The Gerald D. Mahan mentioned in the article as the original inventor of the idea is incidentally the same guy responsible for "Many-Particle Physics", everybodys favourite textbook on hardcore condensed matter theory using a Green function approach.
As you hinted at, I think debian has a lot to learn from *BSD regarding release management in the sense that the bsd:s have succeeded in producing stable up-to-date distributions on multiple platforms on a volunteer basis. My solution would be that at the same time as a new stable is released, unstable is forked into the new testing, where the freeze process begins _immidiately_, i.e. first get the base system functional, then freeze it, then the same thing for the rest of the system and voilá, a new stable release! This would avoid the two big problems with the current system, i.e. packages trickling _veeery_ slowly into testing from unstable (e.g. mozilla, gnome 1.4 etc.) and "creeping featurism/arbitrary release goals" (lets just wait for feature X before we freeze!). But of course, I'm not the debian release manager (or whoever decides these things) so I'm just ranting...:(
3GIO is not ready yet. Don't expect it either for a few years. And it will most probably debut in expensive servers.
HyperTransport vs. 3GIO is a valid comparison. See http://www.extremetech.com/article/0,3396,s=1005&a =18058,00.asp for more info.
Bluetooth, on the other hand is in a completely different league. It's a wireless connect, primarily designed for simplicity, bluetooth chips cost something like $5. It's speed is something like 1Mbit/s. Contrast this with up to 10Gbit/s promised for 3GIO. That's a factor of 10000 difference in speed...
Oooh, looky looky!! I see a flame war brewing...:)
About PalmOS and python, to be frank, I don't really care either since I don't own a Palm and I'm not interrested in acquiring one. I just wanted to point out to you that if necessary you can fit python into a pretty small environment. Hell you can even run a version of Java on a friggin smart card! So if you for some reason I don't really get despite all your excellent explaining (look! ooh! it's powerful! your small sized brai n is unable to understand this!) are going to cram the kernel source, gcc, binutils, make and a few other necessary things onto your "embedded" device adding a scripting language (be it perl or python or whatever) isn't going to make much difference in terms of disk space used.
And python is not _that _non-standard. The last time I used a linux distro where python was not packaged was with slackware 2.something back in 1995.
As to why to use python, and while we are on the subject of ESR:s CML2, he wrote a nice article explaining his choice of python visible at
http://www2.linuxjournal.com/lj-issues/issue73/3 88 2.html
Get a fscking clue. How many embedded developers do you think compile the kernel for their device on the device itself (Hint: About 0)? Ever heard of crosscompiling? And for that matter, python is available on all the big distros (big in the sense of lots of users, not installed size). And yet another point, python is available on PalmOS, if you're scared that you'll run out of hd space.
Well, nobody forces you to use anything. If your anti-python feelings go far enough, you could certainly edit the makefiles yourself (in principle, that is). Or rewrite CML2 in your favourite language (there are imho projects more worthwile to spend your time on than this though). Or use the distro-supplied kernel. Or use 2.4.x kernels until Linux 42.0 with yet another kernel configuration system (not written in python) is released in, say, 2050. Or switch to windows. I don't really care.
Yes, very sound advice, but the problem is finding a suitable girlfriend. This is some email joke I got a while ago...;)
> > Yea but only 1 out of every 100 girls are attractive (and I'm being
> > generous. all that TV/magazine/fashion shows have spoiled me.) if 5%
> > find a guy attractive: 1/100 x 5/100 = 1/2000. that's 1 out of every
> > 2000 women. Sure, everyone could get laid, but the problem is
> > finding a hot one.
>
> Don't forget that even if you find that 1/2,000, simply approaching
> won't garner you success unless you are able to be very direct which may
> actually turn her off. So assuming a success rate of 1/5 with a good
> attraction match, that's 1/10,000. Oh, and you've got to catch her on a
> good day, say 1/3. And there's 50% chance of a bitch shield. If she's
> with friends, you'll have to disable potential cockblocks (33% chance of
> good success). Let's see, that puts you at 1/180,000. You know what?
> There's also the issue that just because she finds YOU attractive, she
> may find 10 other guys in the vicinity MORE attractive. Now you're at
> about 1/1,800,000. Holy crap, I forgot that 2 out of 3 women are
> probably married or engaged or have a SERIOUS boyfriend. 1/5,000,000.
