HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ressler@cs.cornell.edu (Gene Ressler)
Subject: Re: finding 1st one in integer
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 15:28:27 GMT

In article <BrsMBE.98t@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> amichail@cayley.waterloo.edu (Amir Michail) writes:
>In article <LOWRY.92Jul21165844@rotor.watson.ibm.com>, lowry@watson.ibm.com (Andy Lowry) writes:
>>   return keys[x % 37];
>
>Yes, I thought of this method initially.  The only problem is that the
>modulus operation is *VERY* slow on some architectures such as the sparc.

Right.  This is why I proposed counting 1's.  If you assume 2s complement and
that n has exactly one 1, then just decrement and count.  From the nice posted
benchmark code (chris torek?), this runs about 400% faster than the 37 element
table lookup on a Sparc:

int position_of_1(n)
register unsigned long n;
{
	--n;  /* Replace with n=(n&-n)-1 to find pos of ls1b in any number. */
	n = (n & 0x55555555) + ((n >> 1) & 0x55555555);
	n = (n & 0x33333333) + ((n >> 2) & 0x33333333);
	n = (n + (n >> 4)) & 0x0f0f0f0f;
	n += n >> 8;
	n += n >> 16;
	return (n & 0xff);
}

Even without slow %, this seems better than tables because table 
accesses can cause cache misses.

Murphey's 1st law of caches:
With an n-way set-associative cach, you'll have n+1 conflicting 
accesses in the inner loop.

Murphey's 2nd law of caches:
Murphey's 1st law doesn't apply to timing benchmarks.

It also promises better instruction schedules than vadim's jumping
code. Is it faster?  I haven't tried it.

Gene
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: comp.programming
Subject: Re: floating point routines with double precision
Date: 24 Jul 92 20:48:00 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

In article <6760@charon.cwi.nl> dik@cwi.nl (Dik T. Winter) writes:
>In article <54944@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:

			......................

> > Now I was answering the question assuming that more than the designed
> > precision is needed.  The routines are not difficult for a human to
> > design, but almost hopeless for a compiler.  Anyone who writes such
> > a procedure for a machine which has forced normalization will curse
> > the designers.
>Well, as the machine of the original requestor has no floating-point
>hardware, this point is moot.  Moreover, it is not the compiler that
>suddenly comes up with some code to do double-precision, it is put in
>the compiler by the compiler-writer, e.g. hand-coded.  He may have done
>a poor job of course (as some code sequences for the 205 show, but that one
>had an extremely bad Fortran compiler; past tense because the one I used
>has been decommissioned more than a year ago).

The 205 is much easier for the purpose of increasing precision because
the floating-point arithmetic is not forced to be normalized.  The Crays
are much worse here, although they are not forced normalized for 
multiplication, but because only the most significant part of the
product can be obtained.

If we want everything to be in the compiler, the compiler will be very
large indeed.  One of the points I wish to stress is that, no matter
how much is put in the compiler, much more, even from the standpoint
of practicality, will be omitted.  And as knowledge progresses, the
variety of things to consider increases.

With the present languages, it is already necessary to consider 
alternate codings to achieve the same purpose for such simple
things as adding two vectors.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Newsgroups: comp.society.women
From: kk@aisb.ed.ac.uk
Newsgroups: comp.society.development
Subject: Calling ndiaye@de.uni-sb.cs
Date: 24 Jul 92 09:20:20 GMT
Reply-To: kk@aisb.ed.ac.uk ()
Organization: Dept AI, Edinburgh University, Scotland

Apologies to other readers for this message.

	ndiaye@de.uni-sb.cs

PLease get in touch with the AI for Development group again.
The email address your message came from doesn't seem to be
recognisable from here.




--
---------------------------------
Kathleen King (kk@aisb.ac.ed.uk) 	Tel:	44 31 650 2726
Dept of AI, University of Edinburgh,	Fax:	44 31 650 6516
80 South Bridge, Edinburgh EH1 1HN.
From: fly@acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul D. Fly)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
Subject: Re: Working on the road
Date: 23 Jul 92 19:21:46 GMT
Organization: UB

In article <1992Jul23.172601.27877@wpi.WPI.EDU> ruhleder@wpi.WPI.EDU (Karen Ruhleder) writes:

>.... talking over things
>with people, seeing how they approach similar problems, asking if they've
>done anything like this before.  I learn a lot just from "hanging out" at
>work and talking to people, and I like to think they learn from me.  My
>employer doesn't just hire me to poke at some buttons in isolation, but to
>contribute to a larger environment and culture.  And, ultimately, I am
>responsible not only for getting "X" done, but for making sure it fits with
>the other pieces that surround it, either technically or conceptually.

