The problem is a stall in one core can stop the other. This doesn't happen if the cores have their own instruction pipelines. It's a critical resource that's shared between the two cores of a module.
Nope, this will not happen. They are not completely stupid. I think you do not get how modern Out-of-Order CPUs such as Bulldozer are designed: There is not a single big instruction pipeline, that is either running or stalling, but many different pipelines with many waiting spots where stalled instructions can wait and non-stalled instructions can overtake stalled instructions. A instruction cache miss will also not stall the instruction fetch and decoder pipelines: Bulldozer will just try to fetch something from the other core in the meanwhile or even prefetches instruction blocks that are predicted to be required soon by branch prediction.
Unless one core has a cache miss and needs to wait for the data to be fetched from main memory. Mean while the instruction pipeline that feeds the other core in the module gets stalled, meaning nothing executes in either core.
Something that can always happen. Stalls because of cache misses are happening in all high performance CPUs. This is completely unrelated to modules vs. cores. Stalls even help the shared FPUs approach: If one core is stalled, than the shared FPU is just as good as a non-shared FPU for the other core.
They've got nothing on NVIDIA, who advertise the GTX 980 as having 2048 "cores", when by any standard definition it only has 16 (or if you're really generous, you could maybe argue it has 64, but that's pushing it). They count every lane of their vector unit as a separate core. By that standard, AMD (and Intel) should multiply all their core counts by 8, since each AVX unit can do 8 int or float operations at once.
I think 64 cores in 16 modules would be a fair assessment of a GTX980. Each SMM contains 4 register files and dedicated execution units, 4 instruction fetch and scheduling units. Not too many things are shared within each SMM: mostly caches and shared memory.
"The suit claims that Bulldozer's design means its cores cannot work independently, and as a result, cannot perform eight instructions simultaneously and independently." If the suit really makes this claim it is easy for AMD to defend, because an AMD Bulldozer with 4 modules / 8 cores can actually execute 8 independent floating point instructions per cycle.
The two cores in each module share the floating point units, but each module contains 2 independent 128-bit FMAC units. Floating point throughput could be even higher, if both cores would have their own 2 128-bit FMACs, but would likely be lower if AMD decided to go with a single 128-bit FMAC per core. Sharing the floating point units allows higher execution speeds within the same area, as in most cases only one core is currently executing FPU instructions and that core can reach a higher speed with 2 execution units vs. one.
cng/lng still has the issue with big tanks required. Hybrid+Diesel sounds like a good idea. If you use a small diesel engine and run it mostly at peak power and get additional power for acceleration from the electric motor it will also reach high enough temperatures much quicker.
I would think that they should also change the tank, install something to allow user refilling or at least make refills free. Because if you use reflash the ECU to use more urea, it will work, but the urea/adblue/def tank will be empty much sooner than initially promised.
The SCR System works. The issue is that they did not want to include either a much bigger tank or make it user refillable. The refill is $100 not because of the urea ($10-20), but because some serious disassembly is required to refill the small tank. They cheated to make the tank filling last longer by not using enough urea unless running on a testbench. Consumers would not accept a $100 refill and a visit to the shop every 3k miles. SCR is fine, you just need to use enough urea and make it easy to refill it.
The mechanisms for Evolution itself should also be under selective pressure. I would expect that traits, that allow for a quicker adaption to a changed environment, are a huge improvement of fitness. One example seems to be sexual reproduction as this allows for mixing of different sets of traits and allows sexual selection. But there should be other mechanisms as well. Random mutation seem to be quite ineffective, mechanisms that cause more specific mutations with a higher likelihood of increasing the fitness should be possible.
The article claims Israel broke the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, but at the time of the Vela Incident Israel had not signed the CTBT nor it had ratified the treaty. In 1996 Israel signed the treaty but has still not ratified it.
What is to stop Lattice from simply shutting down this project for an open FPGA toolchain for their FPGAs?
Why and how would they shutdown this project? This project is the FPGA equivalent of writing a open source assembler or compiler for new CPU. They do not publish their bitstream format, but reverse engineering is perfectly legal.
For other types of cancers (eg pancreatic) the issue is being able to find it before it causes symptoms, which usually means it's too late.
