"You only need to save and restore the registers you use, so there is zero loss on enter/leave from adding registers."
Well, of course you only have to save the ones you're going to use. But, then again, not using them is just the same as not having them. So, if you DO plan on using them, then the additional stack frame management applies, the overhead of which in turn still reduces the potential performance gain.
Now, if you'd argued instead that the win from having additional registers that in themselves don't need to be continually reloaded and swapped during a function call washes the stack frame overhead, I might have believed you... *grin*
I doubt it would keep most of it from happening, nor would it remove the only barrier.
First, this sort of assumes that software will never be rewritten, that new features will never be added, and the file format never extended. Second, it assumes that every program that can read the file format can render it correctly.
Rewrite the software, and documents that depends on a certain visual rendition of the file format will break, i.e. not look like they used to. HTML and CSS are open "standards" too, but EVERY major browser renders the same file differently.
So why should I assume that, say, WP can properly display and paginate a 300 page Word document, just because it can read the "open" file file? Why should I assume that every program will support every other program's feature set?
Not that it isn't a good idea, but there's definitely more than one barrier to remove...
"This greatly reduces the number of loads and stores to the stack. The performance gain comes from the fact that it's much faster to communicate via a register than through memory."
A typical, "yes, but..." is in play here. Additional registers also mean that you have more saves/loads to do on function entry/exit, as well as during thread and process context switches.
Or not. That's why I loved the brushed aluminum case of the mini. No fingerprints showing, and minor scratches don't show at all. And it's rugged as hell...
This is probably the CEO's second cousin, who said he can do the job for a LOT less money than those nasty overpriced consultants were going to charge...
Bullshit. Corporations are "legally obligated" to do what their charters (and the SEC) say they're going to do.
And since you bring up Apple, let's do a little comparison, shall we? Post-bubble, Apple kept their interns and continued to pour dollars into R&D. HP, on the other hand, cut interns, research, and spending to keep their balance sheet looking good, maintained prices, and engaged in a pointless merger.
Now Apple has a major piece of a market with the pod and itunes, a cool OS, and cool software (iLife, Final Cut). HP is tanking and laying off jobs left and right.
Now Mr. Smart Guy, which company has "maximized" profit and shareholder values? Which obvious, straightforward strategy has prevailed?
Amazon spent all their venture money building out infrastructure and on customer aquisition, operating at a loss... and now has the results to show for it.
Toyota kept their reseach into hybrid technology going strong while carmakers in the US were closing plants. Who now has the most sought after car on the planet?
Yes, you have to have faith in your CEO, Chairman, and board, but there are in FACT many approaches one can take to profitability, and the one you choose can depend greatly on your style, market, product, culture, and values. And SMART companies try to keep their customers happy, and look further into the future than the next quarters balance sheet.
And the government and citizens of Louisiana and New Orleans could have decided to do something about the levees themselves -- but they didn't. I bet the dollars spent on that fancy football stadium could have gone far to correct the problems... but they ignored long-term issues for a sexy status symbol.
True, but the OP said that companies "must" maximize profits, with the typical slashdot implication that evil corporations must "rape, pillage, and burn" anyone and everyone.
Your curve is correct, but only as far as it goes. I attempted in my response to show that there are many business models in which attempting to extract every penny you can squeeze out of a customer is actually counter-productive, and in fact many corporations "must" do no such thing.
It can be to your advantage to leave money on the table, and chalk it up to marketing and good will. The intention, of course, is to maintain a happy, loyal customer base who'll give you not just additional pennies on your current product, but many more dollars on future products.
What does it mean to "maximize" profit of your shareholders?
Would I "maximize" profits by providing good products at a fair price, enabling a steady and dependable stream of customers?
Would I "maximize" profits by creating great products at a premium price, ensuring fanatical customer loyalty?
Would I "maximize" profits by investing heavily in R&D so that future growth and revenue is possible?
