Exactly! It should be easy and no info should need to be sent!
I hate to be one of those morons that like to point out the merits of their particular religion but I find this particular facet of Gentoo (and related ancestor technology in OpenBSD) so damned cool:
# emerge sync
# emerge world
gcc...this...
g++...that...
ld...the other thing...
install...more here...
wash, rinse repeat...
--and whammo! System updated!
It wouldn't take a rocket scientist, or your average dime-store developer more than a weekend to make something like emerge work exclusively with binary packages.
I've always been told that a *properly* driven manual will drive more effeciently than an automatic because the automatic's torque converter taps some of the power.
People laugh, but a friend of mine has been saying for years that by the time his kids will be of college age we will be shipping them out to New Delhi to receive a solid college education.
People buy SUVs for a reason, after all, and they aren't all slack jawed, environment hating, oil guzzling, high income, wasteful spenders.
One of the chief problems now-a-days in promoting conservation is that ideas like this persist: if you buy an SUV you are being wasteful unless you are one of the corner cases that actually needs one. Programs needs to be discussed and implemented to promote smart consumerism and ecology--indeed to make ecology sexy, desirable, and cheap. However, you and I are in agreement about this. You are just under the false impression that people need SUVs.
In reading the rest of your comment and your previous comment I did and will conclude now that you do bring up several highly relevant points. However, the thrust of my argument has to do primarily with the following:
People of good faith hoping to change the world have to realistically take real issues into account when they try to come to a decision.
The problem with this thinking is that you assume that being realistic is actually the best vehicle to promote change. This is an easy trap to fall in to because its so comfortable, marketable, and conservative. Fat. Dumb. Happy.
As you have said yourself, "moving to a new energy base from petroleum will bring with it a new set of costs and benefits, many of which can't be predicted and understood until the change has already occurred." Precisely. There is a history (you may read "history" as "conspiracy" if anybody is so inclined) in the U.S. to promote a dependence on oil. There is a legislative record nearly a century long to support this statement. To deny this would be foolish. Here is the problem: we live in a "reality" of fossils and fossil-fuel so we cannot imagine a "reality" without them.
Somebody has to destroy this reality. Somebody has to say "Why?" instead of "Why not." Somebody has to play the fool.
For example, Galileo-- amongst a set of almost any other revolutionary you can name, such as: George Washington, Ben Franklin, Einstein, Ghandi, Dr. Martin Luther King--had to free themselves at some point from the "reality" they were living in to see some place beyond, often by bucking the imposed status quo and looking like a crazy idiot.
Did Galileo think to himself, "I had better not try and define the movements of the solar-system because it isn't socially acceptable?" Did he run from the possibilies of ex-communication and house-arrest? No. His observations pointed the world in a new direction at a great personal expense and later at the expense of embaressment of the entire Catholic Church.
Did Ghandi or Dr. King decide not to fight for the freedom of their peoples because of the status quo? No. More importantly, did they not realize that they were going to make some of their own people uncomfortable, hurt, or possibly slain? Of course not. Although the way in which they changed the world cost the British Empire and the U.S. a lot of money, made a lot of whites very unhappy, and a cost people their lives it should be clear that it is wrong thinking to have preferred things to remain the other way.
Telling people why things won't work--I'm sorry--I mean, "raising the level of discussion" is an easy game to play because by simply "discussing" the topics you can never be wrong. You're not actually putting anything on the line. What I am asking is that people such as yourself be brave and start dreaming and sharing ideas of why things will work and actually start making choices in your life now to get there.
It does nothing to make people "aware" of why things won't work. It just scares them into keeping things the same way. Instead, spend your energies on inspiring them. Challenge them to dream about what the future will look like after the change.
Intuitively, you can tell me "dreaming" about something is a lot easier than thinking about how to really implement it. In reality, I can tell you this is not the case. Implementing war and burning oil is a hell-of-a-lot easier than imagining a world without them. In essence, here are some smaller examples of the same sort of wrong-thinking:
I could loose weight, but that means I have to watch what I eat and exercise and feel uncomfortable.
I could actively parent my child and show him how to watch television and make good choices, but it's hard and I don't want him to resent me as a teenager.
I should sue the college kids stealing our music instead of changing the business model, no matter that the nature of the business has already permanently changed.
