10GbE, i don't know if you've seen the power consumption, it's insane. 6 watts for 10GBase-T PHY ICs just on their own! so 1GbE yes to that; 10GbE mmm.... not right now.
Just do the wires for SFP+. People can use Direct Attach Cables or put an external PHY on the board.
Or provide a single modern PCI-E-lane. Not quite enough for full-bandwidth 10Gbps, but close.
I always wondered why it is always assumed that separate CPU and GPU are somehow the most efficient use of silicon.
Pins are expensive, and pin number 1000 is more expensive than pin number 1. That means the bandwidth going off a given chip is limited, and you cannot just add more of it, because that costs pins. The CPU and the GPU generally do not access the same memory at the same time, so it makes a lot of sense to split the chips into two; you can perhaps get away with 2 800-pin chips instead of a 1600-pin monster.
If you integrate CPU and GPU you also risk having to throw away your chips when either the CPU or the GPU has a defect. For an imaginary defect rate of 10% for each alone, you end up with 19% defects for both combined. That can quickly eat your profits.
However, bandwidth per pin has increased to the point that you can perhaps get away with using the same memory channels for both CPU and GPU and still get semi-reasonable performance. At the same time, chips have shrunk enough that even combined CPU-GPU silicon is small enough to not have a large risk of defects.
I never said it is dirt cheap, I said the cost is trivial compared to the value of crops.
The subsidy is not specific to communication related to "gathering and disseminating the information needed to predict and sometimes avoid crop failures."
If it is necessary for the functioning of society that farmers have phone lines, then by all means run a government bid to provide phone service to farmers. Or start a government phone company to provide the service. Or nationalise the telecoms backbone or send in the USACE, if that is what it takes. I am a leftist, Big Government doesn't scare me. But either way, do it properly, get the money for the project in through taxes and give the money out through the budget so it is plain for all to see what is going on. Hiding taxes and subsidies on phone bills is just lying to people, it prevents reasoned discussion of the costs and benefits, and it causes just the kind of weird results that this article talked about.
Even if done right, I would still most likely be against the subsidy, but all it would take to convince me would be a few proper scientific studies.
BT blocks TPB using the CleanFeed system. The CleanFeed system was designed to block child porn, and to prevent criticism based on "slippery slope" arguments, BT promised that they would shut down the system rather than allow it to be used for other purposes than blocking child porn.
Yet here we are, BT's hands were tied by the court, and those who yelled "slippery slope" were proven right.
It doesn't help that there is no general right to free speech in the UK except what the Universal Declaration of Human RIghts says. If UK law conflicts with the UDHR, the only recourse is to go to the European Court of Human Rights.
Generally when it happens to me it is a race condition, the elevator was idle but someone presses "summon" before I press "go".
Once in a while I will board an elevator going in the wrong direction to exploit the fact that many elevators consider getting people already inside to the right floor more important than serving passengers who are not on the elevator yet. That is antisocial of me, of course.
We need to distort the market enough that people do not starve when the harvest fails one year. We do not need to pay people living in rural areas for making phone calls -- that makes farmers who happen to make phone calls more competitive with farmers who don't, and there is no guarantee that the farmers who make more phone calls are the ones who produce the most needed products.
Long distance carriers, certainly the cheap ones, have gone VoIP. Phone calls are only about 100kbps worst case, and if you don't care about quality you can go much lower than that. A 1Gbps pipe can handle at least 10,000 simultaneous calls, and even at the razor-thin margins of long distance carriers it is easy to afford 10Gbps if you are dealing with 10,000 simultaneous calls. On top of that comes the traffic costs, but 100kbps is 750 kB/minute. 0.1 cent/minute is at least an order of magnitude more than the cost of traffic.
The more expensive carriers can hit limits because they expect more from it and therefore buy more expensive guaranteed capacity. However, they also have much higher margins so they can afford to upgrade.
The only real solution is to lower the actual termination costs by using cheaper technology. I.e. cell phones below 500MHz. I am having trouble imagining a place with low population density where that isn't cheaper than maintaining copper cables.
Keeping long copper lines alive is not sensible. They cannot provide decent Internet access and they are too expensive for phone use. Do you know if mobile providers get the same great termination fees?
If the market won't do it on its own because of the distortions, the FCC should simply mandate that all termination fees must fall 10% a year. They can make fees below 1c/minute exempt from the rule if they are feeling generous.
There is no fundamental reason why those benefits are non-measurable. Some of them sound rather dubious. Stability of food availability? How is that helped by having inefficient subsidized farmers?
