Actually, there's upscaling involved in any case. It's either the monitor or the player that has to do it. If the monitor uses a crappy upscaling algorithm, then better let the player scale it instead.
I prefer software that just does what I tell it. Software that tries to be smarter than me just gets in my way.
I was going to reply along the same lines. One of the general things I like about unix is a kind of simplicity. For example the lack of filename extensions; it's simpler to just use a string that may or may not have a dot in it. That string consists of characters that bear no special meaning to the computer; for example 'a' and 'A' represent two different binary numbers. It's a matter of user interface whether they are represented as human-readable letters that may or may not relate to each other.
There will come day where we expect our compilers to encode parallel information into the code so it will run faster on our 1024 core machines. Interprative languages are going to be struggling to do that "just-in-time" like they struggle to do any optimizations now "just-in-time".
As others have pointed out already, interpreted languages may have an advantage as they can scale up on runtime. A somewhat related point comes from my experience with Fortran 90 (and higher): its builtin matrix data types and operations are inherently parallel, and the compiler can make use of this for SIMD and multiprocessor machines.
In other words, the programmer often knows what can be parallelized. But that information is sometimes lost, for example if you're operating on vectors (each component in parallel) and writing it as a sequential loop. To retain the information you need a higher level language -- in fact, the higher level, the more information you can pass while staying cross-platform. Lower level means you're focusing closer to a specific architecture, so it won't be as efficient when compiled to other archs.
Basically, the voltage of a capacitor is proportional to the amount of charge stored, whereas a battery provides more or less constant voltage.
Actually, the energy stored in a capacitor is proportional to the square of the voltage. For examlple, if your capacitor powered device has drained half the capacitor's voltage, it has used 3/4 of the stored energy.
We're both correct since Q = CV and E = Integral CV dV = 1/2 CV**2.
The image of nanotubes that they show are almost certainly nanotubes made by chemical vapor deposition (CVD). CVD is cheap, scalable, fairly easy, and found in every semiconductor fab you have ever gone to.
That said, I would not hold my breath
I would, given all that chemical vapor around. Speaking of which, this sounds like a great way of powering my Phantom console running Duke Nukem Forever.
In electrolytic capacitors, one electrode is formed by a conducting liquid, and an oxide layer on the metallic conductor acts as the insulator. The nanotube version may use something like this.
On another note, every time someone proposes to replace batteries with capacitors, I wonder how they make up for the huge variation of voltage that a capacitor delivers. Basically, the voltage of a capacitor is proportional to the amount of charge stored, whereas a battery provides more or less constant voltage. The capacitor-battery would require a circuit (something like a switching power supply) to be able to provide constant voltage. That, in turn, would take up space and waste some energy.
I've been contemplating on getting the PS3 as my next computer when it comes out. However, I wonder how open it will be when compared to x86 machines you can assemble yourself. I'm sure this will become clear fairly soon and we can make informed decisions a few months after the launch. By that time the price will hopefully be a little lower as well.
As for the difficulty of programming the Cell, that's one of my least worries with the PS3. IBM has plenty of code and documentation available, for example parallelizing compilers.
Why does a laptop need 64-bits? Are you addressing more than 4GB memory? I haven't seen a laptop yet that can support more physical memory than 32-bit chips can address, nor can I see someone doing heavily scientific work on a laptop as they tend to have slower, smaller hard drives. Extended memory and scientific precision are the only valid reasons I can think of needing 64-bit architecture, neither of which apply directly to laptops.
Why does anyone need more than 640 KB of memory? Why is there a world market for more than five computers?
Besides, if by scientific precision you refer to the ability to process 64-bit numbers, you can do that now on practically any 32-bit x86 processor. And you can use libraries like gmp if you want higher precision.
-- posted by someone who has done heavy scientific work on a laptop
I wouldn't mind downloading and installing such a framework, if it were available on a real operating system. What the fsck are you Windows users doing on Slashdot anyway?-)
Actually, I haven't tried Bon Echo, but it appears to be the beta for Firefox 2. I like bleeding on the edge, so I prefer to use Minefield (FF 3 alpha) even if it's occasionally a little unstable. I also like the fact that Minefield uses the new Cairo display system of GTK+, so that will undergo testing at the same time.
Also, because of the fixed IP, I'm running bridged Ethernet instead of that PPPoE crap, which probably helps a little bit.
I've had ADSL for three years in Finland with a few different operators, and it's always been bridged Ethernet with DHCP. So no fixed IP required, unless you're running something like a DNS server (I run httpd and sshd using dyndns).
