Microsoft and Intel are led by aging baby boomers who have run out of good ideas simply because they are too old and set in their ways. They still think in 20th century mode. They have no clue as to how to solve the parallel programming crisis and they speak about the future as if a solution were a fait accompli. Whoever is the first to come out with the correct solution will rocket right past them and they won't know what happened until it's too late. Personally, I am tired of Windows and x86-based processors. But then again, Linux is just as old as Windows. Doesn't matter. Soon they will all go the way of the Dodo.
Good luck. You are about to come face to face with thousands of programming languages, operating systems, dev tools and conflicting advice from fellow programmers who are fanatical about one approach or another. Get ready for the Forth fanatics, the stateless functional programming lunatics, the autistic OOP multitude, the data flow slackers, the state machine mechanics, the immature script kiddies, the deranged hackers, the GOTO alarmists, the proper art of commenting freaks and the multithreading mutants from Mars. Did I mention atheists, vegetarians, punk rockers and libertarians? Abandon all hope of sanity as you take your first fateful steps into the mental asylum from hell.
Re:My 10 Million Dollar Business Plan for Transmet
on
Transmeta Up For Sale
·
· Score: 1
The x86 is a dinosaur from the last century. It is about to go the way of the buggy whip and the vacuum tube. The same is true for all CPUs, IMO. The principles behind the CPU first surfaced 150 years ago when Babbage invented his analytical engine. It's time for something new. Vector processing is the way of the future.
Look, if you provide dev tools that make parallel programming so easy that a child can use them, then it will take no time for people to build awesome applications to go along with your massively parallel multicore processors. You would see amazing stuff come out of nowhere that is currently so cost-prohibitive as to be out of the question.
Nvidia would be better off buying Tilera. Transmeta has potential but right now it has nothing revolutionary to offer. Tilera's got their patented Imesh technology that actually kicks ass.
My 10 Million Dollar Business Plan for Transmeta
on
Transmeta Up For Sale
·
· Score: 1
Shameless plug. For $10 million, I can transform Transmeta from a has-been into the number 1 processor company in the world for decades to come. There is a way to build a super fast processor core to handle parallel tasks using very little power. Unlike a GPU (which uses an SIMD configuration), this processor will be be based on a pure MIMD vector architecture. I also got an easy-to-use parallel programming model for it. Read my articles on Tilera's TILE64 to find out what I'm talking about.
Agreed about threads, but CPUs? Are you going to run your calculations on a bacteria?
Funny but no. There are other types of processors besides the CPU. The GPU comes to mind. My personal favorite is a pure MIMD vector core but you're not going to find too many of those around.
It's about a half a petaflop... but guess what? It runs Linux!
This sounds kind of nice but why should this make it any easier to write parallel programs for it? You still have to manage hundreds if not thousands of threads, right? This will not magically turn it into a computer for the masses, I guarantee you that. I have said it elswhere but parallel computing will not come of age until they do away with multithreading and the traditional CPU core. There is a way to build and program parallel computers that does not involve the use of threads or CPUs. This is the only way to solve the parallel programming crisis. Until then, supercomputing will continue to be a curiosity that us mainstream programmers and users can only dream about.
According to the National Center for Statistics and Analysis, in 2005, over 43,000 people were killed in traffic accidents in the U.S. alone. I don't know what the number is for the entire world but it must be in the six digits. Most of them are not caused by older drivers. Traffic fatalities and injuries are a much bigger threat to the nation than terrorism. All the money being spent on terrorism should be thrown into developping a 100% automated transit system. And no, we don't need AI to do it.
Arguing on/. is futile. I write about the high percentage of weirdoes among artists and nerds (it is a well-known fact that Hollywood and Silicon Valley have a higher percentage of autism and other neurological pathologies) and I get modded down as a troll. You write about Christian fundamentalists and alcoholic rednecks exhibiting extreme narcissism and bordering on sociopathy and psychopathy and you get modded up as insightful. What gives? The moderators are taking sides and, in so doing, making my point for me. See you around.
Ahem - they are **reporting** that they have better mental health. Doesn't mean they're actually healthier. In fact, they could just be more fearful that other people will think they're nuts.
