Considering that majority voters will vote for people who hold common beliefs, I do not see an issue with that. this is one of the problems Democrats seemed to have, they can't connect with the people, the voters.
I never said it was stagnant, I just stated the amount we progress remains the same. Now to take in perspective, the approximate time from 1900 to 1950's actually had more change or progress as it would be called, compared to the 1950's to 2000. This can be seen when you factor in the wide spread use of electricity, the telephone, TV, radio. Those few technologies made more of a impact on humanity than the computer or cellphone. And no I don't see any "vast amounts of data" that suggest any kind of "singularity". I would have to say the "singularity" Kurzweil hypes is more just a center of uncertainty that keeps receding as we progress, basically it's a certain point in time, so many years ahead, where it becomes to hard to predict what technological progress will take place.
Ya I read "The singularity is near"; wasn't very convincing.
In the "Myths of Innovation" he clearly shows that major or "Revolutionary" progress does occur, but it really is just a coming together of many lines of knowledge/innovations that forms a pattern that no one had seen previously.
You may see my view as being narrow, I'm just seeing it as realistic.
There won't be a singularity.
I suggest readers take a look at "Myths of Innovation" a realistic truly well written book Scott Berkin, http://www.amazon.com/Myths-Innovation-Scott-Berku n/dp/0596527055 He shows how Innovation occurs and has not sped up or slowed down even at this time.
I was pointing to the Nvidia deskside tesla supercomputer they sell here http://www.nvidia.com/object/tesla_deskside.html I made no reference to the 8800GTX.
And it's good to see some people actually due this kind of work. Last time I did anything with iterative was BAM neural networks and that was 15 years ago.
As you said it, a GPU based supercomputer would be great at non-conditional logic and a boon to AI research.
Actually it is 1.5GB of DDR3 RAM per GPU with a 356-bit memory address and a 128 core GPU. True it's single precision but alot can be done with a 32 bits! Then there's CUDA that somewhat simplifies parallel programming.
Re:book smarts vs real world smarts
on
Network Warrior
·
· Score: 1
MSCE/CNA/A+ certificate != degree
Not really, an IT certificate "usually" pertains to a technology at a certain point in time. A degree usually teaches to think intuitively and and enhance problem solving. Often why IT has issue's with paper certs.
Like so many people who've seen "discussions" such as the one's on the popular humph, Digg, I think the author was just wanting an intellectual debate and discussion without it degrading into what at best could be "group think" at it's worst. I can't blame him, the slashdot community has always been more mature in it's discussions, even if an article was made lite of.
The real situation is, do you want to take the easy route? ie. an in demand job, which means you will constantly be hoping from job to another as the lifetime of those positions change and demands go down. Or you can focus on what you love and do the best. It is a little harder but more satisfying. If you become really good at what you do (whatever it is) there will always be a demand for your talents. Takes awhile but it works.
My point exactly, except we need the commercial entities to settle the frontiers. Next few years we will know with more certainty what resources we can use. I think there needs to be a clarification. There's been an expectation that NASA will lead us to a permanent moon-base and then colonies on Mars. From the average persons point of view this implies that they will get a chance to actually go at some point. From NASA's point of view it's just another place to do research, with no desire to ship more people into space than is neccessary. Most planetary scientist would love to just use robotic missions and dump the whole manned space program. From their point they see no purpose in it. The two views are in conflict and this is why so many people are disillusioned with NASA. If we truely want permanent colonies and bases and access for the average Joe, we need to take what NASA's learned and have private enterprise take it from their, much like what SpaceX and several others are doing.
Will we go back to stay? not if it's for science only, IMHO it will take private companies to make space travel, including exploting the moon for it's resources, to make this 'permanent'. NASA has no where in it's mandate to do anything except research.
Then theirs the fact, if we had developed a space infrastructure, that ~90 of the most important usable resources lie in the asteroids. Some what simpler and easier to get to than anything at the bottom of a gravity well. We could easy pay for any and all investments in space research that we have up until today.
NASA is and always has been about research, not exploitation of space resources. Anything NASA discovers that can benefit a consumer economy/industry should be passed down to private companies that can take full advantage of the discovery.
There's always more choices than we can recognize, it may seem that civilizations have three choices but that can be a myoptic view of where we are now. Whats to say that a civilization may not want to colonize the rest of the galaxy? Whats to say there may be other oppurtunities open as we progress and science and technology open new doors? A Civilization that attains immortality may just decide to travel the galaxy and limit their reproduction?
You still have one issue with this form of wake field acceleration, Luminosity!
The luminosity goes way down, ~1% of what the original electron "bunch" was.
Some what correct, it wasn't 62 watts for 1.8 Teraflops. It was 62 watts for 1 Teraflop.
taken from eetimes.com;
"The 80-core chip crunches 1 trillion floating-point operations/second when running at a 3.2-GHz clock speed and consumes 62 watts, to yield a record 16 Gflops/watt. And by cranking the clock up to 5.6 GHz, the chip bested 1.8 teraflops--that's 80 percent faster--albeit by increasing power consumption fourfold to 265 W, or 3.7 Gflops/W."
Slashdot Mirror
Actually most of the heat would be carried away by the ablative material or this case "the fuel".
Reminds me of a few liberals I know, as they often will say "I'm accepting of others, as long as they see things my way"
Considering that majority voters will vote for people who hold common beliefs, I do not see an issue with that. this is one of the problems Democrats seemed to have, they can't connect with the people, the voters.
