Re: [9fans] current state of thread programming - Plan9

This is a discussion on Re: [9fans] current state of thread programming - Plan9 ; Roman V. Shaposhnik writes: > If we were to oversimplify things [then the] brain >is, at its core, limited by a very fundamental biological constraint: >speed at which cells can communicate. A sort of "propagation delay" >if we were to ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Re: [9fans] current state of thread programming

  1. Re: [9fans] current state of thread programming

    Roman V. Shaposhnik writes:
    > If we were to oversimplify things [then the] brain
    >is, at its core, limited by a very fundamental biological constraint:
    >speed at which cells can communicate. A sort of "propagation delay"
    >if we were to use electronics as an analogy. It seems to be agreed
    >upon(*) that we can safely assume this constraint to limit our brain
    >to about couple of hundred of processing steps per second. This is
    >known as a "100 steps rule".


    > Something is really, really wrong with
    >the computing model we base our technology on, if even the slowest
    >of the computers we can consider useful required a clock rate
    >of KHz.


    Either that or (like some brain scientists say) something is
    really, really wrong or suboptimal about the human brain.


  2. Re: [9fans] current state of thread programming

    > Either that or (like some brain scientists say) something is
    > really, really wrong or suboptimal about the human brain.


    Despite prospects of brain uptime--that's LE--being around 77.71 years for
    each individual of the USAmerican population and the "entire history" of
    computers being shorter than that.

    I see where your "brain scientists" are driving at. Let them have a
    P9-on-x86 transplant for those mouldy clumps in their crania. I'll be
    happy to have all their "clumps."

    --On Tuesday, August 05, 2008 3:34 AM -0700 Richard Maxwell Underwood
    wrote:

    > Roman V. Shaposhnik writes:
    >> If we were to oversimplify things [then the] brain
    >> is, at its core, limited by a very fundamental biological constraint:
    >> speed at which cells can communicate. A sort of "propagation delay"
    >> if we were to use electronics as an analogy. It seems to be agreed
    >> upon(*) that we can safely assume this constraint to limit our brain
    >> to about couple of hundred of processing steps per second. This is
    >> known as a "100 steps rule".

    >
    >> Something is really, really wrong with
    >> the computing model we base our technology on, if even the slowest
    >> of the computers we can consider useful required a clock rate
    >> of KHz.

    >
    > Either that or (like some brain scientists say) something is
    > really, really wrong or suboptimal about the human brain.
    >







+ Reply to Thread