If you get a chance, try to visit the caverns of either of the two main experiments (ATLAS or CMS). I saw CMS while it was still above ground (it was assembled there first, unlike ATLAS), and it was a sight to behold. ATLAS is probably even more impressive and maybe more convenient since it's at the main site. Aside from that, I'd try to get a peek at the computer center and take in some of the general lectures.
If by "mobile printing" you mean moveable type, that's not right either. Moveable type (of terra cotta) was in use in China by the 11th century. It is true, though, that block printing was far more prevelant, for the reason you mention as well as others (the possibility of multiple printing runs, for example).
This isn't to say that Gutenberg's invention wasn't historically important. It's just that, strictly speaking, he didn't invent printing anymore than Columbus "discovered" America.
Um, either you're being redundant or you're wrong. Look carefully at the site... The total is indeed $1,146,958 thousand or over a billion dollars. Not too shabby (yes, I know, only a small fraction of his net worth, Bill is evil, blah, blah).
It's my understanding that the traditional Chinese dragon is not associated with fire but rather with water. It's only in the west that dragons breathe fire.
Does anyone else find it interesting that this was announced at the same time the Bin Ladin tape was released? I just visited CNN, and off to the side of the big story, I saw little links telling me that the U.S. has just pulled out of the ABM treaty, the army has admitted to producing anthrax in Utah, and that the FBI has confirmed the existence of Magic Lantern... unbelievable.
Imagine a very, very fuel efficient version of one of these (with solar panels?) that one could pilot by satellite to far-off regions of the globe. If you get bored one night, throw your flying bug out the window. Watch the water rush beneath it for a while on your computer monitor. When you wake up in the morning, tune in for it's arrival in London or Paris or the African savannah. Travel vicariously like you never have before.
I'm not a molecular biologist (or biophysicist), so I have a question for someone who is and keeps up with these computational methods. How have the techniques of the group at Stanford (folding@home) been received? Have they published anything useful yet? Is their method as robust as the ones traditionally used? In short, is folding@home worth my cycles?
If anyone can answer these questions about other biology-related clients as well, please do.
Here's an older (and shorter) interview (from MIT's Technology Review) with Tom Leighton, the guy who cofounded Akamai. The article is titled "Akamai's algorithms" and it treats many of the same topics mentioned in the post.
I even quoted the article's predictions of "open-source hardware" in my post, but it must have been preempted by a Jon Katz movie review or another article about Napster or something.
In my opinion, first person shooters have been going downhill since the original Wolfenstein, mainly due to the lighting in the games. I'm obviously in the minority, but will someone please explain to me why gameplayers enjoy running around in the dark so much? Ever since doom, the trend has been towards using lack of light as a complicating factor.
These games are obviously meant to simulate reality, and although cool lighting effects help in this respect, I always find myself thinking, "This isn't realistic. If this was real life, I'd be able to see the damn door on the opposite wall." I personally wouldn't mind it at all if someone released a new fps with the bright no-lighting-effects (and admittedly somewhat cartoonish) feel of the original Wolfenstein.
Actually, time is fundamentally different from the spatial dimensions. This can be easily seen by looking at a Lorentz transformation equation from relativity. These describe how things "rotate" (in a way analogous to rotation in 3 dimensions) through the 4 dimensions of spacetime, and basically, in such a equation there's a minus sign in front of the time term which one doesn't see in front of the others (x, y, and z, in cartesian coordinates). This minus sign indicates a certain asymmetry which is very important. In a way, the geometry of spacetime is hyperbolic rather than spherical. This ensures handy things like the preservation of causality, which is really a separate issue from the entropy arguments you bring up.
The hypersphere (4-D sphere) you mention, by the way, is more of an image that cosmologists like to use for picturing a closed universe. Time would generally behave the same way whether the universe is closed or not, however. Also note that it's only a 4-D rather than 5-dimensional sphere (the definition of a sphere is just the surface of a "ball," not everything inside). You're probably picturing the hypersphere residing in a 5-d space the same way a 2-D beachball sits in our 3-D world. It's important to remember that spacetime is all there is, though, so there really is no place for it to sit and in this case it's important that we're only refering to the surface.
Also, to respond to two other comments in this thread:
1. Brane theory (or M-theory as it's more often called) really is the same thing as string theory these days. No one really focuses only on strings (or 1-D "branes") anymore, and the name you call the theory is really a matter of taste (and publicity). Also, it's important to keep in mind that there are severaly formulations of string theory (though most have been shown to be equivelant).
2. Unless I'm mistaken, the 10 or 12 or more dimensions you hear advertised always either include time or are quoted as being in addition to time. In short, time is still treated as another (albeit special) dimension.
I don't claim to be an expert, by the way, and welcome corrections.
