I don't think the logistics are really all that difficult - most of the parts (CPU, DRAM, probably LCD screen, etc.) in an iProduct aren't made in China either. They're made in Japan, Germany, the USA, or South Korea, shipped to china and assembled for $8/board at a contract manufacturer like Foxconn.
To make an iPhone (which sells for $5-600) probably costs apple $200, of which ~$10 is final assembly. The US doesn't really have the enormously large-scale contract manufacturers like Foxconn that Apple can say 'here, make 10k of these a day 6 months from now.' Apple could probably build a highly-automated factory in the US that could probably assemble iphones for $50, upping their total cost to $240 or so, but then they would have to run and operate a factory - something they haven't really been in the business of doing for the last decade or so. In addition to being more directly responsible for the welfare of their workers (it's easier to say 'we treat our workers well, we're not responsible for our contract manufacturers'), they would be shouldering more of the risk for no gain in profit. Apple can say, Sorry foxconn, we don't need anymore ipods', and then it's Foxconn's job to figure out what to do with their expensive factory.
I have a Makerbot Thing-o-Matic, and have also used smaller CNC milling machines before. There really are some crucial differences:
1) There's an actual fundamental difference in the types of objects that can be created with an additive process like the ToM uses, and a reductive process like a CNC milling machine uses. Creating lightweight, hollow objects is basically impossible with a mill but trivial with my ToM (I frequently print out multi-layer gear objects for mechanical widgets I'm building).
2) I can operate a small 3D printer in my apartment. It's roughly as loud as my laser printer, and doesn't produce any mess/dust-clouds/bad smells. I would never use a CNC mill in my living room. At best it is way louder, produces way more mess, and basically requires a shop-vac to be running the whole time.
3) Finally - having used a range of both cheap 3D printers and cheap (and not-so-cheap) CNC milling machines - I can get a low-end 3D printer like a makerbot that actually produces useful parts for under $2000. Ever CNC mill I've seen for under $3000 has been crap. If you can spend $5000 (and have at least some background in machining) you can get a pretty good small CNC milling machine and maintain it.
I feel like this argument kind of misses the point. First, 3D printers (of the makerbot variety, as well as more traditional/expensive machines) have both come down drastically in price and improved drastically in quality in the last few years. The same goes for CNC milling equipment (and computing, and printing, etc.). No, they aren't appropriate for making a million widgets to be sold at 2 cents/piece, but they're perfectly appropriate for teaching people how to design things.
A huge segment of the population (often with a lot of knowledge in very specific areas) doesn't know what is possible with tools like this. Setting up an environment for kids to play with where making things (rather than just buying them from a black-box company) is easy can significantly change their world view and make them way more creative/productive/etc. Things like 3D printers are cheap enough that you could have one for almost every kid in a class, and that makes the cost of failure incredibly low. Same with learning to program on cheap computers (and build electronics with cheap microcontrollers like the arduino ecosystem). I feel like that ability to de-mystify the world and teach kids to create something will probably prove extremely valuable to them./end ramble
You really think China is going to 'flip a switch' and replace their coal power plants with solar and wind overnight? Even though China uses 50% of the *world's* coal production right now? I think your mental model may be off by a few orders of magnitude in places. China has an estimated 950 Gigawatts of electricity production right now, and 82% of that comes from coal. Of the non-coal 18%, nearly all of that is hydroelectric, with a little bit of nuclear. There just aren't enough rivers left for china to significantly increase their hydro (how many more 3 gorges can they build? Zero! ). China's renewable energy growth might be 'torrid,' but it's still insignificant. China's energy use more than *doubled* in the last 10 years, and it's not slowing down. And what are they meeting that growth with? More coal, making the pollution worse.
In 10 years, I'd bet you almost anything that China is using even more coal than they are today.
As part two (see previous attempt) of my ongoing series in ‘computational necromancy,’ I’ve spent the last year and a half or so constructing my own 1/10-scale, binary-compatible, cycle-accurate Cray-1. This project falls purely into the “because I can!” category - I was poking around the internet one day looking for a Cray emulator and came up dry, so I decided to do something about it. Luckily, the Cray-1 hardware reference manual turned out to be useful enough that implementing most of this was pretty straightforward. The Cray-1 is one of those iconic machines that just makes you say “Now that’s a super computer!” Sure, your iPhone is 10X faster, and it’s completely useless to own one, but admit it . . you really want one, don’t you?
