The interpreter has a global lock, but usually most of the time spent will be in things like I/O calls
In your programs, perhaps; mine are more CPU bound.
It's not so much that there's no benefit as that there's (often) not enough benefit to justify going through the hassle. I spend a bit of time making a very parallelizable, single-threaded program multi-threaded only to find it only got about a 10% gain. Then I spent a lot longer bit of time reworking it into a multi-processing version that runs about 7x faster on an 8-way system, but getting the IPC down was a royal pain in the butt.
If anything, I'm biased toward favoring multi-processing for reasons too numerous to list. Still multi-threading has its place and I really wish that Python didn't put such a low ceiling on its performance.
You act surprised. Sony is possibly the worst manufacturer for arbitrary restrictions and bizarre non-standard hookups. I always advise friends to stay away from their stuff because it's just not worth the aggravation.
You obviously never used an XP downgraded drivers-don't-work computer.
I upgraded that laptop to XP but gave up because the graphics drivers weren't well supported. So much for NVIDIA's "unified" driver.
Oh, sorry. I didn't notice you're just trolling.
I was dead serious. I find it interesting that Windows gets a pass on "runs like crap on a decent brand-new system" but Linux gets shredded for "doesn't support my parallel-port waffle maker from 1996".
Or maybe it's something specific to your computer? For day-to-day (ie. anything not gaming/graphics related) tasks, I've found my friends' laptop works quite well with only 1 gig of RAM...
And it's running Vista? Again, I simply don't believe you. From personal experience "fixing" friends' machines by slapping in some Newegg memory and listening to many, many people gripe about their awful 1GB (or less!) systems, I think 2GB is the minimum. Even IBM recommended 4GB 2 years ago.
When I gave up struggling to fix XP and got Vista DVD, guess what happened? It downloaded all the drivers, everything started to work fine and guess what? Damn fast. It is not a high end Vaio, it has only 1 Gig of RAM with low end hard disk (not 7200 or anything). It even has the scandal Intel i965 integrated gfx.
I don't believe you. There's no way Vista is "damn fast" on any machine with only 1GB of RAM.
We bought a brand-new (last year) HP laptop with a dual-core Sempron and 2GB of RAM, and Vista has run like frozen molasses since we unpacked it. Now, people are quick to blame that on problems specific to the HP distro and claim that Dell's distros (particularly of the small business variety) are better, but as an end user none of that stuff matters to me. It's clear to me that Windows is not ready for the desktop.
Just because it's not out of monetary range for most people does not mean that it isn't overpriced as hell.
Yeah, it does. $69 is a damn cheap investment in your primary interface to the thing you make your living on. Sure, a $5 keyboard is technically capable of sending character codes at the more or less right time, but I'll spring for the extra couple hours of salary to use something well made that will work perfectly for the next 50 years.
The hardware was OK by 1991 when it finally got the ability to display 8 bit color with AGA without cheating (yes, before that ECS/OCS Amiga's could only do 32 colours in low res, 16 in high res).
Even the built in CIA (complex interface adapter) could only support 19.2k serial speed - 56.6k if you had an AGA machine with an 040. The hardware was OK, but getting dated - even on my A4000 when I got it new in 92.
I used a 56K modem on an 030 with the stock CIA. The catch was to use 3-bit or shallower color so that the CIA had enough cycles left over after displaying the screen to read the serial port buffer, or to use a display card.
a Web site that gets about 200,000 visitors a day or about 500 hits per second on the 4.5 petabyte database.
So they get all 200,000 hits in a 7-minute window? I picture a sysadmin going insane for a few moments then napping in a hammock for the rest of the day.
And the attorney, veteran IP litigator Sid Leach, prepared excellent discovery documents and motion papers, which the rest of us will be able to consult and borrow from in the future.
Why? I doubt there's a portable in existence with a DAC good enough to sound detectably better playing FLAC versus a 320Kb VBR MP3. That's one of those things that seems nice in theory, but I suspect that the codec is far from the weakest link on today's hardware.
If you go by the silly criterion that every "scientific theory" needs to be falsifiable, well, the principle of natural selection fails that test, just as "2 + 2 = 4" or the fundamental theorem of calculus do.
