It does seem like they want it both ways. Cary Sherman (RIAA prez) was on Talk of the Nation today and said as much. Something like "we won't say it's legal, but look, we haven't sued anyone over ripping CDs, so chill out".
Nah, I got 2003 free through my university. No particularly good reasons for using it.
I'm using Kerio 2.x because starting with 3.x they pretty-fied it and started adding non-firewall security "features", like script blocking and whatnot. All I want is a simple rule-based firewall, no more and no less.
AFAIK 2K3 does not have an "easy" pirated version available, like how XP has corporate versions that don't require activation. I got 2K3 through my university program; like you say it's prohibitively expensive to buy for a workstation.
I ran 2K3 up until a few months ago, when I had a disk crash. In my mind, 2K3 has the improvements of XP over 2K, without the extra fat, plus some incremental improvements. Apart from that I don't have any compelling arguments, besides bragging rights.
The difference with modern consumer formats is that there is a published specification which is widely (OK, maybe not widely) disseminated. For the various optical discs, there are ECMA docs.
Mapping all equations... ERROR:Portability:3 - This Xilinx application has run out of memory or has encou ntered a memory conflict. Current memory usage is 2090592 kb. Memory problems may require a simple increase in available system memory, or possibly a fix to t he software or a special workaround. To troubleshoot or remedy the problem, fir st: Try increasing your system's RAM. Alternatively, you may try increasing yo ur system's virtual memory or swap space. If this does not fix the problem, ple ase try the following: Search the Answers Database at support.xilinx.com to loc ate information on this error message. If neither of the above resources produc es an available solution, please use Web Support to open a case with Xilinx Tech nical Support off of support.xilinx.com. As it is likely that this may be an un foreseen problem, please be prepared to submit relevant design files if necessar y.
Looks like you need a serious amount of memory to synthesize even a single core. I was targeting a Virtex-5 LX50.
I don't think there's any more DDR2 here at work, so it's time to go home.
Well, I'm trying to synthesize a single core. ISE gets really sluggish when the file count gets large, so I'm doing it on the command line. So far I'm having to fix stuff like
ERROR:Xst - "/..\opensparc\design\sys\iop\spc\dec\rtl\dec_del_ctl.v" line 1102: Module <dec_del_ctl_spare_ctl_macro__flops_0__num_6> has no port.
"Of course this analysis is purely approximate since there are a lot of there things going in the devices."
Absolutely. For one, dynamic memories are quite different from microprocessors. We can figure that there will be GDDR interface logic active the whole time, but that power consumption probably pales in comparison to the rest of the chip, with data coming in and out at gigabit speeds. The capacitors used for storage will be drained and filled with every read cycle -- but only one row/column will be active per cycle. (Well, no, I guess there's prefetching and other such things.)
Also, the bus interface also uses power. GDDR5 features bus inversion: since GDDR5 lines are terminated to Vdd, reducing the number of zeros transmitted saves power.
Wow, Odex? This guy (a Singaporean anime blogger) has been ranting about Odex for a while. He even wrote them an open letter, and has a post about this latest nonsense.
RIP.MIX.BURN.BAM.PFA is an exhibition at the Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive. The idea is for artists to take two selected digital works and remix them how they see fit, in a real Creative Commons kind of way. The neat thing about this is that the public (i.e. us) is also invited to do the same.
With regards to ITER doing engineering before research, why did they not pay to run JT-60 on D-T at Q > 1. Tritium handling is not easy. When they did DT at JET, they spent 10 years developing the tritium system (see chapter 14 of "The Science of JET" by John Wesson, available online). Also, running DT results in nuclear activation of the structure, so a robotic remote handling system needs to be in place. It may not have been feasible to run DT at JT-60 for these and other reasons.
One idea they seem to have totally dismissed is a full scale computer model, if they know how the reactor will work then they can build a simulator for far less cash.... The only computer sims I have read about are woefully incomplete. Plasma physics simulations represent a trade-off in accuracy and complexity. A full-on EM model gets extremely intractable. The next best approach, particle-in-cell, trades a bit of accuracy for complexity, but still would be essentially impossible on the scale of ITER (10^20 particles). Going to fluid models like MHD loses many important effects. So it's still not possible to make a tractable simulation that preserves essential physical phenomena, unfortunately. Perhaps in a few decades.
