You mean the D-Wave computer? It seems to be a common misconception that it's a quantum computer in the sense of using coherent superpositions to perform computations - it is not. It's another kind of quantum computer - it performs quantum annealing, which is a way to use quantum effects to accelerate certain cases of simulated annealing. Whether or not the D-Wave computer can actually do anything faster than more traditional methods is up for discussion, but the only one who ever claimed it was a quantum computer in the sense discussed here has been clueless journalists.
Let me correct myself here - it's not even on by default. You have to actually check a "Enable Kernel Caching" checkbox to turn it on. People are spending way too much time bashing a feature that's opt-in.
The user context doesn't really matter when it runs in kernel space as nothing can stop you from just replacing the user context. Why http parsing is done in kernel space is exactly to maximize performance. As mentioned in TFS you can disable it if you want to. One could argue that it shouldn't be on by default because it doesn't give you much if you are serving dynamic content.
> IIS kernel caching
For performance reasons probably. It's optional though. I have no idea about real numbers, but there is always some overhead associated with contex switches which may be reduced if the http stream is assembled in chunks in kernelspace and control is only switched to userspace when a chunk is ready. Also it may be possible to parse the http stream directly from the buffer that the hardware writes the received data to without the overhead of copying the packets to userspace.
While they can write anything in the site's TOS, it may not be legally enforceable depending on where you live. For example I'm not in anyway confirming that I have read the terms when I'm posting this comment, which means it is probably not legally binding in EU. Even if I had to confirm that I agree with the ther terms they may not be legally enforceable as EU has some quite strict laws about unfair contracts.
I don't think you know what "monolithic" means. No one said anything about everything being in the same binary. systemd consists of several components that has been designed to only work with each other. There is no modularity in the sense that there is no modules you can replace or decide whether or not to use.
Flickering and architectural problems. The first is purely cosmetic, but is impossible to fix without making chances to the core protocol. The second means that an order of magnitude more work is required to add new functionality than what could be done with a more modern design.
Well, assuming that the ssh admin has permitted ssh forwarding. And that you invoked your ssh client with the appropriate flags. And that you export the DISPLAY variable on the remote host. And that you set your xhost permissions on your own host.
You can easily check if a factorization is correct using a conventional computer. Of course factorizing 15 is pretty useless in itself, but you have to start somewhere. To put things into perspective, assume you have a number with 1000 digits, and you want to factorize that. The best known conventional algorithm for doing that is the General Number Field Sieve with which the factorization would take in the order of 1.4 * 10^43 operations. Assuming you had a computer capable of executing a trillion operations per second it would still take about 4.6 * 10^23 years, which is 33 trillion times the age of the universe!
Now assume you had a quantum computer with enough qubits - we would need at least 3322 qubits. Let us say that it is otherwise a pretty crappy quantum computer as it only gets the factorization right 0.1% of the time. Now we try to use our quantum computer. It gives us an answer in the order of just a few billion operations. Even if it is quite slow and only capable of 1 million operations per second, it would still give an answer in less than an hour. This answer is probably wrong, however we can easily check that using our conventional computer. Checking if a number divides another is FAST. It can actually be done in slightly more than just the size of the input - the existence of a factor in a 1000 digit number would take the order of maybe 100,000 operations to check - in much less than a second.
So the time it takes to validate the answer is negligible here. We just keep on asking the quantum computer to try again until we get it right. So how long would it take? After 10000 tries we would have gotten the correct result with a probability of 99.995%. So if every try takes 1 hour, we would be pretty sure to have succeeded in less than a year (10000 hours = 1 year 1 month 21 days 6 hours). So even with this big but crappy quantum computer we would be able to factorize the integer in less than a year instead of 33 trillion times the age of the universe.
First the abstract as well as the summary of invention directly talks about functions in class files. Of course it's the claims that are really important here.
Claim 1-5 explicitly talks about a clinit method in a class file (2-5 builds on 1).
Claim 6-11 talks about determining what code does by "play executing" it (i.e. simulating) - I can't believe this doesn't have any sort of prior art - seems a lot like some more or less standard optimizations by compilers.
Claim 12-17: again here it's talking about clinit methods in class files
Claim 18-23: "A computer-readable medium containing instructions for controlling a data processing system to perform a method, comprising the steps of:..." - I think they are claiming rights to create a program that implements claim 6-11 here?
By skimming #6,061,520 it seems to me that google could go free from that one just by calling the static initializers something else than - I don't know if they already do that. But it somehow seems oddly specific that the patent explicitly says "clinit method(s)" instead of just saying static class constructors or something like that - like it's only targeting java without never mentioning java in the claims.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh since you have refuted QM why don't you just publish your findings an claim your Nobel Prize instead of spewing rants on Slashdot?
You mean the D-Wave computer? It seems to be a common misconception that it's a quantum computer in the sense of using coherent superpositions to perform computations - it is not. It's another kind of quantum computer - it performs quantum annealing, which is a way to use quantum effects to accelerate certain cases of simulated annealing. Whether or not the D-Wave computer can actually do anything faster than more traditional methods is up for discussion, but the only one who ever claimed it was a quantum computer in the sense discussed here has been clueless journalists.
