While it's got the expected 10-15% faster for the same clock speed for integer applications, floating point applications are almost twice as a fast
HTH
Integer and floating point are separately implemented in the hardware, so an improvement to one often doesn't apply to the other.
You can add integers by counting on your fingers. To do that with floating point, you have to cut your fingers into fractions of fingers - a very different process.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FMA3
It's common to have an accumulator like this:
X = X + (Y * Z)
To compute that in floating points, the processor normally does:
A= ROUND(Y*Z)
X=ROUND(X+A)
Each ROUND() is necessary because the processor only has 64 bits in which to store the endless digits after the decimal point.
FMA can fuse the multiply and the add, getting rid of one rounding step, and the intermediate variable:
X= ROUND( X + (Y*Z) )
That makes it faster. Since integers don't get rounded to the available precision, the optimization doesn't apply to integers.
The above processor would do Y*Z, then +X, then round, then X=. A CPU designer can make that faster by including either a "add and multiply" circuit
or a "add and round" circuit or a "round and assign' circuit. Any set of operations can be done in two clock cycles, if the maker decides to include a hardware circuit for it.
I was sure I'd be rich by the age of thirty, and several other people thought I would too. I'm a government code monkey at the age of 37. Thank God I didn't saddle myself with a 7% debt.
Okay, so I did sell a business or two, but once the IRS was done with that...
American Exceptionalism is a specific long established philosophy or proposition though, not just two random words. That's why it's capitalized - because it's the proper name of something specific. Just as "calculus" has a specific meaning, so does AE. The idea was clearly and eloquently expressed in the Gettysburg Address and the name goes back to at least the 1920s. So it means something specific regardless of what anyone might THINK it means. Lincoln said it better than I could, so his words follow. Note that his statements apply to no other country on earth. That makes America DIFFERENT.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal....
It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the UNFINISHED work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
The UNFINISHED work, Lincoln said. Our first founding document, the declaration of independence, established what that task is. We started a new country, the Declaration said, because "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights". Have we finished that work? Heck no! Have we even done a good job of it since 1965 or so? Perhaps not. But that's absolutely what our founding principles call for us to do. No other nation, to my knowledge, was founded on that basis.
Coke spends $3 billion on advertising every year to build brand awareness. That's the difference between Coke and generic soda. You can't click their TV ads, but most people go to the store and buy Coke, not "cola soda" because having customers see ads works, whether they click the ads or not. Nobody ever clicked a TV ad.
The numbers vary by a couple orders of magnitude depending on the traffic. MOST of tbe value in advertising is passively seeing ads, though, building brand recognition rather than immediate action like clicks. You don't click on Metlife Stadium or FedEx field, but Reliant paid $320 million to put their name on Reliant Stadium. Ever clicked a Coca-Cola commercial? Coke spends $3 BILLION per year for you to see their ads, to build brand awareness.
The internet allows you to track clicks, but still most of the value isn't in clicks, but in impressions - brand awareness.
42. That's the answer to one question. If you choose not to ask some other specific question, "42" is as good an answer as you can get.
Being uninformed about a subject, and therefore needing help figuring out which questions to ask, I can understand. People who expect a correct answer, while obstinately refusing to decide what the question is, baffle me with their studity.
It sounds like you think Americanism Exceptionalism means American betterism. It does not. It means, simply, that the origins of the US, the founding, was DIFFERENT than other countries. Not superior, just different. In general states are based on nations, on ethnic groups. Ethnic groups formed kingdoms, and they persist today as countries. France, Germany, China - these are like most nations in that they are also ethnic groups, based on ancestry, led by kings and empererors at various times.
America, on the other hand, was not the formalization of the boundaries of ancient tribes. Instead, Americans were united by certain IDEALS. (Ideals they often don't live up to, but ideals nonetheless.) Rather, people came to America for the promise of individual liberty and the opportunity that implies. In America, you were free to practice whatever religion you wanted, and free to succeed on your own merits. A "low class" store clerk born in a log cabin could become president. In other countries, being born low class meant you stayed low class your entire life.
Does that imply that America is better? Not necesarily. Critics will point first to slavery, which once existed in the US. How does that square with a nation "founded on the proposition that all men are created equal"? It doesn't, and that, my friend, is the whole point of American Exceptionalism. American Exceptionalism tells us that BECAUSE the country was founded on these ideals of liberty, freedom, and equality, we had better make great effort to live up to those ideals. It doesn't mean that we do, it means that our founding documents demand that we SHOULD.
