It's a troll, but since it's been moderated up, I'll bite.
Your post makes some bad assumptions:
Saying/thinking that someone is hot does NOT mean:
- you worship the person
- worship the persons look/flesh
- wants (covets) that person
If you walk around and desire whatever you like the looks of, then surely you have some problems. And they're not only of the moral kind!
There is a difference between admiring and wanting.
Re:Bandwith and SMP and of course ....
on
Pentium IV study
·
· Score: 1
Thanks!
It seems my question is rather academic then, but the conclusion is clear; No P4 for me.
This also indicates that the new 64 bit architecture is what Intel will have to offer the server market in the future. The thing about this is that to me the client market has always seemed to adopt the 'server prosessors' quite fast. If I'm correct, ether Intel is expecting this to change, or the new P4 architecture will be very short-lived?
Bandwith and SMP and of course ....
on
Pentium IV study
·
· Score: 1
I've used a dual prosessor system for a while, and love it. I never have to experience the jerkiness of a computer in the grips of that slow all-CPU-consuming task not behaving correctly.
My question is, how will the P4's increased bandwith-usage/demand affect an SMP-system?
If performance critical applications drive CPU power above its artificially low 54.7 watt limit, the CPU is halted with a 50% duty cycle (alternating 2 microseconds on; 2 microseconds off) until it cools down. This effectively turns your 1.5GHz processor into a 750MHz processor - just at the moment you demand peak performance.
The way I see this is that you will have peak performance for a while before the CPU slows down. The way most people uses their computer, this should be OK, since they only need peak performance in short bursts.
However, for heavy scientific computations the P4 will effectively run at closer to half speed as the article expresses. And not to forget, running the Distributed.net client or similar will have the same effect! I, for one, could not live with that.;-)
My second question is, if AMD's prosessor can run fine comsuming 73 watt and P4 will consume 72.9 watt at max speed, why does the P4 need this cooling procedure? Is the P4 smaller and thus hotter?
I have not seen the shows mentioned, but in my opinion:
mayhem is more fun than constructivity. Contructivity can be more interesting for those who have a special interest int the technology behind
mayhem is easy, you don't need no brain to run around trashing opponents
There are more constructive things around. Check out RoboCup. Here's some info from their pages:
The Robot World Cup Initiative (RoboCup) is an international research and education initiative. It is an attempt to foster AI and intelligent robotics research by providing a standard problem where wide range of technologies can be integrated and examined, as well as being used for intergrated project-oriented education.
For this purpose, RoboCup chose to use soccer game as a primary domain, and organizes RoboCup: The Robot World Cup Soccer Games and Conferences. In order for a robot team to actually perform a soccer game, various technologies must be incorporated including: design principles of autonomous agents, multi-agent collaboration, strategy acquisition, real-time reasoning, robotics, and sensor-fusion. RoboCup is a task for a team of multiple fast-moving robots under a dynamic environment. RoboCup also offers a software platform for research on the software aspects of RoboCup.
This is not a TV-show, but maybe in twenty years the technology will reach a point where the robotic players are skillfull enough to produce games that are exciting for the masses?
So, basically you're saying that:
- it is OK for M$ to not offer pathces for older versions since there exists a nev version to be downloaded.
- it is OK to leave bugged pathces for download, because everebody can read somewhere that the patch is bugged?
I will say that a company like M$ should have the resources to do some proper quality control before giving out new software. I'm not saying that IE should be guaranteed to be bug-free but the patch should at least have been tested with several verions of IE first. This is so simple and basic....
M$ cannot force every end-user to download huge version of IE because M$ cannot be bothered to give out pathces for older versions! For this there are at least two reasons.
1. dl'ing IE takes TIME, especially for all those who still use analog modems.
2. Not everybody needs (for other reason than removing old bugs) or wants these upgrades.
M$ should show some responsibility, then again why should they as long as they have monopoly?
I'm holding off on buying a new PC because I would like my next "PC" to be an affordable laptop with a docking station. Then I could have all the benefits of both stationary and mobile computing without having to buy two machines.
This will be a bit off-topic....
