The problem with stacked chips like this in the past has been cooling the wafers in the middle of the stack. While DIMMs don't run as hot as processors or GPUs, this is still a concern for them.
True, however shorter wires can be driven with less power, creating less heat.
Nobody comes out of this looking like the "good guys".
Your opinion, not mine.
The net result of this fiasco will probably be a cross-licensing agreement and a bunch of rich lawyers. (I don't begrudge the lawyers anything, btw... everyone's gotta make a buck)
Very true, even the mercenaries and crack dealers. Oh wait, there are moral and ethical limits.
It's funny how slashdotters always point out how Google doesn't sue for patent issues, but conveniently don't mention how they're having these proxy wars via other companies. Just like all the other companies.
Excuse me, but you come across as an Apple apologist. Hands up, everybody who thinks Apple is the good guy here.
You'd have been happier with an i3 or i5. I can just hear the fans on my i5 server when I stand with my ears a few inches away from it.
Both Intel and AMD give the TDP of their four core parts (i5 for Intel, Phenom II for AMD) as 95 watts. The difference is that I believe AMD. And I wonder about your belief that an i5 box would be quieter than mine with similar components, or your definition of what a few inches is, or whether you have the stereo on when you post to Slashdot. I have had people tell me with great assurance than an XBox 360 is quieter than a PS3, or that they can't hear their PS3 when watching a movie, both patently absurd with a moment's first hand experience.
The current situation is Intel is slaughtering AMD.
Then why do I only buy AMD (and ARM) these days? Frankly, Intel just seems to fib about their power envelope every generation and I do not, repeat, do not like to be surrounded by noisy computers. Currently running a quietized 4 way Phenom II box, very happy with it. I have not been happy with any intel box as a workstation for quite some time. Nothing beats the Pentium M in my aging Shuttle for a basically silent server (21 db @ 3 meters). Every other Intel box I have run recently requires stupid amounts of cooling. As far as servers go, Intel wins on minimum latency, so Intel owns the data centers of the financial industry, but AMD wins on mips/watt and mips/dollar, so AMD owns a disproportionate share of the throughput in the top 500 list. And AMD owns the space under my desk.
Speaking as somebody who owns an iPad, I would love to see something like the Tab (which is pretty nice, actually) light a fire under Apple to try even harder
Oh, you mean like the Galaxy tab 10.1?
Incidentally, I use both my Xoom and my mother's iPad 2 and I can state that the Xoom just blows the ipad out of the water in usability, contrary to the usual spin from Apple cultists. For example, playing videos on the Youtube app, the video position slider just fails to respond without repeated attempts. And several times I have picked up Mom's ipad to find all the icons jiggling. My mom put it down because she could not figure out how to get it to start doings stuff again. Basic usability flaw: modal = bad. It goes on and on. Usually, I feel like smashing the ipad on the floor at least several times each time I use it, whereas I get that feeling with the Xoom only once a week or so. Big difference.
Oh, and the ipad is just a big money grab for Apple, whereas plenty of free stuff of fine quality, built by enthusiasts is available for the Xoom in addition to the usual money grabs from vendors and eyeball grabs from Google. My mom figured that out, and guess what? Dad's Christmas present is already pixed out: it's a Galaxy tab 10.1. Which I most probably would have got for myself except that I care about having a flash slot whereas my Dad does not, he cares about the weight.
Since Google decided to delay releasing Honeycomb's source because they didnt want more half-cooked tablets on the market, suddenly the loud-mouth brigade is trying to paint them in a bad light.
Kind of suggests that making lame excuses for not releasing the source was a thoroughly bad idea, doesn't it?
I've been trying to get the fascination with Lisp for twenty years, and consistently fail.
Most folks who have done significant work with Lisp end up getting it, often with significant muttering along the way. Hint: it's not about the parentheses. And it's not about being the right tool for every job.
The problem with exceptions is that they get used for things that aren't exceptional, like a TCP RST, while they can't recover from problems that truly are exceptional (e.g. out of memory, stack overflow, bus alignment error, wedged spinlock, lost interrupt). Between the two is a ridiculously thin error handling domain that really doesn't warrant its own language feature.
I would dispute your assertion that your latter domain is small. Maybe small compared to the domain of poorly written code, which always seems to be the largest domain of all, however what you are denigrating is precisely that which is required for truly robust applications which are also readable. Or to put it another way: if you are satisfied with applications that produce error messages not connected in any obvious way with the cause of a problem, then by all means don't bother with exception based error handling.
false, objects can be done in C as pointers to structs with members pointing to data and structures.. In fact, that's how the early c++ "compilers" did it.
