How is this news anyways? Back in Georgia my redneck uncle showed me the potato gun he built. I know several people who have built and used potato guns for a long time.
OK, sorry. I take back my 'stupidity' remark and replace it with a 'propogated ignorance' remark. And true microinstructions don't have to take one cycle. Hey I'm just stating what I learned in my Computer Organization class. I'm just saying there is no excuse for ignorance. And if it were up to me, this whole debate would have no real relevance because I have invented the ultimate in processor designs!!!!!
No CISC can do more per cycle by taking into account that RISC instructions have to FETCH and DECODE the next instruction more often. Yes there is overhead associated with this.
OK, I'm tired of all this stupidity about how nobody knows exactly what MHz means, and how its not really a measure of speed. Here let me simplify your life:
Every processor has instructions that it understands. When executed, each instruction executes a sequence of microinstructions. Now these microinstructions execute at a rate directly proportional to the overall frequency of the machine (i.e. 133MHz ~ 133 million microinstuctions per second) with the following exceptions: 1) memory accesses in general are the largest bottleneck for any processor so it can decrease the speed of a processor tremendously without a sufficiently large cache and without a caching algorithm sufficient for the task 2) there can be, and usually are, parrallel microrocessing units inside of each processor, so this can increase the operational speed
Myth: Intel chips do a whole lot less per clock cycle than PowerPC chips Fact: Intel chips have been extended to include all the same vector processing functionality included in most PowerPC chips. Furthermore, the CISC architecture is designed in a way where more work is theoretically done per instruction.
Myth: RISC is better than CISC Fact: It all depends on the optimization and utilization of the available instruction set. CISC can theoretically do more per clock cycle than RISC.
Now, I'm not really advocating CISC over RISC. I personally hate CISC instructions sets as they are very hard to optimize for. But just because apple says something is faster and you want to believe it, doesn't mean you have too believe it.
Sadly, I meant what I said too. But here are some good questions to keep you occupied:
In the presence of free speech can we really ever be united?
Why does our government try so hard to make everyone (read corporations) happy whenever all it does is impose limitations on everyone else?
What is the meaning of life, when, for the large majority of people, life means nothing more than buying a bunch of DVDs and beer with their next paycheck and just existing?
At what point did humanity become suicidal?
Deep.
Quote away:-P. But seriously now, do you really call our country a she because we slap her around like a little bitch? Or is it really because she bitches and threatens us about everything we do wrong:-P. Think about it. I sure did for about a half a second.
Do not engender your country. To engender something would be associating it with some form of humanity. Which is one thing most countries are most definetly not.
As consumers, the intelligent elite are severely outnumbered by the ignorant masses. The peons oppinion is the only thing corps care about anymore (thanks Wal-Mart). Therefore, our oppinion will never be sufficiently conveyed to the corps. That coupled with the US's severely flawed IP division (which the world is using as a model for their own flawed IP division) gives us very little choice indeed, and further proves that we are truly powerless.
Corporations do run the country, bud. Hate to break it to you. How often does your representative "represent" you over a large corporation? Never. They have lobbyists and lots of money to contribute. We have a voice and the innate ability to vote for whichever candidate has the most money. Either way corps. win.
Especially challenging because the amount of energy per unit area is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source. And its challenging because of, as is discussed here, the inefficiency of solar cells along with the impracticality of setting up a sufficiently large solar farm to harvest enough energy for the human population. Of course we could send a satellite out into space with a large array of solar cells, and have it microwave the energy back, but we risk cooking the Earth if it malfunctioned and became misaligned. In other words, we can only harvest a small fraction of it. Your total energy output constant you mention has little relevancy without mentioning deterring factors like these.
So now, if an enormously long brass line was shot into the ionosphere with the other end grounded, there could be the largest electrostatic discharge ever? Why has our government not created a weapon like this? Nukes move over, we're gonna shock em to death, and then fry em with the leaking sun radiation until the sun manages to reionize the area. Man cheap effective, maybe short term, but possibly not local. It seems like the perfect weapon. I would just assume after the initial shock vaporized the wire there would be a nice plasma pathway for the electricity to travel down.
Yes, but the figures you are stating assume permanent PV arrays. They go bad quite quickly to the best of my knowledge. Otherwise, why wouldn't someone have made one of these magically economical power plants?
OK, first of all your just being a dumbass about this. If you want to be that anal about things, well the sun got its energy from a large cloud of hydrogen, which got its energy from the formation of matter after the big bang which got its energy from god or something we don't know. The point is: the hydrogen is a energy storage mechanism and any form of battery could just as easily take its place, the source of energy he is talking about is the sun.
But thats not true. Its like comparing apples to oranges. And anyways, why would anyone do this instead of just harnassing the earths natural solar energy generator, the ionosphere:-P. see post below
Slashdot Mirror
The best part about this whole thing is now even the military can play a major role in our recession with these massive layoffs.
How is this news anyways? Back in Georgia my redneck uncle showed me the potato gun he built. I know several people who have built and used potato guns for a long time.
