The camera is in practice a 4D sensor, organised as an array of arrays, an array of smaller cameras, put on a single 2D pixel sensor. (I gather)
The problem with this is that the picture to be taken, is 3D, not 4D. Thus there is one extra unnecessary dimension. This means that for a 100 MPixel (100^4) sensor, there will be about 100^3 voxels in the resulting 3D image, while it should have been 464^3 if it had been efficient.
One simple way to make it efficient, is to make a short movie with an ordinary camera, while changing focus, thus getting different focus on different pictures in the sequence.
If the scene is moving, this may be a problem for the processing software. One way to solve that is to make a 3D camera the following way:
Construct it like a camera, except that there are several mostly transparent mirrors deflecting the light into several sensors, each focused at a different length.
This could of course also be used to make pictures with sharpness everywhere.
The article lack, as usual, information about what those machines actually do when they compute together.
What I want to know is: Do they have a big 64 bit addressable RAM image spread over all nodes, communicating with pthreads, like I prefer? Or perhaps they have several 32bit RAM images communicating with some special message protocol. Or perhaps they just have lots of quite independent but equal programs running, as an ensemble. Or perhaps some kind of pipeline where the different parts of the calculation run on different machines.
All those free and commercial producers of supercomputers, why don't they tell us clearly how they are supposed to be used? Personally, I prefer one big image, because I am a physicist kind of person, knowing that this simple computational model will save me lots of work, and also work fast in practice, as long as I do not write too stupid code, i.e. with tight nonlocal interdependencies. But from what I see, many of them appear to use 32bit operating systems, which makes this impossible, and they thus have to use message passing protocols, which make everything much more complicated. For instance: I can do a big 3D wave simulation by having a big 3D array spanning several machines, and updating it piecemal. However, if I have to cut it into 64 sub-cubes, and using message protocols to glue their edges together, then the work required to do this is a significant road block, and extra code like that also introduces bugs.
Could this be solved by something as simple as using an NFS file, memory mapped piecemal to different machines to do automatic cross-machine data sharing?
This trend with multiple cores on the CPU is only an intermediate phase, because it over saturates the memory bus, which is easy to remedy by putting the cores on the memory chips, of which there are a number comparable to the number of cores.
In other words, the CPUs will disappear, and there will be lots of smaller core/memory chips, connected in a network. And they will be cheaper as well, because they do not need so high a yeld.
PS: I do have a method for removing colour spatter, but it is not implemented yet, and it is also different from what I have seen elsewhere. Is this sufficiently important that I should implement it?
The contract is to the company, so just see to it that it ceases to exist. Morally, this is perfectly okay, since the contract destroys your livelihood. Ethically, it is okay, since it is tit for tat. Legally, this can be perfectly okay, since there are many legal ways to destroy your company, such as following orders, since companies like that are bound to give idiotic orders, or get it indicted, or sold, or dismantled, etc. Just think outside the box!
Any employee that is smart enough that signing away inventions is a real loss, and at the same time desperate enough to sign, is also smart enough to have a good chance at destroying the company. Just look at the harddisks containing viruses, capacitors containing impurities destroying them and the computers they are used in, or the batteries self combusting, or the massive amount of companies that never get their products working despite years of research and apparently manageable goals.
So what are they REALLY paying you to do? Destroy the company? Delay the product? Lie to investors? Grovel to bosses? Not working for others? Pound you? Those are some of the real factors for pay that I have seen, in all these cases real payment incentives were created by aggressive clueless bosses.
And this is supposed to be new? I thought about this several years ago, when I studied physics. Particles typically describe world lines in the variants of Hilbert space that quantum mechanics use, with say 4 dimensions per particle in the universe. When interacting, such as a photon hitting a half transparent mirror, the world line described by that photons wave packet gets split in 2, and enough splitting like that will give a branching structure of waves in Hilbert space.
In other words, the interacting particles in Fock space gives wavy structures that branches, as long as it is sufficiently for from thermal equilibrium.
