Usually depends on the stepping of the chip. *cough*
As for "process inconsistencies," you mean market conditions that make it more viable to sell a 1.6Ghz rated processor as a 1.0GHz processor?:P
Just tells me they have high a quality fab process that pumps out a high ratio of high-clocking processors (and AMD just so happens to have better yields on the Athlons than Intel does on the P4...hmmm...).
On the other hand, the fact that they sell high-rated processors at lower speeds is just another reason to overclock: If the processor was rated as being 1.6Ghz and I bought it as a cheap 1.0Ghz chip, then why not run it at a speed that it would have been sold as (for a much higher price!).
Funny, my overclocked system never has any "computational errors." In fact, it has been up for a few months now without a reboot. It would be up more, but I just can't stand to leave it on during a thunderstorm without a UPS!
On the other hand, the brand new Gateway Pentium 4's at school have a nice habit of crashing quite often and for no particular reason.
And actually, the overclockability of a chip does say much about its quality. You know that a 1Ghz chip that can overclock to 1.6Ghz fairly easily has quite a bit more life left in it than a 1Ghz chip based on a different core that can only overclock to 1.3Ghz. A chip that can't overclock at all generally has some underlying physical limitations such as heating problems that usually means that the chip's core is reaching its peak.
Ah, nevermind. You don't care anyway. Businesses are always right, prosumers are always wrong.
Perhaps you should check your facts before spreading FUD?
AMD *is* releasing new processors shortly. Do you not remember the Palomino cored AthlonXP (or whatever they actually decide to call it)? This is destined to ship within the next month at around 1.53GHz.
And they aren't making a killing in the corporate market, so don't even try and pull that one out of your ass and call it objective fact. Meh.
I'm sure you're the kind of A/V freak that also spends hundreds or thousands of dollars on pricey analog cables.
Having my own expensive Home Theater PC-based system, I can tell you that complexity and quality IS an issue.
Lets examine the number of different video inputs I need to convert between:
VGA
Composite
S-Video
Component
HD Component
DVI
Firewire
Then theres the audio:
Analog Stereo
Analog 5.1
Coaxial Digital Stereo
Coaxial Digital AC3
Optical Digital Stereo
Optical Digital AC3
Then theres the nice problems with NTSC and PAL.
And theres always SCART connectors.
Oh, don't forget scalers and line doubles and things like that. Theres thousand of posts on the AV Science board concerning the fact that there simply is no high-quality way to input video into a PC for use with a Deinterlacing program. S-Video via a Brooktree-based card is the best you can do. Theres not a single component or VGA capture card on the market that doesn't cost thousands of dollars.
And don't forget that during every single convertion there is a lot of quality.
Do I want everything to be digital end-to-end? Good lord yes. It would make my life so much easier. One connector for everything would save me so much money it isn't even funny.
Nevermind that most Windows crashes are caused by poorly coded device drivers...
Then again, who needs to make sense when they are waging a Holy Crusade?
"Can you say 'Wireless'?"
Uhh, sure. But how is wireless going to save the world from ISP monopolies?
You don't actually believe that the wireless industry is some Open-Source (huh?) paradise do you? If anything, the wireless industry is just as bad as the ISP industry, especially if you live in a semi-rural area.
The Japanese were willing to spend their whole lives working, and saved all the money they made (two sure ways to economic success).
This was hardly the case. The Japanese during the 80's threw money around like it was nothing. Then again, they could do this because they had enormous amounts of money flooding the country. But to say that they economy was good because people saved alot is quite wrong.
Anyway, the disaster that is Japan is one of the strongest arguments in favor of free markets and a well designed democracy there is.
And why is that? Japan went into a recession for the same reason that the American tech industry is getting pounded today. The Japanese built this "bubble" economy that simply as not self sustaining. The same thing happened with the tech industry. All it takes in these situations is one little event to cause the bubble to burst. In the case of the Japanese economy, it started with a collapse of land prices. Then the banks went under. The same thing can (and does) happened in every country (the US included).
