That model would enable the annexation of any country by another country w/ a larger population. It was why, during the Vietnam War, South Vietnam refused to accept a referandum in both the Vietnams that would have enabled citizens in each country to decide whether they wanted to be a part of a union. North Vietnam had a larger population, so had such a vote happened, they'd have won. Of course, South Vietnam ultimately got conquered anyway, but the reason the Saigon government refused was that it would not reflect the views of a majority of South Vietnamese. Same thing - if the US and Canada had to vote on whether Canada should be annexed to the US, and on the US side, the vote was yes w/ a margin that exceeded Canada's population, then the views of Canadians would be rendered worthless. Which is why Canada would never agree to it.
In the EU case, the only rights that people have would be whether their own countries would be a part of the EU, not whether countries like Britain or Ukraine or Turkey or Russia can be a part of it.
Yeah, like the partially pregnant state that people on the Left seem to think is possible
The whole idea of democracies, which even the EU hasn't abandoned, implies that people get to decide the direction in which they want to go. If that's not going to be respected, then why engage in that charade in the first place? Just have those geniuses in Brussels who can design everything from commode specs to the number of years of work that one can take off after having a child and yet be fully paid to nominate the perfect government of every member country from Kyiv to Lisbon, and avoid the whole rigmarole of elections, referandums and the like.
Consolidating countries into a larger entity just ends up in the concentration of power w/ the power centers of that entity - be it EU bureaucrats, or in the US, the DC establishment - the musical chairs of government, Wall Street, the media - both news and entertainment, academia and lobbyists. Which probably explains why the Left side of the political spectrum tends to strive towards this, while the Right side tends to strive towards the opposite goal - devolving power from such entities and towards centers of power as local as possible - be it individuals, cities, counties, states, et al. That's a legitimate debate to have, and I daresay had the model of single centralized entities worked in assuring full employment, security, prosperity and so on, there wouldn't even be a debate.
But my underlying point is that if we are committed to democracies, that implies accepting the will of the people as it comes out. If, after a victory, the winners are told that what they want will not happen, then one of two things will happen after they've completely lost faith in democracy. Either they will join fringe racist groups and make things ugly for the elite, or they will join foreign terrorist entities like ISIS and try to overthrow the government. People on the Left on either side of the pond need to realize this and absorb Barak Obama's cliche: "Elections have consequences". Regardless of who the winners are
Why not just abolish democracies, and just ask the EU bureaucrats to appoint kings/queens to every member country, who would be a Merkel/Hollande clone, and just rule by fiat (not the car). So that those stupid $MEMBER_exiter voters can't vote to leave that glorious utopian entity that they run
I fully agree w/ this. There has been a deluge of this of late, let alone the trolls who post 'Trump, Trump, Trump' in every thread regardless of subject, much like the 'First post' apes. Or is the standard of what qualifies as 'technology news' so low now that a company deciding whether to build a datacenter anywhere now qualifies as 'technology' news?
Too bad this post was modded down, as probably mine will be, but as Lincoln once noted, calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.
If you are gonna drill deeper, why not then make it a county by county decision, if not a man to man one? Let Somerset or Warwickshire or Nottinghamshire vote to leave, and Dunedin or Surrey or Belfast vote to stay. Why stop at only the 'country' levels of Scotland and Northern Ireland? Fact is that it's the entire UK that's a part of the EU, and the majority of UKians have voted to leave the EU.
Or when you have your elections, do you then say that May is the Prime Minister of all areas of the nation that she's won, while Jeremy Corbin is the Prime Minister of London, Scotland and wherever else he won?
So HSBC employees in London, who were serving mainland European as opposed to English customers, would now have to move to France? Yeah, sounds like what bankers do, since banks ain't much more than glorified call centers, right?
Was there anything in that Brexit referendum that drew such a nuanced line b/w a 'hard' Brexit vs a 'soft' Brexit? And if it was so unpopular, why does it look like French voters too would pass something similar this year and elect Marine Le Pen?
What is PNW? I bought wallet casings for each of my phones, partly to have them double as wallets, and partly to protect them from drops. And somehow, I've never spilt any liquid on my phone, although I know accidents do happen
I visited Best Buy today and went to the Chromebook section. I saw offerings from Acer, Asus and Samsung, and all of them were based on either the i3 or the Atom or some other Intel CPU, not ARMs.
He's Right wing on some things, and Left wing on others. Yeah, he supports LGBT rights, while on abortion, his current stance supports banning late term abortions, except for the usual rape, incest & life of the mother. He's also opposed to publicly funding abortions, hence the Mexico City executive order of today
His trade policy is arguably Left Wing, although I've seen plenty of Conservatives switch over to his side: the Tom Friedman arguments don't hold water w/ people when they start losing their jobs Left and Right. But on most issues - like Law & Order, Border Security, Immigration, National Security, Extreme Vetting, those policies are very much Right Wing. His policy on Russia - dunno whether it qualifies as Left Wing, since Putin was ex-KGB, or Right Wing, since Putin is Russian Nationalist. But his anti-Muslim geopolitical stance is pretty much anathema to Leftists just about everywhere.
