Also, C++ is multi-paradigmatic, and does not try to shoehorn everything into the OOP paradigm, which means the code can fit the problem better.
Or worse. multi-paradigm programming is akin to messy code. Lots of C++ code provides paradigmatic examples of this. Just like sort-of kind-of kind of argumentation of:
For instance, I lost count of how often I use boost.lambda, or boost.phoenix, or bind, which all are sort of implementations of lambda.
Then there are expression templates, which allows you to do things like matrix multiplications which even outperform Fortran.
:D
In reality, there are examples where C++ induces 5-10% run-time overhead compared to the same code in FORTRAN 77 when compiling numerically intensive
code using classes/templates.
As far as I know it, we have three main instruction sets. Integer, Floating Point, and Vector (SSE, MMX..etc). Would it more likely be that we would end up with the forth set being Quantum? Or, would it be possible to have an entire CPU quantum based?
Sure it would. Modern processors do things with several bits at once (like 32 or 64 bits integers, floats that you mention). Quantum computer calculates with several quantum-bits (so-called q-bits) at once, using their entanglement together with quantum evolution and a measurement on the evolved q-bits. This has nothing to do with some word Eigen that other posts are mentioning, because we can simulate quantum computers classically, so Eigen is not necessarily operation that only quantum computer does--we can actually calculate eigen values using classical computers just fine. Once built, quantum computer could be an additional unit in the computer system, like QPU (Quantum Processing Unit), similar to today's GPUs.
1 - Knowledge is power, and you just told the world critical elements of your defenses. There's a reason banks don't disclose such things. It doesn't make your system any less secure, but it raises the bar for attackers.
Now that you have been empowered by the knowledge of her defenses, please enlighten us oh mighty Forest how would you get through?
1) The vast majority of attacks out there are simple programs that install in the OS. They are not some uber VM root kits or the like. As such, a virus scanner running in the OS is perfectly capable of dealing with them. So no, it doesn't give you 100% defense but I bet it stops 99.99% of the attacks out there and that is worth something.
Your desire to reason about idiocy is really touching! Now, let's first admit to yourself that you pulled that 99.99% out of your ass. Then, this figure is useless if that 0.01% of viruses, that are not coming out of your ass, steal the sensitive data. What she says is many things:
1) that the whole idea of AV scanners is just the wrong way to go. AV software lags behind virus writers, her techniques are already patching up very serious holes for the potential viruses of tomorrow.
2) She goes for 100% security of your important data, which is the exact opposite of what AV software does, and which you, in all your burning desire, claim to be impossible.
2) Even in the case of low level root kits, they still have to get to your system in the first place. That in general means they have to get downloaded form the net or transferred from a CD or flash drive. Guess what? A virus scanner in the OS can stop that.[...]
Guess what? If your system is on the net and you're protected by the latest AV software, plus some decent standard measures of protection, you could get nasty virus.
[...] I haven't seen [BluPill] made practical. Oh sure you can talk about an undetectable super rootkit on paper but does it actually work in the real world? VMWare doesn't think it would, and they do know more than a bit about virtualization.
I'm not saying this isn't an interesting line of academic research, but I'm getting tired of the "OMG I can own any system and not be detected!" doomsaying.
Here is one practical question for you & VMWare: how do you know that your computer is not already run by the BluePill? "No, really, not the case it seems" does not seem to be an answer to this. Ergo, you are an idiot.
Don't be so sure. Back in the day it looked pretty good coming from assembler, especially when you realized they were going to pay you the same amount of money. And most people today don't realize what a pain in the ass pre-ANSI C was.
That's not how I remember those days. I sort of worked for a small company delivering COBOL databases, really stayed only for about month-long training period. I already new COBOL well actually, and senior programmers were mostly refactoring old data-bases for new customers or restructuring them by adding new kinds or reports/fields and some such things. So when the senior programmer was showing me how to fulfill given wish list, I was mostly trying to figure out how he did this or that editing move in vi, especially considering the speed with which it was being done. vi beeps if you make a silly move, so you could differentiate by ear boyz from men. I also haven't used UNIX before, so that was also interesting. I don't remember really hating COBOL, I just found it very tedious and boring. It tries to make program very verbose, turning it into a novel, and that's not how programmer's brain work. For elegance I used Pascal, at least for a while until I learned LISP, which made programming languages interesting in their own right. And also lots of FORTRAN and BASIC, but above all assembler. In those days you would really try to squeeze out cycles from tight loops, or implement a fancy algorithm at low level, and that was fun. When C became more popular I didn't really see what's all the fuss about because the whole idea of "high-level assembler" was not impressive since we still had low-level assembler, and, needless to say, porting was not an issue, but performance was. Only when I tried to learn Motorola 68000 did C begin to make sense.
Probably not. Things are worded this way to explain them to laymen. Physicists are going to describe these phenomena with systems of equations and words and the equations will suggest deeper intuitive meaning to those used to working with them.
Except that this is an experiment at nanoscale, so you won't find much equations there.
Best practices about CA management says you should have your secret key in a (physical) safe. Better yet, divide it in two pieces and put it along the passphrase in three different safes (part1+pass,part2+pass,part1+part2), so you can't lose key access even if you lose one safe, and nobody can take the key by opening a single safe.
