text:
Thanks for redeeming.{{else}}
Success! Thanks for repurchasing.{{/if}} {{else}} {{#if Expired}}
Increase my visibility!{{else}} {{#if IsMultiPack}}
{{#if HasMultiPack}} You have {{MultiPackCount}} top spot(s) left. Now loading you into the search listings... {{else}} You have used all top spots. Now loading you into the search listings... {{/if}}{{else}}
We are loading you into the search listing pages...{{/if}} {{/if}} {{/if}} {{/if}}
{{Current}} just saw you!{{/if}} {{#if LastTopSpotPurchaseIsMulti }} {{#if HasAnyTopSpot}}
{{#if HasFreeTopSpot }} {{ UnclaimedTopSpotFree }} Free {{/if}} {{#if HasPaidTopSpot }} {{#if HasFreeTopSpot }} & {{/if}} {{ MultiPackCount }} {{/if}} Top Spot{{#if Plural}}s{{/if}} Left{{else}}
0 Top Spot{{#if Plural}}s{{/if}} Left{{/if}} {{else}} {{#if HasFreeTopSpot }}
{{ UnclaimedTopSpotFree }} Top Spot{{#if Plural}}s{{/if}} Left{{/if}} {{/if}} {{else}} {{#if HasResults}}
{{Current}} see you now!{{else}} {{/if}} {{/if}}
You can now invite anyone to meet at your favorite Starbucks.
Limited-time feature
42 year old man | Jacksonville, FL, USA | Seeking women 28-42 within 50 miles
Looking for my Partner In Crime:-)
I am outgoing and know how to have fun... but I can also be serious when it matters. I have lots of friends that I enjoy spending time with regularly. Always looking to learn new things and meet new interesting people. I am pretty much an open book and love discussing meaningful topics(skip the small talk). I have so many interests it would be easier to say what i don't like rather then do... I don't care for nascar, reality shows and head games. My friends will tell you that I am a very honest, trustworthy, reliable and easy to talk to. A complex person who is always looking for ways to improve. I love to travel and want to see the world! I will list some interests since they don't allow enough space in their interest section: photography(above and below the water), scuba diving, fishing, volleyball, surfing, tennis, football, softball, golf, playing pool, pretty much any sports, the outdoors, designing things and bringing them to fruition, cooking, live music(jazz, alternative, rock, electronica, indie, old school and more) movies, art, theater, fashion, gardening, the finer things in life and the simple things, contemplating the universe, making the world a better place.. oh yeah, and having fun with friends as you can see from the pics! I am affectionate and have a big heart. Who I would like to date would be a woman of great character… A well rounded, intelligent, confident, independent, personable woman who is balanced and open minded. I appreciate complete honesty in people. Someone who enjoys experiencing life and is not afraid of a challenge. I like people with something to say, but that look openly at all points of view. I respect people who can have fun with out worrying about looking stupid, but know proper etiquette and when to use it. Oh yeah, if you like wine that is a bonus! I always figured I will marry my best friend but I haven't met her yet.
Camping , Coffee and conversation , Business networking , Cooking , Dining out , Fishing/Hunting , Gardening/Landscaping , Hobbies and crafts , Movies/Videos , Museums and art , Music and concerts , Exploring new areas , Nightclubs/Dancing , Performing arts , Playing cards , Playing sports , Political interests , Shopping/Antiques , Travel/Sightseeing , Watching sports , Wine tasting
Billiards / Pool, Cycling, Dancing, Football, Golf, Martial arts, Other types of exercise, Skiing, Soccer, Swimming, Tennis / Racquet sports, VolleyBall, Walking / Hiking, Weights / Machines
I exercise 3-4 times per week.
I like Birds, Cats, Dogs, Exotic Pets, Fish, Horses, Other
Had lots of pets when I was younger... some more interesting than others!
Middle of the Road
Live at the beach so most of the places I go are there, I like to try new places as well. I love good food and atmosphere. BB's, 11th South, Mellow, Dwight's, Casa Marina, 1 Ocean, Lemon Bar,..tropical islands, Sweden, traveling to other lands.
Good music, days on the beach, entertaining friends, playing sports, art, good conversation, cooking, wine, traveling, live concerts, Ligers... These are a few of my favorite things...
Love the Ocean/Beach, beach volleyball, tennis, learning about and experiencing new things, spending time with good friends, wine tastings, live music, cooking and entertaining, bar cycling with friends when the weather is nice:-) - MORE IN INTRO -
Lots of things I would like to read but not enough time in the day to get it all done.. Probably The Da Vinci Code or Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of the Universe.
Z{{Cta}} {{#if HasMoreInfo}} ?{{CtaSecondary}} {{/if}}
|What he is looking for
|5'11" (180cms)
|4'11" (149cms) to 6'11" (210cms)
|Body type:
|About average
|Slender, About average, Athletic and toned
|No preference
|Dark brown
|No preference
|No Way
|No Way, Yes, but trying to quit
|Social Drinker, Regularly, Moderately
|Self-Employed / Entrepreneur
|No preference
Contractor for Residential and Commercial Construction
|I'll tell you later
|No preference
|Never Married
|No preference
|Have kids:
|No preference
|Wants kids:
|Not sure
|No preference
|White / Caucasian
|Asian, East Indian, Latino / Hispanic, Middle Eastern, Native American, Pacific Islander, White / Caucasian, Other
Half Italian and Scotch Irish. Born in Chicago, lived in Florida for 30 years.
|Spiritual but not religious
|No preference
Raised Catholic, but open to hearing every story.
|English, Spanish, Swedish
|No preference
|Some college
|No preference


text:
SUMMIT's MEDDT series all-refrigerators include advanced features for use in medical, scientific, pharmaceutical, and laboratory institutions.
The SP6DS7MEDDT is a commercially listed three-drawer all-refrigerator constructed entirely from stainless steel with recessed handles. It uses automatic defrost operation with fan-forced cooling to ensure an even temperature throughout the interior. A digital thermostat offers more control in temperature management and a high temperature alarm alerts when conditions change. Additional features include a hospital grade cord and interior light.
Sized at just 24" wide, the SP6DS7MEDDT can be used built-in or freestanding and is commercially listed to NSF-7 standards. For an ADA compliant version, see the SP6DS7MEDDTADA.
|Commercially listed
|ETL-S listed to NSF standards for commercial use
|Built-in capable
|Make the best use of space by installing your appliance under the counter
|Fully finished cabinet
|Allows the unit to be used freestanding
|Stainless steel construction
|Interior and exterior built from solid stainless steel
|Automatic defrost
|Reduced maintenance with auto defrost system
|Digital thermostat
|Electronic controls for more precise temperature management
|High temperature alarm
|Warns of temperature fluctuations and includes an external temperature readout on the door
|Internal fan with gel packs
|Fan-forced cooling ensures the unit is evenly cooled from top to bottom
|Hospital grade cord with 'green dot' plug
|Secure three-pronged cord for added unit safety
|100% CFC Free
|Environmentally friendly design with no ozone-damaging chemicals

subset: commoncrawl


text:
So here is where I will be placing some of my art work. Most of these are done scenes some of them will be WIPs. I do not use any post work program so all of what you see can be recreated in Daz (or poser). I am using Daz Studio 4.6 now. Some where made in 4.5.
Please feel free to leave comments and suggestions.


text:
NELS Peterson spends his days studying the ground for clues, in the hope of discovering what happened to the remains of his prehistoric victims after they died.
Unlike most dino-detectives, Peterson has a little help in his investigations in the form of a laser scanner that builds a three-dimensional map of the sand in which the creature met its end. This can tell him if the body was moved after death, and by what.
Things are changing in the world of dinosaur hunters. "Palaeontology has been stuck in the 1900s," says Peterson, an electrical engineer at Montana State University in Bozeman. "Until recently we used virtually the same methods for analysing fossils as we did a century ago."
Now, however, palaeontologists are borrowing technologies such as advanced imaging and chemical analysis tools from medicine, forensic policing and even genetic engineering to uncover new evidence from fossilised bones and their burial sites. This is allowing them to dig deeper than ever before, peering into rocks to capture images of encased skeletons, and probing bones and bird embryos to examine proteins and tissue for clues about dinosaur development and evolution. At last week's meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in St Louis Missouri, a group of palaeontologists met to discuss how these innovations are updating a field devoted to the study of the ancient past.
One of the biggest changes has been brought about by improvements in imaging techniques. "In the past, you might see a palaeontologist taking a fossil to the hospital under their arm, in the hope of examining it with a CAT scanner," says geological scientist Timothy Rowe at the University of Austin in Texas. His group has pioneered the use of custom-built, high-resolution X-ray computed tomography (CT) scanners in fossil studies (New Scientist, 21 May 2005, p 47).
The technology is now being combined with other forms of bone analysis to study dinosaur development. Jack Horner, a palaeontologist at Montana State University, has been looking at thin slices of juvenile dinosaur bones under a scanning electron microscope, to reveal centres of bone growth that tell scientists how the creatures would have developed over time. He takes CT scans of the bones to create 3D models of the juvenile dinosaur. Software then uses the bone growth information to calculate what the juvenile dinosaur would have grown to look like, digitally morphing the model into its adult form.
"In some cases we think we know the babies, juveniles and adult forms of a dinosaur, but when we test if they are the same animal using the morph, they don't match up," he says. "Sometimes we overturn misconceptions that have been in place for a hundred years."
Horner has used the technique to support his argument that a dinosaur called Nanotyrannus was actually a juvenile Tyrannosaurus rex rather than a small adult dinosaur in its own right.
To learn more about dinosaurs' growth and evolution, teams are probing deeper into fossilised bones to study ancient proteins. Zoologist Peggy Ostrom at Michigan State University in East Lansing is studying the protein osteocalcin found exclusively in the bone tissue of vertebrates. She grinds up bone powder and runs it through a mass spectrometer, a device that separates molecular fragments according to their mass and charge. This process breaks the protein apart into its constituent amino acids.
Vital signs
In modern animals, the mass of osteocalcin within bones varies across different species, depending on their evolutionary ties. So Ostrom believes the study should provide clues to species links within the dinosaur family tree. She and her colleagues have sequenced the 49 amino acids in osteocalcin from the 55,000 year-old bones of the extinct steppe bison (Bison priscus).
