On 2011-12-19 Mon, at 09:15 PM, John Zabroski wrote:
I can't make a hard case for it, but I'd suggest that most of the
utility we've gained from computers has been from communication
and organization for more efficient resource allocation, that
the development of tools for these areas is the
John Zabroski wrote:
We have also yet to put into practice languages which limit the client
run-time of an algorithm on a server (assuming the client can
parameterize over the server's service in some disciplined way).
Solving this problem will eliminate virtually all IT jobs.
Thanks for
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 01:02:28PM -0800, Steve Dekorte wrote:
Suppose you want to write an app to help people organize events.
Neither the development or running the app is compute bound
and a machine 1000x faster in itself likely wouldn't much with either.
Suppose I need to simulate 10^12
:05 AM GMT+
Subject: Re: [fonc] History of computing talks at SJSU
John Zabroski wrote:
We have also yet to put into practice languages which limit the client
run-time of an algorithm on a server (assuming the client can
parameterize over the server's service in some disciplined way
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 10:50:36AM -0800, Steve Dekorte wrote:
Could you describe how more compute power helps you write the app I described
faster?
It is a really narrow problem space I'm not familiar with. I presume
this isn't about scheduling, but about UI and usability?
Anything
On 2011-12-20 Tue, at 11:55 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 10:50:36AM -0800, Steve Dekorte wrote:
Could you describe how more compute power helps you write the app I
described faster?
It is a really narrow problem space I'm not familiar with. I presume
this isn't about
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 10:12 PM, Steve Dekorte st...@dekorte.com wrote:
On 2011-12-20 Tue, at 11:55 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 10:50:36AM -0800, Steve Dekorte wrote:
Could you describe how more compute power helps you write the app I
described faster?
It is a
Eugen Leitl wrote on Sat, 17 Dec 2011 10:43:09 +0100
[300 EUR GPU]
[InfiniBand features]
Thanks for the tip about InfiniBand. I kept track of it while it was
being developed but had wrongly assumed it had mostly died off when PCI
Express started to become popular. It is actually a lot faster
On 2011-12-17 Sat, at 01:17 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 02:16:41PM -0800, Steve Dekorte wrote:
Is speed really the bottleneck for making computers more useful?
Many major scientific problems or even gaming are resource-constrained.
I personally would have no difficulties
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Steve Dekorte st...@dekorte.com wrote:
On 2011-12-17 Sat, at 01:17 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 02:16:41PM -0800, Steve Dekorte wrote:
Is speed really the bottleneck for making computers more useful?
Many major scientific problems or even
Below.
On Dec 16, 2011, at 9:03 PM, Wesley Smith wesley.h...@gmail.com wrote:
Some things are just expensive. No one has found an acceptable solution.
These are things we should avoid in the infrastructure underneath a personal
computing experience:)
Or figure out how to amortize them
That's really funny:)
On Dec 16, 2011, at 7:13 PM, John Zabroski johnzabro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 10:10 PM, John Zabroski johnzabro...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr.
je...@merlintec.com wrote:
Steve Dekorte wrote:
[NeXTStation
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 02:16:41PM -0800, Steve Dekorte wrote:
Is speed really the bottleneck for making computers more useful?
Many major scientific problems or even gaming are resource-constrained.
I personally would have no difficulties keeping astronomical numbers
of nodes at 100% CPU for
to be used).
Cheers,
Alan
From: Casey Ransberger casey.obrie...@gmail.com
To: Alan Kay alan.n...@yahoo.com; Fundamentals of New Computing
fonc@vpri.org
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 9:07 PM
Subject: Re: [fonc] History of computing talks at SJSU
Below.
On Dec
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:09 AM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. je...@merlintec.comwrote:
Karl Ramberg wrote:
One of Alans points in his talk is that students should be using
bleeding edge
hardware, not just regular laptops. I think he is right for some part
but he also
recollected the Joss
I disagree with the tone in Alan's talk here. While it is great to
see what was happening in the 50-70s, he makes it sound like there is
absolutely nothing worth talking about in the personal computing
space in the past 30 years.
Pranav Mistry's work on sixth sense technology and the mouseless
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 04:14:40PM -0300, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. wrote:
Eugen Leitl wrote:
It's remarkable how few are using MPI in practice. A lot of code
is being made multithread-proof, and for what? So that they'll have
to rewrite it for message-passing, again?
Having seen a couple
FWIW, in my memory, my old NeXTstation felt as snappy as modern desktops but
when I ran across one at the Computer History Museum it felt painfully slow.
I've had similar experiences with seeing old video games and finding the
quality of the graphics to be much lower than I remembered.
