Is Linux's less than impressive market share an indication that the movement is out of touch with the average computer user?
No. Linux is a living dinosaur. But don't feel bad. So are a bunch of other OSes such as Windows, MAC OS, Unix, etc... Linux does not have an impressive market because who needs yet another me-too operating system? And it does not really matter that it is free either. What the market needs is a revolutionary new OS based on a software model that solves a really nasty problem in the computer industry. The biggest problem in the industry is unreliability. Software unreliability imposes an upper limit on the complexity of our computer systems. For example, we could conceivably be riding in self-driving vehicles right now but concerns over reliability and safety will not allow it. In addition, the cost of software development rises exponentially with complexity. As a result, over 40,000 people die in traffic accidents every year in the US alone. The free software community should put Linux on the back burner and work on a software model that will solve the reliability problem. That will be the true Windows killer and that's what Project COSA is about.
Is the current state of COSA a web-page with some ideas, or is tools and a VM available so that people can actually play with it?
Unfortunately, nothing concrete is available yet. A few people are currently discussing the possibility of creating a free COSA VM or even a COSA OS on SourceForge.
Wait, you expect AMD to bootstrap an entirely different concept of computing? The history of technology is littered with the corpses of early birds which starved because the new fields they went looking in didn't have any worms.
Yeah, but this ain't no ordinary worm. This one will make the first computer revolution pale in comparison.
AMD cannot develop a revolutionary new architecture because it wouldn't do any good. Consumers do not want revolutionary. Intel and HP spent billions on Itanium. It's a great chip, but the money isn't there.
Itanium is not revolutionary. Not even IBM's Cell processor is revolutionary. All current processors are based on and optimized for the algorithm. That's a 150-year old technology! There is a better way to dothings. Sooner or later we will be forced to break with the past. The early bird gets the worm.
wait.. What? AMD is following Intel? Mind telling me how that is exactly?
They are following because they are barely making a profit, the last I heard. Why? Because they have to compete by drastically cutting prices to compete head-on with Intel. With a new architecture and a new market niche (mostly embedded systems and mission-critical systems), they would leave Intel in the dirt. The desktop market would follow soon afterwards when the industry comes to its senses and realizes that it has been doing it wrong ever since Lady Ada wrote the first algorithm. The good thing is that AMD has the engineering resources and know-how to pull it off. One man's opinion, of course.
It seems that AMD's research department is only concerned with beating Intel at its own game. This is foolish, IMO. AMD is doomed to always be a follower unless its engineers can come up with a revolutionary new CPU architecture based on a revolutionary software model. The new architecture must address the two biggest problems in the computer industry today: reliability and productivity. Unreliability puts an upper limit to how complex our software systems can be. As an example, we could conceivably be riding in self-driving vehicles right now but safety and reliability concerns will not allow it. Why? Because there is something fundamental wrong with software. Fortunately, a software model that solves these problems already exists. It is called the "non-algorithmic, synchronous, reactive software model. That's what Project COSA is about.
Nobody is really sure what quantum physics says about reality or locality.
All nonlocality means is that space (distance) is an illusion. But we don't need all this mumbo-jumbo about hidden variables and Bell's inequality to tell us that there is no space. It can be easily figured out with simple logic. By the way, there is no spooky superluminal signal propagation between entangled particles because, you guessed it, there is no distance between them. In the future we will use this knowledge to develop technologies that will allow us to travel instantly from anywhere to anywhere!
Some brain tasks are linear/feedforward (V1, for example), while tasks such as language are inherently nonlinear. Postulating a single mechanism for both seems nonintuitive to me.
I agree. I doubt that Hawkins can use his HTM to recognize (let alone understand the meaning of) full sentences. For that, you need a hippocampus, i.e., the ability to hold things in short-term memory (and play them back internally) and to parse events using a variable time-scale mechanism. You also need a mechanism of attention which, IMO, requires motor control. I think that Hawkins underestimates the necessity of having a motor control/coordination mechanism (basal ganglia). These are essential to reasoning.
Actually just as much evidence contradicts that hypothesis. We have very specific brain areas for generating and processing verbal data (Broca and Wernicke's areas), and a very specific brain area for recognizing faces.
