It's probably still better this way since it gives a good idea of where optimizing functional compilers stand against "the competition." Although the Cilk team one, that second place spot held by a team which used OCaml is a pretty strong statement for the progress of recent compilers for functional languages.
If other languages were not allowed, someone could easily say "well, I could have written something far better in C." Considering that an OCaml entry beat out all entries written in "pure C", and was only second to a multithreaded version of the language, the outcome is more relevant.
When you do head of to school, you'll probably end up taking a class using a book called "Introduction to Algorithms" written by Cormen, Leiserson an Rivest. Just so you understand where I'm going, Leiserson was on the team ("Cilk Pousse") that won the contest last year.
I'd say that you're not the only one with a disadvantage:).
The percentage of guys to girls at CMU is about the same (around 90% male) but I've never noticed any difference in ability (and CMU isn't exactly an easy school for computer science majors -- at least until they graduate).
Considering that TurboLinux has such a large piece of the OS pie in Japan, it seems pretty obvious that Japan is being left in the dust. This basically means that perhaps the largest share of PC users in Japan are techies -- not normal end users. Lets face it -- most user don't need to use (nor would they be willing to learn to use) an operating environment as flexible and powerful as Linux.
I hate to say it, but Microsoft market share in Japan will probably be the best indicator of overall tech-savy in Japan because it means that more and more users are integrating PC use into their normal lives. When a country (at this point in the game, anyway) has such a large percentage of Linux users, it probably means that the market is so small that techies and hackers dominate the market for PCs while everyone else is satisfied to just own a PlayStation.
For the time being, Linux is still best suited to people who have the ability and prefer the flexibility of being able to fine tune an OS to their own needs. Most non-hobbiest (excluding work-related users) would still prefer a simple system that lets them email, chat, surf, etc... since they have little use for all of the free development tools and customization which makes Linux a better choice for techies (which is why I dumped MS long ago...).
In short, Japan is still serverly lagging in the 'consumer' (aka 'ignorant end user' (j/k)) market. Maybe they'll make it up by developing better add-ons to Linux to make it more '(End) User Friendly' but I'd bet that "Microsoft Consumer Operating Systems" will almost certainly remain a better fit for most people.
If Linus does NOT comment on this situation, it becomes obvious that Transmeta is a player in his move.
Aha, but you forget reverse psychology! Since it would be obvious that Transmeta was a player in this if Linus commented on it, then Linus therefore has no choice BUT to comment on it.
j/k...
Anyhow, given the people they've hired, it doesn't look like Transmeta cares much either way. If I had to guess, it looks like their trying to design a chip to take advantage of some of the advances in real-time code generation (especially in operating systems). Think about it -- if you had a specializer to minimize certain critical paths in the OS based on the capabilities of the machine (using partial evaluation or something) you'd end up with a pretty fast machine.
This also seems to tie in with the rumors that they are making tools to make it easy to translate between instruction sets easy. They seem to have some people there who's primary research interests were in things like the semantics of programming languages. Maybe they'll have a way to quickly build specifiers to translate between different low-level instruction set.
Or maybe they're researching next generation hand-towels!
Example: searching a list of items for a value on von Neumann machine is O(n) (length of the list), since you have to look at each element till you find the one you want. You can do this in O(1) on a parallel machine. This is a significant improvement. IIRC there was a quantum computer that could search a 4-element list in O(1)
Assuming that you have a constant number of processors in your "parallel machine" searching through an n-element list still takes linear (IOW, O(n)) time. This is pretty obvious to see since your uniprocessor machine can emulate a k-processor box where each virtual processor runs at 1/k (minus context switching overhead) the speed of the original processor.
Also, you don't need a special computational model to search through a 4-element list in O(1). In fact, I have an ultra-secret algorithm for searching through a 5 bazillion-element list in O(1) on a Turing machine!!! (hint -- if the size of your input is constant and the function is computable, you'll always be able to compute the answer in a constant amount of time).
-NooM
Re:Good move (probably their only move)
on
Be Inc. IPO-bound
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, I kinda agree with you -- especially about the point about having only ONE product. They'd be much better off moving some of their resources towards developing applications which really take advantage of their platform and maybe develop a (small) base of USERS instead of merely people who just want to add to their collection of OSes to choose from when they reboot.