Teflon was never "invented" for a particular reason. It was a fluke. A guy noticed some white film in the bottom of his test tube after fudging up and adding like 100 times too much of a particular chemical in his experiment. He tested the properties of it and it happened to have an amazing coefficient of friction. Ta-dah! And teflon was used on the shuttle for bearings and things.
And I'm sure she did a lot of work on the project. I can work with a bunch of grad students and professors and get papers published too (and I do! Just that I'm an undergrad working with some upperclassmen:P). I would like to know much much of the work done on this project is her own and how much she acted as a 'lab assistant.'
Doing research and being involved in research are two completely different things.
How did quantum physics create matter out of nothing when there was no quantum physics if nothing existed?
Even if we ever figure out a theory that allows for the creation of our universe out of utter nothingness, that doesn't mean we have all the answers. Real "nothingness" isn't just the ack of any matter or energy, but a lack of the very framework of the universe. If the principals of the universe, the physics that our world is built on, DON'T exists then how can we use theories using those principals to explain anything?
You can't use E=mc^2 to build a nuclear bomb if E=mc^2 doesn't exist.
The problem is really quite a difficult one to grasp. Our frameset is one of the mechanics of our own universe. To try and imagine something that would give rise to the actual physics of our universe is difficult (and would require its own set of physics!). if you think about it long enough, you get a big headache.:) The world is just one big paradox that could never happen. But apparently it did. Stuggling with that problem will drive you insane. Thats why I'm a biochemist and not a physicist.:)
>Lastly, please do not put words into my mouth. I never said that every Christian was foolish. I just made the point that most shouldn't take casual swipes at atheists every time they get the itch to be evangelical. Most thinking Christians I know aren't Bible literalists or anti-evolution. They understand the beauty of the contradiction of faith and accept it as a choice. Most ignorant Christians I know have crumbled when they've chosen to debate the bible with me, invoking the falacies I listed.
I accept the beauty of the contradiction of faith and accept it as a choice? What kind of tripe is that? As a biochemistry student and Catholic, I feel as if I have quite a lot of faith and am far from a Bible literalist. However, evolution is a different matter. I look at it somewhat in the same way as Quantum Mechanics and Statistical Mechanics (and more inclusive forms of Mechanics). Classical mechanics works for all intents and purposes. In our world, it explains things fairly well. But we know that classical mechanics isn't the "real answer" and that Quantum Mechanics (and other theories such as String theory) are much more able to explain the world to which we belong. Evolution could be related to classical mechanics quite well. No biologist can really fully explain how exactly macroevolution works in our world. The fact that our resident Phd Bio prof here is Lutheran and teaches evolution classes is some indication of this.
A few other random comments. You seem of have a lust for objectionist thinking like Sagan. However, didn't Sagan eventually change his mind and finally renounce his atheistic beliefs? i could be wrong. The point is, many quite logical thinkers of our time also believe in a type of God. I myself am quite interested in the view of God in a string-theory setting (read Kaku's Hyperspace book) in which God exists as THE uppermost dimension of the universe (23 in many version of string theory). Viewed this way, it would be a simple matter for God to have a direct effect on our 3 dimensional physical world.
My point is this, Atheists can be just as closeminded as many religious people. I don't seem to understand the Atheist viewpoint as well as I should I guess. Every atheist I have ever met is quite willing to take random shots at my beliefs simply for the sake of themselves. I've found that they usually argue the same redundant points over and over. It is pointless to argue with them. I don't care about their feelings enough to argue with them pointlessly for hours. If I wanted to I could waste my life constructing well thought our arguements to debunk every point an Atheist has ever brought up to me.
I would much rather spend my time doing something useful, like working on my research. Btw, how do you feal about Ayn Rand? Just ansking because most Atheists I know find it to be much like the "Bible" for their beliefs and much of it is just utter crap. Rand was not the Sociologist that she thinks she is. Most philosophers dismiss her work as a load of bunk that has so many holes in it that they could write 12 volumes the size of Atlas Shrugged on the subject.
