What I'm most shocked about is that they bothered to write a screed to try to justify reprinting Romney's hypocritical and dishonest "didn't build it" campaign advertisment. I would think by now they would realize hiding behind such a veneer fools nobody that wasn't already going to go vote for Romey.
The only truly innovative contribution of ethernet was CSMA. Which, by the way, is now only relevant on the WiFi edge. Don't give credit to ethernet where it is not due. Do give it credit for providing a cheap, PHB-friendly networking technology that was good enough to actually do the job, and flexible enough to be upgraded many times over. Also give it credit for mysteriously succeeding in areas where it sucks balls compared to the alternatives (e.g. laughably bad OAM, chunky scaling increments, no link-level channelization resulting in a litany of encapsulation/MTU problems, no in-band maintainance channel, and absolutely no supportive mechanism for low-latency real-time capabilities.) OK well, scratch that. The success isn't mysterious, it was perfectly sensible if you looked at the prices -- the mystery was really the failure of competing technologies to chase it on price.
Oh, and give PoE credit for being an extremely well engineered, safe, and reliable power delivery add-on. But that's beside the point.
Except that ethernet as a WAN protocol didn't emerge until well after the Internet was up and running. The Internet started on serial/TDM protocols, which by the way, were very standardized, albeit with the usual US/euro dichotomy.
Not quite yet. They still have to up the deliverable wattage even more, bring OTG into the high end device range, and switch to a more sensible UTP cabling and line coding to extend the range.
They'll get there... it's the way of the world. Two people invent two things. One thing is thorough, well engineered, but expensive and requires some level of experience to understand -- the other is cheap but braindead-simple and barely functional. The latter wins in the market, and when its shortcomings start garnering attention (e.g. when people who know what they are doing finally try to use it to do something useful) those shortcomings are hacked around in a new standard revision. Eventually we end up with a giant steaming pile of bodgery that mimics the superior standard we already had 10 or 20 years ago but is saddled by loads of legacy compatibility needs. Witness SCSI vs IDE/ATA, ATM vs MPLS/RSVP, SGML vs XML/XHTML just off the top of my head.
The biggest barrier to my deployment of IPv6 is the edge switches and the wireless controllers. Support for first-hop security features for IPv6 is going to have to wait until we get around to paying for some rather substantial hardware upgrades, and IPv6 by itself does not justify that cost. Even if we had the money now, the actual feature sets are still not mature in the wired edge switches yet. In a competently secured campus network one does not allow old ARP/IP spoofing tricks to work, and doing so relies on the switch hardware and the wireless platform which must integrate with the DHCP servers by snooping traffic and using it to build port level access lists. IPv6 has analogous tricks that also need to be sqashed at the switchport/AP level, and while self-service address autoconfiguration seemed like a good idea to the IPv6 standards community they just don't cut it in a security-aware environment, so this support must include DHCPv6 snooping, which is still rare to find in switch feature sets these days. These are the features campus administrators will block on.
So in this case, the US should force it's values on other countries
Either that, or deal with the resulting military cost of protecting our interests during the inevitable social unrest results from environmental contamination by the establishment forces in those countries.. as already happens in China, though so far this has presented us with little economic threat to U.S. interests.
You can only shit around for so long before the locals get pretty fed up with living in the shit.
Also, of the tests that were conglomerated to get to the 5 sigma value, how similar were those tests to each other, and how does that speak to the robustness of the results? What I mean is, is this just a glimpse at a corner of something that is jutting out where a corner of the higgs would jut out, or are we seeing more than one corner of it?
People. As in a collective of two legged, two handed animals that want to do nothing and steal whatever they can?
Here's the crux of the problem with the "invisible hand of the free market" -- it's as deep in your pocket as the government. This magic savior force looked upon by the more philosophical of the selfish class actually is composed in great part by con-artists, frauds, sociopaths, psychopaths, and other such ilk that use deceit, manipulation, power and opression just as much if not more than any system of government. And yet somehow they never get meeted out by those free market mechanisms that are supposed to do so. Many manage to create a market "need" out of whole cloth, merely by manipulating the weaker minded.
So here's a hint for you: whether they call themselves a government, or a chamber of commerce, or a corporation, there will always be alliances of people who seek to take more than their fair share, and as a result, there will always be alliances seeking to claw back what what stolen from them. Mostly because people don't like to face up to the hard truth that their "talent" is only a very small part in the chain of components needed to produce whatever they hang their sense of self-worth on, and if they actually shared the credit for their "achievments" fully, they would be significantly less well off than they currently are.
Governments, chambers of commerce, and corporations can all exist in both positive and negative capacities. Casting any of them into a purely negative light is like saying the world would be better without covalent molecular bonds, because that's what was holding together the skateboard you just tripped on.
