Sip

Your power consumption on a digital chip has an equation of the following form: P = P_static + P_short + P_dynamic + P_glitching The static power is the power waste through leakages. That is pretty low these days. P_short is when the CMOS gate is switching ... that is also not that much with good manufacturing techniques. Forget about glitching power for now. Most power goes to dymanic power consumption (when chip is running) P_dynamic = C * f * V^2 C is the capacitance of the part of the circuit switching. There are ways to fix that but just think of it as an attribute of a given design for now. So now you see, frequency and Voltage directly impact power consumption. Frequency dependence is linear while Voltage is quadratic. So by increasing frequency, you are increasing the dynamic power consumption. By reducing the voltage, you are reducing the dynamic power consumption. However, when you reduce voltage, your signals are more susseptible to thermal and other noise. So you can't just reduce voltage and increase frequency and expect your chip will operate properly. You can sometimes do dynamic voltage scaling and frequency stepping ... like in a laptop you can run it faster for most performance (more power consumed) or slower (for longer battery life). This is also the reason that with overclocking, you have to step up the core voltage on the CPU to be stable ... but now you must cool the chip in order to prevent it from burning up with much more power discipation (both freq and voltage are up with overclocking). Hope this answers your question.

Azat, yahoo does a pretty good job of filtering those into a "bulk" folder. Maybe it's an option you have to enable? I'm not sure. But remember it's not fool proof since your email ended up in there that time. Hmmm ... or maybe it is foolproof

Not that simple If you look at some of the more modern processors, you have what is called a "pipelined" architecture ... this means that each instruction that comes in is split into bunch of smaller steps and each of those steps is executed in one cycle. So while you are decoding the current instruction, you can be fetching the next one from memory and already executing the one before it ... In other words the entire instruction execution (fetch, decode, execute, write back to memory) may take several clock cycles from beginning to end. But on average you can get 1 instruction per cycle by pipelining (interleave execution). But if there is a "branch" in your program, then you have to flush the pipeline and go bring the insturctions starting from the branch address .. the ones you had brought before are wrong ones! So long pipelines will let you reduce your clock cycle (faster clock) since you are doing less things per clock ... but you have a big penalty of several clock cycles every time there is a branch of any kind in the code. NOW on top of this ... Processors have multiple execusion units like multiple integer adder/subtractors, several multipliers and dividers, floating point units etc. So they can execute several instructions in parallel. On top of that, they may support out of order execution of instructions and even do sophisticated branch prediction to minmize pipeline flush penalty. For example, while you are executing a lengthy double precision floating point division, you can bring in and do a bunch of integer additions etc in parallel to that in the processor. Anyway, what I am trying to tell you, is that modern processors like Pentium4 are highly paralellized inside and not to mention even features like hyperthreading that allow you to do a lot of parallel things. The problems I am talking about above are physical limitations of CMOS and the manufacturing processes. By shrinking the devices (smallest transistors) and their connections, you are increasing the resistance in the wires, and have a smaller area but at the same time are pumping up the frequency (for performance). Then you have leakages and other effects that are increasing as the gate and oxide thicknesses of the chip are decreasing ... so you are forced to reduce the voltage to be able to keep the power discipation in check. Anyway, I don't want to throw too much technical jargon into this unless you are interested ... but in terms of "parallel" processing, the CPUs are doing a pretty good job of that ... as much as a program can be parallelized anyway on eacy CPU. Now if you are talking about desinging special multi-processor systems, that's a diffferent story and now you have to have operating system, compiler, and application support to take advantage of that. But that will not get around each processors limitations and will not make your system run 2x as fast as single processor with 2 processors!

Power4 was pretty sweet and it is very interesting what kinds of barriers we are getting to ... for example, now the "leakage" current of the transistors in the chip are becoming significant source of power consumption where as before that was not really an issue. So what that means is that a "transistor" is not a free commodity on the chip ... every transistor you add, you make the power consumption worse even if that part of the chip is not clocked (isn't running anything) .. with quantum effects and tunneling and leakage effects there is already a lot of power discipated (wasted). You can start watercooling chips but the power levels go up very fast with not much gained in terms of performance. So you can go from 100W power discipation to 160W with just 5% gain in performance... you can still cool the 160W with water but that obviously doesn't justify the cost with only 5% gain in performance. Anyway, Power4 got passed by the much much cheaper AMD in a couple of months! Even though at the time it came out, it was the best in terms of the specint and some other benchmarks. BUT This is the latest rumor now .. that Microsoft just signed a deal with IBM to design the next generation XBOX around the power4 core

Arpa you made me think!!! Oh Oh ... so if a Jew and a Turk are lovers and have a child, would that child be a "Jurk"?

Ok this thread is DONE.

What are you talking about Arm3n? We don't appreciate that kind of language around here because we treat this place just like our homes. If you were around my grandmother and started talking like that, I'd slap you silly. But if we are hanging in the crib, chillin, you can say whatever you want to say and I'll be fine with that. Just don't drag that crap from the streets into the house. So as a moderator, I want this place to be something that both someone's daughter (who has not grown up to become the person you are bitching about today) AND someones grandmother who just wants to pass the day when Armenian Teletime is on commercial in Glendale, can enjoy. Capish? So keep it clean and don't mix so many things together.

What do you mean "you guys"? Show me where I "cussed" at you? Your whole problem is you see people in terms of groups.

Arm3n, I think they call you narrow minded because of your archaic views on "mexican laborers", "blacks", "slaves", "women" and a lot of other things. There is clear influence of hip hop mentality in your thinking. Nothing wrong with that if that's what you want to think but at least you should acknowledge your narrow mindedness.