Uh, the GOP is pretty much at the mercy of Trump. There are quite a few factions in the house - Ryan loyalists, the Freedom Caucus, the Cruz conservatives, the Rand Paul Libertarians... so Trump can form alliances w/ any of these groups if the Congressional leadership tries to do anything to sabotage him
Trump would probably find killing Oracle would be like one of his four bankrupcies. Like, say, the Taj Mahal Hotel & Casino one. He can let Oracle go belly up & claim that HE didn't go belly up
You are missing the point about the distinctions b/w CISC, RISC and VLIW. CISC had all of the complexity in silicon, like microcode, variable opcode lengths and instruction types, all w/ the goal of minimizing memory consumption. RISC pushed some of the complexity off-chip, like depending less on assembly coding and more on higher level languages like C, and then letting the silicon service the instructions in the most optimal way, using techniques like branch prediction, register renaming and so on. VLIW takes almost all of it off-chip, and focuses the silicon saved on making it more parallel, using an SIMD model.
The examples you are giving is right: the last of the Alphas, like 21264, as well as POWER 4 onwards, did have heavy compiler analysis to do things like speculative execution and unrolled loops. However, for VLIW, the whole idea is that you move all the complexity to the compiler so that you can maximize the parallelism using SIMD/MIMD models - something that's undermined if you do things like register renaming online. However, in terms of the saving by moving register renaming to the compiler, if the real estate saved is not all that much, it justifies not doing it. Which is what the Itanium III took.
I mentioned cities just next door. Oakland would be rough thanks to the McArthur Maze and the way some 8 lanes change into 3, but from Daly City or Brisbane, there are 3 ways of getting into the city - 280, 101 and El Camino Real/San Jose St
Indeed. Seriously, how compelling is it that a phone be waterproof, as opposed to it not explode? How many people drop their phones in the swimming pool, or in the toilet? How many are divers who like having underwater conversations w/ their dates?
CL: I can't speak to why Itanium failed (I suspect that many non-technical issues like business decisions and schedule impacted it), but VLIW is hardly dead. VLIW designs are actively used in some modern GPUs and is widely used in DSPs - one example supported by LLVM is the Qualcomm Hexagon chip. The major challenge when compiling for a VLIW architecture is that the compiler needs good profile information, so it has an accurate idea of the dynamic behavior of the program.
VLIW is probably fine for specific purpose CPUs, be it GPUs, DSPs or any other stuff that does not require support of any legacy software. It's a horrible platform for any general purpose CPU, and it's strange that both HP (as owner of Multiflow and Cydrome) and Intel missed an important issue about it: that it can't support compatibility if software is to take advantage of any enhancement. In RISC CPUs, for instance, things like register renaming or branch prediction are done in silicon: in VLIW, the compiler would have to do that. So as an example, MySQL would have to be recompiled for every new version of a new CPU, or it would have to be written in anticipation of a CPU that's a lot broader than the ones currently on offer. In fact, Itanium III is more RISC than VLIW, as some techniques, like register renaming, are back in silicon
The other thing I wonder is - how possible is it to design a compiler that does everything that a VLIW CPU requires - be it dynamic execution, pipeline filling, et al? And how much complexity would that result in? As it is, Intel found out that an Itanium only saves some 10% in die size as a result of going VLIW (vs RISC), so VLIW definitely wasn't the ultimate in microprocessor bang for buck. Even if backwards compatibility wasn't a factor, would a VLIW CPU beat, say, a RISC in delivering the performance that any operation requires?
This is not a bad idea. As it is, due to more automation, there are fewer jobs, so having more human beings just means a greater burden on entitlement - be it government or private. So better idea is to let human beings just slowly die off, so that we have all those debts and deficits under control. And once that happens, human beings won't be responsible for climate change either, if they're not around to affect the climate
They can't admit that we're in the worst economy for young people since the Depression. They can't get jobs that pay enough for food and housing, let alone a wife and kids.
But that's not true about just San Francisco: it's true about the entire country. That reason wouldn't be forcing families out of the City: it would be forcing them out of California altogether
Slashdot Mirror
That model would enable the annexation of any country by another country w/ a larger population. It was why, during the Vietnam War, South Vietnam refused to accept a referandum in both the Vietnams that would have enabled citizens in each country to decide whether they wanted to be a part of a union. North Vietnam had a larger population, so had such a vote happened, they'd have won. Of course, South Vietnam ultimately got conquered anyway, but the reason the Saigon government refused was that it would not reflect the views of a majority of South Vietnamese. Same thing - if the US and Canada had to vote on whether Canada should be annexed to the US, and on the US side, the vote was yes w/ a margin that exceeded Canada's population, then the views of Canadians would be rendered worthless. Which is why Canada would never agree to it.
