alan
August 6, 2003, 05:03 PM
http://www.cato.org/dailys/12-03-02.html
something to think about. think carefully while you are at it.
If you enjoyed reading about "something to think about. think carefully while you are at it." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
BamBam
August 6, 2003, 05:53 PM
Big Brother is watching you!
Very disturbing.
Very disturbing.
GinSlinger
August 6, 2003, 06:05 PM
OTOH, perhaps this will serve to curb a little of America's consumer debt spending (yesterday newspaper article put the average yearly family spending at 104% of yearly income for America, and only 78% for the EU). However given the current consumer driven economy, recession would be the least of our problems. Anyone wondered who's going to write the computer program to corrolate all this information? Glad I use cash.
GinSlinger
GinSlinger
ambidextrous1
August 6, 2003, 06:17 PM
The Privacy Act of 1974 specifically states that the SSN is intended for payment of benefits only, and all other entities, private and governmental are NOT permitted to use the SSN without express written consent from the Social Security Administration. Has that portion of the Act been repealed, or is it just being ignored? I suspect the latter.
Maybe that gives us authorization (because of precedent) to ignore the NFA.
Does anyone want to start the ball rolling with a test case?:uhoh:
Maybe that gives us authorization (because of precedent) to ignore the NFA.
Does anyone want to start the ball rolling with a test case?:uhoh:
alan
August 6, 2003, 07:08 PM
ambidextrous1 wrote:
"The Privacy Act of 1974 specifically states that the SSN is intended for payment of benefits only, and all other entities, private and governmental are NOT permitted to use the SSN without express written consent from the Social Security Administration. Has that portion of the Act been repealed, or is it just being ignored? I suspect the latter."
If correct, I find this sort of interesting, though I am curious as to whether the Social Security Administration, another of those government mobs turned out to be all to willing to give the consent required, either verbal, written or scratched into clay tablets that were subsequently fired.
Then there is the question concerning the possibility of the primary admonition having been conveniently repealed. The Congress has been known to repeal that which they previously enacted, though this never seems to happen with gun control laws, no matter how flawed or otherwise idiotic they are.
Finally, we come to the real heart of the problem, that being how to get private industry, not to mention government mobs to actually obey the law. In theory, there is the DOJ among others, whose constitutionally designated responsibilities would appear to answer that question, note I say that their constitutionally designated responsibilities seemingly would require action from them re the matter at hand, the ongoing miususe/abuse of Social Security Numbers for things having nothing to do with Social Security. Of course, there remains the question of getting some government mobs to obey the laws enacted by another of the several government mobs, this one known as The Congress. It might well be that therein lies the problem, and it appears to be one hell of a problem too.
BTW, I glanced at your profile, and note that you, like myself, are another old grouch. You are approximately a year older than I, and while neither of us may be around all that much longer, depends on several factors, we might as well raise hell while we still can.
"The Privacy Act of 1974 specifically states that the SSN is intended for payment of benefits only, and all other entities, private and governmental are NOT permitted to use the SSN without express written consent from the Social Security Administration. Has that portion of the Act been repealed, or is it just being ignored? I suspect the latter."
If correct, I find this sort of interesting, though I am curious as to whether the Social Security Administration, another of those government mobs turned out to be all to willing to give the consent required, either verbal, written or scratched into clay tablets that were subsequently fired.
Then there is the question concerning the possibility of the primary admonition having been conveniently repealed. The Congress has been known to repeal that which they previously enacted, though this never seems to happen with gun control laws, no matter how flawed or otherwise idiotic they are.
Finally, we come to the real heart of the problem, that being how to get private industry, not to mention government mobs to actually obey the law. In theory, there is the DOJ among others, whose constitutionally designated responsibilities would appear to answer that question, note I say that their constitutionally designated responsibilities seemingly would require action from them re the matter at hand, the ongoing miususe/abuse of Social Security Numbers for things having nothing to do with Social Security. Of course, there remains the question of getting some government mobs to obey the laws enacted by another of the several government mobs, this one known as The Congress. It might well be that therein lies the problem, and it appears to be one hell of a problem too.
