But your post is referring to a single threaded situation, in which case the full power of the core is available to that thread. You get that, right? A single thread running on a 3ghz core will operate at 3ghz. It will not operate at 750mhz as you incorrectly stated in your post.
" that would give 1/4th the CPU" - 4x multi-threading doesn't limit a single threaded workload to go at 1/4th the speed of the processor. Multi-threading just allows the processor to do useful work when that single thread would otherwise be waiting on other resources (e.g. memory), but it doesn't slow down a single thread running by itself.
What really matters is that phone mfg's needed an OS they could use with low or no license fees so they could build phones and try to differentiate themselves. Same reason unix took off in the early 90's - companies could get in the game, add some value and make money.
Don't confuse the "Resource Planning" part of ERP with actually meaning anything. ERP used to be MRP when it was just focused on the manufacturing aspects of a business and specifically planning raw material requirements to meet the deman for the finished goods. But as companies added modules to the suite to encompass the entire enterprise, they decided to change the name to Enterprise Resource Planning because it sounded more "Enterprisey". Sure there is some planning in there and a whole bunch of transaction execution and tracking that really isn't related to planning.
In what sense do you think ERP is dead? The functions are all required and if you buy best of breed individual packages, you still need to integrate them, so either you do it yourself or you buy the ERP package that is already integrated.
I agree that some decisions can be made to break it up into manageable pieces and accept less efficiency, but with an organization of that size you still have a problem of complexity whether using an ERP package or creating point solutions and integrating them.
ERP is basically all of the typical office functions put together in an integrated package. For example, an Inventory module to track items, an Order Entry module to allow customers to order those items, an Accounts Receivable system to track the invoices generated when you shipped items to the customer, etc. etc. It's all integrated so, for example, the inventory transactions and the invoicing transactions all feed to the General Ledger for financial reporting.
It's "great" because you can't really run a company without it unless you want to do it all on paper.
Most of the ERP implementations I have been part of have been successful. Every major corporation has a working ERP system, how do you think that happened?
There are big failures, typically in situations where the size of the project exceeds the experience and capabilities of the people managing them. With something as big as the DoD, there just aren't too many opportunities for anyone to gain the proper experience to know how to make it successful. Something like that needs to be broken into much smaller pieces and you just have to forego some of the efficiencies of a completely integrated non-redundant system in favor of more manageable pieces.
I think you are making some gigantic assumptions about how the brain works if you think you can even calculate a comparison of the brain to any computer at this point in time. Are you aware of the following (for example)?
1 - White matter (neuroscientists are discovering) is actively involved in computation and it changes due to learning - there are 10x more glial cells than neurons
2 - "Type" of dendrite (in some cases) influences how the signal is transmitted and at what rate and this function plays a part in learning, independent of the synapse
3 - In some cases firing is triggered purely by the electrical field the neurons are surrounded by - no synapse
4 - Brain waves transmit information from one region to another
My impression of reading neuroscientists is that they don't think they can accurately estimate brain processing power - everything is just very simplistic ballpark guesses that vary by multiple orders of magnitude.
Thank you kind sir for that excellent recommendation. However, I am embarrassed to admit that I don't understand how they could be sitting in the back seat while also driving the vehicle over a cliff.
Could you perhaps provide a sketch of your plan so we can better understand?
In case you hadn't noticed, we commonly use single or multi-word phrases to represent much more complex ideas.
We refer to illegally making a copy of copyrighted material as "stealing" and we also refer to illegally taking possession of physical property as "stealing" - in neither case do we typically use the full explanatory sentence, instead we use words that represent the more complex idea.
Why isn't it "theft". The word "theft" is just a shorthand for a variety of different situations, and ALL of them (including physical property) are based on artificial rules that we made up. Taking someone's chair isn't inherently wrong anymore than illegally taking a copy of copyrighted material - both are defined as problems due to the rules society created. Saying that one is theft and one isn't theft is not a meaningful distinction - they are both illegal activities because we said so and if everyone calls both "theft" what does arguing about that term actually gain?
