But it gets quite expensive to throw memory AND processors into one box if you need both to make your speedup happen. Note that they're already putting a fair amount (8G) into these boxes. It's comparatively not cheap to buy a box that will go beyond 8G.
You can get greater than linear speedup on a system like this because you can keep more of your task in memory. Imagine you need to render 1000G of frames. This system probably has 1000G of memory, whereas any desktop system would have to move that data onto and off of a disk, which is > an additional 10x slower. So hypothetically, it is possible that this monster system renders at 15k times the speed they can get off of a single pc.
Of course, I believe they just erred in their numbers.
I was mostly being facetious, but it is quite expensive to purchase anti fire systems that won't damage assets primarily made of paper and wood. Automatic sprinklers, for example, if activated would have been just as devastating as the fire.
Funny story related to this: back in the Quake 1 timeframe our clan played vs PMS as a sort of publicity stunt. We had arranged a phone call between the two rooms our teams were playing from to enable some trash talking. At one point we overhear (man's voice): John, what the hell are you doing, defend the base!
Yeesh, they had a roof to protect them from water damage, but then that wound up keeping the water out that would have put out the fire! You can't win!
Drug tests pretty much have nothing to do with genetics. There are a few markers for predisposition to addiction, but that's about it. They're not even really interesting for purposes of hiring, compared to say a marker for expensive to treat brain cancer.
What if a researcher within that company invented the exact same concept completely independently of you? What gives you the right to control the fruits of THAT researcher's labor?
That's a completely different issue. If independent invention is going to be allowed at all, I think you have to allow it universally, and get rid of patents all together. I'm actually strongly in favor of this position. But if you accept the patent system as it is, then you have to accept that independent invention is not an excuse in any case, so you retain every right to profit from your invention, and the system treats science as this sort of race where the winner takes all.
And did you properly compensate EVERYONE whose work you used directly and indirectly to come up with your idea?
Ignoring the above and treating this separately: that's not how patents work. First, you need only compensate those with current patents, as patents expire after 17 years. And if you do violate a current patent, it is up to the patent holder to pursue claims against you, not your responsibility to pay them in advance unless you want to be sure that they can not pursue such claims against you! In which case you just look at what the main features of your product are, do a patent search, and offer to pay each patent holder, the process is fairly standardized.
Note the complete lack of any mention of 'non lethal' and the use of such interesting catch phrases as "autonomous ground vehicles that will help save American lives on the battlefield "
There is a difference that a sufficiently intellectual person can draw between developing something intended for lethal uses, and developing something for non lethal uses.
As an example, if the WHO asked you to do some work on understanding the lethality of the asian bird flue, you might consider that work in a different light than doing the same work Al Qaeda, or the Iranian government.
Yes, virtually any invention can be put to lethal uses, but no, not every employer is equally prone to evil and violence.
What's unethical about it? I come up with a novel invention. I patent it. Some other company comes along and steals my idea and starts producing a product. I sue them for patent violation. That's what patents are for: to encourage me to invent by preventing big companies from just stealing my ideas for themselves.
Clearly the courts think that the blackberry people stole a patentable idea, and made lots of money, at the expense of the people who actually invented the idea. I really see nothing unethical about what is happening here.
Actually, once rated it is not illegal to sell to minors. The rating is a recommendation, much like the movie theatre ratings. But this law changes that, at least in CA.
I'm sorry, but there's no pretense about this: the competition is designed to help the defense department deliver on its promise to congress to get most of its ground assault vehicles unmanned in the 2010 to 2015 time frame. They state it explicitly, and all over the place. The universities competing in this competition know perfectly well they're helping the armed forces kill people.
Slashdot Mirror
But it gets quite expensive to throw memory AND processors into one box if you need both to make your speedup happen. Note that they're already putting a fair amount (8G) into these boxes. It's comparatively not cheap to buy a box that will go beyond 8G.
150,000. Per http://home.hiwaay.net/~krcool/Astro/moon/moonglos sary/moontrivia.htm which i'm sure is authoritative.
And the more serious reply:
You can get greater than linear speedup on a system like this because you can keep more of your task in memory. Imagine you need to render 1000G of frames. This system probably has 1000G of memory, whereas any desktop system would have to move that data onto and off of a disk, which is > an additional 10x slower. So hypothetically, it is possible that this monster system renders at 15k times the speed they can get off of a single pc.
Of course, I believe they just erred in their numbers.
No, actually they're a gross underestimate, because you see, they're comparing to the power of 15,000 original IBM PC's.
