I had never heard of this console login, so I locked my screen (Mac Pro, Snow Leopard) tried it out, the screen went blue, then back to login. No clue what good it would do though.
I have also replied to many of his comments. Why have dedicated anything when you have 64 cores, the whole path of phones is integrating as much as possible into the proc so you have less chips on the board. Every time he brings up the SOC, he is assuming that there will still be one. Why have dedicated silicon when you can have generic that has the free processors to toss at a job.
Ok, so you have Pandora, it receives audio from the internet, so that is one core handling the connection with the web server, one core making sure all the packets are there, one core interfacing with your DSP to decode the audio, another core handling the GPS signal comms with the server to coordinate your adverts. While you are doing all of this, you have another core continuously checking for new mail, another one communicating with the Cell radio to make sure everything is going to make it through and deciding if it should force the radio to switch towers as it knows quite well where you are headed and where the towers are. Also, what is to say we won't be pulling all these DSP units into the processor again? Condensing as much as posible into the processor has been a theme since computers started (486 added in the floating point proc, Pentium brought in some of the graphics processing, so on and so forth.) If you have 64 cores, you don't need much of a GPS unit, nor much of a Cell radio, the processing overhead involved in these items can be handled by the CPU instead. The newest CPUs from Intel and AMD both brought the "video card" into the processor, but there are still many chips outside of the CPU; audio, southbridge, bluetooth, wifi, etc.
How about many serial tasks? On my phone, I have Pandora, Google Navigate, and several background processes. Each of those single apps could be multithreaded. The benefit of multicore isn't always on a single application.
No one reads Slashdot for the article itself, people come to Slashdot for the conversation. If you are trying to say the article is bad, you are doing it wrong.
If you use gravity to compress space, you don't have to go faster than light. The way the warp engines in Star Trek are designed does not break the speed of light, it generates a field around the ship which compresses space in front of the ship and contracts space behind, the ship does not actually move, do it's effective speed is 0, not multiples of the speed of light.
To an outside observer, the ship would be moving faster than light, but to the ship they are no moving, so which is right? The speed of light restriction is based on what frame of reference anyways? As I recall, it is quite possible to have the closing speed of two objects be faster than the speed of light, as long as to each frame of reference is not going faster than light. Also, what is to say that E=MC^2 really means what we think it means? It could be that the speed of light is just a scaling factor, and not a limit, as we have never even approached the speed of light, it is still all theory anyways.
When people consider using a launch loop on earth, it makes no sense as the air resistance near ground level would make it infeasible to launch an item into orbit, but I wonder how well it would work on the moon. You could use a very large area for acceleration up to escape velocity, then have it move up a hill or something to launch the item out of the moon's gravity well. If you worked it properly, it would be an entirely energy based launch mechanism rather then chemical based and could be man rated (use lower acceleration) if it was long enough. Solar power is quite feasible on the moon as well, so perhaps the moon would be even better than orbital, but I had not thought of this much before reading your comment. It is quite doable with today's technology to build something which would open up the rest of the solar system to colonization, and may even allow the build of a generational based starship to colonize another solar system when we finally are able to identify habitable planets around other stars.
Physics has the possibility of compressing space. It happens near wormholes, so it is possible, so if you could compress the space between the Sun and Alpha Centauri, you could travel the distance quite quickly by not traveling between. In order to do this, we need to be able to manipulate gravity, which is why we are supposably using the LHC to discover the Higgs Boson which is generally thought to be used to pass gravity.
The most useful thing to build in space I can think of is a solar power station with a metals foundry attached. Then it opens up mining asteroids and building structures in space, which opens up many other things such as colonies on Venus and Mars.
Yeah, much better buying 3 24" 16X10 monitors and mounting them on a nice triple monitor stand. With that kind of cost, you could even go 6 in a above/below arrangement.
I have seen these cool things you plug into a laptop's microphone port which shorts out the plug which also has the side benefit of disabling the built in microphones. I just wish I could find where they are sold, as I need to buy a few...
Slashdot Mirror
The dog bit the headboard (I suppose on his bed?). They did not elaborate any further in TFA though.
I had never heard of this console login, so I locked my screen (Mac Pro, Snow Leopard) tried it out, the screen went blue, then back to login. No clue what good it would do though.
Of course we would, he was the original cause of the singularity expanding...
I have also replied to many of his comments. Why have dedicated anything when you have 64 cores, the whole path of phones is integrating as much as possible into the proc so you have less chips on the board. Every time he brings up the SOC, he is assuming that there will still be one. Why have dedicated silicon when you can have generic that has the free processors to toss at a job.
