That's the best explanation I've seen so far. Apparently George H. W. Bush and Dukakis are the reason why the League of Women Voters stopped organizing debates. It makes sense that only Ds and Rs get to debate when it's the Ds and Rs who figure out who gets to debate.
I've seen this objection before. I'm pretty sure what makes it that Republican or Democratic candidates are the ones that get enough votes is because so many people choose to vote for them
The Republican and Democrat candidates are the only ones who really get presented to the public. Every election I can remember that got covered on major media is always red vs. blue, every single one. Some early debates might include several candidates, but once things start getting close to election day the debates are also red vs. blue.
In the most recent presidential election there were five parties with ballot access in enough states to win the required 270 electoral votes. So how come the televised debates only show two of those parties to the public? Who has the authority to decide which parties get to debate and which don't? Why aren't the Constitutional, Green, and Libertarian parties allowed to debate in prime time on major networks? The reason most people vote for red or blue is because those are the only choices they think they have, they never even have a chance to hear the other voices to decide if those fit their views better than The Two Who Are More Alike Than They Are Different. How come Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, and Bob Barr weren't allowed to debate in prime time with the others? Even with no coverage those 4 candidates together got over 1.6 million votes. Imagine how many they would have got if every debate included all 6 candidates.
Definitely agree, I can't get through that article without making this face.
Apple would be heralded as a software God...
This incredible foresight...
people don’t see the true genius behind Steve Job’s vision
Only a true fanboy can refer to compiling for multiple architectures using those terms. It's 2010, and it shows "incredible foresight" and "true genius" to say "hey, maybe it would be cool if we could compile this code to run on more than one CPU?"
I'm pretty sure the clerk didn't shoot her in the back of the head with a laser pointer in a courtroom, so I'm not real sure what you think that would prove (or disprove).
You'd figure on/., a place with what should be full intelligent people, that the liberal BS about niggers being equal to whites, would be laughed at.
Since a large community of intelligent people essentially rejects the idea that races are fundamentally unequal, what does that tell you? When reasonably intelligent people moderate any post using the term nigger in a derogatory way as flamebait, do you learn anything from that?
Is that really the case, though? The article was a little light on details with this acceleration, for all I know it could be DirectCompute based which would not work on Intel graphics and might end up being slower than IE8 on such systems.
Definitely, it's not just performance either, they've added support for several things in HTML5, CSS3, SVG etc that people have been wanting. They've really shown a lot of effort in trying to make IE not suck so much.
I wasn't aware the Javascript had improved that much in IE9. Thanks for the info.
Yeah, in a multi-core system they're actually using one core to compile Javascript in the background before it gets executed (so it's executing compiled code). The article I was reading was light on technical details, but it seemed to imply that it was being compiled to ASM or some other CPU-dependent language. Maybe just similar to how the.NET CLR works though.
I thought I remembered a big test including IE9, but I think I'm remembering this piece from Tom's, which shows IE8 in last, but not very far behind Firefox.
In any case, I'm more impressed with Microsoft's work on IE9 than I've been by anything they've done recently (although I haven't played around with Windows 7 yet). I was happy with IE8 just because of the progress it showed from IE7, but IE9 is way beyond that, especially in terms of standards support. It won't make me stop using Opera, but it will definitely help me in my job developing web apps.
The thing that really pisses me off is the number of clients I have who still use IE6 (Avnet and Budget Truck, I'm looking at you), what's that 9 years old now? Thankfully, we don't need to test our applications with IE6 anymore, at this point we're responding to IE6 issues on an as-reported basis.
This phenomenon is not unique to Internet Explorer, and it's not unique to Microsoft. In fact, Firefox itself can certainly do with some added efficiencies.
It doesn't change the fact that when you compare older IE versions to the competition, they tend to require more processing power without actually doing more.
Right, just like older versions of Firefox compared to the competition used way more memory without actually doing more. IE has always beaten Firefox in memory usage, as a matter of fact.
The basic fact is that IE9 is leaps and bounds ahead of previous IE versions. IE9 is just as improved from IE8 as IE8 was from IE7/IE6 (they were nearly the same thing). It's also going to be the case that, unless Mozilla really kicks things into high gear, when IE9 gets released it will immediately challenge Firefox for 4th place in the performance charts. Right now IE8 is still about an order of magnitude behind Firefox at 4th place, but the IE9 preview (as inefficient as it is, as you've pointed out) was already faster at Javascript than Firefox 3.7. Making up an order of magnitude in performance isn't something to scoff at, that's a significant achievement. Microsoft is late to the party, but it's still a significant achievement.
Yeah, and it pegged the GPU. So basically the GP is right; IE 9 is so inefficient that they have to offload computation to the GPU to make it usable.
Thanks for the conclusion Professor, feel free to show your work next time. How much time have you spent with the IE9 codebase exactly? I'm sure it's stupid to point this out, because you're obviously aware, but IE9 isn't even an alpha browser at this point, it's a "platform preview", it doesn't even have an address bar or back button yet, but hey, CLEARLY the code is complete crap. Thanks for pointing that out.
Browsers are going to use more processing power in the future, that's a fact. The reason that's a fact is because it's also a fact that websites are demanding more processor power. The reason that's true is because websites are turning into web applications, with a lot of features where you actually do useful work.
So, browsers are going to continue to require more power, that's simply not something that you can argue against. Microsoft's approach is a good one because the power they are taking is not from the CPU, which every other running application needs also, but from the relatively-idle GPU. This is a great solution for any browser meeting the needs of current websites.
I bet it's just marketing. A designer could probably show a woman a picture like this, and have the woman's reaction be "I want to look like that!" It's not physically possible to look like that, but a long, slender form is viewed as more graceful than a short stumpy guy, so it's probably just marketing. They're trying to sell the fantasy instead of the reality.
Now that I think about it, there's got to be a connection between this and anorexic models. The models are probably under pressure to look like the drawings (vacant stares and everything).
Great job Tae Ashida, that looks like the perfect outfit for anyone whose lower legs are longer than the rest of their body.
Re:Like Woz didn't move on a LONG time ago?
on
The Apple Two
·
· Score: 1
I wonder how long it will take Apple to crack into gaming and really hit the big time?
Two words: Apple Pippin.
The Apple Pippin is your response to Apple hitting the big time in gaming? That thing was released in the mid-90s for $600, it had a whopping 18 games available in the US at launch, and it sold 42,000 units. Not exactly "hitting the big time."
production was so limited that there were more keyboard and modem accessories produced than actual systems
Ah, so you really can't predict what the electron configuration will be based on the number of protons. It's true that there is only one configuration possible, but there's not a formula to predict what it would be.
Because most of the interesting properties of an element are not defined by the number of protons but by the number of electrons and which orbitals they are found in in the ground state.
Can you infer properties about the electrons from just the number of protons? Is it possible to have two distinct elements with the same number of protons in the nucleus, but different configurations of electrons?
Most of my questions are based on the apparent fact that for any given number of protons in the nucleus, there is exactly one element with that amount. If that were true, it would seem that given the number of protons, you would be able to deduce certain properties about the element (if there was only one possible configuration of electrons for a given number of protons).
still more massive elements with chemical properties no one can predict.
Why can't this be predicted? An element is defined by the number of protons in the nucleus, right? So why is it difficult or impossible to predict what happens when you add another proton? We already have a known sequence of over a hundred elements we can look at to see what changes as the number of protons increases.
Thanks for answering the stupid question of the day.
I read the wiki article before I posted, Mr. No Sense Of Humor. I even called it a Boomer, sheesh. I'm not the one who shit in your cereal this morning, I promise.
If you (my next door neighbor) kill my family by purposefully spreading rat poison in our fresh vegetable garden, I promise to only shoot back at you with my pellet gun.
Did you just equate the US military's massive stockpile of conventional weapons and attack vehicles to a pellet gun? You realize we have conventional warheads which nearly equal the power from a nuke, right? That bomb has a yield of 11 tons, the smallest nuke has a yield of 10.
Venezuela may now feel they can launch a biological attack without fear of being nuked back to God.
Correct, Venezuela can attack us and we will not nuke them. We will attack them with daisy cutters, Mk-84s, thermobaric bunker busters, MOABs, Apaches, Raptors, Hornets, Spirits, Hercules, Reapers, Hellfires, Abrams, Bradleys, these things, and some other shit none of us have even heard of. But we won't use nukes. Keep living in fear though.
OK. So, when the Strategic Submersible Booming Nuker fires a Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile with 12 conventional Multiple Independently targetable Reentry Vehicles...
Slashdot Mirror
That's the best explanation I've seen so far. Apparently George H. W. Bush and Dukakis are the reason why the League of Women Voters stopped organizing debates. It makes sense that only Ds and Rs get to debate when it's the Ds and Rs who figure out who gets to debate.
I've seen this objection before. I'm pretty sure what makes it that Republican or Democratic candidates are the ones that get enough votes is because so many people choose to vote for them
The Republican and Democrat candidates are the only ones who really get presented to the public. Every election I can remember that got covered on major media is always red vs. blue, every single one. Some early debates might include several candidates, but once things start getting close to election day the debates are also red vs. blue.
In the most recent presidential election there were five parties with ballot access in enough states to win the required 270 electoral votes. So how come the televised debates only show two of those parties to the public? Who has the authority to decide which parties get to debate and which don't? Why aren't the Constitutional, Green, and Libertarian parties allowed to debate in prime time on major networks? The reason most people vote for red or blue is because those are the only choices they think they have, they never even have a chance to hear the other voices to decide if those fit their views better than The Two Who Are More Alike Than They Are Different. How come Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, and Bob Barr weren't allowed to debate in prime time with the others? Even with no coverage those 4 candidates together got over 1.6 million votes. Imagine how many they would have got if every debate included all 6 candidates.
Definitely agree, I can't get through that article without making this face.
Apple would be heralded as a software God...
This incredible foresight...
people don’t see the true genius behind Steve Job’s vision
Only a true fanboy can refer to compiling for multiple architectures using those terms. It's 2010, and it shows "incredible foresight" and "true genius" to say "hey, maybe it would be cool if we could compile this code to run on more than one CPU?"
I'm pretty sure the clerk didn't shoot her in the back of the head with a laser pointer in a courtroom, so I'm not real sure what you think that would prove (or disprove).
Apple is about control and butsecks.
Seriously, is that in the corporate charter? Maybe I should give them another look.
You'd figure on /., a place with what should be full intelligent people, that the liberal BS about niggers being equal to whites, would be laughed at.
Since a large community of intelligent people essentially rejects the idea that races are fundamentally unequal, what does that tell you? When reasonably intelligent people moderate any post using the term nigger in a derogatory way as flamebait, do you learn anything from that?
Is that really the case, though? The article was a little light on details with this acceleration, for all I know it could be DirectCompute based which would not work on Intel graphics and might end up being slower than IE8 on such systems.
Definitely, it's not just performance either, they've added support for several things in HTML5, CSS3, SVG etc that people have been wanting. They've really shown a lot of effort in trying to make IE not suck so much.
I wasn't aware the Javascript had improved that much in IE9. Thanks for the info.
Yeah, in a multi-core system they're actually using one core to compile Javascript in the background before it gets executed (so it's executing compiled code). The article I was reading was light on technical details, but it seemed to imply that it was being compiled to ASM or some other CPU-dependent language. Maybe just similar to how the .NET CLR works though.
It looks like there's a short summary here:
http://www.taranfx.com/ie9-vs-chrome-vs-firefox-vs-opera
http://news.softpedia.com/newsImage/IE9-vs-Firefox-3-7-and-3-6-Chrome-5-0-and-4-0-and-Opera-10-50-3.png/
I thought I remembered a big test including IE9, but I think I'm remembering this piece from Tom's, which shows IE8 in last, but not very far behind Firefox.
In any case, I'm more impressed with Microsoft's work on IE9 than I've been by anything they've done recently (although I haven't played around with Windows 7 yet). I was happy with IE8 just because of the progress it showed from IE7, but IE9 is way beyond that, especially in terms of standards support. It won't make me stop using Opera, but it will definitely help me in my job developing web apps.
The thing that really pisses me off is the number of clients I have who still use IE6 (Avnet and Budget Truck, I'm looking at you), what's that 9 years old now? Thankfully, we don't need to test our applications with IE6 anymore, at this point we're responding to IE6 issues on an as-reported basis.
They are as rare as proper capitalization.
There's not a single piece of software anyone has written that can not be made more efficient. Here's a good example:
http://developers.slashdot.org/story/10/03/16/2216258/Simpler-Hello-World-Demonstrated-In-C
This phenomenon is not unique to Internet Explorer, and it's not unique to Microsoft. In fact, Firefox itself can certainly do with some added efficiencies.
It doesn't change the fact that when you compare older IE versions to the competition, they tend to require more processing power without actually doing more.
Right, just like older versions of Firefox compared to the competition used way more memory without actually doing more. IE has always beaten Firefox in memory usage, as a matter of fact.
The basic fact is that IE9 is leaps and bounds ahead of previous IE versions. IE9 is just as improved from IE8 as IE8 was from IE7/IE6 (they were nearly the same thing). It's also going to be the case that, unless Mozilla really kicks things into high gear, when IE9 gets released it will immediately challenge Firefox for 4th place in the performance charts. Right now IE8 is still about an order of magnitude behind Firefox at 4th place, but the IE9 preview (as inefficient as it is, as you've pointed out) was already faster at Javascript than Firefox 3.7. Making up an order of magnitude in performance isn't something to scoff at, that's a significant achievement. Microsoft is late to the party, but it's still a significant achievement.
"We weren't the first to this party," Jobs said of the new multitasking feature, "but we're going to be the best. Just like cut and paste."
Also, apparently Apple is the market leader in cutting and pasting.
Not everybody wants a SSH console on their mobile phone.
.. and that's the only thing multi-tasking is useful for, right?
Sorry, what was your point?
I swear to you by all that is holy, by the time this is over, we're going to regret having been in such an all-consuming hurry to suck the iDick.
Not all of us are.. some people saw this coming a while ago.
Yeah, and it pegged the GPU. So basically the GP is right; IE 9 is so inefficient that they have to offload computation to the GPU to make it usable.
Thanks for the conclusion Professor, feel free to show your work next time. How much time have you spent with the IE9 codebase exactly? I'm sure it's stupid to point this out, because you're obviously aware, but IE9 isn't even an alpha browser at this point, it's a "platform preview", it doesn't even have an address bar or back button yet, but hey, CLEARLY the code is complete crap. Thanks for pointing that out.
Browsers are going to use more processing power in the future, that's a fact. The reason that's a fact is because it's also a fact that websites are demanding more processor power. The reason that's true is because websites are turning into web applications, with a lot of features where you actually do useful work.
So, browsers are going to continue to require more power, that's simply not something that you can argue against. Microsoft's approach is a good one because the power they are taking is not from the CPU, which every other running application needs also, but from the relatively-idle GPU. This is a great solution for any browser meeting the needs of current websites.
I bet it's just marketing. A designer could probably show a woman a picture like this, and have the woman's reaction be "I want to look like that!" It's not physically possible to look like that, but a long, slender form is viewed as more graceful than a short stumpy guy, so it's probably just marketing. They're trying to sell the fantasy instead of the reality.
Now that I think about it, there's got to be a connection between this and anorexic models. The models are probably under pressure to look like the drawings (vacant stares and everything).
Great job Tae Ashida, that looks like the perfect outfit for anyone whose lower legs are longer than the rest of their body.
I wonder how long it will take Apple to crack into gaming and really hit the big time?
Two words: Apple Pippin.
The Apple Pippin is your response to Apple hitting the big time in gaming? That thing was released in the mid-90s for $600, it had a whopping 18 games available in the US at launch, and it sold 42,000 units. Not exactly "hitting the big time."
production was so limited that there were more keyboard and modem accessories produced than actual systems
Ah, so you really can't predict what the electron configuration will be based on the number of protons. It's true that there is only one configuration possible, but there's not a formula to predict what it would be.
Because most of the interesting properties of an element are not defined by the number of protons but by the number of electrons and which orbitals they are found in in the ground state.
Can you infer properties about the electrons from just the number of protons? Is it possible to have two distinct elements with the same number of protons in the nucleus, but different configurations of electrons?
Most of my questions are based on the apparent fact that for any given number of protons in the nucleus, there is exactly one element with that amount. If that were true, it would seem that given the number of protons, you would be able to deduce certain properties about the element (if there was only one possible configuration of electrons for a given number of protons).
Well then it's a good thing you're here to let us know what is and isn't funny. The world is a better place because of people like you.
still more massive elements with chemical properties no one can predict.
Why can't this be predicted? An element is defined by the number of protons in the nucleus, right? So why is it difficult or impossible to predict what happens when you add another proton? We already have a known sequence of over a hundred elements we can look at to see what changes as the number of protons increases.
Thanks for answering the stupid question of the day.
I read the wiki article before I posted, Mr. No Sense Of Humor. I even called it a Boomer, sheesh. I'm not the one who shit in your cereal this morning, I promise.
If you (my next door neighbor) kill my family by purposefully spreading rat poison in our fresh vegetable garden, I promise to only shoot back at you with my pellet gun.
Did you just equate the US military's massive stockpile of conventional weapons and attack vehicles to a pellet gun? You realize we have conventional warheads which nearly equal the power from a nuke, right? That bomb has a yield of 11 tons, the smallest nuke has a yield of 10.
Venezuela may now feel they can launch a biological attack without fear of being nuked back to God.
Correct, Venezuela can attack us and we will not nuke them. We will attack them with daisy cutters, Mk-84s, thermobaric bunker busters, MOABs, Apaches, Raptors, Hornets, Spirits, Hercules, Reapers, Hellfires, Abrams, Bradleys, these things, and some other shit none of us have even heard of. But we won't use nukes. Keep living in fear though.
OK. So, when the Strategic Submersible Booming Nuker fires a Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile with 12 conventional Multiple Independently targetable Reentry Vehicles...
Fixed that for you.