Yes, but with one *vital* difference: when the immune system comes back online, it doesn't attack the transplanted tissue. Last I checked, cyclosporin didn't work that way. So this is more than just a little "better" than your average immunosuppressant. It could be a potential revolution in the area of tissue transplantation.
The waiting rooms are usually packed, the doctors take a quick look at your throat and in your ears and send you out very quickly without taking a single glance at your medical history (they don't have it).
Uhuh... just like the US, buddy. Or do you really believe that people, down there, just magically get to see a doctor whenver they want?
The increased demand for medical services raises the costs of the entire system. This tends to push taxes and inefficiency way up.
You *do* realize that Canadians pay *significantly* less, per capita, for health care, don't you? ie, our system is *far* cheaper and more efficient than the US system by a *long* shot.
Specialists are even harder to come by. If you need a major life-or-death surgery you will get it right away, but if you need something minor (and by minor I mean not life-or-death, it could be affecting your ability to walk and/or work etc.) you're put on a waiting list for months at best to years at worst.
Tough shit, welcome to the world of triage. Limited resources must be rationed. In the US, triage is done based on income. You got cash? You get treatment. Of course, that means 40 million Americans have no coverage at all, and millions more are denied coverage they need.
Besides which, allow me to let you in on a little secret: There's waiting lists for minor surgeries in the US, too. Well, unless you're particularly wealthy... ie, not your average American.
Of course, there is so much anti-American sentiment in Canada and we get our fare share of American health care horror stories up here.
Uhuh. That's because it's horrific. Ever talk to an American family with kids with one parent working? Do you have *any* idea how expensive their coverage is? About the co-pays and deductibles they have to pay? About being denied services, or getting run around, because the insurance company would rather make money than treat you? Trust me... I know a few American families, and *none* of them are happy with the US system. *Zero, nadda, zilch, none*.
This means get rid of the American Medical Association and mandatory licenses,
And now I know you're crazy.
Yes, I say we go back to the days of people hanging out a shingle, claiming to be doctors, and then killing people with their "treatments". Good plan there, dude. I mean, sure, we license all kinds of professions. Lawyers? Yup, they've gotta go do the bar exam, for example. But doctors making life and death decisions? Yeah, let's get rid of those pesky licenses! They're just getting in the way of the *free market*! Yeah!
The more government gets involved the worst health care will get.
Uhuh. Look, here are some basic facts:
1. The US healthcare system is the most expensive one in the world. 2. Tens of millions of Americans have absolutely no healthcare coverage at all. 3. Even with coverage, Americans are routinely denied treatment they need. 4. Preventative care is a *good thing*. Does that mean some people will abuse the system? Absolutely. But better that than people waiting until the very last moment to get treatment for something that would be far cheaper to deal with if caught early.
As for your magic libertarian fairy land where the healthcare industry becomes an unregulated wild west with no insurance plans and no licensing or regulations, all you'll actually achieve is the exclusion of even *more* people. Which, I suppose, is exactly what you want... what better way to reduce waiting lists than to exclude millions and millions of people from the system?
The reality is that there's simply no fucking way people would be able to afford catastrophic care or long term therapy out of pocket (want to pay for a few weeks of chemo? Yeah, bad news, you have to decide between life, or a second mortgage). Let alone preventative care. None, nada, zilch. And no, charity won't magically solve that problem. There simply isn't that much charitable cash out
He's done no such thing. He's simply claims to have a timetable, sort of, to close Gitmo. There are lots of thorny issues to be resolved before that facility is closed, and Obama hasn't done anything to resolve them yet.
Well, that's hardly surprising. It's a hard problem, and no sane person would've believed he could just close the doors, dust off his hands, and announce "Mission Accomplished". But at least he's committed to closing the damn thing.
I keep seeing people clinging to this desperate delusion. So far he's no improvement over Bush's first ten weeks. Not by a long shot.
ROFL, you're honestly trying to compare Bush's first ten weeks, where he inherited a growing, prosperous economy in a nice, peaceful world, with that of Obama? Jebus, talk about apples and oranges.
I mean, this decision has me doubting everything Obama ever said, but ffs, that argument is just silly.
If the soldiers involved in the battle want to be in the game as themselves, are you suggesting that they are being disrespectful to themselves?
