that's what i actually meant, but was lazy enough to explain:
- it's not just good to have a multicore cpu, you also need the software to be multithreaded and...
- the task at hand that the softare solves has to be "parallelizable"
so given the fact that a) most smartphone software are not multithreaded and b) for most smartphones apps there is no point in having them multithreaded ( multithread calendar ? wtf ), it'd say they are overrated. Hell even in desktops, it's only the last couple years or so that some major applications were recoded to take advance of multicore systems
yeah, look at the difference, one sgs3 is 4 core, the other 2 core, one would assume the difference wouldn't be just 300 points ( ~1700 vs ~1400 ). multicores are overrated in smartphones ( cpu )
the answer is: the average end user doesn't know and doesn't care about gigahertz or core numbers. The end user understands that a phone which was introduced by apple 1 year later is worse than a phone introduced by samsung 1 year earlier.
i'm not sure i understood your last point on whether it could be not computable. If it is deterministic and we had all the initial data and the laws we could "replay" the whole thing out. Of course we would have to have a massive supercomputer outside this universe, so as not to affect the prediction.
i know that the question is still open and i'm not sure myself. However I cannot "see" how it can be non deterministic. Stochastic theories are always approximations when it's too difficult to compute each element. The fact that we have built a stochastic theory which gives accurate results more or less on a "whole" level ( of the phenomenon we are studying ) does not mean that this stochastic theory reflects reality. It's just a tool to get practical results ( just like feynman's on the back of the hand calculations ).
if it is determiinistic and we had a massive supercomputer outside the boundaries of the universe, knew all the laws and had an initial state, we could simulate/predict any future/past state
How can something be possibly random at a fundamental level ? it would go against the law of conservation of motion. In my opinion there is no randomness at all. It's just that every particle in the universe is affected by every other particle ( nomater how small those forces may be ), thus the particles' movement seem random to us.
the practical difficulty in computing does not mean that there is a chaotic or random factor. It's just means the factors that affect the particular phenomenon so many, that it becomes too complex to compute/comprehend.
i tend to disagree. I don't think that subatomic particles have their own mind. every particle moves under the influence of all the known forces ( 5 - or maybe more ) of all subatomic particles in the universe and its position and momentum is certain despite the fact that it's impossible ( computationally ) for us to determine it. The laws for gases ( pressure etc. ) and quantum mechanics are just stochastic simplifications of the actual movements of the molecules ( or subatomic particles in the case of quantum mechanics ).
what i'm saying is: it's not that a particle has a theoretical probability of being somewhere with some probable momentum, no it will be at a very real place at a very real time with a very actual momentum. It's just that practically it's so complicated to predict it, that the best way we have come up till now are quantum mechanics and generally speaking, stochastic laws which only approximate for practical purposes. A theory constructed to give practical approximations does not have a say on the actual theoretical position/momentum of the particles.
i know, but quantum mechanics is not necessarily how the universe functions, it's just a probabilistic approximation just like the laws of thermodynamics.
p.s. i think the universe cannot be non deterministic unless you believe in flying spaghetti monsters of pink unicorns
IF the universe IS deterministic there should be a THEORETICAL solution to predict any future state of the universe provided that you a) know an initial state and b) know all the laws of the universe.
what troubles me is the impossibility of a theoretical solution because it undermines my belief in a deterministic universe. There _must_ be some theoretical solution which can 100% accurately predict any future status of the n body problem!
so that actually means that for any dt, however small it is, given enough simulation time, there is a time point in the future after which the simulation is completely wrong ( for various values of "completely" )
would anyone care to explain how much accurate are the numerical analysis/numerical integration solutions ? ( which also apply to n-body problem, specific part of which is the 3 body problem ). Does the accuracy depend on how small is the dt we chose between each calculation ?
Why on earth someone ( = a person, a team ) who COULD send a robot to land on the moon on 20m dollars budget would ever claim the google money ? The entity to achieve such a breakthrough cost reduction in space missions would simply patent the idea ( mostly the "rocket engine" ), form a company and sell the tech for 10-100x the profit.
the question is idiotic. sounds more like "asking a question just to ask it". Why should even intel kill x86? Would anyone even WANT to kill his cash cow ? It sounds more like wishful thinking from the camp across the atlantic ( arm *wink* *wink* ). Sure they would like to initiate or induce an inception of such an idea, but Intel has no reason at all to abandon such a successful platform.
just set a team of 10-15 experienced programmers to review the code in a period of 3-4 months instead of just-wait-to-see-the-next-exploit-and-fix-just-that-rinse-and-repeat ?
p.s. I have disabled java in my browser since ages. the only reason i keep still installed is because of ps3mediaserver. I wish it wasn't written in java so I could say goodbye to java once and forever.
pardon for the nitpicking but are you aware of any laws that prohibit the action BEFORE you do it ? The only ones I know of are nature made, not man made. All man made laws are applied AFTER the act has happened. A law cannot possibly restrain someone from doing something beforehands, because a law is just a few sentences on a paper, not a policeman watching you.
people using the "is this news for nerds?" quote in many semi-relative-to-slashdot articles. This is not such an article, this quote is *designed* for such articles.
no he was actually right. Belief-wise a cult has no difference than a religion. They both consist of metaphysical beliefs. The difference is only in the number of the followers, practices, acceptance from others etc. any religion is not any different than either astrology or carribean black magic, cthulu or a pink unicorn.
Slashdot Mirror
that's what i actually meant, but was lazy enough to explain:
- it's not just good to have a multicore cpu, you also need the software to be multithreaded and...
