Glad you mentioned Mars and Venus. Mars has a very thin atmosphere containing CO2, and it is pretty cold. Venus has an extremely thick (about 200x ours) atmosphere almost entirely made of CO2. And guess what? Its hotter than Mercury. Hot enough to melt lead. And did you know that Venus is closer to earth (and closer in size) than Mars is?
In regards to the speed of warming, it is generally supposed that, much as there is a delay from the longest day of the year before the hottest day, there is also a delay from the onset of high CO2 to when the atmosphere warms up. This is because the oceans took a while to warm up. In the last 2 decades we've experienced the 15 hottest years on record, and even a lot of climatologists are surprised by the rapid heating over this period.
I don't think their argument in that link is any stronger than "if you use the text mimetype, and then switch to the xml mimetype later, you'll get mad at xhtml. Therefore don't use xhtml".
The W3C page suggests that the xml mimetype is preferred, but that text is acceptible. I'd still argue that writing strict (and good!) xhtml 1.0 for now makes the transition later to 1.1 easier. If you write html 4.01 now, you'll have a slightly longer climb.
xhtml 1.0 doesn't need the xml mimetype, only 1.1 does. The IE7 team's rationale is that they don't want to support the mime type until the xml renderer is capable of processing xhtml properly. Just "accepting" the xml mimetype and then using the html engine is cludgy, and I agree with him. But yeah: IE7 doesn't support xhtml 1.1. This is still planned for later (IE8?)
sorry... "unpatched" xp systems?? Patches are still/will still be available. Service packs are really just convenient patch rollups with new features added.
You don't sufficiently understand the Heisenburg uncertainty principle. It doesn't have anything to do with hubris among physicists. Many observations depend on the probabilistic nature of quantum theory, such as Einstein's "Spooky action at a distance".
Anyhow, either read up on it, or continue misunderstanding. But please don't misrepresent to others.
Quantum mechanics IS completely nondeterministic. That's the essence of theory, in fact. Its not that we just can't tell where an electron is going to be, its that the electron ISN'T in any of those places... its in all of them at once, within certain probabilities.
And yes, entropy != true randomness. That was my second point.
Some "god" may have decided how the radiation behaves, but this same "god" also created quantum effects, and as such the rays hitting a chromosome are completely nondeterministic (yeah, even "god" doesn't know when and where, and with what frequency that photon will hit. You need to understand that this is not anthropomorphising, or a failure of imagination... this is integral to how quantum physics work).
Quantum effects are inherently random (see: the uncertainty principle). Those happen on a small scale (the sort of scale where a single photon breaks appart a single strand of DNA causing a mutation, for example!)
Even if it wasn't quantum randomness, you certainly believe in a certain level of entropy, don't you? Chaos theory? You realize your PC has a fairly good "random number generator" and that people have a hard time predicting the weather.
But yeah, if you're supposing that some god is guiding the beems of light that gave my grandfather cancer, I suppose I can't argue with you.
Hmm, guess I did say that. I take that part back, then, since it is no longer my opinion.
I didn't say Intel was doing shoddy work, i'm saying that their initial quad-core offering is cobbled together. They don't even plan on making it widely available. I'm sure their 45nm quads next year will be excellent chips.
You will see the FSB bandwidth limitation become much more of a burden as more cores are added to the Intel architecture, while AMD's design has the access to the memory controller scale with CPU speed, so there is more breathing room. This is the prediction that many technologists have made. Right now Intel's design is clearly faster, and is a better purchase - I agree. Even their cobbled-together quad is gonna be a hell of a fast chip!
AMD's design has some advantages though, and I'm hoping they pull through. Not because I'm a "fanboi", but because competition in a market is healthy. I'll always buy the winner.
Well now, I never used the term "true multicore" for either design. Both are "true multicore" in the sense that they both have multiple cores. I never argued anything about that. Read it again! I'm just saying there is some validity to the assertion that the core 2 quad is more cobbled together. They CAN'T share cache between the two halves (You are correct in that the core 2 duo shares L2 cache - didn't know that before), you can't alter voltages and clock rates independently either.
