I'm not sure if the original post was a troll or not, but here goes:
Why does this old tech last so long, while later gee whizz probes plummet into Mars?
Because in those days NASA had a massive budget. They could afford to build, big, expensive projects that would never get past design stage today. In fact, often two probes were launched for a single mission. Today, NASA's new budget is considerably smaller as a percentage of GNP. New probes are built a lot cheaper! Without the Russians, it's hard for people to get excited about space....
I would say that it is because modern probes incorporate complex technology.
Think again. You NEED complex technology just to get into space. In Pioneer 6's case, a fair bit of nuclear engineering went into the design of the power systems alone.
Modern probes crash and burn because of software bugs or an inability to convert units.
Wrong again! First of all, modern probes are usually designed with a lower life expectancy. For example, the recent Mars lander was able to land on the planet with only a parachute-type system instead of retro rockets. New probes are built a lot cheaper! Secondly, an mistake with units is NOT a mechanical flaw, it is a mathematical mistake!
You seem to be confusing NASA operations with the software business, where simplicity and in-house design are valuable. I've been both a programmer and an electrical engineer, and let me tell you, it ain't the same!
Commander Data has already gotten linux kernel 4325.43 to work on our systems. We should be safe until we visit "planet of the script kiddies."
Re:You think the government really understands Sys
on
DoD and Net Attacks
·
· Score: 1
Your analogy of vietnam is really flawed. The U.S. left vietnam because of political reasons, not because we lost militarily. U.S. military technology was a lot better, especially in the beginning of the war before the viet cong was well-supplied from China and Russia.
Somewhere around 40 million vietnamese died in that war. In contrast, the American death toll was somewhere around 200,000. Now, not all vietnamese fought for the viet cong, but these numbers give you some idea of the ratios.
Many U.S. casualties happened in terrorist attacks by attackers who blended in with the local population. The logical countermeasure was to attack the civilians, but this was one thing we wouldn't do.
So I really have to argue with the idea that "The U.S. couldn't win against the viet cong." What you should really say is, "The U.S. wouldn't shoot civilians to stop terrorism or use nuclear weapons."
As you said, never underestimate your opponent... I don't believe government spooks are as smart as they think they are either, but you need to think of a better analogy than a cold-war era skirmish to back it up.
In any case, really critical systems probably shouldn't be online anyway. I hope the DoD understands that...
"Regulating voice-over-IP" is NOT necessarily the same thing as "telcos charging for the use of their equipment." Regulating voice over IP could involve hunting down people using the internet for sound communication.
This is similar to the way music industry cartels per$uade governments to tax blank CDs. It's what happens when new technology challenges an industry's way of doing things.
Hopefully, governments will avoid proposing such stupid and unenforceable edicts. Maybe when more people will just get broadband they will be able to avoid these parasitic telephone companies altogether.
And of course the joke is.... since most telephone companies are so lazy, the lame 56k connections they offer can barely support internet telephony anyway. Oh well...
The CPU isn't the bottleneck in PC's today; it's the memory and hard drives. That certainly wouldn't help sells of the P4.
Um... actually the P4 has almost four times the memory bandwidth of the P3. And as for slow hard drives... the solution to that is RAID or SCSI, depending on how much you're willing to spend.
You correctly note that clock speed isn't the only important factor in a chip. However, realize that high clock speed is a pretty good way to get good performance out of an old ISA like x86. The P4 was specifically created with high clock speeds in mind.
Ironically, the P4 does worst on "serious" applications with lots of branching, like compilers. This could be due to its long pipeline. It does best on things like Quake and CD burning, probably due to high memory bandwidth. What a strange inversion!
Seriously though, this system has too many vulnerabilities to really be an effective countermeasure against hackers. Poisoned logs, IP spoofing, etc. This is essentially a really good way to catch:
(a) naive script kiddies
(b) knowledgeable but naive *nix users
I don't think one should dismiss physics as just the application of mathematics. It is not possible to deduce physics from mathematics... you need to perform experiments to know which mathematical concepts to apply, and where.
