Slashdot Mirror


Slashback: Vaidhyanathan, Oregon, Opteron

Slashback this evening with a few more notes on AMD's upcoming Opteron processor, Siva Vaidhyanathan (three times quickly), Oregon's open source bill, and more. Read on below for this round of updates and amplifications. That Charlie's no dummy. softwareJoe writes "Tim Bray has come right out saying that if IP chancer Charlie Northrup manages to enforce his most recent claim, the consequences would be 'disastrous.'

'It would become impossible to have Open Source implementations of key pieces of the infrastructure. This would be harmful, perhaps fatal, to the grand plans of those who want to deploy Web services everywhere,' Bray is reported as saying, in XML Industry Newsletter ."

Waiting for the low-power version. Jethro writes "Ace's hardware Opteron review was a very interesting read which shows some real Java webserver benchmarks on SUSE and Debian Linux, and real world database performance in MySQL and MS SQL server 2000. A lot better than those synthetic mysql benchmarks that Tom's hardware served up."

And Distinguished Hero writes "[H]ardocp.com ([H]ardNews 1oth Edition) is reporting that the Opteron processor does not actually have an integrated dual channel controller. This explains why all the Opteron reviews only used a single channel configuration. While the integrated memory controlled is not dual channel, it can be bypassed by an external (Northbridge) memory controller connected to the processor via the HyperTransport bus."

One more: EconolineCrush writes "Yesterday's Opteron launch gave us all glimpse at AMD's new 64-bit platform, but the Opteron is a server and workstation chip that will be out of reach for the majority of consumers. AMD's upcoming Athlon 64, however, will bring 64-bit computing to the desktop. Drawing heavily from what we've seen of the Opteron's performance thus far, Tech-Report has posted its thoughts on what it will take for the Athlon 64 to succeed. It's an interesting read for anyone salivating at the thought of an affordable 64-bit desktop platform."

Ma'am, can you please ask those anarchists in the carrels to pipe down a bit? BrianWCarver writes "Readers may recall a Slashdot interview with Siva Vaidhyanathan, Professor at NYU, and author of Copyrights and Copywrongs. Vaidhyanathan is working on a new book, The Anarchist in the Library, and was interviewed on the blog, Eyeteeth. This is a brilliant and amazing interview where Vaidhyanathan discusses how creative communities share, the DMCA, the American industrial production of culture, the USA Patriot Act, the importance of libraries and librarians, and the policies of the FCC. It is a must-read for those who care about the future of creative and democratic culture."

Technically, Oregon is not Washington. Daniel Phillips is among the many folks who have been following the progress of a bill in Oregon (HB 2892) to encourage open source software, and he points out this Register story (picked up from NewsForge, actually), writing "Apparently, moving Oregon's open source bill forward comes down to convincing the house speaker."

Reader PotatoHead fleshes that out just a bit: " Despite reports detailing the demise of HB 2982, this bill continues to be a topic at the Oregon Legislature. We have broad support for HB 2892, but need everyone to continue showing support in the form of your phone calls, e-mails, faxes and snail-mail to your Oregon Representatives. We have the attention of the Oregon Legislature in a pretty big way and need to keep up the good work if HB 2892 is to move forward against the constant efforts of the usual industry lobbyists. If you don't already know, here is how you contact your representative. Please take a moment --right now-- and show your support for HB 2982. Every contact matters as we continue to move forward with HB 2892!"

Sir, can you direct me to the nearest buggy whip store so I can beat this dead horse? If $98 billion seems to you a bit much for the music cartel to charge students for even the most indiscriminant file swapping, you may be interested in following the chilling effects that it generates, too: PL_2003 writes "A follow up on a previous slashdot article. It really seems like the recording industry is determined to continue its fight.Check this NYTimes article (free reg. required). My Take: Couldn't they use their brains for a better business model?"

OK, here are the rules ... Grub (mentioned previously) is apparently causing consternation among many webmasters. Though they claim the client honors robots.txt , it seems that only the central servers check it (and don't honor it properly) and that grub clients don't don't check it at all. Ooops.

