It's also worth noting that the Titan has a lot of NVIDIA chips too, so it's not 100% AMD either, and I don't know where either of those is made. Likely china I suppose.
I found some data on watts. It looks like the chinese computer is 16MW and the Titan is 8MW. So it appears they are using lower power, slower CPUs on the SHenWei. Overall this means they are getting better petaflops per watt than the US computer. Thus I was incorrect in saying it was pointless brute force. They are one the way to lower gigaflops/watt.
Other than the singular purpose of doing the rare but interesting exascale problem the real utility of figuring out how to build exascale is to figure out how to build petascale cheaply on the "desktop". DOE's target for exascale is a scalable architecture that will sip mere megawatts of enegy this means that when they get there petawatt will be of the order of magnitude of 10KW. in other words, something easily power by a car engine. it will mean that petascale will be ubiquitous. Every hospital could have one in their basement.
the Titan super computer at oakridge has 299,008 cores and 18petaflops. if they built 5 of these they could hit 91 petaflops with 1.5 million cores. That's ten time fewer than the chinese super computer requires.
Now cores ain't everything. ultimately it's petaflops per watt but I don't have those statistics so I'm using cores as a proxy. I will admit that there is a school of thought in computer that having a lot of slow low power cores may be better than fewer fast high power cores whenever the bottleneck is memory bandwidth. And since I don't know the chinese architecture I don't know if that's what they are doing here.
Nonethe less. for mere factors of 10, brute forcing is always possible and doesn't really advance the state of the art--- that is, you cant scale that to factors of 1000 by brute force. You have to drop the power per petawatt to get anywhere. Scaling up to more cores can even be counter productive for any problem involving long range coupling between cores. Thus while it gets you more embarassingly paralell flops it doesn't get you better calculations on real problems.
Perfect for the internet of things. Now rather than just an egg timer I can have a battery power super computer in my salt shaker that does a finite element simulation of the egg in boiling water, going beep and the perfect moment. The toaster will be able to insult me in the kings english or the emporer's mandarin.
And orange Pi is planning to make a board with one of these that only runs on one of the 1000 cores, and no stable OS.
This thing is I suspect suited for programs that parallelize and have little interprocess communication and run in small memory. Why do I know this? because if each processor had a large memory and an infiniband backplane it would melt. Thus you could update your facebook status on all 1000 dummy accounts for example. Or compute pi or chug bitcoins.
so called "fair tax" is really stupid zealotry. First I think everyone realizes a flat tax starting from the very first dollar you earn isn't adequately progressive. So what do the "fair" tax apologists do? well they offer a rebate or large deduction so the poorer folks effectively pay less in the end. So now it's a progressive tax. Well if you are going to add in one tier then why not add in more tiers. A "fair" tax is merely a progressive tax with one knee in it. That doesn't make it better. If there is any argument for the first knee then there is an argument for many knees. People pushing this are just having a purity contest.
Your reaction is knee jerk. If one has a pre-bate or some sort of compensation then the regressiveness of the consumption tax goes away and the net result can be progressive. Furthermore consumption taxes don't have to be uniform. One oculd for example remove them on food. many states do that. Only so much food you can eat. So that makes it progressive since the poor person gets tax relief on a larger part of their purchases.
All that is to say they don't have to be regressive but they are if you don't mitigate them in some way.
The headline makes it sound a bit more radical than it is.
First his beef with the NSA is domestic spying. He says he'd still have "the sattelites" but make sure they were outward looking not domestic. By "sattelites" I am fairly sure he's using that as a proxy for all the NSA does in scooping domestic intelligence. And after all isn't that exactly what gets slashdotter's all uppity. The things that Snowden pointed out? So really for slashdot this is bowling a strike.
Second, a federal consumption tax. Now normally a consumption tax is regressive: if you spend your whole pay check, as a poor person, then you are paying a greater share of the tax. That's not quite as bad as it sounds. Even if you have a progressive income tax, Where people richer than you or corporations pay income taxes they want higher wages or higher margins and so it drives up the cost of the poor person's consumables. You can make a consumption tax somewhat anti-regressive by making any residual income taxes more progressive. I don't know if Johnston is planning such compensation. I'd like to see his numbers. But I'm not going to flatly reject it.
