You hit it on the head. 99% of the people who are doing overclocking like this aren't doing it on professional systems or work systems. And yeah, the price / speed ratio for doing something this complex is terrible. It's just the same as people who like to deck out their cars and tweak them to within an inch of their lives, etc. It's TOTALLY a status symbol within some nerd cliques.
OTOH, some overclocking is very easy, and can add a lot of value. The first K7 chip I had, a 600MHz Duron was capable of being overclocked to ~860 MHz with the default cooler. That was good.
Journalists try to print articles and get sued for liabel (for printing what they researched) or get sued for revealing corporate secrets (since when is uncovering fraud or embezzelment revealing corporate secrets?) or they end up in jail for treading to close to what the government decides is "sensitive materials".
Could you give some examples of these happenings that you feel are not just?
Even when they do successfully run a story, notice how the story is presented by the same slant from almost all media sources. What good does that do us?
So don't read/watch their news..No one is forcing you..there are PLENTY of other media outlets around, believe you me.
As for your Russian Prof, as another poster said, he was here (in the US) wasn't he? That should tell you everything you need to know.
You have a definite point about intent, I won't deny that. But let's face it, if you beat someone and pistol whip them, and then kill them etc (Matthew Shephard) it shouldn't make a rat's ass difference what your motivation was..you should go to jail if not worse.
To restate, you make the point that if there is NO intent verses ANY intent there should be a distinction drawn..sure, this is in part the difference between a crime of passion and premeditation. On the other hand, if there is intent to kill/beat/whatever, it's completely irrelevant WHY you wanted to do these things (at least in terms of the target's sexual preference). IF you can explain to me why for instance matthew shephard's killers should be treated any differently than anyone else that executed a like crime, I'd love to hear.
Here's my reason for saying that heterosexual marriage isn't a moral issue--it exists because of biology. Marriage (at its core) as an institution exists to formalize breeding relationships, that's all (historically this is the reason for such things as harems as well). If the purpose of the marriage is NOT procreation (which by definition it can't be in a gay marriage) then it enters the realm of morality, and I say the state should have no part here.
I note that YET again you offer no facts of substance, no complaints of substance, nothing other than mere liberal illogic and propaganda. Actually no, you don't even try to form a coherent sentence in your reply this time. thanks.
I beg to differ. You may be correct that those few miles of land are called RTP, but the whole area is DEFINITELY referred to as the Research Triangle. And yeah, I know that RedHat moved to NCSU campus, but that doesn't mean they're not in the Triangle.
I take it by your message that your referring to that fact that he doesn't agree with extending hate-crimes legislation? Well neither do I! The laws we have now should be MORE than enough. If someone does something illegal they should be punished, regardless of their reasons.
I'm also against state sponsored gay marriage--if they want to get married in their faith fine, but I don't think the state can or should legislate morality, I'll leave that to the churches.
Secondly, as long as smoking a joint is a crime, they SHOULD be in jail.
Makes me proud to be a North Carolinian. Helms has always been a pro-American fighter, and will take on the UN and China, when no one else will. Again, this makes me proud. I don't know why this slashdot articles seems so surprising. Incidentally, in reference to your 2nd link, I love the way the author so unbiasedly makes Gant out as a great,great man and of course a democrat while Helms is the great satan. I personally am ecstatic that Harvey Gant didn't win. The whole article's portrayal of Helms is just ludicrous and is SO typical of Democrats--if you don't believe as we do (we who are enlightened) then you are stupid. They've said it about Bush, Helms, Newt Gingrich, Ronald Reagan, and many others. Get over yourselves.
The Triangle is in North Carolina, consisting of Durham, Raleigh, and Chapel Hill. The Univerisities: Duke, NC State, and UNC-CH. Otherwise known as the Research Park, such companies as RedHat are based here, IBM, Cisco, Nortel and others haev large offices here as well.
That sounds like an algorithm NOBODY would use for chess, as exchanges are normal (and not called sacrifice even if you lose a piece first).
You know, maybe that's why they called them sacrifices as OPPOSED to swaps? Sacrifice, ie, losing a piece to come into a better position--eventually. It doesn't have to mean a queen-for-queen trade, and the superiority of the position might not be immediately visible.
