This can be done by forcing everyone to register with their SSN and require their parents SSN to register.
1. I'm not familiar with the scheme, but how do I: a) determine somebody's age from their SSN b) determine if the parent's SSN supplied is really the parent's SSN c) tell if somebody's using a forged SSN
2. I don't have a US-issued SSN. How do I sign up to a service using this scheme?
1) John Law says 'companies, make this happen' 2) Companies say, 'wait...what?' 3) ??? 4) Safety for children everywhere!
Actually, step 1 is the missing step of this plan:
1) Set up limited liability corporation 2) Advertise "age-verification service" that doesn't work 3) ???? 4) Profit (until somebody sues you for providing a service that doesn't work, at which point you fold the company and keep all the nice stuff you bought with the profits).
Well, you make the company liable just as bars are liable if a kid uses a fake ID.
If there was actually a working scheme that allows you to prove your age online without placing trust in a dubious third party and which wasn't trivially breakable, I'd buy that. But there is no Internet-based proof-of-age scheme that works. Generally, anyone with access to a credit card can acquire one. Anyone who doesn't trust the apparently-dodgy businesses operating in the area with their credit card details can't.
That's the approach they'll likely take, assuming this is found Constitutional the fist time it's tested, which it won't
Unfortunately, an unenforceable law still costs the rest of us time, convenience and money, because anyone who doesn't want the hassle of being prosecuted and having to take the case through multiple levels of appeal to have the law declared unconstitutional will comply with it anyway. Don't think for a moment that if this law is passed, every blogger account there is will be suspended until its owner can prove their age, whether or not the owner is even in the US. How many great blogs will we lose?
A production E4300 running at 1.8 GHz can be run at 3 GHz on stock air cooling
And if that's possible with a 65nm chip, even just the normal benefits of scaling suggest that 4GHz should be attainable from an equivalent 45nm chip. And it sounds like this generation is going to give intel better than normal improvements, so I'd expect to see 5-6GHz from Penryn cores with air cooling, assuming the data paths can switch fast enough (I expect Intel have designed it with some headroom, so this is likely to be the case). Plus that chip will have larger cache, so is likely to actually be able to make use of some of the extra cycles, rather than just sitting there waiting for the RAM to catch up like a 65nm model would at that speed.
that "free speed" comes at the cost of a higher grade of memory (adding $100+)
To be fair, you probably get a greater performance improvement from increasing the FSB speed than you do from increasing the processor speed, so this may well be worth it.
You do know that wikipedia has a function that lets you link to a version of a page that will never change (unless the page is completely deleted) don't you?
Ergo, imprisonment without legitimate cause (which is tested by habeas corpus) falls into the same category as the rest.
Yes, but the right of writ of habeas corpus sui juris is not a right to not be imprisoned without legitimate cause: it is a right to have the cause of your imprisonment tested.
The distinction's a subtle one, but it is there.
The right to not be improperly imprisoned is contained in the fifth amendment:
No person shall be [...] be deprived of [...] liberty [...] without due process of law[...].
10,000 years from now, people will not be speaking the same languages we speak today.
I think its a fair bet that 10,000 years from now, if there is a technologically advanced society in existence, it will contain at least a few hundred people who are able to read, and probably write, in English. A few other major languages will have similar or only slightly smaller numbers -- French, Chinese, Japanese, perhaps Spanish. Written English is an incredibly important language; the number of documents created in English far outweighs the numbers that are believed to have been created in extinct languages that we are able to decipher. It is unlikely to be completely lost for a very long time.
Computers, if they exist, will not work on the same principles
Yes, but the principles we use will be understood, just like we're able to understand the principles of making tools from flint and obsidian. A few specialists will have the knowledge to recreate what we do.
we're just at the beginning of the computer age, and already quantum computing is threatening a new revolution.
I doubt quantum computing -- at least in the form we currently understand it -- will spark a real revolution. Quantum computers are only really any good at a restricted set of tasks. They aren't general purpose computers like current machines. And whereas the difficulty of scaling up current designs seems to be somewhere between linear and quadratic, quantum machines appear to become exponentially harder to build as you increase the size of them.
TFA states the energy storage of the battery was 15 KWH.
It's worth pointing out that a 15kWh energy source isn't going to get a car very far -- perhaps you'd get a 60 mile range out of it (except in extremely lightweight vehicles, which are expensive to manufacture and unpopular because of poor handling in windy conditions). For real applications, you're going to need multiple batteries of this capacity.
