LIGO is the biggest scam of the 21st century. You people will recoil in absolute horror when the truth comes out.
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2016/06/why-steven-carlip-is-mistaken-about.html
ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
Posts by Louis Savain
66 publicly visible posts • joined 18 Mar 2008
LIGO team may have found dark matter
Gravitational waves: A new type of astronomy
Monday 20th June 2016 17:07 GMT
Re: Poor science
"Seeing as the data produced by each observation of a gravitational wave was analysed for around 6 months prior to public announcement, I think its fairly safe to say that other scientists' analysis will produce the same results."
True. Corroboration is indeed powerful, unless, of course, the data was the result of a fake injection that is indistinguishable from what is expected according to the carefully contrived model.
Fake injections are a bitch. I know. But they happen.
ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...
Monday 20th June 2016 16:57 GMT
Why LIGO Is a Scam
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2016/05/why-ligo-is-scam.html
Abstract:
In this article, I argue that the billion-dollar LIGO project that recently claimed to have detected gravitational waves from the collision of two black holes located more than a billion light years from earth is nothing but a scam to defraud the public. I argue that gravitational waves cannot exist because they are based on the false assumption that changes in gravity propagate at the speed of light. I further argue that the spacetime model is wrong because it is a block universe in which nothing happens and that gravity is a nonlocal or instantaneous phenomenon related to the law of the conservation of energy.
And for those who are really interested in this sordid affair, read the following:
Why Steven Carlip Is Mistaken about the Speed of Gravity or Why LIGO Is Still a Scam
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2016/06/why-steven-carlip-is-mistaken-about.html
ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
Laser probers sniff more gravitational waves from mega black hole smash
Saturday 18th June 2016 19:53 GMT
Re: Why LIGO Is a Scam
"Given such advanced views I'm amazed that you are wasting your time on such an audience as The Register. Clearly you should be submitting serious papers to learned and influential journals."
You must be kidding me. You don't understand the politics of mainstream science, IMO. It's Big Brother all the way down.
"It worked for Einstein despite him being a total outsider who had to argue against the perceived wisdom of his day."
You got it all backwards. Politics is precisely the reason that Einstein's physics dominates even though it contradicts simple logic and the other pillar of modern physics: quantum mechanics. It's now a full blown religion.
My message is not to the pompous and arrogant scientific elite. My message to the average man and woman in the street.
"/Sarkasmus und Verachtung"
Same to you.
Friday 17th June 2016 19:02 GMT
Re: Why LIGO Is a Scam
"Didn't the article state that they managed to work out where the event took place because the detectors received the data 1.1ms apart?"
A handful of LIGO project's administrators can also inject fake signals into the system. The fake signals are indistinguishable from expected signals, so much so that they can fool the physicists working on the project. In fact, it happened once and papers were written ready for publication.
Friday 17th June 2016 18:35 GMT
Re: Why LIGO Is a Scam
"You claim "They posit that every massive body somehow broadcasts its velocity to other bodies at the speed of light" but I'm not so sure they do posit such "instantaneous action at a distance"."
They implicitly assume instantaneous communication at a distance even though they explicitly deny it.
Read Steven Carlip's "Aberration and the Speed of Gravity." Also read John Baez's "Does Gravity Travel at the Speed of Light?" Both argue that massive bodies broadcast their velocity out into space. This is how planets can extrapolate the actual position of the sun even though they receive the the signal minutes or hours later. The sun cannot possibly know about its velocity because absolute motion is forbidden by GR. It cannot know its velocity relative to the other planets because this requires instantaneous communication at a distance and this, too, is forbidden.
Baez: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html
Carlip: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909087
It's pathetic, really.
Friday 17th June 2016 17:59 GMT
Re: Why LIGO Is a Scam
"Amazingly, the Einstein Gravity calculations work out pretty well. Exceedingly well."
Of course they do. It's because Einstein is cheating. The word "relative" implicitly assumes instantaneous communication between two bodies at a distance even though the theory is a local theory that forbids instantaneous communication.
To those who have read Steven Carlip's "Aberration and the Speed of Gravity" (the relativist's attempt at solving an unsolvable problem), the velocity terms used in GR assume that the sun's velocity relative to the other planets is broadcast out into space. This way the planets can somehow extrapolate where the sun actually is, as opposed to where it was. The sun cannot possibly "know" about its velocity relative to other bodies because this would violate the local nature of GR. This is not even wrong. It's embarrassing.