Hardcore Atheists are just as closeminded and illogical as Bible-verse-arguing Christians. Both of them are more concerned with protecting their own ideas and egos than actually thinking about things in a useful manner. My beliefs on a number of issues are not very static. I constantly struggle with my beliefs and they often change. When is the last time you saw an atheist (or bible literalist) change their minds on a topic after a discussion? Probably never.
The Cat Who Walks Through Walls: Heinlein Stranger in a Strange Land: Heinlein The Moon is a Harsh Mistress: Heinlein Childhood's End: Clarke Moving Mars: Greg Bear 2001: A Space Odyssey: Clarke Ill Met in Lankhmar: Leibert 1984: Orwell Rendevous With Rama: Clarke etc. etc.
This is quite the false statement. SGI has no reason at all to over use nVidia chipsets in their lowend workstation at all. Look at the people that buy SGI workstation: High-end graphics professionals. Now look at whop uses nVidia-based graphics cards: Gamers. Comparing SGI-graphics to nVidia-graphics (or any other "Gamer" chipset) is fruitless. Gamer chipsets are designed for high framerates. Professional graphics chipsets are designed for a completely different purpose. The Visual Workstation Cobalt chipset can do things that no NVidia card can do. Try firing up Photoshop, loading a 500-1000Meg image and rotate it...quickly. Just an example of how vastly different they are. Anyway, my point is: SGI wants to use its own chipsets, SGI has to reason to switch, SGI's are not for gamers.
-Noehre
>So, what does SGI get out of this: A great deal with the best video card manufacturer around and the freedom to develop their own custom chips for the higher end of the market. The low end cards (nVidia, ATI, 3dfx etc) have been creeping up farther in performance in much the same way the desktop PC market has been creeping up in performace. Without moves like this, SGI faces a rapidly contracting niche market with no room to move in the future.
Try plotting the performance curve of a CPU in relation to performance and speed. You will most likely notice that it is some type of a curve. It is not a linear increase in performance. A 560mhz processor is not 93.3% as fast as a 600mhz processor because of that. A more rational approach would be to calculate the equation of the exponential growth of the P3 line and extrapolate the performance of a 600mhz chip. Your results might turn up quite a bit different than your crude and elementary approach. If you send me some text data on P3 performance I would be happy to do the math for you!
Slashdot Mirror
I wish I had one of those cool 5-way SMP boards.
And thats why Google uses IDE drives on all of its racks. But everybody knows Google is just a small site anyway. Real men use SCSI!
Usually depends on the stepping of the chip. *cough*
:P
As for "process inconsistencies," you mean market conditions that make it more viable to sell a 1.6Ghz rated processor as a 1.0GHz processor?
Just tells me they have high a quality fab process that pumps out a high ratio of high-clocking processors (and AMD just so happens to have better yields on the Athlons than Intel does on the P4...hmmm...).
On the other hand, the fact that they sell high-rated processors at lower speeds is just another reason to overclock: If the processor was rated as being 1.6Ghz and I bought it as a cheap 1.0Ghz chip, then why not run it at a speed that it would have been sold as (for a much higher price!).
Funny, my overclocked system never has any "computational errors." In fact, it has been up for a few months now without a reboot. It would be up more, but I just can't stand to leave it on during a thunderstorm without a UPS!
On the other hand, the brand new Gateway Pentium 4's at school have a nice habit of crashing quite often and for no particular reason.
And actually, the overclockability of a chip does say much about its quality. You know that a 1Ghz chip that can overclock to 1.6Ghz fairly easily has quite a bit more life left in it than a 1Ghz chip based on a different core that can only overclock to 1.3Ghz. A chip that can't overclock at all generally has some underlying physical limitations such as heating problems that usually means that the chip's core is reaching its peak.
Ah, nevermind. You don't care anyway. Businesses are always right, prosumers are always wrong.
And thats why Apple's market share is *so* huge.
Never underestimate a small group of overly excitable people!
Haha.
Perhaps you should check your facts before spreading FUD?
