Your lack of understanding is quite simply astounding. You have completely missed the point of their research, which is to reduce the latency in randomly accessing information in a large dataset. They are not measuring throughput (or bandwidth) although the article does state that they hit 4.9GB/s. If you made your files much much smaller and then repeated your test you would find that your performance drops drastically as your program comes limited by a different IO bound. Instead of being bounded by the bandwidth you would find that the number of separate IO operations became the bottleneck. The reason that SSDs have provided such a large increase in performance is not the increase in bandwidth of 5-10x spinning disks - the decrease in latency has increased the number of IO operations by four, or five, orders of magnitude.
Using a RAM disk you should be able to hit a much higher number of IO operations than even an SSD, but it won't come close to the 3.9M+/s that IBM have reported. For database transactions where the amount of information is each record is small, but the number of records accessed is high, this measure is a much better indicator of performance than bandwidth alone.
I guess what i'm saying is, there is just no substitute for writing software properly.
Well, if you have a complete lack of understanding of a subject, but you continue on regardless talking absolute bollocks then perhaps the world would seem like that to you.
It doesn't mean you're entitled for someone to do a bunch of work to put it in a convenient format, and then spoon feed it to you.
Actually yes it does mean exactly that.
If you do not own the copyright on a work then you have no legal basis for claiming copyright on any conversion of that work to a new medium. Specifically there is no new material upon which a derivative work can be claimed. There is no creative process in a mechanical scanning process and so no new work is created: the OCR copy is simply a copy of a work in the public domain. In order to claim copyright JSTOR would need to either modify the content of the papers, add sufficient extra material to warrant a derivative, or claim copyright on the particular collection.
There is a good overview of the issues available here.
Hosting the PDF is cheap, but somebody has to produce it in the first place and maintain a website. And before that, someone has to arrange for the peer-review to happen, find an editorial board and reviewers, etc.
These costs are not borne by the publisher: the editor is unpaid and responsible for all of these apart from maintaining the website.
The only thing that the publisher does is allow their name on the publication (as a form of accreditation) and probably curate the article (there are no long-term studies on how effective this will be).
Shortly after I pulled my finger out of my arse I used it to type "keywords" into a "search engine". One of the "results" that I found was this:
One interesting story about the 5 1/4-inch floppy disk is how the size was decided. Engineers, Jim Adkisson and Don Massaro were discussing the size with An Wang of Wang Laboratories. The trio just happened to be doing their discussing at a bar. An Wang motioned to a drink napkin and stated "about that size" which happened to be 5 1/4-inches wide.
If you were less of a lazy fuckwit then you could find the source.
The issues that you point out already exist with current email-to-reset approaches. What they are suggesting is not a perfect solution to authentication, but after glancing through their spec it seems to be at least as reliable as what we use currently. At the moment your email provider could screw with any account that relies on password confirmation / reset request emails. With this system the provider would only hold your public key, so while it would still be able to track / deny-service it would not have as much power as with the current system.
Overall it seems like a nice compromise between the ideal and a system that has a hope of wide-spread adoption. Although as it seems to require implementation by the mail provider anyway they could have gone for an IBE signature system.
You'd be surprised what I actually do for a living...
You've confused the payee and the payer. The payee is the shop owner that is getting paid. The physical guarantee is important, although it is actually flawed in the current debit card infrastructure. There have been papers in the past couple of years that show that you can tamper with the signing device so that the funds are actually stolen and passed to a third party. So what we have at the moment is a system that tries to authenticate the destination of the funds, but fails in the implementation.
The proposed system doesn't even do that. If I use a mobile device to transmit funds to a third party over the internet, how do I (or the payee) know where they've gone. The devil is in the details, and sadly the proposal doesn't seem to even consider them.
Seriously? You think that that a transaction that authenticates the identity of the payee through physical contact and sends the transaction over a private network is less safe that one that operates with dubious authentication over an untrusted network? Why don't you think that over while I count my blessings that you don't do this for a living.
Really? Bristol has always had an OS-agnostic approach to connection to their network (wired or wireless). The CS department has always pushed that a bit further by encouraging Linux use among staff and students. Which software were you thinking of that is Microsoft centric?
