I think the advantage of Star Wars is that it contains pretty much every stereotype and cliché, making it easier to demonstrate the psychology pseudo-science.
Why did this cost 3 times as much money as Burj Khalifa while being 60% of its size? I doubt it's as luxury as Burj Khalifa inside, too. Looks like some company made some nice money off of 9/11...
That money is not being diverted, it's just that it's been allocated to funding innovation. What does it change for the taxpayer whether that money goes to a start-up or an established company? Not much. It not going to Apple doesn't mean it would be going to save the children or the needy. And if it were going to a start-up, no one would be shocked of it.
the established company shouldn't need it if it's well run
R&D is extremely costly and a long-term investment, regardless of company size. Subsidies exist to reduce the risks associated with R&D, so as to encourage more companies to do R&D. Also note that most subsidies require the company to spend at least as much as the grant in the subsided project; that is done in order to enforce that the money is only used to reduce costs and to accompany real investments the company is making. Even if a company has a lot of money, why would they choose to invest it in something risky rather than in things with guaranteed returns? It's because government subsidies make those less risky and tolerable. Remove those subsidies, and all you get is less investment in R&D.
There are types of subsidies which are reserved for start-ups and small companies, but there are some which work regardless of company size. Being European myself, I don't know the details in the US, but I'm pretty sure start-ups have access to a lot more things and tax cuts than corporations, this doesn't mean corporations shouldn't get anything at all when they're willing to take on risky projects.
I feel like there is a post like this on slashdot every two weeks.
Linux has already taken off years ago, and most savvy people are using it. I understand some people can be frustrated because they can't get the cool operating system their savvy friends use to work, but do we really need to be repeated that so often?
Let the sheeple use whatever they're happy with and get off my loan.
This is nonsense. Why shouldn't profitable companies be able to benefit from government programs and subsidies? Those programs exist because the government wants to develop new technologies, invest in specific sectors, or create a new economical hub in a certain area. The only thing that matters is whether the company will be able to succeed on their project or not, and a profitable company is more likely to.
C++ can actually greatly help in making a SIMD abstraction layer. Surely you don't want to write all versions of your code for SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4a, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, XOP, FMA, AVX2, LRBni, NEON, Altivec, VMX128 and VSX.
You can also use meta-programming techniques to automatically perform arrays-of-structures to structures-of-arrays conversion or to make code independent of the cardinal size.
If that function really needed to be virtual, it's a lot better than sticking a switch statement into EVERY for loop that uses it,
You could make a switch statement in a generic function that takes a function object and calls it. It would essentially be the same in terms of usage except that it would be faster, but also allow more, such as generic visitation or easier multiple dispatch.
In addition, many C++ features were so poorly implemented that they are rarely used, like try-throw-catch (I have yet to see professional code that uses them - hell, I've seen more code that uses the taboo GOTO for error handling than try-throw-catch).
How are exceptions poorly implemented? They incur no runtime overhead (unlike branches) unless an error occurs. They do, however, make code size a little bit larger, which is why it is often avoided in embedded systems (even if most of them could support them just fine).
I've seen them used in many professional settings, but they tend to be discarded for most high-performance code.
There is no way to prevent buffer overflows without checking at runtime whether the index is within the buffer, whatever the language. Static analysis can be used to remove that check in certain cases, but it only works in relatively simplistic scenarios.
Usage in C is to not perform this check because buffers are ubiquitous, and given that it is normally relatively easy to prevent the buffer overflow by sane coding practices, it is judged the performance overhead is not worth it.
I'll give you my opinion as an experienced C++ developer, Boost contributor and C++ standards committee member.
Boost is a set of C++ libraries written by a lot of different people. Some is good, some is bad. Some is old and works with ancient compilers, some is new and requires the latest bleeding edge implementations.The good thing it has about it compared to average code is that it was written by people with a relatively good understanding of the C++ programming language, which is very complex. This typically means that not only it is of better quality than average, but also that it can do more advanced things than what an average developer could think of As such, it is very good for educational purposes, and just reading through the code or the documentation can make people discover very interesting software design. Of course, some libraries have very tedious implementations and are very mature (like PP or MPL), so there is no point in rewriting them yourself: just use them directly.
The fact that it is advanced is however a double-edged sword: to use software in production, you must be able to easily diagnose problems and bugs, even if the code is not yours. Doing that with advanced language constructs can require some non-elementary skills, therefore using those libraries can require a steep learning curve and should thus be seen as an investment.
It's all a matter of studying the library for your needs, evaluating the risks, and making your choice.
I tried using word in a collaborative fashion once, it was a mess. If anyone opened the file with a more recent version of word than the rest, it magically made the file only work with that most recent version. And it's just a mess to exchange files by email and remember which version is which. It's also impossible to work in parallel on different parts of the same document. It just doesn't work.
Slashdot Mirror
Why didn't you just get a thinkpad?
What people fail to understand is that OOP is a bad paradigm for numerical computing. It's ill-suited to vectorization and parallelization.
If your application does cache misses 99% of the time, then latency still matters.
Also, higher latency could allow removing some cache levels, which would make the CPU faster and free up some transistors.
More importantly, what does "faster" mean?
Higher bandwidth or lower latency? It's supposed to be both, but my guess is that latency is mostly not affected.
This is just a loan. A loan ends up costing more money that paying things upfront. This is a well-known fact.
Why is this news on slashdot?
It having a different culture doesn't matter, the chinese simply make a new little china in each major city around the globe.
And people are surprised it's full of fraud?
I could have told them for a much smaller fee. That kind of thing is obvious to anyone with even a remote understanding of copyright.
I think the advantage of Star Wars is that it contains pretty much every stereotype and cliché, making it easier to demonstrate the psychology pseudo-science.
Why did this cost 3 times as much money as Burj Khalifa while being 60% of its size? I doubt it's as luxury as Burj Khalifa inside, too.
Looks like some company made some nice money off of 9/11...
That money is not being diverted, it's just that it's been allocated to funding innovation.
What does it change for the taxpayer whether that money goes to a start-up or an established company? Not much. It not going to Apple doesn't mean it would be going to save the children or the needy. And if it were going to a start-up, no one would be shocked of it.
R&D is extremely costly and a long-term investment, regardless of company size. Subsidies exist to reduce the risks associated with R&D, so as to encourage more companies to do R&D. Also note that most subsidies require the company to spend at least as much as the grant in the subsided project; that is done in order to enforce that the money is only used to reduce costs and to accompany real investments the company is making.
Even if a company has a lot of money, why would they choose to invest it in something risky rather than in things with guaranteed returns? It's because government subsidies make those less risky and tolerable.
Remove those subsidies, and all you get is less investment in R&D.
There are types of subsidies which are reserved for start-ups and small companies, but there are some which work regardless of company size. Being European myself, I don't know the details in the US, but I'm pretty sure start-ups have access to a lot more things and tax cuts than corporations, this doesn't mean corporations shouldn't get anything at all when they're willing to take on risky projects.
I feel like there is a post like this on slashdot every two weeks.
Linux has already taken off years ago, and most savvy people are using it. I understand some people can be frustrated because they can't get the cool operating system their savvy friends use to work, but do we really need to be repeated that so often?
Let the sheeple use whatever they're happy with and get off my loan.
What makes you think a start-up is best able to do innovation than an established company?
They might be inspirational if people were allowed to take pictures or blog about it.
This is nonsense. Why shouldn't profitable companies be able to benefit from government programs and subsidies?
Those programs exist because the government wants to develop new technologies, invest in specific sectors, or create a new economical hub in a certain area. The only thing that matters is whether the company will be able to succeed on their project or not, and a profitable company is more likely to.
I'm considering doing this too, but I'm afraid Debian might not have good packages for non-free software or drivers.
Did they even get past the proposal evaluation part?
Notice how the guy in the screenshots is using GNOME3 in fallback mode, on Ubuntu, with the default settings, which looks terribly bad.
I wouldn't trust a Linux developer that doesn't even have a decent Linux workstation setup to be able to code for Linux well.
C++ can actually greatly help in making a SIMD abstraction layer. Surely you don't want to write all versions of your code for SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4a, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, XOP, FMA, AVX2, LRBni, NEON, Altivec, VMX128 and VSX.
You can also use meta-programming techniques to automatically perform arrays-of-structures to structures-of-arrays conversion or to make code independent of the cardinal size.
You could make a switch statement in a generic function that takes a function object and calls it. It would essentially be the same in terms of usage except that it would be faster, but also allow more, such as generic visitation or easier multiple dispatch.
How are exceptions poorly implemented? They incur no runtime overhead (unlike branches) unless an error occurs. They do, however, make code size a little bit larger, which is why it is often avoided in embedded systems (even if most of them could support them just fine).
I've seen them used in many professional settings, but they tend to be discarded for most high-performance code.
There is no way to prevent buffer overflows without checking at runtime whether the index is within the buffer, whatever the language. Static analysis can be used to remove that check in certain cases, but it only works in relatively simplistic scenarios.
Usage in C is to not perform this check because buffers are ubiquitous, and given that it is normally relatively easy to prevent the buffer overflow by sane coding practices, it is judged the performance overhead is not worth it.
I'll give you my opinion as an experienced C++ developer, Boost contributor and C++ standards committee member.
Boost is a set of C++ libraries written by a lot of different people. Some is good, some is bad. Some is old and works with ancient compilers, some is new and requires the latest bleeding edge implementations.The good thing it has about it compared to average code is that it was written by people with a relatively good understanding of the C++ programming language, which is very complex. This typically means that not only it is of better quality than average, but also that it can do more advanced things than what an average developer could think of As such, it is very good for educational purposes, and just reading through the code or the documentation can make people discover very interesting software design. Of course, some libraries have very tedious implementations and are very mature (like PP or MPL), so there is no point in rewriting them yourself: just use them directly.
The fact that it is advanced is however a double-edged sword: to use software in production, you must be able to easily diagnose problems and bugs, even if the code is not yours. Doing that with advanced language constructs can require some non-elementary skills, therefore using those libraries can require a steep learning curve and should thus be seen as an investment.
It's all a matter of studying the library for your needs, evaluating the risks, and making your choice.
How expensive is it?
How long does it take to charge?
How long can it hold its charge before it leaks?
How many recharge cycles can it do?
I tried using word in a collaborative fashion once, it was a mess. If anyone opened the file with a more recent version of word than the rest, it magically made the file only work with that most recent version. And it's just a mess to exchange files by email and remember which version is which. It's also impossible to work in parallel on different parts of the same document.
It just doesn't work.