Using stl containers is not the issue, most people use stl containers in their default mode. My point was to use custom allocators with such containers. Specifically stack based ones if the container will only exists within a function call etc. perhaps even used EA-STL
As for expression templates, its not all about compile time computations, most often than not its a mechanism to explicitly specify how a computation should be done - this happens a lot in linear-algebra based implementation - check out the various uses in Blitz++, Boost Fusion, Boost Graph etc..
Also note move semantics weren't used with the compiler/library mentioned in the paper.
In short if the above were done/used the difference would have been MUCH greater.
I believe they use two sets of bloom filters one for known bad sites and one for known good sites - each is roughly ~1.5MB large and can be found in your google install dir, Search for files with the word "filter" in their name.
I think you misunderstood my point, all the examples I gave such as separate mini markets, stealth exchange and clearing pools are all elements that existed in past markets that inevitably all failed.
The idea is if you allow people the freedom to choose from these options over time such options will fail - that is a certainty. The reason for failure centers around the fact that as they reduce the overall efficiency (true price) of the market, this results in a less profitable market.
For example dark-pools were invented to reduce the undesired market impact that large players may create when trying to offload large orders in a short amount of time (good idea keep the market steady) - From a technical pov its working fine today, most of the major IBs provide such services, and it is true that such services skew the true value of stocks, however as more and more people begin to utilize them, the value of such dark-pools and their advantages begin to dissipate, same can be said for the mini-emarkets.
When someone says let the markets be free, they're not talking about an "everyone is equal" paradigm but rather "let them do what they will" and let the outcomes decide. The markets are ruthless, most people are culled out of the competition before they can even blink, and unlike most other national services such as public schools and hospitals - they are not designed nor willing to cater to the lowest common denominator (be that due to intelligence, server speed or lack of optic fiber), in short they are not fair, they were never intended to be fair, making them fair will make the unprofitable - all any one government can do is regulate certain use-cases that make participating in said market unpalatable, such as insider trading/front-running.
The Taiwan and Korea markets are like that, the only thing such delays achieve is to decrease the total amount of shares traded in a day, hence reduces the overall market value and shifts wealth to other markets that do allow continuous unfettered trading.
What you don't realise is that a great deal of shares/commodities these days are being traded in dark pools and mini electronic markets, those traditional NYSE or NASDAQ style exchanges are looking to be a thing of the past and only being used as a reporting medium for the exchange of shares from external/independent markets.
I say let the markets be as efficient as they can be.
This technqiue wont work with orders processed in dark pools. And as the trends are showing larger and larger proportions of ADV are being done in dark pools. I would think gaming dark-pools would be the primary objective and not going after some boring 80s movie plot.... (Can anyone remember "Fair Game" with Cindy Crawford).
That is absolutely correct, slashdot is going downhill as of the last couple of years.
As for your comment regarding "single CPU with easy RISC instructions" thats also absolutely correct as well, back in 98' when I was reviewing the ideas coming out of Cryptography Research (cryptography.com), we could only ever get this kind of thing to work on smart-cards for that very reason, they all have a single execution pipe-line, no prefetch or look-ahead algorithms, essentially instructions/data are pumped in and executed in that same order, making both the power and temporal analysis quite easy,
A good HP CRO running at about 2GHz was all one needed sampling the system, and yes the techniques did work, but with today's processors you don't even need salt as they do enough mixing for you, especially if there are multiple processes actively running over multiple cores whilst some cryptographic primitive is being executed.
The concept is called Differential Power Analysis (DPA) or for people in the industry its also known as power cryptography and has been a staple of many attack vectors since the mid-90s (at least in open research), furthermore simple techniques such as adding salt or in other words randomly chosen bogus operations into the computation flow renders such attack vectors useless.
Nothing new here, slow news day, move along peoples.
Ad-Block Perhaps?
on
Window Pain
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I mean did you really need to write this long-winded meaningless rant? just download firefox and ad-block pro.
Perhaps they could, but aren't examples like the kernel, mysql etc proof that open source endeavors are just as capable in providing "proprietary quality" products as closed houses are.
