So, I can assume that you'll be volunteering to be spayed/neutered and, if you already have kids, volunteering them as well, right? Can I also assume that you'll be forgoing vaccinations and any medical treatments developed in the past 100 years? Regarding population control, every little bit counts. Do your part.
I know that you were half-joking with your statement, but only half, and, like most everyone else making such statements, probably believe that you're somehow entitled to propagation and a comfortable lifestyle while the rest of us are not. They have a word (well several, actually) for people making statements like yours.
Actually, infringement is litigated based on what is claimed. The claims of a patent have to be supported by the written description of the patent, but the claims (which can be quite broad, and can be broadened after issuance) ultimately determine whether somebody infringed or not.
For patents, it doesn't really matter if you come up with the idea independently; if your process, machine, manufacture, or composition is a subset of what is claimed in an existing patent (and what you did isn't eligible as prior art) and you're profiting from it, then you're infringing. Think about it like this: if you come up with a new motor or something, patent it, and then someone else sees your general idea, implements the same thing and sells it, but does so without delving into the details of how your motor is constructed, would you accuse them of infringing? Answer honestly now. Granted, this example doesn't touch on the validity of software patents or transferred IP, but I think that the underlying reasoning concerning infringement is pretty sound.
I wasn't aware that the entertainment industry was a scientific establishment.
As has been said, science doesn't presume absolute truth; if a scientific theory is questionable, one can always attempt to disprove it and offer a different explanation. Scientists understand this and, though they may initially view your competing explanation with serious skepticism, they will accept it if it does indeed agree with reality more than a prior theory.
I'd suspect that most of those in the entertainment industry are more politically motivated than scientifically motivated. On this particular subject (global warming), they may be on the more scientifically accepted side than you, but that doesn't make their stance or arguments scientific.
How dare you make an accurate assessment of the state of the government and public!
Seriously though, I don't understand why people drone on and on about Republicans/Democrats/politicians in general. As you said, we have the power to vote them out; we can replace them with people who have a genuine interest in the welfare of our nation and who don't fall into typical political patterns (and yes, people like that do exist and sometimes even get into office). We could even run for office ourselves and try to correct crap like that displayed in this article. However, that would require real effort on our part, and it's always a lot easier to whine than, you know, take any corrective action.
Ok, one question: If the quality of the papers being published isn't very good, as you seem to be suggesting, then how does China's increase in scientific output help to enrich everyone? It would seem to me that science as an enriching process is contingent upon quality contribution; the contrapositive of that statement being that a lack of quality necessitates a lack of enrichment.
Might I also observe that the statement "quantity of papers isn't the same as quality" applies just as surely to the US as it does to China. You might counter that, given the current state of affairs, the US produces papers which are obviously of higher quality relative to China, but that's really beside the point. The article isn't really making claims about the current state of affairs in China or the US, rather, it's making a prediction based on current trends. To me, making the claim that the US will maintain its superiority in terms of quality relative to China is no less bold than making the claim that China will significantly narrow that gap or close it entirely in the very near future.
Might I also note one other point of interest concerning whether or not China's overtaking the US is a bad thing: it depends on your perspective. From the Chinese perspective or that of broader worldwide community, it's probably great that China is forging ahead; after all, this will potentially lead to beneficial discoveries and applications around the world. However, from the US perspective, things are less optimistic. Will the US benefit in some ways from China's scientific prowess? Yes, absolutely. Will the benefit to the US from China's new scientific lead outweigh the benefit to the US of having the lead? I'd argue that it won't. I say this because I believe that this will act to reduce the US's credibility as a worldwide innovator and producer. Once that credibility is diminished, things like foreign investment will (continue to) shift from the US to China. The US already has an image problem with much of the rest of the world believing that it will be overtaken by China or someone else sooner than later. If China surpasses the US in scientific output, this could snowball into broader doubt that the US can actually produce something of value that China cannot (at less cost as well). Also, let us not forget that the US carries an enormous debt, and that this debt is essentially an IOU promising some repayment eventually. How do you go about repaying that debt? The way this has been done before is through the manufacture of products or supply of resources that the rest of the world wants. So if you're a nation holding that debt, and you see that the US's capabilities to manufacture, or even invent new methods of manufacture, has been diminished, would you believe that the US's ability to repay that debt has been unaffected? Or, would you demand higher interest rates as the debt begins to look riskier? At some point, these debts will need to be addressed and the magnitude of the debts depend, in my opinion, on the capability of the US to out-innovate its competitors (and they are competitors). Since the US is loosing (apparently rapidly) that edge, I'd say that China assuming the lead in scientific output is indeed a bad thing for the US.
