"Indie" status doesn't actually matter that much in the publishing pipeline; you can submit your paper to a journal in the same way that anybody else does, and it will get the same consideration. (The place where organization status matters a bit more is at the reverse end -- if one of the authors is particularly well-known, that tends to make the review process easier)
If your project has practical applications and you wish to patent, make sure to file that first. In that case, consult with a patent attorney on the right things to do next.
Otherwise, pick the appropriate journal and submit following the guidelines on their web page. You'll definitely want to format your paper in LaTeX, since pretty much everyone requires that; some journals have standard LaTeX style packages they want you to use, but these are easy to plug in. (e.g., the Physical Review uses revtex.sty, and many other journals now use it too)
As far as which journal you want, it depends on the particular field, but I'm guessing that Science isn't it -- that's a very high-profile journal which is intended to be things of interest to the scientific community at large, but in practice it has a fairly strong bio/chemistry/some physics focus. Someone else on this thread may have particular journal suggestions, or you may want to search on-line for similar (recent) papers and see where they were published. ACM transactions are often good "default" places in CS. Also, CS tends to prefer conference talks to straight-up journal publications; you may consider submitting your algorithm as a talk to some appropriate CS conference, in which case the article is published as part of the proceedings. Again, the conference depends on your particular subject.
Don't worry about your lack of organizational affiliation. That's rarely a big issue.
Speaking as someone who writes performance-critical very-large-scale applications, the idea sounds just as nuts in that world. A 20% speedup in malloc is worth, at the most, a 2% speedup in the overall process. (If you're spending more than 10% of time in malloc, perhaps you should be using a freelist, arena, *anything* else?) Wasting an entire core for a 2% speedup doesn't seem horribly efficient to me.
Also, I can't help noticing that most of their argument for speed starts from the hypothesis that an uncontended mutex lock takes about as long as a single-threaded malloc. That makes me wonder what the hell kind of locking implementation they're using for their design, and whether their time wouldn't be better spent improving *that*.
The enormous amount of extra work is in maintaining a Linux server in the first place. (And in learning enough about it for "just editing a config file" to be a small matter, etc)
Slashdot norms to the contrary, most people don't do this.:)
That depends on whether you're running a Linux box at home in a "reliable enough" way to be functioning as a server. And in the example you give, as your primary machine as well. While I realize that many/. users do this, I would certainly say that most people don't.
I actually stopped doing it several years ago. I concluded that I have to maintain enough complex systems at work; I don't see any need to be a sysadmin for a complex system that requires nonstop patching and understanding of 30-year-old system internals at home, too. Plus the desktop environment was frankly primitive compared to modern machines. So I ditched it and started running OS X. (And I should say that I'm an experienced Linux sysadmin and engineer professionally, so this was not the "I don't know how to use it and it appears to have been designed by badgers" issue)
It's definitely true that, if you're already doing all of the work to run your own system at home, adding a DNS server isn't a big deal. But that's really a hobbyist thing to do. If your home system is primarily for the purpose of getting things done, rather than for playing with systems, it's an enormous amount of extra work. Yet having faster DNS lookups is still a win.
Because setting up and maintaining your own recursive DNS server is a pain in the ass? (Especially compared to the workload of "here, just change this one setting and it will go faster")
I had this issue for years. Ultimately I never found anything within a factor of 5 for speed of simple pen and paper. The next best thing was LaTeX; with practice you can type that remarkably fast. (Especially if you pre-define macros relevant to whatever you're doing) The GUI-based solutions uniformly stank.
I've never found any system for digitizing handwritten equations; for a long time, my hope was that such software (preferably with LaTeX output) and a tablet would be a good solution. But the market for such things is small, and a few minutes of design work convinced me that implementing it was a lot more trouble than it would ever be worth.
