Have you read the link that I have posted? Do you have anything better to say than calling people names?
Do not you realise that there is a rather large chunk of what one would call libertarians (or which I am one) willing to work with both Left and Right to solve the immediate problems that we are having right now, and try to resolve our differences later, maybe "agreeing to disagree", maybe just finding a better social order and using it to step up as species?;)
I was offering the GP guy my hand, and now you seem to refuse to take it for pure ideological reasons, without stopping to think -- do you think it's right? What happened to 'question the authority?" thing, is it irrelevant now that Your Guy looks like he is holding the strings, and you are willing to support *whatever* he is up to?
Do you really support continuation of both wars (one somewhat declared, another one not), continuation of executive power special privileges, *new* PATRIOT act, absence of any move to de-criminalize recreational drugs, bailouts of huge corporations, making people pay through their nose for their health insurance, printing trillions of dollars of new money (if infusion of money into economy is *really* a solution, why not cancelling income tax for a year, instead of giving your buddies those trillions to "distribute", while taking a percentage off it?:) )?
Anyway... I think it was wrong of me to try to convert you (and yes, I did mean *you*, BMO!) Now play by play:
> A traitor scum liberal
What people used to be call "liberal" is now "libertarian", for the last century and half or so... What is not called "liberal" is more like a "socialist". And, if you have ever read my posting history, I come from *Soviet Russia*, really, so I know what happens under those rules, and I do not like it!
> douchebag going-to-hell-athist
Totally agnostic here, but when filling out forms and questionnaires (in Soviet Russia we used to call them "anckettes") offered by *your* government, I wrote in "Taoist" in religion section.
> communist
See above
> nazi socialist
Do you mean Nationalsozialismus, or the International Socialism? Do you think there is really that much difference between them?
> jew
Hmm, funny -- I thought it's the "left wing" that have problems with Jews (and take side of Palestinians), me, personally, have no opinion on that ancient struggle and would just leave people to resolve their difficulties themselves.... Agreed?;)
> from Canada (or something)
Funny that I am typing this from Canada, but I am not here for political reasons, only job-related ones...
> as described by the incessant idiocy on the Right.
Do I still sound like an idiot? or do you want to find out how it is possible for me to have a consistent set of views without resorting to "Obama is always right!" thing? (Which would contradict the above-mentioned "question authority" thing, but it's apparently OK for you, not for me).
Willing to down-mode, or engage in real discussion?
Thanks for support, dude! And for your informative other comments -- I was just so disgusted with that bmo character that decided not to feed this troll!
And I have had my C4L signature since it replaced my "Ron Paul 2008" one, and still have karma to burn, so I guess I'll keep it for now!;)
Of course we both know who were the original (modern) Tea Party folks, and, for the record, I am not that happy to see likes of Sarah Palin try to highjack that movement, and GOP "establishment" infiltrating it, but this fine point does not necessarily fit simple black and white view of our liberal friends here. This is why they prefer to use slurs instead of, say, reading the link I've posted and questioning the simplicity of left/right division.
I was *jokingly* asking if this is the case in my previous post (http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1578224&cid=31429828), but you seem to confirm this. Wow, stunned...
What, do you mean that your new-fanged IDE does not allow you to split a single window, forcing you to have multiple windows and having to switch between them using your mouse?
And, as someone pointed out above, it sounds suspiciously like what Smalltalk and Lisp developers had back in 80s...:)
... "panels here and there to create electricity" from straw and wind, and it would be a *major* break-trough!
I am not sure that running any kind of a modern semiconductor process can be done in "carbon-neutral" way, and undoubtly it could produce much more nasty stuff than CO2 in the process -- but YMMV.
... most of those professions and some others had a special day in a year to commemorate them. Of course these were not official state holidays (as in, everyone gets a day off, like Labor day here, which was May 1st in Russia and *was* a real holiday), but it provided good enough reasons for members of given profession to celebrate (mostly by extra heavy drinking:) ).
General public was not necessarily aware of other professions' "days", except for Border Guard Day, because, unlike most of all other armed forces members, former and current Board Guards were celebrating in extra rowdy fashion and it was better not to go to Moscow central park on that day, unless looking for a fight...:)
So, programmers just got a day to celebrate, but not a day off work, AFAIK...
