Those sure are some interesting numbers. On the order of a 49% increase or 35% decrease in performance depending on the application. I always figured those high-GHz CPUs would be completely IO-bound. I guess this sometimes allows threads to run with what they've got in the on-chip cache.
Makes you wonder if a kernel could detect if it was helping or not and selectively enable it.
I did some informal testing between VC++ native and C# to.Net bytecode. I had a little loop calculating primes. The native C++ kept everything in registers, while the CLR made everything relative memory accesses to BP. I figured that would devastate performance, but on the Pentium 4, it was only 5% slower! It seems to have an L1 cache that's as fast as the registers. That will certainly make it easier on the compiler writers.
Sort of off topic, did anyone else see that article in MSDN about using.Net for serious number crunching? The author seemed to write the whole article as if he thought it was a good idea. Not that there wouldn't be some advantages to doing that (such as the possibility of tuning for the processor at runtime), but the one graph he showed comparing with native code had.Net running 50% to 33% slower!
Unless researchers announce preliminary findings 2-5 years in "advance" of a prototype how do you expect them to get funding?
There's a big wide grey area between methodical, conservative science and over-hype. Within this gray area is also a fine line that can only ever be seen in retrospect. There definately needs to be a safe path for moving ideas from pure research through product development to commercial appliction, and capitalism is probably the worst way to do that, except for all the others.
Looking at it from the outside, it seems like the researchers have are doing something interesting in a well-equipped laboratory. I'll guess that they might have said informally that if someone walked in the door with $10 million in funding, we could quit our current jobs, form a new company, work full time on this, and probably have a self-contained prototype in 2 to 5 years".
I'm sorry to sound so cynical, I really am. I can just see the headline in CNN's Science section tomorrow: "Faster Internet Chips from Einstein's Weird Science". I'm still waiting for my room temperature superconductor refrigerator that's also a supercomputer that saves me on my electric bill. You have all seen it too, and I think that these crimes us eager and enthusiastic gadget consumers are at least deserving of a little friendly grumbling on Slashdot.
With no disrespect to the work of these talented and hard-working researchers, I really don't want the next generation of superneato computing become over-hyped.
Re:Please tell me how this time it's different.
on
Storing Light In Chips
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
No, you misunderstand me. I think it's great that we have pure researchers pushing out the limits of human knowledge, and am grateful for their work. I certainly am glad they have results to publish.
I think the main problem is that we have a popular science press that, in talking down to its readers, always reports pure research as if it were applied research. While fun to read, the effect can be that technology becomes over-promised and over-hyped too early in its development. This can cause good tech to become stigmatized as a black hole for research funding.
I don't see anything that would indicate that these researchers are acting in an overly self-promotional manner. However, it looks like optical and quantum computing are in danger of being painted with the same brush as fusion power, AI, holographic storage, quantum effects (teleportation, anti-gravity, faster-than-light), etc..
Please tell me how this time it's different.
on
Storing Light In Chips
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Keep in mind that this is only theoretical. The researchers plan to demonstrate this technique by trapping microwave signals within a year. They think that a prototype which works at optical frequencies could be made in two to five years.
Does this sound like another one of those "breakthroughs" in optical/quantum computation where prototypes are "just around the corner" and commercialization is "just a few years away", yet it never happens?
Tell me how this time it's different. Does it work on standard fab processes?
I would really love a CPU with a terahertz clock. I guess it would still be I/O bound, though.
<offtopic>Your comments are discussion-worthy! Why post as an AC? I've been reading/. since at least 1998, but never got around to signing up and commenting properly. I'm glad I finally did, but I could have had bragging rights with one of those low UIDs if I had registered earlier.<offtopic>
Anyway, I see these comments often enough so I suppose they merit some response. I'm not sure I'm the one to do it, but anyway . ..
Interestingly, OpenBSD also don't have any documentation as to what it is exactly they are doing with their audit.
