I don't know what it's like where you live, but in the majority of the USA the digital tuner is provided free with the cable or satellite HD channels package. These tuners output video in HDMI (direct to your TV) and audio in a few different ways. You would simply run the video from there to your TV and the audio from the tuner to your receiver. This would be able to hook up to your current sound system without a hitch. For surround sound you would probably have more than one viable option.
So the only real expensive thing for you would be a larger TV. If you are talking about a 50+ inch HDTV then yes, you are looking at a couple thousand dollars. But still, I don't ever confuse a couple thousand with several thousand. You have to draw the line somewhere.
Ultimately, more and more people are getting HDTVs. Most of the people I know have them. And I know a lot of people who don't make a whole lot of money.
Please, as long as we're trying to argue a point, let's dispense with the hyperbole. An HDTV and a receiver will NOT set you back 'several' thousand dollars. A two minute cursory glance at Best Buy's website tells me you can get into a 37" flat panel LCD at 720p for under $550.
I pretty much completely agree with you, and the moderators did correctly identify my post as a thinly veiled troll and adjusted it as such. I just wanted to talk to somebody;p Looks like you took the bait.
I am very pleased to see the progress of the last ten years-- and there is more yet coming.
Besides, I am guessing that Microsoft's "Vista" was a cleverly positioned 'failure' that is now allowing their 'damaged' brand image to give them enough room to buy out Yahoo, whereas before they would've been stopped by the Gov because of their 'monopoly'.
The second is unlikely, the size where evaporation beats growth from incoming background-radiation alone is very small.
I don't claim to know the physics of black holes, but it seems like the evaporation and the absorbtion should be a linear function of the area of the event horizon. So, why would size matter in this sense?
Possible, but I believe they evaporate over the course of trillions of years via Hawking radiation. Based on recent evidence, the universe is only old enough for it to still have been the smallest yet discovered.
At least, if I were a scientist and not someone pulling this directly out of my ass, that might be what is happening here.
Anyway, clock speeds aren't increasing much right now but I suspect that this is only a limitation of current tech. Someday I hope we can get clock speeds to reach much higher levels.. like say a frequency close to the composition of planck times inherent in the circuitry of the CPU.
Programming credentials will fit on a single page, with plenty of room to spare. If I structure my resume so that what you need to see is foremost and then I show you that I am also a well-rounded individual, with skills in more than one area, and maybe even something that shows social skills, and you as a hiring agent do not appreciate that, then I do not think you are a very good hiring agent.
I too work in an industrial setting, with a SCADA-type control system. I too have seen what you are talking about -- I'm one of those geeks that gets hired who doesn't have any experience from the mechanical side of things but does, quite often, need it. I've developed it over time, to the point that I can at least recognize the usefulness of it.
I wouldn't leave the part about being a mechanic off of there. Personally, I think it shows a capacity to understand things from multiple perspectives in a cross-trained fashion. And there's nothing wrong with showing people that.
Well, the good thing is that learning all of that network jargon is practically eternally valuable knowledge compared to, say, learning about the lessons of the second world war, or algebra, or how to "read good".
I believe you are correct. Which basically means that for any given frequency compared to what you would have from quartz you will get a finer, more statistically predictable waveform.
Checking if a counter == x, for ever increasingly larger values of x, will still cause increased overheard. Storing the numerical value of 4.5 billion, in binary, is 100001100001110001000110100000000 unsigned. So a 32bit register won't even hold it, if my evaluation is correct.
Whether or not the increased overhead is more detrimental than the increased accuracy is dependent on the application I suppose. But I guess all I meant to say is that 'more is better' is not always the case.
That's what EDGE and the TRIPS systems are all about. Easy programming, hard compiling. In other words, why should we retrain everyone in parallel programming if you can achieve the same result much easier with specialized compiling? Sure, the instruction set of TRIPS is different than x86, but then you have a whole level of abstraction above that with the programming language that can be very similar to how you do it today. There will be some fundamental differences but they won't be gamebreaking. You wouldn't have to relearn everything, far from it.
I guess to sum it up in a sentence: Any process that allows arbitrarily ordered manipulation or processing of a dataset can benefit from parallelization.