In defence of Hawkins, note that he does not disagree (RTA) that there are specialized regions in the brain. However, this does not imply that the brain uses a different neural mechanism for different regions. It only means that a region that receives audio input will specialize in processing sounds. It all has to do with how the input and the output fibers are connected. The cortex will rewire itself to accomodate any sensory modality. IMO, Hawkins is right in this regard. Even specialized areas of the visual cortex that show a gradation of recognition capabilities can be explained using a hierarchical system heavily dependent on feedback.
Well, my goal is to build machines that pass the Turing Test, so I have to think about more than cortex. But more generally, one might wonder how much of intelligence it is possible to capture with a system that "doesn't have desires, motives, or intentions of any kind".
Not to mention, motor coordination, attention, short and long-term memory, cerebellar processes, etc... It's a little more complicated than Hawkins would have us believe, especially if you don't already know the answers. Fortunately, the secret of AI has already been found and written down for us many centuries ago. Check it out: Artificial intelligence from the Bible!. ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
Because of the neocortex's uniform structure, neuro-scientists have long suspected that all its parts work on a common algorithm-that is, that the brain hears, sees, understands language, and even plays chess with a single, flexible tool. Much experimental evidence supports the idea that the neocortex is such a general-purpose learning machine. What it learns and what it can do are determined by the size of the neocortical sheet, what senses the sheet is connected to, and what experiences it is trained on. HTM is a theory of the neocortical algorithm.
While I believe that the HTM is indeed a giant leap in AI (although I disagree with Numenta's Bayesian approach), I cannot help thinking that Hawkins is only addressing a small subset of intelligence. The neocortex is essentially a recognition machine but there is a lot more to brain and behavior than recognition. What is Hawkins' take on things like behavior selection, short and long-term memory, motor sequencing, motor coordination, attention, motivation, etc...?
Why not do away with most of the legacy technology in one swoop and update the entire industry to a new standard.
I agree. However, one should design a new CPU architecture based on a software model, not the other way around as was done with the CELL cpu.
PS, I know why, money, too much investment in the old to be worth creating the new. But I can dream can't I?
Yes you can dream. But unless the new architecture is going to solve a big problem in the industry, it's not worth it. The biggest problem in the computer industry right now is not speed. It's software unreliability. Functional languages are more robust only because they use concurrency effectively and isolate faults as a result. But there is more to reliability than fault tolerance. There is a need for a non-algorithmic, synchronous software model.
Maxwell's demon would never permit you to harvest vacuum energy.
Aristotle believed that nothing could move unless it is caused to move. Modern physics maintains that bodies move for no reason at all, as if by magic. Consider that movement is a series of quantum jumps. The law of cause and effect forbids the existence of an effect (i.e., a quantum jump) without a cause. It follows that we are immersed and move within an immense lattice of highly energetic particles. Deny if you wish but I have decided to put my money on Aristotle's blasphemy which will soon become a great truth. ahahaha...
"OpenCyc is the open source version of the Cyc technology, the world's largest and most complete general knowledge base and commonsense reasoning engine."
Is one to assume that the way to common sense logic in a machine is via linguistic/symbolic knowledge representation? How can this handwritten knowledge base be used to build a robot with the common sense required to carry a cup of coffee without spilling the coffee? And why is it that my pet dog has plenty of common sense even though it has very limited linguistic skills? I think it's about time that the GOFAI/symbol processing crowd realize that intelligence and common sense are founded exclusivley on the temporal/causal relationships between sensed events. It's time that they stop wasting everybody's time with their obsolete and bankrupt ideas of the last century. The AI world has moved on to better and greener pastures. Sorry.
ahahaha... OK, why has my previous post been marked down as a troll? What is wrong with causality? Are my ideas really that threatening to some people? Me thinks some of the crackpots and con artists in high places are getting scared? ahahaha...
And it may be the first half of the 21st century, or maybe go all the way to the 22nd century. Because, unfortunately, I happen to think we won't be able to rely on experiment to resolve this problem.
I don't think so. Actually, if one applies the law of causality to its fullest, one is forced to conclude that we are moving in an immense multi-dimensional lattice of energetic particles. Why? Because, contrary to current belief, movement is causal. That is to say, nothing can move unless it is caused to move. This means that a particle's movement can only be sustained by a series of interactions, one for each discrete jump. See Nasty Little Truth About Motion for more on the causality of motion. My point is that one does not need esoteric physics experiments to see that we are moving in a sea of energy. Every observed movement is the existence proof we need! One day soon, we will understand the composition and properties of the lattice and we will use our newfound knowledge for such purposes as energy generation and vehicle propulsion. Won't be long now. ahahaha...