The Cray-1A Architecture
Now, let’s get down to specs - What is this bad boy running? The original machine ran at a blistering 80 MHz, and could use from 256-4096 kilowords (32 megabytes!) of memory. It has 12 independent, fully-pipelined execution units, and with the help of clever programming, can peak at 3 floating-point operations per cycle. Here’s a diagram of the overall architecture:
cray_architecture
It’s a fairly RISC-y design, with 8 64-bit scalar (S) registers , 8 64-bit/64-word vector (V) registers, and 8 24-bit address (A) registers. Rather than a traditional cache, it uses a ’software-managed’ cache with an additional 64 64-bit words (T registers) and 64 24-bit words (B registers). There are instructions to transfer data between memory and registers, and then register-to-register ‘compute’ instructions.
One of the coolest aspects of this machine is that everything is fully pipelined. This machine was designed to be fast, so if you’re careful, you can actually get one (or more) instruction every cycle. This has some interesting implications - there’s no ‘divide’ instruction, for instance, because it can take a variable amount of time to finish. To perform a divide, you need to first compute the ‘reciprocal approximation’ (something we *can* do in exactly 13 cycles, it turns out) of the denominator value, and then perform a separate multiply of that result with the numerator.
The vector instructions are particularly cool. A vector Add operation might take only 5 cycles to start producing results (remember, each vector can hold 64 values, so it takes 5 + 64 cycles to finish adding). Why wait for it to finish though? We can take the result output from the adder, and “chain” it straight into another vector unit (say a multiplier). And *that* only takes another 10 cycles or so, so we can chain that result into yet another unit (say, reciprocal approximation). Now, rather than waiting for the first operation to finish, we’re computing up to 3 floating point calculations per cycle. Clever programmers could sustain about 2 floating point operations per cycle, or 160 million instructions per second.
vector_chainingVector Chaining in Action! The Hardware
The actual design was implemented in a Xilinx Spartan-3E 1600 development board. This is basically the biggest FPGA you can buy that doesn’t cost thousands of dollars for a devkit. The Cray occupies about 75% of the logic resources, and all of the block RAM.
spartan3_1600
This gives us a spiffy Cray-1A running at about 33 MHz, with about 4 kilowords of RAM. The only features currently missing are:
-Interrupts
-Exchange Packages (this is how the Cray does ‘context-switching’ - it was intended as a batch-processing machine)
-I/O Channels (I just memory-mapped the UART I added to it).
If I ever find some software for this thing (or just get bored), I’ll probably go ahead and add the missing features. For now, though, everything else works sufficiently well to execute small test programs and such. The Software
It obviously depends how much they try to charge, but I'll probably sign up for this. I really like reading the NYT (I actually live in NYC) - they provide an incredibly valuable service, which at the moment they basically give away. Realistically, though, I don't really buy the things they advertise. Half the time when I'm reading their site, it's on a computer with adblock installed so I don't even *see* the ads they have up. I was all about the "everything should be free" movement when I was a student, but now that I have a job, I don't mind compensating people for their work. Especially if the alternative is a world where the only 'news' comes from crappy bloggers that can't spell or do legitimate research.
I upgraded from 9.04 to 9.10, and everything went smoothly except for the following:
1. My sound hardware is no longer recognized for some reason. I have a Dell Dimension computer with integrated audio, and it had worked fine after installing 9.04, but stopped working when I upgraded. It now claims I have no sound hardware installed, and I'm not entirely sure how to correct it.
2. After rebooting, the screen now goes blank (video card stops outputting) when X should start and bring up the login screen. I'm also not sure what caused this. I dropped down to a console, tried to kill the running X process, and then things seemed to miraculously work. I actually had to get something done, so I just went with it, but I'm not sure exactly what happened (or what I did to fix it). Maybe this is related to the proprietary Nvidia drivers I'm using?
Everything else seemed to work just fine as far as I can tell. When I have a few hours to dig through forums, I'll try to fix the sound and the screen blanking thing.
Well, if you take that idea to the limit using modern technologies, you basically wind up with rockin' new Nehalem processors using Quickpath Interconnect (QPI) between them, with PCI Express (serial links) to peripherals. But that's huge, is incredibly power hungry, and is basically the opposite of this architecture.
But let's think this over some more. To access L1 cache, you can do it in a single cycle. L2 might be 10-20 cycles, etc. Now going over PCIe, the fastest thing going besides QPI, has a latency of like 400-800 nS. Even on a lowly 1 GHz processor, that's like 800 clock cycles, so you might as well be watching grass grow while you try to do something that's not embarrasingly parallel. As soon as you pump up the clock rate more, and add large caches and DRAM and all that, then you have *huge* power problems, and you still have somewhat crappy performance.
Large-scale multi-core basically *does* use this architecture, only it's all on one die. It also uses an interconnect that doesn't suck, and manages to be cache coherent, so you can actually use it. Each core has it's own cache though (which is larger than the RAM on these chips), and the clock is nearly 2 orders of magnitude higher.
