In Norway we have something called "Datatilsynet". It's not private. It can't be private.
Are you giving away your freedom and privacy to private entities?
Presumably by "it's not private" you mean "it's not a private entity, it's a public entity" (in an article discussing privacy, the term "private" in the sense of the private sector of the economy should be used with care, to avoid confusion; perhaps Norwegian has separate words for "not part of the public sector" and "not to be made available to the public", but "private", in English, can mean both).
The Civil War was not about the oppression of slaves (contrary to popular belief). It was about the crushing of dissent.
I never said what the Civil War was about. I was merely responding to what appeared to be a complaint about the South's way of life having been destroyed; if that's what they were referring to, much of that way of life should have been destroyed, so the destruction of that way of life wasn't a bug, it was a feature.
No you don't. You just don't realize that the people who fled here in the 17th century to avoid the oppressive regime in England created a whole new oppressive regime for the indigenous people. And it was so rampant into the 18th century that they wrote an entire constitution (that didn't apply to said indigenous people, or the slaves that were imported) to try and protect it. Then in the 19th century, half the country tried to repress the other half - destroying their entire way of life.
If you're referring to the Civil War, the way of life that was destroyed was based on, err, umm, the oppression of slaves, so destroying that way of life was a good thing.
And we can't forget McCarthysim - oooh, that was a really good one, followed by the Hoover FBI.
Hoover did that sort of thing well before he was head of the FBI; see, for example, the Palmer Raids.
If you compile the same program in a high level language for a complex processor and a simple processor, they'll produce the same result. Each operation on the complex processor may correspond to several instructions on the simple processor, but ARM's bet with big.LITTLE is that reduced power consumption in a simple processor's instruction decoder makes up for that difference.
The central tenet of big.LITTLE is that the processors are architecturally identical. Both Cortex-A15 and Cortex-A7 implement the full ARM v7A architecture including Virtualization and Large Physical Address Extensions. Accordingly all instructions will execute in an architecturally consistent way on both Cortex- A15 and Cortex-A7, albeit with different performances.
so each instruction on the complex processor would correspond to the exact same instruction on the simpler processor.
As that paper says, "It is in the micro-architectures that the differences between Cortex-A15 and Cortex-A7 become clear."
But if we are indeed simply creatures computer generated in some sort of matrix then the chunks of code that create our reality could be inserted in the program at any time, or several times after being withdrawn several times. So a universe that exists in code would not have to have linear events and cause and effect that are locked to a clock.
A universe that exists in code would not have to have cause and effect at all within the universe; thinks could happen as a result of the whim of the programmer, who is outside the universe.
And that has nothing to do with relativity, in any case, so it's not a defense of the argument that, somehow, relativity frees us from the notion of cause and effect.
If God is efficient then what better way than to create the universe as an illusion with computer code at its base?
If your God knows a more efficient way that you don't know, there would be a better way. Don't assume that your intuition about efficiency necessary corresponds to reality - or, for that matter, that your God is efficient.
"As long as there's no faster-than-light travel, "X happens before Y" is an invariant - it's true in all reference frames. "
This is completely wrong... it's exactly what Einstein showed to be false (or rather, meaningless).
The person to whom I was replying was talking about causality, so I was only thinking about events separated by a timelike interval; for those, "X happens before Y" is an invariant.
Yes, for event separated by a spacelike interval, the time order of events can be different in different frames, but there can't be a causal connection between those events, so, no, special relativity doesn't make causality go away. I should've been in less of a hurry and indicated that the invariance of time order applies only to events for which there could be a causal connection.
As long as there's no faster-than-light travel, "X happens before Y" is an invariant - it's true in all reference frames.
No. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/... and for the longer version http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L....
In these examples, the doors either close at the same time for the observer stationary with respect to the barn, or at different times for the observer running with the pole.
OK, sorry, should have said ""X doesn't happen after Y" is an invariant" (there don't exist reference frames such that X happens before Y in one frame and X happens after Y in another frame).
something from nothing, or at least the physical from the non-physical. Lets all just admit that there is a single Holy God, who created the physical universe as we know it. He has always, and will always exist in spirit (non physical). For reasons unknowable to us He decided to create the physical universe - logically there is no other possibility.