Friday 17th June 2016 02:45 GMT
Why LIGO Is a Scam
LIGO is a scam and here is why. Gravity is an instantaneous or nonlocal phenomenon, otherwise orbits would be unstable and Newtonian gravity would not work. Laplace showed this way back in 1805. General relativists are aware of this problem and have proposed a strange and unfalsifiable hypothesis to explain it away. They posit that every massive body somehow broadcasts its velocity to other bodies at the speed of light. This way the receiving bodies can more or less extrapolate where the source body is even though the information is received at a later time (~8 minutes delay between earth and the sun).
The problem is that a body's velocity cannot be determined by the body because GR denies the existence of absolute motion. But this introduces another problem because a body's velocity relative to other bodies cannot be known either unless there is instantaneous communication between it and the other bodies. This, too, is forbidden by GR.
Of course, there is no way to falsify the GR hypothesis because the only way do the trick is to use a mediating particle, the so-called graviton, which has never been observed. But it gets worse. The graviton introduces an infinite self-referential regress into the works. The reason is that gravity affects everything, including the graviton itself. The whole thing is embarrassing, to say the least.
More at: http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2016/05/why-ligo-is-scam.html
ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
Meet the man building an AI that mimics our neocortex – and could kill off neural networks
Rock star physicist Cox: Neutrinos won't help us cheat time
Friday 25th November 2011 13:58 GMT 
RockStar Physicists Have No Clue
So physicists have no idea why the speed of light is the speed limit. Was it a guess all along? It sure seems that way, doesn't it? Otherwise, they would know that the neutrino FTL result was in error and the whole nonsense would have never made the news.
Truth is, if physicists really had a clue about the nature of motion, they would know that the speed of light is not just the fastest speed in the universe but the *only* speed in the universe. Nothing can move faster or slower. A body that seems to be moving at a much slower speed than c is really making a series of quantum jumps at c, with lots of wait periods in between. This is true no matter how smooth motion appears at the macroscopic level.
And if physicists really understood the causality of motion, they would also know that we are moving in an immense lattice of energetic particles without which there could be no motion. Google "Physics: The Problem with Motion" if you really want to understand motion. Believe me, you don't understand motion even if you think you do. And while you're at it, Google "Why Space (Distance) Is an Illusion" for more surprises.
Father of Lisp and AI John McCarthy has died
Tuesday 25th October 2011 01:09 GMT 
Sad But...
Yes, John was a thinking man, a giant in his day. I don't like lisp (or any functional language) but it could just be me. Others swear by it. Still, McCarthy did as much as anybody (certainly as much as Minsky) to get AI research stuck in the hopeless rut of symbol manipulation for half a century. What a waste of time and brains! It is only recently that new thinkers in the field have begun to realize that intelligence is at its core a tenmporal phenomenon.
That being said, "artificial intelligence" has a nice ring to it. I thank McCarthy for that because the phrase has caused more people to become interested in the field than anything else.
Russia, NASA to hold talks on nuclear-powered spacecraft
Tuesday 5th April 2011 19:49 GMT
Primitive!
The use of reaction mass for space propulsion, whether nuclear or chemical, is about as primitive as can be. Not to mention slow, dangerous and frustratingly expensive. Sure, the blue glow of spaceship exhaust in space movies may look cool. But rest assured that humanity is not going to colonize the solar system with mass-ejecting rockets based on Newtonian physics, let alone the star systems beyond. Unless there is some sort of breakthrough in our understanding of motion at the fundamental level, there will be no mass migration off the earth any time soon.
The truth is that we will not come out of the current dark age of space travel until and unless physicists pull their collective head out of the sand and realize that they do not really understand motion, even if they think they do. A new analysis of the causality of motion reveals that Aristotle was right to insist that motion is caused and that, as a result, we are immersed in an immense lattice of energetic particles without which there can be no motion. Soon, we'll learn how to exploit the lattice for clean energy production and extremely fast propulsion. New York to Beijing in minutes, earth to Mars in hours; that's the future of transportation. Imagine vehicles that can move at prodigious speeds and negotiate right angle turns without slowing down and without suffering any damage due to to inertial effects. It will happen in your lifetimes.
Google "Physics: The Problem with Motion" if you're interested in the amazing future of travel.
China picks MIPS for super-duper super
Wednesday 20th January 2010 10:04 GMT
Another Chinese Me-too Project
Interesting but what a waste of good research talent! The hard reality is that any new processor that does not solve the parallel programming crisis is on a fast road to failure. No long march to victory in sight for the Loongson, sorry.
