Include discovered genes in there. If some one creates a strand of DNA that doesn't exist in nature they can patent it. If they come up with a process for isolating and sequencing genes, they can patent it. But, they should not be able to patent naturally occuring genes.
Genes are a natural resource. For example bauxite is the ore that aluminum is extracted from. If we apply the same rules to this that are applied to gene patents, aluminum would be patentable because it took research to discover that aluminum in the rock.
Well, genes are extracted form human and animal cells. Just like the aluminum is extracted form the bauxite. So, genes should not be patentable since they are a natural resource.
This kind of backward-compatible technology might solve some of the problems mentioned in this thread. If the K7 takes off, it'll be only a matter of time before somebody does something similar to the Spectra for it, so any investment one makes in computers now isn't necessarily lost when one wants to use the next generation of CPU.
Actually, this probably will not happen witht he K7 since it is a total break with previous technology except for the instruction set. The buses are too different for there to be an S7 upgrade for the K7. With the various K6s the issue wasn't pinouts or bus protocols, but primaily voltages and multipliers, so making upgrades isn't too difficult.
The CPU bus is still 200MHZ*64bits if this is true. Something I did not think of though was what if you have 2 CPUs. Each of which has a 200MHZ*64bit bus. Aggregate bandwidtht hat those tow CPUs could use would be 3.2GB/s, and 200MHZ*128bits would be a reasonable design in order to keep 2 CPUs fed.
the 21264 has 4 dimm's in a bank (256 bit bus), so the potential for bandwidth gains via interleaving are even greater.
I believe that they also use 66MHZ ECC SDRAM for this. Giving a bandwidth number around 2GB/s.
latency is poor, but you do get a huge increase in bandwidth for large memory access.
Actually, latency would be better with 256bit wide bus vs 64bit wide bus. Since the time to get the first piece of data is the identical, but with a 256 bit bus you get 4 times as much data in the same amount of time.
But, as I said previously memory configuration is chipset dependent, and therefore can be just about anything.
I think you are talking about the Win95 bug with K6-2 over 350MHZ. This is a result of a timing loop in Windows95 that goes too fast on a K6 at or over 350MHZ. There is a patch for Win95 on this. I don't think the problem exists in Win98. Note this is a MS Windows bug not a hardware problem with the K6.
I have heard that high end databases use there own filesystem for the database, and therefore don't have problems with clusters or inodes. On the other hand I think MySQL uses the linux filesystem for its database, and therefore is subject to the limits of the files system. So, rather than being a kernel problem this would actually be an issue of using a database not designed for the load being put on it.
No it is a doubling of bus speed. The EV-6 bus is a 64bit wide bus, that in the K7 incarnation will run at 200MHZ. But, since the Ev-6 is point-to-point between the chipset and CPU. The FSB speed only tels you that the maximum memory bandwidth to the CPU is 1.6GB/s. But, aside from that, it has no implications about the actual memory bus width or speed. In fact the memory could easily be 64bit 100MHZ SDRAM. So the memory bandwidth would be 800MB/s, but the FSB bandwidth would still be 1.6GB/s. That is an unlikely scenario except in the possibility of a cheap K7 motherboard and chipset. The more likely options will probably be a 128bit wide 100MHZ SDRAM bus, 64bit wide DDRSDRAM, or 800MHZ RAMBUS.
But, the point is that 200MHZ FSB tells us nothing about the memory speed when it comes to an EV-6 bus.
The only difference with the K7 is that the hype is not coming from AMD. So, far the only things AMD has officially said about the K& is the basic architecture at Microprocessor forum last October, and the demos at Comdex and Cebit. I think they have learned a lesson about overpromising and underdelivering. So, right now they are basically lettign the device and architecture speak for itself. I do think a lot of people outside of AMD are hyping up the K7 a lot more than tey shoud lat this point. Basically giving free advertising.
Yes, but unlike Intel anyone will be able to make a processor with slot A. And, the licensing fee, if any, won't be stifling. It would be interesting to see Rise or IDT make EV-6 based chips.
