The ISPs in question are run by businessmen who are set in the mentality of a 10Mb pipe costing more than a 1Mb pipe, and less than a 100Mb pipe. In reality, the same circuits and equipment could handle several times their current speed (think moving the 1Mb level to 10Mb, 100 to 1000, etc.), but it doesn't fit the business model. This won't get any better, and the ISPs will continue to claim the sky is falling until they realize that they cannot keep the same business model of the current service levels forever (which will probably only be effected by government regulation in this country where telecommunications companies are given free reign to be thugs... sorry).
Which does not look much like anything. think it does?
(0)
* The country this IP is from (USA) is part of the G8 (+1)
* Your IP address as a poker hand:
Ace of Diamonds
Two of Spades
Three of Spades
Four of Hearts
Five of Hearts
You have a straight (+20)
* IP address as a colour (0)
Your IP address has scored: 43. This is ranked #24 of the 35177 IP's spotted so far.
... and he's a freakin' genius. He taught us very briefly about his work, but was hesitant when I took the class to go into a lot of details because of the pre-publication nature of the work. The TA for the class, Adam Butt, is also a very quick guy. Although I recognize the possibility of fabrication, all the people I know around the project were hesitant to make claims until they had better proof. They are still hesitant to proclaim victory. All things considered, I think this is the most promising energy work since the Manhattan project.
I think that the 10 minutes before factor is due to the premium subscribers (those who cough up dough to get stories early).
At any rate, I have a Firefox extension that puts Coralize/ Coralize in New Tab as a right click option... much like your suggestion only with nyud.net.
For those familiar with Dan, you know that it's bound to be interesting. What he does is somewhat of the solution described in some comments.... battery charger, batteries, inverter. He also talks about the merits and pitfalls of different batteries in UPS systems.
This is a good point, although many will not entirely agree. An engineer is someone who is schooled in such a way that they can produce a product which can be modeled, revised, tracked, and generally should be able to be trusted to any arbitrary degree of reliability. A Computer Scientist is schooled so that they know how to put code together. This is not an oversimplification.
Consider the idea of building a bridge. Do you want the cement truck driver or the guy who directs him where to pour the cement to design the bridge? They are the people who impliment the bridge, but they are in no way qualified to design it. Ask them to explain the resonance of the bridge, or to produce a transfer function which outputs the integrity of the footing of the bridge given an input of average cars per hour (or, less realistically but still entirely possible, the impurity content of the water used to mix the concrete), and he will likely look at you as if you were a martian.
Software is much the same way. Although the software engineer knows the language, and probably several for that matter, much like the civil engineer knows how to pour concrete, they dont necessarily do the implementation. Understanding the basic metrics of code (simple things, like average errors per line of code) is easy. So is compression testing of concrete. There are specialized tools that do it for you. It is knowing how to put these tools together to achieve a goal that is the trick. Do you think you could combine lint, gprof, wc, and a couple of dozen-line python scrips to estimate how long it will take to debug your code? Or estimate how powerful of a computer (varying different architectures, of course) which you will need to complete an arbitrarily difficult computation in finite time? How about performing an analysis of how much power a cluster will consume, then creating a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis based on a dozen different types of nodes which could be used? A back-of-a-napkin calculation might get you somewhere, but eventually you have to admit that you're only getting a ballpark estimate.
Understading how to break down a project, not necessarily to the class/file level, but to the sub-problem level, is the true skill of the engineer. He has to manage, plan, understand, be able to test, and form a framework for the project. I am not saying by any means that a smart CS grad couldn't do this, but rather that the engineer has a degree in doing it.
Next time you are flying in an airplane which uses fly-by-wire controls (admittedly, this may not be any time soon...), consider whether or not you think it is important that the manager of the coding team for the avionics has an understanding of how good software is built and how to maintain accountability in a project, or whether he has even heard of (much less taken) the Hippocratic Oath, the ABET Engineering Code of Ethics, the Humboldt Pledge, or any of the many others which engineers take.
