No. And that is precisely what is wrong with current multicore CPUs and the way the industry looks at parallelism in general. The truth is, parallel algorithm is an oxymoron. It is explained further here: Why Threads and Current Multicore CPUs Are Evil.
AMD and Intel are in for a long and tough battle ahead. Should be an interesting one though.
While these two Goliaths are locking horns and fighting over soon-to-be-obsolete technology, a third player will sneak behind them and steal the pot of gold. Let's face it. CPU architecture is due for a radical change. The computer world is going parallel and the old algorithm/thread paradigm is showing its age. There's a sweet scent of revolution in the air. Who will be the leader of the next revolution? Sun, IBM, Tilera? We'll see.
I don't think it is now considered a real paradox since information still cannot be transmitted faster than light.
Quantum tunneling does not prove that light speed is broken. It only proves that space (distance) is an illusion. In the future, we will have thechnologies that will allow us to jump form anywhere to anywhere instantly. See Nasty Little Truth About Space for more info on why space does not exist.
Above guy is confused partly because Sun reused the word "thread" to mean "hardware thread" when most people think of "software thread" like in Java or pthread_create().
Thanks for pointing out the false assumption but it does not matter. Like it or not, the computing world is going parallel. What I mean is that the trend is toward a future where fine grain parallelism occurs at the operation level, not the algorithm level as it is now done with threads. The Transputer was a precursor of this trend. It's not going to happen because of threads but in spite of them, I can guarantee you that. There is a simple way to accomplish fine-grain parallelization that does not incur the overhead of threads. However, it would have to be supported at the CPU level.
Each core supports eight threads, so the chip handles 64 simultaneous threads, making it the centerpiece of Sun's "Throughput Computing" effort.
Wow! Only 64 threads, eh? That's the problem with threads, you can't have too many of them because switching from one thread to another is very expensive, cycle-wise. In other words, as long as threads remain the only multitasking mechanism used by the computer industry, super fast, fine-grained multiprocessing will remain a dream. It gets worse. There is another problem with threads that is even worse than this. Threads are inherently asynchronous. Until and unless the computer industry comes to its senses and realizes that asynchronous processing makes it impossible to implement programs with deterministic timing, we will continue to pay the heavy price of software unreliability. Switch to a non-algorithmic, signal-based, synchronous software model (with the supporting CPU architecture), and the problem will disappear. Threads suck! Period. One man's opinion.
Moreover, they seem to be doing a lot of deep computer work for a company that is little known today for computers, but rather their automotive and consumer electronics divisions.
There is a huge problem in the automotive embedded software industry having to do with reliability and productivity. I think a streamlined Merl has an opportunity to do extremely well in this area if they put their minds to it. I understand Mitsubishi is a member of JASPAR, the Japanese consortium funded by the likes of Toyota, Nissan and Honda. They recently announced the funding of a new automotive OS. Merl should focus on this more than anything else, IMO. Any breakthrough in this area is bound to spill over into other areas of computing and bring lots of profit with it.
"[S]pecific information about language is hard-wired into the brain." is what Chomsky's been saying all along. I think he's probably right about the other things he says too.
Chomsky's argument is that there are specific areas of the brain (Broca's and Wernicke's areas) that are dedicated to language and are prewired for grammar. Truth is, people who are born unable to speak, use other areas of their cortices to learn to communicate in sign language. I see no fundamental difference between learning motor skills (such as walking, running, reaching and grasping) and learning how to speak. Every type of motor learning has to do with generating precisely timed sequences of motor commands. It is all in the timing. It just so happens that Broca's area is genetically prewired to control the mouth, tongue, throat and lung muscles. It's still motor learning. No special wiring is needed other than what is avalaible for other types of motor behavior. One man's opinion.
With the internet age of mass communication and cros-pollination of ideas, we are seeing the dawning of the democratization of science. Science, like religion before it, has enclosed itself within walls beyond public scrutiny. This age-old incestuous practice is in the process of changing before your very eyes. I hope we see more experiments like this in the future.
Didn't the Aspect Experiment back in the '80s demonstrate this effect?
Of course. Slashdot is getting weird by the day. First off, it was not Einstein's idea. Eisntein was against it and this was made famous in a paper he wrote with two other physicists who agreed with him. It's called the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox or EPR paradox for short.
Don't we need a crawlbot before a runbot, or did I miss something here?
Yeah, indeed. None of these walking are that impressive, if you think about it. What would really catch my attention is a robot that gradually learns how to crawl, walk and run on its own, from scratch, just like humans do. Now, that would be something to write home about. In the meantime, I wish those builders of pre-programmed robots the best. Just have fun and keep the grant money flowing but don't tell me you are doing research in AI. You are just building glorified toys, IMO. One human's opinion, of course.
Then what exactly would you recommend as an alternative? The human brain is based upon a huge number of algorithms, logic and processing. Each time I come over to my computer I don't go through the process of trying to figure out what my keyboard is, monitor etc. I have a process in mind to determine that my keyboard has not been replaced while I was away with a hard roll.
An algorithmic process is a one-dimensional sequence of steps; only two objects can communicate at a time, a predecessor and a successor. In other words, there is a single signal path. In a non-algorithmic system, by contrast, the number of objects that can communicate simultaneously is limited only by physical considerations. The transputer (Occam) was such a system. That does not mean that a non-algorithmic program cannot be created on a single processor system. Neural networks and cellular automata are some examples of non-algorithmic applications. Problem is, current processors are optimized for the algorithm and computer languages are ill-suited for parallel synchronous systems. In this light, you're mistaken about the brain executing algorithms. The brain is the ultimate non-algorithmic system.
For describing GUIs, I've always wished I could just solder a stupid button on a panel, rather than deal with crazy event loops. I have not seen a programming environment yet that makes GUI design seem natural to me.
Exactly. The algorithm is the worst thing to have happened to computing. It is the primary reason that software is unreliable. Programming is hard precisely because it is based on the algorithm. I hope that this new realization among some of us that computing should not be based on the algorithm becomes more widespread. It will usher in the next computer revolution.
We could conceivably be riding in self-driving vehicles right now but concerns over safety and reliability will not allow it. In addition, the cost of developing safety-critical software rises exponentially with the level of complexity. Switch to a signal-based, non-algorithmic, synchronous software model and the problem will disappear. This will enable us to build applications of arbitrary complexity without the burden of unreliability, something that was impossible until now. This, in my opinion is what will truly bring us into the golden age of computing and automation.
Procedural languages are the natural way to code most programs, and here's why: we've been recording recipes as a sequence of steps, with if statements and loops, since the invention of writing
This is nonsense, IMO. Fant is 100% correct. A program is an automaton that detects changes in its environment and effects changes in it. As such, it belongs in the same class of machines as biological nervous systems and integrated circuits. A basic universal behaving machine (UBM) consists, on the one hand, of a couple of elementary behaving entities (a sensor and an effector) or actors and, on the other, of an environment (a variable). More complex behaving machines consist of arbitrarily large numbers of actors and environmental variables. This computing model, which I have dubbed the behavioral computing model (BCM), is a radical departure from the Turing computing model. Whereas a UTM is primarily a calculation tool for solving algorithmic problems, a UBM is simply an agent that reacts to one or more environmental stimuli. More importantly, in order for a UBM to act on and react to its environment, sensors and effectors must be able to communicate with each other.
The main point of this argument is that, even though communication is an essential part of the nature of computing, this is not readily apparent from examining a UTM. Indeed, there are no signaling entities, no signals and no signal pathways on a Turing tape or in computer memory. The reason is that, unlike hardware objects which are directly observable, software entities are virtual and must be logically inferred.
I have been saying this for twenty years. It is gratifying to see somebody finally see the light. For more on the hidden nature of computing, go to the link below.
Yeah. Feyerabend wrote in 'Against Method', "the most stupid procedures and the most laughable results in their domain are surrounded with an aura of excellence. It is time to cut them down in size, and to give them a more modest position in society."
Quantum computing is equally bunk since it is based on the idea that a quantum property can have multiple states simultaneously, that is, when nobody is looking. ahahaha... Reminds me of the kid I knew who insisted that he could jump as high as a tall building but only when nobody was looking. Whatever happen to empiricism? Talk about pseudoscience! Everett, Schrodinger (and his stupid cat) and that lunatic David Deutsch are crackpots of the worst kinds. Only physicists can get away with such quackery. They should all be stripped naked, tarred, feathered and paraded down Fifth Avenue in New York as an example to undergraduates. ahahaha...
