Cobol - (OT) The desktop supercomputer has arrived!

Author

(OT) The desktop supercomputer has arrived!

2007-06-27, 3:55 am

http://www.physorg.com/news102087207.html

A prototype of what may be the next generation of personal computers has
been developed by researchers in the University of Maryland's A. James
Clark School of Engineering. Capable of computing speeds 100 times faster
than current desktops, the technology is based on parallel processing on a
single chip.

jb
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Alistair

2007-06-28, 6:55 pm

On 27 Jun, 04:17, JB <hong...@videotron.ca> wrote:
> http://www.physorg.com/news102087207.html
>
> A prototype of what may be the next generation of personal computers has
> been developed by researchers in the University of Maryland's A. James
> Clark School of Engineering. Capable of computing speeds 100 times faster
> than current desktops, the technology is based on parallel processing on a
> single chip.
>
> jb
> --
> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client:http://www.opera.com/mail/

<QUOTE>
Suppose you hire one person to clean your home, and it takes five
hours, or 300 minutes, for the person to perform each task, one after
the other," Vishkin said. "That's analogous to the current serial
processing method. Now imagine that you have 100 cleaning people who
can work on your home at the same time! That's the parallel processing
method.
</QUOTE>

Now suppose that the algorithm used requires that 298 steps be
processed in strict sequence and that only two items can be performed
in parallel. Total savings would be 1 minute and that is one of the
problems with parallel processing - the extremely limited amount of
work that can be carried out in parallel.

I did like the statement that programming would be relatively simple
(compared to what?). Perhaps this presages the demise of the
programmer.

FWIW: parallel processing is already a reality with multiple cores per
chip already in existence.

Pete Dashwood

2007-06-29, 7:55 am

"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1183055262.728505.150930@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On 27 Jun, 04:17, JB <hong...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>
> <QUOTE>
> Suppose you hire one person to clean your home, and it takes five
> hours, or 300 minutes, for the person to perform each task, one after
> the other," Vishkin said. "That's analogous to the current serial
> processing method. Now imagine that you have 100 cleaning people who
> can work on your home at the same time! That's the parallel processing
> method.
> </QUOTE>

You'd be amazed at the number of (sometimes quite senior) managers I have
encountered who believe that parallel processing or throwing more resources
at something is the answer to getting things back on track. Sometimes
(especially where a project was under resourced to start with), it certainly
can help, but there are people who believe it is the "magic bullet" for
everything.

I've had people actually use the analogy:

"If one ship takes 3 days to cross the ocean, why can't 3 ships cross it in
one day?"

To be fair, the guy who trotted that one out was not the sharpest tool in
the box... He'd heard it somewhere and thought it was serious...:-)

Of course, three ships CAN cross the ocean in one day, IF they are
travelling three times as fast as the one ship...

My response at the time (and I am quite proud of it :-)) was:

"If a girl takes 9 months to have a baby, why can't 9 girls have it in one
month?"

He thought about it for a moment...:-)

I then walked him through the overview of the Project Plan which noted
dependencies and resources and showed WHY simply putting more people on it
wouldn't help. (We were waiting for delivery of disk drives which were
delayed coming from the manufacturer. He applied pressure at high level and
cut the delay. That more than anything else, got us the desired result.)

>
> Now suppose that the algorithm used requires that 298 steps be
> processed in strict sequence and that only two items can be performed
> in parallel. Total savings would be 1 minute and that is one of the
> problems with parallel processing - the extremely limited amount of
> work that can be carried out in parallel.
>
> I did like the statement that programming would be relatively simple
> (compared to what?). Perhaps this presages the demise of the
> programmer.

It is "simple" inasmuch as everything is reduced to a very simplistic level
(see the "cell" activity below). I don't think it necessarily presages the
demise of the programmer.

(Programmers are going to have too much fun implementing these approaches
for them to want to quit... What will presage and eventually lead to the
demise of the programmer is when we start combining biological and machine
intelligence, to produce problem solving intelligence light years ahead of
where we are today. Smart organisms will write smart software that will
eventually get so smart it writes itself. ("A component that seees what
needs to be done and does it" as I mentioned here a little while ago). I
don't see this before the '60s of this century, but there are others who see
it sooner.)

>
> FWIW: parallel processing is already a reality with multiple cores per
> chip already in existence.
>

Yes, but there is still room for improvement. And you are predicating your
argument on the Von Neumann model of processing (a sequential series of
steps.) That's how we do things currently, so fair enough.

However, there are other ways of processing which are emerging and just
starting to be understood. (Some of them are evolving from approaches that
have been well understood for decades, but we never had the processor power
to make them viable. Now we do...) Genetic Algorithms and Functional
Programming are just two examples of approaches that would use parallel
processing to HUGE advantage over the VN model.

<flight of fancy - unimaginative people should skip this>

For example, if you consider a sorting algorithm as currently implemented,
it iteratively checks all (or some) of the items in the list before it can
put one away (please don't let's get sidetracked into a discussion of
tournament, bubble, asymetric and binary chops, balanced and unbalanced
merges, Fibonacci series and all the other wonderful stuff surrounding sort
technology (I have written a few sort programs in my career and don't need
instruction about anyone's favourite algorithm, thank you...If you really
MUST, start another thread :-)))

But consider an approach where the list was hit pseudorandomly (the
algorithm would ensure that all list entries were eventually covered, at
least, say, three times - "What I tell you three times is true" - Lewis
Carroll), and the candidate to be inserted was simply placed over or under
the point where the list was hit, depending on candidate rank. A single
compare per hit, but the process would need to iterate until the list was
sorted. ("Simple" as noted in the discussion above.)

It would take a large number of hits to ensure the list became sorted.

BUT, a Genetic approach would have each hit carried out by a single cell
which would be programmed to "die" if the compare went a certain way, or
"live" to hit again if it didn't. By the time all cells were "dead" the list
would be sorted.

(I have no idea whether this would actually work :-) It's just an idea I
came up with while musing on something else...) If I had some time I would
write an OO program that generated cell instances and see how long it took
to sort an arbitrary list, using the approach above... It would be fun to
do, but I'm too busy for fun at the moment :-( )

The point is that with a parallel processing system, such a sort could have
multiple cells hitting the list at the same time. (You could theoretically
have almost as many cells hitting the list as there were list entries at any
given moment).

So, three ships COULD cross the ocean in one day... :-)

In fact, most heuristic solutions lend themselves easily to parallel
processing.

Consider a heuristic program that finds the way through a maze.

It comes to a juction and consults its heuristic ("rule of thumb" if you
like, for those not familiar with this type of programming...) which maybe
says "turn left". It does this, and comes to another junction where it
repeats the process. Eventually it either comes to a dead end or realises no
progress is being made, so it modifies the heuristic... "Turn left, but turn
right every second junction". The process is iterated and the results
analysed. Eventually, and it might take several trillion iterations, the
maze is traversed and the final heuristic represents the solution to
traversing it. (Note that there is no guarantee that this is an OPTIMAL
solution; for some problems it is good enough to have ANY solution...)

Now consider a Genetic approach to the same problem.

Cells make a random choice at each junction and record how far they got, by
building a DNA string which represents the turns they made. LLRLRLLRRRL
etc. The cells with the longest strings are the most "successful". These are
the ones from which the next generation are bred. The DNA strings can be
combined, compared, sliced, whatever... and a new generation is launched
which penetrates even further into the maze. Throwing several million cells
which randomly generate (mutate?) their own successive generations, based on
past experience, at the maze is likely to produce a succesful generation
that traverses it. If you build selective breeding where cells with similar
DNA strings form the basis of each successive generation, the solution can
be achieved in a surprisingly short time.

Imagine if you had say, 1000 parallel processors all penetrating and
breeding simultaneously. A complex maze could be traversed in seconds.
Compare this with the VN approach which might take several minutes or even
hours.

BOTTOM LINE:

Von Neumann was a genius, like Turing. Both of them saw mathematical
solutions to problems and gave us the means to extend their solutions (the
modern computer). The next generation of computers will not use the same
processing models as the current ones. By 2020, 8 core processors will be
normal in personal computers. More importantly, the ways in which we
approach problems will be more diverse and machine intelligence will start
to become a reality. (I believe it will evolve out of "expert systems" which
we are already seeing in some fields. Expect these fields to
broaden...Computers can already provide almost instantaneous solutions to
some problems that a Human Expert would take days to do.)

