Because we sometimes kill civilians while trying to kill the enemy, as you said? Because that's not what terrorists do. The terrorists try to kill the civilians. In fact, they often try to kill their own civilian neighbors in their own country for not also being terrorists. There's even debate over some of the civilian deaths over whether they were killed by the US and allies on accident or by terrorists on purpose to be blamed on the US.
Actually, I think most of the people working on the Manhattan Project were skilled labor. The physicists, chemists, and engineers were too busy doing physics, chemistry, and engineering to machine the parts, run the centrifuges, mine the uranium, build the housing complexes and factories that became Oak Ridge, etc.
They don't clean up after the idiots. The people who respond to the attacks do, because the idiots are the ones strapping what the engineers built around themselves and walking into crowded buildings.
Not only that, but the fashion industry sells about 17% of the styles to the 67% of women in the US who are size 12 and larger. They make most of their money on the 83% of styles they sell to 33% of the women. That's why several large department stores and several designers recently said they'd start selling more designer styles in larger sizes.
It's amazing that people are so blind to markets that they'll milk one segment at the expense of leaving huge amounts of money on the table elsewhere. Kind of like what the game, movie, and music studios do writing knock-offs of one another for the same audiences over and over and DRMing the hell out of them while everyone else is waiting to actually buy a few decent titles.
One thing we really do need to consider is that in the past people made huge investments in the preparation of the work. They bought paper or vinyl. They bought huge presses. They hired editors. The did preproduction and postproduction. They put the content on the medium. They warehoused the medium, shipped it to stores, and accepted it back from the stores if it didn't sell. Making a small investment to sell just a few hundred or a few thousand illegitimate copies of the published work took away money that was reimbursing the big publisher.
These days, some content is still produced that way. Most content, though, is released from one or a few people digitally over a common digital infrastructure and the storage for the copies is provided not by the publisher but the buyer. The preproduction, postproduction, and distribution is all done on commodity systems hooked up to a commodity network. Even if making a copy without permission is still a crime, should it be the same magnitude of crime?
Attributions should definitely not change. The right to claim authorship of derivative works shouldn't change. Perhaps the byzantine laws about how much monetary damage is done by swiping a few words and a synthesized drumbox beat someone threw together one afternoon should change, though.
You're wrong about recipes, by the way. Yes, you can buy a cookbook and fix the recipe out of it. You can't republish that recipe as your own in another cookbook, though. That really is copyright infringement, and it should be as much as a portion of any other book. Most private people willingly trade recipes, but that's not the same thing as a published collection of recipes.
So the cops can start arresting people for pot dealing because they have Grateful Dead stickers on their cars? They can harass skinny people about meth production? A kid with a baseball bat should be stopped for questioning over assault with a deadly weapon?
"This small group does X" is not a valid excuse to pick someone out of a crowd when there's a much larger group that also does X.
I put 4.0 beta 6 through the Kraken benchmark mentioned in the story, and the memory use never went over 400 MB. After I closed that tab, it was back down below 80 MB. I've left FF open for days or even weeks and not seen the type of growth you're talking about since about 2.0.16 or maybe 3.0.2 in the 3.x line.
Is there still some leak? Probably. In fact, in such a large project there are probably a few memory leaks and other types of resource leaks. Is it as bad as it used to be? Not at all, at least not for me. Browsing patterns could make a difference, though.
Typically, the only extensions I'm running are Firebug, a couple of HTML and accessibility validators, and Clippings.
I'm not a browser snob, mind you, and I have nothing to do with the Mozilla organization. I use Chrome mostly right now for casual browsing, but Firefox for developing anything to do with a website. I also have more than half a dozen other browsers installed for testing. I just don't see the memory leaks of the kind some people do.
My OS on the system I use the most right now is Mandriva 2010 Spring with kernel 2.6.33.7-desktop-1mnb SMP for AMD64 and libc glibc-2.11.1-8mnb2. It also has glibc_lsb-2.4.7-4mdv2010.1 installed for LSB compatibility.
One problem Firefox has had even into the 3.6 line is that it doesn't always get rid of JavaScript objects created for a piece of content when that content goes out of scope. That is, you open a web page, it creates a JavaScript object but never GCs it, and when you close the page FF might miss GCing it upon closing the tab or navigating to another page. This is something the JavaScript engine should clean up, and it is definitely a Firefox bug. It can also happen for Firefox's reconfigurable interface chrome. There's an extension for Firefox meant to catch this particular class of problem when it happens, and it'd be handy for the the developers if people reported this as the source of a leak specifically so they know where to look for the leak. Leak Monitor reports these JS garbage collection object leaks to the user, who cna then complain more specifically about what kind of leak is going on. The author of that extension says that some short-term object leaks that get caught a few cycles later make the reporting kind of messy for the 3.x branches, though.
