Quite late? Protected mode was available from the beginning on IA-32, starting with the 80386 which introduced around 1985.
The 286 had full protected mode support and memory protection using segments. What it did not have was page based virtual memory support; that was introduced with the 386. Page based virtual memory support ended up being a killer feature since it could be used to virtualize older applications.
The full segment based protected mode capabilities of the 286 would have made for a fine protected mode operating system but nobody took advantage of them on a large scale.
It could however be connected to an external MMU that would enter the supervisor mode when the CPU entered restricted memory and later the 68030 included a proper MMU on chip. Even without a MMU the 68000 could catch segfaults which was used by Kickstart 2.4 on the Amiga to not bring down the whole machine when a single process crashed.
The 68000 did not save enough instruction state to recover from memory faults. Early 68000 workstations which included protected memory management used two 68000s operated out of phase so that the trailing 68000 could be used to restart the failed instruction after the leading 68000 triggered a memory fault.
If anything, later 68K was worse than x86 because of things like double indirect addressing which really makes instruction restart and fault recovery difficult when pipelining and out of order execution are used. Motorola's Coldfire which replaced 68K discarded the difficult instructions and addressing modes.
This did not make more advanced 68K implementations impossible however they were beyond Motorola's capabilities or level of interest.
Does anyone remember the reasoning for dropping native support for i386 when these processors debuted? There have always been growing-pains when a manufacturer drops or severely impacts support for their install-base, but sometimes it's beneficial or necessary if an existing architecture is a dead-end.
Besides the extra complication in producing Itanium with hardware support for x86, the Itanium's x86 performance fell behind with every new generation of x86. This would have been sufficient if the Pentium 4 was the last generation of x86 processors as Intel intended but AMD screwed that up by releasing AMD-64.
Not sure what "culmination" is supposed to mean here -- is it a term of art, or is it meant to indicate integration?
That should have been "collimation".
The inverse square law always applies. Directed beams spread, too.
They sure do. The aperture of the receive antenna needs to be larger than the spot size. A larger transmit antenna allows better collimation and a smaller spot size.
Path loss is an issue, unless you intend to place your phone near the transmitter.
And orientation of the receiving antenna is another factor. Unless you're perfectly aligned with the transmitter's polarization, you're going to see a reduction in power transfer efficiency.
The path is short.
I assume they would use circular polarization but dual polarization could work also. Orientation is always going to be a problem but multiple transmitters could handle that.
Oh, but wait -- then you could just plug it in, or place it on a (much more efficient) inductive charging pad.
The whole idea of wirelessly charging your phone in your pocket, while you go about your business, is a fantasy.
I agree that it is a dumb idea compared to an inductive charging pad and larger battery.
Just wait for the government to use this against its population in civil and criminal court. It is already being used to prevent the convicted from challenging sentencing.
Americans kill each other with knives and other weapons at a proportionally high rate so unless European restrictions on firearms lower the homicide rate with other weapons, Americans are just more violent overall.
Nyquist theorem. If your phone's DAC is operating at 44.1KHz, you can't reliably reproduce any sound frequencies above 22KHz.
Operating at 44.1kHz means that the DAC cannot reproduce more than 22kHz of bandwidth but that bandwidth could be anywhere. Bandpass filtering the output to produce 22kHz to 44kHz would be no problem. Subsampling IF radios work this way and so does my sampling oscilloscope.
Translation: It's not a crime until we get caught.
Maybe we should all practice that philosophy.
It is not a crime at all.
What is the penalty for an unlawful search or seizure? Exclusion of evidence? How is *that* useful unless they use what they found as evidence in court against you while not laundering it via parallel construction?
The whole point of the massive NSA datacenter in Utah is that they collect _everything_. The argument from the NSA and Federal Government was that they would only look at data where they had a warrant. Our argument back was that there is no way to ensure data is only viewed by warrant, especially when they were looking at ways of cataloguing data they could see, and trying to crack encryption on what they could not.
I also argued that the seizure (copying and retention) of the data was also a violation of the 4th amendment whether it was searched or not.
You forgot the metadata (ones and zeros) that makes up the voice part of the phone call. Yes, they store all that too.
True, but technically that's not metadata. That's data.
Part of the admitted "legal" NSA collection program includes automated searching of internet traffic for key words including the *content* of emails. If that is legal, then how can the automated searching of voice calls not also be legal? The Department of Justice's position is that automated searches which do not involve a human are not "searches" for 4th amendment purposes. I am not sure how that gets around having "seized" the data by making a copy to search but apparently it does.
The only metadata of an IP packet is contained in the IP header. It includes the source address, destination address, time to live, etc. which is what the ISP needs to route the packet. Does anybody think the NSA and other agencies are inspecting, seizing, and retaining only data contained in the IP header?
