Hey, empty booster, 1/6 gravity, how much fuel would they have to hold back? Would just take a little clever coding on those tiny 8-bit cpus but they had people who knew how to write native machine code back then, by golly. Oh and some landing legs....
"...straightforward information about this on the net." Because it's not straightforward. If you are have enough grasp on your requirements to understand the apps you want to use and you are using commercial CAE / CFD codes, your ISVs should be able to give you some guidance about what typical customers are running (how many cores over how many nodes configured with how much ram and storage with what kind of cluster interconnect and MPI message passing etc) for workloads similar in size to yours. If you're actually considering writing your own, please reconsider unless you have some very particular requirements - but if you do, you'll already have a really good idea of what level of parallelization your cluster architecture requires.
... saying "our new car is as fast as a BMW" could be restrained due to the unauthorized use of the BMW trademark. I believe this would fall into the category of "fair use" (if it was copyright, I believe there's a similar doctrine for reasonable use of a Trademarked term) I assume IMAX (the company which I expect I CAN comment on) is worried about the possibility of pervasive VR taking some seats away from theater attendance.
Decades from now, they're going to laugh at any early 21st century definition of a drone that meant a remote controlled aircraft that was just smart enough to keep itself in the air without being directly controlled in real time. Real drones get assigned a task and execute it (flying there is a self-managed task). So.... drone racing would be a bunch automous units that know when to show up at an invisible, but coordinated starting line at a certain time then lunge into a defined course at scheduled race start trying to get to the finish line first after however many laps or course segments were defined. They'll probably want to avoid contact with other racing drones (unless their AI gets good enough to do sneaky things like bumping or interfering with each others airflow) and any obstacles that are part of the race course. And of course they'll have have 3d surround cameras so media can switch instantly to the view from any racer. I'd watch it.
Heroin dealers make the first few hits free or really cheap because when you still have a choice, they need to sell you on it. After you're seriously addicted, the price can be raised because you no longer have the ability to say no. Similarly, even if it means losing money for a while, cloud providers have to make the cost per unit of compute per hour look very attractive and practically give it away at first, so your IT and Line-Of-Business groups at your firm think cloud is much cheaper than all that physical infrastructure and expensive IT staff you've been paying for. However, some day in the next few years, once you and companies like you have closed down your in-house datacenters and laid off most of your IT staff, you'll find the cloud providers don't need to be competitive with that local choice you no longer possess and the cost of cloud will go though the clouds.
If you really needed smooth animation and graphics, Apple would tell you that was important and then you would have it. In the meantime, this is clearly not important. Remember it's much more important to be stylish and cool than effective and efficient.
"To put it simple, this is a language with a built-in code analyzer and it's a pretty tough one: it can catch all the bugs typical of C++ and dealing not only with memory management, but multithreading as well. Pass a reference to an assignable object through a pipe to another thread and then try to use this reference yourself - the program just will refuse to compile. " Why do we need another language to accomplish those things? Better IDEs, compilers and analyzer tools should be able to all that for existing languages. If you have a better paradigm for expressing algorithms that you think merits a new language, make that case, but complaints in the quote don't need that.
I don't know what else they are wrong about but in the paper it says: "For example, the Intel Core i7-3720QM processor, which belongs to the Haswell family, includes 8192 = 213 cache sets, each of which can hold 12 lines of 64 = 26 bytes each, giving a total cache size of 8192x12x64=6MB". No, an i7-3xxx anything is in the Ivy Bridge not Haswell family but those cache characteristics would be correct for the Ivy Bridge i7-3720QM. But if it was a Haswell it would be an i7-4xxx processor. So either they meant a last generation IVB processor or a different Haswell than they called out, but what they said is wrong. Anyone see any other mistakes?
Even if NASA and ESAB had a "miscommunication" (I suspect an unresolved contract issue, which both sides thought the other has accepted responsibility for owning the floor contracting), what should have happened is that the ESAB equipment people, before starting work on the installation should have inspected the floor work they mandated to make sure it was done correctly. If this happened at all, you'd assume someone who notice that the floor has not been recently rebuilt AT ALL and would stop work until that got done. If you say your equipment needs some part of the environment to be a certain way before you can install, presumably you don't do it until it meets spec. So, no matter who else is to blame, ESAB is negligent in proceeding with work if the floor had not been brought in line with requirements. An alternate, plausible chain of events is that NASA originally, disagreed with ESAB and felt the floor fix was unnecessary in the first place and told them if they wanted to do it, NASA was not going to pay for that. ESAB does a risk assessment, decides there's a danger but it likely will work and goes ahead. Install fails and during resolution, NASA makes under-the-table concessions to make ESAB whole financially if they admit it's their screw-up. This perfectly reflects the difference between govt and corporate fears. NASA fears looking stupid and is probably willing to pay money to avoid that. ESAB is more worried about losing money and can always subtly imply privately to other future customers that it was NASA that screwed up.
