Some CFD or FEA solvers or is this some clustering software that will allow 200 people to simultaneously use a word processor and spreadsheet? If it is the former, I really don't see a point in having windows.
You can still use MS development tools to get most of the way there and then recompile for your final target if that's what you claim is the advantage and I have done so at many jobs before.
I would think that for real supercomputing jobs you can almost write to the metal and have messaging libraries mostly negating the need for an operating system. I'm curious though as to how jobs are normally split up when running on supercomputers, i.e., are jobs allowed to run concurrently or are they submitted sequentially in a batch.
I use both mathematica and octave (and matlab). There is no way that any of these come close to the capabilities of mathematica (except maybe in ease of use for beginners). My biggest regret (if it can be called that) is that it wasn't around when I was in college.
I really think that it would solve any math problem that one would ever come across as an undergrad (and even grad level). I had a prof whom I visited once after graduation and he had just gone through one of his student's Ph.d. thesis and in a couple of hours reproduced what took the woman a year to do by hand.
Not really. There are many technicalities that go into this. The main point of this is to prove that a running app can in no way get unauthorized data or influence data in another app running on the same machine.
Greenhills, BTW, has had instances of Linux running under their Integrity for many years much in the same way that vmware does.
EAL7 applies to systems and not just the shrink wrapped OS. I.e., you have to mathematically prove (not just demonstrate) the security.
DO-178B requires spacial (memory) and temporal (a deterministic schedule) and is used on commercial airliners. The time at which tasks run (you can think of a task almost as a function call) is set a prori at design, not run time. All I/O is scheduled, no interrupts, 100% determinism.
I think you answered your own question with not "much more complicated". This still implies that it is more complicated and you have to weigh the added risks with the added benefits and the design goal.
where cosmic rays are a huge concern, technically it is possible. BUT the odds of this happening in a coherent manner that could change results such that a program would continue to operate and produce an erroneous error as oppsed to just crashing the system are 1:10^10^10^10 (not scientifically arrived at, but a real value would be of similar oreder or higher).
I went to an all male high school. There was an adjacent all female school, so it wasn't like we were missing any of the socializing aspect however I do believe that it helped with the in-class learning as distractions were removed. But not too far.
The higher level/more difficult classes where you had to work in teams were mixed to prepare for the outside world.
There are no forces involved in shifting to a lunar orbit beyond the engine thrust.
If that thrust were equal or below what the current thrusters deliver, which it certainly would be, especially if using ION engines powered by the solar arrays, then there would be no problem.
The ISS currently has the structural integrity required to do this, so I'm not sure what some of these objections are.
The station is currently boosted via chemical reaction engines which provide a high thrust for a short period of time. ION engines would produce a much lower amount of thrust, but over a very long period of time.
This proposal is a very interesting idea (and probably a lot more useful than the current ISS purpose). Other weaknesses such as the radiation problem are addressable and will have to be solved anyway.
The most expensive part of space exploration is getting into LEO. We have 500 tonnes there already, lets not waste it. Who knows, in the future, fabrication may be possible and the whole thing remelted down into something else.
One of the early ideas was to boost the shuttle external tank into orbit (only requiring a few seconds more of burn) and then turning them into habitable structures. That always seemed like an interesting and feasible engineering effort as was dissappointed nothing ever came of it.
This is the freshman lecture course from the 1960's (1963?) when Richard Feynman decided to teach an undergraduate course.
I have not read them in a decade, but from what I remember it is almost all conceptual with little math.
As both a physics and math student, I would say that these are must reading. I don't remember who said it, maybe Feynman himself, but the quote goes something like the following: "If you can't explain a concept to a kindergartner, then you don't understand it yourself". Feynman truly understands the physics behind events.
Slashdot Mirror
http://images.google.com/images?q=water+mill&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&resnum=4&ct=title
You can still use MS development tools to get most of the way there and then recompile for your final target if that's what you claim is the advantage and I have done so at many jobs before.
I would think that for real supercomputing jobs you can almost write to the metal and have messaging libraries mostly negating the need for an operating system. I'm curious though as to how jobs are normally split up when running on supercomputers, i.e., are jobs allowed to run concurrently or are they submitted sequentially in a batch.
I really think that it would solve any math problem that one would ever come across as an undergrad (and even grad level). I had a prof whom I visited once after graduation and he had just gone through one of his student's Ph.d. thesis and in a couple of hours reproduced what took the woman a year to do by hand.
Greenhills, BTW, has had instances of Linux running under their Integrity for many years much in the same way that vmware does.
Integrity DO-178B is open source (maybe for different definitions of open source). You get the source code when you pay for the OS.
DO-178B requires spacial (memory) and temporal (a deterministic schedule) and is used on commercial airliners. The time at which tasks run (you can think of a task almost as a function call) is set a prori at design, not run time. All I/O is scheduled, no interrupts, 100% determinism.
I think you answered your own question with not "much more complicated". This still implies that it is more complicated and you have to weigh the added risks with the added benefits and the design goal.
Too complicated and prone to failure.
A cylinder is a much less efficient shape than a sphere (or cone).
And didn't the Russians test a lifting body like 20 years ago that was dynamically stable all of the way through re-entry?
Of course I think that he also predicted that we would eventually also be marrying them at some point. Now I think we're just living together.
I think we gave up on the constitution a while back. Most do not seem to care and won't until it affects them.
It seems as if I only ever hear about how good this will be for all. Or am I just too cynical in wondering if it wouldn't?
where cosmic rays are a huge concern, technically it is possible. BUT the odds of this happening in a coherent manner that could change results such that a program would continue to operate and produce an erroneous error as oppsed to just crashing the system are 1:10^10^10^10 (not scientifically arrived at, but a real value would be of similar oreder or higher).
That is the very first thing that I noticed, I wonder how they did that.
I couldn't understand why someone with ill intentions toward a structure would need a $2k camera. I can't wait until camera phones are outlawed.
I went to an all male high school. There was an adjacent all female school, so it wasn't like we were missing any of the socializing aspect however I do believe that it helped with the in-class learning as distractions were removed. But not too far.
The higher level/more difficult classes where you had to work in teams were mixed to prepare for the outside world.
If that thrust were equal or below what the current thrusters deliver, which it certainly would be, especially if using ION engines powered by the solar arrays, then there would be no problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflector_shield
The station is currently boosted via chemical reaction engines which provide a high thrust for a short period of time. ION engines would produce a much lower amount of thrust, but over a very long period of time.
This proposal is a very interesting idea (and probably a lot more useful than the current ISS purpose). Other weaknesses such as the radiation problem are addressable and will have to be solved anyway.
The most expensive part of space exploration is getting into LEO. We have 500 tonnes there already, lets not waste it. Who knows, in the future, fabrication may be possible and the whole thing remelted down into something else.
One of the early ideas was to boost the shuttle external tank into orbit (only requiring a few seconds more of burn) and then turning them into habitable structures. That always seemed like an interesting and feasible engineering effort as was dissappointed nothing ever came of it.
I have not read them in a decade, but from what I remember it is almost all conceptual with little math.
As both a physics and math student, I would say that these are must reading. I don't remember who said it, maybe Feynman himself, but the quote goes something like the following: "If you can't explain a concept to a kindergartner, then you don't understand it yourself". Feynman truly understands the physics behind events.
I wonder if it covers car computers and auto mechanics.
If you can live 'beyond the natural limit', what prevents you from going on indefinitely?
Bureaucracy and politics.
planes and gliders been doing this since the late 1800's?
laptop