Notice: Welcome to Minichan, an account has automatically been created and assigned to you, you don't have to register or log in to use the board, but don't clear your cookies unless you have set a memorable name and password. Alternatively, you can restore your ID.

Minichan

Topic: how many years before they turn the internet into a giant supercomputer?

squeegee !firstkPE1Q started this discussion 2.7 years ago #19,493

i'm just saying.
that'd be pretty fucking cool.
Poll option Votes Percentage Graph
10 years? 3 30%
20 years? - 0%
50? 1 10%
never?? 5 50%
other, explain 1 10%

Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 2.7 years ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #320,314

Externally hosted imagejust watch transformers instead

Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 2.7 years ago, 9 seconds later, 1 minute after the original post[^] [v] #320,315

Hasn't that pretty much happened already?

squeegee !firstkPE1Q (OP) replied with this 2.7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #320,317

@previous
not yet. people still have to buy a computer for a reason.

Ks !KansasxqvM joined in and replied with this 2.7 years ago, 11 minutes later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #320,319

I'd wager Skynet Google is already on the case.

Anonymous C replied with this 2.7 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #320,321

@320,317
Distributed computing is nothing new and essentially turns networks of smaller computers into a bigger computer.

> people still have to buy a computer for a reason.
Yes, of course they would. Does turning the Internet into a giant supercomputer necessarily involve psychic mindlinking computers or something in your opinion?

squeegee !firstkPE1Q (OP) replied with this 2.7 years ago, 5 minutes later, 22 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #320,323

@previous
no, i mean how long before google or microsoft buy a couple of giant supercomputers and turn them into a giant server that you'd log into to do your computing. you wouldn't need a computer to do anything, just need a few input devices and a few output devices.
See, the way i figure it, is if Microsoft can just make their core OS a glorified web browser for cloud computing then they won't need to worry about antitrust issues with IE. It'll all just be IE.
in metro your desktop will be an app.
see? everything will just be an internet app.
I think by windows 10 it'll all be hosted off a giant supercomputing internet diety.
and google will have one too maybe.
maybe more! They've got a lot of money.

(Edited 50 seconds later.)

Anonymous C replied with this 2.7 years ago, 3 minutes later, 26 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #320,325

@previous
Isn't this basically what Google was trying with the Chromebook?

squeegee !firstkPE1Q (OP) replied with this 2.7 years ago, 3 minutes later, 30 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #320,327

@previous
until a giant supercomputer is doing my processing the future has not arrived.

Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 2.7 years ago, 36 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #320,338

Tricky question. Because I make my living from Cell technology all I currently see is how AT&T Verizon and Vodafone view it.

It does give me the market view because Phone and Pad/Notebook are taking over the marketplace.

So it comes down to a couple of simple things. Cell companies keep chasing tails re cost to keep up with technology and most important of all is....Overselling bandwidth capability (marketing dept) vs Keeping customers happy with service.

So currently their vested interest is to keep capitol expenses down & super computers are not a current fit. Off load the hard stuff to the end user devices. IF Companies could, the phone battery would last for many a day.

To a few it looks like there is a lot of money to be made in Cell biz. NOT necessarily so. Vodafone wanted to buy out Verizon, until they discovered only paper profits until just recently. AT&T wanted T-Mobile to really turn a real profit. Law would not allow it.

Could write a book about this. Can tell you this much. Only Google is working on a real Supercomputer solution, for cell hierarchy.

One exception to the making real money. Apple is making a killing from Cell profits, nor are they in the delivery of cell service.

Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 2.7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #320,341

@previous
Wait, you're actually serious aren't you? You're serious. None of this is shtick?

Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 2.7 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #320,342

@320,338
10 myle satellite run?

Anonymous E replied with this 2.7 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #320,343

@320,341
Serious in what way?

squeegee !firstkPE1Q (OP) replied with this 2.7 years ago, 5 hours later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #320,403

@320,341
you know, i've gone back and forth on that question a few times.

@320,338
i don't like your answer because you're talking about the state of things now. I'm asking about years in the future. Probably Japan will have one first.
but i know IBM was looking into it a couple of years ago, or at least looked at using a cluster of servers to perform processing for you.
it's part of what makes the cloud appealing to them.
if you have a program that requires more processing, say for running a graphically intense game, then you got it. no upgrade required. maybe just a better data/processing plan with Google.
so i could imagine things like Skyrim running on an Ipad
or even better companies bumping their plans when they need additional capacity.

i looked, i can't find the article.
but i found this http://smartphonewipes.com/enterprise/16023-ibm-plans-to-create-chips-that-work-like-the-human-brain-mashable
and this http://www.tomshardware.com/news/ibm-supercomputer-100-petaflops-bluegene-powerpc,13400.html

how long people? 10 years? 20? all of our interfaces will be to an artificially intelligent supercomputer buried under a chinese mountain, right?
This is the future, no?

Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 2.7 years ago, 7 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #320,427

@previous

This is already available on LANS, kind of... google "thin client computers". Streaming games like that will require more bandwidth than we have with available systems... You will be waiting a while.

But to answer you're question literally, the internet is an abstract used to connect networks, normally via the Web. It's just data flow using standard protocols... There is nothing to turn into a computer.

Anonymous H double-posted this 2.7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #320,428

Also you are caught in the ideas of 1950s future predictors.. They thought that computers would get larger and fewer, and could not predict that we could increase performance to such a degree that we would make them smaller and more portable instead. I think that we will make nano machines (with gaming capabilities) with broader PAN potential, not big supercomputers whicheverybody must access.

squeegee joined in and replied with this 2.7 years ago, 32 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #320,431

@320,427
That's why i said to add one.

@previous
Eventually we won't be able to make computers smaller without changing fundamentally how they are made. With silicone, by some estimates, we've got a decade or so before we literally reach that limit.

Of course a quantuum computer my exist one day that will allow further miniarurization but even that has a limit. At some point the only way we can go will be bigger. It may be many generations, and likely we'll fluctuate between big/small as new tech becomes available, but, one of these days the only way to increase speed will be to increase size.

Anonymous E replied with this 2.7 years ago, 27 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #320,433

@320,403
I agree-disagree with you about my answer. First the disagree. My reply was based on Economy factors currently that slow down the drive too the future. Also I stated my bias re Wireless. So that clouds & no pun here - it clouds how I look at the future.

IBM is a very smart operation. One key reason is that they use the old Ma Bell theology in R&D. A segment is set aside that is left alone by current and even future market needs. Just pure technology. The Watson project is a great example. So no one knows what they will come up with next.

@previous
Next week I will try and research a unique new computer concept that should make a good headline for MC. Its possible that the hand held device ends up so powerful, so there will be no need for monster computers at the host end to process. Its also possible that a breakthrough in batteries will determine technology for the future. Batteries currently limit Wireless along with just too little bandwidth for the market.

I do NOT like the fact that Wireless is the driving element for current gadget devices. God ain't making more bandwidth. So I hope the near future will be Home-Business to host Fiber end to end. The last mile has to be Fiber not copper if the future; Supercomputer or not is the end solution. Dumb monitors with every thing done in the cloud. Cable n Phone Company's hate this concept because to bring fiber to all homes-business is again a major horrid expense.

AT&T in worn out Lucent labs, (old ma bell) is betting on solving that with Wireless & that may be possible with nano low power base stations for every block.

Anonymous H replied with this 2.7 years ago, 39 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #320,450

@320,431

> That's why i said to add one.

To add one what?

> Of course a quantuum computer my exist one day that will allow further miniarurization but even that has a limit. At some point the only way we can go will be bigger.

Not at all.. rather more efficient. Sizes may increase a small bit to compensate or to provide new features eg. Smart Phones are the new fashion, replacing very small mobile phones. They are bigger so that the touch screens have more space but are manyfold more powerful as a result. There will be no need for one fat and a billion thins (and more bandwidth than we have) if efficiency increases, and even when we reach that limit we can continue via other novel ways.. you are like the thomas watson today. Do you think that back then even the concept of everybody owning a computer would have seemed reasonable, much less the idea that this computer is smaller than a loaf of bread but better than their room size computer? Yet you still equate big size with big power, lol.

@previous

> So I hope the near future will be Home-Business to host Fiber end to end. The last mile has to be Fiber not copper if the future;

you and I both know they will not do this until everything is burning down around them... and even then they will take 10 years to finish the upgrade.

Anonymous E replied with this 2.7 years ago, 33 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #320,463

@previous
http://www.google.com/fiber/kansascity/index.html

http://www.ftthcouncil.org/en/newsroom/2011/04/25/lus-fiber-brings-10-gig-connection-to-lafayette

Which is why Google has decided to give this a GO. Google does try n fail on occasion. At least they see a possibility. Someone in England is also looking at providing this.

squeegee replied with this 2.7 years ago, 9 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #320,468

@320,450
Hmm, you're one of those people that think there's no end to technological advancement. Silicone processors have a limit, and that limit is not far off. Sure we can make them more efficient but you can't make a pentium 2 perform as many processes as an i7 no matter how efficiently you code. The only way to double processes is to increase the number of transisters (which can only be made so small before quantuum effects fuck them up.)

