What about what you've said is "simple"? The prior posters were looking at solutions to problems, not deductions from data. Your finger-pointing ourburst provides precisely no solutions to anything.
Yeah, but because it's patented, the companies who are now able to gouge us for more money will have to pass on that extra income onto that well-known humanitarian charity - Amazon; and I'm sure nobody objects to donating to such a good cause. They do so much good for the world - they're world leaders in patents, don't you know?
Not a cure, but a work-around. However, definitely not "news for nerds" - as I remember my mum telling me about something like this well over a decade ago.
Back then, some guy had "invented" putting a pale filter in front of one eye in order to give slightly different images to each eye, such that reds were darker in one than the other, thus permitting anomolous dichromats such as my self to distinguish red from green. "Duh! Like I used to do with Quality Street wrappers 20 years ago?" I replied.
But some of the industries that failed were only invented in 1973. And they crashed the next decade, so you deregulated them to pump a bit of life into them, and then they crashed even harder.
You're not supporting old industries, you're supporting modern contrivancies, which aren't even industries, they do not produce anything, or perform any service except for themselves.
"perpetual economic growth is stupid and dangerous"
Perpetual economic growth is impossible. Who was it who said ~ "The greatest failing of the human race is the inability to understand the exponential function"? (I googled it, it was Albert Allen Bartlett...)
Why has every search for dark matter interactions (such as CDMS) failed, and yet the theoretical physicists still keep pushing their "beautiful theory" that just "has to be correct" (almost certainly Nima Arkani-Hamed has described it as such)?
I agree, it's a beautiful theory, like some of the Daoist tracts are beautiful writing, as are parts of the Bhagavad Gita, or even the Psalms of David. Beauty is worthess in science, things aren't *scientific theory* until the science has been done. The experiments say that dark matter is more than marginally wrong time and time again. Can I follow your logic and adopt your language and conclude that they don't have a model, and they're just making shit up?
Yet most still calling Nima Arkani-Hamed a brilliant scientist.
I agree with the starting speed. However, I propose that the starting altitude should be 0m from the surface too (how did the thing take off?). However, your summary is correct, the plane would behave just like a rock - and remain stationary.
However, in 200 years time, the US may have a Scientologist standing for president, and that may cause no more ripples than having a Mormon standing for president now. Kolob, Marcab - what's in a name?
Amdahl's law can't sensibly be applied to this problem, it's inherently too simplistic (Amdahl's law, that is).
You can use Amdahls law to go in the reverse direction from the speedup seen to a figure for the "parallelisabiliy" of the implementation of the solution to the problem, but that's just a meaningless number. You're more interested in the speedup you achieved, there's no need to bring Amdahl's law into discussions at all.
I'm not saying Amdahl's law is useless, I frequently have to bring it to the attention of newbs who don't have a clue, it's just that it's not always useful either.
They may be inherently parallel, but they aren't "embarassingly parallel". When partitioning 3-space (or whatever dimension you're working in), you need to know what your neighbouring cells' boundaries look like before you can progress. The more cells you have, the smaller the cells are, and the larger the ratio of border data to internal data.
With 1.5 million nodes, space could be partitioned into 64x64x384 cubical regions (from the piccy in the article they are simulating a non-cubic region). Not having *any* idea how large each of those regions is in their simulation (as that would be technical, and therefore of no use in a supposedly scientific publication for the masses, sigh), it's probably best to just give some example numbers for what the overhead is:
Which means that if each node is given a 128x128x128 region of space, and it needs to exchange its outermost 2 layers in each dimension, then jus under 5% of the data will need to be transfered to another node every time step. Clearly for smaller cells, this overhead increases, and is far from negligible in very small cells. Fewer big-grunt boxes do make things easier (compare the Earth Simulator, when that first came out).
The formula used in the above is: borderratio(s,w)=(s^3-(s-w)^3)/s^3, where s=the side of the cube, and w=the width of the data you need to share. It's a slight under-estimate, as some data needs to be transmitted in multiple directions.
