From the paper (section 6,E: Java Tunings) ". Note that Jeremy deliberately refused to optimize the code further, many of the C++ optimizations would apply to the Java version as well.'
The billing information is retained because otherwise the companies providing the various rented infrastructures, shared networks etc. might raise a dispute, especially if under financial pressure or if they are acquired.
For a cell phone to work... it needs to know where you are !
This is because the connection or the data packets need to be routed to a radio that can physically transmit them to you. That is the radio that defines the cell. The cell is in a place. The radio has to transmit the packets to you - which is a direction within the cell.
For the billing to work... you need to keep records! Because.. the radios and the backhaul belong to lots of different people, all of whom need paying.
Now ; how many criminals/terrorists have been tracked by virtue of these records? Many.
Is it right? Well, if you want a cell phone, you have to accept this - because thats the way it works, and there is no way it will change in the foreseeable future.
And I thought that the reason that statisticians weren't good as sports coaches or generals was because there were 1000's of variables that couldn't be quantified or computed.
Watson is unnatural, any of it's advantages are unnatural.
It won, it was better at this game than anyone else.
While being quick on the buzzer is important Watson can answer general questions accurately. Not perfectly, but as well as a human, IBM have shown this is so by Watson winning the competition, but also by careful statistical analysis of it's performance in testing.
The three huge achievements are :
- very fast information retrieval; Google et-al have similar technology, but let's not forget that it's all pretty new.
- natural language query decoding; Watson doesn't understand NL queries, but it is able to decode them into search queries.
- precise information extraction and presentation; whereas Google produces several pages of results with the answer in there (and can often highlight the right result) Watson can pull "the answer" out and present it in the required format.
This is all about enterprise mobility. With exchange and sharepoint 2010 microsoft have a strong hold on the enterprise personal productivity and comms markets. They have been trying to leverage this for ages but until WM7 were behind with the software to do it, now they are frustrated by the lack of handsets and partnering with Nokia fixes this.
The big problem with this request is that it reveals one of two things.
Either the business plan is in trouble, you should have been profitable by now, or they can't project profits in the timeframe that they have funding for, or worse, there is no proper plan.
Either way, they are going bust unless you guys help out. The sensible comments about asking for stock may or may not reveal this, but if they can't have a sensible discussion about where the business stands then its for sure that they are staring down the barrel. If they won't hand stock over then my guess is that they have non left to hand over, if that's the case then they have played thier last card; your job is gone.
The rational action in that situation is to stay there and get your cheque but be looking for work like crazy.
On the other hand, if they will talk about stock, will discuss the business plan - this could be an opportunity. Participate if you believe in it.
Facebook has a very large number of active users, and it will have a very large number of active users for at least the next 3 years. The photo albums and friend networks are very good reasons why people will keep coming back, and I think it would take some fairly strong disincentives to get them to stop.
All of this means that they have a way of making money for at least the next 3 years, probably far longer. It won't be enough to justify their valuation, but it will be a lot.
I think that they are a far better bet that Google or Apple right now, but they are hugely overvalued. None of these companies will go bust or just disappear, but all three will find tougher times ahead for sure; and all three will be worth much less in 3 years than they are now. On the other hand if you had bought stock in them three years ago and keep it for another three years you will still be quids in (I know that you can't buy facebook stock)
It is a good company, and a great idea, but it's worth something like $10bn not $50bn and that's factoring for big growth in revenue and maintenance of the user base.
The Foxbat in itself was a response to an American program (XB70). The existence of the Foxbat was then used to justify the F15 which in turn resulted in the SU-27.
The most successful aircraft during this period (by my thinking) were the F16 and Mig 29, both of which were produced to deliver on tactical requirements rather than willy waving requirements.
There are 2 types of valid study; an experimental investigation that tries to test the prediction of a theory to either confirm or disprove it, or secondly a study that attempts to quantify an observed phenomena.
Fishing expeditions (lets see if esp is real, lets see if random compounds do something for condition x) are not valid - for all the reasons outlined in the article, unless they produce results that are stone cold solid. One example of an investigation of this type that has worked is the mapping of novas to redshift that revealed dark energy (or yet another reason to stop believing anything about cosmology, what ever you want to call it) - they were mapping the sky and found that all the models of the universe were utter bollocks (note, any theory that fails to account for 90% of the known physical conditions that it attempts to derive is utter rubbish, and no amount of bum squeezing carping whilst pointing to nonsense sums will make up for it. When you can explain mass we will talk, when you can explain non-baryonic matter I will sit and listen)
Interestingly though that study, which no one can argue with (cos you can look at the sky and see it if you have a few thousand $ of kit) has been dealt with by the cosmology community with a name (dark energy) and a few sheepish looks.
