The EU are acting to prohibit people putting content which displeases them online in the first place. Not desirable, and not sensible, but it doesn't trample on anyone else's jurisdiction; what it governs is material which originates in the EU. Content that is illegal is still not filtered out if it comes in from elsewhere - so trade is unhindered.
China is acting to selectively embargo content which has already been placed online elsewhere, as it comes into the country. That's what makes it a trade barrier.
A much more interesting comparison might be with the UK's recent noises in the direction of requiring ISPs to filter out P2P.
You can simply load different drivers in pseudo-userland and run a separate set of services to completely rework your windows system.
You mean, kind of like Linux's modules...? There's no reason to recompile a kernel just to get a system working these days, nor has there been since about 2001; indeed, vendors tend to recommend against doing so. But you do at least get the chance to say "no, I know what I'm doing" and choose.
It'd wipe out the members of the RIAA a long time beforehand... which is perhaps the more useful result.
Re:Wrong marketing did them in, clock *does* matte
on
Is AMD Dead Yet?
·
· Score: 1
But to state that clock speed does not matter is an outright lie.
That's why I didn't do any such thing; of course clock speed has an effect. I did, however, insist that it isn't the whole story - and despite your defensive tone, you pretty much demonstrated my point when you started talking about SSE2. What hoisted the P4's performance for your code wasn't the clock speed, but the architecture...
However, it might not have done so quite as much as you believe. According to Agner Fog's optimisation guides, the reciprocal throughput for the SSE2 MADD instructions on the P4 (and the P4E) is 2 - in other words, a P4 only completes one MAC per clock cycle, not the two you assert. Granted, the FPU lacks a single MAC operation; even if it didn't, the P4 had a crippled FPU anyway, so anyone after decent FP performance on a P4 is compelled to use SSE2 to get it. However, the Athlon XP had three (heterogenous) floating-point pipelines - so an FMUL and an FADD could proceed in parallel, to give the equivalent of a single-cycle-throughput MAC... again, with the caveats of proper sequencing et al.
Ironically, then, since both architectures could process one MAC per clock, the only notable difference in theoretical throughput between the P4 and the Athlon XP would indeed be the clock speed... but that only accounts for a 40% difference in your case. Sure, not to be sniffed at, but not the 300% speedup you claim.
When the USPTO don't seem overly keen to draw the distinction, why should anyone else?
Re:Wrong marketing did them in, clock *does* matte
on
Is AMD Dead Yet?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
> You can only stretch the truth so far, when one is doing number crunching a faster clock will get you more performance than faster context switches.
You don't specify which applications you were using, or what you were doing, or in fact any useful detail at all, which makes your story essentially unverifiable. Moreover, your reported results appear to be somewhat at variance with the general experience, and your claim here is just overly simplistic (ALU throughput, and having enough registers to effectively manage latency, are just as important) - and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Given the variance between the two architectures, on lots of levels, I'm sure there are specific runs of code in which the P4 would trounce the Athlon (and vice versa), and it's possibly that you happened upon them in the specific applications you were using (or writing - you don't specify that either... although of course if you had access to the source code, you could have produced profiler runs and seen exactly where the time was going). On the other hand, you might have missed something simple yet vital in your comparisons, or your comparison might be completely unrepeatable.
I am NOT saying you didn't observe what you have reported, not at all. But without useful detail, the rest of us can only disregard outlying data points.
Unfortunately he wouldn't be the first person who ended up convicted and sentenced because the jury thought him a freak, rather than because the jury was convinced beyond reasonable doubt of his guilt.
But the Distance Selling Regulations may come to the rescue there - it mandates a 7-day cooling-off period for goods or services bought remotely. The big ADSL providers think it even applies to them, so I'd be very surprised if it couldn't be ruled to apply to software as well.
On the other hand, with a free download (eg. SP2, VS Express), the EULA is the contract - it's the only point at which consideration is exchanged.
1. Buy sinking ship for convincing yet nominal amount 2. Load ship up with a goodly amount of cargo that you would like to see disappear 3. Hire some, er, independent contractors to carry out, er, necessary operations on said ship 4. Read in dismay as news of ship's inexplicable destruction reaches the shores 5. Claim inflated insurance claims, based on full market value of ship and cargo in as-new condition 6. Profit!!! (OK, sometimes jail.)
Pretty much every VoIP service comes with a great big disclaimer that it's unsuitable for emergency use. Not because of the risk of disconnection - just for the simple fact that it goes away in a power outage, unlike a traditional phone. (The same disclaimers can be found on cordless phones, which can't work without their base station being plugged into the mains.) Nonetheless, the ISPs (well, the phone companies) are covered.
It's an interesting effect of the Slashdot moderation scheme that any criticism of Slashdot is suppressed. Free speech doesn't flourish here (unless you follow the herd!)
I do so love reading these kind of sentences at +5. And I do seem to see rather a lot of them...
Yes, but Her Majesty's Government will still compel all of Her Majesty's subjects to submit to, and pay for, the system, no matter how broken it is. Governments are not noted for their ability to admit that they have made a colossal mistake and wasted years and millions.
...old people were best suited to make very important decisions.
Yeah, in those days stupidity tended to mean an early death. Now any fool can live into old age and all the intelligent people seem to be dying young, time served doesn't have quite the cachet it used to.
The High Court is not the highest court in the land; there's potential (at least, I don't see anything ruling it out) for the UK-IPO to appeal to the lawlords for a definitive ruling on what UK patent law actually is. And then if they decide that the law does not allow for software patents to be discarded without consideration - which would surely be something of a surprise to everyone, given that the stated position of just about every authority is that it does and they should - there is always the chance that Parliament will stomp out the loophole again (because ultimately, the judiciary in this country can't override Parliament; it can only clarify).
Slashdot Mirror
The EU are acting to prohibit people putting content which displeases them online in the first place. Not desirable, and not sensible, but it doesn't trample on anyone else's jurisdiction; what it governs is material which originates in the EU. Content that is illegal is still not filtered out if it comes in from elsewhere - so trade is unhindered.
China is acting to selectively embargo content which has already been placed online elsewhere, as it comes into the country. That's what makes it a trade barrier.
A much more interesting comparison might be with the UK's recent noises in the direction of requiring ISPs to filter out P2P.
*blink*
You mean, kind of like Linux's modules...? There's no reason to recompile a kernel just to get a system working these days, nor has there been since about 2001; indeed, vendors tend to recommend against doing so. But you do at least get the chance to say "no, I know what I'm doing" and choose.
It'd wipe out the members of the RIAA a long time beforehand... which is perhaps the more useful result.
That's why I didn't do any such thing; of course clock speed has an effect. I did, however, insist that it isn't the whole story - and despite your defensive tone, you pretty much demonstrated my point when you started talking about SSE2. What hoisted the P4's performance for your code wasn't the clock speed, but the architecture...
However, it might not have done so quite as much as you believe. According to Agner Fog's optimisation guides, the reciprocal throughput for the SSE2 MADD instructions on the P4 (and the P4E) is 2 - in other words, a P4 only completes one MAC per clock cycle, not the two you assert. Granted, the FPU lacks a single MAC operation; even if it didn't, the P4 had a crippled FPU anyway, so anyone after decent FP performance on a P4 is compelled to use SSE2 to get it. However, the Athlon XP had three (heterogenous) floating-point pipelines - so an FMUL and an FADD could proceed in parallel, to give the equivalent of a single-cycle-throughput MAC... again, with the caveats of proper sequencing et al.
Ironically, then, since both architectures could process one MAC per clock, the only notable difference in theoretical throughput between the P4 and the Athlon XP would indeed be the clock speed... but that only accounts for a 40% difference in your case. Sure, not to be sniffed at, but not the 300% speedup you claim.
When the USPTO don't seem overly keen to draw the distinction, why should anyone else?
> You can only stretch the truth so far, when one is doing number crunching a faster clock will get you more performance than faster context switches.
You don't specify which applications you were using, or what you were doing, or in fact any useful detail at all, which makes your story essentially unverifiable. Moreover, your reported results appear to be somewhat at variance with the general experience, and your claim here is just overly simplistic (ALU throughput, and having enough registers to effectively manage latency, are just as important) - and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Given the variance between the two architectures, on lots of levels, I'm sure there are specific runs of code in which the P4 would trounce the Athlon (and vice versa), and it's possibly that you happened upon them in the specific applications you were using (or writing - you don't specify that either... although of course if you had access to the source code, you could have produced profiler runs and seen exactly where the time was going). On the other hand, you might have missed something simple yet vital in your comparisons, or your comparison might be completely unrepeatable.
I am NOT saying you didn't observe what you have reported, not at all. But without useful detail, the rest of us can only disregard outlying data points.
Unfortunately he wouldn't be the first person who ended up convicted and sentenced because the jury thought him a freak, rather than because the jury was convinced beyond reasonable doubt of his guilt.
Because hyperintelligent people are just so, you know, unintelligent.
Oh good.
They are the knights who say 'NIH!'...?
But the Distance Selling Regulations may come to the rescue there - it mandates a 7-day cooling-off period for goods or services bought remotely. The big ADSL providers think it even applies to them, so I'd be very surprised if it couldn't be ruled to apply to software as well.
On the other hand, with a free download (eg. SP2, VS Express), the EULA is the contract - it's the only point at which consideration is exchanged.
Well, serviced.
So in fact, very similar to prosecuting a young woman for owning some dodgy books and writing some silly poems...?
Traditionally these business plans tend to go:
1. Buy sinking ship for convincing yet nominal amount
2. Load ship up with a goodly amount of cargo that you would like to see disappear
3. Hire some, er, independent contractors to carry out, er, necessary operations on said ship
4. Read in dismay as news of ship's inexplicable destruction reaches the shores
5. Claim inflated insurance claims, based on full market value of ship and cargo in as-new condition
6. Profit!!! (OK, sometimes jail.)
Pretty much every VoIP service comes with a great big disclaimer that it's unsuitable for emergency use. Not because of the risk of disconnection - just for the simple fact that it goes away in a power outage, unlike a traditional phone. (The same disclaimers can be found on cordless phones, which can't work without their base station being plugged into the mains.) Nonetheless, the ISPs (well, the phone companies) are covered.
As in "this looks an awful lot like a cover strike"?
I do so love reading these kind of sentences at +5. And I do seem to see rather a lot of them...
Hey, they paid good money to not be the only company supporting OOXML!
Yes, but Her Majesty's Government will still compel all of Her Majesty's subjects to submit to, and pay for, the system, no matter how broken it is. Governments are not noted for their ability to admit that they have made a colossal mistake and wasted years and millions.
Yep - first thing I thought of when I saw it. "The Mikado", it was called; Michael Perry was the author.
I don't suppose 'tl;dr' is a valid defence?
Yeah, in those days stupidity tended to mean an early death. Now any fool can live into old age and all the intelligent people seem to be dying young, time served doesn't have quite the cachet it used to.
The High Court is not the highest court in the land; there's potential (at least, I don't see anything ruling it out) for the UK-IPO to appeal to the lawlords for a definitive ruling on what UK patent law actually is. And then if they decide that the law does not allow for software patents to be discarded without consideration - which would surely be something of a surprise to everyone, given that the stated position of just about every authority is that it does and they should - there is always the chance that Parliament will stomp out the loophole again (because ultimately, the judiciary in this country can't override Parliament; it can only clarify).
I hope things have quietened down for you now though, although you might want to be more careful about your choice of psycho hose beast in future.