It is a fact that artists, nerds and techies tend to be more mentally shall I say, weird, than the rest of the population. A high percentage of the nerds and artists that I have personally come in contact with are either bipolar, autistic or schizophrenic. And guess what, almost all of them are left wing. Let me add that I have nothing against them since many are true geniuses in what they do. It's just that they tend to be socially rebellious by nature.
A November 2007 Gallup poll reveals that Republicans by a wide margin across all age, gender, income, and education levels report significantly better mental health than Democrats and Independents.
As we observe in nature, only the paranoids survive. The others are just nuts. LOL.
You seem to not understand the difference (or that there is a difference) between multi-threaded programming, and SIMD data processing.
I don't knwo what I wrote in my previous comments that led you to believe that I may not know the difference between multithreading and SIMD. You should read my blog. I can't stand threads. Nice talking to you.
Integrating SIMD instructions into CPUs seems to have gone off without a hitch, and no world-ending upheavals.
Maybe not the end of the world but if a solution already existed as you seem to imply, Intel, AMD, Microsoft and the others would not be spending tens of millions of dollars a year to find a solution. The parallel programming problem is not just a problem. It is a crisis. Stanford Computer science professor, Kunle Olukotun, said recently, "If I were the computer industry, I would be panicked, because it's not obvious what the solution is going to look like and whether we will get there in time for these new machines" (source: CNN Money).
Comparing a GPU, an SIMD (single instruction, multiple data) vector processor, to a CPU, a superscalar sequential processor, is like comparing apples and oranges. Sure, they are both fruits but they don't taste the same. Using the term 'general-purpose' to describe a GPU is pushing the limits of what a GPU is. Certainly, it can run general-purpose programs but much faster at running what it was designed to run, data-parallel applications. A GPU does not have to have a fast clock because it makes up for it by doing a lot of operations in parallel.
A CPU, OTOH, can have a very fast clock but even if it has a superscalar architecture, it cannot come close to the performance of a GPU on data-parallel apps.
It is obvious that neither the GPU nor the CPU are universal processors and, IMO, that is an unforgivable sin. Having both of these types of processors in the same machine is asking for trouble. They require two incompatible programming models. Programming such a beast is like pulling teeth with a crowbar. Only a few are good at it and that is not good for the industry. What is needed is a fast vector processor that can run in MIMD (multiple instruction, multiple data) mode. This way, it would have no trouble running general-purpose apps just as fast as data-parallel apps. The problem is that such a processor would need a radically different programming model, one that is specifically designed for fine-grain MIMD prosessing. None of the current programming tools would work with it. Still, that's the future of parallel computing. There is no getting around this.
most of the american stock exchanges have been going down all year.
It may be funny but when billions of dollars and even lives are at stake, software unreliability is not that funny. Software should work like hardware and should never fail unless there is a physical breakdown. Hardware is reactive, parallel and synchronous. Likewise, software should be reactive, parallel and synchronous. Until computer scientists realize this simple truth, we will continue to have catastrophic software failures and pay the consequences. It's time to say goodbye to the antiquated computing models of the last century. It's time to put the obsolete ideas of Turing and Babbage to rest in the age of multicore processors and massive parallelism. And please, kill the damn threads already; there is a way to implement rock-solid parallelism in a computer that does not involve threads at all. More at the links below.
Quite frankly, I dont care who is at fault for the globe heating up and the sea rising. I *do* care if my city is going to be under 20 feed of water a hundred years from now.
This is pure alarmist BS put out by con artists like Al Gore and the enviromaniacs. The earth was a lot warmer in the past and it did not cause the ocean level to rise 20 feet. This, too, is a fact proven by science. The earth has a natural temperature control mechanism called the atmosphere and the oceans. As the temperature goes up, so do the volume of water vapor in the air. More clouds means more heat reflected back into space.
