Yes, because there is no bound on number of moves played. But for a match with a fixed number of moves N, there is some expression that describes the number of games that could possibly be played with that number of moves.
2^130? Were you not taught exponents in high school? That's around 10^39. That is...as they said, more than the number of atoms in the universe, so just where again where you planning to store this data?
You might be interested to know that there is over 70 billion dollars in gold bars in the Federal Reserve Bank in NYC (10.5 tons). In 70 years, they've never been robbed, and not one single bar of gold is unaccounted for.
On comp.arch we were kicking this around a few weeks back, trying to access the average roundtrip latency of memory. Some of the same ideas for defeating the cache were employed. The truth is that these benchmarks are particularly stupid in that they test a random sequence of accesses, which, hello, defeats the purpose of a cache anyway! What exactly were they trying to prove? That memory is slow? Of course. We already knew that.
Why don't they mention something like bandwidth scores or something similar? Take a look at the PIV's scores in Sisoft Sandra (a widely used metric in the overclocking community). It absolutely crushes both the Pentium III and the Athlon in memory bandwidth.
Yes the PIV is slow. Yes it has an overly long pipeline. Yes the cachelines are big. And yes, random accesses are bad on caches. ALL CACHES.
Perhaps they meant feet per second? FPS is often used in ballistics and the reference yardstick is that the speed of sound is roughly 1000fps. It's really around 1070fps under average temperature/humidity/pressure.
Try not to open a wormhole with that kind of speed, ok?:P
I've upgraded my firewall/router several times (it's now a K6-3 400 with 96mb) but that's because I've been running increasingly more intensive stuff on it. I've found that maintaining an old box enough to keep it workstation worthy really is more of a pain in the ass than I realized. Finding parts for them is most of the times easy, but sometimes very difficult. Most people just don't want to bother, and unless it has 2^(this.year-1992) megs of RAM to run W1ndow$, it's no fun at all.
It doesn't matter how _far_ it moves the heat, the only thing that matters is the temperature difference (delta). It doesn't matter if you touch a wall that is 1m thick or 1cm thick if the side you touch as the same temperature. That's the idea. The little micro-peltiers give the IC a colder operating environment, pulling the heat "up" (perpendicular to the chip) so that a regular heatsink can pull it away just as normal. The difference is that inside the chip (on the cold side of the mini-peltier), things are actually slightly cooler.
As you increase the voltage on a clocked IC, you increase power consumption by quadratically. As you increase clockspeed, power consumption increases linearly. Why do you think that both Intel and AMD have been consistently dropping the voltages on their microprocessors? To bring power consumption down so that clockspeed can continue to ramp. Trust me, increasing voltage to an IC is NOT good for heat dissipation.
You're labelling her as close-minded, and yourself as somehow open-minded, based purely on the fact that you have the technical expertise to effectively use the software. Obviously if you understand something (and have for a long time) it seems simple to you the more you digest it inside your head.
Think back to first year Calculus. Derivatives and integrals didn't make that much sense at first, did they? The more you use it, the more completely you understand it. In fact, after quite some time of repeated exposure to the same ideas, you understand them very well and the seem extraordinarily simple in your head. It becomes hard for you to remember how it felt like to *not* understand those ideas, or how someone else could possibly not understand.
Take yourself out of your shoes for a moment and open your mind to how someone with a completely different background and experience in an area you have particular expertise in might be intimidated by the complexities. Then, when you can do that, reread the article with a pinch of salt.
Knee-jerk flaming of the messenger and total disregard for their opinion are the marks of zealotry, which aren't always perceived as the fruits of a "rational" following. Keep that in mind.
Re:Why do the majority seem only interested in mon
on
Who Owns Your Body?
·
· Score: 3
Well, since we know R&D is totally free...those bastards!
Hahaha! That link to the guy's page looks like 90% of Geocities pages! Black background and big bright cyan lettering with MSpaint doodled images! Hahaha? This guy knows the secret to one of the most vexing questions in computer science, along with studying "Computer Virus Theory?"
I run an AMD and love it, my 750 Athlon is fast enough to reboot into linux after my roomates run a windows session it doesn't bother me they are still in the dark ages of computing.
This could be 3 or 4 different sentences, I thought my runons were bad!
