At that point the phone is really just a headless desktop (until you dock it).
But I suspect if we were seriously considering that option, then we'd rapidly - and slowly and stupidly - rediscover most of the classic desktop metaphors we enjoy today. They're widespread for a reason.
You're OP was implying this is all garbage because 6-8 cores is a high end chip, not a "typical" one.
Yet 10 years is not a long time - in the past decade 4 would've been a high-end chip, and before that having 2 physical processors would've been significant as well.
So I would think, there is in fact a great deal of importance to this kind of work seeing as how the number of cores per chip for consumer items has grown and grown. And then you undermine your own point by implying we might even be getting close to "hundreds" of cores on a chip in the next 10 years. If we are, then the typical consumer chip will be breaching 8-16 easily. Not to mention thing's like the Cell architecture where Sony was thinking about pushing 24 work-cores onto the chip for the PS4 (backed off since then, but it shows where things are headed).
It's also worth noting that people throwing rocks off overpasses at cars has in fact killed a number of people, was done by 13 year olds (in at least one instance I recall) and has more or less led to all of them being enclosed in steel mesh to prevent anything much larger then a pebble being dropped/thrown off them.
I'm not sure just why the manufacturer thinks the pump needs to have a wireless function though. If it needs to talk to another device, I would have used a small magnetic cable (so it doesn't get pulled out). Easy peasy as opposed to convincing a wireless device to talk to something else.
Because they're implanted devices. Presently absolutely no-one has any good idea on how to reliably expose a control interface (say, through the skin) without creating a massive risk of infection, or just injury (from mechanical trauma if it snags on something or whatnot).
You also can't just go threading wires through a person willy-nilly like you'd need to do to create useful induction interface (not to mention the danger that you could probably talk to such a thing wirelessly anyway, with the body acting as a pretty good antenna).
Also this is exactly what chip makers already do to a great extent: the binning of CPUs by speeds is not a targeted process. You make a bunch of a chips, test them, and then sell them as whatever clock speed they are robustly stable at.
I'm pretty much convinced these days that building yourself in with fixed walls and assuming you'll know where you want things is idiotic. When I get around to renovating/building my own house, I'm going to try as hard as I can to do all the walls in some type of quick-release panelling specifically so it'll be easier to retrofit later.
Although I suspect double-brick + a false ceiling would be more then adequate, since it'd be hard to end up having too many sockets, and you can blank those off anyway.
The big problem now is that every child learns differently, has different interests, and (what many don't want to acknowledge) many students are just plain dumb. A good teacher can adjust to each student in real time, but how do you write software that will help all of them learn?
But there also simply aren't that many truly good teachers, and you certainly can't individually adapt 1 teacher to 30 different students. And that's the problem.
Haven't you ever encountered something that you just couldn't understand, until it was explained a particular way? It's the part of the idea of the Kahn Academy I find most compelling: realistically there's probably a great many really good ways to explain something, but not everyone is capable of conveying them effectively - so wouldn't it be better to try and share the experience or lessons that some people are really effective at?
Just because we're not yet writing good educational software doesn't mean the idea is fundamentally flawed: it means we're not writing good software. But I've yet to hear any explanations which point out fundamental reasons we couldn't improve the situation dramatically, rather then reverting to personal examples where it's apparent things were being done ineffectually, rather then failing on a fundamental level.
After all, maths textbooks more or less revolutionized the teaching of mathematics. There's little reason to think we couldn't accomplish something similar once we figure out how to use a newer medium properly.
I do like that your argument centers on how computers can't magically help children learn, but then you invoke the same fallacy to declare that they'll definitely hinder children from learning.
It's got nothing to do with computers, and almost everything to do with software and discipline (to some degree). Being the black box that they are, computers are simply a big source of students goofing off in the common experience (usually because we the students are way more knowledgeable and effective in the first place). But the more serious problem is that educational software, by and large, sucks and sucks badly.
But to a big degree, I very much wonder if this is an actual failure of software design, or a reflection of the fact that the "standard curriculums" for a lot of subjects are actually horribly designed, and largely salvaged by thinking teachers or intelligent parents. Because that is, very much, something we should deal with because it's easily possible to wind up with neither.
A lot of people say this, and I'm extremely skeptical of the sentiment, since it very much mirrors "you can't give students calculators!" and has many of the same fallacies, since anyone who has done basic algebra or calculus knows a calculator won't help you at all - and neither will me getting stuck on a sample problem for 16 hours, until I can ask for help from a teacher...who may not be interested or available or even particularly knowledgeable on how to solve it.
