That being said, when PR people and reporters say "AI" they often mean "machine learning", so the battle for the proper use of this term is likely already lost.
It was already lost in the 1950s, when the original researchers tried to make an end-run around perception, which required a density of compute Not Available Soon.
You can't not deliver on your founding conceit for six decades and then expect no social erosion of your Tokamak grandeur. Of course, they made lots of progress, but hardly any of this happened under their original Tokamak brand.
Those who still care about the One True Meaning usually trot out the term AGI (artificial general intelligence).
The next rung up the ladder from AGI is MHHAGI (muhaha artificial general intelligence). At this point, it's clear to everyone that we're finally and truly talking about penises as endowed by God himself, so King Arthur's quest for the master term usually ends here.
People waiting to take outrage at "robustly funded" were asleep at the switch. The personification of science as "its" was the first red flag.
... many issues about which scientists as a group have largely remained silent — attacks on black and brown lives, oil pipelines through indigenous lands, sexual harassment and assault, ADA access in our communities, immigration policy, lack of clean water in several cities across the country, poverty wages, LGBTQIA rights, and mass shootings are scientific issues
I don't know whether it's my left brain or my right brain (probably both), but I'm ready to jump in at this point with a rubber hose. What this argues for, essentially, is to turn scientists into a priesthood class.
You could already see the priesthood class at work in the way many climate scientists attacked Lomborg.
Climate scientists are not trained in the economics of disaster mitigation (most of them), yet brimming under a giant ceremonial hat in full priestly confidence they condemned Lomborg for having "insufficient expertise" to qualify to speak about many of the questions he raised. By all means, tackle each of his points in turn (there was much to dispute) and board by board with the patience of Job raze his entire slate to rubble. That's how real scientists behave.
Part of this came out of a spirit of solidarity against Koch Industry's information distortion empire: don't feed The Beast. At this point, the scientists are about ready to gather at Nicaea to sketch out their official, joint creed.
Well, newsflash, science is science because its legitimate practitioners—no anarchy is ever entirely pure—don't band together (formally) under an official creed.
And be careful what you wish for, too, because once science (by which I mean a loud, internal subclass with priestly ambitions) formally adopts the political mantle, our quasi-elected officials have every right to muzzle their official participation in public debate.
In the post-fact world, there's no knowing which side generated this slippery turd. Attribution is a mug's game.
Outrage is the new currency. Follow the outrage. Always assume that the worst nuggets on both sides are Trojan horse shit.
I'm thinking back to that time I slammed my fist on my particle-board desk so hard during a Windows NT installation going sideways in heretofore unmapped N-dimensional space that I snapped the little dowels off at one end of my desk plank. There was a CD involved, and floppy disks to load missing drivers for my primary disk systems, and random errors, and circular dependencies in non-coldstart retry attempts.
I don't even know how many levels deep I was at that point in pointless problems begetting more pointless problems (though I'm pretty sure Towers of Hanoi would have awarded me a Hafnium power-up long before then.)
Fuck 1998 all to hell and back. Shortly thereafter I bought a spare P6 on the cheap and spun up OpenBSD 2.3, my first 'nix box, so that I'd always have at least one system around that behaved like it wasn't authored by closet sociopaths. The year ultimately ended on an uptick.
We've all heard of adhesive duck deficiency?
Well the only reason Redmond wasn't reading the public's lips back in 1998 was a pointy rocket launcher deficiency in backyards everywhere.
I went beyond launch conditions on several occasions.
Over and over, I see people slag Wikipedia, and it's either: A) no specific claim that I can check out; or, B) specific claim, hopelessly overblown.
Wikipedia is dysfunctional, but probably no worse than your average PTA meeting. In a city of 5 million inhabitants, you can probably find an opium den. In an encyclopedia of 5 million articles, you can probably find an opium den.
No white-faced villager in the dark ages with a raging fever or galloping liver spots waited ten years to bosom the cross and quaff the latest available snake oil adorned with even the sketchiest reputation of hope.