People from GNU/Linux land are often not familiar with the structure of the BSD codebase. With GNU/Linux, tar or ls, for example, will have an "upstream maintainer" such as the FSF. When a distribution finds a bug in one of those utilities, it really is important to report it upstream so they can fix it for everyone.
The BSD codebase was handed down as a single unit from Berkeley. Literally, the kernel, tar, and ls build in the same source tree. A small number of groups that formed to maintain this newly-freed source tree split off from each other (often with ugly disagreements). Berkeley wasn't interested in performing coordinating functions as an "upstream maintainer".
So the OpenBSD group doesn't have anyone more "authoritative" than themselves to report changes and fixes to. What they do instead is make every source change available via CVS. You can even subscribe to an email changelist if you want to. The other BSDs are free to (and often do) track these changes.
They talk a good game but let's face it, if you don't run any services on any platform it's about as secure as an OpenBSD install is out of the box. That's not exactly securing the code through audit, it's just locking down a box.
There is still the IP stack and packet filtering code that needs to be secure. There have been significant attacks on those in the past for many OSes. BTW, wouldn't you prefer that things come turned off by default, so you don't have to worry about "locking it down" in the first place? I just re-installed Debian the other day, and it had ports open to notify others of changes to my filesystem (something called fam, just in case I wanted to setup a fileserver). Probably there was some authentication on it, but the point is that I don't remember asking if it was ok to be on in the first place.
I know this may seem old-fashioned in the days of personal UNIX workstations, but local exploits are a concern for many systems. Often this can make the difference between a denial-of-service and a full rooting of a server.
I like what they are saying they are doing but I have no idea what it is they are changing or why those changes make OpenBSD any more secure than anything else. Now if they had a set of documents explaining what it is that they were looking at and fixing and shared some information so that other developers could learn from the mistakes of others it would be more commendable. Throw on to that the attitude of the developers and you've got a real party.
For all the accusations of OpenBSD being self-promoting, I don't think they spend a lot of time trying to explain their work to non-programmers. As they are working for free for their own interests, I can sympathize with them not verbosely explaining every source-code change in layman's terms. I trust them not to hide a bug that would clearly be exploitable, but at the same time, I don't think they need to do more than silently fix those that probably aren't. I can understand that someone not fluent in C could fail to see what the benefit to, say, eliminating sprintf would be. As a professional software developer, I have looked at their work and I believe it has great merit.
What the AC in post #8154783 seemed to be trying to say is that the leader of the OpenBSD project turned off network-accessible services in the default install, is not forthcoming with the details of these security-related modifications, and acts in a self-promotional manner.
I don't actually agree with this characterization of OpenBSD; I'm simply trying to provide a translation for the curious. I don't think the AC is using stunningly effective debate technique, either.
Re:Helps SCO and Microsoft
on
SCO Offline
·
· Score: 1
So they come up with this clever idea. Make the virus DOS Microsoft and SCO and then the press will report the DOS attack, diverting attention away from the spammers and onto the Linux community.
Clever, huh?
Professor: By Jupiter, Gilligan! It's a plan so crazy, it just has to work!
Of all the theories floating around, I think I like your explanation the best. It may have one weakness though: you have to believe that spammers actually care enough to want to divert attention away from themselves.
Hmm, you're right it did. I don't think there was an official reason given, but many attribute it to the OpenBSD leader saying less-than-supportive things about American military policy.
Or I suppose it could be that DARPA simply doesn't want people to have genuinely secure software. But that would be a conspiracy theory, wouldn't it?
True, but also true of most work being done for Free & Open Source software.
Just look at how many people got seriously enthusiastic about their SETI @ Home rankings. That doesn't pay the bills either, and it uses real electricity.
If they could just find a way to tap into _that_ enthusiasm. Maybe all they need to do is put up a bightly-colored blinking screensaver whenever someone found a bug . ..
