I'll take a stab and reply to you that "8 processors was enough for anyone", in the sense that multiplexing 8 programs is just insane. Better to just run 8 prorams each on their own core, and use some progs that can use 4 cores at a time. That leaves 4 free.
(Overly simpistic) I agree, but 1028 cores is not the answer. We need the next generation in raw core power to move computing forward. 8 killer cores will beat 1024 mediocre cores.
You're a bit smarter than me but I think you're saying there are lots of easy tasks that are easy to run on a single linear code thread but are hard to split and recombine with any less loss of time / resources.
Phrasings like that are a bit polemic, because for certain titles, it the chops off crispy profits "just because you said so". Disney is of course the famous case, and Star Trek and Dr. Who might be the poster cases right behind them for longevity. On the music side, RIAA has been getting nice sales for 40 years on tons of titles.
I think these copyright proposals need a "small-profit (ad revenue on blogs) derivative works allowed" clause because tons of people just want to mash up stuff but they have no plans for big campaigns. They just want to submit their stuff to some site for street cred and some $100 of ad revenue.
The other clause that would be useful is a "retainer" on certain "grandfather" titles like said Disney and Star Trek and Dr. Who paid by the companies every year to keep the big properties intact, but then all the millions of b-list titles then aren't worth it so they come up for availability. Last I knew the street guys hate using top-hits for anything but parodies anyway and that's already almost okay. When they want to get creative they look to fresher stuff, precisely where the revenue=0 for the big companies to begin with.
Kind of a strange Slashdot topic since as pointed elsewhere Penrose has been working on this since 1989!
Meanwhile bear with me for a mini rant, in that Submitter dived right into a topic covered by some 50 books, by taking a simplistic double quote of Roger Penrose, famous British physicist, recently argued "that we will need to invoke 'new physics and exotic biological structures': rewriting quantum theory to make sense of consciousness," Brooks writes. (Which he then dismissed as disappointing.)
Meanwhile, back at the more erudite book level, let's see some of what's out there. Pleading rustiness on the original Penrose text, Douglas Hofstadter has been working for 20 years on analogy-based thinking. To get to your question, he calls the electrons and cells and even small neurons little billiard-ball-like stuff that "careens around in a careenium". Then from a second story window, you don't see those individual balls anymore, nor does any one matter. But the holistic big level then becomes consciousness as a "emergent" property that you just can't dissect past a certain point.
On another tack, Stephen Wolfram of Wolfram Alpha fame put another 20 years at about the same time period doing computational pattern science developing the idea that within perfectly special cases in what otherwise look like simple rules, fantastic complex structures simply emerge "out of nowhere". Yet the trick is that they have to be computed, and no fancy equation quite produces the whole result in one sweep - some data absolutely requires the raw minimum iterative processing. He called this something like the law of irreducibility. For consciousness, this means that there are limits to genius, and cavemen can't make cars because it simply takes a raw amount of pre-processing to produce the context that pushes forth an idea. Past that absudium example, it also means for non-geniuses that you can't know why cattle won't go into a vaccination ramp until someone else discovers that cattle hate shifts in light intensity and the ramp looks like a big cave.
It bypasses random manager's quarterly bonuses, and says "what can we do if we have better foundations to start with and learn on"? There's a theory somewhere that it takes a pyramid of enthusiastic amateurs to produce a few experts per field. When you restrict the base, you get fewer experts. The secret is that "level 7 fans" teach "level 2 fans" with the knowledge perpetuating.
So this kind of book is neat. It may not have all the answers. If some magical funding were to appear, someone could compile Volume 2 with the missing essentials. But it is important to get mid-grade fans like me into the act to build mometum.
Depends on the category. As a random example, in the Jane Roberts topics, they banned the guy who did a life study of the texts in favor of broader, more general articles.
In some senses, you can also use a version # as "ye who shall go before this version number beware of a Grue". After 36 increments of the 2.6 series, I'm sorta for the "freshness" of a 3.0 series. Just to say that "here is our dividing line, we've made all this progress, let's lock it in."
I know, there will be a little fuss, but thinking like a 5 year plan, it's good sometimes to make some dividing lines that progress has been achieved.
I had to design a layered email system to handle emails from the "opt-in" services. I try to keep my family email for family, so that the new message notifier doesn't give me false alarms too often. (TransUnion has been bad lately...)
