Name me an embedded system that can't benefit from parallellism? My mobile phone is already parallel as it has 2 processors in it plus a smeg load of hardware computation assist. So cell phones already do benefit from this and could benefit from more. Look at the work xilinx is doing with TI into getting into base stations and you'll see how mobile phone algorithms can be parallised. A printer could certainly benefit from parallelism, get it right and you could render every character on the page at the same time. And we know how easy other graphics on the page can be processed in parallel.
TVs? Well much of the processing is done in hardware (well it is on the TV chip I'm designing at the moment) so already parallel, the processor is a multi threaded processor to aid this. So TVs do benefit from this already and could benefit from it more. Radios? Again the last chip I designed was a DAB Radio chip and again that was a multi-threaded processor with hardware assist.
I can't think of any other embedded systems that are cpu constrained that couldn't obviously benefit from mass paralleism. If the current chips already benefit from this, how can you say that they can't?
Got to say I'm with you on that one, you're the first person I've seen to express this so I'm glad I'm not alone.
The only way I've ever found to work (assume this is a new project) 1) create inital spec 2) get it reviewed by peers/people who'll be implementing rest of system/customer 3) design to spec 4) update spec as approprite (if a minor change that deals with fine level of implementation then only inform people of change, if major then re-review) 5) If anyone asks you a question that is in the spec then direct them to the part of the spec they've missed. If it isn't in the spec then update so you won't be asked again.
The ammount of time this has saved me over the years with people not having to ask me questions, or me being able to answer them quickly is far greater than the ammount of time it took me to write the spec initially and keep it up to date. This says nothing about the number of bugs and man hours we saved in avoided bugs by them being informed when I made a change that would have affected some of their design. I can't understand how people don't like specs!
http://www.yousendit.com/ does that if you like. Means leaving your email program though, but I find it a good way to send large files to people who only know how to email and surf
And yes I have worked for companies that could deliver the high quality maintainable software on time. The problem was that it meant it was at least an order of magnitude more expensive to deliver per LOC. It was also quite a frustrating place to work, if for no other reason than there was little room for initiative unless you were one of the 3 main architects (and they were constrained by the ITU specs), oh and there were 5 layers of management in a team of about 160 people. There were more managers on the project than engineers. And this is just engineering managers.
But it is possible if you design it carefully enough and review things well. Specs are an invaluable part of this.
Now I work for a different company with a different philosophy similar to the one you propose - but you pay your money you take your choice.
This sounds then like a disto and IP issue, not any particular technical issue with the os or desktop itself.
Still I know it takes me longer to get my linux desktop to the required functionality (sound, video, office, IMs, sound video and photo editing software) after a re-install than it used to for my windows desktop. Ok the Ubuntu system does this for me for free, but I think most people new to linux don't care if it's a desktop issue or an OS issue, or an app issue or whatever. They just want something that will let them get on with their life.
So it's a many pronged effort, some people will improve the desktop itself, others will improve the OS, others will improve the distro. When people work for free they will do what interests them, and if that's "pointless" twiddles in the windowing system then hey it's their life! We just need to keep saying what we need so that together the package gets to where it needs to go.
Anyone know the current state of repair for the system since the only info I can find now is the wikipedia article...
Hey by 2010 we may have 3 competing fully functional systems - but where is the money in this? Is it really all military incentive, there can't be that much money in building GPS receivers?
I wish it were so: On my parents last house we fitted a solar heating system such that even in England we still got all the hot water we could want for free! When they came to sell the house they were advised by the estate agents to remove it as it would put people off (because it was such an oddball thing that no-one understood). Feedback from potential buyers proved that Joe public isn't ready for this yet and was very wary of it. So we ended up having to remove it. So the technology may be there, the money may be right, but your average punder doesn't seem to understand it and so is avoiding it.
Funny that, 'cause my local board is encouraging me to do this and will give me a grant to do it. I'm trying to find the spare cash at the moment to do it.
Well when I worked at Nortel (9 months ago) That wasn't the case for most carriers we sold to. Yes they were OC192, and they were definitly POS, but the packet standard was ATM.
Maybe that was just Nortel's customers as opposed to Cisco and Juniper's, but from my visability we shifted more ATM than GIGE; things were changing and new architectures were GIGE based, but we always had the existing ATM backbone in there.
/me gets nitpicky Greatest number of people or greatest number of factions:-)
What about atm? More data flows over atm than over ip, (most backbones for major carriers are ATM based as are most broadband links to the home) but tcp/ip has won the mindshare regardless of the fact that most internet links are IPoATM.