Last year Horner and Mary Schweitzer at North Carolina State University in Raleigh caused a stir when they found soft tissue in the femur of a T. rex that had died 68 million years ago (New Scientist, 2 April 2005, p 18). Schweitzer identified the tissue after recognising the characteristic cross-banding of collagen under a scanning electron microscope. She is now studying the collagen's elasticity using atomic force microscopy, in which a nanometre-scale needle tip pulls the tissue back and forth. She is comparing this with ostrich and emu collagen, in the hope of finding similarities.
"We have no idea why this tissue was preserved," says Schweitzer. "But perhaps the real question is: why isn't it always preserved? What happens to the organism between death and being excavated that destroys the tissue in most cases?"
The answer to this may lie in clues left in the sand where dinosaur skeletons are discovered, and this is where Peterson's 3D scanner comes in. The way bones are buried and scattered carries vital information about the environmental conditions that they have endured, he says. Sand patterns, for example, tell us about river flows that may have moved the dinosaur from where it fell. Peterson scans excavation sites using LIDAR, a laser technique that maps features in a similar way to radar but using light rather than microwaves.
If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.


text:
Factions in the Republican Party (United States)
|This article needs additional citations for verification. (February 2015)
The Republican Party of the United States is composed of several factions but generally espouses American conservatism.[1] However, like most parties within two-party systems, the Republican Party includes diversity on ideology in social and economic thought.
- 1 By ideology
- 2 Historical Factions
- 3 By issue
- 4 Overlap
- 5 See also
- 6 References
- 7 Further reading
- 8 External links
By ideology[edit]
The old conservative tradition in the Republican Party is based on opposition to the New Deal, especially as developed by Robert A. Taft and their followers such as Everett McKinley Dirksen. They opposed labor unions, high taxes, and government regulation. Most were isolationist in foreign policy. They were strongest in the Midwest and weak in the coastal states.[2]
Fiscal conservatives[edit]
Fiscal conservatives call for a large reduction in government spending (particularly in entitlement and other social programs) personalized accounts for Social Security, free trade, and less regulation of the economy. Many current fiscal conservatives are backers of supply-side economics; however, there are also some deficit hawks within the faction as well. Before 1930 the Northeastern pro-manufacturing factions of the GOP was strongly committed to high tariffs, but since 1945 it has been more supportive of free-market principles and treaties for open trade.[3]
Prominent fiscal conservatives include former U.S. Congressman Ron Paul (Texas), U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (Texas), former U.S. House Majority Leader Dick Armey, former South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, former Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, Indiana Governor and former Representative Mike Pence, the 1996 vice-presidential nominee Jack Kemp, U.S. Senator Tom Coburn (Oklahoma), Publisher Steve Forbes, and activist Grover Norquist. The Club for Growth is a pro-Republican organization that endorses fiscal conservatives in primaries against more moderate Republicans.
Social conservatives[edit]
Social conservatives are those who support traditional values or are those on the religious right. The term "religious right" is often used synonymously with Christian right. Most of the religious right believe that homosexuality is sin, and homosexual union is contrary to nature and to God's will. Essentially all the religious right are opposed to abortion.[4]
The factions major legislative issues in recent years include pro-life advancement in the abortion debate, opposition (but not criminalization) to same-sex marriage, and discouraging taxpayer-funded embryonic stem cell research. They have supported a greater role of religious organizations in delivering welfare programs.
Prominent Religious Right Republicans include TV personality Pat Robertson, former Attorney General John Ashcroft, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback, former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum (Pennsylvania), former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, and activist Gary Bauer. The National Federation of Republican Assemblies is a Religious Right organization that operates as a faction of the Republican Party. The Christian Coalition is a Religious Right activist organization considered allied with the party.
Theoconservatives are religious conservatives such as Michael Novak, George Weigel, and the late Father Richard John Neuhaus. Centered at the Institute on Religion and Public Life's First Things magazine and the Ethics and Public Policy Center, the theoconservatives (popularly called "theocons") meld a Judeo-Christian worldview with the "democratic capitalism" of neoconservatism. Contributors and editorial board members of First Things include Midge Decter and Robert P. George.
Social conservatives are doubtful about affirmative action, arguing it too often turns into quotas. They tend to support a strong military and are opposed to gun control. Social conservatives might oppose illegal immigration, which puts them in opposition to the business community. Social conservatives support stronger law enforcement and often disagree with libertarians. On the issue of school vouchers the group is split between those who support the concept (believing that "big government" education is a failure) and those who oppose the concept (believing that "big government" would gain the right to dictate schools' or sponsoring churches' positions on controversial social issues.)
Social conservatives included George W. Bush, Trent Lott, Rick Perry, and Sarah Palin, among others.
The paleoconservatives are not strongly represented in the political sphere, but are most visible in publications (e.g. The American Conservative and Chronicles) and organizations such as the Rockford Institute and the American Cause. They are traditionalist with a strong distrust of a modern political ideologies and statecraft, which they call the managerial state.[5]
The paleoconservative worldview is both socially and culturally conservative. Paleoconservatives generally favor gun rights, the War on Drugs, and states' rights and constitutionalism, whilst opposing abortion, affirmative action, and same-sex marriage. They are highly critical of multiculturalism, with the national question being central to their politics. Paleoconservatives strongly oppose illegal immigration and favor tight restrictions on legal immigration. Paleoconservatives tend to be economically nationalist; favoring a protectionist policy on international trade.
In foreign affairs they are non-interventionist. Prominent paleoconservatives, such as Pat Buchanan, have criticized the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and neoconservatism, which many paleoconservatives believe has damaged the GOP. Buchanan left the Republican Party after his presidential primary races in 1992 and 1996, and ran as a third-party candidate in the 2000 election. Other prominent paleoconservatives include Chronicles editor Thomas Fleming, Scott P. Richert, and journalists Joe Sobran, Sam Francis, and Robert Novak.
Traditionalist conservatives[edit]
At the intellectual level traditionalists carry on views favorable to business, a strong national defense, and the business community. They favor cultural traditions, old-fashioned teaching methods to inculcate values, and show little love for big government or big business.[6]
Traditionalist publications include Modern Age, Humanitas, The University Bookman, The Intercollegiate Review, and Touchstone Magazine. Traditionalist organizations include the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, the National Humanities Institute, the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal, the Center for the American Idea, the McConnell Center, and the Trinity Forum.
Neoconservatives promote an interventionist foreign policy to promote democracy and defend Israel. They were the strongest supporters of the Iraq War; many of these 'neocons' were originally considered to be liberals or were affiliated with the U.S. Democratic Party in earlier days. Neoconservatives have been credited with importing into the Republican party a more active international policy. Neoconservatives are willing to act unilaterally when they believe it serves a moral position to do so, such as the spread of democracy.[7][8]
Neoconservative publications include The Weekly Standard, Commentary, City Journal, National Affairs, and The New Criterion. Neoconservative organizations include the Project for the New American Century, the American Enterprise Institute, the Hoover Institution, the Manhattan Institute, and the Hudson Institute. Prominent neoconservatives include former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith, former UN Ambassador John R. Bolton, Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Marco Rubio, Congressman Peter King, and pundits Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol, and David Frum.
Moderates within the GOP tend to sometimes be fiscally conservative, moderate, or liberal and socially liberal, though there are others who are socially conservative and fiscally centrist or liberal. While they sometimes share the economic views of other Republicans - e.g., balanced budgets, lower taxes, free trade, deregulation, welfare reform - moderate Republicans differ in that some are for same-sex marriage and gay adoption, legal access to and even funding for abortion, gun control laws, more environmental regulation and anti-climate change measures, fewer restrictions on legal immigration, a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, and more relaxed enforcement of illegal immigration and support for "sanctuary cities,", and for some, abolition of the death penalty, civil rights laws, embryonic stem cell research, in a few cases anti-war policies, supporting access to medical cannabis or any of the above. Concerning foreign policy, some moderates may be less interventionist than neoconservatives and place greater value on multilateral institutions although others like Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham have a very hawkish foreign policy but are to the left of their party in many other areas. Indeed, moderate Republicans can overlap with the neoconservative wing more often than the other wings of the party.[9]
Deficit spending is a highly contentious issue, within this faction as well as outside of it. Some moderate Republicans criticize what they see as the Bush administration's military extravagance in foreign policy, or criticize its tax cuts as was done by John McCain and Olympia Snowe. Others may support deficit spending, but feel it ought to be more directed towards social projects. Still other moderate Republicans are more liberal in their fiscal policies, in the tradition of Nelson Rockefeller.
By the latter half of the Twentieth Century, moderate Republicans were often called Rockefeller Republicans, or by the pejorative Republican In Name Only, often abbreviated "RINO." Moderate Republicans have seen their influence in the Republican party diminish significantly since the 1980s. Once commonplace throughout the country, today moderate Republicans tend to be found in elected office primarily in the Northeast and the West.
Examples of moderate Republican Governors include George Pataki, William Weld, Paul Celluci, Jodi Rell, Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman Jr., Chris Christie, Jim Douglas, George W. Romney, William G. Milliken, Tom Corbett and Donald Carcieri. Current U.S. senators include Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Susan Collins of Maine, Mark Kirk of Illinois, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Rob Portman of Ohio, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, John McCain of Arizona, and John Hoeven of North Dakota.
Moderate Republican organizations: the Ripon Society, which was founded in 1962 as a group of liberal Republicans, today it provides forums for centrist Republican and their ideals. The Republican Main Street Partnership is a network supporting moderate Republicans for office, while the Republican Leadership Council is similar in direction. Former New Jersey Governor Christie Todd Whitman founded the Republican Leadership Council PAC in order to promote moderate Republicans for office.
The Republican Majority for Choice is a PAC of and for pro-choice Republicans, and is often allied with the moderate branch of the party. Former U.S. Senate Majority Leader and 1996 Presidential nominee Bob Dole has supported the "Main Street" Republicans. John McCain has been considered a moderate Republican for much of his Congressional career; however, he moved considerably to the right on many issues during his unsuccessful 2008 presidential campaign.
The libertarian faction of the Republican Party emphasizes free markets, minimal social controls, and non-interventionism in foreign policy.[10] They oppose government social spending, regulation, and taxes. They are opposed to social conservatives with regard to gay rights,[11] and are split on abortion,[10] which many see as an issue of personal freedom, but others view as an act of violence against a person. They oppose gun control as counter-productive and favour free speech.