I think his point was that if you are already in a good job, getting 50 emails a month from recruiters might be a little distracting.
I think we vaguely knew that the hardware sukked, and therefore the software was the desperate lights of creativity funnelled through crappy hardware. It was about watching the future unfold, but knowing it took some twenty sad years of waiting for things to really kick into gear. Look at the modern games... they feel all fleshed out. Yeah, you can discuss minor rendering issues, but modern hardware runs anything.
My figures were *per year*, so that's a nice try to switch units and try to troll me with per-month and per-week straw examples. My examples were one pair of pants every six months and one pizza dinner party every three months. I didn't put in a home phone in my example, so you straw-added that in order to take it back out, and I said cell phone not smart phone. You finished it off by calling me an overly entitled loser for being able to drive to work.
Combining several threads at once, it still works to slice a good year off the "general ed requirements" for those professions, and the lecture courses thereafter. Meanwhile, it gets into the "degree subsidization" of those professions by the English majors. That would force a collision with the other stories that we are giving away our engineering knowledge for free to the Chinese and reducing the US jobs for those degrees.
My original post meant that for the simpler degrees, if we convince the employers that X degree is good enough to hire, it tackles the "you don't have the piece of paper" problem.... Which lastly collides with the Babysitting Service crew.
Let's exclude the first x income per person, then we'll exclude the first x interest on a home mortgage, then we'll exclude child care, then we'll do several brackets of increasing tax rates! Oh wait...
The entire point of education is to administer the knowledge with a series of proofs that the students learned it (let's ignore gaming the system for now.)
Knowledge huh? That should be cheap. The inbound material consists of books and podcasts! And a college degree is a very finite series of classes, so it can't really be that hard for $State_School to post a curriculum for all the courses that don't require crazy equipment. Then all the student needs is Q&A sessions, and the administered tests. Price tag per semester: $500.
So then the Elites have to step it up to show where that other $200,000 is going.
Yet we're well into the Music and Movie content debates, how has Edu remained this far below the radar?
The Edu Revolution is coming, and it's going to scare the Old Boys network.
You mean well, but you're falling right into economic math traps from the 1970's.
"Fair" is never so simple as "one rate for all, hooray!" Once you convert it to % of disposable income it spikes to levels that would horrify you. Why? Because if a poor earner is only making $20,000 a year, ruthless first-order expenses might easily churn 19,000 of it. First order expenses are things like gas,milk-cereal-bread-butter-cheese-meat (discount!), heat, and rent (already split in halves!).
That's "calculator estimating", which is never real anyway. Add two new pairs of pants, two bottles of shampoo, $300 of car repairs, a cell phone, and four dinners at a pizza restaurant watching a game and you're hosed. $0 raw income left before facing that governmental $2000 in "fair tax".
So once you concede that, that's what the next chuck of tax code does. It says "Oh right, I can't tax you on your rent money." Now, getting back to your question, the mortgage deduction ALONE doesn't quite knock you below a 10% rate, but it *activates Schedule A*, like a giant video game. Then you 1-up your way to that 10% effective rate. (Really, gamers ought to love the tax code! It's Super Mario Goes To Washington!)
You're right about replacement costs. However I was trying to address the idea that overall the number of "Type 1" tourneys being held dropped dramatically, so that at least as I recall the mood in my areas for several years, their broad play value evolved into something like a museum piece on a pedestal. Perhaps the concept I was trying for was something like a liquidity problem.
That's actually a very good example of a "pseudo-currency".
(Lawn) I once bought a pizza from Papa Ginos with two Sengir Vampires. (The register guy agreed to repay the pizza out of his own pocket.) (/Lawn)
The fascinating thing there is how Wizards "tricked itself" by misreading how certain cards form gamebreaker combos. So then they embarked on an elaborate "currency value adjustment" program, aka Type 2. (With all the spinoffs etc. In my areas "1.5" and "Legacy" and so on were never very popular.)
By being relegated to "Type 1" All those power cards were effectively cordoned off into a backwater, and lost most of their effective value. Then as the years rolled on, once cards left Type 2, they also dropped in value like a stone.
What's to keep the BitCoin administration (does that make sense?) from "adjusting" it later to suit some agenda?