It's not a new idea, it's been explored before and it only works in certain cases. Take a look at Ontologies are overrated. From the section called "Mind Reading":
You can't do it. You can't collapse these categorizations without some signal loss. The problem is, because the cataloguers assume their classification should have force on the world, they underestimate the difficulty of understanding what users are thinking, and they overestimate the amount to which users will agree, either with one another or with the catalogers, about the best way to categorize. They also underestimate the loss from erasing difference of expression, and they overestimate loss from the lack of a thesaurus.
I actually quite like your line of argument. If I knew of a term that was somewhere between the weakest link in a chain and obscurity then I would suggest it now. Even though I don't know of a name the concept that you are describing seems to be quite a good model of the usefulness of a security system. Seems to be a notion that reduces directly (and quite obviously) to security, thus showing that it captures some interesting part of the term.
So what you've done there is redefined obscure to something that you think that it should mean and then reduced everything to your new definition. And of course you haven't done it properly so everything collapses into a single case. If I have a token with 1000 possible values then it could possibly be described as obscure (although that is not the technical definition used in security). If I have a token with 10^9 possible values then I'm really stretching the definition that you are imposing upon the word obscure. And that would be quite a small key. What about 2^128 values? Well beyond the limits of computational feasibility. We don't treat this as "just a bit harder to guess" because beyond some limit things actually do operate differently and the mental intuition from smaller domains breaks down. If I give you a single computer for each atom of the observable universe you are still going to need 2^47 time-steps on average to guess this secret. That is a little bit beyond "hard to guess". When your probability of success becomes negligible (in the technical, not everyday, sense) we can round off the probability to zero without changing anything of importance.
I congratulate you sir. The choice of "ricer" as a term of insult was amusing surreal to begin with and appears to have been targeted like a cruise missile. Chuckles and guffaws all round.
Yes, but the unique architecture mean that Agnus and Paula can offload most of the work from the main motorola core, an advantage that these newer toys lack.
The dollar jumped to the forefront of all this because (IMHO) they managed to ensure OPEC only sells using dollars.
Your opinion is wrong: OPEC sells in dollars because that is the world's reserve currency. America has retained it's dominance this long because everything is denominated in dollars at some level. It doesn't seem to be just your misunderstanding, the second indiatimes link makes the same mistake:
Reserve currencies are not created by fiat; they emerge from historical forces of trade and investment. The dollar is the world's favourite currency because it is simply the most traded, circulated and accepted currency in the world. Brics or others hoping to supplant the dollar will have to develop large and deep markets, first within their own national economies and then across the world for bonds in those currencies.
Reserve currencies are created exactly by fiat: this is how the dollar was chosen at Bretton Woods. Everything else is backwards: the dollar is the most traded, circulated and accepted currency in the world precisely because it is the international reserve.
This move by BRICs does look like the first step towards expanding special drawing rights and replacing the dollar with a weighted basket of currencies.
Pot? Kettle? So if you understood that he was being sarcastic (and contrary to what you wrote - he was very clear about it) then why did you reply as if he was serious? There is no argument about the body of your post which is factual and interesting. But why on earth would you respond to an argument that the GP didn't make?
Is the reply that I was going to make, but after rereading the post that you replied to a couple of times (and his posting history) now I'm not so sure. So rather than just hit cancel I wanted to say thanks for the Insightful post and see if the mods respond to simple suggestion.
I've already answered your points in the post that you are replying to. Yes, the hardware is good at rasterisation. No, this does not mean that it is not good at anything else. I've already explained to you why this is so. Do you perhaps need a basic class in computer architecture to be able to understand?
It's a real shame that I don't have modpoints today. You've made a really insightful post.
Although you've stuck to the physical issues rather than the economic issues you've captured the main point there with
but it will not break down because we are unable to make circuits smaller, but because it may be too expensive to make them smaller or powering and cooling the circuits may become impractical.