Here's my ramble about fusion funding. The fusion research budget in the US has been steadily declining for decades, and pales in comparison to other 'energy' sectors like fission and coal. Even so, 'alternative' fusion devices have received funding, though most of them have been in the magnetic confinement arena, like stellarators, spheromaks, etc. Funding for IEC is also there, and one university fusion page I ran across even mentioned the Polywell.
(It's true that we've made ITER DOE's number one priority, and they're taking money out of the domestic fusion budget for it. I hear this upset a lot of people. Some of this concern is political but some of it is scientific, as we don't understand enough about tokamak fusion to be sure that ITER will work; we're depending on scaling laws that will hopefully pan out.)
Finally, nuclear research is not something that can be done easily on the small scale. Anything having to do with radiation carries an inherent risk, and requires specialized instrumentation and training. As an unaffiliated researcher, you're unlikely to get considered for large amounts of funding. I agree that we need to diversify, but the proposed experiments need to show feasibility and scientific merit, which is hard to achieve on the small scale.
I run 2003 on my desktop, but I've never heard of any gaming performance boosts. Of course I got it free through my school; I wouldn't have paid for a server OS.
I've read Rider's papers and thesis. He basically goes through the various ways of creating a non-Maxwellian electron/ion distribution, and shows that there are significant problems with those concepts. The Polywell is supposed to sidestep those issues rather than proving Rider wrong.
WB-6 ran for a short time and a few neutrons were caught in a detector. The estimated fusion rate is an extrapolation that I am not entirely comfortable with. The statistics simply are not there, nor do I agree with the claim that steady-state operation was reached.
While the Polywell is a fresh concept, it looks like nothing more than a three-dimensional arrangement of magnetic mirrors. I simply don't see how cusp losses can be overcome, nor the collisional dumping of energy from the ions to the electrons. There are lots of things that can go "wrong" in plasmas.
Looking around talk-polywell, the Yoshikawa paper doesn't seem to have much to do with the Polywell (though it's interesting that nobody's measured a double well before).
Again, you insist on your definition. My definition is not the same as your definition. My assumptions are not your assumptions.
Your refusal to acknowledge that bandwidth is defined differently in the circuit design discipline is a sure sign that you're unfamiliar with the low-level analog aspect of things.
Do I need to quote chapter and verse?
Schwarz & Oldham, Electrical Engineering, p286: "The useful frequency range of an amplifier is called its bandwidth."
There's a whole library's worth more if you want it.
From an engineering standpoint, your goal is to reproduce a signal over the frequency range of interest with as little distortion as possible. Hence, you only need to keep that frequency range. The theoretical information content of the signal is _irrelevant_ for our purposes. Rather, I was interested in the bandwidth (frequency, mind you) required for the aforementioned channels, implemented in a typical home living room. You're trying to force a definition that has nothing to do with the original comparison, which is why you're running into cognitive dissonance.
Try to look at it from the view of an engineer. You don't buy coaxial cable by bitrate. That's a measurement that is dependent on encoding. The most useful measurement is a frequency characterization: bandwidth.
I think I see where you're coming from now. I'll admit that Information Theory is not my strong point. However we appear to be arguing at cross purposes. I approached the issue from an engineering standpoint, and did the comparison in practical, real-world analog bandwidth. It's certainly valid -- countless microwave/RF/comms books will back me up.
You must have been approaching the problem from the opposite direction. So let me try my hand at this information theory business. As I see it, the sticking point is the information contained in the analog audio signal. We would have to choose a quantization that not everyone would agree with; 24-bit 192kHz is probably enough for most people. That's 4.608 Mbps, which is indeed three orders of magnitude off from 3Gbps.
I chose to do my comparison in analog bandwidth because the topic was speaker cables, which carry audio in analog form -- not digital. Also, the limitations of gigabit communications channels (such as HDMI) are analog in nature. So it makes more sense to do the comparison in real-world analog bandwidth.
