Betas? Grow up. But at least you didn't use "cuck" that is so popular with the extreme right nowadays, presumably describing themselves and their fantasies...
For us that can read German (and those that have the intelligence to use a translation service for that matter) can differentiate between orders and advise.
You clearly don't know how logic works and you clearly think using magic phrases (straw man - which obviously don't apply here) makes up for your inability to understand and participate in a debate. This is similar to a recent post at ars technica where a poster tried to use magic (in that case referring to the Gish gallop) instead of responding to a post that listed claims by that poster that wasn't supported.
Really I'd be surprised if you have an IQ over 70...
No it isn't. Schizophrenia is a hardware problem (though it can be triggered emotionally and/or with misc. drugs). While psychology is a hard problem to crack in general there are very strong evidence of the above and very little reliable evidence for the OPs idea.
People make stupid things all the time. The thing is you are making a huge mistake that are common of all other idiots: think that 1 person with a certain opinion that _you_ associate with X means that all (or at least a significant subset) of X have that opinion. That is bullcrap. Your inference is crap. But that isn't all:
The text you quoted didn't say what you claim. It doesn't even say anything Shakespeare nor that white male poets should be banned.
So you used failed reading comprehension coupled with failed logic to post crap here. Really, ever thought about becoming the president of the US? You already know about alternative "truths" and lying.
I'd agree if we were talking of vegetarians - many of which doesn't really disagree with eating meat but doesn't want or can eat it themselves. Vegans though? Ideology and really bad understanding of nutrition is almost a requirement, there are often other ideological (and completely unfounded) ideas of humans place in the world, the values of a life (a human baby being worth the same as a dumb animal that lives in squalor for a few years) etc.
I wrote almost above as there may be a vegan somewhere that is sensible, haven't seen any IRL or online though. Most propagate crap like meat rotting in the intestines, meat adhering to the same and other stuff.
I'll just post the facts for Intel skylake, throughput (sustained in ideal case) and operations.
push immediate push reg - 1/clock, 1 fused op (will execute as one store address + one store data operation) push mem - 1/clock, 2 fused ops (load + store address + store data) pop reg - 2/clock, 1 op (load) pop mem - 1/clock, 2 fused ops (load (stack), store address + store data)
Compare this with the load/store operations of x86:
mov [mem], reg - 1/clk, 1 fused op (store address + store data) mov reg, [mem] - 2/clk, 1 op (load)
Push/pop instructions are small. They also (in all recent x86 processors) have a "free" stack pointer update that don't serialize dependent push/pop instructions (there will be overheads when manipulating the stack pointer though as that is done in the OoO execution stage while the update logic is done in the front end of the pipeline). The memory MOV instructions can use different address modes subset of [segment:basereg+indexreg*scale+offset] but are larger. I'll have to mention that x86 also support memory operands for most instructions (e.g. ADD reg, [mem]; SUB [mem], reg) however that doesn't change the general conclusion.
In short stack operations are fast on mainstream processors. Tail call optimization is an optimization, just as a good compiler optimizes some kinds of complex loops it is another tool. But the main advantage of it isn't performance, it is avoiding blowing up the stack in a way that is unnecessary.
Of course, given a Turing machine one can port the algorithm to that too. But emulating a stack is still using a stack even if only on a higher level of abstraction.
So you don't use the hardware managed stack but create a software managed stack... You write unnecessary code with worse performance and claim that is better? If your trees overflow your stack then maybe you should use an OS that supports growing stacks?
Most algorithms using recursion can use tail call optimizations, those that can't can be divided into those that would need temporary storage anyway and those that "wastes" space. An experienced programmer should be able to manage that.
BTW why do you think that emulating recursion with a manually managed stack (or other storage) is any better? Because that's how one do many things non-recursively...
Are you aware that people under suspicion of having done a criminal offense have temporarily less rights in order to enable investigation and eventual judgement?
Are you aware that most people (but apparently not you) think this is a good trade off as otherwise almost no crimes could be solved?
Are you aware that this have been the standard for a very long time? That it is considered a cornerstone of a free society?
