The degree of the biological component to racism is inconsequential to the "wrongness" of racism
True, but unless I'm missing something, these studies don't demonstrate a biological component of racism, they merely demonstrate the existence of racist behavior. That has no bearing on the 'nature or nurture' question.
Assuming that's true: meh. It's still a whole lot better than nothing. This isn't the ideal FOSS business model, but I don't see it as something to be too bitter about.
To be fair, one might continue to use the word 'interpreter' even if the program uses JIT-compilation, as the only other term we have for such programs is 'virtual machine', which can be confusing.
The proper description of a modern JVM would be something like a software implementation of a Java bytecode machine which uses both interpretation and JIT-compilation, in mixed-mode execution.
'Interpreter' has two definitions, I guess. This isn't to say that shaitand's original comment uses the term correctly, though: when we're talking gory details of a build system, 'interpret' is only used to refer to the more precise of its two definitions, i.e. something like a switch/case-based interpreter.
And of course, shaitand is utterly mistaken to put:
The only difference between a compiler and an interpreter is when they perform compilation.
I accept this is merely a disagreement in the meanings of terms, but really: interpretation is absolutely not another term for JIT compilation. Interpretation in the traditional sense is a switch/case loop, i.e. the code being interpreted is never translated all the way into a block of native code for direct execution, it's instead.... interpreted (there's no better word for it).
The word 'compiler' does not necessarily mean 'ahead of time'. Compilation can be applied ahead-of-time, or just-in-time. It's compilation either way.
You could argue that JIT compilation is a way of accelerating an interpreter. I don't like this use of the term. For that matter, neither does Sun: it's why they went with 'virtual machine', as the implementation might use compilation, or might just be an interpreter.
What difference does it make if the step which interprets the bytecode is executed as bare hardware or slower software? All software can be converted 1:1 to hardware.
Well... whatever. How things work in the real world is that the graphics driver generates code in the ISA of the GPU, which the GPU then executes.
We won't see LLVM-in-hardware, for the same reason we don't see Java-in-hardware. Software compilers work well, and allow for hardware that's aimed at being really fast, not at accepting some inappropriate ISA. Also, that hardware wouldn't play nice with other APIs like Direct3D.
You don't compile bytecode, you compile to byte code
I can't tell if you're just being obtuse, but: the developer compiles shader language to bytecode, and the graphics driver compiles bytecode to GPU native-code. Both of these stages qualify as compilation. (They're both level-reducing language-transformations.)
The entire point is that byte code is interpreted at runtime.
No. There's no way in hell that anyone's seriously suggesting running graphics code in an interpreter. Again, it will be compiled by the graphics driver. (We could call this 'JIT compilation', but this term doesn't seem to have caught on in the context of graphics.)
building native execution of the bytecode would be fastest
I disagree. Marketing is studying what potential customers actually want.
Not really. They care about what sells, no?
If you ask a customer whether they want an unnecessary new style on the new OS, they might say no, but at the same time, they'll complain that it's just the same old OS if it looks similar to the old one.
The rich dark blend effect: ask someone what coffee is their favourite, and they'll tell you they like a rich dark blend from a high-quality bean. But when it comes to it, they'll take their Starbucks mocha over an actual rich dark blend.
I wish humanity in general never got rid of the concept of "prison islands" and deported people that whined too much, were lazy or otherwise shit at everything.
What a shame. You were doing so well decrying the idiocy we too often see, and then that.
Yes, interestingly the US customers are also backing away from Chinese products for the same reasons the Chinese are backing away from American products. So who is hurt again?
Quite possibly both. It's only likely to 'balance out' if there's an American product equivalent for every Chinese product, and vice-versa.
Slashdot Mirror
The degree of the biological component to racism is inconsequential to the "wrongness" of racism
True, but unless I'm missing something, these studies don't demonstrate a biological component of racism, they merely demonstrate the existence of racist behavior. That has no bearing on the 'nature or nurture' question.
Bitcoins are 100% traceable
Not in any meaningful sense of the word 'traceable', no. As you yourself go on to explain. Why lead with an untruth?
and only will gain in value over time.
You sure about that? It's hardly known for its economic stability...
The new development is the small console, not SHIELD/GRID itself.
Sounds a lot like OnLive's 'microconsole', except with some real horsepower.
Sounds like another argument in favour of HTTPS for everything.
Assuming that's true: meh. It's still a whole lot better than nothing. This isn't the ideal FOSS business model, but I don't see it as something to be too bitter about.
I am sure the only reason the next gen console makers picked AMD is because AMD offered them bulk prices that they could not ignore
Also AMD were able to put CPU and GPU on one chip. And were able to let Sony have their way using GDDR5 for the PS4's main memory, rather than DDR3.
To be fair, one might continue to use the word 'interpreter' even if the program uses JIT-compilation, as the only other term we have for such programs is 'virtual machine', which can be confusing.
The proper description of a modern JVM would be something like a software implementation of a Java bytecode machine which uses both interpretation and JIT-compilation, in mixed-mode execution.
'Interpreter' has two definitions, I guess. This isn't to say that shaitand's original comment uses the term correctly, though: when we're talking gory details of a build system, 'interpret' is only used to refer to the more precise of its two definitions, i.e. something like a switch/case-based interpreter.
And of course, shaitand is utterly mistaken to put:
The only difference between a compiler and an interpreter is when they perform compilation.
I accept this is merely a disagreement in the meanings of terms, but really: interpretation is absolutely not another term for JIT compilation. Interpretation in the traditional sense is a switch/case loop, i.e. the code being interpreted is never translated all the way into a block of native code for direct execution, it's instead.... interpreted (there's no better word for it).
The word 'compiler' does not necessarily mean 'ahead of time'. Compilation can be applied ahead-of-time, or just-in-time. It's compilation either way.
You could argue that JIT compilation is a way of accelerating an interpreter. I don't like this use of the term. For that matter, neither does Sun: it's why they went with 'virtual machine', as the implementation might use compilation, or might just be an interpreter.
What difference does it make if the step which interprets the bytecode is executed as bare hardware or slower software? All software can be converted 1:1 to hardware.
Well... whatever. How things work in the real world is that the graphics driver generates code in the ISA of the GPU, which the GPU then executes.
We won't see LLVM-in-hardware, for the same reason we don't see Java-in-hardware. Software compilers work well, and allow for hardware that's aimed at being really fast, not at accepting some inappropriate ISA. Also, that hardware wouldn't play nice with other APIs like Direct3D.
You mean along with Direct3D?
Is this really something OpenGL didn't previously do?
Yup that's right, it's previously gone with the distribute-your-shader-in-source-form approach. That 'graphics driver' includes most of a C compiler.
Incidentally, OpenCL is making a similar transition, also to an LLVM-based IR.
s/assembly/binary/
You don't compile bytecode, you compile to byte code
I can't tell if you're just being obtuse, but: the developer compiles shader language to bytecode, and the graphics driver compiles bytecode to GPU native-code. Both of these stages qualify as compilation. (They're both level-reducing language-transformations.)
The entire point is that byte code is interpreted at runtime.
No. There's no way in hell that anyone's seriously suggesting running graphics code in an interpreter. Again, it will be compiled by the graphics driver. (We could call this 'JIT compilation', but this term doesn't seem to have caught on in the context of graphics.)
building native execution of the bytecode would be fastest
Why not call this what it is? It's compilation.
They tend not to be terribly feature-rich, though.
Objective-C++: the ultimate bastard-child language.
C++ is already arguably 4 languages: the preprocessor, C++ core, templates, and the constexpr subset. Now to throw Objective-C into the mix...
I admit it's a neat hack though. Very cool that it actually works, and a nice bit of work by the compiler guys.
This is the inevitable result of outsourcing all your IT work to the lowest bidder.
And of having no real liability.
Last updated January of last year.
My Slashdot pedantry for the day: I'm sure you mean advocating, not about.
JAVA
It's a small point, but a pet-peeve of mine: the language is not, and to my knowledge never was, called "JAVA".
It's "Java".
We'll all go see it anyways.
Not me. If it gets an awful reception, I'm not going to see it in the cinema 'just because'.
As with all these things, I remain cautiously optimistic.
It goes against all the laws of nature
If you mean to say I personally don't like the idea then just come out and say it. Don't waste our time with the 'laws of nature' garbage.
I disagree. Marketing is studying what potential customers actually want.
Not really. They care about what sells, no?
If you ask a customer whether they want an unnecessary new style on the new OS, they might say no, but at the same time, they'll complain that it's just the same old OS if it looks similar to the old one.
The rich dark blend effect: ask someone what coffee is their favourite, and they'll tell you they like a rich dark blend from a high-quality bean. But when it comes to it, they'll take their Starbucks mocha over an actual rich dark blend.
I wish humanity in general never got rid of the concept of "prison islands" and deported people that whined too much, were lazy or otherwise shit at everything.
What a shame. You were doing so well decrying the idiocy we too often see, and then that.
Yes, interestingly the US customers are also backing away from Chinese products for the same reasons the Chinese are backing away from American products. So who is hurt again?
Quite possibly both. It's only likely to 'balance out' if there's an American product equivalent for every Chinese product, and vice-versa.
Is Pewdiepie a douche? I mean, he's a bit annoying, and crazy popular, but is there anything particularly dislikeable about him?