The dirty secret of parallel programming is that it's *NOT* so widely needed.
That's kind of begging the question, there.
Those who need it know they need it. Those who think it's neato-keen and want to play with it try to come up with ways to use that that are maybe not obvious, and for which it is maybe not even necessary. I've known about this at least since the first Thinking Machines came out and our school got one of the bigger ones, solved the problem they used in the grant proposal that paid for it in about a week, then realized they had a multi-million-dollar computer with nothing to do. Our best misuses of it involved animating the activity lights (TM's had some of the best blinkenlights ever put on a real-world box) and abusing the built-in inter-core routing algorithms to solve our problems, not so much pegging the performance meter on the actual mass of parallel cores.
I'm sure this still happens. I'm also sure that any computer you can buy at Best Buy this year will have 2 or 4 cores, and 99% of the people using it will have 0% of a clue how to leverage that, though the OS now has a better idea, and is running a metric assload of independent processes that need to spread around, so such a machine isn't a total waste.
he's saying there are lots of hard problems that are easy to parallelize, and also lots of hard problems that are hard to parallelize
there are probably some easy problems that are hard to parallelize but since they're easy nobody even thinks to bother
parallelization is itself an optimization, so when you start talking about optimizing after you've parallelized you've just gone back to the original problem
maybe what's needed is an architecture that is structured to handle P-complete problems, rather than single- or parallel-threaded problems
That's a different problem, related to the fact that people buy "parallel" but forget to read the part where it says "synchronize". It's kind of like not validating input, or ignoring return values. Not so much a pitfall as a failure to have basic skills.
The problem these folks are having is that they bought parallel but decided it just wasn't optimizing their stuff enough. It'd be really funny if they found they could optimize-away the parallelization, like, by precomputing certain results and using a lookup, or something. That's how the oldbies did it.
They are getting paid for my attention, and I am not. That's not "free". The cost of thing they give me is their payment for my attention, and yet it can not be worth what my attention is worth. So I'm still out something uncompensated.
It's utterly irrelevant where the food comes from. Utterly and totally. We've been eating animals forever, and knowing or not knowing what it looks like as it's dying doesn't make a rational case for vegetarianism, and watching it die doesn't rationalize breaking a vow of vegetarianism. Any human who can't stomach the sight of its food being made is ignoring the nature of the species. Any human who has to make up rationalizations for eating the way they do is confusing nutrition for faux humanitarianism.
How about if Zuckerberg spends some of his time worrying about people who are being forced into poverty by the system that makes it so easy for him to become blindingly wealthy with so little effort? That would be real humanitarianism.
You can use trademarks in articles that are published for profit without needing approval of the mark holder.
Depends entirely on what you're using it for.
A newspaper can write a negative article about McDonalds and use the trademarked McDonalds logo in the article without needing approval from the company and they could do nothing against it.
Yes, that's a simple example of fair use. But it can't write an article that's not really about McDonald's and use the McDonald's logo just to draw attention to it.
So if this is legit then selling a photo taken virtually anywhere in pubilc in the U.S. and much of the rest of the world would be a trademark violation.
No, only if you take a photo of something that is already trademarked and then publish it yourself for profit.
And only if the trademark owner considers it worse publicity than "bad publicity".
And yet we still see CNBC using that hackneyed shot of a "reporter" on the chit-strewn floor, looking up at the camera as bustling and hustling occurs around them.
I wonder if they've started bringing in their own slips of paper as props, and hiring extras ("must bring your own wing-tips") to create the activity.
I have no doubt that the entire scenario is a part of their elaborate scam to induce churn.
If you compare a 15 year old cheap-ass (at the time) laser printer to a cremé de la cremé inkjet printer of today
By "always" I meant "in all sane situations."
While you might accept a new, free inkjet in replacement for a low-end 1996 laser and consider it an upgrade, you would still take a 1996 HP LJ 4 over any modern inkjet, even if the inkjet was free. At least, I would.
My guy was a good progressive with moderateness in all the right places and a set of balls where it counted. If he was a puppet, then he was my puppet.
"a toner grain is a lot larger than the smallest drop of ink that can be sprayed onto the paper"
Are you speaking from knowledge of the nozzle diameter of inkjet printers?
Toner powder is minuscule; tens of microns, maybe in diameter.
Pretty sure to keep from spending 100 years per page, inkjet nozzles are not that small.
Wikipedia says a 600 dpi printer should spec 8-10 micron toner powder. Various sources show inkjet nozzles down to 20 microns, but point out that they work by spitting out a bigger droplet than their nozzle, that then spreads before hitting the paper to make a flat disc of ink much wider than the droplet. Toner powder would spread, too, but the disc radius would be proportional to the 3/2 power of the radius of the droplet or toner grain, so that makes the droplet spread a lot more than the toner spread.
Laser resolution is limited more by the size of the laser (which draws the page in electric charge on the drum) than it is on the size of the grains. Which is one reason that laser print always looks sharper than inkjet print.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude didn't think that throwing bombs was an inauthentic attempt at political speech enabled by technology?
Or was his point that we should regress even beyond the invention of explosives, or maybe fire?
Dude was a nutter. Nothing he said is credible, no matter how closely it might randomly match sapient expression.
What is best in science?
To crush your colleagues, see them refuted before you, and to hear the lamentation of their post-docs.
If anyone else can replicate it, she's vindicated. If nobody else can, it never happened.
The dirty secret of parallel programming is that it's *NOT* so widely needed.
That's kind of begging the question, there.
