This is when you get an anonymous webmail account (trust me, there are shitloads of ancient phpnuke apps out there with no security in their webmail), and you put a friendly note on lists like full disclosure stating, "okay, I found a bug in xxx shopping cart app, here's how you exploit it." Amazing how fast the shopping cart vendor will update their software then.
So, how is that free expression in europe going. Buy any good nazi memorabilia lately? The difference between the US and Europe is that such things are discussed, and most people disagree with the censorship. In Europe, you disagree, you're a baby eating nazi.
Misunderstand because I point out that socialism almost invariably causes shortages and inefficiencies? While I feel that there are weaknesses in the American system, I don't see how that completely nationalizing the health care system will do anything other than cause shortages, create a net loss in skilled medical employees and stagnate the industry as is happening up there. Again, why would a market economy, with help for those who truely need it, be so bad? There are other systems that would work, such as the Dutch system, where people who truely can't afford insurance are given stipends to purchase insurance, with everyone else expected to be responsible for themselves. What would be so wrong with that system?
Depends on what you want to do. If you're using the xbox hardware as a devel kit for learning the intricacies of multiprocessor programming, $400 becomes damn cheap for the onboard hardware.
A law against what? Moronic gamers with more money than brain cells? A law that states that people can't offer to pay more than what some government agency decides is a fair price?
Seems to me that waiting lists for basic medical procedures show that there's some breakdown in the way things are run up there. Why force people who live up there at gunpoint to subscribe to a one size fits all service? Why don't you allow people who don't want to be a part of the system to opt out? If it is so great, why is being a part of it mandatory?
And if you forget to plug it in, you're back at square one. I'd rather live some place hospitible year-round and not have to worry about such nonsense.
I prefer california, actually. Better beers, crime's a bit of a problem but getting better, My employer has a great healthcare plan, and if they didn't, it's only $30/month for heath care to cover true emergencies, oh, and I'm 1/2 mile from a major hockey venue, and a mile from an amateur venue. What's there to love about having to wait 5 minutes for your car to warm up in the winter, or generally higher taxes?
You say you help your brothers, but why is it that your "wonderful" health care system has month or years long waiting lists for basic procedures, and that you can't even get supplemental insurance for many basic procedures even if you wanted it?
Except most cities are net producers of tax dollars. Due to the higher density, per capita costs on infrastructure are lower. A mile of telephone cable costs about the same in the city as opposed to the country, it's just that mile may have 100 times the people as the countryside. Higher densities are much more manageable with regards to environmental impact.
The actual cache usage is the performance hit here. The big issue with hyperthreading is that it was designed a bit on the cheap, so certain control structures dealing with controlling cache filling aren't in place - the two logical threads fight over who fills the cache. As a result, there's a greater chance of cache misses, causing the CPU to have to fetch data from the significantly slower main memory.
Intel has an excellent basic article describing the issues regarding various code/data block sizes and cache sizes, explaining the difference between how to code for hyperthreading processors and how to code for non-hyperthreading processors. What it boils down to is you've got to design your code to use less than half the cache size if you want hyperthreading to be effective.
This isn't an issue about overall cache size, this is an issue about cache contention. You'd still have a contention problem to a degree if the cache was 8MB. The way to do a multithreading processor is to either implement a shared cache approach like intel did, and expect programs not to use all the cache, a partitioned cache, which would lower performance on multithreaded apps that shared memory resources and decrease performance on unequally sized threads, or add cache partition control instructions, which would further increase cpu complexity and code size. Regardless of how you look at it, multithreading has a tendency to step on toes and requires one to program differently than in a single thread design. Regardless of the approach, you're not going to achieve optimal performance unless you're willing to modify your code to utilize the uniqueness of the hyperthreading model.
I read the intel assembly guide section regarding hyperthreading, and it clearly states that performance will drop if you don't take the shared cache into consideration. The two logical threads contend for the cache, causing the performance problems that were described. In order for there to be a true benefit to hyperthreading, either the program, the OS or the compiler needs to determine that hyperthreading is enabled, and model the code to only use less than half the cache. It's been known that way since the beginning, and frankly, is silly that MS is scratching their heads wondering why this is. Lower the cache footprint, and I'll be willing to bet that performance rises dramatically.