For enough money? That's certainly possible. Why not? Or have you never heard of prostitutes?
They are being disrespectful to other soldiers who were there as well?
Yes, I also suggested that.
And third, since we're apparently repeating my points, I also suggested the soldiers may be expected a certain result, but through editing, etc, what really comes out is just another Call of Duty (ie, a piece of war-glorifying shit).
hundreds of games exist whee you murder people for fun and profit. you even kill prostitutes o take their money in GTA.
And those games are also morally disgusting. But it's important to note, I would never advocate censoring such games.
now, finally, actual soldiers want to make their own game, and slashdotters think it is 'sick'.
Yes, because that's also, at best morally ambiguous (I won't go so far as to say 'disgusting' because, quite frankly, I don't know what the end product is, yet... though, if it's anything like your average war game, I think 'sick' is a reasonable adjective).
That said, once again, I would never advocate they be censored.
but if anyone protests against video game violence, they are instantly shouted down as 'prudes' or 'against freedom of speech' by the slashdot legions.
That's because there's a difference between fantastical violence (say, in your average Half-Life game) and the glorification of war for the sake of entertainment (glorification in the sense of presenting only the "heroic" side, without showing its ugliness).
TBH, the fact that you can't see this difference just illustrates to me that you don't understand the difference between fantasy violence and the real thing. That's a little disturbing.
And your point is...? Or are we now looking to our soldiers when determining our collective moral compass? And when did this select group of soldiers suddenly come to represent all soldiers? Ignoring the fact that a nice, fat compensation for their stories may very well quell any second thoughts they may or may not have.
Now, I may be wrong. Maybe this game will usher in a genre of games that actually look at their subject matter critically. But given the history of mass entertainment, and video games in particular, let's just say I won't be holding my breath.
As opposed to every other wargame in history that glosses over war crimes and touchy topics?
And now you understand why I find games based on actual wars, ones which glorify those wars and turn them into simple FPSes, to be offensive at best. Taking something like a battle in WWII and turning it into some shallow piece of FPS entertainment is, IMHO, the worst kind of disrespect for the hell those soldiers lived through... seeing the games based on Iraq/Afghanistan/etc, real live wars where people, today, are being killed, only cemented that belief.
What you propose is that it's useless to have nukes if you're going to get blown up anyway.
Actually, no, that's not at all what I was saying.
Even if North Korea fired a nuke at the US the US retaliation could genocide them.
Correct. Now let me spell out the key point of my post (granted, I didn't spell it out explicitly, expecting you to figure it out on your own, but...): The disincentive to use nukes, that being the danger of retaliation, both from the US and from its allies abroad, exists whether the US possessed nukes or not, thanks to the combined firepower of the US's massive military, along with that of it's allies. Additionally, there are a number of non-military disincentives which also work to deter any such actions (economic and political isolation, etc).
The corollary, which I already pointed out, is this: The only way this wouldn't work is if you were dealing with an irrational nation. But guess what? If the US's conventional weapons won't deter a nation, a nuclear stockpile won't, either.
Oh come on. I'm as liberal as they get, but to claim that democrats are somehow exempt from manipulation by "corporations, lobbyists, and individuals" is laughable at best. Both parties take full advantage of the fact that money somehow equates to free speech in the US.
I'll support us destroying our nuclear stockpile just as soon as I have 100% assurance that the rest of the nuclear-equipped nations are doing the same, simultaneously.
Why? Because, what, you think the nuclear weapons protect you, somehow? What, are they going to magically stop an inbound nuclear attack? If so, you might want to let the president know, it sounds like he's spending a lot of time on a missile shield for nothing.
Of course, maybe you think MAD will save your ass. Well, let me give you a hint: if a nation out there is crazy enough to use nuclear weapons against the US or its assets abroad, they're far too crazy to worry about MAD, as the response from the US, even without the bomb, would be swift and devastating. And any other threat (say, terrorist with a harbour bomb in a cargo container) isn't too terribly worried about America's nuclear stockpile.
Seriously, are any languages other than English going to be anything more than a curiosity in 100 years? I can assure you that french wont
Once again demonstrating the spectacular ignorance of your average Albertan.
