MacWorld effectively called it that. As you can see from the top-end gaming machines with only-slightly-inferior specs at down to half the price of the *entry-level* Mac that I already pointed you towards, yes, there is concrete evidence that the price is way more than just the components.
You gave irrelevant examples. Your depth of misunderstanding in this entire thread - starting with your own initial post - is horrifying. Please develop reading skills more advanced than a 5-year-old.
Many languages in Europe have a pointer towards India in its name for the bird. It's named after the town of Calicut in Kerala in most of the languages nearest to me.
Someone else spotted this before me, it appears; I replied to him below, something-dad or something-lad.
One of the problems is that things are just a little bit too new to be tested for longevity. Fragmented architectures plus chipset vendors pushing separate languages didn't help.
To be honest, with modern GPUs, I believe that I was born too early. I was massively getting into optimisation 90s to early 00s. I'm tired of dicking about with all that kind of stuff now. And the kids these days have got it way too easy, with hundreds-to-thousands of cores at their fingertips. Very few things impress me when there are so many freaking gates being used. Moore's Law made things boring.
So jolly season's greetings and all that, but git orf moi lorn!;-)
"They say the comparison is difficult against complete systems because of the scaling factor[...]"
The TPC go a little bit further: """ Note 1: The TPC believes that comparisons of TPC-H results measured against different database sizes are misleading and discourages such comparisons. The TPC-H results shown below are grouped by database size to emphasize that only results within each group are comparable. """
Their toy is simply irrelevant in the field of real world databases.
Read the paper - page 7 (which bizarrely doesn't render clearly for me at all, and I can't copy/paste) "Scale Factor 1 (SF 1)... data fits in GPU memory"
They ran the TPC-H ("H"="Huge") with a dataset that was ABSOLUTELY FUCKING TINY.
No, I'm not shouting at you, I'm shouting at the fucking bogus pseudo-academics who wanted to bullshit with micro-optimisation rather than making actual advancements in the field of databases.
C++ isn't C. Global variables aren't structure members. Local variables aren't structure members.
You cannot correct mistakes about structure members in C by making statements about C++, global variables, or local variables.
And quite why you've assumed there's a stack for local variables I don't know - there's no mention of local variables being on a "stack" in the C standard. Architectures which didn't use a stack for local variables never had stack overflows, there was much to be said for them.
I do not feel you are qualified to make comments about so-called C experts.
> The compiler is allowed to rearrange what ever it likes
No, no, no, no, no. See shutdown -p's post (all he missed was mentioning trailing padding that might be necessary for alignment within an array, but as that doesn't affect any of the members of the structure, it didn't need mentioning).
> Perhaps I should reword my post
Perhaps you should just admit you were wrong, or just walk away. Certainly what you shouldn't do is dig yourself deeper, and pretend to be superior by including things like this in your posts:
> The stackoverflow answer is wrong. As so often:D
You've missed the important detail that the paper making the "prediction" was submitted to the journal for review in June 2013, and that the quake it was "predicting" happened in September 2012. It's bogosity like that which gets innocent Italian scientists imprisoned when they can't pull off actual feats of prediction.
I predict you're going to correctly foresee hoots of derision heaped upon this story.
A valid question. A lot of the cost will be the in the industrial design which is almost impossible to put a value on, and the all-US manufacturing.
Then you have you ask yourself if you would chose absolutely identical components were you to try and create one from components? Would you Xeon E5 rather than Core-i7 if 64GB wasn't something you'd want to expand too?
I guess the best place to start the comparison is probably a Battlebox, and see if an extra $1000 will pimp it to Mac-Pro spec.
Typing this on what was once the top-of-the-range Dual G5 powermac. Do not mistake my cynicism for not liking some of Apple's hardware choices. (Note, however, that I did *not* pay for this.)
Flash counters are not implemented in e-fuses. They would typically be implemented in a calibration area on a flash device which is only writable when the processor is running in secure mode, a mode which is left before the device starts to boot into the main OS. (There can typically be 2-4 levels of bootstrapping loaders before actually booting the OS itself.)
I've flashed Galaxies an uncountable number of times (with a wide range of different kernels and operating systems), you've correctly identified one of the companies I worked for.
