The composition of asteroids is fairly well-known, both from the numerous meteorites we've recovered, and from the numerous spacecraft missions, including a sample return (Hayabusa). Unmanned probes can't do nearly the same scope of exploration as a manned mission, but asteroids are small. Does one even deserve a manned mission, much less several manned missions?
What is there to be gained from an asteroid capture and manned exploration? I'm all for manned exploration, but it seems like Mars or Titan or something might be a better target.
That's why you lead with the definition when explaining it. You don't even have to agree with it, you just have to understand that that is why it's named the way it is.
"Client" being "user-facing computer" and "server" being "user-remote computer" is a different definition - just as valid a definition, and perhaps a more common one, but as long as you can explain the definition X uses you should be good.
The best way to explain it, that I've found, is this:
A server lets clients access a shared resource. On a file server, it's storage. On a web server, it's documents. On a compute server, it's processing. On an X server, the shared resource is the display, and clients are given access to it.
It's been known for years now that Japan and Germany are "nuclear-capable" nations. They have everything they need to start a nuclear program, and could probably get there in a year if they wanted to.
Up to now, they haven't wanted to. Japan, however, is threatened by not one but two nuclear-armed nations. China is looking to expand everywhere, and is particularly ready to fight over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands (brief aside: if you look at them on a map, they're closest to Taiwan - let's give it to them and piss both China and Japan off, if they can't find a way to just share the oil). And then there's North Korea, which has practically made a cult out of hating America and Japan, and has been lobbing missiles towards Japan just to get attention. They haven't been stupid enough to actually attack them yet, but I certainly can't fault Japan for getting concerned about it.
I live in a rather small apartment and would really like a triple monitor setup. So I prefer smaller hardware. I'm also nearsighted and usually take my glasses off when computing for a long period, so smaller, closer displays are actually more relaxing. But to each his own.
As far as which is technically better, I haven't seen any solid comparisons. G-Sync does use proprietary hardware in the display, which means it has the potential to do a lot more. FreeSync works with existing panels provided they support V_BLANK, which isn't many yet, and none are exposing it to the GPU.
FreeSync has been incorporated into the DisplayPort standard (as "Adaptive-Sync", an option in DP1.2a and 1.3) but no displays have made it to market yet. G-Sync has the advantage of shipping, but unless it's either far superior in a technical manner, or Nvidia flat-out refuses to support Adaptive-Sync, I expect it to die sometime next year when the competition arrives.
This seems to be a time when monitor features are growing fast. I'm personally going to stick with my 1440p screen until it stabilizes a bit.
The G-Sync/FreeSync battle is going to start. For gamers, this is going to be big. Right now, G-Sync only works with Nvidia cards, and FreeSync will probably only work with AMD cards. FreeSync is much better licensed, and I expect it will probably win eventually, but I tend to prefer Nvidia cards so I'm willing to wait until we get a clear winner.
Basically, my dream monitor right now would be: under 28" diagonal full AdobeRGB gamut or better, factory-calibrated (if significantly wider than AdobeRGB, needs 10-bit color support) refresh rates up to at least 120Hz, variable using either Sync method as long as it works with any card I buy resolution of 3840x2400 or higher (16:10 aspect ratio) no need for multiple data links (as some current 2160p monitors do) sub-millisecond input latency
I would naturally be willing to compromise on many of those points, but the way the market is going, I might not have to. And what I have right now is plenty good enough to last me until things become more future-proof.
The fundamental problem is that ISPs seem to be in a sort of quantum superposition regarding common carrier status. Whenever they're applying to use common land or using it as a legal defense, they claim to be common carriers. Whenever they want to charge people more money for certain things, they aren't common carriers.
Let's let them pick. Every year, let them choose whether they want to be common carriers or not. If they are, then they get the access to existing utility poles, and the immunity for any criminal traffic that may pass through their lines, that common carrier status entails, along with the requirements for fair pricing and universal access. If they choose not to be common carriers, let them charge whatever they want for whatever they want - but they have to build a completely private infrastructure, and may be liable for any traffic that crosses their network.
PS: "Fast lanes" basically don't exist online. You can't make some traffic magically go faster, you can only make all other traffic go slower.
Which will also spread around the writes. If you're writing a 4TB video across 10 disks, that's only 410GB to each, so you only get that much endurance used up.
