Isn't it interresting how graphics adapters use the fastest memory available these days, not the CPU. Not counting L1/2/3 caches that is...
Not really that interesting, quite trivial reallly, that's where the pressure is at the moment.
The bottle neck in 3D is still the graphics accelerators. There's not nearly as big a drive towards more power in the CPU market simply because smp and cluster solutions provide more bang for your buck.
I am a little surprised at the moment though, how come we haven't seen more solutions like the two SLI-interconnected Voodoo 2 cards. Just as with CPUs, these days it should most certainly be cheaper to tackle the problem with cards that have several GPUs or other such approaches. I mean, 3D rendering and concurrent computing is practically a match made in heaven.
People like to classify things. We live on a planet; it would be nice to know what that was.
And as if making up an arbitrary differentiation between an asteroid based on it's diametre or mass is gonna make us any wiser.
I inderstand that "gray areas" are unwelcome, but in most cases I don't quite agree with people's tendency to overcategorize things. It's sometimes more constructive to see the common nominators, that's what science usually is about, i.e. to understand that asteroids and planets have shitloads in common, but perhaps one day we know more about them to tell them apart better, say, based on how they were formed or wether they're on chaotic orbits around their sun or some other ideas.
Besides the quote in the end of the article puts it well: "It's way too early to define a planet," he said. "Even though we have now found over 100 of them, these are still early days in planet hunting."
I'm sorry I came off trollish but I just don't see why every patent is seen as evil on Slashdot.
Not all are seen evil, but given what options you have on implementing a web search engine this patent is way out of line. You simply have to score pages somehow and granting someone the sole permission to use interlinkage is plain rubbish.
Though I must admit that given that such patents are granted I think we'll be better off when google holds that patent rather than MS, but still...
What I quoted was your choice of words really.
"They thought of a way to improve upon an existing invention."
That alone should _NOT_ be basis for a patent, but I'm sure you agree with me here anyway...;)
They thought of a way to improve upon an existing invention. They were the first to do it. They want to make money from their idea. It's only logical for them to seek a patent. I guess congratulations are in order!
Yeah, that's a constructive way to look at it. Thank god that hasn't been the mentality when people have been working on, say, RFCs.
That's just great. If this is gonna be anything like the db benchmarking boom a year ago in lkml for the new vm which resulted some increase in db benches and fscked up the interactivity completely (by being a really happy page thrower), we're looking for a real nice desktop scheduler...:)
Seriously though, Morton's a great chap and one of the few that has really worked for also a desktopwise usable kernel (low latency patches, lock breaking patches, and the list would go on forever).
The JMP instruction is implemented at "runtime" during RNA splicing, and is AAGGU or CAGGU. The end of the actual coding sequence is the AG, and the GU is the start of the intron. 20 to 50 bases upstream of the end of the intron there is a special branch sequence CUPuAPy (where Pu==A or G, and Py==C or U) that must be present for the spliceosome complex to latch onto. The actual end of the intron occurs at the location of a "CAGG" sequence where the last G is part of the next exon, and this is where it makes the second cut before splicing.
So it isn't a real "JMP", it's more like/* and */.
Err, what about jumping backwards? Don't tell me that's just future copies of the sequence... because without conditional branches it doesn't seem all that usefull to me.
If your USB peripherals didn't work properly, its because they were poorly designed. This has nothing to do with the choice of using an FPGA to implement the interface.
With programmable hardware the hardware engineers won't have the same scrutiny in testing as they would with hardwired hardware. Period.
So what, one might say? Programmable hardware can be upgraded afterwards. So isn't that a good thing? Depends on who you ask I suppose.
My stand on this would be NO, because I couldn't do jack shit for it incase something doesn't work. From a software developers point of view it's essential that you can trust your platform (os and compiler) and most importantly if you think there's bugs there, you can look it up from the source and try finding it. I doubt that I'd have the possibility of doing so with programmable hardware.
No, clean CPU specs for me please. Let it be shite like the 386 we're still mostly struggling with, but atleast I have good specs for that and ALL of the software on top of it is GPL'd. Thank you.
