You keep refering to "anecdotal evidence" as evidence. It is only evidence that a) a single office has macs with a lifespan that long and b) your family has macs with a lifespan that long. The whole point with anecdotal evidence is that it is not evidence that the lifespan of macs in the marketplace is normally that long.
This announcement was brought to you by the board of pendantic criticism.
PS I've had my PC for about 8 years. It's had a couple of new motherboards, a new case, new harddrives, many processors and several videocards. Does this datapoint prove anything?
I can't believe that I'm arguing grammar with an AC but:
to transpire: to become known
When the surveillance cameras videoed the crime it is possible that this was the moment it became known. It depends on whether the cameras were live CCTV being played to a guard, or simply taping the incident for later. So it's not clearly wrong.
Godel would disagree with you. And if I have to choose between one of the great minds of the 20th century and an AC on slashdot - I'm going with with Godel on this one.
Nicely put. While none of the piles (we'll go with yours rather than mine as your explanation was better) are "right", some of them can contain proven things. You just have to remember that all proofs are relative to base assumptions. So you are correct that nothing can be proven completey, but it is safe to say that within certain paradigms (in the original sense) we can make proofs.
No it doesn't. Reread his comment and try again. He says that we will "probably" be able to prove it. So it's not in the pile of things that definitely can't be proven, or in the pile that definitely can be proven. It's in the third pile - todo. The comparison was with religion which is squarely in the first pile.
Yes of course they tested them for 5 million hours, after all it's only 570 years. Don't you know your ancient history? The legend of Intelia and their flashious memerious from 1437AD?
True, but that isn't really the target market. These are aimed at 0-emmision satellite replacements. Think of a solar power plane at 100k feet as a mini-satellite with a reduced coverage area. The market is telecoms (lower latency) and spy-work. The NASA version has a mixture of solar panels and fuel cells so that it can charge during the day and then use the power to keep up during the night.
Nope. That was my point, the new interface has moderation buttons that disapear after use. The only way that I could find to undo moderation was to post a comment.
Bloody moderation system. These new buttons have no way to cancel a moderation. I misclicked Insightful and hit Funny instead, so this post should at least undo it...
So the cell is the master... and it communicates through the ring. Sort of like the ring is in charge here... hmmm and there's only one ring. No, I thought there was an obvious joke but it's gone.
HAM wasn't really about saving memory. The graphics hardware was palettized (new word!) so there was a hard limit on the on-screen colours. Hold And Modify was a nice hack that used the beam-position interrupt in the copper chip to reprogram the palette on the fly.
The reason that we don't have a standard plugin socket for processors is that the chips would become a commodity. As the chip companies design the sockets it is in their interest to maintain incompatible versions. If I could just buy a "standard motherboard" rather than deciding from the ground up whether it should be Intel or AMD then the chip decision would come down to simple cost (or at least cost/performance). Keeping the sockets clashing means that OEMS are tied into a particular company for a particular line - otherwise they have to redesign the machine.
It is a nice pipedream though. Buying a 8x "standard" board and then filling it with a mixture of vector processors, x86 chips and other exotic possibilities.
While your point is largely valid, you have to remember that all of those subsidiary energy costs are amortized over a large number of items, not just one that you're calculating the cost of. Those people that were fed and clothed - they would have been either way. But yeah, it's just a nitpick really the headline cost of an item is not the whole story
The principle is the same although the practice is different. Each integration accumulates error, so adding the extra layer degrades the performance.
These ideas aren't new and have been knocking around for a while. The article sounds a little like hype / ego-wanking, but then again IEEE Spectrum articles normally are. There is a ton of work on "sensor fusion". The basic idea is to take several low-grade position sources and then fuse them together to create a (hopefully) high-accuracy position source. The robotics and wearables communities have been looking at this for many years. One nice approach is combinng the sensor inputs in a Kalman filter which does actually create a higher accuracy signal than any individual source.
As far as the claims about 3d gyroscopes being the next big thing when they are reduced in size - we saw a demo of a commerically available product about two years ago. It is a 1cm cube that intergrates several accelerometers and gyroscopes to provide a dead-reckoning position source that is accurate to within 5cm. It was very impressive, although the cube cost several thousand pounds. It would be pretty amazing to see Nintendo pick up on something like that.
Dude, I'm so impressed. I think that you've actually got yourself a genuine stalker. Pretty good going.
For the record; I've seen the storms in Scotland and these things will be ripped to pieces the first time one hits. Going from the way that they're managing the fish farms up there I would guess these will only be semi-permanent structures. There will be some leeway to reel them in before a storm hits. The fish-farms have to pack up shop and move location at the end of each season to prevent excessive impact to the eco-system. It wouldn't suprise me if these things are deployed and recalled depending on prevailing weather.