... before they crank out the 180 petaflop score on Linpack (which officially would put them at the top of the Top 500 Supercomputer list), they're going to mine all the remaining Bitcoins.:-) Not sure that will pay for the cluster though.
A4WP and PMA have merged to form Rezence, which should become the prevailing standard as it's better technology than Qi. So it's really too bad that Ikea is supporting WPC - which will probably not emerge as the winning standard. Ikea can always make next year's furniture with Rezence, but it's not clear first gen customers that got Qi would be able to upgrade. Also the article is misleading in that it suggests Samsung is completely in the WPC camp when they are also involved with and helped found A4WP (Rezence) and believe it's the future.
... is that all the the commentary on the FCC vote seems to define net neutrality as not interfering with "web sites" from other parties (good, but... ) however, this is opening up a potential loophole where traffic to and from apps could be limited because they are not "web sites". We can only hope this is result of FCC trying to make their intentions more understandable to the public and that the actual proposal will be what it should be: ISPs should not be able to prioritize/ deprioritize IP traffic to or from the ISP client hosts with other internet hosts not affiliated with the ISP. This covers web site, app, OS, device and any other traffic. There probably should be an exception for traffic the client customer EXPRESSLY requests to be prioritized eg. VoIP or VPN to a particular hosts. Note that this all about the relationship with the consuming end-point, last-mile, customer. It should not impose any restriction on commercial connection, peering or other upstream contractual arrangements.
I assume the group involved is at least paying Sony a wholesale price for those DVDs. (Which I didn't think had been released yet enyway) Surely they wouldn't engage in piracy.:-)
Rick, what percentage of the time do you use the SP2 as a slate vs with keyboard? If's with a keyboard most of the time, you're using a lightweight PC not a tablet.
... that administrative changes at this level should only be allowable from physical access to closed admin networks and the value of having staff be able to make changes in their PJs from some hotel room is overrated?
"Microsoft seems to be correcting its hardware strategy, as well as its software one, with the Surface RT flop getting the axe... " Just wait and see how unhappy the buyers of ARM-based plain Surface RT tablets are when they find out a) They aren't getting any new updates or UI improvements b) App vendors are shifting to Surface Pro x86 binaries c) They can't upgrade to Windows 10 The difference between disposable consumer appliance items like phones/(most)tablets and Personal Computers is that PCs can be upgraded (or get lighter OSes put on them when they get old. PCs are general purpose tools which allow you to do things the original vendor may not have expected or even approve of. They are not a closed,static gadget. (BTW, if there's no Surface, doesn't it seem funny to only have a Surface Pro?)
Nonsense, the biggest fabs of the biggest semiconductor company in the world, making the most advanced microprocessors are located in the US at Oregon and Arizona sites. It's a little company called Intel.
This is easy. You architect around the most complex platform , eg this 2-in-1 in laptop mode which would have a fast Core i5 or Core i7 as cpu running OS/X. When you detach the keyboard and put it into tablet mode, it adopts an iOS skin, with emulator to run iOS apps (which you already do indirectly when you're building iOS apps on an OS/.X system now). You have the ability though, to have OS/X apps / utilities in the background, possibly providing local cloud services to the tablet layer. It's interesting that while Intel produces the underlying architecture for both Surface Pro and this hypothetical device, Microsoft and Bershidsky resist using Intel's "2-in-1" name for this kind of platform - even though the main system architecture (processor, IO hub etc) is all an Intel design.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, empty booster, 1/6 gravity, how much fuel would they have to hold back? Would just take a little clever coding on those tiny 8-bit cpus but they had people who knew how to write native machine code back then, by golly.
Oh and some landing legs....
Are they made by humans or made by machines?
