Yeah, I'm sure you were performing on average 2000 bitblts per action on your 386 Pascal program. Just because you wrote an algorithm that probably did a 50% dither on b&w bitmap 10 years ago, then saying it is trivial, is akin to me saying, "Hey, I once ran a 4-minute mile, therefore a marathon is trivial!"
There's a problem with your argument... they've all but banned human testing/experimentation in general, let alone long-term testing on children (anyone who's ever had a Phychology class knows where that stemmed from, too).
Your "facts" are wrong again. Ever heard of Ritalin? Do you know how the manufacturers figured out if it helped children? By trying it on them. That's how a lot of drugs are prescribed to children today, via clinical studies (the PC version of "human testing"). Not to mention: there are plenty of behavioral observations of children in affect today, believe it or not: that's what child psychologists actually do for a living. Surprised?
I'm really amazed that your reply has so many words, but is so utterly without meaning, consistency, or factual support.
Your "thinned skin" analogy is just your opinion. You have no facts to back up this opinion. Your drivel is just wives tales and "conventional wisdom" that you invented stated as fact. Nice try.
And of course, there's another big problem with the last part of your argument, too: it starts with "ad hominem".
This is an offtopic pep-talk for pro-war tough guys.
While I agree this law is ridiculous, many people with a right-wing tilt are crying, "The sky is Falling! The sky is falling! No one will defend america if our kids can't play tag!"
Puh-leeez!
This is such a obvious, glaring, strawman argument you should be embarassed for posting it.
The assumption is that if kids can't play tag, they will grow up to be soft and weak and the nation will suffer.
Show me a shred of proof this is true!
Has anyone attempted to see if there are scientific correlations to show that nerfing recess makes a nation of pussies? Please. Show me any evidence you have that attempts to recess-aged kids from rough-housing will make them scared of physical contact or violence later on. Any study would be nice. Like maybe kids that don't play tag as kids never play sports in highschool, or enlist int he military, or engage in potentially physical harmful activity later in life, like skydiving or becoming a fireman.
Got those studies? No? Didn't think so.
Until you have some evidence __STFU__ if some podunk little town wants to eliminate physical contact from recess or PhysEd!! At least this school still HAS a PhysEd program.
Relax dude, or you'll spill your grande latte on your macbook pro.
I can't believe 'mashup' has become a term now under custody battle between those "who used it first" and clueless "twits".
There should be a rule somewhere that prevents people claiming rights to the etymology or definition of a word until at least five presidential elections have elapsed. 20 years seems about the right cooling off period to argue about such faux-culture nonsense.
Ok, lets look at some history which I think is mostly right...
In the mid-late 90's, when Transmeta popped up squawking about low power, they were on to something. However, Intel and AMD also began the low-cost segment (Seg 0 anyone?) by dropping frequency and price due to each OTHER: lower power CPUs to compete effectively with Tmeta, and Tmeta lost bragging rights. If you recall, low frequency Pentium M's had lower power and better performance than any transmeta chip on the benchmarks transmeta was publishing (people forget this fact), and that was without any fancy shmancy stuff in the P3 design (hand pick low power parts from the fab and drop the frequency, a common tactic, lower ASP, but competitive).
Around this time, Intel started their first Centrino design, using ideas that had been presented at ISSCC for years from other companies besides intel (IBM's Power4 was aware of it's.5kW and started talking about sleep devices). Intel called it "Banias" and it was based on a low power P3 core. It became Centrino in about 01, which means they must have started at least 2-3 years before that.
Now maybe Intel secretly put on their black ski masks, twirled their black moustaches, and infiltrated Tmeta, stealing their IP, but that is highly unlikely.
Furthermore, Tmeta has not had a new core design for close to a decade. Intel has been quietly developing low power for about 6~7 years, and didn't switch wholeheartedly until this year (canning the P4 line in late 05). So why did transmeta wait to sue? Were they OK with it back when they had money, but not OK with it now?
Yeah, transmeta blew the power whistle way ahead of AMD and Intel, but AMD and Intel were already headed there. The entire industry was after the boom of cellphones.
