True, but P=VI, and I=V/R, therefore P=V^2*R. R is unlikely to be an order of magnitude lower, therefore, voltage is a surrogate for power efficiency. The fact that existing chips run significantly faster and significantly lower voltages is an indication the these are not currently as efficient as they could be when under load.
1.2V @ 1GHz is not power efficient at speed. Existing Core designs are running much faster at lower voltages. Based upon what they've demonstrated so far, it's useful for devices that need moderate speed on an occasional basis, but spend the majority of their time at idle.
Now, if they can scale it up to 2-3GHz at around 1V and idle at less than 0.5V at a reduced freq, then it'll be something worth looking at for common applications.
1. English is not math. English descriptions are not math.
2. Your example bears absolutely no resemblance to a problem such as lossy compression. I never said software doesn't use math, nor did I claim that simple programs are anything more than math.
3. Show me the "math" in the patent. You can't, because it's not there. The patent describes the technique, not the math used for a specific implementation. It's not the math that is patented, it's the method. The patent is for the innovation involved in discovering and defining a method of doing something that is non-obvious. Converting that to a specific mathematical model for a particular implementation is a separate issue, and that's the reason that the patent protects not just one implementation, but separate attempts to implement the same technique. Implementations are covered by copyright, the method may be covered by a patent.
The execution is a physical implementation using a mathematical model. However, the program is not "just math", it embodies many assumptions, user interactions, and processes that aren't "just math".
I'll give an example, lossy compression such as video compression. Determining what data can be removed with minimal perceptual impact isn't "just math". The process of determining what "isn't perceptible" wasn't determined by math, it was determined by humans doing a lot of work, designing and refining processes, and determining a set of parameters they could use as controlling factors in a particular model. Then there is a pattern matching, motion compensation, and redundancy removal, none of which is "just math". Again, it's a bunch of processes, driven by parameters that the designers of the compression system determined before hand. Much of the above won't even produce an exact answer, and might not even produce the same output every time, even when given the same input, if it must produce real-time output. In fact, such program may operate in part by trial and error, seeking the "best" result within the time and resource limits it has. Ask a mathematician if that qualifies as "just math".
Software is not just math, software embodies much more than just math. Software engineering is the practice of reducing software to a set of steps that can run on a specific computer system.
See Mathematics Since the pioneering work of Giuseppe Peano (1858-1932), David Hilbert (1862-1943), and others on axiomatic systems in the late 19th century, it has become customary to view mathematical research as establishing truth by rigorous deduction from appropriately chosen axioms and definitions. When those mathematical structures are good models of real phenomena, then mathematical reasoning often provides insight or predictions.
Where is the "rigor" in the example above?
See also Computational Mathematicsinvolves mathematical research in areas of science where computing plays a central and essential role, emphasizing algorithms, numerical methods, and symbolic methods....solving mathematical problems by computer simulation as opposed to analytic methods of applied mathematics...stochastic methods, such as Monte Carlo methods and other representations of uncertainty in scientific computation....
Software isn't just math. If you claim that software is just math, then all engineering is just math. So, all products that require engineering to produce are simply math. Next, all design and architecture is just math, because actually implementing it is strictly an engineering (e.g. math) problem. It's an absurd claim based upon a faulty premise.
The TSA should not get to choose the agency, machines to be tested, nor the time for the tests. An independent lab should show up at an airport and test any machines they wish to test (one or few at a time to have little or no impact on passenger screening), including making the TSA stop using an in use machine (and switch to another) so it can be tested. They should test at least 100 machines at no less than 25 different airports, all randomly selected by the testing agency. All with no more than 1 hour notice to the TSA (preferably with less than 30 minutes notice or no notice). One viable way to do it "without notice" would be to show up, identify yourselves and immediately identify machines for testing. The TSA can spend 15-30 minutes verifying that they are indeed from the testing agency. In the mean-time, no one touches the machines to be tested. Any any use machines to be tested shall stop being used as soon as another machine can be made ready and passengers redirected to the other machine.
