Don't assume that since Hyper-Threading failed with Netburst that it is forever doomed to fail again. The primary problem with that architecture was that stages along the pipeline didn't support multiple threads. So, any thread context switches forced a flush of Netburst's very, very long pipeline. Intel's next generation of pipelines track multiple threads at all stages and make the prospect of HT much more attractive.
You've over-analyzed this one.
First, that guy in the diner was clearly a fed. Only some government douchebag would wear a members-only jacket.
Second, as Tony's lawyer said, 80-90% confidence that he (Tony) was going to be indicted.
Third, the producers have been talking major motion picture following the series for years now.
He didn't get shot, he got arrested. And Sylvio will be back.
I doubt that IBM is sacrificing performance just to market 5GHz speeds (like Intel did with NetBurst). This is a foolish, uninformed comment from someone who obviously was never in the know as to the reasons for Intel's decision. Intel did not "sacrifice performance" to get to higher speeds, they designed a processor based on the (faulty) assumption that manufacturing would produce faster silicon. It was only when manufacturing's incorrect estimate was exposed that they decided to retool their designs for slower silicon.
Well, not necessarily 2-of-5, but I'm parodying the quote from the article.
The thing that everyone should realize is that at least 1-in-10 and as many of 1-in-5 employees have problems at work. Non-performance, non-attendance, unprofessionalism, or even aggression. In my first job as a manager one of my reports absolutely hated me. Whether it was my fault or not, I can guarantee that this person would have described me as a lying, manipulative, incompetent buffoon.
Obviously I have my own opinion on the matter.
I have a specific concern with moral "centrists" that take this let's-not-believe-anything-until-the-facts-are-in position. While this type of attitude is generally prudent when analyzing astronomy, it poses an imminent danger for the issue of the environment: by the time we *know* what has gone wrong, we could very well have waited too long.
The question I would very much like the scientific community to address is "Balanced against the risk of ignoring the issue, when does the information we have sufficiently justify a policy change?" This might be a very difficult and potentially subjective question to answer, but I'm just sick and tired of politicians clinging to this "wait and see" shit.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't assume that since Hyper-Threading failed with Netburst that it is forever doomed to fail again. The primary problem with that architecture was that stages along the pipeline didn't support multiple threads. So, any thread context switches forced a flush of Netburst's very, very long pipeline. Intel's next generation of pipelines track multiple threads at all stages and make the prospect of HT much more attractive.
For the record, they're not improving our privacy. They're removing a feature that harmed it.
No, Comcast DVRs don't have this functionality. But Tivo does!
This topic is as much news to Slashdot readers as "Linux Shown to be a Viable Operating System" and "RIAA Aggressively Pursuing Pirates".
Is that there is a web page (TrekToday) that is dedicated to daily updates on this franchise. As Shatner said on SNL many years ago: "Get a life!"
You've over-analyzed this one. First, that guy in the diner was clearly a fed. Only some government douchebag would wear a members-only jacket. Second, as Tony's lawyer said, 80-90% confidence that he (Tony) was going to be indicted. Third, the producers have been talking major motion picture following the series for years now. He didn't get shot, he got arrested. And Sylvio will be back.
Well, not necessarily 2-of-5, but I'm parodying the quote from the article. The thing that everyone should realize is that at least 1-in-10 and as many of 1-in-5 employees have problems at work. Non-performance, non-attendance, unprofessionalism, or even aggression. In my first job as a manager one of my reports absolutely hated me. Whether it was my fault or not, I can guarantee that this person would have described me as a lying, manipulative, incompetent buffoon. Obviously I have my own opinion on the matter.
I have a specific concern with moral "centrists" that take this let's-not-believe-anything-until-the-facts-are-in position. While this type of attitude is generally prudent when analyzing astronomy, it poses an imminent danger for the issue of the environment: by the time we *know* what has gone wrong, we could very well have waited too long. The question I would very much like the scientific community to address is "Balanced against the risk of ignoring the issue, when does the information we have sufficiently justify a policy change?" This might be a very difficult and potentially subjective question to answer, but I'm just sick and tired of politicians clinging to this "wait and see" shit.