Nope. An inventor has up to a year after public use/offers for sale to patent. If, during that time, someone else files for patent before the inventor (say one of the purchasers), they'd get priority with first-to-file, not the actual inventor. Now, 102(f) is there to safeguard against fraudulent claims of inventorship, but if it can't be proven one way or the other, the inventor is SOL. Under the old system, the inventor could have used notebooks and other materials to prove his claim to the invention (being first to invent). Of course, it wouldn't be easy for the inventor to prove he was first to invent, and it would cost him to do so, but he would still have had the capability to prove he invented first even if 102(f) was unprovable. Now, the only hope for him is to prove beyond a doubt that 102(f) holds.
I was confused as well. I think, though, that the "beyond the theoretical limits" statement applies to typical microscopes which use an aperture for visible wavelengths (which would restrict viewing to objects far larger than 50nm). Somehow, this transparent microsphere that they use is a different structure that gets around the restrictions of a typical aperture, though I don't know how. So to answer your question more concisely, the theory isn't really wrong, instead they found a clever workaround (to which the theory doesn't really apply).
So? Why should the second inventor get the patent?
The second inventor should get the patent because they disclose it to the public whereas the first tries to conceal it from the public. This is part of the basic foundation of the patent system: it's there to foster innovation by incentivising disclosure in exchange for essentially a legal monopoly for a limited amount of time. Thus patents are designed to avoid situations like a trade secret that is indefinitely concealed (with the thought that concealment is contrary to broader innovation -- the whole information wants to be free argument). If you have a problem with that aspect of the system, then don't use it.
And 'active concealment' is a non-starter. USPTO is not going to revoke patents if there was no publicized article or another use of the invention.
Of course the USPTO wouldn't revoke a patent in that situation. That's exactly what I've been saying. If the public is aware of your invention, somebody else can't just come along and get a patent on it. If the public is not aware of your invention, somebody else can get a patent on it (assuming they didn't steal it from you); after all, this is consistent with the USPTO's position that disclosure is a good thing. In any event, why should someone who independently comes up with something be barred from a patent because someone else came up with it first, but never shared it?
If the original inventor is content with concealing their invention, and someone else later independently invents the same thing and files for a patent, the patent system is designed to benefit the person revealing their invention to the public. In this case, there is a time limit that a person can remain silent on their invention. If the latter inventor files a patent application and the first inventor waits for more than a year to come forth with their earlier invention, they are denied a patent even if they can prove they were first to invent. Note that this is concerning active concealment. If the first inventor publishes their invention or publicly uses it, but does not file a patent application, then someone else could not come along later, file a patent application, and claim the invention unless they had some way to predate the publication/public use (i.e. prove that they were in fact the first inventor).
The idea of patents is that they entice people to share their inventions with the public. If someone chooses not to share with the public, then the patent system does not protect them if someone else later invents the same thing.
Harmonizing with what the every other country does may sound appealing, but that doesn't make first-to-file more just. In the situation you described (where a patent family is protected in every other country but the US), why shouldn't that be the case? If someone can prove that they were in fact the first to invent (within statutory time limits) despite someone else filing first in other countries, why shouldn't they be able to invalidate the latter inventor's claim to an invention? In the situation you describe, at least the US will protect the actual inventor, even if every other nation does not.
You bring up the costs associated with a 102(g) priority fight as being prohibitively expensive for small entities arguing their case. This is true, but at least they have the capability and option of arguing. In this case, the small entity can yield priority to whoever filed first if they deem the costs involved in following through with litigation to be too high. In a first-to-file system, they don't even have that choice; they are simply denied rights to something they invented if they were a little late on filing.