Remember, Issac Newton originally developed calculus in conjunction with, not in isolation from, ballistics. Math and science are pretty closely related....:)
The real differences between engineers, physicists, and mathematicians probably are differences of interest. Engineers spend hours on practical details that would bore math or physics majors.... making things work.
Unfortunately, private companies don't care too much about what is best for the market in general. They need to look out for themselves or go out of business! In this case, this turns out to be a bad thing.
If every U.S. IC manufacturer pays royalties, effectively they still compete with each other on the same terms.
The really big loser in this is the U.S. economy. Do you think they put up with this kind of crap in China?
The purpose of the electoral college is, at least in part, to keep the more populous parts of the country from completely dominating the others in terms of electoral importance.
Otherwise, politicians would really only have to care about the largest blocs of people. Farmers, people from small towns, and other small, local groups of people would be insignificant in a simple majority system. Under the current system, even though larger states have more votes, small states can still turn the balance. Just a thought...
Finally people are catching on: computer hardware becomes obsolete after a few months, but good cases live almost forever!
Barring things like the transition from AT to ATX, a good case can outlast even the highest megahertz part in your box.
So screw computer technology. What we want is advances in case technology!
I'm all for the wooden case... it's just classier in general, although a metal liner to cut interference would not go amiss. Barring that, I want to see if someone could sculpt a steel oil drum into an appropriate shape with the required tools.
If you want to kill your children, at least be honest about it. You don't need a doctor with clean white gloves to do it for you.
But don't think that it's "the right thing to do" or feel like a martyr because some people have doubts.... I would say your children would be ashamed of you, but I guess that's not really a problem for you.
Road technology doesn't change, though. 10 years from now, the "broadband" network they're building will be like using a 14.4 today.
True... engineering technologies are exactly the same today as they were ten or twenty years ago. And roads don't need regular maintenance.... oh wait, no, never mind.
At least we've replaced all those old copper lines we used to have ten years ago, back when 28.8 seemed like a lot... oh wait, forget it.
It sounds could to begin with, but in the long run how much will this really cost? 40$ covers the line's monthly fee's, but they have computer's to buy, technicians to pay, networks to build/upgrade, then admins... security... installation fee's, Censorware to buy... It sounds sneaky to me.
Um.... the "monthly cost" IS "technicians, admins, security." As for building the networks, that's what the $400 million initial expenditure is for. Or did you skip that part of the article?
Yeah... don't be scared. Just use a chip nobody supports, with little to no software base. That may work for mainframes, but not for the consumer market. Sure alpha is great. Sure POWER is great. But not for people on a budget, who want to run modern-day programs and games.
When will people learn the meaning of the word STANDARD? It doesn't matter how good your processor is if most programs can't run fast (i.e. natively) on it!
Maybe some day more common applications will be portable... but until that wonderful day comes, make mine x86!
I beg to differ. Your comment that people should understand the issues involved before commenting is reasonable, but your assertion that "IA-64 patents are legitimate" is ridiculous.
What is Intel really trying to patent here? Not ideas, that's for sure. They're trying to patent low-level implementation details like how certain instructions impact data flow throughout the IC. Such "inventions" belong in the public domain, and only give ammunition to people who want to abolish intelllectual property altogether.
The real purpose here is clear for anyone to see: to set up a legal minefield for AMD and anyone else who wants to clone the IA-64. Hopefully the people in USPTO will think twice before rubber-stamping this particular load of crap.
As to the death of the x86 architecture: it will probably happen at around the same time we switch from fossil fuels and start using the metric system. It will certainly be very chilly in hell.;)
Haven't you heard? Old standards never die, they just get extended, extended, and extended some more until you can hardly recognize them.... and they're a real mess.:)
Re:One good anti-Internet book.
on
Look to Windward
·
· Score: 1
Go to www.luddites.com.
You can even order a free mouse pad with "I hate modern technology" printed on it.:)
On second thought, maybe you should try yousuck.com or dealwithit.com.
