RTFC idiot. I didn't say that splitting on 1/e:(e-1)/e is faster in the worst case. I said in fact that it were slower in the worst case.
Finding a specific number in an ordered list by splitting on 1/e:(e-1)/e is still O(log n). But, the advantage is that occationally you'll hit a smaller section rather than a larger section, and at the value of e for the generic split 1/n:(n-1)/n the best AVERAGE case is better than all other values.
For n > e, you don't hit the smaller section enough to make up for not hitting it, and for n e you don't gain enough from hitting the (possibly) smaller section to make up for not hitting it.
Quicksort, yes, has a worst case performance than say merge sort, but on the average, it does less work. Same with finding a value in a sorted list. If you split on 1/e:(e-1)/e then your average case will be better than even if you split on 1/2:1/2.
The world doesn't usually run on worst-case senarios. We usually care about the average case more often than worst case. You just need to make sure that if you're using biased data, that your worst case isn't getting hit unusually often. (Such as using quicksort to sort a mostly sorted list.)
But for unbiased data, quicksort and a 1/e;(e-1)/e partition scheme for findValInASortedList will be faster than merge-sort and a 1/2:1/2 partition scheme for findValInASortedList.
So, what happens when we start using up paper products faster than we can grow said trees? An economist might not think there are limits to these sorts of things, but, well, they're wrong.
Yes, you can short your supply if demand gets high enough. But the paper companies don't go out and deforest the rain forest. You want to know who does? Those lovely third world farmers, who depend on growing crops to feed their families.
They slash and burn the rainforest, because they don't care. They'd rather LIVE than let the rainforest live. Everyone else who's consuming wood is generally doing so in a conservationist manner.
Recycling plastic and glass can be as simple as cleaning it - in fact, that's one of the reasons we use so much of it. With a bit of imagination, it's actually much easier to recycle them than paper or metal.
This is called *REUSE* not recycling. The process that takes plastic and produces thread for clothing is extremely inefficient, and cost more money and energy than producing new thread from raw materials. Same with glass.
This is because beyond personal reuse, people don't just take used materials, clean them, and return them to the line. Things don't work like that. Yes, if you keep your plastic bottles and continue to reuse them, rather than recycle them, you save energy. But if you turn them into a recycler, there will be a net loss of energy and money to recycle that item into something else.
We spend $8 billion a year on recycling; to lose energy, and money, also to generate jobs that are created just to waste energy and money, and cannot in any way be considered enjoyable jobs. Why do we do this? To solve this problem where we think that we don't have enough landfill space, or that landfills are band.
We have plenty of landfill space. To make a landfill for the entire US (the most wasteful country in the world) for the next 100 years would just be a spec on the map of the US.
Also, landfills are clean sites that have been thoroughly investigated for potential contamination, and properly protected, and even produce enough methane to produce energy for a few hundred homes.
I like Penn and Teller as much as the next guy, but I consider them entertaining more than encyclopaedic.
While Penn and Teller's Bullshit is definitely entertainment, there is nothing wrong with their facts. And if there is, you can actually DISCUSS them. See, that's the formulation of a good argument. You have discussable points. Blanketly saying, "If there aren't any immediate benefits then there must be long term benefits, because recycling makes me feel good," is not a good start for an argument.
Also don't forget that many projects have long-term effects and take some time for the true effect to be realized. Your recycling example, for instance. While recycling processes are different from raw manufacturing, there's more to it than just that. Consider, for instance, the long-term effect of cutting down mature forests in terms of oxygen production, erosion, destruction of natural beauty, the effects on the biosphere as a whole, the destruction of habitat for animals that live in those forests, and so on.
Did you know that paper is harvested exclusively from trees grown FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAPER? Wow, damn. You mean, they're not cutting down the rainforest to supply me with my shiny photopaper? You mean that they're actually planting MORE trees, just because we waste MORE paper?
Saying that paper that comes from trees grown for paper is killing off the trees of the world, is like saying that french fries are killing off the potatoes of the world.