How about "A committee of seventeen gods, all of whom have always and will always exist in physical form, got together and, for reasons unknowable to us, decided to create the physical universe."?
Sadly, "Mathematical Proof That The Laws Of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, As Currently Understood, Allow A Vacuum Bubble To Expand To The Point That It Becomes The Universe" would probably not fit well in the title bar of a Web browser window and require word wrapping in the head of the page, not to mention attracting far fewer clicks, so they didn't choose that as the title, they chose something less accurate but shorter and with more "click me!" zing.
Yup, I kinda wish someone would come up with a mathematical proof for geocentrism just to have something to have an FYI for the laity, so people don't go off the deep end over stuff like this.
Well, the frame of reference of the Earth is an inertial reference frame, and, in that frame, the Earth doesn't move, everything else moves, so, in that sense, a geocentric solar system, a heliocentric solar system, and a "center of mass of the solar system"-centric solar system are all just a mathematical transformation away from each other, so, if "the Earth doesn't move" counts as "geocentrism", that should take care of it.
"The Earth doesn't move, and everything orbits around it in simple circles or ellipses", however, is another matter. That's not going to happen with Newtonian mechanics or Einsteinian mechanics; Earth just doesn't have enough mass to put the center of mass of the sola system anywhere near its center.
there is always the question 'but what caused that'? really? there is "always" this question only if you continue to think about the world in the same mindset.
you don't have to search for an answer in the world through Newtonian glasses. "caused" implies causation. causation implies a before, and an after. first there is the cause, then there is its effects. abstract ideas like before and after are looking at the world from a point of view of LINEAR time.
if you truly study relativity
If you truly study relativity, you'll see the words "causality" and "causal" used. It's not a strictly Newtonian idea. As long as there's no faster-than-light travel, "X happens before Y" is an invariant - it's true in all reference frames.
At least mathematically speaking, there are solutions to the equation of general relativity that have "closed timelike curves", so you could get causality violations, although those solutions might not be realistic (e.g., infinite rotating cylinders). See, for example, the Wikipedia page on Tipler cylinders, and the references to which it links.
When an inheritor has to sell the rest of the his or hers property to pay the tax, and be unable to pay it on time even after trying to sell the inherited property the second after signing the papers on it and having to default, that's not exactly the upward mobility as American dream, or more generally, the dream of industrial revolution had in mind.
Let the inheritor move up by their own efforts, not start out up courtesy of the efforts of their parents/parents siblings/etc..
Oddly, most things on Mac are Command+. However, on the command line, Ctrl+C is still used to break a program.
That's not a bug, that's a feature.
On most other UN*X desktops, most keyboard sequences for copying are Ctrl+C, and, on the command line, Ctrl+C is used to break a program, but, in the terminal emulator window, you have to use Shift+Ctrl+C to copy, because, well, you still use Ctrl+C to break a program, just as you've done for a while on UN*X (back to the 1980's, at least, if you used BSD back then, otherwise more like the 1990's when it displaced DEL).
On OS X, most keyboard sequences for copying are Ctrl+C, including copying in the terminal emulator window, and you still use Ctrl+C to break a program, so you can still use Ctrl+C the way God^WDigital Equipment Corporation intended, and the way it works on most UN*Xes these days, but you can use the same key sequence for copying in Terminal that you use elsewhere.
My Mac has been set up to be case insensitive. LS, GrEp, cAT, TAIl all behave as if they had been typed lowercase.
Yes, the OS X file system is set up as case-insensitive by default, so file names - including command names - don't have to be typed with the exact case of the file name.
No. Sweden has decent oil exports considering their population. It's not like all the oil in that area is only on the west coast, and the central and east is barren.
"Decent oil exports" doesn't necessarily mean "a gigantic amount of crude petroleum wealth". As far as I know, Sweden isn't a petro-state; the CIA World Factbook entry for Norway says that the petroleum sector "accounts for the largest portion of export revenue and about 30% of government revenue", whereas the entry for Sweden says that "the engineering sector accounts for about 50% of output and exports".
