From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Tue,  5 Aug 2008 16:28:11 +0100
From: Eris Discordia <eris.discordia@gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Message-ID: <60E1F2CA25AB579AC1CC4667@computer>
In-Reply-To: <1217932456.23601@arch>
References: <1217932456.23601@arch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Subject: Re: [9fans] current state of thread programming
Topicbox-Message-UUID: fade3fb0-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> 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
<ru@river.org> 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.
>