Get a hold of Edsim51. Most assembly these days is done for PIC microcontrollers, but the 8051 is easier (more instructions, parallax syntax and two working registers). The simulator gives you quite a few peripherals to play with and I think that site has some sample programs/documentation. You should also be able to find a datasheet for the 8051 somewhere.
Like sibling poster says, assembly on the desktop is dead. C Compilers actually produce faster code than hand assembled (unless you know a hang of a lot). The embedded side is still loads of fun though.
If you are serious(not just looking for some mind stretching fun, then learn PIC - its much more common than intel.
We know exactly what linux is. But it doesn't run all of the other pirated software... That being said, the lack of decent bandwidth for AV updates has driven a lot of my friends to Linux..
I'm a linux user in the 3rd world. I don't need all that junk anyway, and XP (legal copy surprisingly) runs fine in a VM for the one or two apps that I thought I couldn't live without. Posted on Opera under Mandriva 2009...
I'm thinking there may be something more basic than that involved. Something that starts the learning process off. Like the idea of the fetch an execute cycle in a processor. I just don't see why a bunch of synapse would have the desire, or I guess "evolutionary pressure"(quotes because it may have to be artificial) to learn. A brain isn't merely a bunch of synapses either. There are all sorts of different areas and hormones involved that may be required for sanity. I could well be wrong, but such AI might turn out insane. Or completely incomprehensible to us and vice versa.
Or perhaps I've read to much science fiction. As I say, I look forward to eating my words...
You appear to have an axe to grind. Would you like to:
- Reread the post and pull your head out of your arse?
- Go and take the dolls away from some five year old girls and shout at them for being irrational?
- "Forget it, I'm happy the way I am even though I get funny looks at parties."
Seriously dude, even a computer requires a correct program to function correctly. Not all humans function correctly. A sibling poster to yours points out it would have to learn. Personally, I suspect there is a fundamental state required (know anything about state machines?) in order for a sentience and logical thinking to develop. This has nothing to do with religion or souls or whatever your intolerance and ego can't cope with. Think of what I am saying more as an analogue of programming the fetch and execute cycle. And lets not forget about how different chemicals and hormones change the brain.
And no, this does not stop the research you are doing. I never intended it to.
And a bunch of synapse may simply be a bunch of synapses without a valid initial state, a means of input and feedback and output. Or it may be unwilling/unable to learn. You don't like speculation? You must be new here.
Not to start asking hard questions or anything, but does simulating the brain really imply we can create sentient AI? What if there is more to it than that? Perhaps sentience can only arise as a result of our brains being "jump" started in some way (cosmic radiation, genetic preprograming or whatever)? To start the AI you would have to "copy" an existing brain or play with random starting states... Could be unpredictable. Irrational sentience anyone?
I'm possibly wrong, but I'd bet a lot its a lot more complex than you describe and we are not that close really.
Its not often I get to be a smug bastard so go easy on me. Here in a falling apart economy in the 3rd world, I have internet on my cell phone. Being a test user, I got it early.. Its actually easy to implement on a GSM network.
Uh.. Athiesm means athiesm. People do make fun of normal(as opposed to creationist) christians too. I've seen it go the other way as well. But I'm glad you're respectful of other peoples views even though you disagree.
I'm actually trying to find the rationality in your statements, which is why I've kept up the discussion. That and the remnants of my childish need to make people understand my position. My position is rational. But for some reason, you are blind to that.
The "example" is an extreme case. He is well paid because he is an asset. They may not pay him over-time, but they do look after him well - better than some others at the organisation. And yes, if I were super-rich, I would still work. I am interested in the work of creating things. Its good fun, you should try it. And the nice thing is, if you are good, people will pay you to do it.
You derive your happiness from freedom? Guess what, so do I. I freely chose the path I'm going down. My work is not "computer repair" or dishes, it is research and development, which I enjoy.
Anyway, since we have degenerated to calling each other irrational(and you're right, it has been some time), let us just agree to disagree. Feel free to have the last word if you want, but just as an aside, please don't go calling people who choose similar paths to me irrational. Your lack of understanding of their motivations does not make it so.
Which, if true, is highly ironic, since the Africans in general in Africa work much harder than the white kids. There are some extremely bright and highly motivated people this end.
It is not always a "celebration of mediocracy". It depends on the subject. I have an open book exam on thursday (why am I posting on/. not studying...?) on embedded design. It is considered difficult because it the exam consists of designing solutions and writing ASM code.
