The namespace size is irrelevant to how much virtual memory the linker needs. The Visual Studio linker needs to have address space for two things:
1. Mapping of all the files it uses. 2. The internal state used by the compiler backend (LTCG -- link time code generation) and the linker proper.
With LTCG enabled, object files do not contain assembly, they contain compiler IR (intermediate representation) of the code. The stuff you get after parsing and IR optimizations, before code generation.
If the linker bombs out on a 32 bit host, it's usually because the input files don't fit into available address space, that's all. The input files contain the IR for all of the code you're linking. They're much bigger (factor of 4 and up, in my limited experience) than the binary object files that contain "just" machine code. You have the same problem when you compile Qt with webkit. You need to use the/3g switch and keep your fingers crossed, or bite the fine bullet and do it on a 64 bit host.
Safari, on OS X at least, shows progress bar as the background of the address line edit. It has no status bar, and I don't miss it. It's pointless. Knowing what the browser is doing is pretty much useless. It won't help you if you have a crappy connection. I used to think it was helpful, then I switched to a mac. It's a waste of precious screen real estate. It won't fix your connection for you. If you're tired of waiting, either hit reload or browse elsewhere. This won't depend on whatever the status bar would be showing. You don't have many options. Heck, you have two.
You learn it by example, and without name calling. You can use the concepts without having a complete theory. The basic axioms of a group were introduced, to me, using integers and addition, in very early elementary education. Probably 3rd grade, and we did name one of them using proper nomenclature, even (associativity). Having the concepts introduced using a familiar examples is nothing to be scoffed at. We then had the symmetry group introduced in high school, again -- without calling it out for what it was.
Nope. Jurors decisions are pretty much like acts of God: the court can not question them. Sure, Jury has to abide by some rules, but the reasoning they followed while reaching a verdict is not up for question. IANAL.
Yep, especially that the interest is still most of the payment so early into a 30 year old mortgage. So, there are really only two ways you can get that: either you're told (and remember!) that little tidbit, or you can quickly figure it out for yourself, and are in the habit of figuring things out, mathematically. That's why knowing the "useless theory" is so damn important. Because even if you forget stuff, you can still figure it out, or at least know how to look up the "aprtial answers" (various theorems you could have forgotten the details of, too).
Circular slide rules FTW! IMHO it's even easier to use than a linear one. Pass 1 to the right, multiply the result by 10. Pass 1 to the left, divide by 10. Can't do that on the linear slide rule.
If I had tests like that in high school, I'd probably get straight A's in math. As it is, I has mostly Bs and Cs, skewed towards Cs, because I somewhat sucked at it. But this was quite a decent high school as well. Most math had to be worked out symbolically with substitutions done at the very end. It's not engineering, where you need to make decisions based on magnitudes of things and can elect to ignore certain things if they have "sufficiently small" effect on the final result.
Aaaaand, rimshot! Thank you, thank you. I couldn't agree more. The supposition that you can go about everyday life without having your math down cold is what leads to disasters like that. No, the truth is that an average person who sucks at math will pay for it dearly throughout their life. Things can be obscured by having a significant other who compensates, of course.
Even in very basic residential construction framing, if you give yourself a +/- 0.125 inch as a uniformly distributed tolerance (0.25 inch error amplitude), the building will truly suck. The people who will surely curse you will be kitchen installers and floor installers. I can't see doing framing without keeping it down to 1/16" error amplitude, and I'd consider that a bit on the sloppy side.
The generations don't matter. Whether you're young or old, if you're holding certain positions where you make inherently quantitative decisions (budgets), you need your maths down cold. If you don't, you will fail at your job. That's why plenty of managers have run their companies to the ground: they have no clue about the products, no clue about the processes, and no clue about money.
Nope, he is suffering from a delusional disorder. He cannot make sense of complex data related to his $3 billion budget. He has just proven that, pretty much. The fact that he even brings up the fact that his job description demands that is simply a logical fallacy, nothing more. There's plenty of people in charge of billions who are delusional, just look at the most recent financial snafus all over the world.
That guy needs counseling, and I'm dead serious. He is on an escape trajectory from being in touch with reality. If you lose the ability to figure out that you suck at something, you are sick to the head, no doubt about that.
Sigh. But the particular outcome he got (10/60) tells you NOTHING about what that probability IS! You'd have to get him to do multiple tests to figure that out. So while what you claim may be true (that the probability is "low"), it is irrelevant to the particular case we're discussing.
This is not funny. Sheer random chance does not guarantee that you'll get 15 out of 60 in a 1:4 choice test. You don't understand the difference between an expected value and a particular outcome.
Sorry, you're oversimplifying. Answering things randomly, the expected value of the number of correct answers if 15/60. But only that. You can get any number of answers correctly -- between 0 and 60, guessing at random. I'm not surprised at all that he got 10 out of 60. To those of you who know it by heart: getting 10 out of 60 is closest to being as likely as getting what other number of answers right? And no, it's not 20 out of 60. Time to recall those distributions!
Understanding maths is relevant to almost everyone's job duties, especially if you're out of the minimum wage area and are not a callgirl. If you claim that you can do any given non-minimum-wage job without mental means of quantifying stuff (maths!), then I've got a bridge to sell to you.
If it's a multiplication/addition problem, then least significant digits are cheap to get. For division, it's the most significant digits that are cheap to get.
That's fine. Such people should not be anywhere near school boards in any budgetary capacity. Just as you can't be a driver when you're blind, and can't be a mountain guide on a wheelchair, dyscalculia closes off a lot of jobs from you. Tough luck.
It happened to me only once, in an elasticity exam, where the grader (a grad student in that field) would grade my answer as incorrect. I was apparently an "outsider" and didn't do it the way "they" usually did it (that's my interpretation of what transpired). The professor of course corrected the grade, he is a great teacher.
You cannot oversee a budget without the math ability. He will be working against himself and against what his job demands. You need to have understanding of orders of magnitude, how things scale, etc. If one thinks one can do budgets only by putting stuff into Excel sheets then one is highly deluded.
Slashdot Mirror
The namespace size is irrelevant to how much virtual memory the linker needs. The Visual Studio linker needs to have address space for two things:
1. Mapping of all the files it uses.
2. The internal state used by the compiler backend (LTCG -- link time code generation) and the linker proper.
With LTCG enabled, object files do not contain assembly, they contain compiler IR (intermediate representation) of the code. The stuff you get after parsing and IR optimizations, before code generation.
If the linker bombs out on a 32 bit host, it's usually because the input files don't fit into available address space, that's all. The input files contain the IR for all of the code you're linking. They're much bigger (factor of 4 and up, in my limited experience) than the binary object files that contain "just" machine code. You have the same problem when you compile Qt with webkit. You need to use the /3g switch and keep your fingers crossed, or bite the fine bullet and do it on a 64 bit host.
Safari, on OS X at least, shows progress bar as the background of the address line edit. It has no status bar, and I don't miss it. It's pointless. Knowing what the browser is doing is pretty much useless. It won't help you if you have a crappy connection. I used to think it was helpful, then I switched to a mac. It's a waste of precious screen real estate. It won't fix your connection for you. If you're tired of waiting, either hit reload or browse elsewhere. This won't depend on whatever the status bar would be showing. You don't have many options. Heck, you have two.
I'm not entirely sure if it really helps with one's understanding that there's a fancy name given to a concept...
You learn it by example, and without name calling. You can use the concepts without having a complete theory. The basic axioms of a group were introduced, to me, using integers and addition, in very early elementary education. Probably 3rd grade, and we did name one of them using proper nomenclature, even (associativity). Having the concepts introduced using a familiar examples is nothing to be scoffed at. We then had the symmetry group introduced in high school, again -- without calling it out for what it was.
OK, I admit, saying that it's "not" 20 out of 60 is silly on my part. It's close enough. 4.1% for 10 vs 3.8% for 20. Sorry for the noise.
Nope. Jurors decisions are pretty much like acts of God: the court can not question them. Sure, Jury has to abide by some rules, but the reasoning they followed while reaching a verdict is not up for question. IANAL.
Yep, especially that the interest is still most of the payment so early into a 30 year old mortgage. So, there are really only two ways you can get that: either you're told (and remember!) that little tidbit, or you can quickly figure it out for yourself, and are in the habit of figuring things out, mathematically. That's why knowing the "useless theory" is so damn important. Because even if you forget stuff, you can still figure it out, or at least know how to look up the "aprtial answers" (various theorems you could have forgotten the details of, too).
