Whoosh.

To correct myself, based on something I read downstream (thanks, trparky), the P4 was 31 stages, not 19. That is really a number I shouldn't have misremembered.

That is more or less accurate. The goals of the original RISC were stated to be making a Reduced Instruction Set Computer, but what was in fact produced was a Reduced Instruction Set Complexity CPU. By restricting the touching of memory to only loads and stores, all other instructions that were able to be executed in one clock COULD be executed in one clock always. Whereas some CISC instructions involving arrays could kick off 10+ memory touches as a side effect, RISC instructions could never do that (sans via exceptions). So when all 10 of those memory touches weren't required, the RISC architecture could optimize away the unnecessary ones (which was a bitch in 1990, but common place by 2000 and exceedingly trivial by 2010, to put it roughly).

I taught CISC architectures (68K mostly) and was a minor architect for PowerPC (I helped work on the early EABI- embedded application binary interface- architecture)

But this leads to a problem: Cache. That CISC operation that made 10 memory touches took roughly 10-18 bytes of instruction storage (68K example), and 10 data cache accesses that would either hit or miss. But a 16 bit RISC would take 22 bytes (and didn't double the number of useful registers available) and a 32 bit RISC would take 44 bytes (but generally doubled the number of useful registers, reducing the need for so many loads and stores). Thank goodness you took fewer transistors to implement the instruction pipeline, because you need them all back to make the Icache bigger! The hope being that those 10 memory touches were rarely needed if you had more registers, so you could cut back on other loads somewhere (but we didn't get really good at doing that automatically until the late '90s, by which time we could show that the RISC penalty was effectively negated, specific numbers remain the property of my name-changed employer but were down to single digit percentage differences). Dcache would have the same hits and misses, unless you were also able to allocate saved transistors to some Dcache which might affect hit rates by some low single percentage points.

But with complicated instructions come pipeline clocking challenges. Implementing the entire x86 pipeline in 5 stages would result in having a sub-200 MHz pipeline today- the P4 push to 4 GHz required up to 19 stages (and who knows how many designers) worst case, IIRC! Meanwhile, most RISC architectures zoom along happily with 5-7 stages and only manufacturing nodes or target design decisions keep them from clocking up to x86 frequencies.

Hands down, it was never any 'benefits' of CISC (or, specifically, the x86 architecture) that allowed Intel to take the field, it was market forces and manufacturing might. A win is a win.

BTW, to the AC GP, just because an instruction appears complex (most SIMD operations, MADDs, FPSQRTRES, etc...), they still count as RISC if they can be either executed in one clock or at least pipelined with nominally one result per clock if they don't impact the pipeline for all the other commonly executed instructions. After all, we can made a divide instruction execute in 1 clock, too, as long as you don't mind your add instructions taking 16x longer (though still one clock), but that is cheating.

I'm not sure that's correct. "Truth in advertising" and "misleading contract" are two terms that come to mind.

IANAL
Shachar

No.

Off by ones are much easier to fix than to prove safe. The amounts of bugs called "unexploitable" until an exploit was provided is staggering. No mildly security aware person will avoid fixing a buffer overflow because it is unexploitable.

Shachar

Please provide source to that claim.

As far as I know, a great majority of acquaintance rapes are by either family member or neighbor. Then again, I haven't been keeping track, so I might be confusing things (for example, this might be the statistics for minor's rape, and thus irrelevant for the date rape discussion).

Still, if you can back your claim, please do.

Shachar

Hah, I scrapped 4 cubic yards of collected computer detritus, including at least a dozen different SCSI cables (with some ultraSCSIs) today. Been needing to do that for years. I did shed a bit of a tear over the Amiga stuff, though.

Yes, I donated to anyone and everyone all that I could before I scrapped. But 4 working PCs couldn't even be given away to an orphanage!

I have a firend who came to me, eyes all glowing, about this new feature his shining new CPU has. I listened in and was skeptical.

