From TFA: "the ability of drug manufacturers to easily obtain patents for minor changes to products, or to receive patent exclusivity for new uses of existing products, have reduced incentives to develop new drugs."
Sounds to me like its the ability to get a patent on something that's essentially already out there in the market that is stifling innovation. This sounds a lot, to me at least, like the general distaste for 'junk patents' in the software/computer industry. Perhaps if we start requiring inventions to be unique before we allow patents on them, we'll actually start encouraging bolder, newer ideas again?
IIRC, Ultima Online originally had an ecosystem that relied on reproduction to keep the flora and fauna going. It worked well until players were introduced and they killed off everything and the world turned into a wasteland.
Does anyone else think that Diebold invests in the Heisenbergian theory of security? You just have to trust that it's secure, and if you look to see if it really is, then it may not be.
The PS2 does support HD. It's a matter of software, not hardware. GT4 in 1080i is a sight to behold.
But... the same issue exists on the xbox, too. Only a very few games are in HD. With the 360, everything's either in HD native, or antialiased and upscaled so it looks decent. Microsoft's mandate of at least 720p support is a very good thing, IMO.
It seems to me that genes that place the young above the old (to at least some degree) would be selected by evolution. If we didn't have the trait to very strongly protect our children, then we wouldn't last very long as a species.
Now, logically, saving an experenced doctor over a crack baby may be better for the human race. The doctor is a known quantity, and has a higher probability of contributing something to society. Overcoming animal instincts to make such cold, calculated decisions is difficult.
Of course, all of this ignores 'morals', which are a whole other topic. Personally, I think the answer is simple: genes.
I'm adopted, and my younger sister is not. We both had very successful academic careers (both consistently > 90th percentile). We've also scored well on 'intelligence' tests, though I personally don't believe you can accurately measure intelligence. I think that how you actually perform in life is a better measure.
Now... there's a slight chance we may both have similar genes that dictate that we have similar academic performance. I think it more likely that our parents encouraged us to do well, and were more influential in our lives than our genes.
My families experiences have still greatly influenced my personal thinking on nature vs. nurture. My whole life has taught me that how one is raised/cared for/loved translates into what you are at least as heavily as your genetic makeup. Mostly, I feel, personal success (academic and otherwise) is due to your personal values, and values are not inherent. They are taught.
"You have to make 3 threads application (not 4, not 2)" - huh? What's so magical about 2 or 4 threads that makes it easier to manage than 3 threads? Seriously, what the hell are you talking about?
Perhaps it truly demonstrates that your average virus writer understands users more than your average Windows or OSS hacker.
So who's fault is it? I'd point my finger at the designer of the original dialog box. After living in a windows world for so long, users have been trained to ignore all this cryptic information and just say OK to get their jobs done. The real problem is that users have picked up this pavlovian response to dialogs at all.
Your average user shouldn't have to know what a binary is. That's stupid. Your average user just wants to get something done (the quickest and easiest way possible).
The main problem is the programmers not understanding this fundamental aspect. As programmers, it's up to US to provide services that people want to use (so we can get paid!). It's not up to the user to figure out our world. We need to mold our applications to fit into their world.
Hrm... that email should work. I'll go harass my friend who runs the server and see if something's up.
Compare and swap is the only technique I've personally seen put to use. A quick google shows lots of hits:
google it
There was also an article recently in C/C++ Users Journal involving lockless maps.
Basically, compare and swap will compare a given memory address with a value. If the compare succeeds, the address is loaded with a new, second value. Then, you can look at the result of the compare and swap operation to see if your new value was swapped in or not. If the value was not swapped, you just try again. No locking needed. If two threads have contention for a memory address, one of them wins, and the other one has to try again. The awesome part is that the threads will generally not have to try again. So the compare and swap is run only once, and avoids the unnecessary overhead of locking and unlocking some system resource (mutex, semaphore, etc).
I use compare and swap to implement an AtomicCounter class that I use for reference counting. Here's a quick snippet of the C++ code that increments my counter (sorry, but I couldn't get it indented correctly...):
long int counter = 0; void incrementCounter() { long int temp; do { // get a copy of counter's current value to compare against. temp = counter; } while(!compareAndSwap(&counter, temp, temp+1)); }
The above code basically says "Hey, as long as counter == temp, set counter = temp+1. If counter != temp, then try again."
