Ah, thanks for the accurate representation. It does sound nifty the way you put it.:)
Maybe in the future, I'll try and RTFA instead of trust other +5 informative comments. All too often on stuff like this you read opposing information about the technology. *sigh* It'd be cool if moderators would read the specs on stuff like this before moderating informative, so they'd know if it were informative, or disinformative.
I'm commenting about the parent requesting for specification that this particular story happened in UT Austin. Such a clarrification wouldn't be necessary if there weren't other Universities of Texas in other cities. For example, El Paso.
So, hey, Genius. I'm teasing him that of course it's UT Austin, because no one cares about UTEP.
shit, why don't you try understanding posts, and implicit statements contained within them. Oh that's right. 90% of the slashdot crowd gets mad when you do that, because they usually imply stuff that they don't agree with explicitly, so they get mad when you do that.
I do not care. If I said it and it implies something, then I implied it. Such as making reference to an alternate University of Texas, which is not at Austin, and saying that no one cares about it. Thus, my implied statement given above explicitly for the retarded.
Taiwan used to have a seat. In fact, it's the seat that mainland China now holds. When the US and the UN officially recognized mainland China, they conceeded that Taiwan were a province thereof, and thus it lost all diplomatic status in the UN.
In the US, it's kind of a little weird. We're forbidden from recognizing Taiwan as an independent country, but yet we de facto defend them.
The whole Taiwan/China thing is a mess, and making any sense out of the political mess is impossible, because it's so full of paradoxes and logical inconsistencies that you can't properly make sense of it.
Yeah, exactly. You're basicly driven by trade-offs. As a programmer you always need to be asking, "What am I losing by going to this? What are my inputs, and initial state going to be?" etc.
When Linux and other free *nixes switched to CoW for program spawning, they new that it would slow down fork()s that would continue executing. But they also knew that the most common thing after a fork() was execv(), which would wipe out their memory map anyways. Thus, over all CoW for program spawning is a win.
But if you have a program load up a lot of data, then fork() and do its process on the two sets of data, then fork() and so on to maximize CoW losses, then you're definitely worse off.
Actually, I worked this into a program that I wrote that was designed to cripple a computer. Basically, it allocated a huge chunk of memory did a while(fork()); (which would be a standard fork bomb, but computers are capable of dealing with these now) then after that, it would do reads randomly from the huge memory buffer, and then a write randomly into the huge memory buffer. This not only destroys cache performance, but also attacks the Virtual Memory system, and also increases CoW losses.
That program can take out a great many computers such to the point that they're so busy dealing with page faults that they can't even handle keyboard interrupts in a reasonable time frame. My friend had an OpenBSD system, which is where this program took on its biggest teeth, and at one point he had high double digit, or triple digit load avg. Everytime he came out with something to take teeth off of my program, I added in something else.
Eventually, he had to lock down the computer to the point that I could barely even run gcc, and at that point, it actually was able to cope with my program reasonably well.
Someone else above alluded that the design is not a generic CPU, but rather a vector-like CPU, and thus more oriented towards DSP and HPC.
In those cases, a lot of the functionality is well conforming to the features you speak of.
Now, true, the average home PC probably doesn't do anything near close to what loop optimization they're talking about.
That's the reason why most home PCs right now don't usually need dual procs (they don't usually execute multi-threaded apps), or HPC-oriented procs (like the Itanium. Which if you look at the GMP webpage, it rocks the pants off of processors at 3 to 4 times the MHz by a factor of 3 or 4. But still, for general CPU consumption, not so good.)
Gmail lossless. As in, I have so much space here that I can store every copy of every email that I've sent out.
Also a bit in the Escalade lossless, as in, if it crashes, you can put it back together again, and have most of the pieces... or is that Volvo lossless?
This shouldn't be something that Firefox should have to tell Windows. Windows shouldn't be swapping memory out unless it needs more memory. Swapping stuff out just so you have more room for stream caches is not ideal.
