The simple fact that we all can express our opinions about PRISM shows how much better this is.
Do you think Russia, China, Syria would never ever consider building something like PRISM? What do you think would have happened to all the PRISM discussions if these countries were controlling the Internet?
Just look at what happens to bloggers in China who dare to write about things like the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989.
At least in the Western world this is primarily a US phenomenon. You'll have a hard time finding even a fraction of this patriotism amongst European citizens. France might be the closest there is, and even there, I do not see this happening with the same level of intensity.
Honestly, as an Austrian, I find the thought of reciting the pledge of allegiance every day in school intensely creepy.
He is actually right. By definition, this cannot give you a priori data. And that is what big O is - a priori information. In practice, with measurements, you can take a pretty good guess as to what the complexity is, but you can never know if it is actually correct. This is a common mistake that people make, and can easily cause them to draw incorrect conclusions.
"New demand has recently strained supply, and there is growing concern that the world may soon face a shortage of the rare earths.[19] In several years from 2009 worldwide demand for rare earth elements is expected to exceed supply by 40,000 tonnes annually unless major new sources are developed. "
"As a result of the increased demand and tightening restrictions on exports of the metals from China, some countries are stockpiling rare earth resources."
Also, I did not say that there aren't many of them. I said there are considerable difficulties in mining them. Which is probably the main reason why China is the supplier no.1 . There is a lot of stuff dispersed amongst the oceans, too, it is just unfeasible to extract it (yet).
There is nothing wrong with pursuing asteroid mining, just like there isn't anything wrong with trying to come up with new technologies to extract rare earths better, or make collection from elements in the ocean more practical. I firmly oppose this view that just because X does not either immediately yield any gains or has no 100% guarantee of suceeding it is pointless. If you think the invested money could be used elsewhere better, why not yank money off yet another weapons development project, which cost orders of magnitude more than three asteroid mining programs?
My guess: either a troll, or a guy with a very narrow view of things incapable of long-term thinking. Unfortunately, there are many of the latter.
These are the people who regularly say that research without a clear and easy-to-understand goal is useless, completely ignoring the fact that especially basic research often cannot have a clear goal (usually that happens in applied research).
Likewise, here, if a project does not immediately deliver a nice spaceship with which you can zip comfortably to an asteroid, grab it, and bring back, it is all pointless, nonsense, etc.
An example of one of the ACs: "There is no technology to do any of the things you describe." . The whole POINT of projects like these is to eventually come up with such technologies. This should be obvious, but apparently isn't to these people.
No shortages if we only mine on Earth? Have you ever heard about rare earth metals, and the considerable difficulty to mine them? In addition, the single biggest source for these metals is China. The rest of the world is hoarding rare earth metals as much as they can due to Chinas increased regulation. There are asteroids out there that have enormous amounts of these metals.
In fact, many metals are expected to be exhausted in this century. Sure, you can recycle them, but consider the effect this has on the economy and political stability.
The potential benefits clearly outweigh the risks. Even more so when comparing projected costs with those for military operations, for example.
The problem is that there are no graphics primitives to send over the wire. This is part of the core principal of Wayland which is kind of important to a lot of people. It reflects today's graphics hardware much better.
Perhaps a network transparency standard that can be moved into the toolkits could help. Typically, X11 forwarding is used to show individual applications, not the entire desktop. This way, something RDP-like can be established, which not compromising one of the biggest features of Wayland.
Lua would be so cool as scripting language. (Well, except for this crap about arrays starting with index 1 by default.) Just by looking at the HUGE amounts of performance optimizations that LuaJIT is able to pull off shows why.
Possibly, yes. I can see how the Beagleboard and the Pandaboard split up use cases, the Beagleboard for the lower end, the Pandaboard for the higher end.
BTW, the CuBox platform has Serial ATA and Gigabit Ethernet, and comes with a case. It does cost considerably more, though (about $120).
Agreed. Example: when I build a rootfs using OpenEmbedded, parallelism is absolutely essential, because it builds thousands of packages. And to let it build in parallel efficiently, you need all these cores (of course), plus fast I/O so it does not become a bottleneck, and lots of RAM to avoid using swap and have a large disk cache. So, for a build server, I'd go with 4 to 8 cores, 16 GB RAM (you can get that for 100 bucks these days), a 7200RPM hard disk for package downloads and archives, and an SSD for the OS and the build work & staging directories.
Thats actually one of the things I've always liked about AMD and ATI. They both tend to not fuck around about failing. If its dead, its dead, none of this half way bull.
Except that an overheated CPU tends to damage the mainboard as well. With a temperature regulated CPU, this doesn't happen. Besides, if the *fan* breaks, I just want to have to replace that fan, not fan+CPU+mainboard.
EA withdrawing from the PC market would not be a good thing, since this will cause other publishers to consider doing the same. "Hmm, EA is pretty big, and they are leaving the PC sector, there must be a good reason for that, perhaps we should do the same."