Instead, dream of yourself thin while you prepare vegetables and exercise. Instead, dream of what your child will grown into as an adult and spend time with them. Instead, dream of other ways to make money promoting music.
In closing, don't be a coward. Dare to dream. Tell others.
There are no simple answers and very few real conspiracies, and I don't understand why otherwise intelligent people continue to believe that there are.
Why do otherwise intelligent people continue to believe in things that seem silly or impractical?
"Why?" you ask? Because somebody has to.
Too many people in history and especially now-a-days elimated the far-off possibility just because it seemed impractical. The problem with doing this is that by simply eliminating from your mind and speaking out against the possiblity of the options with low-probabilities of occurance or requiring high amounts of effort such as "alternative fuels," you elimate any hope for the alternatives to happen; and all but insure that things will remain the same.
I was recently engaged in a conversation with my father who now believes that war is now inevitable and that peace in the Middle East will never happen. He still does not understand how by himself eliminating the even the slim possiblity for peace in his mind he is contributing to the problem of war on this world.
Dare to dream, young one. You're really all the hope we've got in this world.
"Creativity is just synthesis without the introspection."
I disagree with this view. You cannot completely decouple originality from creativity. Even if you only combine existing ideas together: for example packages and a kernel into a distribution; a graphics engine and art into a game; or off-the-shelf parts into a rocket you no doubt have to use an introspective process to create. It is the integration process that is the invention, not its indivdual parts, because after all: the individual parts were an integration process at an earlier time to begin with until we go back in human history to where we started to bang rocks together!
Even if you had only managed to exactly synthesize another persons work but you had beaten them at market, it proves that you had thought of another idea to more effectively share your invention with the world...but you had to think to make this happen. Nothing in this world happens automatically*.
However, I believe it is the mark of a genius to claim otherwise: I was reading an article on John Frusciante of the Red Hot Chili Peppers and during the interview he was asked where he got his musical ideas. He said (and I paraphrase,) "I don't come up with anything, the music simply enters me from another dimension." I would argue however, that the process becomes so deeply introspective that you are hooked up directly to yourself at such a deep level that the creative process happens nearly automatically.
Here's a quote:
"Great minds don't think alike, for that is why they are great." - Derek Weidl
John, iD, thanks for the innovation...no matter how it happens I'm always entertained!
-AP
*: except the fundamental actions of the universe; or so it seams.
I'm convinced your show, Good Eats, is one of the best things on television. I was hoping you could tell us more about how you got the idea to shoot a show in the first place, how you decided to put a scientific slant on things, and where you would like to take Good Eats in the future?
I just came back from a trip in the great hinterlands of Minnesota, so this question is spawned from recent culinary experience:
If you were sent out to the middle of nowhere and had some time to prepare for the trip, what sorts of equipment would you take along and what dishes would you prepare? For the sake of keeping it simple, let's say you had to cook a brekfast and dinner over a campfire. What would you make to really wow your fellow campers using as few ingredients and as little equpiment as possible?
Furthermore, Zimbabwe is willing to accept the corn if the US will agree to mill it before shipping. The additional cost of milling is minimal, but is not covered by the aid package. Classic snafu.
Instead of milling it why don't they just irradiate it so the corn will not germinate when planted? Doing that would be cheap, easy, and is already commonly done.
Just for fun, I loaded the Old and New Testaments into the thing just to see if there could be any interesting and or humorous relations in the text. One thing that I thought was mighty interesting was the fact that "God" was smack dab in the center of everything.
Clicking on "God" linked to damn near everything. My screen lit up yellow like the sun. Well, I guess that's one book that knows its topic!
Unforunately, the text is so large that it really didn't render very beautifully. It was really jumbled. It might be time to crank up to super-res...
If Microsoft weren't distributing this game, I'm sure it would have a much larger/. fan base but I think it is worth mentioning Ensemble Studios Age of Mythology, the next game in the series after Age of Kings.
I think the game looks absolutely beautiful and am eagerly waiting for a beta or demo version so I may judge its worth for myself. I already burned far too many hours playing the last two games in the series:)
Check out the ensemble webpage for AoM here and if you have a decent amount of bandwidth available to you, also have a look at the downloadable movies from the game here or, read more buzz at AoM Heaven.
I would argue that reiterating something that might not be common knowledge to everybody or perhaps even to one's self is not a waste of anyone's time. It can only help to raise awareness of a particular view on an issue that not everybody may have knowledge of.