And don't forget to email lots of people about how you hate email.
These IP issues wouldn't be a major concern if it weren't for the fact that Intel has been making noises which suggest it intends to make Itanium the STANDARD for at least the high-end, and possibly other segments of the market.
That being said, this "patent" really is incredibly stupid. Intel has not "invented" anything new here. The idea of out-of-order instruction decoding has been around since the Pentium Pro. The patent is obviously just a device to keep out clones (i.e. direct competition).
Just look at some of these examples: "Processor and instruction set with predict instructions." The USPTO people would have to be morons to fall for this kind of crap. Unfortunately........
What really disturbs me here is the lawyer's ending quote: "Patents on business methods are being granted where they never would have been before."
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder who wins? (And btw... if I have friends with me, you probably won't even get near me before it's over.)
Tasers are just police weapons like pepper spray. They're not meant for combat you dumb shit.
Why does this old tech last so long, while later gee whizz probes plummet into Mars?
Because in those days NASA had a massive budget. They could afford to build, big, expensive projects that would never get past design stage today. In fact, often two probes were launched for a single mission. Today, NASA's new budget is considerably smaller as a percentage of GNP. New probes are built a lot cheaper! Without the Russians, it's hard for people to get excited about space....
I would say that it is because modern probes incorporate complex technology.
Think again. You NEED complex technology just to get into space. In Pioneer 6's case, a fair bit of nuclear engineering went into the design of the power systems alone.
Modern probes crash and burn because of software bugs or an inability to convert units.
Wrong again! First of all, modern probes are usually designed with a lower life expectancy. For example, the recent Mars lander was able to land on the planet with only a parachute-type system instead of retro rockets. New probes are built a lot cheaper! Secondly, an mistake with units is NOT a mechanical flaw, it is a mathematical mistake!
You seem to be confusing NASA operations with the software business, where simplicity and in-house design are valuable. I've been both a programmer and an electrical engineer, and let me tell you, it ain't the same!
Somewhere around 40 million vietnamese died in that war. In contrast, the American death toll was somewhere around 200,000. Now, not all vietnamese fought for the viet cong, but these numbers give you some idea of the ratios.
Many U.S. casualties happened in terrorist attacks by attackers who blended in with the local population. The logical countermeasure was to attack the civilians, but this was one thing we wouldn't do.
So I really have to argue with the idea that "The U.S. couldn't win against the viet cong." What you should really say is, "The U.S. wouldn't shoot civilians to stop terrorism or use nuclear weapons."
As you said, never underestimate your opponent... I don't believe government spooks are as smart as they think they are either, but you need to think of a better analogy than a cold-war era skirmish to back it up.
In any case, really critical systems probably shouldn't be online anyway. I hope the DoD understands that...
This is similar to the way music industry cartels per$uade governments to tax blank CDs. It's what happens when new technology challenges an industry's way of doing things.
Hopefully, governments will avoid proposing such stupid and unenforceable edicts. Maybe when more people will just get broadband they will be able to avoid these parasitic telephone companies altogether.
And of course the joke is.... since most telephone companies are so lazy, the lame 56k connections they offer can barely support internet telephony anyway. Oh well...
I agree. We've all heard these wonderful "purity" arguments before. Sieg Heil!
Um... actually the P4 has almost four times the memory bandwidth of the P3. And as for slow hard drives... the solution to that is RAID or SCSI, depending on how much you're willing to spend.
You correctly note that clock speed isn't the only important factor in a chip. However, realize that high clock speed is a pretty good way to get good performance out of an old ISA like x86. The P4 was specifically created with high clock speeds in mind.
Ironically, the P4 does worst on "serious" applications with lots of branching, like compilers. This could be due to its long pipeline. It does best on things like Quake and CD burning, probably due to high memory bandwidth. What a strange inversion!
