And why do the incompetent programmers not have a clue how to do IO right, or use efficient, compact code? It doesn't matter might have gotten As in their algorithms classes; They've never had the point driven home because they've never had to write programs for machines that run less than several billion instructions per second from a store of gigabytes of memory.
Re:Why can't AI get the semantics from the plain t
on
Semantic Web Getting Real
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Why should I be thankful about spending my adult life working because machines aren't up to the task? I'll be thankful when machines take the work and leave us free to do what we want.
The cable wouldn't have to be nearly as long as you might think. A circuit board with about a dozen discrete ECL chips would be fast enough to count the length of a fiber to within a few inches if you had a similarly fast transmitter/detector, which is probably doable since the fibers already run in the Gbps.
Hook a start line up to both fire a pulse from the transmitter down the fiber line and set a latch; The latch enables a looped inverter to clock a counter; The return pulse resets the latch and stops the counter; cable length = (lightspeed * counter value *.5) / (refractive index * oscillator frequency), and you could count on an oscillator running at 2Ghz.
I've experienced exactly that (computer as an extension of the body) a few times for a few moments playing BZflag. I no longer had any conscious recognition of my hands, the mouse, or the keyboard, and only a very dim awareness of anything outside my screen. I didn't think about pressing keys, I thought about how I wanted to move... The low-level interface (pressing buttons and moving my mouse ball) abstracted itself away. I even found myself carrying on a conversation with someone; I didn't even notice when I switched between typing or playing, and kept playing as I typed. It's a truly strange experience.
Now I just need to figure out how to enter this magical state while I do homework and design circuitry...
What I wonder about is, how will a truly decentralized network work?
The Internet is truly one of the wonders of the world, but think about it. Why do you trust google.com to actually refer to Google? Because a centralized authority dictates DNS from 14 servers. Why do you trust that 12.38.253.8 really is 12.38.253.8? Because centralized government-controlled authorities dictate which numbers go where. By comparison, search on the epitome of decentralized networks, p2p, brings up a shitflood of spam, fake porn files, and viruses (with the porn I want mixed in somewhere).
In short, we trust the underlying fabric of the 'Net because it has authorities who don't allow assholery and who you can't defy (because they'll simply drop you off the routing tables). How do you maintain the same ability to stop assholes without involving a dictatorial authority? As much as I love to think about it, finding spammers and virus writers and publically torturing them just wouldn't work.
So Intel is going to design a CPU with N cores on it, then add hardware that disables half of them, then manufacture the chip with all N cores and sell it for less, even though it actually costs more to design/build because of the added hardware to cripple it, then try and make us pay for access to the other half of the cores and hope we don't notice that our computers have suddenly become a constant expense instead of a one-time purchase?
And moreover, they apparently forgot which problem they're trying to solve between paragraphs 4 and 5. They start talking about the real problem of many cores creating a very large space of core/memory architectures that would be difficult to choose between and support. Then they veer off into the rent-your-own-hardware-back-to-you idea and never finish reasoning out just how it would work before they come back. A few minor things they ignored:
How do they turn cores on? Difficult level: No, you can NOT have a privileged link through my firewall onto my network.
How do they stop me from hacking it and enabling it all myself? Difficulty level: Mathematically impossible since you can't stop Eve from listening if Eve and Bob are the same person.
How do they propose to bill me? Difficulty: No, I will NOT let my CPU spy on me.
Why should I hand you everything you need to force me to upgrade against my will?
What happens if you go out of business and leave me stranded?
Even if you don't see what's wrong with charging me continually to access my own hardware, do you actually think I won't?
In conclusion, Profs. Sloan & Kumar of the University of Illinois, I believe the premises and reasoning behind your proposal to be flawed, and the proposal itself to be unworkable and contradictory to openness in computing. Or, as we say on the Internet, wtf r u doin???
If we actually did gradually switch to entirely sustainable living then the entire basis of thier hold over people, fear, disappears. So they demand total perfection even though I'm sure they know it's not attainable.
Guess why America keeps building more fossil fuel plants? Because the retarded greens refuse to let anyone build new nuclear reactors. While spewing megatons of greenhouse gas (and tens of tons of uranium & thorium oxides in the ash) per year is merely bad, a cubic meter of used fuel (95% of which could be reprocessed, again if the fucking greens would let it happen) is unthinkably horrible. Have I mentioned that places like India, Australia, and Canada have most of the world's nuclear ore reserves?
OP was implying that this is some sort of scam to get funding; I reply that I find it disheartening a) that NASA is being accused of stunts to get as much money to repair a great instrument of discovery as we spend on Iraq in a day and b) how many people cheer this situation on; I also take a stab at OP's apparent cynicism by saying that if we're gonna have huge corporate handouts, they might as well benefit mankind.