Like i said, this is fun for a microcontroller project, but the performance would be atrocious for anything except embarrasingly parallel problems (and even then it would suck using these microcontrollers).
The connection machine was still SIMD, even though it did have 64k (1-bit!) processors. This is just like the transputer architecture though! There are a couple of *really* big problems with this:
1) none of their microcontrollers are individually capable of running a large modern program. They have a few kilobytes of code, and no large backing RAM.
2) How do you get to I/O devices? If you need shared access to devices, this just makes all the problems of a normal computer enormously worse.
3) What about communication latency (and bandwidth) between nodes? They're using serial communications between 72 MHz processors. We're probably talking several microseconds of latency, minimum, and low-bandwidth (just not enough pins, and not nearly fast enough links) communication between nodes.
As fun as something like this would be to build and play around with, there are reasons architectures like the transputer died out. The penalty for going 'off-chip' is so large (and orders of magnitude larger nowadays than it was back then), and the links between chips suck so much, that a distributed architecture like this just can't compete with a screaming fast 3 GHz single-node (especially multi-core).
To be fair, Japan has a ton of examples of how *not* to run a business. They've spent nearly the last 2 decades in economic stagnation, they have an incredibly inflexible labor market (their employees are basically either hired for life or never get beyond "temp" status with essentially no protections and crappy pay/benefits), and they have a culture that discourages disagreeing with your superiors. As a country, they also have an incredibly dysfunctional government and a demographic (more specifically aging) problem that is rapidly destroying their competitiveness.
It might be more like if John McCain had of won San Fransisco with 70% in november, and the Democrats took to the streets to protest a rigged election. The Libertarian party has not shown itself capable of becoming a mass movement in any real sense.
In regards to the last part of your comment, 1) I'm pretty sure the constitution doesn't define a "fiscal system," even though you probably meant economic system, and 2) the violence has largely been on the part of the Baseej, a super-nationalist militia, against the fairly peaceful protesters
Don't forget groups like NYCResistor (www.nycresistor.com), HacDC (http://hacdc.org/), Noisebridge (https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Noisebridge), etc.
Hackers are still around =)
That's a fairly simplistic view. Let's say I own a company making widgets and selling them for $5. Materials cost me $1 and labor costs me $4 per widget, so I make about a dollar profit. Then CheapChinaCorp comes onto the scene and says "Hey, all you're doing is making widgets. I can make widgets for cheaper!", and they start pumping out widgets. Materials still cost $1, but their labor only costs $1 as well, so they sell theres for $3. Now basically *everyone* will go to whatever store, look at Widget A from USACorp for $5, and Widget B from CheapChinaCorp for $3, and buy the latter.
Now I could try to lower wages, but minimum wage puts a floor on that, so if they can pay their employees less than minimum wage (and they can!), I can't compete on cost. So I move my factory to Mexico before I go out of business, now my labor cost is only $1 too, and I'm still in business! Yeahy!
You can't think of it as "Giant mega corp" has 5000 jobs that they can bestow on whoever they feel. Companies have to make money, or they go out of business pretty damn quick.
There is also a flip-side to shipping manufacturing overseas. Let's say you're a consumer who also works in a dvd player factory with 100 other people. You happen to have a monopoly for the moment. You produce DVD players that cost $500 in order to pay you and your coworkers $20/hr. CheapChinaCorp comes onto the seen and releases a $100 DVD player. From a nation-wide perspective, is it better that everyone spends an extra $400 to keep you 100 people employed, or that everyone has an extra $400 in their pocket for other expenses? Which is a better "value" to the country?
If you can get a thousand cores on a chip, and you still only have enough pins for a handful (at best) of memory interfaces, doesn't memory become a HUGE bottleneck? How do these cores not get starved for data?
Following the dissolution of the USSR in 1991-1992, Russia agreed to essentially take over for the USSR, albeit in a somewhat reduced form.
Essentially, in return for taking responsibility for all of the USSR's international debt, Russia also inherited all of its treaty agreements (and its place on the UN Security Council).
So the answer is yes, Russia took it over.
Unfortunately "rectennas" don't really work all that well in practice. Beamed microwaves will never be a useful source of energy. Just the cost alone of having an orbiting solar cell, when the increase in available power compared to earth is only about 40% (yes, its "day" can theoretically be longer, but it still gets shadowed by the earth if it is geosynchronous).
