it would just be nice to know the server rack won't melt itself when someone blows the pump breaker. I think they will end up needing to use a more inert substance to ensure the stuff doesn't stop flowing.
Even if they put water that's as clean as a frog's butt into the device, there will be silting in good time with gradual deterioration of the cooling system.
IMHO they should use a fluorinated carbon of some kind - something that won't react with the processor nor participate in significant electrolysis.
Sounds like too much, with typical numbers around 60 watts per processor this days. So, if you cool it at a rate of 180 watts, you will drop its temperature effectively until the processor layer is producing 180 watts, at which point the cooling device will fail.
I thought you would want something with a low boiling point so you can move the heat as far away from the source as possible? Something with a high specific heat is what's needed, which is why water is good. You can have any boiling point you like, depending on what pressure you apply to the liquid (boiling point is when vapour pressure = atmospheric pressure). If you are going to compress and decompress something to drive heat away, then use a gas.
To cool the stack at a rate of 180 watts per layer, water flows down 50-micron channels between the stacked chips. I wonder what reactivity of water with the surrounding surfaces will do to the life of the chip. AFAIK pretty much anything that uses water has an inherent limitation to its life, owing to the presence of superoxide radicals and free hydrogen ions.
I still think it'll be a long time before such fare becomes indistinguishable from the real thing
I am against child abuse just as much as anyone, but the more I hear about this issue the more it makes me think that the laws are asking society to perfect hypocrisy. On the one hand we have music videos which are basically soft-porn, magazines on supermarket shelves at child's-eye level which are no less sexually explicit, but now we have artists charged and art exhibitions canceled because they have photographs of naked children.
Ok, I personally have no inclination of visiting such an exhibition - I don't agree with the idea, but to make that illegal is ridiculous.
My point is, so what if someone can render a CG image of a child or adult so cleverly so that it is 'real'? We are missing the point. Laws are meant to protect people from harm, not electrons. There has to be proof that there is a causative link between such an image and an abuse of a child. Nobody is going around arresting paintings of people being slaughtered or whatever. The Louvre, for example, contains numerous, magnificent works of art which depict terrible deeds - but they are not regarded as obscene.
There is a difference between child molestation and paedophilia.
One is a criminal act, the other is a psychiatric illness. Why are we criminalizing a medical condition?
The RSI was not caused by computer equipment as such but the repetitive wrist movements of M$ employees during idle hours watching footage of chair-throwing-fetish videos.
... that we've been using the same architecture for almost 60% of my life. More than 60% if you count the 8080. -K1LT I agree. What impresses me is how, what I thought at the time were much better processor architectures, died a death, whereas clunky ol' x86 kept on going, warts and all.
BTW, thanks for the links, some pretty nice stuff they got there and saved me time! You're welcome. They are amazing images. I will be having fun mucking around with them.
How is haphazardly hacked together code any harder to reverse engineer than intentionally obfuscated code? We know the latter isn't a problem for a determined hacker....
Nonetheless there is something to what Kurzweil says, futurist (or in my language 'bullshit-artist') though he is.
The brain is probably impossible to 'reverse-engineer', not because of its evolution but because to come up with a brain you need to have 9 months in-utero development followed by years of environmental formation, nurturing and so forth, by which time the brain is so complex and fragile that analyzing it adequately becomes practically impossible.
I mean, take the electro-encephalogram (EEG). It gives us so little information it's laughable. Electrical signals from the cortext mask those of deeper structures and still we just end up with an average of countless signals. Every other form of brain monitoring is also fuzzy. Invasive monitoring of brain function is problematic because it damages the brain and the brain adapts (probably) in different ways each time. Sure, we can probably get some of the information we are after, but the entire brain is, I would suggest, too big a task.
But we can use the same principles that exist in the brain to mimic its functionality. But it ultimately is a new invention and not a replica of a brain, even if it does manage to demonstrate consciousness.
Or is the election campaign qualify as being "for nerds" now? If you were looking at the firehose at the time, the posts regarding this topic were running red hot. Obviously people on Slashdot thought it warranted discussion.
So don't come crying to everyone when he loses. I hope he doesn't As long as he doesn't say something like "I will not go to war with Iran" or "America will not give monetary or military support to nations that consider torture to be legal", he has a chance.
If the way things work in Croatia is any clue, money has Changed Hands in order for things to resolve this way. Corruption is common, but IMHO incompetence is far more prevalent.
