For most specific problems thrown at supercomputers, you can go 30 times faster with a custom hardware architecture baked into silicon
To go 30 times fast for general purpose supercomputing, you use the latest silicon (2X) and more chips (15X) and come up with a super new interconnect to make it not suck. This would involve making some chips that support low latency IPC in hardware.
They are free to send me a few billion dollars, I'll get right on it and deliver a 30X faster machine and I'l even use some blue LEDs on the front panel.
I haven't touched the iphone stuff. Only Macintosh programming, which I've done on and off since 1984. I found Swift pretty easy to pick up. Another language amongst many. Each to their own.
I wrote an MVC shim over curses in python for a point of sale application. Now that was a simple API.
Agreed. Swift makes it easier to program, but the notion that "anyone" can write apps is definitely a laugh. There are a lot of programmers who don't understand that some people have a really hard time with the core concepts and skills involved in creating software. It reminds me of math teachers who don't seem to understand that some people have a fairly difficult time with advanced mathematical subjects. People have different areas of competence, and not all are suited to be programmers. It's not just logic... you need to do some creative problem solving in formulating that logic, and you need to keep a LOT of complex things in your head all at the same time to get them to all mesh together at the end.
And that's how I became I developer. In college I was going to major in Economics with a minor in Computer Science - but then I took an "Intro to programming" class after 8 years of home computer BASIC - and I was amazed that these engineering students had no ability to understand the logic and problem-solving required for programming.
I have a degree in computer science. I've been programming since I was 9. I learned Swift. It's quite good as languages go. But no amount of language knowledge or computer science knowledge will make the Apple APIs simple. They're not. They're complicated and hard to use. Swift will not make the APIs simple or logical. Making the APIs simple and logical will make the APIs simple and logical.
Only to a small extent. This would reduce the need for DRAM cache of SSD data. Computers will still need huge amounts of DRAM for workspace. Workspace memory needs trillions of times more write cycles than this provides.
Or more SRAM cache local to the CPU with cache lines being merrily lobbed twixt the SRAM and the magic new memory. Maybe. A non volatile PC would be neat.
In the stuff I work on (crypto specs) almost everyone involved works for a government. There are some. Myself, some consultants but they are a small minority. But the governments choose the national position, not the individuals.
Having been to some ISO meetings recently, I can state without fear of being wrong, that ISO leaves itself wide open to corruption. There is a process, but it is nothing like a normal standards process with the usual mitigation to prevent domination by a single body and a convergent consensus process to get to an agreeable document in a reasonable time.
Participants don't even get access to the documents they are working on. They have to buy themselves copies in uneditable PDFs. The result is that people keep adding crap into specs that already exists in other specs, but no one knows to reference it. So these things become inconsistent over time.
You will find function specifications handled in one group and test & validation specifications for the same thing in a different group. So the function specification gets no consideration of testability requirements and the test & validation group don't get to specify that the thing be testable, only how it may be tested after it's been implemented to the spec that has no testability requirements in it.
ISO is not a competent organisation to write specs. Certainly not technical computer software and hardware specifications. Maybe they're OK at bridge loading specs, or non-stick coatings. I don't know.
Well P-224 isn't twist secure, if that's what you're hinting at.
In reality the backdoor isn't in SP800-90A, B or C. It's in FIPS 140-2 section 4.9.2. In a FIPS certified module, that procedure applies to all RNG outputs 16 bits and above. A test that changes the data to create a stream of known algebraic inequalities. Genius.
NIST recklessly broke our trust in them by allowing known to be broken encryption into their standard. Their new document may come with all the best intentions, but it will take years to rebuild that trust. Let's wait for what the crypto community has to say about these documents, before we blindly follow their latest standards.
I think that there is one difference in this cycle though. I think that a lot of the ARM mortgages were eaten up in the great recession. Most of the loans nowadays are conventional, or in the case of investors, just cash.
I've saved 10s of thousands of dollars with ARM mortgages over the last 15 years.
Slashdot Mirror
As if they had enough problems, now Malaysian Airlines will get fined for littering
I flew on Malaysian airlines recently and got two empty seats next to me. That hasn't happened on a US plane in a long time.
For most specific problems thrown at supercomputers, you can go 30 times faster with a custom hardware architecture baked into silicon
To go 30 times fast for general purpose supercomputing, you use the latest silicon (2X) and more chips (15X) and come up with a super new interconnect to make it not suck. This would involve making some chips that support low latency IPC in hardware.
They are free to send me a few billion dollars, I'll get right on it and deliver a 30X faster machine and I'l even use some blue LEDs on the front panel.
My Happy Hacking Professional 2 keyboard has a control key in the place where a caps lock key usually goes.
I haven't touched the iphone stuff. Only Macintosh programming, which I've done on and off since 1984.
I found Swift pretty easy to pick up. Another language amongst many. Each to their own.
I wrote an MVC shim over curses in python for a point of sale application. Now that was a simple API.