I will wait to make my final decision when the facts are down, but my opinion based on history and the press releases is that Tmeta is no longer a company with a vision, they are now the IP version of ambulance chasers.
Actually, I believe both AMD and INTEL secure initiatives involve storing the data encrypted in RAM. The data is decrypted either by the chipset (Palladium?) or inside the CPU (so the bus can't be sniffed).
I don't recall the exact specifics, but I am 100% certain encrypted data stored in the RAM is decrypted inside hardware, i.e. "for eyes only", like PGP's mode.
Crazy.
But I'm sure someone will break it. Although we may not find out for some time: the most lucrative exploits are best kept a secret to blackhats.
According to the URL you provided, there is no proof this even works.
Since you don't have to page everything (it is a function of the OS after all), it is possible to not page out critical CI drivers, thus preventing re-writing of critical DRM signature code.
so do these things act like gyroscopes? i realize it is a small mass, but a super high rpm generates a big L. hate to have one powering my ipod, i could only jog in a straight line...
> Some of the original TIVOs, because of their reliance on specialized chips and ASICs, used measly 33 MHz CPUs - and worked just fine.
The answer is in this comment.
If 33 MHz "worked just fine" and TiVo upgraded anyway, why? Obviously they aren't under pressure from Intel, so the only answer can be "because 33 MHz CPUs did NOT work just fine". They wanted more content, more flexibility, more expandability, and needed a general purpose CPU. Theoretically you can make an ASIC for anything, but a general purpose programmable CPU is far, far easier to work with.
I can imagine at least 10, 50 or 100 at every college in the country, more for technical schools. That right there is a million units.
Then throw in the scientific community, the numerical analysis community (aka banks & wall street), and anyone else who wants to get their hands on cheap teraflops and are used to proprietary operating systems.
Now multiple those figures times the number of countries in the world that have the same needs.
That's a multi-million number. Assuming they can provide low cost teraflows on a few square centimeters of silicon, it's a good thing.
Rather than being cynical because it is Intel and not AMD or Cell or Transmeta making the announcment, why not hope they succeed.
Wow, good point. I bet Intel never once stopped to think about THAT.
I sincerely doubt this will make it anywhere near Fry's or CompUSA, assuming it launches in +5 years. Most likely academic, corporate (think of the old days and mainframe number crunchers on wallstreet), and scientific.
Simply cheap teraflops for custom applications.
Of course, everyone thought it was a great idea when Cell announced they could do 64 or more cores. But since this is/. versus Intel, everything has to be a joke, right?
Pushing the FSB is much harder due to the platform. The physical interconnect is far noisier than on die routing, and the distribution of those signals to the memory and/or IO controller is very messy. That's why FSBs are so much slower (or if they are faster, or usually dedicated point-2-point busses).
To reap the benefits of optics outside the package you'd need an optical socket and a radically new kind of mobo design.
I still have trouble asking puzzle questions, and I've interviewed hundreds of new college grads.
First, I can't tell if they know the answer already via web preparation.
Second, I've met a handful of seriously sharp students who have successfully turned the tables on me when I try to baffle them with puzzles and algorithms. That's always embarrassing.
Third, I haven't seen too many examples of "good thought process" which people who favor this line of questioning seem to trumpet as the most import part. Almost all of the candidates stumble through these things the same way with a few exceptions on both ends of the spectrum. For me it doesn't lead to any great insight into difference in the candidates: other than sorting out the complete mouth-breathers, and the super-geniuses, which are like the 3% on either side of the 3.75~4.0 GPA curve.
Personally, I'd at least like to learn if I'm administering the "puzzle interview" properly before judging it. None of our interview training classes cover technical interview technique, just behavioral.
When I read the 2nd edit of this book I was floored by how much richness I was missing in the regex language (well, in Perl regex, that is).
Like I kid at christmas, I immediately went nuts on my next project with \G and the lookaround operator(s).
