If you can send information faster than light as viewed from any slower-than-light reference frame, and relativity holds, you can use multiple hops to send it back into the light-cone of its own past, i.e. send messages back in time.
("Sending information" includes writing it down and sending the letter. Never underestimate the bandwidth of an FTL spaceship full of mag tapes.)
This breaks causality.
So if relativity and causality both hold, no faster-than-light drive for us.
As the cryonicists say, "Death is not a state. It's a prognosis." It's a claim that the organism will not be restored from its current state to a level of function that is considered alive.
Last time I looked (which was a while ago) trauma centers were regularly reviving victims who drowned in cold water and had been "dead" for half an hour. Surgeons were taking advantage of this by precooling patients who needed surgery that would leave the brain without blood flow for similar times. And research labs had perfused a dog with suitable protective substances, stopped its heart, cooled its body to freezing temperatures, left it that way for some time, then revived it. (And this guy has improved on that using H2S.)
Were the drowning victims "dead"? Was the dog?
There are people who are long since frozen - in full body or brain only - in the hope that they can some day be repaired (or built into a fresh body). If that is successful, are those people now "dead"? Or are they just resting at liquid nitrogen temperatures?
The reason it's a few days after the Solstice (instead of on the 21st) is because it's celebrating that the coldest, shortest days are now behind us.
I was under the impression it was because the precession of the equinoxes wasn't taken into account and the celebration was a few days off the actual solstice when the records were made that froze its date - and also drove the Gregorian calendar reform which moved the calendar to put the solstice back at Dec 21 and nailed it there with leapyears.
Huh? The April hand-out? As far as I've heard, it had almost no effect at all.
True.
(it was too small and too untargeted to have any significant effect on the economy-- it essentially was a very small tax cut, primarily at the lower income levels.
But that's not the reason it failed. It failed because it was a handout, not a tax cut. Handouts never work. Tax cuts can.
To be a tax cut it has to affect the tax rate on decisions made and actions taken AFTER it is instituted. Retroactive "tax cuts" apply to behavior that is already in the past and can't affect the decisions that drive it. They could have gotten some stimulus by reducing the tax rates on economic activity conducted in 2008 and later. But that's not what they chose to do.
Government "stimulus" - handouts or purchases of goods or services - don't work because the money they "inject" is "extracted" elsewhere. (See the broken window falacy.) This may be directly, by taxation (picking the pockets of the productive to get the money to hand out) or by "printing" new money (which gets value extracted from the rest of the existing money, stealing from the people's savings, salaries, and every other holding denominated in dollars.) Not only that, the process of transferring the "stimulus" money is lossy. So such plans retard more than they stimulate.
Such "economic stimulus" is like trying to lengthen a blanket by cutting a strip off one end and sewing it onto the other. Not only does the blanket not get bigger, it actually shrinks a bit.
This depeering reveals the fragility of the Tier 1 "people pay us, but we don't pay anyone" philosophy.
Tier 1 is about long-haul vs. last-mile. The last-mile providers have the customers who pay the bills. The Tier 1 carriers have the big long-haul lines which chew up money and don't pay any bills. Money has to flow from the customers to pay for all the pieces of the path.
It's not so cut and dried, of course. Tier 1 companies typically are also last-mile providers as well - just big ones whose internal interconnects span continents and/or bridge them. And smaller last-mile providers may themselves have a lot of long-haulage, even though they're regional, and may provide bridges between, say, a Tier 1 carrier and another regional last-mile provider or two Tier 1 carriers.
But the point is that there are asymmetries in the cost and billing structure of the carriers, with the bigger ones typically providing more benefit to the smaller than the other way around (the bigger ones being transit-heavy, the smaller paying-customer-heavy). Money sometimes gets exchanged to even this out, usually flowing from the little guys to the big ones.
You can't spend your way out of a bad economic cycle; that's like drinking more beer as a solution to a hangover.
While we're on analogies: Government stimulus packages don't - because the money they hand out has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is either additional money they tax away (typically from the most productive - the ones they were trying to "stimulate") or by "printing" (or equivalent) new money which gets its value by pulling value out of the money already out there. And the government handling of this money has costs. The stimulus is always less than the stifling.
So government "economic stimulus" is like trying to lengthen a blanked by cutting a strip off one end and sewing it onto the other. The blanket not only ends up no longer, but even a bit shorter.