Eliminatine the dept of education? Well as long as states can manage it, okay. I'm sure congress will tie the fed kickback to the states to educational standards so things won't go to hell in mississippi or texas.
Their claim, to my ears, is even more ludicrous than the EM drive itself. What they say is that if two photons co-propogate with opposite phase they exist in the sense of carrying momentum and energy but they can't intereact with anything like say the wall. Isn't his bananas? the dark nodes of an interference pattern don't contain any ray-like photons. they seem to be saying it does. Now one can argue what's a photon? ie. can we really talk about ray-like photons (photons going along an axis), or do we need to talk about full 3D modes which are the eigen modes of the cavity. However in either case this seems bananas to me. if two photons are canceling it's the same as no photons. the energy didn't disappear, it just was reflected at the time you injected the second photon. you do not get two photons co-propagating out of phase like they claim.
I don't quite see why they have to be forced to do this. It would be better if they didn't have to do it by regulation. Isn't there an advantage to making their services more customizable and accessible by third party apps? Are they affraid of things like slignbox or soemthing?
If you recall F541 by ray bradbury you may recall the sad social life of the fireman's wife who lived in a room with four video walls and interacted with her facebook "freinds" / soap operas. Text was not used, indeed it was burned.
Your logic does not follow. The top-100's total plays are an infinitessimal fraction of the total youtube usage. One cannot look at that and say that there isn't a lot of pirated usage. Furthermore, is the criteria "most" usage has to be pirated to declare it a problem?
Never mind all of the car reviews, device reviews, musical gear reviews, prank shoes, and tutorials people watch on there............no, it's all about "his" stolen music.
Well if it were really about all you say then there would be no need for them to steal other people's content. and yet they very plainly do. Indeed their efforts to get more serious about policing it have sort of proven the point. Consider how many times in the last week you have read some article that was illustrated with a video from you tube and when you ctry to watch it it, it says "this content is no longer available". Clearly most of the interesting things on Youtube are things that came from copyright theft. Your car reviews don't get millions of hits.
Why is it that shopping with a shopping cart and real shelves is so much easier and more pleasant than scrolling through most stores list of products on line. I've shopped food stores online, hardware stores online, which have real world analogs for direct comparison. All of these are okay if you know exactly what you are looking for and they have a tolerable search engine. But it terms of going down the isles and selecting new things or being reminded of old things and getting ideas for new creations stores are efficient I think.
I suppose you could let someone walk through a virtual store like a first person shooter. But Somehow that doesn't appeal to me.
I think however an oculous might be able to recreate a true 3D store experience.
They won't sue first because it doesn't look or feel like scratch and second because the whole point of it is help kids learn and either would be a success.
Now please says "MacOS Sierra Siri" 5 times fast. I can't believe they went from an easy soft vocalization of "Oh ESS ECHS" to MAK AWS. You don't put a soft word like Sierra after MacOS you need an assonant word like Tomhawk or KillerKlown. Then you change the name of Siri to something like Zika.
The thing is if it's not a first class entity then you can't really base anything durable on it. If *nix updates you know for sure that bash and perl are going to work. But if windows updates or the straberry maitainers slack off then your whole code base could be munched if you invested in perl and things break it. Similarly having a dozen different ways to install perl will lead to divergences. Thus it needs a reference installation platform that can't ever fail.
My pet theory of why Perl has lost favor to Python is that it's really a unix language. You can run it on a windows box but only with a lot of effort to install and to maintain it. It seems to me that Perl could be more successful if one could get it adopted intrinsically into the Windows environment. A common, mistaken, lament about perl is all the sigils that make it look like swearing. But those actually add meaning (I can tell what's an array, a reference, a glob, or a scalar) and they are familiar to bash users. But one can see how windows users aren't steeped in this so perl gets a bad rap. If Microsoft were to distribute an app that ran a perl shell with all the first class privileges their own shells have Perl would be widely adopted as a superior do-it-all administration language.
Yes it's this arbitrage around the law that is exactly the issue. it shows up in other ways. The pure Food and drink act, pharmaceutical quality, and other protections are circumvented when vendors outside the country can mail their products into the country.
Aliexpress and Ebay would lose a lot of sellers if there were a way to enforce the accurate marking of Customs duties on the outside of the millions of e-packet shipments from china direct to consumers.
It's a puzzle whether one should give up enforcing anything, say it's broken by the disruption of the internet, or crack down.
Uber is an interesting case mainly because it is possible to crackdown.
The contrary argument is a more subtle one. Many markets are strangled by regulations. Take in point google's entry into the underworld of payday lending. What' their first move? to push for legislation to regulate payday lending, and to ban payday lending ads on their own site. Megacorps actually love expensive regulations because it creates barriers to market entry that can only be solved by sheer size of operations to ammortize the administration costs. The taxi cab companies thus have an entrenched position created by the regulations they must obey.
Yet taken individually those regs protect consumers. Yet what they protect against may be an edge case. e.g. background checks may not really be effective or necessary for nearly every driver. On the otherhand they probably do weed out a very tiny number of people who shouldn't be entrusted with passenger safety.
Then there's the grey transition zone between carpooling, hitchhiking, and uber. That probably can be figured out with a brightline formula to make this less gray. But until that happens Uber has a wedge and an appeal to personal enterpirse and sticking it to the large entrenched companies, and the city-renenue machines of taxi taxes.
Slashdot Mirror
It's also worth noting that the Titan has a lot of NVIDIA chips too, so it's not 100% AMD either, and I don't know where either of those is made. Likely china I suppose.
I found some data on watts. It looks like the chinese computer is 16MW and the Titan is 8MW. So it appears they are using lower power, slower CPUs on the SHenWei. Overall this means they are getting better petaflops per watt than the US computer. Thus I was incorrect in saying it was pointless brute force. They are one the way to lower gigaflops/watt.
Other than the singular purpose of doing the rare but interesting exascale problem the real utility of figuring out how to build exascale is to figure out how to build petascale cheaply on the "desktop". DOE's target for exascale is a scalable architecture that will sip mere megawatts of enegy this means that when they get there petawatt will be of the order of magnitude of 10KW. in other words, something easily power by a car engine. it will mean that petascale will be ubiquitous. Every hospital could have one in their basement.
the Titan super computer at oakridge has 299,008 cores and 18petaflops. if they built 5 of these they could hit 91 petaflops with 1.5 million cores. That's ten time fewer than the chinese super computer requires.
Now cores ain't everything. ultimately it's petaflops per watt but I don't have those statistics so I'm using cores as a proxy. I will admit that there is a school of thought in computer that having a lot of slow low power cores may be better than fewer fast high power cores whenever the bottleneck is memory bandwidth. And since I don't know the chinese architecture I don't know if that's what they are doing here.
Nonethe less. for mere factors of 10, brute forcing is always possible and doesn't really advance the state of the art--- that is, you cant scale that to factors of 1000 by brute force. You have to drop the power per petawatt to get anywhere. Scaling up to more cores can even be counter productive for any problem involving long range coupling between cores. Thus while it gets you more embarassingly paralell flops it doesn't get you better calculations on real problems.
Perfect for the internet of things. Now rather than just an egg timer I can have a battery power super computer in my salt shaker that does a finite element simulation of the egg in boiling water, going beep and the perfect moment. The toaster will be able to insult me in the kings english or the emporer's mandarin.
And orange Pi is planning to make a board with one of these that only runs on one of the 1000 cores, and no stable OS.
This thing is I suspect suited for programs that parallelize and have little interprocess communication and run in small memory. Why do I know this? because if each processor had a large memory and an infiniband backplane it would melt. Thus you could update your facebook status on all 1000 dummy accounts for example. Or compute pi or chug bitcoins.