Dynamic translation lets you make optimizations at runtime about the behavior of the code that can't be done statically at compile time (or even as well in the CPU using branch prediction, etc etc)
Well yes...and no. Yes it can let you make runtime optimizations on the code by agressively profiling it at runtime (something a compiler can't do), but you have to remember that when you translate from one instruction set to another it isn't the same as going from an intermediary form to machine language. If you translate from one machine language to another, you have to deal with the fact that code has already been compiled once, and has been scheduled and optimized (perhaps poorly) by a previous compiler. You're stuck with an instruction stream, and extracting the meaning of that instruction stream and generating an equivalent and more optimized set of instructions in another machine language is extremely difficult...much more difficult than it is for a compiler which has access to an intermediate representation. Register allocation, instruction scheduling, prefetching, and instruction selection have already been done for one specific architecture. That's one main disadvantage of code morphing, because you can't really ever hope to correct the mistakes of a previous compiler (which didn't know any better because it was doing the best it could do for its target architecture).
IMO, the best approach would be a hybrid, where the code morphing could use the intermediate representation as a binary form to generate machine language, and then optimize it using runtime profiling and scheduling based on techniques already used by current compilers on IR trees.
Thanks for the suggestion, but hey, I read the article. And you apparently don't know what "direct quote" means.
Example of direct quote: Joe Blow said, "Hey I think all you slashdot monkeys need to lighten up!"
Example of indirect quote: Joe Blow said that all you slashdot monkeys need to lighten up.
Now that you know that what was in the article was most decidedly *not* a direct quote, you might want to take it with a grain of salt. And maybe if *you* read all the way through the article, you might realize that just because he holds a view different than yours, he's not an asshole, or close-minded. He obviously very intelligent, and I think the article has put a more negative spin on what he said than you might imagine. You might want to reconsider getting all up in arms about this.
"The law of the land" is the US Constitution, my friend. No other legislation holds its gravity or sway. It sets limits on the power of the Government. However, it is not an absolute. The rights guaranteed in the Constitution all have restrictions that fall on various sides of the tug of war between individual rights and the common good.
You're living in some utopian dream world if you can't embrace the fact that all rights have restrictions, and must, for the common good. For example, you can't smear yourself with your own feces and run naked through the streets under some vague protection of "freedom of speech." Freedom of expression is subject to decency restrictions that have been routinely upheld by courts throughout the country.
If you really think that we could get by with no other legislation than the constitution, I think you might want to consider what it would be like to live in such a society. No roads, no courthouses, no government hierarchy, no jails, no police officers, no guarantee that you won't be shot in the head under someone else's broad and all-encompassing freedom of expression and free speech.
All this vague babble about the "law of the land' and legal vs lawful sounds great if you're giving a Mahatma Ghandi speech or something, but when you get right down to it, it doesn't amount to a hill of beans. The legal system is there, and it's there for a reason, and saying, "Bad legal system! Bad!" and spanking it on the bottom isn't going to make all your troubles disappear my friend...
Joe Blow doesn't like apples and oranges.
He views them as bad fruit.
That still doesn't mean Joe Blow thinks that Apples actually are oranges. Hell, it's not even a direct quote, so how can you be sure that Joe Blow really feels that way. You know, it's not uncommon for a journalist to slightly paraphrase what someone has said and put a completely different spin on it unknowingly.
All I am saying is that you need to stop being so testy and give someone a little more credit, until you've at least heard it come directly out of their mouth. You don't know a god damn thing about this guy except what the article told you. I think you're being overly judgemental and jumping to a hasty conclusion.
District Judge Lewis Kaplan doesn't truly dislike hackers and open-source programmers, not exactly.
I could say I don't like dogs and cats (or even that I do), but that doesn't mean I am equating them. Both is this *not* a direct quote, but it also doesn't equate the two like you seem to have taken it. Nowhere does he say that hackers are open source programmers. For those reasons, maybe you should at least give the guy a smidgen of the benefit of the doubt?
Unfortunately I think that many scientists have been so optimistic about Mars that they have started reading things into the terrain that aren't there. The see a rill and they cry "water must have done that!" and they see some wiggly things and conclude that has something to do with the former presence of water.
I think that so many of the theories that have been put forth about the formations of structures on Mars have been unfounded, overly-hopeful conjectures at best, but since Mars is the hot thing in both the media and solar system research, everyone seems to jump on the ideas that have the most interesting possibilities, regardless of their scientific soundness.
Everyone was so ready to conclude that there still is a tremendous supply of water on Mars just because of a weak conjecture by a few people, who were perhaps only framing a best case scenario. No one stopped to ask the questions which numerous posters have already posed: Where is the water now? How does a planet just dry up?
I think scientists should spend less time getting caught up in wild speculations and spend more time doing research.