Well actually you don't. I used to know a Dutch friend who took the time to look into it and when the licensing folk sent him threatening letters he wrote back and explained that he only watched DVDs. He owned a tv, freely admitted it, refused to pay the fee and got no trouble from them. Of course there are people with very different experiences of these kind-hearted sould so YMMV.
Given that most of AI is about finding methods that are more tractable than brute force, and that NPc is not necessarily a good indicator of difficulty perhaps your experience of AI is limited? Average instances of most NPc problems are quite simple - hence the existence of very fast approximate solvers. There are only a few "nasty" instances of the problem, but you can't guarentee that a given instance is simple ahead of trying to solve it. There are few places in AI where exact solutions would be necessary and so the NPc property is not a good indicator.
The "classic" 3d printers are cool for small models - no matter what you print they come out like unpainted minatures. They are really sweet for fabricating prototypes of shapes that are "hard" to make - 3d curves. They are useless for structural strength or the type of shapes that are "easy" to make.
This device looks like it can do the "easy" sructures, ie ones that fold out of a planar surface. It's another piece of the jigsaw, and I agree with you that the combination of the two technologies will become interesting. There is another vein of work; printing electronics. The idea these guys have been working towards is an open-source printer that can print itself. Essentially a weak form of a self assembling robot.
They've been covered on slashdot a few times before, and there is probably a more up to date news story somewhere. I remember that they were getting pretty close - they could print certain types of circuits and components, but were still working on the rest.
Some quick answers from someone who doesn't work on EVE online, but who has played what I refer to as "computer games", and who knows a little bit about "game mechanics" vs physics.
1. Good point 2. It's not a simulation, it's a game. 3. It's not a simulation, it's a game. 4. It's not a simulation, it's a game.
The aspects that you mention are not realistic, but do you want to spend your time looking at realistic ship designs? Why do you think the ships in most sci-fi shows have wings? The top-speed is probably there both for game balance, and also because having arbitrarily fast objects in the simulated world becomes difficult (ie collision detection, volume culling). Lastly, if you could spend your time in the low-risk regions would there be any frission in playing?
Your points are generally accepted wisdom in the parallel community. Each generation of hardware gives us a chance to argue over them again. There must be a parallel-processing equivalent to the graphic "wheel of invention" that describes this phenomena.
The dig about being a 2nd-year student was just intended to get a rise, I guess that it worked.;^)
A lot of people on this discussion are seeing this as a branch away from multi-core x86. I don't think that would be Intel or AMD's strategy. When the fab technology to put 80 cores on a single chip goes mainstream I think that we'll see a lot of mixed architectures. If I get a chip with 4 full x86 cores and 20-30 smaller vector cores then I don't need a graphics accelerator anymore. That will be the mass-market driver, and then the comparison is not some exotic $500,000 chip. It's actually a cluster of commodity vector arrays, with a tightly bound multi-core architecture for I/O and control logic. That is where it gets really interesting....
Tell me, what does 2+2 add up to on your world? VLIW is not usually used across cores, it tends to be used to exploit parallelism within a core. Assuming a 3Ghz clock, and 1 Tflop throughput - we are averaging 333 operations per cycle. That's a little over 4 operations per core, per clock. Guess where the VLIW is going to be?
Given your other vague ballsup in understanding where the tradeoff between a tightly couple array like this, and a loosely coupled cluster - how is the second year of your degree?
Yes, all culture is derivative, but we still know originality when we hear it and see it. You can mix and mash-up day and night and still not come up with anything that shows the spark of originality or genius. Everyone recognizes this except structuralists.
So your argument isn't even against the points that Lethem raises in his essay (which you have at least read, haven't you?). The nub of your argument seems to be that everything that is a copy, but out of the huge number of possible works only a few are interesting? So it's not that an author is necessarily a creator, as much as a "finder" of interesting works you could say? At which point you should see why the other responses to you have stated that you either didn't read, or didn't understand the essay. Go, on, give it a second shot.
PS Nice use of irony, given that your entire post was a strawman to Lethem's argument. You may graduate yet...
It's quite simple - if you are British and you pay a license fee then make your views known. The feedback survey is quite short, and each section is optional. If you feel that timelimited DRM files are bullshit, especially from a license-fee funded public organisation then make your views known now!
The British slashdot readership must be large enough to make a difference here.
I normally use gentoo, so the different stages are quite easy to do on a harddrive. For a CD based distro, can't you make a small bootable partition on your harddrive and copy the files from the disk image onto the partition?
