kdq@demott.COM (Kevin D. Quitt) (06/26/90)
In article <zlp4o3@unify.uucp> dgh@unify.uucp (David Harrington) writes: >In article <16948@haddock.ima.isc.com> karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer) writes: >>In article <305@spam.ua.oz> wvenable@spam.ua.oz (Bill Venables) writes: >>>I always thought that `MIPS' was an acronym for `Mega-Instructions Per > ^^^^ >Wrong. It's MILLION, not MEGA > Actually, it's got to be MIPS, because it stands for Meaningless Information Provided by Salesmen (no plurals at all) -- _ Kevin D. Quitt demott!kdq kdq@demott.com DeMott Electronics Co. 14707 Keswick St. Van Nuys, CA 91405-1266 VOICE (818) 988-4975 FAX (818) 997-1190 MODEM (818) 997-4496 PEP last 96.37% of all statistics are made up.
msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) (06/27/90)
Words change. "Laser" is an acronym (light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation), but the verb "lase" has been created from it by back-formation. "MIP" is closely analogous; I think the whimsy alone is a sufficient reason to keep it around. (I wouldn't say "1 MIP" in serious writing, but then, I wouldn't say "2 MIPS" there either.) The notion seemingly advanced by some posters that any rate or ratio *must* be expressed as something per something else (so that the plural marker appears in the numerator and never at the end) is quite wrong; there are several counterexamples in ordinary use: baud, knot, gee, ... If I choose to whimsically define a unit called the MIP (plural, MIPS) defined as 1 million instructions per second, where's the harm? -- Mark Brader "It's okay to have our own language if we feel utzoo!sq!msb we need it, but why does it have to be used msb@sq.com as a nose to look down?" -- Becky Slocombe This article is in the public domain.
wvenable@spam.ua.oz (Bill Venables) (06/27/90)
In article <1990Jun27.014943.27951@sq.sq.com> msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) writes: >Words change. "Laser" is an acronym (light amplification by >stimulated emission of radiation), but the verb "lase" has been >created from it by back-formation. [..] I don't think I wish to know that! >[..] >If I choose [whimsically] to define a unit called the MIP (plural, MIPS) >defined as 1 million instructions per second, where's the harm? > No harm at all. Noone suggested there was. But if you want to push "MIPS" past an acronym into a class 1 noun, like "laser" say, why not drop the case a notch? Anyway enough of this. Let me ask a more serious question. Since the original machine used to define the 1 mips standard was a CISC machine, (the VAX 11/780 I believe), does the unit really have much meaning for the now more common RISC machines? What is 1 million instructions, anyway? How should one realistically compare computing power on radically different architectures? -- Bill Venables, Dept. Statistics, | Email: wvenable@spam.ua.oz.au Univ. of Adelaide, South Australia. | Phone: +61 8 228 5412
harkcom@potato.pa.Yokogawa.CO.JP (Alton Harkcom) (06/28/90)
In article <R794SC9@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: =}> USA is a singular acronym because it is a collective term. "The USA =}> is..." would be the same as saying "The United States of America is..." =} =}But the correct phrase is "The United States of America are...", at least =}according to one set of literalist grammarians. The correct phrase is "The United States of America is.." when refering to the country as a whole and "The United States of America are..." never. If you want to refer to the states as individual entities you can not use the capitalized "The United States of America" you could use "the united states of America" but then you would be insulting Canada, Central America and South America... =}Really. What if you're talking about a rap group called "fucking idiots"? Then you could refer to them as a collective... "The FI is my favorite group!" People who refer to them as "The FI are..." are using incorrect grammar. -- --harkcom@potato.pa.yokogawa.co.jp
croes@imec.be (Kris Croes) (06/28/90)
In article <1990Jun27.014943.27951@sq.sq.com> msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) writes: >Words change. ... >(I wouldn't say "1 MIP" in >serious writing, but then, I wouldn't say "2 MIPS" there either.) > I think you all are deviating from the Subject:. The question is not that MIPS is an acronym. Questions like the singular of USA are not appropriate. MIPS is a metrical UNIT: e.g. MIPS = Mega-Instruction/Second. I think that I once learned (and it's in the ISO standard too) that UNITS do not take a plural form. Just like you say: This pole is 5 m (five meter) long. Does this suffice, or do we continue on discussing what's the singular of USA? Kris -- -------- K. CROES - IMEC - Leuven - Belgium croes@imec.be The Demon King bites in your leg and you feel weaker.