In the EU case, the only rights that people have would be whether their own countries would be a part of the EU, not whether countries like Britain or Ukraine or Turkey or Russia can be a part of it.
Those who didn't vote don't deserve any say, whatsoever. They've pretty much implicitly stated that they are fine whichever way it goes
Yeah, like the partially pregnant state that people on the Left seem to think is possible
The whole idea of democracies, which even the EU hasn't abandoned, implies that people get to decide the direction in which they want to go. If that's not going to be respected, then why engage in that charade in the first place? Just have those geniuses in Brussels who can design everything from commode specs to the number of years of work that one can take off after having a child and yet be fully paid to nominate the perfect government of every member country from Kyiv to Lisbon, and avoid the whole rigmarole of elections, referandums and the like.
Consolidating countries into a larger entity just ends up in the concentration of power w/ the power centers of that entity - be it EU bureaucrats, or in the US, the DC establishment - the musical chairs of government, Wall Street, the media - both news and entertainment, academia and lobbyists. Which probably explains why the Left side of the political spectrum tends to strive towards this, while the Right side tends to strive towards the opposite goal - devolving power from such entities and towards centers of power as local as possible - be it individuals, cities, counties, states, et al. That's a legitimate debate to have, and I daresay had the model of single centralized entities worked in assuring full employment, security, prosperity and so on, there wouldn't even be a debate.
But my underlying point is that if we are committed to democracies, that implies accepting the will of the people as it comes out. If, after a victory, the winners are told that what they want will not happen, then one of two things will happen after they've completely lost faith in democracy. Either they will join fringe racist groups and make things ugly for the elite, or they will join foreign terrorist entities like ISIS and try to overthrow the government. People on the Left on either side of the pond need to realize this and absorb Barak Obama's cliche: "Elections have consequences". Regardless of who the winners are
Why not just abolish democracies, and just ask the EU bureaucrats to appoint kings/queens to every member country, who would be a Merkel/Hollande clone, and just rule by fiat (not the car). So that those stupid $MEMBER_exiter voters can't vote to leave that glorious utopian entity that they run
I fully agree w/ this. There has been a deluge of this of late, let alone the trolls who post 'Trump, Trump, Trump' in every thread regardless of subject, much like the 'First post' apes. Or is the standard of what qualifies as 'technology news' so low now that a company deciding whether to build a datacenter anywhere now qualifies as 'technology' news?
Too bad this post was modded down, as probably mine will be, but as Lincoln once noted, calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.
If you are gonna drill deeper, why not then make it a county by county decision, if not a man to man one? Let Somerset or Warwickshire or Nottinghamshire vote to leave, and Dunedin or Surrey or Belfast vote to stay. Why stop at only the 'country' levels of Scotland and Northern Ireland? Fact is that it's the entire UK that's a part of the EU, and the majority of UKians have voted to leave the EU.
Or when you have your elections, do you then say that May is the Prime Minister of all areas of the nation that she's won, while Jeremy Corbin is the Prime Minister of London, Scotland and wherever else he won?
So HSBC employees in London, who were serving mainland European as opposed to English customers, would now have to move to France? Yeah, sounds like what bankers do, since banks ain't much more than glorified call centers, right?
Was there anything in that Brexit referendum that drew such a nuanced line b/w a 'hard' Brexit vs a 'soft' Brexit? And if it was so unpopular, why does it look like French voters too would pass something similar this year and elect Marine Le Pen?
Which Congo? Congo, or Zaire?
What is PNW? I bought wallet casings for each of my phones, partly to have them double as wallets, and partly to protect them from drops. And somehow, I've never spilt any liquid on my phone, although I know accidents do happen
I visited Best Buy today and went to the Chromebook section. I saw offerings from Acer, Asus and Samsung, and all of them were based on either the i3 or the Atom or some other Intel CPU, not ARMs.
He's Right wing on some things, and Left wing on others. Yeah, he supports LGBT rights, while on abortion, his current stance supports banning late term abortions, except for the usual rape, incest & life of the mother. He's also opposed to publicly funding abortions, hence the Mexico City executive order of today
His trade policy is arguably Left Wing, although I've seen plenty of Conservatives switch over to his side: the Tom Friedman arguments don't hold water w/ people when they start losing their jobs Left and Right. But on most issues - like Law & Order, Border Security, Immigration, National Security, Extreme Vetting, those policies are very much Right Wing. His policy on Russia - dunno whether it qualifies as Left Wing, since Putin was ex-KGB, or Right Wing, since Putin is Russian Nationalist. But his anti-Muslim geopolitical stance is pretty much anathema to Leftists just about everywhere.