He then tried, for over a month, to get this feature to produce better results than traditional synchronization methods. This included a lot of dead ends due to simple misunderstandings (try to debug your transation by adding prints: no good - a system call is guaranteed to cancel the transaction).

We had, for example, a lot of hard times getting proper benchmarks for the feature. Most actual use cases include a relatively low contention rate. Producing a benchmark that will have low contention on the one hand, but allow you to actually test how efficient a synchronized algorhtm is on the other is not an easy task.

After a lot of going back and forth, as well as some nagging to people at Intel (who, suprisingly, answered him), he came across the following conclusion (shared with others):
Many times a traditional mutex will, actually, be faster. Other times, it might be possible to gain a few extra nanoseconds using transactions, but the speed difference is, by no means, mind blowing. Either way, the amount you pay in code complexity (i.e. bugs) and reduced abstraction hardly seems worth it.

At least as it is implemented right now (but I, personally, fail to see how this changes in the future. Then again, I have been known to miss things in the past), the speed difference isn't going to be mind blowing.

Shachar

Finally managed to send an email. Got it. Thanks.

Shachar

Since you live in France, it may yet happen :-(. It is anyone's guess what will be that country's charter in a decade. If the danger becomes imminent, at least you have a country whose charter it is to give you sanctuary, no questions asked.

I think I have written this elsewhere already. I don't think you are biased against Israel. I think you are being fed by news sources that are biased. Most of them are biased simply because this is a very complicated conflict and news outlets favor simple "good vs. bad" stories. The precise reasons aren't important, however. The media coverage of the conflict in Europe in general, and in France in particular, gives a highly filtered image of things. It is quite natural for moral people to reach far-reaching conclusions that are, simply put, wrong.

Snipped out a bunch of stuff because you asked to wind the discussion down....

Partly this is because world leaders are not above the bias of their own media. More to the point, world leaders listen to what their citizens have to say. That's why it is important to me to try and convince those critics/bashers that are not working from inherent bias.

Then again, there is the other reason. Israel's leadership of late is not confidence inspiring. Neither Netanyahu nor Liberman understand diplomacy, and do not carry out any well defined long term plan. They are both a little too fond of using arm wrestling to solve personal conflicts. I understand why the world leaders don't like Netanyahu. Nobody likes Netanyahu. He's only still prime minister because of a sore deficiency in worthy alternatives.

But merely because Netanyahu is a jerk (and he is), doesn't mean everything said about him or the country he's leading is correct. Add to that the complete lack of understanding of the conflict by most of the intermediaries self-appointed to solve it and you've got yourself a royal mess. Add to that a UN body that seemed to have zero interest in impartiality (it appointed a committee to investigate "Israel's violations of Human Rights". In essence, the committee's charter precludes it from investigating Israel's main defense. Then, as if the chances of getting a fair investigation were not slim enough, one of the three members was born and raised in Lebanon. Of course the UN secretery is going to condemn Israel when this committee is over).

No, the article you sent bears the title "Palestinians to abandon Gaza truce talks unless Israeli team returns", and has no mention of any US stance of any kind. I am willing to believe you sent me the wrong article by mistake, but will non the less refuse to take responsibility for it.

Hard as it is to believe, I did not plan to visit the Israeli embassy. Despite my current cell phone number being a temporary one until the end of the trip, I still don't feel comfortable publishing it here. Drop me an email if you're serious, and we'll see if it pans out.

Shachar

Your reply describes, almost word for word, my feelings about you.

You make certain assertions (say, Israel is casual about casualties). I bring evidence to the contrary (say, the procedures put in place to prevent harm). You either discard them as irrelevant, without explaining why, or assert new allegations.

The problem is that people like you are so certain they are right, and feel good about themselves to boot, while hurting me. As you have pointed out quite correctly earlier, Hamas would slaughter me and my family without a second of hesitation, had they only had the chance. As you also pointed out (or maybe it was someone else, I lose track), Israel cannot withstand on its own.