So do you care to point out what exactly is wrong with that?
That doesn't seem very likely unless you're doing multiple 1080p streams at once.
Even at the highest bitrate video you're going to have, a Blu-ray rip at 54Mbps, you're only utilizing half of a bog-standard ethernet interface, a small fraction of a hard disk's sequential read capacity, and about 1/20 of an old (32bit/33Mhz) pci bus's bandwidth.
Don't worry, we can pay for the whole thing by leaving Iraq one or two days earlier. And plus, if you look at it from the financial angle, a space-industrial complex is just as good of an excuse for corporate welfare handouts as the military-industrial complex. The only difference is that if we spent $300 Billion a year on science, we'd probably get something good for humanity out of it.
It's sad that spending money to unravel the secrets of the universe is sneered at (see parent) while large numbers of people and entire news networks (not necessarily including parent) champion spending trillions of dollars to keep poking the middle east hornet's nest (And apparently think that if we keep poking, the hornets will get tired and give up).
This device runs on the same principle as a Stirling engine and it shares the same theoretical efficiency: (Hot temp) / (Hot + Cold temp), all in Kelvins.
According to TFA, their first prototype is limited to 200*c because of material concerns. If they were to draw ice-cold water from the deep ocean as the cold side, it could theoretically acheive 473 / (473 + 273) or 63% efficiency. They talk about future materials allowing a hot side of 600*c, which despite being nearly twice the absolute temperature would only raise theoretical efficiency to 76%. Some sort of exotic oxide ceramic that could run at 1500 or 2000K would only add another 10% or so.
What fraction of that efficiency this or other engines acheive depends on the design. I believe the most efficient toy stirling engines can reach 90-96% of Carnot efficiency.
I don't mean an FPGA, I mean something like a magnetologic array. Something that's both fast and quickly reconfigurable on the fly. Scientific American had a story in the August 2005 issue if you can find it.
I'm so looking forward to reconfigurable hardware; that'll make the whole argument moot. The CPU as we know it will do nothing but setup reconfigurable logic units and direct data streams. You want hardware networking? Bam. Hardware complex math? Bam. Hardware neural net? Bam.
Everyone should be forced to give up manual memory allocation regardless of the power it can afford.
#include "fucktard_troll.h"
Now that that's done with, I see things like this as an argument in favor of moving stuff off of the CPU and into dedicated hardware. Why should your CPU be tied up with things at this level? The absolutely overwhelming majority of all data on every network uses one of two network layer protocols (IPv4 or IPv6) and one of two transport layer protocols (TCP or UDP). Why shouldn't those four combinations be handled by hardware, so we can leave the computer to run the applications? We already do this with 3d rendering, why not networking?
This was brought up in 2003 as the Simulation Argument. Really, really short version of the 12-page paper:
There's three possible scenarios; Either no one's interested in running ancestor simulations, no one reaches the level of advancement necessary to perform them, or some people are able & willing. If the universe is as large as it seems to be, there must be some set of entities that want to, and similarly some set that reach the level of advancement needed (matroshka-brain-level processing resources). Therefore, unless the fraction of entities that are able and the fraction that are willing are both infinitesimal, then ancestor simulations are almost certainly running. Since someone who reaches this kind of technology will have an unimaginable amount of computing power, they can run a lot of simulations of a lot of people. So either no one wants to, no one can, or we're almost certainly in one.
In any case, I doubt that we can confirm that we're in one or break out before the singularity. Unlike our computers, where software in a hardware-VM can confirm that it's in a VM because our simulation incompletely simulates the processor state, a simulation run by a superhuman entity would have both the intelligence and cpu power to make sure that nothing was left out of the processor's state.
More interestingly, what level of computing power (in the math/turing sense) would the runners of our simulation have? An N-qubit quantum computer could solve the halting problem for an n-bit Turing machine by enumerating every single state simultaneously. Can the simulation-runners solve our simulation's halting problem, which must then require a level of power beyond a quantum computer?
In short, when it comes to the government having information about you the best policy is "deny unless explicitly allowed." Now, if they just wanted to put a (secure) rfid chip in your driver's license that says the same thing the license says, fine.
But whenever this comes up it involves all of your identifying information being on one chip that can be read by any government agency's scanner. It also tends to involve a similar centralized database that's just begging to be abused. Remember: If supporters of a law, when confronted about possible abuses that it would permit, angrily deny that such will occur then you have discovered exactly what the law will be used for as soon and often as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
And why do the incompetent programmers not have a clue how to do IO right, or use efficient, compact code? It doesn't matter might have gotten As in their algorithms classes; They've never had the point driven home because they've never had to write programs for machines that run less than several billion instructions per second from a store of gigabytes of memory.
