Enough with the Java bashing already!! This is not doing the number crunching!! The Seti client is!!
(oh, yeah, by the way, Java is fast becoming the de facto standard in supercomputing and number crunching, anyway...the issue is not speed anymore, but accuracy)
It's written with the command line version "in mind". Meaning, I assume, that it just polls the output from the command line version (for windows, whatever). It doesn't do any crunching itself! That's the backend's responsibility.
If you want to take a peek at what's going on you just launch this frontend.
I didn't switch to the command line version because I couldn't figure out a way to make the window disappear or use it as a service. If using the command line version TRIPLES speed, I might reconsider.
Yes but even if time slowed exponentially, you should be dead by the time you might care. A few milliseconds past the horizon and you should be ripped to pieces.
"But where would the energy for a such chain reaction come from?"
You know those pennies you have in a jar? And the little plastic tray cashiers keep pennies in? Well these are the so-called "lost-pennies". Einstein's special relativity relates time, mass and energy. We all know time is money, and conversely money is time. We also know energy must be conserved. It follows then that these lost pennies must create a surplus of energy to fulfill the law of conservation of energy.
Note: certain configurations of lost pennies, socks, and drying machines have been known to create black holes...so remember, always take the change out of your pockets before doing laundry
cool...if they merged it with that electro-shock gun they could open an ionized stream to something and vaporize it by channelling the power of the sun to it...neat-o
I don't really see what happened as a "big deal". Yes, "lots" (relatively...actually that's a paltry sum when distributed over many people), of money was incorrectly debited. But that is exactly it: *incorrectly debited*. Not *vanished*, or *disappeared*. The asynchronous notification just never made it back due to slow communication lines...something which should have been accounted for but wasn't for some reason. This is a lot *less* serious than data being scrambled, records being lost, and money *actually* *disappearing* with no electronic (or otherwise) memory left over. That this problem was immediately found, recognized, and reversed in such a short time *boosts* my confidence in such a system. Now if it really disappeared without a trace that would be a Bad Thing...
Oh, by the way GOLD and SILVER retain no value whatsoever with me (re: "GOLD and SILVER still retain value"). What the HECK do I really need a lump of metal for??? Money has value because of an implicit TRUST amongst people. That trust, to me, is the same, whether it is paper money, electronic records, or a lump of metal. In fact, I'd rather not keep piles of metal around just so I could buy stuff.
That an economy and government would be subject to crumbling due to a shift away from solid currency is just evidence that people are stupid and irrational (oh no, this paper is worth nothing!! where are those lumps of metal I can buy stuff with!?!?! Ahh!!)
Why do I get the feeling that all this licenses splintering from GPL are just an attempt of the lawyers to be able to control the license. This does make sense (then your lawyers know *exactly* what *they* wrote in the license and can't be stabbed in the back by some obscure clause), but it is really going overboard. Is *every* company going to make a new license for *every* product?
Yes, inactive processes get swapped out...then the disk cache caches the swap, then they can get read in faster.
This is sort of weird, but must happen. It sort of begs the question, what is the optimal tradeoff between swap and cache (i.e., the more swap you have = the more can be swapped out = the more disk cache can grow = the more swap can be cached) ???
Maybe Linux doesn't cache swap...should be a flag somewhere...
Everybody likes to come up with their magical number or multiplier for swap. They don't really make sense. If RAM + swap = total mem, then just make sure you have enough swap to increase your total memory to that needed to run all apps you think you will be running concurrently. i.e., bring up every single think you *think* you might want to run at the same time, and then check you memory usage. Make your swap = used memory - RAM.
I really don't understand the 2x multiplier. Um, if I have 500 MB of RAM, that means that I need 1 G swap!!?? Right! The more RAM you have, the LESS swap you should need. Should be something like:
swap =.5 RAM maybe or swap = N +.5 RAM
Striping is cool...you can do that with swap under NT too...heh, NT even gives you one big stripe of useless data down the middle of your partition for "recovery". That's what I call New Technology...
Although I don't disagree with your statement that software companies should be focusing on bulletproof software for mission critical applications...when is the last time a mission-critical piece of software cost 100s of millions of dollars (not to mention 20 years of R&D funding), had the capability of defending/attacking a nation, and whose bugs couldn't be fixed with a downloadable patch? There's sort of a difference. Although, as with Moore's Law, just because they CAN get away with it, doesn't mean they SHOULD.
HTTP/1.1 must have been around FOREVER before becoming a standard now, because without reading any RFCs, I've been building a proxy which is based on parsing
GET http://some.domain.or.ip:port/
from the HTTP request (otherwise, how the heck does a proxy know who to connect to to "get" stuff??)
At least Netscape always formats requests like this...
