China and India also had utterly obsolete technology sectors and by consequence obsolete armies. China's military today is increasingly less and less obsolete.
Some architectures (including ARM versions 3 and above, PowerPC, Alpha, SPARC V9, MIPS, PA-RISC, SuperH SH-4 and IA-64) feature a setting which allows for switchable endianness in data segments, code segments or both. This feature can improve performance or simplify the logic of networking devices and software. The word bi-endian, when said of hardware, denotes the capability of the machine to compute or pass data in either endian format.
A lot of modern processors have this feature. I am still not convinced. Mixed mode is often sold as a way to improve source level compatibility yes. But it is not sold as a way to improve binary level compatibility which is what we are talking about here. Processors like the original Itanium had actual hardware emulation for certain x86 instructions. Godson also emulates some x86 instructions. However PowerPC has no such thing. Another argument I could make is that IBM, Apple, or Motorola had no reason at all to even waste effort trying to attempt x86 emulation. As for 68k Motorola ended up making a replacement architecture called ColdFire afterwards precisely because PowerPC was not hardware compatible with 68k.
PowerPC had good performance for several years. When the 603 and 604 were around they had better performance than x86 did. The problems started when the Pentium Pro came out. Even then it was not manufactured in enough numbers to be a real issue. Then the Pentium II came out...
The Wikipedia page says Nokia has 91 K employees. This layoff number seems mostly arbitrary. It is the typical management rack em up tactic of firing 10% of employees when the company is losing ground.
He ran Nokia into the ground so it could be acquired by Microsoft for peanuts. Now that he has done his job he gets the reward of a cushy job at Microsoft. I do not see anything strange here.
Nokia was just for getting the patents which are worth a lot of money. Everyone has figured their angle a long time ago. The smartphones, as Microsoft usually does, will just be outsourced to someone in China.
The D-Wave machine comes with a software library to solve a specific problem where the vendor claims the machine has much better performance than a conventional PC. They gave the performance numbers of a PC running non-optimized code as a baseline. The thing is experts on the field have created optimized code for solving this same problem which runs faster than the D-Wave machine. On a standard desktop PC. So the D-Wave machine, at least for the problem they claimed they were good at, is many orders of magnitude more expensive than a regular PC with worse performance.
Real quantum computers are supposed to have much better performance than classic computers at solving certain classes of problems but the D-Wave does not seem to have better performance at all.
Yes usually Intel has the process lead followed by the group of IBM, GlobalFoundries (which owns the fabs that used to belong to AMD), Samsung. TSMC comes way after that. The main advantage of TSMC has been that it is a lot more responsive to customer requests and they have a lot of capacity. Plus they do not compete with any company in chip design since they are a pure play foundry.
An Aside: In my opinion Intel chip designs have been less than spectacular given the R&D resources they have, it has been the process engineers that have given them the dominance in performance.
This has been the case since, like, forever. At one time AMD actually had process parity with Intel. This was around the time of the 180 nm node. Anyone that remembers Intel processors back then knows they sucked. Horribly.
Science is not supposed to be driven by consensus. It is supposed to be driven by the scientific method. You are supposed to design a theory that makes worthwhile predictions about some aspect of the real world and then test it in the real world to ensure it actually predicts stuff. If you are lucky the theory will make predictions of something that people did not expect to happen in the real world but that actually does happen. One example of this would be Special Relativity and the time dilation phenomenon.
AGW theory so far has done no proper predictions about the future. In that regard it is useless as a scientific theory.
Yes especially in the last couple of years. This negatively impacted NVIDIA and AMD's GPU business more than once. They also had packaging issues a couple of years back. Remember the NVIDIA GPU recall?
TSMC is the world's largest foundry business. They do not design chips. They manufacture chips. Their competitors are companies like GlobalFoundries. AMD does not have factories anymore, everything is manufactured at TSMC or GlobalFoundries, and until a couple of years ago Intel did not allow 3rd parties to use their chip factories.
The F-35 is particularly awful because they tried to make an all services plane out of it. They probably could have made a combined USAF/USN fighter more or less easily. But adding the VTOL requirement for the Marines and the UK was the final straw.
Last time the US tried something like this was with the F-111 and that was a procurement disaster.
Slashdot Mirror
Expenses with the Vietnam War followed by the Oil Crisis of the 1970s.
China and India also had utterly obsolete technology sectors and by consequence obsolete armies. China's military today is increasingly less and less obsolete.
Assuming they do wind down without new ones starting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
Some architectures (including ARM versions 3 and above, PowerPC, Alpha, SPARC V9, MIPS, PA-RISC, SuperH SH-4 and IA-64) feature a setting which allows for switchable endianness in data segments, code segments or both. This feature can improve performance or simplify the logic of networking devices and software. The word bi-endian, when said of hardware, denotes the capability of the machine to compute or pass data in either endian format.
Want more?