Besides if you think of BIOSes and HW drivers in general. They're so shite that linux and many other OSes won't even use them. Thank god one can bypass them in most of the cases. People have been asking bios sources, but in vain. My guess is that what we have with bioses now is what we'll be facing with future programmable hardware. Crap and proprietary. I wonder why M$ hasn't gotten into that yet...
Actually I found a site a little after posting that where there was some other russian chess expert's comments on the game aswell as those of Kasparov's himself. Delightful read, I just can't find that link anymore.
If I remember correctly, that naturally (given that it's only move 7 or so, and these guys play from 10 to 15 moves from the opening book) was part of an opening line that just hadn't been played in tournaments for a while. I guess Garri chose that because it's relatively aggressive given it's a closed opening and the computer just might not be at it's best in it.
But most importantly I think the computer were prepared for Kasparov to begin with E4, rather than naything else, so to begin with the queen's gambit was in any case a marvellous move from him...
That really is interesting game. I'm no chess pro, but the g4 probable put pressure on the knight in f6. One thing I do know for sure is that with the level that these "guys" play in, it's extremely difficult to analyze their moves because their thoughts are so many moves ahead that it's impossible for me atleast to try to think of the alternatives move sequences.
Nonetheless it's nice to see how it's apparently ok to keep the c-bishob inside the pawns when playing queen's gambit. (i.e. playing e3 before moving c-bishop)
When you say "USians" are you referring to citizens of the United States of Mexico, or the United States of America? If you meant the former, they're called Mexicans. If you meant the latter, they're called Americans.
And when you call your air force "US air force", do you not know wether is that of USA or Mexico ?
Come'on, there's no practical abiquity in "USian".
OSes and programming languages have some superficial features in common, but they are totally different concepts. This is so manifestly obvious that I'm not even sure how to argue the point.
Your lack of ability to argue it kinda shows how you were also unable to see the similarities.
Naturally they're not the same thing, but they have a lot more things in common than "superficial features".
The interface that an OS offers is exactly the same as with languages, i.e. system calls. Granted that there's no lexical syntax involved, but there's a shit load of rules how you must use them, just any other API out there.
There'd be a ton more to say, about PL intermediate representations and functional binary programs within an os etc. But I'll just say that try remember what Turing et al taught us of computing theory. Where the HW is a turing machine so is an OS.
And I also disagree with the mythical man-month remark. The other nine should have their license to code revoked.
While this may be conceptually true, there are different considerations involved when picking an OS and a language. A programming language is more like a tool that is selected because it is good for a particular operation.
The operating system, on the other hand, is typically only one per machine and performance and stability might be the major considerations (other than compatibility with the popular applications around!)
I disagree with you there, and I think you didn't think that through yourself. Currently mainstream OSs are designed and optimized for common case. But as we already see, we have demands like Real Time, high throughput and good interactivity that aren't really met by main-stream OS.
A lot of people have been asking that such decisions would be left tunable in linux for example. Last fall during the quest for high throughput and all those db benchmarks resulted in extremely POOR desktop feel. Software compilation in another window jammed your editor for example, which for a desktop developer is something you never want to be face to face with. Even now the only way to achieve good feel with 2.4 is to buy more memory and turn off swap all together. Naturally that nullifies all the benefits that the "clever" mm does for throughput in linux. (for the record 2.5 behave a lot better)
In any case the language selection like you said is alread taking place also with OSes. Neither Linux nor Windows is suitable for hard real time for example.
Re:Karma whoring...
on
SAUNAAB
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Get yer mirror here [nowhere.nu].
That really _is_ Karma whoring. I'm inclined to think that the CERN web server could handle that part of the/. crowd that might be interested in saabs and/or sauna, e.g. none of the USians.:)
This is what you get when you have a high-unemployment rate in the tech business...
Driving around in new Saabs and Jaguars. Hmmm, perhaps I should quit my job, too, and get a decent car like that and start drinking beer and going to sauna...
Nah man, that's what you get with Cern scientists now that all the elementary particles have been discovered.