Indeed. If it didn't appear last year, and this year it's number one, and Mozilla hasn't significantly changed any privacy policies in the last year, that tells me that the rankings are basically more noise than signal.
[SNIP - a list of obnoxious things that broken sites do]
> there are still no tools to deal with it, other than crude things that either require you to be an expert or things that totally break sites.
You are not breaking the sites. The sites are broken.
My tool is Firefox 3.x (image animation disabled), AdBlock, and NoScript. I often turn off stylesheets so that I can see all the images in a gallery page that insists on only showing me 1 image at a time using javascript.
Many people say my internet is ugly. I think exactly the same about the internet they look at.
Everyone's playing around with JIT compilers to make javascript faster (there must have been a dozen such announcements over the last few years from all major browser vendors), when the reality of life is that the way to make it fastest is to not run it at all.
Speed-wise, for many sites, there's seems to be a half-way house by using AdBlock instead of having NoScript activated. At least then a large proportion of the loads that are initiated by javascript turn into no-ops. But still, if the javascript will be doing nothing for your benefit, you may as well disable it.
... and NCSA Mosaic back in 1993, which forced you to click on those external things called "images" before they were loaded and rendered onto the page.
I'm fairly familiar with the disfunctional workings of scientology, having followed their exploits through sources like a.r.s, operation clambake, and Karin Spaink's blog since way back.
> but modern Jews, Christians and Muslims are [...] not pressured into a single form of worship or a single interpretation of their respective religions. If you don't like the local preacher, you can move or leave the group.
I do not believe that to be universally true - mobility is a luxury. Perhaps in pretending-to-be-civilised western societies it is mostly true, but even then I've known, personally, exceptions for all three.
I'm convinced that in absolute terms there is as much evil and barbarism in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as there is in Scientology. Mostly because even if they're 99% perfect, the 1% is so enormous it still dwarfs the Scientologists. Sure, in relative terms, Scientology has a very high evil density, and it's hard to imagine any of it being considered as having any social benefit at all, which does contrast them against most of the larger religions. Despite any claims that in cases like fatal car crashes, scientologists not only help, but are also the only people who can help - give that verbiage a couple of centuries, and it will evolve until it's mostly indistinguishable from the Christians who say that their "prayers are with the survivors".
I'm not one myself, but a lot of my fellow emacs-using work colleagues use emacs as their mail client.
I do, however, use emacs' GNUS as my preferred usenet client. I first used it very briefly over 20 years ago, and have tried at least 20 other clients since, and every one has been significantly inferior to GNUS in some way.
I also use it as my preferred wrapper around gdb. And that ``M-x gdb'' leads you to a debugger that can debug C++ programs. And python debugging is no further than ``M-x pdb'' away. That you think emacs is somehow incompatible with C++ or python shows that you really don't know enough about emacs to sensibly criticise it.
However, I will grant you that it is a bloaty pile of crap, so much so that I refuse to upgrade beyond v21 due to its exponential bloating. However, due to its modular nature, almost nothing you don't want is loaded at load time, you need to specifically request its loading in your.emacs. It just pulls in too many dependencies "just in case" and I don't want tons of shit on my hard disk.
Slashdot Mirror
> The private sector is all about changing the behaviors of large populations.
> It's called advertising.
Only once. Then they're intent on ensuring you don't change your behaviour.
What about what you've said is "simple"? The prior posters were looking at solutions to problems, not deductions from data. Your finger-pointing ourburst provides precisely no solutions to anything.
You forgot:
The number one enemy of progress is questions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMQHVzSPTec for those that don't recognise the line.
Yeah, but because it's patented, the companies who are now able to gouge us for more money will have to pass on that extra income onto that well-known humanitarian charity - Amazon; and I'm sure nobody objects to donating to such a good cause. They do so much good for the world - they're world leaders in patents, don't you know?
Agree. Don't get me wrong, whilst science may have its niggles, economics is a freaking shambles.