You are wrong about the chip being a black box, though... the Intel design has all cores speaking to each other across the front-side bus, which is expected to hurt the 4-way and cripple the 8-way designs (theoretically, I know). The AMD design also requires the cores to talk across the HT bus, so that's why they added more HT links. Intel doesn't have that option.
Well that's not really completely true though, is it?
I mean, if you read about the K8L architecture, they can throttle the voltage and clock rate for each core independently, and all 4 share a common L3 cache as well. Plus there are additional hypertransport links for inter-core communications.
The Intel solution has none of these, as a direct or indirect result of not being a "true" multicore setup (technologically very similar to a quad-cpu setup, really, let alone two dual core cpus). This doesn't mean they won't still be faster (Core2 is a better design it seems, despite these limitations). And it doesn't make me a "fanboi" for discussing it.
My prediction is that Intel will hold the performance lead, but by a narrower margin.
No kidding. I'm the grandparent and one of Microsoft's harshest critics. But unlike a lot of people, I blame MS for things they've actually done wrong. There is support for SP1... its called SP2. If you don't want to install it, then don't. But don't whine that they aren't supporting you! You're refusing their support.
And if they don't do any of this, then how does continuing SP1 support help them, exactly? They're ignoring all the help that's been offered up to this point! Like, what do you expect microsoft to offer this group of people, since we've already established that they don't seek help and don't apply patches.
And why was I moderated Troll, twice, for making what I think is a valid point? Disagreement does not equal trolling.
You can have a CD of it sent to you for around $5-$10. Not that it matters to you - I'm sure you're either running SP2, Vista, or Linux anyhow. Hey everyone! Lets make a big issue out of something that only theoretically might affect some people! We can use it to make Microsoft look bad!
I think that us nerds and old-schoolers are quite excited about the Wii, but frankly I'm not convinced the average 18 year-old gamer is, or the average 30 year-old blue-collar gamer who likes Madden, either. I hope I'm wrong, but I think the Wii will be a little like the last 2 Nintendo machines... not a bad purchase, but definitely a niche market.
I just meant, would the centripedal forces in a slowly accelerating circular track be equal to, or lower than, the acceleration forces on a quickly-accelerating linear track?
Vista installs ipv6 and ipv4 stacks by default... it should be a transparent switch for Joe Sixpack, once gateways are updated as well (My new Linksys isn't ipv6 at least - dunno about other brands).
Asus M2N-E, which i'm sort of sorry about. The board works great EXCEPT for one major flaw - only 1.95 volts maximum for the memory. Most DDR2 needs 2.1 volts, so i had to buy some expensive Corsair DDR2-800 stuff and it still won't even run at specified timings (needs 2.1 volts for CAS4 operation). Hopefully a BIOS update will fix it... apparently you can adjust the voltage higher through software, so it isn't a hard-wired restriction. Stupid, hey?
I recently upgraded to an AM2 system, and here is my reasoning:
I was running an Athlon XP 3200+ box (actually an overclocked 2500+), AGP graphics and DDR memory. It was time for a complete overhaul, and yeah - i guess I could have gone socket 939 and kept my RAM, but I figured future upgradability to K8L was worth the loss (and anyhow I only had 1GB of it, and didn't want to buy more DDR).
This was about a month ago, and Core2 Duos were hard to find, expensive, and the boards even more so. I was looking at an extra $400 (CDN) or so for a basic Core 2 system vs. a basic AM2.
So here I am, typing this on $150 X2 3800+ CPU on a $100 motherboard, and I've managed to overclock it past FX-62 speeds on air cooling (2850Mhz is completely stable so far). I know Core2 has supposedly better price/performance, but beat that price! Consider me happy with my purchase.
Slashdot Mirror
Glad you mentioned Mars and Venus. Mars has a very thin atmosphere containing CO2, and it is pretty cold. Venus has an extremely thick (about 200x ours) atmosphere almost entirely made of CO2. And guess what? Its hotter than Mercury. Hot enough to melt lead. And did you know that Venus is closer to earth (and closer in size) than Mars is?