Most industries transition from a period of rapid growth to a longer period of slower growth. Once we come up against real diminishing returns on performance there will be a transition period as rates of growth slow rather than collapse all at once. At the end of that transition period there will be price differentiation for performance for the simple reason that it will be expensive to throw workarounds at those areas of diminished returns. As a result the semiconductor industry will probably start to look like every other mature industry out there. Alarmist predictions of economic collapse based on poorly understood predictions of change 20yrs in advance simply make Kaku look like an idiot.
This is only a partial solution. Prior to VBOs (or equivalent) you could only render a few thousand vertices because of the bottleneck. The primitives that you can render using a VBO are contiguous (fans and strips) so now you can render millions of polygons, but only in several thousand objects. Instancing is the next improvement that multiplies the number of objects that you can render each frame but now people want more, unique, objects. Same bottleneck - each time so far the solution has been to do more in each call.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you confusing a system that stores something in memory, and a system that caches a copy of a small part in memory for fast access?
Your lack of understanding is quite simply astounding. You have completely missed the point of their research, which is to reduce the latency in randomly accessing information in a large dataset. They are not measuring throughput (or bandwidth) although the article does state that they hit 4.9GB/s. If you made your files much much smaller and then repeated your test you would find that your performance drops drastically as your program comes limited by a different IO bound. Instead of being bounded by the bandwidth you would find that the number of separate IO operations became the bottleneck. The reason that SSDs have provided such a large increase in performance is not the increase in bandwidth of 5-10x spinning disks - the decrease in latency has increased the number of IO operations by four, or five, orders of magnitude.
Using a RAM disk you should be able to hit a much higher number of IO operations than even an SSD, but it won't come close to the 3.9M+/s that IBM have reported. For database transactions where the amount of information is each record is small, but the number of records accessed is high, this measure is a much better indicator of performance than bandwidth alone.
Well, if you have a complete lack of understanding of a subject, but you continue on regardless talking absolute bollocks then perhaps the world would seem like that to you.
Actually yes it does mean exactly that.
If you do not own the copyright on a work then you have no legal basis for claiming copyright on any conversion of that work to a new medium. Specifically there is no new material upon which a derivative work can be claimed. There is no creative process in a mechanical scanning process and so no new work is created: the OCR copy is simply a copy of a work in the public domain. In order to claim copyright JSTOR would need to either modify the content of the papers, add sufficient extra material to warrant a derivative, or claim copyright on the particular collection.
There is a good overview of the issues available here.
These costs are not borne by the publisher: the editor is unpaid and responsible for all of these apart from maintaining the website.
The only thing that the publisher does is allow their name on the publication (as a form of accreditation) and probably curate the article (there are no long-term studies on how effective this will be).
Shortly after I pulled my finger out of my arse I used it to type "keywords" into a "search engine". One of the "results" that I found was this:
If you were less of a lazy fuckwit then you could find the source.
Beautiful.
Not really... When are you relying on collisions to obscure your data?
The issues that you point out already exist with current email-to-reset approaches. What they are suggesting is not a perfect solution to authentication, but after glancing through their spec it seems to be at least as reliable as what we use currently. At the moment your email provider could screw with any account that relies on password confirmation / reset request emails. With this system the provider would only hold your public key, so while it would still be able to track / deny-service it would not have as much power as with the current system.
Overall it seems like a nice compromise between the ideal and a system that has a hope of wide-spread adoption. Although as it seems to require implementation by the mail provider anyway they could have gone for an IBE signature system.
Dude, I know that it is Alan's birthday, but you shouldn't use it to diss the Church like that.
You'd be surprised what I actually do for a living...
You've confused the payee and the payer. The payee is the shop owner that is getting paid. The physical guarantee is important, although it is actually flawed in the current debit card infrastructure. There have been papers in the past couple of years that show that you can tamper with the signing device so that the funds are actually stolen and passed to a third party. So what we have at the moment is a system that tries to authenticate the destination of the funds, but fails in the implementation.
The proposed system doesn't even do that. If I use a mobile device to transmit funds to a third party over the internet, how do I (or the payee) know where they've gone. The devil is in the details, and sadly the proposal doesn't seem to even consider them.
Seriously? You think that that a transaction that authenticates the identity of the payee through physical contact and sends the transaction over a private network is less safe that one that operates with dubious authentication over an untrusted network? Why don't you think that over while I count my blessings that you don't do this for a living.