China should be trying to become a leader in this field, not just another me-too follower. There is an unprecedented opportunity to make a killing in the parallel processor industry in the years ahead. Intel may have cornered the market for now but they have an Achilles' heel: they are way too big and way too married to last century's flawed computing paradigms to change in time for the coming massively parallel computer revolution. Their x86 technology will be worthless when that happens. The trash bins of Silicon Valley will be filled with obsolete Intel chips.
Here's the problem. The computer industry is in a very serious crisis due to processor performance limitations and low programmer productivity. Going parallel is the right thing to do but the current multicore/multithreading approach to parallel computing is a disaster in the making. Using the erroneous Turing Machine-based paradigms of the last sixty years to solve this century's massive parallelism problem is pure folly. Intel knows this but they will never admit it because they've got too much invested in the old stuff. Too bad. They will lose the coming processor war. That's where China and Intel's competitors can excel if they play their cards right.
The truth is that the thread concept (on which the Loongson and Intel's processors are based) is the cause of the crisis, not the solution. There is an infinitely better way to build and program computers that does not involve threads at all. Sooner or later, an unknown startup will pop out of nowhere and blow everybody out of the water.
My advice to China, Intel, AMD and the other big dogs is this: first invest your resources into solving the parallel programming crisis. Only then will you know enough to properly tackle the embedded systems, supercomputing and cloud computing markets. Otherwise be prepared to lose a boatload of dough. When that happens, there shall be much weeping and gnashing of teeth but I'll be eating popcorn with a smirk on my face and saying "I told you so".
How to Solve the Parallel Programming Crisis:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-to-solve-parallel-programming.html
Intel puts cloud on single megachip
Thursday 3rd December 2009 00:19 GMT
Intel Is Delusional
Seriously, Intel needs to take a close look at IBM's big failure with its much ballyhooed Cell Processor that recently came to naught. I mean, who are they kidding? You don't design a parallel processor and then wait around for the software engineers to come up with a software model for it. This is as ass-backward as you can get. It should, of course, be the other way around:
First you come up with the right parallel software model and then you design a processor to support it. But that would be asking way too much from the Intel's engineers. They have way too much invested in the failed paradigm of the last century to do the right thing. Maybe some unknown startup will see the writing on the wall.
How to Solve the Parallel Programming Crisis:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-to-solve-parallel-programming.html
Cambridge string theorist to succeed Stephen Hawking
Wednesday 21st October 2009 09:50 GMT 
Simple Question for the Lucasian Professor...
... from way in the back of the class. A very simple question for the 18th Lucasian Professor of Mathematics: Why do two bodies in relative inertial motion stay in motion?
A. Nothing is needed to keep them moving. Newton proved that a long time ago.
B. It is all caused by inertia and momentum. Newtonian proved that one too.
C. Physics is not about the why of things but the how.
D. I don't know.
C. All of the above.
E. None of the above.
Soon, a reevaluation of our understanding of the causality of motion will reveal that we are immersed in an immense lattice of energtic particles. Floating sky cities, unlimited clean energy, earth to Mars in hours, New York to Beijing in minutes. That's the future of energy andtravel.
The Lucasian professor could not have made this prediction because he does not really understand motion. If he did, he would know that Aristotle was right to insist that motion requires a cause and he would not accept the position. But then again, neither did his predecessors.
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
The Problem with Motion:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2009/09/physics-problem-with-motion-part-i.html
There's water on the Moon, scientists confirm
Thursday 24th September 2009 22:05 GMT
Great News But Rocket Propulsion Blows
Great news indeed. Still, it's depressing to think that we're still using an ancient, dangerous, primitive and very expensive space transportation technology: rocket propulsion. One thing is sure; we'll never colonize the solar system with rockets at the rate we're going.
But rejoice. Soon, a new form of transportation will arrive, one based on the realization that we are immersed in an immense ocean of energetic particles. This is a consequence of a reevaluation of our understanding of the causality of motion. Soon, we'll have vehicles that can move at tremendous speeds and negotiate right angle turns without slowing down and without incurring damages due to inertial effects. Floating cities, unlimited clean energy, earth to mars in hours, New York to Beijing in minutes... That's the future of energy and travel. Check it out.
