There is absolutely nothing about the P4 which is dependent on Rambus. That is a function of the chipset. The current chipset uses Rambus, but future ones will use other technologies.
Asking a politician to legislate morality is like asking a fox to guard the henhouse.
Big corporations got the hurt on you? Vote Nader
Uh uh, and having the government legislate corporations is even more stupid and more moronic than asking a convicted bank robber to guard an armored truck.
Those are all good things. Unfortunately, you are a socialist who wants the government to get bigger and bigger, take more and more money away from its citizens, exert more and more control over people's personal business, and become more and more powerful. The government has no business sticking its hands in education, the medical system, or how web browsers are bundled with operating systems. Only a socialist would advocate all out government control of every little detail of human life as you do.
Re:Copyright? D@mnright!
on
Deja For Sale
·
· Score: 1
Not a problem. Deja could just re-locate their servers to Russia (or any other country which doesn't have copyright), and there's no problem. Your copyright would be unenforceable. Then the sale could occur overseas, and they could move the servers back to the US. It would be legal, and there's absolutely nothing whatsoever you could do to impose your overbearing intellectual property laws.
Okay, assuming that is true, let's say that the government buys computers for anyone who wants one.
Hold up. Doesn't Nader think 'corporation' is a four-letter word? Because I can think of about five huge, multi-national (I'm just trying to push the liberals' buttons!) corporation who would die for this to happen.
So some over-zealous, technologically clueless judge who was about 90 years old decided it was illegal to buindle a web-browser (or any application for that matter) and an OS together, so the law dictates that I must track down TWO CD's to install a basic system, go through TWO different install programs, etc., etc., etc.
Since you, and four moderators, are confused, I think a refresher course on the licensing of musical recordings is in order.
A recording does not have one but TWO "copyrights": the composition and the recording.
You may have already paid for a 'royalty' for the composition, but you have not paid for the new recording. The new recording is new and you haven't paid for it already.
If you are still confused, a good way to look at this is modern re-issues of recordings which are now out of copyright. Louis Armstrong's Hot Fives & Sevens are an excellent example. If you have access to an recording of these sides, you have the right to issue them on CD (as manhy companies have done); however, you do not have the right to copy a CD of these reissued recordings. This is because the act of transferring from the original shellac recordings to digital media itself is a copyrightable new work. Likewise, the transition from CD to Sony's new format is also a copyrightable work.
Also note that there is no 'license' for a music recording. The existence of an original recording implies a license (unlike software). If you did indeed have the right to buy the new media for the cost of media, this creates new problems. If you sold your old CD to somebody else, do they have the right to listen it? According to your reasoning, no, because you retain the license and they have the media (but not the license). The only way around this problem is to separate the two, but that would be too confusing for most consumers.
I know you understand what P2P is; perhaps you don't fully realize how it is different from the old-school internet model is.
The fundamental difference is obsoletes the "mainframe style" of computing which Sun thrives (i.e. of selling a few high powered servers) and instead has a lower-powered server at everyone's home.
See why Intel loves this?
Intel's fundamental business plan is two-fold: to get more people to use computers, and to get more people to use more powerful computers.
Intel is active in bridging the digital divide, making computers easier to use, and more accessible, attempting to achieve the first goal. But they are also active in trying to get people to use more powerful computers, and they are constantly developing new software technologies in order to demonstrate the need for more powerful computers. P2P is a glorious example of this.
I think Intel is imagining a world where every internet technology is peer-to-peer, such as e-mail, file sharing, and web technologies. It is fundamentally different from the current model because it gets rid of the powerful centralized server, and requires everyone to have a server.
Many people don't realize this, but internally, Intel considers Sun to be much more of a competitor than AMD. P2P is the one technology which has potential to make Sun irrelevant, because it makes big, centralized servers irrelevant, and replaces them with Intel desktop machines.
Of course, more serious and more robust operating systems, including VMS and Windows NT, both manage to go to some ungodly high year, on 32 bit machines (and have a earlier starting year, and finer clock resolution, to boot). Unix is unique among operating systems in demanding that users go to 64 bit machines just to get the year correct.
No, you can't even REP CMPSB a case-insensitive string; that's my point. With a C string, you don't know ECX ahead of time. So you have to go a byte at a time whether you're case sensitive or not, because C is braindead.
