Yup, they created new species by pushing evolution through selection.
Huh? The last time I looked, cows are still cows and goats are still goats. Even in species like dogs and cats where extensive breeding (selection) is the norm, chihuahuas and pit bulls are still part of the dog species. I haven't seen farmers creating hippos out of cows or dolphins out of pigs. Besides, natural or artificial selection does not create new genes. The genes had been there for millions of years. Where did they come from? If this is the best you can do, you got a long way to go.
And why ignore my argument regarding the exponential growth of the search space and respond with something as stupid as farmers creating new species of animals? Von Neumann was right about Darwinism. It's a complete joke. LOL.
As someone who has experimented with GA can tell you, evolution works only when the search space is trivial. Once the search space crosses a certain very low threshold, the number of combinations begins to multiply exponentially making any subsequent search impossible, no matter how fast. The extremely slow pace of evolution (mutations + natural selection), the existence of which nobody in their right mind would deny, is not going to generate millions of species stating from single self-reproducing cells. Hell, not even the cells can exist to start with. This simple observation is the reason that smart people like Von Neumann understood that the Darwinian explanation for the origin of species is a complete joke. Darwinists cannot accept this because they have an agenda to defend and it makes them look stupid.
Besides, Darwin did not discover natural selection. Generations of farmers and herders around the world had observed it for millenia. Even the Bible, which you despise, mentions it.
Von Neumann (the computer pioneer) thought that evolution was a joke and Newton believed in the Bible. So did Leibniz, the co-inventor (with Newton) of calculus. Should I mention Charles Babbage and Lady Ada Lovelace? They were all awesome scientists and highly intelligent thinkers. The IQ of your average Slashdot reader looks like that of a watermelon in comparison. LOL.
One can hypothesise that the universe was created and still be a great scientist. I am sick and tired of the condescending elitist attitude of most atheists and Dawrwinists. You people look stupid especially when you act like you're smarter than everybody else and you will eventually lose the war of ideas because of it.
nVidia are building a CPU, a Cortex A9 derivative with a GPU on-die and a load of other nice features
A CPU is a sequential processor and, as such, it has no business being in a parallel processor. Heterogeneous processors are hideous beasts that will be a pain in the ass to program. What the world needs is a pure MIMD vector processor in which every instruction is an indenpendent vector that can be processed in parallel. There is no reason to have a CPU for general purpose programs and a GPU for graphics and data-parallel appliations. One fast homogeneous vector processor should do it all. To get an idea of what I'm talking about, read Transforming the TILE64 into a Kick-Ass Parallel Machine.
The writing is on the wall. The days of the CPU are numbered. This is the dawning of the age of the VPU, the vector processing unit.
If you think GPGPU is hard to program, you are using the wrong tools. Check out RapidMind. It's very easy.
Can someone use RapidMind's tools to implement a scalable neural network or a weather simulator or a chess program? How flexible is RapidMind or is is all domain specific?
Whether it is GPU or CPU or GPGPU, they're all missing the mark, IMO. Those chips are a pain in the ass to program and they are not universal. Mixing MIMD parallelism with SIMD parallelism is a match made in hell. Multithreading is seriously flawed. Intel knows that. That's why they're so busy working on domain-specific dev tools to keep the programmer insulated from all the nastiness. It's not going to work because there is no flexibility. The industry is in dire need of a seismic paradigm shift and the longer it waits, the more painful it's going to be down the road. To find out how to solve the parallel programming crisis, read Transforming the TILE64 into a Kick-Ass Parallel Machine.
It's a great idea and all, but you and what market segment are going to buy hundreds of thousands of those chips to offset to R&D and production costs?
Well, if you have a super fast, energy-efficient multicore processor that is easy to program, auto-scalable, self-balancing and supports fine-grain parallelism in a rock-solid deterministic environment, the entire embedded market will come to worship at your feet. Not to mention the mission and safety-critical markets: avionics, defense, communication, transportation, power generation, etc... Of course, the supercomputing market has always been around even if it isn't such a big market. The video game and simulation markets would also welcome such a processor, IMO, if only because it can handle anything you can throw at it, not just graphics.
