"Why is memory usage increasing so much in recent years?"
It's always been increasing. There's nobody tracking it (maybe; I'm sure the interwebs can find someone going all OCD over it) as there's no Moore's Law for Memory Usage to be kowtowed to every time it increases, but the design of OO code libraries means that enormous things can be hidden behind a simple instantiation.
The solution is more orthogonality, but software is fairly fractal, so if your program has a very rich feature set (and browsers are tantamount to the kitchen sink, to the point they're ready to supplant the OS) it will access most of the available functionality of the system you're running on and the libraries installed in it. And it will create and retain lots of internal data for easy access while the program is running. Huge buffers and lists.
Running things that open several fully-featured windows in process-per-window modes just means that you can't reuse code between object instances, so you end up with duplicates of big libraries and data sets for each of those domain instances.
As for Firefox itself, it seems to have the most bloating when loading large Javascripted pages (Facebook game apps are possibly the worst offenders, even ones with pathetically simple user-interface semantics). Not sure how much of that Mozilla devs can cure.
Anonymous doesn't have "a leader". It has a communications trope, and the "leader" of any particular act taken in its name is whoever gets the ball rolling within that trope and causes those taking action to choose to attribute it to Anonymous.
Anonymous also doesn't really have "a future". Anonymity on the Internet isn't real. It's more like obscurity than anonymity. You can be tracked and located, and that's getting easier. Obscurity, however, only really works if you don't put a flashing light on your head. Which is the opposite of what participants in Anonymous' exploits do. So in order for Anonymous to survive, it needs to (a) start an internet that isn't traceable, or (b) stop doing things that draw attention to itself. Either of which means it no longer exists, becuase (a) they'll be the only ones on their private network and (b) if they don't do anything they stop existing.
And then/. will get back its crown as the most powerful generator of DDoSes in the two universes.
no, they patented a means for converting data from a non-profitable form to a profitable form. which is the whole point of protecting the idea.
pure math doesn't do that, ordinarily. i can't patent the concept of the venn diagram, but i can patent all means of using venn diagrams automatically in computation.
They didn't patent math. They patented a process for reducing the search set of a large database using a method involving a certain sort of fuzzy pattern matching. The fact that they can model that in math is irrelevant, except that it's the necessary to use that math to describe how it works in a patent application, though it's by no means sufficient to use only math to describe the entire invention.
Slashdot Mirror
"Why is memory usage increasing so much in recent years?"
It's always been increasing. There's nobody tracking it (maybe; I'm sure the interwebs can find someone going all OCD over it) as there's no Moore's Law for Memory Usage to be kowtowed to every time it increases, but the design of OO code libraries means that enormous things can be hidden behind a simple instantiation.
The solution is more orthogonality, but software is fairly fractal, so if your program has a very rich feature set (and browsers are tantamount to the kitchen sink, to the point they're ready to supplant the OS) it will access most of the available functionality of the system you're running on and the libraries installed in it. And it will create and retain lots of internal data for easy access while the program is running. Huge buffers and lists.
Running things that open several fully-featured windows in process-per-window modes just means that you can't reuse code between object instances, so you end up with duplicates of big libraries and data sets for each of those domain instances.
As for Firefox itself, it seems to have the most bloating when loading large Javascripted pages (Facebook game apps are possibly the worst offenders, even ones with pathetically simple user-interface semantics). Not sure how much of that Mozilla devs can cure.
void *myHeap = malloc( get_version() * 100 * MEG ).
Three opportunities to reduce total memory usage, there.
You're telling me 110 horses couldn't lift this thing?
Mythbusters isn't all that swift, sometimes.
And while helis use large blades, have you seen the load you can lift with that blade?
I'm not saying this guy's design will work, but your arguments against it aren't sufficient.
So you're saying (if d = density, weight = w, and downforce = f)
ceiling ~ d / (1/f) = d*f/w
so an increase in downforce results in an increase in ceiling?
Isn't that what I said?
Think about that again. Ducting increases thrust at any given density. Hence more altitude, if your limiting factor is density.
Regardless, this thing will go nowhere useful without a roll stabilizer.
unless it lost lift
those blades probably keep turning even when it grinds you into salsa
Is your average helicopter ducted? No? Then its aerodynamics are not the aerodynamic comparison you're looking for.
This thing is a lot lighter than your average helo, and the ducting makes it more efficient in generating downforce.
Which isn't to say its claim of 10 Kft isn't an unsupportable guess. Just that your arguments are not sufficient to refute it.
They just don't want us to know when Peak Force is really going to happen.
No, he was being sarcastic. I was disagreeing with him. So suck that back in.
Product idea: 5-Hour Force.
Number of working light sabers that exist: 0
Damn. Wish I'd filled out a grant application to get funding to study that for 8 years first. Oh well.
You're presuming to fit my motivations for replying to you into your own skewed little worldview.
Hypocrite.
Because you don't like Apple?
Dope.
So because of your fealty to Apple, you refuse to believe that this was a mistake. "Yeah, they meant to do that."
It's a valid argument.
Anonymous doesn't have "a leader". It has a communications trope, and the "leader" of any particular act taken in its name is whoever gets the ball rolling within that trope and causes those taking action to choose to attribute it to Anonymous.
Anonymous also doesn't really have "a future". Anonymity on the Internet isn't real. It's more like obscurity than anonymity. You can be tracked and located, and that's getting easier. Obscurity, however, only really works if you don't put a flashing light on your head. Which is the opposite of what participants in Anonymous' exploits do. So in order for Anonymous to survive, it needs to (a) start an internet that isn't traceable, or (b) stop doing things that draw attention to itself. Either of which means it no longer exists, becuase (a) they'll be the only ones on their private network and (b) if they don't do anything they stop existing.
And then /. will get back its crown as the most powerful generator of DDoSes in the two universes.
that is actually how you get right-hand/left-hand problems. lack of distributed connectivity.
Apple's gotten too big. It's got a major case of left-hand not knowing what right-hand is doing. It's almost a culture.
Anecdotes aren't facts?
Fascinating.
The government has free speech, too. If they want to let NBC produce their PSAs for free, they can.
So you have no answer and decide to support the luddites. Wh'eva.
There are birds everywhere, too, but unless you are very scientific in your approach, they will elude you.
I bet that's exactly the sound a TeV proton would make.
no, they patented a means for converting data from a non-profitable form to a profitable form. which is the whole point of protecting the idea.
pure math doesn't do that, ordinarily. i can't patent the concept of the venn diagram, but i can patent all means of using venn diagrams automatically in computation.
By your logic, all patents are invalid because they can't control a court.
Software isn't an algorithm. It's a device for controlling a computer.
They didn't patent math. They patented a process for reducing the search set of a large database using a method involving a certain sort of fuzzy pattern matching. The fact that they can model that in math is irrelevant, except that it's the necessary to use that math to describe how it works in a patent application, though it's by no means sufficient to use only math to describe the entire invention.