Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:why land on legs? (Score 2) 51

In this case it is now suggested that the cause was simply leg #3 -- there are 4 legs by the way -- failed to lock out due to the failure of a locking collet possibly because of ice buildup, but like you said still impressive. Using legs seem to be easier than arresting the fall with cables; the cables would weigh a lot as they would need to withstand decelerating 25 tons; they would have to uncoil explosively with an aiming system, a launcher and enough energy to throw out the cables; and even though this falcon 9 did come close to being exactly on target (1.4 meters) -- pretty good after being 100 km in space -- that's still off-center enough to cause problems with such a cable system. Finally, this was the last of the Falcon 9 v1.1, the next version, which already flew in December in fact, have improved landing gear.

Comment The perspective of someone that's answered on SO (Score 1) 303

Well thanks for the notification. I'm now somewhat attentive to this. As for me, for all of the code I've submitted, I've never expected to attributed, and I'm not sure how this is even useful let alone enforceable. I'd say from the perspective of both a user and contributor to SO, that while though it's nice to have what you write noted elsewhere, the advantage of unencumbered ideas as provided by SO (and thus google) overwhelms any sort of benefit to strict conformance to some license. I'd like to think whatever gets proposed now can be undone once more of us become aware of this issue.

Comment Doesn't this fail a constitutional challenge? (Score 2) 353

If the Supreme Court has held in Riley v. California that a much less intrusive law is unconstitutional, then shouldn't their reasoning apply here? If the requirement for obtaining any private information held in a phone is a search warrant, and an owner can be compelled to provide access when that search warrant is presented, then just do that. The most likely application of this proposed law is a way to avoid obtaining a search warrant. And wouldn't any argument that timeliness of access is important require probable cause, which, again, the likely application of this law would not have?

Comment Re:Law is not the way (Score 1) 257

Conversely, there should also be an education program on how to obtain the best shot-angle, SEO, and re-tweet potential. Arbitrary rule rule construction -- be it laws or morals -- should only be preferred to the alternative (anything goes) if there's no better way. This has traditionally been supported because access to the better way has been gated by timeliness and lack of information, but that's slowly being removed. This can sometimes lead to a tough choice when it's not clear which is better, but answering in this circumstance is easy. Freedom of speech in the US is sacrosanct.

Comment Re:My prediction.... (Score 0) 676

Well you know who else concocted some half thought-out response in an online discussion? That's right, Hitler. H I T L E R. You're HITler, bro. Now go back to Antartica and make yourself useful, learn to dance penguin style or bake a pie, and don't return until you learn to win back God's favor.

You're Hitler.

Comment Looking forward to the next year! (Score 1) 106

This may read like I'm a Julia fan-boy ... I guess I am.

I found out about Julia from the Machine Learning course from Coursera. Not directly, for at that time it was Octave; the advice given there was "trust me, for machine learning, this syntax is better." Indeed for many machine learning algorithms, the basis of understanding it, is vector and matrix operations. The innovation of Matlab which both Octave, which is essentially a gnu, open-source implementation of Matlab, and Julia is making vector valued variables first class (e.g. M*X, M^-1 where M is a matrix and X is a vector) makes things succinct and clear -- btw M^-1 is a representation of the inverse of M, an O^3 order algorithm in 4 characters?

Now yes, Python has numpy, which is close syntactically, but there are yet other comparisons were is not quite so easy, and Julia has an advantage here in that it's so new that devs are still tolerant of syntax changes -- for instance the behavior of {} was changed between Julia 0.3 and 0.4. And so if there's something new on the horizon that needs a re-org, Julia is better able to handle it.

The other thing of course which Julia and Python and R communities are attempting to do is to figure out the best way to extract the optimizations available from LLVM, and owing to it's close ties to and ability to modify to conform to changes of LLVM, Julia also has an advantage. As I've posted before, expect Julia to be able to scale almost linearly on the Xenon Phi (Knight's Landing+) for HPC linear algebra oriented applications -- expect this by Julia 0.5.

Comment Re:Oh, goody (Score 1) 91

I think we can agree to try not to be an idiot, but really that's as much as I'm willing to agree to. The problem with arbitrary rules is they are easily gamed or abused. Remember when the Ferguson police got the FAA to declare a no fly zone -- the reason was bullshit of course, but oops too late sorry about that. Lifting the argument up even beyond that, there are legitimate circumstances for the government to restrict behavior and there are other circumstances where they would like to, but shouldn't be able to. That tension is lost when there's no opportunity to mis-behave, and that includes individuals that are not being thoughtful.

Comment Re:News for (computer architecture) nerds... (Score 1) 179

The specific application? I'm not sure, but as for the nature of the application that could make use of this is a combination of traditional mechanisms and neural networks. Thus AI couched in big data. Spark of course would be part of it. There are a number of NN frameworks that make use of cudNN. The first because so much has already been written assuming a standard kind of architecture; think OpenBlas. Newer supervised learning results revolve around neural networks and GPUs are best for that for even though the TFLOP comparison might be similar, the real limitation on NN is memory bandwidth, and GPU win here. Plus all the additional circuitry dedicated to double precision is wasted on NN, but valuable for say PCA. Trivia question; what's the register size on the Phi? It's 512 bits, which can be manipulated to vectorize, but how to do that? Only a compiler can manage that, and both gcc and LLVM do so, at a higher layer and longer term what language is best suited for this? I'm betting on Julia since the language is oriented to these problems and is centered on LLVM but mostly because of the people.

Comment Re:How about a Beowolf cluster of these (Score 1) 84

Beowolf? Don't think so. If anything then maybe Spark with the map or reduce step being executed on the GPU, or better yet Tensor Flow. But as pointed out elsewhere, this chip is not even for that, especially next year when the new cards with NVlink blow away 980/Titan-X stuff of this year. No this thing is for drones, AR, or image recognition on embedded anything where power consumption and latency are the overwhelming factors. Otherwise graphics cards will outperform, or if latency is not a factor, then the whole thing can be offloaded to AWS or similar. Also, 16 bit (half-precision) floats normally bad for numerics are fine for neural networks with the bonus advantage of effectively doubling the memory bandwidth and problem size which are the current limitations.

Comment Re:Real Reason For Caps (Score 1) 264

I can tell you how bad it is, at least in the case of AT&T and Time Warner. In general, it's not bad so long as your problem is a common one.

However, the situation changes whenever you operate outside of the norm, or lets' say 1.5sigma for stats nerds. At that point it's as bad as it gets. I've had call centers just simply hang up on me twice when faced with core-networking problems. I believe the business decision in these situations the ISP would rather lose you as a customer forever rather than pay to fix your uncommon problem -- in fact I've been told this directly by a AT&T tech, but he sounded bitter. In other words, these companies are fundamentally set up to be unable to accommodate the %1 problem.

Is this a case of the former or the latter? I would say it's interesting because it sits right on the margin between the 2, and Comcast is trying to push the envelope towards the latter.

Comment Re:Time to bring out the thirty-year-old cliches (Score 1) 568

This metaphor only tells part of the story. Woodpecker's would only destroy buildings 1.0 (0.9 of course would collapse all by itself), 2.0 would have swivel guns to shoot the woodpeckers before they could "attack" the house, but would of course shoot some people too, but usually not their owner. House 3.0 would be pretty good, but by then people would have grown bored of houses and decided to live in mine shafts. The first groundhog would tend to destroy mine shaft 1.0 (mine shaft 0.9 would of course cave in by itself), etc.

Slashdot Top Deals

Only great masters of style can succeed in being obtuse. -- Oscar Wilde Most UNIX programmers are great masters of style. -- The Unnamed Usenetter