91–100 of 209 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you expect there to be one? It’s all the same stuff and has been for decades.
I expect nation state actors to have immensely more access to computing power than the commercial sector, is that controversial?
> Apollo 11 spacecraft contains 4 computers Analog computers don't get the respect they deserve. There's one more computer, the FCC. The Flight Control Computer is an analog computer in the Saturn V that controlled the rocket gimbals. It's a two-foot cylinder weighing almost 100 pounds.
the only reason they have the same name is that they were both originally built to replace people cranking out calculations on mechanical desk calculators, who were also called 'computers'
the flight control 'computer' has more in common with an analog synthesizer module than it does with a cray-1, the agc, an arduino, this laptop, or these chargers, which are by comparison almost indistinguishable
> Apollo 11 spacecraft contains 4 computers Analog computers don't get the respect they deserve. There's one more computer, the FCC. The Flight Control Computer is an analog computer in the Saturn V that controlled the rocket gimbals. It's a two-foot cylinder weighing almost 100 pounds.
i think it's (unintentionally) misleading to describe analog 'computers' as 'computers'. what distinguishes digital computers from other digital hardware is that they're turing-complete (if given access to enough memory), and there isn't any similar notion in the analog domain the only reason they have the same name is that they were both originally built to replace people cranking out calculations on mechanical desk…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i think it's (unintentionally) misleading to describe analog 'computers' as 'computers'. what distinguishes digital computers from other digital hardware is that they're turing-complete (if given access to enough memory), and there isn't any similar notion in the analog domain the only reason they have the same name is that they were both originally built to replace people cranking out calculations on mechanical desk…
They both do the same thing compute an output from given inputs. So they are properly distinguished from each other on how they do the computing. They both deserve the name 'computer'.
do you want to call them all 'computers' now?
>> others point out that the LVDC actually contains triply-redundant logic. The logic gives 3 answers and the voting mechanism picks the winner. This is a very minor point... but three of something isn't triple redundancy: it's double redundancy. Two is single redundancy, one is no redundancy. Unless the voting mechanism can somehow produce a correct answer from differing answers from all three implementations of the…
The LVDC was a highly redundant can not fail design. the AGC had no redundancy and was designed to recover quickly if failure occurred.
Weird question maybe, but does anyone keep track of quantitative or qualitative data that measures the discrepancy between consumer (commercial) and government computer technology? TBH, it's kind of amazing that a custom computer from 50 years ago has the specs of a common IC/SoC today, but those specs scale with time.
There is no difference anymore, the only difference is the scale. Back then, consumers got nothing, governments got largge computers (room sized+), then consumers got microcomputers (desktop sized), governments got larger mainframes, consumers got PCs, government got big-box supercomputers,... And now? Consumers get x86_64 servers , governments get x86_64 servers, and the only difference is how much money you have, h…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no difference anymore, the only difference is the scale. Back then, consumers got nothing, governments got largge computers (room sized+), then consumers got microcomputers (desktop sized), governments got larger mainframes, consumers got PCs, government got big-box supercomputers,... And now? Consumers get x86_64 servers , governments get x86_64 servers, and the only difference is how much money you have, h…
I was asking about anyone tracking the disparity between nation-state computing power and commercially available computing power. This seems like something that's uncontroversial.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They both do the same thing compute an output from given inputs. So they are properly distinguished from each other on how they do the computing. They both deserve the name 'computer'.
only in the same sense that a machinist's micrometer, an optical telescope, an analog television set, an acoustic guitar, a letterpress printing press, a car's manual transmission, a fountain pen, a nomogram, and a transistor also 'compute an output from given inputs' do you want to call them all 'computers' now?