They didn't mean "swapped" as in paged out to disk. They meant the OS scheduling other processes, "swapping" the context for that process in and swapping the context for the monitor out.
To really take advantage of a regulator that can modify voltages in tens of nanoseconds, it's really going to take hardware monitors keeping track of activity on a very fine-grained level.
Really I think that's fine. Software can handle the high-level power decisions based on what the chip is going to be doing over the next few milliseconds, while the hardware can do the fine-tuning on the nano- or micro-second scales within the high-level parameters.
ANSI C doesn't contain any meaningful display interfaces, so certainly something would have to be changed. But leaving it up to future generations to provide the part where the simulated frame buffer (if a PDP-1 used one) is made into a real window via whatever appropriate interface is probably okay.:)
I buy mostly GE bulbs at ~3-5$ a pop depending on the wattage-replacement (still haven't switched over to thinking about lumens) and had great results. Their bulbs are instant-on with no flicker or buzz (like I got when I tried to go with some real cheap-o bulbs), and their "reveal" bulbs have a very nice color.
I don't know if it's really a problem. I mean, it's interesting to see how well they perform against a broader range of chips, and how close they can get to desktop performance. A lot of people were hoping pretty close and it turns out, no not really. Not exactly a surprise, but still good information. And they admit it's unfair, and basically give it a positive review in their conclusions where they say that for what it wanted to achieve -- beating Atom, particularly in media playback -- it worked.
That it does well against integrated solutions -- pretty much a given in the cost structure it's targeted at -- is also a good sign.
The funny thing is that someone further down the thread sourced the original claim from AMD, and it was pretty close to what I'd guessed -- 90% the performance of a K8 at the same frequency. Which is a much more reasonable statement.
That's really weird. I've been using CFLs very nearly exclusively for about 5 years, and I've never had to replace one yet. And except for my porch light, I turn them on and off whenever I go in and out of rooms. No issues at all.
look: the most important discoveries science has ever made stemmed from basic research: research for research's sake. not an economically driven pursuit. yet all of those amazing discoveries from basic research has resulted in trillions in economic development
And changes to our lives that go way beyond just merely more wealth, but things can't even imagine. There's no way the people researching quantum tunneling in the early parts of last century could have possibly foreseen us having this conversation today, but without that research, the computer age would have never began.
Which is why I love to hear people making arguments against the value of basic research on the Internet. It's like they don't even realize that the very medium for their message is proving them wrong.
Funny you say this because it seems to me that when colombus began his journey to india, the common knowledge was that there was nothing, far to the west, except the end of the world.
Er, well, actually, "common knowledge" at the time was that there was nothing to the west except for, eventually, Asia. People didn't think Columbus was a ninny because he thought the earth was a globe, they thought he was a ninny because he thought the globe was smaller than it actually is and sailing all the way around it to India was a practical idea. That's why the doofus thought he'd landed in India when he'd traveled less than half the distance everyone else thought he'd have to.
Well in the north, they're 100% efficient. They give light, and radiate heat.
So do CFLs. They aren't magic. For a given wattage X, they give off lumens Y, and the rest is waste heat. It's just that for the same lumens Y, X is about 1/4th of an incandescent. But if instead you bought one with equal wattage X, you'd find that it was very nearly the same amount of heat!
I've actually seen my energy costs go up by about 10% when I switched to them. I've since switched back to plain old incandescent bulbs, and tossed all the CFL's I had.
Wow, that's a seriously crappy heating system you have. Seriously. Are lots of your vents covered by couches, or something? If your energy bill actually went up by using CFLs and making up the difference in heat with your heater, then you'd be better off getting rid of your heater and just having tons of light bulbs (with a black shroud around most of them or something so you wouldn't be blinded). Which is sad. Of course you would be far better off fixing your heating situation than trying to use your light bulbs as heaters. If you aren't in a position to do that, then I'm sorry.
That coal power planet isn't releasing the mercury in your home. I use CFLs a lot and am comfortable with the elevated risk of mercury poisoning, but arguments like this are pretty stupid.