Another standards war there for you to consider; so maybe greatest number isn't always the case either, marketing mindshare has an effect too:-)
I've been kind of wondering this myself, why is the only viable buisness model at the moment to make a record that makes a million? Are there record companies out there that don't want to make a number 1, but instead just promote as many bands as possible (say with the aim of getting into the top 40). There must be a reason they don't make money through this, otherwise they would (maybe they do)
Correct, most current designs have a counterweight to provide the necessary opposite force to balance the weigh of the cable. i.e. if you just had the station in GS orbit and a cable down to earth then the weight of the cable would pull the station down to earth. You need either another cable of equal length or similar counterweight to provide an opposing force to the weight of the cable. So if you did sever the cable at the earth end then for a while it would drift away because you would have more counterweight than needed to keep the cable in tension. But what you'd likely do would be to jetison some ballast (at the space side) to regain your equilibrium until you could re-build your base station then jetison more ballast to lower the canle so you could re-attatch it. Then send more ballast up the cable (or collect some from in space) and you're laughing.
I think the major problem might actually be terrorism from space as that would be much easier to get up high velocities to create a projectile to destroy the space station. And terrorists would have access to space as the whole point of this is to make space travel cheaper. So we might be trying to fix the wrong problem here...
Yes it's currently impractical, as it was when Tesla tried over a hundred years ago. However The next X-Prizes seem to be based around the sace elevator and one of the categories is building a power transmission unit as you describe as "Star Trek beamed talk". http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/mar/HQ_m05083 _Centennial_prizes.html
So the guys at NASA think it's the best plan - if you have a better one and some numbers then I'm sure they'd love to hear.
No problem Sir! Can I introduce you to Rufty's 100% guaranteed method of finding hot geeky women:
1) Stop spending so much time online posting old jokes and look at how the men who get the women look, dress and act - try to understand why this works. 2) Find place where geeks and women meet (I find apple stores, theatres or any technical university's pub have worked in the past) 3) Talk to said woman. Try to talk to them about their interests rather than your latest score on whatever computer game. (unless they are interested in this computer game then go ahead) 4) If you are able to raise their interest try not to sound too keen but get their phone number/email and get back onto them. 5) Meet up again, have lots of geeky offspring for the next generation of geeking.
If 4 & 5 fail, then chloroform tends to skip out on all the boring inbetween buisness.
HTH -- #1 pickup line of all time: "Hey, does this rag smell like chloroform to you?
Honestly I think a bit of all works very well. Nukes to provide the baseline + some spare for peaks and inclement weather. Solar to use up some of the desert space we have no need for. Hydro as something easilly "off and on-able" Add in some bio fuel, some OTE, Thermal solar panels on people's roofs (for hot water), some hydrogen etc for cars and we might have a future. I think each solution has it's advantages and the trick will be exploiting them all. Nukes (fission or fusion) are not a magic bullet, but I believe they are a vital part of an entire energy solution. At the end of the day it is all about what the cheapest solution is, whoever can deliver the right goods for the right price will win. Face it if Nuke was 1/10th the price of fossil fuel we wouldn't be where we are now. It failed to live up to the promises people made about it before so until it can prove itself in the public eye in terms of costs as well as safty then I think we'll see more of it. But yes count my in for some Nuclear in my back yard _if_ the price is right with current saftey records.
http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/marketdata/marketToday.a sp
Seems to disagree with your assumption.
Also remember all the hydro dams most contries have.
Small Rant:
At the moment most run at 100% to maximise investment, but I can imagine that during solar peak times you use solar plants and your reservoirs fill up. During solar downtime (e.g. night) then you use the existing hydro plants but in the meantime have fitted them with more generators so they can now provide all the country's power (even if it is only until they have drained their reservoir).
Is this actually an issue though? How long before people had hacked versions of the X-Box or any other piece of hardware that had copy protection firmware?
Actually a friend of ours has some of the new gear(I think it's sony) hooked up to a projector. If you swap betwen the DVD source and the HD source the number of artifacts and the resolution limits of DVD become very apparant. So no, for todays TVs DVDs do the job, for cinema in your own home my DVD collection now looks like so much VHS that I still haven't replaced with DVDs. On a large high quality screen the difference is once again VHSDVD.
Slashdot Mirror
This is new?t ml (the oldest working link I can find on this area) is about 6 years old. I did have links that were older(they just don't work anymore)...
http://www.ece.cmu.edu/research/piperench/index.h
Name me an embedded system that can't benefit from parallellism?
My mobile phone is already parallel as it has 2 processors in it plus a smeg load of hardware computation assist. So cell phones already do benefit from this and could benefit from more. Look at the work xilinx is doing with TI into getting into base stations and you'll see how mobile phone algorithms can be parallised.
A printer could certainly benefit from parallelism, get it right and you could render every character on the page at the same time. And we know how easy other graphics on the page can be processed in parallel.