(If not for that loss it would be like daylight savings time. B-) )
... why doesn't [Bush] just issue a blanket pardon?
Perhaps because pardons apply to criminal cases (government vs. person-to-be-punished-for-wrongdoing) while these are civil cases (wronged people demanding damages be paid by those who wronged them). I think the pardon power only applies to the former.
The truth is that the BitTorrent folks are not playing ball with ISPs. In reality, I think most major ISP could care less about copyright violation, or excessive bandwidth...
Unfortunately, the major ISPs are components of conglomerates whose primary moneymaker is selling "content". As such they have a perverse incentive structure that can put "protecting against piracy" above the quality of the network's operation.
The networks also provided asymmetric transport and vastly oversold their bandwidth, assuming a central server / many small clients "broadcast media" model. The rise of peer-to-peer usage bit them mightily and Bit Torrent was the spearhead of that rise. So rather than spending the added billions to expand their backbones to meet their advertised service's requirements they chose to throttle it.
The ISPs were the ones to turn this into a war and fire the first shots. BitTorrent is just trying to engineer a solution on which to build peace - and is being vilified for the attempt.
Having said that, your suggestion for improving things by smarter selection of peers is good. Unfortunately the Internet doesn't have any easy mechanism to indicate which peers would be better. Good solutions would likely have to be built on additional knowledge - which implies a database to hold and serve it - which implies a new central infrastructure and queries of it - which both breaks the decentralized model and provides additional points of attack if the ISPs continue to treat this as a war and attempt to suppress "unauthorized"/"enemy" torrents.
Or is it just this particular approach that failed?
The nanoparticle boost to solar cell efficiency (by slicing photon energies to allow several electron-hole pairs per photon, rather than one, to be formed for photons with energies well above the band gap, and perhaps to additionally combine the undersized "slices" of the photon energies to use them as well) promised a big improvement: A cheap spray-on coating step that would improve the price/performance of photovoltaic panels to finally make them cost-competitive with grid power in suburban areas.
Each bittorrent chunk is transferred using many network packets. If you're going to transfer those chunks using UDP, you need to sort out the packet order and do all the missing-packet checks and retries etc yourself. So you still DO need to build some kind of TCP-like protocol on top - even just for the error checking.
But TCP implementations are public, while UDP just provides access to the underlying unreliable IP transport layer. So implementers can trivially clone whatever TCP functionality they want (including ALL OF IT) into the data portion of UDP packets. Then they can cut out what they don't need, adjust the tuning to play as fair or UNfair as they want (or even extend the fairness over multiple psdueo-TCP connections), add games to disguise the nature of the connection, etc.
UDP senders don't know when they're flooding the connection, so they just keep doing it. A TCP stream would back off to try to be fair, but your UDP stream is just going to keep on blasting at full speed.
If that's the way that it's implemented.
But UDP is just a pass-through of the underlying IP transport. You can build anything you want on top of it - including recreating as much of TCP (or an equivalent tuned better to your own usage patterns) as you want.
However: Suppose they DO just ignore flow control and hammer away: This is being done as a workaround for ISPs who throttle Bittorrent traffic. So it looks to me like the ISPs just brought it on themselves.
uTorrent looks to me like the users' nuclear option - a threat that creates the incentive to abandon war and come to some peaceful arrangement.
It was not a crime to have a pseudonym. It was a crime to use it in place of a real name to access a system to which the owner made a public offer of access conditioned on the use of a true name.
Yes. (That is what I meant: Using the pseudonym in place of a real name when signing up, in violation of the terms of service, i.e. having a pseudonymous account on a service forbidding that. Sorry I wasn't clear.)
With 4gb DDR2 modules hitting the mainstream, and 8gb modules in the high end, what's stopping bunch of them on something like Gigabyte's i-Ram (minus the stupid SATA bottleneck) and having themselves a DIY uber-SSD ?
Possibly power density and/or signal integrity hooking up so many devices.
Not unsurmountable. But not straightforward, either.
But you need a use case to pay for the development and devices. Fast long-turn bulk storage built out of active devices isn't it: With that many in a box backup power won't be a battery (or at least not a little battery on the board) and you'll need to keep the cooling running, too.
