I've always wondered why x86 hasn't added support for load-link/store-conditional synchronization instructions. Basically these involves an extra hidden address register. Load-link acts like a normal load, except it also sets this hidden register to the address just loaded from. A store-conditional only stores if this hidden register matches the address being stored at. Afterwards, this hidden register is cleared and the condition codes reflect whether the store occurred. A load-link by another core/processor would broadcast over the bus so other processors could update/clear their internal register. I like this scheme because it's extremely simple, and doesn't require any hardware-interlocked instructions as hardware compare-and-swap does.
You know, your joke got me to thinking... what if they hooked this up to some vegetables on someone's plate and the vegetables responded "don't eat us!". Would this cause the creation of PETV? On the bright side, its members probably wouldn't last long without food...
what happens if you stop depressed people from using the Internet, do they feel better, worse, or the same?
Shush, you, that would be actual science!
But really, I remember the study about people with cats being healthier, and the conclusion that the cats are the cause. I always want to yell at them, "try a group of non-cat people, and assigning half cats, then see whether there's any noticeable health increase in only the cat-assigned ones".
I wonder if this could help make graffiti removal easier. Spray this on a clean road sign, and then just wash it with water if it gets tagged. Sure could help new drivers in Los Angeles.
Except that it'll get washed off by the rain, and taggers before they paint them.
Great story. Too bad the bully probably got really bullied by his own parents, but couldn't get even with them without risking his life. I was bullied a lot in school, but somehow I don't hold any of them responsible; I hold the administrators and parents responsible (doesn't mean I have any problem whatsoever with a victim of a bully getting revenge, not at all!).
That article (advantage of being short) subscribes to the false idea of a homunculus, a little man inside one's head that sensory input is routed to. Processing occurs throughout the brain (and body); there is no central "I" that things must be synchronized with. And the fact is that when someone snaps to one side of you, your other ear does hear it slightly later. This delay is one of the main sources of directional information for sounds, in fact. The delay is so small that it's not processed as two distinct snaps. This isn't because it couldn't be, just because it wouldn't be beneficial for an organism to think there are two snaps when there really is most likely only one.
You mean potential explanation. You have no evidence that the suggested explanation is what is causing the problem Woz describes. Note that he only mentions one bump per mph, not a dozen all at once before the car can catch up.
No, he means the correct explanation. Users are always wrong. Designs are always flawless, as long as they are documented correctly. Users never pay attention and always cause problems. It's never the car's fault.
Excuse me, but Woz does not "understand the problem", he simply experienced it. He says he can duplicate the problem at will, but doesn't say how. Anyway, my wife's 2007 Prius runs fine. Boring, but fine.
Running fine because it has no serious software bugs, or because she hasn't (yet) triggered one?
I went to a private school and there wasn't even mention of the launch or disaster. I remember the teachers being a bit uptight that day, but otherwise nothing out of the ordinary until I got home.
The fact that his vehicle slowed to 50 might have caused him to think that cruise control wasn't on anymore.
I personally don't like cruise control, except for long distances on the open highway. Hmmm, I suppose this IS all it's intended for, actually. Sometimes I'm with my father and he's constantly messing with the cruise control buttons. I'm thinking that if you have to adjust it that much, it means you shouldn't be using it.
Yes, but following that suggests something failed:
The [military] isn't disclosing whether the intercepting kill vehicle had simply failed to reach the 'threat cluster' of warhead(s) and decoys, or whether it had reached the cluster but hit a countermeasure rather than the actual target.
It would sure be nice if drivers here in the US showed that they had some clue that cyclists exist.
As a bicycle rider and sometimes car driver, I can say that cyclists will get more respect from me and others once they decide to follow traffic laws. The most common violation is failing to stop at stop signs (including four-way stops) and traffic lights. The cyclist can see that he will get through the intersection just fine, but car drivers don't necessarily see that.
Cyclists: stop at stop signs and traffic lights, FFS!
Did the test fail, or the missle? The difference is that a failed test means you don't get any useful information about the device under test, whereas a successful test means that you found out whatever you wanted to know about the device under test.
Example: a test to determine whether a cellphone fails when immersed in water. If you find that your water has been shut off, you have a failed test, because you can't even try immersing the phone in water. If your water works and you immerse the phone and it stops working, the test is successful and your result is that the phone failed. If it still works, then you have a successful test and a phone that didn't fail.
Sorry everybody, but I find it more disturbing that my every move is recorded and stored than that some person checks my genitals. The genitals are pretty much the same for everybody - my travels, my bank account, my posts online, my phone conversations - those are things that make me unique. Those matter far more.
Those matter for your security. Having parts of your body covered preserve your privacy. The two are different. I doubt you'd enjoy having a webcam in your bathroom, even though what you do in there is about the same as what millions of others do in their bathrooms. That would invade your privacy, even though it would hardly affect your security. Both are important.
I suppose your point was that if the scanners are there for security, which you value more than genital privacy. Funny thing is, they don't increase it measurably, and they decrease privacy.
the LAST thing I want to do is get heavy into a game and get a fucking call.
It's OK, these phones that will be great for gaming won't actually make phone calls. But they'll be great phones (and gaming devices and organizers and music players and voice recorders and...).
[...] A two-handed interface works best when the hands are relatively fare apart, meaning a set of controls on each end of a "stick" device, implying a horizontal interface. A one-handed device, or any device with a screen in general, is meant to be used vertically, so the screen is as far from the hands as possible, for maximum visibility.
