It does appear that both iOS and Android have bugs with similar symptoms and the sloppy story author lumped them all together. Why not simply use a large enough IP network that every device can keep using its address as long as it wants without running out of addresses? You just set the DHCP lease time to 2 years and forget about it. Since these are undoubtedly private IP networks, they can choose a network in the 192.168.0.0 – 192.168.255.255 range as big as they need of 16 or more bits.
Strangely enough, you don't even have to be drowning to suffer from water intoxication. The health effects of drowning (like death) are usually related to asphyxia rather than intoxication.
What becomes of publishing companies and publishing company jobs? And what becomes of bookstores and librarians and all of the jobs associated with paper?
This is necessarily a rant against technology. Specifically it is a rant against digital distribution of media, something which was enabled by US technologies and takes place completely inside the US as long as both distributor and buyer are in the US. Even if the iPads were built in the US, they'd still be just as much a part of the dismantling of the traditional publishing business.
Digital distribution does cost less in human time and physical resources. I guess the representative's argument is that efficiency is bad for the US economy.
This is similar to developments in computer systems - the emphasis switched from faster processors to multi-processor, multi-core, etc. Interesting parallel.
Well, you give one example to support your assertion that Java is (sometimes) a "compiled language" and I gave two to support my assertion that it is not. However, my real point has been all along that there is no "standard usage" for the term "compiled language"; it no longer has any meaning and was always imprecise or misleading.
In standard usage, saying X is a Y language refers to the canonical implementation of X. So Python is an interpreted language means CPython is interpreted, and doesn't refer to any of the experimental JIT versions.The Python that everyone actually uses is an interpreter that works with an intermediate bytecode representation. The Java everyone has uses a just in time compiler. The difference is kind of hazy sometimes, but there is enough of one to talk meaningfully about Python being interpreted and Java being compiled. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpreter_(computing))
I say that in "standard usage," a compiledlanguage is one whose implementation produces an executable, native code file. By that definition, Java is not a compiled language (unless you use GCJ or another non-canonical native code compiler). Which standard are you using?
If you want to say that an "interpreted language" is distinct from a "compiled language," where does that leave Java? Most implementations involve both compilers and interpreters. The most commonly used implementations currently use Java byte code interpreters, with JIT compilers that generate native code from some of the byte code. They are completely functional with the JIT turned off, but can't do anything without their interpreters. While it is useful to describe a language implementation as using a JIT compiler, to simply call it a "compiled language" is not, since an increasingly overwhelming majority of source code is compiled at some point.
Since you mention "canonical implementation," what is the canonical implementation of Java? Is it whatever you can download from Oracle at the moment, OpenJDK, IcedTea, whatever comes with your OS, or something else? The early releases of Java from Sun did not have a JIT compiler. Did Java suddenly transform from being an "interpreted language" to a "compiled language" when Sun started including the HotSpot JIT compiler?
Don't forget to read to the bottom of that PyPy blog article. PyPy is certainly an impressive tool, but you can get a big improvement with something like Cython that lets you give the translator hints. The actual benchmarks:
CPython: 59.593 s PyPy: 8.947 s Cython: 3.5 s after adding a few types
Adding a few types in Cython means statically typing a few heavily used variables. His other (approx. 26 s) result with Cython I can only assume involved just Cythoning his straight Python code, which isn't really what Cython is supposed to do. The beautiful part of Cython is that you CAN give it straight Python code, or straight C code, or anything you want in between.
Yes, Cython clearly does have great advantages in speed over pure Python code and I shouldn't have implied that it didn't. I certainly will consider using it if I find some Python code that's running too slowly. However, that blog post also didn't compare an implementation in RPython, PyPy's Python-like language which also executes much faster than full Python.
Python is slower because it's a highly dynamic, interpreted language, and it's interpreter has also gotten a lot less attention than Java's compiler. Java is a compiled, much less dynamic language.
If by "compiled language," you mean that the first step in running a program is transforming source code into some other form, then both Python and Java are compiled languages (as are the vast majority of commonly-used language implementations). Both Java and Python implementations use compilers that transform source code into intermediate forms (byte code). In both cases, very little run-time optimization can be done at that level AFAIK.
The use of compilation is not truly a property of a language, but of an implementation of a language. For example, in addition to the official implementations, there are implementations of both Java and Python that transform source code into native machine code ahead of time, bypassing any byte code.
When talking about compilers, you also have to be careful about which compilers you're talking about. Most implementations of Java use a JIT compiler which transforms Java byte code into native machine language at run time. The official implementation of Python (CPython) does not have a JIT compiler, but there are several projects which add a JIT to CPython, including Unladen Swallow and Psyco.