Next, it cost more money, and more energy to recycle everything EXCEPT metals. This is plastics, and paper (styrofoam should be handled specially just because if improperly disposed of it can produce hazardous chemicals. Plastic doesn't break down well, no hazardous products, and paper decomposes like most organic materials.) That's why the only people paying you to give them recyclable materials are the people buying aluminium (feasibly all metal is just as recyclable, just only aluminium is the most prevailent.)
If you want proof on these "ridiculous accusations" pick up a copy of Penn and Teller's Bullshit. Look for the season that has "Recycling". They attack each point of recycling, and conservation. Also, they'll help get you over a couple of other idiot ideas, like second hand smoke kills thousands of people a year.
I had a CS teacher comment to us that divide and conquer algorithms perform better on the average in the case where you split in two based on the ratio of e. Thus, split one side into 1/e, and the other in (e-1)/e
Worst case, you can end up hitting the (e-1)/e side more often than you would hit a 1/2 side of the same length, but over all, you're more likely to occationally hit the 1/e side, which on average will save you more checks than you lose by hitting the (e-1)/e sides.
So, the question is, since there are two whole numbers close to e, (2 and 3) which is actually the better to use on average for the ratio split? Sure, you get the maximum benefit at 1/e:(e-1)/e, but does the benefit drop off so fast that 1/3:2/3 is provably slower than 1/2:1/2 splits?
The definition of Amateur compared to Professional, is that Professionals get paid, Amateurs do not.
We've picked up a different meaning now thinking that an Amateur somehow has an inferior ability to a Professional, but it's not true.
The original meaning still holds in the athletic world. Many Olympic sports have the requirement that the entrants be Amateurs, and that they cannot be Professionals. Or they have limits on just how Professional they can be.
This is why many ice skaters cannot compete anymore in the Olympics. It's not that they would not do well, it's that they've "gone Pro".
Yes, I realize that Beta 1 is a developer release, and not fit for general consumption.
Still, the person who's complaining that IE7 Beta 1 is just as bad as FireFox, because FireFox fails the Acid2 Test also is still stupid.
There's a difference between just about totally failing, and getting kind of close.
When IE7 Beta 2 comes out, and it (possibly) performs better on the Acid2 test than IE6, I will alter my perspective to comply with the appropriate data.
But until then to call FOSS guys stupid because FF fails the Acid2 test as does IE, is stupid. Because FF fails the Acid2 test a lot better than does IE. And until it's different, everyone can bite me if you don't agree.
The first thing I did when I heard about all this is to see exactly what the hell everyone is complaining about. How bad exactly does IE7 render the Acid2 test?
Well, open up IE6, and load up the Acid2 test, because I'm looking at both of them and they're essentially the same. Just IE7 has the margin closer to the top... Oops... full screen it, and both of them break in the exact same way.
IE7 doesn't render the Acid2 test any better than IE6. Which is pretty freaking stupid.
Meanwhile, open up Firefox, and the image is distorted. It's not OUTRIGHT WRONG, it's just kinda not bad.
So, rather than looking at the Acid2 test on a pass-fail metric (which most people are doing right now. 100% or nothing) FireFox actually deserves something like a B+/A-. Meanwhile IE6, and IE7 that render it exactly the same deserve an F, because there is just absolutely nothing close to a smiley face on that page.
Their case would have gone forward just the same, except that they would have avoided showing that page.
If the person were to bring it up in an attempt to say, "hey, this wasn't nefarious!" then they would attempt to prove it discredible.
The same person was able to do the same to the WBM. Show us that the page that it's claiming that you were displaying at this date isn't what you really had up there, and the jury can decide.
The thing drives me nuts. Not because it's cell phone input, and a9-like predictive text wouldn't help.
It's because the entire notion of cell phone text entry doesn't work when I have to move a cursor to the correct button, then press a singular button through it. This is annoying and breaks the whole flow of input.
Entirely too slow. They need to think of a new input method, one that allows for reasonable text input speeds, not 1 word per hour.
She doesn't have to LOOK at people in order to shoot at them. Anyone thought about that?
The people in the episode say "calculating all the angles" because they still don't believe for certain that she is psychic.
