Well, you could always kill the meat production, and use the pasture lands to plant something that makes a more convenient use of the second laws of thermodynamics. One cow needs one square kilometer per month of grass to feed. One cow will feed you a month. One square km of vegetables will feed you longer, and cheaper.
The real question is this: in the unlikely event of a zombie apocalypse (nuclear or otherwise), and upon meeting a zombie Natalie Portman, would you shoot her in the head, or would you fuck her brains out (if you catch my drift)?
A few years ago, I found a publicly accessible server that belonged to the local K-12 school system in a medium sized city. By using the username "test," and password "test", any one could access all of the Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) that the school system kept for each and every one of its special education students. Probably, most of these documents were for "Gifted and Talented" children, and were standardized forms that had contact information. However, some of them almost certainly contained details about the learning disabilities that various children had.
Dear citizen: thank you very much for your confession. A federal agent will be contacting you shortly. We will notify your relatives and loved ones that you will be unavailable until further notice. Please be sure to have a change of clothes at the ready.
Do you know what would surprise me? If someone came along and told me "I've built an unbreakable, un-hackable, totally trustworthy system. Here's the proof. It's free. Enjoy." Anything short of that can only aspire to be amusing, but never surprising.
Pick any subject and ask "why"? Keep asking. and you'd always end up questioning the existence of then universe. This is nothing new. Science is about answering "how", not "why".
Why does any chemical reaction take place? We don't know. We only know that you mix A + B under certain conditions, it always produces C. Always. If it doesn't, then either the conditions are not the same, of the assumption is incorrect, thus science starts over, formulates a new hipothesis and devices a new experiment to confirm.
Science is a neverending process, feeding itself back. Faith is an arbitrary answer that shields itself against critisism under an ambiguous pretense of subjetivity ("It's what I believe and you can't change my mind!") and conservatism ("Everybody is wrong and I'll always be right and that it!").
Why do you need a step-by-step instruction manual to reproduce the big-bang in order to be satisfied? Proof of something does not need to be the reproduction of that thing. You can state that parallel lines never touch without actually following those lines.
I'm getting this in two different PCs in both Chrome and Internet Explorer. The HTML code of the posts has select tags in some words. I'm not getting this in any other page. I want to kill somebody.
I came to a conclusion after reading your three rather lengthy posts. All of them, in my opinion, missed the point, despite the possibility that you might be expressing some quite correct concepts. Thus, I concluded you were anxious to share your knowledge, even if misplaced.
Perhaps my last remark was not the most polite one. My sincere apologies if I offended you.
You still haven't explained how your example justifies that OOP is anti-parallel. And C/C++ is not the entire scope of OOP. To summarize:
You said what a given hardware might do if you ran a very particular code on a certain program structure.
I said that hardware did that because the compiler translated the code into assembler code which is interpreted by the hardware in such a way; so changing the compiler changes the hardware behaviour (that's the whole point of programming, isn't it?).
None of this has anything to do with OOP being or not anti-parallel
I think you're trying to impress all of us with your supposed in-depth knowledge about processors' architecture. I'm still waiting to be impressed.
is telling the compiler "i'm going to use these two arrays in different cores, so be so kind to generate assembler code to handle this efficiently". So, it's a compiler problem, not an OOP problem. Two different levels of abstraction.
On the other hand, I have a problem with this statement in the context of the current discussion:
The bottleneck isn't CPU any longer, it's loading data from main memory into the CPU caches for the most part
Who cares? A worse bottleneck is reading from a RDBMS. The processor's cache is orders of magnitude apart if you think in terms of levels of abstraction.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you could always kill the meat production, and use the pasture lands to plant something that makes a more convenient use of the second laws of thermodynamics. One cow needs one square kilometer per month of grass to feed. One cow will feed you a month. One square km of vegetables will feed you longer, and cheaper.
Perhaps you should flock, man. A lot of animals do when winter comes. I mean it. This sitting-on-your ass society has to end sometime.
The real question is this: in the unlikely event of a zombie apocalypse (nuclear or otherwise), and upon meeting a zombie Natalie Portman, would you shoot her in the head, or would you fuck her brains out (if you catch my drift)?
A few years ago, I found a publicly accessible server that belonged to the local K-12 school system in a medium sized city. By using the username "test," and password "test", any one could access all of the Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) that the school system kept for each and every one of its special education students. Probably, most of these documents were for "Gifted and Talented" children, and were standardized forms that had contact information. However, some of them almost certainly contained details about the learning disabilities that various children had.
Dear citizen: thank you very much for your confession. A federal agent will be contacting you shortly. We will notify your relatives and loved ones that you will be unavailable until further notice. Please be sure to have a change of clothes at the ready.
Yours,
Big Brother
... nothing to hide, nothing to worry? 1 2 3 That's how long it takes to be modded flamebait!
but you might be a little surprised to learn that
Do you know what would surprise me? If someone came along and told me "I've built an unbreakable, un-hackable, totally trustworthy system. Here's the proof. It's free. Enjoy." Anything short of that can only aspire to be amusing, but never surprising.
Hypothesis + supporting experimental results = theory.
Or not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
If religious folks are wrong, they burn you and your family down, and course your name for all eternity.
There, FTFY.
Ironically enough in the context of this topic, I made a parabole, not an example. ;)
Pick any subject and ask "why"? Keep asking. and you'd always end up questioning the existence of then universe. This is nothing new. Science is about answering "how", not "why".
Why does any chemical reaction take place? We don't know. We only know that you mix A + B under certain conditions, it always produces C. Always. If it doesn't, then either the conditions are not the same, of the assumption is incorrect, thus science starts over, formulates a new hipothesis and devices a new experiment to confirm.
Science is a neverending process, feeding itself back. Faith is an arbitrary answer that shields itself against critisism under an ambiguous pretense of subjetivity ("It's what I believe and you can't change my mind!") and conservatism ("Everybody is wrong and I'll always be right and that it!").
This might sound silly to you, but in reality, you make faith/trust decisions every single day that you cannot verify.
Those things are not the subject to science, nor is faith.
Why do you need a step-by-step instruction manual to reproduce the big-bang in order to be satisfied? Proof of something does not need to be the reproduction of that thing. You can state that parallel lines never touch without actually following those lines.
Venus has thick clouds which produce greenhouse effect, thus increasing the planet's surface temperature. There, proof it could happen. Anything else?
He said it should be subjet of tests, not reproduciton. You cannot reproduce yourself, yet you can prove you exist.
Though string theory may be lumped in with religion... :)
Man I wish /. would let one mod and comment in the same story.
That's why it's called a "theory".
Who the fuck is Paul Venezia, and why should we care?
Oh my, oh my... Let it be noted: we don't have April Fools over here...
I'm getting this in two different PCs in both Chrome and Internet Explorer. The HTML code of the posts has select tags in some words. I'm not getting this in any other page. I want to kill somebody.
Ok, why am I getting all these combo boxes in the posts? It's driving me nuts.
last week I put 43 hours in Dragon Age, while on steam my friends are playing Dragon Age II.
40 hours of anything besides fucking and sleeping is too much
A troll? Come on, no need to be so sensitive.
I came to a conclusion after reading your three rather lengthy posts. All of them, in my opinion, missed the point, despite the possibility that you might be expressing some quite correct concepts. Thus, I concluded you were anxious to share your knowledge, even if misplaced.
Perhaps my last remark was not the most polite one. My sincere apologies if I offended you.
You still haven't explained how your example justifies that OOP is anti-parallel. And C/C++ is not the entire scope of OOP. To summarize:
I think you're trying to impress all of us with your supposed in-depth knowledge about processors' architecture. I'm still waiting to be impressed.
Nothing, absolutely nothing in this:
struct asdf {
int a[200];
int b[200];
};
is telling the compiler "i'm going to use these two arrays in different cores, so be so kind to generate assembler code to handle this efficiently". So, it's a compiler problem, not an OOP problem. Two different levels of abstraction.
On the other hand, I have a problem with this statement in the context of the current discussion:
The bottleneck isn't CPU any longer, it's loading data from main memory into the CPU caches for the most part
Who cares? A worse bottleneck is reading from a RDBMS. The processor's cache is orders of magnitude apart if you think in terms of levels of abstraction.
Bill, is that you?
The data layout in the first case does not exactly lend itself to efficiently processing all a in parallel to all b.
Please explain.