1. The TSA is solely accountable for testing, calibrating, and maintaining these machines. 2. An audit of the tests found that machines were mis-calibrated by up to a factor of 10 (misplaced decimal point), that the testing and calibration procedures were unclear, and that the technicians had inadequate training. 3. TSOa are standing near these machines 8 hours per shift without wearing any protective clothing and they are prohibited from wearing dosimeters. 4. That the studies that were performed have been contested because the methodology has not been shown to adequately account for the tact that 100% of the radiation dose of the back-scatter machines is deposited within 3mm of the skin. 5. The type of radiation received while flying is different than the type of received from the scanners, so a direct comparison of levels is meaningless.
How clueless can you get. This guy clearly didn't bother to read any of the comments or he wouldn't have made such an ignorant statement that completely ignores his customers. How's that shoe leather tasting, Mr Shilling?
Exactly. In the lecture, I can encourage/challenge students to think and figure things out as a group (or as individuals). Books and notes generally aren't very useful for inspiring thinking, creativity, and exploration. I can't take credit for the idea, I had some great teachers, I just continue the tradition to the best of my ability, and update it using modern technology.
Well said. As for why taking notes helps, the memory is associative, so the more senses that are stimulated in ways that reinforce the material, the stronger the association. Writing, seeing it as you write it, and hearing it give you three different accesses to the material. The act of writing down key words and seeing that key word shortly after having heard the material reinforces the association. It's the reason multi-media learning is so effective (when the content is good quality and engaging), and why "hands-on" makes stuff so easy to remember.
When I teach, I prepare a set of lecture notes, mostly an outline with key details. I leave room for notes. Then I give the students a copy of those at the start of the class. That way, they can listen and focus on understanding the information during the lecture. If they need to make some additional notes, they can add to the pre-printed lecture notes I handed out, but since the key points and details are already there, they don't need to add many notes. My experience is that students who spend too much time taking notes don't understand the material and don't remember it, so I make is easy for them to not spend time taking notes.
My classroom time is spent expanding upon the material, having discussions with the students, making sure the students understand it and how to apply it, doing hands on or thought experiments as appropriate, and refining my notes for the next class.
If you're having to switch your focus, you're either writing too much, or you need more practice at listening. Again, if you're a touch typist, you shouldn't have to change focus at all, just type.
If you're taking many notes, you're not really listening. If you're really listening, you'll remember much more at the end of class and you'll be able to fill in a lot of notes.
Here's what I've found works for most people if they're willing to try it. Listen to the lecture and make very short notes about the most important points and/or details that you want to remember. Then, fill in additional notes at the end of class (or at the next break). Discuss them with other students if needed to fill in what you may have missed. How do you know what you missed? It if seemed important, you should have a brief note about it. Also, in discussing it with other students you'll hear what they noted as "important" and can add that to your notes if necessary.
If you're a touch typist, it's less distracting to type notes, writing requires more attention. That might not apply on touchscreen devices.
Another option is to record the session on a voice recorder to help fill in the gaps you can't remember at the end of class. Of course, it can take extra time to listen again, but for a few people, that might be the most effective method.
... there are few b-only devices still in use, and most places don't restrict them.
... there were very few a-only devices sold. A never had much success prior the the introduction of a/b/g devices.
... there is no reason to restrict a publicly accessible network to n-only, that's just plain foolish. Most of the installed base of devices don't support n, and allowing g doesn't materially hamper the performance of n devices. This is one instance where it might make sense to disallow b-only devices.
A more common issue is improper setup of WEP/WPA/WPA2 keys such that some clients can't connect.
In short, while you can experience compatibility problems with Wi-Fi, most are problems created by someone deliberately changing settings thereby causing a problem. For most instances, a Wi-Fi client (with the correct password) can connect to a Wi-Fi network.
