If bandwidth is finite, serializing downloads means one finishes first, and can be used while the others download.
No. If you run all of the downloads in parallel then one of them still finishes first and can be used while the others finish off.
Also, when the available bandwidth per-stream is lower than the available bandwidth per-link it is quicker to run the downloads in parallel. Lastly, when the total bandwidth across all the streams is still less than the link (which is frequently true) then the sequential time of each is unaffected by running them in parallel, but the total time is greatly reduced.
I think that you underestimate the value of soft modes of failure, particularly in maintaining quality standards. Examiners are human and it is much easier to say "not yet" than it is to say "and you're out of here".
What do you use it for? If you are plugging secure data into an untrusted box it seems that you have no defense against something on the box simply reading all of the data. For example if Spotlight indexes the drive then it has leaked data immediately.
Mostly. It would start with interesting ideas and strongly developed characters that tell an interesting story of our time. Sadly by the time the final curtain drops in the desert outside of Las Vegas we will all be convinced that the story ran its course long ago and that the untimely appearance of the hand of god himself to trigger a nuclear detonation is the sad work of a creative mind all spent. In short the main problem that it would cause is that the extra 300 pages of padding cannot hide the lack of a good ending.
Take a look at filmon.com, they stream all of the free to air channels as well as a few others. The SD feed is ok quality for free, or they have a subscription service for a HD stream. I think that it is a legal service, they have some information about paying channel providers on their website, but they have been sued before and there might be one case still pending.
You seem to have a strange difficulty in thinking. The internet may be a "GLOBAL" area, but this is not the internet. This is a small part of the internet called slashdot that has an explicit english language bias.
I would assume that the japanese can speak english well, it is the dominant world language after all.
I see your point: on an english speaking forum I should always think in the context of forums outside the english speaking world. Sure. Totally. Makes perfect sense.
You've made a long and complex argument that the transistor density is low by comparing it against other types of chips. The density is limited by heat dissipation. A DRAM only accesses a few bits at a time so even accounting for refresh something like thousands of those billions of transistors are active at the same time. In a GPU most of the transistors are for processing paths that will be used in parallel, and many separate memories that will be accessed independently. Orders of magnitude more transistors will be active at the same time resulting in a lower density design. When the controlling factor for density is the application of the chip it does not make sense to compare to other types of chips, where the applications allow higher densities.
I'm curious about your last comment. Nobody knows exactly what the reticule limits for current foundries are as they are trade secrets. The comment in the summary about being close to this limit was clearly hyperbole, but what makes you so sure that it is wrong?
Why wait? Can't you put some money in a high-interest long-term account and just stick an advert in something that will get archived, say Craig's list.
Maybe it is not as simple as pick zero / one / two. The purposes of writing software for research and engineering software for reuse are so different that it doesn't make sense to try and compare them. Going back to the summary:
What many academic researchers fail to understand is that this specialization problem is not unique to research projects. Most software developers will seek to provide an adequate solution to their specific problem, as quickly as possible. They don't seek to build a perfect, all-purpose, tool set that can be reused in every conceivable circumstance.
No. What the author of the article fails to understand is that software is not the point of research - it is a side-effect, and I say that as someone whose field is CS. We do not write software in academia because we want the software - we simply want the data about its behaviour that we can get from it. It doesn't matter if business / hobbyists / academics have in common an approach that builds software for the least effort. In the first two cases the software is being written because there is a need for it to be used. In the latter case it simply needs to exist in some form long enough for some data to be collected and then it is obsolete. This difference is purpose is so vast that it renders the rest of the argument in the article as not even wrong.
This system creates the illusion of intelligence. We know from fMRI that "free will" does not exist and that "thoughts" are the brain's mechanism for justifying past actions whilst modifying the logic to reduce errors in future - a variant on back-propagation. Real-time intelligence (thinking before acting) doesn't exist in humans or any other known creature, so you won't build it by mimicking humans.
So how do you account for effortful thought or planning? It is true to say that there is no thinking before reacting, but to claim that there is no thought before action is absurd - how do you explain extended endeavours such as writing a book over the course of a year? That must be one hell of a chain of unlikely events that caused that number of reactions, which were combined without thought to produce a coherent written narrative.
Your other claims that memories do not exist and are synthesised on demand are interesting - do you have any references?
Slashdot Mirror
Do you know why the target bandwidth for USR (15Gb) is lower than the bandwidth for SR (28Gb)?
It seems strange that they would not take advantage of the shorter distance to increase the transfer speed.
