Slashdot Mirror


Mobile Phones vs. Supercomputers of the Past

An anonymous reader writes "The recently published Top 500 list of the world's fastest supercomputers is based on the Linpack benchmark developed decades ago by Jack Dongarra. This same test has been ported to Android mobile phones, which means that we can compare the performance of our phones against that of the supercomputers of the past. For example, a tweaked Motorola Droid can hit 52 Mflop/s, which is more than 15 times faster than the CPUs used in the 1979 Cray-1." But even today's most powerful cellphones don't come with an integrated bench.

247 comments

  1. Tweaked Motorola Droid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was submerged in liquid nitrogen which really did a number on the researchers ears.

  2. Things like this... by Pojut · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...make me kinda sad. On the one hand, I LOVE when I was born (1984). I'm old enough to remember a time without the Internet, without a PC in every home, and when cell phones were the size of briefcases...yet I'm still young enough to take advantage of technological innovations, keep up with advances, and appreciate the impact it has on our lives.

    On the other hand, I wonder how much amazing stuff I would see had I been born even just 20 years later. In my lifetime I have already watched (for example) the NES as a state of the art system turn into the average gaming PC having a video card capable of over 1 teraflop worth of processing power. How much extra innovation and advancement would I see if I had STARTED with those 1+ teraflop cards?

    "Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow." -Kay

    1. Re:Things like this... by sznupi · · Score: 1

      On the bright (sort of...) side - later time of your birth probably wouldn't prevent you from being dismissive of new things, from certain point, anyway.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    2. Re:Things like this... by __aapspi39 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      At the risk of appearing pedantic it's worth pointing out that not as many people thought that the world was flat as is commonly believed -
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

    3. Re:Things like this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cellular phones were never the size of a briefcase. Bag phones were the size of a small purse. Perhaps you are thinking of satphones?

      But yep, it is definitely a good thing to have had a few years growing up without the Internet. To see how better things were when they were simple and when fewer distractions existed. I was born the next year, and despite being a computer engineer, I really miss some of those simplicities notwithstanding childhood.

    4. Re:Things like this... by cfc-12 · · Score: 1

      1984... you insensitive clod!

    5. Re:Things like this... by Explodicle · · Score: 1

      If the transhumanists are right, you may have been born just in time for the really cool stuff.

    6. Re:Things like this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoever this "Kay" character is, he's an idiot. NOBODY thought the Earth was flat 500 years ago! The Ancient GREEKS knew it was round; they REASONED it from simple observations!

      "and appreciate the impact it has on our lives."

      Please. The toys kids play with impact NOTHING in your life. Compared to one hundred years ago, our lives are much better because of mainly cheap energy ( OIL ), electrification, and lots of simple machines like toasters, fridges, stoves, vacuum cleaners, etc. Once you live in the 1960s, everything else is minor changes. A portable phone with pictures is nothing compared to suddenly living in car-powered cities vs. agricultural existence.

      "I wonder how much amazing stuff I would see had I been born even just 20 years later."

      Don't wonder, work on anti-aging and life extension. Who cares about iPads and other toys?

    7. Re:Things like this... by corbettw · · Score: 4, Funny

      I was born in 1971. Which means if I were a computer I would be obsolete and replaced by a faster, younger model with prettier looks.

      Come to think of it, maybe I am a computer....

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    8. Re:Things like this... by maxume · · Score: 1

      There is a fair chance that the getting sad over when you were born is an innate characteristic of you, rather than an actual result of when you were born.

      So if you were 16 or whatever, you would be sad that you missed the era of drinking and driving, or something like that (I guess you still missed it, I am a little older than you an also missed it, but the point is that you would probably find something to lament).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    9. Re:Things like this... by iamhassi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "On the other hand, I wonder how much amazing stuff I would see had I been born even just 20 years later (than 1984)"

      If you were born in 2004 you would have missed out on everything. All you'd know is multi-core processors, terabytes and petabytes, touchscreen everything, wireless internet everywhere, 24/7 access to everyone you don't really know and directions to anywhere from anywhere available in your pocket. You'd have no appreciation for any of it and probably know nothing about computers because modern operating systems are far better than offerings in the 90s.

      Trust me when I say you were born at the right time.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    10. Re:Things like this... by cmiller173 · · Score: 1

      Cellular phones were never the size of a briefcase.

      Granted not technically "Cellular" technology but briefcase phones did exist using VHF and UHF frequencies. http://www.privateline.com/IMTS/briefcasephotos.htm http://www.privateline.com/IMTS/briefcase2.htm

    11. Re:Things like this... by grumbel · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, I wonder how much amazing stuff I would see had I been born even just 20 years later.

      Answer: Not much, as you would take it all for granted and be unable to appreciate it.

    12. Re:Things like this... by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Trust me when I say you were born at the right time.

      Hey it's Paul Simon!

    13. Re:Things like this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The difference is information and communication. With high powered devices in our pockets that can access the Internet and make international calls, we can learn or reference nearly anything on the spot. One of my co-workers does not own a cell-phone. If someone needs to contact him, it can be days before they get a response. While at lunch with this fellow, we came across a bit of trivia that neither of us knew off hand. With a compatible phone, we could instantly look that information up, rather than sitting at the lunch table pondering the answer, or trying to remember to look it up when we got back to the office. Little things like that may not seem as big as hunter/gather into agriculture society, but eventually it will.

    14. Re:Things like this... by koiransuklaa · · Score: 1
    15. Re:Things like this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I suggest you start here Mobiles through the ages and come back here once you are familiar with the subject you are commenting on. Got to love people who are experts on subjects they don't understand.

    16. Re:Things like this... by rve · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      The earth is flat, to claim otherwise is just ignorant and racist

    17. Re:Things like this... by Lundse · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A portable phone with pictures is nothing compared to suddenly living in car-powered cities vs. agricultural existence.

      Maybe it is not comparable to the agrarian hunter gatherer vs. industrialized society-gap, but everyone being able to film and upload in seconds does make an impact. (I headed here from the ongoing discussion over cops not wanting people to film them; some balance of power is shifting here).

      The toys may not matter much in the lives of the individual, but neither does a car in itself. Living in a society where everyone has a car, and products can be moved about with ease, does make a difference - and so does living in a world where everyone can share anything with everybody.
      The profit-motive and gadget-fever western society is so wild about right now is making huge, serious changes elsewhere:
      http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/04/sms-fights-malaria-scourge-in-africa/
      http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/ghana/090527/africa-looks-cell-phone-banking
      And that whole outsourcing thing we are seeing the tip of now...

      --
      IAIFARSIJDPOOTV - I Am In Fact A Reality Star; I Just Don't Play One On TV
    18. Re:Things like this... by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 1

      They're not, in my opinion at least. I was a true believer for a while. But the actual progress just isn't matching the hoped for predictions. From a life extension perspective, there's really no chance. I've been following things for about a decade now, and the progress has been pretty much zilch. And it's not that much better from the concept of uploading. Fmri is still king of brain scanning. And as great as it is, it's about as close to what we'd need there as saying that someone is immortal because they've had a painting made of them. While I think it's inevitable that one of those will get there eventually, I don't see it in the lifetime of anyone reading this.

      --
      Everything will be taken away from you.
    19. Re:Things like this... by natehoy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm only a couple of decades older than you. I agree with you, but I also realize that I take it as a given that, during the course of my lifespan, there's always been television (not color to start with, but there was TV), that indoor plumbing and lights have always been around, flight is not only possible but commonplace and pretty much always has been, and the moon landing happened before I was born.

      A part of me regrets missing the introduction of all of those exciting technologies and innovations, because to me they are all background things that just are. They aren't wondrous, they just are.

      No matter where you live in history, there are always improvements that you'll appreciate, but there's always amazing stuff that was there before that you will only see as part of the world as it's always been, and will be even more amazing stuff that will come after you that would probably blow your mind if you ever had the chance to see it (or would be so far beyond your comprehension you couldn't appreciate it).

      You don't truly appreciate the amazing parts of an advance unless you've watched those parts happen.

      To me, computers (and video games, etc), color/stereo televisions, microwaves, mobile phones, digital wristwatches, and many of the things you no doubt take for granted are marvels. When I was a kid, they largely did not exist. Which is not to say they all of them were completely unavailable, but when I was growing up no one I knew owned any of them and they were brand new.

      I both envy my grandparents (now all dead) and my yet-to-be-born grandchildren the wonders of their lifetimes that I will never see they way they do. The wonders of my grandparents are my commonplace items. The wonders of my grandchildren are probably beyond my imagination.

      But that's just human nature. We want to see it all. And eventually we learn we'll never succeed. It's both heartening and saddening at the same time.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    20. Re:Things like this... by adonoman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's pretty close to flat - the curvature of the earth is less than a foot per mile - a rounding error really, given that even the smoothest of prairies can easily vary by more than that.

    21. Re:Things like this... by Grapes4Buddha · · Score: 1

      My son was born in 2005 and doesn't believe me when I say we can't watch TV shows on the GPS, or when I say we can't pause a show on the living room TV where we don't have a DVR.

    22. Re:Things like this... by sznupi · · Score: 1

      I don't really see how "transhumanist" is applicable in the case of people very much clinging to their individual lives. Which is very...good ol' human-like; and quite typical generally.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    23. Re:Things like this... by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      Or someone's future ex-wife.

    24. Re:Things like this... by M8e · · Score: 1

      I clearly remember my grandmother having a green cellular(=nmt) phone the size of a briefcase in her sommer house. These cellular phones was called carphones for a reason.

    25. Re:Things like this... by jackchance · · Score: 1

      Fmri is still king of brain scanning.

      While fMRI is currently the dominant technique for scanning brain activity, it wouldn't be used for "uploading your brain". In order to preserve the information in your brain we really need the network diagram. Currently there a few groups in the world automating the process of cutting and scanning neural tissue with electron microscopy: Dr. Winfried Denk - serial block-face scanning electron microscopy and Dr. Clay Reid, to name two. Currently, they can only scan a 1mm^3 piece of brain. But it's really at this point just an engineering problem to do the whole brain.

      An important issue that few people discuss is that even if you had a full network diagram of your brain and the hard disks to store it on (It's estimated that humans have on the order of 10^16 neural connections. If we say that we just need one byte per connection we would still need 10 petabytes per brain. And this is a reduced representation. During the actual scan we would need far more storage to trace all the physical connections) you would need some very impressive hardware to RUN your consciousness. Some have estimated that all of the CPUs currently connected to the internet have about the processing power of a single human brain. So, unless you are fabulously wealthy, you won't be able to pay for the hardware and electric bill of running your immortal consciousness.

      --
      1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 144 233 377 610 987 1597 2584 4181 6765
    26. Re:Things like this... by sznupi · · Score: 1

      I think waiting for any "breakthrough" is a grieve error, generally. And nothing new, humans wish for such "breakthroughs" in their individual immortality for a long, long time - we had many ressurection deities; and early Christians were absolutely convinced they will see a breakthrough very quickly, basically within a generation.

