Mudando el blog

Me cansé de blogspot, no me gusta...
Es por eso que me mudo a Wordpress

http://ruiznicolas.wordpress.com/

Un poco mejor diseñado y más concretos posts
Nos vemos allá!

Mr. X by Carl Sagan

It all began about ten years ago. I had reached a considerably more relaxed period in my life - a time when I had come to feel that there was more to living than science, a time of awakening of my social consciousness and amiability, a time when I was open to new experiences. I had become friendly with a group of people who occasionally smoked cannabis, irregularly, but with evident pleasure. Initially I was unwilling to partake, but the apparent euphoria that cannabis produced and the fact that there was no physiological addiction to the plant eventually persuaded me to try. My initial experiences were entirely disappointing; there was no effect at all, and I began to entertain a variety of hypotheses about cannabis being a placebo which worked by expectation and hyperventilation rather than by chemistry. After about five or six unsuccessful attempts, however, it happened. I was lying on my back in a friend's living room idly examining the pattern of shadows on the ceiling cast by a potted plant (not cannabis!). I suddenly realized that I was examining an intricately detailed miniature Volkswagen, distinctly outlined by the shadows. I was very skeptical at this perception, and tried to find inconsistencies between Volkswagens and what I viewed on the ceiling. But it was all there, down to hubcaps, license plate, chrome, and even the small handle used for opening the trunk. When I closed my eyes, I was stunned to find that there was a movie going on the inside of my eyelids. Flash... a simple country scene with red farmhouse, a blue sky, white clouds, yellow path meandering over green hills to the horizon... Flash... same scene, orange house, brown sky, red clouds, yellow path, violet fields... Flash... Flash... Flash. The flashes came about once a heartbeat. Each flash brought the same simple scene into view, but each time with a different set of colors... exquisitely deep hues, and astonishingly harmonious in their juxtaposition. Since then I have smoked occasionally and enjoyed it thoroughly. It amplifies torpid sensibilities and produces what to me are even more interesting effects, as I will explain shortly.

I can remember another early visual experience with cannabis, in which I viewed a candle flame and discovered in the heart of the flame, standing with magnificent indifference, the black-hatted and -cloaked Spanish gentleman who appears on the label of the Sandeman sherry bottle. Looking at fires when high, by the way, especially through one of those prism kaleidoscopes which image their surroundings, is an extraordinarily moving and beautiful experience.

I want to explain that at no time did I think these things 'really' were out there. I knew there was no Volkswagen on the ceiling and there was no Sandeman salamander man in the flame. I don't feel any contradiction in these experiences. There's a part of me making, creating the perceptions which in everyday life would be bizarre; there's another part of me which is a kind of observer. About half of the pleasure comes from the observer-part appreciating the work of the creator-part. I smile, or sometimes even laugh out loud at the pictures on the insides of my eyelids. In this sense, I suppose cannabis is psychotomimetic, but I find none of the panic or terror that accompanies some psychoses. Possibly this is because I know it's my own trip, and that I can come down rapidly any time I want to.

While my early perceptions were all visual, and curiously lacking in images of human beings, both of these items have changed over the intervening years. I find that today a single joint is enough to get me high. I test whether I'm high by closing my eyes and looking for the flashes. They come long before there are any alterations in my visual or other perceptions. I would guess this is a signal-to-noise problem, the visual noise level being very low with my eyes closed. Another interesting information-theoretical aspect is the prevalence - at least in my flashed images - of cartoons: just the outlines of figures, caricatures, not photographs. I think this is simply a matter of information compression; it would be impossible to grasp the total content of an image with the information content of an ordinary photograph, say 10⁸ bits, in the fraction of a second which a flash occupies. And the flash experience is designed, if I may use that word, for instant appreciation. The artist and viewer are one. This is not to say that the images are not marvelously detailed and complex. I recently had an image in which two people were talking, and the words they were saying would form and disappear in yellow above their heads, at about a sentence per heartbeat. In this way it was possible to follow the conversation. At the same time an occasional word would appear in red letters among the yellows above their heads, perfectly in context with the conversation; but if one remembered these red words, they would enunciate a quite different set of statements, penetratingly critical of the conversation. The entire image set which I've outlined here, with I would say at least 100 yellow words and something like 10 red words, occurred in something under a minute.

