Talk about an interesting apparatus: A microscope that uses nanometer electromagnetic waves to visualize objects at Planck length scales. Where might I find this super-microscope?
Here's what Tom's Hardware had to say about quad-core single die at 45nm:
The climax of Intel's move to 45 nm will obviously be processors with as many as eight cores on a die. Technically, the Yorkfield and Harpertown cores are pretty similar, while Yorkfield steps into the desktop space and Harpertown harpoons the enterprise customer. Both will be 45 nm parts, with four cores and as much as 12 MB L2 cache. We can't say how the geometry of this chip is going to be and we suppose Intel is not entirely sure yet either.
I don't have a dog in this fight. I'll buy whatever has the best price/performance.
"If Intel had wanted to design a single-die quad core CPU on 65nm, they certainly could have done so. They could have eliminated a lot of redundant transistors from each dual-core die and wound up with a single-die quad core CPU built on a 65nm process that was significantly smaller than it's current dual-die design and had fewer transistors than the sum of it's parts."
Perhaps. Perhaps not. Being not an employee of Intel, nor privy to their private project roadmaps and internal engineering goals, I can't say whether they could or could not have done a quad-core design within those constraints. What I do know is that they have announced plans for a quad-core single die chip on 45nm. *shrug*
The recent test batch, and first gen quad-core "chips" are all based on 65nm lithography processes. 45nm will allow Intel to cram all four cores onto a single die. So -- yes -- the lithographic process most certainly affects transistor count (which, in turn, affects how many cores Intel can fit onto a die).
Inline annotation and highlighting. Without pen input this thing is useless to me. I'm using a newton mp2100 as an ereader, and it supports excellent annotation functions. But the hardware needs replacement. Unfortunately, this Sony ebook reader ain't it.
not 80 general purpose integer cores. They're essentially copying the Cell design with large numbers of DSPs each of which has a local store RAM burned onto the main chip. Is this a good idea? Guess we'll find out with the Cell. What interests me most about this announcement is not the computing potential from such a strategy, but that it's an obvious response to IBM and Sony technology.
My core duo macbook is fast fast fast!!! We have plenty of opterons at work, mostly doing compute (monte carlo sims). They're good, but the performance edge has transitioned to Intel due to a good design and 65nm lithography. I'd recommend buying Intel until AMD updates their fab facilities.
The $499 PS3 supposedly also lacked wireless 802.11g and a flash card reader. I was under the impression that there were two motherboards, one for the $499 and the other for the $599 unit. But, honestly, I can't find a reference for that. So - maybe I'm wrong.
But still, even if it's just a retooling job on the assembly floor, this has got to hurt Sony.
Every university notice on student ethical guidelines I've seen has warned that cheating, plagiarism, and gratuitus lying are grounds for expulsion. Perhaps you could argue that point with your academic adviser, (s)he might have a word to say otherwise.
Sheesh, did I really just read someone argue that expelling a student for cheating is unethical of a university? Talk about fucked up!
That video of the Senate Committee hearing is highly informative regarding the legality of this practice. While there are some who are willing to debate its legality (and you will see that among some of the witnesses), it is also clear that the SEC and (at least some) lawmakers expected this practice to be outlawed with the advent of Sarbanes-Oxley.
The Daily Show doesn't pretend to call itself "News." John Stewart, in fact, makes it a point to say on air that it is fake news. Comedy. Though, I have to admit that I've come to prefer the Colbert Report - but just because I think its funnier. What was in this article was neither funny, nor was it claimed to be fake. If it had been published in The Onion, you might have had a point.
It is true that editorial commentary (opinion work) is held to a different standard than traditional journalism. For one, commentary is expressly allowed to advocate for a particular position, rather than attempting to fairly and objectively present all sides of an issue. However, there are still standards for fair rhetoric which this article blatantly ignores. I offer this Poynter editorial about a current Wall Street Journal article that included a bit too much opinion commentary that turned into a scandal. And here is a Christian Science Monitor article about general journalistic ethics which may be of interest. --M
"The typical comment is that what's important is getting the job done. How you get it done is less important," McCabe said. "You'll have business students saying all I'm doing is emulating the behavior I'll need when I get out in the real world."
Which is exactly the type of reasoning that leads to this clusterfuck. Perhaps it's time for professors and the deans to expel these students rather than let the behavior continue? The cheaters might learn a valuable lesson, and society as a whole would be the better off for it.
I'm aware of the Maryland race and its local politics. But, speaking as a Massachusetts resident, I applaud anyone -- Democrat or Republican -- who openly supports a paper ballot initiative. Now, go fight your local election and stop bitching about partisan politicking - that never stops.