BTW, I glanced at your profile, and note that you, like myself, are another old grouch. You are approximately a year older than I, and while neither of us may be around all that much longer, depends on several factors, we might as well raise hell while we still can.
No4Mk1
August 6, 2003, 07:16 PM
Anyone wondered who's going to write the computer program to corrolate all this information?
It is already written. I've seen a version of it in operation scanning medicare/medicaid claims data looking for fraud indicators. Works exceedingly well.
It is already written. I've seen a version of it in operation scanning medicare/medicaid claims data looking for fraud indicators. Works exceedingly well.
geekWithA.45
August 6, 2003, 07:36 PM
We were dealing with a company that I won't name.
They were primarily R&D eggheads, who had built an inference engine (pattern recognition and analysis) that worked on the network level, it didn't even have to understand the schema of the data it was analysing. (Basically, it did massive crosstab correlations on bit patterns, and chased down things that popped up)
They were selling it as a way to get the benefits of analysing data warehouses, without having to pay the expenses associated with actually warehousing the data.
You could install it in any network hub, and it'd get a clear picture of all traffic flowing through the network. We're talking way advanced voodoo, well beyond the usual database discipline. I don't remember all the details, I just remember that it worked, and frightened the crap out of me.
It's capability for abuse in this type of scenario was phenominal, and the guys who built it were completely oblivious to the possibilities.
Anyone ever see real genious, the scene where Chris (Val Kilmer) realizes he just built a death ray?
Same deal, but too late, they couldn't do anything about it, even if they wanted to.
Every course I have ever taught while teaching the art and science of software engineering has always had as it's capstone lecture the ethics and responsibilities of the software engineer, and it has always ended with the warning:
"Ladies and Gentlemen, be very careful of how you use this power that you strive to master, and consider carefully what can be done with what you build with it. George Orwell's world of 1984 did not magically erupt in 1983, but it was built brick by brick by decent folks bearing good intentions. You are responsible for what you do with your power, if not to man and God then to your own conscience for all time."
Then I'd hand back their final exams.
BTW, does anyone remember the stink a few years back about the "carnivore" machines being installed in all ISP's? Or did that go down the memory hole too?
They were primarily R&D eggheads, who had built an inference engine (pattern recognition and analysis) that worked on the network level, it didn't even have to understand the schema of the data it was analysing. (Basically, it did massive crosstab correlations on bit patterns, and chased down things that popped up)
They were selling it as a way to get the benefits of analysing data warehouses, without having to pay the expenses associated with actually warehousing the data.
You could install it in any network hub, and it'd get a clear picture of all traffic flowing through the network. We're talking way advanced voodoo, well beyond the usual database discipline. I don't remember all the details, I just remember that it worked, and frightened the crap out of me.
It's capability for abuse in this type of scenario was phenominal, and the guys who built it were completely oblivious to the possibilities.
Anyone ever see real genious, the scene where Chris (Val Kilmer) realizes he just built a death ray?
Same deal, but too late, they couldn't do anything about it, even if they wanted to.
Every course I have ever taught while teaching the art and science of software engineering has always had as it's capstone lecture the ethics and responsibilities of the software engineer, and it has always ended with the warning:
"Ladies and Gentlemen, be very careful of how you use this power that you strive to master, and consider carefully what can be done with what you build with it. George Orwell's world of 1984 did not magically erupt in 1983, but it was built brick by brick by decent folks bearing good intentions. You are responsible for what you do with your power, if not to man and God then to your own conscience for all time."
Then I'd hand back their final exams.
BTW, does anyone remember the stink a few years back about the "carnivore" machines being installed in all ISP's? Or did that go down the memory hole too?
alan
August 6, 2003, 07:55 PM
geekWithA.45:
Re your most interesting comments which in part contained the following, "Every course I have ever taught while teaching the art and science of software engineering has always had as it's capstone lecture the ethics and responsibilities of the software engineer, and it has always ended with the warning:
"Ladies and Gentlemen, be very careful of how you use this power that you strive to master, and consider carefully what can be done with what you build with it. George Orwell's world of 1984 did not magically erupt in 1983, but it was built brick by brick by decent folks bearing good intentions. You are responsible for what you do with your power, if not to man and God then to your own conscience for all time.""
