IIRC, there was a program like that out there for repeat offenders. Get caught DUI or DWI more than once, get a device placed in your car to prevent driver from starting car while drunk, along with other license restrictions. Refusing the device gets greeted with a suspended license or other penalties.
The nice part here is that the person was dumb enough to do it once, got caught, went through the penalty, etc. Then was truely dumb enough to do it again. At this point it is completely legal to restrict the person's driving privliges, and providing the alternative to the suspended license gives the person a change to resurect themselves, and keeps them otherwise functional members of society.
Dont remember how the program works or if the passenger's drunkness had an impact. I remember seeing it a really long time ago on some news show (maybe 12-15 years ago?). I dont know if such a program is still in use somewhere....
you'll get pulled over, but would be excused because you (the driver) are found to be sober and the passenger would be drunk off his ---. Or you may not be pulled over at all, as the cop would notice your driving does not show the normal signs of the driver being drunk, like going very slow, swerving, etc. The cop in that situation would keep himself available for watching for people who are swerving and other real dangers instead of being on the side of the road with an ok driver.
I just checked the status pages of the network, it looks like they're taking steps to counteract the exploit discovered recently. The school will provide software that runs on your laptop that encrypts the data using 168-bit 3DES (and other security measures). How this works and what software that is exactly it doesnt say.
The software probably sits just above the driver and does the work there, and then the school's antennas decrpyt it. Vice versa for data being transmitted to the laptop. Dont know how they would do the key exchange securely or anything like that.
The BIG plus here is that it now wont matter what card you use nor whether or not it supports WEP. Unfortunately, it may depend on what OS you're running.
Did this study take into account that some 802.11 networks can operate under either secure or unsecure simultaneously? Example: My school's campus has 802.11 running throughout the campus. Because the school is in a major city and the network can be reached from about a quarter mile from campus, you must register the mac addresses of your wireless card before you can use it. From there, you can use secure (using WEP) or unsecure (no WEP) to use the network. Reason for this flexibility is to allow older cards to operate on the wireless network.
From the looks of this survey these guys did, if they were to come by my campus (they didnt, it's not in any of the cities they drove around), one of a few things could happen:
this network would appear to be insecure because non-WEPed transmissions could be found on it.
This network wasnt found because the school network would refuse access to it.
The network is secure because it was found, but data could not be accessed because the school network wouldnt allow it.
As far as his involvement with the British GCHQ, little more other than his role in cracking Enigma is known for his involvement in crpyto. Rumor has it that an asymmetric crypto algorithm similar to RSA was developed late during WWII, yet was too complex for the times in order to actually be used. IIRC, the book The Code Book by Simon Singh says Turing was involved in it's development. Can anyone confirm this?
The linux Community has beaten Microsft to something big. First Itanium, now USB 2. (for those who dont know: USB 2 will not come w/ WinXP, it requires a separate download)
An image satellite does that and only that, takes a picture. THe system discussed in the article maps the landscape to include trees and possibly even leaves that fall off during autumn, two thigns that have a huge influence on how a wild fire spreads. They're looking to determine how the fires spread to study more effective ways of putting fires out when they happen.
what exactly would you be getting at? If you were to follow the link the post made, you wont see references to NSA nor how well autistic people can do math.
i read that link. It doesnt say ANYTHING about NSA using autistic people, nor autistics being able to do computations at 1 megaflop/second. Besides, theose ppl cant be trusted as autistics are easily mislead and such, so anything they do/see can be easily weasled out of them. Learn to read, then try making false claims.
If intel's chips are indeed twice as fast as apple's, then why do benchmarks (SPEC benchmarks) consistently show that Apple's chips can match intel's? I realize that RICS v CISC instruction set issue, piplining (Intel's are more than 2x long), and other architecture basics. The point of my post was to bring suspicion upon Intel and their clock speed counting.
As other people have mentioned, part of science is sharing ideas and thoughts with others in order to gain better insight onto the idea or problem, something you should be familiar with in your research for your masters. Many times there have been cases where a team has missed a crucial detail that undermines all of their other work.