Could you elaborate on what Intel's CPU's are missing
I was thinking more in terms of the EPIC or explicitly parallel instruction computing technology of the Itanium. In fact, I don't think the Itanium goes far enough. I believe that old fashioned sequential processing should be abandoned altogether in favor of a purely parallel approach. The software model should be such that all input instructions should have no dependencies. I'm proposing a pure MIMD vector processor that can execute 8 or more instructions on multiple data in parallel.
More than any other organization, Intel knows that multithreading is bad. Lots of smart people such as professor Edward Lee (the head of U.C. Berkeley's Parallel Computing Lab) have warned Intel of the disaster down the road. It is time for Intel and everybody else to make a clean break with the old stuff. There is an infinitely better way to design and program parallel computers that does not involve the use of threads at all. Instead of the Penryn, Intel should have picked something similar to the Itanium, which has a superscalar architecture. A sequential (scalar) core has no business doing anything in a parallel multicore processor. Intel will regret this. Sooner or later, a competitor will read the writings on the wall and do things right. Intel and the others will be left holding an empty bag. To find out the right way to design a multicore processor, read Transforming the TILE64 into a Kick-Ass Parallel Machine.
This is so much crap. There isn't one bit of evidence that multiple universes are possible and yet you are all talking about it as if it were a fait accompli? Wow! All because some of you cannot stand the idea that there is a possibility that some extremely powerful agency created the physical universe. Boy, are you people religious or what? Sir Karl is turning in his grave. Only physicists get aways with wild ass crap like this. Any other field of science would be up in arms.
At least, that has been my experience on Slashdot. Be a good boy and don't say anything that is politically incorrect because you will be modded down as a troll. LOL. I'm trembling with fear. In some countries, they just hang you.
On Slashdot, you are modded down as a troll if you say anything against Erlang, functional programming, Stephen Hawking, Alan Turing (it is not OK to criticize any homosexual regardless of how wrong they are because that makes you a homophobic), Richard Dawkins, P.Z. Myers, atheism, Darwinism, evolution, time travel, black holes, man-made global warming, the Big Bang, Star-Trek physics, quantum computing, Albert Einstein (it's OK to bash Isaac Newton, though, because he was a God-believing Christian), and more like it.
A time will come soon when Slashdot will be irrelevant and politically incorrect. You will all be known far and wide as a bunch of clueless nerds. LOL.
Just for grins and giggles: Quantum computing is pure crackpottery and a hoax. D-Wave is running a scam and Stephen Hawking is a time travel-believing crackpot. Same with David Deutsch. Now do your dirty work, you fearless Slashdot moderators. ahahaha...
Read your own blog, Mr. Troll. You *do* say that quantum physics is crackpottery. Please keep your ravings straight.
Fuck you one more time, jackass. And the stinking mule you sleep with. In the article you point to I write that quantum computing is crackpottery. Since when did quantum physics equate to quantum computing? QC is based on the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics. An interpretation does not a theory make.
Regarding your interpretation of what I write on my blog, fuck you again. LOL. The problem with assholes like you is that you're all humour-challenged. In addition, you believe in the possibility of time travel and the existence of zillions of parallel universes. A chicken-shit Star-Trek cult is what you idiots belong to. ahahaha...
You sir, are a troll if I ever read one. However, I'll feed you some just for the amusement value. In your opinion, what exactly is it that *can* be known, given the fact that our senses are quite limited? Does ultraviolet light exist, even if you can't see it, touch it or smell it? Does magnetism exist, even if you can't explain how it works and we have no built-in senses to detect it? What's so difficult to believe about quantum physics, given the huge mass of experiments that sustain it?
Fuck you, jackass. I don't remember ever saying that I rejected quantum physics. Why the strawman? Do you people work for D-Waves? Or are you all ass kissers by nature?