Why should I be thankful about spending my adult life working because machines aren't up to the task? I'll be thankful when machines take the work and leave us free to do what we want.
The cable wouldn't have to be nearly as long as you might think. A circuit board with about a dozen discrete ECL chips would be fast enough to count the length of a fiber to within a few inches if you had a similarly fast transmitter/detector, which is probably doable since the fibers already run in the Gbps.
.5) / (refractive index * oscillator frequency), and you could count on an oscillator running at 2Ghz.
Hook a start line up to both fire a pulse from the transmitter down the fiber line and set a latch; The latch enables a looped inverter to clock a counter; The return pulse resets the latch and stops the counter; cable length = (lightspeed * counter value *
I've experienced exactly that (computer as an extension of the body) a few times for a few moments playing BZflag. I no longer had any conscious recognition of my hands, the mouse, or the keyboard, and only a very dim awareness of anything outside my screen. I didn't think about pressing keys, I thought about how I wanted to move... The low-level interface (pressing buttons and moving my mouse ball) abstracted itself away. I even found myself carrying on a conversation with someone; I didn't even notice when I switched between typing or playing, and kept playing as I typed. It's a truly strange experience.
Now I just need to figure out how to enter this magical state while I do homework and design circuitry...
I admit it, I broke the dam.
Lying, corruption and treason? In my secretive government bureaucracy? It's more likely than you think.
What I wonder about is, how will a truly decentralized network work?
The Internet is truly one of the wonders of the world, but think about it. Why do you trust google.com to actually refer to Google? Because a centralized authority dictates DNS from 14 servers. Why do you trust that 12.38.253.8 really is 12.38.253.8? Because centralized government-controlled authorities dictate which numbers go where. By comparison, search on the epitome of decentralized networks, p2p, brings up a shitflood of spam, fake porn files, and viruses (with the porn I want mixed in somewhere).
In short, we trust the underlying fabric of the 'Net because it has authorities who don't allow assholery and who you can't defy (because they'll simply drop you off the routing tables). How do you maintain the same ability to stop assholes without involving a dictatorial authority? As much as I love to think about it, finding spammers and virus writers and publically torturing them just wouldn't work.
And moreover, they apparently forgot which problem they're trying to solve between paragraphs 4 and 5. They start talking about the real problem of many cores creating a very large space of core/memory architectures that would be difficult to choose between and support. Then they veer off into the rent-your-own-hardware-back-to-you idea and never finish reasoning out just how it would work before they come back. A few minor things they ignored:
- How do they turn cores on? Difficult level: No, you can NOT have a privileged link through my firewall onto my network.
- How do they stop me from hacking it and enabling it all myself? Difficulty level: Mathematically impossible since you can't stop Eve from listening if Eve and Bob are the same person.
- How do they propose to bill me? Difficulty: No, I will NOT let my CPU spy on me.
- Why should I hand you everything you need to force me to upgrade against my will?
- What happens if you go out of business and leave me stranded?
- Even if you don't see what's wrong with charging me continually to access my own hardware, do you actually think I won't?
In conclusion, Profs. Sloan & Kumar of the University of Illinois, I believe the premises and reasoning behind your proposal to be flawed, and the proposal itself to be unworkable and contradictory to openness in computing. Or, as we say on the Internet, wtf r u doin???If we actually did gradually switch to entirely sustainable living then the entire basis of thier hold over people, fear, disappears. So they demand total perfection even though I'm sure they know it's not attainable.
Guess why America keeps building more fossil fuel plants? Because the retarded greens refuse to let anyone build new nuclear reactors. While spewing megatons of greenhouse gas (and tens of tons of uranium & thorium oxides in the ash) per year is merely bad, a cubic meter of used fuel (95% of which could be reprocessed, again if the fucking greens would let it happen) is unthinkably horrible. Have I mentioned that places like India, Australia, and Canada have most of the world's nuclear ore reserves?
OP was implying that this is some sort of scam to get funding; I reply that I find it disheartening a) that NASA is being accused of stunts to get as much money to repair a great instrument of discovery as we spend on Iraq in a day and b) how many people cheer this situation on; I also take a stab at OP's apparent cynicism by saying that if we're gonna have huge corporate handouts, they might as well benefit mankind.
So do you care to point out what exactly is wrong with that?
That doesn't seem very likely unless you're doing multiple 1080p streams at once.
Even at the highest bitrate video you're going to have, a Blu-ray rip at 54Mbps, you're only utilizing half of a bog-standard ethernet interface, a small fraction of a hard disk's sequential read capacity, and about 1/20 of an old (32bit/33Mhz) pci bus's bandwidth.