Uh-huh, so all those climatologists who say otherwise are either a bunch of halfwits
In brief, yes. They are both halfwits and con artists. How about that, eh? And so are you for defending their con game. You must be benefiting from it too since you defend them so much. There does not need to be any conspiracy. It's all about money and you just want your share of that stolen money, period. I tell it like I see it.
nice troll, absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Funny, I was thinking the same about you. Everything points to the fact that global warming was much worse in the past than it is now and that it was not caused by the release of CO2 into the atmosphere by humans (or the farting of animals). It also did not cause the oceans to rise and submerge half of the world's land area. Deny if you are a con artist. I'm sure you'll always find idiots or other rip-off artists to go along with your lies. I am not one of them and those who think like me are growing in numbers and we vote.
Actually, it's cause it doesn't prove evolution wrong... it just changes the theory of evolution.
LOL. I see. So every time a prediction of evolutionary theory is falsified, it does not mean that evolution is falsified but only that the theory needs to be modified. It follows that evolution is not falsifiable, ever. Which means that it is not science. It's voodoo crap, right? Now I get it.
Global warming is part of a natural cycle. It happened many times before. They're finding human artifacts underneath melting glaciers in the Swiss Alps, for crying out loud! What does it mean?
It means that the earth was warm enough at one point in the past for humans to live in areas that are still covered with ice.
It means that there were no glaciers in those areas a few thousand years ago because the earth was warmer than it is now.
It means that humans did not cause global warming then.
It means that SUVs are not causing global warmning now.
It means, put that in your pipe and smoke it.
It means, stop ripping me off with your carbon footprint taxes.
It means, take your footprint and your carbon and pack them up your asses. LOL.
Junk DNA is a prediction of evolutionary biology. Intelligent Design theory, on the other hand, predicts that there can be no such thing as junk DNA because an intelligent designer would not purposely design junk. So the OP is right; this is more proof that evolution is wrong. What do evolutionists have to say to that? ahahaha...
Why was the parent modded down as flamebait? Is it because it is telling an inconvenient truth to the atheist moderators on Slashdot? I think so.
It is true that junk DNA is a prediction of evolutionary biology. And it is true that ID predicts that there is no junk DNA for the simple reason that an intelligent designer does not design junk.
You just can't take the truth when it contradicts your Darwinist/atheist agenda.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft and Intel are led by aging baby boomers who have run out of good ideas simply because they are too old and set in their ways. They still think in 20th century mode. They have no clue as to how to solve the parallel programming crisis and they speak about the future as if a solution were a fait accompli. Whoever is the first to come out with the correct solution will rocket right past them and they won't know what happened until it's too late. Personally, I am tired of Windows and x86-based processors. But then again, Linux is just as old as Windows. Doesn't matter. Soon they will all go the way of the Dodo.
If you had an artificial secretary that could do the things you mentioned, then there would be no job for you because AI would have been solved.
Good luck. You are about to come face to face with thousands of programming languages, operating systems, dev tools and conflicting advice from fellow programmers who are fanatical about one approach or another. Get ready for the Forth fanatics, the stateless functional programming lunatics, the autistic OOP multitude, the data flow slackers, the state machine mechanics, the immature script kiddies, the deranged hackers, the GOTO alarmists, the proper art of commenting freaks and the multithreading mutants from Mars. Did I mention atheists, vegetarians, punk rockers and libertarians? Abandon all hope of sanity as you take your first fateful steps into the mental asylum from hell.
The x86 is a dinosaur from the last century. It is about to go the way of the buggy whip and the vacuum tube. The same is true for all CPUs, IMO. The principles behind the CPU first surfaced 150 years ago when Babbage invented his analytical engine. It's time for something new. Vector processing is the way of the future.
Look, if you provide dev tools that make parallel programming so easy that a child can use them, then it will take no time for people to build awesome applications to go along with your massively parallel multicore processors. You would see amazing stuff come out of nowhere that is currently so cost-prohibitive as to be out of the question.
Nvidia would be better off buying Tilera. Transmeta has potential but right now it has nothing revolutionary to offer. Tilera's got their patented Imesh technology that actually kicks ass.
Shameless plug. For $10 million, I can transform Transmeta from a has-been into the number 1 processor company in the world for decades to come. There is a way to build a super fast processor core to handle parallel tasks using very little power. Unlike a GPU (which uses an SIMD configuration), this processor will be be based on a pure MIMD vector architecture. I also got an easy-to-use parallel programming model for it. Read my articles on Tilera's TILE64 to find out what I'm talking about.