Even a descriptor based compare has the potential to be faster. This:
is case insensitive, and MUCH faster than the fastest case sensitive compare for C strings:
continue:
mov al, byte ptr [esi]
cmp al, byte ptr [edi]
jne difference
cmp al, 0
inc esi
inc edi
jne continue
Because it loads dword's instead of byte's.
But if you're using a real (non-C) language, you can of course do it case sensitively REP CMPSD (which IS much faster than case insensitive). But if you're using C, there's no penalty for case sensitivity.
Perhaps a more precise way to phrase your question would be: can anbody present an example of legitimate use of two files in the same directory named identically save for case? I indeed would be extremely interested in such an example, and have never seen one in my life.
There is perhaps nothing more frustrating in using computers than typing "vi makefile" and being presented with a screenfile of tildes instead of the contents of "Makefile". It is unfortunate that the computer is not smart enough to understand what I meant.
Being a VMS user, I like file names which are in all-caps, with one dot, and a version number. The all-caps look makes it look dry and technical (which I much prefer over Unix's cutesy, friendly use of lower case and mixed case)
Windows NT's filesystem with preservation is perhaps the best compromise for most users (and Windows 98's almost-but-not-quite case preservation is not).
Unfortunately, due to the pervasiveness of Unix (e.g. for web servers), most computer users, even extreme newbies, have been conditioned to believe that everything should be case sensitive. There is a myth that it is faster, but it is not: it would be if Unix used a sensible string format, but nul-terminated strings have to go a byte at a time anyways.
Will this be Napster's future? Will it become just a big online radio that will have nothing but ads and Top 40 cr@p?
Indeed, for the last 12 months I have been predicting this precise thing: the ultra-commercialization of music through Napster.
For those who were naive enough to have believed that Napster would be a haven for independent and unsigned artists and that it would give everybody a voice: ha, a told you so.
For starters, that would nullify their argument (which is their central argument in the RIAA's suit against them) that they have no knowledge of what's transferred over the system.
And many many people complained when their crappy Packard Bell 150watt power supply in their old computer wouldn't boot their shiney new Athlon...
And Intel has ingeniously (?) solved this problem by changing the motherboard style. Now it all makes sense! See, I bet AMD wanted to do this but obviously couldn't.
The problem that people with the PIV isn't so much the wattage, it's the cooling requirements. My K7/500 w/the "stock" heatsink is cold to the touch while running. Power disappation isn't too big of a deal on it.
Interestingly, the P4 doesn't have outrageous cooling requirements because it runs hot, but because it is less tolerant of heat.
If they were smart they'd switch to year based naming. Pentium Millienium or Pentium 2000 would be a better name than Pentium 4, and would encourage all those people running Pentium 97's (II's) to upgrade. We'll see with Northwood... Perhaps the reason is that they're scared people would get it confused with Microsoft's naming?
The Pentium Pro comparison is indeed appropriate, though the real competition wasn't AMD as it was PowerPC. If you remember, during the PowerPC's peak in about 1994/5, there was a huge amount of FUD about the P6 (as it was then known). The big line was that the P6 wouldn't execute 16 bit code as fast as the Pentium. This was true, actually, but the P6 core was able to scale everywhere. As well all know, the P6 came out, followed by the Pentium MMX, and the Pentium II, and Windows 95 came out, and the PC vs. Mac argument has almost been forgotten.
I recently came across a Mac advocacy site which hadn't been updated in about five years, and there was tons of FUD about how the Pentium Pro was so slow and would never make it. It's hysterical to look back at that, because the Pentium Pro was so successful. I have a sneaking suspicion that the anti-Pentium 4 articles are going to look as foolish in five years.
Moral of the story: Never underestimate Intel (unless you're talking about IA-64:-) )
What's funny is that the Athlon also draws 60 watts. That chip was released over a year ago, but nobody thought that 60 watts was a lot until the Pentium 4 is about to come out.
Also, Willamette is expected to be a stop-gap to get the Pentium 4 in the marketplace, while the Northwood is going to be the real deal. That's going to be at 0.13 and there is even expected to be a laptop version, so the power is going to be much less. Much like Pentium Pro, where only about one million parts where shipped, and the Pentium II shipped umpteen millions of parts were shipped.
