Um, helllllllooooo? Is this thing on? Opera works in 64 megs of RAM. FF3 works in 64 megs of RAM. Opera does so with features that FF3 requires extensions, and thus, MORE MEMORY. FF3 does not work in 64 megs of RAM with the same feature set. Period.
It is how much resources a product *requires*, not uses, that is relevant.
Opera is winning this race, with a recommended spec similar to that of FF3 (64MB ram for both on P2 era machines) but requiring only 60% of the disk space that FF3 does (30 meg vs 52 meg.)
Opera is doing this with all the features that FF3 requires extensions for, putting Opera SQUARELY in the lead if you are worried about bloat. The only thing Opera really lacks, as already mentioned, is decent performance on heavily-scripted over-engineered web pages.
AA performance is dominated by resolution. The people with 1280x1024 native resolutions have no problem running crisis with full AA on 8800GT's with respectable framerates. There is a mismatch between AA performance and AA benefit and that drives the market to pretty much underpower AA performance. 100 DPI displays need more AA than 200 DPI displays. DPI is disjoint from resolution. Higher resolution monitors typically have better DPI than lower resolution monitors. The 1280x1024 crowd are pretty much all sitting at the basement of 100DPI, and thats the target for nvidia/ati's AA performance.
I would like to point out that in most cases, code for languages that use dynamic typing often provide enough information to avoid the dynamic typing during the compile stage, and further than an optimization step would be to include that information in cases where it is otherwise not present.
Most people think of code optimization as tweaking. While it is true that we can tweak code to be faster, the big gains are algorithmic in nature. That has always been true, and as my esteemed colleague Michael Abrash has stated, "Their ain't no such thing as the fastest code."
The big optimizations that compilers do these days are not related to 'tweaking' but instead related to transformations. We now take for granted that a loop that generates values based upon constants now gets quashed by the modern optimizing compiler. This, however, is merely a convenience. We could have generated those values based off those constants without optimizer intervention, prior to compilation, as we once did not so long ago.
Even a poor compiler does an acceptable job at emiting machine code for largish loop bodies. The best compilers, in regards to 'tweaking', really only shine on the smallest of loop bodies.. with Intel's compiler king of the hill.
Now onto the subject at hand. We are talking about code that is expected to be executed on a very wide range of end systems. The best systems being 20x or more faster than the slowest systems. These factors completely trounce any worry about small efficiency gains with "better" compilers. The fact that it is compiled is far more important than the choice of compiler back end. Even Microsofts decade-old c2 compiler can produce good solid code on modern systems. Sure, you might grab an extra 100% performance speedup on carefully contrived loops using ICC, but the norm is that you only get 5..20% more bang from our buck once you exclude the modern conveniences such as constant folding. We arent talking about writing codecs in JavaScript here. We are talking about writing code which calls other code.
The amount of ignorance in this community is quite disturbing. I suspect that part of the cause is the unchecked pro-c religion, which always begins "C as faster than...."
Clue phone guys. Ring. Ring.
C is a high level language and like all high level languages it can either be compiled, interpreted, or even translated. JavaScript is no different than C and can also also be compiled, interpreted, or even translated. There is nothing special about the C language that makes it inherently faster than other languages. C itself is a derivation of the language BCPL, whos shortcomming was a lack of datatypes. The design goal of these language syntaxes was parsing with minimal overhead because RAM was in short supply in those days. C was not designed to be "faster" than anything.
C is commonly mistaken to be superior because the most popular C compilers are commonly more advanced than the compilers of other languages due to simple supply and demand metrics. C is more popular, so its compilers have traditionally gotten more development effort. C itself isnt special beyond its popularity.
Then throw on some political motivation and you got yourself a spontaneous partnership between those seeking funds and those seeking new powers over industry. IPCC anyone?
.. at ~160 watts average per square meter, what you will get out of an ideal 100% efficient solar cell.. you will have to reduce the weight of cars significantly for you to power them "indefinitely".. but this is at odds with your idea of throwing more battery into them.
Food for thought.
In the legal world, since you do not know, judges define precisely what is true and what is not true. That is, specifically, their job. They judge the evidence and determine truth.
It is the courts (or more specifically, judges) who determine what is fact and what is not fact. The RIAA's lawyers may very well have been making what we would like to call "false statements of fact"s, but until a Judge actualy determines that the statements were false, legally they aren't false statements at all.
It is what it is.
Minimal Perfect Hashing says differently, and I didnt "conflate" anything.
I simply expressed 2^1024 in understandable terms, keeping on point with the person I replied to who was trying to compare his numbers with the number of atoms in the universe.
