Assuming "this post" is the one to which you replied, the "immediate predecessor" is your own terse 2-word post ("prove it"). Am I to understand that you disagree with your own post, or am I missing something?
In any case, I don't understand this (relatively common, in the West at least) obsession with corpses. I mean, they're dead -- making fossil fuel, pushing up daisies. Who cares, or should care, decades later? If they're all so Pharoah-esque worried about the future of their corpse, they should set up an endowment of some kind to maintain it ad infinitum. If they don't, or can't, tough.
I mean, let's be serious here. If you learned that a corpse were buried under the house you just finished building by hand after countless hours of painstaking labor, would you tear it down to return the land to its "last authority?"
Reminds me of the recent hubub in Mass. where some nutty lady with a dead kid has been decorating the grave in violation of the cemetery agreement she signed (and I don't mean a flower or two -- we're talking solar-powered lighting, pumpkins and scarecrows for halloween, and literally every inch of a 5'x15' area covered with tacky baubles and bric-a-brac), and the town council sent her a letter insisting that she clear the "clutter." She went ballistic, called the media, and started harping on how it's her kid down there (dead kid, actually) and she can do whatever she wants to "celebrate the holidays with him" despite any rules she agreed to before picking that plot. Like you, she seems to be confusing the corpse for the person. Get over it -- you're gonna die, and then you'll be dead. Jeez.
0) Yes, for the last 10 years. 1) There is leakage through the substrate, and that path is resistive -- though you're correct that the majority of the current flow is not really to "ground" (which, BTW, is a relative thing), rather use in charging/discharging parasitic capacitors -- the relevent fact is that switching dissipates power in the form of heat. Sometimes simplifications are necessary to get a point across. If you want to be a pedant, we can note that there are no 1's or 0's, whip out our detailed SPICE models to explain an AND gate, and worry that there are no "holes", just electrons, though we assume there are in our models, etc. Were this "EEdot", I might have been more precise, but probably not, since it doesn't matter for the understanding of this issue. 2) You can't have a potential difference without some charge accumulation -- chicken: meet egg. This is semantic.
Bah, I can't keep up that formatting.:). As for inductors: they're really hard to make out of silicon. I'd love to hear about how you'd implement that without using way more wiring tracks than it's worth.
You're close on that last point -- the reason I don't have to deal with analog design (too much) is not that my cad tools do it, rather that we can (safely) simplify our models of logic gates down from the complex analog circuits they are and treat them as digital logic. Accounting for crosstalk, transition times, wire delays, signal integrity, etc. outside of the primary design flow allows us to maintain this gross simplification throughout most of the design flow. EDA tools that can handle a new idea usually follow initial real-world implementations by at least a few years. Check out the hierarchical design tools available over the last 5 years, then look at the hierarchical tapeouts for the last 5 years. The tools were (and are, largely) crap. But the chips work (each of mine included).
Static power might be an increasingly large issue for Pentium-class (0.1 micron, low core voltage) CPUs and graphics cores, but for all other CMOS circuits, the dynamic dissipation will still be the lion's share of the power used.
Static power becomes significant (within 1/10th) compared to dynamic power at about 0.15um. According to the Peddie Report, that includes about 75% of all design starts from 2002 on.
Even if the "lion's share" were 90% (it's not, see above), I'm still worried about static power because (1) it happens all the time, on every gate, (2) I can't stop it by stopping my clocks and (3) I personally don't do anything in technologies older than 0.13um:)
Oh BTW, neat idea, but it's really hard to make inductors out of silicon.
I realize that many people believe that. I don't. And there's no proof, theoretical or empirical, that this is the case. Universities are focusing on this approach, and they are making some decent progress lately. The industry, however, is looking for alternate implementations that do not require (1) a one-to-one ratio of inputs to outputs or (2) computation time that approaches infinity as the power consumption goes to zero. The more the uni's learn, the more it helps us all, but I'm pretty confident that commercial implementations will get 60-80% of the power savings without the hassle of extra ports and long computation delays.
If you have any proof whatsever that "near-zero-power computing" requires reversible logic gates I'd love to see it. AFAIK none exists.
The purpose is not reversible logic. The purpose is reversible electrical charge movement and re-use. The fact that most current efforts to make the energy transfer reversible also happen use reversible logic gates does not mean it's the only way to do it.
I'm familiar with the infomation = energy theories which can be interepreted to mean this is the case, but I still don't buy that it's the only way. And I'm not alone. It'll probably be developed further using reverisble gates first, but then we'll find a way to avoid that annoying port bloat and time delay. Which means something else besides reversible logic will be used, because reversible gates must have 1:1 in:out port (which sucks) and the time to compute goes toinfinity as the power drops to 0 (which sucks even more). Not a good trend for something that has the goal of lowering power in circuits that are expected to get faster, or at least not slower.
Please note that many posters were highly confused about why reversing logic would have any effect whatsoever on power usage. In most cases this confusion arose from a lack of understanding of the theorized relationship between information and energy. In my case, however, I'm familiar with the idea, but I just don't believe the theories are completely sound, or at least not complete.
Enegy is lost always (leakage current) because the gate is not a perfect insulator. The smaller the gates, the more ther leakage. This is called static power.
Energy is also lost during switching, as the charge needed to switch is moved around. This is called dynamic power.
Reversible computing endeavors to reduce/eliminate dynamic power. It does nothing for static power. A long time ago, dynamic power was dominant and static power was negligble. Now, gates are so small, static power is approaching the same order of magnitude as dynamic.
So, even though they're only addressing about 1/2 of the problem, it would be great to have the magnitude of that big problem halved.
I think you completely misunderstood the article, though in your defense it didn't do a very good job of explaining. The idea is not to be able to reverse logical operations -- that is of little value to anyone. Rather, they're trying to make the electrical changes (the energy transfer) reversible. That's a fundamentally differeent thing. A decent analogy, mentioned in the article is:
The concept is somewhat analogous to hybrid cars now on the market that take the energy generated during braking and recycle it into electricity used to power the car.