Two years after its hopeful launch, a U.S.-backed research project aimed at drawing skilled eyeballs to the thankless task of open-source security auditing is prepared to throw in the towel.
It does seem to be a thankless task. For a new guy on a project, criticizing the leaders' work doesn't seem a good way to gain influence. For an old contributor, you might feel compelled to add functionality the userbase is demanding.
Interestingly, the OpenBSD project has put a lot of effort into auditing, and they also have a reputation of being somewhat, um, "grouchy". I wonder if there's some correlation?
If you believe US government is so irrational that it would actively take sides in civil lawsuits because of a few viruses,
how can you hope to fight SCO in legal ways?
I don't necessarily believe that the government would "actively take sides" in the lawsuits. And I'm certainly glad that I don't personally have to fight SCO in legal ways. I think it's great that they decided to pick on IBM. Not that I dislike IBM, but I have a great deal of confidence in their legal team. Given the sheer economic value represented by GPL'ed software, such a fight was probably inevitable anyway. IBM defending the GPL in court against those who appear to be (in my opinion) a bunch of buffoons, seems to be to be the best possible scenario.
An association between Free Software and viruses/worms/spam in the public perception would certainly be detrimental, however you look at it. I am concerned that it could cause Congress or the administraion to be more sympathetic to commercial software companies that might claim they needed laws or executive orders to defeat "cyberterrorism".
For example, a law could be passed requiring some form of mandatory warranty protection for software programs. I could see the public buying into that one. Or mandatory DRM, or "anti-spam" legislation. Without specific exceptions for Free Software (which might be difficult to define), it could make life very difficult for free software developers in the US.
Well for example, let's just say my right not to be "subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" stood in the way of one of the UN's stated purposes, namely "to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security" or "to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples", then I would be fair game.
Given n rights, and m vauge "purposes and principles", there exist n*m exemptions for any organization claiming to act on behalf of the UN to do things to me I'd rather not have done.
If they are so high-minded, why did they feel a need for such a disclaimer at all? Notice that it doesn't exempt any organization other than the UN itself from such observing human rights. What scenario were they envisioning where it would really be necessary to violate basic rights like that? For example, the US Bill of Rights does not contain any such exemptions.
"...United Nations Human Rights code for multinationals which says businesses should 'seek to ensure..."
The UNHR code says businesses SHOULD seek to ensure their products will not abuse human rights. It doesn't say is they HAVE TO.
So what you're claiming is that what Microsoft is doing is (for once) RFC 2119 compliant!:
3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
I wonder how specific the "Microsoft Human Rights Abuser 2003" software and the Cisco stuff mentioned really is. It doesn't really take esoteric tools to keyword search sites, monitor net usage, and filter them out with proxies and firewalls.
After all, companies have been doing this for years on their internal networks, is this just a scaled up version?
From the article:
Amnesty believes Microsoft is in violation of a new United Nations Human Rights code for multinationals which says businesses should 'seek to ensure that the goods and services they provide will not be used to abuse human rights'.
Does this imply that a free OS, for example, must try to make sure their software can't be used to keep lists of people targeted for oppression?
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups.
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
A license provided by the Regents of the University of California, Berkeley, prohibited an electronic design program from being used by the police of South Africa. While this was a laudable sentiment in the time of apartheid, it makes little sense today. Some people are still stuck with software that they acquired under that license, and their derived versions must carry the same restriction. Open Source licenses may not contain such provisions, no matter how laudable their intent.
Helps SCO and Microsoft
on
SCO Offline
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Does anyone believe that this will do anything except help SCO? It associates their enemies (IBM, Linux), with worm/virus creators and spammers. If this sort of thing keeps up, the US Legislative and Executive branches will actively take the side of SCO and MS against Linux and it's "hackers".
What do they need a website for anyway? Their only business is lawsuits and press releases.