As a closed book exam, it would be impossible, unless they gave us all a PIC datasheet as an appendix. The truth is, having the textbook in the exam won't help unless you know what you're doing. People in my class will most likely fail. Not everyone around here has been programming most of their lives.
No, my argument is not based on that. It's much more involved than that. HOWEVER, the bottom line is that it cannot be true that you would rather work than do things like golf, go on vacation, etc.
I would say that you are not qualified to judge my case, how could you know? There are successful musicians who only care about the music - the music is their work. Most academics fall into this category as well. Its not that unusual. I know a man with a doctorate who chooses to spend his Saturdays at work. He is highly intelligent and is paid relatively well. He is not paid overtime, but he doesn't seem to care.
> If I only come to work because I enjoy my job, what is to stop me
> from randomly changing my mind?
That is a non-argument, because I can say the same thing about equitable pay. If you believe you are being paid fairly/well, what is to stop you from randomly changing your mind? I'm not sure what the meaning of "randomly changing my mind" is, even.
The contract. Nobody in their right mind would contractually agree to not get paid but come to work. If I am being paid, most likely there is a contract requiring me to give notice. If I am required to work even when I don't feel like it, I will. If there is no contract, I am free not to come if I felt like going to the bar instead or skipping the country at random. I am also free to ignore deadlines. This is the true cost of not paying people. In the long run, it is cheaper to pay them.
The document you pointed to while interesting (I know all about government meddling with money, google "Gideon Gono" if you want to know why I know.) do not say anywhere that if I like my job enough to come in on Saturday, I will not be paid for the rest of the week. Evidence is to the contrary anyway.
Oh, and in this country, you can not survive without money. Its fairly difficult with money too. We have no free food, shelter or medical care. I live in the 3rd world. What I call surviving is food and shelter. Not that merely surviving is the goal.
Dude, you're missing it. There are far more factors involved in payment than whether I enjoy my job or not. There are many things like competition for people with my skills, the fact that people who employ other people sometimes have morals, etc. Heck, my boss does not even necessarily know I love my work. Your argument is based on the idea that people are paid what they think they are worth, not what the company which employs them thinks they are worth. I don't need a wikipedia citation for logic. Your model of the motivations for paying people is unreasonably simplistic.
Consider the following; Starting salary for a research scientist is X. You are qualified and enjoy the work. The organisation offers you X, you agree and take the job. Since you are good at your work (which does correlate with enjoying it by the way) you are promoted and now receive salary Y (Y>X). If they were to offer you Z, where Z is less than X, you may decide not to take the job or even sue for discrimination against people with an extra toe or something. It is in the interests of the organisation to pay you the standard salary or more in order to keep you. If these hypothetical people find you like your job and cut your pay, they are fools because they will lose you, and you are an asset to the organisation.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the core of your argument appears to be; "if I am enjoying myself, I must pay" and "if I am not enjoying myself, I must be paid". Which I am (attempting) to address... Good organisations look after their assets. If I only come to work because I enjoy my job, what is to stop me from randomly changing my mind? If they give me two reasons, money and enjoyment, even if I lose my enjoyment, I will still serve out my notice, but only if I am being paid.
The problem I have is with the atheists who like to make fun of and insult the religious. It doesn't help their arguments at all. Not even the most rational person will react well to insults let alone change their mind.
I'm not saying you have this problem, but I suspect this is what Commodore64_love is driving at (and missing...). And yes, the religious do so too, but pointing that out is like the little kid crying "mommy, mommy, but he started it." Both sides sink to the same old dreary level of name-calling.
It is possible and helpful to respect the people who hold differing viewpoints to you. Even if they are demonstrably wrong.
I'm sorry that economics is new to you. Your employer pays you because you are not willing to do the work for free. Meaning, if you were not paid, you would rather be doing something else. If you would NOT rather be doing something else, that means you would do the work regardless of the money, therefore your employer would not pay you. This is why I call huge BS when I hear people like you tell me that you are happy at work. You may not be miserable at work, but if you're telling me you wouldn't rather be doing something else, you're either full of it or the person paying you for work you'd do for free is an idiot.
