I know, I know... The pedant in me _knows_ "Maker" != "Inventor", but I think it should be a law that either "TSR" or "Gary Gygax" be mentioned in any sentence introducing D&D, regardless of how many people have been at the helm since day one.;-)
If some guy can come along and beat you at your own game, that's not inherently a bad thing. And if Blockbuster jacks up the price, someone else will just come along and compete with them, undercut them, and the cycle continues. There's no free pass in the market.
Well, you're assuming a free-market exists, which is true for sub-$100-million dollar industries, but changes dramatically above that.
It depends on who has the most money to pay for lawyers, courts, and lawmakers.
Furthermore: sometimes when companies get VERY big they begin to influence other areas of the market to support their monopoly. For example: Blockbuster could establlish top-tier distribution rights, driving up the cost of entry for competitors by locking in deals with disti channels. Think RIAA's "monopoly" on record distribution and magical laws that appear before congress thanks to RIAA lobbyists. Or perhaps strike a deal with the post office for faster shipping of their product by streamlining a subset of the USPS to specifically handle DVD shipments, then lock that out from anyone else. Think of phone companies trying to dominate ISPs because they own the copper.
I'm not defending the patent system here, gawd knows they have become more corporate $$$ friendly over the past two decades; I simply think the laws written to eliminate a free market need even more laws to balance that offset. Result? So... many... laws...
Fish Heads Command Cody : Two Triple Cheese Roger Hodgeson : Had a Dream Adam Ant Rush's live concerts J. Geils REO Speedwagon Journey (besides don't stop) Chillawak Blue Oyster Cult (godzilla!) 38 Special
Hey numbnuts: unwind your panties, this article is from SCIENCE, not the NYT. They just re-ran it, along with probably thousands of newspapers in the country.
Who are you addressing? Yourself? The author? Or something calling stereotyping?
Stereotypes are how brains work.
E.g.:
Liberals are whiney hippies.
Republicans are dumb white trash.
Get used to being generalized incorrectly: you pretty much will be for the rest of your life. Trying to assert to no one in particular how much you deviate from the generalization is a waste of energy.
This is a fantastic saw. I don't know about the skin-detection feature, but it is the first american saw with a riving knife (before PowerMatic), and it has a European style shrowd covering the entire blade. Not to mention the beefy trunion. Even without the safety feature it is a great saw. Now if we could start getting some sliding top saws like they have in Europe...
What if terrorists start bombing security checkpoints? If just walking through a detector could set off an explosive, what would be the new security method? Manual pat-downs? Strip searches for everyone?
They would simply have to shut EVERY SINGLE airport becuase the detection method would be a target.
So if I understand correctly, the argument is really, "the x86 decoder gets in the way", and that people could do better if they could schedule uops themselves.
One only need to look at the past 15 years of CPU history to see the flaws in that assumption.
And to buy you a clue, you haven't been programming any X86 CPU to anything near the "bare metal" since the Pentium II came out. Maybe you should go read up on the actual internal architecture of modern CPUs before spouting off.
You clearly think bare metal means programming microcode. Since I don't program micro code for intel, I don't do this.
Or do you mean microcode isn't bare metal, maybe you mean i should be programming bits into the ALU myself?
Maybe you think there is something below assembly which is bare metal. Maybe you mean wiring 74Cxx ICs together and programming your own ROMs.
Or maybe you're just a relic from the RISC v. CISC debate, and in your mind you need to program RISC uop to be "bare metal".
I simply do not understand your claim that microcode is not bare metal. It makes zero sense from an architecture point of view.
Ok, please enlighten me with the 50's era micrcode-tranlation CPU you are referring to, because I've never heard of such a device. This is your chance to show us how smart you are.
Even in assembler, the mainstream hasn't been programming to the metal since Pentium I.
What are you talking about, you clueless git?
