That's not entirely true. In performance-sensitive tight loops, it can still make sense to code in ASM to avoid pipeline bubbles and stalls in some very limited situations. Also, the compiler doesn't always take advantage of instructions that it could use.
However, determining that takes a lot of effort and a lot of instrumentation, and so you'd better really need that last bit of performance before you go after it.
$640 a month? I doubt that'd get you anything in NYC.
I was recently paying $1200/month for a one bedroom in plainsboro nj, just outside of princeton. I've recently switched to paying much more (including property taxes) for a condo that I own, but for most people in this area, $640 would be phenomenal.
Intel's compiler is actually one of the best optimizing compilers out there (when it doesn't detect an AMD processor and not bother doing the optimizations...). It's used in a lot of high-performance computing environments.
Yes, it's clear what you were writing. It just had no relevance to what the parent was saying, hence the "whoosh". The initial bit of "As an Obama supporter:" was intended to convey that my response was not due to any particular dislike of what you were saying, but merely for the purpose of pointing out that you'd rather missed the point.
You missed the evolution of the ability to metabolize citric acid.
There's no luck involved here- there's just a mindbogglingly high number of mutations and tests of those mutations over the course of history. You say "even over the lifetime of the universe", but it's unclear to me that you really understand just how large a number of generations there have been even since the rise of life on Earth, let alone the entire span of the universe. That's a lot of individuals, a lot of generations, a *lot* of mutations, and therefore an enormous well of opportunities for change.
Any given mutation would have the same chance of occurring in the wild. It may be more likely that said mutations would result in their carriers being outcompeted in the wild, but that does not in any way shape or form indicate that such mutations would not appear (and potentially persist for a period of time) in the wild.
If more harmful mutations are being passed along than favorable, then either you're misclassifying mutations are harmful or your population is, in fact, evolving to a dead end that may result in population death.
If it doesn't, then what's the basis for the "harmful" classification?
You don't really know what you're talking about here.
IE hasn't caught up to existing, published, finished standards- that's well before we even start talking about initial implementations of things from the in-progress HTML 5 standard. It's the worst browser in the bunch for CSS compatibility- with finished, published standards.
IE needs to play catch-up before it can even think about doing anything with HTML 5. They don't need an unstable browser fork; they just need to actually finish their standards implementations in the stable releases. They're getting better at it, definitely, but they've got a long way to go.
Actually, the price tag isn't entirely unreasonable. Consider the amount of piping that needs to be laid- the Cornell campus is quite large- and the complexity of the hydrodynamics of such a system. That's before you even get to doing the building conversions to ready them for the new cooling system- at the very least, it's like replacing the primary coolers for all of the major buildings that were impacted. That's a lot of hardware. Also, Cornell doesn't really touch Lake Cayuga- so there's a fair amount of work to get the water up the significant hill to the campus.
Whether or not it's worthwhile is perhaps up for debate (though at 86% saved energy, probably not very *vigorous* debate unless the lifetime of the system is quite short), but I doubt there's a whole lot of graft or waste in that price.
The Cornell project was actually incredibly controversial prior to beginning operation for exactly that reason. Studies since have shown that any detrimental effects are negligible, though, so the controversy has died down in recent years. (I was at Cornell when the system went into operation and for a few years afterward)
Sorry- I didn't mean to give the impression that I supported DHS or its idiocy. The alert system is very much complete fear-mongering, and 99% of the changes they have made, especially with respect to air travel, are complete security theater.
Part of this is really a definition of likely, too. Terrorist attacks just are not very likely, and frankly, they're not terribly scary when they occur in the US simply because of their infrequency and overall low death counts. Looking at the statistics, your chance of being killed or injured in a terror attack in the US is effectively zero.
The terrorists might be out there (and are probably more numerous given our country's actions in the last decade), but they're not anything approaching the threat that a lot of people would love for you to believe they are.
That's definitely not true. There are quite a number of nonzero-but-low possibility scenarios that one could legitimately be considered "fear-mongering" over. (Asteroid impacts, etc) Fear-mongering doesn't mean that there's no chance of something happens, it just implies that the rhetoric is out of proportion to the risk.
Say anything you want to support the ID crowd, but the only argument they have is faith. Faith is meaningless for science.
When it comes down to it, the most faithful do not go to see their priest if their baby is sick. They take it to a doctor, because science and medicine work, and no matter how much they want to deny it, faith does not.
If only this were true. Children unfortunately die every year because parents rely on faith healing instead of actual medicine- and in some states in the US, are protected by law when they do so.
Actually, the Intel switch happened considerably before the release of Leopard. I administer a number of intel machines that originally came with Tiger, though we did upgraded to Leopard when it came out so we don't have any that'd be making a Tiger -> SL jump.
However, to be perfectly honest, multi-generation OS updates are pretty rare on the Mac- people who are interested in upgrading (and that is most users) generally do so quite rapidly, so the point is probably quite moot.