KNI and 3Dnow! are functionally equivalent
on
More AMD K7 Details
·
· Score: 1
Everything I have seen says the instruction sets are functionally equivalent. Basically anything that can be done with one set of instructions can be done with the other. The only real functional difference is that KNI can also operate on 2 double precision floats not just 4 single precision floats.
Actually, it probably works because it uses the simple idea that if you can sound out an unknown written word, most of the time it will match up with a known spoken word.
We could get into a big argument on the value of phonics vs whole language. Which Californai is going through again. My opinion is that you teach children how to read phonically, then work on vocabulary and provide plenty of opportunities to read whatever the kid is interested in. Just like anything else reading is learned by practice, and it is learned faster if it can hold the attention of the student.
I think Dell only very recently started building there own board level components. Previously, I understood they pretty much took whatever Intel made for them, tested it, and assembled it. I thought this was there entire business model, and the primary reason that IBM, Compaq, and others have problems with Intel dictating server architectures because then they can't differentiate.
The corporate involvement is ok, but Linux is a system designed by a home user for home users.
I guess you could say that given that is how Linus started the whole thing, but I think it moved away from being designed for and by home users a couple years ago. I think a more accurate description is that from the Robinson essay referenced in the first post. Linux, GNU, XFree, and Open Source Projects in general are designed for users by users whether that user is a business or a home user. There are two things that happen first users have a need and write the code to fulfill that need by thenselves. The other way is where the user has the need but lacks the expertise to fulfill that need alone. The user then voices the need and often has it fulfilled by some one, especially if it is something that a lot of users might want. This is where the user is the designer, but some one else is the developer.
You can hire an MCSE (Must Consult Someone Experienced) for about $10K-$20K less a year, and gamble that he may not have to pay for support from MS.
Well, at the company I work at this is definitely not true. I am not a member of the IT department, but there are basically 2 people who take care of all the Unix boxes, which out number NT boxes. There are at least 4 people that I know of that take care of the NT machines, and probably a couple more that I don't know. So, given this I would say the Unix boxes offer a better long term value than the NT boxes.
You are absolutely right. Intuitive is what you are used to. Everyone talks about ease of use, but no one seems to be able to define it and justify the definition outside the framework of an existing platform. My personal opinion is that ease of use should be defined as consistency across applications for common functions and features. The justification is that something is easy to use if you don't have to learn anything new in order to use it. So, if applications have a lot of similarities then the user will be able to start using it quickly and therefore that applciation mst be easy to use.
This has already happened with most GUI applications. Common functions are almost always found in the same menus and operate the same way across applications. The file menu is a good example of this. This really isn't an operating system issue, but a style issue. The operating system or actually the GUI system can come into play as an enforcer of style, but it is the consistent style not the operating system that makes the computer easy to use. This is why Mr Muth claims integration is an ease of use feature it is how Windows enforces style. The only thing is he is mixing up method with result. The ease of use feature is extending the copy, cut, paste skills that everyone learns, to work across applications and with more than just text across those apps. Method is only imprtant to the programmer not the user.
OSI sucks ... and so does this article
on
OSI vs Taco Bell
·
· Score: 1
* The Turing machine was developed by Alan Turing in England. */
And how many of of THOSE have you seen running???
None. A turing machine is a theoretical computing model that can be used to determine whether a computer can solve a problem. Basically if it can't be done on a Turing machine no computer can do it. Currently, no one has come up with a better model. By better model, I mean one that can solve more problems than a turing machine. Quantum computing may become the new model, but currently I don't think anyone has shown that it can solve previously uncomputable problems.
I guess subtlety is lost on a lot of people and you have to whack them over the head with it.
If you use RedHat...(Don't forget ipchains.)
on
Linux 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
Don't forget the ipchains package if you do IP Masquerade. I couldn't find it anywhere obvious on redhat's site or rpmfind.net. So, I downloaded the Slackware 3.6 ipchains source and compiled it myself.
A common reply to the comment that Windows is easy to use is that "Easy is whatever you are used to." This comment generally means that Windows is only easy because people are used to it. If they got used to something else that would be easy to use. But, this saying applies directly to all GUI applications on any platform. GUI apps should have similarities in order that users can carry skill sacross between applications. These similarities don't have to be monolithically enforced, but they should be codified in a style guide so developers have an idea of what users expect. The application writer can then follow the style guide as best he/she can, but when efficiency or ease of use requires a different style the writer doesn't have to be contricted bythe style guide.