I want to be extremely clear that I was not comparing the maximum execution speed of equivalent Python and Java programs, since Python will probably never rival Java in that way. I was talking about the suitability of the JVM for executing programs written in languages that are very different from Java, such as Python. Jython is an implementation of Python that does just that, but has only recently caught up to regular CPython's performance, even though it benefits from the JVM's JIT compiler.
As much work is being put into increasing performance of CPython, I think PyPy is much more interesting. Though PyPy is written in Python and a subset of Python called RPython, it can execute Python around three times faster than regular CPython or Jython.
You're right, a regular JVM might not do such a hot job of working through all the code generated by something like Python, but it could be used effectively with a language that is less annoying than Java while still being fairly static.
I doubt Ceylon is going to be a language I'd be much interested in. Python + Cython + C is a pretty potent combination for pretty much everything. It might be good for some things though.
I haven't tried Cython yet, but it sounds very interesting and I'll definitely try it when it seems appropriate. However, if just increasing performance is a goal, simply using PyPy might be just as good as Cython if examples like this are to be believed.
It seems like you should be able to add COW behavior in your data structure's class rather than requiring an addition to the core language. Of course, Java is pretty restrictive, so you probably can't do that with an Array, but you could with your own Array-like class.
The JVM is highly optimized for Java and similar languages. Since Ceylon sounds pretty similar to Java, the JVM is probably a good choice. The JVM is not highly optimized for languages substantially different from Java, such as Python, whose JVM implementation is always significantly slower than others. As you say, Java the language leaves much to be desired, which makes me skeptical that the JVM would be a great choice for a great language.
It's an attempt at a clever name, since Ceylon is an old name for Sri Lanka, another Asian island. Today (at least in the West) the name Ceylon is mostly associated with tea and Java mostly with coffee, to add another layer of cleverness.
You are sadly mistaken. When film is shot at a higher frame rate than normal, it takes longer to play back. This movie will take six hours to show in the theater and it will all be slow motion.
I think it just needs a single comma added: "They paint a picture of a Zuckerberg more sinister than portrayed in the movie The Social Network, actively out to sucker his investors that the site, including Ceglia."
I think that's another way to say that a person can never completely escape his world view. For example, to make use of science and believe scientific discoveries made by others, one has to believe that the natural world is orderly it is possible to observe and understand that order. A number of the important early scientists, such as Newton and Copernicus were motivated to understand nature by their belief that God had made it in an orderly way and to study it would help them understand Him better.
I object to the title of this post. I would say that science, like every endeavor, requires some level of faith, not that it's "just" a matter of faith.
It's a common misconception that faith means believing in something without evidence. It does mean having trust or confidence in something. One must have faith in a number of things to make use of the scientific method, such as the fact that nature is consistent and can be understood.
When doing an experiment, one must have faith in his own senses and equipment. Whenever anyone accepts a scientific discovery without testing it himself, he is putting faith in person, methods, and equipment of whomever made the discovery.
If you object to the many disagreements between religions, what can be said about the many disagreements over scientific theories and experiments? Do you think Science is an irrefutable truth which leaves no room for debate? Where would our current understanding of the world be without individuals and movements willing to challenge the conventional wisdom when they knew it was wrong?
So, how would you copy a movie to one of the data loggers you mention? AFAICT, those are all much more specialized devices designed to log temperature or other specific readings, not store multiple-gigabyte blobs.
The main thing I'm puzzled over is how you'd avoid overwriting sector 0 (which stores the FAT) when you loop over.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm wondering about. Does the device know where the FATs (or other file system structures) are? Will writing to a particular file only overwrite its own contents, or possible that of other files? My guess is that it's only designed for a single partition with a FAT file system and it is designed so that the addresses likely used for FATs (near the beginning of the partition, though some sectors after the beginning of the partition and certainly occupying many 512 byte sectors) will not be overwritten by writes to high addresses. That would allow the file system to remain more or less intact, but the contents of files and subdirectories could be overwritten at any time by a write to any file or subdirectory.
I'll be happy if Google wins this case, but I'll be a lot happier if Google and other companies with an interest in Free and Open Source software stand up against software patents in general rather than just the ones that threaten them. It'll be especially sad if Google goes on to use software patents as weapons as so many big technology corporations do.
The Constitution works because it sets down principles without going into specifics. The Fourth Amendment says:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The recent court rulings have determined these seizures to be "reasonable." They are obviously not reasonable, but there needs to be a higher court ruling to reverse them.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, that's the reason troops never have RF devices currently. Hand signals and carrier pigeons are good enough.
It does appear that both iOS and Android have bugs with similar symptoms and the sloppy story author lumped them all together. Why not simply use a large enough IP network that every device can keep using its address as long as it wants without running out of addresses? You just set the DHCP lease time to 2 years and forget about it. Since these are undoubtedly private IP networks, they can choose a network in the 192.168.0.0 – 192.168.255.255 range as big as they need of 16 or more bits.