Then I'd hand back their final exams.
BTW, does anyone remember the stink a few years back about the "carnivore" machines being installed in all ISP's? Or did that go down the memory hole too?
did your lecture ever make much of an impression on your students, other than to confirm, in their minds, the fact that their professor or teacher was hopelessly out of date with things, or terrible old fashioned, perhaps totally uncool? How did their final exams go, in this context?
As to your closing thought, most certainly some of us remember carnivore, at least I do, but then I'm simply an old, hard headed ex, a result of retirement, Piping Designer and sometime field engineer/construction supervisor, who would also likely be viewed as old fashioned, and most definately uncool too.
Re your most interesting comments which in part contained the following, "Every course I have ever taught while teaching the art and science of software engineering has always had as it's capstone lecture the ethics and responsibilities of the software engineer, and it has always ended with the warning:
"Ladies and Gentlemen, be very careful of how you use this power that you strive to master, and consider carefully what can be done with what you build with it. George Orwell's world of 1984 did not magically erupt in 1983, but it was built brick by brick by decent folks bearing good intentions. You are responsible for what you do with your power, if not to man and God then to your own conscience for all time.""
Then I'd hand back their final exams.
BTW, does anyone remember the stink a few years back about the "carnivore" machines being installed in all ISP's? Or did that go down the memory hole too?
did your lecture ever make much of an impression on your students, other than to confirm, in their minds, the fact that their professor or teacher was hopelessly out of date with things, or terrible old fashioned, perhaps totally uncool? How did their final exams go, in this context?
As to your closing thought, most certainly some of us remember carnivore, at least I do, but then I'm simply an old, hard headed ex, a result of retirement, Piping Designer and sometime field engineer/construction supervisor, who would also likely be viewed as old fashioned, and most definately uncool too.
geekWithA.45
August 6, 2003, 08:59 PM
Alan:
They did as all students do on exams: miserably. (I didn't test them on ethics, if they can't remember what I said 15 minutes ago, they where never gonna)
In general, the students actually tended to perk up when I got to nightmare dystopias, I think they understood deep down that they really didn't want to live in one. Some realized, for perhaps the first time, that THEY might have some ability to influence the outcome of the future.
I don't think they thought I was old fashioned, the young truly dig and appreciate freedom when they recognize it.
Freedom is most definitely cool. We can hook the younguns with this, as a pry bar to try to get them to think. What is freedom? Where does it begin and end? Where does it come from? Yep, you can get em going with that kind of talk.
Sadly, what they don't necessarily get is any sense of personal responsibility for it, rather they percieve themselves as being at the mercy of forces beyond their ken. The psychology of learned helplessness is strong with the people. They need to remember their own power, and relearn how to responsibly wield it.
They did as all students do on exams: miserably. (I didn't test them on ethics, if they can't remember what I said 15 minutes ago, they where never gonna)
In general, the students actually tended to perk up when I got to nightmare dystopias, I think they understood deep down that they really didn't want to live in one. Some realized, for perhaps the first time, that THEY might have some ability to influence the outcome of the future.
I don't think they thought I was old fashioned, the young truly dig and appreciate freedom when they recognize it.
Freedom is most definitely cool. We can hook the younguns with this, as a pry bar to try to get them to think. What is freedom? Where does it begin and end? Where does it come from? Yep, you can get em going with that kind of talk.
Sadly, what they don't necessarily get is any sense of personal responsibility for it, rather they percieve themselves as being at the mercy of forces beyond their ken. The psychology of learned helplessness is strong with the people. They need to remember their own power, and relearn how to responsibly wield it.
Oleg Volk
August 7, 2003, 12:06 AM
BTT
alan
August 7, 2003, 12:10 AM
GeekWithA.45:
The psychology of learned helplessness is strong with the people. "psycology of learned helplessness", a fascinating phrase. Must remember it. Thank you.
The psychology of learned helplessness is strong with the people. "psycology of learned helplessness", a fascinating phrase. Must remember it. Thank you.
alan
August 7, 2003, 12:27 AM
Oleg Volk:
Re "BTT", you've lost me. Please clarify.