Bad phrase: "Reinvent computing". Good phrase: "Reinvent the wheel".
Funny but none of the ideas they mention are going to reinvent either the wheel or computing. Computing (the way we make and program our computers) has not changed, in principle, since the days of Charles Babbage and Lady Ada. That's 150 years ago! Software is still based on the algorithm and we still look at a computer as a mechanism that executes one instruction after another. To reinvent computing, one would need to adopt a non-algorithmic, synchronous, signal-based software model. Unlike the Cell, our processors should be designed and optimized for the new software model. Not the other way around.
Charlie makes a clear-headed and unarguable case, so far as I can see, that it ain't gonna happen without a 'magic wand' or two.
Well there really is no need to despair of ever visiting the star systems of the Milky Way and even the galaxies beyond in your lifetimes, just because they are too far away. If those lazy-minded physicists would only get their heads out of their asses, they would have figured out by now that space (distance) is an illusion of perception. In the not too distant future, we will have long distance jump technologies that will allow us to move from anywhere to anywhere almost instantly. Too far-fetched, you say? Well, evidence for the feasibility of long distance jumps has already been observed. It's called quantum tunneling. Why is distance an illusion, you ask? It's all explained at the link below:
I'm pretty sure that defining velocity in terms of Newtonian mechanics and then using modern understanding of time counts as being wrong. Attempting to define motion through time as a simple substitution is bound to create problems, mostly because it's making shit up.
That's funny. I had no idea that velocity was defined otherwise. It is still v = dx/dt, is it not? Whoever thought that your post was insightful needs a lesson in reading comprehension.
Heck, the site even says that time dilation doesn't occur and instead attributes it to clocks slowing down ("for whatever reason"). Now, experiments in time dilation have shown that cesium atomic clocks, devices accurate to within a billionth of a second every day, show results extremely close to that predicted in general reletivity. Unless this site wants to come up with an explaination of mechanical failure for devices with such accuracy, I'm going to stick with the evidence for time dilation.
The evidence that cesium clocks slow down is not evidence for time dilation. It is evidence that cesium clocks slow down under certain conditions, nothing more. Anybody who insists that time can change (an oxymoron) is either an idiot, an ass kisser, or is talking about something he/she is clueless about. IOW, he or she is talking out of his/her ass. ahahaha...
Overall, I have to say that crackpot sites by people who as far I can tell have submitted no papers to peer reviewed journals or otherwise shown expertise in the field are probably not the best place to get information on physics.
Peer review is synonymous with ass review, IMO. ahahaha... This is why people like John Cramer, David Deutsch, Stephen Hawking, etc.. can get away with their time-travel crap and still pass as serious scientists. They're all a bunch of crackpots kissing each other's asses. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... Phew! Making phun of crackpot physicists is so much phucking phun. ahahaha...
Man, if I were going to sit down and create a Web site to meet every single point on the Crank Physics Detection Guide, that's the site I'd build.
ahahaha... Yeah, yeah, yeah. The fact remains that nothing can move in spacetime. Refute it or shup the hell up, jackass! There will never be a shortage of ass kissers on Slashdot. ahahaha... Talk about a Star Trek physics cult! ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
ahahaha... John Cramer is obviously a crackpot. But he is not alone. There are a bunch of crackpots like him in the physics community. David Deutsch (of quantum computing fame) and the little con artist in the wheelchair immediately come to mind. The fact remains that nothing can move in spacetime, by definition. It is all explained at the link below:
Paul Feyerabend, the foremost science critic of the last century, once wrote in his book 'Against Method' that "the most stupid procedures and the most laughable results in their domain are surrounded with an aura of excellence. It is time to cut them down in size, and to give them a more modest position in society." Feyerabend was speaking of scientists in general but he may as well have been talking about spacetime physics. Star Trek voodoo physics is morelike it. ahahaha...
The problem with programming is that we are forced to use programming languages. Parallel programming is what programming should have been in the first place. We find it difficult because the tools are inherently sequential. Why? Because they are based on languages (usually English) and languages are inherently sequential. Just the fact that most programmers have to learn a computer language based on English (why not Chinese or French?) should be a clue that the linguistic approach is fundamentally flawed. The way a program works has nothing to do with what language you understand.