Re:Maybe because it compiles down to the metal...
on
What's To Love About C?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I think the problem these days is an entire generation of coders who have never in their life experienced a UI that was actually so repsonsive that it was impossible to ever perceive a delay between your keystroke and its effects. They've been raised entirely on laggy windows textboxes and mouseclicks that just migt get around to doing something anytime now.
They don't even know how slow their kit is running. They've never seen one run fast. So they consider similar results satisfactory when they write code.
While I agree to some point that processors do a lot of funky things these days, C is a pretty solid demarcation point for well-defined behavior that gets you close enough to the metal to do most of what you need to do down there. It's close enough that you can do some amount of optimizing for different CPU families, but not so close that you cannot write the majority of your code generically without worrying about performance.
As to C++, it isn't just a pretty C. It may not have a VM but it does some pretty messed up stuff to implement OO calling conventions. C's function calls are implemented much more directly and predictably. You can be pretty sure all that is going to happen is a few stack pushes, rather than going dawdling around hashes of function signatures looking for a candidate because somehow a virtual got mixed in there. WIth C++ you have to get pretty affectionate with your compiler to know what features you can use, and how, without the whole pile of OO bricks falling on your head.
(WRT branch prediction, It is the case today that CPUs have been optimized so much to run spaghetti code effeciently, that it has started to behoove some VM/compiler authors to write purposfully spaghetti-like code to take advantage of these accelerations. I find that rather ironic.)
Re:Maybe because it compiles down to the metal...
on
What's To Love About C?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
To make auditing easier.
Ehm... auditing dynamic languages at the level required for driver-level security is nearly impossible. No there are no dangling pointers. What there are is race conditions between the cleanup of the casually discarded memory item and it's availability for re-use. Churn in the underlying VM can change the consitency of lots of such behaviors without your code ever changing, so there's another headache. Add to that that almost all drivers for anything beyond a USB gadget are going to have to, mandatory, do some pointer arithmetic, deal with endian-swapped values, and deal with the differences between signed and unsigned fixed-width integer values, and it just makes the very idea of using a "modern" language for drivers threatens the sanity of anyone who ever wrote a production-worthy driver.
Maybe because it compiles down to the metal...
on
What's To Love About C?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
...and not some VM? Most of the popular languages these days are all dynamic. And they are very convenient and nice. But if you actually want to know what the machine is actually doing, and want to have a say in such things, C is the way to go.
I mean, unless you want to, you know, use pascal or fortran or something.
Laundry detergent bottles are emminently remeltable. Just don't breath the fumes, and expect the volume to shrink a bit. But the end product is relatively durable. That plastic is a bit less rigid than would be needed for some uses, though.
CLI is the defacto interface for Google searches. People use it everyday and all day long. Nobody complains that it isn't intuitive.
Every hopelessly-end-user person I ever talk really wants a voice command interface in the long run. Witness Siri. This brings us full circle back to CLI, albeit with a natural language twist.
Thank you. I doubt we'll have any tour groups asking where we store the manpowered helicopter and then have to explain to them, no that was some sub-school of another University, but it would be nice if journalists realize that off of a college campus, almost no individual department's name is well known; instead you should refer to the whole institution when reworking a press release from a campus newspaper or website for general consumption.
You know I keep reading about all these cheap noninvasive tests, and then go to the doctor for a checkup and expecting for them to wave some gadget in front of my moutth when I exhale, but... nothing... nothing new at all. Just the usual stuff minus, it seems these days, the ball grabbing.
It isn't even that. A counterexample would compare two countries in the same general peer group, assuming such a pair is even available (which is not necessary for statistical analysis.) U.S. and Canada aren't; they have way too many divergent attributes to act as confounding factors.
Finding sets of comparable subpopulations for Matched Pair Analysis and extending such studies to things like belief-or-not-in-karma among Budhists/Hinduists and belief-or-not in oblivion among atheists/nontheists in addition to the belief-or-not in hell among Abrahamic religious would be a logical next step.
For allocating lots of small objects, a good garbage collecting allocator is both more time- and space efficient.
Do good garbage collecting allocators actually exist? I've heard of them, but have seen no droppings in the woods or other evidence. I'm pretty sure they are possible, but most of what I've dug into the guts of was a total amateur hour inside. Stuff like no sense of realization that GC shouldn't run constantly if the program isn't actually doing anything, and should cap itself in proportion to the program's core CPU usage.
Functional languages are only a nightmare if you are too dumb.
...or want the language to be accessible to people who don't get their jollies golfing things into rpn notation and actually want to get some real work done.
Slashdot Mirror
What I'm most shocked about is that they bothered to write a screed to try to justify reprinting Romney's hypocritical and dishonest "didn't build it" campaign advertisment. I would think by now they would realize hiding behind such a veneer fools nobody that wasn't already going to go vote for Romey.