"A method to obtain the number of elements of the union of two groups from the number of elements from each inicial group" (sum)
Not exactly. That would be the "inclusion-exclusion principle." The number of the elements in the union is not a strict sum. What would happen if you took the set of all Americans over 20 and the set of all Americans under 40 and tried to union them? They overlap, and if you simply add them, the answer is wrong because you count some people twice.
No, you slept through Economics. They're protecting their investment in their R&D by not allowing someone else to capitalize off their ideas. They do indeed remember what got them where they are, and what they had to do the big boys of that time in order to do it. They're trying to prevent the same thing happening to them. Is that evil?
What benefits of competition are you talking about? A lower ASP by having a larger supply to quench demand? Marketing costs in order to protect market share? Basically no control over the market? Yeah, that's real beneficial.
Every business, every business wants to be a monopoly. They're not "evil" for doing that. The whole point is to maximize profit. Wake up, bud. That's what economics is.
If you watch the Quicktime of Ganymede's plasma waves, you can actually make out a sinusoidal curve in the wave spectrum graph, compliments of special relativity.
What are you talking about? First of all, the P6 core is most definately IA-32. Hell, the 386 is IA-32. That designation refers to the instruction set, not to size of registers, or whatever you are trying to talk about without knowing.
And no, Ppro does not have 36 bytes for each register. It doesn't even have 36 bits for each register, either. All the general purpose registers are still 32 bits in length.
The 36 bits you are referring to is the address bus. The P6 core includes a widening of the address bus to allow for more physical memory as well as internal processor enhancements called Physical Address Extensions (PAE) that allow the operating system to use more than 4gb physical memory. The internal structure of segment descriptors has also been changed to allow for larger base addresses. Note that even with a 36 bit address bus, processes are still limited to 32 bits worth of virtual memory space (due to the size of the registers, 32 bits). I'm pretty sure the Linux kernel supports this through the use of the BIGMEM macro.
If I recall correctly, the address extensions of the P6 generation were actually removed before the introduction of the Pentium Pro, and finally introduced with the Pentium II. Anyway, I've never seen a Ppro based system with more than 4gb physical memory.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, because there is no bound on number of moves played. But for a match with a fixed number of moves N, there is some expression that describes the number of games that could possibly be played with that number of moves.
2^130? Were you not taught exponents in high school? That's around 10^39. That is...as they said, more than the number of atoms in the universe, so just where again where you planning to store this data?
You might be interested to know that there is over 70 billion dollars in gold bars in the Federal Reserve Bank in NYC (10.5 tons). In 70 years, they've never been robbed, and not one single bar of gold is unaccounted for.
On comp.arch we were kicking this around a few weeks back, trying to access the average roundtrip latency of memory. Some of the same ideas for defeating the cache were employed. The truth is that these benchmarks are particularly stupid in that they test a random sequence of accesses, which, hello, defeats the purpose of a cache anyway! What exactly were they trying to prove? That memory is slow? Of course. We already knew that.
Why don't they mention something like bandwidth scores or something similar? Take a look at the PIV's scores in Sisoft Sandra (a widely used metric in the overclocking community). It absolutely crushes both the Pentium III and the Athlon in memory bandwidth.
Yes the PIV is slow. Yes it has an overly long pipeline. Yes the cachelines are big. And yes, random accesses are bad on caches. ALL CACHES.
Perhaps they meant feet per second? FPS is often used in ballistics and the reference yardstick is that the speed of sound is roughly 1000fps. It's really around 1070fps under average temperature/humidity/pressure.
Try not to open a wormhole with that kind of speed, ok? :P
I've upgraded my firewall/router several times (it's now a K6-3 400 with 96mb) but that's because I've been running increasingly more intensive stuff on it. I've found that maintaining an old box enough to keep it workstation worthy really is more of a pain in the ass than I realized. Finding parts for them is most of the times easy, but sometimes very difficult. Most people just don't want to bother, and unless it has 2^(this.year-1992) megs of RAM to run W1ndow$, it's no fun at all.
The 8086 debuted at 4.77mhz. That was 1978. There was also an 8mhz and a 10mhz version. It weighed in at about 29,000 transistors.
Real computer scientists don't use computers.
:P
It doesn't matter how _far_ it moves the heat, the only thing that matters is the temperature difference (delta). It doesn't matter if you touch a wall that is 1m thick or 1cm thick if the side you touch as the same temperature. That's the idea. The little micro-peltiers give the IC a colder operating environment, pulling the heat "up" (perpendicular to the chip) so that a regular heatsink can pull it away just as normal. The difference is that inside the chip (on the cold side of the mini-peltier), things are actually slightly cooler.