Perhaps a better idea would be to run the code through CPU simulators of the PIII and G4 and get numbers on how many instructions are actually being executed in the entire code? I'm surprised no one has said that yet. If intel actually has twice as many instructions executed in the same amount of time, this would confirm that Intel's chips are running at 1ghz and apple 500mhz, but it would also demonstrate the efficiency in it's code execution and further provoke thought to the Hz myth.....
Just remember, we're only trying to figure out a rumor. We don't know the truth of it, and posting it here got back a lot of feedback.
nah, Macs still run at 32 bit. there is the ability to take 128 bit Altivec vector operations, but the gcc that comes with OS-X does not generate Altivec code. The way you would do that is if you use the APIs to interface with teh altivec engine, which we did not do as the same source code was used on both machines.
but you are correct that 64 bit cpus enhance performance, but not necessarily double it. hence it will be interesting to see how Sun's new 64 bit CPUs match up against Itanium:)
It's meant to provoke thought in the realm of making decisions on what chips are faster.
I use the analogy from the sine wave (which does have a wavelength of pi) to demontrate the definition of frequency in a waveform. Compare that to squared off circuit waveform of the clock cycle, and you'll see my argument.
I also suggest that Intel is doubling the sped on paper. A 2 GHz chip is really just a 1 Ghz under the definition of frequency. Intel decided to count both the rising and falling edges in an attempt to "double" the speed of their chip.
Perform benchmark tests of your own. Another guy says he's done that and got similar results as my tests. You'll then see why Apple and AMD are attacking Intel's marketing of only using the clock speed.
I beleive what I told Hard_Code could also apply here:
thank god there are people like you out there. as you can see, i am getting a lot crap about this. my hope was for people (intelligent people) to think objecctively and possibly do their own research and see for themselves how some processors act.
actually, i was suggesting that a 2 GHZ Intel processor is really just a 1 GHz processor, not the other way around. I was suggesting that Intel counts BOTH edges, yet only one has any real effect on when events occur.
thank god there are people like you out there. as you can see, i am getting a lot crap about this. my hope was for people (intelligent people) to think objecctively and possibly do their own research (like you did) and see for themselves how some processors act.
I've been wondering about the Hz Myth issue for quite some time now. Mainly ever since Steve Jobs at MacExpo NY a few months ago where he demo'd some machines that smoked Intel chips despite being about half the MHz. Do note that this a long post, and had it pre-written waiting for the next oppurtunity to post it. I feel this is that oppurtunity.
I heard a rumor that Intel counts both the rising and falling edge of the cycle, while Motorola counts only the falling edge. This rumor was in respect to how Apple's chips were always considerably lower in Hz than Intel chips, primarily in how Apple's chips were half as fast as Intel's. (Motorola designs and manufactures Apple's CPUs)
A co-worker and I discussed this and did some analysis. The guy was an EE in college, and said that actions were performed only on the falling edge of the clock cycle. Hence, it was not possible to include both falling and rising edge in a clock cycle.
We took a mathematical algorithm, wrote an implementation in C, and added some timing code. I should note that this C program is a _typical_ complex math algorithm that could occur on any machine, and are not tailored to perform better on any given machine. We compiled the source using gcc 2.95 on a Red Hat 6.2 box with an Intel 1 GHz Pentium III and also on a Mac OS-X using the same version of gcc on a 500 MHz G4. Both compilations used full optimizations. We then ran them on their respective machines (using the same input) several times each and calculated the average amount of time it took for the algorithm to reach completion. The results were about the same for each machine.
After reflecting on this result, we think that Intel is using both the falling edge and rising edge in an attempt to better market their products. We arrived at this conclusion by going back to classical wave mechanics from our physics classes in college. Take a waveform, say the trignometeric sine wave for example, and notice how the wave rises for the first pi/4 on the X axis. It repeats this shape 3.14 later. Hence the wavelength of the sine wave is pi. By definition, the number of complete waves in a given second is the frequency of the wave.