In regards to the speed of warming, it is generally supposed that, much as there is a delay from the longest day of the year before the hottest day, there is also a delay from the onset of high CO2 to when the atmosphere warms up. This is because the oceans took a while to warm up. In the last 2 decades we've experienced the 15 hottest years on record, and even a lot of climatologists are surprised by the rapid heating over this period.
I don't think their argument in that link is any stronger than "if you use the text mimetype, and then switch to the xml mimetype later, you'll get mad at xhtml. Therefore don't use xhtml".
The W3C page suggests that the xml mimetype is preferred, but that text is acceptible. I'd still argue that writing strict (and good!) xhtml 1.0 for now makes the transition later to 1.1 easier. If you write html 4.01 now, you'll have a slightly longer climb.
They were wiped out, so I'd expect they had something quite similar to Windows.
xhtml 1.0 doesn't need the xml mimetype, only 1.1 does. The IE7 team's rationale is that they don't want to support the mime type until the xml renderer is capable of processing xhtml properly. Just "accepting" the xml mimetype and then using the html engine is cludgy, and I agree with him. But yeah: IE7 doesn't support xhtml 1.1. This is still planned for later (IE8?)
Uhm, did you start a second thread in your application? Works fine from here.
sorry... "unpatched" xp systems?? Patches are still/will still be available. Service packs are really just convenient patch rollups with new features added.
You don't sufficiently understand the Heisenburg uncertainty principle. It doesn't have anything to do with hubris among physicists. Many observations depend on the probabilistic nature of quantum theory, such as Einstein's "Spooky action at a distance".
Anyhow, either read up on it, or continue misunderstanding. But please don't misrepresent to others.
So a supernova of 20 suns equivalent managed to explode and leave behind thousands of sun-like stars?
Apparently conservation of mass laws were different back then.
Quantum mechanics IS completely nondeterministic. That's the essence of theory, in fact. Its not that we just can't tell where an electron is going to be, its that the electron ISN'T in any of those places... its in all of them at once, within certain probabilities.
And yes, entropy != true randomness. That was my second point.
Some "god" may have decided how the radiation behaves, but this same "god" also created quantum effects, and as such the rays hitting a chromosome are completely nondeterministic (yeah, even "god" doesn't know when and where, and with what frequency that photon will hit. You need to understand that this is not anthropomorphising, or a failure of imagination... this is integral to how quantum physics work).
Quantum effects are inherently random (see: the uncertainty principle). Those happen on a small scale (the sort of scale where a single photon breaks appart a single strand of DNA causing a mutation, for example!)
Even if it wasn't quantum randomness, you certainly believe in a certain level of entropy, don't you? Chaos theory? You realize your PC has a fairly good "random number generator" and that people have a hard time predicting the weather.
But yeah, if you're supposing that some god is guiding the beems of light that gave my grandfather cancer, I suppose I can't argue with you.
Hmm, guess I did say that. I take that part back, then, since it is no longer my opinion.
I didn't say Intel was doing shoddy work, i'm saying that their initial quad-core offering is cobbled together. They don't even plan on making it widely available. I'm sure their 45nm quads next year will be excellent chips.
You will see the FSB bandwidth limitation become much more of a burden as more cores are added to the Intel architecture, while AMD's design has the access to the memory controller scale with CPU speed, so there is more breathing room. This is the prediction that many technologists have made. Right now Intel's design is clearly faster, and is a better purchase - I agree. Even their cobbled-together quad is gonna be a hell of a fast chip!
AMD's design has some advantages though, and I'm hoping they pull through. Not because I'm a "fanboi", but because competition in a market is healthy. I'll always buy the winner.
Well now, I never used the term "true multicore" for either design. Both are "true multicore" in the sense that they both have multiple cores. I never argued anything about that. Read it again! I'm just saying there is some validity to the assertion that the core 2 quad is more cobbled together. They CAN'T share cache between the two halves (You are correct in that the core 2 duo shares L2 cache - didn't know that before), you can't alter voltages and clock rates independently either.