      But wishes rarely work out as predictions of future events; when the latter do happen anyway, people are generally taken by surprise or at the least didn't see it coming in quite such way. Life extension won't be different; especially since...we have quite a lot of it already. Not merely in advanced medicine, also in how much we can leave behind us - with that amount ever increasing, and for bigger and bigger portion of humanity. Eventually that data will take a life of its own; or have done so already, depending where's your cutoff point.
      Sure, that's not a direct continuity for "really us" conciousness...but that's largely pointless. The most cherished and most resistant to preserve "data" are a pretty low-level, biological, not unique stuff anyway. When you honestly look at it, one can safely say we lead at least many thousands instances of our life at this very moment already.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    27. Re:Things like this... by sznupi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...so it would really boil down to how useful running your brain simulation is to the rest of humanity. Guess the answer to that.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    28. Re:Things like this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey you aint the mib sucka!

    29. Re:Things like this... by jollyreaper · · Score: 3, Funny

      I was born in 1971. Which means if I were a computer I would be obsolete and replaced by a faster, younger model with prettier looks.

      Come to think of it, maybe I am a computer....

      Take heart! There might be an older, poorly-dressed, socially stunted computer geek willing to collect you for the sheer historical value. Of course, that usually means stored with a dozen other castoffs in the basement. I don't like where this is going.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    30. Re:Things like this... by Kjella · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think it really all depends on perspective - my old man worked with everything from vacuum tube computers and magnetic core memory up to PCs before he retired, he thought the advancements were pretty damn amazing. If you want to crown the most revolutionary time of computers there's very heavy competition. The 40s saw the first real computers, the 50s the transistor, the 60s the mainframes, the 70s the minicomputer, the 80s the PC, the 90s Internet, 00s mobile devices and wireless. Every one of them a revolution in their own right. But I'm guessing we have a lot to come as well, not that I would know what...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    31. Re:Things like this... by jackchance · · Score: 1

      It occurs to me that much of what our brain is doing involves things like breathing, standing upright, and processing sensory input. If we really understood the brain, we might be able to ignore the parts that would not be needed for a disembodied brain.... reduce the storage and the computational requirements.....

      It is hard for me, and yes, i am a neuroscientist, to guess how far away we are from understanding the brain enough to safely exclude bits.

      --
      1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 144 233 377 610 987 1597 2584 4181 6765
    32. Re:Things like this... by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Nobody forces you to have those "distractions". You're just falling prey to nostalgia and "old times were best" weirdly soon.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    33. Re:Things like this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When things like this come up I put in into perspective using my grandmother: She was born with steam powered ships. She has seen the development and deployment of trains, cars, telegraphs, phones, BW/Color televisions, Internet, planes, space flight, use of satellites, hover crafts, all terrain vehicles, refrigerators, and more. All in the span of 93 years. Were it not for her Alzheimer's she could easily make it past 100 (physically she's 98%). That's a lot for any body to see over several life spans.

      So I always wonder what I'll get to see. What my kids and their kids will get to see. And I too, have come to terms, that regardless of when I was born, I would have always had the same thought: "I wish I was born later to see more." But it's no the more we want to know, but rather how it all ends. What we can achieve. And that is something that no one* can do.


      * Check the sig. Sig: You can never say never and never say always.

    34. Re:Things like this... by tuomoks · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A good time to be born, LOL. Don't take seriously the replies from other youngsters, they know maybe less than you how it was before. Cell phones size of briefcase were actually in use already -82, well, cell is a strong word, they were NMT phones but the size is correct. I had one to carry with me and one in car, ouch! Yes, the hardware efficiency has gone up a lot, the problem, the waste in software has grown even faster so in many ways we are still on same level. Fun, games, beautiful(?) pictures, etc are now everywhere but real business transactions, information handling / using / whatever is not much faster or efficient than it was in 70's. Relatively compared to resources and cost it's actually worse - not amazing when quantity and greed meets quality something has to give!

      Anyway - leaving games and other waste aside, computer systems today are fun to play, every day even more - as has been since I started late 60's. Unfortunately software / systems development is a commodity today - amazing that even Cobol application developers who I was always yelling at that time knew more about computers, OS's, file and database systems, etc than 98% highly certified developers today? You will see how the computer world stabilizes to same as any manufacturing - a couple of designers, a bunch of engineers, a lot of floor workers.

      You definitely will see more and more amazing stuff, and faster, but it really is up to each individual in IT/computer field to keep up. If you don't innovate / create or own yourself, you will be just a worker and they usually are not even allowed to know too much. Think and look around, how many companies / corporations / enterprises educate or even train (not same but!) any more? It's one of the modern wonders you are seeing.

    35. Re:Things like this... by sznupi · · Score: 1

      When the question really becomes "which parts of our brain make us?", perhaps it's not so certain anymore that messing directly with the brain is required at all? (I somehow wrote already about it in a nearby post)

      More generally, an honest answer to question "what is our essence?" might prove unpopular for people who wish, one way or the other (many old ways around the world in every culture...), for individual immortality; while BTW forgetting they have become quite dissimilar to themselves from two or three decades ago.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    36. Re:Things like this... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      True, but silent water is pretty damn flat. If you got a decently sized lake and no wind you can fairly easily show it curves in the middle.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    37. Re:Things like this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it would boil down to how good you are at writing malware.

      Think about it -- in ten years' time, there'll be plenty of processing power, all you'll need is a decent botnet. And since you are the botnet, adapting to keep ahead of the white-hats shouldn't be hard. Competing with the handful of other botnetpeople, though...

    38. Re:Things like this... by thtrgremlin · · Score: 1

      but remove a few significant digits and you will see that the world is flat.

      --
      Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
    39. Re:Things like this... by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 1

      I was born in 1971. Which means if I were a computer I would be obsolete and replaced by a faster, younger model with prettier looks.

      By those criteria, if I were a computer, I'd be running on vacuum tubes and large enough to fill a good-sized room.

      Uh, come to think of it...

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
    40. Re:Things like this... by Lennie · · Score: 1

      If we can make a copy like above, we can experiment the hell out of it, leave all kinds of parts 'turned off'.

      You aren't hurting a real human, are you ? Hmm, interresting ethics debate that's gonna be.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    41. Re:Things like this... by sznupi · · Score: 1

      The numbers might help some people better understand it...

      At the end of 2007 the world saw 3.3 billion mobile phone users. Two years later - 4.6 billion. It should get to 5 rather quickly. Don't be surpised with 90% of the planet quite soon.

      Large portion of those people without any easy means of communication previously. Many of them getting their first and so far only way of connecting to the internet in one way or another (that's why Opera Mini is already #1 mobile browser btw, despite many of its users being cautious with number of sites visited, due to expensive to them data charges)
      We are witnessing a monumental shift for humanity.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    42. Re:Things like this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you miss the point...there's always something new and having been exposed to the previous generation will always give you an appreciation for the state of the art. If the poster had gotten his wish and been born 20 years later, he may not appreciate multi-core processors, terabytes and petabytes, touchscreens and ubiquitous wireless, but exposure to those would have made him appreciate 3D quantum processors, exabytes and zettabytes, biofeedback HCI (can you believe we actually used to move our fingers to interact with computing devices?) and non-RF-quantum-entanglement wireless devices (remember when our phones had these things called bars that indicated whether we could use the network?)

      And there will be advances that go beyond what we can imagine today. Each time exposure to the previous generation of technology will lead to a greater appreciation of the new technology. However this stops when you die. Being dead, you can't appreciate the new generation of technology. Being born 20 years later would create 20 or more years in which the OP would not be dead and would be free to appreciate the new technology of the time. So he'd be trading the 20 years of technology that he's been exposed to for 20 years that he won't be exposed to. Whether those 20 years will be worth it is something no one can say. It's debatable whether any of this progress we're creating is actually increasing our enjoyment of life.

      But trust me when I say you have no idea whether he was born at the right time.

    43. Re:Things like this... by sznupi · · Score: 1

      PS. Living in a society where everyone has a car doesn't have to be necessarily a good thing...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    44. Re:Things like this... by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      But the actual progress just isn't matching the hoped for predictions.

      I remember some famous SF writer (I think it was Clarke) pointing out years ago that people tend to overestimate short-term progress and underestimate long term because our expectations tend to be linear while progress -- absent government regulation -- tends to be exponential.

      Moore's law is an obvious example. Telling someone in 1990 that in twenty years you'd be able to buy the equivalent of a Cray Y-MP (which is about what my Atom-330 benchmarks as) for $50 and it would be about the slowest mass-market CPU on the market would probably have branded you insane.

    45. Re:Things like this... by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Adapting to keep ahead would be damn hard, actually. How good are you at combating constant direct injections, into your bloodstream, of the most deadly pathogens and toxins available?

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    46. Re:Things like this... by zill · · Score: 1

      Just curious, are you running Pentium chips by any chance?

    47. Re:Things like this... by jackchance · · Score: 1

      If we can make a copy like above, we can experiment the hell out of it, leave all kinds of parts 'turned off'.

      You aren't hurting a real human, are you ? Hmm, interresting ethics debate that's gonna be.

      Those are great questions. If we do a proper job at emulation, you certainly could cause pain by manipulating the activity in the circuit. If we emulate the full body experience then taking away breathing or heart beat might be quite disturbing even though it shouldn't "harm" the mind. Ya... the future is going to be an interesting place!

      --
      1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 144 233 377 610 987 1597 2584 4181 6765
    48. Re:Things like this... by sznupi · · Score: 0, Troll

      Car-powered cities is not strictly a good thing...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    49. Re:Things like this... by thtrgremlin · · Score: 1

      There is a direct link between the advancement of civilization and the ability to exchange information quickly. Spoken language, to writing, to mass print, to radio and telephones to the ever increasing bandwidth and connectedness of the internet; each have resulted in radical leaps in the advancement of civilization and brought about revolution. This is also why I argue that information freedom is vital to all progress. Civilization is one giant parallel information processing machine. What we know of AI has shown us that exposure to information is the core of intelligence and learning, and processing is far superior to filtering. And superior processing methods by humans will will evolve and spread in symbiosis with the technology that we create.

      Sure, the large majority of people do not use the opportunity before them in the most effective way as determined by other people. On the other hand, it amuses me how much some people can be greatly concerned about the effectiveness of other people's time use.

      I doubt I would have any interest in using an ipad even if I was given one for free, but gratz to anyone that finds one enjoyable. I know I enjoy all kinds of things few other people could give a crap about.

      --
      Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
    50. Re:Things like this... by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Trust me when I say you were born at the right time.

      That's probably one of the most prevalent misconceptions in recorded history, right beside "the demise of youth will doom the civilisation soon"...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    51. Re:Things like this... by Platinumrat · · Score: 1
      Kids.

      So, do you remember man walking on the moon? Well I do! What is sad; is we haven't gone back in your lifetime.

    52. Re:Things like this... by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      I LOVE when I was born (1984). I'm old enough to remember a time without the Internet

      No you're not. The Web is not the Internet. Good thing you're still young enough to be schooled, kid! :)

    53. Re:Things like this... by sznupi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While technically true, one can't help but wonder what the prevalent folk views were.