The laws for allowing first-to-invent claims were put in place for good reasons, and, while matching the rest of the world is in vogue, I'd argue that this is one situation where the US, and not everyone else, is correct.
I'm glad somebody brought this up. First to file obviously makes contesting an inventorship date easier, but certainly not more fair. In any event, the laws and regulations as currently written impose a time limit for filing (relative to another inventor filing a patent application, among other things), so it's not like somebody could just wait for a patent to become successful, and then say "I invented first, gimme!" As for dealing with international patents, it's pretty simple: follow the rules and time limits of the PCT and, if you're interested in a PCT filing, don't assume that national filing requirements agree entirely with the international filing requirements.
The max cap on damages is nice, but the adoption of first to file could use some work.
How about two groups with very similar kinds of growing pains... say India and Pakistan. They both started in relatively the same state following India's independence, have a similar geography, similar governance, and have both experienced the same pressures for modernization that you're asserting. Seems that the big difference between the two comes down to religion and the culture that results. Which one has the stronger presence and tolerance of terrorists?
Really, if your 3D TV requires powered glasses in order to experience 3D viewing, why not just get rid of the TV altogether and simply display slightly offset images on each lens of a pair of glasses? I doubt that cost would be an issue seeing as how video glasses seem to be available for under $200 (it would take a lot of people viewing to overcome the cost of the 3D TV + TV glasses). It obviously can't be related to a communal viewing experience as everyone viewing the 3D TV will need glasses anyway.
At least with polarized glasses the power requirement is gone but still, since some form of eyewear is required anyway, why not just get rid of the TV altogether? Is it just because you'll still be able to watch 2D without the glasses?
Don't get me wrong, the prospects look interesting, but it just seems like holding onto the TV for no other purpose than being able to manufacture large and expensive displays.
I don't think he's implying that the entire UN is in on a conspiracy. Rather, it would be more likely that political motivations would compel the majority of the UN panel to default on the "those emails mean nothing" platform. After all, the UN is a political organisation and has already thrown its support behind mitigating Global Warming. When is the last time you heard a group of politicians say "Sorry, we were wrong about that thing we've spent years on." or even something which might be construed as such?
Regardless of whether these emails provide any compelling evidence against Global Warming, it would be naive to think the UN would change its position so readily.
It doesn't really matter whether you choose VHDL or Verilog as long as you know what your synthesis tools are doing. Both languages are very different from C or other compiled languages in that C allows you to assume that statements will occur sequentially (and yes I know that statements may be re-ordered behind the scenes such that they don't break dependencies) whereas neither HDL will give you that guarantee. In fact, unless explicitly stated, HDL statements will all execute concurrently (and certainly won't wait for something like a clock edge).
Now here comes the important part. You can write VHDL or Verilog such that your design will simulate perfectly (even without using simulation-only constraints like after statements in VHDL) but fail miserably when synthesized for an FPGA. In my experiences, this has almost always resulted from latches being inferred by the synthesis tools. This is where you need to know a little information specific to FPGAs; namely, code using latches offers no benefits over code using flip-flops when dealing with FPGAs. Much of the time, synthesis tools will just set up a combinational loop in the hopes that such latches will act as a they should (they usually won't) because most of the basic blocks that comprise an FPGA utilize flip-flops, not latches.
If you're interested in a good source describing how to write VHDL for FPGAs, I'd suggest looking at Jiri Gaisler's method:
http://www.gaisler.com/doc/vhdl2proc.pdf
Also, avoid statements like:
if clk'event and clk = '1' then.... end if;
when statements like:
if rising_edge(clk) then.... end if;
work just fine (and are more readable).
It's even better when their great examples are like this:
Their idea is to create the illusion that a wall has a hole in it, and then use the hole to look through the wall.
They further restrict their example by saying that the wall would also need to be thin. Now, I'm sure that several other much better examples abound but really, why highlight the reinvention of the window?
