TFA is a reminder that the metrics we use to assess the impact of open source software are old and outdated. How does a market cap reflect the new value of commercial software, which has had to raise the bar to beat features and performance of the 'free' competitor. How do you quantify the benefit of open source to the actual open source developers? The latter is arguably intangible, but significant. Someone can simply google my name and see production-level code I've written, support messages I've posted in forums, and conference presentations I've given. There is true economic value in this output, but how do should it be quantified and aggregated?
The 1 million hour quota seems even smaller when you consider the nature of the simulation. Computational fluid dynamics simulations rely on super-linear performing algorithms, so a quick & dirty modeling effort would need to drastically reduce the amount of data and number of variables considered.
"The desperate marketing team at Rescue-Time, who spread FUD about how you spend your online time, did a flawed calculation based on wild speculation and concluded that Google's playable PAC-MAN doodle is the reason why we haven't cured cancer."
This will probably happen sometime in the 1970's with the IBM's z-series. Also, in the 1990's Sun might introduce their own hardware isolation through a product called Dynamic System Domains. It's hard to tell though. I think the future is going to be rough for Sun.
The reported accuracy rate of 99.3% for a single chip does not translate to 99.3% accuracy for an entire genome.
Complex genomes are particularly difficult to measure at the edges of chromosomes and in areas of large redundant information (genomic 'repetitive' regions). The claim of 99.3% is stating that only the relatively easy to measure regions produce the reported levels of accuracy.
What a coincidence that just today, NSI spammed their customers with a Winter DNS sale announcement.
Perhaps they are betting the hate will die down after the 3 week sale.
If you need some help moving your DNS away from NSI, take a look at their HOW-TO
But seriously, isn't the OS responsible for the heavy lifting with regards to task scheduling and concurrency?
Only a surprisingly small group of programmers will be impacted by expanded multi-core architectures. In particular, the impacted devs are authors of the relatively 'low-level' code within compilers, kernels, and interpreters.
I think I found the source of the problem. Research like this shouldn't be discounted because it uses a non-human organism. Since so little is known about the structure and organization of cells and genomes, understanding simple properties of *any* organism will ultimately provide a major boon to research relating to humans.
Consider some advantages of performing an experiment with mouse cells. Mouse cells are easy and relatively inexpensive to acquire, and you can control reproduction and breeding to ensure the experimental samples you use in 2 years will be similar to your current samples. Imagine the horror and ethical issues raised by attempting this type of experimental control with a human population.
Some of the most exciting research in biology is based on the mouse organism. Check out the Allen Brain Institute's effort to create an interactive map of the brain, or the many individual research institutions that are releasing results of mouse genome experiments to the public.
Oh, yes, I know : they make chipsets and earn money by selling more motherboard. As a former Intel employee, I can guarantee you that Intel does NOT make money from chipsets and motherboards. The entire purpose of Intel's server and desktop motherboard operation is to enable their new technology through early discovery and elimination of major processor bugs, and to help the actual motherboard/chipset manufacturers to better support Intel architecture.
Why would Intel invest in chipsets and motherboards when the profit margins are slim (as compared to much higher profit margins for a cpu)? For one, the investment in chipsets and motherboards has saved the company from major disasters on several occasions by early detection of obscure bugs. Knowledge of internal problems can allow the company to delay or cancel a product (such as Timna), which is much less harmful to a stock price than shipping a broken product.
By the way, divisions within a company that constitute a material portion of earnings are required to report their revenue. If you want to know whether or not Intel makes money from chipsets, you can look it up in public records.
Slashdot Mirror
TFA is a reminder that the metrics we use to assess the impact of open source software are old and outdated. How does a market cap reflect the new value of commercial software, which has had to raise the bar to beat features and performance of the 'free' competitor. How do you quantify the benefit of open source to the actual open source developers? The latter is arguably intangible, but significant. Someone can simply google my name and see production-level code I've written, support messages I've posted in forums, and conference presentations I've given. There is true economic value in this output, but how do should it be quantified and aggregated?
Too boring
The 1 million hour quota seems even smaller when you consider the nature of the simulation. Computational fluid dynamics simulations rely on super-linear performing algorithms, so a quick & dirty modeling effort would need to drastically reduce the amount of data and number of variables considered.
"The desperate marketing team at Rescue-Time, who spread FUD about how you spend your online time, did a flawed calculation based on wild speculation and concluded that Google's playable PAC-MAN doodle is the reason why we haven't cured cancer."
This will probably happen sometime in the 1970's with the IBM's z-series. Also, in the 1990's Sun might introduce their own hardware isolation through a product called Dynamic System Domains. It's hard to tell though. I think the future is going to be rough for Sun.
The reported accuracy rate of 99.3% for a single chip does not translate to 99.3% accuracy for an entire genome. Complex genomes are particularly difficult to measure at the edges of chromosomes and in areas of large redundant information (genomic 'repetitive' regions). The claim of 99.3% is stating that only the relatively easy to measure regions produce the reported levels of accuracy.
What a coincidence that just today, NSI spammed their customers with a Winter DNS sale announcement. Perhaps they are betting the hate will die down after the 3 week sale. If you need some help moving your DNS away from NSI, take a look at their HOW-TO
Consider some advantages of performing an experiment with mouse cells. Mouse cells are easy and relatively inexpensive to acquire, and you can control reproduction and breeding to ensure the experimental samples you use in 2 years will be similar to your current samples. Imagine the horror and ethical issues raised by attempting this type of experimental control with a human population.
Some of the most exciting research in biology is based on the mouse organism. Check out the Allen Brain Institute's effort to create an interactive map of the brain, or the many individual research institutions that are releasing results of mouse genome experiments to the public.
Why would Intel invest in chipsets and motherboards when the profit margins are slim (as compared to much higher profit margins for a cpu)? For one, the investment in chipsets and motherboards has saved the company from major disasters on several occasions by early detection of obscure bugs. Knowledge of internal problems can allow the company to delay or cancel a product (such as Timna), which is much less harmful to a stock price than shipping a broken product.
By the way, divisions within a company that constitute a material portion of earnings are required to report their revenue. If you want to know whether or not Intel makes money from chipsets, you can look it up in public records.