In regards to solar, unless we come up with some sort of deus-ex-machina power storage mechanism, solar alone can't really cut it. *Really* long term, that might be our only solution, but in the mean time, solar can only be used to augment whatever we have providing our base load. You only get like ~8 hours of "full load" power a day from a solar panel, i think, and that is assuming trackers are installed.
So, once again, without cheap, infinite storage: solar != base-load power
While it is perfectly possible to provide a *relatively* stable "average wind capacity", you have the following issues:
1) Transmission losses are not insignificant. Wind is a fairly local thing, so if your local source dies, you have to quickly start transmitting power from somewhere farther away to fill the gap. This incurs much more transmission loss than having a local power source (you're basically always transmitting *some* power from far away).
2) This is the real killer: Cost. The way you actually *get* that "constant average wind power" is by incredibly over-building capacity-wise. Say we want to replace the 1 nuclear plant near my house, that's 1100 MegaWatts of capacity. Let's be optimistic and say that 75% of your wind turbines are outputting full power at any given time. Rather than needing needing 1100/15=73.33 Wind "Plants" (according to your source, not sure how many turbines that is), we would need 1100/(15*.75)=98 Wind Plants.
That alone increases cost by 32%, and, according to your provided source, average cost for a Nuclear MWh=$45-65, whereas average cost for a Wind MWh=$55-$80 already.
Your source does mention that there is a net-positive, when calculating in "carbon costs", whenever a Wind-kWh replaces a gas or oil-kWh, however, which I would probably agree with. Increased supply of intermittent sources like wind seems like it would increase reliance on peaking generators such as the aforementioned gas/oil generators, however.
Sorry, didn't have much luck with non-IEEE sources, but I'm sure you can find something if you look.
Power demand in a given day follows a sort of double-peaked curve. It peaks during daytime hours when businesses are running, and then again in the evening when people turn on their lights, tv's, etc. (and tapers off as people go to bed). If you draw a line underneath the minimums of the curves, however, you'll notice that demand never drops BELOW a certain point. This is the amount of "base load" power that must be constantly generated, 24/7. Think of it as "inflexible demand."
Now, as I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread, wind power is intermittent. Wind can and does just *stop* blowing. Obviously you choose sights where the average wind is highest (which are somewhat limited). If your generating source stops, you need a replacement that can kick on extremely quickly (I believe natural gas-fired generators are typically used for this, as I think they have start-up times of somewhere ~ 10 minutes) so that you're not providing less than current demand (and stressing out other generators).
Solar power actually provides the most power when demand is highest, but it can only work during daytime hours (hence, it can't cover the minimum load at night), and is still susceptible to clouds and things.
First of all, this is about replacing coal/gas power plants, not oil wells, so your argument is silly. Almost no one burns oil for electricity, and the nuclear plant near where I live would need 3,666 wind turbines running full-tilt 24/7 to replace it. But to address your argument:
What do you do when the wind stops blowing?
1. Wind actually STOPS, as in the turbine ceases to spin and generates 0 watts of power.
2. Demand does NOT stop. It is in fact extremely predictable throughout the year and throughout a given day.
3. Consequently, for every kw of generating capacity provided by wind, it is necessary to have a reliable (read: fossil fuel) power plant that can kick on nearly instantly. This is usually provided by gas-fired "peakers," and is what we're trying to avoid using in the future.
4. Additionally, wind power DOES get a huge amount of subsidies at the moment, is not really economical without them, and is only suitable in certain parts of the country (think of it as unreliable hydro-electric).
Wind has its places, but it is not as the backbone of our power-generating infrastructure.
I would wager not that many.
It's more expensive than coal and gas, certainly, but the reason for using nuclear now would be so that we DON'T have to use coal and gas. Nuclear power is certainly cheaper (and more reliable!) than wind and solar, both of which are not suitable for providing base-load power either (as the summary mentions). That, and genuine high-level radioactive waste output is only 12,000 tons/year for the entire planet right now. THE ENTIRE PLANET. If we realistically just picked a geologically-stable area, away from most ground-water sources, and built a huge hole, it would likely take care of storage problems in the US for the forseeable future.
The way I see it, people like you that say "nah, engineering problems with nuclear power are a hassle," are really just saying "I would prefer everyone live in caves, but instead I'm going to do nothing and we're going to keep using coal for power."
Few people have realistic ideas of the scale of power generation methods, nor how demand in the US typically works. Without some deus-ex-machina type power storage/generation, coal and gas are the only realistic alternatives to nuclear.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think the logistics are really all that difficult - most of the parts (CPU, DRAM, probably LCD screen, etc.) in an iProduct aren't made in China either. They're made in Japan, Germany, the USA, or South Korea, shipped to china and assembled for $8/board at a contract manufacturer like Foxconn.
