<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 10:22 AM, K. K. Subramaniam <<a href="mailto:subbukk@gmail.com">subbukk@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">You do have a point about Intel/MS ignoring past work in this area. Their<br></div>
research director could have presented the capability as a revival of prior<br>
research instead of making it appear like a new challenge. CST and Actalk are<br>
over two decades old and cited in many ACM papers. Their collective amnesia<br>
is inexcusable.</blockquote><div><br>Do you think it is intentional, or merely a sad commentary on the general state of our current scientific infrastructure? I do process improvement (Six Sigma) work at a hospital, which *assumes* an underlying foundation of, say, deductive and inductive reasoning, logic, math, science, even philosophy to some extent. I think industry isn't so different from medicine, where vast specialization has pushed the generalist to the side so that not too many people see "the big picture" anymore.<br>
<br>I'm not saying it's an excuse, just maybe a reason--and yet another reason why the world NEEDS people like you having this conversation. I think of the Squeak community kind of like Science Fiction writers--invariably what they dream up comes to pass...<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">If processing elements could be wrapped in an object, then 1024 looks like a<br>
small number....</blockquote><div><br>I know I'm not thinking at the level you guys are right now, but this is interesting...can you explain what you mean by "wrapping processing elements in an object" so I could get a picture of what that might look like?<br>
<br>Rob</div></div>