The overwhelming majority of security exploits (over 95% iirc-sorry, I don't have a source handy) are due to implementation errors and not cryptanalysis. At this point, time is much better spent attacking buggy code than worrying about crytanalysis threats to well known ciphers.
Re:AMD's answer: Mobile athlons with 1watt(!)
on
Centrino Laptops Reviewed
·
· Score: 5, Informative
That 1 watt number is crap- thats the minimum power consumption, which isn't really a useful number. According to Cnet, the maximum is 25 watts, and AMD is still working on a chip that only uses 15 watts.
-It is very heavy. It surprized me how much heavier it was than the other 7200 RPM drives. -It has what look like a built in heatsink in it's case, and I didn't notice it feeling much hotter than other drives (maybe because of the heatsink) -It was a noisy environment, but the drive seemed almost as quiet as the other drives (again, kind of surprizing to me)
About the speed, we mostly run proprietary traffic generation programs to the drive, so I haven't really been able to use it in a real world environment yet (no Windows or games or anything). That being the case, it is hard for me to compare.
Yes- thats what I was talking about too. The Asus board has a SATA controller from Silicon Image soldered to the motherboard, but it is NOT integrated into the chipset. Logically it sits on the PCI bus with all of your other PCI devices. This will not be the case when Intel and NVidia release their chipsets later this year with integrated SATA- then SATA will not be limited by PCI bandwidth.
I've heard this over and over, but I've never heard any justification for it. PCI is plenty fast for that disk, and it's hard to imagine that a new ns extra latency makes any difference in disk performance.
Ok- here is the justification. Gen 1 SATA is theoretical 150 MB/sec to each drive (point to point). Most people have more than one hard drive, so multiply that 150 by the number of drives.
Standard 33 MHz 32 bit PCI is capable of around 133 MB/sec. One drive is enough to saturate that (in theory).
You might argue that current drives are not capable of sustaining the 150 MB/sec transfer rate, and that is correct. But then you realize that your NIC, modem, soundcard, and other devices are sharing that 133 MB/sec PCI bandwidth with your SATA controller, and that starts become a very limiting factor.
No- you don't have integrated SATA. There is no chipset on the market right now with integrated SATA. What you have is a separate SATA chip (probably from Promise) on your motherboard, but logically it sits off the PCI bus and is limited by PCI bandwidth.
You could always buy an Apple to avoid supporting a government with one of the worst human rights records today. Just a thought.
I also don't buy your argument that DRM cripples a CPU. DRM technologies are a valuable tool for developers. Just like other tools, they can be used for good things and for bad things, but DRM itself is not inherently bad.
To me your post looks like nothing more that buzzword whoring.
Yes- everybody knows that the US supported Iraq in the 80s, and everybody can see in hindsight that that wasn't the best idea. Now what does this have to do with the parents (false) assertion that Iraq had an excellent economy prior to the Gulf War?
First of all, I trust info directly from the State Department more than I trust most the media.
And what about that post is open to a biased interpretation? Instead of just complaining about my sources, why don't you provide some sources of your own?
Incorrect. Iraq's economy has been crappy since Saddam came around. When Saddam took office in 1979, Iraq had a good economy and a bright future, but the Iran/Iraq war starting in 1980 pretty much ruined them. The UN sanctions after the Gulf War were just the final nail in the coffin.
Prior to the outbreak of the war with Iran in September 1980, Iraq's economic prospects were bright. Oil production had reached a level of 3.5 million barrels per day, and oil revenues were $21 billion in 1979 and $27 billion in 1980. At the outbreak of the war, Iraq had amassed an estimated $35 billion in foreign exchange reserves.
The Iran-Iraq War depleted Iraq's foreign exchange reserves, devastated its economy, and left the country saddled with a foreign debt of more than $40 billion. After hostilities ceased, oil exports gradually increased with the construction of new pipelines and the restoration of damaged facilities.
Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, subsequent international sanctions, and damage from military action by an international coalition beginning in January 1991 drastically reduced economic activity. Government policies of diverting income to key supporters of the regime while sustaining a large military and internal security force further impaired finances, leaving the average Iraqi citizen facing desperate hardships.
How can the 'Pharmaceuticals must profit on their work!' people justify it?
How can you justify your position when history has proven it ineffective? Look back on this century- how many medical breakthroughs have come from free market economies compared to socialist economies? Why are more helpful drugs developed in the United States than any other country? If you take the parent's argument of "they should profit, just not very much", then you take away the incentive to develop the drugs and NOBODY gets them. There is a reason that countries like Cuba have to import their medical supplies from the United States.
As another example, the healthcare standards in China were horrible until they adopted a more laissez-faire healthcare policy. Now more people have access to medicine than before.
Is it fair that somebody is suffering because he/she can't afford expensive drugs when the evil CEO is playing golf? Probably not, but capitalism gives EVERYBODY the chance to improve their situation.
So are you suggesting that the industry should ignore the increasing system bandwidth needs (gigabit ethernet, USB2, 1394, Infiniband, SATA, etc) just so you can use your old hardware for longer?
And your hardware will be compatible for years to come. Legacy interfaces linger for a LOOOONG time.
Um, considering PCI Express is an industry standard, it probably will be a chipset with PCI Express. Of course AMD has already developed Hypertransport to use in some places where PCI Express would fit also.
Another difference- Iraq is under orders from the United Nations to prove that it has disarmed, and so far (12 years) it hasn't cooperated. The United States is under no similar order from the UN.
When Bin Laden said that he "is in partnership with Iraq", and when he calls on Iraqi citizens to carry out suicide bombings against Americans, I would say that has something to do with Iraq.
Iraq is under international orders to disarm, the United States is not.
About your other points:
-The United States decided to used nuclear weapons in WWII because they believed that it would save more lives compared to a drawn out conclusion to the war
-I think you are confused about the smallpox story- British troops used smallpox blankets against Native Americans during the French/Indian war, not the US.
-The United States did support the mujahedeen (including Bin Laden) in the very worthy cause of defending Afghanistan against the Soviet Union. The mujahedeen was not a terrorist group in the sense that they were not targeting innocent civilian populations- they were targeting the military aggression of the soviets.
Didn't you hear that Bin Laden tape from a few weeks ago? He said, among other things, that although he thinks that Saddam is a womanizing, partying 'infidel', he is glad to work with him towards the mutual goal of destroying the United States.
No you don't. Tomshardware just did some Windows XP benchmarks on a Pentium 100.
I don't know why you think its so bad that they have added features. Thats a pretty natural progression of software development. Look at Linux, KDE, Gnome, Mozilla, etc.
Itanium was conceived as a server/workstation chip from the beginning, and it performs VERY well in that setting. Aside from some sweaty geeks on/. that are counting down the days until Athlon64 (btw, how many times has that release been delayed?), nobody else really cares about 64 bits in the desktop.
The reference to Barton is because 1. It is performing better than expected
Is it really? It didn't do so hot in these benchmarks. There, the old T-bred Athlon 2800+ beat the Barton Athlon 2800+ in over half of the benchmarks, and the Barton XP 3000+ only beat the P4 3.06 GHz in 1 benchmark test.
2. Has to hold the fort on the desktop until MS and / or Opteron is ready.
I would bet that this is somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Microsoft isn't going to release an OS for non-existant hardware, so they are probably waiting for AMD just as much as AMD is waiting for them.
Anyway it is probably a bit of both and the strategy chosen by AMD seems prudent.
Most analysts agree that AMD has given up a lot of its potential market advantage by waiting until Fall for the release (see the Yahoo article above).
Here is some speculation about that from the tech-report article above:
As a result, Hammer will launch primarily as a server chip--where overall platform performance matters more than raw CPU performance--at relatively low clock speeds of 1.4, 1.6, and 1.8GHz.
