One real problem is that IPv6 is still not ready
for prime time.
There are many high-end routers that cannot deal
with IPv6 and will not be able to without a hardware upgrade, as they use ASICs to store tables of IP addresses and those ASICS expect four bytes.
Just recompile your kernel. There is no reason to a erase a bunch of packages then put them all back. Just recompile and re-do your X-Windows settings for the new hardware.
I have got to agree with most of what you say; Ensoniq made some decent ISA cards with Analog Devices A/D converters, but with almost no support under any OS. Most of the modern "professional" cards are crap. Professional my ass; they are made for game heads and MP3 players. MP3 players don't need high quality anyway.
Some of the recent cards have some okay A/D
steps, but with horrible mixers that add in tons of noise. Until there is decent support for the niche hardware, Linux will never be a good audio
editing platform. I would LOVE a decent audio
tool set for record->cd recording....
This is also a sadly common attitude among engineers, who often manage to get through school knowing nothing about the world or why things matter...yet think they know everything.
I've worked in industry for years and you can
tell the engineers who only paid attention in
their technical classes. They are the second-class engineers who are closer to technicians.
If you just want to learn how to write code, please go to a 2-year school.
Remember that today's hot technologies and buzzwords can be looked at as old and silly tomorrow. When I started school, the VAX was everything...people laughed at me for using Unix, an outdated operating system that was inferior to
VMS. And Pascal was the teaching language of the
day; C was seen as an ugly language for second-rate programmers that could not see the beauty of Pascal.
So how would your resume look today if you could only claim to know VMS assembly and Pascal?
Your goals at a University as an engineer or programmer should be, in order:
(1) Learn how to think.
(2) Learn the way people have thought and what has worked (or not worked) in the past. (Hint: greek mythology goes here.)
(3) Learn basic skills (math, chemistry, physics).
(4) Gain wide knowledge about people in the world today; anthropology, geography, etc.
(5) Study liberal subjects like art so you don't seem such an ignorant clod.
(6) Learn specific technical skills in your area. (the TCP/IP class goes here.)
I learned this the hard way. At first I thought
like you; that these classes were a waste of my time. Not until I was almost done with my first
degree did it finally hit me...that people who
did not understand the world don't deserve a
University diploma. That's why they call it a
University.
Don't make my mistake. Learn everything you
can about whatever you can. That class in western philosophy will serve your
life better than that class in TCP/IP which will
one day seem as outdated as a class in Vacuum Tube Theory.
I was illustrating this only as an example that the author's use of basic math on a sine wave was inmaterial to his point that Intel is lying about the clock speed of their chips. The author was unclear on the basic concept, and the fine points of electromagnetic theory are not relevant to the discussion. Pretend I am talking about a chip at 2Hz if it makes you happier.
\begin{editorial}
I am willing to bet you are one of those software-types who thinks he is an expert at everything and all people who don't agree with your opinion on the language, OS and architecture that is in fashion are idiots who should be banned from the use of a keyboard. I've seen it all before; I remember when CS people laughed at C; Pascal was the language of the future and you would run it on a real computer, a VAX. "Some decent CISC architecture for real programmers who know what they are doing."
That same crowd now laughs at the VAX and went from Pascal to C to C++ and now to Java. I'll step out of the way when the tide changes and they all start spouting that LOGO is the only way to program.
\end{editorial}
If you had put your ego in park and read my message carefully...perhaps giving me the benefit of the doubt rather than jump on every pedantic
point you could misinterpret, you perhaps could have seen what I was discussing.
Nope they don't. The slowest Athlon was 500Mhz.
I was referring to the speed of the FSB, as should have been obvious. Why must every./ reader pound every tiny possible interpretation of a posting into the ground?
But it transfers 2 bits per cycle, making the effective data rate 200 MHz.
If I was as pedantic as yourself, I would probably complain here that "you must be some sort of idiot to think there are only two bits transferred per clock cycle" but I know what you are trying to say...however your "translation into writing sucked".