Oracle may go and provide some special feature in their closed version of mysql, but I doubt it would be long before a forked version (prior to acquisition) has pretty much the same capability. Freely available replicas of proprietary functionalities is one of the major underpinnings of open source, less so innovation - unfortunately
How does a firm "acquire" an OSS project? Look at mysql, All Sun did was pay money for a name, bunch of workers and a customer list, not the actual IP, cause that was open sourced to begin with.
In short, if a company "acquires" (whatever that means in this context) an OSS project, and you're not happy with how things are being done, fork the project and be on your way, Otherwise learn to drink the coolade like everyone else.
Bruce, why not change the license to something more agreeable with the general public. At least that way, you'd help keep the honest guys honest.... and also make using and modifying busybox related stuff all that more easier and inviting.
As a member of the NPT Iran is well within its rights to posses the outlined technologies. The article clearly omits the fact that such capabilities can also lead to better yeilds from civilian/peaceful uses of nuclear technology.
I believe the adage of "it takes one to know one" can be attributed to people claiming Iran intends to use such technologies for aggressive non-peaceful purposes.
or else the problem is not truly resolvable. The other way is to assume all the similar images come from the same source, if so then its as simple as looking at the compression level in the file format and the various levels of scaling applied to the lossy images.
Compatibility and conformance with standards (TR1), also going that extra step forward and implementing some of the upcoming 0x features I can truly say that since VS05 MS has gone a long way. WRT Language/IDE/Debug integration nothing comes close in the OSS world for the C++ language (and please don't say CDT, I've tried using 5 and it can't even do the simple C++ syntax properly let alone templates or even simple metaprograms).
Disappointing/sad thing with VS10 is that a lot of the interesting source code metric/analysis stuff is only available for C++\CLI. For pure C++ code metrics I've been pinning my hopes for the past 5 years on someone getting around to implementing to-do #6 of doxygen.
I believe they sold more Delphi licenses than turbo pascal. Furthermore I think Delphi was the the impetus at Microsoft for things like the MS developing a true IDE, J++/visual J and finally C# which btw was architected by the very same guy that did Delphi.
The biggest shame was when at the end Borland tried to sell their compiler business for roughly $1b no one wanted it, eventually some veritably unknown company called Embarcadero made an offer for $24m for the business and that was the end of that.
Lesson of the day: Regardless of how good/essential the products you deliver may have been, bad management and poor future insight can make you crash and burn.
I'm interested in knowing how these numbers like $250m and $700m come about. I see absolutely no monetary value in such services, even the so-called ad-revenue or social data mining models all seem like big loss harbours rather than sources of profit.
Are we back to the late 90s "no business model yet possible future earning potential" view of businesses?
B) that it still worked that way even with Ted's idiotic workaround. It's mathematically impossible to code a hash there which doesn't cause the same collisions anyway, and sure enough Ted's produced them too.
ever heard of perfect hash functions for specific sets of data? - not practical in most cases but definitely mathematically possible.
Some of the most fundamental materials used in creating ICs and LCDs are beginning to run out in their natural form (some expected to be depleted as early as 2015), hence recycling old parts and R&D into using other materials may set, as far as manufacturing is concerned, some technologies back to the early 90s.
How can any rational person assume future computing technologies will be "Ultra Cheap"? Case in point, we've been making cars for nearly 100 years, the "ultra cheap" cars are the rust buckets from 2 decades ago. In most of the 1st world a new small hatchback like vehicle is roughly 25% the average annual salary, and this has been the case for the last 40+ years regardless of all the manufacturing and design advances that have come about and increase in demand for such simple models.
they should try thinning out the form factor a bit, at least something on the scale of an iphone or or better, with a screen the size of a piece of a4 with no more than 3mm case border.
Slashdot Mirror
Using stl containers is not the issue, most people use stl containers in their default mode. My point was to use custom allocators with such containers. Specifically stack based ones if the container will only exists within a function call etc. perhaps even used EA-STL
As for expression templates, its not all about compile time computations, most often than not its a mechanism to explicitly specify how a computation should be done - this happens a lot in linear-algebra based implementation - check out the various uses in Blitz++, Boost Fusion, Boost Graph etc..
