One thing I know is that their optimization routine rocks.
Well, optimization routines can be divided into two parts: One is architecture independent (which involves simplification of AST and stuff) and the other is architecture independent. IIRC, their architecture-independent optimization was really great. It can correctly detect redundant codes and simplify it.
I used to be an ASM programmer as I was a performance freak. When I compile my C/C++ program using Watcom, it almost always produced near optimized (i.e. the "gold-standard") asm code. I knew this when I dumped out the assembler code.
I knew that their arch-independent optimization is really good because when you add things such as calculation of busy expression (i.e. expression that you used over and over) and stuff, it correctly cache the calculation before hand. So, you will save a tremendous time, especially if you do it in a loop. The problem was (again, IIRC) that was not perfect and some of the expressions are left undetected. But, that's probably a bug.
IMHO, arch-independent optimization play a lot greater role than the arch-dependent one (ok, some of you may not agree with me). Things like peephole optimization is great, but is of limited usefulness once you apply the correct transformation of the AST and other internal structures.
This is also partly why Intel optimizing compiler is also great. I heard that some of the folks are doing partial evaluation on the code -- which can greatly help speeding up the result. The idea was: If you use a particular routine (like function) only with a handful of value range, it will automatically create a specialized and optimized function for you exploiting the nature of the input values. For example: You probably have seen the routine that calculates (-1)^n used in a routine that calculates x^y. The optimizing compiler thus should be able to generate: return (n && 1 == 0) ? 1 : -1; instead of the looping. This only involves some (expensive) static analyses computations. I have yet to see this in other compilers.
Therefore, this release is really really good thing. I hope that GNU compiler teams would pickup some of their good stuff.
Well, you can put a drum inside. Drill two holes on it and plug hoses to the hole. Make sure it won't leak. Then, to simulate the stream, connect the hoses to...
SIGGRAPH is the very biggest research conference of anything.
Correction: SIGGRAPH is for graphics only because SIGGRAPH stands for Special Interest Group for Graphics. SIGGRAPH is one of ACM's special interest groups. There are a lot others like SIGPLAN (Programming Language), SIGKDD (Knowledge Discovery in Data), and so forth. Click here for details.
Don't forget that we still have IEEE and other independent research communities. They too make significant breakthrough although often unheard of.
As the worldwide recession continues in 2003, budget pressures will help move the world from expensive SysAdmin-intensive proprietary solutions to Linux. Even the last two holdouts, Sun and Microsoft, have grudgingly started to embrace Linux.
I'm not a bandwidth provider nor work there, but I guess infrastructure maintenance cost a lot, esp for making sure miles of cable stay connected and be upgraded when needed.
The problem is that if all research funds require no foreign citizens at all, then there are consequences that will backfire very badly, such as:
1. It will decimate the number of graduate students.
Note that there is a significant portion of foreign graduate students, most of which are hanging about the funds for their TAs or RAs. Cutting their funds simply send them fleeing.
2. This will in turn bring many research projects ground to halt.
Since there are a lot less graduate students, researches will ultimately understaffed, and thus will bring it to halt. Of course this will recover as the animo from US students to continue to graduate studies grows.
3. This makes other countries advance in their research.
See #1. Lots of other countries like Germany, Australia, UK, and so on still use foreign grad students to do research. Not to mention if China will follow the same path.
1) The primary indication of whether a new program is a derivative work is whether the source code of the original program was used, modified, translated or otherwise changed in any way to create the new program. If not, then I would argue that it is not a derivative work.
This I agree.
2) The meaning of derivative work will not be broadened to include software created by linking to library programs that were designed and intended to be used as library programs. When a company releases a scientific subroutine library, or a library of objects, for example, people who merely use the library, unmodified, perhaps without even looking at the source code, are not thereby creating derivative works of the library.
If I understand correctly, this is expressly prohibited in GPL, but is allowed in LGPL. So, I disagree with his point here. If we allow this, companies will extort this and take advantages as much as possible -- which, of course we don't want.
