Introductory assembly is often taught in DOS because the examples tend to be quite simple. As for IA-64, it really doesn't belong in this book - the book is for teaching x86 assembly. If you're going to include IA-64, you may as well include Sparc or Alpha as well. Besides which there is really no reason to program an IA-64 in assembly. The compiler is going to beat you every time.
I'm well aware of what every signal in the serial connector is for. They could have done the signaling in-band without much added complexety by adding a few extra bits per serial word. (Not with weird ASCII bytes inserted in the data stream.)
Were it being designed today, I'd say you definitely have the correct solution. However, if you're the committee looking at this back in the early 1960's, I know which solution I would find more elegant. Completely aside from making the connector spec way more complicated and restrictive than it really needs to be.
They could have picked an operating mode (parity, stop bit, bits-per-byte) while they were at it, leaving baud rate as the only variable.
Unless of course you wanted to be able to connect to all of that wonderful legacy equipment which didn't use your dictated from above settings.
9-pin serial connector - 3. Boring. Same problems as VGA. Should have been done with 2 or 3 pins. (Old larger serial connectors rate a 1 for total overkill.)
Errr...This tends to suggest that you don't know what all of those pins are there for. Yes, a basical serial signal works just fine on 2 or 3 pins, but most of the additional pins are there for various flow control and other issues when controlling devices such as external modems and serial printers. Doing in-band signaling would have added significant (at the time) overhead and not worked so well.
No. It is based on the concept that whether a woman enjoys sex or not, she should try to profit in some way (either by acquiring a happy marriage or by acquiring vaulable goods). A woman who does it only for pleasure is a whore.
Hmmm...I thought that doing it for profit was the definition of a whore...
6 digits give you 1 MILLION registrants and products!
5 digits. First and last have other uses.
Re:Design Problem? Here's the design problem:
on
Going Up?
·
· Score: 2
The only possibility of maintaining an actual elevator cable is if it is hooked onto something in geosyncronous orbit with the Earth. The only problem there is that the object would have to be 40,000 miles away from the Earth to maintain constant orbit with a fixed position on Earth. Good luck.
Actually, the idea is to tie the cable to something a little _past_ geosyn, and speed it up so that tension is maintained on the cable, making up for the section of cable that isn't moving at the correct orbital velocity for its height.
Which leads to an interesting question. What are the real differences between Linux and Solaris as server OSes? I know Solaris has a good reputation for clustering and high server-side throughput. Are there other Solaris features that could be migrated into a server distribution of Linux?
While some of the solaris bits and bobs could find their way onto Linux, the things such as scalability that Solaris does well tend to not to migrate well, as they involve too many fundamental design decisions. Solaris is not going to be going anywhere real soon. You'll notice that IBM isn't really running Linux on the big iron either - they're running they're OS which is running who knows how many instances of Linux.
In fact, there is a massive effort underway to do essentially that. Since MM5 and RAMS are so archaic and lack certain critical features for the newer models, a newer model called WRF is being created as a potential replacement for these two older systems. And FORTRAN is the expected language of choice even for this newer atmospheric model.
Hmmm...I wasn't aware of this. But let my take this opportunity to say thank god. Archaic just begins to cover it...Think they'll do something about the redundant bloody awful output format?
I am not a scientist, but I know a few. My observations are that much new scientific programming is done in Perl. It seems to me that Perl has become popular among non-programming scientists for the same reason that FORTRAN became popular 30 years ago: It is easy to get stuff done. I don't think this trend has anything to do with computation speed or available libraries. It is strictly about the ease of use for "pragmatic" users.
This if course depends on your definition of scientific computing. If you're just sorting data, Perl is an excellent choice - thats exactly what its designed to do. However, you wouldn't exactly want to write large scale flow solver in it...
Make sure both compilers are using the same memory/data alignment rules. My Fortran compiler was doing align=byte, and my C compiler was doing align=word, and my structures with some logical*1 and integer*2 variables were messing up my read routines.
Don't I know it. As I was attempting to make this software run on both a Linux machine and a Cray T3E, I opted to just read in each array and variable seperately, and that seemed to work. This made things more interesting because Cray likes to word align things, and a Cray word is 64 bits. Also, a Cray int is 64 and a short is 32. Mostly I just kinda fiddled it until things lined up right(fortunately, there were some nicely distinctive tags in the datafile).