To make an iPhone (which sells for $5-600) probably costs apple $200, of which ~$10 is final assembly. The US doesn't really have the enormously large-scale contract manufacturers like Foxconn that Apple can say 'here, make 10k of these a day 6 months from now.' Apple could probably build a highly-automated factory in the US that could probably assemble iphones for $50, upping their total cost to $240 or so, but then they would have to run and operate a factory - something they haven't really been in the business of doing for the last decade or so. In addition to being more directly responsible for the welfare of their workers (it's easier to say 'we treat our workers well, we're not responsible for our contract manufacturers'), they would be shouldering more of the risk for no gain in profit. Apple can say, Sorry foxconn, we don't need anymore ipods', and then it's Foxconn's job to figure out what to do with their expensive factory.
I have a Makerbot Thing-o-Matic, and have also used smaller CNC milling machines before. There really are some crucial differences:
1) There's an actual fundamental difference in the types of objects that can be created with an additive process like the ToM uses, and a reductive process like a CNC milling machine uses. Creating lightweight, hollow objects is basically impossible with a mill but trivial with my ToM (I frequently print out multi-layer gear objects for mechanical widgets I'm building).
2) I can operate a small 3D printer in my apartment. It's roughly as loud as my laser printer, and doesn't produce any mess/dust-clouds/bad smells. I would never use a CNC mill in my living room. At best it is way louder, produces way more mess, and basically requires a shop-vac to be running the whole time.
3) Finally - having used a range of both cheap 3D printers and cheap (and not-so-cheap) CNC milling machines - I can get a low-end 3D printer like a makerbot that actually produces useful parts for under $2000. Ever CNC mill I've seen for under $3000 has been crap. If you can spend $5000 (and have at least some background in machining) you can get a pretty good small CNC milling machine and maintain it.
I feel like this argument kind of misses the point. First, 3D printers (of the makerbot variety, as well as more traditional/expensive machines) have both come down drastically in price and improved drastically in quality in the last few years. The same goes for CNC milling equipment (and computing, and printing, etc.). No, they aren't appropriate for making a million widgets to be sold at 2 cents/piece, but they're perfectly appropriate for teaching people how to design things.
A huge segment of the population (often with a lot of knowledge in very specific areas) doesn't know what is possible with tools like this. Setting up an environment for kids to play with where making things (rather than just buying them from a black-box company) is easy can significantly change their world view and make them way more creative/productive/etc. Things like 3D printers are cheap enough that you could have one for almost every kid in a class, and that makes the cost of failure incredibly low. Same with learning to program on cheap computers (and build electronics with cheap microcontrollers like the arduino ecosystem). I feel like that ability to de-mystify the world and teach kids to create something will probably prove extremely valuable to them. /end ramble
He hooked his own analog-to-digital converter up to the read-head and post-processed the heck out of it to recover the data.
http://chrisfenton.com/cray-1-digital-archeology/
You really think China is going to 'flip a switch' and replace their coal power plants with solar and wind overnight? Even though China uses 50% of the *world's* coal production right now? I think your mental model may be off by a few orders of magnitude in places. China has an estimated 950 Gigawatts of electricity production right now, and 82% of that comes from coal. Of the non-coal 18%, nearly all of that is hydroelectric, with a little bit of nuclear. There just aren't enough rivers left for china to significantly increase their hydro (how many more 3 gorges can they build? Zero! ). China's renewable energy growth might be 'torrid,' but it's still insignificant. China's energy use more than *doubled* in the last 10 years, and it's not slowing down. And what are they meeting that growth with? More coal, making the pollution worse.
In 10 years, I'd bet you almost anything that China is using even more coal than they are today.
As part two (see previous attempt) of my ongoing series in ‘computational necromancy,’ I’ve spent the last year and a half or so constructing my own 1/10-scale, binary-compatible, cycle-accurate Cray-1. This project falls purely into the “because I can!” category - I was poking around the internet one day looking for a Cray emulator and came up dry, so I decided to do something about it. Luckily, the Cray-1 hardware reference manual turned out to be useful enough that implementing most of this was pretty straightforward. The Cray-1 is one of those iconic machines that just makes you say “Now that’s a super computer!” Sure, your iPhone is 10X faster, and it’s completely useless to own one, but admit it . . you really want one, don’t you?