I think your response is a bit misleading. C# is a regurgitation of Sun Java & Borland Delphi while.NET for majority is regurgitation of Borland's VCL framework.Anders Hejlsberg being part of Delphi's history is even more obvious that he regurgitated everything from his work at Borland. And don't get me wrong i'm not against creating something new from something old or use existing ideas as this happens in everyday society(perhaps innovation is the proper terminology) but to say freshly-designed is totally fabricated.
I agree that 90% of the advertised capabilities of.Net are wholly derivative of J2EE. But if you look deeply under the hood, you'll see that the foundations are significantly different. For example, the CLR has unmanged code, value types, metadata, multi-language support, etc.
I'm not trying to take sides in the J2EE/.Net debate, but I do believe the architects started with a relatively open mind and put a few new ideas in it. For example, I don't think.Net is likely to go through the AWT/Swing/SWT growing pains with it's implementation. Windows developers have had enough churn with Win16/Win32/MFC/ATL and now.Net to contend with!
That is what MS did - they added their own extensions in java.* packages, breaking the terms of the licence agreement. If they'd just put them in com.microsoft.*, there wouldn't have been a problem.
As I remember it, they also added a "delegates" feature to the syntax of the language itself.
C# and.NET are MS's answer to losing the court case that Sun brought against them for the above-mentioned licence infringement.
MS had projects code-named "Blackbird" and "Cool" long before they knew they were going to lose the court case. It's widely believed that these were the origins of C# and the CLR. DevelopMentor at one point was giving out tshirts that said "C# is Cool".
I think they just realized that targeting a garbage-collected VM with a stripped-down C++ was an idea who's time had come. This was even before they "got" the Internet. MS couldn't let a cross-platform platform go unchallenged so their strategy was twofold:
1. Trick existing Windows developers into using J++, which had Microsoft-only depencencies silently intertwined with Sun's cross-platform stuff.
2. Build their own version of the concept that they could control. Pretend that it's cross-platform, but have it realistically only work on Windows. Provide a migration path from Java (J#).
Maybe if Sun actually released the source to Java under a free license, maybe, just maybe, people might improve it and use it.
Khakionion:
After all, they want to force people into their way of thinking now, why would they accept any changes to Java that someone made that didn't mesh with Sun's current plan for the growth of Java?
They wouldn't have to accept any changes they didn't like. They could still enforce exactly what they wanted with the Java trademark. They could put the source in the public domain with the simple stipulation that non-strictly-compliant implementations couldn't be called Java(tm).
Not having it free software certainly didn't slow Microsoft down one bit from extending it without their approval. In fact, the result was a freshly-designed competitor (C#/.Net).
They don't even seem to be making a profit on the language itself, why this obsessive desire to control it with an iron fist?
As for the people-might-use-it question, it would certainly make all the difference to this developer. I know there are free Java implementations, but until I see a solid crossplatform GUI kit, I'll probably continue to look elsewhere.
The 3 different HDTV resolutions was probably a marketing decision, not an engineering one:)
As I remember reading about it, it was the US Government (FCC). The television lobby wanted interlaced. The movie industry wanted a few different widescreen aspect ratios. The computer industry wanted non-interlaced at a fixed aspect ratio. So rather than choose a single format, the FCC permitted pretty much all of them. The TV is supposed to have logic in it to scan-convert all the non-native ones. In effect, there are several different standards being advertised for HD TVs, and they wonder why they aren't flying off the shelves!
Imagine that the centrifuge had an infinitely long arm. Then it could, in fact, accelerate the pilots to be hundreds of miles away.
So the problem is to develop algorithms that minimize the perceived difference when the centrifuge arm is shortened to a practical length. From the article, it sounds like there are still some small imperfections in the simulation, but they have attained a new level of realism relative to conventional simulators.
As long as I kept my head motionless, pressed against the seat headrest, the simulator closely replicated tactical flight, I felt. Experimenting a bit, I turned my head slightly to the left and right, and tilted it up and down. Immediately, my vestibular system sensed I was rotating. However, pilots are told that will happen--so don't do it.