Nearly every device driver in your Windows, Linux or Mac machine has assembly code modules which are HAND-TUNED to the processor type (which is why every processor offers a CPUID). And I'm not referring just to graphics cards... There are teams where I work that still need to use MSofts MASM 6.22 to compile 16 bit portions of BIOS code.
I'd say it is 50/50 assembly vs. higher level in the world outside college. The embedded market is far larger than the PC market.
Don't believe the hype. Tupac's poetry is "art" in the same way frosted flakes are part of a "balanced breakfast". A popular trend over the last 10 years has been for recording artists to take to other media in an attempt to gain credibility by appearing well-rounded thru other media. Tupac is just another Spice Boy, and any idiot can get a book published, especially when backed by a large recording industry that stands to make bank on increased record sales from the stunt. Don't fall for it.
Slashdot Mirror
In the immortal words of Bucky Bucks (from "Drawn Together"):
"Ugh... ah... oooh! It's gonna be big one! TWO TOWELS!"
Cool.
The problem with threads:
i tem.5d61c1d591162e4b0ef1bd108bcd45f3/index.jsp?&pN ame=computer_level1_article&TheCat=1005&path=compu ter/homepage/0506&file=cover.xml&xsl=article.xsl
http://www.computer.org/portal/site/computer/menu
Basically, even the simplest tasks require significant armor plating to run correctly.
OTOH: Multi-PROCESS programming is far simpler than multi-THREADED programming.
Gfft! Gbah! Pfft! Fffeh! Mvvt! Grrp!
I know, I know... The pedant in me _knows_ "Maker" != "Inventor", but I think it should be a law that either "TSR" or "Gary Gygax" be mentioned in any sentence introducing D&D, regardless of how many people have been at the helm since day one.
If some guy can come along and beat you at your own game, that's not inherently a bad thing. And if Blockbuster jacks up the price, someone else will just come along and compete with them, undercut them, and the cycle continues. There's no free pass in the market.
Well, you're assuming a free-market exists, which is true for sub-$100-million dollar industries, but changes dramatically above that.
It depends on who has the most money to pay for lawyers, courts, and lawmakers.
Furthermore: sometimes when companies get VERY big they begin to influence other areas of the market to support their monopoly. For example: Blockbuster could establlish top-tier distribution rights, driving up the cost of entry for competitors by locking in deals with disti channels. Think RIAA's "monopoly" on record distribution and magical laws that appear before congress thanks to RIAA lobbyists. Or perhaps strike a deal with the post office for faster shipping of their product by streamlining a subset of the USPS to specifically handle DVD shipments, then lock that out from anyone else. Think of phone companies trying to dominate ISPs because they own the copper.
I'm not defending the patent system here, gawd knows they have become more corporate $$$ friendly over the past two decades; I simply think the laws written to eliminate a free market need even more laws to balance that offset. Result? So... many... laws...
This article could have been called:
"An Introduction to Strawman Arguments for the Sake of Wasting Bits"
Yeah, but it is missing all the great videos;
Fish Heads
Command Cody : Two Triple Cheese
Roger Hodgeson : Had a Dream
Adam Ant
Rush's live concerts
J. Geils
REO Speedwagon
Journey (besides don't stop)
Chillawak
Blue Oyster Cult (godzilla!)
38 Special
Boo.....
Oof! pwnd by a 13 year old republican.
"Trolled!" is more like it.
Unfortunately, I can't comment on your unintelligble reply.
I think you're saying I should read the Science Magazine link, which is what I told you in the first place.
Lay off the crack, man, it'll kill ya.
Hey numbnuts: unwind your panties, this article is from SCIENCE, not the NYT. They just re-ran it, along with probably thousands of newspapers in the country.
Who are you addressing? Yourself? The author? Or something calling stereotyping?
Stereotypes are how brains work.
E.g.:
Liberals are whiney hippies.
Republicans are dumb white trash.
Get used to being generalized incorrectly: you pretty much will be for the rest of your life. Trying to assert to no one in particular how much you deviate from the generalization is a waste of energy.
