Actually in my hardware design class, the project was to design a PDP-8 computer using VHDL. We used an FPGA, although I don't remember the exact model.
BTW, I believe BART still uses PDP-8 computers to control the signals in its system.
I don't why the above post was modded down, but it's certainly true. Whitfield Diffie has been working at Sun Labs (the R&D division of Sun) for several years now.
There is a field dealing with this. It's called Knowledge Discovery in Databases (KDD). It's been around for a few years now. Go here for a slightly more technical overview. The posted article is aimed more toward the business people rather than the technical people.
Obviously, the article generalizes on the word "developer", which the author means to be enterprise developers. On the other side of the spectrum, I don't see embedded system developers using C# or VB.Net in the near future.
Make a clear distinction between specification and implementation. Sun has made the specification for Java open for all to see. JDK is an implementation of the Java platform that happens to be written at Sun. By no means this is the only way to develop and use Java. For instance, you can grab Jikes compiler, compile your Java program, and run it on Jalapeno VM. You are even allowed to write your own implementation of the compiler and the VM. One catch is, if you want your implementation to be certified as 100% Pure Java, you need to pass the Java Compatibility Kit (JCK), which you need to license from Sun.
Interesting remark. There are efforts already to preserve computer hardware from ages past (look at the National Museum of American History and the Computer Museum). But I'm not aware of any efforts to preserve computer software. Or at least the software hasn't been given as much emphasis as the hardware. This can be started with the preservation of USENET materials. Other stuff that I can think of: the source code of the original PDP/11 UNIX and Linux. Hopefully, as time goes on, companies will be willing to donate the source code of their obsolete commercial software.
One of the design goals of Qt/Embedded is speed, taking into account that it is targeted for small devices. The Qt/Embedded API accesses the framebuffer directly, which is desirable for small devices because then you have the overhead of only two layers of call for graphical stuff. Regardless, if you write your applications in Qt, you shouldn't need to worry about Qt/X11 or Qt/Embedded, because the API is the same (Qt 2.3.2 for the one shipped with the Zaurus). And I believe Qt has GPL license for those who develop GPL software.
Instead of rephrasing the content, why not post the original email, including the header? It will be interesting to see how the email is actually routed.
Building a computer is out of the question for me, since I want a laptop (don't have time for the hassle, if it's possible at all). I understand that I get IE with MacOS, but for me, that's a much better alternative than getting Windows. Removing all those crap won't be a problem. I plan to use Mozilla/Netscape anyway. Those sites who insist on me using IE can kiss my business good bye. I see your point, though. Microsoft is (almost) everywhere.
I vow not to purchase any Microsoft products, directly or indirectly, from now on. That includes PCs that come with Windows. My next system will most likely be an Apple PowerMac/Book. Mac OS X is a great OS (UNIX-based) with a great UI!
If Linux is free, it's not a surprise if it occupies the lowest spending priorities for companies. They virtually don't have to spend any money at all!
A good general resource for this kind of advanced computer architecture is the book Computer Architecture by David Patterson and John Hennessy. It's quite dense. For the latest in processor architecture, the IEEE Micro magazine is useful.
the wallet service will remain offline until the company can add additional security features "to ensure that similar exploits cannot be used to compromise our user's credit card information."
What's the standard for this? Based on Microsoft's track record, a new exploit will come up regardless of how many patches are issued. No way I'm going to let them keep my personal data. Too bad the average consumer may not realize this.
As other readers have pointed out, this is nothing new. John Holland originated the genetic algorithm idea in around 1970's (his book, "Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems", was first published in 1975). Then John Koza extends this idea to genetic programming (the first volume of his "Genetic Programming" series came out in 1992). It's still under a lot of research. But there are quite a number of people, most notably Marvin Minsky, that argue that this approach won't be the cure-all and solve-all for the problem of
achieving artificial human-level intelligence within a reasonable timeframe (around 50 years from now), which the movie AI exhibits. The
argument draws from the evolution of life itself. How long did it take from the first lifeforms to the first human species? In the order of million, if not billion, of years certainly. The point is, it's going to take a heck lot of time for this kind of programs to truly achieve our (human's) level of intelligence, if it's possible at all. Not to say that the technique is not useful--it has been applied in a number of applications. But if we're looking for human-level intelligence, it alone would barely solve the problem.
This topic reminded me of an article in this month's edition of Tech Review about the impact of patents to university. They indeed can become a significant source of income and can be put back to more research, especially for private universities. There's a table ranking universities based on their license income from patents. MIT is not surprising judging by the proportion of their license revenue compared to their research expenditure, which is only 2.2%. Compare this with Florida State University, whose license revenue is 43.2% of their research expenditure. It's basic economics.
Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs is a must, an excellent and proven introductory book in computer science that contains a lot of gems even for the most experienced programmers. Online version is also available.
Re:Just want to point out
on
FreeBSD on DVD
·
· Score: 1
Isn't the open-source OS distribution virtually a subscription? What I mean is you definitely will be able to upgrade to the latest version of the OS you are using. There are several channels, some of which are free (downloading over the Internet) and some you have to pay (CD or in the future, DVD). I also believe that the FreeBSD folks have been doing subscription for quite a while (i.e. you subscribe and will receive updates in CD form during the period of your subscription). The difference with Microsoft's model is the options available, and the forcing issue, as another reader pointed out. What Microsoft will do basically, is give you no option but to upgrade your copy of software, regardless of whether you need it or not, and you pay for that through the subscription.
It's interesting that in the Slashdot community there's hardly any discussion on functional languages, e.g. Lisp, ML, or Haskell. I'm taking a Programming Languages course this semester, and in it I'm exposed to Standard ML. This is my first exposure to a functional language, and I'm hooked! The feature that interests me most is type inference and polymorphism. Not the polymorphism that you see in mainstream object-oriented languages like Java or C++. It is elegant, and the way an functional program is written, developers will be less prone to write bugs. Around 20 years ago John Backus in his Turing Award lecture proposes an functional programming system as the alternative to languages based on Von Neumann architecture. It is amazing that after 20 years, this idea hasn't really caught up in the mainstream (ACM Digital Library subscribers can download the lecture online). Of course there are arguments of performance and so on. But this is what innovation and research are for. I believe there are a lot of interesting things going on in programming language research, and if the open-source effort wants to make a significant impact, they should look into it. As a closing note, I want to restate what my professor said in class a few days ago. He said that the ideas used in Java have been around for about 20 years, but only now they are brought into mainstream usage. C, C++, Java, and now C#, they are basically the same language with slight variations and improvements. Are the open-source community brave enough to venture out to explore completely new territory?
Just want to chip in my opinion to respond to the arguments of teaching the latest technology in CS courses. Technology changes so rapidly that it's very hard for CS depts to try to keep up with it. Also, technology becomes obsolete. So IMHO, CS depts may teach courses related to the latest technology, however you define it, when they have sufficient resources. However, what's more important is for CS depts to teach on longlasting subjects and give the students the skill necessary to keep up with the latest technology on their own. I think this is a much more valuable skill to have.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually in my hardware design class, the project was to design a PDP-8 computer using VHDL. We used an FPGA, although I don't remember the exact model. BTW, I believe BART still uses PDP-8 computers to control the signals in its system.
I don't why the above post was modded down, but it's certainly true. Whitfield Diffie has been working at Sun Labs (the R&D division of Sun) for several years now.
There is a field dealing with this. It's called Knowledge Discovery in Databases (KDD). It's been around for a few years now. Go here for a slightly more technical overview. The posted article is aimed more toward the business people rather than the technical people.
Obviously, the article generalizes on the word "developer", which the author means to be enterprise developers. On the other side of the spectrum, I don't see embedded system developers using C# or VB.Net in the near future.
This comment can also be viewed here.
Wanna see the original UNIX source? Check this book.
What's wrong with Slashdot lately? This is not the first time within the last month when duplicate topics are posted.
Make a clear distinction between specification and implementation. Sun has made the specification for Java open for all to see. JDK is an implementation of the Java platform that happens to be written at Sun. By no means this is the only way to develop and use Java. For instance, you can grab Jikes compiler, compile your Java program, and run it on Jalapeno VM. You are even allowed to write your own implementation of the compiler and the VM. One catch is, if you want your implementation to be certified as 100% Pure Java, you need to pass the Java Compatibility Kit (JCK), which you need to license from Sun.
Salesmen will certainly be happy when such an algorithm is found. For other classes of NP-complete problems, check this book.
Interesting remark. There are efforts already to preserve computer hardware from ages past (look at the National Museum of American History and the Computer Museum). But I'm not aware of any efforts to preserve computer software. Or at least the software hasn't been given as much emphasis as the hardware. This can be started with the preservation of USENET materials. Other stuff that I can think of: the source code of the original PDP/11 UNIX and Linux. Hopefully, as time goes on, companies will be willing to donate the source code of their obsolete commercial software.
why did they wimp out on the Microsoft case?
One of the design goals of Qt/Embedded is speed, taking into account that it is targeted for small devices. The Qt/Embedded API accesses the framebuffer directly, which is desirable for small devices because then you have the overhead of only two layers of call for graphical stuff. Regardless, if you write your applications in Qt, you shouldn't need to worry about Qt/X11 or Qt/Embedded, because the API is the same (Qt 2.3.2 for the one shipped with the Zaurus). And I believe Qt has GPL license for those who develop GPL software.
There's a book on this issue (autoconf, automake, libtool). I haven't read it. Maybe someone else can give a review.
Instead of rephrasing the content, why not post the original email, including the header? It will be interesting to see how the email is actually routed.