Re "BTT", you've lost me. Please clarify.
AZTOY
August 7, 2003, 12:52 AM
Alan:
Re "BTT", you've lost me. Please clarify.
BACK TO TOP:neener:
Re "BTT", you've lost me. Please clarify.
BACK TO TOP:neener:
sm
August 7, 2003, 01:18 AM
Just getting my feet wet on this CIS/IT stuff. Just finished two On-line extended Sum I classes.
In discussions regarding ethics, right to privacy, SSN, Assurance Providers...
perhaps my stance became evident.Granted I'm an older student, but there were a few others-"older". Many had not read 1984. So the Dean of Dept ( my instructor no less) asks hypothetically. " Would you support going underground to subvert Big Brother's efforts and to protect the Constitution and BOR?
There were 2 replies almost identical. "Yes ,why do you think I'm taking CIS/IT?
Being designed such ,this on-line allows one to see everyone's participation and response. It can also be anon. So there was one other person whom shared my views, a mother, wife ,4 yrs younger. Interesting I thought.
Instructor is on the same side, he educated the younger ones, that on SSN cards originally printed "Not for purpose of personal identification".
He then pointed us to some information and the like that really woke some kids up. The kids thought their parents were weird and all...I think these kids figured out real fast their parents weren't dumb, and the meaning of the word "reality".
Many bought and read 1984.
In discussions regarding ethics, right to privacy, SSN, Assurance Providers...
perhaps my stance became evident.Granted I'm an older student, but there were a few others-"older". Many had not read 1984. So the Dean of Dept ( my instructor no less) asks hypothetically. " Would you support going underground to subvert Big Brother's efforts and to protect the Constitution and BOR?
There were 2 replies almost identical. "Yes ,why do you think I'm taking CIS/IT?
Being designed such ,this on-line allows one to see everyone's participation and response. It can also be anon. So there was one other person whom shared my views, a mother, wife ,4 yrs younger. Interesting I thought.
Instructor is on the same side, he educated the younger ones, that on SSN cards originally printed "Not for purpose of personal identification".
He then pointed us to some information and the like that really woke some kids up. The kids thought their parents were weird and all...I think these kids figured out real fast their parents weren't dumb, and the meaning of the word "reality".
Many bought and read 1984.
jimpeel
August 7, 2003, 02:40 AM
At the old TFL site there was a link to "Web Acronyms/Firearms Terms" at: http://www.thefiringline.com/Misc/library/TFL_Primer.htm
Perhaps there should be one here as well.
BTW (which means By The Way) I thought that the TIA program got so much flak that it was scrapped Check the dateline on the article. This is old news that has been covered on other threads here. A good thread on this subject was posted at the beginning of the year at:
http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4862
J
Perhaps there should be one here as well.
BTW (which means By The Way) I thought that the TIA program got so much flak that it was scrapped Check the dateline on the article. This is old news that has been covered on other threads here. A good thread on this subject was posted at the beginning of the year at:
http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4862
J
Hal
August 7, 2003, 07:34 AM
Ethics - -
Good concept. Problem in the real world,, it's lost on a society based on a strict caste system.
I don't think the vast majority of people know/care or even can sense the implications over how much (Microsoft) code is being written in Bangalore.
Up until now, theres been a ceiling on just how much information can be stored and efficently retrieved. For all it vast "landscape", the 32 bit wall has prevented it.
64 bit is going to change that.
In the world of 64 bit, it's a one horse race. Microsoft is simply 5 years ahead of anyone else...no one, and I mean no one, is even close. The only one that stood a chance of catching Microsoft in the 64 bit O/S- application arena was IBM. IBM poured several billion dollars into 64 bit R&D, then simply abandoned the entire effort earlier this year.
Implications anyone?
Good concept. Problem in the real world,, it's lost on a society based on a strict caste system.
I don't think the vast majority of people know/care or even can sense the implications over how much (Microsoft) code is being written in Bangalore.
Up until now, theres been a ceiling on just how much information can be stored and efficently retrieved. For all it vast "landscape", the 32 bit wall has prevented it.
64 bit is going to change that.