The Intel 335 has a sequential write speed of about 350MB/s (the rest are around the same speed). Writing 700TB at that speed would take 24 days and change, with no breaks to do things like read any of that data.
This sounds like the action of a Congressman trying to discredit the NSA. The NSA obviously is not going to respond to this - if they did, they'd be inundated with requests from every small-town prosecutor wanting some more evidence (ironically, some might even get warrants for it). That would be worse than what will happen instead, which is that an anti-NSA legislator gets a talking point about how the NSA isn't using its data and isn't cooperating with the rest of the government (namely Congress).
Yes, it's just a political point being scored. But it's a point hopefully in our favor - or at the very least, one against our common enemy.
The more I think about it, the more I think this is the best way to get the NSA shut down. The general public has no control over it; trying to get them angry about it is pointless. The only way the general public could shut it down is by a revolution, and we're too well-fed and content to do that. But Congress could shut it down, so let's find every way to get Congressmen upset about the NSA. I wonder what a FOIA request for some congressional metadata would do...
You're arguing with the antecedent. I'm saying "if you care about X, the Titan is good", and you're accusing me of cherry-picking because the Titan is bad at Y and Z, even though I specifically called it out as not being good for anything except X in a performance-per-penny measure.
I am saying that one of the principal reasons to buy a Titan is if you have a heavy double-precision compute load. I then provided a benchmark showing that a Titan beats the 295X2 in such a load. It would be cherry-picking if I picked the one double-precision benchmark that showed the Titan in a good light, but a single-precision benchmark does not invalidate that.
If you are accusing me of cherry-picking, please provide a benchmark that shows a 290X beating a Titan in a double-precision workload. AFAIK the only double-precision benchmark Anandtech uses is the F@H benchmark I linked to originally.
I am not at all arguing that the results in the double-precision benchmark somehow invalidates the single-precision or integer results. If your workload isn't mostly double-precision, the Titan is not for you. But if your workload *is* mostly double-precision, the Titan is a viable card.
Don't worry, you can just download an e-goat. There's a good website for it, but they keep having to change the TLD for some reason and I can't keep track of which one it is.
It only makes sense if you need CUDA, a lot of DP performance and no ECC or professional drivers and have a lot of money. Im not sure who those people are.
Workstations, perhaps? There's a lot of scientific computing done using desktop-sized workstations, not supercomputers. And they're spending several grand on Xeon CPUs anyways, so a $3K GPU isn't that much more.
The Titan shouldn't be considered a top-end gaming card. It should be treated as a budget Tesla card - even at $3k, it's the cheapest card in Nvidia's lineup with full double-precision floating point performance (which no game uses, but is common for scientific computing, Tesla's market). And on tests using that, the single-gpu Titan and Titan Black outperform the 295X2 by a large amount. AT hasn't gotten to test a Titan Z yet, but you can tell it's going to wipe the floor with the 295X2.
Yes, Nvidia advertised the original Titan as a super-gaming card, and to be fair it was their top-performing gaming card for a while. But once the 780 Ti came out, that was over, and since everyone expects a 790 dual-GPU gaming card to be announced soon, buying any Titan for gaming is a fool's choice.
Nvidia seems to still be advertising it as a top-end gaming card, presumably trying to prove the old adage about fools and their money. It just comes off as a scam to me, but anyone willing to spend over a grand without doing some proper research probably deserves to be ripped off.
I think it's more "if you compile your game without Kinect, you will have access to that processing slice and Kinect won't". Whether the hardware is physically there or not is irrelevant to the reserved processor time.
I'd be keeping OS X on there - I would be switching from dual-boot OSX/W8 to OSX/Linux. I guess I could triple-boot, but that seems a bit excessive when I'd have a dedicated Windows machine as well.
I bought a 6870 as an upgrade to my Mac Pro, mainly because it was highly compatible with OS X (it only fails to show the grey apple screen during boot) and is far cheaper than officially-supported cards. It's also a good mid-tier card on Windows.
And according to this, the 6870 is also basically the best card for use under Linux using open-source drivers, so I guess it's just a very good card in general. When I do a new from-scratch build, I might put Linux on the old Mac so I can play around with Linux gaming more.