You need something to *use* those streams.
With 1~2GiB of RAM, I've started up Windows raw (nothing else loaded, just a simple boot up) and it's already swapped out parts of the kernel. It can't have any need for stream cache, and it has hundreds and hundreds, if not more than a gigabyte of memory free. Why has it paged kernel space like that? It's moronic.
Yeah, point remains the same no matter what they were using. Microsoft wanted to switch from a *nix, tried a few times, failed each time until the last.
There have existed functions in Windows and Linux for a long time that mark a page as executable. Even though Linux or Windows never really enforced this to be set when executing data, it was required by specification.
Now that they're enforcing the specification, people complain that it broke.
Hey, PearPC was written before they enforced the specification, and Sebastian Biallas had the brilliant notion to actually follow the spec, and mark things as executable. Thus, when SP2 came out, PearPC worked fine.
Usually things break when moving to a newer version because some area of the spec wasn't very heavily stressed, and people writing code that just works (not as in, it works, but as in barely works,) thusly never really bothered shooting towards the spec. Then when the spec is enforced, they get all upiddy claiming that it breaks their app. Their app was broken to begin with, the previous implementations that you were relying on just didn't care.
For instance, when libc 5 (I think, don't hawk me about versions, if you know the correct versions, then please correct me, but I'm working off of a poor memory of the version numbers) came out, it enforced against passing a NULL file pointer. Before hand some people had hacked their code such that if an open failed, and returned a NULL file pointer, they didn't care or print an error message. They just kept going, since it would just waste CPU cycles, as nothing would get outputted or read from the file. It was silently gracefully failing for them, and they used that.
Then libc 5 comes out, and they break this silent graceful failure, and started reporting errors, or crashing when you passed them a NULL file pointer. People yelled and bitched, because they broke their app. But remember, THEIR APPS WERE BROKEN IN THE FIRST PLACE.
That's why I don't like people griping about "blah blah upgrade broke my app". Unless you can state that your app was built to spec from the beginning, then that upgrade didn't break your app. It was broken to begin with. The new upgrade just showed you how it was broken.
Well the same issue exists with Copy-on-Write. COW implementations give an impression of faster copying, because they back off all the copying until the first damage to that information. Turns out that in some cases you don't need to make an actual fresh copy in every situation, and that sometimes, you just copy it to use it, don't damage it then just return. In those cases COW gains you time. Since you only copy when you must. You just have to deal with blocking during the first write to the copy. (You would have waited anyways during the copy, you just shift were it's at.)
The issue with GC vs. non-GC languages is that GC pushes all that GC stuff to the back end, but ask yourself, what if you never have to collect the garbage? The whole question lies in, if we wait until the back-end to clean everything up, will we gain any time? Considering that you spend less time on important non-transient things with GC, and potentially more time on very transient things, while you spend about the same time on both in non-GC, the question is How transient is your memory? Of course, the less transient your memory is, the less often you'll have to reallocate space for it in the non-GC case... so...
Yeah, because I totally heard that Switchfoot would have gone with Sony if they had been called "Fuckwit Records."
Believe it or not, there is a lot in a name, part of iTMS, and iPod's success has to do with the Apple brand name, not just because it's a good product providing a service people want. People are simple things en masse. Name means a lot to them.
If Apple started a new record label, but named it something else, they would have to build name credit. At least with using the Apple moniker, they would have some credit already.
"On the other hand, Apple could also simply start their own music label and really rock the industry."
They can't, there's already an Apple record label, and they own the IP that was produced by the Beattles.
Apple (music) sued Apple (computers) when they first attached speakers to their computers, claiming that people could mistake the two companies. The settlement was that Apple (music) would stop being so whiney, and Apple (computers) would not get involved into the actual music industry.
Now, with Apple (computers) running iTMS, and the iPod, you can argue that they've gotten into the music industry. In fact, Apple (music) sued (is suing?) Apple (computers) again over this. Apple (computers) still has a leg to stand on, because they're not producing or owning music, they're just distributing it for the Music Industry.