1. It's pretty clever that the probe is landing (crashing, whatever) on Eros so close to Valentine's Day.
2. On the other hand, it's unfortunate that the NASA has put the chance of the thing surviving at 1%. Now it's a lose-lose situation. If it doesn't make it, it's unfortunate. If it does, it's even worse... "See, those NASA morons said it only had a 1% chance. I bet the bozo who did that calculation was the same guy who used inches instead of centimeters on the Mars probe," etc.
1. I'm sure there are many good books on the Challenger disaster, but anyone interested in the workings of the actual investigation from an insider's perspective should pick up What do you care what other people think?, by Richard Feynman. The second half of the book is dedicated to his role in the investigation, and it says a lot of interesting things about government bureaucracy, etc.
2. I think it's a sign of the state of Slashdot that when an article is posted which obviously has no other purpose than to elicit discussion, the first thirty posts include only two or three that say something other than "dumb story."
In a somewhat related story, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has just made a donation of $100 million dollars (in addition to the $53 million they've already given) to the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative which, in addition to supporting the development of vaccines, has the primary purpose of "ensuring any AIDS vaccine is made available to developing countries at a reasonable price." It sounds to me like capitalism (or the generous giving made possible thereby) overcoming the shortcomings of capitalism. And say what you will about Bill Gates, but at least he isn't hoarding all his wealth. The article doesn't mention it, but his foundation has already given large sums of money to Harvard and other schools to fund AIDS research. I think we can all give credit where it's due.
It starts by being relatively coherent and talking about contacting distant civilizations. Then, out of nowhere, they throw in "The possibility that aliens from other worlds make visits to Earth has been the subject of speculation for years in films like ET and Close Encounters of the Third Kind," a statement that has nothing to do with SETI. Then there's two more ontopic sentences, and finally the article ends with:
In October, 1989, a Russian news agency reported that scientists claimed to have established that a city in the former Soviet Union had been visited briefly by a spaceship crewed by three feet tall humanoids and a robot.
Sheesh. It's not only subliterate but also a complete misrepresentation of what SETI is about.
There is no reason for a government weapons lab to spend money from its budget unless there is some benefit to be reaped for the organization itself.
Listen. Sandia is a DOE lab, and the DOE has its hand in all sorts of pure scientific research that has nothing to do with the military. Sandia is only partly a weapons lab and pure research is exactly the purpose of much of the DOE budget.
The Department of Energy, along with the NSF and the NIH, sponsors virtually all of the pure scientific research done in this country. They don't "get" anything from researching the genome, money-wise, just as they don't from the pure physics research which is funded through the DOE. It just represents the tiny percent of the national budget that keeps a bunch of America's best minds busy trying to improve the state of mankind.
Most of this research, by the way, has nothing to do with energy. It's just that congress happened to put this sort of research in the hands of the DOE back when it was still the Atomic Energy Commision.
Short answer: Yes, I do. I had an old Compaq Deskpro 386-20, which probably came out in '89 or so and would have easily cost $3000. Someone gave it to me about 5 years ago (note exponential decrease in value, unfortunate Moore's Law side-effect) and I used to try things like rendering POV-Ray images on it for fun. An image that would have taken over a day on that system, I can do on my (also outdated) K6-200 in a minute or two and on an Athlon in probably just seconds.
Granted, these applications rely on the processor more than on bus-intensive operations, but I'd still bet that we've seen at least a 32x increase in the speed of everyday applications. We're just very used to bloated Microsoft products gobbling up the resources as soon as they're available (and not just Microsoft, of course).
Actually, everything about human civilization is roughly exponential. For example, farming: we were hunter/gatherers for a million years or so, then came farming and the plow. Another few thousand, and we had the beginnings of the industrial revolution, then huge tractors, etc. Today, America (for example) feeds itself with a very small percentage of the population as farmers. A second example is written language: for a long time, nothing, then the sumerians or whomever just a few thousand years ago, then the printing press five hundred years ago, then computers, now the internet, etc. One can see the same trends in medicine and the natural sciences. A lot of it comes from a sort of biological feedback where past advances accelerate the pace of new ones, making these sort of exponential curves almost a part of human nature.
Computers are just an extension of this trend. I'm not saying that Moore wasn't being pretty original, though. His suggestion was a bold one, but then again, a lot of other engineers probably saw the writing on the wall too.
By "technology," I wasn't referring to the wires, but to the low temperature hardware for which one would need the wires. It's the NSA, after all. What kind of low temperature "instruments" could they need? When they develop technology, it's for one of two purposes, survellance or computing, and I don't see how supercooled devices would be useful for survellance.
Slashdot Mirror
If you get a chance, try to visit the caverns of either of the two main experiments (ATLAS or CMS). I saw CMS while it was still above ground (it was assembled there first, unlike ATLAS), and it was a sight to behold. ATLAS is probably even more impressive and maybe more convenient since it's at the main site. Aside from that, I'd try to get a peek at the computer center and take in some of the general lectures.
