Isn't that more a failure of police/detectives to find and arrest the criminals than a lack of laws? In the Wild West there were plenty of laws against robbery and murder. The problem was there wasn't enough law enforcement officers to actually enforce the laws. Applying the same analogy to the current Internet, we need more intelligent police who can understand and follow up on crimes. Right now, most police don't understand the concept of most computer crimes beyond "hacking" and "stealing". If we can increase the police force and give them the necessary training to be on par with the criminals technologically, you will see the amount of (serious) computer crimes drop.
Good for EA as a company (quicker game releases/more game releases), bad for the EA employees (most of the "smart" coder get the axe since they are no longer needed). Still up in the air about how it will be for consumers, but we will just have to wait and see what EA does with this standardized engine.
What's more moraly bankrupt: cheating on your wife with someone at work (hurts just your marriage/wife), or getting several thousand soldiers killed to further your political career?
Nothing ticks me off more than the hypocritical nature of conservatives. How many of your so-called 'people of faith' have been found out to be nothing but money laundering, children molesting, lying, greedy, uncaring pieces of human filth? But you follow them anyway because they tell you want you want to hear, like the lemmings that people like you are.
Yes, I think a Kerry Administration would be better than our current Administration. For one, we wouldn't have all these issues against our civil rights that we have now. And our government wouldn't be as hated around the world as it is right now.
Too bad we found out so late in the game, or I wouldnt have likely voted for him again.
No, that was you and 53million other Americans finding out too late. The other half of the country already knew what was wrong with him. We tried to tell you, but you didn't listen or dismissed us as 'unpatriotic hippies'. Well, maybe next time you'll listen to both sides of an arguement before you make a major decision like voting for a President.
I really wish I had mod points for your post! You hit it on the head! People in this country just don't give a damn any more. And if you try to convince them otherwise, they or the government place the ultimage trump card: it's to protect the country from terrorists.
You know that saying that came out after 9/11, how if we don't do this or that, the terrorists have won? Well, they did win. Life in American will never be the same again.
It's not new now, but back in 1997 the hardware/software world did not have these solutions. They devised a solution based not only on software, but special hardware, to make recording and seeking in a media stream doable with 1997 computer hardware. Now, while today this is simple and nothing spectacular, back then it was. People may have thought "wouldn't it be cool if...", but TiVo actually did it. They incurred the developement costs, the time, and the risk in bringing a product like that to a non-existant market. It's called the risks of business, I know, but without a patent backing them up, there would be nothing from stopping more companies like EchoStar from making clones. Then you fall into that trap of innovative ideas never being explored because there was only risk and no reward, etc.
The TiVo pattent isn't some lame "you time shift using computers" patent like we always hear about. It actually had a working prototype and used new/innovative ideas to make it happen. That's the very definition of something you should patent. Who says that it would be obvious to us today if TiVo hadn't done it back then? Who says that we would have just "stumbled" onto it as computers got faster? Someone was going to find the solution, either then or now, and patent it. At least the patent was made in a time when it actually took a brain to create, and not just slapping a "what if..." sticking on a patent application.
Never forget the silver rule: he who has the guns, makes the rules. While we never see the peaceful Muslims on our media outlets, they do in fact exist in great numbers. But they also exist in countries where religious and military extremiest have all the guns, making it suicide to even say a bad thing about the terrorists, never minde trying to take action.
If you look to our country, you will find a LOT of peaceful Islamic groups that have done a lot to show they do not support the terrorists. But does our conservative media show them? Nope. I remember seeing an episode of the O'Riely Factor (or however you spell it) that had on a leader of one of those groups. Did Bill have a nice conversation with him, asking him why the terrorists fasely identify themselves as Muslims? Nope. Bill raked him over the fire for not holding parades with banners saying they love the US after 9/11. He practically spat on him for not going so above and beyond as to make military parades seem like funeral marches. This types of mentality is everywhere in the conservative segment of the US: if you even have the same religion, then you are responsible for their actions and are just as guilty.
Then what about all the attrocities that Israel has committed? Where is your indignation for the Jewish population for not reigning in all the horrors that other Jewish people are inflicting on Arabs? Oh, that's right, you only hate brown skin people. Jewish people are perfectly fine because they look closer to you than Arabs do. What about the non-Arab Muslims? Do you think they are responsible because they haven't 'reigned in' the other Muslims? Get a clue, nothing is simple and black or white. These issues are complex, deeply rooted in history and atrocity after atrocity from people on both sides. Try taking a history class at your community college and educating yourself before you simply decry all Muslims.