Yes, because more expensive food is so good for everyone!
Yes, that is pretty much correct. Free market (i.e. more expensive) food prices is a good way to ensure that the food provided is what people want. Random subsidies distort the market, and distorted markets tend to produce the wrong things.
Especially the poor. The sooner we starve them out the better!
Helping the poor should be done directly, not by distorting markets. One solution which involves very little administrative overhead is citizen's income.
Food cannot be entirely left to the free market; demand is too inelastic and supply too unpredictable for that. Government-run granaries have solved that problem for thousands of years.
The GP must have looked at the origins of Germanic copyright legislation and decided that it both sounds sane and could be a good idea overall (except for the duration perhaps). Alas, like "Intellectual Property" in every other place, the scope gets larger and the results more similar to the rest of the world.
The original US copyright law also sounds like a sane and workable system, even though it was different from the origins of the Germanic copyright legislation. Yet today those completely different systems are almost indistinguishable in practice, at least when it comes to software -- except for the wording you use in contracts involving copyright.
In sensible jurisdictions, the act of running a program is not a copyright event, since it does not involve distribution. When you download, compile, and execute something from Github, the only copyright event is Github distributing the source file. The rest is not of concern to copyright law.
Alas, when copyright was conceived, copying and distribution were practically one and the same, so "right to distribute" was unfortunately misnamed "copyright". Many jurisdictions later looked at computers and misunderstood any bit duplication to be a copyright event. Denmark is one of the most extreme cases, where every (ISP or otherwise) router is subject to copyright law whenever it moves copyrighted bits around. That level of absurdity is fortunately fairly rare.
The long distance carriers should take "you must complete this call" into account when setting their price.
The challenge is that other carriers can swoop in and pretend to be regular customers, sending precisely the most expensive calls to a provider but using other routes for the rest of the traffic -- "cherry picking". Carriers will typically deactivate the accounts when they discover the cherry picking, but that is a whack-a-mole game. The carriers can just price all calls at slightly above the highest possible termination fee, but then they would not be competitive.
The US can consider itself lucky in one way: there are no ridiculous termination fees for mobiles. Europeans have laughed at the US for years for making people pay for incoming calls, but Americans definitely have the last laugh.
So they are squeezed on both ends, lower income and higher cost of services. This causes a growing disparity between rural and urban citizens.
If they can earn more money in the city, then that is probably because the benefit they provide to society is higher in the city. We are all poorer because rural citizens are underperforming their potential.
That is certainly not something we should subsidize even more.
If the company can't provide them with the service, they shouldn't have sold it.
The company is providing perfect service. Outgoing calls are working great.
Incoming calls, however, are not reaching the company. There is nothing the company can do about that.
The reason for the problem is that providers get money for handling incoming calls, and rural telecoms get more (they have more infrastructure to maintain per billed minute). Regular customers tend to pay the same price to call all of the US, and so the cheaper providers end up actually losing money on calls to rural areas. Therefore (some of) the other providers do everything in their power to avoid that cost, including dropping expensive calls on the floor or degrading quality, in the hope that the caller will either switch to a cell phone or that the two ends will decide to reestablish the call in the other direction. Incoming calls are practically always profitable.
Elevator software is probably the most obvious use case for software with correctness proofs. Note that the elevator going up when you want to go down is not necessarily bad programming, the most efficient place to go next is not necessarily where the last person who entered the elevator wants to go.
Person a few comments up says a prototype was made that was about the size of a pizza.
A prototype is easy to do arbitrarily small. You just need to place it on a heater to keep it at 300C or whatever temperature the particular salt requires. It will self discharge in minutes or perhaps hours if you use the battery to power the heater though.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't want it anyhow - running at native resolution is a good way to strain your eyes.
Do you have problems reading stuff printed on 1200 DPI printers? Professional offset printing must be a nightmare for you.
10GbE, i don't know if you've seen the power consumption, it's insane. 6 watts for 10GBase-T PHY ICs just on their own! so 1GbE yes to that; 10GbE mmm.... not right now.
Just do the wires for SFP+. People can use Direct Attach Cables or put an external PHY on the board.
Or provide a single modern PCI-E-lane. Not quite enough for full-bandwidth 10Gbps, but close.
you could have a radio active sample that emits partials randomly, use that as the base for your random number generator.
