Not all of the energy during such an event is both (for lack of better terms) positive and negative. For example, the kinetic energy of motion is highly unlikely to get annihilated during such an encounter. This energy, however, must go somewhere.
Thus, the production of some form of EM radiation.
As far as oberving "a lot" of energy being emitted during annihilation.. its all relative. We tend to think that atomic bombs emit "a lot" of energy, but there are trillions of atoms involved there. The amount of energy that each atom emits is equal to exactly the binding energy that the protons and neutrons needed to "stay together" in the fissile element.
Also, the theory goes that when a black hole reaches the point of total evaporation, it does to in a flash of light (EM radiation) because the smaller a black hole is, the faster it evaporates.
I believe the poster was talking about understanding the algorithm itself, not the fly brain.
The key idea here is that emergent algorithms (which is what these sort of things are) are unpredictable. It is one thing to understand the methodology, another to grok the full picture.
In any sort of complex input space, you cannot test all possible input permutations and so cannot guarantee that these algorithms wont go ahead and output the worst possible thing from time to time.
In some cases we can get away with emergent algorithms because the worst possible output isnt going to kill anybody (for example, using an ANTS algorithm for network routing is OK because the worst case is the already frequent phenomenon of a lost packet, and we are using the ANTS algorithm specifically because it does better routined and thus, in general loses fewer packets)
It is breathtakingly stupid because it details what CAN be done with cookies, rather than what CANT be done with cookies.
Lets put this in slashdot perspective. It is like legislation about what CAN be done with pear-to-peer software, rather than legislation about what CANT be done with peer-to-peer software.
There is no debate. Its a breathtakingly stupid idea.
Firefox, Internet Explorer, and Opera can all be configured to do this. I suspect that Safari can as well, with maybe Chrome not doing this (because it has so few features.)
I use a nice straight-and-simple pre-paid phone. No enrollment, no contract. The "web" button, however, is right next to the left arrow key just as you describe. I get charged for 30 seconds of pre-paid time whenever I accidentally hit it (that amounts to about 7 cents)
I know mine is. Hell, I am 100% certain that it has an AC'97 audio chip and i've never opened it or otherwise checked out the technical specs of the device. Yes, the feature set (effects) of AC'97's is *that obvious* when you hear it.
It also takes more than a few seconds to "boot up"
You are correct. I was quoting someone else. My mistake.
However, my point still stands, because that person was the person I was responding to originally, who wanted prices from one market to be converted via exchange rate, rather than simply using the prices from another market.
Wolfram seems to only have historic crude prices for a few markets, so I suspect what he was after was a conversion from US market prices to his local currency. As I pointed out.. its not useful information. He should find a source for local crude prices if wolfram doesnt have them. The noise of an exchange rate only defeats his purpose.
Well, if YouAreDumb() accesses a mutex and the mutex is locked, the O/S puts the thread in the waiting thread list. Basic O/S theory.
Hundreds of thousands of threads... in a waiting list... right? Have you *ever* created hundreds of thousands of threads on any modern operating system? Windows? Linux? OSX? If so, were you able to close the program, or did you (as I already know you would) have to do a hard reset?
Whats the queue for if the OS is managing the threads?
This is the problem. You seem to think that the OS can manage hundreds of thousands of threads efficiently in one breath, yet strangly in other breaths you speak of using a queue so that you can do thread pooling (in 100 lines, no less)
As far as what I have done. I have done threaded code. Threaded code is easy compared to concurrent computation with shared resources. You obviously have no clue what the difference is.
I know templates is not another name for generics.
But then you say:
This is similar to C++'s templates, the only difference being that C++ does this at compile time.
Generics implement type safety, and templates can implement generics. Get it? Got it? Good. Now.. you were saying that ONLY templates can implement type safety.... WRONG.
all of those points are resolved when talking to whoever was responsible for the code and then passed back to whoever made the complaint
Not true.
This case is interesting because it appears that there are 3 similar codes, not just 2.
Microsoft has its version, then there is a GPL version, and finally there is an LGPL version.