And where do you keep the keys for those safes? Or their access code?
Just curious:-)
Why, in another safe... it is safes all the way down...
So just because something has a lot of CPUs and can crunch a lot of numbers, doesn't make it a supercomputer.
There's no reason "supercomputer" needs to only refer to monolithic machines with high-speed interprocess communication, merely because it has primarily meant that in the past.
There was some SF book I read, where it was explained that the comments were "made by a demo version of creature editor" and that was the reason for humans to die after 100 years. Some hacker has then found a way to reset the demo counter and thus to make people live forever.
Hey, what if that's how DNA work? Would that not be like awesome and stuff?
Helluva lots of details. After wasting some perfectly useful clicks all I could come up with was:
Illumina's technology is extremely well-established, and serves as the backbone for most large-scale genome sequencing projects currently underway (including the majority of the samples sequenced as part of the 1000 Genomes Project); that gives it an edge over the more experimental technology employed by competing sequence provider Complete Genomics.
That's so much details that I really want my clicks back.
You should be ashamed of yourself, Sir.
I'm trying to figure out why Morgan Stanley is the place for this kind of article. And I hate it when the media has such a hay-day over something, that Google becomes useless because all you can find are media reports about something, and it's close to impossible to find out the "something" they're reporting on.
At the Debian conference in Helsinki, we moved a few discussion groups into the sauna. It was highly productive, and the flame wars didn't restart for two weeks after the conference.
Slashdot Mirror
"Try to imagine what the superset of C99, C#, Java, Haskell, Lisp, Python, and Ada would look like."
I imagine it would look very similar to Common Lisp.
Indeed.
This is why I use languages that don't change every few years.
What language would that be? I can't think of a single major programming language that hasn't been updated at least twice.
INTERCAL?
INTERCAL comes in at least three flavors: INTERCAL-72, C-INTERCAL, CLC-INTERCAL.
Actually, you can't program it like FP. Sorry.
FORTRAN has its problems as well. Shouldn't we fix that first?
It's being fixed constantly: FORTRAN IV, 77, 80(something), 90, 95, 2000,....
... and both will be out after Python 4000...
but still before Python 10000.
Also, C++ is multi-paradigmatic, and does not try to shoehorn everything into the OOP paradigm, which means the code can fit the problem better.
Or worse. multi-paradigm programming is akin to messy code. Lots of C++ code provides paradigmatic examples of this. Just like sort-of kind-of kind of argumentation of:
For instance, I lost count of how often I use boost.lambda, or boost.phoenix, or bind, which all are sort of implementations of lambda.
Then there are expression templates, which allows you to do things like matrix multiplications which even outperform Fortran.
:D
In reality, there are examples where C++ induces 5-10% run-time overhead compared to the same code in FORTRAN 77 when compiling numerically intensive code using classes/templates.
As far as I know it, we have three main instruction sets. Integer, Floating Point, and Vector (SSE, MMX..etc). Would it more likely be that we would end up with the forth set being Quantum? Or, would it be possible to have an entire CPU quantum based?
Sure it would. Modern processors do things with several bits at once (like 32 or 64 bits integers, floats that you mention). Quantum computer calculates with several quantum-bits (so-called q-bits) at once, using their entanglement together with quantum evolution and a measurement on the evolved q-bits. This has nothing to do with some word Eigen that other posts are mentioning, because we can simulate quantum computers classically, so Eigen is not necessarily operation that only quantum computer does--we can actually calculate eigen values using classical computers just fine. Once built, quantum computer could be an additional unit in the computer system, like QPU (Quantum Processing Unit), similar to today's GPUs.
1 - Knowledge is power, and you just told the world critical elements of your defenses. There's a reason banks don't disclose such things. It doesn't make your system any less secure, but it raises the bar for attackers.
Now that you have been empowered by the knowledge of her defenses, please enlighten us oh mighty Forest how would you get through?
Third party testing, that's how. VB100 would be a big one, [...]
In reality, VB100 claims:
A VB100 award means that a product has passed our tests, no more and no less.
It is idiotic for three reasons:
1) The vast majority of attacks out there are simple programs that install in the OS. They are not some uber VM root kits or the like. As such, a virus scanner running in the OS is perfectly capable of dealing with them. So no, it doesn't give you 100% defense but I bet it stops 99.99% of the attacks out there and that is worth something.
Your desire to reason about idiocy is really touching! Now, let's first admit to yourself that you pulled that 99.99% out of your ass. Then, this figure is useless if that 0.01% of viruses, that are not coming out of your ass, steal the sensitive data. What she says is many things:
1) that the whole idea of AV scanners is just the wrong way to go. AV software lags behind virus writers, her techniques are already patching up very serious holes for the potential viruses of tomorrow.
2) She goes for 100% security of your important data, which is the exact opposite of what AV software does, and which you, in all your burning desire, claim to be impossible.
2) Even in the case of low level root kits, they still have to get to your system in the first place. That in general means they have to get downloaded form the net or transferred from a CD or flash drive. Guess what? A virus scanner in the OS can stop that.[...]