Apply this now to the waveform of a circuit. Specifically, the clock. Notice how the frequency of the wave is composed of both a rising and falling edge. If actions can only take place on the falling edge of a clock cycle, then Intel has doubled the clock speed on paper only.
But wait! You might be asking why have AMD's chips also been comparable to Intel's in terms of clock speed? Because AMD is directly competing with Intel, and they need that edge in the market. Assume you're a regular Joe Q User, would you buy Intel's 2 GHz processor or AMD's 850 MHz? Our conclusion is AMD has also doubled their numbers in order to better compete with Intel.
But wait again! What if Intel has figured out how to get actions to occur on both the rising and falling edge? If this is true, Intel's chips would perform _largely_ better in benchmarks than they currently do. If this was true, the timing test my co-worker and I performed would not have resulted in similar numbers, it would have had Intel getting a timing roughly half that of Apple's. Therefore, if this is true, Intel's engineers have done a lousy job at exploiting this novel concept, which I highly doubt would happen. Our conclusion is that Intel hasn't figred out how to have actions perform on the riding and falling edge.
Final Conclusions: After doing some scientific analysis that includes benchmarks and revisiting concepts learned during a college physics course, we conclude that Intel is counting both the falling and rising edge of a clock cycle, despite facts that fail to support this idea when compared to a processor that is measured using only the falling edge.
Companies like Apple and AMD are doing the correct thing by wanting to find a better means of quantifying the performance of a processor. They are doing the correct thing by telling consumers there is more to a processor than it's clock speed.
nope he's actually correct. crpyto is only one piece of a security puzzle. Crpyto provides confidentiality in communications, but there's also intergrity which is something like computing an md5 of the clear-text message and attaching it to the clear text then encrypt it, and authentication which is being able to determine that the public key given to you actually belongs to the person it says it does. Primary way of doing that is digital signitures.
Slashdot Mirror
IIRC, there was a program like that out there for repeat offenders. Get caught DUI or DWI more than once, get a device placed in your car to prevent driver from starting car while drunk, along with other license restrictions. Refusing the device gets greeted with a suspended license or other penalties.
The nice part here is that the person was dumb enough to do it once, got caught, went through the penalty, etc. Then was truely dumb enough to do it again. At this point it is completely legal to restrict the person's driving privliges, and providing the alternative to the suspended license gives the person a change to resurect themselves, and keeps them otherwise functional members of society.
Dont remember how the program works or if the passenger's drunkness had an impact. I remember seeing it a really long time ago on some news show (maybe 12-15 years ago?). I dont know if such a program is still in use somewhere....
you'll get pulled over, but would be excused because you (the driver) are found to be sober and the passenger would be drunk off his ---. Or you may not be pulled over at all, as the cop would notice your driving does not show the normal signs of the driver being drunk, like going very slow, swerving, etc. The cop in that situation would keep himself available for watching for people who are swerving and other real dangers instead of being on the side of the road with an ok driver.
I just checked the status pages of the network, it looks like they're taking steps to counteract the exploit discovered recently. The school will provide software that runs on your laptop that encrypts the data using 168-bit 3DES (and other security measures). How this works and what software that is exactly it doesnt say.
The software probably sits just above the driver and does the work there, and then the school's antennas decrpyt it. Vice versa for data being transmitted to the laptop. Dont know how they would do the key exchange securely or anything like that.
The BIG plus here is that it now wont matter what card you use nor whether or not it supports WEP. Unfortunately, it may depend on what OS you're running.
From the looks of this survey these guys did, if they were to come by my campus (they didnt, it's not in any of the cities they drove around), one of a few things could happen:
- this network would appear to be insecure because non-WEPed transmissions could be found on it.
- This network wasnt found because the school network would refuse access to it.
- The network is secure because it was found, but data could not be accessed because the school network wouldnt allow it.
Any thoughts?As far as his involvement with the British GCHQ, little more other than his role in cracking Enigma is known for his involvement in crpyto. Rumor has it that an asymmetric crypto algorithm similar to RSA was developed late during WWII, yet was too complex for the times in order to actually be used. IIRC, the book The Code Book by Simon Singh says Turing was involved in it's development. Can anyone confirm this?