In the world of 64 bit, it's a one horse race. Microsoft is simply 5 years ahead of anyone else...no one, and I mean no one, is even close. The only one that stood a chance of catching Microsoft in the 64 bit O/S- application arena was IBM. IBM poured several billion dollars into 64 bit R&D, then simply abandoned the entire effort earlier this year.
Implications anyone?
Augustwest
August 7, 2003, 08:49 AM
Along the same line of TIA, this link was posted yesterday on The Claire Files message boards:
New database links records, personal details immediately (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001397355_matrix06.html)
Police in Florida are building a new counter-terrorism database designed to give law-enforcement agencies around the country a powerful new tool to analyze billions of records about both criminals and ordinary Americans.
:eek: :cuss: :barf:
New database links records, personal details immediately (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001397355_matrix06.html)
Police in Florida are building a new counter-terrorism database designed to give law-enforcement agencies around the country a powerful new tool to analyze billions of records about both criminals and ordinary Americans.
:eek: :cuss: :barf:
Oleg Volk
August 7, 2003, 10:18 AM
The only one that stood a chance of catching Microsoft in the 64 bit O/S- application arena was IBM.
Aren't UNIX-based apps (incl. Mac OS X) 64-bit, too?
As for effectiveness -- it depends on the quality of the input info, and verifying that on a vast scale is hardly practical.
Aren't UNIX-based apps (incl. Mac OS X) 64-bit, too?
As for effectiveness -- it depends on the quality of the input info, and verifying that on a vast scale is hardly practical.
TarpleyG
August 7, 2003, 10:43 AM
Organizers said the system, dubbed Matrix, enables investigators to find patterns and links among people and events faster than ever, combining police records with commercially available collections of personal information about most American adults
Isn't there a term for when fiction becomes reality? What a world we have created. Bin Laden and his kind have won this war as far as I am concerned.
GT
Isn't there a term for when fiction becomes reality? What a world we have created. Bin Laden and his kind have won this war as far as I am concerned.
GT
atk
August 7, 2003, 11:58 AM
Hal,
It's my understanding that MS has generally been about 10 years behind everyone else. FAT vs inodes, Windows vs X, etc. Can you elaborate, and edumicate me?
As for the 32 vs 64 bit stuff, how much less efficient is it, really, when you have to transfer information twice (getting O(2)~=O(1)) rather than once (O(1))? What is it I'm missing?
It's my understanding that MS has generally been about 10 years behind everyone else. FAT vs inodes, Windows vs X, etc. Can you elaborate, and edumicate me?
As for the 32 vs 64 bit stuff, how much less efficient is it, really, when you have to transfer information twice (getting O(2)~=O(1)) rather than once (O(1))? What is it I'm missing?
alan
August 7, 2003, 12:27 PM
re1973:
My SS card, circa 1948 says re the ss number, "FOR SOCIAL SECURITY PURPOSES NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION" Now can anyone please tell me exactly what there is about that 7 word admonition that is so damned difficult for allegedly sharp people to grasp/understand.
Second question is as follows. How come it is that the sheeple haven't grasped the importance of the above mentioned admonition and acted upon it, or does the fact that they are sheeply tend to answer the second question?
Oleg:
I believe that GIGO tends to answer your implied question. Garbage in, garbage out.
My SS card, circa 1948 says re the ss number, "FOR SOCIAL SECURITY PURPOSES NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION" Now can anyone please tell me exactly what there is about that 7 word admonition that is so damned difficult for allegedly sharp people to grasp/understand.
Second question is as follows. How come it is that the sheeple haven't grasped the importance of the above mentioned admonition and acted upon it, or does the fact that they are sheeply tend to answer the second question?
