The thing is, this situation is a rare occurrence for most users, and most will be able to seed greater than 1 most of the time.
You are failing at the exact math that you are replying to. For every person greater than 1.00, there is at least one person less than 1.00. This makes it impossible for most users to be over 1.00 most of the time.
People just use the default thing thats given to them. Thats why Netscape failed.
Netscape failed because it was a piece of shit. It was so good at being a piece of shit that the developers attempted to fix things by doing a complete (100%) rewrite. Finally after YEARS the rewrite was done.. with market share already in the toilet.. those that rushed to return to netscape found that the new version was just as big a piece of shit as the old one.
Several patches later, it wasnt such a buggy piece of shit any more.. but by then it was too late. Poor market share and a bad reputation. Nothing saves that.
Just because you discard constants in Big-O notation, that does not mean that they are irrelevant in computational complexity. Base matters, and constants matter.
You know, the bit where he says that the past decade of warming IS anomalous.
The very same researcher said, in 1998, that the (then) last decade (1988-1998) was anomalous.
Now he is saying that no, only this past 10 years (2001-2011) is anomalous?
As pointed out by some studies on his hockey stick, his methodology will always produce hockey sticks at the tail end of the data (even when supplied with random data)
Now he is saying "THOSE 10 years (which used to be the last 10 years) werent actually anomalous.. but if you take a look at the last 10 years..."
Because the license of Crafty and Fruit expressly prohibit that activity. In other words, it's not that nobody else has demonstrated that capability-- it's that everyone else has complied with the license.
The license for FRUIT 2.1 (GPL) definitely does not prohibit the activity of making a better engine. Why do you feel the need to make things up in order to support your beliefs?
These are some of the engines forked from Fruit 2.1:
Toga 2
GrapeFruit
Cyclone
GambitFruit
Now what point were you trying to refute here? Oh yes, that nobody is making a substantially better engine than Fruit based off of Fruit, and your refutation is that the license prohibits it.
So we see that the meat of your refutation.. all of it.. was made up by you! Whats that about? Why you making shit up bro?
Not to mention the fact that he'd have to expose the fact that he borrowed or derived code from those projects when he submitted his entry
Facts not in evidence. There is an accusation, which you are declaring as fact. Nobody else in the world has made an engine even close to as good as this guys engine when they start with Fruit 2.1. Could it be that this guy didnt start with Fruit 2.1? It looks that way.
Whether optimization burns all information concerning the order of local declarations really depends upon the compiler.
VC++, GCC, ICC
All of them BURN the information. Be it either the AST or 3AC methods, after syntax checking, there is no longer even a list of local variables used. Instead there is a list of operations and destinations the compiler needs in order to perform the calculations that satisfy all intentional external side effects (globals, return values), which is not correlated at all with the list of declared variables.
You are right that locals may end up in registers, but you dont seem to know why that is. Its because the entire idea of a local variable as defined by the source IS THROW AWAY. The source code doesnt matter. Only the side effects matter.
Bulldozers wont have on-die graphics like these Llano (Bobcat) CPU's until mid to late 2012 at the earliest.
What should be noted and what isnt well understood is that these "APU's" coming out from AMD are all Bobcat chips. Bobcat is a design directly targeting Intel's Atom market. The review here is for the King of the Bobcat's, the high powered variant weighing in at 100W peek built on the 32nm processes. The low power bobcats only have 80 stream processors (5.9W, 9W, and 18W variants) instead of the 400 stream processors (100W) that this thing has at are on the 40nm process.
All the Bobcat modules have only 2 ALU's and 2 FPU's, and only a 1-channel memory controller, so it is no surprise that it has trouble competing with the i3's. What is surprising is that never-the-less, its competing with the i3's.
These are functions that not only are unique in their purpose to those in Fruit, but which have the exact same binary code, the same local variables, declared in the same order.
You cannot determine what order local variables were declared in, from the binary, if optimizations were enabled.
The idea that this is evidence is proof that those accepting it as evidence have no business doing so.
That much duplication is...
What duplication? I just discredited it as evidence. Anybody familiar with compiler optimizations would know this, and it looks like the people hanging this guy are conveniently ignorant.
From what I gathered from glancing at TFA, the panel was looking at algorithmic similarities, not necessarily code ones.
This is pretty bizarre, considering that for the most part every chess engine uses algorithms that other engines use. For instance, every single one of them uses Zobrist Hashing (there is no alternative that is even close, performance-wise.) A great many use imperfect hash tables (often no collision detection at all!) Piece-Square tables? Yeah they all do that. About half use Bit Boards while most of the rest use a 10x8 scheme. And so on....
So they claim that early versions (which kicked everyones ass) were based on Crafty, and later versions (which kicked even more ass) were based on Fruit. Amazing how the author can pick up someone elses open source chess engine and make them so much better, yet nobody else in the world has demonstrated the same capability to do so.
I'm going to have to go with the theory that this panel of people have a serious conflict of interest, and that its highly likely that they have consciously or unconsciously colluded to eliminate their best rival.
That is exactly what ppl like Obama and Bolden are pushing.
No its not. You are just imagining that your pet favorite president has the same pet favorite ideas as you.
He had House and Senate, and proceeded to spend money at the fastest rate ever in the history of the world.... but just look at NASA's budget.
Actions speak louder than words. You have been wooed yet again into believing that the democrats are something that they are not, by listening to them instead of watching them.
The Democrats just want to give your money to Wall Street. They do it every time, while telling you exactly what you want to hear.
Also not mentioned is that BAPCo is code name for Intel. In fact, BAPCo was sued for constructing SysMark 2002 (which was then shipped directly from Intel's mail rooms when you purchased it from BAPCo) to misrepresent the P4's performance.
If he was trying to build a performance AMD system, he wouldnt have purchased a Deneb-based 955. Hell, even if he built the thing a year ago he could have gotten a Thuban instead of a Deneb.
The translation is "I purchased the very latest Intel design but not the latest AMD design, and then sunk a shitload of money into a water cooling system trying to get that bad CPU choice running faster"
Hence, its not a fair comparison as the grandparent noted. What the great grandparent just demonstrated was his own extremely bad choices.
Your mindset is precisely why you will always be a slave to those that exploit it.
I am a free man, and I have value to offer. I am not a slave, nor do I settle for less than a fair share of that value. I might be tricked into a bad deal, but I will not swallow one willingly.
You will always just be an employee, rather than a partner.
Netbooks are not dead, but their underselling because there are now notebooks cheaper but with the same or better specs as the highest end netbooks..
I am looking at (on newegg:)
ASUS Eee PC netbook with an AMD E-350 for $436 (the fastest netbook you can currently buy)
ACER Aspire One notebook with an AMD E-350 for $380
$56 cheaper, but has a larger 15.6" vs 12.1" screen. The only stat that is better on the netbook is a larger HD (320 GB vs 250 GB.. big deal.. you wouldnt pay $56 for an extra 70 GB of HD space and a spaller screen)
You missed the fact that it did not require a crystal ball to predict current bandwidth needs. Streaming movies was always a problematic issue until, suddenly, bandwidth was enough.
This idea that it requires a crystal ball to know that there simply isnt going to be any mainstream "super high def" industry 5 years from now is a laughable one. Face the facts. We will be using 1920x1080 for the next decade at least, and then any upgrade from that will not be massive increase in resolution (and will be significantly less of an increase in bandwidth needs)
The era of "you cant stream that" is over. These days, you can. Until there is an entirely new form of media, there is simply nothing that you can't stream at the rate that it can be consumed at.
Over-the-air HD video is up to 19 megabits per second, so the equivalent download would require a 4.6 gigabit/second link (at the end-user side; the server side would have to be many times that).
Dont confuse the inefficiencies of an implementation (an MPEG2 encoding) with a limitation in reality. 6 to 8 mbps is quite often more than fine for 1080p with H.264 (same error/pixel as DVD)
Slashdot Mirror
Oh how cute.. another slashdotter that doesnt understand where United States spending bills originate.
Oh how cute.. another slashdotter that doesnt understand where United States spending bills originate.
Debt to GDP ratio uncorrelated with president, but highly correlated with House and Senate
End of debate. You lose.
The grandparent premise is that everyone must maintain near 1.0 on many private trackers. There cant be a 0.4 on said tracker.
The thing is, this situation is a rare occurrence for most users, and most will be able to seed greater than 1 most of the time.
You are failing at the exact math that you are replying to. For every person greater than 1.00, there is at least one person less than 1.00. This makes it impossible for most users to be over 1.00 most of the time.
People just use the default thing thats given to them. Thats why Netscape failed.
Netscape failed because it was a piece of shit. It was so good at being a piece of shit that the developers attempted to fix things by doing a complete (100%) rewrite. Finally after YEARS the rewrite was done.. with market share already in the toilet.. those that rushed to return to netscape found that the new version was just as big a piece of shit as the old one.
Several patches later, it wasnt such a buggy piece of shit any more.. but by then it was too late. Poor market share and a bad reputation. Nothing saves that.
Just because you discard constants in Big-O notation, that does not mean that they are irrelevant in computational complexity. Base matters, and constants matter.
Thats a cultural bias that you are expressing.
It could just as easily be the other way around.
Reports on the graph, but not the methodology.
See the problem?
'log' is always base-2 when talking about computational complexity. 'ln' is reserved for the natural logarithms and is almost never appropriate.
..and that only matters when you are trying to get specific values out of the complexity, which is also almost never appropriate.
Zambezi will not have a GPU on die. The GPU wont appear on a Bulldozer until Trinity.
You know, the bit where he says that the past decade of warming IS anomalous.
The very same researcher said, in 1998, that the (then) last decade (1988-1998) was anomalous.
Now he is saying that no, only this past 10 years (2001-2011) is anomalous?
As pointed out by some studies on his hockey stick, his methodology will always produce hockey sticks at the tail end of the data (even when supplied with random data)
Now he is saying "THOSE 10 years (which used to be the last 10 years) werent actually anomalous.. but if you take a look at the last 10 years..."
Because the license of Crafty and Fruit expressly prohibit that activity. In other words, it's not that nobody else has demonstrated that capability-- it's that everyone else has complied with the license.
The license for FRUIT 2.1 (GPL) definitely does not prohibit the activity of making a better engine. Why do you feel the need to make things up in order to support your beliefs?
These are some of the engines forked from Fruit 2.1:
Toga 2
GrapeFruit
Cyclone
GambitFruit
Now what point were you trying to refute here? Oh yes, that nobody is making a substantially better engine than Fruit based off of Fruit, and your refutation is that the license prohibits it.
So we see that the meat of your refutation.. all of it.. was made up by you! Whats that about? Why you making shit up bro?
Not to mention the fact that he'd have to expose the fact that he borrowed or derived code from those projects when he submitted his entry
Facts not in evidence. There is an accusation, which you are declaring as fact. Nobody else in the world has made an engine even close to as good as this guys engine when they start with Fruit 2.1. Could it be that this guy didnt start with Fruit 2.1? It looks that way.
Whether optimization burns all information concerning the order of local declarations really depends upon the compiler.
VC++, GCC, ICC
All of them BURN the information. Be it either the AST or 3AC methods, after syntax checking, there is no longer even a list of local variables used. Instead there is a list of operations and destinations the compiler needs in order to perform the calculations that satisfy all intentional external side effects (globals, return values), which is not correlated at all with the list of declared variables.
You are right that locals may end up in registers, but you dont seem to know why that is. Its because the entire idea of a local variable as defined by the source IS THROW AWAY. The source code doesnt matter. Only the side effects matter.
Bulldozers wont have on-die graphics like these Llano (Bobcat) CPU's until mid to late 2012 at the earliest.
What should be noted and what isnt well understood is that these "APU's" coming out from AMD are all Bobcat chips. Bobcat is a design directly targeting Intel's Atom market. The review here is for the King of the Bobcat's, the high powered variant weighing in at 100W peek built on the 32nm processes. The low power bobcats only have 80 stream processors (5.9W, 9W, and 18W variants) instead of the 400 stream processors (100W) that this thing has at are on the 40nm process.
All the Bobcat modules have only 2 ALU's and 2 FPU's, and only a 1-channel memory controller, so it is no surprise that it has trouble competing with the i3's. What is surprising is that never-the-less, its competing with the i3's.
These are functions that not only are unique in their purpose to those in Fruit, but which have the exact same binary code, the same local variables, declared in the same order.
You cannot determine what order local variables were declared in, from the binary, if optimizations were enabled.
The idea that this is evidence is proof that those accepting it as evidence have no business doing so.
That much duplication is ...
What duplication? I just discredited it as evidence. Anybody familiar with compiler optimizations would know this, and it looks like the people hanging this guy are conveniently ignorant.
From what I gathered from glancing at TFA, the panel was looking at algorithmic similarities, not necessarily code ones.
This is pretty bizarre, considering that for the most part every chess engine uses algorithms that other engines use. For instance, every single one of them uses Zobrist Hashing (there is no alternative that is even close, performance-wise.) A great many use imperfect hash tables (often no collision detection at all!) Piece-Square tables? Yeah they all do that. About half use Bit Boards while most of the rest use a 10x8 scheme. And so on....
So they claim that early versions (which kicked everyones ass) were based on Crafty, and later versions (which kicked even more ass) were based on Fruit. Amazing how the author can pick up someone elses open source chess engine and make them so much better, yet nobody else in the world has demonstrated the same capability to do so.
I'm going to have to go with the theory that this panel of people have a serious conflict of interest, and that its highly likely that they have consciously or unconsciously colluded to eliminate their best rival.
That is exactly what ppl like Obama and Bolden are pushing.
No its not. You are just imagining that your pet favorite president has the same pet favorite ideas as you.
He had House and Senate, and proceeded to spend money at the fastest rate ever in the history of the world.... but just look at NASA's budget.
Actions speak louder than words. You have been wooed yet again into believing that the democrats are something that they are not, by listening to them instead of watching them.
The Democrats just want to give your money to Wall Street. They do it every time, while telling you exactly what you want to hear.
Also not mentioned is that BAPCo is code name for Intel. In fact, BAPCo was sued for constructing SysMark 2002 (which was then shipped directly from Intel's mail rooms when you purchased it from BAPCo) to misrepresent the P4's performance.
If he was trying to build a performance AMD system, he wouldnt have purchased a Deneb-based 955. Hell, even if he built the thing a year ago he could have gotten a Thuban instead of a Deneb.
The translation is "I purchased the very latest Intel design but not the latest AMD design, and then sunk a shitload of money into a water cooling system trying to get that bad CPU choice running faster"
Hence, its not a fair comparison as the grandparent noted. What the great grandparent just demonstrated was his own extremely bad choices.
The width and height are LINEAR terms in the equation, dumbass.
Double the resolution and at most you double the bandwidth needs. Thats LINEAR, dumbass.
Your mindset is precisely why you will always be a slave to those that exploit it.
I am a free man, and I have value to offer. I am not a slave, nor do I settle for less than a fair share of that value. I might be tricked into a bad deal, but I will not swallow one willingly.
You will always just be an employee, rather than a partner.
Netbooks are not dead, but their underselling because there are now notebooks cheaper but with the same or better specs as the highest end netbooks..
I am looking at (on newegg:)
ASUS Eee PC netbook with an AMD E-350 for $436 (the fastest netbook you can currently buy)
ACER Aspire One notebook with an AMD E-350 for $380
$56 cheaper, but has a larger 15.6" vs 12.1" screen. The only stat that is better on the netbook is a larger HD (320 GB vs 250 GB.. big deal.. you wouldnt pay $56 for an extra 70 GB of HD space and a spaller screen)
Some might argue that the hosting companies that enable the peddling of scareware are also 'the bad guys'
You missed the fact that it did not require a crystal ball to predict current bandwidth needs. Streaming movies was always a problematic issue until, suddenly, bandwidth was enough.
This idea that it requires a crystal ball to know that there simply isnt going to be any mainstream "super high def" industry 5 years from now is a laughable one. Face the facts. We will be using 1920x1080 for the next decade at least, and then any upgrade from that will not be massive increase in resolution (and will be significantly less of an increase in bandwidth needs)
The era of "you cant stream that" is over. These days, you can. Until there is an entirely new form of media, there is simply nothing that you can't stream at the rate that it can be consumed at.
Over-the-air HD video is up to 19 megabits per second, so the equivalent download would require a 4.6 gigabit/second link (at the end-user side; the server side would have to be many times that).
Dont confuse the inefficiencies of an implementation (an MPEG2 encoding) with a limitation in reality. 6 to 8 mbps is quite often more than fine for 1080p with H.264 (same error/pixel as DVD)