Page 2 of 3
Re: The Ideal Operating System (LCARS)
Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 11:27 pm
by Amerigo
Troy Martin wrote:You're not a programmer? Then why are you here posting redonkulously hard to implement ideas with no code or anything to show for them?
Because I want it! If I could create it, I wouldn't be here until ready to give it away.
Troy Martin wrote:LCARS is 24th century technology, and even then it often backfires or even damages itself.
That's to make the show interesting. Surely in 300 years, they'll have the bugs worked out.
Troy Martin wrote:What do you think would happen with today's hardware?
In my original post, you will find that I have taken existing hardware into consideration (Artificial Neurons --reinventing the processor). << preferably, one that has processing, memory storage and ram all in one package like the human brain...
I was hoping I would find some real geniuses here. (they sure aren't working for Microsoft!)
Re: The Ideal Operating System (LCARS)
Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 11:47 pm
by Amerigo
madeofstaples wrote:To replace the transistor?... it'd take more than one... What's the advantage?
Yes, of course, it would take more than one. The human brain has billions! So would a computer.
The advantage? Transistors are limited to binary (Yes or No) Something more complex might give a computer more options in it's processing.
I too foresee huge problems to begin with, but that's the nature of progress. The biggest problem is in the programmers' fear of stepping beyond the bounds of binary...
binary = a two dimensional plane in a four dimensional world...
madeofstaples wrote:If you want a neuron, why not use a neuron? (ignoring issues like stem-cell research...)
You have to keep that alive!
I'm talking about using the neuron as a template for a synthetic counterpart.
Re: The Ideal Operating System (LCARS)
Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:09 am
by Colonel Kernel
Amerigo wrote:In my original post, you will find that I have taken existing hardware into consideration (Artificial Neurons --reinventing the processor). << preferably, one that has processing, memory storage and ram all in one package like the human brain...
There is already software out there that
simulates neurons. What you propose is ultimately a hardware-accelerated version of a neural network. The problem with such structures is that the kind of computation they do is non-deterministic, much like the human brain. For example, to do arithmetic properly, humans require a lot of discipline and training, and sometimes make mistakes. Plus, we're way slower at it than today's CPUs are, because we do it consciously, not automatically. Neurons are very good at certain types of processing, but not all. Remember the engineer's credo: Use the right tool for the right job!
Amerigo wrote:I was hoping I would find some real geniuses here. (they sure aren't working for Microsoft!)
You'd be surprised.
Re: The Ideal Operating System (LCARS)
Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:31 am
by Amerigo
One last note on the subject...
READ ISAAC ASIMOV'S BOOKS. ESPECIALLY THE END OF "ROBOT VISIONS" > "OUR INTELLIGENT TOOLS" (PAGE 420 IN MY COPY).
IF YOU'VE NEVER READ ASIMOV; TURN OFF YOUR COMPUTER, UNPLUG IT, PUT IT IN YOUR CLOSET, AND GO TO THE LIBRARY!!!
Then step out of your comfort zone and bring the 24th Century to the present...
If someone could wrap an Shell around RH, that would be a good start. These Swedish teenagers have made my life a lot easier:
http://www.adsalife.com/
Dr. Michael Okuda has already created the shell design...
............yeah, many Window coverups out there, but they severely limit Window's capablilites which are profoundly limited to start with. I don't need a theme or shell, I'm after the functionality of LCARS.
...Did I forget to mention that I am completely blind? lol, I don't even know what LCARS looks like! ..but it sure sounds good.
Re: The Ideal Operating System (LCARS)
Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 1:22 am
by thre3dee
- Voice recognition software sucks at the present time.
- Programming a neural network is extremely complicated and even more so to have it do anything.
- Program assimilation would be very difficult to implement as program code is nothing more than a bunch of assembly instructions and binary data. If you knew about assembly, or even C, you would know that programming an application to understand what a program does as a whole and trying to incorporate the application's code into itself would be incredibly difficult and actually quite useless.
- Mac OS X is a very complicated operating system. Windows is a very complicated operating system. Linux is a very complicated operating system. Hobbyists spend years working on their own operating systems and might still only have a command line interface and a bunch of drivers and basic programs. Its taken 20 years for operating systems to get to where they are at. Try making your own operating system.
I was hoping I would find some real geniuses here. (they sure aren't working for Microsoft!)
Geniuses (well, very smart people) developed Mac OS, Linux and Windows. After 15 years, Windows still has much the same structure.- LCARS as an operating system would be quite feasible, but it would be very inflexible, hard to develop any useful applications on and would require touchscreen monitors. LCARS isn't a general purpose operating system. Each screen on ST has a very specific layout and the LCARS GUI works very well for it. But it doesn't at all work for useful everyday Joe Bloggs programs like Word or Photoshop.