3) Derivative works are not going to encompass plugins and device drivers that are designed to be linked from off-the-shelf, unmodified, programs. If a GPL-covered program is designed to accept separately designed plugin programs, you don't create a derivative work by merely running such a plugin under it, even if you have to look at the source code to learn how.
I think this is also expressly prohibited in GPL, but allowed in LGPL. So, I believe plugin system should also be discouraged in GPL, otherwise it will make a "major loophole" (like making a main program out of a plugin).
4) In most cases we shouldn't care how the linkage between separate programs was technically done, unless that fact helps determine whether the creators of the programs designed them with some apparent common understanding of what a derivative work would look like. We should consider subtle market-based factors as indicators of intent, such as whether the resulting program is being sold as an ``enhanced'' version of the original, or whether the original was designed and advertised to be improvable ``like a library''.
See reason #2 & #3. If we allow companies sell enhanced versions of GPL programs: We're in a *deep* trouble. Imagine MS taking Advanced Gnome for their own... Golly!
Slashdot Mirror
Aren't there enough papers already on IPv6? Especially on purpose #1 (i.e. increasing the internet experience).
For #2 (i.e. promoting widespread), it's highly debatable, IMHO...
One thing I know is that their optimization routine rocks.
Well, optimization routines can be divided into two parts: One is architecture independent (which involves simplification of AST and stuff) and the other is architecture independent. IIRC, their architecture-independent optimization was really great. It can correctly detect redundant codes and simplify it.
I used to be an ASM programmer as I was a performance freak. When I compile my C/C++ program using Watcom, it almost always produced near optimized (i.e. the "gold-standard") asm code. I knew this when I dumped out the assembler code.
I knew that their arch-independent optimization is really good because when you add things such as calculation of busy expression (i.e. expression that you used over and over) and stuff, it correctly cache the calculation before hand. So, you will save a tremendous time, especially if you do it in a loop. The problem was (again, IIRC) that was not perfect and some of the expressions are left undetected. But, that's probably a bug.
IMHO, arch-independent optimization play a lot greater role than the arch-dependent one (ok, some of you may not agree with me). Things like peephole optimization is great, but is of limited usefulness once you apply the correct transformation of the AST and other internal structures.
This is also partly why Intel optimizing compiler is also great. I heard that some of the folks are doing partial evaluation on the code -- which can greatly help speeding up the result. The idea was: If you use a particular routine (like function) only with a handful of value range, it will automatically create a specialized and optimized function for you exploiting the nature of the input values. For example: You probably have seen the routine that calculates (-1)^n used in a routine that calculates x^y. The optimizing compiler thus should be able to generate: return (n && 1 == 0) ? 1 : -1; instead of the looping. This only involves some (expensive) static analyses computations. I have yet to see this in other compilers.
Therefore, this release is really really good thing. I hope that GNU compiler teams would pickup some of their good stuff.
So, you guys are posting to Slashdot to test how your multiplayer module would scale up, eh? :-) Well, you got it... Time to get to more work, guys...
I heard that the main villain is a huge troll dancing like a monkey and scream: "Developers! Developers! Developers!".
If it happened after the slashdot story, then the culprit is not slashdotting, but Preemptive Slashdotting...
Let's give a good Slashdotting before the Observatory passed away...
IMHO, considering what Microsoft has done in the past, the right word here is not "use", but "cannibalize".
Does this include spelling abusers?
No... Since sometimes the editors also troll, *we* got the pay... eh, Taco? ;-) Just kidding...
I, for one, am interested in finding out if it can be changed from suck to blow.
And this masterpiece is already invented, O Great One. It is called Microsoft Vacuum Cleaner.
Well, you can put a drum inside. Drill two holes on it and plug hoses to the hole. Make sure it won't leak. Then, to simulate the stream, connect the hoses to...
The car's radiator... of course... ;-)
If you want a little character, that should be 2.035e-2 Library of Congresses per cm^2. ;-)
Why should I apply patches to myself? There's no Windows inside... Oh wait...