...who want fair elections. The issue is not partisan, but fundamental to the proper functioning of a democratic republic. Note that I say that as a registered Democrat. But keep your eye on those who might attempt to squelch this legislation. It is those who have sold out our constitutional freedoms for partisan or constituent gain. And vote them the fuck out of office. Please?
It is crass, but _not_ obviously illegal. As long as the stockholders are informed then it is perfectly legal.
I encourage you to hold that debate with an SEC investigator and criminal prosecutor. If Elliot Spitzer is in a good mood, he might even offer you a plea bargain. (yes, I know this is NASDAQ and not NYSE - but the point is still valid)
This issue is very serious. The Senate Finance Committee recently held an investigative session on stock option backdating chaired by Chuck Grassley (R-IA). The upshot was -- of course -- to continue investigating the matter further. A video ( rtsp://video.c-span.org/15days/e090606_finance.rm ) of the investigatory session has been posted by C-SPAN, and is well worth watching for anyone interested in corporate financial shenanigans to illicitly increase executive compensation.
For those uninitiated with the process, stock option backdating is a form of option fraud whereby options which should be dated at time B (when the executive was hired, for example) but are instead backdated time A (when they are 'in the money') to insure a profit for the executive. It's crass and obviously illegal.
Watch the video and you'll enjoy seeing our representatives (on both sides of the isle) enjoying a collegial and humorous discussion on the record with those who should have been asked numerous uncomfortable questions about the practice. There are, fortunately, some very pointed questions. But the session often comes off as a giveaway to the witnesses, with senators and witnesses often laughing together at in-jokes.
If you're bothered by stock market insiders fraudulently diverting profits to their friends instead of keeping the market fair and clean, this committee session will make your blood boil.
'Cause, people give out free food there. I mean, the church is huge. Shouldn't we prosecute churches under antitrust law for adversely impacting the local restaurant industry?
No.
Churches, the ELKs, and Free Software developers, et all are loosely knit social groups which form for a specific noncommercial purpose. They are not registered businesses with the express purpose of turning a profit. As such they don't fall under antitrust laws. Nor should they. Your argument is a strawman.
Furthermore, how is it that we can "prediscover" phenomena? We develop a model to describe existing data, and whoops!, there's another phenomenon implicit in our model, and sure enough when we look for it in reality, there it is!
I suspect this is like our response to red traffic lights. We remember the annoyance of having to stop, but rarely remember all the times we sail through a green light. Often, people will complain about 'bad luck' with red lights as a result. But the reality is that the red lights aren't directing their stopping power at you - per se.
In the same vein, there are many, many, many inaccurate predictions made in science that experiment refutes. These predictions often have a mathematical basis. So, I'm arguing that you're forgetting about all the many predictions that turn out false in order to focus on those that turn out true (a sort of reverse of the red light phenomena).
> > Copyright is one such right with constitutional > > authority, as denoted in Article 1, Section 8, > > clause 8 - though it is not a civil right as specified > > by the original ten ammendments.
> Copyright is not a civil right, it is a power of the > government, specifically, to grant people the ability > to restrict the rights of others. It is not more a > civil right than the post office.
Yes, you're absolutely right. My phrasing was ambiguous, I meant that it is one of many rights - not a civil right. I simply didn't make that clear enough. Thank you.
He does have a sister, who I haven't seen since childhood. She is much younger, so we weren't close. I've heard, however, that she's successful, has completed a graduate education, and by all accounts is very happy. I wish her well too.
"... nothing less than a civil rights coup..." (I was under the impression that Civil Rights refers to inalienable rights guaranteed by the constitution and its ammendments. Copyright is one such right with constitutional authority, as denoted in Article 1, Section 8, clause 8 - though it is not a civil right as specified by the original ten ammendments.)
"... you are a wallet with legs waiting to be raped..."
"... How long do you think it will be before a service pack, masquerading as a 'critical security patch' takes away the optional part of the 'copy protection'?" (I don't know. Do you?)
As much as I agree with the sentiment of the author, this rhetoric damages the credibility of those who might gain the ear of real politicians - attorneys from the EFF, law professors, and such. Charlie, you're not helping here. And for God's sake, take a journalism course!
In the interest of disclosure, Charlie and I grew up together. And, Charlie, I very much still care for you and am glad to see your continued success - even though I'm being a prick here.:) I just have high standards for professional journalism. And, unfortunately, I must say you haven't met them here. --M
Slashdot Mirror
Talk about an interesting apparatus: A microscope that uses nanometer electromagnetic waves to visualize objects at Planck length scales. Where might I find this super-microscope?