So, super special assassin skills + intelligence, which is better than anyone + PSYCHIC = she can shoot with her eyes closed and hit people without any effort.
As for her turning away and closing her eyes, when we know damn well that she would be able to sense them die anyways, she's FLAKY... duh.
Do you mean that the movie only wraps up one tangling story line, or that Firefly only left one story line hanging.
Because I've seen the series, and it DEFINITELY left a ton of story lines hanging... in fact, just about all of them were left hanging. You can definitely see that the cancellation came as a horrible and sudden event.
Serious, I gotta say this WHAT THE FUCK is up with FOX? Like, I buy all these 1 season series on DVD that aired on FOX, out of order, and they all kick butt!
I'm just reminded of the beginning of the newly-uncanceled Family Guy, and their first episode back. You know, where he lists of shows canceled by FOX for like 5 minutes. I've seen many of these series, and I know they're awesome.
Speaking of which, I'm still waiting for Space above and Beyond on DVD.
Well, I like the idea that River is just a perfect genius, and psychic.
Basically, it lends credance to her kicking everyone's butt in the bar. It like, if I can near instantly learn anything, and I can read your thoughts... why shouldn't I be able to pick up martial arts instantly, and just kick everyone's ass.
Plus, we don't know what they might have taught her while she was being held by the alliance. If they *were* trying to make a perfect soldier, River wouldn't be a bad starting point.
Most of the instructions used by OSX that do not have an SSE/SSE2 equivalent are used by the graphics subsystem of OSX for the pretty graphics and font anti-aliasing.
As far as QuickTime 7, and iMovie, etc, the instructions used by these programs are generally available to both platforms.
Attack him for not calling desktop applications "actual applications", but the point still remains valid.
Any CPU intensive program will still suffer greatly in the emulation process.
On the PearPC mailing-list, we had some discussion as to the performance of Rosetta and PearPC. For CPU intensive tasks, it's not really all that much better.
AltiVec emulation can still be made faster than the linear code path.
The reason for this is that the AltiVec emulation can avoid many of the problems with the linear code. To list some...
* AltiVec has only alligned loads and stores, so you do not have to worry about emulating cross-page accesses * AltiVec can load more information into your register map faster than your generic code (less address translation per word loaded/stored) * AltiVec allows the emulating processor to parallel execute many of the instructions of the mathematical operations. So, you can make better use of the superscalar design of the emulating processor
There's a ton more, but I hope you get the idea. With PearPC there's a noticable increase in performance from ~1 MOPS for scalar integer arithmetic, and worse even MFLOPS for scalar floating point arithmetic to ~300 MFLOPS with even the scalar AltiVec emulation code.
Everyone seems to think emulating PowerPC and AltiVec on x86 and SSE/SSE2 (SSE3 provides no useful operations for AltiVec emulation) will make it slower than dirt. People think that emulating AltiVec with scalar operations will only slow the emulation down.
Why don't people actually look at some empirical data first, befor making such claims.
Perhaps you don't know me that well. I'm generally very pedantic.
I actually recommend seeing an Occupational Therapist.
Yes, much better idea.
Fine, all of/. will now collectively stop holding the gun to your head that forces you to read (and post to) articles on keyboard standards.
No, they're not holding a gun to my head to read this stuff. But I can still get peeved that people keep pushing ideas that are ungrounded, and uneducated.
I'd be the first to say that I'm not immune to this, but when people let me know just how stupid I'm being. I concede the point and correct myself. (see above concerning see an Occupational Therapist.)
So, in my opinion, if you're having problems with RSI, stop griping about it here, and see an Occupational Therapist to see what you can do about it. Stop suggesting keyboards, or layouts or anything because at best it's going to end up being as good as telling someone to eat chicken noodle soup when they have a cold. It's cute, and it's part of the culture, but it's also stupidly annoying.
While I can't argue the fact that bad body mechanics can't cause RSI, I can point out that you should have made your argument general to begin with, and not restricted it only to talking about typing.
Now, recall, same rate of RSI in typing vs anything else. So, it would say to me that there is some % of people that are actually doing what they're supposed to be doing without hurting their body, while everyone else is just so stupid about how to not hurt their body that they would hurt themselves no matter what they're doing.
