Thanks for the present. It was poorly wrapped, and I've regifted it many times, but it's made my life a lot better than all the fruitcakes, ties, and even toy trucks I've ever gotten. Almost as good as extra warm socks.
The bottleneck in computing isn't Moore's Law of transistor density. It's programming paradigms. We're wasting the vast majority of processing/memory/transmission capacity with linear programming, rather than parallel programs. Procedural programs are based entirely on the bottleneck paradigm, with the entire system reduced to a single boolean operation at any given time. Any parallelism is exceptional, and difficult to express in the symbols humans send to computers.
Parallel dataflow and distributed control are long overdue to the mainstream. Compilable UML is a slow, crude path to it. When I can draw a flowchart of primitive objects, any of which are packaged procedures or other flowed objects, and watch it run, I'll have a much better shot at exploiting all the compute/storage/transmit capacity available at that time. When "compilers" can distribute my data among the resources according to topology and analytical prediction, I'll finally get full use of the machines I'm using. Until then, I'm doubling my HW capacity every year or two so it can use half the efficiency gain running inefficient software.
How about firing her for abusing her position of public trust? She's not busy enough regulating porn, stopping municipal WiFi, dropping barriers to media monopolies, breaking up the Internet into multiple telco fiefdom "tiers"...
I want a cushy Federal gig where I can blow off my work to use it as a bully pulpit for ponies!
RTFP: Knowing what you're talking about is good - provided there was sarcasm in my original post.
BTW, I made a joke only of the wolf:bison ratio, 137.5:1175 pounds, or 8.5 - roughly 10x. If Mapusauruses cornered their prey like wolves cornering bison, that prey would be 10x the size of the Mapusaurus, said to be the size of a T. Rex, therefore 10x the size of a T. Rex.
Keep you ininformed, uninsightful, obnoxious sarcasm to yourself.
"the recently unearthed Mapusaurus roseae was as large as a T-Rex and may have hunted in packs [...] the prehistoric equivalent of a pack of wolves cornering a bison"
Yikes - where's this fossilized bison that's 10x as big as a T. Rex?
If they release it on the first Tuesday, the ISO will be hundreds of millions of binary numbers of the beast. With "Ubuntu" meaning "humanity", it will be the "number of a man", as crazy John the Revelator first announced the vaporware in the cold, damp Greek cave two millennia ago.
I have a Xilinx Spartan II FPGA board, and I can config it as a "soundcard", a "videocard", or a MicroBlaze CPU that runs Linux. Or a combo of all of them. Because my board is extremely open, and those configs are also completely open. Those are extreme cases of what I'm talking about. Less extreme is less open, but not closed.
I have not desired that all current HW be open. I merely talked about "what is open", while also acknowledging there is other "open HW": "There's other kinds of open hardware". Your "point" was first that a configured FPGA is "firmware" not "HW", which was mainly wrong, while also missing the point. Then it was HW is "immutable". Now your point seems to be (I think) that "nonreconfigurable" HW, (preconfigured) is open, even without being reconfigurable. Which it can be: the OpenSPARC and Power.org specs we're talking about are fairly open. But not as open as the Xilinx/MicroBlaze.
So the point is that the more read/write/execute ability one has over one's HW specification, the more open it is. Just like SW. I don't see how you can disagree with that point, but you seem to be.
You do know that the "new form" of humanity will come after the ones with our current genome are killed by unfitness to our environment, right? I'm more interested in minimizing the change, and coping technologically with whatever's inevitable. Both of which require coming to grips with the actual changes, and our feedback role in them. And surviving to reproduce.
No, it is you who has reversed the majority/minority status of the significance of human contributions to Global Warming:
"Minority position
A small minority of qualified scientists contest the view that humanity's actions have played a significant role in increasing recent temperatures. Uncertainties do exist regarding how much climate change should be expected in the future, and a hotly-contested political and public debate exists over what, if anything, should be done to reduce or reverse future warming, and how to cope with the consequences."
Ie: A minority contests that humanity played a significant role in warming.
Which is also the well reported status of the "debate". So you can stop playing your complicated mind game about "alarmists". The alarm ringing is the climate itself, and the majority of climate scientists can hear it. The minority, including all the professional Greenhouse deniers, is the one hitting the snooze bar.
Yeah, the models predicted much less change and ice melt. The previous model, "everything's OK", is the one that's demonstrably wrong. Which is why I say people should use our own experience within the scientific method to make our own decision.
No, one's personal experience is a very strong help to "the cause", when it's supported by rational science.
Unless you're trying to keep control over the cause limited to just an elite that's "in the know". Science is open to everyone, and based on personal observations analyzed by the scientific method.
It's stupid to go through the TLD process, domain name auctions and everything else. That's why DNS already lets companyname.com have tel.companyname.com without any bureaucracy other than the internal bureaucracy.
Could you imagine how much more contorted the Web bubble would have been if we had to go through this for "companyname.www"?
The existence of this stupid debate shows that ICANN is a worthless extra bureaucracy with zero knowledge or consideration of Internet design. They're just a gang of fatcats carving off their slice of global power by perverting the good work of engineers.