So, the logical realm is no different here. Physically, and electrically, there is a big difference from existing computers. Now, when a bit changes from 1->0, the voltage (accumulated charge) is simply shorted to ground (via resistive path that dissipates heat). That energy is lost. In a reversible computer, that charge would be stored, in the electrical equivalent of a spring or flywheel in a mechanical system. So, next time it needs to go 0->1, the energy is sitting there, ready to be re-used(stored in the spring's compression or flywheel's rotation).
I assume these electrical "springs or flywheels" need to be phsycally close to the transistors they're storing energy for. If all transistor's storage were common, the heat loss (and time delay) to get the energy back to where it's needed would defeat the entire purpose.
In the article, they mention that current prototypes use oscillators to store the energy (which are more like a flywheel than a spring, to continue the mechanical analogy), but the efficiency is not quite good enough to be called "reversible". Too much energy is lost in storing and un-storing the energy. The current work is focused on improving the efficiency of storing and un-storing energy from state changes.
However, as a chip designer, I know that oscillators are usually (1) much much bigger than simple logic gates and (2) much more difficult to design with (it's analog design stuff, really). So, my concerns are (1) how much bigger will dice need to be to use this system (linear increase in die size equals exponential increase in manufacturing cost) and (2) how much longer is it going to take to close a design with all those little analog cells all over the place.
I don't even want to think about the implications for STA (static timing analysis) or LVS (layout versus schematic verification) -- it makes my head hurt.:)
The PS3 will use Cell technology jointly designed by Sony, Toshiba and IBM, the Gamecube is using PowerPC derivative Gecko and Next generation will use IBM as well.
Sony designed it and (at least planned) to make it themselves (COT flow with TSMC). They soon found that the needed more cash and help with physical implementation (despite having snarfed up some great talent from all over in an effort to make thier own in-house physical design team), which is where IBM and Toshiba come in. They could have (and perhaps still can, depending on the contracts in place) taken their design to any of a half-dozen or more places to get it PD'd and fabbed.
Your point about porting an ASIC design is not relevant we are talking huge design not a little piddely GA/ ASIC point solution.
Your age is showing. ASIC aren't all gate arrays any more. We have cell-based designs now. And they're far from "piddely". Hows about 20M gates on a die? 10M are very common, even mainstream ASIC now. This isn't full custom stuff we're talking about -- it will be made with a fairly-standard ASIC flow with a few critical paths being hand-placed and routed.
Come on give me a break on mentioning LSI and NEC, a TSMC has the manufacturing capacity needed but not piss ants like LSI. But you need the designs skill and the manufacturing capabilities. This narrows the field a lot.
LSI could do it, though likely with some difficulty and potential delay given their recent problems. NEC is fully capable, and was even offered the job, but turned it down. Hell, anyone in the Top 10 could handle the job.
IBM, Intel, TI is all I can think of. Spend 15 years in the industry by the way.
I've got 10 years. It might help you understant if any of your 15 were recent. A lot has changed since 1um gate array days.
Gamecube's system LSI (which is what the original article is about -- not CPU's) was designed by ATI + Nintendo. It is manufactured by NEC, using NEC's 0.18um embedded DRAM process. DRAM processes are used for more than just memory. In this case, a full system LSI chip is done in a DRAM process, but all of it, embedded DRAM and the logic that goes with it, is manufactured by NEC. It is one chip, after all, so all of it is made by NEC. It was designed by ATI and Nintendo, but we're talking about manufacturing here.
I'm in a hurry, but I'll be back in a few hours if you want to debate this. But before I leave I must say:
This is not a problem for IBM, the reason being that there is no other manufacturing player in town.
Huh? NEC, LSI, Mitsubishi, Toshiba, . . . there are plenty of manufacturing players.
Once the process is decided that it it. You can't just switch to someone else.
Wrong. We port ASIC designs from competitor's processes all the time.
This means that for once in their life MS is at the mercy of someone else.
Not at all.
Screw IBM and you just free up resources for Nintendo and Sony (Assume you know that they have chosen IBM as well), and delay your own product by 1-2 years, meaning the project is pretty much dead.
Sony is making their own chips. Nintendo uses NEC.
IBM is the Ring that Rules them All.
I'm not really sure of what overall point you were shooting for, but every statement you made is false.
Re:Please Mod Up - Fastsilicon.com Response
on
Video Card History
·
· Score: 1
Oh please. Despite the slowness of "fastsilicon" during this slashdotting, I did manage to pull up a few of these other articles in search of the touted "VERY high" content standards. I remain nonplussed. This kid is trying really hard, no doubt, but he's in over his head. Some choice quotes:
In particular, processor subsystems such as the random number generator can lose some of their randomness under overclocked conditions, potentially creating security issues.
Er, yeah. Sure. The heartbreak of losing randomness in that "random number generator". From over-clocking. Uh-huh.
Well that was educational wasn't it? I hoped [sic] my little guide made your computer choices a little easier. As I said before, you save more money building it yourself, [sic] than buying it from a factory (something like 1-2 grand on average). Plus, you get the satisfaction of a job well done, [sic] for the most part. Not to mention the bragging rights at your next LAN party, where you can show off your own personally built and modified system.
Confused tense. Commarrhea. (Think diarrhea, only with commas.) Vapid prose remarkably similar to the sort of filler high-school students often employ when trying to meet minimum word-count requirements on assignments.
For many, the idea of mixing water and electronics is unearthly. Watercooling, a method in which water is used to cool the CPU, is not the only option for computer enthusiasts seeking high performance cooling.
Unearthly? Oh, and thanks for that insightful definition of "watercooling".
The MCX4000 is nothing out of the ordinary; this heatsink was built with the enthusiast in mind. The craftsmanship is truly amazing.
Which is it, nothing out of the ordinary or truly amazing?
Fastsilicon.com is currently looking for writers, editors, and news posters. We strive to provide accurate technology and computing information. Unlike the vast majority of technology publications, Fastsilicon.com focuses on the computer industry as a whole. We not only support mainstream PC hardware, but also alternative platforms. With the help of fellow computer enthusiasts, we have confidence that Fastsilicon.com will be one of the most unique publications on the net.