"One of the earliest types of measurement concerned that of length. These measurements were usually based on parts of the body. A well documented example (the first) is the Egyptian cubit which was derived from the length of the arm from the elbow to the outstretched finger tips. By 2500 BC this had been standardised in a royal master cubit made of black marble (about 52 cm). This cubit was divided into 28 digits (roughly a finger width) which could be further divided into fractional parts, the smallest of these being only just over a millimetre."
And someone reports the information density using this kind of a measure?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to flame here, but without reading the article, due to the very same reasons, I'm willing to bet my right testicle that it's made by US "scientist".
If you've been served with a subpoena for documents, you can't destroy them, even if your policy is to dispose of them (I have another post around here that doesn't make that clear, so there you have it). So, yes, you are legally liable for obstruction of justice if you don't stop the cronjob.
But you failed to see the idea the original poster had in mind. He asked something like "exactly how fast are you supposed to run to the machine room"?
Now there is a gray area there no doubt, and the essential question at hand was "What is the burden of proof on the prosecutor in such a case?"
The author is German, as you can tell from the ".de" domain, and hence probably not a native English speaker.
And that's just fine, I pointed that out because real scientists, German and others alike, that make publications to scientific journals must use good grammar.
I know that judging a web page based on it's grammar is not really justifiable, but in this case it was one of many reasons that should've hinted the slashdot editors in the first place that this was nothing but a hoax of some sort. And not something to be taken seriously.
I read it, and I don't buy a word of it. The grammar is faulty. Lay+out is make-believe at most. Pictures are from some first anatomy book. No references, just some weird hypothesis withou any proofs. Sounds like a hoax if I ever saw one.
Besides he even fails to mention most Fourier transform based codecs work. They do not even fullfill the persumptions of his hypothesis, because their main size reductions are based on sliced away frequencies outside the scope of our hearing.
But for those that do, it is important that they receive some sort of carrot to keep them motivated. If this means charging for academic journals, then perhaps that's the way to go about it.
Bollocks, it's little that the article writer gets compared to the publishing houses. Besides, because they're commercial publications some of poorer people in this world may not have the access for such publications.
This has been a long time coming and I'm sure all scientists will embrace this model. It's the parasitic publishers that will do what they can to prevent this.
This is not that far from artists vs record companies dispute....
I for one don't want the linux distributions to become any more Windows clones than they already have.
People are praising new KDE and Gnome developement with phrases like "It's just like Windows". We should be out there to make the software _WE_WANT_, not to mimic microsoft stuff, just like Linus doesn't give a fsck wether more or less poeple start using the kernel. He's just on his mission to build the OS kernel he wants.
This is becoming an issue. More and more fscked up features are creeping in while good found-to-be-powerfull features are being neglected. I guess soon the developers will, once again, have to swap their OSs to something not so bloated, built with love, not to impress others in first glance, but to be be found powerful when really used.
I guess it's a nice thing that shellsort is getting improved, and I do realize that this is great for genetic research, but, pardon me for being an uneducated ignorant bastard, does it have any practical value, seeing as quicksort is much faster than shellsort? Or am I wrong?
Quicksort is good for a lot of cases, but not for all. Yet one more good example (not mentioned here yet) would be the presense of knowledge or how unsorted things really are. Meaning that if you know something extra about the "unsorted" state of the data quicksort can be outperformed easily.
Classic example is to arrange bank payments based on the actual pruchase date using the credict card. As each store sends the bill with some variation the bills arrive in time unsorted. On the average they're still almost sorted, but not quite. For such a case quicksort would perform quite horribly in respect to what could be done.
True randomness is far more seldom encountered, thus other means for sorting can also be implemented more often that common people think.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't it interresting how graphics adapters use the fastest memory available these days, not the CPU. Not counting L1/2/3 caches that is...
Not really that interesting, quite trivial reallly, that's where the pressure is at the moment.
The bottle neck in 3D is still the graphics accelerators. There's not nearly as big a drive towards more power in the CPU market simply because smp and cluster solutions provide more bang for your buck.