Have fun!
If by "mobile printing" you mean moveable type, that's not right either. Moveable type (of terra cotta) was in use in China by the 11th century. It is true, though, that block printing was far more prevelant, for the reason you mention as well as others (the possibility of multiple printing runs, for example).
This isn't to say that Gutenberg's invention wasn't historically important. It's just that, strictly speaking, he didn't invent printing anymore than Columbus "discovered" America.
Um, either you're being redundant or you're wrong. Look carefully at the site... The total is indeed $1,146,958 thousand or over a billion dollars. Not too shabby (yes, I know, only a small fraction of his net worth, Bill is evil, blah, blah).
It's my understanding that the traditional Chinese dragon is not associated with fire but rather with water. It's only in the west that dragons breathe fire.
According to the article, it was Teddy Turner, Ted Turner's son.
Does anyone else find it interesting that this was announced at the same time the Bin Ladin tape was released? I just visited CNN, and off to the side of the big story, I saw little links telling me that the U.S. has just pulled out of the ABM treaty, the army has admitted to producing anthrax in Utah, and that the FBI has confirmed the existence of Magic Lantern... unbelievable.
With its simplified core, a processor like the crusoe seems like it could be a promising general-purpose chip to first adopt technology like this.
Any comments from someone more knowledgable than I?
Imagine a very, very fuel efficient version of one of these (with solar panels?) that one could pilot by satellite to far-off regions of the globe. If you get bored one night, throw your flying bug out the window. Watch the water rush beneath it for a while on your computer monitor. When you wake up in the morning, tune in for it's arrival in London or Paris or the African savannah. Travel vicariously like you never have before.
Now that's a geek toy.
Ironically, this announcement comes at the same time as the "Space without weapons" conference being hosted by Russia.
I'm not a molecular biologist (or biophysicist), so I have a question for someone who is and keeps up with these computational methods. How have the techniques of the group at Stanford (folding@home) been received? Have they published anything useful yet? Is their method as robust as the ones traditionally used? In short, is folding@home worth my cycles?
If anyone can answer these questions about other biology-related clients as well, please do.
2B v !2B
one character less
Hey, that's a tautology.
Does it make sense or not? Yes.
Here's an older (and shorter) interview (from MIT's Technology Review) with Tom Leighton, the guy who cofounded Akamai. The article is titled "Akamai's algorithms" and it treats many of the same topics mentioned in the post.
Power conservation
Embedded applications
Laptops
And there are undoubtedly more.
I submitted this story a few months ago when it was covered in MIT's Technology Review.
I even quoted the article's predictions of "open-source hardware" in my post, but it must have been preempted by a Jon Katz movie review or another article about Napster or something.
In my opinion, first person shooters have been going downhill since the original Wolfenstein, mainly due to the lighting in the games. I'm obviously in the minority, but will someone please explain to me why gameplayers enjoy running around in the dark so much? Ever since doom, the trend has been towards using lack of light as a complicating factor.
These games are obviously meant to simulate reality, and although cool lighting effects help in this respect, I always find myself thinking, "This isn't realistic. If this was real life, I'd be able to see the damn door on the opposite wall." I personally wouldn't mind it at all if someone released a new fps with the bright no-lighting-effects (and admittedly somewhat cartoonish) feel of the original Wolfenstein.
Actually, time is fundamentally different from the spatial dimensions. This can be easily seen by looking at a Lorentz transformation equation from relativity. These describe how things "rotate" (in a way analogous to rotation in 3 dimensions) through the 4 dimensions of spacetime, and basically, in such a equation there's a minus sign in front of the time term which one doesn't see in front of the others (x, y, and z, in cartesian coordinates). This minus sign indicates a certain asymmetry which is very important. In a way, the geometry of spacetime is hyperbolic rather than spherical. This ensures handy things like the preservation of causality, which is really a separate issue from the entropy arguments you bring up.
The hypersphere (4-D sphere) you mention, by the way, is more of an image that cosmologists like to use for picturing a closed universe. Time would generally behave the same way whether the universe is closed or not, however. Also note that it's only a 4-D rather than 5-dimensional sphere (the definition of a sphere is just the surface of a "ball," not everything inside). You're probably picturing the hypersphere residing in a 5-d space the same way a 2-D beachball sits in our 3-D world. It's important to remember that spacetime is all there is, though, so there really is no place for it to sit and in this case it's important that we're only refering to the surface.
Also, to respond to two other comments in this thread:
1. Brane theory (or M-theory as it's more often called) really is the same thing as string theory these days. No one really focuses only on strings (or 1-D "branes") anymore, and the name you call the theory is really a matter of taste (and publicity). Also, it's important to keep in mind that there are severaly formulations of string theory (though most have been shown to be equivelant).