Well, math isn't science in that sense. However, we spent several days in an upper-level math class proving that 1+1=2 (and the proof went a few pages IIRC).
1. the attackers may be just enforcing some stupid policy trying to do a good job,
I would be utterly uninterested in the bureaucratic intentions of a person who just finished molesting my daughter. The only possible defense from their policy manual would be if it was bulletproof.
Read about the scientific method, searching for the word "disprove". That's what I mean. Falsifiability is a core requirement of science. When someone runs an experiment, they're not trying to prove that a hypothesis is correct - which is inherently impossible - but that it's incorrect. Hypotheses that have been thoroughly tested without failing get upgraded to theories.
You cannot falsify evolution any more than you can falsify "1 2", because that's what it really is.
You absolutely can falsify evolution. If you couldn't, it wouldn't be a scientific theory.
Example: find a 2,000,000,000 year old fossil of a modern housecat that clearly demonstrates that it came before less-evolved forms. Or devise an experiment were less-suited organisms outpopulate more tailored relatives. Basically, do something that returns results inconsistent with the ideas of evolution.
Now, the fact that no one's been able to do so indicates strongly that evolution is an accurate approximation to reality. You still have to be able to at least hypothetically disprove a theory or you won't be able to test it, and if you can't test it, it's not science.
Slashdot Mirror
The interpreter has a global lock, but usually most of the time spent will be in things like I/O calls
In your programs, perhaps; mine are more CPU bound.
It's not so much that there's no benefit as that there's (often) not enough benefit to justify going through the hassle. I spend a bit of time making a very parallelizable, single-threaded program multi-threaded only to find it only got about a 10% gain. Then I spent a lot longer bit of time reworking it into a multi-processing version that runs about 7x faster on an 8-way system, but getting the IPC down was a royal pain in the butt.
If anything, I'm biased toward favoring multi-processing for reasons too numerous to list. Still multi-threading has its place and I really wish that Python didn't put such a low ceiling on its performance.
However, my upscaling DVD changer from Sony(!)
You act surprised. Sony is possibly the worst manufacturer for arbitrary restrictions and bizarre non-standard hookups. I always advise friends to stay away from their stuff because it's just not worth the aggravation.
They work great here, too, but each process model has its place. There are times when I really, really wish I could use effective threading.
Good luck with that. The last time someone tried that, they slowed Python down by half.
Yes, good luck with that! Because the current implementation slows it down by 7/8ths on my 8-core server.
Having worked in the disk mines of IBM many years ago, the SCSI disk controller is somewhat your pixie dust
Nope, that'd be on the platters.
Hear, hear. The system was flat-out painful at first, and I decrapified it to the point of mere sluggishness.
You obviously never used an XP downgraded drivers-don't-work computer.
I upgraded that laptop to XP but gave up because the graphics drivers weren't well supported. So much for NVIDIA's "unified" driver.
Oh, sorry. I didn't notice you're just trolling.
I was dead serious. I find it interesting that Windows gets a pass on "runs like crap on a decent brand-new system" but Linux gets shredded for "doesn't support my parallel-port waffle maker from 1996".
Or maybe it's something specific to your computer? For day-to-day (ie. anything not gaming/graphics related) tasks, I've found my friends' laptop works quite well with only 1 gig of RAM...
And it's running Vista? Again, I simply don't believe you. From personal experience "fixing" friends' machines by slapping in some Newegg memory and listening to many, many people gripe about their awful 1GB (or less!) systems, I think 2GB is the minimum. Even IBM recommended 4GB 2 years ago.
Seriously? You sound like a rube when you say "pop", or that your vocabulary didn't progress beyond the age of 5.
Yeah, because only Midwesterners say it.
When I gave up struggling to fix XP and got Vista DVD, guess what happened? It downloaded all the drivers, everything started to work fine and guess what? Damn fast. It is not a high end Vaio, it has only 1 Gig of RAM with low end hard disk (not 7200 or anything). It even has the scandal Intel i965 integrated gfx.
