You do not work for a start-up because of good pay -- you work for a) fun and b) a chance to make it BIG, really big... You are not going to have a chance to be able to do your early retirement at 35 if you live on your "well-paid" $150K/year salary (if you are somewhat normal and can not live on dry chinese noodles alone...;-) ).
And you do not have too many bills to pay (yet!) -- maybe it's time to make a plunge!
I did myself recently (and I do have bills to pay, wife, and so on...) -- my deal with the start-up I work for now was to match my perivious salary in USD in their Canadian dollars (~18% paycut) -- but the whole fun part definitely pays for it (even taking into account crazy prices for everything BUT sushi in Vancouver;-) ).
Yeah, especially since (thouse of us old enough should remember;-) ) one of the original goals of PPC consortium (IBM, HP, Motorola) was to optimize its architecture so that it is able to efficiently emulate "other processors" (meaning especially x86). RISC purists were disgusted by PPC because it had all those extra instructions... I guess ISA simplicity goes both ways and not it makes it easy to emulate PPC on x86...
Funny, you can still get any number of commercial products glorifying the USSR and communism, a society that killed over 60 million people, and that maintained concentration camps right up to the present day almost. Yet, it's not "banned" in Yirrup or France in particular. oui can "deny" in print that the socviet union didn't kill those people, and you aren't arrested for it.
Note the disclaimer I've made about Ubuntu (as an example) -- it's only WHEN/IF *nix-based systems start getting a significant share of CONSUMER market they will evolve to deal with threats like spyware. Linspaire had absolutely no reason to go there (they did NOT have hopes to become the next Windows, only to shave some margin off Walmart's PCs) -- but Apple, SUSE, Mandrake, whoever else new and unknown who manages to grab a rapidly expanding marketshare and notice in time that it is actually expanding fast enough to warrant additional precautions right then WILL have the time-tested framework to add those precautions.
While the *nix varieties are definitely more secure (as they are now), a switch to *nix will not lead us to less spyware-ridden applications online. In fact, if Windows were to fail commercially tomorrow and everyone runs *nix, you'll see spyware applications be written for these OSes immediately.
Dada,
While I generally enjoy your rather radical libertarian posts over here (by the way, what happened to your karma, why this is only Score:1, Informative? is Score:0 default for you now that you were outed as THE head of/. libertarian consipancy???;-) ), on the technical side you might be wrong here.
Does MS Windows have chroot(8) system call? I doubt that (not that I really know, never really programmed for Windows)... *nix architects have thoight of it, like, 20 years ago...
Can you 'alias firefox "sudo -u paulbu-paranoid firefox"'?
Why is it relevant? IMHO, any consumer-oriented version of *nix would be much tighter secured by default than current Windows. Note that I am not saying that, say, Ubuntu (as it exists now) is suddenly given 95% market share would be secure -- but some simple mods can be almost transparent to the user, while protecting the system (including your actual $HOME!) from most of the instances of his own poor computer literacy (AKA stupidity)!
As a matter of fact, after I moved from LA to Vancouver, Canada I was quite impressed by the fact that half of the urinals in the city are outfitted with a color LCD panel showing ads... So yes, that one IS available!
Google for "potato battery", you'll find plenty like this.
I remember there was a story about some guys demoing their tiny microcontroller chip (or single-chip webserver, or something) running it off a "potato battery" to show how little power is required.
I guess I should start teaching physics to VCs, charging $300/hour -- will save them a lot in the long run...;-)
Well, I guess it is indeed a case of slight difference in corporate culture/lingo, and maybe time -- I've revealed my timeframe by referring to Mead-Convay's book!;-)
Yes, you obvously would "used the Burlington FAB (as opposed to foundry)" -- you as a designer (I assume) need to know where chips will be made and deal with the right "_fab_ people". But your contracts people would, I think, deal with what IBM would refer to as "foundry services department".
Huh? Sir, are you sure you know what you are talking about?;-) Yes, your inequality is correct, but in much weaker sense than you assume: since the dawn of modern CMOS (you know, Mead-Convay time, circa 1980) people referred to foundry as an outside place to make your chips.
Foundries have fabs, Intel also has fabs but (AFAIK) does not provide foundry services; IBM provides, e.g., SiGe foundry services, MOSIS is a foundry, etc.
Places where you get wafers are just "wafer suppliers", places which make masks are "mask houses"...
Seriously people, technologies won't help you hold on to your freedoms.
