Quantum mechanics (and it's relatives, string theory and M theory) make predictions which are non-intuitive, based strictly on valid mathematics. To date, some of these predictions have been verified and others neither verified nor disproven (and I suppose occasionally disproven, leading to revisions in the theories).
This seems to be an equally non-intuitive sort of prediction. I suppose they have the maths to back their theory up?
Not even remotely for the desktop. Computers are for the desktop. Supercomputers are special application tools. Most competent programmers have a hard time thinking in terms which lend themselves to widespread parallelization. Software for massively parallel environments is virtually non-existent, except for the few rare instances of software created to be distributed (e.g., setiathome, foldingathome, the prime-search application, etc.). Even these were written as distributed applications, not truly parallel ones.
For my budget, yes, I need to make quite a few concessions. Gig copper comes with the plugs and it's as fast as I'm likely to be able to afford; but I can still handily outrun SGI's offering in the 'bang for buck' category clear up until I hit around a hundred, maybe even a couple hundred nodes.
On second thought - I'll live without the ultra-highspeed interconnects since 1000TX is all I can afford. Hot swapping individual components (nodes) will be strictly a software function, a dead node can easily be unplugged and replaced without too much fuss, although any jobs running on that particular node will need to be failed and restarted. I'm not interested in sub components such as power supplies, memory modules, cpu's, etc. - they're no longer component-level items but are now subcomponents and thus beneath my attention.
Single OS instance? I don't suppose you would consider TFTP/NFS to be solutions to this (the standard for IBM's BG and for Beowulf clusters)? I sure do - although I don't think Redmond's products will work quite that way I know that *NIX operating systems do. Think of each node as a fat client (although I still use them as thin clients, not needing the local SSD disks for anything more than swap space).
Form factor doesn't intrigue me. If that's important, I recommend you build your own case with lots of pretty transparent covers and neon lights/LED's. I'm sure you could come up with something straight out of an Irwin Allen show; I'll settle for nailing a bunch of power-strips to a hunk of plywood, personally. Don't forget - 10W per active node. Okay, at 1,000 nodes I'll be drawing 10KW; but for now, I'm running a LOT less than the 200W your average desktop box draws and getting lots more FLOPS per watt.
a supercomputer chassis. Not unlike getting an IBM BlueGene with ONE cell processor on ONE card in ONE unit on ONE rack. I suppose it's still a 'supercomputer' (since nobody's really defined what a supercomputer is). The architecture is there for true, multiprocessor multithreading in a highly scalable framework. Way cool!
Then again, I'm buying up Marvel SheevePlugs as fast as I can afford 'em. With built-in 1000TX networking and a Kingston SOC chip delivering approximately the same performance as a 1GHz Intel CPU, I figure I can network 'em together and have a scalable (Beowulf) supercomputer for a lot less money and only a modest investment in elbow-grease. The uBoot environment is already smart enough for TFTP boot and root over NFS (which is how IBM does the magic, IIRC). All I need is a monotasking kernel to serve to my nodes and I'm in business. For now, I'll settle for the standard Linux 2.6 kernel and take the modest performance hit.
What about non-signatory countries? I mean, good luck extraditing me to the Hague from, say, Uganda. Hell, getting a U.S. citizen extradited to face international justice is a pretty unlikely proposition (unless the U.S. citizen has pissed off the U.S. Gooberment, of course).
Doesn't matter to me, soon I'll be rich. There's this guy over in Nigeria, he's got a bunch of money he has to get out of the country and needs my help . . .
Never ask a question unless you know absolutely how it's going to be answered!
"You consider yourself a smart shopper?" (yes) "You want to save money?" (yes) "Would you rather have an inferior product, or what I'm selling?" (your superior product).
NOT "So having heard all this which brand do you think is best?" (I'm still loyal to Commodore Amiga/Apple IPod/SheevaPlug/virtually anything with LINUX/the list goes on...)
They tried almost exactly the same experiment around the turn of the century, trying to verify the existence of Aether as the "substance" of space. Their experiment also had negative results.
