"Because it increases the chance that the two might engage in a mutually beneficial fashion"
Assuming only "two", what about a third that doesn't evolve it? The third has a massive advantage over the other two, in that it can eat all of them. Having something that you can't eat is a pure disadvantage in evolutionary terms.
"ou might as well ask why various negative traits, such as allergies, seem to be more prevalent in our society"
Only if I was ignorant would I. As I'm not, I'm fully aware of the real answer. I bet 5 minutes on Google and you could be too.
"any creature that attempted to eat another would be poisoned"
And how would that be beneficial to the survival of the creature, so that it has greater chance of reproducing and spreading that quality than those who didn't develop it? Just cuz it's in a book doesn't mean it makes any sense ya know. Look at the bible.
Damn right! Why is this point forgotten? Look at the Voyager probes, okay they're pretty primative in that they were launched right at the beginning of our space story, but they were launched not even to say "hi", let alone just to say it. Look at how much has been spent on the biggest experiement evaah, the LHC, just because of our curiosity. We're most interested in finding out if there's life on a Saturn moon, and that's the driving force for the probes we've sent there... not because we want to mine it!
Lets hope that unlike in the movie, they're not using IPv8 while we're still struggling just to move to IPv6, leaving us totally unable to open up a simple TCP/IP connection to their mothership.
I don't have a one-of-those, I just have my scripts call iptables:-/ it's not as flash as drag 'n drop, but I tried programming a virtual usb mouse to automate clicking things on the screen when things happen, but while trying to write the detection software that tells it to click certain rules when somebody plugs their computer into the network, which was detected by pointing a webcam at the network switch to watch when lights came on/off, my head fell off. Turns out, I needed my head on.
Blame and credit alike... it does claim that if you read C code into memory, that it can then parse the read C, but I don't think it could parse the read C, which is why the java is being used for things it really doesn't want to be used for in Egypt to this day.
The only difference is on network namespace seperation. By default many things will listen on "port x" for IP address 0.0.0.0, which means, for example, Apache may eat up all port 80s for all IP addresses on the machine. Virtual machines get their own IP address and so you don't have to configure Apache to only listen on one, for other instances of Apache to be able to listen on their own. Somebody screwing up their configuration and accidentally listening on all port 80s won't stop the next persons Apache instance from starting up.
There are more efficient (in processing terms) ways of achieving this; Linux has network namespace support in cgroups for example. Or, you could just configure the software services correctly to listen on the correct IP address! But hey, our computers are already too fast, and we're all too busy, chucking on virtual machines solves both problems!
(of course there are other benefits too, like live migration of entire machines from hardware to hardware, something vm solutions provide where underlying OS's don't (of course there may be exceptions, but this goes beyond my point))
"it shows that if they want to sell their product [snip] Corporations don't care at all"
Err, I think that's actually just breaking down into a language argument now, based on the fuzziness of what the word 'care' is perceived to mean. Ya know, do you 'care' about how much money you have in the bank or do you just 'care' about how much you can do of what you want to do with how much you have? Is the idea that something is just a means to an end sufficient to say that one doesn't truely care about the means because it is, in fact, the ends that is 'cared' about? But in this world, how many true 'ends' are there, and how many of them are just 'means' at a different level of abstraction?
Off the point here I know, just felt like throwing it in:-)
Be interesting to see actual speed differences of favouring larger page sizes vs fewer duplicate pages... on the one side, you get fewer TLB misses which slows things down, but on the other side, you can - in effect - be increasing your L2 cache, depending on scheduling. By which I mean that if you have a page that's shared between three processes (VMs or otherwise) then any cachelines covering data within that space effectively covers three times the memory that it would have to cover if they weren't shared. I guess, as with anything, that there are probably workloads where each alternative performs better than the other.
They take your phone, you report it stolen, give the last time you used it or knew you had it in your possession, it is then known that all calls made after that point on that phone were illegal, and those numbers connected with that criminal. It's not much, but it's more than nothing.
They're not, there's no application for them whatsoever, definitely not one involving a discussion! --someone who lives thousands of miles away yet knows more about the USA than Sarah Palin voters.
Erm, no. It's a horrible yet important job, it should be done by people with an interest in reducing any pain on the animal, which doesn't even need to be awake, rather than somebody who actually wants the animal to feel it.