Okay.  Now I ask, how much do you think "hanging out" electronicly will
improve in the future.  Today, it sucks.  Sure, I can work in X with a
window open doing programming and stuff, and another in say, irc, on a
channel with co-workers who are physically elsewhere.  Perhaps irc isn't
the best example.  Nonetheless, this kind of hanging out is not very
useful as a replacement (at least partial) of physical hanging out.  But
how much will this improve in the future.  Things already have improve
a lot in a fairly short time.  I can interactivly chat with a bunch of
people at once on radically different machines via things like irc.  Add
vision and sound and maybe we're getting somewhere.  I'm not saying this
kind of thing is a *replacement* to hanging out, but an approximation
that can foster the exchange of ideas, etc, of people not physically
together.

>Now about wearing suits...  I think better in jeans, no doubt about it, which 
>is what I'm wearing at this moment.
>
>kr.

Heh heh.  Yeah, and ties constrict the flow of blood to your brain so you
get stupid.  :)

-- 
Paul Fly                      | "Thinking is more interesting than knowing,
fly@acsu.buffalo.edu          |  but less interesting than looking."
v092pxca@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu |    --Goethe
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures,comp.org.eff.talk
From: danl@muug.mb.ca (Dan Little)
Subject: Re: What makes a man a man
Organization: Manitoba Unix User Group, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 04:27:19 GMT

In <m3a6NB3w164w@uuisis.isis.org> doug@uuisis.isis.org (Doug Thompson) writes:

[Lots deleted...]

>You and I, however, have a 'higher ability' and we can not only recognize
>that the newspaper is a different kind of thing from a carpet, we can, if we
>put some effort into it, *read* the newspaper and gather information from
>it. 

I have always wondered where this idea of a man's 'higher ability' comes
from. What makes man think he has higher ability? Because he can read a
newspaper? Cats can follow tracks - literally read them - of mice far better
than man can. We probably would not even notice them yet nobody considers
that a cat is 'higher' for that ability. Sure, we adapt well, but that is
probably due to us having better all round dexterity than a cat. So we like
music, and arts because it pleases our sensibilities. Scratch your cat
behind the ears, and tell me it doesn't like that. at it 

And we can build.  Well many animals build nests. For centuries,
natives have built homes and not computers, but they are no
less men than 'civilised' people. In fact, IMHO, most natives, up until
civilised man destroyed their world, were probably happier with there lives
than 'civilised' man is today.

I guess it comes down to your point - that I inadvertantly deleted - that
man has will, and so, is a higher being. IMHO, that is not true. Most 
animals do exhibit will - you can lead a horse to water but you can't
make it drink - and so, I believe that we are simply animals that happen
to be able to apply our intelligence, due to the form that we take, to
building tools and ideas to support our way of life. If our brains were
stuck in a cat's body, we would be up shit creek!
--
Daniel J. Little
danl@muug.mb.ca
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
From: nimouat@leibniz.waterloo.edu (Nikos Mouat)
Subject: Re: Working on the road
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 03:11:48 GMT

In article <Brt66G.Cso@acsu.buffalo.edu>, fly@acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul D. Fly) writes:
> Okay, as a new subject, how's this:  Something I've been mulling over a bit
> in between meals :)   ...there are some kinds of jobs these days that don't
> require people to "go to the office" every day.  Maybe they need to meet
> with co-workers once a week, maybe more, maybe less.  I would think some
> kinds of programming jobs would fall into this category.  Quite possibily
> as electronic communication becomes more sophisticated, face-to-face meeting
> could be required less and less.  Add to that powerful portable computers,
> and cheaper communications and remote phones (hopefully!), and what will
> happen.  Why can't you have people who live in RVs, driving here and there
> around the country now and then, setting up temporary residences in
> parks etc, and working over their computer.  Maybe once a year they go
> to a big meeting in a company headquarters, etc.
> 
> Possible?

     So why can't I get a job like that?

     Seriously, it would take a _heck_ of a lot of changing of management
attitutes for this to happen. Sure, I'm _at least_ 5 times more productive
working at home in my own environment, with the sterio on loud etc. etc.
But generally (at least corporate..) managment attitudes are... you must be
here from nine to five wearing a suit and tie to be productive. I really can't
forsee a change in the generally conservative management [ideals] in the next
decade or so. This kind of thing will most likely be the norm when the youths
(which include myself) that have grown up in the MTV/Muchmusic era come into
positions of some significance.

      But wouldn't it be great? =-)
  
> 
> -- 
> Paul Fly                      | "Thinking is more interesting than knowing,
> fly@acsu.buffalo.edu          |  but less interesting than looking."
> v092pxca@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu |    --Goethe

Nikos Mouat.
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
From: akerson@deimos.srg.af.mil (Pete Akerson - akerson%srg@uunet.uucp)
Subject: Re: working on the road
Organization: ARINC Research, Corp.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 17:21:39 GMT



Anyone think tele-commuters lower overhead rates ?

(Do any of you tele-commuting contractors add overhead
(cost of office, computer, phones, etc.) to your rates ?)

?

--
Reply-to: akerson%srg@uunet.uu.net
Or sometimes: akerson@srg.UUCP  or akerson@srg.uunet.uu.net
Disclaimer: X was invented by the Japaneese in order to sell more memory chips.
- Pete 		akerson@srg.srg.af.mil is the wrong address.
From: ruhleder@wpi.WPI.EDU (Karen Ruhleder)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
Subject: Re: Working on the road
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:26:01 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute

In article <BrtnJp.IDF@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> nimouat@leibniz.waterloo.edu (Nikos Mouat) writes:

>> happen.  Why can't you have people who live in RVs, driving here and there
>> around the country now and then, setting up temporary residences in
>> parks etc, and working over their computer.  Maybe once a year they go
>> to a big meeting in a company headquarters, etc.
>> 
>> Possible?

Sure, but see comments below.

>     So why can't I get a job like that?
>
>     Seriously, it would take a _heck_ of a lot of changing of management
>attitutes for this to happen. Sure, I'm _at least_ 5 times more productive
>working at home in my own environment, with the sterio on loud etc. etc.

But would you be more productive over time?  I find that what I work on,
even if most of what I do is done individually, is still a part of a larger
whole, and part of my "job" and "what I do" comes from talking over things
with people, seeing how they approach similar problems, asking if they've
done anything like this before.  I learn a lot just from "hanging out" at
work and talking to people, and I like to think they learn from me.  My
employer doesn't just hire me to poke at some buttons in isolation, but to
contribute to a larger environment and culture.  And, ultimately, I am
responsible not only for getting "X" done, but for making sure it fits with
the other pieces that surround it, either technically or conceptually.

And all these concerns aside, teleworking arrangements work best for people 
who have a GREAT deal of control over their home environments--- and don't 
need a lot of shared equipment (or equipment that is too expensive and too 
rarely used to make it worth buying for each person needing it).  One reason
"teleworking" will be, at best, a limited option (at least for a loooong time)
is that many people who could theoretically take advantage of it would have
to do so in a home that doesn't afford them their own work space and offers
too many distractions, such as other family members vying for their attention.
If some arrangement suits only a minority of member, you just won't have the
organizational "culture" to support it.  But striking a balance between working
at home (or on the road) and working at a physical workplace already works 
for many people I know.

Now about wearing suits...  I think better in jeans, no doubt about it, which 
is what I'm wearing at this moment.

kr.
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
From: mcgregoa@cognos.com (Alayne McGregor)
Subject: Re: Working on the road
Organization: Cognos Incorporated, Ottawa CANADA
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:55:07 GMT

In article <Brt66G.Cso@acsu.buffalo.edu> fly@acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul D. Fly) writes:
>Okay, as a new subject, how's this:  Something I've been mulling over a bit
>in between meals :)   ...there are some kinds of jobs these days that don't
>require people to "go to the office" every day.  Maybe they need to meet
>with co-workers once a week, maybe more, maybe less.  I would think some
>kinds of programming jobs would fall into this category.  Quite possibily
>as electronic communication becomes more sophisticated, face-to-face meeting
>could be required less and less.  Add to that powerful portable computers,
>and cheaper communications and remote phones (hopefully!), and what will
>happen.  Why can't you have people who live in RVs, driving here and there
>around the country now and then, setting up temporary residences in
>parks etc, and working over their computer.  Maybe once a year they go
>to a big meeting in a company headquarters, etc.

Steve Roberts (who hangs out on Genie and occasionally Usenet) has been
doing this for a number of years -- on a bicycle. Last I heard, he was
back on the road on his aptly-named Behemoth (it's not just a recumbent
bicycle, it's a mobile computer, ham station, and refrigerator).

Roberts wrote a book a few years ago called Computing Across America
about his experiences as a freelance writer/programmer while travelling
across the U.S. on the Winnebiko (the Behemoth's predecessor). He mentioned
in there his device for writing (a multi-finger keyboard) as he was pedalling.

To be quite honest, it's a great idea and I wish there was more of it, but
most companies wouldn't go for it. They want to see their employees and talk
to them regularly in person. As well, you have to consider that many people
work best in groups: not all programmers like solitude.

Alayne McGregor
mcgregoa@cognos.com
alayne@ve3pak.ocunix.on.ca
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
From: doug@uuisis.isis.org (Doug Thompson)
Subject: Re: What makes a man a man
Organization: International Shared Information Service (Ottawa)
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 05:02:24 GMT

danl@muug.mb.ca (Dan Little) writes:

> In <m3a6NB3w164w@uuisis.isis.org> doug@uuisis.isis.org (Doug Thompson) writes
> 
> [Lots deleted...]
> 
> >You and I, however, have a 'higher ability' and we can not only recognize
> >that the newspaper is a different kind of thing from a carpet, we can, if we
> >put some effort into it, *read* the newspaper and gather information from
> >it. 
> 
> I have always wondered where this idea of a man's 'higher ability' comes
> from. What makes man think he has higher ability? Because he can read a

In one way your question cannot be answerd - "What makes man think
*anything*?" without begging the question. However since the dawn of history
men have believed themselves closer to the gods - 'higher' so to speak -
than cats. It is only rather recently in history that the idea has arisen
that people *aren't* any different than cats.

I would say that this idea of man's 'higher ability' comes simply from the
exercise of that higher ability - consciousness PLUS self-consciousness
which makes it completely obvious that while there are many similarities
between men and cats, there are also differences, and that those differences
are really kinda crucial.

And to those self-evident 'crucial differences' is attached the label
'higher ability'.

Of course we all know people who are very 'animal-like' and only rarely - if
at all - display aspects of the 'higher ability'. Such people probably can't
tell the difference between a man and a cat. One may possess an ability
without ever using it!

=Doug

----------------------------------------------------------------------
UUCP: uunet.ca!uuisis.isis.org!doug                Voice: 613-722-4724
DNS:  doug@uuisis.isis.org, doug@uuisis.UUCP, doug@isishq.fidonet.org
                      SKAN Communications Inc
      POST: P.0. Box 3041, Stn C., Ottawa, K1Y 4J3, CANADA 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: danl@muug.mb.ca (Dan Little)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
Subject: Re: What makes a man a man
Date: 29 Jul 92 01:54:39 GMT
Organization: Manitoba Unix User Group, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

In <0TBgoB2w164w@uuisis.isis.org> doug@uuisis.isis.org (Doug Thompson) writes:

>danl@muug.mb.ca (Dan Little) writes:

>> In <m3a6NB3w164w@uuisis.isis.org> doug@uuisis.isis.org (Doug Thompson) writes
>> 
>> [Lots deleted...]
>> 
>> >You and I, however, have a 'higher ability' and we can not only recognize
>> >that the newspaper is a different kind of thing from a carpet, we can, if we
>> >put some effort into it, *read* the newspaper and gather information from
>> >it. 
>> 
>> I have always wondered where this idea of a man's 'higher ability' comes
>> from. What makes man think he has higher ability? Because he can read a

>In one way your question cannot be answerd - "What makes man think
>*anything*?" without begging the question. However since the dawn of history
>men have believed themselves closer to the gods - 'higher' so to speak -
>than cats. It is only rather recently in history that the idea has arisen
>that people *aren't* any different than cats.

>I would say that this idea of man's 'higher ability' comes simply from the
>exercise of that higher ability - consciousness PLUS self-consciousness
>which makes it completely obvious that while there are many similarities
>between men and cats, there are also differences, and that those differences
>are really kinda crucial.

>And to those self-evident 'crucial differences' is attached the label
>'higher ability'.

>Of course we all know people who are very 'animal-like' and only rarely - if
>at all - display aspects of the 'higher ability'. Such people probably can't
>tell the difference between a man and a cat. One may possess an ability
>without ever using it!

I think, maybe, that you side-stepped the question. What aspect of human life
do we exhibit that shows that we have 'higher ability' as against 'different
ability'? What are the 'crucial differences'? No doubt you are saying that
it is self-consciousness that gives us this 'higher ability'. The dictionary
defines self-consciousness as 'affected by emotion'. Now, whether that covers
the 'understood meaning' of self-consciousness is debatable. Taken literally,
however, would you say that *all* non-human animals are unaffected by
emotion. I think that would be impossible to say. How could you differentiate
between emotion that a cat feels and that a human feels quantitavely?

It is interesting to see an ad for a Time Life vidoe that shows animals in the
wild preying on each other, with a voice over, claiming that the video shows
"what makes and animal an animal". Surely, this at least, is what makes us
closest to animals. After all, man is a hunter by nature. Yet, because this
is no longer the 'normal' way of putting food on our plate, we are less
animal like?  I think not. All I think man has been able to achieve is better
use of the physical attributes given him by evolution.
--
Daniel J. Little
danl@muug.mb.ca
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
From: isr@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Michael S. Schechter - ISR group account)
Subject: Re: What makes a man a man
Organization: Institute for Sensory Research
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 16:26:36 EDT




emotion, self-conssciousness, learning, tool-use...
these are all aspects of intelligence that are exhibited by animals.

I would say that the difference between man and animals is that
man abstracts.  Unfortunately, how do we know that cats or dogs don't?
--
Mike_Schechter@isr.syr.edu | XLII,B,+3dB,Non-Nak | Make Tapes, Not War
From: rcsjp@cgl.rmit.oz.au (Jason Pouflis)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
Subject: Re: Groupware: Why do people seem to work better in groups?
Date: 27 Jul 92 09:58:59 GMT
Organization: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology

Don't know about your other questions,
but as for the title question-

Its not that people work better, they work differently.
By placing them into the different environ,
you get different skills emerging.

And that is what you get from groups,
	emergent behaviours.

Jason Pouflis
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
From: feingold@cheetah.llnl.gov (Rich Feingold)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
Subject: Looking for Steven K. Roberts' e-mail address
Date: 24 Jul 92 16:28:10 GMT
Distribution: comp.society.futures
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

I saw a video tape of a Phil Donahue interview of a very interesting
gentleman named Steven K. Roberts, who, among other endeavors, travels
around the country on an amazingly equipped bicycle.  The latter has
about $1.2M worth of electronics ranging from a MAC to a satelite
locator.  Mr. Roberts said that he corresponds on the internet (even
while he's riding!)  Does anyone know his internet address?

Richard Feingold
E-mail: feingoldra@llnl.gov
Telephone: 510/422-1783
FAX: 510-/422-8920
From: rcsjp@cgl.rmit.oz.au (Jason Pouflis)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
Subject: Re: What makes a man a man
Date: 21 Jul 92 05:24:48 GMT
Organization: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology

doug@uuisis.isis.org (Doug Thompson) writes:

>>The "divine" makes us different from machines? 

>Yes.

how.

[stuff on machines - it depends on your definition really]
>fail to notice it.

>we are not *only* machines. A machine - or a stone - can be fully predicted
>because it must obey known laws and has no choice in the matter. Cats have
>some choice (let me tell you!) and humans have a lot of choice and cannot be
>reliably predicted becaue they are not, except in their most basic material
>nature, confined within laws of nature. 

>Because people and cats are material and are somewhat predictable some of
>the time does not make them machines. They are not *only* material and the
>*are* somewhat unpredictable.

If this is the basis of you argument, then this is where the argument fails.
Just because you cannot personally predict exactly what someone will do,
that does not mean it is not possibly, and isn't done.

Why is it that humans "except in their most basic material
>nature, confined within laws of nature." 
will obey some laws and not others.

direct followups to a philosophy group.