Actually, we won't be sending out noise for that much longer. Digital radio/communication with encryption and compression should be completely entrpic (random). In other words, no distinct signal coming from us unless they know the DTV CoDec. And we're not even that noisy a radiation source.
This is a really brave move by Palm. Many people have mentioned Compatibility issues. Yes, they will exist.
But now is the time that Palm must do this. They still have a stranglehold on the market. If they wait longer, they'll lose that and their hardware will be even slower.
Why are other people criticizing them? Supporting legacy hardware (x86, anyone?) sucks. Here's a company with the guts to say, "trust us, this will make things better in the long run." And it will.
Of course, there are issues to RISC that says they shouldn't have to change ISA's, but... well... RISC has changed the world, but it hasn't exactly won.
So, this is a really daring change. And I think we should commend Palm for having the initiative to do this.
(Pardon all the misuses of terms, don't balk at me unless you're RMS)
The point htis article misses is that it isn't just GNU/Linux vs. Windows.
Commercial vs. Free is, more realistically, AIX, Solaris, etc. vs. GNU/Linux. Even if GNU/Linux can beat Windows in a database test, it can still be whupped (in many cicrumstances) by other commercial Unices.
These are those faulty benchmarks that make one system look better beause of minute differences. Website counts that have 4 decimals, but no approximation of the number of servers on the internet?
I like GNU/Linux, but I'm not going to go advocating it as saying Free Software is better than Commercial Software for reasons other than ethics blindly. I can admit that GNU/Linux isn't right for everything yet. I'm not going to say you should use it for quantitative reasons when most of them are half-hearted MS bashing attempts.
Use GNU/Linux because you want to. Encourage people to use it because it's right. But don't find every study you can, emphasize the ones where GNU/Linux wins and when Microsoft wins (a la servers by IP address) lump GNU/Linux together with commercial UNICES! This is just sad. Linux advocacy for the sake of Linux advocacy hurts everyone.
They're made with a worse process than custom chips. For inner loops, you want as fast as you can get. You pay for programmability, and if it's always the same task, special-purpose is best.
It's like the difference between hand-assembled code and a compiler. You get it easier with the compiler, but hand-assembling can be better when you know the specifics.
The n-body gravitational problem is going to be around for a while, so it makes sense to customize to it.
C was borne of B (invented by Ken Thompson, the language had one type: The machine word). B, in turn was taken from BCPL.
BCPL was a medium-ly used language, as opposed to the limited usage of B. Thus, there was always the (joke) question of whether the successor language to C would be D (alphabetically) or P (the next letter in BCPL).
Do you have any source at all for your comment about this mythical language, A?
Look at TeX. It is bug-free, or if it isn't, find one and Knuth will give you $327.68, and then $655.36 for the next time. How come noone takes it up if there are actually bugs?
Honestly, you can't just say recompile the code. It's not practical, and it doesn't work. If it did, RISC would rule the world, but it doesn't. NT was even put onto various RISC architectures, and it didn't work. Translation is the only way to give processors a chance for legacy code base.
If you say otherwise, you're ignoring history. RISC processors rock for most application. Look at Transmeta, a 700 MHz Crusoe can act as, worst case, 300 MHz Pentium III, using a lot fewer transistors and a lot less power. If MP actually worked, you could get such an advantage based on silicon space of performance/power.
The great thing about Transmeta isn't that it's x86 compatible, but that it's compatible with other instruction sets. Thus, you can use Transmeta and not worry about them having to continue to make the chip or support the instruction set. It will always be there. The processor is often not the most power-hungry or expensive device. Adding a little by getting a slightly faster Transmeta ensures that you will always be able to use it and there will be no backwards compatability issues.
In reference to the Programming Pearls comment:
My name is Dan Bentley, Jon Bentley is my father and I've read this book about 37 and a half times in helping to proof read it. I'm currently a freshman and I'm taking an intro programming class and I understood all of the examples (given mainly in pseudocode) and the concepts help me to break down the problems for my class, which is exactly what software engineering is. It's a great book and doesn't take more than a couple of days to read, even at low priority.
On other notes, The Practice of Programming by Kernighan and Pike as well is a useful book.
I'm a freshman at Stanford and we can watch our lectures in CS classes and others online. I know that they also offer credit or degrees to people looking to come back and learn more. I'm not quite sure about the details, but try stanford-online.stanford.edu or google search for SITN...
Hope this works.
Why should wireless internet be free, when wired isn't? Most of us pay for our internet connections in one way or another (either money or tuition or by having a job with a company). Does anybody see the 3rd generation Wireless network which according to areputable family friend (sorry, don't have the citation) will top 8 billion dollars being opened up for free?
The phone network has been around for decades and still costs money. The only reason it's running scared is because of IP, and as previously mentioned, Internet isn't free.
If you mean free as in speech, I don't see why the wireless internet wouldn't have the same freedoms that the wired would. And in summation, it's not economically feasible to open it up.
This is typical/. Let's through in some buzzwords (wireless, free) and even better confuse them, and post a story.
