Fair enough, but why not then stick another decoder on -- one that handles some RISC instruction set that's closer to the inner workings of the chip. It'd probably take up much less space than the x86 decoder (since it has fewer instructions the RIS meaning "reduced instruction set", and it's closer to the instructions already in the chip). I mean, it's sort of another hack (but don't many RISC processors decode to microcode?) but it might still have the advantage of eventually solving the chicken and the egg problem and having some of the benefits of doing away with x86. Lord knows they have no trouble sticking other stuff on top of x86 (MMX/3DNOW, SSE1/2/3, x64, etc.)...
So here's my question: if x86 is just RISC underneath, why not provide access to the underlying RISC processor? That way old programs could continue using the x86 instuctions but new programs could be made to use the RISC instructions. That might help solve this chicken and the egg problem -- If enough programs moved to the RISC instructions (or some universal binary deal), then eventually the x86->RISC decoder could be dropped and we'd be free of some of x86's baggage (and the chips could be smaller, cheaper, and less power hungry).
The article you linked to says, "AMD's current 90 nm silicon-on-insulator process is more advanced than the Intel equivalent". So AMD's 90nm process is more advanced that Intel's 90nm process (what else could they mean by "equivalent"?), but Intel is using a 65nm process and is gearing up for a 45nm process. What the article did NOT say (because it's not true) is that AMD's 90nm process is better than Intel's smaller processes, which is what I think that you're claiming.
I still think that AMD's move to 65nm should be more impressive.
So it's more of the same, no wonder it's not so impressive. Once they get 65nm stuff out, we may see real improvements (not only speed, but power consumption too).
This is the Apple I like. When most other computer companies were making clones, Apple was doing R&D and making some nifty stuff. Granted, they also almost went broke, but I still liked the attitude, even if there were management problems, turf wars, and whatnot. The balance has shifted somewhat away from R&D, which was obviously needed, but I don't think the balance is quite right yet... I'd like to see more things along these lines from Apple. They've got money now. It wouldn't kill them to swing for the fences a few times.
Manners and personal responsibility? I take it you have never seen Germans form a queue... you'd think they were fighting to catch the last helicopter out of Hanoi.
Many people here (displeased Americans I assume -- hopefully not holier-than-thou Europeans) idolize Europe. I've spent time there -- much of it is very nice. And while I don't claim to be an expert, I've learned enough to see that Europe has its share of problems too -- many in the manners and personal responsibility department. For example, were the rioting youth in France the model of "manners and personal responsibility"? The grass on the other side isn't as green as you think.
On the whole I am pleased that the Democrats won control of the house. I am a registered Libertarian, but am so moderate that I'm not sure that I belong there. Still, this gave me an unusual motivation -- I voted for gridlock. Any party controlling two branches of government is bad enough, but the Republican's lack of principle compounded the problem making it magnitudes worse.
However, now that the dust is starting to clear and I can examine the details, the initially semi-sweet victory has left a bit of a sour aftertaste. I'm far from an expert in every house seat that changed hands, but I see three unsettling major types of democratic pickups.
1) Scandal ridden districts. The seats of DeLay, Ney, Foley, and several with smaller scandals went Democrat. It's good to see the scumbags gone, but I feel their boost to Democrats is mostly temporary. For example, Sekula-Gibbs, who was a write in, got 42% of the vote in DeLay's old district. 42% for a write in?!?! With a republican actually on the ballot in two years, will a Democrat really be able to hold on?
2) Moderate Republicans in the North East. Despite flaws, I like many of them, and their defeats make me uneasy -- moderate republicans were already an endangered species (and they've been in hiding for the last few years to boot) but it was open season last night. Take New Hampshire for example. Admittedly, I haven't been watching it for too long, but both of its house seats went blue, and the state has gone that way more often. Is this temporary, or are New England Republicans on the way out for good? Will pro-choice republicans like Bass be replaced? Driving the GOP even further to the right by getting rid of the moderates is a bad idea.
3) Socially conservative democrats. Ellsworth, Donnelly, and many more. With the social conservatism comes some fiscal conservatism, and I like that -- someone should balance the budget. But I'm not sure enough fiscal conservatism came with them, and I think social conservatism mixed with liberal spending is the worst of both worlds. Hopefully that doesn't happen, but that may be where things are heading (apparently "compassionate conservatism" isn't dead).
