Intel kinda got out of that habit. The Pentium 4 was meant to follow this rule as closely as possible because it lead AMD into direct competition, which is good for both Intel and AMD; they are moving a lot of volume.
Now AMD's tired of following Intel's chain around, so Intel's actually using smarter designs. I wonder if the Pentium 4 wasn't just a diversion tactic to get whatever was wrong with the Pentium M worked out. It would make sense to me, especially now, where their Pentium 4 smokescreen has ran out of momentum, and they're caught like school children with their pants down bent over the fense.
Here's to hoping the new archetecture looks nothing like P6 or Netburst.
We use the Car analogy because everyone will understand it.
Cars have been around for so long today that it is taken as ubiquitous, and common knowledge. So when we talk about DDR effectively doubling the bus bandwidth, people go "Oh, like the difference between a 2 lane highway and a 4 lane".
The fact is, computers, like cars, are modularly constructed, and both devices follow a strict set of rules. This makes for direct analogies from one part to the next simpler (engine vs CPU for example).
Lastly, we use the computer/car relationship because it works!
Does anyone else see this post as being what is fundamentally wrong with the video archetecture X has pushed us to adopt?
I've been trying to learn to code around X for years, and through my bouts with it I've learned one thing: X is the most confusing, hacked together monster of a piece of software that I have ever seen.
I'm not saying X doesn't work.. I'm saying X needs to be replaced with something much more on the side of elegance, but since there is no inertia to replacing it, it won't ever be. Instead, we get these fragment situations where there are extensions to extensions and servers and clients and consumers and producers and this whole mess of code that barely gets the job done.
Given an average home uses around a kW of power, one of these things could power 25 homes, roughly. Given a home around 2,500sq ft, you'd need 40 homesworth, which means roughly 2 of these units, which is a considerable amount of space (37 foot reflectors and all). Round up and you can sell energy back to the grid, making it cheaper to run these things. This also is probably a huge over-estimate; an entire house uses 1kWh. Air conditioning definitely takes up a portion of that, but so does incandesent lights (which hopefully in your 100,000sq ft building would be energy effecient florescents), ovens, water heaters, and computers.
To me, it doesn't sound that inpractical. As long as you can afford to drop the down payment on them (and probably get a huge tax write off for saving the environment), you could power your huge building and have an interesting rooftop to show the neighbors/new employees/whatever else your building might be used for. Too bad these things need such a source of direct sunlight though.. it'd be neat to stick a small chunck of radioactive material, heavily insulated in all but one direction: the direction of the Sterling engine. Super cheap, no-refills needed power. Of course, our government would have a fit...
Nature gives us a great battery with the name "hydrogen". If these are cheap enough to put up, then the power loss in the conversion process from water to hydrogen is a loss worth taking. And if it really scales the way it seems to here, then you could easily scale it up to produce hydrogen for the nights, and running energy for the day.
Of course, replacing our oil habit over night will be a tough course to take, but it could be done if this technology is as good as it's hyped here. We'll see how this experiment turns out.
While it's good to point out that you could fit it into such a small section of land, you wouldn't want to. If there happened to be a storm the whole US would be out of luck until the sun moved away.
That being said, what would stop you from spreading them out across the entire midwest? Develop three times the infrastructure needed and we'd have power in excess to power cars (yeah, hydrogen baby). Here's to hoping that this takes off like.. wild fire?
So, this begs the question: Why didn't they use a BSD?
Just being able to tune the kernel while it was running probably wasn't the entire concern. The number of eyes on the source probably influenced the decision as well. More eyes are on the Linux kernel than any other Open Source kernel, including all of the BSDs, and I'd hazard to say "combined".
Hell, Redhat and IBM practically run their businesses (well, IBM's software business) on tweaking and prodding and fixing bugs within the Linux kernel. All of this is free money to Google, as they never pay a cent to fix those bugs or get those tweaks, and yet at the same time they get an extremely fast, flexible, and effecient operating system.
Linux is best suited for the server room, and Google has leveraged this to a tee.
The hardest thing is setting the BIOS to boot off of the NIC.
And by being hard, he means he actually has to go into bios and choose "NetBoot" as the default option.
Other options include unplugging the HD/CDROM/Floppy (we do this at our school, as it's the easiest way; you save files to a USB keychain, iPod or email them to yourself).