TVs? Well much of the processing is done in hardware (well it is on the TV chip I'm designing at the moment) so already parallel, the processor is a multi threaded processor to aid this. So TVs do benefit from this already and could benefit from it more.
Radios? Again the last chip I designed was a DAB Radio chip and again that was a multi-threaded processor with hardware assist.
I can't think of any other embedded systems that are cpu constrained that couldn't obviously benefit from mass paralleism. If the current chips already benefit from this, how can you say that they can't?
Got to say I'm with you on that one, you're the first person I've seen to express this so I'm glad I'm not alone.
The only way I've ever found to work (assume this is a new project)
1) create inital spec
2) get it reviewed by peers/people who'll be implementing rest of system/customer
3) design to spec
4) update spec as approprite (if a minor change that deals with fine level of implementation then only inform people of change, if major then re-review)
5) If anyone asks you a question that is in the spec then direct them to the part of the spec they've missed. If it isn't in the spec then update so you won't be asked again.
The ammount of time this has saved me over the years with people not having to ask me questions, or me being able to answer them quickly is far greater than the ammount of time it took me to write the spec initially and keep it up to date. This says nothing about the number of bugs and man hours we saved in avoided bugs by them being informed when I made a change that would have affected some of their design. I can't understand how people don't like specs!
http://www.yousendit.com/ does that if you like. Means leaving your email program though, but I find it a good way to send large files to people who only know how to email and surf
It's an old article, but:t ml
http://www.fastcompany.com/online/06/writestuff.h
And yes I have worked for companies that could deliver the high quality maintainable software on time.
The problem was that it meant it was at least an order of magnitude more expensive to deliver per LOC.
It was also quite a frustrating place to work, if for no other reason than there was little room for initiative unless you were one of the 3 main architects (and they were constrained by the ITU specs), oh and there were 5 layers of management in a team of about 160 people. There were more managers on the project than engineers. And this is just engineering managers.
But it is possible if you design it carefully enough and review things well. Specs are an invaluable part of this.
Now I work for a different company with a different philosophy similar to the one you propose - but you pay your money you take your choice.
This sounds then like a disto and IP issue, not any particular technical issue with the os or desktop itself.
:-)
Still I know it takes me longer to get my linux desktop to the required functionality (sound, video, office, IMs, sound video and photo editing software) after a re-install than it used to for my windows desktop.
Ok the Ubuntu system does this for me for free, but I think most people new to linux don't care if it's a desktop issue or an OS issue, or an app issue or whatever. They just want something that will let them get on with their life.
So it's a many pronged effort, some people will improve the desktop itself, others will improve the OS, others will improve the distro. When people work for free they will do what interests them, and if that's "pointless" twiddles in the windowing system then hey it's their life! We just need to keep saying what we need so that together the package gets to where it needs to go.
Man this has gone offtopic and lecture-y
"explosives blow things up, whereas rockets blow things up"
There isn't nearly as much useless secrecy in Europe than in the USA.
:-)
Maybe we're just better at deceiving our minions, sorry citizens
Yeah I'd heard about that, I assumed it was a temporary measure until the Glonass system was fixed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glonass
Anyone know the current state of repair for the system since the only info I can find now is the wikipedia article...
Hey by 2010 we may have 3 competing fully functional systems - but where is the money in this? Is it really all military incentive, there can't be that much money in building GPS receivers?
I wish it were so:
On my parents last house we fitted a solar heating system such that even in England we still got all the hot water we could want for free!
When they came to sell the house they were advised by the estate agents to remove it as it would put people off (because it was such an oddball thing that no-one understood). Feedback from potential buyers proved that Joe public isn't ready for this yet and was very wary of it. So we ended up having to remove it.
So the technology may be there, the money may be right, but your average punder doesn't seem to understand it and so is avoiding it.
Funny that, 'cause my local board is encouraging me to do this and will give me a grant to do it.
I'm trying to find the spare cash at the moment to do it.
What makes you say they'll never allow it?
Well when I worked at Nortel (9 months ago) That wasn't the case for most carriers we sold to.
Yes they were OC192, and they were definitly POS, but the packet standard was ATM.
Maybe that was just Nortel's customers as opposed to Cisco and Juniper's, but from my visability we shifted more ATM than GIGE; things were changing and new architectures were GIGE based, but we always had the existing ATM backbone in there.
/me gets nitpicky :-)
:-)
Greatest number of people or greatest number of factions
What about atm? More data flows over atm than over ip, (most backbones for major carriers are ATM based as are most broadband links to the home) but tcp/ip has won the mindshare regardless of the fact that most internet links are IPoATM.
