I will assume you have insurance. Since this is highly likely, then you are also likely taking more from the pot than you are contributing. How can you justify even making such a statement. Insurance is all about leveling the playing field across the society. It is a voluntary socialism, if you will. You are a hypocrite simply for participating in insurance and making these comments.
Really? Let me know what the streets are like the next time Georgie boy needs a ratings boost, and the threat level reaches Orange, or Red, or whatever the colour is for scared shitless. Canadians do get American News, we do get to see the people being interviewed "Well, I just couldn't let them foreign bastards win, so I got brave, and told the kids, 'we' a' goin' shoppin' terrorist or no', Orange alert, phfft, I won't flinch in the face of a colour".
Yeah, my point exactly. Some hillbilly in KY is hardly common. Sensationalist news, yes. Common, no. Not representative of reality, aiming to get ratings.
Americans don't actually believe that crap is common or normal. It's a shame you canucks do or think that we do. I don't know a single person that does a single thing differently when the threat level is raised.
Heck, I don't know what it is now, but whenever I hear about it, it's been consistently pretty high since 9/11/01. What does that mean??!?! What good is a threat rating if it's always high? Hell if I know.
What are the odds that a terrorist attack will affect me? I'm probably more likely to hit the lotto, and I don't even buy lotto tickets.
Remember, when we Canadians discuss what is going on in the US, it is FROM US NEWS, not Canadian news. We do get all of the major US chanels, except FoxNews. So we do get the news from NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox etc. Where do you get your Canadian news from?
What makes you think I watch Canadian news? The only interesting info out of Canada shows up on/., right???:)
In the States it can be hard to get even national news, and the 6:00 news in most cities is the most sensationalistic FUD I've ever heard. No wonder Americans are afraid to step outside their homes unarmed.
Hmm... funny. I don't know any fellow Americans who are afraid to step outside their homes unarmed. I hardly know any that are armed, either. We all know our news sucks and is all about ratings.
But based on your comments, it sure does sound like you get sensationalized news in Canada too -- at least about USA.
... is just a sign of a too inefficient design for the speed
READ THE FINE LINKS!!! If you would actually look at the links (as would the submitter and reviewer), you would realize that the 3.4 GHz part is an Extreme Edition, whereas the 3.6 GHz part is not an Extreme Edition. So much for your lecture about the inefficient design...
What about the Switzerland approach? If he files NO patents and freely gives his ideas to the world, could he be able to find other entities that can rely on his ideas to such an extent that they will use their patent database to threaten the would-be oppressors?
For example, IBM is Linux' biggest savior today. Why? Linux has no cash, but IBM has a vested interest in Linux. Can Carmack leverage this strategy by freely giving his ideas and technology to other organizations (after a "cooling off" period, of course, to ensure his games succeed) or even to GNU or Linux so that FSF and IBM or other Linux advocates will use their portfolios or weight to squash Creative?
The voter checks to make sure that the canidates they selected are recorded on the ballot
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha... how many of the incompetent computer-illiterate (or even illiterate) morons in FL who couldn't figure out how to push the right buttons on the screen will check their ballots for errors?
You would probably have to show a photo of the candidate on the screen and print a photo of the candidate on the ballot and then require that the voter stand in front of the machine for at least 1 minute to compare the two to make sure that's what he wanted. And even then I'm sure FL could somehow skew the "intent" of the vote in a subsequent hand count.
Don't neglect the advantages to this approach, which is probably a fallback to the "old style" of development
Removing the need to fully stabilize the kernel allows more features to be implemented and a more dynamic approach to be taken. Linux will be more nimble and evolve more quickly if the developers don't spend all their time doing testing. Let some of the users test.
How else can you kick-start development that might have slowed down or lost its focus?
Some of the material comes from bin split, but not most of it.
Your strategy works to an extent, but also would result in a huge amount of overtesting. Test time is at a premium, so why would they test a 2.6 GHz chip at 3.2, 3.0, 2.8, 2.6 (i.e. 4 times the amount of test) when they only have to test their high-volume parts once at 2.4 on their cheap testers to get the results they want?
