would be a direct interface to the hearing nerves..if that's possible without too much noise or loss in coupling, there you go.. things won't get any better. then everything is upto the microphones and other elements of recording;-)
what about that?
f C compilers are written in C why not write a BASH interpreter using BASH...
that'll probably be about 100 times slower than the original BASH, so you can even run SHASM in this new thing and get a 10000 times slower assembler..
Sometimes one finds himself absorbed by framework of C++ way of thinking and techniques , in such a way to put the actual goals of writing a piece of software into the second place. This makes it of foremost importance to "to use all the features of the language" or rather "serve the C++ language ideas", instead of reaching the goal in a more practical way .
A very good example is all of us programmers trying to "TEMPLATIZE" everything, even when there is not much need (Yes, I know it feels good, and I do it too)
What do you think of this state of "getting burried in the language features, and wandering away from practical goals".
I don't suppose that's a very big and new thing. First of all, the present processors (say 450Mhz) already produce interfering signals in the cordless freq. range. Please remember that when we say 450 Mhz clock speed , we are talking about a square wave (not a sine).. aand square waves include really strong magnitude harmonics (infinitely many of them actually but at least the 2nd and 3rd harmonics are of a square wave are considerable strong). BTW, The 2nd and 3rd harmonics of a 450 mhz clock signal are 900Mhz and 1350Mhz.
hmm, coming to the point:
SO, the present processors also have interfering signals but there is no considerable interference be oserved. Why is this??
The outstanding reason is that the motherboard actually does not generate the high clock frequency. The highest frequency signal present on the board is 100Mhz or 133Mhz (correct me if I am wrong.. but even so, that should not be any more than 200 Mhz!) The 450Mhz signal is generated in the CPU chip itself, by doubling and trippling and quadrpling the motherboard-provided lower freq. clock. (which should be smt. like 33 or 66 Mhz )
So the interfering signals (ie. the harmonics of 450Mhz, or whatever, are generated and stay within the chip). Yes, the power of this clock signal is big, as it serves the whole chip!.
But I suppose the phyisical structure is not very much like one that would transmit this signal in a way to produce considerable interference! Or else we would already be having problems with cordless phones near the desktop..
Bottom line: with the CPU clock rates increasing to the 900 Mhz range, we will not see a terribly big increase in interference with cordless phones or other equipment operating in the those frequencies.. Because the very high rate clock signal will never ever be present on the mother board actually, instead the mother boards will keep providing 33-66 Mhz signals to the CPUs from which they can generate their own clock signals
if one is making 8 char passwds using an alphabet of 70 symbols, the number of possible passwds would be 70^8, not 8^70.. that accounts for the *HUGE8 number you have ended up with in your calculation.
there is a point to note about how you mention of "Tomorrow's Compression Standards"..
Compression of a certain piece of data is strictly limited by the entrophy of the data.. That's the actual "amount" of information conveyed by the data stream. Without loosing information you CAN NOT compress further than the limit imposed by the entrophy. All (losless) compression tehcniques are bound on this limit without any exemption.
I note this because I want to point to the fact that "One can not expect a leap in the performance of compression technology".. What can be done, has already been done. Even if there may be slight improvements indeed, they will be really small . Never ever shall we see performance increases such as 2fold or 10fold..
Unless of course, you choose to sacrifice some of the information in the data..which is the case for MP3.
MP3 or similar audio compresion techniques are called "LOSSY COMPRESSION". What they "loose" in order to save bits is the information that human ear does not differentiante. By compressing at 128kb you already hit the limit of differentiability by the human ear.
So, introducing the phrase "Tomorrow's Compression Standards", and leading to dreams of 2 fold or 10 fold increases in compression performance from there is a big mistake. The only thing that has room for dreaming is possibly the increase in available bandwidth. That's a good thing, and surely it will be there.