It is from constant retelling of an idea that the idea becomes accepted into culture and things begin to change.
I guess I have to throw in my $0.02 here. Instead of relying on a single services or technique for stopping SPAM, try something heuristic that combines the best of multiple worlds: SpamAssassin [spamassassin.org], for example.
Just for laughes, here's the record SpamAssassin score in one of my spam's:
SPAM: --- Start SpamAssassin results ---
SPAM: This mail is probably spam. The original message has been altered
SPAM: so you can recognise or block similar unwanted mail in future.
SPAM: See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
SPAM:
SPAM: Content analysis details: (31.38 hits, 5 required)
SPAM: Hit! (1 point) From: contains numbers mixed in with letters
SPAM: Hit! (1.2 points) From: does not include a real name
SPAM: Hit! (2.37 points) Message-Id generated by a spam tool
SPAM: Hit! (1.94 points) From: ends in numbers
SPAM: Hit! (0.9 points) Message-Id is not valid, according to RFC-2822
SPAM: Hit! (0.01 points) BODY: Asks you to click below
SPAM: Hit! (1.32 points) BODY: Contains word 'guarantee' in all-caps
SPAM: Hit! (1.93 points) BODY: Contains a 1-800- number
SPAM: Hit! (1.2 points) BODY: HTML mail with non-white background
SPAM: Hit! (4 points) BODY: Uses control sequences inside a URL's hostname
SPAM: Hit! (1 point) BODY: Link to a URL containing "opt-in" or "opt-out"
SPAM: Hit! (1.82 points) BODY: Link to a URL containing "remove"
SPAM: Hit! (1 point) BODY: Image tag with an ID code to identify you
SPAM: Hit! (1.56 points) Contains phrases frequently found in spam
SPAM: [score: 20, hits: click here, email address,]
SPAM: [from future, future mailings, here for,]
SPAM: [including shipping, offer order, this email,]
SPAM: [with our, with this, you not, your]
SPAM: [email]
SPAM: Hit! (3 points) Listed in Razor, see http://razor.sourceforge.net/
SPAM: Hit! (1 point) spam-phrase score is over 20
SPAM: Hit! (3.33 points) HTML-only mail, with no text version
SPAM: Hit! (1.8 points) No MX records for the From: domain
SPAM: Hit! (1 point) Received via a relay in orbs.dorkslayers.com
SPAM: [RBL check: found 11.124.183.200.orbs.dorkslayers.com.]
SPAM:
SPAM: --- End of SpamAssassin results ---
Now I've turned spam into something of a game. I have procmail rules tell me when a new record has come in so I can laugh at how cliché the message is. It's fun. Really.
The sad thing is that spammers are most likely already using these rules to try and author messages that will sneak in "under the radar" so to speak. I wouldn't be suprised if I start getting messages in pig-latin one day.
Yes. The DCC page states that they use a 'fuzzy' checksumming algorithm that doesn't just checksum the whole message, and that the algorithm is evolving as spam evolves.
I cannot speak to what approach DCC uses, but razor only picks pieces of a message it believes to be static when computing its SHA1 hash. In the very near future, razor is going to implement Nilsimsa hashes which are 'fuzzy' and should be able to detect everything from spam with minor differentials to mutating e-mail viruses.
Combined with the new razor trust system, razor is going to be quite the tool; and when used in conjunction with SpamAssassin we'll have quite the arsenal to battle unwanted spam.
You should run teergrube, here's an answer as to why from the Teergrube FAQ:
How many connections will be tied up by a teergrube on my host?
A regular teergrube will hold up to ten connections open at a time. On the spammer's side there will be up to ten connections open for every teergrube he runs into. So decentral resources fight against centralised spammer ressources. The more teergrubes are installed, the better.
Probably not, as modern film emulsions are already broken into three (or more) color layers and work just fine with APO lenses. I wouldn't imagine that this new chip's light sensitive portion is much thicker than film...
I stepped out at 0145 CST and immediately saw a sucession of meteors that left dim green trails and a number of streakers, many of which streaked right across Orion. Now, even without letting my eyes properly adjusting to the light but keeping a count as to as many as I could see I would estimate the rate over 45 minutes of observation as somewere in the range of 30-40/hour. Not bad so far!
Any full color matrix LCD or Plama display is essentially a poster that glows white when it is fully turned on, except the dots are really, really small. The pictures happen because each of the component dots in the "poster" are (for the most part) individually addressable.