OK, sorry. I take back my 'stupidity' remark and replace it with a 'propogated ignorance' remark. And true microinstructions don't have to take one cycle. Hey I'm just stating what I learned in my Computer Organization class. I'm just saying there is no excuse for ignorance. And if it were up to me, this whole debate would have no real relevance because I have invented the ultimate in processor designs!!!!!
No CISC can do more per cycle by taking into account that RISC instructions have to FETCH and DECODE the next instruction more often. Yes there is overhead associated with this.
Who said anything about MMX? Intel has extended far beyond MMX now.
OK, I'm tired of all this stupidity about how nobody knows exactly what MHz means, and how its not really a measure of speed. Here let me simplify your life:
Every processor has instructions that it understands. When executed, each instruction executes a sequence of microinstructions. Now these microinstructions execute at a rate directly proportional to the overall frequency of the machine (i.e. 133MHz ~ 133 million microinstuctions per second) with the following exceptions:
1) memory accesses in general are the largest bottleneck for any processor so it can decrease the speed of a processor tremendously without a sufficiently large cache and without a caching algorithm sufficient for the task
2) there can be, and usually are, parrallel microrocessing units inside of each processor, so this can increase the operational speed
Myth: Intel chips do a whole lot less per clock cycle than PowerPC chips
Fact: Intel chips have been extended to include all the same vector processing functionality included in most PowerPC chips. Furthermore, the CISC architecture is designed in a way where more work is theoretically done per instruction.
Myth: RISC is better than CISC
Fact: It all depends on the optimization and utilization of the available instruction set. CISC can theoretically do more per clock cycle than RISC.
Now, I'm not really advocating CISC over RISC. I personally hate CISC instructions sets as they are very hard to optimize for. But just because apple says something is faster and you want to believe it, doesn't mean you have too believe it.
Sadly, I meant what I said too. But here are some good questions to keep you occupied: In the presence of free speech can we really ever be united? Why does our government try so hard to make everyone (read corporations) happy whenever all it does is impose limitations on everyone else? What is the meaning of life, when, for the large majority of people, life means nothing more than buying a bunch of DVDs and beer with their next paycheck and just existing? At what point did humanity become suicidal? Deep.
Quote away :-P. But seriously now, do you really call our country a she because we slap her around like a little bitch? Or is it really because she bitches and threatens us about everything we do wrong :-P. Think about it. I sure did for about a half a second.
Do not engender your country. To engender something would be associating it with some form of humanity. Which is one thing most countries are most definetly not.
They didn't get that shit running on Linux, haven't you ever heard of screenshots.
In other news Duke Nukem Forgotten has gone Titanium!!!
Read my reply to billtom above.
As consumers, the intelligent elite are severely outnumbered by the ignorant masses. The peons oppinion is the only thing corps care about anymore (thanks Wal-Mart). Therefore, our oppinion will never be sufficiently conveyed to the corps. That coupled with the US's severely flawed IP division (which the world is using as a model for their own flawed IP division) gives us very little choice indeed, and further proves that we are truly powerless.
Corporations do run the country, bud. Hate to break it to you. How often does your representative "represent" you over a large corporation? Never. They have lobbyists and lots of money to contribute. We have a voice and the innate ability to vote for whichever candidate has the most money. Either way corps. win.
100% of PunchMonkey's posts are trolls!
So kill it!
Especially challenging because the amount of energy per unit area is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source. And its challenging because of, as is discussed here, the inefficiency of solar cells along with the impracticality of setting up a sufficiently large solar farm to harvest enough energy for the human population. Of course we could send a satellite out into space with a large array of solar cells, and have it microwave the energy back, but we risk cooking the Earth if it malfunctioned and became misaligned. In other words, we can only harvest a small fraction of it. Your total energy output constant you mention has little relevancy without mentioning deterring factors like these.
Same here.
Microwave transmission. Haven't you ever played SimCity 2000?
I don't know what those free energy people can power off of the milivolts they'd be able to collect that way.
So now, if an enormously long brass line was shot into the ionosphere with the other end grounded, there could be the largest electrostatic discharge ever? Why has our government not created a weapon like this? Nukes move over, we're gonna shock em to death, and then fry em with the leaking sun radiation until the sun manages to reionize the area. Man cheap effective, maybe short term, but possibly not local. It seems like the perfect weapon. I would just assume after the initial shock vaporized the wire there would be a nice plasma pathway for the electricity to travel down.
Yes, but the figures you are stating assume permanent PV arrays. They go bad quite quickly to the best of my knowledge. Otherwise, why wouldn't someone have made one of these magically economical power plants?
OK, first of all your just being a dumbass about this. If you want to be that anal about things, well the sun got its energy from a large cloud of hydrogen, which got its energy from the formation of matter after the big bang which got its energy from god or something we don't know. The point is: the hydrogen is a energy storage mechanism and any form of battery could just as easily take its place, the source of energy he is talking about is the sun.
Well, you can always program using predicate calculus and get error free code from the start. Weeee!
But thats not true. Its like comparing apples to oranges. And anyways, why would anyone do this instead of just harnassing the earths natural solar energy generator, the ionosphere :-P. see post below