With 3 core processors they should generally be more effecient because each processor can talk to every other processor directly with less overhead compared to having something special to handle messages between them - or having one core pass messages to the other. That's assuming the cores have a point to point communication bus. I am guessing they do not. If they did, as you say in a square configuration, with one core disabled you wind up with core 1 only linked to core 2 which is only linked to core 3, which is no better. I doubt each core has three links to each other core, either.
More likely is that there is a shared commuication bus. Also some caches to the outside are shared. There is still the possibility a three core could be more efficient, because that shared bus and cache only has to be shared by three cores instead of four. Depending on how it works out, it could be that a 3 core is better (more efficient, but not faster) than a 4! Not to mention cheaper.
That would be interesting, and something Intel can't do.
Virtual memory is A Good Thing (tm), and once you have a working VM system, paging can be a relatively easy add-on. Stripping out paging but keeping VM won't be all that much simpler, I don't think. Point being that you simply wont need it. Stripping it out is probably more work than needed, but what I am thinking of is that a totally new kind of OS will be created to take advantage of these new types of memory.
File systems? You'll still need to find all that data and mete out access to it. Since I don't know what latencies would be like in this storage, it's possible that current filesystems that are optimized for high latency and high throughput might still be reasonable. There would be a need for some kind of organizational structure, but it wont be a file system in the current sense. There is no need in memory for all the nonsense you need on a disk based, orders-of-magnitude slower medium like harddrives. We would have something more akin to an in-memory optimized database system.
yes, compression would still be used I am sure. It just may be less needed than before, and like you said maybe mostly used at the transport layer when moving things over the net.
We would still I am sure have at least three tiers though: memory, removable memory (thumbdrives) and the network. So the concept of uploading/downloading probably isnt going away, unless network links become a whole lot faster too...
The ability to use a full 4GB virtual address space (i386) is only one of the major features of virtual memory. An equally important goal of virtual memory is process isolation. That is, the illusion that a process has exclusive access to the full memory. Prior to virtual memory, programs had to know what other programs were running and stay out of their physical address spaces. Virtual memory drastically simplifies
You're confusing VM with memory protection and memory mapping, things handled by the MMU's in a CPU. Also taken care of by making loadable executables in a format where the addresses can be fixed when loaded into memory (another mechanism that would be changed, since this would only need to be done when the code is installed the first time, and not every time it is run). Computers had this ability before virtual memory was introduced.
What makes this, and some other potential memory technologies, so interesting is that it would have the mass storage and non volatility of harddrives, the solid state of flash, and the speed of DRAM, or even exceeding that of current techs.
This is interesting not because its "more, better, faster" but because it can completely change the way computers work. Imagine simply not needing all the storage tiers we currently have... disks, harddrive, flash, DRAM, cache... imagine something big enough and fast enough to cover it all. A CPU and this memory, and nothing else. It could mean big changes to your operating system. Imagine just not needing to load and save things anymore. Imagine not needing elaborate schemes like virtual memory paging, harddrive caching, file systems, or even needing to compress things as often. There's all kinds of overhead and mechanisms in our OS's that are currently needed to deal with all the different storage hardware and their limitations.
If this memory can work fast enough, it could even change the way CPU's are designed. It could change almost everything.
Firstly: I admire ruby as a language. I like to explore new languages, new ways of doing things, etc. At one time I thought Lisp was really cool too. And many others.
PHP for all its faults is:
Very well documented. This is huge, whether you are a beginner or an expert. Yes, there are ugly inconsistent naming conventions, seemingly unneeded duplication (all the DB interfaces. But check out PDO..), etc.
Easy to set up and deploy (never mind being so ubiquitous as to rarely need to be setup)
Relatively fast.
"Simple things should be simple. Complex things should be possible". PHP is. Some people would argue that being simple to use for newbees or for quick-and-dirty apps is bad. The only reason this is bad is because people misuse it. This is a problem with people, not the language. I don't need my language to restrict me. Many of the security issues and bad code with PHP are due to people simply not knowing what they are doing with a powerful tool.
