Although they're supposed to compete with Intel's Itanium chips, they only run at 900MHz... for now
Yes, as many others have pointed out, 900MHz high-end RISC chips should run comparably well to CISC chips with a much higher clock-speed.
Note that, in one of Intel's benchmark of their Itanium chips, an Itanium 800MHz was tested against an UltraSPARC-II system running at "only" 450MHz.
Of course, the results of this benchmark "show" that Itanium systems gave 12x more throughput than the UltraSPARC ones. Still, though, the benchmark was done with those chips because the chips are thought to be equal in processing power (taking into account the CISC speed to RISC speed translation).
what I do think is interesting that given AOL's size and mass
Were you trying to say "what I do think is interesting is that given AOL's size and mass..."?
the partnership of they and Amazon
Try "them and Amazon". This might not seem like a big error, but Americans (at least in my region) typically get this one right. It's typically best to stick to standard grammar, but if you're going to be less formal, at least a substitute that's widely accepted in the vernacular...
To an extent, I agree with the AC. Hemos et al are the editors for a respected site with a large following. There's no reason why they shouldn't use correct grammar (or, like I said above, some reasonable substitute). Before I gripe too much about grammar, though, how about having the editors take more than just a glance at the articles before posting bogus headlines? (See "pager spam".)
That'a s pretty freaking powerful camcorder. It has some processor capable of running a Java VM, image manipulation algorithms, a TCP/IP stack of some sort, and a HTTP server; it also has enough storage to hold _4500_ 640x480 16-/24-bit images. And the cost is $2500...$2500 will buy you a pretty hefty computer these days.
The point I'm getting at is that "peripheral" devices like this are getting closer and closer to being "real" computers (in the conventional sense.) Devices are getting more and more powerful, and will continue to do so with the advent of things like Transmeta's Crusoe. With a cheap, efficient processor to put in almost anything, the world is going to get a lot more computerized.
I am fairly certain that AOL did not change their IM protocol because they wanted to "limit consumer options" and make it so only AIM users could use the IM protocol. Rather, AOL had a somewhat-legitimite reason for doing what it did.
IM clients must access a database which tells users who is logged on, who is ide, etc. Currently, this database is only located on AOL's own servers. Servers cost money, not only to buy, but also to maintain and upgrade. With 20 (?) million users, this server has to be tuned tightly. I think we can all reasonably assume that this maintaining this server takes more than just an AOL janitor kicking it until it works.
Agreed, AOL should not mutilate standards for its own gain, but I can understand why they would be pissed about other IM clients using their servers. M$ and other IM client-making companies should create their own servers and work with AOL to develop some sort of back-end protocol for inter-server cooperation. Either that, or they could all pay AOL a fee for the added load. I'm sure there are other, better ways of solving this, also...
Slashdot Mirror
Although they're supposed to compete with Intel's Itanium chips, they only run at 900MHz ... for now
Yes, as many others have pointed out, 900MHz high-end RISC chips should run comparably well to CISC chips with a much higher clock-speed.
Note that, in one of Intel's benchmark of their Itanium chips, an Itanium 800MHz was tested against an UltraSPARC-II system running at "only" 450MHz.
Of course, the results of this benchmark "show" that Itanium systems gave 12x more throughput than the UltraSPARC ones. Still, though, the benchmark was done with those chips because the chips are thought to be equal in processing power (taking into account the CISC speed to RISC speed translation).
mrcow
what I do think is interesting that given AOL's size and mass
Were you trying to say "what I do think is interesting is that given AOL's size and mass..."?
the partnership of they and Amazon
Try "them and Amazon". This might not seem like a big error, but Americans (at least in my region) typically get this one right. It's typically best to stick to standard grammar, but if you're going to be less formal, at least a substitute that's widely accepted in the vernacular...
To an extent, I agree with the AC. Hemos et al are the editors for a respected site with a large following. There's no reason why they shouldn't use correct grammar (or, like I said above, some reasonable substitute). Before I gripe too much about grammar, though, how about having the editors take more than just a glance at the articles before posting bogus headlines? (See "pager spam".)
---
Another victim of the analytical knife
That'a s pretty freaking powerful camcorder. It has some processor capable of running a Java VM, image manipulation algorithms, a TCP/IP stack of some sort, and a HTTP server; it also has enough storage to hold _4500_ 640x480 16-/24-bit images. And the cost is $2500...$2500 will buy you a pretty hefty computer these days.
The point I'm getting at is that "peripheral" devices like this are getting closer and closer to being "real" computers (in the conventional sense.) Devices are getting more and more powerful, and will continue to do so with the advent of things like Transmeta's Crusoe. With a cheap, efficient processor to put in almost anything, the world is going to get a lot more computerized.
This camcorder is an omen of things to come.
I am fairly certain that AOL did not change their IM protocol because they wanted to "limit consumer options" and make it so only AIM users could use the IM protocol. Rather, AOL had a somewhat-legitimite reason for doing what it did.
IM clients must access a database which tells users who is logged on, who is ide, etc. Currently, this database is only located on AOL's own servers. Servers cost money, not only to buy, but also to maintain and upgrade. With 20 (?) million users, this server has to be tuned tightly. I think we can all reasonably assume that this maintaining this server takes more than just an AOL janitor kicking it until it works.
Agreed, AOL should not mutilate standards for its own gain, but I can understand why they would be pissed about other IM clients using their servers. M$ and other IM client-making companies should create their own servers and work with AOL to develop some sort of back-end protocol for inter-server cooperation. Either that, or they could all pay AOL a fee for the added load. I'm sure there are other, better ways of solving this, also...
Umph.
-MRcow