Thankfully, while the mindless crowd is quite happy to follow careless media coverage to jump to whatever feel-good conclusions they want, the world leaders are not as quick to act recklessly (I think the anti-Israel mob is calling this "the Jewish loby controlling foreign governments", but I'm sure you're above lowering yourself to suggesting that Israel is controlling other countries). So far, we're sort of doing okay. I, for one, do not take it for granted. That's why I take your opinion seriously. Because you can make a difference, and because I believe you are misguided, rather than racist. If I believed you to be racist, I wouldn't have bothered with this thread.

That's why, in the midst of a vacation in France taken for the purpose of attending my sister's wedding, I am taking the time to research answers to your assertions. I'm doing it almost like my life depends on it, because in an infinitisimal way, I believe it does.

So, if you don't want to have this discussion any more, that's fine. I won't (nor can I) force you to. It is my hope that I have seeded just a smidgen of doubt in your mind, so that the next time someone asserts some fact, that you will remember to ask yourself whether that is really the only way to interpret it, or how reliable the source have proven in the past.

Have a great life,
Shachar

The only thing that link shows is that the UN chief is ignoring the facts to gain cheap headlines. Nothing there denies the facts alleged by either Israel nor the UNRWA press release I linked to.

Your assertion that under battle you have better control over not killing bystanders need better basing on facts. Foot soldiers on the ground means less control over the fight, as you have to take care of defense as well as attack. This results in more, not less, civilian casualties.

The biggest number of Palestinian casualties this time around, by far, were in Shuja'iyya, where the Israeli forces were taken by surprise and had to bring in artilery support. This simply does not happen in air raids.

The objectives of any army in conflict inside urban area has, is, and seems to always continue to be, in descending order of precendence:
1. Get the mission done
2. Minimize own casualties
3. Minimize civilian enemy casualties

The only thing in which the IDF is different is that it sometimes places "3" above "2", and even above "1" above. That anomality is only happening in the IDF. Most other moral armies use the above list as is. Israel used to abort missions if there was a high chance of civilian casualties. Hamas manuvered that into making it impossible for Israel to act at all. Such a thing, while I'm sure would be lauded by some, would be even more immoral. The result is the high number of casualties in this round of fighting.

Israel has a clear interest in minimizing the number of casualties. There is both internal and external pressure to keep civilian casualties to a minimum. Hotheads like you blame Israel for every Palestinian dead, regardless of circumstances and actions, calling for boycotts and pressuring their own governments. Israel has no interest in killing Palestinians. Your asserted indifference is simply without grounding in reality.

Hamas, on the other hand. Well, that's a different story altogether. Every Palestinian dead is a Hamas win. Internally, they call them "Shahids" and claim that they are martyrs. I'm sure many Palestinians would love to call bulshit on this rehtorics, but the simply truth is that they do not. They are probably too afraid to fall out of line or to be accused of "cooporating with Israel", an accusation carrying the death penalty.

Externally, Hamas has equally little incentive to care for their own people. When you see horrible pictures of the dead (and they are horrible), you (i.e. sociocapitalist) don't stop to ask questions. You don't wonder why they did not clear out when warned. You don't seek media sources that will report to you Hamas explicit instructions (orders) to people to "defy" the Israeli warnings. People say that Israel is strong (which is true) and Hamas is weak (which is not as true as people believe, but definitely not false), and assign zero accountability to Hamas' actions. While I'm sure you congratulate yourself on being in the moral right, it is, in fact, your indifference to the truth that allows Hamas to continue to put citizens in harm's way.

Regarding your frace24 link, that story is misleadingly one sided. I would give more specific critique, but I'm not sure what point you were trying to make with it.

Shachar

What would you say should be the fate of a UN run school that is used to store ammunition or to launch offensives? Would you say it loses its impartiality status at that point?

Shachar

What is the normal number for this type of terrain and enemy? Who much were killed in other similar conflicts?

Shachar

I just came across this, which I think you might find useful.

Shachar