Those who need it know they need it. Those who think it's neato-keen and want to play with it try to come up with ways to use that that are maybe not obvious, and for which it is maybe not even necessary. I've known about this at least since the first Thinking Machines came out and our school got one of the bigger ones, solved the problem they used in the grant proposal that paid for it in about a week, then realized they had a multi-million-dollar computer with nothing to do. Our best misuses of it involved animating the activity lights (TM's had some of the best blinkenlights ever put on a real-world box) and abusing the built-in inter-core routing algorithms to solve our problems, not so much pegging the performance meter on the actual mass of parallel cores.
I'm sure this still happens. I'm also sure that any computer you can buy at Best Buy this year will have 2 or 4 cores, and 99% of the people using it will have 0% of a clue how to leverage that, though the OS now has a better idea, and is running a metric assload of independent processes that need to spread around, so such a machine isn't a total waste.
is anything but simple, and moreover cannot be anything but simple!
parse error
And yet people constantly get these details wrong in practice.
If they can't get those right innately, then they never even started out to do parallel programming, they just stuck a fork in their execution flow.
he's saying there are lots of hard problems that are easy to parallelize, and also lots of hard problems that are hard to parallelize
there are probably some easy problems that are hard to parallelize but since they're easy nobody even thinks to bother
parallelization is itself an optimization, so when you start talking about optimizing after you've parallelized you've just gone back to the original problem
maybe what's needed is an architecture that is structured to handle P-complete problems, rather than single- or parallel-threaded problems
That's a different problem, related to the fact that people buy "parallel" but forget to read the part where it says "synchronize". It's kind of like not validating input, or ignoring return values. Not so much a pitfall as a failure to have basic skills.
The problem these folks are having is that they bought parallel but decided it just wasn't optimizing their stuff enough. It'd be really funny if they found they could optimize-away the parallelization, like, by precomputing certain results and using a lookup, or something. That's how the oldbies did it.
Free, as in beer?
or Free, as in time?
They are getting paid for my attention, and I am not. That's not "free". The cost of thing they give me is their payment for my attention, and yet it can not be worth what my attention is worth. So I'm still out something uncompensated.
It's utterly irrelevant where the food comes from. Utterly and totally. We've been eating animals forever, and knowing or not knowing what it looks like as it's dying doesn't make a rational case for vegetarianism, and watching it die doesn't rationalize breaking a vow of vegetarianism. Any human who can't stomach the sight of its food being made is ignoring the nature of the species. Any human who has to make up rationalizations for eating the way they do is confusing nutrition for faux humanitarianism.
How about if Zuckerberg spends some of his time worrying about people who are being forced into poverty by the system that makes it so easy for him to become blindingly wealthy with so little effort? That would be real humanitarianism.
You can use trademarks in articles that are published for profit without needing approval of the mark holder.
Depends entirely on what you're using it for.
A newspaper can write a negative article about McDonalds and use the trademarked McDonalds logo in the article without needing approval from the company and they could do nothing against it.
Yes, that's a simple example of fair use. But it can't write an article that's not really about McDonald's and use the McDonald's logo just to draw attention to it.
Italian Law.
Could that be the original oxymoron?
Political parties.
They know what they're doing to us, and, deliberately, they do it regardless.
So if this is legit then selling a photo taken virtually anywhere in pubilc in the U.S. and much of the rest of the world would be a trademark violation.
No, only if you take a photo of something that is already trademarked and then publish it yourself for profit.
And only if the trademark owner considers it worse publicity than "bad publicity".
And yet we still see CNBC using that hackneyed shot of a "reporter" on the chit-strewn floor, looking up at the camera as bustling and hustling occurs around them.
I wonder if they've started bringing in their own slips of paper as props, and hiring extras ("must bring your own wing-tips") to create the activity.
I have no doubt that the entire scenario is a part of their elaborate scam to induce churn.
Or this ass-hat.
If you compare a 15 year old cheap-ass (at the time) laser printer to a cremé de la cremé inkjet printer of today
By "always" I meant "in all sane situations."
While you might accept a new, free inkjet in replacement for a low-end 1996 laser and consider it an upgrade, you would still take a 1996 HP LJ 4 over any modern inkjet, even if the inkjet was free. At least, I would.
My guy was a good progressive with moderateness in all the right places and a set of balls where it counted. If he was a puppet, then he was my puppet.
haha
console makers
PCs rule.
Haha. You voted for any of these incompetent clowns?
The guy I voted for got beat by money that was backing a puppet.
"a toner grain is a lot larger than the smallest drop of ink that can be sprayed onto the paper"
Are you speaking from knowledge of the nozzle diameter of inkjet printers?
Toner powder is minuscule; tens of microns, maybe in diameter.
Pretty sure to keep from spending 100 years per page, inkjet nozzles are not that small.
Wikipedia says a 600 dpi printer should spec 8-10 micron toner powder. Various sources show inkjet nozzles down to 20 microns, but point out that they work by spitting out a bigger droplet than their nozzle, that then spreads before hitting the paper to make a flat disc of ink much wider than the droplet. Toner powder would spread, too, but the disc radius would be proportional to the 3/2 power of the radius of the droplet or toner grain, so that makes the droplet spread a lot more than the toner spread.
Laser resolution is limited more by the size of the laser (which draws the page in electric charge on the drum) than it is on the size of the grains. Which is one reason that laser print always looks sharper than inkjet print.
Searches for "IBM PC-RT turbo button" on Google are already turning up this thread.
Answer: Google is lurking on /.
Also, if the RT has no turbo button, what's it doing with a speed indicator?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/31231773@N02/4468867321/in/set-72157623718669848
Inkjets went out with the Turbo switch on the IBM PC-RT.
If you want clean results, get a shark with a fricken' laser-printer on its head.
The Cone of Silence was never really all that soundproof, either. Nor was it at all cone-like.
Okay, so, then, what are the teachers in the Charlie Brown specials saying?
Huh? Mr. Smarty-pants?