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."
The NSA probably has a complete Usenet archive;
there may also be independently-kept archives
at other agencies.
Memory in the canonical sense, not the technical sense. As in remembering Usenet of yesteryear.
they do, and it works well. IIRC, they submitted benchmark results to SPEC where a Pentium chip (not sure what one) smoked several others in many benchmarks. SPEC rejected those benchmarks because Intel used a special proprietery compiler with the tests and not a normal compiler a developer would use.
Hence, Intel has compilers of their own that work very well, but why they aren't made public like this Linux one is, I wish I knew, as it could undermine MS-VC in terms of compiled code performance.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
I've never used them, but Intel does provide high-performance math libraries. So, their compilers probably have real technical optimizations as well (not just marketing fluff).
Patent 6,274,978 patent looks likely. They seem to be saying they pass the electrons along a fiber.
Image 7b is the most useful; which isn't saying much.
Links:
IBM/Delphion
US Patent Office
The documents you are wondering about are here .
Have fun =)
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.
The standard compiler is great for fucking around but you really want the real one for production systems. At my office the Windows weenies have a MSDN Universal subsrciption so they have all the cool toys anyway. If you aren't familiar with the wacky world of Windows, the MSDN Universal subscription is about $3000 per year and includes monthly (!!) shipments of the latest patched Microsoft OSs (all of them... Win2k Pro and Server, Me, et cetera), Visual Studio Enterprise (which includes VC++, InterDev and a whole bunch of other shit), plus beta releases of upcoming products. If you're a MS shop it's pretty sweet.
It may come with other toys; I'm not really sure, I'm not in the Windows group (I'm in the "web" group, we run AIX) and just use their VC++ install media on my NT workstation.
Come on, NT Server licenses cost $600-800 a piece. You think they're going to practically give away their fast compiler?
--
I like to watch.