Now, imagine using compare and swap with pointers, and all kinds of possibilities open up.
I think this will be overcome with more atomic instructions from cpu vendors. Lockless techniques generally give much higher performance, and can often acheive the same goals as the old 'lock to enforce synchronization' paradigm you mention.
I use lockless counters heavily in the code I work on in order to reference count objects. Very handy, and much faster than lock-based counters.
The pain with lockless coding is that there aren't many portable primitives. So I have to maintain my own abstractions for every platform I work on, which is a pain since I'm in embedded systems. It would be awesome to have a standard (AND portable) lockless utility library. One day perhaps...
320kbps is indeed the limit. The granpdarent poster is possibly on crack.
If you want to give mp3 another try, go with lame. Most commercial rippers really blow. I have excellent success with EAC (exact audio copy) and lame. I usually go with --alt-preset-extreme, and end up with files averaging about 240 kbps (though it really varies on music type). I usually listen to my music on Senn HD580 headphones. I can't tell a difference from CD, and noone I've challenged can tell the difference, either. I'm not really an audiophile, but I am pretty picky.
Though if you have an iPod, and don't plan on ever using some non-AAC supporting player, stick with AAC. I'm personally concerned about compatibility. What if, 5 years down the road, I can no longer listen to my encoded music? I'm not about to rerip all of my cds.
It's not like storage instantly changes formats. I have files from years back, even though I've changed hard drives many times. Just because I used to store things on 720k 3.5" floppies doesn't mean all those files are gone now (I don't own a floppy drive). When I got a new computer with a (then) gigantic 80 MB hard drive, I simply copied the floppies to my hard drive. This happens every time I upgrade. When I switch to mac from x86/winxp a little over a year ago, I brought my files with me then.
All this talk of digital obsolescence seems a little to chicken little to me. Practically, for most folks, this should not be a problem. Chances are, your next computer will be able to read mediea from 1 generation back. If you get so out of touch that you cannot copy the files, its your fault.
A good screen costs money. A lot of people don't realize this. You can't just go use a sheet or a blank wall and expect it to look good. DLP front projectors are notorious for poor contrast, as well. So if you want black in your picture, be prepared to spend another $800 (probably more) on a low gain screen.
There are other problems that generally have to be overcome by using a home theater PC, as well (proper scaling being the biggest). So throw in another $500 for a bare-bone HTPC, and that rear projector is sounding nicer and nicer.
Unless you just want a big picture regardless of quality. If that's the case, I can sell you plans for only $10 that will turn your 13" TV into a 100" one with only a cardboard box and fresnel lens.;)
As a grad student, I was an instructor for an intro to C course. I was totally amazed at the number of students who had no idea how to use a computer. I had gone into teaching the course with the invalid assumption that most of my students were really interested in computers and that is what led them to CS - they knew the 'how' and wanted to learn the 'why'.
I couldn't have been further from the truth. 90% of the class thought computers were a 'good field' to get into. Thus, they came into my course without even knowing what computer programming was. When I tried to show them how to use gcc to compile a single-file program via a shell, I think I blew their minds. This same 90% had never typed commands into a computer before. Everything was 'folders' and 'icons'. The concept of an underlying system was so alien to them. It truly made teaching much more difficult.
My eyes were not fully opened until 2-3 weeks into the course. After class one day, I asked a pair of students why they decided to major in Computer Engineering. I was shocked when one of them said "We wanted to learn how to use computers."
The advent of protected memory in average-joe OSes probably put a stop to this. If it's possible for a virus running in one process to affect another's memory space, then there's a serious hole in the OS.
Slashdot Mirror
From TFA: "the ability of drug manufacturers to easily obtain patents for minor changes to products, or to receive patent exclusivity for new uses of existing products, have reduced incentives to develop new drugs."
Sounds to me like its the ability to get a patent on something that's essentially already out there in the market that is stifling innovation. This sounds a lot, to me at least, like the general distaste for 'junk patents' in the software/computer industry. Perhaps if we start requiring inventions to be unique before we allow patents on them, we'll actually start encouraging bolder, newer ideas again?