Sadly, when a big bundle of code I wrote was delivered to a team in a city on another very large eastern continent, no one could understand what I had written, so they deleted my nifty \G loops and replaced it all with a crappy first-year-college-grad-non-indented parsing state machine using gotos. The complaint was not that I went nuts with regex, but that I was using NONSTANDARD perl version which supported them (instead of their ancient version!), and that it was my duty to deliver a tool using standard versions. I was most angry at the fact that they just replaced the code with a buggy state machine, and then asked me to debug another problem caused by their mess because it was my tool originally. Ugh!
Anyway, my point is: (perl) regex are a far richer tool than meets the eye, but beware The Boneheads: the people who refuse to learn something new that could make their life easier and cling to the old way. Gawd forbid someone learn something new on the job.
Sigh. I was hoping at least ONE programmer over there would have shared my enthusiasm for \G./endrant
The problem is the bandwidth and debate required to decide what is a USEFUL mod and what isn't. By inserting a person or people into the loop you do two things: 1) bottleneck wikipedia immensely, and 2) require a subjective analysis of each edit by an inherently biased 3rd (er, 2nd) party.
* Yes, there's the karma-like concept, but that could easily be spammed by the opposition, just like it is on/. with alternate login IDs. Metamoderation taught me moderation is probably only (just a guess) 50% effective because lots of valid points end up as trolls, crap gets modded as insightful, and over time people move on, leaving bad mods.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I'm sure you were performing on average 2000 bitblts per action on your 386 Pascal program. Just because you wrote an algorithm that probably did a 50% dither on b&w bitmap 10 years ago, then saying it is trivial, is akin to me saying, "Hey, I once ran a 4-minute mile, therefore a marathon is trivial!"
There's a problem with your argument... they've all but banned human testing/experimentation in general, let alone long-term testing on children (anyone who's ever had a Phychology class knows where that stemmed from, too).
Your "facts" are wrong again. Ever heard of Ritalin? Do you know how the manufacturers figured out if it helped children? By trying it on them. That's how a lot of drugs are prescribed to children today, via clinical studies (the PC version of "human testing"). Not to mention: there are plenty of behavioral observations of children in affect today, believe it or not: that's what child psychologists actually do for a living. Surprised?
I'm really amazed that your reply has so many words, but is so utterly without meaning, consistency, or factual support.
Hypocrite.
Your "thinned skin" analogy is just your opinion. You have no facts to back up this opinion. Your drivel is just wives tales and "conventional wisdom" that you invented stated as fact. Nice try.
And of course, there's another big problem with the last part of your argument, too: it starts with "ad hominem".
This is an offtopic pep-talk for pro-war tough guys.
While I agree this law is ridiculous, many people with a right-wing tilt are crying, "The sky is Falling! The sky is falling! No one will defend america if our kids can't play tag!"
Puh-leeez!
This is such a obvious, glaring, strawman argument you should be embarassed for posting it.
The assumption is that if kids can't play tag, they will grow up to be soft and weak and the nation will suffer.
Show me a shred of proof this is true!
Has anyone attempted to see if there are scientific correlations to show that nerfing recess makes a nation of pussies? Please. Show me any evidence you have that attempts to recess-aged kids from rough-housing will make them scared of physical contact or violence later on. Any study would be nice. Like maybe kids that don't play tag as kids never play sports in highschool, or enlist int he military, or engage in potentially physical harmful activity later in life, like skydiving or becoming a fireman.
Got those studies? No? Didn't think so.
Until you have some evidence __STFU__ if some podunk little town wants to eliminate physical contact from recess or PhysEd!! At least this school still HAS a PhysEd program.
Relax dude, or you'll spill your grande latte on your macbook pro.
I can't believe 'mashup' has become a term now under custody battle between those "who used it first" and clueless "twits".
There should be a rule somewhere that prevents people claiming rights to the etymology or definition of a word until at least five presidential elections have elapsed. 20 years seems about the right cooling off period to argue about such faux-culture nonsense.
Ok, lets look at some history which I think is mostly right...
.5kW and started talking about sleep devices). Intel called it "Banias" and it was based on a low power P3 core. It became Centrino in about 01, which means they must have started at least 2-3 years before that.