But in that case, Wi-Fi is the correct term. They're not asking "do you have wireless internet?", they're asking "do you have a wi-fi compatible wireless internet connection?" So, no, it's not the generic, it's a specific, compatible technology they're asking about.
Agreed, even ignoring the obvious trademark issues and lack of compatibility, Wi-Fi has never been the generic term. Wi-Fi didn't exist until the Wi-Fi Alliance created the term specifically to promote inter-operable 802.11a/b/g products. Wireless is the generic term.
Wi-Fi, WiMAX, LTE, Bluetooth, and other such terms are specific implementations of wireless data communications. None of those inter-operate with the others, but they don't interfere with each other either so they can be used concurrently. If the "Wireless Innovation Alliance" doesn't know that, then they're ignorant. If they do know it, then they've deliberately violated a competitor's registered trademark and opened themselves to a lawsuit that could potentially end their group before they really get started. It's unlikely that will happen. The appropriate response when called-out on it would have been something like "We're sorry, we will use another term.", not the insolent BS response claiming "The term 'wifi' has always been a general term for the family of 802.11 protocols...."
No one disputes that they stopped him from going to his plane and turned him over to local police to escort him out of the screening area. He was not permitted to leave the screening area until the police arrived. How does that not constitute being detained?
The fact is, the TSA did detain a US Senator on his way to DC for official business (the Senate is in session at 4:30 this afternoon). That is in direct violation of Article 1, Section 6 of the US Constitution which states in part:
They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
He was not guilty of Treason, he was not committing a felony, was not breaching the peace, and there were no warrants for any of those, yet they did detain him on his way to attend a session of the Senate. The TSA violated the US Constitution.
Senate is in session at 4:30pm today, Rand Paul was flying to DC to attend the Senate meeting. Speaking to the RTL group was just a stop he was making because he had time to before the Senate convenes. That you don't like him addressing an RTL group changes nothing about the fact that he was flying to DC for official Senate business.
Slashdot Mirror
True, but P=VI, and I=V/R, therefore P=V^2*R. R is unlikely to be an order of magnitude lower, therefore, voltage is a surrogate for power efficiency. The fact that existing chips run significantly faster and significantly lower voltages is an indication the these are not currently as efficient as they could be when under load.
1.2V @ 1GHz is not power efficient at speed. Existing Core designs are running much faster at lower voltages. Based upon what they've demonstrated so far, it's useful for devices that need moderate speed on an occasional basis, but spend the majority of their time at idle.
Now, if they can scale it up to 2-3GHz at around 1V and idle at less than 0.5V at a reduced freq, then it'll be something worth looking at for common applications.
1. English is not math. English descriptions are not math.
2. Your example bears absolutely no resemblance to a problem such as lossy compression. I never said software doesn't use math, nor did I claim that simple programs are anything more than math.
3. Show me the "math" in the patent. You can't, because it's not there. The patent describes the technique, not the math used for a specific implementation. It's not the math that is patented, it's the method. The patent is for the innovation involved in discovering and defining a method of doing something that is non-obvious. Converting that to a specific mathematical model for a particular implementation is a separate issue, and that's the reason that the patent protects not just one implementation, but separate attempts to implement the same technique. Implementations are covered by copyright, the method may be covered by a patent.
You're confusing the goal and the program. The patent is on the technique for compression, not on the program itself. Software IS NOT JUST MATH.
The execution is a physical implementation using a mathematical model. However, the program is not "just math", it embodies many assumptions, user interactions, and processes that aren't "just math".
I'll give an example, lossy compression such as video compression. Determining what data can be removed with minimal perceptual impact isn't "just math". The process of determining what "isn't perceptible" wasn't determined by math, it was determined by humans doing a lot of work, designing and refining processes, and determining a set of parameters they could use as controlling factors in a particular model. Then there is a pattern matching, motion compensation, and redundancy removal, none of which is "just math". Again, it's a bunch of processes, driven by parameters that the designers of the compression system determined before hand. Much of the above won't even produce an exact answer, and might not even produce the same output every time, even when given the same input, if it must produce real-time output. In fact, such program may operate in part by trial and error, seeking the "best" result within the time and resource limits it has. Ask a mathematician if that qualifies as "just math".