The cannabis experience has greatly improved my appreciation for art, a subject which I had never much appreciated before. The understanding of the intent of the artist which I can achieve when high sometimes carries over to when I'm down. This is one of many human frontiers which cannabis has helped me traverse. There also have been some art-related insights — I don't know whether they are true or false, but they were fun to formulate. For example, I have spent some time high looking at the work of the Belgian surrealist Yves Tanguey. Some years later, I emerged from a long swim in the Caribbean and sank exhausted onto a beach formed from the erosion of a nearby coral reef. In idly examining the arcuate pastel-colored coral fragments which made up the beach, I saw before me a vast Tanguey painting. Perhaps Tanguey visited such a beach in his childhood.

A very similar improvement in my appreciation of music has occurred with cannabis. For the first time I have been able to hear the separate parts of a three-part harmony and the richness of the counterpoint. I have since discovered that professional musicians can quite easily keep many separate parts going simultaneously in their heads, but this was the first time for me. Again, the learning experience when high has at least to some extent carried over when I'm down. The enjoyment of food is amplified; tastes and aromas emerge that for some reason we ordinarily seem to be too busy to notice. I am able to give my full attention to the sensation. A potato will have a texture, a body, and taste like that of other potatoes, but much more so. Cannabis also enhances the enjoyment of sex — on the one hand it gives an exquisite sensitivity, but on the other hand it postpones orgasm: in part by distracting me with the profusion of image passing before my eyes. The actual duration of orgasm seems to lengthen greatly, but this may be the usual experience of time expansion which comes with cannabis smoking.

I do not consider myself a religious person in the usual sense, but there is a religious aspect to some highs. The heightened sensitivity in all areas gives me a feeling of communion with my surroundings, both animate and inanimate. Sometimes a kind of existential perception of the absurd comes over me and I see with awful certainty the hypocrisies and posturing of myself and my fellow men. And at other times, there is a different sense of the absurd, a playful and whimsical awareness. Both of these senses of the absurd can be communicated, and some of the most rewarding highs I've had have been in sharing talk and perceptions and humor. Cannabis brings us an awareness that we spend a lifetime being trained to overlook and forget and put out of our minds. A sense of what the world is really like can be maddening; cannabis has brought me some feelings for what it is like to be crazy, and how we use that word 'crazy' to avoid thinking about things that are too painful for us. In the Soviet Union political dissidents are routinely placed in insane asylums. The same kind of thing, a little more subtle perhaps, occurs here: 'did you hear what Lenny Bruce said yesterday? He must be crazy.' When high on cannabis I discovered that there's somebody inside in those people we call mad.

When I'm high I can penetrate into the past, recall childhood memories, friends, relatives, playthings, streets, smells, sounds, and tastes from a vanished era. I can reconstruct the actual occurrences in childhood events only half understood at the time. Many but not all my cannabis trips have somewhere in them a symbolism significant to me which I won't attempt to describe here, a kind of mandala embossed on the high. Free-associating to this mandala, both visually and as plays on words, has produced a very rich array of insights.

There is a myth about such highs: the user has an illusion of great insight, but it does not survive scrutiny in the morning. I am convinced that this is an error, and that the devastating insights achieved when high are real insights; the main problem is putting these insights in a form acceptable to the quite different self that we are when we're down the next day. Some of the hardest work I've ever done has been to put such insights down on tape or in writing. The problem is that ten even more interesting ideas or images have to be lost in the effort of recording one. It is easy to understand why someone might think it's a waste of effort going to all that trouble to set the thought down, a kind of intrusion of the Protestant Ethic. But since I live almost all my life down I've made the effort — successfully, I think. Incidentally, I find that reasonably good insights can be remembered the next day, but only if some effort has been made to set them down another way. If I write the insight down or tell it to someone, then I can remember it with no assistance the following morning; but if I merely say to myself that I must make an effort to remember, I never do.

I find that most of the insights I achieve when high are into social issues, an area of creative scholarship very different from the one I am generally known for. I can remember one occasion, taking a shower with my wife while high, in which I had an idea on the origins and invalidities of racism in terms of gaussian distribution curves. It was a point obvious in a way, but rarely talked about. I drew the curves in soap on the shower wall, and went to write the idea down. One idea led to another, and at the end of about an hour of extremely hard work I found I had written eleven short essays on a wide range of social, political, philosophical, and human biological topics. Because of problems of space, I can't go into the details of these essays, but from all external signs, such as public reactions and expert commentary, they seem to contain valid insights. I have used them in university commencement addresses, public lectures, and in my books.

