That is, because in order to get access to this information you'll basically sign a document in which you give up certain constitutional rights like free speech.
If I haven't signed such a document it's perfectly OK for me to publish them.
So if you could get such information from a high rank officer and supply it to China, you wouldn't be a spy, right?
PA with MS products is dumb, they are shooting themselves in the head. Just how did MS became what it is? By selling their crappy OSes and then-crappy office suit? No sir, they are what they are because legally bought or not, nearly every damn PC had their software and most had the latest versions so they could push their new, incompatible standarts. That made everything MS made defacto standart, from IE compatible HTML & java for internet, to brain-dead windows 9x platform for development target.
Now with PA, dedicated pirates are turning to enterprise & similar non-activated versions, no benefit there. Preloaded stuff does not need PA anyway, they are legal, no benefit there either. That leaves sixpack pirates who know how to borrow from a friend but nothing else. Some will buy the OS, some will stick to old versions and some will move to a new platform. Now, every non-MS OS used out there hurts their monopoly position, every old version hurts their ability to push new standarts. I don't think that few extra sales from sixpack-pirates makes for the possible fatal loss.
But that is against the goal of making a program user friendly and well documented. I'd rather pay for a good user interface and documentation than good support. The former means program is professionally made, the latter means company is doing its best to hide the fact that the program was not professional.
Is Slashdot even real? I don't know, maybe they make all of this up...
Yeah, it strikes me odd that one can write so many comments a day and even write some of them simultaneously. Are you for real Mr. Coward? And what kind of a name is that?
Their idea is sound. Their implementation is OK, they do deliver performance X chips with much lower consumption than other performance X CPUs. What they don't deliver is an X in the high speed range. They might deliver in time, or they may sell their technology for a good amount. In any case, it is early to conclude transmeta failed.
OTOH those 100:1 ratio losless compression ideas are not sound, there are strong reasons to believe that, that is impossible. Promoters have no partially successful product, say, that can compress all files under 1MB with average compression of 100:1 but fail with larger files.
I can't judge whether Rainmaker's idea is more like transmeta's dynamic compiling+low power cpu or I-forgot-who's multidimensional snake oil. But it can't be possibly like both.
I have recently read an article on violating the 2nd law by a quantum heat engine so yes, it is an interesting topic and it is really science.
Alas *this* paper has nothing to do with violating 2nd law. It is not a gedanken experiment either, its a real device. I guess you should read the article from time to time.
just otto. Infact in "Science" it is reported that the device is coupled with a carnot engine to check for an experimental fluke. The device, as expected/hoped, did not work at all.
Ideal otto engine efficiency!=ideal heat engine efficiency. No heat engine can beat Carnot cycle in terms of thermal enegry->work conversion, but an "enhanced" otto cycle engine can beat usual otto cycle, without violating any thermodynamic laws provided that it doesn't beat carnot cycle's efficiency.
On a related note, heat engines are much less efficient that 100% you seem to imply with "it should give same amount blah blah." The reason is second law of thermodynamics. You can convert all heat energy you put in the engine to work, since doing so would require heat transfer with no temperature gradient.
There is no babelfish for turkish-\>english but I'm pretty sure that you can find the "PAL/NTSC" string in the specifications without understanding the remaining text. More than two thirds of the players I checked avaliable thru that link can play both formats.
I thought you were claiming that two seperate compilers were used for compiling two languages.
I know that dcc32 for builder is dcc32 for delphi+a new parser (at least that is what charlie calvert claims, and he is supposed to know.) So it is a C++ compiler that also has a Pascal parser, even but the temporal relation is backwards (the C++ parser is addon rather pascal parser.) The question is whether bcc32 is based on dcc32, my assumption is that, it is, as this quote from borland suggests: "The Free Borland C++Builder Compiler is the foundation for Borland's fully integrated C++ development environment - Borland C++Builder 5."
I prefer pot. And once I was smoking heavily I just renamed bcc32 to bcc32-bckp and the builder worked just fine. While I was stoned I thought that bcc32 is the command line, standalone C++ compiler while dcc32 is the compiler. Obviously I find that ridiculous now that I'm sober.
Well, nForce's doesn't shake the ground but it is a bit faster than kt266a (with latest drivers) which is to say a lot.
Why doesn't it improve any better? Simply because athlon's bandwidth matches a single ddr266, latencies are almost the same as single channel solutions, so the twinbank can't increase cpu performance. But it can and do increase total system performace when onboard GPU is used. Now, I don't know about new SGI, specifically how many processors hungry for bandwidth except for cpu & gpu it has, but it is easy to imagine every additional port improving performance a bit.
...Current x86s are very fast that there is no offering in the Or perhaps this post is offtopic, as benchmarks quoted here show that fastest single x86s are faster than R14 already. should read:
...Current x86s are so fast that there is no offering in the less than 50000$ range that they cannot compete.
Or perhaps this post is offtopic, as benchmarks quoted here show that fastest single x86s are faster than R14 already.
Now, as for the clock cycles. Please. Hasn't the recent AMD vs intel clock cycle mess taught you people anything?
Well I already knew that before the mess but recent wars between intel and amd has tought me something which most of the people don't seem to get: with enough competition between two strong componies, a product line can evolve to unimaginable heights. The x86 line is fast, so fast that they make everything else seem ridiculously slow or ridiculously expensive or both. The x86s were not designed to be one size fits all, but it turned out they came to be just that.
One can buy a dedicated super-computer for 1000X the price and 100X the power, or a computer 3X the price 2X the power but noone in their right minds should buy a computer 2X the power with a 10X higher cost. Instead one would buy two x86s and match the power or buy five of them and do some weird stuff!
Price/Performance doesn't get in the way if you cannot get the performace you want no matter the price on an alternative platform. Older SGIs were expensive too, but they are one of the few computers that could cut it. You couldn't just buy a hundered 486s and expect same performace. This just doesn't happen anymore except for supercomputers. Current x86s are very fast that there is no offering in the
Or perhaps this post is offtopic, as benchmarks quoted here show that fastest single x86s are faster than R14 already.
I never heard about athmospheric drag but even if that doesn't exist, specification (I just checked) calls for ability to go up 204km (must be about 120miles, too lazy to calculate) that definetly is not outer space. Infact it is LEO (low earth orbit) for some thousands of kilometers more. IIRC most missions are carried out at orbits around 100kms not even reaching half the specification (but don't quote me on this, last time I paid any attention to lame shuttle was when they were repairing the HST. I may as well have forgotten the typical heights.)
I agree that states never did anything to top Apollo and now lacks the will to do. That is hardly a troll, it is a clear statement of facts that any sane person can verify with a little research. Perhaps you shouldn't guide pot smokers on how to moderate your post:)
Risking your life in the shuttle program? And your life not being wasted? You must be kidding, those shuttles go as far as the nearest town, only upwards. The whole space shuttle business stinks, I can't stand people calling it "going into space." The goals were good, but the final shuttle thing is nothing but a human crewed sattelite launcher.
That said, I can easily risk my life for something like Apollo (e.g. a manned mars exploration project.) I would do that even if I had no possibility of following the program into space.
As we don't have software patents. Our patent system is horrible (alternatively one could say it is nonexistant for all practical purposes) but at least it doesn't allow patented algorithms (that would be equivalent to patenting an idea under our system.)
It is true that I never got much past the dragon book. I wrote a transpiler (C++->C) and a few interpreters (none professionaly) and that's about it. But just how my comment contradicts with intermediate language usage, optimizing on all tranformations is a unclear to me, could you please clarify yourself? All I said is that the focus was not (and still is not) speed in gcc's design, it was not (and still is not) a priority. OTOH if you tie your compiler with a single platform (language and cpu), you can't even focus on anything else, there is nothing else (perhaps except for correctness)
What I wrote was what I gathered from gcc mailing list, and some gcc developers answers to such questions over time. I'm not in a position to judge their accuracy or your accuracy for that matter.
My intuition is that if you design intermediate code as independent as possible from both source code and architecture, you lose the ability to perform some optimizations which are traditionally done on intermediate code generation stage. How did your company overcome this? Can gcc be fixed after all?
Athlons benefit from better alignment, better scheduling, better cache utilisation, SSE & MMX use, vectoring of intel's compiler compared to MSVC compiler. When it is compared with gcc produced code, there are also benefits of better register utilisation and scheulding (MSVC scheulding is OK, gcc's is awful.) The reason intel's compiler can produce better code on a non-target processor (athlon) is that intel p3 architecture and athlon architecture is more similar to each other than they are to original pentium pro, which is the target processor for MSVC 6.x, or pentium (target for egcs, later merged into gcc.)
Gcc's speed sucks because of its fundemental design focus on supporting as many languages as possible and being avaliable on as many platforms as possible instead of optimizing for a particular language on a particular platform. Although code generator of gcc can use a lot of improvement, its speed can't be taken to levels possible with tailored compilers. If an open source alternative that can beat intel's compiler comes along, it won't be based on gcc.
Slashdot Mirror
So if you could get such information from a high rank officer and supply it to China, you wouldn't be a spy, right?
What about ditching java from default installation and pushing .NET, and MSN passwords?
Now with PA, dedicated pirates are turning to enterprise & similar non-activated versions, no benefit there. Preloaded stuff does not need PA anyway, they are legal, no benefit there either. That leaves sixpack pirates who know how to borrow from a friend but nothing else. Some will buy the OS, some will stick to old versions and some will move to a new platform. Now, every non-MS OS used out there hurts their monopoly position, every old version hurts their ability to push new standarts. I don't think that few extra sales from sixpack-pirates makes for the possible fatal loss.
But that is against the goal of making a program user friendly and well documented. I'd rather pay for a good user interface and documentation than good support. The former means program is professionally made, the latter means company is doing its best to hide the fact that the program was not professional.
Yeah, it strikes me odd that one can write so many comments a day and even write some of them simultaneously. Are you for real Mr. Coward? And what kind of a name is that?
OTOH those 100:1 ratio losless compression ideas are not sound, there are strong reasons to believe that, that is impossible. Promoters have no partially successful product, say, that can compress all files under 1MB with average compression of 100:1 but fail with larger files.
I can't judge whether Rainmaker's idea is more like transmeta's dynamic compiling+low power cpu or I-forgot-who's multidimensional snake oil. But it can't be possibly like both.
Alas *this* paper has nothing to do with violating 2nd law. It is not a gedanken experiment either, its a real device. I guess you should read the article from time to time.
just otto. Infact in "Science" it is reported that the device is coupled with a carnot engine to check for an experimental fluke. The device, as expected/hoped, did not work at all.
Ofcourse it should be "you CAN'T convert all heat energy..." rather than "you CAN convert..."
On a related note, heat engines are much less efficient that 100% you seem to imply with "it should give same amount blah blah." The reason is second law of thermodynamics. You can convert all heat energy you put in the engine to work, since doing so would require heat transfer with no temperature gradient.
There is no babelfish for turkish-\>english but I'm pretty sure that you can find the "PAL/NTSC" string in the specifications without understanding the remaining text. More than two thirds of the players I checked avaliable thru that link can play both formats.
I know that dcc32 for builder is dcc32 for delphi+a new parser (at least that is what charlie calvert claims, and he is supposed to know.) So it is a C++ compiler that also has a Pascal parser, even but the temporal relation is backwards (the C++ parser is addon rather pascal parser.) The question is whether bcc32 is based on dcc32, my assumption is that, it is, as this quote from borland suggests: "The Free Borland C++Builder Compiler is the foundation for Borland's fully integrated C++ development environment - Borland C++Builder 5."
Try it, maybe your last pot hasn't weared of yet.
Why doesn't it improve any better? Simply because athlon's bandwidth matches a single ddr266, latencies are almost the same as single channel solutions, so the twinbank can't increase cpu performance. But it can and do increase total system performace when onboard GPU is used. Now, I don't know about new SGI, specifically how many processors hungry for bandwidth except for cpu & gpu it has, but it is easy to imagine every additional port improving performance a bit.
Or perhaps this post is offtopic, as benchmarks quoted here show that fastest single x86s are faster than R14 already.
Well I already knew that before the mess but recent wars between intel and amd has tought me something which most of the people don't seem to get: with enough competition between two strong componies, a product line can evolve to unimaginable heights. The x86 line is fast, so fast that they make everything else seem ridiculously slow or ridiculously expensive or both. The x86s were not designed to be one size fits all, but it turned out they came to be just that.
One can buy a dedicated super-computer for 1000X the price and 100X the power, or a computer 3X the price 2X the power but noone in their right minds should buy a computer 2X the power with a 10X higher cost. Instead one would buy two x86s and match the power or buy five of them and do some weird stuff!
Price/Performance doesn't get in the way if you cannot get the performace you want no matter the price on an alternative platform. Older SGIs were expensive too, but they are one of the few computers that could cut it. You couldn't just buy a hundered 486s and expect same performace. This just doesn't happen anymore except for supercomputers. Current x86s are very fast that there is no offering in the Or perhaps this post is offtopic, as benchmarks quoted here show that fastest single x86s are faster than R14 already.
Umm, which one is the single processor, the CPU or the GPU?
I agree that states never did anything to top Apollo and now lacks the will to do. That is hardly a troll, it is a clear statement of facts that any sane person can verify with a little research. Perhaps you shouldn't guide pot smokers on how to moderate your post :)
That said, I can easily risk my life for something like Apollo (e.g. a manned mars exploration project.) I would do that even if I had no possibility of following the program into space.
As we don't have software patents. Our patent system is horrible (alternatively one could say it is nonexistant for all practical purposes) but at least it doesn't allow patented algorithms (that would be equivalent to patenting an idea under our system.)
It is true that I never got much past the dragon book. I wrote a transpiler (C++->C) and a few interpreters (none professionaly) and that's about it. But just how my comment contradicts with intermediate language usage, optimizing on all tranformations is a unclear to me, could you please clarify yourself? All I said is that the focus was not (and still is not) speed in gcc's design, it was not (and still is not) a priority. OTOH if you tie your compiler with a single platform (language and cpu), you can't even focus on anything else, there is nothing else (perhaps except for correctness)
My intuition is that if you design intermediate code as independent as possible from both source code and architecture, you lose the ability to perform some optimizations which are traditionally done on intermediate code generation stage. How did your company overcome this? Can gcc be fixed after all?
Linux version is free for non-commercial use.
Plus, it works similarly on Athlons
Athlons benefit from better alignment, better scheduling, better cache utilisation, SSE & MMX use, vectoring of intel's compiler compared to MSVC compiler. When it is compared with gcc produced code, there are also benefits of better register utilisation and scheulding (MSVC scheulding is OK, gcc's is awful.) The reason intel's compiler can produce better code on a non-target processor (athlon) is that intel p3 architecture and athlon architecture is more similar to each other than they are to original pentium pro, which is the target processor for MSVC 6.x, or pentium (target for egcs, later merged into gcc.)
There are quite a few pages that claim exactly the same about performance (but not about gcc's demise.)
Gcc's speed sucks because of its fundemental design focus on supporting as many languages as possible and being avaliable on as many platforms as possible instead of optimizing for a particular language on a particular platform. Although code generator of gcc can use a lot of improvement, its speed can't be taken to levels possible with tailored compilers. If an open source alternative that can beat intel's compiler comes along, it won't be based on gcc.