Yes, the transfer rate of the bus between northbridge and the Athlon is externally a 100Mhz clock bus with a data transfer on both clock edges...but that is a kludge to avoid having a real 200Mhz bus outside the chip because of the reasons I explained in my posting. But internally (that is, inside the IC) the FSB is multiplied to 200Mhz and the data appears at the normal points on the clock cycle.
The Athlon has used the both-edge kludge on the external bus since the first chips. In fact, on the module-type chips the L2 cache only operated at 200Mhz/2 or 100Mhz (in other words, half of the core CPU speed).
But at some point the data from the external bus has to actually be used. Do you think it is carried all through the chip at 100Mhz, even though the core speed is 200Mhz? What, do you propose they multiply it up in some sections while dividing it down in others?
The clock is multiplied as I described. This syncs up a rising edge to the presence of the data on both the rising and falling edge of the clock cycle. The CPU can then grab the data where
it expects it on the trigger from the clock.
Okay, now some disclaimers since the./ crowd seems to get off from picking at every single byte on a post: The details here were used as an example. This author assumed that the Athlon's logic triggers on a rising edge for purposes of this discussion. It may be a falling edge; please invert all logic cases if this is true. There may be minor errors in spelling and punctuation or grammer in this letter. There may be a typo or a mistake of another sort. Any specific examples used in this post are intended only as reference to the post, and not to apply to the world, internal combustion engines, the mating habits of Cyprinodon diabolis or anything else.
I guess you missed the whole point of my posting. Intel is not "doubling the speed on paper". The error on your benchmarks is in your attempt to compare CPUs of totally different architecture and instruction set.
The Intel CPU is twice as fast. I agree; it is very foolish to judge a CPU by its clock speed.
But that is what you are doing! You say that since a 1Ghz Intel runs a program in the same time as a 500Mhz Apple, the Intel must be running at 500Mhz!
The Intel is running at twice the speed, but on that architecture your program takes twice as long (in clock-cycles) to run! What is the problem here???
Your posting, while well thought-out, is technically nonsense.
I write this as a person with a bachelors in Computer Engineering who is currently completing masters in EE.
First of all, the waveform in question is a square wave, not a sine wave. So I don't see how pi comes into...well, anything. You go though some basic trig to prove that f=c/L (frequency=speed of light divided by wavelength). So what?
Some architecture triggers on the rising edge, some on the falling. It does not really matter.
The rumor you heard about Intel architecture "counting" both rising and falling edges is silly; what counts is the number of pulses, not the number of rising and falling edges.
Now, there may be a basis to that rumor in that some architectures where the CPU runs at a multiple of the bus speed and triggers on both the rising and falling edges. The older Athlons, for example, run at a 200Mhz clock speed. But the external CPU bus runs at a 100Mhz clock speed.
Does this mean that AMD is cheating? That they are "claiming" 200Mhz when it is only 100Mhz?
No. What it means is that the Athlon triggers on the rising edge, then half-a-period-later it triggers again on the falling edge. Assuming that the Athlon triggers on a rising edge, this could be accomplished by inverting the clock, and ORing the signals together (although it is not that simple, you get the idea). So for each external 100Mhz clock pulse, the CPU fires two internal clock pulses. And the speed is doubled. So your 1Ghz Athlon runs externally at 100Mhz with a 5x multiplier. Inside it runs at 200Mhz with a 5x multiplier. 200x5=1000. See?
And since you trigger every half-period, you cut the time of the period in half. f=1/T, where f is frequency and T is period. So when you cut the period in half, you double the frequency.
That is why the new 266Mhz FSB Athlon chips need to have the external clock speed set at 133.
So why not just run the PC board at 200Mhz and forget all this silly clock-doubling hardware? It is not that easy. Desinging a glass-epoxy PC board to work at 100Mhz is hard; 200Mhz even harder. As you go higher in speed, harmonics in the microwave regions begin to creep in and most digital designers are not ready for that sort of variable. Plus, it raises the cost of everything in the PC. Remember that your PCI ports still run at 33Mhz on most machines....
