Methinks the lady does protest too much. Your post is just the usual propaganda with a hidden atheist agenda. It is no better than creationist (YEC) propaganda. Any scientific theory that exempts itself from challenges and falsification is just that, propaganda. Macro evolution has no evidence other than a seriously flawed fossil record and the evidence, when it does exist, proves nothing. Macro evolution is no more falsifiable than creationism. The shrill cries that science is under attack is just BS masquerading as legitimacy. Isaac Newton believed that the universe and lifeforms were created but that did not stop him from revolutionizing physics. Texas should be applauded for its courage in the face of persecution. If your science is superior, it will survive. If not, it will fail. I am seeing signs of failure and the latest news doe not bode well for macro evolution and atheism.
Good science takes courage, courage to stand up in the face of mainstream boneheadedness. I got the guts to write the above on Slashdot, a bastion of atheism and Darwinism because that is what it takes. Now do your duty, moderators. Mod me down and see if I give a shit.
The Nvidia GPUs are large MIMD vector machines - look at the specs, and what they're doing with CUDA. That they're mostly actually used to draw texels of monsters and walls and bullets in flight doesn't mean that they're not a highly capable general purpose vector processor...
Many people are (almost certainly correctly) stating that Nvidia wouldn't do that if they didn't think they had to, or didn't think that this would make them more money / market penetration than not doing it. Suggesting that sticking a small x86 on the corner of their big graphics chips is somehow an architectural black hole is silly - they're not dumb, they're chasing their market. The CPU won't slow anything else down.
Are you kidding me? If Nvidia's GPUs were pure general purpose MIMD vector processors, there would be no need to bundle them with traditional CPUs.
So, instead of forging ahead with novel parallel processor technology, Nvidia thinks that the way to go is to copy last century's dinosaur CPU? It's enough to make a grown man cry. Whoever is in charge of research at Nvidia should be given the boot. What a waste of talented engineers! But it's not too late, Nvidia. Click on the link below and do the right thing. Otherwise, Otellini will tear you a new one and you know it. How to Solve the Parallel Programming Crisis
On a different note, did not Nvidia recently say that the world is moving away form the CPU? I am beginning to think that Nvidia is either scared or bluffing. Otellini made a comment last week to the effect that Nvidia needs a CPU in order to build a GPGPU heterogeneous multicore processor and now there's all this talk about an Nvidia x86 coming out in a couple of years. Does Otellini call the shots at Nvidia? I am not so sure.
Nvidia is right that the days of the CPU are numbered but so are the days of the GPU. The reason is simple. Neither CPU nor GPU provides a universal or homogeneous solution to the parallel programming crisis. The heterogeneous route is pure folly too, if only because it does nothing to solve the crisis. In fact, it makes it worse because it combines two incompatible parallel models on the same dye. A match made in hell.
There is way to solve the crisis but it involves neither CPU nor GPU. Think pure MIMD vector processing. That's where Nvidia should invest its processor R&D resources, all of it. That is, if it wants to dominate the parallel computing industry for the next several decades. Intel would not know what hit it until it's too late. Big money is at stake. BIG.
Not just any single chip but a homogeneous multicore processor, that is, one that has multiple processing cores. There is difference between a CPU and a multicore processor.
Saccadic movements have been understood for a very long time, and it has pretty much always been assumed that part of their 'function' was to prevent the Ganzfeld effect and to facilitate in the construction of a representation in the mind of a wider field of view. It has also been known for a long time that the superior colliculus and brain stem are involved in those movements.
Yes but the real reason for microsaccades is that almost all the photoreceptors in the retina are designed to detect changes, such as the onset or offset of illumination. Unless there is change in the field of view, the sensors will not fire and the brain stops receiving visual signals. Indeed, retinal ganglion cells (RGC) use a center-surround arangement so that they can detect movement in many different directions. There must be a slight delay between the signals sent from the photoreceptors to the center and side cells in order for the RGC to fire. This is crucial for the detection of things like edges, lines, etc. The brain is primarily a massively parallel discrete signal processor. The precise timing of signals is crucial to its operation.
Rather than developing its own kick-ass multicore processor, Nvidia chose the lazy and, shall I say, stupid route. Way to go, Nvidia. FYI, the x86 is last century's dying dinosaur, soon to join the buggy whip and the cloth diapers in the trash bin of obsolete technologies.
We need a solution to the parallel programming problem. We need a new programming model and a new type of parallel processor to support the new model. We need solutions, not me-toos and hand-me-downs. We don't need no more stinking x86 processors. Please.