Ideally, then, the "index" would really be a "living" database...every node containing a fraction of it which changed over time (nodes should probably ISPs or people with dedicated connections). A "query" would somehow trickle through index servers/nodes getting the most relevant hits. For instance, it makes sense for the indexes of items to be served from *where* they are located (hence ISP). Wanna find out about "foobar", well central server knows that server Y over there has high "foobar"ish content, so it forwards its request and gives results from that node a higher priority. Each node does this until some threshhold is hit. Of course latency would probably be staggering and if a node went down, there'd have to be a backup.
I sort of like the idea of a self-indexing web...almost like a neural net (insofar as it is mutable through requests being submitted)...central databases don't seem to work well..they are too "removed" from the actually destination...
Hmmm...what is the limiting factor in indexing pages? Is it bandwidth? Or CPU? Or just the fact that so many go up and down so fast? If it's bandwidth or CPU, would a distributed project work??? I know you can get dumb Yahoo pager and Altavista Search and all that junk...what if they had "Download: Altavista Index Agent/Spider" or something, where people could use their spare cycles/bandwidth to index...would it work? Does that even make sense? Like SETI, the server could give them some chunk of "namespace" to index and the spider/agents could go at it.
Even the revised analogy is bad, because it indicates the cattle are infected with something that isn't already there. The bugs are *already* there, waiting to spring up and bite somebody. Perhaps a better analogy would be somebody putting coloring in the meat that made disease show up in some nasty bright color...or made meat that had some flaw in it taste terrible (which would be a good thing).
Anyway, all these analogies are wrong because AFAIK BO2K doesn't exploit *bugs*, per se, it exploits *poor design* in the OS.
"Err, uhh, last I checked, stuff like commctl.dll was considered a system *library*. Just a resource for programmers. Using this thing doesn't rely on tight connections between the OS and Apps folks."
No, but the commctl.dll IS tightly coupled to the OS version. Which means that the same code that is included in the Win98 system library was duplicated in the software in order to get the gimmicky menus and widgets to work on all OSs, instead of just linking dynamically to the version that was out there. If I'm a Win95 user, I think I can deal with not having the Win98ish menus and gui items. MS threw in the kitchen sink for the "neat-o" effect (which has no effect on me whatsoever).
Slashdot Mirror
Enough with the Java bashing already!!
This is not doing the number crunching!!
The Seti client is!!
(oh, yeah, by the way, Java is fast becoming the de facto standard in supercomputing and number crunching, anyway...the issue is not speed anymore, but accuracy)
It's written with the command line version "in mind". Meaning, I assume, that it just polls the output from the command line version (for windows, whatever). It doesn't do any crunching itself! That's the backend's responsibility.
If you want to take a peek at what's going on you just launch this frontend.
I didn't switch to the command line version because I couldn't figure out a way to make the window disappear or use it as a service. If using the command line version TRIPLES speed, I might reconsider.
Yes but even if time slowed exponentially, you should be dead by the time you might care. A few milliseconds past the horizon and you should be ripped to pieces.
They already did it. It's called the Bermuda Triangle.
heh
I hear that worried person saying:
"Oh, gee, just a mega-H-bomb, not global annihilation...whew!"
heh
"But where would the energy for a such chain reaction come from?"
You know those pennies you have in a jar? And the little plastic tray cashiers keep pennies in? Well these are the so-called "lost-pennies". Einstein's special relativity relates time, mass and energy. We all know time is money, and conversely money is time. We also know energy must be conserved. It follows then that these lost pennies must create a surplus of energy to fulfill the law of conservation of energy.
Note: certain configurations of lost pennies, socks, and drying machines have been known to create black holes...so remember, always take the change out of your pockets before doing laundry
Hey, we could put it into orbit around earth (or the sun) and blast all our trash off into it. It would be a, uhh, space fill.
Oh shit! I better buy a wood stove.
omigod
Masters of Downloading has the tower!?
They are so l33t!
cool...if they merged it with that electro-shock gun they could open an ionized stream to something and vaporize it by channelling the power of the sun to it...neat-o
hmm....I thought they were going to use CP/M...
I don't really see what happened as a "big deal". Yes, "lots" (relatively...actually that's a paltry sum when distributed over many people), of money was incorrectly debited. But that is exactly it: *incorrectly debited*. Not *vanished*, or *disappeared*. The asynchronous notification just never made it back due to slow communication lines...something which should have been accounted for but wasn't for some reason. This is a lot *less* serious than data being scrambled, records being lost, and money *actually* *disappearing* with no electronic (or otherwise) memory left over. That this problem was immediately found, recognized, and reversed in such a short time *boosts* my confidence in such a system. Now if it really disappeared without a trace that would be a Bad Thing...
Oh, by the way GOLD and SILVER retain no value whatsoever with me (re: "GOLD and SILVER still retain value"). What the HECK do I really need a lump of metal for??? Money has value because of an implicit TRUST amongst people. That trust, to me, is the same, whether it is paper money, electronic records, or a lump of metal. In fact, I'd rather not keep piles of metal around just so I could buy stuff.