AMD *is* releasing new processors shortly. Do you not remember the Palomino cored AthlonXP (or whatever they actually decide to call it)? This is destined to ship within the next month at around 1.53GHz.
And they aren't making a killing in the corporate market, so don't even try and pull that one out of your ass and call it objective fact. Meh.
As far as I know, the Austin fab was/is still a major contributor of Duron processors.
However, I'm assuming that as they ramp up Morgan cored Duron in the Desden fab, they won't have any need for the Austin fab.
Uhhh, it isn't that hard to encrypt stuff coming out of a digital output.
Show me this code then. Really, I'd like to see it.
If it was so precise, then you wouldn't have to make a "guess" about its intended meaning, now would you?
I'm sure you're the kind of A/V freak that also spends hundreds or thousands of dollars on pricey analog cables.
Having my own expensive Home Theater PC-based system, I can tell you that complexity and quality IS an issue.
Lets examine the number of different video inputs I need to convert between:
VGA
Composite
S-Video
Component
HD Component
DVI
Firewire
Then theres the audio:
Analog Stereo
Analog 5.1
Coaxial Digital Stereo
Coaxial Digital AC3
Optical Digital Stereo
Optical Digital AC3
Then theres the nice problems with NTSC and PAL.
And theres always SCART connectors.
Oh, don't forget scalers and line doubles and things like that. Theres thousand of posts on the AV Science board concerning the fact that there simply is no high-quality way to input video into a PC for use with a Deinterlacing program. S-Video via a Brooktree-based card is the best you can do. Theres not a single component or VGA capture card on the market that doesn't cost thousands of dollars.
And don't forget that during every single convertion there is a lot of quality.
Do I want everything to be digital end-to-end? Good lord yes. It would make my life so much easier. One connector for everything would save me so much money it isn't even funny.
Nevermind that most Windows crashes are caused by poorly coded device drivers... Then again, who needs to make sense when they are waging a Holy Crusade?
He meant the MS part about commercial use, dolt.
"Can you say 'Wireless'?" Uhh, sure. But how is wireless going to save the world from ISP monopolies? You don't actually believe that the wireless industry is some Open-Source (huh?) paradise do you? If anything, the wireless industry is just as bad as the ISP industry, especially if you live in a semi-rural area.
DivX is for people that don't feel like using Mpeg4v3 which is better than Divx in every respect. *cough*
Holy smokes, one of the first good comments on genetics that I have seen on Slashdot EVER! *clap*
Teflon was never "invented" for a particular reason. It was a fluke. A guy noticed some white film in the bottom of his test tube after fudging up and adding like 100 times too much of a particular chemical in his experiment. He tested the properties of it and it happened to have an amazing coefficient of friction. Ta-dah! And teflon was used on the shuttle for bearings and things.
19 Q. To your knowledge, was MORE or any
20 members of MORE involved in the decrypting of
21 DeCSS?
22 A. Can you define "decrypting"?
23 MR. GARBUS: Withdraw the
24 question.
Damn Stupid Lawyers
Doing research and being involved in research are two completely different things.
Even if we ever figure out a theory that allows for the creation of our universe out of utter nothingness, that doesn't mean we have all the answers. Real "nothingness" isn't just the ack of any matter or energy, but a lack of the very framework of the universe. If the principals of the universe, the physics that our world is built on, DON'T exists then how can we use theories using those principals to explain anything?
You can't use E=mc^2 to build a nuclear bomb if E=mc^2 doesn't exist.
The problem is really quite a difficult one to grasp. Our frameset is one of the mechanics of our own universe. To try and imagine something that would give rise to the actual physics of our universe is difficult (and would require its own set of physics!). if you think about it long enough, you get a big headache.
I accept the beauty of the contradiction of faith and accept it as a choice? What kind of tripe is that? As a biochemistry student and Catholic, I feel as if I have quite a lot of faith and am far from a Bible literalist. However, evolution is a different matter. I look at it somewhat in the same way as Quantum Mechanics and Statistical Mechanics (and more inclusive forms of Mechanics). Classical mechanics works for all intents and purposes. In our world, it explains things fairly well. But we know that classical mechanics isn't the "real answer" and that Quantum Mechanics (and other theories such as String theory) are much more able to explain the world to which we belong. Evolution could be related to classical mechanics quite well. No biologist can really fully explain how exactly macroevolution works in our world. The fact that our resident Phd Bio prof here is Lutheran and teaches evolution classes is some indication of this.