Huh? If I am not paid I will take my skills elsewhere. Quite simply if I am benefiting an organisation and enjoying myself, I expect to be paid. If I am not, I will find another organisation. Your argument does not hold up. In the event that no organization will pay me (an unlikely situation), I would be forced to take a job I would not like in order to survive and therefore the organisation would lose my skills. Therefore payment is certain. Its about staff retention. Just because I like work does not mean at times I enjoy other things. The fact that I enjoy my work as much as or more than other things in my life does not mean I will work for free. That is not logical unless you are super-rich or something.
1MW=1000 000 000mW. You keep using these units, but I don't think you know what they mean. And yes, I can get it from context, but it is anoying since there are extremely low power nuclear power sources which are used in other applications.
If you intend to wait for retirement to be "happy", I seriously doubt
> you will ever be.
What could you possibly be basing that on?
The idea (which may not be true) that you are not happy now. My entire point is that the statement "if I can just do X and get Y then I will be happy" isn't always true. In fact, it rarely is true at all. Happiness and success are not the same thing at all. I have no problem with saving for retirement, just I do not think saving for "happiness" works. I also believe that people who are not capable of being happy now and enjoying work, are not going to be happy no matter how much money they get or how early they retire. But its guesswork if you fit, so my apologies if I am wrong about you.
> I see no reason why I should not be happy now and when I retire.
Of course you can be happy during both. The question is when will you retire? It will be later if you forgo compensation in order to be happier now.
> If I enjoy my job, why should I retire early?
Simple economics. If you would be just as happy doing your job than not doing your job, you wouldn't be paid for it at all. So don't try to tell me you would be just as happy if you were retired or working.
Actually, I enjoy working. Strange as that may sound. If I were to retire, I would probably be less happy.. And of course I will always be paid for it. Where do you get the idea that enjoying work means you don't get paid? This is genuinely new to me. I know plenty of counterexamples personally. Is it an American thing?
> This way, I will actually be happier far longer than you.
You will be working for someone else longer than me.
Being happy and working for and with like minded people are hardly mutually exclusive. In the event that I dislike my job, I am free to change. As for working for someone else, I'm fine with that. I have no desire to worry about all the details of running a business - I am happy to leave it to someone who enjoys that sort of thing.
I suspect that we will have to agree to disagree. Though I'm not sure you see my point. Perhaps I have explained it poorly?
I don't agree. If you are always "delaying gratification" you will never be content and never enjoy now. I'm not saying never look at the future. I put myself through 5 frustrating years of a degree under adverse circumstances(look up Zimbabwe on the internet if you want to know) to get where I am. Its a balance. The trick is to find something you enjoy and go with it. If you intend to wait for retirement to be "happy", I seriously doubt you will ever be.
I see no reason why I should not be happy now and when I retire. My happiness has little to do with my bank balance and a lot to do with the fact that I am doing what I chose to do. If I enjoy my job, why should I retire early? Why must the money be the "gratification" and not the job? This way, I will actually be happier far longer than you. But I doubt I'm "normal".
While what you say is true, it doesn't imply what I said is not true. I forget who said it, but some rich guy, when asked how much money was enough, answered, "just a little more.."
Chasing wealth to find happiness is a complete waste of time. And you will never be satisfied, if wealth is your only goal. You'll always want more.
This is why I will take a poor paying job in a research institute/university over some dead boring high paying 8-5 do the same thing every day job with a large salary(which I could easily get with my skills in this country). Because as long as I can live comfortably, I don't really care about the money. Maybe its just me.. but the truth is, I am actually happy. Strange as that may sound.
Funny thing about living through stressful difficult times is you learn to be content with what you have. I live in the third world under an undemocratic government and have a much lower standard of living than you guys, but I'm quite happy.
I'd say, its the old problem of the more you have, the more you want. Happiness has nothing to do with material wealth or possessions. Its a state of mind.
Nah, you no longer need to be extremely inovative to produce awesome chips. These are the days of cheap transistors on nm manufacturing scales. We have gotten to the point where a clever way of doing something is obsolete, because its faster and cheaper to throw more transistors at our designs and resuse all our existing "cleverness".
There is something about limited resources that encourages amazing innovation. When we have "enough", why innovate?
I wish it were that simple. Its more like take the first n bytes - not discard the last m bytes. The longer the post, the more I lose, but its not been so bad lately.
Slashdot Mirror
Get a hold of Edsim51. Most assembly these days is done for PIC microcontrollers, but the 8051 is easier (more instructions, parallax syntax and two working registers). The simulator gives you quite a few peripherals to play with and I think that site has some sample programs/documentation. You should also be able to find a datasheet for the 8051 somewhere.
