Of course there is. This is just something from a personal experience, something that has made life interesting again. I also think that FPGA design has improved my understanding of programming, for example because it forces you to think about parallelism much more. The low-level aspects of doing more with less logic are also intriguing.
most modern GPUs also have a variety of coprocessors for things like H.264 decoding.
Why is that? They should have plenty of general-purpose silicon for doing it in software. (Mobile devices would be an exception because dedicated hardware is more power-efficient.) In fact, why don't we just write ffmpeg etc. in OpenCL and get this over with?
Hans Reiser, creator of ReiserFS (the first journaling filesystem in vanilla Linux kernel and still a pretty good FS overall) and a convicted murderer.
I wonder why Intel doesn't rip out the x86 decoder from it chips and then write compiler back-ends that directly generate micro-ops.
Since the decoder stage is large and power-hungry, the resulting chips would be faster than any ARM variant while also being much smaller are low-power than Atoms.
Probably because the internal architecture is far from stable. Of course, they could write a new compiler for every chip generation, resulting in all kinds of fun for both developers and end users.
Einstein never received a Nobel for his work on relativity (special or general) or his contributions to quantum mechanics. His prize was given for his explanation of the photoelectric effect which, while an important contribution, most people don't know about.
It could be that quantum mechanics was not a well-defined framework of physics back then. Nevertheless, it was clear that Einstein had made significant contributions to theoretical physics. In fact, his Nobel was not just for the photoelectric effect, although it was highlighted as the most notable of the contributions.
Actually, a lot of the Nobel prizes seem to be awarded for experimental work. Essential contributions to science, but rarely big-picture explanations. We only have theories like the Standard Model of particle physics because of these individual contributors, and it is hard to pinpoint any single person or group behind such models. As others have pointed out already, Einstein was not the lone inventor of relativity, so it made sense to award him for more specific discoveries.
The key is that it's heaps harder to slip a backdoor into OSS simply because far more people can (and do) examine it. The chance that someone finds it and reports it is simply by some margin higher.
My thoughts exactly. If you think about this as a developer who wants to implement a backdoor, open source is much more risky for you. You'll have to be clever in order to hide it in plain sight, and there is still a good chance someone will find it. In contrast, when the software is closed, you can write the simplest possible backdoor, and not worry about being seen.
I, for one, like the idea that I can have desktop quality applications running independent of platform on my browser - and wouldn't mind if this became the standard. By uniting all OS'es under this platform, I don't believe that there is fragmentation (what exists now IS fragmentation)
AFAIK, the "native" in NaCl means that it is compiled for a given CPU architecture. It is probably independent of the OS, but you still couldn't run an x86 version on ARM, for example.
All the tablets and things coming out now are running ARM.
How many of those can run a proper Linux distro?
Actually, I have a couple of ARM devices doing just that (N800, N900, Buffalo Linkstations) but the majority seem to be running some kind of a phone OS, and it is not straightforward to install your own distro. I don't have much love for x86, but at least the semi-standardized platform lets me run whatever software I want.
I wonder how many of the "biblical names" actually have a deep biblical meaning, or if they just happened to be common names of people at that time of history.
Heatpipes tend to be (I don't know if they technically have to be) sealed copper pipes, slight bending is possible but there is little flexibility in the system and so the radiator has to be attatched to the pickup. This isn't a problem for a laptop where custom mounts can be designed in but in a conventional desktop it means you end up with the whole cooling assembly bolted to the heatsink mounts on the motherboard. This is bad for robustness and means you can't easilly route the heated air directly out of the case.
I recall reading about a laptop design where heatpipes went from the CPU to the back of the display, for a larger cooling area. I imagined there would be a hinge-like joint with two solid pipes, but even then it didn't seem too robust. Heatpipes need to be sealed and solid, because they need to work at a specific pressure, so even a flexible tube might distort it. The wick for returning fluid might also be a problem in a flexible tube.
What's wrong with "evil crowd-sourced astroturfing"?
Or the more accurate, "massively parallel astroturfing"?
I think the technical term you're after is "embarrassingly parallel".
Re:Only part of the population can think abstractl
on
The Condescending UI
·
· Score: 2
I think the main point about computers is the abstractions they can handle. Or, in other words, they can handle much more complexity than what can be immediately visible. If you bring real-world limitations to computers, then what's the point of using computers? Perhaps tablets and "smart"phones are the answer, because most people don't seem to need a real computer with all its abstractions.
I haven't used recent versions of Windows or OS X, but I think the basic problem is there in early versions, for example the desktop metaphor. The typical Windows screen I recall seeing is a mess of partially overlapping windows, because there is only that one desktop, despite all the abstract storage you could have on a computer. Virtual desktops are a nice improvement, but few people seem to use them outside Linux.
The desktop metaphor also fails its basic principles in spectacular ways. In the real world, you move papers around by grabbing them at any point you like, but in Windows, you need to grab them at the top bar. Unix/X does this much more naturally, even if it doesn't claim to emulate a "desktop" in any way.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course there is. This is just something from a personal experience, something that has made life interesting again. I also think that FPGA design has improved my understanding of programming, for example because it forces you to think about parallelism much more. The low-level aspects of doing more with less logic are also intriguing.
what happened to all the hackers on Slashdot? You know, the people who were actually interesting?
They are busy designing their own circuits on FPGAs, instead of programming other people's designs.
most modern GPUs also have a variety of coprocessors for things like H.264 decoding.
Why is that? They should have plenty of general-purpose silicon for doing it in software. (Mobile devices would be an exception because dedicated hardware is more power-efficient.) In fact, why don't we just write ffmpeg etc. in OpenCL and get this over with?