I think this research is more about the manufacturing technique, not about the final product.
Remind me again why this benchmark is invalid? If anything I would suggest that any benchmark besides end-application speed is useless.
Well, that is of course unless you are an applications developer: in which case you would like to know some lower level benchmarks so you can take advantage of the things that the hardware is good at and converely stay away from the stuff that stinks.
-AP
Applications on Clockless Logic
on
Ternary Computing
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
First of all, hardware is getting smaller and smaller all the time, so the whole premise behind ternary computing (base 3 would use less hardware) doesn't apply, especially since brand new gates would have to be made in order to distinguish between 3 signal levels rather than 2, and that would be taking a HUGE step backwards.
You really couldn't be more wrong! Ternary logic is at the basis of some of the hottest research in asynchronous logic design right now.
For instance, if you had a group of transistors that computed multiplication and stored the output in a register you might see the value of that register change several times until the computation was completed. Right now, the only way that you know a computation is complete is that logic is designed to complete an action in X cycles; as long as you feed in the data and wait X cycles you will get the proper result. Clock cycles can be waisted here, because a simple multiplication might be completed in a single clock while harder multiplications might take the full amount of time the logic area is spec'ed for.
Using async logic, this can be done much more effciently. The multiplication happens just as soon as input data is given and the next stage of the logic knows when the operation is complete because its wires has three states: 0, 1, and not-yet-done. As soon as all the wires are 0 or 1, the computation is finished (consequently, this is how input works to). There are no "wasted" clock cycles, stuff moves through the logic as quickly as it is completed.
Of course, there has been some debate whether three states are needed on each wire, or an just additional acknowledgement wire is needed (say 8 wires + 1 for an 8-bit computation block). But, believe it or not there are already patents for both methods!
I guess, by having true ternary logic on each wire, you could have logic that will grab a result just as soon as X% of the wires report they are done with the computation to get "good enough" answer if the logic is iteratively improving a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly! It should be easy and no info should need to be sent!
...this... ...that... ...the other thing... ...more here...
I hate to be one of those morons that like to point out the merits of their particular religion but I find this particular facet of Gentoo (and related ancestor technology in OpenBSD) so damned cool:
# emerge sync
# emerge world
gcc
g++
ld
install
wash, rinse repeat...
--and whammo! System updated!
It wouldn't take a rocket scientist, or your average dime-store developer more than a weekend to make something like emerge work exclusively with binary packages.
Window Update, eat your heart out, please.
-AP
I've always been told that a *properly* driven manual will drive more effeciently than an automatic because the automatic's torque converter taps some of the power.
-AP
People laugh, but a friend of mine has been saying for years that by the time his kids will be of college age we will be shipping them out to New Delhi to receive a solid college education.
-AP
Am I too liberal for thinking that your above mockery to be ficticiously put on the docket is actually a good idea?
-AP
Convert this!
One of the chief problems now-a-days in promoting conservation is that ideas like this persist: if you buy an SUV you are being wasteful unless you are one of the corner cases that actually needs one. Programs needs to be discussed and implemented to promote smart consumerism and ecology--indeed to make ecology sexy, desirable, and cheap. However, you and I are in agreement about this. You are just under the false impression that people need SUVs.
In reading the rest of your comment and your previous comment I did and will conclude now that you do bring up several highly relevant points. However, the thrust of my argument has to do primarily with the following:
The problem with this thinking is that you assume that being realistic is actually the best vehicle to promote change. This is an easy trap to fall in to because its so comfortable, marketable, and conservative. Fat. Dumb. Happy.
As you have said yourself, "moving to a new energy base from petroleum will bring with it a new set of costs and benefits, many of which can't be predicted and understood until the change has already occurred." Precisely. There is a history (you may read "history" as "conspiracy" if anybody is so inclined) in the U.S. to promote a dependence on oil. There is a legislative record nearly a century long to support this statement. To deny this would be foolish. Here is the problem: we live in a "reality" of fossils and fossil-fuel so we cannot imagine a "reality" without them.
Somebody has to destroy this reality. Somebody has to say "Why?" instead of "Why not." Somebody has to play the fool.
For example, Galileo-- amongst a set of almost any other revolutionary you can name, such as: George Washington, Ben Franklin, Einstein, Ghandi, Dr. Martin Luther King--had to free themselves at some point from the "reality" they were living in to see some place beyond, often by bucking the imposed status quo and looking like a crazy idiot.
