"You can't have two computers add 2+2 any faster than you can have one computer do it. You can however, have two computers adding 2+2 and 0+1+1 at the same time to get two answers in half the time it would take one computer to do it."
Maybe not for 2+2, but you could for large numbers which are not atomic to add. If it takes linear time to do a task on one processor, on the Connection Machine it could basically end up being lg n time.
Unless I'm mistaken, the conversion factor is defined the other way: 1 inch=2.54 cm, exactly. Python tells me that this is more like 39.370078740157481.
Which to me means nothing so much as is silly to point out you're right by simply being more right. The correct thing to do is to point out the above.
As a side note, this means I am doing the right thing. Go me!
Typical geek complaint: "Oh poor PARC, they lost the war by not selling what they did in a meaningful way! If only they had championed the PC, we wouldn't have M$ today."
So, PARC does something about this, and we still hate them. How do you expect CS researches to make money if they don't charge for their work? Maybe you can create really good knock-offs and implementations of standards using the promise of some vague support contracts to entice companies and the spare hours of out-of-work coders, but when will that actually create something?
The problem is that he didn't give his *name*, not his papers.
According to courts, you don't have a reasonable expectation to not have to give your name, because you use it all the time. You probably do, however, have a reasonable expectation of not having to rattle off any ID number that's private.
What's so wrong about giving a cop your name if you give it to everyone else?
Probabilities that will always be the same if you run the exact same sequence of commands.
What he appears to be suggesting is transistors that we acknowledge to be based in an analog world -- their state depends not only on the data you feed them, but also on the temperature they are immersed in, etc.
Because of the way copyright laws work, and the GPL (and LGPL) only cover distribution...
Once a user has the code, they can do whatever they want with it, right? So, you can distribute your java code, and it will try to import the library, and they can go get the library, and it will work, right? Even with GPL code... You don't have to have the source for it to work. How can their license affect what you have to do?
(Do NOT run this on numbers that don't have known palindromes since it will cause a stack overflow.:)
Would this, actually? If so, it's a shame. That's an obvious case for tail-recursion elimination. I guess perl doesn't demand this like scheme does?
Will parrot support the ability to do stack-based tail recursion elimination? I know that this has been one of the big pains of java-based scheme implementations: For security reasons, it's hard to mess with the stack in the apppropriate ways. Right? Cause that code needs only constant stack space, right?
It'd be a shame if this new technology everyone is investing so much in... OK, I meant parrot, that apparetnly perl 6 will be based on... Is not going to have hooks to support that type of optimization that doens't just improve coefficients, but takes you from O(n) to O(1)...
It seems to me that this is similar to other ideas, both that the author recognizes and some that he may not. Dickens, for instance, first published much of his canon in a serial form. Great Expectations, e.g., was first published in pieces (which you can notice if you read it). This aspect of the "new" art form seems to me to be fairly old.
The one "new" aspect may be the "unedited" nature of the medium. The web allows publishing to be cheap enough that few enough people's financial futures are at stake to require that the produced content be of any conceivable literary merit or commercial quality. On the other hand, the radio show of HHGTTG seemed to be done in a manner that may not have had that much time to go back over it. So that's close.
All in all, it's an interesting idea that may bring together old art forms with the new medium, but I wouldn't say it's revolutionary or necessarily that experimental, in the sense of wondering "whether it is at all possible to use it as an artistic medium to produce interesting work." Of course it is. You may be shooting yourself in the foot by not using an editor, though.
And it won't fix the problem. The reason those characters get used is because they weren't used before and hence can be given a new meaning without ruining old communication as well as seeming new.
So what happens when we move x,z, other letters not frequently used to the outside and start writing uber-dense perl code where the $, [,], etc. keys are in the center of the keyboard? The x and z keys will be used in l33t speak. It's just language evolution, all over. They use the meta-characters in their meta-language to describe the language.
Umm, actually, I think that K&R and Bjarne's code was fairly open. In fact, the thing that made C++ flourish (according to The Design and Evolution of C++) is that they could drop a compiler in a location, leave it alone for a year, come back and it would have prospered because of the community. They weren't quite *as* open as BSD, but when you paid for UNIX in the Good Old Days, you got the source.
