It's not a mere TPM solution. It's a Cortex A5 core. AMD has been pushing their Fusion Systems Architecture for heterogeneous SoCs, so it's likely that the Cortex A5 will be programmable by developers through OpenCL. The TPM thing is just what the marketing people envision as one of its uses, but it could be used for anything... it's left up to developers imaginations to find something more worthwhile than TPM.
You could use it as a dedicated audio decoder and DSP, for example, as the OpenCL vector math functions will map directly to the NEON SIMD instructions.
Knowing AMD, the ARM Cortex A5 will be openly available for general use to developers through OpenCL. It's not something that will be restricted to AMD's proprietary applications and drivers, but will be open for any use. The problem here is that the people reporting on AMD's hardware announcements in article aren't developers themselves, and so stuff like this gets lost in translation.
The researchers are assuming the actions of Victor to select a specific polarization and entanglement are somehow independent of the entire quantum configuration space. In other words, they're assuming free will, and the existence of external magical souls that are somehow independent of reality.
If you assume determinism, Victor's actions should be consistent with the configuration space, and so when measurements are made by Bob and Alice that are correlated, it increases the probability that Victor will choose to entangle.
And you're doing the exact same thing, attempting to elevate yourself as having a superior intellectual position using the same techniques and ad hominin generalizations while ignoring any contradictory evidence which actually is objective and factual.
The only difference between people like yourself and so called "conspiracy theorists" is the amount of trust or distrust one assigns to certains collections or groups of people such as corporations, governments, and nations.
It all stems from group dynamics and evolutionary psychology and it is ingrained into the human condition. No human can escape it, not you, not me, no one.
You've been brainwashed into thinking violence is bad. I'm sorry, but the only true way to protect yourself from someone who wishes to do bad to you is to stand up and do bad to them.
Yes sheep, it's the most secure browser ever. Download the binaries and rest at ease. We promise we haven't conspired with Google to install a back-door on our behalf.
I'm attacking Affirmative Action, which is the truly racist policy.
I'm sure there are many excellent African aircraft mechanics. The problem is that Affirmative Action and diversity policies can overlook a persons lack of skill and credentials merely to meet some quota.
Agreed, all mathematical objects don't really exist, they're merely declarative distillations of capturing some aspect of the computational processes of our own minds, and thus the underlying computational reality we find our selves embedded within.
That said, you can still use math as valid models and when a computationalist says that the wave function exists, what they really mean is that the underlying mechanism driving the wave function process exists--it's not some weird consequence of another process nor an illusion.
Assuming the paper is true, and I would like to think that it is (the assumptions they make in the paper are consistent with the Computational Universe Hypothesis and the Holographic Principle), it lends credence to the idea that the every day macroscopic reality we experience is in fact nothing more than a mirage, emergent from the process of quantum amplitude flows across the vast configuration space.
According to a purvey of information posted on Wikipedia, Hox transcription factor proteins produced from the expression of the Hox genes activate the transcription of specific genes while at the same repressing the expression of other genes. Hox proteins are themselves regulated by other genes, such as gap genes and pair-rule genes, and there's a transcription factor cascade which controls the whole process for each stage, which has been explored in depth. Apparently, there's been a lot of work in this field since 2000.
...the compiler toolchain and libraries for Ocaml or Haskell are more mature, have support for compiling directly to native machine code and interfacing with platform specific ABIs, and aren't tied to decrepit virtual machines such as the JVM or.NET framework.
JavaScript emerged out of a process focusing on appeasing the masses of web developers with features without much regard for how the end result would turn out. It has some major problems regarding performance, scalability across multiple cores, ease of maintenance and debug-ability that can't really be overcome with better implementations and tools.
People like to talk a lot about moving everything to the browser, replacing traditional applications development, but that's just not going to happen with JavaScript at the helm.
The problem is that cloud computing tantamount to slavery computing, turning users into slaves. It takes away all control and concentrates it in the hands of large corporations.
I'm all for ubiqutous computing, but unless I own and control all of the devices I use, and the software running on them, what's the point?
I'm tired of being a slave. A slave to the dollar, a slave to the government, a slave to the company I need to work at to survive in this pitiful existence. I don't want some big corporation to take away my personal computing experience.
I don't see how people are so blind as to think cloud computing is an improvement.
Metro is the default UI, but you can switch back to Aero Glass/Aero/Classic by tapping the Windows key on your keyboard. Metro isn't mandatory or forced on you on the desktop.