Or, let's take a different approach, one that doesn't involve me calling everyone with RSI a stupid idiot:
We're predisposed to getting RSI, through one way or another. And no matter what we would do, we would get RSI just by doing anything repetitively.
Either way, people need to shut up about typing causing RSI, as it just aggravates what gets you RSI (whether that be your own stupidity, or your predisposal to it).
So, if you're getting RSI, then start looking into how to correct your problem, or how to deal with your problem (depending if its your fault or not.) But stop running around claiming that "oh, I'm a programmer, and I type a lot, and that gave me RSI." Because it's BS. I type a lot myself, and I don't have RSI, and don't expect that I should ever get it.
So, if you have RSI, talk to the people with RSI, and see about how they got around to fixing it, but stop bothering people like me who are just fine with your funky keyboards that just make it harder for me to treat my body in a healthy manner, and could possibly aggravate my situation towards RSI.
Microsoft benefits are awesome. Paid relocation is just the tip of the iceberg there.
As for being "stranded", your not going to have another job lined up right after that 3 month probationary period, because naturally, you will work under the assumption that you will get the job. Which means when the 3 months are over, and they decide not to hire you, you're screwed.
Now, let's assume you're going to play it safe and line up another alternative during your probationary period. In this case, you will most definitely have to go to interviews, communicate with at least a few companies, and all this while you're trying to convince the company that is giving you the probation period that you want to work there, and you'll do your best to work for them. Looking for another job does not scream this. Not to mention that you have to interview with companies under the explicit point that, "Even if you offer me a job, I'm on probation with Company XY for another n Months (where n unless they decide not to continue my employment."
Yeah, like, who would take the time to interview someone who won't be available for another 2~3 months, and only under the condition that their current company decides not to keep them. Rather, let's look at people who actually intend on coming no matter what if they accept the job offer.
So, basically, if you try and play it safe, you will screw yourself in the end, because they definitely won't be interested in holding you after the 3 months, when you spent a lot of it looking for another job.
The best option is to work your hardest and attempt to not lose your job at the end of the probationary period. But if you do this, and lose, then you've lost your job, and it's as good as being laid off, and told, "Good luck on finding your next job. Bye." It's like: Thanks
The research shows that CTS doesn't occur any more frequently in people, who type than people who do not type.
This would seem to negate even your argument, as this would still require people to obtaining CTS through typing.
Give that there were 0 correlation between typing and incidence of CTS. This means that there cannot be ANY feature or nature or related activity exclusive to typing that is causing CTS.
So, to make the argument that merely taking proper posture while typing will somehow avoid CTS, is ignoring the fact that CTS is not related to typing.
Did you not read my entire post? I told you that expressing your personal experiences are the most bogus way to vouche for anything.
If you want to convince me that Vipasanna actually works, then you need to present me with documented, repeatable experiments. The carpal tunnel not linked to typing research that I presented is one such situation. This is something that can be objectively quantified and evaluated.
I could give you just as much a testimonal about my conversion to Christianity and my prayers to God solving my RSI problems. and this will carry the exact same weight in argument as your testimonial about Vipasanna.
If you do not want me evangelising to you about my Christian beliefs, please stop evangelising to me about your particular beliefs.
Try it out, you have nothing to loose, [sic] except some complexes in your mind that bother you thru your subconsiousness:)
Try Christianity out. You have nothing to lose, except the burden and weight of Sin that have been bothering you and your soul.
Slashdot Mirror
RTFC idiot. I didn't say that splitting on 1/e:(e-1)/e is faster in the worst case. I said in fact that it were slower in the worst case.
Finding a specific number in an ordered list by splitting on 1/e:(e-1)/e is still O(log n). But, the advantage is that occationally you'll hit a smaller section rather than a larger section, and at the value of e for the generic split 1/n:(n-1)/n the best AVERAGE case is better than all other values.
For n > e, you don't hit the smaller section enough to make up for not hitting it, and for n e you don't gain enough from hitting the (possibly) smaller section to make up for not hitting it.