Okay, so why is the Mac faster at the operations you used in your tests? It's a different architecture! You are comparing apples (pardon the pun) to grapefruit here. It's like saying that if a 10-cylinder diesel truck is at 4000RPM and a 2-cylinder moped is at 4000RPM, they should be going the same speed.
How many CPU cycles does each operation take on the G4? How many CPU cycles do those same operations take on the Intel? What about differences due to setup and OS lag? Is the compiler optimized for the CPU? If so, is it using out-of-order execution? That is the sort of thing you need to know for a test like this. The same operation may take 10 cycles on the Intel and 1 on the G4. So, for that operation, the G4 would be ten times faster. If an operation takes one cycle on both machines, the Intel would be twice as fast as it has twice as many cycles per second. Cycles Per Second, or CPS, is also known as Hz. And the Intel chip is running at twice the clock rate as the G4. Trust me. What it is not running at is twice the speed, since operations on the two machines take different numbers of clock cycles to complete.
The computer room in the engineering building
at the University of Utah was put in by Univac for
the 1108. This room was later the site of one
of the original five DARPAnet sites (later the ARPANET and now the Internet).
When I got there as a student, the UNIVAC was
long gone, replaced by PDP11-series, VAX and
HP9000 minicomputers.
One day late in my schooling (I was there over
ten years) I was placing one of the first Linux
machines in the computer room when I found a
1108 run card in the space under the floor. Got me to thinking about the early computers and
the impact they had on society.
It is dangerous to lump 284 million US citizens together with the attitude of some apelike football player.
Traditional US values have been similar; support for the underdog and a dislike of arrogant Europe. The is why we have the laws we have today.
But the garbage in a river floats to the top,
and our media and government are run by people
with large egos and small brains. And almost all
sports players are idiots the world over.
Of course, it is a competing product. He is hardly an independant opinion.
Re:Red Dwarf is a much better show
on
Voyager Eulogy
·
· Score: 2
Sigh. It is so sad to watch the rapid decline
of Red Dwarf. I have been a fan since I saw the first episode in 1991 or so. I would argue that the first two
seasons were the best; it took me a while to
get comfortable with the new Holly after Norman left the show, and I feel the dynamics of the two
humans (well, one barely-human and one hologram--both viable targets) left alone in
deep space with the Cat to play off made for a
more original show.
Still, after the addition of Kryten to the cast it recovered into a great show. Season five was pretty weak, IMHO. But six was great.
When it comes to the last two seasons, seven
had a few good moments. The rest of the moments were crap; in particular the Kryten vs. Kochanski catfights. They could have ended the series with them recovering an EMPTY Red Dwarf and heading back to Earth. Perhaps even let them get back to Earth somehow and cut to the credits just before
they discover what is there.
But no; we have to have them in season eight which has destroyed the entire makeup of the
show. Bald with their hands over their crotch? Oh, that's sophisticated humor.
But my biggest frustration is the changes the
are making to the old shows. They are re-recording all of Holly sequences and messing
with the dialog (Felicity Kendall's bottom has
been removed, for example (that must have been painful).) How dare they mess with the old episodes??? Perhaps they want to edit in some
scenes of dancing spaceships and dinosaurs with
fecal incontinence.
I disagree with your opinion about "emotional problems". He applied a very high standard to himself and felt as if he has dishonored his family and brother.
The "zero tolerance" policy is a lot to blame. Rules that are applied without thought are always a shortcut to trouble.
I should add that I know with enough work you could get the permit to own one 20 years ago, but it is my understanding that they are no longer given, even though no legally-owned automatic weapon has been involved in a crime in the US since the 1930s.
Keep in mind that automatic weapons have not
been legal in the US since the 1930s. The
press does not understand this, however...in particular the British press, who seems to think that Americans can buy a nuclear bomb if they feel like it.