You know, I don't give a great god damn about the P4, personally I think Intel lost it after they introduced the PII... the PIII was stupid and the P4 is a ridiculous re-design.
The work flow of FCP is only better if it's the only thing you use. Personally, I use Photoshop a lot more and I feel right at home in After Effects and Premiere, even more so than in Final Cut.
Like I said, Final Cut gets the job done, and well. But it's certainly a far cry from being "hands-down" best.
Please bear in mind as you read this post that I am quite the Wintel/Lintel advocate, although I absolutely love Final Cut on the Mac.
I think that in Apple's attempts to make everything work so well (which they do an excellent job of), they end up simply deepening the divide between their user base and the "mainstream" (read: other 95%) user base. Final Cut is a dream to use, I've used it since version 1.0 and love everything it does. But I also like Premiere, partly because of its lower cost and ability to work either on Windows or Mac (as a side note, in a video environment, professionals will use the best platform for the job... Windows provides better support for the high-end stuff, but for quick and dirty you can't beat the Mac. Thus, I work on both platforms).
I think that we're seeing a disturbing trend. Although I do love Final Cut, I simply can't justify spending the money on a Mac when I could get equal performance on an x86 platform for less.
(NOTE: none of the comparison benchmarks I have read did any comparison with the Opteron. Why? Because the Opteron would win, hands-down... there would hardly be a contest;0)
As Mac tries to do it better themselves, I think they're only going to push themselves farther and farther away from the rest of the computer world. Embracing BSD was a big step in the right direction, but I've locked OS/X so many times, I'm embarassed to think that it's based on Un*x.
Apple needs to decide what they want to do: do they want to support an entire platform, hardware AND software themselves, or do they want to worry about one as opposed to the other?
macos : xerox parc:: apple records : [napster|kazaa|gnutella] ?
In Apple's favor, although they might not be first on the scene with digital music (duh), they will probably put out a product that will revolutionize the industry.
Remember, it wasn't just the GUI, but it was rather the personal computer with a GUI that started it all.
Ah, yes, AOL floppy disks. I turned in many a-C++ assignment on these. I also recall using Compuserve and Prodigy disks, but those just aren't as pervasive.
I agree, but I have the automatic update agent turned on. It's an option which I have enabled. But if it weren't my option, yeah. Format c:\. Or better yet, druid and install [Mandrake|SuSE|Redhat|Slackware|etc]
OK, so I hate MS for building unsafe software. But this time, I have to give them credit. I woke up this morning to my computer telling me that there was a critial update waiting to be installed, and it was this one. I read about the vulnerability on the web *after* installing the patch, so I am kinda glad that MS shoves updates down my throat.
Do you find that the quality of the programming depends upon the geographic location of the programmers? So, for instance, an open source program will be troubleshot and combed over by people from potentially a dozen different countries. Closed source software is checked by people where it is written. Since, as a general rule, education varies in quality and areas of emphasis around the world, does it help having people attacking a program from many different angles (i.e., open source, cheked world wide) rather than simply drawing from a set of people who may share many of the same abilities, backgrounds, etc.?
DRAM is a niche. Hard drives are a niche. Removable is a niche.
The levels go like this:
Fastest - Cache, e.g. SRAM. This is clocked to the processor. Low-level stuff, we know it will probably never go away. Think of it like friction in physics: it picks up the slack in a lot of situations, and no matter how much we try to get rid of it, it's still there.
2nd fastest - Random Access Memory, e.g. DRAM. Stores the large components of what the machine is working with. Fast enough to be an appreciable factor of the proc. bus speed, while still hitting a reasonable price point.
3rd fastest - Persistent on-line storage, e.g. Hard Drives. Eventually, we may replace with persistent-state RAM, like an addressable crystal or such. It is fast enough to get data into RAM fast enough to keep the processor satiated for, say, the RMS of what the user does (e.g. can feed text, programs, MP3s, videos, but may clog down on extremely high-bandwidth files), but hits a price point so that users can afford enough to hold everything they need day-to-day.