No, you don't have two computers, you have one computer and one docking station. I prefer two (or more) computers and no docking station. I dock using something called network!
When I come home or to the office, I simply connect the small-screened, tiny-keyborded mouseless laptop to the net, close the lid and put it away.
When I need to work on a project stored on my laptop, I use X and ssh. In essence a seamless docking into my 21"-monitor-fitted floortop.
This also has numerous other benefits. A file/web-server always on net, scientific background processes and file-downloading in the background... always.
So wherever there is a machine with X and SSH I can dock my laptop.
And last but not least, that wonderful distributed.net client for when the CPU is idle. Gotta love them stats.
HaltingProblemNot (HPN) is interesting, but I do not like it for one reason. What HPN is doing is first waiting for HaltingProblem (HP) to give its answer and then prove it wrong by doing differently. In other words, it asks HP to foretell a changeable future which it itself has control over. To me this is breaking the rules.
So let us allow HP to break the rules a little bit. If I construct HP to predict the ansver, but never return it to HPN, I will force HPN to either wait for ever or time out and halt. The answer was found (Halting Problem solved), just not returned.
A feature I would like is to have a local cookie-provider database, where you can choose which cookies to be allowed and which should go down the drain.
Options like:
- accept always
- accept this session
- never accept
- deny this session
Let's face it, Napster has taken the concept of online music back ten years with its blatent support of piracy. Whilst the move to digital, downloadable music is inevitable at this point, Napster has made sure that the RIAA will move as slowly as possible whilst aiming for maximum control over every aspect of online music. If I were in the music companies place, I'd have taken Napster to court as well, they deserve whatever they get.
Digital technology and the internet is doing this. Napster is just a tool. If it had not been Napster it would be some other similar tool. Napster was simply the first easy to use tool. Blaming Napster for this is like blaming the first web-browsers for spreading porn on the net.
Let's say that after downloafding you change one bit in order to get a new checksum.
Who will bother doing this? The ordinary user will not have the knowledge or interesert in why or how. If this is to be built into Napster then Napster will be in serious trouble, because this will mean Napster will have functions that are exclusively made to support illegal trading.
So this means Napster will loose and gnutella will win?
I think the lawyers working for the music industry will never be out of a job.
There is a theory about memory that the things you learn has to be repeated in your brain in order to 'stick'. Think about it, you learn a new name for a person and immediately goes on talking, or you learn the name and has some a few seconds doing nothing. In the first case a lot of us forget the (damned) name.
There is also a theory that we're dreaming all the time, even when we're awake. The brain is constantly doing random assoications and this helps refreshing memory. But at daytime, when a lot is happening and we're conscious, most of this random activity gets quickly depressed. (but sometimes we daydream, or we suddenly thinks about something totally unrelated to what we're doing at the moment.)
Combaining these two theories we come to my point. In sleep very little is disturbing the brain, which is then free to do it's random(?) memory refreshing thing.
And if this is correct, then that is why lack of sleep is disruptive for memory.
When comparing computing power of mice brinas and $1000 computer systems, what is he really talking about?
Correctly revired you can play QuakeIII on the mouse-brain?
Correctly programmed (and fit with legs) the computer can run around sniffing for cheese?
Computers and brains has very different ways of working. I cannot see these comparisons have very much meaning without it being specified how the comparison is being done.
What's Bad?
Frankly put, the chapter on "Multimedia and the Internet."
This reminds me of a statement in the Dilbert Principle that says that if someone is smarter than you, it doesn't matter how much smarter he is. Because you cannot tell the difference anyway.
My feeling (mind you, I've only read this review) is that timothy knows about Multimedia and Internet and sees this for what is. But does not know very much about the rest.
The reason I've got this feeling is:
The author points out that each neuron itself is hugely sophisticated, more complex than most single celled organism, which are able to do many things on their own that computers are not able to.
