesn't matter how much you cool the chip or what materials you make it out of, given our current understanding of physics* you can't push anything through it faster than 3*10**8 m/s.
I wonder though. If 8 GHz (in two steps effectively 16 GHz) is bordering on impossible due to lightspeed... why was Intel claiming to have 10 GHz chips back then?
And in the end, they didn't produce them due to various issues, like heat, power consumption and so on. No one mentioned speed of information travel.. Weird huh...?
Did they plan to make the chips a lot smaller at that time?
Obligatory Google Calculator link
:P
Yup.. I was wrong in the end, not him. Thus proving once more than moderators mod you up if you sound right, although you may be wrong. The original poster got modded down... Ain't that ironic
Of course maybe it'll be regulated out in time as people hit the clarification posts.
Indeed. Light travels just under 2 centimetres in the 16 GHz period. The Pentium 4 core is not much smaller than this... it seems like they're pushing their luck on order-of-magnitude estimates alone.
Actually it travels around 18.7 meters in that 16GHz period. It'd travel just under 2 cm for a 16 THz chip.
You're making light way too slow. If it were THAT slow, then even 100 MHz chips would be impossible.
So: yea, sorry to break it for you, but a 16 THz chip maybe will never be possible (unless it's super tiny, I guess...).
We have to have some priorities here. The telecoms want to charge content providers *now* and want to push independent publishers in an invisible slow tier *now*. So we need a solution to this.
And we also have this concern that a bill would hinder eventually, at some point, innovation.
Well here what: there's tons of innovation to be done that won't be against a law mandating net neutrality. We have a solution that works, is neutral and can be improved hell of a lot, before we hit some eventual obstacle to further innovation.
So I say: let's solve the issue at hand, and when this hypothetical so-much-better and incompatible with neutrality network is invented, we can change the law and adapt to it.
I mean, putting a law doesn't set it in stone. Even the constitution can be amended or altered if changes in our reality demand so. It's stupid not to take the obvious steps and save what we have right now, only because we've not yet found the absolutely perfect solution.
There's no absolutely perfect solution. There's just people who realize we need one, and people who wanna argue about it forever.
Microsoft should have never released the core pack.
Unlike the PS3, you can actually upgrade the Core Pack to pretty much match the "full spec" of XBOX360.
You have a Core Pack and need more space? Get the XBOX 360 hard disk and put it on your machine. As easy as that.
It's to be expected as Open XML is a straight transliteration of the DOC "dumps" to XML format.
I wonder how it ended this way: not enough time to properly develop and implement a more proper standard, or by design.
I feel it's both.
I mean if you have never heard of Java or QT
You're claiming Java and QT are generic solution to the multi-OS problem (I wonder: what IF you're the one writing the JRE... but that's another topic)
Oh my god, what is Adobe doing! They spent so much resources to port that port Flash to Linux properly, while they could've just used Java or QT!?
And all their other software! And Mac software, why isn't it all written in Java so we poor Windows users can run it?
We all agree one major platform is better than many wildly different platforms right?
I don't
One processor architecture (x86) is better than four completely different
I disagree
and one computer platform (PC) is better than many (even Apple understood that.. and effectively sells shiny PC-s loaded with OSX right now)
I don't agree here either.
You will, if you have to develop software targeting multiple OS/CPU vs one (and I don't mean making a web page in Python or PHP, but actual programming, say C++).
No, having interoperability and standards is better than one major OS in my opinion.
Have you heard of why "design by committee" is bad? It's slow? It's the least common denominator of all benefits? The option that won't "offend" anyone?
So, Microsoft is very evil. Ok. I've wondered though, if it weren't for Microsoft, would the world be a better place for IT?
We all agree one major platform is better than many wildly different platforms right? One processor architecture (x86) is better than four completely different, and one computer platform (PC) is better than many (even Apple understood that.. and effectively sells shiny PC-s loaded with OSX right now).
So one major OS is better. But Microsoft sucks, so which one.
I hope it won't be *nix if-I-can-do-it-so-can-my-grandma, or especially Linux its-only-kernel-but-pick-one-of-the-500-distros.
Given Apple's attitude to keeps things locked and proprietary (and dumbed down), I hope it won't be OSX either (can you imagine being FORCED to buy Apple hardware? No competition for OSX hardware? bad.. bad).
Maybe we'd all run on FreeDOS, or AmigaOS4.. I don't know...
what is the worst that will happen to MS? And are they really concerned...ever?
/early adopters/ hate them, antitrust lawsuits flying from everywhere, huge burden of backwards compatibility to a decade of poorly conceived obsolete software, competition implementing features you can't, since you're not "trusted", .. and so on and so on).
No, they're not concerned at all. They are not human beings running a software business in a very hostile environment (geeks
They in fact are evil alien creatures from the underworld, wearing long black capes, waving angrily their fists and shouting at the end of every episode "I'll get you next time, EU!!!".
I'm afraid the way EU "handles" Microsoft is doing us all a major disservice.