In other words, they test just as many as they need to test at 3.2 to satisfy the market requirements for 3.2. The rest of them they don't even bother testing that fast. They just instantly test at the lower speeds and sell em that way.
If you at risk of needing help due to a potential heart attack why would you hook this lame thing to your heart sensors? Why not hook it up to a mobile phone that calls the ambulance for you automatically instead of involving additional humans and delays in the process? If your phone has GPS, now they also know exactly where to find you. Try doing GPS with the "pixilated" display device.:)
You actually still *use* the VHS VCR to play and record tapes?? Assuming you have a DVD player, you use your VCR entirely to record real-time from the TV. You must not have a Tivo yet. Once you get a Tivo (or other DVR), the only reason you will keep your VCR around is for the clock.
Anyhow, the VCR argument is different. By the same argument, people would also keep around their audio-cassette recorders. Turns out that these things died out as soon as CD players became affordable. The final nail in the coffin is when CD burners became affordable. They are only rarely used today to make real-time recordings.
VCRs are used almost entirely to make real-time recordings (i.e. from TV) since macrovision prevents dubbing from DVD or other VHS movies. Although you *might* keep your VCR around for legacy purposes to PLAY movies _you_already_own_, but you need to get your head checked if you are still buying VHS tapes instead of a $50 DVD player + DVDs. For VCR, the usage model is completely different here (i.e. nobody records from the radio), so please don't keep bringing up the false argument.
Nah, not a problem. Because then they would sell these managable-sized trays or cartridges that could hold several or hundreds of these "fingernails", and you could shove this cartridge directly into (the equivalent of) a cd changer in your car or your AV setup at home.
The trays would of course be expensive since they would need to contain all the interconnect required to electrically access all of the devices to maintain the solid-state nature, rather than having some jukebox-like mechanism to robotically change between devices like today's CD changers do.
More open? Are Apple, Sun, and IBM any more open than Intel? All 4 vendors have nodded their heads in some form or another to free software. Intel has without a doubt spent more on "openness" than Apple. Probably more than Sun, and possibly on par with IBM, although I am only guessing based on the amount of money wach company has to throw around. The truth is, all companies want to align themselves with the "open" campaigns as much as possible without upsetting their partners and undermining their own business.
Just because Intel is the runaway market leader in desktop pc cpus/chipsets doesn't make them opponents of "openness".
But you are correct in one thing, this is a great time to change if you should choose. Apple isn't really a workstation vendor, so not likely to receive much new business as a result of itanium. Sun is almost guaranteed to lose business since they can really only steal business from high-end Xeon users, which are not going to be homeless until long after Itanium is mature and the unmatched performance leader.
Good luck AMD. I know they'll try, but being the Intel lapdog is their life story.
IBM is essentially the only one who can capitalize since they have a rival architecture emerging at the same time.
You forget that we live in a capitalism. Without Google, NYT could simply get its hits from other search engines and news feeds (i.e. slashdot, yahoo, etc).
Other search engines would love Google to make stupid decisions to censor some of the better news content. A partnership with NYT would just give them one leg up on Google. Google can't afford that.
On another note, regarding the "moronic registration process", I'm sure NYT has had plenty of time to re-evaluate its registration process to determine if it is counter-productive. I'm sure the money they save on consulting and profiling studies because they can link their stories to users far outweighs the $.005/hit of advertising money lost due to the 5% of its potential readers that are turned away.
Re:is there a real difference?
on
AMD Delays Hammer
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The additional latency required to synchronize the address with the rising edge rather than either edge is negligible when you consider the total amount of time required to perform the fetch from L3 or L4. Therefore there is no need to endure the more complex design to implement this.
Most data is fetched in bursts. So there are typically 4 or more data phases per request. Consequently, there is no need for as high bandwidth for the address bus as for data.