Quicksort, yes, has a worst case performance than say merge sort, but on the average, it does less work. Same with finding a value in a sorted list. If you split on 1/e:(e-1)/e then your average case will be better than even if you split on 1/2:1/2.
The world doesn't usually run on worst-case senarios. We usually care about the average case more often than worst case. You just need to make sure that if you're using biased data, that your worst case isn't getting hit unusually often. (Such as using quicksort to sort a mostly sorted list.)
But for unbiased data, quicksort and a 1/e;(e-1)/e partition scheme for findValInASortedList will be faster than merge-sort and a 1/2:1/2 partition scheme for findValInASortedList.
So, what happens when we start using up paper products faster than we can grow said trees? An economist might not think there are limits to these sorts of things, but, well, they're wrong.
Yes, you can short your supply if demand gets high enough. But the paper companies don't go out and deforest the rain forest. You want to know who does? Those lovely third world farmers, who depend on growing crops to feed their families.
They slash and burn the rainforest, because they don't care. They'd rather LIVE than let the rainforest live. Everyone else who's consuming wood is generally doing so in a conservationist manner.
Recycling plastic and glass can be as simple as cleaning it - in fact, that's one of the reasons we use so much of it. With a bit of imagination, it's actually much easier to recycle them than paper or metal.
This is called *REUSE* not recycling. The process that takes plastic and produces thread for clothing is extremely inefficient, and cost more money and energy than producing new thread from raw materials. Same with glass.
This is because beyond personal reuse, people don't just take used materials, clean them, and return them to the line. Things don't work like that. Yes, if you keep your plastic bottles and continue to reuse them, rather than recycle them, you save energy. But if you turn them into a recycler, there will be a net loss of energy and money to recycle that item into something else.
We spend $8 billion a year on recycling; to lose energy, and money, also to generate jobs that are created just to waste energy and money, and cannot in any way be considered enjoyable jobs. Why do we do this? To solve this problem where we think that we don't have enough landfill space, or that landfills are band.
We have plenty of landfill space. To make a landfill for the entire US (the most wasteful country in the world) for the next 100 years would just be a spec on the map of the US.
Also, landfills are clean sites that have been thoroughly investigated for potential contamination, and properly protected, and even produce enough methane to produce energy for a few hundred homes.
I like Penn and Teller as much as the next guy, but I consider them entertaining more than encyclopaedic.
While Penn and Teller's Bullshit is definitely entertainment, there is nothing wrong with their facts. And if there is, you can actually DISCUSS them. See, that's the formulation of a good argument. You have discussable points. Blanketly saying, "If there aren't any immediate benefits then there must be long term benefits, because recycling makes me feel good," is not a good start for an argument.
Even an idiot can speak the truth.
Go and actually watch the series that they released (it's a TV series, not a book.)
Seriously, go watch the whole of the two seasons available on DVD, then provide me with proper feedback and criticism.
The same is true for recycling programs.
Also don't forget that many projects have long-term effects and take some time for the true effect to be realized. Your recycling example, for instance. While recycling processes are different from raw manufacturing, there's more to it than just that. Consider, for instance, the long-term effect of cutting down mature forests in terms of oxygen production, erosion, destruction of natural beauty, the effects on the biosphere as a whole, the destruction of habitat for animals that live in those forests, and so on.
Did you know that paper is harvested exclusively from trees grown FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAPER? Wow, damn. You mean, they're not cutting down the rainforest to supply me with my shiny photopaper? You mean that they're actually planting MORE trees, just because we waste MORE paper?
Saying that paper that comes from trees grown for paper is killing off the trees of the world, is like saying that french fries are killing off the potatoes of the world.
Next, it cost more money, and more energy to recycle everything EXCEPT metals. This is plastics, and paper (styrofoam should be handled specially just because if improperly disposed of it can produce hazardous chemicals. Plastic doesn't break down well, no hazardous products, and paper decomposes like most organic materials.) That's why the only people paying you to give them recyclable materials are the people buying aluminium (feasibly all metal is just as recyclable, just only aluminium is the most prevailent.)
