flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > Intel Readies Massive Multicore Processors

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
Some (newer) FASM forum participants, particularly those unaccustomed to the lofty notions expressed on HEAP, may be puzzled about this thread which commenced with HyperVista's announcement of "massive" cores on Intel's forthcoming cpus, and continued with sleepsleep's profound question regarding light's moment of inertia upon striking an impenetrable object accelerating with a velocity exceeding that of the multitude of Intel's core, and now, this most recent query from Kohlrak, who, notwithstanding evidence to the contrary, really has completed grammar school:
kohlrak wrote:
By the way, what does the word tunami/tsunami/つなみ mean in japanese?
Tsunami is a Japanese word, used without translation, by many other languages, including English. To answer this question, (which also arose in the minds of many other FASM participants, upon reading HyperVista's term: "massive",) I suggest reliance upon this excellent resource for all questions relating to Japanese language:
http://www.freedict.com/onldict/onldict.php
Results for 'tsunami'
Japanese-->English
tsunami ..... tidal wave
Post 21 Jun 2007, 12:57
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
HyperVista



Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 691
Location: Virginia, USA
HyperVista
Perhaps this link will shed some "light" (punn intended) on sleepsleep's thought provoking question about the kenetic nature of light particles.
Post 21 Jun 2007, 17:46
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
tom tobias wrote:
Some (newer) FASM forum participants, particularly those unaccustomed to the lofty notions expressed on HEAP, may be puzzled about this thread which commenced with HyperVista's announcement of "massive" cores on Intel's forthcoming cpus, and continued with sleepsleep's profound question regarding light's moment of inertia upon striking an impenetrable object accelerating with a velocity exceeding that of the multitude of Intel's core, and now, this most recent query from Kohlrak, who, notwithstanding evidence to the contrary, really has completed grammar school:
kohlrak wrote:
By the way, what does the word tunami/tsunami/つなみ mean in japanese?
Tsunami is a Japanese word, used without translation, by many other languages, including English. To answer this question, (which also arose in the minds of many other FASM participants, upon reading HyperVista's term: "massive",) I suggest reliance upon this excellent resource for all questions relating to Japanese language:
http://www.freedict.com/onldict/onldict.php
Results for 'tsunami'
Japanese-->English
tsunami ..... tidal wave


Actually i prefer goo, but that's beside the point. Anyway, there are many places on wiki that refer to it as meaning the same in other languages as it does in japanese. This is false information as you have also pointed out. Every time i see this, i picture japanese yelling "つなみ!!" The Japanese gram their surf boards and head one way, everyone else either runs the other way or curses at the japanese complaining about trying to panic people for no reson. Things like this are commonly believed, and people think by changing it, they're correcting wrong information, when in fact they're doing the opposite. Maybe tomarrow you'll see it changed, maybe you won't.

My point being, that wiki is a heck of a thing to base an argument on. Infact, let's thing this through logically. Human beings are scientists, right? Human beings have opinions, right? Scientists have to do tests even when they are sure they're right, eh? I think the reality is different from what we want to believe. We have a large number of scientists out there that are throwing their degree around to get their theories untested onto the scientific market. We see this all the time. We see it in commercials, we see it with your panic scares on the news, and other places as well. Scientists are no longer scientists anymore. Of course, i'm sure there are good scientists out there doing their work right, but i feel that most are just clowns using their degree to sway the public opinion to their political views.
Post 21 Jun 2007, 19:44
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
kohlrak: please, buy ANY scientific book that describes science itself, and you will find it everywhere. Just because your grandma teached you scientific theory is something uncertain, yet to be proven, doesn't mean it is. It is similar problem like with "hacker", "kilobyte", etc...
Post 21 Jun 2007, 22:09
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
There's a bit of importance hidden in what kohlrak says, though - never take wikipedia as an absolute source of information. Much of the info there is flawed, and certain topics are nazi-moderated by certain interest groups.

It's still a valuable source for researching, though, as a starting point.
Post 21 Jun 2007, 22:25
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Who defines words, scientists or grandma? Our words come from our past. I think grandma rules over what the word means. If scientists want to say it's proven, then they my as well call it a fact. Why don't they? Why isn't all the theories called facts? Because they don't want to offend people that don't believe in them, right or wrong? Now a good question would be "why would people be offended by the truth?" Science depends on theories, and therefor science books will protect theories. If we correct science books, they'll say "oops" or they'll let us argue about it as we're doing now.

Now comes another question: "Which deffinition will you go by? The dictionary or the science book?" I'll take the dictionary any day.

EDIT:
Quote:
It's still a valuable source for researching, though, as a starting point.


