Perhaps. I'm not denying the fact that the percieved age of a particle is increased due to high speeds. This has been proven on airplanes, too (using clocks of extreme accuracy, of course). Howwever, even if the decay time was increased by 10000%, it would still be virtually instantaneous. And it still doesn't change the fact that the observed particles can still travel the length of the accelerator also virtually instantaneously.
>>But I degress, if you need some IDE your not a real programmer anyway
Perhaps you could enlighten me, but I fail to understand how the way in which one essentially keeps track of his files, determines his worth as a programmer?
Actually, any relative time distortion between the two objects (viewer and platter) would be insignificant. The platter would not take years to make one rotation, just as atoms, traveling at 99.9% the speed of light do not take decades to travel the length of a particle accelerator. Or the walls of my room do not take minutes to illuminate after I turn the light on. Or...
--Terrence Sheep go to heaven, spammers go to hell.
While Mr. Coward makes valid points, I have to partially agree with SpaceCadet. Software is unlike anything else, in that no one company can control all 'code resources,' as one could with steel mills, oil fields, or telephone cables. The software industry is totally different, in that it can take care of itself better than any other industry. However (marketing aside, and looking from a server OS point of view), as Linux proves, it doesn't necessarily take something bigger to beat something big.
There is a very simply reason for this, being that Intel doesn't make hard drives. Intel doesnt' have a clue how to make hard drives, which is why they leave it to Seagate or IBM.
Also, as a 3D artist, I have plenty of uses for a GHz+ processor. While your p233 is sufficient, keep in mind that a fair chunk of Intel's market truly requires such speed.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the aforementioned flaw with Intel's i820 chipset, rather than with RDRAM? I don't recall the i840 chipset having the same limitation (ie one of the memory slots disabled). True? Keep in mind, also, that RDRAM won't *necessarily* cost your first born son next year like it does now. SDRAM prices fluctuated by like %300 in the month of October last year, things change quickly. Perhaps if Rambus can get their shiznit together, Intel's investment might actually pay off.
Nope, not exactly. Willamette is in fact not in the Itanium/Merced family, rather it is yet another x86-based processor. The first couple of IA-64 processors that should come to fruition are the Itanium and McKinley. As far as Sledgehammer goes, I'm questioning the intelligence of AMD's decision to expand upon the x86 architecture. This instruction set has been expanded upon for 20 years now, and has become incredibly bloated. How many thousands of instructions are there? One, maybe two? But that's still a hell of a lot of instructions. Any person coding in assembly couldn't possibly use the entire instruction set effectively. On the other hand, though, what is AMD supposed to do? Designing a completely new architecture all by AMD's little self is probably asking a bit much (let's face it, they aren't as resource-rich as the likes of Intel or Sun), and unfortunately would likely spell doom due to the probable lack of support. I guess AMD's stuck between the proverbial rock and hard place. www.umr.edu/~tcaton
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps. I'm not denying the fact that the percieved age of a particle is increased due to high speeds. This has been proven on airplanes, too (using clocks of extreme accuracy, of course). Howwever, even if the decay time was increased by 10000%, it would still be virtually instantaneous. And it still doesn't change the fact that the observed particles can still travel the length of the accelerator also virtually instantaneously.
>>But I degress, if you need some IDE your not a real programmer anyway
Perhaps you could enlighten me, but I fail to understand how the way in which one essentially keeps track of his files, determines his worth as a programmer?
www.umr.edu/~tcaton
Actually, any relative time distortion between the two objects (viewer and platter) would be insignificant. The platter would not take years to make one rotation, just as atoms, traveling at 99.9% the speed of light do not take decades to travel the length of a particle accelerator. Or the walls of my room do not take minutes to illuminate after I turn the light on. Or...
--Terrence
Sheep go to heaven, spammers go to hell.
While Mr. Coward makes valid points, I have to partially agree with SpaceCadet. Software is unlike anything else, in that no one company can control all 'code resources,' as one could with steel mills, oil fields, or telephone cables. The software industry is totally different, in that it can take care of itself better than any other industry. However (marketing aside, and looking from a server OS point of view), as Linux proves, it doesn't necessarily take something bigger to beat something big.
www.umr.edu/~tcaton
But isn't that what I said in the first place? :)
There is a very simply reason for this, being that Intel doesn't make hard drives. Intel doesnt' have a clue how to make hard drives, which is why they leave it to Seagate or IBM.
Also, as a 3D artist, I have plenty of uses for a GHz+ processor. While your p233 is sufficient, keep in mind that a fair chunk of Intel's market truly requires such speed.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the aforementioned flaw with Intel's i820 chipset, rather than with RDRAM? I don't recall the i840 chipset having the same limitation (ie one of the memory slots disabled). True? Keep in mind, also, that RDRAM won't *necessarily* cost your first born son next year like it does now. SDRAM prices fluctuated by like %300 in the month of October last year, things change quickly. Perhaps if Rambus can get their shiznit together, Intel's investment might actually pay off.
--Terrence
Nope, not exactly. Willamette is in fact not in the Itanium/Merced family, rather it is yet another x86-based processor. The first couple of IA-64 processors that should come to fruition are the Itanium and McKinley. As far as Sledgehammer goes, I'm questioning the intelligence of AMD's decision to expand upon the x86 architecture. This instruction set has been expanded upon for 20 years now, and has become incredibly bloated. How many thousands of instructions are there? One, maybe two? But that's still a hell of a lot of instructions. Any person coding in assembly couldn't possibly use the entire instruction set effectively. On the other hand, though, what is AMD supposed to do? Designing a completely new architecture all by AMD's little self is probably asking a bit much (let's face it, they aren't as resource-rich as the likes of Intel or Sun), and unfortunately would likely spell doom due to the probable lack of support. I guess AMD's stuck between the proverbial rock and hard place. www.umr.edu/~tcaton