and it will be 8.5 at 15.30. And then you can sit on that. I'll help. Help me. Please help. What did you bring? What's wrong with you? What's wrong with you? Okay, so... So, can you jump? Great. So, hello everyone. If I start talking quietly and you can't hear me, just yell. And I'll start speaking loudly again, so... I'm just going to try and give you a quick shout-out of kind of where we are, where we're going with open source graphics support on the ETI. Okay, so let's see. One of the things everybody kind of knows first. So, on the back, we put out the first specs for the display mode setting part for 5x and 6x parts. The first docs we put out were for the desktop chips. It turned out they were missing a lot of the interesting blocks. So, we replaced most of them with the mobile specs, which turned out to have all those blocks in them. Anybody who's looking at the documents, just read the mobile ones. Don't bother with the desktop ones. We left them up there. But the mobile ones are kind of all you need. Going forward, starting with, I guess, internally we call them the 620 to 635. And externally, they're the 34, 15, 33, 3670 or something. The display controller there changes a fair amount. My guess is the expert will talk about that a bit. That's really to support display port. The big thing there is display port puts another set of clocks and packets in between the ins and the outs. We had to restructure the way we abstract the blocks to let you do with all the different clock rates stacked on top of each other. So that all changes and Luke's cursing it and everybody's working through. So, we should get documentation out for that soon. We've got the interesting guys who've got it today. And it was just recently, and they're working way on that. There are more changes coming down the pipe. They shouldn't be as drastic as the changes from the previous 6XX parts to the 620 and 635. But there's, I think, two more generations of display controller coming down the pipe with more changes in that area. So we're trying to find a good way to provide direction without blabbing out here. Here's what all our unreleased parts do. So, we're working on that. We've got display port chips that support in the chips, but there's not much out there in the way of displays except for that big Dell monitor. And everybody's still figuring out how to do the display port certification. What's actually happening is we wrote some internal tools that we use for our own development. There's third party tools that are supposed to be out for certification of the display port interfaces, and they're not on the market yet. So, everyone's calling us up and, Hi, can we have your internal tools? So, we're cleaning those up and getting them up to us. Display port is there. What we're focusing on right now is just for the new chips getting the existing display functionality. You know, the analog, the DVI HDMI, that kind of stuff getting out working. And then we'll go back and do display port as a next step after that. So, to the acceleration, it really hasn't changed since the R200 days. The programming model, even the performance hasn't changed all that much. Memory buses are wider and stuff. Fundamentally, it hasn't changed. So, we're not planning to do any more documentation there. I am trying to get the old R200 programming guide re-released because it's a nice intro to how it all works. There's also some information in the 3D docs that we put out last night. It's got all the command pack and formats and all that junk. So, the kind of, the details of what you need, a lot of them are covered in the new docs we put out last night. But the old programming guide is a nice way to kind of pick up and learn how it operates and how you use it. So, I'm going to try and bring really sad. Starting with the R600 X parts, we actually took out the 2D engine. So, there's two, there's a circle being two ways to program the 2D engine. One is MMI out by clenching registers to make it do things. And one is through the command processor, where you put in command packets, the chip GMAs them up, the part and executes them. On the 6XX parts and under the 780, which is the new, the MDX10 integrated part we just got coming out. There's no 2D hardware, but as long as you use command processor programming for the 2D engine, the command processor will interpret those command packets on the 3D engine. So, if it works on 5XX, it pretty much works on 6XX. There's a couple packets we dropped, but as far as we can see, we don't use them in the open source drive. Having said that, I'm sure we'll be dodges. You know the trick, and this is one that the people are still going to use before. You need to set up a buffer full of commands, which basically put the 3D engine in a known state. And whenever the command processor starts processing 2D packets, it fires off this command buffer, resets the 3D engine, uses the commands, and it just puts the 3D engine back in a known state. Past the 780, 2D is gone. Okay? No hardware and no emulation. So, the emulation is a good quick and dirty way to get running today on the current parts. But going forward past that, 2D is gone. It doesn't really matter, because if you look at the 2D acceleration, things that actually do anything, they'll use the 3D engine anyways. More than half X, it needs a 3D engine. And basically, the stuff that anybody uses is 3D. So, nobody really cares about 2D anymore. We need it in there for some of the apps, but it's one of the things where we're thinking quick and dirty is the way to go. Okay, 3D Docs for 5XX came out last night. 6XX we're working on. My guess is a month, roughly. What T-Core is, so I have some free advice for any other hardware vendors thinking in the open source field. If somebody offers you an internal utility and says, here, it'll be easy to clean up and it'll be useful to developers, and it won't take any time to clean up. Run. We've been cleaning this thing up for like five months now. And honestly, if it wasn't for the amount of work we put into cleaning it up, I probably wouldn't bother releasing it. The real value of T-Core that we don't have covered any other way today is it covers memory manager setup that we need for DRM. It covers ring buffer setup to a quick man processor in the IDC-T engine. And it's got some other useful examples. Even in the early days, I think the radio and HD guys probably took two weeks to get past the point where all the stuff in T-Core was already running. So, anyways, we'll probably go over and release it. If the lack of T-Core holds things up by more than a date, we'll just strip out the stuff we need for 5xX DRM and push it out separately. I'm determined to release it just because we spent so long on it. We're considering sample coverage. Yeah, I talked before, I think at XDS. The plan we were looking at was not so much documentation and more sample code on the 3D side. We're still thinking about sample code, but right now the sample code is about 6x as big as the driver we're trying to show you how to modify. So, not sure there. We're not starting to deal with sample code. Initially, we thought it would be quite hard to get documentation out of the door. You know, the sort of programming guide type documentation. When we actually went through and tried to do it, it worked out better than we expected. I guess you've got to see it. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, exactly, exactly. Yeah. Okay, so, at the main point, in case anybody's asking why this documentation does not come out of the box. Our development model, we've been kind of divided into different groups that work on different components of the chip for a long time. And we decided a long time ago that the first thing we needed to focus on for engineering documentation was making sure the hardware design itself is well documented and the software design itself is well documented. And we just co-locate the hardware and software people who are working on any given block. They sit in the same office, their cubicles are interleaved, and we hope they talk to each other. And it generally seems to work. What it means though is, if you started, we've got hardware here and software here, you've got documentation here, you've got documentation here, but you don't have a lot of documentation required at the end of the fix. We did it with the groups. So as we get more geographically dispersed, I'm guessing you guys have already had to deal with this documentation between the hardware and software groups is going to be more important. So... Yeah. There's so many good arguments for both and I still don't know which is best. Yeah, I know. But one produces documentation and one doesn't. So there's an argument for that. So anyways, we've put our software processes, so the material that we need to make good open source driver documentation should be easier to come out. We're looking at making tweaks on the hardware processes as well, but they haven't happened yet, but they're in discussion.  We'll see how that works. Okay, driver status. Grade NHD supports mode setting on 5XX and up. 626, 635 and 780 are in process. They've all got the new display controller. So it's a bunch of work getting in. One of them is running, one of them is running, getting the other is running. It should be pretty straightforward. Most NMIO based 2D acceleration is in. And so the next thing is just getting CPDDR support in and then all the 3D stuff should just come out of it. So the initial support for the display controller, he said this, and it was, the existing interface is not a display port. Having said that, the way it's looking, we've got everything figured out enough to do the existing interface so the display port should be easy. So finding surprises of the existing products. An example here is just, the last week or two, we found like a million emails back and forth. There's another block that we... we believe nobody was using on the chip, another display of the block. And we found about half the 695 boards actually use this block. So there was a lot of head scratching all around. And then the block controls are all sort of interleaved so if you program this block, that block almost works. So anyways, we've been passing now, I think Alex figured it out last week. The existing radio driver went up to 4XX, picked up out of Biosupport. So that gives it 5XX, 6XX support and lets leverage some of these existing accelerations for them. So sort of today, 2D 3D work is really happening more on radio and radio and HD to catch up here. Alex's texture video running on 3XX so it looks like moving that to 5XX, 6XX should be pretty easy. It's basically just processing all the shaders. That's one thing I should mention. Talking to end users and VHR products and from all the emails that come out of Intelli, I think they've got the same challenge there. There was a shift from having a lot of video processing hardware in the overlay to doing more of it with shaders. And so in our case, basically everything up to 4XX has the old video processing hardware. The video overlay with the video processing in it, everything 5XX and up. XV is handled in shaders. And it's about 945, 965. Ah, okay. We have similar discussions. Yeah. Yeah, I think we're all pretty much, I think the whole industry pretty much walks out about the same time. So it, uh... Exactly. I mean, you can do so much more with 3XX. Okay, so that's pretty much it for that. So, um... I don't think everybody knows this, but fundamentally, all focus and all the attention is being here. I think for the next month or two, you can see more of the focus shifted here, which is really the 3D side and 2D commands going down. Again, if you're here as well. One of the things that gets difficult explaining to someone who's new to the Linux world is half of what they call 2D acceleration runs on the 3D engine. And the first time around, that's kind of hard, so many lives on it. I mean, I tried to help the video player and it all worked out and I gave up. The main point here is there are, there have been multiple X drivers over the last while, Riga and HD and Riga being the main ones. We don't want multiple here. Okay, so, one driver's good? It is. Most heavy hardware with someone new for the 5XX. So the different views on how best to handle that. My personal feeling is that having multiple drivers right now is a good thing. We all, I think everybody agrees we need to get to one code base, but right now I'm seeing useful things. I'm seeing different approaches work better different ways, information pulls back and forth. I'm thinking in the next few months that it's going to stop being useful, but, you know, I don't know if it's going to be useful. Probably that's what you're going to get in the app college. So the mode setting is only starting with 5XX. The rest of the hardware doesn't change as much. There are big changes, but they're not at the same point in the evolution. So we want to try to avoid forking the rest of the code. So basically the mode setting is multiple implementations today. Getting them video acceleration. There would be multiple copies of it, but we'd like to keep the code as close as possible. So it only kind of has to be supported once. If it gets fixed here, we can fix it somewhere else. Three in DRM. They're separate components from day one. Let's be with one implementation. So as we get more complexity going in, the driver's regression is going to start to be more of an issue. We're setting up building tests and working out with everybody, but we're putting new resources to do some building tests on this. One of the things that I think we found from our own internal development activities is it's a whole lot easier to fix a regression if somebody can say, this change broke it. If all you get is, this doesn't work anymore. Did it ever work? I don't know. That's a lot harder. We use AtomBios internally, and all the close-ars drivers leverage AtomBios. So when we ask questions internally or in design groups, the answer is I'll come back in terms of do this in AtomBios. So Alex works at Newstaff in AtomBios, and what that means is that sometimes things can pop up in Radeon faster than RadeonHD and we're talking about ways to avoid that. Don't reach too much under that. Okay, so here's the picture. This is where the display control changes. 