Guess what? If your system is on the net and you're protected by the latest AV software, plus some decent standard measures of protection, you could get nasty virus.
[...] I haven't seen [BluPill] made practical. Oh sure you can talk about an undetectable super rootkit on paper but does it actually work in the real world? VMWare doesn't think it would, and they do know more than a bit about virtualization.
I'm not saying this isn't an interesting line of academic research, but I'm getting tired of the "OMG I can own any system and not be detected!" doomsaying.
Here is one practical question for you & VMWare: how do you know that your computer is not already run by the BluePill? "No, really, not the case it seems" does not seem to be an answer to this. Ergo, you are an idiot.
Don't be so sure. Back in the day it looked pretty good coming from assembler, especially when you realized they were going to pay you the same amount of money. And most people today don't realize what a pain in the ass pre-ANSI C was.
That's not how I remember those days. I sort of worked for a small company delivering COBOL databases, really stayed only for about month-long training period. I already new COBOL well actually, and senior programmers were mostly refactoring old data-bases for new customers or restructuring them by adding new kinds or reports/fields and some such things. So when the senior programmer was showing me how to fulfill given wish list, I was mostly trying to figure out how he did this or that editing move in vi, especially considering the speed with which it was being done. vi beeps if you make a silly move, so you could differentiate by ear boyz from men. I also haven't used UNIX before, so that was also interesting. I don't remember really hating COBOL, I just found it very tedious and boring. It tries to make program very verbose, turning it into a novel, and that's not how programmer's brain work. For elegance I used Pascal, at least for a while until I learned LISP, which made programming languages interesting in their own right. And also lots of FORTRAN and BASIC, but above all assembler. In those days you would really try to squeeze out cycles from tight loops, or implement a fancy algorithm at low level, and that was fun. When C became more popular I didn't really see what's all the fuss about because the whole idea of "high-level assembler" was not impressive since we still had low-level assembler, and, needless to say, porting was not an issue, but performance was. Only when I tried to learn Motorola 68000 did C begin to make sense.
I've gotta go now to check my lawn...
Probably not. Things are worded this way to explain them to laymen. Physicists are going to describe these phenomena with systems of equations and words and the equations will suggest deeper intuitive meaning to those used to working with them.
Except that this is an experiment at nanoscale, so you won't find much equations there.
I believe nearly any coder with any experience and a language reference guide can read through code and make changes w[h]ere needed.
And any coder with no knowledge of any other programming language would find COBOL enjoyable to code in.
Best practices about CA management says you should have your secret key in a (physical) safe. Better yet, divide it in two pieces and put it along the passphrase in three different safes (part1+pass,part2+pass,part1+part2), so you can't lose key access even if you lose one safe, and nobody can take the key by opening a single safe.
And where do you keep the keys for those safes? Or their access code? :-)
Just curious
Why, in another safe... it is safes all the way down...
So just because something has a lot of CPUs and can crunch a lot of numbers, doesn't make it a supercomputer.
There's no reason "supercomputer" needs to only refer to monolithic machines with high-speed interprocess communication, merely because it has primarily meant that in the past.
Yes there is.
You're using a very liberal definition of DNA.
I'm telling you, liberals are destroying this great country of ours.
"Suppose they sequence a specific human's genome. Now they do it again. Will the two sequences be the same?"
;-)
Not necessarily.
[Reference needed]
You thought God can't spell "job security"? Mind you, he's omnipotent!
and also dead! So go know.
There was some SF book I read, where it was explained that the comments were "made by a demo version of creature editor" and that was the reason for humans to die after 100 years. Some hacker has then found a way to reset the demo counter and thus to make people live forever.
Hey, what if that's how DNA work? Would that not be like awesome and stuff?
Illumina will sequence your genome for $48,000.
http://scienceblogs.com/geneticfuture/2009/06/illumina_launches_personal_gen.php
Details.
Helluva lots of details. After wasting some perfectly useful clicks all I could come up with was:
Illumina's technology is extremely well-established, and serves as the backbone for most large-scale genome sequencing projects currently underway (including the majority of the samples sequenced as part of the 1000 Genomes Project); that gives it an edge over the more experimental technology employed by competing sequence provider Complete Genomics.
That's so much details that I really want my clicks back. You should be ashamed of yourself, Sir.
Seriously,[...]
Seriously, sounds like you have some strange sounds in your head.
I'm trying to figure out why Morgan Stanley is the place for this kind of article. And I hate it when the media has such a hay-day over something, that Google becomes useless because all you can find are media reports about something, and it's close to impossible to find out the "something" they're reporting on.
What article? There is no article in TFA. WITFA?
At the Debian conference in Helsinki, we moved a few discussion groups into the sauna. It was highly productive, and the flame wars didn't restart for two weeks after the conference.
What happened?
Funny that the article itself has a large banner advertising RusCams.com, with the tagline "chat with beautiful girls, live on their webcams"!
That's because they banned pornography, not webcams and chatting...
how many orbital orbiter would orbit, if there where no orbit for orbiter to orbit?
Torbit orno torbit?
That is the question.