This same "well, the authors did not know about it" excuse is being used to ban free speech on
the net. Since the writers of the constitution
could not imagine email, that does not count. Next we can go after high-speed presses, then laser printers, then ink jet, then dot-matrix, then typewriters, ball-point pens.....
One plus is that at least a certain percentage
of us examine the source some of the programs we download, and hopefully in time any
worms or trojans will be found out before they
get too far.
You do have one major advantage in building
from source...your risk is lowered to include
only intentional infections, and not accidental
infections (which is the way most non-outlook
viruses spread). The only virus I ever had on
my DOS systems came from a sealed factory disk
that was infected before the duplication master
was made. That is where the risk comes in.
This is a major complaint of mine with the.RPM-type binary packages. And it is unfortunate
that the same people who are least familiar with
Unix tend to run Red Hat (and always as root).
Oh yes, quantum computing is a better solution. But this is another step on the path.
I know what you are saying about power savings, but this was just an example. Also, they are discussing complete async compters, not just CPUs. I don't know what they said in the NYT article as
I cannot read it. I just know what the researchers have been doing. But imagine all these things put together...
Your video card no longer clocking (except for the output stage) unless the screen changes. That means everything on the card but some of the ram would be more-or-less idle most of the time. Not just low power, but no power (the energy required for CMOS to retain a charge in the absence of change is almost zero).
It's a great idea. If I could have wrapped my
brain around it, I would be working on the project now. But my thinking is too tied to sync logic; I've been working with it since 1980.
Slashdot Mirror
One real problem is that IPv6 is still not ready
for prime time.
There are many high-end routers that cannot deal
with IPv6 and will not be able to without a hardware upgrade, as they use ASICs to store tables of IP addresses and those ASICS expect four bytes.
This was moderated up to interesting???
Just recompile your kernel. There is no reason to a erase a bunch of packages then put them all back. Just recompile and re-do your X-Windows settings for the new hardware.
Many, many free CueCat readers were written, but most were pulled under threat of lawsuit from DC.
I have got to agree with most of what you say; Ensoniq made some decent ISA cards with Analog Devices A/D converters, but with almost no support under any OS. Most of the modern "professional" cards are crap. Professional my ass; they are made for game heads and MP3 players. MP3 players don't need high quality anyway.
Some of the recent cards have some okay A/D
steps, but with horrible mixers that add in tons of noise. Until there is decent support for the niche hardware, Linux will never be a good audio
editing platform. I would LOVE a decent audio
tool set for record->cd recording....
This is a foolish and short-sighted attitude.
This is also a sadly common attitude among engineers, who often manage to get through school knowing nothing about the world or why things matter...yet think they know everything.
I've worked in industry for years and you can tell the engineers who only paid attention in their technical classes. They are the second-class engineers who are closer to technicians.
If you just want to learn how to write code, please go to a 2-year school.
Remember that today's hot technologies and buzzwords can be looked at as old and silly tomorrow. When I started school, the VAX was everything...people laughed at me for using Unix, an outdated operating system that was inferior to VMS. And Pascal was the teaching language of the day; C was seen as an ugly language for second-rate programmers that could not see the beauty of Pascal.
So how would your resume look today if you could only claim to know VMS assembly and Pascal?
Your goals at a University as an engineer or programmer should be, in order:
(1) Learn how to think.
(2) Learn the way people have thought and what has worked (or not worked) in the past. (Hint: greek mythology goes here.)
(3) Learn basic skills (math, chemistry, physics).
(4) Gain wide knowledge about people in the world today; anthropology, geography, etc.
(5) Study liberal subjects like art so you don't seem such an ignorant clod.
(6) Learn specific technical skills in your area. (the TCP/IP class goes here.)
I learned this the hard way. At first I thought like you; that these classes were a waste of my time. Not until I was almost done with my first degree did it finally hit me...that people who did not understand the world don't deserve a University diploma. That's why they call it a University.