Well, thats not what the article you linked to says. It says that they delayed it so they could milk Barton some more. But AMD has admitted that the delays are because of manufacturing problems:
AMD is running into trouble trying to use two new design technologies simultaneously for a new chip: the 64-bit architecture and silicon-on-insulator (SOI) process, which can improve chip performance or reduce power consumption.
"We have underestimated the challenge of getting SOI... to scale to some target frequencies," on the Athlon 64, AMD's Abbinanti said.
While AMD said it pushed the Athlon 64 chip back to better align its introduction with software, analysts believe the company has had problems with manufacturing the chip. The problems were most likely in perfecting its silicon on insulator (SOI) process, which jumps up performance and helps lower power consumption, McCarron said.
Slashdot Mirror
The overwhelming majority of security exploits (over 95% iirc-sorry, I don't have a source handy) are due to implementation errors and not cryptanalysis. At this point, time is much better spent attacking buggy code than worrying about crytanalysis threats to well known ciphers.
That 1 watt number is crap- thats the minimum power consumption, which isn't really a useful number. According to Cnet, the maximum is 25 watts, and AMD is still working on a chip that only uses 15 watts.
My impressions of the drive:
-It is very heavy. It surprized me how much heavier it was than the other 7200 RPM drives.
-It has what look like a built in heatsink in it's case, and I didn't notice it feeling much hotter than other drives (maybe because of the heatsink)
-It was a noisy environment, but the drive seemed almost as quiet as the other drives (again, kind of surprizing to me)
About the speed, we mostly run proprietary traffic generation programs to the drive, so I haven't really been able to use it in a real world environment yet (no Windows or games or anything). That being the case, it is hard for me to compare.
Yeah- Thanks. I just went and looked that up myself.
Yes- thats what I was talking about too. The Asus board has a SATA controller from Silicon Image soldered to the motherboard, but it is NOT integrated into the chipset. Logically it sits on the PCI bus with all of your other PCI devices. This will not be the case when Intel and NVidia release their chipsets later this year with integrated SATA- then SATA will not be limited by PCI bandwidth.
I've heard this over and over, but I've never heard any justification for it. PCI is plenty fast for that disk, and it's hard to imagine that a new ns extra latency makes any difference in disk performance.
Ok- here is the justification. Gen 1 SATA is theoretical 150 MB/sec to each drive (point to point). Most people have more than one hard drive, so multiply that 150 by the number of drives.
Standard 33 MHz 32 bit PCI is capable of around 133 MB/sec. One drive is enough to saturate that (in theory).
You might argue that current drives are not capable of sustaining the 150 MB/sec transfer rate, and that is correct. But then you realize that your NIC, modem, soundcard, and other devices are sharing that 133 MB/sec PCI bandwidth with your SATA controller, and that starts become a very limiting factor.
No- you don't have integrated SATA. There is no chipset on the market right now with integrated SATA. What you have is a separate SATA chip (probably from Promise) on your motherboard, but logically it sits off the PCI bus and is limited by PCI bandwidth.
heh heh- thats what I get for not RTFA first. We are talking about the same drive!
They sure can- and they do. I have been playing around with a 10k RPM SATA drive from Western Digital at work this week.
About your other question- there are a lot of factors that contribute to drive performance, but rotational speed is one of the biggest.
You could always buy an Apple to avoid supporting a government with one of the worst human rights records today. Just a thought.
I also don't buy your argument that DRM cripples a CPU. DRM technologies are a valuable tool for developers. Just like other tools, they can be used for good things and for bad things, but DRM itself is not inherently bad.
To me your post looks like nothing more that buzzword whoring.
Yes- everybody knows that the US supported Iraq in the 80s, and everybody can see in hindsight that that wasn't the best idea. Now what does this have to do with the parents (false) assertion that Iraq had an excellent economy prior to the Gulf War?
First of all, I trust info directly from the State Department more than I trust most the media.