At that point you'll either need to start increasing the computers size or discard silicone for a new, as yet unscalable replacement like graphene.

And we've got ten, maybe 15 years before the threshold for silicone is effectively met. it's a long time, we may beat the problem before we reach it, but there's a real chance we'll hit the wall first.

Anonymous E replied with this 2.7 years ago, 8 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #320,470

@previous
And there you have placed a built in limit for whatever comes next. The programming-coding.

Someone has discovered a way around much of this. You will never ever believe how this came about. I want to research this before I just put up the very little I know about it. Next week if my work load is lite.

squeegee replied with this 2.7 years ago, 20 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #320,474

@previous
Does the programming limit the hardware or does the hardware limit the software?

Anonymous E replied with this 2.7 years ago, 7 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #320,475

@previous
OK A hint. Think AI

Current programming requires a step by step by step. Road map with outside intelligence spending months/years to make decisions for the silicon or what may come in the future.

So while pondering a solution to one of my work problems which is currently cosmic driven by "nature" I looked for a way around months of work to solve an current possible emergency issue. Found a breakthrough in science and its truly computer related.

AND its truly strange.

Anonymous H replied with this 2.7 years ago, 7 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #320,478

@320,463

One city one city one city that is very nice. But it is not enough.. I do hope as you do but it is a timebomb even Google cannot stop. The someone you will be talking about there are probably virgin media.. they constantly say how they have "lightning fast fibre network". What they do not tell you is that their network is decrepit and barely able to withstand data usage, nor TPC debacle was a godsend to them...

@320,468

You answered your own question "will we advance" here: "And we've got ten, maybe 15 years before the threshold for silicone is effectively met". 15 years ago average PC system was a large beige box and ran like 64megs sdram and 250mhz single core... now even my phone has 1GB memory and 1.2ghz dual core. You see no way to progress past this because it does not yet exist, and you think that because you do not see it it cannot ever exist. Nor do I know why you have decided that if it does come to pass they do not advance at moores pace they (all manufacturers and developers of all systems) do not continue to fund further developments and will all each decide to abandon competition and together build one giant computer in china and create nothing but virtualized platforms...

Anonymous H double-posted this 2.7 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #320,479

@320,475

Are you talking about "Super Turing"? Multishuttle? Cyberplasm?

(Edited 44 seconds later.)

Anonymous E replied with this 2.7 years ago, 6 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #320,485

@320,478
Do look at the 2nd link re fiber to home and there are others in the works.

It once was all limited to Bell copper then Cable came along with copper and then fiber to copper for the last mile. Phone is fiber to the last 6 miles accept for the new services that compete with cable which is fiber to a city block or two & then copper to home.

I of course think its really going to be nano wireless cells to get it Gigabit rates to homes. Yet I know the foibles of RF and customer support issues that make this a mean thing to accomplish.

squeegee replied with this 2.7 years ago, 19 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #320,490

@320,478
15 years ago the used silicone transistors. Today they use silicone transistors. They have only made them smaller. As i've said, it'll take new nonsilicone processors to pass this real technological hurdle.

Also i've already said new materials and processes (as yet undiscovered) will fix the problem, but, we're on a time table.

It's really possible that computer tech will plateau before we develop nonsilicone based processors and can mass produce them.

Quantuum computers may be centuries away, and we'll definately reach the threashold for silicone before that. But, even after that, once you make it as small as physics allows, you gave to go bigger to increase processes.

Anonymous H replied with this 2.7 years ago, 17 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #320,491

@previous

> 15 years ago the used silicone transistors. Today they use silicone transistors. They have only made them smaller. As i've said, it'll take new nonsilicone processors to pass this real technological hurdle. Also i've already said new materials and processes (as yet undiscovered) will fix the problem, but, we're on a time table.

Yes and you think that if we cannot advance "quickly" enough (measured against what I do not know) every single company will merge or something and build a mountain sized computer in China and throw away all previous advancements and begin again. Explain.

@320,485

ifw?

Anonymous E replied with this 2.7 years ago, 11 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #320,496

@320,490
I am wayyyyyy behind the curve on development of Quantum computers n with little time I did one click search

http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/computers_math/quantum_computers/

Going to have to see if the founder of this school Eng dept (former work mate) knows about the Diamond Q computer work
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120404161943.htm

Here hot off the press is your Microprocessors from Graphene
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120330111051.htm


Off topic but interesting and as a student of physics this old Dutch discover was unknown to me - Quantum Levitation

Two mirrors facing each other in a vacuum attract each other.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120418135132.htm

@previous

Only a link! I did check Google to see if there is another source - Major Super court case gave the firm the go ahead. Do not have a clue if they are really working on this.