Circular slide rules FTW! IMHO it's even easier to use than a linear one. Pass 1 to the right, multiply the result by 10. Pass 1 to the left, divide by 10. Can't do that on the linear slide rule.
If I had tests like that in high school, I'd probably get straight A's in math. As it is, I has mostly Bs and Cs, skewed towards Cs, because I somewhat sucked at it. But this was quite a decent high school as well. Most math had to be worked out symbolically with substitutions done at the very end. It's not engineering, where you need to make decisions based on magnitudes of things and can elect to ignore certain things if they have "sufficiently small" effect on the final result.
Aaaaand, rimshot! Thank you, thank you. I couldn't agree more. The supposition that you can go about everyday life without having your math down cold is what leads to disasters like that. No, the truth is that an average person who sucks at math will pay for it dearly throughout their life. Things can be obscured by having a significant other who compensates, of course.
Even in very basic residential construction framing, if you give yourself a +/- 0.125 inch as a uniformly distributed tolerance (0.25 inch error amplitude), the building will truly suck. The people who will surely curse you will be kitchen installers and floor installers. I can't see doing framing without keeping it down to 1/16" error amplitude, and I'd consider that a bit on the sloppy side.
The generations don't matter. Whether you're young or old, if you're holding certain positions where you make inherently quantitative decisions (budgets), you need your maths down cold. If you don't, you will fail at your job. That's why plenty of managers have run their companies to the ground: they have no clue about the products, no clue about the processes, and no clue about money.
Nope, he is suffering from a delusional disorder. He cannot make sense of complex data related to his $3 billion budget. He has just proven that, pretty much. The fact that he even brings up the fact that his job description demands that is simply a logical fallacy, nothing more. There's plenty of people in charge of billions who are delusional, just look at the most recent financial snafus all over the world.
That guy needs counseling, and I'm dead serious. He is on an escape trajectory from being in touch with reality. If you lose the ability to figure out that you suck at something, you are sick to the head, no doubt about that.
Sigh. But the particular outcome he got (10/60) tells you NOTHING about what that probability IS! You'd have to get him to do multiple tests to figure that out. So while what you claim may be true (that the probability is "low"), it is irrelevant to the particular case we're discussing.
No, he is technically very much incorrect, and I hope you read my posts above to understand WHY.
This is not funny. Sheer random chance does not guarantee that you'll get 15 out of 60 in a 1:4 choice test. You don't understand the difference between an expected value and a particular outcome.
Sorry, you're oversimplifying. Answering things randomly, the expected value of the number of correct answers if 15/60. But only that. You can get any number of answers correctly -- between 0 and 60, guessing at random. I'm not surprised at all that he got 10 out of 60. To those of you who know it by heart: getting 10 out of 60 is closest to being as likely as getting what other number of answers right? And no, it's not 20 out of 60. Time to recall those distributions!
Understanding maths is relevant to almost everyone's job duties, especially if you're out of the minimum wage area and are not a callgirl. If you claim that you can do any given non-minimum-wage job without mental means of quantifying stuff (maths!), then I've got a bridge to sell to you.
If it's a multiplication/addition problem, then least significant digits are cheap to get. For division, it's the most significant digits that are cheap to get.
I think that for some of these tests, there are too many questions to actually have time to type in the digits and operations into a calculator.
That's fine. Such people should not be anywhere near school boards in any budgetary capacity. Just as you can't be a driver when you're blind, and can't be a mountain guide on a wheelchair, dyscalculia closes off a lot of jobs from you. Tough luck.
It happened to me only once, in an elasticity exam, where the grader (a grad student in that field) would grade my answer as incorrect. I was apparently an "outsider" and didn't do it the way "they" usually did it (that's my interpretation of what transpired). The professor of course corrected the grade, he is a great teacher.
That's how I was with complex numbers :)
You cannot oversee a budget without the math ability. He will be working against himself and against what his job demands. You need to have understanding of orders of magnitude, how things scale, etc. If one thinks one can do budgets only by putting stuff into Excel sheets then one is highly deluded.
Those "tricks" and "cheats" are nothing of the sort. They are thinly disguised high-level abstract concepts from number theory, group theory, etc.