Yes, we might fall back a giant rung on the ladder of exigency if we can't see our way to escape the wet-paper bag of market forces.
1. She was there of her own free will. 2. She did cocaine with him freely, by her own admission, for most of that time. 3. She lacks signs of coercion. 4. Police have found not traces of evidence to plausibly back up her sudden change of mind. 5. Another line of cocaine made it into her system.
Troll bait: own free will, freely, by her own admission, most of, traces of, signs of coercion, plausibly, sudden, change of mind, made it into.
The thing about trolling, is that it needs to somewhat mimic the structure of actual debate (all but the last of these qualify). This manner of abrupt shift into the passive is always troll food.
I would call your troll opus a shit sandwich, but that would disrespect shit.
In fact, that abrupt (and carefully timed) shift into the passive is one of my primary canaries IRL in distinguishing a harmless shit-disturber from an honest-to-god asshole.
But I don't judge on N=1 and for the most part Slashdot is a memoryless system (as I partake in it), so all I can really do is comment on how I would deal with this kind of thing elsewhere.
All politics, embarrassments, etc. - don't care... As long as 1) the ride is cheaper, and 2) the drivers are good, that's fine.
Some hairy chimp expressed pretty much exactly this attitude around a campfire 80,000 years ago, and then genius social engineer—this was before the law of unintended consequence—pulled eternal damnation out of his ass, and it's been fucking hell ever since.
"Artificial cognition" would have been better, but here's the rub: it biases the conversation towards the perceptual foundations of intelligence: the auditory and visual systems. And there was no way back in the 1950s to build either. Not enough tubes. Not enough aircraft hangers. Not enough Hoover dams.
But you could build a very primitive chess computer, and then pretend that from the top of this skinny beanstalk, one could directly assault the penthouse suite of adaptive intelligence, or its supreme overlord, AGI.
So the cart was placed way before the broomstick pony on day one. This term has done untold damage to the profession ever since.
Few sane individuals would turn off security updates at the critical security level concerning defects offering networked remote execution with escalation.
These little reason for this relatively small group of patches to disrupt normal operations, if Microsoft were to take a conservative stance.
But somehow Microsoft manages to bundle in weird instability bycatch, and you're either left with your pants down, or your pants on fire. For which the only viable solution is an OS-upgrade cycle with a new-and-improved EULA, which somehow never fails to be ever more Orwellian.
Pants or privacy. Choose one.
Nice business model, should your customers willingly board the train.
I understand that innovation for innovation's sake is not necessarily what this specific market calls for, but there's no way that the hardware they are selling should cost what they're charging.
You don't understand as well as you think you do.
Maintaining this tired, obsolete technology in long-term stasis is a feature not a bug, and it's priced accordingly.
Whether this remains the right testing methodology is another question entirely.
I'm not the biggest Gladwell, but I thought he was fine in these clips. It was high-flyer Adam Grant who quivered like a little girl when probed about his personal life (this becomes less annoying further in).
Explaining the rules of professional interaction is not an act of condescension; it's the first step in treating students like adults, as formerly known.
Adulthood (as formerly known) used to involve kissing stone-encrusted rings. I, for one, do not miss these goober encrusted overlords.
Note that this summary doesn't defend formality as a useful custom (what does it accomplish, exactly?), but rather defends formality as a valued human tradition among fuddy-duddies known as The Gainfully Employed (soon hereafter known as The Recently Outsourced).
Yes, and at the same time, it could hardly have been worse.
I find it depressing to indulge in my darkest projected nightmare that those involved blow through the entire $26,000 on a sleep-deprived cocaine and hooker binge, and are right back at it a week later.
That would be the honest thing to write after a weekend movie binge including The Wolf of Wall Street, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Brewster's Millions, 21, The Starbucks scene in Austin Powers, and the opening train scene of Dirty Rotten Scoundrels in which Steve Martin crows over pocketing an ill-gotten $20.
