What I'm really referring to here is the extreme non-orthogonality of the ISA and the register set. I'm certainly not a purist when it comes to what individual instructions are allowed to do, but there's a lot to be said for having instructions all be the same width.
It's almost 2007 and we're still hanging bags on the side of the 8080. No matter how many cores, caches or pipelines, no matter the clock rate, it's still the same-old same-old single-accumulator, bizzaro CISC instruction set piece of shite. I blame Microsoft as much as I blame Intel for this, if Windows weren't married to the architecture, we could do something better. And don't get me started about Itanic, that bit of FUD cost us Alpha, PA-RISC, SPARC, MIPS and others. Looks like Cell and Power are our only hope.
Q) Is digital rights management (DRM) sustainable over the next 10 years?
A) DRM is not where it should be. In the end of the day incentive systems (for artists) make a difference. But we don't have the right thing here in terms of simplicity or interoperability.
Nothing else he said was against DRM in any way. All the anti-DRM talk was by other people. If you can't read "We're going to shove it down your throats eventually", then you're not paying attention.
> Crossover is never a term I have come across in the definition of these terms, unless you're talking about recombination, which is another thing entirely.
Sorry, not being a geneticist, by "crossover", I did indeed mean what you are referring to as "recombination". I linked to Wikipedia's article for "Chromosomal crossover", which the Wikipedophiles are proposing be combined with the "Genetic recombination" article.
As a programmer having used Genetic Algorithms, I have seen the genetic space "neighborhood walk" that crossover/recombination can cause, which shows the hill-climbing/local-maxima behavior, whereas a "mutation", i.e. something completely out of left field, will often cause the individual to "escape" from its parents neighborhood, and appear somewhere else entirely (farther away) on the genetic landscape.
My point was that everyone seems to think in terms of "mutation", i.e. the big jumps, giving short shrift to "crossover/recombination", i.e. the hill-climbing bahavior. To my mind, the example at hand is an example of the second, not the first.
I was curious about the "BB&N" who had the 4 and 8 nets (how binary!!). Turns out they're described here
One of their guys wrote "[IEN-74] Sequence Number Arithmetic - William W. Plummer, BB&N Inc, September 1978", which is referenced by [RFC 1982] Serial Number Arithmetic.
I realize that this is popular press and all, but why is mutation always mentioned, but crossover, never so?
Generally speaking, mutation is almost always fatal, crossover is almost never so. Crossover keeps you "in the genome", where mutation is just as likely to kick you out of it. My own theory is that mutation is the driver behind speciation, while crossover is the driver behind evolution.
I've run lots of GAs with mutation turned off, letting crossover do all the work. Crossover, not mutation, is what lets a population do that slow walk/hillclimb, over time, through the genetic landscape.
Was Barnard Hughes as the I/O port in TRON (systems programming as allegory, all "Through the Looking Glass") all covered with patches and patches and patches so that he was literally an imobile tower... Somebody who got it wrote that scene.
IBM wants this to go to trial. They've had many opportunities to make this case go away, and they haven't even tried. They don't want SCO to surrender, they want to crush SCO.
I spend three hours a day commuting on trains to/from Chicago. At this point, I would estimate that 65% of "regulars" (i.e. monthly ticket holders) are using iPods or portable CD players. Another 25% are reading (newspapers, novels, the Bible). Only about 10% actually talk to each other. The rest of us hate them and wish they'd STFU.
Slashdot Mirror
> Come on doofus, C is the the speed of light. How can light go faster than itself ???
Perhaps it could go as fast as his post went over your head.
What I'm really referring to here is the extreme non-orthogonality of the ISA and the register set. I'm certainly not a purist when it comes to what individual instructions are allowed to do, but there's a lot to be said for having instructions all be the same width.
You are correct.
It does:
push BP
mov BP,SP
sub SP, 10
and
mov SP,BP
pop BP
internally very quickly as RISC instructions. It's still 5 bus cycles.
It's almost 2007 and we're still hanging bags on the side of the 8080. No matter how many cores, caches or pipelines, no matter the clock rate, it's still the same-old same-old single-accumulator, bizzaro CISC instruction set piece of shite. I blame Microsoft as much as I blame Intel for this, if Windows weren't married to the architecture, we could do something better. And don't get me started about Itanic, that bit of FUD cost us Alpha, PA-RISC, SPARC, MIPS and others. Looks like Cell and Power are our only hope.