Eh? The whole computer industry? Including alternative platforms (What are those? Case mods? Seems to be the focus of the site anyway.) Wow. Lesse, there are exactly five (5) articles available, and they are:
Video Card History (1996 to the present) (Posted: 2003-11-09)
Looking for writers, editors, and news posters!! (Posted: 2003-10-14)
New Forums at Fastsilicon.com! (Posted: 2003-10-12)
Er, yeah, that's the whole industry in a nutshell. But wait, they have reviews too! Four (4) of em! And only three (3) are Kewl case mod` reviews. How does he sum up the whole industry so easily?!! The reviews:
The SS Warrior (a pre-modded case) (Posted: 2003-10-15)
Swiftech MCX4000 (a heatsink + fan) (Posted: 2003-09-18)
Xoxide X300 (yet another pre-modded case) (Posted: 2003-02-15)
OK, but what about the guides? Well, we have 2 from which to choose:
How to build your own dream machine (Posted: 2003-03-20)
Watercooling 101 (Posted: 2003-03-19)
Wow! Check out that diversity! And those posting dates -- how does he keep up with all those frequent updates?
Within the few months Fastsilicon.com has been online, we've been recognized by sites such as Slashdot.org, HardOCP.com, Neoseeker.com, Tweakers.net, overclockers.com.au, and that's just naming a few.. As you can c
Actually, I scanned this entire thread, and everyone missed it, or at least failed to mention the real news on the "Questionable optimizations in ATi's drivers?" page. Seems ATI may be pulling an Nvidia lately, to wit:
Epic's Mark Rein confirmed that in some cases, high-res detail textures were not displayed in some areas by ATis drivers and that standard, lower-res textures are used instead. Randy Pitchford of the Halo development team also mentioned that there were optimizations present in ATi's drivers which are detrimental to Halo's image quality. However, Randy didn't want to go into more detail here. Finally, Massive's new DX9 benchmark, AquaMark 3, also displayed some irregularities of ATi drivers in the overdraw test.
This page shows some screenshots that do seem to show that ATI is cheating. And, part of the conclusion:
The irregularities ATi's drivers allegedly display in AquaMark 3 and UT2003 require further investigation. Factors such as image quality, driver reliability, and compatibility are hard to convey in a review anyway. Then again, game developers such as Gearbox (Halo), Epic (Unreal Tournament), and EA (Battlefield 1942) all give NVIDIA good grades in this respect. Surely, NVIDIA's close contact with game developers will help to improve the image quality and the performance of current and future DX9 games even further.
Even more interesting, Nvidia is touting a new policy and procedure for dirver optimizations. Details are here. In summary:
These are NVIDIAs optimization guidelines for driver developers:
An optimization must produce the correct image
Compare against refrast, competitor and unoptimized versions
DVS automatically verifies image quality
An optimization must accelerate more than just a benchmark
Is it general enough to help more than a single app? If so, can you point one out?
Algorithm must not be reducible to
Benchmark = true
If (benchmark) do_one_thing(); else do_something_else();
An optimization must not contain pre-computed state
Like pre-computed geometry, cached textures, movie playback, etc.
Must not relay on particular order of state that is particular to a single application.
So far, this kind of self-imposed discipline in the form of rules and mechanisms are unique within the industry.
When ATI first cheated way back when, it hit the/. headlines. Then even more front-page attention (2 stories) was garnered by Nvidia's dubious benchmark optimizations earlier this year. Here we have some pretty compelling evidence that ATI is still cheating at the numbers game, while Nvidia seems to have had enough. Wonder why this wasn't mentioned in the summary? It's a lot more interesting than benchmarks showing ATI and Nvidia neck-and-neck throughout.
Worse, that -1 Flamebait drivel included this nonsense:
This is the alluring pitch of open source software. We may have to give up project planning, quality control, coding standards, accountability, version control, and support, but it's FREE and we get the ability to modify the source code ourselves, something that is extremely dangerous to do, was discredited decades ago, and few people do anyway.
Funny, I've seen varying levels of QC, coding standards, accountability, version control, and support offerings from both open source and commercial software, with an overall slight lead by open source. But that's not the most annoying or perplexing part.
That award goes to "[modifying the source code] was discredited decades ago". WTF? How, by whom, and most importantly why was "modifying source code" discredited? I mean, the whole article is full of completely unsubstantiated nonsense and mudslinging, but this little comment grabbed my attention.
Does anyone know what he's talking about? Some decades-old study that somehow could be interpreted as "discrediting" souce-code mods, perhaps? I don't even have a guess.
Of course, taken to the extreme, that silly idea would mean no program would ever get new features or bug fixes except by being completely re-written from scratch, which would no doubt defeat the purpose in most cases.
Fantastic. I was afraid Diebold might be able to C&D this under the rug, and even took (perhaps useless) precautions of "archiving" the incriminating memos in several places (floppies, p2ps, random servers for which I have pw's . . . ). But, it seems like this will see the light of day. This choice quote is a good summary:
"Diebold's blanket cease-and-desist notices are a blatant abuse of copyright law," said EFF Staff Attorney Wendy Seltzer. "Publication of the Diebold documents is clear fair use because of their importance to the public debate over the accuracy of electronic voting machines."
Indeed. Better still:
"Instead of paying lawyers to threaten its critics, Diebold should invest in creating electronic voting machines that include voter-verified paper ballots and other security protections," said EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn.
Or just give up and leave it to someone else. Diebold's credibility is ruined, IMHO. If you don't agree, read those memos flying around. Systemic fraud exists in Diebold's practices. The should be nailed. And not like Enron, really nailed.
Oh for Christ's sake. It's called context you frigging pedant.
What is called context? I'm geniuinely confused by this and your previous post. I am not trying to be pedantic; I am trying to understand you. You're not helping much.
Ok, let's replace "considering repercussions" with "heeding repercussions".
Hmm, that gives us "Criminals by definition do not heed the repercussions of their crimes". It's still not necessarily true, and with a strong claim like "by definition" from you to the contrary, it's clearly somehow important to your overall point which, BTW, is still not clear.
Do you honestly think that there are people who wouldn't shoot someone before the gun ban was passed because they were afraid of being shot themselves?
It's possible. I assume you think it's impossible, but I'm not sure why. Have you any evidence to back up your claim, or are you simply relying on adamance?