I'm not denying anything. I just don't get the leaks you get. Maybe there's a leak in your OS's sockets implementation or something. What OS are you using, and what version?
Or the original Clash of the Titans years before Johnny Depp was on 21 Jumpstreet? Or in 1870 when Verne mentioned it? Or in 1830 when Tennyson wrote of it?
It's also an actual myth, many of which are feature in the Titan films and in Pirates of the Carribean films, too. I don't think they need to worry about a trademark over an old Norse fishing legend.
For this particular Slashdot page right now, with both browsers opened fresh for it, Firefox 4.0 beta 6 uses 23 megabytes less resident memory than Chrome 5.0.375.125 does. It also uses about 1800 megabytes less virtual mapped memory, not that that matters nearly as much, but it's a big number in difference.
Epiphany 2.30.2 uses 11 megabytes less residential still, but about as much virtual as Chrome.
Galeon 2.0.7 uses about the same residential memory as Firefox and about twice as much virtual.
Midori 0.2.6 uses 5 megabytes less residential than Firefox, and about 1850 megabytes more virtual.
Arora 0.10.2 uses about twice as much residential memory as Firefox, and about twice as much virtual.
Dillo only needs 11 megabytes to render the page, but that doesn't have JavaScript and only shows a handful of comments without being able to get more.
Fennec 1.0 uses about the same memory footprint as Firefox 4.0 Beta 6, despite being the small-device Mozilla browser.
What is your exact complaint about Firefox's memory use? Are you still experiencing the huge memory leakage and growth from the 2.0 series?
One of Mozilla's longstanding issues with some of the other benchmarks is that they test toy problems that take longer to set up than to run. Yes, that favors browsers with JS engines that set up for execution quickly, and that portion of the engine is important. It doesn't show the real speedups for intensive applications in the browser, though. Optimizing the slow parts is the priority of most people right now, and getting the application set up a little faster at the beginning isn't as big a deal unless you have a lot of small scripts in one page.
What the world needs, though, isn't to separate geek markets and mass markets. A computer is a very flexible thing, and the UI is just software. There's no reason you can't have a simple, easy to learn UI that has ways to get out to a more general OS. OS X does that. The new eased restrictions on design and implementation tools for the OS is a good start.
I doubt Microsoft will be doing the OS. Palm had a touch-based OS long before the iPad. (So did Apple for that matter. The Newton was a better machine for its day than the iPad is for today, IMO.) VTech has touch interfaces for kids that toddlers toddlers have no problem using, but the applications are very limited (yes, much more than the iPad) because the whole systems they produce are designed for toddlers.
My problems with the artificial limits of the iPad furthermore have nothing to do with the UI and I didn't at all call it "magical". I just don't like being limited to only their App Store and only to single-purpose applications preapproved by Apple. Some people prefer it, but I don't. You can say it's good, but you can't say it's not a limit. Being a limited device is exactly the point, per Steve Jobs.
In that case of that restrictive of a definition, any NUMA machine would not have RAM as its main memory. Even if the chips themselves are RAM, the processors couldn't access them in an equal amount of time.
I'll compare it to the iPad right now: even marked up to $50 without the subsidy and marked up to $75 to make a profit and another $25 for international shipping and duties, I can buy six of them instead of one iPad. Six. At least three or four of them, even if the numbers are a little off. Since the iPad is intentionally limited in capabilities compared to laptops of the same price, I'd say this thing can afford to be a little behind the iPad in processor speed and touch screen accuracy.
I wish it was easier, too. It is possible to find systems preloaded with Linux, but it would be nice if there were more places that offered the option.
Except that the NP-Complete portion of NP have been found to be translatable to one another in polynomial time. So a very interesting (likely the most interesting) portion of NP would be known to be P with a basically common solution if a polynomial solution for one of them was found in the general case.
NP-Complete includes, for example, the Traveling Salesman Problem, the Bin-Packing (or Knapsack) Problem, Trench Cutting Problem, multiprocessor scheduling, microcode bit optimization, and job shop scheduling.
Computers based around current designs would be much more useful for solving really interesting and important problems if we could get NP-Complete into P.
Slashdot Mirror
It wasn't very economical at all. He got no result for his investment.
Well, the way the US is going lately, belonging to the poor and belonging to everyone seem to be convergent.