In the solutions above where cell generations have the capability to modify
themselves rapidly and randomly, solutions will be achieved by machines and
we will have no idea exactly how they did it.

THAT will lead to the eventual demise of the programmer (at least as we
understand the term today).

</flight of fancy - unimaginative people should skip this>

Pete.

Alistair

2007-06-29, 9:55 pm

On 29 Jun, 03:20, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz>
wrote:
>
> You'd be amazed at the number of (sometimes quite senior) managers I have
> encountered who believe that parallel processing or throwing more resources
> at something is the answer to getting things back on track. Sometimes
> (especially where a project was under resourced to start with), it certainly
> can help, but there are people who believe it is the "magic bullet" for
> everything.

I wouldn't be amazed at all. I have been the project leader on a
project where my management threw every possible resource (I counted
13 bodies by the end of the project) in an attempt to meet a deadline
agreed six months previously. Unfortunately, the users required an
increase in work load in associated projects which impacted my
project's work load by adding an extra 50%. Problem: agreed
(artificial) deadline likely to be missed. Solution: throw bodies at
the project. Result: I spent time DOING rather than LEADING and was
swamped with needing to organise work for others and explain to
newbies what the project was all about. We made the deadline (although
any reasonable management would have put the implementation date
back).

As an aside, when asked to plan the project I was asked "Can we
achieve the deadline" and the answer was "Only if we had started
yesterday!"

>
> I've had people actually use the analogy:
>
> "If one ship takes 3 days to cross the ocean, why can't 3 ships cross it in
> one day?"
>
> To be fair, the guy who trotted that one out was not the sharpest tool in
> the box... He'd heard it somewhere and thought it was serious...:-)
>
> My response at the time (and I am quite proud of it :-)) was:
>
> "If a girl takes 9 months to have a baby, why can't 9 girls have it in one
> month?"
>
> He thought about it for a moment...:-)
>

Few managers seem to be aware that elapsed time can not always be
compressed by parallel streams. To be fair, I did once lead a project
where we cut the elapsed run-time of the subject system from 19 hours
to 11 hours by implementing parallel streams.

>
> It is "simple" inasmuch as everything is reduced to a very simplistic level
> (see the "cell" activity below). I don't think it necessarily presages the
> demise of the programmer.

Obviously, my planting my tongue firmly in my ch

does not come
across too clearly when typing.

>
> (Programmers are going to have too much fun implementing these approaches
> for them to want to quit... What will presage and eventually lead to the
> demise of the programmer is when we start combining biological and machine
> intelligence,

Aah, a call for the 'Borg. I doubt if useful bio-mechanoids will be
available this century (or at all). I suspect it would be one thing to
create a robocop but quite another to put a living brain into an
interstellar spacecraft. Can you imagine the mind-numbing boredom of
monitoring the sensors in strict rote for the thousand years or so to
cross the gaps between stars?

> to produce problem solving intelligence light years ahead of
> where we are today. Smart organisms will write smart software that will
> eventually get so smart it writes itself. ("A component that seees what
> needs to be done and does it" as I mentioned here a little while ago).

Already being done in software. I did rather like Michael Crichton's
notion of nanobots which evolved a collective intelligence greater
than the sum of their parts (complexes of simple automata producing
complex behaviours).

>
>
> Yes, but there is still room for improvement. And you are predicating your
> argument on the Von Neumann model of processing (a sequential series of
> steps.)

Good old-fashioned procedural programming. Remember, I am not OO-
friendly.

>
> <flight of fancy - unimaginative people should skip this>

OK I will (no, really, I did read it).

>
> For example, if you consider a sorting algorithm as currently implemented,
> it iteratively checks all (or some) of the items in the list before it can
> put one away (please don't let's get sidetracked into a discussion of
> tournament, bubble, asymetric and binary chops, balanced and unbalanced
> merges, Fibonacci series and all the other wonderful stuff surrounding sort
> technology (I have written a few sort programs in my career and don't need
> instruction about anyone's favourite algorithm, thank you...If you really
> MUST, start another thread :-)))

I thought that with the advent of the RDBMS no-one did sorts anymore?

>
> It would take a large number of hits to ensure the list became sorted.
>
> BUT, a Genetic approach would have each hit carried out by a single cell
> which would be programmed to "die" if the compare went a certain way, or
> "live" to hit again if it didn't. By the time all cells were "dead" the list
> would be sorted.

Or maybe you could use software ants? (as used to solve the travelling
salesman problem).

>
> (I have no idea whether this would actually work :-) It's just an idea I
> came up with while musing on something else...) If I had some time I would
> write an OO program that generated cell instances and see how long it took
> to sort an arbitrary list, using the approach above... It would be fun to
> do, but I'm too busy for fun at the moment :-( )

It would be interesting to see the results, too.

> In fact, most heuristic solutions lend themselves easily to parallel
> processing.
>
> Consider a heuristic program that finds the way through a maze.
>
> It comes to a juction and consults its heuristic ("rule of thumb" if you
> like, for those not familiar with this type of programming...) which maybe
> says "turn left". It does this, and comes to another junction where it
> repeats the process. Eventually it either comes to a dead end or realises no
> progress is being made, so it modifies the heuristic... "Turn left, but turn
> right every second junction". The process is iterated and the results
> analysed. Eventually, and it might take several trillion iterations, the
> maze is traversed and the final heuristic represents the solution to
> traversing it. (Note that there is no guarantee that this is an OPTIMAL
> solution; for some problems it is good enough to have ANY solution...)
>
> Now consider a Genetic approach to the same problem.
>
> Cells make a random choice at each junction and record how far they got, by
> building a DNA string which represents the turns they made. LLRLRLLRRRL
> etc. The cells with the longest strings are the most "successful". These are
> the ones from which the next generation are bred. The DNA strings can be
> combined, compared, sliced, whatever... and a new generation is launched
> which penetrates even further into the maze. Throwing several million cells
> which randomly generate (mutate?) their own successive generations, based on
> past experience, at the maze is likely to produce a succesful generation
> that traverses it.

I think that you have just proven that old saying about an infinite
number of monkies writing the complete works of Shakespeare.

> If you build selective breeding where cells with similar
> DNA strings form the basis of each successive generation, the solution can
> be achieved in a surprisingly short time.
>
> Imagine if you had say, 1000 parallel processors all penetrating and
> breeding simultaneously. A complex maze could be traversed in seconds.

You seem to be obsessed with breeding. A multitude of automata could
resolve the problem without resorting to breeding: throw the automata
at the maze, randomly turn at junctions, collect the automata that
successfully get to the exit, take the ones with the shortest track
and modify randomly before putting them back in the
maze...iteratively.

> BOTTOM LINE:
>
> Von Neumann was a genius, like Turing. Both of them saw mathematical
> solutions to problems and gave us the means to extend their solutions (the
> modern computer).

The modern computer was built by a GPO engineer out of telephone
switching circuits.

The next generation of computers will not use the same
> processing models as the current ones. By 2020, 8 core processors will be
> normal in personal computers.

Didm't Intel just announce an 8 core chip?

> In the solutions above where cell generations have the capability to modify
> themselves rapidly and randomly, solutions will be achieved by machines and
> we will have no idea exactly how they did it.
>
> THAT will lead to the eventual demise of the programmer (at least as we
> understand the term today).

I can see the future holding some very interesting court cases. Who
would be responsible for artifical bio-intelligences killing people by
accident? Where would you hold deviant bio-intelligences and what kind
of punishments could you apply to the criminal bio-intelligences?
Also, would they be entitled to a tea-break every two hours and be
eligible to form unions? This isn't too far fetched as the European
Union is already considering "robot rights".

Howard Brazee

2007-06-29, 9:55 pm

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:20:37 +1200, in comp.lang.cobol you wrote:

The common response is:
[color=darkred]
>"If a girl takes 9 months to have a baby, why can't 9 girls have it in one
>month?"

But the reality is somewhere in-between. In the house cleaning, you
can have one person sweeping each room, but you can't have 10 people
washing the sink without getting in each other's way. We can all
get up from the table together, bring our dishes to the sink - but
then we have to back aside and let one person start washing - and
someone else can start drying. This drying works because we are
doing a well-known task and we know that each dish can be handed off
to the dryer before the next dish is washed. If we are washing
enough dishes for the next place setting, we keep a count - and wash
one more dish if the dryer drops one on the floor.

