Of course. Our successful projects, no matter what they were called or how intentional they were when they started, are never called "messing with nature". If you suggest that we stop this agriculture thing immediately, I'm interested in subscribing to your newsletter.
No, we are going to fix the added levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. You know, the ones that we can actually measure and that are most definitely making the seas more acidic, an environmental problem in its own right.
Eh, have you been hiding under a rock during the last year or so when Sony, Apple and many other manufacturers have started offering laptop LCDs with LED backlighting, stating that they give a better color gamut, that they are thinner, and that they are more power-efficient (although this is usually traded off for a brighter maximum setting)?
Ehm, yeah, cause that kind of system will certainly fix the part of extracting cells from the blood or bone marrow. The injection of the purified cells is the least painful step of this procedure.
Those processors have all been part of maintaining the illusion of the von Neumann machine, and to maintain common interfaces between different pieces of hardware. What's happening now is that the model of a single instruction feed is breaking down completely, no matter what task you want to do, if you want it done efficiently. And that's for the very reason that the very smart people designing chips have run out of ideas on how to make them faster while maintaining that very convenient illusion for the smart people writing software for those chips.
No one wants to write threaded code for computations, if it can be done serially. (Parallelism can be quite convenient for processing of requests, like a server, but even then most designs unless done with great care will contain synchronization or non-locality in one way or another.)
Nope. But I'm saying every OS use the chip differently. For example, Windows apps share the same memory space (well, far pointers do anyhow). So this does affect what a CPU-level attack could do. That and other issues I'm sure.
Win 3.1 called and wants it memory model(s) back. Win32 has a 32-bit flat memory space (or 64-bit on x64), all pointers are the same size, segments do not matter and each process has a local space. Some pages might be shared, of course, but that's done through memory mapping, like in (mostly) any other OS. WinCE has/had some interesting slots, though.
There are geological features remaining with a age over three billion years. It's not enough, though, to make out the total plate structure or anything. A native advanced civilization should have left fossile remains of related species. "Visitors" is naturally another thing.
An unthreatened species does not evolve consistency for greater size. Most species of Homo have been somewhere around 1.5-2.0 meters for adult males for the last million years or so. Most forms of late H. erectus were quite comparable in size to modern humans.
We are also far more related to neaderthals than chimpanzees. Neither are our ancestors, but the divergence point for neanderthals seems to be much closer in time. And, finally, the article did not assume that neanderthals are our ancestors.
MS does very little hardware research, and depending on the general viewpoint regarding software patents, then it's harder to do "real" stuff. I've certainly read interesting and novel papers from Microsoft R&D, though (in the field of information extraction, specifically).
Even if we assumed all of that code to actually be on the spacecraft, rather than including auxiliary systems, unit testing etc that never left Earth (something I would guess that they are including), there is no specific reason for all code to be loaded in RAM all the time. They need to have non-volatile storage. Even if it is damn slow and the images are compressed, an overlay/paging system could easily be used.
Sorry, but mid-90s were more like 66 MHz EDO. If you were lucky. 133 MHz SDR around 2000. And then your trend of accelerating growth actually starts to fail.
I sure haven't used any... nor seen any... Is there a list somewhere of software that actually can use more than one core? Just once I'd like to see it in action. None of the software I use will escape a single core in my X2.
How are you measuring this? In an app that's mostly idling, a very short spike with two active threads on separate cores won't show up unless you actively look for it. Your assertion that you haven't used any such software indicates just ignorance to me.
Uh, what are you going to transfer with that petabyte/sec connectivity? To a desktop machine? Graphics, complex mathematical models and other stuff like that is what are going to use those cycles. Even those applications need serious bandwidth, but most machines are doing something besides routing packets.
Stereoscopy still looks like shit for multiple viewers, or if you move your head too much (if you don't add head-tracking). True 3D might mean rendering 360 or so different images and then projecting them. (36 would also be ok, but the thing is then to generate a separate image for each relatively small span of angles.) THAT is a bandwidth and computing power killer.
Indexed searches are still non-instant. It is naturally an issue of I/O throughput as well. Building some software projects can take minutes, and there is at least room for some parallelization. Some more should be possible if we emit the frontend results first and use those for dependencies and then merge at a later stage (for example).
There is no short supply of the atoms themselves. They are just diluted, too deep down, or stuck in existing stuff. Stuff that's slowly getting useless and would certainly be sold and mined if the process to do it was economical. Even asteroid mining becomes an economical issue -- if there really is no substitute, and all the methods I just described still do not work out, asteroid mining will take place.
The Earth is very, very, very far from round (relatively speaking), but that does not affect the elevation. The numbers you should be comparing are 12 feet versus 12 mm.
As a reference, the equatorial radius of the Earth is 6378.1 km, the polar radius 6356.8 km, or 21300 m difference (which could be argued to be quite close to the deepest ocean floor and the highest mountain, but it's still a separate thing from measuring that elevation difference).
The meter is defined from the second. If we could define mass properly from just distances, I think just about anyone would be all for it. However, it has not turned out to be easily doable.