The Cray-1A Architecture
Now, let’s get down to specs - What is this bad boy running? The original machine ran at a blistering 80 MHz, and could use from 256-4096 kilowords (32 megabytes!) of memory. It has 12 independent, fully-pipelined execution units, and with the help of clever programming, can peak at 3 floating-point operations per cycle. Here’s a diagram of the overall architecture:
cray_architecture
It’s a fairly RISC-y design, with 8 64-bit scalar (S) registers , 8 64-bit/64-word vector (V) registers, and 8 24-bit address (A) registers. Rather than a traditional cache, it uses a ’software-managed’ cache with an additional 64 64-bit words (T registers) and 64 24-bit words (B registers). There are instructions to transfer data between memory and registers, and then register-to-register ‘compute’ instructions.
One of the coolest aspects of this machine is that everything is fully pipelined. This machine was designed to be fast, so if you’re careful, you can actually get one (or more) instruction every cycle. This has some interesting implications - there’s no ‘divide’ instruction, for instance, because it can take a variable amount of time to finish. To perform a divide, you need to first compute the ‘reciprocal approximation’ (something we *can* do in exactly 13 cycles, it turns out) of the denominator value, and then perform a separate multiply of that result with the numerator.
The vector instructions are particularly cool. A vector Add operation might take only 5 cycles to start producing results (remember, each vector can hold 64 values, so it takes 5 + 64 cycles to finish adding). Why wait for it to finish though? We can take the result output from the adder, and “chain” it straight into another vector unit (say a multiplier). And *that* only takes another 10 cycles or so, so we can chain that result into yet another unit (say, reciprocal approximation). Now, rather than waiting for the first operation to finish, we’re computing up to 3 floating point calculations per cycle. Clever programmers could sustain about 2 floating point operations per cycle, or 160 million instructions per second.
vector_chainingVector Chaining in Action!
The Hardware
The actual design was implemented in a Xilinx Spartan-3E 1600 development board. This is basically the biggest FPGA you can buy that doesn’t cost thousands of dollars for a devkit. The Cray occupies about 75% of the logic resources, and all of the block RAM.
spartan3_1600
This gives us a spiffy Cray-1A running at about 33 MHz, with about 4 kilowords of RAM. The only features currently missing are:
-Interrupts
-Exchange Packages (this is how the Cray does ‘context-switching’ - it was intended as a batch-processing machine)
-I/O Channels (I just memory-mapped the UART I added to it).
If I ever find some software for this thing (or just get bored), I’ll probably go ahead and add the missing features. For now, though, everything else works sufficiently well to execute small test programs and such.
The Software
When I started building this, I thought “Oh, I
It obviously depends how much they try to charge, but I'll probably sign up for this. I really like reading the NYT (I actually live in NYC) - they provide an incredibly valuable service, which at the moment they basically give away. Realistically, though, I don't really buy the things they advertise. Half the time when I'm reading their site, it's on a computer with adblock installed so I don't even *see* the ads they have up. I was all about the "everything should be free" movement when I was a student, but now that I have a job, I don't mind compensating people for their work. Especially if the alternative is a world where the only 'news' comes from crappy bloggers that can't spell or do legitimate research.
I upgraded from 9.04 to 9.10, and everything went smoothly except for the following: 1. My sound hardware is no longer recognized for some reason. I have a Dell Dimension computer with integrated audio, and it had worked fine after installing 9.04, but stopped working when I upgraded. It now claims I have no sound hardware installed, and I'm not entirely sure how to correct it. 2. After rebooting, the screen now goes blank (video card stops outputting) when X should start and bring up the login screen. I'm also not sure what caused this. I dropped down to a console, tried to kill the running X process, and then things seemed to miraculously work. I actually had to get something done, so I just went with it, but I'm not sure exactly what happened (or what I did to fix it). Maybe this is related to the proprietary Nvidia drivers I'm using? Everything else seemed to work just fine as far as I can tell. When I have a few hours to dig through forums, I'll try to fix the sound and the screen blanking thing.
Well, if you take that idea to the limit using modern technologies, you basically wind up with rockin' new Nehalem processors using Quickpath Interconnect (QPI) between them, with PCI Express (serial links) to peripherals. But that's huge, is incredibly power hungry, and is basically the opposite of this architecture. But let's think this over some more. To access L1 cache, you can do it in a single cycle. L2 might be 10-20 cycles, etc. Now going over PCIe, the fastest thing going besides QPI, has a latency of like 400-800 nS. Even on a lowly 1 GHz processor, that's like 800 clock cycles, so you might as well be watching grass grow while you try to do something that's not embarrasingly parallel. As soon as you pump up the clock rate more, and add large caches and DRAM and all that, then you have *huge* power problems, and you still have somewhat crappy performance. Large-scale multi-core basically *does* use this architecture, only it's all on one die. It also uses an interconnect that doesn't suck, and manages to be cache coherent, so you can actually use it. Each core has it's own cache though (which is larger than the RAM on these chips), and the clock is nearly 2 orders of magnitude higher. Like i said, this is fun for a microcontroller project, but the performance would be atrocious for anything except embarrasingly parallel problems (and even then it would suck using these microcontrollers).