If you want proof on these "ridiculous accusations" pick up a copy of Penn and Teller's Bullshit. Look for the season that has "Recycling". They attack each point of recycling, and conservation. Also, they'll help get you over a couple of other idiot ideas, like second hand smoke kills thousands of people a year.
I had a CS teacher comment to us that divide and conquer algorithms perform better on the average in the case where you split in two based on the ratio of e. Thus, split one side into 1/e, and the other in (e-1)/e
Worst case, you can end up hitting the (e-1)/e side more often than you would hit a 1/2 side of the same length, but over all, you're more likely to occationally hit the 1/e side, which on average will save you more checks than you lose by hitting the (e-1)/e sides.
So, the question is, since there are two whole numbers close to e, (2 and 3) which is actually the better to use on average for the ratio split? Sure, you get the maximum benefit at 1/e:(e-1)/e, but does the benefit drop off so fast that 1/3:2/3 is provably slower than 1/2:1/2 splits?
My sig is probably still relavent to your post.
The definition of Amateur compared to Professional, is that Professionals get paid, Amateurs do not.
We've picked up a different meaning now thinking that an Amateur somehow has an inferior ability to a Professional, but it's not true.
The original meaning still holds in the athletic world. Many Olympic sports have the requirement that the entrants be Amateurs, and that they cannot be Professionals. Or they have limits on just how Professional they can be.
This is why many ice skaters cannot compete anymore in the Olympics. It's not that they would not do well, it's that they've "gone Pro".
Yes, I realize that Beta 1 is a developer release, and not fit for general consumption.
Still, the person who's complaining that IE7 Beta 1 is just as bad as FireFox, because FireFox fails the Acid2 Test also is still stupid.
There's a difference between just about totally failing, and getting kind of close.
When IE7 Beta 2 comes out, and it (possibly) performs better on the Acid2 test than IE6, I will alter my perspective to comply with the appropriate data.
But until then to call FOSS guys stupid because FF fails the Acid2 test as does IE, is stupid. Because FF fails the Acid2 test a lot better than does IE. And until it's different, everyone can bite me if you don't agree.
haha, that's great.
I still say it looks like crap.
The first thing I did when I heard about all this is to see exactly what the hell everyone is complaining about. How bad exactly does IE7 render the Acid2 test?
Well, open up IE6, and load up the Acid2 test, because I'm looking at both of them and they're essentially the same. Just IE7 has the margin closer to the top... Oops... full screen it, and both of them break in the exact same way.
IE7 doesn't render the Acid2 test any better than IE6. Which is pretty freaking stupid.
Meanwhile, open up Firefox, and the image is distorted. It's not OUTRIGHT WRONG, it's just kinda not bad.
So, rather than looking at the Acid2 test on a pass-fail metric (which most people are doing right now. 100% or nothing) FireFox actually deserves something like a B+/A-. Meanwhile IE6, and IE7 that render it exactly the same deserve an F, because there is just absolutely nothing close to a smiley face on that page.
That's why you can selectively enter evidence.
Their case would have gone forward just the same, except that they would have avoided showing that page.
If the person were to bring it up in an attempt to say, "hey, this wasn't nefarious!" then they would attempt to prove it discredible.
The same person was able to do the same to the WBM. Show us that the page that it's claiming that you were displaying at this date isn't what you really had up there, and the jury can decide.
God! I hate the freaking cell phone input, too!
The thing drives me nuts. Not because it's cell phone input, and a9-like predictive text wouldn't help.
It's because the entire notion of cell phone text entry doesn't work when I have to move a cursor to the correct button, then press a singular button through it. This is annoying and breaks the whole flow of input.
Entirely too slow. They need to think of a new input method, one that allows for reasonable text input speeds, not 1 word per hour.
OSX has already used the CTRL characters for Emacs short cuts
Hit CTRL-A, and you go to the beginning of the line, CTRL-E end of line, etc
I have to agree. When Slashdot starts posting stories about celebs that we have no chance of knowing, or really even caring about.
Not knowing: hell, I don't know... but if I've not heard the name, then obviously it's not a popular actor/ress among geeks.