Because we sometimes kill civilians while trying to kill the enemy, as you said? Because that's not what terrorists do. The terrorists try to kill the civilians. In fact, they often try to kill their own civilian neighbors in their own country for not also being terrorists. There's even debate over some of the civilian deaths over whether they were killed by the US and allies on accident or by terrorists on purpose to be blamed on the US.
Actually, I think most of the people working on the Manhattan Project were skilled labor. The physicists, chemists, and engineers were too busy doing physics, chemistry, and engineering to machine the parts, run the centrifuges, mine the uranium, build the housing complexes and factories that became Oak Ridge, etc.
They don't clean up after the idiots. The people who respond to the attacks do, because the idiots are the ones strapping what the engineers built around themselves and walking into crowded buildings.
Not only that, but the fashion industry sells about 17% of the styles to the 67% of women in the US who are size 12 and larger. They make most of their money on the 83% of styles they sell to 33% of the women. That's why several large department stores and several designers recently said they'd start selling more designer styles in larger sizes.
CBS News coverage
It's amazing that people are so blind to markets that they'll milk one segment at the expense of leaving huge amounts of money on the table elsewhere. Kind of like what the game, movie, and music studios do writing knock-offs of one another for the same audiences over and over and DRMing the hell out of them while everyone else is waiting to actually buy a few decent titles.
You only need to store one movie at a time that way until you reencode it to something smaller.
Making a digital copy isn't taking a bicycle from your neighbor.
Afghanistan is not about oil. If it's about a mineral, it's about lithium.
It's generally easy to crack games to play for free, but people buy them because they think they have value.
One thing we really do need to consider is that in the past people made huge investments in the preparation of the work. They bought paper or vinyl. They bought huge presses. They hired editors. The did preproduction and postproduction. They put the content on the medium. They warehoused the medium, shipped it to stores, and accepted it back from the stores if it didn't sell. Making a small investment to sell just a few hundred or a few thousand illegitimate copies of the published work took away money that was reimbursing the big publisher.
These days, some content is still produced that way. Most content, though, is released from one or a few people digitally over a common digital infrastructure and the storage for the copies is provided not by the publisher but the buyer. The preproduction, postproduction, and distribution is all done on commodity systems hooked up to a commodity network. Even if making a copy without permission is still a crime, should it be the same magnitude of crime?
Attributions should definitely not change. The right to claim authorship of derivative works shouldn't change. Perhaps the byzantine laws about how much monetary damage is done by swiping a few words and a synthesized drumbox beat someone threw together one afternoon should change, though.
You're wrong about recipes, by the way. Yes, you can buy a cookbook and fix the recipe out of it. You can't republish that recipe as your own in another cookbook, though. That really is copyright infringement, and it should be as much as a portion of any other book. Most private people willingly trade recipes, but that's not the same thing as a published collection of recipes.
So the cops can start arresting people for pot dealing because they have Grateful Dead stickers on their cars? They can harass skinny people about meth production? A kid with a baseball bat should be stopped for questioning over assault with a deadly weapon?
"This small group does X" is not a valid excuse to pick someone out of a crowd when there's a much larger group that also does X.
I put 4.0 beta 6 through the Kraken benchmark mentioned in the story, and the memory use never went over 400 MB. After I closed that tab, it was back down below 80 MB. I've left FF open for days or even weeks and not seen the type of growth you're talking about since about 2.0.16 or maybe 3.0.2 in the 3.x line.
Is there still some leak? Probably. In fact, in such a large project there are probably a few memory leaks and other types of resource leaks. Is it as bad as it used to be? Not at all, at least not for me. Browsing patterns could make a difference, though.
Typically, the only extensions I'm running are Firebug, a couple of HTML and accessibility validators, and Clippings.
I'm not a browser snob, mind you, and I have nothing to do with the Mozilla organization. I use Chrome mostly right now for casual browsing, but Firefox for developing anything to do with a website. I also have more than half a dozen other browsers installed for testing. I just don't see the memory leaks of the kind some people do.
My OS on the system I use the most right now is Mandriva 2010 Spring with kernel 2.6.33.7-desktop-1mnb SMP for AMD64 and libc glibc-2.11.1-8mnb2. It also has glibc_lsb-2.4.7-4mdv2010.1 installed for LSB compatibility.
One problem Firefox has had even into the 3.6 line is that it doesn't always get rid of JavaScript objects created for a piece of content when that content goes out of scope. That is, you open a web page, it creates a JavaScript object but never GCs it, and when you close the page FF might miss GCing it upon closing the tab or navigating to another page. This is something the JavaScript engine should clean up, and it is definitely a Firefox bug. It can also happen for Firefox's reconfigurable interface chrome. There's an extension for Firefox meant to catch this particular class of problem when it happens, and it'd be handy for the the developers if people reported this as the source of a leak specifically so they know where to look for the leak. Leak Monitor reports these JS garbage collection object leaks to the user, who cna then complain more specifically about what kind of leak is going on. The author of that extension says that some short-term object leaks that get caught a few cycles later make the reporting kind of messy for the 3.x branches, though.