The linux Community has beaten Microsft to something big. First Itanium, now USB 2. (for those who dont know: USB 2 will not come w/ WinXP, it requires a separate download)
An image satellite does that and only that, takes a picture. THe system discussed in the article maps the landscape to include trees and possibly even leaves that fall off during autumn, two thigns that have a huge influence on how a wild fire spreads. They're looking to determine how the fires spread to study more effective ways of putting fires out when they happen.
what exactly would you be getting at? If you were to follow the link the post made, you wont see references to NSA nor how well autistic people can do math.
i read that link. It doesnt say ANYTHING about NSA using autistic people, nor autistics being able to do computations at 1 megaflop/second. Besides, theose ppl cant be trusted as autistics are easily mislead and such, so anything they do/see can be easily weasled out of them. Learn to read, then try making false claims.
If intel's chips are indeed twice as fast as apple's, then why do benchmarks (SPEC benchmarks) consistently show that Apple's chips can match intel's? I realize that RICS v CISC instruction set issue, piplining (Intel's are more than 2x long), and other architecture basics. The point of my post was to bring suspicion upon Intel and their clock speed counting.
As other people have mentioned, part of science is sharing ideas and thoughts with others in order to gain better insight onto the idea or problem, something you should be familiar with in your research for your masters. Many times there have been cases where a team has missed a crucial detail that undermines all of their other work.
Perhaps a better idea would be to run the code through CPU simulators of the PIII and G4 and get numbers on how many instructions are actually being executed in the entire code? I'm surprised no one has said that yet. If intel actually has twice as many instructions executed in the same amount of time, this would confirm that Intel's chips are running at 1ghz and apple 500mhz, but it would also demonstrate the efficiency in it's code execution and further provoke thought to the Hz myth.....
Just remember, we're only trying to figure out a rumor. We don't know the truth of it, and posting it here got back a lot of feedback.
unless you call this, what I am doing now, journalism.
/. needs to be able to reach Score: 6 for that line alone. good comment.
i think
I also did attempt a post of the IE 6 release, got rejected
excuse me for one moment - FFFFFUUUUUCCCCCCKKKKKK!
:/
i misread it indeed. i read it as he threw the code out the window after getting similar results in a benchmark.
oh well
i do understand them. if I didn't, why would I use them in a discussion about waveforms?
btw- I got A+'s in physics 101 and 102
nah, Macs still run at 32 bit. there is the ability to take 128 bit Altivec vector operations, but the gcc that comes with OS-X does not generate Altivec code. The way you would do that is if you use the APIs to interface with teh altivec engine, which we did not do as the same source code was used on both machines.
:)
but you are correct that 64 bit cpus enhance performance, but not necessarily double it. hence it will be interesting to see how Sun's new 64 bit CPUs match up against Itanium
some definitions:
wavelength: the distance from the start of one cycle to the start of the next
frequency: number of complete waves in a specified amount of time (usually one second), hence it's cycles per second, or hertz
It's meant to provoke thought in the realm of making decisions on what chips are faster.
I use the analogy from the sine wave (which does have a wavelength of pi) to demontrate the definition of frequency in a waveform. Compare that to squared off circuit waveform of the clock cycle, and you'll see my argument.
I also suggest that Intel is doubling the sped on paper. A 2 GHz chip is really just a 1 Ghz under the definition of frequency. Intel decided to count both the rising and falling edges in an attempt to "double" the speed of their chip.
Perform benchmark tests of your own. Another guy says he's done that and got similar results as my tests. You'll then see why Apple and AMD are attacking Intel's marketing of only using the clock speed.
Where the hell did your friend get his EE?