Surely Javascript gets sent to the browser. And doesn't the browser prevent it accessing the file system?
When it was submitted apple still had a 1 button mouse.
except that rich people don't buy their bentleys. They lease them to avoid the tax.
so called "fair tax" is really stupid zealotry. First I think everyone realizes a flat tax starting from the very first dollar you earn isn't adequately progressive. So what do the "fair" tax apologists do? well they offer a rebate or large deduction so the poorer folks effectively pay less in the end. So now it's a progressive tax. Well if you are going to add in one tier then why not add in more tiers. A "fair" tax is merely a progressive tax with one knee in it. That doesn't make it better. If there is any argument for the first knee then there is an argument for many knees. People pushing this are just having a purity contest.
Your reaction is knee jerk. If one has a pre-bate or some sort of compensation then the regressiveness of the consumption tax goes away and the net result can be progressive. Furthermore consumption taxes don't have to be uniform. One oculd for example remove them on food. many states do that. Only so much food you can eat. So that makes it progressive since the poor person gets tax relief on a larger part of their purchases.
All that is to say they don't have to be regressive but they are if you don't mitigate them in some way.
The headline makes it sound a bit more radical than it is.
First his beef with the NSA is domestic spying. He says he'd still have "the sattelites" but make sure they were outward looking not domestic. By "sattelites" I am fairly sure he's using that as a proxy for all the NSA does in scooping domestic intelligence. And after all isn't that exactly what gets slashdotter's all uppity. The things that Snowden pointed out? So really for slashdot this is bowling a strike.
Second, a federal consumption tax. Now normally a consumption tax is regressive: if you spend your whole pay check, as a poor person, then you are paying a greater share of the tax. That's not quite as bad as it sounds. Even if you have a progressive income tax, Where people richer than you or corporations pay income taxes they want higher wages or higher margins and so it drives up the cost of the poor person's consumables. You can make a consumption tax somewhat anti-regressive by making any residual income taxes more progressive. I don't know if Johnston is planning such compensation. I'd like to see his numbers. But I'm not going to flatly reject it.
Eliminatine the dept of education? Well as long as states can manage it, okay. I'm sure congress will tie the fed kickback to the states to educational standards so things won't go to hell in mississippi or texas.
Their claim, to my ears, is even more ludicrous than the EM drive itself. What they say is that if two photons co-propogate with opposite phase they exist in the sense of carrying momentum and energy but they can't intereact with anything like say the wall. Isn't his bananas? the dark nodes of an interference pattern don't contain any ray-like photons. they seem to be saying it does. Now one can argue what's a photon? ie. can we really talk about ray-like photons (photons going along an axis), or do we need to talk about full 3D modes which are the eigen modes of the cavity. However in either case this seems bananas to me. if two photons are canceling it's the same as no photons. the energy didn't disappear, it just was reflected at the time you injected the second photon. you do not get two photons co-propagating out of phase like they claim.
Some one please explain this seeming madness.
I don't quite see why they have to be forced to do this. It would be better if they didn't have to do it by regulation. Isn't there an advantage to making their services more customizable and accessible by third party apps? Are they affraid of things like slignbox or soemthing?
If you recall F541 by ray bradbury you may recall the sad social life of the fireman's wife who lived in a room with four video walls and interacted with her facebook "freinds" / soap operas. Text was not used, indeed it was burned.
Okay mr Nitpicker, please note that I said "millions" as in multiple millions. You didn't name any with multiple millions so I nit pick back.
Your logic does not follow. The top-100's total plays are an infinitessimal fraction of the total youtube usage. One cannot look at that and say that there isn't a lot of pirated usage. Furthermore, is the criteria "most" usage has to be pirated to declare it a problem?
Never mind all of the car reviews, device reviews, musical gear reviews, prank shoes, and tutorials people watch on there............no, it's all about "his" stolen music.
Well if it were really about all you say then there would be no need for them to steal other people's content. and yet they very plainly do. Indeed their efforts to get more serious about policing it have sort of proven the point. Consider how many times in the last week you have read some article that was illustrated with a video from you tube and when you ctry to watch it it, it says "this content is no longer available". Clearly most of the interesting things on Youtube are things that came from copyright theft. Your car reviews don't get millions of hits.
Why is it that shopping with a shopping cart and real shelves is so much easier and more pleasant than scrolling through most stores list of products on line. I've shopped food stores online, hardware stores online, which have real world analogs for direct comparison. All of these are okay if you know exactly what you are looking for and they have a tolerable search engine. But it terms of going down the isles and selecting new things or being reminded of old things and getting ideas for new creations stores are efficient I think.
I suppose you could let someone walk through a virtual store like a first person shooter. But Somehow that doesn't appeal to me.
I think however an oculous might be able to recreate a true 3D store experience.
You think that's undignified? For a Jumbo Loan they require a Goatse pose.
They won't sue first because it doesn't look or feel like scratch and second because the whole point of it is help kids learn and either would be a success.
Now please says "MacOS Sierra Siri" 5 times fast. I can't believe they went from an easy soft vocalization of "Oh ESS ECHS" to MAK AWS. You don't put a soft word like Sierra after MacOS you need an assonant word like Tomhawk or KillerKlown. Then you change the name of Siri to something like Zika.
Bad move.
Perl has quite a large back catalog too. And it offers cross system compatibility unlike .net.
The thing is if it's not a first class entity then you can't really base anything durable on it. If *nix updates you know for sure that bash and perl are going to work. But if windows updates or the straberry maitainers slack off then your whole code base could be munched if you invested in perl and things break it. Similarly having a dozen different ways to install perl will lead to divergences. Thus it needs a reference installation platform that can't ever fail.
My pet theory of why Perl has lost favor to Python is that it's really a unix language. You can run it on a windows box but only with a lot of effort to install and to maintain it. It seems to me that Perl could be more successful if one could get it adopted intrinsically into the Windows environment. A common, mistaken, lament about perl is all the sigils that make it look like swearing. But those actually add meaning (I can tell what's an array, a reference, a glob, or a scalar) and they are familiar to bash users. But one can see how windows users aren't steeped in this so perl gets a bad rap. If Microsoft were to distribute an app that ran a perl shell with all the first class privileges their own shells have Perl would be widely adopted as a superior do-it-all administration language.
Thoughts?
40% smaller in volume translates to 16% smaller in each dimension. Whoo hoo!! that's so exciting.
Yes it's this arbitrage around the law that is exactly the issue. it shows up in other ways. The pure Food and drink act, pharmaceutical quality, and other protections are circumvented when vendors outside the country can mail their products into the country.
Aliexpress and Ebay would lose a lot of sellers if there were a way to enforce the accurate marking of Customs duties on the outside of the millions of e-packet shipments from china direct to consumers.
It's a puzzle whether one should give up enforcing anything, say it's broken by the disruption of the internet, or crack down.
Uber is an interesting case mainly because it is possible to crackdown.
The contrary argument is a more subtle one. Many markets are strangled by regulations. Take in point google's entry into the underworld of payday lending. What' their first move? to push for legislation to regulate payday lending, and to ban payday lending ads on their own site. Megacorps actually love expensive regulations because it creates barriers to market entry that can only be solved by sheer size of operations to ammortize the administration costs. The taxi cab companies thus have an entrenched position created by the regulations they must obey.
Yet taken individually those regs protect consumers. Yet what they protect against may be an edge case. e.g. background checks may not really be effective or necessary for nearly every driver. On the otherhand they probably do weed out a very tiny number of people who shouldn't be entrusted with passenger safety.
Then there's the grey transition zone between carpooling, hitchhiking, and uber. That probably can be figured out with a brightline formula to make this less gray. But until that happens Uber has a wedge and an appeal to personal enterpirse and sticking it to the large entrenched companies, and the city-renenue machines of taxi taxes.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CA...