Seems like every time there's an advance in digital imaging, somebody
has
to whang the "death of film" gong - the fact of the matter is, even
_after_
digital cameras have surpassed analog ones, there will be people who will
_still_ prefer film, if for no other reason than they like the images
better. You can't measure artistic value with "real color, nn megapixel"
stats - and as such, film will really never die.
You don't measure artistic value with ASA numbers and the size of prints
either. In many cases, the technical shortcomings are seen as an aid to
artistic interpretation (think of Lomo for example). So even while today's
digital cameras are worse in image quality, I cannot see why they should
be less artistic.
I would like to point out however, in reference to your analogy, that
you
can't even model a three-body system without approximation on classical
computers (yes, you know what I mean). If three bodies in motion can't be
modelled with reliable equations, then I have reservations about making
the
leap to modelling more complex situations realistically.
That's a very good point. I agree that nothing can be simulated exactly,
if only due to the inevitable rounding errors - which can be a severe
problem at points of instability.
However, the reason there
is research on quantum computation, is the performance with certain
mathematical operations. This is expected from quantum mechanics, and it's
only the mathematics that needs to be modelled. If the maths break down on
real quantum computers, they will be quite useless, because they will not
give the mathematically correct results.
Consider it this way: quantum mechanics could only be accepted, when it
was shown that it gives the same _macroscopic_ behaviour as classical
mechanics. In the same way, in QCs we are looking for an alternative way
of doing the same mathematics that we could already do, no matter what
weird things happen inside each system.
I would like to assert myself that Quantum computers should be able to
simulate a Quantum reality, whereas Classical computers pretty much can't
do this.
The mathematics used to describe quantum mechanics can be performed on
classical computers. Therefore, a QM system can be modelled as fully as is
desirable, on ordinary computers. It's the same argument as with any kind
of simulations: car crashes can be modelled even if there are no moving
parts in the computer.
For some references you could check out my paper which summarizes
some of the basics behind quantum computation.
By the way, all semiconductor devices are based on quantum mechanical
phenomena so there are very few 'classical computers' around;-)
They use the entangle() function to create a variable whose value is a
superposition of several possibilities. Simply having a superposition does
not mean entanglement (even in Perl, believe it or not) so they could have
named it better.
Also, remember that this does not turn your box into a quantum computer.
It's well known already that quantum computers cannot do anything that
normal computers can't (they both are Turing machines); they just do some
things quite a bit faster.
If he annoys you, turn him off. If you couldn't disable him, now that
would
be ethically wrong!
True.. but why, in the first place, is the software full of 'funny' things
that serve no other purpose besides procrastination?
Computers are here to get something done - whether that's actually
doing a serious job or watching DivXs or playing games. One problem with
fancy GUIs is that they distract people from the actual work. I'll rather
watch movies in fullscreen with no visible widgets, why should office work
be any more cluttered? (maybe because it's less important..;-)
This extends
outside computing, for example in the form of elevator music. It's
absolutely annoying because I want to decide when and what music to listen
to. It probably reduces peoples' ability to appreciate good music in
proper situations, because their senses have been numbed by some marketing
morons.
Now it's interesting why PHBs would rather choose Windows, over a more
calm and productive workign environment. Instead, you get Dilbertish
things like:
"Can you put a funny animation on this?"
"Uh, it's a database, sir."
To be precise, D-flat is different from C-sharp. D-flat is a little lower
in frequency than C-sharp. However, most instruments today use an 'equally
tempered' scale where e.g. D-flat and C-sharp are the same note, for
example the piano and anything that has a keyboard.
The reason that classical composers wrote their works in many different
keys, is that they actually sounded different. In the equally tempered
scale there is no difference (except the overall pitch change).
Disclaimer: I used to play the trumpet, which can play C-sharp and D-flat
(and similar #/b pairs)
differently. I believe this can also be done with string instruments.
Gee, that's an old pine, must be one of the old giants at yellowsnow
park.. how can we trust the creator of our shiny new kernels if his MUA is
years old?
Is it a piece of eye candy? Or is it something to do stuff with? I prefer
the latter description, and hence the term 'workstation'. In scientific
and technical applications, unix workstations are known to be the better
choice, if only for the available applications. I also imagine there are
many places where a Windows box is the best for the job. I agree with
SlashChick and many others that it should be the right tool for the right
job, whatever that is.
Linux cannot, in principle, simply replace the Windows desktop, because it
would no longer be a Windows desktop! However, Linux can be a better tool
for many of the jobs that are now done on Windows. Many specialists
already know that this is the case.
