I'd argue OpenBSD does this (along with many Linux distributions) by selling pressed CDs of their OS. At one point they even copyrighted the ISO layout to prevent duplication shops from legally making copies. The sources (and binaries) have always been available online. I stopped buying them but I have to admit that I really liked having a collection of physical OpenBSD CDs with nice art (and even music!).
Pretty much sums my opinion up but I wanted to add one thing: Eat your own dog food.
Whatever software you build, make it useful for yourself and actually use it. It will always be part hobby but using it seriously will force you to either abandon it or enhance it. If it solves a problem and you are enhancing it you can get paid for this because other people that find the software useful are probably lazy. If no one else finds the software useful, you still have a very good tool.
There are tons of distributed projects where people donate CPU time. It has value for communities of people that like to work on common computational goals. Examples are SETI, distributed.net, and folding@home. Here is Wikipedia's list:
I ran a Pentium 200MHz overclocked to 250MHz for several years straight (along with many other machines) trying to crack RC5-64 years ago. Lots of fun.
A lot of physics and math programs are publicly funded or receive grant monies from government agencies. Government research just got pushed further into academia rather than pulling academia into "think tanks".
I have no problem rendering unicode on my terminals. Unicode doesn't have to do with text/binary. It has to do with font support. Either you need a console font that supports the code points you use or whatever set of X/gui fonts for your graphical terminals.
As an example of this, I just downloaded Homer's Iliad and Odyssey in the original greek encoded as UTF-8. I can edit the files in vim just fine and dumping them to my terminal works as well. You can pull one up here:
From what few details I have gathered it was an attack on Apache Struts that allowed the attackers to siphon data slowly over a period of time. I haven't seen any verified information about encryption or what was actually copied. My own personal speculation is the attacker got plain-text personal data that leaked out of some API.
It's only reversible because you have saved state. Where did you save it? It was embedded, energetically, into something that you now have to reverse. Sorry, I don't buy it. Computing logic by its nature is reversible except for the fact that state is not kept.
Overwriting memory releases the old value into the environment as waste heat when the new value is written. A reversible computing circuit would not overwrite the old value and would simply use a new storage location, thus using less energy. The problem is that you quickly run out of memory doing this. The article mentions that the solution is to simply "undo" these old states. That would create a closed (adiabatic) system that is constantly generating new state while cycling old state.
The claim is that the design of this is extremely efficient. I have a hard time believing this because the process of undoing old state will require as much energy as generating new state and it would seem to me the whole thing will act like a circular buffer. Either that or they reinvented SRAM.
The trick is to undo the operations that produced the intermediate results. This would allow any temporary memory to be reused for subsequent computations without ever having to erase or overwrite it.
... which results in thermal dissipation... which results in increased entropy... which is exactly the thing that you were trying to avoid in the first place. Yet Another Free Lunch.
The only way I can see this working is if you use very low temperature super conducting grids... like they already do in quantum computers. I just can't see any improvement here without material science being involved.
What is the need to distinguish gay from straight? It's a false categorization that has limited use in academic studies. It has no use in any social context that respects freedom of the individual. Even asking the question implies some need to put people into slots that we can then later act on. And no, I don't believe that the first question you ask a potential life partner is their sexual orientation. Human behavior is far more subtle and varied.
My comment also reflects the fact that ML/AI algorithms may have embedded biases in them that are overlooked because their internals are not very well understood. You are taking a very complex human issue and trying to reduce it to a single number. People without the will to think critically (80% of humans?) won't prevent this bias from propagating regardless of their own intentions.
It won't have this affect on government regimes that use this for population control. It won't have this affect on algorithms trained with this inherent bias in them.
I don't believe you and would like to see actual proof. Executives are not allowed by law to sell stock unless pre-announced in an SEC filing. If what you say is true, the sale was either legal under SEC rules or a complete and obvious violation of them.
I'll bet you won't. RO is expensive and wasteful. You throw away as much water as you clean. Chemical treatment is how large volumes of water are treated.
What you will find on bottles of water are municipality and regional agreements with established treatment plans. You are drinking tap water from a different city in a plastic bottle most of the time.
They essentially "learn" the same way your brain does by connecting, inspecting, and re-configuring weighted pathways. If they don't learn I'm not sure what you are doing.
It sounds like what they did is change from magnetic controls to electric controls for manipulating and reading the quantum state of a phosphorous atom. Apparently they can use an electron to actuate spin changes which ripple to the P atom and allow for larger coupling distances. I'm guessing this is what allows them to more easily embed the qubit in silicon. Interesting but I'd still like to see a prototype.
This also falls apart when you assume that everyone is capable or desirous of this ultra-efficiency driven goal-oriented framework. Most people want to wake up, eat, do something they feel is productive and fun, eat some more and go to sleep comfortably. The vast majority of people will do absolutely nothing to assist with this if it is just handed to them or if they don't feel in control of it. We need a system that addresses this fundamentally because we have huge productivity and productivity target mismatches.
