The top parents point about the term parallel is correct in the literal sense. Parallel is true or false and there is no spectrum of parallel in the mathematical sense. The term 'concurrent processing' might be more correct (degrees of correctness?) but parallel has slipped into common language.
Identifying problems that are well suited for a multi-processor platform can be quantified. It's hard to scale up when you define it as 4 integers. Try finding the maximum of n integers.
aArray[1..n]
int parallelMAx(array, lowIndex, highIndex){
if(highIndex-lowIndex == 1)
return max(aArray[lowIndex, aArray[highindex])
else
open new thread and calculate a=parallelMax(array, bottomOfRange, middle)
open new thread and calculate b=parallelMax(array, bottomOfRange, topOfRange)
return max(a,b)
end }
With one processor we need to check every integer and compare it to the current max. This takes at least n comparisons. With n processors we can do half of these at the same time giving us the same number comparisons in order log(n) iterations instead of n iterations. So finding a max will see some benefit from having more processors and that benefit is on the order of n-log(n).
This benefit will be different for different problems (given the best known algorithm) and then sorting these benefits you could get a 'spectrum of benefit of concurrency' which would denote the 'degrees of parallelism that the top parent is speaking of.
Someone should explain to me about this internet tiering....how do you give preference to a particular server that uses TCP/IP and avoid an application that says "wrap my data in a privileged packet". How can you avoid this?
A CS degree doesn't make you a programmer at all and what programming you do sure as hell isn't as basic as making a website. In fact I would go so far as to say that a CS degree would make you a mathematician, a logician, and an algorithm designer. In my CS degree I did some programming (more than I would care to mention) but I spent more time creating algorithms, proving them correct, and then determining their run-time as a function of their input.
You're assuming an atmosphere of fixed volume. If I learned anything from University it was that if you start with a 100% solution of coke and add rum you can get a 78% rum solution.
It's a good place to LIVE, not to make money? This skew in values is one of Americas downfalls. Whatever, you can always take the time to live when you're a fat rich corps.
Also, you may have to wait for a surgery in Canada but at least you'll get it, wether or not your rich or poor.
(should preview your post I guess....here's an HTML version)
Comparing energy alternatives is something that should be done more. I've had this chat with my office before that we have a lot of options. If we limit the discussion to transportation and focus on a few variables we might find a way to pick a winner in today's energy race. So let's look at three variables: Km/L, g waste/Km, and hazardousness of waste; one for efficiency of motion and the other for environmental effects. Here are our three options (add more if you like)(all numbers pulled from my ars).
* Where rice is made into a liter of mush and eaten, then a bike is ridden.
Most people would also consider the efficient speed that each fuel would yield and take travel time into account. Some would say that there time is more valuable and therefore could burn whatever to get there quickly. Others would say that the health benefits of walking or riding a bike are also something to be considered. I think that when we talk about fuel efficiency that we need to consider things at a large scale, consider efficiency and impacts (environmental and social), and realize the greedy algorithm to living, aka path of least resistance, is not necessarily the optimal path.
Comparing energy alternatives is something that should be done more. I've had this chat with my office before that we have a lot of options. If we limit the discussion to transportation and focus on a few variables we might find a way to pick a winner in today's energy race. So let's look at three variables: Km/L, g waste/Km, and hazardousness of waste; one for efficiency of motion and the other for environmental effects. Here are our three options (add more if you like)(all numbers pulled from my ars).
Km/L g waste/Km Hazardous
Gasoline 50 5 CO2 - moderate
Hydrogen 30 2 H20 - light, maybe ammonia - ?
Rice* 40 500 feces - light
* Where rice is made into a liter of mush and eaten, then a bike is ridden.
Most people would also consider the efficient speed that each fuel would yield and take travel time into account. Some would say that there time is more valuable and therefore could burn whatever to get there quickly. Others would say that the health benefits of walking or riding a bike are also something to be considered. I think that when we talk about fuel efficiency that we need to consider things at a large scale, consider efficiency and impacts (environmental and social), and realize the greedy algorithm to living, aka path of least resistance, is not necessarily the optimal path.
There is a difference between where we 'could' be and where we 'should' be. Granted that the exporation of new worlds was a boom for europe in the 1500-1900s but where are they now? I don't think we can count on importing resources from the rest of our solar system to satisfy our lust for consumerism. And why else would would we go there? Scienctists can build robots to measure effects more acuratly then they would by hand. Tourism is a collosal waste and those who go will be the people with more money than they really deserve. So really...why do we need to go there?