I don't know if giving them to the teachers a year in advance would help anything. With no impetus to use it, and no students who have it, they could just as easily ignore it completely. I'd wager more that we're dealing with the very serious issue of how you write good educational software - which has been at a horrific standstill for a very long time.
That's all well and good, but the OLPC project was always aimed at trying to short-circuit the endemic problems of many poorer nations. The point has never been "technology enables learning" the point has always been along the lines of "what would happen if we could make sure everyone had access to wikipedia?"
You're dealing with environments where it may not even be possible to maintain a regular structured classroom environment for all sorts of reasons. But if you can get the price of the technology to the right level, then we can in fact begin to think about good software-based solutions for things - remembering that in many cases the goal is less "gets a business masters" and more "can read and write proficiently".
I feel this is really the type of thing OLPC is aiming for.
Probably more importantly though, I suspect OLPC was always going to disappoint - after all, it's goal wasn't an integrated software and hardware package that would do everything right (although they have put a decent amount of thought into the software) - the goal was to get the price of the laptops to a point where we could conceivably offer them to every child on the planet.
It's things like the Kahn Academy which are ultimately going to drive the very important software aspect of this - and in that respect OLPC is good since it will be able to define the minimum hardware standard we should aim for.
It really depends on how the IO for the processor works out. It seems pretty likely that we'll end up with people who directly link sensor inputs to program IO decisions. You'll probably have a whole generation of things which can be buffer overflowed if you cause the right environment to exist around them.
This will end up very much damaging Bioware though (as it probably should). I mean, they will still sell games, but I'm very sure that I'll be waiting till player reviews hit before thinking about buying them.
Some people seem to think they're speaking for everyone. For some people, it was the endings that were the problem. Some people didn't want galactic civilization ruined. Others might have wanted a happy ending. Still others might have liked the current endings.
And amongst those people, there's a lot of nuance in the position - don't generalize just to feel superior. "Dark and angsty" is not profound, and in a lot of cases is just lazy writing.
That big message at the top that they're currently trying to consolidate the page might be notable. x2go is in the Ubuntu reps, and the Windows client works great. Also the download links from the normal site http://www.x2go.org work fine - I don't actually know how you navigated otherwise. Some metaphor about don't judge a book by it's cover would also be appropriate here.
I highly recommend giving it a go if you have Linux servers to maintain, since it's connections work like straight SSH connections (no additional ports or authentication mechanisms - which more or less seamlessly fixes problems with both VNC and the original NX) and it's very responsive and usable.
It has very little to do with "dishonesty". No one is fabricating results. In fact, their are very few cases of genuine scientific fraud. What this article is referring to is the unfortunate reality that you can't prove a negative, but you do need to publish something. If you have six trials and one works, then you can publish that. And it's not dishonest - 1 trial did work. And you're free to speculate about why that should be. And at no point have you actually falsified any results.
Conversely, no one's going to publish the same paper where you denigrate the single positive result. Usually because, you didn't have the resources to actually run the 30 - 100 more trials you'd need to actually establish the result as bad. And the mass media, and humans in general, are very bad intuitive statisticians.
Note though: at no point was anything fraudulent actually done. In fact, knowing that in six trials there was one success, is still contributing to the knowledge pool. The problem is, the interpretation of that knowledge pool, can be highly subjective until you have more data. But publishing that initial result - not fraudulent at all. But it also definitely shouldn't be reported by the mass media as showing "you'll definitely get cancer from X".
Remote Desktop on Windows seems to be somewhat more intelligent then just "screen scraping".
Similarly, VNC on Linux can be like this.
But by far the best solution I've encountered is x2go, which is based on NX, which notably just caches and removes some of the overhead of straight networked X.
Surely, the better answer here would be to tackle that problem - implement a well behaved network protocol.
Yes but Kupier belt objects would be on long orbits. The point is, we don't need to know them 100 cycles ahead. Just far enough that we know where in the sky to look every few years to check if they're now on an impact course.
Of course, this type of strategy works better if we had a rapid response plan to deal with these things.
It's also not really necessary. Unless we expected it to drastically change speeds, then it's good enough to know the previous orbit, predict the next orbit, and put it on a list of things to keep an eye on when their on their Earth approach again.
Slashdot Mirror
At that point the phone is really just a headless desktop (until you dock it).
But I suspect if we were seriously considering that option, then we'd rapidly - and slowly and stupidly - rediscover most of the classic desktop metaphors we enjoy today. They're widespread for a reason.