However, I really do think that they have technology that they can work with to become successful. The world doesn't really *need* another general purpose operating system, although if they start out working to penetrate a very specific market (i.e. your average techno artist) they could probably undercut problems with compatability and a lack of applications since they initially only need one well written app. (yes, I was serious about the possibilities making music workstations).
Assuming there are enough people to throw their money on the metaphorical craps table, it might give them enough resources to switch directions. But if they still think that they'll be able to sell people yet another general purpose operating system, they're seriously deluded.
By the way, thanks for correcting my assumption that E*Trade was the underwritter (rather than Volpe Brown Whelan & Company and Needham & Company). From the post, it looked like yet another attempt at one of those lame dutch auctions.
-NooM
Good move (probably their only move)
on
Be Inc. IPO-bound
·
· Score: 1
It's difficult to guess how much money Be Inc. will raise from their IPO, but it's probably their only way to take the company anywhere. Ideally, they'll get some more press and some money to spend on marketing (oops, I meant "branding"). Maybe they'll attract the attention of a few bigger players (internet media companies or people like Creative Labs) and gain a few partnerships.
Can you imagine a partnership between Creative and Be Inc? If Creative (along with EMU and Ensoniq) built a mega-featured music workstation using BeOS, I know I'd be drolling.... I'm picturing something that looks almost like an iMac, only with lots of wonderful analog knobs all over the place... yum...
Anyhow, a big influx of cash never hurt anyone (ehem). I just hope that E-Trade knows what they're doing with this offering...
Anyone remember a text-based adventure game (a la Zork), where you played a detective and had to find a killer. There was a butler named Fong, and it took place in a mansion... I never solved it, but I'd kill to know who the killer was. Me and my best friend spent like an entire summer playing that game, never being able to win it.
Research scientists need funds to do their work and the only way you get money is to produce results from your lab. If you spread the work around the entire population of scientists, which lab get's funded?
By the way, where did you hear about your myth of OpenSource Science? Secrecy has ALWAYS been a part of scientific endevours. While it's still open to dispute, it seems that both Newton and Liebniz were working in secrect developing Calculus simultaneously (both doing so in hopes of getting more funding for future work).
I'd bet that the majority of scientists and mathematicians have secret projects that they've been turning over in their minds for most of their careers hoping to finally crack. Not only does this drive them throughout their careers, it's probably the best source of truely novel ideas I can think of.
I think that Kubrick hit the nail on the head when he said that film is primarily a visual medium.
Oh, and if you're looking for a good film, "Eyes Wide Shut" will be out in just a couple more weeks!!! I just hope the censors didn't go to crazy on it after it got an NC-17 and it needed to be reduced to an R. I really wish that Kubrick had still been alive to go to bat for it...
Try as you will to emulate someone you admire, you'll never succeed. You'd be better off forging your own path (much like your heros do, ironically).
...
The problem with heros is they are never as herioc as you'd hope (ever read a Greek tragedy? Follow politics?).
...
I'd have to agree with Brin in that an egalitarian society raises standards far higher than one based on the admiration and emulation of a few people deemed to be elite by some standard (more on the problem of standards/ideals later). Possibly the hallmark of any self-made success is that they don't limit the people who are allowed to influence them. If you understand that everyone can be a teacher, you become a better student. In the same spirit, understanding that everyone makes errors, you learn equally well from people's mistakes as from their successes. If you recognize certain people as elite, your doomed to make the same mistakes as they do (and you'll never notice until it's too late....). This is the primary virtue in distrusting authority.
...
Idealism is dangerous. Take Richard Stallman, for instance. What would happen if he changed his mind? If he did change his mind, would he make his new views public? Do you think he even considers the possibility that he is wrong? Is it possible that viewing yourself as a hero (as RMS surely does) makes you just as easily deceived as the person who idolizes someone else and is unwilling to consider the possibility that they are wrong? (The way out of this strange loop is to realize that Stallman is controlled ENTIRELY by that manifesto he wrote back in the day)
Corrollary: Moral leaders aren't allowed to think for themselves, nor are their followers.
In this case, who the hell is going to do any thinking?