The connection machine was still SIMD, even though it did have 64k (1-bit!) processors. This is just like the transputer architecture though! There are a couple of *really* big problems with this: 1) none of their microcontrollers are individually capable of running a large modern program. They have a few kilobytes of code, and no large backing RAM. 2) How do you get to I/O devices? If you need shared access to devices, this just makes all the problems of a normal computer enormously worse. 3) What about communication latency (and bandwidth) between nodes? They're using serial communications between 72 MHz processors. We're probably talking several microseconds of latency, minimum, and low-bandwidth (just not enough pins, and not nearly fast enough links) communication between nodes. As fun as something like this would be to build and play around with, there are reasons architectures like the transputer died out. The penalty for going 'off-chip' is so large (and orders of magnitude larger nowadays than it was back then), and the links between chips suck so much, that a distributed architecture like this just can't compete with a screaming fast 3 GHz single-node (especially multi-core).
To be fair, Japan has a ton of examples of how *not* to run a business. They've spent nearly the last 2 decades in economic stagnation, they have an incredibly inflexible labor market (their employees are basically either hired for life or never get beyond "temp" status with essentially no protections and crappy pay/benefits), and they have a culture that discourages disagreeing with your superiors. As a country, they also have an incredibly dysfunctional government and a demographic (more specifically aging) problem that is rapidly destroying their competitiveness.
Interesting article on NYT recently http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/operator-can-you-put-me-through-to-ant-nest-251/?ref=science
It might be more like if John McCain had of won San Fransisco with 70% in november, and the Democrats took to the streets to protest a rigged election. The Libertarian party has not shown itself capable of becoming a mass movement in any real sense. In regards to the last part of your comment, 1) I'm pretty sure the constitution doesn't define a "fiscal system," even though you probably meant economic system, and 2) the violence has largely been on the part of the Baseej, a super-nationalist militia, against the fairly peaceful protesters
Don't forget groups like NYCResistor (www.nycresistor.com), HacDC (http://hacdc.org/), Noisebridge (https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Noisebridge), etc. Hackers are still around =)
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:r2RU-elaMN4J:chrisfenton.com/non-von-1/+non-von1&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
That's a fairly simplistic view. Let's say I own a company making widgets and selling them for $5. Materials cost me $1 and labor costs me $4 per widget, so I make about a dollar profit. Then CheapChinaCorp comes onto the scene and says "Hey, all you're doing is making widgets. I can make widgets for cheaper!", and they start pumping out widgets. Materials still cost $1, but their labor only costs $1 as well, so they sell theres for $3. Now basically *everyone* will go to whatever store, look at Widget A from USACorp for $5, and Widget B from CheapChinaCorp for $3, and buy the latter. Now I could try to lower wages, but minimum wage puts a floor on that, so if they can pay their employees less than minimum wage (and they can!), I can't compete on cost. So I move my factory to Mexico before I go out of business, now my labor cost is only $1 too, and I'm still in business! Yeahy! You can't think of it as "Giant mega corp" has 5000 jobs that they can bestow on whoever they feel. Companies have to make money, or they go out of business pretty damn quick. There is also a flip-side to shipping manufacturing overseas. Let's say you're a consumer who also works in a dvd player factory with 100 other people. You happen to have a monopoly for the moment. You produce DVD players that cost $500 in order to pay you and your coworkers $20/hr. CheapChinaCorp comes onto the seen and releases a $100 DVD player. From a nation-wide perspective, is it better that everyone spends an extra $400 to keep you 100 people employed, or that everyone has an extra $400 in their pocket for other expenses? Which is a better "value" to the country?
If you can get a thousand cores on a chip, and you still only have enough pins for a handful (at best) of memory interfaces, doesn't memory become a HUGE bottleneck? How do these cores not get starved for data?
Following the dissolution of the USSR in 1991-1992, Russia agreed to essentially take over for the USSR, albeit in a somewhat reduced form. Essentially, in return for taking responsibility for all of the USSR's international debt, Russia also inherited all of its treaty agreements (and its place on the UN Security Council). So the answer is yes, Russia took it over.
Unfortunately "rectennas" don't really work all that well in practice. Beamed microwaves will never be a useful source of energy. Just the cost alone of having an orbiting solar cell, when the increase in available power compared to earth is only about 40% (yes, its "day" can theoretically be longer, but it still gets shadowed by the earth if it is geosynchronous).