What is needed is a new software paradigm that uses parallelism to start with. It should be a system based on elementary communicating objects. And the best way to depict parallel objects and signal pathways is to do it graphically. I say that the entrire computer industry have been doing it wrong from the beginning (since Lady Ada Lovelace). It is time to move away from the algorithmic model and adopt a non-algorithmic, synchronous software model. Even our processors should be redesigned for the new model. Only then will find that parallel programming is not onl y easy but the only way to do it.
Hardware is more reliable than software because it is more expensive to fix,
Tell that to the companies that develop safety-critical software. They would get a free laugh.
and in many ways, is less ambitious in its scope.
Hardware is invariably more stable than software of equal complexity.
The rational strategy for preparing for truly revolutionary change is to do nothing at all
Not if you're the one leading the revolution.
Easier to Kill Intel or Microsoft than Google
on
The Final Days of Google
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
But Google wasn't the end of MS, MS wasn't the end of IBM, the markets big. A new player doesn't mean the 'end' of old players.
Google can quickly change to accomodate any revolutionary new idea in the computer industry. Their business model is not tied to how computers work. If somebody found a new way to make computers and systems that made the old way obsolete, Google would just switch to the new way. By contrast, companies like Microsoft, Intel, AMD, Sun, Apple and others are married to the status quo. And if you think that the computer industry is not ripe for a revolution, think again. The algorithmic model is as old as Babbage and Lady Ada, that's 150 years old! We have a big problem called unreliability that has put an upper limit on the complexity of our systems and kept software development costs at a high level. The old way of doing things does not work well anymore. The market is screaming for a solution. And what the market wants, the market will get. I doubt that the coming revolution will come from the West, though. They have too much to lose. They can no longer change their ways because the old gurus have become demi-gods, and nobody dares question the gods. I see it coming from places like China or India. You've been warned. You heard it here first. ahahaha...
Slashdot Mirror
Contrary opinion: The Seven Deadly Sins of Erlang
No. And that is precisely what is wrong with current multicore CPUs and the way the industry looks at parallelism in general. The truth is, parallel algorithm is an oxymoron. It is explained further here: Why Threads and Current Multicore CPUs Are Evil.
While these two Goliaths are locking horns and fighting over soon-to-be-obsolete technology, a third player will sneak behind them and steal the pot of gold. Let's face it. CPU architecture is due for a radical change. The computer world is going parallel and the old algorithm/thread paradigm is showing its age. There's a sweet scent of revolution in the air. Who will be the leader of the next revolution? Sun, IBM, Tilera? We'll see.
I don't think it is now considered a real paradox since information still cannot be transmitted faster than light.
Quantum tunneling does not prove that light speed is broken. It only proves that space (distance) is an illusion. In the future, we will have thechnologies that will allow us to jump form anywhere to anywhere instantly. See Nasty Little Truth About Space for more info on why space does not exist.
Above guy is confused partly because Sun reused the word "thread" to mean "hardware thread" when most people think of "software thread" like in Java or pthread_create().
Thanks for pointing out the false assumption but it does not matter. Like it or not, the computing world is going parallel. What I mean is that the trend is toward a future where fine grain parallelism occurs at the operation level, not the algorithm level as it is now done with threads. The Transputer was a precursor of this trend. It's not going to happen because of threads but in spite of them, I can guarantee you that. There is a simple way to accomplish fine-grain parallelization that does not incur the overhead of threads. However, it would have to be supported at the CPU level.
Each core supports eight threads, so the chip handles 64 simultaneous threads, making it the centerpiece of Sun's "Throughput Computing" effort.
Wow! Only 64 threads, eh? That's the problem with threads, you can't have too many of them because switching from one thread to another is very expensive, cycle-wise. In other words, as long as threads remain the only multitasking mechanism used by the computer industry, super fast, fine-grained multiprocessing will remain a dream. It gets worse. There is another problem with threads that is even worse than this. Threads are inherently asynchronous. Until and unless the computer industry comes to its senses and realizes that asynchronous processing makes it impossible to implement programs with deterministic timing, we will continue to pay the heavy price of software unreliability. Switch to a non-algorithmic, signal-based, synchronous software model (with the supporting CPU architecture), and the problem will disappear. Threads suck! Period. One man's opinion.