Would I "maximize" profits by investing in my employees, minimizing turnover and producing a highly productive, highly motivated, highly competitive workforce?
And as stated, a company, like, say, Ben & Jerry's can have other values, like having minimal impact and being environmentally friendly. Investors "know" they have those values and that money will go to support them. That's one of the reasons they made the investment.
In short, as the various approaches to "maximize" show, profit is not always the only, or even the highest, consideration.
While moving the pellets to the "pump" is a wash (gasoline has to be transported there as well), it would seem that there's an added inefficiency, in that once used, the pellets need to be returned to the "refinery" to be recharged. If true, that would appear to be a major drawback to the system.
Everyone knows that whoever does it will score big on transaction and service fees, and everyone wants to be that person, but since you need banks, credit cards, sites, payment and processing centers, administration, and software (browser integration), no one person can be that person. And above all, no one wants to cooperate with someone who could end up being that person... instead of them.
There's also the not-so-minor issue of fraud to deal with. As an example, look at how many people game Google's pay-per-click ad system.
Whether I think people should be anonymous or not is not the point. "Anonymous" in speech is one thing. "Anonymous" and breaking the law is another. I'm sure the guy who stole my mom's car a year ago would prefer to remain anonymous. "Known" criminals have a tendency to get caught.
And do a thousand people matter? Sure. But their "rights" need to be balanced against everyone elses. Just as a bad example, I'm sure that there's at least a thousand extremists out there who'd love to firebomb all the abortion clinics, or the White House, or the oil companies, or the **AAs. Don't their wishes matter?
Again, my original point was that those who think they can abuse the anonymous nature of Freenet by turning it into a pirate safe haven are wrong, and will in turn destroy whatever benefits it may have provided to anyone else.
Yeah, corners are great wonderful things, and Apple's top menu bar is great... right up until you start using multiple monitors. Then the corner's start to get VERY far away, and half the time the application menu is on the other monitor.
Additional issues arise with very large (30") monitors like the big cinema display, where again separating an application from its menu doesn't seem to be a wonderful idea. Too much of Apple's UI design research stems from a time in which the entire screen was a single 9" display.
Ah yes, the "if you really like us send us some money" model... which never worked for shareware.
Think about it. I've downloaded quite a few artist's songs from itunes, but I'm probably only a "fan" of three or four, and doubt that there's even one I'd support to the level you suggest where advance recordings or whatnot would seem worth the price.
But as is, I did pay for everyone's music. We simply need more distributors like itunes or magatune where less money goes to the "label", and more to the artist, with a net reduction in distribution fees (and price) as a result. Done correctly and fairly ON BOTH SIDES, there's nothing wrong with paid content and copyright.
From the Freenet information page. "It is for this reason that Freenet, a system designed to protect Freedom of Speech, must prevent enforcement of copyright."
As such, it's extremely vunerable to a Grokster-like decision, especially if it became the warez distribution system of choice, and dispite its other more redeeming features. It, the service and software itself, would become a legal target, and as I said, the easiest way to crack down on it, and its traffic, would be to ban its users upon detection for abuse of terms of service.
And it doesn't matter if some site in China uses it if YOU are disconnected the first time your ISP sees that protocol/traffic pattern cross its routers.
Check. I have a PDA I use as a ebook reader, and the backlit/emissive display is very useful under low light conditions where reading a real book would be almost impossible. In essence, it's a book with a built-in booklight...
Since there are no huge advantages, and in fact significant disadvantages, to an anonymous P2P system over it's non-anonymous breathern, it's nothing more than a legal target to hit, and then a precedent with which to hit the others.
After all, why would 99% of the population need to download a Linux distro anonymously? Why would you use a less efficient system to swap legally available music? They wouldn't and you wouldn't.
Ergo, I'd say that when it's brought to the court, and it will be, they'll say it's primarily designed for illegitimate use. Looking at it from their side, I'd get it and others like it banned, with a simple penalty. Any detected use is cause for a warning. Second use and your internet account will be automatically suspended for 30 days. Third strike and you're out.