Honestly, I've lived here all my life, and even I'm amazed at the superiority complex combined with remarkable xenophobia displayed by your average Albertan. Oh well, they don't call it Texas of the North for nothin'...
However, I assure you that patients want treatment. I work in the medical field, and the psychology of medicine is weird. Parents want antibiotics for their children, and they don't really care about research that says the antibiotics aren't necessary or may even cause harm.
Uhuh... and therefore the doctors *must* give them the medication they demand? Yeah, no. The doctors are the fucking experts. If antibiotics aren't indicated, they should *not* be prescribing them, and if the patient bitches and tries going somewhere else, they should find that every other doctor is telling them the same fucking thing.
Honestly, how long do we have to go with antibiotic resistant staph and god knows what else before doctors finally realize that bending to every little patient's whim is probably not a good idea? One unsatisfied patient is not worth the lives lost to antibiotic resistant infections.
You *do* realize that oil rigs aren't allowed, not because they're unattractive, but because they *fuck up the environment* (can we say "ocean pollution"?), all while just continuing the dependence on fossil fuels, right? Or do you really believe that opposition is based on poor aesthetics?
Can't we make some determinations based on data outside of our atmosphere how changes in the sun's state affects other bodies in the solar system?
What makes you think people haven't done just that? And guess what? So far... the answer is 'no', solar variability hasn't resulted in any noticeable changes on the other planets in the solar system (certainly not over the past 50 years, when global warming has accelerated the most).
Now, before you start about Mars, Mars *isn't experiencing warming*. It's experiencing normal, run-of-the-mill seasonal variability. So if Mars, the planet next closest to the Sun, isn't showing signs of any interesting affects, and neither are any of the other planets, why would you conclude that Jupiter is? Sounds an awful lot like cherrypicking to me (which, as it happens, is a fun game that AGW opponents like to play).
I'd rather see stories of other ships in the Federation
Yeah. They did that. It's called Voyager. And Enterprise. I'm sure there are plenty of fans (myself included) who wouldn't want to see a repeat of them...
not rehashes of the same ship and crew as the time line gets bent over sideways and backwards.
Not that I have any faith whatsoever in the work Abrams, et al, have done, but to be fair, it's quite clear the new movie is intended to be a reset, in which case there is no time line to get "bent over sideways".
For me, it would be pretty much everything. I don't use the search field, I don't use the bookmarks, I use an online RSS reader, I don't print-preview and print web-pages, I don't use history, I don't use side-panels. I wish all this could at least be optional.
Uh. Wha? You asked to "remove all the crap that's been added in the last 2 years". That *definitely doesn't include bookmarks. Or printing. Or history. Or the side panels. All of those things have been in Firefox since the get-go.
About the only thing on your list that's a candidate (and I agree it's a legitimate one) is the RSS feed support. So that's it? The RSS feed reader and the awesomebar? Sorry, but that's not a whole lot of bloat, there.
Many of FF3 features now rely on SQLite database as a data storage system. It's a great idea, it's really fast and all, but if there's a need to store data that way, for a web-browser, maybe there's too much data in the first place ?
BS. Browsers have been storing cookies, bookmarks, and history forever, long before Firefox ever existed. So you can either store those files in custom data files, which means writing a bunch of custom code to read/write those files, or you can use a standardized interface to a common data backend. Once upon a time that would've been BerkleyDB, but these days sqlite fits the bill much better. That's not evidence of bloat. That's evidence of a better technology becoming mature.
We spend a good bit more because as a culture we are pretty unhealthy.
Sorry buddy, but that's BS. I live in Canada, and we're not much more healthy than our US neighbours (if at all), and yet we spend *much* less, per capita, on healthcare. The difference? The US private insurance system introduces *massive* overhead (sadly, all while doing its best to deny people coverage).
That reality thinks that universal health care is good?
Umm. That's correct. Or is the rest of the world not proof enough for you? You know, the world in which everyone else spends less, per capita, on healthcare than the US while covering more people?
That taxing is generally the best solution instead of cutting programs?
When did that become an either-or decision?
Can someone explain this to me?