I don't have a dog in this fight. I'll buy whatever has the best price/performance.
"If Intel had wanted to design a single-die quad core CPU on 65nm, they certainly could have done so. They could have eliminated a lot of redundant transistors from each dual-core die and wound up with a single-die quad core CPU built on a 65nm process that was significantly smaller than it's current dual-die design and had fewer transistors than the sum of it's parts."
Perhaps. Perhaps not. Being not an employee of Intel, nor privy to their private project roadmaps and internal engineering goals, I can't say whether they could or could not have done a quad-core design within those constraints. What I do know is that they have announced plans for a quad-core single die chip on 45nm. *shrug*
The recent test batch, and first gen quad-core "chips" are all based on 65nm lithography processes. 45nm will allow Intel to cram all four cores onto a single die. So -- yes -- the lithographic process most certainly affects transistor count (which, in turn, affects how many cores Intel can fit onto a die).
Those dual die dual-core chips are fabbed at 65nm. The upcoming 45nm facilities should be able to manufacture quad-core chips on a single die.
Inline annotation and highlighting. Without pen input this thing is useless to me. I'm using a newton mp2100 as an ereader, and it supports excellent annotation functions. But the hardware needs replacement. Unfortunately, this Sony ebook reader ain't it.
not 80 general purpose integer cores. They're essentially copying the Cell design with large numbers of DSPs each of which has a local store RAM burned onto the main chip. Is this a good idea? Guess we'll find out with the Cell. What interests me most about this announcement is not the computing potential from such a strategy, but that it's an obvious response to IBM and Sony technology.
My core duo macbook is fast fast fast!!! We have plenty of opterons at work, mostly doing compute (monte carlo sims). They're good, but the performance edge has transitioned to Intel due to a good design and 65nm lithography. I'd recommend buying Intel until AMD updates their fab facilities.
The $499 PS3 supposedly also lacked wireless 802.11g and a flash card reader. I was under the impression that there were two motherboards, one for the $499 and the other for the $599 unit. But, honestly, I can't find a reference for that. So - maybe I'm wrong.
But still, even if it's just a retooling job on the assembly floor, this has got to hurt Sony.
They basically just threw away a prototype motherboard and production line only weeks away from the delivery date. Talk about expensive!!!
Every university notice on student ethical guidelines I've seen has warned that cheating, plagiarism, and gratuitus lying are grounds for expulsion. Perhaps you could argue that point with your academic adviser, (s)he might have a word to say otherwise.
Sheesh, did I really just read someone argue that expelling a student for cheating is unethical of a university? Talk about fucked up!
That video of the Senate Committee hearing is highly informative regarding the legality of this practice. While there are some who are willing to debate its legality (and you will see that among some of the witnesses), it is also clear that the SEC and (at least some) lawmakers expected this practice to be outlawed with the advent of Sarbanes-Oxley.
The Daily Show doesn't pretend to call itself "News." John Stewart, in fact, makes it a point to say on air that it is fake news. Comedy. Though, I have to admit that I've come to prefer the Colbert Report - but just because I think its funnier. What was in this article was neither funny, nor was it claimed to be fake. If it had been published in The Onion, you might have had a point.
It is true that editorial commentary (opinion work) is held to a different standard than traditional journalism. For one, commentary is expressly allowed to advocate for a particular position, rather than attempting to fairly and objectively present all sides of an issue. However, there are still standards for fair rhetoric which this article blatantly ignores. I offer this Poynter editorial about a current Wall Street Journal article that included a bit too much opinion commentary that turned into a scandal. And here is a Christian Science Monitor article about general journalistic ethics which may be of interest. --M
"The typical comment is that what's important is getting the job done. How you get it done is less important," McCabe said. "You'll have business students saying all I'm doing is emulating the behavior I'll need when I get out in the real world."
Which is exactly the type of reasoning that leads to this clusterfuck. Perhaps it's time for professors and the deans to expel these students rather than let the behavior continue? The cheaters might learn a valuable lesson, and society as a whole would be the better off for it.
I'm aware of the Maryland race and its local politics. But, speaking as a Massachusetts resident, I applaud anyone -- Democrat or Republican -- who openly supports a paper ballot initiative. Now, go fight your local election and stop bitching about partisan politicking - that never stops.
Journalists are not supposed to advocate for either the ruling or the opposition party. That's a fundamental rule of journalistic ethics.