(Edited 2 minutes later.)

HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q joined in and replied with this 2.7 years ago, 19 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #320,501

botnets, bitcoins and protein-folding

squeegee replied with this 2.7 years ago, 3 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #320,504

@320,491
Measured against their ability to miniaturize transisters on silicone. Derp.

You also keyed in on my one hyperbole, the supercomputer under a mountain in china. Also, i never said we'd throw away any advancements and start over.

I said we'd reach the theoretical size limit for silicone transistors and miniaturization of computers will plateau. At that point, either our desktops get bigger or we lease processing from the cloud like we'd lease storage space or pay for bandwidth from an ISP.

That's one solution (and a solution that IBM is exploring) to the problem of limits on miniaturization. Another is nonsilicone based electronics, but that doesn't exist yet. Cloud procesing exists today and can be implemented sooner than 21st century computer materials can be made available for mass production. Really it'll come down to money.

There's more money to be made by leasing you a cloud computer than by redeveloping processors on graphene and keeping your desktop small.

So, anyway, what solution to the silicone transistor problem do you see most likely? That 30 years of tech is thrown away (silicone) and begin again?

squeegee double-posted this 2.7 years ago, 8 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #320,506

@320,496
That article on graphene processors explain the difficulties and limitations of creating one. Atm they are still trying to control flow of electricity on the surface of graphene.

That's a far cry from a working, and scalable method of mass prododucing graphene processors in the volumes they make silicone processors today.

Sorry, we'll be stuck with silicone for quite a while.

Anonymous E replied with this 2.7 years ago, 5 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #320,508

@previous
Probably.

Anonymous H replied with this 2.7 years ago, 37 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #320,519

@320,504

> Measured against their ability to miniaturize transisters on silicone

lol so now you have a very specific definition of 'progress'. Nobody else does so

> You also keyed in on my one hyperbole, the supercomputer under a mountain in china. Also, i never said we'd throw away any advancements and start over.
> I said we'd reach the theoretical size limit for silicone transistors and miniaturization of computers will plateau. At that point, either our desktops get bigger or we lease processing from the cloud like we'd lease storage space or pay for bandwidth from an ISP.
> There's more money to be made by leasing you a cloud computer than by redeveloping processors on graphene and keeping your desktop small.

And where does this bandwidth come from HMMM? You i see did say: "MS and Google will own one supercomputer. You will need only input devices and output devices.".--- so you think that every single computer on the face of earth can be replaced by a screen and keyboard displaying a virtual desktop on a single WLAN!

> So, anyway, what solution to the silicone transistor problem do you see most likely? That 30 years of tech is thrown away (silicone) and begin again?


Well i do not know, I am not a future vision like you. ok, you convinced me. We will all be leading processor time from one big mt everest sized supercomputer which will never ever ever be a cause for conflict or monopoly.

(Edited 1 minute later.)

Anonymous E replied with this 2.7 years ago, 18 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #320,526

@previous
> which will never ever ever be a cause for conflict or monopoly.

Hummmmmmmmmm thinking of MicroShit

squeegee replied with this 2.7 years ago, 46 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #320,534

@320,519
Oic, you're a buffoon.

Anonymous H replied with this 2.7 years ago, 1 hour later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #320,545

@previous

But I do not mistake a computer for a network, Mr not buffoon. How do you think this idea could possibly work

squeegee !firstkPE1Q (OP) replied with this 2.7 years ago, 1 hour later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #320,552

@previous
asian physicist Michio Kato [play]

Here's a great explanation of the problem and a list of possible solutions.
He specifically says over the next ten years we'll reach the threshold and the proposed solutions are to use MORE chips (i.e. parallel processing), and have the software divide the problem into chunks. i.e. computers will get bigger rather than smaller.
He also specifically says that to overcome the problem we will have to move into the "post-silicone era."
the candidates are things like molecular computers, optical computers, and quantum computers.
all of which are no where near being ready to replace silicone in ten years. certainly not your desktop.
yeah, i'll just go ahead and call that right now.

by Kaku's reckoning over the next ten years they will stack processors (intel's 3D chip) and use parallel processing, but beyond that in order to progress by Moore's Law we'll need to move to molecular computers, and late in the 20th century possibly quantum computers.