The Problem With Motion
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2009/09/physics-problem-with-motion-part-i.html
Intel execs shift seats as Gelsinger departs
Monday 14th September 2009 21:37 GMT 
Time for the Baby Boomers at Intel to Retire
Chipzilla needs to reorganize its parallel processing/multicore division. They can start by forcing the baby boomers (the Turing Machine worshippers) to retire so that they can forge a new future. Being a behemoth is no guarantee of survival in this business, And hanging on to the antiquated computing paradigm of the past is a sure recipe for failure.
And by the way, that hideous heterogeneous monster, a.k.a. Larrabee, has got to go.
How to Solve the Parallel Programming Crisis:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-to-solve-parallel-programming.html
The multicore future, and how to survive it
Wednesday 26th August 2009 02:10 GMT
Between a Rock and a Hard Place
Interesting article. As much as the powers that be at Intel know that multithreading is not the answer to the parallel programming crisis, they also know that they have wedged themselves between a rock and a hard place. They have way too much invested in last century's legacy technologies to change strategy at this late stage of the game. It makes sense for them to acquire outfits like Rapidmind and Cilk. The former specializes in domain specific application development tools for multicore processors while the latter makes clever programs that discover concurrent tasks in legacy sequential programs. Intel's intelligentsia figure that this should give them enough breathing room while they contemplate their next move. Question is, is this a good strategy? I really don't think so.
In my opinion, Intel, AMD and the others are leading their customers astray by making them believe that multithreading is the future of parallel computing. Billions of dollars will be spent on making the painful transition by converting legacy code for the new thread-based multicore processors. The problem is that multithreading is not just a bad way to program parallel code (do a search on Dr. Edward Lee of Berkeley), it is the cause of the crisis. Neither Rapidmind nor Cilk are going to change that simple fact. These acquisitions are just a way of trying to force a round peg into a square hole as much as it can go. Sooner or later, a real maverick will show up and do the right thing and there shall be much weeping and gnashing of teeth . Being a behemoth is no guarantee of long-term survival in the computer business. Sorry, Intel.
Google or Bing "How to Solve the Parallel Programming Crisis" if you're interested in finding about the real solution to the crisis.
DNA-carbon nanotube microprocessors — small hope for a big shift?
Monday 17th August 2009 22:25 GMT
The Memory Bandwidth Monster
Nice article. IBM researchers may indeed be close to a giant leap in miniaturization and cost efficiency. This could theoretically lead to extremely powerful, cheap and energy efficient consumer electronics. This is exciting because future computer applications will rely heavily on brain-like neural networks that are based on huge numbers of parallel processing entities. Future consumers will demand portable intelligent assistants that would fill a warehouse if based on today's technology.
However, there is a monster that threatens to destroy these exciting developments. It's called memory bandwidth. It is a monster that gets meaner and nastier every time you add another core to a processor. The reason is that all the cores must use a single data bus and a single address bus to access a single piece of data at a time and this creates a paralyzing bottleneck. Current memory systems would be hard pressed to keep up with a processor with a hundred cores, let alone the thousands and millions of cores that are being predicted by the pundits.
It goes without saying that the industry must eliminate the bottleneck. The core/bus/memory approach to computing is fast approaching the end of its usefulness. We must come up with a completely different type of computer, one that solves the bandwidth problem by embedding huge numbers of elementary processors directly into the memory substrate. Decentralization will be the game in town. Biological brains get around the bandwidth problem by growing as many nerve fibers as necessary. However, this is a very slow process, one that would be inadequate with the fast random access requirements of modern software. See link below if you’re interested in this subject.
Parallel Computing: The Fourth Crisis
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2009/01/parallel-computing-fourth-crisis-part-i.html
AMD beta seeks CPU-GPU harmony
Wednesday 5th August 2009 22:04 GMT
Very Interesting Article
"All well and good, but our experience with OpenCL has shown it to be a bear to program with."
**
Exactly. This is essentially what it comes down to. Does OpenCL make parallel programming of heterogeneous processors easy? The answer is no, of course, and the reason is not hard to understand. Multicore CPUs and GPUs are two incompatible approaches to parallel computing. The former is based on concurrent threads and MIMD (multiple instructions, multiple data) while the latter uses an SIMD (single instruction, multiple data) configuration. They are fundamentally differrent and no single interface will get around that fact. OpenCL is really two languages in one. Programmers will have to change their mode of thinking in order to take effective advantage of both technologies and this is the primary reason that heterogeneous processors will be a pain to program. The other is multithreading, which, we all know, is a royal pain in the arse in its own right.
