Then what would 100K be? I assumed you switched the measurement context to computer memory, which is base 2. One hundred kilobytes (100*1024) is 102,400 bytes. For comparison, 1000K is 1,024,000, but 1MB (1024*1024) is 1,048,576.
Your joke had promise but I think it's beyond repair now...poor thing.
It's not so bad when you consider that 2X Blu-ray is 9 megabytes per second and 12x DVD-ROM is about 16 megabytes per second. We had a similar shake-up when DVD-ROM hit the market, people were disappointed by 2X DVD-ROM which was about as fast as 16X CD-ROM. I hear 8X Blu-ray is on the horizon...I wonder if somebody will mod his PlayStation 3 to get a zippier drive, or if it will be offered in a later revision. The PS2 went through a tremendous number of hardware revisions.
If your gamepad uses USB and is HID spec compliant then Linux should have no problem. It was literally silent plug and play with no configuration necessary in both DOSBOX and ZSNES for my Logitech gamepad and joystick, all I had to do was compile in the right modules.
I don't think kernel download size will outpace technology (or even the sense of efficiency). In 1993 or even 1998 downloading 40.8MB of source might have been a bit excessive.
Still I find what you are proposing to be intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. Basically you mean something like an apt-kernel-config tool?
Hey now, you should be positively thanking him. The previous posting had an awful summary that didn't mention IBM, AMD, or the fact that the new High-K replacement was based on hafnium (they misspelled it as halfnium in the actual article, which was even worse).
At least with this summary we'll get cool arguments about Intel vs. AMD and IBM and conspiracy theories and stuff.
This article's summary is far more accurate and informative than the other one. I posted several times in the older post to help clear up some misinformation (the article it linked to misspelled hafnium as "halfnium" and only mentioned it once, and never mentioned IBM or AMD).
I posted links to similar articles as a reply to the FP (an anonymous troll), but I hadn't read your article.
Initially I interpreted it as Intel and IBM cooperating on researching the new hafnium-based technology (this is the interpretation that Wikipedia's Hafnium article currently uses), but on further reading I realised that they were doing this quite independently, and AMD, Sony, and Toshiba were partnered with IBM on this research.
IBM may be basing the 4 to 6 GHz clock speeds of its new POWER chips on the implementation of High-K hafnium-based replacements for silicon dioxide. If they are, Intel may not be as far ahead as I thought. If they're not already using hafnium in the POWER6 architecture, this could result in some VERY scary chips from International Bull Moose.
Slow down, cowboy, although you are spot on with the L1 cache size, Intel's Pentium 4 never had a cache size of less than 262,144 bytes, and from the more efficient Northwood on (January 2002), cache size ranged from 524,288 to 2,049,152 bytes (trying to avoid a mebi vs. mega debate).
The reason your Pentium III handily outpaces Pentium 4s of higher clockspeed has more to do with the inefficient Netburst core having an excessively deep pipeline that allowed higher clocking but lowered IPC and penalised branch prediction misses than thread size being too large for the cache.
This comment would have been more appropriate in late 2001 than early 2007, although the Pentium 4 was more expensive than the Pentium III at release even though it was less efficient. In case you just stepped out of your time machine to post a troll on Slashdot, I need to inform you that Intel recently stopped selling the "horribly crippled" Pentium 4 in favor of an architecture based on (surprise!) the P6 architecture, which powered the Pentium Pro, II and III CPUs.
While Intel's ridiculously inefficient Netburst core might be the impetus for your post, that's not Business as Usual.
When Intel moved from the 80386 to the 80486, the FPU was integrated for the first time, as was onboard cache, and instruction execution rates nearly doubled on a clock-for-clock basis. The eventual clock speed of the 80486 was 100MHz, three times the speed of the fastest Intel 80386 at 33MHz (AMD released 133MHz and 40MHz versions of the 80486 and 80386, respectively).
Going from the 80486 to the P5 once again brought great improvements, such as superior FPU performance, dual pipelining, and doubled memory bus width, which gave the P5 once again nearly double the performance per clock over the 80486. The P5 (P54CS) topped out at 200MHz, twice the Intel 80486's top speed.
Things weren't looking so good with the Pentium II - it was basically a Pentium Pro, a very nice chip with superior performance per MHz than the P5, with its largest advantage cut in half (the large, full-speed L2 cache). Still, the Pentium III Coppermine brought the cache speed back up to full, and the P6 architecture eventually topped out at 1.4GHz, with far superior performance efficiency to the Pentium 4's Netburst core. In fact, Intel had to return to the basic design of the P6 to produce chips capable of defeating AMD's Athlon 64, the Intel Core and Core 2, the latter of which seems to squeeze more performance out of a MHz than any other desktop chip.
The article linked above refers to "Halfnium", with is both an element that does not exist and a gross misspelling of Hafnium, which is the new High-K replacement for silicon dioxide. It's also worth pointing out that both IBM and Intel announced this breakthough almost simultaneously, and AMD will reap the windfall benefits through its own partnership with IBM (they will move to the 0.45 process some time in 2008). AMD has also announced a low-K breakthrough that they will be implementing in their 0.65 process as well.