I wouldn't trust MY long-term data to a device that forgets it if the power is lots - and requires the whole system to run for half an hour or more on backup power to spool it into something that can survive an outage.
First they go after the worst scumbag available to set the precedent. Then, once it's solidly established, they use it on anybody they want to harass.
A child abuser is normally the first target. The only thing special about this case is that the abuse didn't have as much of a sexual component as is typical.
But using your pseudonym to bash in the skull of your neighbor is a major no no.
Which is essentially what she was charged with on both the felony acquittal and the third misdemeanor conviction count. (Virtual bashing in violation of terms of service.)
However in this case it WAS a crime to have the pseudonym, too (and that was the first misdemeanor conviction count). The terms of service required true personal information.
2) Fold it in half but don't squash and crease it. The joined edges are flat together and the rest of the paper tries to form a gentle curve. The midline where the crease WOULD have been is trying to be a cylinder, but the curvature has to reduce, then reverse, to end up with the edges being flat together. The result is a pipe with a cross-section shaped like a tear drop.
3) Now take your teardrop-pipe and fold one end closed. Squeeze the rest so the remaining opening in the other end stays open and teardrop shaped. This is your cup.
4) When you fill it with liquid in zero-G the liquid attaches to the cup by surface tension. It is attracted most to the folded edge, because there's so much more surface in close proximity. Next most attractive area is the closed bottom, so the bulk of the liquid stays down there.
5) Because the join of the edges is so attractive, the blob of liquid reaches an "arm" up the inside of the join, all the way up to the cup's opening. That's where you suck on it. It's like a virtual straw, which doesn't need to completely enclose the liquid.
... get your glasses prescription updated. And get reading glasses to compensate for presbyopia if you haven't already.
Slightly blurred vision - especially when reading - causes you to avoid looking at text and lose comprehension and memorization when you do read it. Internally you don't notice it as such and instead it feels like you're thinking in a cloudy fashion, zoning out, or having memory problems.
Eye changes creep up on you. Like "boiling the frog" you can go years and have significantly impaired vision before you feel like it's an eye problem - let alone enough of one to make the appointment and spend the bucks.
= = = =
Meanwhile there's a lot of good advice elsewhere under this article. (Example: Vitimin suplementation, in moderation, to compensate for age-related absorption reduction.) You could have more than one impairment and you have to treat or compensate for them all to get back to your maximum potential.
Are you saying that there are no superscalar RISC designs,
No.... or that superscalar RISC chips don't count as RISC?
To some extent, yes.
While the name is in terms of the instruction set complexity, RISC is a package of design ideas, as I described. If a "superscalar RISC" machine buys its superscalar performance with increased gate count (and size, signal path length, and idle time percentage) it's starting to deviate from the definition and swing the tradeoffs in the direction of CISC. If it's done well you might claim to be still within the design philosophy. But at some point calling it a RISC is doing violence to the term. B-)
(Which is not to say that a superscalar so-called RISC is a non-useful, or even undesirable, machine. But it's starting to become a CISC-style machine that happens to run a RISC-style instruction set.)
Have they ever interacted with a cat before? Don't they know how inscrutable, annoying, and unpredictable they are?
Saw a great cartoon on that.
- Cat sitting on shelf, staring into space.
- Couple wondering aloud what deep thought are running through its head.
- Thought balloon over cat's head containing a TV test pattern.
RISC machines made sense before Intel figured out to make x86 go faster than one instruction per clock.
That's not what made RISC fade into the background.
RISC was about tradeoffs: Do only very simple instructions and you can do them very fast with a small amount of logic (which makes you even faster). Then trade this for occasionally doing several instructions instead of one and you're still ahead.
The smaller machine also means you can move to the next, still faster, logic family while the yeild is still low - because with a low-area design you can get enough working devices off a wafer to go to market when larger design would still be impractical because it's too big a target, so nearly every chip on the die is defective. Again you end up faster and/or better crunch/watt.
What brought CISC back is that semiconductor tech got to where you COULD get decent yields on chips with a LOT of transistors and running very fast. So what do you do with them? With RISC about all you can do is integrate peripherals and memory, add coprocessors (trending toward a CISC design again), or put large numbers of parallel cores on a chip. (But not all algorithms are parallelizable.) Meanwhile, CISC designs can go wide, throwing extra logic into building parallel data paths while launching, scheduling, and mediating between multiple instructions (even if multi-cycle). So a CISC design could use the extra logic to gain performance even in non-parallelizable algorithms.