Plus signs should still be treated as true literals. Quotation marks don't indicate literality -- they indicate that you really, really care about things like word order and so on within the quotes. It used to be true that quotation marks implied a plus on everything inside them, but that wasn't an intentional feature. The advanced search check box was, AFAIK, just equivalent to sticking everything in quotes.
If you're still seeing fuzzification with a plus sign, something may be a bit screwy, and you should file a bug with a specific broken query. (Of course, if you run the query +wombats and see the word "wombat" highlighted in the snippet, that isn't the same thing -- +wombats was treated literally, so this document really truly matched the word "wombats," it might just also have matched the word "wombat" and the snippet highlighter decided that it made sense, for this particular query, to highlight the term. A bug would be if you found a truly irrelevant document coming up.)
There's something which can be done about the example you give. "Pots" is fairly unambiguous; just because you're taking both plural and singular occurences of a word into account doesn't mean you should ignore which the user typed! (To give some simple examples; people who search for "apples" are interested in fruit, but people who search for "apple" are interested in computers. And plurals and synonymy do not commute; "red hats" is not the plural of "red hat.") "How to make coke" is an interesting ambiguous query, with two meaningful interpretations -- take a look at the Google results for that to see one good way of handling it. (Sectioning the results page and giving different interpretations)
And at least when I just checked, Dick's Sporting Goods is actually the top result for [dick's] on google.com.
I would say that Bing's results for both [dick's] and [how to make coke] are substantially less compelling. (Too many somewhat irrelevant interpretations in the first case, not enough relevant interpretations in the second)
If you want fault-tolerance where calculations are duplicated, use two containers.:)
More seriously, nowadays calculation errors are more commonly hunted via checksumming, and they aren't the biggest issues in data integrity for critical operations. Bit rot, such as cosmic rays hitting your hard disks and/or RAM chips are a bigger issue, and error correcting codes and so on can give you the same robustness as "N=2" replication at a cost that looks more like "N=1.2."
On X at least (I haven't checked this recently on other OS's), you can paste directly from the clipboard into vi, without any screwy autoindenting, with "*p (vim uses * as a buffer which represents the clipboard).
I've got to start by saying that it's pretty damned cool that prosthetics have advanced to the point where they could be considered an unfair advantage over unmodified humans.
But I can see why he isn't being allowed to compete in this event - it's not a fair comparison of skill and training. Perhaps it would make better sense to open a new division of the race for (for lack of a better term) "modified human" competitors. Define some fairly broad range of prostheses that are allowed in this division, and have a competition there. And then watch over the years until the day that the world record in that division beats the world record in the unmodified division; it sounds like one hell of a challenge, both for the athletes and for the engineers trying to design their prostheses. Not to mention that such a competitive division would likely have significant fringe benefits for people living with prosthetic limbs who aren't also Olympic athletes...
Behemot is the plural of behema; the word literally means (roughly) "large, mindless quadruped." In the plural it's often used as an equivalent to "livestock," and in Biblical Hebrew it was used as the (only) word for hippopotamus. In more modern Hebrew, the borrowed word "hipopotam" is used for hippo, and "behema" has a slightly more literary feel to it -- except when it's used to refer to a person, which is probably its most common use today. And not polite.:)
All I can find is this rather content-free press release. I tried Deutsch's home page, SPIRES and arXiv, and none of them seem to have any papers by him on this subject since 2002.
Which, to be fair, is basically what any high-explosive bomb does. With regards to the first one, if you're trapped in the actual fuel-air mixture, you're also going to be right at the center of the explosive shock, so I'm not sure that suffocation is likely to be an issue. The second and third are basically what happens whenever you're close to a large explosion: either you're close enough that the pressure wave kills you directly, or you're close enough that the pressure wave throws you into buildings and/or collapses them on top of you, or you're far enough away that you get "only" blown eardrums, shrapnel injuries, burns, and the like.
(Nuclear explosions have a few other nasty ways to kill you, because they actually have regions where the temperature shock wave is strong enough to hurt you even when the pressure shock wave isn't; these bombs don't come anywhere close to that level of power. This sort of thing is discussed extensively in the nuclear weapons FAQ for those who are interested.)