> Then there is the possibility of earthquakes and floods. 1/30,000,000.
> Or a random asteroid hitting the Earth. 1/6,000,000,000^10. Shit man,
> the universe is gonna collapse in on itself in only 20 billion years.
> Then where will you be?
>
> 1/750,000,000,000^80
And in addition to all this, this guy is a CS major, so he'll approach 1 in 1000 of these girls.
1/750,000,000,000,000^80. Looks pretty bad.:)
About scientific computing and fortran...
on
GSL 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
While this is quite cool, I'd rather have something similar written in C++. The problem as I see it, plain C doesn't really offer enough benefits to make the switch from fortran, especially since high quality stable fortran 95 compilers are available for most platforms (but no free ones:( ). But C++, with operator overloading and templates, has what it takes. With C++, you can write shorter code, which actually resembles the mathematical problem, being much more high level. Thus reducing the amount of bugs, which is very important as your calculations are of little value if they are wrong. And you don't have to trade any performance for that. See the papers on expression templates by Todd Veldhuizen, and the book "Modern C++ Design" by Andrei Alexandrescu if you're interrested. That said, I think I'll find gsl useful for quite a lot of stuff anyway, except linear algebra. For that I'd prefer an object-oriented LAPACK wrapper like linal or the one described in the barton & nackman book. There are also a couple of interresting linear algebra libraries being developed from scratch in c++, but I don't know if they can be trusted yet.
Re:Looks like Fortran is finally on the way out !
on
GSL 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
Umm, actually GSL uses BLAS. There are many optimized BLAS implementations written in assembler out there.
Disclaimer: I have never used GSL, I just read what their webpage says.
From the error message it appears as if they have some limit on the number of db handles in their connection pooling stuff. The point is, making a db backed website is easy. Making it scale is a lot more difficult. And you tend to learn through your mistakes.
On the subject of comparing to other compilers, have you looked at KAI C++? From what I've heard it's quite popular in scientific programming because its performance apparently is a lot better than other C++ compilers, especially with advanced stuff like expression templates. However I don't know how well (if at all) it addresses vectorization, as it's available for a plethora of high end platforms (but no win32 here!).
Re:Hmmm... not sure how to take the article
on
Linux on the Desktop
·
· Score: 1
Umm, and LyX has had export to PDF for how long? It's quite funny that there is usually no mention of LyX when talking about word processing on Linux/Unix. Maybe because LyX is not marketed as a word processor, in the traditional sense. Anyway, it wipes the floor with any other word processing program. html export (latex2html) is a bit sucky though, and docbook could be better supported as well.
Re:The towers collapsed for a simple reason!
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
If you would have read the article more carefully you would have noticed that what you're referring to is AVGAS, used by propeller planes with piston engines. Jet planes burn kerosene, or to be more precise JT-A for commercial airliners, with a flashpoint of about 110-150 degrees F. Also regulations say that the flashpoint has to be larger than 110 degF.
And by stating that you show that you know even less. *hint* don't call anyone a dimwit when you don't know what you're talking about.
*another hint* D+D = He3 + n or D+D = He3 + H (both approximately 50% probability).
*yet another hint* Why couldn't you separate D from T? Read up on isotope enrichment...
Definitely use a RDBMS as backend. The problems a database solves for you (eg. concurrency, transactions, querying) are among the more difficult tasks in computer science.. as for free databases, my favourite is PostgreSQL. It rules. As for implementation language, a high level language will save you lots of time. Consider python. Java is also quite nice, with lots of documentation. As a final note, instead of reinventing the wheel, check out www.freepm.org and www.freemed.org and the Linux Medicine HOWTO at http://mobilix.org/Medicine-HOWTO.html
I think the point he was making was that it's hard to start using OO concepts when you have programmed in a procedural way for a long time. A good book on patterns, such as "Design Patterns: Elements of reusable object-oriented software" by Gamma et al. goes a long way in such a situation, imho.