Your links claim that maybe 1% of the static could be from the Big Bang. 99% is your neighbor's wifi, a radio station in Mexico, the other neighbors cordless phone, someone's cell phone conversation, etc.
"That direction" is more government control, more and more the government handling things "for" you, and therefore having more power. That as opposed to the individual having more control over their own life.
Are you of the opinion that the US is moving toward more individual freedom (and thus responsibility), that the government is getting SMALLER?
The study had the subjects read an article and the comments. I'm curious what effect rude comments have when noone reads the article, so we can better understand Slashdot.
Thank you very much for your time spent reading this, ladies and gentlemen.
Authorities have interviewed at least 13 people since 2005 with ties to Iran's government [taking pictures of airports, etc.]
You said:
taking photos of bridges??? You can be arrested for that.
IF I were an agent of the Iranian government, and I was on a watch list causing the government to be interested in what I was doing, and I wax taking pictures of airports, I could be interviewed. Good or bad, decide for yourself, but it's good to be clear on what is actually going on.
The US is headed in the same direction, this just shows where the US will be in 15 years. When a majority want a nanny state, when they give the government all the control, and send all money to the government, that's what you end up with. There was a time when the US stood for individual freedom, for each person making their own decisions (and reaping the rewards / consequences), I'm afraid that time is gone. We've asked Washington to take over our lives and they'll happily do so, just as China's government has.
your computer can check every letter you type and offer a list of possible words. my phone does that
Perfect example. Phones with 800 MHz processors do that. I'm using one now that does that. It has 128 MB of RAM, I think. That suggests that 2.6 GHz is overkill for mundane office tasks.
In your example, the person typing does maybe four operations per second while the CPU can do billions. Most office tasks are like that - human-bound or network-bound, not CPU bound.
Ah yeah. On the other hand, a Core 2 can run up to 18 instructions per clock, so it's 48 billion instructions per second. Anyway, it's friggin fast.
Further, a 2.6 GHz processor running a lightweight environment like LXDE could well be more responsive than a 3.2 GHz machine running WIndows 8.
As for the hardware, a 2006 processor could be a Intel Core 2 running at 2.6 Ghz - 2.6 TRILLION operations per second. I sure did a lot of productive work on with a 500 MHz machine, so one five times as fast seems fine to me, for office work.
If it wasn't waiting on IO, a new processor might be 50% "faster" for a single threaded application, but in reality they are both sitting idle waiting for a disk drive that peaks at 38 MB/s. A new green drive does about 38 MB/s. The 2006 processor does 10,000 MBs / second. Assuming both have SATA drives, then, an old computer and a new computer will both take the same number of seconds to load the word processor from disk and launch it. For that type of thing, there's practically zero difference in new vs. 2006 - computers were already "fast enough" in 2006. (Except for hard drives, if they are switched for SSD.)
My experience is that a great many users, especially the non-techie types, don't know or care what the OS is - they see the Firefox icon and click it.
They have no idea that their smart phone or tablet doesn't run Windows, because they have no reason to care. If there's a browser and perhaps an office suite, it's a computer like any other to them.
They'll just want Windows or Apple.
What's that, is that on Google or Facebook?
Firefox OS and Chromebooks kind of prove the point. The browser IS the computer, to most people. It used to be nobody cared about the process scheduler, anything below the level of the desktop didn't concern 99% of users. These days the browser is the desktop and few care what's beneath. (But some of those who care do care a lot.)
The property destruction was not designed to improve the economy
True, but Obama said it was, at least several dozen times.
August 6, 2009 Statement by Barack Obama on Senate Passage of Cash for Clunkers Extension:
The American economy will continue to get a much-needed boost.... Businesses across the country – from small auto dealerships and suppliers to large auto manufacturers – are putting people back to work as a result of this program. I want to thank Leader Reid and the members of the Senate who moved quickly to extend a program that benefits our recovery.
You are right in that it was not DESIGNED to improve the economy, but it was SOLD as an economic boost. When it was designed, it was acknowledged that it would cost the economy couple billion to try to have cleaner cars. Obama pitched it using classic broken windows.
I'd be willing to bet that you never heard of Android before Google, the marketing company, bought it. So Android marketing worked on you. If you're glad you have Android, marketing worked FOR you.