With deferred shading, lighting is done in a second pass (or multiple passes for different types of lights) directly against the g-buffer. The g-buffer contains a surface normal, depth value, and lighting & material coefficients for each pixel and is populated by rasterizing or ray-casting/tracing your scene geometry into it. With rasterization, each of your polygonal meshes are rendered into the g-buffer once without regard for lighting, during the lighting stage, each light is applied to the g-buffer without regard to the different primitives that were used to create the initial g-buffer. Thus you can scale up the number of lights independently from the scene geometry.
I'm really starting to think you're a troll looking for a quick fix.
Ahh, okay, gotcha, now what you original said makes sense. There's more than one way to scale it. Generally, on a given project you have fixed budgets for pixels and polygons, but over the years as you target each subsequent generation you get to scale up both categories--however, scaling up the number of pixels beyond 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 doesn't really make as much as much sense as say continuing to scale up the complexity of your geometry, so I guess my brain assumed that's what you'd want to scale up rather than the output resolution.
GPUs eventually will get working caches. AMD's next-generation GPUs are shipping with stuff comparable or better than Fermi, and nVidia's Kepler is getting something better than Fermi.
Furthermore, Intel's Larrabee, Knight's Ferry, and Knight's Corner HPC compute products have cache, yet feature just a bunch of simple in-order, non-speculative x86 cores.
There's a wide spectrum of what's out there, and yes, you can have vector processors with cache, there's nothing saying that you can't do that.
Again, your ability to comprehend fails to you. Scaling linearly per ray cast (and you doing multiple ray casts per pixel with ray-tracing) and scaling linearly with respect to the entire frame buffer are entirely different.
Actually, now that I think of it, that should be O(c * 2^backtraces * log N) vs O([c1 * log S] + [c2 * L]) given that you would normally use spatial data structure such as an octree with logarithmic look-up times.
Slashdot Mirror
You'll be able to program the A5 for any use via OpenCL, so yes, you could use it for dedicated crypto for your own programs.
It's not a mere TPM solution. It's a Cortex A5 core. AMD has been pushing their Fusion Systems Architecture for heterogeneous SoCs, so it's likely that the Cortex A5 will be programmable by developers through OpenCL. The TPM thing is just what the marketing people envision as one of its uses, but it could be used for anything... it's left up to developers imaginations to find something more worthwhile than TPM.
You could use it as a dedicated audio decoder and DSP, for example, as the OpenCL vector math functions will map directly to the NEON SIMD instructions.
Knowing AMD, the ARM Cortex A5 will be openly available for general use to developers through OpenCL. It's not something that will be restricted to AMD's proprietary applications and drivers, but will be open for any use. The problem here is that the people reporting on AMD's hardware announcements in article aren't developers themselves, and so stuff like this gets lost in translation.
The researchers are assuming the actions of Victor to select a specific polarization and entanglement are somehow independent of the entire quantum configuration space. In other words, they're assuming free will, and the existence of external magical souls that are somehow independent of reality.
If you assume determinism, Victor's actions should be consistent with the configuration space, and so when measurements are made by Bob and Alice that are correlated, it increases the probability that Victor will choose to entangle.
And you're doing the exact same thing, attempting to elevate yourself as having a superior intellectual position using the same techniques and ad hominin generalizations while ignoring any contradictory evidence which actually is objective and factual.
The only difference between people like yourself and so called "conspiracy theorists" is the amount of trust or distrust one assigns to certains collections or groups of people such as corporations, governments, and nations.
It all stems from group dynamics and evolutionary psychology and it is ingrained into the human condition. No human can escape it, not you, not me, no one.
You've been brainwashed into thinking violence is bad. I'm sorry, but the only true way to protect yourself from someone who wishes to do bad to you is to stand up and do bad to them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H0guC-2q4U
Tell him to watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAr-xYtBFbY
Yes sheep, it's the most secure browser ever. Download the binaries and rest at ease. We promise we haven't conspired with Google to install a back-door on our behalf.
Good point. I fear this policy is fast coming to the rest of the West, looking at the demographics.
Gotta love the strawman attacks for someone who has to hide behind the mask of anonymity.
As an alternative, how about embracing merit, as we have in the FOSS movement.
No. That's the first thing you thought.
I'm attacking Affirmative Action, which is the truly racist policy.
I'm sure there are many excellent African aircraft mechanics. The problem is that Affirmative Action and diversity policies can overlook a persons lack of skill and credentials merely to meet some quota.
