It's obvious "fundamentalist" meant religious fundamentalist. Most people that use the word mean religious fundamentalist.
"Dogmatic" migth be a better way to describe GWB and his staff.
Not really. If anything, GWB is too pragmatic and unprincipled. What does he really believe? You always knew where Reagan stood, but Bush? Who knows? Sure, he believes in a Christian God, but politically, does he have any vision at all? I don't know.
You fail to realize the reasons why the Soviet Union collapsed. The USSR folded because they drove their own economy into the ground.
Reagan was a big reason for the collapse, but not because there was a race to see who could spend the most on weapons without destroying the economy.
What Reagan did was convince those on the Soviet side that they were philosophically wrong and that the US system was right. He did this with his optimism and tough talk, backed up with the threat of military force. His confidense and their increasing self-doubt began the changes. The success of the US in both economic and military might was proof the Soviets were on the wrong side.
Before Reagan, many in the US had given up. That by itself allowed the Soviet Union to last longer than it should have.
G.W. is just another fundamentalist, and just like Reagan, does not deserve recognition for what he's done.
That statement alone explains how it is you can have such a distorted view of history and of the United States. Your beliefs are nothing at all except reactionary. You define yourself as the political negative of those that are religious.
In short, you're not thinking for yourself.
So many religious skeptics (I'm an atheist, in fact) believe that they need to be on the political team opposite those that are religious. It's a mistake. There are plenty of fvcked up ideas on the political left as well as the right and plenty of stupid ahistorical hate-america-firsters. Don't get taken in. Take a more balanced view.
As far as Reagan goes, he was a genuinely good man. There was no smallness in him. Blowing him off because of his religious views is terribly unfair. He was a better man than most. Again, I'm an atheist, but after learning about him and his life, I would say he mostly represented what is best in men.
"Speeding" does not kill, this is a fallacy that is perpetuated by the auto insurance industry and uninformed public officials. Accidents (collisions really) and deaths are mostly caused by idiots with cell phones, drunks, and inattentive drivers (and left lane hogs too). Think for yourself, don't believe the hype
The energy available to break arms legs and heads is proportional to the square of the velocity. Driving 75mph instead of 55mph nearly doubles (1.86 times) the amount of energy available to do damage.
This kind of crap happens all the time in other industries. When businesses complain, well, that's just too bad, right?
Then some stupid rule ends up making life in your industry difficult and suddenly the cries go out: "Unfair! Unworkable! Stupid Judge! Stupid consumer! Dumb regulation!"
Next time someone in some business complains about over-regulation or government interference, don't be so quick to dismiss it.
And for extra credit, try to follow, absolutely, all the rules of the road. Drive 15 mph around curves as required by that little yellow sign, or 35 on the off-ramp as you exit a 70 mph interstate.
Those are all regulations drivers are supposed to follow.
But, according to bowlingfortruth.com in the movie you are introduced to Charlton Heston with his trademark catchphrase, then you are shown a billboard that says there will be an NRA Annual meeting in Denver, then you are shown a scene from the Heston speech at Denver, where Heston is wearing different clothes, in a different room, with a different backdrop.
Dishonest how? Wrong why? Or are you just picking nits because you cannot find any actual factual errors in the movie?
It's not just nit-picking. Have you even seen the movie? The images and bits of speeches are strung together to make it appear as a single event. Heston is made to appear a terrible villain saying "cold dead hands" 10 days after Colombine.
It's a lie. It's deceptive. Anyone watching the movie and knowing what Heston said and where he said it would be angry at Moore's obvious attempt at manipulation.
People that don't know the real chronology and instead only get Moore's are going to be fooled and that's why Moore did it. He knows that if he puts it on the screen, there will be people that buy-into his deception.
Do you have a source for your claim about Heston's tie?
How about actually watching the movie?
Yes, the tie changes color because Moore splices together different bits and pieces to get Heston to sound like a real villain.
It's dishonest and it's wrong.
And what about his visit to Lockheed Martin? He tries to suggest they make weapons there even though they make weather and communication satellites.
Like I said. The movie itself is the source. Anyone checking Moore's "documentary" for accuracy will realize the film is nothing but dishonest propaganda.
But don't take it from me. Watch the movie. Try to verify it's claims. You're in for an eye-opener.