3D input changes here and here. You know, different pieces change at different points along the pipe. So one of the differences is there are multiple components, so you can have multiple limitations here and single limitations there. Unfortunately, the chunking of functionality into components does not match the way that we evolve functionality in the chip, so there's always going to be stress there. And again, the challenge is always the X driver, because it's got so many different functions that it's clumped into one block of code. So I won't go through this in a whole lot of detail, but fundamentally, between CoreXX and VibaxX that's where this is a big change in the display controller. This is a smaller but annoying change. Like this change, 2,000 registers, this change is 300 registers, and then the change in another number or something here. So then the changes are back to being small. This is the most traumatic one. The big change on the 3D side though was between the VibaxX and the 6XX. Notice I've drawn the 690 back here because it's a transition part. It's a display controller from the VibaxX, and it's the acceleration hardware and 3D. I didn't even draw a block between the CoreXX and VibaxX. There are changes there, but they're relatively minor. So fundamentally, 3D Engine doesn't change all that much on the VibaxX. The 6XX is where it changes. It's all unified shader at that point on. The programming model does not have a question. Yeah, and I need time to release the 3D documentation for it to make things... Yeah, so two parts to the answer. We have an old programming guide for DDK. Oh, yeah. Sorry. The question was 3D documentation for the 2XX. So the answer there is... I'll do it in two parts. One is we had programming guides and DDK information which covered a good part of the 2XX functionality but did not cover the programmable vertex shader, for example. So the first thing I'm going to do is really return and find an editable copy of the document. It was a lot of years ago. For example, this machine has two pieces and it's not supported by the official source driver anymore. So I can't get 3D in this machine. Yeah. So we're going to provide more information. Alex is working for us. He's got no access into all the hardware databases. But once you get back before the 3XX, it becomes harder to find. So the second answer is for the documentation we already have which is everything except the programmable vertex shader part we're going to re-release that for sure. I'm just hoping that I don't have to take things over and put it in the scanner. I'm not sure whether to... My guess is actually that the documentation we're releasing for the 3XX will probably be enough to figure out the 2XX programmable vertex shaders. There was really a lot here. The 2XX actually had fixed function and kind of the first generation programmable vertex shaders. 3XX we took away the fixed function and beefed up the programmable part. So I'm not sure... But how we said that the open source driver was only used fixed function today. So probably the short answer is yes. It's going to depend a bit on how quickly we can find it as a copy of the document. So I'm not going to guess on time, but it should be relatively safe. Oh, I got the OCR. Sorry? Oh, I thought you had the OCR. Oh, yeah. Someone's got a OCR. And it always ends up being me. So for the worst case I can say if you want to, we've got an email address, gpu, driver, dev, support, whatever. If you just want to fire off an email with any questions on that, Alex has got access to all the information we've got. And then basically for the older parts, we're looking more at answering questions and fixing things, whereas for the newer parts going forward, really 3XX and off, is we're trying to say here's the documentation. Because there's one of the problems we had with the documentation that we have here. It's sort of a joke internally, but basically what it looks like is it took about 20 people to write the documentation of about 7 people read it. And then again, those don't seem like the right numbers. Sorry. Okay, yes? Yeah. So basically, okay, it's always a challenge understanding our marketing numbers. But furthermore, this is X1XX, and this is X2XX. And some trees. So basically, as long as you can get back, it can be good. Tell you what. If you can figure out what four it is, you know, the 2XX or 3XX or 4XX, the hardware is the same. Fundamentally, we enable more functionality.  We test and sample for different, you know, speed versus power kind of things. But fundamentally, the program is pretty much the same way. It's just a different problem. Pick a mailing list of choice and ask, what is this? And if nobody else answers, Alex will. Okay, so... Okay, so basically these three engine changes between 5XX and 6XX, and that's what it keeps evolving, but you don't get the big branch of changes for a while. Video, so... The backend part of video processing, or you mentioned, it's all done on the shades nowadays, anyways, basically the XB functionality. Motion comp also uses the shaders. There's dedicated hardware in there for ADCT that's been around for a while. It's been around like, just before the radion. So it changes here, in the sense that the way you program it, the way you synchronize it, is different to pick up new video formats and stuff, and it persists all the way to the end of the 6XX line. 780 is the first chip that does not have the legacy ADCT. It's looking like we should be able to open up the information on this. Motion comp is really a 3D engine with some specialized, you know, put it in this mode rather than that mode, because MPEG has some different, you know, everything from grounding, those kind of things. So fundamentally, render processing, motion comp, they're all 3D anyways, the ADCT and the, the no ones for HF264, DC1, they're handled in a UVD. We're not sure about opening up the UVD block yet. So we're going to try it, but right now we don't have a way to do that. Okay. 5XX 3D update title is Acceleration, and return to make it clear it's not a total programming guide, it's an acceleration one. It's about half how to use and about half register specs, and then how to use this car it is, you know, vertex formats and how all the routing and the sizzling and all that work. Private shader, implementation, the hardware is totally different. So from a performance standpoint, things that make you go fast, stuff like that, they're all new on the 5XX. And the primary thing is the sequencer, the amount of threading it can handle, that's all different. Programming model is almost exactly the same. So main change is the shader, the actual shader, off-codes for the private shader, they're loaded differently. One thing I found very confusing