Slowest - Removable (e.g. optical, tape, etc.). Should hold a persistent "image" of the data it represents. Very cheap, but quite slow, especially since the user must (usually) intervene to bring the data on-line. It's good as a second copy, decent as archive, and piss poor for things the user uses day-to-day.
These categories will probably persist as long as computers exist.
I cannot see DRAM ever taking over the role of hard drives. Perhaps a solid state, persistent state memory, but not RAM. Ever.
Removable media will remain for consumers and cheap, non-critical archiving. Hard drives are best for archives, and medium-access storage and always will be.
Wow, that took me off guard. But instead of posting something like "OMG LOL!", I think that I could momentarily pontificate on the validity of your statement.
That said, yes, it is somewhat of an ASCII art competition (ignoring the sarcasm of your comment). There is art in this obscure, confusing code. Somewhat of a "gee, I'm really not that good" kind of a factor, like what happens when you look at a really good painting that you could NEVER POSSIBLY make on your own, or the complexity and chaos found in one of those paintings by that guy that Ed Bundy played in that one movie.
So what, basically this program looks like a virus and quacks like a virus? Or is it a duck? Or does is just weigh the same as a duck? Does this mean it is made out of wook? Man, I'm all confused now...
Slashdot Mirror
> www.Government.us/research/
Ahem. www.crs.gov/reports, lest ye forget the Internet's roots as the U.S. DARPANET.
The ISPs in question are run by businessmen who are set in the mentality of a 10Mb pipe costing more than a 1Mb pipe, and less than a 100Mb pipe. In reality, the same circuits and equipment could handle several times their current speed (think moving the 1Mb level to 10Mb, 100 to 1000, etc.), but it doesn't fit the business model. This won't get any better, and the ISPs will continue to claim the sky is falling until they realize that they cannot keep the same business model of the current service levels forever (which will probably only be effected by government regulation in this country where telecommunications companies are given free reign to be thugs... sorry).
128.211.xxx.210
Score: 43
Your IP is 128.211.xxx.210 which resolves to host: pal-179-210.itap.purdue.edu.
(okay, okay... it's a DHCP address... have fun h4xxing the next sucker who gets this address!!)
* 211 is prime (+12)
* xxx is prime (+10)
* IP as a bitmap
dotdotdotdotdotdot
dotdotdotdotdotdot
dotdotdotdotdotdot
dotdotdotdotdotdot
dotdotdotdotdotdot
dotdotdotdotdotdot
Which does not look much like anything. think it does?
(0)
* The country this IP is from (USA) is part of the G8 (+1)
* Your IP address as a poker hand:
Ace of Diamonds
Two of Spades
Three of Spades
Four of Hearts
Five of Hearts
You have a straight (+20)
* IP address as a colour (0)
Your IP address has scored: 43. This is ranked #24 of the 35177 IP's spotted so far.
... and he's a freakin' genius. He taught us very briefly about his work, but was hesitant when I took the class to go into a lot of details because of the pre-publication nature of the work. The TA for the class, Adam Butt, is also a very quick guy. Although I recognize the possibility of fabrication, all the people I know around the project were hesitant to make claims until they had better proof. They are still hesitant to proclaim victory. All things considered, I think this is the most promising energy work since the Manhattan project.
I think that the 10 minutes before factor is due to the premium subscribers (those who cough up dough to get stories early).
At any rate, I have a Firefox extension that puts Coralize/ Coralize in New Tab as a right click option... much like your suggestion only with nyud.net.
We need more redundancy in our efforts!
Aww, already /.'ed... and nyud.net/Coral is saying timeout... :(
... in front of a screen effect.
In Newtek's Video Toaster. The original one. Circa mid-1980s (if memory serves).
http://www.dansdata.com/diyups.htm
For those familiar with Dan, you know that it's bound to be interesting. What he does is somewhat of the solution described in some comments.... battery charger, batteries, inverter. He also talks about the merits and pitfalls of different batteries in UPS systems.
