If there wasn't a google, the likelyhood is there would be someone doing what google does anyway and they might just be using a lot more power to do it.
Most compilers (including gcc and MSVC) support these as intrinsics (which are usually fairly standardized per processor platform) though, so you don't actually have to go down to assembly level to access them (the same with SIMD instructions, which is another place you can get large gains over vanilla C) and the instrinsics are exposed as normal functions and types.
Intrinsic code is also more standard than inline assembly, which differs between compilers. You can take the x86 intrinsic code written on MSVC and use it in GCC with relatively few problems.
To get any boost of performance over C, you have to be an extremely good assembly coder... to get a consistent 3x boost, you are either writing very sloppy C, or you're extremely good at assembly and using a pretty poor compiler/poor compiler settings. It actually takes an amazing amount of effort to beat a compiler these days, because compilers have rules to spot non-obvious stalls and such, where as the human has to rely on analyzing every bit of that by hand.
Also, a system where every component is 3x faster is still only 3x faster overall, there is no Captain Planet performance magic where by the power of assembly combined you get a 20x speed up... not to mention many desktop operations being IO limited (especially the ones that you actually notice the slow down on) and assembly doesn't magically make that faster.
Finally, someone did try it - MenuetOS - and they were able to make a quite compact and fast OS. But they also cut out an awful lot of what goes into a modern OS to do so. Syllable itself is not written in assembly like MenuetOS, which was actually the example used above.
Yes, how dare they point to the scientific evidence that is in their favour to support their argument! Especially when the other side of the debate is lacking said evidence! What an unfair fight!
Actually, many Australians do import from Hong Kong and it is relatively painless as long as you make sure you are using a reputable importer. Even with the cost of shipping from Hong Kong and the importer's mark up, you still often only pay 2/3rds of what it would cost from an Australian retailer.
That doesn't stop the client very easily spoofing their own location coordinates, before it is ever stored on the server, which is the problem the article is highlighting. The geo-locations API in HTML5 is called by clientside code, it then exists in an intermediate form before being passed to the server to store. With easily available debugging tools, you can stop the code and change that intermediate data before it gets sent off to the server. Of course, most of this is possible with native applications, it is just considerably harder to do.
Apart from this not being true. Yes, some European countries do have a higher % of debt vs GDP than the US, but many don't, including one of the most socialistic countries in Europe, Sweden (and Finland, Norway, Denmark, Croatia, Poland, Latvia, Turkey, Russia, Bulgaria + more).
Actually, it was being done realistically in near real-time over 10 years ago, using splatting based techniques (see surfels and QSplat http://graphics.stanford.edu/software/qsplat/). These systems weren't really suitable or fast enough for games at the time, but 10 years is a long time for hardware and software to progress.
This is probably not actually what is generally called "voxels", but a hierarchical point cloud system consisting of points on the surface of objects, rendered via some kind of weighted splatting mechanism. There was a lot of research into such systems for visualising some of the very high resolution point clouds coming out of digital laser scanning systems (for example QSplat, which came out of the Digital Michelangelo project http://graphics.stanford.edu/software/qsplat/).
When you're throwing around phrases like "appeal to authority", you should probably make sure your logic adds up.
What makes you think there would be clear and concise list of observations that would falsify this hypothesis, other than the most simple and obvious? What falsifies a hypothesis is quite often something the person who put the hypothesis together hadn't even contemplated (if they had, they probably would've checked when they did their initial research and it never would've seen the light of day). "Science" doesn't require any such list (particularly not a clear or concise one), it requires people who understand the subject matter well enough to interpret empirical data and see if it falsifies the hypothesis or not. It requires knowledgeable people asking questions and challenging previous work. All of which happens in the scientific community, because there are scientists out there constantly testing each other's work to see if it's valid.
In light of all of this, what makes you think that scientists aren't actively looking for flaws in current models? Why do you think they are collecting data on such massive scales? In fact, this is what the bulk of scientific work is, not forming a new hypothesis each time, but rigorously testing those which have been put forward before. A scientist who blows a hole in all the current models with ground breaking, reliable and substantiated work would become a super star in their field, they have every incentive to do it. That you assume that people aren't looking really hard for problems is more a sign of your ignorance of the current body of research.
Science isn't here to cater for what you choose to "believe" in or not, based on a relatively arbitrary standard you set for said belief. If you want an informed opinion (and these are much better than beliefs, whether they be in the pope, global warming or nasa.gov), learn enough about the field to be able to interpret the current work, then study said work and form your own interpretations of any new data you come across.
Centralized authentication doesn't necessarily mean a single server, or a single data store, or even that all the authentication servers have to be in the same data center. All it means is that there is only one logical authentication authority.
There have been compromised paypal accounts due to people using the same passwords between sites, so there has been real monetary damages to some people.
A tile is obviously just a host for an Internet Explorer control for displaying web content, maybe with some extended Javascript APIs so you can do a little more interaction with the operating system. Silverlight runs fine inside said Internet Explorer controls, as does Flash (if you have the plugin installed). There is no reason to expect Windows 8 will be deployed without the Silverlight plugin, Microsoft would want to work out of the box for things like Netflix and wouldn't break backwards compatibility with no reason.
Hence, there is no reason to believe that you won't be able to use Silverlight to develop these tiles on an equal footing to Javascript and HTML 5. Of course, you can't always expect Microsoft to be reasonable. But supporting Silverlight in this case would be a path of least resistance given that the Internet Explorer controls should support it already.
Of course, the most obvious reason they would want to do this is so they can have a Netflix tile going with pretty much zero extra code.
The one big screen with a touch interface was common before the iPhone on Windows Mobile phones. Apple made it a lot nicer experience, but they definitely didn't create the form factor.
Or they could get a GPU from nvidia, license CUDA and have an off the shelf solution that blows 2 Cells stuck together out of the water. The Cell made sense when GPUs couldn't handle anything outside of graphics. Now that GPUs are actually more capable than SPEs in many ways, it seems silly to spend money on SPEs when you could spend money on more streaming processors.
Most of the unmanaged code calls are to the Windows API though. I would imagine any ARM version of Windows +.NET would support the P/Invokes to these native APIs transparently.
Slashdot Mirror
The backlights in them often do.
If I had mod points, I would have given them to you.
If there wasn't a google, the likelyhood is there would be someone doing what google does anyway and they might just be using a lot more power to do it.
It doesn't follow conversely that because someone is a hypocrite, they must have had a valid point originally. It is just that some do.
Most compilers (including gcc and MSVC) support these as intrinsics (which are usually fairly standardized per processor platform) though, so you don't actually have to go down to assembly level to access them (the same with SIMD instructions, which is another place you can get large gains over vanilla C) and the instrinsics are exposed as normal functions and types.
Intrinsic code is also more standard than inline assembly, which differs between compilers. You can take the x86 intrinsic code written on MSVC and use it in GCC with relatively few problems.
To get any boost of performance over C, you have to be an extremely good assembly coder... to get a consistent 3x boost, you are either writing very sloppy C, or you're extremely good at assembly and using a pretty poor compiler/poor compiler settings. It actually takes an amazing amount of effort to beat a compiler these days, because compilers have rules to spot non-obvious stalls and such, where as the human has to rely on analyzing every bit of that by hand.
Also, a system where every component is 3x faster is still only 3x faster overall, there is no Captain Planet performance magic where by the power of assembly combined you get a 20x speed up... not to mention many desktop operations being IO limited (especially the ones that you actually notice the slow down on) and assembly doesn't magically make that faster.
Finally, someone did try it - MenuetOS - and they were able to make a quite compact and fast OS. But they also cut out an awful lot of what goes into a modern OS to do so. Syllable itself is not written in assembly like MenuetOS, which was actually the example used above.
Yes, how dare they point to the scientific evidence that is in their favour to support their argument! Especially when the other side of the debate is lacking said evidence! What an unfair fight!
Actually, many Australians do import from Hong Kong and it is relatively painless as long as you make sure you are using a reputable importer. Even with the cost of shipping from Hong Kong and the importer's mark up, you still often only pay 2/3rds of what it would cost from an Australian retailer.
My suspicions are that they have been short selling and continuing to make money off our misfortunes.
Don't forget the gun-fight over the remaining life boats. That's an integral part of the plan!
That doesn't stop the client very easily spoofing their own location coordinates, before it is ever stored on the server, which is the problem the article is highlighting. The geo-locations API in HTML5 is called by clientside code, it then exists in an intermediate form before being passed to the server to store. With easily available debugging tools, you can stop the code and change that intermediate data before it gets sent off to the server. Of course, most of this is possible with native applications, it is just considerably harder to do.
Love the irony of shooting someone for speaking freely because they're in some way against free speech.
I'm pretty sure you don't *create* any carbon when you are baking.
Apart from this not being true. Yes, some European countries do have a higher % of debt vs GDP than the US, but many don't, including one of the most socialistic countries in Europe, Sweden (and Finland, Norway, Denmark, Croatia, Poland, Latvia, Turkey, Russia, Bulgaria + more).
They say quite clearly that their little bitty atom tech is based on point clouds (not voxels).
Point cloud != voxels.
Voxels = regularly sampled volume elements.
Point cloud = irregularly sampled points, usually on the surface of an object.
Actually, it was being done realistically in near real-time over 10 years ago, using splatting based techniques (see surfels and QSplat http://graphics.stanford.edu/software/qsplat/). These systems weren't really suitable or fast enough for games at the time, but 10 years is a long time for hardware and software to progress.
This is probably not actually what is generally called "voxels", but a hierarchical point cloud system consisting of points on the surface of objects, rendered via some kind of weighted splatting mechanism. There was a lot of research into such systems for visualising some of the very high resolution point clouds coming out of digital laser scanning systems (for example QSplat, which came out of the Digital Michelangelo project http://graphics.stanford.edu/software/qsplat/).
When you're throwing around phrases like "appeal to authority", you should probably make sure your logic adds up.
What makes you think there would be clear and concise list of observations that would falsify this hypothesis, other than the most simple and obvious? What falsifies a hypothesis is quite often something the person who put the hypothesis together hadn't even contemplated (if they had, they probably would've checked when they did their initial research and it never would've seen the light of day). "Science" doesn't require any such list (particularly not a clear or concise one), it requires people who understand the subject matter well enough to interpret empirical data and see if it falsifies the hypothesis or not. It requires knowledgeable people asking questions and challenging previous work. All of which happens in the scientific community, because there are scientists out there constantly testing each other's work to see if it's valid.
In light of all of this, what makes you think that scientists aren't actively looking for flaws in current models? Why do you think they are collecting data on such massive scales? In fact, this is what the bulk of scientific work is, not forming a new hypothesis each time, but rigorously testing those which have been put forward before. A scientist who blows a hole in all the current models with ground breaking, reliable and substantiated work would become a super star in their field, they have every incentive to do it. That you assume that people aren't looking really hard for problems is more a sign of your ignorance of the current body of research.
Science isn't here to cater for what you choose to "believe" in or not, based on a relatively arbitrary standard you set for said belief. If you want an informed opinion (and these are much better than beliefs, whether they be in the pope, global warming or nasa.gov), learn enough about the field to be able to interpret the current work, then study said work and form your own interpretations of any new data you come across.
Centralized authentication doesn't necessarily mean a single server, or a single data store, or even that all the authentication servers have to be in the same data center. All it means is that there is only one logical authentication authority.
There have been compromised paypal accounts due to people using the same passwords between sites, so there has been real monetary damages to some people.
A tile is obviously just a host for an Internet Explorer control for displaying web content, maybe with some extended Javascript APIs so you can do a little more interaction with the operating system. Silverlight runs fine inside said Internet Explorer controls, as does Flash (if you have the plugin installed). There is no reason to expect Windows 8 will be deployed without the Silverlight plugin, Microsoft would want to work out of the box for things like Netflix and wouldn't break backwards compatibility with no reason.
Hence, there is no reason to believe that you won't be able to use Silverlight to develop these tiles on an equal footing to Javascript and HTML 5. Of course, you can't always expect Microsoft to be reasonable. But supporting Silverlight in this case would be a path of least resistance given that the Internet Explorer controls should support it already.
Of course, the most obvious reason they would want to do this is so they can have a Netflix tile going with pretty much zero extra code.
The one big screen with a touch interface was common before the iPhone on Windows Mobile phones. Apple made it a lot nicer experience, but they definitely didn't create the form factor.
Or they could get a GPU from nvidia, license CUDA and have an off the shelf solution that blows 2 Cells stuck together out of the water. The Cell made sense when GPUs couldn't handle anything outside of graphics. Now that GPUs are actually more capable than SPEs in many ways, it seems silly to spend money on SPEs when you could spend money on more streaming processors.
Most of the unmanaged code calls are to the Windows API though. I would imagine any ARM version of Windows + .NET would support the P/Invokes to these native APIs transparently.