Ok, what if the google gateway is contended inthe IP-X, or thier cache is dry if your ISP has one? What then?
What if your ISP's backbone is flooded? Will you pay for them to have enough capacity to manage the peak for everyone on their backbone? Can you? Doubt it.
And if the ISP's backbone is clear, what about the CDN or the T1 network? You can't pay them directly because of the market and technical structure at the moment. Google can, Amazon can, and check it. The big content providers run their own CDNs.
And neutral to what? Voip? Filetransfer, Video? What bits of the video? The structural packets or the detail? If we are neutral we kill voip and video for what? Why should we have poor video so that someone can share toretzzz ? Ok - why should we have slow torrents so that someone can watch a video... the point is that it is a decision.
And; why IP? What about common carriage?
To get proper neutrality we need to rebuild from the bottom up. A total network rearchitecture world wide. Never, never, never going to happen again.
What this comes down to is the access network. The access network is either an mechanism of community extortion or it's a utility, like the water network or the roads.
The answer is for the access network to be run as a utility at a national level. Until we go back to that in a very large part of the world wide consumer market (so I mean the USA and Europe) we are going to go round and round with this. The mobile network is going to have the same thing in 5 years for sure.
Or - tollroads.
Now, let's be fair, some parts of every system are going to need tolls. International shipping has tolls, railways have tolls... hell roads have tolls on bridges and so on; to get the strategic links done in hard places this is what is going to be needed, but you can manage day to day without going accross the toll bridge if you want, and that has to become the case or continue to be the case with the internet.
IBM are very cunning in supporting and developing open source systems with an eye to making sure that no one else is able to make any cash in a particular market. Where the barrier to entry is high IBM will be there investing and charging many dollars. Where it is low you can be sure they will push open source so that there is no market for anyone and minimal investment required from them.
Lots of good points above, I won't repeat the things that I agree with - but there are a few things that I would like to pick up.
You said that there were dozens of R&D labs that studied software. I disagree.
I think that people studied programming languages, and they studied compilers and interpreters, and they studied methodologies. Very few studies of software as it is and as it runs. We had FEAST from Murray Lehman (I vaguely think) but there have been very few serious investigations about actual systems in operation and evolution.
Why : because it is hard and there are very few people competent to do it.
Why is there very little funding about for CS research - because of this; serious proposals to attack this *kind * of issue would get funded. But they just aren't being written.
You are trolling, but for the sake of accuracy here is what is generally acknowledged to be the case.
- after the war he struggled to get the kind of role and financial support he should have been given without a quibble or a bat of the eye - he eventually got a very good job at the University of Manchester, which is a great place, but it is amazing that he wasn't treated as a national treasure (was it 2 of Hilberts challenges he solved? Even allowing for the secrecy around the work during the war someone in the know should have pushed it on that basis) - he was targeted for blackmail due to being gay when it was illegal - the police arrested him and he was prosecuted and punished with hormone therapy - the depression caused by the therapy and the awful behavior of society towards him, and his own personal isolation caused him to take his life - he did it in such a way to allow his mother to go on believing that it was an accident
In 1956 the UK government had no reason to kill him, in fact it never did - quite the opposite. Instead they treated a great man with indifference and contempt because of his sexuality. I can't say that I can think of a more pathetic story in all senses of the word.
If you want to feel worse about it (as a human) then think what might have been if he had lived 25 more years and had enjoyed the appropriate support
Slashdot Mirror
From the paper (section 6,E: Java Tunings) ". Note that Jeremy deliberately refused
to optimize the code further, many of the C++ optimizations
would apply to the Java version as well.'
1. Partition the internal network, 99% of any intranet is plain jane no problems... 1% is business critical and needs to be locked up.
2. Use remote access to virtual desktops and apps to access the 1%; do not allow the data to sit on remote devices (even desk tops in the office)
Those companies will not be fortune 500 for long
The billing information is retained because otherwise the companies providing the various rented infrastructures, shared networks etc. might raise a dispute, especially if under financial pressure or if they are acquired.
For a cell phone to work... it needs to know where you are !
This is because the connection or the data packets need to be routed to a radio that can physically transmit them to you. That is the radio that defines the cell. The cell is in a place. The radio has to transmit the packets to you - which is a direction within the cell.
For the billing to work... you need to keep records! Because.. the radios and the backhaul belong to lots of different people, all of whom need paying.