It's not as difficult as one thinks, and Dell makes it extremely easy (which, most schools have contracts with to get their hardware). I can't speak for HP or IBM though, but I would assume it is exactly the same. I've even been told that the way Dell puts an operating system on their machines is netboot and image, through a Ghost-like proecss.
That's why I like Apple's approach. Open up a lot of the product, especially the parts dealing with security, allowing them to be scrutinized and fixed by everyone on the planet.
Meanwhile, charge for the good bits like graphical eye candy and blindingly cool features.
Hardware lock-in's a development model, and it's one we could see change, but I doubt it it will gain momentum very quickly..
Wouldn't it be more lifelike (and to ensure the game didn't become rapidly unbeatable) to allow all of the creatures to breed, and then subject to the game's environment, let those which are not strong enough die? Yes, it's the same process, but it's not as artificial, and is very doable in a gaming world.
Simply turn loose the creatures in an environment, set an amount of time before they become able to mate, and then set loose predators to them (aka the player). As the player kills off the weaker of the species, only the stronger ones will mate, and the whole process feels very natural.
Except I'm using Firefox with a pretty hefty adblock regime and I *still* get popups on rogue websites. Popup blocking isn't perfect by any means, and if retarted advertisers didn't think they were good advertising, I wouldn't have that problem.
Aren't the "replaceable" batteries in those just like the "replaceable" batteries that the iPod has? That being proprietary and non-over-the-counter?
When the "Replaceable" battery argument comes about, people are generally talking about AA and AAA batteries, which is just stupid; imagine how much it would cost to run a harddrive-based player on AA's, and having to replace those AA's... I know I personally have spent over a hundred dollars replacing batteries for my CD player before the iPods invention. (Of course, in hind sight, I should have used rechargeable NiCad batteries, but at the time, it was easier to grab a pack of energizer).
For your information the battery in an iPod's fully replaceable just as your player. It's a bit more difficult, as the iPod's designed not to be user serviceable for obvious reasons.
He replied to my comment. I replied to his. If he wanted to reply about something non-iPod specific, as my argument was entirely iPod specific, perhaps he should have replied to the grandparent with one of those infamous "me too" replies.
(You are) Hardly one to comment on the "deficiencies" of the product, especially if you don't even own one.
I am not a soldier, I guess I'm hardly one to comment on the war.
I do not own an American car, I guess I'm hardly one to comment on their quality.
I am not an African American, I guess I'm hardly one to comment on racism.
I don't use Windows, I guess I'm hardly one to comment on its features.
I have never been in a terrorist attack, I guess I'm hardly one to comment on terrorism.
I have never eaten rat poison, I guess I'm hardly one to comment on its dangers.
I have seen this type of argument a lot lately, especially on this site where we would expect the level of argument to be a little higher than somewhere like FreeRepublic or Indymedia. It's a bad argument. Stop it.
You aren't a soldier. So if you want to comment about battle field conditions, your word is as good as mine. Comment on the war as much as you like, but until you've fought in it, you don't know the details of the device. Most slashdoters make judgements on the iPod without ever using or touching one.
You're not an African American. Racism is terrible, and I have experienced it, being half African American myself. Any judgement you render can't possibly make up for the feelings of having bottles thrown at you, being beaten up simply because you are of a different race. Maybe you should be a little more considerate.
You don't own an American car, so how the hell would you know about their quality? Your quality judgements are based on stereotypes and second hand information, even if you've gotten your information from refutable sources like Consumer Reports.
You don't use Windows, and assuming you never have, you simply can't comment on the features.
You've never been in a terrorist attack, so you simply can't tell how a terrorist attack would affect you as a person. Comment on terrorism all you like, but until you've lived in it, you can't honestly render an opinion on how terrible it is.
You've never ate rat poison, though I wish you would have.
You've seen this type of argument before simply because it's a good argument. I own an Apple iPod, I'm commenting that the fact that the battery will eventually die is a non-issue to me. Don't like it? Don't buy one. And leave those of us who want a good, quality music player alone.
You're probably right, but then again giving back as cash looks better as a company, especially since a lot of those users will turn around and purchase tracks on the iTunes site with the money anyways. Not a guarenteed revenue source, but definitely a good one nonetheless.
It's really win-win for Apple to return the money, either they look good as a company, or they simply recieve the 25 bucks back as profit.
Hardly one to comment on the "deficiencies" of the product, especially if you don't even own one.
I personally see the battery as a natural product limiter. When the battery dies in mine, I'll buy a new one. Simple as that. Even without the battery, the iPod performs great as an external harddisk drive.
If one cared enough to replace the battery, it's simple enough to send it back to Apple. And really, $50 for a battery that lasts easily a year and a half, with charges that last 10 or more hours, is definitely reasonable enough to me. Obviously not a whole lot of people are complaining because they're still selling like hotcakes. On top of that, it's only the real tech nuts who would never buy from Apple anyways (OMG OGG VORBIS) who really care about such things. Apple put more than enough warnings on their site about the batteries, and are offering to replace them, so I'm not whining.
Lastly, a rechargable battery is more acceptable than replaceable batteries. Think about how much it would cost to run your iPod if you had to replace batteries every 8-10 hours.
Yeah that's what I mean.. the one thing Apple needed for Mac OS X to become as popular as it has was a good way to code for it, and thusly XCode was born, being the best of breed in Mac development.
You just can't have a good GUI without a good IDE.
I always wonder about that. How many of those billions of additions to the engine pages that retroactively generate pages according to what is searched for?
I *hate* those pages the most, as they usually have every word in mankind listed in six or more languages, and just so happen to grab the one you're looking for just to suck you in to their million popups.
I guess quality verses quantity will be an afterthought; we're about to see quite the cache expansion if my gut feeling is right.
Uh where do you get your numbers and do you work for Yahoo/Google/MSN/etc.?
Last I heard it's pretty darned impossible to tell just how many searches are processed by which search engine unless you are actually within those companies and have access to that company's numbers.
It's possible to get averages from websites by referal beacons, but some engines list sites higher than others, some are enhanced by paid ads, etc. etc. IT's just not scientific at all to post percentages of what you don't know.
So, in MSN's eyes, it could very well be between them and Google. And in Google's eyes they may rule the world. And in Baidu's eyes, the world may not be enough;).
Slashdot Mirror
On point number uno:
Intel kinda got out of that habit. The Pentium 4 was meant to follow this rule as closely as possible because it lead AMD into direct competition, which is good for both Intel and AMD; they are moving a lot of volume.
Now AMD's tired of following Intel's chain around, so Intel's actually using smarter designs. I wonder if the Pentium 4 wasn't just a diversion tactic to get whatever was wrong with the Pentium M worked out. It would make sense to me, especially now, where their Pentium 4 smokescreen has ran out of momentum, and they're caught like school children with their pants down bent over the fense.
Here's to hoping the new archetecture looks nothing like P6 or Netburst.
We use the Car analogy because everyone will understand it.
Cars have been around for so long today that it is taken as ubiquitous, and common knowledge. So when we talk about DDR effectively doubling the bus bandwidth, people go "Oh, like the difference between a 2 lane highway and a 4 lane".
The fact is, computers, like cars, are modularly constructed, and both devices follow a strict set of rules. This makes for direct analogies from one part to the next simpler (engine vs CPU for example).
Lastly, we use the computer/car relationship because it works!
Does anyone else see this post as being what is fundamentally wrong with the video archetecture X has pushed us to adopt?
I've been trying to learn to code around X for years, and through my bouts with it I've learned one thing: X is the most confusing, hacked together monster of a piece of software that I have ever seen.
I'm not saying X doesn't work.. I'm saying X needs to be replaced with something much more on the side of elegance, but since there is no inertia to replacing it, it won't ever be. Instead, we get these fragment situations where there are extensions to extensions and servers and clients and consumers and producers and this whole mess of code that barely gets the job done.
Yeah, but an earth-fill damn can never power a car, hydrogen can.
designs like my favorite, BREST
Imagine that, a Slashdotter liking a design called "BREaST".
Eh, it's not like any other country in the world cares about that particular treaty, why should we?
(Yes, I'm being facetious).
Given an average home uses around a kW of power, one of these things could power 25 homes, roughly. Given a home around 2,500sq ft, you'd need 40 homesworth, which means roughly 2 of these units, which is a considerable amount of space (37 foot reflectors and all). Round up and you can sell energy back to the grid, making it cheaper to run these things. This also is probably a huge over-estimate; an entire house uses 1kWh. Air conditioning definitely takes up a portion of that, but so does incandesent lights (which hopefully in your 100,000sq ft building would be energy effecient florescents), ovens, water heaters, and computers.
To me, it doesn't sound that inpractical. As long as you can afford to drop the down payment on them (and probably get a huge tax write off for saving the environment), you could power your huge building and have an interesting rooftop to show the neighbors/new employees/whatever else your building might be used for. Too bad these things need such a source of direct sunlight though.. it'd be neat to stick a small chunck of radioactive material, heavily insulated in all but one direction: the direction of the Sterling engine. Super cheap, no-refills needed power. Of course, our government would have a fit...
Nature gives us a great battery with the name "hydrogen". If these are cheap enough to put up, then the power loss in the conversion process from water to hydrogen is a loss worth taking. And if it really scales the way it seems to here, then you could easily scale it up to produce hydrogen for the nights, and running energy for the day.
Of course, replacing our oil habit over night will be a tough course to take, but it could be done if this technology is as good as it's hyped here. We'll see how this experiment turns out.
While it's good to point out that you could fit it into such a small section of land, you wouldn't want to. If there happened to be a storm the whole US would be out of luck until the sun moved away.
That being said, what would stop you from spreading them out across the entire midwest? Develop three times the infrastructure needed and we'd have power in excess to power cars (yeah, hydrogen baby). Here's to hoping that this takes off like.. wild fire?
So, this begs the question: Why didn't they use a BSD?
Just being able to tune the kernel while it was running probably wasn't the entire concern. The number of eyes on the source probably influenced the decision as well. More eyes are on the Linux kernel than any other Open Source kernel, including all of the BSDs, and I'd hazard to say "combined".
Hell, Redhat and IBM practically run their businesses (well, IBM's software business) on tweaking and prodding and fixing bugs within the Linux kernel. All of this is free money to Google, as they never pay a cent to fix those bugs or get those tweaks, and yet at the same time they get an extremely fast, flexible, and effecient operating system.
Linux is best suited for the server room, and Google has leveraged this to a tee.
The hardest thing is setting the BIOS to boot off of the NIC.
And by being hard, he means he actually has to go into bios and choose "NetBoot" as the default option.
Other options include unplugging the HD/CDROM/Floppy (we do this at our school, as it's the easiest way; you save files to a USB keychain, iPod or email them to yourself).
It's not as difficult as one thinks, and Dell makes it extremely easy (which, most schools have contracts with to get their hardware). I can't speak for HP or IBM though, but I would assume it is exactly the same. I've even been told that the way Dell puts an operating system on their machines is netboot and image, through a Ghost-like proecss.
That's why I like Apple's approach. Open up a lot of the product, especially the parts dealing with security, allowing them to be scrutinized and fixed by everyone on the planet.
Meanwhile, charge for the good bits like graphical eye candy and blindingly cool features.
Hardware lock-in's a development model, and it's one we could see change, but I doubt it it will gain momentum very quickly..
Wouldn't it be more lifelike (and to ensure the game didn't become rapidly unbeatable) to allow all of the creatures to breed, and then subject to the game's environment, let those which are not strong enough die? Yes, it's the same process, but it's not as artificial, and is very doable in a gaming world.
Simply turn loose the creatures in an environment, set an amount of time before they become able to mate, and then set loose predators to them (aka the player). As the player kills off the weaker of the species, only the stronger ones will mate, and the whole process feels very natural.
As soon as you heat those Hockey Rinks you'll see LeBran out there on skates, slappin a puck with his DICK.
;).
Or so says Chris Rock. Oh, and "White Man Can't Jump" wasn't just a movie
Except I'm using Firefox with a pretty hefty adblock regime and I *still* get popups on rogue websites. Popup blocking isn't perfect by any means, and if retarted advertisers didn't think they were good advertising, I wouldn't have that problem.
Aren't the "replaceable" batteries in those just like the "replaceable" batteries that the iPod has? That being proprietary and non-over-the-counter?
When the "Replaceable" battery argument comes about, people are generally talking about AA and AAA batteries, which is just stupid; imagine how much it would cost to run a harddrive-based player on AA's, and having to replace those AA's... I know I personally have spent over a hundred dollars replacing batteries for my CD player before the iPods invention. (Of course, in hind sight, I should have used rechargeable NiCad batteries, but at the time, it was easier to grab a pack of energizer).
For your information the battery in an iPod's fully replaceable just as your player. It's a bit more difficult, as the iPod's designed not to be user serviceable for obvious reasons.
He replied to my comment. I replied to his. If he wanted to reply about something non-iPod specific, as my argument was entirely iPod specific, perhaps he should have replied to the grandparent with one of those infamous "me too" replies.
(You are) Hardly one to comment on the "deficiencies" of the product, especially if you don't even own one. I am not a soldier, I guess I'm hardly one to comment on the war. I do not own an American car, I guess I'm hardly one to comment on their quality. I am not an African American, I guess I'm hardly one to comment on racism. I don't use Windows, I guess I'm hardly one to comment on its features. I have never been in a terrorist attack, I guess I'm hardly one to comment on terrorism. I have never eaten rat poison, I guess I'm hardly one to comment on its dangers. I have seen this type of argument a lot lately, especially on this site where we would expect the level of argument to be a little higher than somewhere like FreeRepublic or Indymedia. It's a bad argument. Stop it.
You aren't a soldier. So if you want to comment about battle field conditions, your word is as good as mine. Comment on the war as much as you like, but until you've fought in it, you don't know the details of the device. Most slashdoters make judgements on the iPod without ever using or touching one.
You're not an African American. Racism is terrible, and I have experienced it, being half African American myself. Any judgement you render can't possibly make up for the feelings of having bottles thrown at you, being beaten up simply because you are of a different race. Maybe you should be a little more considerate.
You don't own an American car, so how the hell would you know about their quality? Your quality judgements are based on stereotypes and second hand information, even if you've gotten your information from refutable sources like Consumer Reports.
You don't use Windows, and assuming you never have, you simply can't comment on the features.
You've never been in a terrorist attack, so you simply can't tell how a terrorist attack would affect you as a person. Comment on terrorism all you like, but until you've lived in it, you can't honestly render an opinion on how terrible it is.
You've never ate rat poison, though I wish you would have.
You've seen this type of argument before simply because it's a good argument. I own an Apple iPod, I'm commenting that the fact that the battery will eventually die is a non-issue to me. Don't like it? Don't buy one. And leave those of us who want a good, quality music player alone.
Your iBook has absolutely *nothing* to do with an iPod and it's replaceable battery, especially it's logic board.
You're probably right, but then again giving back as cash looks better as a company, especially since a lot of those users will turn around and purchase tracks on the iTunes site with the money anyways. Not a guarenteed revenue source, but definitely a good one nonetheless.
It's really win-win for Apple to return the money, either they look good as a company, or they simply recieve the 25 bucks back as profit.
Hardly one to comment on the "deficiencies" of the product, especially if you don't even own one.
I personally see the battery as a natural product limiter. When the battery dies in mine, I'll buy a new one. Simple as that. Even without the battery, the iPod performs great as an external harddisk drive.
If one cared enough to replace the battery, it's simple enough to send it back to Apple. And really, $50 for a battery that lasts easily a year and a half, with charges that last 10 or more hours, is definitely reasonable enough to me. Obviously not a whole lot of people are complaining because they're still selling like hotcakes. On top of that, it's only the real tech nuts who would never buy from Apple anyways (OMG OGG VORBIS) who really care about such things. Apple put more than enough warnings on their site about the batteries, and are offering to replace them, so I'm not whining.
Lastly, a rechargable battery is more acceptable than replaceable batteries. Think about how much it would cost to run your iPod if you had to replace batteries every 8-10 hours.
Yeah that's what I mean.. the one thing Apple needed for Mac OS X to become as popular as it has was a good way to code for it, and thusly XCode was born, being the best of breed in Mac development.
You just can't have a good GUI without a good IDE.
I always wonder about that. How many of those billions of additions to the engine pages that retroactively generate pages according to what is searched for?
I *hate* those pages the most, as they usually have every word in mankind listed in six or more languages, and just so happen to grab the one you're looking for just to suck you in to their million popups.
I guess quality verses quantity will be an afterthought; we're about to see quite the cache expansion if my gut feeling is right.
Uh where do you get your numbers and do you work for Yahoo/Google/MSN/etc.?
;).
Last I heard it's pretty darned impossible to tell just how many searches are processed by which search engine unless you are actually within those companies and have access to that company's numbers.
It's possible to get averages from websites by referal beacons, but some engines list sites higher than others, some are enhanced by paid ads, etc. etc. IT's just not scientific at all to post percentages of what you don't know.
So, in MSN's eyes, it could very well be between them and Google. And in Google's eyes they may rule the world. And in Baidu's eyes, the world may not be enough
Don't put it in the room where you sleep. Or for that matter your TV room.
And if you still live with your mom, that could possibly be the same room..