***
Obviously what it needed is a new universal parallel software model, one that is supported by a single *homogeneous* processor architecture. Unfortunately for the major players, they have so much money and resources invested in last century's processor technologies that they are stuck in a rut of their own making. They are like the Titanic on a collision course with a monster iceberg. Unless the big players are willing and able to make an about-face in their thinking (can a Titanic turn on a dime?), I am afraid that the solution to the parallel programming crisis will have to come from elsewhere. A true maverick startup will eventually turn up and revolutionize the computer industry. And then there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth among the old guard.
**
Google "How to Solve the Parallel Programming Crisis" if you're interested in an alternative approach to parallel computing.
Intel cozying up to Google Chrome OS
Tuesday 14th July 2009 04:20 GMT
Reactive Sounds a Bell?
Greenhalgh,
Your entire rant is pointless because you are arguing out of ignorance. The COSA software model is reactive and synchronous, which means that nothing happens unless there has been a change. It further means is that process timing is exact and that a read always immediately follows a write. Changes are automatically propagated to every component that needs them. It means that contention is a non-issue. See ya around, baby boomer.
Phew! Turing Machine heads and thread monkeys are a dime a dozen. Can't get rid of them. But take heart, Greenhalgh. It's never too late for you to repent of your manifold sins. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Monday 13th July 2009 15:52 GMT
It's not Rocket Science
Greenhalgh, you're wasting my time.
copsewood, what I'm proposing is not rocket science. It's plain common sense. if you don't get it, it's because something is wrong with your brain. A baby boomer, are you? You got Alzheimer's, maybe? Oh well. Many people do get it. And some people are indeed working on their own implementations. I've got other things to be busy with. But I do enjoy getting on your nerves every so often.
Monday 13th July 2009 09:50 GMT 
You Ain't my Peers
@James Greenhalgh
You know what you can do with your peer review, don't you, Greenhalgh? You can pack it where the sun don't shine. You (the computer academic community) are not my peers. Why would I want you as my peers? You are failures. You turned computer science and programming into a tower of Babel, a big fucking pile of crap. You were wrong about computing from the start. This is something I realized the first day I opened a book on computer programming. Your computing model (the Turing Machine) is crap. You have shot computing in the foot. Big time. The parallel programming crisis is just the chickens coming home to roost, as they say in the USA. With a vengeance, I might add, if only because billions of dollars of rich folk's money are in the balance. I'd be scared if I were you.
Y'all better get ready to face your computing KARMA. The exit is on the left and don't let the door hit your behind on the way out, just in case. LOL.
Sunday 12th July 2009 04:03 GMT
It's the Fucking Threads, Stupid!
Neil Standbury,
Your rant is worthless. It's the fucking threads, stupid! It has always been the fucking threads. And not just because they are prone to lock and are hard to debug but also because they are a pain in the ass to program and understand. The solution demands that we get rid of the fucking threads. Read this over and over till it sinks.
The goal is to make it as easy as possible to produce rock solid software applications as rapidly as possible. It's not about making a bunch of aging baby-boomer geeks feel good about their ugly and hopelessly flawed cryptic code. In other words, it's about money and profit. It's time for the Turing worshippers of the last century to retire. You caused the crisis. You failed, goddamnit!
That being said, it's good to see that you, at least, identify yourself. That's gotta count for something. More than I can say for the anonymous cowards. LOL.
Friday 10th July 2009 19:29 GMT
Intel Is Scared
Otellini has a big problem on his hands. He can sense that the computer industry is ripe for a seismic change. The parallel programming crisis threatens to unleash a frenzy of innovation that may render Intel's processors obsolete. So Otellini figures that the best way to leverage Intel's heavy investment in last century's technology is to support as many OSes as possible in order to lock in as many customers as possible. If a major change happens, that should give him some breathing room.
The problem with operating systems, however, is that they will all become obsolete in a few years. This includes all the dinosaurs from the 20th century: Windows, Unix, Linux, MacOS, etc. And, let's not forget the processors they run on. They will all join the buggy whip and the slide rule into the pile of abandoned artifacts. Why? Because the coming solution to the parallel programming crisis will not suffer a bunch of primitive and inferior technologies to survive.
So Google's Chrome OS is yet another Linux OS? Please, don’t make me laugh. Linux is a mummy, a decrepit museum piece from a soon to be forgotten age. Eric Schmidt is clearly delusional. Google’s mountain of cash is not enough to guarantee success in this cutthroat business. Chrome OS is doomed before it is even born. Heck, Google’s own future is precarious because the computer industry is at a dangerous crossroad. A wrong turn may turn out to be very painful if not fatal. My advice is: Y’all should think carefully before deciding on which way to proceed.