Also, you apparently didn't read the article because you attribute qualities to the technique which the article specifically denies. It does not say that it will descriminate against individual people (such as "one bit that says 'image contains pesson Rockoon'") unlike your claim.
The article specifically says, and by specifically I mean point blank and cant be denied, that the technology is for finding similar images.
Feel free to reply with more junk comments about imaginary things.
Imagine that a bit has a coherent meaning, such as "image contains a kitten." If the bit is zero, there is no kitten in the image; if it is one, there is at least one kitten in the image.
Why would I imagine that?
The most trivial example that busts your theory is the game "20 questions." Each answer is yes/no, a single bit of data mapping a 20 bit value to 1 million arbitrary things. There is no bit assigned to "this is a cat", each bit is taken in context with all of the other bits.
A more complex example is Arithmetic Compression, which assigns fixed-length input codes to variable-length output codes. The shortest output code length is much smaller than a single bit (any symbol with a probability greater than 50% is mapped to less than 1 bit, any symbol with a probability less than 50% is mapped to more than 1 bit)
I really do not think that you thought your arguement through.
Web developers use more than 2 browsers, including Safari and Opera we've already got 4. Web developers do this because they know that "Standards Compliance" is a bullshit term.
There is no reference renderer is which to compare to. All there is is a bullshit specification intentionally worded in bizarely ambiguous language.
Web developers use more than one browser because the most important thing is that their shit works for the end user. They dont sit on top of a pedestal telling the end user to fuck off if they use IE, because the end user is the commodity they are trying to sell.
Your first number, 10^77, is approximately the number of hydrogen atoms estimated to be in the universe.
Your second number is essentialy the number of hydrogen atoms in 10^231 universes, all similar to our own.
In english, 2^1024 is approximately equal to the number of hydrogen atoms in a googol googol universes. Imagine if you will, a replica universe for every hydrogen atom in our universe. Now imagine a replica universe for each of the hydrogen atoms in those replica universes.
We are still about 10^31 short. Thats how freakin big 2^1024 is.
Wouldn't it make more sense for all *content delivery services* to have a group hug refusing to deliver content with DRM? ..and then file for bankruptcy?
The point of their business is to deliver content. The video streaming industry isnt anywhere big enough for them to have any leverage at all on the content owners. If there were big profits for the content owners here, they would simply set up their own services (and still use DRM.)
Only ITunes has gotten away with using leverage on the content owners, but only because of their massive existing user base willing to throw money at them.
end user license agreement, isn't that a license between Apple and the end user? PsyStar is reselling the OS, not using it. ..and due to the First Sale doctrine, Apple does not have a leg to stand on in regards to protecting its OS from 3rd party retail.
If they dont want 3rd parties to resell it, they need to stop selling it to resellers to begin with, which is currently within their rights and also technically feasable (although probably unattractive.)
10 years ago the iMac was a great deal for a complete system at a mere $1,300.
For a very brief period, AIM (Apple-IBM-Motorola) actualy did offer a processor which was competitive in price/performance vs Intel/Amd/Cyrix, but apple never offered it to their computer customers at competitive prices.
The term for apples strategy is called Branding. You pay extra for their precious name. This is in contrast to the PC market where steap competition has meant tough choices for consumers in regards to price/performance.
Those tough choices are the indicator of competitive value. With apple there has never been a choice (well, that brief Clone period which ended up as a failure), so no indication of any competitive value.
If you like the name, and like being locked into apples little myopic world of Branding, then by all means buy an Apple. For the record and IMHO, there hasnt been any value in Apple products since the IIgs.
Put your own copyrghted material up, but name it the same as something that they are looking for.
Let their cronies download it in their "validation" sweep (the article didnt actualy say that they validate??)
Immediately have someone else download your copyrighted material from them.
Instant lawsuit against the RIAA, am I right?
Triangle-heavy games have one issue that pixar does not have. An unpredictable user controlling the camera, who is going to move it to every corner of every map. Pre-processing like pixar does simply isnt feasable for games.
If you have the computing power to do this sort of preprocessing in realtime, then all your computational arguements against raytracing have just evaporated.
Why is it so hard for you to understand that you are comparing apples to oranges? These two problem sets are very different and no matter how sly you think you are about asking a loaded question, its still a loaded question.
Pixar also does a lot of between-frame rendering operations (such as calculating realistic motion bluring) that also will not work in an interactive manner. Again, games (Crysis) are faking this sort of effect. Raytracers will as well, but will do it more efficiently (rasterizers use alphablending sparingly, because usualy alphablended objects need to be sorted back to front in a rasterizer)
Slashdot Mirror
HEAD UP! Apply it to the foreskin!
