Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: Memory, Constancy, Triumph
Why not put 'em on Freenet while you're at it ... Imran Ghory writes: "Google has put out an appeal to get NetNews CDs (produced by Sterling Software and CD Publishing Corporation) which archived usenet between 1992 to 1995. Looks like Google is reviving Deja's idea of a total usenet archive."
This sounds like a worthy objective, worth rooting around for -- maybe they'll even give you a credit somewhere.
They know that of which they speak. Hot on the heels of the inexorable GCC project's 3.0.1 release, zealot (and a number of other people) wrote with the news that "Intel will release its latest compilers (the ones that optimize for P4 and can do some auto-vectorization of code) for Linux this Thursday. I'd love to see some performance numbers for compiled code on a P4 if anyone gets their hands on this ... maybe the autovectorization could help some gimp plugins speed up."
You cannot stop the chess updates Álvaro Begué writes: "Junior is the new World Micro Computer Chess Champion, Shredder won in the single processor category (five years in a row) and Goliath won the blitz tournament. Congratulations to all of them. Check out the official website."
Maybe the durned things will stick around forever. In addition to the IBM research on making ultra-slim CRT monitors, an Anonymous Coward points to another article on the future of CRTs: "This is a new technology that can integrate into existing production lines and can halve the depth of a CRT type tube. A TV normally 22 inches deep would be only 11 inches."
I've always felt CRTs were easier to look at. Maybe 30" monitors won't be out of the question with this new technology!
Blar.
Crikey! Usenet archives going back even FURTHER? Great, now people will be able to trace me back to my great Usenet roots....
"My name is Dave Rhodes. In September 1988 my car was reposessed and the bill collectors were hounding me like you wouldn't believe"....
My visor's chess engine could beat them anyday. So what there's computers the size of buildings trying to solve chess, try taking that on the road with you (and give it 6 hours of battery life - one hell of a UPS)
-Wrexsoul
--- Need web hosting?
"This is a new technology that can integrate into existing production lines and can halve the depth of a CRT type tube. A TV normally 22 inches deep would be only 11 inches."
All thanks to those changing laws of physics!
- - - -
The real Tetsujin 28 is a giant robot.
The topic is Slashback: Memory, Constancy, Triumph. Yet there isn't any mention about memory. Maybe they forgot. :)
Also, are they doing those mods in compliance with the GPL? Also, someone give me a goddamn reason why GLibc 2.2.4 should not be compiled with GCC 3.0.1. I did and it works without any problem (then again I don't know jack about the real reason).
Acting stupid isn't much fun when there's someone around who knows better
wow - i looked at your most recent posted comments, you have nothing but -1's to show for yourself!
S-Cubed works by bending beams of electrons in a way that allows the electron gun -- which shoots out the beams -- to be moved closer to the screen.
This, to me is like saying "S-Cubed works by making CRTs smaller." With what, hyperspace? Gee, do you think you could be a little more specific?
Would appreciate it if someone could find a relevant patent application.
Inventor of the LOLbalrog meme.
...do they really work? If so, why doesn't AMD develop similar software for Athlons? Are they just too small... or is the intel stuff a bunch of marketing phooey for PHB's to swallow? Are there any more questions?
-- Is "Sig" copyrighted by www.sig.com?
Would you be surprised if Intels compiler produced faster code than GCC? I believe Linus has stated that GCC is a bit "bloated". I wonder if you can compile the Linux kernel with it (minus assembly of course). That might be interesting, particularly for P4. Linux could get an instant speed boost. And such a radical switch in compiler might expose flaws in the code. Definately a worthwhile excercise if nothing else. And even though the average user isn't going to buy it to compile their kernel, the distro's might for their precomiled kernels (err, wonder how that would work
A quick check of Sarnoff's website doesn't reveal much either - their last press release was in late July. Pretty slick company though - nothing wrong with Flexible plastic LCD's (again light on the details). You'd think they'd be a little more forthcomming with details, but I guess in the world of patents you can't risk anything.