This technology could obviously be used for a neural interface instead of a torture device. Can it trigger pain neurouns, then it should trigger other neurons as well. What about focusing information patterns on the retina, brain, or spinal column with it? What about using near-field radiation to trigger neurons from a chip without sticking lots of needles into the brain and similar?
Remember, if you see that patented, you saw it first here, and I found this quite obvious.
It is a Java applet. Note the low dispersion. Try clicking on it!
In order to make this, I avoided the standard textbook methods. They can give good waves, but at a high cost in computation and memory.
It is not standard finite differencing, since those methods introduce dispersion and similar errors to an unnecessary degree. But it IS a finite differencing method, and I have done variants of it with variable speed and in 3 dimensions.
This is yet another example of peoples inability to understand even simple things. Hence the expression "shooting oneself in the foot". The nice ting about it is that one can pursue the same strategy against them again and again since they wont and cannot adapt.
It is quite typical for groups of people in power to be there because they share some irrational belief, not because they are smarter, more rational, or better at making money. It is a power thing. It is a game of exclusion, not of cooperation. Examples: Music companies, freemasons, Bush & Co, religions, politics, investors, etc.
But then again, most people follow this pattern, even many who believe themselves to be rational. I have found that one strong indicator of this irrationality is the inability of people to understand that "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence." Carl Sagan understood that this is true, while Bush & Co with their absent evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Irak, does not understand it. More surpricing is that the "American Statistical Association" does not understand it either, and they should, since they are statisticians.
And now, to prevent some of the bickering that always appears when this is brought out, here is my proof:
So when M$ do not show examples of patented Linux code, this means that it is less likely that there is such code. It also means that if there is patented code, there is likely less of it.
| Two layers are better than one, right? So double ROT13 encryption is stronger than | single ROT13, right? You're running smack into a major, well-known area of crypto. | A lot of ciphers do not composite themselves well. You are almost always better off | just picking one algorithm with a strong keysize than a composition of multiple algorithms.
If that is true, then those ciphers could be cracked by compositing them with themselves.
>... speed or latency.. (and what about heat exchange issues?)
Very high speed is possible, since the surface of the chip has an awful number of wires for data to pass in parallell. It should be very fast, almost no matter how slow each memory cell is.
Latency cannot be higher than the speed of each single memory cell, just as in flash memories. I guess there must be some kind of block transfer mode.
As for heat, I guess that depends on the memory material. But for extreme cases, there could be cooling fluid flowing between the memory layers.
One way of solving the problem of intramolecular forces when the disk head is very close to the surface, is to put metallic rings on the head to make the forces repell it.
I always thought that the thing SETI could detect, were radars on other worlds, since they send out a lot of radiation. In addition to that, they have been used for a long time in our civilization, and are still used even when radio is disappearing into the internet.
It would be nice having a picture of a part of an alien planet made from their radar reflections.
Slashdot Mirror
The camera is in practice a 4D sensor, organised as an array of arrays,
an array of smaller cameras, put on a single 2D pixel sensor. (I gather)
The problem with this is that the picture to be taken, is 3D, not 4D.
Thus there is one extra unnecessary dimension. This means that for a 100 MPixel (100^4)
sensor, there will be about 100^3 voxels in the resulting 3D image, while it should
have been 464^3 if it had been efficient.
One simple way to make it efficient, is to make a short movie with an ordinary camera,
while changing focus, thus getting different focus on different pictures in the sequence.
If the scene is moving, this may be a problem for the processing software. One way to solve
that is to make a 3D camera the following way:
Construct it like a camera, except that there are several mostly transparent
mirrors deflecting the light into several sensors, each focused at a different length.
This could of course also be used to make pictures with sharpness everywhere.
Kim Øyhus, Quantum physicist.
The article lack, as usual, information about what those machines actually do when they compute together.
What I want to know is: Do they have a big 64 bit addressable RAM image spread over all nodes, communicating with pthreads, like I prefer? Or perhaps they have several 32bit RAM images communicating with some special message protocol. Or perhaps they just have lots of quite independent but equal programs running, as an ensemble. Or perhaps some kind of pipeline where the different parts of the calculation run on different machines.