Cato receives funding from the oil industry, and had Fox News head honcho Rupert Murdoch as a director. Now that's what I call fair and balanced reporting!"
So, you really think you can decide on the merits of an argument just based on who partially funded the research?
The Republican Party has figured out that they can buy votes from the uneducated.
Well, in a democracy, you get votes by giving people money. Isn't that why the Democrats were successful for so many years? Aren't all those social programs simply ways to buy votes?
Amen. I can't begin to remember how many times I've asked a simple question like "how much memory does your PC have?" only to be told something like "um, forty gigs?"
Well, maybe we are the ones that have it wrong.
From the standpoint of users, anything in RAM is forgotten when the power is killed, while everything on disk is "remembered."
Yeah, and if you don't HAVE kids, you pay school taxes, too. It's a social obligation to try and improve the community as a whole. It's a shame that the money is sometimes wasted or misspent, but that doesn't change your obligation.
The idea of "social obligation" was used to justify the existance of the Berlin wall and the iron curtain.
They didn't want people running away from their duty to society.
It's also worth noting that the definition of fascism is putting society or nation above the individual.
In reality claiming "social obligation" just means you want to use somebody to achieve your own goals. That's called involutary servitude.
Every dictatorship has justified its power by claiming it was acting in the name of society.
I'm getting a bit older now and my vision isn't what it used to be. In the past, I would use at least 1024x768, but now I find myself using 800x600 simply because it's easier on the eyes.
It also depends on the most common size of the display device being used. You'd be surprised how many people are still using 15inch monitors.
So, who is your audience? If you expect a large number of viewers to be over 30, I would stick with 800x600.
Looking as the assembly for the C++ code
on
Java Faster Than C++?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I notice that much of the overhead is simply in making function calls.
Ackermann.cpp, for example, spends very little time actually calculating anything. Much of it's work includes all the overhead associated with making a function call.
Included in this overhead is management of the frame pointer. By using -fomit-frame-pointer, you avoid pushing the old ebp on the stack and a store of the current esp into ebp.
Ackermann runs about twice as fast with this simple optimization.
I would suggest that the English people posting here about not minding cameras etc should take a careful look at their crime stats. You bought a pig in a poke. Sorry but crime went up not down.
It's also possible that a higher percentage of crimes are discovered now that cameras are used while the total number of crimes actually decreases.
How often do people report crimes when they believe nothing can be done?
Now that cameras are in place, victims have a reasonable expectation that the perpatrator may have been caught on camera.
Of course, maybe the total number of crimes is really going up, but is the because of the cameras? Unlikely.
It may sound like silly logic, but that doesn't mean it isn't in some sense actually what is happening.
It reminds me of the complaints about how awful Nike is for paying low wages to workers overseas. Yet selling shoes probably sent more American money overseas than any telethon.
The problem can be summed up in two words: Intolerance and Greed. Those two little words can sum up every problem ever encountered in humanity. Unfortunately this world is riddled with people infected with both.
Greed, especially.
Just consider all the money spent on tech toys in the USA: MP3 players, gaming systems, cell phones, wireless routers, laptops, etc. Or, other entertainment, like the millions spent on movies or restaurants. People will drop $50 to see Madonna gyrate, yet, will never send even $1 overseas to feed some poor child.
And what about houses close to the Pacific shore? Sure the weather is great, but that money could go to help so many others that are less fortunate.
Even the education establishment is guilty. Colleges charge more and more for their education services. Textbook prices are a scam. And all the while they talk and talk about the importance of education. Yep, it's so important that they think they should gouge the hell out of students and taxpayers. They won't even try to provide this important service for less money. Why? Greed.
That's related to the 'loser pays' ideas floating around. The problem is that patents are intended to protect small individual inventors, as the big companies are already able to defend themselves. Loser pays systems tend to discourage small inventors.
Maybe, but not necessarily.
If the liability was shared between the small individual and his lawyers, then such a system could work. Of course, the proceeds would also be shared.
But consider this: with such an arrangement, lawyers would be attracted to those people with the best cases, instead of those with the biggest wallets.
Actually, the grocery store is a good place to start. Did you know the largest single cost of a big grocery store is the electricity bill ? It can easicly exceed $100,000 a month, more than labor.
Hmm. I don't think this is true. Go to bizstats and check out the costs of running a grocery store. Utilities consume just 2% of revenue. Most of the money a grocery spends is on obtaining the products to sell, about 75%.