Finns do not capitalise anything apart from the name of the country. All derived terms, such as languages (e.g. "finnish"), citizens (e.g. "finns"), or adjectival modifiers (e.g. "finnish") do not get the capital letter. OK, he probably ought to restrict such behaviour to when he's communicating in finnish, but to be honest, after living there for a decade, I've started to approve of the logic behind it. Only the proper noun that names a thing gets capitalised, as it's the only thing that's actually a thing's name. Every other instance is some other thing's name that's been modified so that you can use it in a different context to apply to a different thing. So he's not picking on America there.
The whole sentence is almost certainly bullshit. Not least because fuses don't detect anything. However, almost all ARM-based SoC's come with a bank of e-fuses that can contain write-once data, which theoretically could include security tripwires being triggered.
However, in my experience working for 2 of the largest mobile phone companies in the world, and one of the largest ARM-based SoC vendors in the world, I've never seen anyone do this. It can makes the phones non-repairable - you never want that, you always want the ability to reflash the firmware. Maintenance/returns are expensive.
> Banks/realtors do not sell you a house and [...]
They don't always even sell you a house full stop. In no country where I've lived do banks or realtors sell you the house, they merely act as agents (and in fact in some of the countries the term for them is not "realtor", but explicitly contains the word "agent"). Often, even the vendor isn't selling the property/per se/, he's just selling you the right to live there for a limited period of time (which might be 100 years, but it's still leasehold, not freehold).
> That you can only use a certain type of glass when you replace the windows. That you can't remodel your house.
Where I live, it's precisely that way. Way stricter. I gather from P&T's Bullshit episode on lawns that there are similar kinds of cases in the US.
As far as I understand it (not a yank) the principles behind civil forfeiture mean that assets are fair game, so the authorities are not forced to walk both sides of the is-a-currency line.
However, you're certainly right that Dollars are bartered with, as they are not the currency everywhere where they're actually in use. I know I've bartered a mixed bag of different paper not-currencies-here when I had problems with plastic when travelling.
But the proponents of SuSy claim that their theories are elegant!
Have you ever seen a Nima Arkani-Hamed talk? (there are some on youtube and elsewhere). Most annoying is that not only does he rant and rave about how wonderfully simple and elegant his supersymmetry is, but he decorates those claims with embellishments like "they must be true".
Even more annoying is when a big potentially-confirming experiment is concluding, he's proud to say what result he expect that will confirm this theories, add that if he doesn't get them he'll scrap his theories, and then when the results don't confirm his theories, he shuts the fuck up briefly, and then resumes pushing the same old theories.
If you want good science. Don't look in the direction of that branch of physics, you'll have more luck in psychotherapy, economics, or astrology.
Probably your code contains undefinted behaviour. The optimiser has detected a situation which it is completely sure must be true (otherwise there would be undefined behaviour), and optimised something away. When the must-be-true assumption turns out to be false in reality, the code was under no obligation to work, so who cares what happens. Personally I think it's bad QOI to remove significant bits of code as an optimisation based on assumptions about the lack of undefined behaviour without some kind of warning, at least at the higher instrumentation levels. You can't catch everything, but examples like this should be flagged when warning levels are high (but aren't):
int foo(struct bar_t *baz){
quux *quuux = &baz->pquux;
if(!baz) {/* can't be true, otherwise the above would be UB */
return -EINVAL;/* so no point even including this whole block */
}
return make_use_of(quuux);/* may dereference invalid pointer */ }
They don't pull a 4096 bit key from the noise. They pull one single bit of it from the noise. When they're sure they've got it right, they use that information to help them pull the next bit of the key from the noise.
I'm quite crypto-savvy, and even I was saying "oooh, that's clever" occasionally while reading it. It borrows a lot from previous side-channel attacks, so isn't completely groundbreaking, but still, it's very nice how they've used everything that's available to them.
It's very approachably written, don't be afraid of giving it a read.
Slashdot Mirror
MacWorld effectively called it that. As you can see from the top-end gaming machines with only-slightly-inferior specs at down to half the price of the *entry-level* Mac that I already pointed you towards, yes, there is concrete evidence that the price is way more than just the components.
You gave irrelevant examples. Your depth of misunderstanding in this entire thread - starting with your own initial post - is horrifying. Please develop reading skills more advanced than a 5-year-old.
Many languages in Europe have a pointer towards India in its name for the bird. It's named after the town of Calicut in Kerala in most of the languages nearest to me.
