Notice I said consultant. He's just a math heavy-lifting person. You still need the engineering input to generate an engineering package.
I've also been there. When a real world problem gets handed to math dudes it can soon lose its relationship to reality. Theoretical math often requires a bunch of assumptions which are inconsistent with the real world.
In the old days, the bandwidth of mathematicians was limited by how fast they could do computations. Thus, if you worked in a field that required mathematics then you had to be able to crank your own math.
These days it is far easier to use computers etc as a multiplier; one mathematician can be used to do a lot more. For example, one mathematician can work as a consultant to an organisation that develops some stress analysis package/library etc and thousands of structural engineers can use that work without having to personally crank the math.
To know when to use which math tools does need some level of math skills, but far less than actually doing the stuff yourself.
We have a multi-hundred MHz ARM in a cell phone/PDA these days, with a display controller and a bunch of peripherals built in to the same chip. That's enough to do an EEEPC - perhaps using q bit more RAM than is standard in a phone.
If you were really keen you could stuff a few extra 1x2inch ARM cards in the box and have a Beowulf cluster in a sub-laptop box.
The sub-notebook is nothing new. I have an old Psion7 (http://newth.net/psion7/index.html) that must be 6 or seven years old now. It was a bit slow, but only had a 100MHz StrongARM CPU. A re-jig with a modern 600MHz+ ARM would fly!
Linux and ARM are great partners. There are probably more ARM Linux systems than x86 Linux systems (if you count all those ARM Linux cell phones as systems).
The only valid reason to design in x86 these days is to run Windows. ARM is lower wattage and cheaper. Once you look at whole systems costs (battery etc) ARM comes out streets ahead. Most OSS can be readily redeployed on ARM. There is even an ARM Ubuntu.
WinCE is a very limited architecture and has no support for SMP etc. It is basically a toy version of Windows.
"Realistic" is not a word that you can use to describe games. Most military activity is "hurry up and wait", sitting around doing fuck all for days, or standing on sentry duty/patrolling getting bored out of your mind. Nobody would buy a realistic computer game because it would be too boring. Imagine a game that you played for 2 hours and did not even see the enemy or shoot a single round.
A huge problem is that young psyched up soldiers go crazy with boredom and start getting lax. A huge percentage of casualties are due more to screwing around, or not following safety procedures, than to enemy action. But nobody wants to send mom a letter saying that Jimbob shot his dumb self when playing the fool with his rifle so instead they get sent back a letter saying something about "hero".
Then, when the shit does hit the fan (the stuff that happens in video games), things get a bit intense for a while, then settle down again. Often though, the troops are bored, gotten lax, and are not ready for the attack so get hit far harder than they should have if they'd been following their training.
Video gaming can help with the action stuff, but can't really help with the other stuff.
Want to crunch numbers, then Fortran is better than C. Even Java is better since it gives stronger type checking. Python is probably good too (but maybe a touch slow).
Just like they say "Don't give a programmer a soldering iron", giving physicists something like C is probably giving them more than they need for most number crunching.
Yesterday I spent a long time trying to swat a fly. The little bastard was extremely effective at self preservation. Now most people would argue that a fly does not think, but it is clearly able to perform some sort of precessing.
Computer thought is probably no more advanced than that of a bug. Mars rovers etc can only executed canned move sequences and don't operate autonomously. Some robots etc are more autonomous, but are still pretty limited when it comes to any biological equivalent.
As much as people have been predicting thinking machines for the last 60 years or so, the reality is a lot less impressive.
The blogging bit is a red herring used by the summary writer to attract eyeballs: poor NASA person got suspended just for blogging! OMG!!!. He actually got hammered for violating the Hatch Act and the blogging itself is irrelevant.
Silly analogy: "Person gets arrested for buying knife", but the real facts are that the person got arrested for stabbing someone with that knife.
Likely there is really a story behind the story: He has probably pissed off the boss numerous times and they've been waiting for him to commit some act that they can stick him with.
Slashdot Mirror
I've also been there. When a real world problem gets handed to math dudes it can soon lose its relationship to reality. Theoretical math often requires a bunch of assumptions which are inconsistent with the real world.
than others
GWB: Now I'm shitting my pants!
Specific details help to build a strong mental image. That's why authors will go to great lengths to describe characters and scenes.
WinCE is also targetted at other functions such as set top boxes etc. where SMP is could be very handy.
These days it is far easier to use computers etc as a multiplier; one mathematician can be used to do a lot more. For example, one mathematician can work as a consultant to an organisation that develops some stress analysis package/library etc and thousands of structural engineers can use that work without having to personally crank the math.
To know when to use which math tools does need some level of math skills, but far less than actually doing the stuff yourself.
It helps to put a very precise face on it.
If you were really keen you could stuff a few extra 1x2inch ARM cards in the box and have a Beowulf cluster in a sub-laptop box.
The sub-notebook is nothing new. I have an old Psion7 (http://newth.net/psion7/index.html) that must be 6 or seven years old now. It was a bit slow, but only had a 100MHz StrongARM CPU. A re-jig with a modern 600MHz+ ARM would fly!
No SMP in sight, not even in the emulator. If you know differently, I'd like to know.
The only valid reason to design in x86 these days is to run Windows. ARM is lower wattage and cheaper. Once you look at whole systems costs (battery etc) ARM comes out streets ahead. Most OSS can be readily redeployed on ARM. There is even an ARM Ubuntu.
WinCE is a very limited architecture and has no support for SMP etc. It is basically a toy version of Windows.
Version 2)Let's pump up MSFT. I'm selling some.
Like 4. Tower of Quattro.
It takes but a second to remove an SD card.
I don't think I'll be sending my resume.
she needs a bigger one.
Pointing and clicking is easy for some stuff, but the command line is still king for many purposes.
Embrace, extend,.... now wait for it.
They're too small, relative to the wavelength, to hear. So how can they be dancing to it ?
A huge problem is that young psyched up soldiers go crazy with boredom and start getting lax. A huge percentage of casualties are due more to screwing around, or not following safety procedures, than to enemy action. But nobody wants to send mom a letter saying that Jimbob shot his dumb self when playing the fool with his rifle so instead they get sent back a letter saying something about "hero".
Then, when the shit does hit the fan (the stuff that happens in video games), things get a bit intense for a while, then settle down again. Often though, the troops are bored, gotten lax, and are not ready for the attack so get hit far harder than they should have if they'd been following their training.
Video gaming can help with the action stuff, but can't really help with the other stuff.
"What I wish I'd thought of when I still had a body that could do it"
Just like they say "Don't give a programmer a soldering iron", giving physicists something like C is probably giving them more than they need for most number crunching.
That would fail your "Was any child actually harmed..." clause, but is that OK?
Computer thought is probably no more advanced than that of a bug. Mars rovers etc can only executed canned move sequences and don't operate autonomously. Some robots etc are more autonomous, but are still pretty limited when it comes to any biological equivalent.
As much as people have been predicting thinking machines for the last 60 years or so, the reality is a lot less impressive.
Silly analogy: "Person gets arrested for buying knife", but the real facts are that the person got arrested for stabbing someone with that knife.
Likely there is really a story behind the story: He has probably pissed off the boss numerous times and they've been waiting for him to commit some act that they can stick him with.
Like meat variety researchers.
If they wanted to, they could have very easily tracked card number, and thereby person buying, with ticket info.