I am a potential new linux user and my initial specialty/focus will be on the UI side. I have been considering looking into xfce as well. Do you think it's the new dark horse UI behind Gnome and KDE?
"WTF is a "class-c" geek? Is there some designation hierarchy I'm unaware of? I've been a geek for almost my entire life, and I have no idea what you're talking about."
It's the whole "Geek-Nerd spectrum". It's (at least) two dimensional. One direction is the attitude. The other is Da Skillz. It ranges from "mildly obsesses with spelling on slashdot and can fix stuck cd drives with paperclips" to CmdrTaco and Randall Munroe of xkcd. If you're just a rebel but don't have an awesome concept that pays the bills, it's called Cheap Signaling.
Ordinary Rebels have trouble coming up with the $6000 to dig out of the flood expenses that show up at the worst possible time all at once when the hand-me-down car blows a head gasket, First-Last-Deposit on a new apartment, and a grand in medical that a sleazy insurance company won't cover.
If you're only a class-c geek with an unwillingness to conform but without a layer of pizazz to roll it all together, you end up too unstable for a business to hire you, so you end up at fast food or retail with some gaming at night and weekends and the random day you skipped work to go on a raid/campaign.
That's the life to have... up to about age 25, then it starts to crash hard.
"If they get leaked to faceless corporations that will crunch the data to suck as much money as possible out of you and your friends with targeted advertising, the connection is fuzzy, remote, indirect, and it is unlikely you will care at all. "
Up until you then show them their purchases using said targetted advertising and then say in big old-school letters "Data! Yum!"
Dammit, it's neck and neck now, web 2.0 is almost over. We're into Web 3.0 soon, with the privacy invasions assisted by.gov, but (soon I hope?) after that will be a privacy rebellon which should be glorious.
Slashdot Mirror
"The news of the problems of parallelization is still news after 30 years"
- paraphrase of Christian saying
I'll take a stab and reply to you that "8 processors was enough for anyone", in the sense that multiplexing 8 programs is just insane. Better to just run 8 prorams each on their own core, and use some progs that can use 4 cores at a time. That leaves 4 free.
(Overly simpistic) I agree, but 1028 cores is not the answer. We need the next generation in raw core power to move computing forward. 8 killer cores will beat 1024 mediocre cores.
I'll reply to you.
You're a bit smarter than me but I think you're saying there are lots of easy tasks that are easy to run on a single linear code thread but are hard to split and recombine with any less loss of time / resources.
Phrasings like that are a bit polemic, because for certain titles, it the chops off crispy profits "just because you said so". Disney is of course the famous case, and Star Trek and Dr. Who might be the poster cases right behind them for longevity. On the music side, RIAA has been getting nice sales for 40 years on tons of titles.
I think these copyright proposals need a "small-profit (ad revenue on blogs) derivative works allowed" clause because tons of people just want to mash up stuff but they have no plans for big campaigns. They just want to submit their stuff to some site for street cred and some $100 of ad revenue.
The other clause that would be useful is a "retainer" on certain "grandfather" titles like said Disney and Star Trek and Dr. Who paid by the companies every year to keep the big properties intact, but then all the millions of b-list titles then aren't worth it so they come up for availability. Last I knew the street guys hate using top-hits for anything but parodies anyway and that's already almost okay. When they want to get creative they look to fresher stuff, precisely where the revenue=0 for the big companies to begin with.
Where's the Michael Kristopeit collective when you need it?
He might have some words for the Senate...
Kind of a strange Slashdot topic since as pointed elsewhere Penrose has been working on this since 1989!
Meanwhile bear with me for a mini rant, in that Submitter dived right into a topic covered by some 50 books, by taking a simplistic double quote of Roger Penrose, famous British physicist, recently argued "that we will need to invoke 'new physics and exotic biological structures': rewriting quantum theory to make sense of consciousness," Brooks writes. (Which he then dismissed as disappointing.)
Meanwhile, back at the more erudite book level, let's see some of what's out there.
Pleading rustiness on the original Penrose text, Douglas Hofstadter has been working for 20 years on analogy-based thinking. To get to your question, he calls the electrons and cells and even small neurons little billiard-ball-like stuff that "careens around in a careenium". Then from a second story window, you don't see those individual balls anymore, nor does any one matter. But the holistic big level then becomes consciousness as a "emergent" property that you just can't dissect past a certain point.