What will happen is that the applicatiosn that people can get started on easily because the GUIs have similarities will be successful. The ones that arbitrarily diverge form the style guide will fail or be niche products because the learning curve is too high.
A style guide is a generalization. Details are left up to the developer. A current defacto guideline that would belong in a style guide is what basic menus to use such as File, Edit, View, Help, and guidelines for what belongs in those menus. This way the user knows in general what to expect in those menus because he/she sees the same things in every application. Simple and not terribly restricted, yet it makes learning curves shallower, and makes thigns "easy to use".
I feel like bitching too. I live in a spot where there is no DSL in Southern Claifornia. Only thing is... If I drive 2 miles west there is DSL. If I drive 2 miles east there is DSL. If I drive 2 miles north ther is DSL. South are hills and then the ocean so that doesn't count.
I haven't had problems with Fry's although it helps that I live near one. So, if something doesn't work it is easy for me to get back inside of 30d ays and get a new one or a refund.
I don't generally recommend Fry's to friends unless they know exactly what they want. Or, I pick out the thing for them. The salespeople are pretty clueless. I do object to one point made by another poster, that it is better to do mail order or internet. While on the surface it may appear cheaper, adding shipping tends to bring the price much closer. Then, there is the value of instant satisfaction, combined with peace of mind that within 30days I can walk in and return the part for a full refund, without going through shipping and RMA crap.
I do like their return policy though. My computer crapped out on me one time, and I couldn't figure out what it was. I thought it was the video card. So, I went to Fry's got a video card, and tried it. Well, that wasn't it, turned out after some tweaking it was my CDROM. So, I returned the video card and got a CDROM and my refund of the difference, and that was it. Computer was back up.
Slashdot Mirror
Leave nuclear power out. There is so much knee jerk reaction to anything nuclear that the facts can't be separated form the fiction.
Less things patentable (software algorithms).
Include discovered genes in there. If some one creates a strand of DNA that doesn't exist in nature they can patent it. If they come up with a process for isolating and sequencing genes, they can patent it. But, they should not be able to patent naturally occuring genes.
Genes are a natural resource. For example bauxite is the ore that aluminum is extracted from. If we apply the same rules to this that are applied to gene patents, aluminum would be patentable because it took research to discover that aluminum in the rock.
Well, genes are extracted form human and animal cells. Just like the aluminum is extracted form the bauxite. So, genes should not be patentable since they are a natural resource.
This kind of backward-compatible technology might solve some of the problems mentioned in this
thread. If the K7 takes off, it'll be only a matter of time before somebody does something similar to the Spectra for it, so any investment one makes in computers now isn't necessarily lost when one wants to use the next generation of CPU.
Actually, this probably will not happen witht he K7 since it is a total break with previous technology except for the instruction set. The buses are too different for there to be an S7 upgrade for the K7. With the various K6s the issue wasn't pinouts or bus protocols, but primaily voltages and multipliers, so making upgrades isn't too difficult.
The CPU bus is still 200MHZ*64bits if this is true. Something I did not think of though was what if you have 2 CPUs. Each of which has a 200MHZ*64bit bus. Aggregate bandwidtht hat those tow CPUs could use would be 3.2GB/s, and 200MHZ*128bits would be a reasonable design in order to keep 2 CPUs fed.
the 21264 has 4 dimm's in a bank (256 bit bus), so the potential for bandwidth gains via interleaving are even greater.
I believe that they also use 66MHZ ECC SDRAM for this. Giving a bandwidth number around 2GB/s.
latency is poor, but you do get a huge increase in bandwidth for large memory access.
Actually, latency would be better with 256bit wide bus vs 64bit wide bus. Since the time to get the first piece of data is the identical, but with a 256 bit bus you get 4 times as much data in the same amount of time.
But, as I said previously memory configuration is chipset dependent, and therefore can be just about anything.
I think you are talking about the Win95 bug with K6-2 over 350MHZ. This is a result of a timing loop in Windows95 that goes too fast on a K6 at or over 350MHZ. There is a patch for Win95 on this. I don't think the problem exists in Win98. Note this is a MS Windows bug not a hardware problem with the K6.