Apparently, the clock that is used to measure the speed of this transistor is even faster. Why not try to make transistors of the same material as the clock? I assume it's some kind of crystal.
I think the point the OP was making is that evolution is blind and thus cannot predict or determine the desired future state of a population. Therefore, it cannot use a comparison function to decide whether or not current results are approaching a desired future state. This is what the Mona Lisa program is doing and this is the reason it is not evolution in the Darwinian sense.
Uh, no. By removing side effects functional programming removes the need to copy anything.
I don't think so. The reason that you don't have side effects is precisely because everything is copied to message channels.
It only seems counter intuitive if you've swallowed the procedural programming paradigm and adopted it as your own to the point where you've forgotten how counter intuitive "X = X + 1" seemed at first.
It is counterintuitive because nature does not execute equations to do its thing. The human brain is orders of magnitude more complex than any program in existence and it does not perform equations. Nobody should be forced to use an unnatural notation for computer programming just because mathematicians are enamored with it. A computer is not a function evaluator. The proper context for computing is behavior and it comes from psychology, not mathematics. A computer program is a behaving machine, that is all. Functions and calculations are just types of behaviors, not the be-all of computing. They should not be the basis of how computers work (that was the problem from the beginning, Babbage and Lady Ada comes to mind). The correct (and highly intuitive) metaphors for programming and processor design are concepts like sensor/effector, stimulus/response, concurrent/sequential, predecessor/successor, etc. These are things that are readily understood by everybody, even kids.
And saying it's non-deterministic is just nuts.
No, it's not. Timing is not an inherent part of functional programming since the signal or event concept is not an essential part of it. Deterministic timing is is the sine qua non of reliability and security in software. Learn something new.
FP has nothing to do with threads, apart from the fact that functional programs could be executed by a large number of threads in parallel (or independent cores, or...?) without changing the outcome.
Calling a thread "process" is not going to change its nature. If you are promoting FP as the solution to the multicore programming problem, then all your so-called processes become threads.
And what exactly is the mess we're in? I can't think of another industry that has succeeded so spectacularly in such a short time.
Where have you been, on the moon? The industry is in a panic right now because of the multicore programming problem. They are current spending billiobns of dollars trying to find a solution. You must be on something.
"enfatuated" isn't a word.
Good for you. You want a cookie?
The blog you link to proposes a solution that is arguably worse on every issue you raise.
You know what they say. Opinions are like assholes, Every asshole's got one.
And so on...did I just feed a troll?
No. Why the insult? I can be insulting too, you know. You're just a know-it-all pompous ass doing your best to remain relevant in a changing world. How about that?
Pure functional programming removes all side effects.
Yes, at the expense of a copy-everything in sight, use zillions of message channels, kill your performance and spend billions of dollars to retrain millions of programmers to use a counterintuitive programming language. It ain't going to happen. Erlang and Lisp have been around for years. If FP was the answer, it would have happened already. The only reason it hasn't happened is because reality keeps kicking FP in the ass. As it should.
The bottom line is that FP is not the answer to the parallel programming crisis. FP is not just counterintuitive and hard to learn but it is also non-deterministic, meaning that it is not well-suited to mission critical systems. FP is a continuation of the same process/thread mentality that has gotten the industry into this mess in the first place.
I am really coming to the point where I seriously doubt that the academic community (and behemoths like Intel and Microsoft) can provide the type of leadership that is needed to get the industry around this difficult period in computer history. This is depressing. It is time for the baby boomer generation, who gave got us all enfatuated with Turing Machines and threads (both useless for true parallel programming), to step aside and let a new generation have a turn at the helm. You guys got us into this mess, no use in denying it. Now you have run out of ideas simply because you are too old and set in your ways.
The continued increase in multicore processing power is doomed unless a solution to the memory bottleneck is found. We need a memory system that obviates the needs for caching by completely eliminating bus contention in shared memory. This should be one of the primary research areas for companies like Intel and for government-funded research labs. We should pump billions of dollars into finding a solution to this problem over the next five years or ten years. I suspect that optical memory or quantum tunelling are promising areas of inquiry. This is what physicists should be focusing their efforts on instead of pursuing pipe dreams like quantum computing.
The number of cores per megabyte should double every 18 months so as to pursue the hypothetical ideal of one processor per byte. At that point we will have reached the end of the performance curve.