Ad in classifieds: Pandora's Box (no box) $5
I didnt see any mention in http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-6947172.html of when a free P4 compiler would be available. How long would it take for the GCC folks to have a working P4 compiler?
http://tf2.digitaljedi.com
The NSA probably has a complete Usenet archive;
there may also be independently-kept archives
at other agencies.
/me slaps himself across the face
Acting stupid isn't much fun when there's someone around who knows better
Amiga
1. Hold Left-Shift, Left-Alt, Right-Shift and right-alt
2. Press any of the F keys and get a message!
3. To get a message toward Commodore, do this
4. Hold down the same as step 1 and hold down an f key
5. Insert a disk and you get the message "We made the amiga..."
6. Take the disk out and you get "And Commodore F**ked it up!'
I said some foolish things on USENET, but fortunately it seems to be just before the Google archives. I'm really hoping that none of my postings will be discovered...
I guess I can be accountable for my youth.
The Linux kernel is really designed specifically for gcc. Aside from using GNU extensions to C, in many places the code is designed specifically to get good object code out of gcc.
How come we haven't seen quickies in a long time?
In this CNET article about the release of Intel's Linux compilers, they quoted the purchase price as $399 for a download, $499 for a CD. Somebody should tell them that blank CDs are a lot cheaper than they used to be...
(I know, I know. The boxed version probably also comes with some printed documentation, supposedly justifying the higher price. It still seemed funny to me..)
Time to install FreeBSD?
Theo deRaadt will trade OpenBSD cd's for pictures of young nubile oversexed panty-boys.
Or else, how will they be able to understand a message which says somethnig like "take the third word of reply #3 to message #39083 in alt.porn.sex.abuse.rape (back in 1991), then take word #17 in message [etc], etc ?
-- javaDragon is an instance of JavaDragon.
Candescent Technologies has been working on this technology since 1991 and it looks like its about ready to go prime time with it. It has the same brightness, contrast, refresh time, and viewing angle that normal CRTs have but uses less power than LCDs in the same size package. Can't wait to hang one of these on the wall.
Science is the Real TRUTH!
Funny how everyone wants what they don't have:
"I hate this stupid CRT. I wish i had an LCD monitor. Cheapskate boss."
"I can't wait 'till i get this laptop back to the office so i can plug it into a CRT instead of having to squint at a stupid LCD."
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
Links:
IBM/Delphion
US Patent Office
I'm not exactly sure what compiler bloat is supposed to mean since what matters is the assemby the compiler generates and not how many lines of code the compiler was written in. Secondly it is very likely that a compiler written by Intel engineers for an Intel chipset will perform better than a general purpose compiler written by volunteers on Intel chipsets. Finally there are many that would argue that the Intel compiler has been of higher quality than gcc for quite sometime especially with regards to C++.
:(
PS: The fact that a post as empty as yours is at +4 is a sure sign that all the good posters have either left Slashdot or no longer actively partcipate. Sad.
NOOOOOOO! As a young, stupid college freshman in 1992, I discovered usenet and made a fool out of myself several times. I have been resting peacefully at night for the last decade, thinking that my past was safely hidden from the present, believing that nobody would be able to hold me responsible for the misdeeds of my youth. I guess I'm going to have to change my name now.
Objprelink produces code that loads quicker - but is it at the expense of slower code - all virtual function jmp to a jmp of the real virtual function?
I have a friend who runs his own encryption company now and he's lamented to me that he wishes that he could excise some his posts made in earlier years from Bugtraq and USENET archives because he now receive several emails a day from script kiddies asking him to teach them how to steal AOL passwords and hack into hotmail.
Yes, they cost more, but what are you really paying for?
I'd also be curious about recycle potential. There is much less material in an LCD, how about polution from disposal? How much of that can be reused and recycled? How about compared to a CRT?
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
I'm pretty sure Jesus didn't set the price, although I'm sure he could produce a compiler that would justify it!
How is there any "may" about this? IBM would have to be nuts to not license this technology to a mass-producer or two, they'll rake in the dough from licensing fees!