Maybe I've just picked out the wrong races to look at or I'm simply a pessimist. We may have to wait until 2008 before it really becomes clear.
TFA said "a supernova with the mass of about 20 suns exploded relatively near the early Sun when it formed 4.6 billion years ago." It did not say that the stars came from the remains of the supernova.
But why should this hurt only Denmark in the rankings? If, for example, the cartoons had been published first in the Netherlands , they would have been on the receiving end instead. I think journalists world wide learned a lesson from the cartoon incident -- they're not safe from fundamentalist islam anywhere. So, if the threat exists everywhere, it shouldn't have changed the order in the rankings.
No, who pays for it depends on elasticity -- in the case of perfect elasticity then all the tax gets passed along. In the case of perfect inelasticity then none of the price gets passed along (Varian, 299). This need not have anything to do with competition, perfect or otherwise -- it depends on the type of good. For example, the demand for basic necessities won't change much if the price goes up since you need them to live, and the cost can thus be passed on to consumers. It doesn't matter if it's produced by the state or by a perfectly competitive marker.
E=mc^2. eV is a unit of energy, so it's also a unit of mass. For subatomic particles it can make more sense to talk about their energy, especially since small things go back and forth between the two in reations, but energy must be conserved.
Violence isn't the answer. These people are destructive. These people are assholes. However, the answer is not to shoot them. They should be arrested, tried and, if found guilty, fined and/or imprisoned for their crimes.
There are issues with using violence to solve violence, but you advocate violence as well. Your solution is to have the police use force (violence) so that you don't have to. Sure, it's possible that if the FBI comes a nocking, they'll just go peacefully, but they already tried to kill someone by burning his house done. Do you really expect them to come quietly? In some cases, violence is the best solution for violence. I don't like it either, and violence should not be the first attempt at a solution, but to claim that "violence never solves violence" or "violence isn't the answer" is simply naive.
The article says they did this with bipolar transistors. I recall from my intro electronics class that most integrated circuits are CMOS (built with field effect transistors) because in general they are faster and use less power than equivalent TTL circuits (built with bipolar transistors). If this is true, does this new process make TTL chips more attractive for (at least some) applications?
Slashdot Mirror
Fair enough, but why not then stick another decoder on -- one that handles some RISC instruction set that's closer to the inner workings of the chip. It'd probably take up much less space than the x86 decoder (since it has fewer instructions the RIS meaning "reduced instruction set", and it's closer to the instructions already in the chip). I mean, it's sort of another hack (but don't many RISC processors decode to microcode?) but it might still have the advantage of eventually solving the chicken and the egg problem and having some of the benefits of doing away with x86. Lord knows they have no trouble sticking other stuff on top of x86 (MMX/3DNOW, SSE1/2/3, x64, etc.)...
So here's my question: if x86 is just RISC underneath, why not provide access to the underlying RISC processor? That way old programs could continue using the x86 instuctions but new programs could be made to use the RISC instructions. That might help solve this chicken and the egg problem -- If enough programs moved to the RISC instructions (or some universal binary deal), then eventually the x86->RISC decoder could be dropped and we'd be free of some of x86's baggage (and the chips could be smaller, cheaper, and less power hungry).
The article you linked to says, "AMD's current 90 nm silicon-on-insulator process is more advanced than the Intel equivalent". So AMD's 90nm process is more advanced that Intel's 90nm process (what else could they mean by "equivalent"?), but Intel is using a 65nm process and is gearing up for a 45nm process. What the article did NOT say (because it's not true) is that AMD's 90nm process is better than Intel's smaller processes, which is what I think that you're claiming.
I still think that AMD's move to 65nm should be more impressive.
So it's more of the same, no wonder it's not so impressive. Once they get 65nm stuff out, we may see real improvements (not only speed, but power consumption too).
This is the Apple I like. When most other computer companies were making clones, Apple was doing R&D and making some nifty stuff. Granted, they also almost went broke, but I still liked the attitude, even if there were management problems, turf wars, and whatnot. The balance has shifted somewhat away from R&D, which was obviously needed, but I don't think the balance is quite right yet... I'd like to see more things along these lines from Apple. They've got money now. It wouldn't kill them to swing for the fences a few times.
Dude, you can't rush wonders... even if you could, it's a large project and would probably cost the lives of 4 citizens....
Manners and personal responsibility? I take it you have never seen Germans form a queue... you'd think they were fighting to catch the last helicopter out of Hanoi.