...who want fair elections. The issue is not partisan, but fundamental to the proper functioning of a democratic republic. Note that I say that as a registered Democrat. But keep your eye on those who might attempt to squelch this legislation. It is those who have sold out our constitutional freedoms for partisan or constituent gain. And vote them the fuck out of office. Please?
It is crass, but _not_ obviously illegal. As long as the stockholders are informed then it is perfectly legal.
I encourage you to hold that debate with an SEC investigator and criminal prosecutor. If Elliot Spitzer is in a good mood, he might even offer you a plea bargain. (yes, I know this is NASDAQ and not NYSE - but the point is still valid)
This issue is very serious. The Senate Finance Committee recently held an investigative session on stock option backdating chaired by Chuck Grassley (R-IA). The upshot was -- of course -- to continue investigating the matter further. A video ( rtsp://video.c-span.org/15days/e090606_finance.rm ) of the investigatory session has been posted by C-SPAN, and is well worth watching for anyone interested in corporate financial shenanigans to illicitly increase executive compensation.
For those uninitiated with the process, stock option backdating is a form of option fraud whereby options which should be dated at time B (when the executive was hired, for example) but are instead backdated time A (when they are 'in the money') to insure a profit for the executive. It's crass and obviously illegal.
Watch the video and you'll enjoy seeing our representatives (on both sides of the isle) enjoying a collegial and humorous discussion on the record with those who should have been asked numerous uncomfortable questions about the practice. There are, fortunately, some very pointed questions. But the session often comes off as a giveaway to the witnesses, with senators and witnesses often laughing together at in-jokes.
If you're bothered by stock market insiders fraudulently diverting profits to their friends instead of keeping the market fair and clean, this committee session will make your blood boil.
'Cause, people give out free food there. I mean, the church is huge. Shouldn't we prosecute churches under antitrust law for adversely impacting the local restaurant industry?
No.
Churches, the ELKs, and Free Software developers, et all are loosely knit social groups which form for a specific noncommercial purpose. They are not registered businesses with the express purpose of turning a profit. As such they don't fall under antitrust laws. Nor should they. Your argument is a strawman.
Furthermore, how is it that we can "prediscover" phenomena? We develop a model to describe existing data, and whoops!, there's another phenomenon implicit in our model, and sure enough when we look for it in reality, there it is!
I suspect this is like our response to red traffic lights. We remember the annoyance of having to stop, but rarely remember all the times we sail through a green light. Often, people will complain about 'bad luck' with red lights as a result. But the reality is that the red lights aren't directing their stopping power at you - per se.
In the same vein, there are many, many, many inaccurate predictions made in science that experiment refutes. These predictions often have a mathematical basis. So, I'm arguing that you're forgetting about all the many predictions that turn out false in order to focus on those that turn out true (a sort of reverse of the red light phenomena).
> > Copyright is one such right with constitutional
> > authority, as denoted in Article 1, Section 8,
> > clause 8 - though it is not a civil right as specified
> > by the original ten ammendments.
> Copyright is not a civil right, it is a power of the
> government, specifically, to grant people the ability
> to restrict the rights of others. It is not more a
> civil right than the post office.
Yes, you're absolutely right. My phrasing was ambiguous, I meant that it is one of many rights - not a civil right. I simply didn't make that clear enough. Thank you.
He does have a sister, who I haven't seen since childhood. She is much younger, so we weren't close. I've heard, however, that she's successful, has completed a graduate education, and by all accounts is very happy. I wish her well too.
From Charlie Demerjian's Inquirer article:
..."
..."
..." (I was under the impression that Civil Rights refers to inalienable rights guaranteed by the constitution and its ammendments. Copyright is one such right with constitutional authority, as denoted in Article 1, Section 8, clause 8 - though it is not a civil right as specified by the original ten ammendments.)
..."
:) I just have high standards for professional journalism. And, unfortunately, I must say you haven't met them here. --M
"... if you buy DRM infected media
"... approval of the content mafia
"... nothing less than a civil rights coup
"... you are a wallet with legs waiting to be raped
"... How long do you think it will be before a service pack, masquerading as a 'critical security patch' takes away the optional part of the 'copy protection'?" (I don't know. Do you?)
As much as I agree with the sentiment of the author, this rhetoric damages the credibility of those who might gain the ear of real politicians - attorneys from the EFF, law professors, and such. Charlie, you're not helping here. And for God's sake, take a journalism course!
In the interest of disclosure, Charlie and I grew up together. And, Charlie, I very much still care for you and am glad to see your continued success - even though I'm being a prick here.