Not really caring about: Leonardo DiCapprio.
I mean, come on, if Slashdot were to post a story about Leo here... OMG the masses would rise of and DESTROY.
Natalie Portman is- on the other hand- hot, and geek-known. So, she may get an article on Slashdot. But not any dupes!
SHE'S FREAKING PSYCHIC PEOPLE!
She doesn't have to LOOK at people in order to shoot at them. Anyone thought about that?
The people in the episode say "calculating all the angles" because they still don't believe for certain that she is psychic.
So, super special assassin skills + intelligence, which is better than anyone + PSYCHIC = she can shoot with her eyes closed and hit people without any effort.
As for her turning away and closing her eyes, when we know damn well that she would be able to sense them die anyways, she's FLAKY... duh.
Do you mean that the movie only wraps up one tangling story line, or that Firefly only left one story line hanging.
Because I've seen the series, and it DEFINITELY left a ton of story lines hanging... in fact, just about all of them were left hanging. You can definitely see that the cancellation came as a horrible and sudden event.
Serious, I gotta say this WHAT THE FUCK is up with FOX? Like, I buy all these 1 season series on DVD that aired on FOX, out of order, and they all kick butt!
I'm just reminded of the beginning of the newly-uncanceled Family Guy, and their first episode back. You know, where he lists of shows canceled by FOX for like 5 minutes. I've seen many of these series, and I know they're awesome.
Speaking of which, I'm still waiting for Space above and Beyond on DVD.
Well, I like the idea that River is just a perfect genius, and psychic.
Basically, it lends credance to her kicking everyone's butt in the bar. It like, if I can near instantly learn anything, and I can read your thoughts... why shouldn't I be able to pick up martial arts instantly, and just kick everyone's ass.
Plus, we don't know what they might have taught her while she was being held by the alliance. If they *were* trying to make a perfect soldier, River wouldn't be a bad starting point.
Most of the instructions used by OSX that do not have an SSE/SSE2 equivalent are used by the graphics subsystem of OSX for the pretty graphics and font anti-aliasing.
As far as QuickTime 7, and iMovie, etc, the instructions used by these programs are generally available to both platforms.
Attack him for not calling desktop applications "actual applications", but the point still remains valid.
Any CPU intensive program will still suffer greatly in the emulation process.
On the PearPC mailing-list, we had some discussion as to the performance of Rosetta and PearPC. For CPU intensive tasks, it's not really all that much better.
AltiVec emulation can still be made faster than the linear code path.
The reason for this is that the AltiVec emulation can avoid many of the problems with the linear code. To list some...
* AltiVec has only alligned loads and stores, so you do not have to worry about emulating cross-page accesses
* AltiVec can load more information into your register map faster than your generic code (less address translation per word loaded/stored)
* AltiVec allows the emulating processor to parallel execute many of the instructions of the mathematical operations. So, you can make better use of the superscalar design of the emulating processor
There's a ton more, but I hope you get the idea. With PearPC there's a noticable increase in performance from ~1 MOPS for scalar integer arithmetic, and worse even MFLOPS for scalar floating point arithmetic to ~300 MFLOPS with even the scalar AltiVec emulation code.
Everyone seems to think emulating PowerPC and AltiVec on x86 and SSE/SSE2 (SSE3 provides no useful operations for AltiVec emulation) will make it slower than dirt. People think that emulating AltiVec with scalar operations will only slow the emulation down.
Why don't people actually look at some empirical data first, befor making such claims.
Given that, it seems pedantic to say that:
/. will now collectively stop holding the gun to your head that forces you to read (and post to) articles on keyboard standards.
Perhaps you don't know me that well. I'm generally very pedantic.
I actually recommend seeing an Occupational Therapist.
Yes, much better idea.
Fine, all of
No, they're not holding a gun to my head to read this stuff. But I can still get peeved that people keep pushing ideas that are ungrounded, and uneducated.
I'd be the first to say that I'm not immune to this, but when people let me know just how stupid I'm being. I concede the point and correct myself. (see above concerning see an Occupational Therapist.)