Are you saying you condone the other extreme: kill all Muslims and nuke all Islamic countries? Because either you admit that it's not Islam that is the problem, but Extremists who happen to Muslims that are causing problems, you we just outlaw all religions and shoot anyone for having one. As soon as you start taking people out for their religion you have a new crusade. And if the West decides to follow your line of thought to its conclusion, then we have the more horrible massacure of people in the history of the world (yes, even bigger than Hitler and Holocust). It would be a war that makes all the previous wars seem like trips to the park. It's one thing to attack a government, which you can change pretty easily. But once you target people based on faith, and you have a Holy War, the kind the Bible talked about.
That's the problem with actually paying attention: once you learn just how easy the systems are to defeat, you stop buying the illusion and acknowledge the reality of our security. If someone like Bin Laden wants to attack the US again, they will. And it won't be with an airplane, it will be from a cargo ship (*cough*Seattle*cough*). Or it will be some people hiking into the US from Canada or from Mexico. It will be a home-grown terrorist (Oklahoma) or someone on the inside (USPO). However it happens, all the money and effort put into the illusion won't stop it.
If that happens, instead of the plane blowing up you get the airport terminal. Either one causes damange, loss of life, and really hurts the international economy (extra 'security' at the airports). We just need to face it, there is no silver bullet or extra security measure we can take that will guarenty safty from terrorist attacks. At this point, we are getting zero returns on the extra effort and cost. I would rather go back to more customer friendly airports than have this illusion of protection we have right now.
While those are all great ideas, and I really do want to seem them developed, I think you are missing how massive a change that would require from both the software AND the system architecture. Reducing load times by loading levels/mobs/items/data using another core is a neat idea, but what about the strain on the memory subsystem? While the core may be able to keep up, the memory units may be swapping so much that regular game play suffers.
My point is not to deride the desire to find ways to use all these cores in new ways, but to add a little bit of reality to the situation. These are not simple idea or close to being implemented. I may be 5-10 years before we see new design paradigms from software designers and new hardware that enables the new features. So, for now, those expensive new cores will sit around and just eat electrons.
but Core 2 still doesn't have an on-die MMU, or anything like HyperTransport 3.0.
And yet it is kicking AMD's ass up and down the street without them. Hmmm... maybe those aren't needed to have a kick-ass processor with top-notch performance. Maybe they are just different design descisions and are neither right or wrong.
These are primarily multimedia apps, which can usually take advantage of as many parallel threads as you gave give them. Going back to my real question, is the cost of one of these four core processors worth it to run Photoshop et al a little bit faster? If you are a graphic designer, then probably. If you are a simple home user who only plays games, probably not. Two cores is the sweet spot for hardcore home users, since the OS can take advantage of it and some of the top end games can as well. But most aren't doing hours and hours of image or video editing.
Or sitting in your apartment for days on end working on your MS research, which involves running countless computer simulations and writting your thesis.... *cough*
That's the real kicker. Can the industry field enough multithread applications, that can scale well, to make using a four core processor worth the money? Shaving a few minutes off a DVD encode does not justify the large price tag these four core processors will cost.
They have free time because it's Summer. There are no classes at Oregon State University right now (at least, not many), which is where this group is based (go Beavers!).
The 65nm process is a major process change, but that doesn't assure major increases in performance. Sometimes, when you shrink the transistors, whole sections of the processor need to be redesigned. Paths that once had enough slack to run on the old process suddently become too slow and must be reworked. All these can lead to more transistors for no purformance gain. Just ask Intel about this (*cough*Prescott*cough*).
Now, I will take issue with you saying a 4MB L3 cache is a major change that will bring about big performance increases. Sure, some programs may see increased memory efficiency having to swap out less to the main memory, but there could also be just as many programs that see no change. If simply adding a L3 cache gave great performance increase, you would see more processors using it. Instead, it only increases the complexity of the chip and memory subsystem, with what many can argue very litte, if any, performance increase. The combining of L2 caches when only one core is active has much more impact than simply adding a L3 cache.
In the end, I very much doubt that we'll see the kind of performance jump in the new AMD chip that we saw in the new Intel chip (30-70% increase over current AMD chips). Instead, we'll see the new architecture post an incremental increase with a monumental increase in cost.
Thank you for confirming what every reviewer and column writer has said for the last 6 years: the NetBurst architecture is just plain bad. It is inefficient, bloated, and suffers from too much heat production. That is why Intel did a massive backpeddle and implemented the Core architecture, and now the new Core 2. They are smaller, MUCH more efficient (even more than AMD's), and has such a low thermal output that you can make a case for using passive cooling.
Next time, try checking out benchmarks for the past few months and leave the ancient ones to the historians.
No, AMD's response was several years. Do you think they taped about their two core processors and then sat around on their butts for a year? They started right into their next design, just like every other processor comany does when they finish a project. Besides, Intel's old two core processor design, the one with two single cores joined into a single package, was a thrown together response to AMD's duel core processors. Core 2 has been designed from the begining to be a duel core product and so they don't suffer from many of the old bottlenecks.
Intel's Core 2 has more advantages than just raw performance (which it has in spades!). If you read the latest MaximumPC magazine, the one with their dream machine, you will find that they love Core 2. They said the processor doesn't even need active cooling! When they unplugged the fan on the heatsink the processor's temp only went up a few degrees. Can AMD's duel core processors say that? Will their four core processors?
As a poster above me stated, there is every chance that Intel could win this little battle. Sure, the four cores on a single die does allow for better communication between the cores and better use of the caches. BUT, because of the increase in space on the wafer for a four core processor, the yield rates may drop dramatically. Intel's solution side-steps the yield problem by simply joining two dual core processors into a single package. So, while AMD's processors may have a slight performance edge over Intel's quad chips, they may also be 2x-4x times more expensive and harder to come by.
That is why I canceled my WoW account as well. This news about smaller raid content does have me excited and looking foward to renewing my account when the expansion is released. The raiding content currently in game is too much like a job to be fun, hence why I canceled my account last month.
There won't be any at launch time, but that does not preclude Blizzard from adding 40 person raid content later. Remember, WoW had only a single 40 person raid when it was released: Molten Core. Over the past two years, we have seen the addition of three more 40 person raid instances, and two 20 person raids. It would not suprise me at all of Blizzard caves into the raiding minority and releases several 40 person raids in a row, each following the same pattern as before: give out the best items and best store lines to raids with 40 people.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't that more a failure of police/detectives to find and arrest the criminals than a lack of laws? In the Wild West there were plenty of laws against robbery and murder. The problem was there wasn't enough law enforcement officers to actually enforce the laws. Applying the same analogy to the current Internet, we need more intelligent police who can understand and follow up on crimes. Right now, most police don't understand the concept of most computer crimes beyond "hacking" and "stealing". If we can increase the police force and give them the necessary training to be on par with the criminals technologically, you will see the amount of (serious) computer crimes drop.
Good for EA as a company (quicker game releases/more game releases), bad for the EA employees (most of the "smart" coder get the axe since they are no longer needed). Still up in the air about how it will be for consumers, but we will just have to wait and see what EA does with this standardized engine.
Nothing ticks me off more than the hypocritical nature of conservatives. How many of your so-called 'people of faith' have been found out to be nothing but money laundering, children molesting, lying, greedy, uncaring pieces of human filth? But you follow them anyway because they tell you want you want to hear, like the lemmings that people like you are.
Yes, I think a Kerry Administration would be better than our current Administration. For one, we wouldn't have all these issues against our civil rights that we have now. And our government wouldn't be as hated around the world as it is right now.
No, that was you and 53million other Americans finding out too late. The other half of the country already knew what was wrong with him. We tried to tell you, but you didn't listen or dismissed us as 'unpatriotic hippies'. Well, maybe next time you'll listen to both sides of an arguement before you make a major decision like voting for a President.
You know that saying that came out after 9/11, how if we don't do this or that, the terrorists have won? Well, they did win. Life in American will never be the same again.
The TiVo pattent isn't some lame "you time shift using computers" patent like we always hear about. It actually had a working prototype and used new/innovative ideas to make it happen. That's the very definition of something you should patent. Who says that it would be obvious to us today if TiVo hadn't done it back then? Who says that we would have just "stumbled" onto it as computers got faster? Someone was going to find the solution, either then or now, and patent it. At least the patent was made in a time when it actually took a brain to create, and not just slapping a "what if..." sticking on a patent application.
If you look to our country, you will find a LOT of peaceful Islamic groups that have done a lot to show they do not support the terrorists. But does our conservative media show them? Nope. I remember seeing an episode of the O'Riely Factor (or however you spell it) that had on a leader of one of those groups. Did Bill have a nice conversation with him, asking him why the terrorists fasely identify themselves as Muslims? Nope. Bill raked him over the fire for not holding parades with banners saying they love the US after 9/11. He practically spat on him for not going so above and beyond as to make military parades seem like funeral marches. This types of mentality is everywhere in the conservative segment of the US: if you even have the same religion, then you are responsible for their actions and are just as guilty.
Then what about all the attrocities that Israel has committed? Where is your indignation for the Jewish population for not reigning in all the horrors that other Jewish people are inflicting on Arabs? Oh, that's right, you only hate brown skin people. Jewish people are perfectly fine because they look closer to you than Arabs do. What about the non-Arab Muslims? Do you think they are responsible because they haven't 'reigned in' the other Muslims? Get a clue, nothing is simple and black or white. These issues are complex, deeply rooted in history and atrocity after atrocity from people on both sides. Try taking a history class at your community college and educating yourself before you simply decry all Muslims.