- You do realise that after some months no one has replied to that thread.
- Learn a programming language and then wonder why we say these things.
- Its not a sin to dream of such software and systems, but saying that developers are unintelligent when you have not even the slightest clue about developing software is arrogant and rude.
Re: The Ideal Operating System (LCARS)
Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 9:48 am
by DeletedAccount
Hi,
I am relatively non plussed with your design . It seems to be practically impossible to implement atleast for a hobbist developer . But if it is for pleasing the old Greeks , it should be fine
.
Regards
Shrek
Re: The Ideal Operating System (LCARS)
Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 9:55 am
by Troy Martin
Colonel Kernel wrote:Amerigo wrote:I was hoping I would find some real geniuses here. (they sure aren't working for Microsoft!)
You'd be surprised.
Yep, we're into OSDev but we're not all geniuses. If you really want this system so badly, resurrect Einstein from the dead, tell him about the stuff we have today, and get Zombiestein to build you a dimensional gateway to the star trek world. Cause you must know of that theory that everything exists in an alternate universe/dimension!
Re: The Ideal Operating System (LCARS)
Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 10:09 am
by mzaiady
Peace be unto all those who follow right guidance.
If we think in the same way and do the same things, 100% sure we will get the same results.
So our friend trying to think in different way, hoping to get different results.
your main problem that you are not programmer as you said, you need to study computer organization and Assembly before you start, but before that you should write all your ideas, because most of them will not be there any more.
I agree with you to think in different way so we can get different results, but we also must think in correct way so we can reach any result.
About 0,1 i have good news for you, there is a new computers in the way, they called quantum computers and there is alot of researchs in computer sciense about quantum computations and Quantum informations , there will not be only 0, 1 in such computers, but at its very complex you will miss the simple 0,1 world realy because it's depend on complex physics equations
It's very fast, most the security theories will not be valid because its very powerfull to break any security key (this has been approved theoretically), and with AI application will be ideal.
Only one company last year was able to build such computer. and used only to run scientific programs that needs very very fast computations
but for many reasons such computers will not wildy used until 5 to 10 years from now and maybe more (the same time you need to build your OS)
Example of thinking in correct way instead of write builtin antivirus into your OS, it will be more efficient to find some way to run the programs (any software) in isolation (one of the key success of the Java virtual machines (JVM) security).
and so there is many new researches and different ideas.
you need to read and learn more, and if you have some idea proof it first before you start building on top of nothing.
Re: The Ideal Operating System (LCARS)
Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 10:18 am
by madeofstaples
Amerigo wrote:madeofstaples wrote:To replace the transistor?... it'd take more than one... What's the advantage?
Yes, of course, it would take more than one. The human brain has billions! So would a computer.
Right, but I was talking about replacing the function of a single transistor, since you were suggesting replacing the transistor with the "artificial neuron".
Amerigo wrote:The advantage? Transistors are limited to binary (Yes or No)
No they aren't. From "The Indispensable PC Hardware Book":
For logic circuits, the existence of clearly defined and stable switching positions is essential because logic doesn't allow any woolly terms such as maybe, nearly, etc. With two clearly defined and distinguishable switching positions (and therefore output currents and voltages), we get digital circuits with dual or binary (that is, two-valued) logic.
To complete the picture, I want to mention that in very fast circuits (supercomputers, for example) a substrate made of gallium-arsenide (GaAs) instead of silicon is used. Moreover, sometimes bipolar transistors are also used in ECL or BiCMOS circuits to enhance the operation speed. However, this is achieved with the disadvantage of having a power consumption three times that of a pure CMOS circuit. Applications of these technologies are the Pentium (BiCMOS) and the R6000 (ECL), for example. Further, in the context of so-called fuzzy logic, ambiguous terms like nearly, possible, etc. are also allowed. Up to now, this logic has mainly been of interest in research, but some minor applications, such as in the field of autofocus cameras, are already on the market. In the original field of data processing, this logic is not used in applications yet...
Frankly, you haven't described any situation where having three-or-more-state transistors would benefit computation, nor have you made any connection back to neurons, which never have a clearly defined bias between when to propagate an action potential or when not to propagate. Yet both, used in a circuit, could transmit a continuous range of voltage, it's just that the normal application of transistors involves defining a certain threshold voltage which constitutes an "on" state as opposed to "off".
Amerigo wrote:Something more complex might give a computer more options in it's processing.
In what way?
Amerigo wrote:I too foresee huge problems to begin with, but that's the nature of progress. The biggest problem is in the programmers' fear of stepping beyond the bounds of binary...
binary = a two dimensional plane in a four dimensional world...