But let me try to at least give the flavor of such an insight and its accompaniments. One night, high on cannabis, I was delving into my childhood, a little self-analysis, and making what seemed to me to be very good progress. I then paused and thought how extraordinary it was that Sigmund Freud, with no assistance from drugs, had been able to achieve his own remarkable self-analysis. But then it hit me like a thunderclap that this was wrong, that Freud had spent the decade before his self-analysis as an experimenter with and a proselytizer for cocaine; and it seemed to me very apparent that the genuine psychological insights that Freud brought to the world were at least in part derived from his drug experience. I have no idea whether this is in fact true, or whether the historians of Freud would agree with this interpretation, or even if such an idea has been published in the past, but it is an interesting hypothesis and one which passes first scrutiny in the world of the downs.

I can remember the night that I suddenly realized what it was like to be crazy, or nights when my feelings and perceptions were of a religious nature. I had a very accurate sense that these feelings and perceptions, written down casually, would not stand the usual critical scrutiny that is my stock in trade as a scientist. If I find in the morning a message from myself the night before informing me that there is a world around us which we barely sense, or that we can become one with the universe, or even that certain politicians are desperately frightened men, I may tend to disbelieve; but when I'm high I know about this disbelief. And so I have a tape in which I exhort myself to take such remarks seriously. I say 'Listen closely, you sonofabitch of the morning! This stuff is real!' I try to show that my mind is working clearly; I recall the name of a high school acquaintance I have not thought of in thirty years; I describe the color, typography, and format of a book in another room and these memories do pass critical scrutiny in the morning. I am convinced that there are genuine and valid levels of perception available with cannabis (and probably with other drugs) which are, through the defects of our society and our educational system, unavailable to us without such drugs. Such a remark applies not only to self-awareness and to intellectual pursuits, but also to perceptions of real people, a vastly enhanced sensitivity to facial expression, intonations, and choice of words which sometimes yields a rapport so close it's as if two people are reading each other's minds.

Cannabis enables nonmusicians to know a little about what it is like to be a musician, and nonartists to grasp the joys of art. But I am neither an artist nor a musician. What about my own scientific work? While I find a curious disinclination to think of my professional concerns when high — the attractive intellectual adventures always seem to be in every other area — I have made a conscious effort to think of a few particularly difficult current problems in my field when high. It works, at least to a degree. I find I can bring to bear, for example, a range of relevant experimental facts which appear to be mutually inconsistent. So far, so good. At least the recall works. Then in trying to conceive of a way of reconciling the disparate facts, I was able to come up with a very bizarre possibility, one that I'm sure I would never have thought of down. I've written a paper which mentions this idea in passing. I think it's very unlikely to be true, but it has consequences which are experimentally testable, which is the hallmark of an acceptable theory.

I have mentioned that in the cannabis experience there is a part of your mind that remains a dispassionate observer, who is able to take you down in a hurry if need be. I have on a few occasions been forced to drive in heavy traffic when high. I've negotiated it with no difficulty at all, though I did have some thoughts about the marvelous cherry-red color of traffic lights. I find that after the drive I'm not high at all. There are no flashes on the insides of my eyelids. If you're high and your child is calling, you can respond about as capably as you usually do. I don't advocate driving when high on cannabis, but I can tell you from personal experience that it certainly can be done. My high is always reflective, peaceable, intellectually exciting, and sociable, unlike most alcohol highs, and there is never a hangover. Through the years I find that slightly smaller amounts of cannabis suffice to produce the same degree of high, and in one movie theater recently I found I could get high just by inhaling the cannabis smoke which permeated the theater.

There is a very nice self-titering aspect to cannabis. Each puff is a very small dose; the time lag between inhaling a puff and sensing its effect is small; and there is no desire for more after the high is there. I think the ratio, R, of the time to sense the dose taken to the time required to take an excessive dose is an important quantity. R is very large for LSD (which I've never taken) and reasonably short for cannabis. Small values of R should be one measure of the safety of psychedelic drugs. When cannabis is legalized, I hope to see this ratio as one of the parameters printed on the pack. I hope that time isn't too distant; the illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world.

Zeitgeist Quote

"The population suffers from a fear of change, for their conditioning assumes a static identity, and challenging ones belief system, usually results in insult and apprehension, for being wrong is erroneously associated with failure. When, if fact, to be proven wrong should be a celebrated, for it is elevating someone to a new level of understanding, furthering awareness. The fact is, there is no such thing as a smart human being, for it is merely a matter of time before their ideas are updated, changed or eradicated. And this tendency to blindly hold on to a belief system, sheltering it from new, possibly transforming information, is nothing less than a form of intellectual materialism."