I'm also of the opinion if we started using something which was naturally in abundance, like earth's magnetic fields, it would cumulatively and ultimately affect something we'd regret later.
This is true. We've seen it in many of our energy sources...the questions for the human race are a) How do we extract energy from macro forces like the earths magnetic field and geothermal core in the most efficient way? b) how to we do it and not destroy the environment and ourselves in the process? Everything has an opportuninty cost. Everything is a balance. We have to pay one way or another for what we take.
How about teaching a starving child how to farm, hunt, fish, live sustainably? The western world forces their notion that industrialization and education will solve the problems of the third world but it sure doesn't solve the problems of the way the SUV nation lives.
From the sounds of things you've read Atlas Shrugged and are against alms to the poor on the stance that people need to pull their weight. I agree...but I also feel that managing a business is the last thing that any starving person needs to know. Maybe if we take a billion dollars and buy 10million of these laptops we could calculate just long our planet will survive given our rate of consumption and the acceleration of our consumption in the newly 'developing' areas like China and India?
You're right...there's too much emphasis on making things practical. It _is_ university after all. If you want something practical then go to college. If you're in a pure math program are you going to complain that it's not practical? In my first year of CS we already had robots. It was named Karel and it taught us all about objects...it didn't have to fetch me my morning newspaper.
They would but the bureaucracy involved in reading TFA is way too onerous. I recommend stealing the passwords of the/. overlords and skipping the mountain of red tape.
The difference between security philishophies of the two countries is something that should be considered. While the american approach (driven mostly by the business of war) has been to build a bigger bomb to feel secure, the canadian approach has been to piss off fewer people. It's like building a thicker shield versus pouring water on the ammunition. Prevention versus reaction.
Someone I worked with mentioned a classic business metaphore: "there's no glory in installing smoke detectors"
The low key prevention approach has worked for us (canada) so far. We have no mentionable acts of terrorism directed at us and I think this is because we haven't invited any. I'm not saying that we don't do our part to help other countries though...Canada is like the mom of North America that tries to tell you the lesson but then Dad comes home and spanks you!
I know disarming didn't work very well for the people of New Quahog (Family Guy)...and with this weeks announcement of $15 billion in millitary spending it looks like we're changing approaches...but the hippie in me tells me that the less we try to push and control people the safer we'll all be.
I can certainly see a linux migration as people buying the soon-to-be-obsolete "XP" machines couples with Ubuntu's 3 year support. What a nice way for MS to motivate the average user to switch OSes.
I wouldn't put it past MS to write their own apps...maybe have you copile your fortran to.NET and run that on the cluster. Also, if they ever get Services for Unix working smoothly (I tried to compile my own openSSH and avoid using Cygwin) it might be an alternative. I think that these things are a long way off but if there's a market then look for MS to plug away and plug away...then buy someone and have a real contender.
It's not like the Candian agency who made these arrests up here used any kind of high tech snooping. When someone in Missauga (an urban center) buys fertizer in large quantities it gets flagged and an investigation starts. It didn't take a billion dollar data mining program.
The American approach to every problem is to 'declare war' on it and then attempt to use technology on it. Autonomous planes on boarders. Space based missle defence shields. They're even building a huge network of sensors to monitor the environment. The last thing I will ever believe is that the US government cares about the environment but I will believe that the vendor who make cameras to record root growth care about money.
The American approach to problem solving is so ineffective because corporations influence their decisions more than reality. If you want to eliminate terrorism then why not foster a world of peace instead of spending billions on missles. If you want to help the environment then why not start by changing driving habits and instead of installing cameras and watching the world go up in flames.
When your reception on your black and white tv was fuzzy did you switch back to staging live plays and watching camp fires? When your car stalls on a cold winter do you hitch up your horse?
These are almost good analogies. The only difference is that in these cases you don't have the local drama club messing with your reception. VOIP is in the precarious position of depending on it's competitor for some business needs. VOIP has to offer low cost and hope it's customers bitch enough to 'the man' to get things like 911 available.
You've assumed that a switch to more efficient means of power generation is the way to go. I think that if the US really wants to curb emmissions then it should think about changing habits and not just what it burns.