Which is not to say that RISC machines ever really went away. They still kept getting faster (though they lost the advantage they once had). They're in heavy use where they're fast enough, especially where power, space, and cooling are limited (like in peripherals and portable devices). Also there are chips composed of arrays of them in both current production and future development, doing things that ARE parallizable (such as packet handling in large routers).
Do you honestly think that foreign intelligence agencies won't write Linux or Macintosh viruses if it would get them into the DoD network?
When you try to protect a secret by putting in in a locked box, do you put it in a steel box with a good combination lock? Or do you put it in a cheap transparent plastic box with a lock that can be picked by a safety pin and hundreds of holes and little doors that can be opened even more easily?
Yes Linux, MacOS, and even OpenBSD aren't absolutely impregnable. But Windows has a decades long track record of holes (some unfixable) and a multibillion dollar malware industry built on exploiting them. The fewer holes you start with the easier it is to close them.
Essentially ANY military function is a security issue. For a person with any level of IT expertise to put such functions on Windows platforms is, IMHO, either a level of incompetence suitable for dishonorable discharge or of malice meeting the definition of treason.
Thank you for wasting five years of the Linux community's time and casting a shadow over the legitimacy of the world's countless open-source projects.
I think that was the point. B-(
(Or what became the point after they got caught in their own legal machine and people whose business models were threatened by Open Source saw the opportunity to hurt the competition by funding the suit to keep it alive. IMHO it started as a rent-seeking extortion scheme by people who bought into a dying company and picked the wrong victim.)
Slashdot Mirror
... warp / hyper drives are better.
If you can send information faster than light as viewed from any slower-than-light reference frame, and relativity holds, you can use multiple hops to send it back into the light-cone of its own past, i.e. send messages back in time.
("Sending information" includes writing it down and sending the letter. Never underestimate the bandwidth of an FTL spaceship full of mag tapes.)
This breaks causality.
So if relativity and causality both hold, no faster-than-light drive for us.
You're either dead or you're not.
Define death.
As the cryonicists say, "Death is not a state. It's a prognosis." It's a claim that the organism will not be restored from its current state to a level of function that is considered alive.
Last time I looked (which was a while ago) trauma centers were regularly reviving victims who drowned in cold water and had been "dead" for half an hour. Surgeons were taking advantage of this by precooling patients who needed surgery that would leave the brain without blood flow for similar times. And research labs had perfused a dog with suitable protective substances, stopped its heart, cooled its body to freezing temperatures, left it that way for some time, then revived it. (And this guy has improved on that using H2S.)
Were the drowning victims "dead"? Was the dog?
There are people who are long since frozen - in full body or brain only - in the hope that they can some day be repaired (or built into a fresh body). If that is successful, are those people now "dead"? Or are they just resting at liquid nitrogen temperatures?
The reason it's a few days after the Solstice (instead of on the 21st) is because it's celebrating that the coldest, shortest days are now behind us.
I was under the impression it was because the precession of the equinoxes wasn't taken into account and the celebration was a few days off the actual solstice when the records were made that froze its date - and also drove the Gregorian calendar reform which moved the calendar to put the solstice back at Dec 21 and nailed it there with leapyears.
But I could be wrong...
Huh? The April hand-out? As far as I've heard, it had almost no effect at all.
True.
(it was too small and too untargeted to have any significant effect on the economy-- it essentially was a very small tax cut, primarily at the lower income levels.
But that's not the reason it failed. It failed because it was a handout, not a tax cut. Handouts never work. Tax cuts can.
To be a tax cut it has to affect the tax rate on decisions made and actions taken AFTER it is instituted. Retroactive "tax cuts" apply to behavior that is already in the past and can't affect the decisions that drive it. They could have gotten some stimulus by reducing the tax rates on economic activity conducted in 2008 and later. But that's not what they chose to do.
Government "stimulus" - handouts or purchases of goods or services - don't work because the money they "inject" is "extracted" elsewhere. (See the broken window falacy.) This may be directly, by taxation (picking the pockets of the productive to get the money to hand out) or by "printing" new money (which gets value extracted from the rest of the existing money, stealing from the people's savings, salaries, and every other holding denominated in dollars.) Not only that, the process of transferring the "stimulus" money is lossy. So such plans retard more than they stimulate.