Multimedia and database applications are foremost in my mind, followed by applications which need to establish some form of intelligent interface with the user, such as the operating system GUI and games. These forms of processing are already receiving the multi-core parallelization treatment. Incorporating more cores is not that difficult, and it will be done as needed, but for most people it simply won't be needed and the cost will outweigh the benefits.
I certainly agree with your post from a system-level perspective of abstraction. I.E. if we design it into the system at every level, from hardware up through the layers of abstraction to software and the OS, then we will see the largest possible gain from parallelization. Computers will be able to utilize hundreds, thousands or millions or more 'micro-cores' to perform complex tasks faster than ever before.
I guess my point is that I think we'll actually create the basic, expandable model fairly quickly. Would you agree that today's supercomputing, which utilizes parallelization on a scale far beyond desktop computing, has successfully harnessed parallelization? I hope you would. If so, then the next step is miniaturization of what supercomputing is already doing. That step is just now taking place. It's not something that will happen overnight, but I do think that after we've fully integrated parallelization into everyday computing we'll be back to the same old game again: that of looking for ever better ways to increase FLOPS through transistor/switch speed.
My basic thoughts on this are that it is, in theory, easier to model the perfect parallelization of a program, and the optimum number of cores for a specific type of computer, than it is to model the fastest possible clock speed of a CPU. Because of this we'll probably see diminishing returns in advancement of parallelization at an accelerated rate compared to CPU design and clock speed.
I agree 100%. I just recently built this Vista 64 box. I figured what the hell, give them a chance, let Windows Update do its thing on auto for a while (except SP1.. I told it NO on that from the moment it started downloading)... Afterall, Vista is supposed to be better, right? And it went well for a while, until the RAID drivers came.
Oh well, it's turned off now. I tried to be an optimist and got BSOD'd...
Slashdot Mirror
This sounds like complete bullshit.
Sorry, had to say it.
Yes, I work in the energy industry.
The fatal flaw in your logic is in assuming that a human can discern spam.
I don't know what it's like where you live, but in the majority of the USA the digital tuner is provided free with the cable or satellite HD channels package. These tuners output video in HDMI (direct to your TV) and audio in a few different ways. You would simply run the video from there to your TV and the audio from the tuner to your receiver. This would be able to hook up to your current sound system without a hitch. For surround sound you would probably have more than one viable option.
So the only real expensive thing for you would be a larger TV. If you are talking about a 50+ inch HDTV then yes, you are looking at a couple thousand dollars. But still, I don't ever confuse a couple thousand with several thousand. You have to draw the line somewhere.
Ultimately, more and more people are getting HDTVs. Most of the people I know have them. And I know a lot of people who don't make a whole lot of money.
Please, as long as we're trying to argue a point, let's dispense with the hyperbole. An HDTV and a receiver will NOT set you back 'several' thousand dollars. A two minute cursory glance at Best Buy's website tells me you can get into a 37" flat panel LCD at 720p for under $550.
Care to offer inflation adjusted values for your DVD figures? Probably not as high as current BD prices, but probably not much more than you think.
I pretty much completely agree with you, and the moderators did correctly identify my post as a thinly veiled troll and adjusted it as such. I just wanted to talk to somebody ;p Looks like you took the bait.
I am very pleased to see the progress of the last ten years-- and there is more yet coming.
Besides, I am guessing that Microsoft's "Vista" was a cleverly positioned 'failure' that is now allowing their 'damaged' brand image to give them enough room to buy out Yahoo, whereas before they would've been stopped by the Gov because of their 'monopoly'.
But.. not now.
It's better to beg for forgiveness than to ask for permission.
End of story.
I don't claim to know the physics of black holes, but it seems like the evaporation and the absorbtion should be a linear function of the area of the event horizon. So, why would size matter in this sense?
Possible, but I believe they evaporate over the course of trillions of years via Hawking radiation. Based on recent evidence, the universe is only old enough for it to still have been the smallest yet discovered.
At least, if I were a scientist and not someone pulling this directly out of my ass, that might be what is happening here.
It's probably parallelable.
Anyway, clock speeds aren't increasing much right now but I suspect that this is only a limitation of current tech. Someday I hope we can get clock speeds to reach much higher levels.. like say a frequency close to the composition of planck times inherent in the circuitry of the CPU.
