I have replicated your result, 252 seconds in windows, ubuntu VM with access to 4 cores gives the following for Phenom II X4 965 @3.4:
sean@sean-ubuntu-2:~/Desktop/smallpt$ time./smallpt 100
Rendering (100 spp) 100.00%
real 1m22.444s
user 5m22.656s
sys 0m1.688s
And yes the images are the same. I agree that windows optimizations are messed up. AMD users fret not.
Come back in 5 years when your system is developed because that's about what it would take to develop your system from scratch, with a hundred people on your development team. You have no idea just how much software is needed to actually run the applications for all the different departments. Prices are getting raised because the vendors are getting bombarded by requests from hospitals that have to implement now because they want their share of the pie in 2011. Not 2015. These vertical markets are closed source and proprietary for a reason: it takes a singled-minded focus to actually get this stuff right.
As for running on Windows, that's just what the customer wants. Our server software runs on Linux as well, but guess what, we don't ship it because customers, because outside of a small minority, they don't want it. Their system administrators are experienced with Windows. It would be trivial to change to Linux on the server. Desktop is a different matter entirely, but that lock in comes from Microsoft themselves (most hospitals rely heavily on Word).
In short, don't blame the health care software companies for giving the customers what they are asking for. We actually our not big fans of the regulation and setting of requirements by the gov't. We appreciate the business it brings in but we were doing just fine for decades without their help. We could actually survive on just our installation and support revenue (albeit as a smaller company), but whose software are we going to support? You want the gov't to step in and write a bunch of software that's already been written? How would we support software that we can't change?
Your points are valid, but only if you disagree with the fundamental concept of an economic stimulus. It's working very well in that respect and has created a lot of jobs.
These opinions do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.
Getting rid of DRM is only part of the solution. If they do that, then they only ensure that the original is no less valuable than the copy. And that's not good enough. To stop (or rather, reduce) unauthorized copying, what they really need to do is make the original more valuable than the copy. Publishers who add DRM commit the fallacy of assuming that the unauthorized copy will be less valuable because the content is protected, but we all know that is not true.
What they really need to do is to find value-add ways of making the original more valuable the the unauthorized copy. Steam and Stardock this very well with their distribution systems. Some games do it why with cd-keys for multiplayer. Vinyl music albums also accomplish this because of the perceived value of the physical copy. Books accomplish this because it's friggin' expensive to print out an entire novel. It's a difficult problem, which is why they choose to pursue other avenues (lobbying, lawsuits).
That logic may work from books, where a physical copy is better than a PDF copy on my computer screen. An unauthorized copy of a video game or movie is usually the same if not better (due to drm) than the original copy.
Good for you that you earned the title, but you are not a director. A director has multiple managers, who each has his own staff. You are a supervisor. And you work for a small business.
The OP reminds me of myself when I was coming of age on the internet. The year was circa 1995 and I was 13 years old when I was shocked - SHOCKED - to find out there was no "BeautifulBlondesWithBreasts.com." In the whole world wide, no one had thought to make that site.
Or, when I was a recent C/S undergrad and I looked on Monster.com for 20 minutes, after which I gave up and lamented about how there were no good entry level jobs for budding C++ developers.
I work at a software company. We had weekly conference calls about a slow response time issue that went on for months. Funny thing was it wasn't even our software per se, but our interface with Microsoft Word. Anyway, after extensive analysis, I concluded that the issue was the performance of the client machines, not the software. Customer didn't believe me. They wanted perfmons to prove it. Perfmons didn't show anything unusual. Memory upgrades didn't help. In unusual fashion, we just gave up and suggest that the customer run Citrix, because the Citrix users were fine.
Two months later I get a note in the ticket saying something to the effect of "we have been informed that these PC's had bad capacitors. PC's have been replaced and the issue went away."
Freaking Dell, they owe me days of my life for not informing their customers about this problem sooner.
They did do real world testing as evidenced by the leaked prototype. But no one wants to be the guy who says, "yeah, this thing drops calls." If they had an extensive beta test with thousands of devices, they might have found the death grip.
Hopefully they just want to beef up the group with more experience. I don't think that this should warrant firing of 3 presumably competent engineers.
I forgot an important punctuation mark. I should have stated "Do you want to go to the movies, or dinner?" the pause emphasizes that it is a choice between two mutually exclusive options. When stated as a run-on, "yes" would be a fine answer.
However, when making a statement to a friend or coworker, it is generally considered dishonest to be ambiguous. In normal context, the statement in the original question would imply that the other child is not a boy born on a Tuesday. If you were to insist on your interpretation, you may be considered pedantic, picky, or impolite. Only lawyers and logicians would respect you.
You wouldn't ask "do you have a green car" you would ask "do you have any green cars?"
This is related to the phenomenon of why the phrase and/or exists. Most English speakers hear "or" and assume XOR, not logical or. As in, do you want to go to the movies or dinner? The polite answer is "movies" or "dinner", not "yes" or "no".