As for the PPCs... the large cost of an upgrade is true whether they're going from Tiger or Leopard; I just replaced a 6-year-old G5 with a new Mac Pro for partially this reason myself. (Though, to be fair, 6 years is a nice lifetime for a desktop with no upgrades. It was getting a bit long in the tooth regardless of OS incompatibility.)
That's rather odd- I use Firefox 3.5 regularly on 10.5.7 with no such issues. The only slowness I've found is when quitting the app- it clearly does a lot of cleanup when you shut it down, and that process takes a ridiculously long time. Nothing with regular browsing, though.
We've been in a slight upward trend, yes. However, the magnitude of that trend line, relative to the magnitude of the subsequent trend lines starting post-industrial revolution, is simply incomparable.
You're welcome to read the IPCC report if you want all the relevant references and discussion.
Evolution doesn't really incentivize anything. It provides disincentives for exactly one thing: structures and behaviors that result in a higher likelihood of death before reproduction.
Evolution doesn't give a shit what your quality of life is like- unless it prevents you from reproducing. It doesn't give a shit what you do- after you've produce offspring. This is why male and female end-of-fertility times are correlated, and why that's also highly correlated with degradation of health. We haven't evolved to be immortal- we've evolved to a), create offspring and b) survive long enough to teach them. The same holds true for other species.
There are quite a number of mutations that do not affect our reproductive ability. The fact that evolution doesn't prefer one over the other is not only a good thing- it's an essential thing; that genetic variability is what improves our odds of responding effectively to new and dangerous conditions. Neutral mutations are *very* common- and not only that, they're *essential*.
Given that Google provides results that *are* relevant without the quotes, and bing does not- I'd say that yes, it is in fact Microsoft's fault that their search engine fails to provide the expected results in response to a query.
Putting quotes around something strongly restricts your query- by doing so you don't gain access to sites that may be about the same topic but have slightly different wording. I'd guess that very, very few people regularly enclose their entire queries- especially question-type queries- in quotes.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not entirely true. In performance-sensitive tight loops, it can still make sense to code in ASM to avoid pipeline bubbles and stalls in some very limited situations. Also, the compiler doesn't always take advantage of instructions that it could use.
However, determining that takes a lot of effort and a lot of instrumentation, and so you'd better really need that last bit of performance before you go after it.
$640 a month? I doubt that'd get you anything in NYC.
I was recently paying $1200/month for a one bedroom in plainsboro nj, just outside of princeton. I've recently switched to paying much more (including property taxes) for a condo that I own, but for most people in this area, $640 would be phenomenal.
Intel's compiler is actually one of the best optimizing compilers out there (when it doesn't detect an AMD processor and not bother doing the optimizations...). It's used in a lot of high-performance computing environments.
Yes, it's clear what you were writing. It just had no relevance to what the parent was saying, hence the "whoosh". The initial bit of "As an Obama supporter:" was intended to convey that my response was not due to any particular dislike of what you were saying, but merely for the purpose of pointing out that you'd rather missed the point.
As an Obama supporter:
Whoosh.
You assume that his statements aren't mere paranoia. I don't have any evidence either way, to be honest, but it's worth considering.
No, the difference is that the Theist makes shit up.
Everyone else relies on this little thing called logic to understand reality, rather than making up fairy tales.
You missed the evolution of the ability to metabolize citric acid.
There's no luck involved here- there's just a mindbogglingly high number of mutations and tests of those mutations over the course of history. You say "even over the lifetime of the universe", but it's unclear to me that you really understand just how large a number of generations there have been even since the rise of life on Earth, let alone the entire span of the universe. That's a lot of individuals, a lot of generations, a *lot* of mutations, and therefore an enormous well of opportunities for change.
Err. No.
Any given mutation would have the same chance of occurring in the wild. It may be more likely that said mutations would result in their carriers being outcompeted in the wild, but that does not in any way shape or form indicate that such mutations would not appear (and potentially persist for a period of time) in the wild.
If more harmful mutations are being passed along than favorable, then either you're misclassifying mutations are harmful or your population is, in fact, evolving to a dead end that may result in population death.
If it doesn't, then what's the basis for the "harmful" classification?
You don't really know what you're talking about here.
IE hasn't caught up to existing, published, finished standards- that's well before we even start talking about initial implementations of things from the in-progress HTML 5 standard. It's the worst browser in the bunch for CSS compatibility- with finished, published standards.
IE needs to play catch-up before it can even think about doing anything with HTML 5. They don't need an unstable browser fork; they just need to actually finish their standards implementations in the stable releases. They're getting better at it, definitely, but they've got a long way to go.