- the task at hand that the softare solves has to be "parallelizable"
so given the fact that a) most smartphone software are not multithreaded and b) for most smartphones apps there is no point in having them multithreaded ( multithread calendar ? wtf ), it'd say they are overrated. Hell even in desktops, it's only the last couple years or so that some major applications were recoded to take advance of multicore systems
yeah, look at the difference, one sgs3 is 4 core, the other 2 core, one would assume the difference wouldn't be just 300 points ( ~1700 vs ~1400 ). multicores are overrated in smartphones ( cpu )
the answer is: the average end user doesn't know and doesn't care about gigahertz or core numbers. The end user understands that a phone which was introduced by apple 1 year later is worse than a phone introduced by samsung 1 year earlier.
sgs 3 is better than iphone5 in that chart
wouldn't be in their best interest to end the world so fast, the catholic church would then run out of business.
10 interpretations which will try to connect bertoglio with the prophecy of the popes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_popes
Long live petrus romanus!
i'm not sure i understood your last point on whether it could be not computable. If it is deterministic and we had all the initial data and the laws we could "replay" the whole thing out. Of course we would have to have a massive supercomputer outside this universe, so as not to affect the prediction.
i know that the question is still open and i'm not sure myself. However I cannot "see" how it can be non deterministic. Stochastic theories are always approximations when it's too difficult to compute each element. The fact that we have built a stochastic theory which gives accurate results more or less on a "whole" level ( of the phenomenon we are studying ) does not mean that this stochastic theory reflects reality. It's just a tool to get practical results ( just like feynman's on the back of the hand calculations ).
if it is determiinistic and we had a massive supercomputer outside the boundaries of the universe, knew all the laws and had an initial state, we could simulate/predict any future/past state
How can something be possibly random at a fundamental level ? it would go against the law of conservation of motion. In my opinion there is no randomness at all. It's just that every particle in the universe is affected by every other particle ( nomater how small those forces may be ), thus the particles' movement seem random to us.
the practical difficulty in computing does not mean that there is a chaotic or random factor. It's just means the factors that affect the particular phenomenon so many, that it becomes too complex to compute/comprehend.
i tend to disagree. I don't think that subatomic particles have their own mind. every particle moves under the influence of all the known forces ( 5 - or maybe more ) of all subatomic particles in the universe and its position and momentum is certain despite the fact that it's impossible ( computationally ) for us to determine it. The laws for gases ( pressure etc. ) and quantum mechanics are just stochastic simplifications of the actual movements of the molecules ( or subatomic particles in the case of quantum mechanics ).
what i'm saying is: it's not that a particle has a theoretical probability of being somewhere with some probable momentum, no it will be at a very real place at a very real time with a very actual momentum. It's just that practically it's so complicated to predict it, that the best way we have come up till now are quantum mechanics and generally speaking, stochastic laws which only approximate for practical purposes. A theory constructed to give practical approximations does not have a say on the actual theoretical position/momentum of the particles.
i know, but quantum mechanics is not necessarily how the universe functions, it's just a probabilistic approximation just like the laws of thermodynamics. p.s. i think the universe cannot be non deterministic unless you believe in flying spaghetti monsters of pink unicorns
IF the universe IS deterministic there should be a THEORETICAL solution to predict any future state of the universe provided that you a) know an initial state and b) know all the laws of the universe.
what troubles me is the impossibility of a theoretical solution because it undermines my belief in a deterministic universe. There _must_ be some theoretical solution which can 100% accurately predict any future status of the n body problem!
so that actually means that for any dt, however small it is, given enough simulation time, there is a time point in the future after which the simulation is completely wrong ( for various values of "completely" )
would anyone care to explain how much accurate are the numerical analysis/numerical integration solutions ? ( which also apply to n-body problem, specific part of which is the 3 body problem ). Does the accuracy depend on how small is the dt we chose between each calculation ?
Why on earth someone ( = a person, a team ) who COULD send a robot to land on the moon on 20m dollars budget would ever claim the google money ? The entity to achieve such a breakthrough cost reduction in space missions would simply patent the idea ( mostly the "rocket engine" ), form a company and sell the tech for 10-100x the profit.
the question is idiotic. sounds more like "asking a question just to ask it". Why should even intel kill x86? Would anyone even WANT to kill his cash cow ? It sounds more like wishful thinking from the camp across the atlantic ( arm *wink* *wink* ). Sure they would like to initiate or induce an inception of such an idea, but Intel has no reason at all to abandon such a successful platform.
you must be trolling or you are clueless. C is secure ? you guy serious ?
just set a team of 10-15 experienced programmers to review the code in a period of 3-4 months instead of just-wait-to-see-the-next-exploit-and-fix-just-that-rinse-and-repeat ?
p.s. I have disabled java in my browser since ages. the only reason i keep still installed is because of ps3mediaserver. I wish it wasn't written in java so I could say goodbye to java once and forever.
PREPARED for what blizzard is bringing forth!
/me runs away
pardon for the nitpicking but are you aware of any laws that prohibit the action BEFORE you do it ? The only ones I know of are nature made, not man made. All man made laws are applied AFTER the act has happened. A law cannot possibly restrain someone from doing something beforehands, because a law is just a few sentences on a paper, not a policeman watching you.
they are just trying to save their grey matter... working is something prohibited for them!
the last thing those religion nerds would like to see is such an article on /. !
people using the "is this news for nerds?" quote in many semi-relative-to-slashdot articles. This is not such an article, this quote is *designed* for such articles.
no he was actually right. Belief-wise a cult has no difference than a religion. They both consist of metaphysical beliefs. The difference is only in the number of the followers, practices, acceptance from others etc. any religion is not any different than either astrology or carribean black magic, cthulu or a pink unicorn.