Incidentally, for those of you who have had a hard time deciphering the Zen Budhist philosophy which claims that killing the ego makes you free, this is the reason why. Of course, adopting this philosophy could put you right back where you started....
...
What's the difference between a positive and a negative role model? How do you know which one you've chosen?
...
I'll make the assumption that most people here at slashdot crave knowledge more than the average person and pose one more question: Do you remember how naive you were 5 or 6 years ago? Oh, you might have a good, hearty laugh realizing how distorted your assumptions about the world were back then -- but do you realize that this question has nothing to do with your current age? More importantly (especially to this conversation about elitism), you're not the only one laughing.
I think a better reason that we'll switch to IPv6 relatively soon is because there's a lot of money to be made during the switch-over. There aren't a lot of economic incentives associated with switching to Unicode...
Doh! I guess that means I don't have a right to request that Guinuess release the recipe and instructions for making Harp. Come to think of it, why don't we have a "Free Beer" movement (note: that's "free" as in "free speech", not as in "free beer". (notice the subtle capitalization differences))!
Anyhow, I'm glad someone else finally understood why "Free Software" has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. Oh, and speaking of ironies, has anyone else here noticed that RMS's beliefs as applied to "Free Techical Manuals" are actually far more restrictive than his views towards Free Software? Go figure!
...
Seriously, the only real complement I've ever heard for RMS has been that he displays a lot of integrity in that he both has strong beliefs and practices them. Yes, his fanatical idealism is something to be emulated by all of us -- ESPECIALLY at the expense of reason.
... (more seriously)
The reason why Open Source works and Free Software doesn't is that Open Source is based on cooperation (and, to a point, utilitarianism), while Free Software is based on moralism. An Open Source advocate (take ESR, for instance) claims that cooperation in software development, aided by peer review and motivated by "itchiness" works well to create good software. On the flipside, a Free Software advocate (take RMS, for instance) would preach that it is morally wrong for you not to share your knowledge with me.
Damn -- I fucking hate dogmatism.
-noOM
Re:Will AMD survive until next year? Prob. not...
on
AMD Athlon (K7) Ships
·
· Score: 1
Think about it: Intel has already had a few run-ins with feds because they appear to be monopolistic. If AMD starts to REALLY get in trouble, the feds will probably make Intel give up some of their.13 micron technology so prevent Intel and HP from owning the market.
Also, I seriouly doubt that AMD is unaware of the their predicament. That hefty lost figure probably includes a substantial amount of research on next-next generation technologies. Sure, AMD doesn't have a lot of money to work with, but their investors are probably much more willing to pay out their asses to make AMD profitably *eventually* rather than take a big loss because of myopia.
Besides, Intel should be the least of AMDs worries. With companies like Rise and Transmeta focusing a LOT of effort on nextGen chips, they'd better find a market soon. Oh, and if you think Torvalds is Transmeta's star, you should take notice of who else they're hiring -- they seem to be plucking the most promising post-docs from the best universities faster than you can say "DAMN!"
What 64-bit x86 chip are you talking about? IA64 (the Intel/HP design for Merced and Mckinley) is NOTHING like x86. And, as far as I know, Willamette will still be a 32-bit chip -- just faster. It will probably also be the end of the x86 line...thank god!
I thought the improvisation was good, but it tended to make the film seem more like sketch comedy (SNL style) with a tenuous thread of plot woven through it. The fact that plot really isn't necessary to make this film enjoyable makes me think that it would probably do well as a 30/60min TV series.
Does anyone think it is likely that the NSA has mathematicians/computer scienties working for them who might have solved (or are close to solving) the problems upon which most cryptographic protocols are based (i.e. factoring or NP completeness)? An AC posted that a mathematics professor had his work censored by the NSA and I heard a rumor that someone at Berkeley had proven that P=NP (this was last fall some time), although I haven't heard anything about it since (although I'd guess it was because his 'solution' was WRONG).
Somehow, I doubt that the most talented people end up working for the NSA. How many intellectuals could bare to work in secrecy? It would be as if Shakespeare never showed anyone else his works, never had them performed, and burned them upon his death. It seems pretty unlikely that any creative person could work in such an environment...
Slashdot Mirror
Re: only allow functional languages.