Similar to the fiscal conservative faction, libertarian Republicans seek to reduce taxes, spending, regulation, and the national debt. They look for ways to outsource or privatize activities run by the government (such as toll roads and airports). As an alternative to the federal income tax and the IRS, many support a flat tax (one rate for all) or the Fair Tax. They also support free international trade, which they argue is beneficial to both the economy and to international relations, and they tend to support reforms to make legal immigration easier. They tend to be more critical of the Federal Reserve and of military spending than any other faction.[10]
The libertarian faction is represented in the party by the Republican Liberty Caucus, which also actively courts members of the United States Libertarian Party to seek office as Republicans in order to increase the voice of libertarianism within the party. U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Texas), the most visible member of the caucus, ran for U.S. President in 1988 on the ticket of the Libertarian Party, and sought the Republican Party nomination for U.S. President in 2008 and 2012.
Senator Jeff Flake, Senator Rand Paul, Representative Justin Amash, Representative Walter B. Jones, Jr., Representative Raul Labrador, Representative Thomas Massie, former Senator Barry Goldwater, former Senator Robert A. Taft, former Representative Barry Goldwater, Jr., former Representative Ron Paul, former Governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson, Representative and former Governor of South Carolina Mark Sanford, and notable personalities ranging from Tucker Carlson to Clint Eastwood all identify with this faction.
Libertarian intellectuals in the tradition of Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek and the Austrian School of economics advocate laissez-faire regarding economic and social issues. Milton Friedman, leader of the Chicago School of Economics, for example, led the opposition to the draft, which was suspended by Republican President Richard Nixon in 1973.[12]
Historical Factions[edit]
Radical Republicans and Stalwarts[edit]
From around 1850 until the end of Reconstruction, Radical Republicans led the Republican Party. They supported the abolition of slavery and equal rights for freed blacks, and also pushed for the Reconstruction acts and reduced rights for ex-Confederates. They opposed both Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson's Reconstruction strategy, and almost led to Johnson's removal from the Presidency. After Reconstruction, many Radicals joined the Stalwarts, which supported machine politics and opposed civil service reform. They supported Ulysses S. Grant, especially when he tried for a third term in 1880. The Stalwart faction broke up during the 1880s. The "Half-Breeds" were the opposing faction. Although the Stalwarts and Half-Breeds agreed on many issues, they fought over corruption issues and the role of patronage. The Half-Breeds supported civil service reform and a merit system. Like the Stalwarts, the Half-Breed faction vanished during the 1880s.[13]
Liberal Republicans[edit]
Starting in the 1930s the terms "liberal" and "conservative" were mainly used to refer to supporters and opponents of the New Deal. Most Republicans were opposed to the New Deal, but many, especially in the Northeast, agreed with its essential ideas. However, these liberal Republicans were frustrated with the corruption and inefficiency of certain New Deal programs, and said the GOP could do a better job of running these programs. By the 1960s liberal Republicans were often called Rockefeller Republicans. Hostile conservatives sometimes called them "Republican In Name Only," or "RINO."[14]
The most notable liberal Republicans of the 1930s-1970s included Fiorello La Guardia (New York City), George Norris (Nebraska), Harold Stassen (Minnesota), Wendell Willkie (New York), Alf Landon (Kansas), Thomas E. Dewey (New York), Nelson Rockefeller (New York) and Earl Warren (California). Historians debate whether Richard Nixon belongs to this group as his rhetoric was conservative, but his policies were liberal in many areas. The liberal wing of the Republican Party had ceased to play a significant role in the party by the 1980s, with most of the Rockefeller Republicans retiring, or being defeated in primaries by more conservative Republicans or in general elections by Democrats.
Liberal Republicans often supported a liberal-to-moderate fiscal policy, but also supported liberal social causes, such as abortion and gay marriage. They may also be opposed to death penalty and support gun control. In modern times, more liberal Republicans included Rudy Giuliani, Scott Brown, Amo Houghton, Colin Powell, Jim Leach, Joseph Cao, Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker. Two former Senators Jim Jeffords and Arlen Specter, both of whom later left the party. Rhode Island governor Lincoln Chafee and New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, both former Republicans turned independents (Chafee ended up switching to the Democrats), also espoused stances favored by liberals. Some long time Republicans have spoken out for more steeply progressive taxation than their leadership has supported, including Bruce Bartlett, Paul O'Neill, David Stockman, and Sheila Bair.[15] Similarly, Republican Wall Street Journal opinion columnist Peggy Noonan has called for a renewed focus on jobs instead of debt and deficit.[16]
Progressive Republicans[edit]
During the 1910s and 1920s, progressives formed a faction in the Republican Party. They typically held center-left views on most issues, supporting broad government involvement in business, particularly breaking 'trusts' and limiting the size of corporations, reforms in government, income taxes, universal health care, social security for the elderly, and other forms of 'social justice'. This faction gradually shrank, with many joining the Democratic Party as it shifted to the left in the 1930s. Prominent progressive Republicans included Theodore Roosevelt, Hiram Johnson, and Robert La Follette.
By issue[edit]
Although business interests lobby and contribute to both parties, the GOP has been more favorable since the Civil War. There are two components. Main Street refers to locally owned businesses. Wall Street refers to national corporations. They share an interest in lower taxes, less regulation and opposition to labor unions. Spending is another matter, and depends on the particular issue. For example, defense spending is favored. Main Street has an interest in opposing the inheritance tax (the so-called "death tax"), which affects entrepreneurs;[17] Wall Street wants low taxes on capital gains. Both generally support free trade, since the old high tariff faction has faded along with the industries (like textiles) it once tried to protect.[18] The farm sector is generally conservative on most issues—except it wants higher spending on farm programs.
National Security[edit]
Republicans who emphasize the priority of a strong national defense (with appropriate high spending) and an aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East fall under this category. Although this opinion is held by others outside the Republican Party, within the GOP it has retained many vocal proponents. This faction had been satisfied with President Bush's policies, but has also criticized him regarding his inactivity on the issue of illegal immigration in the United States.
More recently this faction has supported continuation of OEF-Afghanistan under the Obama Administration, but have voiced opposition to the projected cuts in military spending and reduction of missile defense programs. Politicians of this nature include former Massassusetts Governors, Mitt Romney, former Senator John Warner, former Representative Duncan Hunter, Congressman Peter Hoekstra, Representative Joe Wilson, Representative John Kline, and Representative Duncan D. Hunter.[19]
States' rights[edit]
Ideologically, the GOP typically supports smaller federal government. Historically, this translated into keeping power in the hands of powerful state governments, as in the cases of civil rights, abortion laws, regulations on marriage, and mapping of voting districts.[20][page needed] However, conservatives in recent years have demanded federal intervention to oppose state laws with respect to the Federal Marriage Amendment, the Terri Schiavo case, the Kelo case regarding eminent domain, and in cases involving assisted suicide laws and medical marijuana.[citation needed]
To a certain extent, this is contingent upon the faction in question. For example, the paleoconservative and social conservative factions would be far more inclined to favor federal drug regulations trumping states rights, while the libertarian faction would be more inclined to see such power devolved to the states or even further.[citation needed]
There is often plenty of overlap between the various categories. For example, a Republican may side with the "neoconservatives" on foreign policy issues, yet also support a "religious right" social agenda and a "fiscally conservative" economic vision. The "Reagan coalition" in the Republican Party, according to independent historian Dr. George H. Nash, originally consisted of five factions: the libertarians, the traditionalists, the anti-communists, the neoconservatives, and the second New Right/religious right.[1][21]
After Reagan left office the Reagan coalition shattered, with the deepest divisions seen between the libertarians, traditionalists, and paleoconservatives on one side and the neoconservatives and the religious right on the other. This was most evident as the neoconservatives and the religious right became the dominant force in the Republican Party. Today, conservatism is generally divided into the categories of fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, and national security conservatives (even though there is considerable overlap among these rather vague categories).
Similarly, moderate or liberal Republicans (see below) may hold views overlapping with those of some of the conservative factions, while diverging with other factions. For example, a "moderate" Republican may hold "fiscally conservative" views on the economy and "neoconservative" on foreign policy, while at the same time holding views on social issues such as abortion that conflict with "social conservative" views.
Partly because of that overlap, it is difficult to accurately claim which faction of the party currently holds the most power, though such a question is the topic of much speculation. After the 2003 Iraq War many argued the "neoconservative" wing of the party was clearly dominant, as they had been the faction the most supportive of the war. After President George W. Bush was re-elected in 2004, however, many attributed the high turnout of Republican voters who claimed to be motivated by "moral values" as a sign that the Religious Right and social conservative factions of the party have gained considerable influence.
Although it is clear that compared to the influence of the conservative factions of the party, the numbers and influence of the moderate wing of the party had diminished in recent decades. In the past many Republicans were not ideological and were conservative in areas but moderate in others. Some say Bob Dole was in this overlapping type of model. Also past figures like Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush would be in this middle of the road category.
For some of these abortion is not considered a big issue while fiscal issues would be. Dole, for example was opposed to abortion but supported government programs and a moderate take on foreign affairs. Ford and Bush at some point were pro-choice, but in other points of their career they were also opposed to abortion. George H.W. Bush was pro-choice and moderate on fiscal issues as Ronald Reagan's vice president, but shifted to the right on many issues during his 1988 presidential campaign after facing primary challenges from more conservative GOP figures. Bush infamously raised taxes in 1990, an act which contributed heavily to his defeat for reelection. He also nominated liberal justice David Souter to the U.S. Supreme Court.
See also[edit]
Affiliated organizations:
- College Republicans
- Log Cabin Republicans
- Republican National Coalition for Life
- Republicans Abroad
- Republicans for Choice
- Republicans for Environmental Protection
- Republican Study Committee
- Teenage Republicans
- The Wish List (political organization)
- Young Republicans
Ideology topics:
- Neoconservatism and paleoconservatism, ideological frameworks
- Tea Party
- Conservatism in the United States
Democratic Party:
Libertarian Party:
- ^ a b Donald T. Critchlow, The conservative ascendancy: how the GOP right made political history (2nd ed. 2011)
- ^ David Reinhard, The Republican Right since 1945 (1983).
- ^ Joel D. Aberbach; Gillian Peele (2011). Crisis of Conservatism?:The Republican Party, the Conservative Movement, and American Politics After Bush. Oxford University Press. p. 105.
- ^ William Martin, With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America (1996)
- ^ Joseph Scotchie, The Paleoconservatives: New Voices of the Old Right (1999)
- ^ Gregory Schneider (2003). Conservatism in America since 1930: A Reader. NYU Press. pp. 169–75.