Plus, as another post said, it reduces the power requirements. This, combined with the fact that there are typically 4 or 8 data transfers per address is why P4 has gone to QDR buses. This way, there is one address per cycle, and an entire 4-unit burst can be completed in a cycle so the address bus could theoretically be completely saturated. Once you pass QDR (to Octal DR?), you may start requiring a higher data rate on the address bus as well for performing two 4-unit bursts per cycle.
The article didn't propose a solution. It talks about how Nasa and United air performed a study on UWB devices. I'm sure the solution stage is well underway
What role did United Airlines play in the study? Probably, not much, they probably asked Nasa for help.
Nasa would supposedly provide all technical expertise.
What role did CAA play in the study? None, it seems.
So their being quoted at this point is clearly premature. Their comment about disallowing these devices on the planes is probably to calm the nerves of worried passengers. It would probably also be a short-term solution until planes can be designed so that the navigational equipment is more robust and the cockpit is better insulated from the cabin. I'm sure Nasa's role is to suggest improvements needed in lieu of blanket restrictions.
Although I'm concerned that Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc are not involved in this effort, since they would presumably be implementing the solutions.
I'm sure that rather than laying the heavy hand, they will consider a different approach and deploy spectrum analyzers or other equipment to detect the interference before it gets anywhere near problematic. If there is interference, a stewardess can take a portable emag detector to localize the source. Maybe even slap a bigass fine on the offensive party. This will leave it to the individual to ensure they are using a device that does not emit the radiation. The consequence of disallowing laptops on flights is going to have a negative effect on revenue, and the airlines and FAA know it.
MGhz for Mghz a RISC chip kicked the shit out of CISC and stole their lunch money. If I'm not mistaken, they still do. Oh course you can't make the same comparison today.
This statement is completely idiotic. What you mean to say is that the pipeline for RISC architectures could be far more easily designed (than true CISC implementations) and be far more deeply pipelined to obtain a more optimal parallelism, therefore maximizing the instructions per second that can be executed. BUT... RISC chips have a far inferior instructions per clock ratio, so when you get down to it: MHz for MHz, the CISC chip actually kicked the shit out of a RISC chip.
Yes. But... they are more interested in what the same person buys all the time than who that person really is.
For example, they assign you a customer number. They don't really care who you are, but as long as they can tell what are your shopping habits and how they change over time, they are getting what they want.
It's a bit tedious, but you can head over to the SPEC website and browse through all their processors here
Running a search on the processor 'itanium' or 'power4' will provide some pretty interesting marks. The Itanium 2 platforms are very significantly better than the Itanium. The Power4 does have very high specint2k scores, but as you guessed, it's the xeon that takes the trophy.
Also, I don't think AMD has gotten Hammer to a point where they are ready to publish benchmarks, so there won't be any comparisons. (Also, I don't think I've ever seen Intel compare itself to AMD!)
CINT2000 Comp Base Processor Dell 824 Intel Xeon (400 MHz system bus) HP 807 Intel Itanium 2 IBM 804 Power44 Sun 537 UltraSPARC III Cu HP 379 Intel Itanium
CFP2000 HP 1356 Intel Itanium 2 IBM 1202 POWER4 Dell 803 Intel Xeon (400 MHz system bus) Sun 701 UltraSPARC III Cu HP 701 Intel Itanium
Itanium wasn't the driver for 300mm. Why would Intel care that much about the cost of production of a low-volume, high-cost processor like Itanium2? Not only that, but there is no way Itanium2 could economically support that transition.
Besides, it's better to worry about the very high-volume low(er)-cost processor such as the 2.4 and 2.53 and soon to be 2.8 and 3.0 GHz P4s. Intel has been worried about their shrinking margins, and 300mm brings them back up nicely. 300mm was not created as a consequence of Itanium, but rather Itanium was aggressively featured as a consequence of needing to compete and having the luxury of a 300mm wafer to help lower costs. With the enormous L3 memories and the resources that Sun dreams of having, Intel can properly push an Itanium out the door that will have no problem outperforming even the fastest competition. (see this press release )
Given the amount of capital and planning involved, 300mm must have been a decision long in process -- and consequently it was completely independent of the recession which gave a much shorter advance warning. However, it was extremely convenient that they had it in the pipeline when the recession hit so they could better tolerate the lower demand, the shrinking number of big players in the PC business and therefore the very high downward pressure on pricing.