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. But it would take a long afternoon of some really deep philosphical arguments for me to admit that I don't know the answer.
You keep refering to "anecdotal evidence" as evidence. It is only evidence that a) a single office has macs with a lifespan that long and b) your family has macs with a lifespan that long. The whole point with anecdotal evidence is that it is not evidence that the lifespan of macs in the marketplace is normally that long.
This announcement was brought to you by the board of pendantic criticism.
PS I've had my PC for about 8 years. It's had a couple of new motherboards, a new case, new harddrives, many processors and several videocards. Does this datapoint prove anything?
I can't believe that I'm arguing grammar with an AC but:
to transpire: to become known
When the surveillance cameras videoed the crime it is possible that this was the moment it became known. It depends on whether the cameras were live CCTV being played to a guard, or simply taping the incident for later. So it's not clearly wrong.
Godel would disagree with you. And if I have to choose between one of the great minds of the 20th century and an AC on slashdot - I'm going with with Godel on this one.
Nicely put. While none of the piles (we'll go with yours rather than mine as your explanation was better) are "right", some of them can contain proven things. You just have to remember that all proofs are relative to base assumptions. So you are correct that nothing can be proven completey, but it is safe to say that within certain paradigms (in the original sense) we can make proofs.
No it doesn't. Reread his comment and try again. He says that we will "probably" be able to prove it. So it's not in the pile of things that definitely can't be proven, or in the pile that definitely can be proven. It's in the third pile - todo. The comparison was with religion which is squarely in the first pile.
Yes of course they tested them for 5 million hours, after all it's only 570 years. Don't you know your ancient history? The legend of Intelia and their flashious memerious from 1437AD?
True, but that isn't really the target market. These are aimed at 0-emmision satellite replacements. Think of a solar power plane at 100k feet as a mini-satellite with a reduced coverage area. The market is telecoms (lower latency) and spy-work. The NASA version has a mixture of solar panels and fuel cells so that it can charge during the day and then use the power to keep up during the night.
Nope. That was my point, the new interface has moderation buttons that disapear after use. The only way that I could find to undo moderation was to post a comment.
Bloody moderation system. These new buttons have no way to cancel a moderation. I misclicked Insightful and hit Funny instead, so this post should at least undo it...
So the cell is the master ... and it communicates through the ring. Sort of like the ring is in charge here ... hmmm and there's only one ring. No, I thought there was an obvious joke but it's gone.
HAM wasn't really about saving memory. The graphics hardware was palettized (new word!) so there was a hard limit on the on-screen colours. Hold And Modify was a nice hack that used the beam-position interrupt in the copper chip to reprogram the palette on the fly.
The reason that we don't have a standard plugin socket for processors is that the chips would become a commodity. As the chip companies design the sockets it is in their interest to maintain incompatible versions. If I could just buy a "standard motherboard" rather than deciding from the ground up whether it should be Intel or AMD then the chip decision would come down to simple cost (or at least cost/performance). Keeping the sockets clashing means that OEMS are tied into a particular company for a particular line - otherwise they have to redesign the machine.
It is a nice pipedream though. Buying a 8x "standard" board and then filling it with a mixture of vector processors, x86 chips and other exotic possibilities.
Two environment threads in one day ;^)
While your point is largely valid, you have to remember that all of those subsidiary energy costs are amortized over a large number of items, not just one that you're calculating the cost of. Those people that were fed and clothed - they would have been either way. But yeah, it's just a nitpick really the headline cost of an item is not the whole story
The principle is the same although the practice is different. Each integration accumulates error, so adding the extra layer degrades the performance.
These ideas aren't new and have been knocking around for a while. The article sounds a little like hype / ego-wanking, but then again IEEE Spectrum articles normally are. There is a ton of work on "sensor fusion". The basic idea is to take several low-grade position sources and then fuse them together to create a (hopefully) high-accuracy position source. The robotics and wearables communities have been looking at this for many years. One nice approach is combinng the sensor inputs in a Kalman filter which does actually create a higher accuracy signal than any individual source.
As far as the claims about 3d gyroscopes being the next big thing when they are reduced in size - we saw a demo of a commerically available product about two years ago. It is a 1cm cube that intergrates several accelerometers and gyroscopes to provide a dead-reckoning position source that is accurate to within 5cm. It was very impressive, although the cube cost several thousand pounds. It would be pretty amazing to see Nintendo pick up on something like that.
Dude, I'm so impressed. I think that you've actually got yourself a genuine stalker. Pretty good going.