- ^ John Ehrman, The Rise of Neoconservatism: Intellectual and Foreign Affairs 1945 – 1994 (2005)
- ^ Justin Vaïsse, Neoconservatism: The Biography of a Movement (2010)
- ^ Nicol C. Rae (1999). New Majority Or Old Minority?: The Impact of Republicans on Congress. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 153–73.
- ^ a b c Republican Liberty Caucus Statement of Principles
- ^ "Republican Liberty Caucus Opposes Texas Anti-Gay Platform Planks". Rlc.org. Retrieved 2012-01-17.
- ^ William Ruger (2013). Milton Friedman. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 48.
- ^ Richard L. Wilson (2002). American Political Leaders. Infobase Publishing. p. 153.
- ^ Nicol C. Rae, The Decline and Fall of the Liberal Republicans: From 1952 to the Present (1989)
- ^ Bair, Sheila (February 26, 2013). "Grand Old Parity". New York Times. Retrieved 25 March 2013.
- ^ Noonan, Peggy (March 9, 2013). "The Anti-Confidence Man". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 25 March 2013.
- ^ Michael J. Graetz and Ian Shapiro, Death by a Thousand Cuts: The Fight over Taxing Inherited Wealth (2005) p 76
- ^ Andrew J. Taylor, Elephant's Edge: The Republicans as a Ruling Party (2005) p. 251; Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten, One Party Country: The Republican Plan for Dominance in the 21st Century (2006) p. 5
- ^ Carl Hulse and David M. Herszenhorn, "Seeking Cudgel, Republicans Return to National Security Issue," New York Times, May 1, 2009
- ^ Merle Black and Earl Black, The Rise of Southern Republicans (2003)
- ^ Adrian Wooldridge and John Micklethwait, The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America (2004)
Further reading[edit]
- Barone, Michael, and Richard E. Cohen. The Almanac of American Politics, 2010 (2009) 1900 pages of minute, nonpartisan detail on every state and district and member of Congress.
- Dyche, John David. Republican Leader: A Political Biography of Senator Mitch McConnell (2009)
- Edsall, Thomas Byrne. Building Red America: The New Conservative Coalition and the Drive For Permanent Power (2006) sophisticated analysis by liberal
- Crane, Michael. The Political Junkie Handbook: The Definitive Reference Book on Politics (2004), nonpartisan
- Frank, Thomas. What's the Matter with Kansas (2005) attack by a liberal.
- Frohnen, Bruce, Jeremy Beer, and Jeffery O. Nelson, eds. American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia (2006) 980 pages of articles by 200 conservative scholars
- Hamburger, Tom, and Peter Wallsten. One Party Country: The Republican Plan for Dominance in the 21st Century (2006), hostile
- Hewitt, Hugh. GOP 5.0: Republican Renewal Under President Obama (2009)
- Ross, Brian "The Republican Un-Civil War – The Neocons and the Tea Party Fight for Control of the GOP", Truth-2-Power, August 9, 2012.
- Wooldridge, Adrian, and John Micklethwait. The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America (2004), sophisticated nonpartisan analysis
External links[edit]
- "A Guide to the Republican Herd" New York Times Oct 5, 2006 interactive graphic
- Belief Spectrum Brings Party Splits Washington Post October 4, 1998


text:
Opposites Posters at SVA NYC
At SVA, School of Visual Arts, in New York, students were given an assignment for a special class entitled "Visual Identity & Multimedia" taught by Sagi Haviv, Ivan Chermayeff & Tom Geismar, partners of a famous graphic design & branding firm (Chermayeff & Geismar) responsible for the logos of PBS, NBC and even National Geographic. The assignments range from building corporate logos to re-interpretting classic movie posters to designing conceptual "opposites" posters. The class is apparently in it's second year at SVA and invite only.
by Chris Alborano
by Makhail Abromov
By Guewon Kelly Park
(via Imprint)


text:
MTN, Glo Mobile, Airtel and Etisalat have been fined a total of over US$7.4million in Nigeria for poor quality of service in the months of April and May, 2012.
Reports from Nigeria said the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) slapped the fines on the four operators on Thursday, May 11, 2012 for failing to meet minimum standard of quality of service key performance indicators (KPIs) set for them.
MTN and Etisalat were slapped with the heaviest fines of almost US$2.3million each; Airtel got a little over US$1.7million fine, and Glo got the least fine of over US$1.14million just for two months of quality of service breaches.
The four players also ran the risk of paying additional US$15,902 daily if they did not pay their respective fines before Monday, May 21, 2012.
In Ghana, five operational telcos (minus Glo then) were fined a total of GHC1.2 million (US$638,767) for poor quality of service over a period of three months last year, and it generated hue and cry among telcos who felt the fines were too heavy.
But MTN and Airtel, which were among those fined in Ghana last year, are each paying fines in Nigeria up to four times (for just two months) what all five players put together paid in Ghana for three months of failing to meet QoS KPIs.
Glo's fine in Nigeria, which was the lowest, is also more than twice what all five players paid in Ghana last year.
MTN Nigeria was reported to have blamed the quality of service breaches partly on poor power supply, vandalisation of its facilities (several fibre cuts and theft) due to poor security, and multiple regulatory taxations, and appealed to the Regulator to also help in dealing with some of those issues.
The challenges cited by MTN Nigeria, particularly fibre cuts and theft, were no different from what telcos in Ghana also cited as part of the factors that affected quality of service.
Ghana's industry regulator and government are on record as saying they were working to deal with some of those challenges, particularly the numerous arbitrary charges by MMDAs on installation of equipment to improve quality of service, and issues of right of way to install infrastructure, particularly fibre.


text:
Florida ACLU cuts staff
Mitch E. Perry
WMNF Drive-Time News Friday | Listen to this entire show:
Job losses are happening in every sector of the economy, including media organizations and non-profit advocacy groups.
Earlier this week WMFE, the NPR affiliate in Orlando, announced it was laying off 15 staffers, and the ACLU of Florida is laying off six staffers, and expects a seventh to retire soon. That will leave the civil liberties group with a full-time staff of 32.
Brandon Hensler is the spokesman for the Florida ACLU. (roll tape#1 o.q.âMadoff scandalâ)
Hensler said he could not speak about what positions would be cut, but he said that itâs important to know of the state wide prescence of the group, outside of Tampa and Miami.
Liberal organizations and publications saw growth during the tenure of George W. Bush, especially after 9/11. The ACLU was one of those groups.
Hensler rejects the idea that because that Bush is gone and Washington is being controlled by Democrats, that there might be a tendency for some to not want to contribute to the ACLU.
Howard Simon, the ACLUâs executive director, told the Miami Herald this week that the good news out coming out of the staffing reductions is that the organization has grown so much in recent years that it can withstand the cutbacks without losing its core focus.
The Florida ACLU has about 25,000 members statewide.comments powered by Disqus


text:
Gear Question
SHould i go with this or the salomon...
SHould i go with this or the salomon drift
Wooden Robots
Youngblood for sure. The Youngblood has a much more consistent ride. The chillydog (reverse camber) is a continuous rocker from nose to tail, the shape is awesome the board is great. You will be stoked on this board for sure. Great shape, great graphic, solid board.
View More Details on Forum Youngblood Chillydog Snowboard


text:
The final ISA showdown: Is ARM, x86, or MIPS intrinsically more power efficient?
- By Joel Hruska on August 25, 2014 at 12:58 pm
- Comment
Share This article
One of the canards that's regularly trotted out in discussions of ARM vs. x86 processors is the idea that ARM chips are intrinsically more power efficient thanks to fundamental differences in the ISA (instruction set architecture). A new research paper examines these claims using a variety of ARM cores as well as a Loongson MIPS microprocessor, Intel's Atom and Sandy Bridge microarchitectures, and AMD's Bobcat.
This paper is an updated version of one I've referenced in previous stories, but its methods and claims are worth investigating in more detail. ISA investigations are intrinsically difficult given that it's effectively impossible to separate the theoretical efficiency of an architecture from the proficiency of its design team or the technical expertise of its manufacturer. Even products that seem identical can have important differences — ARM revised the Cortex-A9 core four different times and has released three updates to the Cortex-A15. Then you have the particulars of manufacturing — Intel, TSMC, Samsung, and GlobalFoundries aren't carbon copies of each other and the CPU inside a Tegra K1 isn't 100% identical to the Cortex-A15 inside a Samsung Exynos SoC.
That's just the hardware side of the equation. Toss in compiler optimizations and library support and it's even harder to write a definitive apples-to-apples comparison of any two architectures.
With that said, the team from the University of Wisconsin has taken a pretty good whack at an incredibly complex problem and compared the following architectures.
Test setup and modeling
The chips in question were tested in desktop, mobile, and server workloads with a mixture of programs including CoreMark, WebKit, SPEC tests, and a variety of other benchmarks. Power consumption data was gathered at the SoC level, while performance information was gathered using a variety of profiling techniques.
All of the systems save the Cortex-A15 were tested using Linux 2.6 LTS with minor patches. The A15 had to be tested with Linux 3.8 due to compatibility issues. All tests were compiled with GCC 4.4, all target-independent optimizations were enabled (O3), with machine-specific tuning disabled. None of the tests included SIMD code and while auto-vectorization was enabled, very few SIMD instructions were generated for ARM or x86. All of the tests were compiled in 32-bit mode for all of the architectures.
Next page: Benchmark results
- 1 of 3
- Next
Post a Comment
It's looking like architecture really does not matter with modern chips being what they are.
But with the end of Moore's Law, that opens up the whole market to a great deal of competition through price. Because nobody can deliver a superior performance:watt solution through architecture, and because node scaling has gone down in benefits, it all comes down to SOC cost now.
I think there's a good chance that we consumers may prove to be the winners in this regard. Hopefully, this will be the end of high margins for companies like Intel. In theory, there is little stopping people from making a higher power process with ARM, MIPS etc.
It's what all mature markets end up doing – competing mostly on price.
Maybe, we will see…… I suspect the big players have something up their sleeve to continue into the next era. I wouldn't be surprised if that was why IBM was toying with selling off it's foundries…. being that the tech is in its final decade.