Not a cure, but a work-around. However, definitely not "news for nerds" - as I remember my mum telling me about something like this well over a decade ago.
Back then, some guy had "invented" putting a pale filter in front of one eye in order to give slightly different images to each eye, such that reds were darker in one than the other, thus permitting anomolous dichromats such as my self to distinguish red from green. "Duh! Like I used to do with Quality Street wrappers 20 years ago?" I replied.
/. was pretty cool back in 1998 when I first started reading it. I don't remember any google ads back in those days, I'd happily return to them.
But some of the industries that failed were only invented in 1973. And they crashed the next decade, so you deregulated them to pump a bit of life into them, and then they crashed even harder.
You're not supporting old industries, you're supporting modern contrivancies, which aren't even industries, they do not produce anything, or perform any service except for themselves.
Nothing with a sonic boom is stealthy, and this was claiming to be stealthy, so of course it's not going to be supersonic.
However, this is certainly a hilarious bit of willy-waving. You almost have to feel sorry for them.
Am I getting my news stories mixed - is this thing flown by a monkey?
salmon mousse, surely?
"perpetual economic growth is stupid and dangerous"
Perpetual economic growth is impossible. Who was it who said ~ "The greatest failing of the human race is the inability to understand the exponential function"? (I googled it, it was Albert Allen Bartlett...)
Science's house isn't that clean.
Why has every search for dark matter interactions (such as CDMS) failed, and yet the theoretical physicists still keep pushing their "beautiful theory" that just "has to be correct" (almost certainly Nima Arkani-Hamed has described it as such)?
I agree, it's a beautiful theory, like some of the Daoist tracts are beautiful writing, as are parts of the Bhagavad Gita, or even the Psalms of David. Beauty is worthess in science, things aren't *scientific theory* until the science has been done. The experiments say that dark matter is more than marginally wrong time and time again. Can I follow your logic and adopt your language and conclude that they don't have a model, and they're just making shit up?
Yet most still calling Nima Arkani-Hamed a brilliant scientist.
Which is it? Making shit up, or scientist?
I agree with the starting speed. However, I propose that the starting altitude should be 0m from the surface too (how did the thing take off?). However, your summary is correct, the plane would behave just like a rock - and remain stationary.
With a purely 21st century vista, yup, agreed.
However, in 200 years time, the US may have a Scientologist standing for president, and that may cause no more ripples than having a Mormon standing for president now. Kolob, Marcab - what's in a name?
Amdahl's law can't sensibly be applied to this problem, it's inherently too simplistic (Amdahl's law, that is).
You can use Amdahls law to go in the reverse direction from the speedup seen to a figure for the "parallelisabiliy" of the implementation of the solution to the problem, but that's just a meaningless number. You're more interested in the speedup you achieved, there's no need to bring Amdahl's law into discussions at all.
I'm not saying Amdahl's law is useless, I frequently have to bring it to the attention of newbs who don't have a clue, it's just that it's not always useful either.
They may be inherently parallel, but they aren't "embarassingly parallel". When partitioning 3-space (or whatever dimension you're working in), you need to know what your neighbouring cells' boundaries look like before you can progress. The more cells you have, the smaller the cells are, and the larger the ratio of border data to internal data.
With 1.5 million nodes, space could be partitioned into 64x64x384 cubical regions (from the piccy in the article they are simulating a non-cubic region). Not having *any* idea how large each of those regions is in their simulation (as that would be technical, and therefore of no use in a supposedly scientific publication for the masses, sigh), it's probably best to just give some example numbers for what the overhead is:
dimensions "overlap" ratio
32x32x32 1 0.09
32x32x32 2 0.17
64x64x64 2 0.09
128x128x128 2 0.046
128x128x128 3 0.069
Which means that if each node is given a 128x128x128 region of space, and it needs to exchange its outermost 2 layers in each dimension, then jus under 5% of the data will need to be transfered to another node every time step. Clearly for smaller cells, this overhead increases, and is far from negligible in very small cells. Fewer big-grunt boxes do make things easier (compare the Earth Simulator, when that first came out).