I agree strongly.
Post 21 Jun 2007, 22:29
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
DustWolf



Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 373
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
DustWolf
Just a note on meanings of words. A theory is something tested. An untested theory is called a hypothesis, not a theory (despite popular belief).

Theory then, being just a connection between a cupple assorted observations, then differs by meaning from fact, which might also have some relation to axiom (which is an absolute truth), but not necesarily be the same thing. Not to oversimplify, since we as people could never hope to be perfectly objective, theories are thought to be an approximation to the truth.

As for who defines words... well it's people who write dictionaries. And as I recall, their methodology is to let languages evolve on their own amongst the population and then try to skin the most commonly used words' meanings off the living language itself, as opposed to using any form of explicit scientific objectivity-orientated absolute declarations of meaning.

P.S.: Yes I do realise I contradict myself. Obviously in writing a dictionary, some care is being taken not to randomly missuse words just because the general public does. Just following some common sense and healthy logic helps resolve the problems tho.


Last edited by DustWolf on 22 Jun 2007, 01:22; edited 1 time in total
Post 22 Jun 2007, 01:14
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Um... So in other words, you're saying that f0dder's right about the meaning, but i'm right about the dictionary part? I'm having a little trouble summing that up.
Post 22 Jun 2007, 01:17
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
DustWolf



Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 373
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
DustWolf
kohlrak wrote:
Um... So in other words, you're saying that f0dder's right about the meaning, but i'm right about the dictionary part? I'm having a little trouble summing that up.


I think the dictionaries are responsible for the defenition of terms? I believe there are scientific dictionaries in existance.
Post 22 Jun 2007, 01:23
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
But who is it better to believe, a dictionary that dosn't care one way or another how words are taken politically, or a dictionary that's field depends on it. Science deffinitions come from science. English deffinitions come from the people. Scientist Group 1 can agree on certain topics so the science deffinition suits them, while a Scientist Group 2 who dosn't agree will have a deffinition that is fine with them. That way, both parties agree in words but not concepts. Change only the deffinitions that the next genereration hears. I find that it seems that mostly scientists from one group do the writing and the politics, while group 2 gets pushed around without them even knowing it. Then Group 1's idea becomes accepted.
Post 22 Jun 2007, 01:36
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
DustWolf



Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 373
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
DustWolf
kohlrak wrote:
I find that it seems that mostly scientists from one group do the writing and the politics, while group 2 gets pushed around without them even knowing it. Then Group 1's idea becomes accepted.


In essence, words and their meanings are irrelevant. Scientists have meanings to the words in their heads and those meanings drift around while they learn. No two people, scientists or not, and regardless of group, agree 100% on what something means. Because of this, the meanings are a bit approximate and the logic that connects these meanings matters more. E.g.: When you form a full circle with the logic, you can use it to proove yourself wrong, if your word meanings are wrong.

Scientific dictionaries technically just define words very approximately, or do so based on the logic between the terms. Just keep in mind the point about being unable to be objective and such. It is important to understand one's own limitations and not oversimplify to ignore them. Nobody is completely right and nobody expects to be completely right.
Post 22 Jun 2007, 01:45
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
Scientific dictionaries technically just define words very approximately, or do so based on the logic between the terms. Just keep in mind the point about being unable to be objective and such. It is important to understand one's own limitations and not oversimplify to ignore them. Nobody is completely right and nobody expects to be completely right.


Tested and not tested have a tendancy to make words less approximate.
Post 22 Jun 2007, 03:40
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
If scientists want to say it's proven, then they my as well call it a fact. Why don't they? Why isn't all the theories called facts?

No, scientific theory is not same as fact. You REALLY should talk less about things you don't understand, this seems to be your hobby.

anyway, back to your original claim that started this:
Quote:
I don't keep myself up to date with the latest theories. I typically don't like theories that have been comming out in the past 100 years. They all seem to be propoganda. I've seeen too many theories based on other theories. They call the most recent theories scientifically based when it's not so scientific when they're based entirely on unproven theories, right? I personally suggest not taking science seriously until it's out of politics. Makes much more sence that way.

You was even talking about theories that are called "scientific" yourself (but you didn't know it's different thing when you wrote that). Scientific theory is completely unambigous term, means the kind of theory i was writing about.

And regardless of whether you meant scientific theory or grandma's theory (which is "hypothesis" in science), you was wrong.
Quote:
They call the most recent theories scientifically based when it's not so scientific when they're based entirely on unproven theories, right?

Even if you wrote "theories" and meant "hypothesis", this sentence still doesn't have a sense. I can't think of any meaning of "theory" for which this sentence would at least give a sense, not mentioning it being true.

