Can't really solve the mutex problem so pretend it doesn't exist and screw the programmers by pretending to solve the main memory latency problem with CPU-local memory.
The "innovation" over Illiac IV is to call it "multicore".
PS: There is a solution but since I can't afford the patent fees, its not going anywhere.
Since there are so many guys, starting with Koonin, Lewis, Taubes and Huizenga, who are so certain that there is no such thing as the Fleischmann Pons Effect (aka cold fusion aka low energy nuclear reactions aka chemically assisted nuclear reactions) that you are happy to see funds cut off from the area, it should be no problem for you to promise that, if it turns out you were dead wrong, and you have collectively delayed the solution to the energy crisis by 2 decades, that you'll at least give yourselves vasectomies if not cut your balls off.
My 1992 white paper introduces an early version of the idea. The impetus for it came from my work to privatize government technology development programs in space and energy.
The only way to get capitalism to work is to shift the tax base from economic activity to the liquidation value of assets, and set the tax rate to the interest rate used to calculate liquidation value.
But no one with wealth wants that to happen even though just about everyone who has high incomes would want it to happen.
So, due to political economic considerations, capitalism cannot be made to work.
This is not to say that socialism can be made to work, since in order to do so it would require that the liquidation asset interest collected by the government be dispersed equally to all citizens, no "means testing". Socialists want to figure out how to spend your dividends for you because they're so smart and all.
Your appeal to "long-term practical effectiveness" denies fact that the near-term trumps the long term in practice.
The practical reality of your projected terrestrial technological dystopia is that prior to a total wipe-out of humanity, there will be a number of intermediate incidents of smaller magnitude. It is during this phase that:
Experiments in human ecology may discover workable "benevolent dictator systems" such as you propose, and
Border controls that are necessary to prevent cross-contamination of human ecologies are going to further reduce the severity of preliminary technological dystopian incidents.
PS: If terrestrial individuals will be capable of wiping out terrestrial humanity, there is good reason to believe that non-terrestrial individuals will have the same capability. This, of course, would mean that any nascent non-terrestrial society would have very strong incentives to dismantle terrestrial authority structures and terrestrial authority structures would have very strong incentives to maintain control over the development of non-terrestrial societies. As this inevitable conflict comes to a head I certainly wouldn't place my bets with the terrestrial authority structures.
The best shot you have at creating your benevolent dictator system is adoption of my proposed Republic before the technological dystopia you envision is realized. Only by allowing people like yourself to assortatively migrate to your own human ecologies -- each with their own hypotheses as to the bet way to construct the benevolent dictator system -- can the truth be wrested from nature.
If you deny there is time for this, then obviously your only option is to destroy humanity, with built in exceptions for those you want to share the planet with, before someone else does.
At least under the Republic of assortative human ecologies, border enforcement is central to the maintenance of ecological ranges -- hence exclusion of vectors is maximized.
doshell asks: "What happens if you and I have different ideas of what constitutes "acceptable" co-habitation, and are unable to make compromises?"
If the government is doing its ONLY job, there will not only be territories which are occupied by folks who agree with your idea of what constitutes "acceptable" co-habitation, but you will have full support for relocation there.
Likewise, for my idea of what constitutes "acceptable" co-habitation.
The pragmatic reality here is that, other than issues involving pollution of air and water, people's hypotheses involving causal laws in human ecology do not extend that far in space. It is entirely plausible that a vegetarian lesbian libertarian human ecology could exist within a hundred miles of a fundamentlist Islamic human ecology so long as borders were respected.
Well, its not reasonable to enter into a dialogue with you about more nuanced issues (such as the varying range of different ecological effects) until you recognize the central responsibility of government to facilitate assortative migration. Once you recognize that is central to my argument we may proceed to discuss things like the difference between someone farting in your living room and someone dumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
A Republic's sole legitimate* job is to ensure the practicality of mutually consenting individuals assortatively migrating to their own ecological domains.
In that manner, all other definitions of "human rights" can be accommodated by the simple expedient of mutually consenting co-habitation.
This means "secession" must be incorporated into the foundation of all notions of "human rights" -- secession of individuals as well as groups of individuals. For what is slavery but making it impractical for an individual to secede? Denial of individual secession was the core evil of the Dred Scott decision.