It may be true that much of that 75% goes to pay for producers' energy to make those goods sold, though. Farming takes a lot of energy and so does making producing AL from bauxite like you mentioned. So I suppose you're correct in spirit.
The point is that the FCC is letting large corporations control the airwaves to the detriment of the public (i.e schools).
Apparently a good deal of public values what the corporations provide. Maybe you don't value it, but many people do.
If people really valued this radio station so much, where is the money? I've found it's easy for people to claim such and such is the greatest thing, but when they are asked to pay for it, suddenly it's less important.
The fact is most of the public likes what you and I would consider crap and that means most of the resources are going to go to providing them with their crap.
That doesn't mean what the public wants is somehow objectively worse than what we want. We have different values. But, should we given resources, airwaves and otherwise, disproportionately?
They are prioritising the big and wealthy over the little guy. It doesn't affect your rights online, but holy fuck does it affect your rights
The problem is that "the little guy" mostly doesn't give the public the crap it wants and the wealthy do.
If you want to be one of those wealthy people, you need to provide people with the crap they want, like Beanie Babies, or Public Storage, or fatty Hamburgers, or Britney Spears' T&A, or shiney Chrome rims for SUV's.
The fact is that the animals mostly make the world go round and stations like ClearChannel are giving them what they want. Shouting "NO!" isn't going to change that.
Slashdot Mirror
Keep your flames down some, please. I didn't see any mention of religion. "Fundamentalist" is today used as often about any set of ideas.
A quick search on yahoo for "fundamentalist" shows 18 out of 20 pages connecting "fundamentalist" and religion. "fundamentalist christian" gives over 700,000 pages.
It's obvious "fundamentalist" meant religious fundamentalist. Most people that use the word mean religious fundamentalist.
"Dogmatic" migth be a better way to describe GWB and his staff.
Not really. If anything, GWB is too pragmatic and unprincipled. What does he really believe? You always knew where Reagan stood, but Bush? Who knows? Sure, he believes in a Christian God, but politically, does he have any vision at all? I don't know.
You fail to realize the reasons why the Soviet Union collapsed. The USSR folded because they drove their own economy into the ground.
Reagan was a big reason for the collapse, but not because there was a race to see who could spend the most on weapons without destroying the economy.
What Reagan did was convince those on the Soviet side that they were philosophically wrong and that the US system was right. He did this with his optimism and tough talk, backed up with the threat of military force. His confidense and their increasing self-doubt began the changes. The success of the US in both economic and military might was proof the Soviets were on the wrong side.
Before Reagan, many in the US had given up. That by itself allowed the Soviet Union to last longer than it should have.
G.W. is just another fundamentalist, and just like Reagan, does not deserve recognition for what he's done.
That statement alone explains how it is you can have such a distorted view of history and of the United States. Your beliefs are nothing at all except reactionary. You define yourself as the political negative of those that are religious.
In short, you're not thinking for yourself.
So many religious skeptics (I'm an atheist, in fact) believe that they need to be on the political team opposite those that are religious. It's a mistake. There are plenty of fvcked up ideas on the political left as well as the right and plenty of stupid ahistorical hate-america-firsters. Don't get taken in. Take a more balanced view.
As far as Reagan goes, he was a genuinely good man. There was no smallness in him. Blowing him off because of his religious views is terribly unfair. He was a better man than most. Again, I'm an atheist, but after learning about him and his life, I would say he mostly represented what is best in men.
"Speeding" does not kill, this is a fallacy that is perpetuated by the auto insurance industry and uninformed public officials. Accidents (collisions really) and deaths are mostly caused by idiots with cell phones, drunks, and inattentive drivers (and left lane hogs too). Think for yourself, don't believe the hype
The energy available to break arms legs and heads is proportional to the square of the velocity. Driving 75mph instead of 55mph nearly doubles (1.86 times) the amount of energy available to do damage.
That's not hype, it's basic physics.
This kind of crap happens all the time in other industries. When businesses complain, well, that's just too bad, right?
Then some stupid rule ends up making life in your industry difficult and suddenly the cries go out: "Unfair! Unworkable! Stupid Judge! Stupid consumer! Dumb regulation!"
Next time someone in some business complains about over-regulation or government interference, don't be so quick to dismiss it.