YMMV, but in my book guns and strong crypto count as "technologies", also quite suitable for defending one's personal freedon in the short run. In longer run, all other "technologies" which tend to make people more productive and richer/more self-sufficient generally work towards for protecting their freedoms as well.
There's no silver bullet.
I guess there are, but lead tend to be cheaper...;-)
I am not sure myself if the original question was more of a troll asking for educated guesses on the most fashionable shapes in tinfoil hat design, but it would still be entertaining. Offering a political solution to a technological question is taking the question itself a bit too seriously.
In case you haven't been paying attention - the two last US elections have been very close, and their outcomes (especially in 2000) have had a tremendous impact on the rest of human history
Hmm, some people say that current US administration is arrogant in their attempt to change "human history", but it is really funny to see the same attitude from their opponents!
Is it possible to have somewhat "balanced" (if not "fair") discussion here?
I was going to post the same, but it was already posted... But only at +1, so please mod it up, OK?
Yes, BRL (Ballistic Research Laboratory, US Army) CAD is as good as it gets in mechanical open-source CAD tools. Try building your own tanks with anything else!;-)
I wish we (electrical engineers) would have something compatible in OSS world -- as much as I like gEDA, it is NOT on the level of Cadence, etc.
Speaking of other simulation tools, like FEM/EM/etc., do you know about the (NASA/JPL-founded, I think) Open Channel Foundation?
Agreed completely, but your example takes us a bit further away from the GP point about lexical scoping for aestetical reasons into C++ realm of constructor/destructor calling rules, to use which you do want to add explicit blocks which your example perfectly demonstrates...
Oh, the joy of programming -- have not been doing it for a while...;-)
The only ways you can do that in C/C++ are with break, continue, and goto.
Not that I disagree with your reasoning, actually I totally agree with it, but in the interest of completeness I should mention that you totally forgot the mother of all lexical scoping constructs in C/C++: plain block, as in {... }. Of course it is more useful in C and goes contrary to C++ permission to declare variables when needed, not at the beginning of the block, but still...
.. but at least in teh company I used to work for, they banned only CAMERA phone...;-) And. of course, no powered-on cellphones in really sensitive areas...
By the way, for some reason I was always feeling bad wasting Google's bandwidth to perform my silly unit conversions (note: not my company's bandwidth, since it allowed to me to be reasonably confident in my result so much faster!;-) ).
Does anyone know of an Open Source calculator which would do something like this? Well, in $$ realm I can think of Mathematica and (maybe) an AMS-VHDL implementation converting units properly, but still... I wish Google would just open-source this code (no, there are no ads on calculator results).
... reminds me of Cray's famous statement that though one woman can have a child in 9 month, nine women would not be able to have one in 1 month.;-)
Yes, all the answers above were quite sufficient to explain why you have to re-code your app if you want for it to run _faster_ when you add _more_ nodes. And it is so easy to make it run slower -- I bet the original poster would benefit from trying to re-code some a sequential program to a parallel one at least once, then ask himself "How the heck can I teach a compiler to deal with this mess???" (not to mention OS/virtualization hardware which has to deal with binary and it is so much harder to extract dependency information from that on the fly!*).
Paul B.
* Yes, there was that result of (as far as I remember!) HP virtualization group when some SPEC apps ran FASTER on a virtual machine with just-in-time compiler than natively compiled code -- had to do with virtualizer knowing which branch your program will take next and preparting for that. You'd have to google for the whole story, it was quite educational!
Hardware correlators do exist, and they are nicely synthesizable in an FPGA. Even university students do it.
Sure they do! And they do, just not on MIL-spec FPGA hardware...;-)
The abs() function might be of use:-)
Assuming that for some strange reason you decide to use signed arithmetics! Hmm, maybe your radar reflection is taken with +1 weigth, while background EM waves are taken with -100 weight... How else would you get signed values?
Slashdot Mirror
You do not work for a start-up because of good pay -- you work for a) fun and b) a chance to make it BIG, really big... You are not going to have a chance to be able to do your early retirement at 35 if you live on your "well-paid" $150K/year salary (if you are somewhat normal and can not live on dry chinese noodles alone... ;-) ).
;-) ).
And you do not have too many bills to pay (yet!) -- maybe it's time to make a plunge!
I did myself recently (and I do have bills to pay, wife, and so on...) -- my deal with the start-up I work for now was to match my perivious salary in USD in their Canadian dollars (~18% paycut) -- but the whole fun part definitely pays for it (even taking into account crazy prices for everything BUT sushi in Vancouver
Paul B.
Seriously, why this post is at Score: 1?