I should hope you're comfortable with it!
Because if you have a single filing you have as much mercury as 1000 CFLs in your mouth.
And I'm simply going to assume you're comfortable with all the regular fluorescent lights that are in every office building and store around. Nobody ever seems to mention that source of mercury.
In the winter the old incandescent lamp has an efficiency nearing 100% because you use its heat too. Why should anybody tell me to use CFL, harder to manufacture and dispose of and in this case less efficient?
You think a CFL is less efficient in cold weather because it puts out less waste heat? LOL. CFLs put out heat too, just much less of it, which is why it uses so much less power overall! But if we're counting the heat as used energy, then obviously the CFL is nearly 100% efficient as well.
But I think you need to compare the total energy of using incandescents, vs using CFLs + running your heater a negligible amount more to make up for the heat your incandescents aren't putting out.
Which do you think is a more efficient heater: Your light bulbs, or your heater?
Keep in mind it's not just about energy input vs heat output, it's also about the fact that the places where you want heat sources in your house is not the same as where you want light sources. There's a reason vents in cold climates are often on the floor. There's a reason there's not a vent by your ceiling fan or the track lighting in your kitchen.
Outside of a few specific cases, all the "But I use my lightbulbs as heaters!" comments in this thread are quite misguided.
A fair point that TDP isn't the whole picture, and I didn't say anything about die area ergo cost as a distinguishing feature of the market Bobcat and Atom are going for. I'd believe it does do better with a bigger core and lots of die space spent on 3.5MB of cache. It would have been interesting to see it in this comparison.
Though the conclusion would have been the same, as clearly a $250 part is not competing in the same space.
Because you make a very different chip if you're aiming at 9 or 18W vs 60 or 80W.
Put all those desktop chips in the same power envelope as Bobcat, and they'd suck ass. Give Bobcat the power headroom of the desktop chips' environment, and it wouldn't know what to do with it.
The results as far as I can see are pretty good, given realistic expectations. Of course the article points out AMD claimed 90% of desktop, which just might be where some unrealistic expectations came from. Knowing AMD, that probably wasn't completely bullshit. It was probably a statement about IPC at equivalent frequencies, not delivered performance at their respective TDPs, possibly confused by a PR person, with a bullshit multiplier in there somewhere.;)
It is not a problem with the SI or the humans who made it that most people still don't understand the difference between mass and weight.
It is a problem with the Imperial-derived systems that when forced to deal with the reality that there is a difference between mass and weight, they decided to overload their unit of weight to also be a unit of mass, allowing one to correctly though very confusingly say "A pound doesn't always weigh a pound."
Well of course, that would short-circuit the rock's powers. You have a rock in a bock, and a nearby tiger in a cage, the rock wants to repel the tiger but can't, the force feeds back onto the rock, eventually it becomes just a normal rock.
I've seen more tiger-repelling rocks ruined that way. People think they should keep the rock near a tiger, to keep the rock primed. But it doesn't work that way.
Yet another in a 30-year line of NASA PR flights. "Hey, look, we've got a ROBOT on this one!!"
Well of course it's just PR for people who are only interested enough to learn that there is a robot, and not anything more. You can't blame them for sound-biting when you're the one restricting yourself to a sound-bite.
The key phrase was "appeared to have occurred from earth".
So, from our subjective viewpoint, we would have seen the star explode about 330 years ago. Relative to the stars reference frame, whatever point in time it was at when the photons we're seeing today were emitted, about 330 years before that is when it exploded.
Because the speed of light is also the speed of causality, therefore nothing that has happened after the point we're seeing now could have affected us in any way, it makes sense in a Relativistic universe to talk about the star exploding 330 years ago, as long as we qualify it with (or it is understood) that we're talking about how it appears from our reference frame. Notions of "now" and the ordering events is always relative to a given reference frame.
