First, what part of "looks something like Haskell" did you not understand?
Second, when those battery-powered devices have multiple cores in the future, yes, I think "something like Haskell" will be more efficient than C++.
Third - why do you capitalize "Free"? There are only free implementations of Haskell - as opposed to C++. Last I looked, the most efficient compilers for C++ - Borland, Microsoft - cost hundreds, if not thousands of dollars.
And it looks something like Haskell. Static typing, lazy evaluation, high-level parallelism, pure functionality, explicit imperative-ness. Heck, monads even sound like something from the future.
Swarm theory - as applied to optimization (also commonly referred to as particle swarm optimization) - is not just fancy marketing. There are many global optimization algorithms based on either biological or physical theories - genetic algorithms and simulated annealed probably being the two best known. PSO has grown in popularity over the last decade or so, because it offers advantages in some problems. PSO is certainly not a "retroactive explanation", as the particular techniques were not being used, let's say 20-30 years ago.
If application code were perfectly parallelized, then speedup would be linearly proportional to the number of processors (P). So, 8 processors would be 8X speedup. But, practically, this will never be the case. There will always be some portion of the code that is serial. Amdahl's law tells us that we can only expect a speedup that is related to 1/fs, where fs is the fraction of the code that is serial. So, if the code is 50% serial, you are limited to 2X, no matter how many processors. Even if there is only 10% serial code, the speedup is limited to 10X. So, this talk of 32, 64 processors, while obviously useful for running multiple processes concurrently, will not really be that important unless applications fundamentally change in a big, big way. But you all already knew that, right?
It was good enough for the DOD and the Boeing 777, so why can't it be good enough for the rest of us. Seriously, I'm just saying this because I picked up a couple of Ada books recently.
Is anyone else annoyed by his pronunciation of the word "processor"? It's more like "prosser", the way he says it. I wonder how he says the word "nuclear"...
DST is definitely not about saving energy. Obviously, the real reason is for giving consumers and retailers an extra hour of sunlight, because it increases shopping. Have there been any definitive studies that show energy is conserved? I don't know, to be honest, but probably not. It would be very hard to do. Anyway, we probably use just as much energy in the morning for the extra hour of darkness in our car headlights and indoor lighting.
I read your [b]whole[/b] post and I don't see where you "address what people like me do." Not that I'm even sure what (who?) "people like me" are. Anyway, instead of giving 100 pages of this erasable paper, why not just give them the PDF, and let them print it out on this paper? That was [b]my[/b] point.
I disagree. You know how many papers I have sitting around my office (or in the trashcan) that I read once and don't plan to read again? Pretty much all of them. You know how it goes, you download a PDF of something that you want to read, and you pretty much always print it out, because it's too hard to read on screen (just like the article said). Then, when you're done, you either file the paper or toss it - I mean - recycle it. This erasable/rewritable paper could easily be used for those download once/read once on paper type of files. If I need to read the PDF again, I'll just open it up and print it on this paper, and not have to worry about physically filing it or throwing it out. It's probably much better for the environment, too! I'm on board.
HD-DVD, Blu-Ray? Plastic discs? Within a couple of years we will be streaming HD content, just like mp3's. Physical media is dying, if not already stillborn in the case of HD. The debate is not really about HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray at this point. It's when will streaming content be ready for primetime.
I have some similar problems, but not exactly those. I often find that when I click on a previously visited link from the URL drop-down list, it doesn't go to that site. Also, one thing that annoys the heck out of me is that when I try to close PDF's, which are in separate tabs, it takes forever. I don't know if this is a Firefox issue or Adobe, but it seems worse in more recent versions of Firefox.
Wasn't "Betamax" a cooler name than VHS? It didn't help there. What about "Laserdisc", and even "HipZip", cool names, but technology duds. I'm not so sure HD-DVD is a great acronym either. It may be confusing for the consumer who is just getting familiar with DVD, and hasn't even really thought too much about HDTV yet. They all sound so similar. Anyway, this war will be won or lost, and probably lost by both sides, not because of names, but poor timing and high cost.
Some things just ARE, whether you believe in them or not. Whether I believe you are wearing pants is irrelevant. You either ARE or ARE NOT wearing pants. There are a set of facts that must be consistent with the state of "you wearing pants". It is my job as a scientist to figure out what those facts are. Sometimes, you can prove to a within a reasonable amount of error that something is true (i.e likely to be true). The Theory of Evolution falls into this category. It's hard to argue with the facts and voluminous data that support Evolution, unless, of course, you are a religious zealot with little formal education. Moreover, there are no alternative theories that have even a handful of credible data to support them. Creation or ID fit in this category. This so-called debate (which is a complete misnomer) is not about beliefs. Joe Friday said it best, "We just want the facts."
Hmmm...That's not how I read it:
"The smartest 7-year-olds tended to start out with a relatively thinner cortex that thickened rapidly, peaking by age 11 or 12 before thinning."
Also, just take a look at the chart. Did you even read the article?
Hey! Watch it, buddy. Some of us in Kansas actually frequent Slashdot. (On second thought, maybe I'm the first, but hey, I'm originally from San Francisco.)
So, I guess it is toxoplasma, not midichlorians, that are responsible for "The Force." And here I was all these years thinking that was such a lame explanation!
In real-time. I've been perusing and participating on the SlimDevices forums, and I have seen countless threads where knowledgeable end-users of the SB have requested updates to the firmware to fix bugs or even improve some signal processing alorithms (like digital volume attenuation). The Slim Devices CEO and CTO both appear quite often on the forum and respond and implement both bug fixes and the end-user suggestions. I'm guessing it's a pretty small operation, but still, that's great customer support. These guys really know their stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
First, what part of "looks something like Haskell" did you not understand?
Second, when those battery-powered devices have multiple cores in the future, yes, I think "something like Haskell" will be more efficient than C++.
Third - why do you capitalize "Free"? There are only free implementations of Haskell - as opposed to C++. Last I looked, the most efficient compilers for C++ - Borland, Microsoft - cost hundreds, if not thousands of dollars.
And it looks something like Haskell. Static typing, lazy evaluation, high-level parallelism, pure functionality, explicit imperative-ness. Heck, monads even sound like something from the future.
I need a new mobo for this cool wrist watch I'm designing...
Swarm theory - as applied to optimization (also commonly referred to as particle swarm optimization) - is not just fancy marketing. There are many global optimization algorithms based on either biological or physical theories - genetic algorithms and simulated annealed probably being the two best known. PSO has grown in popularity over the last decade or so, because it offers advantages in some problems. PSO is certainly not a "retroactive explanation", as the particular techniques were not being used, let's say 20-30 years ago.
If application code were perfectly parallelized, then speedup would be linearly proportional to the number of processors (P). So, 8 processors would be 8X speedup. But, practically, this will never be the case. There will always be some portion of the code that is serial. Amdahl's law tells us that we can only expect a speedup that is related to 1/fs, where fs is the fraction of the code that is serial. So, if the code is 50% serial, you are limited to 2X, no matter how many processors. Even if there is only 10% serial code, the speedup is limited to 10X. So, this talk of 32, 64 processors, while obviously useful for running multiple processes concurrently, will not really be that important unless applications fundamentally change in a big, big way. But you all already knew that, right?
You can buy the Spartan boards at digikey.
It was good enough for the DOD and the Boeing 777, so why can't it be good enough for the rest of us. Seriously, I'm just saying this because I picked up a couple of Ada books recently.
Is anyone else annoyed by his pronunciation of the word "processor"? It's more like "prosser", the way he says it. I wonder how he says the word "nuclear"...
designed a new kind of extremely sensitive lie detector for Dick Cheney. Unfortunately, he wasn't actually allowed to test the device.
DST is definitely not about saving energy. Obviously, the real reason is for giving consumers and retailers an extra hour of sunlight, because it increases shopping. Have there been any definitive studies that show energy is conserved? I don't know, to be honest, but probably not. It would be very hard to do. Anyway, we probably use just as much energy in the morning for the extra hour of darkness in our car headlights and indoor lighting.
I read your [b]whole[/b] post and I don't see where you "address what people like me do." Not that I'm even sure what (who?) "people like me" are. Anyway, instead of giving 100 pages of this erasable paper, why not just give them the PDF, and let them print it out on this paper? That was [b]my[/b] point.
I disagree. You know how many papers I have sitting around my office (or in the trashcan) that I read once and don't plan to read again? Pretty much all of them. You know how it goes, you download a PDF of something that you want to read, and you pretty much always print it out, because it's too hard to read on screen (just like the article said). Then, when you're done, you either file the paper or toss it - I mean - recycle it. This erasable/rewritable paper could easily be used for those download once/read once on paper type of files. If I need to read the PDF again, I'll just open it up and print it on this paper, and not have to worry about physically filing it or throwing it out. It's probably much better for the environment, too! I'm on board.
HD-DVD, Blu-Ray? Plastic discs? Within a couple of years we will be streaming HD content, just like mp3's. Physical media is dying, if not already stillborn in the case of HD. The debate is not really about HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray at this point. It's when will streaming content be ready for primetime.
Talk about your slippery slopes!
I agree, for the most part. I think we need to reserve judgement for a week or so, and see whether everything is as it seems.
This story just confirms what we all knew to be true some 20 years ago...The flux capacitor is real!
I have some similar problems, but not exactly those. I often find that when I click on a previously visited link from the URL drop-down list, it doesn't go to that site. Also, one thing that annoys the heck out of me is that when I try to close PDF's, which are in separate tabs, it takes forever. I don't know if this is a Firefox issue or Adobe, but it seems worse in more recent versions of Firefox.
Wasn't "Betamax" a cooler name than VHS? It didn't help there. What about "Laserdisc", and even "HipZip", cool names, but technology duds. I'm not so sure HD-DVD is a great acronym either. It may be confusing for the consumer who is just getting familiar with DVD, and hasn't even really thought too much about HDTV yet. They all sound so similar. Anyway, this war will be won or lost, and probably lost by both sides, not because of names, but poor timing and high cost.
Some things just ARE, whether you believe in them or not. Whether I believe you are wearing pants is irrelevant. You either ARE or ARE NOT wearing pants. There are a set of facts that must be consistent with the state of "you wearing pants". It is my job as a scientist to figure out what those facts are. Sometimes, you can prove to a within a reasonable amount of error that something is true (i.e likely to be true). The Theory of Evolution falls into this category. It's hard to argue with the facts and voluminous data that support Evolution, unless, of course, you are a religious zealot with little formal education. Moreover, there are no alternative theories that have even a handful of credible data to support them. Creation or ID fit in this category. This so-called debate (which is a complete misnomer) is not about beliefs. Joe Friday said it best, "We just want the facts."
Hmmm...That's not how I read it: "The smartest 7-year-olds tended to start out with a relatively thinner cortex that thickened rapidly, peaking by age 11 or 12 before thinning." Also, just take a look at the chart. Did you even read the article?
So, I should have told the school bully, "You're just jealous because my cortex is maturing faster than yours!"
Well, we certainly know our President's intellect has not been adversely affected by job stress.
Hey! Watch it, buddy. Some of us in Kansas actually frequent Slashdot. (On second thought, maybe I'm the first, but hey, I'm originally from San Francisco.)
So, I guess it is toxoplasma, not midichlorians, that are responsible for "The Force." And here I was all these years thinking that was such a lame explanation!
In real-time. I've been perusing and participating on the SlimDevices forums, and I have seen countless threads where knowledgeable end-users of the SB have requested updates to the firmware to fix bugs or even improve some signal processing alorithms (like digital volume attenuation). The Slim Devices CEO and CTO both appear quite often on the forum and respond and implement both bug fixes and the end-user suggestions. I'm guessing it's a pretty small operation, but still, that's great customer support. These guys really know their stuff.