Everyone knows that C: is the root drive for windows... just like they know that A and B are floppy drives. Windows is meant to make things easy. I tried explaining the UNIX filesystem hierachy to someone... it wasn't easy.
That's everyone who grew up with DOS/Windows. There's nothing intuitive or easy about it. Especially now that floppies are used less and less, it's hard to see the point why floppies are given the special position at the start of drive letters.
I agree that unix isn't necessarily easy, but at least it provides a consistent hierarchy across different machines, no matter where the data is actually stored. You can use a sensible partitioning scheme and still present a unified interface to the user. Whereas Windows forces you to see the underlying partitions directly. Funny, but in this case unix is being a lot more user-friendly.
For example, I used to work at a high school with a mixture of Linux and Windows machines, and everyone was taught to use both systems. When on Windows, students were advised to store their data on a network share, instead of the local machine. Thus they could continue working on any machine, and the individual machines could be wiped clean and reinstalled without any problems.
On Linux, however, the login details and the/home partition were stored on a central server. Students got the same benefit of network storage, but it was completely transparent. It looked just the same as if they had a local/home partition.
Unix is great at providing source level compatibility. You can (usually) easily create source code that will compile binaries for a wide variety of operating systems and versions.
Agreed.
What Windows does beautifully is take this one step further and provide binary level compatibilty between different versons. I can take something created for Windows 95 and it installs and runs well today on Windows XP.
So, it only works for different versions of the same OS of the same vendor. Whereas with unix, one software works with different OSes by different vendors. IMHO this looks like unix is more progressive and more 'beautiful' (whatever that means in a software context).
Seriously. Who ever had the idea of lumping together several components that dissipate heat poorly inside a big box...
I've often thought of the same thing. For example, it would be great if the CPU were mounted on the 'wrong' side of the PCB. Then you could use the case as a big heatsink. Some high end amplifiers dissipate hundreds of watts and they manage with passive cooling (i.e. huge heatsinks) because fan noise cannot be tolerated in an audio system.
I think small heatsinks with fans are just the cheap and simple solution due to lack of proper design. Most of the cheap fansinks have fans blowing against the plane of the CPU, which is just plain wrong when you think of basic fluid mechanics. That way you have zero flow velocity at the center, which is probably the hottest part.
We joke about how official releases have made us all beta testers, but that doesn't seem to stop us from purchasing software.
Who is this 'we' you speak of? Personally, I don't purchase software, I emerge or apt-get it. As for the beta state of commercial software, it makes me cry rather than laugh, seeing people close to me waste money, time and nerves on Microsoft crap.
And even if the problems presented do turn out to be too difficult to construct an Earth-based space elevator, the technology could still be used on the Moon, which presents a much smaller challenge. I suspect that we already have the capabilities required to construct a lunar space elevator -- all that we lack is a permanent lunar base.
The main point about having a space elevator is easy access to space: you'll be taking energy from Earth's rotation instead of burning chemicals. Once you're on the Moon it's much easier to get into space, and there's not much point in the elevator.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, there's upscaling involved in any case. It's either the monitor or the player that has to do it. If the monitor uses a crappy upscaling algorithm, then better let the player scale it instead.
As others have pointed out already, interpreted languages may have an advantage as they can scale up on runtime. A somewhat related point comes from my experience with Fortran 90 (and higher): its builtin matrix data types and operations are inherently parallel, and the compiler can make use of this for SIMD and multiprocessor machines.
In other words, the programmer often knows what can be parallelized. But that information is sometimes lost, for example if you're operating on vectors (each component in parallel) and writing it as a sequential loop. To retain the information you need a higher level language -- in fact, the higher level, the more information you can pass while staying cross-platform. Lower level means you're focusing closer to a specific architecture, so it won't be as efficient when compiled to other archs.
The image of nanotubes that they show are almost certainly nanotubes made by chemical vapor deposition (CVD). CVD is cheap, scalable, fairly easy, and found in every semiconductor fab you have ever gone to.
That said, I would not hold my breath
I would, given all that chemical vapor around. Speaking of which, this sounds like a great way of powering my Phantom console running Duke Nukem Forever.
In electrolytic capacitors, one electrode is formed by a conducting liquid, and an oxide layer on the metallic conductor acts as the insulator. The nanotube version may use something like this.
