If done right, that 'feature' of the spam can be turned into a new type of spam filter (because there will be multiple, similar url's that result in the same image)...
I have a hard time believing it is a genuine complaint when people complain about that, but not about the ugly, unsafe, and unreliable aboveground powerlines that already run in the majority of neighbourhoods...
A lot of these things will be much more effective compile-time than run-time.
The thing is, for these kinds of analysis/optimizations, a compiler can do everything that hardware can do, plus it can look into a much larger context, and do much more complex analysis, because it runs only the single time when the binary is built, not each time it runs.
Hardware costs actual silicon real-estate, and logic costs time, slowing down the core's clock. A compiler has, relatively, all the time in the world for all the complexity you can think of.
A lot of software people quickly think "why don't they 'simply' make an instruction for this", without realizing that in hardware it will cost N transistors (die size, chip cost), T nanoseconds (1/GHz clock speed), and generate P heat (TDP, operating cost, etc)...
As is tradition, I post before reading the article, but...
IMHO, It's not just that programs should be multithreaded, it's that the model of processes and threads may be too primitive, too coarse, to make full use of the available sea of cores. The concept of threads and processes that each run on one core at a time may be perfect if you're mostly core-limited, but I can think of other OS and compiler-supported paralelism that I would like to see. What if you have 64 cores/threads and only a couple of programs to run. You'll quickly have 40+ idle cores... So why not add a scheduling paradigm where you can dedicate clusters of cores to a program for a timeslice?
For example, if I would be able to tell the OS that my app would like N cores reserved and ready for me for every timeslice, then the compiler would probably be able to use parallelism at a much finer grain than threads (Perhaps with some hardware-support later on).
Nowadays, a compiler can do all sorts of optimizations, unroll loops, eliminate unnecessary calculations, etc. The core then takes the instructions and tries to run as many of them as possible, re-ordering and executing in parallel where possible.
What if my compiler would detect that I have two independent function calls, the results of which are combined after they finish. Why would the compiler then not be able to make a binary that would request 2 cores per timeslice and where core 0 would run the first function in parallel with core 1 running the other function?
Sure, the two cores won't be 100% utilized, but that second core would sit idle in the system otherwise too, and this way my program will run faster. Most likely my system will be memory-bandwidth limited before it becomes core limited.
When I try to do that with threads, I need to manually add my synchronization, plus I have to contend with scheduling latency because the OS might not allocate that second core for me on time (it has to learn about the un(b)lock/cond_signal of the thread, find an available core, switch the context, activate the thread, and the core has to load it's L1 cache, etc etc... By assigning more than one core to the process, fully dedicated to it, guaranteed to be available at a single clock cycle latency, I can make much better use of parallelism otherwise lost.
In the time of GigaHerz processors, it's not unthinkable that I would have a million of such possible parallelisms per second in a program that, with threads, would be extremely hard to parallelize.
Torvalds et al, and gcc team-members, please be inspired and take us all to the next level;-)
"No, the summary said that the code was written with unnecessary dependencies on obscure libraries"
I hate it too when people use libraries unnecessarily. However, in many cases using a library prevents re-inventing the wheel.
"that didn't happen to be shipped on OS X"
If OS X doesn't have a library, then that's not a fault of Linux, now, is it? Nor is it unfixable; port the library, you probably got it with the full source.
"it depended on the expansion of macros being identical on different operating systems."
Expansions of macros differ between operating systems? Surely you must have meant compilers.
Programs tend to end up depending on compilers and libraries. That's not something that just happens with linux programs, it happens just as much for macs and windows programs...
You sound like a mac user/developer who wanted (had to) port/use a cool linux program on the mac, and discovered that osx is not linux, and now tries to blame linux, forgetting that you would have encountered the same issues porting the other way around, actually worse because apple doesn't give us the source to their obscure libraries...
Why? While it seems 'unfair' that they have those big chunks, that is not the problem. 'a few more years' only delays the breakdown point a bit, it doesn't make it go away...
The problem is that ip4v isn't big enough, and that NAT restricts addressability in a way that the end user (behind nat) cannot control.