So how do we turn this into programming?

Read a transaction - hand it to the check the balance routine - hand
that to the calculate interest routine - hand that to the create bill
routine... Periodically check to make sure those routines are
fairly caught up and no (dishes/bills) are dropped - and we need to
know what to do if one is. Restarts aren't trivial.

But we do have a kid of parallel processing. The scheduler verifies
that bills and inventory can be run together and runs these two jobs
at the same time. All that we need to know is that one won't effect
the results of the other.

Judson McClendon

2007-06-29, 9:55 pm

"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> <hong...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>
> <QUOTE>
> Suppose you hire one person to clean your home, and it takes five
> hours, or 300 minutes, for the person to perform each task, one after
> the other," Vishkin said. "That's analogous to the current serial
> processing method. Now imagine that you have 100 cleaning people who
> can work on your home at the same time! That's the parallel processing
> method.
> </QUOTE>

Hello Alistair, how are things in the UK? :-)

Where I see parallel processing helping on PCs is in two areas, running
multiple applications simultaneously and multithreaded applications (e.g.
graphics and video processing). My most common backup task involves burning
two separate DVDs. I haven't had much success burning two DVDs at once using
single core CPUs, but my dual core Athlon X2 works well. It's also useful to
burn a CD/DVD and be able to continue working without concern you will cause
a problem on the burn.

For most PC applications the primary bottleneck is disk I/O, and a
beneficial upgrade is striped (RAID0) drives. My primary PC boots to one
RAID0 2x 74GB 10,000 RPM drives, and has another RAID0 2x 320GB 7,200 RPM
drives. When I build my next PC, I plan to have one RAID0 4x 320GB or 500GB
drives, and possibly a quad core CPU. Striping can multiply the disk I/O
performance almost by the number of drives. But the drives should be
identical, or at least the same size, or you will waste storage space on the
larger drives. To boot to a RAID0 it must be implemented on the system board
or the disk controller, but Windows can do a software RAID0 on non-boot
drives. Just remember that RAID0 is about volume size and speed, not
reliability. If one RAID0 drive fails, you lose all the data, and an array
of n drives is n times more likely to suffer a drive failure than 1 drive.
Backup, backup, backup! But if you "feel the need, the need for speed", this
is a good way to go. :-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Alistair

2007-07-01, 3:55 am

On 29 Jun, 16:02, "Judson McClendon" <j...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> "Alistair" <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Hello Alistair, how are things in the UK? :-)
>

Wet! Wet! Wet! Despite global warming the weather is

er than
normal for this time of the year and much wetter than normal. We have
just had the wettest June (on record I think) and will probably have
the wettest start to July with 50mm of precipitation expected. My home
town is built on the side of a hill but it has been known to flood
here with torrential rain.

Good to see a response from you Judson. I do enjoy the emails, and I
liked the Globalization definition. However, where is the response to
my request for a repeat email detailing how to get multiple ftp
downloads under windows?

> Where I see parallel processing helping on PCs is in two areas, running
> multiple applications simultaneously and multithreaded applications (e.g.
> graphics and video processing). My most common backup task involves burning
> two separate DVDs. I haven't had much success burning two DVDs at once using
> single core CPUs,

I have noticed that copying from one CD player and writing to another
directly doesn't work under XP either.

> but my dual core Athlon X2 works well. It's also useful to
> burn a CD/DVD and be able to continue working without concern you will cause
> a problem on the burn.

That is worth remembering.

>
> For most PC applications the primary bottleneck is disk I/O, and a
> beneficial upgrade is striped (RAID0) drives.

Don't you lose the equivalent of one disk to the OS for Raid use?

LX-i

2007-07-02, 9:55 pm

Alistair wrote:
>
> Wet! Wet! Wet! Despite global warming the weather is

er than
> normal for this time of the year and much wetter than normal.

"Despite"? :) Some might call that evidence to the contrary!

(sorry - couldn't resist... Besides, it's already an OT thread...)

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \/ _ o ~ Live from Albuquerque, NM! ~
~ _ /\ | ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ Tech Blog ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog ~
~ Personal E-mail ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address ~
~ Personal Blog ~ http://daniel.summershome.org ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++

"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine

Alistair

2007-07-03, 7:55 am

On 30 Jun, 14:53, Alistair <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 29 Jun, 16:02, "Judson McClendon" <j...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Wet! Wet! Wet! Despite global warming the weather is

Alistair

2007-07-03, 7:55 am

On 30 Jun, 14:53, Alistair <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 29 Jun, 16:02, "Judson McClendon" <j...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Wet! Wet! Wet! Despite global warming the weather is

Alistair

2007-07-03, 7:55 am

On 3 Jul, 02:24, LX-i <lxi0...@netscape.net> wrote:
> Alistair wrote:
>
>
> "Despite"? :) Some might call that evidence to the contrary!
>
> (sorry - couldn't resist... Besides, it's already an OT thread...)
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~ / \/ _ o ~ Live from Albuquerque, NM! ~
> ~ _ /\ | ~ ~
> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
> ~ Business E-mail ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below ~
> ~ Business Website ~http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
> ~ Tech Blog ~http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog ~
> ~ Personal E-mail ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address ~
> ~ Personal Blog ~http://daniel.summershome.org ~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
> V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++
>
> "Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
> or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine

Sorry I posted to the previous message by mistake.

Alistair

2007-07-03, 7:55 am

On 3 Jul, 11:19, Alistair <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 3 Jul, 02:24, LX-i <lxi0...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sorry I posted to the previous message by mistake.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

What I should have said to LX-i was:

I am a firm believer in global warming. After all, who wants to live
in the maritime climate we experience in England when you could live
in a warmer transitional climate such as found in France? However, I
do not jump on the global warming band-wagon to explain 'blips' of bad
weather, unlike the journalists.

Pete Dashwood

2007-07-05, 6:55 pm

"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1183125469.924565.173990@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On 29 Jun, 03:20, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
> I wouldn't be amazed at all. I have been the project leader on a
> project where my management threw every possible resource (I counted
> 13 bodies by the end of the project) in an attempt to meet a deadline
> agreed six months previously. Unfortunately, the users required an
> increase in work load in associated projects which impacted my
> project's work load by adding an extra 50%. Problem: agreed
> (artificial) deadline likely to be missed. Solution: throw bodies at
> the project. Result: I spent time DOING rather than LEADING and was
> swamped with needing to organise work for others and explain to
> newbies what the project was all about. We made the deadline (although
> any reasonable management would have put the implementation date
> back).
>

So, at least on that occasion, it worked... :-)

> As an aside, when asked to plan the project I was asked "Can we
> achieve the deadline" and the answer was "Only if we had started
> yesterday!"
>
>
> Few managers seem to be aware that elapsed time can not always be
> compressed by parallel streams. To be fair, I did once lead a project
> where we cut the elapsed run-time of the subject system from 19 hours
> to 11 hours by implementing parallel streams.
>
>
> Obviously, my planting my tongue firmly in my ch

does not come
> across too clearly when typing.
>

No, I'm afraid not. :-)

>
> Aah, a call for the 'Borg. I doubt if useful bio-mechanoids will be
> available this century (or at all).

No, it isn't SF. Nanotechnology is already being developed that will use
cellular compounds for energy, exactly as cellular mitochondria do. The main
limiting factor on Nanobots at the moment is not the ability to make such
tiny machines, rather the capability to power them. There are several
possible avenues (including use of a radioactive film to power the devices,
which I shouldn't think anyone would want injected into them, except maybe
in ultimate extremis :-)). I believe the power problem will be solved within
7 years and we should see working nanobots within 15 years after that.

If you couple nanotechnology with the advances in computer programming and
ever-increasing understanding of processes in the brain (and elsewhere...),
it is VERY likely that "bio-mechanoids" will be developed within the next 30
years, never mind "this century".

Tiny machines that will cleanse our arteries, correct faulty DNA, destroy
specifically targeted disease, and even replace certain cells that are
currently biological, are already on the drawing board. (I read a paper the
other day that was discussing the idea of replacing blood with nanobots that
could do all the functions that blood currently does, but never get
Leukaemia or any other blood related cancers).