A lot of modern processors have this feature. I am still not convinced. Mixed mode is often sold as a way to improve source level compatibility yes. But it is not sold as a way to improve binary level compatibility which is what we are talking about here. Processors like the original Itanium had actual hardware emulation for certain x86 instructions. Godson also emulates some x86 instructions. However PowerPC has no such thing. Another argument I could make is that IBM, Apple, or Motorola had no reason at all to even waste effort trying to attempt x86 emulation. As for 68k Motorola ended up making a replacement architecture called ColdFire afterwards precisely because PowerPC was not hardware compatible with 68k.
X86 has BSWAP too. Still not convinced.
Try eating an apple first thing in the morning. The first thing you eat after getting up.
Then try eating an apple after having a slice of bread. You'll notice a difference.
Of course it does exist. It was discovered by Dr. Cavor and is sold as Cavorite(TM).
PowerPC had good performance for several years. When the 603 and 604 were around they had better performance than x86 did. The problems started when the Pentium Pro came out. Even then it was not manufactured in enough numbers to be a real issue. Then the Pentium II came out...
So please elaborate where is the hardware support in PowerPC to emulate 68k and x86.
Good luck.
Apple got some good emulation software but it had zilch to do with PowerPC being designed with emulation of those architectures as a goal.
The Wikipedia page says Nokia has 91 K employees. This layoff number seems mostly arbitrary. It is the typical management rack em up tactic of firing 10% of employees when the company is losing ground.
He ran Nokia into the ground so it could be acquired by Microsoft for peanuts. Now that he has done his job he gets the reward of a cushy job at Microsoft. I do not see anything strange here.
Nokia was just for getting the patents which are worth a lot of money. Everyone has figured their angle a long time ago. The smartphones, as Microsoft usually does, will just be outsourced to someone in China.
At least one of these stupid companies finally got around to outsourcing their CEO from India as well. It has gone full circle.
When most of them were named that way the religions were not dead yet.
you can't use a name that is commercial or has political, military, or religious connotations
Like Jupiter? Or Mercury? All the planet names are names of Gods. Even some constellations have names of demi-gods and the ilk.
Or they can pay an external astroturfing outfit.
Somehow I remembered the panels where the guy goes to the ATM and sells his family when I read this news:
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/a...
The D-Wave machine comes with a software library to solve a specific problem where the vendor claims the machine has much better performance than a conventional PC. They gave the performance numbers of a PC running non-optimized code as a baseline. The thing is experts on the field have created optimized code for solving this same problem which runs faster than the D-Wave machine. On a standard desktop PC. So the D-Wave machine, at least for the problem they claimed they were good at, is many orders of magnitude more expensive than a regular PC with worse performance.
Real quantum computers are supposed to have much better performance than classic computers at solving certain classes of problems but the D-Wave does not seem to have better performance at all.
All these years, all these years to duplicate the exact same 60s tech that was used in the crazy bullet that killed JFK.
Or something.
Yes usually Intel has the process lead followed by the group of IBM, GlobalFoundries (which owns the fabs that used to belong to AMD), Samsung. TSMC comes way after that. The main advantage of TSMC has been that it is a lot more responsive to customer requests and they have a lot of capacity. Plus they do not compete with any company in chip design since they are a pure play foundry.
An Aside: In my opinion Intel chip designs have been less than spectacular given the R&D resources they have, it has been the process engineers that have given them the dominance in performance.
This has been the case since, like, forever. At one time AMD actually had process parity with Intel. This was around the time of the 180 nm node. Anyone that remembers Intel processors back then knows they sucked. Horribly.
Science is not supposed to be driven by consensus. It is supposed to be driven by the scientific method. You are supposed to design a theory that makes worthwhile predictions about some aspect of the real world and then test it in the real world to ensure it actually predicts stuff. If you are lucky the theory will make predictions of something that people did not expect to happen in the real world but that actually does happen. One example of this would be Special Relativity and the time dilation phenomenon.
AGW theory so far has done no proper predictions about the future. In that regard it is useless as a scientific theory.
Yes especially in the last couple of years. This negatively impacted NVIDIA and AMD's GPU business more than once. They also had packaging issues a couple of years back. Remember the NVIDIA GPU recall?
TSMC is the world's largest foundry business. They do not design chips. They manufacture chips. Their competitors are companies like GlobalFoundries. AMD does not have factories anymore, everything is manufactured at TSMC or GlobalFoundries, and until a couple of years ago Intel did not allow 3rd parties to use their chip factories.
The electronics and radar have been retrofitted in these planes more than once. For example the F-16 Block 60 has an AESA radar.
The stealth features are controversial in terms of utility. Plus they make these aircraft a pig to maintain.
The F-35 is particularly awful because they tried to make an all services plane out of it. They probably could have made a combined USAF/USN fighter more or less easily. But adding the VTOL requirement for the Marines and the UK was the final straw.
Last time the US tried something like this was with the F-111 and that was a procurement disaster.