Bottom line: the correct interpretation of a math problem is not necessarily the same as the idiomatic interpretation.
You should be so lucky to have twitter's scalability problem. 99.9 % of software doesn't not have to scale to twitter-esque levels. It's one of the busiest sites on the planet, with a frequently updated database that is searchable in real time.
Exactly. 64 Bit flash is not needed on Windows as long as the 32 bit browsers are supported. 64 bit flash isn't needed for Linux either, if you are willing to run a 32 bit browser. The only problem is that the default browser on most (all?) 64 bit GNU/Linux distributions is 64 bit.
You are missing the point. Have you actually dealt with a VP or higher in a organization of thousands of people? How has your proposed strategy worked out? Most of them have their heads so far up their asses with regard to "you can't manage what you can't measure" that all they really care about is numbers. He has been tasked with this research. If he walks in and says "just buy Dell" he will look smug and lazy. This is about due diligence and appeasing the exec.
Some of the others have actually recommended software. I will throw Sisoft Sandra in there.
I agree that it's silly to issue a patent for that. Let's presuppose that it is non-trivial in the eyes of the patent office. It is in fact a rather clever solution to the problem. But should it be patentable? Hell no. The price (measured in lawsuits, lawyers fees, licensing fees) is too high to pay for what "we" get in return (full disclosure of a non-trivial solution to a relatively common problem).
The problem with your solution (protect non-trivial software inventions, reject trivial patents) vis-a-vis the h.264 debate is that the patent in question may actually be non-trivial.
Patents were created to encourage people to share their designs, creating greater utility out of
the invention in the long run.
You say that the non-trivial inventions should be protected, but the trouble is the definition of non-trivial.
Do you really think that software patents benefit the industry as a whole and encourage people to share their ideas? I say no, because the real innovation is the source code, which can be kept secret and copyrighted.
The whole thing is convoluted and broken. The systems benefits no one except the patent trolls and the lawyers, who add nothing of value to the industry. The system is not fulfilling its expressed purpose, er go the system should be dismantled.
Slashdot Mirror
Facebook originally was thefacebook.com. I have an email from 3/15/05 from thefacebook.com.
I have replicated your result, 252 seconds in windows, ubuntu VM with access to 4 cores gives the following for Phenom II X4 965 @3.4: sean@sean-ubuntu-2:~/Desktop/smallpt$ time ./smallpt 100
Rendering (100 spp) 100.00%
real 1m22.444s
user 5m22.656s
sys 0m1.688s
And yes the images are the same. I agree that windows optimizations are messed up. AMD users fret not.
+1 Funny
Dude, that is busted. Do not want.
You are obviously not Jewish.
And, they already exist in the health care world. Look up HL7.
Open standards for information exchange is not even close to the same thing as open software.
Come back in 5 years when your system is developed because that's about what it would take to develop your system from scratch, with a hundred people on your development team. You have no idea just how much software is needed to actually run the applications for all the different departments. Prices are getting raised because the vendors are getting bombarded by requests from hospitals that have to implement now because they want their share of the pie in 2011. Not 2015. These vertical markets are closed source and proprietary for a reason: it takes a singled-minded focus to actually get this stuff right.
As for running on Windows, that's just what the customer wants. Our server software runs on Linux as well, but guess what, we don't ship it because customers, because outside of a small minority, they don't want it. Their system administrators are experienced with Windows. It would be trivial to change to Linux on the server. Desktop is a different matter entirely, but that lock in comes from Microsoft themselves (most hospitals rely heavily on Word).
In short, don't blame the health care software companies for giving the customers what they are asking for. We actually our not big fans of the regulation and setting of requirements by the gov't. We appreciate the business it brings in but we were doing just fine for decades without their help. We could actually survive on just our installation and support revenue (albeit as a smaller company), but whose software are we going to support? You want the gov't to step in and write a bunch of software that's already been written? How would we support software that we can't change?
Your points are valid, but only if you disagree with the fundamental concept of an economic stimulus. It's working very well in that respect and has created a lot of jobs.
These opinions do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.
Getting rid of DRM is only part of the solution. If they do that, then they only ensure that the original is no less valuable than the copy. And that's not good enough. To stop (or rather, reduce) unauthorized copying, what they really need to do is make the original more valuable than the copy. Publishers who add DRM commit the fallacy of assuming that the unauthorized copy will be less valuable because the content is protected, but we all know that is not true.
What they really need to do is to find value-add ways of making the original more valuable the the unauthorized copy. Steam and Stardock this very well with their distribution systems. Some games do it why with cd-keys for multiplayer. Vinyl music albums also accomplish this because of the perceived value of the physical copy. Books accomplish this because it's friggin' expensive to print out an entire novel. It's a difficult problem, which is why they choose to pursue other avenues (lobbying, lawsuits).
That logic may work from books, where a physical copy is better than a PDF copy on my computer screen. An unauthorized copy of a video game or movie is usually the same if not better (due to drm) than the original copy.