Nobody feels entitled to anything. It's a simple statement of physical fact that when you release something to the public you have no control over its use anymore. You are angry because 2+3=5 and 5 isn't your favorite number. That's basically what the digital media argument comes down to.
Your only option is to ask some people with guns to help you get some money. What most "pirates" say is that you don't have to go that far but no one offers a middle ground.
That's where we are. And the "pirates" are still winning in case you are keeping score.
T-series SPARC architecture is only good for one thing: serving static web pages. You will get horrid performance for anything else. I know because we ran all kinds of stuff on them including web servers, databases (Oracle), and infrastructure. You are getting a slow, 4-CPU machine that "hyperthreads" to 128 cores with little to no cache. No, it is a horrible platform that needs to sink to the bottom of the digital ocean regardless of "high volume" and "server" labels. It was designed for transactional processing and fails. Don't take my word for it... ask the entire IT industry what they think.
You probably still have large SPARC sales due to legacy applications requiring it as part of the stack. This is changing, but I used an ERP that only gave requirements for Sun SPARC/Solaris with Oracle databases and this drives purchasing decisions. We tried for years to convince them to switch to Linux with all kinds of performance metrics. You lose your support contract when doing so, however.
Now that stuff is moving into the cloud, SPARC has no real reason to exist. It was already pretty crippled compared to x86 for general purpose stuff.
Lots of shared, hyper-threaded cores. The performance on them is abysmal. They started to bank on marketing the number of cores rather than making cores that perform so you get CPUs with 128 "cores" based on 4 CPU dies that take 10x as long to gzip/gunzip and other simple tasks.
No matter how much energy we generate, we will use an amount that is equivalent the excess wealth we have to pour into energy generation. More electricity at lower prices? I'll just run my A/C *AND* heater in different parts of my house year-round so I always have access to a "perfect" temperature.
This is why we should be thinking very carefully about how we deal with power. The land we convert to generation can't be easily re-used for much else (especially in the US with regulations).
Slashdot Mirror
We now have video of crashes at 200+ MPH. Tell me those look survivable.
I'd argue OpenBSD does this (along with many Linux distributions) by selling pressed CDs of their OS. At one point they even copyrighted the ISO layout to prevent duplication shops from legally making copies. The sources (and binaries) have always been available online. I stopped buying them but I have to admit that I really liked having a collection of physical OpenBSD CDs with nice art (and even music!).
Pretty much sums my opinion up but I wanted to add one thing: Eat your own dog food.
Whatever software you build, make it useful for yourself and actually use it. It will always be part hobby but using it seriously will force you to either abandon it or enhance it. If it solves a problem and you are enhancing it you can get paid for this because other people that find the software useful are probably lazy. If no one else finds the software useful, you still have a very good tool.
There are tons of distributed projects where people donate CPU time. It has value for communities of people that like to work on common computational goals. Examples are SETI, distributed.net, and folding@home. Here is Wikipedia's list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I ran a Pentium 200MHz overclocked to 250MHz for several years straight (along with many other machines) trying to crack RC5-64 years ago. Lots of fun.
A lot of physics and math programs are publicly funded or receive grant monies from government agencies. Government research just got pushed further into academia rather than pulling academia into "think tanks".
I have no problem rendering unicode on my terminals. Unicode doesn't have to do with text/binary. It has to do with font support. Either you need a console font that supports the code points you use or whatever set of X/gui fonts for your graphical terminals.
As an example of this, I just downloaded Homer's Iliad and Odyssey in the original greek encoded as UTF-8. I can edit the files in vim just fine and dumping them to my terminal works as well. You can pull one up here:
http://carbon.cc/~jhord/Homer/...
If that works you have plain-text unicode support in your browser.
From what few details I have gathered it was an attack on Apache Struts that allowed the attackers to siphon data slowly over a period of time. I haven't seen any verified information about encryption or what was actually copied. My own personal speculation is the attacker got plain-text personal data that leaked out of some API.
I've not been around mainframes for 25+ years so I don't know, or care, if they still do this (I'm sure others here will know).
I can assure you IBM does this. Customers have been complaining about this since forever.
To infinity and beyond?
It's only reversible because you have saved state. Where did you save it? It was embedded, energetically, into something that you now have to reverse. Sorry, I don't buy it. Computing logic by its nature is reversible except for the fact that state is not kept.
Overwriting memory releases the old value into the environment as waste heat when the new value is written. A reversible computing circuit would not overwrite the old value and would simply use a new storage location, thus using less energy. The problem is that you quickly run out of memory doing this. The article mentions that the solution is to simply "undo" these old states. That would create a closed (adiabatic) system that is constantly generating new state while cycling old state.