Y'know, you'd probably get right along with Bush. Just because I said that your kneejerk reactionaryism is not helpful and that you should think a bit, you accuse me of supporting torture. I don't. Plain and simple. I was criticizing your bringing up the torture issue because it's completely independent of the issue of human translation vs machine translation. As was reported elsewhere in the thread, there are times when that "independent" translator caused more problems than they solved. Or do you not like looking at points of view that don't support your view of the world?
Wow, such anger, such hatred, such rage. Such kneejerk reactionaryism. You're hellbent on saying "ZOMG, this will increase torture" instead of thinking, "hey, wait, this can stop incidents as well". I don't agree with torture, where did I ever say "we should beat the shit out of those shit-colored ragheads"? You do a lot of fancy jumping to conclusion.
I was trying to find the right analogy for the US with regards to the state sovreignity issue, debating between England/Scotland and the EU, but ommitted it in my post. But yes, it's somewhere between the relationship of England and Scotland in relation to the UK and France and Germany in relation to the EU.
That is because the US is not a monolithic country. How hard is that for you to understand? The US is intentionally designed to allow different states to have different laws and different ways of operation because it encourages areas to make laws that make sense for that particular area. Giving states rights, especially in a nation the size of the US encourages the flexibility needed to run a large country without things falling apart in a civil war every few years. States can pass laws which are reflective of their population's values, and the rest of the country can watch and see if they're beneficial or not. As a side effect, it confuses people, especially from other countries, when they see one state's actions as being indicitive of the entire country. US politics is confusing and confounding by design. Trying to oversimplify it like you seem to be trying to do is a bit silly.
Slashdot Mirror
This is when you get an anonymous webmail account (trust me, there are shitloads of ancient phpnuke apps out there with no security in their webmail), and you put a friendly note on lists like full disclosure stating, "okay, I found a bug in xxx shopping cart app, here's how you exploit it." Amazing how fast the shopping cart vendor will update their software then.
So, how is that free expression in europe going. Buy any good nazi memorabilia lately? The difference between the US and Europe is that such things are discussed, and most people disagree with the censorship. In Europe, you disagree, you're a baby eating nazi.
Misunderstand because I point out that socialism almost invariably causes shortages and inefficiencies? While I feel that there are weaknesses in the American system, I don't see how that completely nationalizing the health care system will do anything other than cause shortages, create a net loss in skilled medical employees and stagnate the industry as is happening up there. Again, why would a market economy, with help for those who truely need it, be so bad? There are other systems that would work, such as the Dutch system, where people who truely can't afford insurance are given stipends to purchase insurance, with everyone else expected to be responsible for themselves. What would be so wrong with that system?
So, basically, because some people get better service justifies everyone else getting crappier service? Seems silly to me.
I'd also recommend Arrogant Bastard Ale. Nice, very strong ale. Not available in many places, however, you may have luck at cost plus or bevmo.
Depends on what you want to do. If you're using the xbox hardware as a devel kit for learning the intricacies of multiprocessor programming, $400 becomes damn cheap for the onboard hardware.
A law against what? Moronic gamers with more money than brain cells? A law that states that people can't offer to pay more than what some government agency decides is a fair price?
The PS2 had a linux dev kit available for it, and the PS3 will come with Linux. Any more questions?
I dunno, I moderate my intake, and have beneficial side effects - good friends and good stories. I suggest checking your prescription.
You're still working for an american company. If the canadian economy were so good, surely you'd have no problem finding a local job.
Seems to me that waiting lists for basic medical procedures show that there's some breakdown in the way things are run up there. Why force people who live up there at gunpoint to subscribe to a one size fits all service? Why don't you allow people who don't want to be a part of the system to opt out? If it is so great, why is being a part of it mandatory?
And if you forget to plug it in, you're back at square one. I'd rather live some place hospitible year-round and not have to worry about such nonsense.
So, what about a local job market? Or are you going to continue taking advantage of the US's economy while hiding in canada?
I prefer california, actually. Better beers, crime's a bit of a problem but getting better, My employer has a great healthcare plan, and if they didn't, it's only $30/month for heath care to cover true emergencies, oh, and I'm 1/2 mile from a major hockey venue, and a mile from an amateur venue. What's there to love about having to wait 5 minutes for your car to warm up in the winter, or generally higher taxes?
You say you help your brothers, but why is it that your "wonderful" health care system has month or years long waiting lists for basic procedures, and that you can't even get supplemental insurance for many basic procedures even if you wanted it?
Except most cities are net producers of tax dollars. Due to the higher density, per capita costs on infrastructure are lower. A mile of telephone cable costs about the same in the city as opposed to the country, it's just that mile may have 100 times the people as the countryside. Higher densities are much more manageable with regards to environmental impact.
The actual cache usage is the performance hit here. The big issue with hyperthreading is that it was designed a bit on the cheap, so certain control structures dealing with controlling cache filling aren't in place - the two logical threads fight over who fills the cache. As a result, there's a greater chance of cache misses, causing the CPU to have to fetch data from the significantly slower main memory. Intel has an excellent basic article describing the issues regarding various code/data block sizes and cache sizes, explaining the difference between how to code for hyperthreading processors and how to code for non-hyperthreading processors. What it boils down to is you've got to design your code to use less than half the cache size if you want hyperthreading to be effective.
This isn't an issue about overall cache size, this is an issue about cache contention. You'd still have a contention problem to a degree if the cache was 8MB. The way to do a multithreading processor is to either implement a shared cache approach like intel did, and expect programs not to use all the cache, a partitioned cache, which would lower performance on multithreaded apps that shared memory resources and decrease performance on unequally sized threads, or add cache partition control instructions, which would further increase cpu complexity and code size. Regardless of how you look at it, multithreading has a tendency to step on toes and requires one to program differently than in a single thread design. Regardless of the approach, you're not going to achieve optimal performance unless you're willing to modify your code to utilize the uniqueness of the hyperthreading model.
I read the intel assembly guide section regarding hyperthreading, and it clearly states that performance will drop if you don't take the shared cache into consideration. The two logical threads contend for the cache, causing the performance problems that were described. In order for there to be a true benefit to hyperthreading, either the program, the OS or the compiler needs to determine that hyperthreading is enabled, and model the code to only use less than half the cache. It's been known that way since the beginning, and frankly, is silly that MS is scratching their heads wondering why this is. Lower the cache footprint, and I'll be willing to bet that performance rises dramatically.
Y'know, you'd probably get right along with Bush. Just because I said that your kneejerk reactionaryism is not helpful and that you should think a bit, you accuse me of supporting torture. I don't. Plain and simple. I was criticizing your bringing up the torture issue because it's completely independent of the issue of human translation vs machine translation. As was reported elsewhere in the thread, there are times when that "independent" translator caused more problems than they solved. Or do you not like looking at points of view that don't support your view of the world?
Wow, such anger, such hatred, such rage. Such kneejerk reactionaryism. You're hellbent on saying "ZOMG, this will increase torture" instead of thinking, "hey, wait, this can stop incidents as well". I don't agree with torture, where did I ever say "we should beat the shit out of those shit-colored ragheads"? You do a lot of fancy jumping to conclusion.
of course, you, being one who looks through the world in shit-tinted glasses, fails to see situations where that same "sterile" translation can prove a good double check against translators who may have ulterior motives. This can be a very, very useful double check, or a useful in hot situations where there are no nearby translators. Would you rather have people shooting it out, or maybe trying to establish some degree of communication?
I was trying to find the right analogy for the US with regards to the state sovreignity issue, debating between England/Scotland and the EU, but ommitted it in my post. But yes, it's somewhere between the relationship of England and Scotland in relation to the UK and France and Germany in relation to the EU.
That is because the US is not a monolithic country. How hard is that for you to understand? The US is intentionally designed to allow different states to have different laws and different ways of operation because it encourages areas to make laws that make sense for that particular area. Giving states rights, especially in a nation the size of the US encourages the flexibility needed to run a large country without things falling apart in a civil war every few years. States can pass laws which are reflective of their population's values, and the rest of the country can watch and see if they're beneficial or not. As a side effect, it confuses people, especially from other countries, when they see one state's actions as being indicitive of the entire country. US politics is confusing and confounding by design. Trying to oversimplify it like you seem to be trying to do is a bit silly.