OK, the computer program is officially called shareware according to the web site. I'm pretty sure that it's just a computer port of the original (classic) 2-player board game version, without the catapults, and so forth. No single player mode, as I'm sure that the AI would be very hard to do.
I've only played the original 2-player version, without the catapults, etc.
Chris Butterfield (if you're out there), we should get a game going sometime.
But Oracle was OK with that, since it didn't require them to change the software one whit. Whether it runs on a 50 MHz or 3.5 GHz processor, unless they are specifically using the new features of the faster processor, then the software doesn't know or care. It just runs.
With these new CPU's, it's a different ballgame. Oracle will *have* to change their software to take advantage of some particular feature/register set that is required to use the multiple cores.
Sure, Intel, IBM and others will undoubtedly show the software developers some test code on how to use the new wiz-bang features, but they are not going to pay Oracle to make porting changes to Oracle's code to get the most out of the new hardware. Any chip information shared with software developers is really just marketing self-interest driven anyway.
Oracle makes money on the fact that they can deliver a product that has a known scalablilty factor to solve large data base problems.
It is Oracle that has to foot the bill for figuring out how to get the most out of the new hardware in a predictable/scalable fashion. Writing code that is both multiprocessor capable, efficient, stable and scalable is hard work. If it's so easy, then why doesn't everyone do it themselves? They don't. That's why Oracle can charge what they do.
Oracle can charge for their smarts any way they see fit, within the limits of law/ethics. If the IT industry finds their price/performance acceptable, then Oracle wins. If not, then fine, other more cost-effective solutions will win instead.
No one buys from Oracle simply to get a bit of software for their company. The purchase is part of a whole package- designed to solve a specific-sized problem at a known total package cost. The cost of the licences is just a subset of the entire package.
The pressure by the chip makers is really just their own self-interest at work. Of course they want to have the licence to not be bound by core count. It helps them sell more product.
All this multi-core charging does is adjust the ratio of software/hardware for a given solution. Industry will pick the solution(s) that meet their needs at a price that they are willing to pay.
Well, the bitscope and similar ilk should do fine for a teacher's (canned) demo/dog & pony role, but thay have some real limitations that must be considered.
First, is the limited range of input signals for the analog inputs, and how rugged the inputs are. Can you safely input a large signal without damage? Can you control the bandwidth of signals/triggers to provide stable/good displays? Another is the rate of screen refresh under dynamic/live conditions.
Troubleshooting can turn into a big time-eater as you struggle to figure out what's wrong. Is it broken? Miss-wired? Settings wrong?
These are areas where basic analog 'scopes along the lines of Tektronix 223x family really shine. eBay is your friend! A Tek 2236A is an excellent model, I have one and love it. If you must have digital capture, then a 2230/2232 will probably do fine, and can be found for not too much more.
Regardless of the chosen gear, probes are another part of the system to consider.
Keep in mind that a good set of probes can be a substantial investment if the equipment doesn't come with any. There is no better probes than Tek in my experience. It's those little things like the tip clips and miscellaneous goodies that take the hassle out of probing signals. Tek probes/accessories are very expensive ($100+ for basic probe kit), but they excel.
All of the cheap after-market probes I've used are horrid in the probe goodies department.
Oh, don't knock the bazillion knob & button 'scopes. I find them far easier to use than the soft key/menu based gear. Just reach over and push/twist the desired control. Instant response and direct feedback as you adjust the controls to see what you want.
For durability, don't knock that old lab gear. It's built like a tank and can take a lot of use/abuse.
You won't have to worry too much about the kids playing around and blowing the gear up if they are given the chance to explore for themselves.
You ARE going to be a GOOD teacher and let the kids explore on their own with some hands-on experience once in a while, aren't you?
Otherwise, you might as well buy an "educational" video and sit in the back cleaning your nails while the tape plays and the kids throw spit-wads between isles.
A complete circuit is in the January 1984 issue of "Computers & Electronics". I built a "DeLuxe" version of that circuit for myself which included motor control and some sound routing so that I could monitor the sounds and override the automatic motor control to allow fast forward/rewind with my Sony TC-205 tape deck.