I believe this because if a trivial algorithm could solve Go as has happened with chess, then it would have been found by now.
Yow, did you entirely miss the discussion of the intense AI research put into chess starting in the 60's? "Breaking" chess (if indeed it has been broken) has been a product of MUCH research and ultimately of specially built supercomputers, no trivial task. I really wonder if the past 4 decades had been spent with as much effort being put into studying Go and specially built computers were being made all the time, would Go have fallen?
On the average chess has a branching factor of about 40 (or 35--reports vary). This means that on average for each players turn there are that many possible moves. So to build a game tree, that's how fast the tree will grow.
Go on the other hand as you state, starts with an empty board, and so even if you're playing on a child sized board of 9x9 (standard sized boards are a good bit bigger than this, I forget the size, at least 13x13 i believe) you have 81 possible moves at first. And you do make a good point that this branching factor drops dramatically as the game advances.
there's nothing inherent to Go that makes it a better game, "harder", or anything of the sort--no magic reason for why computer AI's suck. It's simply a ton less energy being put into Go (when was the last time you heard of a MASSIVE super computer being built for Go?) and the massive branching factor.
My personal feeling is that within 20 years Go AI with be at a similiar level as we are at with chess today--just my own guess.
Re:What is the relevance of FreeBSD today?
on
FreeBSD 4.7-RELEASE
·
· Score: 2
Of course not. Look at the average machine 5 years ago compared to the average machine today. The most recent server I installed FreeBSD on (and by no means a "godly" computer either--it cost only around $1k to build) had a 1.8Ghz processor, 100GB RAID (though IDE RAID) and 512MB ram. Try doing buildworld on this config, it doesn't take very long!
Re:What is the relevance of FreeBSD today?
on
FreeBSD 4.7-RELEASE
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Well you can build only portions if you want--the kernel for instance, that's pretty easy. Another option is if you have multiple systems just build on one and then install on all your others from that system (assuming they are the same arch etc...cross-compiling doesn't always work I think). Also, buildworld USED to be an extremely time consuming thing, but now it's not so bad.
Wasting bandwidth? How do you figure? I imagine that downloading text diffs (cvs) to keep your soruce tree in line is quite a bit less impressive that downloading large binary packages for every update?
You have SOMEWHAT of a point with space, but otoh I don't know too many servers anymore that don't have 1GB to spare (for source and compiling--and that is more than needed!)
Overall even given your valid points, I prefer compiling updates--I can tweak options, only compile what is need, compiler optimizations, etc.
Re:What is the relevance of FreeBSD today?
on
FreeBSD 4.7-RELEASE
·
· Score: 1, Redundant
Just FYI, it looks like Nvidia support might not be too far away...check out
http://nvidia.netexplorer.org/news.html
Re:What is the relevance of FreeBSD today?
on
FreeBSD 4.7-RELEASE
·
· Score: 5, Informative
The best of FreeBSD? Well some would say the best of FreeBSD is the BSD part (license and architecture). Another advantage (and what I like a lot) is the ability to keep track of the CVS tree and "make world" any time you want and have a completely upgraded core system. The ports system is also in my mind infinitely preferable to binary package hell. Ports has been tried in some linux distributions I believe (Gentoo? not sure). So in a way, some of the best parts of the BSD's are going into linux
On the other hand, linux because of it's size and diversity will never have the core development group, and central design that the BSD's have.
Good point--but my feeling is that within the next 20 years SOMETHING big will change in terms of computing power. Maybe it will be massively parallel computers, maybe quantum as you mention, maybe something totally unforeseen. Also I'm predicting AI techniques FOR the game of Go will increase in their effectiveness. Just my guess though, it's really up in the air.
You kinda touch on it in your msg, but just to clarify, it's not that Go has some magical core that makes it harder a game than Chess. The problem is more or less what's called in the AI world the branching factor. In Chess I think the average branching factor is something like 30. That means that I have an average of 30 moves, then my opponent has an average of 30 moves he could possibly reply with, etc. Go has an IMMENSE branching factor.