Time to round up and segregate the arrogant. jtheory writes "There's an AP story today here on Yahoo news) that the Justice department has dropped its probe into the recommendation policy of a Texas Tech bio professor. It's encouraging that all he had to do to stop the investigation was make some very minor changes in his policy, but it's still horrifying to me that he got into trouble in the first place. Is it even safe to encourage strict Creationists (or others with strong anti-scientific beliefs) to become doctors? Would they ignore animal research results, etc?"

34 of 517 comments (clear)

  1. Opteron memory controller details by Eric+Smith · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The announced Opteron parts do not have dual DDR memory channels. They would need even more pins on the package, and it already has 940! But I imagine the source for the confusion in the early reports is that the single channel does support the optional use of 128-bit wide memory (144 bits including ECC). This would most commonly be implemented using pairs of 64-bit (or 72-bit with ECC) DDR DIMMs. It can support up to four pairs of DIMMs at up to DDR266 speed (PC-2100) or two pairs of DIMMs at DDR333 (PC-2700).

    The various motherboard photos seem to indicate that their are DIMM sockets to accomodate 128-bit memory. I would hope that the various benchmarks have been done with this configuration, since it obviously increases the memory bandwidth considerably.

    Reference: page 15 of the AMD Opteron Processor data sheet, AMD document 23932 rev 3.00 dated April 2003.

    1. Re:Opteron memory controller details by Xzisted · · Score: 3, Informative

      The announced Opteron parts do not have dual DDR memory channels. They would need even more pins on the package, and it already has 940!

      Thats not really true. For one...not all pins on the die are in use. Some of the dead ones could be relocated over to pick up the slack. And if I remember reading correctly Opteron is initially being released this way but in late 2003 or early 2004 they are completely switching memory to DDR2, but since DDR2 is as hard to come by as Jesus in a Bottle, it kinda doesn't make sense to release the chip supporting that standard.

      --

      Honesty may be the best policy, but apparently by elimination, dishonesty is the second best policy.
    2. Re:Opteron memory controller details by Eric+Smith · · Score: 4, Informative
      By my count, there are 44 unused pins on the 940-pin package. Some of those may in fact be undocumented test pins, or be intended for other uses on future parts. But even assuming that all 44 pins could be used for another memory controller, that wouldn't be sufficient for another DDR controller, which requires 201 pins (129 if you'd settle for only 72 bit data with ECC, or 121 if you'd settle for only 64 bit data). Reference pages 45-46 of the data sheet.

      So a useful additional memory controller will NOT fit the same package.

    3. Re:Opteron memory controller details by turm · · Score: 5, Informative

      The announced Opteron parts do not have dual DDR memory channels

      I don't know where this crap is coming from. Certainly not from the document referenced in the parent post.

      A DIMM is 64-bits wide. The Opteron has a 128-bit wide memory bus, which means you need to use pairs of DIMMS much like the older P4's with Rambus memory.

      There are plenty of pins for this in the 940 package. The block diagram on page 11 of the the data sheet even shows the 128 MEMDATA pins.

      The memory controller is configurable to support a 64-bit memory bus (probably for desktop or mobile versions of the part), but in all the systems I've used you can't even boot with an odd number of DIMMS.

      Now you can decide for yourself if a 128-bit wide DDR bus is "dual channel" or not. I'm not going to argue semantics. I am, however, going to do the math and tell you that the Opteron paired with DDR333 provides 128*333/8 = 5328 MB/s of some seriously low-latency bandwidth. Oh yea and it scales with the number of processors too.

      DISCLAIMER: I work at AMD but I am not speaking on behalf of the company.

    4. Re:Opteron memory controller details by Eric+Smith · · Score: 4, Informative
      The block diagram on page 11 of the the data sheet even shows the 128 MEMDATA pins.
      And it just as clearly shows only one set of address lines. Which is fairly definitive evidence that there's only one memory channel. It just happens to support 128-bit wide memory.

      Yes, that does give you a lot of memory bandwidth. No, that doesn't make it "dual channel".

  2. The RIAA better win... by ZenShadow · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...against those college students. They'll make nothing from it, but the results of them losing could be pretty ugly.

    Could you imagine the counter-suit? I'd call a $98 BILLION lawsuit against "poor" college students "malicious prosecution."

    --ZS

    --
    -- sigs cause cancer.
  3. Unprecedented levels of confusion... by xcomputer_man · · Score: 4, Funny

    HB 2892 ... HB 2982 ... HB 2892 ... HB 2892 ... HB 2982

    Perhaps we might actually get this bill through if we managed to figure out what the correct number is for once.

  4. Three Times Quickly... by philovivero · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hell, saying Siva Vaidhyanathan three times quickly is trivial.

    It's saying it one time correctly that's the challenge.

  5. Alienating their customers by MrCaseyB · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When these college kids graduate, go onto careers of their own they will be in the position to BUY music rather then spend time searching and downloading it off the current hot p2p app. But will they be interested anymore?

    Why would the record industry want to constantly go after their own best customers and future customers? Im no longer in college myself, don't buy much music anymore cause I prefer 80s music. I do buy a ton of DVDs though. The reaso nbeing there is great value in DVDs. I get superior picture quality and sound, a nice keep case, art work, special features, comentaries, interactive content, all for $14-$21.

    If the record industry could offer such great content at a reasonable price, sales would skyrocket.

    Instead they charge far too much for far too little, and on top of it, they constantly attack their own customers with threats and lawsuits and bullshit like CDs that wont play on their computer. Then they lobby for laws that punish not just music pirates but all people who wish to use the internet without restrictions. It's really quite amazing how a group of billionaires can be so ass backwards.

    Im hoping their is a major backlash from the millions of students in this country.

    1. Re:Alienating their customers by abhisarda · · Score: 3, Informative
      There's a protest planned against the RIAA at MTU

      Lode

      and Tompkins(MTU President) and Texas Congressman spar over copyrights

      Lode

      The RIAA is just kicking itself in the butt. So sad..
  6. I see... by Sheetrock · · Score: 3, Insightful
    So segregating people intolerant of Creationistic views is a bad thing, which I understand, but segregating people with Creationistic views would be a good thing?

    I don't think it's right to exclude someone from medical practice just because they don't ascribe to the theory of evolution. They're still capable of observation and understanding the scientific process, perhaps even more so than those who blindly adhere to a theory because they keep their minds open to the possibility that it is wrong. Science isn't about religious prejudice.

    --

    Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
    -- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.




  7. creationists by exhilaration · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Is it even safe to encourage strict Creationists (or others with strong anti-scientific beliefs) to become doctors? Would they ignore animal research results, etc?

    That's a slippery slope you're suggesting.

    Should we exclude people from becoming doctors because they believe that Jesus came back from the dead - a belief which is both unscientific and contrary to our understanding of medical science?

    1. Re:creationists by tstoneman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I completely agree. I'm not a creationist, but I fully support their right to believe whatever they want to believe, as long as they don't shove it down my throat.

      I work with plenty of devout Hindus, and their beliefs are complete foreign to me (don't eat cows because they are sacred animals, they believe in not just one god, but many different gods, etc). Personally, I don't subscribe to any of it, but that's just my own personal belief, they are completely free to believe whatever they want, and who knows, they could be right and I could be wrong!

      Why is it that creationists are so looked down upon, but other religions that, for example, believe that the world is sitting on an elephant that is sitting on a turtle are okay? Is it because it is expected that white people in North America should know better, but non-whites are free to believe whatever they want?!? That to me seems at the very least bigotted.

    2. Re:creationists by Anonymous+Freak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Very slippery.

      I would have to say that I don't care what my doctor's beliefs are... As long as his/her beliefs do not affect the job. Someone can freely believe that the world was created 5000 years ago, that dinosaurs never existed, and that there is no such thing as evolution; yet still believe enough of modern biological thinking to believe in germs, virii, and assorted other medical beliefs.

      But, the moment that a persons beliefs interfere with scientific thinking (such as denying the existence of germs,) then I have a problem.

      --
      Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
      The purpose of that site was not known.
    3. Re:creationists by dmaxwell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why is it that creationists are so looked down upon, but other religions that, for example, believe that the world is sitting on an elephant that is sitting on a turtle are okay? Is it because it is expected that white people in North America should know better, but non-whites are free to believe whatever they want?!? That to me seems at the very least bigotted.

      Or maybe because those who believe the world is sitting on an elephant on a turtle aren't making nuisances of themselves. I haven't heard turtle believers arguing loudly and often in front of legislatures that we need to throw out all of the astronomy and geology books. Incidentally, biology isn't the only science on the creationists' shit list; even physics would have to be...ah....modified to not state inconvienient facts.

      This isn't Western bigotry. If large numbers of turtle believers in our midsts were doing their damndest to drag us back to the 14th century, they'd be looked down on too. Every culture on this planet has problems with religious luddites. The creationists just happen to be ours.

  8. Re:To pronounce it by bheer · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well, from the correct Indian pronunciation:

    Shiv-uh (Siv-uh is fine too)
    VYE-Duh-NAT-hun

    Vaidya means 'physician' in Sanskrit, FWIW.

  9. Faulty reasoning? by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is it even safe to encourage strict Creationists (or others with strong anti-scientific beliefs) to become doctors? Would they ignore animal research results, etc?"

    How exactly do you make that connection between Creationism and ignoring animal research? I hate to break it to you, but the people who typically believe that animals should not be researched upon are the ones who believe they evolved (and thus, are no differnt from humans and deserve the same treatment). Creationism by its very nature puts humans above and beyond other animals, and thus animals are to be utilized by humans.

    --
    If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    1. Re:Faulty reasoning? by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That is perhaps the most misunderstood commandment. The implication of the original (ie, non simplified) translation is "Thou shalt not murder." There is a difference between murder and killing. A man was run over nearby my house and killed. Also near my house, an elderly woman was murdered by a burglar. See the difference?

      Besides, vegetarians kill plants.

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
  10. No kidding by M.C.+Hampster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Many people I know who don't believe in biological macro-evolution still believe in an old earth, and they don't deny that the fossil record shows an increase in complexity in life over time. However, they simply don't believe random genetic mutation combined with natural selection is enough to drive the evolution of life to what we have today. How is that being unscientific? How is that person going to be a "dangerous" doctor?

    --
    Forget the whales - save the babies.
    1. Re:No kidding by RestiffBard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The issue I believe is that strict creationists (emphasis on strict) refuse in many instances to believe the very tenets that make modern medicine and other sciences possible.

      Here's an idea. you want to be a programmer but, you don't believe in Arabic numerals. I leave the rest as an exercise for the reader.

      --
      - /* dead coders leave no comments */
    2. Re:No kidding by M.C.+Hampster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is unscientific because they give no scientifically valid reasons why they think evolution is not adequate.

      That's simply not true. There are scientists out there, who are not "creationists" who don't believe in biological macroevolution. They don't disbelieve it because of religious dogma. Here's one example: there are many biological constructs that are complex to the point that intermediate steps would not be beneficial to the organism. Now I realize there is effort underway to explain such constructs, but that is one example of the type of scientific thinking that one can use to argue against biological macroevolution. You may want to look into the theory of "intelligent design".

      Personally I'd rather have a doctor who treats me rather than prays for me.

      Pure flamebait, but I'll respond anyway. I've had plenty of doctor's that I know were Christians. Now, I don't know if they believed in evolution or not, but they were extremely caring and knowledgable doctors who took care of me and my family. And as for prayer, I know there has been at least one recent study that was showing that prayer does have affect on health. I believe it was in Wired. I unfortunately don't have the link, nor the time right now to look it up.

      --
      Forget the whales - save the babies.
    3. Re:No kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No actually they arise through selective breeding and gene migration not evolution.

      But that is the very definition of evoluion. Any change in the allele frequency of a population over time is evolution. "Species" is a useful concept for taxonomy but has little meaning at the genetic level. In addition, your claim "evolution on the otherhand would have generated a new species" gets it backward, evolution needn't necessarily do any such thing: evolution does not imply speciation. Rather, speciation implies evolution.

