AM (myname4rwt@jee.male) on 10/3/09 wrote:
---------------------------

> Actually, all you had to do is simply ask
> whether your understanding was correct --
> that, I think, is a civilized and the
> shortest way to resolve misunderstandings.

Apparently, it wasn't. I did try :) .

> H&P is available on books.google.com

How is that supposed to work, by the way? I can only see few pages and not any particular one.

> Just trying to tell you that clock
> rate is by far not the only way to
> bring down power consumption --
> both in practice and theory. (You
> seem to be somehow fixed in this
> understanding).

Well, I never meant to say anything like that. It seems you are inserting onlys, musts and bounds to my sentences although for me it is very important that they stay away.

> But if you allow extra space for more
> transistors, then why fix the power
> envelope ("not a nanowatt more")? You
> can't be serious about judging the
> value of any design feature on the
> grounds of zero cost, even if it's
> just power consumption in a chip.
> What people look at is what the
> feature brings (perf, power savings,
> ..) vs what it costs (die, power,
> design complexity ..).

Perhaps we have a different take on this because I've dealt for years with (first year) students. If one of them ask whether something in theory affects something else, you don't say that in practise it doesn't.

You might say that the issue is too muddy to answer at all, if it is. You may even say that it is a stupid question, since theory doesn't matter, but you don't start rambling just about practise like it was the question asked (actually, many do and Hilarity Ensues (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HilarityEnsues)).

It seems to me that you couldn't understand my point because you kept thinking about how far away from practise it is and how there would be better theoretical examples and how primitive the one I chose was. I, on the other hand, am pretty used to purely theoretical corner cases and treat them very differently from the ones that have just a bit of practise in them.

It wasn't hard at all for me to choose power, clockspeed and OoO to demonstrate the issue of cost and trade-off. Power consumption obviously has limits. The details like whether that is the first limit you will face and whether lowering clockspeed is the best, or even sensible, way to avoid that, are just that: details. Very important in practise, but I have no problem ignoring them, if someone asks me to.

> No. For a reference to a book it's quite
> normal to ask for pages containing the
> proof.

It wouldn't prove what you _think_ Jouni wanted to prove with it. Probably you would just use that as another example of how he doesn't know what he's talking about. I'm not particularly surprised he has decided to stay away (I'm pretty sure I'm never going to post a reply to anything you write outside this subthread. The risk of being misunderstood or misunderstanding seems quite high).

Unfortunately I don't myself own that H&P, so I can only make educated guesses about this particular 2 extra stages issue.

> So do you think analyzis and
> interpretation is something that
> works better?

You're doing it anyway. Pretending that you are the normal one interpreting everything normally by default is, well, ignorant (again, I have trouble picking a word, but you should get my meaning).

> No way to make an even worse mistake when
> trying to interpret what the other says?

Of course one can. On purpose (almost all political debates seem to have examples of this) or accidentally.

The problem is that language needs to be interpreted. Even if one makes zero typos, and writes in his native language, there are situations where it takes lots of effort to write unambiguously, instead of just counting on other side to get the correct meaning. Figure in typos and cultural differences, and you sure can't just "read without interpreting". Heck, I have to translate both ways.

> Unfortunately I don't remember what was
> that, but let me ask: if I misunderstood
> him, why didn't he simply correct me and
> clarify what he meant?

Judging from my experience, there's nothing simple in correcting and clarifying. Really, it wasn't important and you made it clear you don't think your using debating tactics. Clarification, or discussion in general, isn't zero cost.

> What do you find to be inappropriate(?)
> about this style?

As I stated, I don't think you are using inappropriate debating tactics. I don't feel comfortable speculating what exactly Jouni was talking about, but one example that has caught my eye is that you are constantly interpreting other people's words and points as you want (you may look at the other threads your participating as well). Of course, that's debating tactics only if you are purposefully misinterpreting, which, after this long discussion, I think you are not.

> Actually, when one starts out with
> claims about OoOE in general, I
> think it's perfectly OK to
> consider best-vs-best examples.
> E.g. there are many situations
> when it's hard or downright
> impossible to choose between two
> options by means of direct matching
> (e.g. what to use for particular
> task -- plane or chopper), and the
> only thing that works is best vs
> best from available designs.

It may the best approach, but muddier the issue is, more likely you never reach anything that could be agreed on to be the truth. Especially if part of the issue is figuring out exactly what was the point.

> One is likely to complain about such
> approach if he or she is unable to
> find a good match vs the opponent's
> best shot.

And one is likely to accept and defend such approach if the outcome is favorable.

> And you spent so much time in
> obscure arguments instead of
> simply asking for clarification?

Only after asking failed.

> Usually if you want to discuss
> something else (or change the
> context), you don't make direct
> connections to prior discussion
> as if the context remains the
> same.

You also don't usually spend half a page explaining how the context changes, if the change is small and obvious for you. Maybe you don't even think about it at all. It's not like this is some exact science where you can determine the exact magnitude of change and needed level of explanation.

> So, just to clarify: repeating oneself is
> bad style, but made-up "facts" and
> made-up "theory" are just fine?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't "made-up" imply that the one making the claim was intentionally making false claims? I never made such claims (can't talk for other people of course).

As I said about the style, there's a difference between what's considered good in English and Finnish. One of those cultural differencies, you know. Explains why I find repetitions highly annoying.

>> Well, I don't know him (outside this
>> board) and don't usually agree with
>> him, but do find his style, well,
>> homely. So maybe that was a factor.
>
> Ah, the *style*.

What I mean is how he composes his sentences, goes straight to the point and usually just says everything once. His English is often easy to translate to Finnish.

It wasn't meant to be interpreted as comparison to you, although I can see that it may look like that.

> OK, I think you can
> find quite many examples of arguing
> in this style on this board. Feel
> free to defend anyone else from my
> (or similar) "trolling" then. :)

I just wish to point out that I haven't called you a troll or your style trollish (even a borderline one). That was someone else.

-JLarja