Your "slippery slope" argument is bullshit. Let me do some "slipping" in the other direction: medical data is sacred, we also can't use testimonies describing the physical state (stress, sweating, out of breath etc.) of a suspect as this can be used to reason about the sacred medical state at the time. We can no longer use wounds, infections etc. of a suspect that matches those the offender would have suffered when committing a crime as circumstantial evidence. Clothes worn by a suspect can not be chemically analysed as it can provide medical data, e.g. sweat could indicate the heart frequency rose at some point in time (which with other evidence could be placed in a timeline), seamen could also indicate increased heart rate etc. Why would fingerprints be allowed as evidence in your fantasy world? Items in possession of a suspect is reasonably placed there by the suspect which indicates action, which indicates physical movement which is sacred medical data.
Should I continue? I could. But it is already ridiculous - but then so is your position that this is some kind of "slippery slope"...
I really don't understand why you are making things up instead of accepting the story. A pacemaker monitors heart activity in order to maintain pacing when the normal heart control system doesn't function as it should. That means that a modern pacemaker that have the ability to store that activity in a log for medical uses also gives _supporting_ evidence of activity surrounding the time of the fire. It is very simple.
BTW a pacemaker makes no difference if one have a heart attack.
IOW: Some people confuse executive orders with führerbefehl. While it is a straight translation (führer = leader/executive, befehl = order) the difference is the US is not (yet?) a dictatorship.
Why would he want to "destroy our freedom"? Al-Quaida wanted US to stop interfering in international affairs, if they succeeded in that is yet to be seen but the current president seem to support a return to isolationism.
Slashdot Mirror
Betas? Grow up. But at least you didn't use "cuck" that is so popular with the extreme right nowadays, presumably describing themselves and their fantasies...
For us that can read German (and those that have the intelligence to use a translation service for that matter) can differentiate between orders and advise.
Found the b-tard.
One can be a fascist and not being racist, in fact many in the Italian movement were neither racist nor anti-semitic.
You clearly don't know how logic works and you clearly think using magic phrases (straw man - which obviously don't apply here) makes up for your inability to understand and participate in a debate. This is similar to a recent post at ars technica where a poster tried to use magic (in that case referring to the Gish gallop) instead of responding to a post that listed claims by that poster that wasn't supported.
Really I'd be surprised if you have an IQ over 70...
No it isn't. Schizophrenia is a hardware problem (though it can be triggered emotionally and/or with misc. drugs). While psychology is a hard problem to crack in general there are very strong evidence of the above and very little reliable evidence for the OPs idea.
Idiot.
People make stupid things all the time. The thing is you are making a huge mistake that are common of all other idiots: think that 1 person with a certain opinion that _you_ associate with X means that all (or at least a significant subset) of X have that opinion. That is bullcrap. Your inference is crap. But that isn't all:
The text you quoted didn't say what you claim. It doesn't even say anything Shakespeare nor that white male poets should be banned.
So you used failed reading comprehension coupled with failed logic to post crap here. Really, ever thought about becoming the president of the US? You already know about alternative "truths" and lying.
I'd agree if we were talking of vegetarians - many of which doesn't really disagree with eating meat but doesn't want or can eat it themselves. Vegans though? Ideology and really bad understanding of nutrition is almost a requirement, there are often other ideological (and completely unfounded) ideas of humans place in the world, the values of a life (a human baby being worth the same as a dumb animal that lives in squalor for a few years) etc.
I wrote almost above as there may be a vegan somewhere that is sensible, haven't seen any IRL or online though. Most propagate crap like meat rotting in the intestines, meat adhering to the same and other stuff.
I'd say that's still recursive however with a buffer.
Map the data flow and you should see why I think it's still recursive...