Provided that the new job does not instill specific hardships - that you will have enough to keep yourself and your family fed, housed, clothed, insured and the like - I would say yes. Life is very short; would you rather spend your days at a job that gave you money, but never gave you a chance to use it for the things that mattered most to you? Consider how many hours in a day you spend at work; I see my officemates more than anyone else. If I were given more money for a boring job, at the most I could use it to buy myself leisure time to try to counteract it - but since that would be less than half of my time, I would be losing in the bargain! Better to ensure that all your moments are spent on things which are worth the while.
But other people have said this before -- Seneca wrote on the shortness of life (Or in an excellent dead-tree edition, either way it's very short) much more eloquently than I could.
Well, the section on wormholes is 90% kosher. He even goes so far as to calculate the amount of exotic matter needed to create such a wormhole, and seems to have read most of Visser's (excellent) book on the physics of them.
It might have helped had the authors of this report read the rest of Visser, however. Such as the calculations showing that exotic matter is intrinsically quantum-mechanically unstable, to the extent that such a wormhole will collapse within a time strictly less than the time it takes for a light signal to get through said wormhole.
Which is good, because teleportation by wormhole lets information travel faster than light and is therefore equivalent to building a time machine.
I really hope that we don't have our government funding research into time machines. Because then this is going to start sounding like a very bad movie plot.
Previous size was about 3.3b, I believe. The old image index was 435m; I don't remember what the previous groups index was. So it's about 50% increase in web, and more than size doubled in images.
(And that means all the links in imagesearch are working again...)
I see what they're trying to achieve with this contract, but they obviously haven't thought it out very carefully. Some of the provisions (unlimited royalty-free right to reproduce any site which links thereto, right to sue for damages due to bandwidth usage if someone mentions them in the press) aren't likely to have any enforceable form. The latter in particular strikes me as being a risk which is part of the ordinary course of business on the internet. Other provisions (like the abandonment fee on orders) are actually quite reasonable, although their phrasing is incredibly convoluted. The biggest problems are likely to be from their agreement rules, which seem to be an attempt to deal with Specht vs. Netscape, but in practice probably don't make the cut; it seems that any interaction with them whatsoever, according to this contract, constitutes a complete agreement. I would suspect that the law of adhesion would prevent them from enforcing many of the terms that aren't explicitly triggered by something else, such as placing an order.
But I see what they're trying to achieve; they want to be able to show digital images online without granting anyone the right to download them or print them out. Which is a reasonable goal to achieve.
This is really stunning. Some other interesting choice bits:
A link from another website to this website grants CPRR.org permission for a reciprocal link including, at the option of CPRR.org, the linking website's logo, banner, or image derived therefrom, and permission, but not an obligation, in the event that such reciprocal link(s) becomes for any reason inoperative, for CPRR.org to mirror royalty free any internet content, or portion thereof, that would otherwise cause a broken link, or to use a third-party's mirror or archive thereof.
Which is to say, by linking to their page (an action which, you may note, does not require any of the processes of agreement to this contract stipulated in the first few paragraphs!) you grant them unlimited license to duplicate all content on the originating site, free of royalties.
I'm sort of impressed by this but also aware that a large fraction of the provisions of this contract are almost certainly unenforceable. (For one, it's an adhesion contract; it stipulates terms that fit the legal definition of "unconscionable" and on an entirely take-it-or-leave-it basis, with no adequate opportunity for negotiation. For another, the process of agreeing to this contract includes "clicking on any link or image" despite the fact that the link to this contract itself is virtually invisible, violating most states' fine print laws. The fact that simply sending them an e-mail also constitutes agreement to all of this contract is more amusing still.)
One other interesting point: It's not clear that any of these terms apply to any of the images on the EULA page itself, since at the time that you're viewing those images you can't have agreed to the contract's terms.