Slashdot Mirror
It does seem like they want it both ways. Cary Sherman (RIAA prez) was on Talk of the Nation today and said as much. Something like "we won't say it's legal, but look, we haven't sued anyone over ripping CDs, so chill out".
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17814972
Nah, I got 2003 free through my university. No particularly good reasons for using it.
I'm using Kerio 2.x because starting with 3.x they pretty-fied it and started adding non-firewall security "features", like script blocking and whatnot. All I want is a simple rule-based firewall, no more and no less.
AFAIK 2K3 does not have an "easy" pirated version available, like how XP has corporate versions that don't require activation. I got 2K3 through my university program; like you say it's prohibitively expensive to buy for a workstation.
I ran 2K3 up until a few months ago, when I had a disk crash. In my mind, 2K3 has the improvements of XP over 2K, without the extra fat, plus some incremental improvements. Apart from that I don't have any compelling arguments, besides bragging rights.
Yeah, I'm still using Kerio 2.x. Too bad it doesn't work on 2003 Server.
The difference with modern consumer formats is that there is a published specification which is widely (OK, maybe not widely) disseminated. For the various optical discs, there are ECMA docs.
Well, the evidence suggests that the difference between CD-quality audio and DVD-A/SACD audio is imperceptible.
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=57406
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm
I think you're erroneously conflating the Nyquist theorem with the limitations of human hearing, but that's a separate matter.
The SDR Forum defines tiers of software-ness. I've seen the terms used in the literature, so it's somewhat accepted.
I don't think there's any more DDR2 here at work, so it's time to go home.
Sun uses Synopsys for their synthesis needs, it seems.
Yeah, it's there.
http://www.opensparc.net/opensparc-t2/downloads.html
Be warned, the 233MB file decompresses to about 1.5 GB.
But we've got peaking hydro plants too.
I hope they still offer XP when the Penryn notebook platform comes out.
"Of course this analysis is purely approximate since there are a lot of there things going in the devices."
Absolutely. For one, dynamic memories are quite different from microprocessors. We can figure that there will be GDDR interface logic active the whole time, but that power consumption probably pales in comparison to the rest of the chip, with data coming in and out at gigabit speeds. The capacitors used for storage will be drained and filled with every read cycle -- but only one row/column will be active per cycle. (Well, no, I guess there's prefetching and other such things.)
Also, the bus interface also uses power. GDDR5 features bus inversion: since GDDR5 lines are terminated to Vdd, reducing the number of zeros transmitted saves power.
Wow, Odex? This guy (a Singaporean anime blogger) has been ranting about Odex for a while. He even wrote them an open letter, and has a post about this latest nonsense.
RIP.MIX.BURN.BAM.PFA is an exhibition at the Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive. The idea is for artists to take two selected digital works and remix them how they see fit, in a real Creative Commons kind of way. The neat thing about this is that the public (i.e. us) is also invited to do the same.
http://bampfa.berkeley.edu/digitalart/ripmixburn
I go to the PFA fairly often, but I regrettably still haven't been to the BAM, even after four years.
There's a TIE Fighter Total Conversion that uses the XWA engine. I don't know how good it is, still working on XWA ...
With regards to ITER doing engineering before research, why did they not pay to run JT-60 on D-T at Q > 1.
... The only computer sims I have read about are woefully incomplete.
Tritium handling is not easy. When they did DT at JET, they spent 10 years developing the tritium system (see chapter 14 of "The Science of JET" by John Wesson, available online). Also, running DT results in nuclear activation of the structure, so a robotic remote handling system needs to be in place. It may not have been feasible to run DT at JT-60 for these and other reasons.
One idea they seem to have totally dismissed is a full scale computer model, if they know how the reactor will work then they can build a simulator for far less cash.
Plasma physics simulations represent a trade-off in accuracy and complexity. A full-on EM model gets extremely intractable. The next best approach, particle-in-cell, trades a bit of accuracy for complexity, but still would be essentially impossible on the scale of ITER (10^20 particles). Going to fluid models like MHD loses many important effects. So it's still not possible to make a tractable simulation that preserves essential physical phenomena, unfortunately. Perhaps in a few decades.