      Hey, even now some "theories" are just arbitrarily dismissed a bit too commonly...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    54. Re:Things like this... by schon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      when I was born (1984)

      I'm only a couple of decades older than you. [...] during the course of my lifespan, there's always been television (not color to start with, but there was TV), that indoor plumbing and lights have always been around, flight is not only possible but commonplace and pretty much always has been, and the moon landing happened before I was born.

      .. and people could always do simple arithmetic.

    55. Re:Things like this... by ByteSlicer · · Score: 2, Funny

      a rounding error really

      Yeah, but the problem is that it's constantly rounding down...

    56. Re:Things like this... by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      "I think you miss the point...there's always something new and having been exposed to the previous generation will always give you an appreciation for the state of the art."

      True, but computers and the internet has lead to a huge boom in instantly shared information, so the rate of advancement has been faster now than ever before.

      This has happened many times in history, whenever there was a significant leap in information distribution. The printing press was probably the largest, followed by telegraph, telephone, cars, radio and TV.

      Just look how quickly modern society advanced over the past 100 years compared to the past 2,000 years. At the beginning of the 1900s "modern medicine" was still hacking off legs and no sanitation and airplanes consisted of spruce wood. By 1967 we were transplating hearts and in 1969 we walked on the moon.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    57. Re:Things like this... by adonoman · · Score: 1

      That's just surface tension... I mean, look at the curvature of a drop of water on a piece of wax paper. Clearly that can be extrapolated to more than a foot of deviation over an entire lake.
      If you do the curvature calculations in meters, the earth is even flatter - only 392 nanometer deviation per meter. You'd have a hard time finding a lake that smooth.

    58. Re:Things like this... by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      when I was born (1984). I'm old enough to remember a time without the Internet

      DOES NOT COMPUTE!

      The Internet existed before you were born... (and I was using it when you were 3 or 4.. and I'm a newbie.)

    59. Re:Things like this... by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Ahh, an assumption accepted way too commonly without a critical second look...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_flight_into_terrain

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    60. Re:Things like this... by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Surface tension actually works in the "other" direction with a body of water even slightly larger than a drop & limited by confines of a container.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    61. Re:Things like this... by Barny · · Score: 1

      People don't "know" petabytes yet, in the same way we don't "know" terabytes of ram yet.

      They are still beyond the "oh look I have a 2 petabyte drive" stage, thankfully :)

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    62. Re:Things like this... by Barny · · Score: 1

      You were lucky to have arithmetic!

      Back in my day all we had was a sort of rounded rock. Numbers? LUXURY!

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    63. Re:Things like this... by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      At the end of 2007 the world saw 3.3 billion mobile phone users. Two years later - 4.6 billion. It should get to 5 rather quickly. Don't be surpised with 90% of the planet quite soon.

      I would be surprised if 90% of the planet had a mobile phone anytime soon, though I wouldn't be surprised if the number of active mobile phone accounts exceeded 90% of the population soon. It is a mistake to assume that the number of active mobile phones is equal to the number of people with mobile phones.

    64. Re:Things like this... by sznupi · · Score: 1

      There's also an effect working in the other way than what you assume - many people in developing countries share single mobile phone (say, a family). It's so common that, for example, Nokia sees the need to include several phonebooks and prepaid cost trackers in their lowest-end mobile phones, specifically stating it as the reason for doing so.

      Stats take all of those effects into account.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    65. Re:Things like this... by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Even more - our minds don't work well at all under conditions of sensory deprivation.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    66. Re:Things like this... by npsimons · · Score: 1

      It's pretty close to flat - the curvature of the earth is less than a foot per mile - a rounding error really, given that even the smoothest of prairies can easily vary by more than that.

      The Relativity of Wrong

      Just food for thought . . .

    67. Re:Things like this... by Mr.+Roadkill · · Score: 3, Funny

      I don't like where this is going.

      It rubs the cardpunch on its skin, or else it gets the hose again.

    68. Re:Things like this... by adonoman · · Score: 1

      Yup, an excellent essay that everyone should read at least once.

    69. Re:Things like this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      > real business transactions, information handling / using / whatever is not much faster or efficient than it was in 70's.

      Huh? Those things got faster every decade. From simple levels (swipe the credit card yourself, instead of the cashier slooowly punching in numbers), to more sophisticated ones (doing stuff online, and it completes faster than it takes to load the order confirmation page). For other things, the speed of any single transaction didn't get much faster, but the total volume of transactions happening at any one time exploded. In some cases, many improvements stack - like air travel, where you can pretty much do all of your side of it yourself, complete with printing the boarding pass, and the computers handle figuring out the routes and schedules and seating availability for vastly more planes at once than were operated in the 70s.

      > You will see how the computer world stabilizes to same as any manufacturing - a couple of designers, a bunch of engineers, a lot of floor workers.

      Actually, that's one of the old myths. Programming doesn't really get any easier; it's not easier to do relative to the amount of work that needs doing, and it's not any easier to teach relative to the number of people who need to learn it. (IMO, we haven't even really gotten much better at teaching the *users* in the last decade). It's enough of a thinking job that the computer can't do it for us, and if you look into that in more detail you're likely to run into a formal proof explaining why, and a bunch of "technological singularity" AI articles.

    70. Re:Things like this... by takev · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No they wouldn't in 1990 everyone that was actually buying machines like the Cray had knowledge of More's law.

      In fact articles from that time where talking about how to use More's law together with an estimation of how long a calculation would need to run, to decide when to buy the computer to finish said calculation quickest (provided that you couldn't or wouldn't upgrade the computer while the calculation was running).

      This included economic calculations about the price of hardware, inflation and interest rates.

    71. Re:Things like this... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, I wonder how much amazing stuff I would see had I been born even just 20 years later.

      Imagine being able to see The Singularity wipe out humanity.
           

    72. Re:Things like this... by Dynetrekk · · Score: 1

      It's pretty close to flat - the curvature of the earth is less than a foot per mile - a rounding error really, given that even the smoothest of prairies can easily vary by more than that.

      "a foot per mile" is really a useless statement, since the "curvature" (somewhat vaguely defined) goes like the distance squared. That is - if it really is "a foot per mile", it will be four - 4 - feet per two miles, 9 feet per 3 miles, and so on. So the earth is only flat if you're not looking at distances over one mile. If you're standing by the sea and you're 2 meters tall (7 feet-ish), you can see no more than 3 miles across the ocean.

    73. Re:Things like this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was born in 1962. So I'm old enough to remember when we only had paper and pen. One of the first time I saw a TV was when man walked on the moon in 1969. I can tell you, that was a shock!!!
      Then I gradually saw radios, hand held calculators etc ..., was I happy when I got a calculator in 1970!!!
      Then I started seeing computers, the ones filling a room in the local factory, then the personal computer. A revolution for me each time.
      Then 3D computers, I worked for Silicon Graphics. What a shock to see 3D texture mapping in 1990.
      And today I work on TV over the Internet, browsers on TV, etc ...
      I sometimes look back at when I was young with no electric device other than a lamp, and frankly I prefer today, and look forward to tomorrow.

      When I finished my studies in 87, I thought the good times of high tech were over. And I was so wrong!

      As for the original post, it explains why your iphone heats up when you really use it!

    74. Re:Things like this... by Genda · · Score: 1

      This is an interesting time... I'm in my mid 50s, and I remember a time when TV was black and white, and a computer filled rooms (a bunch of rooms.) Technology is accelerating at itself and accelerating pace (the first derivative of position is velocity, the next is acceleration, and after that jerk. We are now at the point of a positive jerk in technological advance. Augmentation will soon be the norm, and the distance between haves and have-nots will soon be greater than astronauts and cave-dwellers. Even children without augmentation will be unable to keep up with the growing delta. God help us when machines can design and build machines without human intervention. The point is, the advances coming will come fast and furious and the future is quickly approaching chaotic unpredictability.

      What you grand-kids experience is almost a pure crap shoot.

    75. Re:Things like this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ridiculous. A foot a mile is the same as two feet per two miles.

      Easy to see, too: Put a stick in the ground and have a friend stand a mile away from that. He can't see the the bottom foot of the stick. Now walk away a further mile. You can't see the bottom foot of your friend. And, by induction, can't see the bottom two feet of the stick. Two miles, two feet.

      If the curvature really was quadratic the Earth would have a really weird shape.

    76. Re:Things like this... by DoctorPepper · · Score: 1

      That's funny, I was born in 1959, and I say the exact same thing all the time!

      --

      No matter where you go... there you are.
    77. Re:Things like this... by mikael · · Score: 1

      I wonder that too - to start growing up in a world where just about every wireless electronic device can send E-mail and play videos - even the cheapest PAYG mobile phone has a 2Mpixel camera and can surf the web.

      About 1994, home users could get home internet access through PPP, 2000 ADSL/DSL broadband became available. At the same time, hardware accelerated texture mapping came out with 1280x1024 screens.

      It's hard to say - the advances seem to be the same - the biggest advances I have encountered are going from 4-bit EGA to 256-color VGA, and then to 24-bit desktops with hardware-accelerated blitting, as well as going from a CRT to a LCD screen, as well as going from a 16:9 square monitor to a widescreen 1920x1200 monitor. I don't think there is a single CRT monitor in the office block I work in. Going from 56K modem to 1 Mbit cable modem was amazing, but going from 50Mbit to 70Mbit was really that noticable.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    78. Re:Things like this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but remove a few significant digits and you will see that the world is flat.

      So you're saying that if you ignore the curve, then it's flat?

    79. Re:Things like this... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      I'm old enough to remember a time without the Internet, without a PC in every home, and when cell phones were the size of briefcases...yet I'm still young enough to take advantage of technological innovations, keep up with advances, and appreciate the impact it has on our lives.

      I don't understand your point. Are you somehow insinuating that us older people (born 1959 in my case, started programming in 1977) are unable to deal with "technological innovations"?

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    80. Re:Things like this... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      in 1969 we walked on the moon.

      And in 1972. And since then?

      Ah, unstoppable progress.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    81. Re:Things like this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good comparison. That's the year my son was born and he really takes everything for granted. He touches every screen and complains if it does not react. He finds nothing weird in windows running on a small window in side osx (I make him surf the net on a virtual machine). He finds it completely natural that all his video's are stored on a huge hard disk on a machine running xbmc, and that he can surf music video's endlessly in youtube.

      I'm sure this is just a small step in a direction though, probably there will be plenty of things for him to be amazed of during his life...

    82. Re:Things like this... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If you want to concern yourself with such issues, think about biotech. Will humans soon live "forever"? That is the event I am worried about missing.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    83. Re:Things like this... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I'm old enough to remember a time without the Internet, without a PC in every home, and when cell phones were the size of briefcases

      I'm old enough to remember a time when computers were multimillion dollar monsters that took whole buildings to house and the internet wasn't even a gleam in engineers' eyes, and all telephones had cords and dials. Yet I'm still young enough to take advantage of technological innovations, keep up with advances, and appreciate the impact it has on our lives. In fact, having lived without cell phones, microwave ovens, VCRs, and digital everything makes me appreciate them that much more.