This cannot be resolved by simply talking to the Microsoft developer. This actually becomes a battle between the GPL and LGPL claimants, because they both cannot own the copyright. Does the GPL guy (who cites the derivation from the LGPL code) claim that he owns the whole thing? If he does, then there is a 3-way battle. If he does not, then Microsoft is in the clear.
Do your homework, fella. Its not so simple. Read up on the facts and shit.
The historic value of oil in Euro is relevant for somebody who -- let's go out on a limb here -- lives in Europe, for instance.
This is not the same thing as was implied.
The implied behavior (quoting you: Presumably data exist about historical exchange rates) was to graph the converted U.S. market price for crude while converting from USD to another currency.
You do realize that different markets have different prices, irregardless of exchange rates... right? right?
What you were talking about before (U.S. Crude Price converted to another currency) is not what you are talking about now (European Union Crude Price in Euros) What you were talking about before is nearly useless data. Do you not agree?
It is not uncommon to pop up the sudo dialog in response to a permission-denied error from exec().
Exec only does it when the current user doesn't have rights to execute the program. It does not cover the case where the current user has the rights to execute the program, but neither the user nor the program has the rights to do what the program is trying to do.
A good clear example would be a shell script which attempts to delete another users files. In Microsoft Land, the user is prompted for increased privileges prior to denying permission, while in Linux land its simply permission denied.
The predominant difference is that the Mac does not run that installer in userland and then escalate the privileges while its already running.
The Microsoft patent covers a situation where an already running application triggers an access violation, and instead of outright denying the access like Linux or OSX would, it prompts the user for increased privileges first.
This isnt a sudo patent. Its a UAC patent.
I am simply amazed that slashdot is arguing against Microsft keeping UAC to themselves.
Why do you want to know the historic "value" of oil in non-fixed units, and how often is that more desirable than the historic value of oil in fixed (typically todays) units?
Add to this the fact that even with a fully updated Windows/Linux/OSX box, it is still possible for a userland program to snag ring-0 via known vulnerabilities.
I predict that hypervisors will become very complex over the next 10 years, complete with malware detection heuristics, but will eventually fall prey to the same problems modern kernels have (that of being too complex to make bullet proof)
Indeed. It is unlikely that byte level granularity will be common for commodity processors. Processors such as the old mainframe PDP-10 did have byte-level (hmmm, or was it word level?) access triggers.
No, the Queue::get() method is a blocking call. Obviously, you have not understood anything.
..and has nothing to do with what Go does when it pauses blocked GoRoutines.
YOU don't seem to "get" what Go is.
I'll ask you flat out. I have a function I'd like to thread.. lets call it YouAreDumb()
Now, YouAreDumb() accesses various resources that may or may not be locked at any given time. Go detects these locks, and instead of spinning on it like an idiot (consuming resources for no good reason).. Go will go ahead and pause it, and start up another GoRoutine or continue one that has been paused previously.
And it can do this for hundreds of thousands of GoRoutines, *without* a thread created for each of them.
How sir, are you going to do that in C++ in only 100 lines of code? I'm pretty sure your fucked when you start pausing these routines that lock up resources and then get paused themselves. Its called deadlock and newbs who have never done concurrent programming don't have a clue about this shit and seem to think that things are "easy" and can be done in "100 lines of code"
I don't have to pause anything. A queue's get operation is blocking:
If the routine you have threaded is making special calls to a thread manager after checking to see if something it needs is blocked, then you have completely missed the point of Go. I am strongly suspecting that you have never done any concurrent programming, but instead have only threaded a couple independent routines (IF THAT.)
Slashdot Mirror
Not all of the energy during such an event is both (for lack of better terms) positive and negative. For example, the kinetic energy of motion is highly unlikely to get annihilated during such an encounter. This energy, however, must go somewhere.
Thus, the production of some form of EM radiation.
As far as oberving "a lot" of energy being emitted during annihilation.. its all relative. We tend to think that atomic bombs emit "a lot" of energy, but there are trillions of atoms involved there. The amount of energy that each atom emits is equal to exactly the binding energy that the protons and neutrons needed to "stay together" in the fissile element.
Also, the theory goes that when a black hole reaches the point of total evaporation, it does to in a flash of light (EM radiation) because the smaller a black hole is, the faster it evaporates.
No rest mass, but they are never (in theory) at rest.
I believe the poster was talking about understanding the algorithm itself, not the fly brain.
The key idea here is that emergent algorithms (which is what these sort of things are) are unpredictable. It is one thing to understand the methodology, another to grok the full picture.
In any sort of complex input space, you cannot test all possible input permutations and so cannot guarantee that these algorithms wont go ahead and output the worst possible thing from time to time.
In some cases we can get away with emergent algorithms because the worst possible output isnt going to kill anybody (for example, using an ANTS algorithm for network routing is OK because the worst case is the already frequent phenomenon of a lost packet, and we are using the ANTS algorithm specifically because it does better routined and thus, in general loses fewer packets)
It is breathtakingly stupid because it details what CAN be done with cookies, rather than what CANT be done with cookies.
Lets put this in slashdot perspective. It is like legislation about what CAN be done with pear-to-peer software, rather than legislation about what CANT be done with peer-to-peer software.
There is no debate. Its a breathtakingly stupid idea.
Firefox, Internet Explorer, and Opera can all be configured to do this. I suspect that Safari can as well, with maybe Chrome not doing this (because it has so few features.)
TracFone's voice service ends up costing me about 14 cents per minute when they dont offer me a bonus code, which is rare.
When you start talking about $350 charges I am thinking well fuck, thats at least 2500 minutes
And you know what happens if I break my phone? I pay $30 for a new one, and I don't even have to argue with anybody.
I use a nice straight-and-simple pre-paid phone. No enrollment, no contract. The "web" button, however, is right next to the left arrow key just as you describe. I get charged for 30 seconds of pre-paid time whenever I accidentally hit it (that amounts to about 7 cents)
I know mine is. Hell, I am 100% certain that it has an AC'97 audio chip and i've never opened it or otherwise checked out the technical specs of the device. Yes, the feature set (effects) of AC'97's is *that obvious* when you hear it.
It also takes more than a few seconds to "boot up"
You are correct. I was quoting someone else. My mistake.
However, my point still stands, because that person was the person I was responding to originally, who wanted prices from one market to be converted via exchange rate, rather than simply using the prices from another market.
Wolfram seems to only have historic crude prices for a few markets, so I suspect what he was after was a conversion from US market prices to his local currency. As I pointed out.. its not useful information. He should find a source for local crude prices if wolfram doesnt have them. The noise of an exchange rate only defeats his purpose.
Well, if YouAreDumb() accesses a mutex and the mutex is locked, the O/S puts the thread in the waiting thread list. Basic O/S theory.
Hundreds of thousands of threads... in a waiting list... right? Have you *ever* created hundreds of thousands of threads on any modern operating system? Windows? Linux? OSX? If so, were you able to close the program, or did you (as I already know you would) have to do a hard reset?
Whats the queue for if the OS is managing the threads?
This is the problem. You seem to think that the OS can manage hundreds of thousands of threads efficiently in one breath, yet strangly in other breaths you speak of using a queue so that you can do thread pooling (in 100 lines, no less)
As far as what I have done. I have done threaded code. Threaded code is easy compared to concurrent computation with shared resources. You obviously have no clue what the difference is.
You say:
I know templates is not another name for generics.
But then you say:
This is similar to C++'s templates, the only difference being that C++ does this at compile time.
Generics implement type safety, and templates can implement generics. Get it? Got it? Good. Now.. you were saying that ONLY templates can implement type safety.... WRONG.
all of those points are resolved when talking to whoever was responsible for the code and then passed back to whoever made the complaint
Not true.
This case is interesting because it appears that there are 3 similar codes, not just 2.
Microsoft has its version, then there is a GPL version, and finally there is an LGPL version.
This cannot be resolved by simply talking to the Microsoft developer. This actually becomes a battle between the GPL and LGPL claimants, because they both cannot own the copyright. Does the GPL guy (who cites the derivation from the LGPL code) claim that he owns the whole thing? If he does, then there is a 3-way battle. If he does not, then Microsoft is in the clear.
Do your homework, fella. Its not so simple. Read up on the facts and shit.
The historic value of oil in Euro is relevant for somebody who -- let's go out on a limb here -- lives in Europe, for instance.
This is not the same thing as was implied.
The implied behavior (quoting you: Presumably data exist about historical exchange rates) was to graph the converted U.S. market price for crude while converting from USD to another currency.
You do realize that different markets have different prices, irregardless of exchange rates... right? right?
What you were talking about before (U.S. Crude Price converted to another currency) is not what you are talking about now (European Union Crude Price in Euros) What you were talking about before is nearly useless data. Do you not agree?
It is not uncommon to pop up the sudo dialog in response to a permission-denied error from exec().
Exec only does it when the current user doesn't have rights to execute the program. It does not cover the case where the current user has the rights to execute the program, but neither the user nor the program has the rights to do what the program is trying to do.
A good clear example would be a shell script which attempts to delete another users files. In Microsoft Land, the user is prompted for increased privileges prior to denying permission, while in Linux land its simply permission denied.
The predominant difference is that the Mac does not run that installer in userland and then escalate the privileges while its already running.
The Microsoft patent covers a situation where an already running application triggers an access violation, and instead of outright denying the access like Linux or OSX would, it prompts the user for increased privileges first.
This isnt a sudo patent. Its a UAC patent.
I am simply amazed that slashdot is arguing against Microsft keeping UAC to themselves.
You didnt read the patent, did you?
I have used google to answer (N choose R) questions, and it does it fairly well (no arbitrary precision math.)
The number of Texas Hold'em starting hands is 52 choose 2
When I hold one of those, the number of possible 3 card flops is 50 choose 3
The percent chance of being dealt pocket aces is 100 * (4 choose 2) / (52 choose 2)
Jenny's phone number in binary is 8675309
Why do you want to know the historic "value" of oil in non-fixed units, and how often is that more desirable than the historic value of oil in fixed (typically todays) units?
Add to this the fact that even with a fully updated Windows/Linux/OSX box, it is still possible for a userland program to snag ring-0 via known vulnerabilities.
I predict that hypervisors will become very complex over the next 10 years, complete with malware detection heuristics, but will eventually fall prey to the same problems modern kernels have (that of being too complex to make bullet proof)
Indeed. It is unlikely that byte level granularity will be common for commodity processors. Processors such as the old mainframe PDP-10 did have byte-level (hmmm, or was it word level?) access triggers.
/signed
No, the Queue::get() method is a blocking call. Obviously, you have not understood anything.
YOU don't seem to "get" what Go is.
I'll ask you flat out. I have a function I'd like to thread.. lets call it YouAreDumb()
Now, YouAreDumb() accesses various resources that may or may not be locked at any given time. Go detects these locks, and instead of spinning on it like an idiot (consuming resources for no good reason)
And it can do this for hundreds of thousands of GoRoutines, *without* a thread created for each of them.
How sir, are you going to do that in C++ in only 100 lines of code? I'm pretty sure your fucked when you start pausing these routines that lock up resources and then get paused themselves. Its called deadlock and newbs who have never done concurrent programming don't have a clue about this shit and seem to think that things are "easy" and can be done in "100 lines of code"
Gotcha. Not only are you wrong about what other languages can do, you dont even know what your beloved C++ templates are.
Templates are not what you think they are. Templates are not another name for generics. So, wrong.
I don't have to pause anything. A queue's get operation is blocking:
If the routine you have threaded is making special calls to a thread manager after checking to see if something it needs is blocked, then you have completely missed the point of Go. I am strongly suspecting that you have never done any concurrent programming, but instead have only threaded a couple independent routines (IF THAT.)
Wrong.
Indeed.. and isnt an Atom a fully compatible x86 chip?
I'm thinking that such a break would HAVE to be intentional.. but maybe I'm missing something.