Criminals carry guns, not law-abiding citizens (for the most part; let me nip that one in the bud), so when going after unarmed citizens (read: almost everybody, before and after the law was passed) the criminals never had anything to worry about.
I don't think this is true. Again I humbly request something to back up this claim. Then we'll address the non-sequitur that follows your unsubstantiated claim.
and if they are crazy enough to shoot someone >>they will do it whether they have a gun or not.
I guess you have to be really crazy to shoot >someone without using a gun. What are you talking >about? Rubber-bands? Photography?
My apologies. Perhaps if you worried more about what I was trying to say rather than trying to correct my grammar then you would have realised I left "are allowed to" out by accident.
Er, yeah. Sure. I'll try to do better at reading your mind to figure our what you're trying to say, instead of noting that you completely failed to say anything intellgible, and asking for clarification. Sounds like a fun game. Note that, even after the attempt to clarify, you failed to make sense out of your own senseless claim: "and if they are crazy enough to shoot someone they will do it whether they have a gun or not." How am I supposed to make sense out of that?
Perhaps you should also have spelled "rediculousness" properly.
You clearly understood what I meant. I still don't get your point. I'm serious.
By stating that the gun ban has caused crime to rise, you are implying that all these criminals who had guns were afraid to use them for fear of being shot. This is a completely ridiculous statement.
Not necessarily. Maybe that's all you can think of, but you're inferring that, while he may or may not be implying it. If there's anything ridiculous, it's your inference. Which is only surpassed in rediculousness by your next statement:
Criminals by definition do not consider the repercussions of their crimes,
Huh? Whose definition?
Main Entry: 1criminal
Pronunciation: 'kri-m&-n&l, 'krim-n&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French or Late Latin; Middle French criminel, from Late Latin criminalis, from Latin crimin- crimen crime
Date: 15th century
1 : relating to, involving, or being a crime
2 : relating to crime or to the prosecution of suspects in a crime
3 : guilty of crime; also : of or befitting a criminal
4 : DISGRACEFUL
- criminally adverb
Main Entry: crime
Pronunciation: 'krIm
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin crimen accusation, reproach, crime; probably akin to Latin cernere to sift, determine
Date: 14th century
1 : an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law; especially : a gross violation of law
2 : a grave offense especially against morality
3 : criminal activity
4 : something reprehensible, foolish, or disgraceful
synonym see OFFENSE
I can't find any mention about not considering repercussions being required for someone to be a criminal or for some act to be a crime. Of course, your claim is totally silly since, were it true, I could just consider the repercussions as I violated a law and rest easily that I can't be considered to be a criminal.
and if they are crazy enough to shoot someone they will do it whether they have a gun or not.
I guess you have to be really crazy to shoot someone without using a gun. What are you talking about? Rubber-bands? Photography?
You started OK, but then you drove this point all the way offtopic, you know. Japan's lack of gun-related crime has very little to do with the unavailability of guns in Japan. This is made rather clear by your (correct) assertion that all types of crime in Japan are drastically lower than the rest of the world, deaspite the abundant availability of knives, bats, and blunt objects.
Japan has a low crime rate because it's Japan, not because guns are hard to get. It's a unique culture that creates a level of unity and cohesiveness among its citizens that is very hard for Westerners to understand, and impossible for Westerners to reproduce.
Anyone who thinks the NRA has reasonable stances on this issue hasn't been paying attention or reading any of their press releases on gun control legislation.
Or they just disagree with you; perhaps due to possessing a different idea of what is reasonable. It's possible that you are not the definitive authority on what qualifies as reasonable.
The gun lobbyists have repeatedly opposed legislation like mandatory background checks, even with short waiting periods, and any type of background checks and waiting periods whatsoever for sales at gun shows
Without defining "the gun lobbyists", this is hard to dispute. But the NRA does support background checks, unless they're broken. Claiming they don't support background checks because they find faults (real ones, that the GAO agrees with) is like saying most slashdot users don't support electronic voting. Just because many oppose the silly, insecure, broken methods most commonly used (Diebold), doesn't mean they also oppose a well-implemented, secure version.
I think a reasonable debate about this issue is healthy and should be encouraged.
Uh-oh, there's that word again. Is it OK if we have a discussion using our own ideas of what is reasonable, since I'm pretty sure we disagree on what that word means?
That's why I also oppose Symantec's apparent attempt to censor one side of this debate. But let's not turn this into an endorsement of NRA positions or blaming everything on the left.
You're posting on Slashdot, remember? There is no danger of this happening.
As with most other issues affecting life in a democratic republic, things are much more complicated than can be expressed with witty one line slogans or blanket condemnations.
Oh, you mean like "Anyone who thinks the NRA has reasonable stances on this issue hasn't been paying attention or reading any of their press releases on gun control legislation." Yeah, I agree. Except that blanket condemnation really isn't all that witty.
I love the "dyslexics of the world: untie!" joke, but I must ruin your variation by pointing out that the flyer object represented in the proposed hacker logo has the same "flying" (moving) qualities regardless of symmetry (vertical and horizontal flips, and/or rotations in any direction by 90 degree increments yields a virtual object with the same behaviour). So it wouldn't really be dyslexic at all to have the little arrow formed by your flyer point to the lower-left, as opposed to the arbitrary orientation in the proposed logo.
Which makes me wonder why ESS picked that particular direction/orientation. Surely the choice was not politically motivated, since the arrow points to the right (lower-right, yes, but definitely not left as one might expect). Then again, you might say the vertical element sort of leans left, so that would be appropriate.:)
Seriously, I'm still not sure about the whole logo idea. On one hand, I really don't care -- those that like it should feel free to use it and, in time, it may garner some respect. If not, those who embraced it will be ridiculed for an appropriate length of time and intensity. On the other hand, it sucks because, well, because it's a logo. And a contrived one, specifically chosen to try to be cool, which is, of course, as un-cool as you can get. If a logo for the hacker community just sort of happened accidentally, as the result of some odd, unexpected, unifying event or meme, it might stick. But I think a contrived logo, even with a reference as cool as John Conway built in, is unlikely to catch on.
But, on the bright side, R'ing TFA led me to this funny hacker FAQ that I hadn't seen before. Very accurate, if a bit too condescending. Regardless, my boss is getting a copy of this right now -- not that he really needs is, but he'll laugh for sure and maybe learn a little.