The problem here with that this sad-sack lament is that it depends upon his movie-binge–infused paranoia that those involved regard $26,000 as an insanely large sum of money and that they have a unlimited supply of in-roads to lather, rinse, and repeat their way into A) more cocaine and hookers, or B) more cocaine and hookers, a nice house in the suburbs, plus a tidy 401k.
Like warp drives and lightsabers, it is tech which cannot work as described because [it] conflicts with well-established theory. (Google "Shannon information" for details.)
When battery energy density reaches about 3-5x of current commercially deployed tech, we can finally have our VTOL flying cars, then we'll have a whole new set of problems,
Let me guess, the new "set" of problems includes really hot, well-ventilated fires in skyrise towers everywhere.
Then there will be an immediate mass return to brutalist architecture, only all that concrete and brick will function as really tall security bollards, and we'll all stop talking about gated neighbourhoods, and start talking about domed neighbourhoods.
Itanium is a direct result of the hardware people and the software people refusing to rub elbows in the same room.
Itanium's designers basically declared war against their software peers. Our beautiful machine would run fast, if only your crappy software didn't expose so many execution hazards.
Thus Intel set up a grand gauntlet for the compiler writers to finally prove their ultimate hardware manhood: by writing an Itanium compiler that didn't suck.
We all know how that went.
I've always though the made the critical error on the first step after connecting with the baseball: the bundle should have been a collection of highly dependent instructions that only wrote back to the register file once fully executed. A bundle would be dispatched to one execution unit's queue, and sit there until complete.
Because the bundle has internal dependencies, this means that each bundle would have a significant internal latency, so each execution unit queue would need a fairly deep dispatch buffer. "Waste of silicon!" cry Intel's virtuous hardware engineers. "Latency is a thing in the world!" whimper Intel's pussy-whipped compiler writers.
I also think that for compact instruction packing, that not every input argument to a bundle should have been able to name any old register out of the giant register file (256 registers, IIRC). Maybe a few global references, then plenty of 4-bit register selectors, accessed out of register file shards (the base shard could be selected by any number of mechanisms, up to and including the program location from which the instruction bundle was fetched; so maybe the code only ends up relocatable modulo 64 or modulo 256? what a horrible tragedy—plus the compiler writers already had great register colouring algorithms, so we had somewhat of a proof-of-concept in hand for the compiler complexity).
Because you're bypassing the register file for many bundle internal arguments (the result ax in the expression ax + b never hits the register file), fewer register file (and memory) reads satisfy more total instructions. I would have liked to see a bundle of about the same size able to specify up to eight simple instructions, if sufficiently chained together.
To a certain degree, this opposite-George approach kicks determinism to the curb. Well I say better sooner than later. Hey Intel engineers, look at your vaunted determinism now, dead with a bottle on skid row, after a long, loosing battle.
(The other thing Intel liked about determinism was its first five letters. Sometimes stupid ideas present a broader field for patent lock-up land-grabs. Moral of the story: greed carefully.)
It's easy to come up with hundreds of good reasons why my opposite-George approach wouldn't have panned out any better, but a smart group of engineers is paid to find clever solutions to most or all superficial obstacles. Whether any counterfactual designs might have proved viable is permanently lost to history. I'm just relating my own instinct at the time, FWIW.
Another thing: I would have endorsed a big/little design for interrupt handling (of the asynchronous type), with only a small set of agile (aka bundle-free), little cores able to handle interrupts. Then you can really afford to thin out check-point writes back to the register file (which is always a hot point to begin with). The magical, invisible forwarding mesh to support this illusion seamlessly would still be extremely complex, but that's also true on every other modern design.
From my perspective, Itanium was plenty innovative, unfortunately, it was mainly innovative in pure stubbornness and greed.
Anything developed using tax dollars MUST be made open source and freely available to all. It absolutely should, and *must*, be available on the internet.
Your main contribution to the debate seems to be using TWO entirely different methods of bold (followed by the near synonym "absolutely" and a second helpful repetition, this time of the word "available"—but I don't see these as your main contribution; did I mention your main contribution?)
Also cute is how you managed to conceal the word "government" under the tiny word "tax". Weird assertions about the true and absolute nature of government are one of the principle diagnostic aids for Goldbug's disease (and several other, related conditions).