Like most physicists (and wannabes), you're just a pompous condescending asshole. You haven't the faintest clue as to what is really going on in the light experiment you proposed. You have no idea what the real properties of light are at the particle level. You are just guessing. Light isn't in any way special. Please! Are you fucking kidding me? Light is special to the extreme and none of you pompous asses are close to understanding what light is and how it really works. The experiment you suggested has nothing to do with observing state superposition. You have not observed any kind of superposition. You are just interpreting the result of an experiment using assertion as proof. Superposition is unobservable by definition. It is a mere interpretation, goddamnit, a billion quantum computing fanatics jumping up and down and foaming at the mouth notwithstanding. LOL. Before you can even begin to talk about superposition, you need to explain why the decay interval of subatomic particle is probabilistic. You haven't a clue. Until you get one, you are all a bunch of ignoramuses and scam artists braying at the moon.
PS. You crackpots need to show that you have guts and sign your names to your articles. I face the music and so should you.
Honestly, mr. Savain, if your ideas were in fact anything but complete bullshit (and you weren't such a complete asshole when it comes to presenting those ideas) someone might actually take you seriously. You remind me of Gene Ray and his Time Cube, and I don't think I'm the only one.
As I wrote elsewhere, opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one. You forgot to explain why your opinion matters to me. The last time I checked, you don't put food on my table. Neither do D-Wave, David Deutsch, Stephen Hawking and all the other crackpots in the physics community who believe in time travel and quantum computing. LOL. And yet, nothing moves in spacetime.
There is no dynamics within space-time itself: nothing ever moves therein; nothing happens; nothing changes. [...] In particular, one does not think of particles as "moving through" space-time, or as "following along" their world-lines. Rather, particles are just "in" space-time, once and for all, and the world-line represents, all at once the complete life history of the particle.
From "Relativity from A to B" by Dr. Robert Geroch, U. of Chicago
[Spacetime is] Einstein's block universe (in which, too, nothing ever happens, since everything is, four-dimensionally speaking, determined and laid down from the beginning).
Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations
I myself believe that there will one day be time travel because when we find that something isn't forbidden by the over-arching laws of physics we usually eventually find a technological way of doing it.
Now who is the crackpot, me (who, like Popper and Geroch, does not accept time travel and insists that nothing can move in spacetime) or David Deutsch? The answer depends on whether you are an ass kisser or you are on the side of truth and honesty.
I'm going to guess that you're actually the same person that I was just talking to, since you use the same sort of phrasing. (Not to mention your response coming just a minute or two after I posted). And so, of course, this is just feeding the trolls, but I want anyone else that reads this to understand what's actually going on: The uber-parent isn't just saying that science-fiction time travel is impossible. He is stating that Einstein's theories of relativity are wrong, that things in the universe do not progress forward in time. He also does not disbelieve in quantum computing. He disbelieves quantum mechanics and all of quantum physics.
Why lie to make a lame point? I never said that Einstein's theories are wrong. I say exactly what Sir Karl Popper said about Einstein's spacetime, that nothing can move in spacetime. Popper was a lot smarter than you'll ever be. I am saying exactly the same thing that well-known relativity author Robert Geroch said in his text book, Relatvity from A to B:
There is no dynamics within space-time itself: nothing ever moves therein; nothing happens; nothing changes. [...] In particular, one does not think of particles as "moving through" space-time, or as "following along" their world-lines. Rather, particles are just "in" space-time, once and for all, and the world-line represents, all at once the complete life history of the particle.
You call yourself a trained physicist and you did not know that nothing can move in spacetime, forward or backward? What kind of physicist are you? A Star-Trek physicist, obviously. And a liar to boot. And yes, I disbelieve quantum computing. There is no doubt in my mind that it is both a hoax and unmitigated crackpottery. Just like time travel and the like.
Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one. Who's more likely to be a crackpot, David Deutsch who believes in time travel and the existence of an infinite number of universes or someone who does not? In my opinion, Deutsch is the crackpot and everybody like you who supports his quantum computing crackpottery and his chicken shit Star-Trek physics. LOL.
D-Wave is obviously running an elaborate hoax or scam. In my opinion, any company that claims to have a working quantum computer is either perpetrating a fraud or is fooled by its own crackpottery. Quantum computing is one of the biggest hoaxes in the history of science, second only to anthropogenic global warming. And by the way, Oxford's David Deutsch, the most visible proponent of quantum computing, is a known time travel believing crackpot. You can mod me down as much as you want but it is the truth. No amount of censorship can suppress the truth forever.