Etched a PCB and put it in a nice box with shielded audio cables and such. It still works, but Atari tape storage is S-L-O-W and not too reliable. You're better off with a disk drive solution.
The Atari 400/800/XL/XE...'s all had the ability to generate FSK serial modulation with the sound/serial communications chip that's hooked to the SIO connector. Thus you can record via the "CSAVE" command the resulting cassette data output (with appropriate attenuation) on any recorder.
But, serial playback of the FSK data requires an FSK demodulator circuit to return the tape recorder's line output back to digital serial output. An XR2211 will do that just fine.
Thus, a 410/1010 has that FSK demodulator built-in, and additional motor control as well. You can get by without the motor control, but the FSK demodulator is mandatory.
You would be much happier with the SIO2PC form of data storage.
Knock yourself out. Have fun with that old 8-bit stuff.
Yea, I have old memories too... Funny, but C64/ 1541's were junk as far as I could tell in the I/O dept. And cost, well, Commodore was downright draconian in cutting hardware costs -- the 1541's CPU did almost everything in software instead of using a FDC chip.
That being said, I know why your disk copy util. made it look so much better. It hinged on the fact that 1541's could be downloaded with new code for execution by the drive's CPU in the drive's RAM. But, when left to the C64's kernal/DOS, I/O was something like a horrid 19.2KBPS affair with the 64 in control (So was the Atari). The trick was to use a proprietary protocol that bypassed the C64's awful serial protocol and have one drive talk directly to the other (prob. w/ minimal handshaking).
One more thing, Atari drives also had 6502's in 'em too, and were also expensive.
Ah, how I love to go on digital safaris. I'm most sporting about it too- Iron sights at ranges from 100 to 300 meters for most of the monitors I've bagged using the rifle (I do clean up after myself).
It's a symbolic thing, of course. And especially satisfying if I know that the bits contained on a hard drive have beginnings in Redmond.
Let's clarify some things about the Hindenburg tragedy.
1. The Hindenburg was *designed* for helium gas (lower lifting capacity than hydrogen per unit volume). The difference is significant, you can't just retrofit a hydrogen airship for helium use. It won't fly!
2. At the time, the US was the only country with the means to produce sufficient stockpiles of helium gas for use by large airships, but for whatever political/military reasons did not sell to the Germans.
The tragedy is that if helium had been used as the design specified, no disaster would have occurred. This was a classic case of politics/posturing getting in the way of good engineering design and common sense.
Yep, sure did, along with ECC support too. Funny, but Intel's own Tucson Mboard w/HX chipset only cache'ed 64MB. Too bad I didn't know enough at the time I bought mine that they were being cheap to the tune of a few bucks:(.
It'll be a long time and a very close look at the fine print before I'll buy another Intel MB.
Well, *Active chairs* is a big subject, judging by Stokke's web site. Personally, I use an older version of Peter Opsvik's Balans Wing (TM) (Mine's of Westnofa mfg.).
My Balans Wing (TM) is missing an adjustment or two from the more refined Stokke version (drool). IMHO, the hydraulic lift adjustment, castors, ability to spin, and rocking back and forth a little bit are necessary features for making the Balans design deliver on its promise. For me, cheap knock-off's or budget models don't cut it in the Balans chair dept.
Using a Balans is, well, *different*. An acquired taste, if you will. For me, it doesn't *force* good posture (I'm bad about slouching), but I'm often moving about a lot, and do find myself sitting up straight more often.
One last thing: Zzzz, klonk, ouch, dang!, mumble: "don't think they'll put these things in bars..."
O.K., this is very unorthodox, but I bought a Balans Wing chair (designed by Peter Opsvik) many years ago. Mine was made by Westnofa, but Mr. Opsvik now has a similar design made by this company (with new!:) adjustments): http://www.stokke-furniture.no/wing.html?48,35
My experiences: First, I'm slender and weigh in at around 130 lbs., so don't ask me how Balans chairs work for those with greater mass or different body types. Clearly there is something to be said for having weight transferred to the front of my shins.
Sitting in this chair is *real different*, and takes some getting used to. Funny thing, this design promotes *good* posture. I habitually slouch when sitting in regular chairs much of the time.