But if I'm wrong, and the chip does become a simple commodity in 10 years or so, then I'm not as interested in cheap, as I am custom. I'd love a company to offer a huge chip for the masses. Think about a 24 core chip, or a 4 core with a massive transistor count. Obviously such a product wouldn't be for mobile, but if chips were cheap… then just maybe. Well we can dream.
Carol James
my friend's mother-in-law Μаκ℮ѕ $74 /hr on the іոτ℮rո℮τ. She has been without a јօƅ for seven Μօոτհѕ but last Μօոτհ her income was $13840 just Wօrκing on the іոτ℮rո℮τ for a Ϝ℮W հօυrs. read the article,… http://Googleprojectjob2014userghVY9zdJs…
✦✦✦ ✦✦�✦ ✦✦✦ ✦✦✦ ✦✦✦
which moore's law is dead there are multiple versions out there, 3D + real 3d structures and new base materials will extend moore's law in there own way.
because nobody can deliver a superior performance:watt solution through architecture, and because node scaling has gone down in benefits, it all
comes down to SOC cost now.
this article is about ISA not the internal architecture. improves its architecture every tic which makes it faster with the same power consumption.
This is an absurd article, and completely uninformed.
Of course ARM is more efficient, any idiot can see that, but the amount is the question.
The author's lack of command of the English language distorts the reality. Rather than using absolutes, the reality is that there are far more salient factors in determining efficiency than the instruction set, especially when one adds in a GPU.
But, really, just think, please. There are no CISC processors anymore, anyway, except for the newest Atom. Since the Pentium Pro and K5, x86 processors are RISC engines with a decoder front end to break down the CISC instructions. This front end costs energy and performance, since there's more stages to flush out if you branch mispredict. There's no question, for example, that if Haswell didn't have all the complex decoding necessary that it would be both faster and use less power. In fact, it has a mini-trace cache just so it doesn't have to waste energy decoding all the time. But, it's just not much at all, and far less important than manufacturing technology, for example.
The other mistake is why CISC was used in the first place. Please, learn before you type. It was NOT used because of memory speed. It was used because memory amount limitations, so you really needed code density. Also, they were matched to higher-level languages, so conversion would be easy.
But, really, memory speed? Did you know that the 8086 took four clock cycles to read memory? Memory of that time, and the time of the 8088 in the PC had no problem supplying it in time. The PC was 4.77 MHz, the original 8086 5 MHz so that would give 800ns to read memory. The very slow chips were 200ns, so cycle time of a little less than 400ns. They had zero problems reacting fast enough.
The 286 had two clock cycle reads, and at 6 MHz, they added a wait state (which proved unnecessary when they released the XT 286, which had none, but IBM wanted to slow down the original AT so it wouldn't compete with their higher end stuff). But, certainly the 8086, 68000, 6809, z80, etc… had no issues reading memory without wait states when the instruction sets were created. It was not about that, it was about how expensive memory was, the limitations of memory addressable by the processors, in some cases. Even the 8086 was a pain in the backside, despite addressing 1M, you'd need to use 64K segments. So, density was critical.
Joel Hruska
"Of course ARM is more efficient, anyone can see that."
BZZT. Wrong. We're specifically talking ISA, not architectural implementation. The entire point of the paper is that while the architectural decisions of an ARM chip may make it more efficient than an x86 chip, those decisions are not driven by the ISA.
" It was NOT used because of memory speed. It was used because memory amount limitations, so you really needed code density."
Indeed. That's why I wrote: "memory accesses were orders of magnitude slower than the processor and data storage was extremely limited. RAM costs could dwarf the cost of other system components and compilers were primitive."
That's four reasons.
1). Memory access speed.
2). Limited data storage.
3). High RAM cost.
4). Primitive compilers.
The CISC systems of the 1970s and early 1980s had widely varying RAM access times. Because CISC is a design philosophy there is no *single* "CISC processor", the acronym was retroactively applied to a wide array of system designs to distinguish them from RISC.
I'd like to note that we're talking about two somewhat different timelines. The first RISC chip today is generally considered to be the IBM 801; Berkeley RISC debuted in 1982. The people who developed Berkeley RISC were working in response to trends in CPU design that became apparent in the late 1960s and 1970s; my comments on memory speed were drawn partly from research into the CISC systems of *that* era which inspired the creators of RISC to come up with a completely different method of doing things.
Bzzzt, wrong yourself, if you think the Instruction Set has nothing to do with the architecture.
Put another way, why do you think Intel chose to put all that decoding up front and then decided to execute different instructions? Because it was the best way to do it, with that cumbersome instruction set. Trying to actually execute x86 was less efficient. They had to choose that due to the Instruction Set, because executing them natively would have been a bear. So, sorry, no way that flies. The instruction set causes the implementation, which is why everyone who uses x86 does it, except, interestingly, the Bay Trail. Which, by the way, wasn't analyzed here. You can't separate the two when virtually ever design since 1995 did the same thing with that instruction set. It is clearly causative. If you don't want to use Haswell, use Willamette. Or Deschutes. Or Barcelona. Or Bobcat. Or Bulldozer. Get the point?
Memory was MUCH faster than it is today, relatively speaking, so the memory access speed is nonsense. They weren't waiting on memory back then, it went as fast, or nearly as fast as the processor could read it So, how can you even say memory speed was the issue, when fast memory could be read in two clock cycles, and slower memory in three up until 386 type clock speeds? It makes no sense. An 8086 was going to take 800ns whether you put in 200ns slow DRAM, or 120ns SRAM. Not only that, the 8086 had a decoupled architecture where memory could be pre-fetched so it wouldn't even have to wait that long. Move to the 286, and it could access memory in two clock cycles (and did in implementation like the PS/2 Model 50z), which is twice as fast (relatively speaking) as the Haswell can read from its L1 cache!
Sorry, no way that makes sense.
Agree with CISC definition, although it's a bit more than th at. It generally referred to processors that executed instructions in microcode, not just hardware like a RISC did. And also was more than "load-store", but even then, you had widely different designs like the 6809, and z80, so it clearly is not an exactly term by any stretch. But, as a broad, imprecise term, it did mean more than non-RISC.
Joel Hruska
I don't have time to dig up the full source list I checked on the benefits of CISC as they related to memory latency.
Is one. The benefit was that you could load very small amounts of microcode rather than stepping out to slower memory stores. And it makes perfect sense — the tinier your code, the closer (and faster) you could keep it to the CPU core.
The decoder and die space penalty for a modern x86 chip is on the order of 2-4%. It's just not a big deal. It's not a deal-breaker. Yes, if you step back to those early chips, the penalty was much larger — but as die sizes shrank so did the decoder's share of die size and power consumption.
Yes, technically, Intel still pays a very small penalty for the x86 compatibility that it carries forward, but as the authors note this only matters at the tiniest microcontroller level where every microwatt of power and square millimeter of die space matters. At the Cortex-A8 and above, it simply doesn't. You can save more power with better throttling or a more efficient voltage regulator than you can by ditching the x86 ISA.
As I said, it there was a penalty, it just wasn't salient by comparison to other factors. Probably a few percent in performance and size. Remember, Intel thought the power issue was enough that they added a trace cache. But, I don't disagree, I'm just saying there is a penalty. It's just not very important.
With regards to the CPU core, you're using modern technology thinking, where it doesn't apply. Memory was memory. It took four clock cycles to access any memory on the 8086. There was no L1 cache, there was no L2 cache, everything was four clock cycles. So, 'closer' memory wasn't a reality. It is now with multiple layers of cache, the closer being faster. It wasn't then. But, instruction execution of microcoded instructions was slow back then, and wasn't desirable from a memory access perspective. But, again, code density …
Put another way, for sake of argument (gross oversimplification, but the point can still be made), let's say a modern processor does one instruction per cycle, and it takes roughly 100 clock cycles to get to memory. So, your throughput is roughly 100 times faster than your memory access (again, really rough numbers, but it still makes the point).
So, 100 memory clock per instruction. On the 8086, it took four clocks to get memory, and let's say seven clock cycles to perform one instruction. So, throughput is roughly .56 the speed of memory access. About 200 times the difference.
The 286 was similar, but assuming one wait state, it would take roughly as long to perform an instruction (three clocks), as to access memory.
Memory access speed compared to processor performance was much greater when CISC processors were the norm. Memory performance has become hideously slow compared to processor speeds. You have it reversed, but it's just not so. I'm not even sure how you'd think this, as it's very widely known that memory speeds have gone up much more slowly than processor speeds. It's kind of common knowledge.
http://juanrga.com juanrga
It is a myth that x86 tax is only in the decoder. The ISA affects everything: decoder, cache, load-store, registers, microcode…
The second myth is that the decoding penalty is only a 2–4%. This resembles when AMD announced Mantle and Nvidia fanboys claimed that DX11 overhead was minimal and than Mantle only could bring single digit percent better framerates. Do you know which was game developers answer to this ridiculous claim? It was in essence: We wouldn't waste time developing and implementing a new API to see single digit percent gains.
I hope that nobody really believes that engineers are developing big ARM cores and porting software to a new ISA just to see 2% gain over x86 cores.
I have internal data from Intel for OoO core. Fecth/decode consumes about two thirds of the energy needed by integer execution, whereas legacy accounts for another one third.
Absolutely, the memory acces time was not a problem at that time. One only needs to look at certain architectures of the 70s to understand that the logic was the slow part. 6502 had only 6 registers (A , X, Y, PC, SP, SR) exactly for that reason. Or look at TMS-9900 which only had 3 real internal register Program Counter, Stack Pointer and Workspace Pointer. This register pointed to an area of 16 16bit register in memory. Such an architecture would make absolutely no sense today with registers being several order of magnitude faster than memory accesses.
Matt Menezes
I'm with the author here. The x86 tax was always overblown. Add to that the fastest RISC CPU's (i.e. Apple's A7) look more like a Haswell CPU than a Cortex A8, and ISA isn't nearly as important as some like to think with respect to power efficiency.
Marc Guillot
Does this mean that the mythical x86 performance claim has also blown up ?. What about that ARM will never be able to achieve Intel's big cores performance ?.
Joel Hruska
There's nothing intrinsic to the ISA that makes ARM incapable of matching x86 at the high end.
Factors that would impact whether an ARM SoC matches the performance of an x86 SoC would include:
1). Design team expertise (the vast majority of ARM SoCs are low-power).
2). Compiler optimization capability.
3). Software/ecosystem support.
Intel is extremely proficient at all three of these, which would make it harder for an ARM team to match x86 in, say, a 50-85W power envelope — but there is no ISA-level difference that makes it impossible, no.
