EVE Search - So after reading a DEV blog...

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

So after reading a DEV blog...

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Sirref Naes Gallente Spacial 8 Xchange	Posted - 2010.11.01 17:57:00 - [1] I learned that 64 bits is greater than 32 bits Here's a graph for you. [ http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/devblog/2010/graph5.PNG ]
Jovan Geldon Gallente Lead Farmers	Posted - 2010.11.01 18:03:00 - [2] Originally by: Sirref Naes 64 bits is greater than 32 bits Pics or it didn't happe- Oh.
JitaPriceChecker2	Posted - 2010.11.01 18:04:00 - [3] Give me my 5 seconds of life back
Cpt Advile	Posted - 2010.11.01 18:06:00 - [4] that graph isn't clear enough the confusion angers me... >:l ________________________________ ACXtreme @ deviantart
Gecko O'Bac H A V O C Cascade Imminent	Posted - 2010.11.01 18:44:00 - [5] Edited by: Gecko O''Bac on 01/11/2010 18:49:31 Just for the sake of arguing I'll say this: The two graphs must not be considered separately as the objective of the graph was to show that with a 2 times increase of the bits we get a huge increase in available item IDs (that must be unique). Precisely the increase is from 2.147.483.648 (2^31 IDs) to the humongous 9.223.372.036.854.775.808, which is around 4,5 BILLION times increase. Neat, huh?
Fulbert Gallente	Posted - 2010.11.01 18:45:00 - [6] Edited by: Fulbert on 01/11/2010 18:50:29 Edited by: Fulbert on 01/11/2010 18:49:38 Edited by: Fulbert on 01/11/2010 18:47:19 32 bits : 2^31 = approx 2,1 x 10^9 possible itemIDs 64 bits : 2^63 = approx 9,2 x 10^18 possible itemIDs, so ~10^9 (one billion) times more. That's why the "Before" rectangle is invisible. It is just 10^9 times smaller... The "after" rectangle is 5 cm long (5 x 10^-2 meters), so the "before" rectangle is 5 x 10^-11 meters long. That's 50 picometers. It is even smaller than an atom! -------------------------------- Fulbert. Miner - Industrialist
Gecko O'Bac H A V O C Cascade Imminent	Posted - 2010.11.01 18:49:00 - [7] Originally by: Fulbert Edited by: Fulbert on 01/11/2010 18:49:38 Edited by: Fulbert on 01/11/2010 18:47:19 32 bits : 2^31 = approx 2,1 x 10^9 possible itemIDs 64 bits : 2^63 = approx 9,2 x 10^18 possible itemIDs, so ~10^9 (one billion) more. That's why the "Before" rectangle is invisible. It is just 10^9 times smaller... The "after" rectangle is 5 cm long (5 x 10^-2 meters), so the "before" rectangle is 5 x 10^-11 meters long. That's 50 picometers. It is even smaller than an atom! You arrived 1 minute too late :P But the size proportion is cool, didn't think about that :D
Sidus Isaacs Gallente	Posted - 2010.11.01 19:20:00 - [8] Originally by: Fulbert Edited by: Fulbert on 01/11/2010 18:50:29 Edited by: Fulbert on 01/11/2010 18:49:38 Edited by: Fulbert on 01/11/2010 18:47:19 32 bits : 2^31 = approx 2,1 x 10^9 possible itemIDs 64 bits : 2^63 = approx 9,2 x 10^18 possible itemIDs, so ~10^9 (one billion) times more. That's why the "Before" rectangle is invisible. It is just 10^9 times smaller... The "after" rectangle is 5 cm long (5 x 10^-2 meters), so the "before" rectangle is 5 x 10^-11 meters long. That's 50 picometers. It is even smaller than an atom! They should have used a logarithmic scale. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html
Alyth Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2010.11.01 19:28:00 - [9] Originally by: Sidus Isaacs Originally by: Fulbert Edited by: Fulbert on 01/11/2010 18:50:29 Edited by: Fulbert on 01/11/2010 18:49:38 Edited by: Fulbert on 01/11/2010 18:47:19 32 bits : 2^31 = approx 2,1 x 10^9 possible itemIDs 64 bits : 2^63 = approx 9,2 x 10^18 possible itemIDs, so ~10^9 (one billion) times more. That's why the "Before" rectangle is invisible. It is just 10^9 times smaller... The "after" rectangle is 5 cm long (5 x 10^-2 meters), so the "before" rectangle is 5 x 10^-11 meters long. That's 50 picometers. It is even smaller than an atom! They should have used a logarithmic scale. But this is EVE so it would be a lagarithmic scale, amirite? ...anyone? ...