There is no doubt in my mind that if Apple (computers) started their own label, that they'd have absolutely no legal leg to stand on, and would be either a) screwed, or b) forced to change the name, so it doesn't conflict with Apple (music), in which case they lose the brand name, and lose.
This comment regards your sig, and what you're addressing in your comment. Because they contradict each other:
Why do the folks who insist on keeping "God" in "one nation under God" want to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
You speak here of fundamental rights and freedoms in the US. Yet, it your post you say, "Freedom isn't a big deal. Who cares about it? No one. What people want is good software."
That's true. Did you know that the USSR had a 0% unemployment rate? Everyone had a job. Did you see the unemployed from capitalist, and socialist countries moving to the communist USSR? No.
Because Good just isn't good enough. At some point you have to lay down that you feel that people have a Right to your code, because you said so, and that no amount of "better" that can be tacked onto that program trumps that Right to keep seeing the source code.
Yes, it's advancing an ideology, and not advancing good software, but that's not the point. The F/OSS community doesn't have the mission statement "A computer on every desk running F/OSS." So our goal is *not* to force our software on everyone. F/OSS is driven by the goal of Free (as in Speech) Software For All Mankind.
If you don't like it, go back to using Windows, because that's Good Software. Meanwhile others who agree with the ideology will keep using Linux, because it's Free Software. Not because Linux is better than Windows, but because you feel that access to the source code should be a Right, not a Priviledge.
(Statements are my own, and do not reflect those of the company I work for.)
In my book, Bad Patents rank worse than Microsoft.
Just because you have a really good idea patented doesn't always even mean that you will make money from it. There have been quite a few people that have invented the next best XY, but no one licenses it, then when the patent runs out, BOOM! instant generic XY, and it's the best thing ever, and everyone is happy.
Except the poor bastard who thought of the idea, who doesn't get anything for his effort except a serious mistrust of those provisions that are supposed to protect him.
So, first to file is a *good* thing? Because way I see it, First to File would give Eolas an undeniable clinch.
Forget prior art. Did they file before you? That's the only thing you have to worry about.
I don't call that better. Now granted, I'm sure many provisions do benefit consumers, and innovation, but this whole first to file thing is just trying to get rid of red-tape that they have to deal with finding prior art. Now, they just have to look through their records and see if you're the first one to file for it. If you are, congratulations, otherwise, too bad, we'll put you in contact with who you need to to speak to about getting a license to use the technology that you independently developed before them.
It's like an extended warranty for your software. It promises that they'll give you Enterprise-level service if you ever have any problems.
Now, I know it's pretty common to have software problems at some point, unlike TVs breaking, or needing a reason for an Extended Warranty, but I'd be surprised if your IT department should ever really need deep Enterprise-level service for their software, unless you just don't have any IT personnel that actually need deep understanding of software to do their jobs.
Now, the problem with this is in OSes, where you can end up with a system that is so integrated that you *do* need enterprise-level service, because if something breaks, you don't want to sit on your bum, because your techs can't fix it.
If you only "kind of" speak the language, then you won't be catching any subtle nuances.
I say, "kind of" because I don't hardly speak Japanese as well as I would need to watch anything totally unassisted and get everything. I never really said that I caught *all* of the subtle nuances; I said that I listen for the subtle nuances.
I was able to play FF7 and FF9 both in Japanese relatively well (I made good progress on FF7 because I already knew the story, but I was still able to understand a good 90% of the FF9 game without resorting to a dictionary.) This is a bit different though from spoken speech. I can't just pause an anime, look some word up in my dictionary or my kanji book and understand what was said. That's why it's only "kind of". I understand the grammar well, and usage fine, but my vocabulary sucks.