The definitive diagnostic for Goldbug's disease is when Anarchy, State, and Utopia laughs you out of the room (check out its prescient lack of a chapter on open-kimono DoD).
Nvidia notes the dedicated Tensor cores also allow for a 12x uplift in deep learning performance compared to Pascal, which relies solely on its CUDA cores.
Long ago, the television spent many years instructing me that "lifts and separates" is the real cigar. Accept no substitutes. That's the key.
I can't remember the last time—if ever—a Microsoft promotional video warranted a Chariots of Fire musical swell.
"Jesus Christ (speak of the devil) I can't remember the last time we introduced a product that changed the world (for the better). And it's got our name on it. ('Me too', 'me three' echoes a pair of nearby cacti.)"
You have to forgive them, it's been a long 40 years, out in the desert, trafficking in neurotoxic juniper berries.
This troll trifecta actually warrants real attention.
I expect to have a good time. I admit it's a little unorthodox to make a giant vat of hot buttery popcorn to companion rolling up one's sleeves (chopsticks to the rescue), but ritual does have its rewards. ____
What the US and Israel did in Iran...
Bill Clinton is forever marked by his distancing language "that woman". Opening a composition with the word "what" is definitely heading down 'that' road. The reader is still trying to resolve the anaphor, while you slide into the equation a joint attribution "the US and Israel". Nicely done.
From Sound Reporting by J. Kern: "You may have heard TV anchors hyping a story by holding back the subject—teasing the viewer for a few seconds to try to generate curiosity... whatever effectiveness this device may have once had has surely been worn away by decades of overuse." Except—he should have added—on certain hyperbolic forums of talk radio, where the pre-handshake "what" is artfully stretched from minutes into hours. This construction has now become the ultimate penny dog-whistle.
was a crime
And the jurisdiction that can jointly prosecute America and Israel, your identified protagonists, is what, exactly? RMS pretty much thinks the BSD license is a crime. Humanity has been trying to cram morality into an undersized tuxedo since the invention of stone tablets. (They all suspected the chisel later recovered from the top of the mountain belonged to Moses, but he didn't fit the glove—phlogiston hadn't even been invented yet, so it's no wonder they didn't fully grasp accelerated desiccation above the timber line.) "Crime" is one of the most metaphorical words in all of human language, which you've artfully embedded in predicate logic Speedo trunks: "was a".
Our parse now looks like this: [talk radio distancing-language tease] [offhand perpetrator lasso] [predicate-logic Speedo trunks] [Howl's Moving Castle morality metaphor]
You've really packed a lot in there. Kudos.
and the targeted company
The strategic target wasn't a company, it was an operation. The micro-target wasn't a company, either. It was certain pieces of industrial control machinery. Moreover, the "company" wasn't feeling the pain of this, unless they indemnified their customer against retaliatory actions of nation states (seems unlikely, based on contracts I've read).
was a German company
And that makes this different, how exactly?
They infected German process-control equipment
Echo, echo, echo.
They who? Veiled agents of Zion? Cybersecurity Seal Team Six operating under full democratic oversight? Cybersecurity ST6 operating in thrall to veiled agents of Zion?
which could have
Charles Atlas only had to shoulder the world. "Heh," says Charles. "What?" you say. "You should have seen the other guy," says Charles, at great expense of breath he can hardly afford.
I suspect he means the poor tortoise shouldering the entire meta-physical universe of all possible counterfactual outcomes, but I'm too polite to ask.
led to a nuclear leak
Anyone else in the news using the word "leak" lately? I haven't read the uranium hexafluoride SDS (formerly MSDS). Have you?
I had this idea back in junior high school, right around the time I was getting really excited (what passed for really excited before a late puberty) about how the 8008 would someday change the world.
Plus, I would be turning sixteen soon, and having to navigate all that legacy infrastructure in my dad's fuel-guzzling pickup truck with the sticky clutch pedal, so my mind was specially tuned to the many imminent electronic upheavals sure to enlighten all the tired brick and mortar and asphalt in the blink of an eye.
