He may have meant checking ZF or something, but I am guessing not.
In any case smaller data size does take less time to process for many instructions, for instance a 32 bit DIV is faster than doing so on 64-bits, even on a 64-bit processor (it takes about a third the time.)
If you are packing bits it can also save time in transferring from memory (although you need enough bits to make it worthwhile.)
Carbohydrates are not digested at a rate even close to sugar.
Runners will commonly eat a lot of carbohydrates over the couple of days leading up to a race for this reason. It provides long term energy which can be used somewhat rapidly if necessary. I do not get a sugar high when carb loading.
Something like white bread may be different, but I barely consider that food. If the carbohydrates you are eating are sweetened with a ton of fructose that could cause you problems as well.
They do provide a lot of energy for the amount you eat, which is highly useful unless you have problems regulating your calorie intake. If your goal is to eat as much as possible they are probably not a good choice.
Meat only diets are very bad for you, you may want to get your cholesterol checked if you have been on one for a while.
It is that simple, humans are not overunity devices.
How you go about accomplishing it can get complex, various feedback effects complicate what you expend or gain energy wise, and you still need certain substances in your diet in enough quantity to avoid nutritional deficiencies, but you will lose weight if you gain less energy from food than you expend.
Eating as you did in your 20s when you are in your 40s is highly inadvisable. You want to tailor your consumption to match current energy expenditure, not what you were expending 20 years ago.
As you age your dietary needs will change, but you can still find a balance. Energy expenditure through exercise should not change much if it is consistent, but the amount of energy needed for other functions will. If nothing else your cell division rate drops as you age, and eventually goes to nearly zero.
This means you should no longer be eating enough to cover that energy expenditure, as you are no longer expending it. This is going to be less noticeable if you get substantial exercise, as it is a smaller fraction of your energy use.
Short of extremely rare hormone disorders or crippling physical debilities you should be able to control your weight without too much effort, even as you get older.
Small Pox, Nuclear missiles: No (and I would rather governments did not have these either, although depending upon how you read it this may actually require an amendment to make the restriction constitutional... which would be a good idea if we were to start allowing everything else.)
I would also say we should be allowed to own tanks, fighter jets, aircraft carriers, and conventional missiles (assuming a private citizen can afford any of those.)
My reading of the second amendment is that the primary thing it does is tell us the form of military we are to have. This would be a militia, not a standing army.
Keep in mind that private citizens owned cannon when that was written. I do believe it allows a private citizen in the US to own military hardware, and it is very much infringed right now.
The problem with lead in gasoline is that you combust it, and the lead gets into the air. Once in the air it can not only be inhaled, but can accumulate in various animals and plants which we eat.
Lead paint mostly stays where it is unless it chips or flakes and someone eats it. In the US you are required to sign a waiver before moving in if the residence contains lead paint. It is mostly safe if there are no children present, or the paint is in good condition.
The mere fact that uncontrolled influences are present makes what the op wrote fail as a disproof, it does not actually matter what they are. If you cannot control all factors such that a single example blows the argument, disproof by counterexample does not work. This makes it mostly useful in math, and less so in the real world.
As the saying goes, correlation is not causation. A lot of people have real difficulty with this, especially when the correlation supports the argument they are trying to make, but it remains true regardless.
You could say the available information provides evidence that gun ownership does not cause increased crime, which would be true. It is however very much possible that it does increase violent crime, and something else is responsible for the decline.
If you need a list of possible influences we can go with better education, reduced environmental contaminants (someone mentioned lead specifically), the rise of easy access to information (the internet), deterrent through harsher penalties (which I do not personally believe helps), economic conditions, etc.
There are rather a lot of things which would influence the crime rate and are not accounted for in a simple crime vs gun ownership chart. In this case nobody will be proving or disproving it either way, it is simply too messy to be subject to this kind of analysis.
The reason so many people are coming down on Jane's post is that it redirects the argument in a very misguided (or underhanded) way. A logical process is given with an example where it works correctly, then applied to a situation where it does not.
X can inflate Y while Z suppresses Y, showing a downward trend in Y overall even though X is causing Y to increase over what it would be absent X.
The argument Jane used is not correct, as it ignores all other factors. The example given is correct and logical, but is not an acceptable method to disprove a statistical trend.
In order to do this you would need to be able to control for all other factors which could influence the result.
In the example this is easy, as they can lock the dog up and easily disprove the theory that the dog is the cause. In the case of correlation between gun ownership and violence, appropriate controls which would allow the correlation to be disproved in this way are not possible.
That said, I do prefer to live in an armed society (even though I do not personally own a gun.)