How to Solve the Parallel Programming Crisis:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-to-solve-parallel-programming.html
Google Oompa-Loompas dream of virus-free OS
Thursday 9th July 2009 23:14 GMT
Delusional Schmidt
Nice article. Google is about to learn a painful lesson. The stuff that's out there, including Linux (the basis of Chrome OS), is inherently insecure. The problem with operating systems is that they will all become obsolete in a few years. This includes all the dinosaurs from the 20th century: Windows, Unix, Linux, MacOS, etc. They will all join the buggy whip and the slide rule into the pile of abandoned technologies. Why? Only because the coming solution to the parallel programming crisis will not suffer a bunch of primitive and inferior technologies to survive.
Another Linux OS? Please, don’t make me laugh. Linux is a decrepit museum piece from a soon to be forgotten age. Eric Schmidt is clearly delusional. Google’s mountain of cash is not enough to guarantee success in this cutthroat business. Chrome OS is doomed before it is even born. Heck, Google’s own future is precarious because the computer industry is at a dangerous crossroad. Y’all should think carefully before deciding which way to proceed.
How to Solve the Parallel Programming crisis:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-to-solve-parallel-programming.html
Sun killing 'Rock' Sparc chip?
Tuesday 16th June 2009 00:08 GMT
It's not too late
Very interesting article. Sun's Rock failed because it was not innovative enough, in my opinion. Anybody who thinks that the multithreading CPU technologies of the last century are viable in the age of massive parallelism should lay off the dope, in my opinion. This is a lesson for all the big players in the business and it will not be the last big chip failure either. Get ready to witness Intel's Larrabee and AMD's Fusion projects come crashing down like so many Hindenburgs.
As I wrote on Ashlee Vance's NYT blog (http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/15/sun-is-said-to-cancel-big-chip-project/?hp), after the industry has suffered enough (it’s all about money), it will suddenly dawn on everybody that it is time to force the baby boomers (the Turing Machine worshippers) to finally retire and boldly break away from 20th century’s failed computing models.
Sun Microsystems blew it but it’s not too late. Oracle should let bygones be bygones and immediately fund another big chip project, one designed to truly rock the industry this time around and ruffle as many feathers as possible. That is, if they know what’s good for them.
How to Solve the Parallel Programming Crisis:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-to-solve-parallel-programming.html
Google: The internet is 'the right programming model'
Thursday 28th May 2009 06:05 GMT
The Cloud Is Not a Programming Model
Google wants us to believe that cloud computing is the natural order of everything in programming only because Google's business model hinges around cloud computing. This may be true for certain applications (spreadsheets, word processing, etc.), but the reality is that the world is quickly moving toward a massively automated age in which cars can either drive themselves (or, at least, react to dangerous situations to prevent collisions) and personal robots do chores around the house including the baby sitting. The computing horsepower that will be required for this sort of stuff can only be achieved via massive parallelism and gargantuan random access memory. There is no way the public is going to trust their mission and safety-critical computing needs to an invisible cloud in the sky. What if the system suddenly becomes overwhelmed with processing requests or some technical difficulties? Imagine the damage that a cloud blackout or brownout could do to a modern economy that is completely hooked to it.
So no, Eric. Cloud computing is a very good thing but it is not a programming model. It's just a business model. As soon as some maverick startup comes out with a solution to the parallel programming crisis (see link below), get ready for an explosion of super-complex and environmentally-aware apps that would tax the bandwidth of any cloud infrastuture.
How to Solve the Parallel Programming Crisis:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-to-solve-parallel-programming.html
Intel's Otellini plots little growth path
Wednesday 13th May 2009 01:50 GMT
Short-term Growth vs. Long-term Success
Short-term growth is no guarantee of long-term sucess. Sooner or later, the market will come to its senses and realize that neither Intel's antiquated CPU technology nor Larrabee (a GPGPU hybrid built on Intel's antiquated CPU technology) is the solution to the parallel programming crisis. Larrabee sounds powerful and cool until you come face to face with the nasty problem of programming the heterogeneous beast. In the end, neither GPU not CPU (nor a hybrid) will survive the coming paradigm shift. What is needed is a new type of processor built to support a universal and deterministic parallel programming model. Intel (and those who invest in Intel's technology) should tread carefully because being a market behemoth is no guarantee of invincibility. A visionary startup or a true maverick may sneak up behind this sleeping giant and steal the pot of gold.