For instance, if the US used its Iraq budget (to use your funding source) to subsidize public transit and telecommuting instead of subsidizing cars running on biofuels then I think we would see a big drop in emmisions. I know that you mentioned public transit but I think that we have to pick a direction and run with it. Canada is working on this a little. They have a high tax on fuel that is supposed to fund infrastructure for public transit. I for one would rather see a 60 passenger bus running on the gas we have now then 60 smart cars driving in a pack running on potatoe skins and roadkill cats.
The point here is that a cultural change is required more than a technological change. For years we've said that a new technology will save us from our wastefull ways. The car will clean up the horse pollution, unleaded gas will save us from the lead pollution, ethanol will save us from petrolium pollution, etc. I agree, how do we show that we're richer that someone else if we're all on the same bus?
The holodeck is here but you probably can't afford one. The Cave is an immersive virutalization tool that projects on 4 surface (left, center, right, top) and reacts to feedback such as body position. I got to use one of these while working at a research center in London, Ontario.
It's not quite the holodeck though, you can't run or you'll hit the wall. You navigate your space using a mouse. There is a ball that floats in space and by pinching your fingers you fix that ball relative to the space. By moving your hand you can move the space relative to you.
The Cave was used where I worked to mock up things before preducing them in hopes of working out design flaws before you went to the trouble of building them. All that aside you could also play
Quake!
I doubt there will even be a line! Everything is moving more and more towards wireless broadband. Why not? There's no hassle of waiting for the cable guy. The only people who really do _have_ to show up are the electrical and water utilities. I know in Toronto the electrical company is offering WIFI as a way to read their soon-to-be-installed smart meters.
The point being that soon enough data will be considered data regardless of the content. The company who can provide the cheapest and most effective service will win. I think that the electrical utility, since they have an in with 99.9% of all residences, might have a shot of offering an all-in-one data communication package.
--
That's my 2 cents...maybe I should have spent it on a domestic call...
Slashdot Mirror
therefore downloading and burning DVD's is fine so long as we play them on official players that are allowed to decrypt such disks. Check :)
The top parents point about the term parallel is correct in the literal sense. Parallel is true or false and there is no spectrum of parallel in the mathematical sense. The term 'concurrent processing' might be more correct (degrees of correctness?) but parallel has slipped into common language.
Identifying problems that are well suited for a multi-processor platform can be quantified. It's hard to scale up when you define it as 4 integers. Try finding the maximum of n integers.
aArray[1..n]
int parallelMAx(array, lowIndex, highIndex){
if(highIndex-lowIndex == 1)
return max(aArray[lowIndex, aArray[highindex])
else
open new thread and calculate a=parallelMax(array, bottomOfRange, middle)
open new thread and calculate b=parallelMax(array, bottomOfRange, topOfRange)
return max(a,b)
end
}
With one processor we need to check every integer and compare it to the current max. This takes at least n comparisons. With n processors we can do half of these at the same time giving us the same number comparisons in order log(n) iterations instead of n iterations. So finding a max will see some benefit from having more processors and that benefit is on the order of n-log(n).
This benefit will be different for different problems (given the best known algorithm) and then sorting these benefits you could get a 'spectrum of benefit of concurrency' which would denote the 'degrees of parallelism that the top parent is speaking of.
Someone should explain to me about this internet tiering....how do you give preference to a particular server that uses TCP/IP and avoid an application that says "wrap my data in a privileged packet". How can you avoid this?
A CS degree doesn't make you a programmer at all and what programming you do sure as hell isn't as basic as making a website. In fact I would go so far as to say that a CS degree would make you a mathematician, a logician, and an algorithm designer. In my CS degree I did some programming (more than I would care to mention) but I spent more time creating algorithms, proving them correct, and then determining their run-time as a function of their input.
I'll leave making crappy websites to the SE's...
You're assuming an atmosphere of fixed volume. If I learned anything from University it was that if you start with a 100% solution of coke and add rum you can get a 78% rum solution.
It's a good place to LIVE, not to make money? This skew in values is one of Americas downfalls. Whatever, you can always take the time to live when you're a fat rich corps. Also, you may have to wait for a surgery in Canada but at least you'll get it, wether or not your rich or poor.
Comparing energy alternatives is something that should be done more. I've had this chat with my office before that we have a lot of options. If we limit the discussion to transportation and focus on a few variables we might find a way to pick a winner in today's energy race. So let's look at three variables: Km/L, g waste/Km, and hazardousness of waste; one for efficiency of motion and the other for environmental effects. Here are our three options (add more if you like)(all numbers pulled from my ars).
