I imagine Speilberg and George Lucas do the final cut of their films
Yes, unfortunately. Otherwise AI, Minority Report, SW:1 and 2 would probably have been really good movies.
I think most directors would need to have someone else review your work. Just as with all creative work you generally get blinded "by your own brilliance" and need someone with a clear mind to review your work for you.
Quite clearly this isn't the case with Lucas and Spielberg.
OK, now Linux beats mac out on price, no doubt. But can it even come close on ease of use?
Depends if you know how to use it or not. The first time you setup a Linux system like you mentioned is most likely going to take longer than a Win/Mac. (Assuming you didn't get the server preinstalled from one of the companies that does that.) However after running that server for a while you'll get so used to it that when it's time to upgrade or add new servers it will be up in very little time.
That's the benefit of working with a systemed geared towards experienced users. While new users are likely to make mistakes and take longer (I know I did the first time I installed Linux.) the more accustomed you get the faster and easier it gets.
64-bit processors are only faster if the data is high precision. (Ie >32 bits.) If you only work with 32-bit data then you won't gain anything from a 64-bit CPU.
This since the added 32 bits will just be redundant. Typically you can't use them for another calculation.
The point I was trying to make wasn't that Intel's implementation was different from Integraph's. (That would be the legal issue.) I was arguing that Integraph's patent was a bit on the "obvious side". As far as hardware is concerned that is.
As you say, IBM has similar (though more complex) solutions to the same problem. And there's a bunch of different parallellisation methods used and developed for hardware architectures.
I fail to see what's so brilliant about this one. (You move the problem from execution time to compile time. But the problem is a lot harder at compile time since you can't restrict your analysis to comparing addresses.)
I couldn't find any really techy stuff, mostly patent descriptions and the vastly simplified flash presentation. To me it didn't seem like such a big thing. The grouping part (ie done by compilers) have been researched a lot in academic circuits, but it's a really hard problem. So I guess they could very well have some clever solutions there. (It's not really discussed in the presentation.)
The "operation crossbar" seems like a rather simple solution. As it is described anyone who has used a normal ethernet switch is familiar with the idea. (Unless again, there is more to it which isn't shown.)
So pesonally I'm still not quite certain about how much of a case they have. (From a technical stand point, I don't care about the legal stuff.)
But what makes it (PIC) different from superscalar processors. Or vector processors... Or for that matter a basic pipeline, as it "allows multiple processor operations to occur simultaneously".
In a class I took on computer architecture the prof gave out a paper with ideas in CE which were def. patentable but weren't. If eg the idea of pipelining was patended that would have set back computer development by a lot. Similar for most other ideas "back in the old days".
Any crypto course will tell you that the first thing to do is to/compress the source/. If the binary enthropy in the source isn't 1/2 then the system in inheriently vulnerable.
Besides, a good system should try to map every input bit in the block onto as many output bits as possible. This will make the above comparison a lot harder. (If not impossible for all practical cases.)
But it does show that you need to think about what you're doing if you want to design your own systems. Yet another reason not to trust "home brewed crypto's".
He did mention using IR and or UV as well. A IR camera will show you basically what you'd see with your eyes. (Although in greyscale or with strange colours.) As a benefit humans and animals are easy to see.
Don't know how well UV would work for stuff like seeing roads though.
You could add stored data as well, but it seems like a rather dangerous idea, for the reasons you mentioned above.
You know, when I saw the mod my first reaction was "Voyager plasma core". Something which looks like that/really/ needs to be pulsating or having a running lights feature. (Preferably synched to the load on the server.)
Surely you guys must have some old computer laying about which can be used to control the lights. I guess the WWW server wouldn't last much longer if it had to stream video though.
When I run a Fortune 500 company, we're going to have a huge bulletproof glass floor in the lobby, which will show the datacenter below.
And it'll be great for the frustrated technicians down there when female visitors with skirts check in. (I imagine that their female coworkers will learn rather quickly.)
