I've had a similar saying (is it a saying if I'm the only one saying it?): "There are three types of people in the world. Those who don't know what they're doing and know they don't; those who know what they're doing and know they do; and those who don't know what they're doing but think they do. It's the last group that screws everything up for the other two groups."
Yeah, it's weird that a 55-word saying never caught on.
If some innocent website is blacklisted in this system, can they claim libel or slander by the black-lister?
Also, if ISPs become censors, don't they lose their Common Carrier status under the DMCA, and put themselves on the hook for any bad stuff that comes over their wires?
Um, you do realize the SPU have 128-bit registers, right? Which means you can do 4 32-bit floats at a time.
I'm not sure what kind of 'scientific' computations you were doing, but it sounds like you were not using the SPUs properly.
We were doing acoustic ray tracing. The problem we had was that any branching that occurred quickly led to different rays needing different *kinds* of operations. So it really wasn't practical or efficient to keep on tracing four or even two rays concurrently using the SIMD operations.
But even then, what about x86's SIMD operations? I imagine that a Core2's registers are only 64 bits wide, compared to Cell's 128-bit registers. But I wouldn't expect that to be a compelling reason to use Cell.
When I was doing some scientific computations on it, I found that on a per-core, per-clock-cycle basis, it performed 32-bit floating calculations about as fast as an Intel Core2 E4400 processor.
Back when x86 chips had at most two cores, that made the Cell look pretty good. But...
- Intel chips now have 4 cores, with 8 on the horizon.
- It was a PITA to program the Cell, because it's not a
shared-memory architecture. The cores need to communicate
via message passing. And in the current generation,
the software running on most of the cores (the "SPEs")
could take up 256KB for object code AND working data.
- The Cell's 64-bit floating point performance sucked ass
compared to Intel's.
So in my experience, it just wasn't that worthwhile a processor. Does anyone know what the big deal is?
The NMCI contract for EDS had them rolling out a bizillion Dell-branded desktops and laptops to people in the Navy and Marine Corps. I wonder if Dell just saw a massive revenue stream get shifted to HP?
So if we're willing to sacrifice speed for energy savings, shouldn't we just use the bare minimum number of computers that can handle the workload without crashing?
I'm not so sure. Given that judges have made so many mind-boggling judgments regarding copyrights and patents in the past, having one of those judges agree with you isn't exactly proof that you're a rational and intelligent person.
It seems to me like the real problem lies in the vagueness of determining (prior to standing before a jury) whether or not something is meant only to titillate.
The plaintiff's other issue, which is that he handles too many titles to evaluate, sounds like simple whining. I.e., he has a business model that breaks under the new law. (On the other hand, this complaint does reminds me of those raised by website operators when faced with liability for what was posted by the general public on their message boards. I forget - was that worked out with the legislature, or did the courts end up defending them on that issue?)
So if you agree ID cannot be tested and therefor is not science, then surely you agree it does not belong in a science class. That is all the anti-ID folks are saying.
That sounds reasonable. On the other hand, I don't think students should be hermetically shielded from the anti-evolution arguments that ID people make. I've seem some ID people make non-theological arguments against certain aspects of evolutionary theory. If you shut out these arguments just because they're made be people who also make theological arguments against ID, you're cutting off a source of critique that is so important to the scientific method.
Granted, not all sources of critique are equally worth our time. But given that a large fraction of American adults feel forced, perhaps unnecessarily, to chose between their theology and accepted science, it seems bizarre to me that we don't teach the kids the debate in detail. It seems like a totally kick-ass opportunity to sharpen their critical-thinking skills and to help them understand both the power and the limits of the scientific method.
And that's what makes it irrelevant to science, and more importantly, not science.
And if you're saying that miracles can be used to show ID is viable, then I think you'd agree that it shouldn't be taught with science in a science class. Maybe it should be taught in a class called, oh, I don't know, theology perhaps?