Slashdot Mirror
I will assume you have insurance. Since this is highly likely, then you are also likely taking more from the pot than you are contributing. How can you justify even making such a statement. Insurance is all about leveling the playing field across the society. It is a voluntary socialism, if you will. You are a hypocrite simply for participating in insurance and making these comments.
Yeah, my point exactly. Some hillbilly in KY is hardly common. Sensationalist news, yes. Common, no. Not representative of reality, aiming to get ratings.
Americans don't actually believe that crap is common or normal. It's a shame you canucks do or think that we do. I don't know a single person that does a single thing differently when the threat level is raised.
Heck, I don't know what it is now, but whenever I hear about it, it's been consistently pretty high since 9/11/01. What does that mean??!?! What good is a threat rating if it's always high? Hell if I know.
What are the odds that a terrorist attack will affect me? I'm probably more likely to hit the lotto, and I don't even buy lotto tickets.
What makes you think I watch Canadian news? The only interesting info out of Canada shows up on
In the States it can be hard to get even national news, and the 6:00 news in most cities is the most sensationalistic FUD I've ever heard. No wonder Americans are afraid to step outside their homes unarmed.
Hmm... funny. I don't know any fellow Americans who are afraid to step outside their homes unarmed. I hardly know any that are armed, either. We all know our news sucks and is all about ratings.
But based on your comments, it sure does sound like you get sensationalized news in Canada too -- at least about USA.
READ THE FINE LINKS!!! If you would actually look at the links (as would the submitter and reviewer), you would realize that the 3.4 GHz part is an Extreme Edition, whereas the 3.6 GHz part is not an Extreme Edition. So much for your lecture about the inefficient design...
Service. Microchips embedded in fasteners respond only to encrypted signals, restricting access to service procedures Nice... this reminds me of encrypted printer cartridges (http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,57907,0 0.html) and encrypted garage door openers (http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,60383 ,00.html) used as anti-competitive devices.
What about the Switzerland approach? If he files NO patents and freely gives his ideas to the world, could he be able to find other entities that can rely on his ideas to such an extent that they will use their patent database to threaten the would-be oppressors?
For example, IBM is Linux' biggest savior today. Why? Linux has no cash, but IBM has a vested interest in Linux. Can Carmack leverage this strategy by freely giving his ideas and technology to other organizations (after a "cooling off" period, of course, to ensure his games succeed) or even to GNU or Linux so that FSF and IBM or other Linux advocates will use their portfolios or weight to squash Creative?
The voter checks to make sure that the canidates they selected are recorded on the ballot
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha... how many of the incompetent computer-illiterate (or even illiterate) morons in FL who couldn't figure out how to push the right buttons on the screen will check their ballots for errors?
You would probably have to show a photo of the candidate on the screen and print a photo of the candidate on the ballot and then require that the voter stand in front of the machine for at least 1 minute to compare the two to make sure that's what he wanted. And even then I'm sure FL could somehow skew the "intent" of the vote in a subsequent hand count.
Don't neglect the advantages to this approach, which is probably a fallback to the "old style" of development
Removing the need to fully stabilize the kernel allows more features to be implemented and a more dynamic approach to be taken. Linux will be more nimble and evolve more quickly if the developers don't spend all their time doing testing. Let some of the users test.
How else can you kick-start development that might have slowed down or lost its focus?
Some of the material comes from bin split, but not most of it.
Your strategy works to an extent, but also would result in a huge amount of overtesting. Test time is at a premium, so why would they test a 2.6 GHz chip at 3.2, 3.0, 2.8, 2.6 (i.e. 4 times the amount of test) when they only have to test their high-volume parts once at 2.4 on their cheap testers to get the results they want?