Moreover, they seem to be doing a lot of deep computer work for a company that is little known today for computers, but rather their automotive and consumer electronics divisions.
There is a huge problem in the automotive embedded software industry having to do with reliability and productivity. I think a streamlined Merl has an opportunity to do extremely well in this area if they put their minds to it. I understand Mitsubishi is a member of JASPAR, the Japanese consortium funded by the likes of Toyota, Nissan and Honda. They recently announced the funding of a new automotive OS. Merl should focus on this more than anything else, IMO. Any breakthrough in this area is bound to spill over into other areas of computing and bring lots of profit with it.
"[S]pecific information about language is hard-wired into the brain." is what Chomsky's been saying all along. I think he's probably right about the other things he says too.
Chomsky's argument is that there are specific areas of the brain (Broca's and Wernicke's areas) that are dedicated to language and are prewired for grammar. Truth is, people who are born unable to speak, use other areas of their cortices to learn to communicate in sign language. I see no fundamental difference between learning motor skills (such as walking, running, reaching and grasping) and learning how to speak. Every type of motor learning has to do with generating precisely timed sequences of motor commands. It is all in the timing. It just so happens that Broca's area is genetically prewired to control the mouth, tongue, throat and lung muscles. It's still motor learning. No special wiring is needed other than what is avalaible for other types of motor behavior. One man's opinion.
With the internet age of mass communication and cros-pollination of ideas, we are seeing the dawning of the democratization of science. Science, like religion before it, has enclosed itself within walls beyond public scrutiny. This age-old incestuous practice is in the process of changing before your very eyes. I hope we see more experiments like this in the future.
Didn't the Aspect Experiment back in the '80s demonstrate this effect?
Of course. Slashdot is getting weird by the day. First off, it was not Einstein's idea. Eisntein was against it and this was made famous in a paper he wrote with two other physicists who agreed with him. It's called the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox or EPR paradox for short.
Don't we need a crawlbot before a runbot, or did I miss something here?
Yeah, indeed. None of these walking are that impressive, if you think about it. What would really catch my attention is a robot that gradually learns how to crawl, walk and run on its own, from scratch, just like humans do. Now, that would be something to write home about. In the meantime, I wish those builders of pre-programmed robots the best. Just have fun and keep the grant money flowing but don't tell me you are doing research in AI. You are just building glorified toys, IMO. One human's opinion, of course.
Then what exactly would you recommend as an alternative? The human brain is based upon a huge number of algorithms, logic and processing. Each time I come over to my computer I don't go through the process of trying to figure out what my keyboard is, monitor etc. I have a process in mind to determine that my keyboard has not been replaced while I was away with a hard roll.
An algorithmic process is a one-dimensional sequence of steps; only two objects can communicate at a time, a predecessor and a successor. In other words, there is a single signal path. In a non-algorithmic system, by contrast, the number of objects that can communicate simultaneously is limited only by physical considerations. The transputer (Occam) was such a system. That does not mean that a non-algorithmic program cannot be created on a single processor system. Neural networks and cellular automata are some examples of non-algorithmic applications. Problem is, current processors are optimized for the algorithm and computer languages are ill-suited for parallel synchronous systems. In this light, you're mistaken about the brain executing algorithms. The brain is the ultimate non-algorithmic system.
For describing GUIs, I've always wished I could just solder a stupid button on a panel, rather than deal with crazy event loops. I have not seen a programming environment yet that makes GUI design seem natural to me.
Exactly. The algorithm is the worst thing to have happened to computing. It is the primary reason that software is unreliable. Programming is hard precisely because it is based on the algorithm. I hope that this new realization among some of us that computing should not be based on the algorithm becomes more widespread. It will usher in the next computer revolution.
We could conceivably be riding in self-driving vehicles right now but concerns over safety and reliability will not allow it. In addition, the cost of developing safety-critical software rises exponentially with the level of complexity. Switch to a signal-based, non-algorithmic, synchronous software model and the problem will disappear. This will enable us to build applications of arbitrary complexity without the burden of unreliability, something that was impossible until now. This, in my opinion is what will truly bring us into the golden age of computing and automation.