What that means is that we will plateau short of a revolutionary technological innovations in material sciences and a fundamental rethinking of computer architecture. I'm sure they've got people on that, but when will it be on my desktop? 20 years? 30 years? 50? That's a long time for silicone computers to plateau no matter how you cut it. What do we do after that?

supercomputers under mountains, yo. clusters of them.

(Edited 5 minutes later.)

Anonymous H replied with this 2.7 years ago, 14 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #320,581

@previous

> And where does this bandwidth come from HMMM?
> And where does this bandwidth come from HMMM?
> And where does this bandwidth come from HMMM?
> And where does this bandwidth come from HMMM?
> And where does this bandwidth come from HMMM?

I see no answer!!!!

squeegee replied with this 2.7 years ago, 40 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #320,582

@previous
What? You don't think fiber is widely available enough? Maybe in 10 years it will be. Besides, billions are being sunk into this problem by cell companies, isps, ma bell. We'll have so much speed it's not even funny.

Anonymous H replied with this 2.7 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #320,583

@previous

Well then you are the genius gotham deserves! We can all stream from the single government computer!

squeegee replied with this 2.7 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #320,602

@previous
I keep telling you, none of this is my idea.

Anonymous H replied with this 2.7 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #320,616

@previous

point out where you told me this enough to justify that "I keep telling you"?
CtrlF "Idea" 4 results 3 of which are me
"not my" no results
"else" one result of me
"not" 38 results none of which say "not my idea" of any variant

and your idea is differnt to you support idea... strangeopinion2have!!!!

you support idea and think it is inevitable eh? tell me how it would work other than "they will make new tech that can do it" which is something you decided does not apply to people who think portability is future can do

Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 2.7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #320,617

@previous
re: 10 mile satellite

Anonymous H replied with this 2.7 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #320,632

@previous

Lol "ok" whatever you want to SAY

squeegee !firstkPE1Q (OP) replied with this 2.7 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #320,659

it'll be all new fangled and expensive and i think the guy who installed the wall-screen it stole my shoes. I told my son, "don't get that supercomputer, you don't need to be on that!" "But it's got facebookVR," he said. I don't even know what that is, but, all day long his kids are in there wearin' their "vibration suits" or whatever the hell they are, flying around the computer room in their "anti-gravity boots" or whatever the hell those are. You can't even go in the room, that computer. It'll talk to you!
It'll talk to you, and it knows everything about you! It'll read your mind. you can't even be cold when you're in the room or it'll ask you questions about it.
No, I stay away from it.
And the drones are not allowed in my room!

(Edited 1 minute later.)

dw joined in and replied with this 2.7 years ago, 11 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #320,755

@320,427
@320,403
@320,427
you can already stream games on your phone or whatever.
see: http://onlive.com/

squeegee !firstkPE1Q (OP) replied with this 2.7 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #320,772

Image went missing@previous
you can't even go to the store! that god damn supercomputer'll follow you around and pop up on every screen that you walk by asking if you're lost and need directions. No. And it's in the car always telling you where to go, or changing the thermostat. Just leave it alone, supercomputer! I got it set for a reason! And pretty soon you know they'll be letting them drive.
god damned supercomputer.
you don't even need a desk for it. Everywhere you go, it's there.
"But I have access to all my programs and data from anywhere in the world from any device or screen that's connected to the Internet," my grandson says.
Bollocks! Computers should be on a desk, or a lap!
And it certainly shouldn't keep trying to engage me in conversations. It's confusing! Leave me alone supercomputer!
And no, little toby, i will not call "it," (not her) "Isabel."
it is a program on a computer! I don't care how large her VRtits are!
All of you, get out of my room!
And take these god damned drones! i said no drones in my room!

dw replied with this 2.7 years ago, 51 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #320,780

@previous
what

Anonymous H replied with this 2.7 years ago, 18 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #320,786

@previous

IIIII think he is making fun of me because his idea is; "fucktarded"

dw replied with this 2.7 years ago, 9 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #320,794

@previous
but you can already do a virtual desktop with very minor lag

Anonymous H replied with this 2.7 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #320,797

@previous

but can several billion do to one computer! To connect or not to connect, this is the question EH

squeegee !firstkPE1Q (OP) replied with this 2.7 years ago, 51 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #320,798

@320,786
it's not my idea, man

dw replied with this 2.7 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #320,807

@320,797
it obviously won't physically be one computer, they would just be several servers

Anonymous H replied with this 2.7 years ago, 4 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #320,840

@previous

WELLYWELLYWELL that isnt what he is claiming! Because there is only to be one (1) computer @ china

squeegee replied with this 2.7 years ago, 28 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #320,849

@previous
> grasping at straws.
I was being facetious when i said that, but i've also said clusters of supercomputers implying more than several groups.