NTOSKRNL and Base Drivers are all C and ASM bits my friend.
...as I suspected they were.
So "Microsoft Windows uses C++", if it's talking about kernel development (as suggested by the title of the thread), is mostly wrong, with...
Only WIN32K (Win32 Kernel Mode Graphichs and helper functions core) contains some C++ bits, specially DirectX DXGI/D3D functions.
...one exception.
OS X uses C for kernel development, except for I/O Kit and I/O Kit drivers, which use C++, but restricted to a subset that excludes exceptions, multiple inheritance, templates, and run-time type inference. (Well, some stuff outside of there that needs to use I/O Kit APIs might use C++; the AFP and/or SMB client VFSes - I forget which - had, at one point, a small C++ chunk of code to allow the file system to prevent sleep to keep TCP connections to the server from being dropped. The rest was C - not surprising for the SMB client VFS, descended as it was from Boris Popov's SMB client VFS for FreeBSD.)
Slashdot Mirror
In Norway we have something called "Datatilsynet". It's not private. It can't be private.
Are you giving away your freedom and privacy to private entities?
Presumably by "it's not private" you mean "it's not a private entity, it's a public entity" (in an article discussing privacy, the term "private" in the sense of the private sector of the economy should be used with care, to avoid confusion; perhaps Norwegian has separate words for "not part of the public sector" and "not to be made available to the public", but "private", in English, can mean both).
For those curious about Datatilsynet, here's their English-language Website.
The Civil War was not about the oppression of slaves (contrary to popular belief). It was about the crushing of dissent.
I never said what the Civil War was about. I was merely responding to what appeared to be a complaint about the South's way of life having been destroyed; if that's what they were referring to, much of that way of life should have been destroyed, so the destruction of that way of life wasn't a bug, it was a feature.
Sadly, although the 13th Amendment to the US constitution finally added one more freedom that the Constitution defended, the "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted" clause left a rather large loophole through which several states snuck (not that the North was a land of rainbows, magic ponies, and racial equality).
(And not that the Southern states were paragons of freedom even for white people, especially white people who wanted to teach slaves to read and write or didn't particularly want to participate in patrols hunting down runaway slaves.)
Vienna has two N's, and Germany's capital is actually a very decent place to hide from the NSA in the wake of the concern over spying on Merkel.
So you're wrong but you feel right, that's a false relief.
And the Soviet Union disappeared a while ago, so burni2's "during the cold war" argument is a bit silly at this point in any case.
No you don't. You just don't realize that the people who fled here in the 17th century to avoid the oppressive regime in England created a whole new oppressive regime for the indigenous people. And it was so rampant into the 18th century that they wrote an entire constitution (that didn't apply to said indigenous people, or the slaves that were imported) to try and protect it. Then in the 19th century, half the country tried to repress the other half - destroying their entire way of life.
If you're referring to the Civil War, the way of life that was destroyed was based on, err, umm, the oppression of slaves, so destroying that way of life was a good thing.
And we can't forget McCarthysim - oooh, that was a really good one, followed by the Hoover FBI.
Hoover did that sort of thing well before he was head of the FBI; see, for example, the Palmer Raids.
If you compile the same program in a high level language for a complex processor and a simple processor, they'll produce the same result. Each operation on the complex processor may correspond to several instructions on the simple processor, but ARM's bet with big.LITTLE is that reduced power consumption in a simple processor's instruction decoder makes up for that difference.
For big.LITTLE, the difference between the instruction decoders isn't an issue of different instruction sets; to quote their big.LITTLE Processing with ARM Cortex-A15 & Cortex-A7 white paper:
so each instruction on the complex processor would correspond to the exact same instruction on the simpler processor.
As that paper says, "It is in the micro-architectures that the differences between Cortex-A15 and Cortex-A7 become clear."
But if we are indeed simply creatures computer generated in some sort of matrix then the chunks of code that create our reality could be inserted in the program at any time, or several times after being withdrawn several times. So a universe that exists in code would not have to have linear events and cause and effect that are locked to a clock.