I have an android, and can say IU have never had this issue. (Droid X)
Who needs audio decode processors outside the CPU when you have 64 cores? Who needs an external GPU when you can move it into the processor?
Ok, so you have Pandora, it receives audio from the internet, so that is one core handling the connection with the web server, one core making sure all the packets are there, one core interfacing with your DSP to decode the audio, another core handling the GPS signal comms with the server to coordinate your adverts. While you are doing all of this, you have another core continuously checking for new mail, another one communicating with the Cell radio to make sure everything is going to make it through and deciding if it should force the radio to switch towers as it knows quite well where you are headed and where the towers are. Also, what is to say we won't be pulling all these DSP units into the processor again? Condensing as much as posible into the processor has been a theme since computers started (486 added in the floating point proc, Pentium brought in some of the graphics processing, so on and so forth.) If you have 64 cores, you don't need much of a GPS unit, nor much of a Cell radio, the processing overhead involved in these items can be handled by the CPU instead. The newest CPUs from Intel and AMD both brought the "video card" into the processor, but there are still many chips outside of the CPU; audio, southbridge, bluetooth, wifi, etc.
Naa, Apple would do it second, the common thread of everything Apple has been take a good idea, and make it shiny.
How about many serial tasks? On my phone, I have Pandora, Google Navigate, and several background processes. Each of those single apps could be multithreaded. The benefit of multicore isn't always on a single application.
No one reads Slashdot for the article itself, people come to Slashdot for the conversation. If you are trying to say the article is bad, you are doing it wrong.
Especially since this will be inside of the package, and not exposed to the thermal compound.
Wow, so many typing mistakes, I wish I had proofread that...but I believe you get my meaning beyond the typos.
If you use gravity to compress space, you don't have to go faster than light. The way the warp engines in Star Trek are designed does not break the speed of light, it generates a field around the ship which compresses space in front of the ship and contracts space behind, the ship does not actually move, do it's effective speed is 0, not multiples of the speed of light.
To an outside observer, the ship would be moving faster than light, but to the ship they are no moving, so which is right? The speed of light restriction is based on what frame of reference anyways? As I recall, it is quite possible to have the closing speed of two objects be faster than the speed of light, as long as to each frame of reference is not going faster than light. Also, what is to say that E=MC^2 really means what we think it means? It could be that the speed of light is just a scaling factor, and not a limit, as we have never even approached the speed of light, it is still all theory anyways.
When people consider using a launch loop on earth, it makes no sense as the air resistance near ground level would make it infeasible to launch an item into orbit, but I wonder how well it would work on the moon. You could use a very large area for acceleration up to escape velocity, then have it move up a hill or something to launch the item out of the moon's gravity well. If you worked it properly, it would be an entirely energy based launch mechanism rather then chemical based and could be man rated (use lower acceleration) if it was long enough. Solar power is quite feasible on the moon as well, so perhaps the moon would be even better than orbital, but I had not thought of this much before reading your comment. It is quite doable with today's technology to build something which would open up the rest of the solar system to colonization, and may even allow the build of a generational based starship to colonize another solar system when we finally are able to identify habitable planets around other stars.
Of course, we should stop nuclear fusion research and the LHC right now, because according to you, they will never work.
Physics has the possibility of compressing space. It happens near wormholes, so it is possible, so if you could compress the space between the Sun and Alpha Centauri, you could travel the distance quite quickly by not traveling between. In order to do this, we need to be able to manipulate gravity, which is why we are supposably using the LHC to discover the Higgs Boson which is generally thought to be used to pass gravity.
The most useful thing to build in space I can think of is a solar power station with a metals foundry attached. Then it opens up mining asteroids and building structures in space, which opens up many other things such as colonies on Venus and Mars.
Yeah, much better buying 3 24" 16X10 monitors and mounting them on a nice triple monitor stand. With that kind of cost, you could even go 6 in a above/below arrangement.
How about the ultra tall aspect ratio? I have 1920 X 2400 with my dual 24" screens.
Someone buying a Macbook is either declaring their excess of cash, or declaring their homosexuality, or can't think for themselves...
Correction, it is everywhere in NV except LV where it is legal, prostitution is illegal in LV.
I have seen these cool things you plug into a laptop's microphone port which shorts out the plug which also has the side benefit of disabling the built in microphones. I just wish I could find where they are sold, as I need to buy a few...
Third Base.
I know Ft Meade is guarded by real military, but that could be for other reasons...
But aren't the Supremes busy? I thought that they stopped singing and went into retirement years ago...