On another tack, Stephen Wolfram of Wolfram Alpha fame put another 20 years at about the same time period doing computational pattern science developing the idea that within perfectly special cases in what otherwise look like simple rules, fantastic complex structures simply emerge "out of nowhere". Yet the trick is that they have to be computed, and no fancy equation quite produces the whole result in one sweep - some data absolutely requires the raw minimum iterative processing. He called this something like the law of irreducibility. For consciousness, this means that there are limits to genius, and cavemen can't make cars because it simply takes a raw amount of pre-processing to produce the context that pushes forth an idea. Past that absudium example, it also means for non-geniuses that you can't know why cattle won't go into a vaccination ramp until someone else discovers that cattle hate shifts in light intensity and the ramp looks like a big cave.
I'll reply to you.
FOSS take a long-haul view.
It bypasses random manager's quarterly bonuses, and says "what can we do if we have better foundations to start with and learn on"? There's a theory somewhere that it takes a pyramid of enthusiastic amateurs to produce a few experts per field. When you restrict the base, you get fewer experts. The secret is that "level 7 fans" teach "level 2 fans" with the knowledge perpetuating.
So this kind of book is neat. It may not have all the answers. If some magical funding were to appear, someone could compile Volume 2 with the missing essentials. But it is important to get mid-grade fans like me into the act to build mometum.
Depends on the category. As a random example, in the Jane Roberts topics, they banned the guy who did a life study of the texts in favor of broader, more general articles.
In some senses, you can also use a version # as "ye who shall go before this version number beware of a Grue". After 36 increments of the 2.6 series, I'm sorta for the "freshness" of a 3.0 series. Just to say that "here is our dividing line, we've made all this progress, let's lock it in."
I know, there will be a little fuss, but thinking like a 5 year plan, it's good sometimes to make some dividing lines that progress has been achieved.
"I am sorry to say I cannot give you that information. Now, stay tuned for a special Family Guy Clip."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWFW0B9EBx0
In some ways that's a lot. That's 50 a month.
I had to design a layered email system to handle emails from the "opt-in" services. I try to keep my family email for family, so that the new message notifier doesn't give me false alarms too often. (TransUnion has been bad lately...)
I think his point was that if you are already in a good job, getting 50 emails a month from recruiters might be a little distracting.
It's a chicken & egg thing.
I think we vaguely knew that the hardware sukked, and therefore the software was the desperate lights of creativity funnelled through crappy hardware. It was about watching the future unfold, but knowing it took some twenty sad years of waiting for things to really kick into gear. Look at the modern games... they feel all fleshed out. Yeah, you can discuss minor rendering issues, but modern hardware runs anything.
Cut it out.
My figures were *per year*, so that's a nice try to switch units and try to troll me with per-month and per-week straw examples. My examples were one pair of pants every six months and one pizza dinner party every three months. I didn't put in a home phone in my example, so you straw-added that in order to take it back out, and I said cell phone not smart phone. You finished it off by calling me an overly entitled loser for being able to drive to work.
Combining several threads at once, it still works to slice a good year off the "general ed requirements" for those professions, and the lecture courses thereafter. Meanwhile, it gets into the "degree subsidization" of those professions by the English majors. That would force a collision with the other stories that we are giving away our engineering knowledge for free to the Chinese and reducing the US jobs for those degrees.
My original post meant that for the simpler degrees, if we convince the employers that X degree is good enough to hire, it tackles the "you don't have the piece of paper" problem. ... Which lastly collides with the Babysitting Service crew.
I know this one!
Let's exclude the first x income per person, then we'll exclude the first x interest on a home mortgage, then we'll exclude child care, then we'll do several brackets of increasing tax rates! Oh wait...
Threatened is right.
The entire point of education is to administer the knowledge with a series of proofs that the students learned it (let's ignore gaming the system for now.)
Knowledge huh? That should be cheap. The inbound material consists of books and podcasts! And a college degree is a very finite series of classes, so it can't really be that hard for $State_School to post a curriculum for all the courses that don't require crazy equipment. Then all the student needs is Q&A sessions, and the administered tests. Price tag per semester: $500.