Slashdot Mirror
It was already lost in the 1950s, when the original researchers tried to make an end-run around perception, which required a density of compute Not Available Soon.
You can't not deliver on your founding conceit for six decades and then expect no social erosion of your Tokamak grandeur. Of course, they made lots of progress, but hardly any of this happened under their original Tokamak brand.
Those who still care about the One True Meaning usually trot out the term AGI (artificial general intelligence).
The next rung up the ladder from AGI is MHHAGI (muhaha artificial general intelligence). At this point, it's clear to everyone that we're finally and truly talking about penises as endowed by God himself, so King Arthur's quest for the master term usually ends here.
Does anyone even need to ask whether this is worse than ending a statement with a question mark?
People waiting to take outrage at "robustly funded" were asleep at the switch. The personification of science as "its" was the first red flag.
I don't know whether it's my left brain or my right brain (probably both), but I'm ready to jump in at this point with a rubber hose. What this argues for, essentially, is to turn scientists into a priesthood class.
You could already see the priesthood class at work in the way many climate scientists attacked Lomborg.
Climate scientists are not trained in the economics of disaster mitigation (most of them), yet brimming under a giant ceremonial hat in full priestly confidence they condemned Lomborg for having "insufficient expertise" to qualify to speak about many of the questions he raised. By all means, tackle each of his points in turn (there was much to dispute) and board by board with the patience of Job raze his entire slate to rubble. That's how real scientists behave.
Part of this came out of a spirit of solidarity against Koch Industry's information distortion empire: don't feed The Beast. At this point, the scientists are about ready to gather at Nicaea to sketch out their official, joint creed.
Well, newsflash, science is science because its legitimate practitioners—no anarchy is ever entirely pure—don't band together (formally) under an official creed.
And be careful what you wish for, too, because once science (by which I mean a loud, internal subclass with priestly ambitions) formally adopts the political mantle, our quasi-elected officials have every right to muzzle their official participation in public debate.
In the post-fact world, there's no knowing which side generated this slippery turd. Attribution is a mug's game.
Outrage is the new currency. Follow the outrage. Always assume that the worst nuggets on both sides are Trojan horse shit.
I'm thinking back to that time I slammed my fist on my particle-board desk so hard during a Windows NT installation going sideways in heretofore unmapped N-dimensional space that I snapped the little dowels off at one end of my desk plank. There was a CD involved, and floppy disks to load missing drivers for my primary disk systems, and random errors, and circular dependencies in non-coldstart retry attempts.
I don't even know how many levels deep I was at that point in pointless problems begetting more pointless problems (though I'm pretty sure Towers of Hanoi would have awarded me a Hafnium power-up long before then.)
Fuck 1998 all to hell and back. Shortly thereafter I bought a spare P6 on the cheap and spun up OpenBSD 2.3, my first 'nix box, so that I'd always have at least one system around that behaved like it wasn't authored by closet sociopaths. The year ultimately ended on an uptick.
We've all heard of adhesive duck deficiency?
Well the only reason Redmond wasn't reading the public's lips back in 1998 was a pointy rocket launcher deficiency in backyards everywhere.
I went beyond launch conditions on several occasions.
Over and over, I see people slag Wikipedia, and it's either:
A) no specific claim that I can check out; or,
B) specific claim, hopelessly overblown.
Wikipedia is dysfunctional, but probably no worse than your average PTA meeting. In a city of 5 million inhabitants, you can probably find an opium den. In an encyclopedia of 5 million articles, you can probably find an opium den.
Universal dispassionate agreement farts rainbow-farting unicorns.
No white-faced villager in the dark ages with a raging fever or galloping liver spots waited ten years to bosom the cross and quaff the latest available snake oil adorned with even the sketchiest reputation of hope.
Yes, we might fall back a giant rung on the ladder of exigency if we can't see our way to escape the wet-paper bag of market forces.
Meanwhile, North Korea.