A universe that exists in code would not have to have cause and effect at all within the universe; thinks could happen as a result of the whim of the programmer, who is outside the universe.
And that has nothing to do with relativity, in any case, so it's not a defense of the argument that, somehow, relativity frees us from the notion of cause and effect.
If God is efficient then what better way than to create the universe as an illusion with computer code at its base?
If your God knows a more efficient way that you don't know, there would be a better way. Don't assume that your intuition about efficiency necessary corresponds to reality - or, for that matter, that your God is efficient.
It would be infinitely more efficient with a single God.
Nothing obliges the universe to be efficient.
Seventeen would put us back to square one, who created the first of the seventeen?
They have always and will always exist. They were not created.
A single God, has always, and will always exist.
Lenin zhil, Lenin zhiv, Lenin budjet zhit!
There is no other solution or explanation.
Nope, plenty. Maybe there were 21 gods on the committee, for example.
"As long as there's no faster-than-light travel, "X happens before Y" is an invariant - it's true in all reference frames. "
This is completely wrong ... it's exactly what Einstein showed to be false (or rather, meaningless).
The person to whom I was replying was talking about causality, so I was only thinking about events separated by a timelike interval; for those, "X happens before Y" is an invariant.
Yes, for event separated by a spacelike interval, the time order of events can be different in different frames, but there can't be a causal connection between those events, so, no, special relativity doesn't make causality go away. I should've been in less of a hurry and indicated that the invariance of time order applies only to events for which there could be a causal connection.
As long as there's no faster-than-light travel, "X happens before Y" is an invariant - it's true in all reference frames.
No. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/... and for the longer version http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.... In these examples, the doors either close at the same time for the observer stationary with respect to the barn, or at different times for the observer running with the pole.
OK, sorry, should have said ""X doesn't happen after Y" is an invariant" (there don't exist reference frames such that X happens before Y in one frame and X happens after Y in another frame).
something from nothing, or at least the physical from the non-physical. Lets all just admit that there is a single Holy God, who created the physical universe as we know it. He has always, and will always exist in spirit (non physical). For reasons unknowable to us He decided to create the physical universe - logically there is no other possibility.
How about "A committee of seventeen gods, all of whom have always and will always exist in physical form, got together and, for reasons unknowable to us, decided to create the physical universe."?
Yes.
Sadly, "Mathematical Proof That The Laws Of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, As Currently Understood, Allow A Vacuum Bubble To Expand To The Point That It Becomes The Universe" would probably not fit well in the title bar of a Web browser window and require word wrapping in the head of the page, not to mention attracting far fewer clicks, so they didn't choose that as the title, they chose something less accurate but shorter and with more "click me!" zing.
Yup, I kinda wish someone would come up with a mathematical proof for geocentrism just to have something to have an FYI for the laity, so people don't go off the deep end over stuff like this.
Well, the frame of reference of the Earth is an inertial reference frame, and, in that frame, the Earth doesn't move, everything else moves, so, in that sense, a geocentric solar system, a heliocentric solar system, and a "center of mass of the solar system"-centric solar system are all just a mathematical transformation away from each other, so, if "the Earth doesn't move" counts as "geocentrism", that should take care of it.
"The Earth doesn't move, and everything orbits around it in simple circles or ellipses", however, is another matter. That's not going to happen with Newtonian mechanics or Einsteinian mechanics; Earth just doesn't have enough mass to put the center of mass of the sola system anywhere near its center.
there is always the question 'but what caused that'? really? there is "always" this question only if you continue to think about the world in the same mindset.
you don't have to search for an answer in the world through Newtonian glasses. "caused" implies causation. causation implies a before, and an after. first there is the cause, then there is its effects. abstract ideas like before and after are looking at the world from a point of view of LINEAR time.
if you truly study relativity
If you truly study relativity, you'll see the words "causality" and "causal" used. It's not a strictly Newtonian idea. As long as there's no faster-than-light travel, "X happens before Y" is an invariant - it's true in all reference frames.