RTFS:
The vouchers can be used to purchase hardware, software, or training; suprisingly (given plaintiffs' willingness to roll over on this issue in the past), vouchers used for software need not be used to purchase Microsoft products.
Not as good as cash, sure, but not as meaningless as a voucher for MS software.
Slashdot Mirror
I see your point, but I have to answer: no. Dead don't rest. They rot. And that aint peaceful.
Assuming "this post" is the one to which you replied, the "immediate predecessor" is your own terse 2-word post ("prove it"). Am I to understand that you disagree with your own post, or am I missing something?
In any case, I don't understand this (relatively common, in the West at least) obsession with corpses. I mean, they're dead -- making fossil fuel, pushing up daisies. Who cares, or should care, decades later? If they're all so Pharoah-esque worried about the future of their corpse, they should set up an endowment of some kind to maintain it ad infinitum. If they don't, or can't, tough.
I mean, let's be serious here. If you learned that a corpse were buried under the house you just finished building by hand after countless hours of painstaking labor, would you tear it down to return the land to its "last authority?"
Reminds me of the recent hubub in Mass. where some nutty lady with a dead kid has been decorating the grave in violation of the cemetery agreement she signed (and I don't mean a flower or two -- we're talking solar-powered lighting, pumpkins and scarecrows for halloween, and literally every inch of a 5'x15' area covered with tacky baubles and bric-a-brac), and the town council sent her a letter insisting that she clear the "clutter." She went ballistic, called the media, and started harping on how it's her kid down there (dead kid, actually) and she can do whatever she wants to "celebrate the holidays with him" despite any rules she agreed to before picking that plot. Like you, she seems to be confusing the corpse for the person. Get over it -- you're gonna die, and then you'll be dead. Jeez.
0) Yes, for the last 10 years. 1) There is leakage through the substrate, and that path is resistive -- though you're correct that the majority of the current flow is not really to "ground" (which, BTW, is a relative thing), rather use in charging/discharging parasitic capacitors -- the relevent fact is that switching dissipates power in the form of heat. Sometimes simplifications are necessary to get a point across. If you want to be a pedant, we can note that there are no 1's or 0's, whip out our detailed SPICE models to explain an AND gate, and worry that there are no "holes", just electrons, though we assume there are in our models, etc. Were this "EEdot", I might have been more precise, but probably not, since it doesn't matter for the understanding of this issue. 2) You can't have a potential difference without some charge accumulation -- chicken: meet egg. This is semantic.
:). As for inductors: they're really hard to make out of silicon. I'd love to hear about how you'd implement that without using way more wiring tracks than it's worth.
:)
Bah, I can't keep up that formatting.
You're close on that last point -- the reason I don't have to deal with analog design (too much) is not that my cad tools do it, rather that we can (safely) simplify our models of logic gates down from the complex analog circuits they are and treat them as digital logic. Accounting for crosstalk, transition times, wire delays, signal integrity, etc. outside of the primary design flow allows us to maintain this gross simplification throughout most of the design flow. EDA tools that can handle a new idea usually follow initial real-world implementations by at least a few years. Check out the hierarchical design tools available over the last 5 years, then look at the hierarchical tapeouts for the last 5 years. The tools were (and are, largely) crap. But the chips work (each of mine included).
One of my favorite design tools is Perl.
Static power might be an increasingly large issue for Pentium-class (0.1 micron, low core voltage) CPUs and graphics cores, but for all other CMOS circuits, the dynamic dissipation will still be the lion's share of the power used.
:)
Static power becomes significant (within 1/10th) compared to dynamic power at about 0.15um. According to the Peddie Report, that includes about 75% of all design starts from 2002 on.
Even if the "lion's share" were 90% (it's not, see above), I'm still worried about static power because (1) it happens all the time, on every gate, (2) I can't stop it by stopping my clocks and (3) I personally don't do anything in technologies older than 0.13um
Oh BTW, neat idea, but it's really hard to make inductors out of silicon.
I realize that many people believe that. I don't. And there's no proof, theoretical or empirical, that this is the case. Universities are focusing on this approach, and they are making some decent progress lately. The industry, however, is looking for alternate implementations that do not require (1) a one-to-one ratio of inputs to outputs or (2) computation time that approaches infinity as the power consumption goes to zero. The more the uni's learn, the more it helps us all, but I'm pretty confident that commercial implementations will get 60-80% of the power savings without the hassle of extra ports and long computation delays.
If you have any proof whatsever that "near-zero-power computing" requires reversible logic gates I'd love to see it. AFAIK none exists.
The purpose is not reversible logic. The purpose is reversible electrical charge movement and re-use. The fact that most current efforts to make the energy transfer reversible also happen use reversible logic gates does not mean it's the only way to do it.
I'm familiar with the infomation = energy theories which can be interepreted to mean this is the case, but I still don't buy that it's the only way. And I'm not alone. It'll probably be developed further using reverisble gates first, but then we'll find a way to avoid that annoying port bloat and time delay. Which means something else besides reversible logic will be used, because reversible gates must have 1:1 in:out port (which sucks) and the time to compute goes toinfinity as the power drops to 0 (which sucks even more). Not a good trend for something that has the goal of lowering power in circuits that are expected to get faster, or at least not slower.
Please note that many posters were highly confused about why reversing logic would have any effect whatsoever on power usage. In most cases this confusion arose from a lack of understanding of the theorized relationship between information and energy. In my case, however, I'm familiar with the idea, but I just don't believe the theories are completely sound, or at least not complete.
Enegy is lost always (leakage current) because the gate is not a perfect insulator. The smaller the gates, the more ther leakage. This is called static power.
Energy is also lost during switching, as the charge needed to switch is moved around. This is called dynamic power.
Reversible computing endeavors to reduce/eliminate dynamic power. It does nothing for static power. A long time ago, dynamic power was dominant and static power was negligble. Now, gates are so small, static power is approaching the same order of magnitude as dynamic.
So, even though they're only addressing about 1/2 of the problem, it would be great to have the magnitude of that big problem halved.