Procedural and object oriented. You purists out there pushing for 100% object orientation are missing the fact that sometimes its not the right solution. There is a time and place for each.
I am not thrilled with the attempt to contort relational databases into an object oriented methodology (ORM/active record). I love the idea of code generation to save on the drudgery of lower level coding but I don't think this is the way to go. Which leads me away from the RAILs bandwagon.
Personally I am leaning towards Kohana framework (fork of Codeigniter): no ORM (not built in, anyway) but code for helping you construct SQL, Templates are just PHP (remember that PHP was just a template language originally?), use whatever AJAX bits you like (I do like prototype.js from rails, scriptaculous and ext framework). I plan to write my own code generator to handle the 80% of the boring HTML forms and DB table code, while it stays out of my way for the other 20% I know will need to be coded by hand.
The teacher did like me much in that class. First I created a database of students and teachers and their uncomplementary qualities.. we all thought it was funny but he was not amused. Then later he didn't want me in the programming class because I wasn't doing well in algrebra; so he got a little annoyed when the assignment was to draw a circle on screen, and when I didn't use sin/cos but instead used simple integer math (which was like a thousand times faster than his)..
Look, everyone wants a nice, clean planet to live on. But what if global warming were somehow completely discredited? Would we still have to make the radical changes to our infrastructure that I suppose you'd advocate if the threat no longer existed? Put another way, if the science really were discredited and it turned out that all that pollution doesn't affect the environment after all, would we still have to make the changes? I mean, you're already certain that they're necessary. well, I can't imagine that's going to happen. But that's exactly the point I am making.. if they did prove global warming was wrong than people like you would use it to say that we don't have to worry about the envirionment anymore. But that's just one possible side effect of pollution among probably thousands. Prove them all wrong? Doubtful.
But again it's much simpler than that. I don't like breathing car exhaust, do you? I don't like swimming in water that is polluted, do you? I don't like there are chemicals spewed into the water, air and land that cause cancer and mutations. Maybe we couldn't destroy the planet if we tried by polluting it, but our pollution is already clearly making parts of it unpleasant, and that's reason enough to try to cut it down or eliminate it if we can.
If we could switch to biodiesel or plant derived alcohol fuels and make perfect engines, we'd be fine there (since the CO2 produced would be exactly balanced by what the plants used while growing).
That would be great. Unfortunately it seems like the people who argue most about global warming being a fraud are also people who think there's nothing wrong with anything we're currently doing with fossil fuels, etc..
It is unfortunate that a lot of envirionmentalists are also not seeing the reality that nuclear is really a good way to go, as long as it's done right.
Never mind that a nuclear rocket would be vastly superior to anything we have or have planned, and the technology has already been largely worked out long ago. But that's another discussion..
hmm. I don't recall saying anything about CO2. Don't forget there's a lot of other sh*t in burned fossil fuel, and even a 5 year old can look at and smell what comes out of cars and trucks and know its disgusting and bad. Carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, I mean come on. Granted we aren't going to just stop using oil and coal immediately, or many of the hundreds of other toxic chemicals we use everyday in manufacturing and energy production, but to say that we aren't polluting the world is just plain ignorant. To think that we aren't going to deplete the natural resources pretty soon with our continued population growth is ignorant.
Or maybe you enjoy breathing fumes from cars? Maybe you hate forests and actually want to see the world's rain forests burned to the ground? I guess we just like different things.
Personaly, I'd like to keep breathing for a relatively long time..
You know, I am really getting tired of the anti-global-warming people using anything they can find to discredit the science. Its like the anti-evolution folks trying to say its all wrong just because a few people in the past faked their results and were shown to be frauds.
They are missing the point.
Whether global warming is really happening or not is not so much important as the fact that we are belching tons (literally) of pollution into the air and water. How can anybody be against cutting down on pollution? How can anybody be against trying to preserve at least a portion of what's left of our natural envirionment? duh? Even without global warming we are still clearly systematically destroying everything on this planet.
> Oh dear god, do you have any idea how lucky you and your daughter are?