If you look at Chess as a game, a human must learn how to use certain pieces effectively, with limitations on possible moves, etc, within an 8x8 board. A computer doesn't need to concern itself with strategies of certain pieces--it can just compute 20 moves ahead of all the possible moves and pick the best line. With Go, even if you're playing on a newb board size of 9x9 or so, the branching factor can still be like 80. It IS purely a matter of computational powers. If computers could brute force Go as much as they've brute forced chess, then no human could beat the computer at Go. I give Go no more than 20 years before it's "cracked" too (on non-super computing equipment).
You do make a point in that playing Chess and Go are for humans very different games--Go is largely about shapes and patterns. Chess is much more about strategic use of certain pieces.
I'll refer to what was posted in another reply to my message and quote the following link:
http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/g/gollum.html
I guess ultimately how you interpret that determines if he is a Hobbit or not, I personally believe that seeing as Stoors as the ancestors of Hobbits (bulkier for instance than "modern" hobbits) and that Smeagol is much older than the Stoors even, that he is a proto-Hobbit, like Homo Erectus is to us, and not a Hobbit in the sense of of being the same as Sam or Bilbo or friends. thanks
So do stoors count as hobbits (and the quote is saying that he's not even a Stoor). I still believe that he's a proto-Hobbit, and not a hobbit akin to Bilbo and the Shire residents, but ultimately I suppose this argument is silly. Thanks for the link.
Gollum isn't a hobbit!! The books never say he's a hobbit. They may say he's a hobbit like creature, but from all we know he's been around longer than the hobbits have been.
Now the problem with x86 is that it is a f*cked up instruction set architecture, and because of its monstruosities (8 registers ? stack-based FP ?) it has become a major hurdle in staying on Moore's curve.
Huh, that's really interesting. I'd say Intel and AMD have been doing a pretty good job. If what you say is true how come we aren't all running RISC computers now? Well, in a way we are. Today's AMD and Intel chips are not truly CISC anymore. Might wanta read up on the features of CISC and RISC and then read the specs on a K7 or P4.
Slashdot Mirror
You hit it on the head. 99% of the people who are doing overclocking like this aren't doing it on professional systems or work systems. And yeah, the price / speed ratio for doing something this complex is terrible. It's just the same as people who like to deck out their cars and tweak them to within an inch of their lives, etc. It's TOTALLY a status symbol within some nerd cliques.
OTOH, some overclocking is very easy, and can add a lot of value. The first K7 chip I had, a 600MHz Duron was capable of being overclocked to ~860 MHz with the default cooler. That was good.
Tony Hawk 4 is an example of a game released for all 3 platforms at the same time (simultaneously nonetheless)
Journalists try to print articles and get sued for liabel (for printing what they researched) or get sued for revealing corporate secrets (since when is uncovering fraud or embezzelment revealing corporate secrets?) or they end up in jail for treading to close to what the government decides is "sensitive materials".
Could you give some examples of these happenings that you feel are not just?
Even when they do successfully run a story, notice how the story is presented by the same slant from almost all media sources. What good does that do us?
So don't read/watch their news..No one is forcing you..there are PLENTY of other media outlets around, believe you me.
As for your Russian Prof, as another poster said, he was here (in the US) wasn't he? That should tell you everything you need to know.
thanks
You have a definite point about intent, I won't deny that. But let's face it, if you beat someone and pistol whip them, and then kill them etc (Matthew Shephard) it shouldn't make a rat's ass difference what your motivation was..you should go to jail if not worse.
To restate, you make the point that if there is NO intent verses ANY intent there should be a distinction drawn..sure, this is in part the difference between a crime of passion and premeditation. On the other hand, if there is intent to kill/beat/whatever, it's completely irrelevant WHY you wanted to do these things (at least in terms of the target's sexual preference). IF you can explain to me why for instance matthew shephard's killers should be treated any differently than anyone else that executed a like crime, I'd love to hear.
Here's my reason for saying that heterosexual marriage isn't a moral issue--it exists because of biology. Marriage (at its core) as an institution exists to formalize breeding relationships, that's all (historically this is the reason for such things as harems as well). If the purpose of the marriage is NOT procreation (which by definition it can't be in a gay marriage) then it enters the realm of morality, and I say the state should have no part here.
I'd like to hear your opinions on this.