Would you care to point out the "next big things" that HP/IBM are missing out on?
I know one. It's called "signal-based, synchronous software model" as opposed to our current algorithmic model. But then again, IBM and HP are not alone. The entire industry seems to be in a coma in this regard, although a few people are beginning to wake up. Essentially, we've been doing wrong ever since Lady Ada wrote the first table of instructions (algorithm) for Babbage's analytical engine. I've made myself a lot of ennemies for saying this. People don't like to be told that they're wrong.
FTA: Both have had their ups and downs but persevere because they have a knack for getting out of stagnating businesses and finding the next big thing. Size may not guarantee the market power it once did. But it does imply a certain staying power.
What is the next big thing in computing and technology? Would either HP or IBM or even Intel recognize it if they saw it? I doubt it. There is something about becoming a behemoth that prevents a company from seeing fast moving trends or foresee future ones. Or, if they do see it, they are too slow to respond in a timely manner. It has something to do with bureaucracy and the inevitable proliferation of internal operating rules. IMO, IBM and HP should create small quasi-independent research labs and give them the task of finding the next big thing. And I would tell them to look for solutions to current insolvable huge problems in the industry, such as the software reliability crisis. Indeed, the first company to come up with a solution to this problem (and obtain the lion share of the IP) is guaranteed to dictate the course of the computing industry for decades to come. One man's opinion.
It would be interesting if you have valid ideas that support your claim, but each time I ask you do not respond. This leads me to believe this is vapor.
The signal-based, synchronous model is already proven. It is the same model use by hardware logic circuits. In fact, the counterintuitive claim of Project COSA is that a COSA program's design cosistency increases with complexity! The reason is simple: the number of temporal constraints in a COSA program is proportional to complexity. The writing is on the wall. COSA is not rocket science. Question is, who is able to see it?
Intel, AMD, TI, Sun and the rest have all been banking on a technology that has not changed in a fundamental way in more than 150 years. Computing has been based on the algorithm ever since Lady Ada wrote the first "table of instructions" for Babbage's analytical engine, a computer built out gears and rotating shafts! The fear among the big processor vendors and IP holders is that some unknown entity may come out of nowhere and surpass them with a superior software/hardware technology, one which is not based on the algorithm. Indeed, a non-algorithmic, signal-based synchronous computing model would solve the biggest problem in the industry: unreliability. The first company to take advantage of this new paradigm by securing the necessary IP, will leave everyone else in the dust and be in a position to dictate the future course of industry for decades to come. There are still a few big surprises waiting to happen in this business. The revolution is not over yet.
They're already in a good partnership with Mozilla in Firefox (considering the default start page includes a Google search field) so I don't see why they'd need to.
I'm sure you're probably right. But don't discount the possibility a Google browser. In fact, I see a dedicated, browser-only Google computer as a possible contender in the $100 laptop/PDA market. Watch out, Negroponte! Here comes the $100 Googleputer.
Throw your OS away. The only application you need is a dedicated browser (Google will provide one soon) and an internet connection to Google. No hard drives are necessary.
"Hopkins' motto is 'Veritas vos liberabit' - 'the truth shall set you free' - not that 'you shall be free to set the truth!'" Stirring stuff.
Indeed, but it cuts both ways. We have the materialists/atheists/environmentalists/left-winge rs on one side and the non-materialists/relisious/right-wingers on the other. And they both use the same political means to achieve their goals. I think we need to inject a little honesty in the debates and stop taking sides so much. But I know I'm dreaming. So all I can say is, "may the best/strongest camp survive, but only if they truly have the truth on their side!"
FTA: More recently, researchers have adopted a very different approach, one that harnesses the power of today's faster processors to test every possible scenario. This method, known as model checking, is now used extensively to verify integrated-circuit designs.
The problem with this is that algorithmic software does not work like ICs. The only way to solve the crisis is to abandon the algorithmic software model and embrace a non-algorithmic, signal-based, synchronous model. This is the model used in hardware design. It all started with lady Ada and her table of instructions for Babbage's analytical engine but the writing is on the wall. 150 years of algorithmic computing has run its course and it's now time for a change. We must radically change our way of programming and we must do so at the fundamental level. We must design software like we design hardware. We must also redesign our cental processors so that they are optimized for the new paradigm, not for the old algorithmic model as they are now. Until then, we will continue to pay a heavy price for buggy software systems.