It's probably still better this way since it gives a good idea of where optimizing functional compilers stand against "the competition." Although the Cilk team one, that second place spot held by a team which used OCaml is a pretty strong statement for the progress of recent compilers for functional languages.
If other languages were not allowed, someone could easily say "well, I could have written something far better in C." Considering that an OCaml entry beat out all entries written in "pure C", and was only second to a multithreaded version of the language, the outcome is more relevant.
-NooM
When you do head of to school, you'll probably end up taking a class using a book called "Introduction to Algorithms" written by Cormen, Leiserson an Rivest. Just so you understand where I'm going, Leiserson was on the team ("Cilk Pousse") that won the contest last year.
I'd say that you're not the only one with a disadvantage
-NooM
They're inexpensive compared to the 10 meg hard disk I got for my IBM XT many years back..
Why do they even bother to do this competition any more? Everyone knows that CMU is just going to beat everyone again!
-NooM
The percentage of guys to girls at CMU is about the same (around 90% male) but I've never noticed any difference in ability (and CMU isn't exactly an easy school for computer science majors -- at least until they graduate).
Well, Marx's view obviously makes no sense in this field and era considering that so many tech companies are anything but profitable.
Considering that TurboLinux has such a large piece of the OS pie in Japan, it seems pretty obvious that Japan is being left in the dust. This basically means that perhaps the largest share of PC users in Japan are techies -- not normal end users. Lets face it -- most user don't need to use (nor would they be willing to learn to use) an operating environment as flexible and powerful as Linux.
I hate to say it, but Microsoft market share in Japan will probably be the best indicator of overall tech-savy in Japan because it means that more and more users are integrating PC use into their normal lives. When a country (at this point in the game, anyway) has such a large percentage of Linux users, it probably means that the market is so small that techies and hackers dominate the market for PCs while everyone else is satisfied to just own a PlayStation.
For the time being, Linux is still best suited to people who have the ability and prefer the flexibility of being able to fine tune an OS to their own needs. Most non-hobbiest (excluding work-related users) would still prefer a simple system that lets them email, chat, surf, etc... since they have little use for all of the free development tools and customization which makes Linux a better choice for techies (which is why I dumped MS long ago...).
In short, Japan is still serverly lagging in the 'consumer' (aka 'ignorant end user' (j/k)) market. Maybe they'll make it up by developing better add-ons to Linux to make it more '(End) User Friendly' but I'd bet that "Microsoft Consumer Operating Systems" will almost certainly remain a better fit for most people.
-NooM
Fortunately, most USPS employess "crash" just as easily.
Somehow I doubt our friend Larry's ever heard of the "pumping lemma".
If he's going to do this, why not just support context free grammars?
So, like, your dad and you used to, ya know, like, *puff* a lota shit, right?
Aha, but you forget reverse psychology! Since it would be obvious that Transmeta was a player in this if Linus commented on it, then Linus therefore has no choice BUT to comment on it.
j/k...
Anyhow, given the people they've hired, it doesn't look like Transmeta cares much either way. If I had to guess, it looks like their trying to design a chip to take advantage of some of the advances in real-time code generation (especially in operating systems). Think about it -- if you had a specializer to minimize certain critical paths in the OS based on the capabilities of the machine (using partial evaluation or something) you'd end up with a pretty fast machine.
This also seems to tie in with the rumors that they are making tools to make it easy to translate between instruction sets easy. They seem to have some people there who's primary research interests were in things like the semantics of programming languages. Maybe they'll have a way to quickly build specifiers to translate between different low-level instruction set.
Or maybe they're researching next generation hand-towels!
-NooM
Assuming that you have a constant number of processors in your "parallel machine" searching through an n-element list still takes linear (IOW, O(n)) time. This is pretty obvious to see since your uniprocessor machine can emulate a k-processor box where each virtual processor runs at 1/k (minus context switching overhead) the speed of the original processor.
Also, you don't need a special computational model to search through a 4-element list in O(1). In fact, I have an ultra-secret algorithm for searching through a 5 bazillion-element list in O(1) on a Turing machine!!! (hint -- if the size of your input is constant and the function is computable, you'll always be able to compute the answer in a constant amount of time).