Re:Japanese (and American) revisionist history
on
Review: Pearl Harbor
·
· Score: 1
Ok, for a second let's assume these ridiculously high figures environmental organizations like to show off are true. Say that 20 000 people have died so, far, and perhaps 80 000 more will die in the next 85 years. A total of 100 000 people in 100 years. Compare this with the 200 000 europeans dying each year because of air pollution resulting from energy production. Me, I'd rather have nuclear power..
Yeah, quantum field theory is full of interresting equations and operators. Turns out you can develop most of quantum mechanics from the commutation relations of the creation and annihilation operators and some group theory. So these would be an obvious choice. But seriously, this is _very_ difficult stuff. Do you really want to lecture a course in QFD to that jerk on the beach with a mental capacity barely exceeding the ability to sell burgers at Burger King? Personaly, I would think twice about the idea to tattoo any formula. It stinks of some kind of "I'm smarter than you" attitude. It's the kind of attitude that alienates the intellectual people from the "normal" people out there. The first reaction when seeing a formula as a tattoo might very well be: "What a loser. Get a life!".
Whoa, hold it! Mankind is still a _veeeery_ long way from making something like direct brain control over a computer possible. I looked at that site, and while it certainly seemed impressive, you have to keep in mind that what they did was some really simple things. I've been working a little with MEG (ok, very little...), and I can tell you it ain't simple nor cheap stuff. The equipment I worked with was located underground, in a room magnetically shielded by a couple of layers of mu-metal, cooled by liquid helium (to make the SQUID:s superconducting and for reducing thermal noise) and used gradiometer spools to reduce the effect of external noise. SQUID:s being the most sensitive measurement equipment man has ever built, one could still notice stuff like a bus driving by, the nearest road was at about 100m distance. Anyway the noise was at about 50% of signal amplitude. Of course, a lot of the "noise" was the patient thinking all kinds of other thoughts, it's kind of hard to not think at all. So to make something like brain control of anything reasonably complicated we need orders of magnitude better measurement equipment, and lots and lots and lots and lots of research into how the brain actually works. I wouldn't count on something like me thinking about my first kiss (or uh, ahem, _that_ first time...:))and then the mental picture in my head appearing on the screen happening in my lifetime. OTOH, maybe I should be happy about it, could be embarrasing if other people were around...:)
Actually the fission-fusion-fission bombs as they are also called do have strategic value. The nuclear weapons FAQ for example, mentions that probably most of the strategic warheads are of this type today. The reason is simply to have the smallest package, the smaller the warhead is the smaller your entire ICBM can be (=cheaper). Since the warhead needs a heat shield for reentry anyway, why not make the shield of a material that can increase the yield? Besides, U238 is abundant and dirt cheap...
Re:Nuclear fission is the only sustainable power t
on
Wave Driven Generators
·
· Score: 1
Plants designed today have a design-basis lifespan of about 60 years. Also many older plants have had their licensing extended to a total of about 50 years. Basically the output stays constant, but again, many plants have increased their output. This is mostly due to improved fuels and also more precise modelling made possible with today's computers. The cost of nuclear energy varies alot from country to country, mostly due to the difference in capital costs. As a general rule, nuclear power is competetive with coal and cheaper than natural gas and all renewables except hydro-electric.
Where did you get the silly notion that breeder waste would be weapons grade Pu (>95% Pu-239, iirc)? The plutonium you get from a normal LWR as well as from a breeder is isotopically around 60-70% Pu-239, i.e. reactor grade Pu. Of course you can make weapons grade plutonium from it. The process is called isotope enrichment. Take a look att www.usec.com to see the size of the diffusion equipment used in the process. Not something a terrorist would easily get their hands on. By the way, none of the nuclear weapons states has produced plutonium this way (the U.S thought about it in the 60s but dropped it). And designing a nuclear weapon from reactor grade plutonium is something enviromentalist people like to scare people with, not something which is practically done. There are a lot of problems that noone has bothered to solve, like heat generation and predetonation, because nuclear weapons are made of weapons grade Pu (surprise!), which doesn't exhibit these "negative" features.
As for fusion, I share your hopes that scientists will get it to work, the sooner the better. Unfortunately, it won't provide "free" energy, at least not with today's technology. As with fission plants today, there are the operating costs and capital costs to take into account. Already with fission plants, capital costs represent about 2/3 of the cost of electricity. This won't decrease with fusion plants.