Slashdot Mirror
While it's got the expected 10-15% faster for the same clock speed for integer applications, floating point applications are almost twice as a fast HTH
Integer and floating point are separately implemented in the hardware, so an improvement to one often doesn't apply to the other. You can add integers by counting on your fingers. To do that with floating point, you have to cut your fingers into fractions of fingers - a very different process.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FMA3
It's common to have an accumulator like this:
X = X + (Y * Z)
To compute that in floating points, the processor normally does:
A= ROUND(Y*Z) X=ROUND(X+A)
Each ROUND() is necessary because the processor only has 64 bits in which to store the endless digits after the decimal point. FMA can fuse the multiply and the add, getting rid of one rounding step, and the intermediate variable:
X= ROUND( X + (Y*Z) )
That makes it faster. Since integers don't get rounded to the available precision, the optimization doesn't apply to integers. The above processor would do Y*Z, then +X, then round, then X=. A CPU designer can make that faster by including either a "add and multiply" circuit or a "add and round" circuit or a "round and assign' circuit. Any set of operations can be done in two clock cycles, if the maker decides to include a hardware circuit for it.
I was sure I'd be rich by the age of thirty, and several other people thought I would too. I'm a government code monkey at the age of 37. Thank God I didn't saddle myself with a 7% debt.
...
Okay, so I did sell a business or two, but once the IRS was done with that
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. ...
It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the UNFINISHED work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
The UNFINISHED work, Lincoln said. Our first founding document, the declaration of independence, established what that task is. We started a new country, the Declaration said, because "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights". Have we finished that work? Heck no! Have we even done a good job of it since 1965 or so? Perhaps not. But that's absolutely what our founding principles call for us to do. No other nation, to my knowledge, was founded on that basis.
Coke spends $3 billion on advertising every year to build brand awareness. That's the difference between Coke and generic soda. You can't click their TV ads, but most people go to the store and buy Coke, not "cola soda" because having customers see ads works, whether they click the ads or not. Nobody ever clicked a TV ad.
The numbers vary by a couple orders of magnitude depending on the traffic. MOST of tbe value in advertising is passively seeing ads, though, building brand recognition rather than immediate action like clicks. You don't click on Metlife Stadium or FedEx field, but Reliant paid $320 million to put their name on Reliant Stadium. Ever clicked a Coca-Cola commercial? Coke spends $3 BILLION per year for you to see their ads, to build brand awareness.
The internet allows you to track clicks, but still most of the value isn't in clicks, but in impressions - brand awareness.
42. That's the answer to one question. If you choose not to ask some other specific question, "42" is as good an answer as you can get.
Being uninformed about a subject, and therefore needing help figuring out which questions to ask, I can understand. People who expect a correct answer, while obstinately refusing to decide what the question is, baffle me with their studity.
Internet Control Messaging Protocol is used to control and diagnose network components. DNS values are data, so they use User Datagram Protocol.
Since everywhere you work goes out off business, please go work at UMG, then Microsoft, then the White House. Thanks.
It sounds like you think Americanism Exceptionalism means American betterism. It does not. It means, simply, that the origins of the US, the founding, was DIFFERENT than other countries. Not superior, just different. In general states are based on nations, on ethnic groups. Ethnic groups formed kingdoms, and they persist today as countries. France, Germany, China - these are like most nations in that they are also ethnic groups, based on ancestry, led by kings and empererors at various times.
America, on the other hand, was not the formalization of the boundaries of ancient tribes. Instead, Americans were united by certain IDEALS. (Ideals they often don't live up to, but ideals nonetheless.) Rather, people came to America for the promise of individual liberty and the opportunity that implies. In America, you were free to practice whatever religion you wanted, and free to succeed on your own merits. A "low class" store clerk born in a log cabin could become president. In other countries, being born low class meant you stayed low class your entire life.
Does that imply that America is better? Not necesarily. Critics will point first to slavery, which once existed in the US. How does that square with a nation "founded on the proposition that all men are created equal"? It doesn't, and that, my friend, is the whole point of American Exceptionalism. American Exceptionalism tells us that BECAUSE the country was founded on these ideals of liberty, freedom, and equality, we had better make great effort to live up to those ideals. It doesn't mean that we do, it means that our founding documents demand that we SHOULD.