      An additional quibble, as you seem to be reading straight from the Creationist playbook: the moth example is not an argument for evolution, but an example often cited (because it's much easier for laymen to visualize than the active-site kinetics of CPSase III in X. laevis, say). Selecting this or that oft-cited example and pounding on it makes for good rhetoric but as scientific discussion goes it's like using "Macgruder the Friendly Computer" to debate cryptographic algorithms.
    4. Re:No kidding by aminorex · · Score: 4, Interesting

      James Valentine, Stanley Awramil, Philip Signor,
      Peter Sadler, Simon Conway Morris, Derek Biggs, Harry
      Whittington, Jeffrey Schwarz, Douglas Erwin, David
      Jablonski, James Lake, Ravi Jain, Maria Rivera,
      Carl Woese, W. Ford Doolittle, Malcom Gordon...

      When a Chinese paleontologist lecturing on problems
      with macroevolution in the U.S. was advised that
      criticizing Darwinism was politically incorrect
      in the U.S., he laughed, saying "In China, we can
      critize Darwin, but not the government; in
      America, you can criticize the government, but
      not Darwin."

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    5. Re:No kidding by Ian+Lance+Taylor · · Score: 4, Informative

      All else being equal, I would rather have the doctor that understood that the argument from design is an logical fallacy, and that the human body includes inefficiencies and complications due to its historical evolution. Or, in other words, how do you explain bad backs and appendicitis, without resorting to non-explanatory statements like "God works in mysterious ways?"

      If you think the argument from design is some sort of proof, you need to read Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould, and Daniel Dennett. I don't expect them to convince you that you are wrong, but they should convince you that the argument from design doesn't stand by itself.

    6. Re:No kidding by t · · Score: 5, Insightful
      First the word "species" is artificial, somewhere some scientist decided that these two groups of animals were different enough to be categorized differntly. If humans were animals I'm sure that Africans and the Swiss would be classified as two different species. Every animal is different from every other animal, the only question is by how much.

      Banging on a tree is a good method to get the insect inhabitants out. It works marvelously for termites and ants. Don't believe me? Try it sometime on a bees nest.

      I'm sure you've seen videos of monkeys hanging out, they are nearly always doing one thing in particular, picking fleas/ticks off of each other. Humans don't have the same difficulty becuase fleas have a hard time hanging onto hairless beasts.

      Why does a giraffe have a long neck? Because thats where the leaves are. There are many reasons for walking upright, most notably it frees your hands up. I've seen videos of monkeys walking around holding something in one hand. It's rather awkward looking. Carry any more and you have to walk upright.

      I am not listing this as proof of anything, the fact is that there are many possible reasons for your questions. It doesn't seem like you've looked very hard for answers.

      When you say that no one can describe how the evolution of any creature has occured (which is false), I'm sure you really meant to say that no one can describe how even the simplest microbe was created from non-living material. That is a much more difficult question and the theory of evolution does not hinge on this question.

      Evolution is not equivalent to random motion. I've also heard this as "tornado hitting a junkyard and making a 747". Evolution has a selection process and you do not start from scratch, you always build on what came before you. If evolution was only random, then it would be like browinian motion, it would never make any progress in any particular direction.

      Also the burden of proof probably would not matter to you. If I told you which book to read that would prove evolution to you, would you read it? Have you ever read anything about evolution that was not written by a religous person?

      I think it does affect your ability to study or understand because you do not look for "why" since you assume the answer to "why" is because god made it that way. Have you ever honestly tried to research why a woodpecker would begin banging its head on things? You have already assumed that certain aspects of this world are beyond your grasp as a non-god being. That type of attitude clearly shows that you will never have the level of understanding of other people who are going to try, even if it takes them their whole lives to understand the world around them.

      See, it used to be that biologists, physicists, mathematicians, and all scientists, were all exploring the beauty, simplicity, and intelligence of this beautiful world built by God himself. It used to be that mathematicians would delve deep into the mind of God, seeking to pierce the veil of His great understanding. It used to be that physicists would study each intricacy of nature, trying to discover the rules that God uses to govern the entire universe. It used to be that biologists were reverse-engineering the most marvelous feats of engineering in existence.
      This is still the case, except you have to remove the references to God. People are still exploring the beauty of the world with all its intricacies.