It's actually a completely independent program called "KCD", it consists of two rooms in an otherwise normal elementary school here in fullerton, CA (orangethorpe elementary). And yes we have had to fight for this, battling with the school district to get district transfers, and attending meetings to keep getting funding for the program. It is a quite successful program. I take one day of work off each week to attend the classroom and help the kids.
I have nothing against the differences in males and females, and I love that we are different in some ways. I just hate seeing smart girls never reach their potential (and to be fair, smart boys) and realize they can be smart and beautiful (or for boys, smart and strong?).
> While I feel some sympathy for your general point, this anecdote about your daughter is completely irrelevant.
Yeah, you're right.
It is a social problem, not a learning problem. I don't think books like this will make it anymore socially acceptable to be "nerdy". And I don't think it will make it easier to learn. The differences in learning from male to female (and I am sure there are in fact differences) I think are going to be much more subtle than this book. But its definitely going to get people thinking about it. Hell, I am thinking about it now, and I'm seriously considering doing something similar (though I would hope a little less Teen Magazine). I would like to get my kids into doing web design/programming, and there seems to be still a lack of girls in this field.
>Shielding your kids from "girliness" doesn't do them any favors. Teach them that they can be girly AND smart, that they don't have to choose between them, and you'll never run the risk that in a moment of weakness they'll choose girly over smart.
Well let me add that I don't try to shield them from all things girly, just certain things. I admit when I was boy I played with war toys but I am generally anti war today, etc, so I understand the concept of balancing things and not censoring everything. I allow barbie but don't allow for example Bratz (not for girly reasons, but for the general attitude they promote). I encourage artistic endeavors and if that means girly creations, no problem.
With a boy on the way, I will do the same thing. Squirt guns and water balloon bombs? OK with me, but running around with a realistic looking machine gun.. not ok. etc.
I guess I am lucky to have a genius girl who learns well without needing things sugar coated. Going to a multi-age, go at your own pace, parent participation school room helps though, much more than I think any girlified book would ever... in fact I am pretty sure at 9 years old she would look at that math book and think it was ridiculous (I got that spelled right, woohoo!) as well..
Forgive my spelling. Again a case of I know what the word means conceptually, but I forget the precise name of it.
> Yeah, because there's nothing out there that appeals to boys' baser instincts (can we say WWE? NASCAR? Sports in general?).
Obviously girls and boys have different interests..
>Honestly, I think you're just being far too sensitive, here. Would you object if a math book was created that made use of traditional "boy" interests?
I would, which is why I illustrated in my first posting an example of how silly that may be.
But after all this, I am giving serious thought to capitalizing on this concept with learning materials designed to appeal to boys in the same way on subjects they may otherwise be less than interested in (I only say boys since I would not, as a boy, know how to do the same for girls).
I always found the mnemonics to be just as hard to remember as the original thing. Unfortunately I have a bad memory all around when it comes to specific names. I remember concepts but forget what they are called...
I can tell you that the whole concept of girling* up a math book to get girls interested in math just seems so insulting and rediculous. But then I abhor any kind of unnecessary gender based biases. I don't let my kids read those worthless Teen fluff magazines either, which this seems to be modeled after. It just sounds like a continuation of the problem in our society where girls just aren't thought of as smart, where boys are. This isn't a cure for the problem, its a way to manage the disease while looking like you are curing it. Its fruity cough syrup to cover up the symptoms of a much more serious problem.
lets create a dumbed down, silly math book with purposely misspelled words just so we can appeal to little girls.
How insulting to girls.
Lets make a similar math book for all the boys who aren't interested in math. It should feature GI Joe's using math to kill each other, aliens, and anything gross or violent. For the older boys lets throw in some soft core porn to get their eyes on the page (males are after all more visual, right?).
Come on! This is rediculous. While I applaud her good intentions, I have to wonder why such a thing was not necessary for girls like her to be interested in math? I am all for making learning fun, and math books are about as dull and boring as it gets, but I see no reason why it has to be dumbed down and made gender specific.
My 9 year old girl is great at math, without this.
There are better ways to get kids to learn. Or, rather, to not turn them off to learning, since they start off wanting to learn and then we destroy that desire later on.
>...take a gun into a bank if you don't pull it out?