_______________Km/L_____g waste/Km_____HazardousGasoline_______50_________ 5___________ CO2 - moderate
Hydrogen______ 30_________ 2 __________ H20 - light, maybe ammonia - ?
Rice* _________40________ 500 _________ feces - light
* Where rice is made into a liter of mush and eaten, then a bike is ridden.
Most people would also consider the efficient speed that each fuel would yield and take travel time into account. Some would say that there time is more valuable and therefore could burn whatever to get there quickly. Others would say that the health benefits of walking or riding a bike are also something to be considered. I think that when we talk about fuel efficiency that we need to consider things at a large scale, consider efficiency and impacts (environmental and social), and realize the greedy algorithm to living, aka path of least resistance, is not necessarily the optimal path.
Comparing energy alternatives is something that should be done more. I've had this chat with my office before that we have a lot of options. If we limit the discussion to transportation and focus on a few variables we might find a way to pick a winner in today's energy race. So let's look at three variables: Km/L, g waste/Km, and hazardousness of waste; one for efficiency of motion and the other for environmental effects. Here are our three options (add more if you like)(all numbers pulled from my ars). Km/L g waste/Km Hazardous Gasoline 50 5 CO2 - moderate Hydrogen 30 2 H20 - light, maybe ammonia - ? Rice* 40 500 feces - light * Where rice is made into a liter of mush and eaten, then a bike is ridden. Most people would also consider the efficient speed that each fuel would yield and take travel time into account. Some would say that there time is more valuable and therefore could burn whatever to get there quickly. Others would say that the health benefits of walking or riding a bike are also something to be considered. I think that when we talk about fuel efficiency that we need to consider things at a large scale, consider efficiency and impacts (environmental and social), and realize the greedy algorithm to living, aka path of least resistance, is not necessarily the optimal path.
There is a difference between where we 'could' be and where we 'should' be. Granted that the exporation of new worlds was a boom for europe in the 1500-1900s but where are they now? I don't think we can count on importing resources from the rest of our solar system to satisfy our lust for consumerism. And why else would would we go there? Scienctists can build robots to measure effects more acuratly then they would by hand. Tourism is a collosal waste and those who go will be the people with more money than they really deserve. So really...why do we need to go there?
This is true. We've seen it in many of our energy sources...the questions for the human race are a) How do we extract energy from macro forces like the earths magnetic field and geothermal core in the most efficient way? b) how to we do it and not destroy the environment and ourselves in the process? Everything has an opportuninty cost. Everything is a balance. We have to pay one way or another for what we take.
How about teaching a starving child how to farm, hunt, fish, live sustainably? The western world forces their notion that industrialization and education will solve the problems of the third world but it sure doesn't solve the problems of the way the SUV nation lives.
From the sounds of things you've read Atlas Shrugged and are against alms to the poor on the stance that people need to pull their weight. I agree...but I also feel that managing a business is the last thing that any starving person needs to know. Maybe if we take a billion dollars and buy 10million of these laptops we could calculate just long our planet will survive given our rate of consumption and the acceleration of our consumption in the newly 'developing' areas like China and India?
You're right...there's too much emphasis on making things practical. It _is_ university after all. If you want something practical then go to college. If you're in a pure math program are you going to complain that it's not practical? In my first year of CS we already had robots. It was named Karel and it taught us all about objects...it didn't have to fetch me my morning newspaper.
They would but the bureaucracy involved in reading TFA is way too onerous. I recommend stealing the passwords of the /. overlords and skipping the mountain of red tape.
Sincerely,
James Colon
The difference between security philishophies of the two countries is something that should be considered. While the american approach (driven mostly by the business of war) has been to build a bigger bomb to feel secure, the canadian approach has been to piss off fewer people. It's like building a thicker shield versus pouring water on the ammunition. Prevention versus reaction.
Someone I worked with mentioned a classic business metaphore: "there's no glory in installing smoke detectors"
The low key prevention approach has worked for us (canada) so far. We have no mentionable acts of terrorism directed at us and I think this is because we haven't invited any. I'm not saying that we don't do our part to help other countries though...Canada is like the mom of North America that tries to tell you the lesson but then Dad comes home and spanks you!