This would be the best way to go. Once you've published your work (assuming that your work doesn't infringe on other existing patents) it will be in the public domain and should constitute prior art. If someone were able to obtain a patent on your published work (the patent office can't check everything) it would be easy to overturn simply by pointing to whichever journal contains your paper. Moreover, the US gives you up to 1 year after the date that you publish if you (the inventor) later decide to file for a patent*.
You also can do like Vista x64 does and shove two 32bit memory writes into on 64bit address space, so when it can, you get double the read/write performance out of the memory chip because you are pulling two 32bit chunks in one read cycle.
Memory loads/stores do not simply request one word at a time; instead, there are cache hierarchies which are designed to exploit spatial and temporal locality. For example, if a load operation misses in both the L1 and L2 caches, an entire cache line consisting of multiple words will be flushed and replaced with the necessary words from main memory. This means that two 32-bit words on a 32-bit machine that are known by a programmer (or compiler) to be used together frequently may be placed in nearby memory locations such that they are always loaded together any time a cache fill occurs.
In short, the benefit you speak of is more related to memory bandwidth, not the datapath width of the processor.
Whops, meant to reply to TheRaven64's comment; the one which states:
The entire point of SMT (of which HT is am implementation) is that it helps hide memory latency. If one thread stalls waiting for memory then the other gets to use the CPU. Without SMT, then a cache miss stalls the entire core.
It's refreshing to see someone who has actually had experience with parallel architectures make a post on this subject. Thank you for refuting the previous AC with actual details concerning what SMT actually does.
It should also be noted that SMT can be used to augment something like a superscalar processor without requiring massive changes to the architecture. Aside from the additional logic required to fetch instructions for the two threads (actual SMT implementations don't use more than two), little extra hardware is required; you don't have to replicate functional units or anything like that. In terms of energy efficiency, this is better than simply replicating an entire processor as in multi-core architectures and, depending on cache miss rates, can yield a similar performance benefit.
The interesting thing about this (and any other supercomputer like it) is how much time must be spent checkpointing. In order to maintain consistent state across the entire machine, up to 40% of its computational power must actually be spent checkpointing (not to mention the memory overhead associated with transferring state to stable storage). I'd imagine that the scientists who will use the new supercomputer will be slightly dismayed that they'll frequently have access only to about 60% of the processing power.
the average can be a radically poor approximation. For instance, consider a distribution that roughly takes the shape of a torus about the origin.
You sir/madam are a moron. The average is a useful indicator of an overall distribution (even including extremes) when you take into account the likely distribution of strength in a population (binomial which, with a large enough sample size, is very closely approximated by your friendly normal curve). You can even compare two normal curves (eg. strength in women vs strength in men) and test hypotheses concerning how they're related (that means you can tell if the hypothesis that men are stronger then women is fallacious or not).
Now, if you can prove to me that this study should really follow a torus distribution instead of a normal distribution, my hat is off to you. Until then, however, learn some statistics and learn which distributions are actually practical for a given population.
Isn't the definition of insanity... doing the same action and expecting a different outcome?
So that explains the odd behavior of scientists... Stephen Colbert is right; you gotta go with your gut instead of some crazy "method" of painstakingly observing the same sequence of actions.
I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. Algorithms are no more representations of a mental process than heat engines or ASIC chips. Algorithms do require a precise interpretation of mental processes, but then again so did every invention ever conceived. In fact, algorithms developed to leverage the way a computer works may have almost nothing to do with the corresponding mental process.
For example, take a simple algorithm which decides the next best move in a chess game... do you really think that the standard mental process is to recursively examine the next several moves and potential counter moves for a given board layout. Similarly, is the typical mental process for using language based off of some well-defined CFG?
Algorithms are designed according to the availability of several functional units not offered by the human brain. Software based off of mathematical algorithms exploit the availability of an ALU and/or FPU. Hardware might even be developed to accelerate frequent, specific tasks required by software (such as designing an accelerator to perform matrix multiplications) in which case the software is optimized according to the availability of such hardware.