Many people here (displeased Americans I assume -- hopefully not holier-than-thou Europeans) idolize Europe. I've spent time there -- much of it is very nice. And while I don't claim to be an expert, I've learned enough to see that Europe has its share of problems too -- many in the manners and personal responsibility department. For example, were the rioting youth in France the model of "manners and personal responsibility"? The grass on the other side isn't as green as you think.
On the whole I am pleased that the Democrats won control of the house. I am a registered Libertarian, but am so moderate that I'm not sure that I belong there. Still, this gave me an unusual motivation -- I voted for gridlock. Any party controlling two branches of government is bad enough, but the Republican's lack of principle compounded the problem making it magnitudes worse.
However, now that the dust is starting to clear and I can examine the details, the initially semi-sweet victory has left a bit of a sour aftertaste. I'm far from an expert in every house seat that changed hands, but I see three unsettling major types of democratic pickups.
1) Scandal ridden districts. The seats of DeLay, Ney, Foley, and several with smaller scandals went Democrat. It's good to see the scumbags gone, but I feel their boost to Democrats is mostly temporary. For example, Sekula-Gibbs, who was a write in, got 42% of the vote in DeLay's old district. 42% for a write in?!?! With a republican actually on the ballot in two years, will a Democrat really be able to hold on?
2) Moderate Republicans in the North East. Despite flaws, I like many of them, and their defeats make me uneasy -- moderate republicans were already an endangered species (and they've been in hiding for the last few years to boot) but it was open season last night. Take New Hampshire for example. Admittedly, I haven't been watching it for too long, but both of its house seats went blue, and the state has gone that way more often. Is this temporary, or are New England Republicans on the way out for good? Will pro-choice republicans like Bass be replaced? Driving the GOP even further to the right by getting rid of the moderates is a bad idea.
3) Socially conservative democrats. Ellsworth, Donnelly, and many more. With the social conservatism comes some fiscal conservatism, and I like that -- someone should balance the budget. But I'm not sure enough fiscal conservatism came with them, and I think social conservatism mixed with liberal spending is the worst of both worlds. Hopefully that doesn't happen, but that may be where things are heading (apparently "compassionate conservatism" isn't dead).
Maybe I've just picked out the wrong races to look at or I'm simply a pessimist. We may have to wait until 2008 before it really becomes clear.
TFA said "a supernova with the mass of about 20 suns exploded relatively near the early Sun when it formed 4.6 billion years ago." It did not say that the stars came from the remains of the supernova.
But why should this hurt only Denmark in the rankings? If, for example, the cartoons had been published first in the Netherlands , they would have been on the receiving end instead. I think journalists world wide learned a lesson from the cartoon incident -- they're not safe from fundamentalist islam anywhere. So, if the threat exists everywhere, it shouldn't have changed the order in the rankings.
Like you said, pick your hardware carefully:8
http://www.maxim-ic.com/quick_view2.cfm/qv_pk/179
It has an internal 5 volt to +/-12 volt converter.
I mean, come on... I can stop a .22 too...
No, who pays for it depends on elasticity -- in the case of perfect elasticity then all the tax gets passed along. In the case of perfect inelasticity then none of the price gets passed along (Varian, 299). This need not have anything to do with competition, perfect or otherwise -- it depends on the type of good. For example, the demand for basic necessities won't change much if the price goes up since you need them to live, and the cost can thus be passed on to consumers. It doesn't matter if it's produced by the state or by a perfectly competitive marker.
E=mc^2. eV is a unit of energy, so it's also a unit of mass. For subatomic particles it can make more sense to talk about their energy, especially since small things go back and forth between the two in reations, but energy must be conserved.
A curriculum vita -- it's what academics call their resume.
There are issues with using violence to solve violence, but you advocate violence as well. Your solution is to have the police use force (violence) so that you don't have to. Sure, it's possible that if the FBI comes a nocking, they'll just go peacefully, but they already tried to kill someone by burning his house done. Do you really expect them to come quietly? In some cases, violence is the best solution for violence. I don't like it either, and violence should not be the first attempt at a solution, but to claim that "violence never solves violence" or "violence isn't the answer" is simply naive.
The article says they did this with bipolar transistors. I recall from my intro electronics class that most integrated circuits are CMOS (built with field effect transistors) because in general they are faster and use less power than equivalent TTL circuits (built with bipolar transistors). If this is true, does this new process make TTL chips more attractive for (at least some) applications?