2. Unless I'm mistaken, the 10 or 12 or more dimensions you hear advertised always either include time or are quoted as being in addition to time. In short, time is still treated as another (albeit special) dimension.
I don't claim to be an expert, by the way, and welcome corrections.
Two things:
1. It's pretty clever that the probe is landing (crashing, whatever) on Eros so close to Valentine's Day.
2. On the other hand, it's unfortunate that the NASA has put the chance of the thing surviving at 1%. Now it's a lose-lose situation. If it doesn't make it, it's unfortunate. If it does, it's even worse... "See, those NASA morons said it only had a 1% chance. I bet the bozo who did that calculation was the same guy who used inches instead of centimeters on the Mars probe," etc.
Two points:
1. I'm sure there are many good books on the Challenger disaster, but anyone interested in the workings of the actual investigation from an insider's perspective should pick up What do you care what other people think?, by Richard Feynman. The second half of the book is dedicated to his role in the investigation, and it says a lot of interesting things about government bureaucracy, etc.
2. I think it's a sign of the state of Slashdot that when an article is posted which obviously has no other purpose than to elicit discussion, the first thirty posts include only two or three that say something other than "dumb story."
In a somewhat related story, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has just made a donation of $100 million dollars (in addition to the $53 million they've already given) to the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative which, in addition to supporting the development of vaccines, has the primary purpose of "ensuring any AIDS vaccine is made available to developing countries at a reasonable price." It sounds to me like capitalism (or the generous giving made possible thereby) overcoming the shortcomings of capitalism. And say what you will about Bill Gates, but at least he isn't hoarding all his wealth. The article doesn't mention it, but his foundation has already given large sums of money to Harvard and other schools to fund AIDS research. I think we can all give credit where it's due.
It starts by being relatively coherent and talking about contacting distant civilizations. Then, out of nowhere, they throw in "The possibility that aliens from other worlds make visits to Earth has been the subject of speculation for years in films like ET and Close Encounters of the Third Kind," a statement that has nothing to do with SETI. Then there's two more ontopic sentences, and finally the article ends with:
In October, 1989, a Russian news agency reported that scientists claimed to have established that a city in the former Soviet Union had been visited briefly by a spaceship crewed by three feet tall humanoids and a robot.
Sheesh. It's not only subliterate but also a complete misrepresentation of what SETI is about.
There is no reason for a government weapons lab to spend money from its budget unless there is some benefit to be reaped for the organization itself.
Listen. Sandia is a DOE lab, and the DOE has its hand in all sorts of pure scientific research that has nothing to do with the military. Sandia is only partly a weapons lab and pure research is exactly the purpose of much of the DOE budget.
The Department of Energy, along with the NSF and the NIH, sponsors virtually all of the pure scientific research done in this country. They don't "get" anything from researching the genome, money-wise, just as they don't from the pure physics research which is funded through the DOE. It just represents the tiny percent of the national budget that keeps a bunch of America's best minds busy trying to improve the state of mankind.
Most of this research, by the way, has nothing to do with energy. It's just that congress happened to put this sort of research in the hands of the DOE back when it was still the Atomic Energy Commision.
Short answer: Yes, I do. I had an old Compaq Deskpro 386-20, which probably came out in '89 or so and would have easily cost $3000. Someone gave it to me about 5 years ago (note exponential decrease in value, unfortunate Moore's Law side-effect) and I used to try things like rendering POV-Ray images on it for fun. An image that would have taken over a day on that system, I can do on my (also outdated) K6-200 in a minute or two and on an Athlon in probably just seconds.
Granted, these applications rely on the processor more than on bus-intensive operations, but I'd still bet that we've seen at least a 32x increase in the speed of everyday applications. We're just very used to bloated Microsoft products gobbling up the resources as soon as they're available (and not just Microsoft, of course).
Actually, everything about human civilization is roughly exponential. For example, farming: we were hunter/gatherers for a million years or so, then came farming and the plow. Another few thousand, and we had the beginnings of the industrial revolution, then huge tractors, etc. Today, America (for example) feeds itself with a very small percentage of the population as farmers. A second example is written language: for a long time, nothing, then the sumerians or whomever just a few thousand years ago, then the printing press five hundred years ago, then computers, now the internet, etc. One can see the same trends in medicine and the natural sciences. A lot of it comes from a sort of biological feedback where past advances accelerate the pace of new ones, making these sort of exponential curves almost a part of human nature.
Computers are just an extension of this trend. I'm not saying that Moore wasn't being pretty original, though. His suggestion was a bold one, but then again, a lot of other engineers probably saw the writing on the wall too.
By "technology," I wasn't referring to the wires, but to the low temperature hardware for which one would need the wires. It's the NSA, after all. What kind of low temperature "instruments" could they need? When they develop technology, it's for one of two purposes, survellance or computing, and I don't see how supercooled devices would be useful for survellance.