Masters at U Maryland
I beleive what I told Hard_Code could also apply here:
thank god there are people like you out there. as you can see, i am getting a lot crap about this. my hope was for people (intelligent people) to think objecctively and possibly do their own research and see for themselves how some processors act.
actually, i was suggesting that a 2 GHZ Intel processor is really just a 1 GHz processor, not the other way around. I was suggesting that Intel counts BOTH edges, yet only one has any real effect on when events occur.
thank god there are people like you out there. as you can see, i am getting a lot crap about this. my hope was for people (intelligent people) to think objecctively and possibly do their own research (like you did) and see for themselves how some processors act.
yes we did do science in here. we looked at the physics of waves and waveforms in doing our analysis. perhaps you didnt read the whole post.
and do you have any arguments as to why you would do that?
I've been wondering about the Hz Myth issue for quite some time now. Mainly ever since Steve Jobs at MacExpo NY a few months ago where he demo'd some machines that smoked Intel chips despite being about half the MHz. Do note that this a long post, and had it pre-written waiting for the next oppurtunity to post it. I feel this is that oppurtunity.
I heard a rumor that Intel counts both the rising and falling edge of the cycle, while Motorola counts only the falling edge. This rumor was in respect to how Apple's chips were always considerably lower in Hz than Intel chips, primarily in how Apple's chips were half as fast as Intel's. (Motorola designs and manufactures Apple's CPUs)
A co-worker and I discussed this and did some analysis. The guy was an EE in college, and said that actions were performed only on the falling edge of the clock cycle. Hence, it was not possible to include both falling and rising edge in a clock cycle.
We took a mathematical algorithm, wrote an implementation in C, and added some timing code. I should note that this C program is a _typical_ complex math algorithm that could occur on any machine, and are not tailored to perform better on any given machine. We compiled the source using gcc 2.95 on a Red Hat 6.2 box with an Intel 1 GHz Pentium III and also on a Mac OS-X using the same version of gcc on a 500 MHz G4. Both compilations used full optimizations. We then ran them on their respective machines (using the same input) several times each and calculated the average amount of time it took for the algorithm to reach completion. The results were about the same for each machine.
After reflecting on this result, we think that Intel is using both the falling edge and rising edge in an attempt to better market their products. We arrived at this conclusion by going back to classical wave mechanics from our physics classes in college. Take a waveform, say the trignometeric sine wave for example, and notice how the wave rises for the first pi/4 on the X axis. It repeats this shape 3.14 later. Hence the wavelength of the sine wave is pi. By definition, the number of complete waves in a given second is the frequency of the wave.
Apply this now to the waveform of a circuit. Specifically, the clock. Notice how the frequency of the wave is composed of both a rising and falling edge. If actions can only take place on the falling edge of a clock cycle, then Intel has doubled the clock speed on paper only.
But wait! You might be asking why have AMD's chips also been comparable to Intel's in terms of clock speed? Because AMD is directly competing with Intel, and they need that edge in the market. Assume you're a regular Joe Q User, would you buy Intel's 2 GHz processor or AMD's 850 MHz? Our conclusion is AMD has also doubled their numbers in order to better compete with Intel.
But wait again! What if Intel has figured out how to get actions to occur on both the rising and falling edge? If this is true, Intel's chips would perform _largely_ better in benchmarks than they currently do. If this was true, the timing test my co-worker and I performed would not have resulted in similar numbers, it would have had Intel getting a timing roughly half that of Apple's. Therefore, if this is true, Intel's engineers have done a lousy job at exploiting this novel concept, which I highly doubt would happen. Our conclusion is that Intel hasn't figred out how to have actions perform on the riding and falling edge.
Final Conclusions: After doing some scientific analysis that includes benchmarks and revisiting concepts learned during a college physics course, we conclude that Intel is counting both the falling and rising edge of a clock cycle, despite facts that fail to support this idea when compared to a processor that is measured using only the falling edge.
Companies like Apple and AMD are doing the correct thing by wanting to find a better means of quantifying the performance of a processor. They are doing the correct thing by telling consumers there is more to a processor than it's clock speed.
nope he's actually correct. crpyto is only one piece of a security puzzle. Crpyto provides confidentiality in communications, but there's also intergrity which is something like computing an md5 of the clear-text message and attaching it to the clear text then encrypt it, and authentication which is being able to determine that the public key given to you actually belongs to the person it says it does. Primary way of doing that is digital signitures.