To be fair, it's Microsoft's fault for coming up with such a shitty name. "Project Natal" might be a good code name for some engineer from India, but as a product brand for the U.S., it sucks balls.
The New Scientist summary is lame. Pick up a copy of Science and read the actual article if you can. It says, "Here, we show a way to construct fully scalable parallel simulations for systems with asynchronous dynamics and short-range interactions." This method, while interesting, does not generalize to a wide range of applications. For example, you could not apply this approach to molecular dynamics simulations, which involve primarily long-range interactions between atoms. Still, the authors of this article are clearly pretty clever.
Slashdot Mirror
To be fair, it's Microsoft's fault for coming up with such a shitty name. "Project Natal" might be a good code name for some engineer from India, but as a product brand for the U.S., it sucks balls.
The New Scientist summary is lame. Pick up a copy of Science and read the actual article if you can. It says, "Here, we show a way to construct fully scalable parallel simulations for systems with asynchronous dynamics and short-range interactions." This method, while interesting, does not generalize to a wide range of applications. For example, you could not apply this approach to molecular dynamics simulations, which involve primarily long-range interactions between atoms. Still, the authors of this article are clearly pretty clever.