And even if they did, we don't have the 10,000amp service at my house necessary to actually charge them at speed.
Why would you need a high-power line to charge it at home? You can charge over a period of hours, at your leisure, at home. It's only roadside charging that requires such ridiculous amounts of power.
They aren't. The cars are being built by a company called ZENN, who have contracted with EEStor to produce the batteries for them. I think they're making a mistake signing an exclusive license deal with an unknown company, but if the product works and they go out of business, the patent will be sold off to a mainstream manufacturer. If it doesn't work, who cares?
While Gonzales's statement has a measure of quibbling precision to it, his logic is troubling because it would suggest that many other fundamental rights that Americans hold dear (such as free speech, freedom of religion, and the right to assemble peacefully) also don't exist because the Constitution often spells out those rights in the negative
There is a substantial difference between habeas corpus and most of the other rights enumerated; habeas corpus is a right to have the state do something on your behalf (i.e., get a judge to examine a case of imprisonment to determine whether it is legal or not), not a right to not have the state interfere with something you could do for yourself (which all the other quoted examples are). Therefore phrasing it purely in negative terms is not enough: it has to already exist.
Of course, it did already exist when the constitution was phrased, because US law at that time was essentially British common law, in which it clearly existed, had existed for a very long time, and was well-described in the relatively recent Habeas Corpus Act 1679, signed into law by King Charles II. The author of that passage of the constitution will have known this, and that was the basic background he was working from.
"Their chips are no longer the powerhouses they once were,"
Huh? I mean, is the statement I've seen that "at the time of its release [slightly over a year ago] the UltraSPARC T1 [was arguably] the world's most powerful general-purpose commercial server processor, when considering multithreaded commercial workloads" just somebody's imagination? Or are you saying that because they haven't released a new model for a year now they're slipping behind? 'Cause they have a new core scheduled for release some time this year, you know.
Frankly, I doubt an 8GHz Core2 would be possible, at least with current fabrication processes, and probably even processes planned to be implemented (i.e. 45nm). Perhaps two retoolings down the line (35nm? Not sure where they're planning on going) we'll see something that can reach those speeds again, but Core2 just ain't built for fast clocks.
Actually, I don't see the result you're talking about on the records list, despite it being higher than the third that's on the list now. Plus the page says something about "not verified". Perhaps they've removed it as a probably forged result?
Indeed. Light travels just under 2 centimetres in the 16 GHz period. The Pentium 4 core is not much smaller than this... it seems like they're pushing their luck on order-of-magnitude estimates alone.
1. Only one pipeline, which only performs ADD instructions, is clocked at twice the core speed. This section of the chip is *very* small, probably containing only in the order of 1,000 transistors. Some additional support circuitry (e.g. the register write-back stage and instruction queue) will also need to operate at this speed, probably for a total of around 5-10,000 transistors, or an insignificant fraction of the total die area of the chip.
2. One of the design principles of the P4 was to break down the processing into 20 stages so that critical signals didn't have to travel much distance across the chip within a single cycle.
The P4 was originally expected to reach speeds of approximately 10GHz (i.e. with its fast ALU pipeline running at 20GHz); I suspect some fundamental (but easily calculated) limitation like signal propogation delays would kick in at that point -- Intel would have known about these limits back when they made that statement.
It's also how fast your circuits can switch, and how fast the signal can travel on the wires. The execution core of a Pentium 4 also happens to be double-pumped (i.e., it performs operations on both edges of the clock signal). Essentially, those ALUs would be switching at 16GHz... I, personally, take this with a grain of salt.
You do know that 8GHz was the target speed that intel always intended to get netburst up to, don't you? An intel representative even stated once "We have positive indications to be able to take Netburst to the 10 GHz space." Only power management and thermal dissipation issues prevented them from releasing a commercial product that was this fast. As I understand it, this particular feat is merely a replication of something Intel did in their own labs over a year ago (although I forget where I read the description of that setup, and a quick google hasn't turned it up).
Slashdot Mirror
This can be done by forcing everyone to register with their SSN and require their parents SSN to register.
1. I'm not familiar with the scheme, but how do I:
a) determine somebody's age from their SSN
b) determine if the parent's SSN supplied is really the parent's SSN
c) tell if somebody's using a forged SSN
2. I don't have a US-issued SSN. How do I sign up to a service using this scheme?
1) John Law says 'companies, make this happen'
2) Companies say, 'wait...what?'
3) ???
4) Safety for children everywhere!