/rant
Thanks, I feel better now.
Nothing else he said was against DRM in any way. All the anti-DRM talk was by other people. If you can't read "We're going to shove it down your throats eventually", then you're not paying attention.
> But, alas, falls short of implementing the "Evil Bit."
Don't kid yourself, Vista is the evil nibble.
If you haven't read The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature by Matt Ridley, I highly recommend it for some very!! interesting discussion of host/parasite and male/female genetic arms races. It'll definitely make your mental wheels turn.
> Crossover is never a term I have come across in the definition of these terms, unless you're talking about recombination, which is another thing entirely.
Sorry, not being a geneticist, by "crossover", I did indeed mean what you are referring to as "recombination". I linked to Wikipedia's article for "Chromosomal crossover", which the Wikipedophiles are proposing be combined with the "Genetic recombination" article.
As a programmer having used Genetic Algorithms, I have seen the genetic space "neighborhood walk" that crossover/recombination can cause, which shows the hill-climbing/local-maxima behavior, whereas a "mutation", i.e. something completely out of left field, will often cause the individual to "escape" from its parents neighborhood, and appear somewhere else entirely (farther away) on the genetic landscape.
My point was that everyone seems to think in terms of "mutation", i.e. the big jumps, giving short shrift to "crossover/recombination", i.e. the hill-climbing bahavior. To my mind, the example at hand is an example of the second, not the first.
I was curious about the "BB&N" who had the 4 and 8 nets (how binary!!). Turns out they're described here
One of their guys wrote "[IEN-74] Sequence Number Arithmetic - William W. Plummer, BB&N Inc, September 1978", which is referenced by [RFC 1982] Serial Number Arithmetic.
255 isn't marked specially, either.
But where's the "Here there be dragons" part?
I realize that this is popular press and all, but why is mutation always mentioned, but crossover, never so?
Generally speaking, mutation is almost always fatal, crossover is almost never so. Crossover keeps you "in the genome", where mutation is just as likely to kick you out of it. My own theory is that mutation is the driver behind speciation, while crossover is the driver behind evolution.
I've run lots of GAs with mutation turned off, letting crossover do all the work. Crossover, not mutation, is what lets a population do that slow walk/hillclimb, over time, through the genetic landscape.
Was Barnard Hughes as the I/O port in TRON (systems programming as allegory, all "Through the Looking Glass") all covered with patches and patches and patches so that he was literally an imobile tower... Somebody who got it wrote that scene.
> Are background checks necessary for Sys Admins at a financial institution?
For sysadmins it should be called a wallpaper check.
> Which ESR are you talking about?
Go to www.google.com type in "ESR" and click the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button.
Irony ensues.
And the corollary:
How many hardware engineers does it take to chage a light bulb?
None, we'll fix it in the driver.
> One, if it knows its own Goedel number.
Dude. I'm dyin' here.
Best. Meta-joke. Evar.
Too funny.
You should make the whole joke your sig.
Kind of how Failchild Semiconductor was the wellspring for many of todays semiconductor companies? This graphic (PDF warning) was the best thing I could find.
By that (completely specious) logic, you should be asking Intel's legal department about the company's processor roadmap.
IBM wants this to go to trial. They've had many opportunities to make this case go away, and they haven't even tried. They don't want SCO to surrender, they want to crush SCO.
> I smell an ulterior motive.
Bzzzt, no. Ulterior motives are oderless; posterior motives, on the other hand, have a distinctive scent.
Sorry, the editor started it. At 5:00 A.M., I felt very vincible when my brain didn't cognize "instate" as a valid word.
Look at the film. You can see another meteor on the grassy knoll.
But I want my pilot to go down in flames with me.
I spend three hours a day commuting on trains to/from Chicago. At this point, I would estimate that 65% of "regulars" (i.e. monthly ticket holders) are using iPods or portable CD players. Another 25% are reading (newspapers, novels, the Bible). Only about 10% actually talk to each other. The rest of us hate them and wish they'd STFU.
In Korea, only old companies use patents.