What the NSA, other agencies, and Congress want to create is the illusion of privacy so that people will continue to use insecure communications. If you want privacy, then use end to end encryption.
How many times does this need to be repeated? You are NOT going to be able to collect significant energy by rectifying radio transmissions, unless you plan on collecting for a long, long time.
We do this all the time at higher and lower frequencies with high or at least usable efficiency. Semiconductor diodes at used at low frequencies up to at least 5 GHz and photodiodes are used at infrared and higher. Rectenna efficiency at high power densities is about 90% at 2.4 GHz.
Put another way, your phone is using up the battery WAY faster than you would be able to charge it from wifi, broadcast and whatever other RF you might run across. EVEN with beam steering, where the whole half-watt of power from the router is aimed directly at your phone, you are up against:
It takes beam steering to get a high enough power density and enough culmination but it makes no difference to the power available except by minimizing loss do to inefficiency.
your inefficient receive antenna
And inefficiency of the transmitter. Generating 60 GHz RF is not efficient.
- the inverse square law
The inverse square law is irrelevant with enough culmination.
- path loss
Path loss is irrelevant over short paths.
It's not practical. Why Apple is filing a patent on this, I don't know.
I have no heard about any breakthroughs so by the time this becomes practical, Apple's patent may have expired but still prevent others from patenting it then.
The second most ridiculous thing in "Atlas Shrugged" was that Dagny Taggart invented a perpetual motion train "powered by ambient electricity in the air."
Taggart was just a shrewd businesswoman, Jon Galt invented the engine, and he refused to give it to Taggart once she found out about it because he hated the world. Though it's interesting to see someone complain about a book they either haven't read or didn't have the mental aptitude to take in.
Galt did not care enough to hate; he simply refused to aid in his own destruction. Dagny Taggart was Galt's greatest enemy but he did not hate her.
Of course the most ridiculous part was the part where CEOs joined together to create a utopia in Colorado with no poor or working people, just their own bootstraps, where they presumably ate nothing, repaired their own lavish houses, and needed no help from tradespeople, doctors or other "takers" who were not rich CEOs and obviously just wanted a handout.
Nope, the most ridiculous part was how they transformed into Seal Team 6 at the end of the book to rescue Galt from the evil socialist mind control camp. While that point is a matter of subjective perspective (arguably,) they had doctors in their utopia (and clearly raw materials were imported as well, given the immense time it would have taken Galt to build his generator on site otherwise. Also, the members of the town were more than CEOs (many weren't even CEOs or businessmen for that matter, but engineers with extreme proficiency in their respective fields,) they also had doctors. The concept was more like that of a bunch of geniuses getting together and forming a town than it was a bunch of businessmen doing so, in fact very few, if any, of today's fortune 500 executives would have made the cut by Galt's standards.
Most were not geniuses or have abilities of the same caliber. They were people who were their moral equals without having their abilities like the truck driver who wanted to become more or the mother who wanted to raise her children. Cherryl Brooks and especially Eddie Willers represent the tragedy of these people on the outside.
Most fortune 500 executives were represented by people like James Taggart, Orren Boyle, Emma Chalmers, Lee Hunsacker, Paul Larkin, and Horace Bussby Mowen. Rand made a list which you can find online of what sin each represented.
I always figured it was a national security issue with Congress wanting to keep the manufacturing infrastructure for large solid rocket motors used in ICBMs available. Morton-Thiokol would hardly wait 20 years between contracts.
While older economic branches usually have found a modus to do without this (as it ultimately harms everybody), these "young savages" do not know what it means to be civilized and will apparently do anything for a short-term gain.
Maybe government should have provided a better example.
Banning crypto software and hardware exports was tried before, and didn't work (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States). It's far to easy to illegally export the code, or an algorithm, on a micro-sd card. It's easy to find loopholes in the law, by printing the code on a t-shirt or in book.
Much of the code was developed outside the US. For example, AES was developed in Belgium (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Encryption_Standard).
Limiting hardware exports is also long obsolete, China now has the top two (publicly announced) supercomputers in the world (https://www.top500.org/lists/2016/11/). We don't knows what secret computers any government has, but that's irrelevant for export laws.
Slashdot Mirror
Quite late? Protected mode was available from the beginning on IA-32, starting with the 80386 which introduced around 1985.
The 286 had full protected mode support and memory protection using segments. What it did not have was page based virtual memory support; that was introduced with the 386. Page based virtual memory support ended up being a killer feature since it could be used to virtualize older applications.
The full segment based protected mode capabilities of the 286 would have made for a fine protected mode operating system but nobody took advantage of them on a large scale.