Ok I wasn't going to jump in this discussion of mexican laborers, slaves, and horny Armnian crack addict sex mongers ... BUT ... OF COURSE who you "chill with" and who your "friends" are has EVERYTHING to do with the kind of person you are! So don't even try to hide behind this "oh I am holier than them, just with them, but don't approve of what they do". You are a FREE person and you choose to do what you want to do. Hang and chill with who you want to hang and chill with. If they are doing all these things you don't approve of, then by all means ... what possible reason do you have to "hang" and "chill" with them? Which brings us to the next point ... I think you may want to rething that statement about "if you are a guy and in your 20s and sex" ... some of us have the ability to think and see beyond the two ping pong shaped things between our legs.

You love birds realize that this is a "math" thread, right? Keep it in the romance and adultery section.

Azatikus, with outlook you can filter based on the body of the message (not just subject). But I totally agree with you that filtering spam effectively needs more sophisticated solutions than just simple rule-based techniques ... Actually I just installed Office 2003 in the office which has the new Outlook. I haven't had a chance to play with it much .. but just by first impressions, it seems to be MUCH improved and changed so I'm guessing their "filters" are also much more sophisticated. The reason I know this is that it already detected a few junk emails and asked me if I wanted it to automatically move them to the trash can. In all cases it was right! So based on my initial impressions, I recommend the upgrade for outlook 2003 at least if not for the entire office package (not sure if that's possible). --- Edit More info on Outlook 2003 spam filters (not freeware unfortunately)

By the way, here's an interesting trick if you have your own domain name (I might have mentioned this here before). So I own Sip.com ... I can basically receive any email addressed to anything@Sip.com ... so now, when I register somewhere or give someone my email address, I give a customized version. For example, if I am registering at ebay, I'd register using ebay1@Sip.com or something similar ... for paypal I may use paypal@Sip.com and so forht (not always but you get the idea). Then once the junk starts rolling in, I can know exactly where and how my email was "leaked" to these "services". ... and here may be a shocker for you vava ... a friend of mine listed a vehicle for sale in a newspaper ad (print only). The particular email he used there almost instantly (within a week) ended up on one of these junk service provider's lists!!!! Unbelievable. So it's not just from an online source that they seem to harvest their "intelligence" info

Welcome aboard trueboo! Very nice first post and definitely glad to have you around. Looking forward to more of those "inspired" opinions

Oh and you'll notice most of the time their "unsubscription" services aren't working by the time you try it. That means too many tried it before you

I have pondered this problem a lot ... and I seriously believe the only solution is an organized and systematic "response" from everyone who receive these. These marketers thrive on the fact that email is "free" and a very very very small fraction of the recipients are going to respond. Even if 1% of people respond, their systems will come crashing down. I often take joy in replying to these people and thanking them for their email and politely stating that I am not interested. If I find the company, I send the email to everyone on their contact list!!!! Oh and I know for a fact there are others that are in the same boat as me. Even in academia and some other researchers.

I don't know what you mean. It doesn't make any difference to them whether you receive the email or not. There is no path back to them usually although there are so many doing so many different things. Once the spam starts to roll in, that's it. You can start to fight it one by one by trying to get yourself off the lists but I don't know anyone who's been too successful at that. So either your email server (service provider) will do this filtering for you, or you can do it for you.. or both can do the filtering.

Yes. I have a few rules which move the incoming message directly to the trash folder. Then I occasionally glance over the trash before emptying. The filters are applied to each messages as it comes in ... so you can think of it as an automatic sorter ... with the trash folder being an option as well.

Domino ... that looks great. However, just try to zoom in and you'll see "vectorial" can't magically improve the resolution above the original GIF If you create "vectorial" then yah, you are totally right. Anyway, nice!!!!!!

yes!

Under the tools menu, there is a "rules wizard" ... it'll take a few minutes to pass the learning curve but I like how it works. Oh and this is Outlook 2002 (Office XP) ... not Outlook Express.

Fortunately all servers I rely on are well managed ... including yahoo mail which filters "junk" into a bulk folder automatically. My first suggestion would be to try to migrate to a better provider for email? But, here's an alternative suggestion ... With most email clients like outlook, you can specify a set of filtering rules. So instead of relying on an out-of-box spam software or on implementing a very strict "deny everyone who's not approved" strategy, you may want to experiment with creating rules for filtering incoming mail. For example, you can filter based on keywords "unsubscribe" or "remove from list" since most these bulk mails contain such a statement even though they may lead to nowhere. If you receive legitimate newsletters with such keywords, you can create "inclusion" rules to accept before the exclusion rules to reject. I realize this may not be a favorable solution and it may take some time to get it to a robust state of operation ... and it will require occasional tweaking ... but I think I would try that first. In any case, I haven't had to do it personally except for a few isolated occasions. But you can easily filter anything containing those few anatomical keywords though some of these idiots play around with different permuations and alternate spellings to get around such filters.

Sasun, you think they'd believe Domino did it? Well, it was worth a try Here's a cool quote from a talk I attended today by Carl Anderson who is a lead designer at IBM (he was in charge physical design of the Power4 chip for example). In the computer world ... Pessimist: Hardware will eventually fail. Optimist: Software will eventually work correctly.

Actually, I just remembered I'm still supposed to prove to you, you exist ... with my proof-by-punching technique.

Ok I brought the sarcasm level down a notch After all, I don't want to be "nasty"