I am a little surprised at the moment though, how come we haven't seen more solutions like the two SLI-interconnected Voodoo 2 cards. Just as with CPUs, these days it should most certainly be cheaper to tackle the problem with cards that have several GPUs or other such approaches. I mean, 3D rendering and concurrent computing is practically a match made in heaven.
From the article:
People like to classify things. We live on a planet; it would be nice to know what that was.
And as if making up an arbitrary differentiation between an asteroid based on it's diametre or mass is gonna make us any wiser.
I inderstand that "gray areas" are unwelcome, but in most cases I don't quite agree with people's tendency to overcategorize things. It's sometimes more constructive to see the common nominators, that's what science usually is about, i.e. to understand that asteroids and planets have shitloads in common, but perhaps one day we know more about them to tell them apart better, say, based on how they were formed or wether they're on chaotic orbits around their sun or some other ideas.
Besides the quote in the end of the article puts it well: "It's way too early to define a planet," he said. "Even though we have now found over 100 of them, these are still early days in planet hunting."
...someone to hack the GL drivers for Xbox. Running opengl apps under linux in Xbox without a single game bought is the way to do it...
Think of plastic which was invented totally by accident or how luck played such a massive role in the discovery of penicillin.
This is besides the point, but yeah, wouldn't it have been fabulous if those guys had patented those inventions...
I'm sorry I came off trollish but I just don't see why every patent is seen as evil on Slashdot.
;)
Not all are seen evil, but given what options you have on implementing a web search engine this patent is way out of line. You simply have to score pages somehow and granting someone the sole permission to use interlinkage is plain rubbish.
Though I must admit that given that such patents are granted I think we'll be better off when google holds that patent rather than MS, but still...
What I quoted was your choice of words really.
"They thought of a way to improve upon an existing invention."
That alone should _NOT_ be basis for a patent, but I'm sure you agree with me here anyway...
They thought of a way to improve upon an existing invention. They were the first to do it. They want to make money from their idea. It's only logical for them to seek a patent. I guess congratulations are in order!
Yeah, that's a constructive way to look at it. Thank god that hasn't been the mentality when people have been working on, say, RFCs.
Nice trolling though...
That's just great. If this is gonna be anything like the db benchmarking boom a year ago in lkml for the new vm which resulted some increase in db benches and fscked up the interactivity completely (by being a really happy page thrower), we're looking for a real nice desktop scheduler... :)
Seriously though, Morton's a great chap and one of the few that has really worked for also a desktopwise usable kernel (low latency patches, lock breaking patches, and the list would go on forever).
I can barely wait for 61-AS to compile...
how do they make "JMP" instructions in DNA?
/* and */.
The JMP instruction is implemented at "runtime" during RNA splicing, and is AAGGU or CAGGU. The end of the actual coding sequence is the AG, and the GU is the start of the intron.
20 to 50 bases upstream of the end of the intron there is a special branch sequence CUPuAPy (where Pu==A or G, and Py==C or U) that must be present for the spliceosome complex to latch onto. The actual end of the intron occurs at the location of a "CAGG" sequence where the last G is part of the next exon, and this is where it makes the second cut before splicing.
So it isn't a real "JMP", it's more like
Err, what about jumping backwards? Don't tell me that's just future copies of the sequence... because without conditional branches it doesn't seem all that usefull to me.
If your USB peripherals didn't work properly, its because they were poorly designed. This has nothing to do with the choice of using an FPGA to implement the interface.
With programmable hardware the hardware engineers won't have the same scrutiny in testing as they would with hardwired hardware. Period.
So what, one might say? Programmable hardware can be upgraded afterwards. So isn't that a good thing? Depends on who you ask I suppose.
My stand on this would be NO, because I couldn't do jack shit for it incase something doesn't work. From a software developers point of view it's essential that you can trust your platform (os and compiler) and most importantly if you think there's bugs there, you can look it up from the source and try finding it. I doubt that I'd have the possibility of doing so with programmable hardware.
No, clean CPU specs for me please. Let it be shite like the 386 we're still mostly struggling with, but atleast I have good specs for that and ALL of the software on top of it is GPL'd. Thank you.
