I suppose it depends on what record one looks at. Back in the Cretaeus era Antarctica was covered with forests, and trended up towards being semi-tropical. Is this decade really warmer?
Your instructors allowed you to just randomly read in the library? Perhaps your aged neurons have missed a few memories;>
I'm also "old", and while my instructors wouldn't allow me to entirely skip a course, I did have a couple who gave me detailed independent research (which they graded). For example, I took a "Fortran" class where I learned Pascal (we had a CDC, a couple of different Pascal compilers, I had the original Wirth report and I had a bevy of coding assignments... all of which he graded).
it was more work for both of us, but I was learning stuff I didn't already know. Since I was working in Aerospace already doing Fortran coding (and yes, it's not FORTRAN, not since the committee ruling in the 1990s; admittedly it was FORTRAN at the time under discussion;>).
What I found most interesting was the way this particular professor made the call that I knew Fortran too well to take the course as given. He showed me a listing of one of his commerical programming gigs, and was talking me through the code. However, he made several statements which were false... after the first one, I starting putting up a fuss... which was the right move. If I'd kept my mouth shut, he said he would have concluded that I needed more instruction.
It's a rather good interview technique, can be used at higher levels of abstraction than just code.
Perhaps only old fogeys recall rabbit ear TV antennas for analogue TVs... touching can improve or degrade signal. Depends on where, what frequencies, etc.
No matter how clever the engineering, there's no cheating the law of physics.
I always use a bluetooth headset and seldom hold the phone during calls; and use a case. So it all seemed like a tempest in a teacup to me.
Rattle for R baseed datamining
on
R In a Nutshell
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Often reason people get involved in statistical analysis is there is a body of data, and no clue where to start... as inhabitants of the information age, and cheap storage... there's lots of material and often little clue or thought to what the stored data might mean.
http://rattle.togaware.com/ is a website dedicated to "rattle" which is an R package (and togaware has a PDF book that's a great introduction) to a GUI based datamining tool.
Why are people assuming that hollywood films and a BBC series aren't compatible? There are only 10 or fewer episodes in a typical Beeb production... leaving lots of time for other work.
That all of the really useful data tends to have infinite life (birthdate, SSN or equiv for non-US, place of birth) compounds the problem (the "use case" that comes to mind is some aged drive surfaces in the used parts market and some scofflaw procures it and uses it long after the breach itself).
Obviously, each organization should have their own ID numbers, and any given "customer" ID should be able to be associated with various time varying external credentials and really good stuff which isn't time varying shouldn't be in the hands of third parties.
Regulators (e.g. SOX, HIPPA, UK data protection act(s)) all seem to miss the boat about limiting the scope of breeches. Legislating that no breech ever occur is laudable, but impractical. So minimizing the harm done should be the focus.
I concur with posters who observe that some languages do have more protections than others; but in the end the application programmer needs to be careful and security aware, and there has to be complete trust in every step of the processing from what the programmer writes to what is run on the device.
Now whether the loss of flexibility is worth having to trust only Apple is a reasonable policy question; but I can see why Apple might want to be draconian about this.
Hired might have been too strong a word. They are part of a University. It's quite easy to get someone to consult/kibbitz from other Departments. Even borrow a Graduate Student or two.
Of course, that usually results in more work, as the kibbitzers have the annoying tendency to point things out that were otherwise missed.
Note that the cited paper location is docs.sun.com; this version of the article has corrections and improvements from the original ACM paper. Sun has provided this to interested parties for 20odd years (I have no idea what they paid ACM for rights to distribute).
http://www.netlib.org/fdlibm/ is the Sun provided freely distributable libm that follows (in a roundabout way) from the paper.
I don't recall if K.C. Ng's terrific "infinite pi" code is included (it was in Sun's libm) which takes care of intel hw by doing the range reduction with enough bits for the particular argument to be nearly equivalent to infinite arithmetic.
Sun's floating point group did much to advance the state of the art in deployed and deployable computer arithmetic.