If megabytes of data (music, movie downloads) are continually making their way to the IP address granted to you by your ISP, how is it again that you're anonymous? You are, after all, receiving a lot of "something", and doing so from unknown, non-commercial sources, no matter how the data is encrypted, and no matter how many hops it needed to get there.
Translation: People may think they're "anonymous" sitting down in their parents basement. They're not.
Fact: All "anonymous" file-swapping services are going to do is give legitimate P2P systems an even bigger black eye, and provide the industry and congress with the justifications needed to come down with an even bigger hammer.
This sort of crap is NOT helping the situation. Watch and see...
That would be true... if it were true. But if one were to RTFA: "We are growing our work force there and will continue to do so; however, that growth has not and will not replace jobs here in Redmond..."
Slashdot Mirror
Well, of course you only have to save the ones you're going to use. But, then again, not using them is just the same as not having them. So, if you DO plan on using them, then the additional stack frame management applies, the overhead of which in turn still reduces the potential performance gain.
Now, if you'd argued instead that the win from having additional registers that in themselves don't need to be continually reloaded and swapped during a function call washes the stack frame overhead, I might have believed you... *grin*
First, this sort of assumes that software will never be rewritten, that new features will never be added, and the file format never extended. Second, it assumes that every program that can read the file format can render it correctly.
Rewrite the software, and documents that depends on a certain visual rendition of the file format will break, i.e. not look like they used to. HTML and CSS are open "standards" too, but EVERY major browser renders the same file differently.
So why should I assume that, say, WP can properly display and paginate a 300 page Word document, just because it can read the "open" file file? Why should I assume that every program will support every other program's feature set?
Not that it isn't a good idea, but there's definitely more than one barrier to remove...
A typical, "yes, but..." is in play here. Additional registers also mean that you have more saves/loads to do on function entry/exit, as well as during thread and process context switches.
Or not. That's why I loved the brushed aluminum case of the mini. No fingerprints showing, and minor scratches don't show at all. And it's rugged as hell...
"noone" is not a word. No one should be writing it.
--- ALSO VERY IMPORTANT NEWS ---
This is probably the CEO's second cousin, who said he can do the job for a LOT less money than those nasty overpriced consultants were going to charge...
And since you bring up Apple, let's do a little comparison, shall we? Post-bubble, Apple kept their interns and continued to pour dollars into R&D. HP, on the other hand, cut interns, research, and spending to keep their balance sheet looking good, maintained prices, and engaged in a pointless merger.
Now Apple has a major piece of a market with the pod and itunes, a cool OS, and cool software (iLife, Final Cut). HP is tanking and laying off jobs left and right.
Now Mr. Smart Guy, which company has "maximized" profit and shareholder values? Which obvious, straightforward strategy has prevailed?
Amazon spent all their venture money building out infrastructure and on customer aquisition, operating at a loss... and now has the results to show for it.
Toyota kept their reseach into hybrid technology going strong while carmakers in the US were closing plants. Who now has the most sought after car on the planet?
Yes, you have to have faith in your CEO, Chairman, and board, but there are in FACT many approaches one can take to profitability, and the one you choose can depend greatly on your style, market, product, culture, and values. And SMART companies try to keep their customers happy, and look further into the future than the next quarters balance sheet.
But again, we're pointing fingers...
Your curve is correct, but only as far as it goes. I attempted in my response to show that there are many business models in which attempting to extract every penny you can squeeze out of a customer is actually counter-productive, and in fact many corporations "must" do no such thing.
It can be to your advantage to leave money on the table, and chalk it up to marketing and good will. The intention, of course, is to maintain a happy, loyal customer base who'll give you not just additional pennies on your current product, but many more dollars on future products.
Why point fingers at all? We spend WAY too much time finding scapegoats and CYA. Just focus on solving the damn problem.
- Would I "maximize" profits by providing good products at a fair price, enabling a steady and dependable stream of customers?