Slashdot Mirror
The Gerald D. Mahan mentioned in the article as the original inventor of the idea is incidentally the same guy responsible for "Many-Particle Physics", everybodys favourite textbook on hardcore condensed matter theory using a Green function approach.
I'm personally using SpamBouncer, a procmail-based spam filter. Works fine for me.
As you hinted at, I think debian has a lot to learn from *BSD regarding release management in the sense that the bsd:s have succeeded in producing stable up-to-date distributions on multiple platforms on a volunteer basis. My solution would be that at the same time as a new stable is released, unstable is forked into the new testing, where the freeze process begins _immidiately_, i.e. first get the base system functional, then freeze it, then the same thing for the rest of the system and voilá, a new stable release! This would avoid the two big problems with the current system, i.e. packages trickling _veeery_ slowly into testing from unstable (e.g. mozilla, gnome 1.4 etc.) and "creeping featurism/arbitrary release goals" (lets just wait for feature X before we freeze!). But of course, I'm not the debian release manager (or whoever decides these things) so I'm just ranting...:(
3GIO is not ready yet. Don't expect it either for a few years. And it will most probably debut in expensive servers.a =18058,00.asp for more info.
HyperTransport vs. 3GIO is a valid comparison. See http://www.extremetech.com/article/0,3396,s=1005&
Bluetooth, on the other hand is in a completely different league. It's a wireless connect, primarily designed for simplicity, bluetooth chips cost something like $5. It's speed is something like 1Mbit/s. Contrast this with up to 10Gbit/s promised for 3GIO. That's a factor of 10000 difference in speed...
Oooh, looky looky!! I see a flame war brewing...:)3 88 2.html
About PalmOS and python, to be frank, I don't really care either since I don't own a Palm and I'm not interrested in acquiring one. I just wanted to point out to you that if necessary you can fit python into a pretty small environment. Hell you can even run a version of Java on a friggin smart card! So if you for some reason I don't really get despite all your excellent explaining (look! ooh! it's powerful! your small sized brai n is unable to understand this!) are going to cram the kernel source, gcc, binutils, make and a few other necessary things onto your "embedded" device adding a scripting language (be it perl or python or whatever) isn't going to make much difference in terms of disk space used.
And python is not _that _non-standard. The last time I used a linux distro where python was not packaged was with slackware 2.something back in 1995.
As to why to use python, and while we are on the subject of ESR:s CML2, he wrote a nice article explaining his choice of python visible at
http://www2.linuxjournal.com/lj-issues/issue73/
Get a fscking clue. How many embedded developers do you think compile the kernel for their device on the device itself (Hint: About 0)? Ever heard of crosscompiling? And for that matter, python is available on all the big distros (big in the sense of lots of users, not installed size). And yet another point, python is available on PalmOS, if you're scared that you'll run out of hd space.
Well, nobody forces you to use anything. If your anti-python feelings go far enough, you could certainly edit the makefiles yourself (in principle, that is). Or rewrite CML2 in your favourite language (there are imho projects more worthwile to spend your time on than this though). Or use the distro-supplied kernel. Or use 2.4.x kernels until Linux 42.0 with yet another kernel configuration system (not written in python) is released in, say, 2050. Or switch to windows. I don't really care.
Yes, very sound advice, but the problem is finding a suitable girlfriend. This is some email joke I got a while ago... ;)
:)
> > Yea but only 1 out of every 100 girls are attractive (and I'm being
> > generous. all that TV/magazine/fashion shows have spoiled me.) if 5%
> > find a guy attractive: 1/100 x 5/100 = 1/2000. that's 1 out of every
> > 2000 women. Sure, everyone could get laid, but the problem is
> > finding a hot one.
>
> Don't forget that even if you find that 1/2,000, simply approaching
> won't garner you success unless you are able to be very direct which may
> actually turn her off. So assuming a success rate of 1/5 with a good
> attraction match, that's 1/10,000. Oh, and you've got to catch her on a
> good day, say 1/3. And there's 50% chance of a bitch shield. If she's
> with friends, you'll have to disable potential cockblocks (33% chance of
> good success). Let's see, that puts you at 1/180,000. You know what?