Like sibling poster says, assembly on the desktop is dead. C Compilers actually produce faster code than hand assembled (unless you know a hang of a lot). The embedded side is still loads of fun though.
If you are serious(not just looking for some mind stretching fun, then learn PIC - its much more common than intel.
Have fun...
We know exactly what linux is. But it doesn't run all of the other pirated software... That being said, the lack of decent bandwidth for AV updates has driven a lot of my friends to Linux..
I'm a linux user in the 3rd world. I don't need all that junk anyway, and XP (legal copy surprisingly) runs fine in a VM for the one or two apps that I thought I couldn't live without. Posted on Opera under Mandriva 2009...
I'm thinking there may be something more basic than that involved. Something that starts the learning process off. Like the idea of the fetch an execute cycle in a processor. I just don't see why a bunch of synapse would have the desire, or I guess "evolutionary pressure"(quotes because it may have to be artificial) to learn. A brain isn't merely a bunch of synapses either. There are all sorts of different areas and hormones involved that may be required for sanity. I could well be wrong, but such AI might turn out insane. Or completely incomprehensible to us and vice versa.
Or perhaps I've read to much science fiction. As I say, I look forward to eating my words...
You appear to have an axe to grind. Would you like to:
- Reread the post and pull your head out of your arse?
- Go and take the dolls away from some five year old girls and shout at them for being irrational?
- "Forget it, I'm happy the way I am even though I get funny looks at parties."
Seriously dude, even a computer requires a correct program to function correctly. Not all humans function correctly. A sibling poster to yours points out it would have to learn. Personally, I suspect there is a fundamental state required (know anything about state machines?) in order for a sentience and logical thinking to develop. This has nothing to do with religion or souls or whatever your intolerance and ego can't cope with. Think of what I am saying more as an analogue of programming the fetch and execute cycle. And lets not forget about how different chemicals and hormones change the brain.
And no, this does not stop the research you are doing. I never intended it to.
And a bunch of synapse may simply be a bunch of synapses without a valid initial state, a means of input and feedback and output. Or it may be unwilling/unable to learn. You don't like speculation? You must be new here.
Not to start asking hard questions or anything, but does simulating the brain really imply we can create sentient AI? What if there is more to it than that? Perhaps sentience can only arise as a result of our brains being "jump" started in some way (cosmic radiation, genetic preprograming or whatever)? To start the AI you would have to "copy" an existing brain or play with random starting states... Could be unpredictable. Irrational sentience anyone?
I'm possibly wrong, but I'd bet a lot its a lot more complex than you describe and we are not that close really.
I look forward to eating my words though.. :)
Note to self: Update all future inventions to include world-wide public address system.
Its not often I get to be a smug bastard so go easy on me. Here in a falling apart economy in the 3rd world, I have internet on my cell phone. Being a test user, I got it early.. Its actually easy to implement on a GSM network.
Uh.. Athiesm means athiesm. People do make fun of normal(as opposed to creationist) christians too. I've seen it go the other way as well. But I'm glad you're respectful of other peoples views even though you disagree.
I'm actually trying to find the rationality in your statements, which is why I've kept up the discussion. That and the remnants of my childish need to make people understand my position. My position is rational. But for some reason, you are blind to that.
The "example" is an extreme case. He is well paid because he is an asset. They may not pay him over-time, but they do look after him well - better than some others at the organisation. And yes, if I were super-rich, I would still work. I am interested in the work of creating things. Its good fun, you should try it. And the nice thing is, if you are good, people will pay you to do it.
You derive your happiness from freedom? Guess what, so do I. I freely chose the path I'm going down. My work is not "computer repair" or dishes, it is research and development, which I enjoy.
Anyway, since we have degenerated to calling each other irrational(and you're right, it has been some time), let us just agree to disagree. Feel free to have the last word if you want, but just as an aside, please don't go calling people who choose similar paths to me irrational. Your lack of understanding of their motivations does not make it so.
Which, if true, is highly ironic, since the Africans in general in Africa work much harder than the white kids. There are some extremely bright and highly motivated people this end.
It is not always a "celebration of mediocracy". It depends on the subject. I have an open book exam on thursday (why am I posting on /. not studying...?) on embedded design. It is considered difficult because it the exam consists of designing solutions and writing ASM code.