Software is not just math, software embodies much more than just math. Software engineering is the practice of reducing software to a set of steps that can run on a specific computer system.
See Mathematics
Since the pioneering work of Giuseppe Peano (1858-1932), David Hilbert (1862-1943), and others on axiomatic systems in the late 19th century, it has become customary to view mathematical research as establishing truth by rigorous deduction from appropriately chosen axioms and definitions. When those mathematical structures are good models of real phenomena, then mathematical reasoning often provides insight or predictions.
Where is the "rigor" in the example above?
See also Computational Mathematics involves mathematical research in areas of science where computing plays a central and essential role, emphasizing algorithms, numerical methods, and symbolic methods....solving mathematical problems by computer simulation as opposed to analytic methods of applied mathematics...stochastic methods, such as Monte Carlo methods and other representations of uncertainty in scientific computation....
Software isn't just math. If you claim that software is just math, then all engineering is just math. So, all products that require engineering to produce are simply math. Next, all design and architecture is just math, because actually implementing it is strictly an engineering (e.g. math) problem. It's an absurd claim based upon a faulty premise.
+1, if I had mod points.
Yes. Yes it is.
You're incorrect, it is completely possible. It just takes practice, and it's easier if you can type it rather than write it.
Again, those dosages for x-rays assume a full body exposure, not concentrated exposure on the skin.
The TSA should not get to choose the agency, machines to be tested, nor the time for the tests. An independent lab should show up at an airport and test any machines they wish to test (one or few at a time to have little or no impact on passenger screening), including making the TSA stop using an in use machine (and switch to another) so it can be tested. They should test at least 100 machines at no less than 25 different airports, all randomly selected by the testing agency. All with no more than 1 hour notice to the TSA (preferably with less than 30 minutes notice or no notice). One viable way to do it "without notice" would be to show up, identify yourselves and immediately identify machines for testing. The TSA can spend 15-30 minutes verifying that they are indeed from the testing agency. In the mean-time, no one touches the machines to be tested. Any any use machines to be tested shall stop being used as soon as another machine can be made ready and passengers redirected to the other machine.
You post ignores these facts:
1. The TSA is solely accountable for testing, calibrating, and maintaining these machines.
2. An audit of the tests found that machines were mis-calibrated by up to a factor of 10 (misplaced decimal point), that the testing and calibration procedures were unclear, and that the technicians had inadequate training.
3. TSOa are standing near these machines 8 hours per shift without wearing any protective clothing and they are prohibited from wearing dosimeters.
4. That the studies that were performed have been contested because the methodology has not been shown to adequately account for the tact that 100% of the radiation dose of the back-scatter machines is deposited within 3mm of the skin.
5. The type of radiation received while flying is different than the type of received from the scanners, so a direct comparison of levels is meaningless.
How clueless can you get. This guy clearly didn't bother to read any of the comments or he wouldn't have made such an ignorant statement that completely ignores his customers. How's that shoe leather tasting, Mr Shilling?
Exactly. In the lecture, I can encourage/challenge students to think and figure things out as a group (or as individuals). Books and notes generally aren't very useful for inspiring thinking, creativity, and exploration. I can't take credit for the idea, I had some great teachers, I just continue the tradition to the best of my ability, and update it using modern technology.
Well said. As for why taking notes helps, the memory is associative, so the more senses that are stimulated in ways that reinforce the material, the stronger the association. Writing, seeing it as you write it, and hearing it give you three different accesses to the material. The act of writing down key words and seeing that key word shortly after having heard the material reinforces the association. It's the reason multi-media learning is so effective (when the content is good quality and engaging), and why "hands-on" makes stuff so easy to remember.