In all fairness, Frist is R, he's supposed to be evil. Barbara Boxer is D, and she's supposed to be on our side.
Only lightly smoked or chewed!
Ashes still guaranteed to provide 100% of cancer if ingested properly!
The parent to which I was responding suggested a pretense that the vehicles would only be put to peaceful uses.
I didn't suggest it was good or bad, just that the universities involved must know they are helping to kill people.
I was mostly being facetious, but it is quite expensive to purchase anti fire systems that won't damage assets primarily made of paper and wood. Automatic sprinklers, for example, if activated would have been just as devastating as the fire.
Funny story related to this: back in the Quake 1 timeframe our clan played vs PMS as a sort of publicity stunt. We had arranged a phone call between the two rooms our teams were playing from to enable some trash talking. At one point we overhear (man's voice): John, what the hell are you doing, defend the base!
Followed by woman's voice: shut up, the phones!
I leave it to you what conclusion to draw.
Yeesh, they had a roof to protect them from water damage, but then that wound up keeping the water out that would have put out the fire! You can't win!
Drug tests pretty much have nothing to do with genetics. There are a few markers for predisposition to addiction, but that's about it. They're not even really interesting for purposes of hiring, compared to say a marker for expensive to treat brain cancer.
Worse, I got moderated both informative and insightful.
But then someone got irritated and moderated me overrated.
All in all, some interesting moderation for a praise post.
Man, where do you live. The people around here hurt my eyes. I get very tired of looking at them.
Since I'm banned from moderation, a round of applause. Funniest comment I've read in a month.
That's a completely different issue. If independent invention is going to be allowed at all, I think you have to allow it universally, and get rid of patents all together. I'm actually strongly in favor of this position. But if you accept the patent system as it is, then you have to accept that independent invention is not an excuse in any case, so you retain every right to profit from your invention, and the system treats science as this sort of race where the winner takes all.
Ignoring the above and treating this separately: that's not how patents work. First, you need only compensate those with current patents, as patents expire after 17 years. And if you do violate a current patent, it is up to the patent holder to pursue claims against you, not your responsibility to pay them in advance unless you want to be sure that they can not pursue such claims against you! In which case you just look at what the main features of your product are, do a patent search, and offer to pay each patent holder, the process is fairly standardized.
Another helpful website for anyone interested in what the DOD intends to do with grand challenge technology:
http://www.darpa.mil/grandchallenge/overview.html
Note the complete lack of any mention of 'non lethal' and the use of such interesting catch phrases as "autonomous ground vehicles that will help save American lives on the battlefield "
There is a difference that a sufficiently intellectual person can draw between developing something intended for lethal uses, and developing something for non lethal uses.
As an example, if the WHO asked you to do some work on understanding the lethality of the asian bird flue, you might consider that work in a different light than doing the same work Al Qaeda, or the Iranian government.
Yes, virtually any invention can be put to lethal uses, but no, not every employer is equally prone to evil and violence.
What's unethical about it? I come up with a novel invention. I patent it. Some other company comes along and steals my idea and starts producing a product. I sue them for patent violation. That's what patents are for: to encourage me to invent by preventing big companies from just stealing my ideas for themselves.
Clearly the courts think that the blackberry people stole a patentable idea, and made lots of money, at the expense of the people who actually invented the idea. I really see nothing unethical about what is happening here.
by all means, don't let the facts get in your way either:
http://www.army.mil/fcs/articles/
http://www.uniteddefense.com/pr/pr_20050414b.htm
http://www.jointrobotics.com/history/MP89.pdf
So yeah, it seems utterly clear that the DOD has no plans to incorporate technologies for ground navigation into assault vehicles.
And he was at least equally evil.
Science is never definite, after all, for all we know, the rules of the universe change over extended timespans.
Actually, once rated it is not illegal to sell to minors. The rating is a recommendation, much like the movie theatre ratings. But this law changes that, at least in CA.
I'm sorry, but there's no pretense about this: the competition is designed to help the defense department deliver on its promise to congress to get most of its ground assault vehicles unmanned in the 2010 to 2015 time frame. They state it explicitly, and all over the place. The universities competing in this competition know perfectly well they're helping the armed forces kill people.
And yet when engineers design a car in which the passengers don't survive a crash, no one is up in arms.
The reason is that people aren't comfortable with mass death incidences. Spread the harm over sufficient time or space and you're ok.
The question is: how many mass death incidences are computer software responsible for, and is it enough to warrant legislation.
One man's nightmare torture is another man's fun weekend challenge, and vice versa.