This is a good point, although many will not entirely agree. An engineer is someone who is schooled in such a way that they can produce a product which can be modeled, revised, tracked, and generally should be able to be trusted to any arbitrary degree of reliability. A Computer Scientist is schooled so that they know how to put code together. This is not an oversimplification.
Consider the idea of building a bridge. Do you want the cement truck driver or the guy who directs him where to pour the cement to design the bridge? They are the people who impliment the bridge, but they are in no way qualified to design it. Ask them to explain the resonance of the bridge, or to produce a transfer function which outputs the integrity of the footing of the bridge given an input of average cars per hour (or, less realistically but still entirely possible, the impurity content of the water used to mix the concrete), and he will likely look at you as if you were a martian.
Software is much the same way. Although the software engineer knows the language, and probably several for that matter, much like the civil engineer knows how to pour concrete, they dont necessarily do the implementation. Understanding the basic metrics of code (simple things, like average errors per line of code) is easy. So is compression testing of concrete. There are specialized tools that do it for you. It is knowing how to put these tools together to achieve a goal that is the trick. Do you think you could combine lint, gprof, wc, and a couple of dozen-line python scrips to estimate how long it will take to debug your code? Or estimate how powerful of a computer (varying different architectures, of course) which you will need to complete an arbitrarily difficult computation in finite time? How about performing an analysis of how much power a cluster will consume, then creating a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis based on a dozen different types of nodes which could be used? A back-of-a-napkin calculation might get you somewhere, but eventually you have to admit that you're only getting a ballpark estimate.
Understading how to break down a project, not necessarily to the class/file level, but to the sub-problem level, is the true skill of the engineer. He has to manage, plan, understand, be able to test, and form a framework for the project. I am not saying by any means that a smart CS grad couldn't do this, but rather that the engineer has a degree in doing it.
Next time you are flying in an airplane which uses fly-by-wire controls (admittedly, this may not be any time soon...), consider whether or not you think it is important that the manager of the coding team for the avionics has an understanding of how good software is built and how to maintain accountability in a project, or whether he has even heard of (much less taken) the Hippocratic Oath, the ABET Engineering Code of Ethics, the Humboldt Pledge, or any of the many others which engineers take.
Not my first, but my first in a while...
just voicing my opinion
I was wondering when this would happen
You know, I don't give a great god damn about the P4, personally I think Intel lost it after they introduced the PII... the PIII was stupid and the P4 is a ridiculous re-design.
The work flow of FCP is only better if it's the only thing you use. Personally, I use Photoshop a lot more and I feel right at home in After Effects and Premiere, even more so than in Final Cut.
Like I said, Final Cut gets the job done, and well. But it's certainly a far cry from being "hands-down" best.
Please bear in mind as you read this post that I am quite the Wintel/Lintel advocate, although I absolutely love Final Cut on the Mac.
;0)
I think that in Apple's attempts to make everything work so well (which they do an excellent job of), they end up simply deepening the divide between their user base and the "mainstream" (read: other 95%) user base. Final Cut is a dream to use, I've used it since version 1.0 and love everything it does. But I also like Premiere, partly because of its lower cost and ability to work either on Windows or Mac (as a side note, in a video environment, professionals will use the best platform for the job... Windows provides better support for the high-end stuff, but for quick and dirty you can't beat the Mac. Thus, I work on both platforms).
I think that we're seeing a disturbing trend. Although I do love Final Cut, I simply can't justify spending the money on a Mac when I could get equal performance on an x86 platform for less.
(NOTE: none of the comparison benchmarks I have read did any comparison with the Opteron. Why? Because the Opteron would win, hands-down... there would hardly be a contest
As Mac tries to do it better themselves, I think they're only going to push themselves farther and farther away from the rest of the computer world. Embracing BSD was a big step in the right direction, but I've locked OS/X so many times, I'm embarassed to think that it's based on Un*x.
Apple needs to decide what they want to do: do they want to support an entire platform, hardware AND software themselves, or do they want to worry about one as opposed to the other?
macos : xerox parc :: apple records : [napster|kazaa|gnutella] ?
In Apple's favor, although they might not be first on the scene with digital music (duh), they will probably put out a product that will revolutionize the industry.