Oleg:
I believe that GIGO tends to answer your implied question. Garbage in, garbage out.
geekWithA.45
August 7, 2003, 08:15 PM
Alan:
The psychology of learned helplessness is an actual, bona fide, experimentally proven phenomena.
http://www.noogenesis.com/malama/discouragement/helplessness.html
(In addition to software engineering and architecture, I've got a background in psychology, statistics, research design, and I'm also a published author...sheesh, now that I think about it, I'm pretty dang impressed with myself ;) OK, deflating ego, folding it neatly, and tossing it back into the garage, where it belongs. )
-----------------------------------------------------------
64 bits:
Long story short: Functionally Irrelevant, it doesn't truly enable any fundamentally new capability. It's nice to have, though ;)
Slightly longer explanation: There are two main impacts. The first is the amount of memory you can address at one time, with 32 bits, you get something like 4 gig. With 64...sheesh, to tired to calculate. Just think huge. The next impact is how much memory the cpu can deal with in one "swallow"/cycle, and 64 is (duh) twice the size of 32, therefore a 64 bit cpu running at the same "speed" as a 32 bit cpu can theoretically process twice the data, if you do it right. It's not always a meaningful thing to do, however, but that leads to the extremely long, boring and technical explanation that I'm too pooped to contemplate.
The psychology of learned helplessness is an actual, bona fide, experimentally proven phenomena.
http://www.noogenesis.com/malama/discouragement/helplessness.html
(In addition to software engineering and architecture, I've got a background in psychology, statistics, research design, and I'm also a published author...sheesh, now that I think about it, I'm pretty dang impressed with myself ;) OK, deflating ego, folding it neatly, and tossing it back into the garage, where it belongs. )
-----------------------------------------------------------
64 bits:
Long story short: Functionally Irrelevant, it doesn't truly enable any fundamentally new capability. It's nice to have, though ;)
Slightly longer explanation: There are two main impacts. The first is the amount of memory you can address at one time, with 32 bits, you get something like 4 gig. With 64...sheesh, to tired to calculate. Just think huge. The next impact is how much memory the cpu can deal with in one "swallow"/cycle, and 64 is (duh) twice the size of 32, therefore a 64 bit cpu running at the same "speed" as a 32 bit cpu can theoretically process twice the data, if you do it right. It's not always a meaningful thing to do, however, but that leads to the extremely long, boring and technical explanation that I'm too pooped to contemplate.
alan
August 7, 2003, 11:32 PM
geekWithA.45:
Re "The psychology of learned helplessness is an actual, bona fide, experimentally proven phenomena", I didn't mean to denigrate it, or to infer that it wasn't.
Actually, your use of the phrase is the first time I can recall having seen, read, heard of, or otherwise come across it.
Anyhow, with reference to my original post, there seems to be considerable question concerning the trustworthyness of government, which is, in a way, a sad thing to see. Of course, looking at what some government actions have, in the past included and or involved, question as to the trustworthyness of government is not really surprising, and re reference to government, I include The Congress (House and Senate), most particularly wich respect to mention of "congressional oversight" of one thing or another. Strikes me that the performance record of congressional oversight is less than encourageing, but perhaps my view is overly narrow.
Re "The psychology of learned helplessness is an actual, bona fide, experimentally proven phenomena", I didn't mean to denigrate it, or to infer that it wasn't.
Actually, your use of the phrase is the first time I can recall having seen, read, heard of, or otherwise come across it.
Anyhow, with reference to my original post, there seems to be considerable question concerning the trustworthyness of government, which is, in a way, a sad thing to see. Of course, looking at what some government actions have, in the past included and or involved, question as to the trustworthyness of government is not really surprising, and re reference to government, I include The Congress (House and Senate), most particularly wich respect to mention of "congressional oversight" of one thing or another. Strikes me that the performance record of congressional oversight is less than encourageing, but perhaps my view is overly narrow.
geekWithA.45
August 8, 2003, 07:34 AM
Alan:
I didn't mean to denigrate it, or to infer that it wasn't. Actually, your use of the phrase is the first time I can recall having seen, read, heard of, or otherwise come across it.
OOOPS!
It seems I poorly conveyed what I was getting at, and you took the wrong meaning from what I wrote. I didn't perceive that you were denigrating the phenomena, I was trying to show that it was an actual thing, with a history behind it, rather than merely a nice turn of phrase.
-------------------
As for American's mistrust of their government, it seems to me that the mistrust is EARNED. Once a person accepts that notion , you then get into the forest of smoke and mirrors, trying to discern whether it's all a monumental conspiracy, or an incredible string of unrelated cock ups,individual cases of malfeasance, and cases of short sighted zeal.