Okay, let's see, examples:
1) Evolution is real and happens, creationism is bollocks. 2) Sex education is good, abstinence-only education does not, and has never, worked. 3) Government involvement in industry (regulations for safety, to avoid systemic risk, etc) is, in fact, sometimes a good thing. 4) Government *can* provide useful services that private industry cannot, or cannot offer cheaply and effectively (healthcare and related social safety nets, various infrastructure development, etc).
That's just a few off the top of my head. I'm sure you can come up with others if you just think about it for a few moments.
I haven't looked at LLVM, but I think you need to learn about static single assignment (SSA).
I'm fully aware what SSA is. They model SSA using a set of write-only registers, but that doesn't change the fact that the dataflow is modeled using a machine language that is RISC-like in architecture.
There doesn't have to be any conflict between the two: lots of SSA intermediate representations look like RISC.
I completely agree. But I never claimed there was such a conflict.
then you are also confused (and egregiously confusing your readers) when you describe its registers as being "write-only"
No, I'm specifically correct about them being write-only, and they're write-only specifically because they're using SSA to facilitate certain optimizations, as it makes dataflow analysis a *lot* easier.
It's static-single-assignment, which is an entirely different architecture to RISC.
Odd, then, that LLVM's very own documentation refers to LLVM's instruction as "an abstract RISC-like instruction set". Remember, RISC-like only describes the nature of the actual instructions (basic arithmetic, flow control, etc), not the style of the register set. LLVM's IR just happens to model a RISC-like instruction set with an infinite set of write-only registers. That, combined with the ability to specifiy "key higher-level information for effective analysis, including type information, explicit control flow graphs, and an explicit dataflow representation" yields an IR which makes it very easy to analyze data flow in the program, facilitating certain classes of optimizations.
Slashdot Mirror
Pike would. Or is this yet another one of the billion plot holes?
If, by plot holes, you mean elements they changed as part of the *reset that this movie represents*.
Honestly, what part of "not following cannon" do you people not understand?
is just a different method of immunosuppression.
Yes, but with one *vital* difference: when the immune system comes back online, it doesn't attack the transplanted tissue. Last I checked, cyclosporin didn't work that way. So this is more than just a little "better" than your average immunosuppressant. It could be a potential revolution in the area of tissue transplantation.
The waiting rooms are usually packed, the doctors take a quick look at your throat and in your ears and send you out very quickly without taking a single glance at your medical history (they don't have it).
Uhuh... just like the US, buddy. Or do you really believe that people, down there, just magically get to see a doctor whenver they want?
The increased demand for medical services raises the costs of the entire system. This tends to push taxes and inefficiency way up.
You *do* realize that Canadians pay *significantly* less, per capita, for health care, don't you? ie, our system is *far* cheaper and more efficient than the US system by a *long* shot.
Specialists are even harder to come by. If you need a major life-or-death surgery you will get it right away, but if you need something minor (and by minor I mean not life-or-death, it could be affecting your ability to walk and/or work etc.) you're put on a waiting list for months at best to years at worst.
Tough shit, welcome to the world of triage. Limited resources must be rationed. In the US, triage is done based on income. You got cash? You get treatment. Of course, that means 40 million Americans have no coverage at all, and millions more are denied coverage they need.
Besides which, allow me to let you in on a little secret: There's waiting lists for minor surgeries in the US, too. Well, unless you're particularly wealthy... ie, not your average American.
Of course, there is so much anti-American sentiment in Canada and we get our fare share of American health care horror stories up here.
Uhuh. That's because it's horrific. Ever talk to an American family with kids with one parent working? Do you have *any* idea how expensive their coverage is? About the co-pays and deductibles they have to pay? About being denied services, or getting run around, because the insurance company would rather make money than treat you? Trust me... I know a few American families, and *none* of them are happy with the US system. *Zero, nadda, zilch, none*.
This means get rid of the American Medical Association and mandatory licenses,
And now I know you're crazy.
Yes, I say we go back to the days of people hanging out a shingle, claiming to be doctors, and then killing people with their "treatments". Good plan there, dude. I mean, sure, we license all kinds of professions. Lawyers? Yup, they've gotta go do the bar exam, for example. But doctors making life and death decisions? Yeah, let's get rid of those pesky licenses! They're just getting in the way of the *free market*! Yeah!
The more government gets involved the worst health care will get.