As for under a mountain under china, again, being facetious. I've already said this, btw.

Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 2.7 years ago, 11 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #320,857

Why is every answer except "other" a question?

Anonymous K replied with this 2.7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #320,858

@previous
Because they're estimates, I suppose.

Anonymous H replied with this 2.7 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #320,863

@320,849

> i've also said clusters of supercomputers implying more than several groups.

s0000000 what happen to:

> i mean how long before google or microsoft buy a couple of giant supercomputers and turn them into a giant server that you'd log into to do your computing

note the 1 (one) giant server

and the answer is NEVER except for ultra portable minitablets etc

2 think peeps will give up offline computing for WHAT (??) is funny to I and I

even ChromOS is being absorbed into android as is due 2 NO OFFLINE SUPPORT fr good long time


&&& for this matter it is strange 2 consider that you say you mean one thing and every thing you say contrary to this (even when it is all you say) is "facetious" even with lack of wit and dark humor lolwut. 2 say "the internet is going to be a super computer" and then reply to telling u that "internet is not a computer at all" with "add one" (what does that mean nobody knows i guess) and then when i say multiple times for you to explain where bandwidth for this will come from you say "WE WILL FIGURE THIS OUT THRU FUTURE DEVELOPMENT" although when i say that we will figure out way for to have own fat client machines follow moores thru future development (moores will collapse soon btw) you say that "future develoment" is not good enough. i grasp at straws lolno the only straw grasp is when you say "this is not my idea" to get out of explaining flaws.

squeegee replied with this 2.7 years ago, 51 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #320,870

@previous
Ok, you're obviously too stupid to understand what's been plainly written. I should have known since you're too stupid to write anything comprehensible that you can't understand english any better than you can use it. My fault, i thought you were literate, but it's obvious you either can't read or have big problems with comprehension.

Tell you what, take the time to speak to me like an adult, and ask questions that make sense and aren't just you saying the same things over and over (despite having your questoons answered fully) then i'll consider not calling you a stupid, senile, elderly old man with alzheimers who can hardly scratch together a sentence with his disabled old parkinsons hands.

squeegee double-posted this 2.7 years ago, 30 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #320,872

Double post

But you're still a retarded and stupid old man, syntax. Even children text more clearly than you.

Probably because they aren't retarded old men trying to look cool by typing how they think the kids donit these days.

(Edited 2 minutes later.)

dw replied with this 2.7 years ago, 2 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #320,882

WELLYWELLYWELL

Anonymous E replied with this 2.7 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #320,887

@320,870
Yo squeegee - Me thinks you r Confucius?

I will have some fun with you later on the subject of illiteracy & remember MC has a cool search engine that allows me to review your literacy. But again just too busy, because I just returned from a super weekend.

You became Confucius because, If you go to the top where Anonymous "E" replies the first time to your
> until a giant supercomputer is doing my processing the future has not arrived.

I R Anonymous "E"

You and I discussed the topic Without a single insult from you to Thee. You understood my replies and I understood yours. No arguments or really any disagrees other then opinions, Go back and look.

Now while I was gone Anon "H" comes in AND:

> Anonymous H replied with this 3 hours ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post

And you go off at "H" thinking for some reason He B Thee.

I do have Dyslexically and it does hinder my ability to communicate in the written form of English. It did not seem to create a problem for you in this thread as Thee as Anon "E"

Again later today I will contribute to your new Topic & have some fun with you as well as be 100% honest re my deficiencies.

No I have yet to place a vote about your topic.

(Edited 1 minute later.)

squeegee replied with this 2.7 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #320,888

@previous
No, there's no way there's 2 of you.

Anonymous E replied with this 2.7 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #320,891

@previous
lolo

Alas If you look at the San Diego Cajun Festival dates-line ups You will see there would be no way I would or could want to be here.

Nor can you argue that you had problems understanding Thee as Anon "E" Hey life has bumps in the road and no one is 100% purrrfect.

Even Einstein made a few errors or as I call them Mistrakes. --- anyway lets keep it out of this great topic thread and later I will have much fun in your topic. Lots 2 b said re subject of English.

Anonymous H replied with this 2.7 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #320,897

@320,870

Insults&Dances do NOT DO it! For where R these answers you gave?? I see not any answers & only the claims these have been answered----- "we will get new things to do it" is onlee attempt 2 see 1 (ONE) question which does not answer unless it also does for mine@you made clear it does not prior to this!