This doesn't make any sense: why would you go after this kid? Shouldn't you sue the people who wrote his operating system and FTP server? *cough* *cough*.
You should be truly embarrassed to post such FUD on your web server. The RIAA has never gone after a product (since Diamond Rio); it has only gone after services. Napster is a service; although it has a program to interface with it, the thing being targeted is the service (the server which maintains the name queries), and not the program. Likewise in this case, they are not attacking the protocols or the products (OS software, FTP server), but the operator of the service (the student).
It is extremely offensive for you to suggest that the RIAA has a history of attacking products and not services. This is simply not true. The RIAA has never gone after anyone who wrote software implementing a protocol or an operating system.
What's even more scary is that this distinction was clearly spelled out in both the RIAA legal briefs (which were posted on Slashdot) and Judge Patel's initial decision (which Slashdot chose to censor). Do you even read the links that are posted and submitted to you, or just the headline?
Um, unless they are horribly incompetent, one of the watermark's main goals is likely to be survivability over lossy media (MP3's, cassette tapes,...), such that the watermark will be as interpretable as the music is listenable. Perhaps a computer program could be written to detect the watermark if it is not well hidden enough.
BTW I'm interested to see how they manage to watermark John Cage's 4:13.
Jesus H. Christ. Faking the DLL or making an analog copy WILL NOT REMOVE THE WATERMARK. Obviously you didn't read the article, or you would know that the goal of the challenge is not to make a copy of the song but to remove the watermark. By these methods, the watermark will remain in glorious stereo sound. Try again.
Indeed. I was a charter subscriber to Linux Journal, and still have issue #1 from 1994. With articles like this, they appear to be transforming themselves into a political magazine, and not a technical magazine. I recommend you let your comments known in their talkbalk.
Slashdot Mirror
Incorrect. You are wrong.
There is absolutely nothing about the P4 which is dependent on Rambus. That is a function of the chipset. The current chipset uses Rambus, but future ones will use other technologies.
Asking a politician to legislate morality is like asking a fox to guard the henhouse.
Big corporations got the hurt on you? Vote Nader
Uh uh, and having the government legislate corporations is even more stupid and more moronic than asking a convicted bank robber to guard an armored truck.
Those are all good things. Unfortunately, you are a socialist who wants the government to get bigger and bigger, take more and more money away from its citizens, exert more and more control over people's personal business, and become more and more powerful. The government has no business sticking its hands in education, the medical system, or how web browsers are bundled with operating systems. Only a socialist would advocate all out government control of every little detail of human life as you do.
Not a problem. Deja could just re-locate their servers to Russia (or any other country which doesn't have copyright), and there's no problem. Your copyright would be unenforceable. Then the sale could occur overseas, and they could move the servers back to the US. It would be legal, and there's absolutely nothing whatsoever you could do to impose your overbearing intellectual property laws.
Okay, assuming that is true, let's say that the government buys computers for anyone who wants one.
Hold up. Doesn't Nader think 'corporation' is a four-letter word? Because I can think of about five huge, multi-national (I'm just trying to push the liberals' buttons!) corporation who would die for this to happen.
So some over-zealous, technologically clueless judge who was about 90 years old decided it was illegal to buindle a web-browser (or any application for that matter) and an OS together, so the law dictates that I must track down TWO CD's to install a basic system, go through TWO different install programs, etc., etc., etc.
Since you, and four moderators, are confused, I think a refresher course on the licensing of musical recordings is in order.
A recording does not have one but TWO "copyrights": the composition and the recording.
You may have already paid for a 'royalty' for the composition, but you have not paid for the new recording. The new recording is new and you haven't paid for it already.
If you are still confused, a good way to look at this is modern re-issues of recordings which are now out of copyright. Louis Armstrong's Hot Fives & Sevens are an excellent example. If you have access to an recording of these sides, you have the right to issue them on CD (as manhy companies have done); however, you do not have the right to copy a CD of these reissued recordings. This is because the act of transferring from the original shellac recordings to digital media itself is a copyrightable new work. Likewise, the transition from CD to Sony's new format is also a copyrightable work.