As a closed book exam, it would be impossible, unless they gave us all a PIC datasheet as an appendix. The truth is, having the textbook in the exam won't help unless you know what you're doing. People in my class will most likely fail. Not everyone around here has been programming most of their lives.
No, my argument is not based on that. It's much more involved than that. HOWEVER, the bottom line is that it cannot be true that you would rather work than do things like golf, go on vacation, etc.
I would say that you are not qualified to judge my case, how could you know? There are successful musicians who only care about the music - the music is their work. Most academics fall into this category as well. Its not that unusual. I know a man with a doctorate who chooses to spend his Saturdays at work. He is highly intelligent and is paid relatively well. He is not paid overtime, but he doesn't seem to care.
> If I only come to work because I enjoy my job, what is to stop me > from randomly changing my mind?
That is a non-argument, because I can say the same thing about equitable pay. If you believe you are being paid fairly/well, what is to stop you from randomly changing your mind? I'm not sure what the meaning of "randomly changing my mind" is, even.
The contract. Nobody in their right mind would contractually agree to not get paid but come to work. If I am being paid, most likely there is a contract requiring me to give notice. If I am required to work even when I don't feel like it, I will. If there is no contract, I am free not to come if I felt like going to the bar instead or skipping the country at random. I am also free to ignore deadlines. This is the true cost of not paying people. In the long run, it is cheaper to pay them.
The document you pointed to while interesting (I know all about government meddling with money, google "Gideon Gono" if you want to know why I know.) do not say anywhere that if I like my job enough to come in on Saturday, I will not be paid for the rest of the week. Evidence is to the contrary anyway.
Oh, and in this country, you can not survive without money. Its fairly difficult with money too. We have no free food, shelter or medical care. I live in the 3rd world. What I call surviving is food and shelter. Not that merely surviving is the goal.
Dude, you're missing it. There are far more factors involved in payment than whether I enjoy my job or not. There are many things like competition for people with my skills, the fact that people who employ other people sometimes have morals, etc. Heck, my boss does not even necessarily know I love my work. Your argument is based on the idea that people are paid what they think they are worth, not what the company which employs them thinks they are worth. I don't need a wikipedia citation for logic. Your model of the motivations for paying people is unreasonably simplistic.
Consider the following; Starting salary for a research scientist is X. You are qualified and enjoy the work. The organisation offers you X, you agree and take the job. Since you are good at your work (which does correlate with enjoying it by the way) you are promoted and now receive salary Y (Y>X). If they were to offer you Z, where Z is less than X, you may decide not to take the job or even sue for discrimination against people with an extra toe or something. It is in the interests of the organisation to pay you the standard salary or more in order to keep you. If these hypothetical people find you like your job and cut your pay, they are fools because they will lose you, and you are an asset to the organisation.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the core of your argument appears to be; "if I am enjoying myself, I must pay" and "if I am not enjoying myself, I must be paid". Which I am (attempting) to address... Good organisations look after their assets. If I only come to work because I enjoy my job, what is to stop me from randomly changing my mind? If they give me two reasons, money and enjoyment, even if I lose my enjoyment, I will still serve out my notice, but only if I am being paid.
The problem I have is with the atheists who like to make fun of and insult the religious. It doesn't help their arguments at all. Not even the most rational person will react well to insults let alone change their mind.
I'm not saying you have this problem, but I suspect this is what Commodore64_love is driving at (and missing...). And yes, the religious do so too, but pointing that out is like the little kid crying "mommy, mommy, but he started it." Both sides sink to the same old dreary level of name-calling.
It is possible and helpful to respect the people who hold differing viewpoints to you. Even if they are demonstrably wrong.
I'm sorry that economics is new to you. Your employer pays you because you are not willing to do the work for free. Meaning, if you were not paid, you would rather be doing something else. If you would NOT rather be doing something else, that means you would do the work regardless of the money, therefore your employer would not pay you. This is why I call huge BS when I hear people like you tell me that you are happy at work. You may not be miserable at work, but if you're telling me you wouldn't rather be doing something else, you're either full of it or the person paying you for work you'd do for free is an idiot.
Huh? If I am not paid I will take my skills elsewhere. Quite simply if I am benefiting an organisation and enjoying myself, I expect to be paid. If I am not, I will find another organisation. Your argument does not hold up. In the event that no organization will pay me (an unlikely situation), I would be forced to take a job I would not like in order to survive and therefore the organisation would lose my skills. Therefore payment is certain. Its about staff retention. Just because I like work does not mean at times I enjoy other things. The fact that I enjoy my work as much as or more than other things in my life does not mean I will work for free. That is not logical unless you are super-rich or something.