Outside of Fortress COBOL, even the world of computing is doing some very
exciting things...

http://www.newscientisttech.com/art...2192&print=true

The research described by the link above would have been impossible even 15
years ago. The difference is that knowledge is expanding at an exponential
rate which some pundits believe is itself increasing. There is a different
attitude. Experiments which could not have been carried out in, for
example, Einstein's lifetime, are now done routinely as a matter of course.
(And they are confirming things like Quantum theory...which the Old Boy was
never happy about...) Breakthroughs in Medicine and Physics are leading
inevitably to a fusion of sciences which make your "bio-mechanoids" an
inevitability. The question is not "if", it is "when".

>I suspect it would be one thing to
> create a robocop but quite another to put a living brain into an
> interstellar spacecraft.

Both of these things will remain SF until the latter half of this century, I
would think.

>Can you imagine the mind-numbing boredom of
> monitoring the sensors in strict rote for the thousand years or so to
> cross the gaps between stars?
>

They'll have a COBOL Batch program that does it... :-)

Besides, we won't have to spend thousands of years to cross the gaps between
stars if we develop superintelligence that unlocks the maths we currently
can't do (even with our most powerful supercomputers) and shows us how to
build wormholes or warp spacetime in other, as yet, undreamed of ways...
:-))

>
> Already being done in software. I did rather like Michael Crichton's
> notion of nanobots which evolved a collective intelligence greater
> than the sum of their parts (complexes of simple automata producing
> complex behaviours).

I haven't read that, but I'd say it is pretty likely. There are people
currently looking at how control of such devices could be maintained.

It is important to distinguish between what is actually going on (fact), and
opinion about what might or might not be viable. (Although sometimes
something starts out as a whimsical flight of fancy and ignites ideas that
then become reality.)

One guy (Alan Goldstein) I read recently draws a distinction between
nanobots and nanobiobots. The latter would be your "bio-mechanoids".

What he says is opinion (although it is well-informed) but I wonder how long
before it becomes fact?:

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2...t/index_np.html

The above is fairly long, but it certainly held my interest...

>

There aren't currently too many home computers around with 8 cores. By 2020
it will be the norm. But, much more importantly, the OS will be much more
oriented to parallel processing than the current Von Neumann based systems.

[color=darkred]
>
> Good old-fashioned procedural programming. Remember, I am not OO-
> friendly.
>

Doesn't matter. The world has voted with its feet and OO won. Even the last
strongholds of procedural programming (like this forum) are being dragged
kicking and screaming into the new paradigm. IBM sites are seeing Java and
WebSphere making increasing inroads into what was once prime COBOL
territory; across the board, businesses are looking to the Web and Web
Services to provide true platform independence and unify currently disparate
systems; it can't happen without object technology and components.Your use
of "old-fashioned" in the above, although you meant it positively, is very
appropriate.

There are still a good few years in procedural programming, but there is no
future in it. It just gets more and more expensive, while the cost of
component based systems where functionality is plugged together and re-used,
keeps on falling.

>
> OK I will (no, really, I did read it).
>
>
>
> I thought that with the advent of the RDBMS no-one did sorts anymore?
>

I haven't used one for a couple of decades, and it is three decades since I
wrote any... Other people HAVE to use them, especially if they are
processing 64 million records a day... Need to do SOMETHING to justify that
mainframe... Eventually, it'll all be done on line as the transactions
occur, using networked RDBMS, then sorting (as a separate activity) won't be
necessary. The systems I am working with are already networked and use RDBMS
as a matter of course, so I have no requirement for sorting these days, and
haven't had for many years.

>
>
> Or maybe you could use software ants? (as used to solve the travelling
> salesman problem).
>

Not familiar with this.

>
> It would be interesting to see the results, too.
>
The results would be a correctly sorted list :-)

The "interesting" bit would be how long it took to achieve and how it
actuallly did it. For example, if you re-ran it, you would get a difference
in these factors, but the result would be identical...

>
>
> I think that you have just proven that old saying about an infinite
> number of monkies writing the complete works of Shakespeare.
>

Thank you, Alistair, I had never thought about it like that before... :-) It
doesn't need to be infinite; just enough to traverse the maze. Just as the
number of monkeys doesn't need to be infinite... once the works of
Shakespeare have been written...:-)

The two problems are not quite the same. The monkey one requires an infinite
number to guarantee the result; the maze one doesn't. This is because the
maze one builds on encapsulated knowledge from previous generations, while
the monkey one doesn't.

>
> You seem to be obsessed with breeding. A multitude of automata could
> resolve the problem without resorting to breeding: throw the automata
> at the maze, randomly turn at junctions, collect the automata that
> successfully get to the exit, take the ones with the shortest track
> and modify randomly before putting them back in the
> maze...iteratively.

Automata would bump into and fall over each other. Parallel simulation
doesn't have that problem

The "breeding" is required to utilise knowledge obtained previously. Your
"take the ones with the shortest track
and modify randomly before putting them back in the maze" is, in fact,
breeding. (It produces a new generation imbued with the knowledge of the
previous one.) It is this action which separates this problem from the
monkey one.

In the maze problem a solution evolves. In the monkey problem it is either
found or it isn't, hence the requirement for an infinite number of monkeys
to guarantee the desired solution.

>
>
>
> The modern computer was built by a GPO engineer out of telephone
> switching circuits.

And programmed using the principles laid down by people such as Von Neumann,
Turing, Boole, and Babbage...

They may not have actually built it (although several of the above were
involved with creating automated calculating engines), but the modern
computer would not exist in the form we know it, were it not for the
contribution of these men. To that extent, they gave it to us.
>
> The next generation of computers will not use the same
>
> Didm't Intel just announce an 8 core chip?

I'm not sure. Can you cite?

>
>
> I can see the future holding some very interesting court cases. Who
> would be responsible for artifical bio-intelligences killing people by
> accident?

Who is responsible now, when people are accidentally killed?

>Where would you hold deviant bio-intelligences and what kind
> of punishments could you apply to the criminal bio-intelligences?

There wouldn't (theoretically) be any. If this proves not to be the case, it
would be necessary to get other organisms to explain to them the error of
their ways (reprogramming). If this also failed, I guess they'd be
recycled... :-) (At least they CAN be... we can't do that with humans,
although we try to salvage what we can...)

> Also, would they be entitled to a tea-break every two hours and be
> eligible to form unions? This isn't too far fetched as the European
> Union is already considering "robot rights".
>

I think it would all depend on the organism. I can't see a single (or even a
collective of) nanobiobot(s) requiring a tea break... :-)

Pete.

tlmfru

2007-07-05, 6:55 pm

> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> No, it isn't SF. Nanotechnology is already being developed that will use
> cellular compounds for energy, exactly as cellular mitochondria do. The
main
> limiting factor on Nanobots at the moment is not the ability to make such
> tiny machines, rather the capability to power them. There are several
> possible avenues (including use of a radioactive film to power the
devices,
> which I shouldn't think anyone would want injected into them, except maybe
> in ultimate extremis :-)). I believe the power problem will be solved
within
> 7 years and we should see working nanobots within 15 years after that.
>
> If you couple nanotechnology with the advances in computer programming and
> ever-increasing understanding of processes in the brain (and
elsewhere...),
> it is VERY likely that "bio-mechanoids" will be developed within the next
30
> years, never mind "this century".
>
> Tiny machines that will cleanse our arteries, correct faulty DNA, destroy
> specifically targeted disease, and even replace certain cells that are
> currently biological, are already on the drawing board. (I read a paper
the
> other day that was discussing the idea of replacing blood with nanobots
that
> could do all the functions that blood currently does, but never get
> Leukaemia or any other blood related cancers).
>
> Outside of Fortress COBOL, even the world of computing is doing some very
> exciting things...
>
> http://www.newscientisttech.com/art...2192&print=true
>
> The research described by the link above would have been impossible even
15
> years ago. The difference is that knowledge is expanding at an exponential
> rate which some pundits believe is itself increasing. There is a different
> attitude. Experiments which could not have been carried out in, for
> example, Einstein's lifetime, are now done routinely as a matter of
course.
> (And they are confirming things like Quantum theory...which the Old Boy
was
> never happy about...) Breakthroughs in Medicine and Physics are leading
> inevitably to a fusion of sciences which make your "bio-mechanoids" an
> inevitability. The question is not "if", it is "when".
>
>

I dunno, Pete. Everything you mention is feasible and there are going to be
people who will push the research forward. But do we have a science of side
effects to go with the science of development? Is there somewhere a
"Cassandra" Institute that will lay out all the bad possibilities so as to
offset the enthusiasm of the proponents? Given that every development
throughout human history has had undesirable side effects, is there the
ability and the will to do a stone-cold evaluation of the pro's and con's
and determine the likelihood of each? Is there also the political will to
shut down guaranteed "evil" technology? In short, having had trouble enough
to date with techniques and products that are (in principle) controllable,
how can we safely accept things that are operating, changing, evolving at
the nano-level - wholly beyond any sort of control and undetectable to boot?
(An example: to cope with global warming it's been suggested that carbon
dioxide should be "sequestered" in the sea or in salt domes. I shudder to
think of the possibilities. Water is pumped into oil fields now to prolong
their useful life: micro-earthquakes start to occur almost immediately). It
may well be true that heuristic software may be able to design itself at
levels of quality and effectiveness beyond the capacity of heuristic human
beings; will it have reliable and consistent controls assured?