Of course O(log(N)) for *fixed* N is the same as O(1)! the dangers of O-notation is that in different contexts people can to disagree what relevant N is. Yes, you can sort N fixed-length integers in NlogN time, but what if integer length is growing?
As to memory access, one can argue that there is also O(sqrt(N)) term in it for conventional semiconductor RAM, organized as squarish matrix: one can access it only as often as it takes to charge word line (with capacitance proportional to sqrt(N), where N is number of bits).
And, of course, it is all irrelevant for algorithm analysis on a conventional off-the-shelf computer (unless you do arbitrary precision arithmetic), but how do you think people who *design* computers choose which, say, adder to put: one with linear area and linear (in bit length) operation time, or one with NlogN area and logN time?
It is (under physical constrains in out Universe, speed of light and such) is O(log(N)) in the best case (for N being number of addressable locations).
And "conveyor-belt" would imply O(N) access time, which, in my book, is not RAM, but more like tape or HDD (possibly flying by at the speed of light, but still linear, not logarithmic!).
But the experiment itself might be cool, everyone who have seen an optical table before should check out "A top view of the experiment" http://photonics.anu.edu.au/qoptics/ALE/Research/fiao_STB0057.html for the view of it taken to the next level... (I've played with such a lovely mess, but only with photons confined to fibers, randomly spooled on lab bench, with random packaged RF chips (one of them mine;-) ), waveguides, coax, good old banana plugs mixed with $1000 a piece 1mm connectors, and nice Agilent boxes around -- but tracing THIS one would make my head really hurt!:) )
By any chance, does the second part of your nickname refer to this particular interest of yours?:)
Absolutely!
Yeah, Hoare's CSPs, as a refreshing computational model when you actually have to deal with asynchronicity and speed of light being your limit, before the rest of the world caught up with it (though I was always pointing out that original Ethernet spec was truly relativistic technology, since min packet size was defined by max length and 'c'!:) ). It was fun attempting to simulate relativistic hardware in Lisp implementation of Occam.
Since then, moved to even more exotic physics/tech, but still fond of good abstractions!
My other thought was that having all those discrete components around relatively slow part would decrease bang for the buck appeal of this thing.
I'd start with something reasonably fast (but low power and with huge cache!) in the node core and surround it with a bunch of optical links (the more, the merrier), then start running fiber in interesting topologies... I do not think serial communication is inherently bad, but do agree that serial communication between slow nodes can be a real killer here.
Am I too old to remember them? And before that, there was Connection Machine...
Also (yes, I clicked on TFA!:) ), planar (in graph theory terms) interconnect topology would seem a bit too simplistic for anything resembling efficient routing...
Distance from Sol mush have been the right measure -- in somewhat similar context we decided to name "thingies" after moons in Solar system in alphabetical order (order was important!) -- did you know that there is no moon name starting with an 'F'? (not even an asteroid!, except for a really screwy one named Frederick, or something...);-) Of course I hacked up Phobos, 'PH being an entirely appropriate rendering of missing F in Greek"... But I guess karma caught up with my in time for 'P', which ended up being the worst "thingy" ever, on more than one level...
Morale of the story: Make sure your naming convention has room for expansion. Indeed!
Slashdot Mirror
Have you read the link that I have posted? Do you have anything better to say than calling people names?
Do not you realise that there is a rather large chunk of what one would call libertarians (or which I am one) willing to work with both Left and Right to solve the immediate problems that we are having right now, and try to resolve our differences later, maybe "agreeing to disagree", maybe just finding a better social order and using it to step up as species? ;)
I was offering the GP guy my hand, and now you seem to refuse to take it for pure ideological reasons, without stopping to think -- do you think it's right? What happened to 'question the authority?" thing, is it irrelevant now that Your Guy looks like he is holding the strings, and you are willing to support *whatever* he is up to?
Do you really support continuation of both wars (one somewhat declared, another one not), continuation of executive power special privileges, *new* PATRIOT act, absence of any move to de-criminalize recreational drugs, bailouts of huge corporations, making people pay through their nose for their health insurance, printing trillions of dollars of new money (if infusion of money into economy is *really* a solution, why not cancelling income tax for a year, instead of giving your buddies those trillions to "distribute", while taking a percentage off it? :) )?
