Comment Re:sure you want to go with 'undead' ? (Score 2) 283
[...] code [...] in sigs and comments. [...] Now it's, apparently, the worst thing [...]
They tried understanding their own sigs after some time.
[...] code [...] in sigs and comments. [...] Now it's, apparently, the worst thing [...]
They tried understanding their own sigs after some time.
I would assume the FPGA part of the CPU would be programmed in VHDL.
Yes, that's the obvious reasoning. And that's certainly interesting enough on its own. But the summary said
[...]for critical functions without translating the majority of their code[...]
Somebody has to do the translation, agree?
I agree it is a good thing. IIRC, Altera even made a tool for synthesis from OpenCL (great for me, as I don't know VHDL and Verilog).
I'm in particular interested in that Parallella board (http://www.parallella.org/), but they're out of stock, and I've been the queue for months without a response.
By using FPGAs to accelerate certain specific types of workloads, Intel Xeon customers can reap higher performance for critical functions without translating the majority of their code to OpenCL or bothering to update it for GPGPU.
What? This doesn't make sense. Unless Intel invented a way to automatically generate parallel code (in which case it could also be used in GPUs), somebody would have to rewrite the relevant parts of the program in VHDL, Verilog, OpenCL, or whatever.
According to Wikipedia and vocabulary.com:
Simulation
Simulation is the imitation of the operation of a real-world process or system over time.
Emulation
In computing, emulation is the technique used so one machine gets the same results as another.
So I stand by everything I've said, including that you're wrong.
You have it exactly back asswards.
A simulator simulates how and emulator emulates what.
If I develop an exact description of the hardware down to the individual registers and control paths, that is called a simulator.
Ah, I see, when I control a virtual airplane the program is behind the scenes calculating all the mechanical, electrical, and {aero,hydro}dynamical forces, from the engine, from the control cables, from the landing gear, from everything, all the time, so we can call it a flight simulator. Oh wait, it doesn't! It just makes a rough estimate of the aerodynamical forces, to what you would expect it to behave. Then according to your (wrong) definition, we should call it a flight emulator.
Did you read the article? He defines simulator as a layer between the application and the OS.
I didn't RTFA, but let me point out that his definition is one way to implement a simulator. Let me summarize it for you:
Simulator: functionality, what it does.
Emulator: function, how it does.
A simulator mimics the real thing but isn't.
Both do it, only the objectives are different.
It is one more piece on the 1984 puzzle. It actually made me remember the movie What About Bob?: baby steps to total information awareness / citizen extortion state, baby steps to police state, baby steps to fucking irrecoverable totalitarian oligarchy... hey, is that Winston Smith?
Nanananananananana ROBIN!!!! Sorry, I've been bribed.
"Chinese technology startup ANTVR [...]"
From: http://games.slashdot.org/stor...
Like... hmm... C?
I see. But I asked because the root of this thread doesn't have any constructive content... therefore you should have just ignored it, IMHO.
Does he argue for something different than 'don't feed the trolls'?
olfactory stimulation is critical
Yeah, I hear you... smelling the pussy would increase the realism tenfold. Too bad I'm allergic to cat hair.
Penrose's is an argument from ignorance. There is so much noise in neuron communication that any quantum effect is pretty much irrelevant. It is like saying the hive or ant colony behavior depends on quantum effects... you can say it, but it will not make you look smart.
It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.
