Tiny Menu [arantius.com] 1.4.2 - the whole menu is compacted to one button 'Menu' which you can drag on your address toolbar (it's actually the other way round), saving needed screen space FireFox does not allow install dialog of this one... Tiny Menu, what have you been up to?
Furthermore, ads increase demand and therefore increase everybody's prices, so ad blocking is clearly the ethical thing to do. Ethically speaking, we should advertise more the ad-blocking.
The solution to this problem is easy. Eliminate public schools and move to an all private education system. That way the market will determine everything, from salary's, to tuition, to other costs. What about those who would not be able to afford to pay in your educational system? Should they not also have the right to be educated?
thats what other compilers do by themselves right... Most compilers can't even detect that, let alone parallelize it, thus profilers and programmers and all the jazz with OpenMP, MPI, Codeplay, HPF, Ocam...
No you can use it now. It was released in November. I'm implementing a solution with it as we speak and yes it is eliminating the code I once would have written to spawn worker threads and sychronise them... So I think youre the one with the fertile imagination, which seems to be focused on denial. Sorry for the slow reply, I've been busy converting my OpenMP code into.NET 3 and, oh boy, you're right, wow, it sure does run on 1024 cores like a charm... oops, my provider of the connection with future has just denied me service... well, nevermind, future is in the future, who can deny me that? Maybe I'll just stick with Linux for a while...
In terms of size, to paraphrase from someone in another thread: In Texas we call that a county. To paraphrase someone from another post: in terms of size, in Soviet Russia they call Texas a village.
I thought the hallmark of smart, rational people was supposed to be a tendency to judge based on merit, not appearance? If the substance of an idea is sound, does it matter if it's wearing shabby grammar? Wow, you really thought about that. Maybe not. What is the substance of an idea is not sound, but letter?
This is a feature of WCF - Windows Communication Foundation in.NET 3.0 (part of Win V). WCF is designed for next gen CPUs with large numbers of cores. Which is to say you can't use it now, but in the future.
Just imagine coding for a machine with 1024 cores! wow!
Maybe the wow has started now after all hmm? Or maybe wow has alredy started in the future? In your fertile imagination?
For what I have seen is that this system just parallelizes only the part of the code in sieve instead of the whole code. How is this better than others. Please can someone enlighten me on that. If this part of the code happens to be the one where most of your CPU time is spent,...
do the algorithms involved here naturally lend themselves to the parallelization techniques the compiler uses? What do you mean?
Are there algorithms that are very poor choices for parallelization? yes, finite state machines.
and what the difference between this and openMP ? On the page 7 of The Codeplay Sieve C++ Parallel Programming System, 2006 you'll find section that describes "advantages" of codeplay over openmp, but nothing terribly exciting. Codeplay allows you indeed to better automatize parallelization but is at the same time also limited to a narrower set of optimizations compared to openmp.
Any such limitations would be technical and not legal. When you take a photo using any type of camera, that photo is yours, no matter what form it is in. (Assuming no complications such as the storage medium or camera belonging to someone else.) Even if the photo is encoded using a patented algorithm, the content (even the encoded bits) are yours to do as you please. While I agree, more or less, with you that there is a clear distinction between technical and legal aspects in this case, what is very curious to me is this very possibility that I can own, copyright and do whatever I want with the particular binary representation of the photo except see it, without implicitly/explicitly agreeing with the particular license and/or paying for the patent.
"Shockingly 40% of mathematics teachers in California are not fully qualified in the subject "
Wow, only 70% are fully qualified? To be more precise, only 2/3 are fully qualified.
I don't see how this would replace jpg in any remote way whatsoever. Where are most images stored and viewed? On the internet and a browser. I need a small, high quality image. I don't need to go visit cnn.com and adjust the tint, hue and color levels of the "breaking news" graphic on their site. If this is all you need maybe the Microsoft new standard would be exactly what you need?
Not entirely true... I have a $300 Panasonic that does TIFF. Granted it's higher-end than your typical wallet-sized point-'n-shoot but it's far from a bank-breaking DSLR. Well, let's say it one more time: RAW is not TIFF, TIFF is not RAW, etc.
RAW is trying to get as much raw data from the camera sensors as possible.
TIF and PNG are representation of a photo in rgb space, RAW uses a different
color space even if your camera has r,g and b sensors.
The idea is that automatic conversion of raw sensor data into TIF
is a lossy process, i.e you can actually squeeze more out of the
raw data (let's say some details in the shadows, or smoother gradation
of colors or whatever) by more careful processing of the sensor data.
Some rough analogy with the analog photography would be giving
somebody to develop your black and white negatives instead developing them
yourself.
So, let's step back a bit and try to untangle exactly what's going on. When you use a codec, you're using a piece of software. The codec itself is protected under copyright and possibly under patents. In any event, the actions the codec carries out are not in themselves creative. By this, I mean, the transformations are deterministic with an intended output; creativity could be said to be non-deterministic (ie, originality) with an intended output. Copyright only extends to works that are the result of a creative process. To that end, nothing a codec does could itself be copyrighted; if it could be, the codec itself would be the copyright owner, not the writer of the codec; of course, such a codec would seemingly fill the requirements of a partial AI, so I think the concerns of copyright would not exactly be high on the list of discussion. This can be stated more precisely: when you "create" something digitally, you make a string of bits using encoder, and these bits have no meaning on their own without the appropriate decoder. So encoder/decoder is the part of what is usually called "creative process" in a fundamentally different way than when you "create" non-digital work because with encoder/decoder you enter right from the start into the issue of patents and licenses, even before you can claim your copyright.
Good example is photography: In the analog photography you use patented equipment and processes all the time: cameras, lenses, film, paper, chemicals, etc. and at the end here comes out your beautiful photo that you can copyright, reproduce (digitally or not) and so on.
In the digital photography you take the photo using your digital camera, but at that point you have not produced any object yet, just some binary representation of the photo. You might not even be able to see that photo ever unless you agree to terms of the license agreement of the encoder, period.
The reason for a program like Bison having the output GPL'd, is that Bison actually creates lots of the output using its own code, ie, the Bison output HAS GPL code in it. Fortunately there's the exception which makes this a non-issue. I don't quite understand this part: are in the generated source code for the parser some parts under GPL, and some not? Does "using [Bison's] own code" refer to some fixed pieces of the output that are part of the parser, or do they also change depending on the input to the Bison?
Why do you people bother talking about how evil the WGA is? It's been known for a while now that Microsoft is reaching far beyond its moral limits to prevent piracy[...] How would you know how evil the WGA is if not because of the people who actually do not bother to check out what's going on over the net when one does not want WGA installed?
> "to be able to recognize him under another pseudonym" (which goes against the very concept of pseudonym, does it not?) Indeed. This is one of the major point. Pseudos are OK for ranting in./ and chating on dating sites, but for serious encyclopedic work it is useful and dangerous (some people just can't behave when anon). > or "to detect the lies" (maybe wikipedia should get some lie detectors?) Bah >> Compunction makes the boot more useful because, without it, redemption seems somewhat far away (the leaders cannot hope that he will not lie again if he comes back) > Perhaps this is true in the church (and I mind you not just any old church), but not in wikipedia. I mean "no remorse => he will probably err again". I may have failed to make myself clear, or you just want to rant. Let's forget about it >> Many potentially serious people will simply not deliberately write BS/propaganda under their real-life identity,[...] > Then you probably would not believe me if I tell you how much propaganda of the worst kind has been written by people under their "real-life" names. I don't wrote "there is no BS under the author's realname" but I sure tried to express and think that many write less BS when the are identified. You already distorted this way twice. > Maybe they were not "potentially serious" but instead actually serious, or just serious, or were they not joking? Verry funny >> [...]and the other are often easy to detect. > Who are the other? Crackpots, fools, jokers writing "I was here!"... > Would not the method of "detecting" then depend on who you are talking about? I'm not sure to understand but, for example in this case, detecting credential falseness is much more difficult if he is anon. This is totally unrelated to the real identity or credential type. >> I did not write that barring anonymous authors will be sufficient, but I do think that it will reduce the BS and cruft > Oh, and what if all of authors of wikipedia are under pseudonyms, I mean anonymous? Many give their real life identity in their userpages or reveal it to other contributors during parties. Been there, done that. Therefore they don't act completely anon, and I bet that many (if not most) of the most useful contributors are in this set. Are you having some typing problems?
I'm not sure how much time would've been saved by stopping off in the loo. Well Sherlock, That would depend on the type of activity in the loo, would it not?
Slashdot Mirror
Thanx for the explanation!
Is it me or does anyone else find that just the slightest bit odd? I think that's just FUD.
Wow, only 70% are fully qualified? To be more precise, only 2/3 are fully qualified.
Some rough analogy with the analog photography would be giving somebody to develop your black and white negatives instead developing them yourself.
Good example is photography: In the analog photography you use patented equipment and processes all the time: cameras, lenses, film, paper, chemicals, etc. and at the end here comes out your beautiful photo that you can copyright, reproduce (digitally or not) and so on.
In the digital photography you take the photo using your digital camera, but at that point you have not produced any object yet, just some binary representation of the photo. You might not even be able to see that photo ever unless you agree to terms of the license agreement of the encoder, period.