All those free and commercial producers of supercomputers, why don't they tell us clearly how they are supposed to be used? Personally, I prefer one big image, because I am a physicist kind of person, knowing that this simple computational model will save me lots of work, and also work fast in practice, as long as I do not write too stupid code, i.e. with tight nonlocal interdependencies. But from what I see, many of them appear to use 32bit operating systems, which makes this impossible, and they thus have to use message passing protocols, which make everything much more complicated. For instance: I can do a big 3D wave simulation by having a big 3D array spanning several machines, and updating it piecemal. However, if I have to cut it into 64 sub-cubes, and using message protocols to glue their edges together, then the work required to do this is a significant road block, and extra code like that also introduces bugs.
Could this be solved by something as simple as using an NFS file, memory mapped piecemal to different machines to do automatic cross-machine data sharing?
Kim0
This trend with multiple cores on the CPU is only an intermediate phase,
because it over saturates the memory bus, which is easy to remedy by
putting the cores on the memory chips, of which there are a number
comparable to the number of cores.
In other words, the CPUs will disappear, and there will be lots of smaller
core/memory chips, connected in a network. And they will be cheaper as well,
because they do not need so high a yeld.
Kim0
Perhaps Movable Type could benefit from the SubLCD subpixel rendering, which is free and unpatented.
http://kim.oyhus.no/SubLCD.html
PS: I do have a method for removing colour spatter, but it is not implemented yet, and it is also different from what I have seen elsewhere. Is this sufficiently important that I should implement it?
I too have not had a blow up dinosaur for a girlfriend.
The contract is to the company, so just see to it that it ceases to exist.
Morally, this is perfectly okay, since the contract destroys your livelihood.
Ethically, it is okay, since it is tit for tat.
Legally, this can be perfectly okay, since there are many legal ways to destroy
your company, such as following orders, since companies like that are bound to give
idiotic orders, or get it indicted, or sold, or dismantled, etc. Just think outside
the box!
Any employee that is smart enough that signing away inventions is a real loss,
and at the same time desperate enough to sign, is also smart enough to have a
good chance at destroying the company. Just look at the harddisks containing
viruses, capacitors containing impurities destroying them and the computers they
are used in, or the batteries self combusting, or the massive amount of companies
that never get their products working despite years of research and apparently
manageable goals.
So what are they REALLY paying you to do? Destroy the company? Delay the product?
Lie to investors? Grovel to bosses? Not working for others? Pound you? Those are
some of the real factors for pay that I have seen, in all these cases real payment
incentives were created by aggressive clueless bosses.
Kim0
And this is supposed to be new?
I thought about this several years ago, when I studied physics.
Particles typically describe world lines in the variants of Hilbert space that quantum mechanics use,
with say 4 dimensions per particle in the universe. When interacting, such as a photon hitting a half
transparent mirror, the world line described by that photons wave packet gets split in 2, and enough
splitting like that will give a branching structure of waves in Hilbert space.
In other words, the interacting particles in Fock space gives wavy structures that branches, as long as
it is sufficiently for from thermal equilibrium.
Kim0
This technology could obviously be used for a neural interface instead of a torture device.
Can it trigger pain neurouns, then it should trigger other neurons as well. What about focusing information patterns on the retina, brain, or spinal column with it? What about using near-field radiation to trigger neurons from a chip without sticking lots of needles into the brain and similar?
Remember, if you see that patented, you saw it first here, and I found this quite obvious.
Kim0
http://kim.oyhus.no/wave.html
It is a Java applet. Note the low dispersion. Try clicking on it!
In order to make this, I avoided the standard textbook methods.
They can give good waves, but at a high cost in computation and memory.
It is not standard finite differencing, since those methods introduce dispersion
and similar errors to an unnecessary degree. But it IS a finite differencing method,
and I have done variants of it with variable speed and in 3 dimensions.
Here is one with variable speed:
http://kim.oyhus.no/seismic.mpg
One of the tricks I use is to use a hexagonal grid.
Kim Øyhus, M.Sc. Physics
Lenne Flank of the Usenet group Talk Origins is VERY good at this sort of stuff.