GPUs use an SIMD (single instruction, multiple data) configuration. They perform best there is a huge number of independent entities that must be processed in parallel by applying the same operation on all of them simultaneously. Visual processing is a form of signal processing similar to graphics processing in which a stream of parallel data undergo the same transformation. The problem is that the minute you inject any kind of data dependency, your performance takes a major hit. For example, you would not want to use it to implement a parallel quicksort algorithm. So, the answer is no, GPUs are not for general purpose computing but they are fast in what they do and, unlike multithreading which is coarse-grained, they perform fine-grain parallelism. For an easy to read treatment of the two main types of parallel processors (SIMD and MIMD) read Nightmare on Core Street.
I don't think legalizing it goes far enough. There should be no laws about planting marijuana on your property whatosoever. Why? For the same reason that there is no law about planting roses or tomatoes or even poison ivy. Liberty above all. Either you live in a fascist country or you don't. We, the citizens, should not tolerate it, one way or another.
Doesn't marijuana grow naturally? How can the mere presence of plants, unless they were obviously cultivated, be illegal?
I agree but whether or not it is being cultivated is none of their damn business, IMO. People, whether in a democracy or a dictatorship, should resist such blatantly fascist intrusions upon their liberties. After all, we are told that we wage wars for the sake of liberty, right? How free are you if you cannot have a natural plant in your backyard?
What I want to know is how in the hell did we get to the point of allowing any governmental body to declare a plant that grows normally in nature to be illegal on the grounds that it is bad for us? Sticking a knife in my eyes or eating poisonous mushroom or rubbing poisin ivy all over my body is bad for me too, you know. Do I need a f*cking federal law for that? I don't think so. I am tired of people being so complacent about their liberty as to allow the government to walk all over them.
We should vote every politician out of office who supports these kinds of dumb laws that infringe on the people's freedom or insult their intelligence.
But apart from misdating the document by 800 years, misstating the impact of putting it online and misrepresenting the likely attitude of Christians to its publication, the summary is fine...
What do you expect from Slashdot? Honesty? That's a laugh.
Slashdot Mirror
Huh? The last time I looked, cows are still cows and goats are still goats. Even in species like dogs and cats where extensive breeding (selection) is the norm, chihuahuas and pit bulls are still part of the dog species. I haven't seen farmers creating hippos out of cows or dolphins out of pigs. Besides, natural or artificial selection does not create new genes. The genes had been there for millions of years. Where did they come from? If this is the best you can do, you got a long way to go.
And why ignore my argument regarding the exponential growth of the search space and respond with something as stupid as farmers creating new species of animals? Von Neumann was right about Darwinism. It's a complete joke. LOL.
PS. Don't bother responding. You're boring me.
As someone who has experimented with GA can tell you, evolution works only when the search space is trivial. Once the search space crosses a certain very low threshold, the number of combinations begins to multiply exponentially making any subsequent search impossible, no matter how fast. The extremely slow pace of evolution (mutations + natural selection), the existence of which nobody in their right mind would deny, is not going to generate millions of species stating from single self-reproducing cells. Hell, not even the cells can exist to start with. This simple observation is the reason that smart people like Von Neumann understood that the Darwinian explanation for the origin of species is a complete joke. Darwinists cannot accept this because they have an agenda to defend and it makes them look stupid.
Besides, Darwin did not discover natural selection. Generations of farmers and herders around the world had observed it for millenia. Even the Bible, which you despise, mentions it.
Von Neumann (the computer pioneer) thought that evolution was a joke and Newton believed in the Bible. So did Leibniz, the co-inventor (with Newton) of calculus. Should I mention Charles Babbage and Lady Ada Lovelace? They were all awesome scientists and highly intelligent thinkers. The IQ of your average Slashdot reader looks like that of a watermelon in comparison. LOL.
