Maybe things have changes since the last time I followed Linux development with any care, but I seem to recall that the odd kernel releases - that is, 2.1, 2.3, etc - are all development kernels. That is, that is the point where they add "loads and loads of new features". The even numbered kernels, 2.2, 2.4, etc, are the release kernels. That is, the ones where things have been stablized to the point of being put on "industrial grade" systems. So the fact that your 2.5 kernel starts crapping out when you put a load on it isn't surprising at all. If stability is what you want, go back to the latest 2.4 kernel and wait until 2.6 is released.
If you want an extreme example of this concept, check out the Cray(formerly Tera) MTA system. It sports 128 threads per processor - that is, 128 complete sets of registers. The idea is to tolerate memory latency while still being able to keep your pipelines full. An intersting fact is that they use a flat memory architecture - no caches! The cost is they need a lot of bandwidth to keep data moving properly from memory to the registers...
I think what a lot of people here are missing is that there is a difference between using a computer and using a tool. The doctors, engineers, teachers and lawyers you talk about probably sit in front of a computer to accomplish some particular task - they don't sit down and see a computer, they sit down and see a possible means to an end. For example, a doctor may be interested in looking up info in a pharmacy database. These people DO NOT sit down and turn off their brain - their brain is occupied with other tasks. The doctor looking up drug info should not be expected to learn the subtleties of SQL just to make a prescription! The easier we make it, the less we make the doctor have to think about using a computer, the more he can think about being a doctor. This is, really, what user friendliness is about - freeing the brain for other things.
This may seem obvious, but it wasn't obvious to me until I was a grad student: mathematics is NOT a spectator sport. ALWAYS ask questions about what you don't understand. Don't feel nervous or self-conscious about it - if there's a thing you don't understand, chances are, there's at least a half-dozen other people who are right there with you, confused. Also, don't forget to take advantage of a professor/instructor's office hours. In my experience, many professors are lousy lecturers, but once they get into a one-on-one situations, the are absolutely WONDERFUL! Don't necessarily stick to "official" office hours either. If there's something bothering you, stop by the prof's office and ask "do you have a couple of minutes?" You might get blown off(always be polite when this happens, after all, this IS the prof's time you're trying to make use of), but often as not, the prof's willing to talk to people.
> The problem with these bondage-and-discipline languages is that when you make it impossible to do dumb things, you also make it impossible to do brilliant things.
However, for the most part, in large scale software projects, doing "brilliant things" is not all that desirable either. In my experience, most of the "brilliant things" that a "bondage-and-dicipline" language makes impossible are synonymous with "wierd, tricky things" which are inherently bad for software readability, and therefore software maintainability. If you're a lead software engineer at, say M$, and you have a nice design to be implemented, when you get the code back from the programming team, you expect to see what you've designed. If you're using a good language, most of the performance issues will be ironed out in the compiling/optimizing stage.
I don't want to make it sound like I'm 100% for these languages - my weapon of choice is C(followed at a distance by Fortran), but I have the training and experience necessary so that I don't get bitten too often by the "wierd, tricky things" the language lets me get away with.
First of all, I have to admit that I don't really know much about the design of these things. Having said that, realize that what I'm about to say is pure speculation. In other words, I'm talking out my ass. Anyways, I'd imagine the designers have thought of that and have either found ways to localize the magnetic fields more or less to their point of application(that is near the bottom where the levitation is), or that they will have found some way to shield the interior of the car from the magnetic effects. Boy I wish I hadn't slept through so much E&M, that way I might actually sound like I know something here....:-6
You want to know what frightens me? I've got a 4 year degree in physics. I'm a month or so away from completing an MS in Computer Science. I grew up your typical underachiever(above average intelligence is all that saved my grades; I'm a lousy student). I'm a private pilot, and have started hang gliding. I'm a geek and hang out with geek friends - eccentrics who aren't worried about(or don't have enough social skills to worry about) saying what on their minds. On top of that, I have long hair.
Do you think I'm on someone's "list" somewhere? THIS is what terrifies me about MY future...
What I find interesting and what many people seem to miss is that the Constitution does not refer to US citezens. "No person". "Any person". "The accused". It doesn't matter if you're a US citizen or a foreign national - you should be entitled to the same basic rights. It seems clear to me that the authors of the Constitution valued these things as fundamental things, not privledges of US citizens; their merit is that they apply univerally.