Hmmm, You must be using something other than fortran to read those files. While I hate Fortran, I use it when required - just another tool to get the job done. If you have the fortran source code, you can avoid the 'extra integer' problem by using the proper parameters in the OPEN statement on most compilers. I believe that is a hold over from the old days when people used 9-track tapes. Sad thing is that people still use tapes exept they're now 8mm, DAT, QIC,...
C in fact... I generally _do_ use Fortran to read files output by Fortran programs, because I'm usually hacking those programs...However in case I had already written a pretty decent amount of code before this annoyance came to light, and the nature of the task made writing the program with Fortrans very limited dynamic allocation abilities something I didn't really care to attempt. It's not really that big a deal once you know it's there, but when you don't...:)
Actually, FORTH still finds usage in various firmware Applications. I believe(but could very easily be wrong) that its generally used in firmware of most PCI boards...
3) the language itself lacks complicated constructs, so it is very simple to optimize. This, with (1) makes fortran still outperform c, thanks to the compilers.
This really isn't true so much any more. Usually the performance difference comes from having a more mature compiler, which is becoming less and less an issue. In my experience they usually come out fairly similar. This said, you do sometimes have to watch just how you allocate and play with Arrays in C if you really want to squeeze the maximum performance out of it. Of course since dynamic allocation is so primitive in Fortran that you can't do multi dimensional arrays the "wrong" way....
That said, I HATE fortran with a passion, mostly because it's ugly. 6 character variable names are impossible to deal with. Couple this with capitalization and indentation rules left over from the punch card era and you have code which is literally painful to read.
You should give Fortran 90 a shot. The more grevious of FORTRAN's punch card related sins have been eliminated or made optional. Although last time I checked FORTRAN had no cap rules. At least _standard_ Fortran has no cap rules...Conventions, but not enforced rules.
That said, I too, HATE fortran with a passion. Why does it do that stupid little thing when its writing binary data, tacking the extra integer on the beginning and the end? I hate that! Particularly when the specs for the output file don't mention it was written in that weird Fortran mode so you spend all @#$% day trying to figure out why your're getting floating exceptions and your parsing routines are off as you read through the file...
FORTRAN is used in high performance scientific computing. The language allows for high parrelelization.
This is sort of true. Fortran isn't nessecarily all that much more inherently parallelizable than other languages, but because it is the language of scientific computing quite a bit of effort has been expended on compilers that automatically parallelize for vector computers. For non vector computers, it really doesn't matter what language you use - You'll be using MPI to do it anyway, so as long as you have a set of language bindings, you're ok. (Although as far as I can tell these only exist for C and Fortran...)
The real reason that FORTRAN continues to persist in scientific computing is twofold - First, there is a huge Fortran code base. Both in terms of things like Numerical Recipies and completed code. For example, I spent my summer integrating a Weather Model with a fluid dynamics model. The Weather Model, MM5 decends from the early 1970's (Pre FORTRAN 77). It's in Fortran. It's large. It would take a hell of a lot of effort to rewrite it, and nobody is going to do it. Theres a quite a bit of this stuff around, and the effort to rewrite it would enourmous, and frankly not worth it.
Second, most people programming in scientific computing are not CompSci's. They Computaional Chemists, and Electrical Engineers and Meteorologists and who knows what else - but not programmers. They learned FORTRAN and as long as they can get their stuff done in FORTRAN, they're not gonna learn C so they can track down a segfault when their pointers wander off an array. The new PhD's probably learned C and will use it if starting from scratch(After all, even in FORTRAN 90 Dynamic allocation and pointers are really, really limited, often requiring recompiles whne your problem size changes), but 40-50 year old computational chemists are not gonna learn C. Period. So FORTRAN continues to get upgraded. At least they got rid of the @#$% Hollerith-punch card column layout...
