Search Results

Search found 3311 results on 133 pages for 'computing theory'.

Page 1/133 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Windows Azure Use Case: High-Performance Computing (HPC)

    - by BuckWoody
    This is one in a series of posts on when and where to use a distributed architecture design in your organization's computing needs. You can find the main post here: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/buckwoody/archive/2011/01/18/windows-azure-and-sql-azure-use-cases.aspx  Description: High-Performance Computing (also called Technical Computing) at its most simplistic is a layout of computer workloads where a “head node” accepts work requests, and parses them out to “worker nodes'”. This is useful in cases such as scientific simulations, drug research, MatLab work and where other large compute loads are required. It’s not the immediate-result type computing many are used to; instead, a “job” or group of work requests is sent to a cluster of computers and the worker nodes work on individual parts of the calculations and return the work to the scheduler or head node for the requestor in a batch-request fashion. This is typical to the way that many mainframe computing use-cases work. You can use commodity-based computers to create an HPC Cluster, such as the Linux application called Beowulf, and Microsoft has a server product for HPC using standard computers, called the Windows Compute Cluster that you can read more about here. The issue with HPC (from any vendor) that some organization have is the amount of compute nodes they need. Having too many results in excess infrastructure, including computers, buildings, storage, heat and so on. Having too few means that the work is slower, and takes longer to return a result to the calling application. Unless there is a consistent level of work requested, predicting the number of nodes is problematic. Implementation: Recently, Microsoft announced an internal partnership between the HPC group (Now called the Technical Computing Group) and Windows Azure. You now have two options for implementing an HPC environment using Windows. You can extend the current infrastructure you have for HPC by adding in Compute Nodes in Windows Azure, using a “Broker Node”.  You can then purchase time for adding machines, and then stop paying for them when the work is completed. This is a common pattern in groups that have a constant need for HPC, but need to “burst” that load count under certain conditions. The second option is to install only a Head Node and a Broker Node onsite, and host all Compute Nodes in Windows Azure. This is often the pattern for organizations that need HPC on a scheduled and periodic basis, such as financial analysis or actuarial table calculations. References: Blog entry on Hybrid HPC with Windows Azure: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ignitionshowcase/archive/2010/12/13/high-performance-computing-on-premise-and-in-the-windows-azure-cloud.aspx  Links for further research on HPC, includes Windows Azure information: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ncdevguy/archive/2011/02/16/handy-links-for-hpc-and-azure.aspx 

    Read the article

  • Theory Of A Weird Thought - Forms Submission

    - by user2738336
    In theory, if you were to open two computers that were perfectly synced together on a website that has a form. This form has fields where say for example the username has to be unique. Assuming both computers have the same information on the form, and in theory let's say that the submit button was pressed at the same time, and that these two computers have the exact same build and internet speed and the same response time from the server, whose information would be submitted to the database and whose information would be denied knowing the username field is unique.

    Read the article

  • category theory based language

    - by pagoda_5b
    It may sound naive, but is there any programming language, or research thereof, based entirely on category theory? I mean this as opposed to embedding CT concepts as an additional feature (like for Haskell or scala). Would it be too abstract or too complex as an approach, or are there any known reasons that makes it impossible or impractical? I have only a relative understanding of the theory as related to programming, so please give me some explanation if the question doesn't makes sense at all

    Read the article

  • How is"cloud computing"different from "client-server"?

    - by BellevueBob
    Watching a CEO for a new "cloud computing" company describe his company on a finance TV program today, he said something like "Cloud computing is superior to old-fashioned client-server computing". Now I'm confused. Can someone please explain what "cloud computing" means in contrast to client-server? As far as I understand it, cloud computing is more of a network services model, such that I do not own or maintain the physical hardware. The "cloud" is all the back-end stuff. But I still might have an application that communicates with that "cloud" environment. And if I run a web site presents a form that a user fills out, pushes a button on the page, and returns some report that was generated by the web server, isn't that the same as "cloud" computing? And would you not consider my web browser as the "client"? Please note my question is specific to the concept of "cloud computing" with respect to "client-server". Sorry if this is an inappropriate question for this site; it's the one closest in the Stack universe and this is my first time here. I'm an old timer, programming since mainframe days in the late 70's.