Also announced were an i5 and a Pentium-branded Devil's Canyon processors. All three have the same TIM upgrade and overclocking focus. The i5-4690K is similar to the i7-4690K, dropping hyperthreading, a bit of cache and some stock clock, but for $100 cheaper ($242 instead of $339, if reports are accurate).
The really interesting one is the Pentium G3258. Two cores, no hyperthreading, but with an unlocked multiplier, for $72. If you care more about single-threaded performance than multi-threaded, this might be a very cool thing. Buy one, and a good aftermarket cooler, and overclock it into the 4GHz range. If your load is mainly single-threaded, like far too many games are, that can give you the same performance but be much, much cheaper.
I have a laptop with both a Crucial M4 and a regular hard drive. It's been going strong for two years now (well, the display is dying but that's not really relevant). Going off history, I expect the hard drive to die first, but I admit that's a completely unscientific prediction.
You were right to be cautious, though - back in the early days of SSDs, there were many that were absolute crap (OCZ drives had horrible failure rates, and JMicron controllers were rubbish performance-wise). Intel was really the only one worth buying from. Nowadays there are plenty of good companies to buy from. Intel and Samsung are probably the best, but Crucial is up there in the lists.
The Space Shuttle is a really weird mix of qualities. The boosters are actually very good at their job - they're extremely powerful, and surprisingly reusable. The main engines are also good - they're some of the most efficient engines to be flown, period, and they're the most efficient that ever flew regularly. Using an external tank also is a good move - it's much cheaper, and it means the only thing getting thrown away is an empty tank. On paper, the Shuttle should have been an amazing craft.
The biggest problems with the Space Shuttle are deeper.
The first problem is the choice of fuel. Liquid hydrogen is amazingly efficient, but it's both bulky (look at the external tank) and expensive. I suspect NASA thought that, by flying dozens of shuttle missions per year, they could build up a large LH industry in the US, the same way UDMH and other fuels went from chemical curiosities to made-by-the-ton commodities. That didn't happen, possibly because the Shuttle never flew as often as it was designed to. But a more conventional fuel would have been both cheaper to use, and would have allowed for a smaller vehicle.
The second problem is the airframe. The basic idea of the Shuttle is a good one ONLY if you regularly need to recapture satellites and deorbit them intact. This basically never happened. Without that, the Shuttle is a massive, heavy airframe with no purpose. This is getting fixed with SLS/Orion, which is basically a Space Shuttle with a capsule instead of pseudo-spaceplane. Well, assuming NASA actually makes it. Considering how simple the design is, I don't know why it isn't flying already, except for politics.
The third problem is the politics. To get Congressional support, parts for the Shuttle were made all over the country. That's inefficiency for the sake of inefficiency. Then, once Challenger happened, bureaucrats went through everything and OSHA-fied it. Things that were designed to be reused a few times were made disposable, or were rebuilt after every flight. Training times went through the roof. That made the program as a whole slower and less effective - so Congress started slashing funding, because who wants to fund such an ineffective program?
That third problem is honestly the biggest one. If they had been flying them according to the original plan, and using all the capabilities of the Shuttle, it would have been a great spacecraft. And you could easily use the parts of the Shuttle program to build a great spacecraft still. But you won't be seeing that from NASA, at least without some major changes in other parts of the government.
Still, I hope someone can buy up the SSME design. One of those would make a good upper stage for a heavy lift rocket.
The cars shouldn't have a manual override for emergencies - it should have manual controls for when the computers can't handle the regular driving.
Imagine this: you're driving down a country road. It goes from a 2-lane paved road to a 2-lane dirt road to a 1-lane dirt road. At some point during that progression, the AI no longer has enough information to be able to safely operate. It come to a full stop, plays a prerecorded "Manual assistance required" message, and waits for the human to start driving. Once it's back to a point where it can resume automatic mode, it waits for the driver to hand over control.
Basically, we need a manual mode because, especially in these first generations, automatic mode won't be able to handle everything. But it should only ever force a switch from automatic to manual control when the vehicle is stopped, and the driver can safely take however long he wants to start driving.
Would it be possible to build a neural net that recognizes when one of these blind spots has been hit? If it's reliably misidentified across neural nets as they claim, there should be enough common attributes for a different neural net to train on.
Slashdot Mirror
What, exactly, does this mission get us?