Tyranny of the majority, limited only by a vague laundry list of selectively enforced human rights -- the sine qua non of "liberal democracy" -- must submit to the right to secede or it violates truth and freedom, hence all social good.
Just attend a US university which, by that time, will be issuing a green card with the diploma. Nothing like an ethnic network to get an entry level job in a land of fools and their money.
And don't forget the coeds!
Like Scarface said: This is paradise, I'm tellin' ya. This country's like a great big pussy just waiting to get fucked.
Slashdot Mirror
Therefore, let's dispense with CAUSALITY.
National Aeronautic (Wright Brothers) and Space (Robert Goddard) Administration.
If the Apollo program had never happened -- indeed if NASA had been disbanded entirely in 1962:
Send him to a jail cell where he'll be raped by ethnic minority gangs and then call him a neo-Nazi.
Can't really solve the mutex problem so pretend it doesn't exist and screw the programmers by pretending to solve the main memory latency problem with CPU-local memory.
The "innovation" over Illiac IV is to call it "multicore".
PS: There is a solution but since I can't afford the patent fees, its not going anywhere.
Who needs those ridiculous works of "art" anyway?
Shut down the MPAA.
Think about fluffy bunnies.
Ignoramous.
Ignoramous.
Ignoramous.
Ignoramous.
Ignoramous.
Ignoramous.
Ignoramous.
Its the least you can do for humanity.
Charles Murray of the CATO Institute later wrote a book on an idea related to the citizen's dividend.
But no one with wealth wants that to happen even though just about everyone who has high incomes would want it to happen.
So, due to political economic considerations, capitalism cannot be made to work.
This is not to say that socialism can be made to work, since in order to do so it would require that the liquidation asset interest collected by the government be dispersed equally to all citizens, no "means testing". Socialists want to figure out how to spend your dividends for you because they're so smart and all.
In other words: All fall down.
The practical reality of your projected terrestrial technological dystopia is that prior to a total wipe-out of humanity, there will be a number of intermediate incidents of smaller magnitude. It is during this phase that:
PS: If terrestrial individuals will be capable of wiping out terrestrial humanity, there is good reason to believe that non-terrestrial individuals will have the same capability. This, of course, would mean that any nascent non-terrestrial society would have very strong incentives to dismantle terrestrial authority structures and terrestrial authority structures would have very strong incentives to maintain control over the development of non-terrestrial societies. As this inevitable conflict comes to a head I certainly wouldn't place my bets with the terrestrial authority structures.
If you deny there is time for this, then obviously your only option is to destroy humanity, with built in exceptions for those you want to share the planet with, before someone else does.
At least under the Republic of assortative human ecologies, border enforcement is central to the maintenance of ecological ranges -- hence exclusion of vectors is maximized.
If the government is doing its ONLY job, there will not only be territories which are occupied by folks who agree with your idea of what constitutes "acceptable" co-habitation, but you will have full support for relocation there.
Likewise, for my idea of what constitutes "acceptable" co-habitation.
The pragmatic reality here is that, other than issues involving pollution of air and water, people's hypotheses involving causal laws in human ecology do not extend that far in space. It is entirely plausible that a vegetarian lesbian libertarian human ecology could exist within a hundred miles of a fundamentlist Islamic human ecology so long as borders were respected.
Well, its not reasonable to enter into a dialogue with you about more nuanced issues (such as the varying range of different ecological effects) until you recognize the central responsibility of government to facilitate assortative migration. Once you recognize that is central to my argument we may proceed to discuss things like the difference between someone farting in your living room and someone dumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
In that manner, all other definitions of "human rights" can be accommodated by the simple expedient of mutually consenting co-habitation.
This means "secession" must be incorporated into the foundation of all notions of "human rights" -- secession of individuals as well as groups of individuals. For what is slavery but making it impractical for an individual to secede? Denial of individual secession was the core evil of the Dred Scott decision.
Tyranny of the majority, limited only by a vague laundry list of selectively enforced human rights -- the sine qua non of "liberal democracy" -- must submit to the right to secede or it violates truth and freedom, hence all social good.
See Secession from Slavery to Free Scientific Society.
*Yes, this does mean there does not exist, at present, a legitimate government anywhere.
And don't forget the coeds!
Like Scarface said: This is paradise, I'm tellin' ya. This country's like a great big pussy just waiting to get fucked.
Shoot yourself and reincarnate as an Indian.