Actually, step 1 is the missing step of this plan:
1) Set up limited liability corporation
2) Advertise "age-verification service" that doesn't work
3) ????
4) Profit (until somebody sues you for providing a service that doesn't work, at which point you fold the company and keep all the nice stuff you bought with the profits).
Well, you make the company liable just as bars are liable if a kid uses a fake ID.
If there was actually a working scheme that allows you to prove your age online without placing trust in a dubious third party and which wasn't trivially breakable, I'd buy that. But there is no Internet-based proof-of-age scheme that works. Generally, anyone with access to a credit card can acquire one. Anyone who doesn't trust the apparently-dodgy businesses operating in the area with their credit card details can't.
That's the approach they'll likely take, assuming this is found Constitutional the fist time it's tested, which it won't
Unfortunately, an unenforceable law still costs the rest of us time, convenience and money, because anyone who doesn't want the hassle of being prosecuted and having to take the case through multiple levels of appeal to have the law declared unconstitutional will comply with it anyway. Don't think for a moment that if this law is passed, every blogger account there is will be suspended until its owner can prove their age, whether or not the owner is even in the US. How many great blogs will we lose?
A production E4300 running at 1.8 GHz can be run at 3 GHz on stock air cooling
And if that's possible with a 65nm chip, even just the normal benefits of scaling suggest that 4GHz should be attainable from an equivalent 45nm chip. And it sounds like this generation is going to give intel better than normal improvements, so I'd expect to see 5-6GHz from Penryn cores with air cooling, assuming the data paths can switch fast enough (I expect Intel have designed it with some headroom, so this is likely to be the case). Plus that chip will have larger cache, so is likely to actually be able to make use of some of the extra cycles, rather than just sitting there waiting for the RAM to catch up like a 65nm model would at that speed.
that "free speed" comes at the cost of a higher grade of memory (adding $100+)
To be fair, you probably get a greater performance improvement from increasing the FSB speed than you do from increasing the processor speed, so this may well be worth it.
(Re subject line) ... that only a child can do it?
You do know that wikipedia has a function that lets you link to a version of a page that will never change (unless the page is completely deleted) don't you?
Wikipedia does not allow original research, so all information on a page must be cited.
While it's true that this is wikipedia's policy, it's only followed on approximately half of the pages on there.
Ergo, imprisonment without legitimate cause (which is tested by habeas corpus) falls into the same category as the rest.
Yes, but the right of writ of habeas corpus sui juris is not a right to not be imprisoned without legitimate cause: it is a right to have the cause of your imprisonment tested.
The distinction's a subtle one, but it is there.
The right to not be improperly imprisoned is contained in the fifth amendment:
No person shall be [...] be deprived of [...] liberty [...] without due process of law[...].
Another considerationis they may have to emulate someone elses API. Too much software out there to have a new one.
What, you mean like OpenGL or DirectX? Yeah, I suspect they will be supporting those APIs.
10,000 years from now, people will not be speaking the same languages we speak today.
I think its a fair bet that 10,000 years from now, if there is a technologically advanced society in existence, it will contain at least a few hundred people who are able to read, and probably write, in English. A few other major languages will have similar or only slightly smaller numbers -- French, Chinese, Japanese, perhaps Spanish. Written English is an incredibly important language; the number of documents created in English far outweighs the numbers that are believed to have been created in extinct languages that we are able to decipher. It is unlikely to be completely lost for a very long time.
Computers, if they exist, will not work on the same principles
Yes, but the principles we use will be understood, just like we're able to understand the principles of making tools from flint and obsidian. A few specialists will have the knowledge to recreate what we do.
we're just at the beginning of the computer age, and already quantum computing is threatening a new revolution.
I doubt quantum computing -- at least in the form we currently understand it -- will spark a real revolution. Quantum computers are only really any good at a restricted set of tasks. They aren't general purpose computers like current machines. And whereas the difficulty of scaling up current designs seems to be somewhere between linear and quadratic, quantum machines appear to become exponentially harder to build as you increase the size of them.
Yes, they have a patent, which they filed for in 2000. Details.
TFA states the energy storage of the battery was 15 KWH.
It's worth pointing out that a 15kWh energy source isn't going to get a car very far -- perhaps you'd get a 60 mile range out of it (except in extremely lightweight vehicles, which are expensive to manufacture and unpopular because of poor handling in windy conditions). For real applications, you're going to need multiple batteries of this capacity.
And even if they did, we don't have the 10,000amp service at my house necessary to actually charge them at speed.