You're obviously stupid. I can't help with that, but, if it doesn't hurt you too much, I ask you to try think about just one thing: you don't need to be left to feel pain for your skin to be damaged or to heal.
You're right, scientists ARE all one person! Aww I can understand why you're so bitter, you probably were one of the rats huh? No wonder you think scientists are all one person, to you, they all look alike!
The funny thing is, all the other rats got anasthetic! hahaha we just wanted to torture you because you look so goddamn stupid, I don't even believe in god yet somehow I believe he put you here to be tortured.
Not if they're updating the firewall over the phone... then it becomes "a website for getting the youth in asia to child molesters here?!! Yes block it!!!!.... goddamn immigrants will try anything to get in here!"
"many Christians are arguing AGAINST this legislation"
But not all... and it's the fundamentalists of any religion that have that extra "get up and go" that drives them to achieve things... bad, bad things. Once you open the door to saying it's a good thing for people to believe stuff without reason you're going to find people fighting for more and more "extreme" views. It doesn't matter if it's in the bible, or the koran. The more something is preached, the more people will follow it, look at catholicism. Condoms sending you to hell is no more unbelievable than the entire concept of heaven and hell, and once you rule reason out, and faith in... they're just as believable as each other too.
You're obviously missing the point of what Australia's doing here. Their internet firewall is for blocking child pornography, this is what they said and this is what it was sold as. Obviously then blocking this website reduces child porn... I mean, with sufficient amounts of people taking up this option, it does mean that children will become a larger % of the population, which means they're even more of a target!!!
If you think people should be allowed access to information about getting "youth in asia" to old people in Australia, then you're a pedophile.
"Perhaps if you are encrypting a single stream at a very high rate. But a server will be more likely serving many streams, which can already be performed on different cores"
Sure, they could be, but if the code for a single stream can achieve higher throughput (at a possible cost of higher latency) by splitting the process in two and running them side by side, even by just a little, and if the other streams are encrypting using the same code, they could get that same, small benefit. If you don't need individual threads for each seperate stream, and can use a worker thread, at least for one side of the split if not both, the context switching overhead savings you get for a single stream will carry on for multiple.
And if it works for that, even just a little, even if it seams like just putting more cpu power into the system would be cheaper, and if it's known about, then those savings are likely to be available elsewhere in a complete system too, which could shape the way the system is designed to allow it to run more efficiently on a larger number of simpler cores. Granted when Intel experimented with creating an architecture based on instruction level parallelism, it didn't work out quite as successfully as they'd hoped, but I think their cores were possibly too simple (at least with early Itaniums, I didn't really follow progress after that) and of course the compiler not generating code well enough to take full advantage of it, as you said, the software development manhours can end up costing more than just more processors.
That's what gives this kind of research its value, it's looking at identifying and understanding the baby steps between here and where Intel tried to jump straight to so we can have fewer execution units stalling and wasting silicon space, along with all the circuitry to try and keep those units fed by rescheduling the instructions out of order etc because of how the instructions are scheduled by the code. Knowing these things can be useful, maybe only showing benefits when you have dual on-die memory controllers, maybe only when you have a single shared, maybe with shared cache, maybe only with seperate. Saying benefits are impossible doesn't really help anybody.
Right... so there's absolutely no chance of any possible benefits whatsoever? Impossible that there could be any context switching overhead savings reachable, impossible that correct scheduling could reduce stalls in tight running loops by doing heavy cacheline busting processing elsewhere? Even with the cost of some latency, there's -no- way to improve throughput by parallel processing it? What if there was (somehow) nothing else running on the system/at all/?
Depends what else the system is doing, surely. Having several clients connected to a server, you want to free up the processor as much as possible for servery duties, any savings you make go to those when running full pelt, or convert to energy savings when you're not.
"A C program running on Linux is still limited in the exact same way that managed code is"
Not really. Managed code will tend to grow buffers, moving them if need be, rather than allow one out-of-bounds write to a buffer overwrite something next to it as unmanaged code will do.
Slashdot Mirror
"Because it increases the chance that the two might engage in a mutually beneficial fashion"
Assuming only "two", what about a third that doesn't evolve it? The third has a massive advantage over the other two, in that it can eat all of them. Having something that you can't eat is a pure disadvantage in evolutionary terms.
"ou might as well ask why various negative traits, such as allergies, seem to be more prevalent in our society"
Only if I was ignorant would I. As I'm not, I'm fully aware of the real answer. I bet 5 minutes on Google and you could be too.
"any creature that attempted to eat another would be poisoned"
And how would that be beneficial to the survival of the creature, so that it has greater chance of reproducing and spreading that quality than those who didn't develop it? Just cuz it's in a book doesn't mean it makes any sense ya know. Look at the bible.
Damn right! Why is this point forgotten? Look at the Voyager probes, okay they're pretty primative in that they were launched right at the beginning of our space story, but they were launched not even to say "hi", let alone just to say it. Look at how much has been spent on the biggest experiement evaah, the LHC, just because of our curiosity. We're most interested in finding out if there's life on a Saturn moon, and that's the driving force for the probes we've sent there... not because we want to mine it!
You're right. We absolutely would.
Lets hope that unlike in the movie, they're not using IPv8 while we're still struggling just to move to IPv6, leaving us totally unable to open up a simple TCP/IP connection to their mothership.
Natural selection? All those that don't develop the tendancy to fight others would be wiped out by those that did, leaving only those that do.
Don't do that.
I don't have a one-of-those, I just have my scripts call iptables :-/ it's not as flash as drag 'n drop, but I tried programming a virtual usb mouse to automate clicking things on the screen when things happen, but while trying to write the detection software that tells it to click certain rules when somebody plugs their computer into the network, which was detected by pointing a webcam at the network switch to watch when lights came on/off, my head fell off. Turns out, I needed my head on.
Blame and credit alike... it does claim that if you read C code into memory, that it can then parse the read C, but I don't think it could parse the read C, which is why the java is being used for things it really doesn't want to be used for in Egypt to this day.
The only difference is on network namespace seperation. By default many things will listen on "port x" for IP address 0.0.0.0, which means, for example, Apache may eat up all port 80s for all IP addresses on the machine. Virtual machines get their own IP address and so you don't have to configure Apache to only listen on one, for other instances of Apache to be able to listen on their own. Somebody screwing up their configuration and accidentally listening on all port 80s won't stop the next persons Apache instance from starting up.
There are more efficient (in processing terms) ways of achieving this; Linux has network namespace support in cgroups for example. Or, you could just configure the software services correctly to listen on the correct IP address! But hey, our computers are already too fast, and we're all too busy, chucking on virtual machines solves both problems!
(of course there are other benefits too, like live migration of entire machines from hardware to hardware, something vm solutions provide where underlying OS's don't (of course there may be exceptions, but this goes beyond my point))
"it shows that if they want to sell their product [snip] Corporations don't care at all"
Err, I think that's actually just breaking down into a language argument now, based on the fuzziness of what the word 'care' is perceived to mean. Ya know, do you 'care' about how much money you have in the bank or do you just 'care' about how much you can do of what you want to do with how much you have? Is the idea that something is just a means to an end sufficient to say that one doesn't truely care about the means because it is, in fact, the ends that is 'cared' about? But in this world, how many true 'ends' are there, and how many of them are just 'means' at a different level of abstraction?
Off the point here I know, just felt like throwing it in :-)
Be interesting to see actual speed differences of favouring larger page sizes vs fewer duplicate pages... on the one side, you get fewer TLB misses which slows things down, but on the other side, you can - in effect - be increasing your L2 cache, depending on scheduling. By which I mean that if you have a page that's shared between three processes (VMs or otherwise) then any cachelines covering data within that space effectively covers three times the memory that it would have to cover if they weren't shared. I guess, as with anything, that there are probably workloads where each alternative performs better than the other.
They take your phone, you report it stolen, give the last time you used it or knew you had it in your possession, it is then known that all calls made after that point on that phone were illegal, and those numbers connected with that criminal. It's not much, but it's more than nothing.
"Why do we find this acceptable?"
Who's "we"?
They're not, there's no application for them whatsoever, definitely not one involving a discussion!
--someone who lives thousands of miles away yet knows more about the USA than Sarah Palin voters.
That's awfully closed minded!
Erm, no. It's a horrible yet important job, it should be done by people with an interest in reducing any pain on the animal, which doesn't even need to be awake, rather than somebody who actually wants the animal to feel it.
You're obviously stupid. I can't help with that, but, if it doesn't hurt you too much, I ask you to try think about just one thing: you don't need to be left to feel pain for your skin to be damaged or to heal.
You're right, scientists ARE all one person! Aww I can understand why you're so bitter, you probably were one of the rats huh? No wonder you think scientists are all one person, to you, they all look alike!
The funny thing is, all the other rats got anasthetic! hahaha we just wanted to torture you because you look so goddamn stupid, I don't even believe in god yet somehow I believe he put you here to be tortured.
Not if they're updating the firewall over the phone... then it becomes "a website for getting the youth in asia to child molesters here?!! Yes block it!!!! .... goddamn immigrants will try anything to get in here!"
"many Christians are arguing AGAINST this legislation"
But not all... and it's the fundamentalists of any religion that have that extra "get up and go" that drives them to achieve things... bad, bad things. Once you open the door to saying it's a good thing for people to believe stuff without reason you're going to find people fighting for more and more "extreme" views. It doesn't matter if it's in the bible, or the koran. The more something is preached, the more people will follow it, look at catholicism. Condoms sending you to hell is no more unbelievable than the entire concept of heaven and hell, and once you rule reason out, and faith in... they're just as believable as each other too.
You're obviously missing the point of what Australia's doing here. Their internet firewall is for blocking child pornography, this is what they said and this is what it was sold as. Obviously then blocking this website reduces child porn... I mean, with sufficient amounts of people taking up this option, it does mean that children will become a larger % of the population, which means they're even more of a target!!!
If you think people should be allowed access to information about getting "youth in asia" to old people in Australia, then you're a pedophile.
"Perhaps if you are encrypting a single stream at a very high rate. But a server will be more likely serving many streams, which can already be performed on different cores"
Sure, they could be, but if the code for a single stream can achieve higher throughput (at a possible cost of higher latency) by splitting the process in two and running them side by side, even by just a little, and if the other streams are encrypting using the same code, they could get that same, small benefit. If you don't need individual threads for each seperate stream, and can use a worker thread, at least for one side of the split if not both, the context switching overhead savings you get for a single stream will carry on for multiple.
And if it works for that, even just a little, even if it seams like just putting more cpu power into the system would be cheaper, and if it's known about, then those savings are likely to be available elsewhere in a complete system too, which could shape the way the system is designed to allow it to run more efficiently on a larger number of simpler cores. Granted when Intel experimented with creating an architecture based on instruction level parallelism, it didn't work out quite as successfully as they'd hoped, but I think their cores were possibly too simple (at least with early Itaniums, I didn't really follow progress after that) and of course the compiler not generating code well enough to take full advantage of it, as you said, the software development manhours can end up costing more than just more processors.
That's what gives this kind of research its value, it's looking at identifying and understanding the baby steps between here and where Intel tried to jump straight to so we can have fewer execution units stalling and wasting silicon space, along with all the circuitry to try and keep those units fed by rescheduling the instructions out of order etc because of how the instructions are scheduled by the code. Knowing these things can be useful, maybe only showing benefits when you have dual on-die memory controllers, maybe only when you have a single shared, maybe with shared cache, maybe only with seperate. Saying benefits are impossible doesn't really help anybody.
Right... so there's absolutely no chance of any possible benefits whatsoever? Impossible that there could be any context switching overhead savings reachable, impossible that correct scheduling could reduce stalls in tight running loops by doing heavy cacheline busting processing elsewhere? Even with the cost of some latency, there's -no- way to improve throughput by parallel processing it? What if there was (somehow) nothing else running on the system /at all/?
"Are your storage and network devices that fast?"
Depends what else the system is doing, surely. Having several clients connected to a server, you want to free up the processor as much as possible for servery duties, any savings you make go to those when running full pelt, or convert to energy savings when you're not.
"A C program running on Linux is still limited in the exact same way that managed code is"
Not really. Managed code will tend to grow buffers, moving them if need be, rather than allow one out-of-bounds write to a buffer overwrite something next to it as unmanaged code will do.