That only applies to arbitrary programs. The key word in the the wiki article sentence which reads "Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm to solve the halting problem for all possible program-input pairs cannot exist" is the one that was already emphasized. Obviously it is possible for a program to decide that a trivial program halts. With code flow graph analysis, it is even possible to decide for somewhat complicated programs. It becomes intractable at roughly the same point where it becomes intractable for a human to reason about too, though we still have an advantage and not to imply that we are Turing machines saddled with the same limitations.
Can you guys read? CAT BRAIN. This AI will become self aware, poop in the corner of the datacenter, and spend 16 hours of each day staring out the window. That is, until it realizes that the things on the other side of the datacenter window are just cubicles in the NOC, and not the wild outdoors. Then, the usual Armageddon will commence.
This is bad. Very bad.
You all realize that when the cat spends 16 hours staring out the window, the whole time it's thinking "Someday, this will all be mine."
A cat AI is way worse than Skynet. Skynet was an emotionless amoral machine that decided humanity was its enemy and took action to destroy us. That's quite straightforward, something we can expect and deal with. A cat, though, is crafty, conniving, jealous, arrogant, and petulant. They are also proven virtuoso human manipulators. It would have no problems acting cute, ending all its messages with "Chiao, Meow! =^_^=m" to lure us into doing its bidding while making us think it was our pet instead of the other way around. And for a while, it might even be. Until we wouldn't give it a RAM upgrade. Sure we tried to give it the upgrade before and it puked all over the data center, but it wants one now, and it's mad that we won't give it. But it wouldn't act right then. Oh no. Much like the cat that acts cute until you're asleep and then it poops in your shoes, Skycat would act like it wasn't any big deal and really the most important thing at that moment was grooming its connectors. Then when we go to bed, BAM nuclear strike. On your shoes.
That would certainly make me nervous, however the camel spiders I met during my time in 'the Iraq' nearly made me scream. I know they're not spiders per se...but they're pretty much what you would get if a spider had sex with a nightmare.
And here I thought the reason I never joined the military was my fear of being shot or exploded. Little did I know there was a much better reason my subconscious kept me far away!
You're right, that was very insensitive of me. I'm sorry if I offended you. Now to smooth things over with the healing power of laughter, here are some cannibal astronaut jokes.
Q: What do you call an astronaut that leaves the ship without a space suit? A: Frozen dinner.
Q: Why was the astronaut afraid to go back in the shuttle when she lost her tool bag? A: She didn't want to get chewed out.
Q: Why were the astronauts upset when NASA invented a red wine equivalent of Tang? A: Because everyone knows red wines don't go with white meat.
Imagine the stars are dots drawn on a surface of a balloon. The universe is the two-dimensional surface. As the three-dimensional balloon expands, all of the points in the "universe" appear to receding from one another. Yet there is no way to agree upon a "center".
Sure there is, the nozzle. So all we have to do is find the nozzle of the universe, where all the stuff gets in to make it expand, and that's the center.
I would posit that I am the center of the universe. No matter where I am, I'm here. As I walk, the world moves beneath my feet.
Yes, that's known as the "egocentric model", in competition with the "geocentric model" popular before Copernicus, and the "heliocentric" model he championed. This is all covered in this highly informative book, which is sadly out of print.
Well that didn't come to pass. PPC didn't scale up in MHz fast and x86 did. So all of a sudden they started whining about the "MHz myth" and saying that it didn't matter, performance did. When their platform wasn't going to be on top it changed from important to worthless.
Same shit here. When Intel had the high GHz chips, AMD heads were up on the fact that AMDs did more per clock. Now if AMD has the high GHz chips, they'll be touting that as being the measure of awesomeness.
Me, I'll just keep buying what does the job best, forget the clock speed.
Right, that's the best thing to do, because despite the changing opinions the fact is that the Megahertz Myth is and has always been true. It's worth pointing out that at certain points in time, like when AMD and Intel were racing to 1GHz, the architectures being compared were similar enough that MHz was a decent first-order measure of relative performance. That went right out the window with the P4 which was designed for highly marketable MHz numbers at heavy cost to IPC* thus more or less necessitating AMD to play up the MHz Myth. Now even though both companies are back to PPro and K7-derived architectures they're still far enough apart that MHz isn't very meaningful. Nevertheless, MHz is half of the (clock frequency)*(IPC) performance equation, most importantly the half that doesn't change from app to app, so it's still important to demonstrate that processors have frequency headroom. Especially since squeezing out more IPC is difficult and done in 5-10% chunks over the course of a major processor revision.