On another note, every time someone proposes to replace batteries with capacitors, I wonder how they make up for the huge variation of voltage that a capacitor delivers. Basically, the voltage of a capacitor is proportional to the amount of charge stored, whereas a battery provides more or less constant voltage. The capacitor-battery would require a circuit (something like a switching power supply) to be able to provide constant voltage. That, in turn, would take up space and waste some energy.
I've been contemplating on getting the PS3 as my next computer when it comes out. However, I wonder how open it will be when compared to x86 machines you can assemble yourself. I'm sure this will become clear fairly soon and we can make informed decisions a few months after the launch. By that time the price will hopefully be a little lower as well.
As for the difficulty of programming the Cell, that's one of my least worries with the PS3. IBM has plenty of code and documentation available, for example parallelizing compilers.
At least it comes with a super multi cup holder.
I can't understand why anyone would need more than 640 KB of memory.
Yes, because when you're buying a server you obviously want to spend money on a big flat screen.
The article highlights faster resume times from hibernation. In that case the power has been off, which would empty the cache.
Funnily enough, there's one here made by Sony. They make great coasters.
Why does anyone need more than 640 KB of memory? Why is there a world market for more than five computers?
Besides, if by scientific precision you refer to the ability to process 64-bit numbers, you can do that now on practically any 32-bit x86 processor. And you can use libraries like gmp if you want higher precision.
-- posted by someone who has done heavy scientific work on a laptop
And what a dog will that turn out to be...
I wouldn't mind downloading and installing such a framework, if it were available on a real operating system. What the fsck are you Windows users doing on Slashdot anyway?-)
I don't get the joke. I should probably finish my morning kofi...
I second this with a link: http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nig htly/latest-trunk/
Actually, I haven't tried Bon Echo, but it appears to be the beta for Firefox 2. I like bleeding on the edge, so I prefer to use Minefield (FF 3 alpha) even if it's occasionally a little unstable. I also like the fact that Minefield uses the new Cairo display system of GTK+, so that will undergo testing at the same time.
I've had ADSL for three years in Finland with a few different operators, and it's always been bridged Ethernet with DHCP. So no fixed IP required, unless you're running something like a DNS server (I run httpd and sshd using dyndns).
That's everyone who grew up with DOS/Windows. There's nothing intuitive or easy about it. Especially now that floppies are used less and less, it's hard to see the point why floppies are given the special position at the start of drive letters.
I agree that unix isn't necessarily easy, but at least it provides a consistent hierarchy across different machines, no matter where the data is actually stored. You can use a sensible partitioning scheme and still present a unified interface to the user. Whereas Windows forces you to see the underlying partitions directly. Funny, but in this case unix is being a lot more user-friendly.
For example, I used to work at a high school with a mixture of Linux and Windows machines, and everyone was taught to use both systems. When on Windows, students were advised to store their data on a network share, instead of the local machine. Thus they could continue working on any machine, and the individual machines could be wiped clean and reinstalled without any problems.
On Linux, however, the login details and the /home partition were stored on a central server. Students got the same benefit of network storage, but it was completely transparent. It looked just the same as if they had a local /home partition.
It's as if millions of Star Wars fans cried out at once, asking for the paraphrasing lamers to be suddenly silenced.
Agreed.
What Windows does beautifully is take this one step further and provide binary level compatibilty between different versons. I can take something created for Windows 95 and it installs and runs well today on Windows XP.
So, it only works for different versions of the same OS of the same vendor. Whereas with unix, one software works with different OSes by different vendors. IMHO this looks like unix is more progressive and more 'beautiful' (whatever that means in a software context).
I've often thought of the same thing. For example, it would be great if the CPU were mounted on the 'wrong' side of the PCB. Then you could use the case as a big heatsink. Some high end amplifiers dissipate hundreds of watts and they manage with passive cooling (i.e. huge heatsinks) because fan noise cannot be tolerated in an audio system.
I think small heatsinks with fans are just the cheap and simple solution due to lack of proper design. Most of the cheap fansinks have fans blowing against the plane of the CPU, which is just plain wrong when you think of basic fluid mechanics. That way you have zero flow velocity at the center, which is probably the hottest part.
Who is this 'we' you speak of? Personally, I don't purchase software, I emerge or apt-get it. As for the beta state of commercial software, it makes me cry rather than laugh, seeing people close to me waste money, time and nerves on Microsoft crap.
I think the grandparent means vocational school (=ammattikoulu).
The main point about having a space elevator is easy access to space: you'll be taking energy from Earth's rotation instead of burning chemicals. Once you're on the Moon it's much easier to get into space, and there's not much point in the elevator.