"Insightful" I'd say... But I'd have no voice here without risking my karma... And I'd still like to do it on this single occasion!
Paul B.
The whole Itanium story made me do a slip about HP involvement... Of course it was Apple! ;-)
Paul B.
Yeah, especially since (thouse of us old enough should remember ;-) ) one of the original goals of PPC consortium (IBM, HP, Motorola) was to optimize its architecture so that it is able to efficiently emulate "other processors" (meaning especially x86). RISC purists were disgusted by PPC because it had all those extra instructions... I guess ISA simplicity goes both ways and not it makes it easy to emulate PPC on x86...
BTW, what's happening with TransMeta these days?
Paul B.
To quote AC:
Funny, you can still get any number of commercial products glorifying the USSR and communism, a society that killed over 60 million people, and that maintained concentration camps right up to the present day almost. Yet, it's not "banned" in Yirrup or France in particular. oui can "deny" in print that the socviet union didn't kill those people, and you aren't arrested for it.
Note the disclaimer I've made about Ubuntu (as an example) -- it's only WHEN/IF *nix-based systems start getting a significant share of CONSUMER market they will evolve to deal with threats like spyware. Linspaire had absolutely no reason to go there (they did NOT have hopes to become the next Windows, only to shave some margin off Walmart's PCs) -- but Apple, SUSE, Mandrake, whoever else new and unknown who manages to grab a rapidly expanding marketshare and notice in time that it is actually expanding fast enough to warrant additional precautions right then WILL have the time-tested framework to add those precautions.
Paul B.
While the *nix varieties are definitely more secure (as they are now), a switch to *nix will not lead us to less spyware-ridden applications online. In fact, if Windows were to fail commercially tomorrow and everyone runs *nix, you'll see spyware applications be written for these OSes immediately.
/. libertarian consipancy??? ;-) ), on the technical side you might be wrong here.
Dada,
While I generally enjoy your rather radical libertarian posts over here (by the way, what happened to your karma, why this is only Score:1, Informative? is Score:0 default for you now that you were outed as THE head of
Does MS Windows have chroot(8) system call? I doubt that (not that I really know, never really programmed for Windows)... *nix architects have thoight of it, like, 20 years ago...
Can you 'alias firefox "sudo -u paulbu-paranoid firefox"'?
Why is it relevant? IMHO, any consumer-oriented version of *nix would be much tighter secured by default than current Windows. Note that I am not saying that, say, Ubuntu (as it exists now) is suddenly given 95% market share would be secure -- but some simple mods can be almost transparent to the user, while protecting the system (including your actual $HOME!) from most of the instances of his own poor computer literacy (AKA stupidity)!
Paul B.
As a matter of fact, after I moved from LA to Vancouver, Canada I was quite impressed by the fact that half of the urinals in the city are outfitted with a color LCD panel showing ads... So yes, that one IS available!
Paul B.
Google for "potato battery", you'll find plenty like this.
;-)
I remember there was a story about some guys demoing their tiny microcontroller chip (or single-chip webserver, or something) running it off a "potato battery" to show how little power is required.
I guess I should start teaching physics to VCs, charging $300/hour -- will save them a lot in the long run...
Paul B.
Please...
YOU KNOW!!!!
Well, I guess it is indeed a case of slight difference in corporate culture/lingo, and maybe time -- I've revealed my timeframe by referring to Mead-Convay's book! ;-)
Yes, you obvously would "used the Burlington FAB (as opposed to foundry)" -- you as a designer (I assume) need to know where chips will be made and deal with the right "_fab_ people". But your contracts people would, I think, deal with what IBM would refer to as "foundry services department".
Anyway...
Paul B.
foundry!=fab
;-) Yes, your inequality is correct, but in much weaker sense than you assume: since the dawn of modern CMOS (you know, Mead-Convay time, circa 1980) people referred to foundry as an outside place to make your chips.
Huh? Sir, are you sure you know what you are talking about?
Foundries have fabs, Intel also has fabs but (AFAIK) does not provide foundry services; IBM provides, e.g., SiGe foundry services, MOSIS is a foundry, etc.
Places where you get wafers are just "wafer suppliers", places which make masks are "mask houses"...
Paul B.
Seriously people, technologies won't help you hold on to your freedoms.
;-)
YMMV, but in my book guns and strong crypto count as "technologies", also quite suitable for defending one's personal freedon in the short run. In longer run, all other "technologies" which tend to make people more productive and richer/more self-sufficient generally work towards for protecting their freedoms as well.
There's no silver bullet.
