On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Eugen Leitl <eu...@leitl.org> wrote:
> 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 neurons with a full compartmental > model in realtime. Or render photorealistic 4K video for an > interactive virtual world. Or optimize a vehicle for atmospheric > reentry. Simulate climate. Fold proteins. Map a barren parameter > space for barren areas. Optimize circuit layout on silicon. > Analyze a NEMS device in a hybrid model, with some 10 atoms given > full QM treatment. > A lot of simulation and analysis will benefit greatly from more computing power. Quite a bit of writing programs/games now are possible because people have spent weeks optimizing. And building lots of boundaries around edge cases so you don't see that the game is built by low polygons and texture maps. A more naive approach to computing will be possible, as we see in Wolfram Alpha. Let the computer do the hard work and just make what I want possible. Programming based on searching, analyzing and transforming data. Karl > > > However, using a garbage collected OO language would. So in as > > much as faster machines lower the cost of higher abstractions, they > > are helpful for programming. But we are already at the point where > > most of our time programming is sitting in front of an idle machine > > trying to tell it what to do. > > Massively parallel systems would eliminate the coding and letting > you specify the boundary conditions. Or evaluate system behaviour > for better solutions. > > > 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 largest bottleneck > > to maximizing the utility of computers and that this is generally > > not a compute bound problem. > > I think the reason we've made so little progress is precisely because > we're computationally bound. Many solutions are suddenly viable if > everybody has access to nine orders of magnitude more storage and > more performance. > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > fonc@vpri.org > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc >
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