To "prove" your post, can you give us some example of scientists calling some theory (or hypothesis, or whatever) scientifically based, when it's no so scientific? This would prove you didn't pull that "argument" out of your ... theory.
Post 22 Jun 2007, 08:36
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
HyperVista wrote:

Perhaps this link will shed some "light" (punn intended) on sleepsleep's thought provoking question about the kenetic nature of light particles.

http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/49/324/1129
Thanks for the link to this interesting article, which seeks to explain the biphasic intracellular reaction to illumination in plants. Both when illuminated initially, and upon extinction of light, the algal cell changes both membrane potential and pH within a couple of seconds of time. The biphasic nature of this response suggests to me that photons themselves do not directly affect proton translocation across intracellular organelle's membranes (i.e. chloroplast), since ABSENCE of photons also produces the same changes seen on illumination. Sleepsleep sought, if I have understood him correctly, evidence that would point to a direct role for light AS A PARTICLE WITH A MASS, albeit small, and essentially unmeasureable, to date.
Post 22 Jun 2007, 09:16
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
HyperVista



Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 691
Location: Virginia, USA
HyperVista
perhaps i need to re-read that study, but my interpretation was that while the energy change was roughly same (measured in pH differences as a result of the amount of free hypdrogen H+ ions either increasing or decreasing), the change (+/-) was opposite depending on the presence or absense of light.

The presense of light caused an increase in free H+ and the postulation is that the kinetic enegy of the light photons are "stripping" bound hypdrogen ions, thereby increasing the concentration of free H+ and altering the pH. When the light source is removed, the hydrogen ions become "re-bound" the the pH shifts (in the opposite direction), i.e. the kinetic energy of the light photons is removed and the free hydrogen ions become bound again. the exothermic / endothermic evidence of this "freeing and bounding" of H+ ions is too small for measurement, but pH change is a good approach to proving the theory.
Post 22 Jun 2007, 13:07
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
Although I have a warm, enduring, quasi-romantic relationship with trees, well, actually, all plants, and have been known to spend days at a time conversing with same in lively debate about pruning, xor, and collecting walnuts, I nevertheless feel compelled to acknowledge a tiny bit of apprehension discussing a role for photons in plant cells, in part because I have no experience in the laboratory measuring membrane potentials in plant cells. I prefer to discuss measurement of membrane potentials in neurons, where I do enjoy a modest degree of familiarity with the techniques and methods. The neurons of interest here, are the photoreceptors in the retina. The question remains the same: i.e. what is the influence of light, how does light cause WHICH physical reaction?, Does this physical reaction derive from the MASS of the photon, or from some other property? I confess to having no answers to these questions. Here is a rather well written summary of what some folks do know about the process, not quite sufficient detail for what we FASM forumers require, but still more detail than has thus far been provided on HEAP, addressing sleepsleep's question:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=neurosci.section.747
Here is a rather lengthly quote from the article, I found it impossible to prune any more than I already have.
national library of medicine wrote:
Perhaps even more surprising is that shining light on a photoreceptor, either a rod or a cone, leads to membrane hyperpolarization rather than depolarization. In the dark, the receptor is in a depolarized state, with a membrane potential of roughly -40 mV (including those portions of the cell that release transmitters). Progressive increases in the intensity of illumination cause the potential across the receptor membrane to become more negative, a response that saturates when the membrane potential reaches about -65 mV. Although the sign of the potential change may seem odd, the only logical requirement for subsequent visual processing is a consistent relationship between luminance changes and the rate of transmitter release from the photoreceptor terminals. As in other nerve cells, transmitter release from the synaptic terminals of the photoreceptor is dependent on voltage-sensitive Ca2+ channels in the terminal membrane. Thus, in the dark, when photoreceptors are relatively depolarized, the number of open Ca2+ channels in the synaptic terminal is high, and the rate of transmitter release is correspondingly great; in the light, when receptors are hyperpolarized, the number of open Ca2+ channels is reduced, and the rate of transmitter release is also reduced. The reason for this unusual arrangement compared to other sensory receptor cells is not known.
The relatively depolarized state of photoreceptors in the dark depends on the presence of ion channels in the outer segment membrane that permit Na+ and Ca2+ ions to flow into the cell, thus reducing the degree of inside negativity. The probability of these channels in the outer segment being open or closed is regulated in turn by the levels of the nucleotide cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP) (as in many other second messenger systems.) In darkness, high levels of cGMP in the outer segment keep the channels open. In the light, however, cGMP levels drop and some of the channels close, leading to hyperpolarization of the outer segment membrane, and ultimately the reduction of transmitter release at the photoreceptor synapse.
The series of biochemical changes that ultimately leads to a reduction in cGMP levels begins when a photon is absorbed by the photopigment in the receptor disks. The photopigment contains a light-absorbing chromophore (retinal, an aldehyde of vitamin A) coupled to one of several possible proteins called opsins that tune the molecule's absorption of light to a particular region of the spectrum. Indeed, it is the different protein component of the photopigment in rods and cones that contributes to the functional specialization of these two receptor types. Most of what is known about the molecular events of phototransduction has been gleaned from experiments in rods, in which the photopigment is rhodopsin ). When the retinal moiety in the rhodopsin molecule absorbs a photon, its configuration changes from the 11-cis isomer to all-trans retinal; this change then triggers a series of alterations in the protein component of the molecule. The changes lead, in turn, to the activation of an intracellular messenger called transducin, which activates a phosphodiesterase that hydrolyzes cGMP.
....
As a result, the absorption of a single photon by a rhodopsin molecule results in the closure of approximately 200 ion channels, or about 2% of the number of channels in each rod that are open in the dark. This number of channel closures causes a net change in the membrane potential of about 1 mV.

