Distributed.net started in 1997 and Mersenne.org in 1996, both for solving math problems on volunteer computers. SETI@Home started a couple of years later and it made these things more famous. All the later "@Home" computing projects are copy cats of these in some way.
Still, I think "copy cat" is a little harsh. You could say that every website out there is a copy cat of the original server at CERN, or maybe they are just using the same technology and ideas.
The messed up notation by Newton is not used and instead the much saner stuff from Riemann is used. Newton was smart, but a hack and a crank. And he tried to suppress Riemann notation. Mathematics would probably have done better without Newton.
Surely you mean Leibniz (1646-1716), not Riemann (1826-1866).
The "Golden Age of YouTube" died when people discovered that they could make money posting videos.
Once people started making money on their videos instead of doing it as a hobby (read: income vs expense) it became dominated by entitled shits who felt that they were owed something. Sensationalism became the norm, and outrage the response... advertisers reacted to protect their image, and the heavy hand of control slammed down -and the entitled shits whined about how they were owed a living for their efforts.
I think the same applies to the Golden Age of Internet in general. People were happy to have free hosting for their content, perhaps using it to promote gigs that made them money elsewhere. (My most viewed Youtube video is a trailer for our last theatre piece.)
Any recommendations for a Youtube alternative that doesn't suffer from these issues? I don't mind some ads if it means free hosting. I also understand there should be some control over the content, but I'm not too worried about that with my math art.
Great points! This relates to something I started to notice in the last decade: with increased connectivity, people started to travel around more and more. I thought this was counterintuitive -- if you have better Internet access, you should have fewer reasons for business trips etc. But this was also about mobile connectivity; with cell networks, you could stay online while sitting in the train. So were people in the past stuck in the office due to non-mobile Internet, while they were waiting to get on the train all the time? And if so, shouldn't the office be obsolete by now? I guess there's something like the Jevons paradox lurking in here.
At the time, my job meant a long commute to an office where I would ssh into another city for my actual work. Naturally, this was idiotic. I guess the third point would be something like
3. Why paying workers for being present in the office hours is a monstrous waste of potential, if what you really want is the result of their work.
Mathematics and programming as art and culture: The false dichotomy of being either numerate or creative. This may seem like "duh" for many a/.er, but think back at the high school cliques, and the way they influence career choices. Also, think about the ways math was taught.
I'm not making fun of you. I code in a minimal text editor. Code completion drives me up the wall. But almost nobody else does that.
I code in a maximal text editor (emacs), but that's beside the point. The question is, are you allowed to code and run your own programs without becoming a Certified(TM) BigCompany(TM) Professional(TM) Developer(TM)?
This relates to another recent Slashdot thread -- how do today's kids get interested in programming? In the 80s, home computers would always come with some kind of programming environment by default. In fact, it was usually the default user interface itself (Basic interpreter). Today you need to jump through hoops to get things like a C compiler or a Python interpreter on Windows.
This. One man's user friendliness is another man's developer hostility. All those user friendly layers you pile on top of the raw computing interfaces just get in the way of writing your own code. So you want to run your own software on Windows or Android? Here, just buy and install this huge development environment first. Because we try to separate the users from the developers as much as possible, we can't just let anyone code around.
>"A new "experimental containerized Android environment" from a company called Collabora allows Android apps to run in floating windows alongside native applications on desktop Linux."
I have heard this kind of thing many times before and tried many of them with limited success. Something always seems to be wrong or broken or missing. AndroVM, Virtualbox, Archron, Android-X86, Genymotion, Anbox, I keep holding out hope.
I have used Android-x86 under QEMU to post videos on Instagram, though I now prefer Android-x86 natively. It's not perfect in either case but it does the job. I have no other need for a dedicated Android device.
However, it all seems rather backwards. GNU/Linux has worked great as an all-around OS since the 1990s, ranging from supercomputers to phones. To me, Android seems like a closed toy system, an abomination that just takes advantage of Linux (so it's not unlike Andy Rubin himself). Why make an incompatible version of Linux and then run it on top of Linux proper? (Though I wouldn't trust any Android apps on my system natively, so I guess some virtualization is in order anyway.)
I remember seeing an ad for a home computer (Atari?) when I was 7 and I thought it was the coolest thing I had ever seen.