My mistake.
What are you even referring to?
You're OP was implying this is all garbage because 6-8 cores is a high end chip, not a "typical" one.
Yet 10 years is not a long time - in the past decade 4 would've been a high-end chip, and before that having 2 physical processors would've been significant as well.
So I would think, there is in fact a great deal of importance to this kind of work seeing as how the number of cores per chip for consumer items has grown and grown. And then you undermine your own point by implying we might even be getting close to "hundreds" of cores on a chip in the next 10 years. If we are, then the typical consumer chip will be breaching 8-16 easily. Not to mention thing's like the Cell architecture where Sony was thinking about pushing 24 work-cores onto the chip for the PS4 (backed off since then, but it shows where things are headed).
It's also worth noting that people throwing rocks off overpasses at cars has in fact killed a number of people, was done by 13 year olds (in at least one instance I recall) and has more or less led to all of them being enclosed in steel mesh to prevent anything much larger then a pebble being dropped/thrown off them.
I'm not sure just why the manufacturer thinks the pump needs to have a wireless function though. If it needs to talk to another device, I would have used a small magnetic cable (so it doesn't get pulled out). Easy peasy as opposed to convincing a wireless device to talk to something else.
Because they're implanted devices. Presently absolutely no-one has any good idea on how to reliably expose a control interface (say, through the skin) without creating a massive risk of infection, or just injury (from mechanical trauma if it snags on something or whatnot).
You also can't just go threading wires through a person willy-nilly like you'd need to do to create useful induction interface (not to mention the danger that you could probably talk to such a thing wirelessly anyway, with the body acting as a pretty good antenna).
No "typical" consumer chip 10 years ago had even 4 cores.
Also this is exactly what chip makers already do to a great extent: the binning of CPUs by speeds is not a targeted process. You make a bunch of a chips, test them, and then sell them as whatever clock speed they are robustly stable at.
I'm pretty much convinced these days that building yourself in with fixed walls and assuming you'll know where you want things is idiotic. When I get around to renovating/building my own house, I'm going to try as hard as I can to do all the walls in some type of quick-release panelling specifically so it'll be easier to retrofit later.
Although I suspect double-brick + a false ceiling would be more then adequate, since it'd be hard to end up having too many sockets, and you can blank those off anyway.
The big problem now is that every child learns differently, has different interests, and (what many don't want to acknowledge) many students are just plain dumb. A good teacher can adjust to each student in real time, but how do you write software that will help all of them learn?
But there also simply aren't that many truly good teachers, and you certainly can't individually adapt 1 teacher to 30 different students. And that's the problem.
Haven't you ever encountered something that you just couldn't understand, until it was explained a particular way? It's the part of the idea of the Kahn Academy I find most compelling: realistically there's probably a great many really good ways to explain something, but not everyone is capable of conveying them effectively - so wouldn't it be better to try and share the experience or lessons that some people are really effective at?
Just because we're not yet writing good educational software doesn't mean the idea is fundamentally flawed: it means we're not writing good software. But I've yet to hear any explanations which point out fundamental reasons we couldn't improve the situation dramatically, rather then reverting to personal examples where it's apparent things were being done ineffectually, rather then failing on a fundamental level.
After all, maths textbooks more or less revolutionized the teaching of mathematics. There's little reason to think we couldn't accomplish something similar once we figure out how to use a newer medium properly.
I do like that your argument centers on how computers can't magically help children learn, but then you invoke the same fallacy to declare that they'll definitely hinder children from learning.
It's got nothing to do with computers, and almost everything to do with software and discipline (to some degree). Being the black box that they are, computers are simply a big source of students goofing off in the common experience (usually because we the students are way more knowledgeable and effective in the first place). But the more serious problem is that educational software, by and large, sucks and sucks badly.
But to a big degree, I very much wonder if this is an actual failure of software design, or a reflection of the fact that the "standard curriculums" for a lot of subjects are actually horribly designed, and largely salvaged by thinking teachers or intelligent parents. Because that is, very much, something we should deal with because it's easily possible to wind up with neither.
A lot of people say this, and I'm extremely skeptical of the sentiment, since it very much mirrors "you can't give students calculators!" and has many of the same fallacies, since anyone who has done basic algebra or calculus knows a calculator won't help you at all - and neither will me getting stuck on a sample problem for 16 hours, until I can ask for help from a teacher...who may not be interested or available or even particularly knowledgeable on how to solve it.