Every electron in the universe has the same charge and mass as all the others. Is that design or pure chance? Why don't all particles have different properties? After all, the set of all possible particle properties is infinite. Intelligent design is a tempting hypothesis because an infinite number of universes is beyond the bounds of normal scientific falsifiability.
Yeah. Some methods do work. Wired published a lengthy article earlier this year about how to remember everything. Apparently, a Polish guy named Piotr Wozniak sells a program called SuperMemo that does the trick.
The fact that YOU don't understand it is more a statement about yourself, not the science.
Pot calling kettle black. Show me one human being who truly understands the mechanism of movement. Dark matter and dark energy are inventions that physicists conjured up in order to hide the fact that their current theory of gravity (GR) is falsified. That's all. When they truly understand gravity and movement, then they'll have a leg to stand on. In the meantime, it's no better than creationism.
If you believe that extraterrestrials once lived on Mars and elsewhere in the solar system, then every little hill will look like an intelligently designed artifact. If you believe in dark matter, then every little unexplained phenomenon becomes evidence for dark matter. It's mostly a matter of faith. The same goes for all the other weird inventions of cosmology. I see very little science in this sort of things.
Heck, we have no clue, really, as to what make things fall or even why bodies move, and yet some feel they know enough to come up with all sorts of half-baked conjectures based on their incorrect and incomplete understanding. Unless and until physicists can fully explain the true mechanism of movement in language that the layperson can understand, I'll remain highly skeptical of their more outlandish conclusions (black holes, wormholes, dark matter, dark energy, big bang, parallel universes, etc.), sorry.
This sounds really great but unless they have a comprehensive theory of animal intelligence to work with, this is one more AI project that will likely fail. Sorry. No amount of computing power is going to help. If you had a good theory of intelligence, you would be able to prove its correctness and scalability on a regular desktop computer.
In my opinion, a truly intelligent mini-brain with no more than a few tens of thousands of neurons would surprise us with its clever abilities. Just hook it up to a small multi-legged robot with a set of sensors and let it learn through trial and error. If you could build a synthetic brain that can learn to be as versatile as a honeybee, you would have traveled close to 99% of the road toward the goal of making one with human-level intelligence.
Are you kidding me? This is the future interface of parallel programming, among other things. Rotate'm, push'm, pull'm, drag'm and drop'm. This technology will allow us to walk inside or fly through our programs and quickly create and/or modify them through trial-and-error. Kinda like the way an interior decorator might rearrange the furniture and colors on the walls. This is the beginning of the end of keyboards and mice and typing. Add a voice recognition interface and this shit is going to kick ass. It will turn users, gamers and developpers into magicians.
And so are Intel and Nvidia. Vector processing is indeed the way to go but GPUs use a specific and highly restricitve form of vector processing called SIMD (single instruction, multiple data). SIMD is great only for data-parallel applications like graphics but chokes to a crawl on general purpose parallel programs. The industry seems to have decided that the best approach to parallel computing is to mix two incompatible parallel programming models (vector SIMD and CPU multithreading) in one heterogeneous processor, the GPGPU. This is a match made in hell and they know it. Programming those suckers is like pulling teeth with a crowbar.
Neither multithreading not SIMD vector processing is the solution to the parallel programing crisis. What is needed is a multicore processor in which all the cores perform pure MIMD vector processing. Given the right dev tools, this sort of homogeneous processing environment would do wonders for productivity. This is something that Tim Sweeny has talked about recently (see Twilight of the GPU). Fortunately, there is a way to design and program parallel computers that does not involve the use of threads or SIMD. Read How to Solve the Parallel Programming Crisis for more.
In conclusion, I will say that the writing is on the wall. Both the CPU and the GPU are on their death beds but AMD and Intel will be the last to get the news. The good thing is that there are other players in the multicore business who will get the message.
So the hunters and gatherers suddenly decided to cut ten-ton blocks of stones with their flint tools, carved sophisticated figures on them and carried them many miles to their current location. Makes a lot of sense. Not!
Methinks a bunch of clueless know-it-alls have been feeding us unlearned commoners a bunch of BS.
So now random mutations are not allowed to be totally random anymore? Or should I conclude that, somehow, evolution figured out (solely via random mutations, mind you) that totally random mutations are not such a good thing? When did this realization evolve? Was it a recent occurrence or has it been in the works from day one? I have the funny feeling that there is some weirdness in our forever-evolving evolutionary hypothesis that is just a little too weird. We are going to need an evolutionary hypothesis to explain our evolutionary hypothesis.