In this chair, sometimes I do slouch, and sometimes not, I spin back and forth, rest feet on the knee rest, and otherwise seem a little fidgety, but I'm *not* uncomfortable. Just like the philosophy extolled on the above web site, this chair promotes movement. You don't vegetate in a Balans chair, nor take a nap either! This might be a way to talk your boss into springing for the cost of this Scandinavian designed/built chair. Mine is top quality, built to last, and pleasing to the eye.
I suspect this one falls into the religious/love/hate category. Like I said before, it's *real different*.
Funny, but only about three weeks ago 3COM sold the manufacturing plant in Salt Lake City that makes Palm Pilots & USR PCMCIA (Megahertz division) products (www.manserve.com).
I also worked in that facility for a bit (6 months ago). And I got some impressions that 3COM corporate have different expectations than the realities of the USR/Megahertz PCMCIA manufacturing process, when compared to PC LAN cards (very small form factor, LOTS of parts count vs. lots of room, almost no parts).
It may also have to do with problems managing divisions/products that are too far removed from the 3COM core products that they are used to and understand. This way they don't have to worry about how to manage a product that isn't their forte'
Remember that 3COM probably bought USR so that they could cover more computer data COM bases. Palm Pilots are not directly associated with that racket, though they do use that kind of stuff.
It may not be the only reason, but could be a factor. And yes, make some bucks along the way.
Hey, think about it. The AI bunch has failed miserably on the promise of machine thought. Just *when* is some brilliant genius going to write a "code filter" that will generate useful computer code? Here are some of the issues:
1. Good code is HIGHLY structured, and EXTREMELY non-random. That's why you can't just hook up a white gaussian noise generator front-end to a compiler. And if it was easy, we'd all be great programmers, and we know that's not true (like micro-squish).
2. How do you tell good/useful code from bad (thus the "filter")? Yes, we (programmers/users) can tell the difference, but testing a potential code snippet in a virtual machine and observing its behavior may not be an efficient mechanism. I'd be willing to estimate that a great many good code snippets are only useful in *very* limited contexts and only with suitable surrounding code.
3. We still don't have a handle on entropy vs. organization. My humble observations of complex systems that we've created, like GPS navigation, all require order being impressed into the system from outside the system. You know, like full unabridged dictionaries coming out of printing press explosions:). This also points out the recursive problem of where we get *our* inspiration from... Hmmm. (I smell a rant/flame/religious debate starting here.)
4. Finally, I think that all to many of us are buying into the idea that Science (TM) can solve everything. Science fails miserably when it treads too far into the philosophical/ethical/moral/religious arena. But that starts a whole other set of rants/flames/holy wars.
O.K., flame me if you must, but THINK about the issues first. Let's try to shine some light in this dark closet we live in.
There are lots of tradeoffs in any chip design. The idea is to not "waste" so many transistors on multiple execution units, out of order execution, etc., etc... and use the extra space for stuff that gets a big boost from the internal high-speed bus (video). The P5 architecture at a higher clock rate isn't a terrible PC for WP, etc. Alas, I'm still in P5-233 world, and I'm not suffering terribly. Further, if you can shrink the die size down, yields go up. Yield is everything in the chip making business.
Also, just because one implementation/architecture isn't successful and/or bug-free doesn't mean you can't hit a home run.
Besides, the imbedded market is lucrative too. And just for the record, the 186/188 architecture is still alive and well, with variants still rolling off the Intel fab lines. I've worked for co's that used 188 stuff because we could make a cheap product with only a hand full of parts. Just because Tandy tried to put 188's in a PC doesn't mean that the architecture is a total loss. Good for us, because of low parts count/board space, and a quick design to market solution.
Standard operating procedure by the blokes in the black hats.
Does it ever occure to those of the liberal persuasion, that our Founding Fathers and others came to the realization that the only thing that keeps a government honest is a population that *is* the milita?
Does any one really believe that they can "do social engineering" to remove all of the "power nuts" out of our entire society, ESPECIALLY in the government?
Fat chance!
But we get what we deserve. Just look at our country's voting record and the canadates we elect. Freedom has a price, and it has to be paid personally and individually by each and every citizen. Trying to lay the responsibility on (or pay) anyone else to do the "dirty work" that we don't wish to carry, only leads to opportunities for others of a more malvolent disposition to take advantage of us. You can't have it both ways.