There are many non-profit (and some for profit) standards organizations which solve similar problems right now, probably the most similar being something like ARIN and the other regional IP registries.
Stopping someone from transmitting would be more difficult than stopping someone from advertising addresses belonging to someone else, but it could probably be done (I am envisioning a relationship with the power company, who shuts you off for breach of your terms of service.)
So does a "toll" you pay to a random armed group who sets up on a road in a failed state.
Being forced to buy peace and appeasement due to a threat of violence is never a good thing, the best you could really say is that taxes are applied more evenly, and some of the money goes to those in need.
Pensions in particular are a huge problem, a lot of these systems made the assumption that population growth and productivity would keep going up. This did not happen, and it would be more onerous to pay for this now than when it was initially promised.
While it is unfair for government to promise they will pay a pension and not do so, it is at least as unfair to ask a generation to pay for decisions which were made and services which were rendered before they were born.
Many cities will have very real problems paying pensions unless the federal government simply starts printing money and handing it to them. I am expecting a federal law some time in the next 20 years which forces pensions to be fully funded each year as they are owed, but that will be after it blows up.
My girlfriend and I both remember the show, it is a good cause, and he would probably know what to do with 50 million if he gets it (he very well may.)
Positions in which you are expected to be using C / C++ are usually senior positions with other responsibilities as well (although this does depend a bit upon what you are actually doing, C and C++ are used across more industries than most languages.)
Usually you fill that kind of position through your network of business contacts, or with someone internal who is working on something else, but you think can handle it. I would consider it a bad idea to fill it from random job boards.
Amazon does control spam to at least some extent. They sent me an e-mail asking about it when one of the servers I have there started sending e-mail.
They asked me to describe my use case and set a new limit on outgoing messages.
Serving malware is probably difficult to do much about. I doubt they can directly scan servers for it (for a variety of reasons) and it would be difficult to distinguish from normal web traffic (especially if encrypted.) This probably means they need to wait for a problem before they can do something about it.
I suppose they could require more information about their customers, or include a waiting period on servers... but nobody does that, and in my opinion it would be unreasonable to require it of them.
To reach orbit you need to be able to generate enough force to lift your craft above the bulk of the atmosphere and put on enough speed to obtain orbital velocity.
Once you are there drag will be minimal, and even small propulsive forces will add up over time to get you escape velocity. Gravitational forces will not stop you from doing this as long as you overcome whatever the atmospheric friction is (if gravity is very strong, you just take longer to put on the speed to escape from orbit.)
The basic principle of ejecting matter with more energy is sound, but the devices we have which can do this tend to be heavy with low thrust, so using an ion drive to escape the atmosphere and hit orbital velocity is beyond our capabilities at the moment.
This is really more a matter of producing a lot of energy quickly (and not melting whatever we are using to push mass out at a high rate with high energy.)
I do expect that we will get better at this over time, chemical energy is just very easy in comparison.
I should probably also have mentioned that it would still not have escape velocity, so it would hit a point where it comes back, resulting in a more elliptical orbit than it previously had.
Since you went so far as to list tidal acceleration, I thought I would engage in a bit of pedantry though:
Jupiter is massive enough that the barycenter of the Sun - Jupiter system is not inside the sun. It would be more accurate to say they orbit each other (although the point they orbit it is very close to the sun.)
The real answer:
The moon is massive enough that both the earth and moon orbit a point barely within the earth. Removing half the mass would change the point they orbit, and therefore the orbital altitude of the moon. Orbital speed depends upon orbital altitude, so keeping the same velocity and removing half the mass would indeed make the moon drift away from the earth (very slowly.)
What matters is the direction you blast it off (as well as how much mass, and with how much force.)
If we did somehow figure out how to exert enough force to substantially affect the orbital velocity of the moon (which is what matters) we would probably be able to balance launch points such that it would maintain the same orbit.
I almost wrote up a similar response, but thought there was a good chance this was either trolling or sarcasm. There is also a good chance he is serious.
It is somewhat easy to staff up on web developers, even good ones if you pay somewhat well.
Finding a decent C programmer is far from easy. I am likely about to open a position for one... with a 6 month lead time before we will really need them. One of the things on my to do list this week is to justify that time frame to our investors, but I really think it may be too short to fill it in time (not a huge problem as this is a startup exiting that phase, and it is mostly that I am ready to come up with a new project, pitch it, and move on to that.)
A degree may get you an interview for a junior programming position, but it will not get you a job. I usually consider it equivalent to about a year of experience.
Many of the best programmers I know do not have a degree, or have one in an unrelated field. Something like a masters in mathematics and five years of C experience is worth real money, a BS in computer science and a year of PHP is not.