One can hypothesise that the universe was created and still be a great scientist. I am sick and tired of the condescending elitist attitude of most atheists and Dawrwinists. You people look stupid especially when you act like you're smarter than everybody else and you will eventually lose the war of ideas because of it.
nVidia are building a CPU, a Cortex A9 derivative with a GPU on-die and a load of other nice features
A CPU is a sequential processor and, as such, it has no business being in a parallel processor. Heterogeneous processors are hideous beasts that will be a pain in the ass to program. What the world needs is a pure MIMD vector processor in which every instruction is an indenpendent vector that can be processed in parallel. There is no reason to have a CPU for general purpose programs and a GPU for graphics and data-parallel appliations. One fast homogeneous vector processor should do it all. To get an idea of what I'm talking about, read Transforming the TILE64 into a Kick-Ass Parallel Machine.
The writing is on the wall. The days of the CPU are numbered. This is the dawning of the age of the VPU, the vector processing unit.
If you think GPGPU is hard to program, you are using the wrong tools. Check out RapidMind. It's very easy.
Can someone use RapidMind's tools to implement a scalable neural network or a weather simulator or a chess program? How flexible is RapidMind or is is all domain specific?
Whether it is GPU or CPU or GPGPU, they're all missing the mark, IMO. Those chips are a pain in the ass to program and they are not universal. Mixing MIMD parallelism with SIMD parallelism is a match made in hell. Multithreading is seriously flawed. Intel knows that. That's why they're so busy working on domain-specific dev tools to keep the programmer insulated from all the nastiness. It's not going to work because there is no flexibility. The industry is in dire need of a seismic paradigm shift and the longer it waits, the more painful it's going to be down the road. To find out how to solve the parallel programming crisis, read Transforming the TILE64 into a Kick-Ass Parallel Machine.
It's a great idea and all, but you and what market segment are going to buy hundreds of thousands of those chips to offset to R&D and production costs?
Well, if you have a super fast, energy-efficient multicore processor that is easy to program, auto-scalable, self-balancing and supports fine-grain parallelism in a rock-solid deterministic environment, the entire embedded market will come to worship at your feet. Not to mention the mission and safety-critical markets: avionics, defense, communication, transportation, power generation, etc... Of course, the supercomputing market has always been around even if it isn't such a big market. The video game and simulation markets would also welcome such a processor, IMO, if only because it can handle anything you can throw at it, not just graphics.
Could you elaborate on what Intel's CPU's are missing
I was thinking more in terms of the EPIC or explicitly parallel instruction computing technology of the Itanium. In fact, I don't think the Itanium goes far enough. I believe that old fashioned sequential processing should be abandoned altogether in favor of a purely parallel approach. The software model should be such that all input instructions should have no dependencies. I'm proposing a pure MIMD vector processor that can execute 8 or more instructions on multiple data in parallel.
More than any other organization, Intel knows that multithreading is bad. Lots of smart people such as professor Edward Lee (the head of U.C. Berkeley's Parallel Computing Lab) have warned Intel of the disaster down the road. It is time for Intel and everybody else to make a clean break with the old stuff. There is an infinitely better way to design and program parallel computers that does not involve the use of threads at all. Instead of the Penryn, Intel should have picked something similar to the Itanium, which has a superscalar architecture. A sequential (scalar) core has no business doing anything in a parallel multicore processor. Intel will regret this. Sooner or later, a competitor will read the writings on the wall and do things right. Intel and the others will be left holding an empty bag. To find out the right way to design a multicore processor, read Transforming the TILE64 into a Kick-Ass Parallel Machine.
This is so much crap. There isn't one bit of evidence that multiple universes are possible and yet you are all talking about it as if it were a fait accompli? Wow! All because some of you cannot stand the idea that there is a possibility that some extremely powerful agency created the physical universe. Boy, are you people religious or what? Sir Karl is turning in his grave. Only physicists get aways with wild ass crap like this. Any other field of science would be up in arms.
Louis Savain
Rebel Science News
lmao if I'd posted that I'd have been marked a troll for sure.
What's really funny is that I meant every word.