Good for you that you earned the title, but you are not a director. A director has multiple managers, who each has his own staff. You are a supervisor. And you work for a small business.
The OP reminds me of myself when I was coming of age on the internet. The year was circa 1995 and I was 13 years old when I was shocked - SHOCKED - to find out there was no "BeautifulBlondesWithBreasts.com." In the whole world wide, no one had thought to make that site.
Or, when I was a recent C/S undergrad and I looked on Monster.com for 20 minutes, after which I gave up and lamented about how there were no good entry level jobs for budding C++ developers.
I work at a software company. We had weekly conference calls about a slow response time issue that went on for months. Funny thing was it wasn't even our software per se, but our interface with Microsoft Word. Anyway, after extensive analysis, I concluded that the issue was the performance of the client machines, not the software. Customer didn't believe me. They wanted perfmons to prove it. Perfmons didn't show anything unusual. Memory upgrades didn't help. In unusual fashion, we just gave up and suggest that the customer run Citrix, because the Citrix users were fine.
Two months later I get a note in the ticket saying something to the effect of "we have been informed that these PC's had bad capacitors. PC's have been replaced and the issue went away."
Freaking Dell, they owe me days of my life for not informing their customers about this problem sooner.
They did do real world testing as evidenced by the leaked prototype. But no one wants to be the guy who says, "yeah, this thing drops calls." If they had an extensive beta test with thousands of devices, they might have found the death grip.
Hopefully they just want to beef up the group with more experience. I don't think that this should warrant firing of 3 presumably competent engineers.
I forgot an important punctuation mark. I should have stated "Do you want to go to the movies, or dinner?" the pause emphasizes that it is a choice between two mutually exclusive options. When stated as a run-on, "yes" would be a fine answer.
Strictly parsed, you are correct.
However, when making a statement to a friend or coworker, it is generally considered dishonest to be ambiguous. In normal context, the statement in the original question would imply that the other child is not a boy born on a Tuesday. If you were to insist on your interpretation, you may be considered pedantic, picky, or impolite. Only lawyers and logicians would respect you.
You wouldn't ask "do you have a green car" you would ask "do you have any green cars?"
This is related to the phenomenon of why the phrase and/or exists. Most English speakers hear "or" and assume XOR, not logical or. As in, do you want to go to the movies or dinner? The polite answer is "movies" or "dinner", not "yes" or "no".
Bottom line: the correct interpretation of a math problem is not necessarily the same as the idiomatic interpretation.
Totally agree. I always felt like I was trying to be "tricked" in my probability classes.
You should be so lucky to have twitter's scalability problem. 99.9 % of software doesn't not have to scale to twitter-esque levels. It's one of the busiest sites on the planet, with a frequently updated database that is searchable in real time.
Exactly. 64 Bit flash is not needed on Windows as long as the 32 bit browsers are supported. 64 bit flash isn't needed for Linux either, if you are willing to run a 32 bit browser. The only problem is that the default browser on most (all?) 64 bit GNU/Linux distributions is 64 bit.
What is a criminal suit? I assume you mean criminal charges? Against who and what is the charge? What statute did he/she violate?
I'm not saying that there isn't, I'm just requesting that you elaborate.
First sane comment in this thread. The others are riddled with hindsight and a lack of understanding of the concept of risk management.
You are missing the point. Have you actually dealt with a VP or higher in a organization of thousands of people? How has your proposed strategy worked out? Most of them have their heads so far up their asses with regard to "you can't manage what you can't measure" that all they really care about is numbers. He has been tasked with this research. If he walks in and says "just buy Dell" he will look smug and lazy. This is about due diligence and appeasing the exec.
Some of the others have actually recommended software. I will throw Sisoft Sandra in there.
Defense is not the top priority? Or are you implying that we are spending more than is necessary to defend ourselves?
Surely it is a matter of degree, not priority.
I agree that it's silly to issue a patent for that. Let's presuppose that it is non-trivial in the eyes of the patent office. It is in fact a rather clever solution to the problem. But should it be patentable? Hell no. The price (measured in lawsuits, lawyers fees, licensing fees) is too high to pay for what "we" get in return (full disclosure of a non-trivial solution to a relatively common problem).
The problem with your solution (protect non-trivial software inventions, reject trivial patents) vis-a-vis the h.264 debate is that the patent in question may actually be non-trivial. Patents were created to encourage people to share their designs, creating greater utility out of the invention in the long run. You say that the non-trivial inventions should be protected, but the trouble is the definition of non-trivial. Do you really think that software patents benefit the industry as a whole and encourage people to share their ideas? I say no, because the real innovation is the source code, which can be kept secret and copyrighted. The whole thing is convoluted and broken. The systems benefits no one except the patent trolls and the lawyers, who add nothing of value to the industry. The system is not fulfilling its expressed purpose, er go the system should be dismantled.