There is a reason why everybody used Unreal engines all these years and the ID Tech 4 never got used for much of anything folks, its just not a great engine.
I tend to agree. There as a lot of "emperor's new clothes" going on with ID Tech 4, in that nobody wanted to admit that it underperformed. However, I think the main reason is that it was written at a time when shaders just got introduced, and the whole state of realtime 3D graphics was in heavy flux. As a result, it has several code paths specialized for GPU architectures that don't exist anymore. Nowadays, shader languages and APIs have stabilized, and the bottlenecks are in entirely different places. Note that Unreal Engine 3 was released several years after ID Tech 4, thus benefitting from more matured APIs.
Although I think the main selling point of UE3 over ID Tech 4 was the excellent toolchain. People tend to forget that with engines, the *actual* value lies in the toolchain. This is also where open source engines routinely fail; know any with a toolchain that can rival the UDK?
What if the router gets upgraded, but since you aren't using WiFi much (perhaps because you only enabled it for your someone else's laptop), you don't notice the SSID and WPA key got reset?
They do however enforce their strict view on non-free stuff. Just run ffmpeg -codecs on a Debian machine, then on an Arch one, for example. Note the absence of libmp3lame, libx264, aac... in the Debian version. libmp3lame and libx264 are GPLed , and ffmpeg has custom-made support for AAC. h264, mp3, and AAC however are subject to royalties (and software patents, but what isn't these days). That is why Debian leaves them out.
This isn't just because of the drivers. Its because Quartz is clearly superior to X11. Built from the ground up to make use of HW acceleration , most likely with a scenegraph-like approach, it outclasses X11 easily, which has an architecture that is an anachronism these days.
An interesting comparison would be to run an OpenGL 2/3 benchmark tool on Linux, then on OSX, with nvidia hardware, then with ati/amd hardware.
Slashdot Mirror
The Internet under UN control will become a politically correct, culturally sanitized My Little Pony land.
Exactly. Add "heavily censored" to that list.
The simple fact that we all can express our opinions about PRISM shows how much better this is.
Do you think Russia, China, Syria would never ever consider building something like PRISM? What do you think would have happened to all the PRISM discussions if these countries were controlling the Internet?
Just look at what happens to bloggers in China who dare to write about things like the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989.
It isn't just framed as as argument about freedom of speech etc. Just google for the WCIT-12 leaks. Here is one hit with the original PDFs linked: http://www.zdnet.com/wcit-12-leak-shows-russia-china-others-seek-to-define-government-controlled-internet-7000008509/
Every single country does this.
At least in the Western world this is primarily a US phenomenon. You'll have a hard time finding even a fraction of this patriotism amongst European citizens. France might be the closest there is, and even there, I do not see this happening with the same level of intensity.
Honestly, as an Austrian, I find the thought of reciting the pledge of allegiance every day in school intensely creepy.
He is actually right. By definition, this cannot give you a priori data. And that is what big O is - a priori information.
In practice, with measurements, you can take a pretty good guess as to what the complexity is, but you can never know if it is actually correct. This is a common mistake that people make, and can easily cause them to draw incorrect conclusions.
From the same page:
"New demand has recently strained supply, and there is growing concern that the world may soon face a shortage of the rare earths.[19] In several years from 2009 worldwide demand for rare earth elements is expected to exceed supply by 40,000 tonnes annually unless major new sources are developed. "
"As a result of the increased demand and tightening restrictions on exports of the metals from China, some countries are stockpiling rare earth resources."
Also, I did not say that there aren't many of them. I said there are considerable difficulties in mining them. Which is probably the main reason why China is the supplier no.1 . There is a lot of stuff dispersed amongst the oceans, too, it is just unfeasible to extract it (yet).
There is nothing wrong with pursuing asteroid mining, just like there isn't anything wrong with trying to come up with new technologies to extract rare earths better, or make collection from elements in the ocean more practical. I firmly oppose this view that just because X does not either immediately yield any gains or has no 100% guarantee of suceeding it is pointless. If you think the invested money could be used elsewhere better, why not yank money off yet another weapons development project, which cost orders of magnitude more than three asteroid mining programs?
My guess: either a troll, or a guy with a very narrow view of things incapable of long-term thinking. Unfortunately, there are many of the latter.
These are the people who regularly say that research without a clear and easy-to-understand goal is useless, completely ignoring the fact that especially basic research often cannot have a clear goal (usually that happens in applied research).
Likewise, here, if a project does not immediately deliver a nice spaceship with which you can zip comfortably to an asteroid, grab it, and bring back, it is all pointless, nonsense, etc.
An example of one of the ACs: "There is no technology to do any of the things you describe." . The whole POINT of projects like these is to eventually come up with such technologies. This should be obvious, but apparently isn't to these people.
No shortages if we only mine on Earth? Have you ever heard about rare earth metals, and the considerable difficulty to mine them? In addition, the single biggest source for these metals is China. The rest of the world is hoarding rare earth metals as much as they can due to Chinas increased regulation. There are asteroids out there that have enormous amounts of these metals.
In fact, many metals are expected to be exhausted in this century. Sure, you can recycle them, but consider the effect this has on the economy and political stability.
The potential benefits clearly outweigh the risks. Even more so when comparing projected costs with those for military operations, for example.
The problem is that there are no graphics primitives to send over the wire. This is part of the core principal of Wayland which is kind of important to a lot of people. It reflects today's graphics hardware much better.
Perhaps a network transparency standard that can be moved into the toolkits could help. Typically, X11 forwarding is used to show individual applications, not the entire desktop. This way, something RDP-like can be established, which not compromising one of the biggest features of Wayland.
Lua would be so cool as scripting language. (Well, except for this crap about arrays starting with index 1 by default.) Just by looking at the HUGE amounts of performance optimizations that LuaJIT is able to pull off shows why.
Multiply native speeds by two
Actually, it would be "divide native speed by two" ;)
The sad thing is that the PowerVR's are actually pretty decent. The drivers (made by Intel) are to blame.
Possibly, yes. I can see how the Beagleboard and the Pandaboard split up use cases, the Beagleboard for the lower end, the Pandaboard for the higher end.
BTW, the CuBox platform has Serial ATA and Gigabit Ethernet, and comes with a case. It does cost considerably more, though (about $120).
Then you have code that runs well for AMD, and not well for others. You might as well use hardware specific APIs then.
In that case, please fix the Wikipedia page.
How can it be easier than 'apt-get install nvidia-glx'?
A preinstalled driver, where you don't have to type in *anything*.
Agreed. Example: when I build a rootfs using OpenEmbedded, parallelism is absolutely essential, because it builds thousands of packages. And to let it build in parallel efficiently, you need all these cores (of course), plus fast I/O so it does not become a bottleneck, and lots of RAM to avoid using swap and have a large disk cache. So, for a build server, I'd go with 4 to 8 cores, 16 GB RAM (you can get that for 100 bucks these days), a 7200RPM hard disk for package downloads and archives, and an SSD for the OS and the build work & staging directories.
Thats actually one of the things I've always liked about AMD and ATI. They both tend to not fuck around about failing. If its dead, its dead, none of this half way bull.
Except that an overheated CPU tends to damage the mainboard as well. With a temperature regulated CPU, this doesn't happen. Besides, if the *fan* breaks, I just want to have to replace that fan, not fan+CPU+mainboard.
EA withdrawing from the PC market would not be a good thing, since this will cause other publishers to consider doing the same. "Hmm, EA is pretty big, and they are leaving the PC sector, there must be a good reason for that, perhaps we should do the same."
This sounds like a problem at the driver level. Perhaps by turning off Aero, performance improves?
There is a reason why everybody used Unreal engines all these years and the ID Tech 4 never got used for much of anything folks, its just not a great engine.
I tend to agree. There as a lot of "emperor's new clothes" going on with ID Tech 4, in that nobody wanted to admit that it underperformed. However, I think the main reason is that it was written at a time when shaders just got introduced, and the whole state of realtime 3D graphics was in heavy flux. As a result, it has several code paths specialized for GPU architectures that don't exist anymore. Nowadays, shader languages and APIs have stabilized, and the bottlenecks are in entirely different places. Note that Unreal Engine 3 was released several years after ID Tech 4, thus benefitting from more matured APIs.
Although I think the main selling point of UE3 over ID Tech 4 was the excellent toolchain. People tend to forget that with engines, the *actual* value lies in the toolchain. This is also where open source engines routinely fail; know any with a toolchain that can rival the UDK?
3. it's basic design is an attempt to create a solution to an NP complete problem.
Which is?
What if the router gets upgraded, but since you aren't using WiFi much (perhaps because you only enabled it for your someone else's laptop), you don't notice the SSID and WPA key got reset?
They do however enforce their strict view on non-free stuff. Just run ffmpeg -codecs on a Debian machine, then on an Arch one, for example. Note the absence of libmp3lame, libx264, aac ... in the Debian version. libmp3lame and libx264 are GPLed , and ffmpeg has custom-made support for AAC. h264, mp3, and AAC however are subject to royalties (and software patents, but what isn't these days). That is why Debian leaves them out.
This isn't just because of the drivers. Its because Quartz is clearly superior to X11. Built from the ground up to make use of HW acceleration , most likely with a scenegraph-like approach, it outclasses X11 easily, which has an architecture that is an anachronism these days.
An interesting comparison would be to run an OpenGL 2/3 benchmark tool on Linux, then on OSX, with nvidia hardware, then with ati/amd hardware.