As someone who has written a large amount of code in exactly that style, converting such a mess to C++ is always a welcome relief in terms of readability, maintainability and ability to further abstract. Just one concrete example: using C, if you define a struct that includes all the members of some other struct plus some new ones, using one of the new members is syntactically different from using one of the old ones (extra member dereference) so you can't do this transparently. A typical workaround is a mess of macros, need I say more.
Your argument fails to account for the possibility that increased criticism of Apple may actually be justified, or that Google fanboys are not the only critics.
It's possible you don't understand just how much time Googlers have on their hands for reading Slashdot. Not much different from Microsoft or Apple really.
Certainly Google needs to explain to the Android ecosystem how its control over Android development will not tilt the playing field in the direction of its own hardware. I can think of some interesting arguments along the lines of "goodbye ROM lockdown". The absolute worst stance would be inscrutable silence on this issue.
Adds weight to the proposition that Apple's deep desire is to challenge big brother Microsoft for title of most egregious corporate falsifier of evidence.
Judging from the Rage trailers it is safe to say that JC has set the bar higher once again. It still looks like Quake with cars so I'm not much interested in actually playing it, but interestingly you can see some intrusions from the Bethesda culture in the form of ambient banter and quests. It seems like a no brainer that John has already turned to the truly open world problem so Bethesda can realistically use his next engine for a proper walk-around.
The thing is that when the critical N is reached, O(P log N) isnt just going to be slightly better, its going to be enormously better from then on out
Obviously, but many commenters seem to gloss over the fact that polygon rendering can also be reduced to O(N log N) by multi-resolution rendering.techniques.
To be precise, Apple can't afford to let their fat margins fall or so will their stock price. Corollary: the higher AAPL goes, the more vicious it gets.
Actually, Apple was like that right from the beginning but their spin has been sufficient to conceal it until recently. Learned my lesson in 1984 (the real one).
Slashdot Mirror
the immaturity of AMD's 32nm process and things could be expensive for AMD on the desktop...
True, however do bear in mind that AMD's fab strategy pits TSMC and friends against Intel. In the long run, I'll bet on the former.
The problem with stacked chips like this in the past has been cooling the wafers in the middle of the stack. While DIMMs don't run as hot as processors or GPUs, this is still a concern for them.
True, however shorter wires can be driven with less power, creating less heat.
Rambus did the hardware patent troll thing... The whole thing was covered by /., and it went on for years...
It's still going on.
Nobody comes out of this looking like the "good guys".
Your opinion, not mine.
The net result of this fiasco will probably be a cross-licensing agreement and a bunch of rich lawyers. (I don't begrudge the lawyers anything, btw... everyone's gotta make a buck)
Very true, even the mercenaries and crack dealers. Oh wait, there are moral and ethical limits.
It's funny how slashdotters always point out how Google doesn't sue for patent issues, but conveniently don't mention how they're having these proxy wars via other companies. Just like all the other companies.
Excuse me, but you come across as an Apple apologist. Hands up, everybody who thinks Apple is the good guy here.
Then why do I only buy AMD (and ARM) these days?
Because you're an AMD fanboy?
Or maybe because I get more for my money and I am pleased with the mips per watt performance?
You'd have been happier with an i3 or i5. I can just hear the fans on my i5 server when I stand with my ears a few inches away from it.
Both Intel and AMD give the TDP of their four core parts (i5 for Intel, Phenom II for AMD) as 95 watts. The difference is that I believe AMD. And I wonder about your belief that an i5 box would be quieter than mine with similar components, or your definition of what a few inches is, or whether you have the stereo on when you post to Slashdot. I have had people tell me with great assurance than an XBox 360 is quieter than a PS3, or that they can't hear their PS3 when watching a movie, both patently absurd with a moment's first hand experience.
The current situation is Intel is slaughtering AMD.
Then why do I only buy AMD (and ARM) these days? Frankly, Intel just seems to fib about their power envelope every generation and I do not, repeat, do not like to be surrounded by noisy computers. Currently running a quietized 4 way Phenom II box, very happy with it. I have not been happy with any intel box as a workstation for quite some time. Nothing beats the Pentium M in my aging Shuttle for a basically silent server (21 db @ 3 meters). Every other Intel box I have run recently requires stupid amounts of cooling. As far as servers go, Intel wins on minimum latency, so Intel owns the data centers of the financial industry, but AMD wins on mips/watt and mips/dollar, so AMD owns a disproportionate share of the throughput in the top 500 list. And AMD owns the space under my desk.
Speaking as somebody who owns an iPad, I would love to see something like the Tab (which is pretty nice, actually) light a fire under Apple to try even harder
Oh, you mean like the Galaxy tab 10.1?