Such "economic stimulus" is like trying to lengthen a blanket by cutting a strip off one end and sewing it onto the other. Not only does the blanket not get bigger, it actually shrinks a bit.
This depeering reveals the fragility of the Tier 1 "people pay us, but we don't pay anyone" philosophy.
Tier 1 is about long-haul vs. last-mile. The last-mile providers have the customers who pay the bills. The Tier 1 carriers have the big long-haul lines which chew up money and don't pay any bills. Money has to flow from the customers to pay for all the pieces of the path.
It's not so cut and dried, of course. Tier 1 companies typically are also last-mile providers as well - just big ones whose internal interconnects span continents and/or bridge them. And smaller last-mile providers may themselves have a lot of long-haulage, even though they're regional, and may provide bridges between, say, a Tier 1 carrier and another regional last-mile provider or two Tier 1 carriers.
But the point is that there are asymmetries in the cost and billing structure of the carriers, with the bigger ones typically providing more benefit to the smaller than the other way around (the bigger ones being transit-heavy, the smaller paying-customer-heavy). Money sometimes gets exchanged to even this out, usually flowing from the little guys to the big ones.
You can't spend your way out of a bad economic cycle; that's like drinking more beer as a solution to a hangover.
While we're on analogies: Government stimulus packages don't - because the money they hand out has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is either additional money they tax away (typically from the most productive - the ones they were trying to "stimulate") or by "printing" (or equivalent) new money which gets its value by pulling value out of the money already out there. And the government handling of this money has costs. The stimulus is always less than the stifling.
So government "economic stimulus" is like trying to lengthen a blanked by cutting a strip off one end and sewing it onto the other. The blanket not only ends up no longer, but even a bit shorter.
(If not for that loss it would be like daylight savings time. B-) )
For more on this see the broken window falacy.
... why doesn't [Bush] just issue a blanket pardon?
Perhaps because pardons apply to criminal cases (government vs. person-to-be-punished-for-wrongdoing) while these are civil cases (wronged people demanding damages be paid by those who wronged them). I think the pardon power only applies to the former.
The truth is that the BitTorrent folks are not playing ball with ISPs. In reality, I think most major ISP could care less about copyright violation, or excessive bandwidth ...
Unfortunately, the major ISPs are components of conglomerates whose primary moneymaker is selling "content". As such they have a perverse incentive structure that can put "protecting against piracy" above the quality of the network's operation.
The networks also provided asymmetric transport and vastly oversold their bandwidth, assuming a central server / many small clients "broadcast media" model. The rise of peer-to-peer usage bit them mightily and Bit Torrent was the spearhead of that rise. So rather than spending the added billions to expand their backbones to meet their advertised service's requirements they chose to throttle it.
The ISPs were the ones to turn this into a war and fire the first shots. BitTorrent is just trying to engineer a solution on which to build peace - and is being vilified for the attempt.
Having said that, your suggestion for improving things by smarter selection of peers is good. Unfortunately the Internet doesn't have any easy mechanism to indicate which peers would be better. Good solutions would likely have to be built on additional knowledge - which implies a database to hold and serve it - which implies a new central infrastructure and queries of it - which both breaks the decentralized model and provides additional points of attack if the ISPs continue to treat this as a war and attempt to suppress "unauthorized"/"enemy" torrents.
Or is it just this particular approach that failed?
The nanoparticle boost to solar cell efficiency (by slicing photon energies to allow several electron-hole pairs per photon, rather than one, to be formed for photons with energies well above the band gap, and perhaps to additionally combine the undersized "slices" of the photon energies to use them as well) promised a big improvement: A cheap spray-on coating step that would improve the price/performance of photovoltaic panels to finally make them cost-competitive with grid power in suburban areas.
It would be a pity if that didn't work out.
Each bittorrent chunk is transferred using many network packets. If you're going to transfer those chunks using UDP, you need to sort out the packet order and do all the missing-packet checks and retries etc yourself. So you still DO need to build some kind of TCP-like protocol on top - even just for the error checking.