Would you like to be put behind a NAT by your ISP, because you're a mere 'internet user' on a 'home connection', so obviously you don't need incoming connections, since the ISP decided for you that those can only be bad for you?
Without action, that's where we'll end up. People will find their ISP putting them behind NAT. Goodbye good skype connections, goodbye many internet protocols for you. Goodbye net neutrality. It will start costing a hefty premium to rent an 'internet addressable IP'...
So... In that case that robot is going to get utterly confused when somebody moves a chair when the robot is looking the other direction, or when a person keeps standing in the same spot... or when a person pushes another person aside...
And it will think that it's a chair, while it's actually grandpa sleeping _in_ a chair... Unless you first get the builders of the 'robot' to show it grandpa in a chair from all angles (see the article...) and tell it that that is grandpa sleeping in a chair... and it will still think that it's grandpa sleeping in a chair while it's actually grandma just watching tv while not moving... Repeat the training procedure again for grandma in a chair, and the robot will not know what's in the chair because both options look exactly the same with sonar... repeat the same for everything the robot may encounter and your retirement day will arrive before you're done training the robot, but the robot will realize it doesn't know anything about the world around it much earlier...
All they made was a classifier. There are many of those, and you can compare them very well in a scientific manner to see how this one stacks up. They did not do that, they put it in a robot and convinced a journalist to write about it...
Perhaps it's just not as advanced as the article would like it to appear... aka snake-oil.
Well, I'm not an aviator, nor did I stay in a hotel last night, but the 'ceiling' you're quoting looks to be for the as350-b3 loaded with over 900lb on top of the standard 'empty weight', and the youtube video (that shows it sitting on the summit) shows only one person in it. The flight to return back down was very short, so they probably didn't have much fuel sitting in it at the moment that it was at the top either...
Of course I could be wrong, but I'm convinced that they did it, with the machine they said they used...
If you can't be bothered to do that for your old documents, then you most likely don't need to go out of your way to store them in any kind of super-safe way either, burning them to a dvd will do and when the dvd isn't readable anymore the garbage can will do fine...
You do know that NASA's satellite launches are almost always done with rockets from outside contractors, don't you? That means that NASA may well (and will) hire SpaceX instead of the current contractor for launch missions, if their capabilities, reliability, and price makes sense.
For those very rare occasions that NASA uses the space shuttle to launch, the reason for it is usually that none of the available commercial solutions will work (payload size, of launch assist from astronauts, etc). And even then, the space shuttle is serviced and prepped by many contractors...
If that were the case, I would seriously consider bringing my car to the pawn shop, use that money to payoff the mortgage, then bring the house to the pawn shop, maybe repeat that a couple of times, as much as needed to become 'too big to fail'...
Then retire, of course...
Why not a tld for each year? If done correctly, where the same entity can have control of same-named domains in no more than a very limited few tld's, (where bla1234.com, bla1234.net, bla1234.org but also bla.1234 would be considered same-named), then having a lot of tld's would solve the namespace collisions that are so common these days.
Not exactly, because we have two eyes at different locations, so we make two 2d observations.
And we can see color, for which we use three sensor types, so we really already see using two 5d observations.
The nice thing about solar is that its peak production pretty much is extremely similar to the demands for air-conditioning, and looking at my power bill (it's hot a lot), that means about three-quarters of my electricity needs...
btw, the size and distribution of clouds mean that the sky is always clear somewhere, and the equation then simply becomes a matter of power distribution cost and oversupply for above-average uncloudy days...
Slashdot Mirror
If done right, that 'feature' of the spam can be turned into a new type of spam filter (because there will be multiple, similar url's that result in the same image)...
I have a hard time believing it is a genuine complaint when people complain about that, but not about the ugly, unsafe, and unreliable aboveground powerlines that already run in the majority of neighbourhoods...
To the power companies: Dig em in please...
A lot of these things will be much more effective compile-time than run-time.
The thing is, for these kinds of analysis/optimizations, a compiler can do everything that hardware can do, plus it can look into a much larger context, and do much more complex analysis, because it runs only the single time when the binary is built, not each time it runs.
Hardware costs actual silicon real-estate, and logic costs time, slowing down the core's clock. A compiler has, relatively, all the time in the world for all the complexity you can think of.