Every freelance graphic designer who has up until now had to surrender a big chunk of their living space to a hulking 19" or 21" CRT (because of finances or because of LCD color issues) will be flinging wads of money at the makers of slim CRT monitors. Not to mention the regular joes who just want a 17" or 18" LCD, but can't justify spending ~$1000 on a display.
Hell, I'd pony up for two of the things, just to replace what I have now and get my desk to stop bowing in the middle from the weight of my old-school 17" and 14".
~Philly
No blasphemy is allowed here. If you take the good Lord's name in vain again I *will* call the FBI and you will be imprisoned for life.
There are some issues with post 2.95 gcc with newer CPUS, specially with Athlons.
Those are explained here. Cache handling seems to be the big problem.
Anyone know what the prizes were? The website is devoid of details in this matter. But, it did have a neat interface.
-- Dan
According to Mikey Hall's own book, he is a confessed homo - a real sick puppy. Linux Today is a real faggot hole in more ways than one.
... why don't they try searching for it?-)
(I'd love to see JMS's preproduction Netnews postings about Babylon 5, myself.)
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
This is a new technology that can integrate into existing production lines and can halve the depth of a CRT type tube. A TV normally 22 inches deep would be only 11 inches
This is nothing new, but it's an incremental improvement. I'd like some technical info before I can decide whether or not this is just a marketing stunt or other dubious improvement.
When TV sets first came out in the 1940s, their CRTs more resembled oscilloscopes. They were long, and with small screens. Their deflection angles were about 25 degrees.
As the early 1950s dawned, TV sets started to feature electromagnetic deflection. New, horizontal and vertical ouput tubes were suddenly able to support the current requirements of deflecting the beam 45 degrees towards a new big-screen 17" display.
The 1960s saw the beginning of the embrace of color television. As there are three electron beams in color TV sets, the neck was bigger than in monochrome sets. More deflection current was required to drive a 17" color set than a 17" black and white. High-tech new beam power amplifier tubes were developed to deal with the loads - compactron tubes like the 6LU8 and 21GY5 replaced the venerable 6BQ6. The spillover was that the mass-produced new high-power deflection tubes could also be used to make tighter deflection angles on black and white sets; the 19DUP4 was a Philco B&W picture tube released in 1965. It had a whopping 110 degree deflection angle, making for a TV set that had a 19" display but was only a foot deep.
Solid state TV sets using high-power MOSFET transistors have been able to handle the bigger current to drive new tight-deflection 110 degree color tubes. So far, it's been incremental.
But there remains a problem. A TV set's deflection yoke has to be driven with a sawtooth wave. There's a slow ramp up in voltage, then it quickly snaps down to off. Then another slow ramp and another quick snap. This corresponds to the beam sweeping sideways across the screen and then resetting to the left hand side very quickly.
Because the output amplifiers are neither fully on nor fully off, they're running in linear mode. All the energy not actually used to drive the yoke during the ramp is simply wasted as heat. But that energy isn't free... won't these things be meant to deal with Energy Star and other certifications? Tighter deflection means more deflection current means more wasted power in the amplifiers... and if the EPA buckles by defining a new guideline for thin monitors like these will purport to be, they'll be in competition with LCD monitors.
LCD will win.
The CRT will always be with us, but its time in the mainstream is coming to an end. This sounds too much like a marketing ploy, and goes too far against physics to be anything else.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Does anyone remember the
original Watchman?
This was way before small LCD tvs, much less color LCD tvs. It was a low-depth black and white CRT. The way the flattened it was to angle the "front" of the CRT away from the viewer and towards the back. You actually saw the "back" of the screen - the same side that the electrons came from. The drawback was that the tube depth was still needed, but it was just bent 90 degrees -- I'm not sure if people would go for the extra width. Also, I'm not sure if color would be possible. I had some nice ascii art describing it, but it didn't make it through the lameness filter -- and how does the goatsex picture make it?