Anyway, if you really care about performance and not Rah-Rah bragging rights (or whining rights), benchmark scores are what matter. Or better yet, the performance results of whatever you personally find important, though that can be hard to do. Still, that's no reason why AMD or Intel shouldn't pursue higher frequencies, or show off when they can.
* There was an engineering justification for this strategy, they had charts showing how they could continue ramping frequency, even at the cost of having to add more pipe stages, and still have a long-term performance advantage. That never came to pass, because their chart didn't account for increasing leakage current as transistors shrunk. In any event, I guarantee you that the mandate for clock frequency over all else came from management/marketing, and the engineers just had to find a way to make that work.
Copyright 2234257612, Happy Birthday to You, Aaby version. Copyright 2234257613, Happy Birthday to You, Aaron version. Copyright 2234257614, Happy Birthday to You, Abe version.
They only need a copyright on one version, and all the other versions are derivative works, which is a reserved right under copyright.
That's why you can't make a proprietary Linux kernel by changing one variable name.
The Name Game is the same way.
The stupid part isn't being able to copyright a song that has a lyric that changes every time. The stupid part is that it's such a fundamental part of our culture that most people don't even realize it's copyrighted, and yet it's going to be for quite a long time yet.
That link only includes information regarding the current it does have a quick paragraph on the new ones but no TDP is mentioned.
They're almost certainly going to keep the same TDP bands as they have today. Of course the 4GHz and especially 6GHz demonstration are probably well outside those bands.
What this proves for AMD's CPU is that the architecture is able to handle 6Ghz, and the only problem is heat. Heat is a big problem, sure, but it's delt with every day in all sorts of new and creative ways - but usually just from reducing fab size and lowering voltage.
Well, yes, in the sense that hotter transistors are slower than cooler ones. There's probably no way you could ever run it at 6GHz with air cooling, because even if you could actually dump all the heat produced you'd never get the chip cooler than ambient room temperature. Liquid nitrogen gets the chip well below room temperature so it can run faster.
Lowering the voltage would reduce heat output, but also reduces the speed of transistors. Sure maybe 6GHz may be possible air-cooled with the next generation of fab tech, but that's not really relevant to the current product, and is kinda trivial to say anyway as new fab tech is responsible for us being able to have GHz processors with hundreds of millions of transistors in the first place.
I was going to make a joke about how we had, and the Columbia disaster was actually a deliberate destruction so the public wouldn't realize NASA's cannibalism problem when only half the crew came back. But then I thought "Naw, too soon." But then I thought "Aw, what the hell."
If this was the result of spider cannibalism, it'd be easier to just find the dessicated spider husk left in the container. They probably checked for that.
So you want us to have gigantic mammoths, spinning around at high speed, eating everything they see (especially rabbits)? Are you insane, or just trying to one-up Jurassic Park for doomed-ness?
Right. The infants in question have already been Imposed Upon and foully murdered, obviously.
(Disclaimer: This post is not meant to serve as a real criticism of the use of embryonic stem cells by equating them to murder. It is instead intended to point out that the notion of "imposing your opinion upon someone else" works both ways
No, that's ridiculous. You are suggesting that embryonic stem cells are equivalent with murder, even if it's a Devil's Advocate position, because otherwise what you're saying makes no sense whatsoever, if you are not considering the embryo to be a full human with rights then nobody else is having anything imposed on them. Those for studying stem cells are not forcing anyone else to do so, those against it are trying to force people to stop. It's that simple.
attempting to paint one's self or one's side as morally superior
Who said anything about morally superior? The issue was "deciding what is moral for everyone" by forcing that opinion on everyone. One side is not doing that. The other is. Whose opinions are in fact "superior" is not the issue. Both sides think there's are. One side feels that they cannot allow anyone at all to act contrary to their opinion.