Someone else spotted this before me, it appears; I replied to him below, something-dad or something-lad.
;-)
One of the problems is that things are just a little bit too new to be tested for longevity. Fragmented architectures plus chipset vendors pushing separate languages didn't help.
To be honest, with modern GPUs, I believe that I was born too early. I was massively getting into optimisation 90s to early 00s. I'm tired of dicking about with all that kind of stuff now. And the kids these days have got it way too easy, with hundreds-to-thousands of cores at their fingertips. Very few things impress me when there are so many freaking gates being used. Moore's Law made things boring.
So jolly season's greetings and all that, but git orf moi lorn!
Sure, space is always cool, but in these liberated modern times we can twist it into a story about blokes who are living together in space.
I shouldn't mention that, lest the ultra-conservatives conclude this is perverting the wide-eyed youth and decide the to slash the NASA budget.
Exactly!
"They say the comparison is difficult against complete systems because of the scaling factor[...]"
The TPC go a little bit further:
"""
Note 1: The TPC believes that comparisons of TPC-H results measured against different database sizes are misleading and discourages such comparisons. The TPC-H results shown below are grouped by database size to emphasize that only results within each group are comparable.
"""
Their toy is simply irrelevant in the field of real world databases.
Read the paper - page 7 (which bizarrely doesn't render clearly for me at all, and I can't copy/paste) ... data fits in GPU memory"
"Scale Factor 1 (SF 1)
They ran the TPC-H ("H"="Huge") with a dataset that was ABSOLUTELY FUCKING TINY.
No, I'm not shouting at you, I'm shouting at the fucking bogus pseudo-academics who wanted to bullshit with micro-optimisation rather than making actual advancements in the field of databases.
Frauds.
C++ isn't C.
Global variables aren't structure members.
Local variables aren't structure members.
You cannot correct mistakes about structure members in C by making statements about C++, global variables, or local variables.
And quite why you've assumed there's a stack for local variables I don't know - there's no mention of local variables being on a "stack" in the C standard. Architectures which didn't use a stack for local variables never had stack overflows, there was much to be said for them.
I do not feel you are qualified to make comments about so-called C experts.
> The compiler is allowed to rearrange what ever it likes
:D
No, no, no, no, no. See shutdown -p's post (all he missed was mentioning trailing padding that might be necessary for alignment within an array, but as that doesn't affect any of the members of the structure, it didn't need mentioning).
> Perhaps I should reword my post
Perhaps you should just admit you were wrong, or just walk away. Certainly what you shouldn't do is dig yourself deeper, and pretend to be superior by including things like this in your posts:
> The stackoverflow answer is wrong. As so often
You've missed the important detail that the paper making the "prediction" was submitted to the journal for review in June 2013, and that the quake it was "predicting" happened in September 2012. It's bogosity like that which gets innocent Italian scientists imprisoned when they can't pull off actual feats of prediction.
I predict you're going to correctly foresee hoots of derision heaped upon this story.
Or start here, and have $1400 to play with:
http://www.tomshardware.com/system-configuration-recommendation-58.html
A valid question. A lot of the cost will be the in the industrial design which is almost impossible to put a value on, and the all-US manufacturing.
Then you have you ask yourself if you would chose absolutely identical components were you to try and create one from components? Would you Xeon E5 rather than Core-i7 if 64GB wasn't something you'd want to expand too?
I guess the best place to start the comparison is probably a Battlebox, and see if an extra $1000 will pimp it to Mac-Pro spec.
Typing this on what was once the top-of-the-range Dual G5 powermac. Do not mistake my cynicism for not liking some of Apple's hardware choices. (Note, however, that I did *not* pay for this.)
Flash counters are not implemented in e-fuses. They would typically be implemented in a calibration area on a flash device which is only writable when the processor is running in secure mode, a mode which is left before the device starts to boot into the main OS. (There can typically be 2-4 levels of bootstrapping loaders before actually booting the OS itself.)
I've flashed Galaxies an uncountable number of times (with a wide range of different kernels and operating systems), you've correctly identified one of the companies I worked for.