ESR. Actually, at first I thought that The Cathedral and the Bazaar was supposed to be comedy, but ever since someone told me that ESR was serious, just thinking about that trash gives me nightmares.
--
I like to watch.
Now remove the quotes
and you get a decent list to pursue...
The compiler crashed and burned. Their techical support site (which you get to by clicking on a creepy NDA) didn't contain much information. The links that did look interesting were broken
Eventually I found a document contained a list of known bugs. One of them was " was not included in the distribution. This will be fixed in the next update." Fantastic!
Has anyone out there successfully installed this compiler? My employers are very interested in using it (we want fast code for our intel machines), and I am very interested in trying it out.
The middle mind speaks!
What the heck is intel thinking? I mean having a compiler for you chip is an obivous thing but then making people pay for it? We already paid for the chip! And another thing, why would we use your compiler which has questionable improvements (I don't trust it till I see some graphs) over the perfectly good free and open GCC alternative? Hello! Open source apps aren't going to benifit from this at all unless some user buys intel's compiler for themselves! This doesn't make any sense to me. Can someone explain? Obviously nothing prohibits use in Open Source projects but realistically is this only for "commercial" apps?
The next remark is false. The previous remark is true.
I was just wondering about something like archiving USENET... how much space would something liek that take up its a mindblowing amount but i was wonding if any one had any number on how many TB or EB???
Because it needs to support everything between 8-bit computers and 64-bit computers, it can't use some of the super prediction for register usage, etc for any specific computer (It does some, but not super great for any type of computer.)
Something like intel's or DEC's (Compaq's) C Compiler can be made specific to the computer, and doesn't have to worry about other archs, hence producing more efficient compilers for that processor. Speed gains of 10x are not unheard of for CCC vs GCC.
The intel compiler will suffer from the same drawbacks as ccc with regards to the linux kernel, as Linux uses GCC specific extensions of C.
GCC is a great general machine compiler, and probably the best in the world, but speed isn't it's strong point.
I rather doubt this is the patent. First of all, the date filed is Februart 23, 1996. If something this miraculous had been invented four years ago, it should already be in production by now. Secondly, the patent quite clearly states that it applies to monochrome CRTs. I doubt anyone would be getting excited about a monochrome TV.
The patent talks about correcting spot astigmatism and spot elongation along the diagonals of the CRT. I'm not sure, but it seems to me that the spots they're talking about are pixels--nothing about making the tube shorter, just making the pixels less distorted.
Out of that 5%, maybe 1% would pay for the closed extensions. This sliver of a market can't keep a company like VA going. Larry would do well to sell off the assets of the company and divide the proceeds amongst the investors.
Frankly, it isn't his fault that people ran LNUX into the atmosphere, but the higher you go, the bigger the splat when you come down.
Of course, I must know if ESR is still "surprised by wealth". More like "surprised by roadkill".
If you drop the binary newsgroups, its only a few hundred gigabytes.
With the binary newsgroups? good fucking luck even counting it. Of course, there is a huge amount of duplication.
It seems likely, however, that this patent offers some insight into their designs for those who are interested. Here's one brief quote from the patent: Because the vertical quadrupole coil is powered by a low amplitude signal at horizontal and vertical scan rates, it can be digitally controlled to fine-tune the image resolution. In addition, the stigmator is powered by a low power vertical scan rate signal and may be placed adjacent to metal grids within the electron gun. This reduces the overall length of the CRT and improves image resolution.
Note the references to reducing the length of the CRT and to improving image resolution. There are frequent references to improving image quality throughout the patent. This matches one of the other claims in the article.
Finally, another person speculated that this design might not be very energy-efficient. There are several references that suggest the design may use less power than conventional CRTs.
For what it's worth.
Well, anything that the majority of slashdot readers would dislike could be considered flamebait, since most of them flame people posting that kind of thing.
That particular troll is also full of shit (as usual). Check out his numbers...