Obligitory grammar nitpick: surely you mean play too loose?
No. If you run all of the downloads in parallel then one of them still finishes first and can be used while the others finish off.
Also, when the available bandwidth per-stream is lower than the available bandwidth per-link it is quicker to run the downloads in parallel. Lastly, when the total bandwidth across all the streams is still less than the link (which is frequently true) then the sequential time of each is unaffected by running them in parallel, but the total time is greatly reduced.
I think that you underestimate the value of soft modes of failure, particularly in maintaining quality standards. Examiners are human and it is much easier to say "not yet" than it is to say "and you're out of here".
So it really is like AIDS, Cancer or Death?
Thanks for the reply - that's a really interesting use for them.
What do you use it for? If you are plugging secure data into an untrusted box it seems that you have no defense against something on the box simply reading all of the data. For example if Spotlight indexes the drive then it has leaked data immediately.
Mostly. It would start with interesting ideas and strongly developed characters that tell an interesting story of our time. Sadly by the time the final curtain drops in the desert outside of Las Vegas we will all be convinced that the story ran its course long ago and that the untimely appearance of the hand of god himself to trigger a nuclear detonation is the sad work of a creative mind all spent. In short the main problem that it would cause is that the extra 300 pages of padding cannot hide the lack of a good ending.
Take a look at filmon.com, they stream all of the free to air channels as well as a few others. The SD feed is ok quality for free, or they have a subscription service for a HD stream. I think that it is a legal service, they have some information about paying channel providers on their website, but they have been sued before and there might be one case still pending.
You seem to have a strange difficulty in thinking. The internet may be a "GLOBAL" area, but this is not the internet. This is a small part of the internet called slashdot that has an explicit english language bias.
I would assume that the japanese can speak english well, it is the dominant world language after all.
I see your point: on an english speaking forum I should always think in the context of forums outside the english speaking world. Sure. Totally. Makes perfect sense.
You've made a long and complex argument that the transistor density is low by comparing it against other types of chips. The density is limited by heat dissipation. A DRAM only accesses a few bits at a time so even accounting for refresh something like thousands of those billions of transistors are active at the same time. In a GPU most of the transistors are for processing paths that will be used in parallel, and many separate memories that will be accessed independently. Orders of magnitude more transistors will be active at the same time resulting in a lower density design. When the controlling factor for density is the application of the chip it does not make sense to compare to other types of chips, where the applications allow higher densities.
I'm curious about your last comment. Nobody knows exactly what the reticule limits for current foundries are as they are trade secrets. The comment in the summary about being close to this limit was clearly hyperbole, but what makes you so sure that it is wrong?
Why wait? Can't you put some money in a high-interest long-term account and just stick an advert in something that will get archived, say Craig's list.
Not even close. Out of the hundreds of games available for the platform there are only a handful that use 1080p. Full details here.
There would be plenty of money to be had. Short their stock before forcing a product recall.
Being unable to undo single moderations still sucks. Especially when overrated is next to funny in the dropdown.
But.. but... he saved every one of us!
So just a seven character file with File:/// then? :)
On slashdot "most of the world" is a synonym for America. It's like, in the faqs and stuff dude.
Why do you think that source control should be an audit of what each person did, rather than a view of how the software got to its current state?
Yes - posts written in the middle of the night are not entirely coherent :)
Maybe it is not as simple as pick zero / one / two. The purposes of writing software for research and engineering software for reuse are so different that it doesn't make sense to try and compare them. Going back to the summary:
No. What the author of the article fails to understand is that software is not the point of research - it is a side-effect, and I say that as someone whose field is CS. We do not write software in academia because we want the software - we simply want the data about its behaviour that we can get from it. It doesn't matter if business / hobbyists / academics have in common an approach that builds software for the least effort. In the first two cases the software is being written because there is a need for it to be used. In the latter case it simply needs to exist in some form long enough for some data to be collected and then it is obsolete. This difference is purpose is so vast that it renders the rest of the argument in the article as not even wrong.
The period is directly proportional to the loveliness of a summer's day, perchance?
So how do you account for effortful thought or planning? It is true to say that there is no thinking before reacting, but to claim that there is no thought before action is absurd - how do you explain extended endeavours such as writing a book over the course of a year? That must be one hell of a chain of unlikely events that caused that number of reactions, which were combined without thought to produce a coherent written narrative.
Your other claims that memories do not exist and are synthesised on demand are interesting - do you have any references?
Very apt - the ambiguity is delicious.