Programming credentials will fit on a single page, with plenty of room to spare. If I structure my resume so that what you need to see is foremost and then I show you that I am also a well-rounded individual, with skills in more than one area, and maybe even something that shows social skills, and you as a hiring agent do not appreciate that, then I do not think you are a very good hiring agent.
I too work in an industrial setting, with a SCADA-type control system. I too have seen what you are talking about -- I'm one of those geeks that gets hired who doesn't have any experience from the mechanical side of things but does, quite often, need it. I've developed it over time, to the point that I can at least recognize the usefulness of it.
I wouldn't leave the part about being a mechanic off of there. Personally, I think it shows a capacity to understand things from multiple perspectives in a cross-trained fashion. And there's nothing wrong with showing people that.
Well, the good thing is that learning all of that network jargon is practically eternally valuable knowledge compared to, say, learning about the lessons of the second world war, or algebra, or how to "read good".
Yea, and I was going to say....
No but really, I see the light. Also your point about the IC used to do this at 4.5ghz is well taken.
... was 12. He was ready for a career change after so long in IT.
I believe you are correct. Which basically means that for any given frequency compared to what you would have from quartz you will get a finer, more statistically predictable waveform.
Checking if a counter == x, for ever increasingly larger values of x, will still cause increased overheard. Storing the numerical value of 4.5 billion, in binary, is 100001100001110001000110100000000 unsigned. So a 32bit register won't even hold it, if my evaluation is correct.
Whether or not the increased overhead is more detrimental than the increased accuracy is dependent on the application I suppose. But I guess all I meant to say is that 'more is better' is not always the case.
What about the overhead in dividing 4.5 billion so often?
Seems to me there must be some kind of sweet spot, not just 'more is better'.
Nobody knows, because it is impossible to know something before it has happened. But everyone can guess.
That's what EDGE and the TRIPS systems are all about. Easy programming, hard compiling. In other words, why should we retrain everyone in parallel programming if you can achieve the same result much easier with specialized compiling? Sure, the instruction set of TRIPS is different than x86, but then you have a whole level of abstraction above that with the programming language that can be very similar to how you do it today. There will be some fundamental differences but they won't be gamebreaking. You wouldn't have to relearn everything, far from it.
I guess to sum it up in a sentence: Any process that allows arbitrarily ordered manipulation or processing of a dataset can benefit from parallelization.
Multimedia and database applications are foremost in my mind, followed by applications which need to establish some form of intelligent interface with the user, such as the operating system GUI and games. These forms of processing are already receiving the multi-core parallelization treatment. Incorporating more cores is not that difficult, and it will be done as needed, but for most people it simply won't be needed and the cost will outweigh the benefits.
I certainly agree with your post from a system-level perspective of abstraction. I.E. if we design it into the system at every level, from hardware up through the layers of abstraction to software and the OS, then we will see the largest possible gain from parallelization. Computers will be able to utilize hundreds, thousands or millions or more 'micro-cores' to perform complex tasks faster than ever before.
I guess my point is that I think we'll actually create the basic, expandable model fairly quickly. Would you agree that today's supercomputing, which utilizes parallelization on a scale far beyond desktop computing, has successfully harnessed parallelization? I hope you would. If so, then the next step is miniaturization of what supercomputing is already doing. That step is just now taking place. It's not something that will happen overnight, but I do think that after we've fully integrated parallelization into everyday computing we'll be back to the same old game again: that of looking for ever better ways to increase FLOPS through transistor/switch speed.
My basic thoughts on this are that it is, in theory, easier to model the perfect parallelization of a program, and the optimum number of cores for a specific type of computer, than it is to model the fastest possible clock speed of a CPU. Because of this we'll probably see diminishing returns in advancement of parallelization at an accelerated rate compared to CPU design and clock speed.
I agree 100%. I just recently built this Vista 64 box. I figured what the hell, give them a chance, let Windows Update do its thing on auto for a while (except SP1.. I told it NO on that from the moment it started downloading)... Afterall, Vista is supposed to be better, right? And it went well for a while, until the RAID drivers came.
Oh well, it's turned off now. I tried to be an optimist and got BSOD'd...