I guess the power consumption of tapes is much better:) It seems that offline storage makes it easier to overlook certain unexpected but possibly groundbreaking events, because it's much harder/more annoying to explore the data. But that's just a layman's view; I'm sure the experts have a better idea of what could be there.
See, that's just too bad. They spend $8B on the project, and then they don't have a few million to spend on hard drives to save the data produced by the $8B machine.
Like the guy below said, check out the butterfly network on the wikipedia page, that explains it more clearly. The trick is that the transmissions are multicast, not unicast, and that the side links would go unused without coding.
You've left off "D". I wasn't explaining their example, I was giving you a different example where network coding can be put to good use with a clear reason for the existence of the additional unused resources. There are more good examples in wikipedia.
And you failed to account for how B would know ahead of time that C would be sending a message.
That's an implementation detail. It's been solved by buffering some packets at B. There are good papers on this out there, like xor in the air.
In your wireless example, it would be easier to just skip B and have A broadcast its message to all and sundry and then C can broadcast.
What part of "A and C are too far from each other, so they need to go through B" did you not understand?
The standard example in wireless networks goes like this. Suppose we have a 3-node chain A-B-C, where A has stuff to send to C, and vice versa, i.e. the communication is bidirectional. A and C are too far from each other, so they need to go through B.
Without any coding this is how time is spent: 1. A->B: pAB 2. B->C: pAB 3. C->B: pBA 4. B->A: pBA
Note than in steps 2 and 4, thanks to the nature of wireless channels both A and C get the packet transmitted by B. One of these receptions is thus wasted. With coding, it can be used to send the same data in 25% less time:
You're right, their example is not very clear. It works best when there are extra resources available to the system that *can't* be used for other purposes; the best example of this is wireless communication, where all transmissions are broadcast. For example, if A sends a packet to B, but C also hears it, we can't possibly use the A-C transmission for some other data.
I always dreamed of making a video game file manager. You would be like a little Super Mario type character, and if you needed to copy a file you would pick it up, walk to the destination directory, and drop it. There would also be enemies, and if they caught you while you carried your file, the file would be deleted. That would keep people on their toes for sure! I can't see how anyone could not like such a fun file manager.
What he says, I saw it on TV. First you put a picture of you in a little box. Then, you need to find a dirt road crossroads, and bury the box in the middle. A demon will appear and give you around 10 years unless your day job is demon ass-kicking, in which case they could offer you a lot less.
My dad is a jet propulsion scientist. When I was 4, he had a hard time explaining what he did until he showed me the Navier-Stokes equation. Then I was enlightened:)
I'm hoping it will be the year of high resolution, back-reflective displays that work well in sunlight and consume little or no power (see E-Ink stories). Put that together with a handheld pc of some sort and you can be carrying a whole LOC with you for your reading pleasure.
It seems that there is a magical responsiveness threshold which humans tolerate, and as the processing power and memory sizes grow, the applications follow along, staying just below that threshold. Usually the reasons are increasing amounts of shared libraries and scripting languages, which allow us to build more application per unit programmer time. We get more features and modern applications, at the expense of a sluggish environment.
This performance penalty is perhaps hard to notice. The easiest way to experience it is to run some old applications; they absolutely scream on modern hardware, to the point that the instant response becomes almost worth the loss of extra features. This is probably why things like xfce prosper.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess the power consumption of tapes is much better :) It seems that offline storage makes it easier to overlook certain unexpected but possibly groundbreaking events, because it's much harder/more annoying to explore the data. But that's just a layman's view; I'm sure the experts have a better idea of what could be there.
While they are at it, they should scan for Higgs Bosons too, save the scientists some trouble ;)
If they could get 1GB/s sustained, it would take them... 173 days to transfer 15PB. I hope they have dark fiber to light up!
Never! You'll have to take away the binary prefixes from me from my stiff, cold, dead fingers.
See, that's just too bad. They spend $8B on the project, and then they don't have a few million to spend on hard drives to save the data produced by the $8B machine.