Besides if you think of BIOSes and HW drivers in general. They're so shite that linux and many other OSes won't even use them. Thank god one can bypass them in most of the cases. People have been asking bios sources, but in vain. My guess is that what we have with bioses now is what we'll be facing with future programmable hardware. Crap and proprietary. I wonder why M$ hasn't gotten into that yet...
Or, if you don't enjoy them, you can beat your head against the wall trying to figure out how these programs work ;-)
Actually I really do enjoy them, every contest really, but I still do beat my head against wall trying to figure out how they work...
Shouldn't McCratney et al sue them back for using Jelousubmarine (or similar, can't recall the exact spelling) in one of the character names?
Actually I found a site a little after posting that where there was some other russian chess expert's comments on the game aswell as those of Kasparov's himself. Delightful read, I just can't find that link anymore.
If I remember correctly, that naturally (given that it's only move 7 or so, and these guys play from 10 to 15 moves from the opening book) was part of an opening line that just hadn't been played in tournaments for a while. I guess Garri chose that because it's relatively aggressive given it's a closed opening and the computer just might not be at it's best in it.
But most importantly I think the computer were prepared for Kasparov to begin with E4, rather than naything else, so to begin with the queen's gambit was in any case a marvellous move from him...
No wait... here it is : http://www.worldchessrating.com/
Read more from there...
Someone wanna explain the logic behind Kaspy's move #7 (g4) ??
That really is interesting game. I'm no chess pro, but the g4 probable put pressure on the knight in f6. One thing I do know for sure is that with the level that these "guys" play in, it's extremely difficult to analyze their moves because their thoughts are so many moves ahead that it's impossible for me atleast to try to think of the alternatives move sequences.
Nonetheless it's nice to see how it's apparently ok to keep the c-bishob inside the pawns when playing queen's gambit. (i.e. playing e3 before moving c-bishop)
When you say "USians" are you referring to citizens of the United States of Mexico, or the United States of America? If you meant the former, they're called Mexicans. If you meant the latter, they're called Americans.
And when you call your air force "US air force", do you not know wether is that of USA or Mexico ?
Come'on, there's no practical abiquity in "USian".
OSes and programming languages have some superficial features in common, but they are totally different concepts. This is so manifestly obvious that I'm not even sure how to argue the point.
Your lack of ability to argue it kinda shows how you were also unable to see the similarities.
Naturally they're not the same thing, but they have a lot more things in common than "superficial features".
The interface that an OS offers is exactly the same as with languages, i.e. system calls. Granted that there's no lexical syntax involved, but there's a shit load of rules how you must use them, just any other API out there.
There'd be a ton more to say, about PL intermediate representations and functional binary programs within an os etc. But I'll just say that try remember what Turing et al taught us of computing theory. Where the HW is a turing machine so is an OS.
And I also disagree with the mythical man-month remark. The other nine should have their license to code revoked.
While this may be conceptually true, there are different considerations involved when picking an OS and a language. A programming language is more like a tool that is selected because it is good for a particular operation.
The operating system, on the other hand, is typically only one per machine and performance and stability might be the major considerations (other than compatibility with the popular applications around!)
I disagree with you there, and I think you didn't think that through yourself. Currently mainstream OSs are designed and optimized for common case. But as we already see, we have demands like Real Time, high throughput and good interactivity that aren't really met by main-stream OS.
A lot of people have been asking that such decisions would be left tunable in linux for example. Last fall during the quest for high throughput and all those db benchmarks resulted in extremely POOR desktop feel. Software compilation in another window jammed your editor for example, which for a desktop developer is something you never want to be face to face with. Even now the only way to achieve good feel with 2.4 is to buy more memory and turn off swap all together.
Naturally that nullifies all the benefits that the "clever" mm does for throughput in linux.
(for the record 2.5 behave a lot better)
In any case the language selection like you said is alread taking place also with OSes. Neither Linux nor Windows is suitable for hard real time for example.
Get yer mirror here [nowhere.nu].
/. crowd that might be interested in saabs and/or sauna, e.g. none of the USians. :)
That really _is_ Karma whoring. I'm inclined to think that the CERN web server could handle that part of the
This is what you get when you have a high-unemployment rate in the tech business...