Kudos to the group (one hopes that Oracle will treat them with the respect they deserve)
B&N may well have been careful to have "firewalled" off the team that evaluated each of the readers (no doubt there were many potential suppliers). In fact, it would be surprising if a large and experienced company didn't take reasonable precautions regarding NDAs.
The various potential suppliers may individually and/or collectively feel miffed that they weren't selected. If they have acquired (or are in the process of acquiring) various patents they may well get some of the action in any event.
Of course, perhaps the Spring guys are Trolls or the B&N folks Evil Giants. This will only become known if the case goes all the way to Trial which is relatively rare.
The current (albeit non-x64) state of the art chip is already at 64 threads per chip (SPARC CMT) and multi-chip systems are possible. So Windows 7 is ready for a 4 chip system.
Of course, it will take awhile for the x64 family to catch up, but they will; and quite probably within the lifespan of Windows 7. So it's a sensible target...
As others have noted, Solaris is far ahead on the scalability front... but that really isn't the point. Microsoft is aiming for where they expect "desktop" computers to credibly be within the next few years, this is a big vote for multithreaded or multicore processors in the volume space. That is newsworthy.
Putting aside questions about the patent system...
I worked for a company which had a similar system for several years. But eventually reformed it.
1) Waiting until patent issuance for the biggest payoff will short change many (it can be years before issuance, people move on. Ex-employees typically don't get bonuses).
2) The bulk of the extra curricular work takes place putting together the patent application.
So I'd suggest a system where:
a) Thumbnail sketch of the idea to be filed internally and reviewed before more time is invested. No reward.
b) Approved ideas make it to preliminary filing. Small reward.
c) Full patent application submission, bulk of reward.
d) At patent issuance, a free plaque, small payment and award ceremony within the company.
"Much more important today is AMD's patent cross license agreements with Intel."
Indeed, I did not mean to suggest that things have remained as they were in the 8086 days; just provided the origin. There is a long and tangled history of licensing between AMD and Intel. No doubt the best bits aren't public info anyway (although I suppose combing through the various legal filings in various suits could prove educational).
The particular rumor of NV entering the CPU market goes back several years. as an example.
Given the cost of developing a full custom microprocessor (several tens of millions of dollars) including the complexity of verification... surely a Legal Plan would have proceeded either development or acquisition.
In the olden days, chip consumers insisted on a second source. AMD was annointed as Intel's second source so that Intel could sell to such folks (like the US government of yesteryear).
Blastwave is off the air. It has largely been replaced for the moment by :
There is an elaborate story behind this (isn't there always). The solarisx86 yahoo group has discussions entitled: "[solarisx86] Blastwave gone?" and "[solarisx86] All assets of Blastwave frozen.." which may be of interest.
""it scales far better" in general is as absurd as it is patently untrue."
How so? With the exception of the SGI implementation, I don't don't of Linux distros out of the box that scale to 100+ processors well (indeed, the usual approach is to run multiple instances of the kernel on each processor or so on large ensembles). When discussing an OS, scalability is usually meant in terms of how the OS itself scales... not how one's applications can be configured to scale.
So I think the poster's claim that Solaris scales far better is true FOR THE OS itself.
Now, whether THAT matters to your workload (or if your workload scales across many processors via multiple OS instances just fine) is another question entirely.
If the rule where that a vendor would have to give their rights away, they would never "abandon" it... merely raise the price to some incredibly absurd level per copy.
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose it depends on what record one looks at. Back in the Cretaeus era Antarctica was covered with forests, and trended up towards being semi-tropical. Is this decade really warmer?
Your instructors allowed you to just randomly read in the library? Perhaps your aged neurons have missed a few memories ;>
I'm also "old", and while my instructors wouldn't allow me to entirely skip a course, I did have a couple who gave me detailed independent research (which they graded). For example, I took a "Fortran" class where I learned Pascal (we had a CDC, a couple of different Pascal compilers, I had the original Wirth report and I had a bevy of coding assignments ... all of which he graded).
it was more work for both of us, but I was learning stuff I didn't already know. Since I was working in Aerospace already doing Fortran coding (and yes, it's not FORTRAN, not since the committee ruling in the 1990s; admittedly it was FORTRAN at the time under discussion ;>).