I guess an overriding question is: if something is as inevitable in prospect
as you describe, is it something that must be allowed to happen as
inevitably? "Inevitable" is not the same as "desirable". Everything has
to have an on/off switch!

PL

2007-07-05, 9:55 pm

In article <qkcji.228355$dC2.204040@newsfe13.lga>,
tlmfru <lacey@mts.net> wrote:

[snip]
[color=darkred]
>
>I dunno, Pete. Everything you mention is feasible and there are going to be
>people who will push the research forward. But do we have a science of side
>effects to go with the science of development?

Not that I'm aware of, no. In my experience... if folks think that
there's a need for it/a buck can be made from it then the research
continues.

DD

Pete Dashwood

2007-07-06, 3:55 am

"tlmfru" <lacey@mts.net> wrote in message
news:qkcji.228355$dC2.204040@newsfe13.lga...
> main
> devices,
> within
> elsewhere...),
> 30
> the
> that
> 15
> course.
> was
>
> I dunno, Pete. Everything you mention is feasible and there are going to
> be
> people who will push the research forward. But do we have a science of
> side
> effects to go with the science of development?

This is such a really good question :-) You are absolutely right that nearly
everything developed to date has had unfroeseen side effects (sometimes
beneficial, but more often than not, undesirable...)

>Is there somewhere a
> "Cassandra" Institute that will lay out all the bad possibilities so as to
> offset the enthusiasm of the proponents?

Experience has taught me that there is no shortage of people who will rain
on any parade they feel threatened by, and people usually feel threatened by
stuff they don't understand. :-) I used to get despondent about this but I
don't any more. I realise the nay-sayers have their part to play in the
great plan and are a necessary balance. One of the thngs that makes it a bit
more reassuring is that we now live in an age when information is on tap.
Anyone who wants to know, can access information on virtually anything they
feel uneasy about. Not only that, they can put their counter argumentsd to
an audience of millions, and that in itself stimulates further debate. The
gung-ho mad scientists haven't got it all their own way.

But we need people of vision, imagination, and innovation too. And they
should be supported and encouraged, even if they are off the beam sometimes.
What they should NOT be given is a free hand to do whatever they want
without answerability to anyone. Unfortunately, Governments often manage to
achieve this...

From my browsings round the web I have found that many people are raising
questions and they are good questions. There are many sides in the debate
about the Future.

>Given that every (? not sure that is entirely fair... :-)) development
> throughout human history has had undesirable side effects, is there the
> ability and the will to do a stone-cold evaluation of the pro's and con's
> and determine the likelihood of each? Is there also the political will to
> shut down guaranteed "evil" technology?

This is the age-old dilemma Humans have always faced. It caused the rift
between Science and Religion. What is "evil" to one person can be
"desirable" to another. (One man's meat is another man's poisson...sorry,
bad multilingual pun... :-))

Stem cell research is a perfect example of this. There are powerful
arguments on both sides, but if you have a kid who could be saved by it, you
are less likely to be persuaded by the arguments against it.

Of course, there are things that most reasonable people would agree are
"undesirable"... nuclear, chemical, and germ weapons, f'r'instance, but then
others will argue we need them to protect ourselves from the "bad guys"...
And there are ALWAYS bad guys... real and imagined.

>In short, having had trouble enough
> to date with techniques and products that are (in principle) controllable,
> how can we safely accept things that are operating, changing, evolving at
> the nano-level - wholly beyond any sort of control and undetectable to
> boot?

Yes, it is a staggering prospect. Many of my friends expect me to be the
fount of all things computer and to fill them in on where things are going;
the ensuing discussions are often very interesting. I was explaining to a
friend who has a PhD and is a surgeon, about the principles of some of the
new techniques like Genetic Algorithms which I outlined here. When I made
the comment that we now have software that can achieve a result and we don't
know how it did it, his eyes lit up... He was really excited by the idea.
Other friends have been terrified by it and asked immediately how it would
be controlled.

So the reaction seems to be divided along lines established by the
personality of the person hearing about it. How much do you need to have
control? How much randomity can you tolerate? How secure/insecure are you?
(A totally secure person would say: "Let 'er rip. If they turn out to be
bad, we'll deal with that at the time..." A more cautious person would be as
terrified by that approach as by the original principle under discussion.)

(I should 'fess up at this point that the idea of software achieving results
without my control of it, is very exciting to me. I don't feel threatened by
this. I learned many years ago that none of us has total control of our
lives anyway, and the best we can do is work within the constraints imposed
by society, government, law enforcement, family responsibility, and duty.
Why should uncontrollable software be a threat? If it was, we'd have to
write something to counter it... We have uncontrollable bacteria and viruses
that we deal with every day, to the best of our ability. I haven't seen
anyone commit suicide because they might get AIDs or be hit by a car when
crossing the road.)

The bottom line on this is that the diversity of Humans, and our reactions,
is a good check and balance on what research we allow.

> (An example: to cope with global warming it's been suggested that carbon
> dioxide should be "sequestered" in the sea or in salt domes. I shudder to
> think of the possibilities. Water is pumped into oil fields now to
> prolong
> their useful life: micro-earthquakes start to occur almost immediately).
> It
> may well be true that heuristic software may be able to design itself at
> levels of quality and effectiveness beyond the capacity of heuristic human
> beings; will it have reliable and consistent controls assured?

Another excellent question. The answer: I don't know.

It is a bit like raising a child. You do your best to prepare your children
for life; instill values and morals in them and encourage them to make
decisions based on those rules and their world view. You help them grow
without stifling them; you support them, to build their confidence and you
watch in wonder as they evolve into fine human beings. But the result was
always in doubt, no matter how much work and wisdom you put in. You could
never know they would turn out all right; all you could do was give them
your best and hope.

I believe the same principles apply to genetic software.

>
> I guess an overriding question is: if something is as inevitable in
> prospect
> as you describe, is it something that must be allowed to happen as
> inevitably? "Inevitable" is not the same as "desirable".

Absolutely. But "desirable" is also a subjective conclusion.

> Everything has
> to have an on/off switch!

Certainly, living organisms do.. it's called "Death". I see no reason why
smart software shouldn't be programmed at its roots with a specific
lifetime, or somethng like a "post hypnotic suggestion" that would freeze it
on a certain stimulus. But, until we see what evolves it is premature to
decide how to deal with it.

Thanks for a thought provoking post, Peter. You've raised some excellent
points and it made me think when responding to them.

Personally, I believe the events described will come to pass, and I believe
it will not be 100 years from now. (Although I am

dened by the
realization that I probably won't live to see some of the REALLY

stuff
that is likely to evolve...)

We should be thankful that this time, research is continuing by free will
and subject to scrutiny. In the past it was provoked by War and answered to
no-one.

Pete.

Alistair

2007-07-06, 6:55 pm

On 5 Jul, 15:35, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz>
wrote:
>
>
> No, I'm afraid not. :-)

There is an emoticon for it which I think might be: :-P

>
>
>
>
> No, it isn't SF. Nanotechnology is already being developed that will use
> cellular compounds for energy, exactly as cellular mitochondria do.

I doubt, if offered such treatments as you envisage, I would accept
being injected with nanotech unless such nanotech was 100% biological
(eg viral coats with dna or rna snips to correct defficiencies in
intracellular biochemistry).

>
> If you couple nanotechnology with the advances in computer programming and
> ever-increasing understanding of processes in the brain (and elsewhere...),
> it is VERY likely that "bio-mechanoids" will be developed within the next 30
> years, never mind "this century".