And for extra credit, try to follow, absolutely, all the rules of the road. Drive 15 mph around curves as required by that little yellow sign, or 35 on the off-ramp as you exit a 70 mph interstate.
Those are all regulations drivers are supposed to follow.
But, according to bowlingfortruth.com in the movie you are introduced to Charlton Heston with his trademark catchphrase, then you are shown a billboard that says there will be an NRA Annual meeting in Denver, then you are shown a scene from the Heston speech at Denver, where Heston is wearing different clothes, in a different room, with a different backdrop.
Dishonest how? Wrong why?
Or are you just picking nits because you cannot find any actual factual errors in the movie?
It's not just nit-picking. Have you even seen the movie? The images and bits of speeches are strung together to make it appear as a single event. Heston is made to appear a terrible villain saying "cold dead hands" 10 days after Colombine.
It's a lie. It's deceptive. Anyone watching the movie and knowing what Heston said and where he said it would be angry at Moore's obvious attempt at manipulation.
People that don't know the real chronology and instead only get Moore's are going to be fooled and that's why Moore did it. He knows that if he puts it on the screen, there will be people that buy-into his deception.
He's a propagandist.
Lockheed Martin doesn't make weapons. Sure - got it. Your credibility is now lower than the Iraqi information minister
It's obvious from the context that I was referring to the movie "Bowling for Colombine".
Moore tries to suggest in the film that the plant there is making weapons. It doesn't. It exists for the purpose of launching satellites.
I saw the movie last night and I enjoyed it very much. I cannot see why Americans would vote for Bush especially after seeing this flick.
This is why propaganda films are so successful.
If it's on the screen it must be true.
I had a friend once that told me: "You CAN'T believe it was Oswald after watching JFK."
Don't think for yourselves. The answers are all in movies.
Do you have a source for your claim about Heston's tie?
How about actually watching the movie?
Yes, the tie changes color because Moore splices together different bits and pieces to get Heston to sound like a real villain.
It's dishonest and it's wrong.
And what about his visit to Lockheed Martin? He tries to suggest they make weapons there even though they make weather and communication satellites.
Like I said. The movie itself is the source. Anyone checking Moore's "documentary" for accuracy will realize the film is nothing but dishonest propaganda.
But don't take it from me. Watch the movie. Try to verify it's claims. You're in for an eye-opener.
Cato receives funding from the oil industry, and had Fox News head honcho Rupert Murdoch as a director. Now that's what I call fair and balanced reporting!"
So, you really think you can decide on the merits of an argument just based on who partially funded the research?
How about ANALYSING THE ARGUMENT ITSELF?
The Republican Party has figured out that they can buy votes from the uneducated.
Well, in a democracy, you get votes by giving people money. Isn't that why the Democrats were successful for so many years? Aren't all those social programs simply ways to buy votes?
There's more to the economy than Lollapolooza and COMDEX.
And that goes for oil lamps and buggy whips, too.
Amen. I can't begin to remember how many times I've asked a simple question like "how much memory does your PC have?" only to be told something like "um, forty gigs?"
Well, maybe we are the ones that have it wrong.
From the standpoint of users, anything in RAM is forgotten when the power is killed, while everything on disk is "remembered."
Now, which should be called memory?
Yeah, and if you don't HAVE kids, you pay school taxes, too. It's a social obligation to try and improve the community as a whole. It's a shame that the money is sometimes wasted or misspent, but that doesn't change your obligation.
The idea of "social obligation" was used to justify the existance of the Berlin wall and the iron curtain.
They didn't want people running away from their duty to society.
It's also worth noting that the definition of fascism is putting society or nation above the individual.
In reality claiming "social obligation" just means you want to use somebody to achieve your own goals. That's called involutary servitude.
Every dictatorship has justified its power by claiming it was acting in the name of society.
I'm getting a bit older now and my vision isn't what it used to be. In the past, I would use at least 1024x768, but now I find myself using 800x600 simply because it's easier on the eyes.
It also depends on the most common size of the display device being used. You'd be surprised how many people are still using 15inch monitors.
So, who is your audience? If you expect a large number of viewers to be over 30, I would stick with 800x600.
I notice that much of the overhead is simply in making function calls.
Ackermann.cpp, for example, spends very little time actually calculating anything. Much of it's work includes all the overhead associated with making a function call.