I guess there are, but lead tend to be cheaper...
I am not sure myself if the original question was more of a troll asking for educated guesses on the most fashionable shapes in tinfoil hat design, but it would still be entertaining. Offering a political solution to a technological question is taking the question itself a bit too seriously.
Paul B.
In case you haven't been paying attention - the two last US elections have been very close, and their outcomes (especially in 2000) have had a tremendous impact on the rest of human history
Hmm, some people say that current US administration is arrogant in their attempt to change "human history", but it is really funny to see the same attitude from their opponents!
Is it possible to have somewhat "balanced" (if not "fair") discussion here?
Paul B.
Maybe not on your PC, but a box made by these guys: http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/ 22/0610220&tid=126&tid=137
attached to an MMORG server...
Full disclosure: I work for them...
Paul B.
enum is your friend!
...
;-(
enum {LOAD_DATA, SAVE_DATA, DESTROY_DATA}
Paul B.
P.S. And of course my all-caps enum values were considered too lame by lameness filter...
I was going to post the same, but it was already posted... But only at +1, so please mod it up, OK?
;-)
Yes, BRL (Ballistic Research Laboratory, US Army) CAD is as good as it gets in mechanical open-source CAD tools. Try building your own tanks
with anything else!
I wish we (electrical engineers) would have something compatible in OSS world -- as much as I like gEDA, it is NOT on the level of Cadence, etc.
Speaking of other simulation tools, like FEM/EM/etc., do you know about the (NASA/JPL-founded, I think) Open Channel Foundation?
Paul B.
Agreed completely, but your example takes us a bit further away from the GP point about lexical scoping for aestetical reasons into C++ realm of constructor/destructor calling rules, to use which you do want to add explicit blocks which your example perfectly demonstrates...
;-)
Oh, the joy of programming -- have not been doing it for a while...
Paul B.
The only ways you can do that in C/C++ are with break, continue, and goto.
... }. Of course it is more useful in C
Not that I disagree with your reasoning, actually I totally agree with it, but in the interest of completeness I should mention that you totally forgot the mother of all lexical scoping constructs in C/C++: plain block, as in {
and goes contrary to C++ permission to declare variables when needed,
not at the beginning of the block, but still...
Paul B.
.. but at least in teh company I used to work for, they banned only CAMERA phone... ;-) And. of course, no powered-on cellphones in really sensitive areas...
Paul
What the heck with not allowing normal HTML A-tag here??? ;-)l ient=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial& q=360+feet+*160+feet+%2F+(60+micrometers+*+250+mic rometers)&btnG=Search
-----------------
Anyway, Google agrees with you!
http://www.google.ca/search?num=20&hs=wF4&hl=en&c
Google agrees with you!
By the way, for some reason I was always feeling bad wasting Google's bandwidth to perform my silly unit conversions (note: not my company's bandwidth, since it allowed to me to be reasonably confident in my result so much faster!
Does anyone know of an Open Source calculator which would do something like this? Well, in
$$ realm I can think of Mathematica and (maybe)
an AMS-VHDL implementation converting units
properly, but still... I wish Google would just
open-source this code (no, there are no ads on
calculator results).
Totally off-topic, I know...
Paul B.
Where are my modpoints when I need 'em! ;-)
Paul B.
... reminds me of Cray's famous statement that though one woman can have a child in 9 month, nine women would not be able to have one in 1 month. ;-)
Yes, all the answers above were quite sufficient to explain why you have to re-code your app if you want for it to run _faster_ when you add _more_ nodes. And it is so easy to make it run slower -- I bet the original poster would benefit from trying to re-code some a sequential program to a parallel one at least once, then ask himself "How the heck can I teach a compiler to deal with this mess???" (not to mention OS/virtualization hardware which has to deal with binary and it is so much harder to extract dependency information from that on the fly!*).
Paul B.
* Yes, there was that result of (as far as I remember!) HP virtualization group when some SPEC apps ran FASTER on a virtual machine with just-in-time compiler than natively compiled code -- had to do with virtualizer knowing which branch your program will take next and preparting for that. You'd have to google for the whole story, it was quite educational!
Hardware correlators do exist, and they are nicely synthesizable in an FPGA. Even university students do it.
;-)
:-)
Sure they do! And they do, just not on MIL-spec FPGA hardware...
The abs() function might be of use
Assuming that for some strange reason you decide to use signed arithmetics! Hmm, maybe your radar reflection is taken with +1 weigth, while background EM waves are taken with -100 weight...
How else would you get signed values?
Paul B.