At least mathematically speaking, there are solutions to the equation of general relativity that have "closed timelike curves", so you could get causality violations, although those solutions might not be realistic (e.g., infinite rotating cylinders). See, for example, the Wikipedia page on Tipler cylinders, and the references to which it links.
When an inheritor has to sell the rest of the his or hers property to pay the tax, and be unable to pay it on time even after trying to sell the inherited property the second after signing the papers on it and having to default, that's not exactly the upward mobility as American dream, or more generally, the dream of industrial revolution had in mind.
Let the inheritor move up by their own efforts, not start out up courtesy of the efforts of their parents/parents siblings/etc..
In some cases, yes it is. And I consider myself a mild liberation.
Presumably you meant "mild libertarian" there.
Oddly, most things on Mac are Command+. However, on the command line, Ctrl+C is still used to break a program.
That's not a bug, that's a feature.
On most other UN*X desktops, most keyboard sequences for copying are Ctrl+C, and, on the command line, Ctrl+C is used to break a program, but, in the terminal emulator window, you have to use Shift+Ctrl+C to copy, because, well, you still use Ctrl+C to break a program, just as you've done for a while on UN*X (back to the 1980's, at least, if you used BSD back then, otherwise more like the 1990's when it displaced DEL).
On OS X, most keyboard sequences for copying are Ctrl+C, including copying in the terminal emulator window, and you still use Ctrl+C to break a program, so you can still use Ctrl+C the way God^WDigital Equipment Corporation intended, and the way it works on most UN*Xes these days, but you can use the same key sequence for copying in Terminal that you use elsewhere.
My Mac has been set up to be case insensitive. LS, GrEp, cAT, TAIl all behave as if they had been typed lowercase.
Yes, the OS X file system is set up as case-insensitive by default, so file names - including command names - don't have to be typed with the exact case of the file name.
He should have said Apple is not the "original" developer of CUPS which is true. They are the current developer and owner of CUPS.
(And current employer of the original developer of CUPS, unless he's left.)
Um. Wow. That is all.
Actually, no, in Unicode 7.0 there's even more.
If by "that" you mean "a fecal sample", the Unicode encoding is U+1F4A9.
And then there's Barbie explains finite state machines, from the old Forum 2000.
It is written in US constitution that any verbal or otherwise threat against a US president is a federal criminal offense in the form a felony.
Minor point: the Wikipedia article you cite says it's in title 18, section 871 of the United States Code, not the constitution.
No. Sweden has decent oil exports considering their population. It's not like all the oil in that area is only on the west coast, and the central and east is barren.
"Decent oil exports" doesn't necessarily mean "a gigantic amount of crude petroleum wealth". As far as I know, Sweden isn't a petro-state; the CIA World Factbook entry for Norway says that the petroleum sector "accounts for the largest portion of export revenue and about 30% of government revenue", whereas the entry for Sweden says that "the engineering sector accounts for about 50% of output and exports".
I just want to vomit. Seriously, it's a nation with a tiny population and a gigantic amount of crude petroleum wealth.
Did you just confuse Norway with Sweden, or are you just trolling?
NTOSKRNL and Base Drivers are all C and ASM bits my friend.
...as I suspected they were.
So "Microsoft Windows uses C++", if it's talking about kernel development (as suggested by the title of the thread), is mostly wrong, with...
Only WIN32K (Win32 Kernel Mode Graphichs and helper functions core) contains some C++ bits, specially DirectX DXGI/D3D functions.
...one exception.
OS X uses C for kernel development, except for I/O Kit and I/O Kit drivers, which use C++, but restricted to a subset that excludes exceptions, multiple inheritance, templates, and run-time type inference. (Well, some stuff outside of there that needs to use I/O Kit APIs might use C++; the AFP and/or SMB client VFSes - I forget which - had, at one point, a small C++ chunk of code to allow the file system to prevent sleep to keep TCP connections to the server from being dropped. The rest was C - not surprising for the SMB client VFS, descended as it was from Boris Popov's SMB client VFS for FreeBSD.)
Microsoft Windows uses C++ -- albeit with the CRT (C Run Time) library separated.
The source to ntoskrnl.exe, and the *.sys files it loads, is primarily C++, not C?