"...straightforward information about this on the net." Because it's not straightforward. If you are have enough grasp on your requirements to understand the apps you want to use and you are using commercial CAE / CFD codes, your ISVs should be able to give you some guidance about what typical customers are running (how many cores over how many nodes configured with how much ram and storage with what kind of cluster interconnect and MPI message passing etc) for workloads similar in size to yours. If you're actually considering writing your own, please reconsider unless you have some very particular requirements - but if you do, you'll already have a really good idea of what level of parallelization your cluster architecture requires.
... saying "our new car is as fast as a BMW" could be restrained due to the unauthorized use of the BMW trademark. I believe this would fall into the category of "fair use" (if it was copyright, I believe there's a similar doctrine for reasonable use of a Trademarked term)
I assume IMAX (the company which I expect I CAN comment on) is worried about the possibility of pervasive VR taking some seats away from theater attendance.
Decades from now, they're going to laugh at any early 21st century definition of a drone that meant a remote controlled aircraft that was just smart enough to keep itself in the air without being directly controlled in real time. Real drones get assigned a task and execute it (flying there is a self-managed task).
So.... drone racing would be a bunch automous units that know when to show up at an invisible, but coordinated starting line at a certain time then lunge into a defined course at scheduled race start trying to get to the finish line first after however many laps or course segments were defined. They'll probably want to avoid contact with other racing drones (unless their AI gets good enough to do sneaky things like bumping or interfering with each others airflow) and any obstacles that are part of the race course.
And of course they'll have have 3d surround cameras so media can switch instantly to the view from any racer.
I'd watch it.
Heroin dealers make the first few hits free or really cheap because when you still have a choice, they need to sell you on it. After you're seriously addicted, the price can be raised because you no longer have the ability to say no.
Similarly, even if it means losing money for a while, cloud providers have to make the cost per unit of compute per hour look very attractive and practically give it away at first, so your IT and Line-Of-Business groups at your firm think cloud is much cheaper than all that physical infrastructure and expensive IT staff you've been paying for. However, some day in the next few years, once you and companies like you have closed down your in-house datacenters and laid off most of your IT staff, you'll find the cloud providers don't need to be competitive with that local choice you no longer possess and the cost of cloud will go though the clouds.
If you really needed smooth animation and graphics, Apple would tell you that was important and then you would have it. In the meantime, this is clearly not important. Remember it's much more important to be stylish and cool than effective and efficient.
and give myself a million miles, does that mean United will give a second million? Or just let me keep mine? So what do I need them for?
"To put it simple, this is a language with a built-in code analyzer and it's a pretty tough one: it can catch all the bugs typical of C++ and dealing not only with memory management, but multithreading as well. Pass a reference to an assignable object through a pipe to another thread and then try to use this reference yourself - the program just will refuse to compile. "
Why do we need another language to accomplish those things? Better IDEs, compilers and analyzer tools should be able to all that for existing languages. If you have a better paradigm for expressing algorithms that you think merits a new language, make that case, but complaints in the quote don't need that.
I don't know what else they are wrong about but in the paper it says: "For example, the Intel Core i7-3720QM processor, which belongs
to the Haswell family, includes 8192 = 213 cache sets, each of which can hold 12 lines of 64 = 26 bytes each, giving a total cache size of 8192x12x64=6MB".
No, an i7-3xxx anything is in the Ivy Bridge not Haswell family but those cache characteristics would be correct for the Ivy Bridge i7-3720QM.
But if it was a Haswell it would be an i7-4xxx processor. So either they meant a last generation IVB processor or a different Haswell than they called out, but what they said is wrong.
Anyone see any other mistakes?
Even if NASA and ESAB had a "miscommunication" (I suspect an unresolved contract issue, which both sides thought the other has accepted responsibility for owning the floor contracting), what should have happened is that the ESAB equipment people, before starting work on the installation should have inspected the floor work they mandated to make sure it was done correctly. If this happened at all, you'd assume someone who notice that the floor has not been recently rebuilt AT ALL and would stop work until that got done. If you say your equipment needs some part of the environment to be a certain way before you can install, presumably you don't do it until it meets spec. So, no matter who else is to blame, ESAB is negligent in proceeding with work if the floor had not been brought in line with requirements.