> There's also the issue that just because she finds YOU attractive, she
> may find 10 other guys in the vicinity MORE attractive. Now you're at
> about 1/1,800,000. Holy crap, I forgot that 2 out of 3 women are
> probably married or engaged or have a SERIOUS boyfriend. 1/5,000,000.
> Then there is the possibility of earthquakes and floods. 1/30,000,000.
> Or a random asteroid hitting the Earth. 1/6,000,000,000^10. Shit man,
> the universe is gonna collapse in on itself in only 20 billion years.
> Then where will you be?
>
> 1/750,000,000,000^80
And in addition to all this, this guy is a CS major, so he'll approach 1 in 1000 of these girls.
1/750,000,000,000,000^80. Looks pretty bad.
While this is quite cool, I'd rather have something similar written in C++. The problem as I see it, plain C doesn't really offer enough benefits to make the switch from fortran, especially since high quality stable fortran 95 compilers are available for most platforms (but no free ones :( ). But C++, with operator overloading and templates, has what it takes. With C++, you can write shorter code, which actually resembles the mathematical problem, being much more high level. Thus reducing the amount of bugs, which is very important as your calculations are of little value if they are wrong. And you don't have to trade any performance for that. See the papers on expression templates by Todd Veldhuizen, and the book "Modern C++ Design" by Andrei Alexandrescu if you're interrested. That said, I think I'll find gsl useful for quite a lot of stuff anyway, except linear algebra. For that I'd prefer an object-oriented LAPACK wrapper like linal or the one described in the barton & nackman book. There are also a couple of interresting linear algebra libraries being developed from scratch in c++, but I don't know if they can be trusted yet.
Umm, actually GSL uses BLAS. There are many optimized BLAS implementations written in assembler out there.
Disclaimer: I have never used GSL, I just read what their webpage says.
Apparently they have learned to calculate with SI units this time... :)
From the error message it appears as if they have some limit on the number of db handles in their connection pooling stuff. The point is, making a db backed website is easy. Making it scale is a lot more difficult. And you tend to learn through your mistakes.
On the subject of comparing to other compilers, have you looked at KAI C++? From what I've heard it's quite popular in scientific programming because its performance apparently is a lot better than other C++ compilers, especially with advanced stuff like expression templates. However I don't know how well (if at all) it addresses vectorization, as it's available for a plethora of high end platforms (but no win32 here!).
Umm, and LyX has had export to PDF for how long? It's quite funny that there is usually no mention of LyX when talking about word processing on Linux/Unix. Maybe because LyX is not marketed as a word processor, in the traditional sense. Anyway, it wipes the floor with any other word processing program. html export (latex2html) is a bit sucky though, and docbook could be better supported as well.
If you would have read the article more carefully you would have noticed that what you're referring to is AVGAS, used by propeller planes with piston engines. Jet planes burn kerosene, or to be more precise JT-A for commercial airliners, with a flashpoint of about 110-150 degrees F. Also regulations say that the flashpoint has to be larger than 110 degF.
And by stating that you show that you know even less. *hint* don't call anyone a dimwit when you don't know what you're talking about.
*another hint* D+D = He3 + n or D+D = He3 + H (both approximately 50% probability).
*yet another hint* Why couldn't you separate D from T? Read up on isotope enrichment...
Definitely use a RDBMS as backend. The problems a database solves for you (eg. concurrency, transactions, querying) are among the more difficult tasks in computer science.. as for free databases, my favourite is PostgreSQL. It rules. As for implementation language, a high level language will save you lots of time. Consider python. Java is also quite nice, with lots of documentation. As a final note, instead of reinventing the wheel, check out www.freepm.org and www.freemed.org and the Linux Medicine HOWTO at http://mobilix.org/Medicine-HOWTO.html
I think the point he was making was that it's hard to start using OO concepts when you have programmed in a procedural way for a long time. A good book on patterns, such as "Design Patterns: Elements of reusable object-oriented software" by Gamma et al. goes a long way in such a situation, imho.
Ok, for a second let's assume these ridiculously high figures environmental organizations like to show off are true. Say that 20 000 people have died so, far, and perhaps 80 000 more will die in the next 85 years. A total of 100 000 people in 100 years. Compare this with the 200 000 europeans dying each year because of air pollution resulting from energy production. Me, I'd rather have nuclear power..
