(disclaimer: I haven't read all of the document yet, so there may be errors)
Based on the abstract and skimming the first few pages, it looks like the patent is about temporarily buffering memory stores generated by instructions from a different instruction set. (and then throwing them out if the instruction sequence is determined to cause an exception or other bad stuff)
Doesn't sound like this is for translating the instructions themselves, but I could be wrong. Later on they talk about prior art of emulation, and how being able to reorder instruction execution (and keep track of memory usage by instructions executing out-of-order) will allow for much faster emulation of other processors.
Oh, and there's also mention of translation of other instruction sets to a native set. Sounds like on-the-fly translation of instruction sets to me...
This would seem to be nearly definitive proof of the validity of the rumors surrounding Transmeta. Bring on world domination.:)
I agree with other posters who have pointed out that Dvorak's article is long on claims and short on proof. (I love how he often defers to "them" -- his network-uber-buddies who obviously know everything.)
What would make his argument more compelling (and his article much more interesting to read) would be if he tried, for example, to set up Linux as an IRC server (or any other high-traffic service), and if he documented his experience. I can accept informed criticism, but the article comes off as Dvorak parroting someone else's digs at Linux.
It's also interesting that Dvorak doesn't seem to grok the Darwinian nature of open source projects (there seems to be a rule against even imagining such a concept as agreement [in the open source community]). Of course there isn't agreement, John...just survival/widespread adoption of the best open source software (proven over time).
And no, this isn't knee-jerk Linux "flamadvocacy", but simply a request for a more thorough investigation of the story by Mr. Dvorak...
I think this is a reasonable measure to combat truancy. (which is the real aim of it, despite the spin put on it by/. and some posters) The law seems to be specifically geared towards children who should be in school, and shouldn't really impact anybody else. (witness the number of qualifying clauses: children under 18, during school hours, unless going there for a class, unless accompanied by a parent, etc. etc. -- these all provide 'outs' for kids' legitimate use during school hours)
We should be more worried about laws like those being passed in Australia and elsewhere, than something that seems reasonable and narrow in focus like this...
Slashdot Mirror
(disclaimer: I haven't read all of the document yet, so there may be errors)
:)
Based on the abstract and skimming the first few pages, it looks like the patent is about temporarily buffering memory stores generated by instructions from a different instruction set. (and then throwing them out if the instruction sequence is determined to cause an exception or other bad stuff)
Doesn't sound like this is for translating the instructions themselves, but I could be wrong. Later on they talk about prior art of emulation, and how being able to reorder instruction execution (and keep track of memory usage by instructions executing out-of-order) will allow for much faster emulation of other processors.
Oh, and there's also mention of translation of other instruction sets to a native set. Sounds like on-the-fly translation of instruction sets to me...
This would seem to be nearly definitive proof of the validity of the rumors surrounding Transmeta. Bring on world domination.
I agree with other posters who have pointed out that Dvorak's article is long on claims and short on proof. (I love how he often defers to "them" -- his network-uber-buddies who obviously know everything.)
What would make his argument more compelling (and his article much more interesting to read) would be if he tried, for example, to set up Linux as an IRC server (or any other high-traffic service), and if he documented his experience. I can accept informed criticism, but the article comes off as Dvorak parroting someone else's digs at Linux.
It's also interesting that Dvorak doesn't seem to grok the Darwinian nature of open source projects (there seems to be a rule against even imagining such a concept as agreement [in the open source community]). Of course there isn't agreement, John...just survival/widespread adoption of the best open source software (proven over time).
And no, this isn't knee-jerk Linux "flamadvocacy", but simply a request for a more thorough investigation of the story by Mr. Dvorak...
I think this is a reasonable measure to combat truancy. (which is the real aim of it, despite the spin put on it by /. and some posters) The law seems to be specifically geared towards children who should be in school, and shouldn't really impact anybody else. (witness the number of qualifying clauses: children under 18, during school hours, unless going there for a class, unless accompanied by a parent, etc. etc. -- these all provide 'outs' for kids' legitimate use during school hours)
We should be more worried about laws like those being passed in Australia and elsewhere, than something that seems reasonable and narrow in focus like this...