At the very least, you need to specify pressure as well. The real problem is that for the precision needed here, the smoothness of the inner walls of that block is becoming a real problem. A perfect sphere of a solid as a roundabout way to give a constant number of atoms in fact seems simpler.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course. Our successful projects, no matter what they were called or how intentional they were when they started, are never called "messing with nature". If you suggest that we stop this agriculture thing immediately, I'm interested in subscribing to your newsletter.
No, we are going to fix the added levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. You know, the ones that we can actually measure and that are most definitely making the seas more acidic, an environmental problem in its own right.
So, again, explain how galaxies farther away seem to move away at a greater speed?
Eh, have you been hiding under a rock during the last year or so when Sony, Apple and many other manufacturers have started offering laptop LCDs with LED backlighting, stating that they give a better color gamut, that they are thinner, and that they are more power-efficient (although this is usually traded off for a brighter maximum setting)?
Ehm, yeah, cause that kind of system will certainly fix the part of extracting cells from the blood or bone marrow. The injection of the purified cells is the least painful step of this procedure.
No one wants to write threaded code for computations, if it can be done serially. (Parallelism can be quite convenient for processing of requests, like a server, but even then most designs unless done with great care will contain synchronization or non-locality in one way or another.)
Consider, though, that resolution tops out at 30" at 2560x1600 (and don't tell me that their needs merit a non-COTS display).
I just remember the IP addresses and type them in myself. How hard is that?
That's all well and dandy until banner ads start flashing subliminal messages of unauthorized zone updates to you.
Nope. But I'm saying every OS use the chip differently. For example, Windows apps share the same memory space (well, far pointers do anyhow). So this does affect what a CPU-level attack could do. That and other issues I'm sure.
Win 3.1 called and wants it memory model(s) back. Win32 has a 32-bit flat memory space (or 64-bit on x64), all pointers are the same size, segments do not matter and each process has a local space. Some pages might be shared, of course, but that's done through memory mapping, like in (mostly) any other OS. WinCE has/had some interesting slots, though.
There are geological features remaining with a age over three billion years. It's not enough, though, to make out the total plate structure or anything. A native advanced civilization should have left fossile remains of related species. "Visitors" is naturally another thing.
We are also far more related to neaderthals than chimpanzees. Neither are our ancestors, but the divergence point for neanderthals seems to be much closer in time. And, finally, the article did not assume that neanderthals are our ancestors.
MS does very little hardware research, and depending on the general viewpoint regarding software patents, then it's harder to do "real" stuff. I've certainly read interesting and novel papers from Microsoft R&D, though (in the field of information extraction, specifically).
Even if we assumed all of that code to actually be on the spacecraft, rather than including auxiliary systems, unit testing etc that never left Earth (something I would guess that they are including), there is no specific reason for all code to be loaded in RAM all the time. They need to have non-volatile storage. Even if it is damn slow and the images are compressed, an overlay/paging system could easily be used.
I am quite sure that the comparison is done against 2.5/1.8 disks, not 3.5.
The problem is that, in my experience, it is easy to write a 99 % XML-compliant parser that is 10 times faster. That last percent, though...
Sorry, but mid-90s were more like 66 MHz EDO. If you were lucky. 133 MHz SDR around 2000. And then your trend of accelerating growth actually starts to fail.
I sure haven't used any... nor seen any... Is there a list somewhere of software that actually can use more than one core? Just once I'd like to see it in action. None of the software I use will escape a single core in my X2.
How are you measuring this? In an app that's mostly idling, a very short spike with two active threads on separate cores won't show up unless you actively look for it. Your assertion that you haven't used any such software indicates just ignorance to me.
Uh, what are you going to transfer with that petabyte/sec connectivity? To a desktop machine? Graphics, complex mathematical models and other stuff like that is what are going to use those cycles. Even those applications need serious bandwidth, but most machines are doing something besides routing packets.
Stereoscopy still looks like shit for multiple viewers, or if you move your head too much (if you don't add head-tracking). True 3D might mean rendering 360 or so different images and then projecting them. (36 would also be ok, but the thing is then to generate a separate image for each relatively small span of angles.) THAT is a bandwidth and computing power killer.
Indexed searches are still non-instant. It is naturally an issue of I/O throughput as well. Building some software projects can take minutes, and there is at least room for some parallelization. Some more should be possible if we emit the frontend results first and use those for dependencies and then merge at a later stage (for example).
There is no short supply of the atoms themselves. They are just diluted, too deep down, or stuck in existing stuff. Stuff that's slowly getting useless and would certainly be sold and mined if the process to do it was economical. Even asteroid mining becomes an economical issue -- if there really is no substitute, and all the methods I just described still do not work out, asteroid mining will take place.
As we are currently burning it by the millions of tons each year, there is quite a bit of it to take back.
As a reference, the equatorial radius of the Earth is 6378.1 km, the polar radius 6356.8 km, or 21300 m difference (which could be argued to be quite close to the deepest ocean floor and the highest mountain, but it's still a separate thing from measuring that elevation difference).
The meter is defined from the second. If we could define mass properly from just distances, I think just about anyone would be all for it. However, it has not turned out to be easily doable.
At the very least, you need to specify pressure as well. The real problem is that for the precision needed here, the smoothness of the inner walls of that block is becoming a real problem. A perfect sphere of a solid as a roundabout way to give a constant number of atoms in fact seems simpler.