Also note move semantics weren't used with the compiler/library mentioned in the paper.
In short if the above were done/used the difference would have been MUCH greater.
The paper doesn't talk about using:
1. Custom allocators (stack and pool based)
2. Move semantics
3. Modern C++ idioms such as expression templates
I believe if these were used, the performance would have even better and left the rest "truly" in the dust...
I believe they use two sets of bloom filters one for known bad sites and one for known good sites - each is roughly ~1.5MB large and can be found in your google install dir, Search for files with the word "filter" in their name.
I think you misunderstood my point, all the examples I gave such as separate mini markets, stealth exchange and clearing pools are all elements that existed in past markets that inevitably all failed.
The idea is if you allow people the freedom to choose from these options over time such options will fail - that is a certainty. The reason for failure centers around the fact that as they reduce the overall efficiency (true price) of the market, this results in a less profitable market.
For example dark-pools were invented to reduce the undesired market impact that large players may create when trying to offload large orders in a short amount of time (good idea keep the market steady) - From a technical pov its working fine today, most of the major IBs provide such services, and it is true that such services skew the true value of stocks, however as more and more people begin to utilize them, the value of such dark-pools and their advantages begin to dissipate, same can be said for the mini-emarkets.
When someone says let the markets be free, they're not talking about an "everyone is equal" paradigm but rather "let them do what they will" and let the outcomes decide. The markets are ruthless, most people are culled out of the competition before they can even blink, and unlike most other national services such as public schools and hospitals - they are not designed nor willing to cater to the lowest common denominator (be that due to intelligence, server speed or lack of optic fiber), in short they are not fair, they were never intended to be fair, making them fair will make the unprofitable - all any one government can do is regulate certain use-cases that make participating in said market unpalatable, such as insider trading/front-running.
The Taiwan and Korea markets are like that, the only thing such delays achieve is to decrease the total amount of shares traded in a day, hence reduces the overall market value and shifts wealth to other markets that do allow continuous unfettered trading.
What you don't realise is that a great deal of shares/commodities these days are being traded in dark pools and mini electronic markets, those traditional NYSE or NASDAQ style exchanges are looking to be a thing of the past and only being used as a reporting medium for the exchange of shares from external/independent markets.
I say let the markets be as efficient as they can be.
This technqiue wont work with orders processed in dark pools. And as the trends are showing larger and larger proportions of ADV are being done in dark pools. I would think gaming dark-pools would be the primary objective and not going after some boring 80s movie plot.... (Can anyone remember "Fair Game" with Cindy Crawford).
That is absolutely correct, slashdot is going downhill as of the last couple of years.
As for your comment regarding "single CPU with easy RISC instructions" thats also absolutely correct as well, back in 98' when I was reviewing the ideas coming out of Cryptography Research (cryptography.com), we could only ever get this kind of thing to work on smart-cards for that very reason, they all have a single execution pipe-line, no prefetch or look-ahead algorithms, essentially instructions/data are pumped in and executed in that same order, making both the power and temporal analysis quite easy,
A good HP CRO running at about 2GHz was all one needed sampling the system, and yes the techniques did work, but with today's processors you don't even need salt as they do enough mixing for you, especially if there are multiple processes actively running over multiple cores whilst some cryptographic primitive is being executed.
The concept is called Differential Power Analysis (DPA) or for people in the industry its also known as power cryptography and has been a staple of many attack vectors since the mid-90s (at least in open research), furthermore simple techniques such as adding salt or in other words randomly chosen bogus operations into the computation flow renders such attack vectors useless.
Nothing new here, slow news day, move along peoples.
I mean did you really need to write this long-winded meaningless rant? just download firefox and ad-block pro.
quote from the rtfa: "It originally clocked in at 861 MPG and has been continuously tweaked to achieve the mileage we see today."
Perhaps they could, but aren't examples like the kernel, mysql etc proof that open source endeavors are just as capable in providing "proprietary quality" products as closed houses are.