I didn't mean to denigrate it, or to infer that it wasn't. Actually, your use of the phrase is the first time I can recall having seen, read, heard of, or otherwise come across it.
OOOPS!
It seems I poorly conveyed what I was getting at, and you took the wrong meaning from what I wrote. I didn't perceive that you were denigrating the phenomena, I was trying to show that it was an actual thing, with a history behind it, rather than merely a nice turn of phrase.
-------------------
As for American's mistrust of their government, it seems to me that the mistrust is EARNED. Once a person accepts that notion , you then get into the forest of smoke and mirrors, trying to discern whether it's all a monumental conspiracy, or an incredible string of unrelated cock ups,individual cases of malfeasance, and cases of short sighted zeal.
Hal
August 8, 2003, 07:39 AM
Aren't UNIX-based apps (incl. Mac OS X) 64-bit, too? Oleg,
No, present Unix and it's variants are still 32 bit and probably will stay 32 bit for quite a while. Linux virtually destroyed the ability of the big Unix-style players to do any meaningfull development at the 64 bit level by choking off the necessary cash flow to them.
Without wide-spread access to 64 bit hardware, the Linux community has been severly stifled. I quit looking at the 64 bit Linux sites ~ a year/year and a half ago since they mostly went dormant. Too much in-fighting among the Linux "vendors" hasn't helped matters there either.
atk,
64 bit isn't 32 doubled, it's 32 squared
32 bit = 4 billion
64 bit = 16 billion-billion
(Ballistic reference- double the weight of a projectile and you double it's energy - double it's velocity, and you square it's energy)
Geek,
I had,,maybe 3? Maybe 4? whole pages typed up to explain my viewpoint on where the 64 bit revolution is heading. After reviewing it,, I relaized it was:
- Somewhat infalmatory/somewhat argumentative/required far more time to fully document my sources than I have.
- Oh so long and drier than a popcorn fart ;)
- Well outside of the scope of THR in topic.
Bottom line is that 16 exabyte of addressable memory space.
No, present Unix and it's variants are still 32 bit and probably will stay 32 bit for quite a while. Linux virtually destroyed the ability of the big Unix-style players to do any meaningfull development at the 64 bit level by choking off the necessary cash flow to them.
Without wide-spread access to 64 bit hardware, the Linux community has been severly stifled. I quit looking at the 64 bit Linux sites ~ a year/year and a half ago since they mostly went dormant. Too much in-fighting among the Linux "vendors" hasn't helped matters there either.
atk,
64 bit isn't 32 doubled, it's 32 squared
32 bit = 4 billion
64 bit = 16 billion-billion
(Ballistic reference- double the weight of a projectile and you double it's energy - double it's velocity, and you square it's energy)
Geek,
I had,,maybe 3? Maybe 4? whole pages typed up to explain my viewpoint on where the 64 bit revolution is heading. After reviewing it,, I relaized it was:
- Somewhat infalmatory/somewhat argumentative/required far more time to fully document my sources than I have.
- Oh so long and drier than a popcorn fart ;)
- Well outside of the scope of THR in topic.
Bottom line is that 16 exabyte of addressable memory space.
atk
August 8, 2003, 10:29 AM
Hal,
What I was getting at with the doubled thing was part of what geekwitha45 said:
The next impact is how much memory the cpu can deal with in one "swallow"/cycle, and 64 is (duh) twice the size of 32, therefore a 64 bit cpu running at the same "speed" as a 32 bit cpu can theoretically process twice the data, if you do it right
As far as the maximum number in 64 bits, yeah it's 2 raised to the 65th power, minus 1 ((2^65)-1). And, yes, you are correct that
(2^64) = ((2^32)^2).
What I was getting at with the doubled thing was part of what geekwitha45 said:
The next impact is how much memory the cpu can deal with in one "swallow"/cycle, and 64 is (duh) twice the size of 32, therefore a 64 bit cpu running at the same "speed" as a 32 bit cpu can theoretically process twice the data, if you do it right
As far as the maximum number in 64 bits, yeah it's 2 raised to the 65th power, minus 1 ((2^65)-1). And, yes, you are correct that
(2^64) = ((2^32)^2).
geekWithA.45
August 8, 2003, 10:38 AM
More Clarification, at the risk of wandering OT:
The next impact is how much memory the cpu can deal with in one "swallow"/cycle, and 64 is (duh) twice the size of 32,
I'm referring to the size of the cpu's registers.