I'll just post the facts for Intel skylake, throughput (sustained in ideal case) and operations.
push immediate
push reg
- 1/clock, 1 fused op (will execute as one store address + one store data operation)
push mem
- 1/clock, 2 fused ops (load + store address + store data)
pop reg
- 2/clock, 1 op (load)
pop mem
- 1/clock, 2 fused ops (load (stack), store address + store data)
Compare this with the load/store operations of x86:
mov [mem], reg
- 1/clk, 1 fused op (store address + store data)
mov reg, [mem]
- 2/clk, 1 op (load)
Push/pop instructions are small. They also (in all recent x86 processors) have a "free" stack pointer update that don't serialize dependent push/pop instructions (there will be overheads when manipulating the stack pointer though as that is done in the OoO execution stage while the update logic is done in the front end of the pipeline). The memory MOV instructions can use different address modes subset of [segment:basereg+indexreg*scale+offset] but are larger.
I'll have to mention that x86 also support memory operands for most instructions (e.g. ADD reg, [mem]; SUB [mem], reg) however that doesn't change the general conclusion.
In short stack operations are fast on mainstream processors. Tail call optimization is an optimization, just as a good compiler optimizes some kinds of complex loops it is another tool. But the main advantage of it isn't performance, it is avoiding blowing up the stack in a way that is unnecessary.
Of course, given a Turing machine one can port the algorithm to that too. But emulating a stack is still using a stack even if only on a higher level of abstraction.
PNG?!? Get with the times dude - WebP is the cool thing!
So you don't use the hardware managed stack but create a software managed stack... You write unnecessary code with worse performance and claim that is better? If your trees overflow your stack then maybe you should use an OS that supports growing stacks?
Most algorithms using recursion can use tail call optimizations, those that can't can be divided into those that would need temporary storage anyway and those that "wastes" space. An experienced programmer should be able to manage that.
BTW why do you think that emulating recursion with a manually managed stack (or other storage) is any better? Because that's how one do many things non-recursively...
Are you aware that people under suspicion of having done a criminal offense have temporarily less rights in order to enable investigation and eventual judgement?
Are you aware that most people (but apparently not you) think this is a good trade off as otherwise almost no crimes could be solved?
Are you aware that this have been the standard for a very long time? That it is considered a cornerstone of a free society?
Your "slippery slope" argument is bullshit. Let me do some "slipping" in the other direction: medical data is sacred, we also can't use testimonies describing the physical state (stress, sweating, out of breath etc.) of a suspect as this can be used to reason about the sacred medical state at the time. We can no longer use wounds, infections etc. of a suspect that matches those the offender would have suffered when committing a crime as circumstantial evidence. Clothes worn by a suspect can not be chemically analysed as it can provide medical data, e.g. sweat could indicate the heart frequency rose at some point in time (which with other evidence could be placed in a timeline), seamen could also indicate increased heart rate etc. Why would fingerprints be allowed as evidence in your fantasy world? Items in possession of a suspect is reasonably placed there by the suspect which indicates action, which indicates physical movement which is sacred medical data.
Should I continue? I could. But it is already ridiculous - but then so is your position that this is some kind of "slippery slope"...
I really don't understand why you are making things up instead of accepting the story. A pacemaker monitors heart activity in order to maintain pacing when the normal heart control system doesn't function as it should. That means that a modern pacemaker that have the ability to store that activity in a log for medical uses also gives _supporting_ evidence of activity surrounding the time of the fire. It is very simple.
BTW a pacemaker makes no difference if one have a heart attack.
Not without risk? Really, CITATION NEEDED!
Or perhaps the operating system (shell) should prevent these kinds of errors? I guess it isn't macho enough...
IOW: Some people confuse executive orders with führerbefehl. While it is a straight translation (führer = leader/executive, befehl = order) the difference is the US is not (yet?) a dictatorship.
A sphincter is ring shaped...
Military historians wouldn't agree with that interpretation...
Daesh isn't al-Quaida.
Why would he want to "destroy our freedom"? Al-Quaida wanted US to stop interfering in international affairs, if they succeeded in that is yet to be seen but the current president seem to support a return to isolationism.
You are _really_ out of touch with reality - yes, objectively measured reality.
Yes. In a perfect vacuum that is. It is actually a pretty strange question to ask as c is defined as the speed of light in vacuum.