Weird. Didn't know they had any recommendations for that at all. Does that come from the central IT guys or the CS department?
Really? Bristol has always had an OS-agnostic approach to connection to their network (wired or wireless). The CS department has always pushed that a bit further by encouraging Linux use among staff and students. Which software were you thinking of that is Microsoft centric?
It's not a new idea, it's been explored before and it only works in certain cases. Take a look at Ontologies are overrated. From the section called "Mind Reading":
Oooo!
I actually quite like your line of argument. If I knew of a term that was somewhere between the weakest link in a chain and obscurity then I would suggest it now. Even though I don't know of a name the concept that you are describing seems to be quite a good model of the usefulness of a security system. Seems to be a notion that reduces directly (and quite obviously) to security, thus showing that it captures some interesting part of the term.
No.
So what you've done there is redefined obscure to something that you think that it should mean and then reduced everything to your new definition. And of course you haven't done it properly so everything collapses into a single case. If I have a token with 1000 possible values then it could possibly be described as obscure (although that is not the technical definition used in security). If I have a token with 10^9 possible values then I'm really stretching the definition that you are imposing upon the word obscure. And that would be quite a small key. What about 2^128 values? Well beyond the limits of computational feasibility. We don't treat this as "just a bit harder to guess" because beyond some limit things actually do operate differently and the mental intuition from smaller domains breaks down. If I give you a single computer for each atom of the observable universe you are still going to need 2^47 time-steps on average to guess this secret. That is a little bit beyond "hard to guess". When your probability of success becomes negligible (in the technical, not everyday, sense) we can round off the probability to zero without changing anything of importance.
I congratulate you sir. The choice of "ricer" as a term of insult was amusing surreal to begin with and appears to have been targeted like a cruise missile. Chuckles and guffaws all round.
Yes, but the unique architecture mean that Agnus and Paula can offload most of the work from the main motorola core, an advantage that these newer toys lack.
Your opinion is wrong: OPEC sells in dollars because that is the world's reserve currency. America has retained it's dominance this long because everything is denominated in dollars at some level. It doesn't seem to be just your misunderstanding, the second indiatimes link makes the same mistake:
Reserve currencies are created exactly by fiat: this is how the dollar was chosen at Bretton Woods. Everything else is backwards: the dollar is the most traded, circulated and accepted currency in the world precisely because it is the international reserve.
This move by BRICs does look like the first step towards expanding special drawing rights and replacing the dollar with a weighted basket of currencies.
Is the reply that I was going to make, but after rereading the post that you replied to a couple of times (and his posting history) now I'm not so sure. So rather than just hit cancel I wanted to say thanks for the Insightful post and see if the mods respond to simple suggestion.
...in case they decide to keep the crowds cool with a little rain.
Oh look, it's only been ten years and someone has reinvented Hypermatter. Almost looks as good as the original.
I've already answered your points in the post that you are replying to. Yes, the hardware is good at rasterisation. No, this does not mean that it is not good at anything else. I've already explained to you why this is so. Do you perhaps need a basic class in computer architecture to be able to understand?
It's a real shame that I don't have modpoints today. You've made a really insightful post.
Although you've stuck to the physical issues rather than the economic issues you've captured the main point there with
Most industries transition from a period of rapid growth to a longer period of slower growth. Once we come up against real diminishing returns on performance there will be a transition period as rates of growth slow rather than collapse all at once. At the end of that transition period there will be price differentiation for performance for the simple reason that it will be expensive to throw workarounds at those areas of diminished returns. As a result the semiconductor industry will probably start to look like every other mature industry out there. Alarmist predictions of economic collapse based on poorly understood predictions of change 20yrs in advance simply make Kaku look like an idiot.
This is only a partial solution. Prior to VBOs (or equivalent) you could only render a few thousand vertices because of the bottleneck. The primitives that you can render using a VBO are contiguous (fans and strips) so now you can render millions of polygons, but only in several thousand objects. Instancing is the next improvement that multiplies the number of objects that you can render each frame but now people want more, unique, objects. Same bottleneck - each time so far the solution has been to do more in each call.