No, I don't get puns. I speak German somewhere in the C1 level, and I still miss puns in German. I'm not talking about puns. I'm talking about when Ryosuke says: "oishii ta~getto", and I know what that means, and it means a little different from the English, but loses most of the nuance if translated non-literally, or literally into English.
Yeah, actually, it's kind of funny. Me and two friends were watching a fan-subbed Initial D, at various points the actors say "san kyu" (thank you) and they subtitle it as "arigato".
One of my friends, who listens strongly to the dialog said, "hey, they said 'thank you'" the other friend, who essentially exclusively reads the subtitles said, "Hey, they didn't translate that." And I just went, "huh? I didn't notice anything."
But yeah. Often I'll hear a phrase in the original Japanese and realize that the subtitles aren't correct, or don't convey the important exact meaning that the original Japanese holds. Then I start thinking about it, and I think about it, and I realize that sometimes, there's just absolutely no better way to express the phrase without writing a detailed paragraph describing the sutle nuance of meaning behind it.
Yes, but if you *do* kind of speak the language, then you can catch some of these suttle nuances.
I know I enjoy watching subtitled anime better, because I kind of read for the main points, and listen for the suttle points. I have a copy of a Japanese anime that I really like dubbed in Cantonese. It's frustrating to to be able to get any hint of the nuances out of the spoken dialog.
Now, granted, I'm sure that's what it's like for most people watching subtitled versions. But they should always try to include subtitled as well as dubbed so that people can make their own personal choice, because that's what this all boils down to. Personal preference.
Yeah, I knew it was wrong now. Since I know Swedish I know a bit about Norwegian. (Not 100% the same/similar enough, but better than 90%)
Like I said, I'd argue it hard core with my friend now. I'd just simply point him to "Jeg har boket", and tell him that it doesn't work. Then suggest that perhaps he should actually study and learn a language before he makes such claims.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, thanks for the accurate representation. It does sound nifty the way you put it. :)
Maybe in the future, I'll try and RTFA instead of trust other +5 informative comments. All too often on stuff like this you read opposing information about the technology. *sigh* It'd be cool if moderators would read the specs on stuff like this before moderating informative, so they'd know if it were informative, or disinformative.
I'm commenting about the parent requesting for specification that this particular story happened in UT Austin. Such a clarrification wouldn't be necessary if there weren't other Universities of Texas in other cities. For example, El Paso.
So, hey, Genius. I'm teasing him that of course it's UT Austin, because no one cares about UTEP.
shit, why don't you try understanding posts, and implicit statements contained within them. Oh that's right. 90% of the slashdot crowd gets mad when you do that, because they usually imply stuff that they don't agree with explicitly, so they get mad when you do that.
I do not care. If I said it and it implies something, then I implied it. Such as making reference to an alternate University of Texas, which is not at Austin, and saying that no one cares about it. Thus, my implied statement given above explicitly for the retarded.
Taiwan used to have a seat. In fact, it's the seat that mainland China now holds. When the US and the UN officially recognized mainland China, they conceeded that Taiwan were a province thereof, and thus it lost all diplomatic status in the UN.
In the US, it's kind of a little weird. We're forbidden from recognizing Taiwan as an independent country, but yet we de facto defend them.
The whole Taiwan/China thing is a mess, and making any sense out of the political mess is impossible, because it's so full of paradoxes and logical inconsistencies that you can't properly make sense of it.
Yeah, exactly. You're basicly driven by trade-offs. As a programmer you always need to be asking, "What am I losing by going to this? What are my inputs, and initial state going to be?" etc.
When Linux and other free *nixes switched to CoW for program spawning, they new that it would slow down fork()s that would continue executing. But they also knew that the most common thing after a fork() was execv(), which would wipe out their memory map anyways. Thus, over all CoW for program spawning is a win.
But if you have a program load up a lot of data, then fork() and do its process on the two sets of data, then fork() and so on to maximize CoW losses, then you're definitely worse off.
