The Pentium and Core processors' huge sales mean that Intel has more debugging resources to throw at debugging the "RISC portion" than most companies have for their entire processor.
Also, you say the "RISC portion" is a false dichotomy, but (even though you were the one who first made that distinction) it's not false at all. There is a separate physical part of the chip that cracks CISC instructions into RISC, and the rest of the chip is a RISC processor. Its a completely valid dichotomy.
The bottom line is, we're both making unfounded claims. If your assertion were true, then there should be some evidence that makers of RISC chips produce fewer errata, all else being equal. If you can find some evidence, I will humbly beg your forgiveness.
When the odds are high enough, it becomes much more likely that something else is going on. That's why people don't believe one such person.
If twenty people claimed the same problems, then the odds that something else is going on drop dramatically, and it makes those people's claim more likely.
The word for someone who believes a claim no matter how unlikely is "gullible".
Cromar's post makes a good point. It is concise and understandable, though well over half the post is one big sentence fragment. Overall, I'd say it's worthwhile reading for anyone who is thinking of reading Nate Klaiber's review.
I think I speak for many programmers when I say... Having a full function name (and real variable names instead of v1 and v2) would make it much more clear what is actually going on. But if your code is going to be read by more mathematicians than programmers, you'd better write it their way.
That was my first thought, but these scientists have surely thought of the possibility. Looking at the abstract of the article, I think the interesting part is that the plants can differentiate kin from strangers at all, whatever the mechanism. What I mean is, even if what's happening is that they can't differentiate kin from themselves, it's still interesting that they can differentiate kin from strangers.
I'm not sure I want to live in a world where the penalty for leaving any window partly uncovered or any door ajar would be for photos or videos of my family inside my own home to be published on the internet by some creep with a telephoto lens.
There definitely is a line where there should be no expectation of privacy. At one end of the spectrum, some people think that any photon that leaves my home is public property. At the other end, some people think that one's home should be completely private. I'm somewhere in between, though I admit I haven't yet figured out exactly where.
If you look deep enough, everyone's motivations are selfish. Are you going to fault someone for giving to charity because it makes them feel good to help others? Doing something to feel good sounds hedonistic to me. Or what if they are doing it to help them feel less guilty about being affluent?
I see what you are getting at. I got it right after I posted my message. You're just saying that the body count is not a good way to measure the tragedy.
From the summary: "No walls or other details can be seen inside the hole, and so any possible walls might be perfectly vertical and extremely dark or -- more likely -- overhanging."
If you look at the image more carefully, you can clearly see shades and highlights that suggest the terrain slopes into the hole all around. That pretty much excludes equipment faults. One possible theory is that the cavern is conical in shape, getting wider as it goes down, which would certainly explain why it's so dark. In fact, you could almost say the walls are overhanging.
These corporate folks are putting greed ahead of public responsibility.
That's their job.
It's the government's job to watch out for the public and slap down such reckless and exploitative practices.
Don't blame Monsanto, blame the legislators and bureaucrats who have so shamelessly violated the public trust. I blame them all.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the word you're looking for is foist.
The Pentium and Core processors' huge sales mean that Intel has more debugging resources to throw at debugging the "RISC portion" than most companies have for their entire processor.
Also, you say the "RISC portion" is a false dichotomy, but (even though you were the one who first made that distinction) it's not false at all. There is a separate physical part of the chip that cracks CISC instructions into RISC, and the rest of the chip is a RISC processor. Its a completely valid dichotomy.
The bottom line is, we're both making unfounded claims. If your assertion were true, then there should be some evidence that makers of RISC chips produce fewer errata, all else being equal. If you can find some evidence, I will humbly beg your forgiveness.
When the odds are high enough, it becomes much more likely that something else is going on. That's why people don't believe one such person. If twenty people claimed the same problems, then the odds that something else is going on drop dramatically, and it makes those people's claim more likely. The word for someone who believes a claim no matter how unlikely is "gullible".
Actually, it does matter. If the bugs are in parts of the chip that would be needed even in a RISC design, your argument is moot.
Two point fifty jiggawatts!!
What makes you think the bugs are in the "x86 layer"?
Cromar's post makes a good point. It is concise and understandable, though well over half the post is one big sentence fragment. Overall, I'd say it's worthwhile reading for anyone who is thinking of reading Nate Klaiber's review.
You are truly a nerd among nerds.
Damn those irony-hating Germans.
No need to get mean just because you made a mistake.
If typing "my wrong?" takes you all day, you need typing lessons.
2) Live without it.
Also, I don't think anyone ever said that a self-sustaining colony couldn't import things from Earth.
Patents would become meaningless in your system.
Do you have any references to back up your claim?
Why not just make better licensing deals?
This is the best explanation in this whole discussion.
That was my first thought, but these scientists have surely thought of the possibility. Looking at the abstract of the article, I think the interesting part is that the plants can differentiate kin from strangers at all, whatever the mechanism. What I mean is, even if what's happening is that they can't differentiate kin from themselves, it's still interesting that they can differentiate kin from strangers.
I'm not sure I want to live in a world where the penalty for leaving any window partly uncovered or any door ajar would be for photos or videos of my family inside my own home to be published on the internet by some creep with a telephoto lens.
There definitely is a line where there should be no expectation of privacy. At one end of the spectrum, some people think that any photon that leaves my home is public property. At the other end, some people think that one's home should be completely private. I'm somewhere in between, though I admit I haven't yet figured out exactly where.
If you look deep enough, everyone's motivations are selfish. Are you going to fault someone for giving to charity because it makes them feel good to help others? Doing something to feel good sounds hedonistic to me. Or what if they are doing it to help them feel less guilty about being affluent?
I see what you are getting at. I got it right after I posted my message. You're just saying that the body count is not a good way to measure the tragedy.
I guess by that logic, Columbine wasn't a tragedy either.
If you look at the image more carefully, you can clearly see shades and highlights that suggest the terrain slopes into the hole all around. That pretty much excludes equipment faults. One possible theory is that the cavern is conical in shape, getting wider as it goes down, which would certainly explain why it's so dark.
In fact, you could almost say the walls are overhanging.
You beat me to it.
Looks to me like he made a mistake with respect to campaign finance and then worked very hard to make sure it didn't happen again. What did I miss?
That's their job.
It's the government's job to watch out for the public and slap down such reckless and exploitative practices.
Don't blame Monsanto, blame the legislators and bureaucrats who have so shamelessly violated the public trust.
I blame them all.