For the record; I've seen the storms in Scotland and these things will be ripped to pieces the first time one hits. Going from the way that they're managing the fish farms up there I would guess these will only be semi-permanent structures. There will be some leeway to reel them in before a storm hits. The fish-farms have to pack up shop and move location at the end of each season to prevent excessive impact to the eco-system. It wouldn't suprise me if these things are deployed and recalled depending on prevailing weather.
Well actually you don't. I used to know a Dutch friend who took the time to look into it and when the licensing folk sent him threatening letters he wrote back and explained that he only watched DVDs. He owned a tv, freely admitted it, refused to pay the fee and got no trouble from them. Of course there are people with very different experiences of these kind-hearted sould so YMMV.
Given that most of AI is about finding methods that are more tractable than brute force, and that NPc is not necessarily a good indicator of difficulty perhaps your experience of AI is limited? Average instances of most NPc problems are quite simple - hence the existence of very fast approximate solvers. There are only a few "nasty" instances of the problem, but you can't guarentee that a given instance is simple ahead of trying to solve it. There are few places in AI where exact solutions would be necessary and so the NPc property is not a good indicator.
The "classic" 3d printers are cool for small models - no matter what you print they come out like unpainted minatures. They are really sweet for fabricating prototypes of shapes that are "hard" to make - 3d curves. They are useless for structural strength or the type of shapes that are "easy" to make.
This device looks like it can do the "easy" sructures, ie ones that fold out of a planar surface. It's another piece of the jigsaw, and I agree with you that the combination of the two technologies will become interesting. There is another vein of work; printing electronics. The idea these guys have been working towards is an open-source printer that can print itself. Essentially a weak form of a self assembling robot.
They've been covered on slashdot a few times before, and there is probably a more up to date news story somewhere. I remember that they were getting pretty close - they could print certain types of circuits and components, but were still working on the rest.
Some quick answers from someone who doesn't work on EVE online, but who has played what I refer to as "computer games", and who knows a little bit about "game mechanics" vs physics.
1. Good point
2. It's not a simulation, it's a game.
3. It's not a simulation, it's a game.
4. It's not a simulation, it's a game.
The aspects that you mention are not realistic, but do you want to spend your time looking at realistic ship designs? Why do you think the ships in most sci-fi shows have wings? The top-speed is probably there both for game balance, and also because having arbitrarily fast objects in the simulated world becomes difficult (ie collision detection, volume culling). Lastly, if you could spend your time in the low-risk regions would there be any frission in playing?
You splitter bastards!
I spit on the Judean People's Front.
Your points are generally accepted wisdom in the parallel community. Each generation of hardware gives us a chance to argue over them again. There must be a parallel-processing equivalent to the graphic "wheel of invention" that describes this phenomena.
;^)
The dig about being a 2nd-year student was just intended to get a rise, I guess that it worked.
A lot of people on this discussion are seeing this as a branch away from multi-core x86. I don't think that would be Intel or AMD's strategy. When the fab technology to put 80 cores on a single chip goes mainstream I think that we'll see a lot of mixed architectures. If I get a chip with 4 full x86 cores and 20-30 smaller vector cores then I don't need a graphics accelerator anymore. That will be the mass-market driver, and then the comparison is not some exotic $500,000 chip. It's actually a cluster of commodity vector arrays, with a tightly bound multi-core architecture for I/O and control logic. That is where it gets really interesting....
Tell me, what does 2+2 add up to on your world? VLIW is not usually used across cores, it tends to be used to exploit parallelism within a core. Assuming a 3Ghz clock, and 1 Tflop throughput - we are averaging 333 operations per cycle. That's a little over 4 operations per core, per clock. Guess where the VLIW is going to be?
Given your other vague ballsup in understanding where the tradeoff between a tightly couple array like this, and a loosely coupled cluster - how is the second year of your degree?
So your argument isn't even against the points that Lethem raises in his essay (which you have at least read, haven't you?). The nub of your argument seems to be that everything that is a copy, but out of the huge number of possible works only a few are interesting? So it's not that an author is necessarily a creator, as much as a "finder" of interesting works you could say? At which point you should see why the other responses to you have stated that you either didn't read, or didn't understand the essay. Go, on, give it a second shot.
PS Nice use of irony, given that your entire post was a strawman to Lethem's argument. You may graduate yet...
It's quite simple - if you are British and you pay a license fee then make your views known. The feedback survey is quite short, and each section is optional. If you feel that timelimited DRM files are bullshit, especially from a license-fee funded public organisation then make your views known now!
The British slashdot readership must be large enough to make a difference here.
I normally use gentoo, so the different stages are quite easy to do on a harddrive. For a CD based distro, can't you make a small bootable partition on your harddrive and copy the files from the disk image onto the partition?