There are certain challenges involved in having radioactive materials in your chip. Or even in your chip factory.
the features i would like to see in this chip though is virtualization acceleration similar to what the better x86 and x86_64 chips now have.
Every decently-designed chip is self-virtualizing. It would be silly to do a new design which isn't.
I always wondered why it is always assumed that separate CPU and GPU are somehow the most efficient use of silicon.
Pins are expensive, and pin number 1000 is more expensive than pin number 1. That means the bandwidth going off a given chip is limited, and you cannot just add more of it, because that costs pins. The CPU and the GPU generally do not access the same memory at the same time, so it makes a lot of sense to split the chips into two; you can perhaps get away with 2 800-pin chips instead of a 1600-pin monster.
If you integrate CPU and GPU you also risk having to throw away your chips when either the CPU or the GPU has a defect. For an imaginary defect rate of 10% for each alone, you end up with 19% defects for both combined. That can quickly eat your profits.
However, bandwidth per pin has increased to the point that you can perhaps get away with using the same memory channels for both CPU and GPU and still get semi-reasonable performance. At the same time, chips have shrunk enough that even combined CPU-GPU silicon is small enough to not have a large risk of defects.
As to them not having ICBMs, how is it then that they launched Sputnik in 1959 but we were incapable of putting a satellite in orbit?
Their nuclear warheads were too large, the USSR rockets could not deliver them to the US.
And yes, Russia had bombers, but can you imagine more than a few of those actually reaching the US? They weren't exactly stealth bombers...
I never said it is dirt cheap, I said the cost is trivial compared to the value of crops.
The subsidy is not specific to communication related to "gathering and disseminating the information needed to predict and sometimes avoid crop failures."
If it is necessary for the functioning of society that farmers have phone lines, then by all means run a government bid to provide phone service to farmers. Or start a government phone company to provide the service. Or nationalise the telecoms backbone or send in the USACE, if that is what it takes. I am a leftist, Big Government doesn't scare me. But either way, do it properly, get the money for the project in through taxes and give the money out through the budget so it is plain for all to see what is going on. Hiding taxes and subsidies on phone bills is just lying to people, it prevents reasoned discussion of the costs and benefits, and it causes just the kind of weird results that this article talked about.
Even if done right, I would still most likely be against the subsidy, but all it would take to convince me would be a few proper scientific studies.
BT blocks TPB using the CleanFeed system. The CleanFeed system was designed to block child porn, and to prevent criticism based on "slippery slope" arguments, BT promised that they would shut down the system rather than allow it to be used for other purposes than blocking child porn.
Yet here we are, BT's hands were tied by the court, and those who yelled "slippery slope" were proven right.
It doesn't help that there is no general right to free speech in the UK except what the Universal Declaration of Human RIghts says. If UK law conflicts with the UDHR, the only recourse is to go to the European Court of Human Rights.
The cost of telecommunications is completely trivial today compared to the value of crops. Satellite service can fulfil that need.
The topic of article is that it is "necessary to have more than one phone since some networks [won't] talk to others."
Generally when it happens to me it is a race condition, the elevator was idle but someone presses "summon" before I press "go".
Once in a while I will board an elevator going in the wrong direction to exploit the fact that many elevators consider getting people already inside to the right floor more important than serving passengers who are not on the elevator yet. That is antisocial of me, of course.
We need to distort the market enough that people do not starve when the harvest fails one year. We do not need to pay people living in rural areas for making phone calls -- that makes farmers who happen to make phone calls more competitive with farmers who don't, and there is no guarantee that the farmers who make more phone calls are the ones who produce the most needed products.
Which is what I wrote already.
Long distance carriers, certainly the cheap ones, have gone VoIP. Phone calls are only about 100kbps worst case, and if you don't care about quality you can go much lower than that. A 1Gbps pipe can handle at least 10,000 simultaneous calls, and even at the razor-thin margins of long distance carriers it is easy to afford 10Gbps if you are dealing with 10,000 simultaneous calls. On top of that comes the traffic costs, but 100kbps is 750 kB/minute. 0.1 cent/minute is at least an order of magnitude more than the cost of traffic.
The more expensive carriers can hit limits because they expect more from it and therefore buy more expensive guaranteed capacity. However, they also have much higher margins so they can afford to upgrade.
True, but why would a long distance provider have limited capacity?
The only real solution is to lower the actual termination costs by using cheaper technology. I.e. cell phones below 500MHz. I am having trouble imagining a place with low population density where that isn't cheaper than maintaining copper cables.