HEAD UP! Apply it to the foreskin!
HEAD UP! Apply it to the foreskin!
Opera *requires* LESS memory for the same feature set, but is happy to *USE* more. There is nothing wrong with using free memory.
Um, helllllllooooo? Is this thing on? Opera works in 64 megs of RAM. FF3 works in 64 megs of RAM. Opera does so with features that FF3 requires extensions, and thus, MORE MEMORY. FF3 does not work in 64 megs of RAM with the same feature set. Period.
It is how much resources a product *requires*, not uses, that is relevant.
Opera is winning this race, with a recommended spec similar to that of FF3 (64MB ram for both on P2 era machines) but requiring only 60% of the disk space that FF3 does (30 meg vs 52 meg.)
Opera is doing this with all the features that FF3 requires extensions for, putting Opera SQUARELY in the lead if you are worried about bloat. The only thing Opera really lacks, as already mentioned, is decent performance on heavily-scripted over-engineered web pages.
AA performance is dominated by resolution. The people with 1280x1024 native resolutions have no problem running crisis with full AA on 8800GT's with respectable framerates. There is a mismatch between AA performance and AA benefit and that drives the market to pretty much underpower AA performance. 100 DPI displays need more AA than 200 DPI displays. DPI is disjoint from resolution. Higher resolution monitors typically have better DPI than lower resolution monitors. The 1280x1024 crowd are pretty much all sitting at the basement of 100DPI, and thats the target for nvidia/ati's AA performance.
I would like to point out that in most cases, code for languages that use dynamic typing often provide enough information to avoid the dynamic typing during the compile stage, and further than an optimization step would be to include that information in cases where it is otherwise not present.
Most people think of code optimization as tweaking. While it is true that we can tweak code to be faster, the big gains are algorithmic in nature. That has always been true, and as my esteemed colleague Michael Abrash has stated, "Their ain't no such thing as the fastest code."
The big optimizations that compilers do these days are not related to 'tweaking' but instead related to transformations. We now take for granted that a loop that generates values based upon constants now gets quashed by the modern optimizing compiler. This, however, is merely a convenience. We could have generated those values based off those constants without optimizer intervention, prior to compilation, as we once did not so long ago.
Even a poor compiler does an acceptable job at emiting machine code for largish loop bodies. The best compilers, in regards to 'tweaking', really only shine on the smallest of loop bodies.. with Intel's compiler king of the hill.
Now onto the subject at hand. We are talking about code that is expected to be executed on a very wide range of end systems. The best systems being 20x or more faster than the slowest systems. These factors completely trounce any worry about small efficiency gains with "better" compilers. The fact that it is compiled is far more important than the choice of compiler back end. Even Microsofts decade-old c2 compiler can produce good solid code on modern systems. Sure, you might grab an extra 100% performance speedup on carefully contrived loops using ICC, but the norm is that you only get 5..20% more bang from our buck once you exclude the modern conveniences such as constant folding. We arent talking about writing codecs in JavaScript here. We are talking about writing code which calls other code.
The amount of ignorance in this community is quite disturbing. I suspect that part of the cause is the unchecked pro-c religion, which always begins "C as faster than ...."
Clue phone guys. Ring. Ring.
C is a high level language and like all high level languages it can either be compiled, interpreted, or even translated. JavaScript is no different than C and can also also be compiled, interpreted, or even translated. There is nothing special about the C language that makes it inherently faster than other languages. C itself is a derivation of the language BCPL, whos shortcomming was a lack of datatypes. The design goal of these language syntaxes was parsing with minimal overhead because RAM was in short supply in those days. C was not designed to be "faster" than anything.
C is commonly mistaken to be superior because the most popular C compilers are commonly more advanced than the compilers of other languages due to simple supply and demand metrics. C is more popular, so its compilers have traditionally gotten more development effort. C itself isnt special beyond its popularity.
Then throw on some political motivation and you got yourself a spontaneous partnership between those seeking funds and those seeking new powers over industry. IPCC anyone?
I realize its probably not the latest version of Opera...
Remember that great mod for the old Apple wolfenstein? ...... Return To Castle Smurfenstein
.. at ~160 watts average per square meter, what you will get out of an ideal 100% efficient solar cell .. you will have to reduce the weight of cars significantly for you to power them "indefinitely" .. but this is at odds with your idea of throwing more battery into them.
Food for thought.
In the legal world, since you do not know, judges define precisely what is true and what is not true. That is, specifically, their job. They judge the evidence and determine truth.
It is the courts (or more specifically, judges) who determine what is fact and what is not fact. The RIAA's lawyers may very well have been making what we would like to call "false statements of fact"s, but until a Judge actualy determines that the statements were false, legally they aren't false statements at all. It is what it is.