I don't share your blind faith in biologists and chemists. History
teaches us that even simple solutions can be extremely dangerous
(witness the recent six coma cases from a medical experiment which
should have worked). I have no desire to become a coma victim of well-
intentioned medical experimentation.

>
> Tiny machines that will cleanse our arteries,

....will inevitably end up blocking the minor arterioles with a goo
made of cholesterol (scraped from your artery walls) and nanobots.
Potentially a lethal solution.

> correct faulty DNA,

Arguably there is no faulty dna (even Downs syndrome could have
advantages, although I can't envisage what advantages). I doubt if the
faulty dna (broken chromosomes, cut-and-shunt extra chromosomes and
multiple copies) exhibited in carcinomas could be corrected.

> destroy
> specifically targeted disease, and even replace certain cells that are
> currently biological, are already on the drawing board.

Put your faith in stem cells. That technology will work.

>(I read a paper the
> other day that was discussing the idea of replacing blood with
> nanobots

Why use nanobots when medics are already experimenting with artificial
bloods?

> that
> could do all the functions that blood currently does, but never get
> Leukaemia or any other blood related cancers).
>
>
>
> They'll have a COBOL Batch program that does it... :-)

I like that solution.

>
> Besides, we won't have to spend thousands of years to cross the gaps between
> stars if we develop superintelligence that unlocks the maths we currently
> can't do (even with our most powerful supercomputers) and shows us how to
> build wormholes

Which, in all probability can only be built to the diameter of a few
atoms. Even then you need to 'gates' which tether the ends of the worm
hole and both must start at the same point in space with one being
moved to the destination at sub-light speeds. Information could be
sent throught the wormholes and perhaps also gases/liquids allowing
near-instantaneous communications, replenishment of fuels on starship
and real-time updating of that Cobol batch program.

> or warp spacetime in other, as yet, undreamed of ways...
> :-))

I think that you may have to be smaller than an atom in order to take
advantage of that one.

>
>
> I haven't read that, but I'd say it is pretty likely. There are people
> currently looking at how control of such devices could be maintained.

I came across the book again, yesterday, 'Prey' by Michael Crichton.
Rivetting reading and it does make some interesting points. Also,
check out 'Terminal Man' by the same author.

>
> Doesn't matter. The world has voted with its feet and OO won. Even the last
> strongholds of procedural programming (like this forum) are being dragged
> kicking and screaming into the new paradigm. IBM sites are seeing Java and
> WebSphere making increasing inroads into what was once prime COBOL

I can't wait for the day when Java applications are referred to as
legacy systems (too late; I already have seen it - in a job advert).

>
>
> Not familiar with this.
>

There was an article in Scientific American which described how ants
took the shortest possible routes between collection points for foods.
They then went on to show how software ants (mimicking the real ant
habit of marking trails) could resolve the travelling salesman problem
(determining the most efficient route connecting a network of
points).

> Thank you, Alistair, I had never thought about it like that before... :-) It
> doesn't need to be infinite; just enough to traverse the maze. Just as the
> number of monkeys doesn't need to be infinite... once the works of
> Shakespeare have been written...:-)

True, you could use half as many monkeys to write the works but it
would take more than twice as long (because the monkeys would get fed
up, form trade unions and demand paid holidays and medical
insurance!).

>
>
>
>
> I'm not sure. Can you cite?
>

AMD have a quad core chip (codenamed Barcelona and K10)
Apple have an 8-core Mac Pro (really two quad-cores)
Intel are shipping quad-cores (a million in 2007 so far), but not 8-
core chips. I don't know where I got that idea from.

>
>
>
> Who is responsible now, when people are accidentally killed?

I understand your point but a bio-intelligence could be sufficiently
sentient as to be held responsible for it's own actions.

>
>
> There wouldn't (theoretically) be any. If this proves not to be the case, it
> would be necessary to get other organisms to explain to them the error of
> their ways (reprogramming). If this also failed, I guess they'd be
> recycled... :-)

Murdered, you mean. A bio-intelligence may acquire rights similar to
those that people are talking about giving to apes.

Michael Mattias

2007-07-06, 6:55 pm

>> > Obviously, my planting my tongue firmly in my ch

does not come
>
> There is an emoticon for it which I think might be: :-P

If you have to use an emoticon to express it, it isn't really
tongue-in-ch

, is it?

MCM

Alistair

2007-07-06, 6:55 pm

On 6 Jul, 07:02, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz>
wrote:

>
> This is such a really good question :-) You are absolutely right that nearly
> everything developed to date has had unfroeseen side effects (sometimes
> beneficial, but more often than not, undesirable...)
>
>
> Experience has taught me that there is no shortage of people who will rain
> on any parade they feel threatened by, and people usually feel threatened by
> stuff they don't understand. :-)

Or perhaps (with the example of stem cell research quoted further on),
because they may consider it evil or morally unjustifiable.
The argument that people rain on the parade out of fear is a little
too simple.

Similarly, people who put on parades may, arguably, be deemed to be
either optimistic or naive, putting too much faith in their own
knowledge and judgement.

Personally, coming from a scientific background, I would never allow
uninformed, ill-informed or religious people to sit in judgement of
the direction in which science should go (boldly, perhaps). I would
never trust my mother to make an informed decision on whether to
permit stem cell research as her knowledge level is insufficient for a
dispassioned judgement. She, in common with most people, would see the
'foetuses' sourcing the stem cells as dead babies and not as 64-cell
blastulae. A considerable difference.

> I used to get despondent about this but I
> don't any more. I realise the nay-sayers have their part to play in the
> great plan and are a necessary balance. One of the thngs that makes it a bit
> more reassuring is that we now live in an age when information is on tap.
> Anyone who wants to know, can access information on virtually anything they
> feel uneasy about.

Unless you live in the Peoples Republic of China (I think that is the
euphemism they use) where internet access is controlled.

> But we need people of vision, imagination, and innovation too. And they
> should be supported and encouraged, even if they are off the beam
> sometimes.

Yes, Arthur C Clarke's escalator to orbit....

> What they should NOT be given is a free hand to do whatever they want
> without answerability to anyone.

And who allowed the development of the A-bomb and H-bomb where the
scientists were not sure as to whether they would set fire to the
atmosphere which they thought that they might not be able to control/
stop.

And who is allowing the development of the latest particle
accelerators which will create miniature black holes (which, according
to the scientists, should evaporate immediately rather than sinking to
the centre of the earth and gobbling up everything)

> Unfortunately, Governments often manage to
> achieve this...

And also stomp on promising research avenues such as stem cell
research (the modern snake-oil cure-all).

>
> From my browsings round the web I have found that many people are raising
> questions and they are good questions. There are many sides in the debate
> about the Future.
>
>
> This is the age-old dilemma Humans have always faced. It caused the rift
> between Science and Religion. What is "evil" to one person can be
> "desirable" to another. (One man's meat is another man's poisson...sorry,
> bad multilingual pun... :-))

That should be: one man's poisson is another man's meat. That should
kill off the idea that eating fish is not eating meat.

>
> Stem cell research is a perfect example of this. There are powerful
> arguments on both sides, but if you have a kid who could be saved by it, you
> are less likely to be persuaded by the arguments against it.
>
> Of course, there are things that most reasonable people would agree are
> "undesirable"... nuclear, chemical, and germ weapons, f'r'instance, but then
> others will argue we need them to protect ourselves from the "bad guys"...
> And there are ALWAYS bad guys... real and imagined.

I don't see how chemical and biological weapons (both banned under
international treaties) can protect you from the bad boys. Nuclear, I
understand.

>

> Why should uncontrollable software be a threat? If it was, we'd have to
> write something to counter it... We have uncontrollable bacteria and viruses
> that we deal with every day, to the best of our ability.

Which may be: very poorly. Examples are bubonic plague, bird flu
(H5N1, not the other varieties), haemorrhagic fever, green monkey
disease, ebola....

>
> Another excellent question. The answer: I don't know.

Running through my head I have the notion that Humans are effectively
self-designed programs and we work well enough (even taking in to
account the mass murders, dictators, etc.). If the self-designed
programs are developed beyond our understanding then on-one can say
whether a 'flaw' is a bug and not a feature.