Sure, I'm ok with that. I have no problem with a science class teaching that there's a good case for evolution. But we should remember that there are at least two versions of ID: (a) no evolution occurred and (optionally) the earth is about 6000 years old vs. (b) God exists and works his ID using evolution as his means. I think there's probably a good scientific case against (a), but I also think some evolution advocates over-reach and try to teach (b). That's what I object to. The teaching of (b) belongs in, you know, an atheology class or something.
I do not understand the irrational knee-jerk reation to evolution that "Good Ol' Righteous God Fearing Folk" have.
I'm agnostic, but let me take a stab at an answer to your question...
I think that bot Christians and Evolutionists have a spectrum of positions within their two camps; some are compatible, some aren't:
Some Christians believe that the book of Genesis was meant to be understood literally rather than metaphorically or poetically. So to them, all Evolutionist viewpoints are incompatible with things they already believe.
Some Evolutionists believe don't merely believe that natural variation and selection occurred. They go further to posit that any process (e.g., evolution) which appears random or capriciously cruel to them is surely not be guided by any God worth talking about. So to this subset of Evolutionists, all Christian believes are definitely wrong.
In the middle, you have Christians who are willing to concede that a literal interpretation of Genesis might be inaccurate, either because its conflicts with what seam to be clear indications in the natural record that evolution occurred, or for other reasons of Biblical scholarship. (I'm told that regardless of an apparent conflict with scientific conclusions, some Biblical scholars have other reasons to believe that parts of Genesis are meant metaphorically, such as the style of the prose.)
Note to all ID supporters, this is how real science works. Propose a theory which can be tested, then go about trying to disprove the theory.
Note to all anti-ID people, not all propositions can be tested by scientists. Especially alleged miracles, which are by definition one-off phenomena caused by an external agent that is itself inscrutable to human-devised experimentation.
I too would offer to be flamed, but I think that's pretty unnecessary considering the position I just advanced. The down-modding, rather than considered discussion, will occur of its own accord.
I don't mean to get all hippy liberal here, but I'm sad that we get so excited about new ways to kill each other. I guess having kids changed the way I look at things.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, it's weird that a 55-word saying never caught on.
How the hell are we supposed to defend ourselves against the 75% of attacks that are immune to the laws of logic???
Does it matter? All your bases belong to UK govt.
If some innocent website is blacklisted in this system, can they claim libel or slander by the black-lister?
Also, if ISPs become censors, don't they lose their Common Carrier status under the DMCA, and put themselves on the hook for any bad stuff that comes over their wires?
Ha HAH! The Spanish Inquisition never expected a Hewlett Packard !
We were doing acoustic ray tracing. The problem we had was that any branching that occurred quickly led to different rays needing different *kinds* of operations. So it really wasn't practical or efficient to keep on tracing four or even two rays concurrently using the SIMD operations.
But even then, what about x86's SIMD operations? I imagine that a Core2's registers are only 64 bits wide, compared to Cell's 128-bit registers. But I wouldn't expect that to be a compelling reason to use Cell.
When I was doing some scientific computations on it, I found that on a per-core, per-clock-cycle basis, it performed 32-bit floating calculations about as fast as an Intel Core2 E4400 processor.
Back when x86 chips had at most two cores, that made the Cell look pretty good. But...
- Intel chips now have 4 cores, with 8 on the horizon.
- It was a PITA to program the Cell, because it's not a
shared-memory architecture. The cores need to communicate
via message passing. And in the current generation,
the software running on most of the cores (the "SPEs")
could take up 256KB for object code AND working data.
- The Cell's 64-bit floating point performance sucked ass
compared to Intel's.
So in my experience, it just wasn't that worthwhile a processor. Does anyone know what the big deal is?
Actually, it's a time-honoured approach to teaching. In ancient Greece it was widespread for teachers to bugger their young students.
The NMCI contract for EDS had them rolling out a bizillion Dell-branded desktops and laptops to people in the Navy and Marine Corps. I wonder if Dell just saw a massive revenue stream get shifted to HP?
I can't tell whether or not you realized I was making a Babylon 5 joke.
Must we suffer through the rehashing of old Shadow arguments every election season? Sheesh!
