Uh, I didn't say FF should eat up RAM just because its available, it should allocate based on optimizing for the system. Think about it, you have a 512 MB system and a 8 GB system. You don't want FF eating more than half of the 512 MB system, but you shouldn't mind if FF grabs a GB or two from the 8GB set up. Scaling up does not mean eating all of the RAM.
As for being backgrounded, its up to the OS to kick FF to the curb for a while. There's a beautiful thing called Virtual Memory. FF can still have X memory, but most of it can be shipped to the disk when the system feels like it. Which it does, if you've ever noticed that opening a minimized program can lag when you're pushing the limits.
And with a modern computer with a modern OS, it's okay to be RAM greedy so long as you don't overkill on using it. If allocated memory isn't used, it (eventually) gets mapped to the disk so that it's saved, but it's not taking up RAM.
The OS's job is to figure out how to handle allocated memory, only the browser knows whether or not to allocate in the first place to get best results.
I think Firefox uses more memory if it thinks your computer has a lot of memory, and vice versa if your computer has little memory. That's actually a good thing.
SDD means something like a matrix with diagonal entries much larger than the other entries. Matrices are used in computing when you have a bunch of variables, a bunch of (linear) functions of those variables, and you want to solve for them. Classic example: in 3d graphics, you have a point in space (three variables: x, y, and z coordinate) and you want to map it to the computer screen (two variables: x, y). There's a bunch of functions you have relating all of those variables, and you can use matrices to consolidate and represent those functions. Then you can solve them using matrix magic to find the right pixel on the screen to draw.
Slight problem though, matrices can contain a number of elements. For example, the size of a matrix you'd use in 3d graphics is a 4*4, which is 16 elements. And those element themselves require quite a few calculations themselves. To solve a single matrix system, it takes a lot more work when you increase the size by a little bit. And matrices can get big real fast as you add more and more variables.
Actually, it will not one day destroy the earth, since the concept of the day itself will be wiped out.:P (Actually, I don't think the Earth itself isn't "destroyed" in the sun's dying days, it's just that our surface will be fried. Think about expanding the Sun's atmosphere over a sphere encompassing the Earth's orbit. It's already tenuous as it is right now. But the real estate value will go down by a lot, probably cause another recession in 5 billion years.)
Gack,/. ate mah post. Oh well. Sorry to the real math blokes for the following, I was too lazy to make it formal 'n proper.
For the sake of simplicity, let K = 0.9999999...
Let S be the set {0.9, 0.99, 0.999, 0.9999,...}, and let R be the supremum of S. ie R is the smallest number such that it still is larger than or equal to all of the elements of the set S.
1 is an upper bound of the set, and for any number X less than 1, you can find a 0.9999...999 (finite number of 9s) representation between X and 1. Thus 1 is the supremum of S, thus 1 = R.
K is an upper bound of the set, since we define it as having an "infinite" number of '9's. Also, any number smaller X than K has a 0.999.999 (finite number of 9s) representation between X and K. Therefore K is the supremum of S. Thus K = R = 1, so 0.9999999999... = 1.
Let's try it this way. Yes, it's a cheap ass proof, but it gets the gist of it. I'm too lazy to put it in good form.
For the sake of simplicity, let K = 0.9999999... (never ending 9s)
Let S be the set {0.9, 0.99, 0.999, 0.9999,...}, and let R be the supremum of S. ie R is the smallest number such that it still is larger than or equal to all of the elements of the set S.
1 is an upper bound of the set, and for any number X less than 1, you can find a 0.9999...999 (finite number of 9s) representation between X and 1. Thus 1 is the supremum of S, thus 1 = R.
K is an upper bound of the set, since we define it as having an "infinite" number of 9s. Also, any number smaller X than K has a 0.999.999 (finite number of 9s) representation between X and K. Therefore K is the supremum of S. Thus K = R = 1, so 0.9999999999... = 1.
I'm most likely never get myself a smart phone, but in the rare futuristic event I do, I'll look into it or its successors. My closest thing to a smart phone is my old Ti-83, in that you can type stuff into it, it's programmable, and you can touch the screen to make pretty colors.
I don't think so, not with positive integers at least. For example, the number 3. You can't find two integers a,b such that a^2 + b^2 = 3 or a^3 - b^3 = 3.
I think the summary was more like making the analogy that it's extreme to defriend somebody over a grouping issue as it's extreme to dehead somebody over a bad case of dandruff. Both are 100% effective, yes, but not necessarily the best route. There's, y'know, catching your hair on fire and keeping the rest of your head on your shoulders. There's, y'know, catching your friend on fire but not getting rid of 'em on facebook. There are other better solutions is what I'm saying.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, I didn't say FF should eat up RAM just because its available, it should allocate based on optimizing for the system. Think about it, you have a 512 MB system and a 8 GB system. You don't want FF eating more than half of the 512 MB system, but you shouldn't mind if FF grabs a GB or two from the 8GB set up. Scaling up does not mean eating all of the RAM.
As for being backgrounded, its up to the OS to kick FF to the curb for a while. There's a beautiful thing called Virtual Memory. FF can still have X memory, but most of it can be shipped to the disk when the system feels like it. Which it does, if you've ever noticed that opening a minimized program can lag when you're pushing the limits.
And with a modern computer with a modern OS, it's okay to be RAM greedy so long as you don't overkill on using it. If allocated memory isn't used, it (eventually) gets mapped to the disk so that it's saved, but it's not taking up RAM.
The OS's job is to figure out how to handle allocated memory, only the browser knows whether or not to allocate in the first place to get best results.
Memory fragmentation can cause it to slow down because it takes more overhead to find free space for more allocations.
I think Firefox uses more memory if it thinks your computer has a lot of memory, and vice versa if your computer has little memory. That's actually a good thing.
... 160 programmers is all you'll ever need?
SDD means something like a matrix with diagonal entries much larger than the other entries. Matrices are used in computing when you have a bunch of variables, a bunch of (linear) functions of those variables, and you want to solve for them. Classic example: in 3d graphics, you have a point in space (three variables: x, y, and z coordinate) and you want to map it to the computer screen (two variables: x, y). There's a bunch of functions you have relating all of those variables, and you can use matrices to consolidate and represent those functions. Then you can solve them using matrix magic to find the right pixel on the screen to draw.
Slight problem though, matrices can contain a number of elements. For example, the size of a matrix you'd use in 3d graphics is a 4*4, which is 16 elements. And those element themselves require quite a few calculations themselves. To solve a single matrix system, it takes a lot more work when you increase the size by a little bit. And matrices can get big real fast as you add more and more variables.
Actually, it will not one day destroy the earth, since the concept of the day itself will be wiped out. :P (Actually, I don't think the Earth itself isn't "destroyed" in the sun's dying days, it's just that our surface will be fried. Think about expanding the Sun's atmosphere over a sphere encompassing the Earth's orbit. It's already tenuous as it is right now. But the real estate value will go down by a lot, probably cause another recession in 5 billion years.)
That's because their Colonel's are brilliant. And modular.
The next step is to take the content out.
Yes it can.
input "Is this VM running slow? (y/n) ", runningSlow$
Gack, /. ate mah post. Oh well. Sorry to the real math blokes for the following, I was too lazy to make it formal 'n proper.
...}, and let R be the supremum of S. ie R is the smallest number such that it still is larger than or equal to all of the elements of the set S.
For the sake of simplicity, let K = 0.9999999...
Let S be the set {0.9, 0.99, 0.999, 0.9999,
1 is an upper bound of the set, and for any number X less than 1, you can find a 0.9999...999 (finite number of 9s) representation between X and 1. Thus 1 is the supremum of S, thus 1 = R.
K is an upper bound of the set, since we define it as having an "infinite" number of '9's. Also, any number smaller X than K has a 0.999.999 (finite number of 9s) representation between X and K. Therefore K is the supremum of S. Thus K = R = 1, so 0.9999999999... = 1.
Let's try it this way. Yes, it's a cheap ass proof, but it gets the gist of it. I'm too lazy to put it in good form.
...}, and let R be the supremum of S. ie R is the smallest number such that it still is larger than or equal to all of the elements of the set S.
For the sake of simplicity, let K = 0.9999999... (never ending 9s)
Let S be the set {0.9, 0.99, 0.999, 0.9999,
1 is an upper bound of the set, and for any number X less than 1, you can find a 0.9999...999 (finite number of 9s) representation between X and 1. Thus 1 is the supremum of S, thus 1 = R.
K is an upper bound of the set, since we define it as having an "infinite" number of 9s. Also, any number smaller X than K has a 0.999.999 (finite number of 9s) representation between X and K. Therefore K is the supremum of S. Thus K = R = 1, so 0.9999999999... = 1.
Huh, I was just about to say the same thing. See you in court.
Thanks. Haven't heard of it before.
I'm most likely never get myself a smart phone, but in the rare futuristic event I do, I'll look into it or its successors. My closest thing to a smart phone is my old Ti-83, in that you can type stuff into it, it's programmable, and you can touch the screen to make pretty colors.
At least we got pedantically.
We could if we had the source code files.
1 + 8 = 9, which is 6 upside down. I got dis numerology thing down.
I think "screwed over" was referring to NASA over authority issues and budget allocations, not necessarily the budget itself.
I don't think so, not with positive integers at least.
For example, the number 3. You can't find two integers a,b such that a^2 + b^2 = 3 or a^3 - b^3 = 3.
FWIW, 2015 is a difference between two cubes.
2025 is the sum of two squares.
*sigh* I know, it was a joke. Death would be too kind to any db designer who implemented such a monster.
No, what you're supposed to do is to have each movement have its own column.
. . . and the great tragedy is the politicians that ignore it are still in the game.
I think the summary was more like making the analogy that it's extreme to defriend somebody over a grouping issue as it's extreme to dehead somebody over a bad case of dandruff. Both are 100% effective, yes, but not necessarily the best route. There's, y'know, catching your hair on fire and keeping the rest of your head on your shoulders. There's, y'know, catching your friend on fire but not getting rid of 'em on facebook. There are other better solutions is what I'm saying.
Not that big of a deal. I've had longer pings from my ISP.