Welcome to the new world where cars can be hacked thanks to all their electronics.
As opposed to the old world where a car that didn't have any sophisticated electronics was trivial for someone to steal?
Trivial to steal is not the same as impossible to hack. I'd rather have my car stolen than remote-controlled, thank you very much. It takes a very special kind of stupidity that prefers to be have their car remote-controlled over being stolen.
Why would you NOT use the e-brake in an Emergency? You are barrelling down the highway at 70mph when your oil filter lets go. Your engine overheats and fails within seconds. Do you a) do nothing or b) use the ebrake to slow down and pull over? why would you not want to save your own life?
Because locking my back wheels at 70mph isn't going to end well for me. I'd use the normal brakes (which still work fine without the benefit of servo assist) so at least I'd have partial steering.
I've safely stopped a car from 120km/h when the hydraulic braking system failed by using the emergency brake. You use it gently to slow down, and gear down as well. There is no need to yank it all the way up - you can modulate the pressure you exert so that the wheels never lock up.
How did you read "shouldn't" and in your mind understand "should stop"? If I say "people shouldn't steal" do you understand that yo mean "you should stop stealing"?
Your rage has literally made you blind, unable to comprehend what I wrote.
You shouldn't project your emotionally charged state onto others.
I don't feel harassed or oppressed when people suggest I shouldn't abuse women.
An AC below said it best: By the very same logic you should also believe that black people should not feel harassed when other races suggest that black people should just stop thieving?
Go on - give us an answer - should black people feel harassed when they are told repeatedly that they should stop being thieves.
I'm a man and I don't need to validate myself by harassing people, and I don't feel harassed or oppressed when people suggest I shouldn't abuse women.
Then you're an idiot. If someone were to tell me to stop abusing women even though I am not actually doing so I get annoyed by their implication that I am abusing women. Telling a whole class of people "you should abusing women" is very very inappropriate. You are the one that's going around offending people with vague and unsubstantiated allegations about their behaviour, and then you scream oppression when they tell you (rightly) to fuck off.
Lesson: Sometimes it's not your fault. If you've looked over your code and can't figure out why it's crashing, try running it on another computer.
That won't help at all - invoking undefined behaviour could make it behave when running on a another computer. Seeing your code work on another computer tells you nothing at all.
There's no point listing the cons without listing the pros too. EVs are nicer to drive,
Subjective, so this point isn't a "pro".
cleaner (in all senses),
True.
often have a lower total cost of ownership,
Depends. Not always. Not everywhere. Not for everyone. For the vast majority of the population, EV isn't cheaper.
need far less servicing,
Definitely not. Maybe *slightly* less, but even that is doubtful too. Current IC engines *will* last for hundreds of thousands of miles with nothing more than filters/plugs/oil being changed. The electric motor + battery will *definitely* not last as long as current IC engines. They (battery, mostly) will need replacement much sooner than my IC engine, and my IC engine is damn cheap to rebuild - around $2500 gives me an engine that will last yet another few hundred thousand miles.
I've got three cars, the newest of which is 10 years old this year and has completed 180000km. My total cost for plugs/filters/oil for the newest over the last 9 years has been (less than 2 services per year @ avg $50/service), comes to around $1k. The ICE has never broken down, but I did spend $2k on renewing the cooling system (water-pump, thermostat, anti-freeze) which the EV won't have (or need).
My oldest car is 15 years old and has over 300000km on the clock, and cost over that time for plugs/filters/oil and cooling system renewal and a single engine failure (coil-pack) is under $2k. It's my daily driver right now.
So now I'm wondering how you figure that EV's need less servicing/cost less/etc - replacing batteries will happen every five - seven years, at a cost that is around $5k - $7k, won't they?
I, together with many of the other people who don't have an ideology to speak off, will jump on the EV bandwagon the minute it becomes cheaper to do so. We've been waiting now for a decade for the prices to fall; if we're that patient you just *know* that we'll wait a little while longer.
Seriously, for EV to take off it needs to be cheaper. A poster upthread pointed out that second-hand cars are no longer a fraction of the new price - they are closely priced, and this results in people who buy a car believing that they can get 50% of their money back in 5 years when they sell it. For an EV, in five years the cost of the battery might be more than the cost of the car, so these people (like me) know we won't get anything back. So it's not cheaper to go with EV.
Even if it were proven that the drone was being operated by a perv looking to oogle his daughters, firing into the air in a residential area because of a drone is inexcusable. Let's see where the shot that missed the drone would have/did land.
Are you really that slow a learner? Multiple times you were told that birdshot would come down safely, yet here you are continuing to parrot that incorrect line.
"ready or likely to attack or confront;" or "pursuing one's aims and interests forcefully, sometimes unduly so." He directly threatened them with potentially lethal force if they stepped on his property. I'm not saying he was/wasn't within his rights, but he definitely was aggressive.
Nope. As far as I can tell, if you tell someone they are not allowed on your property, and they and three of their buddies make it clear they are going to ignore your wishes, then *they* are being aggressive, at which point it is self-defence if gang-of-four invades your property against your wishes - you have nowhere else to run to.
And we've used up all the easily accessible wood, coal and oil so it may be impossible to ignite an industrial revolution the second time around
Slight nitpick: As yet, there is no shortage of any of those resources here on earth. There are, of course, local shortages. I suspect you are living on the British Isles?
He didn't say there was a shortage, he said we have used up all the easily accessible resources. The resources left need a lot of technological advancement to get at, which we won't have if we *need* to ignite a second industrial revolution.
According to some sources, there are over a million English words. Some arent suitable to be used, but let's assume that at least 500000 are usable.
Not even great Scrabble players have 500,000 word vocabularies. Fewer than 200,000 of those words are in current use. Most of us live with 20,000 or so words we'll recognize as words and actually use only 1000-2000.
Yeah, and all the user has to do is place in *a single non-english phrase* from their favourite fantasy book/dream destination/scifi series/song and they've suddenly broken the attackers ability *as well as* possessing a password that they can easily remember. "correct horse? je t@ime staple" is almost never going to be broken. Nor is "correct horse? luke's lightsabr3 staple", nor "correct horse? fr0do of the shire staple", etc...
All of those are easy to remember, easy to type in but still orders of magnitude harder to break than "8 printable chars " or whatever nonsense the IT department came up with last week. Go ahead - try your rainbow table dictionary attack against "correct horse? samuel vimes 0f ankh-morpork staple" and let us know how it goes. We'll wait.
I note that you aren't addressing the fact that Ms Wu herself has no record of filing a case. You can claim police incompetent all you want, but you have no actual fact to back up the claim of police incompetence. Rather than claim a grand conspiracy, I'd prefer to stick with the known facts instead of who claims what. The only fact that remains is that Ms Wu has no record associated with filing a case.
FWIW, now that the case presumably *is* filed, there is apparently not enough credibility in her claims to pursue, which makes you whole argument about whether she is lying moot.
I think the real irony is that you are dismissing circletimesquare's post on the pre-formed assumption that anything you consider to be SJW-y is automatically worthless.
Nope, I pointed out (politely, mind) that he found *some* way to work his personal belief system into the conversation. Proselytizing is almost never welcome.
It's a handy bot-like way of avoiding discussion about what people actually say.
Hmm... He said...
... douchebag... fucking... attitude... social disorder
Because... that's the correct way to respond to someone being dismissive? I can see why CS is an attractive and desirable place for females...
BTW, this thread is an excellent example of why females aren't happy in the CS environment. I plan to link to it the next time some forward thinking intellectual goes on about CS being female-hostile. It's just plain hostile to everyone. If women can't handle being called knob-ends then they don't belong, right?
For someone who claims it isn't his ideology or religion, you argue very tirelessly and in great volume.
Well, that just it, isn't it? Absence of an ideology is the same as absence of a religion - just because I contradict your ideologically-driven claims doesn't mean that I have an ideology of my own, in much the same way that just because I contradict claims of a god doesn't mean I have a god-based claim of my own - "baldness is not a hair colour".
With emotion loaded writing too.
Nope. You send your little insults my way and, like the way I deal with all theists, I stick to what facts are known.
Nonetheless, I'll allow you your little self deceptions and ignore that.
Sounds like from the article that something went wrong with the report and it is now in fact with the police.
Doesn't sound like that at all - there is no ambiguity from LEO's statement - no report was filed. They did not say a report was *lost*, or *miscommunicated*, or anything. Not only did they say that no report was filed, they go further and say that there was no contact from Ms Wu either.
She neither contacted them nor filed a report. By her own accounts, she never had a case number either (meaning, it was never filed with the police).
Are you now going to claim that the police never foul up and "lose" hard to prosecute crimes that take a lot of work and ruin the department statistics?
That's a god-of-the-gaps argument if I ever saw one - "If there is no evidence connecting $X and $Z, then it *MUST* be this thing-that-can't-be-proven $Y. Our evidence exists in the gaps between the steps."
Face it - if she at least had a case number, or the name of the officer who took down the report, hell... even the *date* she claims she made the report she might be believable. She has no record of ever approaching the police, no case number nor a name or description of the officer who helped her. The LEO's are standing firm on this as well - they have no record.
It's hilarious. Whenever something related to law enforcement comes up, the prevailing opinion is all over their incompetence especially with regard to tech. But now everyone's insisting that she must be lying because law enforcement could never do a bad job.
Where did we claim that? I personally claimed that, according to all the evidence that we have, there is no record of her approaching the police - none that she can provide and certainly none that the police can provide. If she wanted her claim to be taken seriously she should have at least kept the case number you get for filing an incident with the cops.
In this case at least, there is little doubt that she lied.
Whether he can actually produce a compiler than will insert the necessary memory fetch instructions at compile time in an efficient manner remains to be seen
That's not the hard bit of the problem. Compiler-aided prefetching is fairly well understood.
I honestly thought that was the difficult part; it's halting-problem hard, if I understand correctly. If you cannot predict whether a program will ever reach the end-state, then you cannot predict if it will ever reach *any* particular state. To know whether to prefetch something requires you to have knowledge about the program's future state.
To my knowledge prediction of program state only works if your predicting a *very* short time in the future (say, no more than a hundred instructions). If you're limited to that then the best you can do is
branch prediction or similar (only a few hundred instructions?). This is why the cache helps - if you use something then the probability is high you will use it again soon. Compilers can then take limited advantage of this by locality of variables/instructions.
The problem is the eviction. Having a good policy for when data won't be referenced in the future is hard.
It's the negation of the problem of deciding what *will* be needed in some future state. This makes it equally hard (halting-problem hard) to deciding what to prefetch. For both problems it appears to me that computer science has already settled on "no solution" as the answer to the question "can we predict the programs future state?". NP-hard is NP-hard, no matter how much engineering talent is thrown at it; it remains mathematically impossible. Hence, I figure that what this kid has got is some great new mitigation scheme for program state prediction. That, or maybe he skipped the automata theory classes (I see that a lot with engineers-turned-programmers).
(I think - feel free to correct my understanding).
Wow that breitbart article. It's like Fox news in print.
I like the smooth moving between different views to make it seem like various things are conflated.
I like how you selectively snipped to ignore the bit that the police report is, in fact filed. Sound like she filed it and the police fouled up (something which seems to happen a lot) then did nothing, then got caught on the back foot by a media storm.
You can interpret it that way, certainly - the fact is that the official line from LEO is that she made no report. We can't really blame LEO for not investigating if she refused to make a report, now can we?
IOW you managed to post an incredibly biased article that upon careful reading completely goes against your point.
You asked if I claimed that she was lying. I posted the actual law enforcements report on the matter which indicate that yes, she is lying.
*high five*
At this point your precious feels will be seeting over. The world doesn't care by the way.
How my feels sit, sith, or seet (whatever the hell your mangled spelling was supposed to mean) is irrelevant because this is not my ideology nor my faith. The world is not supposed to care how I feel, just like it doesn't care how you feel. What eventually matters are the facts, and the facts are that Ms Wu did not report the "horrific harrassment" she supposedly endured, and then she lied about reporting it.
So you a are literally claiming that she's flat-out telling lies about the FBI investigating right now?
Yes. She is *literally* lying now, like she *literally* *lied* all those other times. This is the official response from law enforcement
A police report or investigation as to Brianna Wu has not been filed or referred to this office. That is the normal method to report a crime, cause an investigation or seek a prosecution. Brianna Wu has had no contact with anyone in this office or the cyber stalking unit of the city prosecutors office. Brianna Wu has not provided any evidence to this office, including any tapes of phone calls allegedly received.
... from the same link...
Wu claims the latest anonymous phone call also came from from #GamerGate, but the voice recording she uploaded contains no mention of the gamers’ movement. Archived threads from the 8ch.net discussion forum reveal that Wu’s phone number had in fact been targeted by/baphomet/, a community that is explicitly hostile to #GamerGate. As well as revealing the personal information of high-profile supporters of #GamerGate, baphomet posters have also been known known to pose as ‘members’ of the movement in order to discredit it. In further evidence that the latest ‘threat’ is an online hoax in the vein of Jace Connors, the recording also makes reference to “you laugh you lose threads” being “f**king retarded”, a reference to a popular in-joke on the anonymous imageboards frequented by web pranksters.
... and yet, it seems the only credible danger was *to* GG *from* anti-GG...
So far, the only threat deemed “credible” by the authorities has been an anonymous bomb threat made against a gathering of #GamerGate supporters in Washington D.C. earlier this month.
Be plain. Vague insinuations are a scoundrel's game.
Plainly? The only credible aggression is from the ideological crusade side. Hell, even on/. the only non-AC aggression is from SJW who are the first to post aggressive, name-calling, verbal abuse and (in cases involving poperatso) actual threats. Not that I find the threats credible, but that's *your* side that needs to learn how to communicate like adults. Maybe you should deal with the aggression coming from your ideological partners before asking the rest of the world to do so first.
Slashdot Mirror
As opposed to the old world where a car that didn't have any sophisticated electronics was trivial for someone to steal?
Trivial to steal is not the same as impossible to hack. I'd rather have my car stolen than remote-controlled, thank you very much. It takes a very special kind of stupidity that prefers to be have their car remote-controlled over being stolen.
Why would you NOT use the e-brake in an Emergency? You are barrelling down the highway at 70mph when your oil filter lets go. Your engine overheats and fails within seconds. Do you a) do nothing or b) use the ebrake to slow down and pull over? why would you not want to save your own life?
Because locking my back wheels at 70mph isn't going to end well for me. I'd use the normal brakes (which still work fine without the benefit of servo assist) so at least I'd have partial steering.
I've safely stopped a car from 120km/h when the hydraulic braking system failed by using the emergency brake. You use it gently to slow down, and gear down as well. There is no need to yank it all the way up - you can modulate the pressure you exert so that the wheels never lock up.
How did you read "shouldn't" and in your mind understand "should stop"? If I say "people shouldn't steal" do you understand that yo mean "you should stop stealing"?
Your rage has literally made you blind, unable to comprehend what I wrote.
You shouldn't project your emotionally charged state onto others.
(See how the word "shouldn't" works?)
Men don't need to be taught not to [...] harass.
So the stalky guy I saw who camped outside the ladie's toilets so make sure the subject of his stalkiness didn't need to be taught not to do that?
He needed that teaching. What makes you think men need that same teaching? (I know, I know, if one man does it it means all men do it... right?)
I don't feel harassed or oppressed when people suggest I shouldn't abuse women.
An AC below said it best: By the very same logic you should also believe that black people should not feel harassed when other races suggest that black people should just stop thieving?
Go on - give us an answer - should black people feel harassed when they are told repeatedly that they should stop being thieves.
I'm a man and I don't need to validate myself by harassing people, and I don't feel harassed or oppressed when people suggest I shouldn't abuse women.
Then you're an idiot. If someone were to tell me to stop abusing women even though I am not actually doing so I get annoyed by their implication that I am abusing women. Telling a whole class of people "you should abusing women" is very very inappropriate. You are the one that's going around offending people with vague and unsubstantiated allegations about their behaviour, and then you scream oppression when they tell you (rightly) to fuck off.
"Since I got out of jail, though, I've realized how much the hyperlink has been devalued, almost made obsolete."
We've learned that linking is bad, because the link might be dead tomorrow.
Lesson: Sometimes it's not your fault. If you've looked over your code and can't figure out why it's crashing, try running it on another computer.
That won't help at all - invoking undefined behaviour could make it behave when running on a another computer. Seeing your code work on another computer tells you nothing at all.
"tough bugs weren't my fault"
There's no point listing the cons without listing the pros too. EVs are nicer to drive,
Subjective, so this point isn't a "pro".
cleaner (in all senses),
True.
often have a lower total cost of ownership,
Depends. Not always. Not everywhere. Not for everyone. For the vast majority of the population, EV isn't cheaper.
need far less servicing,
Definitely not. Maybe *slightly* less, but even that is doubtful too. Current IC engines *will* last for hundreds of thousands of miles with nothing more than filters/plugs/oil being changed. The electric motor + battery will *definitely* not last as long as current IC engines. They (battery, mostly) will need replacement much sooner than my IC engine, and my IC engine is damn cheap to rebuild - around $2500 gives me an engine that will last yet another few hundred thousand miles.
I've got three cars, the newest of which is 10 years old this year and has completed 180000km. My total cost for plugs/filters/oil for the newest over the last 9 years has been (less than 2 services per year @ avg $50/service), comes to around $1k. The ICE has never broken down, but I did spend $2k on renewing the cooling system (water-pump, thermostat, anti-freeze) which the EV won't have (or need).
My oldest car is 15 years old and has over 300000km on the clock, and cost over that time for plugs/filters/oil and cooling system renewal and a single engine failure (coil-pack) is under $2k. It's my daily driver right now.
So now I'm wondering how you figure that EV's need less servicing/cost less/etc - replacing batteries will happen every five - seven years, at a cost that is around $5k - $7k, won't they?
I, together with many of the other people who don't have an ideology to speak off, will jump on the EV bandwagon the minute it becomes cheaper to do so. We've been waiting now for a decade for the prices to fall; if we're that patient you just *know* that we'll wait a little while longer.
Seriously, for EV to take off it needs to be cheaper. A poster upthread pointed out that second-hand cars are no longer a fraction of the new price - they are closely priced, and this results in people who buy a car believing that they can get 50% of their money back in 5 years when they sell it. For an EV, in five years the cost of the battery might be more than the cost of the car, so these people (like me) know we won't get anything back. So it's not cheaper to go with EV.
When it gets cheaper, we'll buy it.
and you can make it's fuel yourself at home.
Car ownership is a form of freedom from those who control other forms of transportation, and I'd hate to see that go away.
So putting yourself into debt and/or signing an onerous lease agreement is a form of freedom?
I'm sure glad that your monthly car payments give you freedom from those who espouse walking and bicycling.
I own three cars. I don't have monthly car payments.
?
* brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department brought you this message
*That's* the full joke (is it still funny if you have to explain it?)
Even if it were proven that the drone was being operated by a perv looking to oogle his daughters, firing into the air in a residential area because of a drone is inexcusable. Let's see where the shot that missed the drone would have/did land.
Are you really that slow a learner? Multiple times you were told that birdshot would come down safely, yet here you are continuing to parrot that incorrect line.
From TFA: "Hillview Police detective Charles McWhirter says you can't fire your gun in the city"
TFA and your quote doesn't say he was charged with firing a gun. TFA says he was charged with what amounts to disturbing the peace.
If someone parked a car in your driveway and it had a dashboard camera, that doesn't give you the right to shoot at it with a shotgun.
This wasn't in his driveway. Technically, it went indoors (under the patio), so it wasn't even in his yard at all times - it was in his house!
"ready or likely to attack or confront;" or "pursuing one's aims and interests forcefully, sometimes unduly so." He directly threatened them with potentially lethal force if they stepped on his property. I'm not saying he was/wasn't within his rights, but he definitely was aggressive.
Nope. As far as I can tell, if you tell someone they are not allowed on your property, and they and three of their buddies make it clear they are going to ignore your wishes, then *they* are being aggressive, at which point it is self-defence if gang-of-four invades your property against your wishes - you have nowhere else to run to.
And we've used up all the easily accessible wood, coal and oil so it may be impossible to ignite an industrial revolution the second time around
Slight nitpick: As yet, there is no shortage of any of those resources here on earth. There are, of course, local shortages. I suspect you are living on the British Isles?
He didn't say there was a shortage, he said we have used up all the easily accessible resources. The resources left need a lot of technological advancement to get at, which we won't have if we *need* to ignite a second industrial revolution.
According to some sources, there are over a million English words. Some arent suitable to be used, but let's assume that at least 500000 are usable.
Not even great Scrabble players have 500,000 word vocabularies. Fewer than 200,000 of those words are in current use. Most of us live with 20,000 or so words we'll recognize as words and actually use only 1000-2000.
Yeah, and all the user has to do is place in *a single non-english phrase* from their favourite fantasy book/dream destination/scifi series/song and they've suddenly broken the attackers ability *as well as* possessing a password that they can easily remember. "correct horse? je t@ime staple" is almost never going to be broken. Nor is "correct horse? luke's lightsabr3 staple", nor "correct horse? fr0do of the shire staple", etc...
All of those are easy to remember, easy to type in but still orders of magnitude harder to break than "8 printable chars " or whatever nonsense the IT department came up with last week. Go ahead - try your rainbow table dictionary attack against "correct horse? samuel vimes 0f ankh-morpork staple" and let us know how it goes. We'll wait.
I note that you aren't addressing the fact that Ms Wu herself has no record of filing a case. You can claim police incompetent all you want, but you have no actual fact to back up the claim of police incompetence. Rather than claim a grand conspiracy, I'd prefer to stick with the known facts instead of who claims what. The only fact that remains is that Ms Wu has no record associated with filing a case.
FWIW, now that the case presumably *is* filed, there is apparently not enough credibility in her claims to pursue, which makes you whole argument about whether she is lying moot.
I think the real irony is that you are dismissing circletimesquare's post on the pre-formed assumption that anything you consider to be SJW-y is automatically worthless.
Nope, I pointed out (politely, mind) that he found *some* way to work his personal belief system into the conversation. Proselytizing is almost never welcome.
It's a handy bot-like way of avoiding discussion about what people actually say.
Hmm... He said...
... douchebag ... fucking ... attitude ... social disorder
Because... that's the correct way to respond to someone being dismissive? I can see why CS is an attractive and desirable place for females...
BTW, this thread is an excellent example of why females aren't happy in the CS environment. I plan to link to it the next time some forward thinking intellectual goes on about CS being female-hostile. It's just plain hostile to everyone. If women can't handle being called knob-ends then they don't belong, right?
Do you realise that you veered off into your SJW rant?
Do you realise that anyone using the term SJW unironically is a complete knob-end?
Insults, derision, micro-aggression - yup! We don't have a clue why there aren't more females in CS.
You seem to have malformedyour formatting.
For someone who claims it isn't his ideology or religion, you argue very tirelessly and in great volume.
Well, that just it, isn't it? Absence of an ideology is the same as absence of a religion - just because I contradict your ideologically-driven claims doesn't mean that I have an ideology of my own, in much the same way that just because I contradict claims of a god doesn't mean I have a god-based claim of my own - "baldness is not a hair colour".
With emotion loaded writing too.
Nope. You send your little insults my way and, like the way I deal with all theists, I stick to what facts are known.
Nonetheless, I'll allow you your little self deceptions and ignore that.
Sounds like from the article that something went wrong with the report and it is now in fact with the police.
Doesn't sound like that at all - there is no ambiguity from LEO's statement - no report was filed. They did not say a report was *lost*, or *miscommunicated*, or anything. Not only did they say that no report was filed, they go further and say that there was no contact from Ms Wu either. She neither contacted them nor filed a report. By her own accounts, she never had a case number either (meaning, it was never filed with the police).
Are you now going to claim that the police never foul up and "lose" hard to prosecute crimes that take a lot of work and ruin the department statistics?
That's a god-of-the-gaps argument if I ever saw one - "If there is no evidence connecting $X and $Z, then it *MUST* be this thing-that-can't-be-proven $Y. Our evidence exists in the gaps between the steps." Face it - if she at least had a case number, or the name of the officer who took down the report, hell... even the *date* she claims she made the report she might be believable. She has no record of ever approaching the police, no case number nor a name or description of the officer who helped her. The LEO's are standing firm on this as well - they have no record.
It's hilarious. Whenever something related to law enforcement comes up, the prevailing opinion is all over their incompetence especially with regard to tech. But now everyone's insisting that she must be lying because law enforcement could never do a bad job.
Where did we claim that? I personally claimed that, according to all the evidence that we have, there is no record of her approaching the police - none that she can provide and certainly none that the police can provide. If she wanted her claim to be taken seriously she should have at least kept the case number you get for filing an incident with the cops.
In this case at least, there is little doubt that she lied.
Whether he can actually produce a compiler than will insert the necessary memory fetch instructions at compile time in an efficient manner remains to be seen
That's not the hard bit of the problem. Compiler-aided prefetching is fairly well understood.
I honestly thought that was the difficult part; it's halting-problem hard, if I understand correctly. If you cannot predict whether a program will ever reach the end-state, then you cannot predict if it will ever reach *any* particular state. To know whether to prefetch something requires you to have knowledge about the program's future state.
To my knowledge prediction of program state only works if your predicting a *very* short time in the future (say, no more than a hundred instructions). If you're limited to that then the best you can do is branch prediction or similar (only a few hundred instructions?). This is why the cache helps - if you use something then the probability is high you will use it again soon. Compilers can then take limited advantage of this by locality of variables/instructions.
The problem is the eviction. Having a good policy for when data won't be referenced in the future is hard.
It's the negation of the problem of deciding what *will* be needed in some future state. This makes it equally hard (halting-problem hard) to deciding what to prefetch. For both problems it appears to me that computer science has already settled on "no solution" as the answer to the question "can we predict the programs future state?". NP-hard is NP-hard, no matter how much engineering talent is thrown at it; it remains mathematically impossible. Hence, I figure that what this kid has got is some great new mitigation scheme for program state prediction. That, or maybe he skipped the automata theory classes (I see that a lot with engineers-turned-programmers).
(I think - feel free to correct my understanding).
Wow that breitbart article. It's like Fox news in print.
I like the smooth moving between different views to make it seem like various things are conflated.
I like how you selectively snipped to ignore the bit that the police report is, in fact filed. Sound like she filed it and the police fouled up (something which seems to happen a lot) then did nothing, then got caught on the back foot by a media storm.
You can interpret it that way, certainly - the fact is that the official line from LEO is that she made no report. We can't really blame LEO for not investigating if she refused to make a report, now can we?
IOW you managed to post an incredibly biased article that upon careful reading completely goes against your point.
You asked if I claimed that she was lying. I posted the actual law enforcements report on the matter which indicate that yes, she is lying.
*high five*
At this point your precious feels will be seeting over. The world doesn't care by the way.
How my feels sit, sith, or seet (whatever the hell your mangled spelling was supposed to mean) is irrelevant because this is not my ideology nor my faith. The world is not supposed to care how I feel, just like it doesn't care how you feel. What eventually matters are the facts, and the facts are that Ms Wu did not report the "horrific harrassment" she supposedly endured, and then she lied about reporting it.
So you a are literally claiming that she's flat-out telling lies about the FBI investigating right now?
Yes. She is *literally* lying now, like she *literally* *lied* all those other times. This is the official response from law enforcement
A police report or investigation as to Brianna Wu has not been filed or referred to this office. That is the normal method to report a crime, cause an investigation or seek a prosecution. Brianna Wu has had no contact with anyone in this office or the cyber stalking unit of the city prosecutors office. Brianna Wu has not provided any evidence to this office, including any tapes of phone calls allegedly received.
... from the same link ...
Wu claims the latest anonymous phone call also came from from #GamerGate, but the voice recording she uploaded contains no mention of the gamers’ movement. Archived threads from the 8ch.net discussion forum reveal that Wu’s phone number had in fact been targeted by /baphomet/, a community that is explicitly hostile to #GamerGate. As well as revealing the personal information of high-profile supporters of #GamerGate, baphomet posters have also been known known to pose as ‘members’ of the movement in order to discredit it. In further evidence that the latest ‘threat’ is an online hoax in the vein of Jace Connors, the recording also makes reference to “you laugh you lose threads” being “f**king retarded”, a reference to a popular in-joke on the anonymous imageboards frequented by web pranksters.
... and yet, it seems the only credible danger was *to* GG *from* anti-GG ...
So far, the only threat deemed “credible” by the authorities has been an anonymous bomb threat made against a gathering of #GamerGate supporters in Washington D.C. earlier this month.
Be plain. Vague insinuations are a scoundrel's game.
Plainly? The only credible aggression is from the ideological crusade side. Hell, even on /. the only non-AC aggression is from SJW who are the first to post aggressive, name-calling, verbal abuse and (in cases involving poperatso) actual threats. Not that I find the threats credible, but that's *your* side that needs to learn how to communicate like adults. Maybe you should deal with the aggression coming from your ideological partners before asking the rest of the world to do so first.