Don't make my mistake. Learn everything you can about whatever you can. That class in western philosophy will serve your life better than that class in TCP/IP which will one day seem as outdated as a class in Vacuum Tube Theory.
Sorensen recently got their own computer room. Their computers had been colocating before, so they did not want to pay for as much bandwidth.
Give me a break. Do you have nothing better to do than throw out this sort of crap? Come back when you turn 15. If not physically, then mentally.
I was illustrating this only as an example that the author's use of basic math on a sine wave was inmaterial to his point that Intel is lying about the clock speed of their chips. The author was unclear on the basic concept, and the fine points of electromagnetic theory are not relevant to the discussion. Pretend I am talking about a chip at 2Hz if it makes you happier.
Please tell me your are kidding about the above.
./ reader pound every tiny possible interpretation of a posting into the ground?
./ crowd seems to get off from picking at every single byte on a post: The details here were used as an example. This author assumed that the Athlon's logic triggers on a rising edge for purposes of this discussion. It may be a falling edge; please invert all logic cases if this is true. There may be minor errors in spelling and punctuation or grammer in this letter. There may be a typo or a mistake of another sort. Any specific examples used in this post are intended only as reference to the post, and not to apply to the world, internal combustion engines, the mating habits of Cyprinodon diabolis or anything else.
That's good; start a post with an insult.
\begin{editorial}
I am willing to bet you are one of those software-types who thinks he is an expert at everything and all people who don't agree with your opinion on the language, OS and architecture that is in fashion are idiots who should be banned from the use of a keyboard. I've seen it all before; I remember when CS people laughed at C; Pascal was the language of the future and you would run it on a real computer, a VAX. "Some decent CISC architecture for real programmers who know what they are doing."
That same crowd now laughs at the VAX and went from Pascal to C to C++ and now to Java. I'll step out of the way when the tide changes and they all start spouting that LOGO is the only way to program.
\end{editorial}
If you had put your ego in park and read my message carefully...perhaps giving me the benefit of the doubt rather than jump on every pedantic
point you could misinterpret, you perhaps could have seen what I was discussing.
Nope they don't. The slowest Athlon was 500Mhz.
I was referring to the speed of the FSB, as should have been obvious. Why must every
But it transfers 2 bits per cycle, making the effective data rate 200 MHz.
If I was as pedantic as yourself, I would probably complain here that "you must be some sort of idiot to think there are only two bits transferred per clock cycle" but I know what you are trying to say...however your "translation into writing sucked".
Yes, the transfer rate of the bus between northbridge and the Athlon is externally a 100Mhz clock bus with a data transfer on both clock edges...but that is a kludge to avoid having a real 200Mhz bus outside the chip because of the reasons I explained in my posting. But internally (that is, inside the IC) the FSB is multiplied to 200Mhz and the data appears at the normal points on the clock cycle.
The Athlon has used the both-edge kludge on the external bus since the first chips. In fact, on the module-type chips the L2 cache only operated at 200Mhz/2 or 100Mhz (in other words, half of the core CPU speed).
But at some point the data from the external bus has to actually be used. Do you think it is carried all through the chip at 100Mhz, even though the core speed is 200Mhz? What, do you propose they multiply it up in some sections while dividing it down in others?
The clock is multiplied as I described. This syncs up a rising edge to the presence of the data on both the rising and falling edge of the clock cycle. The CPU can then grab the data where
it expects it on the trigger from the clock.
Okay, now some disclaimers since the
I guess you missed the whole point of my posting. Intel is not "doubling the speed on paper". The error on your benchmarks is in your attempt to compare CPUs of totally different architecture and instruction set.
The Intel CPU is twice as fast. I agree; it is very foolish to judge a CPU by its clock speed.
But that is what you are doing! You say that since a 1Ghz Intel runs a program in the same time as a 500Mhz Apple, the Intel must be running at 500Mhz!