WHICH, as it turns out, were not necessarily because there is no aether (although I'm pretty sure there isn't), but rather because Lorenz/Fitzgerald contraction "squeezed" their interferometry equipment by exactly the same amount that any existing "aether" would have distorted the light beams they used to make their experimental observation. In effect, what they proved is that their equipment is subject to the same rules as the light their equipment was manipulating. Yes, General Relativity is one theory which explains their results and I'm sure there are others.
I'm still waiting to hear if astrophysicists have detected any scalar fields in the universe - for example, variations in the "constants" assigned to physical phenomena such as gravity. That'd be a real bit of supporting evidence for several string theories ('branes, n-dimensional manifolds, the existence of realities/universes other than ours) and would probably trash current relativistic theories, although like any good theory, it'll be modified to fit the available data and another test concieved. See: Scientific Method.
I mean, I really did affect the fundamental operations of my computer, removing a great many security-related programs written by MicroSoft as part of their Windows operating system when I installed Linux (no dual-booting here!).
For bonus points, when I blew away "PC Angel"'s hidden partition full of restore data, was that a violation of the DMCA? How 'bout when I changed the BIOS passwords? When I flashed my firmware?
Next they'll arrest me for installing (or even just having an executable copy of) nmap.
Nice try, but wrong. At some arbitrary point, even if the victim never "sees" the perpetrator, some electromagnet/gravitic interaction will take place between the two. That interaction constitutes "observation" in quantum terms.
In much the same way, you could assert that all the objects within the solar system "observe" the sun (as evidenced by the curved-looking trajectories of the objects). Or that many of the subatomic particles that make up our victim will, in fact, "observe" the assassin long before the fatal shot is fired (well, long in quantum terms, anyhow).
You really shouldn't try applying quantum or relativistic concepts in your day-to-day experiences. You'll probably get hurt, or shot, or something. Just sayin'.
Both quantum mechanics and General Relativity teach us that if an event is not observed, than (relative to the observer) the event never took place.
Plain English translation - Let's say a star 100ly from Earth went nova yesterday. To US (here on Earth) it hasn't happened. Period. Didn't happen yesterday, not happenin' today, ain't gonna happen tomorrow.
One other lesson from G/R (well, an assumption, really) - 299,997kps - not just a good idea, it's the law.
Put these together - the logic is right. Even if the Milky Way galaxy is teeming with (sentient, intelligent) life, the vast majority of it may never be able to "exist" as far as we're concerned due to the distances and timeframes involved. Incidentally, even if something intelligent is brewing on some distant planet - when (relative to us, that is) is that happening?
Fermi's paradox is a nice thought experiment, but even if the intended conclusion is correct, we may never be able to know that.
It's the same old story - the only truly secure system is disconnected from tne network, powered down and disassembled - and even then, I wouldn't bet my life on it to be absolutely secure!
They're right. This is a major exploit, especially in view of the fundamental nature of name services to the internet. With repeated application (or by combining with DDoS techniques) I could see holding an entire domain down for an extended period of time. Now, then . ..
Only a fool would configure public-facing DNS servers as masters, although I've seen it done. Only the king of the land of fools would put his domain's real DNS master on a public-facing network. Thus, only domains administered by fools should be directly affected. Darwin for teh win!
Yes, but we're now well beyond what the average cop/bobby on the beat can be reasonably expected to do as a field activity. I don't care how easy it is for technically-savvy people such as you and I do get over these obstacles; the point is, it should prove insurmountable to the front-line beat cop (bobby).
BTW, how long you been here? A uid of 484? Am I in the presence of one of the Creators? *awed gaze fixed on UID*
The point is, it's not something the average bobby is going to be doing in the field. After all, what manufacturer? Which DIP switch (in my experience, it's usually a jumper, not a DIP switch). Are you SURE any given laptop even HAS that jumper/switch? I only ask because I've encountered at least three models of laptop in my career where that's not true - you lock yourself out, you get to buy new CMOS chips - or more likely, a new MOBO.