Also note that there is no 'license' for a music recording. The existence of an original recording implies a license (unlike software). If you did indeed have the right to buy the new media for the cost of media, this creates new problems. If you sold your old CD to somebody else, do they have the right to listen it? According to your reasoning, no, because you retain the license and they have the media (but not the license). The only way around this problem is to separate the two, but that would be too confusing for most consumers.
I know you understand what P2P is; perhaps you don't fully realize how it is different from the old-school internet model is.
The fundamental difference is obsoletes the "mainframe style" of computing which Sun thrives (i.e. of selling a few high powered servers) and instead has a lower-powered server at everyone's home.
See why Intel loves this?
Intel's fundamental business plan is two-fold: to get more people to use computers, and to get more people to use more powerful computers.
Intel is active in bridging the digital divide, making computers easier to use, and more accessible, attempting to achieve the first goal. But they are also active in trying to get people to use more powerful computers, and they are constantly developing new software technologies in order to demonstrate the need for more powerful computers. P2P is a glorious example of this.
I think Intel is imagining a world where every internet technology is peer-to-peer, such as e-mail, file sharing, and web technologies. It is fundamentally different from the current model because it gets rid of the powerful centralized server, and requires everyone to have a server.
Many people don't realize this, but internally, Intel considers Sun to be much more of a competitor than AMD. P2P is the one technology which has potential to make Sun irrelevant, because it makes big, centralized servers irrelevant, and replaces them with Intel desktop machines.
The CMOS has nothing to do with it. It only stores the time when the machine reboots.
Rumored price info here.
Of course, more serious and more robust operating systems, including VMS and Windows NT, both manage to go to some ungodly high year, on 32 bit machines (and have a earlier starting year, and finer clock resolution, to boot). Unix is unique among operating systems in demanding that users go to 64 bit machines just to get the year correct.
So Slashdot supports software patents now?
...
OOhhh yeah, Linus works there
No, you can't even REP CMPSB a case-insensitive string; that's my point. With a C string, you don't know ECX ahead of time. So you have to go a byte at a time whether you're case sensitive or not, because C is braindead.
Even a descriptor based compare has the potential to be faster. This:
continue:
mov eax, dword ptr [esi]
xor eax, dword ptr [edi]
and eax, 20202020
jz difference
add esi, 4
add edi, 4
loop continue
is case insensitive, and MUCH faster than the fastest case sensitive compare for C strings:
continue:
mov al, byte ptr [esi]
cmp al, byte ptr [edi]
jne difference
cmp al, 0
inc esi
inc edi
jne continue
Because it loads dword's instead of byte's.
But if you're using a real (non-C) language, you can of course do it case sensitively REP CMPSD (which IS much faster than case insensitive). But if you're using C, there's no penalty for case sensitivity.
I am sorry that you got moderated down.
Perhaps a more precise way to phrase your question would be: can anbody present an example of legitimate use of two files in the same directory named identically save for case? I indeed would be extremely interested in such an example, and have never seen one in my life.
There is perhaps nothing more frustrating in using computers than typing "vi makefile" and being presented with a screenfile of tildes instead of the contents of "Makefile". It is unfortunate that the computer is not smart enough to understand what I meant.
Being a VMS user, I like file names which are in all-caps, with one dot, and a version number. The all-caps look makes it look dry and technical (which I much prefer over Unix's cutesy, friendly use of lower case and mixed case)
Windows NT's filesystem with preservation is perhaps the best compromise for most users (and Windows 98's almost-but-not-quite case preservation is not).
Unfortunately, due to the pervasiveness of Unix (e.g. for web servers), most computer users, even extreme newbies, have been conditioned to believe that everything should be case sensitive. There is a myth that it is faster, but it is not: it would be if Unix used a sensible string format, but nul-terminated strings have to go a byte at a time anyways.
Will this be Napster's future? Will it become just a big online radio that will have nothing but ads and Top 40 cr@p?
Indeed, for the last 12 months I have been predicting this precise thing: the ultra-commercialization of music through Napster.
For those who were naive enough to have believed that Napster would be a haven for independent and unsigned artists and that it would give everybody a voice: ha, a told you so.
For starters, that would nullify their argument (which is their central argument in the RIAA's suit against them) that they have no knowledge of what's transferred over the system.