You are wrong about the chip being a black box, though... the Intel design has all cores speaking to each other across the front-side bus, which is expected to hurt the 4-way and cripple the 8-way designs (theoretically, I know). The AMD design also requires the cores to talk across the HT bus, so that's why they added more HT links. Intel doesn't have that option.
Well that's not really completely true though, is it?
I mean, if you read about the K8L architecture, they can throttle the voltage and clock rate for each core independently, and all 4 share a common L3 cache as well. Plus there are additional hypertransport links for inter-core communications.
The Intel solution has none of these, as a direct or indirect result of not being a "true" multicore setup (technologically very similar to a quad-cpu setup, really, let alone two dual core cpus). This doesn't mean they won't still be faster (Core2 is a better design it seems, despite these limitations). And it doesn't make me a "fanboi" for discussing it.
My prediction is that Intel will hold the performance lead, but by a narrower margin.
No kidding. I'm the grandparent and one of Microsoft's harshest critics. But unlike a lot of people, I blame MS for things they've actually done wrong. There is support for SP1... its called SP2. If you don't want to install it, then don't. But don't whine that they aren't supporting you! You're refusing their support.
And if they don't do any of this, then how does continuing SP1 support help them, exactly? They're ignoring all the help that's been offered up to this point! Like, what do you expect microsoft to offer this group of people, since we've already established that they don't seek help and don't apply patches.
And why was I moderated Troll, twice, for making what I think is a valid point? Disagreement does not equal trolling.
You can have a CD of it sent to you for around $5-$10. Not that it matters to you - I'm sure you're either running SP2, Vista, or Linux anyhow. Hey everyone! Lets make a big issue out of something that only theoretically might affect some people! We can use it to make Microsoft look bad!
how much did you pay for SP2?
Yeesh, just upgrade already, and quit your bitching!
so, the original stats were scewed because all the 35+ year olds were pretending to be 16-year-old girls?
I guess this is good... it means there isn't actually a problem to worry about anymore.
I think that us nerds and old-schoolers are quite excited about the Wii, but frankly I'm not convinced the average 18 year-old gamer is, or the average 30 year-old blue-collar gamer who likes Madden, either. I hope I'm wrong, but I think the Wii will be a little like the last 2 Nintendo machines... not a bad purchase, but definitely a niche market.
I just meant, would the centripedal forces in a slowly accelerating circular track be equal to, or lower than, the acceleration forces on a quickly-accelerating linear track?
wouldn't the centripedal forces though still crush the satelite, even if accelerated slowly? I'm not good with math... someone work it out!
Vista installs ipv6 and ipv4 stacks by default... it should be a transparent switch for Joe Sixpack, once gateways are updated as well (My new Linksys isn't ipv6 at least - dunno about other brands).
Asus M2N-E, which i'm sort of sorry about. The board works great EXCEPT for one major flaw - only 1.95 volts maximum for the memory. Most DDR2 needs 2.1 volts, so i had to buy some expensive Corsair DDR2-800 stuff and it still won't even run at specified timings (needs 2.1 volts for CAS4 operation). Hopefully a BIOS update will fix it... apparently you can adjust the voltage higher through software, so it isn't a hard-wired restriction. Stupid, hey?
I recently upgraded to an AM2 system, and here is my reasoning:
I was running an Athlon XP 3200+ box (actually an overclocked 2500+), AGP graphics and DDR memory. It was time for a complete overhaul, and yeah - i guess I could have gone socket 939 and kept my RAM, but I figured future upgradability to K8L was worth the loss (and anyhow I only had 1GB of it, and didn't want to buy more DDR).
This was about a month ago, and Core2 Duos were hard to find, expensive, and the boards even more so. I was looking at an extra $400 (CDN) or so for a basic Core 2 system vs. a basic AM2.
So here I am, typing this on $150 X2 3800+ CPU on a $100 motherboard, and I've managed to overclock it past FX-62 speeds on air cooling (2850Mhz is completely stable so far). I know Core2 has supposedly better price/performance, but beat that price! Consider me happy with my purchase.
$390 (Canadian) for the overclocked version is what I paid. I think they said $299 US for the standard-clocked one is the MSRP.