Troll bait: own free will, freely, by her own admission, most of, traces of, signs of coercion, plausibly, sudden, change of mind, made it into.
The thing about trolling, is that it needs to somewhat mimic the structure of actual debate (all but the last of these qualify). This manner of abrupt shift into the passive is always troll food.
I would call your troll opus a shit sandwich, but that would disrespect shit.
In fact, that abrupt (and carefully timed) shift into the passive is one of my primary canaries IRL in distinguishing a harmless shit-disturber from an honest-to-god asshole.
But I don't judge on N=1 and for the most part Slashdot is a memoryless system (as I partake in it), so all I can really do is comment on how I would deal with this kind of thing elsewhere.
Some hairy chimp expressed pretty much exactly this attitude around a campfire 80,000 years ago, and then genius social engineer—this was before the law of unintended consequence—pulled eternal damnation out of his ass, and it's been fucking hell ever since.
AI is the dumbest term, and always has been.
"Artificial cognition" would have been better, but here's the rub: it biases the conversation towards the perceptual foundations of intelligence: the auditory and visual systems. And there was no way back in the 1950s to build either. Not enough tubes. Not enough aircraft hangers. Not enough Hoover dams.
But you could build a very primitive chess computer, and then pretend that from the top of this skinny beanstalk, one could directly assault the penthouse suite of adaptive intelligence, or its supreme overlord, AGI.
So the cart was placed way before the broomstick pony on day one. This term has done untold damage to the profession ever since.
10 Games That Take Minutes to Learn and a Lifetime to Master — clickbait exhibit 1
Ah yes, your grandfather's tube-compatible "napkin AI" writ large.
Just two weeks ago, I picked up a used dual-E5 at a good price, with sixteen available RAM slots (once I score the second CPU).
This, mainly to run my many web tabs, and perhaps one other heavy application at the same time.
Few sane individuals would turn off security updates at the critical security level concerning defects offering networked remote execution with escalation.
These little reason for this relatively small group of patches to disrupt normal operations, if Microsoft were to take a conservative stance.
But somehow Microsoft manages to bundle in weird instability bycatch, and you're either left with your pants down, or your pants on fire. For which the only viable solution is an OS-upgrade cycle with a new-and-improved EULA, which somehow never fails to be ever more Orwellian.
Pants or privacy. Choose one.
Nice business model, should your customers willingly board the train.
You don't understand as well as you think you do.
Maintaining this tired, obsolete technology in long-term stasis is a feature not a bug, and it's priced accordingly.
Whether this remains the right testing methodology is another question entirely.
Malcolm Gladwell on Why We Shouldn't Value Speed Over Power — 13 April 2017
Adam Grant interviews Malcolm Gladwell on why we shouldn't value speed over power — 1 May 2017
Malcolm Gladwell interviews Adam Grant on how nonconformists move the world — 2 March 2016
Barry Schwartz: Lotteries for College Admissions — July 2012
I'm not the biggest Gladwell, but I thought he was fine in these clips. It was high-flyer Adam Grant who quivered like a little girl when probed about his personal life (this becomes less annoying further in).
Adulthood (as formerly known) used to involve kissing stone-encrusted rings. I, for one, do not miss these goober encrusted overlords.
Note that this summary doesn't defend formality as a useful custom (what does it accomplish, exactly?), but rather defends formality as a valued human tradition among fuddy-duddies known as The Gainfully Employed (soon hereafter known as The Recently Outsourced).
Way to go, Chicken Little. I always figured you for a feathery, thoughtcrime propaganda stooge.
Data extraction methods
Most of these techniques are more akin to screen scraping than decompiling or reverse engineering.
Yes, and at the same time, it could hardly have been worse.
That would be the honest thing to write after a weekend movie binge including The Wolf of Wall Street, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Brewster's Millions, 21, The Starbucks scene in Austin Powers, and the opening train scene of Dirty Rotten Scoundrels in which Steve Martin crows over pocketing an ill-gotten $20.
The problem here with that this sad-sack lament is that it depends upon his movie-binge–infused paranoia that those involved regard $26,000 as an insanely large sum of money and that they have a unlimited supply of in-roads to lather, rinse, and repeat their way into A) more cocaine and hookers, or B) more cocaine and hookers, a nice house in the suburbs, plus a tidy 401k.
And it did eventually get a name upgrade: SAS.
Another fifteen years from now, after another transport remake, it will probably be called LAPP or HED or VD4U.
You'd have better served your reader by directing him or her to the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States.
That's an in-joke for the information theory cognoscenti.
Let me guess, the new "set" of problems includes really hot, well-ventilated fires in skyrise towers everywhere.
Then there will be an immediate mass return to brutalist architecture, only all that concrete and brick will function as really tall security bollards, and we'll all stop talking about gated neighbourhoods, and start talking about domed neighbourhoods.
"Shuttered", prepare thyself for gentrification.
Itanium is a direct result of the hardware people and the software people refusing to rub elbows in the same room.
Itanium's designers basically declared war against their software peers. Our beautiful machine would run fast, if only your crappy software didn't expose so many execution hazards.
Thus Intel set up a grand gauntlet for the compiler writers to finally prove their ultimate hardware manhood: by writing an Itanium compiler that didn't suck.
We all know how that went.
I've always though the made the critical error on the first step after connecting with the baseball: the bundle should have been a collection of highly dependent instructions that only wrote back to the register file once fully executed. A bundle would be dispatched to one execution unit's queue, and sit there until complete.
Because the bundle has internal dependencies, this means that each bundle would have a significant internal latency, so each execution unit queue would need a fairly deep dispatch buffer. "Waste of silicon!" cry Intel's virtuous hardware engineers. "Latency is a thing in the world!" whimper Intel's pussy-whipped compiler writers.
I also think that for compact instruction packing, that not every input argument to a bundle should have been able to name any old register out of the giant register file (256 registers, IIRC). Maybe a few global references, then plenty of 4-bit register selectors, accessed out of register file shards (the base shard could be selected by any number of mechanisms, up to and including the program location from which the instruction bundle was fetched; so maybe the code only ends up relocatable modulo 64 or modulo 256? what a horrible tragedy—plus the compiler writers already had great register colouring algorithms, so we had somewhat of a proof-of-concept in hand for the compiler complexity).
Because you're bypassing the register file for many bundle internal arguments (the result ax in the expression ax + b never hits the register file), fewer register file (and memory) reads satisfy more total instructions. I would have liked to see a bundle of about the same size able to specify up to eight simple instructions, if sufficiently chained together.
To a certain degree, this opposite-George approach kicks determinism to the curb. Well I say better sooner than later. Hey Intel engineers, look at your vaunted determinism now, dead with a bottle on skid row, after a long, loosing battle.
(The other thing Intel liked about determinism was its first five letters. Sometimes stupid ideas present a broader field for patent lock-up land-grabs. Moral of the story: greed carefully.)
It's easy to come up with hundreds of good reasons why my opposite-George approach wouldn't have panned out any better, but a smart group of engineers is paid to find clever solutions to most or all superficial obstacles. Whether any counterfactual designs might have proved viable is permanently lost to history. I'm just relating my own instinct at the time, FWIW.
Another thing: I would have endorsed a big/little design for interrupt handling (of the asynchronous type), with only a small set of agile (aka bundle-free), little cores able to handle interrupts. Then you can really afford to thin out check-point writes back to the register file (which is always a hot point to begin with). The magical, invisible forwarding mesh to support this illusion seamlessly would still be extremely complex, but that's also true on every other modern design.
From my perspective, Itanium was plenty innovative, unfortunately, it was mainly innovative in pure stubbornness and greed.
Your main contribution to the debate seems to be using TWO entirely different methods of bold (followed by the near synonym "absolutely" and a second helpful repetition, this time of the word "available"—but I don't see these as your main contribution; did I mention your main contribution?)
Also cute is how you managed to conceal the word "government" under the tiny word "tax". Weird assertions about the true and absolute nature of government are one of the principle diagnostic aids for Goldbug's disease (and several other, related conditions).