Agreed about threads, but CPUs? Are you going to run your calculations on a bacteria?
Funny but no. There are other types of processors besides the CPU. The GPU comes to mind. My personal favorite is a pure MIMD vector core but you're not going to find too many of those around.
It's about a half a petaflop... but guess what? It runs Linux!
This sounds kind of nice but why should this make it any easier to write parallel programs for it? You still have to manage hundreds if not thousands of threads, right? This will not magically turn it into a computer for the masses, I guarantee you that. I have said it elswhere but parallel computing will not come of age until they do away with multithreading and the traditional CPU core. There is a way to build and program parallel computers that does not involve the use of threads or CPUs. This is the only way to solve the parallel programming crisis. Until then, supercomputing will continue to be a curiosity that us mainstream programmers and users can only dream about.
According to the National Center for Statistics and Analysis, in 2005, over 43,000 people were killed in traffic accidents in the U.S. alone. I don't know what the number is for the entire world but it must be in the six digits. Most of them are not caused by older drivers. Traffic fatalities and injuries are a much bigger threat to the nation than terrorism. All the money being spent on terrorism should be thrown into developping a 100% automated transit system. And no, we don't need AI to do it.
Arguing on /. is futile. I write about the high percentage of weirdoes among artists and nerds (it is a well-known fact that Hollywood and Silicon Valley have a higher percentage of autism and other neurological pathologies) and I get modded down as a troll. You write about Christian fundamentalists and alcoholic rednecks exhibiting extreme narcissism and bordering on sociopathy and psychopathy and you get modded up as insightful. What gives? The moderators are taking sides and, in so doing, making my point for me. See you around.
Yes, but left wingers tend to rebel against majority opinion.
Ahem - they are **reporting** that they have better mental health. Doesn't mean they're actually healthier. In fact, they could just be more fearful that other people will think they're nuts.
It is a fact that artists, nerds and techies tend to be more mentally shall I say, weird, than the rest of the population. A high percentage of the nerds and artists that I have personally come in contact with are either bipolar, autistic or schizophrenic. And guess what, almost all of them are left wing. Let me add that I have nothing against them since many are true geniuses in what they do. It's just that they tend to be socially rebellious by nature.
A November 2007 Gallup poll reveals that Republicans by a wide margin across all age, gender, income, and education levels report significantly better mental health than Democrats and Independents.
As we observe in nature, only the paranoids survive. The others are just nuts. LOL.
I don't knwo what I wrote in my previous comments that led you to believe that I may not know the difference between multithreading and SIMD. You should read my blog. I can't stand threads. Nice talking to you.
Maybe not the end of the world but if a solution already existed as you seem to imply, Intel, AMD, Microsoft and the others would not be spending tens of millions of dollars a year to find a solution. The parallel programming problem is not just a problem. It is a crisis. Stanford Computer science professor, Kunle Olukotun, said recently, "If I were the computer industry, I would be panicked, because it's not obvious what the solution is going to look like and whether we will get there in time for these new machines" (source: CNN Money).
Comparing a GPU, an SIMD (single instruction, multiple data) vector processor, to a CPU, a superscalar sequential processor, is like comparing apples and oranges. Sure, they are both fruits but they don't taste the same. Using the term 'general-purpose' to describe a GPU is pushing the limits of what a GPU is. Certainly, it can run general-purpose programs but much faster at running what it was designed to run, data-parallel applications. A GPU does not have to have a fast clock because it makes up for it by doing a lot of operations in parallel.
A CPU, OTOH, can have a very fast clock but even if it has a superscalar architecture, it cannot come close to the performance of a GPU on data-parallel apps.
It is obvious that neither the GPU nor the CPU are universal processors and, IMO, that is an unforgivable sin. Having both of these types of processors in the same machine is asking for trouble. They require two incompatible programming models. Programming such a beast is like pulling teeth with a crowbar. Only a few are good at it and that is not good for the industry. What is needed is a fast vector processor that can run in MIMD (multiple instruction, multiple data) mode. This way, it would have no trouble running general-purpose apps just as fast as data-parallel apps. The problem is that such a processor would need a radically different programming model, one that is specifically designed for fine-grain MIMD prosessing. None of the current programming tools would work with it. Still, that's the future of parallel computing. There is no getting around this.