Well, we could likely detect most of these cancers, if we just do an high res full body MRI scan of everyone every 6 month. But that would not only be very expensive but would likely generate a lot of completely unnecessary surgeries as many things that get detected there would either be completely harmless or get killed by the immune system before they could cause any problems. We do not only need something that can detect cancer, we also need something that will not generate a lot of false positives and is both cheap enough and convenient enough to be used as a periodic test on everyone every few month or maybe even more often.
Unlike Science, Religion does not need to offer predictions nor make falsifiable statements.
Nothing needs to do anything, but it's pretty clear that all significant religions do make falsifiable statements. Practically, any religion that doesn't have an effect on this world isn't worth much.
Some versions of all significant religions are making falsifiable statements. But making a falsifiable statement does not necessarily result in a conflict with science. Many religions are making falsifiable statements that are mostly likely true, such as: Building your house on rocky ground makes it safer from floods than building it on sand.(Matthew 7:24) There is only a problem if a statement is proven false, but people will continue believing it, because their religion says so. If a statement is found to be false, many religions will declare that they must have made a mistake in the interpretation of their holy book and change their interpretation.
Practically, any religion that doesn't have an effect on this world isn't worth much.
I agree, but Religion do not need falsifiable statements to have a effect on this world. Falsifiable statements can be falsified because they describe the world and these descriptions can be wrong. Empirical measurements can be used to show that a certain description of the world must be wrong, because it disagrees with measurable facts. Religions change the world by making statements about how the world should be and believers acting on these guidelines. But it is only possible to measure how the world currently is, not how it should be. Statements about how the world should be are always not falsifiable, but can be extremely powerful in changing the world. Science describes the world as it is, philosophy and religions try to make statements about how the world should be.
Science can make a statement like if we do X, Y will happen. That is a falsifiable statement that can be tested. It does not tell you to do X, it only describes the consequences of doing X. People still need to decide that they do want Y to happen, only then they can derive the statement that X should be done or not done. Deciding if X should be done, depends if you believe that Y would be good or not. Sure, for some Y nearly everyone agrees that this Y should be avoided, and the hard question is not "do you want Y to happen?" but "if you you do X will Y really happen?" But on other questions of moral and ethics it is the other way around. Nearly everyone agrees that (Y=)millions of people dying should be prevented, but not everyone agrees that (X=) it is required to cut down CO2 emission to do so. On other hand everyone agrees that an embryos dies if you have an abortion, but people disagree on the Y question: Is it a bad thing if a embryo dies?
If the return on investment was really that good, then the graduates should have no problem repaying their student loans.
The average return on investment is that good, the individual return on investment can be really bad. Some people are struggling with paying back their own student loan, while others could easily back way more than their own student loans.
I think it also works quite well, because German Universities are not afraid of kicking out already accepted students. No GPA or SAT test is really able to tell if people got what it takes to be a successful engineer. In Engineering almost half of the students usually fail during the first one or two years. It is way easier to kick people out, if they did not already spend >$10K tuition at that point.
You finish school education with at least two foreign languages these days, but they may well be French and Latin. English is common as first foreign language in Germany but not universally so, and the actual regulations don't give it special status over any other foreign language, so there are actually still schools where you can get your college qualification (Abitur) without having taken foreign language classes outside of Latin (as obligatory first foreign language) and (Classical) Greek (as a choice language).
No, that is not true. English has a special status over other foreign languages. It has to be either your first or your second foreign language. If you pick Latin or French as your first foreign language you have to learn English later as a second language. However, being forced to learn English at school does not necessary guarantee that people are really able to speak English. If people do not use a language, they will quickly forget what they once learned.
Healthcare is not free in Germany. If you are making less than around $50k per year, you need to be insured by one of the compulsory health insurances. They will not charge you based on individual risk, but will charge you a little bit over 15% of your wage. This also includes health insurance for your children and spouse. This is a really good deal for people with low incomes or people with pre-existing conditions, but on other hand it is a bad deal if you a healthy single with a good income and no kids. If you are making more than around $50k per year, you can either stay voluntarily in this health insurances and you rates will get caped. Or you can go for a private health insurance, they will insure you based on personal risk, you will have to pay to insure your childern and spouse. They will pay higher rates to the doctors, so doctors will treat you nicer. But if you fail to pay their rates they can kick you out and if you are too old, you can end up without health insurance. If you went for a private health insurance once, the compulsory health insurance will only accept you back if you are still young and employed. If you are either unemployed or old you need to go for a private insurance and in Germany they are still allowed to charge you a huge premium or even exclude you if you have a pre-existing condition.