In the mid-late 90's, when Transmeta popped up squawking about low power, they were on to something. However, Intel and AMD also began the low-cost segment (Seg 0 anyone?) by dropping frequency and price due to each OTHER: lower power CPUs to compete effectively with Tmeta, and Tmeta lost bragging rights. If you recall, low frequency Pentium M's had lower power and better performance than any transmeta chip on the benchmarks transmeta was publishing (people forget this fact), and that was without any fancy shmancy stuff in the P3 design (hand pick low power parts from the fab and drop the frequency, a common tactic, lower ASP, but competitive).
Around this time, Intel started their first Centrino design, using ideas that had been presented at ISSCC for years from other companies besides intel (IBM's Power4 was aware of it's
Now maybe Intel secretly put on their black ski masks, twirled their black moustaches, and infiltrated Tmeta, stealing their IP, but that is highly unlikely.
Furthermore, Tmeta has not had a new core design for close to a decade. Intel has been quietly developing low power for about 6~7 years, and didn't switch wholeheartedly until this year (canning the P4 line in late 05). So why did transmeta wait to sue? Were they OK with it back when they had money, but not OK with it now?
Yeah, transmeta blew the power whistle way ahead of AMD and Intel, but AMD and Intel were already headed there. The entire industry was after the boom of cellphones.
I will wait to make my final decision when the facts are down, but my opinion based on history and the press releases is that Tmeta is no longer a company with a vision, they are now the IP version of ambulance chasers.
Actually, I believe both AMD and INTEL secure initiatives involve storing the data encrypted in RAM. The data is decrypted either by the chipset (Palladium?) or inside the CPU (so the bus can't be sniffed).
I don't recall the exact specifics, but I am 100% certain encrypted data stored in the RAM is decrypted inside hardware, i.e. "for eyes only", like PGP's mode.
Crazy.
But I'm sure someone will break it. Although we may not find out for some time: the most lucrative exploits are best kept a secret to blackhats.
According to the URL you provided, there is no proof this even works.
Since you don't have to page everything (it is a function of the OS after all), it is possible to not page out critical CI drivers, thus preventing re-writing of critical DRM signature code.
Two words:
Michio Kaku
This bonehead organized a sit-in rally where some old lady sat on the Cassini space pad before launch to protest it's use of nuclear fuel.
Environmentalists should be consultants, especially ones that understand probability, but they should not be the final say.
Instead of surfing, they would just take coffee break, or bathroom break, or cigarette break, or jab in the hallway...
People have been wasting time since the idea of "job" was invented.
so do these things act like gyroscopes? i realize it is a small mass, but a super high rpm generates a big L. hate to have one powering my ipod, i could only jog in a straight line...
Would you give black hats a second chance if you were in their position?
Barring any severe self-esteem issues, if I were a black hat, of course I would give myself a second chance.
Grammar, people, GRAMMAR!
and re-purchase all those tunes?
Accordint to TFA: you may not have to---
"Zune will import songs from Apple's iTunes "as permitted by the online service from which it was purchased," according to Microsoft."
A bit cryptic, as I don't see Steve J giving the OK, but in light of the France interoperatbility lawsuit, we'll see.
> Some of the original TIVOs, because of their reliance on specialized chips and ASICs, used measly 33 MHz CPUs - and worked just fine.
The answer is in this comment.
If 33 MHz "worked just fine" and TiVo upgraded anyway, why? Obviously they aren't under pressure from Intel, so the only answer can be "because 33 MHz CPUs did NOT work just fine". They wanted more content, more flexibility, more expandability, and needed a general purpose CPU. Theoretically you can make an ASIC for anything, but a general purpose programmable CPU is far, far easier to work with.
Marketing HS?
/. I forgot...
Now who sounds like IBM?
I can imagine at least 10, 50 or 100 at every college in the country, more for technical schools. That right there is a million units.
Then throw in the scientific community, the numerical analysis community (aka banks & wall street), and anyone else who wants to get their hands on cheap teraflops and are used to proprietary operating systems.
Now multiple those figures times the number of countries in the world that have the same needs.