So where are the ads for openly programmable computers these days? I keep seeing phones/tablets which seem to be targeted for social media consumption, and gaming PCs which are likewise consumption-oriented. Well, there's also the middle ground of somewhat regular laptops aimed at students for light coursework. But the excitement of writing your own code is nowhere to be seen. I could see this was already hard in the 90s with Windows, where everything is hidden and the "users" are separated from "developers" as much as possible, but it's looking much harder now.
The main difference in speed between CPUs and GPUs has been in the memory subsystem more than flops. (And also on programmability CUDA is much easier to write than AVX code...)
I only have experience on OpenCL/GL instead of CUDA, but I would guess it's rather similar in broad terms. You need all kinds of setting up to get your code and data on the GPU and then back, so I don't think it's any easier overall. CPU languages have all kinds of helpers to use SIMD instructions without departing from the main CPU code or thread, so it's much more transparent.
I agree that GPUs are in some ways easier for parallel workloads, because the coding tools are built for parallelity to begin with. Conversely, many CPU languages need you to write a loop first, and then declare it as something that can be run in parallel instead of actually being looped.
I don't think anyone is looking to replace GPUs with CPUs for their parallel work. GPUs are much better suited for embarrassingly parallel workloads, while CPU cores are much more independent.
Try female condoms. You'll have more sense of moving because the condom is now fixed against the vaginal wall. They also make the whole deal more sanitary in case she's having her period.
If there's a success metric, then you can design a system to "study" and improve their outcome on the test. The test is an n -> 1 mapping and the system is a general optimizer that finds the min/max of that function. I think that's pretty oldskool "AI" -- in general, finding a good metric to match human success criteria is the hard problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Distributed.net started in 1997 and Mersenne.org in 1996, both for solving math problems on volunteer computers. SETI@Home started a couple of years later and it made these things more famous. All the later "@Home" computing projects are copy cats of these in some way.
Still, I think "copy cat" is a little harsh. You could say that every website out there is a copy cat of the original server at CERN, or maybe they are just using the same technology and ideas.
Too bad they never made any sequels.
I don't think we define dogs as tool users though.
Some dogs seem to be smarter than their owners, they can exploit the human to a great extent. I think that counts as a "tool" user.
It's funny because jokes like this make you look like an idiot for marrying her.
How about The Simpsons S03E01 Stark Raving Dad?
When the facts say that men are on average ... taller than women
#notallmen
The messed up notation by Newton is not used and instead the much saner stuff from Riemann is used. Newton was smart, but a hack and a crank. And he tried to suppress Riemann notation. Mathematics would probably have done better without Newton.
Surely you mean Leibniz (1646-1716), not Riemann (1826-1866).
http://goatse.ru/
Yes, but only to Compact Cassettes. Hipsters love tape and they wouldn't want your data to lose their warmth and roundness.
The "Golden Age of YouTube" died when people discovered that they could make money posting videos.
Once people started making money on their videos instead of doing it as a hobby (read: income vs expense) it became dominated by entitled shits who felt that they were owed something. Sensationalism became the norm, and outrage the response... advertisers reacted to protect their image, and the heavy hand of control slammed down -and the entitled shits whined about how they were owed a living for their efforts.
I think the same applies to the Golden Age of Internet in general. People were happy to have free hosting for their content, perhaps using it to promote gigs that made them money elsewhere. (My most viewed Youtube video is a trailer for our last theatre piece.)
Any recommendations for a Youtube alternative that doesn't suffer from these issues? I don't mind some ads if it means free hosting. I also understand there should be some control over the content, but I'm not too worried about that with my math art.
Great points! This relates to something I started to notice in the last decade: with increased connectivity, people started to travel around more and more. I thought this was counterintuitive -- if you have better Internet access, you should have fewer reasons for business trips etc. But this was also about mobile connectivity; with cell networks, you could stay online while sitting in the train. So were people in the past stuck in the office due to non-mobile Internet, while they were waiting to get on the train all the time? And if so, shouldn't the office be obsolete by now? I guess there's something like the Jevons paradox lurking in here.
At the time, my job meant a long commute to an office where I would ssh into another city for my actual work. Naturally, this was idiotic. I guess the third point would be something like
3. Why paying workers for being present in the office hours is a monstrous waste of potential, if what you really want is the result of their work.
Mathematics and programming as art and culture: The false dichotomy of being either numerate or creative. This may seem like "duh" for many a /.er, but think back at the high school cliques, and the way they influence career choices. Also, think about the ways math was taught.
Soooo... you don't use an IDE?
I'm not making fun of you. I code in a minimal text editor. Code completion drives me up the wall. But almost nobody else does that.
I code in a maximal text editor (emacs), but that's beside the point. The question is, are you allowed to code and run your own programs without becoming a Certified(TM) BigCompany(TM) Professional(TM) Developer(TM)?
This relates to another recent Slashdot thread -- how do today's kids get interested in programming? In the 80s, home computers would always come with some kind of programming environment by default. In fact, it was usually the default user interface itself (Basic interpreter). Today you need to jump through hoops to get things like a C compiler or a Python interpreter on Windows.
This. One man's user friendliness is another man's developer hostility. All those user friendly layers you pile on top of the raw computing interfaces just get in the way of writing your own code. So you want to run your own software on Windows or Android? Here, just buy and install this huge development environment first. Because we try to separate the users from the developers as much as possible, we can't just let anyone code around.
http://iki.fi/teknohog/rants/w...
http://iki.fi/teknohog/rants/u...
I would like to see uncontainerized
I found this great Russian-made app for managing all your social media contacts. Would you like to run it natively on your main workstation?
It also sounds like it might use modern GPU shaders.
>"A new "experimental containerized Android environment" from a company called Collabora allows Android apps to run in floating windows alongside native applications on desktop Linux."
I have heard this kind of thing many times before and tried many of them with limited success. Something always seems to be wrong or broken or missing. AndroVM, Virtualbox, Archron, Android-X86, Genymotion, Anbox, I keep holding out hope.
I have used Android-x86 under QEMU to post videos on Instagram, though I now prefer Android-x86 natively. It's not perfect in either case but it does the job. I have no other need for a dedicated Android device.
However, it all seems rather backwards. GNU/Linux has worked great as an all-around OS since the 1990s, ranging from supercomputers to phones. To me, Android seems like a closed toy system, an abomination that just takes advantage of Linux (so it's not unlike Andy Rubin himself). Why make an incompatible version of Linux and then run it on top of Linux proper? (Though I wouldn't trust any Android apps on my system natively, so I guess some virtualization is in order anyway.)
I remember seeing an ad for a home computer (Atari?) when I was 7 and I thought it was the coolest thing I had ever seen.
So where are the ads for openly programmable computers these days? I keep seeing phones/tablets which seem to be targeted for social media consumption, and gaming PCs which are likewise consumption-oriented. Well, there's also the middle ground of somewhat regular laptops aimed at students for light coursework. But the excitement of writing your own code is nowhere to be seen. I could see this was already hard in the 90s with Windows, where everything is hidden and the "users" are separated from "developers" as much as possible, but it's looking much harder now.
If they knew what they were doing, they wouldn't call it research.
The main difference in speed between CPUs and GPUs has been in the memory subsystem more than flops. (And also on programmability CUDA is much easier to write than AVX code...)
I only have experience on OpenCL/GL instead of CUDA, but I would guess it's rather similar in broad terms. You need all kinds of setting up to get your code and data on the GPU and then back, so I don't think it's any easier overall. CPU languages have all kinds of helpers to use SIMD instructions without departing from the main CPU code or thread, so it's much more transparent.
I agree that GPUs are in some ways easier for parallel workloads, because the coding tools are built for parallelity to begin with. Conversely, many CPU languages need you to write a loop first, and then declare it as something that can be run in parallel instead of actually being looped.
I don't think anyone is looking to replace GPUs with CPUs for their parallel work. GPUs are much better suited for embarrassingly parallel workloads, while CPU cores are much more independent.
Pull requests are only applicable to sex crimes, and you have to be very quick to have them accepted.
Try female condoms. You'll have more sense of moving because the condom is now fixed against the vaginal wall. They also make the whole deal more sanitary in case she's having her period.
Wang is the most common Chinese family name, meaning "King". I recall there are about 100 million Wangs around the world.
If there's a success metric, then you can design a system to "study" and improve their outcome on the test. The test is an n -> 1 mapping and the system is a general optimizer that finds the min/max of that function. I think that's pretty oldskool "AI" -- in general, finding a good metric to match human success criteria is the hard problem.
As soon as intelligence is defined clearly, it always turns out to be something that can be developed into a software package.
FTFY.