Most universities in Germany offer a wide choice of recreational sport activities. People will not get any credits for joining these activities. People are doing it for recreation and there are no official sport teams formed by the university. Universities in Germany do not really care if their students are successful at competitive sports.
Which do you prefer? Freedom, Higher risks and higher reward? No risk, less freedom, but a lower standard of living?
It is not a binary choice. Rewards for doing well are still high in Germany. It not "no risk" but lower risk. Average standard of living is almost the same in Germany and the US: Where-to-be-born Index You will have a lower standard of living if you are doing well and earning a lot, but on other hand your are not doing that well, maybe because of an illness or because of a few bad choices that you have made, then your standard of living will be a lot higher in Germany.
Socialism has made many promises it cannot keep. Capitalism promises nothing, but can generate much more wealth.
Germany is not trying to establish socialism. Its system is called "social market economy", it is basically capitalism with some regulations and some redistribution of wealth. But it is not even that different from the US. Germany is spending 25.8% of its GDP on these programs, while the US spends 19.2% of its GDP on these programs. There is not a huge difference. There is a slight difference in how the two systems are adjusted but it is not huge. Statistics from the OCED
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. And to in my experience end up giving up liberty AND security.
How are people in germany giving up "essential liberty"? Since when is paying 35% instead of 25% taxes giving up "essential liberty"?
So it seems that you don't have any problem with treating some groups of people as second class citizens, you just want to change which groups those are.
That was a quote from the poster before my poster. I'm disagreeing with his position.
There's no reason to be religious in this modern world. People who are religious are idiots and should be treated like second class citizens.
And you are proving that "Religiophobia" can be a religion on its own. You apply exactly the same kind of mechanism that has caused religious wars and other crimes: You want to treat people as second class citizens because you disagree with their world view. You overgeneralize and make a whole population group responsible for the problems caused by some of their members.
They are just a piece of wire, often embedded in some kind of ceramic. Without power and stored at a place well protected from the enviroment it would likely last for 100,000 years or more.
The first thing they should do is to abolish the random lottery for H1B visas and grant the visas within the cap to the applicants with the highest salaries. That would help to stop companies that are abusing H1Bs for driving wages down and at the same time would make sure that if a company really really needs the skills of a specific foreigner, they could get a visa for him or her by paying a very high wage.
If you look at the video you see that the surface layer is not flat but the surface tension of the liquid changes the shape of the surface layer. They must either be able to accurately predict this effect or they need to somehow measure the shape of the surface.
The PI uses 4 watts, so a cluster of 64 PIs will use around 256 Watt. A NVidia GTX960 will provide 2,308 GFLOPS at 120 Watt or around 20 GFlops per watt. GTX980 is even better with 28 GFLOPS per Watt. Adapteva Epiphany-IV is supposed to do 100 Gflops at 2 Watt. Tegra X-1 can do 512 GFlops at likely something between 5-10 Watts.
But even if you would build a Tegra X-1 cluster, for many applications it would still be less power efficient than a smaller number of more powerful machines with a good interconnect: Even most parallel applications need some communication and exchange of results between the different threads. This will be very slow on the rasberry cluster.
But a rasberry pi cluster should be a good educational tool to teach cluster programming. Processing speed is slow, communication is also slow but the ratio between communication bandwidth and processing speed is likely quite similar to real clusters. So the skills that you learn when mapping small problems to a rasberry pi clusters can also be applied when mapping big problems to real clusters. And at the same time building one of these clusters is around the same price as a single compute node in a real cluster. So you can easily give students access to such a cluster.
You could solve the small problems way more efficiently using a single GPU, but if you want to solve the big problems a single machine is not going to be enough and you will have to deal with the limted communication bandwidth between the nodes.
In these fitness tests they monitor blood pressure and ECG and will stop you if your blood pressure gets too high or the ECG shows that your heart does not get enough oxygen anymore. For that reason persons can easily overestimate both maximum MET and maximum heart rate. People can reach higher running speeds and heart rates but will put their heart in danger by doing so.
Too bad basic literacy isn't part of your religion. The original poster specifically called marriage a "Christian tradition."
It certainly is a Christian tradition, but it is clearly not a exclusively Christian tradition. Just like "Honour your father and mother" is clearly a Christian value, it clearly is not a value that is exclusive to Christianity.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is a stall in one core can stop the other. This doesn't happen if the cores have their own instruction pipelines. It's a critical resource that's shared between the two cores of a module.