This is interesting could anyone expand on this??
While not an expert here is my thought...
I have heard that high end databases use there own filesystem for the database, and therefore don't have problems with clusters or inodes. On the other hand I think MySQL uses the linux filesystem for its database, and therefore is subject to the limits of the files system. So, rather than being a kernel problem this would actually be an issue of using a database not designed for the load being put on it.
No it is a doubling of bus speed. The EV-6 bus is a 64bit wide bus, that in the K7 incarnation will run at 200MHZ. But, since the Ev-6 is point-to-point between the chipset and CPU. The FSB speed only tels you that the maximum memory bandwidth to the CPU is 1.6GB/s. But, aside from that, it has no implications about the actual memory bus width or speed. In fact the memory could easily be 64bit 100MHZ SDRAM. So the memory bandwidth would be 800MB/s, but the FSB bandwidth would still be 1.6GB/s. That is an unlikely scenario except in the possibility of a cheap K7 motherboard and chipset. The more likely options will probably be a 128bit wide 100MHZ SDRAM bus, 64bit wide DDRSDRAM, or 800MHZ RAMBUS.
But, the point is that 200MHZ FSB tells us nothing about the memory speed when it comes to an EV-6 bus.
The only difference with the K7 is that the hype is not coming from AMD. So, far the only things AMD has officially said about the K& is the basic architecture at Microprocessor forum last October, and the demos at Comdex and Cebit. I think they have learned a lesson about overpromising and underdelivering. So, right now they are basically lettign the device and architecture speak for itself. I do think a lot of people outside of AMD are hyping up the K7 a lot more than tey shoud lat this point. Basically giving free advertising.
Yes, but unlike Intel anyone will be able to make a processor with slot A. And, the licensing fee, if any, won't be stifling. It would be interesting to see Rise or IDT make EV-6 based chips.
Everything I have seen says the instruction sets are functionally equivalent. Basically anything that can be done with one set of instructions can be done with the other. The only real functional difference is that KNI can also operate on 2 double precision floats not just 4 single precision floats.
Actually, it probably works because it uses the simple idea that if you can sound out an unknown written word, most of the time it will match up with a known spoken word.
We could get into a big argument on the value of phonics vs whole language. Which Californai is going through again. My opinion is that you teach children how to read phonically, then work on vocabulary and provide plenty of opportunities to read whatever the kid is interested in. Just like anything else reading is learned by practice, and it is learned faster if it can hold the attention of the student.
I think Dell only very recently started building there own board level components. Previously, I understood they pretty much took whatever Intel made for them, tested it, and assembled it. I thought this was there entire business model, and the primary reason that IBM, Compaq, and others have problems with Intel dictating server architectures because then they can't differentiate.
That's called being a consultant. How do you think people make money from various forms of *nix?
:-)
1) Setup and support servers for businesses that don't want to have there own IT department.
2) Develop and deploy custom *nix applications.
3) Replace crappy MS installations with *nix.
There are not enough bugs or problems with Unix to make money doing what the above poster describes.
Don
Posting comments to /. about the evils of Microsoft doesn't help anything.
:-)
Yes, but it is fun.
The corporate involvement is ok, but Linux is a system designed by a home user for home users.
I guess you could say that given that is how Linus started the whole thing, but I think it moved away from being designed for and by home users a couple years ago. I think a more accurate description is that from the Robinson essay referenced in the first post. Linux, GNU, XFree, and Open Source Projects in general are designed for users by users whether that user is a business or a home user. There are two things that happen first users have a need and write the code to fulfill that need by thenselves. The other way is where the user has the need but lacks the expertise to fulfill that need alone. The user then voices the need and often has it fulfilled by some one, especially if it is something that a lot of users might want. This is where the user is the designer, but some one else is the developer.
You can hire an MCSE (Must Consult Someone Experienced) for about $10K-$20K less a year, and gamble that he may not have to pay for support from MS.