Uhuh. Look, here are some basic facts:
1. The US healthcare system is the most expensive one in the world.
2. Tens of millions of Americans have absolutely no healthcare coverage at all.
3. Even with coverage, Americans are routinely denied treatment they need.
4. Preventative care is a *good thing*. Does that mean some people will abuse the system? Absolutely. But better that than people waiting until the very last moment to get treatment for something that would be far cheaper to deal with if caught early.
As for your magic libertarian fairy land where the healthcare industry becomes an unregulated wild west with no insurance plans and no licensing or regulations, all you'll actually achieve is the exclusion of even *more* people. Which, I suppose, is exactly what you want... what better way to reduce waiting lists than to exclude millions and millions of people from the system?
The reality is that there's simply no fucking way people would be able to afford catastrophic care or long term therapy out of pocket (want to pay for a few weeks of chemo? Yeah, bad news, you have to decide between life, or a second mortgage). Let alone preventative care. None, nada, zilch. And no, charity won't magically solve that problem. There simply isn't that much charitable cash out
He's done no such thing. He's simply claims to have a timetable, sort of, to close Gitmo. There are lots of thorny issues to be resolved before that facility is closed, and Obama hasn't done anything to resolve them yet.
Well, that's hardly surprising. It's a hard problem, and no sane person would've believed he could just close the doors, dust off his hands, and announce "Mission Accomplished". But at least he's committed to closing the damn thing.
I keep seeing people clinging to this desperate delusion. So far he's no improvement over Bush's first ten weeks. Not by a long shot.
ROFL, you're honestly trying to compare Bush's first ten weeks, where he inherited a growing, prosperous economy in a nice, peaceful world, with that of Obama? Jebus, talk about apples and oranges.
I mean, this decision has me doubting everything Obama ever said, but ffs, that argument is just silly.
If the soldiers involved in the battle want to be in the game as themselves, are you suggesting that they are being disrespectful to themselves?
For enough money? That's certainly possible. Why not? Or have you never heard of prostitutes?
They are being disrespectful to other soldiers who were there as well?
Yes, I also suggested that.
And third, since we're apparently repeating my points, I also suggested the soldiers may be expected a certain result, but through editing, etc, what really comes out is just another Call of Duty (ie, a piece of war-glorifying shit).
hundreds of games exist whee you murder people for fun and profit. you even kill prostitutes o take their money in GTA.
And those games are also morally disgusting. But it's important to note, I would never advocate censoring such games.
now, finally, actual soldiers want to make their own game, and slashdotters think it is 'sick'.
Yes, because that's also, at best morally ambiguous (I won't go so far as to say 'disgusting' because, quite frankly, I don't know what the end product is, yet... though, if it's anything like your average war game, I think 'sick' is a reasonable adjective).
That said, once again, I would never advocate they be censored.
but if anyone protests against video game violence, they are instantly shouted down as 'prudes' or 'against freedom of speech' by the slashdot legions.
That's because there's a difference between fantastical violence (say, in your average Half-Life game) and the glorification of war for the sake of entertainment (glorification in the sense of presenting only the "heroic" side, without showing its ugliness).
TBH, the fact that you can't see this difference just illustrates to me that you don't understand the difference between fantasy violence and the real thing. That's a little disturbing.
And your point is...? Or are we now looking to our soldiers when determining our collective moral compass? And when did this select group of soldiers suddenly come to represent all soldiers? Ignoring the fact that a nice, fat compensation for their stories may very well quell any second thoughts they may or may not have.
Now, I may be wrong. Maybe this game will usher in a genre of games that actually look at their subject matter critically. But given the history of mass entertainment, and video games in particular, let's just say I won't be holding my breath.
By that logic, nobody should produce or watch any war-related movies
Umm, I think it's safe to say that a person attending your average war movie isn't doing it because they expect some good ol' fun entertainment.
Or, to put it another way: it's a *lot* hard to avoid trivializing war in the context of a game, as it's just that, a *game*.
Similarly, I have no problems with a movie examining, say, the horrors of child abuse. But a game about it would, indeed, be incredibly tasteless.
As opposed to every other wargame in history that glosses over war crimes and touchy topics?