Uh, the GOP is pretty much at the mercy of Trump. There are quite a few factions in the house - Ryan loyalists, the Freedom Caucus, the Cruz conservatives, the Rand Paul Libertarians... so Trump can form alliances w/ any of these groups if the Congressional leadership tries to do anything to sabotage him
Trump would probably find killing Oracle would be like one of his four bankrupcies. Like, say, the Taj Mahal Hotel & Casino one. He can let Oracle go belly up & claim that HE didn't go belly up
Or Fujitsu could go w/ something like OpenBSD or FreeBSD on SPARC, and leverage off the community
Solaris we already knew from the post about Solaris 12 a few days back, so now, this seals it for the SPARC as well. The Sun part of Oracle is dead
If this is the plan, then can't they make Chromebooks even cheaper by making them from ARM CPUs, and maybe up the RAM and storage a tad?
You are missing the point about the distinctions b/w CISC, RISC and VLIW. CISC had all of the complexity in silicon, like microcode, variable opcode lengths and instruction types, all w/ the goal of minimizing memory consumption. RISC pushed some of the complexity off-chip, like depending less on assembly coding and more on higher level languages like C, and then letting the silicon service the instructions in the most optimal way, using techniques like branch prediction, register renaming and so on. VLIW takes almost all of it off-chip, and focuses the silicon saved on making it more parallel, using an SIMD model.
The examples you are giving is right: the last of the Alphas, like 21264, as well as POWER 4 onwards, did have heavy compiler analysis to do things like speculative execution and unrolled loops. However, for VLIW, the whole idea is that you move all the complexity to the compiler so that you can maximize the parallelism using SIMD/MIMD models - something that's undermined if you do things like register renaming online. However, in terms of the saving by moving register renaming to the compiler, if the real estate saved is not all that much, it justifies not doing it. Which is what the Itanium III took.
I mentioned cities just next door. Oakland would be rough thanks to the McArthur Maze and the way some 8 lanes change into 3, but from Daly City or Brisbane, there are 3 ways of getting into the city - 280, 101 and El Camino Real/San Jose St
Only the women. The men will remain fine w/ phones w/ their current form factors
Indeed. Seriously, how compelling is it that a phone be waterproof, as opposed to it not explode? How many people drop their phones in the swimming pool, or in the toilet? How many are divers who like having underwater conversations w/ their dates?
Fear of a public relations shitstorm is what makes the burdensome regulations not just unnecessary, but counter-productive as well
CL: I can't speak to why Itanium failed (I suspect that many non-technical issues like business decisions and schedule impacted it), but VLIW is hardly dead. VLIW designs are actively used in some modern GPUs and is widely used in DSPs - one example supported by LLVM is the Qualcomm Hexagon chip. The major challenge when compiling for a VLIW architecture is that the compiler needs good profile information, so it has an accurate idea of the dynamic behavior of the program.
VLIW is probably fine for specific purpose CPUs, be it GPUs, DSPs or any other stuff that does not require support of any legacy software. It's a horrible platform for any general purpose CPU, and it's strange that both HP (as owner of Multiflow and Cydrome) and Intel missed an important issue about it: that it can't support compatibility if software is to take advantage of any enhancement. In RISC CPUs, for instance, things like register renaming or branch prediction are done in silicon: in VLIW, the compiler would have to do that. So as an example, MySQL would have to be recompiled for every new version of a new CPU, or it would have to be written in anticipation of a CPU that's a lot broader than the ones currently on offer. In fact, Itanium III is more RISC than VLIW, as some techniques, like register renaming, are back in silicon
The other thing I wonder is - how possible is it to design a compiler that does everything that a VLIW CPU requires - be it dynamic execution, pipeline filling, et al? And how much complexity would that result in? As it is, Intel found out that an Itanium only saves some 10% in die size as a result of going VLIW (vs RISC), so VLIW definitely wasn't the ultimate in microprocessor bang for buck. Even if backwards compatibility wasn't a factor, would a VLIW CPU beat, say, a RISC in delivering the performance that any operation requires?
This is not a bad idea. As it is, due to more automation, there are fewer jobs, so having more human beings just means a greater burden on entitlement - be it government or private. So better idea is to let human beings just slowly die off, so that we have all those debts and deficits under control. And once that happens, human beings won't be responsible for climate change either, if they're not around to affect the climate
They can't admit that we're in the worst economy for young people since the Depression. They can't get jobs that pay enough for food and housing, let alone a wife and kids.
But that's not true about just San Francisco: it's true about the entire country. That reason wouldn't be forcing families out of the City: it would be forcing them out of California altogether