Herading the Impending Death of the CPU
most of the american stock exchanges have been going down all year.
It may be funny but when billions of dollars and even lives are at stake, software unreliability is not that funny. Software should work like hardware and should never fail unless there is a physical breakdown. Hardware is reactive, parallel and synchronous. Likewise, software should be reactive, parallel and synchronous. Until computer scientists realize this simple truth, we will continue to have catastrophic software failures and pay the consequences. It's time to say goodbye to the antiquated computing models of the last century. It's time to put the obsolete ideas of Turing and Babbage to rest in the age of multicore processors and massive parallelism. And please, kill the damn threads already; there is a way to implement rock-solid parallelism in a computer that does not involve threads at all. More at the links below.
Why Software Is Bad and What We can do to Fix It
How to Solve the Parallel Programming Crisis
Quite frankly, I dont care who is at fault for the globe heating up and the sea rising. I *do* care if my city is going to be under 20 feed of water a hundred years from now.
This is pure alarmist BS put out by con artists like Al Gore and the enviromaniacs. The earth was a lot warmer in the past and it did not cause the ocean level to rise 20 feet. This, too, is a fact proven by science. The earth has a natural temperature control mechanism called the atmosphere and the oceans. As the temperature goes up, so do the volume of water vapor in the air. More clouds means more heat reflected back into space.
Uh-huh, so all those climatologists who say otherwise are either a bunch of halfwits
In brief, yes. They are both halfwits and con artists. How about that, eh? And so are you for defending their con game. You must be benefiting from it too since you defend them so much. There does not need to be any conspiracy. It's all about money and you just want your share of that stolen money, period. I tell it like I see it.
nice troll, absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Funny, I was thinking the same about you. Everything points to the fact that global warming was much worse in the past than it is now and that it was not caused by the release of CO2 into the atmosphere by humans (or the farting of animals). It also did not cause the oceans to rise and submerge half of the world's land area. Deny if you are a con artist. I'm sure you'll always find idiots or other rip-off artists to go along with your lies. I am not one of them and those who think like me are growing in numbers and we vote.
Actually, it's cause it doesn't prove evolution wrong... it just changes the theory of evolution.
LOL. I see. So every time a prediction of evolutionary theory is falsified, it does not mean that evolution is falsified but only that the theory needs to be modified. It follows that evolution is not falsifiable, ever. Which means that it is not science. It's voodoo crap, right? Now I get it.
Global warming is part of a natural cycle. It happened many times before. They're finding human artifacts underneath melting glaciers in the Swiss Alps, for crying out loud! What does it mean?
It means that the earth was warm enough at one point in the past for humans to live in areas that are still covered with ice.
It means that there were no glaciers in those areas a few thousand years ago because the earth was warmer than it is now.
It means that humans did not cause global warming then.
It means that SUVs are not causing global warmning now.
It means, put that in your pipe and smoke it.
It means, stop ripping me off with your carbon footprint taxes.
It means, take your footprint and your carbon and pack them up your asses. LOL.
One Scientist's Junk Is a Creationist's Treasure
Junk DNA is a prediction of evolutionary biology. Intelligent Design theory, on the other hand, predicts that there can be no such thing as junk DNA because an intelligent designer would not purposely design junk. So the OP is right; this is more proof that evolution is wrong. What do evolutionists have to say to that? ahahaha...
Why was the parent modded down as flamebait? Is it because it is telling an inconvenient truth to the atheist moderators on Slashdot? I think so.
It is true that junk DNA is a prediction of evolutionary biology. And it is true that ID predicts that there is no junk DNA for the simple reason that an intelligent designer does not design junk.
You just can't take the truth when it contradicts your Darwinist/atheist agenda.
So would you consider Chihuahuas and Great Danes one and the same species?
And what's the search space got to do with it?
You got the IQ of a watermelon. See ya.