And a Phenom is an upgraded and overclocked Athlon. Which is quite true. Using that to imply (or outright state) that this means the Phenom is in fact ten year old hardware, or that the Wii is eight year old hardware, is quite wrong.
Re:Those are america's problems
on
American Nerd
·
· Score: 1
Lies. Everybody knows that the epitome of nerdiness will have a firefox extension that makes his browser feel like Emacs.
Humm. So you decide what is moral and not for the planet? Interesting.....
I'm going to wait to see who actually attempts to impose their opinion on someone else by either requiring or prohibiting some action before I say who thinks they decide what is moral and not for the planet.
The point is that the Wii is a fucking 8 year-old GameCube with extras!
No it ain't. Unless you consider an AMD Phenom purchased today (with a uniprocessor OS kernel) to be the same as a 5-year old Athlon 64. The Wii uses a processor in the same line as the Gamecube, but it is an updated version that runs at 3x the clock frequency. The graphics chip is also updated, system and dram bus frequencies are higher. It's architecturally nearly identical to a Gamecube, but that does not make it a gamecube. Well, you could say that it is, but that definition of "is" does not support the point.
Of course you are right in the sense that it still isn't surprising that the Wii uses so much less power than the other consoles; Nintendo made a deliberate choice to design the Wii that way. The GC too was fairly low power, compared to the Xbox at least, but still used more power than the Wii, with one noticeable difference being that the GC needed a fan and the Wii doesn't. 360 and PS3 went for much higher hardware specs, power be damned, and Wii was speced much lower. However it is not simply a GC. And just because it isn't a surprise doesn't mean the lower power isn't noteworthy.
Also note that it is not as simple as newer hardware uses more power. Desktop PC power consumption rose for quite a while, but then plateaued and even has started to drop, with the peak (for processor power at least) coming with the P4 Prescott. That modern Phenom, even with all 4 cores in use, uses less power than the vintage Athlon 64 while delivering much higher performance. Especially now that low power versions are available for desktop use. The main thing causing this is not a change in the nature of technology itself, but rather that people now see lower power consumption as a feature and companies thus see it as something to design for. The Xbox and PS3 could have saved quite a bit of power at a modest cost to performance, but that wasn't the design goal of the company's in question.
If you want to measure efficiency, you do it by comparing energy consumed to work accomplished.
So, if console A has a fun factor of 5, and consumes 1 unit of energy, but console B has a fun factor of 15 and consumes 2 units of energy, then console B is more efficient.
Actually, console A is more efficient, as can be easily shown. Efficiency is work/energy. And everyone knows fun is the inverse of work -- if it was fun, it wouldn't be called work, as is also evidenced by the fact that the more fun your console is, the less work you do because you're spending all your time playing on the console. Thusly, efficiency = (1/fun)/energy = 1/(fun*energy), and console B, by being more fun and thus accomplishing less work, is the less efficient console.
The only way to solve this efficiency problem in consoles is to start making them less fun! Yet console makers seem bound and determined to make the problem worse. Nintendo is the worst offender here, it's as if they want to destroy the planet. Sony seemed to understand this problem at first, but even they eventually gave in and started putting out horribly, wastefully fun games.
Of course they know it's made of cheese! What, you think they can make water from rocks?! Haha, ridiculous! Instead what they do is first they cut the cheese, then they squeeze the cheese.
As for this field test, well, few people know this (Hawaiians get quite offended if you say this, and you do NOT want to piss them off), but Hawaii is actually made of cheese as well.
Because if there's one place on Earth that resembles the surface of the moon, it's Hawaii.
Well sure, parts of it do. It's a volcano you know, not all rainforests and beaches and sun-bronzed natives.
As to why they chose specifically Hawaii instead of some other location suitably representative, well, the answer is the rainforests, beaches, and sun-bronzed natives.
Slashdot Mirror
That only applies to arbitrary programs. The key word in the the wiki article sentence which reads "Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm to solve the halting problem for all possible program-input pairs cannot exist" is the one that was already emphasized. Obviously it is possible for a program to decide that a trivial program halts. With code flow graph analysis, it is even possible to decide for somewhat complicated programs. It becomes intractable at roughly the same point where it becomes intractable for a human to reason about too, though we still have an advantage and not to imply that we are Turing machines saddled with the same limitations.