The only truly innovative contribution of ethernet was CSMA. Which, by the way, is now only relevant on the WiFi edge. Don't give credit to ethernet where it is not due. Do give it credit for providing a cheap, PHB-friendly networking technology that was good enough to actually do the job, and flexible enough to be upgraded many times over. Also give it credit for mysteriously succeeding in areas where it sucks balls compared to the alternatives (e.g. laughably bad OAM, chunky scaling increments, no link-level channelization resulting in a litany of encapsulation/MTU problems, no in-band maintainance channel, and absolutely no supportive mechanism for low-latency real-time capabilities.) OK well, scratch that. The success isn't mysterious, it was perfectly sensible if you looked at the prices -- the mystery was really the failure of competing technologies to chase it on price.
Oh, and give PoE credit for being an extremely well engineered, safe, and reliable power delivery add-on. But that's beside the point.
Except that ethernet as a WAN protocol didn't emerge until well after the Internet was up and running. The Internet started on serial/TDM protocols, which by the way, were very standardized, albeit with the usual US/euro dichotomy.
Interesting. But how do you actually hear anything on the AM radio over all those servers?
Not quite yet. They still have to up the deliverable wattage even more, bring OTG into the high end device range, and switch to a more sensible UTP cabling and line coding to extend the range.
They'll get there... it's the way of the world. Two people invent two things. One thing is thorough, well engineered, but expensive and requires some level of experience to understand -- the other is cheap but braindead-simple and barely functional. The latter wins in the market, and when its shortcomings start garnering attention (e.g. when people who know what they are doing finally try to use it to do something useful) those shortcomings are hacked around in a new standard revision. Eventually we end up with a giant steaming pile of bodgery that mimics the superior standard we already had 10 or 20 years ago but is saddled by loads of legacy compatibility needs. Witness SCSI vs IDE/ATA, ATM vs MPLS/RSVP, SGML vs XML/XHTML just off the top of my head.
The biggest barrier to my deployment of IPv6 is the edge switches and the wireless controllers. Support for first-hop security features for IPv6 is going to have to wait until we get around to paying for some rather substantial hardware upgrades, and IPv6 by itself does not justify that cost. Even if we had the money now, the actual feature sets are still not mature in the wired edge switches yet. In a competently secured campus network one does not allow old ARP/IP spoofing tricks to work, and doing so relies on the switch hardware and the wireless platform which must integrate with the DHCP servers by snooping traffic and using it to build port level access lists. IPv6 has analogous tricks that also need to be sqashed at the switchport/AP level, and while self-service address autoconfiguration seemed like a good idea to the IPv6 standards community they just don't cut it in a security-aware environment, so this support must include DHCPv6 snooping, which is still rare to find in switch feature sets these days. These are the features campus administrators will block on.
So in this case, the US should force it's values on other countries
Either that, or deal with the resulting military cost of protecting our interests during the inevitable social unrest results from environmental contamination by the establishment forces in those countries.. as already happens in China, though so far this has presented us with little economic threat to U.S. interests.
You can only shit around for so long before the locals get pretty fed up with living in the shit.
Also, of the tests that were conglomerated to get to the 5 sigma value, how similar were those tests to each other, and how does that speak to the robustness of the results? What I mean is, is this just a glimpse at a corner of something that is jutting out where a corner of the higgs would jut out, or are we seeing more than one corner of it?
A moon doesn't necessarily need to orbit a planet; it can orbit a very, very dense hunk of rock that doesn't fit the definition of planet
That may be, but I'd still vote for calling it a moonoid, just because it's fun to type.
People. As in a collective of two legged, two handed animals that want to do nothing and steal whatever they can?
Here's the crux of the problem with the "invisible hand of the free market" -- it's as deep in your pocket as the government. This magic savior force looked upon by the more philosophical of the selfish class actually is composed in great part by con-artists, frauds, sociopaths, psychopaths, and other such ilk that use deceit, manipulation, power and opression just as much if not more than any system of government. And yet somehow they never get meeted out by those free market mechanisms that are supposed to do so. Many manage to create a market "need" out of whole cloth, merely by manipulating the weaker minded.
So here's a hint for you: whether they call themselves a government, or a chamber of commerce, or a corporation, there will always be alliances of people who seek to take more than their fair share, and as a result, there will always be alliances seeking to claw back what what stolen from them. Mostly because people don't like to face up to the hard truth that their "talent" is only a very small part in the chain of components needed to produce whatever they hang their sense of self-worth on, and if they actually shared the credit for their "achievments" fully, they would be significantly less well off than they currently are.