Gotta love affirmative action and workplace diversity! Who cares if they're not actually the best engineers and mechanics!
http://careers.northropgrumman.com/diversity.html
Agreed, all mathematical objects don't really exist, they're merely declarative distillations of capturing some aspect of the computational processes of our own minds, and thus the underlying computational reality we find our selves embedded within.
That said, you can still use math as valid models and when a computationalist says that the wave function exists, what they really mean is that the underlying mechanism driving the wave function process exists--it's not some weird consequence of another process nor an illusion.
Assuming the paper is true, and I would like to think that it is (the assumptions they make in the paper are consistent with the Computational Universe Hypothesis and the Holographic Principle), it lends credence to the idea that the every day macroscopic reality we experience is in fact nothing more than a mirage, emergent from the process of quantum amplitude flows across the vast configuration space.
According to a purvey of information posted on Wikipedia, Hox transcription factor proteins produced from the expression of the Hox genes activate the transcription of specific genes while at the same repressing the expression of other genes. Hox proteins are themselves regulated by other genes, such as gap genes and pair-rule genes, and there's a transcription factor cascade which controls the whole process for each stage, which has been explored in depth. Apparently, there's been a lot of work in this field since 2000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOX_genes
...the compiler toolchain and libraries for Ocaml or Haskell are more mature, have support for compiling directly to native machine code and interfacing with platform specific ABIs, and aren't tied to decrepit virtual machines such as the JVM or .NET framework.
JavaScript emerged out of a process focusing on appeasing the masses of web developers with features without much regard for how the end result would turn out. It has some major problems regarding performance, scalability across multiple cores, ease of maintenance and debug-ability that can't really be overcome with better implementations and tools.
People like to talk a lot about moving everything to the browser, replacing traditional applications development, but that's just not going to happen with JavaScript at the helm.
The problem is that cloud computing tantamount to slavery computing, turning users into slaves. It takes away all control and concentrates it in the hands of large corporations.
I'm all for ubiqutous computing, but unless I own and control all of the devices I use, and the software running on them, what's the point?
I'm tired of being a slave. A slave to the dollar, a slave to the government, a slave to the company I need to work at to survive in this pitiful existence. I don't want some big corporation to take away my personal computing experience.
I don't see how people are so blind as to think cloud computing is an improvement.
Sure is butt-ranged and biased in here.
Metro is the default UI, but you can switch back to Aero Glass/Aero/Classic by tapping the Windows key on your keyboard. Metro isn't mandatory or forced on you on the desktop.
Wrong again.
With deferred shading, lighting is done in a second pass (or multiple passes for different types of lights) directly against the g-buffer. The g-buffer contains a surface normal, depth value, and lighting & material coefficients for each pixel and is populated by rasterizing or ray-casting/tracing your scene geometry into it. With rasterization, each of your polygonal meshes are rendered into the g-buffer once without regard for lighting, during the lighting stage, each light is applied to the g-buffer without regard to the different primitives that were used to create the initial g-buffer. Thus you can scale up the number of lights independently from the scene geometry.
I'm really starting to think you're a troll looking for a quick fix.
Ahh, okay, gotcha, now what you original said makes sense. There's more than one way to scale it. Generally, on a given project you have fixed budgets for pixels and polygons, but over the years as you target each subsequent generation you get to scale up both categories--however, scaling up the number of pixels beyond 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 doesn't really make as much as much sense as say continuing to scale up the complexity of your geometry, so I guess my brain assumed that's what you'd want to scale up rather than the output resolution.
GPUs eventually will get working caches. AMD's next-generation GPUs are shipping with stuff comparable or better than Fermi, and nVidia's Kepler is getting something better than Fermi.
Furthermore, Intel's Larrabee, Knight's Ferry, and Knight's Corner HPC compute products have cache, yet feature just a bunch of simple in-order, non-speculative x86 cores.
There's a wide spectrum of what's out there, and yes, you can have vector processors with cache, there's nothing saying that you can't do that.
Again, your ability to comprehend fails to you. Scaling linearly per ray cast (and you doing multiple ray casts per pixel with ray-tracing) and scaling linearly with respect to the entire frame buffer are entirely different.
Ray-tracing: O(2^b * L * log N)
Ray-casting + deferred shading: O(log N) + O(L)
Actually, now that I think of it, that should be O(c * 2^backtraces * log N) vs O([c1 * log S] + [c2 * L]) given that you would normally use spatial data structure such as an octree with logarithmic look-up times.
That should read c2 < c1 < c.