What we really want to know is if gun control prevents crime. If "gun crime" goes down by a thousand instances, and "knife crime" rises by the same amount, what's the difference?
The difference is we then only have to reduce crimes with knives to reduce crimes.
If you aren't aware of the myriad ways in which the London Police have gone completely batshit crazy with photographers.... well, you haven't been paying attention to the news
Actually they're apprised of their right of publicity and they figure if you're too dumb to respect it it's not worth explaining to you, so they tell you the thing about the souls hoping it will frighten you away.
My C software programs do not concern themselves with the specific register mappings and processor semantics; this has been abstracted away by the C Compiler.
Your compiler knows jack about the registers on a video card.
If you're writing a video device driver, as here, you're going to be poking values into board-register addresses, streaming data in and out of specific port addresses, and that code isn't portable. It may seem very familiar from board to board, but unless the features you implement are completely trivial it's not. Even at the library or application level you'll have to deal with the different features of the cards, which means a whole new set of ioctls and ports and configuration and operation protocols. You only get true portability when you put a standard library like openGL in the interface between your application and the driver. The driver is still bespoke, but it only has to implement the features that openGL knows about, so its upper interface to openGL is standard, as is the lower interface of your app to openGL.
The only way to focus on the big picture is to let someone else write the software.
Uh, software is still written to specific hardware. You may write it in C, but C doesn't determine the register mappings and semantics. *addr=value is still just mov [addr],$value
That's just what AMD marketing wants you to think. They chose the "Fusion" trademark so they could perpetually delay their products (they're already pushing 2 years late compared to the date they first announced after buying ATI).
I don't know about "time to", but in any case where the software is open vs. closed, the open-source community will not make the effort with the closed system. This will absolutely make linux hackers choose AMD graphics now, which will almost certainly result in improved reliability of AMD cards in linux systems overall, and eventually almost total domination of the consumer linux segment by AMD graphics.
If Intel would just abandon x86, they could reduce their cores by something like 50%!
They tried that once, with IA-64, although VLIW made cores bigger, not smaller. AMD stuck with x86 and came close to taking over the CPU market. Intel went back to x86 and AMD went back to being a scavenger.
If you want RISC, you can still get PPC chips from FreeScale. Of course, not even Apple will use them any more.
More like it's because the innovations in an incremental game aren't nearly as subconsciously thrilling as they were when it was the first time we'd seen a pixellated aggregation of tesseracts in the shape of a hot british chick do a half-twisting backflip over a keening tiger at our command.
Which is why nobody's trying to stop hijackings. They're trying to stop mid-air explosions that can be set off without anyone noticing before it's too late.
The presumption is that employees of the airports and airlines are now trustworthy and would-be perpetrators would have to enter the secure zone via the TSA checkpoint. Of course, that presumption is bullshit.
Slashdot Mirror
so the ships are using oil made from something other than carbon?
They also have to obey the laws of the ports they enter.
Why do we care if gun control prevents gun crime?
Ask someone who's been shot.
What we really want to know is if gun control prevents crime. If "gun crime" goes down by a thousand instances, and "knife crime" rises by the same amount, what's the difference?
The difference is we then only have to reduce crimes with knives to reduce crimes.
I'm not sure why you think the overall homicide rate wouldn't have gone up even more if there were guns in more hands.
If you aren't aware of the myriad ways in which the London Police have gone completely batshit crazy with photographers .... well, you haven't been paying attention to the news
Well, they may still be a little sensitive.
Actually they're apprised of their right of publicity and they figure if you're too dumb to respect it it's not worth explaining to you, so they tell you the thing about the souls hoping it will frighten you away.
That's what you believe. The fact is that gun control prevents gun crime:
http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/gunaus.htm
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms
My C software programs do not concern themselves with the specific register mappings and processor semantics; this has been abstracted away by the C Compiler.
Your compiler knows jack about the registers on a video card.
If you're writing a video device driver, as here, you're going to be poking values into board-register addresses, streaming data in and out of specific port addresses, and that code isn't portable. It may seem very familiar from board to board, but unless the features you implement are completely trivial it's not. Even at the library or application level you'll have to deal with the different features of the cards, which means a whole new set of ioctls and ports and configuration and operation protocols. You only get true portability when you put a standard library like openGL in the interface between your application and the driver. The driver is still bespoke, but it only has to implement the features that openGL knows about, so its upper interface to openGL is standard, as is the lower interface of your app to openGL.
The only way to focus on the big picture is to let someone else write the software.
Uh, software is still written to specific hardware. You may write it in C, but C doesn't determine the register mappings and semantics. *addr=value is still just mov [addr],$value
My exact attitude towards /.
That's just what AMD marketing wants you to think. They chose the "Fusion" trademark so they could perpetually delay their products (they're already pushing 2 years late compared to the date they first announced after buying ATI).
I don't know about "time to", but in any case where the software is open vs. closed, the open-source community will not make the effort with the closed system. This will absolutely make linux hackers choose AMD graphics now, which will almost certainly result in improved reliability of AMD cards in linux systems overall, and eventually almost total domination of the consumer linux segment by AMD graphics.
The dog has the cat treed. The cat hasn't figured out the tree keeps the dog away from the other side. Dog 1; Cat 0.
vi:emacs:notepad::dog:cat:plant
The dog isn't looking where you're pointing. He's looking where you just threw something.
But the cat will never figure that out, so cats are still dumber than dogs. Especially Australian Shepherds.
That's the sort of thing that makes anthropomorphization of animals a fallacy.
Just because it acts like you doesn't mean it's dumb.
I can't see why the terrorist don't attack the security checkin next.
They don't have to. All of this is free publicity.
If Intel would just abandon x86, they could reduce their cores by something like 50%!
They tried that once, with IA-64, although VLIW made cores bigger, not smaller. AMD stuck with x86 and came close to taking over the CPU market. Intel went back to x86 and AMD went back to being a scavenger.
If you want RISC, you can still get PPC chips from FreeScale. Of course, not even Apple will use them any more.
1. Sell ads to advertisers and give free ad-placement service to websites.
2. Direct you to websites.
3. Profit!
Note the lack of "???" in step 2. These ain't no underpants gnomes here.
Don't touch my junk, man.
More like it's because the innovations in an incremental game aren't nearly as subconsciously thrilling as they were when it was the first time we'd seen a pixellated aggregation of tesseracts in the shape of a hot british chick do a half-twisting backflip over a keening tiger at our command.
Because you look suspicious.
Actually it appears to be safe children:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/10/lesbians-child-abuse-0-percent_n_781624.html
Good thing we outlawed that.
Which is why nobody's trying to stop hijackings. They're trying to stop mid-air explosions that can be set off without anyone noticing before it's too late.
The presumption is that employees of the airports and airlines are now trustworthy and would-be perpetrators would have to enter the secure zone via the TSA checkpoint. Of course, that presumption is bullshit.