The truth is that, despite some superficial similarities, both the underlying design and functionality of a brain and computer are quite different and serve different purposes. To argue that there is no difference in the way each is used (which is what you are saying when you claim that software really isn't any different from thought) is to ignore the very structure of a computer.
Slashdot Mirror
So, I can assume that you'll be volunteering to be spayed/neutered and, if you already have kids, volunteering them as well, right? Can I also assume that you'll be forgoing vaccinations and any medical treatments developed in the past 100 years? Regarding population control, every little bit counts. Do your part.
I know that you were half-joking with your statement, but only half, and, like most everyone else making such statements, probably believe that you're somehow entitled to propagation and a comfortable lifestyle while the rest of us are not. They have a word (well several, actually) for people making statements like yours.
Actually, infringement is litigated based on what is claimed. The claims of a patent have to be supported by the written description of the patent, but the claims (which can be quite broad, and can be broadened after issuance) ultimately determine whether somebody infringed or not.
For patents, it doesn't really matter if you come up with the idea independently; if your process, machine, manufacture, or composition is a subset of what is claimed in an existing patent (and what you did isn't eligible as prior art) and you're profiting from it, then you're infringing. Think about it like this: if you come up with a new motor or something, patent it, and then someone else sees your general idea, implements the same thing and sells it, but does so without delving into the details of how your motor is constructed, would you accuse them of infringing? Answer honestly now. Granted, this example doesn't touch on the validity of software patents or transferred IP, but I think that the underlying reasoning concerning infringement is pretty sound.
I wasn't aware that the entertainment industry was a scientific establishment.
As has been said, science doesn't presume absolute truth; if a scientific theory is questionable, one can always attempt to disprove it and offer a different explanation. Scientists understand this and, though they may initially view your competing explanation with serious skepticism, they will accept it if it does indeed agree with reality more than a prior theory.
I'd suspect that most of those in the entertainment industry are more politically motivated than scientifically motivated. On this particular subject (global warming), they may be on the more scientifically accepted side than you, but that doesn't make their stance or arguments scientific.
How dare you make an accurate assessment of the state of the government and public!
Seriously though, I don't understand why people drone on and on about Republicans/Democrats/politicians in general. As you said, we have the power to vote them out; we can replace them with people who have a genuine interest in the welfare of our nation and who don't fall into typical political patterns (and yes, people like that do exist and sometimes even get into office). We could even run for office ourselves and try to correct crap like that displayed in this article. However, that would require real effort on our part, and it's always a lot easier to whine than, you know, take any corrective action.
Ok, one question: If the quality of the papers being published isn't very good, as you seem to be suggesting, then how does China's increase in scientific output help to enrich everyone? It would seem to me that science as an enriching process is contingent upon quality contribution; the contrapositive of that statement being that a lack of quality necessitates a lack of enrichment.
Might I also observe that the statement "quantity of papers isn't the same as quality" applies just as surely to the US as it does to China. You might counter that, given the current state of affairs, the US produces papers which are obviously of higher quality relative to China, but that's really beside the point. The article isn't really making claims about the current state of affairs in China or the US, rather, it's making a prediction based on current trends. To me, making the claim that the US will maintain its superiority in terms of quality relative to China is no less bold than making the claim that China will significantly narrow that gap or close it entirely in the very near future.
Might I also note one other point of interest concerning whether or not China's overtaking the US is a bad thing: it depends on your perspective. From the Chinese perspective or that of broader worldwide community, it's probably great that China is forging ahead; after all, this will potentially lead to beneficial discoveries and applications around the world. However, from the US perspective, things are less optimistic. Will the US benefit in some ways from China's scientific prowess? Yes, absolutely. Will the benefit to the US from China's new scientific lead outweigh the benefit to the US of having the lead? I'd argue that it won't. I say this because I believe that this will act to reduce the US's credibility as a worldwide innovator and producer. Once that credibility is diminished, things like foreign investment will (continue to) shift from the US to China. The US already has an image problem with much of the rest of the world believing that it will be overtaken by China or someone else sooner than later. If China surpasses the US in scientific output, this could snowball into broader doubt that the US can actually produce something of value that China cannot (at less cost as well). Also, let us not forget that the US carries an enormous debt, and that this debt is essentially an IOU promising some repayment eventually. How do you go about repaying that debt? The way this has been done before is through the manufacture of products or supply of resources that the rest of the world wants. So if you're a nation holding that debt, and you see that the US's capabilities to manufacture, or even invent new methods of manufacture, has been diminished, would you believe that the US's ability to repay that debt has been unaffected? Or, would you demand higher interest rates as the debt begins to look riskier? At some point, these debts will need to be addressed and the magnitude of the debts depend, in my opinion, on the capability of the US to out-innovate its competitors (and they are competitors). Since the US is loosing (apparently rapidly) that edge, I'd say that China assuming the lead in scientific output is indeed a bad thing for the US.