Trains must have some serious problem in the US. Here's some stats from EU:
Yes, trains have a huge problem in the US - They're mostly run by Amtrack. Amtrack is a sorta half-governmental entity that runs way in the red, provides crap service and costs too much, surviving mostly off of a series of governmental handouts. They know this, and thus they spend most of their time trying to cater to the various congress critters that bail them out (but only enough to keep the old decripit system running, as opposed to enough to actually implement decent high speed rail) instead of trying to make the system not suck.
Things started to go downhill here [google.com], but maybe this [google.com] was an even better sign of things to come.
*Sigh. I used to read Usenet by way of a BBS that somehow managed to get a fairly complete feed. Those were the good old days. Really, there isn't much on the internet to match the level of conversation you had on Usenet back then or the old BBS systems...
You've obviously been watching Dragonball. While I feel your pain, I really do have to object to your characterization of all Anime as being like above. Cartoon Network is quite frankly a really crappy sampling. (Not that I claim it has any greater cultural significance than say, my penchant for Horror and SciFi movies. I just hate to see people judge anime on the basis of the crap that makes it to American television. And don't even get me started on what Fox did to Escaflowne....)
Perfect Blue.
Kenshin, OAVs (Known in this country as Samurai X)
The government has successfully brainwashed you into believing that driving is a privilege they may bestow or take away. In reality, with public transportation unservicable in much of the US, driving is an absolute necessity for one's day to day life. It is no more a "privilege" than the "privilege" of food and water.
Sure, you have a right to drive. However, if you'd like to drive on public streets and highways with the rest of us, that is very much a priveledge. A privledge earned through drivers training and testing. You play by the rules so that you don't get the rest of us killed. If you don't and your license is pulled, you need to look into alternative forms of transportation. Bike, walk, whatever. Not my problem. But you have no inalienable _right_ to drive. You have a right not to be discriminated against in the assignment of this privledge, but of you're pulling DUIs or too many speeding tickets, or can't see sufficiently well to pass the driving test - No license for you.
It is illegal to modify, remove, or disable a device installed in a car by a court order (such as those breathalyser ignition lockout systems added to DUI offender's cars). So if you modify, disable or remove it, yes, you are breaking the law.
Yeah, but thats a different situation - The sort of device you're talking about is installed as part of a court ordered sentence. If its simply a part of your car, some form of law would have to be passed to make it illegal. And if mom and dad just installed it, then hey, go for it. On the other hand, if it's court ordered after your 43rd speeding ticket..
How did the Greatful Dead do it? They made money from concert tickets, t-shirt sales (Hey, that's the sweetest pie! quoth Krusty.) and probably a little from album sales. But they never really cared about concert bootlegs. Don't know how they felt about trading actual albums.
I'm not a deadhead by any stretch of the imagination, so maybe someone can explain.
Concerts are where most bands make the vast majority of their money. The only people making real money off CD's are their labels. The only reason bands need the albums at all is to raise awareness for their concerts. So if they can use the Internet to make others aware of their existence, the labels are no longer nessecary. Excellent business model, but theres no place in it for the RIAA, and hence they'll fight it every step of the way.
Slashdot Mirror
Introductory assembly is often taught in DOS because the examples tend to be quite simple. As for IA-64, it really doesn't belong in this book - the book is for teaching x86 assembly. If you're going to include IA-64, you may as well include Sparc or Alpha as well. Besides which there is really no reason to program an IA-64 in assembly. The compiler is going to beat you every time.
Were it being designed today, I'd say you definitely have the correct solution. However, if you're the committee looking at this back in the early 1960's, I know which solution I would find more elegant. Completely aside from making the connector spec way more complicated and restrictive than it really needs to be.
They could have picked an operating mode (parity, stop bit, bits-per-byte) while they were at it, leaving baud rate as the only variable.
Unless of course you wanted to be able to connect to all of that wonderful legacy equipment which didn't use your dictated from above settings.
Errr...This tends to suggest that you don't know what all of those pins are there for.
Yes, a basical serial signal works just fine on 2 or 3 pins, but most of the additional pins are there for various flow control and other issues when controlling devices such as external modems and serial printers. Doing in-band signaling would have added significant (at the time) overhead and not worked so well.
The problem is that we only have one Mr. Fishbourne and so many jerks with cell phones.
I knew there was a reason I still read the slashdot comments. Bravo!
Hmmm...I thought that doing it for profit was the definition of a whore...