Nope, this will not happen. They are not completely stupid. I think you do not get how modern Out-of-Order CPUs such as Bulldozer are designed: There is not a single big instruction pipeline, that is either running or stalling, but many different pipelines with many waiting spots where stalled instructions can wait and non-stalled instructions can overtake stalled instructions.
A instruction cache miss will also not stall the instruction fetch and decoder pipelines: Bulldozer will just try to fetch something from the other core in the meanwhile or even prefetches instruction blocks that are predicted to be required soon by branch prediction.
Unless one core has a cache miss and needs to wait for the data to be fetched from main memory.
Mean while the instruction pipeline that feeds the other core in the module gets stalled, meaning nothing executes in either core.
Something that can always happen. Stalls because of cache misses are happening in all high performance CPUs. This is completely unrelated to modules vs. cores. Stalls even help the shared FPUs approach: If one core is stalled, than the shared FPU is just as good as a non-shared FPU for the other core.
They've got nothing on NVIDIA, who advertise the GTX 980 as having 2048 "cores", when by any standard definition it only has 16 (or if you're really generous, you could maybe argue it has 64, but that's pushing it). They count every lane of their vector unit as a separate core. By that standard, AMD (and Intel) should multiply all their core counts by 8, since each AVX unit can do 8 int or float operations at once.
I think 64 cores in 16 modules would be a fair assessment of a GTX980. Each SMM contains 4 register files and dedicated execution units, 4 instruction fetch and scheduling units. Not too many things are shared within each SMM: mostly caches and shared memory.
"The suit claims that Bulldozer's design means its cores cannot work independently, and as a result, cannot perform eight instructions simultaneously and independently."
If the suit really makes this claim it is easy for AMD to defend, because an AMD Bulldozer with 4 modules / 8 cores can actually execute 8 independent floating point instructions per cycle.
The two cores in each module share the floating point units, but each module contains 2 independent 128-bit FMAC units. Floating point throughput could be even higher, if both cores would have their own 2 128-bit FMACs, but would likely be lower if AMD decided to go with a single 128-bit FMAC per core. Sharing the floating point units allows higher execution speeds within the same area, as in most cases only one core is currently executing FPU instructions and that core can reach a higher speed with 2 execution units vs. one.
cng/lng still has the issue with big tanks required. Hybrid+Diesel sounds like a good idea. If you use a small diesel engine and run it mostly at peak power and get additional power for acceleration from the electric motor it will also reach high enough temperatures much quicker.
I would think that they should also change the tank, install something to allow user refilling or at least make refills free. Because if you use reflash the ECU to use more urea, it will work, but the urea/adblue/def tank will be empty much sooner than initially promised.
The SCR System works. The issue is that they did not want to include either a much bigger tank or make it user refillable. The refill is $100 not because of the urea ($10-20), but because some serious disassembly is required to refill the small tank. They cheated to make the tank filling last longer by not using enough urea unless running on a testbench. Consumers would not accept a $100 refill and a visit to the shop every 3k miles. SCR is fine, you just need to use enough urea and make it easy to refill it.
The mechanisms for Evolution itself should also be under selective pressure. I would expect that traits, that allow for a quicker adaption to a changed environment, are a huge improvement of fitness. One example seems to be sexual reproduction as this allows for mixing of different sets of traits and allows sexual selection. But there should be other mechanisms as well. Random mutation seem to be quite ineffective, mechanisms that cause more specific mutations with a higher likelihood of increasing the fitness should be possible.
The article claims Israel broke the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, but at the time of the Vela Incident Israel had not signed the CTBT nor it had ratified the treaty. In 1996 Israel signed the treaty but has still not ratified it.
What is to stop Lattice from simply shutting down this project for an open FPGA toolchain for their FPGAs?
Why and how would they shutdown this project? This project is the FPGA equivalent of writing a open source assembler or compiler for new CPU. They do not publish their bitstream format, but reverse engineering is perfectly legal.
For other types of cancers (eg pancreatic) the issue is being able to find it before it causes symptoms, which usually means it's too late.
