> 1) Intel is NOT in the moral right - they're > selling us snake oil, plain and simple.
The P4 is obviously not snake oil. See below.
> 2)Intel DID design a chip solely for higher clock > frequency. That much should be glaringly obvious > (Bus speed of 500+Mhz vs 133DDR? HMMM..)
Intel could have easily used the same core logic of the Pentium 3, then put in frequency dividers to step down the system clock. They could then have a chip that took a 2 GHz clock but only operated at 1 GHz. That isn't what they did, though. The P4 uses a very different design philosophy from the P3.
> 3)Whole new architecture - nope. Still X86, but > utterly worthless in the real world.
I wouldn't say it was UTTERLY worthless; it beat AMD's chips in some benchmarks, though it lagged in others. AMD's newest designs beat Intel's latest offerings, but Intel is looking to jump ahead again.
The Pentium 4 is using superpipelining on X86 instructions, which isn't amazingly efficient; RISC would've been better, but Intel wanted to build a Windows-capable chip. (Considering they have much faster chips that few people buy since they don't run Windows, I think that's reasonably intelligent.) They bet that a pipeline, while inefficient, could run proportionally faster, and they mostly won their bet. They made some IMO bad decisions regarding the P4's design, but they may also be rectifying them in their newer processors.
> 4)End users know that they get email fast. > Period. End users are morons. They're the > nontechnical bunch. There is no reason for them > to have bothered learning that AMD > Intel.. at > least as far as they know.
Yeah, but trying to structure the computing industry around those end users will cause even more grief. A lawsuit against AMD saying their chip names imply a faster clock speed than the chips actually run at would be about as intelligent as this lawsuit against Intel.
Once political spam becomes mainstream, you'll soon see some dirty tactics.
It's an old trick for a candidate's staff to canvas for votes for the OTHER guy -- at 3AM. No better way to piss people off and get them to vote for you instead of them. Print up campaign stickers for the other guy, and paste 'em on people's car bumpers. Make sure they're the sort that don't come off without special chemicals. There are several variations on this theme that have been used before and will be used again.
So when your mailbox gets bombed with 100 spams, all asking you to vote for someone, and all infected with Klez -- don't assume they actually came from the candidate.
This is going to take a long time to get through court, and there's a good question as to whether the non-scientific minds who will be perusing the case will make the right decision, but Intel is in the moral right.
Intel didn't design the chip just so that it would have a higher clock frequency and therefore mislead people into thinking their chips were faster. They came up with a whole new processing architecture, that simultaneously created a large efficiency drop in instructions processed per clock cycle but allowed for much higher frequency operation. The end result was faster processors, but the clock frequencies didn't correspond. Not their fault.
Further, end users should have been used to the idea that clock speed and processing speed didn't correspond; AMD's processors had been outperforming pre-P4 processors, clock cycle for clock cycle, for a while. AMD didn't start their "processor equivalent" labeling scheme 'til the P4s came on the market, though.
I wasn't surprised. It was obvious to me how far intellectual property companies would go to keep milking their audiences.
The next step will be to sue people making equipment or software that doesn't include DRM controls. Yup, Microsoft is facilitating piracy, since their operating system allows the DivX codec to play ripped DVDs. So is Intel, since their processors will run operating systems that don't include digital rights management protections.
I just took a wwwalk over to the Blender site. I'd like for everyone to realize that this campaign will make Blender open source -- but it may NOT make it FREE.
The deal is to make Blender "'free software' or 'open source' forever". Please note the "or". The term "free software" isn't mentioned elsewhere.
While it would be nice to have an open-source 3D environment, please note that open-source does NOT mean GPL'd or completely free. You might be donating your money for the purpose of creating more commercial software.
When the company started making all the noise about demanding he turn over his idea, he should've come up with a slightly plausible but useless plan, wrote it out on paper, and handed it in. How could they prove he held back?
Later on, he could have revealed the original idea, calling it an improvement on his "prior" idea. How could they prove it was what he had in mind?