Did Galileo think to himself, "I had better not try and define the movements of the solar-system because it isn't socially acceptable?" Did he run from the possibilies of ex-communication and house-arrest? No. His observations pointed the world in a new direction at a great personal expense and later at the expense of embaressment of the entire Catholic Church.
Did Ghandi or Dr. King decide not to fight for the freedom of their peoples because of the status quo? No. More importantly, did they not realize that they were going to make some of their own people uncomfortable, hurt, or possibly slain? Of course not. Although the way in which they changed the world cost the British Empire and the U.S. a lot of money, made a lot of whites very unhappy, and a cost people their lives it should be clear that it is wrong thinking to have preferred things to remain the other way.
Telling people why things won't work--I'm sorry--I mean, "raising the level of discussion" is an easy game to play because by simply "discussing" the topics you can never be wrong. You're not actually putting anything on the line. What I am asking is that people such as yourself be brave and start dreaming and sharing ideas of why things will work and actually start making choices in your life now to get there.
It does nothing to make people "aware" of why things won't work. It just scares them into keeping things the same way. Instead, spend your energies on inspiring them. Challenge them to dream about what the future will look like after the change.
Intuitively, you can tell me "dreaming" about something is a lot easier than thinking about how to really implement it. In reality, I can tell you this is not the case. Implementing war and burning oil is a hell-of-a-lot easier than imagining a world without them. In essence, here are some smaller examples of the same sort of wrong-thinking:
Instead, dream of yourself thin while you prepare vegetables and exercise. Instead, dream of what your child will grown into as an adult and spend time with them. Instead, dream of other ways to make money promoting music.
In closing, don't be a coward. Dare to dream. Tell others.
-AP
You win.
Why do otherwise intelligent people continue to believe in things that seem silly or impractical?
"Why?" you ask? Because somebody has to.
Too many people in history and especially now-a-days elimated the far-off possibility just because it seemed impractical. The problem with doing this is that by simply eliminating from your mind and speaking out against the possiblity of the options with low-probabilities of occurance or requiring high amounts of effort such as "alternative fuels," you elimate any hope for the alternatives to happen; and all but insure that things will remain the same.
I was recently engaged in a conversation with my father who now believes that war is now inevitable and that peace in the Middle East will never happen. He still does not understand how by himself eliminating the even the slim possiblity for peace in his mind he is contributing to the problem of war on this world.
Dare to dream, young one. You're really all the hope we've got in this world.
-AP
I disagree with this view. You cannot completely decouple originality from creativity. Even if you only combine existing ideas together: for example packages and a kernel into a distribution; a graphics engine and art into a game; or off-the-shelf parts into a rocket you no doubt have to use an introspective process to create. It is the integration process that is the invention, not its indivdual parts, because after all: the individual parts were an integration process at an earlier time to begin with until we go back in human history to where we started to bang rocks together!
Even if you had only managed to exactly synthesize another persons work but you had beaten them at market, it proves that you had thought of another idea to more effectively share your invention with the world...but you had to think to make this happen. Nothing in this world happens automatically * .
However, I believe it is the mark of a genius to claim otherwise: I was reading an article on John Frusciante of the Red Hot Chili Peppers and during the interview he was asked where he got his musical ideas. He said (and I paraphrase,) "I don't come up with anything, the music simply enters me from another dimension." I would argue however, that the process becomes so deeply introspective that you are hooked up directly to yourself at such a deep level that the creative process happens nearly automatically.
Here's a quote:
John, iD, thanks for the innovation...no matter how it happens I'm always entertained!
-AP
* : except the fundamental actions of the universe; or so it seams.
Dear Alton,
I'm convinced your show, Good Eats, is one of the best things on television. I was hoping you could tell us more about how you got the idea to shoot a show in the first place, how you decided to put a scientific slant on things, and where you would like to take Good Eats in the future?
Thank you,
-AP
Dear Alton,
I just came back from a trip in the great hinterlands of Minnesota, so this question is spawned from recent culinary experience:
If you were sent out to the middle of nowhere and had some time to prepare for the trip, what sorts of equipment would you take along and what dishes would you prepare? For the sake of keeping it simple, let's say you had to cook a brekfast and dinner over a campfire. What would you make to really wow your fellow campers using as few ingredients and as little equpiment as possible?