>Then there are the people who don't consider gravity as a 'wave'.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't gravity waves been observed? As I recall, it was one of the neat things the Hubble telescope has done for us...
>If true, it would mean he wasted someone's money
This is something that really bugs me... even if you were joking. Science is about finding out the ways in which the universe works. An important part of this is finding the ways in which the universe DOESN'T work. It is called the scientific method: observe, hypothesize, experiment, repeat. So, even if this guy's hypothesis isn't correct, all he's done is shown another hypothesis that doesn't hold up to testing. This is NOT a waste of money...
Solar is my favorite energy source for splitting water. The process doesn't even need to be particularly efficient, given the abundance of solar energy. Actually, I guess that's not entirely true, but we do have a steady source of energy, at least until the sun burns itself out.
I agree with you assertion that nuclear is the way to go for our electrical needs. AND I'm in favor of H2 fuel cells:-)... I don't believe there is one silver bullet solution that we will see in our lifetime(although, if it happens, I'll be first in line to buy a "Mr. Fusion" power supply for my car that can run off of banana peels and bad beer). The irrational fear people have of "nuclear" things is so bizzare...
I do get tired of reading that burning hydrogen produces no emissions (NOx and others), but ignoring the fact that hydrogen as to come from somewhere (you can't just pump H2 out of a hole in the ground) that tends to be fossil fuels today in another forms.
It is true that hydrogen BURNED IN AIR does produce other pollutants. After all, the atmosphere is about 78% Nitrogen(by volume). However, the reaction that drives fuel cells is NOT combustion. It is an electrochemical process that forms water from hydrogen and oxygen, happily producing a modest amount of electrical current at the same time. No other reactions take place!
As far as the explosiveness, most hydrogen advocates say that it is not really anymore dangerous than petroleum products: www.hydrogen.org. I know, I know - Your propaganda versus mine.:-)
As I recall(it's been a while since I played around with a C64), the C64 got around its 8 bit limit by doing some funky "bank register" stuff so that you were actually selecting between one of 4 16k memory banks... I know this isn't quite right, since even 16K assumes 14 bits... but I do know there was some kind of hoopty-magic going on to make things work...
> Forcing his way into your personal mailbox is not a right in any country that I'm aware of.
If we go back to the snail mail analogy, it is perfectly acceptable(in the US, anyway) to send out mass mailings. I've thrown away many pieces of junkmail addressed to "occupant". Even worse, a lot of credit card companies seem to think I need a brand new(preapproved!) credit card. I'm a college student, so it isn't as if I'm not in enough debt already...:-( One might argue that the companies sending these out are abusing the postal service beyond what the postage stamp pays for(exactly the same arguement people use to say that spammers use up to much bandwith, network resources, etc).
In any case, most of this stuff all goes into the recycling can. The thing with email is that it is even easier! How hard is it to push the delete key?
I should say I'm not at all in favor of spammers. I find them as irritating as the next person; I fully agree with you that setting up banners on "friendly" web pages is a much better way to go. However, I get tired of people complaining about something in cyberspace that happens all the time out in the "real" world. If junk papermail(which can easily be thrown out) isn't illegal, why should the electonic equivalent be illegal?
In the 4 processor system in the "old, shared" bus design, each processor only gets a part of the 6.4GB. According to the arithmetic I learned, 6.4GB/4 = 1.6 GB, which is what was stated...
* Why, for cryin' out loud, didn't Kenobi and Yoda teach Luke the various Sith lightning counterattacks they used in their fights? He could've used them...
In the novelization of Jedi(don't remember the author, sorry), Luke was able to defend against the lightning... for a little while. He was simply overpowered - the Emporer was able keep zapping longer than Luke could continue deflecting it. I always wondered why this scene didn't get transcribed to the film...
Here at OSU, we force students to choose a password that has to pass a filter program that disallows things like all letters followed by all numbers, as well as checking for words and word fragments in several languages, including l337. Choosing this password is always frustrating to new students, because we also tell them it should be something they can remember without needing to write it down. The easiest way I've found to do this is to think of a phrase, or some easily remembered sequence of words, and choose one letter from each, changing one or more into numerals or punctuation. What you end up with is a password that is utterly incomprehensible in its "visible" form, but easy for a novice user to remember. Security with easy-to-remember. Simple.