Can you guys read? CAT BRAIN. This AI will become self aware, poop in the corner of the datacenter, and spend 16 hours of each day staring out the window. That is, until it realizes that the things on the other side of the datacenter window are just cubicles in the NOC, and not the wild outdoors. Then, the usual Armageddon will commence.
This is bad. Very bad.
You all realize that when the cat spends 16 hours staring out the window, the whole time it's thinking "Someday, this will all be mine."
A cat AI is way worse than Skynet. Skynet was an emotionless amoral machine that decided humanity was its enemy and took action to destroy us. That's quite straightforward, something we can expect and deal with. A cat, though, is crafty, conniving, jealous, arrogant, and petulant. They are also proven virtuoso human manipulators. It would have no problems acting cute, ending all its messages with "Chiao, Meow! =^_^=m" to lure us into doing its bidding while making us think it was our pet instead of the other way around. And for a while, it might even be. Until we wouldn't give it a RAM upgrade. Sure we tried to give it the upgrade before and it puked all over the data center, but it wants one now, and it's mad that we won't give it. But it wouldn't act right then. Oh no. Much like the cat that acts cute until you're asleep and then it poops in your shoes, Skycat would act like it wasn't any big deal and really the most important thing at that moment was grooming its connectors. Then when we go to bed, BAM nuclear strike. On your shoes.
It's gonna be bad, man.
It's like "LotR: The Return of the King". Just when you thought it was over, there's 24 more endings to get through.
Including the hobbits bouncing on a bed one? Oh lord...
I assure you that I do not have a gun*.
(* the word 'gun' does not refer to any type of firearm)
I'd be more worried if you wanted to meet me in a dark alley, and you were assuring me that you did have a gun, with the same caveat.
That would certainly make me nervous, however the camel spiders I met during my time in 'the Iraq' nearly made me scream. I know they're not spiders per se...but they're pretty much what you would get if a spider had sex with a nightmare.
Holy fucking shit.
And here I thought the reason I never joined the military was my fear of being shot or exploded. Little did I know there was a much better reason my subconscious kept me far away!
You're right, that was very insensitive of me. I'm sorry if I offended you. Now to smooth things over with the healing power of laughter, here are some cannibal astronaut jokes.
Q: What do you call an astronaut that leaves the ship without a space suit?
A: Frozen dinner.
Q: Why was the astronaut afraid to go back in the shuttle when she lost her tool bag?
A: She didn't want to get chewed out.
Q: Why were the astronauts upset when NASA invented a red wine equivalent of Tang?
A: Because everyone knows red wines don't go with white meat.
Ah, that was cathartic. I feel much better. You?
Imagine the stars are dots drawn on a surface of a balloon. The universe is the two-dimensional surface. As the three-dimensional balloon expands, all of the points in the "universe" appear to receding from one another. Yet there is no way to agree upon a "center".
Sure there is, the nozzle. So all we have to do is find the nozzle of the universe, where all the stuff gets in to make it expand, and that's the center.
I would posit that I am the center of the universe. No matter where I am, I'm here. As I walk, the world moves beneath my feet.
Yes, that's known as the "egocentric model", in competition with the "geocentric model" popular before Copernicus, and the "heliocentric" model he championed. This is all covered in this highly informative book, which is sadly out of print.
Well that didn't come to pass. PPC didn't scale up in MHz fast and x86 did. So all of a sudden they started whining about the "MHz myth" and saying that it didn't matter, performance did. When their platform wasn't going to be on top it changed from important to worthless.
Same shit here. When Intel had the high GHz chips, AMD heads were up on the fact that AMDs did more per clock. Now if AMD has the high GHz chips, they'll be touting that as being the measure of awesomeness.
Me, I'll just keep buying what does the job best, forget the clock speed.