But TCP implementations are public, while UDP just provides access to the underlying unreliable IP transport layer. So implementers can trivially clone whatever TCP functionality they want (including ALL OF IT) into the data portion of UDP packets. Then they can cut out what they don't need, adjust the tuning to play as fair or UNfair as they want (or even extend the fairness over multiple psdueo-TCP connections), add games to disguise the nature of the connection, etc.
UDP senders don't know when they're flooding the connection, so they just keep doing it. A TCP stream would back off to try to be fair, but your UDP stream is just going to keep on blasting at full speed.
If that's the way that it's implemented.
But UDP is just a pass-through of the underlying IP transport. You can build anything you want on top of it - including recreating as much of TCP (or an equivalent tuned better to your own usage patterns) as you want.
However: Suppose they DO just ignore flow control and hammer away: This is being done as a workaround for ISPs who throttle Bittorrent traffic. So it looks to me like the ISPs just brought it on themselves.
uTorrent looks to me like the users' nuclear option - a threat that creates the incentive to abandon war and come to some peaceful arrangement.
BitTorrent is believed to be harboring weapons of mass destruction. These weapons are believed to be capable of destroying all of the internet tubes.
Maybe that's why the government has has deployed 4,700 troops domestically, ramping to 20,000 over three years, trained to respond to "weapons of mass destruction attacks".
Think that will be enough?
It was not a crime to have a pseudonym. It was a crime to use it in place of a real name to access a system to which the owner made a public offer of access conditioned on the use of a true name.
Yes. (That is what I meant: Using the pseudonym in place of a real name when signing up, in violation of the terms of service, i.e. having a pseudonymous account on a service forbidding that. Sorry I wasn't clear.)
With 4gb DDR2 modules hitting the mainstream, and 8gb modules in the high end, what's stopping bunch of them on something like Gigabyte's i-Ram (minus the stupid SATA bottleneck) and having themselves a DIY uber-SSD ?
Possibly power density and/or signal integrity hooking up so many devices.
Not unsurmountable. But not straightforward, either.
But you need a use case to pay for the development and devices. Fast long-turn bulk storage built out of active devices isn't it: With that many in a box backup power won't be a battery (or at least not a little battery on the board) and you'll need to keep the cooling running, too.
I wouldn't trust MY long-term data to a device that forgets it if the power is lots - and requires the whole system to run for half an hour or more on backup power to spool it into something that can survive an outage.
(For shorter term stuff it might make sense.)
If this stands, this sets a terrible precedent.
That IS how it works...
First they go after the worst scumbag available to set the precedent. Then, once it's solidly established, they use it on anybody they want to harass.
A child abuser is normally the first target. The only thing special about this case is that the abuse didn't have as much of a sexual component as is typical.
Which is essentially what she was charged with on both the felony acquittal and the third misdemeanor conviction count. (Virtual bashing in violation of terms of service.)
However in this case it WAS a crime to have the pseudonym, too (and that was the first misdemeanor conviction count). The terms of service required true personal information.
I'm having a bit of trouble picturing this...
In case you can't view the video or the pictures:
1) Take a piece of paper.
2) Fold it in half but don't squash and crease it. The joined edges are flat together and the rest of the paper tries to form a gentle curve. The midline where the crease WOULD have been is trying to be a cylinder, but the curvature has to reduce, then reverse, to end up with the edges being flat together. The result is a pipe with a cross-section shaped like a tear drop.
3) Now take your teardrop-pipe and fold one end closed. Squeeze the rest so the remaining opening in the other end stays open and teardrop shaped. This is your cup.
4) When you fill it with liquid in zero-G the liquid attaches to the cup by surface tension. It is attracted most to the folded edge, because there's so much more surface in close proximity. Next most attractive area is the closed bottom, so the bulk of the liquid stays down there.
5) Because the join of the edges is so attractive, the blob of liquid reaches an "arm" up the inside of the join, all the way up to the cup's opening. That's where you suck on it. It's like a virtual straw, which doesn't need to completely enclose the liquid.
Make sense now?
... get your glasses prescription updated. And get reading glasses to compensate for presbyopia if you haven't already.
Slightly blurred vision - especially when reading - causes you to avoid looking at text and lose comprehension and memorization when you do read it. Internally you don't notice it as such and instead it feels like you're thinking in a cloudy fashion, zoning out, or having memory problems.