>

Judson McClendon

2007-07-09, 9:55 pm

"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <j...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> Wet! Wet! Wet! Despite global warming the weather is

er than
> normal for this time of the year and much wetter than normal. We have
> just had the wettest June (on record I think) and will probably have
> the wettest start to July with 50mm of precipitation expected. My home
> town is built on the side of a hill but it has been known to flood
> here with torrential rain.
>
> Good to see a response from you Judson. I do enjoy the emails, and I
> liked the Globalization definition. However, where is the response to
> my request for a repeat email detailing how to get multiple ftp
> downloads under windows?

Sorry, my memory is getting faulty in my dotage, but I don't remember
that request. :-( I do have a simple method to increase the maximum
number of permitted downloads from 2 to any number. Works well
with my 6Mbps DSL.

>
> I have noticed that copying from one CD player and writing to another
> directly doesn't work under XP either.

I can burn a CD/DVD on one drive from a CD/DVD on another drive, in
one pass, but buffering to disk is more reliable.

>
> Don't you lose the equivalent of one disk to the OS for Raid use?

Not with RAID0 (striping), if all the drives are the same size. It works by
assigning consecutive 'blocks' of the volume in a rotating pattern onto
different drives. In other words, if you have RAID0 with two drives, the
first 'block' of the volume will reside on drive 0, the second on drive 1,
the third on drive 0, the fourth on drive 1, etc. until the drive space is
fully allocated. As you are reading or writing large amounts of data, the
result is that the drives are being accessed in a rotating manner, and the
overall effect is virtually a doubling of the transfer speed. Three drives
would produce a virtual tripling, etc. Some of the other RAID levels use
data redundancy to make arrays more reliable, but RAID0 achieves two
things: speed and supporting very large volumes over several drives. A
RAID0 of 4 500GB drives gives you a 2TB volume that is almost 4 x
faster (transfer speed, not access speed) than the drives themselves.
Not bad. :-)

RAID1 is mirroring, and permits the RAID to keep working if one drive
of the two drives fails. You lose 50% of your total drive space with
RAID1. RAID5 stores the data redundantly such that you could lose
one drive from the array and keep going. You lose the space of one of
the drives with RAID5. A RAID5 * 3 loses 33%.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

LX-i

2007-07-10, 6:55 pm

Trying to see how many OT posts I can post in one day...

Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> Stem cell research is a perfect example of this. There are powerful
> arguments on both sides, but if you have a kid who could be saved by it, you
> are less likely to be persuaded by the arguments against it.

This is such a contentious issue because its various facets are not
accurately publicized. For example, there are several types of source
tissue for stem cell research. All but one (aborted embryos) aren't
contentious at all. Coincidentally, adult stem cells and cord blood
stem cells *have* shown promise, while embryonic stem cells have not,
and have the baggage of being in existence because of abortion.

Then, there's the matter of who's going to pay for it. The most
contentious issue in this country has been *Federal* funding for
*embryonic* stem cell research. A lot of folks feel that the government
implicitly (at best) supporting abortion isn't a good idea. In fact,
until the current administration, there hadn't been any Federal funding;
this administration funded 30-something existing lines.

I completely fine with limited government funding going to adult stem
cell research, along with umbilical cord stem cell research and cord
blood research. I don't like it, but I'm not interested in prohibiting
private embryonic stem cell research. However, as you've probably
deduced, I support politicians who are opposed to Federal or state
funding of embryonic stem cell research. Apart from the abortion
implications, I believe it's a better investment to invest in proven
science.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \/ _ o ~ Live from Albuquerque, NM! ~
~ _ /\ | ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ Tech Blog ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog ~
~ Personal E-mail ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address ~
~ Personal Blog ~ http://daniel.summershome.org ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++

"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine

Pete Dashwood

2007-07-11, 7:55 am

"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:dOSdnXvBzOGUjwnbnZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@co
mcast.com...
> Trying to see how many OT posts I can post in one day...
>
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> This is such a contentious issue because its various facets are not
> accurately publicized. For example, there are several types of source
> tissue for stem cell research. All but one (aborted embryos) aren't
> contentious at all. Coincidentally, adult stem cells and cord blood stem
> cells *have* shown promise, while embryonic stem cells have not, and have
> the baggage of being in existence because of abortion.
>
> Then, there's the matter of who's going to pay for it. The most
> contentious issue in this country has been *Federal* funding for
> *embryonic* stem cell research. A lot of folks feel that the government
> implicitly (at best) supporting abortion isn't a good idea. In fact,
> until the current administration, there hadn't been any Federal funding;
> this administration funded 30-something existing lines.
>
> I completely fine with limited government funding going to adult stem cell
> research, along with umbilical cord stem cell research and cord blood
> research. I don't like it, but I'm not interested in prohibiting private
> embryonic stem cell research. However, as you've probably deduced, I
> support politicians who are opposed to Federal or state funding of
> embryonic stem cell research. Apart from the abortion implications, I
> believe it's a better investment to invest in proven science.
>

Thanks Daniel.

Interesting post. I don't know enough about it to have an opinion and
mentioned it only in passing. Your position sounds reasonably fair to me,
but, as I say, I don't know the details. I can't agree with your last
sentence because if all we ever pursued was "proven science" we wouldn't
have made the breakthroughs on so many fronts that we have, and would still
probably be bleeding people and treating them for attacks of the
vapours...:-)

I have no problem with a woman's right to have an abortion, but that one
has been debated here and at length and I don't think any minds will be
changed by revisiting it. I know you disagree, and I respect your right to
:-) (Actually, I don't even think you are "wrong"; at least you're balanced
in your objection and I know you wouldn't advocate shooting doctors or
bombing clinics.)

Pete.

Alistair

2007-07-11, 6:55 pm

On 9 Jul, 21:44, "Judson McClendon" <j...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> "Alistair" <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Sorry, my memory is getting faulty in my dotage, but I don't remember
> that request. :-( I do have a simple method to increase the maximum
> number of permitted downloads from 2 to any number. Works well
> with my 6Mbps DSL.

I sent it via email, around about the time that you were switching
ISPs (and back again). BTW, I enjoy the jokes but I suspect you will
roast in Hell for all eternity for disseminating such sedicious jokes.

Yes, that is the fix that I need.... it worked on my pc but I had to
restore the Registry and had deleted your email (soo I'm stuck with
two FTP streams now).

>
>
>
> I can burn a CD/DVD on one drive from a CD/DVD on another drive, in
> one pass, but buffering to disk is more reliable.
>
>
>
> Not with RAID0 (striping), if all the drives are the same size. It works by
> assigning consecutive 'blocks' of the volume in a rotating pattern onto
> different drives. In other words, if you have RAID0 with two drives, the
> first 'block' of the volume will reside on drive 0, the second on drive 1,
> the third on drive 0, the fourth on drive 1, etc. until the drive space is
> fully allocated. As you are reading or writing large amounts of data, the
> result is that the drives are being accessed in a rotating manner, and the
> overall effect is virtually a doubling of the transfer speed. Three drives
> would produce a virtual tripling, etc. Some of the other RAID levels use
> data redundancy to make arrays more reliable, but RAID0 achieves two
> things: speed and supporting very large volumes over several drives. A
> RAID0 of 4 500GB drives gives you a 2TB volume that is almost 4 x
> faster (transfer speed, not access speed) than the drives themselves.
> Not bad. :-)

Aah, seem slike buffering from different drives. I thought the big
reason for Raid was that if one drive failed then you wouldn't lose
any data at all. Er...RAID1 (it seems).

>
> RAID1 is mirroring, and permits the RAID to keep working if one drive
> of the two drives fails. You lose 50% of your total drive space with
> RAID1. RAID5 stores the data redundantly such that you could lose
> one drive from the array and keep going. You lose the space of one of
> the drives with RAID5. A RAID5 * 3 loses 33%.
> --

Thanks Judson, I'll just keep backing up essential files to a spare
drive, Ta.

Alistair

2007-07-11, 6:55 pm

On 11 Jul, 00:10, LX-i <lxi0...@netscape.net> wrote:
> Trying to see how many OT posts I can post in one day...
>
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
>
> This is such a contentious issue because its various facets are not
> accurately publicized. For example, there are several types of source
> tissue for stem cell research. All but one (aborted embryos) aren't
> contentious at all. Coincidentally, adult stem cells and cord blood
> stem cells *have* shown promise, while embryonic stem cells have not,
> and have the baggage of being in existence because of abortion.
>
Then you will be pleased to know that stem cells can now be created by
inserting nucleii from other cells into oocytes.