So then the Elites have to step it up to show where that other $200,000 is going.
Yet we're well into the Music and Movie content debates, how has Edu remained this far below the radar?
The Edu Revolution is coming, and it's going to scare the Old Boys network.
You mean well, but you're falling right into economic math traps from the 1970's.
"Fair" is never so simple as "one rate for all, hooray!" Once you convert it to % of disposable income it spikes to levels that would horrify you. Why? Because if a poor earner is only making $20,000 a year, ruthless first-order expenses might easily churn 19,000 of it. First order expenses are things like gas,milk-cereal-bread-butter-cheese-meat (discount!), heat, and rent (already split in halves!).
That's "calculator estimating", which is never real anyway. Add two new pairs of pants, two bottles of shampoo, $300 of car repairs, a cell phone, and four dinners at a pizza restaurant watching a game and you're hosed. $0 raw income left before facing that governmental $2000 in "fair tax".
So once you concede that, that's what the next chuck of tax code does. It says "Oh right, I can't tax you on your rent money." Now, getting back to your question, the mortgage deduction ALONE doesn't quite knock you below a 10% rate, but it *activates Schedule A*, like a giant video game. Then you 1-up your way to that 10% effective rate. (Really, gamers ought to love the tax code! It's Super Mario Goes To Washington!)
Oh, I get it now! Maybe it's this lady!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P46qYCIt954
You're right about replacement costs. However I was trying to address the idea that overall the number of "Type 1" tourneys being held dropped dramatically, so that at least as I recall the mood in my areas for several years, their broad play value evolved into something like a museum piece on a pedestal. Perhaps the concept I was trying for was something like a liquidity problem.
That's actually a very good example of a "pseudo-currency".
(Lawn)
I once bought a pizza from Papa Ginos with two Sengir Vampires. (The register guy agreed to repay the pizza out of his own pocket.)
(/Lawn)
The fascinating thing there is how Wizards "tricked itself" by misreading how certain cards form gamebreaker combos. So then they embarked on an elaborate "currency value adjustment" program, aka Type 2. (With all the spinoffs etc. In my areas "1.5" and "Legacy" and so on were never very popular.)
By being relegated to "Type 1" All those power cards were effectively cordoned off into a backwater, and lost most of their effective value. Then as the years rolled on, once cards left Type 2, they also dropped in value like a stone.
What's to keep the BitCoin administration (does that make sense?) from "adjusting" it later to suit some agenda?
Hi.
I am a potential new linux user and my initial specialty/focus will be on the UI side. I have been considering looking into xfce as well. Do you think it's the new dark horse UI behind Gnome and KDE?
"WTF is a "class-c" geek? Is there some designation hierarchy I'm unaware of?
I've been a geek for almost my entire life, and I have no idea what you're talking about."
It's the whole "Geek-Nerd spectrum". It's (at least) two dimensional. One direction is the attitude. The other is Da Skillz. It ranges from "mildly obsesses with spelling on slashdot and can fix stuck cd drives with paperclips" to CmdrTaco and Randall Munroe of xkcd. If you're just a rebel but don't have an awesome concept that pays the bills, it's called Cheap Signaling.
Expenses 1 Gatto 0.
Ordinary Rebels have trouble coming up with the $6000 to dig out of the flood expenses that show up at the worst possible time all at once when the hand-me-down car blows a head gasket, First-Last-Deposit on a new apartment, and a grand in medical that a sleazy insurance company won't cover.
If you're only a class-c geek with an unwillingness to conform but without a layer of pizazz to roll it all together, you end up too unstable for a business to hire you, so you end up at fast food or retail with some gaming at night and weekends and the random day you skipped work to go on a raid/campaign.
That's the life to have ... up to about age 25, then it starts to crash hard.
"If they get leaked to faceless corporations that will crunch the data to suck as much money as possible out of you and your friends with targeted advertising, the connection is fuzzy, remote, indirect, and it is unlikely you will care at all. "
Up until you then show them their purchases using said targetted advertising and then say in big old-school letters "Data! Yum!"
Dammit, it's neck and neck now, web 2.0 is almost over. We're into Web 3.0 soon, with the privacy invasions assisted by .gov, but (soon I hope?) after that will be a privacy rebellon which should be glorious.