Well, we could likely detect most of these cancers, if we just do an high res full body MRI scan of everyone every 6 month. But that would not only be very expensive but would likely generate a lot of completely unnecessary surgeries as many things that get detected there would either be completely harmless or get killed by the immune system before they could cause any problems. We do not only need something that can detect cancer, we also need something that will not generate a lot of false positives and is both cheap enough and convenient enough to be used as a periodic test on everyone every few month or maybe even more often.
Unlike Science, Religion does not need to offer predictions nor make falsifiable statements.
Nothing needs to do anything, but it's pretty clear that all significant religions do make falsifiable statements. Practically, any religion that doesn't have an effect on this world isn't worth much.
Some versions of all significant religions are making falsifiable statements. But making a falsifiable statement does not necessarily result in a conflict with science. Many religions are making falsifiable statements that are mostly likely true, such as: Building your house on rocky ground makes it safer from floods than building it on sand.(Matthew 7:24) There is only a problem if a statement is proven false, but people will continue believing it, because their religion says so. If a statement is found to be false, many religions will declare that they must have made a mistake in the interpretation of their holy book and change their interpretation.
Practically, any religion that doesn't have an effect on this world isn't worth much.
I agree, but Religion do not need falsifiable statements to have a effect on this world. Falsifiable statements can be falsified because they describe the world and these descriptions can be wrong. Empirical measurements can be used to show that a certain description of the world must be wrong, because it disagrees with measurable facts. Religions change the world by making statements about how the world should be and believers acting on these guidelines. But it is only possible to measure how the world currently is, not how it should be. Statements about how the world should be are always not falsifiable, but can be extremely powerful in changing the world. Science describes the world as it is, philosophy and religions try to make statements about how the world should be.
Science can make a statement like if we do X, Y will happen. That is a falsifiable statement that can be tested. It does not tell you to do X, it only describes the consequences of doing X. People still need to decide that they do want Y to happen, only then they can derive the statement that X should be done or not done. Deciding if X should be done, depends if you believe that Y would be good or not. Sure, for some Y nearly everyone agrees that this Y should be avoided, and the hard question is not "do you want Y to happen?" but "if you you do X will Y really happen?" But on other questions of moral and ethics it is the other way around. Nearly everyone agrees that (Y=)millions of people dying should be prevented, but not everyone agrees that (X=) it is required to cut down CO2 emission to do so. On other hand everyone agrees that an embryos dies if you have an abortion, but people disagree on the Y question: Is it a bad thing if a embryo dies?
If the return on investment was really that good, then the graduates should have no problem repaying their student loans.
The average return on investment is that good, the individual return on investment can be really bad. Some people are struggling with paying back their own student loan, while others could easily back way more than their own student loans.
I think it also works quite well, because German Universities are not afraid of kicking out already accepted students. No GPA or SAT test is really able to tell if people got what it takes to be a successful engineer. In Engineering almost half of the students usually fail during the first one or two years. It is way easier to kick people out, if they did not already spend >$10K tuition at that point.
You finish school education with at least two foreign languages these days, but they may well be French and Latin. English is common as first foreign language in Germany but not universally so, and the actual regulations don't give it special status over any other foreign language, so there are actually still schools where you can get your college qualification (Abitur) without having taken foreign language classes outside of Latin (as obligatory first foreign language) and (Classical) Greek (as a choice language).
No, that is not true. English has a special status over other foreign languages. It has to be either your first or your second foreign language. If you pick Latin or French as your first foreign language you have to learn English later as a second language. However, being forced to learn English at school does not necessary guarantee that people are really able to speak English. If people do not use a language, they will quickly forget what they once learned.
90% of Germans have free healthcare too.
Healthcare is not free in Germany. If you are making less than around $50k per year, you need to be insured by one of the compulsory health insurances. They will not charge you based on individual risk, but will charge you a little bit over 15% of your wage. This also includes health insurance for your children and spouse. This is a really good deal for people with low incomes or people with pre-existing conditions, but on other hand it is a bad deal if you a healthy single with a good income and no kids.
If you are making more than around $50k per year, you can either stay voluntarily in this health insurances and you rates will get caped. Or you can go for a private health insurance, they will insure you based on personal risk, you will have to pay to insure your childern and spouse. They will pay higher rates to the doctors, so doctors will treat you nicer. But if you fail to pay their rates they can kick you out and if you are too old, you can end up without health insurance. If you went for a private health insurance once, the compulsory health insurance will only accept you back if you are still young and employed. If you are either unemployed or old you need to go for a private insurance and in Germany they are still allowed to charge you a huge premium or even exclude you if you have a pre-existing condition.