I know disarming didn't work very well for the people of New Quahog (Family Guy)...and with this weeks announcement of $15 billion in millitary spending it looks like we're changing approaches...but the hippie in me tells me that the less we try to push and control people the safer we'll all be.
----
I can certainly see a linux migration as people buying the soon-to-be-obsolete "XP" machines couples with Ubuntu's 3 year support. What a nice way for MS to motivate the average user to switch OSes.
I wouldn't put it past MS to write their own apps...maybe have you copile your fortran to .NET and run that on the cluster. Also, if they ever get Services for Unix working smoothly (I tried to compile my own openSSH and avoid using Cygwin) it might be an alternative. I think that these things are a long way off but if there's a market then look for MS to plug away and plug away...then buy someone and have a real contender.
----Community Environmental Monitoring- naturewatch.ca
It's not like the Candian agency who made these arrests up here used any kind of high tech snooping. When someone in Missauga (an urban center) buys fertizer in large quantities it gets flagged and an investigation starts. It didn't take a billion dollar data mining program.
Thanks for your cynicism but you're wrong.
I think in this case me might be looking for the most famous Swedish pirate of them all: Ragnar Dannekjöld
The American approach to every problem is to 'declare war' on it and then attempt to use technology on it. Autonomous planes on boarders. Space based missle defence shields. They're even building a huge network of sensors to monitor the environment. The last thing I will ever believe is that the US government cares about the environment but I will believe that the vendor who make cameras to record root growth care about money.
The American approach to problem solving is so ineffective because corporations influence their decisions more than reality. If you want to eliminate terrorism then why not foster a world of peace instead of spending billions on missles. If you want to help the environment then why not start by changing driving habits and instead of installing cameras and watching the world go up in flames.
----2cents deposted
When your reception on your black and white tv was fuzzy did you switch back to staging live plays and watching camp fires? When your car stalls on a cold winter do you hitch up your horse?
These are almost good analogies. The only difference is that in these cases you don't have the local drama club messing with your reception. VOIP is in the precarious position of depending on it's competitor for some business needs. VOIP has to offer low cost and hope it's customers bitch enough to 'the man' to get things like 911 available.
"The Excalator is the greatest invention of all time because it they can never break. Excalators can only become stairs."
-Mitch Hedberg
You've assumed that a switch to more efficient means of power generation is the way to go. I think that if the US really wants to curb emmissions then it should think about changing habits and not just what it burns.
For instance, if the US used its Iraq budget (to use your funding source) to subsidize public transit and telecommuting instead of subsidizing cars running on biofuels then I think we would see a big drop in emmisions. I know that you mentioned public transit but I think that we have to pick a direction and run with it. Canada is working on this a little. They have a high tax on fuel that is supposed to fund infrastructure for public transit. I for one would rather see a 60 passenger bus running on the gas we have now then 60 smart cars driving in a pack running on potatoe skins and roadkill cats.
The point here is that a cultural change is required more than a technological change. For years we've said that a new technology will save us from our wastefull ways. The car will clean up the horse pollution, unleaded gas will save us from the lead pollution, ethanol will save us from petrolium pollution, etc. I agree, how do we show that we're richer that someone else if we're all on the same bus?
----
The holodeck is here but you probably can't afford one. The Cave is an immersive virutalization tool that projects on 4 surface (left, center, right, top) and reacts to feedback such as body position. I got to use one of these while working at a research center in London, Ontario.
It's not quite the holodeck though, you can't run or you'll hit the wall. You navigate your space using a mouse. There is a ball that floats in space and by pinching your fingers you fix that ball relative to the space. By moving your hand you can move the space relative to you.
The Cave was used where I worked to mock up things before preducing them in hopes of working out design flaws before you went to the trouble of building them. All that aside you could also play Quake!
I doubt there will even be a line! Everything is moving more and more towards wireless broadband. Why not? There's no hassle of waiting for the cable guy. The only people who really do _have_ to show up are the electrical and water utilities. I know in Toronto the electrical company is offering WIFI as a way to read their soon-to-be-installed smart meters.
The point being that soon enough data will be considered data regardless of the content. The company who can provide the cheapest and most effective service will win. I think that the electrical utility, since they have an in with 99.9% of all residences, might have a shot of offering an all-in-one data communication package.
--
That's my 2 cents...maybe I should have spent it on a domestic call...
Bender should not be allowed on TV!