In regards to solar, unless we come up with some sort of deus-ex-machina power storage mechanism, solar alone can't really cut it. *Really* long term, that might be our only solution, but in the mean time, solar can only be used to augment whatever we have providing our base load. You only get like ~8 hours of "full load" power a day from a solar panel, i think, and that is assuming trackers are installed.
So, once again, without cheap, infinite storage: solar != base-load power
While it is perfectly possible to provide a *relatively* stable "average wind capacity", you have the following issues:
1) Transmission losses are not insignificant. Wind is a fairly local thing, so if your local source dies, you have to quickly start transmitting power from somewhere farther away to fill the gap. This incurs much more transmission loss than having a local power source (you're basically always transmitting *some* power from far away).
2) This is the real killer: Cost. The way you actually *get* that "constant average wind power" is by incredibly over-building capacity-wise. Say we want to replace the 1 nuclear plant near my house, that's 1100 MegaWatts of capacity. Let's be optimistic and say that 75% of your wind turbines are outputting full power at any given time. Rather than needing needing 1100/15=73.33 Wind "Plants" (according to your source, not sure how many turbines that is), we would need 1100/(15*.75)=98 Wind Plants.
That alone increases cost by 32%, and, according to your provided source, average cost for a Nuclear MWh=$45-65, whereas average cost for a Wind MWh=$55-$80 already.
Your source does mention that there is a net-positive, when calculating in "carbon costs", whenever a Wind-kWh replaces a gas or oil-kWh, however, which I would probably agree with. Increased supply of intermittent sources like wind seems like it would increase reliance on peaking generators such as the aforementioned gas/oil generators, however.
Sorry, didn't have much luck with non-IEEE sources, but I'm sure you can find something if you look.
Power demand in a given day follows a sort of double-peaked curve. It peaks during daytime hours when businesses are running, and then again in the evening when people turn on their lights, tv's, etc. (and tapers off as people go to bed). If you draw a line underneath the minimums of the curves, however, you'll notice that demand never drops BELOW a certain point. This is the amount of "base load" power that must be constantly generated, 24/7. Think of it as "inflexible demand."
Now, as I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread, wind power is intermittent. Wind can and does just *stop* blowing. Obviously you choose sights where the average wind is highest (which are somewhat limited). If your generating source stops, you need a replacement that can kick on extremely quickly (I believe natural gas-fired generators are typically used for this, as I think they have start-up times of somewhere ~ 10 minutes) so that you're not providing less than current demand (and stressing out other generators).
Solar power actually provides the most power when demand is highest, but it can only work during daytime hours (hence, it can't cover the minimum load at night), and is still susceptible to clouds and things.
http://greenwood.cr.usgs.gov/energy/factshts/163-97/FS-163-97.html
Concentration of uranium and thorium in coal in the USA is about 1-4 ppm. How much coal do we use?
First of all, this is about replacing coal/gas power plants, not oil wells, so your argument is silly. Almost no one burns oil for electricity, and the nuclear plant near where I live would need 3,666 wind turbines running full-tilt 24/7 to replace it. But to address your argument:
What do you do when the wind stops blowing?
1. Wind actually STOPS, as in the turbine ceases to spin and generates 0 watts of power.
2. Demand does NOT stop. It is in fact extremely predictable throughout the year and throughout a given day.
3. Consequently, for every kw of generating capacity provided by wind, it is necessary to have a reliable (read: fossil fuel) power plant that can kick on nearly instantly. This is usually provided by gas-fired "peakers," and is what we're trying to avoid using in the future.
4. Additionally, wind power DOES get a huge amount of subsidies at the moment, is not really economical without them, and is only suitable in certain parts of the country (think of it as unreliable hydro-electric).
Wind has its places, but it is not as the backbone of our power-generating infrastructure.
I would wager not that many. It's more expensive than coal and gas, certainly, but the reason for using nuclear now would be so that we DON'T have to use coal and gas. Nuclear power is certainly cheaper (and more reliable!) than wind and solar, both of which are not suitable for providing base-load power either (as the summary mentions). That, and genuine high-level radioactive waste output is only 12,000 tons/year for the entire planet right now. THE ENTIRE PLANET. If we realistically just picked a geologically-stable area, away from most ground-water sources, and built a huge hole, it would likely take care of storage problems in the US for the forseeable future. The way I see it, people like you that say "nah, engineering problems with nuclear power are a hassle," are really just saying "I would prefer everyone live in caves, but instead I'm going to do nothing and we're going to keep using coal for power." Few people have realistic ideas of the scale of power generation methods, nor how demand in the US typically works. Without some deus-ex-machina type power storage/generation, coal and gas are the only realistic alternatives to nuclear.