I'm not denying anything. I just don't get the leaks you get. Maybe there's a leak in your OS's sockets implementation or something. What OS are you using, and what version?
Or the original Clash of the Titans years before Johnny Depp was on 21 Jumpstreet? Or in 1870 when Verne mentioned it? Or in 1830 when Tennyson wrote of it?
It's also an actual myth, many of which are feature in the Titan films and in Pirates of the Carribean films, too. I don't think they need to worry about a trademark over an old Norse fishing legend.
For this particular Slashdot page right now, with both browsers opened fresh for it, Firefox 4.0 beta 6 uses 23 megabytes less resident memory than Chrome 5.0.375.125 does. It also uses about 1800 megabytes less virtual mapped memory, not that that matters nearly as much, but it's a big number in difference.
Epiphany 2.30.2 uses 11 megabytes less residential still, but about as much virtual as Chrome.
Galeon 2.0.7 uses about the same residential memory as Firefox and about twice as much virtual.
Midori 0.2.6 uses 5 megabytes less residential than Firefox, and about 1850 megabytes more virtual.
Arora 0.10.2 uses about twice as much residential memory as Firefox, and about twice as much virtual.
Dillo only needs 11 megabytes to render the page, but that doesn't have JavaScript and only shows a handful of comments without being able to get more.
Fennec 1.0 uses about the same memory footprint as Firefox 4.0 Beta 6, despite being the small-device Mozilla browser.
What is your exact complaint about Firefox's memory use? Are you still experiencing the huge memory leakage and growth from the 2.0 series?
One of Mozilla's longstanding issues with some of the other benchmarks is that they test toy problems that take longer to set up than to run. Yes, that favors browsers with JS engines that set up for execution quickly, and that portion of the engine is important. It doesn't show the real speedups for intensive applications in the browser, though. Optimizing the slow parts is the priority of most people right now, and getting the application set up a little faster at the beginning isn't as big a deal unless you have a lot of small scripts in one page.
An earlier blog post by Sayre and some of the comments to it display some of the issues.
What the world needs, though, isn't to separate geek markets and mass markets. A computer is a very flexible thing, and the UI is just software. There's no reason you can't have a simple, easy to learn UI that has ways to get out to a more general OS. OS X does that. The new eased restrictions on design and implementation tools for the OS is a good start.
I doubt Microsoft will be doing the OS. Palm had a touch-based OS long before the iPad. (So did Apple for that matter. The Newton was a better machine for its day than the iPad is for today, IMO.) VTech has touch interfaces for kids that toddlers toddlers have no problem using, but the applications are very limited (yes, much more than the iPad) because the whole systems they produce are designed for toddlers.
My problems with the artificial limits of the iPad furthermore have nothing to do with the UI and I didn't at all call it "magical". I just don't like being limited to only their App Store and only to single-purpose applications preapproved by Apple. Some people prefer it, but I don't. You can say it's good, but you can't say it's not a limit. Being a limited device is exactly the point, per Steve Jobs.
In that case of that restrictive of a definition, any NUMA machine would not have RAM as its main memory. Even if the chips themselves are RAM, the processors couldn't access them in an equal amount of time.
"empathically" != "emphatically"
I'll compare it to the iPad right now: even marked up to $50 without the subsidy and marked up to $75 to make a profit and another $25 for international shipping and duties, I can buy six of them instead of one iPad. Six. At least three or four of them, even if the numbers are a little off. Since the iPad is intentionally limited in capabilities compared to laptops of the same price, I'd say this thing can afford to be a little behind the iPad in processor speed and touch screen accuracy.
I wish it was easier, too. It is possible to find systems preloaded with Linux, but it would be nice if there were more places that offered the option.
That's why I use "159" in place of those three 'x' characters. It actually seems to help somehow.
Except that the NP-Complete portion of NP have been found to be translatable to one another in polynomial time. So a very interesting (likely the most interesting) portion of NP would be known to be P with a basically common solution if a polynomial solution for one of them was found in the general case.
NP-Complete includes, for example, the Traveling Salesman Problem, the Bin-Packing (or Knapsack) Problem, Trench Cutting Problem, multiprocessor scheduling, microcode bit optimization, and job shop scheduling.
Computers based around current designs would be much more useful for solving really interesting and important problems if we could get NP-Complete into P.