Marc Guillot
Thanks for the explanation.
It was only a rhetorical question dedicated to the fanboys that says that ARM processors will never be able to outperform Intel big cores. As you explain and your article demonstrates, there is nothing that prevents it.
As Intel has gathered the expertise to make an efficient x86 core (they had needed 5 years of huge investments to be on level with ARM cores), ARM manufacturers can invest and make also powerful ARM processors. Because as the ARM ISA is not inherently more efficient than the x86 ISA, the x86 ISA is not inherently more powerful than the ARM ISA either.
I would say that ARM is getting there on your 2) and 3) points, thanks to the explosion on mobile, ARM is getting better compilers, better Javascript runtimes, …, also is going well on being a first citizen on the Linux ecosystem, included almost all the software related.
I would say that ARM fight would be on point 1) if they ever want to try to challenge Intel on a performance basis (and I imagine that Qualcomm, nVidia, … have in mind to eventually enter the PC market).
how many more years do you think it will take for Arm to be at Intel level when it comes to performance you just stated it took INtel 5 years to be even with Arm in power efficiency
Marc Guillot
Two/three years ?. Considering that many companies have already been working at it for several years (nVidia Denver, AMD K12, Apple Cyclone, Qualcomm ARMv8 new core, Cavium ThunderX, Applied Micro X-Gene, … … …)
how long they worked on something means nothing Amd bulldozer was a long processes actually started back in 2005 yet it sucked so bad
Make that this year – the A8 and Denver should have single threaded and GPU performance comparable to low end desktop APU's. Nvidia already called it out.
The fact ARM vendors may have reach the mid-level PC performance within a year with 16/14nm implementations of next gen socs (btw, the successors to cortex A57/53, code named "Artemis" and "Maya" are already being licensed to vendors) within a sub 5W power envelope could really be the first nail in Intel's coffin
Joel Hruska
I think it's fair to note that neither company has moved as far into the other's turf as we first expected.
In late 2011, after seeing Medfield, with Microsoft pushing hard for Windows on ARM, I genuinely thought we'd have ARM notebooks running Windows *and* a robust x86 ecosystem in smartphones and tablets by 2014.
Marc, I think the reason why ARM, as well as the ARM vendors, arent interested in competing in the PC(desktop) market should be obvious – they have a precious foothold in mobile, and in the the landscape of dramatically changing paradigm of computing, mobile is everything.
So it makes only sense to put all the resources and efforts into building the best possible low power chips.
Simply put – the PC is dying out, and Intel can have it.
Patrick Bean
No mention of anyARM designs less than about 5 years old. Even in the 32bit ARM v7 the cortex A7 has replaced the A8/A9 and the cortex A15 is in the process of being replaced by the Cortex A17. Also the ARM v8 64bit designs vere not talked about at all. Look at the thunder x designs from Cavium at 28nm and the even newer vulcan chips from broadcom at 14nm. Looking at power used for any given task is a but misleading as most CPUs spend most of their time doing nothing. So an octa cor cortex A7/A17 will spend most of its time with 7 cores powered down and just 1 cortex A7 ticking over at 300mhz
http://juanrga.com juanrga
Microprocessor Report has a detailed article about forthcoming ThunderX. The SoC has SPECint_2006 score of about 350, whereas a 95W E5-2470v2 Xeon scores 320. The ARM Soc consumes about 50% less power than the Xeon. Part of that efficiency is from the architecture and part from the ARM ISA.
But my current favorite is Vulcan core: this is a big ARM core that can run 4 threads at once (SMT4).
Joel Hruska
Call me when it's shipping and has been independently evaluated. We've seen similar claims from Applied Micro and Calxeda in the past.
Patrick Bean
I think calxader's problem was that they tryed to build a server chip around the 32bit ARM v7 ISA
Marc Guillot
Thanks, I didn't knew about this new core from AMD (I did only heard about their K12).
So, this SMT4 is some kind of hyper-threading that allows them to run 4 threads on a single core ?. That's huge :-).
http://juanrga.com juanrga
AMD core is K12. The Vulcan core is from Broadcom. Vulcan was analized in Microprocessor report: eight-fetch and six-issue per cycle,
60-entry unified scheduler, 180-Entry ROB, 2048-entry TLB, 64KB L1
(8-way), 256KB L2 (8-way), 3 ALU, 256bit SIMD/FP, SMT4, up to 16 cores
on die, ~3GHz…
Intel hyperthreading is Intel version/implementation of SMT2 (i.e., 2 threads per core). Vulcan core is SMT4 (4 threads per core). IBM POWER8 is SMT8 (8 threads per core).
will this vulcan core be an in order design or an OOO design because it would make much more sense to have a SMT4 design which is in order to improve the IPC with little performance loss.
http://juanrga.com juanrga
Vulcan is Haswell-like wide OoO. SMT is a technique that improves both ILP and TLP, thus can be used in both OoO and in-order designs.
IBM POWER8 is a wide OoO core with SMT8, previous POWER7 was SMT4 and the next Phi Knigh Landing will be an OoO design with SMT4.
but an in order design would be more efficient both try to fix the same problem i.e. bubbles in the pipeline.
so OOO is nice for single threaded performance and lowers the amount of stalls in the pipeline but it requires significantly more hardware and is much more complex.
if you use OOO and SMT then OOO will fill most of the bubbles and then use the rest of the bubbles to fill it up with other thread instructions.
but if you use in order SMT you will have a lot of bubbles which could be just filled by a different thread. because threads are independent we can just select an other instruction without checking for dependencies. at higher SMT (8<) counts the performance difference will be small.
but you will trade in single threaded performance.
http://juanrga.com juanrga
As mentioned above SMT can be used for both ILP and TLP. If TLP is your main target then in-order designs are more efficient, but Vulcan core is optimized for latency; its main target is ILP; thus OoO was a basic requirement of the design. Vulcan will be competing against Haswell/Broadwell Xeons, X-Gene v3, and AMD K12.
why would you design for latency in a server environment? server enviroment is mostly Gustafson law not Amdahl's Law e.g. you want to do more in the same time instead of faster.
http://juanrga.com juanrga
Latency optimized cores are needed for running efficiently the serial phases of applications.
Joel Hruska
Juanrga is right that the most successful cores balance between latency and bandwidth. Sun's T1 series pushed too far in terms of parallelism — that's why Oracle pulled the chip back towards better single-threaded throughput and a bit less threading.
Amdahl's law does still apply to server workloads, to some degree.
than why not pipeline the server design where there are single threaded cores doing the serial stuff and send it to the high performance in order high threaded cores?
i understand that some server types need fast reaction like game servers but other server which are high performance number crunching oriented like a weather simulation doesn't care about single threaded performance.
http://juanrga.com juanrga
This is what heterogeneity is. Consider AMD's Berlin APU for servers: 4 latency optimized cores and 8 throughput optmized cores in same die and with unified memory.
Intel will do something similar but with different chips: the ordinary Xeon with a small number of big cores optimized for latency and the Xeon Phi line with many small cores optimized for throughput.
And Nvidia is developing something similar. Currently they announced HPC hardware where its throughput optimized hardware (e.g. used for weather simulation) is paired with latency optimzed core from Applied Micro.
I'm happy they redone the test with an improved version where they really used more different cores i will read it right away.
i guess the RISC and CISC both have there advantages but they just cancel eachoter out. the RISC decoder will be simpler and smaller but how large is the decoder? my guess 2 to 5% of the processor die.
i think the main is the time used to design the front end of the processor this would also reduce the design cost.
Also creating a good RISC compiler will probably be easy, But when a good CISC compiler is made and specialised functions then it will be faster.
(just to mock with x86 it would be easier for the compiler guys if they didn't extend the ISA every other generation).
An instruction is useless if the architecture doesn't support it natively. e.g. if you have an ISA has the mult instruction but translates it to adds than it is a form of code compression and doesn't help in performance.
I guess the place where an ISA still matters is SIMD, VLIW and other highly parallel processors.
This is quite funny towards all those X86 haters who think Arm will overtake everything ha ha i knew it
It means that they're on more of an even footing than we first thought, and ARM has a massive software ecosystem and more players involved than x86. I still think it's very possible that ARM could overtake x86 within the next 10 years. There are already way more ARM dies out there being used than x86. Truly insects vs mammals.
what lol maybe on apps but in real programs no way is arm anywhere as close and at this current time no arm CPU competes with X86 when it comes to performance unless we are talking about the laughable bobcat or arm CPU. Until Arm gets around I7 performance with similar or better power consumption i don't care
Marc Guillot
Do you really haven't seen the last benchmarks of Tegra-K1 Denver, have you ?. It outperforms a Hasswell CULV, while sipping much less power.
Joel Hruska
Those are tests Nvidia performed and results they provided. I'll wait for more neutral evaluation.
I agree that Project Denver looks really, really interesting. I'm very curious to see what it can do.
it does not beat a I7
Denver K1 will be trumped in performance per watt by broadwell upon release, then skylake will hold the title til at least Q3 2016. Once the other chips shrink to 18-14nm whose to say who will be the 'formation for a given function' kings.
Marc Guillot
Yes, yes, Intel has been repeating that since the first Atom, 5 years ago. Yet, still here we are, ARM the undeniable king of the low-power hill.
We have seen Intel overpromising every year and cheating Antutu benchmarks to pretend to have better performance than ARM. With such precedents I'm very skeptic, and I will wait until broadwell is out.
http://juanrga.com juanrga
If my memory doesn't fail. Intel claims about conquering the mobile market did start at about 2006. Since then the marketing motto is "next year…"
Broadwell on 14nm FinFET will be competitive against current ARM SoCs on ancient 28nm planar node. But Apple is already preparing an A7 refresh on 16nm FinFET. Volume production is expected for 1Q2015.
Roberto Tomás
I think it is overstating it to call it a myth that ARM is intrinsically better at performance per watt. Part of this doesn't come down to the CPU at all, but to actual designed systems, with real systems (complete with ram, motherboards, pci, etc), in server environments, ARM has been shown pretty consistantly to outperform x86 by about 9 fold, in performance per watt. This has been so convincing that AMD, which already has a very mature x86 server portfolio, has decided to start making ARM server systems. The only major x86 manufacturer still in the x86 server business is Intel. And obviously they want that transition to be as slow as possible.
AMD is all over the place right now. They're trying to put their hands on everything they can ATM in hopes that one will be the next big thing.
Joel Hruska
"ARM has been shown pretty consistantly to outperform x86 by about 9 fold, in performance per watt."
You're right that power consumption comes from many components, including CPU, but I'd love to see your neutral data showing a 9x performance-per-watt performance advantage for an ARM CPU vs. an equivalent Intel Atom.
Intel isn't leading the SoC pack, but it's not 9x behind, either. I mean, think about that. The average smartphone dissipates something like 2.5W consistently. That would mean it took an Intel 9W CPU to match the performance of a 1W ARM CPU.
That's just not true. I've used Intel Android hardware. I promise you, their phone SoCs don't draw 9W compared to just 1W for a high-end ARM core.
Man the amount of people who hate on X86 is incredible and it doesn't make since who cares if one product is slightly more power efficient if it gets 60% the performance? Performance per watt is all what matters in servers if a CPU is 4 times more powerful and consumes 100 watts compared to a CPU that consumes 30 watts that is 1/4 the performance of the 100 watt CPU what is better?
Also Amd is seeing low demand for its Arm CPU cores it just created
ARM, being a more openly documented and licenseable ISA, should come out on top, then. There's no reason that someone couldn't come along and engineer a very high performance ARM core (such as Nvidia) and blow x86 out of the water; a good thing if you ask me.
Marc Guillot
I'm pretty sure that at least Qualcomm and nVidia have it already in mind.
Joel Hruska
…Unless ISA's aren't actually very important in most mainstream computing applications.
So let's establish some common sense guidelines.
1). Engineers have been doing this a LONG time. Hundreds of architectures or performance increasing methods have been proposed. Dozens of chip designs have made it through to final silicon in the past 25 years. Huge amounts of research $$$ has poured into this.
2). Over the course of all this work, engineers have collectively drawn up general processes for doing things that tend to be well-optimized for their own tasks. The biggest innovations have typically *not* been at the ISA level for quite some time. ISA's are typically judged good or bad based on whether they maintain compatibility or can tap wide software support. The issue of straight-line performance or power consumption just isn't a major focus.
3). Given #1 and #2, ISA choice just really isn't a huge factor.
Again, I'm not saying Qualcomm or NV can't build a really high-performing architecture. I'm saying that the characteristics of that architecture will typically conform, in many respects, to what we already know and use. NV's 64-bit Tegra K1 chip (Project Denver) is unusual because it's reaching back to some Transmeta design elements but combining them with the modern ARM ISA.
Here's my point: I have no doubt that you might be able to squeeze some ISA efficiencies out in specific areas. Maybe an ISA developed specifically for HPC applications would be more power efficient than x86 — but at the cost of everyone having to recode their work specifically FOR that ISA.
Historically, it's almost impossible to get companies to take that step.
I don't think you understood my statement- I'm not disagreeing with you. What i'm trying to say is that since ISA doesn't matter, nothing is stopping anyone with enough R&D dollars from stepping in and producing a very high performance ARM CPU and setting off competition. Everyone wants a slice of everyone else's pie, so a company that wants to sell high performance parts could either try to squeeze an x86 license out of AMD or Intel to license their uArch (never gonna happen), or else go with an ARM license- something that is relatively easy to come by and something that already has an ecosystem.
Joel Hruska
Ahh! Now I understand.
In theory, no. There's nothing stopping one of the industry players from trying to go head to head with Intel in the high power market. Not in terms of intrinsic limitations to the ARM ISA.
I'm not trying to say that it would be easy. The people who have developed x86 have been pushing to produce a higher performance chip for decades and have done a very good job of hiding their secret sauces. Someone who wanted to create an "ARM i7″ would need monumental resources and a lot of time still, but they wouldn't be any the wiser for using ARM other than x86. Essentially, x86 doesn't magically make the processor faster or slower.
Joel Hruska
I admit, I expected to see more crossover by now. I thought we'd see more x86 chips in ARM devices and more ARM chips in the traditional x86 market. I don't know if that's still happening on a delayed time scale, or if we're going to continue to see a bifurcated market driven by things like app compatibility and OS choices.
But yes — based on these papers I don't see any reason why a Core i7 ARM-class processor isn't possible for reasons that are intrinsic to the ISA itself. All of the factors that make such a chip difficult appear to be related to chip architecture — cache speeds, branch prediction, execution units, etc, etc.
There's a 3rd option that's even better: Since ISAs don't really matter, why wouldn't a company who wants to do this just go with an open source ISA like RISC-V? Then they wouldn't have to pay for an x86 _or_ an ARM instruction set license.
I'd like that a lot and considered posting about that as well, but unfortunately it's extremely far behind right now on everything from compilers to software support to legacy advantages (such as how Intel has been using a lot of the same logic blocks since C2D). Someone may one day come along and pick it up, but I'd be willing to bet that its future is as a better PIC.
That's unfortunate. A major company putting some money into the open support compiler and software support efforts could probably do wonders, though. It's really silly that chip makers have to pay royalties for something as insignificant as an ISA in this day and age.
Sorry it took so long to get back to you.
Yes. I think that the FSF, as crazy as they are, might be able to push this hard enough to get a decent amount of support. An open OS on an open ISA on open hardware? Stallman would shit his pants!
http://juanrga.com juanrga
Is this another gem from the same "University of Wisconsin" team that wrote a plain wrong paper that has been debunked in many places? The former paper was based in incorrect methodology, invalid data, and unsupported conclusions. For their former paper the team did everything possible to favour Intel over ARM. I recall I was so perplexed when I did read their bad paper that I did search more info about the authors and found that the senior author was closely to Intel (one of his coworkers is a Intel lab guy, several students have Intel grants…).
This time you don't give a link to their updated paper, but reading some of the info that you disclose I can see that they are repeating the same mistakes again.
Everyone knows that ARM ISA is more efficient that x86 ISA. This is a fact, which has been measured lots of times. We only disagree about the magnitude of the gap.
Joel Hruska
Pro Tip: If you want to refute a whitepaper that provides detailed data on every single step of their process, you're going to need to give me something considerably more beefy than "Everybody knows."
Show me a whitepaper that performs the same tests with equivalent compilers, settings, software, and applications. The Wisconsin team states what settings and compilers they use.
As for any potential industry attachments, chip research is a rather esoteric field by its nature. There aren't many people performing cutting-edge evaluations in highly complex topics who *don't* cross the aisle to some degree from time to time.
Given the complexities of the tasks involved and the difficulty of separating out test workloads, the stated choices of the Wisconsin team make sense. They wanted to test the ISA — which means they left out compiler optimizations that would stress the SIMD characteristics of any particular chip.
Don't even start with him he is nothing more than a blind fanboy who even thinks the I5 is even to a A10 7850K in CPU tasks.
http://juanrga.com juanrga
I note that you again refute to give the title of the paper or a link to it.
As said before, their infamous paper has been debunked in many places and this was made with great technical detail. In short: the authors eliminated any sign of ISA advantage and then run tests, unsuprisingly they found that ISA doesn't matter when you eliminate the advantages, which is why people who knows the topic laugh at their irrelevant paper.
There are lots of material on this stuff. Papers that estimate that x86 legacy accounts for 20% of die area of small SoC, reviews comparing efficiency of similar performance products with different ISA…
Microprocessor Report found that A57 core runs faster in AArch64 than in AArch32. The hardware is the same, the code is the same, the difference is due to the new ISA.
AMD's Keller gave a talk about K12 and he mentioned the advantages of ARMv8 over x86-64. He mentioned that the ARM ISA is more high-performance and efficient and that allows to design a wider core. Kanter knows a bit about K12 and its x86 sister (Zen) and estimates that the K12 core will be about 10% better than Zen core thanks to the ARM ISA advantage. I consider that 20–30% is more realist advantage at those power levels. Time will say if K12 core really exploits the ARM ISA or is somewhat constrained by AMD goal of 'pin' compatibility with the Zen core.
But you know which is the irony of all this? That the same company that is spreading the myth that ISAs doesn't matter and that x86 is fine is the same company that knows that this is untrue.
One of the main features in Sandy Bridge was the uop cache,
because it both decreases power and improves performance. It avoids
power hungry x86 decoding, which spans several pipline stages and
requires fairly expensive hardware to handle the irregular instruction
The ineficiency of the x86 ISA is is also why AMD/Intel introduced extra (virtual) registers and the register renaming technique…
Intel is that company that claims ISAs don't matter but then is developing a bunch of new ISAs for Skylake launch (AVX512-F, AVX512-VL, AVX512-DQ, AVX512-BW, CDI, ERI and PFI) and then giving talks about how useful those new ISAs will be!
Joel Hruska
I can't give you a link to it because it hasn't been published yet. I got an advance copy of the final text.
When it runs, it'll be in the: ACM TOCS.
Written by:
Emily Blem
Jaikrishnan Menon
Thiruvengadam Vijayaraghavan
Karthikeyan Sankaralingham
Again, don't hand me synopsis or summary. Show me the papers, the documents, the texts.
Yes, Intel adopted technologies like register renaming to bypass the problems with limited numbers of registers on x86 chips. Yes, once upon a time, these were major issues. They *aren't* anymore.
http://juanrga.com juanrga
I asked for title of the paper as well, but you don't give it. In any case, the information disclosed shows that the 'independent' team [*] are repeating mistakes of the previous version.
Register renaming _continues_ being an issue, because all the logic needed to deal with it is consuming power and die space and because it has a performance penalty compared to processor based in a ISA with more registers.
Seriously, instead asking me for links to stuff that is well-known, why don't you guys spend some time searching literature and learning about
the topic before spreading more missinformation about ISAs (this article, the one about RISC-V, the other about Mac,…)?
[*] Funny that you asked me for independent reviews when I mentioned Microprocessor Report before, but then you guys cite as "independent research" the flawed work of a team whose senior author has a Intel Labs guy coworker and whose students are funded by Intel awards.
Joel Hruska
Linley's Microprocessor Reports (the full versions) are not publicly available and I don't have four figures in my back pocket to go out and buy one. So, no, that doesn't count.
ISA Wars: Understanding the Relevance of ISA Being RISC or CISC to Performance, power, and Energy on Modern Architectures" is the paper title.
It's from the same team that wrote the earlier paper, with the addition of Thiruvengadam Vijayaraghavan.
The reason I'm asking you for links is because I've done my research. There's virtually nothing written at the publicly available whitepaper level that addresses this debate.
If you can point me to an equivalent analysis that disproves what I've written here while providing the same level of granularity, specificity, and detail, I will absolutely reconsider this topic.
Alternately, show me evidence that the specific choices made by the University of Wisconsin team (such as the use of GCC and the lack of SIMD optimization) constitute a deliberate attempt to harm ARM's performance in these comparisons. I've *written* about compiler optimizations being used to make architectures look bad before — that's why I trust the use of GCC more than somethin else.
Knowing you enough i know you are a Arm fanboy with no evidence to support your conclusions go back to your fake reality where Arm will beat a I7 in performance. Note to yourself a horrible atom is even with the BEST Arm has so far
just a small note the atom core is on a far better process node. but yea we still some time away until arm reaches I7 performance but there is a lot more competition on the ARM from which is always good for the consumer.
and you are right that his clams aren't living up to reality.
Benjamin Carlyle
I don't understand the decision here to disable chipset-specific optimisations. It would seem to me that much of the benefit of a given ISA will be in the interplay between that chipset and the compiler. Any fundamental efficiency of a given ISA is not going to be apparent if you only send it code that is unsuited to it and fails to take advantage of its features. What do these graphs look like with the chipset-specific optimisations turned on?
Joel Hruska
I assume you mean functions like NEON, SSE, AVX, etc?
The reason for turning those capabilities off is twofold:
1). Specialized vector processing isn't necessarily part of the ISA. I believe that x86-64 uses SSE2 for 64-bit but still retains x87 for 32-bit code, which is what all these tests were run in.
2). As I understand it, GCC isn't always very good at automatically optimizing SIMD for x86 (I don't know how good it is on ARM). So if you *wanted* to throw the test, you'd use ICC for x86 and GCC for ARM. The team opted not to do that, but also opted to remove SIMD as a confounding variable.
I would also be curious to see the results with SIMD enabled, but I understand why the team didn't enable them on any of the CPUs. When you're trying to measure ISA, you want to remove as much of the confounding variables as possible — and compiler-level optimizations could be a huge confounding variable.
Benjamin Carlyle
I'm referring to this line from the article: "All tests were compiled with GCC 4.4, all target-independent optimizations were enabled (O3), with machine-specific tuning disabled"
Joel Hruska
Right. That means no hardware-specific optimization and no SIMD support. So no AVX, no SSE4.1/4.2, no NEON.
The optimizations that were incorporated were optimizations that would generally improve the performance of the entire chip family but *weren't* locked to a single architecture (ARMv7 vs. Atom vs. Core i7).
Maybe the ISA makes a difference for the SIMD functions it might make it easier for the compiler to vectorise some part of the code.
e.g. x86 has so much different simd instructions which makes it hard to find and use the right instructions. (sse1 to 4 , AVX , mmx , FMA 3 4 , XOP etc) while arm only has fewer extensions.
Asdacap Cap
But the i7 is a 32nm processor, while the tested Cortex A9 is a 45 nm processor. Yet, the A9 is more efficient. Cortex A15 however, is not a very good idea. Maybe they should test other ( probably more optimized ) ARM implementation, like Qualcomm's Krait or Apple's swift.
Marc Guillot
Cortex A15 release 3 (the one found on Tegra K1, for example) is much better than the original Cortex A15.
Benchmarking a Cortex A17 should also be a very good idea, is a much more balanced core.
The ISA's used are a bit limited to my taste.
Want a more expanded comparison.
Split x86 and x64 as two distinct ISA's, because they are.
Including PowerPC
Including open source designs such as:
The OpenRISC 1200 (OR1200) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenRISC_1200
The lowRISC CPU: http://www.extremetech.com/computing/188405-risc-rides-again-new-risc-v-architecture-hopes-to-battle-arm-and-x86-by-being-totally-open-source
We might only be able to see such a paper in two years. Since we have to wait for the lowRISC CPU to be designed and become available.
Joel Hruska
Evaluating POWER would require an entirely different setup and configuration for HPC / enterprise; there are no POWER chips in conventional mobile or workstation.
I'm not sure anyone has built an OpenRISC CPU — I think the only implementations are in FPGA.
yes the PowerPC would be a difficult one to add I concur.
Then use, test OpenRISC with an FPGA implementation of the OpenRISC CPU Add the fact that you are using an FPGA into the article by naming the architecture. OpenRISC FPGA. Don't forget to specify the FPGA used in the study when writing articles about the performance.
Anyway, thanks for the reply.
Kurtis Engle
It's kinda hard to see. Can you make it bigger?
c k
So where's the link to the actual research article? I think I'm smart enough to draw my own conclusions without being slow-walked by this so-called "commenter",,,,sheeesh.
Joel Hruska
Not published yet. This so-called commenter (author, actually) had early access.


text:
Off Campus Housing
This page provides some considerations and possible ideas for off-campus living arrangements for students who are permitted to live off campus. Both Stetson University and Housing and Residential Life do not specifically endorse/recommend these options, but merely want to give students who might not be from the area a starting point in their independent off-campus housing search.
If you haven't lived off-campus before, there are a few things for you to consider when finding off campus housing, including:
- The length of the legally binding lease agreement
- How your financial aid may be impacted by living off campus
- The distance to campus/community resources
- Your safety
Area Housing
Below is a list of local complexes and/or management companies that normally have units available:
Madison at Carrington Place
- 2.4 miles from campus
- Address: 129 East Villa Capri Circle, DeLand
- www.madisoncarringtonplace.com
Amelia Place Apartments
- 1.7 miles from campus
- Address: 301 Arrow Wood Trail #A, DeLand
- www.ameliaplace.com
Lyn Village Apartments
- 0.9 miles from campus
- Address: 201 South Amelia Avenue #B3, DeLand
- www.lynvillagefl.com
Clara Place
- 3.8 miles from campus
- Address: 1232 Water Willow Drive, DeLand
- www.claraplace.com


text:
[Site Disclaimer][Story Submission ][Report Abuse]
Rohan Raj
Date Published
Author E mail
raj_ch76@rediff. Com
This is my first story for this very very loving and interesting site. I am regular viewer of this site and i have read all stories. I also want to share one of my true story to the viewer of the site. I work for a private company and have to go different places for company work. Now i am posted at guwahati. One day suddenly boss called me and told to go to kolkata that day to submit an important tender.
So I booked a ii tier ticket in kolkata by kamrup express and got up in train at 9pm. The railway compartment was almost entry. It was also rainy season. I put my bag in the upper self. The train was about to start suddenly a married woman came to my cabin and asked me where 32 no seat is. It was near to my seat only. I showed her the seat. She was totally wet in rain. She was wearing a white and flowered saree and pink blouse. Her saree is stuck in her body. I was able to see clearly about the size of her boobs and buttocks. She was looking very sexy in her dress.
The train was started to move. She requested me to take care of her belonging as she wanted to go to tiolet. I agreed. She came after 10 minutes with new dress red blouse and yellow saree. She was looking more sexy in that dress. She asked me about my destination. I told kolkata. The she started to ask me different question regarding my job, family etc. I also asked her about her family. She was married to a bengali businessmen and they have big jwellary shop in kolkata. They have recently opened a shop in guwahati and she is looking after the shop here as her husband was busy in kolkata. Due some business reason only she is going to kolkata.
It was 10 o clock and we started make our bed. As we are only in the compartment so both are arranging the lower berth. We both went for sleep. I was looking at her beautiful figure. I was unable to move my eyes from her big boobs. They are finding it difficult under the blouse. She lied on her seat and i was looking at her. Suddenly she cought me and ask me what i was looking. I felt shame and still i told her that she is very beautiful.
She came to me and started to kiss on my face. I was totally surprised at her act. She began to kiss madly. She told me to make love to her as she is not having sex for months. I started to squeeze her big boobs without removing her cloths. As the compartment was covered by curtains so I was not afraid of being seen by other. I made lie her in my seat and lift he saree to her waist.
She was not wearing panty. So, i can see her hairy cunt. It was very beautiful with a red line in between. I started to lick the red line and she started to moan in pleasure. After some time she released her cunt juice and i licked them dry. Now i climbed on her and started to kiss her lips. I unbutton her blouse and bra and started to lick her nipple one by one. She started to beg me for stop. Now it was time for actual act.
I inserted my huge cock into her cunt and started fucking her with great force. After 20 minutes of continuous fucking we both collapsed. Then we separated and slept on our own seat. Next day morning i got up and found that she already got down one station before kolkata. I can still remembered the lady.
So anybody if interested to take full enjoyment of life and want to become a true friend please write me in raj_ch76@rediff. com. You are always welcome.
Copy Right : Kerala Erotica


text:
IT TOOK a decade of hard slog to produce the first, momentous read-out of the human genome, but researchers think they will soon be able to do the job in a day.
An instrument capable of reading thousands of DNA fragments per second is being developed by researchers led by Tony Bland of the Cavendish Laboratory at the University of Cambridge. The concept behind it was unveiled last week at a briefing in London.
Reading a person's genome in just a day brings closer the possibility of cheap, personalised sequencing to reveal gene variants that might lead to disease. Individuals might be able to forestall any genetic predisposition to illness by changing their lifestyle. One of today's most advanced instruments working full-time would take around 27 years to complete the task, says Tony Smith of Solexa, a genome-sequencing company in Cambridge, UK. "This new method seems compelling." For now, though, ...
To continue reading this article, subscribe to receive access to all of newscientist.com, including 20 years of archive content.


text:
See all Albany hostels
Americas Best Value Inn Lodge on the Green Map
Hotel | 196 S Hamilton St, Painted Post, Albany, New York, USA 14870
- Air Conditioning
- Credit cards accepted
- Car Parking
- No curfew
- Lounge area
- Internet / Wi-Fi
- 24 hour reception
- Swimming Pool
- Wheelchair accessible
What's Included
- Breakfast
- Linen
- Towel
Group booking?
Group of 15 or more traveling to Albany?Contact us directly
Enter dates to check prices
GPS-enabled map and directions
Street View
From I-86 Heading E. or W. On I-86 take exit 44B, proceed onto S. Hamilton Rd. The motel is 1/4 of a mile on the right. From Rt. 15 (Traveling North) On Rt. 15 N. take Exit 3, go to the bottom of the exit to the traffic light and turn left at the light. Proceed on S. Hamilton Rd. The motel entrance is 1 mile on the left.
See all Albany hostels