The BIOS (including the boot-selection page) is password protected. Even when a CD-ROM is physically attached, booting from CD-ROM/USB requires the system password. Oh, and the hard disk incorporates password protection, which is configured.
Easy enough for qualified personnel to defeat (along with the BIOS-level HDD password protection? Probably). That is, the nerd back at the police lab - not the PD's street soldiers.
Go ahead - give 'em a hacker tool on a stick. Let 'em feel like they're technically competent to conduct field investigations into an area which I'll wager most of them don't even remotely understand. Oh, and let me raise questions at trial into the safeguards in place to prevent officers from inadvertantly/intentionally corrupting the contents of the filesystems they intend to investigate in the field.
(I'm assuming their hacker's tool can automagically recognize and search ext3, ext4, jfs, ufs, xfs, reiserfs, FAT16, FAT32, NTFS, etc. . . . and let us not forget software-based filesystem encryption for many of the aforementioned filesystems).
I've seen reports before on such trivia as render times, render accuracy, etc. Benchmarking browsers and rendering engines is nothing new.
What's so special about FutureMark(C)'s software? Or is it their advertising budget which desserves attention? I hope they really had to pay for their full-page ad here on/.
Slashdot Mirror
I wanna see their maths.
This seems to be an equally non-intuitive sort of prediction. I suppose they have the maths to back their theory up?
Once there, it can never disappear.
Use them well.
Use them in peace.
Stevie, you need to end all your sentences one word earlier.
For my budget, yes, I need to make quite a few concessions. Gig copper comes with the plugs and it's as fast as I'm likely to be able to afford; but I can still handily outrun SGI's offering in the 'bang for buck' category clear up until I hit around a hundred, maybe even a couple hundred nodes.
Single OS instance? I don't suppose you would consider TFTP/NFS to be solutions to this (the standard for IBM's BG and for Beowulf clusters)? I sure do - although I don't think Redmond's products will work quite that way I know that *NIX operating systems do. Think of each node as a fat client (although I still use them as thin clients, not needing the local SSD disks for anything more than swap space).
Form factor doesn't intrigue me. If that's important, I recommend you build your own case with lots of pretty transparent covers and neon lights/LED's. I'm sure you could come up with something straight out of an Irwin Allen show; I'll settle for nailing a bunch of power-strips to a hunk of plywood, personally. Don't forget - 10W per active node. Okay, at 1,000 nodes I'll be drawing 10KW; but for now, I'm running a LOT less than the 200W your average desktop box draws and getting lots more FLOPS per watt.
Then again, I'm buying up Marvel SheevePlugs as fast as I can afford 'em. With built-in 1000TX networking and a Kingston SOC chip delivering approximately the same performance as a 1GHz Intel CPU, I figure I can network 'em together and have a scalable (Beowulf) supercomputer for a lot less money and only a modest investment in elbow-grease. The uBoot environment is already smart enough for TFTP boot and root over NFS (which is how IBM does the magic, IIRC). All I need is a monotasking kernel to serve to my nodes and I'm in business. For now, I'll settle for the standard Linux 2.6 kernel and take the modest performance hit.
What about non-signatory countries? I mean, good luck extraditing me to the Hague from, say, Uganda. Hell, getting a U.S. citizen extradited to face international justice is a pretty unlikely proposition (unless the U.S. citizen has pissed off the U.S. Gooberment, of course).
Doesn't matter to me, soon I'll be rich. There's this guy over in Nigeria, he's got a bunch of money he has to get out of the country and needs my help . . .
"You consider yourself a smart shopper?" (yes) "You want to save money?" (yes) "Would you rather have an inferior product, or what I'm selling?" (your superior product).
NOT "So having heard all this which brand do you think is best?" (I'm still loyal to Commodore Amiga/Apple IPod/SheevaPlug/virtually anything with LINUX/the list goes on...)
D'oh!
Shame the two couldn't have met - can you imaging the science those two could have accomplished together?
. . . can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of these? . . .