captain foivos	Posted - 2010.11.01 19:35:00 - [10] Originally by: Alyth But this is EVE so it would be a lagarithmic scale, amirite? ...anyone? ... I lol'd.
Tuttomenui II Gallente Independent Coalition	Posted - 2010.11.01 19:35:00 - [11] Edited by: Tuttomenui II on 01/11/2010 19:41:37 Other benefits of 64 bit Computing. Or at least My favorite. Quote: The fact that 32-bit systems only have 32-bits of data to work with means that they can only address up to 4 GB of RAM. A 64-bit system on the other hand could theoretically address up to 16 exabytes of RAM (ThatÆs over 16,000,000 GB of RAM Source (I could find): http://www.windowsnetworking.com/articles_tutorials/64-Bit-Computing.html Imagine what 128 bit computing will bring. If this type of crap excites you, you should also look at Memristors, they are the future of computers and the gateway to AI. Also some possible materials that will soon replace silicon are Diamond (Other Source) and Graphene (Additional Source). Source about diamonds and quantum computing Also Back to OP. EXPONENTIAL Enjoy the link Fest. !ALL YOUR ROOKIES ARE BELONG TO ME!
egegergergsdgedgege	Posted - 2010.11.01 20:40:00 - [12] Originally by: Tuttomenui II Edited by: Tuttomenui II on 01/11/2010 19:41:37 Other benefits of 64 bit Computing. Or at least My favorite. Quote: The fact that 32-bit systems only have 32-bits of data to work with means that they can only address up to 4 GB of RAM. A 64-bit system on the other hand could theoretically address up to 16 exabytes of RAM (ThatÆs over 16,000,000 GB of RAM Source (I could find): http://www.windowsnetworking.com/articles_tutorials/64-Bit-Computing.html Imagine what 128 bit computing will bring. If this type of crap excites you, you should also look at Memristors, they are the future of computers and the gateway to AI. Also some possible materials that will soon replace silicon are Diamond (Other Source) and Graphene (Additional Source). Source about diamonds and quantum computing Also Back to OP. EXPONENTIAL Enjoy the link Fest. 64Bit will do for a while.vYou can easily address every byte in your computer directly theoratically even all your hard drives. A modern PC has only a few TB of memory (if you include persistant memory). Even if you want to address every single byte directly and the total memory of computers doubles every 2 years it is sufficent for st least the next 20 years. With 128bit you will be able to address every single atom in every human being on earth. With 256bit you will be able to address every single atom in the universe.
Barakkus	Posted - 2010.11.01 20:42:00 - [13] Will you still love me when I'm 64? Originally by: captain foivos Who would recruit someone named Barakkus? Wait a minute...
YipKai Foon	Posted - 2010.11.01 21:16:00 - [14] Originally by: egegergergsdgedgege 64Bit will do for a while.vYou can easily address every byte in your computer directly theoratically even all your hard drives. A modern PC has only a few TB of memory (if you include persistant memory). Even if you want to address every single byte directly and the total memory of computers doubles every 2 years it is sufficent for st least the next 20 years. With 128bit you will be able to address every single atom in every human being on earth. With 256bit you will be able to address every single atom in the universe. Are you saying that with 128Bit, it would be possible to save every position and state of every single atom/molecule?