    Read the article

  • Color schemes generation - theory and algorithms

    - by daniel.sedlacek
    Hi I will be generating charts and diagrams and I am looking for some theory on color schemes and algorithm examples. Example questions: How to generate complementary or analogous colors? How to generate pastel, cold and warm colors? How to generate any number of random but distinct colors? How to translate all that to the hex triplet (web color)? My implementation will be in AS3 but any examples in metacode are welcome.

    Read the article

  • What is the difference between Cloud Computing and Grid Computing ?

    - by this. __curious_geek
    Hi, Can you please help me understand the significant differences between Cloud Computing and Grid Computing ? What are the precise definations and target application domains for both ? I'm looking for conceptual insights along with technicalities. Like Windows Azure is a Cloud OS, do we have anytihng such for Grid Computing ? In past I did work on distributed and parallel computing and I used the librariries like PVM and MPI for processing distribution. Out of curiosity I wanted to know If Grid Computing is distributed computing extended over internet ?

    Read the article

  • Subsumption architecture vs. perceptual control theory

    - by Yasir G.
    I'm a new person to AI field and I have to research and compare 2 different architectures for a thesis I'm writing. Before you scream (homework thread), I've been reading on these 2 topics only to find that I'm confusing myself more.. let me first start with stating briefly what I know so far. Subsumption is based on the fact that targets of a system are different in sophistication, thus that requires them to be added as layers, each layer can suppress (modify) the command of the layers below it, and there are inhibitors to stop signals from execution lets say. PCT stresses on the fact that there are nodes to handle environmental changes (negative feedback), so the inputs coming from an environment go through a comparator node and then an action is generated by that node, HPCT or (Hierarchical PCT) is based on nesting these cycles inside each other so a small cycle to avoid crashing would be nested in a more sophisticated cycle that targets a certain location for example. My questions, am I getting this the right way? am I missing any critical understanding about these 2 models? also any idea where I can find simplified explanations for each theory (so far been struggling trying to understand the papers from Google scholar :< ) /Y

    Read the article

  • Operating systems theory -- using minimum number of semaphores

    - by stackuser
    This situation is prone to deadlock of processes in an operating system and I'd like to solve it with the minimum of semaphores. Basically there are three cooperating processes that all read data from the same input device. Each process, when it gets the input device, must read two consecutive data. I want to use mutual exclusion to do this. Semaphores should be used to synchronize: P1: P2: P3: input(a1,a2) input (b1,b2) input(c1,c2) Y=a1+c1 W=b2+c2 Z=a2+b1 Print (X) X=Z-Y+W The declaration and initialization that I think would work here are: semaphore s=1 sa1 = 0, sa2 = 0, sb1 = 0, sb2 = 0, sc1 = 0, sc2 = 0 I'm sure that any kernel programmers that happen on this can knock this out in a minute or 2. Diagram of cooperating Processes and one input device: It seems like P1 and P2 would start something like: wait(s) input (a1/b1, a2/b2) signal(s)