The trick is don't do a context switch. Make the brief note taking part of your listening.
When I teach, I prepare a set of lecture notes, mostly an outline with key details. I leave room for notes. Then I give the students a copy of those at the start of the class. That way, they can listen and focus on understanding the information during the lecture. If they need to make some additional notes, they can add to the pre-printed lecture notes I handed out, but since the key points and details are already there, they don't need to add many notes. My experience is that students who spend too much time taking notes don't understand the material and don't remember it, so I make is easy for them to not spend time taking notes.
My classroom time is spent expanding upon the material, having discussions with the students, making sure the students understand it and how to apply it, doing hands on or thought experiments as appropriate, and refining my notes for the next class.
If you're having to switch your focus, you're either writing too much, or you need more practice at listening. Again, if you're a touch typist, you shouldn't have to change focus at all, just type.
If you're taking many notes, you're not really listening. If you're really listening, you'll remember much more at the end of class and you'll be able to fill in a lot of notes.
Here's what I've found works for most people if they're willing to try it. Listen to the lecture and make very short notes about the most important points and/or details that you want to remember. Then, fill in additional notes at the end of class (or at the next break). Discuss them with other students if needed to fill in what you may have missed. How do you know what you missed? It if seemed important, you should have a brief note about it. Also, in discussing it with other students you'll hear what they noted as "important" and can add that to your notes if necessary.
If you're a touch typist, it's less distracting to type notes, writing requires more attention. That might not apply on touchscreen devices.
Another option is to record the session on a voice recorder to help fill in the gaps you can't remember at the end of class. Of course, it can take extra time to listen again, but for a few people, that might be the most effective method.
True, but...
A more common issue is improper setup of WEP/WPA/WPA2 keys such that some clients can't connect.
In short, while you can experience compatibility problems with Wi-Fi, most are problems created by someone deliberately changing settings thereby causing a problem. For most instances, a Wi-Fi client (with the correct password) can connect to a Wi-Fi network.
But in that case, Wi-Fi is the correct term. They're not asking "do you have wireless internet?", they're asking "do you have a wi-fi compatible wireless internet connection?" So, no, it's not the generic, it's a specific, compatible technology they're asking about.
I suggest Wi-Space.
Agreed, even ignoring the obvious trademark issues and lack of compatibility, Wi-Fi has never been the generic term. Wi-Fi didn't exist until the Wi-Fi Alliance created the term specifically to promote inter-operable 802.11a/b/g products. Wireless is the generic term.
Wi-Fi, WiMAX, LTE, Bluetooth, and other such terms are specific implementations of wireless data communications. None of those inter-operate with the others, but they don't interfere with each other either so they can be used concurrently. If the "Wireless Innovation Alliance" doesn't know that, then they're ignorant. If they do know it, then they've deliberately violated a competitor's registered trademark and opened themselves to a lawsuit that could potentially end their group before they really get started. It's unlikely that will happen. The appropriate response when called-out on it would have been something like "We're sorry, we will use another term.", not the insolent BS response claiming "The term 'wifi' has always been a general term for the family of 802.11 protocols...."
No one disputes that they stopped him from going to his plane and turned him over to local police to escort him out of the screening area. He was not permitted to leave the screening area until the police arrived. How does that not constitute being detained?
The fact is, the TSA did detain a US Senator on his way to DC for official business (the Senate is in session at 4:30 this afternoon). That is in direct violation of Article 1, Section 6 of the US Constitution which states in part:
They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
He was not guilty of Treason, he was not committing a felony, was not breaching the peace, and there were no warrants for any of those, yet they did detain him on his way to attend a session of the Senate. The TSA violated the US Constitution.
Senate is in session at 4:30pm today, Rand Paul was flying to DC to attend the Senate meeting. Speaking to the RTL group was just a stop he was making because he had time to before the Senate convenes. That you don't like him addressing an RTL group changes nothing about the fact that he was flying to DC for official Senate business.