-NooM
Yeah, I kinda agree with you -- especially about the point about having only ONE product. They'd be much better off moving some of their resources towards developing applications which really take advantage of their platform and maybe develop a (small) base of USERS instead of merely people who just want to add to their collection of OSes to choose from when they reboot.
However, I really do think that they have technology that they can work with to become successful. The world doesn't really *need* another general purpose operating system, although if they start out working to penetrate a very specific market (i.e. your average techno artist) they could probably undercut problems with compatability and a lack of applications since they initially only need one well written app. (yes, I was serious about the possibilities making music workstations).
Assuming there are enough people to throw their money on the metaphorical craps table, it might give them enough resources to switch directions. But if they still think that they'll be able to sell people yet another general purpose operating system, they're seriously deluded.
By the way, thanks for correcting my assumption that E*Trade was the underwritter (rather than Volpe Brown Whelan & Company and Needham & Company). From the post, it looked like yet another attempt at one of those lame dutch auctions.
-NooM
It's difficult to guess how much money Be Inc. will raise from their IPO, but it's probably their only way to take the company anywhere. Ideally, they'll get some more press and some money to spend on marketing (oops, I meant "branding"). Maybe they'll attract the attention of a few bigger players (internet media companies or people like Creative Labs) and gain a few partnerships.
Can you imagine a partnership between Creative and Be Inc? If Creative (along with EMU and Ensoniq) built a mega-featured music workstation using BeOS, I know I'd be drolling.... I'm picturing something that looks almost like an iMac, only with lots of wonderful analog knobs all over the place... yum...
Anyhow, a big influx of cash never hurt anyone (ehem). I just hope that E-Trade knows what they're doing with this offering...
-NooM
Oh, you must mean "Choose Your Own Damn Serial Murder"!
Actually, this might not be what you were talking about
-NooM
Research scientists need funds to do their work and the only way you get money is to produce results from your lab. If you spread the work around the entire population of scientists, which lab get's funded?
By the way, where did you hear about your myth of OpenSource Science? Secrecy has ALWAYS been a part of scientific endevours. While it's still open to dispute, it seems that both Newton and Liebniz were working in secrect developing Calculus simultaneously (both doing so in hopes of getting more funding for future work).
I'd bet that the majority of scientists and mathematicians have secret projects that they've been turning over in their minds for most of their careers hoping to finally crack. Not only does this drive them throughout their careers, it's probably the best source of truely novel ideas I can think of.
I think that Kubrick hit the nail on the head when he said that film is primarily a visual medium.
Oh, and if you're looking for a good film, "Eyes Wide Shut" will be out in just a couple more weeks!!! I just hope the censors didn't go to crazy on it after it got an NC-17 and it needed to be reduced to an R. I really wish that Kubrick had still been alive to go to bat for it...
Oh, and to stay on topic -- Jar Jar Die Die.
-NooM
Some thoughts on heros and idealism....
Try as you will to emulate someone you admire, you'll never succeed. You'd be better off forging your own path (much like your heros do, ironically).
...
The problem with heros is they are never as herioc as you'd hope (ever read a Greek tragedy? Follow politics?).
...
I'd have to agree with Brin in that an egalitarian society raises standards far higher than one based on the admiration and emulation of a few people deemed to be elite by some standard (more on the problem of standards/ideals later). Possibly the hallmark of any self-made success is that they don't limit the people who are allowed to influence them. If you understand that everyone can be a teacher, you become a better student. In the same spirit, understanding that everyone makes errors, you learn equally well from people's mistakes as from their successes. If you recognize certain people as elite, your doomed to make the same mistakes as they do (and you'll never notice until it's too late....). This is the primary virtue in distrusting authority.
...
Idealism is dangerous. Take Richard Stallman, for instance. What would happen if he changed his mind? If he did change his mind, would he make his new views public? Do you think he even considers the possibility that he is wrong? Is it possible that viewing yourself as a hero (as RMS surely does) makes you just as easily deceived as the person who idolizes someone else and is unwilling to consider the possibility that they are wrong? (The way out of this strange loop is to realize that Stallman is controlled ENTIRELY by that manifesto he wrote back in the day)
Corrollary: Moral leaders aren't allowed to think for themselves, nor are their followers.