Incidentally, I use both my Xoom and my mother's iPad 2 and I can state that the Xoom just blows the ipad out of the water in usability, contrary to the usual spin from Apple cultists. For example, playing videos on the Youtube app, the video position slider just fails to respond without repeated attempts. And several times I have picked up Mom's ipad to find all the icons jiggling. My mom put it down because she could not figure out how to get it to start doings stuff again. Basic usability flaw: modal = bad. It goes on and on. Usually, I feel like smashing the ipad on the floor at least several times each time I use it, whereas I get that feeling with the Xoom only once a week or so. Big difference.
Oh, and the ipad is just a big money grab for Apple, whereas plenty of free stuff of fine quality, built by enthusiasts is available for the Xoom in addition to the usual money grabs from vendors and eyeball grabs from Google. My mom figured that out, and guess what? Dad's Christmas present is already pixed out: it's a Galaxy tab 10.1. Which I most probably would have got for myself except that I care about having a flash slot whereas my Dad does not, he cares about the weight.
Since Google decided to delay releasing Honeycomb's source because they didnt want more half-cooked tablets on the market, suddenly the loud-mouth brigade is trying to paint them in a bad light.
Kind of suggests that making lame excuses for not releasing the source was a thoroughly bad idea, doesn't it?
I've been trying to get the fascination with Lisp for twenty years, and consistently fail.
Most folks who have done significant work with Lisp end up getting it, often with significant muttering along the way. Hint: it's not about the parentheses. And it's not about being the right tool for every job.
Nested functions are now supported very nicely in gcc, but not g++ for some unfathomable reason.
The problem with exceptions is that they get used for things that aren't exceptional, like a TCP RST, while they can't recover from problems that truly are exceptional (e.g. out of memory, stack overflow, bus alignment error, wedged spinlock, lost interrupt). Between the two is a ridiculously thin error handling domain that really doesn't warrant its own language feature.
I would dispute your assertion that your latter domain is small. Maybe small compared to the domain of poorly written code, which always seems to be the largest domain of all, however what you are denigrating is precisely that which is required for truly robust applications which are also readable. Or to put it another way: if you are satisfied with applications that produce error messages not connected in any obvious way with the cause of a problem, then by all means don't bother with exception based error handling.
false, objects can be done in C as pointers to structs with members pointing to data and structures.. In fact, that's how the early c++ "compilers" did it.
As someone who has written a large amount of code in exactly that style, converting such a mess to C++ is always a welcome relief in terms of readability, maintainability and ability to further abstract. Just one concrete example: using C, if you define a struct that includes all the members of some other struct plus some new ones, using one of the new members is syntactically different from using one of the old ones (extra member dereference) so you can't do this transparently. A typical workaround is a mess of macros, need I say more.
Your argument fails to account for the possibility that increased criticism of Apple may actually be justified, or that Google fanboys are not the only critics.
It's possible you don't understand just how much time Googlers have on their hands for reading Slashdot. Not much different from Microsoft or Apple really.
Certainly Google needs to explain to the Android ecosystem how its control over Android development will not tilt the playing field in the direction of its own hardware. I can think of some interesting arguments along the lines of "goodbye ROM lockdown". The absolute worst stance would be inscrutable silence on this issue.
Adds weight to the proposition that Apple's deep desire is to challenge big brother Microsoft for title of most egregious corporate falsifier of evidence.
Judging from the Rage trailers it is safe to say that JC has set the bar higher once again. It still looks like Quake with cars so I'm not much interested in actually playing it, but interestingly you can see some intrusions from the Bethesda culture in the form of ambient banter and quests. It seems like a no brainer that John has already turned to the truly open world problem so Bethesda can realistically use his next engine for a proper walk-around.
The thing is that when the critical N is reached, O(P log N) isnt just going to be slightly better, its going to be enormously better from then on out
Obviously, but many commenters seem to gloss over the fact that polygon rendering can also be reduced to O(N log N) by multi-resolution rendering.techniques.
Ah perhaps I should remember never to criticize a scientologist or an Apple groupie with mod points.
Apple can't compete on price.
To be precise, Apple can't afford to let their fat margins fall or so will their stock price. Corollary: the higher AAPL goes, the more vicious it gets.
Actually, Apple was like that right from the beginning but their spin has been sufficient to conceal it until recently. Learned my lesson in 1984 (the real one).
Indeed, Apple added the one crucial missing ingredient: the Apple groupie.
Apple single-handedly made tablets and smartphones into the products you recognize today.
...filed under category "self-serving exaggeration".