Building a computer is out of the question for me, since I want a laptop (don't have time for the hassle, if it's possible at all). I understand that I get IE with MacOS, but for me, that's a much better alternative than getting Windows. Removing all those crap won't be a problem. I plan to use Mozilla/Netscape anyway. Those sites who insist on me using IE can kiss my business good bye. I see your point, though. Microsoft is (almost) everywhere.
I vow not to purchase any Microsoft products, directly or indirectly, from now on. That includes PCs that come with Windows. My next system will most likely be an Apple PowerMac/Book. Mac OS X is a great OS (UNIX-based) with a great UI!
If Linux is free, it's not a surprise if it occupies the lowest spending priorities for companies. They virtually don't have to spend any money at all!
A good general resource for this kind of advanced computer architecture is the book Computer Architecture by David Patterson and John Hennessy. It's quite dense. For the latest in processor architecture, the IEEE Micro magazine is useful.
Comment from Passport's program manager:
the wallet service will remain offline until the company can add additional security features "to ensure that similar exploits cannot be used to compromise our user's credit card information."
What's the standard for this? Based on Microsoft's track record, a new exploit will come up regardless of how many patches are issued. No way I'm going to let them keep my personal data. Too bad the average consumer may not realize this.
As other readers have pointed out, this is nothing new. John Holland originated the genetic algorithm idea in around 1970's (his book, "Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems", was first published in 1975). Then John Koza extends this idea to genetic programming (the first volume of his "Genetic Programming" series came out in 1992). It's still under a lot of research. But there are quite a number of people, most notably Marvin Minsky, that argue that this approach won't be the cure-all and solve-all for the problem of achieving artificial human-level intelligence within a reasonable timeframe (around 50 years from now), which the movie AI exhibits. The argument draws from the evolution of life itself. How long did it take from the first lifeforms to the first human species? In the order of million, if not billion, of years certainly. The point is, it's going to take a heck lot of time for this kind of programs to truly achieve our (human's) level of intelligence, if it's possible at all. Not to say that the technique is not useful--it has been applied in a number of applications. But if we're looking for human-level intelligence, it alone would barely solve the problem.
This topic reminded me of an article in this month's edition of Tech Review about the impact of patents to university. They indeed can become a significant source of income and can be put back to more research, especially for private universities. There's a table ranking universities based on their license income from patents. MIT is not surprising judging by the proportion of their license revenue compared to their research expenditure, which is only 2.2%. Compare this with Florida State University, whose license revenue is 43.2% of their research expenditure. It's basic economics.
Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs is a must, an excellent and proven introductory book in computer science that contains a lot of gems even for the most experienced programmers. Online version is also available.
Isn't the open-source OS distribution virtually a subscription? What I mean is you definitely will be able to upgrade to the latest version of the OS you are using. There are several channels, some of which are free (downloading over the Internet) and some you have to pay (CD or in the future, DVD). I also believe that the FreeBSD folks have been doing subscription for quite a while (i.e. you subscribe and will receive updates in CD form during the period of your subscription). The difference with Microsoft's model is the options available, and the forcing issue, as another reader pointed out. What Microsoft will do basically, is give you no option but to upgrade your copy of software, regardless of whether you need it or not, and you pay for that through the subscription.
It's interesting that in the Slashdot community there's hardly any discussion on functional languages, e.g. Lisp, ML, or Haskell. I'm taking a Programming Languages course this semester, and in it I'm exposed to Standard ML. This is my first exposure to a functional language, and I'm hooked! The feature that interests me most is type inference and polymorphism. Not the polymorphism that you see in mainstream object-oriented languages like Java or C++. It is elegant, and the way an functional program is written, developers will be less prone to write bugs. Around 20 years ago John Backus in his Turing Award lecture proposes an functional programming system as the alternative to languages based on Von Neumann architecture. It is amazing that after 20 years, this idea hasn't really caught up in the mainstream (ACM Digital Library subscribers can download the lecture online). Of course there are arguments of performance and so on. But this is what innovation and research are for. I believe there are a lot of interesting things going on in programming language research, and if the open-source effort wants to make a significant impact, they should look into it. As a closing note, I want to restate what my professor said in class a few days ago. He said that the ideas used in Java have been around for about 20 years, but only now they are brought into mainstream usage. C, C++, Java, and now C#, they are basically the same language with slight variations and improvements. Are the open-source community brave enough to venture out to explore completely new territory?
Just want to chip in my opinion to respond to the arguments of teaching the latest technology in CS courses. Technology changes so rapidly that it's very hard for CS depts to try to keep up with it. Also, technology becomes obsolete. So IMHO, CS depts may teach courses related to the latest technology, however you define it, when they have sufficient resources. However, what's more important is for CS depts to teach on longlasting subjects and give the students the skill necessary to keep up with the latest technology on their own. I think this is a much more valuable skill to have.