Anyway... I think it was wrong of me to try to convert you (and yes, I did mean *you*, BMO!) Now play by play:
> A traitor scum liberal
What people used to be call "liberal" is now "libertarian", for the last century and half or so... What is not called "liberal" is more like a "socialist". And, if you have ever read my posting history, I come from *Soviet Russia*, really, so I know what happens under those rules, and I do not like it!
> douchebag going-to-hell-athist
Totally agnostic here, but when filling out forms and questionnaires (in Soviet Russia we used to call them "anckettes") offered by *your* government, I wrote in "Taoist" in religion section.
> communist
See above
> nazi socialist
Do you mean Nationalsozialismus, or the International Socialism? Do you think there is really that much difference between them?
> jew
Hmm, funny -- I thought it's the "left wing" that have problems with Jews (and take side of Palestinians), me, personally, have no opinion on that ancient struggle and would just leave people to resolve their difficulties themselves.... Agreed? ;)
> from Canada (or something)
Funny that I am typing this from Canada, but I am not here for political reasons, only job-related ones...
> as described by the incessant idiocy on the Right.
Do I still sound like an idiot? or do you want to find out how it is possible for me to have a consistent set of views without resorting to "Obama is always right!" thing? (Which would contradict the above-mentioned "question authority" thing, but it's apparently OK for you, not for me).
Willing to down-mode, or engage in real discussion?
Paul B.
Thanks for support, dude! And for your informative other comments -- I was just so disgusted with that bmo character that decided not to feed this troll!
And I have had my C4L signature since it replaced my "Ron Paul 2008" one, and still have karma to burn, so I guess I'll keep it for now! ;)
Of course we both know who were the original (modern) Tea Party folks, and, for the record, I am not that happy to see likes of Sarah Palin try to highjack that movement, and GOP "establishment" infiltrating it, but this fine point does not necessarily fit simple black and white view of our liberal friends here. This is why they prefer to use slurs instead of, say, reading the link I've posted and questioning the simplicity of left/right division.
Paul B.
... but my fellow Tea Partiers complain pretty loudly, e.g., here:
here.
Paul B.
Echelon -- one of theories regarding that back in late 90s (?) was that it was used by signatories to circumvent local privacy laws.
Though, of course, I could also be just a conspiracy theory... ;-)
Paul B.
Your retina doesn't even have pixels!
Rods and cones are not "pixels"? :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fig_retine.png
Paul B.
... while this "expert" have even seen a SIM card with AT&T logo on one of the photos in slideshow! :)
Paul B.
... on the loudest setting AND vibrate mode! :)
Just kidding,
Paul B.
if Google had told her jump on a bridge...
So, *this* is why they removed "Swim across the Atlantic Ocean -- 3462 miles" as part of the route to go from Boston, MA to London, UK! ;-)
Paul B.
I was *jokingly* asking if this is the case in my previous post (http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1578224&cid=31429828), but you seem to confirm this. Wow, stunned...
Paul B.
What, do you mean that your new-fanged IDE does not allow you to split a single window, forcing you to have multiple windows and having to switch between them using your mouse?
And, as someone pointed out above, it sounds suspiciously like what Smalltalk and Lisp developers had back in 80s... :)
Paul B.
;)
For those who do not care to register for that New Scientist, we still have arXiv... :)
http://arxiv.org/abs/q-bio/0702015
Paul B.
... of "Introduction to VLSI Systems" Mead/Conway fame?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Conway
Paul B.
... "panels here and there to create electricity" from straw and wind, and it would be a *major* break-trough!
I am not sure that running any kind of a modern semiconductor process can be done in "carbon-neutral" way, and undoubtly it could produce much more nasty stuff than CO2 in the process -- but YMMV.
Paul B.
Infrared *is* light, you know...
Technically, any wireless link uses photons (of too low wavelength to be considered light though :) ).
Paul B.