The long-standing tradition of a diamond engagement ring was manufactured in 1939. Prior to that, mostly royalty indulged in the idea. It was only after the big diamond discoveries in South Africa caused diamond prices to plummet that DeBeers used an advertising campaign to popularize the rings.
I recommend a good opal ring. Beware of manufactured opal (though it's usually more spectacular than natural opal), and beware of a honey-orange colored opal that may have been colored artificially using a particle beam and may actually be radioactive!
Actually, diamonds AREN'T forever; they can shatter, and they can burn. Don't go looking for the missus' engagement ring in the ashes of your fire-ravaged house, you won't find it.
Put Windows, Mac and Linux binaries into a package and give it to the camera manufacturers at a royalty rate below what the commercial developers can afford. Presto! Now the coders have beer and pizza money.
The current DRIVES won't work with those discs. They use some of the same OPTICS, which would keep startup costs down. But you can't flash a DVD drive with new firmware, stick in a 100GB disc, and expect it to read.
Well, his ideas for a highly regulated network are fine and good; but I don't see any reason why they'd need to close access off from the United States, as by the time they're finished with all the restrictions, no one in the US would want to connect to it anyway.
I doubt many Europeans would want to either, for that matter.
I was a part of the Gnutella development clique a while back, and had made a few proposals on improvements to Gnutella clients.
One such proposal, GNL, was to provide a way to define alternate Gnutella networks from the main system, and include ways to limit their behavior. Another proposal, GNV, was a method for administering these networks, and said administration could be performed anonymously.
Many people liked my ideas, until I made the mistake of mentioning that the end result would probably be differentiation of Gnutella into several networks, each specializing in different types of files; it would be like making Gnutella into IRC, with separate server networks providing different flavors of service. I also mentioned that I thought the original Gnutellanet would wither on the vine. They looked on this with horror and dropped my suggestions.
*shrug* I dunno. Considering that, at the time, the Gnutellanet was scaling itself into bloated nonoperation, I thought splitting the Gnet into different specialty networks was a good idea. Clients could even log onto more than one Gnet at a time.
Power: 5V or 3.3V 275mA TX, 225mA RX, 20mA standby
Or to put it simply, when operating, the wireless card operates at up to double the power requirements of the wired interface, while giving a maximum of 1/10th the speed. (That's a very optimistic maximum, as well.) There are a few added power drains for wired networks, such as powered hubs and switches, but I'd have to go with the wired net, every time.
If you've settled on a notebook PC, many have two-prong A/C adapters. These would be (mostly) immune to isolated neutral problems as TFloore described above. You might still want to run a safety ground from the laptop's chassis to the hull, though, just in case.
I was basically kidding. But I'd still balk at using the term "flight", whether the jet was generating thrust or not. Technically any travel through a medium is considered flight. There's still typically some horizontal movement involved, though, and I still think that using it to describe acceleration straight down into the turf isn't appropriate.
"Donuts on a rope" are caused by shock waves in the stream of a jet engine; they'll show up in nearly any high-output jet engine, much less one meant for supersonic travel.
If you're thinking of the neat light display behind the engines of a SR-71 Blackhawk, those engines are indeed for supersonic flight -- but they aren't ramjets. They're turbofans. They are configurable, though; the cone on front adjusts the position of a shockwave that slows the air down to the point where it will work in that type of engine.
The difference is that a scramjet, having no turbine and only basic moving parts, can operate at a much higher velocity than a turbojet. The SR-71 was limited to the supersonic realm, while a scramjet-powered vehicle can reach hypersonic speeds, above Mach 10.
Slashdot Mirror
> 1) Intel is NOT in the moral right - they're
> selling us snake oil, plain and simple.
The P4 is obviously not snake oil. See below.
> 2)Intel DID design a chip solely for higher clock
> frequency. That much should be glaringly obvious
> (Bus speed of 500+Mhz vs 133DDR? HMMM..)
Intel could have easily used the same core logic of the Pentium 3, then put in frequency dividers to step down the system clock. They could then have a chip that took a 2 GHz clock but only operated at 1 GHz. That isn't what they did, though. The P4 uses a very different design philosophy from the P3.