Here's my ramble about fusion funding. The fusion research budget in the US has been steadily declining for decades, and pales in comparison to other 'energy' sectors like fission and coal. Even so, 'alternative' fusion devices have received funding, though most of them have been in the magnetic confinement arena, like stellarators, spheromaks, etc. Funding for IEC is also there, and one university fusion page I ran across even mentioned the Polywell.
(It's true that we've made ITER DOE's number one priority, and they're taking money out of the domestic fusion budget for it. I hear this upset a lot of people. Some of this concern is political but some of it is scientific, as we don't understand enough about tokamak fusion to be sure that ITER will work; we're depending on scaling laws that will hopefully pan out.)
Finally, nuclear research is not something that can be done easily on the small scale. Anything having to do with radiation carries an inherent risk, and requires specialized instrumentation and training. As an unaffiliated researcher, you're unlikely to get considered for large amounts of funding. I agree that we need to diversify, but the proposed experiments need to show feasibility and scientific merit, which is hard to achieve on the small scale.
I run 2003 on my desktop, but I've never heard of any gaming performance boosts. Of course I got it free through my school; I wouldn't have paid for a server OS.
That's also what I want to know.
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/13434
I've read Rider's papers and thesis. He basically goes through the various ways of creating a non-Maxwellian electron/ion distribution, and shows that there are significant problems with those concepts. The Polywell is supposed to sidestep those issues rather than proving Rider wrong.
WB-6 ran for a short time and a few neutrons were caught in a detector. The estimated fusion rate is an extrapolation that I am not entirely comfortable with. The statistics simply are not there, nor do I agree with the claim that steady-state operation was reached.
While the Polywell is a fresh concept, it looks like nothing more than a three-dimensional arrangement of magnetic mirrors. I simply don't see how cusp losses can be overcome, nor the collisional dumping of energy from the ions to the electrons. There are lots of things that can go "wrong" in plasmas.
Looking around talk-polywell, the Yoshikawa paper doesn't seem to have much to do with the Polywell (though it's interesting that nobody's measured a double well before).
http://wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/aesj/division/fusion/aesjfnt/Yoshikawa.pdf
Again, you insist on your definition. My definition is not the same as your definition. My assumptions are not your assumptions.
Your refusal to acknowledge that bandwidth is defined differently in the circuit design discipline is a sure sign that you're unfamiliar with the low-level analog aspect of things.
Do I need to quote chapter and verse?
Schwarz & Oldham, Electrical Engineering, p286: "The useful frequency range of an amplifier is called its bandwidth."
There's a whole library's worth more if you want it.
From an engineering standpoint, your goal is to reproduce a signal over the frequency range of interest with as little distortion as possible. Hence, you only need to keep that frequency range. The theoretical information content of the signal is _irrelevant_ for our purposes. Rather, I was interested in the bandwidth (frequency, mind you) required for the aforementioned channels, implemented in a typical home living room. You're trying to force a definition that has nothing to do with the original comparison, which is why you're running into cognitive dissonance.
Try to look at it from the view of an engineer. You don't buy coaxial cable by bitrate. That's a measurement that is dependent on encoding. The most useful measurement is a frequency characterization: bandwidth.
I think I see where you're coming from now. I'll admit that Information Theory is not my strong point. However we appear to be arguing at cross purposes. I approached the issue from an engineering standpoint, and did the comparison in practical, real-world analog bandwidth. It's certainly valid -- countless microwave/RF/comms books will back me up.
You must have been approaching the problem from the opposite direction. So let me try my hand at this information theory business. As I see it, the sticking point is the information contained in the analog audio signal. We would have to choose a quantization that not everyone would agree with; 24-bit 192kHz is probably enough for most people. That's 4.608 Mbps, which is indeed three orders of magnitude off from 3Gbps.
I chose to do my comparison in analog bandwidth because the topic was speaker cables, which carry audio in analog form -- not digital. Also, the limitations of gigabit communications channels (such as HDMI) are analog in nature. So it makes more sense to do the comparison in real-world analog bandwidth.