Enfermo como un Zombie

Hoy me levanté congestionado como la autopista en hora pico.


Me siento como un Zombie debe sentirse...a veces creo que no porque todo su organismo está muerto, pero si puede moverse, hacer ruidos como "agggg", eso requiere de capacidad motriz, controlada por muy pequeñas ondas cerebrales.


Asi que tal vez si sienten, tal vez si piensan en algo. Las últimas películas de George A Romero han demostrado un avance en sus ondas cerebrales, piensan y todo... Asi que tal vez no es taaaaan descabellado pensar que así como estoy yo, "siente" un Zombie.

Multinúcleos: La proliferación de los procesadores

Reseña sobre artículo  Multicore CPUs: Processor Proliferation by Samuel K Moore

La tendencia que se veía a mediados de la década de los ‘90 estaba llegando a un límite. En ese entonces, la eficiencia en los procesadores se basaba en la construcción con transistores más pequeños y veloces, la velocidad de reloj de los procesadores de núcleo simple iba aumentando tan rápidamente, que los productores se encontraban fieles a este paradigma de evolución. Pero, existía una contrapartida; el aumento de la temperatura. Es por eso que algo era claro; siendo la temperatura un enemigo de los procesadores, la táctica evolutiva debía cambiar.

Para 1994 y sus años consecutivos, la eficiencia de los procesadores era un 50% superior al de su año anterior. Como en ese entonces el paradigma era por demás prometedor, no fue ampliamente aceptada la predicción de Kunle Olukotun, profesor de la universidad de Stanford, de implementar procesadores de multinúcleos. Con el avance de los años, los productores de procesadores comenzaron a implementar los multinúcleos. Contrario al motivo que mencionaba Olukotun del techo tecnológico de capacidades de procesamiento, se comenzó a implementar por motivos de temperatura y energía. Un análisis hecho por Intel por los ’90 demostró que la tendencia del momento podría haber generado procesadores con temperaturas cercanas a las del sol para 2010. Sea el motivo que fuere, Olukotun tenía razón.

La idea era ingeniosa; no se podía potenciar las velocidades de procesamiento, pero si aumentar el paralelismo de procesos mediante los multinúcleos. Tanto Intel como AMD e IBM comenzaron la producción de dichos procesadores, cada uno con tecnologías y enfoques distintos e igualmente innovadores. La “carrera armamentista” habría comenzado. Así como se inició con dos núcleos, se comenzó luego a pensar en cuatro y luego en seis, por lo que la pregunta volvería a surgir, ¿Cuál sería el límite? La nueva tendencia convertía a los multinúcleos en una suerte de transistores; cada vez agregar más y más pequeños, como ocurría en el paradigma anterior. Si cada núcleo consume entre 8 y 10Watts, agregar más generaría más consumo y más energía, por lo que la historia se volvería a repetir. Bajo esta preocupación, cada productor ha intentado demorar aquel visible y fortuito desenlace de esta tendencia evolutiva. AMD, por su lado, implementó la arquitectura Bulldozer mediante la cual ha logrado compartir componentes entre los núcleos sin disminuir las velocidades.

Los pronósticos visibles según los productores varían; Intel menciona que el bus de transferencia de memoria será el principal limitante entre más núcleos surjan. AMD, por otro lado plantea que seguramente el límite de los multinúcleos, así se esté hablando de cientos, sea de 16 por procesador. Para contrarrestarlo, AMD ha comenzado a analizar la posibilidad de realizar una especie de fusión entre el CPU y el GPU de la placa de video y formar así un APU (Accelerated Processing Unit). Teniendo en cuenta que las GPU pueden realizar procesos paralelos eficientemente y esos procesos son datos, se podría dedicar gran parte de los datos del CPU mediante el  procesamiento del GPU. IBM no se queda detrás con su propuesta. Sabiendo que se aproxima dicho límite, se encuentra considerando que cada núcleo realice tareas dedicadas, como por ejemplo encriptación, desencriptación, codificación de videos, entre otros.

Independientemente de estar Olukotun más partidario a la idea de núcleos heterogéneos y sea cual fuere el futuro, el problema hoy se encuentra en la limitación de los programadores. Cuando llegue el momento en donde puedan desarrollar software en paralelo, recién ahí se le podrá utilizar el máximo potencial por el cual tanto batallan los productores de procesadores. Mientras tanto, desde el hardware, será necesario que la misma tecnología y sus limitaciones generen las necesidades de cambio de paradigma. Y sino, que Olukotun nos vuelva a iluminar.