- Would I "maximize" profits by creating great products at a premium price, ensuring fanatical customer loyalty?
- Would I "maximize" profits by investing heavily in R&D so that future growth and revenue is possible?
- Would I "maximize" profits by investing in my employees, minimizing turnover and producing a highly productive, highly motivated, highly competitive workforce?
And as stated, a company, like, say, Ben & Jerry's can have other values, like having minimal impact and being environmentally friendly. Investors "know" they have those values and that money will go to support them. That's one of the reasons they made the investment.In short, as the various approaches to "maximize" show, profit is not always the only, or even the highest, consideration.
While moving the pellets to the "pump" is a wash (gasoline has to be transported there as well), it would seem that there's an added inefficiency, in that once used, the pellets need to be returned to the "refinery" to be recharged. If true, that would appear to be a major drawback to the system.
And to answer my own question, it seems like an Iron Man is already being forged. Look for a possible 2006-2007 release.
And why not the Silver Surfer?
There's also the not-so-minor issue of fraud to deal with. As an example, look at how many people game Google's pay-per-click ad system.
Sorry, but the cities would rather spend their money on new football stadiums... which can double as refugee camps in times of need!
And do a thousand people matter? Sure. But their "rights" need to be balanced against everyone elses. Just as a bad example, I'm sure that there's at least a thousand extremists out there who'd love to firebomb all the abortion clinics, or the White House, or the oil companies, or the **AAs. Don't their wishes matter?
Again, my original point was that those who think they can abuse the anonymous nature of Freenet by turning it into a pirate safe haven are wrong, and will in turn destroy whatever benefits it may have provided to anyone else.
Additional issues arise with very large (30") monitors like the big cinema display, where again separating an application from its menu doesn't seem to be a wonderful idea. Too much of Apple's UI design research stems from a time in which the entire screen was a single 9" display.
Think about it. I've downloaded quite a few artist's songs from itunes, but I'm probably only a "fan" of three or four, and doubt that there's even one I'd support to the level you suggest where advance recordings or whatnot would seem worth the price.
But as is, I did pay for everyone's music. We simply need more distributors like itunes or magatune where less money goes to the "label", and more to the artist, with a net reduction in distribution fees (and price) as a result. Done correctly and fairly ON BOTH SIDES, there's nothing wrong with paid content and copyright.
As such, it's extremely vunerable to a Grokster-like decision, especially if it became the warez distribution system of choice, and dispite its other more redeeming features. It, the service and software itself, would become a legal target, and as I said, the easiest way to crack down on it, and its traffic, would be to ban its users upon detection for abuse of terms of service.
And it doesn't matter if some site in China uses it if YOU are disconnected the first time your ISP sees that protocol/traffic pattern cross its routers.
Check. I have a PDA I use as a ebook reader, and the backlit/emissive display is very useful under low light conditions where reading a real book would be almost impossible. In essence, it's a book with a built-in booklight...
What are you talking about? We planted 32 of 'em on that plane, and... ah... shit!
After all, why would 99% of the population need to download a Linux distro anonymously? Why would you use a less efficient system to swap legally available music? They wouldn't and you wouldn't.
Ergo, I'd say that when it's brought to the court, and it will be, they'll say it's primarily designed for illegitimate use. Looking at it from their side, I'd get it and others like it banned, with a simple penalty. Any detected use is cause for a warning. Second use and your internet account will be automatically suspended for 30 days. Third strike and you're out.
Translation: People may think they're "anonymous" sitting down in their parents basement. They're not.
Fact: All "anonymous" file-swapping services are going to do is give legitimate P2P systems an even bigger black eye, and provide the industry and congress with the justifications needed to come down with an even bigger hammer.
This sort of crap is NOT helping the situation. Watch and see...
That would be true... if it were true. But if one were to RTFA: "We are growing our work force there and will continue to do so; however, that growth has not and will not replace jobs here in Redmond..."