If you have a permit to carry a concealed weapon, it is.
Far as I know you dont have to have a permit to carry a camcorder (or a phone or a pda with a camera on it), concealed or otherwise...
This whole thing is rediculous. If there was even a crime committed here (I think fair use covers this as legal) its about on the level of shop lifting a candy bar, if that (there was pretty clearly no intent to steal here). A year in prison? $2500 fine? You have got to be kidding. If she gets anything less than a refund on her ticket price for missing the movie, there needs to be riots in front of that theater. Or at least a boycott and demonstration.
Slashdot Mirror
More likely is that there is a shared commuication bus. Also some caches to the outside are shared. There is still the possibility a three core could be more efficient, because that shared bus and cache only has to be shared by three cores instead of four. Depending on how it works out, it could be that a 3 core is better (more efficient, but not faster) than a 4! Not to mention cheaper.
That would be interesting, and something Intel can't do.
The ability to use a full 4GB virtual address space (i386) is only one of the major features of virtual memory. An equally important goal of virtual memory is process isolation. That is, the illusion that a process has exclusive access to the full memory. Prior to virtual memory, programs had to know what other programs were running and stay out of their physical address spaces. Virtual memory drastically simplifies
You're confusing VM with memory protection and memory mapping, things handled by the MMU's in a CPU. Also taken care of by making loadable executables in a format where the addresses can be fixed when loaded into memory (another mechanism that would be changed, since this would only need to be done when the code is installed the first time, and not every time it is run). Computers had this ability before virtual memory was introduced.
What makes this, and some other potential memory technologies, so interesting is that it would have the mass storage and non volatility of harddrives, the solid state of flash, and the speed of DRAM, or even exceeding that of current techs.
This is interesting not because its "more, better, faster" but because it can completely change the way computers work. Imagine simply not needing all the storage tiers we currently have... disks, harddrive, flash, DRAM, cache... imagine something big enough and fast enough to cover it all. A CPU and this memory, and nothing else. It could mean big changes to your operating system. Imagine just not needing to load and save things anymore. Imagine not needing elaborate schemes like virtual memory paging, harddrive caching, file systems, or even needing to compress things as often. There's all kinds of overhead and mechanisms in our OS's that are currently needed to deal with all the different storage hardware and their limitations.
If this memory can work fast enough, it could even change the way CPU's are designed. It could change almost everything.
Oops! 5120MB is not a TB, its a GB. a little more than one layer of a DVD.
A Terabyte would be 1000 times more than that..
85333 seconds, which is almost 24 hours.
My "computer" has been slashdotted!
No thanks.
.. double density CDs?
This sounds like the same sort of thing.
And we all know how well that worked out..
Firstly: I admire ruby as a language. I like to explore new languages, new ways of doing things, etc. At one time I thought Lisp was really cool too. And many others.
PHP for all its faults is:
Very well documented. This is huge, whether you are a beginner or an expert. Yes, there are ugly inconsistent naming conventions, seemingly unneeded duplication (all the DB interfaces. But check out PDO..), etc.
Easy to set up and deploy (never mind being so ubiquitous as to rarely need to be setup)
Relatively fast.
"Simple things should be simple. Complex things should be possible". PHP is. Some people would argue that being simple to use for newbees or for quick-and-dirty apps is bad. The only reason this is bad is because people misuse it. This is a problem with people, not the language. I don't need my language to restrict me. Many of the security issues and bad code with PHP are due to people simply not knowing what they are doing with a powerful tool.
Procedural and object oriented. You purists out there pushing for 100% object orientation are missing the fact that sometimes its not the right solution. There is a time and place for each.
I am not thrilled with the attempt to contort relational databases into an object oriented methodology (ORM/active record). I love the idea of code generation to save on the drudgery of lower level coding but I don't think this is the way to go. Which leads me away from the RAILs bandwagon.
Personally I am leaning towards Kohana framework (fork of Codeigniter): no ORM (not built in, anyway) but code for helping you construct SQL, Templates are just PHP (remember that PHP was just a template language originally?), use whatever AJAX bits you like (I do like prototype.js from rails, scriptaculous and ext framework). I plan to write my own code generator to handle the 80% of the boring HTML forms and DB table code, while it stays out of my way for the other 20% I know will need to be coded by hand.