    Read the article

  • Microsoft&rsquo;s new technical computing initiative

    - by Randy Walker
    I made a mental note from earlier in the year.  Microsoft literally buys computers by the truckload.  From what I understand, it’s a typical practice amongst large software vendors.  You plug a few wires in, you test it, and you instantly have mega tera tera flops (don’t hold me to that number).  Microsoft has been trying to plug away at their cloud services (named Azure).  Which, for the layman, means Microsoft runs your software on their computers, and as demand increases you can allocate more computing power on the fly. With this in mind, it doesn’t surprise me that I was recently sent an executive email concerning Microsoft’s new technical computing initiative.  I find it to be a great marketing idea with actual substance behind their real work.  From the programmer academic perspective, in college we dreamed about this type of processing power.  This has decades of computer science theory behind it. A copy of the email received.  (note that I almost deleted this email, thinking it was spam due to it’s length) We don't often think about how complex life really is. Take the relatively simple task of commuting to and from work: it is, in fact, a complicated interplay of variables such as weather, train delays, accidents, traffic patterns, road construction, etc. You can however, take steps to shorten your commute - using a good, predictive understanding of a few of these variables. In fact, you probably are already taking these inputs and instinctively building a predictive model that you act on daily to get to your destination more quickly. Now, when we apply the same method to very complex tasks, this modeling approach becomes much more challenging. Recent world events clearly demonstrated our inability to process vast amounts of information and variables that would have helped to more accurately predict the behavior of global financial markets or the occurrence and impact of a volcano eruption in Iceland. To make sense of issues like these, researchers, engineers and analysts create computer models of the almost infinite number of possible interactions in complex systems. But, they need increasingly more sophisticated computer models to better understand how the world behaves and to make fact-based predictions about the future. And, to do this, it requires a tremendous amount of computing power to process and examine the massive data deluge from cameras, digital sensors and precision instruments of all kinds. This is the key to creating more accurate and realistic models that expose the hidden meaning of data, which gives us the kind of insight we need to solve a myriad of challenges. We have made great strides in our ability to build these kinds of computer models, and yet they are still too difficult, expensive and time consuming to manage. Today, even the most complicated data-rich simulations cannot fully capture all of the intricacies and dependencies of the systems they are trying to model. That is why, across the scientific and engineering world, it is so hard to say with any certainty when or where the next volcano will erupt and what flight patterns it might affect, or to more accurately predict something like a global flu pandemic. So far, we just cannot collect, correlate and compute enough data to create an accurate forecast of the real world. But this is about to change. Innovations in technology are transforming our ability to measure, monitor and model how the world behaves. The implication for scientific research is profound, and it will transform the way we tackle global challenges like health care and climate change. It will also have a huge impact on engineering and business, delivering breakthroughs that could lead to the creation of new products, new businesses and even new industries. Because you are a subscriber to executive e-mails from Microsoft, I want you to be the first to know about a new effort focused specifically on empowering millions of the world's smartest problem solvers. Today, I am happy to introduce Microsoft's Technical Computing initiative. Our goal is to unleash the power of pervasive, accurate, real-time modeling to help people and organizations achieve their objectives and realize their potential. We are bringing together some of the brightest minds in the technical computing community across industry, academia and science at www.modelingtheworld.com to discuss trends, challenges and shared opportunities. New advances provide the foundation for tools and applications that will make technical computing more affordable and accessible where mathematical and computational principles are applied to solve practical problems. One day soon, complicated tasks like building a sophisticated computer model that would typically take a team of advanced software programmers months to build and days to run, will be accomplished in a single afternoon by a scientist, engineer or analyst working at the PC on their desktop. And as technology continues to advance, these models will become more complete and accurate in the way they represent the world. This will speed our ability to test new ideas, improve processes and advance our understanding of systems. Our technical computing initiative reflects the best of Microsoft's heritage. Ever since Bill Gates articulated the then far-fetched vision of "a computer on every desktop" in the early 1980's, Microsoft has been at the forefront of expanding the power and reach of computing to benefit the world. As someone who worked closely with Bill for many years at Microsoft, I am happy to share with you that the passion behind that vision is fully alive at Microsoft and is carried out in the creation of our new Technical Computing group. Enabling more people to make better predictions We have seen the impact of making greater computing power more available firsthand through our investments in high performance computing (HPC) over the past five years. Scientists, engineers and analysts in organizations of all sizes and sectors are finding that using distributed computational power creates societal impact, fuels scientific breakthroughs and delivers competitive advantages. For example, we have seen remarkable results from some of our current customers: Malaria strikes 300,000 to 500,000 people around the world each year. To help in the effort to eradicate malaria worldwide, scientists at Intellectual Ventures use software that simulates how the disease spreads and would respond to prevention and control methods, such as vaccines and the use of bed nets. Technical computing allows researchers to model more detailed parameters for more accurate results and receive those results in less than an hour, rather than waiting a full day. Aerospace engineering firm, a.i. solutions, Inc., needed a more powerful computing platform to keep up with the increasingly complex computational needs of its customers: NASA, the Department of Defense and other government agencies planning space flights. To meet that need, it adopted technical computing. Now, a.i. solutions can produce detailed predictions and analysis of the flight dynamics of a given spacecraft, from optimal launch times and orbit determination to attitude control and navigation, up to eight times faster. This enables them to avoid mistakes in any areas that can cause a space mission to fail and potentially result in the loss of life and millions of dollars. Western & Southern Financial Group faced the challenge of running ever larger and more complex actuarial models as its number of policyholders and products grew and regulatory requirements changed. The company chose an actuarial solution that runs on technical computing technology. The solution is easy for the company's IT staff to manage and adjust to meet business needs. The new solution helps the company reduce modeling time by up to 99 percent - letting the team fine-tune its models for more accurate product pricing and financial projections. Our Technical Computing direction Collaborating closely with partners across industry and academia, we must now extend the reach of technical computing even further to help predictive modelers and data explorers make faster, more accurate predictions. As we build the Technical Computing initiative, we will invest in three core areas: Technical computing to the cloud: Microsoft will play a leading role in bringing technical computing power to scientists, engineers and analysts through the cloud. Existing high- performance computing users will benefit from the ability to augment their on-premises systems with cloud resources that enable 'just-in-time' processing. This platform will help ensure processing resources are available whenever they are needed-reliably, consistently and quickly. Simplify parallel development: Today, computers are shipping with more processing power than ever, including multiple cores, but most modern software only uses a small amount of the available processing power. Parallel programs are extremely difficult to write, test and trouble shoot. However, a consistent model for parallel programming can help more developers unlock the tremendous power in today's modern computers and enable a new generation of technical computing. We are delivering new tools to automate and simplify writing software through parallel processing from the desktop... to the cluster... to the cloud. Develop powerful new technical computing tools and applications: We know scientists, engineers and analysts are pushing common tools (i.e., spreadsheets and databases) to the limits with complex, data-intensive models. They need easy access to more computing power and simplified tools to increase the speed of their work. We are building a platform to do this. Our development efforts will yield new, easy-to-use tools and applications that automate data acquisition, modeling, simulation, visualization, workflow and collaboration. This will allow them to spend more time on their work and less time wrestling with complicated technology. Thinking bigger There is so much left to be discovered and so many questions yet to be answered in the fascinating world around us. We believe the technical computing community will show us that we have not seen anything yet. Imagine just some of the breakthroughs this community could make possible: Better predictions to help improve the understanding of pandemics, contagion and global health trends. Climate change models that predict environmental, economic and human impact, accessible in real-time during key discussions and debates. More accurate prediction of natural disasters and their impact to develop more effective emergency response plans. With an ambitious charter in hand, this new team is ready to build on our progress to-date and execute Microsoft's technical computing vision over the months and years ahead. We will steadily invest in the right technologies, tools and talent, and work to bring together the technical computing community. I invite you to visit www.modelingtheworld.com today. We welcome your ideas and feedback. I look forward to making this journey with you and others who want to answer the world's biggest questions, discover solutions to problems that seem impossible and uncover a host of new opportunities to change the world we live in for the better. Bob

    Read the article

  • People's experience of Cloud Computing (using Force.com)

    - by Digger
    I would like to know about people's experience of working with APEX and the SalesForce.com platform, was it easy to work with? How similar to Java and C# is it? What did you like? What don't you like? Would you recommend it? Do you think cloud computing has a long term successful future? My reason for asking is that I am currently looking at a new position which involves working with APEX on the SalesForce.com platform. The position interests me but I just want to try and understand what I might be signing up for with regards the languages/platform as it is completely different from what I have worked with before. I have seen lots of videos/blog posts online (mainly from the recent Dreamforce event) and they obviously are very positive but I was just after some experiences from developers, both positive and negative. I find cloud computing a very interesting idea, but I am very new to the subject. The position I am looking at offers a fantastic opportunity but I was just after some opinions on APEX and the platform as I have no real world experience just what I have seen from the online videos. I guess ultimately what I am asking is: Are APEX and the SalesForce.com platform good to get involved in? Is development on the Force.com just a "career dead end"? Is cloud computing just a fad? Or does it have a long term future? Apologies in advance if this is the wrong place to ask such a question. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Windows Azure Use Case: Hybrid Applications

    - by BuckWoody
    This is one in a series of posts on when and where to use a distributed architecture design in your organization's computing needs. You can find the main post here: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/buckwoody/archive/2011/01/18/windows-azure-and-sql-azure-use-cases.aspx  Description: Organizations see the need for computing infrastructures that they can “rent” or pay for only when they need them. They also understand the benefits of distributed computing, but do not want to create this infrastructure themselves. However, they may have considerations that prevent them from moving all of their current IT investment to a distributed environment: Private data (do not want to send or store sensitive data off-site) High dollar investment in current infrastructure Applications currently running well, but may need additional periodic capacity Current applications not designed in a stateless fashion In these situations, a “hybrid” approach works best. In fact, with Windows Azure, a hybrid approach is an optimal way to implement distributed computing even when the stipulations above do not apply. Keeping a majority of the computing function in an organization local while exploring and expanding that footprint into Windows and SQL Azure is a good migration or expansion strategy. A “hybrid” architecture merely means that part of a computing cycle is shared between two architectures. For instance, some level of computing might be done in a Windows Azure web-based application, while the data is stored locally at the organization. Implementation: There are multiple methods for implementing a hybrid architecture, in a spectrum from very little interaction from the local infrastructure to Windows or SQL Azure. The patterns fall into two broad schemas, and even these can be mixed. 1. Client-Centric Hybrid Patterns In this pattern, programs are coded such that the client system sends queries or compute requests to multiple systems. The “client” in this case might be a web-based codeset actually stored on another system (which acts as a client, the user’s device serving as the presentation layer) or a compiled program. In either case, the code on the client requestor carries the burden of defining the layout of the requests. While this pattern is often the easiest to code, it’s the most brittle. Any change in the architecture must be reflected on each client, but this can be mitigated by using a centralized system as the client such as in the web scenario. 2. System-Centric Hybrid Patterns Another approach is to create a distributed architecture by turning on-site systems into “services” that can be called from Windows Azure using the service Bus or the Access Control Services (ACS) capabilities. Code calls from a series of in-process client application. In this pattern you move the “client” interface into the server application logic. If you do not wish to change the application itself, you can “layer” the results of the code return using a product (such as Microsoft BizTalk) that exposes a Web Services Definition Language (WSDL) endpoint to Windows Azure using the Application Fabric. In effect, this is similar to creating a Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) environment, and has the advantage of de-coupling your computing architecture. If each system offers a “service” of the results of some software processing, the operating system or platform becomes immaterial, assuming it adheres to a service contract. There are important considerations when you federate a system, whether to Windows or SQL Azure or any other distributed architecture. While these considerations are consistent with coding any application for distributed computing, they are especially important for a hybrid application. Connection resiliency - Applications on-premise normally have low-latency and good connection properties, something you’re not always guaranteed in a distributed and hybrid application. Whether a centralized client or a distributed one, the code should be able to handle extended retry logic. Authorization and Access - In a single authorization environment like a Active Directory domain, security is handled at a user-password level. In a distributed computing environment, you have more options. You can mitigate this with  using The Windows Azure Application Fabric feature of ACS to make the Azure application aware of the App Fabric as an ADFS provider. However, a claims-based authentication structure is often a superior choice.  Consistency and Concurrency - When you have a Relational Database Management System (RDBMS), Consistency and Concurrency are part of the design. In a Service Architecture, you need to plan for sequential message handling and lifecycle. Resources: How to Build a Hybrid On-Premise/In Cloud Application: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ignitionshowcase/archive/2010/11/09/how-to-build-a-hybrid-on-premise-in-cloud-application.aspx  General Architecture guidance: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/buckwoody/archive/2010/12/21/windows-azure-learning-plan-architecture.aspx   

    Read the article

  • Interview with Java Champion Matjaz B. Juric on Cloud Computing, SOA, and Java EE 6

    - by [email protected]
    In a Java Champion interview Matjaz Juric of Slovenia, head of the Cloud Computing and SOA Competence Centre at the University of Maribor, and professor at the University of Ljubljana, shares insights about cloud computing, SOA and Java EE 6. Juric has worked on performance analysis and optimization of RMI-IIOP, as well as being a member of the BPEL Advisory Board, and a Java mentor and trainer.Regarding BPEL he remarks, "Probably the most important thing to understand is what should be programmed in Java and what should be programmed in BPEL. There is still some confusion. BPEL is for the process logic, while Java is for functionalities. Together, BPEL and Java form a strong alliance and enable faster development and maintenance of enterprise applications and their integrations. On the other hand, the integration between Java and BPEL could be improved. There have been different approaches, including Java snippets. I would like to see an XML data type in Java, without all the hassles with JAXB, mappings, or DOM." Read the rest of the article here.

    Read the article

  • How will Quantum computing affect us?

    - by CiscoIPPhone
    I am interested in quantum computing, but have not studied it in depth. Things like Shor's algorithm intrigue me. My question is: If quantum computing took off in a big way (i.e. functional quantum home computers were available) how would it affect us programmers and software developers? Would we have to learn how to make use of superposition and entanglement - would it change how we write algorithms? Would more mathematical programmers be required/would we need new skills? Would it change nothing at all from our perspective (i.e. would it be abstracted)? Your opinion is welcome.

    Read the article

  • Does Bad Weather Affect Cloud Computing? [Humor]

    - by Jason Fitzpatrick
    Indian government official Vishwa Bandhu Gupta deserves a Master Class Troll Lifetime Achievement Award for his performance in this five minute video and complete bamboozling of a poor reporter. Before we ridicule the reporter for buying Gupta’s spiel, keep in mind that 51% of Americans think cloud computing actually has something to do with clouds. Cloud Computing Is Great, But What If It Rains? [via Digital Inspiration] HTG Explains: Why Do Hard Drives Show the Wrong Capacity in Windows? Java is Insecure and Awful, It’s Time to Disable It, and Here’s How What Are the Windows A: and B: Drives Used For?

    Read the article

  • Cloud Computing: Start with the problem

    - by BuckWoody
    At one point in my life I would build my own computing system for home use. I wanted a particular video card, a certain set of drives, and a lot of memory. Not only could I not find those things in a vendor’s pre-built computer, but those were more expensive – by a lot. As time moved on and the computing industry matured, I actually find that I can buy a vendor’s system as cheaply – and in some cases far more cheaply – than I can build it myself.   This paradigm holds true for almost any product, even clothing and furniture. And it’s also held true for software… Mostly. If you need an office productivity package, you simply buy one or use open-sourced software for that. There’s really no need to write your own Word Processor – it’s kind of been done a thousand times over. Even if you need a full system for customer relationship management or other needs, you simply buy one. But there is no “cloud solution in a box”.  Sure, if you’re after “Software as a Service” – type solutions, like being able to process video (Windows Azure Media Services) or running a Pig or Hive job in Hadoop (Hadoop on Windows Azure) you can simply use one of those, or if you just want to deploy a Virtual Machine (Windows Azure Virtual Machines) you can get that, but if you’re looking for a solution to a problem your organization has, you may need to mix Software, Infrastructure, and perhaps even Platforms (such as Windows Azure Computing) to solve the issue. It’s all about starting from the problem-end first. We’ve become so accustomed to looking for a box of software that will solve the problem, that we often start with the solution and try to fit it to the problem, rather than the other way around.  When I talk with my fellow architects at other companies, one of the hardest things to get them to do is to ignore the technology for a moment and describe what the issues are. It’s interesting to monitor the conversation and watch how many times we deviate from the problem into the solution. So, in your work today, try a little experiment: watch how many times you go after a problem by starting with the solution. Tomorrow, make a conscious effort to reverse that. You might be surprised at the results.

    Read the article

  • Cloud computing cost savings for large enterprise

    - by user13817
    I'm trying to understand whether cloud computing is meant for small to medium sized companies OR also for large companies. Imagine a website with a very large user base. The storage and bandwidth demands as well as the number of database transactions are incredibly high. The website might be hosting videos, music, images, etc. that keep the demands high. Does it make sense to be in the cloud when you know you need huge volumes of storage, bandwidth, and GET,PUT,etc. requests? (Each of these variables costs money in the cloud) OR does it make sense to build your own infrastructure? I can see the cost savings of cloud computing if you are a small business, but if you were aiming at the next big thing on the Internet, I can't quite see the benefits.

    Read the article

  • Studying Quantum Computing?

    - by The_Neo
    Hi I am a computer science student currently on an internship and I have been thinking more and more about looking into working for a company / places that is developing quantum computers/ing when I graduate. Here is my problem, I have a pretty solid grasp of mathematics involved in Comp Sci and enjoy learning about more Comp Sci theory but in doing some minor research about Quantum Computing it seems to me to be more about hardware and I have always leant more to the software side of things. I haven't studied any physics since high school so I am wondering if I would be suitable to work in such a field with a Comp Sci degree, is it a field more aimed at physicists?

    Read the article

  • How do you deal with translating theory into practice?

    - by Mr. Shickadance
    Hello all! Being a computer scientist in a research field I am often tasked with working alongside professionals outside of the software domain (think math people, electrical engineer etc), and then translating their theories and ideas into real-world implementations. I often find it difficult when they present a theoretical problem which appears to be somewhat disconnected from reality. I am not saying that the theory is bogus, only that it is difficult to translate into real-world situations. For example, recently I have been working with software defined radios. We are exploring many different areas, but often the math specialists in my group would present a problem which is heavily grounded in theory (signal processing, physics, whatever). I often struggle at times where it is hard to draw direct parallels between the theory and the real-world implementation that I need to develop. Say we are working on an energy detector, the theory person in my group would say "you need to measure the noise variance with no signal present." This leads me to think "how the hell do I isolate noise from a signal in reality?" There are many examples, but I hope you see where I am going. So, my question is how does one deal with implementation of theoretical concepts when the theory seems detached from reality? Or at least when the connections are not so clear. Or perhaps, the person with the 'theory' may be ignorant of real restrictions? Note: I found this to be a hard question to ask - hopefully you are following me. If you have suggestions on how I could improve it, by all means let me know! Thanks for looking! EDIT: To be a bit more clear, I understand in situations like this that I must learn that specific domain myself to an extent (i.e. signal processing), but I am more concerned with when those theoretical concepts do not appear to be as grounded in practice as one would like.

    Read the article

  • ????????!Oracle Cloud Computing Summit???!

    - by takashi.hitomi
    ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????Oracle Cloud Computing Summit?3??????1?"Database & Exadata Day"??? ????????????????????????3??????????????? ????9????????????????????????? Oracle Exadata??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????Oracle GoldenGate??????????????

    Read the article

  • You Probably Already Have a “Private Cloud”

    - by BuckWoody
    I’ve mentioned before that I’m not a fan of the word “Cloud”. It’s too marketing-oriented, gimmicky and non-specific. A better definition (in many cases) is “Distributed Computing”. That means that some or all of the computing functions are handled somewhere other than under your specific control. But there is a current use of the word “Cloud” that does not necessarily mean that the computing is done somewhere else. In fact, it’s a vector of Cloud Computing that can better be termed “Utility Computing”. This has to do with the provisioning of a computing resource. That means the setup, configuration, management, balancing and so on that is needed so that a user – which might actually be a developer – can do some computing work. To that person, the resource is just “there” and works like they expect, like the phone system or any other utility. The interesting thing is, you can do this yourself. In fact, you probably already have been, or are now. It’s got a cool new trendy term – “Private Cloud”, but the fact is, if you have your setup automated, the HA and DR handled, balancing and performance tuning done, and a process wrapped around it all, you can call yourself a “Cloud Provider”. A good example here is your E-Mail system. your users – pretty much your whole company – just logs into e-mail and expects it to work. To them, you are the “Cloud” provider. On your side, the more you automate and provision the system, the more you act like a Cloud Provider. Another example is a database server. In this case, the “end user” is usually the development team, or perhaps your SharePoint group and so on. The data professionals configure, monitor, tune and balance the system all the time. The more this is automated, the more you’re acting like a Cloud Provider. Lots of companies help you do this in your own data centers, from VMWare to IBM and many others. Microsoft's offering in this is based around System Center – they have a “cloud in a box” provisioning system that’s actually pretty slick. The most difficult part of operating a Private Cloud is probably the scale factor. In the case of Windows and SQL Azure, we handle this in multiple ways – and we're happy to share how we do it. It’s not magic, and the algorithms for balancing (like the one we started with called Paxos) are well known. The key is the knowledge, infrastructure and people. Sure, you can do this yourself, and in many cases such as top-secret or private systems, you probably should. But there are times where you should evaluate using Azure or other vendors, or even multiple vendors to spread your risk. All of this should be based on client need, not on what you know how to do already. So congrats on your new role as a “Cloud Provider”. If you have an E-mail system or a database platform, you can just put that right on your resume.

    Read the article

  • Cloud Computing Architecture Patterns: Don’t Focus on the Client

    - by BuckWoody
    Normally I try to put topics in the positive in other words "Do this" not "Don't do that". Sometimes its clearer to focus on what *not* to do. Popular development processes often start with screen mockups, or user input descriptions. In a scale-out pattern like Cloud Computing on Windows Azure, that's the wrong place to start. Start with the Data    Instead, I recommend that you start with the data that a process requires. That data might be temporary or persisted, but starting with the data and its requirements helps to define not only the storage engine you need but also drives everything from security to the integrity of the application. For instance, assume the requirements show that the user must enter their phone number, and that this datum is used in a contact management system further down the application chain. For that datum, you can determine what data type you need (U.S. only or International?) the security requirements, whether it needs ACID compliance, how it will be searched, indexed and so on. From one small data point you can extrapolate out your options for storing and processing the data. Here's the interesting part, which begins to break the patterns that we've used for decades: all of the data doesn't have the same requirements. The phone number might be best suited for a list, or an element, or a string, with either BASE or ACID requirements, based on how it is used. That means we don't have to dump everything into XML, an RDBMS, a NoSQL engine, or a flat file exclusively. In fact, one record might use all of those depending on the use-case requirements. Next Is Data Management  With the data defined, we can move on to how to store the data. Again, the requirements now dictate whether we need a full relational calculus or set-based operations, or we can choose another method based on the requirements for the data. And breaking another pattern its OK to store in more than once, in more than one location. We do this all the time for reporting systems and Business Intelligence systems, so this is a pattern we need to think about even for OLTP data. Move to Data Transport How does the data get around? We can use a connection-based method, sending the data along a transport to the storage engine, but in some cases we may want to use a cache, a queue, the Service Bus, or Complex Event Processing. Finally, Data Processing Most RDBMS engines, NoSQL, and certainly Big Data engines not only store data, but can process and manipulate it as well. Its doubtful that you'll calculate that phone number right? Well, if you're the phone company, you most certainly will. And so we see that even once we've chosen the data type, storage and engine, the same element can have different computing requirements based on how it is used. Sure, We Need A Front-End At Some Point Not all data is entered by human hands in fact most data isn't. We don't really need a Graphical User Interface (GUI) we need some way for a GUI to get data into and out of the systems listed earlier.   But when we do need to allow users to enter or examine data, that should be left to the GUI that best fits the device the user has. Ever tried to use an application designed for a web browser on a phone? Or one designed for a tablet on a phone? Its usually quite painful. The siren song of "We'll just write one interface for all devices" is strong, and has beguiled many an unsuspecting architect. But they just don't work out.   Instead, focus on the data, its transport and processing. Create API calls or a message system that allows for resilient transport to the device or interface, and let it do what it does best. References Microsoft Architecture Journal:   http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/architecture/bb410935.aspx Patterns and Practices:   http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff921345.aspx Windows Azure iOS, Android, Windows 8 Mobile Devices SDK: http://www.windowsazure.com/en-us/develop/mobile/tutorials/get-started-ios/ Windows Azure Facebook SDK: http://ntotten.com/2013/03/14/using-windows-azure-mobile-services-with-the-facebook-sdk-for-windows-phone/

    Read the article

  • Are there any formalized/mathematical theories of software testing?

    - by Erik Allik
    Googling "software testing theory" only seems to give theories in the soft sense of the word; I have not been able to find anything that would classify as a theory in the mathematical, information theoretical or some other scientific field's sense. What I'm looking for is something that formalizes what testing is, the notions used, what a test case is, the feasibility of testing something, the practicality of testing something, the extent to which something should be tested, formal definition/explanation of code coverage, etc. UPDATE: Also, I'm not sure, intuitively, about the connection between formal verification and what I asked, but there's clearly some sort of connection.

    Read the article

  • Why do some programmers think there is a contrast between theory and practice?

    - by Giorgio
    Comparing software engineering with civil engineering, I was surprised to observe a different way of thinking: any civil engineer knows that if you want to build a small hut in the garden you can just get the materials and go build it whereas if you want to build a 10-storey house you need to do quite some maths to be sure that it won't fall apart. In contrast, speaking with some programmers or reading blogs or forums I often find a wide-spread opinion that can be formulated more or less as follows: theory and formal methods are for mathematicians / scientists while programming is more about getting things done. What is normally implied here is that programming is something very practical and that even though formal methods, mathematics, algorithm theory, clean / coherent programming languages, etc, may be interesting topics, they are often not needed if all one wants is to get things done. According to my experience, I would say that while you do not need much theory to put together a 100-line script (the hut), in order to develop a complex application (the 10-storey building) you need a structured design, well-defined methods, a good programming language, good text books where you can look up algorithms, etc. So IMO (the right amount of) theory is one of the tools for getting things done. So my question is why do some programmers think that there is a contrast between theory (formal methods) and practice (getting things done)? Is software engineering (building software) perceived by many as easy compared to, say, civil engineering (building houses)? Or are these two disciplines really different (apart from mission-critical software, software failure is much more acceptable than building failure)?

    Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >