What I find interesting is that apparently we are still not able to simulate a simple system with a few (subatomic) particles. I was under the impression that at least the protons, neutrons and electrons were fully understood, and that simulating a bunch of them would be a breeze.
This type of filter has been used, for example, to separate the heartbeat signals from a mother and her fetus, using multiple sensor elements (one close to the mother's heart).
The Universe is so large that it cannot possibly be that we are the only life thriving on a planet orbiting a star.
There is a huge fallacy here.
The reason that we are on this planet is of course the fact that life IS possible here. However, the chances of life occurring somewhere might be 1 in a gazillion.
It might even be that life exists only in a small part of the multiverse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse) Let us assume that at the sub-atomic scale, decisions are not taken at random, but that at every (let's say binary) decision the universe splits in two halves (one half taking one outcome of the decision and the other half the other). Then if --in this big tree of universes-- life exists somewhere, then it may appear in one universe as if either there was a God that created this life, or, to the more scientifically oriented life-forms, it may seem that life may occur elsewhere in the same universe. But the reality is that the formation of life may be much less likely than we think, and other life may exist only in parallel universes.
Yes, we have created small DNA-like structures in reaction chambers. However, life on Earth will not function with only some random string of DNA. Complicated machinery (ribosomes etc) is needed to actually make life work. And we know absolutely nothing about the probability of this machinery to come into existence from scratch.
The problem is that BigCorps now only have to kill bees for two years to let the scientists think the chemical component is not the cause of the colony collapse.
Once you visit ".amazon", you'd see a page saying: "which amazon did you mean? the rainforest, or the bookstore?" This would allow them to sell the TLD more than once. And, on the redirection page, they could show some ads as well!
Sorry, but I want expressiveness without seeing all the ugly low-level stuff.
To go back to the original topic, Wayland needs to remove round-trip times to make the system faster and more responsive. How can a compiler decide to move code from the client to the server or vice versa if all the plumb-work gets in the way?
Sorry, but select() doesn't cut it. Using select, you are forced to write ugly event-driven code, with objects representing event-handlers, where all you want to do is run a bunch of snippets of code, where each of them executes as soon as the data is available.
And by the way, using select() you can't even wait for both a file descriptor and a semaphore simultaneously, but that is a different story.
While Wayland may solve some mundane issues with the client-server nature of remote desktops, I think in general a completely different programming model is needed for client-server applications. For one, the programming language should naturally support the notion of doing stuff in a non-blocking way (C/C++ does not naturally support this; simulating this requires working with threads or tinkering with even more low-level machinery).
The next question: How is sending a written message to a selected number of friends on a social network different from doing the same with text messages on a phone?
Let me put it another way: assume you are starting a research project just now (perhaps you are starting your PhD), and some wizard would approach you and ask you if you'd like to receive, instantly, complete knowledge of all negative results in your field. Would your answer be "yes" or "no"?
Science is not about "value" or "usefulness". Science just expands knowledge about the universe, regardless of whether it is good or bad knowledge, whatever that may mean.
When an astronomer reports about a star that collapsed into a black hole, is that good or bad? Is that failure or success? Of course, it would probably be more helpful if the researcher reported a method that prevented the star from collapsing. Nevertheless, something can be learned from the report. Perhaps, if the researcher details the mechanisms that lead to the collapse of the star, somebody else can later find a "cure" for collapsing stars.
Similarly, if I report about a failed experiment, it represents something others can learn from, and it may help them doing experiments the right way.
A big part of the problem is that there are few negative results in scientific literature. Ever found a paper with a clear negative outcome? I didn't. This "positive bias" in scientific publications is probably causing a major blow to the efficiency of scientific research.
Most of the stuff is still crap, though. Not from a functional point of view, but from the point of view that it is totally unreadable code. And when I say unreadable, I actually mean totally obscure.
Of course, from a user's perspective this should not matter. But the point is, the mess that is lurking behind that well documented API, occasionally pops up its ugly head whenever you make a mistake: error messages are completely incomprehensible!
That, and given the fact that meta programming in C++ (what boost tries to accomplish in many libraries) is a total hack, I think they should have designed a completely new language instead.
Slashdot Mirror
What I find interesting is that apparently we are still not able to simulate a simple system with a few (subatomic) particles. I was under the impression that at least the protons, neutrons and electrons were fully understood, and that simulating a bunch of them would be a breeze.
Imagine if this was in each room in your home, and the doors to the rooms were open.
If you want to separate a signal based on multiple sources, then there are algorithms for that.
Have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalman_filter
This type of filter has been used, for example, to separate the heartbeat signals from a mother and her fetus, using multiple sensor elements (one close to the mother's heart).
I wonder when our new AI overlords will create AI themselves because they are too bored and tired of doing actual work themselves.
The machine was just pretending to be a Windows XP machine running as a VMWare guest, etc.
You don't need a 3d printer to make molds. Making molds would nullify the advantage of using a 3d printer: simplicity.
Unless, of course, somebody invents a 3d printer that can automate the entire process.
A printable nuclear missile?
Technology is fun and all, but I sure hope we'll never reach the point where people can print stuff like that in their basement.
The Universe is so large that it cannot possibly be that we are the only life thriving on a planet orbiting a star.
There is a huge fallacy here.
The reason that we are on this planet is of course the fact that life IS possible here. However, the chances of life occurring somewhere might be 1 in a gazillion.
It might even be that life exists only in a small part of the multiverse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse) Let us assume that at the sub-atomic scale, decisions are not taken at random, but that at every (let's say binary) decision the universe splits in two halves (one half taking one outcome of the decision and the other half the other). Then if --in this big tree of universes-- life exists somewhere, then it may appear in one universe as if either there was a God that created this life, or, to the more scientifically oriented life-forms, it may seem that life may occur elsewhere in the same universe. But the reality is that the formation of life may be much less likely than we think, and other life may exist only in parallel universes.
Yes, we have created small DNA-like structures in reaction chambers. However, life on Earth will not function with only some random string of DNA. Complicated machinery (ribosomes etc) is needed to actually make life work. And we know absolutely nothing about the probability of this machinery to come into existence from scratch.
Don't make it standard behavior.
E.g., instead of letting the designer specify "width", let him specify "content-width", or "outside-border-width", or "margin-width", etc.
And in case of conflicting specs (e.g. two or more conflicting attributes given) produce an error (don't choose a precedence order!).
The problem is that BigCorps now only have to kill bees for two years to let the scientists think the chemical component is not the cause of the colony collapse.
ICANN could make even more money:
Once you visit ".amazon", you'd see a page saying: "which amazon did you mean? the rainforest, or the bookstore?"
This would allow them to sell the TLD more than once. And, on the redirection page, they could show some ads as well!
So:
The smart kids will successfully circumvent this by setting up VPNs, and if they prevent encryption, possibly using steganography.
The stupid kids will not get their daily fix of digital porn and will start looking for the real thing, and procreate.
Sounds like a brilliant plan!
What's wrong with Google cars
They're not made by Apple.
Every other form of currency is resiliant to DDoS attacks like this, and there are plenty of trading companies that can easily avoid such problems.
As soon as more trading places for bitcoin start to emerge, the resilience against DDoS attacks will grow.
A solution could be simply an open forum on a site like google scholar, so that a process similar to peer review can take place after the publication.
An additional advantage would be that people are then able to ask each other questions about scientific papers, and share experiences, etc.
Sorry, but I want expressiveness without seeing all the ugly low-level stuff.
To go back to the original topic, Wayland needs to remove round-trip times to make the system faster and more responsive.
How can a compiler decide to move code from the client to the server or vice versa if all the plumb-work gets in the way?
Sorry, but select() doesn't cut it. Using select, you are forced to write ugly event-driven code, with objects representing event-handlers, where all you want to do is run a bunch of snippets of code, where each of them executes as soon as the data is available.
And by the way, using select() you can't even wait for both a file descriptor and a semaphore simultaneously, but that is a different story.
While Wayland may solve some mundane issues with the client-server nature of remote desktops, I think in general a completely different programming model is needed for client-server applications. For one, the programming language should naturally support the notion of doing stuff in a non-blocking way (C/C++ does not naturally support this; simulating this requires working with threads or tinkering with even more low-level machinery).
The next question: How is sending a written message to a selected number of friends on a social network different from doing the same with text messages on a phone?
This is called the "broken window fallacy".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
I'm still in doubt between "Google Flying car" and "Google Holodeck".
Oh wait... it seems we can only choose from a list of boring office applications.
Let me put it another way: assume you are starting a research project just now (perhaps you are starting your PhD), and some wizard would approach you and ask you if you'd like to receive, instantly, complete knowledge of all negative results in your field. Would your answer be "yes" or "no"?
Science is not about "value" or "usefulness". Science just expands knowledge about the universe, regardless of whether it is good or bad knowledge, whatever that may mean.
When an astronomer reports about a star that collapsed into a black hole, is that good or bad? Is that failure or success? Of course, it would probably be more helpful if the researcher reported a method that prevented the star from collapsing. Nevertheless, something can be learned from the report. Perhaps, if the researcher details the mechanisms that lead to the collapse of the star, somebody else can later find a "cure" for collapsing stars.
Similarly, if I report about a failed experiment, it represents something others can learn from, and it may help them doing experiments the right way.
A big part of the problem is that there are few negative results in scientific literature. Ever found a paper with a clear negative outcome? I didn't. This "positive bias" in scientific publications is probably causing a major blow to the efficiency of scientific research.
You didn't read the whole comment now, did you? :)
So how do you create generic arrays in C99?
By using #define's?
That's the way we used to do it, but thank heavens, we have templates now.
Yes, C++ is a mess, but please don't tell me that C99 is everything.
Most of the stuff is still crap, though. Not from a functional point of view, but from the point of view that it is totally unreadable code. And when I say unreadable, I actually mean totally obscure.
Of course, from a user's perspective this should not matter. But the point is, the mess that is lurking behind that well documented API, occasionally pops up its ugly head whenever you make a mistake: error messages are completely incomprehensible!
That, and given the fact that meta programming in C++ (what boost tries to accomplish in many libraries) is a total hack, I think they should have designed a completely new language instead.