Yeah, quantum field theory is full of interresting equations and operators. Turns out you can develop most of quantum mechanics from the commutation relations of the creation and annihilation operators and some group theory. So these would be an obvious choice. But seriously, this is _very_ difficult stuff. Do you really want to lecture a course in QFD to that jerk on the beach with a mental capacity barely exceeding the ability to sell burgers at Burger King? Personaly, I would think twice about the idea to tattoo any formula. It stinks of some kind of "I'm smarter than you" attitude. It's the kind of attitude that alienates the intellectual people from the "normal" people out there. The first reaction when seeing a formula as a tattoo might very well be: "What a loser. Get a life!".
Yes, indeed MAV:s are very cool. But use the right kind of tool for the job.. kinda hard to carry a 1000lbs bomb with one of them 6-inch MAV:s...:)
Whoa, hold it! Mankind is still a _veeeery_ long way from making something like direct brain control over a computer possible. I looked at that site, and while it certainly seemed impressive, you have to keep in mind that what they did was some really simple things. I've been working a little with MEG (ok, very little...), and I can tell you it ain't simple nor cheap stuff. The equipment I worked with was located underground, in a room magnetically shielded by a couple of layers of mu-metal, cooled by liquid helium (to make the SQUID:s superconducting and for reducing thermal noise) and used gradiometer spools to reduce the effect of external noise. SQUID:s being the most sensitive measurement equipment man has ever built, one could still notice stuff like a bus driving by, the nearest road was at about 100m distance. Anyway the noise was at about 50% of signal amplitude. Of course, a lot of the "noise" was the patient thinking all kinds of other thoughts, it's kind of hard to not think at all. So to make something like brain control of anything reasonably complicated we need orders of magnitude better measurement equipment, and lots and lots and lots and lots of research into how the brain actually works. I wouldn't count on something like me thinking about my first kiss (or uh, ahem, _that_ first time...:))and then the mental picture in my head appearing on the screen happening in my lifetime. OTOH, maybe I should be happy about it, could be embarrasing if other people were around...:)
Actually the fission-fusion-fission bombs as they are also called do have strategic value. The nuclear weapons FAQ for example, mentions that probably most of the strategic warheads are of this type today. The reason is simply to have the smallest package, the smaller the warhead is the smaller your entire ICBM can be (=cheaper). Since the warhead needs a heat shield for reentry anyway, why not make the shield of a material that can increase the yield? Besides, U238 is abundant and dirt cheap...
Plants designed today have a design-basis lifespan of about 60 years. Also many older plants have had their licensing extended to a total of about 50 years. Basically the output stays constant, but again, many plants have increased their output. This is mostly due to improved fuels and also more precise modelling made possible with today's computers. The cost of nuclear energy varies alot from country to country, mostly due to the difference in capital costs. As a general rule, nuclear power is competetive with coal and cheaper than natural gas and all renewables except hydro-electric.
Where did you get the silly notion that breeder waste would be weapons grade Pu (>95% Pu-239, iirc)? The plutonium you get from a normal LWR as well as from a breeder is isotopically around 60-70% Pu-239, i.e. reactor grade Pu. Of course you can make weapons grade plutonium from it. The process is called isotope enrichment. Take a look att www.usec.com to see the size of the diffusion equipment used in the process. Not something a terrorist would easily get their hands on. By the way, none of the nuclear weapons states has produced plutonium this way (the U.S thought about it in the 60s but dropped it). And designing a nuclear weapon from reactor grade plutonium is something enviromentalist people like to scare people with, not something which is practically done. There are a lot of problems that noone has bothered to solve, like heat generation and predetonation, because nuclear weapons are made of weapons grade Pu (surprise!), which doesn't exhibit these "negative" features.
As for fusion, I share your hopes that scientists will get it to work, the sooner the better. Unfortunately, it won't provide "free" energy, at least not with today's technology. As with fission plants today, there are the operating costs and capital costs to take into account. Already with fission plants, capital costs represent about 2/3 of the cost of electricity. This won't decrease with fusion plants.