Now ; how many criminals/terrorists have been tracked by virtue of these records? Many.
Is it right? Well, if you want a cell phone, you have to accept this - because thats the way it works, and there is no way it will change in the foreseeable future.
The problem with this is that if the core is hot, or if the rods are distorted, or if the core is damaged, well, if anything, the rods don't fall in.
And I thought that the reason that statisticians weren't good as sports coaches or generals was because there were 1000's of variables that couldn't be quantified or computed.
oh... wait...
Watson is unnatural, any of it's advantages are unnatural.
It won, it was better at this game than anyone else.
While being quick on the buzzer is important Watson can answer general questions accurately. Not perfectly, but as well as a human, IBM have shown this is so by Watson winning the competition, but also by careful statistical analysis of it's performance in testing.
The three huge achievements are :
- very fast information retrieval; Google et-al have similar technology, but let's not forget that it's all pretty new.
- natural language query decoding; Watson doesn't understand NL queries, but it is able to decode them into search queries.
- precise information extraction and presentation; whereas Google produces several pages of results with the answer in there (and can often highlight the right result) Watson can pull "the answer" out and present it in the required format.
This is about the enterprise mobility market, not the consumer market, RIM is in trouble.
This is all about enterprise mobility. With exchange and sharepoint 2010 microsoft have a strong hold on the enterprise personal productivity and comms markets. They have been trying to leverage this for ages but until WM7 were behind with the software to do it, now they are frustrated by the lack of handsets and partnering with Nokia fixes this.
Expect RIM to run to Oracle, or possibly IBM.
oh hun "perfect for higher management, where all that really counts are results."
My sweet, its friends that count in higher management.
Bad results go to where the friends aren't.
Good results go to where the friends are.
or in an incorrigibly unredistributably bad results context...
you go where your friends are waiting with good results having concealed the bad results until you are gone. At which time 2 things happen.
You claim : it was all good until I left.
The new guy says : it was the old guy.
Both of you get $4M.
Fankoo.
Errm - well, the double slit experiment is kind of observable, and there are lots of sort of explanations of it that don't involve a multi-verse.
But you could say that Feynman should have been taken literally, although he didn't want to be.
To be frank, Feynman should have been taken literally (and with a bucket full of worship) full stop.
You know why you hear this kind of sentiment (ie. I'd rather live in a fascist state than let my life be run by "the big corps")?
Because the dead have no voice, that's why.
Raise a toast to Thomas Payne, raise a toast to the dead, raise a toast to Abe Lincon and thank god they did what they did.
Quite some fall from grace - how many billions has he earned?
The big problem with this request is that it reveals one of two things.
Either the business plan is in trouble, you should have been profitable by now, or they can't project profits in the timeframe that they have funding for, or worse, there is no proper plan.
Either way, they are going bust unless you guys help out. The sensible comments about asking for stock may or may not reveal this, but if they can't have a sensible discussion about where the business stands then its for sure that they are staring down the barrel. If they won't hand stock over then my guess is that they have non left to hand over, if that's the case then they have played thier last card; your job is gone.
The rational action in that situation is to stay there and get your cheque but be looking for work like crazy.
On the other hand, if they will talk about stock, will discuss the business plan - this could be an opportunity. Participate if you believe in it.
Bill & Hillary don't tow the line - they write it.
Facebook has a very large number of active users, and it will have a very large number of active users for at least the next 3 years. The photo albums and friend networks are very good reasons why people will keep coming back, and I think it would take some fairly strong disincentives to get them to stop.
All of this means that they have a way of making money for at least the next 3 years, probably far longer. It won't be enough to justify their valuation, but it will be a lot.
I think that they are a far better bet that Google or Apple right now, but they are hugely overvalued. None of these companies will go bust or just disappear, but all three will find tougher times ahead for sure; and all three will be worth much less in 3 years than they are now. On the other hand if you had bought stock in them three years ago and keep it for another three years you will still be quids in (I know that you can't buy facebook stock)
It is a good company, and a great idea, but it's worth something like $10bn not $50bn and that's factoring for big growth in revenue and maintenance of the user base.
The Foxbat in itself was a response to an American program (XB70). The existence of the Foxbat was then used to justify the F15 which in turn resulted in the SU-27.
The most successful aircraft during this period (by my thinking) were the F16 and Mig 29, both of which were produced to deliver on tactical requirements rather than willy waving requirements.
There are 2 types of valid study; an experimental investigation that tries to test the prediction of a theory to either confirm or disprove it, or secondly a study that attempts to quantify an observed phenomena.