You might think it's a ridiculous argument, but the US courts thought it was very serious. Before you go reinventing monopoly law or that huge, complex case, try reading it.
If someone other than Microsoft did it, they wouldn't be abusing Microsoft's monopoly. Microsoft is unique, and operates under unique rules - supposedly.
BTW, that H2O story you're repeating is fiction.
Before blabbing about fake "libertarian" myths and corporate worship, you should know what you're talking about. Because I know what I'm talking about, and I know what you're talking about - making one of us.
If Microsoft had only a thin layer of protection against some unsophisticated viruses to gain, and possible monopoly violations - and certain bad press - to lose, would the company do it?
Bundling software to leverage a monopoly to promote other products is not only illegal, it's a violation of Microsoft's early 1990s consent agreement with the DoJ not to do so. Which it violated, as decided in the famous "Microsoft monopoly" decision of hte late 1990s. Bundling services is just as much an abuse as bundling software - don't you agree?
How come the Department of Justice, supposedly "closely monitoring" Microsoft's monopoly abuse, isn't stopping this? How come Microsoft isn't afraid to pull this Internet bundling stunt, illegally leveraging its monopoly, after the "landmark decision" against them 6 years ago?
Pathetic TrollMod is a SlashStalker. Surely some fool who couldn't keep up after posting something stupid in some unrelated thread, now anonymously suppressing my posts. How sad.
I prefer a 3-tier calendar, with standard presentation protocols in the UI layer (iCal, vCal, etc), arbitrary logic in the logic layer, and any storage server I want in the storage layer (RDBMS, filesystem, etc). Each in a separate component, with standard interfaces. I like Open-Xchange, open source, Java, Postgres, many APIs. But even OX has problems, like a contacts DB ghettoized in a separate BerkeleyDB storage layer for its OpenLDAP server, rather than storing it in the same Postgres. All these apps should have completely discrete components, with minimum functional redundancy, and easily addable objects (in Java, Perl, C/C++, whatever) that can access every API and dataflow. Since there are so many calendar clients, calendaring needs that utility the most.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the present. It was poorly wrapped, and I've regifted it many times, but it's made my life a lot better than all the fruitcakes, ties, and even toy trucks I've ever gotten. Almost as good as extra warm socks.
The bottleneck in computing isn't Moore's Law of transistor density. It's programming paradigms. We're wasting the vast majority of processing/memory/transmission capacity with linear programming, rather than parallel programs. Procedural programs are based entirely on the bottleneck paradigm, with the entire system reduced to a single boolean operation at any given time. Any parallelism is exceptional, and difficult to express in the symbols humans send to computers.
Parallel dataflow and distributed control are long overdue to the mainstream. Compilable UML is a slow, crude path to it. When I can draw a flowchart of primitive objects, any of which are packaged procedures or other flowed objects, and watch it run, I'll have a much better shot at exploiting all the compute/storage/transmit capacity available at that time. When "compilers" can distribute my data among the resources according to topology and analytical prediction, I'll finally get full use of the machines I'm using. Until then, I'm doubling my HW capacity every year or two so it can use half the efficiency gain running inefficient software.
How about firing her for abusing her position of public trust? She's not busy enough regulating porn, stopping municipal WiFi, dropping barriers to media monopolies, breaking up the Internet into multiple telco fiefdom "tiers"...
I want a cushy Federal gig where I can blow off my work to use it as a bully pulpit for ponies!
T. Rex = 5-7tons = 6 tons
Mapusaurus = "slightly larger than T. Rex" = 7 tons
Argentinosaur = 100 tons
7:100 = 1:14.3
wolf:bison = 1:8.5
my original post: 10x
You're not even close. Uninformed, uninsughtful, insensitive, innumerate and unrepentant.
BTW, your insults hurt me less than a wolf might an Argentinosaur - more like a bison vs T. Rex.
RTFP: Knowing what you're talking about is good - provided there was sarcasm in my original post.
BTW, I made a joke only of the wolf:bison ratio, 137.5:1175 pounds, or 8.5 - roughly 10x. If Mapusauruses cornered their prey like wolves cornering bison, that prey would be 10x the size of the Mapusaurus, said to be the size of a T. Rex, therefore 10x the size of a T. Rex.
Keep you ininformed, uninsightful, obnoxious sarcasm to yourself.
Imagine a beowulf cluster of predatory T. Rexes.
"the recently unearthed Mapusaurus roseae was as large as a T-Rex and may have hunted in packs
[...]
the prehistoric equivalent of a pack of wolves cornering a bison"
Yikes - where's this fossilized bison that's 10x as big as a T. Rex?
If they release it on the first Tuesday, the ISO will be hundreds of millions of binary numbers of the beast. With "Ubuntu" meaning "humanity", it will be the "number of a man", as crazy John the Revelator first announced the vaporware in the cold, damp Greek cave two millennia ago.
I have a Xilinx Spartan II FPGA board, and I can config it as a "soundcard", a "videocard", or a MicroBlaze CPU that runs Linux. Or a combo of all of them. Because my board is extremely open, and those configs are also completely open. Those are extreme cases of what I'm talking about. Less extreme is less open, but not closed.