A neuron is a single cell, part of an organism. This alone is enough to expect that there are other single cells (part of organisms or not) that are less complex. Not knowing much about single celled organisms, the neurons has very complec tasks. First, when born it has to stretch its wires (dendrites, axons) through the body. Some neurons for tens of centimeters, finding their way through different paths in the body. Then they have to connect to a lot of other neurons or sensory cells. Then most of them have to figure out which connections are good, and which are to loose. And so forth.. Personally I would be surprised if you could fine many single-celled organisms that were nearly as complex as the neurons.
....which are able to do many things on their own that computers are not able to.
What does he know what computers can and cannot do. Computers are designed to work in a different way than neurons. But what computers can and cannot do is yet to be discovered. So far the biggest obstackle is the humans who are programming the computers. If/when we figure out how the neurons (or other cells, like single celld organisms) work, who says we're not able to program the computers to work in the same way. But he's got the main point right, it's a very difficult task.
Also I have problems with the analog, digital analogies. Digital method can in principle do all the same thing analog methods can do. It's just a matter of resolution and computing power. If the resolution is high enough, then there is no problem. Let's make a comparrison with newthonian physics. The resolution (or in this case accuracy) is high enough for most tasks. When higher accuracy is needed you have to start using different equations. Working digitally you simply increase the resolution of the numbers, and hopefully your computational power will keep up.
To me it looks like the author knows about a lot of stuff, and has put it together into a fine book. But from the examples above, it seems like he does not have a real understanding for what he's writing about. And this is what I'm trying to say in the beginning. I think timothy recognizes the same thing in the Internet and multimedia part.
Sometimes research into an issue like this will develope useful algorithms that can be utilized for other things.
The reason for this is that they're not only 'simulating clothing' but utlizes advanced paralell collision detection, deformation algorithms, numerical integration and so forth.
Since Mozilla is possible to launch next to netscape I use the old stable 4.73 for mail (/usr/lib/netscape/netscape -mail) and such and autoinstall (ncftpget ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/nightly/latest/m ozilla-i686-pc-linux-gnu.tar.gz)
the latest Mozilla build every night for my browsing pleasure. It's only crashed once so far and that is more stable than IE on my Win2000 machine.
Even if you don't agree about everything and even strongly object to something, you should still vote for the party closest to what you feel is important.
Noone has to know everything about their party or agree to everything. Just find your important issues.
This is simple statistics, the huge number of voters justify this kind of behaviour. The numbers will even this out and the candidate America wants will be elected in the end.
Also this earns you the right to bitch and complain later, because you did your part of the job in a democratic way.
Rambus CEO Geoff Tate: "We think it would be difficult, if not impossible, to develop a competing technology to RDRAM and not infringe on our patents," he said. "We are extremely confident in our legal position."
Patents exists so that those who spend resources on research should be able to get something back, and thus stimulate more research.
What this shows is that the way the patent system works, it limits competition and makes research less interesting. Even if someone can come up woth some better technology, the economic advantage of doing so is partly removed.
Looks like the patent system may in, in some ways, be working against what it should be working for.
I'll use two examples. Cigarettes and alcohol. We have very high taxes on both, still the people who smoke are often the poor people and kids who thinks it makes them look cool. The rich can always afford it, but don't smoke any more.
Alcohol taxes gives a strange form of drinking habbit. Most non-rich people cannot afford alcohol on an ordinary day. I mean the one bottle of beer or glass of wine you might like to enjoy while eating dinner. Instead people catch up during the weekends. When norwegians start drinking they don't stop until they're loaded. And this bad alcohol culture has even spread to young kids.
Yesterday I read a report saying that around 10% of kids age 12-13 on a school near were I live get drunk every week!
The high taxes has, instead of causing less drinking, created an unnatural and unhealthy relationship to alcohol.
Another thing with these kinds of taxes is that they can only affect the poorer people. The rich people can always do what they want. This creates a separation of social classes in terms of freedom. The poor people is given a lot of limitations in life-style.
I say, give people freedom and they will use this freedom wisely.
Take away freedom and you will get frustrated people with lowered respect for the society.
"The other universes are unavailable to us, just as the interior of a black hole is unavailable,"
Given that between the universes there are nothing. No particles, no energy, no forces, nothing at all. Then we will be no references to time or distance in this nothingness. And without any distance we can never cross from universe A to B. Even if both Univers A and universe B are forever expanding.