The Intel is running at twice the speed, but on that architecture your program takes twice as long (in clock-cycles) to run! What is the problem here???
Your posting, while well thought-out, is technically nonsense.
I write this as a person with a bachelors in Computer Engineering who is currently completing masters in EE.
First of all, the waveform in question is a square wave, not a sine wave. So I don't see how pi comes into...well, anything. You go though some basic trig to prove that f=c/L (frequency=speed of light divided by wavelength). So what?
Some architecture triggers on the rising edge, some on the falling. It does not really matter.
The rumor you heard about Intel architecture "counting" both rising and falling edges is silly; what counts is the number of pulses, not the number of rising and falling edges.
Now, there may be a basis to that rumor in that some architectures where the CPU runs at a multiple of the bus speed and triggers on both the rising and falling edges. The older Athlons, for example, run at a 200Mhz clock speed. But the external CPU bus runs at a 100Mhz clock speed.
Does this mean that AMD is cheating? That they are "claiming" 200Mhz when it is only 100Mhz?
No. What it means is that the Athlon triggers on the rising edge, then half-a-period-later it triggers again on the falling edge. Assuming that the Athlon triggers on a rising edge, this could be accomplished by inverting the clock, and ORing the signals together (although it is not that simple, you get the idea). So for each external 100Mhz clock pulse, the CPU fires two internal clock pulses. And the speed is doubled. So your 1Ghz Athlon runs externally at 100Mhz with a 5x multiplier. Inside it runs at 200Mhz with a 5x multiplier. 200x5=1000. See?
And since you trigger every half-period, you cut the time of the period in half. f=1/T, where f is frequency and T is period. So when you cut the period in half, you double the frequency.
That is why the new 266Mhz FSB Athlon chips need to have the external clock speed set at 133.
So why not just run the PC board at 200Mhz and forget all this silly clock-doubling hardware? It is not that easy. Desinging a glass-epoxy PC board to work at 100Mhz is hard; 200Mhz even harder. As you go higher in speed, harmonics in the microwave regions begin to creep in and most digital designers are not ready for that sort of variable. Plus, it raises the cost of everything in the PC. Remember that your PCI ports still run at 33Mhz on most machines....
Okay, so why is the Mac faster at the operations you used in your tests? It's a different architecture! You are comparing apples (pardon the pun) to grapefruit here. It's like saying that if a 10-cylinder diesel truck is at 4000RPM and a 2-cylinder moped is at 4000RPM, they should be going the same speed.
How many CPU cycles does each operation take on the G4? How many CPU cycles do those same operations take on the Intel? What about differences due to setup and OS lag? Is the compiler optimized for the CPU? If so, is it using out-of-order execution? That is the sort of thing you need to know for a test like this. The same operation may take 10 cycles on the Intel and 1 on the G4. So, for that operation, the G4 would be ten times faster. If an operation takes one cycle on both machines, the Intel would be twice as fast as it has twice as many cycles per second. Cycles Per Second, or CPS, is also known as Hz. And the Intel chip is running at twice the clock rate as the G4. Trust me. What it is not running at is twice the speed, since operations on the two machines take different numbers of clock cycles to complete.
Right now www.newscientist.com just brings up the Microsoft webserver screen...
The computer room in the engineering building at the University of Utah was put in by Univac for the 1108. This room was later the site of one of the original five DARPAnet sites (later the ARPANET and now the Internet).
When I got there as a student, the UNIVAC was long gone, replaced by PDP11-series, VAX and HP9000 minicomputers.
One day late in my schooling (I was there over ten years) I was placing one of the first Linux machines in the computer room when I found a 1108 run card in the space under the floor. Got me to thinking about the early computers and the impact they had on society.
It is dangerous to lump 284 million US citizens together with the attitude of some apelike football player.
Traditional US values have been similar; support for the underdog and a dislike of arrogant Europe. The is why we have the laws we have today.