IIRC, Ultima Online originally had an ecosystem that relied on reproduction to keep the flora and fauna going. It worked well until players were introduced and they killed off everything and the world turned into a wasteland.
Does anyone else think that Diebold invests in the Heisenbergian theory of security? You just have to trust that it's secure, and if you look to see if it really is, then it may not be.
Wow - how is this 'insightful'? Conspiracy theories are sexy and aluring, but often based in pure fantasy:p entagon_plane/index.php
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
http://libertyboy.free.fr/misc/attack/2001_09_11_
The PS2 does support HD. It's a matter of software, not hardware. GT4 in 1080i is a sight to behold.
But... the same issue exists on the xbox, too. Only a very few games are in HD. With the 360, everything's either in HD native, or antialiased and upscaled so it looks decent. Microsoft's mandate of at least 720p support is a very good thing, IMO.
Genes.
It seems to me that genes that place the young above the old (to at least some degree) would be selected by evolution. If we didn't have the trait to very strongly protect our children, then we wouldn't last very long as a species.
Now, logically, saving an experenced doctor over a crack baby may be better for the human race. The doctor is a known quantity, and has a higher probability of contributing something to society. Overcoming animal instincts to make such cold, calculated decisions is difficult.
Of course, all of this ignores 'morals', which are a whole other topic. Personally, I think the answer is simple: genes.
-Seth
Agreed.
I'm adopted, and my younger sister is not. We both had very successful academic careers (both consistently > 90th percentile). We've also scored well on 'intelligence' tests, though I personally don't believe you can accurately measure intelligence. I think that how you actually perform in life is a better measure.
Now... there's a slight chance we may both have similar genes that dictate that we have similar academic performance. I think it more likely that our parents encouraged us to do well, and were more influential in our lives than our genes.
My families experiences have still greatly influenced my personal thinking on nature vs. nurture. My whole life has taught me that how one is raised/cared for/loved translates into what you are at least as heavily as your genetic makeup. Mostly, I feel, personal success (academic and otherwise) is due to your personal values, and values are not inherent. They are taught.
I call shenanigans on parent poster...
"You have to make 3 threads application (not 4, not 2)" - huh? What's so magical about 2 or 4 threads that makes it easier to manage than 3 threads? Seriously, what the hell are you talking about?
"My mother had an horrific attack of the virii"
No offense, man, but that cracked me up, hehe.
Flawed analogy.
If you went 2000 years back with the book, it's as worthless as the PDA. Technology is only worth something if people can utilize it.
Perhaps it truly demonstrates that your average virus writer understands users more than your average Windows or OSS hacker.
So who's fault is it? I'd point my finger at the designer of the original dialog box. After living in a windows world for so long, users have been trained to ignore all this cryptic information and just say OK to get their jobs done. The real problem is that users have picked up this pavlovian response to dialogs at all.
Your average user shouldn't have to know what a binary is. That's stupid. Your average user just wants to get something done (the quickest and easiest way possible).
The main problem is the programmers not understanding this fundamental aspect. As programmers, it's up to US to provide services that people want to use (so we can get paid!). It's not up to the user to figure out our world. We need to mold our applications to fit into their world.
Compare and swap is the only technique I've personally seen put to use. A quick google shows lots of hits: google it
There was also an article recently in C/C++ Users Journal involving lockless maps.
Basically, compare and swap will compare a given memory address with a value. If the compare succeeds, the address is loaded with a new, second value. Then, you can look at the result of the compare and swap operation to see if your new value was swapped in or not. If the value was not swapped, you just try again. No locking needed. If two threads have contention for a memory address, one of them wins, and the other one has to try again. The awesome part is that the threads will generally not have to try again. So the compare and swap is run only once, and avoids the unnecessary overhead of locking and unlocking some system resource (mutex, semaphore, etc).
I use compare and swap to implement an AtomicCounter class that I use for reference counting. Here's a quick snippet of the C++ code that increments my counter (sorry, but I couldn't get it indented correctly...):
The above code basically says "Hey, as long as counter == temp, set counter = temp+1. If counter != temp, then try again."