To give Intel sole credit for this breakthrough might be a little inaccurate.
Actually, IBM and AMD, as partners, will also be using this new 0.45 process in their new chips, but it may take them longer to get there than Intel.
As an AMD fanboy, I was actually very happy to see the release of the Core and Core 2 chips - Intel was willing to admit that Netburst was a mistake, and they forced AMD to lower their dual-core CPU prices by 40%-60% in one fell swoop.
With all due respect, I don't think it's even possible to get scaling artifacts on an exact resize like that, which is mostly why I asked my question in the first place. All you would have to do to get from 1920x1080 to 960x540 is preserve 1/4th of the pixels in the image. It's still better quality than DVD video, and especially so if the new video encoding that HD-DVD and Blu-ray use is more efficient.
I've been wondering about this - it may be four times the number of pixels, but how much would you actually notice the resolution change from 1920x1080 to 960x540 (the purported penalty resolution of HDCP) when playing an HD-encoded film on an average-sized HDTV?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
The idea that government did not grant people rights but merely recognised the fact that they were innate to being human was a fairly radical notion in a day and age when kings ruled by divine right. Plenty of people were willing to die for it.
Just the other day, US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was arguing for yet another more restrictive interpretation of the Constitution, using the same insidious line of argument that the founding fathers feared we would fall to the temptation of. He argued before the Senate Judiciary Committee that since the Constitution only says that the right habeas corpus can only be suspended under certain circumstances, the Constitution doesn't actually grant the right to habeas corpus in the first place. Insidious!
I'm fairly certain that items manufactured in Taiwan and imported to the United States actually say that they are Made in Taiwan, rather than China or Republic of China or "that darn island that we're going to take back one day" or whatever.
Items manufactured in mainland China almost never qualify as PRC or People's Republic of China, but rather as simply Made in China. As one is a democratic republic and the other is a communist state with capitalist leanings, I'd assume manufacturers would wish to avoid any confusion.
Slashdot Mirror
Then what would 100K be? I assumed you switched the measurement context to computer memory, which is base 2. One hundred kilobytes (100*1024) is 102,400 bytes. For comparison, 1000K is 1,024,000, but 1MB (1024*1024) is 1,048,576.
Your joke had promise but I think it's beyond repair now...poor thing.
100K disk drives would actually be 102,400.
It's not so bad when you consider that 2X Blu-ray is 9 megabytes per second and 12x DVD-ROM is about 16 megabytes per second. We had a similar shake-up when DVD-ROM hit the market, people were disappointed by 2X DVD-ROM which was about as fast as 16X CD-ROM. I hear 8X Blu-ray is on the horizon...I wonder if somebody will mod his PlayStation 3 to get a zippier drive, or if it will be offered in a later revision. The PS2 went through a tremendous number of hardware revisions.
All this biting sarcasm sounds so cynical.
I believe that quote is properly attributed to Arthur C. Clarke.
If your gamepad uses USB and is HID spec compliant then Linux should have no problem. It was literally silent plug and play with no configuration necessary in both DOSBOX and ZSNES for my Logitech gamepad and joystick, all I had to do was compile in the right modules.
I don't think kernel download size will outpace technology (or even the sense of efficiency). In 1993 or even 1998 downloading 40.8MB of source might have been a bit excessive.
Still I find what you are proposing to be intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. Basically you mean something like an apt-kernel-config tool?
This AC has it right. Been there, done that, don't work there anymore.
Hey now, you should be positively thanking him. The previous posting had an awful summary that didn't mention IBM, AMD, or the fact that the new High-K replacement was based on hafnium (they misspelled it as halfnium in the actual article, which was even worse).
At least with this summary we'll get cool arguments about Intel vs. AMD and IBM and conspiracy theories and stuff.
This article's summary is far more accurate and informative than the other one. I posted several times in the older post to help clear up some misinformation (the article it linked to misspelled hafnium as "halfnium" and only mentioned it once, and never mentioned IBM or AMD).
I posted links to similar articles as a reply to the FP (an anonymous troll), but I hadn't read your article.
Initially I interpreted it as Intel and IBM cooperating on researching the new hafnium-based technology (this is the interpretation that Wikipedia's Hafnium article currently uses), but on further reading I realised that they were doing this quite independently, and AMD, Sony, and Toshiba were partnered with IBM on this research.
IBM may be basing the 4 to 6 GHz clock speeds of its new POWER chips on the implementation of High-K hafnium-based replacements for silicon dioxide. If they are, Intel may not be as far ahead as I thought. If they're not already using hafnium in the POWER6 architecture, this could result in some VERY scary chips from International Bull Moose.
Slow down, cowboy, although you are spot on with the L1 cache size, Intel's Pentium 4 never had a cache size of less than 262,144 bytes, and from the more efficient Northwood on (January 2002), cache size ranged from 524,288 to 2,049,152 bytes (trying to avoid a mebi vs. mega debate).
The reason your Pentium III handily outpaces Pentium 4s of higher clockspeed has more to do with the inefficient Netburst core having an excessively deep pipeline that allowed higher clocking but lowered IPC and penalised branch prediction misses than thread size being too large for the cache.