The formula used in the above is: borderratio(s,w)=(s^3-(s-w)^3)/s^3, where s=the side of the cube, and w=the width of the data you need to share. It's a slight under-estimate, as some data needs to be transmitted in multiple directions.
I do hope you got to review the patches?
"Using fewer locks" often means "data integrity goes down the drain".
That race condition could never to happen to us, right?
Indeed. If it didn't appear last year, and this year it's number one, and Mozilla hasn't significantly changed any privacy policies in the last year, that tells me that the rankings are basically more noise than signal.
[SNIP - a list of obnoxious things that broken sites do]
> there are still no tools to deal with it, other than crude things that either require you to be an expert or things that totally break sites.
You are not breaking the sites. The sites are broken.
My tool is Firefox 3.x (image animation disabled), AdBlock, and NoScript. I often turn off stylesheets so that I can see all the images in a gallery page that insists on only showing me 1 image at a time using javascript.
Many people say my internet is ugly. I think exactly the same about the internet they look at.
Why is your post not already at +5 insightful?
Everyone's playing around with JIT compilers to make javascript faster (there must have been a dozen such announcements over the last few years from all major browser vendors), when the reality of life is that the way to make it fastest is to not run it at all.
Speed-wise, for many sites, there's seems to be a half-way house by using AdBlock instead of having NoScript activated. At least then a large proportion of the loads that are initiated by javascript turn into no-ops. But still, if the javascript will be doing nothing for your benefit, you may as well disable it.
... and NCSA Mosaic back in 1993, which forced you to click on those external things called "images" before they were loaded and rendered onto the page.
I'm fairly familiar with the disfunctional workings of scientology, having followed their exploits through sources like a.r.s, operation clambake, and Karin Spaink's blog since way back.
> but modern Jews, Christians and Muslims are [...] not pressured into a single form of worship or a single interpretation of their respective religions. If you don't like the local preacher, you can move or leave the group.
I do not believe that to be universally true - mobility is a luxury. Perhaps in pretending-to-be-civilised western societies it is mostly true, but even then I've known, personally, exceptions for all three.
I'm convinced that in absolute terms there is as much evil and barbarism in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as there is in Scientology. Mostly because even if they're 99% perfect, the 1% is so enormous it still dwarfs the Scientologists. Sure, in relative terms, Scientology has a very high evil density, and it's hard to imagine any of it being considered as having any social benefit at all, which does contrast them against most of the larger religions. Despite any claims that in cases like fatal car crashes, scientologists not only help, but are also the only people who can help - give that verbiage a couple of centuries, and it will evolve until it's mostly indistinguishable from the Christians who say that their "prayers are with the survivors".
Oooh, touched a nerve, did I?
I'm not one myself, but a lot of my fellow emacs-using work colleagues use emacs as their mail client.
.emacs. It just pulls in too many dependencies "just in case" and I don't want tons of shit on my hard disk.
I do, however, use emacs' GNUS as my preferred usenet client. I first used it very briefly over 20 years ago, and have tried at least 20 other clients since, and every one has been significantly inferior to GNUS in some way.
I also use it as my preferred wrapper around gdb. And that ``M-x gdb'' leads you to a debugger that can debug C++ programs. And python debugging is no further than ``M-x pdb'' away. That you think emacs is somehow incompatible with C++ or python shows that you really don't know enough about emacs to sensibly criticise it.
However, I will grant you that it is a bloaty pile of crap, so much so that I refuse to upgrade beyond v21 due to its exponential bloating. However, due to its modular nature, almost nothing you don't want is loaded at load time, you need to specifically request its loading in your
So, where was the well-regulated militia to protect the people from this government threat?
Nowhere.
So you can stop the charade. Just own up to being gun-nuts, others may be more sympathetic to your whines if you're honest.