Oracle may go and provide some special feature in their closed version of mysql, but I doubt it would be long before a forked version (prior to acquisition) has pretty much the same capability. Freely available replicas of proprietary functionalities is one of the major underpinnings of open source, less so innovation - unfortunately
How does a firm "acquire" an OSS project? Look at mysql, All Sun did was pay money for a name, bunch of workers and a customer list, not the actual IP, cause that was open sourced to begin with.
In short, if a company "acquires" (whatever that means in this context) an OSS project, and you're not happy with how things are being done, fork the project and be on your way, Otherwise learn to drink the coolade like everyone else.
Bruce, why not change the license to something more agreeable with the general public. At least that way, you'd help keep the honest guys honest.... and also make using and modifying busybox related stuff all that more easier and inviting.
I'm guessing you live in Coonabarabran
I think he should fix the monstrosity that is Freenet before he jumps onto other things.
As a member of the NPT Iran is well within its rights to posses the outlined technologies. The article clearly omits the fact that such capabilities can also lead to better yeilds from civilian/peaceful uses of nuclear technology.
I believe the adage of "it takes one to know one" can be attributed to people claiming Iran intends to use such technologies for aggressive non-peaceful purposes.
Because some men tend to take "a lot" of coffee breaks in their cars, each time taking a shoe full of $1 and $2 coins with them....
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=107801
or else the problem is not truly resolvable. The other way is to
assume all the similar images come from the same source, if so then
its as simple as looking at the compression level in the file format
and the various levels of scaling applied to the lossy images.
Compatibility and conformance with standards (TR1), also going that extra step forward and implementing some of the upcoming 0x features I can truly say that since VS05 MS has gone a long way. WRT Language/IDE/Debug integration nothing comes close in the OSS world for the C++ language (and please don't say CDT, I've tried using 5 and it can't even do the simple C++ syntax properly let alone templates or even simple metaprograms).
Disappointing/sad thing with VS10 is that a lot of the interesting source code metric/analysis stuff is only available for C++\CLI. For pure C++ code metrics I've been pinning my hopes for the past 5 years on someone getting around to implementing to-do #6 of doxygen.
I believe they sold more Delphi licenses than turbo pascal. Furthermore I think Delphi was the the impetus at Microsoft for things like the MS developing a true IDE, J++/visual J and finally C# which btw was architected by the very same guy that did Delphi.
The biggest shame was when at the end Borland tried to sell their compiler business for roughly $1b no one wanted it, eventually some veritably unknown company called Embarcadero made an offer for $24m for the business and that was the end of that.
Lesson of the day: Regardless of how good/essential the products you deliver may have been, bad management and poor future insight can make you crash and burn.
I'm interested in knowing how these numbers like $250m and $700m come about. I see absolutely no monetary value in such services, even the so-called ad-revenue or social data mining models all seem like big loss harbours rather than sources of profit.
Are we back to the late 90s "no business model yet possible future earning potential" view of businesses?
B) that it still worked that way even with Ted's idiotic workaround. It's mathematically impossible to code a hash there which doesn't cause the same collisions anyway, and sure enough Ted's produced them too.
ever heard of perfect hash functions for specific sets of data? - not practical in most cases but definitely mathematically possible.
Does no one remember the trouble those guys go into in their last episode...?
Some of the most fundamental materials used in creating ICs and LCDs are beginning to run out in their natural form (some expected to be depleted as early as 2015), hence recycling old parts and R&D into using other materials may set, as far as manufacturing is concerned, some technologies back to the early 90s.
How can any rational person assume future computing technologies will be "Ultra Cheap"? Case in point, we've been making cars for nearly 100 years, the "ultra cheap" cars are the rust buckets from 2 decades ago. In most of the 1st world a new small hatchback like vehicle is roughly 25% the average annual salary, and this has been the case for the last 40+ years regardless of all the manufacturing and design advances that have come about and increase in demand for such simple models.
they should try thinning out the form factor a bit, at least something on the scale of an iphone or or better, with a screen the size of a piece of a4 with no more than 3mm case border.