> Then, there's the matter of who's going to pay for it. The most
> contentious issue in this country has been *Federal* funding for
> *embryonic* stem cell research. A lot of folks feel that the government
> implicitly (at best) supporting abortion isn't a good idea.

It isn't abortion, unless you count eating a hen's egg as murder?

And who funds the research is not important; if the issue is unethical/
immoral then it should not be funded by anyone.

HeyBub

2007-07-11, 9:55 pm

Alistair wrote:

>
> It isn't abortion, unless you count eating a hen's egg as murder?
>
> And who funds the research is not important; if the issue is
> unethical/ immoral then it should not be funded by anyone.

No, the issue in a pluralistic society is whether one is sensitive to the
moral issues of others.

LX-i

2007-07-11, 9:55 pm

Alistair wrote:
> On 11 Jul, 00:10, LX-i <lxi0...@netscape.net> wrote:
> Then you will be pleased to know that stem cells can now be created by
> inserting nucleii from other cells into oocytes.

Do they behave the same way as "embryonic" stem cells do?

>
> And who funds the research is not important; if the issue is unethical/
> immoral then it should not be funded by anyone.

Ah, but there's the rub of this "freedom" thing. While I disapprove of
abortion, I also am pragmatic to realize that with or without embryonic
stem cell research, there are going to be aborted embryos on which to
experiment. However, if there is Federal funding, then the government
is basically approving of the procedure. And what happens if they "run
out" of raw materials?

I hope I've expressed that clearly - it's a fine line. Basically, I'm
not trying to impose my morals on "them"; by the same token, I don't
want my government (and my tax dollars funding) imposing "their" morals
on me.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \/ _ o ~ Live from Albuquerque, NM! ~
~ _ /\ | ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ Tech Blog ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog ~
~ Personal E-mail ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address ~
~ Personal Blog ~ http://daniel.summershome.org ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++

"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine

Judson McClendon

2007-07-12, 7:55 am

"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <j...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> I sent it via email, around about the time that you were switching
> ISPs (and back again). BTW, I enjoy the jokes but I suspect you will
> roast in Hell for all eternity for disseminating such sedicious jokes.

I must have missed your message during the email switchup, because
I would have saved such a request, and my response, in my 'Temp'
email folder for at least several w

s.

You probably wouldn't mind your children making a joke about you,
as long as you were sure they loved you and meant no disrespect. I
believe God feels the same way about His children. :-)

> Yes, that is the fix that I need.... it worked on my pc but I had to
> restore the Registry and had deleted your email (soo I'm stuck with
> two FTP streams now).

*BEWARE!* Anyone reading this who is not experienced in changing
Windows Registry: An error in changing your Registry can cause
disastrous results, even kill Windows, requiring a Windows reinstall
(or if you're smart, reloading a recent partition backup).

Open Notepad and copy/paste the 5 lines of text below, making sure
the "[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\ ... \Internet Settings]" line is not
broken:

<-- Text after this line -->
Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Wi
ndows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings]
"MaxConnectionsPerServer"=dword:00000010
"MaxConnectionsPer0_1Server"=dword:00000010

<-- Text before this line -->

Save the file as "MaxDownloads16.reg" (or any name you like with a ".reg"
extension) and double click on the file. If you don't want a limit of 16
downloads, simply change the two hex literals from 00000010 to whatever
value you want. That should do the trick. :-)

Below is a link for anyone wanting a RegEdit procedure:

http://www.computerperformance.co.u...nsperserver.htm
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Howard Brazee

2007-07-12, 6:55 pm

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 07:50:35 -0500, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:

>You probably wouldn't mind your children making a joke about you,
>as long as you were sure they loved you and meant no disrespect. I
>believe God feels the same way about His children. :-)

Then obviously you don't believe in Hell.

Alistair

2007-07-12, 6:55 pm

On 12 Jul, 03:27, LX-i <lxi0...@netscape.net> wrote:
> Alistair wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Do they behave the same way as "embryonic" stem cells do?

So far yes. It appears to be a promising line of research (And I can't
remember where I saw it but probably on the BBC News or Scientific
American web sites).

>
>
>
> Ah, but there's the rub of this "freedom" thing. While I disapprove of
> abortion, I also am pragmatic to realize that with or without embryonic
> stem cell research, there are going to be aborted embryos on which to
> experiment. However, if there is Federal funding, then the government
> is basically approving of the procedure. And what happens if they "run
> out" of raw materials?
>
> I hope I've expressed that clearly - it's a fine line. Basically, I'm
> not trying to impose my morals on "them"; by the same token, I don't
> want my government (and my tax dollars funding) imposing "their" morals
> on me.
>

Fine by me. Although it would be immoral of me to impose my
(im)morality upon you.

Alistair

2007-07-12, 6:55 pm

On 12 Jul, 15:53, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 07:50:35 -0500, "Judson McClendon"
>
> <j...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> Then obviously you don't believe in Hell.

Doesn't that depend upon which particular form Hell takes?

<JOKES>
One day while walking down the street a highly successful Human
Resources Manager was tragically hit by a bus and she died. Her
soul arrived up in heaven where she was met at the Pearly Gates by
St.Peter himself."Welcome to Heaven," said St. Peter. "Before you get
settled in though, it seems we have a problem. You see, strangely
enough, we've never once had a Human Resources Manager make it this
far and we're not really sure what to do with you.""No problem, just
let me in," said the woman."Well, I'd like to, but I have higher
orders. What we're going to do is let you have a day in Hell and a day
in Heaven and then you can choose whichever one you want to spend an
eternity in.""Actually, I think I've made up my mind, I prefer to stay
in Heaven", said the woman "Sorry, we have rules..." And with that St.
Peter put the executive in an elevator and it went down-down-down to
hell.The doors opened and she found herself stepping out onto the
putting green of a beautiful golf course. In the distance was a
country club and standing in front of her were all her friends -
fellow executives that she had worked with and they were well dressed
in evening gowns and cheering for her. They ran up and kissed her on
both ch

s and they talked about old times. They played an excellent
round of golf and at night went to the country club where she enjoyed
an excellent steak and lobster dinner.She met the Devil who was
actually a really nice guy (kind of cute) and she had a great time
telling jokes and dancing. She was having such a good time that before
she knew it, it was time to leave. Everybody shook her hand and waved
goodbye as she got on the elevator.

The elevator went up-up-up and opened back up at the Pearly Gates
and found St. Peter waiting for her.
"Now it's time to spend a day in heaven," he said.
So she spent the next 24 hours lounging around on clouds and playing
the harp and singing. She had great time and before she knew it her
24 hours were up and St. Peter came and got her."So, you've spent a
day in hell and you've spent a day in heaven.
Now you must choose your eternity," The woman paused for a second
and then replied, "Well, I never thought I'd say this, I mean,
Heaven has been really great and all, but I think I had a better time
in Hell."

So St. Peter escorted her to the elevator and again she went
down-down-down back to Hell.
When the doors of the elevator opened she found herself standing in
a desolate wasteland covered in garbage and filth. She saw her
friends were dressed in rags and were picking up the garbage and
putting it in sacks.The Devil came up to her and put his arm around
her. I don't understand," stammered the woman, "yesterday I was here
and there was a golf course and a country club and we ate lobster and
we danced and had a great time. Now all there is a wasteland of
garbage and all my friends look miserable."

The Devil looked at her smiled and told...Yesterday we were
recruiting you, Today you are an employee..

The following is an actual question given on a University of
Washington Chemistry mid term. The answer by one student was "so
profound" that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the
Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of
enjoying it as well.

Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic
(absorbs heat)? Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs
using Boyle's Law, (gas

s off when it expands and heats). One
student wrote the following answer:

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we
need to know the rate that souls are moving into Hell and the rate
they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul
gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As
for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different
religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state
that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell.
Since there are more than one of these religions and since people do
not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go
to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the
number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially.

Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because
Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in
Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand
proportionately as souls are added. This gives two possibilities:

1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls
enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase
until all Hell breaks loose.
2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in
Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes
over.

So which is it? If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa
during my Freshman year that: "it will be a cold day in Hell before I
sleep with you," and take into account the fact that I still have not
succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then #2 cannot be true,
and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and will not freeze.

The student received the only "A" given.
</JOKES>

Sponsored Links