Actually, I worked this into a program that I wrote that was designed to cripple a computer. Basically, it allocated a huge chunk of memory did a while(fork()); (which would be a standard fork bomb, but computers are capable of dealing with these now) then after that, it would do reads randomly from the huge memory buffer, and then a write randomly into the huge memory buffer. This not only destroys cache performance, but also attacks the Virtual Memory system, and also increases CoW losses.
That program can take out a great many computers such to the point that they're so busy dealing with page faults that they can't even handle keyboard interrupts in a reasonable time frame. My friend had an OpenBSD system, which is where this program took on its biggest teeth, and at one point he had high double digit, or triple digit load avg. Everytime he came out with something to take teeth off of my program, I added in something else.
Eventually, he had to lock down the computer to the point that I could barely even run gcc, and at that point, it actually was able to cope with my program reasonably well.
Someone else above alluded that the design is not a generic CPU, but rather a vector-like CPU, and thus more oriented towards DSP and HPC.
In those cases, a lot of the functionality is well conforming to the features you speak of.
Now, true, the average home PC probably doesn't do anything near close to what loop optimization they're talking about.
That's the reason why most home PCs right now don't usually need dual procs (they don't usually execute multi-threaded apps), or HPC-oriented procs (like the Itanium. Which if you look at the GMP webpage, it rocks the pants off of processors at 3 to 4 times the MHz by a factor of 3 or 4. But still, for general CPU consumption, not so good.)
Pff... like anyone cares about University of Texas at El Paso.
(Note: I'm alumnus of New Mexico State University, a rival school, so take this with a grain of salt.)
Gmail lossless. As in, I have so much space here that I can store every copy of every email that I've sent out.
Also a bit in the Escalade lossless, as in, if it crashes, you can put it back together again, and have most of the pieces... or is that Volvo lossless?
This shouldn't be something that Firefox should have to tell Windows. Windows shouldn't be swapping memory out unless it needs more memory. Swapping stuff out just so you have more room for stream caches is not ideal.
You need something to *use* those streams.
With 1~2GiB of RAM, I've started up Windows raw (nothing else loaded, just a simple boot up) and it's already swapped out parts of the kernel. It can't have any need for stream cache, and it has hundreds and hundreds, if not more than a gigabyte of memory free. Why has it paged kernel space like that? It's moronic.
Yeah, point remains the same no matter what they were using. Microsoft wanted to switch from a *nix, tried a few times, failed each time until the last.
Well, as nice a hobby project as that would be... it'd probably just be better to emulate the environment.
Makes it more usable, and distributable.
There have existed functions in Windows and Linux for a long time that mark a page as executable. Even though Linux or Windows never really enforced this to be set when executing data, it was required by specification.
Now that they're enforcing the specification, people complain that it broke.
Hey, PearPC was written before they enforced the specification, and Sebastian Biallas had the brilliant notion to actually follow the spec, and mark things as executable. Thus, when SP2 came out, PearPC worked fine.
Usually things break when moving to a newer version because some area of the spec wasn't very heavily stressed, and people writing code that just works (not as in, it works, but as in barely works,) thusly never really bothered shooting towards the spec. Then when the spec is enforced, they get all upiddy claiming that it breaks their app. Their app was broken to begin with, the previous implementations that you were relying on just didn't care.
For instance, when libc 5 (I think, don't hawk me about versions, if you know the correct versions, then please correct me, but I'm working off of a poor memory of the version numbers) came out, it enforced against passing a NULL file pointer. Before hand some people had hacked their code such that if an open failed, and returned a NULL file pointer, they didn't care or print an error message. They just kept going, since it would just waste CPU cycles, as nothing would get outputted or read from the file. It was silently gracefully failing for them, and they used that.
Then libc 5 comes out, and they break this silent graceful failure, and started reporting errors, or crashing when you passed them a NULL file pointer. People yelled and bitched, because they broke their app. But remember, THEIR APPS WERE BROKEN IN THE FIRST PLACE.