AMD is announcing TAPE-OUTS now! How pathetic!
It's at least a year from shipping.
This is a fantastic saw. I don't know about the skin-detection feature, but it is the first american saw with a riving knife (before PowerMatic), and it has a European style shrowd covering the entire blade. Not to mention the beefy trunion. Even without the safety feature it is a great saw. Now if we could start getting some sliding top saws like they have in Europe...
What if terrorists start bombing security checkpoints? If just walking through a detector could set off an explosive, what would be the new security method? Manual pat-downs? Strip searches for everyone?
They would simply have to shut EVERY SINGLE airport becuase the detection method would be a target.
So if I understand correctly, the argument is really, "the x86 decoder gets in the way", and that people could do better if they could schedule uops themselves.
One only need to look at the past 15 years of CPU history to see the flaws in that assumption.
I win.
And to buy you a clue, you haven't been programming any X86 CPU to anything near the "bare metal" since the Pentium II came out. Maybe you should go read up on the actual internal architecture of modern CPUs before spouting off.
You clearly think bare metal means programming microcode. Since I don't program micro code for intel, I don't do this.
Or do you mean microcode isn't bare metal, maybe you mean i should be programming bits into the ALU myself?
Maybe you think there is something below assembly which is bare metal. Maybe you mean wiring 74Cxx ICs together and programming your own ROMs.
Or maybe you're just a relic from the RISC v. CISC debate, and in your mind you need to program RISC uop to be "bare metal".
I simply do not understand your claim that microcode is not bare metal. It makes zero sense from an architecture point of view.
Another "The 50's had it first reply". Yawn.
Ok, please enlighten me with the 50's era micrcode-tranlation CPU you are referring to, because I've never heard of such a device. This is your chance to show us how smart you are.
Too bad you posted as AC.
In case y'all forgot, the Intel x87 FP engine was stack based until SSE. And it is still in there!
You pushed FP numbers onto F(0:7) and the operations worked on the stack. They than had to be popped off to the accumulator to load to memory.
Kids these days, I tells ya.
Even in assembler, the mainstream hasn't been programming to the metal since Pentium I.
What are you talking about, you clueless git?
Nearly every device driver in your Windows, Linux or Mac machine has assembly code modules which are HAND-TUNED to the processor type (which is why every processor offers a CPUID). And I'm not referring just to graphics cards... There are teams where I work that still need to use MSofts MASM 6.22 to compile 16 bit portions of BIOS code.
I'd say it is 50/50 assembly vs. higher level in the world outside college. The embedded market is far larger than the PC market.
how fast does it run specINT @milliwatts? It doesn't? Oh, there ya go.
Saying it is low power is meaningiless when there are CPUs that use hundreds of MICROWATTS in a plethora of embedded devices today.
Internet write-in vote spamming was funny ~10 years ago, now it is just played.
J r.
See the 1998 People Magazine poll:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Joseph_Nasiff_
And I'm sure everyone who has gone to college since 1990 has at one time seen "Calvin and Hobbes" elected as a write-in for some office.
Well, OK, I guess write-in spamming STILL is pretty funny...
Are you suggesting a company reverse engineer a graphics core based on driver source?
That is pretty much impossible.
"...shows the interior or fossil embryos of an ancient relative of the penis worm known as Markuelia."
Sorry, but I'm too immature for this science thing.
Tee hee.
So the high-stepping transformer that powers the CRT in your TV set is DC? Interesting.
(Wait, you probably have plasma or LCD... doh)
Don't believe the hype. Tupac's poetry is "art" in the same way frosted flakes are part of a "balanced breakfast". A popular trend over the last 10 years has been for recording artists to take to other media in an attempt to gain credibility by appearing well-rounded thru other media. Tupac is just another Spice Boy, and any idiot can get a book published, especially when backed by a large recording industry that stands to make bank on increased record sales from the stunt. Don't fall for it.