And now you understand why I find games based on actual wars, ones which glorify those wars and turn them into simple FPSes, to be offensive at best. Taking something like a battle in WWII and turning it into some shallow piece of FPS entertainment is, IMHO, the worst kind of disrespect for the hell those soldiers lived through... seeing the games based on Iraq/Afghanistan/etc, real live wars where people, today, are being killed, only cemented that belief.
What you propose is that it's useless to have nukes if you're going to get blown up anyway.
Actually, no, that's not at all what I was saying.
Even if North Korea fired a nuke at the US the US retaliation could genocide them.
Correct. Now let me spell out the key point of my post (granted, I didn't spell it out explicitly, expecting you to figure it out on your own, but...): The disincentive to use nukes, that being the danger of retaliation, both from the US and from its allies abroad, exists whether the US possessed nukes or not, thanks to the combined firepower of the US's massive military, along with that of it's allies. Additionally, there are a number of non-military disincentives which also work to deter any such actions (economic and political isolation, etc).
The corollary, which I already pointed out, is this: The only way this wouldn't work is if you were dealing with an irrational nation. But guess what? If the US's conventional weapons won't deter a nation, a nuclear stockpile won't, either.
Oh come on. I'm as liberal as they get, but to claim that democrats are somehow exempt from manipulation by "corporations, lobbyists, and individuals" is laughable at best. Both parties take full advantage of the fact that money somehow equates to free speech in the US.
I'll support us destroying our nuclear stockpile just as soon as I have 100% assurance that the rest of the nuclear-equipped nations are doing the same, simultaneously.
Why? Because, what, you think the nuclear weapons protect you, somehow? What, are they going to magically stop an inbound nuclear attack? If so, you might want to let the president know, it sounds like he's spending a lot of time on a missile shield for nothing.
Of course, maybe you think MAD will save your ass. Well, let me give you a hint: if a nation out there is crazy enough to use nuclear weapons against the US or its assets abroad, they're far too crazy to worry about MAD, as the response from the US, even without the bomb, would be swift and devastating. And any other threat (say, terrorist with a harbour bomb in a cargo container) isn't too terribly worried about America's nuclear stockpile.
Seriously, are any languages other than English going to be anything more than a curiosity in 100 years? I can assure you that french wont
Once again demonstrating the spectacular ignorance of your average Albertan.
Honestly, I've lived here all my life, and even I'm amazed at the superiority complex combined with remarkable xenophobia displayed by your average Albertan. Oh well, they don't call it Texas of the North for nothin'...
However, I assure you that patients want treatment. I work in the medical field, and the psychology of medicine is weird. Parents want antibiotics for their children, and they don't really care about research that says the antibiotics aren't necessary or may even cause harm.
Uhuh... and therefore the doctors *must* give them the medication they demand? Yeah, no. The doctors are the fucking experts. If antibiotics aren't indicated, they should *not* be prescribing them, and if the patient bitches and tries going somewhere else, they should find that every other doctor is telling them the same fucking thing.
Honestly, how long do we have to go with antibiotic resistant staph and god knows what else before doctors finally realize that bending to every little patient's whim is probably not a good idea? One unsatisfied patient is not worth the lives lost to antibiotic resistant infections.
You *do* realize that oil rigs aren't allowed, not because they're unattractive, but because they *fuck up the environment* (can we say "ocean pollution"?), all while just continuing the dependence on fossil fuels, right? Or do you really believe that opposition is based on poor aesthetics?
Can't we make some determinations based on data outside of our atmosphere how changes in the sun's state affects other bodies in the solar system?
What makes you think people haven't done just that? And guess what? So far... the answer is 'no', solar variability hasn't resulted in any noticeable changes on the other planets in the solar system (certainly not over the past 50 years, when global warming has accelerated the most).
Now, before you start about Mars, Mars *isn't experiencing warming*. It's experiencing normal, run-of-the-mill seasonal variability. So if Mars, the planet next closest to the Sun, isn't showing signs of any interesting affects, and neither are any of the other planets, why would you conclude that Jupiter is? Sounds an awful lot like cherrypicking to me (which, as it happens, is a fun game that AGW opponents like to play).
Not that ironic, considering the GNU project was originally started up to replace... proprietary Unix.