It matters a great deal, and making sure burst transfers are effective is not always possible.
I do high performance calculations for a living. Knowing in advance what you will need in the future is a somewhat hard problem (and the basis of most modern optimization.)
The difference between main memory and cache is vast, if you can predict what you need far enough in advance to load it into cache that helps quite a bit, but realize that normally at best you are loading 4x what you really will need (which is the nature of trying to predict it so far ahead of time you are not able to calculate what you will really need.)
If you want to contest that, how much memory do you have in cache compared to your data set of a few terabytes? Multiple cores are usually a loss in performance if you even try, most real world problem are not possible to run in parallel once you hit the easy optimizations (which mask latency for the most part at the expense of a large amount of cache memory.)
Most of the harder problems I have run into could scale across multiple cores (or CPUs) if it was designed that way, but the run time would always be worse than a solution which assumed that it will always run on one core (introducing synchronization points kills it.)
Latency is essentially everything in most applications which are optimized (most are not, it costs too much.) The recent trend of simply including more CPUs is essentially an acknowledgement that computers have almost hit their limit in terms of the number of sequential calculations they can run over time.
If you are assuming that your application will become faster as time goes on you already lost. In most cases this cannot happen unless the original implementation was highly suboptimal (such as... you used Java or C# instead of C, or your C code is terrible.)
Clothing, toothbrush, toothpaste, and maybe a charger for the basic prepaid cellphone you picked up before you left.
Anything else is an invitation to theft, and you should consider it potentially lost before you leave. If you decide it is more important to bring your Ipad than leave it home so be it, but the potential cost to you is the cost of the device.
If your employer sends you, request a travel laptop. These are disposable, and it comes at no cost to you.
No technology will really prevent theft, especially since anything which will prevent access is also a potential threat to our friendly government, and can be impounded for a very long time.
Slashdot Mirror
He may have meant checking ZF or something, but I am guessing not.
In any case smaller data size does take less time to process for many instructions, for instance a 32 bit DIV is faster than doing so on 64-bits, even on a 64-bit processor (it takes about a third the time.)
If you are packing bits it can also save time in transferring from memory (although you need enough bits to make it worthwhile.)
Carbohydrates are not digested at a rate even close to sugar.
Runners will commonly eat a lot of carbohydrates over the couple of days leading up to a race for this reason. It provides long term energy which can be used somewhat rapidly if necessary. I do not get a sugar high when carb loading.
Something like white bread may be different, but I barely consider that food. If the carbohydrates you are eating are sweetened with a ton of fructose that could cause you problems as well.
They do provide a lot of energy for the amount you eat, which is highly useful unless you have problems regulating your calorie intake. If your goal is to eat as much as possible they are probably not a good choice.
Meat only diets are very bad for you, you may want to get your cholesterol checked if you have been on one for a while.
You will not metabolize carbon dioxide from the air, and nitrogen is inert.
Breathing converts oxygen and carbon into carbon dioxide, therefore breathing should actually make you lose weight.
Water may add to weight, but you will keep to a fairly narrow range of water content if you want to survive.
It is that simple, humans are not overunity devices.
How you go about accomplishing it can get complex, various feedback effects complicate what you expend or gain energy wise, and you still need certain substances in your diet in enough quantity to avoid nutritional deficiencies, but you will lose weight if you gain less energy from food than you expend.
Eating as you did in your 20s when you are in your 40s is highly inadvisable. You want to tailor your consumption to match current energy expenditure, not what you were expending 20 years ago.
As you age your dietary needs will change, but you can still find a balance. Energy expenditure through exercise should not change much if it is consistent, but the amount of energy needed for other functions will. If nothing else your cell division rate drops as you age, and eventually goes to nearly zero.
This means you should no longer be eating enough to cover that energy expenditure, as you are no longer expending it. This is going to be less noticeable if you get substantial exercise, as it is a smaller fraction of your energy use.
Short of extremely rare hormone disorders or crippling physical debilities you should be able to control your weight without too much effort, even as you get older.
Hand grenades, Machine guns, C4, RPGs: Yes
Small Pox, Nuclear missiles: No (and I would rather governments did not have these either, although depending upon how you read it this may actually require an amendment to make the restriction constitutional... which would be a good idea if we were to start allowing everything else.)
I would also say we should be allowed to own tanks, fighter jets, aircraft carriers, and conventional missiles (assuming a private citizen can afford any of those.)
My reading of the second amendment is that the primary thing it does is tell us the form of military we are to have. This would be a militia, not a standing army.
Keep in mind that private citizens owned cannon when that was written. I do believe it allows a private citizen in the US to own military hardware, and it is very much infringed right now.