Non sequitur.
Amerigo wrote:madeofstaples wrote:If you want a neuron, why not use a neuron? (ignoring issues like stem-cell research...)
You have to keep that alive!
Just another (bio)engineering challenge.
Amerigo wrote:I'm talking about using the neuron as a template for a synthetic counterpart.
Yet you can't seem to give any concrete reason as to why. Sure you might imagine some differences such as binary versus.. some sort of continuity (? however valid the difference actually is), but you need to go a step farther and say how that would affect computing and why it would be better.
Re: The Ideal Operating System (LCARS)
Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2008 1:13 am
by DeletedAccount
Excellent , conepts being pulled out of the air .
. A good software architect should have good knowledge and experience of the ground realities . Most of the software architects which i have met in Evil Inc started their carrier long before i was even born
.
Let this be my last post in this thread .
Regards
Shrek
Re: The Ideal Operating System (LCARS)
Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2008 9:50 am
by Troy Martin
Like my theory we can cure HIV by finding a pattern set that it uses to change every once in a while and reorganizing it as a vaccine. Poof, came into my mind one biology class.
Re: The Ideal Operating System (LCARS)
Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2008 1:08 pm
by XFire
Back to LCARS...
I personally dislike it the LCARS interface a lot. It screens DEAD SPACE to me. If you look at it, they have all of these bars and stuff sprouting out all over the place, taking up a load of screens space. It also frustrates me how static everything this is. There maybe very good reasons for that in-universe, but it amazes me that they wouldn't have multi-touch in the 20 something century with fluid, changing displays. Or surge protection
The TV issue for voice rec could be over come by registering the output of the TV or any audio output device and stream it to the computer which handles voice commands, and then it just doesn't listen to those frequencies. Something similar to noise cancelling headphones and glass.
Re: The Ideal Operating System (LCARS)
Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 6:31 am
by quanganht
Troy Martin wrote:LCARS is 24th century technology, and even then it often backfires or even damages itself. What do you think would happen with today's hardware?
Not 24th, but 2400th century!
Re: The Ideal Operating System (LCARS)
Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 5:17 am
by Ferrarius
I’d love to have a twin tower system. One normal one, but without the processor. The second, (built like a miniature refrigerator), to house a massive processor(s).
One problem with that statement: Timing. This is actually a huge problem. In modern computers it is already necessary to put the memory no more then 5 or so centimeters from the processor. When a processor runs at say 3 GHz, that means a beam of light in a perfect vacuum can travel for about a meter before the processor starts the next cycle. This may seem insignificant but this does mean sending an electrical pulse to a memory 5 centimeters away takes that pulse at least 1/20 of a clock cycle. To send it back, again 1/20 of a clock cycle. Already is 1/10 of a clock cycle wasted. With a little bad luck this means that one entire clock cycle is wasted per memory operation because this delay lets every piece of data from memory arrive just 1/100 or so of a clock cycle late. That's already a waste.
Suppose you have a processor that is 15*15 centimeters. And take into account that every logical port has a very small delay. When a pulse is send in the top of the processor at say clockcycle 10000, and supposed to arrive at the bottom of the processor after some processing at 10004, it might due to slowness of the ports, and "slowness" of light be there at 10005. When that happens you'll probably don't even get BSODs.
To put it simple: there is a reason why Intel does so much research in smaller production processes. The smaller the processor the faster it can be theoretically. The problem is we are at the limit of technological ability with regard to transistor based microprocessors.
Re: The Ideal Operating System (LCARS)
Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 1:34 pm
by Owen
Silicon transistor based processors. Carbon is also a semiconductor - and also smaller. It's, of course, harder to work with.
The biggest problem, though, is that electrons don't (and can't) travel at the speed of light since they have mass! While current does not flow in electrons (Despite what your science/physics teacher told you), they are critically important as they are what actuate semiconductors. Thus, pure light speed calculations will result in higher maximum speeds.
One of the problems with communication over wires is skew - wires are different lengths. Ethernet, USB, Firewire and SATA control this by being serial. But serial has maximum data rate issues. PCI-Express, paradoxically, is also serial, though you can gang it up in special ways. HyperTransport and "Quick Path Interconnect" are serial. But the memory bus - for reasons of latency and bandwidth - remains parallel. And this is the biggest problem. A motherboard designer spends ages laying out the memory bus. Each trace must be the same length to within miniscule accuracies. This is why your motherboard has all those serpentines on it.
We are very quickly approaching the point where memory will have to firstly be soldered onto the motherboard - and then integrated into the processor package (two dies on one chip), before finally being integrated into the processor die. Because if you don't, latency and bandwidth will kill your performance.