I note that YET again you offer no facts of substance, no complaints of substance, nothing other than mere liberal illogic and propaganda. Actually no, you don't even try to form a coherent sentence in your reply this time. thanks.
Heh, submittied too fast..heterosexual unions/marriages have nothing to do with _morality_ I meant. my mistake.
Nonsense, heterosexual unnions have nothing to do with marriage. They are biological unions for the procreation of the species. Simple.
I beg to differ. You may be correct that those few miles of land are called RTP, but the whole area is DEFINITELY referred to as the Research Triangle. And yeah, I know that RedHat moved to NCSU campus, but that doesn't mean they're not in the Triangle.
I take it by your message that your referring to that fact that he doesn't agree with extending hate-crimes legislation? Well neither do I! The laws we have now should be MORE than enough. If someone does something illegal they should be punished, regardless of their reasons.
I'm also against state sponsored gay marriage--if they want to get married in their faith fine, but I don't think the state can or should legislate morality, I'll leave that to the churches.
Secondly, as long as smoking a joint is a crime, they SHOULD be in jail.
as for the white supremacist bunk...what?
thank you
How about this link?
m #B udget_+_Economy
http://www.issues2002.org/Senate/Jesse_Helms.ht
Makes me proud to be a North Carolinian. Helms has always been a pro-American fighter, and will take on the UN and China, when no one else will. Again, this makes me proud. I don't know why this slashdot articles seems so surprising. Incidentally, in reference to your 2nd link, I love the way the author so unbiasedly makes Gant out as a great,great man and of course a democrat while Helms is the great satan. I personally am ecstatic that Harvey Gant didn't win. The whole article's portrayal of Helms is just ludicrous and is SO typical of Democrats--if you don't believe as we do (we who are enlightened) then you are stupid. They've said it about Bush, Helms, Newt Gingrich, Ronald Reagan, and many others. Get over yourselves.
Your ignorance is typical. Helms is clearly not running for reelection, and as always, his actions are those of a man of principal.
The Triangle is in North Carolina, consisting of Durham, Raleigh, and Chapel Hill. The Univerisities: Duke, NC State, and UNC-CH. Otherwise known as the Research Park, such companies as RedHat are based here, IBM, Cisco, Nortel and others haev large offices here as well.
That sounds like an algorithm NOBODY would use for chess, as exchanges are normal (and not called sacrifice even if you lose a piece first).
You know, maybe that's why they called them sacrifices as OPPOSED to swaps? Sacrifice, ie, losing a piece to come into a better position--eventually. It doesn't have to mean a queen-for-queen trade, and the superiority of the position might not be immediately visible.
I believe this because if a trivial algorithm could solve Go as has happened with chess, then it would have been found by now.
Yow, did you entirely miss the discussion of the intense AI research put into chess starting in the 60's? "Breaking" chess (if indeed it has been broken) has been a product of MUCH research and ultimately of specially built supercomputers, no trivial task. I really wonder if the past 4 decades had been spent with as much effort being put into studying Go and specially built computers were being made all the time, would Go have fallen?
Very well said. To add a couple things:
On the average chess has a branching factor of about 40 (or 35--reports vary). This means that on average for each players turn there are that many possible moves. So to build a game tree, that's how fast the tree will grow.
Go on the other hand as you state, starts with an empty board, and so even if you're playing on a child sized board of 9x9 (standard sized boards are a good bit bigger than this, I forget the size, at least 13x13 i believe) you have 81 possible moves at first. And you do make a good point that this branching factor drops dramatically as the game advances.
there's nothing inherent to Go that makes it a better game, "harder", or anything of the sort--no magic reason for why computer AI's suck. It's simply a ton less energy being put into Go (when was the last time you heard of a MASSIVE super computer being built for Go?) and the massive branching factor.
My personal feeling is that within 20 years Go AI with be at a similiar level as we are at with chess today--just my own guess.
Of course not. Look at the average machine 5 years ago compared to the average machine today. The most recent server I installed FreeBSD on (and by no means a "godly" computer either--it cost only around $1k to build) had a 1.8Ghz processor, 100GB RAID (though IDE RAID) and 512MB ram. Try doing buildworld on this config, it doesn't take very long!