Touch-screen interfaces are sub-optimal two, since you end up obscruring the display by using it.
Calculations also predict that in car accidents, when two pieces of her composite metal foam are inserted "behind the bumper of a car traveling at 28 mph, the impact would feel the same to passengers as an impact traveling at only 5 mph."
In other words, calling insurance companies, calling the police to file a traffic report, possible layer involvement?
phone (n.) - Any small electronic device which you can carry with you. Older, obsolete models allowed vocal communication with other parties, though this was generally regarded as an optional feature.
Slashdot Mirror
I've always wondered why x86 hasn't added support for load-link/store-conditional synchronization instructions. Basically these involves an extra hidden address register. Load-link acts like a normal load, except it also sets this hidden register to the address just loaded from. A store-conditional only stores if this hidden register matches the address being stored at. Afterwards, this hidden register is cleared and the condition codes reflect whether the store occurred. A load-link by another core/processor would broadcast over the bus so other processors could update/clear their internal register. I like this scheme because it's extremely simple, and doesn't require any hardware-interlocked instructions as hardware compare-and-swap does.
You know, your joke got me to thinking... what if they hooked this up to some vegetables on someone's plate and the vegetables responded "don't eat us!". Would this cause the creation of PETV? On the bright side, its members probably wouldn't last long without food...
If a page claims to be about X, does that claim alone make it about X? By the way, this message is about the Easter bunny and the number 7.
Shush, you, that would be actual science!
But really, I remember the study about people with cats being healthier, and the conclusion that the cats are the cause. I always want to yell at them, "try a group of non-cat people, and assigning half cats, then see whether there's any noticeable health increase in only the cat-assigned ones".
I think we already know the cause of the internet (and VHS and DVD): porn.
or could a better subject have been chosen for the parent post?
Except that it'll get washed off by the rain, and taggers before they paint them.
Even more fundamental, they need a universe with laws like ours.
Great story. Too bad the bully probably got really bullied by his own parents, but couldn't get even with them without risking his life. I was bullied a lot in school, but somehow I don't hold any of them responsible; I hold the administrators and parents responsible (doesn't mean I have any problem whatsoever with a victim of a bully getting revenge, not at all!).
That article (advantage of being short) subscribes to the false idea of a homunculus, a little man inside one's head that sensory input is routed to. Processing occurs throughout the brain (and body); there is no central "I" that things must be synchronized with. And the fact is that when someone snaps to one side of you, your other ear does hear it slightly later. This delay is one of the main sources of directional information for sounds, in fact. The delay is so small that it's not processed as two distinct snaps. This isn't because it couldn't be, just because it wouldn't be beneficial for an organism to think there are two snaps when there really is most likely only one.
No, he means the correct explanation. Users are always wrong. Designs are always flawless, as long as they are documented correctly. Users never pay attention and always cause problems. It's never the car's fault.
Running fine because it has no serious software bugs, or because she hasn't (yet) triggered one?
Also, Woz details this in a post a couple of months ago.
I went to a private school and there wasn't even mention of the launch or disaster. I remember the teachers being a bit uptight that day, but otherwise nothing out of the ordinary until I got home.
The fact that his vehicle slowed to 50 might have caused him to think that cruise control wasn't on anymore.
I personally don't like cruise control, except for long distances on the open highway. Hmmm, I suppose this IS all it's intended for, actually. Sometimes I'm with my father and he's constantly messing with the cruise control buttons. I'm thinking that if you have to adjust it that much, it means you shouldn't be using it.
That's all good and well if you own a Toyota, but what do I do if my Honda starts accelerating uncontrollably?
Yes, but following that suggests something failed:
As a bicycle rider and sometimes car driver, I can say that cyclists will get more respect from me and others once they decide to follow traffic laws. The most common violation is failing to stop at stop signs (including four-way stops) and traffic lights. The cyclist can see that he will get through the intersection just fine, but car drivers don't necessarily see that.
Cyclists: stop at stop signs and traffic lights, FFS!
Did the test fail, or the missle? The difference is that a failed test means you don't get any useful information about the device under test, whereas a successful test means that you found out whatever you wanted to know about the device under test.
Example: a test to determine whether a cellphone fails when immersed in water. If you find that your water has been shut off, you have a failed test, because you can't even try immersing the phone in water. If your water works and you immerse the phone and it stops working, the test is successful and your result is that the phone failed. If it still works, then you have a successful test and a phone that didn't fail.
</pedant>
Those matter for your security. Having parts of your body covered preserve your privacy. The two are different. I doubt you'd enjoy having a webcam in your bathroom, even though what you do in there is about the same as what millions of others do in their bathrooms. That would invade your privacy, even though it would hardly affect your security. Both are important.
I suppose your point was that if the scanners are there for security, which you value more than genital privacy. Funny thing is, they don't increase it measurably, and they decrease privacy.
This article serves as a warning that you will be notified.
It's OK, these phones that will be great for gaming won't actually make phone calls. But they'll be great phones (and gaming devices and organizers and music players and voice recorders and...).
Are you sure you didn't mean to post this in another current Slashdot discussion?
In other words, calling insurance companies, calling the police to file a traffic report, possible layer involvement?
Sorry, what?
phone (n.) - Any small electronic device which you can carry with you. Older, obsolete models allowed vocal communication with other parties, though this was generally regarded as an optional feature.
(From Oxford English Dictionary, 2045 edition)
I'm curious as to why you capitalized chemistry above. As far as I can tell, it shouldn't be.