At least, that has been my experience on Slashdot. Be a good boy and don't say anything that is politically incorrect because you will be modded down as a troll. LOL. I'm trembling with fear. In some countries, they just hang you.
On Slashdot, you are modded down as a troll if you say anything against Erlang, functional programming, Stephen Hawking, Alan Turing (it is not OK to criticize any homosexual regardless of how wrong they are because that makes you a homophobic), Richard Dawkins, P.Z. Myers, atheism, Darwinism, evolution, time travel, black holes, man-made global warming, the Big Bang, Star-Trek physics, quantum computing, Albert Einstein (it's OK to bash Isaac Newton, though, because he was a God-believing Christian), and more like it.
A time will come soon when Slashdot will be irrelevant and politically incorrect. You will all be known far and wide as a bunch of clueless nerds. LOL.
Just for grins and giggles: Quantum computing is pure crackpottery and a hoax. D-Wave is running a scam and Stephen Hawking is a time travel-believing crackpot. Same with David Deutsch. Now do your dirty work, you fearless Slashdot moderators. ahahaha...
Read your own blog, Mr. Troll. You *do* say that quantum physics is crackpottery. Please keep your ravings straight.
Fuck you one more time, jackass. And the stinking mule you sleep with. In the article you point to I write that quantum computing is crackpottery. Since when did quantum physics equate to quantum computing? QC is based on the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics. An interpretation does not a theory make.
Regarding your interpretation of what I write on my blog, fuck you again. LOL. The problem with assholes like you is that you're all humour-challenged. In addition, you believe in the possibility of time travel and the existence of zillions of parallel universes. A chicken-shit Star-Trek cult is what you idiots belong to. ahahaha...
You sir, are a troll if I ever read one. However, I'll feed you some just for the amusement value.
In your opinion, what exactly is it that *can* be known, given the fact that our senses are quite limited? Does ultraviolet light exist, even if you can't see it, touch it or smell it? Does magnetism exist, even if you can't explain how it works and we have no built-in senses to detect it? What's so difficult to believe about quantum physics, given the huge mass of experiments that sustain it?
Fuck you, jackass. I don't remember ever saying that I rejected quantum physics. Why the strawman? Do you people work for D-Waves? Or are you all ass kissers by nature?
Like most physicists (and wannabes), you're just a pompous condescending asshole. You haven't the faintest clue as to what is really going on in the light experiment you proposed. You have no idea what the real properties of light are at the particle level. You are just guessing. Light isn't in any way special. Please! Are you fucking kidding me? Light is special to the extreme and none of you pompous asses are close to understanding what light is and how it really works. The experiment you suggested has nothing to do with observing state superposition. You have not observed any kind of superposition. You are just interpreting the result of an experiment using assertion as proof. Superposition is unobservable by definition. It is a mere interpretation, goddamnit, a billion quantum computing fanatics jumping up and down and foaming at the mouth notwithstanding. LOL. Before you can even begin to talk about superposition, you need to explain why the decay interval of subatomic particle is probabilistic. You haven't a clue. Until you get one, you are all a bunch of ignoramuses and scam artists braying at the moon.
PS. You crackpots need to show that you have guts and sign your names to your articles. I face the music and so should you.
Honestly, mr. Savain, if your ideas were in fact anything but complete bullshit (and you weren't such a complete asshole when it comes to presenting those ideas) someone might actually take you seriously. You remind me of Gene Ray and his Time Cube, and I don't think I'm the only one.
As I wrote elsewhere, opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one. You forgot to explain why your opinion matters to me. The last time I checked, you don't put food on my table. Neither do D-Wave, David Deutsch, Stephen Hawking and all the other crackpots in the physics community who believe in time travel and quantum computing. LOL. And yet, nothing moves in spacetime.
From "Relativity from A to B" by Dr. Robert Geroch, U. of Chicago
Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations
David Deutsch (source: NOVA OnLine)
Now who is the crackpot, me (who, like Popper and Geroch, does not accept time travel and insists that nothing can move in spacetime) or David Deutsch? The answer depends on whether you are an ass kisser or you are on the side of truth and honesty.
