29 karma · joined March 12, 2011
Every other browser understands this to mean, place a (visible!) audio widget on the screen, but don't preload anything.
> ØMQ gets you more throughput than TCP has using intelligent batching algorithms.
yes, intelligent, sounds like a good idea. ;-)
EDIT: ok here's a little more detail as to what they mean by that in the next FAQ entry:
> ØMQ batches messages in opportunistic manner. Rather than waiting for a predefined number of messages and/or predefined time interval, it sends all the messages available at the moment in one go. Imagine the network interface card is busy sending data. Once it is ready to send more data it asks ØMQ for new messages. ØMQ sends all the messages available at the moment. Does it harm the latency of the first message in the batch? No. The message won't be sent earlier anyway because the networking card was busy. On the contrary, latency of subsequent messages will be improved because sending single batch to the card is faster then sending lot of small messages. On the other hand, if network card isn't busy, the message is sent straight away without waiting for following messages. Thus it'll have the best possible latency.
EDIT: This is interesting too for super low latency, Myricom actually makes such a library (http://www.myricom.com/kb/index.php?title=DBL).
> We are working on delivering ØMQ over alternative networking stacks, thus having advantage of features like kernel bypass, avoiding TCP/IP overhead, using high-performance networking hardware etc. That way we can get the latency as low as 10 microseconds.
Not quite following this statement, what makes it faster?
Protein structure prediction: As described above, knowing the structure of a protein is key to understanding how it works and to targeting it with drugs. A small proteins can consist of 100 amino acids, while some human proteins can be huge (1000 amino acids). The number of different ways even a small protein can fold is astronomical because there are so many degrees of freedom. Figuring out which of the many, many possible structures is the best one is regarded as one of the hardest problems in biology today and current methods take a lot of money and time, even for computers. Foldit attempts to predict the structure of a protein by taking advantage of humans' puzzle-solving intuitions and having people play competitively to fold the best proteins.
...
What shape will a protein fold into? Even though proteins are just a long chain of amino acids, they don't like to stay stretched out in a straight line. The protein folds up to make a compact blob, but as it does, it keeps some amino acids near the center of the blob, and others outside; and it keeps some pairs of amino acids close together and others far apart. Every kind of protein folds up into a very specific shape -- the same shape every time. Most proteins do this all by themselves, although some need extra help to fold into the right shape. The unique shape of a particular protein is the most stable state it can adopt. Picture a ball at the top of a hill -- the ball will always roll down to the bottom. If you try to put the ball back on top it will still roll down to the bottom of the hill because that is where it is most stable.
You can reduce latency by making the cable runs straight, vs. winding around underneath streets. That actually accounts for a significant amount of time, and might be an interesting problem to research.
Filtering infrastructure is one thing, this is an actual law you could break (accidentally even) and then get into real trouble.
That being said, Richard Stevens, a respected author on Unix programming, had this to say:
http://www.kohala.com/start/rstevensfaq.html Q: Why do your programs contain gotos?
Read Structured Programming with go to Statements by Knuth in the ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 6, No. 4, Dec. 1974 issue. (In fact, this entire issue of Computing Surveys is a classic.) My challenge to the goto-less programmer is to recode tcp_input() (Chapters 27 and 28 of TCP/IPIv2) without any gotos ... without any loss of efficiency (there has to be a catch).
I had a MS usability researcher (actually a whole team) come on site and during my interview tell me he will be "triaging my usage" of one of their popular non-technical applications. To which I gave him a blank stare, and said "you want to know how I use it?" Sort of reminded me of Feynnman asking the NASA engineers if by "pressure induced harmonic oscillation" they meant a "whistle" during the Challenger investigation -- albeit NASA engineers are allowed to be out of touch. ;-)
2c..