The problem with lead in gasoline is that you combust it, and the lead gets into the air. Once in the air it can not only be inhaled, but can accumulate in various animals and plants which we eat.
Lead paint mostly stays where it is unless it chips or flakes and someone eats it. In the US you are required to sign a waiver before moving in if the residence contains lead paint. It is mostly safe if there are no children present, or the paint is in good condition.
The mere fact that uncontrolled influences are present makes what the op wrote fail as a disproof, it does not actually matter what they are. If you cannot control all factors such that a single example blows the argument, disproof by counterexample does not work. This makes it mostly useful in math, and less so in the real world.
As the saying goes, correlation is not causation. A lot of people have real difficulty with this, especially when the correlation supports the argument they are trying to make, but it remains true regardless.
You could say the available information provides evidence that gun ownership does not cause increased crime, which would be true. It is however very much possible that it does increase violent crime, and something else is responsible for the decline.
If you need a list of possible influences we can go with better education, reduced environmental contaminants (someone mentioned lead specifically), the rise of easy access to information (the internet), deterrent through harsher penalties (which I do not personally believe helps), economic conditions, etc.
There are rather a lot of things which would influence the crime rate and are not accounted for in a simple crime vs gun ownership chart. In this case nobody will be proving or disproving it either way, it is simply too messy to be subject to this kind of analysis.
The reason so many people are coming down on Jane's post is that it redirects the argument in a very misguided (or underhanded) way. A logical process is given with an example where it works correctly, then applied to a situation where it does not.
X can inflate Y while Z suppresses Y, showing a downward trend in Y overall even though X is causing Y to increase over what it would be absent X.
The argument Jane used is not correct, as it ignores all other factors. The example given is correct and logical, but is not an acceptable method to disprove a statistical trend.
In order to do this you would need to be able to control for all other factors which could influence the result.
In the example this is easy, as they can lock the dog up and easily disprove the theory that the dog is the cause. In the case of correlation between gun ownership and violence, appropriate controls which would allow the correlation to be disproved in this way are not possible.
That said, I do prefer to live in an armed society (even though I do not personally own a gun.)
Not saying it is the best way, but...
There are many non-profit (and some for profit) standards organizations which solve similar problems right now, probably the most similar being something like ARIN and the other regional IP registries.
Stopping someone from transmitting would be more difficult than stopping someone from advertising addresses belonging to someone else, but it could probably be done (I am envisioning a relationship with the power company, who shuts you off for breach of your terms of service.)
So does a "toll" you pay to a random armed group who sets up on a road in a failed state.
Being forced to buy peace and appeasement due to a threat of violence is never a good thing, the best you could really say is that taxes are applied more evenly, and some of the money goes to those in need.
Pensions in particular are a huge problem, a lot of these systems made the assumption that population growth and productivity would keep going up. This did not happen, and it would be more onerous to pay for this now than when it was initially promised.
While it is unfair for government to promise they will pay a pension and not do so, it is at least as unfair to ask a generation to pay for decisions which were made and services which were rendered before they were born.
Many cities will have very real problems paying pensions unless the federal government simply starts printing money and handing it to them. I am expecting a federal law some time in the next 20 years which forces pensions to be fully funded each year as they are owed, but that will be after it blows up.
We donated as well.
My girlfriend and I both remember the show, it is a good cause, and he would probably know what to do with 50 million if he gets it (he very well may.)
Too bad my mod points seem to have expired today, you made the exact comparison I wanted to.
It should also be civil, not criminal. Libel is hardly worth of raiding someone and confiscating all of their stuff.
The charge is impersonating an officer anyway, which is so far out there in this case as to be clear abuse of power.
Just something to consider:
Positions in which you are expected to be using C / C++ are usually senior positions with other responsibilities as well (although this does depend a bit upon what you are actually doing, C and C++ are used across more industries than most languages.)
Usually you fill that kind of position through your network of business contacts, or with someone internal who is working on something else, but you think can handle it. I would consider it a bad idea to fill it from random job boards.
Amazon does control spam to at least some extent. They sent me an e-mail asking about it when one of the servers I have there started sending e-mail.
They asked me to describe my use case and set a new limit on outgoing messages.
Serving malware is probably difficult to do much about. I doubt they can directly scan servers for it (for a variety of reasons) and it would be difficult to distinguish from normal web traffic (especially if encrypted.) This probably means they need to wait for a problem before they can do something about it.
I suppose they could require more information about their customers, or include a waiting period on servers... but nobody does that, and in my opinion it would be unreasonable to require it of them.
To reach orbit you need to be able to generate enough force to lift your craft above the bulk of the atmosphere and put on enough speed to obtain orbital velocity.