That's why I don't like people griping about "blah blah upgrade broke my app". Unless you can state that your app was built to spec from the beginning, then that upgrade didn't break your app. It was broken to begin with. The new upgrade just showed you how it was broken.
Well the same issue exists with Copy-on-Write. COW implementations give an impression of faster copying, because they back off all the copying until the first damage to that information. Turns out that in some cases you don't need to make an actual fresh copy in every situation, and that sometimes, you just copy it to use it, don't damage it then just return. In those cases COW gains you time. Since you only copy when you must. You just have to deal with blocking during the first write to the copy. (You would have waited anyways during the copy, you just shift were it's at.)
The issue with GC vs. non-GC languages is that GC pushes all that GC stuff to the back end, but ask yourself, what if you never have to collect the garbage? The whole question lies in, if we wait until the back-end to clean everything up, will we gain any time? Considering that you spend less time on important non-transient things with GC, and potentially more time on very transient things, while you spend about the same time on both in non-GC, the question is How transient is your memory? Of course, the less transient your memory is, the less often you'll have to reallocate space for it in the non-GC case... so...
TWIHI (the way I heard it) Hotmail was running on FreeBSD, not Solaris.
Yeah, because I totally heard that Switchfoot would have gone with Sony if they had been called "Fuckwit Records."
Believe it or not, there is a lot in a name, part of iTMS, and iPod's success has to do with the Apple brand name, not just because it's a good product providing a service people want. People are simple things en masse. Name means a lot to them.
If Apple started a new record label, but named it something else, they would have to build name credit. At least with using the Apple moniker, they would have some credit already.
"On the other hand, Apple could also simply start their own music label and really rock the industry."
They can't, there's already an Apple record label, and they own the IP that was produced by the Beattles.
Apple (music) sued Apple (computers) when they first attached speakers to their computers, claiming that people could mistake the two companies. The settlement was that Apple (music) would stop being so whiney, and Apple (computers) would not get involved into the actual music industry.
Now, with Apple (computers) running iTMS, and the iPod, you can argue that they've gotten into the music industry. In fact, Apple (music) sued (is suing?) Apple (computers) again over this. Apple (computers) still has a leg to stand on, because they're not producing or owning music, they're just distributing it for the Music Industry.
There is no doubt in my mind that if Apple (computers) started their own label, that they'd have absolutely no legal leg to stand on, and would be either a) screwed, or b) forced to change the name, so it doesn't conflict with Apple (music), in which case they lose the brand name, and lose.
This comment regards your sig, and what you're addressing in your comment. Because they contradict each other:
Why do the folks who insist on keeping "God" in "one nation under God" want to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
You speak here of fundamental rights and freedoms in the US. Yet, it your post you say, "Freedom isn't a big deal. Who cares about it? No one. What people want is good software."
That's true. Did you know that the USSR had a 0% unemployment rate? Everyone had a job. Did you see the unemployed from capitalist, and socialist countries moving to the communist USSR? No.
Because Good just isn't good enough. At some point you have to lay down that you feel that people have a Right to your code, because you said so, and that no amount of "better" that can be tacked onto that program trumps that Right to keep seeing the source code.
Yes, it's advancing an ideology, and not advancing good software, but that's not the point. The F/OSS community doesn't have the mission statement "A computer on every desk running F/OSS." So our goal is *not* to force our software on everyone. F/OSS is driven by the goal of Free (as in Speech) Software For All Mankind.
If you don't like it, go back to using Windows, because that's Good Software. Meanwhile others who agree with the ideology will keep using Linux, because it's Free Software. Not because Linux is better than Windows, but because you feel that access to the source code should be a Right, not a Priviledge.
(Statements are my own, and do not reflect those of the company I work for.)
In my book, Bad Patents rank worse than Microsoft.
Just because you have a really good idea patented doesn't always even mean that you will make money from it. There have been quite a few people that have invented the next best XY, but no one licenses it, then when the patent runs out, BOOM! instant generic XY, and it's the best thing ever, and everyone is happy.