I guess someone has to be the mercenary, utilitarian bastard here. Might as well be me. In my studies, I have done a little bit of playing around with Cellular Automata. As models, they aren't all that USEFUL. Even if Wolfram is correct that his way is better at describing things, what good is it if I can't use it to design a building, or analyze the aerodynamics of the airplane I'm trying to build?
As part of a class I took a couple of years ago, I undertook a literature survey of the work done to adapt CA to fluid dynamics and hydraulics. I found a 200-page doctoral thesis, and a 600 page USAF technical report. Basically, CA cannot accurately describe fluid dynamics without a lot of extra work, on the part of both the modeler and the computer you want to run it on. After that much work, you might as well have used your favourite computational Navier-Stokes solver.
Maybe Wolfram's method will describe things better, but what good is it if it doesn't provide better insight into what it is describing?
In their "Long term research" section, NASA Ames claims to be working on a 10^18 MIPS Babbage-style mechanical computer from nanotubes - perhaps powered by these little nanosprings?
However, that is VASTLY different than putting most of my attention on a phone conversation whilst half-assed paying attention to the car I am tailgating.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe things have changes since the last time I followed Linux development with any care, but I seem to recall that the odd kernel releases - that is, 2.1, 2.3, etc - are all development kernels. That is, that is the point where they add "loads and loads of new features". The even numbered kernels, 2.2, 2.4, etc, are the release kernels. That is, the ones where things have been stablized to the point of being put on "industrial grade" systems. So the fact that your 2.5 kernel starts crapping out when you put a load on it isn't surprising at all. If stability is what you want, go back to the latest 2.4 kernel and wait until 2.6 is released.
If you want an extreme example of this concept, check out the Cray(formerly Tera) MTA system. It sports 128 threads per processor - that is, 128 complete sets of registers. The idea is to tolerate memory latency while still being able to keep your pipelines full. An intersting fact is that they use a flat memory architecture - no caches! The cost is they need a lot of bandwidth to keep data moving properly from memory to the registers...
In case anyone is intersted, Arneson's web page is at www.castleblackmoor.com.
I think what a lot of people here are missing is that there is a difference between using a computer and using a tool. The doctors, engineers, teachers and lawyers you talk about probably sit in front of a computer to accomplish some particular task - they don't sit down and see a computer, they sit down and see a possible means to an end. For example, a doctor may be interested in looking up info in a pharmacy database. These people DO NOT sit down and turn off their brain - their brain is occupied with other tasks. The doctor looking up drug info should not be expected to learn the subtleties of SQL just to make a prescription! The easier we make it, the less we make the doctor have to think about using a computer, the more he can think about being a doctor. This is, really, what user friendliness is about - freeing the brain for other things.
Active involvement is the best way to learn math!
However, for the most part, in large scale software projects, doing "brilliant things" is not all that desirable either. In my experience, most of the "brilliant things" that a "bondage-and-dicipline" language makes impossible are synonymous with "wierd, tricky things" which are inherently bad for software readability, and therefore software maintainability. If you're a lead software engineer at, say M$, and you have a nice design to be implemented, when you get the code back from the programming team, you expect to see what you've designed. If you're using a good language, most of the performance issues will be ironed out in the compiling/optimizing stage.
I don't want to make it sound like I'm 100% for these languages - my weapon of choice is C(followed at a distance by Fortran), but I have the training and experience necessary so that I don't get bitten too often by the "wierd, tricky things" the language lets me get away with.
First of all, I have to admit that I don't really know much about the design of these things. Having said that, realize that what I'm about to say is pure speculation. In other words, I'm talking out my ass. Anyways, I'd imagine the designers have thought of that and have either found ways to localize the magnetic fields more or less to their point of application(that is near the bottom where the levitation is), or that they will have found some way to shield the interior of the car from the magnetic effects. Boy I wish I hadn't slept through so much E&M, that way I might actually sound like I know something here.... :-6
Do you think I'm on someone's "list" somewhere? THIS is what terrifies me about MY future...