A few friends of mine enjoyed themselves by looking up strange words in an English dictionary. Their favourite was "vicerotonic" and the explaination was "like endormorphin temperament with predominantly social interests". AFAIK it's not in the dictionary now, I think they used Webster.
Ah, I was just about to write a lot about how OS level stuff isn't relevant to hardware, and then I looked up what the original guy posted. I had the impression he was talking about hardware (since it's a hardware article) but he was really talking about OS level stuff.
I agree, if the first 3 pages are the same level as an senior level OS course then it's high time to get your money back. At least the OS course I've taken was a lot more in depth than that. It's roughly on the level of introduction to computer design, ie they mention it but don't really go into detail. (Because it's not really relevant.)
That's because it's a/hardware/ article. For obvious reasons it doesn't mention how threads work because at the CPU level that is not relevant.
For people who hasn't studied computer architecture I bet it's a rather tough read. (In which case they should go get Patterson & Henneseys books. They are just great regarding this type of stuff.)
I second that. I used the normal gestures at first, but after I got this installed I've used gesturing a lot more.
For those not in the know it's a circular menu interface, like in Neverwinter Nights. It works the same as gestures, but it has icons and text to make it easy to learn new gestures. (Which is the biggest problem with the standard gestures IMHO.)
Instead of putting all those things into a glorified VCR I decide to put a network connection in the PVR and then use my other computers for burning or storage.
When it comes to capturing you'll need high speed disks. Most current PVRs solve that by adding hardware encoders instead. That way the demands on the HDD's are much more sane and you don't need to go with RAID and complex solutions like it.
And personally I'd rather see dedicated capture boxes in the basement than having one by each TV. That way the PVRs are still quiet and small, just the way they should be.
Seems like a typical thing a bad magazine would do. Elegance is not throwing hardware on the problem until it's "solved". Why would I want RAID in a PVR? Why would I want a DVD-R in a PVR? What I'd want is a small unit (preferably fanless) with a DVD reader (possibly) and a HDD for caching. And a network connection.
The DVD recorder is in your workstation. The HDD RAID is in a fileserver.
E.g. put a small Via EPICA MB in a box. Put a HDD and DVD reader in there as well. Hook it up to your LAN and store what you want on it. Take it with you to your neighbour and play the movies there. Take it with you to a party and use it as a small MP3/OGG jukebox.
The bad thing about LVM is something I've experienced first hand. Harddrive failiure. I lost 200G of data because the first disk on a LVM failed and took the others with it. Since then I've stayed away from it.
Otherwise it's a nice system though. But I'd say use RAID5 to create redundant storage, then use LVM to put these together into one logical unit.
Reagarding morale. Well I was more thinking about stuff you solve for yourself. Then you'd be interested in it. And otherwise just doing something else (most people tend to have work stacked up;-) can help you out if you're stuck with a problem. If nothing else you get something done instead of pushing buttons at random. (Which is what I tend to degrade into doing when I'm really out of ideas.)
A good idea is also to keep a log of what you do. At least if it's a complicated procedure. (Ie not changing light bulbs.) It's really the scientific procedure applied to problem solving. At first make some hypothesis about what it can be. (Or several.) Try to figure out a way to test it and then do so.
It's the same thing as what was originally suggested, but if you actually write things down you "automatically" think them through more than if you'd just try them right away. (And you might think of a way to test your hypothesis which is a lot faster than your original way.)
And having some notes on what you have tried is also helpful if you don't find the problem. You then know what you have tried and thought of before.
Another good problem solving trick is to just stop trying to solve the problem. Sleeping for instance, or getting a bite to eat. That really works wonders for morale as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Two sites using the same exclusive pictures. Giving the word "exclusive" an entirely new meaning...
Yes, unfortunately. Otherwise AI, Minority Report, SW:1 and 2 would probably have been really good movies.
