About your other people comment, it's a two way street. Other people also get headaches from the obnoxiousness of these devices.
If someone is sitting next to me glancing at my smartphone screen, it's usually not a big deal. But if they might be recording my screen, that's more likely to be a big deal. Even though it can be a mix of perception and reality, I think privacy issues are the root cause of the discomfort with these devices.
This is the kind of headaches I thought were being talked about when I saw the title.
OpenCL is a quite a lot of abstraction and is meant to be used on lots different products. A rewrite of existing code into openCL would be a massive undertaking (probably better for the long run though).
This seems to be an intel only, lets make existing code run fast on the Phi and other cpus, with minimal changes to code or existing concepts.
I don't think the changes to the existing code are that much more minimal than using OpenCL, and the algorithmic changes that need to be made are identical. Based on the example, it looks like OpenCL is a more verbose about allocating memory for the input and output (due to supporting devices with separate address spaces), and OpenCL requires the entire input and problem size to be specified by the code enqueuing a kernel, where this shows one of the dimensions (in OpenCL parlance, the number of workgroups) being defined implicitly.
Other than the vector primitives and address space qualifiers, OpenCL's kernel language adds very little to C, but this adds constructs like foreach, launch, and sync for things that OpenCL uses library functions to provide.
One thing that seems very telling is that it mentions support for SSE2 and SSE4, but omits SSE3 and SSSE3. Those extension sets were mostly about horizontal operations (between different components of the same vector). The way ispc is designed, it doesn't seem like it would be anywhere near as good for things like reduce operations.
The coherent control statements seem like a really good idea given the architecture targeted, and I wonder why I haven't heard of any similar hints for OpenCL.
Because in manuals you have a physical link between you and the gearbox (usually), Almost all modern automatics simply have an informational link. If the computer freaks out and doesn't accept the message, no change.
"...but Apple is adding a gold (or "champagne") color option for those of you who want to project an even greater air of affluence and privilege when you're poking at your hand-sized computer."
What if the 'buzz' generated by all of these people inspires a few people to actually do substantive? Kinda like how spam only needs a few clicks per million to generate a profit.
This is just speculation but it helps me cope with the facebook activism.
I should clarify that I wasn't warning against signing the petition, merely adding a thought to the "well at the very worst it can't do any harm" logic. Make up your own mind on whether signing it is good, bad, or neither :)