For the layman:
The register is a part of the cpu's hardware that is the only memory the cpu can directly perform operation upon other than read/write.
Long story short (tm) the cpu must fetch the contents of memory into and out of a limited number of registers, and it is these registers upon which the cpu can directly perform operations (add, subract, compare, etc) upon.
The next impact is how much memory the cpu can deal with in one "swallow"/cycle, and 64 is (duh) twice the size of 32,
I'm referring to the size of the cpu's registers.
For the layman:
The register is a part of the cpu's hardware that is the only memory the cpu can directly perform operation upon other than read/write.
Long story short (tm) the cpu must fetch the contents of memory into and out of a limited number of registers, and it is these registers upon which the cpu can directly perform operations (add, subract, compare, etc) upon.
alan
August 8, 2003, 12:35 PM
GeekWithA.45:
OOOPS!
It seems I poorly conveyed what I was getting at, and you took the wrong meaning from what I wrote. I didn't perceive that you were denigrating the phenomena, I was trying to show that it was an actual thing, with a history behind it, rather than merely a nice turn of phrase.
-------------------
As for American's mistrust of their government, it seems to me that the mistrust is EARNED. Once a person accepts that notion , you then get into the forest of smoke and mirrors, trying to discern whether it's all a monumental conspiracy, or an incredible string of unrelated cock ups,individual cases of malfeasance, and cases of short sighted zeal.
Re OOOPS!, no problem, I believe that we understand each other on the symantics.
As to government having "earned the mistrust" I agree. Not only have they earned this mistrust, it appears that they worked overtime during the week plus Saturday and Sunday to get where they now are.
OOOPS!
It seems I poorly conveyed what I was getting at, and you took the wrong meaning from what I wrote. I didn't perceive that you were denigrating the phenomena, I was trying to show that it was an actual thing, with a history behind it, rather than merely a nice turn of phrase.
-------------------
As for American's mistrust of their government, it seems to me that the mistrust is EARNED. Once a person accepts that notion , you then get into the forest of smoke and mirrors, trying to discern whether it's all a monumental conspiracy, or an incredible string of unrelated cock ups,individual cases of malfeasance, and cases of short sighted zeal.
Re OOOPS!, no problem, I believe that we understand each other on the symantics.
As to government having "earned the mistrust" I agree. Not only have they earned this mistrust, it appears that they worked overtime during the week plus Saturday and Sunday to get where they now are.
Hal
August 9, 2003, 08:02 AM
atk,
It's not as linear as it seems.
Possibly the best analogy I can give would be:
Family of 4 w/an income of $50K per year
vs
Family of 4 w/an income of $100K per year.
Even though the income is double, the overall quaility of lifestyle can be several times greater and the $$ ability of the higher is able to withstand a far greater $$$ figure for an unklnown than the lower income figure.
eg: My wife and I are making $80K a year. I need tires for my car $400. for a set of tires isn't a financial problem where we'd have to put off another purchase. @ $40K or half of that amount per year, $200 or half of the $400 figure, WOULD be a financial problem, and necessitate putting off another purchase. We'd have to rob Peter to pay Paul.
It's not as linear as it seems.
Possibly the best analogy I can give would be:
Family of 4 w/an income of $50K per year
vs
Family of 4 w/an income of $100K per year.
Even though the income is double, the overall quaility of lifestyle can be several times greater and the $$ ability of the higher is able to withstand a far greater $$$ figure for an unklnown than the lower income figure.
eg: My wife and I are making $80K a year. I need tires for my car $400. for a set of tires isn't a financial problem where we'd have to put off another purchase. @ $40K or half of that amount per year, $200 or half of the $400 figure, WOULD be a financial problem, and necessitate putting off another purchase. We'd have to rob Peter to pay Paul.
If you enjoyed reading about "something to think about. think carefully while you are at it." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.