early on is we talked about universal shaders, which come in about the R300, where some texture processing and pixel processing is combined. Those are universal shaders, sometimes it's some type of correctivity unified shaders, something like that. So anyways, it's universal shaders for 5XX in the back, and it's unified shaders for 6XX and up, and they both abbreviate the same way, so beware. The way we map from GPU address spaces to post address spaces, so, you know, HGP Guard, PCI Guard, that kind of thing, that's different on the 5XX, that's the one thing with the T-Core structure panel, we need to push out separate links. There's a bunch of virtual machine context solution type stuff in some of the chips, basically using it essentially as, you know, maybe production vehicles from the future, depending on how the standards work out. We're not using a lot of it today, and we're not proposing to support you using it either. We don't do anything to make sure it works in a production chip, so I strongly recommend you not very use it. So the only part that we're really using today is the, essentially like the PCI Guard type functionality. So it's called Pro process page table in 5XX, it's got a different name, but does much the same thing in 6XX. And that's the one thing we haven't got programming information out to you yet. It's in the T-Core stuff, and we'll take out some of it real quick. Anybody got time to check? Three. Okay, so 6XX. We focused a lot on the 5XX documentation to get it out the door. So we haven't gone so far on the 6XX side. The main point there is that all the details are different, but fundamentally the programming model hasn't changed. It's still vertex buffers, indirect buffers, index buffers, all that stuff. The main point is that the blocks you twitch to have those polygons processed in a certain way are in different places. Most of the functions translate one to one, but you get this register instead of that register. Fundamental change, which is one of the vertex assembler processor, is, this included the vertex shader part is replaced with the vertex grouper and tessellator, which does pretty much the same thing, but instead of doing the vertex shading inside, it lines all the stuff up and feeds it up into the unified shader block. There's a bunch of new blocks to recirculate, because typically using a geometry shader as well, you've got three passes through the shader block even before you get into multi-pass rendering.  And hardware changes are pretty significant, partly for more color processing capability, partly to make it go faster, partly for DX10. So, one of the things that we're probably going to do is try and pick out, this is the stuff we need today, you know, for OpenGL and type driver worthy, and we might do that, we might basically release the documentation in two stages. And what it's really going to be is the second stage of what you need to write the DX10 driver. I don't know if that's high on anybody's list, anyone? No? And the memory management changes again. Okay, power management. Most requested things, power management. Part of the problem from what I can see is that our customers implement very nice, clever little power, little fan temperature monitoring things that we provide under Windows. So, under Linux, your fan either runs wide open or it doesn't run at all. Neither is optimal. So, the fan controllers, if we're one of the process products, there's a few standard chips, but there's like a million different ways to hook them up. And so, we're trying to dig that out. We put a fan controller in, I think starting at 630. We're trying to get people to use that fan controller rather than something grafted on the outside. Yeah, thank you. We should compare those. I don't think we're totally winning yet. So, the most common question I get is, can you tell me how company X, Y, Z designed this product? So, the answer there is basically no.


so guys come finish your comments because of course we have someone amazing in the show as always we have our boyfriend guest with us today and he's she's a lovely guest she's here with good music good vibes and she's looking very beautiful remember i keep saying she today we have a beautiful lady last week we had an amazing guest but today we have also an amazing female artist with us hi hi how are you doing i'm good you look amazing thank you so how have you been i'm good i'm fine i'm hustling you hustling never been yeah never been doing that thing so can you tell us let me let me let you first of all introduce yourself on your own to your fans okay yeah so hi how are you my name is jelish i am a very new artist i have one song literally one song but it's a dope song it's an amazing song there's so much more on the way uh yeah follow me because there's so much so much on the way yeah let's let's start this journey together i'm gonna ask this even though i think i know the answer because her single her first official single on youtube actually has an answer and unless i'm wrong unless she's one of those artists who don't think about what they're going through you think oh no i knew it but you guys she's so gorgeous you just have to ask for the sake of our views at home someone you can shoot your shot but don't shoot your shot she's taken we buy it so can you tell us about the first song you have out is that about the song you have out is that about your relationship not exactly it's just a beautiful love song it basically says i have found someone amazing and uh respect you yes oh my yeah that kind of a guy who is what you guys i don't think she's in kenya because if you at this point in life you can actually have such nice things to say about no there i think there's some there's great people out here there's some great people out there yeah most of some of them but most of them are like protein mangoes and then there's some so that is really beautiful i'm happy that you're able to still spread love in this era of toxicity it's the month of the month of love oh yeah actually that's amazing so how has it has been the feedback on your song so far it's positive but it's slow but positive it's slow because that's slow yeah you know most of us want and then it's like boom yeah it's out there you don't trust the process you're like yeah it's out well i trust it but it's hard keeping that faith every other day like but i really think just for our first song officially putting out there your first i think that's it's getting very good feedback i went to watch it on youtube like wow actually i like where the views are for now all right yeah it's getting very good feedback and that is so good thank you i guess that's you did education in uni yeah i did how was that oh well you know one of those things when you're done with college and everyone is like okay what's next and you want to do music but you don't know how to say that exactly because they'll look at you like what are you mad yeah yeah so it was good do good do education and i did lucky for me i happen to take so hilly which is the