Your links claim that maybe 1% of the static could be from the Big Bang. 99% is your neighbor's wifi, a radio station in Mexico, the other neighbors cordless phone, someone's cell phone conversation, etc.
"That direction" is more government control, more and more the government handling things "for" you, and therefore having more power. That as opposed to the individual having more control over their own life.
Are you of the opinion that the US is moving toward more individual freedom (and thus responsibility), that the government is getting SMALLER?
The study had the subjects read an article and the comments. I'm curious what effect rude comments have when noone reads the article, so we can better understand Slashdot.
Thank you very much for your time spent reading this, ladies and gentlemen.
Authorities have interviewed at least 13 people since 2005 with ties to Iran's government [taking pictures of airports, etc.]
You said:
taking photos of bridges??? You can be arrested for that.
IF I were an agent of the Iranian government, and I was on a watch list causing the government to be interested in what I was doing, and I wax taking pictures of airports, I could be interviewed. Good or bad, decide for yourself, but it's good to be clear on what is actually going on.
A claim like that requires a citation.
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
These days you can get busted for a Pop Tart that is vaguely shaped somewhat like a gun.
The US is headed in the same direction, this just shows where the US will be in 15 years. When a majority want a nanny state, when they give the government all the control, and send all money to the government, that's what you end up with. There was a time when the US stood for individual freedom, for each person making their own decisions (and reaping the rewards / consequences), I'm afraid that time is gone. We've asked Washington to take over our lives and they'll happily do so, just as China's government has.
Yeah I just gave away ten half-computers, mostly P4s, on craigslist. They were gone within a hours.
your computer can check every letter you type and offer a list of possible words. my phone does that
Perfect example. Phones with 800 MHz processors do that. I'm using one now that does that. It has 128 MB of RAM, I think. That suggests that 2.6 GHz is overkill for mundane office tasks.
In your example, the person typing does maybe four operations per second while the CPU can do billions. Most office tasks are like that - human-bound or network-bound, not CPU bound.
Ah yeah. On the other hand, a Core 2 can run up to 18 instructions per clock, so it's 48 billion instructions per second. Anyway, it's friggin fast. Further, a 2.6 GHz processor running a lightweight environment like LXDE could well be more responsive than a 3.2 GHz machine running WIndows 8.
As for the hardware, a 2006 processor could be a Intel Core 2 running at 2.6 Ghz - 2.6 TRILLION operations per second. I sure did a lot of productive work on with a 500 MHz machine, so one five times as fast seems fine to me, for office work.
If it wasn't waiting on IO, a new processor might be 50% "faster" for a single threaded application, but in reality they are both sitting idle waiting for a disk drive that peaks at 38 MB/s. A new green drive does about 38 MB/s. The 2006 processor does 10,000 MBs / second. Assuming both have SATA drives, then, an old computer and a new computer will both take the same number of seconds to load the word processor from disk and launch it. For that type of thing, there's practically zero difference in new vs. 2006 - computers were already "fast enough" in 2006. (Except for hard drives, if they are switched for SSD.)
They'll just want Windows or Apple.
What's that, is that on Google or Facebook?
Firefox OS and Chromebooks kind of prove the point. The browser IS the computer, to most people. It used to be nobody cared about the process scheduler, anything below the level of the desktop didn't concern 99% of users. These days the browser is the desktop and few care what's beneath. (But some of those who care do care a lot.)
The United Way distributes cash donations to local non-profits, so they may well know who would need the computers.
The property destruction was not designed to improve the economy
True, but Obama said it was, at least several dozen times.
August 6, 2009 Statement by Barack Obama on Senate Passage of Cash for Clunkers Extension:
The American economy will continue to get a much-needed boost. ... Businesses across the country – from small auto dealerships and suppliers to large auto manufacturers – are putting people back to work as a result of this program. I want to thank Leader Reid and the members of the Senate who moved quickly to extend a program that benefits our recovery.
You are right in that it was not DESIGNED to improve the economy, but it was SOLD as an economic boost. When it was designed, it was acknowledged that it would cost the economy couple billion to try to have cleaner cars. Obama pitched it using classic broken windows.
Of course if you're a US telephone company, the communications act of 1934 doesn't apply because you OWN the FCC.
They also own the wires and by default you're generally allowed to do whatever you want with your own property.
I'd be willing to bet that you never heard of Android before Google, the marketing company, bought it. So Android marketing worked on you. If you're glad you have Android, marketing worked FOR you.