Like the guy below said, check out the butterfly network on the wikipedia page, that explains it more clearly. The trick is that the transmissions are multicast, not unicast, and that the side links would go unused without coding.
You've left off "D".
I wasn't explaining their example, I was giving you a different example where network coding can be put to good use with a clear reason for the existence of the additional unused resources. There are more good examples in wikipedia.
And you failed to account for how B would know ahead of time that C would be sending a message.
That's an implementation detail. It's been solved by buffering some packets at B. There are good papers on this out there, like xor in the air.
In your wireless example, it would be easier to just skip B and have A broadcast its message to all and sundry and then C can broadcast.
What part of "A and C are too far from each other, so they need to go through B" did you not understand?
The standard example in wireless networks goes like this. Suppose we have a 3-node chain A-B-C, where A has stuff to send to C, and vice versa, i.e. the communication is bidirectional. A and C are too far from each other, so they need to go through B.
Without any coding this is how time is spent:
1. A->B: pAB
2. B->C: pAB
3. C->B: pBA
4. B->A: pBA
Note than in steps 2 and 4, thanks to the nature of wireless channels both A and C get the packet transmitted by B. One of these receptions is thus wasted. With coding, it can be used to send the same data in 25% less time:
1. A->B: pAB
2. C->B: pBA
3. B->A, B->C: pAB xor pBA
To decode, A xors the received data with pAB, C with pBA.
You're right, their example is not very clear. It works best when there are extra resources available to the system that *can't* be used for other purposes; the best example of this is wireless communication, where all transmissions are broadcast. For example, if A sends a packet to B, but C also hears it, we can't possibly use the A-C transmission for some other data.
to design communication systems that can route around nuclear attacks.
It better be well protected, or if it warms up past superconduction it will *become* severe weather and terror attack!
It cannot work, because there will be a race condition!
*rimshot*
I always dreamed of making a video game file manager. You would be like a little Super Mario type character, and if you needed to copy a file you would pick it up, walk to the destination directory, and drop it. There would also be enemies, and if they caught you while you carried your file, the file would be deleted. That would keep people on their toes for sure! I can't see how anyone could not like such a fun file manager.
So do you understand probability or do you not understand probability?
You are right!
Let those two clowns have an XM-hosted podcast, and then we'll see who really listens.
What he says, I saw it on TV. First you put a picture of you in a little box. Then, you need to find a dirt road crossroads, and bury the box in the middle. A demon will appear and give you around 10 years unless your day job is demon ass-kicking, in which case they could offer you a lot less.
will run on Hurd web servers, and the first 1000 registered users will get free copies of Duke Nukem Forever!
My dad is a jet propulsion scientist. When I was 4, he had a hard time explaining what he did until he showed me the Navier-Stokes equation. Then I was enlightened :)
I'm hoping it will be the year of high resolution, back-reflective displays that work well in sunlight and consume little or no power (see E-Ink stories). Put that together with a handheld pc of some sort and you can be carrying a whole LOC with you for your reading pleasure.
Aw, come on-- don't you think a nice physics model would be fun to add to chess? Or Hero pieces that gain experience? :^)
Speaking of physics, StarControl had a great PvP model, with the gravity-assisted slingshot and all.
In the US, we usually *pay* to not be listed in a phone directory.
How about multi-tentacled models?
Dunno, the first thing I said quietly to myself was, "Man, that guy sucks at finding warez." Really, an unfillable hard drive? How is that possible? :)
It seems that there is a magical responsiveness threshold which humans tolerate, and as the processing power and memory sizes grow, the applications follow along, staying just below that threshold. Usually the reasons are increasing amounts of shared libraries and scripting languages, which allow us to build more application per unit programmer time. We get more features and modern applications, at the expense of a sluggish environment.
This performance penalty is perhaps hard to notice. The easiest way to experience it is to run some old applications; they absolutely scream on modern hardware, to the point that the instant response becomes almost worth the loss of extra features. This is probably why things like xfce prosper.