I never said it was stagnant, I just stated the amount we progress remains the same. Now to take in perspective, the approximate time from 1900 to 1950's actually had more change or progress as it would be called, compared to the 1950's to 2000. This can be seen when you factor in the wide spread use of electricity, the telephone, TV, radio. Those few technologies made more of a impact on humanity than the computer or cellphone. And no I don't see any "vast amounts of data" that suggest any kind of "singularity". I would have to say the "singularity" Kurzweil hypes is more just a center of uncertainty that keeps receding as we progress, basically it's a certain point in time, so many years ahead, where it becomes to hard to predict what technological progress will take place. Ya I read "The singularity is near"; wasn't very convincing. In the "Myths of Innovation" he clearly shows that major or "Revolutionary" progress does occur, but it really is just a coming together of many lines of knowledge/innovations that forms a pattern that no one had seen previously. You may see my view as being narrow, I'm just seeing it as realistic.
There won't be a singularity. I suggest readers take a look at "Myths of Innovation" a realistic truly well written book Scott Berkin, http://www.amazon.com/Myths-Innovation-Scott-Berku n/dp/0596527055 He shows how Innovation occurs and has not sped up or slowed down even at this time.
I was pointing to the Nvidia deskside tesla supercomputer they sell here http://www.nvidia.com/object/tesla_deskside.html I made no reference to the 8800GTX. And it's good to see some people actually due this kind of work. Last time I did anything with iterative was BAM neural networks and that was 15 years ago. As you said it, a GPU based supercomputer would be great at non-conditional logic and a boon to AI research.
Actually it is 1.5GB of DDR3 RAM per GPU with a 356-bit memory address and a 128 core GPU. True it's single precision but alot can be done with a 32 bits! Then there's CUDA that somewhat simplifies parallel programming.
Although not as cheap as the Microwulf, Nvidia has a desktop super-computer for sale http://www.nvidia.com/object/tesla_deskside.html at 500 GigaGlops, to start.
Does it come with a complementary anal probe?
MSCE/CNA/A+ certificate != degree Not really, an IT certificate "usually" pertains to a technology at a certain point in time. A degree usually teaches to think intuitively and and enhance problem solving. Often why IT has issue's with paper certs.
Good news for those none-conformists.
No one seems to notice that this article is from last year...
Like so many people who've seen "discussions" such as the one's on the popular humph, Digg, I think the author was just wanting an intellectual debate and discussion without it degrading into what at best could be "group think" at it's worst. I can't blame him, the slashdot community has always been more mature in it's discussions, even if an article was made lite of.
Holding plasma in a magnetic field long enough to get usable energy is comparable of using a fishing net to hold sand.
The real situation is, do you want to take the easy route? ie. an in demand job, which means you will constantly be hoping from job to another as the lifetime of those positions change and demands go down. Or you can focus on what you love and do the best. It is a little harder but more satisfying. If you become really good at what you do (whatever it is) there will always be a demand for your talents. Takes awhile but it works.
This is what happens when I sell one lousy share of google!
"Star Trek XII:The Search for Ben"
My point exactly, except we need the commercial entities to settle the frontiers. Next few years we will know with more certainty what resources we can use. I think there needs to be a clarification. There's been an expectation that NASA will lead us to a permanent moon-base and then colonies on Mars. From the average persons point of view this implies that they will get a chance to actually go at some point. From NASA's point of view it's just another place to do research, with no desire to ship more people into space than is neccessary. Most planetary scientist would love to just use robotic missions and dump the whole manned space program. From their point they see no purpose in it. The two views are in conflict and this is why so many people are disillusioned with NASA. If we truely want permanent colonies and bases and access for the average Joe, we need to take what NASA's learned and have private enterprise take it from their, much like what SpaceX and several others are doing.
Will we go back to stay? not if it's for science only, IMHO it will take private companies to make space travel, including exploting the moon for it's resources, to make this 'permanent'. NASA has no where in it's mandate to do anything except research.
Then theirs the fact, if we had developed a space infrastructure, that ~90 of the most important usable resources lie in the asteroids. Some what simpler and easier to get to than anything at the bottom of a gravity well. We could easy pay for any and all investments in space research that we have up until today.
NASA is and always has been about research, not exploitation of space resources. Anything NASA discovers that can benefit a consumer economy/industry should be passed down to private companies that can take full advantage of the discovery.
There's always more choices than we can recognize, it may seem that civilizations have three choices but that can be a myoptic view of where we are now. Whats to say that a civilization may not want to colonize the rest of the galaxy? Whats to say there may be other oppurtunities open as we progress and science and technology open new doors? A Civilization that attains immortality may just decide to travel the galaxy and limit their reproduction?
Prefer to call it Serendipity
You still have one issue with this form of wake field acceleration, Luminosity! The luminosity goes way down, ~1% of what the original electron "bunch" was.
Some what correct, it wasn't 62 watts for 1.8 Teraflops. It was 62 watts for 1 Teraflop. taken from eetimes.com; "The 80-core chip crunches 1 trillion floating-point operations/second when running at a 3.2-GHz clock speed and consumes 62 watts, to yield a record 16 Gflops/watt. And by cranking the clock up to 5.6 GHz, the chip bested 1.8 teraflops--that's 80 percent faster--albeit by increasing power consumption fourfold to 265 W, or 3.7 Gflops/W."