This
On 2011-12-16 Fri, at 01:38 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
How can we spend money now to live in the future? Alan mentioned the
first way in his talk: put lots and lots of FPGA together. The BEE3
FPGAs suffer the problem of lack of embedded memory. Consider
GPGPU with quarter of TByte/s bandwidth
Subject: Re: [fonc] History of computing talks at SJSU
I disagree with the tone in Alan's talk here. While it is great to
see what was happening in the 50-70s, he makes it sound like there is
absolutely nothing worth talking about in the personal computing
space in the past 30 years.
Pranav Mistry's
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Alan Kay alan.n...@yahoo.com wrote:
I hope I didn't say there was absolutely nothing worth talking about in the
'personal computing' space in the past 30 years (and don't think I did say
that).
Let us all share in the excitement of Discovery without vain
John Zabroski wrote:
You said that our field had become so impoverished because nobody
googles Douglas Englebart and watches The Mother of All Demoes, and
also noted that evolution finds fits rather than optimal solutions.
But you didn't really provide any examples of how we are the victims
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr.
je...@merlintec.com wrote:
Steve Dekorte wrote:
[NeXTStation memories versus reality]
I still have a running Apple II. My slowest working PC is a 33MHz 486,
so I can't directly do the comparison I mentioned. But I agree we
shouldn't
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 10:10 PM, John Zabroski johnzabro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr.
je...@merlintec.com wrote:
Steve Dekorte wrote:
[NeXTStation memories versus reality]
I still have a running Apple II. My slowest working PC is a 33MHz 486,
Below. Abridged.
On Dec 16, 2011, at 1:42 PM, Steve Dekorte st...@dekorte.com wrote:
FWIW, in my memory, my old NeXTstation felt as snappy as modern desktops but
when I ran across one at the Computer History Museum it felt painfully slow.
I've had similar experiences with seeing old
Some things are just expensive. No one has found an acceptable solution.
These are things we should avoid in the infrastructure underneath a personal
computing experience:)
Or figure out how to amortize them over time. I think recent
raytracing apps are a good example of this. You can
Below.
On Dec 16, 2011, at 3:19 PM, Alan Kay alan.n...@yahoo.com wrote:
And what Engelbart was upset about was that the hands out -- hands together
style did not survive. The hands out had one hand with the 5 finger
keyboard and the other with the mouse and 3 buttons -- this allowed
On 12/15/2011 08:02 AM, Casey Ransberger wrote:
Hypothesis: Mainstream software slows down at a rate slightly less than
mainstream hardware speeds up.
Hmmm, seems like a more optimistic Version of Wirth's law (yes, Niklaus):
Software is getting slower more rapidly than hardware becomes faster.
On 12/15/2011 09:42 AM, frank wrote:
On 12/15/2011 08:02 AM, Casey Ransberger wrote:
Hypothesis: Mainstream software slows down at a rate slightly less than
mainstream hardware speeds up.
Hmmm, seems like a more optimistic Version of Wirth's law (yes, Niklaus):
Software is getting slower
Op 15 dec. 2011, om 08:02 heeft Casey Ransberger het volgende geschreven:
Hypothesis: Mainstream software slows down at a rate slightly less than
mainstream
hardware speeds up. It's an almost-but-not-quite-inverse Moore's Law.
Unless someone else has called this out directly, I'm calling
frank wrote:
On 12/15/2011 08:02 AM, Casey Ransberger wrote:
Hypothesis: Mainstream software slows down at a rate slightly less than
mainstream hardware speeds up.
Hmmm, seems like a more optimistic Version of Wirth's law (yes, Niklaus):
Software is getting slower more rapidly than
One of Alans points in his talk is that students should be using bleeding
edge hardware, not just regular laptops. I think he is right for some part
but he also recollected the Joss environment which was done on a machine
about to be scraped. Some research and development does not need the
Karl Ramberg wrote:
One of Alans points in his talk is that students should be using bleeding edge
hardware, not just regular laptops. I think he is right for some part but he
also
recollected the Joss environment which was done on a machine about to be
scraped. Some research and
Inline and greatly abridged.
On Dec 14, 2011, at 5:09 PM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. je...@merlintec.com wrote:
About Joss, we normally like to plot computer improvement on a log
scale. But if you look at it on a linear scale, you see that many years
go by initially where we don't see any change.
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 11:02 PM, Casey Ransberger casey.obrie...@gmail.com
wrote:
But in general... my computer is only a tiny bit faster than the one I had
in the early nineties. In terms of day to day stuff, it's only gotten a
tinsy bit faster. Sometimes I sit there looking at an hourglass
35 matches
Mail list logo