Slashdot Mirror
would be a direct interface to the hearing nerves ..if that's possible without too much noise or loss in coupling, there you go.. things won't get any better. then everything is upto the microphones and other elements of recording ;-)
not HI-FI.. but AB-FI (for Absolute Fidelity)
Sorry..I meant this to go to (A Wireless Revolution From The Garage)..
what about that?
;-)
f C compilers are written in C why not write a BASH interpreter using BASH...
that'll probably be about 100 times slower than the original BASH, so you can even run SHASM in this new thing and get a 10000 times slower assembler..
which will be cool of course
Sometimes one finds himself absorbed by framework of C++ way of thinking and techniques , in such a way to put the actual goals of writing a piece of software into the second place. This makes it of foremost importance to "to use all the features of the language" or rather "serve the C++ language ideas", instead of reaching the goal in a more practical way .
A very good example is all of us programmers trying to "TEMPLATIZE" everything, even when there is not much need (Yes, I know it feels good, and I do it too)
What do you think of this state of "getting burried in the language features, and wandering away from practical goals".
Thanks,
Huseyin Serkan YILDIZ
I don't suppose that's a very big and new thing.
First of all, the present processors (say 450Mhz) already produce interfering signals in the cordless freq. range. Please remember that when we say 450 Mhz clock speed , we are talking about a square wave (not a sine).. aand square waves include really strong magnitude harmonics (infinitely many of them actually but at least the 2nd and 3rd harmonics are of a square wave are considerable strong). BTW, The 2nd and 3rd harmonics of a 450 mhz clock signal are 900Mhz and 1350Mhz.
hmm, coming to the point:
SO, the present processors also have interfering signals but there is no considerable interference be oserved. Why is this??
The outstanding reason is that the motherboard actually does not generate the high clock frequency. The highest frequency signal present on the board is 100Mhz or 133Mhz (correct me if I am wrong.. but even so, that should not be any more than 200 Mhz!)
The 450Mhz signal is generated in the CPU chip itself, by doubling and trippling and quadrpling the motherboard-provided lower freq. clock. (which should be smt. like 33 or 66 Mhz )
So the interfering signals (ie. the harmonics of 450Mhz, or whatever, are generated and stay within the chip). Yes, the power of this clock signal is big, as it serves the whole chip!.
But I suppose the phyisical structure is not very much like one that would transmit this signal in a way to produce considerable interference! Or else we would already be having problems with cordless phones near the desktop..
Bottom line: with the CPU clock rates increasing to the 900 Mhz range, we will not see a terribly big increase in interference with cordless phones or other equipment operating in the those frequencies.. Because the very high rate clock signal will never ever be present on the mother board actually, instead the mother boards will keep providing 33-66 Mhz signals to the CPUs from which they can generate their own clock signals
if one is making 8 char passwds using an alphabet of 70 symbols, the number of possible passwds would be 70^8, not 8^70.. that accounts for the *HUGE8 number you have ended up with in your calculation.
hmmmm..
there is a point to note about how you mention of "Tomorrow's Compression Standards"..
Compression of a certain piece of data is strictly limited by the entrophy of the data.. That's the actual "amount" of information conveyed by the data stream. Without loosing information you CAN NOT compress further than the limit imposed by the entrophy. All (losless) compression tehcniques are bound on this limit without any exemption.
I note this because I want to point to the fact that "One can not expect a leap in the performance of compression technology".. What can be done, has already been done. Even if there may be slight improvements indeed, they will be really small . Never ever shall we see performance increases such as 2fold or 10fold..
Unless of course, you choose to sacrifice some of the information in the data..which is the case for MP3.
MP3 or similar audio compresion techniques are called "LOSSY COMPRESSION". What they "loose" in order to save bits is the information that human ear does not differentiante. By compressing at 128kb you already hit the limit of differentiability by the human ear.
So, introducing the phrase "Tomorrow's Compression Standards", and leading to dreams of 2 fold or 10 fold increases in compression performance from there is a big mistake. The only thing that has room for dreaming is possibly the increase in available bandwidth. That's a good thing, and surely it will be there.
HSY
huseyin_serkan@hotmail.com