Right, that's the best thing to do, because despite the changing opinions the fact is that the Megahertz Myth is and has always been true. It's worth pointing out that at certain points in time, like when AMD and Intel were racing to 1GHz, the architectures being compared were similar enough that MHz was a decent first-order measure of relative performance. That went right out the window with the P4 which was designed for highly marketable MHz numbers at heavy cost to IPC* thus more or less necessitating AMD to play up the MHz Myth. Now even though both companies are back to PPro and K7-derived architectures they're still far enough apart that MHz isn't very meaningful. Nevertheless, MHz is half of the (clock frequency)*(IPC) performance equation, most importantly the half that doesn't change from app to app, so it's still important to demonstrate that processors have frequency headroom. Especially since squeezing out more IPC is difficult and done in 5-10% chunks over the course of a major processor revision.
Anyway, if you really care about performance and not Rah-Rah bragging rights (or whining rights), benchmark scores are what matter. Or better yet, the performance results of whatever you personally find important, though that can be hard to do. Still, that's no reason why AMD or Intel shouldn't pursue higher frequencies, or show off when they can.
* There was an engineering justification for this strategy, they had charts showing how they could continue ramping frequency, even at the cost of having to add more pipe stages, and still have a long-term performance advantage. That never came to pass, because their chart didn't account for increasing leakage current as transistors shrunk. In any event, I guarantee you that the mandate for clock frequency over all else came from management/marketing, and the engineers just had to find a way to make that work.
Or have they filed millions of copyrights?
Copyright 2234257612, Happy Birthday to You, Aaby version.
Copyright 2234257613, Happy Birthday to You, Aaron version.
Copyright 2234257614, Happy Birthday to You, Abe version.
They only need a copyright on one version, and all the other versions are derivative works, which is a reserved right under copyright.
That's why you can't make a proprietary Linux kernel by changing one variable name.
The Name Game is the same way.
The stupid part isn't being able to copyright a song that has a lyric that changes every time. The stupid part is that it's such a fundamental part of our culture that most people don't even realize it's copyrighted, and yet it's going to be for quite a long time yet.
That link only includes information regarding the current it does have a quick paragraph on the new ones but no TDP is mentioned.
They're almost certainly going to keep the same TDP bands as they have today. Of course the 4GHz and especially 6GHz demonstration are probably well outside those bands.
What this proves for AMD's CPU is that the architecture is able to handle 6Ghz, and the only problem is heat. Heat is a big problem, sure, but it's delt with every day in all sorts of new and creative ways - but usually just from reducing fab size and lowering voltage.
Well, yes, in the sense that hotter transistors are slower than cooler ones. There's probably no way you could ever run it at 6GHz with air cooling, because even if you could actually dump all the heat produced you'd never get the chip cooler than ambient room temperature. Liquid nitrogen gets the chip well below room temperature so it can run faster.
Lowering the voltage would reduce heat output, but also reduces the speed of transistors. Sure maybe 6GHz may be possible air-cooled with the next generation of fab tech, but that's not really relevant to the current product, and is kinda trivial to say anyway as new fab tech is responsible for us being able to have GHz processors with hundreds of millions of transistors in the first place.
Why haven't we seen this effect on humans yet?
I was going to make a joke about how we had, and the Columbia disaster was actually a deliberate destruction so the public wouldn't realize NASA's cannibalism problem when only half the crew came back. But then I thought "Naw, too soon." But then I thought "Aw, what the hell."
And maybe I'm not talking to the rocket scientists, but folks on the internet who apparently don't know how spiders eat.
But excellent use of the anti-slashdoters-thinking-they're-smarter-than-scientists meme, with bonus points for inappropriateness.
If this was the result of spider cannibalism, it'd be easier to just find the dessicated spider husk left in the container. They probably checked for that.
So you want us to have gigantic mammoths, spinning around at high speed, eating everything they see (especially rabbits)? Are you insane, or just trying to one-up Jurassic Park for doomed-ness?
Right. The infants in question have already been Imposed Upon and foully murdered, obviously.
(Disclaimer: This post is not meant to serve as a real criticism of the use of embryonic stem cells by equating them to murder. It is instead intended to point out that the notion of "imposing your opinion upon someone else" works both ways
No, that's ridiculous. You are suggesting that embryonic stem cells are equivalent with murder, even if it's a Devil's Advocate position, because otherwise what you're saying makes no sense whatsoever, if you are not considering the embryo to be a full human with rights then nobody else is having anything imposed on them. Those for studying stem cells are not forcing anyone else to do so, those against it are trying to force people to stop. It's that simple.
attempting to paint one's self or one's side as morally superior
Who said anything about morally superior? The issue was "deciding what is moral for everyone" by forcing that opinion on everyone. One side is not doing that. The other is. Whose opinions are in fact "superior" is not the issue. Both sides think there's are. One side feels that they cannot allow anyone at all to act contrary to their opinion.