Ummm, what? I'm failing to see how this is "leaving it to chance". Seems to me that you 'd be taking MORE of a chance by using a closed source cc. There is not "chance" in gcc. You have the source. Look at it, dammit. There is no chance to take, except to not do your homework. Yes, gcc 3.01 may have some bugs, maybe thats what you're refering to. But at least you can go in an rewrite or fix those parts to insure the compiler is doing exactly what you what. And if you are a software house using it internally, you don't even need to release the source, even tho it would probably be better to do so to get the added benefit of sharing the devel and debug costs with the world. Of course, we don't have the pretty little "Intel" logo to insure that you know nothing about how the compiler works. Sorry, my $.02
C Pungent
Yup. Not only does Intel rake you over the coals by charging more for an inferior processor, they'll also make money selling you the fix!
Nope, with the money I save going with AMD from the start, I'll be able to put together a lovely multiple processor system for less money than a P4 & compilers from Intel, and it'll scream.
I am not sure which is worse, blacks move 48 or whites move 49.
I don't mind nitpicking
The description reads like one of those analog devices that takes way too many alignment adjustments. But some of that can be automated, and components are stable enough now that many of the values can be fixed at the factory.
My guess is that the new scheme has some of the same elements of this one, and involves multiple correction coils to fix the beam distortions introduced when you deflect an electron beam through huge angles.
That particular troll is also full of shit (as usual). Check out his numbers...
I thought so too until I checked out VA linux (LNUX) at yahoo financial.
audio: http://biz.yahoo.com/oo/010823/63375.html
A morningstar analyst says "things are looking pretty grim at best," calls the sourceforge product "a pipe dream at this point", and says VA linux stock is "essentially a penny stock". Tough words.
I wish that they would have bought Be (beos) and open sourced the operating system. They would have made money hand over fist selling distro disks.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Point is, I'm betting that a compiler written for a specific chip and specific language (i.e. Intel's compiler) will perform better (i.e. produce better code) than a "compiler collection" wuth multiple pluggable front- and back-ends, all other things being equal. (Not that all other things necessarily are equal in this case (Go GNU!).)
This is an illogical statement. Apache and IIS support using multiple language to develop apps while my homemade webserver only supports C++. Does this mean my webserver is of higher quality than Apache or IIS? gcc is written a modular manner and the different language compilers are written by different people so talking about compiler bloat (whatever that means) is moot.
The important point is that Intel engineers with access to all sorts of internal Intel resources wrote a compiler that optimizes specifically for Intel chipsets while the gcc folk wrote a compiler that optimizes for x86 as well as other chipsets. The fact that the Intel guys spent 100% of their efforts on Intel chipsets while the gcc guys didn't is more likely to be the reason that Intel's compiler will outperform gcc and not because of any nebulous concept as compiler bloat.
That's what I saw here, on every human's face while they waited for their computers to figure out what to do next.
You'd think they'd at least have had a foosball or ping pong table or something. If I ever get into something like that, I'll remember to bring a copy of War and Peace.
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
This may seem like a troll, but we certainly say a LOT here. People speak of decryption of copyrighted material, bash very large and powerful companies that will send even Slashdot some notices about what not to post here.
... and legal. And I'm sure the info we share here is more dangerous than our much-hyped danger of ISP or corporate email "peers."
... I'd be the only one remaining alive here :)
So in a few years in a more prohibitive online world, today's geeks may be in deep trouble for what information they exposed here. Ever think the slashdot servers could be confiscated for federal investigation on our private posts? I never thought of that, but it's scary
I sure hope they won't track/lock-up every person who posted the DeCSS source code
"Wireless : LAN
"I wish that they would have bought Be (beos) and open sourced the operating system. They would have made money hand over fist selling distro disks. "
You mean like redhat does? I think you've actually concocted a business plan more certain of failure than their previous one!
Denial isn't just a river in Italy
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/cn/20010823/tc/va_lin ux_to_sell_proprietary_software_1.html
Well hip hip horay... But my wife 11 inches is still to big ;-)
Google Groups just tonight launched Message ID threading, so you can now view all usenet posts in a thread-like fashion, just like Deja let you do. Perform a search or browse for a thread, and take a look at the brand spanking new left frame showing the message navigation, complete with threads, a long time in the making.