I don't believe you. There's no way Vista is "damn fast" on any machine with only 1GB of RAM.
We bought a brand-new (last year) HP laptop with a dual-core Sempron and 2GB of RAM, and Vista has run like frozen molasses since we unpacked it. Now, people are quick to blame that on problems specific to the HP distro and claim that Dell's distros (particularly of the small business variety) are better, but as an end user none of that stuff matters to me. It's clear to me that Windows is not ready for the desktop.
They're made to be dishwasher safe. Seriously. At this point, what've you got to lose?
Just because it's not out of monetary range for most people does not mean that it isn't overpriced as hell.
Yeah, it does. $69 is a damn cheap investment in your primary interface to the thing you make your living on. Sure, a $5 keyboard is technically capable of sending character codes at the more or less right time, but I'll spring for the extra couple hours of salary to use something well made that will work perfectly for the next 50 years.
The hardware was OK by 1991 when it finally got the ability to display 8 bit color with AGA without cheating (yes, before that ECS/OCS Amiga's could only do 32 colours in low res, 16 in high res).
They could do 4096 in low-res in 1985.
Even the built in CIA (complex interface adapter) could only support 19.2k serial speed - 56.6k if you had an AGA machine with an 040. The hardware was OK, but getting dated - even on my A4000 when I got it new in 92.
I used a 56K modem on an 030 with the stock CIA. The catch was to use 3-bit or shallower color so that the CIA had enough cycles left over after displaying the screen to read the serial port buffer, or to use a display card.
Rule number one of any communication: never send any while angry. Always calm down first.
Generalized, still true.
I totally agree. My wife, ex Army Airborne, would do the job if she got there before I could.
From TFA (yeah, I know):
So they get all 200,000 hits in a 7-minute window? I picture a sysadmin going insane for a few moments then napping in a hammock for the rest of the day.
It was a joke. Get it? Ray's a pirate for borrowing, and we all roll our eyes because we know that sharing is good and has nothing to do with piracy.
And the attorney, veteran IP litigator Sid Leach, prepared excellent discovery documents and motion papers, which the rest of us will be able to consult and borrow from in the future.
Pirate.
is more FLAC support in portables.
Why? I doubt there's a portable in existence with a DAC good enough to sound detectably better playing FLAC versus a 320Kb VBR MP3. That's one of those things that seems nice in theory, but I suspect that the codec is far from the weakest link on today's hardware.
If you go by the silly criterion that every "scientific theory" needs to be falsifiable, well, the principle of natural selection fails that test, just as "2 + 2 = 4" or the fundamental theorem of calculus do.
Well, math isn't science in that sense. However, we spent several days in an upper-level math class proving that 1+1=2 (and the proof went a few pages IIRC).
1. the attackers may be just enforcing some stupid policy trying to do a good job,
I would be utterly uninterested in the bureaucratic intentions of a person who just finished molesting my daughter. The only possible defense from their policy manual would be if it was bulletproof.
Read about the scientific method, searching for the word "disprove". That's what I mean. Falsifiability is a core requirement of science. When someone runs an experiment, they're not trying to prove that a hypothesis is correct - which is inherently impossible - but that it's incorrect. Hypotheses that have been thoroughly tested without failing get upgraded to theories.
You cannot falsify evolution any more than you can falsify "1 2", because that's what it really is.
You absolutely can falsify evolution. If you couldn't, it wouldn't be a scientific theory.
Example: find a 2,000,000,000 year old fossil of a modern housecat that clearly demonstrates that it came before less-evolved forms. Or devise an experiment were less-suited organisms outpopulate more tailored relatives. Basically, do something that returns results inconsistent with the ideas of evolution.
Now, the fact that no one's been able to do so indicates strongly that evolution is an accurate approximation to reality. You still have to be able to at least hypothetically disprove a theory or you won't be able to test it, and if you can't test it, it's not science.
Steven Newton, a project director at the National Center for Science Education, which promotes teaching of evolution
Why would you even spell that out? I bet the NCSE also promotes teaching of water being wet and the sun being a hot thing we orbit.
You seem to imply there was more to the story than the summary. This confuses me.