Wasn't one of the main premises of the TRIPS system that each processor is more or less independent of its neighbors? They used the term "network" to describe the processors' interrelationship. With operating systems that commonly are processing 20 threads when no apps are running (*cough* XP), what would be the advantage of increased "networking" of the processors?
It appears that the only issue that would be solved is there would be less lag between processors--but at the speeds they're talking about, the memory supply and caching will present new issues anyhow, ne?
Sorry about my complete disregard for proper terminology...
It seems cheaper to me to simply make larger clusters of computers with more processors than to redesign processors. For example, why don't IBM and UT team up to design an 8-processor Itanium motherboard or something?
First, they don't spend money reinventing the wheel. Second, hardware production failure rates are reduced because if an eighth of all cores fail, you don't average zero production. Third, most of the code is already written for multithreading with multiple processors. It would probably be cheaper to build larger facilities than to design mulitprocessor processors.
Recently, GRC.com released some kind of patch for a Windows XP vulnerability that was, if my memory is correct, about one tenth the size of Microsoft's patch. 800KB is a lot when there are thirty other formidable downloads--ranging beyond two megs for some--and all they have is 46kbit downstream. Microsoft should at least write tight code for their patches.
How are you defining "Homo sapiens?" And how do you define that? Anything that possesses 23 chromosome pairs in somatic cells? I doubt that we're the only species worldwide with that number. Human somatic cells in stages of division possess 23 chromosomes, just like unfertilized eggs.
Maybe you mean anything that satisfies the standard definition of human: "bipedal primate having language and ability to make and use complex tools; brain 1400 cc?" Fetuses possess neither language, complex toolmaking ability, or a 1400cc brain. They're not bipedal upon fertilization.
Where's your distinction?
Entire seeded plants are gametophytes, but they're still members of their own species.
The lines of delineation aren't quite as clear as some pretend they are. Self-delusion is your meaningless "fertilization" distinction.
And where's the significant difference between an unfertilized egg and a fertilized one?
Let's see:
An unfertilized egg has the chance to grow into a fully-formed human. Some embryos are already malformed and do not possess such a chance.
Unfertilized eggs have the wrong number of chromosomes, but so do humans with Down's Syndrome.
How dare any sick person try to deny a human egg the chance for life. Let's crusade against periods. No more maxi pads!
Slashdot Mirror
It appears that the only issue that would be solved is there would be less lag between processors--but at the speeds they're talking about, the memory supply and caching will present new issues anyhow, ne?
Sorry about my complete disregard for proper terminology...
First, they don't spend money reinventing the wheel. Second, hardware production failure rates are reduced because if an eighth of all cores fail, you don't average zero production. Third, most of the code is already written for multithreading with multiple processors. It would probably be cheaper to build larger facilities than to design mulitprocessor processors.
Recently, GRC.com released some kind of patch for a Windows XP vulnerability that was, if my memory is correct, about one tenth the size of Microsoft's patch. 800KB is a lot when there are thirty other formidable downloads--ranging beyond two megs for some--and all they have is 46kbit downstream. Microsoft should at least write tight code for their patches.
Maybe you mean anything that satisfies the standard definition of human: "bipedal primate having language and ability to make and use complex tools; brain 1400 cc?" Fetuses possess neither language, complex toolmaking ability, or a 1400cc brain. They're not bipedal upon fertilization. Where's your distinction?
Entire seeded plants are gametophytes, but they're still members of their own species. The lines of delineation aren't quite as clear as some pretend they are. Self-delusion is your meaningless "fertilization" distinction.
And where's the significant difference between an unfertilized egg and a fertilized one? Let's see: An unfertilized egg has the chance to grow into a fully-formed human. Some embryos are already malformed and do not possess such a chance. Unfertilized eggs have the wrong number of chromosomes, but so do humans with Down's Syndrome. How dare any sick person try to deny a human egg the chance for life. Let's crusade against periods. No more maxi pads!
Cameras watching the ambience in a room generate more data to "seed" some sort of algorithm?