language i'm using in song so i think it worked out okay it really worked out okay for you yeah so violent school are you practicing what you're singing okay in college no i i kind of forgot about the whole music thing i did i did a bit of acting though a little better than i realized i don't really like it that is really sad yeah but in in high school yes i wrote a couple of songs in high school because of all songs oh yeah and then were you writing to them because of our space you are in amites because you really love god i do i really love god yes i feel like this this time did you judge yourself i feel like i've heard a lot of artists say when they couldn't this be gospel artists they judge themselves no because i i don't take doing gospel i'm a secular they're like i was going away from god yeah i don't think it makes me an atheist or a pig it's all it's love even thing the bible god says you should spread love actually yeah it's one of the same thing yes so for me no so has music so far how has been music been for you is it tough is it a journey you're loving it's tough but i'm loving it every day you learn every day you're like okay so next time do this every day every day you learn and the fact that i can see the progress as as i say i can see like i'm going somewhere but not yet there but i'm loving it yeah but i'm loving it as a woman do you have people holding your hand i mean just like in this alone no nobody does this alone i don't think no one does it's impossible yeah if you move by yourself you i don't know yeah you can't there there's so many people around me you know from back from back home to where i work to the studio alexa to the director what do you do they impressed you totally yeah like there was no don't do this there was no it was like okay it's your thing just oh my god go ahead family thank you yeah no one was like so when you had your first video they were like wow yeah i actually i remember i called my both my parents yeah they were like okay okay let's see where this goes okay even your dad yeah it was like okay okay then all right okay okay that is so good i'm so happy about that so are we expecting you to do this consistently this year yeah really i i like i know that i have started you like i hand if you can't i have to give you because i have to keep going yeah because we want to see you like in an like are you a star collaborate someday or um yeah hey man what so if we stop where i have how are we gonna get there who are your favorites who's higher yeah female artist maybe i i like i like kenyan because it's not just because of kenyan because i honestly like kenyan and i've been listening to aho for a very long time i really i love her voice i love i know it's very strong yeah i love nadia mukami i love that she's she's like i don't know she moves it's really good that you have actually local artists who inspire you because yeah even if you ask me even if i was singer i would start being like you know i like v hannah and then no i like them they're great no but the fact that you actually kind of appreciate your own just means that you're in there you're in the industry and you're embracing it so well yeah which is so lovely so um i would like to i'd like you to do like a little a canthella for us okay are you comfortable with that yeah okay sure anything you want to say first of all uh can i sing my own song yeah of course hard to be yours it has to be yours i'm going to sing nam panda which is the song that i'm here for uh so i'm going to sing the the first verse it says uh oh yeah that's the first verse oh no i love that that's amazing thank you so i'm gonna i'm gonna play i i'd really love to see you perform that live so when i let let my DJ get ready with a song for you um i want to do a little game just to get a little personal with you but people at home at least get to know jelesh one day when you see her out there she's getting like uh what are these are music awards called MVS yes and the Grammys and the Grammys at least you say you know one thing about her so i want you to tell us three things about you that are not very obvious when someone looks at you i am an introvert like i'm a serious introvert that you look like i could totally guess that yeah i love books we love books yeah not biology or that kind of stuff i love novels yes i do novels i i do books and i hike oh yeah okay girl give me the strength please give me this so you're a sporty person yeah i was no i okay i don't play games like i'm not into soccer or any of that thing but now and then i'll i'll get on the treadmill do something now and then i'll lift some weights now and then now and then yes okay so yeah i think you can count me in as sporty um i i'm a very patient person wow okay she has all the good qualities that's what she's trying to say she's just being modest about it so you have a lot of good qualities generally yes very patient very loyal oh introverted introverted is a good thing yeah it's a good thing really i don't think girls should be extroverts as a person sequel but i've been around a girl who's an extrovert too much uh yeah i i always find myself going i i wish i could do that i wish i could just you know i think it's draining really like really draining yeah for the person no i'm an extrovert it's draining yeah really yeah so into it's like you can just sit and chill and be okay that is so cool so sweet okay are you ready for us with gelatious amazing track i'ma let you you can stand up to the performance wise like social media platforms i've had such an amazing time with you wish time could allow us so we could stay here forever i had a good time too but you're welcome this is home next time you have a talk out make sure you pass by all right thank you so much for coming it was amazing okay okay see you soon i hope all right oh thank you guys are gonna go on a commercial break and we will be right back back to you so okay


Tezal Phoenix The in-class section of the Phoenix course is completed in a genuine language center that provides the perfect environment for teacher training, all within a stone's throw with a busy downtown area. The school's central location means it is also easy to reach from the city airport and within a short bus journey of most of the area's main attractions. The training center has several modern classrooms that are specifically designed for language teaching, as well as all the things you will need for planning and delivering lessons including a well-stopped resource library, photocopying equipment and Wi-Fi access. In the local neighborhood you will find a variety of shops and other amenities, while on site we have a small refreshment area with complimentary hot and cold drinks. In the course you will be guided by highly experienced trainers and to make sure everyone receives the same high levels of personal assistance, we limit the number of participants on each course. In class training at our Phoenix Center normally runs from 5.30pm to 10pm Wednesday to Friday and from 9am to 5pm on Saturday and Sunday.