Are you saying you condone the other extreme: kill all Muslims and nuke all Islamic countries? Because either you admit that it's not Islam that is the problem, but Extremists who happen to Muslims that are causing problems, you we just outlaw all religions and shoot anyone for having one. As soon as you start taking people out for their religion you have a new crusade. And if the West decides to follow your line of thought to its conclusion, then we have the more horrible massacure of people in the history of the world (yes, even bigger than Hitler and Holocust). It would be a war that makes all the previous wars seem like trips to the park. It's one thing to attack a government, which you can change pretty easily. But once you target people based on faith, and you have a Holy War, the kind the Bible talked about.
That's the problem with actually paying attention: once you learn just how easy the systems are to defeat, you stop buying the illusion and acknowledge the reality of our security. If someone like Bin Laden wants to attack the US again, they will. And it won't be with an airplane, it will be from a cargo ship (*cough*Seattle*cough*). Or it will be some people hiking into the US from Canada or from Mexico. It will be a home-grown terrorist (Oklahoma) or someone on the inside (USPO). However it happens, all the money and effort put into the illusion won't stop it.
If that happens, instead of the plane blowing up you get the airport terminal. Either one causes damange, loss of life, and really hurts the international economy (extra 'security' at the airports). We just need to face it, there is no silver bullet or extra security measure we can take that will guarenty safty from terrorist attacks. At this point, we are getting zero returns on the extra effort and cost. I would rather go back to more customer friendly airports than have this illusion of protection we have right now.
My personal mantra.
My point is not to deride the desire to find ways to use all these cores in new ways, but to add a little bit of reality to the situation. These are not simple idea or close to being implemented. I may be 5-10 years before we see new design paradigms from software designers and new hardware that enables the new features. So, for now, those expensive new cores will sit around and just eat electrons.
And yet it is kicking AMD's ass up and down the street without them. Hmmm... maybe those aren't needed to have a kick-ass processor with top-notch performance. Maybe they are just different design descisions and are neither right or wrong.
These are primarily multimedia apps, which can usually take advantage of as many parallel threads as you gave give them. Going back to my real question, is the cost of one of these four core processors worth it to run Photoshop et al a little bit faster? If you are a graphic designer, then probably. If you are a simple home user who only plays games, probably not. Two cores is the sweet spot for hardcore home users, since the OS can take advantage of it and some of the top end games can as well. But most aren't doing hours and hours of image or video editing.
Or sitting in your apartment for days on end working on your MS research, which involves running countless computer simulations and writting your thesis.... *cough*
That's the real kicker. Can the industry field enough multithread applications, that can scale well, to make using a four core processor worth the money? Shaving a few minutes off a DVD encode does not justify the large price tag these four core processors will cost.
They have free time because it's Summer. There are no classes at Oregon State University right now (at least, not many), which is where this group is based (go Beavers!).
Now, I will take issue with you saying a 4MB L3 cache is a major change that will bring about big performance increases. Sure, some programs may see increased memory efficiency having to swap out less to the main memory, but there could also be just as many programs that see no change. If simply adding a L3 cache gave great performance increase, you would see more processors using it. Instead, it only increases the complexity of the chip and memory subsystem, with what many can argue very litte, if any, performance increase. The combining of L2 caches when only one core is active has much more impact than simply adding a L3 cache.
In the end, I very much doubt that we'll see the kind of performance jump in the new AMD chip that we saw in the new Intel chip (30-70% increase over current AMD chips). Instead, we'll see the new architecture post an incremental increase with a monumental increase in cost.
Next time, try checking out benchmarks for the past few months and leave the ancient ones to the historians.
Intel's Core 2 has more advantages than just raw performance (which it has in spades!). If you read the latest MaximumPC magazine, the one with their dream machine, you will find that they love Core 2. They said the processor doesn't even need active cooling! When they unplugged the fan on the heatsink the processor's temp only went up a few degrees. Can AMD's duel core processors say that? Will their four core processors?
As a poster above me stated, there is every chance that Intel could win this little battle. Sure, the four cores on a single die does allow for better communication between the cores and better use of the caches. BUT, because of the increase in space on the wafer for a four core processor, the yield rates may drop dramatically. Intel's solution side-steps the yield problem by simply joining two dual core processors into a single package. So, while AMD's processors may have a slight performance edge over Intel's quad chips, they may also be 2x-4x times more expensive and harder to come by.
That is why I canceled my WoW account as well. This news about smaller raid content does have me excited and looking foward to renewing my account when the expansion is released. The raiding content currently in game is too much like a job to be fun, hence why I canceled my account last month.
There won't be any at launch time, but that does not preclude Blizzard from adding 40 person raid content later. Remember, WoW had only a single 40 person raid when it was released: Molten Core. Over the past two years, we have seen the addition of three more 40 person raid instances, and two 20 person raids. It would not suprise me at all of Blizzard caves into the raiding minority and releases several 40 person raids in a row, each following the same pattern as before: give out the best items and best store lines to raids with 40 people.
Yup: http://ipw2200.sourceforge.net/