Why would you need a high-power line to charge it at home? You can charge over a period of hours, at your leisure, at home. It's only roadside charging that requires such ridiculous amounts of power.
They aren't. The cars are being built by a company called ZENN, who have contracted with EEStor to produce the batteries for them. I think they're making a mistake signing an exclusive license deal with an unknown company, but if the product works and they go out of business, the patent will be sold off to a mainstream manufacturer. If it doesn't work, who cares?
While Gonzales's statement has a measure of quibbling precision to it, his logic is troubling because it would suggest that many other fundamental rights that Americans hold dear (such as free speech, freedom of religion, and the right to assemble peacefully) also don't exist because the Constitution often spells out those rights in the negative
There is a substantial difference between habeas corpus and most of the other rights enumerated; habeas corpus is a right to have the state do something on your behalf (i.e., get a judge to examine a case of imprisonment to determine whether it is legal or not), not a right to not have the state interfere with something you could do for yourself (which all the other quoted examples are). Therefore phrasing it purely in negative terms is not enough: it has to already exist.
Of course, it did already exist when the constitution was phrased, because US law at that time was essentially British common law, in which it clearly existed, had existed for a very long time, and was well-described in the relatively recent Habeas Corpus Act 1679, signed into law by King Charles II. The author of that passage of the constitution will have known this, and that was the basic background he was working from.
Frankly, the version I currently have does everything I want it to do.
"Their chips are no longer the powerhouses they once were,"
Huh? I mean, is the statement I've seen that "at the time of its release [slightly over a year ago] the UltraSPARC T1 [was arguably] the world's most powerful general-purpose commercial server processor, when considering multithreaded commercial workloads" just somebody's imagination? Or are you saying that because they haven't released a new model for a year now they're slipping behind? 'Cause they have a new core scheduled for release some time this year, you know.
Frankly, I doubt an 8GHz Core2 would be possible, at least with current fabrication processes, and probably even processes planned to be implemented (i.e. 45nm). Perhaps two retoolings down the line (35nm? Not sure where they're planning on going) we'll see something that can reach those speeds again, but Core2 just ain't built for fast clocks.
Can't have been that fire. The 286 was only released in 1892, so that's after the event.
I am actually more impressed with the 3rd result, obtained using a PII originally clocked at 333 Mhz.
It managed to reach 7640.28 Mhz. Reference here : http://valid.x86-secret.com/records.php .
Direct link to results here: http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=159352
Actually, I don't see the result you're talking about on the records list, despite it being higher than the third that's on the list now. Plus the page says something about "not verified". Perhaps they've removed it as a probably forged result?
I'm more impressed with the underclocking results. Imagine how little power a K5 at 15.02MHz would consume!
Indeed. Light travels just under 2 centimetres in the 16 GHz period. The Pentium 4 core is not much smaller than this... it seems like they're pushing their luck on order-of-magnitude estimates alone.
1. Only one pipeline, which only performs ADD instructions, is clocked at twice the core speed. This section of the chip is *very* small, probably containing only in the order of 1,000 transistors. Some additional support circuitry (e.g. the register write-back stage and instruction queue) will also need to operate at this speed, probably for a total of around 5-10,000 transistors, or an insignificant fraction of the total die area of the chip.
2. One of the design principles of the P4 was to break down the processing into 20 stages so that critical signals didn't have to travel much distance across the chip within a single cycle.
The P4 was originally expected to reach speeds of approximately 10GHz (i.e. with its fast ALU pipeline running at 20GHz); I suspect some fundamental (but easily calculated) limitation like signal propogation delays would kick in at that point -- Intel would have known about these limits back when they made that statement.
It's also how fast your circuits can switch, and how fast the signal can travel on the wires. The execution core of a Pentium 4 also happens to be double-pumped (i.e., it performs operations on both edges of the clock signal). Essentially, those ALUs would be switching at 16GHz ... I, personally, take this with a grain of salt.
You do know that 8GHz was the target speed that intel always intended to get netburst up to, don't you? An intel representative even stated once "We have positive indications to be able to take Netburst to the 10 GHz space." Only power management and thermal dissipation issues prevented them from releasing a commercial product that was this fast. As I understand it, this particular feat is merely a replication of something Intel did in their own labs over a year ago (although I forget where I read the description of that setup, and a quick google hasn't turned it up).
"Team, find me a way to remove the driver signing check from Vista. I don't care if we have to patch the kernel image and bootloader to do so."
Problem with this is that if you have a TPM enabled machine, patching your bootloader or kernel could invalidate your DRM media.