IMHO the worst brainwashing done by M$ to people is the idea that one
OS with one UI would be fit for everything. In the end that system is not
very good for anything.
Similar problems do exist even within the unix world. For example, XMMS is
excellent for playing music but I don't understand why it needs a GUI. At
least in this 'land of the Free' I could scratch my itch:-)
Tried Galeon? A faster GUI
using Mozilla's rendering engine and a general UNIX philosophy (e.g. mail
is handled by external clients). It's not as fast as Opera or w3m but much
better than Mozilla, especially if you use the tabbed interface.
It seems many people are not aware of the 'tracker' music created on
computers. The files are like source, they contain the samples and the
instructions how they are played. Anyone can modify them. I've done a few
collaborations with a friend, we would just exchange the file as we
progressed, rarely meeting in person. And it's great to be able to take
samples out of other people's projects. It's too bad that tracker music is
rare outside the demo scene.
Of course it is possible to convert these into mp3 or whatever, if you
want to distribute them in 'binary only'.
If you think about 'nerd' as someone whose interests are completely inane
to the general public, it might be that the phrases 'News for nerds' and
'Stuff that matters' are pretty much mutex. Either that, or they are -1,
Redundant, because much of this news stuff only matters to nerds.
Re:And why did mankind invent computers?
on
Linus Does Not Scale
·
· Score: 3, Funny
What do you think, that Microsoft used Bill Gates' brain
to organise the 35 million lines of sourcecode of Windows 2000?
Apparently they do. Have you got a better explanation? (this is Slashdot,
right?)
No, wait.. now this makes it sound like Linus and BillG work the same
way.. mmm...conspiracy..
In many applications, 64-bit numbers (esp. integers) are likely to be the
largest you'll need. They can be manipulated even on, say, 4-bit
processors if so wanted, but it will be very handy to use native 64-bit
processors. Unix time will probably be defined as a 64-bit integer and the
y2038 bug will disappear. Of course, you could probably use a 128-bit
processor as a kind of dual 64-bit proc machine, but you could more easily
implement an ordinaly dual proc ystem. Can anyone name applications that
would require larger than 64-bit numbers?
M$ and Big Software would love this law. It would effectively kill the free/open-source
software movement. Who besides MS, Sun, Oracle, et al. can afford to take a chance on getting
hit for $10k for each bug? I wouldn't be surprised if Larry, Bill, and Bill are behind
this...
I disagree. I thought one of the arguments why PHBs choose proprietary systems, is that
they have a company to blame if the software fails. For now, they cannot usually sue the
company because of EULAs that free the company from any responsibility. The law might mean
that SW businesses would finally be responsible for their products.
On the other hand, Free software usually have disclaimers that deny all responsibility,
including fitness for the intended purpose. If I download this stuff for free and it crashes
my system, it's my fault.
In all fairness, if you pay for a piece of software, its producer should have certain
liabilities. But M$ has an interesting point here, because for example IE is 'free' so it
should be excluded, and we all know it isn't really 'free'. More interesting is the point that
Free software has turned out much reliable even though we have no reason (in this silly
business sense) to expect it should work at all.
Many people keep asking if the/. staff actually read their site - when commenting on multiple
instances of the same article. Now, I wonder whether the staff ever read/reply the comments,
because I've never encountered any of them replying. Of course, they would probably reply
under some obscure aliases, but you should still be able to tell...
Slashdot Mirror
You don't measure artistic value with ASA numbers and the size of prints either. In many cases, the technical shortcomings are seen as an aid to artistic interpretation (think of Lomo for example). So even while today's digital cameras are worse in image quality, I cannot see why they should be less artistic.
This feature is optional, chosen along with other configurable items. Servers will not be slowed down unless chosen to do so.
That's a very good point. I agree that nothing can be simulated exactly, if only due to the inevitable rounding errors - which can be a severe problem at points of instability.
However, the reason there is research on quantum computation, is the performance with certain mathematical operations. This is expected from quantum mechanics, and it's only the mathematics that needs to be modelled. If the maths break down on real quantum computers, they will be quite useless, because they will not give the mathematically correct results.
Consider it this way: quantum mechanics could only be accepted, when it was shown that it gives the same _macroscopic_ behaviour as classical mechanics. In the same way, in QCs we are looking for an alternative way of doing the same mathematics that we could already do, no matter what weird things happen inside each system.
The mathematics used to describe quantum mechanics can be performed on classical computers. Therefore, a QM system can be modelled as fully as is desirable, on ordinary computers. It's the same argument as with any kind of simulations: car crashes can be modelled even if there are no moving parts in the computer.
For some references you could check out my paper which summarizes some of the basics behind quantum computation.