I have not desired that all current HW be open. I merely talked about "what is open", while also acknowledging there is other "open HW": "There's other kinds of open hardware". Your "point" was first that a configured FPGA is "firmware" not "HW", which was mainly wrong, while also missing the point. Then it was HW is "immutable". Now your point seems to be (I think) that "nonreconfigurable" HW, (preconfigured) is open, even without being reconfigurable. Which it can be: the OpenSPARC and Power.org specs we're talking about are fairly open. But not as open as the Xilinx/MicroBlaze.
So the point is that the more read/write/execute ability one has over one's HW specification, the more open it is. Just like SW. I don't see how you can disagree with that point, but you seem to be.
You do know that the "new form" of humanity will come after the ones with our current genome are killed by unfitness to our environment, right? I'm more interested in minimizing the change, and coping technologically with whatever's inevitable. Both of which require coming to grips with the actual changes, and our feedback role in them. And surviving to reproduce.
No, it is you who has reversed the majority/minority status of the significance of human contributions to Global Warming:
"Minority position
A small minority of qualified scientists contest the view that humanity's actions have played a significant role in increasing recent temperatures. Uncertainties do exist regarding how much climate change should be expected in the future, and a hotly-contested political and public debate exists over what, if anything, should be done to reduce or reverse future warming, and how to cope with the consequences."
Ie: A minority contests that humanity played a significant role in warming.
Which is also the well reported status of the "debate". So you can stop playing your complicated mind game about "alarmists". The alarm ringing is the climate itself, and the majority of climate scientists can hear it. The minority, including all the professional Greenhouse deniers, is the one hitting the snooze bar.
Yeah, the models predicted much less change and ice melt. The previous model, "everything's OK", is the one that's demonstrably wrong. Which is why I say people should use our own experience within the scientific method to make our own decision.
No, one's personal experience is a very strong help to "the cause", when it's supported by rational science.
Unless you're trying to keep control over the cause limited to just an elite that's "in the know". Science is open to everyone, and based on personal observations analyzed by the scientific method.
Moderation -1
100% Redundant
Speaking of Redundant, TrollMods have found a new toy in their childish mod games, now that they're bored of Offtopic, Flamebait, Troll and Overrated.
It's stupid to go through the TLD process, domain name auctions and everything else. That's why DNS already lets companyname.com have tel.companyname.com without any bureaucracy other than the internal bureaucracy.
Could you imagine how much more contorted the Web bubble would have been if we had to go through this for "companyname.www"?
The existence of this stupid debate shows that ICANN is a worthless extra bureaucracy with zero knowledge or consideration of Internet design. They're just a gang of fatcats carving off their slice of global power by perverting the good work of engineers.
You might think it's a ridiculous argument, but the US courts thought it was very serious. Before you go reinventing monopoly law or that huge, complex case, try reading it.
If someone other than Microsoft did it, they wouldn't be abusing Microsoft's monopoly. Microsoft is unique, and operates under unique rules - supposedly.
BTW, that H2O story you're repeating is fiction.
Before blabbing about fake "libertarian" myths and corporate worship, you should know what you're talking about. Because I know what I'm talking about, and I know what you're talking about - making one of us.
Yeah, but at least with your comment I know that they and I are not the only ones reading my whining about TrollModdery :).
If Microsoft had only a thin layer of protection against some unsophisticated viruses to gain, and possible monopoly violations - and certain bad press - to lose, would the company do it?
Bundling software to leverage a monopoly to promote other products is not only illegal, it's a violation of Microsoft's early 1990s consent agreement with the DoJ not to do so. Which it violated, as decided in the famous "Microsoft monopoly" decision of hte late 1990s. Bundling services is just as much an abuse as bundling software - don't you agree?
How come the Department of Justice, supposedly "closely monitoring" Microsoft's monopoly abuse, isn't stopping this? How come Microsoft isn't afraid to pull this Internet bundling stunt, illegally leveraging its monopoly, after the "landmark decision" against them 6 years ago?
Why don't they just put restrictions preventing you from using any bandwidth they sell you? It's just as justified as their P2P restriction.
Moderation -1
100% Troll
Pathetic TrollMod is a SlashStalker. Surely some fool who couldn't keep up after posting something stupid in some unrelated thread, now anonymously suppressing my posts. How sad.
I prefer a 3-tier calendar, with standard presentation protocols in the UI layer (iCal, vCal, etc), arbitrary logic in the logic layer, and any storage server I want in the storage layer (RDBMS, filesystem, etc). Each in a separate component, with standard interfaces. I like Open-Xchange, open source, Java, Postgres, many APIs. But even OX has problems, like a contacts DB ghettoized in a separate BerkeleyDB storage layer for its OpenLDAP server, rather than storing it in the same Postgres. All these apps should have completely discrete components, with minimum functional redundancy, and easily addable objects (in Java, Perl, C/C++, whatever) that can access every API and dataflow. Since there are so many calendar clients, calendaring needs that utility the most.
That's what you think. Another reason you're not invited to the dinner.