And in contrast, it doesn't make sense to talk about the star exploding 11,330 years ago because that implies a false precision. There are error bars in that distance measurement, and while they may not be larger than 330 years, they are certainly larger than the precision in the value 330 itself. Or a more exaggerated example: We could say that a picture just taken by a telescope is exactly 25 minutes and 13 seconds old. But we couldn't possibly say that what we're seeing is what the star looked like 11,000 years, 25 minutes, and 13 seconds ago.:)
I can make random shit up that is apparently true when you have basically 0 factual information about what you are 'studying'. When you make it all up as you go its pretty easy to make all the pieces fit, you have to be a real idiot for your conclusions to fall apart when you're making up all the supporting evidence as well.
Which describes you, if you think this describes the situation in TFA.
It takes many millions of you to ruin the foundation and collapse the building. Just a few of you makes you just as insignificant as you fear you truly are.
But the along come the aliens from Signs and sweet, sweet vindication!
Reactionless drives? FTL? Sound magically carrying through vacuum? Blatant disregard for thermodynamics and conservation laws? Either explain it away in a way that doesn't poke a thousand other holes in your idea of 'science', or stick to less 'speculative' (read: bullshit) fiction.
Yeah, I hear you man. "Positronic brain"? High-level abstract rules that yet are so inherent to the underlying mechanics of the brain itself that they can't possibly be broken? It's just some magical woo with a "positron" science buzzword thrown on top of it. That Asimov idiot should have gotten an education before writing "sci-fi"!
My point being: "suspension of disbelief" doesn't just apply to things for which you personally find it hard to suspend disbelief.
Bwa ha ha! Nice one, I hadn't thought of that much (beyond both having a girl-in-a-box). But now that I have, I notice in Serenity they even gave some of the Reaver ships grapple arms!
If only Mal had gone on a quest to find the most awesome magical bullets before the final show-down.
Slashdot Mirror
They didn't mean "swapped" as in paged out to disk. They meant the OS scheduling other processes, "swapping" the context for that process in and swapping the context for the monitor out.
To really take advantage of a regulator that can modify voltages in tens of nanoseconds, it's really going to take hardware monitors keeping track of activity on a very fine-grained level.
Really I think that's fine. Software can handle the high-level power decisions based on what the chip is going to be doing over the next few milliseconds, while the hardware can do the fine-tuning on the nano- or micro-second scales within the high-level parameters.
ANSI C doesn't contain any meaningful display interfaces, so certainly something would have to be changed. But leaving it up to future generations to provide the part where the simulated frame buffer (if a PDP-1 used one) is made into a real window via whatever appropriate interface is probably okay. :)
In the Imperial-derived system the pound is not a unit of mass - it is purely a unit of weight.
No, the pound is also a unit of mass.
Yep, the Imperial system is even weirder than you thought.
I buy mostly GE bulbs at ~3-5$ a pop depending on the wattage-replacement (still haven't switched over to thinking about lumens) and had great results. Their bulbs are instant-on with no flicker or buzz (like I got when I tried to go with some real cheap-o bulbs), and their "reveal" bulbs have a very nice color.
I don't know if it's really a problem. I mean, it's interesting to see how well they perform against a broader range of chips, and how close they can get to desktop performance. A lot of people were hoping pretty close and it turns out, no not really. Not exactly a surprise, but still good information. And they admit it's unfair, and basically give it a positive review in their conclusions where they say that for what it wanted to achieve -- beating Atom, particularly in media playback -- it worked.
That it does well against integrated solutions -- pretty much a given in the cost structure it's targeted at -- is also a good sign.
The funny thing is that someone further down the thread sourced the original claim from AMD, and it was pretty close to what I'd guessed -- 90% the performance of a K8 at the same frequency. Which is a much more reasonable statement.
That's really weird. I've been using CFLs very nearly exclusively for about 5 years, and I've never had to replace one yet. And except for my porch light, I turn them on and off whenever I go in and out of rooms. No issues at all.
look: the most important discoveries science has ever made stemmed from basic research: research for research's sake. not an economically driven pursuit. yet all of those amazing discoveries from basic research has resulted in trillions in economic development
And changes to our lives that go way beyond just merely more wealth, but things can't even imagine. There's no way the people researching quantum tunneling in the early parts of last century could have possibly foreseen us having this conversation today, but without that research, the computer age would have never began.