> 3)Whole new architecture - nope. Still X86, but
> utterly worthless in the real world.
I wouldn't say it was UTTERLY worthless; it beat AMD's chips in some benchmarks, though it lagged in others. AMD's newest designs beat Intel's latest offerings, but Intel is looking to jump ahead again.
The Pentium 4 is using superpipelining on X86 instructions, which isn't amazingly efficient; RISC would've been better, but Intel wanted to build a Windows-capable chip. (Considering they have much faster chips that few people buy since they don't run Windows, I think that's reasonably intelligent.) They bet that a pipeline, while inefficient, could run proportionally faster, and they mostly won their bet. They made some IMO bad decisions regarding the P4's design, but they may also be rectifying them in their newer processors.
> 4)End users know that they get email fast.
> Period. End users are morons. They're the
> nontechnical bunch. There is no reason for them
> to have bothered learning that AMD > Intel.. at
> least as far as they know.
Yeah, but trying to structure the computing industry around those end users will cause even more grief. A lawsuit against AMD saying their chip names imply a faster clock speed than the chips actually run at would be about as intelligent as this lawsuit against Intel.
Once political spam becomes mainstream, you'll soon see some dirty tactics.
It's an old trick for a candidate's staff to canvas for votes for the OTHER guy -- at 3AM. No better way to piss people off and get them to vote for you instead of them. Print up campaign stickers for the other guy, and paste 'em on people's car bumpers. Make sure they're the sort that don't come off without special chemicals. There are several variations on this theme that have been used before and will be used again.
So when your mailbox gets bombed with 100 spams, all asking you to vote for someone, and all infected with Klez -- don't assume they actually came from the candidate.
Great idea! I recommend these:
i nt/
http://www.nettonettech.com/solutions/point-to-po
This is going to take a long time to get through court, and there's a good question as to whether the non-scientific minds who will be perusing the case will make the right decision, but Intel is in the moral right.
Intel didn't design the chip just so that it would have a higher clock frequency and therefore mislead people into thinking their chips were faster. They came up with a whole new processing architecture, that simultaneously created a large efficiency drop in instructions processed per clock cycle but allowed for much higher frequency operation. The end result was faster processors, but the clock frequencies didn't correspond. Not their fault.
Further, end users should have been used to the idea that clock speed and processing speed didn't correspond; AMD's processors had been outperforming pre-P4 processors, clock cycle for clock cycle, for a while. AMD didn't start their "processor equivalent" labeling scheme 'til the P4s came on the market, though.
I wasn't surprised. It was obvious to me how far intellectual property companies would go to keep milking their audiences.
The next step will be to sue people making equipment or software that doesn't include DRM controls. Yup, Microsoft is facilitating piracy, since their operating system allows the DivX codec to play ripped DVDs. So is Intel, since their processors will run operating systems that don't include digital rights management protections.
-- free the information --
I just took a wwwalk over to the Blender site. I'd like for everyone to realize that this campaign will make Blender open source -- but it may NOT make it FREE.
The deal is to make Blender "'free software' or 'open source' forever". Please note the "or". The term "free software" isn't mentioned elsewhere.
While it would be nice to have an open-source 3D environment, please note that open-source does NOT mean GPL'd or completely free. You might be donating your money for the purpose of creating more commercial software.
All your voice are belong to us.
Upload this file and you'll 0wn the VoIP net.
When the company started making all the noise about demanding he turn over his idea, he should've come up with a slightly plausible but useless plan, wrote it out on paper, and handed it in. How could they prove he held back?
Later on, he could have revealed the original idea, calling it an improvement on his "prior" idea. How could they prove it was what he had in mind?
The long-standing tradition of a diamond engagement ring was manufactured in 1939. Prior to that, mostly royalty indulged in the idea. It was only after the big diamond discoveries in South Africa caused diamond prices to plummet that DeBeers used an advertising campaign to popularize the rings.