The claim is that the design of this is extremely efficient. I have a hard time believing this because the process of undoing old state will require as much energy as generating new state and it would seem to me the whole thing will act like a circular buffer. Either that or they reinvented SRAM.
The trick is to undo the operations that produced the intermediate results. This would allow any temporary memory to be reused for subsequent computations without ever having to erase or overwrite it.
... which results in thermal dissipation... which results in increased entropy... which is exactly the thing that you were trying to avoid in the first place. Yet Another Free Lunch.
The only way I can see this working is if you use very low temperature super conducting grids... like they already do in quantum computers. I just can't see any improvement here without material science being involved.
What is the need to distinguish gay from straight? It's a false categorization that has limited use in academic studies. It has no use in any social context that respects freedom of the individual. Even asking the question implies some need to put people into slots that we can then later act on. And no, I don't believe that the first question you ask a potential life partner is their sexual orientation. Human behavior is far more subtle and varied.
My comment also reflects the fact that ML/AI algorithms may have embedded biases in them that are overlooked because their internals are not very well understood. You are taking a very complex human issue and trying to reduce it to a single number. People without the will to think critically (80% of humans?) won't prevent this bias from propagating regardless of their own intentions.
It won't have this affect on government regimes that use this for population control. It won't have this affect on algorithms trained with this inherent bias in them.
I don't believe you and would like to see actual proof. Executives are not allowed by law to sell stock unless pre-announced in an SEC filing. If what you say is true, the sale was either legal under SEC rules or a complete and obvious violation of them.
I'll bet you won't. RO is expensive and wasteful. You throw away as much water as you clean. Chemical treatment is how large volumes of water are treated.
What you will find on bottles of water are municipality and regional agreements with established treatment plans. You are drinking tap water from a different city in a plastic bottle most of the time.
The Germans are getting even for everyone else getting even for WW2 (and WW1).
They essentially "learn" the same way your brain does by connecting, inspecting, and re-configuring weighted pathways. If they don't learn I'm not sure what you are doing.
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub...
It sounds like what they did is change from magnetic controls to electric controls for manipulating and reading the quantum state of a phosphorous atom. Apparently they can use an electron to actuate spin changes which ripple to the P atom and allow for larger coupling distances. I'm guessing this is what allows them to more easily embed the qubit in silicon. Interesting but I'd still like to see a prototype.
This also falls apart when you assume that everyone is capable or desirous of this ultra-efficiency driven goal-oriented framework. Most people want to wake up, eat, do something they feel is productive and fun, eat some more and go to sleep comfortably. The vast majority of people will do absolutely nothing to assist with this if it is just handed to them or if they don't feel in control of it. We need a system that addresses this fundamentally because we have huge productivity and productivity target mismatches.
Nobody feels entitled to anything. It's a simple statement of physical fact that when you release something to the public you have no control over its use anymore. You are angry because 2+3=5 and 5 isn't your favorite number. That's basically what the digital media argument comes down to.
Your only option is to ask some people with guns to help you get some money. What most "pirates" say is that you don't have to go that far but no one offers a middle ground.
That's where we are. And the "pirates" are still winning in case you are keeping score.
T-series SPARC architecture is only good for one thing: serving static web pages. You will get horrid performance for anything else. I know because we ran all kinds of stuff on them including web servers, databases (Oracle), and infrastructure. You are getting a slow, 4-CPU machine that "hyperthreads" to 128 cores with little to no cache. No, it is a horrible platform that needs to sink to the bottom of the digital ocean regardless of "high volume" and "server" labels. It was designed for transactional processing and fails. Don't take my word for it... ask the entire IT industry what they think.
You probably still have large SPARC sales due to legacy applications requiring it as part of the stack. This is changing, but I used an ERP that only gave requirements for Sun SPARC/Solaris with Oracle databases and this drives purchasing decisions. We tried for years to convince them to switch to Linux with all kinds of performance metrics. You lose your support contract when doing so, however.
Now that stuff is moving into the cloud, SPARC has no real reason to exist. It was already pretty crippled compared to x86 for general purpose stuff.
Lots of shared, hyper-threaded cores. The performance on them is abysmal. They started to bank on marketing the number of cores rather than making cores that perform so you get CPUs with 128 "cores" based on 4 CPU dies that take 10x as long to gzip/gunzip and other simple tasks.
It's an ever increasing amount. One thing no one mentions is Jevon's paradox:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
No matter how much energy we generate, we will use an amount that is equivalent the excess wealth we have to pour into energy generation. More electricity at lower prices? I'll just run my A/C *AND* heater in different parts of my house year-round so I always have access to a "perfect" temperature.
This is why we should be thinking very carefully about how we deal with power. The land we convert to generation can't be easily re-used for much else (especially in the US with regulations).