Rubbish. Newer data suggests the sensitivity is much lower, for example here , here and here.
You climate botherers can't have it both ways. Many of you refuse to even accept there's a debate (the science is settled, right?) and accuse sceptics of ignoring the peer reviewed literature. Yet you ignore the peer reviewed literature when it contradicts your opinions.
Your question is begging. The idea that people "deny climate change" is ridiculous. What they deny is the hype surrounding the trace gas CO2 and Earth's temperature sensitivity to it at a few hundred parts per million.
Plants and animals likely to see their living space halved.
It seems even when Co2 has absolutely nothing to do with it, it's the cause. Well, I suppose it prevents you from suggesting that if only Human's weren't so successful and more of them died from malnutrition, the cold or their dentition, we could save so many plants and animals. That's what you want to say, isn't it?
I've been working as a software developer for the same company for 12. There are 6 other software developers who, apart from 1, arrived before me (1 arrived 1 month after me). Since then, 2 have come and gone. The first came from overseas and inevitably returned there and the second found himself detained at Her Majesty's Pleasure for something or other.
It's a mystery to me why extremely rich men like Balmer continue with the daily drudgery of running a business like Microsoft. Personally I'd buy a huge yacht (inc. surface to air missiles) and sail around the world with a harem of supermodel concubines. For the rest of my natural life...
Am I the only person who worries that these missions will change the system in some non-computable way such that in a million years time a giant asteroid the size of Manhattan slams into Earth at twenty times the speed of a rifle bullet, killing all life except some extremely primitive microbes, which otherwise would have missed the Earth and headed into the Sun?
This isn't quite correct. The fundamental level of concurrency for a graphics card is the warp, or pixel group. Submission of work to the card is serialised in the driver regardless of whether you're using DX or GL. D3D allows you to batch these submissions in a multi-threaded way of course, but having threads submitting to a queue still implies locking. It's just that the locking occurs in the driver.
Performance was acceptable for the application I was writing. Indeed it just isn't an issue. But then if you're really going for out-and-out performance, you'd probably write it in C++, not C#.
It's not wrong, it just won't give you an even distribution of random numbers. It becomes really noticeable when you visualise the random numbers by, for example, plotting them as points on a unit sphere. I think he was explaining how to calculate the bounds, not actual code. This is what I do:
Is this a joke? You're making a real-time flight simulator in Java instead of C++ because your actual *rendering* is hardware accelerated and threads are easier in Java? You do realise that the unit of parallism on your graphics card is the *warp* (a bunch of pixels), not the driver, don't you? It doesn't matter how many threads you throw at the problem, the driver will mutex your concurrent calls to hell and it won't be any quicker.
Worse, you have no fine control over cache line efficiency in Java, which you do in C++, so it's probable your multiple threads will give the appearance of maxing your cores, but those cores will actually be sitting waiting on a cache line most of the time. I've seen a "multi-threaded solution" running on 6 cores that was only 1.5 faster than a single core solution because of this. If you want performance, C++ gives you the tools to make your code performant. Java abstracts all of that stuff away so you have no control over it. This is why C++ isn't going to die any time soon. Developers at the bleeding performance edge need it too much.
Not sure I agree about LINQ. It's tremendously powerful and extremely easy to get the hang of. In my recent project it made searching, sorting, filtering and hashing of items take me no time at all. I don't much like the SQL-like queries personally so never use them. I do like extension methods however. Coupled with generics and lambdas, LINQ is a great advance for software developers.
I agree with this. C# is a joy to code with, especially the system libraries. Part of its niceness, in Visual Studio at least, is the way intellisense actually works. It's very hit and miss with C++ because of the complexities of nested header files and so on.
I just did a string search in my large C++ project for template, and it's in 3 classes only. One is a generic event handling mechanism (quite powerful), one is a generic vertex template and the third is a cache friendly storage base class. Most people who are experienced C++ programmers don't use templates. They're used by library writers a lot, but talk of their over-use in production software is a bit of a fallacy.
Ironically, some fracking has been denied and frackers taken to court in the US for potential damage to wildlife, particularly birds. It's ironic because the same people doing the prosecuting are pro-windmills, which turn quite a few birds into mincemeat themselves!
That works well and dandy until you get incomprehensible (or hard-to-track) compilation errors
You'll get that whenever you start to do template programming, pretty much. Part of the skill set of being a good C++ developer is being able to interpret compiler output, which has improved over the years, although is still not perfect.
There are other things that we could pick as examples of over-complication.
So, don't use it. It's not compulsory. Use the bits you like. Don't use the bits you don't like.
Slashdot Mirror
Rubbish. Newer data suggests the sensitivity is much lower, for example here , here and here.