Remember, it wasn't just the GUI, but it was rather the personal computer with a GUI that started it all.
Ah, yes, AOL floppy disks. I turned in many a-C++ assignment on these. I also recall using Compuserve and Prodigy disks, but those just aren't as pervasive.
I agree, but I have the automatic update agent turned on. It's an option which I have enabled. But if it weren't my option, yeah. Format c:\. Or better yet, druid and install [Mandrake|SuSE|Redhat|Slackware|etc]
OK, so I hate MS for building unsafe software. But this time, I have to give them credit. I woke up this morning to my computer telling me that there was a critial update waiting to be installed, and it was this one. I read about the vulnerability on the web *after* installing the patch, so I am kinda glad that MS shoves updates down my throat.
OK, so we know now that SSL servers may be vulerable. Can this sort of an attack be used against personal encryption, a la pgp?
Do you find that the quality of the programming depends upon the geographic location of the programmers? So, for instance, an open source program will be troubleshot and combed over by people from potentially a dozen different countries. Closed source software is checked by people where it is written. Since, as a general rule, education varies in quality and areas of emphasis around the world, does it help having people attacking a program from many different angles (i.e., open source, cheked world wide) rather than simply drawing from a set of people who may share many of the same abilities, backgrounds, etc.?
DRAM is a niche. Hard drives are a niche. Removable is a niche.
The levels go like this:
Fastest - Cache, e.g. SRAM. This is clocked to the processor. Low-level stuff, we know it will probably never go away. Think of it like friction in physics: it picks up the slack in a lot of situations, and no matter how much we try to get rid of it, it's still there.
2nd fastest - Random Access Memory, e.g. DRAM. Stores the large components of what the machine is working with. Fast enough to be an appreciable factor of the proc. bus speed, while still hitting a reasonable price point.
3rd fastest - Persistent on-line storage, e.g. Hard Drives. Eventually, we may replace with persistent-state RAM, like an addressable crystal or such. It is fast enough to get data into RAM fast enough to keep the processor satiated for, say, the RMS of what the user does (e.g. can feed text, programs, MP3s, videos, but may clog down on extremely high-bandwidth files), but hits a price point so that users can afford enough to hold everything they need day-to-day.
Slowest - Removable (e.g. optical, tape, etc.). Should hold a persistent "image" of the data it represents. Very cheap, but quite slow, especially since the user must (usually) intervene to bring the data on-line. It's good as a second copy, decent as archive, and piss poor for things the user uses day-to-day.
These categories will probably persist as long as computers exist.
um, DVD rot?
I cannot see DRAM ever taking over the role of hard drives. Perhaps a solid state, persistent state memory, but not RAM. Ever.
Removable media will remain for consumers and cheap, non-critical archiving. Hard drives are best for archives, and medium-access storage and always will be.
That won't work! You must to use integrals:
integrate ( 2 * pi * r , r=[0.5,1.6] )
assuming a 3.5 inch drive with a max radius of 1.6 (remember, the platters aren't 3.5 across... in this case only 1.2)
this will integrate using a ring method. you could also just do this:
A = pi * r^2 - pi * 0.5^2
which will calculate total area and subtract the inner area. meh.
Ergo, your number is safe because any attempt to decode it violates the DMCA! Yay!!
Wow, that took me off guard. But instead of posting something like "OMG LOL!", I think that I could momentarily pontificate on the validity of your statement.
That said, yes, it is somewhat of an ASCII art competition (ignoring the sarcasm of your comment). There is art in this obscure, confusing code. Somewhat of a "gee, I'm really not that good" kind of a factor, like what happens when you look at a really good painting that you could NEVER POSSIBLY make on your own, or the complexity and chaos found in one of those paintings by that guy that Ed Bundy played in that one movie.
Hilarity through complexity, art through chaos.
So what, basically this program looks like a virus and quacks like a virus? Or is it a duck? Or does is just weigh the same as a duck? Does this mean it is made out of wook? Man, I'm all confused now...