The composition of asteroids is fairly well-known, both from the numerous meteorites we've recovered, and from the numerous spacecraft missions, including a sample return (Hayabusa). Unmanned probes can't do nearly the same scope of exploration as a manned mission, but asteroids are small. Does one even deserve a manned mission, much less several manned missions?
What is there to be gained from an asteroid capture and manned exploration? I'm all for manned exploration, but it seems like Mars or Titan or something might be a better target.
That's why you lead with the definition when explaining it. You don't even have to agree with it, you just have to understand that that is why it's named the way it is.
"Client" being "user-facing computer" and "server" being "user-remote computer" is a different definition - just as valid a definition, and perhaps a more common one, but as long as you can explain the definition X uses you should be good.
The best way to explain it, that I've found, is this:
A server lets clients access a shared resource. On a file server, it's storage. On a web server, it's documents. On a compute server, it's processing. On an X server, the shared resource is the display, and clients are given access to it.
It's been known for years now that Japan and Germany are "nuclear-capable" nations. They have everything they need to start a nuclear program, and could probably get there in a year if they wanted to.
Up to now, they haven't wanted to. Japan, however, is threatened by not one but two nuclear-armed nations. China is looking to expand everywhere, and is particularly ready to fight over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands (brief aside: if you look at them on a map, they're closest to Taiwan - let's give it to them and piss both China and Japan off, if they can't find a way to just share the oil). And then there's North Korea, which has practically made a cult out of hating America and Japan, and has been lobbing missiles towards Japan just to get attention. They haven't been stupid enough to actually attack them yet, but I certainly can't fault Japan for getting concerned about it.
I live in a rather small apartment and would really like a triple monitor setup. So I prefer smaller hardware. I'm also nearsighted and usually take my glasses off when computing for a long period, so smaller, closer displays are actually more relaxing. But to each his own.
As far as which is technically better, I haven't seen any solid comparisons. G-Sync does use proprietary hardware in the display, which means it has the potential to do a lot more. FreeSync works with existing panels provided they support V_BLANK, which isn't many yet, and none are exposing it to the GPU.
FreeSync has been incorporated into the DisplayPort standard (as "Adaptive-Sync", an option in DP1.2a and 1.3) but no displays have made it to market yet. G-Sync has the advantage of shipping, but unless it's either far superior in a technical manner, or Nvidia flat-out refuses to support Adaptive-Sync, I expect it to die sometime next year when the competition arrives.
This seems to be a time when monitor features are growing fast. I'm personally going to stick with my 1440p screen until it stabilizes a bit.
The G-Sync/FreeSync battle is going to start. For gamers, this is going to be big. Right now, G-Sync only works with Nvidia cards, and FreeSync will probably only work with AMD cards. FreeSync is much better licensed, and I expect it will probably win eventually, but I tend to prefer Nvidia cards so I'm willing to wait until we get a clear winner.
Basically, my dream monitor right now would be:
under 28" diagonal
full AdobeRGB gamut or better, factory-calibrated (if significantly wider than AdobeRGB, needs 10-bit color support)
refresh rates up to at least 120Hz, variable using either Sync method as long as it works with any card I buy
resolution of 3840x2400 or higher (16:10 aspect ratio)
no need for multiple data links (as some current 2160p monitors do)
sub-millisecond input latency
I would naturally be willing to compromise on many of those points, but the way the market is going, I might not have to. And what I have right now is plenty good enough to last me until things become more future-proof.
The fundamental problem is that ISPs seem to be in a sort of quantum superposition regarding common carrier status. Whenever they're applying to use common land or using it as a legal defense, they claim to be common carriers. Whenever they want to charge people more money for certain things, they aren't common carriers.
Let's let them pick. Every year, let them choose whether they want to be common carriers or not. If they are, then they get the access to existing utility poles, and the immunity for any criminal traffic that may pass through their lines, that common carrier status entails, along with the requirements for fair pricing and universal access. If they choose not to be common carriers, let them charge whatever they want for whatever they want - but they have to build a completely private infrastructure, and may be liable for any traffic that crosses their network.
PS: "Fast lanes" basically don't exist online. You can't make some traffic magically go faster, you can only make all other traffic go slower.
Which will also spread around the writes. If you're writing a 4TB video across 10 disks, that's only 410GB to each, so you only get that much endurance used up.
Good luck with that.