You climate botherers can't have it both ways. Many of you refuse to even accept there's a debate (the science is settled, right?) and accuse sceptics of ignoring the peer reviewed literature. Yet you ignore the peer reviewed literature when it contradicts your opinions.
Your question is begging. The idea that people "deny climate change" is ridiculous. What they deny is the hype surrounding the trace gas CO2 and Earth's temperature sensitivity to it at a few hundred parts per million.
and
It seems even when Co2 has absolutely nothing to do with it, it's the cause. Well, I suppose it prevents you from suggesting that if only Human's weren't so successful and more of them died from malnutrition, the cold or their dentition, we could save so many plants and animals. That's what you want to say, isn't it?
I've been working as a software developer for the same company for 12. There are 6 other software developers who, apart from 1, arrived before me (1 arrived 1 month after me). Since then, 2 have come and gone. The first came from overseas and inevitably returned there and the second found himself detained at Her Majesty's Pleasure for something or other.
:).
3 of us are single childless males
Well, after buying, downloading and playing RAGE, yes, I think he should!
A fair point.
It's a mystery to me why extremely rich men like Balmer continue with the daily drudgery of running a business like Microsoft. Personally I'd buy a huge yacht (inc. surface to air missiles) and sail around the world with a harem of supermodel concubines. For the rest of my natural life...
+1, insightful.
It doesn't crash. Like Windows 7 it's rock solid.
You need to take Fingale's Law into account.
Am I the only person who worries that these missions will change the system in some non-computable way such that in a million years time a giant asteroid the size of Manhattan slams into Earth at twenty times the speed of a rifle bullet, killing all life except some extremely primitive microbes, which otherwise would have missed the Earth and headed into the Sun?
Did that make sense?
This is where DX wins over OpenGL, yes. It's just easier to use and better supported.
This isn't quite correct. The fundamental level of concurrency for a graphics card is the warp, or pixel group. Submission of work to the card is serialised in the driver regardless of whether you're using DX or GL. D3D allows you to batch these submissions in a multi-threaded way of course, but having threads submitting to a queue still implies locking. It's just that the locking occurs in the driver.
The biggest contributor to `global warming' is the Sun.
Performance was acceptable for the application I was writing. Indeed it just isn't an issue. But then if you're really going for out-and-out performance, you'd probably write it in C++, not C#.
type, should be static_cast of course.
Is this a joke? You're making a real-time flight simulator in Java instead of C++ because your actual *rendering* is hardware accelerated and threads are easier in Java? You do realise that the unit of parallism on your graphics card is the *warp* (a bunch of pixels), not the driver, don't you? It doesn't matter how many threads you throw at the problem, the driver will mutex your concurrent calls to hell and it won't be any quicker.
Worse, you have no fine control over cache line efficiency in Java, which you do in C++, so it's probable your multiple threads will give the appearance of maxing your cores, but those cores will actually be sitting waiting on a cache line most of the time. I've seen a "multi-threaded solution" running on 6 cores that was only 1.5 faster than a single core solution because of this. If you want performance, C++ gives you the tools to make your code performant. Java abstracts all of that stuff away so you have no control over it. This is why C++ isn't going to die any time soon. Developers at the bleeding performance edge need it too much.
Not sure I agree about LINQ. It's tremendously powerful and extremely easy to get the hang of. In my recent project it made searching, sorting, filtering and hashing of items take me no time at all. I don't much like the SQL-like queries personally so never use them. I do like extension methods however. Coupled with generics and lambdas, LINQ is a great advance for software developers.
I agree with this. C# is a joy to code with, especially the system libraries. Part of its niceness, in Visual Studio at least, is the way intellisense actually works. It's very hit and miss with C++ because of the complexities of nested header files and so on.
I just did a string search in my large C++ project for template, and it's in 3 classes only. One is a generic event handling mechanism (quite powerful), one is a generic vertex template and the third is a cache friendly storage base class. Most people who are experienced C++ programmers don't use templates. They're used by library writers a lot, but talk of their over-use in production software is a bit of a fallacy.
Ironically, some fracking has been denied and frackers taken to court in the US for potential damage to wildlife, particularly birds. It's ironic because the same people doing the prosecuting are pro-windmills, which turn quite a few birds into mincemeat themselves!
You'll get that whenever you start to do template programming, pretty much. Part of the skill set of being a good C++ developer is being able to interpret compiler output, which has improved over the years, although is still not perfect.
So, don't use it. It's not compulsory. Use the bits you like. Don't use the bits you don't like.
Please mod Pr0xY's reply up! Seems the OP doesn't really understand what he's talking about.