The teacher did like me much in that class. First I created a database of students and teachers and their uncomplementary qualities.. we all thought it was funny but he was not amused. Then later he didn't want me in the programming class because I wasn't doing well in algrebra; so he got a little annoyed when the assignment was to draw a circle on screen, and when I didn't use sin/cos but instead used simple integer math (which was like a thousand times faster than his)..
Programming was so very different then...
ah, yes, memories of appleworks in highschool computer class on apple IIc's...
Ivory?
But again it's much simpler than that. I don't like breathing car exhaust, do you? I don't like swimming in water that is polluted, do you? I don't like there are chemicals spewed into the water, air and land that cause cancer and mutations. Maybe we couldn't destroy the planet if we tried by polluting it, but our pollution is already clearly making parts of it unpleasant, and that's reason enough to try to cut it down or eliminate it if we can.
If we could switch to biodiesel or plant derived alcohol fuels and make perfect engines, we'd be fine there (since the CO2 produced would be exactly balanced by what the plants used while growing).
That would be great. Unfortunately it seems like the people who argue most about global warming being a fraud are also people who think there's nothing wrong with anything we're currently doing with fossil fuels, etc..
It is unfortunate that a lot of envirionmentalists are also not seeing the reality that nuclear is really a good way to go, as long as it's done right.
Never mind that a nuclear rocket would be vastly superior to anything we have or have planned, and the technology has already been largely worked out long ago. But that's another discussion..
hmm. I don't recall saying anything about CO2. Don't forget there's a lot of other sh*t in burned fossil fuel, and even a 5 year old can look at and smell what comes out of cars and trucks and know its disgusting and bad. Carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, I mean come on. Granted we aren't going to just stop using oil and coal immediately, or many of the hundreds of other toxic chemicals we use everyday in manufacturing and energy production, but to say that we aren't polluting the world is just plain ignorant. To think that we aren't going to deplete the natural resources pretty soon with our continued population growth is ignorant.
Or maybe you enjoy breathing fumes from cars? Maybe you hate forests and actually want to see the world's rain forests burned to the ground? I guess we just like different things.
Personaly, I'd like to keep breathing for a relatively long time..
You know, I am really getting tired of the anti-global-warming people using anything they can find to discredit the science. Its like the anti-evolution folks trying to say its all wrong just because a few people in the past faked their results and were shown to be frauds.
They are missing the point.
Whether global warming is really happening or not is not so much important as the fact that we are belching tons (literally) of pollution into the air and water. How can anybody be against cutting down on pollution? How can anybody be against trying to preserve at least a portion of what's left of our natural envirionment? duh? Even without global warming we are still clearly systematically destroying everything on this planet.
> Oh dear god, do you have any idea how lucky you and your daughter are?
It's actually a completely independent program called "KCD", it consists of two rooms in an otherwise normal elementary school here in fullerton, CA (orangethorpe elementary). And yes we have had to fight for this, battling with the school district to get district transfers, and attending meetings to keep getting funding for the program. It is a quite successful program. I take one day of work off each week to attend the classroom and help the kids.
I have nothing against the differences in males and females, and I love that we are different in some ways. I just hate seeing smart girls never reach their potential (and to be fair, smart boys) and realize they can be smart and beautiful (or for boys, smart and strong?).
> While I feel some sympathy for your general point, this anecdote about your daughter is completely irrelevant.
Yeah, you're right.
It is a social problem, not a learning problem. I don't think books like this will make it anymore socially acceptable to be "nerdy". And I don't think it will make it easier to learn. The differences in learning from male to female (and I am sure there are in fact differences) I think are going to be much more subtle than this book. But its definitely going to get people thinking about it. Hell, I am thinking about it now, and I'm seriously considering doing something similar (though I would hope a little less Teen Magazine). I would like to get my kids into doing web design/programming, and there seems to be still a lack of girls in this field.