Slashdot Mirror
"Indie" status doesn't actually matter that much in the publishing pipeline; you can submit your paper to a journal in the same way that anybody else does, and it will get the same consideration. (The place where organization status matters a bit more is at the reverse end -- if one of the authors is particularly well-known, that tends to make the review process easier)
If your project has practical applications and you wish to patent, make sure to file that first. In that case, consult with a patent attorney on the right things to do next.
Otherwise, pick the appropriate journal and submit following the guidelines on their web page. You'll definitely want to format your paper in LaTeX, since pretty much everyone requires that; some journals have standard LaTeX style packages they want you to use, but these are easy to plug in. (e.g., the Physical Review uses revtex.sty, and many other journals now use it too)
As far as which journal you want, it depends on the particular field, but I'm guessing that Science isn't it -- that's a very high-profile journal which is intended to be things of interest to the scientific community at large, but in practice it has a fairly strong bio/chemistry/some physics focus. Someone else on this thread may have particular journal suggestions, or you may want to search on-line for similar (recent) papers and see where they were published. ACM transactions are often good "default" places in CS. Also, CS tends to prefer conference talks to straight-up journal publications; you may consider submitting your algorithm as a talk to some appropriate CS conference, in which case the article is published as part of the proceedings. Again, the conference depends on your particular subject.
Don't worry about your lack of organizational affiliation. That's rarely a big issue.
Speaking as someone who writes performance-critical very-large-scale applications, the idea sounds just as nuts in that world. A 20% speedup in malloc is worth, at the most, a 2% speedup in the overall process. (If you're spending more than 10% of time in malloc, perhaps you should be using a freelist, arena, *anything* else?) Wasting an entire core for a 2% speedup doesn't seem horribly efficient to me.
Also, I can't help noticing that most of their argument for speed starts from the hypothesis that an uncontended mutex lock takes about as long as a single-threaded malloc. That makes me wonder what the hell kind of locking implementation they're using for their design, and whether their time wouldn't be better spent improving *that*.
Are you sure that the error messages are even meaningful in Korean?
And I should say, I'm certainly not saying that nobody should run their own DNS server. Just that for most people, it's not worth the effort.
The enormous amount of extra work is in maintaining a Linux server in the first place. (And in learning enough about it for "just editing a config file" to be a small matter, etc)
Slashdot norms to the contrary, most people don't do this. :)
That depends on whether you're running a Linux box at home in a "reliable enough" way to be functioning as a server. And in the example you give, as your primary machine as well. While I realize that many /. users do this, I would certainly say that most people don't.
I actually stopped doing it several years ago. I concluded that I have to maintain enough complex systems at work; I don't see any need to be a sysadmin for a complex system that requires nonstop patching and understanding of 30-year-old system internals at home, too. Plus the desktop environment was frankly primitive compared to modern machines. So I ditched it and started running OS X. (And I should say that I'm an experienced Linux sysadmin and engineer professionally, so this was not the "I don't know how to use it and it appears to have been designed by badgers" issue)
It's definitely true that, if you're already doing all of the work to run your own system at home, adding a DNS server isn't a big deal. But that's really a hobbyist thing to do. If your home system is primarily for the purpose of getting things done, rather than for playing with systems, it's an enormous amount of extra work. Yet having faster DNS lookups is still a win.
Because setting up and maintaining your own recursive DNS server is a pain in the ass? (Especially compared to the workload of "here, just change this one setting and it will go faster")
I had this issue for years. Ultimately I never found anything within a factor of 5 for speed of simple pen and paper. The next best thing was LaTeX; with practice you can type that remarkably fast. (Especially if you pre-define macros relevant to whatever you're doing) The GUI-based solutions uniformly stank.
I've never found any system for digitizing handwritten equations; for a long time, my hope was that such software (preferably with LaTeX output) and a tablet would be a good solution. But the market for such things is small, and a few minutes of design work convinced me that implementing it was a lot more trouble than it would ever be worth.