WHICH, as it turns out, were not necessarily because there is no aether (although I'm pretty sure there isn't), but rather because Lorenz/Fitzgerald contraction "squeezed" their interferometry equipment by exactly the same amount that any existing "aether" would have distorted the light beams they used to make their experimental observation. In effect, what they proved is that their equipment is subject to the same rules as the light their equipment was manipulating. Yes, General Relativity is one theory which explains their results and I'm sure there are others.
I'm still waiting to hear if astrophysicists have detected any scalar fields in the universe - for example, variations in the "constants" assigned to physical phenomena such as gravity. That'd be a real bit of supporting evidence for several string theories ('branes, n-dimensional manifolds, the existence of realities/universes other than ours) and would probably trash current relativistic theories, although like any good theory, it'll be modified to fit the available data and another test concieved. See: Scientific Method.
For bonus points, when I blew away "PC Angel"'s hidden partition full of restore data, was that a violation of the DMCA? How 'bout when I changed the BIOS passwords? When I flashed my firmware?
Next they'll arrest me for installing (or even just having an executable copy of) nmap.
In much the same way, you could assert that all the objects within the solar system "observe" the sun (as evidenced by the curved-looking trajectories of the objects). Or that many of the subatomic particles that make up our victim will, in fact, "observe" the assassin long before the fatal shot is fired (well, long in quantum terms, anyhow).
You really shouldn't try applying quantum or relativistic concepts in your day-to-day experiences. You'll probably get hurt, or shot, or something. Just sayin'.
Plain English translation - Let's say a star 100ly from Earth went nova yesterday. To US (here on Earth) it hasn't happened. Period. Didn't happen yesterday, not happenin' today, ain't gonna happen tomorrow.
One other lesson from G/R (well, an assumption, really) - 299,997kps - not just a good idea, it's the law.
Put these together - the logic is right. Even if the Milky Way galaxy is teeming with (sentient, intelligent) life, the vast majority of it may never be able to "exist" as far as we're concerned due to the distances and timeframes involved. Incidentally, even if something intelligent is brewing on some distant planet - when (relative to us, that is) is that happening?
Fermi's paradox is a nice thought experiment, but even if the intended conclusion is correct, we may never be able to know that.
It's the same old story - the only truly secure system is disconnected from tne network, powered down and disassembled - and even then, I wouldn't bet my life on it to be absolutely secure!
Only a fool would configure public-facing DNS servers as masters, although I've seen it done. Only the king of the land of fools would put his domain's real DNS master on a public-facing network. Thus, only domains administered by fools should be directly affected. Darwin for teh win!
How do I get a job there?
BTW, how long you been here? A uid of 484? Am I in the presence of one of the Creators? *awed gaze fixed on UID*
The point is, it's not something the average bobby is going to be doing in the field. After all, what manufacturer? Which DIP switch (in my experience, it's usually a jumper, not a DIP switch). Are you SURE any given laptop even HAS that jumper/switch? I only ask because I've encountered at least three models of laptop in my career where that's not true - you lock yourself out, you get to buy new CMOS chips - or more likely, a new MOBO.
Might be technically possible if Windows is running. Not a chance it'll work on a linux box.
Easy enough for qualified personnel to defeat (along with the BIOS-level HDD password protection? Probably). That is, the nerd back at the police lab - not the PD's street soldiers.
Go ahead - give 'em a hacker tool on a stick. Let 'em feel like they're technically competent to conduct field investigations into an area which I'll wager most of them don't even remotely understand. Oh, and let me raise questions at trial into the safeguards in place to prevent officers from inadvertantly/intentionally corrupting the contents of the filesystems they intend to investigate in the field.
(I'm assuming their hacker's tool can automagically recognize and search ext3, ext4, jfs, ufs, xfs, reiserfs, FAT16, FAT32, NTFS, etc. . . . and let us not forget software-based filesystem encryption for many of the aforementioned filesystems).
Tell Mr. Miscavige to call me after they have their own Krystalnacht. Until then, perhaps he should watch the hyperbole.
What's so special about FutureMark(C)'s software? Or is it their advertising budget which desserves attention? I hope they really had to pay for their full-page ad here on /.