I recommend a good opal ring. Beware of manufactured opal (though it's usually more spectacular than natural opal), and beware of a honey-orange colored opal that may have been colored artificially using a particle beam and may actually be radioactive!
Actually, diamonds AREN'T forever; they can shatter, and they can burn. Don't go looking for the missus' engagement ring in the ashes of your fire-ravaged house, you won't find it.
Put Windows, Mac and Linux binaries into a package and give it to the camera manufacturers at a royalty rate below what the commercial developers can afford. Presto! Now the coders have beer and pizza money.
How else are you going to know what brand and size your wife should be wearing?
The current DRIVES won't work with those discs. They use some of the same OPTICS, which would keep startup costs down. But you can't flash a DVD drive with new firmware, stick in a 100GB disc, and expect it to read.
Well, his ideas for a highly regulated network are fine and good; but I don't see any reason why they'd need to close access off from the United States, as by the time they're finished with all the restrictions, no one in the US would want to connect to it anyway.
I doubt many Europeans would want to either, for that matter.
I was a part of the Gnutella development clique a while back, and had made a few proposals on improvements to Gnutella clients.
One such proposal, GNL, was to provide a way to define alternate Gnutella networks from the main system, and include ways to limit their behavior. Another proposal, GNV, was a method for administering these networks, and said administration could be performed anonymously.
Many people liked my ideas, until I made the mistake of mentioning that the end result would probably be differentiation of Gnutella into several networks, each specializing in different types of files; it would be like making Gnutella into IRC, with separate server networks providing different flavors of service. I also mentioned that I thought the original Gnutellanet would wither on the vine. They looked on this with horror and dropped my suggestions.
*shrug* I dunno. Considering that, at the time, the Gnutellanet was scaling itself into bloated nonoperation, I thought splitting the Gnet into different specialty networks was a good idea. Clients could even log onto more than one Gnet at a time.
Linksys PCMCIA 10/100 ethernet card
Power:
5V 260mA, 60mA sleep mode
3V 180mA, 30mA sleep mode
Linksys PCMCIA 802.11b wireless card
Power:
5V or 3.3V
275mA TX, 225mA RX, 20mA standby
Or to put it simply, when operating, the wireless card operates at up to double the power requirements of the wired interface, while giving a maximum of 1/10th the speed. (That's a very optimistic maximum, as well.) There are a few added power drains for wired networks, such as powered hubs and switches, but I'd have to go with the wired net, every time.
So much for the server with the page for the DC Shoot...
If you've settled on a notebook PC, many have two-prong A/C adapters. These would be (mostly) immune to isolated neutral problems as TFloore described above. You might still want to run a safety ground from the laptop's chassis to the hull, though, just in case.
But if you've got a budget for the job, use a palmtop. A Windows CE machine would fit into a tight space, and you'd never notice it.
Oh yeah, and if it HAS to be Linux, some palmtops will run it, too.
Doh. Well, unless it's the "Tome of Vast Knowledge" available here, I give up.
Is this it?
Is thanks to the new game, Neverwinter Nights.
FYI, User Friendly's latest cartoons are about a game of AD&D...
I was basically kidding. But I'd still balk at using the term "flight", whether the jet was generating thrust or not. Technically any travel through a medium is considered flight. There's still typically some horizontal movement involved, though, and I still think that using it to describe acceleration straight down into the turf isn't appropriate.
"Donuts on a rope" are caused by shock waves in the stream of a jet engine; they'll show up in nearly any high-output jet engine, much less one meant for supersonic travel.
If you're thinking of the neat light display behind the engines of a SR-71 Blackhawk, those engines are indeed for supersonic flight -- but they aren't ramjets. They're turbofans. They are configurable, though; the cone on front adjusts the position of a shockwave that slows the air down to the point where it will work in that type of engine.
The difference is that a scramjet, having no turbine and only basic moving parts, can operate at a much higher velocity than a turbojet. The SR-71 was limited to the supersonic realm, while a scramjet-powered vehicle can reach hypersonic speeds, above Mach 10.