That an economy and government would be subject to crumbling due to a shift away from solid currency is just evidence that people are stupid and irrational (oh no, this paper is worth nothing!! where are those lumps of metal I can buy stuff with!?!?! Ahh!!)
Isn't Network Associates what became of McAfee?? What do they have to do with domains??
Why do I get the feeling that all this licenses splintering from GPL are just an attempt of the lawyers to be able to control the license. This does make sense (then your lawyers know *exactly* what *they* wrote in the license and can't be stabbed in the back by some obscure clause), but it is really going overboard. Is *every* company going to make a new license for *every* product?
Yes, inactive processes get swapped out...then the disk cache caches the swap, then they can get read in faster.
This is sort of weird, but must happen. It sort of begs the question, what is the optimal tradeoff between swap and cache (i.e., the more swap you have = the more can be swapped out = the more disk cache can grow = the more swap can be cached) ???
Maybe Linux doesn't cache swap...should be a flag somewhere...
Everybody likes to come up with their magical number or multiplier for swap. They don't really make sense. If RAM + swap = total mem, then just make sure you have enough swap to increase your total memory to that needed to run all apps you think you will be running concurrently. i.e., bring up every single think you *think* you might want to run at the same time, and then check you memory usage. Make your swap = used memory - RAM.
.5 RAM maybe .5 RAM
I really don't understand the 2x multiplier. Um, if I have 500 MB of RAM, that means that I need 1 G swap!!?? Right! The more RAM you have, the LESS swap you should need. Should be something like:
swap =
or
swap = N +
Striping is cool...you can do that with swap under NT too...heh, NT even gives you one big stripe of useless data down the middle of your partition for "recovery". That's what I call New Technology...
"...is a Swedish actress...hence the Swedish accent. If you want to hear a Spanish accent, listen to Antonio Banderas."
;)
He'll probably play a mercenary in Episode II, right?
Although I don't disagree with your statement that software companies should be focusing on bulletproof software for mission critical applications...when is the last time a mission-critical piece of software cost 100s of millions of dollars (not to mention 20 years of R&D funding), had the capability of defending/attacking a nation, and whose bugs couldn't be fixed with a downloadable patch? There's sort of a difference. Although, as with Moore's Law, just because they CAN get away with it, doesn't mean they SHOULD.
HTTP/1.1 must have been around FOREVER before becoming a standard now, because without reading any RFCs, I've been building a proxy which is based on parsing
GET http://some.domain.or.ip:port/
from the HTTP request (otherwise, how the heck does a proxy know who to connect to to "get" stuff??)
At least Netscape always formats requests like this...
Hey...how about running standard index daemons or something then instead of pointless chargens?
Ideally, then, the "index" would really be a "living" database...every node containing a fraction of it which changed over time (nodes should probably ISPs or people with dedicated connections). A "query" would somehow trickle through index servers/nodes getting the most relevant hits. For instance, it makes sense for the indexes of items to be served from *where* they are located (hence ISP). Wanna find out about "foobar", well central server knows that server Y over there has high "foobar"ish content, so it forwards its request and gives results from that node a higher priority. Each node does this until some threshhold is hit. Of course latency would probably be staggering and if a node went down, there'd have to be a backup.
I sort of like the idea of a self-indexing web...almost like a neural net (insofar as it is mutable through requests being submitted)...central databases don't seem to work well..they are too "removed" from the actually destination...
Hmmm...what is the limiting factor in indexing pages? Is it bandwidth? Or CPU? Or just the fact that so many go up and down so fast? If it's bandwidth or CPU, would a distributed project work??? I know you can get dumb Yahoo pager and Altavista Search and all that junk...what if they had "Download: Altavista Index Agent/Spider" or something, where people could use their spare cycles/bandwidth to index...would it work? Does that even make sense? Like SETI, the server could give them some chunk of "namespace" to index and the spider/agents could go at it.
Even the revised analogy is bad, because it indicates the cattle are infected with something that isn't already there. The bugs are *already* there, waiting to spring up and bite somebody. Perhaps a better analogy would be somebody putting coloring in the meat that made disease show up in some nasty bright color...or made meat that had some flaw in it taste terrible (which would be a good thing).
Anyway, all these analogies are wrong because AFAIK BO2K doesn't exploit *bugs*, per se, it exploits *poor design* in the OS.
Well...I don't use "mail", but I do sometimes telnet to the SMTP port ;)
"Err, uhh, last I checked, stuff like commctl.dll was considered a system *library*. Just a resource for programmers. Using this thing doesn't rely on tight connections between the OS and Apps folks."
No, but the commctl.dll IS tightly coupled to the OS version. Which means that the same code that is included in the Win98 system library was duplicated in the software in order to get the gimmicky menus and widgets to work on all OSs, instead of just linking dynamically to the version that was out there. If I'm a Win95 user, I think I can deal with not having the Win98ish menus and gui items. MS threw in the kitchen sink for the "neat-o" effect (which has no effect on me whatsoever).