How to Solve the Parallel Programming Crisis:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-to-solve-parallel-programming.html
Apple setting up chip division for next-gen iPhones?
Saturday 2nd May 2009 13:11 GMT
Be Careful, Apple: Paradigm Shift Ahead
Unless Apple comes out with a hardware and software solution to the parallel programming crisis, this is an investment that will come back to bite them in the ass. Hard.
How to Solve the Parallel Programming Crisis:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-to-solve-parallel-programming.html
The long slog to multicore land
Thursday 19th March 2009 08:38 GMT
Marcus Levy's Got it Ass Backwards
You don't create a programming model to support an existing hardware model. It should be the other way around. First you come up with a correct programming model; then you devise the hardware to support the model. Sheesh.
The Multicore Association is supposed to lead and suggest new ways to get us out the crisis. Kissing Intel's or AMD's ass is not the way to go. It does not matter if you depend on them for financial support. The main leaders of the multicore processor industry have let it be known that they want to support the multithreading model of parallelism. The only problem is that multithreading is the cause of the crisis, not the solution. Marcus Levy needs to wake the hell up and be a real leader. There are enough ass kissers in the business already. Go to the links below for enlightenment.
How to Solve the Parallel Programming Crisis:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-to-solve-parallel-programming.html
Encouraging Mediocrity at the Multicore Association:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2008/05/encouraging-mediocrity-at-multicore.html
Nvidia seeks 'PC soul' software
Wednesday 11th March 2009 05:27 GMT
A Sign of Weakness
Not that this is a bad move by Nvidia but it leads me to conclude that neither CUDA, nor OpenCL nor GPUs are the answer to the parallel programming crisis. If monetary incentives are needed to motivate people to write applications for a processor, my bet is that something is wrong with that processor. What I mean is that there is something about GPUs that prevents them from being an ideal solution to general purpose parallel programming. That something is obvious: They are not universal and they are a pain in the arse to program.
The powers that be at Nvidia realize that they are in trouble. It is obvious that GPUs are not the answer and traditional CPUs are worse. We need a new programming paradigm and a new processor architecture to support the new paradigm. Nvidia should continue to milk as much money as possible with their current technology but they should invest their R&D money into something else. One thing is certain: Nvidia cannot say that nobody warned them.
How to Solve the Parallel Programming Crisis:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-to-solve-parallel-programming.html
Exploding core counts: Heading for the buffers
Thursday 29th January 2009 22:59 GMT
Dump Multithreading Now!
Excellent article. The powers that be at Intel, AMD, IBM, Sun, HP and the other leaders in multicore processor technology know that multithreading is not part of the future of multicore computing. In fact, multithreading IS the reason for the parallel programming crisis. The big boys and girls are pushing multithreading because their current crop of processors are useless without it. However, this is a disaster in the making because the market will be stuck with super expensive applications that are not compatible with tomorrow's computers. Fortunately, there is a way to design and program multicore processors that does not involve the use of threads at all (see link below).
Having said that, I agree with the article's author. The biggest problem facing the processor industry is not the parallel programming crisis. The worst problem of them all has to do with memory bandwidth. As the number of cores continues to increase, memory subsystems will be hard pressed to keep up. The memory bandwidth problem is the real showstopper because it threatens to repeal Moore's law regardless of whether or not the programming problems are solved.
I suspect, however, that a correct programming model will open new avenues of research that may lead to a solution to the memory bandwidth crisis.
How to Solve the Parallel Programming Problem:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-to-solve-parallel-programming.html
RISC daddy conjures Moore's Lawless parallel universe
Wednesday 26th November 2008 17:56 GMT
The Thread Concept Is the Real Problem
It is becoming painfully obvious to all but the most hard-core addicts of last century's technology that the multithreading approach to parallel computing is not going to work as the number of cores per processor increases. That the computer industry continues to embrace the multithreading model in the face of certain failure is a sign that computer science is still dominated by the same baby boomer generation who engineered the computer revolution in the 70s and 80s. It is time for those gentle folks to either step aside and allow a new generations of thinkers to have a turn at the helm or read the writings on the wall.
We must go to the root of the parallel programming problem to find its solution. Multithreading is a natural progression of the single thread, a concept that was pioneered more than 150 years ago by Babbage and Lovelace. The only way to solve the problem is to get rid of the thread concept once and for all. There is no escaping this. Fortunately for the industry, there is a way to design and program computers that does not involve threads at all. Here are a few links with more info if you're interested in the future of computing.