The Intel 335 has a sequential write speed of about 350MB/s (the rest are around the same speed). Writing 700TB at that speed would take 24 days and change, with no breaks to do things like read any of that data.
This sounds like the action of a Congressman trying to discredit the NSA. The NSA obviously is not going to respond to this - if they did, they'd be inundated with requests from every small-town prosecutor wanting some more evidence (ironically, some might even get warrants for it). That would be worse than what will happen instead, which is that an anti-NSA legislator gets a talking point about how the NSA isn't using its data and isn't cooperating with the rest of the government (namely Congress).
Yes, it's just a political point being scored. But it's a point hopefully in our favor - or at the very least, one against our common enemy.
The more I think about it, the more I think this is the best way to get the NSA shut down. The general public has no control over it; trying to get them angry about it is pointless. The only way the general public could shut it down is by a revolution, and we're too well-fed and content to do that. But Congress could shut it down, so let's find every way to get Congressmen upset about the NSA. I wonder what a FOIA request for some congressional metadata would do...
You're arguing with the antecedent. I'm saying "if you care about X, the Titan is good", and you're accusing me of cherry-picking because the Titan is bad at Y and Z, even though I specifically called it out as not being good for anything except X in a performance-per-penny measure.
I am saying that one of the principal reasons to buy a Titan is if you have a heavy double-precision compute load. I then provided a benchmark showing that a Titan beats the 295X2 in such a load. It would be cherry-picking if I picked the one double-precision benchmark that showed the Titan in a good light, but a single-precision benchmark does not invalidate that.
If you are accusing me of cherry-picking, please provide a benchmark that shows a 290X beating a Titan in a double-precision workload. AFAIK the only double-precision benchmark Anandtech uses is the F@H benchmark I linked to originally.
I am not at all arguing that the results in the double-precision benchmark somehow invalidates the single-precision or integer results. If your workload isn't mostly double-precision, the Titan is not for you. But if your workload *is* mostly double-precision, the Titan is a viable card.
Don't worry, you can just download an e-goat. There's a good website for it, but they keep having to change the TLD for some reason and I can't keep track of which one it is.
It only makes sense if you need CUDA, a lot of DP performance and no ECC or professional drivers and have a lot of money. Im not sure who those people are.
Workstations, perhaps? There's a lot of scientific computing done using desktop-sized workstations, not supercomputers. And they're spending several grand on Xeon CPUs anyways, so a $3K GPU isn't that much more.
It's not cherry-picking if benchmarks like that are the primary reason to use a Titan. Particularly when I explicitly said so.
The Titan shouldn't be considered a top-end gaming card. It should be treated as a budget Tesla card - even at $3k, it's the cheapest card in Nvidia's lineup with full double-precision floating point performance (which no game uses, but is common for scientific computing, Tesla's market). And on tests using that, the single-gpu Titan and Titan Black outperform the 295X2 by a large amount. AT hasn't gotten to test a Titan Z yet, but you can tell it's going to wipe the floor with the 295X2.
Yes, Nvidia advertised the original Titan as a super-gaming card, and to be fair it was their top-performing gaming card for a while. But once the 780 Ti came out, that was over, and since everyone expects a 790 dual-GPU gaming card to be announced soon, buying any Titan for gaming is a fool's choice.
Nvidia seems to still be advertising it as a top-end gaming card, presumably trying to prove the old adage about fools and their money. It just comes off as a scam to me, but anyone willing to spend over a grand without doing some proper research probably deserves to be ripped off.
You forgot the USB port for keeping your phone charged.
When you've been getting your ass kicked for years, "not losing" can count as a major victory.
I think it's more "if you compile your game without Kinect, you will have access to that processing slice and Kinect won't". Whether the hardware is physically there or not is irrelevant to the reserved processor time.
I'd be keeping OS X on there - I would be switching from dual-boot OSX/W8 to OSX/Linux. I guess I could triple-boot, but that seems a bit excessive when I'd have a dedicated Windows machine as well.
I bought a 6870 as an upgrade to my Mac Pro, mainly because it was highly compatible with OS X (it only fails to show the grey apple screen during boot) and is far cheaper than officially-supported cards. It's also a good mid-tier card on Windows.
And according to this, the 6870 is also basically the best card for use under Linux using open-source drivers, so I guess it's just a very good card in general. When I do a new from-scratch build, I might put Linux on the old Mac so I can play around with Linux gaming more.