Nope. An inventor has up to a year after public use/offers for sale to patent. If, during that time, someone else files for patent before the inventor (say one of the purchasers), they'd get priority with first-to-file, not the actual inventor. Now, 102(f) is there to safeguard against fraudulent claims of inventorship, but if it can't be proven one way or the other, the inventor is SOL. Under the old system, the inventor could have used notebooks and other materials to prove his claim to the invention (being first to invent). Of course, it wouldn't be easy for the inventor to prove he was first to invent, and it would cost him to do so, but he would still have had the capability to prove he invented first even if 102(f) was unprovable. Now, the only hope for him is to prove beyond a doubt that 102(f) holds.
I was confused as well. I think, though, that the "beyond the theoretical limits" statement applies to typical microscopes which use an aperture for visible wavelengths (which would restrict viewing to objects far larger than 50nm). Somehow, this transparent microsphere that they use is a different structure that gets around the restrictions of a typical aperture, though I don't know how. So to answer your question more concisely, the theory isn't really wrong, instead they found a clever workaround (to which the theory doesn't really apply).
So? Why should the second inventor get the patent?
The second inventor should get the patent because they disclose it to the public whereas the first tries to conceal it from the public. This is part of the basic foundation of the patent system: it's there to foster innovation by incentivising disclosure in exchange for essentially a legal monopoly for a limited amount of time. Thus patents are designed to avoid situations like a trade secret that is indefinitely concealed (with the thought that concealment is contrary to broader innovation -- the whole information wants to be free argument). If you have a problem with that aspect of the system, then don't use it.
And 'active concealment' is a non-starter. USPTO is not going to revoke patents if there was no publicized article or another use of the invention.
Of course the USPTO wouldn't revoke a patent in that situation. That's exactly what I've been saying. If the public is aware of your invention, somebody else can't just come along and get a patent on it. If the public is not aware of your invention, somebody else can get a patent on it (assuming they didn't steal it from you); after all, this is consistent with the USPTO's position that disclosure is a good thing. In any event, why should someone who independently comes up with something be barred from a patent because someone else came up with it first, but never shared it?
If the original inventor is content with concealing their invention, and someone else later independently invents the same thing and files for a patent, the patent system is designed to benefit the person revealing their invention to the public. In this case, there is a time limit that a person can remain silent on their invention. If the latter inventor files a patent application and the first inventor waits for more than a year to come forth with their earlier invention, they are denied a patent even if they can prove they were first to invent. Note that this is concerning active concealment. If the first inventor publishes their invention or publicly uses it, but does not file a patent application, then someone else could not come along later, file a patent application, and claim the invention unless they had some way to predate the publication/public use (i.e. prove that they were in fact the first inventor).
The idea of patents is that they entice people to share their inventions with the public. If someone chooses not to share with the public, then the patent system does not protect them if someone else later invents the same thing.
Harmonizing with what the every other country does may sound appealing, but that doesn't make first-to-file more just. In the situation you described (where a patent family is protected in every other country but the US), why shouldn't that be the case? If someone can prove that they were in fact the first to invent (within statutory time limits) despite someone else filing first in other countries, why shouldn't they be able to invalidate the latter inventor's claim to an invention? In the situation you describe, at least the US will protect the actual inventor, even if every other nation does not.