Let me correct myself here - it's not even on by default. You have to actually check a "Enable Kernel Caching" checkbox to turn it on. People are spending way too much time bashing a feature that's opt-in.
The kernel driver only handles cached pages. It does less than kHTTPd.
Turns out it's not actually on by default. You have to add a caching rule and check the "Enable Kernel Caching" checkbox.
The user context doesn't really matter when it runs in kernel space as nothing can stop you from just replacing the user context. Why http parsing is done in kernel space is exactly to maximize performance. As mentioned in TFS you can disable it if you want to. One could argue that it shouldn't be on by default because it doesn't give you much if you are serving dynamic content.
> IIS kernel caching For performance reasons probably. It's optional though. I have no idea about real numbers, but there is always some overhead associated with contex switches which may be reduced if the http stream is assembled in chunks in kernelspace and control is only switched to userspace when a chunk is ready. Also it may be possible to parse the http stream directly from the buffer that the hardware writes the received data to without the overhead of copying the packets to userspace.
While they can write anything in the site's TOS, it may not be legally enforceable depending on where you live. For example I'm not in anyway confirming that I have read the terms when I'm posting this comment, which means it is probably not legally binding in EU. Even if I had to confirm that I agree with the ther terms they may not be legally enforceable as EU has some quite strict laws about unfair contracts.
I don't think you know what "monolithic" means. No one said anything about everything being in the same binary. systemd consists of several components that has been designed to only work with each other. There is no modularity in the sense that there is no modules you can replace or decide whether or not to use.
What's the problem in just typing "A"? Almost all of the characters are right in front of you on your keyboard!
Flickering and architectural problems. The first is purely cosmetic, but is impossible to fix without making chances to the core protocol. The second means that an order of magnitude more work is required to add new functionality than what could be done with a more modern design.
Daniel Stone explains the problems with X11 in great details here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIctzAQOe44
obviously by ssh admin he means whoever administrates access to ssh, and would allow X forwarding in the sshd_conf file...
You are incorrect. X forwarding still requires giving your local host permission to the x server.
I don't know which distro you use, but usually that is enabled unless whoever administrates access to ssh disables it.
Well, assuming that the ssh admin has permitted ssh forwarding. And that you invoked your ssh client with the appropriate flags. And that you export the DISPLAY variable on the remote host. And that you set your xhost permissions on your own host.
Other than that, nothing to be done.
You mean
ssh -X user@host xterm?
Damn hard that is!
Doesn't matter anyways - I created a redirect page.
You don't have a PrintScreen key?
That is why you have Ctrl+Alt+SysRq+R ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_SysRq_key )
Whoosh
reversesolidusdot? sloshdot maybe?
You can easily check if a factorization is correct using a conventional computer. Of course factorizing 15 is pretty useless in itself, but you have to start somewhere. To put things into perspective, assume you have a number with 1000 digits, and you want to factorize that. The best known conventional algorithm for doing that is the General Number Field Sieve with which the factorization would take in the order of 1.4 * 10^43 operations. Assuming you had a computer capable of executing a trillion operations per second it would still take about 4.6 * 10^23 years, which is 33 trillion times the age of the universe!
Now assume you had a quantum computer with enough qubits - we would need at least 3322 qubits. Let us say that it is otherwise a pretty crappy quantum computer as it only gets the factorization right 0.1% of the time. Now we try to use our quantum computer. It gives us an answer in the order of just a few billion operations. Even if it is quite slow and only capable of 1 million operations per second, it would still give an answer in less than an hour. This answer is probably wrong, however we can easily check that using our conventional computer. Checking if a number divides another is FAST. It can actually be done in slightly more than just the size of the input - the existence of a factor in a 1000 digit number would take the order of maybe 100,000 operations to check - in much less than a second.
So the time it takes to validate the answer is negligible here. We just keep on asking the quantum computer to try again until we get it right. So how long would it take? After 10000 tries we would have gotten the correct result with a probability of 99.995%. So if every try takes 1 hour, we would be pretty sure to have succeeded in less than a year (10000 hours = 1 year 1 month 21 days 6 hours). So even with this big but crappy quantum computer we would be able to factorize the integer in less than a year instead of 33 trillion times the age of the universe.
One word: pagerank
Already did before seeing this comment
First the abstract as well as the summary of invention directly talks about functions in class files. Of course it's the claims that are really important here. ..." - I think they are claiming rights to create a program that implements claim 6-11 here?
Claim 1-5 explicitly talks about a clinit method in a class file (2-5 builds on 1).
Claim 6-11 talks about determining what code does by "play executing" it (i.e. simulating) - I can't believe this doesn't have any sort of prior art - seems a lot like some more or less standard optimizations by compilers.
Claim 12-17: again here it's talking about clinit methods in class files
Claim 18-23: "A computer-readable medium containing instructions for controlling a data processing system to perform a method, comprising the steps of:
... without *ever* mentioning java in the claims.
By skimming #6,061,520 it seems to me that google could go free from that one just by calling the static initializers something else than - I don't know if they already do that. But it somehow seems oddly specific that the patent explicitly says "clinit method(s)" instead of just saying static class constructors or something like that - like it's only targeting java without never mentioning java in the claims.
Slightly offtopic, but the naming of the compiler seems strange to me. It indicates that it's not using EABI, but which ABI *is* it using then?