Which is why I love to hear people making arguments against the value of basic research on the Internet. It's like they don't even realize that the very medium for their message is proving them wrong.
Funny you say this because it seems to me that when colombus began his journey to india, the common knowledge was that there was nothing, far to the west, except the end of the world.
Er, well, actually, "common knowledge" at the time was that there was nothing to the west except for, eventually, Asia. People didn't think Columbus was a ninny because he thought the earth was a globe, they thought he was a ninny because he thought the globe was smaller than it actually is and sailing all the way around it to India was a practical idea. That's why the doofus thought he'd landed in India when he'd traveled less than half the distance everyone else thought he'd have to.
Well in the north, they're 100% efficient. They give light, and radiate heat.
So do CFLs. They aren't magic. For a given wattage X, they give off lumens Y, and the rest is waste heat. It's just that for the same lumens Y, X is about 1/4th of an incandescent. But if instead you bought one with equal wattage X, you'd find that it was very nearly the same amount of heat!
I've actually seen my energy costs go up by about 10% when I switched to them. I've since switched back to plain old incandescent bulbs, and tossed all the CFL's I had.
Wow, that's a seriously crappy heating system you have. Seriously. Are lots of your vents covered by couches, or something? If your energy bill actually went up by using CFLs and making up the difference in heat with your heater, then you'd be better off getting rid of your heater and just having tons of light bulbs (with a black shroud around most of them or something so you wouldn't be blinded). Which is sad. Of course you would be far better off fixing your heating situation than trying to use your light bulbs as heaters. If you aren't in a position to do that, then I'm sorry.
That coal power planet isn't releasing the mercury in your home. I use CFLs a lot and am comfortable with the elevated risk of mercury poisoning, but arguments like this are pretty stupid.
I should hope you're comfortable with it!
Because if you have a single filing you have as much mercury as 1000 CFLs in your mouth.
And I'm simply going to assume you're comfortable with all the regular fluorescent lights that are in every office building and store around. Nobody ever seems to mention that source of mercury.
In the winter the old incandescent lamp has an efficiency nearing 100% because you use its heat too.
Why should anybody tell me to use CFL, harder to manufacture and dispose of and in this case less efficient?
You think a CFL is less efficient in cold weather because it puts out less waste heat? LOL. CFLs put out heat too, just much less of it, which is why it uses so much less power overall! But if we're counting the heat as used energy, then obviously the CFL is nearly 100% efficient as well.
But I think you need to compare the total energy of using incandescents, vs using CFLs + running your heater a negligible amount more to make up for the heat your incandescents aren't putting out.
Which do you think is a more efficient heater: Your light bulbs, or your heater?
Keep in mind it's not just about energy input vs heat output, it's also about the fact that the places where you want heat sources in your house is not the same as where you want light sources. There's a reason vents in cold climates are often on the floor. There's a reason there's not a vent by your ceiling fan or the track lighting in your kitchen.
Outside of a few specific cases, all the "But I use my lightbulbs as heaters!" comments in this thread are quite misguided.
A fair point that TDP isn't the whole picture, and I didn't say anything about die area ergo cost as a distinguishing feature of the market Bobcat and Atom are going for. I'd believe it does do better with a bigger core and lots of die space spent on 3.5MB of cache. It would have been interesting to see it in this comparison.
Though the conclusion would have been the same, as clearly a $250 part is not competing in the same space.
BTW, you seriously need to stop projecting.
Because you make a very different chip if you're aiming at 9 or 18W vs 60 or 80W.
Put all those desktop chips in the same power envelope as Bobcat, and they'd suck ass. Give Bobcat the power headroom of the desktop chips' environment, and it wouldn't know what to do with it.
The results as far as I can see are pretty good, given realistic expectations. Of course the article points out AMD claimed 90% of desktop, which just might be where some unrealistic expectations came from. Knowing AMD, that probably wasn't completely bullshit. It was probably a statement about IPC at equivalent frequencies, not delivered performance at their respective TDPs, possibly confused by a PR person, with a bullshit multiplier in there somewhere. ;)
Or it's just someone failing at being funny. No need to get so worked up :)
Hello, and welcome to Slashdot!