SIGGRAPH is the very biggest research conference of anything.
Correction: SIGGRAPH is for graphics only because SIGGRAPH stands for Special Interest Group for Graphics. SIGGRAPH is one of ACM's special interest groups. There are a lot others like SIGPLAN (Programming Language), SIGKDD (Knowledge Discovery in Data), and so forth. Click here for details.
Don't forget that we still have IEEE and other independent research communities. They too make significant breakthrough although often unheard of.
Can be found here.
Actually two...
As the worldwide recession continues in 2003, budget pressures will help move the world from expensive SysAdmin-intensive proprietary solutions to Linux. Even the last two holdouts, Sun and Microsoft, have grudgingly started to embrace Linux.
I'm not a bandwidth provider nor work there, but I guess infrastructure maintenance cost a lot, esp for making sure miles of cable stay connected and be upgraded when needed.
You may want to read this book and see it yourself whether data mining would make a breakthrough in the future.
But the last two points are just "Low points of the year" and "Hope for the future".
The lowpoints... you guess it, the great sham by Victor Ninov on Ununoctium.
The hope is... more women in physics! Oh the joy! You guys in Physics should be happier now... :-) If only this happens as well in Computer Science...
The problem is that if all research funds require no foreign citizens at all, then there are consequences that will backfire very badly, such as:
1. It will decimate the number of graduate students.
Note that there is a significant portion of foreign graduate students, most of which are hanging about the funds for their TAs or RAs. Cutting their funds simply send them fleeing.
2. This will in turn bring many research projects ground to halt.
Since there are a lot less graduate students, researches will ultimately understaffed, and thus will bring it to halt. Of course this will recover as the animo from US students to continue to graduate studies grows.
3. This makes other countries advance in their research.
See #1. Lots of other countries like Germany, Australia, UK, and so on still use foreign grad students to do research. Not to mention if China will follow the same path.
AOL CDs? No, they'll confuse that with frisbees. :-)
The problem is that Rosen propose 4 points:
1) The primary indication of whether a new program is a derivative work is whether the source code of the original program was used, modified, translated or otherwise changed in any way to create the new program. If not, then I would argue that it is not a derivative work.
This I agree.
2) The meaning of derivative work will not be broadened to include software created by linking to library programs that were designed and intended to be used as library programs. When a company releases a scientific subroutine library, or a library of objects, for example, people who merely use the library, unmodified, perhaps without even looking at the source code, are not thereby creating derivative works of the library.
If I understand correctly, this is expressly prohibited in GPL, but is allowed in LGPL. So, I disagree with his point here. If we allow this, companies will extort this and take advantages as much as possible -- which, of course we don't want.
3) Derivative works are not going to encompass plugins and device drivers that are designed to be linked from off-the-shelf, unmodified, programs. If a GPL-covered program is designed to accept separately designed plugin programs, you don't create a derivative work by merely running such a plugin under it, even if you have to look at the source code to learn how.
I think this is also expressly prohibited in GPL, but allowed in LGPL. So, I believe plugin system should also be discouraged in GPL, otherwise it will make a "major loophole" (like making a main program out of a plugin).
4) In most cases we shouldn't care how the linkage between separate programs was technically done, unless that fact helps determine whether the creators of the programs designed them with some apparent common understanding of what a derivative work would look like. We should consider subtle market-based factors as indicators of intent, such as whether the resulting program is being sold as an ``enhanced'' version of the original, or whether the original was designed and advertised to be improvable ``like a library''.
See reason #2 & #3. If we allow companies sell enhanced versions of GPL programs: We're in a *deep* trouble. Imagine MS taking Advanced Gnome for their own... Golly!
Stealth Force Beta was a secret society...
Now, they're Slashdotted! Nowhere to hide! LOL
Groups of FBI, CIA, WhatHaveYou are coming... Dum dum dum
So... according to the webpage, the all the 5 tips are summarized as follows:
Please try the following:
Gee... many thanks Slashdot!