A lot of software people quickly think "why don't they 'simply' make an instruction for this", without realizing that in hardware it will cost N transistors (die size, chip cost), T nanoseconds (1/GHz clock speed), and generate P heat (TDP, operating cost, etc)...
As is tradition, I post before reading the article, but...
IMHO, It's not just that programs should be multithreaded, it's that the model of processes and threads may be too primitive, too coarse, to make full use of the available sea of cores. The concept of threads and processes that each run on one core at a time may be perfect if you're mostly core-limited, but I can think of other OS and compiler-supported paralelism that I would like to see. What if you have 64 cores/threads and only a couple of programs to run. You'll quickly have 40+ idle cores... So why not add a scheduling paradigm where you can dedicate clusters of cores to a program for a timeslice?
For example, if I would be able to tell the OS that my app would like N cores reserved and ready for me for every timeslice, then the compiler would probably be able to use parallelism at a much finer grain than threads (Perhaps with some hardware-support later on).
Nowadays, a compiler can do all sorts of optimizations, unroll loops, eliminate unnecessary calculations, etc. The core then takes the instructions and tries to run as many of them as possible, re-ordering and executing in parallel where possible.
What if my compiler would detect that I have two independent function calls, the results of which are combined after they finish. Why would the compiler then not be able to make a binary that would request 2 cores per timeslice and where core 0 would run the first function in parallel with core 1 running the other function?
Sure, the two cores won't be 100% utilized, but that second core would sit idle in the system otherwise too, and this way my program will run faster. Most likely my system will be memory-bandwidth limited before it becomes core limited.
When I try to do that with threads, I need to manually add my synchronization, plus I have to contend with scheduling latency because the OS might not allocate that second core for me on time (it has to learn about the un(b)lock/cond_signal of the thread, find an available core, switch the context, activate the thread, and the core has to load it's L1 cache, etc etc... By assigning more than one core to the process, fully dedicated to it, guaranteed to be available at a single clock cycle latency, I can make much better use of parallelism otherwise lost.
In the time of GigaHerz processors, it's not unthinkable that I would have a million of such possible parallelisms per second in a program that, with threads, would be extremely hard to parallelize.
Torvalds et al, and gcc team-members, please be inspired and take us all to the next level ;-)
Read again: The second machine is a file server, not a failover.
"Another machine will handle AFS and some NFS file services,"
That sounds like a great single point of failure if I've ever seen one...
Downtime hurricane style. If that thing goes down, evacuate the IT office, because a storm is bearing down on it...
I hope for you that you have a contingency plan for failovers and backups that kick in automatically when needed...
"No, the summary said that the code was written with unnecessary dependencies on obscure libraries"
I hate it too when people use libraries unnecessarily. However, in many cases using a library prevents re-inventing the wheel.
"that didn't happen to be shipped on OS X"
If OS X doesn't have a library, then that's not a fault of Linux, now, is it? Nor is it unfixable; port the library, you probably got it with the full source.
"it depended on the expansion of macros being identical on different operating systems."
Expansions of macros differ between operating systems? Surely you must have meant compilers.
Programs tend to end up depending on compilers and libraries. That's not something that just happens with linux programs, it happens just as much for macs and windows programs...
You sound like a mac user/developer who wanted (had to) port/use a cool linux program on the mac, and discovered that osx is not linux, and now tries to blame linux, forgetting that you would have encountered the same issues porting the other way around, actually worse because apple doesn't give us the source to their obscure libraries...
Buy a kill-a-watt and see for yourself.
http://www.google.com/products?q=kill-a-watt
Must be really cold this winter where you live...
iirc, the emperor makes his clothes out of that material. But only really smart people can see the effect.
Bureaucracy should never be an excuse for bad policy.
Why? While it seems 'unfair' that they have those big chunks, that is not the problem. 'a few more years' only delays the breakdown point a bit, it doesn't make it go away...
The problem is that ip4v isn't big enough, and that NAT restricts addressability in a way that the end user (behind nat) cannot control.
Would you like to be put behind a NAT by your ISP, because you're a mere 'internet user' on a 'home connection', so obviously you don't need incoming connections, since the ISP decided for you that those can only be bad for you?