As you increase the voltage on a clocked IC, you increase power consumption by quadratically. As you increase clockspeed, power consumption increases linearly. Why do you think that both Intel and AMD have been consistently dropping the voltages on their microprocessors? To bring power consumption down so that clockspeed can continue to ramp. Trust me, increasing voltage to an IC is NOT good for heat dissipation.
You're labelling her as close-minded, and yourself as somehow open-minded, based purely on the fact that you have the technical expertise to effectively use the software. Obviously if you understand something (and have for a long time) it seems simple to you the more you digest it inside your head.
Think back to first year Calculus. Derivatives and integrals didn't make that much sense at first, did they? The more you use it, the more completely you understand it. In fact, after quite some time of repeated exposure to the same ideas, you understand them very well and the seem extraordinarily simple in your head. It becomes hard for you to remember how it felt like to *not* understand those ideas, or how someone else could possibly not understand.
Take yourself out of your shoes for a moment and open your mind to how someone with a completely different background and experience in an area you have particular expertise in might be intimidated by the complexities. Then, when you can do that, reread the article with a pinch of salt.
Knee-jerk flaming of the messenger and total disregard for their opinion are the marks of zealotry, which aren't always perceived as the fruits of a "rational" following. Keep that in mind.
Well, since we know R&D is totally free...those bastards!
Hello?
Sure. Bin Laden is such a great guy! Thanks a bunch Binny! *pat on the back*
Hahaha! That link to the guy's page looks like 90% of Geocities pages! Black background and big bright cyan lettering with MSpaint doodled images! Hahaha? This guy knows the secret to one of the most vexing questions in computer science, along with studying "Computer Virus Theory?"
LMAO! HAHAHA!
I run an AMD and love it, my 750 Athlon is fast enough to reboot into linux after my roomates run a windows session it doesn't bother me they are still in the dark ages of computing.
This could be 3 or 4 different sentences, I thought my runons were bad!
:-D
Dynamic translation lets you make optimizations at runtime about the behavior of the code that can't be done statically at compile time (or even as well in the CPU using branch prediction, etc etc)
Well yes...and no. Yes it can let you make runtime optimizations on the code by agressively profiling it at runtime (something a compiler can't do), but you have to remember that when you translate from one instruction set to another it isn't the same as going from an intermediary form to machine language. If you translate from one machine language to another, you have to deal with the fact that code has already been compiled once, and has been scheduled and optimized (perhaps poorly) by a previous compiler. You're stuck with an instruction stream, and extracting the meaning of that instruction stream and generating an equivalent and more optimized set of instructions in another machine language is extremely difficult...much more difficult than it is for a compiler which has access to an intermediate representation. Register allocation, instruction scheduling, prefetching, and instruction selection have already been done for one specific architecture. That's one main disadvantage of code morphing, because you can't really ever hope to correct the mistakes of a previous compiler (which didn't know any better because it was doing the best it could do for its target architecture).
IMO, the best approach would be a hybrid, where the code morphing could use the intermediate representation as a binary form to generate machine language, and then optimize it using runtime profiling and scheduling based on techniques already used by current compilers on IR trees.
Thanks for the suggestion, but hey, I read the article. And you apparently don't know what "direct quote" means.
Example of direct quote: Joe Blow said, "Hey I think all you slashdot monkeys need to lighten up!"
Example of indirect quote: Joe Blow said that all you slashdot monkeys need to lighten up.
Now that you know that what was in the article was most decidedly *not* a direct quote, you might want to take it with a grain of salt. And maybe if *you* read all the way through the article, you might realize that just because he holds a view different than yours, he's not an asshole, or close-minded. He obviously very intelligent, and I think the article has put a more negative spin on what he said than you might imagine. You might want to reconsider getting all up in arms about this.
"The law of the land" is the US Constitution, my friend. No other legislation holds its gravity or sway. It sets limits on the power of the Government. However, it is not an absolute. The rights guaranteed in the Constitution all have restrictions that fall on various sides of the tug of war between individual rights and the common good.
You're living in some utopian dream world if you can't embrace the fact that all rights have restrictions, and must, for the common good. For example, you can't smear yourself with your own feces and run naked through the streets under some vague protection of "freedom of speech." Freedom of expression is subject to decency restrictions that have been routinely upheld by courts throughout the country.