Minimal Perfect Hashing says differently, and I didnt "conflate" anything.
I simply expressed 2^1024 in understandable terms, keeping on point with the person I replied to who was trying to compare his numbers with the number of atoms in the universe.
Also, you apparently didn't read the article because you attribute qualities to the technique which the article specifically denies. It does not say that it will descriminate against individual people (such as "one bit that says 'image contains pesson Rockoon'") unlike your claim.
The article specifically says, and by specifically I mean point blank and cant be denied, that the technology is for finding similar images.
Feel free to reply with more junk comments about imaginary things.
Imagine that a bit has a coherent meaning, such as "image contains a kitten." If the bit is zero, there is no kitten in the image; if it is one, there is at least one kitten in the image.
Why would I imagine that?
The most trivial example that busts your theory is the game "20 questions." Each answer is yes/no, a single bit of data mapping a 20 bit value to 1 million arbitrary things. There is no bit assigned to "this is a cat", each bit is taken in context with all of the other bits.
A more complex example is Arithmetic Compression, which assigns fixed-length input codes to variable-length output codes. The shortest output code length is much smaller than a single bit (any symbol with a probability greater than 50% is mapped to less than 1 bit, any symbol with a probability less than 50% is mapped to more than 1 bit)
I really do not think that you thought your arguement through.
Web developers use more than 2 browsers, including Safari and Opera we've already got 4. Web developers do this because they know that "Standards Compliance" is a bullshit term.
There is no reference renderer is which to compare to. All there is is a bullshit specification intentionally worded in bizarely ambiguous language.
Web developers use more than one browser because the most important thing is that their shit works for the end user. They dont sit on top of a pedestal telling the end user to fuck off if they use IE, because the end user is the commodity they are trying to sell.
Your first number, 10^77, is approximately the number of hydrogen atoms estimated to be in the universe.
Your second number is essentialy the number of hydrogen atoms in 10^231 universes, all similar to our own.
In english, 2^1024 is approximately equal to the number of hydrogen atoms in a googol googol universes. Imagine if you will, a replica universe for every hydrogen atom in our universe. Now imagine a replica universe for each of the hydrogen atoms in those replica universes.
We are still about 10^31 short. Thats how freakin big 2^1024 is.
The point of their business is to deliver content. The video streaming industry isnt anywhere big enough for them to have any leverage at all on the content owners. If there were big profits for the content owners here, they would simply set up their own services (and still use DRM.)
Only ITunes has gotten away with using leverage on the content owners, but only because of their massive existing user base willing to throw money at them.
If they dont want 3rd parties to resell it, they need to stop selling it to resellers to begin with, which is currently within their rights and also technically feasable (although probably unattractive.)
For a very brief period, AIM (Apple-IBM-Motorola) actualy did offer a processor which was competitive in price/performance vs Intel/Amd/Cyrix, but apple never offered it to their computer customers at competitive prices.
The term for apples strategy is called Branding. You pay extra for their precious name. This is in contrast to the PC market where steap competition has meant tough choices for consumers in regards to price/performance.
Those tough choices are the indicator of competitive value. With apple there has never been a choice (well, that brief Clone period which ended up as a failure), so no indication of any competitive value.
If you like the name, and like being locked into apples little myopic world of Branding, then by all means buy an Apple. For the record and IMHO, there hasnt been any value in Apple products since the IIgs.
It is mine to offer, not theirs to offer.
The Consumer Price Index excludes all forms of Food, Oil, Natural Gas, and Electricity. Worthless.
Put your own copyrghted material up, but name it the same as something that they are looking for. Let their cronies download it in their "validation" sweep (the article didnt actualy say that they validate??) Immediately have someone else download your copyrighted material from them. Instant lawsuit against the RIAA, am I right?
Triangle-heavy games have one issue that pixar does not have. An unpredictable user controlling the camera, who is going to move it to every corner of every map. Pre-processing like pixar does simply isnt feasable for games.
If you have the computing power to do this sort of preprocessing in realtime, then all your computational arguements against raytracing have just evaporated.
Why is it so hard for you to understand that you are comparing apples to oranges? These two problem sets are very different and no matter how sly you think you are about asking a loaded question, its still a loaded question.
Pixar also does a lot of between-frame rendering operations (such as calculating realistic motion bluring) that also will not work in an interactive manner. Again, games (Crysis) are faking this sort of effect. Raytracers will as well, but will do it more efficiently (rasterizers use alphablending sparingly, because usualy alphablended objects need to be sorted back to front in a rasterizer)