And a Phenom is an upgraded and overclocked Athlon. Which is quite true. Using that to imply (or outright state) that this means the Phenom is in fact ten year old hardware, or that the Wii is eight year old hardware, is quite wrong.
Lies. Everybody knows that the epitome of nerdiness will have a firefox extension that makes his browser feel like Emacs.
Sounds more like the epitome of masochism to me.
Humm. So you decide what is moral and not for the planet?
Interesting.....
I'm going to wait to see who actually attempts to impose their opinion on someone else by either requiring or prohibiting some action before I say who thinks they decide what is moral and not for the planet.
Oh that's right, I don't have to wait.
The point is that the Wii is a fucking 8 year-old GameCube with extras!
No it ain't. Unless you consider an AMD Phenom purchased today (with a uniprocessor OS kernel) to be the same as a 5-year old Athlon 64. The Wii uses a processor in the same line as the Gamecube, but it is an updated version that runs at 3x the clock frequency. The graphics chip is also updated, system and dram bus frequencies are higher. It's architecturally nearly identical to a Gamecube, but that does not make it a gamecube. Well, you could say that it is, but that definition of "is" does not support the point.
Of course you are right in the sense that it still isn't surprising that the Wii uses so much less power than the other consoles; Nintendo made a deliberate choice to design the Wii that way. The GC too was fairly low power, compared to the Xbox at least, but still used more power than the Wii, with one noticeable difference being that the GC needed a fan and the Wii doesn't. 360 and PS3 went for much higher hardware specs, power be damned, and Wii was speced much lower. However it is not simply a GC. And just because it isn't a surprise doesn't mean the lower power isn't noteworthy.
Also note that it is not as simple as newer hardware uses more power. Desktop PC power consumption rose for quite a while, but then plateaued and even has started to drop, with the peak (for processor power at least) coming with the P4 Prescott. That modern Phenom, even with all 4 cores in use, uses less power than the vintage Athlon 64 while delivering much higher performance. Especially now that low power versions are available for desktop use. The main thing causing this is not a change in the nature of technology itself, but rather that people now see lower power consumption as a feature and companies thus see it as something to design for. The Xbox and PS3 could have saved quite a bit of power at a modest cost to performance, but that wasn't the design goal of the company's in question.
If you want to measure efficiency, you do it by comparing energy consumed to work accomplished.
So, if console A has a fun factor of 5, and consumes 1 unit of energy, but console B has a fun factor of 15 and consumes 2 units of energy, then console B is more efficient.
Actually, console A is more efficient, as can be easily shown. Efficiency is work/energy. And everyone knows fun is the inverse of work -- if it was fun, it wouldn't be called work, as is also evidenced by the fact that the more fun your console is, the less work you do because you're spending all your time playing on the console. Thusly, efficiency = (1/fun)/energy = 1/(fun*energy), and console B, by being more fun and thus accomplishing less work, is the less efficient console.
The only way to solve this efficiency problem in consoles is to start making them less fun! Yet console makers seem bound and determined to make the problem worse. Nintendo is the worst offender here, it's as if they want to destroy the planet. Sony seemed to understand this problem at first, but even they eventually gave in and started putting out horribly, wastefully fun games.
Sounds awesome! At what point do we start fighting Xenu?
Of course they know it's made of cheese! What, you think they can make water from rocks?! Haha, ridiculous! Instead what they do is first they cut the cheese, then they squeeze the cheese.
As for this field test, well, few people know this (Hawaiians get quite offended if you say this, and you do NOT want to piss them off), but Hawaii is actually made of cheese as well.
Because if there's one place on Earth that resembles the surface of the moon, it's Hawaii.
Well sure, parts of it do. It's a volcano you know, not all rainforests and beaches and sun-bronzed natives.
As to why they chose specifically Hawaii instead of some other location suitably representative, well, the answer is the rainforests, beaches, and sun-bronzed natives.