Slashdot Mirror
Is Linux's less than impressive market share an indication that the movement is out of touch with the average computer user?
No. Linux is a living dinosaur. But don't feel bad. So are a bunch of other OSes such as Windows, MAC OS, Unix, etc... Linux does not have an impressive market because who needs yet another me-too operating system? And it does not really matter that it is free either. What the market needs is a revolutionary new OS based on a software model that solves a really nasty problem in the computer industry. The biggest problem in the industry is unreliability. Software unreliability imposes an upper limit on the complexity of our computer systems. For example, we could conceivably be riding in self-driving vehicles right now but concerns over reliability and safety will not allow it. In addition, the cost of software development rises exponentially with complexity. As a result, over 40,000 people die in traffic accidents every year in the US alone. The free software community should put Linux on the back burner and work on a software model that will solve the reliability problem. That will be the true Windows killer and that's what Project COSA is about.
Is the current state of COSA a web-page with some ideas, or is tools and a VM available so that people can actually play with it?
Unfortunately, nothing concrete is available yet. A few people are currently discussing the possibility of creating a free COSA VM or even a COSA OS on SourceForge.
Wait, you expect AMD to bootstrap an entirely different concept of computing? The history of technology is littered with the corpses of early birds which starved because the new fields they went looking in didn't have any worms.
Yeah, but this ain't no ordinary worm. This one will make the first computer revolution pale in comparison.
AMD cannot develop a revolutionary new architecture because it wouldn't do any good. Consumers do not want revolutionary. Intel and HP spent billions on Itanium. It's a great chip, but the money isn't there.
Itanium is not revolutionary. Not even IBM's Cell processor is revolutionary. All current processors are based on and optimized for the algorithm. That's a 150-year old technology! There is a better way to dothings. Sooner or later we will be forced to break with the past. The early bird gets the worm.
wait.. What? AMD is following Intel? Mind telling me how that is exactly?
They are following because they are barely making a profit, the last I heard. Why? Because they have to compete by drastically cutting prices to compete head-on with Intel. With a new architecture and a new market niche (mostly embedded systems and mission-critical systems), they would leave Intel in the dirt. The desktop market would follow soon afterwards when the industry comes to its senses and realizes that it has been doing it wrong ever since Lady Ada wrote the first algorithm. The good thing is that AMD has the engineering resources and know-how to pull it off. One man's opinion, of course.
It seems that AMD's research department is only concerned with beating Intel at its own game. This is foolish, IMO. AMD is doomed to always be a follower unless its engineers can come up with a revolutionary new CPU architecture based on a revolutionary software model. The new architecture must address the two biggest problems in the computer industry today: reliability and productivity. Unreliability puts an upper limit to how complex our software systems can be. As an example, we could conceivably be riding in self-driving vehicles right now but safety and reliability concerns will not allow it. Why? Because there is something fundamental wrong with software. Fortunately, a software model that solves these problems already exists. It is called the "non-algorithmic, synchronous, reactive software model. That's what Project COSA is about.
Nobody is really sure what quantum physics says about reality or locality.
All nonlocality means is that space (distance) is an illusion. But we don't need all this mumbo-jumbo about hidden variables and Bell's inequality to tell us that there is no space. It can be easily figured out with simple logic. By the way, there is no spooky superluminal signal propagation between entangled particles because, you guessed it, there is no distance between them. In the future we will use this knowledge to develop technologies that will allow us to travel instantly from anywhere to anywhere!
Some brain tasks are linear/feedforward (V1, for example), while tasks such as language are inherently nonlinear. Postulating a single mechanism for both seems nonintuitive to me.
I agree. I doubt that Hawkins can use his HTM to recognize (let alone understand the meaning of) full sentences. For that, you need a hippocampus, i.e., the ability to hold things in short-term memory (and play them back internally) and to parse events using a variable time-scale mechanism. You also need a mechanism of attention which, IMO, requires motor control. I think that Hawkins underestimates the necessity of having a motor control/coordination mechanism (basal ganglia). These are essential to reasoning.
Actually just as much evidence contradicts that hypothesis. We have very specific brain areas for generating and processing verbal data (Broca and Wernicke's areas), and a very specific brain area for recognizing faces.