Slashdot Mirror
Methinks the lady does protest too much. Your post is just the usual propaganda with a hidden atheist agenda. It is no better than creationist (YEC) propaganda. Any scientific theory that exempts itself from challenges and falsification is just that, propaganda. Macro evolution has no evidence other than a seriously flawed fossil record and the evidence, when it does exist, proves nothing. Macro evolution is no more falsifiable than creationism. The shrill cries that science is under attack is just BS masquerading as legitimacy. Isaac Newton believed that the universe and lifeforms were created but that did not stop him from revolutionizing physics. Texas should be applauded for its courage in the face of persecution. If your science is superior, it will survive. If not, it will fail. I am seeing signs of failure and the latest news doe not bode well for macro evolution and atheism.
Good science takes courage, courage to stand up in the face of mainstream boneheadedness. I got the guts to write the above on Slashdot, a bastion of atheism and Darwinism because that is what it takes. Now do your duty, moderators. Mod me down and see if I give a shit.
Are you kidding me? If Nvidia's GPUs were pure general purpose MIMD vector processors, there would be no need to bundle them with traditional CPUs.
So, instead of forging ahead with novel parallel processor technology, Nvidia thinks that the way to go is to copy last century's dinosaur CPU? It's enough to make a grown man cry. Whoever is in charge of research at Nvidia should be given the boot. What a waste of talented engineers! But it's not too late, Nvidia. Click on the link below and do the right thing. Otherwise, Otellini will tear you a new one and you know it.
How to Solve the Parallel Programming Crisis
On a different note, did not Nvidia recently say that the world is moving away form the CPU? I am beginning to think that Nvidia is either scared or bluffing. Otellini made a comment last week to the effect that Nvidia needs a CPU in order to build a GPGPU heterogeneous multicore processor and now there's all this talk about an Nvidia x86 coming out in a couple of years. Does Otellini call the shots at Nvidia? I am not so sure.
Nvidia is right that the days of the CPU are numbered but so are the days of the GPU. The reason is simple. Neither CPU nor GPU provides a universal or homogeneous solution to the parallel programming crisis. The heterogeneous route is pure folly too, if only because it does nothing to solve the crisis. In fact, it makes it worse because it combines two incompatible parallel models on the same dye. A match made in hell.
There is way to solve the crisis but it involves neither CPU nor GPU. Think pure MIMD vector processing. That's where Nvidia should invest its processor R&D resources, all of it. That is, if it wants to dominate the parallel computing industry for the next several decades. Intel would not know what hit it until it's too late. Big money is at stake. BIG.
Not just any single chip but a homogeneous multicore processor, that is, one that has multiple processing cores. There is difference between a CPU and a multicore processor.
Huang must have read this blog article Heralding the Impending Death of the CPU. Which is cool but Huang apparently declined to read this other article Parallel Computing: Both CPU and GPU Are Doomed, for obvious reasons.
Yes but the real reason for microsaccades is that almost all the photoreceptors in the retina are designed to detect changes, such as the onset or offset of illumination. Unless there is change in the field of view, the sensors will not fire and the brain stops receiving visual signals. Indeed, retinal ganglion cells (RGC) use a center-surround arangement so that they can detect movement in many different directions. There must be a slight delay between the signals sent from the photoreceptors to the center and side cells in order for the RGC to fire. This is crucial for the detection of things like edges, lines, etc. The brain is primarily a massively parallel discrete signal processor. The precise timing of signals is crucial to its operation.
Rather than developing its own kick-ass multicore processor, Nvidia chose the lazy and, shall I say, stupid route. Way to go, Nvidia. FYI, the x86 is last century's dying dinosaur, soon to join the buggy whip and the cloth diapers in the trash bin of obsolete technologies.
We need a solution to the parallel programming problem. We need a new programming model and a new type of parallel processor to support the new model. We need solutions, not me-toos and hand-me-downs. We don't need no more stinking x86 processors. Please.
Apparently, the clock that is used to measure the speed of this transistor is even faster. Why not try to make transistors of the same material as the clock? I assume it's some kind of crystal.
I think the point the OP was making is that evolution is blind and thus cannot predict or determine the desired future state of a population. Therefore, it cannot use a comparison function to decide whether or not current results are approaching a desired future state. This is what the Mona Lisa program is doing and this is the reason it is not evolution in the Darwinian sense.
Uh, no. By removing side effects functional programming removes the need to copy anything.