Slashdot Mirror
Doh!
I'll go shave my head now so the electrodes will make better contact. I do live in Florida, you know.
Those sure are some interesting numbers. On the order of a 49% increase or 35% decrease in performance depending on the application. I always figured those high-GHz CPUs would be completely IO-bound. I guess this sometimes allows threads to run with what they've got in the on-chip cache.
Makes you wonder if a kernel could detect if it was helping or not and selectively enable it.
I did some informal testing between VC++ native and C# to .Net bytecode. I had a little loop calculating primes. The native C++ kept everything in registers, while the CLR made everything relative memory accesses to BP. I figured that would devastate performance, but on the Pentium 4, it was only 5% slower! It seems to have an L1 cache that's as fast as the registers. That will certainly make it easier on the compiler writers.
Sort of off topic, did anyone else see that article in MSDN about using .Net for serious number crunching? The author seemed to write the whole article as if he thought it was a good idea. Not that there wouldn't be some advantages to doing that (such as the possibility of tuning for the processor at runtime), but the one graph he showed comparing with native code had .Net running 50% to 33% slower!
There's a big wide grey area between methodical, conservative science and over-hype. Within this gray area is also a fine line that can only ever be seen in retrospect. There definately needs to be a safe path for moving ideas from pure research through product development to commercial appliction, and capitalism is probably the worst way to do that, except for all the others.
Looking at it from the outside, it seems like the researchers have are doing something interesting in a well-equipped laboratory. I'll guess that they might have said informally that if someone walked in the door with $10 million in funding, we could quit our current jobs, form a new company, work full time on this, and probably have a self-contained prototype in 2 to 5 years".
I'm sorry to sound so cynical, I really am. I can just see the headline in CNN's Science section tomorrow: "Faster Internet Chips from Einstein's Weird Science". I'm still waiting for my room temperature superconductor refrigerator that's also a supercomputer that saves me on my electric bill. You have all seen it too, and I think that these crimes us eager and enthusiastic gadget consumers are at least deserving of a little friendly grumbling on Slashdot.
With no disrespect to the work of these talented and hard-working researchers, I really don't want the next generation of superneato computing become over-hyped.
No, you misunderstand me. I think it's great that we have pure researchers pushing out the limits of human knowledge, and am grateful for their work. I certainly am glad they have results to publish.
I think the main problem is that we have a popular science press that, in talking down to its readers, always reports pure research as if it were applied research. While fun to read, the effect can be that technology becomes over-promised and over-hyped too early in its development. This can cause good tech to become stigmatized as a black hole for research funding.
I don't see anything that would indicate that these researchers are acting in an overly self-promotional manner. However, it looks like optical and quantum computing are in danger of being painted with the same brush as fusion power, AI, holographic storage, quantum effects (teleportation, anti-gravity, faster-than-light), etc..
Does this sound like another one of those "breakthroughs" in optical/quantum computation where prototypes are "just around the corner" and commercialization is "just a few years away", yet it never happens?
Tell me how this time it's different. Does it work on standard fab processes?
I would really love a CPU with a terahertz clock. I guess it would still be I/O bound, though.
<offtopic>Your comments are discussion-worthy! Why post as an AC? I've been reading /. since at least 1998, but never got around to signing up and commenting properly. I'm glad I finally did, but I could have had bragging rights with one of those low UIDs if I had registered earlier.<offtopic>
Anyway, I see these comments often enough so I suppose they merit some response. I'm not sure I'm the one to do it, but anyway . . .
People from GNU/Linux land are often not familiar with the structure of the BSD codebase. With GNU/Linux, tar or ls, for example, will have an "upstream maintainer" such as the FSF. When a distribution finds a bug in one of those utilities, it really is important to report it upstream so they can fix it for everyone.