This comment would have been more appropriate in late 2001 than early 2007, although the Pentium 4 was more expensive than the Pentium III at release even though it was less efficient. In case you just stepped out of your time machine to post a troll on Slashdot, I need to inform you that Intel recently stopped selling the "horribly crippled" Pentium 4 in favor of an architecture based on (surprise!) the P6 architecture, which powered the Pentium Pro, II and III CPUs.
I hope you feel at least somewhat vindicated.
While Intel's ridiculously inefficient Netburst core might be the impetus for your post, that's not Business as Usual.
When Intel moved from the 80386 to the 80486, the FPU was integrated for the first time, as was onboard cache, and instruction execution rates nearly doubled on a clock-for-clock basis. The eventual clock speed of the 80486 was 100MHz, three times the speed of the fastest Intel 80386 at 33MHz (AMD released 133MHz and 40MHz versions of the 80486 and 80386, respectively).
Going from the 80486 to the P5 once again brought great improvements, such as superior FPU performance, dual pipelining, and doubled memory bus width, which gave the P5 once again nearly double the performance per clock over the 80486. The P5 (P54CS) topped out at 200MHz, twice the Intel 80486's top speed.
Things weren't looking so good with the Pentium II - it was basically a Pentium Pro, a very nice chip with superior performance per MHz than the P5, with its largest advantage cut in half (the large, full-speed L2 cache). Still, the Pentium III Coppermine brought the cache speed back up to full, and the P6 architecture eventually topped out at 1.4GHz, with far superior performance efficiency to the Pentium 4's Netburst core. In fact, Intel had to return to the basic design of the P6 to produce chips capable of defeating AMD's Athlon 64, the Intel Core and Core 2, the latter of which seems to squeeze more performance out of a MHz than any other desktop chip.
The article linked above refers to "Halfnium", with is both an element that does not exist and a gross misspelling of Hafnium , which is the new High-K replacement for silicon dioxide. It's also worth pointing out that both IBM and Intel announced this breakthough almost simultaneously, and AMD will reap the windfall benefits through its own partnership with IBM (they will move to the 0.45 process some time in 2008). AMD has also announced a low-K breakthrough that they will be implementing in their 0.65 process as well.
To give Intel sole credit for this breakthrough might be a little inaccurate.
Actually, IBM and AMD, as partners, will also be using this new 0.45 process in their new chips, but it may take them longer to get there than Intel.
As an AMD fanboy, I was actually very happy to see the release of the Core and Core 2 chips - Intel was willing to admit that Netburst was a mistake, and they forced AMD to lower their dual-core CPU prices by 40%-60% in one fell swoop.
It's interesting to note that the "latest in animated gif technology" is 18 years old this year. I refer of course to the GIF89a specification. :)
Cyanic storm probe tests have already conclusively determined that cyanic storms turned out to be made of HCN.
Yellowic storm probes are used mostly to clear out earwax...
You know what, I think you are wrong, there are no "good jokes here somewhere."
With all due respect, I don't think it's even possible to get scaling artifacts on an exact resize like that, which is mostly why I asked my question in the first place. All you would have to do to get from 1920x1080 to 960x540 is preserve 1/4th of the pixels in the image. It's still better quality than DVD video, and especially so if the new video encoding that HD-DVD and Blu-ray use is more efficient.
If you guys thought that was tough to crack, try rot39 on for size!
Guvf pbzzrag vf ebg39 rapelcgrq. Ol ernqvat guvf pbzzrag, lbh unir ivbyngrq gur QZPN.
I've been wondering about this - it may be four times the number of pixels, but how much would you actually notice the resolution change from 1920x1080 to 960x540 (the purported penalty resolution of HDCP) when playing an HD-encoded film on an average-sized HDTV?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
The idea that government did not grant people rights but merely recognised the fact that they were innate to being human was a fairly radical notion in a day and age when kings ruled by divine right. Plenty of people were willing to die for it.
Just the other day, US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was arguing for yet another more restrictive interpretation of the Constitution, using the same insidious line of argument that the founding fathers feared we would fall to the temptation of. He argued before the Senate Judiciary Committee that since the Constitution only says that the right habeas corpus can only be suspended under certain circumstances, the Constitution doesn't actually grant the right to habeas corpus in the first place. Insidious!
I'm fairly certain that items manufactured in Taiwan and imported to the United States actually say that they are Made in Taiwan, rather than China or Republic of China or "that darn island that we're going to take back one day" or whatever.
Items manufactured in mainland China almost never qualify as PRC or People's Republic of China, but rather as simply Made in China. As one is a democratic republic and the other is a communist state with capitalist leanings, I'd assume manufacturers would wish to avoid any confusion.
Try not watching TV at all sometime.
I thought manufacturing consent was the name of the game.
Look again, it's me, dreddnott. You currently regard me as a foe - aren't you the antdude that runs the Myrmecology ezboard??
Oh my goodness. You're thinking of Anshe Chung, which is the name of Ailin Graef's avatar on Second Life.
;)
Solomon Chang is a MySQL-certified DBA.
Want to sell your Slashdot UID?