Eye changes creep up on you. Like "boiling the frog" you can go years and have significantly impaired vision before you feel like it's an eye problem - let alone enough of one to make the appointment and spend the bucks.
= = = =
Meanwhile there's a lot of good advice elsewhere under this article. (Example: Vitimin suplementation, in moderation, to compensate for age-related absorption reduction.) You could have more than one impairment and you have to treat or compensate for them all to get back to your maximum potential.
Are you saying that there are no superscalar RISC designs,
No. ... or that superscalar RISC chips don't count as RISC?
To some extent, yes.
While the name is in terms of the instruction set complexity, RISC is a package of design ideas, as I described. If a "superscalar RISC" machine buys its superscalar performance with increased gate count (and size, signal path length, and idle time percentage) it's starting to deviate from the definition and swing the tradeoffs in the direction of CISC. If it's done well you might claim to be still within the design philosophy. But at some point calling it a RISC is doing violence to the term. B-)
(Which is not to say that a superscalar so-called RISC is a non-useful, or even undesirable, machine. But it's starting to become a CISC-style machine that happens to run a RISC-style instruction set.)
Have they ever interacted with a cat before? Don't they know how inscrutable, annoying, and unpredictable they are?
Saw a great cartoon on that.
- Cat sitting on shelf, staring into space.
- Couple wondering aloud what deep thought are running through its head.
- Thought balloon over cat's head containing a TV test pattern.
EEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.......
RISC machines made sense before Intel figured out to make x86 go faster than one instruction per clock.
That's not what made RISC fade into the background.
RISC was about tradeoffs: Do only very simple instructions and you can do them very fast with a small amount of logic (which makes you even faster). Then trade this for occasionally doing several instructions instead of one and you're still ahead.
The smaller machine also means you can move to the next, still faster, logic family while the yeild is still low - because with a low-area design you can get enough working devices off a wafer to go to market when larger design would still be impractical because it's too big a target, so nearly every chip on the die is defective. Again you end up faster and/or better crunch/watt.
What brought CISC back is that semiconductor tech got to where you COULD get decent yields on chips with a LOT of transistors and running very fast. So what do you do with them? With RISC about all you can do is integrate peripherals and memory, add coprocessors (trending toward a CISC design again), or put large numbers of parallel cores on a chip. (But not all algorithms are parallelizable.) Meanwhile, CISC designs can go wide, throwing extra logic into building parallel data paths while launching, scheduling, and mediating between multiple instructions (even if multi-cycle). So a CISC design could use the extra logic to gain performance even in non-parallelizable algorithms.
Which is not to say that RISC machines ever really went away. They still kept getting faster (though they lost the advantage they once had). They're in heavy use where they're fast enough, especially where power, space, and cooling are limited (like in peripherals and portable devices). Also there are chips composed of arrays of them in both current production and future development, doing things that ARE parallizable (such as packet handling in large routers).
Do you actually think the DOD only uses windows?
Of course not.
But I think that the machines affected by THIS WORM use Windows.
Do you know of any "commercial malware" worms that self-spread on any other OS?
Intelligence agencies did it to eliminate data paths out of the agency. DoD is doing it to eliminate malware paths into and within the agency.
Do you honestly think that foreign intelligence agencies won't write Linux or Macintosh viruses if it would get them into the DoD network?
When you try to protect a secret by putting in in a locked box, do you put it in a steel box with a good combination lock? Or do you put it in a cheap transparent plastic box with a lock that can be picked by a safety pin and hundreds of holes and little doors that can be opened even more easily?
Yes Linux, MacOS, and even OpenBSD aren't absolutely impregnable. But Windows has a decades long track record of holes (some unfixable) and a multibillion dollar malware industry built on exploiting them. The fewer holes you start with the easier it is to close them.
Essentially ANY military function is a security issue. For a person with any level of IT expertise to put such functions on Windows platforms is, IMHO, either a level of incompetence suitable for dishonorable discharge or of malice meeting the definition of treason.
Thank you for wasting five years of the Linux community's time and casting a shadow over the legitimacy of the world's countless open-source projects.
I think that was the point. B-(
(Or what became the point after they got caught in their own legal machine and people whose business models were threatened by Open Source saw the opportunity to hurt the competition by funding the suit to keep it alive. IMHO it started as a rent-seeking extortion scheme by people who bought into a dying company and picked the wrong victim.)