Governments, chambers of commerce, and corporations can all exist in both positive and negative capacities. Casting any of them into a purely negative light is like saying the world would be better without covalent molecular bonds, because that's what was holding together the skateboard you just tripped on.
I think the problem these days is an entire generation of coders who have never in their life experienced a UI that was actually so repsonsive that it was impossible to ever perceive a delay between your keystroke and its effects. They've been raised entirely on laggy windows textboxes and mouseclicks that just migt get around to doing something anytime now.
They don't even know how slow their kit is running. They've never seen one run fast. So they consider similar results satisfactory when they write code.
While I agree to some point that processors do a lot of funky things these days, C is a pretty solid demarcation point for well-defined behavior that gets you close enough to the metal to do most of what you need to do down there. It's close enough that you can do some amount of optimizing for different CPU families, but not so close that you cannot write the majority of your code generically without worrying about performance.
As to C++, it isn't just a pretty C. It may not have a VM but it does some pretty messed up stuff to implement OO calling conventions. C's function calls are implemented much more directly and predictably. You can be pretty sure all that is going to happen is a few stack pushes, rather than going dawdling around hashes of function signatures looking for a candidate because somehow a virtual got mixed in there. WIth C++ you have to get pretty affectionate with your compiler to know what features you can use, and how, without the whole pile of OO bricks falling on your head.
(WRT branch prediction, It is the case today that CPUs have been optimized so much to run spaghetti code effeciently, that it has started to behoove some VM/compiler authors to write purposfully spaghetti-like code to take advantage of these accelerations. I find that rather ironic.)
To make auditing easier.
Ehm... auditing dynamic languages at the level required for driver-level security is nearly impossible. No there are no dangling pointers. What there are is race conditions between the cleanup of the casually discarded memory item and it's availability for re-use. Churn in the underlying VM can change the consitency of lots of such behaviors without your code ever changing, so there's another headache. Add to that that almost all drivers for anything beyond a USB gadget are going to have to, mandatory, do some pointer arithmetic, deal with endian-swapped values, and deal with the differences between signed and unsigned fixed-width integer values, and it just makes the very idea of using a "modern" language for drivers threatens the sanity of anyone who ever wrote a production-worthy driver.
I mean, unless you want to, you know, use pascal or fortran or something.
Laundry detergent bottles are emminently remeltable. Just don't breath the fumes, and expect the volume to shrink a bit. But the end product is relatively durable. That plastic is a bit less rigid than would be needed for some uses, though.
What I want to know is when will these things have a hopper where I can chuck all my old laundry detergent bottles as feedstock?
CLI is the defacto interface for Google searches. People use it everyday and all day long. Nobody complains that it isn't intuitive.
Every hopelessly-end-user person I ever talk really wants a voice command interface in the long run. Witness Siri. This brings us full circle back to CLI, albeit with a natural language twist.
Thank you. I doubt we'll have any tour groups asking where we store the manpowered helicopter and then have to explain to them, no that was some sub-school of another University, but it would be nice if journalists realize that off of a college campus, almost no individual department's name is well known; instead you should refer to the whole institution when reworking a press release from a campus newspaper or website for general consumption.
No no no, you have to work a factor of 3 in there to be truly english.
So try 1/12/12/8 == 1/1152. And call it an eighth-undergross just to be cretinous.
You know I keep reading about all these cheap noninvasive tests, and then go to the doctor for a checkup and expecting for them to wave some gadget in front of my moutth when I exhale, but... nothing... nothing new at all. Just the usual stuff minus, it seems these days, the ball grabbing.
I guess they are all just stuck in the pipeline.
Ah, but for the lack of mod points...
I realize this is a single counterexample
It isn't even that. A counterexample would compare two countries in the same general peer group, assuming such a pair is even available (which is not necessary for statistical analysis.) U.S. and Canada aren't; they have way too many divergent attributes to act as confounding factors.
Finding sets of comparable subpopulations for Matched Pair Analysis and extending such studies to things like belief-or-not-in-karma among Budhists/Hinduists and belief-or-not in oblivion among atheists/nontheists in addition to the belief-or-not in hell among Abrahamic religious would be a logical next step.
For allocating lots of small objects, a good garbage collecting allocator is both more time- and space efficient.
Do good garbage collecting allocators actually exist? I've heard of them, but have seen no droppings in the woods or other evidence. I'm pretty sure they are possible, but most of what I've dug into the guts of was a total amateur hour inside. Stuff like no sense of realization that GC shouldn't run constantly if the program isn't actually doing anything, and should cap itself in proportion to the program's core CPU usage.
Functional languages are only a nightmare if you are too dumb.
...or want the language to be accessible to people who don't get their jollies golfing things into rpn notation and actually want to get some real work done.
Because the bugs all die once a year instead of growing to the size of avacados.