Strangely enough, you don't even have to be drowning to suffer from water intoxication. The health effects of drowning (like death) are usually related to asphyxia rather than intoxication.
What becomes of publishing companies and publishing company jobs? And what becomes of bookstores and librarians and all of the jobs associated with paper?
This is necessarily a rant against technology. Specifically it is a rant against digital distribution of media, something which was enabled by US technologies and takes place completely inside the US as long as both distributor and buyer are in the US. Even if the iPads were built in the US, they'd still be just as much a part of the dismantling of the traditional publishing business.
Digital distribution does cost less in human time and physical resources. I guess the representative's argument is that efficiency is bad for the US economy.
This is similar to developments in computer systems - the emphasis switched from faster processors to multi-processor, multi-core, etc.
Interesting parallel.
rgds Dave
Yeah, now I just need to parallelize myself.
Well, you give one example to support your assertion that Java is (sometimes) a "compiled language" and I gave two to support my assertion that it is not. However, my real point has been all along that there is no "standard usage" for the term "compiled language"; it no longer has any meaning and was always imprecise or misleading.
In standard usage, saying X is a Y language refers to the canonical implementation of X. So Python is an interpreted language means CPython is interpreted, and doesn't refer to any of the experimental JIT versions.The Python that everyone actually uses is an interpreter that works with an intermediate bytecode representation. The Java everyone has uses a just in time compiler. The difference is kind of hazy sometimes, but there is enough of one to talk meaningfully about Python being interpreted and Java being compiled. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpreter_(computing))
I say that in "standard usage," a compiled language is one whose implementation produces an executable, native code file. By that definition, Java is not a compiled language (unless you use GCJ or another non-canonical native code compiler). Which standard are you using?
If you want to say that an "interpreted language" is distinct from a "compiled language," where does that leave Java? Most implementations involve both compilers and interpreters. The most commonly used implementations currently use Java byte code interpreters, with JIT compilers that generate native code from some of the byte code. They are completely functional with the JIT turned off, but can't do anything without their interpreters. While it is useful to describe a language implementation as using a JIT compiler, to simply call it a "compiled language" is not, since an increasingly overwhelming majority of source code is compiled at some point.
Since you mention "canonical implementation," what is the canonical implementation of Java? Is it whatever you can download from Oracle at the moment, OpenJDK, IcedTea, whatever comes with your OS, or something else? The early releases of Java from Sun did not have a JIT compiler. Did Java suddenly transform from being an "interpreted language" to a "compiled language" when Sun started including the HotSpot JIT compiler?
Don't forget to read to the bottom of that PyPy blog article. PyPy is certainly an impressive tool, but you can get a big improvement with something like Cython that lets you give the translator hints. The actual benchmarks:
CPython: 59.593 s
PyPy: 8.947 s
Cython: 3.5 s after adding a few types
Adding a few types in Cython means statically typing a few heavily used variables. His other (approx. 26 s) result with Cython I can only assume involved just Cythoning his straight Python code, which isn't really what Cython is supposed to do. The beautiful part of Cython is that you CAN give it straight Python code, or straight C code, or anything you want in between.
Yes, Cython clearly does have great advantages in speed over pure Python code and I shouldn't have implied that it didn't. I certainly will consider using it if I find some Python code that's running too slowly. However, that blog post also didn't compare an implementation in RPython, PyPy's Python-like language which also executes much faster than full Python.
Python is slower because it's a highly dynamic, interpreted language, and it's interpreter has also gotten a lot less attention than Java's compiler. Java is a compiled, much less dynamic language.
If by "compiled language," you mean that the first step in running a program is transforming source code into some other form, then both Python and Java are compiled languages (as are the vast majority of commonly-used language implementations). Both Java and Python implementations use compilers that transform source code into intermediate forms (byte code). In both cases, very little run-time optimization can be done at that level AFAIK.
The use of compilation is not truly a property of a language, but of an implementation of a language. For example, in addition to the official implementations, there are implementations of both Java and Python that transform source code into native machine code ahead of time, bypassing any byte code.
When talking about compilers, you also have to be careful about which compilers you're talking about. Most implementations of Java use a JIT compiler which transforms Java byte code into native machine language at run time. The official implementation of Python (CPython) does not have a JIT compiler, but there are several projects which add a JIT to CPython, including Unladen Swallow and Psyco.
I want to be extremely clear that I was not comparing the maximum execution speed of equivalent Python and Java programs, since Python will probably never rival Java in that way. I was talking about the suitability of the JVM for executing programs written in languages that are very different from Java, such as Python. Jython is an implementation of Python that does just that, but has only recently caught up to regular CPython's performance, even though it benefits from the JVM's JIT compiler.