Thank you,
-AP
Just for fun, I loaded the Old and New Testaments into the thing just to see if there could be any interesting and or humorous relations in the text. One thing that I thought was mighty interesting was the fact that "God" was smack dab in the center of everything.
Clicking on "God" linked to damn near everything. My screen lit up yellow like the sun. Well, I guess that's one book that knows its topic!
Unforunately, the text is so large that it really didn't render very beautifully. It was really jumbled. It might be time to crank up to super-res...
-AP
-AP
I would argue that reiterating something that might not be common knowledge to everybody or perhaps even to one's self is not a waste of anyone's time. It can only help to raise awareness of a particular view on an issue that not everybody may have knowledge of.
It is from constant retelling of an idea that the idea becomes accepted into culture and things begin to change.
This is a good idea, so help spread the love man.
-AP
Just for laughes, here's the record SpamAssassin score in one of my spam's:
Now I've turned spam into something of a game. I have procmail rules tell me when a new record has come in so I can laugh at how cliché the message is. It's fun. Really.
The sad thing is that spammers are most likely already using these rules to try and author messages that will sneak in "under the radar" so to speak. I wouldn't be suprised if I start getting messages in pig-latin one day.
-AP
I cannot speak to what approach DCC uses, but razor only picks pieces of a message it believes to be static when computing its SHA1 hash. In the very near future, razor is going to implement Nilsimsa hashes which are 'fuzzy' and should be able to detect everything from spam with minor differentials to mutating e-mail viruses.
Combined with the new razor trust system, razor is going to be quite the tool; and when used in conjunction with SpamAssassin we'll have quite the arsenal to battle unwanted spam.
You should run teergrube, here's an answer as to why from the Teergrube FAQ:
Rob,
On Valentines day...that's so sweet!
My best to you and new your life together!
Congratulations!
-AP
Probably not, as modern film emulsions are already broken into three (or more) color layers and work just fine with APO lenses. I wouldn't imagine that this new chip's light sensitive portion is much thicker than film...
-AP
Although I believe that the New Scientist is very often sensationalistic, why not contact the named scientist at the U of MN?
Here is her contact information.
-AP
I stepped out at 0145 CST and immediately saw a sucession of meteors that left dim green trails and a number of streakers, many of which streaked right across Orion. Now, even without letting my eyes properly adjusting to the light but keeping a count as to as many as I could see I would estimate the rate over 45 minutes of observation as somewere in the range of 30-40/hour. Not bad so far!
I'll reply to myself as I go out later...
-AP
Any full color matrix LCD or Plama display is essentially a poster that glows white when it is fully turned on, except the dots are really, really small. The pictures happen because each of the component dots in the "poster" are (for the most part) individually addressable.
I think this research is more about the manufacturing technique, not about the final product.
-AP
-AP
You really couldn't be more wrong! Ternary logic is at the basis of some of the hottest research in asynchronous logic design right now.
For instance, if you had a group of transistors that computed multiplication and stored the output in a register you might see the value of that register change several times until the computation was completed. Right now, the only way that you know a computation is complete is that logic is designed to complete an action in X cycles; as long as you feed in the data and wait X cycles you will get the proper result. Clock cycles can be waisted here, because a simple multiplication might be completed in a single clock while harder multiplications might take the full amount of time the logic area is spec'ed for.
Using async logic, this can be done much more effciently. The multiplication happens just as soon as input data is given and the next stage of the logic knows when the operation is complete because its wires has three states: 0, 1, and not-yet-done. As soon as all the wires are 0 or 1, the computation is finished (consequently, this is how input works to). There are no "wasted" clock cycles, stuff moves through the logic as quickly as it is completed.
Of course, there has been some debate whether three states are needed on each wire, or an just additional acknowledgement wire is needed (say 8 wires + 1 for an 8-bit computation block). But, believe it or not there are already patents for both methods!
I guess, by having true ternary logic on each wire, you could have logic that will grab a result just as soon as X% of the wires report they are done with the computation to get "good enough" answer if the logic is iteratively improving a problem.
-AP
Either you are being facetious or do you not realize you are the one with the nick GPLwhore? Talk about leftists...
Just thought I would point that out,
-AP
So could you tell us, oh forcasty one, what companies will be driving this OLED revolution?
-AP