Actually, the price tag isn't entirely unreasonable. Consider the amount of piping that needs to be laid- the Cornell campus is quite large- and the complexity of the hydrodynamics of such a system. That's before you even get to doing the building conversions to ready them for the new cooling system- at the very least, it's like replacing the primary coolers for all of the major buildings that were impacted. That's a lot of hardware. Also, Cornell doesn't really touch Lake Cayuga- so there's a fair amount of work to get the water up the significant hill to the campus.
Whether or not it's worthwhile is perhaps up for debate (though at 86% saved energy, probably not very *vigorous* debate unless the lifetime of the system is quite short), but I doubt there's a whole lot of graft or waste in that price.
The Cornell project was actually incredibly controversial prior to beginning operation for exactly that reason. Studies since have shown that any detrimental effects are negligible, though, so the controversy has died down in recent years. (I was at Cornell when the system went into operation and for a few years afterward)
Sorry- I didn't mean to give the impression that I supported DHS or its idiocy. The alert system is very much complete fear-mongering, and 99% of the changes they have made, especially with respect to air travel, are complete security theater.
Part of this is really a definition of likely, too. Terrorist attacks just are not very likely, and frankly, they're not terribly scary when they occur in the US simply because of their infrequency and overall low death counts. Looking at the statistics, your chance of being killed or injured in a terror attack in the US is effectively zero.
The terrorists might be out there (and are probably more numerous given our country's actions in the last decade), but they're not anything approaching the threat that a lot of people would love for you to believe they are.
That's definitely not true. There are quite a number of nonzero-but-low possibility scenarios that one could legitimately be considered "fear-mongering" over. (Asteroid impacts, etc) Fear-mongering doesn't mean that there's no chance of something happens, it just implies that the rhetoric is out of proportion to the risk.
Say anything you want to support the ID crowd, but the only argument they have is faith. Faith is meaningless for science.
When it comes down to it, the most faithful do not go to see their priest if their baby is sick. They take it to a doctor, because science and medicine work, and no matter how much they want to deny it, faith does not.
If only this were true. Children unfortunately die every year because parents rely on faith healing instead of actual medicine- and in some states in the US, are protected by law when they do so.
Actually, the Intel switch happened considerably before the release of Leopard. I administer a number of intel machines that originally came with Tiger, though we did upgraded to Leopard when it came out so we don't have any that'd be making a Tiger -> SL jump.
However, to be perfectly honest, multi-generation OS updates are pretty rare on the Mac- people who are interested in upgrading (and that is most users) generally do so quite rapidly, so the point is probably quite moot.
As for the PPCs... the large cost of an upgrade is true whether they're going from Tiger or Leopard; I just replaced a 6-year-old G5 with a new Mac Pro for partially this reason myself. (Though, to be fair, 6 years is a nice lifetime for a desktop with no upgrades. It was getting a bit long in the tooth regardless of OS incompatibility.)
Tiger->Snow Leopard does not actually require the bundle- it's been confirmed that the $29 SL upgrade installs just fine.
That's rather odd- I use Firefox 3.5 regularly on 10.5.7 with no such issues. The only slowness I've found is when quitting the app- it clearly does a lot of cleanup when you shut it down, and that process takes a ridiculously long time. Nothing with regular browsing, though.
We've been in a slight upward trend, yes. However, the magnitude of that trend line, relative to the magnitude of the subsequent trend lines starting post-industrial revolution, is simply incomparable.
You're welcome to read the IPCC report if you want all the relevant references and discussion.
From the parent post: "Industrial revolution = sin,"
That's the line I was referencing in my reply.
You're completely right.
Evolution doesn't really incentivize anything. It provides disincentives for exactly one thing: structures and behaviors that result in a higher likelihood of death before reproduction.
Evolution doesn't give a shit what your quality of life is like- unless it prevents you from reproducing. It doesn't give a shit what you do- after you've produce offspring. This is why male and female end-of-fertility times are correlated, and why that's also highly correlated with degradation of health. We haven't evolved to be immortal- we've evolved to a), create offspring and b) survive long enough to teach them. The same holds true for other species.
There are quite a number of mutations that do not affect our reproductive ability. The fact that evolution doesn't prefer one over the other is not only a good thing- it's an essential thing; that genetic variability is what improves our odds of responding effectively to new and dangerous conditions. Neutral mutations are *very* common- and not only that, they're *essential*.
Of course. I was simply replying to the parent post's comment about it not being Microsoft's fault that the results are odd.
Yes. One out of the rest of the front page.
Bing has one *real* result out of the rest of the front page, which is a bit of a difference...
Given that Google provides results that *are* relevant without the quotes, and bing does not- I'd say that yes, it is in fact Microsoft's fault that their search engine fails to provide the expected results in response to a query.
Putting quotes around something strongly restricts your query- by doing so you don't gain access to sites that may be about the same topic but have slightly different wording. I'd guess that very, very few people regularly enclose their entire queries- especially question-type queries- in quotes.