If you really think that we could get by with no other legislation than the constitution, I think you might want to consider what it would be like to live in such a society. No roads, no courthouses, no government hierarchy, no jails, no police officers, no guarantee that you won't be shot in the head under someone else's broad and all-encompassing freedom of expression and free speech.
All this vague babble about the "law of the land' and legal vs lawful sounds great if you're giving a Mahatma Ghandi speech or something, but when you get right down to it, it doesn't amount to a hill of beans. The legal system is there, and it's there for a reason, and saying, "Bad legal system! Bad!" and spanking it on the bottom isn't going to make all your troubles disappear my friend...
Joe Blow doesn't like apples and oranges.
He views them as bad fruit.
That still doesn't mean Joe Blow thinks that Apples actually are oranges. Hell, it's not even a direct quote, so how can you be sure that Joe Blow really feels that way. You know, it's not uncommon for a journalist to slightly paraphrase what someone has said and put a completely different spin on it unknowingly.
All I am saying is that you need to stop being so testy and give someone a little more credit, until you've at least heard it come directly out of their mouth. You don't know a god damn thing about this guy except what the article told you. I think you're being overly judgemental and jumping to a hasty conclusion.
Where did he equate the two terms again?
District Judge Lewis Kaplan doesn't truly dislike hackers and open-source programmers, not exactly.
I could say I don't like dogs and cats (or even that I do), but that doesn't mean I am equating them. Both is this *not* a direct quote, but it also doesn't equate the two like you seem to have taken it. Nowhere does he say that hackers are open source programmers. For those reasons, maybe you should at least give the guy a smidgen of the benefit of the doubt?
Unfortunately I think that many scientists have been so optimistic about Mars that they have started reading things into the terrain that aren't there. The see a rill and they cry "water must have done that!" and they see some wiggly things and conclude that has something to do with the former presence of water.
I think that so many of the theories that have been put forth about the formations of structures on Mars have been unfounded, overly-hopeful conjectures at best, but since Mars is the hot thing in both the media and solar system research, everyone seems to jump on the ideas that have the most interesting possibilities, regardless of their scientific soundness.
Everyone was so ready to conclude that there still is a tremendous supply of water on Mars just because of a weak conjecture by a few people, who were perhaps only framing a best case scenario. No one stopped to ask the questions which numerous posters have already posed: Where is the water now? How does a planet just dry up?
I think scientists should spend less time getting caught up in wild speculations and spend more time doing research.
"A method to obtain the number of elements of the union of two groups from the number of elements from each inicial group" (sum)
Not exactly. That would be the "inclusion-exclusion principle." The number of the elements in the union is not a strict sum. What would happen if you took the set of all Americans over 20 and the set of all Americans under 40 and tried to union them? They overlap, and if you simply add them, the answer is wrong because you count some people twice.
Blah, studying for my Discrete math exam...
No, you slept through Economics. They're protecting their investment in their R&D by not allowing someone else to capitalize off their ideas. They do indeed remember what got them where they are, and what they had to do the big boys of that time in order to do it. They're trying to prevent the same thing happening to them. Is that evil?
What benefits of competition are you talking about? A lower ASP by having a larger supply to quench demand? Marketing costs in order to protect market share? Basically no control over the market? Yeah, that's real beneficial.
Every business, every business wants to be a monopoly. They're not "evil" for doing that. The whole point is to maximize profit. Wake up, bud. That's what economics is.
If you watch the Quicktime of Ganymede's plasma waves, you can actually make out a sinusoidal curve in the wave spectrum graph, compliments of special relativity.
What are you talking about? First of all, the P6 core is most definately IA-32. Hell, the 386 is IA-32. That designation refers to the instruction set, not to size of registers, or whatever you are trying to talk about without knowing.
And no, Ppro does not have 36 bytes for each register. It doesn't even have 36 bits for each register, either. All the general purpose registers are still 32 bits in length.
The 36 bits you are referring to is the address bus. The P6 core includes a widening of the address bus to allow for more physical memory as well as internal processor enhancements called Physical Address Extensions (PAE) that allow the operating system to use more than 4gb physical memory. The internal structure of segment descriptors has also been changed to allow for larger base addresses. Note that even with a 36 bit address bus, processes are still limited to 32 bits worth of virtual memory space (due to the size of the registers, 32 bits). I'm pretty sure the Linux kernel supports this through the use of the BIGMEM macro.
If I recall correctly, the address extensions of the P6 generation were actually removed before the introduction of the Pentium Pro, and finally introduced with the Pentium II. Anyway, I've never seen a Ppro based system with more than 4gb physical memory.
So yes Ppro=IA-32, and now you know why.