Agreed. Swift makes it easier to program, but the notion that "anyone" can write apps is definitely a laugh. There are a lot of programmers who don't understand that some people have a really hard time with the core concepts and skills involved in creating software. It reminds me of math teachers who don't seem to understand that some people have a fairly difficult time with advanced mathematical subjects. People have different areas of competence, and not all are suited to be programmers. It's not just logic... you need to do some creative problem solving in formulating that logic, and you need to keep a LOT of complex things in your head all at the same time to get them to all mesh together at the end.
And that's how I became I developer. In college I was going to major in Economics with a minor in Computer Science - but then I took an "Intro to programming" class after 8 years of home computer BASIC - and I was amazed that these engineering students had no ability to understand the logic and problem-solving required for programming.
I have a degree in computer science. I've been programming since I was 9. I learned Swift. It's quite good as languages go. But no amount of language knowledge or computer science knowledge will make the Apple APIs simple. They're not. They're complicated and hard to use. Swift will not make the APIs simple or logical. Making the APIs simple and logical will make the APIs simple and logical.
> It's DRAM that's in the crosshairs.
Only to a small extent. This would reduce the need for DRAM cache of SSD data. Computers will still need huge amounts of DRAM for workspace. Workspace memory needs trillions of times more write cycles than this provides.
Or more SRAM cache local to the CPU with cache lines being merrily lobbed twixt the SRAM and the magic new memory. Maybe. A non volatile PC would be neat.
Usually i'd agree... there's been countless up and coming new types of memory that never make it.
But i'm cautiously optomistic here because
a) It's Intel and not some tiny obscure VC
b) they said they already have wafers and mention 2016 O_o !
no wonder they ditched their awesome SSD controllers.
It's DRAM that's in the crosshairs.
If they want people to use it as a currency, the 'value' of it has to stop changing.
I've not noticed the Yen, Dollar, Pound, Euro or Renminbi stop changing value. Perhaps that's why no one uses them as currency.
I thought SLAM was a program to deny food to poor people.. "Suspected of Living Above Means".
If the CEO is good at doing what CEOs do, she'll have him removed ASAP.
MOD PARENT UP
MOD AC DOWN
Do the Hokey Cokey and turn around.
Does it? I hadn't noticed.
They should make the road Lego compatible. Studded tires would work then.
Is Renderman a superhero who can separate meat from bones?
It's ok summary writer person. You don't need to put in any effort to explain what Cortana is or why we might care.
In the stuff I work on (crypto specs) almost everyone involved works for a government. There are some. Myself, some consultants but they are a small minority. But the governments choose the national position, not the individuals.
Having been to some ISO meetings recently, I can state without fear of being wrong, that ISO leaves itself wide open to corruption. There is a process, but it is nothing like a normal standards process with the usual mitigation to prevent domination by a single body and a convergent consensus process to get to an agreeable document in a reasonable time.
Participants don't even get access to the documents they are working on. They have to buy themselves copies in uneditable PDFs. The result is that people keep adding crap into specs that already exists in other specs, but no one knows to reference it. So these things become inconsistent over time.
You will find function specifications handled in one group and test & validation specifications for the same thing in a different group. So the function specification gets no consideration of testability requirements and the test & validation group don't get to specify that the thing be testable, only how it may be tested after it's been implemented to the spec that has no testability requirements in it.
ISO is not a competent organisation to write specs. Certainly not technical computer software and hardware specifications. Maybe they're OK at bridge loading specs, or non-stick coatings. I don't know.
To find out where the NSA put the twist.
Well P-224 isn't twist secure, if that's what you're hinting at.
In reality the backdoor isn't in SP800-90A, B or C. It's in FIPS 140-2 section 4.9.2. In a FIPS certified module, that procedure applies to all RNG outputs 16 bits and above. A test that changes the data to create a stream of known algebraic inequalities. Genius.
NIST recklessly broke our trust in them by allowing known to be broken encryption into their standard. Their new document may come with all the best intentions, but it will take years to rebuild that trust. Let's wait for what the crypto community has to say about these documents, before we blindly follow their latest standards.
Well you could go with the ANSI or ISO RNG specs.
Oh wait, they're written by the same people.
Economic and social utility to whom?
People who would otherwise be homeless?
I think that there is one difference in this cycle though. I think that a lot of the ARM mortgages were eaten up in the great recession. Most of the loans nowadays are conventional, or in the case of investors, just cash.
I've saved 10s of thousands of dollars with ARM mortgages over the last 15 years.
>But personal and tax implications have done that,
What does that mean? Did they help or hinder?
>$500/month is $6K per year
Maintenance can be more than that. Especially with bad renters. You also have to live your life and good renters make for less stress.
>"Dropping a vulnerability" is common security community vernacular
Is it? Maybe I live in a security researcher bubble that doesn't interact with the cool security researcher kids who use 'drop' in place of 'publish'.
X was a thing, not an amount.