1. Microsoft is monopoly since the majority of people use Windows/Office, despite the availability of competition (i.e. not exactly a classical monopoly, despite preinstallations and so on).
2. EU decides Microsoft should be treated completely differently to say, OSX, Solaris, Unix and Linux vendors, by demanding the core of Microsoft's IP is forced in the public domain.
3. Competition advances with features Microsoft can't implement due to "antitrust" (remember the craplets that laptop vendors install on Windows machines?).
4. Microsoft fights to keep their IP private, and employ bigger and bigger army of lawyers and spends more and more resources on workarounds.
5. This and insane fines (2 million/day???) affect the bottom line of Microsoft.
6. Microsoft takes further steps to protect their IP so they can get their lost money back from profits. This further cements Microsoft's market position.
7. Go to 1.
I'm not sure my elementary school math teacher would agree that you have to get 100 when you add 84 and 11.
Statistics aren't based on Elementary School Math, they're based on Very Complex Math.
you'll see that Firefox usage has climbed from 8% in October (the month before the releases of Firefox 2 and IE7) to 11% in January, and that total MSIE use has dropped from 87% to 84% in that same period of time.
;)
That's kinda natural since when you add them up they still gotta make 100%
Also you're understimating a major factor for a "trend" here: you're looking at a pre-IE7 trend. Most people who installed Firefox fell in two groups: developers, AND companies/home users fed Firefox by developer suggestion (for security reasons).
Now that IE7 is out, and Vista is about to be out officially (not the "fake" early launch) this trend may reverse itself.
Browsing with Firefox is a pain. Few tabs and it's stuck. I personally use Firefox for development and Opera 9 for other browsing. The difference in speed and resource usage is incredible.
And gotta tell you, IE7 is much closer to Opera in that respect (speed, resources) than to Firefox.
TheCounter gets a very good sample of the Internet userbase, so instead of arguing like retarded kids what "X downloads for IE and Y downloads for Firefox means" we can see what people USE:
s er.php
:P
http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2007/January/brow
19% for IE7, 11% for Firefox. End of story.
"But IE is preinstalled, but Automatic Updates, but, but."
Yea, we know. And? Firefox doesn't need skewed stats, nor it needs lame excuses. All of you, grow up
Given that piracy is so rife in that area that they're going to sell 3 games, and the system relies on selling games to make a measureable profit, why bother to launch at all?
:)
Especially as it seems they need to go through a lot of very expensive hassle to do so.
Few tihngs: they lan uch in China only now, and they lost money on launch, maybe they no longer lose money. Even if they break even, it's a win.
Second, the items in the xbox shop are much cheaper and at the same time harder to pirate. They can win from that.
And I've not played on an xbox360 a lot yet, but I bet they have some ads/trailers in the live feature that brings them extra revenue. China is huge, lots of "eyeballs". Eyeballs = good
TFA - It's Not Really About What It Says In The Title
Not really. AMD's primarily targeting the mobile market with Fusion
And...? I use a laptop, for example.
Also multiple CPU-s was primarily targeting the server market.. but look at the processors now. Two fully functional CPU cores in one processor, even for non-pro desktop machines.
From the presentation:
... and Tubes will setup a shared network between all the users in YouTube ... you now will have a pipeline for all content in YouTube ..."
:(
"Setup YouTube, drop any of the digital content you own in YouTube
I *know* he says "your tube" every single time, but this is how it comes out of his mouth.. marketing hurts my brain
I am the marketer at TubesNow.com and my name is Steve.
Hello, Steve. I wanna give you a tip in the marketing of Tubes: don't market it for serious use (i.e. in companies, for business files), because you have a giant flaw in the entire concept: versioning conflict without central "resolution" authority.
In versioning systems, when two people update a file at once, a central authority (the versioning system server responsible for the entire repository) messages back the clients so they can properly resolve the conflicts *before* they are submitted. The operations are guaranteed to be properly sequenced and atomic.
In your system, which is based on P2P, it's possible to submit changes from two clients and they content is sent through various "tubes" before two conflicting changes "meet" somewhere along the "tubes".
This is a maintenance nightmare. But of course, it may be good for a couple of friends to share few small files that don't change a lot.
Good luck with your project.
It'll be interesting to compare the performance of the built-in GPU unit in the new Fusion AMD processors, and the latest PCIe.
That said, of course PCIe has more applications than hosting a GPU card.
Every time I see a study where they can't make the difference between two causes, or cause and effect, or effect and cause... it makes me sad for the state of our scientific research.
That said it's still relatively to weed out the "scientific" spam by ignoring those research papers as if they never existed.
It'd be nice if Slashdot did too.
What are you trying to do with Ruby that's making it so much slower than PHP? The great computer language shoot out seems to indicate it's very close (i.e. PHP only performs >5x better than ruby on one task), although ruby's memory usage seems to be regularly better.
Single when should a language be >5x better to be considered "faster"? With the exception of the new meteour test (which I saw the PHP code for is poor and soon will be updated I guess), PHP is on average 2-3 times faster than Ruby.