Without action, that's where we'll end up. People will find their ISP putting them behind NAT. Goodbye good skype connections, goodbye many internet protocols for you. Goodbye net neutrality. It will start costing a hefty premium to rent an 'internet addressable IP'...
Not along the interstate for people who are on trips longer than the range though...
So... In that case that robot is going to get utterly confused when somebody moves a chair when the robot is looking the other direction, or when a person keeps standing in the same spot... or when a person pushes another person aside...
And it will think that it's a chair, while it's actually grandpa sleeping _in_ a chair... Unless you first get the builders of the 'robot' to show it grandpa in a chair from all angles (see the article...) and tell it that that is grandpa sleeping in a chair... and it will still think that it's grandpa sleeping in a chair while it's actually grandma just watching tv while not moving... Repeat the training procedure again for grandma in a chair, and the robot will not know what's in the chair because both options look exactly the same with sonar... repeat the same for everything the robot may encounter and your retirement day will arrive before you're done training the robot, but the robot will realize it doesn't know anything about the world around it much earlier...
All they made was a classifier. There are many of those, and you can compare them very well in a scientific manner to see how this one stacks up. They did not do that, they put it in a robot and convinced a journalist to write about it...
Perhaps it's just not as advanced as the article would like it to appear... aka snake-oil.
Well, I'm not an aviator, nor did I stay in a hotel last night, but the 'ceiling' you're quoting looks to be for the as350-b3 loaded with over 900lb on top of the standard 'empty weight', and the youtube video (that shows it sitting on the summit) shows only one person in it. The flight to return back down was very short, so they probably didn't have much fuel sitting in it at the moment that it was at the top either...
Of course I could be wrong, but I'm convinced that they did it, with the machine they said they used...
links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_Ecureuil
http://www.robertsaircraft.com/as350b3.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhYG-IgsRJ0&feature=related
I wouldn't be surprised if it uses xdelta:
http://xdelta.org/
iirc, pdf is an open standard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Document_Format
And luckily, there exists software such as 'pdfcreator' (on sourceforce.net) that let you print from any windows program into a pdf file.
While you can, install pdfcreator on a computer that can still read those 'ms works' documents, and convert them to pdf.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/pdfcreator/
If you can't be bothered to do that for your old documents, then you most likely don't need to go out of your way to store them in any kind of super-safe way either, burning them to a dvd will do and when the dvd isn't readable anymore the garbage can will do fine...
You do know that NASA's satellite launches are almost always done with rockets from outside contractors, don't you? That means that NASA may well (and will) hire SpaceX instead of the current contractor for launch missions, if their capabilities, reliability, and price makes sense.
For those very rare occasions that NASA uses the space shuttle to launch, the reason for it is usually that none of the available commercial solutions will work (payload size, of launch assist from astronauts, etc). And even then, the space shuttle is serviced and prepped by many contractors...
If that were the case, I would seriously consider bringing my car to the pawn shop, use that money to payoff the mortgage, then bring the house to the pawn shop, maybe repeat that a couple of times, as much as needed to become 'too big to fail'... Then retire, of course...
Why not a tld for each year? If done correctly, where the same entity can have control of same-named domains in no more than a very limited few tld's, (where bla1234.com, bla1234.net, bla1234.org but also bla.1234 would be considered same-named), then having a lot of tld's would solve the namespace collisions that are so common these days.
He probably _should_ have bought IBM. They would have set him up with something actually reliable...
Not exactly, because we have two eyes at different locations, so we make two 2d observations. And we can see color, for which we use three sensor types, so we really already see using two 5d observations.
His blog here
If you don't know who Alex Deucher is, just Google his name.
The nice thing about solar is that its peak production pretty much is extremely similar to the demands for air-conditioning, and looking at my power bill (it's hot a lot), that means about three-quarters of my electricity needs... btw, the size and distribution of clouds mean that the sky is always clear somewhere, and the equation then simply becomes a matter of power distribution cost and oversupply for above-average uncloudy days...
The first coal plants couldn't even supply one modern home with power... They have plans to build 'em much bigger, such as 553MW for Mojave Solar Park: http://media.cleantech.com/1522/pg-e-solel-in-553-mw-solar-deal