Well, at the company I work at this is definitely not true. I am not a member of the IT department, but there are basically 2 people who take care of all the Unix boxes, which out number NT boxes. There are at least 4 people that I know of that take care of the NT machines, and probably a couple more that I don't know. So, given this I would say the Unix boxes offer a better long term value than the NT boxes.
You are absolutely right. Intuitive is what you are used to. Everyone talks about ease of use, but no one seems to be able to define it and justify the definition outside the framework of an existing platform. My personal opinion is that ease of use should be defined as consistency across applications for common functions and features. The justification is that something is easy to use if you don't have to learn anything new in order to use it. So, if applications have a lot of similarities then the user will be able to start using it quickly and therefore that applciation mst be easy to use.
This has already happened with most GUI applications. Common functions are almost always found in the same menus and operate the same way across applications. The file menu is a good example of this. This really isn't an operating system issue, but a style issue. The operating system or actually the GUI system can come into play as an enforcer of style, but it is the consistent style not the operating system that makes the computer easy to use. This is why Mr Muth claims integration is an ease of use feature it is how Windows enforces style. The only thing is he is mixing up method with result. The ease of use feature is extending the copy, cut, paste skills that everyone learns, to work across applications and with more than just text across those apps. Method is only imprtant to the programmer not the user.
Ummm.. What? Where?
* The Turing machine was developed by Alan Turing in England. */
And how many of of THOSE have you seen running???
None. A turing machine is a theoretical computing model that can be used to determine whether a computer can solve a problem. Basically if it can't be done on a Turing machine no computer can do it. Currently, no one has come up with a better model. By better model, I mean one that can solve more problems than a turing machine. Quantum computing may become the new model, but currently I don't think anyone has shown that it can solve previously uncomputable problems.
I guess subtlety is lost on a lot of people and you have to whack them over the head with it.
Don't forget the ipchains package if you do IP Masquerade. I couldn't find it anywhere obvious on redhat's site or rpmfind.net. So, I downloaded the Slackware 3.6 ipchains source and compiled it myself.
A common reply to the comment that Windows is easy to use is that "Easy is whatever you are used to." This comment generally means that Windows is only easy because people are used to it. If they got used to something else that would be easy to use. But, this saying applies directly to all GUI applications on any platform. GUI apps should have similarities in order that users can carry skill sacross between applications. These similarities don't have to be monolithically enforced, but they should be codified in a style guide so developers have an idea of what users expect. The application writer can then follow the style guide as best he/she can, but when efficiency or ease of use requires a different style the writer doesn't have to be contricted bythe style guide.
What will happen is that the applicatiosn that people can get started on easily because the GUIs have similarities will be successful. The ones that arbitrarily diverge form the style guide will fail or be niche products because the learning curve is too high.
A style guide is a generalization. Details are left up to the developer. A current defacto guideline that would belong in a style guide is what basic menus to use such as File, Edit, View, Help, and guidelines for what belongs in those menus. This way the user knows in general what to expect in those menus because he/she sees the same things in every application. Simple and not terribly restricted, yet it makes learning curves shallower, and makes thigns "easy to use".
I feel like bitching too. I live in a spot where there is no DSL in Southern Claifornia. Only thing is... If I drive 2 miles west there is DSL. If I drive 2 miles east there is DSL. If I drive 2 miles north ther is DSL. South are hills and then the ocean so that doesn't count.
Pretty lame huh?
I haven't had problems with Fry's although it helps that I live near one. So, if something doesn't work it is easy for me to get back inside of 30d ays and get a new one or a refund.
I don't generally recommend Fry's to friends unless they know exactly what they want. Or, I pick out the thing for them. The salespeople are pretty clueless. I do object to one point made by another poster, that it is better to do mail order or internet. While on the surface it may appear cheaper, adding shipping tends to bring the price much closer. Then, there is the value of instant satisfaction, combined with peace of mind that within 30days I can walk in and return the part for a full refund, without going through shipping and RMA crap.
I do like their return policy though. My computer crapped out on me one time, and I couldn't figure out what it was. I thought it was the video card. So, I went to Fry's got a video card, and tried it. Well, that wasn't it, turned out after some tweaking it was my CDROM. So, I returned the video card and got a CDROM and my refund of the difference, and that was it. Computer was back up.