Seriously though, this system has too many vulnerabilities to really be an effective countermeasure against hackers. Poisoned logs, IP spoofing, etc. This is essentially a really good way to catch:
(a) naive script kiddies
(b) knowledgeable but naive *nix users
Remember, Issac Newton originally developed calculus in conjunction with, not in isolation from, ballistics. Math and science are pretty closely related.... :)
The real differences between engineers, physicists, and mathematicians probably are differences of interest. Engineers spend hours on practical details that would bore math or physics majors.... making things work.
Now instead of giving the lame excuse "my dog ate it....", you can say, "my copy of office expired while I was writing it."
That's progress.
Just a thought.
If every U.S. IC manufacturer pays royalties, effectively they still compete with each other on the same terms.
The really big loser in this is the U.S. economy. Do you think they put up with this kind of crap in China?
Otherwise, politicians would really only have to care about the largest blocs of people. Farmers, people from small towns, and other small, local groups of people would be insignificant in a simple majority system. Under the current system, even though larger states have more votes, small states can still turn the balance. Just a thought...
Anyone who really has any skill can write their own (well, maybe a debugger would be harder)
Of course, we all know there's no way to get warez and such.... :P
20 Call EVIL_ASSEMBLY_LANGUAGE_ROUTINE
Always fun... especially if it's really just a null pointer.
The only thing new is that faster computers and slightly better programming techniques hide the speed hit.
Having an interpreted assembly language really, really defeats the point. Oh well. C++ is the way to go today...
Barring things like the transition from AT to ATX, a good case can outlast even the highest megahertz part in your box.
So screw computer technology. What we want is advances in case technology!
I'm all for the wooden case... it's just classier in general, although a metal liner to cut interference would not go amiss. Barring that, I want to see if someone could sculpt a steel oil drum into an appropriate shape with the required tools.
But don't think that it's "the right thing to do" or feel like a martyr because some people have doubts.... I would say your children would be ashamed of you, but I guess that's not really a problem for you.
True... engineering technologies are exactly the same today as they were ten or twenty years ago. And roads don't need regular maintenance.... oh wait, no, never mind.
At least we've replaced all those old copper lines we used to have ten years ago, back when 28.8 seemed like a lot... oh wait, forget it.
:)
Um.... the "monthly cost" IS "technicians, admins, security." As for building the networks, that's what the $400 million initial expenditure is for. Or did you skip that part of the article?
Sounds like someone is jealous. ;)
I AM BILL GATES.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.........
When will people learn the meaning of the word STANDARD? It doesn't matter how good your processor is if most programs can't run fast (i.e. natively) on it!
Maybe some day more common applications will be portable... but until that wonderful day comes, make mine x86!
What is Intel really trying to patent here? Not ideas, that's for sure. They're trying to patent low-level implementation details like how certain instructions impact data flow throughout the IC. Such "inventions" belong in the public domain, and only give ammunition to people who want to abolish intelllectual property altogether.
The real purpose here is clear for anyone to see: to set up a legal minefield for AMD and anyone else who wants to clone the IA-64. Hopefully the people in USPTO will think twice before rubber-stamping this particular load of crap.
As to the death of the x86 architecture: it will probably happen at around the same time we switch from fossil fuels and start using the metric system. It will certainly be very chilly in hell. ;)
Haven't you heard? Old standards never die, they just get extended, extended, and extended some more until you can hardly recognize them.... and they're a real mess. :)
You can even order a free mouse pad with "I hate modern technology" printed on it. :)
On second thought, maybe you should try yousuck.com or dealwithit.com.
And don't forget to email lots of people about how you hate email.
That being said, this "patent" really is incredibly stupid. Intel has not "invented" anything new here. The idea of out-of-order instruction decoding has been around since the Pentium Pro. The patent is obviously just a device to keep out clones (i.e. direct competition).
Just look at some of these examples: "Processor and instruction set with predict instructions." The USPTO people would have to be morons to fall for this kind of crap. Unfortunately........
What really disturbs me here is the lawyer's ending quote: "Patents on business methods are being granted where they never would have been before."