I think most directors would need to have someone else review your work. Just as with all creative work you generally get blinded "by your own brilliance" and need someone with a clear mind to review your work for you.
Quite clearly this isn't the case with Lucas and Spielberg.
Reference to "Not the nine o'clock news" or just coincidence?
Depends if you know how to use it or not. The first time you setup a Linux system like you mentioned is most likely going to take longer than a Win/Mac. (Assuming you didn't get the server preinstalled from one of the companies that does that.) However after running that server for a while you'll get so used to it that when it's time to upgrade or add new servers it will be up in very little time.
That's the benefit of working with a systemed geared towards experienced users. While new users are likely to make mistakes and take longer (I know I did the first time I installed Linux.) the more accustomed you get the faster and easier it gets.
64-bit processors are only faster if the data is high precision. (Ie >32 bits.) If you only work with 32-bit data then you won't gain anything from a 64-bit CPU.
This since the added 32 bits will just be redundant. Typically you can't use them for another calculation.
The point I was trying to make wasn't that Intel's implementation was different from Integraph's. (That would be the legal issue.) I was arguing that Integraph's patent was a bit on the "obvious side". As far as hardware is concerned that is.
As you say, IBM has similar (though more complex) solutions to the same problem. And there's a bunch of different parallellisation methods used and developed for hardware architectures.
I fail to see what's so brilliant about this one. (You move the problem from execution time to compile time. But the problem is a lot harder at compile time since you can't restrict your analysis to comparing addresses.)
I think it is:
$1000 for the HP logo
$50 for S/H
I couldn't find any really techy stuff, mostly patent descriptions and the vastly simplified flash presentation. To me it didn't seem like such a big thing. The grouping part (ie done by compilers) have been researched a lot in academic circuits, but it's a really hard problem. So I guess they could very well have some clever solutions there. (It's not really discussed in the presentation.)
The "operation crossbar" seems like a rather simple solution. As it is described anyone who has used a normal ethernet switch is familiar with the idea. (Unless again, there is more to it which isn't shown.)
So pesonally I'm still not quite certain about how much of a case they have. (From a technical stand point, I don't care about the legal stuff.)
But what makes it (PIC) different from superscalar processors. Or vector processors... Or for that matter a basic pipeline, as it "allows multiple processor operations to occur simultaneously".
In a class I took on computer architecture the prof gave out a paper with ideas in CE which were def. patentable but weren't. If eg the idea of pipelining was patended that would have set back computer development by a lot. Similar for most other ideas "back in the old days".
Any crypto course will tell you that the first thing to do is to /compress the source/. If the binary enthropy in the source isn't 1/2 then the system in inheriently vulnerable.
Besides, a good system should try to map every input bit in the block onto as many output bits as possible. This will make the above comparison a lot harder. (If not impossible for all practical cases.)
But it does show that you need to think about what you're doing if you want to design your own systems. Yet another reason not to trust "home brewed crypto's".
He did mention using IR and or UV as well. A IR camera will show you basically what you'd see with your eyes. (Although in greyscale or with strange colours.) As a benefit humans and animals are easy to see.
Don't know how well UV would work for stuff like seeing roads though.
You could add stored data as well, but it seems like a rather dangerous idea, for the reasons you mentioned above.
You know, when I saw the mod my first reaction was "Voyager plasma core". Something which looks like that /really/ needs to be pulsating or having a running lights feature. (Preferably synched to the load on the server.)
Surely you guys must have some old computer laying about which can be used to control the lights. I guess the WWW server wouldn't last much longer if it had to stream video though.
And it'll be great for the frustrated technicians down there when female visitors with skirts check in. (I imagine that their female coworkers will learn rather quickly.)
A few friends of mine enjoyed themselves by looking up strange words in an English dictionary. Their favourite was "vicerotonic" and the explaination was "like endormorphin temperament with predominantly social interests". AFAIK it's not in the dictionary now, I think they used Webster.