I don't think so. The reason that you don't have side effects is precisely because everything is copied to message channels.
It only seems counter intuitive if you've swallowed the procedural programming paradigm and adopted it as your own to the point where you've forgotten how counter intuitive "X = X + 1" seemed at first.
It is counterintuitive because nature does not execute equations to do its thing. The human brain is orders of magnitude more complex than any program in existence and it does not perform equations. Nobody should be forced to use an unnatural notation for computer programming just because mathematicians are enamored with it. A computer is not a function evaluator. The proper context for computing is behavior and it comes from psychology, not mathematics. A computer program is a behaving machine, that is all. Functions and calculations are just types of behaviors, not the be-all of computing. They should not be the basis of how computers work (that was the problem from the beginning, Babbage and Lady Ada comes to mind). The correct (and highly intuitive) metaphors for programming and processor design are concepts like sensor/effector, stimulus/response, concurrent/sequential, predecessor/successor, etc. These are things that are readily understood by everybody, even kids.
And saying it's non-deterministic is just nuts.
No, it's not. Timing is not an inherent part of functional programming since the signal or event concept is not an essential part of it. Deterministic timing is is the sine qua non of reliability and security in software. Learn something new.
FP has nothing to do with threads, apart from the fact that functional programs could be executed by a large number of threads in parallel (or independent cores, or...?) without changing the outcome.
Calling a thread "process" is not going to change its nature. If you are promoting FP as the solution to the multicore programming problem, then all your so-called processes become threads.
And what exactly is the mess we're in? I can't think of another industry that has succeeded so spectacularly in such a short time.
Where have you been, on the moon? The industry is in a panic right now because of the multicore programming problem. They are current spending billiobns of dollars trying to find a solution. You must be on something.
"enfatuated" isn't a word.
Good for you. You want a cookie?
The blog you link to proposes a solution that is arguably worse on every issue you raise.
You know what they say. Opinions are like assholes, Every asshole's got one.
And so on...did I just feed a troll?
No. Why the insult? I can be insulting too, you know. You're just a know-it-all pompous ass doing your best to remain relevant in a changing world. How about that?
Pure functional programming removes all side effects.
Yes, at the expense of a copy-everything in sight, use zillions of message channels, kill your performance and spend billions of dollars to retrain millions of programmers to use a counterintuitive programming language. It ain't going to happen. Erlang and Lisp have been around for years. If FP was the answer, it would have happened already. The only reason it hasn't happened is because reality keeps kicking FP in the ass. As it should.
The bottom line is that FP is not the answer to the parallel programming crisis. FP is not just counterintuitive and hard to learn but it is also non-deterministic, meaning that it is not well-suited to mission critical systems. FP is a continuation of the same process/thread mentality that has gotten the industry into this mess in the first place.
I am really coming to the point where I seriously doubt that the academic community (and behemoths like Intel and Microsoft) can provide the type of leadership that is needed to get the industry around this difficult period in computer history. This is depressing. It is time for the baby boomer generation, who gave got us all enfatuated with Turing Machines and threads (both useless for true parallel programming), to step aside and let a new generation have a turn at the helm. You guys got us into this mess, no use in denying it. Now you have run out of ideas simply because you are too old and set in your ways.
If you're truly interested in solving this problem, as opposed to holding on to your job until you retire, read How to Solve the Parallel Programming Crisis for more info.
The continued increase in multicore processing power is doomed unless a solution to the memory bottleneck is found. We need a memory system that obviates the needs for caching by completely eliminating bus contention in shared memory. This should be one of the primary research areas for companies like Intel and for government-funded research labs. We should pump billions of dollars into finding a solution to this problem over the next five years or ten years. I suspect that optical memory or quantum tunelling are promising areas of inquiry. This is what physicists should be focusing their efforts on instead of pursuing pipe dreams like quantum computing.
The number of cores per megabyte should double every 18 months so as to pursue the hypothetical ideal of one processor per byte. At that point we will have reached the end of the performance curve.
Every electron in the universe has the same charge and mass as all the others. Is that design or pure chance? Why don't all particles have different properties? After all, the set of all possible particle properties is infinite. Intelligent design is a tempting hypothesis because an infinite number of universes is beyond the bounds of normal scientific falsifiability.
Indeed. Mimicry is not synonymous with the real thing. Yoda showed emotions but we all know it was fake.
