I hate to break the news to you, but I don't think it'll be a problem...I think getting a virtual Liv Tyler is a bit higher on the priority list than Will Shatner.
To quote: "Simultaneous multithreading is a processor design that combines hardware multithreading with superscalar processor technology to allow multiple threads to issue instructions each cycle. Unlike other hardware multithreaded architectures (such as the Tera MTA), in which only a single hardware context (i.e., thread) is active on any given cycle, SMT permits all thread contexts to simultaneously compete for and share processor resources. Unlike conventional superscalar processors, which suffer from a lack of per-thread instruction-level parallelism, simultaneous multithreading uses multiple threads to compensate for low single-thread ILP. The performance consequence is significantly higher instruction throughput and program speedups on a variety of workloads that include commercial databases, web servers and scientific applications in both multiprogrammed and parallel environments. "
http://www.cs.washington.edu/research/smt/
Yeah, when I say multi-threaded, I mean multi-threaded, as opposed to an OS hack which makes it appear to be multi-threading. The windows threading model is just peachy for running excel and word at the same time, but as the time window you're operating in decreases, it no longer is useufl. Single-processor pseudo-multi-threading is more useful for UI and such, but true multi-threading is a new way of thinking about solving some of the more interesting problems in computer science today.
Just because we had an os hack to make it look like programs were multithreading does not diminish the impact of true multi-threading.
I really look forward to being able to run multi-threaded apps on the average user's desktop. There are a lot of advantages to being able to have two lines of logic running concurrently. Although there are few performance benefits right now i'm sure developers will appreciated the ubiquity of SMP and all of the nifty programming techniques that come with it.
Finally, our legislature has got it right. The primary argument for censoring the internet is "My son searched for *random innocent yet suggestive term* and got loads of pr0n." The answer up until now has been, "Well, why don't you form a special interest group and bitch at your congressperson until they pass all kinds of oppressive legislation?" Now we can say "Well, why didn't you have the software on your child's computer to restrict him to the kids domain?"
The only issue others might reasonably have with this is censorship at public internet access points. Remember, though, if organziation X chooses to provide internet access for free, that organization has the right to provide it such that said internet access is conducive towards its philosophical ends. Just as you can't find the most controversial and offensive books in the library, you can't get the same on the internet.
The only real argument left is..."What if I can't afford internet access and need to rely on the public libraries for my access to contraversial materials?"
Remember that the libraries exist to promote education as it is desirable for the government, which is only to the extent that it produces citizens informed enough to vote. Remember, Jefferson advocated regular revolutions, but he did not expect the government to organize and promote such revolutions.
Slashdot Mirror
I hate to break the news to you, but I don't think it'll be a problem...I think getting a virtual Liv Tyler is a bit higher on the priority list than Will Shatner.
To quote: "Simultaneous multithreading is a processor design that combines hardware multithreading with superscalar processor technology to allow multiple threads to issue instructions each cycle. Unlike other hardware multithreaded architectures (such as the Tera MTA), in which only a single hardware context (i.e., thread) is active on any given cycle, SMT permits all thread contexts to simultaneously compete for and share processor resources. Unlike conventional superscalar processors, which suffer from a lack of per-thread instruction-level parallelism, simultaneous multithreading uses multiple threads to compensate for low single-thread ILP. The performance consequence is significantly higher instruction throughput and program speedups on a variety of workloads that include commercial databases, web servers and scientific applications in both multiprogrammed and parallel environments. " http://www.cs.washington.edu/research/smt/ Yeah, when I say multi-threaded, I mean multi-threaded, as opposed to an OS hack which makes it appear to be multi-threading. The windows threading model is just peachy for running excel and word at the same time, but as the time window you're operating in decreases, it no longer is useufl. Single-processor pseudo-multi-threading is more useful for UI and such, but true multi-threading is a new way of thinking about solving some of the more interesting problems in computer science today. Just because we had an os hack to make it look like programs were multithreading does not diminish the impact of true multi-threading.
I really look forward to being able to run multi-threaded apps on the average user's desktop. There are a lot of advantages to being able to have two lines of logic running concurrently. Although there are few performance benefits right now i'm sure developers will appreciated the ubiquity of SMP and all of the nifty programming techniques that come with it.
Finally, our legislature has got it right. The primary argument for censoring the internet is "My son searched for *random innocent yet suggestive term* and got loads of pr0n." The answer up until now has been, "Well, why don't you form a special interest group and bitch at your congressperson until they pass all kinds of oppressive legislation?" Now we can say "Well, why didn't you have the software on your child's computer to restrict him to the kids domain?" The only issue others might reasonably have with this is censorship at public internet access points. Remember, though, if organziation X chooses to provide internet access for free, that organization has the right to provide it such that said internet access is conducive towards its philosophical ends. Just as you can't find the most controversial and offensive books in the library, you can't get the same on the internet. The only real argument left is..."What if I can't afford internet access and need to rely on the public libraries for my access to contraversial materials?" Remember that the libraries exist to promote education as it is desirable for the government, which is only to the extent that it produces citizens informed enough to vote. Remember, Jefferson advocated regular revolutions, but he did not expect the government to organize and promote such revolutions.