Well you can build only portions if you want--the kernel for instance, that's pretty easy. Another option is if you have multiple systems just build on one and then install on all your others from that system (assuming they are the same arch etc...cross-compiling doesn't always work I think). Also, buildworld USED to be an extremely time consuming thing, but now it's not so bad.
Wasting bandwidth? How do you figure? I imagine that downloading text diffs (cvs) to keep your soruce tree in line is quite a bit less impressive that downloading large binary packages for every update?
You have SOMEWHAT of a point with space, but otoh I don't know too many servers anymore that don't have 1GB to spare (for source and compiling--and that is more than needed!)
Overall even given your valid points, I prefer compiling updates--I can tweak options, only compile what is need, compiler optimizations, etc.
Just FYI, it looks like Nvidia support might not be too far away...check out
http://nvidia.netexplorer.org/news.html
The best of FreeBSD? Well some would say the best of FreeBSD is the BSD part (license and architecture). Another advantage (and what I like a lot) is the ability to keep track of the CVS tree and "make world" any time you want and have a completely upgraded core system. The ports system is also in my mind infinitely preferable to binary package hell. Ports has been tried in some linux distributions I believe (Gentoo? not sure). So in a way, some of the best parts of the BSD's are going into linux
On the other hand, linux because of it's size and diversity will never have the core development group, and central design that the BSD's have.
Good point--but my feeling is that within the next 20 years SOMETHING big will change in terms of computing power. Maybe it will be massively parallel computers, maybe quantum as you mention, maybe something totally unforeseen. Also I'm predicting AI techniques FOR the game of Go will increase in their effectiveness. Just my guess though, it's really up in the air.
You kinda touch on it in your msg, but just to clarify, it's not that Go has some magical core that makes it harder a game than Chess. The problem is more or less what's called in the AI world the branching factor. In Chess I think the average branching factor is something like 30. That means that I have an average of 30 moves, then my opponent has an average of 30 moves he could possibly reply with, etc. Go has an IMMENSE branching factor.
If you look at Chess as a game, a human must learn how to use certain pieces effectively, with limitations on possible moves, etc, within an 8x8 board. A computer doesn't need to concern itself with strategies of certain pieces--it can just compute 20 moves ahead of all the possible moves and pick the best line. With Go, even if you're playing on a newb board size of 9x9 or so, the branching factor can still be like 80. It IS purely a matter of computational powers. If computers could brute force Go as much as they've brute forced chess, then no human could beat the computer at Go. I give Go no more than 20 years before it's "cracked" too (on non-super computing equipment).
You do make a point in that playing Chess and Go are for humans very different games--Go is largely about shapes and patterns. Chess is much more about strategic use of certain pieces.
I'll refer to what was posted in another reply to my message and quote the following link:
http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/g/gollum.html
I guess ultimately how you interpret that determines if he is a Hobbit or not, I personally believe that seeing as Stoors as the ancestors of Hobbits (bulkier for instance than "modern" hobbits) and that Smeagol is much older than the Stoors even, that he is a proto-Hobbit, like Homo Erectus is to us, and not a Hobbit in the sense of of being the same as Sam or Bilbo or friends. thanks
So do stoors count as hobbits (and the quote is saying that he's not even a Stoor). I still believe that he's a proto-Hobbit, and not a hobbit akin to Bilbo and the Shire residents, but ultimately I suppose this argument is silly. Thanks for the link.
ok, well give me a page reference where it says he's a hobbit and not a hobbit like creature or a hobbit related creature. Ok?
My personal feeling is that smeagol is some kind of proto-Hobbit.
Gollum isn't a hobbit!! The books never say he's a hobbit. They may say he's a hobbit like creature, but from all we know he's been around longer than the hobbits have been.
Now the problem with x86 is that it is a f*cked up instruction set architecture, and because of its monstruosities (8 registers ? stack-based FP ?) it has become a major hurdle in staying on Moore's curve.
Huh, that's really interesting. I'd say Intel and AMD have been doing a pretty good job. If what you say is true how come we aren't all running RISC computers now? Well, in a way we are. Today's AMD and Intel chips are not truly CISC anymore. Might wanta read up on the features of CISC and RISC and then read the specs on a K7 or P4.