Dreamers of Tomorrow

[H.A.L. 9000]

After reading what Mr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson has to say in his books and watching his interviews, I'm fairly certain he's 100% correct. We've lost that drive to innovate. And when we do have innovation, it's not because we can... it's because it's necessary. I do happen to agree with the quote "Necessity is the mother of all invention", but I don't really like it. We shouldn't be inventing and innovating because we have to, but rather we should be doing it because it's what we want to do. To better ourselves, not just to make it to the next hurdle. There's another quote that comes to mind that I try to live my life by, and that's "Be the change you want to see in the world."

So my question to you is...

What are your dreams? What would you do if you had the budget and resources to make your dreams into reality?

I'm not going to even say to keep it realistic, because part of innovating is realizing that just about everything is realistic... you just have go after it.

[masterchef341]

I've been wanting to make a zombie-apocalypse-survival-coop-topdown-action-shooter-mmo. I need to get on that.

Not sure it would help humanity, but it would be fun.

[Star Forge]

Revamp the phylogenetic software that current phylogeneticists use. They are rubbish, slow and doesn't utilize all the hardware power on platforms they operate on. Furthermore I think OS X is a big limiting factor to all that rendering of big data set matrices. I would not mind revolutionizing that field of software to some good old C++ on more proper platforms (Windows, UNIX or Linux).

[masterchef341]

Furthermore I think OS X is a big limiting factor to all that rendering of big data set matrices.

It's not. Just your own personal bias. OS X gets small, fast binaries with the GCC and with clangllvm. If you're under the impression that application binaries are larger on OS X than other operating systems, you're probably looking at applications that contain multiple binaries (x86, x86-64, and/or ppc).

Again, using a recent version of the gcc (4.7 just came out) or the Apple LLVM compiler, you'll end up with very competitive code at minimum compared to *nix platforms. I would actually say significantly better than average *nix. Windows is totally different, you'll get highly variable results trying to compare compiled C++ performance between platforms if you can't use the same compiler.

To be fair, I'm really just knocking you for being critical of compiled binary performance that something like the GCC produces for OS X (the software platform). That said, if you go Apple, you're also making a particular hardware selection. If the goal is "as-much-performance-as-possible" and you have a set budget, obviously Apple isn't going to provide optimal results, because you could have bought more CPUs and put them all on linux.

Looking at the same hardware running OS X or *nix software, however, there's little point blaming the OS for performance problems.

[Shobster]

I wish we could make a base on some other planet. In fact, I wish we started with the Moon. After over 40 years ever since mankind stepped on the Moon, you'd think we have the technology to make a base a size of a hut or something.

I really do love Space travel, and especially since NASA is sorta shut down, that really grinds my gears.

[HTWingNut]

I just wish I could win the $640M lottery.

[Steven]

I'd like to make my own successful MMO.

[Star Forge]

It's not. Just your own personal bias. OS X gets small, fast binaries with the GCC and with clangllvm. If you're under the impression that application binaries are larger on OS X than other operating systems, you're probably looking at applications that contain multiple binaries (x86, x86-64, and/or ppc).

Again, using a recent version of the gcc (4.7 just came out) or the Apple LLVM compiler, you'll end up with very competitive code at minimum compared to *nix platforms. I would actually say significantly better than average *nix. Windows is totally different, you'll get highly variable results trying to compare compiled C++ performance between platforms if you can't use the same compiler.

To be fair, I'm really just knocking you for being critical of compiled binary performance that something like the GCC produces for OS X (the software platform). That said, if you go Apple, you're also making a particular hardware selection. If the goal is "as-much-performance-as-possible" and you have a set budget, obviously Apple isn't going to provide optimal results, because you could have bought more CPUs and put them all on linux.

Looking at the same hardware running OS X or *nix software, however, there's little point blaming the OS for performance problems.

The thing is at the price of the hardware for a Mac, it is pretty cut-rate considered what you can do for a PC at the same price. Also the phylogenetics community is biased against PC's because most of the most commonly used applications are OS X enhanced or only.

[wild05kid05]

For those want to watch the video


inspiring.

[Vogelbung]

It's not. Just your own personal bias. OS X gets small, fast binaries with the GCC and with clangllvm. If you're under the impression that application binaries are larger on OS X than other operating systems, you're probably looking at applications that contain multiple binaries (x86, x86-64, and/or ppc).

Again, using a recent version of the gcc (4.7 just came out) or the Apple LLVM compiler, you'll end up with very competitive code at minimum compared to *nix platforms. I would actually say significantly better than average *nix. Windows is totally different, you'll get highly variable results trying to compare compiled C++ performance between platforms if you can't use the same compiler.

To be fair, I'm really just knocking you for being critical of compiled binary performance that something like the GCC produces for OS X (the software platform). That said, if you go Apple, you're also making a particular hardware selection. If the goal is "as-much-performance-as-possible" and you have a set budget, obviously Apple isn't going to provide optimal results, because you could have bought more CPUs and put them all on linux.

Looking at the same hardware running OS X or *nix software, however, there's little point blaming the OS for performance problems.

Apple's support for the higher end of 'PC' H/PC is also either lacking, or only equivalent to solutions available under Linux in terms of the overall deployment / user experience. That is a factor I'd been wrestling with for a long time. Not to mention the hardware density (or lack of) unless you go with Minis and the compromises therein. All things considered, it's a VASTLY inferior platform in comparison to Linux or Windows for higher performance personal computing. Where it might make some sense is at a lower-echelon learning level, but when you get to commercial solutions - no.

Don't have to deal with anything near the same scale anymore though [sigh of relief]