In defence of Hawkins, note that he does not disagree (RTA) that there are specialized regions in the brain. However, this does not imply that the brain uses a different neural mechanism for different regions. It only means that a region that receives audio input will specialize in processing sounds. It all has to do with how the input and the output fibers are connected. The cortex will rewire itself to accomodate any sensory modality. IMO, Hawkins is right in this regard. Even specialized areas of the visual cortex that show a gradation of recognition capabilities can be explained using a hierarchical system heavily dependent on feedback.
Well, my goal is to build machines that pass the Turing Test, so I have to think about more than cortex. But more generally, one might wonder how much of intelligence it is possible to capture with a system that "doesn't have desires, motives, or intentions of any kind".
Not to mention, motor coordination, attention, short and long-term memory, cerebellar processes, etc... It's a little more complicated than Hawkins would have us believe, especially if you don't already know the answers. Fortunately, the secret of AI has already been found and written down for us many centuries ago. Check it out: Artificial intelligence from the Bible!. ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
Because of the neocortex's uniform structure, neuro-scientists have long suspected that all its parts work on a common algorithm-that is, that the brain hears, sees, understands language, and even plays chess with a single, flexible tool. Much experimental evidence supports the idea that the neocortex is such a general-purpose learning machine. What it learns and what it can do are determined by the size of the neocortical sheet, what senses the sheet is connected to, and what experiences it is trained on. HTM is a theory of the neocortical algorithm.
While I believe that the HTM is indeed a giant leap in AI (although I disagree with Numenta's Bayesian approach), I cannot help thinking that Hawkins is only addressing a small subset of intelligence. The neocortex is essentially a recognition machine but there is a lot more to brain and behavior than recognition. What is Hawkins' take on things like behavior selection, short and long-term memory, motor sequencing, motor coordination, attention, motivation, etc...?
Why not do away with most of the legacy technology in one swoop and update the entire industry to a new standard.
I agree. However, one should design a new CPU architecture based on a software model, not the other way around as was done with the CELL cpu.
PS, I know why, money, too much investment in the old to be worth creating the new. But I can dream can't I?
Yes you can dream. But unless the new architecture is going to solve a big problem in the industry, it's not worth it. The biggest problem in the computer industry right now is not speed. It's software unreliability. Functional languages are more robust only because they use concurrency effectively and isolate faults as a result. But there is more to reliability than fault tolerance. There is a need for a non-algorithmic, synchronous software model.
Maxwell's demon would never permit you to harvest vacuum energy.
Aristotle believed that nothing could move unless it is caused to move. Modern physics maintains that bodies move for no reason at all, as if by magic. Consider that movement is a series of quantum jumps. The law of cause and effect forbids the existence of an effect (i.e., a quantum jump) without a cause. It follows that we are immersed and move within an immense lattice of highly energetic particles. Deny if you wish but I have decided to put my money on Aristotle's blasphemy which will soon become a great truth. ahahaha...
"OpenCyc is the open source version of the Cyc technology, the world's largest and most complete general knowledge base and commonsense reasoning engine."
Is one to assume that the way to common sense logic in a machine is via linguistic/symbolic knowledge representation? How can this handwritten knowledge base be used to build a robot with the common sense required to carry a cup of coffee without spilling the coffee? And why is it that my pet dog has plenty of common sense even though it has very limited linguistic skills? I think it's about time that the GOFAI/symbol processing crowd realize that intelligence and common sense are founded exclusivley on the temporal/causal relationships between sensed events. It's time that they stop wasting everybody's time with their obsolete and bankrupt ideas of the last century. The AI world has moved on to better and greener pastures. Sorry.
ahahaha... OK, why has my previous post been marked down as a troll? What is wrong with causality? Are my ideas really that threatening to some people? Me thinks some of the crackpots and con artists in high places are getting scared? ahahaha...
And it may be the first half of the 21st century, or maybe go all the way to the 22nd century. Because, unfortunately, I happen to think we won't be able to rely on experiment to resolve this problem.