Once you are there drag will be minimal, and even small propulsive forces will add up over time to get you escape velocity. Gravitational forces will not stop you from doing this as long as you overcome whatever the atmospheric friction is (if gravity is very strong, you just take longer to put on the speed to escape from orbit.)
The basic principle of ejecting matter with more energy is sound, but the devices we have which can do this tend to be heavy with low thrust, so using an ion drive to escape the atmosphere and hit orbital velocity is beyond our capabilities at the moment.
This is really more a matter of producing a lot of energy quickly (and not melting whatever we are using to push mass out at a high rate with high energy.)
I do expect that we will get better at this over time, chemical energy is just very easy in comparison.
I should probably also have mentioned that it would still not have escape velocity, so it would hit a point where it comes back, resulting in a more elliptical orbit than it previously had.
Good examples!
Since you went so far as to list tidal acceleration, I thought I would engage in a bit of pedantry though:
Jupiter is massive enough that the barycenter of the Sun - Jupiter system is not inside the sun. It would be more accurate to say they orbit each other (although the point they orbit it is very close to the sun.)
The real answer:
The moon is massive enough that both the earth and moon orbit a point barely within the earth. Removing half the mass would change the point they orbit, and therefore the orbital altitude of the moon. Orbital speed depends upon orbital altitude, so keeping the same velocity and removing half the mass would indeed make the moon drift away from the earth (very slowly.)
Simply removing mass would not change the orbit.
What matters is the direction you blast it off (as well as how much mass, and with how much force.)
If we did somehow figure out how to exert enough force to substantially affect the orbital velocity of the moon (which is what matters) we would probably be able to balance launch points such that it would maintain the same orbit.
I did not vote for Obama.
I would have the first time... but the fact that he said that and almost immediately voted against it lost my vote before the election.
I voted for Jill Stein last round. Not a perfect candidate, but at least it's not a lizard.
I almost wrote up a similar response, but thought there was a good chance this was either trolling or sarcasm. There is also a good chance he is serious.
It is somewhat easy to staff up on web developers, even good ones if you pay somewhat well.
Finding a decent C programmer is far from easy. I am likely about to open a position for one... with a 6 month lead time before we will really need them. One of the things on my to do list this week is to justify that time frame to our investors, but I really think it may be too short to fill it in time (not a huge problem as this is a startup exiting that phase, and it is mostly that I am ready to come up with a new project, pitch it, and move on to that.)
A degree may get you an interview for a junior programming position, but it will not get you a job. I usually consider it equivalent to about a year of experience.
Many of the best programmers I know do not have a degree, or have one in an unrelated field. Something like a masters in mathematics and five years of C experience is worth real money, a BS in computer science and a year of PHP is not.
New York (the city at least) is quite well connected by rail.
And there go the mod points.
It matters a great deal, and making sure burst transfers are effective is not always possible.
I do high performance calculations for a living. Knowing in advance what you will need in the future is a somewhat hard problem (and the basis of most modern optimization.)
The difference between main memory and cache is vast, if you can predict what you need far enough in advance to load it into cache that helps quite a bit, but realize that normally at best you are loading 4x what you really will need (which is the nature of trying to predict it so far ahead of time you are not able to calculate what you will really need.)
If you want to contest that, how much memory do you have in cache compared to your data set of a few terabytes? Multiple cores are usually a loss in performance if you even try, most real world problem are not possible to run in parallel once you hit the easy optimizations (which mask latency for the most part at the expense of a large amount of cache memory.)
Most of the harder problems I have run into could scale across multiple cores (or CPUs) if it was designed that way, but the run time would always be worse than a solution which assumed that it will always run on one core (introducing synchronization points kills it.)
Latency is essentially everything in most applications which are optimized (most are not, it costs too much.) The recent trend of simply including more CPUs is essentially an acknowledgement that computers have almost hit their limit in terms of the number of sequential calculations they can run over time.
If you are assuming that your application will become faster as time goes on you already lost. In most cases this cannot happen unless the original implementation was highly suboptimal (such as... you used Java or C# instead of C, or your C code is terrible.)
Bring only basic items.
Clothing, toothbrush, toothpaste, and maybe a charger for the basic prepaid cellphone you picked up before you left.
Anything else is an invitation to theft, and you should consider it potentially lost before you leave. If you decide it is more important to bring your Ipad than leave it home so be it, but the potential cost to you is the cost of the device.
If your employer sends you, request a travel laptop. These are disposable, and it comes at no cost to you.
No technology will really prevent theft, especially since anything which will prevent access is also a potential threat to our friendly government, and can be impounded for a very long time.
So... travel light.