Nuff said.
"You can't have something for nothing, You can't have freedom for free..." -- RUSH 2112
The place for honing the skills of effective learning is in college, not when the allagators are snapping at your delicate hind parts.
It's truly in the best self-interest of students to develop research and learning skills, honed to a fine edge, while they're in college. The sooner you learn something, the easier life is. Trust me on this!
You won't get your hand held when you attend a developer's conference, and the tuition can be pretty steep (as a consultant, you do the paying).
Neither mentors nor co-workers will give you all their tricks and knowledge on a silver platter.
Don't expect obeisance in your "Holiness'" presence unless you're DAMN smart. Dollars and doughnuts says really smart cookies probably take better notes than others...
If you're really going to make a mark in the *real* world, it's lots of hard work. There is *no* free lunch.
Also, fat chance publishing a book or tech journal article without background references and credits that will be worth the paper it's written on.
I wish my *whole* desktop was a giant display, along with a 8'x4' 'electronic' white board on the wall.
Ah, just think of it, dozens of Linux kernal code snippits and modules right at the turn of the head, virtual terminals everywhere, get those piles of paper off of the floor, too. Hmmm.
Input w/ finger (death to the mouse!), voice and keyboard in a fast/smooth/seamless fashion, etc. Virtual goggles would probably be the most economical way to impliment, just don't make me feel like I'm floating in space/walking through molasses.:(
Technically feasable in a decade or two if Moore's Law and MIPS continue to advance. At least for professional use anyway. (Yes I know, all of the requisite ideas are here, but they are not all in a single package and ready for prime time.)
A far cry from getting our subatomic particles torn apart, moved, and reassembled in the correct quantum states by remote control.
--What happened to all those poor little naugas that gave their hides?:).
Slashdot Mirror
Nah, the *real* study is categorizing all of the posts on the blog site.
Gotta love the results that fall out of all of those slashdot posts.
OK, the computer program is officially called shareware according to the web site. I'm pretty sure that it's just a computer port of the original (classic) 2-player board game version, without the catapults, and so forth. No single player mode, as I'm sure that the AI would be very hard to do.
:)
I've only played the original 2-player version, without the catapults, etc.
Chris Butterfield (if you're out there), we should get a game going sometime.
Still lots of fun.
Tony Naef.
You think you have all your pieces safe, and wham- your opponent pulls off an attack from out of the blue.
Originally licenced to Parker Brothers, but now sold directly by the original developer. Has a freeware (win31) version to get a feel of it.
Here's a URL for those who are interested:
http://www.webstart.net/conquest/
You want the nice cast pieces version if you can spring for the extra cost.
But Oracle was OK with that, since it didn't require them to change the software one whit. Whether it runs on a 50 MHz or 3.5 GHz processor, unless they are specifically using the new features of the faster processor, then the software doesn't know or care. It just runs.
With these new CPU's, it's a different ballgame. Oracle will *have* to change their software to take advantage of some particular feature/register set that is required to use the multiple cores.
Sure, Intel, IBM and others will undoubtedly show the software developers some test code on how to use the new wiz-bang features, but they are not going to pay Oracle to make porting changes to Oracle's code to get the most out of the new hardware. Any chip information shared with software developers is really just marketing self-interest driven anyway.
Oracle makes money on the fact that they can deliver a product that has a known scalablilty factor to solve large data base problems.
It is Oracle that has to foot the bill for figuring out how to get the most out of the new hardware in a predictable/scalable fashion. Writing code that is both multiprocessor capable, efficient, stable and scalable is hard work. If it's so easy, then why doesn't everyone do it themselves? They don't. That's why Oracle can charge what they do.
Oracle can charge for their smarts any way they see fit, within the limits of law/ethics. If the IT industry finds their price/performance acceptable, then Oracle wins. If not, then fine, other more cost-effective solutions will win instead.
No one buys from Oracle simply to get a bit of software for their company. The purchase is part of a whole package- designed to solve a specific-sized problem at a known total package cost. The cost of the licences is just a subset of the entire package.
The pressure by the chip makers is really just their own self-interest at work. Of course they want to have the licence to not be bound by core count. It helps them sell more product.
