I'd like to see some more information about the technical challenges behind driverless cars. Can anyone point me (and hopefully other Slashdot readers) to something more than a press release?
Its seems that driverless cars will need several different ways to interact with the road, pedestrians, and other cars. I'd really love to hear about how some of these different communication networks are being conceived.
Um, you think there's a LOT of money for research of this kind? Like, bags of cash sitting around, just waiting for the next scientist to come up with a climate study? You really need to get out more.
You're correct that we're not completely sure, but in science there VERY few %100 certainties, especially not with extremely complex systems like climate patterns. However, many great discoveries were made with less than "%100 confidence" the under lying theories were correct. I'm sure you can think of a few.
However, You can complete experiments in the lab that support the CO2 conclusion. The evidence we've collected in the field supports the conclusion. With respect, we will never get to the 100% you're talking about. The systems are too complex and too large for current technology and science to understand. And if we do understand them sometime in the future, by that point it will likely be too late anyway.
What's a acceptable level of certainty here before we act? Ask yourself that question.
I agree that its deceptive putting this on a PC centric website. However, I still think there are applications that could be wildly sucessful for this type of chip. Specifically, I wonder if 3D rendering - which can spend a great deal time within a 128K set, might not be greatly effected by such a chip. I could easily be wrong, but it seems that discreet calulations of MC/QMC sampling would be one of those algorithms that this chip could be useful for.
But there must be thousands of applications for this chip which can be sent in small amounts of data. Considering this chip is focusing on discreet floating point math, and contains its own internal registers (64 of them), I would think that there are many calculations that could be complete done on chip - data in, answer out.
While I understand what you're saying, XSI and Maya come in versions (a.k.a, free) that would be wonderful to run this card against. I tend to stay away from my software vendors and perfer the word of real life people when it comes to video card experiences. Vendors are... well, vendors.
My point is, if you're going to take the time to review a $3k video card, Unreal 2k is not what I want to see.
Max 4.2 as a benchmark? Please, move up to 5.1 at least, and get XSI and Maya in there (Although admittedly Maya can be a troublesome beast for new graphic cards). Its a workstation card, run it against workstation apps.
I appreciate the effort with the SPECopc benchmarks, but review sites need to put more effort into testing a card like this. I cannot see what the reviewers were thinking by not putting this card up against what it's price point is aimed at - specifically Wildcat cards.
Ahem.
Journalists have editors. This 'journalist' needs one really, really badly.
I'm sure there are some good parts of this diatribe, but don't waste your time until its 2 parts, not frickin' 11.
A few years ago, I ran into an audio series on the Internet, although it was originally on NPR Playhouse. Apparently it was one of there most popular series of all time. Its a wonderful, campy radio drama. I wish these guys would do more. Highly worth checking out.
Check on Google, but ther RA files can be found here:
http://www.cincinnatisoftball.com/specials/hallo we en99/hayward_sanitarium/hayward.html
Slashdot Mirror
I'd like to see some more information about the technical challenges behind driverless cars. Can anyone point me (and hopefully other Slashdot readers) to something more than a press release? Its seems that driverless cars will need several different ways to interact with the road, pedestrians, and other cars. I'd really love to hear about how some of these different communication networks are being conceived.
I hope you're kidding. You're assuming that the rate of loss is constant, which it is certainly not. Aside from warming factors in general, this warmth melted ice on the surface, forming pools. This water then trickled down through the ice, widening crevasses as it went, thus fracturing the shelf or alowing it to move, and shatter. Take a look at Larsen Shelf in the Antarctica. This is a shelf larger than Rhode Island. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1022-06.ht m
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImage s/images.php3?img_id=4562
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/ ice_melt_010117.html
Um, you think there's a LOT of money for research of this kind? Like, bags of cash sitting around, just waiting for the next scientist to come up with a climate study? You really need to get out more.
Um, with respect, have you read anything about how far climatologists have gone back? Most studies go back at least 600,000 years, and some about double that. Using core samples of ice from Antarctica and correlating oxygen isotopes within that ice, we get a very good sense of what the mean temperature of the Earth have been for the last 1 million years. Read, ok? Here's just a few: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icgate.html http://www.esf.org/esf_article.php?activity=1&arti cle=85&domain=3
http://www.sweden.se/templates/cs/News____9220.asp x
You're correct that we're not completely sure, but in science there VERY few %100 certainties, especially not with extremely complex systems like climate patterns. However, many great discoveries were made with less than "%100 confidence" the under lying theories were correct. I'm sure you can think of a few.
However, You can complete experiments in the lab that support the CO2 conclusion. The evidence we've collected in the field supports the conclusion. With respect, we will never get to the 100% you're talking about. The systems are too complex and too large for current technology and science to understand. And if we do understand them sometime in the future, by that point it will likely be too late anyway.
What's a acceptable level of certainty here before we act? Ask yourself that question.
Uh, how about so they an afford to pay a programmer to adjust to the next version of Messenger, and offer you a free version (again).
I agree that its deceptive putting this on a PC centric website. However, I still think there are applications that could be wildly sucessful for this type of chip. Specifically, I wonder if 3D rendering - which can spend a great deal time within a 128K set, might not be greatly effected by such a chip. I could easily be wrong, but it seems that discreet calulations of MC/QMC sampling would be one of those algorithms that this chip could be useful for.
But there must be thousands of applications for this chip which can be sent in small amounts of data. Considering this chip is focusing on discreet floating point math, and contains its own internal registers (64 of them), I would think that there are many calculations that could be complete done on chip - data in, answer out.
While I understand what you're saying, XSI and Maya come in versions (a.k.a, free) that would be wonderful to run this card against. I tend to stay away from my software vendors and perfer the word of real life people when it comes to video card experiences. Vendors are... well, vendors. My point is, if you're going to take the time to review a $3k video card, Unreal 2k is not what I want to see.
I appreciate the effort with the SPECopc benchmarks, but review sites need to put more effort into testing a card like this. I cannot see what the reviewers were thinking by not putting this card up against what it's price point is aimed at - specifically Wildcat cards.
Ahem. Journalists have editors. This 'journalist' needs one really, really badly. I'm sure there are some good parts of this diatribe, but don't waste your time until its 2 parts, not frickin' 11.
A few years ago, I ran into an audio series on the Internet, although it was originally on NPR Playhouse. Apparently it was one of there most popular series of all time. Its a wonderful, campy radio drama. I wish these guys would do more. Highly worth checking out.
o we en99/hayward_sanitarium/hayward.html
Check on Google, but ther RA files can be found here:
http://www.cincinnatisoftball.com/specials/hall