This is actually a VERY apt analogy, especially because it points out something that/.'ers are afraid to admit: Monopolies are good for CS. IBM, AT&T Bell Labs, XEROX PARC were all funded by monopolies. Many of the great innovations came out of these places. Add in universities (which are fairly similar), and that's most of the development in CS right there.
Why? Because those places are *able* to give cushy jobs like this that can fund deveopment of cockamameyed ideas that turn into revolutionary concepts.
Diablo and Diablo 2 are made by Blizzard NORTH. this was formerly a separate company, and Blizzard only was going to distribute Diablo. When they realized, however, how kick-ass Diablo is, they bought up the company cause they knew they could take it places. So, that doesn't really count for those 7 years.
A lot of problems just don't scale well across different systems. Say, fo rinstance, you need to simulate particle interaction...
Distributed processing is only really good when the subproblems are separate enough that they can be calculated separately.
Also, supercomputers are a lot better for vector code. Intel and Athlon might say that their current offerings are Vector Processors, but they really aren't. When you need to exploit DLP, supercomputers are the way to go.
Also, research and funding like this will uncover the techniques that we can expect to be exploited in desktop processors in 5-20 years, so it helps us eventually.
cf. ATT - the phone system started out long ago as many independent small phone systems, eventually competing in long dist, etc, but by the late 60's and 70's had stagnated a very important industry, etc
Wow. It's amazing how wrong you are. ATT from the60's and 70's invented UNIX, C, AWK (whence Perl), etc. And that was just in one department. They made so many amazing improvements in CS, Information Theory, etc. Basically, anything that could in some way benefit the largest company in the world.
In fact, if you look at it, most of the world's great research labs (Xerox PARC, IBM, Bell Labs) have been the result of monopolies, not start-ups.
That's not tail-recursion elimination. That's transforming recursion into iteration.
Also, your test if(n == 1) return 1 is unnecessary. As are both tests in the second version of the code. Tail recursion elimination still recurs, it just doesn't use any more stack space.
As a test, try to make mutually recursive tail recursive calls optimized. E.G., even and odd, where even returns 1 if n == 0, odd(n-1) otherwise, and odd returns !even(n-1).
Slashdot Mirror
The USAF no longer has a new MANNED fighter plane in development.
FTFY.
"You can't have two computers add 2+2 any faster than you can have one computer do it. You can however, have two computers adding 2+2 and 0+1+1 at the same time to get two answers in half the time it would take one computer to do it."
Maybe not for 2+2, but you could for large numbers which are not atomic to add. If it takes linear time to do a task on one processor, on the Connection Machine it could basically end up being lg n time.
Cf. here
Which to me means nothing so much as is silly to point out you're right by simply being more right. The correct thing to do is to point out the above.
As a side note, this means I am doing the right thing. Go me!
Because of the Final Fantasy CG movie.
Not if you write good code. Especially code that can write all the more code you need.
Typical geek complaint: "Oh poor PARC, they lost the war by not selling what they did in a meaningful way! If only they had championed the PC, we wouldn't have M$ today."
So, PARC does something about this, and we still hate them. How do you expect CS researches to make money if they don't charge for their work? Maybe you can create really good knock-offs and implementations of standards using the promise of some vague support contracts to entice companies and the spare hours of out-of-work coders, but when will that actually create something?
The whole point of the government is that your name isn't incriminating, and one way we know this is that we give it out all the time.
According to courts, you don't have a reasonable expectation to not have to give your name, because you use it all the time. You probably do, however, have a reasonable expectation of not having to rattle off any ID number that's private.
What's so wrong about giving a cop your name if you give it to everyone else?
Quoth the poster: "I want to burn in the Sun (or at least the egomaniacal part of me.)"
I know *exactly* how you feel.
I want you to burn in the Sun, too.
How are these images under copyright, even?
They were taken before 1930, the vast majority, right?!!?!
Maybe you mean light-microseconds?
What he appears to be suggesting is transistors that we acknowledge to be based in an analog world -- their state depends not only on the data you feed them, but also on the temperature they are immersed in, etc.
Once a user has the code, they can do whatever they want with it, right? So, you can distribute your java code, and it will try to import the library, and they can go get the library, and it will work, right? Even with GPL code... You don't have to have the source for it to work. How can their license affect what you have to do?
