And according to the fundamentalists, we're all hell-bound sinners or worse. The same strategy applies to dealing with any fundamentalist: ignore them except to mock. Complaining about it just means you're indirectly taking their message to heart.
We've known for a century that there are smarter and better ways to "play it safe" than to just use more bits; this common knowledge is finally being implemented in hardware. This is exciting enough (to me) to compensate for the rest of this increasingly crap-sack world.
why have a fixed clock cycle for display in the first place? maybe you could exploit the physical characteristics of the display to cover up whatever fluctuations there might be in the video stream.
because you could get better performance by having a 32-bit processor which occasionally makes errors but is usually precise to at least 30 bits, than you can by going with 16 bits in the first place? it's faster and more accurate on average; as long as the software can efficiently compensate for the occasional error, it's stupid to use "imperfection by obsolescence" instead of "imperfection by design".
it depends. if processing speed is the bottleneck, you could easily be able to use an error-correcting code to compensate for (most of) the error caused by the hardware and still come out far ahead in "useful operations per second", as long as the processing gains from the imperfect hardware are sufficient. this project seems to be to determine that. the theory of computation on unreliable hardware is almost as old as the theory of computation itself; it just hasn't been necessary yet because the hardware was so primitive that we could make gains more easily just be shrinking die sizes and whatnot.
always keep in mind that "principles" in CS are rarely derived from actual physical principles; they're usually either heuristics, or derived from formal models based on abstract assumptions. either way, there will be opportunity for improvement. you are making an assumption connecting information density and processing speed. is it a valid one?
How is this, logically, an exception to the "rule" cas2000 stated? Individual people can easily do apparently incoherent or self-defeating things. In fact, the ability to persevere in this is sometimes a great strength, though often a weakness and almost always quite painful.
Well, yeah, you wouldn't shout it in the midst of nothing. You'd wait until, say, a group of Muslim protestors were being confronted by security. The chances of inciting a bloodbath are still quite low, but much higher than otherwise, and anyway it'd be a real bitch to prosecute you meaningfully if it doesn't go off. I mean, yeah, technically it's incitement but even a half-way competent lawyer could probably get the court to not "waste their time", assuming you have a clean record and decent background.
incidentally, i just took my morning shit. could you please tell me, before i flush the turds down the toilet, what redistribution license should i bless them with?
This is just hilarious. What a shit-show, from the bullshit legal threat to the developer's hissy fit to the dependence on an apparently obscure package to implement (lol) left-padding.
Reminds me of someone I knew who was wringing his hands for a few days over which license to use for his super-awesome R function library. He asked me for advice, and I told him that it's ~30 lines of syntactic boiler-plate code so get over yourself and just put it in public domain so that the two people who ever use it can do so easily. But of course, he had to deeply consider the political implications of which flavor of "freedom" he would support.
in America, "Marxism" and "communism" are synonyms, and they both mean "something I don't like and which i can't imagine myself profiteering from."
this conjunction is, of course, even worse than merely not liking something, which is why nothing changes. even rental of goods or services is called communist here sometimes, let alone lending or mutual cooperation.
legal cases are much easier to prosecute when the plaintiff has standing (roughly, this means that you have been personally damaged by the defendant). there are good reasons for this, as having it otherwise would blur the lines between the legislative and judicial branches. unions can provide this level of organization and protection to workers without needing to redesign the state, and as such are a moderate or conservative solution. or you can just fuck them over and leave them to twist. that'll work too.
tl;dr: if a crime is committed and no one prosecutes it, is it a victimless crime? eh, close enough to one, i guess.
well, they need highly trained specialists to program the robots, after all. also these specialists must be third-world imports, because the requisite talent doesn't exist in the coddled west. win-win!
Slashdot Mirror
And according to the fundamentalists, we're all hell-bound sinners or worse. The same strategy applies to dealing with any fundamentalist: ignore them except to mock. Complaining about it just means you're indirectly taking their message to heart.
I would have thought so too, did I not know any Italians. It's really quite plausible, whether or not it really happened.
We've known for a century that there are smarter and better ways to "play it safe" than to just use more bits; this common knowledge is finally being implemented in hardware. This is exciting enough (to me) to compensate for the rest of this increasingly crap-sack world.
why have a fixed clock cycle for display in the first place? maybe you could exploit the physical characteristics of the display to cover up whatever fluctuations there might be in the video stream.
because you could get better performance by having a 32-bit processor which occasionally makes errors but is usually precise to at least 30 bits, than you can by going with 16 bits in the first place? it's faster and more accurate on average; as long as the software can efficiently compensate for the occasional error, it's stupid to use "imperfection by obsolescence" instead of "imperfection by design".
it depends. if processing speed is the bottleneck, you could easily be able to use an error-correcting code to compensate for (most of) the error caused by the hardware and still come out far ahead in "useful operations per second", as long as the processing gains from the imperfect hardware are sufficient. this project seems to be to determine that. the theory of computation on unreliable hardware is almost as old as the theory of computation itself; it just hasn't been necessary yet because the hardware was so primitive that we could make gains more easily just be shrinking die sizes and whatnot.
always keep in mind that "principles" in CS are rarely derived from actual physical principles; they're usually either heuristics, or derived from formal models based on abstract assumptions. either way, there will be opportunity for improvement. you are making an assumption connecting information density and processing speed. is it a valid one?
he just "proved" there isn't a first uninteresting number, so there can't possibly be a second. or a third. or so on.
idiot.
Maybe that's because there are hardly any engineers, "ordinary" or not, in the software industry.
Who will go first, second, and third?
Maybe the Crown could grant him a license to rape?
So, do you pronounce the "s" in "descent"? :P
But seriously, this post made me smile. Cheerio and well-met!
How is this, logically, an exception to the "rule" cas2000 stated? Individual people can easily do apparently incoherent or self-defeating things. In fact, the ability to persevere in this is sometimes a great strength, though often a weakness and almost always quite painful.
i think he just misheard it when his parents told him that they were "ashkenazi jews".
Well, yeah, you wouldn't shout it in the midst of nothing. You'd wait until, say, a group of Muslim protestors were being confronted by security. The chances of inciting a bloodbath are still quite low, but much higher than otherwise, and anyway it'd be a real bitch to prosecute you meaningfully if it doesn't go off. I mean, yeah, technically it's incitement but even a half-way competent lawyer could probably get the court to not "waste their time", assuming you have a clean record and decent background.
The downstream impact of my dump is comparable to the downstream impact of 99% of github bullshit. That's the analogy.
Some things are not worth agonizing over, or "discretion is the better part of valor".
you make a good point.
incidentally, i just took my morning shit. could you please tell me, before i flush the turds down the toilet, what redistribution license should i bless them with?
This is just hilarious. What a shit-show, from the bullshit legal threat to the developer's hissy fit to the dependence on an apparently obscure package to implement (lol) left-padding.
Reminds me of someone I knew who was wringing his hands for a few days over which license to use for his super-awesome R function library. He asked me for advice, and I told him that it's ~30 lines of syntactic boiler-plate code so get over yourself and just put it in public domain so that the two people who ever use it can do so easily. But of course, he had to deeply consider the political implications of which flavor of "freedom" he would support.
and dollars to donuts that asshole didn't lose a wink of sleep over any of this. too bad he wasn't onboard the challenger.
in America, "Marxism" and "communism" are synonyms, and they both mean "something I don't like and which i can't imagine myself profiteering from."
this conjunction is, of course, even worse than merely not liking something, which is why nothing changes. even rental of goods or services is called communist here sometimes, let alone lending or mutual cooperation.
god fucking dammit. six minutes late to post, and i don't even have mod points.
ah well, at least i have anonymous company.
Do you even have a slashdot account, Dan?
Eh, I was expecting the punchline to be more like "eating horse because there was no pussy available to eat".
legal cases are much easier to prosecute when the plaintiff has standing (roughly, this means that you have been personally damaged by the defendant). there are good reasons for this, as having it otherwise would blur the lines between the legislative and judicial branches. unions can provide this level of organization and protection to workers without needing to redesign the state, and as such are a moderate or conservative solution. or you can just fuck them over and leave them to twist. that'll work too.
tl;dr: if a crime is committed and no one prosecutes it, is it a victimless crime? eh, close enough to one, i guess.
Standards take work and regulation. It's easier to just drive down the price of labor (and replace it with "consulting" firms).
well, they need highly trained specialists to program the robots, after all. also these specialists must be third-world imports, because the requisite talent doesn't exist in the coddled west. win-win!