The difference is that instead of the compiler taking up the slack (as in RISC), a combination of the compiler, the programmer, some very smart scheduling software
Requiring programmers to learn how to write parallel code that makes good use of this processor seems pretty dicey to me. Few programmers have been trained to write parallel code (most struggle with threading). The fact that no popular programming language has a good parallel model is also a big stumbling block.
This problem seems to be looming for all the dual core processors, but I havent seen a big effort to teach programmers how to adapt.
Quantum computing is overhyped in its computing potential. It has been shown that quantum computers do not gain a computational advantage in these problems without an exponetial number of gates.
Interesting as well is that the factoring problem that made quantum computing famous has never actually been proven to be hard on a classical computer. This is to say, it is perfectly possible that factoring can be done on a regular computer just as fast as a quantum computer.
Great a mirror of "Problem in Database" message
on
Top 10 Apple Flops
·
· Score: 1
Besides buzzwords, there isnt a lot of information about how this thing works. From what they do say it seems pretty shady, more like a magic trick than a smart algorithm. Forget about playing some silly game, the ability to identify utterences "unsupervised" from an audio stream is a pretty amazing claim. But what does this mean really; is it just a binary difference between silence and noise? And what exactly are the "rules" it learned anyway? R/S/P doesnt really have any rules or any strategy, so all it appears to be doing is recognizing a win and playing the correct audio back. Why are they using playing cards for the game? Is it really because identiying a binary "WIN/lose" decision is deciable by luminace of the cards? We dont really know what the thing is learning.. I am dubious because I have seen grand claims like this before, only to find out its "magic trick" interpretation of the data for grant money [like the 11 node neural net that could distinguish yes from no in raw audio but it turned out it was really identying file length].
All that advice is too vague to be remembered and applied. Best advice I have I wish I'd known which is specific and memorable: Spray inside your shoes with lysol once a week. Keeps off fungus keep your toenails shiny; never regret!
Cingular's UMTS network is already live in several cities at 1500k mand mobile; Verizons EVDO network goes live Feb 1 in several cities also ar 1500k and mobile. What does WIMAX bring to the table for consumers thats so great given its not mobile and its pricepoint is still quite high?
Computer programs are large numbers. Numbers don't need rights or ethics.
Every fan of AI should try to grasp of John Searles chinese room argument with a special effort to see why it is correct. Contrary to knee jerk reaction from those educated in computer science rathan than philosophy, his argument has a strong philosophical basis and should be taken seriously.
This doesnt answer the question really; if I needed higher quality images on the go, I would want a camera with Bluetooth so I could use my phone to send pictures over internet. But Wifi is useless because I need to be within a few dozen feet of an open access point, which is only a few dozen feet from a USB port.
My cell phone can take pictures and send them [at broadband speed!] over email, or to the local bluetooth network, or over the infrared port, all built in with no "special card" or extra gadgets needed. That and its an mp3 player to boot. Why would I want a WiFi camera?
Thomas Edison is analgous to the head of the sony division that used Russel's patent at Sony; he did not invent the lightbulb.
When you look close at the history of technology, as an American you might find out how much hyperbole there is in the idea that "Amercans invented almost everything." The truth is more like we claimed credit for everything.
Here is a site I found that has a calculator that suggest how much the bits of information about you are "worth". They suggest you "refer" agencies which collect information about you to this site so you are properly compensated.
This is just plain wrong. I think your view is subject to that statistical fallacy that humans brains have where they aren't good at looking at the complement of an idea.
Human destruction is actually the minority in world events. Typically its some small number of people who get together to destroy the work of the larger body of people. And typically, even for all the fanfare, the overall effect of that minority is small. All wars are this way, only a small portion of the population are involved in the destruction part, the creation of the civilization is done by the entire group. The credit for the great shifts in history dont go to heroes or ivory tower iconoclasts but communities improving the baseline the whole.
As far as great achievements go, which ones were you thinking of? I'm thinking of things like the moon shot which was a group effort. Modern agriculture feeding the billions [proof of life not destruction] is a group effort. Computers, mass communication, culture, automobiles, mass transit, modern medicine, and lots more all group efforts...
What do you mean our enemies? I dont have any enemies. Who is it exactly that is your enemy anyway? Are they your enemy because Rumsfield told you so? The whole US/THEM mentality is such a sad dementia. When will people learn? Its just people trying to get by.
If you read the sources carefully especially this you will see that it was Canopy, the successors of Caldera that wanted to destroy their evidence because it was costing them too much to maintain it, and they didnt need it anymore because their case was finished.
The key line is "The Canopy Group, Inc. ("Canopy"), filed a motion to this court seeking permission to dispose of hundreds of boxes in its possession..", "the primary issues relate to Canopy's desire to avoid further burden and expense.."
The sort of fudging of facts in the headline here is how you get people who are nearly insane with hatred who post here making the linux crowd look totally unstable to the mainstream.