At work I have to do some MS stuff and I have MSDN Universal. Basically, it's all the OS's, all the (business) apps, all the dev tools and all the patches. In other words, what you need to keep about 300 coffee cups off desks.
Having said that, <flamebait>VC++ (6.0) is actually a damn fine development environment. The optimising compiler is faster than anything bar Intel and the debugger is better than any other I've used.</flamebait> Just don't use any of the shitty libs they ship with it.
This sig made only from recycled ASCII
I am surprised that CPU manaufacturers don't contribute specialised sections for their new processor to GCC rather than going the whole hog and producing a new compiler. For one thing, you have a baseline to work on, and for another, you ensure long term support of your compiler.
When I used compilers produced for a specific processor I find the initial support is there but there is certainly not going to be long term support. Opening up the development of a compiler would ensure long term support for the CPU and provide the manufactur with more potential sales.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=michel+goosse
At that time, I was young and innocent, I didn't know I would get 6 spams per day 5 years later.
Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education. Bertrand Russel
here :
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=michel+goosse
Like is said in another post, this could be used against me. Gonna ask for removal.
Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education. Bertrand Russel
I have a backup of the first few years. I have posted it here for posterity, but removed the header:
Test
This is a Test
TEST
Test!
anymore i have left out??
Intel's compiler does not do auto-vectorization. It merely uses the SSE2 instructions to have access to RISC-like multiply-add instructions.
Mihai
Once all corps finally merge into once, and they confiscate the slashdot servers, what mechanisms could be used to track each of us down?
Slashdot might be keeping our IP addresses. But maybe they are smart enough not to keep this?
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
Actually, If you read ye olde tubbe manual, they say that those tubes (like the 6DQ6) were intended for a 15% duty cycle....
The Output puts out a pulse, and that sweeps the beam part way across, then as the field in the yoke decays, the Damper (say a 6AX4) starts conducting to finish the sweep. The yoke is connected with a Horizontal output transformer (the flyback) and that also provides the high voltage needed for the (anode) of the picture tube.
Solid state versions tend more towards square wave drive but it is still the inductors that do the work.
The *LU8 was a vertical sweep tube as I recall.
One of the real problems with colour CRTs is that the three beams have to come through a shadow mask, or simalar so that they reach only the correct phosphor, (red on red, blue on blue, green on green) so high deflection angles are more difficult to acheive. Many computer tubes are still at 90 degrees for example. The very thin (114 degree) Black and white tubes were very hard to set up for an undistorted picture, not really a problem for TV but harder to deal with for computer use. (The Philco Predicta is an example of a very high deflection angle TV set)
I looked at Sarnoff.com and they have no details on this new technology.
Another Wild-Eyed CANADIAN.
You can still use the ricochet devices peer to peer, over short range (up to a mile?) in Hayes emulation mode, or Starmode.
Maybe they could moderate the junk out of it as well. I'd be curious to know just what the signal to noise ratio is.
make Linux, not Microsoft. sin(beast) = -0.809016994374947424102293417182819
Yet they are in the black. Meanwhile, ambitious efforts like Infoseek, Lycos, Yahoo, and NBCi are floundering or defunct. Perhaps there is a lesson in that. I certainly hope so.
..the new Apple displays. Now I'm not one of those guys who goes around speculating, whipping up screen shots of future apple products, but think about it. This is the future, Apple has alway been one copmany that adopts new technology first, there have been issues with the price of current LCDs (not showing up yet on the IMac). And IBM is looking to lisence the the technology, which means they already have, and the graphic design crew (Apples main customers) really don't want the LCDs anyway as they offer inferior color.
"Watch and see, then come to me,
and tell me your the one"
We all know that Ralph Nader hates jews. Durrr. I hate Ralph Nader, because I have friends that are Jewish. I am not though. FUCK OFF AND DIE BASTARD JEW HATERS!
I wonder if I could ask Google to remove everything posted in those groups.
--