It must be nice to work at the patent office. If you're doing a good job, your boss will be happy with you. If you're doing a bad job, you will feel happy about yourself. Win-win situation.
Same thoughts here. I cannot understand why this is a huge leap practically speaking. However, the new method might be of theoretical interest, since it uses techniques which are totally different from multigrid. The fact that it applies only to SDD matrices is a bit disappointing though (multigrid can be applied to a wider range of problems).
In analogy with their gmail service, they will be allowed, per the license agreement, to open our packets and perform data mining. And this will of course improve our user experience.
Aren't these interactions only interesting at the small scale? If the bulk of the computation is in the long-range interactions, then I'm not sure if these more expensive computations will really increase the complexity that much... but I am not an expert.
Also, I've seen once a documentary (forgot the name), in which a couple of students were trying to figure out the folding by crystallization, and they were seriously concerned that the folding of the proteins would not happen correctly in the solid state. So, unless there are methods to avoid this, this does seem to be an area where the "in silico" drug design could be really helpful.
According to the article, it now takes 100 days to do one simulation. If we had 100 times the processing power (maybe a little more accounting for overhead), then we could do it in one day. I'd say that would be possible today with sufficient financial support, or at least it could be a reality within a decade. In short, it still sounds promising to me..
This research is extremely important for finding new drugs, and therefore I applaud the originators of the project, especially D.E. Shaw who apparently put also a lot of funding into it. I wish more (rich) people put their money into such immensely useful projects. It is not just a noble thing to do, it is also smart, since we all could one day benefit from this kind of research.
In the video, they explain that they decrease the quality of the image, then erase some part of it, and then "simply" improve the quality again. However, the last part is a little mystifying... Anyone (preferably with image processing background) who wants to have a take on this one?
Good points. But we're talking about the actual programming, and then it really boils down to doing a lot of template stuff.
The ideas behind Boost are great, but I really hope that somebody, somewhere, will sooner than later invent a new generic-programming language that will allow an implementation of the Boost ideas without the major ugliness of abusing C++ templates to the max.
Indeed, Boost uses templates to the point where it becomes abuse. If you want to learn how to use C++ in a decent way, stay away from Boost. However, if you have mastered C++ basics, and want to be able to solve real-life problems in an efficient way, then come back to Boost. In the meantime, you can hope that somebody invents a better language.
What is unfair, of course, is that it is allowed to run Windows on a Mac, while it is not allowed to run OSX on a PC. Time for the FTC to look into this, I would suggest.
IMDb is a community-built site, which Amazon is monetizing on. And now, it is hindring its users apparently. So, I guess it is time to fork IMDb, and make something like wikipedia out of it.
Re:Autotools do not need a book
on
Autotools
·
· Score: 1
Indeed, but a book can make it easier to develop such a thing.
If they find life, how can they be sure it didn't originate from Earth? I mean, bacteria could have traveled along with the mars rover as free-riders, and may by now have multiplied into billions.
What I'd personally love to see (or hear) is: multi-track audio... so that songs can be remixed more easily... I mean wouldn't it be cool if it were possible to mute a say trumpet track, and replace it by something else (human voice for example), or the other way around?
Slashdot Mirror
It must be nice to work at the patent office. If you're doing a good job, your boss will be happy with you. If you're doing a bad job, you will feel happy about yourself. Win-win situation.
Same thoughts here. I cannot understand why this is a huge leap practically speaking.
However, the new method might be of theoretical interest, since it uses techniques which are totally different from multigrid.
The fact that it applies only to SDD matrices is a bit disappointing though (multigrid can be applied to a wider range of problems).
In analogy with their gmail service, they will be allowed, per the license agreement, to open our packets and perform data mining. And this will of course improve our user experience.
How about an image of somebody taking a photo of them self.
I like that idea. Mod parent up!
And while we're at it, let's change the Apple icon into something more appropriate, and in line with the M$ icon.
Aren't these interactions only interesting at the small scale? If the bulk of the computation is in the long-range interactions, then I'm not sure if these more expensive computations will really increase the complexity that much... but I am not an expert.
Also, I've seen once a documentary (forgot the name), in which a couple of students were trying to figure out the folding by crystallization, and they were seriously concerned that the folding of the proteins would not happen correctly in the solid state. So, unless there are methods to avoid this, this does seem to be an area where the "in silico" drug design could be really helpful.
According to the article, it now takes 100 days to do one simulation. If we had 100 times the processing power (maybe a little more accounting for overhead), then we could do it in one day. I'd say that would be possible today with sufficient financial support, or at least it could be a reality within a decade. In short, it still sounds promising to me..
This research is extremely important for finding new drugs, and therefore I applaud the originators of the project, especially D.E. Shaw who apparently put also a lot of funding into it. I wish more (rich) people put their money into such immensely useful projects. It is not just a noble thing to do, it is also smart, since we all could one day benefit from this kind of research.
This raises the question if the pirate bay could have become legal when they included other internet search results, besides just torrents.
In the video, they explain that they decrease the quality of the image, then erase some part of it, and then "simply" improve the quality again.
However, the last part is a little mystifying...
Anyone (preferably with image processing background) who wants to have a take on this one?
Good points. But we're talking about the actual programming, and then it really boils down to doing a lot of template stuff.
The ideas behind Boost are great, but I really hope that somebody, somewhere, will sooner than later invent a new generic-programming language that will allow an implementation of the Boost ideas without the major ugliness of abusing C++ templates to the max.
Indeed, Boost uses templates to the point where it becomes abuse. If you want to learn how to use C++ in a decent way, stay away from Boost. However, if you have mastered C++ basics, and want to be able to solve real-life problems in an efficient way, then come back to Boost. In the meantime, you can hope that somebody invents a better language.
To understand most boost modules, you definitely need a thorough understanding of templates.
Sorry I am not going to spell it out. FTC should be involved whenever (paying) consumers are being held back by artificial means.
What is unfair, of course, is that it is allowed to run Windows on a Mac, while it is not allowed to run OSX on a PC.
Time for the FTC to look into this, I would suggest.
Mod parent up! That would be extremely fun!
all my personal computing devices are from Apple — but I definitely agree that without FOSS we'd have less freedom and innovation in computing today
I bet that if Apple was running the show back in the 80's there would be no linux at all.
Why can't we just buy something in the form factor we want?
Because companies like Apple like to narrow down the diversity in hardware. Other companies are just following suit.
The problem is, excepting the 1% of people at the lowest hierarchical levels actually creating things, these groups ARE lawyers...
IMDb is a community-built site, which Amazon is monetizing on.
And now, it is hindring its users apparently.
So, I guess it is time to fork IMDb, and make something like wikipedia out of it.
Indeed, but a book can make it easier to develop such a thing.
If they find life, how can they be sure it didn't originate from Earth?
I mean, bacteria could have traveled along with the mars rover as free-riders, and may by now have multiplied into billions.
What I'd personally love to see (or hear) is: multi-track audio... so that songs can be remixed more easily... I mean wouldn't it be cool if it were possible to mute a say trumpet track, and replace it by something else (human voice for example), or the other way around?
So true. Here are some other (more mature) projects that DO put focus on protocols.
http://ostatus.org/
http://opensource.appleseedproject.org/
http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/13/onesocialweb-were-ahead-of-diaspora-in-the-creation-of-an-open-facebook/
See also:
http://xmpp.org/xmpp-protocols/xmpp-core/
They should follow the diaspora model. Maybe even implement a diaspora server and/or clients.
Isn't there some ISO 9000 rule (or other standard) that says that admins cannot look at user data? And why isn't google adhering to this standard?