Hope this helps....
Post 22 Jun 2007, 22:14
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
HyperVista



Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 691
Location: Virginia, USA
HyperVista
tom wrote:
Does this physical reaction derive from the MASS of the photon, or from some other property?

Excellent point tom. It is quite possible the "stripping" of H+ ions is caused by some effect other than mass of the photons and kinetic energy (angstrom wave effects, polarization, etc.) One would need a method of measuring the movement of the photon and H+ as they interact, but ..... what's that???, I believe I heard Heisenberg clearing his thoat, i've gotta go ....
Post 23 Jun 2007, 00:30
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
No, scientific theory is not same as fact. You REALLY should talk less about things you don't understand, this seems to be your hobby.


Really? You and f0dder are doing a damn good job at saying the contrary. What's your deffinition? Is it contrary to the english dictionary? Yes, i know people make up what the english language is more than the dictionaries, but the dictionaries listen to those who make up what the words mean. Science dosn't have priority over non-scientists on what is the meaning of a word. And unless you come up with a deffinition that co-exists with the english dictionary, i won't be capable of taking you seriously.

Quote:
You was even talking about theories that are called "scientific" yourself (but you didn't know it's different thing when you wrote that). Scientific theory is completely unambigous term, means the kind of theory i was writing about.


What kind of theory was that again?

Quote:
And regardless of whether you meant scientific theory or grandma's theory (which is "hypothesis" in science), you was wrong.


Right. Say that to yourself out loud and give me one reson to allow you to tell me what words in english mean. And this grandma thing is getting a little old. Don't make a cheap blow on old people because you can't handle that those old people decide what words mean in their own language. They taught us english, therefor our words should come from them. Thank you for being polite.

Quote:
Even if you wrote "theories" and meant "hypothesis", this sentence still doesn't have a sense. I can't think of any meaning of "theory" for which this sentence would at least give a sense, not mentioning it being true.


I don't see why not. Both words fit for me. Though, on the contrary, i've found others who can't understand that as a sentance alone. They did, however, understand when i put the sentance back into context.

Quote:
To "prove" your post, can you give us some example of scientists calling some theory (or hypothesis, or whatever) scientifically based, when it's no so scientific? This would prove you didn't pull that "argument" out of your ... theory.


I have no provided names. The theories which i've seen which have been based entirely upon other theories weren't given names. Though embarrassingly, i've seen most of them on "the science channel" and "the history channel."

Though i do hear some theories on how fast global warming is. Often the numbers are based on the theory that the earth is millions of years old. Another problem with these theories are that since they're political, no one would dare listen to arguments against them. For instance, that theory of how old the earth itself is, they won't listen to the concept that carbon (according to science) can diffuse from other things such as oil spots and things. Also, there has been talk that a great flood (where it rained for a long period and "ground water" spurted up) could possibly cause carbon dating (which is used to say how old the earth is) to become very, very innaccuret.
Post 23 Jun 2007, 00:59
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
LocoDelAssembly
Your code has a bug


Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 4633
Location: Argentina
LocoDelAssembly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating

Quote:
Often the numbers are based on the theory that the earth is millions of years old.
...
For instance, that theory of how old the earth itself is, they won't listen to the concept that carbon (according to science) can diffuse from other things such as oil spots and things. Also, there has been talk that a great flood (where it rained for a long period and "ground water" spurted up) could possibly cause carbon dating (which is used to say how old the earth is) to become very, very innaccuret.


Millions of years against some thousands, I hope you was not talking about 14^C then.
Post 23 Jun 2007, 01:17
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Giving a short look at that (and knowing very little about isotopes and fancy things like that) i can still deduct that the substance is still diffusable, and possibly present in larger quantities in different parts of the world, and it still appears (to me) to be diffusable.
Post 23 Jun 2007, 02:31
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on YouTube, Twitter.

Website powered by rwasa.