Except the poor bastard who thought of the idea, who doesn't get anything for his effort except a serious mistrust of those provisions that are supposed to protect him.
So, first to file is a *good* thing? Because way I see it, First to File would give Eolas an undeniable clinch.
Forget prior art. Did they file before you? That's the only thing you have to worry about.
I don't call that better. Now granted, I'm sure many provisions do benefit consumers, and innovation, but this whole first to file thing is just trying to get rid of red-tape that they have to deal with finding prior art. Now, they just have to look through their records and see if you're the first one to file for it. If you are, congratulations, otherwise, too bad, we'll put you in contact with who you need to to speak to about getting a license to use the technology that you independently developed before them.
It's like an extended warranty for your software. It promises that they'll give you Enterprise-level service if you ever have any problems.
Now, I know it's pretty common to have software problems at some point, unlike TVs breaking, or needing a reason for an Extended Warranty, but I'd be surprised if your IT department should ever really need deep Enterprise-level service for their software, unless you just don't have any IT personnel that actually need deep understanding of software to do their jobs.
Now, the problem with this is in OSes, where you can end up with a system that is so integrated that you *do* need enterprise-level service, because if something breaks, you don't want to sit on your bum, because your techs can't fix it.
If you only "kind of" speak the language, then you won't be catching any subtle nuances.
I say, "kind of" because I don't hardly speak Japanese as well as I would need to watch anything totally unassisted and get everything. I never really said that I caught *all* of the subtle nuances; I said that I listen for the subtle nuances.
I was able to play FF7 and FF9 both in Japanese relatively well (I made good progress on FF7 because I already knew the story, but I was still able to understand a good 90% of the FF9 game without resorting to a dictionary.) This is a bit different though from spoken speech. I can't just pause an anime, look some word up in my dictionary or my kanji book and understand what was said. That's why it's only "kind of". I understand the grammar well, and usage fine, but my vocabulary sucks.
No, I don't get puns. I speak German somewhere in the C1 level, and I still miss puns in German. I'm not talking about puns. I'm talking about when Ryosuke says: "oishii ta~getto", and I know what that means, and it means a little different from the English, but loses most of the nuance if translated non-literally, or literally into English.
Yeah, actually, it's kind of funny. Me and two friends were watching a fan-subbed Initial D, at various points the actors say "san kyu" (thank you) and they subtitle it as "arigato".
One of my friends, who listens strongly to the dialog said, "hey, they said 'thank you'" the other friend, who essentially exclusively reads the subtitles said, "Hey, they didn't translate that." And I just went, "huh? I didn't notice anything."
But yeah. Often I'll hear a phrase in the original Japanese and realize that the subtitles aren't correct, or don't convey the important exact meaning that the original Japanese holds. Then I start thinking about it, and I think about it, and I realize that sometimes, there's just absolutely no better way to express the phrase without writing a detailed paragraph describing the sutle nuance of meaning behind it.
Yes, but if you *do* kind of speak the language, then you can catch some of these suttle nuances.
I know I enjoy watching subtitled anime better, because I kind of read for the main points, and listen for the suttle points. I have a copy of a Japanese anime that I really like dubbed in Cantonese. It's frustrating to to be able to get any hint of the nuances out of the spoken dialog.
Now, granted, I'm sure that's what it's like for most people watching subtitled versions. But they should always try to include subtitled as well as dubbed so that people can make their own personal choice, because that's what this all boils down to. Personal preference.
NAND is a single logical expression. "sed" is not.
NAND is Turing-complete.
Think about it.
Yeah, I knew it was wrong now. Since I know Swedish I know a bit about Norwegian. (Not 100% the same/similar enough, but better than 90%)
Like I said, I'd argue it hard core with my friend now. I'd just simply point him to "Jeg har boket", and tell him that it doesn't work. Then suggest that perhaps he should actually study and learn a language before he makes such claims.