Keeping long copper lines alive is not sensible. They cannot provide decent Internet access and they are too expensive for phone use. Do you know if mobile providers get the same great termination fees?
If the market won't do it on its own because of the distortions, the FCC should simply mandate that all termination fees must fall 10% a year. They can make fees below 1c/minute exempt from the rule if they are feeling generous.
There is no fundamental reason why those benefits are non-measurable. Some of them sound rather dubious. Stability of food availability? How is that helped by having inefficient subsidized farmers?
Yes, because more expensive food is so good for everyone!
Yes, that is pretty much correct. Free market (i.e. more expensive) food prices is a good way to ensure that the food provided is what people want. Random subsidies distort the market, and distorted markets tend to produce the wrong things.
Especially the poor. The sooner we starve them out the better!
Helping the poor should be done directly, not by distorting markets. One solution which involves very little administrative overhead is citizen's income.
Food cannot be entirely left to the free market; demand is too inelastic and supply too unpredictable for that. Government-run granaries have solved that problem for thousands of years.
For a somewhat more accurate view, look at e.g. Intellectual property protection in Germany and the EU.
The GP must have looked at the origins of Germanic copyright legislation and decided that it both sounds sane and could be a good idea overall (except for the duration perhaps). Alas, like "Intellectual Property" in every other place, the scope gets larger and the results more similar to the rest of the world.
The original US copyright law also sounds like a sane and workable system, even though it was different from the origins of the Germanic copyright legislation. Yet today those completely different systems are almost indistinguishable in practice, at least when it comes to software -- except for the wording you use in contracts involving copyright.
In sensible jurisdictions, the act of running a program is not a copyright event, since it does not involve distribution. When you download, compile, and execute something from Github, the only copyright event is Github distributing the source file. The rest is not of concern to copyright law.
Alas, when copyright was conceived, copying and distribution were practically one and the same, so "right to distribute" was unfortunately misnamed "copyright". Many jurisdictions later looked at computers and misunderstood any bit duplication to be a copyright event. Denmark is one of the most extreme cases, where every (ISP or otherwise) router is subject to copyright law whenever it moves copyrighted bits around. That level of absurdity is fortunately fairly rare.
Long distance providers are extremely competitive, I cannot see them dropping a call they would make even 0.1 cent on.
The long distance carriers should take "you must complete this call" into account when setting their price.
The challenge is that other carriers can swoop in and pretend to be regular customers, sending precisely the most expensive calls to a provider but using other routes for the rest of the traffic -- "cherry picking". Carriers will typically deactivate the accounts when they discover the cherry picking, but that is a whack-a-mole game. The carriers can just price all calls at slightly above the highest possible termination fee, but then they would not be competitive.
The US can consider itself lucky in one way: there are no ridiculous termination fees for mobiles. Europeans have laughed at the US for years for making people pay for incoming calls, but Americans definitely have the last laugh.
So they are squeezed on both ends, lower income and higher cost of services. This causes a growing disparity between rural and urban citizens.
If they can earn more money in the city, then that is probably because the benefit they provide to society is higher in the city. We are all poorer because rural citizens are underperforming their potential.
That is certainly not something we should subsidize even more.
If the company can't provide them with the service, they shouldn't have sold it.
The company is providing perfect service. Outgoing calls are working great.
Incoming calls, however, are not reaching the company. There is nothing the company can do about that.
The reason for the problem is that providers get money for handling incoming calls, and rural telecoms get more (they have more infrastructure to maintain per billed minute). Regular customers tend to pay the same price to call all of the US, and so the cheaper providers end up actually losing money on calls to rural areas. Therefore (some of) the other providers do everything in their power to avoid that cost, including dropping expensive calls on the floor or degrading quality, in the hope that the caller will either switch to a cell phone or that the two ends will decide to reestablish the call in the other direction. Incoming calls are practically always profitable.
Elevator software is probably the most obvious use case for software with correctness proofs. Note that the elevator going up when you want to go down is not necessarily bad programming, the most efficient place to go next is not necessarily where the last person who entered the elevator wants to go.
Err, giga is 1000000000 and tera is 1000000000000. You already have giganaires and teradollars.
Person a few comments up says a prototype was made that was about the size of a pizza.
A prototype is easy to do arbitrarily small. You just need to place it on a heater to keep it at 300C or whatever temperature the particular salt requires. It will self discharge in minutes or perhaps hours if you use the battery to power the heater though.
On the upside it will not have a broken USB hub to contend with, only the broken USB host.