Well, doesnt seem like this obsoletes the portable projector, as this is not portable. However, it does seem pretty cool, and found the patent applications for it #20040001182 you can look it up on uspto.gov
Just the other day I was looking up battery powered projectors, and found another company that is working on a small battery powered projector. I'm imagining a PC that actually stays in your pocket, the projector on your belt with a (as yet magical) elastic display that pops up, and a collapsible keyboard that roles into the buckle like a tape measure.
Maybe you just got some bad batteries. My i600 lasts days on the battery. In fact, I havent had any of the problems you are describing.
That being said, I can't really recommend the phone. The main reason to get the phone is full internet/HTML support. This is a great feature! However, its not easy to rationalize the price for the service given how slow it is. It is almost always faster just to call someone and get the info you need rather than wait for the interent to kick in.
For example, you can get movie listings at moviephone.com which is great, but in the time it takes to get the page loaded up, you could call all the theatres and get listings. Or for example, you can get mapquest up, but by the time you are done fiddling, you could have gone to a gastation, bought a map, and got verbal diretions from 10 people.
Also, the WinCE interface is horribly clunky. I'm the only one who can use my phone because of all the virtual buttons you have to "click". The contacts list for autodial is a hilarious joke. Nobody else can use my phone because of its arcane interface. Which doesnt bother me really, but its pretty sad.
Oh fer christ sakes quit being so melodramatic; the case was about a hashing patent [that stac bought]. Essentially Stac claimed to own any algorithm that looks up matches in LZ compression in O(1) time and won on that basis. The code was not the same or even similiar, in fact, totally different algorithms, only similarity was run-time efficiency.
I remember seeing a speech by Andy Grove about Intel's business model. Basically that intel puts huge investment and thus huge risk into each new processor version and that failure was not an option as it would destroy the companies ability to continue innovating.
Well, here we are today with this story about Dell, and then there's the story about Microsoft not supporting Itanium, and then theres the news that Intel stopped development on the 4ghz processors (essentially admitting failure of their technology model). The real nail in the coffin is that AMDs processors are not only cheaper, but they are faster and run cooler.
In the bigger picture, this is the next step in the commodization of computers. This process is making them cheap as toilet paper, but it is also a harbinger of end of rapid innovation and perhaps even the end of moores law. This should be expected as its the natural progression of any product.
Once Intel in marginalized, Microsoft must be soon to follow?
Slashdot Mirror
Bullet proof vests that resist rifle fire are made with a slab of steel. Kevlar vests alone are only good for handguns and indirect damage.
Not that this has anything to do with space hotels.
Did you look at the schetches of Willowater? Its freakin' hobbiton. He even uses the same type of drawings used in Tolkein artwork.
The difference is that instead of the compiler taking up the slack (as in RISC), a combination of the compiler, the programmer, some very smart scheduling software
Requiring programmers to learn how to write parallel code that makes good use of this processor seems pretty dicey to me. Few programmers have been trained to write parallel code (most struggle with threading). The fact that no popular programming language has a good parallel model is also a big stumbling block.
This problem seems to be looming for all the dual core processors, but I havent seen a big effort to teach programmers how to adapt.
Quantum computing is overhyped in its computing potential. It has been shown that quantum computers do not gain a computational advantage in these problems without an exponetial number of gates.
Interesting as well is that the factoring problem that made quantum computing famous has never actually been proven to be hard on a classical computer. This is to say, it is perfectly possible that factoring can be done on a regular computer just as fast as a quantum computer.
nothing rescued here
Hitchhickers guide was originally a radio program. The books are derived from the radio scripts.
Besides buzzwords, there isnt a lot of information about how this thing works. From what they do say it seems pretty shady, more like a magic trick than a smart algorithm. Forget about playing some silly game, the ability to identify utterences "unsupervised" from an audio stream is a pretty amazing claim. But what does this mean really; is it just a binary difference between silence and noise?
And what exactly are the "rules" it learned anyway? R/S/P doesnt really have any rules or any strategy, so all it appears to be doing is recognizing a win and playing the correct audio back. Why are they using playing cards for the game? Is it really because identiying a binary "WIN/lose" decision is deciable by luminace of the cards? We dont really know what the thing is learning..
I am dubious because I have seen grand claims like this before, only to find out its "magic trick" interpretation of the data for grant money [like the 11 node neural net that could distinguish yes from no in raw audio but it turned out it was really identying file length].
All that advice is too vague to be remembered and applied.
Best advice I have I wish I'd known which is specific and memorable: Spray inside your shoes with lysol once a week. Keeps off fungus keep your toenails shiny; never regret!
Cingular's UMTS network is already live in several cities at 1500k mand mobile; Verizons EVDO network goes live Feb 1 in several cities also ar 1500k and mobile. What does WIMAX bring to the table for consumers thats so great given its not mobile and its pricepoint is still quite high?
Computer programs are large numbers. Numbers don't need rights or ethics.
Every fan of AI should try to grasp of John Searles chinese room argument with a special effort to see why it is correct. Contrary to knee jerk reaction from those educated in computer science rathan than philosophy, his argument has a strong philosophical basis and should be taken seriously.
I have EDGE gprs at around 150k at a flat rate, no per byte or minutes charge whatsover. Not expensive at all.