Did they forget to account for the estimated 0.5 million killed in Burma? I would think that delays the date by a day or two.
So if we're willing to sacrifice speed for energy savings, shouldn't we just use the bare minimum number of computers that can handle the workload without crashing?
I'm not so sure. Given that judges have made so many mind-boggling judgments regarding copyrights and patents in the past, having one of those judges agree with you isn't exactly proof that you're a rational and intelligent person.
It seems to me like the real problem lies in the vagueness of determining (prior to standing before a jury) whether or not something is meant only to titillate.
The plaintiff's other issue, which is that he handles too many titles to evaluate, sounds like simple whining. I.e., he has a business model that breaks under the new law. (On the other hand, this complaint does reminds me of those raised by website operators when faced with liability for what was posted by the general public on their message boards. I forget - was that worked out with the legislature, or did the courts end up defending them on that issue?)
For some people, it's a lifelong career. For me, I had a job that was partially helpdesk work when in college, and now I'm mostly done with my CS PhD.
Yes, but on the bright side, they lose ground about 1.5x faster than Java in most applications.
That sounds reasonable. On the other hand, I don't think students should be hermetically shielded from the anti-evolution arguments that ID people make. I've seem some ID people make non-theological arguments against certain aspects of evolutionary theory. If you shut out these arguments just because they're made be people who also make theological arguments against ID, you're cutting off a source of critique that is so important to the scientific method.
Granted, not all sources of critique are equally worth our time. But given that a large fraction of American adults feel forced, perhaps unnecessarily, to chose between their theology and accepted science, it seems bizarre to me that we don't teach the kids the debate in detail. It seems like a totally kick-ass opportunity to sharpen their critical-thinking skills and to help them understand both the power and the limits of the scientific method.
Sure, I'm ok with that. I have no problem with a science class teaching that there's a good case for evolution. But we should remember that there are at least two versions of ID: (a) no evolution occurred and (optionally) the earth is about 6000 years old vs. (b) God exists and works his ID using evolution as his means. I think there's probably a good scientific case against (a), but I also think some evolution advocates over-reach and try to teach (b). That's what I object to. The teaching of (b) belongs in, you know, an atheology class or something.
I'm agnostic, but let me take a stab at an answer to your question...
I think that bot Christians and Evolutionists have a spectrum of positions within their two camps; some are compatible, some aren't:
Some Christians believe that the book of Genesis was meant to be understood literally rather than metaphorically or poetically. So to them, all Evolutionist viewpoints are incompatible with things they already believe.
Some Evolutionists believe don't merely believe that natural variation and selection occurred. They go further to posit that any process (e.g., evolution) which appears random or capriciously cruel to them is surely not be guided by any God worth talking about. So to this subset of Evolutionists, all Christian believes are definitely wrong.
In the middle, you have Christians who are willing to concede that a literal interpretation of Genesis might be inaccurate, either because its conflicts with what seam to be clear indications in the natural record that evolution occurred, or for other reasons of Biblical scholarship. (I'm told that regardless of an apparent conflict with scientific conclusions, some Biblical scholars have other reasons to believe that parts of Genesis are meant metaphorically, such as the style of the prose.)
Does that sound right?
Note to all anti-ID people, not all propositions can be tested by scientists. Especially alleged miracles, which are by definition one-off phenomena caused by an external agent that is itself inscrutable to human-devised experimentation.
I too would offer to be flamed, but I think that's pretty unnecessary considering the position I just advanced. The down-modding, rather than considered discussion, will occur of its own accord.
Sure, but he has a problem with some people choosing to not charge for them?
No, that's not it. I actually build weapons for a living. I just wish people wouldn't get so excited about it.
I don't mean to get all hippy liberal here, but I'm sad that we get so excited about new ways to kill each other. I guess having kids changed the way I look at things.
Do the original terms of the sale/license agreement permit Microsoft to do this?
And if so, does this show that the product, even as initially sold, was defective, unfit for purpose, or deceptively advertised?