&& as for 2 b questioning my spelling it would be good for you to not be saying "questoons"n"donit" - are as also to claim I am syntax (has he b the Anonymous E not I... or H 4 that matter)

(Edited 22 seconds later.)

squeegee replied with this 2.7 years ago, 27 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #320,902

@previous
Lol, talking shit about typos.
Write one proper sentence, can you do that?

Everything else you said is unintelligible nonsense.

(Edited 3 minutes later.)

Anonymous H replied with this 2.7 years ago, 43 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #320,915

@previous

Lolololol like YOU can speak... mr "I bring it up". Am H "talking shit about typos." or am H pointing out typos made in post "talking shit about typos."????

> Everything else you said is unintelligible nonsense.

yes hmm conveinient that isntitnot, no hard questrions 4 U bec@ you cannot understand them while i chortle

perhaps you should stop copyying twitter whale eh

squeegee replied with this 2.7 years ago, 8 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #320,918

@previous
Your highschool english teacher should commit suicide.

Or, wait, are you in high school yet? My fifth grade nephew has a better command of language than you, perhaps you're a year or two behind him?

(Edited 2 minutes later.)

Anonymous H replied with this 2.7 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #320,934

@previous

hmhmhm still no answer ye major question i see

squeegee replied with this 2.7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #320,938

@previous
Ask it again, and this time try to compose a coherent thought.

Anonymous E replied with this 2.7 years ago, 7 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #320,941

@previous
Good luck lolol

I just spent a few minutes in research on a recently discovered technology, that may reduce the need to write computer code in the future. It is beyond artificial intelligence; Because it is not artificial at all.

Anonymous C replied with this 2.7 years ago, 31 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #320,949

As a giant Chinese supercomputer churns, syntax markov bots are sent out to minichan.org as a growing AI's first ambassadors to humanity. Their mission: to gather information about human customs and speech. The exchange is not a pleasant one and sets the tone for later human-AI relations...

squeegee replied with this 2.7 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #320,950

@previous
Fuck, lol!

Anonymous E replied with this 2.7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #320,952

@320,949
A chatter robot, chatterbot, chatbot, or chat bot is a computer program designed to simulate an intelligent conversation with one or more human users via auditory or textual methods, primarily for engaging in small talk. The primary aim of such simulation has been to fool the user into thinking that the program's output has been produced by a human (the Turing test). Programs playing this role are sometimes referred to as Artificial Conversational Entities, talk bots or chatterboxes. In addition, however, chatterbots are often integrated into dialog systems for various practical purposes such as online help, personalised service, or information acquisition. Some chatterbots use sophisticated natural language processing systems, but many simply scan for keywords within the input and pull a reply with the most matching keywords, or the most similar wording pattern, from a textual database.

credit wiki

Anonymous H replied with this 2.7 years ago, 22 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #321,090

@320,938

B&WIDTH EH B&WIDTH EH B&WIDTH EH B&WIDTH EH B&WIDTH EH B&WIDTH EH B&WIDTH EH B&WIDTH EH B&WIDTH EH B&WIDTH EH B&WIDTH EH B&WIDTH EH B&WIDTH EH B&WIDTH EH B&WIDTH EH B&WIDTH EH B&WIDTH EH B&WIDTH EH B&WIDTH EH B&WIDTH EH B&WIDTH EH B&WIDTH EH B&WIDTH EH B&WIDTH EH B&WIDTH EH B&WIDTH EH B&WIDTH EH B&WIDTH EH B&WIDTH EH B&WIDTH EH B&WIDTH EH B&WIDTH EH B&WIDTH EH B&WIDTH EH B&WIDTH EH B&WIDTH EH B&WIDTH EH B&WIDTH EH B&WIDTH EH B&WIDTH EH B&WIDTH EH

FROM WHERE DU: BILLIONS EH??

DO THIS I MAKE CLEAR 2 U?

Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 2.7 years ago, 51 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #321,113

You could probably get a Skynet-esque sentient computer now if you had the software and infrastructure to connect every processor on the planet for the purpose. But I don't see how or why that would happen. Unless the guys at Google go totally dark side.

Anonymous E replied with this 2.7 years ago, 7 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #321,118

Image went missing@previous
In fact this already (almost) exists and they are set up so that it can include 100% of the worlds computers.

http://seti.berkeley.edu/

This unprecedented network of over 5 million independent SETI@home volunteers constitutes the world’s largest supercomputer.