What I found most interesting was the way this particular professor made the call that I knew Fortran too well to take the course as given. He showed me a listing of one of his commerical programming gigs, and was talking me through the code. However, he made several statements which were false ... after the first one, I starting putting up a fuss ... which was the right move. If I'd kept my mouth shut, he said he would have concluded that I needed more instruction.
It's a rather good interview technique, can be used at higher levels of abstraction than just code.
Perhaps only old fogeys recall rabbit ear TV antennas for analogue TVs ... touching can improve or degrade signal. Depends on where, what frequencies, etc.
No matter how clever the engineering, there's no cheating the law of physics.
I always use a bluetooth headset and seldom hold the phone during calls; and use a case. So it all seemed like a tempest in a teacup to me.
Often reason people get involved in statistical analysis is there is a body of data, and no clue where to start ... as inhabitants of the information age, and cheap storage ... there's lots of material and often little clue or thought to what the stored data might mean.
http://rattle.togaware.com/ is a website dedicated to "rattle" which is an R package (and togaware has a PDF book that's a great introduction) to a GUI based datamining tool.
Very handy, and the book is very lucid.
Why are people assuming that hollywood films and a BBC series aren't compatible? There are only 10 or fewer episodes in a typical Beeb production ... leaving lots of time for other work.
That all of the really useful data tends to have infinite life (birthdate, SSN or equiv for non-US, place of birth) compounds the problem (the "use case" that comes to mind is some aged drive surfaces in the used parts market and some scofflaw procures it and uses it long after the breach itself).
Obviously, each organization should have their own ID numbers, and any given "customer" ID should be able to be associated with various time varying external credentials and really good stuff which isn't time varying shouldn't be in the hands of third parties.
Regulators (e.g. SOX, HIPPA, UK data protection act(s)) all seem to miss the boat about limiting the scope of breeches. Legislating that no breech ever occur is laudable, but impractical. So minimizing the harm done should be the focus.
Probably just showing my ignorance, but I thought the OP was asking about fake tats printed on a sleeve. Possibly for cheating on exams....
Could be "cool" in the right circles (anyone else recall the episode of Big Bang Theory where two of the cast went clubbing with sleeves?)
If the OP is serious about it, in addition to the photoshop etc. recommended ... a trial run with a Henna artist might be worthwhile.
Each to their own, if it's what you want do it whatever we /. folks say.
Is there some reason why lead lined evidence envelopes aren't widely distributed?
http://www.c-program.com/kt/reflections-on-trusting.html is worth another read. Apple can make a reasonable case that allowing other development tools in their little garden reduces their ability to ensure a secure system.
I concur with posters who observe that some languages do have more protections than others; but in the end the application programmer needs to be careful and security aware, and there has to be complete trust in every step of the processing from what the programmer writes to what is run on the device.
Now whether the loss of flexibility is worth having to trust only Apple is a reasonable policy question; but I can see why Apple might want to be draconian about this.
Hired might have been too strong a word. They are part of a University. It's quite easy to get someone to consult/kibbitz from other Departments. Even borrow a Graduate Student or two.
Of course, that usually results in more work, as the kibbitzers have the annoying tendency to point things out that were otherwise missed.
Note that the cited paper location is docs.sun.com; this version of the article has corrections and improvements from the original ACM paper. Sun has provided this to interested parties for 20odd years (I have no idea what they paid ACM for rights to distribute).
http://www.netlib.org/fdlibm/ is the Sun provided freely distributable libm that follows (in a roundabout way) from the paper.
I don't recall if K.C. Ng's terrific "infinite pi" code is included (it was in Sun's libm) which takes care of intel hw by doing the range reduction with enough bits for the particular argument to be nearly equivalent to infinite arithmetic.
Sun's floating point group did much to advance the state of the art in deployed and deployable computer arithmetic.