I think you completely misunderstood the article, though in your defense it didn't do a very good job of explaining. The idea is not to be able to reverse logical operations -- that is of little value to anyone. Rather, they're trying to make the electrical changes (the energy transfer) reversible. That's a fundamentally differeent thing. A decent analogy, mentioned in the article is:
:)
The concept is somewhat analogous to hybrid cars now on the market that take the energy generated during braking and recycle it into electricity used to power the car.
So, the logical realm is no different here. Physically, and electrically, there is a big difference from existing computers. Now, when a bit changes from 1->0, the voltage (accumulated charge) is simply shorted to ground (via resistive path that dissipates heat). That energy is lost. In a reversible computer, that charge would be stored, in the electrical equivalent of a spring or flywheel in a mechanical system. So, next time it needs to go 0->1, the energy is sitting there, ready to be re-used(stored in the spring's compression or flywheel's rotation).
I assume these electrical "springs or flywheels" need to be phsycally close to the transistors they're storing energy for. If all transistor's storage were common, the heat loss (and time delay) to get the energy back to where it's needed would defeat the entire purpose.
In the article, they mention that current prototypes use oscillators to store the energy (which are more like a flywheel than a spring, to continue the mechanical analogy), but the efficiency is not quite good enough to be called "reversible". Too much energy is lost in storing and un-storing the energy. The current work is focused on improving the efficiency of storing and un-storing energy from state changes.
However, as a chip designer, I know that oscillators are usually (1) much much bigger than simple logic gates and (2) much more difficult to design with (it's analog design stuff, really). So, my concerns are (1) how much bigger will dice need to be to use this system (linear increase in die size equals exponential increase in manufacturing cost) and (2) how much longer is it going to take to close a design with all those little analog cells all over the place.
I don't even want to think about the implications for STA (static timing analysis) or LVS (layout versus schematic verification) -- it makes my head hurt.
The PS3 will use Cell technology jointly designed by Sony, Toshiba and IBM, the Gamecube is using PowerPC derivative Gecko and Next generation will use IBM as well.
Sony designed it and (at least planned) to make it themselves (COT flow with TSMC). They soon found that the needed more cash and help with physical implementation (despite having snarfed up some great talent from all over in an effort to make thier own in-house physical design team), which is where IBM and Toshiba come in. They could have (and perhaps still can, depending on the contracts in place) taken their design to any of a half-dozen or more places to get it PD'd and fabbed.
Your point about porting an ASIC design is not relevant we are talking huge design not a little piddely GA/ ASIC point solution.
Your age is showing. ASIC aren't all gate arrays any more. We have cell-based designs now. And they're far from "piddely". Hows about 20M gates on a die? 10M are very common, even mainstream ASIC now. This isn't full custom stuff we're talking about -- it will be made with a fairly-standard ASIC flow with a few critical paths being hand-placed and routed.
Come on give me a break on mentioning LSI and NEC, a TSMC has the manufacturing capacity needed but not piss ants like LSI. But you need the designs skill and the manufacturing capabilities. This narrows the field a lot.
LSI could do it, though likely with some difficulty and potential delay given their recent problems. NEC is fully capable, and was even offered the job, but turned it down. Hell, anyone in the Top 10 could handle the job.
IBM, Intel, TI is all I can think of. Spend 15 years in the industry by the way.
I've got 10 years. It might help you understant if any of your 15 were recent. A lot has changed since 1um gate array days.
Gamecube's system LSI (which is what the original article is about -- not CPU's) was designed by ATI + Nintendo. It is manufactured by NEC, using NEC's 0.18um embedded DRAM process. DRAM processes are used for more than just memory. In this case, a full system LSI chip is done in a DRAM process, but all of it, embedded DRAM and the logic that goes with it, is manufactured by NEC. It is one chip, after all, so all of it is made by NEC. It was designed by ATI and Nintendo, but we're talking about manufacturing here.
Well, until some karma whore or AC posts the article text, I'll have to make my own list of overpaid jobs. Ready?
- Actor/actress
- Politician
- Sport player
- Hardware reviewer (in any case where $pay > 0)
- Supermodel dressing room attendant
Anyone else have more?I guess you're kidding, or trolling, or whatever, but let me ask you this:
Can you name a piece of MS hardware that wasn't "high quality engineered . . . from the first version"?
Do you have any idea how much more costly and low-perfomance programmable logic is compared to "hard-wired silicon"?
I'm in a hurry, but I'll be back in a few hours if you want to debate this. But before I leave I must say:
This is not a problem for IBM, the reason being that there is no other manufacturing player in town.
Huh? NEC, LSI, Mitsubishi, Toshiba, . . . there are plenty of manufacturing players.
Once the process is decided that it it. You can't just switch to someone else.
Wrong. We port ASIC designs from competitor's processes all the time.
This means that for once in their life MS is at the mercy of someone else.
Not at all.
Screw IBM and you just free up resources for Nintendo and Sony (Assume you know that they have chosen IBM as well), and delay your own product by 1-2 years, meaning the project is pretty much dead.
Sony is making their own chips. Nintendo uses NEC.
IBM is the Ring that Rules them All.
I'm not really sure of what overall point you were shooting for, but every statement you made is false.
In particular, processor subsystems such as the random number generator can lose some of their randomness under overclocked conditions, potentially creating security issues.
Er, yeah. Sure. The heartbreak of losing randomness in that "random number generator". From over-clocking. Uh-huh.
Well that was educational wasn't it? I hoped [sic] my little guide made your computer choices a little easier. As I said before, you save more money building it yourself, [sic] than buying it from a factory (something like 1-2 grand on average). Plus, you get the satisfaction of a job well done, [sic] for the most part. Not to mention the bragging rights at your next LAN party, where you can show off your own personally built and modified system.
Confused tense. Commarrhea. (Think diarrhea, only with commas.) Vapid prose remarkably similar to the sort of filler high-school students often employ when trying to meet minimum word-count requirements on assignments.
For many, the idea of mixing water and electronics is unearthly. Watercooling, a method in which water is used to cool the CPU, is not the only option for computer enthusiasts seeking high performance cooling.
Unearthly? Oh, and thanks for that insightful definition of "watercooling".