Included in this overhead is management of the frame pointer. By using -fomit-frame-pointer, you avoid pushing the old ebp on the stack and a store of the current esp into ebp.
Ackermann runs about twice as fast with this simple optimization.
I would suggest that the English people posting here about not minding cameras etc should take a careful look at their crime stats. You bought a pig in a poke. Sorry but crime went up not down.
It's also possible that a higher percentage of crimes are discovered now that cameras are used while the total number of crimes actually decreases.
How often do people report crimes when they believe nothing can be done?
Now that cameras are in place, victims have a reasonable expectation that the perpatrator may have been caught on camera.
Of course, maybe the total number of crimes is really going up, but is the because of the cameras? Unlikely.
Heh - "buy an mp3 player - feed an orphan"
Nice logic,
Alex
It may sound like silly logic, but that doesn't mean it isn't in some sense actually what is happening.
It reminds me of the complaints about how awful Nike is for paying low wages to workers overseas. Yet selling shoes probably sent more American money overseas than any telethon.
FUCK FREEPERS
Ah, the sound of a philosophy based on peace and love.
The problem can be summed up in two words: Intolerance and Greed. Those two little words can sum up every problem ever encountered in humanity. Unfortunately this world is riddled with people infected with both.
Greed, especially.
Just consider all the money spent on tech toys in the USA: MP3 players, gaming systems, cell phones, wireless routers, laptops, etc. Or, other entertainment, like the millions spent on movies or restaurants. People will drop $50 to see Madonna gyrate, yet, will never send even $1 overseas to feed some poor child.
And what about houses close to the Pacific shore? Sure the weather is great, but that money could go to help so many others that are less fortunate.
Even the education establishment is guilty. Colleges charge more and more for their education services. Textbook prices are a scam. And all the while they talk and talk about the importance of education. Yep, it's so important that they think they should gouge the hell out of students and taxpayers. They won't even try to provide this important service for less money. Why? Greed.
They want him dead, regardless of what a jury says. [freerepublic.com]
Well, if it makes you feel any better, he probably wants them dead too.
The first amendment protects both sides of course.
That's related to the 'loser pays' ideas floating around. The problem is that patents are intended to protect small individual inventors, as the big companies are already able to defend themselves. Loser pays systems tend to discourage small inventors.
Maybe, but not necessarily.
If the liability was shared between the small individual and his lawyers, then such a system could work. Of course, the proceeds would also be shared.
But consider this: with such an arrangement, lawyers would be attracted to those people with the best cases, instead of those with the biggest wallets.
They're using these to protect the movie? How about the viewers that have to put up the loud mouths?
I say use the goggles to discover and eject the jerks!
Actually, the grocery store is a good place to start. Did you know the largest single cost of a big grocery store is the electricity bill ? It can easicly exceed $100,000 a month, more than labor.
Hmm. I don't think this is true. Go to bizstats and check out the costs of running a grocery store. Utilities consume just 2% of revenue. Most of the money a grocery spends is on obtaining the products to sell, about 75%.
It may be true that much of that 75% goes to pay for producers' energy to make those goods sold, though. Farming takes a lot of energy and so does making producing AL from bauxite like you mentioned. So I suppose you're correct in spirit.
The point is that the FCC is letting large corporations control the airwaves to the detriment of the public (i.e schools).
Apparently a good deal of public values what the corporations provide. Maybe you don't value it, but many people do.
If people really valued this radio station so much, where is the money? I've found it's easy for people to claim such and such is the greatest thing, but when they are asked to pay for it, suddenly it's less important.
The fact is most of the public likes what you and I would consider crap and that means most of the resources are going to go to providing them with their crap.
That doesn't mean what the public wants is somehow objectively worse than what we want. We have different values. But, should we given resources, airwaves and otherwise, disproportionately?
They are prioritising the big and wealthy over the little guy. It doesn't affect your rights online, but holy fuck does it affect your rights
The problem is that "the little guy" mostly doesn't give the public the crap it wants and the wealthy do.
If you want to be one of those wealthy people, you need to provide people with the crap they want, like Beanie Babies, or Public Storage, or fatty Hamburgers, or Britney Spears' T&A, or shiney Chrome rims for SUV's.
The fact is that the animals mostly make the world go round and stations like ClearChannel are giving them what they want. Shouting "NO!" isn't going to change that.