      We used to be miniature gods, no, Gods in training, seeking to become like the great God himself by mastering our minds and understanding our univserse. We used to believe that we were literally offspring of God. Now we are lost souls, studying science to erase those panging doubts that creep into our minds, that tell us nothing is worth anything, and all is in vain. We believe that we are nothing, never were anything, and never can become anything more than we are.
      Speak for yourself, I do not think I am nothing, I will continue to try to create something that will last forever. If the only people who are affected by what I have done in this world are my future children, then that will have been enough to make it all worthwhile
    7. Re:No kidding by aminorex · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You asked the poster to supply just one scientist
      who was not a creationist, but did not believe in
      classical macroevolution. I provided numerous
      examples, but now you criticise my reply because
      they were not creationists?

      I don't think I'll bother to reply to you in future.
      It seems you are so blinded by ideology that you can't
      think coherently! Sorry to be so frank, but I'm
      not one to beat around the bush.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
  11. I Know an Astronomer Who's a Creationist by szyzyg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This guy has written many high quality scientific papers, he does a lot of work on Cosmology, and yet he was a devout 7th Day Adventist - and therefore believed in creation.

    Didn't seem to interfere with his work.

  12. Oregon Legislation Listens by aSiTiC · · Score: 4, Informative

    My experience in contacting my local representative. I'm impressed doesn't appear to be a form letter!

    ---

    I am fully supportive of the bill, and as a member of the committee
    (General Government) assigned the bill, I am working with the proponents
    and a few other legislators to move this bill.

    We had a very successful hearing on it that attracted a great deal of
    opposition from some of the big high-tech lobbyists. They turned out in
    force and are now trying to prevent those of us on the committee who
    support it from bringing it up for a work session. Unfortunately on
    their side, the lobbyists have the committee chair, most committee
    members of the majority party (Republicans), and a few influential
    members of the House leadership. The fact that the bill has so much
    muscle against it means we are giving them a fight they did not expect
    to face!

    Thanks for contacting me about this. If you have not already, please
    feel free to send your email to other legislators as well.

    Sincerely,

    Kelley Wirth
    State Representative
    District 16

    Melissa P. White
    Legislative Assistant
    Representative Kelley Wirth
    District 16
    900 Court Street NE
    Salem, Oregon 97301
    503-986-1416

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Adam XXXXX [mailto:XXXXXXXX@attbi.com]
    Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 10:47 PM
    To: REP Wirth
    Subject: Internet email for Legislative Member, TO: Kelley Wirth

    Dear Representative Kelley Wirth:

    I'm very disappointed to hear that House Bill 2892 is being stalled
    because large corporations fear it's implications. Open Source software
    should be consider equally along with other costly software! If the
    Open Source software is more cost effective and achieves the same
    purpose it should be used in Oregon government applications. This would
    be a perfect oppurtunity for Oregon lawmakers to show their commitment
    to maximize taxpayers money! Thanks and please consider my thoughts.

    Sincerely,
    Adam XXXXXX
    XXX NW 5th #XXX
    Corvallis, Oregon 97330
    XXXXXXXX@attbi.com

  13. HB2892 Alive? Dead? by SatanicLoveMonkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My Oregon House Representative, Mitch Greenlick (Democrat-033), wrote back to me:

    John, I wasn't at that hearing so I don't know what happened. But I read the same news reports you did and I also heard that Microsoft and Intel, et al really brought full fire on the proposal. And it is definitely dead.

    Mitch

    Now, I don't mean to be a naysayer, and I'd hate to quit too early, but when the man says it's dead...

    Doomed feelings aside, I'm off to write the speaker of the house, Ms. Minnis... As I said to Rep. Greenlick, I'd rather not have my taxes raised when the alternative could be to use open-source software providing Oregonians with jobs (installation, design, maintenance) and saving money by eliminating the need to pay economic rent to Washingtonians (Microsoft Licensing Fees).

    SLM

    --
    If you think you can hurt me again, you're wrong. I left my heart in my other pants.
  14. Grub Fools and Slashdot Editors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I just want to take a moment to comment on Grub. In the original story we heard,

    "People who choose to download and run the client will assist in building the Web's largest, most accurate database of URLs."

    Already I find myself rolling my eyes.