>Shielding your kids from "girliness" doesn't do them any favors. Teach them that they can be girly AND smart, that they don't have to choose between them, and you'll never run the risk that in a moment of weakness they'll choose girly over smart.
Well let me add that I don't try to shield them from all things girly, just certain things. I admit when I was boy I played with war toys but I am generally anti war today, etc, so I understand the concept of balancing things and not censoring everything. I allow barbie but don't allow for example Bratz (not for girly reasons, but for the general attitude they promote). I encourage artistic endeavors and if that means girly creations, no problem.
With a boy on the way, I will do the same thing. Squirt guns and water balloon bombs? OK with me, but running around with a realistic looking machine gun.. not ok. etc.
I guess I am lucky to have a genius girl who learns well without needing things sugar coated. Going to a multi-age, go at your own pace, parent participation school room helps though, much more than I think any girlified book would ever... in fact I am pretty sure at 9 years old she would look at that math book and think it was ridiculous (I got that spelled right, woohoo!) as well..
Forgive my spelling. Again a case of I know what the word means conceptually, but I forget the precise name of it.
> Yeah, because there's nothing out there that appeals to boys' baser instincts (can we say WWE? NASCAR? Sports in general?).
Obviously girls and boys have different interests..
>Honestly, I think you're just being far too sensitive, here. Would you object if a math book was created that made use of traditional "boy" interests?
I would, which is why I illustrated in my first posting an example of how silly that may be.
But after all this, I am giving serious thought to capitalizing on this concept with learning materials designed to appeal to boys in the same way on subjects they may otherwise be less than interested in (I only say boys since I would not, as a boy, know how to do the same for girls).
> This sounds like a great book. I would love it right now.
:)
> If you market this idea and make some about solid state device theory, I'll buy one.
Seems you are not the only one. Maybe I have stumbled onto something here. Did you see the post I made about britney spears teaching about lasers?
I'm a little rusty on my electronics, but I maybe I could do something on programming.. hmm...
I always found the mnemonics to be just as hard to remember as the original thing. Unfortunately I have a bad memory all around when it comes to specific names. I remember concepts but forget what they are called...
I can tell you that the whole concept of girling* up a math book to get girls interested in math just seems so insulting and rediculous. But then I abhor any kind of unnecessary gender based biases. I don't let my kids read those worthless Teen fluff magazines either, which this seems to be modeled after. It just sounds like a continuation of the problem in our society where girls just aren't thought of as smart, where boys are. This isn't a cure for the problem, its a way to manage the disease while looking like you are curing it. Its fruity cough syrup to cover up the symptoms of a much more serious problem.
* "verbing weirds language" - Calvin and Hobbs.
well how about this: Britney's Guide to Semiconductor Physics.
> Why do you assume that it's dumbed-down just because it includes some "fun" material?
One word:
refliprocal
lets create a dumbed down, silly math book with purposely misspelled words just so we can appeal to little girls.
How insulting to girls.
Lets make a similar math book for all the boys who aren't interested in math. It should feature GI Joe's using math to kill each other, aliens, and anything gross or violent. For the older boys lets throw in some soft core porn to get their eyes on the page (males are after all more visual, right?).
Come on! This is rediculous. While I applaud her good intentions, I have to wonder why such a thing was not necessary for girls like her to be interested in math? I am all for making learning fun, and math books are about as dull and boring as it gets, but I see no reason why it has to be dumbed down and made gender specific.
My 9 year old girl is great at math, without this.
There are better ways to get kids to learn. Or, rather, to not turn them off to learning, since they start off wanting to learn and then we destroy that desire later on.
> ...take a gun into a bank if you don't pull it out?
If you have a permit to carry a concealed weapon, it is.
Far as I know you dont have to have a permit to carry a camcorder (or a phone or a pda with a camera on it), concealed or otherwise...
This whole thing is rediculous. If there was even a crime committed here (I think fair use covers this as legal) its about on the level of shop lifting a candy bar, if that (there was pretty clearly no intent to steal here). A year in prison? $2500 fine? You have got to be kidding. If she gets anything less than a refund on her ticket price for missing the movie, there needs to be riots in front of that theater. Or at least a boycott and demonstration.