As much work is being put into increasing performance of CPython, I think PyPy is much more interesting. Though PyPy is written in Python and a subset of Python called RPython, it can execute Python around three times faster than regular CPython or Jython.
You're right, a regular JVM might not do such a hot job of working through all the code generated by something like Python, but it could be used effectively with a language that is less annoying than Java while still being fairly static.
I doubt Ceylon is going to be a language I'd be much interested in. Python + Cython + C is a pretty potent combination for pretty much everything. It might be good for some things though.
I haven't tried Cython yet, but it sounds very interesting and I'll definitely try it when it seems appropriate. However, if just increasing performance is a goal, simply using PyPy might be just as good as Cython if examples like this are to be believed.
Oops. That should have been "high-order functions". Corrected
Actually, that's still not right. The correct term is "higher-order functions.
Ceylon supports high gear. You don't want to be stuck in first while trying to beat your competitors with the next WebWidget 3.0.
It seems like you should be able to add COW behavior in your data structure's class rather than requiring an addition to the core language. Of course, Java is pretty restrictive, so you probably can't do that with an Array, but you could with your own Array-like class.
The JVM is highly optimized for Java and similar languages. Since Ceylon sounds pretty similar to Java, the JVM is probably a good choice. The JVM is not highly optimized for languages substantially different from Java, such as Python, whose JVM implementation is always significantly slower than others. As you say, Java the language leaves much to be desired, which makes me skeptical that the JVM would be a great choice for a great language.
It's an attempt at a clever name, since Ceylon is an old name for Sri Lanka, another Asian island. Today (at least in the West) the name Ceylon is mostly associated with tea and Java mostly with coffee, to add another layer of cleverness.
I wish you luck comprehending speech without parsing language you read or hear. Perhaps you're telepathic?
You are sadly mistaken. When film is shot at a higher frame rate than normal, it takes longer to play back. This movie will take six hours to show in the theater and it will all be slow motion.
I think it just needs a single comma added: "They paint a picture of a Zuckerberg more sinister than portrayed in the movie The Social Network, actively out to sucker his investors that the site, including Ceglia."
I think that's another way to say that a person can never completely escape his world view. For example, to make use of science and believe scientific discoveries made by others, one has to believe that the natural world is orderly it is possible to observe and understand that order. A number of the important early scientists, such as Newton and Copernicus were motivated to understand nature by their belief that God had made it in an orderly way and to study it would help them understand Him better.
I'm glad it's not such a dichotomy
I object to the title of this post. I would say that science, like every endeavor, requires some level of faith, not that it's "just" a matter of faith.
It's a common misconception that faith means believing in something without evidence. It does mean having trust or confidence in something. One must have faith in a number of things to make use of the scientific method, such as the fact that nature is consistent and can be understood.
When doing an experiment, one must have faith in his own senses and equipment. Whenever anyone accepts a scientific discovery without testing it himself, he is putting faith in person, methods, and equipment of whomever made the discovery.
If you object to the many disagreements between religions, what can be said about the many disagreements over scientific theories and experiments? Do you think Science is an irrefutable truth which leaves no room for debate? Where would our current understanding of the world be without individuals and movements willing to challenge the conventional wisdom when they knew it was wrong?
So, how would you copy a movie to one of the data loggers you mention? AFAICT, those are all much more specialized devices designed to log temperature or other specific readings, not store multiple-gigabyte blobs.
The main thing I'm puzzled over is how you'd avoid overwriting sector 0 (which stores the FAT) when you loop over.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm wondering about. Does the device know where the FATs (or other file system structures) are? Will writing to a particular file only overwrite its own contents, or possible that of other files?
My guess is that it's only designed for a single partition with a FAT file system and it is designed so that the addresses likely used for FATs (near the beginning of the partition, though some sectors after the beginning of the partition and certainly occupying many 512 byte sectors) will not be overwritten by writes to high addresses. That would allow the file system to remain more or less intact, but the contents of files and subdirectories could be overwritten at any time by a write to any file or subdirectory.
I'll be happy if Google wins this case, but I'll be a lot happier if Google and other companies with an interest in Free and Open Source software stand up against software patents in general rather than just the ones that threaten them. It'll be especially sad if Google goes on to use software patents as weapons as so many big technology corporations do.
What's new is that the government can take devices arbitrary distances from the border to search them, which seems unprecedented.
The Constitution works because it sets down principles without going into specifics. The Fourth Amendment says:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The recent court rulings have determined these seizures to be "reasonable." They are obviously not reasonable, but there needs to be a higher court ruling to reverse them.