What I find interesting and what many people seem to miss is that the Constitution does not refer to US citezens. "No person". "Any person". "The accused". It doesn't matter if you're a US citizen or a foreign national - you should be entitled to the same basic rights. It seems clear to me that the authors of the Constitution valued these things as fundamental things, not privledges of US citizens; their merit is that they apply univerally.
>no matter how many dirty long-haired nerd hippies Hey! Who are you calling dirty? I showered just this week!
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't gravity waves been observed? As I recall, it was one of the neat things the Hubble telescope has done for us...
This is something that really bugs me... even if you were joking. Science is about finding out the ways in which the universe works. An important part of this is finding the ways in which the universe DOESN'T work. It is called the scientific method: observe, hypothesize, experiment, repeat. So, even if this guy's hypothesis isn't correct, all he's done is shown another hypothesis that doesn't hold up to testing. This is NOT a waste of money...
I agree with you assertion that nuclear is the way to go for our electrical needs. AND I'm in favor of H2 fuel cells :-) ... I don't believe there is one silver bullet solution that we will see in our lifetime(although, if it happens, I'll be first in line to buy a "Mr. Fusion" power supply for my car that can run off of banana peels and bad beer). The irrational fear people have of "nuclear" things is so bizzare...
As far as the explosiveness, most hydrogen advocates say that it is not really anymore dangerous than petroleum products: www.hydrogen.org. :-)
I know, I know - Your propaganda versus mine.
As I recall(it's been a while since I played around with a C64), the C64 got around its 8 bit limit by doing some funky "bank register" stuff so that you were actually selecting between one of 4 16k memory banks... I know this isn't quite right, since even 16K assumes 14 bits... but I do know there was some kind of hoopty-magic going on to make things work...
If we go back to the snail mail analogy, it is perfectly acceptable(in the US, anyway) to send out mass mailings. I've thrown away many pieces of junkmail addressed to "occupant". Even worse, a lot of credit card companies seem to think I need a brand new(preapproved!) credit card. I'm a college student, so it isn't as if I'm not in enough debt already...
In any case, most of this stuff all goes into the recycling can. The thing with email is that it is even easier! How hard is it to push the delete key?
I should say I'm not at all in favor of spammers. I find them as irritating as the next person; I fully agree with you that setting up banners on "friendly" web pages is a much better way to go. However, I get tired of people complaining about something in cyberspace that happens all the time out in the "real" world. If junk papermail(which can easily be thrown out) isn't illegal, why should the electonic equivalent be illegal?
So much to be had from the proper use of things like bottle rockets!
:)
Don't forget about archie! google - pffft! :-)
In the 4 processor system in the "old, shared" bus design, each processor only gets a part of the 6.4GB. According to the arithmetic I learned, 6.4GB/4 = 1.6 GB, which is what was stated...
In the novelization of Jedi(don't remember the author, sorry), Luke was able to defend against the lightning... for a little while. He was simply overpowered - the Emporer was able keep zapping longer than Luke could continue deflecting it. I always wondered why this scene didn't get transcribed to the film...
Here at OSU, we force students to choose a password that has to pass a filter program that disallows things like all letters followed by all numbers, as well as checking for words and word fragments in several languages, including l337. Choosing this password is always frustrating to new students, because we also tell them it should be something they can remember without needing to write it down. The easiest way I've found to do this is to think of a phrase, or some easily remembered sequence of words, and choose one letter from each, changing one or more into numerals or punctuation. What you end up with is a password that is utterly incomprehensible in its "visible" form, but easy for a novice user to remember. Security with easy-to-remember. Simple.
As part of a class I took a couple of years ago, I undertook a literature survey of the work done to adapt CA to fluid dynamics and hydraulics. I found a 200-page doctoral thesis, and a 600 page USAF technical report. Basically, CA cannot accurately describe fluid dynamics without a lot of extra work, on the part of both the modeler and the computer you want to run it on. After that much work, you might as well have used your favourite computational Navier-Stokes solver.
Maybe Wolfram's method will describe things better, but what good is it if it doesn't provide better insight into what it is describing?
In their "Long term research" section, NASA Ames claims to be working on a 10^18 MIPS Babbage-style mechanical computer from nanotubes - perhaps powered by these little nanosprings?
You mean that was you ?