The MCX4000 is nothing out of the ordinary; this heatsink was built with the enthusiast in mind. The craftsmanship is truly amazing.
Which is it, nothing out of the ordinary or truly amazing?
Fastsilicon.com is currently looking for writers, editors, and news posters. We strive to provide accurate technology and computing information. Unlike the vast majority of technology publications, Fastsilicon.com focuses on the computer industry as a whole. We not only support mainstream PC hardware, but also alternative platforms. With the help of fellow computer enthusiasts, we have confidence that Fastsilicon.com will be one of the most unique publications on the net.
Eh? The whole computer industry? Including alternative platforms (What are those? Case mods? Seems to be the focus of the site anyway.) Wow. Lesse, there are exactly five (5) articles available, and they are:
Er, yeah, that's the whole industry in a nutshell. But wait, they have reviews too! Four (4) of em! And only three (3) are Kewl case mod` reviews. How does he sum up the whole industry so easily?!! The reviews:
OK, but what about the guides? Well, we have 2 from which to choose:
Wow! Check out that diversity! And those posting dates -- how does he keep up with all those frequent updates?
Within the few months Fastsilicon.com has been online, we've been recognized by sites such as Slashdot.org, HardOCP.com, Neoseeker.com, Tweakers.net, overclockers.com.au, and that's just naming a few.. As you can c
Epic's Mark Rein confirmed that in some cases, high-res detail textures were not displayed in some areas by ATis drivers and that standard, lower-res textures are used instead. Randy Pitchford of the Halo development team also mentioned that there were optimizations present in ATi's drivers which are detrimental to Halo's image quality. However, Randy didn't want to go into more detail here. Finally, Massive's new DX9 benchmark, AquaMark 3, also displayed some irregularities of ATi drivers in the overdraw test.
This page shows some screenshots that do seem to show that ATI is cheating. And, part of the conclusion:
The irregularities ATi's drivers allegedly display in AquaMark 3 and UT2003 require further investigation. Factors such as image quality, driver reliability, and compatibility are hard to convey in a review anyway. Then again, game developers such as Gearbox (Halo), Epic (Unreal Tournament), and EA (Battlefield 1942) all give NVIDIA good grades in this respect. Surely, NVIDIA's close contact with game developers will help to improve the image quality and the performance of current and future DX9 games even further.
Even more interesting, Nvidia is touting a new policy and procedure for dirver optimizations. Details are here. In summary:
These are NVIDIAs optimization guidelines for driver developers:
An optimization must not contain pre-computed state
So far, this kind of self-imposed discipline in the form of rules and mechanisms are unique within the industry.
/. headlines. Then even more front-page attention (2 stories) was garnered by Nvidia's dubious benchmark optimizations earlier this year. Here we have some pretty compelling evidence that ATI is still cheating at the numbers game, while Nvidia seems to have had enough. Wonder why this wasn't mentioned in the summary? It's a lot more interesting than benchmarks showing ATI and Nvidia neck-and-neck throughout.
When ATI first cheated way back when, it hit the
Sure does, but sadly, your post iteslf does not.
;)
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
- Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Self-Reliance"
Worse, that -1 Flamebait drivel included this nonsense:
This is the alluring pitch of open source software. We may have to give up project planning, quality control, coding standards, accountability, version control, and support, but it's FREE and we get the ability to modify the source code ourselves, something that is extremely dangerous to do, was discredited decades ago, and few people do anyway.
Funny, I've seen varying levels of QC, coding standards, accountability, version control, and support offerings from both open source and commercial software, with an overall slight lead by open source. But that's not the most annoying or perplexing part.
That award goes to "[modifying the source code] was discredited decades ago". WTF? How, by whom, and most importantly why was "modifying source code" discredited? I mean, the whole article is full of completely unsubstantiated nonsense and mudslinging, but this little comment grabbed my attention.
Does anyone know what he's talking about? Some decades-old study that somehow could be interpreted as "discrediting" souce-code mods, perhaps? I don't even have a guess.
Of course, taken to the extreme, that silly idea would mean no program would ever get new features or bug fixes except by being completely re-written from scratch, which would no doubt defeat the purpose in most cases.
What a maroon.
Fantastic. I was afraid Diebold might be able to C&D this under the rug, and even took (perhaps useless) precautions of "archiving" the incriminating memos in several places (floppies, p2ps, random servers for which I have pw's . . . ). But, it seems like this will see the light of day. This choice quote is a good summary:
"Diebold's blanket cease-and-desist notices are a blatant abuse of copyright law," said EFF Staff Attorney Wendy Seltzer. "Publication of the Diebold documents is clear fair use because of their importance to the public debate over the accuracy of electronic voting machines."
Indeed. Better still:
"Instead of paying lawyers to threaten its critics, Diebold should invest in creating electronic voting machines that include voter-verified paper ballots and other security protections," said EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn.
Or just give up and leave it to someone else. Diebold's credibility is ruined, IMHO. If you don't agree, read those memos flying around. Systemic fraud exists in Diebold's practices. The should be nailed. And not like Enron, really nailed.
Oh for Christ's sake. It's called context you frigging pedant.
What is called context? I'm geniuinely confused by this and your previous post. I am not trying to be pedantic; I am trying to understand you. You're not helping much.
Ok, let's replace "considering repercussions" with "heeding repercussions".
Hmm, that gives us "Criminals by definition do not heed the repercussions of their crimes". It's still not necessarily true, and with a strong claim like "by definition" from you to the contrary, it's clearly somehow important to your overall point which, BTW, is still not clear.
Do you honestly think that there are people who wouldn't shoot someone before the gun ban was passed because they were afraid of being shot themselves?
It's possible. I assume you think it's impossible, but I'm not sure why. Have you any evidence to back up your claim, or are you simply relying on adamance?
Criminals carry guns, not law-abiding citizens (for the most part; let me nip that one in the bud), so when going after unarmed citizens (read: almost everybody, before and after the law was passed) the criminals never had anything to worry about.
I don't think this is true. Again I humbly request something to back up this claim. Then we'll address the non-sequitur that follows your unsubstantiated claim.
and if they are crazy enough to shoot someone >>they will do it whether they have a gun or not.