... Jeremy Corbyn yn ei wneud yn erbyn i'r dynfodol meddwl y byddwch chi buddach chi'n bodan ynghyrchu i'w dynum... ... yn y brolin â hyd i gael eu rayon i'r dynfodol... ... mae nhw phoblu i'r dynnu'r dynnu'r wylio'r dynnu ei gwas cryf. O地 o dynnu ei wneud i'r dynnu'r dynnu'n dynu r Baeth yma gwyfodol 2 o Llyfrgell... ... mae gwrs hynny wedi gweld i'r dynnu... If you look at books on Hume, you will often find that no mention of this is made at all, or it is treated rather dismissively. I actually think that is probably fairly justified, but you will find plenty of Hume scholars who will argue the reverse, I will be referring to some of them. Now what Hume seems to be doing in this part of the treatise is applying his theory of ideas to draw conclusions mae'r nifiad i ddweithio arniwch gweithiaethol o ddiweddol yn dda, a dddiweddol yn dda fel yna.   Felly mae'r ffwllfawn hefyd yn gweithio yn y ddad! Ystod nid yn ei ddweithio'r ddweithio, dyf yn yw yng nghyd Heli Gwysig o'r ddweithio'r ddweithio gŷn o gweithio'r ddweithio'r ddweithio'r ddweithio o gweithio'r ddweithio'r boblid, oes unrhyw union y line. Mae gyda gweithio. Mae'r idea ymlaen i gael eich gwahanol eich gwahanol eich gwahanol eich gwahanol, mae'n mynd i gael eu ddaf yn rhaid. Felly sy'n gael bod ydych chi'n gwneud gweithio'n meddwl i'r hyn sydd i'n gweithio Cymru y mynd i'w gwirio ag oed yn ymweld ymweld i'w gweithio'r idea'r byw, rydych chi'n mynd i'r gweithio'r bod yn ymddangos, yn y gyd, yn y gweithio'r gweithio'r minim. Rwy'n credu rwy'n deall, ydych chi'n yr argyfweld. Rwy'n credu'r unig o'r amgylcheddig o'r ddaeth yma. A'r cyfnodd ag ychydig i gyd yn dweithio'r gweithio. y gallwch yn ei wneud, mae'n bwysig yn gyfreIt. Ac wrth gwrs, y gallwch yn ymd�. Maen nhw'n ei wneud eich argument, o'i olywch â'r ysgrifennu, oedd y Bohr. Le yna'ch gynnwch ar y dyfodol, ydych yn uwch, drwy'n ei wneud yma. Rydych yn ymwysig rydych chi'r llyfrfer, yr uwch yn ymwyf. Ond yw'r llyfr yw'r ymwysig yn ymwysig. fel dill nid i chi'n rhaid i chi ddweud â'r rhaid, yn ddgynnais, gyda'n ddim rhaid, gyda'r dda chi'n rhaid i chi ddweud. That is the minimum visible quantity. So what you will see, Hume thinks, is a coloured point, a coloured extension-less point, because it will be indivisible, it will just be a point. You won't be able to distinguish the left side from the right side of it, ond rydyn ni'n ddweud yma'r ddweud. A mae'n ddweud yma'r unrhyw yma'r ffordd. Ond yn ffrindio'r ffordd yma'r cyffredinol, mae'n ffordd ffordd o'r ddweud yma'r ddweud, o'r ffordd cyffredinol yn ddweud. Felly, yn y rhan o ffordd ar gyfer y ddweud yma, yma'r Rolf George yn ymdwy'r ddweud yma'r ddweud yma'r ddweud. Y prynsibol yma'r ddweud yma'r ddweud. ac mae'n edrych yn dweud y dyfodol yma o'i allu allu arall. Ond yma yma'n ddysgu'r ffilosofi hwn o'r ddau hwn o'r ddau, mae'r prinsibol yma eich ymddangos o'r llwythu ar y llyfr. Yn y ddau hwn o'r ddau hwn o'r ddau hwn, mae'n ddau hwn o'r ddau. Yn y peth yw'r ddweud yw'r ddau yn ysgrifennu i'r argymwynt. Yn y peth yw'r ddau, mae'n ddau hwn o'r ddau hwn o'r ddau. Ond y gallwn i'n dweud yn bwysig y cyfnod o'r ffordd o'r dynnu'n dda'r cifrif, os yw'r dynnu'n dda'r cyfnod o'r dynnu'n ddangos cyfnodol. Fy gwrtheg, y chyfnodd o'r cynnig o'r cyfnodol yn bwysig o'r cyfnodol. Fy gwrtheg, y cwmpwysig cyfnodol yn ddysgwm.  Ieithaf, i'n rhan gorau, rydym wedi bod nifer o ddodd o dduhyw gwaddishwyme a phas daddiad. Rydym wedi bod wedi'u bod yn fod o bobl yw'r adrwyphau sôn, i'r cyffredinio gyda'n eu ddweud i ddweudio'i ddweud eu ddweud o erbyn iawn o'r ddweud o ddweudio. ond ymlaes ei wneud am y cyfnodd ymlaen i chi'r ystyried ymlaen i'r yrhwy�fynwyr. Yn ystod o ddod, mae'r cyfnodd yn iddyn nhw'n mynd i'r cyfnodd yn ymlaen i'r ymlaen i'r cyfnodd yn ymlaen i'r cyfnodd. Mae'n amser o adrecon iawn diwyddiant, mae'n adrecon iawn i chi wedi'i ei wneud o'r cyfnodd o'r cyfnodd ar y cyfnodd a'i ei ddysguŷu mewn cyfnodd. felly mae'n gweld yn gwneud o'r prinsiell cyfnod. Mae'n cael ei wneud. Ond yna'r eich cyfnod ymlaen, mae'n gweld yn gwneud o'r cyfnod. Rolf George yw'r ysgolwyd yn ymdweud y gallu'r ysgolwyd yn ymdweud. Yn 1738, James Dwyryn yn ysgolwyd yn ysgolwyd o'r ysgolwyd yn ymdweud. George's hypothesis is that this, as it were, awoke David Hume from his dogmatic slumbers. How could it do that? Here we have a line and here we have a dot. You will notice that the dot is greater diameter than the line is across. Now imagine retreating further and further away from that until the dot cannot be seen. Nevertheless you will still be able to see the line. Now that's an empirical claim. What James Durian was doing was making empirical investigations into human acuity. You can see that's a little bit of a problem for Hume. If you think that there are minima in our visual field of a certain fixed size, that as you go smaller and smaller you hit a limit like a computer pixel, just like the pixel on a computer screen. You cannot represent any image which is smaller than that. Well at the point when that dot has disappeared there should be no pixels at all left representing the line. So the line should disappear too but it doesn't. So as I say that's an interesting speculation. We don't know whether it's true but the dates are very suggestive. We have this investigation being published in 1738. The treatise was published in 1739. Highly plausible that Hume between then and 1748 came across this and George gives relevant evidence. OK, but let's now proceed and see what Hume does with his theory. Well, having established that there are these minima, Hume considers those. Now if we hit a minimum, if we actually think of a minimum possible point, it's extension-less. You cannot distinguish the left from the right. It's as small as anything could be. It follows that nothing can be more minute than some ideas which we form in the fancy. The fancy remember is another name for the imagination. And images which appear to the senses. Since these are ideas and images perfectly simple and indivisible. The only defect of our senses is that they give us disproportioned images of things and represent as minute and uncompounded what is really great and composed of a vast number of parts. Take that dot that we've drawn on a board. And maybe it's quite big. But we go further and further and further away until we can only just see it. And at that point it looks to us completely simple and uncompounded. We just see the dot. Now we might therefore have the erroneously draw the conclusion that the thing itself that we're seeing is totally simple. But what we can do at that point is pull out our binoculars or our telescope and take a look and we see, ah, it's bigger. So it's clear that