Fishing expeditions (lets see if esp is real, lets see if random compounds do something for condition x) are not valid - for all the reasons outlined in the article, unless they produce results that are stone cold solid. One example of an investigation of this type that has worked is the mapping of novas to redshift that revealed dark energy (or yet another reason to stop believing anything about cosmology, what ever you want to call it) - they were mapping the sky and found that all the models of the universe were utter bollocks (note, any theory that fails to account for 90% of the known physical conditions that it attempts to derive is utter rubbish, and no amount of bum squeezing carping whilst pointing to nonsense sums will make up for it. When you can explain mass we will talk, when you can explain non-baryonic matter I will sit and listen)
Interestingly though that study, which no one can argue with (cos you can look at the sky and see it if you have a few thousand $ of kit) has been dealt with by the cosmology community with a name (dark energy) and a few sheepish looks.
Ok, you want 10mbs uncontended.
Fine.
From where to where?
From here to everywhere?
Ok, what if the google gateway is contended inthe IP-X, or thier cache is dry if your ISP has one? What then?
What if your ISP's backbone is flooded? Will you pay for them to have enough capacity to manage the peak for everyone on their backbone? Can you? Doubt it.
And if the ISP's backbone is clear, what about the CDN or the T1 network? You can't pay them directly because of the market and technical structure at the moment. Google can, Amazon can, and check it. The big content providers run their own CDNs.
And neutral to what? Voip? Filetransfer, Video? What bits of the video? The structural packets or the detail? If we are neutral we kill voip and video for what? Why should we have poor video so that someone can share toretzzz ? Ok - why should we have slow torrents so that someone can watch a video... the point is that it is a decision.
And; why IP? What about common carriage?
To get proper neutrality we need to rebuild from the bottom up. A total network rearchitecture world wide. Never, never, never going to happen again.
What this comes down to is the access network. The access network is either an mechanism of community extortion or it's a utility, like the water network or the roads.
The answer is for the access network to be run as a utility at a national level. Until we go back to that in a very large part of the world wide consumer market (so I mean the USA and Europe) we are going to go round and round with this. The mobile network is going to have the same thing in 5 years for sure.
Or - tollroads.
Now, let's be fair, some parts of every system are going to need tolls. International shipping has tolls, railways have tolls... hell roads have tolls on bridges and so on; to get the strategic links done in hard places this is what is going to be needed, but you can manage day to day without going accross the toll bridge if you want, and that has to become the case or continue to be the case with the internet.
IBM are very cunning in supporting and developing open source systems with an eye to making sure that no one else is able to make any cash in a particular market. Where the barrier to entry is high IBM will be there investing and charging many dollars. Where it is low you can be sure they will push open source so that there is no market for anyone and minimal investment required from them.
I've read all of Proust, all of Dickens and everything Alistair McClean ever wrote.
HA HA HA
I WIN
I am best reader
yus.
Lots of good points above, I won't repeat the things that I agree with - but there are a few things that I would like to pick up.
You said that there were dozens of R&D labs that studied software. I disagree.
I think that people studied programming languages, and they studied compilers and interpreters, and they studied methodologies. Very few studies of software as it is and as it runs. We had FEAST from Murray Lehman (I vaguely think) but there have been very few serious investigations about actual systems in operation and evolution.
Why : because it is hard and there are very few people competent to do it.
Why is there very little funding about for CS research - because of this; serious proposals to attack this *kind * of issue would get funded. But they just aren't being written.
Ok - the US spends $663B a year on military forces.
China spends (possibly) as much as $140B a year (in equivalent purchasing power).
You are trolling, but for the sake of accuracy here is what is generally acknowledged to be the case.
- after the war he struggled to get the kind of role and financial support he should have been given without a quibble or a bat of the eye - he eventually got a very good job at the University of Manchester, which is a great place, but it is amazing that he wasn't treated as a national treasure (was it 2 of Hilberts challenges he solved? Even allowing for the secrecy around the work during the war someone in the know should have pushed it on that basis)
- he was targeted for blackmail due to being gay when it was illegal
- the police arrested him and he was prosecuted and punished with hormone therapy
- the depression caused by the therapy and the awful behavior of society towards him, and his own personal isolation caused him to take his life
- he did it in such a way to allow his mother to go on believing that it was an accident
In 1956 the UK government had no reason to kill him, in fact it never did - quite the opposite. Instead they treated a great man with indifference and contempt because of his sexuality. I can't say that I can think of a more pathetic story in all senses of the word.
If you want to feel worse about it (as a human) then think what might have been if he had lived 25 more years and had enjoyed the appropriate support