Who in their right mind makes something work on a browser that doesn't work well, but neglects to do it for a browser that is easier to develop for? Obviously someone who is friends with the people who give out contracts for kindergartens in Vienna.
Since you obviously weren't there to experience them, let me assure you that both Wordperfect for Windows (especially until the late '90s) and Netscape Navigator 4.0 were, in fact, bad products. I was there to experience them. I used them (did MANY assignments on wordperfect and designed websites with testing on netscape) and I liked them. Yes they were buggy (netscape) and Wordperfect was a GUI'd version of the text based word processor that preceded it, but at the time they were good.
Experience too is a big thing. Finding MCSEs who are competant is a lot easier than finding competant RHCEs, or even decent UNIX admins in general. The costs for payroll to find the true UNIX admins who know their stuff as opposed to the guy with Ubuntu running on a P2 in the basement doing samba is enormous, and can easily overshadow MS's license fees. The problem here is that most MCSE's are still only capable of setting up a fisher-price level network. The company leaves itself exposed because there is inadequate control over information flow and company secrets can easily be leaked. This is a really serious problem with potentially more disastrous consequences than some kind of imaginary license dispute.
I am not going to recommend to anybody that they change their company standards away from Microsoft. What I will tell you is that open source is a viable alternative that can be used in a production environment. If there's one thing more annoying than an opinionated person, it's a person who can't give a decent opinion in the first place.
I was more interested in what would happen after he got the image onto the hard drive: Well, on a HD display of 1920x1200, you can potentially generate 2000 backgrounds. Cool huh?
Slashdot Mirror
Even if they put water that's as clean as a frog's butt into the device, there will be silting in good time with gradual deterioration of the cooling system.
IMHO they should use a fluorinated carbon of some kind - something that won't react with the processor nor participate in significant electrolysis.
I think you got my point :)
I am against child abuse just as much as anyone, but the more I hear about this issue the more it makes me think that the laws are asking society to perfect hypocrisy. On the one hand we have music videos which are basically soft-porn, magazines on supermarket shelves at child's-eye level which are no less sexually explicit, but now we have artists charged and art exhibitions canceled because they have photographs of naked children.
Ok, I personally have no inclination of visiting such an exhibition - I don't agree with the idea, but to make that illegal is ridiculous.
My point is, so what if someone can render a CG image of a child or adult so cleverly so that it is 'real'? We are missing the point. Laws are meant to protect people from harm, not electrons. There has to be proof that there is a causative link between such an image and an abuse of a child. Nobody is going around arresting paintings of people being slaughtered or whatever. The Louvre, for example, contains numerous, magnificent works of art which depict terrible deeds - but they are not regarded as obscene.
There is a difference between child molestation and paedophilia. One is a criminal act, the other is a psychiatric illness. Why are we criminalizing a medical condition?
Just FYI they actually miss-spelt it, it should read Slow Leapard
.That's a big leak and a big privacy breach, but can this realistically lead to legal action against BT?
The RSI was not caused by computer equipment as such but the repetitive wrist movements of M$ employees during idle hours watching footage of chair-throwing-fetish videos.
... that we've been using the same architecture for almost 60% of my life. More than 60% if you count the 8080. -K1LT I agree. What impresses me is how, what I thought at the time were much better processor architectures, died a death, whereas clunky ol' x86 kept on going, warts and all.Nonetheless there is something to what Kurzweil says, futurist (or in my language 'bullshit-artist') though he is.
The brain is probably impossible to 'reverse-engineer', not because of its evolution but because to come up with a brain you need to have 9 months in-utero development followed by years of environmental formation, nurturing and so forth, by which time the brain is so complex and fragile that analyzing it adequately becomes practically impossible.
I mean, take the electro-encephalogram (EEG). It gives us so little information it's laughable. Electrical signals from the cortext mask those of deeper structures and still we just end up with an average of countless signals. Every other form of brain monitoring is also fuzzy. Invasive monitoring of brain function is problematic because it damages the brain and the brain adapts (probably) in different ways each time. Sure, we can probably get some of the information we are after, but the entire brain is, I would suggest, too big a task.
But we can use the same principles that exist in the brain to mimic its functionality. But it ultimately is a new invention and not a replica of a brain, even if it does manage to demonstrate consciousness.