Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Oh my ... (Score 1) 253

I understand. An open and free society is pretty easy to destroy (imagine if 1% of the people all decided to kill the other 99 one day).

That said, I think we agree that we are willing to take that risk - that the risks from being free are better than the certainty that comes from a police state.

I guess I'm most saddened that there is no debate.

Comment: Re:Oh my ... (Score 1) 253

I don't believe there is any external threat worthy of violating the Constitution (violating the Constitution is the greatest threat to our nation). If it's really that scary, they can tell us (we're grown ups).

It's far easier to believe that he saw the power and liked it. That he was lying in order to get elected. If he's not a liar, it's easy for him to show us.

Comment: Re:exactly (Score 3, Informative) 605

by eabrek (#43082523) Attached to: Why Can't Intel Kill x86?

Individually they aren't too bad. Taken all together they create real problems.

64 predicate registers (which is way too many) yields 6 bits per syllable (the Itanium term for instruction). Combine that with 128 int regs (7 bits per) and 3 register operands - you've got 27 bits before specifying any instruction bits.

The impact of the middle one (instruction steering) was also not seen until late in the design cycle. Instruction decode information got mixed in there, so that not every instruction could go to every position. This led to a large number of NOPs inserted into the instruction stream. The final code density for Itanium was significantly lower than RISC (and way under x86).

These factors also work against out-of-order implementations - but there were organizational impediments to that happening anyway...

Always think of something new; this helps you forget your last rotten idea. -- Seth Frankel

Working...