Procedural languages are the natural way to code most programs, and here's why: we've been recording recipes as a sequence of steps, with if statements and loops, since the invention of writing
This is nonsense, IMO. Fant is 100% correct. A program is an automaton that detects changes in its environment and effects changes in it. As such, it belongs in the same class of machines as biological nervous systems and integrated circuits. A basic universal behaving machine (UBM) consists, on the one hand, of a couple of elementary behaving entities (a sensor and an effector) or actors and, on the other, of an environment (a variable). More complex behaving machines consist of arbitrarily large numbers of actors and environmental variables. This computing model, which I have dubbed the behavioral computing model (BCM), is a radical departure from the Turing computing model. Whereas a UTM is primarily a calculation tool for solving algorithmic problems, a UBM is simply an agent that reacts to one or more environmental stimuli. More importantly, in order for a UBM to act on and react to its environment, sensors and effectors must be able to communicate with each other.
The main point of this argument is that, even though communication is an essential part of the nature of computing, this is not readily apparent from examining a UTM. Indeed, there are no signaling entities, no signals and no signal pathways on a Turing tape or in computer memory. The reason is that, unlike hardware objects which are directly observable, software entities are virtual and must be logically inferred.
I have been saying this for twenty years. It is gratifying to see somebody finally see the light. For more on the hidden nature of computing, go to the link below.
someone just got his report card for physics.
says azenpunk in her little Ferengi outfit. ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Hurray for pseudoscience !
Yeah. Feyerabend wrote in 'Against Method', "the most stupid procedures and the most laughable results in their domain are surrounded with an aura of excellence. It is time to cut them down in size, and to give them a more modest position in society."
Quantum computing is equally bunk since it is based on the idea that a quantum property can have multiple states simultaneously, that is, when nobody is looking. ahahaha... Reminds me of the kid I knew who insisted that he could jump as high as a tall building but only when nobody was looking. Whatever happen to empiricism? Talk about pseudoscience! Everett, Schrodinger (and his stupid cat) and that lunatic David Deutsch are crackpots of the worst kinds. Only physicists can get away with such quackery. They should all be stripped naked, tarred, feathered and paraded down Fifth Avenue in New York as an example to undergraduates. ahahaha...
Bad phrase: "Reinvent computing".
Good phrase: "Reinvent the wheel".
Funny but none of the ideas they mention are going to reinvent either the wheel or computing. Computing (the way we make and program our computers) has not changed, in principle, since the days of Charles Babbage and Lady Ada. That's 150 years ago! Software is still based on the algorithm and we still look at a computer as a mechanism that executes one instruction after another. To reinvent computing, one would need to adopt a non-algorithmic, synchronous, signal-based software model. Unlike the Cell, our processors should be designed and optimized for the new software model. Not the other way around.
Charlie makes a clear-headed and unarguable case, so far as I can see, that it ain't gonna happen without a 'magic wand' or two.
Well there really is no need to despair of ever visiting the star systems of the Milky Way and even the galaxies beyond in your lifetimes, just because they are too far away. If those lazy-minded physicists would only get their heads out of their asses, they would have figured out by now that space (distance) is an illusion of perception. In the not too distant future, we will have long distance jump technologies that will allow us to move from anywhere to anywhere almost instantly. Too far-fetched, you say? Well, evidence for the feasibility of long distance jumps has already been observed. It's called quantum tunneling. Why is distance an illusion, you ask? It's all explained at the link below:
Nasty Little Truth About Space
Enjoy.
cut moronic crap
You're wasting my non-dilated time. How about that? ahahaha...
I'm pretty sure that defining velocity in terms of Newtonian mechanics and then using modern understanding of time counts as being wrong. Attempting to define motion through time as a simple substitution is bound to create problems, mostly because it's making shit up.
That's funny. I had no idea that velocity was defined otherwise. It is still v = dx/dt, is it not? Whoever thought that your post was insightful needs a lesson in reading comprehension.
Heck, the site even says that time dilation doesn't occur and instead attributes it to clocks slowing down ("for whatever reason"). Now, experiments in time dilation have shown that cesium atomic clocks, devices accurate to within a billionth of a second every day, show results extremely close to that predicted in general reletivity. Unless this site wants to come up with an explaination of mechanical failure for devices with such accuracy, I'm going to stick with the evidence for time dilation.