Kudos to the group (one hopes that Oracle will treat them with the respect they deserve)
B&N may well have been careful to have "firewalled" off the team that evaluated each of the readers (no doubt there were many potential suppliers). In fact, it would be surprising if a large and experienced company didn't take reasonable precautions regarding NDAs.
The various potential suppliers may individually and/or collectively feel miffed that they weren't selected. If they have acquired (or are in the process of acquiring) various patents they may well get some of the action in any event.
Of course, perhaps the Spring guys are Trolls or the B&N folks Evil Giants. This will only become known if the case goes all the way to Trial which is relatively rare.
OpenOffice is LGPL not GPL. While they are closely related, they are not the same.
The current (albeit non-x64) state of the art chip is already at 64 threads per chip (SPARC CMT) and multi-chip systems are possible. So Windows 7 is ready for a 4 chip system.
Of course, it will take awhile for the x64 family to catch up, but they will; and quite probably within the lifespan of Windows 7. So it's a sensible target ...
As others have noted, Solaris is far ahead on the scalability front ... but that really isn't the point. Microsoft is aiming for where they expect "desktop" computers to credibly be within the next few years, this is a big vote for multithreaded or multicore processors in the volume space. That is newsworthy.
Putting aside questions about the patent system...
I worked for a company which had a similar system for several years. But eventually reformed it.
1) Waiting until patent issuance for the biggest payoff will short change many (it can be years before issuance, people move on. Ex-employees typically don't get bonuses).
2) The bulk of the extra curricular work takes place putting together the patent application.
So I'd suggest a system where:
a) Thumbnail sketch of the idea to be filed internally and reviewed before more time is invested. No reward.
b) Approved ideas make it to preliminary filing. Small reward.
c) Full patent application submission, bulk of reward.
d) At patent issuance, a free plaque, small payment and award ceremony within the company.
it is probably overkill in terms of management complexity,
Really? It's management simplicity is what I've found most appealing.
In any case unless you're running openSolaris it isn't an option
While it's license isn't GPL compatible (hence the Linux issue) it is with BSD. ZFS has been showing up in BSD variants.
"Much more important today is AMD's patent cross license agreements with Intel."
Indeed, I did not mean to suggest that things have remained as they were in the 8086 days; just provided the origin. There is a long and tangled history of licensing between AMD and Intel. No doubt the best bits aren't public info anyway (although I suppose combing through the various legal filings in various suits could prove educational).
The particular rumor of NV entering the CPU market goes back several years. as an example.
has dclarke's story.
As ZaMoose observed; without any clues as to the backstory.
Given the cost of developing a full custom microprocessor (several tens of millions of dollars) including the complexity of verification ... surely a Legal Plan would have proceeded either development or acquisition.
In the olden days, chip consumers insisted on a second source. AMD was annointed as Intel's second source so that Intel could sell to such folks (like the US government of yesteryear).
Blastwave is off the air. It has largely been replaced for the moment by :
There is an elaborate story behind this (isn't there always). The solarisx86 yahoo group has discussions entitled: "[solarisx86] Blastwave gone?" and "[solarisx86] All assets of Blastwave frozen.." which may be of interest.
""it scales far better" in general is as absurd as it is patently untrue."
How so? With the exception of the SGI implementation, I don't don't of Linux distros out of the box that scale to 100+ processors well (indeed, the usual approach is to run multiple instances of the kernel on each processor or so on large ensembles). When discussing an OS, scalability is usually meant in terms of how the OS itself scales ... not how one's applications can be configured to scale.
So I think the poster's claim that Solaris scales far better is true FOR THE OS itself.
Now, whether THAT matters to your workload (or if your workload scales across many processors via multiple OS instances just fine) is another question entirely.
If the rule where that a vendor would have to give their rights away, they would never "abandon" it ... merely raise the price to some incredibly absurd level per copy.
Just what about Ada is restricted by licensing? There is a longstanding gnu project GNAT http://www.gnu.org/software/gnat/gnat.html