In other words, they test just as many as they need to test at 3.2 to satisfy the market requirements for 3.2. The rest of them they don't even bother testing that fast. They just instantly test at the lower speeds and sell em that way.
If you at risk of needing help due to a potential heart attack why would you hook this lame thing to your heart sensors? Why not hook it up to a mobile phone that calls the ambulance for you automatically instead of involving additional humans and delays in the process? If your phone has GPS, now they also know exactly where to find you. Try doing GPS with the "pixilated" display device. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Interne t_troll&oldid=4422028
You actually still *use* the VHS VCR to play and record tapes?? Assuming you have a DVD player, you use your VCR entirely to record real-time from the TV. You must not have a Tivo yet. Once you get a Tivo (or other DVR), the only reason you will keep your VCR around is for the clock.
Anyhow, the VCR argument is different. By the same argument, people would also keep around their audio-cassette recorders. Turns out that these things died out as soon as CD players became affordable. The final nail in the coffin is when CD burners became affordable. They are only rarely used today to make real-time recordings.
VCRs are used almost entirely to make real-time recordings (i.e. from TV) since macrovision prevents dubbing from DVD or other VHS movies. Although you *might* keep your VCR around for legacy purposes to PLAY movies _you_already_own_, but you need to get your head checked if you are still buying VHS tapes instead of a $50 DVD player + DVDs. For VCR, the usage model is completely different here (i.e. nobody records from the radio), so please don't keep bringing up the false argument.
Nah, not a problem. Because then they would sell these managable-sized trays or cartridges that could hold several or hundreds of these "fingernails", and you could shove this cartridge directly into (the equivalent of) a cd changer in your car or your AV setup at home.
The trays would of course be expensive since they would need to contain all the interconnect required to electrically access all of the devices to maintain the solid-state nature, rather than having some jukebox-like mechanism to robotically change between devices like today's CD changers do.
Ahhh, the story of AMD's PR department...
"The system we make in [today + X number of years] is faster than the system you make today."
More open? Are Apple, Sun, and IBM any more open than Intel? All 4 vendors have nodded their heads in some form or another to free software. Intel has without a doubt spent more on "openness" than Apple. Probably more than Sun, and possibly on par with IBM, although I am only guessing based on the amount of money wach company has to throw around. The truth is, all companies want to align themselves with the "open" campaigns as much as possible without upsetting their partners and undermining their own business.
Just because Intel is the runaway market leader in desktop pc cpus/chipsets doesn't make them opponents of "openness".
But you are correct in one thing, this is a great time to change if you should choose. Apple isn't really a workstation vendor, so not likely to receive much new business as a result of itanium. Sun is almost guaranteed to lose business since they can really only steal business from high-end Xeon users, which are not going to be homeless until long after Itanium is mature and the unmatched performance leader.
Good luck AMD. I know they'll try, but being the Intel lapdog is their life story.
IBM is essentially the only one who can capitalize since they have a rival architecture emerging at the same time.
Someone posted the link above. You will note that itanium blew away all competition, including the power4
When you are speaking at a conference, you are a representative of a company that is counting on you to promote its business decision.
;P
Consequently, it is not in any way surprising to me that this moron lost his job.
And it is not surprising to me that your karma whore submission did not "make the grade"
You forget that we live in a capitalism. Without Google, NYT could simply get its hits from other search engines and news feeds (i.e. slashdot, yahoo, etc).
Other search engines would love Google to make stupid decisions to censor some of the better news content. A partnership with NYT would just give them one leg up on Google. Google can't afford that.
On another note, regarding the "moronic registration process", I'm sure NYT has had plenty of time to re-evaluate its registration process to determine if it is counter-productive. I'm sure the money they save on consulting and profiling studies because they can link their stories to users far outweighs the $.005/hit of advertising money lost due to the 5% of its potential readers that are turned away.
The additional latency required to synchronize the address with the rising edge rather than either edge is negligible when you consider the total amount of time required to perform the fetch from L3 or L4. Therefore there is no need to endure the more complex design to implement this.