But the garbage in a river floats to the top, and our media and government are run by people with large egos and small brains. And almost all sports players are idiots the world over.
Of course, it is a competing product. He is hardly an independant opinion.
Sigh. It is so sad to watch the rapid decline of Red Dwarf. I have been a fan since I saw the first episode in 1991 or so. I would argue that the first two seasons were the best; it took me a while to get comfortable with the new Holly after Norman left the show, and I feel the dynamics of the two humans (well, one barely-human and one hologram--both viable targets) left alone in deep space with the Cat to play off made for a more original show.
Still, after the addition of Kryten to the cast it recovered into a great show. Season five was pretty weak, IMHO. But six was great.
When it comes to the last two seasons, seven had a few good moments. The rest of the moments were crap; in particular the Kryten vs. Kochanski catfights. They could have ended the series with them recovering an EMPTY Red Dwarf and heading back to Earth. Perhaps even let them get back to Earth somehow and cut to the credits just before they discover what is there.
But no; we have to have them in season eight which has destroyed the entire makeup of the show. Bald with their hands over their crotch? Oh, that's sophisticated humor.
But my biggest frustration is the changes the are making to the old shows. They are re-recording all of Holly sequences and messing with the dialog (Felicity Kendall's bottom has been removed, for example (that must have been painful).) How dare they mess with the old episodes??? Perhaps they want to edit in some scenes of dancing spaceships and dinosaurs with fecal incontinence.
I disagree with your opinion about "emotional problems". He applied a very high standard to himself and felt as if he has dishonored his family and brother.
The "zero tolerance" policy is a lot to blame. Rules that are applied without thought are always a shortcut to trouble.
We (americans) have a lot further to drive to get anywhere.
Most of us pay for our own health care, and our own retirement. We in the IT sector work 60 hours per week 50-52 weeks per year.
So there is a reason you pay more.
I should add that I know with enough work you could get the permit to own one 20 years ago, but it is my understanding that they are no longer given, even though no legally-owned automatic weapon has been involved in a crime in the US since the 1930s.
They are legal with a permit, but you can not get the permit. Therefore, they are functionally illegal.
You show me where someone can buy this special tax stamp.
Keep in mind that automatic weapons have not been legal in the US since the 1930s. The press does not understand this, however...in particular the British press, who seems to think that Americans can buy a nuclear bomb if they feel like it.
This same "well, the authors did not know about it" excuse is being used to ban free speech on the net. Since the writers of the constitution could not imagine email, that does not count. Next we can go after high-speed presses, then laser printers, then ink jet, then dot-matrix, then typewriters, ball-point pens.....
Ever hear of an automobile? Great mass-killing weapon, cheap to own, legal.
This issue has worried me from some time.
One plus is that at least a certain percentage of us examine the source some of the programs we download, and hopefully in time any worms or trojans will be found out before they get too far.
You do have one major advantage in building from source...your risk is lowered to include only intentional infections, and not accidental infections (which is the way most non-outlook viruses spread). The only virus I ever had on my DOS systems came from a sealed factory disk that was infected before the duplication master was made. That is where the risk comes in.
This is a major complaint of mine with the .RPM-type binary packages. And it is unfortunate
that the same people who are least familiar with
Unix tend to run Red Hat (and always as root).
It may have been a way to get the autographs of the crew for the customs folks...
Oh yes, quantum computing is a better solution. But this is another step on the path.
I know what you are saying about power savings, but this was just an example. Also, they are discussing complete async compters, not just CPUs. I don't know what they said in the NYT article as I cannot read it. I just know what the researchers have been doing. But imagine all these things put together...
Your video card no longer clocking (except for the output stage) unless the screen changes. That means everything on the card but some of the ram would be more-or-less idle most of the time. Not just low power, but no power (the energy required for CMOS to retain a charge in the absence of change is almost zero).
It's a great idea. If I could have wrapped my brain around it, I would be working on the project now. But my thinking is too tied to sync logic; I've been working with it since 1980.