If you want free internet, try putting up the money. Unfortunately, the hardware necessary is a lot more expensive to replicate than software.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody cashes checks that small. It's just a bad idea, because of what you propose.
Dude, that's my sig too! Did you steal it or find it somewhere else?
Actually, we won't be sending out noise for that much longer. Digital radio/communication with encryption and compression should be completely entrpic (random). In other words, no distinct signal coming from us unless they know the DTV CoDec. And we're not even that noisy a radiation source.
But now is the time that Palm must do this. They still have a stranglehold on the market. If they wait longer, they'll lose that and their hardware will be even slower.
Why are other people criticizing them? Supporting legacy hardware (x86, anyone?) sucks. Here's a company with the guts to say, "trust us, this will make things better in the long run." And it will.
Of course, there are issues to RISC that says they shouldn't have to change ISA's, but... well... RISC has changed the world, but it hasn't exactly won.
So, this is a really daring change. And I think we should commend Palm for having the initiative to do this.
The point htis article misses is that it isn't just GNU/Linux vs. Windows.
Commercial vs. Free is, more realistically, AIX, Solaris, etc. vs. GNU/Linux. Even if GNU/Linux can beat Windows in a database test, it can still be whupped (in many cicrumstances) by other commercial Unices.
These are those faulty benchmarks that make one system look better beause of minute differences. Website counts that have 4 decimals, but no approximation of the number of servers on the internet?
I like GNU/Linux, but I'm not going to go advocating it as saying Free Software is better than Commercial Software for reasons other than ethics blindly. I can admit that GNU/Linux isn't right for everything yet. I'm not going to say you should use it for quantitative reasons when most of them are half-hearted MS bashing attempts.
Use GNU/Linux because you want to. Encourage people to use it because it's right. But don't find every study you can, emphasize the ones where GNU/Linux wins and when Microsoft wins (a la servers by IP address) lump GNU/Linux together with commercial UNICES! This is just sad. Linux advocacy for the sake of Linux advocacy hurts everyone.
FPGA's are, unfortunately, slow.
They're made with a worse process than custom chips. For inner loops, you want as fast as you can get. You pay for programmability, and if it's always the same task, special-purpose is best.
It's like the difference between hand-assembled code and a compiler. You get it easier with the compiler, but hand-assembling can be better when you know the specifics.
The n-body gravitational problem is going to be around for a while, so it makes sense to customize to it.
C was borne of B (invented by Ken Thompson, the language had one type: The machine word). B, in turn was taken from BCPL.
BCPL was a medium-ly used language, as opposed to the limited usage of B. Thus, there was always the (joke) question of whether the successor language to C would be D (alphabetically) or P (the next letter in BCPL).
Do you have any source at all for your comment about this mythical language, A?
Have a nice day. Dan.
Look at TeX. It is bug-free, or if it isn't, find one and Knuth will give you $327.68, and then $655.36 for the next time. How come noone takes it up if there are actually bugs?
If you say otherwise, you're ignoring history. RISC processors rock for most application. Look at Transmeta, a 700 MHz Crusoe can act as, worst case, 300 MHz Pentium III, using a lot fewer transistors and a lot less power. If MP actually worked, you could get such an advantage based on silicon space of performance/power.
Opinions?
The great thing about Transmeta isn't that it's x86 compatible, but that it's compatible with other instruction sets. Thus, you can use Transmeta and not worry about them having to continue to make the chip or support the instruction set. It will always be there. The processor is often not the most power-hungry or expensive device. Adding a little by getting a slightly faster Transmeta ensures that you will always be able to use it and there will be no backwards compatability issues.
In reference to the Programming Pearls comment: My name is Dan Bentley, Jon Bentley is my father and I've read this book about 37 and a half times in helping to proof read it. I'm currently a freshman and I'm taking an intro programming class and I understood all of the examples (given mainly in pseudocode) and the concepts help me to break down the problems for my class, which is exactly what software engineering is. It's a great book and doesn't take more than a couple of days to read, even at low priority. On other notes, The Practice of Programming by Kernighan and Pike as well is a useful book.
I'm a freshman at Stanford and we can watch our lectures in CS classes and others online. I know that they also offer credit or degrees to people looking to come back and learn more. I'm not quite sure about the details, but try stanford-online.stanford.edu or google search for SITN... Hope this works.
Why should wireless internet be free, when wired isn't? Most of us pay for our internet connections in one way or another (either money or tuition or by having a job with a company). Does anybody see the 3rd generation Wireless network which according to areputable family friend (sorry, don't have the citation) will top 8 billion dollars being opened up for free? The phone network has been around for decades and still costs money. The only reason it's running scared is because of IP, and as previously mentioned, Internet isn't free. If you mean free as in speech, I don't see why the wireless internet wouldn't have the same freedoms that the wired would. And in summation, it's not economically feasible to open it up. This is typical /. Let's through in some buzzwords (wireless, free) and even better confuse them, and post a story.
If you want free internet, try putting up the money. Unfortunately, the hardware necessary is a lot more expensive to replicate than software.