Fishsticks Fred	Posted - 2010.11.01 21:48:00 - [15] Originally by: YipKai Foon Originally by: egegergergsdgedgege 64Bit will do for a while.vYou can easily address every byte in your computer directly theoratically even all your hard drives. A modern PC has only a few TB of memory (if you include persistant memory). Even if you want to address every single byte directly and the total memory of computers doubles every 2 years it is sufficent for st least the next 20 years. With 128bit you will be able to address every single atom in every human being on earth. With 256bit you will be able to address every single atom in the universe. Are you saying that with 128Bit, it would be possible to save every position and state of every single atom/molecule? With 128 bits you'll have adresses for all the atoms. Actually storing the data that you're addressing.. well..
egegergergsdgedgege	Posted - 2010.11.01 22:19:00 - [16] Originally by: YipKai Foon Originally by: egegergergsdgedgege 64Bit will do for a while.vYou can easily address every byte in your computer directly theoratically even all your hard drives. A modern PC has only a few TB of memory (if you include persistant memory). Even if you want to address every single byte directly and the total memory of computers doubles every 2 years it is sufficent for st least the next 20 years. With 128bit you will be able to address every single atom in every human being on earth. With 256bit you will be able to address every single atom in the universe. Are you saying that with 128Bit, it would be possible to save every position and state of every single atom/molecule? No. Im saying that 256bit addresses are enough until the end of time.
Ak'athra J'ador Amarr Red Federation	Posted - 2010.11.01 22:24:00 - [17] Originally by: Barakkus Will you still love me when I'm 64? ahh...made me feel all warm inside.
Pr1ncess Alia	Posted - 2010.11.01 23:21:00 - [18] Originally by: egegergergsdgedgege Originally by: YipKai Foon Originally by: egegergergsdgedgege 64Bit will do for a while.vYou can easily address every byte in your computer directly theoratically even all your hard drives. A modern PC has only a few TB of memory (if you include persistant memory). Even if you want to address every single byte directly and the total memory of computers doubles every 2 years it is sufficent for st least the next 20 years. With 128bit you will be able to address every single atom in every human being on earth. With 256bit you will be able to address every single atom in the universe. Are you saying that with 128Bit, it would be possible to save every position and state of every single atom/molecule? No. Im saying that 256bit addresses are enough until the end of time. Hi. Pr1ncess Alia here, No. I'm saying that 256wow you people are ******ed. Check out Charles Duell over here. Seriously, let's talk system performance and engineering. Tell me how it improves individual component performance and component integration. What foreseeable applications take advantage of this? May there be unforeseeable applications in the future that would require much much more than one could expect? Tell me how you possibly know what addressing requirements future technology might hold. How do you even know something like 256bit will even be needed, or that it will be the ultimate ever needed? Pure speculation and vapid assumption. --- Players are losing faith and loyalty in CCP due previous expansions not living up to player expectations. The CSM and CCP agreed that expectation management can be improved
egegergergsdgedgege	Posted - 2010.11.02 15:49:00 - [19] Originally by: Pr1ncess Alia Hi. Pr1ncess Alia here, No. I'm saying that 256wow you people are ******ed. Check out Charles Duell over here. Seriously, let's talk system performance and engineering. Tell me how it improves individual component performance and component integration. What foreseeable applications take advantage of this? May there be unforeseeable applications in the future that would require much much more than one could expect? Tell me how you possibly know what addressing requirements future technology might hold. How do you even know something like 256bit will even be needed, or that it will be the ultimate ever needed? Pure speculation and vapid assumption. Hello Alia. Of course Nobdy knows what the futur will bring, but we can make asumtions. Memory of computers did grow in the past at a qute constant rate (see moores law). If that groth rate continues in the future, we can assume that 64bit addresses will be sufficent for at least the next 20 or 30 years. A 256bit address space on the other side is that large that it will be enough for all times. How can I make that assumtion? Well imagine some kind of super memory where every atom can store one byte (no matter how that is posible) than even if you use every single atom in the whole universe you still have no problems with addressing every single byte. ege PS.: I never said that anybody would "need" 128 or 256 bit addressing.
