The 22" Apple Cinema Display is quite a nice display. I think you'll find that you need a MAc to interact with it though. But if you can afford a $4k screen, what's a grand or two for a nice new G4. They make a good deskto... OK, not looking for flames. What I want to know is if anyone ELSE out there can sell you a 22" screen like Apple will. The thing is beautiful. As to square pixels, the Apple page on the screen is here.
Knowing someone who works for the NSA (math/crypto) (albeit just one person) - I would doubt they would sit on a weakness. It would not be a sane move for the long term.
About the bias: anti-patents.
I understand the thought on ensuring wide disemination of information, but what about protecting the idea that took huge amounts of time, energy and money to generate? I'm not talking about One-Click shopping. I'm interested in drug research, specific genomic protocols, etc. Non-vague, specific patents on ideas and implementations that are non-obvious and take a lot of work to develop. How can your investment be protected without patents?
After a bit too much testing here in the lab (huge company on West coast) - we've found 802.11 "11Mb/s" devices max out a bit above 5 Mb/s. You won't get better, you will get worse. Every obstruction and foot of distance counts. Most users will find 4 Mb/s until they venture more than 100 feet away. Also, that 5 Mb/s is SHARED. Keep these things in mind.
Is anyone keeping a list of those major institutions that have said "no" to the filter-Napster requests? It may be something to keep track of going forward. I'm sure the legal firms have a list....
Looks like one fast mother. And a good toaster too! Anyone know how HP's Superdome (heavy iron) will compete if Sun puts UltraIII's on their heavy boxes?
That, and is there any good, clean web page with side-by-side SpecInt and SpecFP numbers? Spec's website is tough...
So now the local Star Wars groupie is going to start again... just like four years ago... The rumors. The constant discussions. The grip this topic has on his brain. Wow.
IBM has had x-ray lithography for a while, but engineering challenges have kept that (shorter wavelength) technology in the small-scall arena for the time being.
This new quantum approach looks really promising, but as the article states, the engineering challenges are going to dalay the actual use of this tech for... a long time. Guesses? 10 years? Who can say. I like the comment about Moore's law pushing forward, but really.... this tech will take a while to have any effect on our CPU purchases.
It's nice to see the universities (who's IT and policy bodies communicate a lot between each other) stand firm and not screen or filter traffic. Going down that path would lead to so many more problems and kill their budjet even.
Or nearly so. Or maybe it can be done, but here's a problem I see:
Say one has a 100GHz processor. I don't really care what it looks like (I won't call it a 'chip'), but say it's 4mm across, and it is necessagy to the functioning of the processor to send a signal from one side to the other.
Tell me if this math is all wrong:
At 100GHz, the processor can not be larger than 3mm across because otherwise a signal would have to travel faster than the speed of light.
c (m/s)
------- =.003m
1GHz (1/s)
or
3e8/100000000000 =.003 meters
Thoughts?
.
Hey! Not all of us MCSEs are Macintosh clueless. I have a Mac at home (PowerCenterPro) and admin NT domains at work. It's hard to find a Mac knowlegdable MCSE but we're out here.
I followed the Ultima 9 fiasco through the past 6 years... I can see why one in his position would want to retreat to one's castle for a while and then start over with something new and interesting without such a loud and obsessed fan base. He's a really creative person - his work shows that. And I bet he'll be back with something new and interesting. Here's to his future success! E
What I wish the author made more of a poit of is that this "debate" between camps has been moot for years. I think it can be argued that RISC in its pure sense refers only to those old early 80's CPUs, and everything since then is part of an evolution from the origonal principle. People may like the warm feeling of saying that their chip is part of a greater cadre of RISC(=good) parts, but where ever we are now, we've surely evolved to somewhere else from the old terms. The author also seems too willing to let his writing "make a point" and put people in their place, instead of just trying to educate... Maybe he's hanged out in too many forums where folks are endlessly bickering. I read Patterson and Henesey, - wonderful book... anyone interested in the subject should pick up a copy. E
Slashdot Mirror
The 22" Apple Cinema Display is quite a nice display. I think you'll find that you need a MAc to interact with it though. But if you can afford a $4k screen, what's a grand or two for a nice new G4. They make a good deskto... OK, not looking for flames. What I want to know is if anyone ELSE out there can sell you a 22" screen like Apple will. The thing is beautiful.
As to square pixels, the Apple page on the screen is here.
>> That's bleepin' scary!
Knowing someone who works for the NSA (math/crypto) (albeit just one person) - I would doubt they would sit on a weakness. It would not be a sane move for the long term.
About the bias: anti-patents.
I understand the thought on ensuring wide disemination of information, but what about protecting the idea that took huge amounts of time, energy and money to generate? I'm not talking about One-Click shopping. I'm interested in drug research, specific genomic protocols, etc. Non-vague, specific patents on ideas and implementations that are non-obvious and take a lot of work to develop. How can your investment be protected without patents?
After a bit too much testing here in the lab (huge company on West coast) - we've found 802.11 "11Mb/s" devices max out a bit above 5 Mb/s. You won't get better, you will get worse. Every obstruction and foot of distance counts. Most users will find 4 Mb/s until they venture more than 100 feet away. Also, that 5 Mb/s is SHARED. Keep these things in mind.
Is anyone keeping a list of those major institutions that have said "no" to the filter-Napster requests? It may be something to keep track of going forward. I'm sure the legal firms have a list....
Looks like one fast mother. And a good toaster too! Anyone know how HP's Superdome (heavy iron) will compete if Sun puts UltraIII's on their heavy boxes?
That, and is there any good, clean web page with side-by-side SpecInt and SpecFP numbers? Spec's website is tough...
Or see an old SW movie.
Bad E
Oh well, I'll be there opening night.
This new quantum approach looks really promising, but as the article states, the engineering challenges are going to dalay the actual use of this tech for ... a long time. Guesses? 10 years? Who can say. I like the comment about Moore's law pushing forward, but really.... this tech will take a while to have any effect on our CPU purchases.
Or nearly so. Or maybe it can be done, but here's a problem I see: Say one has a 100GHz processor. I don't really care what it looks like (I won't call it a 'chip'), but say it's 4mm across, and it is necessagy to the functioning of the processor to send a signal from one side to the other. Tell me if this math is all wrong: At 100GHz, the processor can not be larger than 3mm across because otherwise a signal would have to travel faster than the speed of light. c (m/s) ------- = .003m
1GHz (1/s)
or
3e8/100000000000 = .003 meters
Thoughts?
.
I followed the Ultima 9 fiasco through the past 6 years... I can see why one in his position would want to retreat to one's castle for a while and then start over with something new and interesting without such a loud and obsessed fan base. He's a really creative person - his work shows that. And I bet he'll be back with something new and interesting. Here's to his future success! E
What I wish the author made more of a poit of is that this "debate" between camps has been moot for years. I think it can be argued that RISC in its pure sense refers only to those old early 80's CPUs, and everything since then is part of an evolution from the origonal principle. People may like the warm feeling of saying that their chip is part of a greater cadre of RISC(=good) parts, but where ever we are now, we've surely evolved to somewhere else from the old terms. The author also seems too willing to let his writing "make a point" and put people in their place, instead of just trying to educate... Maybe he's hanged out in too many forums where folks are endlessly bickering. I read Patterson and Henesey, - wonderful book... anyone interested in the subject should pick up a copy. E