The evidence that cesium clocks slow down is not evidence for time dilation. It is evidence that cesium clocks slow down under certain conditions, nothing more. Anybody who insists that time can change (an oxymoron) is either an idiot, an ass kisser, or is talking about something he/she is clueless about. IOW, he or she is talking out of his/her ass. ahahaha...
Overall, I have to say that crackpot sites by people who as far I can tell have submitted no papers to peer reviewed journals or otherwise shown expertise in the field are probably not the best place to get information on physics.
Peer review is synonymous with ass review, IMO. ahahaha... This is why people like John Cramer, David Deutsch, Stephen Hawking, etc.. can get away with their time-travel crap and still pass as serious scientists. They're all a bunch of crackpots kissing each other's asses. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... Phew! Making phun of crackpot physicists is so much phucking phun. ahahaha...
Man, if I were going to sit down and create a Web site to meet every single point on the Crank Physics Detection Guide, that's the site I'd build.
ahahaha... Yeah, yeah, yeah. The fact remains that nothing can move in spacetime. Refute it or shup the hell up, jackass! There will never be a shortage of ass kissers on Slashdot. ahahaha... Talk about a Star Trek physics cult! ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Can I get the investors info?
ahahaha... John Cramer is obviously a crackpot. But he is not alone. There are a bunch of crackpots like him in the physics community. David Deutsch (of quantum computing fame) and the little con artist in the wheelchair immediately come to mind. The fact remains that nothing can move in spacetime, by definition. It is all explained at the link below:
Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics
Paul Feyerabend, the foremost science critic of the last century, once wrote in his book 'Against Method' that "the most stupid procedures and the most laughable results in their domain are surrounded with an aura of excellence. It is time to cut them down in size, and to give them a more modest position in society." Feyerabend was speaking of scientists in general but he may as well have been talking about spacetime physics. Star Trek voodoo physics is morelike it. ahahaha...
The problem with programming is that we are forced to use programming languages. Parallel programming is what programming should have been in the first place. We find it difficult because the tools are inherently sequential. Why? Because they are based on languages (usually English) and languages are inherently sequential. Just the fact that most programmers have to learn a computer language based on English (why not Chinese or French?) should be a clue that the linguistic approach is fundamentally flawed. The way a program works has nothing to do with what language you understand.
What is needed is a new software paradigm that uses parallelism to start with. It should be a system based on elementary communicating objects. And the best way to depict parallel objects and signal pathways is to do it graphically. I say that the entrire computer industry have been doing it wrong from the beginning (since Lady Ada Lovelace). It is time to move away from the algorithmic model and adopt a non-algorithmic, synchronous software model. Even our processors should be redesigned for the new model. Only then will find that parallel programming is not onl y easy but the only way to do it.
Hardware is more reliable than software because it is more expensive to fix,
Tell that to the companies that develop safety-critical software. They would get a free laugh.
and in many ways, is less ambitious in its scope.
Hardware is invariably more stable than software of equal complexity.
The rational strategy for preparing for truly revolutionary change is to do nothing at all
Not if you're the one leading the revolution.
But Google wasn't the end of MS, MS wasn't the end of IBM, the markets big. A new player doesn't mean the 'end' of old players.
Google can quickly change to accomodate any revolutionary new idea in the computer industry. Their business model is not tied to how computers work. If somebody found a new way to make computers and systems that made the old way obsolete, Google would just switch to the new way. By contrast, companies like Microsoft, Intel, AMD, Sun, Apple and others are married to the status quo. And if you think that the computer industry is not ripe for a revolution, think again. The algorithmic model is as old as Babbage and Lady Ada, that's 150 years old! We have a big problem called unreliability that has put an upper limit on the complexity of our systems and kept software development costs at a high level. The old way of doing things does not work well anymore. The market is screaming for a solution. And what the market wants, the market will get. I doubt that the coming revolution will come from the West, though. They have too much to lose. They can no longer change their ways because the old gurus have become demi-gods, and nobody dares question the gods. I see it coming from places like China or India. You've been warned. You heard it here first. ahahaha...