Yeah. Some methods do work. Wired published a lengthy article earlier this year about how to remember everything. Apparently, a Polish guy named Piotr Wozniak sells a program called SuperMemo that does the trick.
I just read a PhysOrg article today about how certain compounds in red wine seem to retard the onset of Alzheimer's, among other things. Check it out.
Pot calling kettle black. Show me one human being who truly understands the mechanism of movement. Dark matter and dark energy are inventions that physicists conjured up in order to hide the fact that their current theory of gravity (GR) is falsified. That's all. When they truly understand gravity and movement, then they'll have a leg to stand on. In the meantime, it's no better than creationism.
If you believe that extraterrestrials once lived on Mars and elsewhere in the solar system, then every little hill will look like an intelligently designed artifact. If you believe in dark matter, then every little unexplained phenomenon becomes evidence for dark matter. It's mostly a matter of faith. The same goes for all the other weird inventions of cosmology. I see very little science in this sort of things.
Heck, we have no clue, really, as to what make things fall or even why bodies move, and yet some feel they know enough to come up with all sorts of half-baked conjectures based on their incorrect and incomplete understanding. Unless and until physicists can fully explain the true mechanism of movement in language that the layperson can understand, I'll remain highly skeptical of their more outlandish conclusions (black holes, wormholes, dark matter, dark energy, big bang, parallel universes, etc.), sorry.
This sounds really great but unless they have a comprehensive theory of animal intelligence to work with, this is one more AI project that will likely fail. Sorry. No amount of computing power is going to help. If you had a good theory of intelligence, you would be able to prove its correctness and scalability on a regular desktop computer.
In my opinion, a truly intelligent mini-brain with no more than a few tens of thousands of neurons would surprise us with its clever abilities. Just hook it up to a small multi-legged robot with a set of sensors and let it learn through trial and error. If you could build a synthetic brain that can learn to be as versatile as a honeybee, you would have traveled close to 99% of the road toward the goal of making one with human-level intelligence.
Are you kidding me? This is the future interface of parallel programming, among other things. Rotate'm, push'm, pull'm, drag'm and drop'm. This technology will allow us to walk inside or fly through our programs and quickly create and/or modify them through trial-and-error. Kinda like the way an interior decorator might rearrange the furniture and colors on the walls. This is the beginning of the end of keyboards and mice and typing. Add a voice recognition interface and this shit is going to kick ass. It will turn users, gamers and developpers into magicians.
It fails the falsifiability criterion right out of the gate. Sorry. Sir Karl Popper is turning in his grave.
Nope. Sorry. The Cell Processor is a perfect example of how not to design a multicore processor. Just my opinion, of course.
And so are Intel and Nvidia. Vector processing is indeed the way to go but GPUs use a specific and highly restricitve form of vector processing called SIMD (single instruction, multiple data). SIMD is great only for data-parallel applications like graphics but chokes to a crawl on general purpose parallel programs. The industry seems to have decided that the best approach to parallel computing is to mix two incompatible parallel programming models (vector SIMD and CPU multithreading) in one heterogeneous processor, the GPGPU. This is a match made in hell and they know it. Programming those suckers is like pulling teeth with a crowbar.
Neither multithreading not SIMD vector processing is the solution to the parallel programing crisis. What is needed is a multicore processor in which all the cores perform pure MIMD vector processing. Given the right dev tools, this sort of homogeneous processing environment would do wonders for productivity. This is something that Tim Sweeny has talked about recently (see Twilight of the GPU). Fortunately, there is a way to design and program parallel computers that does not involve the use of threads or SIMD. Read How to Solve the Parallel Programming Crisis for more.
In conclusion, I will say that the writing is on the wall. Both the CPU and the GPU are on their death beds but AMD and Intel will be the last to get the news. The good thing is that there are other players in the multicore business who will get the message.
So the hunters and gatherers suddenly decided to cut ten-ton blocks of stones with their flint tools, carved sophisticated figures on them and carried them many miles to their current location. Makes a lot of sense. Not!
Methinks a bunch of clueless know-it-alls have been feeding us unlearned commoners a bunch of BS.
So now random mutations are not allowed to be totally random anymore? Or should I conclude that, somehow, evolution figured out (solely via random mutations, mind you) that totally random mutations are not such a good thing? When did this realization evolve? Was it a recent occurrence or has it been in the works from day one? I have the funny feeling that there is some weirdness in our forever-evolving evolutionary hypothesis that is just a little too weird. We are going to need an evolutionary hypothesis to explain our evolutionary hypothesis.