You bring up the costs associated with a 102(g) priority fight as being prohibitively expensive for small entities arguing their case. This is true, but at least they have the capability and option of arguing. In this case, the small entity can yield priority to whoever filed first if they deem the costs involved in following through with litigation to be too high. In a first-to-file system, they don't even have that choice; they are simply denied rights to something they invented if they were a little late on filing.
The laws for allowing first-to-invent claims were put in place for good reasons, and, while matching the rest of the world is in vogue, I'd argue that this is one situation where the US, and not everyone else, is correct.
I'm glad somebody brought this up. First to file obviously makes contesting an inventorship date easier, but certainly not more fair. In any event, the laws and regulations as currently written impose a time limit for filing (relative to another inventor filing a patent application, among other things), so it's not like somebody could just wait for a patent to become successful, and then say "I invented first, gimme!" As for dealing with international patents, it's pretty simple: follow the rules and time limits of the PCT and, if you're interested in a PCT filing, don't assume that national filing requirements agree entirely with the international filing requirements.
The max cap on damages is nice, but the adoption of first to file could use some work.
How about two groups with very similar kinds of growing pains... say India and Pakistan. They both started in relatively the same state following India's independence, have a similar geography, similar governance, and have both experienced the same pressures for modernization that you're asserting. Seems that the big difference between the two comes down to religion and the culture that results. Which one has the stronger presence and tolerance of terrorists?
Really, if your 3D TV requires powered glasses in order to experience 3D viewing, why not just get rid of the TV altogether and simply display slightly offset images on each lens of a pair of glasses? I doubt that cost would be an issue seeing as how video glasses seem to be available for under $200 (it would take a lot of people viewing to overcome the cost of the 3D TV + TV glasses). It obviously can't be related to a communal viewing experience as everyone viewing the 3D TV will need glasses anyway.
At least with polarized glasses the power requirement is gone but still, since some form of eyewear is required anyway, why not just get rid of the TV altogether? Is it just because you'll still be able to watch 2D without the glasses?
Don't get me wrong, the prospects look interesting, but it just seems like holding onto the TV for no other purpose than being able to manufacture large and expensive displays.
I don't think he's implying that the entire UN is in on a conspiracy. Rather, it would be more likely that political motivations would compel the majority of the UN panel to default on the "those emails mean nothing" platform. After all, the UN is a political organisation and has already thrown its support behind mitigating Global Warming. When is the last time you heard a group of politicians say "Sorry, we were wrong about that thing we've spent years on." or even something which might be construed as such?
Regardless of whether these emails provide any compelling evidence against Global Warming, it would be naive to think the UN would change its position so readily.
It doesn't really matter whether you choose VHDL or Verilog as long as you know what your synthesis tools are doing. Both languages are very different from C or other compiled languages in that C allows you to assume that statements will occur sequentially (and yes I know that statements may be re-ordered behind the scenes such that they don't break dependencies) whereas neither HDL will give you that guarantee. In fact, unless explicitly stated, HDL statements will all execute concurrently (and certainly won't wait for something like a clock edge).
.... end if;
when statements like:
if rising_edge(clk) then .... end if;
work just fine (and are more readable).
Now here comes the important part. You can write VHDL or Verilog such that your design will simulate perfectly (even without using simulation-only constraints like after statements in VHDL) but fail miserably when synthesized for an FPGA. In my experiences, this has almost always resulted from latches being inferred by the synthesis tools. This is where you need to know a little information specific to FPGAs; namely, code using latches offers no benefits over code using flip-flops when dealing with FPGAs. Much of the time, synthesis tools will just set up a combinational loop in the hopes that such latches will act as a they should (they usually won't) because most of the basic blocks that comprise an FPGA utilize flip-flops, not latches.
If you're interested in a good source describing how to write VHDL for FPGAs, I'd suggest looking at Jiri Gaisler's method: http://www.gaisler.com/doc/vhdl2proc.pdf
Also, avoid statements like: if clk'event and clk = '1' then
It's even better when their great examples are like this:
Their idea is to create the illusion that a wall has a hole in it, and then use the hole to look through the wall.