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (06/28/90)
In article <HARKCOM.90Jun27122122@potato.pa.Yokogawa.CO.JP>, harkcom@potato.pa.Yokogawa.CO.JP (Alton Harkcom) writes: > If you want to refer to the states as individual entities you can not > use the capitalized "The United States of America" you could use "the united > states of America" but then you would be insulting Canada, Central America and > South America... But you would still have to spell it "USA" in an acronym. But, for the second time, that's beside the point. The point is that you can't treat acronyms as nouns. you have to expand them and use them in context, and the singular of MIPS is still "one IPS". -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.ferranti.com>
jeffd@ficc.ferranti.com (Jeff Daiell) (06/28/90)
In article <BSA4N=C@xds13.ferranti.com>, peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > In article <HARKCOM.90Jun27122122@potato.pa.Yokogawa.CO.JP>, > harkcom@potato.pa.Yokogawa.CO.JP (Alton Harkcom) writes: > > If you want to refer to the states as individual entities you can not > > use the capitalized "The United States of America" you could use "the united > > states of America" but then you would be insulting Canada, Central America and > > South America... The Declaration of Independence uses "united States of America". However, as they were the *only* States in the Americas at the time, perhaps you should say, "the several States", as the Federal Constitution does. Or "the States of the Union". > But you would still have to spell it "USA" in an acronym. Only if you were referring to all the States in concert. To refer to them as individual entities, you would have to preface "USA" with "these" or another plural. Jeff -- Fiat Justitia, Ruat Caelum
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (06/28/90)
In article <ZSA4--B@xds8.ferranti.com> jeffd@ficc.ferranti.com (Jeff Daiell) writes: > The Declaration of Independence uses "united States of America". > However, as they were the *only* States in the Americas at the time, > perhaps you should say, "the several States", as the Federal > Constitution does. Or "the States of the Union". Things were much simpler back home in the Commonwealth of Australia. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.ferranti.com>
jeffd@ficc.ferranti.com (Jeff Daiell) (06/28/90)
In article <CUA4W.E@xds13.ferranti.com>, peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > In article <ZSA4--B@xds8.ferranti.com> jeffd@ficc.ferranti.com (Jeff Daiell) writes: > > The Declaration of Independence uses "united States of America". > > However, as they were the *only* States in the Americas at the time, > > perhaps you should say, "the several States", as the Federal > > Constitution does. Or "the States of the Union". > > Things were much simpler back home in the Commonwealth of Australia. > -- How so? Australia is a federal system; surely you didn't say, "Our Commonwealth's constituent States is very diverse" or "The States of the Commonwealth was arguing last year". I hope not, anyway; that sounds like a linguistic burden I'm not sure I Canberrap to. Jeff -- Fiat Justitia, Ruat Caelum
zvs@bby.oz.au (Zev Sero) (07/02/90)
In article <UUA4R2D@xds8.ferranti.com> jeffd@ficc.ferranti.com (Jeff Daiell) writes:
How so? Australia is a federal system; surely you didn't say,
"Our Commonwealth's constituent States is very diverse" or "The
States of the Commonwealth was arguing last year".
The Commonwealth always `is', the States `are'; there is never any
confusion. Unlike the United States of America, which sometimes `is'
and sometimes `are'.
