Azul Zing and their Pauseless and C4 collector algorithms are leading the pack of pause-free JVM GC options at the moment..

http://paperhub.s3.amazonaws.com/d14661878f7811e5ee9c43de88414e86.pdf

http://www.azulsystems.com/

It's very misleading to talk about an "EVE 45k single server population". It's obvious that EVE uses multiple machines to manage the single universe, transitioning you between machines during gate jumps. This only works out as a single universe as long as everyone doesn't pile into a single system (which is hosted on a single machine).

Popular systems in EVE, such as the infamous JITA, can be just as laggy as an overpopulated AQ opening. Also, if EVE had 1/2 of WoW's total online playerbase, the chance of busy systems causing lag would be much higher.

These games all operate in a world with the same laws of physics.

Your computer is only so fast. It can only draw so many other players on-screen at once.
You're network is only so fast. It can only handle network updates for so many nearby players at once.
A single server machine is only so fast. It can only handle simulation and network for a limited number of players at once.

All these games have designs to try to limit situations so the above factors are not a problem. Their designs may be different, but the issues are the same.

It might be practical for the system to self-regulate by connecting maximum lifetime patent royalties to reported technology R&D costs. Any R&D costs incurred by a company would be fair game to attribute to individual patents, but they would need to be attributed at the time of filing. Once an R&D dollar was attributed to a patent, it couldn't be reattributed to another patent. Falsifying R&D costs would be both easy to audit and a crime.

For drug companies, 30x R&D costs (including all the failed attempts) would be a healthy payout. For software companies, 30x the cost of a couple programmers over a couple months to 'invent' their patent might be what, $900k?

Of course there are challenges, such as potential games in pumping-up R&D costs. However, if a system like this were viable, it might eliminate ease the pressure on the patent approval process as companies would have an incentive to decide which patent was truly the most valuable and attribute all relevant R&D costs to it.

The author is quick to dismiss using "Obama" and "Hilary" as the indicator terms for fear that Obama's huge online campaign popularity is not representative of the true popularity of the two candiates.

However, he makes no mention of the fact that "Obama" and "Hillary" are the most popularly used terms to refer to the candidates. Almost all candidates are refferred to primarily by their last names. Hilary is a special case where we use her first name because her husband was so recently president.

His use of "Barack" and "Hilary" is about as statistically accurate as using "Barack" and "Rodham". Fortunatly, this inaccuracy is obviously visible in his numbers, because using his first-name method it quickly looks like Edwards might be a write-in candidate to rival them both.

Please slashdot, stop posting braindead stories.