Now, imagine using compare and swap with pointers, and all kinds of possibilities open up.
I think this will be overcome with more atomic instructions from cpu vendors. Lockless techniques generally give much higher performance, and can often acheive the same goals as the old 'lock to enforce synchronization' paradigm you mention.
I use lockless counters heavily in the code I work on in order to reference count objects. Very handy, and much faster than lock-based counters.
The pain with lockless coding is that there aren't many portable primitives. So I have to maintain my own abstractions for every platform I work on, which is a pain since I'm in embedded systems. It would be awesome to have a standard (AND portable) lockless utility library. One day perhaps...
How insightful! He doesn't need ad revenue anyhow, right?
I like AnandTech. The articles are generally decent. Why try to screw the guy over like this?
Where may I find one of these $1300 plasma sets you speak of?
320kbps is indeed the limit. The granpdarent poster is possibly on crack.
If you want to give mp3 another try, go with lame. Most commercial rippers really blow. I have excellent success with EAC (exact audio copy) and lame. I usually go with --alt-preset-extreme, and end up with files averaging about 240 kbps (though it really varies on music type). I usually listen to my music on Senn HD580 headphones. I can't tell a difference from CD, and noone I've challenged can tell the difference, either. I'm not really an audiophile, but I am pretty picky.
Though if you have an iPod, and don't plan on ever using some non-AAC supporting player, stick with AAC. I'm personally concerned about compatibility. What if, 5 years down the road, I can no longer listen to my encoded music? I'm not about to rerip all of my cds.
It's not like storage instantly changes formats. I have files from years back, even though I've changed hard drives many times. Just because I used to store things on 720k 3.5" floppies doesn't mean all those files are gone now (I don't own a floppy drive). When I got a new computer with a (then) gigantic 80 MB hard drive, I simply copied the floppies to my hard drive. This happens every time I upgrade. When I switch to mac from x86/winxp a little over a year ago, I brought my files with me then.
All this talk of digital obsolescence seems a little to chicken little to me. Practically, for most folks, this should not be a problem. Chances are, your next computer will be able to read mediea from 1 generation back. If you get so out of touch that you cannot copy the files, its your fault.
-Seth
OO is pretty much ideal for GUI programming. So why not code up your GUI in C++ and leave the rest of your game in C?
Is there some reason you're opposed to C++?
Is it me, or does it seem odd to take an IC cooling method and applying it to humans.
Also, why the hell didn't anyone think of this already? Seems pretty obvious to me.
It was a tip in this month's mac world. The same thing was infurating me, as well.
A good screen costs money. A lot of people don't realize this. You can't just go use a sheet or a blank wall and expect it to look good. DLP front projectors are notorious for poor contrast, as well. So if you want black in your picture, be prepared to spend another $800 (probably more) on a low gain screen.
;)
There are other problems that generally have to be overcome by using a home theater PC, as well (proper scaling being the biggest). So throw in another $500 for a bare-bone HTPC, and that rear projector is sounding nicer and nicer.
Unless you just want a big picture regardless of quality. If that's the case, I can sell you plans for only $10 that will turn your 13" TV into a 100" one with only a cardboard box and fresnel lens.
-Seth
As a grad student, I was an instructor for an intro to C course. I was totally amazed at the number of students who had no idea how to use a computer. I had gone into teaching the course with the invalid assumption that most of my students were really interested in computers and that is what led them to CS - they knew the 'how' and wanted to learn the 'why'.
I couldn't have been further from the truth. 90% of the class thought computers were a 'good field' to get into. Thus, they came into my course without even knowing what computer programming was. When I tried to show them how to use gcc to compile a single-file program via a shell, I think I blew their minds. This same 90% had never typed commands into a computer before. Everything was 'folders' and 'icons'. The concept of an underlying system was so alien to them. It truly made teaching much more difficult.
My eyes were not fully opened until 2-3 weeks into the course. After class one day, I asked a pair of students why they decided to major in Computer Engineering. I was shocked when one of them said "We wanted to learn how to use computers."
NTFS
The advent of protected memory in average-joe OSes probably put a stop to this. If it's possible for a virus running in one process to affect another's memory space, then there's a serious hole in the OS.
-Seth