Ah, I was just about to write a lot about how OS level stuff isn't relevant to hardware, and then I looked up what the original guy posted. I had the impression he was talking about hardware (since it's a hardware article) but he was really talking about OS level stuff.
I agree, if the first 3 pages are the same level as an senior level OS course then it's high time to get your money back. At least the OS course I've taken was a lot more in depth than that. It's roughly on the level of introduction to computer design, ie they mention it but don't really go into detail. (Because it's not really relevant.)
That's because it's a /hardware/ article. For obvious reasons it doesn't mention how threads work because at the CPU level that is not relevant.
For people who hasn't studied computer architecture I bet it's a rather tough read. (In which case they should go get Patterson & Henneseys books. They are just great regarding this type of stuff.)
I second that. I used the normal gestures at first, but after I got this installed I've used gesturing a lot more.
For those not in the know it's a circular menu interface, like in Neverwinter Nights. It works the same as gestures, but it has icons and text to make it easy to learn new gestures. (Which is the biggest problem with the standard gestures IMHO.)
No, you're just failing to see my point.
Instead of putting all those things into a glorified VCR I decide to put a network connection in the PVR and then use my other computers for burning or storage.
When it comes to capturing you'll need high speed disks. Most current PVRs solve that by adding hardware encoders instead. That way the demands on the HDD's are much more sane and you don't need to go with RAID and complex solutions like it.
And personally I'd rather see dedicated capture boxes in the basement than having one by each TV. That way the PVRs are still quiet and small, just the way they should be.
It's the same program. It's been aired here in Sweden as well, a year or two ago.
The show is pretty good, I only caught one ep of it though. (Number 8 or so, they build a power grid and a pharmacy.)
Although I never got around to see more eps it's one of the better shows I've watched lately. A hell of a lot better than Survivor and that tripe.
Seems like a typical thing a bad magazine would do. Elegance is not throwing hardware on the problem until it's "solved". Why would I want RAID in a PVR? Why would I want a DVD-R in a PVR? What I'd want is a small unit (preferably fanless) with a DVD reader (possibly) and a HDD for caching. And a network connection.
The DVD recorder is in your workstation. The HDD RAID is in a fileserver.
E.g. put a small Via EPICA MB in a box. Put a HDD and DVD reader in there as well. Hook it up to your LAN and store what you want on it. Take it with you to your neighbour and play the movies there. Take it with you to a party and use it as a small MP3/OGG jukebox.
And there's DC++ as well. (dcplusplus.sourceforge.net) It's made for Win32 though, but I guess in this case that is actually a "bonus".
The bad thing about LVM is something I've experienced first hand. Harddrive failiure. I lost 200G of data because the first disk on a LVM failed and took the others with it. Since then I've stayed away from it.
Otherwise it's a nice system though. But I'd say use RAID5 to create redundant storage, then use LVM to put these together into one logical unit.
What, you've never reflashed your BIOS? That's a lot worse than just flashing DVD firmware.
Reagarding morale. Well I was more thinking about stuff you solve for yourself. Then you'd be interested in it. And otherwise just doing something else (most people tend to have work stacked up ;-) can help you out if you're stuck with a problem. If nothing else you get something done instead of pushing buttons at random. (Which is what I tend to degrade into doing when I'm really out of ideas.)
A good idea is also to keep a log of what you do. At least if it's a complicated procedure. (Ie not changing light bulbs.) It's really the scientific procedure applied to problem solving. At first make some hypothesis about what it can be. (Or several.) Try to figure out a way to test it and then do so.
It's the same thing as what was originally suggested, but if you actually write things down you "automatically" think them through more than if you'd just try them right away. (And you might think of a way to test your hypothesis which is a lot faster than your original way.)
And having some notes on what you have tried is also helpful if you don't find the problem. You then know what you have tried and thought of before.
Another good problem solving trick is to just stop trying to solve the problem. Sleeping for instance, or getting a bite to eat. That really works wonders for morale as well.