I guess you have to be really crazy to shoot >someone without using a gun. What are you talking >about? Rubber-bands? Photography?
My apologies. Perhaps if you worried more about what I was trying to say rather than trying to correct my grammar then you would have realised I left "are allowed to" out by accident.
Er, yeah. Sure. I'll try to do better at reading your mind to figure our what you're trying to say, instead of noting that you completely failed to say anything intellgible, and asking for clarification. Sounds like a fun game. Note that, even after the attempt to clarify, you failed to make sense out of your own senseless claim: "and if they are crazy enough to shoot someone they will do it whether they have a gun or not." How am I supposed to make sense out of that?
Perhaps you should also have spelled "rediculousness" properly.
You clearly understood what I meant. I still don't get your point. I'm serious.
By stating that the gun ban has caused crime to rise, you are implying that all these criminals who had guns were afraid to use them for fear of being shot. This is a completely ridiculous statement.
Not necessarily. Maybe that's all you can think of, but you're inferring that, while he may or may not be implying it. If there's anything ridiculous, it's your inference. Which is only surpassed in rediculousness by your next statement:
Criminals by definition do not consider the repercussions of their crimes,
Huh? Whose definition?
Main Entry: 1criminal
Pronunciation: 'kri-m&-n&l, 'krim-n&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French or Late Latin; Middle French criminel, from Late Latin criminalis, from Latin crimin- crimen crime
Date: 15th century
1 : relating to, involving, or being a crime
2 : relating to crime or to the prosecution of suspects in a crime
3 : guilty of crime; also : of or befitting a criminal 4 : DISGRACEFUL
- criminally adverb
Main Entry: crime
Pronunciation: 'krIm
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin crimen accusation, reproach, crime; probably akin to Latin cernere to sift, determine
Date: 14th century
1 : an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law; especially : a gross violation of law
2 : a grave offense especially against morality
3 : criminal activity
4 : something reprehensible, foolish, or disgraceful
synonym see OFFENSE
I can't find any mention about not considering repercussions being required for someone to be a criminal or for some act to be a crime. Of course, your claim is totally silly since, were it true, I could just consider the repercussions as I violated a law and rest easily that I can't be considered to be a criminal.
and if they are crazy enough to shoot someone they will do it whether they have a gun or not.
I guess you have to be really crazy to shoot someone without using a gun. What are you talking about? Rubber-bands? Photography?
You started OK, but then you drove this point all the way offtopic, you know. Japan's lack of gun-related crime has very little to do with the unavailability of guns in Japan. This is made rather clear by your (correct) assertion that all types of crime in Japan are drastically lower than the rest of the world, deaspite the abundant availability of knives, bats, and blunt objects.
Japan has a low crime rate because it's Japan, not because guns are hard to get. It's a unique culture that creates a level of unity and cohesiveness among its citizens that is very hard for Westerners to understand, and impossible for Westerners to reproduce.
Anyone who thinks the NRA has reasonable stances on this issue hasn't been paying attention or reading any of their press releases on gun control legislation.
Or they just disagree with you; perhaps due to possessing a different idea of what is reasonable. It's possible that you are not the definitive authority on what qualifies as reasonable.
The gun lobbyists have repeatedly opposed legislation like mandatory background checks, even with short waiting periods, and any type of background checks and waiting periods whatsoever for sales at gun shows
Without defining "the gun lobbyists", this is hard to dispute. But the NRA does support background checks, unless they're broken. Claiming they don't support background checks because they find faults (real ones, that the GAO agrees with) is like saying most slashdot users don't support electronic voting. Just because many oppose the silly, insecure, broken methods most commonly used (Diebold), doesn't mean they also oppose a well-implemented, secure version.
I think a reasonable debate about this issue is healthy and should be encouraged.
Uh-oh, there's that word again. Is it OK if we have a discussion using our own ideas of what is reasonable, since I'm pretty sure we disagree on what that word means?
That's why I also oppose Symantec's apparent attempt to censor one side of this debate. But let's not turn this into an endorsement of NRA positions or blaming everything on the left.
You're posting on Slashdot, remember? There is no danger of this happening.
As with most other issues affecting life in a democratic republic, things are much more complicated than can be expressed with witty one line slogans or blanket condemnations.
Oh, you mean like "Anyone who thinks the NRA has reasonable stances on this issue hasn't been paying attention or reading any of their press releases on gun control legislation." Yeah, I agree. Except that blanket condemnation really isn't all that witty.
I love the "dyslexics of the world: untie!" joke, but I must ruin your variation by pointing out that the flyer object represented in the proposed hacker logo has the same "flying" (moving) qualities regardless of symmetry (vertical and horizontal flips, and/or rotations in any direction by 90 degree increments yields a virtual object with the same behaviour). So it wouldn't really be dyslexic at all to have the little arrow formed by your flyer point to the lower-left, as opposed to the arbitrary orientation in the proposed logo.
:)
Which makes me wonder why ESS picked that particular direction/orientation. Surely the choice was not politically motivated, since the arrow points to the right (lower-right, yes, but definitely not left as one might expect). Then again, you might say the vertical element sort of leans left, so that would be appropriate.
Seriously, I'm still not sure about the whole logo idea. On one hand, I really don't care -- those that like it should feel free to use it and, in time, it may garner some respect. If not, those who embraced it will be ridiculed for an appropriate length of time and intensity. On the other hand, it sucks because, well, because it's a logo. And a contrived one, specifically chosen to try to be cool, which is, of course, as un-cool as you can get. If a logo for the hacker community just sort of happened accidentally, as the result of some odd, unexpected, unifying event or meme, it might stick. But I think a contrived logo, even with a reference as cool as John Conway built in, is unlikely to catch on.
But, on the bright side, R'ing TFA led me to this funny hacker FAQ that I hadn't seen before. Very accurate, if a bit too condescending. Regardless, my boss is getting a copy of this right now -- not that he really needs is, but he'll laugh for sure and maybe learn a little.
RTFS: The vouchers can be used to purchase hardware, software, or training; suprisingly (given plaintiffs' willingness to roll over on this issue in the past), vouchers used for software need not be used to purchase Microsoft products.
Not as good as cash, sure, but not as meaningless as a voucher for MS software.