It could however be connected to an external MMU that would enter the supervisor mode when the CPU entered restricted memory and later the 68030 included a proper MMU on chip. Even without a MMU the 68000 could catch segfaults which was used by Kickstart 2.4 on the Amiga to not bring down the whole machine when a single process crashed.
The 68000 did not save enough instruction state to recover from memory faults. Early 68000 workstations which included protected memory management used two 68000s operated out of phase so that the trailing 68000 could be used to restart the failed instruction after the leading 68000 triggered a memory fault.
If anything, later 68K was worse than x86 because of things like double indirect addressing which really makes instruction restart and fault recovery difficult when pipelining and out of order execution are used. Motorola's Coldfire which replaced 68K discarded the difficult instructions and addressing modes.
This did not make more advanced 68K implementations impossible however they were beyond Motorola's capabilities or level of interest.
Does anyone remember the reasoning for dropping native support for i386 when these processors debuted? There have always been growing-pains when a manufacturer drops or severely impacts support for their install-base, but sometimes it's beneficial or necessary if an existing architecture is a dead-end.
Besides the extra complication in producing Itanium with hardware support for x86, the Itanium's x86 performance fell behind with every new generation of x86. This would have been sufficient if the Pentium 4 was the last generation of x86 processors as Intel intended but AMD screwed that up by releasing AMD-64.
A bigger bigger annoyance than that is when the password validation during creation allows a longer length than the password validation during use.
And when the password rules forbid 4419f20fae1b677d393910b43a?
What purpose does that serve?
Not sure what "culmination" is supposed to mean here -- is it a term of art, or is it meant to indicate integration?
That should have been "collimation".
The inverse square law always applies. Directed beams spread, too.
They sure do. The aperture of the receive antenna needs to be larger than the spot size. A larger transmit antenna allows better collimation and a smaller spot size.
Path loss is an issue, unless you intend to place your phone near the transmitter.
And orientation of the receiving antenna is another factor. Unless you're perfectly aligned with the transmitter's polarization, you're going to see a reduction in power transfer efficiency.
The path is short.
I assume they would use circular polarization but dual polarization could work also. Orientation is always going to be a problem but multiple transmitters could handle that.
Oh, but wait -- then you could just plug it in, or place it on a (much more efficient) inductive charging pad.
The whole idea of wirelessly charging your phone in your pocket, while you go about your business, is a fantasy.
I agree that it is a dumb idea compared to an inductive charging pad and larger battery.
Just wait for the government to use this against its population in civil and criminal court. It is already being used to prevent the convicted from challenging sentencing.
The point of UBI is to reduce the administrative overhead.
So it increases unemployment and provides fewer government jobs. What is in it for the politicians?
Americans kill each other with knives and other weapons at a proportionally high rate so unless European restrictions on firearms lower the homicide rate with other weapons, Americans are just more violent overall.
So too high a tax on pollutants, the first stage shifts to LOX and H2 (exhaust is basically water vapor).
Water is a greenhouse gas also.
Nyquist theorem. If your phone's DAC is operating at 44.1KHz, you can't reliably reproduce any sound frequencies above 22KHz.
Operating at 44.1kHz means that the DAC cannot reproduce more than 22kHz of bandwidth but that bandwidth could be anywhere. Bandpass filtering the output to produce 22kHz to 44kHz would be no problem. Subsampling IF radios work this way and so does my sampling oscilloscope.
Translation: It's not a crime until we get caught.
Maybe we should all practice that philosophy.
It is not a crime at all.
What is the penalty for an unlawful search or seizure? Exclusion of evidence? How is *that* useful unless they use what they found as evidence in court against you while not laundering it via parallel construction?
Vote for different people in the next election.
Do you mean the *other* party in favor of eviscerating the 4th amendment?
How many politicians does someone have to bribe to get a law passed? Both of them.
The whole point of the massive NSA datacenter in Utah is that they collect _everything_. The argument from the NSA and Federal Government was that they would only look at data where they had a warrant. Our argument back was that there is no way to ensure data is only viewed by warrant, especially when they were looking at ways of cataloguing data they could see, and trying to crack encryption on what they could not.
I also argued that the seizure (copying and retention) of the data was also a violation of the 4th amendment whether it was searched or not.
You forgot the metadata (ones and zeros) that makes up the voice part of the phone call. Yes, they store all that too.
True, but technically that's not metadata. That's data.
Part of the admitted "legal" NSA collection program includes automated searching of internet traffic for key words including the *content* of emails. If that is legal, then how can the automated searching of voice calls not also be legal? The Department of Justice's position is that automated searches which do not involve a human are not "searches" for 4th amendment purposes. I am not sure how that gets around having "seized" the data by making a copy to search but apparently it does.
The only metadata of an IP packet is contained in the IP header. It includes the source address, destination address, time to live, etc. which is what the ISP needs to route the packet. Does anybody think the NSA and other agencies are inspecting, seizing, and retaining only data contained in the IP header?