--
Zev Sero - zvs@bby.oz.au
...but we've proved it again and again
that if once you have paid him the danegeld,
you never get rid of the Dane. - Rudyard Kiplingjeffd@ficc.ferranti.com (Jeff Daiell) (07/03/90)
In article <1990Jul2.022434.1442@melba.bby.oz.au>, zvs@bby.oz.au (Zev Sero) writes: > In article <UUA4R2D@xds8.ferranti.com> jeffd@ficc.ferranti.com (Jeff Daiell) writes: > > How so? Australia is a federal system; surely you didn't say, > "Our Commonwealth's constituent States is very diverse" or "The > States of the Commonwealth was arguing last year". > > The Commonwealth always `is', the States `are'; there is never any > confusion. Unlike the United States of America, which sometimes `is' > and sometimes `are'. > -- No. One should always use 'are' for the United States or United States of America. If one insists on using a singular, the noun should be The Union. Jeff -- Fiat Justitia, Ruat Caelum
de5@STC06.CTD.ORNL.GOV (SILL D E) (07/04/90)
This is a repost through UCB's mail-news gateway. Can anyone confirm or deny receipt of message-id: <1990Jun27.154217.22556@cs.utk.edu>? I'm trying to verify that my postings are leaving UT. In article <312@spam.ua.oz> wvenable@spam.ua.oz (Bill Venables) writes: > >Anyway enough of this. Let me ask a more serious question. Since the >original machine used to define the 1 mips standard was a CISC >machine, (the VAX 11/780 I believe), does the unit really have much >meaning for the now more common RISC machines? What is 1 million >instructions, anyway? How should one realistically compare computing >power on radically different architectures? Ooh, good questions. First, the reference MIPS standard is indeed the 11/780. Someone, probably DEC, claimed 1 MIPS for the 780. Whether or not it actually runs at 1 MIPS I have no idea. What's interesting is the way MIPS ratings, particularly for the new RISC machines is being calculated. It's based on dhrystones. When Sun claims 12.5 MIPS for the SPARCstation 1 (or SLC), that's derived using the formula 1858 dhrystones/sec = 1 MIPS, i.e, 23050 (measured SS1 dhrystones/sec) divided by 1858 d/s = 12.5 MIPS. So basically when vendors claim X MIPS, think in terms of dhrystone performance-- which is not generally a valid measure of overall system performance. The "DECstation 2100 and 3100 Workstations Technical Overview" even says that the published MIPS figures for these machines are dhrystone based. The only valid measure of performance is to run your actual applications under "field" conditions on a system configured exactly as it would/will be after purchase. Everything else is just a prediction. Stamp out MIPS! Don't use the term at all, especially in list of requirements for a procurement spec. If you want dhrystones, say *dhrystones*. -- Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov) These are my opinions. Martin Marietta Energy Systems Workstation Support
ath@prosys.se (Anders Thulin) (07/04/90)
In article <9007031705.AA04537@stc06.CTD.ORNL.GOV> de5@ornl.gov (Dave Sill) writes: >In article <312@spam.ua.oz> wvenable@spam.ua.oz (Bill Venables) writes: >> >> [ ... Question about MIPS ... ] > >Ooh, good questions. First, the reference MIPS standard is indeed the >11/780. Someone, probably DEC, claimed 1 MIPS for the 780. Whether >or not it actually runs at 1 MIPS I have no idea. I always thought it was the other way around: DEC described the performance of their machines in terms of 11/780 performance, which was known to be a 1 MIPS machine (I think DEC claimed this). This confused MIPS with VUP (VAX Units of Performance). One way of getting a true measure of a processors MIPS is to hook into the harware and count the number of clock cycles 'consumed' during x seconds. Knowing the clock cycle timing and the average number of clock cycles per (dynamic) instruction it is easy to get the MIPS rating. In two papers on VAX hardware, published by DEC engineers, it was2 possible to find these values for VAX 11/780 and another machine - I forget which. A little calculation showed that the VAX 11/780 is/was a 0.47 MIPS machine. -- Anders Thulin ath@prosys.se {uunet,mcsun}!sunic!prosys!ath Telesoft Europe AB, Teknikringen 2B, S-583 30 Linkoping, Sweden
harkcom@potato.pa.Yokogawa.CO.JP (Alton Harkcom) (07/06/90)
In article <-PE4L9E@xds8.ferranti.com> jeffd@ficc.ferranti.com (Jeff Daiell) writes: =} No. One should always use 'are' for the United States or United States =} of America. If one insists on using a singular, the noun should be =} The Union. Is the United States of America where you live? Is the United States of America where you are currently living? Are the above two sentences grammatically correct? Are you going to realize that you are wrong. Is this discussion a waste of bandwidth??? -- --harkcom@potato.pa.yokogawa.co.jp
jeffd@ficc.ferranti.com (Jeff Daiell) (07/06/90)
In article <HARKCOM.90Jul5124021@potato.pa.Yokogawa.CO.JP>, harkcom@potato.pa.Yokogawa.CO.JP (Alton Harkcom) writes: > In article <-PE4L9E@xds8.ferranti.com> > jeffd@ficc.ferranti.com (Jeff Daiell) writes: > > =} No. One should always use 'are' for the United States or United States > =} of America. If one insists on using a singular, the noun should be > =} The Union. > > Is the United States of America where you live? Is the United States of > America where you are currently living? Are the above two sentences > grammatically correct? I live in Texas, one of the United States of America, so I live in The Union as well. At least until re-secession. {|8^)] Jeff -- "Buy land. They've stopped making it." -- Mark Twain