Intolerant people should not be tolerated...
Oh. Wait...
1MW=1000 000 000mW. You keep using these units, but I don't think you know what they mean. And yes, I can get it from context, but it is anoying since there are extremely low power nuclear power sources which are used in other applications.
You're talking about enforcing a very vague and fine line,
I was with you until I got to this point in your post. I'm not sure which you mean...
If you intend to wait for retirement to be "happy", I seriously doubt > you will ever be.
What could you possibly be basing that on?
The idea (which may not be true) that you are not happy now. My entire point is that the statement "if I can just do X and get Y then I will be happy" isn't always true. In fact, it rarely is true at all. Happiness and success are not the same thing at all. I have no problem with saving for retirement, just I do not think saving for "happiness" works. I also believe that people who are not capable of being happy now and enjoying work, are not going to be happy no matter how much money they get or how early they retire. But its guesswork if you fit, so my apologies if I am wrong about you.
> I see no reason why I should not be happy now and when I retire.
Of course you can be happy during both. The question is when will you retire? It will be later if you forgo compensation in order to be happier now.
> If I enjoy my job, why should I retire early?
Simple economics. If you would be just as happy doing your job than not doing your job, you wouldn't be paid for it at all. So don't try to tell me you would be just as happy if you were retired or working.
Actually, I enjoy working. Strange as that may sound. If I were to retire, I would probably be less happy.. And of course I will always be paid for it. Where do you get the idea that enjoying work means you don't get paid? This is genuinely new to me. I know plenty of counterexamples personally. Is it an American thing?
> This way, I will actually be happier far longer than you.
You will be working for someone else longer than me.
Being happy and working for and with like minded people are hardly mutually exclusive. In the event that I dislike my job, I am free to change. As for working for someone else, I'm fine with that. I have no desire to worry about all the details of running a business - I am happy to leave it to someone who enjoys that sort of thing.
I suspect that we will have to agree to disagree. Though I'm not sure you see my point. Perhaps I have explained it poorly?
I don't agree. If you are always "delaying gratification" you will never be content and never enjoy now. I'm not saying never look at the future. I put myself through 5 frustrating years of a degree under adverse circumstances(look up Zimbabwe on the internet if you want to know) to get where I am. Its a balance. The trick is to find something you enjoy and go with it. If you intend to wait for retirement to be "happy", I seriously doubt you will ever be.
I see no reason why I should not be happy now and when I retire. My happiness has little to do with my bank balance and a lot to do with the fact that I am doing what I chose to do. If I enjoy my job, why should I retire early? Why must the money be the "gratification" and not the job? This way, I will actually be happier far longer than you. But I doubt I'm "normal".
While what you say is true, it doesn't imply what I said is not true. I forget who said it, but some rich guy, when asked how much money was enough, answered, "just a little more.."
Chasing wealth to find happiness is a complete waste of time. And you will never be satisfied, if wealth is your only goal. You'll always want more.
This is why I will take a poor paying job in a research institute/university over some dead boring high paying 8-5 do the same thing every day job with a large salary(which I could easily get with my skills in this country). Because as long as I can live comfortably, I don't really care about the money. Maybe its just me.. but the truth is, I am actually happy. Strange as that may sound.
Funny thing about living through stressful difficult times is you learn to be content with what you have. I live in the third world under an undemocratic government and have a much lower standard of living than you guys, but I'm quite happy.
I'd say, its the old problem of the more you have, the more you want. Happiness has nothing to do with material wealth or possessions. Its a state of mind.
Nah, you no longer need to be extremely inovative to produce awesome chips. These are the days of cheap transistors on nm manufacturing scales. We have gotten to the point where a clever way of doing something is obsolete, because its faster and cheaper to throw more transistors at our designs and resuse all our existing "cleverness".
There is something about limited resources that encourages amazing innovation. When we have "enough", why innovate?
I wish it were that simple. Its more like take the first n bytes - not discard the last m bytes. The longer the post, the more I lose, but its not been so bad lately.
You joke but(and this is true) on my dodgy slow GPRS connection, from here in deepest Africa, slashdot sometimes decides to ignore the ends of my comm