Don't worry, we can pay for the whole thing by leaving Iraq one or two days earlier. And plus, if you look at it from the financial angle, a space-industrial complex is just as good of an excuse for corporate welfare handouts as the military-industrial complex. The only difference is that if we spent $300 Billion a year on science, we'd probably get something good for humanity out of it.
It's sad that spending money to unravel the secrets of the universe is sneered at (see parent) while large numbers of people and entire news networks (not necessarily including parent) champion spending trillions of dollars to keep poking the middle east hornet's nest (And apparently think that if we keep poking, the hornets will get tired and give up).
Shit. I fail.
This device runs on the same principle as a Stirling engine and it shares the same theoretical efficiency: (Hot temp) / (Hot + Cold temp), all in Kelvins.
According to TFA, their first prototype is limited to 200*c because of material concerns. If they were to draw ice-cold water from the deep ocean as the cold side, it could theoretically acheive 473 / (473 + 273) or 63% efficiency. They talk about future materials allowing a hot side of 600*c, which despite being nearly twice the absolute temperature would only raise theoretical efficiency to 76%. Some sort of exotic oxide ceramic that could run at 1500 or 2000K would only add another 10% or so.
What fraction of that efficiency this or other engines acheive depends on the design. I believe the most efficient toy stirling engines can reach 90-96% of Carnot efficiency.
That'd be the first one hundred years to the dot; The Berne Conventions were in 1886.
(Fuck the MAFIAA & the telecoms)
I don't mean an FPGA, I mean something like a magnetologic array. Something that's both fast and quickly reconfigurable on the fly. Scientific American had a story in the August 2005 issue if you can find it.
I'm so looking forward to reconfigurable hardware; that'll make the whole argument moot. The CPU as we know it will do nothing but setup reconfigurable logic units and direct data streams. You want hardware networking? Bam. Hardware complex math? Bam. Hardware neural net? Bam.
Lol MS sux0rz! ph34r my 1337 h4x!1one
Everyone should be forced to give up manual memory allocation regardless of the power it can afford.
#include "fucktard_troll.h"
Now that that's done with, I see things like this as an argument in favor of moving stuff off of the CPU and into dedicated hardware. Why should your CPU be tied up with things at this level? The absolutely overwhelming majority of all data on every network uses one of two network layer protocols (IPv4 or IPv6) and one of two transport layer protocols (TCP or UDP). Why shouldn't those four combinations be handled by hardware, so we can leave the computer to run the applications? We already do this with 3d rendering, why not networking?
This was brought up in 2003 as the Simulation Argument. Really, really short version of the 12-page paper:
There's three possible scenarios; Either no one's interested in running ancestor simulations, no one reaches the level of advancement necessary to perform them, or some people are able & willing. If the universe is as large as it seems to be, there must be some set of entities that want to, and similarly some set that reach the level of advancement needed (matroshka-brain-level processing resources). Therefore, unless the fraction of entities that are able and the fraction that are willing are both infinitesimal, then ancestor simulations are almost certainly running. Since someone who reaches this kind of technology will have an unimaginable amount of computing power, they can run a lot of simulations of a lot of people. So either no one wants to, no one can, or we're almost certainly in one.
In any case, I doubt that we can confirm that we're in one or break out before the singularity. Unlike our computers, where software in a hardware-VM can confirm that it's in a VM because our simulation incompletely simulates the processor state, a simulation run by a superhuman entity would have both the intelligence and cpu power to make sure that nothing was left out of the processor's state.
More interestingly, what level of computing power (in the math/turing sense) would the runners of our simulation have? An N-qubit quantum computer could solve the halting problem for an n-bit Turing machine by enumerating every single state simultaneously. Can the simulation-runners solve our simulation's halting problem, which must then require a level of power beyond a quantum computer?
Yes, because no one will notice a minor discrepancy like there being a white guy's picture in the card readout and a latino in the car.
Maybe he means he wants 2.8?
If you sell it to me, it's my hardware, and I'll run whatever code and programs I damn well feel like, thank you very much.
You mean machinima?
One step closer to the "standard quantum-dot storage card" mentioned in Singularity Sky.
No, I don't know why I find that one line so memorable when there were dozens of awesome ones to choose from.
In short, when it comes to the government having information about you the best policy is "deny unless explicitly allowed." Now, if they just wanted to put a (secure) rfid chip in your driver's license that says the same thing the license says, fine.
But whenever this comes up it involves all of your identifying information being on one chip that can be read by any government agency's scanner. It also tends to involve a similar centralized database that's just begging to be abused. Remember: If supporters of a law, when confronted about possible abuses that it would permit, angrily deny that such will occur then you have discovered exactly what the law will be used for as soon and often as possible.