That's a multi-million number. Assuming they can provide low cost teraflows on a few square centimeters of silicon, it's a good thing.
Rather than being cynical because it is Intel and not AMD or Cell or Transmeta making the announcment, why not hope they succeed.
Oh, right,
Wow, good point. I bet Intel never once stopped to think about THAT.
I sincerely doubt this will make it anywhere near Fry's or CompUSA, assuming it launches in +5 years. Most likely academic, corporate (think of the old days and mainframe number crunchers on wallstreet), and scientific.
Simply cheap teraflops for custom applications.
Of course, everyone thought it was a great idea when Cell announced they could do 64 or more cores. But since this is
Pushing the FSB is much harder due to the platform. The physical interconnect is far noisier than on die routing, and the distribution of those signals to the memory and/or IO controller is very messy. That's why FSBs are so much slower (or if they are faster, or usually dedicated point-2-point busses).
To reap the benefits of optics outside the package you'd need an optical socket and a radically new kind of mobo design.
Give it 20 more years...
Why not just film the ads at 1/3rd the real-time, so when you fast foward 3x, they will appear to go at normal speed?
I still have trouble asking puzzle questions, and I've interviewed hundreds of new college grads.
First, I can't tell if they know the answer already via web preparation.
Second, I've met a handful of seriously sharp students who have successfully turned the tables on me when I try to baffle them with puzzles and algorithms. That's always embarrassing.
Third, I haven't seen too many examples of "good thought process" which people who favor this line of questioning seem to trumpet as the most import part. Almost all of the candidates stumble through these things the same way with a few exceptions on both ends of the spectrum. For me it doesn't lead to any great insight into difference in the candidates: other than sorting out the complete mouth-breathers, and the super-geniuses, which are like the 3% on either side of the 3.75~4.0 GPA curve.
Personally, I'd at least like to learn if I'm administering the "puzzle interview" properly before judging it. None of our interview training classes cover technical interview technique, just behavioral.
The regex extentions have been mainstream since perl5.8.
The other co. is using perl5.004, which doesn't even support >2GB files.
Trolls are the worst when they make uninformed assertions, you must work for the company that got my code.
When I read the 2nd edit of this book I was floored by how much richness I was missing in the regex language (well, in Perl regex, that is).
/endrant
Like I kid at christmas, I immediately went nuts on my next project with \G and the lookaround operator(s).
Sadly, when a big bundle of code I wrote was delivered to a team in a city on another very large eastern continent, no one could understand what I had written, so they deleted my nifty \G loops and replaced it all with a crappy first-year-college-grad-non-indented parsing state machine using gotos. The complaint was not that I went nuts with regex, but that I was using NONSTANDARD perl version which supported them (instead of their ancient version!), and that it was my duty to deliver a tool using standard versions. I was most angry at the fact that they just replaced the code with a buggy state machine, and then asked me to debug another problem caused by their mess because it was my tool originally. Ugh!
Anyway, my point is: (perl) regex are a far richer tool than meets the eye, but beware The Boneheads: the people who refuse to learn something new that could make their life easier and cling to the old way. Gawd forbid someone learn something new on the job.
Sigh. I was hoping at least ONE programmer over there would have shared my enthusiasm for \G.
The problem is the bandwidth and debate required to decide what is a USEFUL mod and what isn't. By inserting a person or people into the loop you do two things: 1) bottleneck wikipedia immensely, and 2) require a subjective analysis of each edit by an inherently biased 3rd (er, 2nd) party.
/. with alternate login IDs. Metamoderation taught me moderation is probably only (just a guess) 50% effective because lots of valid points end up as trolls, crap gets modded as insightful, and over time people move on, leaving bad mods.
* Yes, there's the karma-like concept, but that could easily be spammed by the opposition, just like it is on
of course it won't help. people will just grind for rep and then vandalize.
what we need are national ids and biometric logins.
i kid... i kid...
Huh? What exactly is "convenient" about me forgetting it?
I said I was a pedant, not a loser.
"seriously pear-shaped"?
lol!
Is this a euphamism from outside the US?