One thing that I got from this article is why we shouldn't be depending too much on clock-speeds for comparison, and thus the fact that PPCs aren't yet available at clock speeds of x86 shouldn't really matter. The wide and shallow approach of the PPC certainly means that less clock cycles are needed than the narrow and deep approach of the x86.
This is false. The key point that the P4 is design for clock ramping to maintain Moore's law. The G4's performance ramp has fallen *way* off of Moore's law and looks to be an already dead architecture.
Greater clock still leads to high minimum lantency between instructions, and this gives the P4 a hugh lead. The only disadvantage of the longer pipeline, which makes branching somewhat more costly.
The G4 is *NOT* a very wide architecture compared, say, to an Athlon.
Now I know that they only tests that really matter are the real world tests, simply because at a user level that's the only real place that I'll notice the difference.
Quake III is the only truly fair real world benchmark that you can run on both of these machines. I believe the x86s just wipe the floor floor with iMacs.
It's interesting to not that Mr. Gielda doesn't cite corporations or the US Government as the biggest problem, but instead cites ordinary people who for one reason or another can't accept the fact the people should be free to say and think what they want.
Perhaps you missed the part where he says he's under a gag order not to talk about that the FBI wants from him.
> Btw, this sort of shit reminds me of someone:
>
> "Paul Hsieh, our local assembler guru, analyzed
> the assembler output of the SSE-2 optimized
> version of Flops. He pointed out that "some of
> the loops are not fully vectorized, [...]
>
> Anyone think that "Paul Hsieh" == "Bob
> Ababooey" ?
Well certainly not me! Who or what is "Bob Abobooey"?
If their previous CSC is any indication, I would
project that d.net will finish one they reach
about %125 coverage.
(Even though logic would dictate that the expected time of finishing is now at the 75% mark.)
Actually, the problem is that even an overwritten drive can have its old data recovered. Not by using the default drive heads, speeds etc -- but by using more sensitive equipment. Remember that the magnetic media is actually analog once you examine it closely enough. When you overwrite a previous value, you don't quite completely overwrite it.
There are data recovery centers that exist precisely for this purpose.
This is an *appeal* of the case. That testimony was already given in the original case. In the appeals process, the goal is not to simply restate what was said in the original trial, but rather explain why the original ruling was wrong or right (depending on which side you are on.) Presenting new ways of thinking about the evidence is acceptable, of course, and is what has actually happened.
If there is anything that I would have hoped would be harped on more is the fact that Kaplan introduced reasoning in his judgement that was not supported by any reasoning or evidence presented at the trial. In other words, Kaplan was clearly acting on behalf of the prosecution with the advantage that *his* interpretations which only showed up in the final ruling would not be challenged by *anyone*. In fact the people that are supposed to challenge Kaplan's assertions in the ruling are the appeals judges.
Netscape couldn't release Mozilla because of the RSA code that was in it.
Id Software couldn't release DOOM source because it was using some kind of proprietary sound libraries.
Sybase couldn't open source WATCOM C/C++ because of the libraries licenced from Microsoft, Pharlap, FlashTek, Blue Sky, etc.
KDE couldn't be truly open sourced because of the proprietary Qt libraries used.
Oh wait a minute! All of those things have already or are going open source anyway! How is that possible? Simple: the authors have just ripped out the offending components, and rewritten them as neccessary. Problem solved.
Hey man, I gave it a fair shot, but the thing wouldn't boot for me. I would have been interested in trying it out too, but if they can't be bothered to test out Athlons + some oddball components, that's their problem.
Actually it looks like they've owned those names since last September. I guess they realized that the coolest and probably the most powerful operating system on earth means very little if there are no killer apps for it.
Slashdot Mirror
See:
http://www.bagley.org/~doug/shootout/
You might like to look at the following links before you conclude that Lisp is not usable in the real world:
http://www.paulgraham.com/paulgraham/avg.html
This is false. The key point that the P4 is design for clock ramping to maintain Moore's law. The G4's performance ramp has fallen *way* off of Moore's law and looks to be an already dead architecture.
Greater clock still leads to high minimum lantency between instructions, and this gives the P4 a hugh lead. The only disadvantage of the longer pipeline, which makes branching somewhat more costly.
The G4 is *NOT* a very wide architecture compared, say, to an Athlon.
Now I know that they only tests that really matter are the real world tests, simply because at a user level that's the only real place that I'll notice the difference.
Quake III is the only truly fair real world benchmark that you can run on both of these machines. I believe the x86s just wipe the floor floor with iMacs.
Paul Hsieh
Perhaps you missed the part where he says he's under a gag order not to talk about that the FBI wants from him.
> Btw, this sort of shit reminds me of someone:
>
> "Paul Hsieh, our local assembler guru, analyzed
> the assembler output of the SSE-2 optimized
> version of Flops. He pointed out that "some of
> the loops are not fully vectorized, [...]
>
> Anyone think that "Paul Hsieh" == "Bob
> Ababooey" ?
Well certainly not me! Who or what is "Bob Abobooey"?
--
Paul Hsieh
http://www.pobox.com/~qed/
If their previous CSC is any indication, I would project that d.net will finish one they reach about %125 coverage. (Even though logic would dictate that the expected time of finishing is now at the 75% mark.)
But the ports are open and vulnerable, so we must plug them.
But we don't know what ports are open, so we must scan them.
--
Shaft of light
There are data recovery centers that exist precisely for this purpose.
If there is anything that I would have hoped would be harped on more is the fact that Kaplan introduced reasoning in his judgement that was not supported by any reasoning or evidence presented at the trial. In other words, Kaplan was clearly acting on behalf of the prosecution with the advantage that *his* interpretations which only showed up in the final ruling would not be challenged by *anyone*. In fact the people that are supposed to challenge Kaplan's assertions in the ruling are the appeals judges.
Oh wait a minute! All of those things have already or are going open source anyway! How is that possible? Simple: the authors have just ripped out the offending components, and rewritten them as neccessary. Problem solved.
Hey man, I gave it a fair shot, but the thing wouldn't boot for me. I would have been interested in trying it out too, but if they can't be bothered to test out Athlons + some oddball components, that's their problem.
Actually it looks like they've owned those names since last September. I guess they realized that the coolest and probably the most powerful operating system on earth means very little if there are no killer apps for it.