An alternate, plausible chain of events is that NASA originally, disagreed with ESAB and felt the floor fix was unnecessary in the first place and told them if they wanted to do it, NASA was not going to pay for that. ESAB does a risk assessment, decides there's a danger but it likely will work and goes ahead. Install fails and during resolution, NASA makes under-the-table concessions to make ESAB whole financially if they admit it's their screw-up. This perfectly reflects the difference between govt and corporate fears. NASA fears looking stupid and is probably willing to pay money to avoid that. ESAB is more worried about losing money and can always subtly imply privately to other future customers that it was NASA that screwed up.
... before they crank out the 180 petaflop score on Linpack (which officially would put them at the top of the Top 500 Supercomputer list), they're going to mine all the remaining Bitcoins. :-) Not sure that will pay for the cluster though.
No the current generation Surface Pro 3 is still a Core i5 - current generation. This is Surface non-Pro that is an Atom x7
A4WP and PMA have merged to form Rezence, which should become the prevailing standard as it's better technology than Qi. So it's really too bad that Ikea is supporting WPC - which will probably not emerge as the winning standard. Ikea can always make next year's furniture with Rezence, but it's not clear first gen customers that got Qi would be able to upgrade. Also the article is misleading in that it suggests Samsung is completely in the WPC camp when they are also involved with and helped found A4WP (Rezence) and believe it's the future.
And push our Apple or Samsung or Qualcomm for the right price. Again, AMD and NVidia can't or won't pay what that price would be.
... is that all the the commentary on the FCC vote seems to define net neutrality as not interfering with "web sites" from other parties (good, but... ) however, this is opening up a potential loophole where traffic to and from apps could be limited because they are not "web sites". We can only hope this is result of FCC trying to make their intentions more understandable to the public and that the actual proposal will be what it should be: .
ISPs should not be able to prioritize/ deprioritize IP traffic to or from the ISP client hosts with other internet hosts not affiliated with the ISP
This covers web site, app, OS, device and any other traffic. There probably should be an exception for traffic the client customer EXPRESSLY requests to be prioritized eg. VoIP or VPN to a particular hosts. Note that this all about the relationship with the consuming end-point, last-mile, customer. It should not impose any restriction on commercial connection, peering or other upstream contractual arrangements.
I assume the group involved is at least paying Sony a wholesale price for those DVDs. (Which I didn't think had been released yet enyway) :-)
Surely they wouldn't engage in piracy.
Rick, what percentage of the time do you use the SP2 as a slate vs with keyboard? If's with a keyboard most of the time, you're using a lightweight PC not a tablet.
... that administrative changes at this level should only be allowable from physical access to closed admin networks and the value of having staff be able to make changes in their PJs from some hotel room is overrated?
According to Techreport, Intel's three-dimensional NAND. will enable 10TB flash drives in servers in 2 years
Today it's a discount. In 5 years no one will offer you insurance without it. (And the WAN connection to stay in touch...)
"Microsoft seems to be correcting its hardware strategy, as well as its software one, with the Surface RT flop getting the axe... "
Just wait and see how unhappy the buyers of ARM-based plain Surface RT tablets are when they find out
a) They aren't getting any new updates or UI improvements
b) App vendors are shifting to Surface Pro x86 binaries
c) They can't upgrade to Windows 10
The difference between disposable consumer appliance items like phones/(most)tablets and Personal Computers is that PCs can be upgraded (or get lighter OSes put on them when they get old. PCs are general purpose tools which allow you to do things the original vendor may not have expected or even approve of. They are not a closed,static gadget.
(BTW, if there's no Surface, doesn't it seem funny to only have a Surface Pro?)
Nonsense, the biggest fabs of the biggest semiconductor company in the world, making the most advanced microprocessors are located in the US at Oregon and Arizona sites. It's a little company called Intel.
This is easy. You architect around the most complex platform , eg this 2-in-1 in laptop mode which would have a fast Core i5 or Core i7 as cpu running OS/X. When you detach the keyboard and put it into tablet mode, it adopts an iOS skin, with emulator to run iOS apps (which you already do indirectly when you're building iOS apps on an OS/.X system now). You have the ability though, to have OS/X apps / utilities in the background, possibly providing local cloud services to the tablet layer.
It's interesting that while Intel produces the underlying architecture for both Surface Pro and this hypothetical device, Microsoft and Bershidsky resist using Intel's "2-in-1" name for this kind of platform - even though the main system architecture (processor, IO hub etc) is all an Intel design.
And your car will someday refuse to boot without them.