All this multi-core charging does is adjust the ratio of software/hardware for a given solution. Industry will pick the solution(s) that meet their needs at a price that they are willing to pay.
So what. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Snowbird.
Well, the bitscope and similar ilk should do fine for a teacher's (canned) demo/dog & pony role, but thay have some real limitations that must be considered.
First, is the limited range of input signals for the analog inputs, and how rugged the inputs are. Can you safely input a large signal without damage? Can you control the bandwidth of signals/triggers to provide stable/good displays? Another is the rate of screen refresh under dynamic/live conditions.
Troubleshooting can turn into a big time-eater as you struggle to figure out what's wrong. Is it broken? Miss-wired? Settings wrong?
These are areas where basic analog 'scopes along the lines of Tektronix 223x family really shine. eBay is your friend! A Tek 2236A is an excellent model, I have one and love it. If you must have digital capture, then a 2230/2232 will probably do fine, and can be found for not too much more.
Regardless of the chosen gear, probes are another part of the system to consider.
Keep in mind that a good set of probes can be a substantial investment if the equipment doesn't come with any. There is no better probes than Tek in my experience. It's those little things like the tip clips and miscellaneous goodies that take the hassle out of probing signals. Tek probes/accessories are very expensive ($100+ for basic probe kit), but they excel.
All of the cheap after-market probes I've used are horrid in the probe goodies department.
Oh, don't knock the bazillion knob & button 'scopes. I find them far easier to use than the soft key/menu based gear. Just reach over and push/twist the desired control. Instant response and direct feedback as you adjust the controls to see what you want.
For durability, don't knock that old lab gear. It's built like a tank and can take a lot of use/abuse.
You won't have to worry too much about the kids playing around and blowing the gear up if they are given the chance to explore for themselves.
You ARE going to be a GOOD teacher and let the kids explore on their own with some hands-on experience once in a while, aren't you?
Otherwise, you might as well buy an "educational" video and sit in the back cleaning your nails while the tape plays and the kids throw spit-wads between isles.
Long answer:
A complete circuit is in the January 1984 issue of "Computers & Electronics". I built a "DeLuxe" version of that circuit for myself which included motor control and some sound routing so that I could monitor the sounds and override the automatic motor control to allow fast forward/rewind with my Sony TC-205 tape deck.
Etched a PCB and put it in a nice box with shielded audio cables and such. It still works, but Atari tape storage is S-L-O-W and not too reliable. You're better off with a disk drive solution.
The Atari 400/800/XL/XE...'s all had the ability to generate FSK serial modulation with the sound/serial communications chip that's hooked to the SIO connector. Thus you can record via the "CSAVE" command the resulting cassette data output (with appropriate attenuation) on any recorder.
But, serial playback of the FSK data requires an FSK demodulator circuit to return the tape recorder's line output back to digital serial output. An XR2211 will do that just fine.
Thus, a 410/1010 has that FSK demodulator built-in, and additional motor control as well. You can get by without the motor control, but the FSK demodulator is mandatory.
You would be much happier with the SIO2PC form of data storage.
Knock yourself out. Have fun with that old 8-bit stuff.
Yea, I have old memories too... Funny, but C64/ 1541's were junk as far as I could tell in the I/O dept. And cost, well, Commodore was downright draconian in cutting hardware costs -- the 1541's CPU did almost everything in software instead of using a FDC chip.
That being said, I know why your disk copy util. made it look so much better. It hinged on the fact that 1541's could be downloaded with new code for execution by the drive's CPU in the drive's RAM. But, when left to the C64's kernal/DOS, I/O was something like a horrid 19.2KBPS affair with the 64 in control (So was the Atari). The trick was to use a proprietary protocol that bypassed the C64's awful serial protocol and have one drive talk directly to the other (prob. w/ minimal handshaking).
One more thing, Atari drives also had 6502's in 'em too, and were also expensive.
Ah, how I love to go on digital safaris. I'm most sporting about it too- Iron sights at ranges from 100 to 300 meters for most of the monitors I've bagged using the rifle (I do clean up after myself).
It's a symbolic thing, of course. And especially satisfying if I know that the bits contained on a hard drive have beginnings in Redmond.