Most universities in Germany offer a wide choice of recreational sport activities. People will not get any credits for joining these activities. People are doing it for recreation and there are no official sport teams formed by the university. Universities in Germany do not really care if their students are successful at competitive sports.
Which do you prefer? Freedom, Higher risks and higher reward? No risk, less freedom, but a lower standard of living?
It is not a binary choice. Rewards for doing well are still high in Germany. It not "no risk" but lower risk. Average standard of living is almost the same in Germany and the US: Where-to-be-born Index You will have a lower standard of living if you are doing well and earning a lot, but on other hand your are not doing that well, maybe because of an illness or because of a few bad choices that you have made, then your standard of living will be a lot higher in Germany.
Socialism has made many promises it cannot keep. Capitalism promises nothing, but can generate much more wealth.
Germany is not trying to establish socialism. Its system is called "social market economy", it is basically capitalism with some regulations and some redistribution of wealth. But it is not even that different from the US. Germany is spending 25.8% of its GDP on these programs, while the US spends 19.2% of its GDP on these programs. There is not a huge difference. There is a slight difference in how the two systems are adjusted but it is not huge.
Statistics from the OCED
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. And to in my experience end up giving up liberty AND security.
How are people in germany giving up "essential liberty"? Since when is paying 35% instead of 25% taxes giving up "essential liberty"?
So it seems that you don't have any problem with treating some groups of people as second class citizens, you just want to change which groups those are.
That was a quote from the poster before my poster. I'm disagreeing with his position.
There's no reason to be religious in this modern world. People who are religious are idiots and should be treated like second class citizens.
And you are proving that "Religiophobia" can be a religion on its own. You apply exactly the same kind of mechanism that has caused religious wars and other crimes: You want to treat people as second class citizens because you disagree with their world view. You overgeneralize and make a whole population group responsible for the problems caused by some of their members.
They are just a piece of wire, often embedded in some kind of ceramic. Without power and stored at a place well protected from the enviroment it would likely last for 100,000 years or more.
The first thing they should do is to abolish the random lottery for H1B visas and grant the visas within the cap to the applicants with the highest salaries. That would help to stop companies that are abusing H1Bs for driving wages down and at the same time would make sure that if a company really really needs the skills of a specific foreigner, they could get a visa for him or her by paying a very high wage.
If you look at the video you see that the surface layer is not flat but the surface tension of the liquid changes the shape of the surface layer. They must either be able to accurately predict this effect or they need to somehow measure the shape of the surface.
The PI uses 4 watts, so a cluster of 64 PIs will use around 256 Watt. A NVidia GTX960 will provide 2,308 GFLOPS at 120 Watt or around 20 GFlops per watt. GTX980 is even better with 28 GFLOPS per Watt. Adapteva Epiphany-IV is supposed to do 100 Gflops at 2 Watt.
Tegra X-1 can do 512 GFlops at likely something between 5-10 Watts.
But even if you would build a Tegra X-1 cluster, for many applications it would still be less power efficient than a smaller number of more powerful machines with a good interconnect:
Even most parallel applications need some communication and exchange of results between the different threads. This will be very slow on the rasberry cluster.
But a rasberry pi cluster should be a good educational tool to teach cluster programming. Processing speed is slow, communication is also slow but the ratio between communication bandwidth and processing speed is likely quite similar to real clusters. So the skills that you learn when mapping small problems to a rasberry pi clusters can also be applied when mapping big problems to real clusters. And at the same time building one of these clusters is around the same price as a single compute node in a real cluster. So you can easily give students access to such a cluster.
You could solve the small problems way more efficiently using a single GPU, but if you want to solve the big problems a single machine is not going to be enough and you will have to deal with the limted communication bandwidth between the nodes.
In these fitness tests they monitor blood pressure and ECG and will stop you if your blood pressure gets too high or the ECG shows that your heart does not get enough oxygen anymore. For that reason persons can easily overestimate both maximum MET and maximum heart rate. People can reach higher running speeds and heart rates but will put their heart in danger by doing so.
Too bad basic literacy isn't part of your religion. The original poster specifically called marriage a "Christian tradition."
It certainly is a Christian tradition, but it is clearly not a exclusively Christian tradition. Just like "Honour your father and mother" is clearly a Christian value, it clearly is not a value that is exclusive to Christianity.