In this case, who the hell is going to do any thinking?
Incidentally, for those of you who have had a hard time deciphering the Zen Budhist philosophy which claims that killing the ego makes you free, this is the reason why. Of course, adopting this philosophy could put you right back where you started....
...
What's the difference between a positive and a negative role model? How do you know which one you've chosen?
...
I'll make the assumption that most people here at slashdot crave knowledge more than the average person and pose one more question: Do you remember how naive you were 5 or 6 years ago? Oh, you might have a good, hearty laugh realizing how distorted your assumptions about the world were back then -- but do you realize that this question has nothing to do with your current age? More importantly (especially to this conversation about elitism), you're not the only one laughing.
...NooM
7 isn't a random number. But 17... that's a good random number...
I think a better reason that we'll switch to IPv6 relatively soon is because there's a lot of money to be made during the switch-over. There aren't a lot of economic incentives associated with switching to Unicode...
Doh! I guess that means I don't have a right to request that Guinuess release the recipe and instructions for making Harp. Come to think of it, why don't we have a "Free Beer" movement (note: that's "free" as in "free speech", not as in "free beer". (notice the subtle capitalization differences))!
...
Anyhow, I'm glad someone else finally understood why "Free Software" has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. Oh, and speaking of ironies, has anyone else here noticed that RMS's beliefs as applied to "Free Techical Manuals" are actually far more restrictive than his views towards Free Software? Go figure!
Seriously, the only real complement I've ever heard for RMS has been that he displays a lot of integrity in that he both has strong beliefs and practices them. Yes, his fanatical idealism is something to be emulated by all of us -- ESPECIALLY at the expense of reason.
...
(more seriously)
The reason why Open Source works and Free Software doesn't is that Open Source is based on cooperation (and, to a point, utilitarianism), while Free Software is based on moralism. An Open Source advocate (take ESR, for instance) claims that cooperation in software development, aided by peer review and motivated by "itchiness" works well to create good software. On the flipside, a Free Software advocate (take RMS, for instance) would preach that it is morally wrong for you not to share your knowledge with me.
Damn -- I fucking hate dogmatism.
-noOM
Think about it: Intel has already had a few run-ins with feds because they appear to be monopolistic. If AMD starts to REALLY get in trouble, the feds will probably make Intel give up some of their .13 micron technology so prevent Intel and HP from owning the market.
Also, I seriouly doubt that AMD is unaware of the their predicament. That hefty lost figure probably includes a substantial amount of research on next-next generation technologies. Sure, AMD doesn't have a lot of money to work with, but their investors are probably much more willing to pay out their asses to make AMD profitably *eventually* rather than take a big loss because of myopia.
Besides, Intel should be the least of AMDs worries. With companies like Rise and Transmeta focusing a LOT of effort on nextGen chips, they'd better find a market soon. Oh, and if you think Torvalds is Transmeta's star, you should take notice of who else they're hiring -- they seem to be plucking the most promising post-docs from the best universities faster than you can say "DAMN!"
What 64-bit x86 chip are you talking about? IA64 (the Intel/HP design for Merced and Mckinley) is NOTHING like x86. And, as far as I know, Willamette will still be a 32-bit chip -- just faster. It will probably also be the end of the x86 line...thank god!
I thought the improvisation was good, but it tended to make the film seem more like sketch comedy (SNL style) with a tenuous thread of plot woven through it. The fact that plot really isn't necessary to make this film enjoyable makes me think that it would probably do well as a 30/60min TV series.
Does anyone think it is likely that the NSA has mathematicians/computer scienties working for them who might have solved (or are close to solving) the problems upon which most cryptographic protocols are based (i.e. factoring or NP completeness)? An AC posted that a mathematics professor had his work censored by the NSA and I heard a rumor that someone at Berkeley had proven that P=NP (this was last fall some time), although I haven't heard anything about it since (although I'd guess it was because his 'solution' was WRONG).
Somehow, I doubt that the most talented people end up working for the NSA. How many intellectuals could bare to work in secrecy? It would be as if Shakespeare never showed anyone else his works, never had them performed, and burned them upon his death. It seems pretty unlikely that any creative person could work in such an environment...
... but I suppose there's always a chance...