The BSD codebase was handed down as a single unit from Berkeley. Literally, the kernel, tar, and ls build in the same source tree. A small number of groups that formed to maintain this newly-freed source tree split off from each other (often with ugly disagreements). Berkeley wasn't interested in performing coordinating functions as an "upstream maintainer".
So the OpenBSD group doesn't have anyone more "authoritative" than themselves to report changes and fixes to. What they do instead is make every source change available via CVS. You can even subscribe to an email changelist if you want to. The other BSDs are free to (and often do) track these changes.
There is still the IP stack and packet filtering code that needs to be secure. There have been significant attacks on those in the past for many OSes. BTW, wouldn't you prefer that things come turned off by default, so you don't have to worry about "locking it down" in the first place? I just re-installed Debian the other day, and it had ports open to notify others of changes to my filesystem (something called fam, just in case I wanted to setup a fileserver). Probably there was some authentication on it, but the point is that I don't remember asking if it was ok to be on in the first place.
I know this may seem old-fashioned in the days of personal UNIX workstations, but local exploits are a concern for many systems. Often this can make the difference between a denial-of-service and a full rooting of a server.
For all the accusations of OpenBSD being self-promoting, I don't think they spend a lot of time trying to explain their work to non-programmers. As they are working for free for their own interests, I can sympathize with them not verbosely explaining every source-code change in layman's terms. I trust them not to hide a bug that would clearly be exploitable, but at the same time, I don't think they need to do more than silently fix those that probably aren't. I can understand that someone not fluent in C could fail to see what the benefit to, say, eliminating sprintf would be. As a professional software developer, I have looked at their work and I believe it has great merit.
What the AC in post #8154783 seemed to be trying to say is that the leader of the OpenBSD project turned off network-accessible services in the default install, is not forthcoming with the details of these security-related modifications, and acts in a self-promotional manner.
I don't actually agree with this characterization of OpenBSD; I'm simply trying to provide a translation for the curious. I don't think the AC is using stunningly effective debate technique, either.
Professor: By Jupiter, Gilligan! It's a plan so crazy, it just has to work!
Of all the theories floating around, I think I like your explanation the best. It may have one weakness though: you have to believe that spammers actually care enough to want to divert attention away from themselves.
Hmm, you're right it did. I don't think there was an official reason given, but many attribute it to the OpenBSD leader saying less-than-supportive things about American military policy.
Or I suppose it could be that DARPA simply doesn't want people to have genuinely secure software. But that would be a conspiracy theory, wouldn't it?
True, but also true of most work being done for Free & Open Source software.
Just look at how many people got seriously enthusiastic about their SETI @ Home rankings. That doesn't pay the bills either, and it uses real electricity.
If they could just find a way to tap into _that_ enthusiasm. Maybe all they need to do is put up a bightly-colored blinking screensaver whenever someone found a bug . . .
It does seem to be a thankless task. For a new guy on a project, criticizing the leaders' work doesn't seem a good way to gain influence. For an old contributor, you might feel compelled to add functionality the userbase is demanding.
Interestingly, the OpenBSD project has put a lot of effort into auditing, and they also have a reputation of being somewhat, um, "grouchy". I wonder if there's some correlation?
I don't necessarily believe that the government would "actively take sides" in the lawsuits. And I'm certainly glad that I don't personally have to fight SCO in legal ways. I think it's great that they decided to pick on IBM. Not that I dislike IBM, but I have a great deal of confidence in their legal team. Given the sheer economic value represented by GPL'ed software, such a fight was probably inevitable anyway. IBM defending the GPL in court against those who appear to be (in my opinion) a bunch of buffoons, seems to be to be the best possible scenario.
An association between Free Software and viruses/worms/spam in the public perception would certainly be detrimental, however you look at it. I am concerned that it could cause Congress or the administraion to be more sympathetic to commercial software companies that might claim they needed laws or executive orders to defeat "cyberterrorism".
For example, a law could be passed requiring some form of mandatory warranty protection for software programs. I could see the public buying into that one. Or mandatory DRM, or "anti-spam" legislation. Without specific exceptions for Free Software (which might be difficult to define), it could make life very difficult for free software developers in the US.
Well for example, let's just say my right not to be "subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" stood in the way of one of the UN's stated purposes, namely "to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security" or "to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples", then I would be fair game.
Given n rights, and m vauge "purposes and principles", there exist n*m exemptions for any organization claiming to act on behalf of the UN to do things to me I'd rather not have done.
If they are so high-minded, why did they feel a need for such a disclaimer at all? Notice that it doesn't exempt any organization other than the UN itself from such observing human rights. What scenario were they envisioning where it would really be necessary to violate basic rights like that? For example, the US Bill of Rights does not contain any such exemptions.
Yes, just like the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights which says all these great things but then at the bottom adds this disclaimer:
So what you're claiming is that what Microsoft is doing is (for once) RFC 2119 compliant!:
I wonder how specific the "Microsoft Human Rights Abuser 2003" software and the Cisco stuff mentioned really is. It doesn't really take esoteric tools to keyword search sites, monitor net usage, and filter them out with proxies and firewalls.
After all, companies have been doing this for years on their internal networks, is this just a scaled up version?
From the article:
Does this imply that a free OS, for example, must try to make sure their software can't be used to keep lists of people targeted for oppression?
From An earlier version of The Open Source Definition
Does anyone believe that this will do anything except help SCO? It associates their enemies (IBM, Linux), with worm/virus creators and spammers. If this sort of thing keeps up, the US Legislative and Executive branches will actively take the side of SCO and MS against Linux and it's "hackers".
What do they need a website for anyway? Their only business is lawsuits and press releases.
I'm not trying to take sides in the J2EE/.Net debate, but I do believe the architects started with a relatively open mind and put a few new ideas in it. For example, I don't think
I think they just realized that targeting a garbage-collected VM with a stripped-down C++ was an idea who's time had come. This was even before they "got" the Internet. MS couldn't let a cross-platform platform go unchallenged so their strategy was twofold: 1. Trick existing Windows developers into using J++, which had Microsoft-only depencencies silently intertwined with Sun's cross-platform stuff. 2. Build their own version of the concept that they could control. Pretend that it's cross-platform, but have it realistically only work on Windows. Provide a migration path from Java (J#).
They wouldn't have to accept any changes they didn't like. They could still enforce exactly what they wanted with the Java trademark. They could put the source in the public domain with the simple stipulation that non-strictly-compliant implementations couldn't be called Java(tm).
Not having it free software certainly didn't slow Microsoft down one bit from extending it without their approval. In fact, the result was a freshly-designed competitor (C#/.Net).
They don't even seem to be making a profit on the language itself, why this obsessive desire to control it with an iron fist?
As for the people-might-use-it question, it would certainly make all the difference to this developer. I know there are free Java implementations, but until I see a solid crossplatform GUI kit, I'll probably continue to look elsewhere.
If you can get it off the Earth in the first place, it'd be easier to just let it fall into the Sun.
Imagine that the centrifuge had an infinitely long arm. Then it could, in fact, accelerate the pilots to be hundreds of miles away.
So the problem is to develop algorithms that minimize the perceived difference when the centrifuge arm is shortened to a practical length. From the article, it sounds like there are still some small imperfections in the simulation, but they have attained a new level of realism relative to conventional simulators.
One reward is that they lose fewer multi-million dollar planes during training. I'll bet this project pays for itself on that cost alone.
I think you're right-on.
Here it is:
As long as I kept my head motionless, pressed against the seat headrest, the simulator closely replicated tactical flight, I felt. Experimenting a bit, I turned my head slightly to the left and right, and tilted it up and down. Immediately, my vestibular system sensed I was rotating. However, pilots are told that will happen--so don't do it.