5 digits. First and last have other uses.
Actually, the idea is to tie the cable to something a little _past_ geosyn, and speed it up so that tension is maintained on the cable, making up for the section of cable that isn't moving at the correct orbital velocity for its height.
Which leads to an interesting question. What are the real differences between Linux and Solaris as server OSes? I know Solaris has a good reputation for clustering and high server-side throughput. Are there other Solaris features that could be migrated into a server distribution of Linux?
While some of the solaris bits and bobs could find their way onto Linux, the things such as scalability that Solaris does well tend to not to migrate well, as they involve too many fundamental design decisions. Solaris is not going to be going anywhere real soon. You'll notice that IBM isn't really running Linux on the big iron either - they're running they're OS which is running who knows how many instances of Linux.
Hmmm...I wasn't aware of this. But let my take this opportunity to say thank god. Archaic just begins to cover it...Think they'll do something about the redundant bloody awful output format?
This if course depends on your definition of scientific computing. If you're just sorting data, Perl is an excellent choice - thats exactly what its designed to do. However, you wouldn't exactly want to write large scale flow solver in it...
Cray and IBM both put them in..32 bits.
Make sure both compilers are using the same memory/data alignment rules. My Fortran compiler was doing align=byte, and my C compiler was doing align=word, and my structures with some logical*1 and integer*2 variables were messing up my read routines.
Don't I know it. As I was attempting to make this software run on both a Linux machine and a Cray T3E, I opted to just read in each array and variable seperately, and that seemed to work. This made things more interesting because Cray likes to word align things, and a Cray word is 64 bits. Also, a Cray int is 64 and a short is 32. Mostly I just kinda fiddled it until things lined up right(fortunately, there were some nicely distinctive tags in the datafile).
C in fact... I generally _do_ use Fortran to read files output by Fortran programs, because I'm usually hacking those programs...However in case I had already written a pretty decent amount of code before this annoyance came to light, and the nature of the task made writing the program with Fortrans very limited dynamic allocation abilities something I didn't really care to attempt. It's not really that big a deal once you know it's there, but when you don't...:)
Actually, FORTH still finds usage in various firmware Applications. I believe(but could very easily be wrong) that its generally used in firmware of most PCI boards...
This really isn't true so much any more. Usually the performance difference comes from having a more mature compiler, which is becoming less and less an issue. In my experience they usually come out fairly similar. This said, you do sometimes have to watch just how you allocate and play with Arrays in C if you really want to squeeze the maximum performance out of it. Of course since dynamic allocation is so primitive in Fortran that you can't do multi dimensional arrays the "wrong" way....
That said, I HATE fortran with a passion, mostly because it's ugly. 6 character variable names are impossible to deal with. Couple this with capitalization and indentation rules left over from the punch card era and you have code which is literally painful to read.
You should give Fortran 90 a shot. The more grevious of FORTRAN's punch card related sins have been eliminated or made optional. Although last time I checked FORTRAN had no cap rules. At least _standard_ Fortran has no cap rules...Conventions, but not enforced rules.
That said, I too, HATE fortran with a passion. Why does it do that stupid little thing when its writing binary data, tacking the extra integer on the beginning and the end? I hate that! Particularly when the specs for the output file don't mention it was written in that weird Fortran mode so you spend all @#$% day trying to figure out why your're getting floating exceptions and your parsing routines are off as you read through the file...
This is sort of true. Fortran isn't nessecarily all that much more inherently parallelizable than other languages, but because it is the language of scientific computing quite a bit of effort has been expended on compilers that automatically parallelize for vector computers. For non vector computers, it really doesn't matter what language you use - You'll be using MPI to do it anyway, so as long as you have a set of language bindings, you're ok. (Although as far as I can tell these only exist for C and Fortran...)
The real reason that FORTRAN continues to persist in scientific computing is twofold - First, there is a huge Fortran code base. Both in terms of things like Numerical Recipies and completed code. For example, I spent my summer integrating a Weather Model with a fluid dynamics model. The Weather Model, MM5 decends from the early 1970's (Pre FORTRAN 77). It's in Fortran. It's large. It would take a hell of a lot of effort to rewrite it, and nobody is going to do it. Theres a quite a bit of this stuff around, and the effort to rewrite it would enourmous, and frankly not worth it.