The term "giving away" implies a situation where one party is deprived of something so another person can have it. This is not an accurate representation of Stallman's views, nor is is an accurate description of copyright infringement. When a copy is made and provided to another party, both parties now have the item in question.
Wrong. The term giving away means whatever our society decides it means. There are clearly multiple scenarios in which the term can be used and trying to shoehorn a definition into just one or the other doesn't make sense. In the same way people discuss abortion and want a bright line between life and non-life...the world is more complex and there are lots of things that can't be neatly divided.
In the case of "giving away" copyrighted material...when people use that term pretty much everyone understands that it means we have an artificial system called copyright created for economic reasons and the "giving away" violated the rules of that system.
Trying to argue "but it's not theft" or "it's not the same as real property" misses the point...we all know that but we don't want to use a 17 word sentence to refer to the situation at hand.
"Code is a way of expressing human thought (language)..." - I assume you don't mean verbal language when you say language, right? Based on my experiences and those of most other developers I've talked to (not all), what is going on inside a programmers head that needs to be expressed by a computer language does not appear to involve much of our verbal language at all, rather it seems to involve an abstract/visual type of computation/manipulation.
They've been working on these kinds of apps for a long time. With features like large rotating cubes as the system pulls in relevant data from every electronic appliance connected to the internet.
Slashdot Mirror
But your post is referring to a single threaded situation, in which case the full power of the core is available to that thread. You get that, right? A single thread running on a 3ghz core will operate at 3ghz. It will not operate at 750mhz as you incorrectly stated in your post.
" that would give 1/4th the CPU" - 4x multi-threading doesn't limit a single threaded workload to go at 1/4th the speed of the processor. Multi-threading just allows the processor to do useful work when that single thread would otherwise be waiting on other resources (e.g. memory), but it doesn't slow down a single thread running by itself.
What really matters is that phone mfg's needed an OS they could use with low or no license fees so they could build phones and try to differentiate themselves. Same reason unix took off in the early 90's - companies could get in the game, add some value and make money.
Don't confuse the "Resource Planning" part of ERP with actually meaning anything. ERP used to be MRP when it was just focused on the manufacturing aspects of a business and specifically planning raw material requirements to meet the deman for the finished goods. But as companies added modules to the suite to encompass the entire enterprise, they decided to change the name to Enterprise Resource Planning because it sounded more "Enterprisey". Sure there is some planning in there and a whole bunch of transaction execution and tracking that really isn't related to planning.
In what sense do you think ERP is dead? The functions are all required and if you buy best of breed individual packages, you still need to integrate them, so either you do it yourself or you buy the ERP package that is already integrated.
I agree that some decisions can be made to break it up into manageable pieces and accept less efficiency, but with an organization of that size you still have a problem of complexity whether using an ERP package or creating point solutions and integrating them.
ERP is basically all of the typical office functions put together in an integrated package. For example, an Inventory module to track items, an Order Entry module to allow customers to order those items, an Accounts Receivable system to track the invoices generated when you shipped items to the customer, etc. etc. It's all integrated so, for example, the inventory transactions and the invoicing transactions all feed to the General Ledger for financial reporting.
It's "great" because you can't really run a company without it unless you want to do it all on paper.
Most of the ERP implementations I have been part of have been successful. Every major corporation has a working ERP system, how do you think that happened?
There are big failures, typically in situations where the size of the project exceeds the experience and capabilities of the people managing them. With something as big as the DoD, there just aren't too many opportunities for anyone to gain the proper experience to know how to make it successful. Something like that needs to be broken into much smaller pieces and you just have to forego some of the efficiencies of a completely integrated non-redundant system in favor of more manageable pieces.