They further restrict their example by saying that the wall would also need to be thin. Now, I'm sure that several other much better examples abound but really, why highlight the reinvention of the window?
This would be the best way to go. Once you've published your work (assuming that your work doesn't infringe on other existing patents) it will be in the public domain and should constitute prior art. If someone were able to obtain a patent on your published work (the patent office can't check everything) it would be easy to overturn simply by pointing to whichever journal contains your paper. Moreover, the US gives you up to 1 year after the date that you publish if you (the inventor) later decide to file for a patent*.
*This does not hold in other countries
You also can do like Vista x64 does and shove two 32bit memory writes into on 64bit address space, so when it can, you get double the read/write performance out of the memory chip because you are pulling two 32bit chunks in one read cycle.
Memory loads/stores do not simply request one word at a time; instead, there are cache hierarchies which are designed to exploit spatial and temporal locality. For example, if a load operation misses in both the L1 and L2 caches, an entire cache line consisting of multiple words will be flushed and replaced with the necessary words from main memory. This means that two 32-bit words on a 32-bit machine that are known by a programmer (or compiler) to be used together frequently may be placed in nearby memory locations such that they are always loaded together any time a cache fill occurs.
In short, the benefit you speak of is more related to memory bandwidth, not the datapath width of the processor.
Whops, meant to reply to TheRaven64's comment; the one which states:
The entire point of SMT (of which HT is am implementation) is that it helps hide memory latency. If one thread stalls waiting for memory then the other gets to use the CPU. Without SMT, then a cache miss stalls the entire core.
It's refreshing to see someone who has actually had experience with parallel architectures make a post on this subject. Thank you for refuting the previous AC with actual details concerning what SMT actually does.
It should also be noted that SMT can be used to augment something like a superscalar processor without requiring massive changes to the architecture. Aside from the additional logic required to fetch instructions for the two threads (actual SMT implementations don't use more than two), little extra hardware is required; you don't have to replicate functional units or anything like that. In terms of energy efficiency, this is better than simply replicating an entire processor as in multi-core architectures and, depending on cache miss rates, can yield a similar performance benefit.
The interesting thing about this (and any other supercomputer like it) is how much time must be spent checkpointing. In order to maintain consistent state across the entire machine, up to 40% of its computational power must actually be spent checkpointing (not to mention the memory overhead associated with transferring state to stable storage). I'd imagine that the scientists who will use the new supercomputer will be slightly dismayed that they'll frequently have access only to about 60% of the processing power.
You sir/madam are a moron. The average is a useful indicator of an overall distribution (even including extremes) when you take into account the likely distribution of strength in a population (binomial which, with a large enough sample size, is very closely approximated by your friendly normal curve). You can even compare two normal curves (eg. strength in women vs strength in men) and test hypotheses concerning how they're related (that means you can tell if the hypothesis that men are stronger then women is fallacious or not).
Now, if you can prove to me that this study should really follow a torus distribution instead of a normal distribution, my hat is off to you. Until then, however, learn some statistics and learn which distributions are actually practical for a given population.
So that explains the odd behavior of scientists... Stephen Colbert is right; you gotta go with your gut instead of some crazy "method" of painstakingly observing the same sequence of actions.
For example, take a simple algorithm which decides the next best move in a chess game... do you really think that the standard mental process is to recursively examine the next several moves and potential counter moves for a given board layout. Similarly, is the typical mental process for using language based off of some well-defined CFG?
Algorithms are designed according to the availability of several functional units not offered by the human brain. Software based off of mathematical algorithms exploit the availability of an ALU and/or FPU. Hardware might even be developed to accelerate frequent, specific tasks required by software (such as designing an accelerator to perform matrix multiplications) in which case the software is optimized according to the availability of such hardware.
The truth is that, despite some superficial similarities, both the underlying design and functionality of a brain and computer are quite different and serve different purposes. To argue that there is no difference in the way each is used (which is what you are saying when you claim that software really isn't any different from thought) is to ignore the very structure of a computer.