So, in my opinion, if you're having problems with RSI, stop griping about it here, and see an Occupational Therapist to see what you can do about it. Stop suggesting keyboards, or layouts or anything because at best it's going to end up being as good as telling someone to eat chicken noodle soup when they have a cold. It's cute, and it's part of the culture, but it's also stupidly annoying.
While I can't argue the fact that bad body mechanics can't cause RSI, I can point out that you should have made your argument general to begin with, and not restricted it only to talking about typing.
Now, recall, same rate of RSI in typing vs anything else. So, it would say to me that there is some % of people that are actually doing what they're supposed to be doing without hurting their body, while everyone else is just so stupid about how to not hurt their body that they would hurt themselves no matter what they're doing.
Or, let's take a different approach, one that doesn't involve me calling everyone with RSI a stupid idiot:
We're predisposed to getting RSI, through one way or another. And no matter what we would do, we would get RSI just by doing anything repetitively.
Either way, people need to shut up about typing causing RSI, as it just aggravates what gets you RSI (whether that be your own stupidity, or your predisposal to it).
So, if you're getting RSI, then start looking into how to correct your problem, or how to deal with your problem (depending if its your fault or not.) But stop running around claiming that "oh, I'm a programmer, and I type a lot, and that gave me RSI." Because it's BS. I type a lot myself, and I don't have RSI, and don't expect that I should ever get it.
So, if you have RSI, talk to the people with RSI, and see about how they got around to fixing it, but stop bothering people like me who are just fine with your funky keyboards that just make it harder for me to treat my body in a healthy manner, and could possibly aggravate my situation towards RSI.
Microsoft benefits are awesome. Paid relocation is just the tip of the iceberg there.
As for being "stranded", your not going to have another job lined up right after that 3 month probationary period, because naturally, you will work under the assumption that you will get the job. Which means when the 3 months are over, and they decide not to hire you, you're screwed.
Now, let's assume you're going to play it safe and line up another alternative during your probationary period. In this case, you will most definitely have to go to interviews, communicate with at least a few companies, and all this while you're trying to convince the company that is giving you the probation period that you want to work there, and you'll do your best to work for them. Looking for another job does not scream this. Not to mention that you have to interview with companies under the explicit point that, "Even if you offer me a job, I'm on probation with Company XY for another n Months (where n unless they decide not to continue my employment."
Yeah, like, who would take the time to interview someone who won't be available for another 2~3 months, and only under the condition that their current company decides not to keep them. Rather, let's look at people who actually intend on coming no matter what if they accept the job offer.
So, basically, if you try and play it safe, you will screw yourself in the end, because they definitely won't be interested in holding you after the 3 months, when you spent a lot of it looking for another job.
The best option is to work your hardest and attempt to not lose your job at the end of the probationary period. But if you do this, and lose, then you've lost your job, and it's as good as being laid off, and told, "Good luck on finding your next job. Bye." It's like: Thanks
The research shows that CTS doesn't occur any more frequently in people, who type than people who do not type.
This would seem to negate even your argument, as this would still require people to obtaining CTS through typing.
Give that there were 0 correlation between typing and incidence of CTS. This means that there cannot be ANY feature or nature or related activity exclusive to typing that is causing CTS.
So, to make the argument that merely taking proper posture while typing will somehow avoid CTS, is ignoring the fact that CTS is not related to typing.
Did you not read my entire post? I told you that expressing your personal experiences are the most bogus way to vouche for anything.
:)
If you want to convince me that Vipasanna actually works, then you need to present me with documented, repeatable experiments. The carpal tunnel not linked to typing research that I presented is one such situation. This is something that can be objectively quantified and evaluated.
I could give you just as much a testimonal about my conversion to Christianity and my prayers to God solving my RSI problems. and this will carry the exact same weight in argument as your testimonial about Vipasanna.
If you do not want me evangelising to you about my Christian beliefs, please stop evangelising to me about your particular beliefs.
Try it out, you have nothing to loose, [sic] except some complexes in your mind that bother you thru your subconsiousness
Try Christianity out. You have nothing to lose, except the burden and weight of Sin that have been bothering you and your soul.