I'm going to guess that you're actually the same person that I was just talking to, since you use the same sort of phrasing. (Not to mention your response coming just a minute or two after I posted). And so, of course, this is just feeding the trolls, but I want anyone else that reads this to understand what's actually going on: The uber-parent isn't just saying that science-fiction time travel is impossible. He is stating that Einstein's theories of relativity are wrong, that things in the universe do not progress forward in time. He also does not disbelieve in quantum computing. He disbelieves quantum mechanics and all of quantum physics.
Why lie to make a lame point? I never said that Einstein's theories are wrong. I say exactly what Sir Karl Popper said about Einstein's spacetime, that nothing can move in spacetime. Popper was a lot smarter than you'll ever be. I am saying exactly the same thing that well-known relativity author Robert Geroch said in his text book, Relatvity from A to B:
You call yourself a trained physicist and you did not know that nothing can move in spacetime, forward or backward? What kind of physicist are you? A Star-Trek physicist, obviously. And a liar to boot. And yes, I disbelieve quantum computing. There is no doubt in my mind that it is both a hoax and unmitigated crackpottery. Just like time travel and the like.
Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one. Who's more likely to be a crackpot, David Deutsch who believes in time travel and the existence of an infinite number of universes or someone who does not? In my opinion, Deutsch is the crackpot and everybody like you who supports his quantum computing crackpottery and his chicken shit Star-Trek physics. LOL.
D-Wave's Quantum Computing Crackpottery
The whole field of quantum computing is crackpottery at best and an elaborate scam/hoax at worst. One man's opinion.
D-Wave is obviously running an elaborate hoax or scam. In my opinion, any company that claims to have a working quantum computer is either perpetrating a fraud or is fooled by its own crackpottery. Quantum computing is one of the biggest hoaxes in the history of science, second only to anthropogenic global warming. And by the way, Oxford's David Deutsch, the most visible proponent of quantum computing, is a known time travel believing crackpot. You can mod me down as much as you want but it is the truth. No amount of censorship can suppress the truth forever.
GPUs use an SIMD (single instruction, multiple data) configuration. They perform best there is a huge number of independent entities that must be processed in parallel by applying the same operation on all of them simultaneously. Visual processing is a form of signal processing similar to graphics processing in which a stream of parallel data undergo the same transformation. The problem is that the minute you inject any kind of data dependency, your performance takes a major hit. For example, you would not want to use it to implement a parallel quicksort algorithm. So, the answer is no, GPUs are not for general purpose computing but they are fast in what they do and, unlike multithreading which is coarse-grained, they perform fine-grain parallelism. For an easy to read treatment of the two main types of parallel processors (SIMD and MIMD) read Nightmare on Core Street.
I don't think legalizing it goes far enough. There should be no laws about planting marijuana on your property whatosoever. Why? For the same reason that there is no law about planting roses or tomatoes or even poison ivy. Liberty above all. Either you live in a fascist country or you don't. We, the citizens, should not tolerate it, one way or another.
Doesn't marijuana grow naturally? How can the mere presence of plants, unless they were obviously cultivated, be illegal?
I agree but whether or not it is being cultivated is none of their damn business, IMO. People, whether in a democracy or a dictatorship, should resist such blatantly fascist intrusions upon their liberties. After all, we are told that we wage wars for the sake of liberty, right? How free are you if you cannot have a natural plant in your backyard?
What I want to know is how in the hell did we get to the point of allowing any governmental body to declare a plant that grows normally in nature to be illegal on the grounds that it is bad for us? Sticking a knife in my eyes or eating poisonous mushroom or rubbing poisin ivy all over my body is bad for me too, you know. Do I need a f*cking federal law for that? I don't think so. I am tired of people being so complacent about their liberty as to allow the government to walk all over them.
We should vote every politician out of office who supports these kinds of dumb laws that infringe on the people's freedom or insult their intelligence.
But apart from misdating the document by 800 years, misstating the impact of putting it online and misrepresenting the likely attitude of Christians to its publication, the summary is fine...
What do you expect from Slashdot? Honesty? That's a laugh.