This doesnt answer the question really; if I needed higher quality images on the go, I would want a camera with Bluetooth so I could use my phone to send pictures over internet. But Wifi is useless because I need to be within a few dozen feet of an open access point, which is only a few dozen feet from a USB port.
My cell phone can take pictures and send them [at broadband speed!] over email, or to the local bluetooth network, or over the infrared port, all built in with no "special card" or extra gadgets needed. That and its an mp3 player to boot.
Why would I want a WiFi camera?
The aircraft he is charged with disturbing are a helicopter and a cessna citiation. Neither have automatic landing capabilities. Most planes do not.
Thomas Edison is analgous to the head of the sony division that used Russel's patent at Sony; he did not invent the lightbulb.
When you look close at the history of technology, as an American you might find out how much hyperbole there is in the idea that "Amercans invented almost everything." The truth is more like we claimed credit for everything.
Here is a site I found that has a calculator that suggest how much the bits of information about you are "worth".
They suggest you "refer" agencies which collect information about you to this site so you are properly compensated.
This is just plain wrong. I think your view is subject to that statistical fallacy that humans brains have where they aren't good at looking at the complement of an idea.
Human destruction is actually the minority in world events. Typically its some small number of people who get together to destroy the work of the larger body of people. And typically, even for all the fanfare, the overall effect of that minority is small. All wars are this way, only a small portion of the population are involved in the destruction part, the creation of the civilization is done by the entire group. The credit for the great shifts in history dont go to heroes or ivory tower iconoclasts but communities improving the baseline the whole.
As far as great achievements go, which ones were you thinking of? I'm thinking of things like the moon shot which was a group effort. Modern agriculture feeding the billions [proof of life not destruction] is a group effort. Computers, mass communication, culture, automobiles, mass transit, modern medicine, and lots more all group efforts...
What do you mean our enemies? I dont have any enemies. Who is it exactly that is your enemy anyway? Are they your enemy because Rumsfield told you so?
The whole US/THEM mentality is such a sad dementia. When will people learn? Its just people trying to get by.
If you read the sources carefully especially this you will see that it was Canopy, the successors of Caldera that wanted to destroy their evidence because it was costing them too much to maintain it, and they didnt need it anymore because their case was finished.
The key line is "The Canopy Group, Inc. ("Canopy"), filed a motion to this court seeking permission to dispose of hundreds of boxes in its possession..", "the primary issues relate to Canopy's desire to avoid further burden and expense.."
The sort of fudging of facts in the headline here is how you get people who are nearly insane with hatred who post here making the linux crowd look totally unstable to the mainstream.
The real reason is the directed signal takes less energy than a broadcast. This pans out to faster data rates since they can use higher frequencies.
Well, doesnt seem like this obsoletes the portable projector, as this is not portable. However, it does seem pretty cool, and found the patent applications for it #20040001182 you can look it up on uspto.gov
Just the other day I was looking up battery powered projectors, and found another company that is working on a small battery powered projector.
I'm imagining a PC that actually stays in your pocket, the projector on your belt with a (as yet magical) elastic display that pops up, and a collapsible keyboard that roles into the buckle like a tape measure.
Maybe you just got some bad batteries. My i600 lasts days on the battery. In fact, I havent had any of the problems you are describing.
That being said, I can't really recommend the phone. The main reason to get the phone is full internet/HTML support. This is a great feature! However, its not easy to rationalize the price for the service given how slow it is. It is almost always faster just to call someone and get the info you need rather than wait for the interent to kick in.
For example, you can get movie listings at moviephone.com which is great, but in the time it takes to get the page loaded up, you could call all the theatres and get listings. Or for example, you can get mapquest up, but by the time you are done fiddling, you could have gone to a gastation, bought a map, and got verbal diretions from 10 people.
Also, the WinCE interface is horribly clunky. I'm the only one who can use my phone because of all the virtual buttons you have to "click". The contacts list for autodial is a hilarious joke. Nobody else can use my phone because of its arcane interface. Which doesnt bother me really, but its pretty sad.
Oh fer christ sakes quit being so melodramatic; the case was about a hashing patent [that stac bought]. Essentially Stac claimed to own any algorithm that looks up matches in LZ compression in O(1) time and won on that basis. The code was not the same or even similiar, in fact, totally different algorithms, only similarity was run-time efficiency.
I remember seeing a speech by Andy Grove about Intel's business model. Basically that intel puts huge investment and thus huge risk into each new processor version and that failure was not an option as it would destroy the companies ability to continue innovating.
Well, here we are today with this story about Dell, and then there's the story about Microsoft not supporting Itanium, and then theres the news that Intel stopped development on the 4ghz processors (essentially admitting failure of their technology model). The real nail in the coffin is that AMDs processors are not only cheaper, but they are faster and run cooler.
In the bigger picture, this is the next step in the commodization of computers. This process is making them cheap as toilet paper, but it is also a harbinger of end of rapid innovation and perhaps even the end of moores law. This should be expected as its the natural progression of any product.
Once Intel in marginalized, Microsoft must be soon to follow?