Most data is fetched in bursts. So there are typically 4 or more data phases per request. Consequently, there is no need for as high bandwidth for the address bus as for data.
Plus, as another post said, it reduces the power requirements. This, combined with the fact that there are typically 4 or 8 data transfers per address is why P4 has gone to QDR buses. This way, there is one address per cycle, and an entire 4-unit burst can be completed in a cycle so the address bus could theoretically be completely saturated. Once you pass QDR (to Octal DR?), you may start requiring a higher data rate on the address bus as well for performing two 4-unit bursts per cycle.
What role did United Airlines play in the study? Probably, not much, they probably asked Nasa for help.
Nasa would supposedly provide all technical expertise.
What role did CAA play in the study? None, it seems.
So their being quoted at this point is clearly premature. Their comment about disallowing these devices on the planes is probably to calm the nerves of worried passengers. It would probably also be a short-term solution until planes can be designed so that the navigational equipment is more robust and the cockpit is better insulated from the cabin. I'm sure Nasa's role is to suggest improvements needed in lieu of blanket restrictions.
Although I'm concerned that Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc are not involved in this effort, since they would presumably be implementing the solutions.
I'm sure that rather than laying the heavy hand, they will consider a different approach and deploy spectrum analyzers or other equipment to detect the interference before it gets anywhere near problematic. If there is interference, a stewardess can take a portable emag detector to localize the source. Maybe even slap a bigass fine on the offensive party. This will leave it to the individual to ensure they are using a device that does not emit the radiation.
The consequence of disallowing laptops on flights is going to have a negative effect on revenue, and the airlines and FAA know it.
This statement is completely idiotic. What you mean to say is that the pipeline for RISC architectures could be far more easily designed (than true CISC implementations) and be far more deeply pipelined to obtain a more optimal parallelism, therefore maximizing the instructions per second that can be executed. BUT... RISC chips have a far inferior instructions per clock ratio, so when you get down to it: MHz for MHz, the CISC chip actually kicked the shit out of a RISC chip.
Know the facts.
Yes. But... they are more interested in what the same person buys all the time than who that person really is.
For example, they assign you a customer number. They don't really care who you are, but as long as they can tell what are your shopping habits and how they change over time, they are getting what they want.
Running a search on the processor 'itanium' or 'power4' will provide some pretty interesting marks. The Itanium 2 platforms are very significantly better than the Itanium. The Power4 does have very high specint2k scores, but as you guessed, it's the xeon that takes the trophy.
Also, I don't think AMD has gotten Hammer to a point where they are ready to publish benchmarks, so there won't be any comparisons. (Also, I don't think I've ever seen Intel compare itself to AMD!)
CINT2000
Comp Base Processor
Dell 824 Intel Xeon (400 MHz system bus)
HP 807 Intel Itanium 2
IBM 804 Power44
Sun 537 UltraSPARC III Cu
HP 379 Intel Itanium
CFP2000
HP 1356 Intel Itanium 2
IBM 1202 POWER4
Dell 803 Intel Xeon (400 MHz system bus)
Sun 701 UltraSPARC III Cu
HP 701 Intel Itanium
the press release
Besides, it's better to worry about the very high-volume low(er)-cost processor such as the 2.4 and 2.53 and soon to be 2.8 and 3.0 GHz P4s. Intel has been worried about their shrinking margins, and 300mm brings them back up nicely. 300mm was not created as a consequence of Itanium, but rather Itanium was aggressively featured as a consequence of needing to compete and having the luxury of a 300mm wafer to help lower costs. With the enormous L3 memories and the resources that Sun dreams of having, Intel can properly push an Itanium out the door that will have no problem outperforming even the fastest competition. (see this press release )
Given the amount of capital and planning involved, 300mm must have been a decision long in process -- and consequently it was completely independent of the recession which gave a much shorter advance warning. However, it was extremely convenient that they had it in the pipeline when the recession hit so they could better tolerate the lower demand, the shrinking number of big players in the PC business and therefore the very high downward pressure on pricing.