This also means that our universe has to be a connected something. Cause if there was a breach in the connection there would be two separate universes, which could not ever meet or join.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a troll, but since it's been moderated up, I'll bite.
Your post makes some bad assumptions:
Saying/thinking that someone is hot does NOT mean:
- you worship the person
- worship the persons look/flesh
- wants (covets) that person
If you walk around and desire whatever you like the looks of, then surely you have some problems. And they're not only of the moral kind!
There is a difference between admiring and wanting.It seems my question is rather academic then, but the conclusion is clear; No P4 for me.
This also indicates that the new 64 bit architecture is what Intel will have to offer the server market in the future.
The thing about this is that to me the client market has always seemed to adopt the 'server prosessors' quite fast. If I'm correct, ether Intel is expecting this to change, or the new P4 architecture will be very short-lived?
I've used a dual prosessor system for a while, and love it. I never have to experience the jerkiness of a computer in the grips of that slow all-CPU-consuming task not behaving correctly.
My question is, how will the P4's increased bandwith-usage/demand affect an SMP-system?
If performance critical applications drive CPU power above its artificially low 54.7 watt limit, the CPU is halted with a 50% duty cycle (alternating 2 microseconds on; 2 microseconds off) until it cools down. This effectively turns your 1.5GHz processor into a 750MHz processor - just at the moment you demand peak performance. ;-)
The way I see this is that you will have peak performance for a while before the CPU slows down. The way most people uses their computer, this should be OK, since they only need peak performance in short bursts.
However, for heavy scientific computations the P4 will effectively run at closer to half speed as the article expresses. And not to forget, running the Distributed.net client or similar will have the same effect! I, for one, could not live with that.
My second question is, if AMD's prosessor can run fine comsuming 73 watt and P4 will consume 72.9 watt at max speed, why does the P4 need this cooling procedure? Is the P4 smaller and thus hotter?
-
mayhem is more fun than constructivity. Contructivity can be more interesting for those who have a special interest int the technology behind
- mayhem is easy, you don't need no brain to run around trashing opponents
There are more constructive things around. Check out RoboCup. Here's some info from their pages:This is not a TV-show, but maybe in twenty years the technology will reach a point where the robotic players are skillfull enough to produce games that are exciting for the masses?
So, basically you're saying that:
- it is OK for M$ to not offer pathces for older versions since there exists a nev version to be downloaded.
- it is OK to leave bugged pathces for download, because everebody can read somewhere that the patch is bugged?
I will say that a company like M$ should have the resources to do some proper quality control before giving out new software. I'm not saying that IE should be guaranteed to be bug-free but the patch should at least have been tested with several verions of IE first. This is so simple and basic....
M$ cannot force every end-user to download huge version of IE because M$ cannot be bothered to give out pathces for older versions! For this there are at least two reasons.
Say no to addictives, say no to1. dl'ing IE takes TIME, especially for all those who still use analog modems.
2. Not everybody needs (for other reason than removing old bugs) or wants these upgrades.
M$ should show some responsibility, then again why should they as long as they have monopoly?
I'm holding off on buying a new PC because I would like my next "PC" to be an affordable laptop with a docking station. Then I could have all the benefits of both stationary and mobile computing without having to buy two machines.
This will be a bit off-topic....
No, you don't have two computers, you have one computer and one docking station. I prefer two (or more) computers and no docking station. I dock using something called network!
When I come home or to the office, I simply connect the small-screened, tiny-keyborded mouseless laptop to the net, close the lid and put it away.
When I need to work on a project stored on my laptop, I use X and ssh. In essence a seamless docking into my 21"-monitor-fitted floortop.
This also has numerous other benefits. A file/web-server always on net, scientific background processes and file-downloading in the background... always.
So wherever there is a machine with X and SSH I can dock my laptop.
And last but not least, that wonderful distributed.net client for when the CPU is idle. Gotta love them stats.
This is the real issue, how fast will it run the client? How many RC5-64 KKeys per sec?
I will not buy before I know!
Would Imho be more correct.