    Then I click through to the site. Aha. I will volunteer my machine on a non-profit basis for a for-profit company. This is just like distributed.net and SETI? Give me a break, these guys were bought out by Looksmart, a paid for placement ad company.

    Google didn't succeed by getting slashdot editors to post stories saying they are building the most useful search engine out there, they succeeded by actually building it.

    I just hope grub keeps the fools who want to regulate google away. Google succeeded because they didn't have to listen to self-important analysts.

  15. Opteron's ECC supports scrubbing! by Eric+Smith · · Score: 5, Informative
    Most if not all prior x86 chipsets that supported ECC did a fairly half-assed job of it. They didn't report the location of a detected error (whether correctable or not), but instead only the base address of a block of memory which contained the error.

    It appears that the Opteron can report the actual address of any detected errors. Plus, it can report details of ECC errors in its caches.

    But the coolest feature is that it supports memory scrubbing, a feature I'd previously not seen in a microprocessor or chipset since the iAPX 432 memory controller back in 1983.

    When a SEU causes a single-bit error in a word of memory, the ECC is capable of correcting it when the word is read. But if that word doesn't get read again for a long time, it's possible that a second SEU might happen in the same word, which would then be an uncorrectable error. With memory scrubbing, the memory controller uses a small portion of the memory bandwidth to scan the entire memory, correcting any single-bit errors that are found, so that the probability of a two-bit (or more) uncorrectable error is greatly reduced.

    My last several computers (including a dual Athlon using the 760MPX chip set, and a DEC Alpha) had ECC, but not scrubbing. I considered writing a Linux program to scrub the memory by direct access to /dev/mem, but this has the disadvantage of thrashing the processor's caches. By implementing scrubbing in hardware, the Opteron avoids that problem.

    The Opteron has a Scrub Control Register that is used to enable or disable scrubbing and control the rate. There are independent scrubbing controls for the L1 data cache, L2 cache, and main memory.

    Those of us that want high reliability really welcome this feature. Well done, AMD!

    By the way, it should be noted that it is typical for a PC with 128 megabytes of memory to get a single bit error several times a week. On my Alpha, I routinely saw corrected error log messages in the syslog, which gave me much more confidence in the system than the way that most PCs simply fail to even detect memory errors, let alone correct them. The log messages are also useful in that you can determine whether you have some memory that is getting marginal. For instance, at one point I started getting a much higher rate of corrected errors on one particular SIMM. There may have been a slight amount of oxidation or corrosion on the contacts, or they may have just worked themselves loose a bit. Cleaning the contacts and reseating the SIMM solved the problem with only a few minutes of down time, instead of what probably would have been hours of down time had the errors gone unnoticed.

    The results of an undetected error vary considerably; it may be in memory that is not in use at the time, or it could be in the midst of the operating system, an application, or user data.

    1. Re:Opteron's ECC supports scrubbing! by NerveGas · · Score: 3, Informative


      The AMD MPX (dual Athlon) chipset also supports memory scrubbing.

      --
      Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
  16. Simple Solution by rsm00th · · Score: 3, Funny
    <?PHP
    if(strpos($HTTP_USER_AGENT, "grub-client"))
    {
    echo "Grub is teh lame!";
    exit;
    }
    ?>
  17. Absurdity of the Creationist's Case by NialScorva · · Score: 4, Informative

    1) Dr Dini did not change his requirement in any appreciable way:

    Original:

    "How do you think the human species originated?

    If you cannot truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation for admittance to further education in the biomedical sciences"

    New:
    "How do you account for the scientific origin of the human species? If you will not give a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation."

    Read the statement: http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/dini/Personal/letters.htm

    He explains his requirement and *still* says that he will not recommend people who reject evolution.

    2) Professors have the right to choose who they will and will not write a recommendation for. Should they be required to put their recommendation behind anyone who asks them?

    3) The student in question never asked Dr Dini for a recommendation at all.

    4) Dini also requires the student to have earned and "A" in one of his classes. Spradling had not done this.

    5) Dini requires that "I should know you fairly well." Dini says he had no idea who Spradling was.

    Basically the whole situation is a publicity stunt dreamed up by a creationists. The Spradling didn't meet *any* of Dini's criteria for recommendation.