... most of those professions and some others had a special day in a year to commemorate them. Of course these were not official state holidays (as in, everyone gets a day off, like Labor day here, which was May 1st in Russia and *was* a real holiday), but it provided good enough reasons for members of given profession to celebrate (mostly by extra heavy drinking :) ).
General public was not necessarily aware of other professions' "days", except for Border Guard Day, because, unlike most of all other armed forces members, former and current Board Guards were celebrating in extra rowdy fashion and it was better not to go to Moscow central park on that day, unless looking for a fight... :)
So, programmers just got a day to celebrate, but not a day off work, AFAIK...
Paul B.
Of course O(log(N)) for *fixed* N is the same as O(1)! the dangers of O-notation is that in different contexts people can to disagree what relevant N is. Yes, you can sort N fixed-length integers in NlogN time, but what if integer length is growing?
As to memory access, one can argue that there is also O(sqrt(N)) term in it for conventional semiconductor RAM, organized as squarish matrix: one can access it only as often as it takes to charge word line (with capacitance proportional to sqrt(N), where N is number of bits).
And, of course, it is all irrelevant for algorithm analysis on a conventional off-the-shelf computer (unless you do arbitrary precision arithmetic), but how do you think people who *design* computers choose which, say, adder to put: one with linear area and linear (in bit length) operation time, or one with NlogN area and logN time?
Paul B.
It is (under physical constrains in out Universe, speed of light and such) is O(log(N)) in the best case (for N being number of addressable locations).
And "conveyor-belt" would imply O(N) access time, which, in my book, is not RAM, but more like tape or HDD (possibly flying by at the speed of light, but still linear, not logarithmic!).
But the experiment itself might be cool, everyone who have seen an optical table before should check out "A top view of the experiment" http://photonics.anu.edu.au/qoptics/ALE/Research/fiao_STB0057.html for the view of it taken to the next level... (I've played with such a lovely mess, but only with photons confined to fibers, randomly spooled on lab bench, with random packaged RF chips (one of them mine ;-) ), waveguides, coax, good old banana plugs mixed with $1000 a piece 1mm connectors, and nice Agilent boxes around -- but tracing THIS one would make my head really hurt! :) )
At least I *looked* at the TFA! :)
Paul B.
Interesting!
Thanks!
Paul B.
By any chance, does the second part of your nickname refer to this particular interest of yours? :)
Absolutely!
Yeah, Hoare's CSPs, as a refreshing computational model when you actually have to deal with asynchronicity and speed of light being your limit, before the rest of the world caught up with it (though I was always pointing out that original Ethernet spec was truly relativistic technology, since min packet size was defined by max length and 'c'! :) ). It was fun attempting to simulate relativistic hardware in Lisp implementation of Occam.
Since then, moved to even more exotic physics/tech, but still fond of good abstractions!
me ? reply
Paul B.
The largest one I've played with was one board with 8 or 16 TRAMs, it fit into what was the PC bus at the time, maybe as old as IDE...
By any chance, does the second part of your nickname refer to this particular interest of yours? :)
Paul B.
My other thought was that having all those discrete components around relatively slow part would decrease bang for the buck appeal of this thing.
I'd start with something reasonably fast (but low power and with huge cache!) in the node core and surround it with a bunch of optical links (the more, the merrier), then start running fiber in interesting topologies... I do not think serial communication is inherently bad, but do agree that serial communication between slow nodes can be a real killer here.
Paul B.
Am I too old to remember them? And before that, there was Connection Machine...
Also (yes, I clicked on TFA! :) ), planar (in graph theory terms) interconnect topology would seem a bit too simplistic for anything resembling efficient routing...
Paul B.
Marcellinito?
Distance from Sol mush have been the right measure -- in somewhat similar context we decided to name "thingies" after moons in Solar system in alphabetical order (order was important!) -- did you know that there is no moon name starting with an 'F'? (not even an asteroid!, except for a really screwy one named Frederick, or something...) ;-) Of course I hacked up Phobos, 'PH being an entirely appropriate rendering of missing F in Greek"... But I guess karma caught up with my in time for 'P', which ended up being the worst "thingy" ever, on more than one level...
Morale of the story: Make sure your naming convention has room for expansion. Indeed!
Paul B.