How to Solve the Parallel Programming Crisis:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-to-solve-parallel-programming.html
Nightmare on Core Street:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2008/03/nightmare-on-core-street.html
Like it or not, we need a paradigm shift. The industry will be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century if necessary. The market always dictates the ultimate course of technology.
PS. Patterson should listen to one of the members on his PCL team, Dr. Edward Lee who has had a lot to say on the evils of multithreading.
Supercomputing past masters resurface with coder-friendly cluster
Monday 17th November 2008 18:55 GMT
The Baby Boomers Have Failed. Sorry.
Let me be the first to congratulate Wallach on having solved the parallel programming crisis. Not!
The baby boomers, due to their enfatuation with Turing machines and their addiction to everything sequential and algorithmic, gave us the parallel programming and software reliability crises. Now they are old and they've run out of ideas. It is time for them to peacefully retire and let a new generation of thinkers have a go at it.
How to Solve the Parallel Programming Crisis:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-to-solve-parallel-programming.html
Intel rallies rivals on parallel programming education
Saturday 15th November 2008 19:57 GMT
@John Savard
You wrote, "But the idea of 'not teaching' sequential programming, although silly when taken literally, can still mean something that does make sense: to avoid teaching bad habits, introduce looking for potential parallelism very early in teaching programming."
We will not solve the parallel programming crisis until we stop looking for parallelism in our sequential programs. A day will come when we will, instead, look for sequences in our parallel programs. That is to say, parallelism will be implicit and sequences will be explicit. Until then, we are just pissing in the dark. Just a thought.
Friday 14th November 2008 13:56 GMT
Multithreading Is a Monumental Mistake
"Sequential is so over" but so is multithreading. Unfortunately, nobody at Intel, Microsoft and AMD seems to have received the news. Multithreading is the reason for the parallel programming crisis. It is not the solution. It bothers me to no end that the main players in parallel programming and multicore technologies have not learned the lessons of the last three decades. Their choice of multithreading as the de facto parallel programming model is a monumental mistake that will come back to haunt them. There is nothing wrong with making a mistake but forcing your entire customer base to switch to a hopelessly flawed computing model that they will eventually have to abandon is not something that will be easily forgotten or even forgiven. Many billions of dollars will be wasted as a result.
There is an infinitely better way to design and program parallel computers that does not involve the use of threads at all. The industry has chosen to ignore it because the baby boomers who started the computer revolution are still in charge and they have run out of new ideas. Their brains are stuck in 20th century mode. Indeed, the parallel programming crisis is their doing. The industry needs a change of guard and they need it desperately.
How to Solve the Parallel Programming Crisis:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-to-solve-parallel-programming.html
See also:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/06/gates_knuth_parallel/
North Korea photoshops stroke from Kim Jong Il
Friday 7th November 2008 19:30 GMT
That phot is faked too!
@Andrew Alcock:
"A Korean source has a subtly different version of the same image:
http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200811/200811060007.html"
Thanks for posting the link. This image is also photoshopped. Notice that the sunny areas on both sides of Kim are not as bright as the others. Me suspects that Kim Jong-il is probably dead or in a coma.
Tilera gooses 64-core mesh processor
Wednesday 24th September 2008 23:37 GMT
Transforming the TILE64 into a Kick-Ass Parallel Machine
The CPU is a soon-to-be a dinosaur, an ancient technology that somehow escaped from a museum of the last century. Tilera should design its own processor core. The CPU, a sequential core, has no business doing anything in a parallel processor. It does not make sense. You're either parallel or sequential, take your pick. What is needed is a pure MIMD vector processor and dev tools based on a true parallel programming model, as opposed to the old multithreaded sequential crap. Tilera should get in bed with Nvidia and Nvidia should change its SIMD GPU into a pure MIMD vector processor. This way, they can have a homogeneous multicore processor that can handle anything, not just graphics. Tilera's Imesh technology is just what is needed to solve the cache coherency problem and will serve as an ideal vehicle for effective hardware-enabled load balancing. Heck, Nvidia should immediately acquire Tilera by making them an offer they can't refuse. Nvidia has the chance of a lifetime to dominate the computer industry for decades to come.
The writing is on the wall. The CPU is dead. Good riddance. MIMD vector processing is the name of the new multicore game.
Transforming the TILE64 into a Kick-Ass Parallel Machine:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/transforming-tile64-into-kick-ass.html
Biting the hand that feeds IT