I don't think so. Actually, if one applies the law of causality to its fullest, one is forced to conclude that we are moving in an immense multi-dimensional lattice of energetic particles. Why? Because, contrary to current belief, movement is causal. That is to say, nothing can move unless it is caused to move. This means that a particle's movement can only be sustained by a series of interactions, one for each discrete jump. See Nasty Little Truth About Motion for more on the causality of motion. My point is that one does not need esoteric physics experiments to see that we are moving in a sea of energy. Every observed movement is the existence proof we need! One day soon, we will understand the composition and properties of the lattice and we will use our newfound knowledge for such purposes as energy generation and vehicle propulsion. Won't be long now. ahahaha...
FTA: Both have had their ups and downs but persevere because they have a knack for getting out of stagnating businesses and finding the next big thing. Size may not guarantee the market power it once did. But it does imply a certain staying power.
What is the next big thing in computing and technology? Would either HP or IBM or even Intel recognize it if they saw it? I doubt it. There is something about becoming a behemoth that prevents a company from seeing fast moving trends or foresee future ones. Or, if they do see it, they are too slow to respond in a timely manner. It has something to do with bureaucracy and the inevitable proliferation of internal operating rules. IMO, IBM and HP should create small quasi-independent research labs and give them the task of finding the next big thing. And I would tell them to look for solutions to current insolvable huge problems in the industry, such as the software reliability crisis. Indeed, the first company to come up with a solution to this problem (and obtain the lion share of the IP) is guaranteed to dictate the course of the computing industry for decades to come. One man's opinion.
It would be interesting if you have valid ideas that support your claim, but each time I ask you do not respond. This leads me to believe this is vapor.
The signal-based, synchronous model is already proven. It is the same model use by hardware logic circuits. In fact, the counterintuitive claim of Project COSA is that a COSA program's design cosistency increases with complexity! The reason is simple: the number of temporal constraints in a COSA program is proportional to complexity. The writing is on the wall. COSA is not rocket science. Question is, who is able to see it?
Intel, AMD, TI, Sun and the rest have all been banking on a technology that has not changed in a fundamental way in more than 150 years. Computing has been based on the algorithm ever since Lady Ada wrote the first "table of instructions" for Babbage's analytical engine, a computer built out gears and rotating shafts! The fear among the big processor vendors and IP holders is that some unknown entity may come out of nowhere and surpass them with a superior software/hardware technology, one which is not based on the algorithm. Indeed, a non-algorithmic, signal-based synchronous computing model would solve the biggest problem in the industry: unreliability. The first company to take advantage of this new paradigm by securing the necessary IP, will leave everyone else in the dust and be in a position to dictate the future course of industry for decades to come. There are still a few big surprises waiting to happen in this business. The revolution is not over yet.
I think you're mistaking operating system with hard drives.
I stand corrected. I should have said, "Throw your old OS away".
They're already in a good partnership with Mozilla in Firefox (considering the default start page includes a Google search field) so I don't see why they'd need to.
I'm sure you're probably right. But don't discount the possibility a Google browser. In fact, I see a dedicated, browser-only Google computer as a possible contender in the $100 laptop/PDA market. Watch out, Negroponte! Here comes the $100 Googleputer.
Throw your OS away. The only application you need is a dedicated browser (Google will provide one soon) and an internet connection to Google. No hard drives are necessary.
"Hopkins' motto is 'Veritas vos liberabit' - 'the truth shall set you free' - not that 'you shall be free to set the truth!'" Stirring stuff.
e rs on one side and the non-materialists/relisious/right-wingers on the other. And they both use the same political means to achieve their goals. I think we need to inject a little honesty in the debates and stop taking sides so much. But I know I'm dreaming. So all I can say is, "may the best/strongest camp survive, but only if they truly have the truth on their side!"
Indeed, but it cuts both ways. We have the materialists/atheists/environmentalists/left-wing
FTA: More recently, researchers have adopted a very different approach, one that harnesses the power of today's faster processors to test every possible scenario. This method, known as model checking, is now used extensively to verify integrated-circuit designs.
The problem with this is that algorithmic software does not work like ICs. The only way to solve the crisis is to abandon the algorithmic software model and embrace a non-algorithmic, signal-based, synchronous model. This is the model used in hardware design. It all started with lady Ada and her table of instructions for Babbage's analytical engine but the writing is on the wall. 150 years of algorithmic computing has run its course and it's now time for a change. We must radically change our way of programming and we must do so at the fundamental level. We must design software like we design hardware. We must also redesign our cental processors so that they are optimized for the new paradigm, not for the old algorithmic model as they are now. Until then, we will continue to pay a heavy price for buggy software systems.