El Problema con los multinúcleos

Reseña sobre artículo The Trouble With Multicore by David Patterson
La evolución del hardware ha alcanzado niveles increíbles. Al inicio de la historia de las computadoras, el software ha estado dependiendo de la lenta evolución del hardware. Con transistores que poco a poco iban evolucionando y haciéndose más eficientes y más pequeños, los desarrolladores siempre estaban limitados por esta situación. Hoy por hoy, el juego ha dado un giro radical. Con la incorporación de los microprocesadores de múltiples núcleos, el software no puede utilizar al máximo la capacidad que existe. Hoy es el software el que limita al hardware. Tal vez decirlo tan directo pueda sonar hasta invalido, pero el hecho de no haber programación en paralelo, genera simplemente una inutilidad de la evolución tecnológica.

Hoy por hoy, aquellos que realmente pueden usar los nuevos microprocesadores son pocos, como los video juegos. En otras ocasiones, algún grupo experto y costoso de ingenieros pueden realizar alguna aplicación que utilice dos o cuatro núcleos, pero en el uso cotidiano y las necesidades básicas, se está muy lejos de alcanzar esos niveles.

El desarrollo tecnológico aplicado a los multicores no es una mala jugada si se considera que no se puede explotar mucho más la capacidad de un microprocesador de un núcleo desde el punto de vista electrónico. De todas formas, como se menciona anteriormente, el desarrollo y desarrolladores de software no pueden acompañarlo. Ya se comienza a hablar de 128 núcleos, cuando todavía es difícil programar en dos a cuatro.

Existen ciertas consideraciones. Se podría decir que hay dos tendencias mundiales para el uso cotidiano de las computadoras y software; cloud computing y el uso de computadoras muy potentes. Se consiguen netbooks con procesadores de bajo costo y consumo de energía con el tradeoff de ser de bajo procesamiento. Estas netbooks apoyan más la tendencia de cloud computing, permitiendo que el procesamiento duro se encuentre en los servidores. La otra tendencia es aquella que potencia la compra de un portátil o un desktop con Intel i7 o con AMD Phenom II X6. En esta, se potencia más el procesamiento individual.

Si se considera la limitación de software, es probable que pasen muchos años hasta que un usuario o cliente final pueda aprovechar al máximo la tecnología con la que dispone. Por otro lado, cloud computing permite centralizar todos los servicios de software en servidores y así posiblemente permitir una mejor tendencia al “fácil” desarrollo de servicios. Es sabido que es más fácil desarrollar aplicaciones “simples” para múltiples usuarios, que aplicaciones complejas para uno solo. El cloud computing sería una evolución del primer concepto, permitiendo eventualmente la completa utilización de la tecnología con la que se dispone, y logrando que todos los usuarios finales puedan adquirir tecnología accesible de bajo procesamiento sin perjudicar las necesidades.

Es posible que si cloud computing continua evolucionando, los multiple cores se enfoquen más en los servidores y en las tarjetas de gráficos. Mientras tanto, la opinión personal es que se debería buscar la eficiencia de la tecnología actual deteniendo el incremento de núcleos e incrementando la tecnología que utilicen; ya sea el caché o la plataforma de procesos como el nuevo Sandy Bridge. Una vez identificada la forma de realizar programación en paralelo, se podría continuar evolucionando la cantidad de núcleos sumado a lo que se desarrolle de eficiencia bajo la premisa de la propuesta aquí presente.

Ya me van a ver con reloj de bolsillo

Hay que variar en la vida, o al menos esa es mi premisa. Ahora se me dio por querer tener reloj de bolsillo.
Me gusta la idea de buscar en el bolsillo (mismo esfuerzo que buscar el celular), y ver la hora con elegancia.
Más vale que es una estupidez pero ya de solo pensar en la situación


-"Disculpá, tenes hora?"
-"Mmmh si a ver..." digo mientras saco el reloj del bolsillo y lo abro, "es hora de tomar el te"


O, recitando al sombrerero de Alicia, "If you knew time as well as I, you wouldn't *dream* of wasting it!"


Entonces, mi capricho temporal se basa en eso... El de Doctor Who es es mala idea tampoco, asi que...
Ya me van a ver con reloj de bolsillo.

Kubrick Vs Scorsese

Demasiado bueno este compilado de dos grandes directores.