And what about that post is open to a biased interpretation? Instead of just complaining about my sources, why don't you provide some sources of your own?
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/6804.htm
How can the 'Pharmaceuticals must profit on their work!' people justify it?
How can you justify your position when history has proven it ineffective? Look back on this century- how many medical breakthroughs have come from free market economies compared to socialist economies? Why are more helpful drugs developed in the United States than any other country? If you take the parent's argument of "they should profit, just not very much", then you take away the incentive to develop the drugs and NOBODY gets them. There is a reason that countries like Cuba have to import their medical supplies from the United States.
As another example, the healthcare standards in China were horrible until they adopted a more laissez-faire healthcare policy. Now more people have access to medicine than before.
Is it fair that somebody is suffering because he/she can't afford expensive drugs when the evil CEO is playing golf? Probably not, but capitalism gives EVERYBODY the chance to improve their situation.
So are you suggesting that the industry should ignore the increasing system bandwidth needs (gigabit ethernet, USB2, 1394, Infiniband, SATA, etc) just so you can use your old hardware for longer?
And your hardware will be compatible for years to come. Legacy interfaces linger for a LOOOONG time.
Um, considering PCI Express is an industry standard, it probably will be a chipset with PCI Express. Of course AMD has already developed Hypertransport to use in some places where PCI Express would fit also.
Another difference- Iraq is under orders from the United Nations to prove that it has disarmed, and so far (12 years) it hasn't cooperated. The United States is under no similar order from the UN.
When Bin Laden said that he "is in partnership with Iraq", and when he calls on Iraqi citizens to carry out suicide bombings against Americans, I would say that has something to do with Iraq.
Its very simple, actually.
Iraq is under international orders to disarm, the United States is not.
About your other points:
-The United States decided to used nuclear weapons in WWII because they believed that it would save more lives compared to a drawn out conclusion to the war
-I think you are confused about the smallpox story- British troops used smallpox blankets against Native Americans during the French/Indian war, not the US.
-The United States did support the mujahedeen (including Bin Laden) in the very worthy cause of defending Afghanistan against the Soviet Union. The mujahedeen was not a terrorist group in the sense that they were not targeting innocent civilian populations- they were targeting the military aggression of the soviets.
Didn't you hear that Bin Laden tape from a few weeks ago? He said, among other things, that although he thinks that Saddam is a womanizing, partying 'infidel', he is glad to work with him towards the mutual goal of destroying the United States.
No you don't. Tomshardware just did some Windows XP benchmarks on a Pentium 100.
I don't know why you think its so bad that they have added features. Thats a pretty natural progression of software development. Look at Linux, KDE, Gnome, Mozilla, etc.
Itanium was conceived as a server/workstation chip from the beginning, and it performs VERY well in that setting. Aside from some sweaty geeks on /. that are counting down the days until Athlon64 (btw, how many times has that release been delayed?), nobody else really cares about 64 bits in the desktop.
The reference to Barton is because 1. It is performing better than expected
Is it really? It didn't do so hot in these benchmarks. There, the old T-bred Athlon 2800+ beat the Barton Athlon 2800+ in over half of the benchmarks, and the Barton XP 3000+ only beat the P4 3.06 GHz in 1 benchmark test.
2. Has to hold the fort on the desktop until MS and / or Opteron is ready.
I would bet that this is somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Microsoft isn't going to release an OS for non-existant hardware, so they are probably waiting for AMD just as much as AMD is waiting for them.
Anyway it is probably a bit of both and the strategy chosen by AMD seems prudent.
Most analysts agree that AMD has given up a lot of its potential market advantage by waiting until Fall for the release (see the Yahoo article above).
Here is some speculation about that from the tech-report article above:
As a result, Hammer will launch primarily as a server chip--where overall platform performance matters more than raw CPU performance--at relatively low clock speeds of 1.4, 1.6, and 1.8GHz.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=
Industry analysts have commented on this also: