What makes C so great is that it was born the way it is and does not change.
Sure if you ignore the all changes between K&R C to ANSI C and then from C89 to C99 and then the changes that are going to happen with C1x the,n yes, it is has "not changed".
Your question appears to be rather loaded with the intent to troll. Even if it did get slower, the article is about OS,not web browsers. Furthermore, regressions are hardly unheard of. But, as someone already pointed out, the browser is pretty fast despite what appears to be a trolling effort to misdirect people.
How am I trolling? Saying something you don't like or disagree with is not trolling. The article was saying that Gingerbread "is said to be the fastest version of Android yet" yet all their benchmarks with Android 2.1 and 2.2 phone show them to be faster in almost every case. The only case the Nexus S was faster was by a fraction of a percent in one benchmark. Their data can't substantiate the initial claim.
Okay, my bad on that. Still, it's only narrowing edging out 2.1 phones in An3dBench, and is behind in every other metric in the article behind a 2.2 phone.
Otherwise known as Gingerbread, this OS is said to be the fastest version of Android yet.
Based on what? If 2.3 is the fastest android yet, why does the Nexus S fare as the 2nd worst in Javascript performance, fare worse than 2 Android 2.2 phones on Linpack and only narrowly edges out Android 2.1 phones in FPS on An3dBench. So unless the Nexus S is causing all these performance issues, these numbers don't anywhere at all show 2.3 to be faster in any sort of definitive way.
His point is stupid. It's something like "If it works, don't touch it" No matter if the code is a house of cards and it will fall sooner or later.
No, that's not at all what he said. He said that if you want to improve an existing code base that you should work to iteratively refactor it instead of throwing it all out the window and starting over. I'm not seeing what is stupid about that at all. Netscape 6, the dBase for Windows debacle from Borland, among many other notable example show that what he says is NOT stupid.
Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
If it is widely used it IS a word despite all the grammar nazis trying to continually claim otherwise.
First of all, it has not been shown that 24 bits depth (~144dB dynamic range) will give any audible benefit over 16 bit depth (~96dB) sampling depth. I don't know of any successful ABX test regarding that.
There aren't any but audiophiles will continue to claim there is. 24-bit is useful at the mastering stage just as 192kHz is really only useful at the mastering and mixing stage. 24-bit sound is completely wasteful on the typical loudness wars audio track.
No, it's actually usually much better than that when it comes to lossless compression. With 24-bit compression with FLAC I've seen differences of nearly 50% or more between feeding it a dithered 16-bit wav vs 24-bit wav. Either way, that 50MB is doing nothing but wasting space when ABX tests show that almost no one hears the difference. And you extrapolate that out to the amount of traffic on Apple's music store even 50MB less per album would amount to a HUGE amount of traffic difference.
Exactly. Most of the music being put out doesn't even use the full range that 16-bit provides. 24-bit would just be nothing but space wasting for no benefit.
The move to 24-bit samples could solve this problem by making CD mastering more "idiot proof."
No it wouldn't. Nothing about moving to 24-bit stops them from overly compressing the dynamic range as they are now. The only "benefit" is going be from the fact that the sound files will need at least an additional 30% or more in space.
And FYI, from an audio engineering and musician standpoint (why, yes I am one, err both), the creative freedom when producing for those environments become infinitely more interesting than L/R stereo! But keep plugging the placebo effect line. We'll pull your ass into the 21st century whether you want us to or not!
Until you can post some evidence from ABX testing showing that it isn't anything BUT placebo effect you might have a point. Until then, reality shows that only in the imaginations of audiophiles is there really that much difference.
To further add, the dynamic range of the average human ear is only 120dB. You really aren't losing THAT much by sticking to 16-bit. 24-bit will provide nothing but larger file sizes with little benefit. This is about as asinine as the people who claim that they need 192kHz audio as well when their ears can't 75% of the frequencies being retained by such a sampling rate. The only benefit 24-bit and 192kHz has is for mastering when you want to lose as little quality and introduce as little aliasing as possible.
Not really, although possibly, depending on the recordings. The difference between 24-bit and 16-bit audio is the dynamic range, with 24-bit having a much wider range between the quietest possible sound and the loudest possible sound. This is something that can definitely be heard, even on lower end equipment.
16-bit audio has a 100dB dynamic range and if properly dithered from 24-bit to 16-bit almost no one will notice the difference. To claim otherwise is to fly in the face of ABX tests which back this up.
Exactly and ABX tests back this up. But of course the audiophiles will claim that they need 24-bit, 192khz sound so that their 50,000 dollar hifi with 5000 dollar interconnects can reach it's full potential.
My post was mostly tongue-in-cheek. The people who are most likely going to wear these t-shirts with Assange's face are mostly just as braindead as the hipsters who wear Che shirts without ever knowing anything about him other than the fact that it's "cool" to have his face on your shirt.
Slashdot Mirror
What makes C so great is that it was born the way it is and does not change.
Sure if you ignore the all changes between K&R C to ANSI C and then from C89 to C99 and then the changes that are going to happen with C1x the,n yes, it is has "not changed".
Your question appears to be rather loaded with the intent to troll. Even if it did get slower, the article is about OS,not web browsers. Furthermore, regressions are hardly unheard of. But, as someone already pointed out, the browser is pretty fast despite what appears to be a trolling effort to misdirect people.
How am I trolling? Saying something you don't like or disagree with is not trolling. The article was saying that Gingerbread "is said to be the fastest version of Android yet" yet all their benchmarks with Android 2.1 and 2.2 phone show them to be faster in almost every case. The only case the Nexus S was faster was by a fraction of a percent in one benchmark. Their data can't substantiate the initial claim.
I know. It's not like Hoglund is an author of highly reviewed books about writing rootkits and exploiting software. Oh wait...
Wrong thread.
I know. It's not like Hoglund is an author of highly reviewed books about writing rootkits and exploiting software. Oh wait...
Okay, my bad on that. Still, it's only narrowing edging out 2.1 phones in An3dBench, and is behind in every other metric in the article behind a 2.2 phone.
Otherwise known as Gingerbread, this OS is said to be the fastest version of Android yet.
Based on what? If 2.3 is the fastest android yet, why does the Nexus S fare as the 2nd worst in Javascript performance, fare worse than 2 Android 2.2 phones on Linpack and only narrowly edges out Android 2.1 phones in FPS on An3dBench. So unless the Nexus S is causing all these performance issues, these numbers don't anywhere at all show 2.3 to be faster in any sort of definitive way.
Unfortunately the account deletion happened AFTER it left beta.
The Arrandale Core i5-5xxUM has a TDP of 18W and is massively more performant than the Bobcats at the same TDP. Try again, you butthurt loser.
His point is stupid. It's something like "If it works, don't touch it" No matter if the code is a house of cards and it will fall sooner or later.
No, that's not at all what he said. He said that if you want to improve an existing code base that you should work to iteratively refactor it instead of throwing it all out the window and starting over. I'm not seeing what is stupid about that at all. Netscape 6, the dBase for Windows debacle from Borland, among many other notable example show that what he says is NOT stupid.
From here
Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
If it is widely used it IS a word despite all the grammar nazis trying to continually claim otherwise.
First of all, it has not been shown that 24 bits depth (~144dB dynamic range) will give any audible benefit over 16 bit depth (~96dB) sampling depth. I don't know of any successful ABX test regarding that.
There aren't any but audiophiles will continue to claim there is. 24-bit is useful at the mastering stage just as 192kHz is really only useful at the mastering and mixing stage. 24-bit sound is completely wasteful on the typical loudness wars audio track.
No, it's actually usually much better than that when it comes to lossless compression. With 24-bit compression with FLAC I've seen differences of nearly 50% or more between feeding it a dithered 16-bit wav vs 24-bit wav. Either way, that 50MB is doing nothing but wasting space when ABX tests show that almost no one hears the difference. And you extrapolate that out to the amount of traffic on Apple's music store even 50MB less per album would amount to a HUGE amount of traffic difference.
Exactly. Most of the music being put out doesn't even use the full range that 16-bit provides. 24-bit would just be nothing but space wasting for no benefit.
The move to 24-bit samples could solve this problem by making CD mastering more "idiot proof."
No it wouldn't. Nothing about moving to 24-bit stops them from overly compressing the dynamic range as they are now. The only "benefit" is going be from the fact that the sound files will need at least an additional 30% or more in space.
And FYI, from an audio engineering and musician standpoint (why, yes I am one, err both), the creative freedom when producing for those environments become infinitely more interesting than L/R stereo! But keep plugging the placebo effect line. We'll pull your ass into the 21st century whether you want us to or not!
Until you can post some evidence from ABX testing showing that it isn't anything BUT placebo effect you might have a point. Until then, reality shows that only in the imaginations of audiophiles is there really that much difference.
Because properly dithered 16-bit audio retains all the goodness of 24-bit sound but with much smaller file sizes.
To further add, the dynamic range of the average human ear is only 120dB. You really aren't losing THAT much by sticking to 16-bit. 24-bit will provide nothing but larger file sizes with little benefit. This is about as asinine as the people who claim that they need 192kHz audio as well when their ears can't 75% of the frequencies being retained by such a sampling rate. The only benefit 24-bit and 192kHz has is for mastering when you want to lose as little quality and introduce as little aliasing as possible.
Not really, although possibly, depending on the recordings. The difference between 24-bit and 16-bit audio is the dynamic range, with 24-bit having a much wider range between the quietest possible sound and the loudest possible sound. This is something that can definitely be heard, even on lower end equipment.
16-bit audio has a 100dB dynamic range and if properly dithered from 24-bit to 16-bit almost no one will notice the difference. To claim otherwise is to fly in the face of ABX tests which back this up.
Exactly and ABX tests back this up. But of course the audiophiles will claim that they need 24-bit, 192khz sound so that their 50,000 dollar hifi with 5000 dollar interconnects can reach it's full potential.
My post was mostly tongue-in-cheek. The people who are most likely going to wear these t-shirts with Assange's face are mostly just as braindead as the hipsters who wear Che shirts without ever knowing anything about him other than the fact that it's "cool" to have his face on your shirt.
But...but...he's this generations Che Guevara. Look forward to seeing all sorts of losers sporting t-shirts with Assange's face on them.
For example, after I "checkout" a book, how do they enforce me to "return" the book.
Simple, after x amount of days the DRM prevents you from accessing it any more. Wow, that was hard.
Yeah, it's as hard as telling it to go in offline mode and then launching the game. zOMG so complicated!
The elite of the elite run Ubuntu.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha *deep breath* hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Good joke...