Not only that, but in case of zombie attack, they make a tasty (and healthful!) snack.
Plus signs should still be treated as true literals. Quotation marks don't indicate literality -- they indicate that you really, really care about things like word order and so on within the quotes. It used to be true that quotation marks implied a plus on everything inside them, but that wasn't an intentional feature. The advanced search check box was, AFAIK, just equivalent to sticking everything in quotes.
If you're still seeing fuzzification with a plus sign, something may be a bit screwy, and you should file a bug with a specific broken query. (Of course, if you run the query +wombats and see the word "wombat" highlighted in the snippet, that isn't the same thing -- +wombats was treated literally, so this document really truly matched the word "wombats," it might just also have matched the word "wombat" and the snippet highlighter decided that it made sense, for this particular query, to highlight the term. A bug would be if you found a truly irrelevant document coming up.)
There's something which can be done about the example you give. "Pots" is fairly unambiguous; just because you're taking both plural and singular occurences of a word into account doesn't mean you should ignore which the user typed! (To give some simple examples; people who search for "apples" are interested in fruit, but people who search for "apple" are interested in computers. And plurals and synonymy do not commute; "red hats" is not the plural of "red hat.") "How to make coke" is an interesting ambiguous query, with two meaningful interpretations -- take a look at the Google results for that to see one good way of handling it. (Sectioning the results page and giving different interpretations)
And at least when I just checked, Dick's Sporting Goods is actually the top result for [dick's] on google.com.
I would say that Bing's results for both [dick's] and [how to make coke] are substantially less compelling. (Too many somewhat irrelevant interpretations in the first case, not enough relevant interpretations in the second)
I think that many of the original artists were royalty.
If you want fault-tolerance where calculations are duplicated, use two containers. :)
More seriously, nowadays calculation errors are more commonly hunted via checksumming, and they aren't the biggest issues in data integrity for critical operations. Bit rot, such as cosmic rays hitting your hard disks and/or RAM chips are a bigger issue, and error correcting codes and so on can give you the same robustness as "N=2" replication at a cost that looks more like "N=1.2."
On X at least (I haven't checked this recently on other OS's), you can paste directly from the clipboard into vi, without any screwy autoindenting, with "*p (vim uses * as a buffer which represents the clipboard).
I'm sorry, this just reminds me of Heinlein's use of the phrase "space lawyer" as the SF generalization of "latrine lawyer."
I've got to start by saying that it's pretty damned cool that prosthetics have advanced to the point where they could be considered an unfair advantage over unmodified humans.
But I can see why he isn't being allowed to compete in this event - it's not a fair comparison of skill and training. Perhaps it would make better sense to open a new division of the race for (for lack of a better term) "modified human" competitors. Define some fairly broad range of prostheses that are allowed in this division, and have a competition there. And then watch over the years until the day that the world record in that division beats the world record in the unmodified division; it sounds like one hell of a challenge, both for the athletes and for the engineers trying to design their prostheses. Not to mention that such a competitive division would likely have significant fringe benefits for people living with prosthetic limbs who aren't also Olympic athletes...
Behemot is the plural of behema; the word literally means (roughly) "large, mindless quadruped." In the plural it's often used as an equivalent to "livestock," and in Biblical Hebrew it was used as the (only) word for hippopotamus. In more modern Hebrew, the borrowed word "hipopotam" is used for hippo, and "behema" has a slightly more literary feel to it -- except when it's used to refer to a person, which is probably its most common use today. And not polite. :)
All I can find is this rather content-free press release. I tried Deutsch's home page, SPIRES and arXiv, and none of them seem to have any papers by him on this subject since 2002.