Let's clarify some things about the Hindenburg tragedy.
1. The Hindenburg was *designed* for helium gas (lower lifting capacity than hydrogen per unit volume). The difference is significant, you can't just retrofit a hydrogen airship for helium use. It won't fly!
2. At the time, the US was the only country with the means to produce sufficient stockpiles of helium gas for use by large airships, but for whatever political/military reasons did not sell to the Germans.
The tragedy is that if helium had been used as the design specified, no disaster would have occurred. This was a classic case of politics/posturing getting in the way of good engineering design and common sense.
Yep, sure did, along with ECC support too. Funny, but Intel's own Tucson Mboard w/HX chipset only cache'ed 64MB. Too bad I didn't know enough at the time I bought mine that they were being cheap to the tune of a few bucks :(.
It'll be a long time and a very close look at the fine print before I'll buy another Intel MB.
Well, *Active chairs* is a big subject, judging by Stokke's web site. Personally, I use an older version of Peter Opsvik's Balans Wing (TM) (Mine's of Westnofa mfg.).
My Balans Wing (TM) is missing an adjustment or two from the more refined Stokke version (drool). IMHO, the hydraulic lift adjustment, castors, ability to spin, and rocking back and forth a little bit are necessary features for making the Balans design deliver on its promise. For me, cheap knock-off's or budget models don't cut it in the Balans chair dept.
Using a Balans is, well, *different*. An acquired taste, if you will. For me, it doesn't *force* good posture (I'm bad about slouching), but I'm often moving about a lot, and do find myself sitting up straight more often.
One last thing: Zzzz, klonk, ouch, dang!, mumble: "don't think they'll put these things in bars..."
O.K., this is very unorthodox, but I bought a Balans Wing chair (designed by Peter Opsvik) many years ago. Mine was made by Westnofa, but Mr. Opsvik now has a similar design made by this company (with new! :) adjustments): http://www.stokke-furniture.no/wing.html?48,35
My experiences: First, I'm slender and weigh in at around 130 lbs., so don't ask me how Balans chairs work for those with greater mass or different body types. Clearly there is something to be said for having weight transferred to the front of my shins.
Sitting in this chair is *real different*, and takes some getting used to. Funny thing, this design promotes *good* posture. I habitually slouch when sitting in regular chairs much of the time.
In this chair, sometimes I do slouch, and sometimes not, I spin back and forth, rest feet on the knee rest, and otherwise seem a little fidgety, but I'm *not* uncomfortable. Just like the philosophy extolled on the above web site, this chair promotes movement. You don't vegetate in a Balans chair, nor take a nap either! This might be a way to talk your boss into springing for the cost of this Scandinavian designed/built chair. Mine is top quality, built to last, and pleasing to the eye.
I suspect this one falls into the religious/love/hate category. Like I said before, it's *real different*.
Funny, but only about three weeks ago 3COM sold the manufacturing plant in Salt Lake City that makes Palm Pilots & USR PCMCIA (Megahertz division) products (www.manserve.com).
I also worked in that facility for a bit (6 months ago). And I got some impressions that 3COM corporate have different expectations than the realities of the USR/Megahertz PCMCIA manufacturing process, when compared to PC LAN cards (very small form factor, LOTS of parts count vs. lots of room, almost no parts).
It may also have to do with problems managing divisions/products that are too far removed from the 3COM core products that they are used to and understand. This way they don't have to worry about how to manage a product that isn't their forte'
Remember that 3COM probably bought USR so that they could cover more computer data COM bases. Palm Pilots are not directly associated with that racket, though they do use that kind of stuff.
It may not be the only reason, but could be a factor. And yes, make some bucks along the way.
Hey, think about it. The AI bunch has failed miserably on the promise of machine thought. Just *when* is some brilliant genius going to write a "code filter" that will generate useful computer code? Here are some of the issues:
:). This also points out the recursive problem of where we get *our* inspiration from... Hmmm. (I smell a rant/flame/religious debate starting here.)
1. Good code is HIGHLY structured, and EXTREMELY non-random. That's why you can't just hook up a white gaussian noise generator front-end to a compiler. And if it was easy, we'd all be great programmers, and we know that's not true (like micro-squish).