And many many people complained when their crappy Packard Bell 150watt power supply in their old computer wouldn't boot their shiney new Athlon...
And Intel has ingeniously (?) solved this problem by changing the motherboard style. Now it all makes sense! See, I bet AMD wanted to do this but obviously couldn't.
The problem that people with the PIV isn't so much the wattage, it's the cooling requirements. My K7/500 w/the "stock" heatsink is cold to the touch while running. Power disappation isn't too big of a deal on it.
Interestingly, the P4 doesn't have outrageous cooling requirements because it runs hot, but because it is less tolerant of heat.
If they were smart they'd switch to year based naming. Pentium Millienium or Pentium 2000 would be a better name than Pentium 4, and would encourage all those people running Pentium 97's (II's) to upgrade. We'll see with Northwood ... Perhaps the reason is that they're scared people would get it confused with Microsoft's naming?
The difference you see is not between FPGA and Slot1, but between Coppermine (0.18) and Katmai (0.25).
The Pentium Pro comparison is indeed appropriate, though the real competition wasn't AMD as it was PowerPC. If you remember, during the PowerPC's peak in about 1994/5, there was a huge amount of FUD about the P6 (as it was then known). The big line was that the P6 wouldn't execute 16 bit code as fast as the Pentium. This was true, actually, but the P6 core was able to scale everywhere. As well all know, the P6 came out, followed by the Pentium MMX, and the Pentium II, and Windows 95 came out, and the PC vs. Mac argument has almost been forgotten.
:-) )
I recently came across a Mac advocacy site which hadn't been updated in about five years, and there was tons of FUD about how the Pentium Pro was so slow and would never make it. It's hysterical to look back at that, because the Pentium Pro was so successful. I have a sneaking suspicion that the anti-Pentium 4 articles are going to look as foolish in five years.
Moral of the story: Never underestimate Intel (unless you're talking about IA-64
The 500 MHz Pentium III draws about 30 Watts.
What's funny is that the Athlon also draws 60 watts. That chip was released over a year ago, but nobody thought that 60 watts was a lot until the Pentium 4 is about to come out.
Also, Willamette is expected to be a stop-gap to get the Pentium 4 in the marketplace, while the Northwood is going to be the real deal. That's going to be at 0.13 and there is even expected to be a laptop version, so the power is going to be much less. Much like Pentium Pro, where only about one million parts where shipped, and the Pentium II shipped umpteen millions of parts were shipped.
This doesn't make any sense: why would you go after this kid? Shouldn't you sue the people who wrote his operating system and FTP server? *cough* *cough*.
You should be truly embarrassed to post such FUD on your web server. The RIAA has never gone after a product (since Diamond Rio); it has only gone after services. Napster is a service; although it has a program to interface with it, the thing being targeted is the service (the server which maintains the name queries), and not the program. Likewise in this case, they are not attacking the protocols or the products (OS software, FTP server), but the operator of the service (the student).
It is extremely offensive for you to suggest that the RIAA has a history of attacking products and not services. This is simply not true. The RIAA has never gone after anyone who wrote software implementing a protocol or an operating system.
What's even more scary is that this distinction was clearly spelled out in both the RIAA legal briefs (which were posted on Slashdot) and Judge Patel's initial decision (which Slashdot chose to censor). Do you even read the links that are posted and submitted to you, or just the headline?
Um, unless they are horribly incompetent, one of the watermark's main goals is likely to be survivability over lossy media (MP3's, cassette tapes, ...), such that the watermark will be as interpretable as the music is listenable. Perhaps a computer program could be written to detect the watermark if it is not well hidden enough.
BTW I'm interested to see how they manage to watermark John Cage's 4:13.
It's 4:33.
Jesus H. Christ. Faking the DLL or making an analog copy WILL NOT REMOVE THE WATERMARK. Obviously you didn't read the article, or you would know that the goal of the challenge is not to make a copy of the song but to remove the watermark. By these methods, the watermark will remain in glorious stereo sound. Try again.
Indeed. I was a charter subscriber to Linux Journal, and still have issue #1 from 1994. With articles like this, they appear to be transforming themselves into a political magazine, and not a technical magazine. I recommend you let your comments known in their talkbalk.