The definitive diagnostic for Goldbug's disease is when Anarchy, State, and Utopia laughs you out of the room (check out its prescient lack of a chapter on open-kimono DoD).
Long ago, the television spent many years instructing me that "lifts and separates" is the real cigar. Accept no substitutes. That's the key.
I can't remember the last time—if ever—a Microsoft promotional video warranted a Chariots of Fire musical swell.
"Jesus Christ (speak of the devil) I can't remember the last time we introduced a product that changed the world (for the better). And it's got our name on it. ('Me too', 'me three' echoes a pair of nearby cacti.)"
You have to forgive them, it's been a long 40 years, out in the desert, trafficking in neurotoxic juniper berries.
This troll trifecta actually warrants real attention.
I expect to have a good time. I admit it's a little unorthodox to make a giant vat of hot buttery popcorn to companion rolling up one's sleeves (chopsticks to the rescue), but ritual does have its rewards.
____
Bill Clinton is forever marked by his distancing language "that woman". Opening a composition with the word "what" is definitely heading down 'that' road. The reader is still trying to resolve the anaphor, while you slide into the equation a joint attribution "the US and Israel". Nicely done.
From Sound Reporting by J. Kern: "You may have heard TV anchors hyping a story by holding back the subject—teasing the viewer for a few seconds to try to generate curiosity ... whatever effectiveness this device may have once had has surely been worn away by decades of overuse." Except—he should have added—on certain hyperbolic forums of talk radio, where the pre-handshake "what" is artfully stretched from minutes into hours. This construction has now become the ultimate penny dog-whistle.
And the jurisdiction that can jointly prosecute America and Israel, your identified protagonists, is what, exactly? RMS pretty much thinks the BSD license is a crime. Humanity has been trying to cram morality into an undersized tuxedo since the invention of stone tablets. (They all suspected the chisel later recovered from the top of the mountain belonged to Moses, but he didn't fit the glove—phlogiston hadn't even been invented yet, so it's no wonder they didn't fully grasp accelerated desiccation above the timber line.) "Crime" is one of the most metaphorical words in all of human language, which you've artfully embedded in predicate logic Speedo trunks: "was a".
Our parse now looks like this:
[talk radio distancing-language tease]
[offhand perpetrator lasso]
[predicate-logic Speedo trunks]
[Howl's Moving Castle morality metaphor]
You've really packed a lot in there. Kudos.
The strategic target wasn't a company, it was an operation. The micro-target wasn't a company, either. It was certain pieces of industrial control machinery. Moreover, the "company" wasn't feeling the pain of this, unless they indemnified their customer against retaliatory actions of nation states (seems unlikely, based on contracts I've read).
And that makes this different, how exactly?
Echo, echo, echo.
They who? Veiled agents of Zion? Cybersecurity Seal Team Six operating under full democratic oversight? Cybersecurity ST6 operating in thrall to veiled agents of Zion?
Charles Atlas only had to shoulder the world. "Heh," says Charles. "What?" you say. "You should have seen the other guy," says Charles, at great expense of breath he can hardly afford.
I suspect he means the poor tortoise shouldering the entire meta-physical universe of all possible counterfactual outcomes, but I'm too polite to ask.
Anyone else in the news using the word "leak" lately? I haven't read the uranium hexafluoride SDS (formerly MSDS). Have you?
Here's how America stores this dangerous chemical: What does a depleted uranium hexafluoride cylinder look like?
This is not even inside a secure facility designed with accident mitigation in mind.
A high bar indeed, that applies to
I had this idea back in junior high school, right around the time I was getting really excited (what passed for really excited before a late puberty) about how the 8008 would someday change the world.
Plus, I would be turning sixteen soon, and having to navigate all that legacy infrastructure in my dad's fuel-guzzling pickup truck with the sticky clutch pedal, so my mind was specially tuned to the many imminent electronic upheavals sure to enlighten all the tired brick and mortar and asphalt in the blink of an eye.
FTFY.