2. How do you tell good/useful code from bad (thus the "filter")? Yes, we (programmers/users) can tell the difference, but testing a potential code snippet in a virtual machine and observing its behavior may not be an efficient mechanism. I'd be willing to estimate that a great many good code snippets are only useful in *very* limited contexts and only with suitable surrounding code.
3. We still don't have a handle on entropy vs. organization. My humble observations of complex systems that we've created, like GPS navigation, all require order being impressed into the system from outside the system. You know, like full unabridged dictionaries coming out of printing press explosions
4. Finally, I think that all to many of us are buying into the idea that Science (TM) can solve everything. Science fails miserably when it treads too far into the philosophical/ethical/moral/religious arena. But that starts a whole other set of rants/flames/holy wars.
O.K., flame me if you must, but THINK about the issues first. Let's try to shine some light in this dark closet we live in.
Look at it this way:
There are lots of tradeoffs in any chip design. The idea is to not "waste" so many transistors on multiple execution units, out of order execution, etc., etc... and use the extra space for stuff that gets a big boost from the internal high-speed bus (video). The P5 architecture at a higher clock rate isn't a terrible PC for WP, etc. Alas, I'm still in P5-233 world, and I'm not suffering terribly. Further, if you can shrink the die size down, yields go up. Yield is everything in the chip making business.
Also, just because one implementation/architecture isn't successful and/or bug-free doesn't mean you can't hit a home run.
Besides, the imbedded market is lucrative too. And just for the record, the 186/188 architecture is still alive and well, with variants still rolling off the Intel fab lines. I've worked for co's that used 188 stuff because we could make a cheap product with only a hand full of parts. Just because Tandy tried to put 188's in a PC doesn't mean that the architecture is a total loss. Good for us, because of low parts count/board space, and a quick design to market solution.
Standard operating procedure by the blokes in the black hats.
Does it ever occure to those of the liberal persuasion, that our Founding Fathers and others came to the realization that the only thing that keeps a government honest is a population that *is* the milita?
Does any one really believe that they can "do social engineering" to remove all of the "power nuts" out of our entire society, ESPECIALLY in the government?
Fat chance!
But we get what we deserve. Just look at our country's voting record and the canadates we elect. Freedom has a price, and it has to be paid personally and individually by each and every citizen. Trying to lay the responsibility on (or pay) anyone else to do the "dirty work" that we don't wish to carry, only leads to opportunities for others of a more malvolent disposition to take advantage of us. You can't have it both ways.
Nuff said.
"You can't have something for nothing, You can't have freedom for free..." -- RUSH 2112
The place for honing the skills of effective learning is in college, not when the allagators are snapping at your delicate hind parts.
It's truly in the best self-interest of students to develop research and learning skills, honed to a fine edge, while they're in college. The sooner you learn something, the easier life is. Trust me on this!
You won't get your hand held when you attend a developer's conference, and the tuition can be pretty steep (as a consultant, you do the paying).
Neither mentors nor co-workers will give you all their tricks and knowledge on a silver platter.
Don't expect obeisance in your "Holiness'" presence unless you're DAMN smart. Dollars and doughnuts says really smart cookies probably take better notes than others...
If you're really going to make a mark in the *real* world, it's lots of hard work. There is *no* free lunch.
Also, fat chance publishing a book or tech journal article without background references and credits that will be worth the paper it's written on.
'Nuff said.
I wish my *whole* desktop was a giant display, along with a 8'x4' 'electronic' white board on the wall.
:(
:).
Ah, just think of it, dozens of Linux kernal code snippits and modules right at the turn of the head, virtual terminals everywhere, get those piles of paper off of the floor, too. Hmmm.
Input w/ finger (death to the mouse!), voice and keyboard in a fast/smooth/seamless fashion, etc. Virtual goggles would probably be the most economical way to impliment, just don't make me feel like I'm floating in space/walking through molasses.
Technically feasable in a decade or two if Moore's Law and MIPS continue to advance. At least for professional use anyway. (Yes I know, all of the requisite ideas are here, but they are not all in a single package and ready for prime time.)
A far cry from getting our subatomic particles torn apart, moved, and reassembled in the correct quantum states by remote control.
--What happened to all those poor little naugas that gave their hides?