Second, most people programming in scientific computing are not CompSci's. They Computaional Chemists, and Electrical Engineers and Meteorologists and who knows what else - but not programmers. They learned FORTRAN and as long as they can get their stuff done in FORTRAN, they're not gonna learn C so they can track down a segfault when their pointers wander off an array. The new PhD's probably learned C and will use it if starting from scratch(After all, even in FORTRAN 90 Dynamic allocation and pointers are really, really limited, often requiring recompiles whne your problem size changes), but 40-50 year old computational chemists are not gonna learn C. Period. So FORTRAN continues to get upgraded. At least they got rid of the @#$% Hollerith-punch card column layout...
Trains must have some serious problem in the US. Here's some stats from EU:
Yes, trains have a huge problem in the US - They're mostly run by Amtrack. Amtrack is a sorta half-governmental entity that runs way in the red, provides crap service and costs too much, surviving mostly off of a series of governmental handouts. They know this, and thus they spend most of their time trying to cater to the various congress critters that bail them out (but only enough to keep the old decripit system running, as opposed to enough to actually implement decent high speed rail) instead of trying to make the system not suck.
*Sigh. I used to read Usenet by way of a BBS that somehow managed to get a fairly complete feed. Those were the good old days. Really, there isn't much on the internet to match the level of conversation you had on Usenet back then or the old BBS systems...
You've obviously been watching Dragonball. While I feel your pain, I really do have to object to your characterization of all Anime as being like above. Cartoon Network is quite frankly a really crappy sampling. (Not that I claim it has any greater cultural significance than say, my penchant for Horror and SciFi movies. I just hate to see people judge anime on the basis of the crap that makes it to American television. And don't even get me started on what Fox did to Escaflowne....)
Perfect Blue.
Kenshin, OAVs (Known in this country as Samurai X)
His and Hers Circumstances
Princess Mononoke
Grave of the Fireflies.
Neon Genesis Evangelion
Escaflowne
The government has successfully brainwashed you into believing that driving is a privilege they may bestow or take away. In reality, with public transportation unservicable in much of the US, driving is an absolute necessity for one's day to day life. It is no more a "privilege" than the "privilege" of food and water.
Sure, you have a right to drive. However, if you'd like to drive on public streets and highways with the rest of us, that is very much a priveledge. A privledge earned through drivers training and testing. You play by the rules so that you don't get the rest of us killed. If you don't and your license is pulled, you need to look into alternative forms of transportation. Bike, walk, whatever. Not my problem. But you have no inalienable _right_ to drive. You have a right not to be discriminated against in the assignment of this privledge, but of you're pulling DUIs or too many speeding tickets, or can't see sufficiently well to pass the driving test - No license for you.
It is illegal to modify, remove, or disable a device installed in a car by a court order (such as those breathalyser ignition lockout systems added to DUI offender's cars). So if you modify, disable or remove it, yes, you are breaking the law.
Yeah, but thats a different situation - The sort of device you're talking about is installed as part of a court ordered sentence. If its simply a part of your car, some form of law would have to be passed to make it illegal. And if mom and dad just installed it, then hey, go for it. On the other hand, if it's court ordered after your 43rd speeding ticket..
A. Spent all day working on a programming project well behind schedule and
B. Didn't shave today..
All of them? At once? Or just by one particularly ambitious woman with a serious stale pizza fetish?
What up with all the UNIX guys having beards? Not like little beards either, but big bushy ones...
How did the Greatful Dead do it? They made money from concert tickets, t-shirt sales (Hey, that's the sweetest pie! quoth Krusty.) and probably a little from album sales. But they never really cared about concert bootlegs. Don't know how they felt about trading actual albums.
I'm not a deadhead by any stretch of the imagination, so maybe someone can explain.
Concerts are where most bands make the vast majority of their money. The only people making real money off CD's are their labels. The only reason bands need the albums at all is to raise awareness for their concerts. So if they can use the Internet to make others aware of their existence, the labels are no longer nessecary. Excellent business model, but theres no place in it for the RIAA, and hence they'll fight it every step of the way.