HaltingProblemNot (HPN) is interesting, but I do not like it for one reason. What HPN is doing is first waiting for HaltingProblem (HP) to give its answer and then prove it wrong by doing differently. In other words, it asks HP to foretell a changeable future which it itself has control over. To me this is breaking the rules.
So let us allow HP to break the rules a little bit. If I construct HP to predict the ansver, but never return it to HPN, I will force HPN to either wait for ever or time out and halt. The answer was found (Halting Problem solved), just not returned.
I've run the nightly build for a couple of months now and my experience is mostly good.
It renders quickly and it looks good.
The builds differ a little bit. Some bugs related to javascript come and go. One build it's ok, the next the bug is bag, the next is ok again.
Most builds never crash (in one day, remember I always use the last nightly) but now and then I have a few crashes during one day.
I have not tried Java nor Flash plugins.
All in all it's a pretty good browser that I'm happy with. And for the few pages giving my trouble I fire up the old 4.76 (4.73?).
Some other post said, 'hunt for a stable nighly'. I can support that.
A feature I would like is to have a local cookie-provider database, where you can choose which cookies to be allowed and which should go down the drain.
Options like:
- accept always
- accept this session
- never accept
- deny this session
Let's face it, Napster has taken the concept of online music back ten years with its blatent support of piracy. Whilst the move to digital, downloadable music is inevitable at this point, Napster has made sure that the RIAA will move as slowly as possible whilst aiming for maximum control over every aspect of online music. If I were in the music companies place, I'd have taken Napster to court as well, they deserve whatever they get.
Digital technology and the internet is doing this. Napster is just a tool. If it had not been Napster it would be some other similar tool. Napster was simply the first easy to use tool. Blaming Napster for this is like blaming the first web-browsers for spreading porn on the net.
Let's say that after downloafding you change one bit in order to get a new checksum.
Who will bother doing this? The ordinary user will not have the knowledge or interesert in why or how. If this is to be built into Napster then Napster will be in serious trouble, because this will mean Napster will have functions that are exclusively made to support illegal trading.
So this means Napster will loose and gnutella will win?
I think the lawyers working for the music industry will never be out of a job.
There is a theory about memory that the things you learn has to be repeated in your brain in order to 'stick'. Think about it, you learn a new name for a person and immediately goes on talking, or you learn the name and has some a few seconds doing nothing. In the first case a lot of us forget the (damned) name.
There is also a theory that we're dreaming all the time, even when we're awake. The brain is constantly doing random assoications and this helps refreshing memory. But at daytime, when a lot is happening and we're conscious, most of this random activity gets quickly depressed. (but sometimes we daydream, or we suddenly thinks about something totally unrelated to what we're doing at the moment.)
Combaining these two theories we come to my point. In sleep very little is disturbing the brain, which is then free to do it's random(?) memory refreshing thing.
And if this is correct, then that is why lack of sleep is disruptive for memory.
When comparing computing power of mice brinas and $1000 computer systems, what is he really talking about?
Correctly revired you can play QuakeIII on the mouse-brain?
Correctly programmed (and fit with legs) the computer can run around sniffing for cheese?
Computers and brains has very different ways of working. I cannot see these comparisons have very much meaning without it being specified how the comparison is being done.
This reminds me of a statement in the Dilbert Principle that says that if someone is smarter than you, it doesn't matter how much smarter he is. Because you cannot tell the difference anyway.
My feeling (mind you, I've only read this review) is that timothy knows about Multimedia and Internet and sees this for what is. But does not know very much about the rest.
The reason I've got this feeling is:
A neuron is a single cell, part of an organism. This alone is enough to expect that there are other single cells (part of organisms or not) that are less complex. Not knowing much about single celled organisms, the neurons has very complec tasks. First, when born it has to stretch its wires (dendrites, axons) through the body. Some neurons for tens of centimeters, finding their way through different paths in the body. Then they have to connect to a lot of other neurons or sensory cells. Then most of them have to figure out which connections are good, and which are to loose. And so forth.. Personally I would be surprised if you could fine many single-celled organisms that were nearly as complex as the neurons.