Another standards war there for you to consider; so maybe greatest number isn't always the case either, marketing mindshare has an effect too
I've been kind of wondering this myself, why is the only viable buisness model at the moment to make a record that makes a million?
Are there record companies out there that don't want to make a number 1, but instead just promote as many bands as possible (say with the aim of getting into the top 40).
There must be a reason they don't make money through this, otherwise they would (maybe they do)
I just don't see it.
Correct, most current designs have a counterweight to provide the necessary opposite force to balance the weigh of the cable.
i.e. if you just had the station in GS orbit and a cable down to earth then the weight of the cable would pull the station down to earth. You need either another cable of equal length or similar counterweight to provide an opposing force to the weight of the cable.
So if you did sever the cable at the earth end then for a while it would drift away because you would have more counterweight than needed to keep the cable in tension. But what you'd likely do would be to jetison some ballast (at the space side) to regain your equilibrium until you could re-build your base station then jetison more ballast to lower the canle so you could re-attatch it. Then send more ballast up the cable (or collect some from in space) and you're laughing.
I think the major problem might actually be terrorism from space as that would be much easier to get up high velocities to create a projectile to destroy the space station.
And terrorists would have access to space as the whole point of this is to make space travel cheaper.
So we might be trying to fix the wrong problem here...
The thing in contact was stated in the film to cost $300 Billion.
Yes it's currently impractical, as it was when Tesla tried over a hundred years ago.3 _Centennial_prizes.html
However The next X-Prizes seem to be based around the sace elevator and one of the categories is building a power transmission unit as you describe as "Star Trek beamed talk".
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/mar/HQ_m0508
So the guys at NASA think it's the best plan - if you have a better one and some numbers then I'm sure they'd love to hear.
I hope people got that I was going for some humour to spice out the patronising nature of the rest of the post.
;-)
or maybe it is informative? I don't know as with all things in life it is a matter of perspective
No problem Sir! Can I introduce you to Rufty's 100% guaranteed method of finding hot geeky women:
1) Stop spending so much time online posting old jokes and look at how the men who get the women look, dress and act - try to understand why this works.
2) Find place where geeks and women meet (I find apple stores, theatres or any technical university's pub have worked in the past)
3) Talk to said woman. Try to talk to them about their interests rather than your latest score on whatever computer game. (unless they are interested in this computer game then go ahead)
4) If you are able to raise their interest try not to sound too keen but get their phone number/email and get back onto them.
5) Meet up again, have lots of geeky offspring for the next generation of geeking.
If 4 & 5 fail, then chloroform tends to skip out on all the boring inbetween buisness.
HTH
--
#1 pickup line of all time: "Hey, does this rag smell like chloroform to you?
Does this not go back to the who point of TFA where no defence is possible once the observer has made up their mind :-)
Honestly I think a bit of all works very well.
Nukes to provide the baseline + some spare for peaks and inclement weather.
Solar to use up some of the desert space we have no need for.
Hydro as something easilly "off and on-able"
Add in some bio fuel, some OTE, Thermal solar panels on people's roofs (for hot water), some hydrogen etc for cars and we might have a future.
I think each solution has it's advantages and the trick will be exploiting them all.
Nukes (fission or fusion) are not a magic bullet, but I believe they are a vital part of an entire energy solution.
At the end of the day it is all about what the cheapest solution is, whoever can deliver the right goods for the right price will win. Face it if Nuke was 1/10th the price of fossil fuel we wouldn't be where we are now. It failed to live up to the promises people made about it before so until it can prove itself in the public eye in terms of costs as well as safty then I think we'll see more of it.
But yes count my in for some Nuclear in my back yard _if_ the price is right with current saftey records.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroe lectricity
Or just don't use your normal hydro dams during the day, but add extra plant and then pump like crazy at night when your solar is out of commision?
http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/marketdata/marketToday.a sp
Seems to disagree with your assumption.
Also remember all the hydro dams most contries have.
Small Rant:
At the moment most run at 100% to maximise investment, but I can imagine that during solar peak times you use solar plants and your reservoirs fill up. During solar downtime (e.g. night) then you use the existing hydro plants but in the meantime have fitted them with more generators so they can now provide all the country's power (even if it is only until they have drained their reservoir).
Is this actually an issue though? How long before people had hacked versions of the X-Box or any other piece of hardware that had copy protection firmware?
Actually a friend of ours has some of the new gear(I think it's sony) hooked up to a projector.
If you swap betwen the DVD source and the HD source the number of artifacts and the resolution limits of DVD become very apparant.
So no, for todays TVs DVDs do the job, for cinema in your own home my DVD collection now looks like so much VHS that I still haven't replaced with DVDs. On a large high quality screen the difference is once again VHSDVD.