Driving around in new Saabs and Jaguars. Hmmm, perhaps I should quit my job, too, and get a decent car like that and start drinking beer and going to sauna...
Nah man, that's what you get with Cern scientists now that all the elementary particles have been discovered.
"One of the earliest types of measurement concerned that of length. These measurements were usually based on parts of the body. A well documented example (the first) is the Egyptian cubit which was derived from the length of the arm from the elbow to the outstretched finger tips. By 2500 BC this had been standardised in a royal master cubit made of black marble (about 52 cm). This cubit was divided into 28 digits (roughly a finger width) which could be further divided into fractional parts, the smallest of these being only just over a millimetre."
And someone reports the information density using this kind of a measure?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to flame here, but without reading the article, due to the very same reasons, I'm willing to bet my right testicle that it's made by US "scientist".
If you've been served with a subpoena for documents, you can't destroy them, even if your policy is to dispose of them (I have another post around here that doesn't make that clear, so there you have it). So, yes, you are legally liable for obstruction of justice if you don't stop the cronjob.
But you failed to see the idea the original poster had in mind. He asked something like "exactly how fast are you supposed to run to the machine room"?
Now there is a gray area there no doubt, and the essential question at hand was "What is the burden of proof on the prosecutor in such a case?"
The grammar is faulty.
The author is German, as you can tell from the ".de" domain, and hence probably not a native English speaker.
And that's just fine, I pointed that out because real scientists, German and others alike, that make publications to scientific journals must use good grammar.
I know that judging a web page based on it's grammar is not really justifiable, but in this case it was one of many reasons that should've hinted the slashdot editors in the first place that this was nothing but a hoax of some sort. And not something to be taken seriously.
Hmm, did you READ the article?
...
He says
I read it, and I don't buy a word of it. The grammar is faulty. Lay+out is make-believe at most. Pictures are from some first anatomy book. No references, just some weird hypothesis withou any proofs. Sounds like a hoax if I ever saw one.
Besides he even fails to mention most Fourier transform based codecs work. They do not even fullfill the persumptions of his hypothesis, because their main size reductions are based on sliced away frequencies outside the scope of our hearing.
But for those that do, it is important that they receive some sort of carrot to keep them motivated. If this means charging for academic journals, then perhaps that's the way to go about it.
Bollocks, it's little that the article writer gets compared to the publishing houses. Besides, because they're commercial publications some of poorer people in this world may not have the access for such publications.
This has been a long time coming and I'm sure all scientists will embrace this model. It's the parasitic publishers that will do what they can to prevent this.
This is not that far from artists vs record companies dispute....
I for one don't want the linux distributions to become any more Windows clones than they already have.
People are praising new KDE and Gnome developement with phrases like "It's just like Windows". We should be out there to make the software _WE_WANT_, not to mimic microsoft stuff, just like Linus doesn't give a fsck wether more or less poeple start using the kernel. He's just on his mission to build the OS kernel he wants.
This is becoming an issue. More and more fscked up features are creeping in while good found-to-be-powerfull features are being neglected. I guess soon the developers will, once again, have to swap their OSs to something not so bloated, built with love, not to impress others in first glance, but to be be found powerful when really used.
I guess it's a nice thing that shellsort is getting improved, and I do realize that this is great for genetic research, but, pardon me for being an uneducated ignorant bastard, does it have any practical value, seeing as quicksort is much faster than shellsort? Or am I wrong?
Quicksort is good for a lot of cases, but not for all. Yet one more good example (not mentioned here yet) would be the presense of knowledge or how unsorted things really are. Meaning that if you know something extra about the "unsorted" state of the data quicksort can be outperformed easily.
Classic example is to arrange bank payments based on the actual pruchase date using the credict card. As each store sends the bill with some variation the bills arrive in time unsorted. On the average they're still almost sorted, but not quite. For such a case quicksort would perform quite horribly in respect to what could be done.
True randomness is far more seldom encountered, thus other means for sorting can also be implemented more often that common people think.