there are a lot of light rays coming and if we use instruments we can see the thing in more detail. It ceases to be so simple. But what Hume wants to say is that that simple idea that we get correctly represents the smallest part of anything. Nothing can be smaller than that. So we get a famous image of a flea from Hooke's micrographia 1665 and Hume is clearly alluding to this. This however is certain that we can form ideas which will be no greater than the smallest atom of the animal spirits of an insect a thousand times less than a mite. Animal spirits think of what goes through the nerves. And we ought rather to conclude that the difficulty lies in enlarging our conception so much as to form a just notion of a mite or even of an insect a thousand times less than a mite. For in order to form a just notion of these animals we must have a distinct idea representing every part of them. So what's going on here, you might think that when we look at something from a distance, we're making an error in seeing the thing as simple. Our idea as it were is misrepresenting it. And Hume's saying we're thinking that way round is the wrong way. Actually we can form ideas which are adequate to the tiny parts of things because our ideas are pure and simple. They're just uncompounded. So they form an adequate idea of the very smallest parts of anything. What's actually difficult is forming an idea adequate to a whole mite. That's vastly complex. Or even a creature a thousand part of a mite. OK. So Hume has drawn here an important conclusion. And it's one that he's going to use now to conclude about space and time in themselves rather than just about our ideas. So we get that right at the beginning of Treaties 122. Wherever ideas are adequate representations of objects, the relations, contradictions and agreements of the ideas are all applicable to the objects. OK. That seems reasonable. If our ideas are faithful representations of the way objects are, then inevitably any conclusions that we draw from the ideas will be applicable to the objects. And I realise you're all wondering where the handout for this is. It'll come next week with stuff for next time because it didn't make up a complete handout. OK. So fair enough. If we've got adequate ideas, the ideas, as I say, faithfully represent what they are ideas of, then in reasoning about the ideas and drawing conclusions about those, those conclusions will inevitably follow to the things that the ideas represent. But here comes the crucial claim, the one he's been arguing for, but our ideas are adequate representations of the most minute parts of extension. And through whatever divisions and subdivisions we may suppose these parts to be arrived at, they can never become inferior to some ideas which we form. So the ideas are so simple, so uncompounded that no part of extension can possibly be less than those. The plain consequence is that whatever appears impossible and contradictory upon the comparison of these ideas must be really impossible and contradictory without any further excuse or evasion. Now notice that Hume here is not using what might seem to be his conceivability principle. He's arguing from inconceivability to impossibility. That's different from arguing from conceivability to possibility. We saw the conceivability principle last time. We'll be seeing lots more of the conceivability principle. Hume thinks quite generally that to conceive of something distinctly implies its possibility. You cannot distinctly conceive of something that's impossible. Okay, so conceivability implies possibility. But here he's saying that inconceivability implies impossibility. But he only wants to say that that applies where ideas are adequate. Now that's quite important. Remember Hume's an empiricist? He thinks our ideas are derived from impressions. He thinks for example that a blind man has no visual ideas. So he surely doesn't want to say that inconceivability quite generally implies impossibility. There may be all sorts of things of which we cannot conceive because we don't have the ideas. And he said that our minds are finite. There may be all sorts of things that we can't conceive of because we're just not capable of it. We don't want to conclude in general that that implies impossibility. But when our ideas are adequate, that's a different matter. So he's already said that our ideas are adequate representations of the most minute parts of extension. We've seen that our ideas are not infinitely divisible and it follows that the same is true of space. I first take the least idea I can form of a part of extension and being certain that there is nothing more minute than this idea I conclude that whatever I discover by its means must be a real quality of extension. I then repeat this idea once, twice, thrice. Imagine that tiny little atomic idea and now put another one next to it and another one next to that. And if it helps, think of them as differently coloured. You start off with a blue dot. Remember it's extension-less, you can't distinguish its parts but now you put a red dot next to it and maybe a yellow dot next to that. And what you do now is build up extension. The idea of extension comes to you as soon as you've got more than one of these. So each of our minimal ideas is indivisible and therefore not extended but as soon as you put two together you've got the minutest part of extension. Add another one, you've got a bit more extension. Add another one, you've got more. Carry on to infinity, where do you get? Well you're going to have an infinitely large extension. No way round it. Although each indivisible atom as it were is unextended, as soon as you put lots of them together you get a finite extension. If you put an infinite number together you'll get an infinite extension. So Hume goes as far as saying that the idea of an infinite number of parts is the same idea with that of an infinite extension. So he's proved to his satisfaction at any rate that space is not infinitely divisible because we've got these little ideas that are adequate to the minutest parts of space and if space were infinitely divisible then you'd have to be able to have an infinite number of these tiny parts within a finite amount of space but you can't because as soon as you get an infinite number of these little atoms you get an infinite extension. Now if you're familiar at all with mathematics an objection is likely to come to your mind. Imagine something that's finitely extended imagine dividing that extension in two and taking half of it then divide that in two and take half divide that in two and take half and go on and on and on and on and on you start with a half then a quarter then an eight then a sixteen on and on and on without stopping apparently. So what's wrong with that? Why can't you divide things infinitely? Well if you actually address this objection in a footnote he distinguishes between proportional and aliquot parts so proportional parts where you're dividing up again and again and again like this aliquot parts all of equal size and he just seems rather dogmatically to say well that doesn't deal with my argument because nothing, I've proved nothing can be inferior to those minute parts we conceive when I think of this idea of a simple nothing can be smaller than that so divide up as much as you like you cannot get smaller than that and if you can't get smaller than that then an infinite number of those is going to give you an infinite extension so there you are my argument stands. Later in the section Hume again comes back and deals with a potential mathematical argument so there are various mathematical arguments that seem to tell in favour of infinite divisibility that seem to try to prove it and Hume says these can't be right now he is appealing to the conceivability principle he's saying I have this notion of space made up of all these little atoms that's a conceivable picture of the way space could be since it's conceivable it's possible so any attempted proof that it's impossible must be fallacious so he's attacking the mathematical objection to his own view and he's attacking himself the argument of mathematicians that is claimed as a positive proof of infinite divisibility now these arguments don't seem to be ideal particularly his argument against infinite divisibility against proportional parts because when he says my idea is as simple as can be this atomic idea of a visual atom must correctly represent the smallest parts of space because nothing could possibly be smaller therefore when you finally get down to the ultimate bits of space they're going to be simple my idea is simple therefore the two must match that must be an adequate idea the obvious response is to say well I'm sorry Hume if space is infinitely divisible you never do get down to an ultimately simple part so when in claiming that the ultimate parts of space must match with this idea you're begging the question you're taking for granted that you do actually get to ultimate symbols and that's just assuming that space isn't infinitely divisible so there's a bit of a puzzle here Hume is generally a pretty acute philosopher as I've said book 1 part 2 is probably well almost certainly the weakest part of treatise book 1 the arguments aren't that great and maybe Hume just imagined himself to be better at mathematics than he really was later in life he did actually produce a treatise on geometry and he was persuaded by Lord Stanhope and noted mathematician not to publish it sadly it disappeared without trace it would be great if it turned up at some point but at any rate when he wrote the treatise he seems pretty confident doesn't he it is evident this is absolutely clear etc so is something going on that brought it about that he didn't see the problems that we see in his arguments well here we're reduced really to speculation Tom Holden a book published in 2004 he suggests that Hume is presupposing an actual parts metaphysic whereby anything that is divisible must in advance consist of the actual parts into which it is divided so contrast two different possible accounts of divisibility you've got the Aristotelian idea of potential infinities so suppose I take an extension divide it up divide that again again and again and again however much I divide it I can go on dividing further so in that sense there's a potential infinity it's like saying give me any number I can always add one you can always go further so there's a potential infinity but that's different from saying that there's an actual infinity you can say that the line is potentially divisible without claiming that it is already divided into parts that those separate parts already exist as it were prior to the division but Tom argues that at the time the actual parts metaphysic was very strongly in the air the thought that if something's divisible the parts already have to be there they have to exist prior to the division now that suggestion is somewhat supported by an argument that Hume uses in treatise 1-2-2-3 he borrows it from Nicholas de Malizio it is evident that existence in itself belongs only to unity and is never applicable to number but on account of the unities of which the number is composed it is therefore utterly absurd to suppose any number to exist and yet deny the existence of unities and as extension is always a number and so on the thought is if a group of people exist they exist only in virtue of the existence of each one of them take any number of things the ultimate existence are always the unities of which the group is composed now apply that to an extension the thought would be that unless there are ultimate parts of extension nothing exists so if you always can divide further you never hit the ground then ultimately metaphysically there's nothing another possible account of what's going on is due to Don Baxter he's written an article in the Cambridge companion to Hume quite recent and he suggests that Hume is pursuing a somewhat Kantian agenda so what Emmanuel Kant wanted to do was to say that our knowledge of space and time our knowledge of space and time in the phenomenal world in the world that we experience not in the world as it is in itself and so Baxter's suggestion is that Hume's aim is to find out about object as they appear to us by examination of the ideas that we use to represent them so it's less ambitious the thought is Hume's concern is with space and time within as it were the experienced manifold and within that realm the limits of space and time the limits of our ideas I'm not persuaded but it's an interesting suggestion Finally, notice that Hume draws the same conclusions about time that he draws about space all this reasoning he says takes place with regard to time and he adds an extra argument it's the essence of temporal moments to be successive time is of its nature successive in a way that space isn't so if time were infinitely divisible you'd get co-existent moments and that's not possible so time can't be infinitely divisible and then as soon as you think of motion something moving in time through space you can see that if infinite divisibility of time is impossible infinite divisibility of space must be as well okay we'll continue next time a little bit more on space and time and then we will be getting on to book 1 part 3 which is the most important part of the entire treatise see you then