What does he know what computers can and cannot do. Computers are designed to work in a different way than neurons. But what computers can and cannot do is yet to be discovered. So far the biggest obstackle is the humans who are programming the computers. If/when we figure out how the neurons (or other cells, like single celld organisms) work, who says we're not able to program the computers to work in the same way. But he's got the main point right, it's a very difficult task.
Also I have problems with the analog, digital analogies. Digital method can in principle do all the same thing analog methods can do. It's just a matter of resolution and computing power. If the resolution is high enough, then there is no problem. Let's make a comparrison with newthonian physics. The resolution (or in this case accuracy) is high enough for most tasks. When higher accuracy is needed you have to start using different equations. Working digitally you simply increase the resolution of the numbers, and hopefully your computational power will keep up.
To me it looks like the author knows about a lot of stuff, and has put it together into a fine book. But from the examples above, it seems like he does not have a real understanding for what he's writing about. And this is what I'm trying to say in the beginning. I think timothy recognizes the same thing in the Internet and multimedia part.
Sometimes research into an issue like this will develope useful algorithms that can be utilized for other things.
The reason for this is that they're not only 'simulating clothing' but utlizes advanced paralell collision detection, deformation algorithms, numerical integration and so forth.
Since Mozilla is possible to launch next to netscape I use the old stable 4.73 for mail (/usr/lib/netscape/netscape -mail) and such and autoinstall (ncftpget ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/nightly/latest/m ozilla-i686-pc-linux-gnu.tar.gz)
the latest Mozilla build every night for my browsing pleasure. It's only crashed once so far and that is more stable than IE on my Win2000 machine.
Even if you don't agree about everything and even strongly object to something, you should still vote for the party closest to what you feel is important.
Noone has to know everything about their party or agree to everything. Just find your important issues.
This is simple statistics, the huge number of voters justify this kind of behaviour. The numbers will even this out and the candidate America wants will be elected in the end.
Also this earns you the right to bitch and complain later, because you did your part of the job in a democratic way.
I could've sworned it would be eight.
Patents exists so that those who spend resources on research should be able to get something back, and thus stimulate more research.
What this shows is that the way the patent system works, it limits competition and makes research less interesting. Even if someone can come up woth some better technology, the economic advantage of doing so is partly removed.
Looks like the patent system may in, in some ways, be working against what it should be working for.
Sorry, it's not that simple.
I'm form Norway, the land of high taxes.
I'll use two examples. Cigarettes and alcohol. We have very high taxes on both, still the people who smoke are often the poor people and kids who thinks it makes them look cool. The rich can always afford it, but don't smoke any more.
Alcohol taxes gives a strange form of drinking habbit. Most non-rich people cannot afford alcohol on an ordinary day. I mean the one bottle of beer or glass of wine you might like to enjoy while eating dinner. Instead people catch up during the weekends. When norwegians start drinking they don't stop until they're loaded. And this bad alcohol culture has even spread to young kids.
Yesterday I read a report saying that around 10% of kids age 12-13 on a school near were I live get drunk every week!
The high taxes has, instead of causing less drinking, created an unnatural and unhealthy relationship to alcohol.
Another thing with these kinds of taxes is that they can only affect the poorer people. The rich people can always do what they want. This creates a separation of social classes in terms of freedom. The poor people is given a lot of limitations in life-style.
I say, give people freedom and they will use this freedom wisely.
Take away freedom and you will get frustrated people with lowered respect for the society.
Rain on Titan. That is something to experience before you die.
"The other universes are unavailable to us, just as the interior of a black hole is unavailable,"
Given that between the universes there are nothing. No particles, no energy, no forces, nothing at all. Then we will be no references to time or distance in this nothingness. And without any distance we can never cross from universe A to B. Even if both Univers A and universe B are forever expanding.
This also means that our universe has to be a connected something. Cause if there was a breach in the connection there would be two separate universes, which could not ever meet or join.
I downloaded and installed QNX a while ago, but could not figure out how to use SMP.
Also this QNX 4 and QNX Neutrino confuse me. What's the differences? I can't figure it out from their web-pages.
Anyone?