By the way, all semiconductor devices are based on quantum mechanical phenomena so there are very few 'classical computers' around ;-)
Also, remember that this does not turn your box into a quantum computer. It's well known already that quantum computers cannot do anything that normal computers can't (they both are Turing machines); they just do some things quite a bit faster.
True.. but why, in the first place, is the software full of 'funny' things that serve no other purpose besides procrastination?
Computers are here to get something done - whether that's actually doing a serious job or watching DivXs or playing games. One problem with fancy GUIs is that they distract people from the actual work. I'll rather watch movies in fullscreen with no visible widgets, why should office work be any more cluttered? (maybe because it's less important.. ;-)
This extends outside computing, for example in the form of elevator music. It's absolutely annoying because I want to decide when and what music to listen to. It probably reduces peoples' ability to appreciate good music in proper situations, because their senses have been numbed by some marketing morons.
Now it's interesting why PHBs would rather choose Windows, over a more calm and productive workign environment. Instead, you get Dilbertish things like:
The reason that classical composers wrote their works in many different keys, is that they actually sounded different. In the equally tempered scale there is no difference (except the overall pitch change).
Disclaimer: I used to play the trumpet, which can play C-sharp and D-flat (and similar #/b pairs) differently. I believe this can also be done with string instruments.
I always thought O'Camel was a nickname for Perl... (OK, I know it's a dromedary not a camel, but anyway.)
You mean, the Berkeley Software Devil?
-- TeknoHog (Pine.LNX.4.44)
is here.
Linux cannot, in principle, simply replace the Windows desktop, because it would no longer be a Windows desktop! However, Linux can be a better tool for many of the jobs that are now done on Windows. Many specialists already know that this is the case.
IMHO the worst brainwashing done by M$ to people is the idea that one OS with one UI would be fit for everything. In the end that system is not very good for anything.
Similar problems do exist even within the unix world. For example, XMMS is excellent for playing music but I don't understand why it needs a GUI. At least in this 'land of the Free' I could scratch my itch :-)
Tried Galeon? A faster GUI using Mozilla's rendering engine and a general UNIX philosophy (e.g. mail is handled by external clients). It's not as fast as Opera or w3m but much better than Mozilla, especially if you use the tabbed interface.
Of course it is possible to convert these into mp3 or whatever, if you want to distribute them in 'binary only'.
Why, then, would you want to use a 2.4.x? ;-)
If you think about 'nerd' as someone whose interests are completely inane to the general public, it might be that the phrases 'News for nerds' and 'Stuff that matters' are pretty much mutex. Either that, or they are -1, Redundant, because much of this news stuff only matters to nerds.
Apparently they do. Have you got a better explanation? (this is Slashdot, right?)
No, wait.. now this makes it sound like Linus and BillG work the same way.. mmm...conspiracy..
There should be a mod option specifically for posts that are just asking for replies with goatsecx links.
Mr. Anderson, what good is a fast running kernel if the procedures are unable to speak (to each other)?
R and D and R and A and M.
In many applications, 64-bit numbers (esp. integers) are likely to be the largest you'll need. They can be manipulated even on, say, 4-bit processors if so wanted, but it will be very handy to use native 64-bit processors. Unix time will probably be defined as a 64-bit integer and the y2038 bug will disappear. Of course, you could probably use a 128-bit processor as a kind of dual 64-bit proc machine, but you could more easily implement an ordinaly dual proc ystem. Can anyone name applications that would require larger than 64-bit numbers?
s/jail/Faraday Cage/
I disagree. I thought one of the arguments why PHBs choose proprietary systems, is that they have a company to blame if the software fails. For now, they cannot usually sue the company because of EULAs that free the company from any responsibility. The law might mean that SW businesses would finally be responsible for their products.
On the other hand, Free software usually have disclaimers that deny all responsibility, including fitness for the intended purpose. If I download this stuff for free and it crashes my system, it's my fault.
In all fairness, if you pay for a piece of software, its producer should have certain liabilities. But M$ has an interesting point here, because for example IE is 'free' so it should be excluded, and we all know it isn't really 'free'. More interesting is the point that Free software has turned out much reliable even though we have no reason (in this silly business sense) to expect it should work at all.
MPlayer makes use of MMX and 3Dnow! if they are available. Makes my K6-III+, 400 MHz, play DivX quite well :-)
Many people keep asking if the /. staff actually read their site - when commenting on multiple
instances of the same article. Now, I wonder whether the staff ever read/reply the comments,
because I've never encountered any of them replying. Of course, they would probably reply
under some obscure aliases, but you should still be able to tell...