Do you know Big Game is this Saturday (11/22/02)?
Would this, actually? If so, it's a shame. That's an obvious case for tail-recursion elimination. I guess perl doesn't demand this like scheme does?
Will parrot support the ability to do stack-based tail recursion elimination? I know that this has been one of the big pains of java-based scheme implementations: For security reasons, it's hard to mess with the stack in the apppropriate ways. Right? Cause that code needs only constant stack space, right?
It'd be a shame if this new technology everyone is investing so much in... OK, I meant parrot, that apparetnly perl 6 will be based on... Is not going to have hooks to support that type of optimization that doens't just improve coefficients, but takes you from O(n) to O(1)...
As a hacker of your system, I'm all for this. Now I don't have to break your password, just spoof the USB packets.
Thank you much.
J. Hacker Anonymous
It seems to me that this is similar to other ideas, both that the author recognizes and some that he may not. Dickens, for instance, first published much of his canon in a serial form. Great Expectations, e.g., was first published in pieces (which you can notice if you read it). This aspect of the "new" art form seems to me to be fairly old.
The one "new" aspect may be the "unedited" nature of the medium. The web allows publishing to be cheap enough that few enough people's financial futures are at stake to require that the produced content be of any conceivable literary merit or commercial quality. On the other hand, the radio show of HHGTTG seemed to be done in a manner that may not have had that much time to go back over it. So that's close.
All in all, it's an interesting idea that may bring together old art forms with the new medium, but I wouldn't say it's revolutionary or necessarily that experimental, in the sense of wondering "whether it is at all possible to use it as an artistic medium to produce interesting work." Of course it is. You may be shooting yourself in the foot by not using an editor, though.
Do you have a citation for that? I'd be interested in knowing where/why that was mandated.
So what happens when we move x,z, other letters not frequently used to the outside and start writing uber-dense perl code where the $, [,], etc. keys are in the center of the keyboard?
The x and z keys will be used in l33t speak. It's just language evolution, all over. They use the meta-characters in their meta-language to describe the language.
Linguistics is cool.
They weren't quite *as* open as BSD, but when you paid for UNIX in the Good Old Days, you got the source.
This is actually a VERY apt analogy, especially because it points out something that /.'ers are afraid to admit: Monopolies are good for CS. IBM, AT&T Bell Labs, XEROX PARC were all funded by monopolies. Many of the great innovations came out of these places. Add in universities (which are fairly similar), and that's most of the development in CS right there.
Why? Because those places are *able* to give cushy jobs like this that can fund deveopment of cockamameyed ideas that turn into revolutionary concepts.
Diablo and Diablo 2 are made by Blizzard NORTH. this was formerly a separate company, and Blizzard only was going to distribute Diablo. When they realized, however, how kick-ass Diablo is, they bought up the company cause they knew they could take it places. So, that doesn't really count for those 7 years.
Basically, they're leveraging their IP. I say good for them, but most people here will probably want to skewer them.
People rarely think about this kind of thing before purchasing a car. Maybe they should.
Distributed processing is only really good when the subproblems are separate enough that they can be calculated separately.
Also, supercomputers are a lot better for vector code. Intel and Athlon might say that their current offerings are Vector Processors, but they really aren't. When you need to exploit DLP, supercomputers are the way to go.
Also, research and funding like this will uncover the techniques that we can expect to be exploited in desktop processors in 5-20 years, so it helps us eventually.
Wow. It's amazing how wrong you are. ATT from the60's and 70's invented UNIX, C, AWK (whence Perl), etc. And that was just in one department. They made so many amazing improvements in CS, Information Theory, etc. Basically, anything that could in some way benefit the largest company in the world.
In fact, if you look at it, most of the world's great research labs (Xerox PARC, IBM, Bell Labs) have been the result of monopolies, not start-ups.
Also, your test if(n == 1) return 1 is unnecessary. As are both tests in the second version of the code. Tail recursion elimination still recurs, it just doesn't use any more stack space.
As a test, try to make mutually recursive tail recursive calls optimized. E.G., even and odd, where even returns 1 if n == 0, odd(n-1) otherwise, and odd returns !even(n-1).
-Dan