Jennifer Starling	Posted - 2010.11.02 15:54:00 - [20] Edited by: Jennifer Starling on 02/11/2010 15:57:04 Quote: "After" is a much higher number than "Before" This. I didn't even know "After" was a number. Silly me!
Xearal Minmatar SOL Industries Black Thorne Alliance	Posted - 2010.11.02 16:04:00 - [21] Originally by: egegergergsdgedgege No. Im saying that 256bit addresses are enough until the end of time. Hmm. reminds me of someone else saying something similar: '640K ought to be enough for everybody.' - Bill Gates 1981
Slavemaster	Posted - 2010.11.02 16:17:00 - [22]
Cipher Jones Minmatar	Posted - 2010.11.02 16:43:00 - [23] Edited by: Cipher Jones on 02/11/2010 16:45:08 Originally by: captain foivos Originally by: Alyth But this is EVE so it would be a lagarithmic scale, amirite? ...anyone? ... I lol'd. I didnt lol but i smirked.
egegergergsdgedgege	Posted - 2010.11.02 16:49:00 - [24] Originally by: Xearal Originally by: egegergergsdgedgege No. Im saying that 256bit addresses are enough until the end of time. Hmm. reminds me of someone else saying something similar: '640K ought to be enough for everybody.' - Bill Gates 1981 The difference is that 640k isn't that much. Even 30 years ago it wasn't much. 2^256 on the other hand is on a completly other scale. Even if you use the complete planet earth to build some kind of super storage every single atom had to store more than 100 exabyte. Even if you use the whole universe you will have serious problems storing that amount of data. ege
Aera Aiana Amarr	Posted - 2010.11.02 16:52:00 - [25] Edited by: Aera Aiana on 02/11/2010 16:54:55 Originally by: egegergergsdgedgege No. Im saying that 256bit addresses are enough until the end of time. Well, at least until 8 qubit computers hit the shelves. Bonus points to anyone capable of calculating the number of combinations in 8 qubits :) - Don't let the trolls stop you from giving a helpful reply. :)
De'Veldrin Minmatar Green-Core The Obsidian Legion	Posted - 2010.11.02 17:11:00 - [26] Originally by: Aera Aiana Edited by: Aera Aiana on 02/11/2010 16:54:55 Originally by: egegergergsdgedgege No. Im saying that 256bit addresses are enough until the end of time. Well, at least until 8 qubit computers hit the shelves. Bonus points to anyone capable of calculating the number of combinations in 8 qubits :) This guy wants your bonus points: http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.1603 --Vel
egegergergsdgedgege	Posted - 2010.11.02 17:13:00 - [27] Originally by: Aera Aiana Edited by: Aera Aiana on 02/11/2010 16:54:55 Originally by: egegergergsdgedgege No. Im saying that 256bit addresses are enough until the end of time. Well, at least until 8 qubit computers hit the shelves. Bonus points to anyone capable of calculating the number of combinations in 8 qubits :) That post prooves that you don't understand what qubits are and how they are used.
Aera Aiana Amarr	Posted - 2010.11.03 05:19:00 - [28] Dear troll, while I never said I did, I do know more than most and less than some. Enough to be confident that my question proves nothing in regard to what you say, anyway. So why don't you answer the question? You should know quite a bit about the topic since you are obviously versed enough to deduce someone else's knowledge about it just by evaluating a question. - Don't let the trolls stop you from giving a helpful reply. :)
Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2010.11.03 06:34:00 - [29] Originally by: Aera Aiana Edited by: Aera Aiana on 02/11/2010 16:54:55 Originally by: egegergergsdgedgege No. Im saying that 256bit addresses are enough until the end of time. Well, at least until 8 qubit computers hit the shelves. Bonus points to anyone capable of calculating the number of combinations in 8 qubits :) Same as with 8 "normal" bits: 256. The way to access and to calculate with quantum bits/bytes makes the difference to the classical way. The amount of data you can store is pretty much the same and no benefit there.

Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.