Ceci n'est pas une PIPA. No SOPA for you!
Hans Reiser, creator of ReiserFS (the first journaling filesystem in vanilla Linux kernel and still a pretty good FS overall) and a convicted murderer.
Seems more like a nanophone.
Take some time off and reflect. Slashdot isn't going to provide you with any wisdom for something that is a function of you and your feelings.
What about Mirrordot?
(No, seriously, the parent is fucking insightful.)
I wonder why Intel doesn't rip out the x86 decoder from it chips and then write compiler back-ends that directly generate micro-ops.
Since the decoder stage is large and power-hungry, the resulting chips would be faster than any ARM variant while also being much smaller are low-power than Atoms.
Probably because the internal architecture is far from stable. Of course, they could write a new compiler for every chip generation, resulting in all kinds of fun for both developers and end users.
It could be that quantum mechanics was not a well-defined framework of physics back then. Nevertheless, it was clear that Einstein had made significant contributions to theoretical physics. In fact, his Nobel was not just for the photoelectric effect, although it was highlighted as the most notable of the contributions.
Actually, a lot of the Nobel prizes seem to be awarded for experimental work. Essential contributions to science, but rarely big-picture explanations. We only have theories like the Standard Model of particle physics because of these individual contributors, and it is hard to pinpoint any single person or group behind such models. As others have pointed out already, Einstein was not the lone inventor of relativity, so it made sense to award him for more specific discoveries.
The key is that it's heaps harder to slip a backdoor into OSS simply because far more people can (and do) examine it. The chance that someone finds it and reports it is simply by some margin higher.
My thoughts exactly. If you think about this as a developer who wants to implement a backdoor, open source is much more risky for you. You'll have to be clever in order to hide it in plain sight, and there is still a good chance someone will find it. In contrast, when the software is closed, you can write the simplest possible backdoor, and not worry about being seen.
... for a fee.
Would you be my lady tonight?
I, for one, like the idea that I can have desktop quality applications running independent of platform on my browser - and wouldn't mind if this became the standard. By uniting all OS'es under this platform, I don't believe that there is fragmentation (what exists now IS fragmentation)
AFAIK, the "native" in NaCl means that it is compiled for a given CPU architecture. It is probably independent of the OS, but you still couldn't run an x86 version on ARM, for example.
Microsoft somehow has the power to make everyone cripple their implementation of Atom to 2GB or less RAM supported.
My Atom machine has 3 GB currently installed, with a maximum of 4 GB.
All the tablets and things coming out now are running ARM.
How many of those can run a proper Linux distro?
Actually, I have a couple of ARM devices doing just that (N800, N900, Buffalo Linkstations) but the majority seem to be running some kind of a phone OS, and it is not straightforward to install your own distro. I don't have much love for x86, but at least the semi-standardized platform lets me run whatever software I want.
Actually, most of the things I buy have a lifetime warranty. Each product is guaranteed for its lifetime.
Dude, RTFA. It clearly explains how he uses relativity clouds to achieve these feets.
Reindeer don't have feets, they has hoofz. As for relativity, the one at the front is called Rudolf the Red-shift Reindeer.
Things used to be simpler. Really. For any given field, there is many times as much information as there used to be.
A couple of hundred years ago, someone could be a scientist and a philosopher and a gentleman.
I'm a physicist today, so fuck you!
I wonder how many of the "biblical names" actually have a deep biblical meaning, or if they just happened to be common names of people at that time of history.
Heatpipes tend to be (I don't know if they technically have to be) sealed copper pipes, slight bending is possible but there is little flexibility in the system and so the radiator has to be attatched to the pickup. This isn't a problem for a laptop where custom mounts can be designed in but in a conventional desktop it means you end up with the whole cooling assembly bolted to the heatsink mounts on the motherboard. This is bad for robustness and means you can't easilly route the heated air directly out of the case.
I recall reading about a laptop design where heatpipes went from the CPU to the back of the display, for a larger cooling area. I imagined there would be a hinge-like joint with two solid pipes, but even then it didn't seem too robust. Heatpipes need to be sealed and solid, because they need to work at a specific pressure, so even a flexible tube might distort it. The wick for returning fluid might also be a problem in a flexible tube.
I think the Battletech term is "cudgel".
My upcoming band will be called Zinc. It represents the subgenre of heavy metal called Sacrificial Metal.
What's wrong with "evil crowd-sourced astroturfing"?
Or the more accurate, "massively parallel astroturfing"?
I think the technical term you're after is "embarrassingly parallel".
I think the main point about computers is the abstractions they can handle. Or, in other words, they can handle much more complexity than what can be immediately visible. If you bring real-world limitations to computers, then what's the point of using computers? Perhaps tablets and "smart"phones are the answer, because most people don't seem to need a real computer with all its abstractions.
I haven't used recent versions of Windows or OS X, but I think the basic problem is there in early versions, for example the desktop metaphor. The typical Windows screen I recall seeing is a mess of partially overlapping windows, because there is only that one desktop, despite all the abstract storage you could have on a computer. Virtual desktops are a nice improvement, but few people seem to use them outside Linux.
The desktop metaphor also fails its basic principles in spectacular ways. In the real world, you move papers around by grabbing them at any point you like, but in Windows, you need to grab them at the top bar. Unix/X does this much more naturally, even if it doesn't claim to emulate a "desktop" in any way.
I think "Feyman" is somewhat appropriate, it has that hint of iron-y.
Geez, what an idiom.