It is of course dedicated to locating E.T.s home phone for the moment.

Anonymous N replied with this 2.7 years ago, 7 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #321,121

Image went missing@previous
I knew it! Google is evil! But there's no software to make the hardware try and wipe us all out, Skynet style, yes?

squeegee !firstkPE1Q (OP) replied with this 2.7 years ago, 8 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #321,126

@321,090
What about it? We already have great solutions for improving bandwidth, number one, expanding the already in place fiber-optic networks.
Also wireless services, such as 4G, already have blindingly fast connection speeds, but fiber can provide as much bandwidth as we require, and it's not some futuristic technology far from being in mass production. But direct to the home fiber-optic networks are already the direction we're heading, barring vast improvements in wireless, which certainly could be the case considering how quickly the technology is advancing.

So, to answer your question, again, the bandwidth issue is currently being addressed with traditional technological means and they will continue to do so for the foreseeable future with the expansion of wireless and fiber-optic networks.

Anonymous H replied with this 2.7 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #321,127

@previous

aaaaaAAAH so 2 say "in future they will solve problem" is fyne 4 YOU but not ME?

squeegee !firstkPE1Q (OP) replied with this 2.7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #321,129

@previous
actually i've said they have already solved the bandwidth problem and are expanding services as we speak.

I've also said, that yes, in the future, we can solve the Moore's Law problem with molecular computers, or atomic computers.
Do you think you'll have a molecular computer desktop in 10 years when Moore's law collapses? or 20 year?
When does your "future" solve the problem?

(Edited 40 seconds later.)

Anonymous E replied with this 2.7 years ago, 48 seconds later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #321,130

@321,127
Anon "H" Thee thinks you are a very very poor Imp eh. Nice try & no cigar.

Consider giving up trolling and stick with your day job, emptying out the trash.

Anonymous K replied with this 2.7 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #321,131

@321,090
dear god you type like a tool

Anonymous H replied with this 2.6 years ago, 1 day later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #321,433

@321,130

LOL I was fucking wondering how long it would take. Squeegee, you are a faggot nigger and I hope a gypsy rapes your anus.

Anonymous M replied with this 2.6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #321,435

@previous
We all know how much you want to run your tongue up his asshole. We can see how he turns you on & on & on.

squeegee !firstkPE1Q (OP) replied with this 2.6 years ago, 6 hours later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #321,470

@321,433
what did i do to deserve that?

Anonymous E replied with this 2.6 years ago, 48 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #321,476

@previous
Squeegee let me tell you about Trolls. Oooooops bet you already know about them. You did nothing. Trolls go fishing when bored.

TC is currently butthurt re just one Troll. I tell them to just ignore and never reply and keeps blood pressure down.

squeegee !firstkPE1Q (OP) replied with this 2.6 years ago, 29 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #321,480

@previous
but, why would he say a gypsy though?
and what i never understand about these kinds of insults is that a faggot nigger would probably enjoy being raped by anybody.
am i right?
so how is that meant to be an insult? unless he doesn't really think i'm a faggot nigger, but then it loses its bite. So i guess he does and is wishing me well.
anyway, gypsy or no gypsy, thanks, i guess.

Anonymous E replied with this 2.6 years ago, 9 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #321,482

@previous
To be 100% honest with you....I skim really fast over any reply that is as you describe. That "N" Stuff in just Troll bait.
I wish that N stuff would go away. Rappers made it a meme. So it ain't going away in my life time.

No he is not wishing you well. He is just trying to set the bait and wait for you to take it. A Gypsy once told me for a paltry $5 that I would be very rich.

Anonymous H replied with this 2.6 years ago, 1 day later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #321,752

@321,480

Fagot niggers don't enjoy being raped. I am offended by this.

squeegee replied with this 2.6 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #321,762

@previous
You would be.

Anonymous H replied with this 2.6 years ago, 18 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #321,936

@previous

As a crusader for the rights of faggot niggers, I would appreciate it if you apologized to me.

squeegee !firstkPE1Q (OP) replied with this 2.6 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #321,954

@previous
mad

Anonymous H replied with this 2.6 years ago, 1 day later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #322,168

@previous

No, just disappointed.

dw !jdTkvovFCQ replied with this 2.6 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #322,181

26.3
:
Or use an imgur URL: [upload]

You are required to fill in a captcha for your first 3 posts. That's only 3 more! We apologize, but this helps stop spam.

Please familiarise yourself with the rules and markup syntax before posting, also keep in mind you can minify URLs using MiniURL and generate image macros using MiniMacro.