Here's a link to brain wave synchronization:
http://www.sciencecodex.com/insync_brain_waves_hold_memory_of_objects_just_seen-101396
I think you are making some gigantic assumptions about how the brain works if you think you can even calculate a comparison of the brain to any computer at this point in time. Are you aware of the following (for example)?
1 - White matter (neuroscientists are discovering) is actively involved in computation and it changes due to learning - there are 10x more glial cells than neurons
2 - "Type" of dendrite (in some cases) influences how the signal is transmitted and at what rate and this function plays a part in learning, independent of the synapse
3 - In some cases firing is triggered purely by the electrical field the neurons are surrounded by - no synapse
4 - Brain waves transmit information from one region to another
My impression of reading neuroscientists is that they don't think they can accurately estimate brain processing power - everything is just very simplistic ballpark guesses that vary by multiple orders of magnitude.
"A) How was this even granted a patent in 2000? It's really obvious, to anyone with a computing degree."
And pretty much anyone with any amount of technical talent could come up with this while choking on cheezy-poofs. These patents are ridiculous.
All the people of value were at the party last night, you didn't get the invite?
Looks like they clustered some Pepsi machines
"Cheetos, coke, pizza, mmmmmmm"
Thanks for the update. I'm going to get another bowl of cereal, I'll be back in a couple minutes.
> You are inside a pyramid, there are openings to the N, S, E and W
> _
Thank you kind sir for that excellent recommendation. However, I am embarrassed to admit that I don't understand how they could be sitting in the back seat while also driving the vehicle over a cliff.
Could you perhaps provide a sketch of your plan so we can better understand?
In case you hadn't noticed, we commonly use single or multi-word phrases to represent much more complex ideas.
We refer to illegally making a copy of copyrighted material as "stealing" and we also refer to illegally taking possession of physical property as "stealing" - in neither case do we typically use the full explanatory sentence, instead we use words that represent the more complex idea.
That's how language works.
Why isn't it "theft". The word "theft" is just a shorthand for a variety of different situations, and ALL of them (including physical property) are based on artificial rules that we made up. Taking someone's chair isn't inherently wrong anymore than illegally taking a copy of copyrighted material - both are defined as problems due to the rules society created. Saying that one is theft and one isn't theft is not a meaningful distinction - they are both illegal activities because we said so and if everyone calls both "theft" what does arguing about that term actually gain?
The term "giving away" implies a situation where one party is deprived of something so another person can have it. This is not an accurate representation of Stallman's views, nor is is an accurate description of copyright infringement. When a copy is made and provided to another party, both parties now have the item in question.
Wrong. The term giving away means whatever our society decides it means. There are clearly multiple scenarios in which the term can be used and trying to shoehorn a definition into just one or the other doesn't make sense. In the same way people discuss abortion and want a bright line between life and non-life...the world is more complex and there are lots of things that can't be neatly divided.
In the case of "giving away" copyrighted material...when people use that term pretty much everyone understands that it means we have an artificial system called copyright created for economic reasons and the "giving away" violated the rules of that system.
Trying to argue "but it's not theft" or "it's not the same as real property" misses the point...we all know that but we don't want to use a 17 word sentence to refer to the situation at hand.
"Code is a way of expressing human thought (language)..." - I assume you don't mean verbal language when you say language, right? Based on my experiences and those of most other developers I've talked to (not all), what is going on inside a programmers head that needs to be expressed by a computer language does not appear to involve much of our verbal language at all, rather it seems to involve an abstract/visual type of computation/manipulation.
I don't use oriented or orientated, I like to mix it up a bit by saying "orientized", for example, C++ is object-orientized.
The CIA has revealed that an entire warehouse of AOL CD's has been shipped to Iran...
Yes, but this is the first time they've applied the "tick-tock" strategy without actually shipping the product.
They've been working on these kinds of apps for a long time. With features like large rotating cubes as the system pulls in relevant data from every electronic appliance connected to the internet.
I'm using Chrome now