What the NSA, other agencies, and Congress want to create is the illusion of privacy so that people will continue to use insecure communications. If you want privacy, then use end to end encryption.
In fact, I expect that the spectacle of people dying during the attempt would do more damage to the Space Program than you can imagine.
Not if we send politicians and lawyers.
How many times does this need to be repeated? You are NOT going to be able to collect significant energy by rectifying radio transmissions, unless you plan on collecting for a long, long time.
We do this all the time at higher and lower frequencies with high or at least usable efficiency. Semiconductor diodes at used at low frequencies up to at least 5 GHz and photodiodes are used at infrared and higher. Rectenna efficiency at high power densities is about 90% at 2.4 GHz.
Put another way, your phone is using up the battery WAY faster than you would be able to charge it from wifi, broadcast and whatever other RF you might run across. EVEN with beam steering, where the whole half-watt of power from the router is aimed directly at your phone, you are up against:
It takes beam steering to get a high enough power density and enough culmination but it makes no difference to the power available except by minimizing loss do to inefficiency.
your inefficient receive antenna
And inefficiency of the transmitter. Generating 60 GHz RF is not efficient.
- the inverse square law
The inverse square law is irrelevant with enough culmination.
- path loss
Path loss is irrelevant over short paths.
It's not practical. Why Apple is filing a patent on this, I don't know.
I have no heard about any breakthroughs so by the time this becomes practical, Apple's patent may have expired but still prevent others from patenting it then.
The second most ridiculous thing in "Atlas Shrugged" was that Dagny Taggart invented a perpetual motion train "powered by ambient electricity in the air."
Taggart was just a shrewd businesswoman, Jon Galt invented the engine, and he refused to give it to Taggart once she found out about it because he hated the world. Though it's interesting to see someone complain about a book they either haven't read or didn't have the mental aptitude to take in.
Galt did not care enough to hate; he simply refused to aid in his own destruction. Dagny Taggart was Galt's greatest enemy but he did not hate her.
Of course the most ridiculous part was the part where CEOs joined together to create a utopia in Colorado with no poor or working people, just their own bootstraps, where they presumably ate nothing, repaired their own lavish houses, and needed no help from tradespeople, doctors or other "takers" who were not rich CEOs and obviously just wanted a handout.
Nope, the most ridiculous part was how they transformed into Seal Team 6 at the end of the book to rescue Galt from the evil socialist mind control camp. While that point is a matter of subjective perspective (arguably,) they had doctors in their utopia (and clearly raw materials were imported as well, given the immense time it would have taken Galt to build his generator on site otherwise. Also, the members of the town were more than CEOs (many weren't even CEOs or businessmen for that matter, but engineers with extreme proficiency in their respective fields,) they also had doctors. The concept was more like that of a bunch of geniuses getting together and forming a town than it was a bunch of businessmen doing so, in fact very few, if any, of today's fortune 500 executives would have made the cut by Galt's standards.
Most were not geniuses or have abilities of the same caliber. They were people who were their moral equals without having their abilities like the truck driver who wanted to become more or the mother who wanted to raise her children. Cherryl Brooks and especially Eddie Willers represent the tragedy of these people on the outside.
Most fortune 500 executives were represented by people like James Taggart, Orren Boyle, Emma Chalmers, Lee Hunsacker, Paul Larkin, and Horace Bussby Mowen. Rand made a list which you can find online of what sin each represented.
#1 - Out of the 10,000+ engineers working for Apple, not even one of them knows about physics.
It only takes one who knows neither engineering nor physics.
I always figured it was a national security issue with Congress wanting to keep the manufacturing infrastructure for large solid rocket motors used in ICBMs available. Morton-Thiokol would hardly wait 20 years between contracts.
Sending her away rather than just fudging the birth date was a pretty foolish thing to do.
Why was it foolish? Were there some consequences to the bank or anybody else?
While older economic branches usually have found a modus to do without this (as it ultimately harms everybody), these "young savages" do not know what it means to be civilized and will apparently do anything for a short-term gain.
Maybe government should have provided a better example.
Banning crypto software and hardware exports was tried before, and didn't work (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States). It's far to easy to illegally export the code, or an algorithm, on a micro-sd card. It's easy to find loopholes in the law, by printing the code on a t-shirt or in book.
Much of the code was developed outside the US. For example, AES was developed in Belgium (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Encryption_Standard).
Limiting hardware exports is also long obsolete, China now has the top two (publicly announced) supercomputers in the world (https://www.top500.org/lists/2016/11/). We don't knows what secret computers any government has, but that's irrelevant for export laws.
Congress just needs to legislate harder.
... and the CIA promised never to do it again, ...
Oh, well, if they *promised* ...