Which, to be fair, is basically what any high-explosive bomb does. With regards to the first one, if you're trapped in the actual fuel-air mixture, you're also going to be right at the center of the explosive shock, so I'm not sure that suffocation is likely to be an issue. The second and third are basically what happens whenever you're close to a large explosion: either you're close enough that the pressure wave kills you directly, or you're close enough that the pressure wave throws you into buildings and/or collapses them on top of you, or you're far enough away that you get "only" blown eardrums, shrapnel injuries, burns, and the like.
(Nuclear explosions have a few other nasty ways to kill you, because they actually have regions where the temperature shock wave is strong enough to hurt you even when the pressure shock wave isn't; these bombs don't come anywhere close to that level of power. This sort of thing is discussed extensively in the nuclear weapons FAQ for those who are interested.)
Provided that the new job does not instill specific hardships - that you will have enough to keep yourself and your family fed, housed, clothed, insured and the like - I would say yes. Life is very short; would you rather spend your days at a job that gave you money, but never gave you a chance to use it for the things that mattered most to you? Consider how many hours in a day you spend at work; I see my officemates more than anyone else. If I were given more money for a boring job, at the most I could use it to buy myself leisure time to try to counteract it - but since that would be less than half of my time, I would be losing in the bargain! Better to ensure that all your moments are spent on things which are worth the while.
But other people have said this before -- Seneca wrote on the shortness of life (Or in an excellent dead-tree edition, either way it's very short) much more eloquently than I could.
Well, the section on wormholes is 90% kosher. He even goes so far as to calculate the amount of exotic matter needed to create such a wormhole, and seems to have read most of Visser's (excellent) book on the physics of them.
It might have helped had the authors of this report read the rest of Visser, however. Such as the calculations showing that exotic matter is intrinsically quantum-mechanically unstable, to the extent that such a wormhole will collapse within a time strictly less than the time it takes for a light signal to get through said wormhole.
Which is good, because teleportation by wormhole lets information travel faster than light and is therefore equivalent to building a time machine.
I really hope that we don't have our government funding research into time machines. Because then this is going to start sounding like a very bad movie plot.
Previous size was about 3.3b, I believe. The old image index was 435m; I don't remember what the previous groups index was. So it's about 50% increase in web, and more than size doubled in images.
(And that means all the links in imagesearch are working again...)
I see what they're trying to achieve with this contract, but they obviously haven't thought it out very carefully. Some of the provisions (unlimited royalty-free right to reproduce any site which links thereto, right to sue for damages due to bandwidth usage if someone mentions them in the press) aren't likely to have any enforceable form. The latter in particular strikes me as being a risk which is part of the ordinary course of business on the internet. Other provisions (like the abandonment fee on orders) are actually quite reasonable, although their phrasing is incredibly convoluted. The biggest problems are likely to be from their agreement rules, which seem to be an attempt to deal with Specht vs. Netscape, but in practice probably don't make the cut; it seems that any interaction with them whatsoever, according to this contract, constitutes a complete agreement. I would suspect that the law of adhesion would prevent them from enforcing many of the terms that aren't explicitly triggered by something else, such as placing an order.
But I see what they're trying to achieve; they want to be able to show digital images online without granting anyone the right to download them or print them out. Which is a reasonable goal to achieve.
Which is to say, by linking to their page (an action which, you may note, does not require any of the processes of agreement to this contract stipulated in the first few paragraphs!) you grant them unlimited license to duplicate all content on the originating site, free of royalties.
I'm sort of impressed by this but also aware that a large fraction of the provisions of this contract are almost certainly unenforceable. (For one, it's an adhesion contract; it stipulates terms that fit the legal definition of "unconscionable" and on an entirely take-it-or-leave-it basis, with no adequate opportunity for negotiation. For another, the process of agreeing to this contract includes "clicking on any link or image" despite the fact that the link to this contract itself is virtually invisible, violating most states' fine print laws. The fact that simply sending them an e-mail also constitutes agreement to all of this contract is more amusing still.)
One other interesting point: It's not clear that any of these terms apply to any of the images on the EULA page itself, since at the time that you're viewing those images you can't have agreed to the contract's terms.