You can blame the things you don't understand on anything you want. I guess it's "scientists blame everything on dark matter" this week?
I'm okay not getting any update memos.
"Rock in a bock"? Bock. Bock.
Heh.
I of course meant to say "Rox in a box".
It is not a problem with the SI or the humans who made it that most people still don't understand the difference between mass and weight.
It is a problem with the Imperial-derived systems that when forced to deal with the reality that there is a difference between mass and weight, they decided to overload their unit of weight to also be a unit of mass, allowing one to correctly though very confusingly say "A pound doesn't always weigh a pound."
Well of course, that would short-circuit the rock's powers. You have a rock in a bock, and a nearby tiger in a cage, the rock wants to repel the tiger but can't, the force feeds back onto the rock, eventually it becomes just a normal rock.
I've seen more tiger-repelling rocks ruined that way. People think they should keep the rock near a tiger, to keep the rock primed. But it doesn't work that way.
Yet another in a 30-year line of NASA PR flights. "Hey, look, we've got a ROBOT on this one!!"
Well of course it's just PR for people who are only interested enough to learn that there is a robot, and not anything more. You can't blame them for sound-biting when you're the one restricting yourself to a sound-bite.
Even if it were unsuccessful, it still would have been Discovery's final launch.
Yes. But this final launch was successful as the title says. I think I'm missing your point.
The key phrase was "appeared to have occurred from earth".
So, from our subjective viewpoint, we would have seen the star explode about 330 years ago. Relative to the stars reference frame, whatever point in time it was at when the photons we're seeing today were emitted, about 330 years before that is when it exploded.
Because the speed of light is also the speed of causality, therefore nothing that has happened after the point we're seeing now could have affected us in any way, it makes sense in a Relativistic universe to talk about the star exploding 330 years ago, as long as we qualify it with (or it is understood) that we're talking about how it appears from our reference frame. Notions of "now" and the ordering events is always relative to a given reference frame.
And in contrast, it doesn't make sense to talk about the star exploding 11,330 years ago because that implies a false precision. There are error bars in that distance measurement, and while they may not be larger than 330 years, they are certainly larger than the precision in the value 330 itself. Or a more exaggerated example: We could say that a picture just taken by a telescope is exactly 25 minutes and 13 seconds old. But we couldn't possibly say that what we're seeing is what the star looked like 11,000 years, 25 minutes, and 13 seconds ago. :)
I can make random shit up that is apparently true when you have basically 0 factual information about what you are 'studying'. When you make it all up as you go its pretty easy to make all the pieces fit, you have to be a real idiot for your conclusions to fall apart when you're making up all the supporting evidence as well.
Which describes you, if you think this describes the situation in TFA.
Dear droplet of water:
It takes many millions of you to ruin the foundation and collapse the building. Just a few of you makes you just as insignificant as you fear you truly are.
But the along come the aliens from Signs and sweet, sweet vindication!
- The Real World
Oh, right. Those weren't real. Damn.
Reactionless drives? FTL? Sound magically carrying through vacuum? Blatant disregard for thermodynamics and conservation laws? Either explain it away in a way that doesn't poke a thousand other holes in your idea of 'science', or stick to less 'speculative' (read: bullshit) fiction.
Yeah, I hear you man. "Positronic brain"? High-level abstract rules that yet are so inherent to the underlying mechanics of the brain itself that they can't possibly be broken? It's just some magical woo with a "positron" science buzzword thrown on top of it. That Asimov idiot should have gotten an education before writing "sci-fi"!
My point being: "suspension of disbelief" doesn't just apply to things for which you personally find it hard to suspend disbelief.
Bwa ha ha! Nice one, I hadn't thought of that much (beyond both having a girl-in-a-box). But now that I have, I notice in Serenity they even gave some of the Reaver ships grapple arms!
If only Mal had gone on a quest to find the most awesome magical bullets before the final show-down.