      On the other hand, I wonder how much amazing stuff I would see had I been born even just 20 years later

      Someone born today could say the same thing when they reached your age. It's been that way since the industrial revolution. My grandmother was born the year the Wright brothers flew the first powered aircraft, and was about as old as I am now when Armstrong and Aldrin walked on the moon. She lived in a time when most people didn't even have electricity.

    84. Re:Things like this... by roystgnr · · Score: 1

      Ridiculous. A foot a mile is the same as two feet per two miles.

      Yes, hence the grandparent's ""a foot per mile" is really a useless statement"

      Put a stick in the ground and have a friend stand a mile away from that. He can't see the the bottom foot of the stick.

      Yes he can. That's not what "a foot a mile" means. In fact, it's impossible to say what your friend can and cannot see over the horizon without making some assumption about his height.

      If the curvature really was quadratic the Earth would have a really weird shape.

      The curvature is not quadratic, just quadratic to a second approximation. Look at what happens to a Taylor series when all the odd-numbered derivatives are zero.

      Let's imagine that the Earth is perfectly spherical with radius 20,000,000 feet. Now put a coordinate system with your feet at 0,0,0 and the center of the Earth at 0,-20,000,000,0. Then the surface of the earth satisfies x^2+(y+20,000,000)^2+z^2 = 20,000,000^2.

      Some points satisfying that equation (to the nearest tiny fraction of an inch) are (5000,-.625,0) (not quite a foot per mile, but that's just a very approximate rule) and (10000,-2.5,0) (where by doubling the first distance, we quadruple the second, just as a quadratic approximation would suggest).

    85. Re:Things like this... by cowbutt · · Score: 1

      Since 1972, we've developed the technology to be able to build autonomous robots to do our exploring for us and sent them to Mars and other bodies in the solar system, which is both cheaper and safer than sending fragile humans.

      At least, that's what I tell myself to avoid feeling the doubt in progress that you apparently do. :-)

    86. Re:Things like this... by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      I guess the aussies are rounding up, then.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    87. Re:Things like this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Young whipper snapper!

      Get off my lawn!!!!

    88. Re:Things like this... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Too bad they never invented calculators.

    89. Re:Things like this... by adonoman · · Score: 1

      Well, given that we know the earth is a sphere, saying the curvature is a foot per mile (well, closer to 8 inches), is a perfectly useful fact in calculating the size of the earth. Just divide one mile*mile by 8 inches, and you get the diameter of the earth . Try it.

    90. Re:Things like this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've drawn your coordinates and it seems you are correct. I can't imagine how this would generalize to the 3D situation, but in 2D the foot-a-mile figure isn't correct.

    91. Re:Things like this... by johnny0099 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the laugh.

      --
      Get your dogma outta my yard!
    92. Re:Things like this... by jc42 · · Score: 1

      ... silent water is pretty damn flat. If you got a decently sized lake and no wind you can fairly easily show it curves in the middle.

      In large lakes such as the North American Great Lakes, you can easily see one of the classical visible signs of the curvature: As you watch a ship moving away from you, you can see it disappear from the bottom up, and approaching ships appear from the top down. Moving around the shore shows the same phenomenon everywhere, which is easily understood by even the dumbest sailor (though maybe not many theologians ;-) to indicate the spherical nature of the surface.

      There was a cute puzzle based on this in Scientific American some years back. The problem was: Using only technology available to the classical Roman and Greek engineers, and standing in one place, measure the size of the Earth.

      The answer turned out to be: Get a surveyor's transit (or any of the similar tools that the ancients used), and go to a shore where you can't see the land on the other side. Do this on a very calm day, so there are no waves on the water's surface. Measure the angle between the horizon and your plumb line, with the plumb bob just barely touching the water. The triangle from the transit to the horizon, then to the center of the Earth, then back to your transit is a right triangle, and you've just measured the larger of its two "small" angles. Measure as precisely as you can the height (H) of your transit above the water. If the Earth's radius is R, R/(R+H) is the cosine of the angle you just measured. Solve for R.

      The article pointed out that a classical Roman engineer could have used this method to get within about 5% of the Earth's correct size, which was about as good as the other methods that were available to ancients such as Eratosthenes. The main limitation would probably have been their ability to accurately measure the distance H. (Actually, I'm not too clear on the accuracy of their trig tables. Anyone know?) (And they probably wouldn't have done the calculation using Roman numerals. ;-)

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    93. Re:Things like this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes me sad is when I hear kids like you talking about "how much you've seen".

    94. Re:Things like this... by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      It depends on how you measure the mile. If you go straight out it will indeed fall away as you said, but if you measure around the surface, then it will drop off at about that rate. (I'm assuming the original figure was correct, I haven't verified the numbers.)

      (Also, how did a story about old supercomputers turn into a discussion of the merits of flat-earth theory?)

    95. Re:Things like this... by Stone2065 · · Score: 1

      As one that was born in 1965, I DO remember saving for a few months to get my Vic-20 for $150, plus another $150 for the tape drive. I remember when CompuServe was $2.49 an HOUR of "internet" time, not that it was called that. Those were still the days of dialing directly who you wanted to communicate with. How do you think I feel buddy? I also remember the days of Motorola brick style phones that ran $1500, no contracts and pricing was usually around a buck a minute of cell time. Just like I remember the ads for a the first cell phone that was, gasp! less than half a pound in weight!!! Amazing, eh?I remember a time when ONLY those with some serious money had a cell phone, or even a "real" computer in the house, not just something like my old Vic. Do I feel old? You betcha...

      --
      Stone
    96. Re:Things like this... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      "Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow." -Kay

      Whoever that Kay is, he did not see Goatse coming, did he? ^^

      Imagine what you’ll know tomorrow. Indeed. ;)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    97. Re:Things like this... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Since 1972, we've developed the technology to be able to build autonomous robots to do our exploring for us and sent them to Mars and other bodies in the solar system, which is both cheaper and safer than sending fragile humans.

      We sent robots to explore the moon in 1970 (Lunakhod 1),

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
  3. Beowulf Cluster by tedgyz · · Score: 0

    So Seymour Cray should have traveled to the future, scooped up a pallet of Droid phones and then created a beowulf cluster?

    --
    "No matter where you go, there you are." -- Buckaroo Banzai
    1. Re:Beowulf Cluster by RobertB-DC · · Score: 1

      So Seymour Cray should have traveled to the future, scooped up a pallet of Droid phones and then created a beowulf cluster?

      He did (or will-have did, to use the correct temporal tense). Sadly, though, his actions violated causality, which caused the cosmos to smite him as he was driving along a local Interstate. It was a tragedy, and I'm glad the cosmos now follows (I mean, now/later will-follows) a "low-impact" policy, using intervention agents such as birds and baguettes.

      --
      Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
  4. Time machine by MrEricSir · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So if I read this correctly, the point of this article is we should get a time machine so we can go back to the 70's and impress people with our smartphones?

    See the problem here is that they won't have wifi or 3G coverage. All we'll be able to do is show those people of the ancient past Angry Bird and maybe one of those "pull-my-finger" apps. It just won't be all that impressive.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    1. Re:Time machine by decipher_saint · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I was about to say, all this computing power finally in the hands of the ordinary person and what's the most popular application? Fart Button...

      --
      crazy dynamite monkey
    2. Re:Time machine by AffidavitDonda · · Score: 1

      The touchscreen alone would've been quite impressive to them. To me at least, who was a nine year old kid at the time...

    3. Re:Time machine by blair1q · · Score: 1

      I don't know about your fart button, but mine calculates the trajectory of the fart in real time.

    4. Re:Time machine by kindbud · · Score: 1

      So if I read this correctly, the point of this article is we should get a time machine so we can go back to the 70's and impress people with our smartphones?

      It's already happened. How do you think we got the tech in the first place?

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
    5. Re:Time machine by corbettw · · Score: 0

      If you prestocked your phone with several gigs of music, I think they'd be extremely impressed. Maybe not with Miley Cyrus but I'm sure Lady Gaga and Ke$ha would fit right in with 70's music.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    6. Re:Time machine by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      Taking the 15x performance increase over the 1979 Cray, we find that there are about 4 doublings to get 15x (16x) meaning that the android phone roughly compares to a 1985 Supercomputer, which doesn't surprise me at all. My cheap, now antiquated WinMo smart phone easily plays 486-era DOS games in a virtual box emulator, despite being a radically different chipset. (Arm, not x86) So factor in approximately 50% cut in performance due to emulation, and you have my phone demonstrably comparing to (at least!) a midlevel Pentium, and that's a minimum.

      Honestly, sometimes it's astounding to me just how much processing power we throw away because it's just so cheap. When you read just how much performance this guy gets out of a single-core Dothan it just blows the mind. Underscoring my point: did you know that Mailinator runs entirely on one, not-so-impressive 2 Ghz AMD Athlon and a whopping 1 GB of RAM?

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    7. Re:Time machine by decipher_saint · · Score: 1

      Can it successfully plot the Brownian motion of a single methane molecule? If not, is that only another 30 years away?

      --
      crazy dynamite monkey
    8. Re:Time machine by amliebsch · · Score: 4, Funny

      If there's "brownian motion" it's really more of a shart.

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    9. Re:Time machine by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Speaking of which, didn't fart apps seem to really took off only on one platform?...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    10. Re:Time machine by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      I was about to say, all this computing power finally in the hands of the ordinary person and what's the most popular application? Fart Button.../quote.

      So? It shows how plentiful computing resources are. Guess you never heard the prediction about how there'd only be 5 computers in the world.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    11. Re:Time machine by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 1

      See the problem here is that they won't have wifi or 3G coverage.

      That's the minor problem. You can fake a connection. I would be thinking more of the missing content. Back then UNIX man pages were the most exciting deal around. And BTW, today they're still pretty cool.

      --

      I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
    12. Re:Time machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if you buy an iPhone, sure. You take a Droid back in time with a scripting language installed, and you can in fact outperform those supercomputers.

    13. Re:Time machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure the high-def AMOLED screen on my Nexus One would impress them, even if it was slower than heck.

    14. Re:Time machine by powerlord · · Score: 1

      So if I read this correctly, the point of this article is we should get a time machine so we can go back to the 70's and impress people with our smartphones?

      It's already happened. How do you think we got the tech in the first place?

      Pffft. Stole it from an alternate Earth that had managed to achieve higher Scientific Advances than ours in some fields at the expense of a totalitarian regime and lost ground in some wacky "Fringe Science" research.

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    15. Re:Time machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      until you tried to find a usb port to recharge it from.

    16. Re:Time machine by Yogs · · Score: 1

      Pull my finger indeed.

      Add increased stupidity (poor public education combined with broader usage) to bloat in TGMLC to get a real sense for what will really be run on this fabulous new hardware.

    17. Re:Time machine by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I have Pac Man and Ms pac Man on my phone. That would have impressed the hell out of me in 1970.

      In 1972 or 1973 I got to see a C-5a simulator when I was stationed at Dover, including walking around inside the computer that ran it. The computer was rooms full of what looked like bookcases, with circuit boards instead of books in them.

      I was impressed, I can tell you! To have a more powerful computer than that I could have stuck in my pocket would have blown my mind.

  5. Integrated bench by Animats · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's sad. I was at the Computer Museum in Mountain View a few years ago, where they had a Cray-I in a corner of the lobby, just sitting there used as a bench. It's not even labeled; some visitors think it's just furniture.

    1. Re:Integrated bench by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Well, you have to admit, the Cray I looks an awful lot like a piece of furniture.

      I wouldn't be able to sit on one, though. It would somehow seem....disrespectful.

    2. Re:Integrated bench by decipher_saint · · Score: 1

      I saw that on Wikipedia just now and thought the same thing, it would be like turning the retired Space Shuttles into a restaurant.

      Very undignified end for a brilliant piece of engineering.

      --
      crazy dynamite monkey
    3. Re:Integrated bench by __aapspi39 · · Score: 1

      a suitable penalty for such disrespect would be to work out all the prime numbers up to 10,000, on paper. ...and then to chop down the highest tree in the forest with a herring

    4. Re:Integrated bench by Vekseid · · Score: 1

      If anything it's forward thinking. Why not integrate computing power into your furniture?

      It also looks rather awesome.

    5. Re:Integrated bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's sad. I was at the Computer Museum in Mountain View a few years ago, where they had a Cray-I in a corner of the lobby, just sitting there used as a bench. It's not even labeled; some visitors think it's just furniture.

      Well, a label would be nice, but what would you rather do with it?

      Fire it up, port Firefox to it, and use it as the world's slowest web terminal?
      Put in behind a glass case so nobody can touch it or get a sense of its scale?

    6. Re:Integrated bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same thing in London.

    7. Re:Integrated bench by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Maybe not so awesome anymore... (though TBH I appreciate such discretion)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    8. Re:Integrated bench by 12345Doug · · Score: 1

      I remember in high school taking a trip to the Naval Research center just outside of DC. They had a Cray (can't remember which one it was 1990) that the whole class sat on while the presenter talked. Until I saw that picture I completely forgot about it.

    9. Re:Integrated bench by Aladrin · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding me? That restaurant would make so much money!

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    10. Re:Integrated bench by timothy · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think a restaurant would be a quite acceptable end (or middle) for a retired Space Shuttle. Not-quite-parallel: a restaurant I had the chance to eat at just a few times in my life (too bad) is Haussner's, which dissolved as a business more than a decade ago when the next generation didn't want to run it, and squabbled.

      http://everything2.com/title/Haussner%2527s
      Hassner's http://www.boomzer.com/dx/haus.html

      (The 2nd link also has an amusing list of Bawlmorese words.)

      The point is, Haussner's was essentially an art gallery as much as a restaurant; not necessarily all to my taste, but a sort of happy shrine to the art. (And delicious spaetzle, too, and raw cherrystone clams, and and and.)

      Also like the Space Needle in Seattle, or the (also now departed) cafeteria deep underground in Carlsbad Caverns; eating is an important thing in our lives, and IMO eating in interesting places helps amplify and deepen the experience. I would really enjoy eating in a space shuttle, with the chance to examine its living spaces and architecture. (At least, far more than eating in the baroque (rococo? - can't keep straight, and might be wrong anyhow) fancy-plasterwork-and-punchwork-ceilinged restaurants that are often held out as beautiful but to me seem like bad dreams, wrt decoration.)

      Closer parallel: the 747-as-house http://slashdot.org/articles/99/11/02/1057201.shtml -- the engineering is solid, why shouldn't it continue in a new and useful life, rather than only get pickled? (If there were only one, I might favor the pickling approach, it's true.)

      Also, I would probably be happy to pay a premium to eat in a Space Shuttle, if I knew that part of the money thus raised was going to various Worthy Causes (in my estimation) related to space exploration, etc. For instance, I'd like to see John Carmack's private space ventures partly underwritten by a revenue stream based on the already-sunk tax-dollar-based engineering effort of the shuttle program ;) Such a restaurant could also go a great business in patches, commemorative pictures, etc.

      Also also: http://www.amazon.com/How-Buildings-Learn-Happens-Theyre/dp/0140139966

      Cheers,

      timothy

       

      --
      jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
    11. Re:Integrated bench by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Um, yeah, it was designed that way. The padded cushions aren't an accident....

      --
      No sig today...
  6. Clearly, they would be much more impressed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...by our time machines and shaved privates.

    1. Re:Clearly, they would be much more impressed... by blair1q · · Score: 5, Funny

      If I had a time machine, I'd go into the future, find the future self of my time machine, disassemble it, put it in my time machine, bring it back to the present, reassemble it, then I'd have two time machines.

      I'd never have to buy parts again.

    2. Re:Clearly, they would be much more impressed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would only have two time machines till someone suddenly would disassemble your second one.

    3. Re:Clearly, they would be much more impressed... by BobNET · · Score: 2, Funny

      Except some jerk from the past will someday show up and steal one of your time machines!

    4. Re:Clearly, they would be much more impressed... by discord5 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Except some jerk from the past will someday show up and steal one of your time machines!

      That's ok, I'll still have one time-machine, so I can repeat the process until that bastard gives up

    5. Re:Clearly, they would be much more impressed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad that for any part that breaks - the replacement will be broken too.

    6. Re:Clearly, they would be much more impressed... by cowboy76Spain · · Score: 1

      ouch... did you read Stanislaw Lem's stories about Ijon Tichy travels (first volume).

      If you haven't and you like that kind of humour I absolutely recommend it to you.

      --
      Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
    7. Re:Clearly, they would be much more impressed... by RicktheBrick · · Score: 1

      First place time machine in a large open flat area of land. Second fill time machine with the most valuable materials such as gold, diamonds or platinum. Third move time machine and go back in time to the time when you first filled the time machine with all the valuable material. Now there are two time machines. Fourth move both time machines so that you can now take both machines back into time when there were only two. Repeat until one has millions of time machines all filled with very valuable materials.

    8. Re:Clearly, they would be much more impressed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But then you'd be screwed when your past self comes and steals your time machine.

    9. Re:Clearly, they would be much more impressed... by IrquiM · · Score: 1

      *pfffffffffffffffffff* The sound of Einsteins brain giving up

      --
      This is blinging
    10. Re:Clearly, they would be much more impressed... by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 1

      First place time machine in a large open flat area of land. Second fill time machine with the most valuable materials such as gold, diamonds or platinum. Third move time machine and go back in time to the time when you first filled the time machine with all the valuable material. Now there are two time machines. Fourth move both time machines so that you can now take both machines back into time when there were only two. Repeat until one has millions of time machines all filled with very valuable materials.

      Or you could just go into the future and steal a matter replicator.

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    11. Re:Clearly, they would be much more impressed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I...

      You...

      What. What the fuck.

      There's a paradox here somewhere, I just need to find it.

    12. Re:Clearly, they would be much more impressed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone's been watching Red Dwarf...

    13. Re:Clearly, they would be much more impressed... by dspratomo · · Score: 1

      One of them will be destroyed, as demonstrated by Bender

      --
      Work like you don't need the money, love like you've never been hurt, and dance like you do when nobody's watching
    14. Re:Clearly, they would be much more impressed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the future when some idiot steals your time machine and disassembles it you would. He might even take both of them!

    15. Re:Clearly, they would be much more impressed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that would work then the either

      a) You break the first law of thermodynamics
      b) The first law of thermodynamics is not true

      Or maybe you just proved that time travel into the future is not possible

    16. Re:Clearly, they would be much more impressed... by xded · · Score: 2, Informative

      But first try watching Primer, just to know what you shouldn't do...

      It's one of the best movies I've ever seen, but watch it 2/3 times before judging -- as suggested by the director himself -- or use some reference timeline when in doubt (spoilers ahead).

    17. Re:Clearly, they would be much more impressed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then why wouldn't you just disassemble both the time machines in the future and bring them both back, and for that matter, why not all four... 8... 16...32...

    18. Re:Clearly, they would be much more impressed... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      No, we would have laughed at your tattoos (especially womens' tattoos) and body piercings and stupid clothing. If some folks in 1970 could see what 2010 was going to be like, they'd have either killed themselves or started taking drugs.

      Wait a minute -- maybe somebody DID come back with a time machine!

    19. Re:Clearly, they would be much more impressed... by blair1q · · Score: 1

      It's a time machine, not a trojan horse.

    20. Re:Clearly, they would be much more impressed... by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Just how do you think a matter replicator works?

    21. Re:Clearly, they would be much more impressed... by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Oh, smeg.

    22. Re:Clearly, they would be much more impressed... by blair1q · · Score: 1

      If I disassemble both in the future, how do I get either back to the present?

      And I can imagine getting one disassembled time machine into another, but not two, four, eight, etc. It's a time machine, after all, not a TARDIS.

      And once I got the second one back to the present, I couldn't take the two back to the future to get two more, because I can only drive one at a time.

      See, this stuff is all very simple once you start thinking logically about it.

    23. Re:Clearly, they would be much more impressed... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      You mean until he steals them both like I would have done in the first place? ;)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  7. 1979 tech still wins by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 5, Informative

    For example, a tweaked Motorola Droid can hit 52 Mflop/s, which is more than 15 times faster than the CPUs used in the 1979 Cray-1.

    "The Cray-1 had 12 pipelined functional units" and had "floating point performance generally about 136 MFLOPS. However, by using vector instructiosn carefully and building useful chains, the system could peak at 250 MFLOPS."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cray-1

    1. Re:1979 tech still wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I believe it was a CPU to CPU comparison. 136/12 = 11?

    2. Re:1979 tech still wins by Silly+Man · · Score: 1

      Which is the what my toaster oven can do today

    3. Re:1979 tech still wins by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Now rate them for watts/FLOP and tell us who wins.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:1979 tech still wins by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Ah but all work on the Cray-1 was programed to be as parallel as possible, so cpu to cpu isn't an appropriate comparison. Much more useful is device output, in which case the 136 MFLOPS is significantly better performance than the 52 MFLOPS.

      That is of course not considering that the designers of the Java applet that runs the benchmark admit that you're moreso benchmarking the java effeciency of a given device with their app than the full performance of the device.

      Well, also not considering the $6m to $8m price tag of the Cray-1 vs the $200 (after rebate and 2 year plan) price tag of the Droid. Even factoring in inflation, I think my droid wins the performance-per-dollar crown by a little bit.

      It does mean though that the intial statement "15 times faster than the cpus in the cray-1" is not quite reality. more like 5 times faster.

    5. Re:1979 tech still wins by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Ya, but let's see the Cray-1 make a phone call and then fit in your pocket.

    6. Re:1979 tech still wins by Mathness · · Score: 1

      Cray-1 wins again, mobile phones are well known to be extremely poor space heaters. ,P

      --
      Carbon based humanoid in training.
    7. Re:1979 tech still wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More importantly, it was the sort of computer that could instill fear in a man's heart. Today we hold all of this power in our hands like it's nothing, and the poor programmer has lost his mad scientist cred.

    8. Re:1979 tech still wins by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 1

      actually my droid's battery gets pretty damn warm when i'm playing robo tower defense or making a long phone call.

      I'm not saying I can heat the room with it, but it might keep my ear warm in winter.

    9. Re:1979 tech still wins by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Go go gadget Cray-1!

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    10. Re:1979 tech still wins by imgod2u · · Score: 1

      I'm curious about Linpack results when running under Dalvik. I believe Froyo 2.2 enabled Dalvik start using the FPU of the ARM ISA. So what were the results before? Emulated floating point?

      On top of that, the ARM ISA allows for SIMD operations. I would assume the VM isn't capable of that.

      If we're to compare processing power, the Cortex A8 at 1GHz (A4, OMAP 3640, overclocked Droid) is capable of a vector multiply (2 at a time) every 3 cycles and add in 2 cycles. So that's about 400 MFLOPS.

    11. Re:1979 tech still wins by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 1

      the droid makes a really poor bench.

    12. Re:1979 tech still wins by Draek · · Score: 1

      Not that it'll stop people from trying, though ;)

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    13. Re:1979 tech still wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a difference between raw theoretical FLOPs and linpack FLOPs, which are among other things data set dependent (in this case for n=100).

    14. Re:1979 tech still wins by Urkki · · Score: 1

      More importantly, it was the sort of computer that could instill fear in a man's heart. Today we hold all of this power in our hands like it's nothing, and the poor programmer has lost his mad scientist cred.

      Imagine an iPhone... with enough processing power to do full real-time voice recognition... which electrocutes the user if he uses an expletive that's offensive to Jobs, as well as bleeps the expletive... except if followed by the name of a competitor, in which case it retroactively removes the bleep and induces a feeling of pleasure in the user... extra strong one if it was a public place and user was yelling expletives about a competitor very loudly.

      And that's just the beginning.

    15. Re:1979 tech still wins by bartwol · · Score: 1

      Now, if you dropped that A8 into a DMC-12 and cranked 1.21 GW into the flux capacitor, THAT would get interesting.

    16. Re:1979 tech still wins by zrelativity · · Score: 1

      Actually, the Droid consists of a TI OMAP3430 - this has an ARM A8, a TI 64X 8-issue VLIW and PVR SGX. All of these are programmable and can be combined if the programmer knows what she is doing. So, why hang up only on FLOPS? if you look at the total compute power (FLOPS and Integer/Logic Ops), it really is impressive in such a small device. **Zrelativity

    17. Re:1979 tech still wins by enaso1970 · · Score: 1

      Unless I invest in a whole new wardrobe, the droid also wins the "fits in my pants" prize.

    18. Re:1979 tech still wins by YourExperiment · · Score: 1

      Well, also not considering the $6m to $8m price tag of the Cray-1 vs the $200 (after rebate and 2 year plan) price tag of the Droid.

      Ah, but factor in the 2 year plan and the costs are roughly comparable.

  8. It's K not Kay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The MIB agents from earth go strictly by the first initial of the first name they previously held before joining the organization.

    1. Re:It's K not Kay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Within the context of the movie it was clearly stated that they were single letter initials only. IMDB is not all knowing.

    2. Re:It's K not Kay by discojohnson · · Score: 1

      oh snap, thems fightin citations!

  9. Speed by DebianDog · · Score: 2, Funny

    Did they think they could run their website on a Droid too? Man it is slow.

    1. Re:Speed by Bigbutt · · Score: 2, Funny

      No no, it's running on a Cray-1. If it were running on a Droid, it'd be a bit faster.

      [John]

      --
      Shit better not happen!
  10. different problem size in linpack. by flaming-opus · · Score: 4, Informative

    I thought it was strange that the article author was reporting that a cray 1 only produced 3.4 mflops on linpack, which had a peak performance around 130 mflops. Looks like the author doesn't understand the benchmark very well.

    If you look at the data quoted in the article, the n=100 result gives the Cray1 a score of either 3 or 12 mflops, depending on which entry you look at. There is no n=1000 result listed for the Cray 1, but one can expect, looking at the Cray XMP results, that it would be around 100, given the peak performance. The ETA10 would likely get a couple thousand mflops on linpack with n=1000.

    The Cray 1 is more than a little dated. That said, if you look at supers from the early 90's, they still can do things that modern commodity hardware can't. As fast as a xeon or opteron is, it doesn't have 300Gbytes/second of memory bandwidth. Even late-80's supercomputers exceed desktops in some metrics, though probably not in raw ALU performance if the data all fits into L1 cache. The cost to run a desktop, however, is pretty compelling, and they don't leak freon when they run.

    1. Re:different problem size in linpack. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well then there's desktop PCs. My modest 3GHz i7 gets 2300 Mflops with n=1000 (linpack-c). But then that's per core, and there's 4 of them. But it also has an Radeon HD5970 which could probably chew through linpacks at ridiculous rates.

    2. Re:different problem size in linpack. by afidel · · Score: 1

      Actually an 8 way Opteron with the newest processors will have a STREAM rate of ~320GB/s and have a heck of a lot more than 8GB of ram available =) Besides the T90 was mid 90's, not early =)

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    3. Re:different problem size in linpack. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "300Gbytes/second" citation needed.

  11. nouns are fun! by Itninja · · Score: 1

    Mobile Phone: a device that can make telephone calls and can be easily transported in a pocket or purse.
    Supercomputer: a computing device that people call 'super'.

    One is a quantitative definition, and one is a qualitative definition. I will let you decide which is which!

    --
    I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
    1. Re:nouns are fun! by Bugamn · · Score: 1

      And that is the point of the article, devices that are created to be small enough to fit inside a pocket or purse are already more powerful than devices that in the past were called 'super', which occupied a lot of space before.

    2. Re:nouns are fun! by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Mobile Phone: a device that can make telephone calls and can be easily transported in a pocket or purse.

      Actually, that last part is a fairly modern result.

      Initially, "mobile" phones were huge. I remember some that were basically a brief-case sized battery with a corded phone attached. No way you could put 'em in a pocket or a purse.

      Just like some of the early "portable" computers (luggables) were still heavy boxes with a CRT in it -- sure, you could move them from one place to another more easily than a desktop with wires. But they were heavy beasts and you didn't move them about on a whim.

      The supercomputer designation has also changed a lot over the years. Used to mean the biggest and fastest machines available, and usually still does. Heck, at one point, any machine over 1GHz was considered munitions and not legal for export since that was the threshold for a "supercomputer" at that time.

      One is a quantitative definition, and one is a qualitative definition.

      Actually, they're both qualitative definitions "mobile" and "super" do not represent quantities. And, over the lifetime of those words, no specific threshold for "mobile" or "super" has been established that lasted for more than a relatively short period of time.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:nouns are fun! by srussia · · Score: 1

      And that is the point of the article, devices that are created to be small enough to fit inside a pocket or purse are already more powerful than devices that in the past were called 'super', which occupied a lot of space before.

      That's what my wife says (well, I just inferred the "super" part).

      --
      Set your phasers on "funky"!
    4. Re:nouns are fun! by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 1

      I had a Luggable computer. A Hyperion with Dual 5 1/4" floppy drives 256K of RAM, and an upgraded V20 CPU.
      It kicked some serious ass back in the day.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperion_(computer)

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
  12. Crays did proper work by petes_PoV · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not rendering bitty little colour screens or scanning for viruses. Plus the code was written to extract every last drop of power out of the architecture. So when you compare the amount of WORK a machine from the 70s or 80s did (my university's mainframe had a FORTRAN complier that needed less that 131kWord of memory - today the GRUB bootloader is bigger than that) with a more modern box, with all its overheads and inefficiencies, the balance isn't as great as the scoffers might think.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:Crays did proper work by Atmchicago · · Score: 1

      That's because in the time it takes to optimize everything into itty-bitty pieces, the next generation of hardware comes out and is faster without bothering. There are operating systems out there written entirely in assembly, and assuming they're done properly I can imagine they are quite lean... but it takes forever to add features.

      --

      You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.

    2. Re:Crays did proper work by somenickname · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not rendering bitty little colour screens or scanning for viruses. Plus the code was written to extract every last drop of power out of the architecture. So when you compare the amount of WORK a machine from the 70s or 80s did (my university's mainframe had a FORTRAN complier that needed less that 131kWord of memory - today the GRUB bootloader is bigger than that) with a more modern box, with all its overheads and inefficiencies, the balance isn't as great as the scoffers might think.

      Does that make it any less impressive that a cell phone is putting up these kinds of numbers? Does it make it less impressive that you can code up an Linpack in Java, throw it at a JVM and rely on JIT compiler to optimize the DAXPY for the hardware on the fly? I think it both of those things are pretty damn impressive.

    3. Re:Crays did proper work by 0racle · · Score: 3, Funny

      Ya, well you probably still think digital watches are a neat idea.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    4. Re:Crays did proper work by tuomoks · · Score: 1

      Yes, if you do "That's because in the time it takes to optimize everything .." - that wasn't the case some time ago, developers and designers created optimized systems from start, programmers of course needed years and years to get to that level. To level which very, very few are even aiming today - strange? Optimized design and development was and is very agile, has same characteristics as secure / safe design and development.

      Another strange fallacy is that the language has much effect to such as adding functionality? A well designed interface really doesn't care what language is used - and over years I won many bets coding faster, easier to read (documented), much less bugs, no library problems, whatever assembler programs and even whole (small) systems than someone else in 'C', thank you! Of course you have to know the language, not syntax but how and why it behaves - same happened when we needed a large system in Windows, this time the dev. group (8) worked a year in C# and a month before delivery the group just gave up - guess what, they now have a clustered system written in Delphi V4 - LOL, three weeks and 6 days and it works (huh, I was tired after that - that was near!). It's not the language and often not even the OS but to know what is needed and how to do it!

      More about optimization - in mainframe environments the tuning of applications and systems were an art, still could be but very difficult anymore to find anyone who really understands the relations between (long term!) requirements, designs, development, OS, languages, current and future technology, allocated and estimated gains / budgets, risks, resources, and so on - to really optimize your systems and environment all that has to be counted. Yeah - optimization is a little more than a piece of code but a (mostly) forgotten art!

    5. Re:Crays did proper work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever realized how accurate a digital watch is? How small the drift is? It is pretty amazing.

  13. Moore's law fail by l00sr · · Score: 1

    Somehow, I'm not so impressed, considering Moore's Law predicts a roughly 1 million-fold (= 2^(30/2)) increase in transistor count over the span of 30 years...

    1. Re:Moore's law fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should have looked a *bit* closer. It is running in a java virtual machine. Also those 'top 100' computers are usually parallel number crunching beasts (at least for the time). The phone in question would be a single thread running on top of a virtual machine. So not exactly a 1 to 1 comparison. Just sort of interesting.

      Also more transistors does not equal more speed. Mores law is about smaller area and lower cost (less pins and wires and chips).

      So mores law is very much shown here. A droid costs what 300-500 bucks? And even with all the jvm and single thread junk in the way it was sort of competitive? What did a CRAY-1 cost? Dont forget inflation. How much room did one take up? How much did it cost to maintain? Notice the one thing I keep on about here? Cost. That is what moores law is about.

      We got speed for awhile as they were ALSO ramping up clock rates also at the same time. The bringing together of components allowed for that. Leakage rates have slowed that down considerably.

      The CRAY arch and the Droid arch are 2 different things one being the classic pc arch the other being a n to many processor arch. It does show if you were to build something like a 1980s cray today with existing off the shelf parts you could get a majorly interesting machine.

    2. Re:Moore's law fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So throw size into the equation as well: 0.3 pounds vs 10,500 lbs for a factor of 35,000 in size and a factor of 15 in performance. So on a performance/size metric we are off by a factor of about 2 from what Moore's law would predict, not to bad for estimating with exponential functions over 30 years.

    3. Re:Moore's law fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2^(30/2) is 32768.

  14. Ridiculous Comparison by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For example, a tweaked Motorola Droid can hit 52 Mflop/s, which is more than 15 times faster than the CPUs used in the 1979 Cray-1.

    Cray's approach to supercomputing wasn't just to make the CPU fast. Indeed, he outcompeted faster CPUs by making all of his computers fast, so no power in the machine was wasted waiting for something else. Especially IO and memory were his focus for throughput. A Droid's CPU is bottlenecked by the rest of the device.

    This unfair comparison isn't just whining about missing Cray's point. There's a lot of power in that Droid that the SW can't exploit, because its bottlenecks leave the fast parts waiting. Not only does that slow them down, but it wastes electrical energy. Which is the biggest problem in mobile devices.

    LINPACK isn't the best way to measure supercomputers, and "nanocomputers" like mobile phones could be better if they learned something from Cray's research 40 years ago.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Ridiculous Comparison by whyde · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, for mobile devices, the most important metric is performance per unit of power instead of just performance per unit time. After a certain speed/throughput has been reached, nobody cares how fast the CPU is, only how long the battery lasts.

      For scientific purposes, back when Cray was building systems, you got charged by the second you had access to the computer. So you carefully composed the solution to your problem to make darned sure every whizz-bang aspect of the computer was doing something useful all the time. Today, you just want to play a game for a while, then make a voice call, and don't want the battery to fizzle out before you get home (and maybe have some juice left for watching a show during your train ride home.)

      Mobile devices don't try to match the throughput of all parts of the system, because it's not in anybody's interest to keep the I/O subsystem saturated close to capacity 100% of the time you're using your Droid/iPhone... in fact, they turn them off (go into a low power state) and do aggressive power management that is coordinated system-wide.

    2. Re:Ridiculous Comparison by imgod2u · · Score: 1

      Mobile chips, particularly cell phones, are constrained by power. Supercomputers have the luxury of sucking up as much wattage as they need.

      Double the memory traces takes a lot of power. Using DDR3 vs DDR1 takes a lot of power. Using dual memory modules takes a lot of power.

      Taking all of those restrictions in mind, it's actually fairly amazing how well modern mobile SoC's do in keeping the processor and subsystems busy through aggressive caching and good memory packaging (for higher speed without extra power).

  15. Cray did Last Starfighter, iPhone/Android better by MauiMaker · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Back in 1983, I worked at Digital Productions where we had one of the very few commercially owned Cray (X-MP) computers. We were doing 'proper work' of making some of the earliest CGI for film and advertising. There was a bit of film before (Tron, Westworld, Looker, JPL stuff, etc) but The Last Starfighter was the first major film to use CGI exclusively for its spaceships, etc. in flying sequences. (Robert Preston drove a mockup car for ground scenes.) Each minute of film took (on rough avg) an hour of CPU time. All the rendering code was written in FORTRAN and ran on the Cray, outputting to film on a custom digital film printer.

    Today, the games you can play on your iPhone/Android or even the aging Nintendo DS have better graphics!! Resolution is a lot lower (not 3000x5000!) but at the screen size it certainly looks much better - and rendered in real time!

  16. Integrated Bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "But even today's most powerful cellphones don't come with an integrated bench."

    Doesn't stop people from sitting on them....

  17. lame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For example, a tweaked Motorola Droid can hit 52 Mflop/s, which is more than 15 times faster than the CPUs used in the 1979 Cray-1.

    "The Cray-1 had 12 pipelined functional units" and had "floating point performance generally about 136 MFLOPS. However, by using vector instructiosn carefully and building useful chains, the system could peak at 250 MFLOPS."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cray-1

    Less storage than an iPad, no wireless. Lame.

    1. Re:lame by BobNET · · Score: 1

      Less storage than an iPad, no wireless. Lame.

      Despite those issues, I'd still have to say that a Cray-1 literally crushes an iPad.

  18. Math fail by phizix · · Score: 1

    Somehow, I'm not so impressed, considering Moore's Law predicts a roughly 1 million-fold (= 2^(30/2)) increase in transistor count over the span of 30 years...

    2^(30/2) = 2^(15) = 32768.

    1. Re:Math fail by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      True, but Moore's law predicts a doubling every 18 months so his final result is correct even if his calculations are wrong.

  19. Re: Space Restaurant by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    Actually, no!

    If done *properly* with by someone with visionary capital, a really decked out Restaurant with future tech would be 2025-Now.

    But no, we'll get some twerp with a Meijer background who would want to make it kitschy.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  20. Old machines by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

    We used to joke about things like RSTS watches, when the PDP-11/70 was the latest and greatest machine for that. I could probably make one now if I wanted.

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  21. Proof that Seymour Was a Moron! by Baldrson · · Score: 0, Troll

    And Seymour Cray had his own full time staff running around doing his bidding in his own little kingdom with hundreds of millions of dollars in business -- and he couldn't do any better than a third world call girl can today. So much for Cray's "genius"! Moreover, I think we can safely say that the rinky-dink bike shop of the Wright Brothers producing a glorified kite with a lawn mower engine when compared to the Saturn V demonstrates that retrograde idiocy of those who claim that independent yeoman inventors are the real contributors to technological advance.

  22. You fail on /. QED you fail at life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Fail quoting Moore's law

    Moore's law allows for 1) more transistors in the same space (hence more power), or 2) the same transistors in a smaller space (such as the Droid).

  23. Ports are not 100% equal by RapmasterT · · Score: 1

    It's an interesting comparison, but let's keep in mind that "porting" an app from one platform to another is not a zero sum game. Efficiencies can be gained, or lost based on the compiler or the person rewriting the code. a 90% performance penalty in poorly compiled code would not be unusual. Raw mathematical computations like Linpack performs are most useful, but since this version runs on top of a Java platform, the system overhead is already probably higher than the Cray has to slog through. So the phone could possibly be even higher (raw) performing than this shows.

  24. This is sad really by scorp1us · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Remember this scene in hackers?

    PHREAK: Yo. Check this out guys, this is insanely great, it's got a 28.8 BPS modem!
    DADE: Yeah? Display?
    CEREAL: Active matrix, man. A million psychedelic colors. Man, baby, sweet, ooo!
    NIKON: I want it.
    PHREAK: I want it to have my children! ...
    KATE: What the hell are you doing?
    DADE: It's cool, I'm just looking.
    KATE: It's too much machine for you.
    DADE: Yeah?
    KATE: I hope you don't screw like you type.
    DADE: It has a killer refresh rate.
    KATE: P6 chip. Triple the speed of the Pentium.
    DADE: Yeah. It's not just the chip, it has a PCI bus. But you knew that.
    KATE: Indeed. RISC architecture is gonna change everything.
    DADE: Yeah. RISC is good.

    Now, imagine all that excitement from the processing power and bandwidth they had even on a 28.8 modem - that we now have multiples of... in our pockets Where is it being leveraged for the goal for the good of man kind? Folding and SETI are good starts, but they haven; taken off. We've got tons of idle cycles... You'd figure there'd be some processing client where you get paid for your cycles, but it only exists as illegal botnets. Where's the open utility computing? Why don't my computers' idle cycles pay for themselves?

    They were supposed to make our lives easier, but for as much as they empowered us, the exception processing got dumped on us. The nature of that work is different from the regular rhythmic routine of normal processing. Exceptions are urgent, require more effort and as a result are more stressful. And any news you get is when something is wrong.

    I like the idea of being able to chat with people on the other side of the planet, but I haven't figured out what good it is to me. We don't have much in common with each other. I like the idea that I can do my own stock trading, but this usually means I lose money instead of my money manager. ;-p

    Computers now cause as many problems as they solve (Goldman Sachs, AIG, I'm looking at you!) Is our society any better? Are people happier? Or are we more stressed out?

    (And what has my /. commenting gotten me. Not a date or a dollar for sure!)

    --
    Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    1. Re:This is sad really by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Um, Folding and SETI on all your phones would indeed process a lot of data.

      And kill a lot of batteries.

      Nice idea, not. All your chargers are belong to us.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    2. Re:This is sad really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have the ability to share what we make and think with a significant portion of humanity.
      The content of what you share is up to you, technology is a tool, it's up to everyone to use it wisely, tools will not automagically make the world a better place.

      I do however think we get one concrete benefit, the communicating with people across the globe bit, rather important for such pursuits as world peace.
      I have no particular love of small-talk, but there's more than enough to say, try talking about things you care about, if you don't get into an enjoyable conversation, try again.

      The only thing I'm getting from your post is profound sadness that these tools have not made your life easier, this is your own fault, you could easily give up your current life, move to another country and use your existing funds to live a carefree life.

    3. Re:This is sad really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to honour this thread, next week I must sit down on the bench of the Cray-1 near where I work, using my HTC Desire.

    4. Re:This is sad really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've got tons of idle cycles

      I wonder how many proc cycles are wasted on virus scans, or application crashes, blue screens, or extremely slow typists. Imagine if the world weren't broke.

    5. Re:This is sad really by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Computers now cause as many problems as they solve

      Every time a problem is blamed on a computer, there are at least human errors involved: at least one at the root of the original problem, plus the error of blaming the computer.

    6. Re:This is sad really by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      Posting on /. to get a date is pretty futile. Have you tried Craigslist?

    7. Re:This is sad really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (And what has my /. commenting gotten me. Not a date or a dollar for sure!)

      Dude, with your priorities, you shoudn't spend your time on /.

    8. Re:This is sad really by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      Ahhh the good old days! Born in 1977. I remember fondly connecting to BBS's in high school on a 2400 baud modem, I also remember playing Warcraft (1 and 2), Duke Nukem 3D, AND Doom (1 and 2) multiplayer (Well 2 player anyway :) at Residence in University with the same 2400 baud modem. Of course the Internet consisted of "Pine" and "Gopher", and Usenet at that time.. text was hardly in need of more horsepower. I sort of miss the connect tones of modems...

      Ya and that RISC thing certainly worked out well, didn't it. Though I guess if you include embedded solutions, it kinda makes sense.

      What would be interesting I think apart from cpu speed, would be how storage stacks up. I mean my iPhone has 16 freaking gigabytes. Which today, in the multi TB universe doesn't seem like much, but I still have HD of like 8GB, and remember the 20MB HD on my 286 back in the day. I wonder how much storage that 1979 supercomputer had compared to that phone, I would guess a small fraction. Heck my new system has way more RAM than many of my old ones had in actual hard disk storage! I remember my Dad buying a 64kb memory expansion for our TRS-80! lol! Graphics power you can't even compare as it didn't really even exist!

    9. Re:This is sad really by snadrus · · Score: 1

      Computers have caused much of the high unemployment of high-currency-value countries by making management processing automatic, but I think automation will return manufacturing from the low-currency-value countries for quality reasons.

      Computers are the cost for using the Internet, which is important. It's ending control-by-secrecy cultures and sharing those cultures of interest. Its set to take down unjustified culture-based rules. As the first anyone to anyone medium, this is changing humanity in positive ways.

      --
      Science & open-source build trust from peer review. Learn systems you can trust.
  25. Customized bench by alfredos · · Score: 1

    But even today's most powerful cellphones don't come with an integrated bench.

    There is a Cray X-MP in Barcelona which was originally ordered, and still has, the colors of the local football team (red and blue). There is a photo in this presentation(pdf)

  26. There was a time by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 1

    There was a time when 15 Crays in your pocket wooed a gal.

    (And it was cool to drink, drive and to get oneself and others killed. Times change. Mostly for the better.)

    --

    I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
    1. Re:There was a time by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 2, Funny

      Having 15 Crays in you pocket never wooed a gal.
      Having enough $ in your pocket to buy 15 Crays... That is another story.

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
  27. 64 bit float vs 32 bit float by drerwk · · Score: 1

    I also seem to recall Cray-1 had 64 bit words, hence 64 bit floats. All I can find for ARM is 32 bit floats.

    1. Re:64 bit float vs 32 bit float by imgod2u · · Score: 1

      ARM v7-A support double precision in both NEON (SIMD form) and VFP (scalar form). The Cortex A8 and A9 as well as Qualcomm's Scorpion implement these.

  28. "what do we do now?" by Thud457 · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Great! A million miles from no-where and I'm stuck with a gungho igauna that tells me to *relax*.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  29. Just choose your date of Supercomputer ... by andyh-rayleigh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When I started work as a computer programmer the Supercomputer of the time was the CDC6600 which had just taken the crown from the Ferranti Atlas.

    When I took early retirement about 7 years ago, I often carried four devices which each needed about the power of the 6600 to function effectively:
        A mobile phone
        An MP3 player
        A PDA (mainly used as an ebook reader)
        A GPS (OK, I didn't carry this all that often)

    A composer/researcher was using our University Mainframe (not quite that powerful) to produce music - his jobs typically ran for a whole 8 hour nightshift with an output of some 30 seconds of "music".

  30. Why is Intel... by thtrgremlin · · Score: 1

    Are you saying that flat earth theory is a conspiracy by Intel? Hmm... I see a good parody site in the future.

    Why is Intel trying to convince people the world is flat? I am sure data mining enough information about Intel one could work up a pretty good argument. As Homor Simpsons once said: "Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true. Facts, schmacts."

    I like to look at the positive side.

    --
    Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
    1. Re:Why is Intel... by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Hm, from the data in Wiki article (and external links from there) it seems that Pentium bug is always wrong in one direction, giving "less" than the proper result.
      This might mean Intel is actually hiding that the Earth is flat (hey, even better site ;p ); alternatively, it was an effort to make the number describing curvature smaller...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  31. Cray was an idiot. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

    He had a chance to really contribute something to the IT community in the 70's.

    I mean yes, he did ground breaking work in supercomputing, but that's rubbish.

    He had the chance to integrate furniture into first real super computer and instead of a sofa, or a four poster bed, he went with an awkward bench.

    fuck that guy.

    --
    Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
  32. Re:Cray did Last Starfighter, iPhone/Android bette by forkazoo · · Score: 1

    Back in 1983, I worked at Digital Productions where we had one of the very few commercially owned Cray (X-MP) computers. We were doing 'proper work' of making some of the earliest CGI for film and advertising. There was a bit of film before (Tron, Westworld, Looker, JPL stuff, etc) but The Last Starfighter was the first major film to use CGI exclusively for its spaceships, etc. in flying sequences. (Robert Preston drove a mockup car for ground scenes.) Each minute of film took (on rough avg) an hour of CPU time. All the rendering code was written in FORTRAN and ran on the Cray, outputting to film on a custom digital film printer.

    Today, the games you can play on your iPhone/Android or even the aging Nintendo DS have better graphics!! Resolution is a lot lower (not 3000x5000!) but at the screen size it certainly looks much better - and rendered in real time!

    Eek, you guys were rendering at 5k in the 80's? Seriously? What were the modeling and animation tools like at that point? Can you point me towards any more information about what the pipeline was like?

  33. Apple bought a Cray, Seymour bought a Mac by MauiMaker · · Score: 1
    Once upon a time Apple decided they needed the best fastest computer to design their next generation. The fastest thing around was the Cray, so they bought one. When he heard this Seymour Cray sent them a thank you and that he was returning the favor - using a Mac to design his next supercomputer.

    That a Cray was not all that useful for electronics design (E-CAD) is besides the point. Steve said buy the fastest computer available, and they did what steve says!

    1. Re:Apple bought a Cray, Seymour bought a Mac by dafing · · Score: 1

      I love that story :)

      I used to feel PROUD to know my secondhand G5 was (essentially) the same as the nodes for System X http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_X_(computing)

      --
      --- ...or a new slashdot signature. Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
  34. It is amazing by npsimons · · Score: 1

    I like to tell people that my father (who started out writing programs on punch cards that he had to send to the University and wait a week to get the results) now keeps a computer in his pocket (a smartphone) that is orders of magnitude more powerful than what he worked on most of his career, plus it's available instantly all the time and is connected to even more powerful stores of data and computing power. That, my friends, is progress.

  35. My phone is no superhero by gagol · · Score: 1

    HTC hero, stock from Telus (canadian carriers with sucky accounting) is under 2 MFlops. It aint no supercomputer...

    --
    Tomorrow is another day...
  36. Re:Cray did Last Starfighter, iPhone/Android bette by jackbird · · Score: 1

    Each minute? or each frame? 0.4 fps is freaking amazing for offline rendering. Second the other comment wanting to know more about the pipeline.

  37. Moore's law by BraksDad · · Score: 1

    compoud transistor power must be the 2nd most powerful force in the universe(or invention).

    save it, I know Moore's law is a linear progression... I just thought of Albert when I read the summary.

    --
    Slowly waving my hand - "This is not the sig you are looking for."
  38. You didn't include the cost of time travel by Brannon · · Score: 1

    Makes the Cray-1 look pretty good if you are sitting in 1979.

    1. Re:You didn't include the cost of time travel by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 1

      Hmm, According to wikipedia, I can get a DeLorean DMC-12 for about $20k to $30k in good condition.

      How much does it cost to build a flux capacitor?

  39. Ah, the nostalgia... by jandersen · · Score: 1

    It really is staggering how much computers have changed in power over the years. One illustration is in Fred Hoyle's book "The Black Cloud", I believe, where he waxes lyrical over the immense power of their computer, which could perform tens of thousands of operations per minute!

  40. Which is the best year to be born? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Being born in 1987, I have often thought of all the "milestones" I've missed. For example, my parents can vaguely remember Man Landing On The Moon (Camel Case makes everything seem official!), but to them, its no big deal. I cannot even begin to explain how impressed I *THINK* I would have been, had I been alive at the time.

    What are *MY* milestones?

    I remember Princess Diana Dying, and being somewhat aware that something truly awful had happened...despite not knowing really ANYTHING about her...I guess thats my equivilant of the JFK Assassination...

    Oooh, Y2K! I remember being at the Riverton Sound Shell ( Riverton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverton,_New_Zealand ) ...a backwater little beach community, chanting with the mob "3, 2, 1, HAPPY MILLENNIUM!"...and nothing happened, but a drive home to Invercargill ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invercargill ) in the dark...

    I remember The Eleventh Of September 2001 (continuing with Camel Case)...doing a social studies project on what had happened.

    Really, when I think of the 2000's, what was positive? If I had to sum up the decade for generations to come, from my perspective, I would say "Y2K (nothing happened), 911 and the resurgence of Apple". The Space Children would gasp, looking at their Jpad ID with its front facing camera and support for Flash and question "you mean Apple didnt always have 99.4% control of all computer platforms?" with a look of incredulity!

    I know I'm a fanboy, but for me, Apple has been absolutely one of the largest parts of the past decade. I think it sums up the technology of our time fairly well, through products such as the iMac, iPod, iPhone, and now the iPad (if it counts...)

    Then, theres 1984...I personally think 1984 would have been much more exciting to live through than "2000", especially if we were even a little hesitant to believe every barcode scanner would suddenly form Skynet. 1984, with "The Iron Curtain" and all kinds of covert warfare....would have seemed so much more sinister to me.

    I wish I were alive when Michael Jackson was at his prime, I'm a huge fan, from before all the sympathy over his passing. I grew up with older friends who really loved everything about him, I remember playing Moonwalker ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jackson's_Moonwalker ) (on Sega hardware!) at their house! Would my younger friends be amazed by "Lady Gaga HD" on my Playstation 3? Hardly.

    I would have loved to have seen all MJ's new videos as they came out (I assume they were big, even on New Zealand television of the time... :) )

    Perhaps Michael Jackson sums up a pivotal shift for different generations, to many of my friends, they knew him as a White, and accused of "child molestation", when he wasnt dangling his own (?) children over balconies. I wish I could remember him more as a good looking young Black man, storming the charts, with our attention gripped in his sparkling white glove.

    Still...I would sure find it hard to imagine life without the modern conveniences I take for granted now! Even imagining my 27 inch LED lit LCD iMac with i7 CPU...turning into... *THE* Macintosh 128K.... I imported an iPad and already cannot imagine living without it...I was the same with my Original iPhone (imported) and 3rd Generation iPod. I had an iPod before they were commonplace (other kids at school would ask "whats that, some kind of computer thing?", seriously. By the end, they all had crappy Shuffles or iPod Minis.

    When do you think the best starting point for life would be? I'm trying to include the potential for AMAZING new gadgets just around the corner! I want to have plenty of life left in me for those Flying Cars! :)

  41. a beowulf of droids? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aside from the obligatory /. comment..

    There's something sort of pleasing about a medieval epic and star wars being combined. Aren't we really talking about the supplanting of the single superhero by the power of the masses?
    (and by the way, my friend had drunk too much beer, and neglected to mention that I had to fight a variety of monsters when swimming in full armor... but I digress..)