Also announced were an i5 and a Pentium-branded Devil's Canyon processors. All three have the same TIM upgrade and overclocking focus. The i5-4690K is similar to the i7-4690K, dropping hyperthreading, a bit of cache and some stock clock, but for $100 cheaper ($242 instead of $339, if reports are accurate).
The really interesting one is the Pentium G3258. Two cores, no hyperthreading, but with an unlocked multiplier, for $72. If you care more about single-threaded performance than multi-threaded, this might be a very cool thing. Buy one, and a good aftermarket cooler, and overclock it into the 4GHz range. If your load is mainly single-threaded, like far too many games are, that can give you the same performance but be much, much cheaper.
I have a laptop with both a Crucial M4 and a regular hard drive. It's been going strong for two years now (well, the display is dying but that's not really relevant). Going off history, I expect the hard drive to die first, but I admit that's a completely unscientific prediction.
You were right to be cautious, though - back in the early days of SSDs, there were many that were absolute crap (OCZ drives had horrible failure rates, and JMicron controllers were rubbish performance-wise). Intel was really the only one worth buying from. Nowadays there are plenty of good companies to buy from. Intel and Samsung are probably the best, but Crucial is up there in the lists.
The Space Shuttle is a really weird mix of qualities. The boosters are actually very good at their job - they're extremely powerful, and surprisingly reusable. The main engines are also good - they're some of the most efficient engines to be flown, period, and they're the most efficient that ever flew regularly. Using an external tank also is a good move - it's much cheaper, and it means the only thing getting thrown away is an empty tank. On paper, the Shuttle should have been an amazing craft.
The biggest problems with the Space Shuttle are deeper.
The first problem is the choice of fuel. Liquid hydrogen is amazingly efficient, but it's both bulky (look at the external tank) and expensive. I suspect NASA thought that, by flying dozens of shuttle missions per year, they could build up a large LH industry in the US, the same way UDMH and other fuels went from chemical curiosities to made-by-the-ton commodities. That didn't happen, possibly because the Shuttle never flew as often as it was designed to. But a more conventional fuel would have been both cheaper to use, and would have allowed for a smaller vehicle.
The second problem is the airframe. The basic idea of the Shuttle is a good one ONLY if you regularly need to recapture satellites and deorbit them intact. This basically never happened. Without that, the Shuttle is a massive, heavy airframe with no purpose. This is getting fixed with SLS/Orion, which is basically a Space Shuttle with a capsule instead of pseudo-spaceplane. Well, assuming NASA actually makes it. Considering how simple the design is, I don't know why it isn't flying already, except for politics.
The third problem is the politics. To get Congressional support, parts for the Shuttle were made all over the country. That's inefficiency for the sake of inefficiency. Then, once Challenger happened, bureaucrats went through everything and OSHA-fied it. Things that were designed to be reused a few times were made disposable, or were rebuilt after every flight. Training times went through the roof. That made the program as a whole slower and less effective - so Congress started slashing funding, because who wants to fund such an ineffective program?
That third problem is honestly the biggest one. If they had been flying them according to the original plan, and using all the capabilities of the Shuttle, it would have been a great spacecraft. And you could easily use the parts of the Shuttle program to build a great spacecraft still. But you won't be seeing that from NASA, at least without some major changes in other parts of the government.
Still, I hope someone can buy up the SSME design. One of those would make a good upper stage for a heavy lift rocket.
The cars shouldn't have a manual override for emergencies - it should have manual controls for when the computers can't handle the regular driving.
Imagine this: you're driving down a country road. It goes from a 2-lane paved road to a 2-lane dirt road to a 1-lane dirt road. At some point during that progression, the AI no longer has enough information to be able to safely operate. It come to a full stop, plays a prerecorded "Manual assistance required" message, and waits for the human to start driving. Once it's back to a point where it can resume automatic mode, it waits for the driver to hand over control.
Basically, we need a manual mode because, especially in these first generations, automatic mode won't be able to handle everything. But it should only ever force a switch from automatic to manual control when the vehicle is stopped, and the driver can safely take however long he wants to start driving.
Would it be possible to build a neural net that recognizes when one of these blind spots has been hit? If it's reliably misidentified across neural nets as they claim, there should be enough common attributes for a different neural net to train on.