This is yet another example of peoples inability to understand even simple things.
Hence the expression "shooting oneself in the foot". The nice ting about it is that
one can pursue the same strategy against them again and again since they wont and cannot adapt.
It is quite typical for groups of people in power to be there because they share some irrational
belief, not because they are smarter, more rational, or better at making money. It is a power thing.
It is a game of exclusion, not of cooperation. Examples: Music companies, freemasons, Bush & Co,
religions, politics, investors, etc.
But then again, most people follow this pattern, even many who believe themselves to be rational.
I have found that one strong indicator of this irrationality is the inability of people to understand
that "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence." Carl Sagan understood that this is true, while
Bush & Co with their absent evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Irak, does not understand it.
More surpricing is that the "American Statistical Association" does not understand it either, and
they should, since they are statisticians.
And now, to prevent some of the bickering that always appears when this is brought out, here is my proof:
http://kim.oyhus.no/AbsenceOfEvidence.html
Kim Øyhus
So when M$ do not show examples of patented Linux code,
this means that it is less likely that there is such code.
It also means that if there is patented code, there is likely less of it.
Here is a proof that absence of evidence is evidence of absence:
http://oyhus.no/AbsenceOfEvidence.html
Kim0
| Two layers are better than one, right? So double ROT13 encryption is stronger than
| single ROT13, right? You're running smack into a major, well-known area of crypto.
| A lot of ciphers do not composite themselves well. You are almost always better off
| just picking one algorithm with a strong keysize than a composition of multiple algorithms.
If that is true, then those ciphers could be cracked by compositing them with themselves.
They could just use this replacement, which is not patented:
http://oyhus.no/SubLCD.html
>... speed or latency.. (and what about heat exchange issues?)
Very high speed is possible, since the surface of the chip has an awful number of wires for data to pass in parallell. It should be very fast, almost no matter how slow each memory cell is.
Latency cannot be higher than the speed of each single memory cell, just as in flash memories. I guess there must be some kind of block transfer mode.
As for heat, I guess that depends on the memory material. But for extreme cases, there could be cooling fluid flowing between the memory layers.
I really wish they would stack it in 3D to get humonguous memories, f.ex. like this:
http://memory.oyhus.no/
http://memory.oyhus.no/
By using that technique, that programmable logic could be thousands of times more powerful without increasing the space it takes.
Kim0
It should be possible to make terabytes of it, on one chip, now, by using this stacking technique:
http://memory.oyhus.no/
Kim0
One way of solving the problem of intramolecular forces when the disk head is very close to the surface, is to put metallic rings on the head to make the forces repell it.
Kim0
I always thought that the thing SETI could detect, were radars on other worlds, since they send out a lot of radiation. In addition to that, they have been used for a long time in our civilization, and are still used even when radio is disappearing into the internet.
It would be nice having a picture of a part of an alien planet made from their radar reflections.
Kim0
The story was about standards and a standard.
My comment was about standards in general.
That is the connection between my comment and the article.
I was referring to the KISS principle, and the principle of Ockhams razor,
which are principles of fundamental importance, and therefore something.
I have seen enough standards to know that they often are constructed with no regard to these principles, and therefore are bad standards.
Kim0
If a standard is as simple as possible, while being reasonably
efficient, then it is best.
This is also known as KISS, Ockhams Razor, etc.
Or as Einstein said: It should be as simple as possible, but not simpler than that.
Kim0
I think it was about 25 years ago. I saw a tv-program about laser isotope separation. It was american, or english.
Kim0
If micro kernels copy video streams instead of sharing memory, I guess they would be significantly slower at that.
Why not have both? Communication by memory only shared between the caller
and callee, and nothing else?
> You are wrong. New information cannot be created by rearranging.
And you keep on lying, even when it is quite easy to see.
You are so typically christian. Arrogant and ignorant.
Here is some data before rearranging:
00000000001111111111
And here it is after rearranging:
00011000101111110001
It is more complex after rearranging, and therefore it contains more
information.
Kim0