Finns do not capitalise anything apart from the name of the country. All derived terms, such as languages (e.g. "finnish"), citizens (e.g. "finns"), or adjectival modifiers (e.g. "finnish") do not get the capital letter. OK, he probably ought to restrict such behaviour to when he's communicating in finnish, but to be honest, after living there for a decade, I've started to approve of the logic behind it. Only the proper noun that names a thing gets capitalised, as it's the only thing that's actually a thing's name. Every other instance is some other thing's name that's been modified so that you can use it in a different context to apply to a different thing. So he's not picking on America there.
He was quite explicit - if he had the money, he'd rather spend it on something else.
Looks gimmicky, seems massively over-priced. I'm sure there's a market for it...
The whole sentence is almost certainly bullshit. Not least because fuses don't detect anything. However, almost all ARM-based SoC's come with a bank of e-fuses that can contain write-once data, which theoretically could include security tripwires being triggered.
However, in my experience working for 2 of the largest mobile phone companies in the world, and one of the largest ARM-based SoC vendors in the world, I've never seen anyone do this. It can makes the phones non-repairable - you never want that, you always want the ability to reflash the firmware. Maintenance/returns are expensive.
> Banks/realtors do not sell you a house and [...]
/per se/, he's just selling you the right to live there for a limited period of time (which might be 100 years, but it's still leasehold, not freehold).
They don't always even sell you a house full stop. In no country where I've lived do banks or realtors sell you the house, they merely act as agents (and in fact in some of the countries the term for them is not "realtor", but explicitly contains the word "agent"). Often, even the vendor isn't selling the property
> That you can only use a certain type of glass when you replace the windows. That you can't remodel your house.
Where I live, it's precisely that way. Way stricter. I gather from P&T's Bullshit episode on lawns that there are similar kinds of cases in the US.
As far as I understand it (not a yank) the principles behind civil forfeiture mean that assets are fair game, so the authorities are not forced to walk both sides of the is-a-currency line.
However, you're certainly right that Dollars are bartered with, as they are not the currency everywhere where they're actually in use. I know I've bartered a mixed bag of different paper not-currencies-here when I had problems with plastic when travelling.
"Cold is God's way of telling us to burn more Catholics"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcnxsDOxcOA
You still need an identification handshake, otherwise anyone could send you a message.
But the proponents of SuSy claim that their theories are elegant!
Have you ever seen a Nima Arkani-Hamed talk? (there are some on youtube and elsewhere). Most annoying is that not only does he rant and rave about how wonderfully simple and elegant his supersymmetry is, but he decorates those claims with embellishments like "they must be true".
Even more annoying is when a big potentially-confirming experiment is concluding, he's proud to say what result he expect that will confirm this theories, add that if he doesn't get them he'll scrap his theories, and then when the results don't confirm his theories, he shuts the fuck up briefly, and then resumes pushing the same old theories.
If you want good science. Don't look in the direction of that branch of physics, you'll have more luck in psychotherapy, economics, or astrology.
Because some of the readers if not configured otherwise will show which IP address (and port) they are connecting to.
Probably your code contains undefinted behaviour. The optimiser has detected a situation which it is completely sure must be true (otherwise there would be undefined behaviour), and optimised something away. When the must-be-true assumption turns out to be false in reality, the code was under no obligation to work, so who cares what happens. Personally I think it's bad QOI to remove significant bits of code as an optimisation based on assumptions about the lack of undefined behaviour without some kind of warning, at least at the higher instrumentation levels. You can't catch everything, but examples like this should be flagged when warning levels are high (but aren't):
/* can't be true, otherwise the above would be UB */ /* so no point even including this whole block */ /* may dereference invalid pointer */
int foo(struct bar_t *baz){
quux *quuux = &baz->pquux;
if(!baz) {
return -EINVAL;
}
return make_use_of(quuux);
}
Given that your parenthetical explanation choses exactly the opposite case to the one I proposed, it's clearly not relevant.
And nothing I've suggested has in any way made the fifth amendment not work.
You're gibbering. Calm down and have a nice cup of tea or something.
They don't pull a 4096 bit key from the noise. They pull one single bit of it from the noise. When they're sure they've got it right, they use that information to help them pull the next bit of the key from the noise.
I'm quite crypto-savvy, and even I was saying "oooh, that's clever" occasionally while reading it. It borrows a lot from previous side-channel attacks, so isn't completely groundbreaking, but still, it's very nice how they've used everything that's available to them.
It's very approachably written, don't be afraid of giving it a read.