I'd rather see stories of other ships in the Federation
Yeah. They did that. It's called Voyager. And Enterprise. I'm sure there are plenty of fans (myself included) who wouldn't want to see a repeat of them...
not rehashes of the same ship and crew as the time line gets bent over sideways and backwards.
Not that I have any faith whatsoever in the work Abrams, et al, have done, but to be fair, it's quite clear the new movie is intended to be a reset, in which case there is no time line to get "bent over sideways".
For me, it would be pretty much everything. I don't use the search field, I don't use the bookmarks, I use an online RSS reader, I don't print-preview and print web-pages, I don't use history, I don't use side-panels. I wish all this could at least be optional.
Uh. Wha? You asked to "remove all the crap that's been added in the last 2 years". That *definitely doesn't include bookmarks. Or printing. Or history. Or the side panels. All of those things have been in Firefox since the get-go.
About the only thing on your list that's a candidate (and I agree it's a legitimate one) is the RSS feed support. So that's it? The RSS feed reader and the awesomebar? Sorry, but that's not a whole lot of bloat, there.
Many of FF3 features now rely on SQLite database as a data storage system. It's a great idea, it's really fast and all, but if there's a need to store data that way, for a web-browser, maybe there's too much data in the first place ?
BS. Browsers have been storing cookies, bookmarks, and history forever, long before Firefox ever existed. So you can either store those files in custom data files, which means writing a bunch of custom code to read/write those files, or you can use a standardized interface to a common data backend. Once upon a time that would've been BerkleyDB, but these days sqlite fits the bill much better. That's not evidence of bloat. That's evidence of a better technology becoming mature.
We spend a good bit more because as a culture we are pretty unhealthy.
Sorry buddy, but that's BS. I live in Canada, and we're not much more healthy than our US neighbours (if at all), and yet we spend *much* less, per capita, on healthcare. The difference? The US private insurance system introduces *massive* overhead (sadly, all while doing its best to deny people coverage).
I really wish someone would fork FF, remove all the crap that's been added in the last 2 years
And minus the awesomebar, what all would that be, exactly?
Users can already do that with the search text field.
No, they can't. At least, they can't do everything Ubiquity allows one to do. Go get your learn on.
Honestly, how hard is it to visit the damn website and see everything it can do (such as live previews of search results, among other things)?
That reality thinks that universal health care is good?
Umm. That's correct. Or is the rest of the world not proof enough for you? You know, the world in which everyone else spends less, per capita, on healthcare than the US while covering more people?
That taxing is generally the best solution instead of cutting programs?
When did that become an either-or decision?
Can someone explain this to me?
Okay, let's see, examples:
1) Evolution is real and happens, creationism is bollocks.
2) Sex education is good, abstinence-only education does not, and has never, worked.
3) Government involvement in industry (regulations for safety, to avoid systemic risk, etc) is, in fact, sometimes a good thing.
4) Government *can* provide useful services that private industry cannot, or cannot offer cheaply and effectively (healthcare and related social safety nets, various infrastructure development, etc).
That's just a few off the top of my head. I'm sure you can come up with others if you just think about it for a few moments.
I haven't looked at LLVM, but I think you need to learn about static single assignment (SSA).
I'm fully aware what SSA is. They model SSA using a set of write-only registers, but that doesn't change the fact that the dataflow is modeled using a machine language that is RISC-like in architecture.
There doesn't have to be any conflict between the two: lots of SSA intermediate representations look like RISC.
I completely agree. But I never claimed there was such a conflict.
then you are also confused (and egregiously confusing your readers) when you describe its registers as being "write-only"
No, I'm specifically correct about them being write-only, and they're write-only specifically because they're using SSA to facilitate certain optimizations, as it makes dataflow analysis a *lot* easier.
It's static-single-assignment, which is an entirely different architecture to RISC.
Odd, then, that LLVM's very own documentation refers to LLVM's instruction as "an abstract RISC-like instruction set". Remember, RISC-like only describes the nature of the actual instructions (basic arithmetic, flow control, etc), not the style of the register set. LLVM's IR just happens to model a RISC-like instruction set with an infinite set of write-only registers. That, combined with the ability to specifiy "key higher-level information for effective analysis, including type information, explicit control flow graphs, and an explicit dataflow representation" yields an IR which makes it very easy to analyze data flow in the program, facilitating certain classes of optimizations.