I don't know if giving them to the teachers a year in advance would help anything. With no impetus to use it, and no students who have it, they could just as easily ignore it completely. I'd wager more that we're dealing with the very serious issue of how you write good educational software - which has been at a horrific standstill for a very long time.
That's all well and good, but the OLPC project was always aimed at trying to short-circuit the endemic problems of many poorer nations. The point has never been "technology enables learning" the point has always been along the lines of "what would happen if we could make sure everyone had access to wikipedia?"
You're dealing with environments where it may not even be possible to maintain a regular structured classroom environment for all sorts of reasons. But if you can get the price of the technology to the right level, then we can in fact begin to think about good software-based solutions for things - remembering that in many cases the goal is less "gets a business masters" and more "can read and write proficiently".
I feel this is really the type of thing OLPC is aiming for.
Probably more importantly though, I suspect OLPC was always going to disappoint - after all, it's goal wasn't an integrated software and hardware package that would do everything right (although they have put a decent amount of thought into the software) - the goal was to get the price of the laptops to a point where we could conceivably offer them to every child on the planet.
It's things like the Kahn Academy which are ultimately going to drive the very important software aspect of this - and in that respect OLPC is good since it will be able to define the minimum hardware standard we should aim for.
It really depends on how the IO for the processor works out. It seems pretty likely that we'll end up with people who directly link sensor inputs to program IO decisions. You'll probably have a whole generation of things which can be buffer overflowed if you cause the right environment to exist around them.
Which will be hilarious.
Given the recent Slashdot article where someone booted Ubuntu on an 8-bit chip...I suspect it will.
This will end up very much damaging Bioware though (as it probably should). I mean, they will still sell games, but I'm very sure that I'll be waiting till player reviews hit before thinking about buying them.
Some people seem to think they're speaking for everyone. For some people, it was the endings that were the problem. Some people didn't want galactic civilization ruined. Others might have wanted a happy ending. Still others might have liked the current endings.
And amongst those people, there's a lot of nuance in the position - don't generalize just to feel superior. "Dark and angsty" is not profound, and in a lot of cases is just lazy writing.
That big message at the top that they're currently trying to consolidate the page might be notable. x2go is in the Ubuntu reps, and the Windows client works great. Also the download links from the normal site http://www.x2go.org work fine - I don't actually know how you navigated otherwise. Some metaphor about don't judge a book by it's cover would also be appropriate here.
I highly recommend giving it a go if you have Linux servers to maintain, since it's connections work like straight SSH connections (no additional ports or authentication mechanisms - which more or less seamlessly fixes problems with both VNC and the original NX) and it's very responsive and usable.
It has very little to do with "dishonesty". No one is fabricating results. In fact, their are very few cases of genuine scientific fraud. What this article is referring to is the unfortunate reality that you can't prove a negative, but you do need to publish something. If you have six trials and one works, then you can publish that. And it's not dishonest - 1 trial did work. And you're free to speculate about why that should be. And at no point have you actually falsified any results.
Conversely, no one's going to publish the same paper where you denigrate the single positive result. Usually because, you didn't have the resources to actually run the 30 - 100 more trials you'd need to actually establish the result as bad. And the mass media, and humans in general, are very bad intuitive statisticians.
Note though: at no point was anything fraudulent actually done. In fact, knowing that in six trials there was one success, is still contributing to the knowledge pool. The problem is, the interpretation of that knowledge pool, can be highly subjective until you have more data. But publishing that initial result - not fraudulent at all. But it also definitely shouldn't be reported by the mass media as showing "you'll definitely get cancer from X".
Sadly that happens a lot.
I like how you fail to actually cite anything here. I mean which notable replication failures are you actually referring to?
Remote Desktop on Windows seems to be somewhat more intelligent then just "screen scraping".
Similarly, VNC on Linux can be like this.
But by far the best solution I've encountered is x2go, which is based on NX, which notably just caches and removes some of the overhead of straight networked X.
Surely, the better answer here would be to tackle that problem - implement a well behaved network protocol.
Yes but Kupier belt objects would be on long orbits. The point is, we don't need to know them 100 cycles ahead. Just far enough that we know where in the sky to look every few years to check if they're now on an impact course.
Of course, this type of strategy works better if we had a rapid response plan to deal with these things.
It's also not really necessary. Unless we expected it to drastically change speeds, then it's good enough to know the previous orbit, predict the next orbit, and put it on a list of things to keep an eye on when their on their Earth approach again.
Lots of things can easily be cited.
For example I can cite that the rise in global temperatures is associated with the decrease in the number of pirates.