A few other random comments. You seem of have a lust for objectionist thinking like Sagan. However, didn't Sagan eventually change his mind and finally renounce his atheistic beliefs? i could be wrong. The point is, many quite logical thinkers of our time also believe in a type of God. I myself am quite interested in the view of God in a string-theory setting (read Kaku's Hyperspace book) in which God exists as THE uppermost dimension of the universe (23 in many version of string theory). Viewed this way, it would be a simple matter for God to have a direct effect on our 3 dimensional physical world.
My point is this, Atheists can be just as closeminded as many religious people. I don't seem to understand the Atheist viewpoint as well as I should I guess. Every atheist I have ever met is quite willing to take random shots at my beliefs simply for the sake of themselves. I've found that they usually argue the same redundant points over and over. It is pointless to argue with them. I don't care about their feelings enough to argue with them pointlessly for hours. If I wanted to I could waste my life constructing well thought our arguements to debunk every point an Atheist has ever brought up to me.
I would much rather spend my time doing something useful, like working on my research. Btw, how do you feal about Ayn Rand? Just ansking because most Atheists I know find it to be much like the "Bible" for their beliefs and much of it is just utter crap. Rand was not the Sociologist that she thinks she is. Most philosophers dismiss her work as a load of bunk that has so many holes in it that they could write 12 volumes the size of Atlas Shrugged on the subject.
Hardcore Atheists are just as closeminded and illogical as Bible-verse-arguing Christians. Both of them are more concerned with protecting their own ideas and egos than actually thinking about things in a useful manner. My beliefs on a number of issues are not very static. I constantly struggle with my beliefs and they often change. When is the last time you saw an atheist (or bible literalist) change their minds on a topic after a discussion? Probably never.
Justin
The Cat Who Walks Through Walls: Heinlein Stranger in a Strange Land: Heinlein The Moon is a Harsh Mistress: Heinlein Childhood's End: Clarke Moving Mars: Greg Bear 2001: A Space Odyssey: Clarke Ill Met in Lankhmar: Leibert 1984: Orwell Rendevous With Rama: Clarke etc. etc.
This is quite the false statement. SGI has no reason at all to over use nVidia chipsets in their lowend workstation at all. Look at the people that buy SGI workstation: High-end graphics professionals. Now look at whop uses nVidia-based graphics cards: Gamers. Comparing SGI-graphics to nVidia-graphics (or any other "Gamer" chipset) is fruitless. Gamer chipsets are designed for high framerates. Professional graphics chipsets are designed for a completely different purpose. The Visual Workstation Cobalt chipset can do things that no NVidia card can do. Try firing up Photoshop, loading a 500-1000Meg image and rotate it...quickly. Just an example of how vastly different they are. Anyway, my point is: SGI wants to use its own chipsets, SGI has to reason to switch, SGI's are not for gamers.
-Noehre
>So, what does SGI get out of this: A great deal with the best video card manufacturer around and the freedom to develop their own custom chips for the higher end of the market. The low end cards (nVidia, ATI, 3dfx etc) have been creeping up farther in performance in much the same way the desktop PC market has been creeping up in performace. Without moves like this, SGI faces a rapidly contracting niche market with no room to move in the future.
Try plotting the performance curve of a CPU in relation to performance and speed. You will most likely notice that it is some type of a curve. It is not a linear increase in performance. A 560mhz processor is not 93.3% as fast as a 600mhz processor because of that. A more rational approach would be to calculate the equation of the exponential growth of the P3 line and extrapolate the performance of a 600mhz chip. Your results might turn up quite a bit different than your crude and elementary approach. If you send me some text data on P3 performance I would be happy to do the math for you!
Noehre