No, probabilities are all about uncertainty. After further measurements, there will be less uncertainty, and that affects the probabilities.
Suppose I have rolled 10 six-sided dice. Without any more information, you'd would say there's a 1 in 6 million chance that they are all fours, and you'd be right. But if you look at one of the dice, you will then have more information: if it's a four, then the odds that all dice are fours becomes 1 in 1 million; on the other hand, if it's not a four, the odds become zero. The latter scenario is five times more likely. Therefore, it is accurate to say that "the chances of all-fours are likely to become even slimmer once more measurements of the dice have been made".
As someone who has been messing with Oracle for more than 10 years, I must say that NOTHING (in commercial or OSS world) comes even close on the high-end hardware you are describing.
As an IBM employee, I think my employment agreement requires me to ask: what about DB/2?
And is there a particular reason why IBM couldn't apply their work towards gcc? So much for the whole open-source, contribute-to-the-community philosophy.
Oh please. It's not like there's only one compiler team in IBM. IBM is contributing big time to gcc, and they also maintain their own compiler for customers who want that. IBM, like any smart company, hedges its bets, so they work on multiple overlapping projects. Do you expect them to bet the company on technology they don't control? The kind of reactionary thinking that would have them switch all their manpower to gcc is exactly what kills a lot of less prudent companies.
Plus, the team working on this compiler would probably take several man-decades---if ever---to become as fluent and comfortable with gcc as they are with their own code.
(Disclaimer: I work for IBM. In fact, I work on a compiler for IBM, though it's neither this compiler nor gcc. My opinions don't reflect those of IBM.)
Uh, that's not how it works in CPUs at all. The dominant effect in transistors in CPUs is the gate capacitance. (Well, at least it was six years ago when I learned this stuff.) In steady state in a CMOS circuit, the current is nill. When one of the transistors switches, its gate voltage must change, and because of gate capacitance, that means some charge must move, which is current, which requires energy, which heats up the chip.
To put it simply: there's never any steady-state current in a CMOS circuit because the output of each transistor only feeds the gate of the next transistor, and the gate always has high impedance.
I don't object to funny posts. It's just that people can make any sentence containing the word "pr0n" and it will get modded +5 regardless of whether it's actually funny.
I think I may just start marking the "pr0n" people as Foes, so those posts will get modded down a bit.
With use, the motors drift out of alignment, meaning the head moves somewhat less (or more) per "kick" than it's supposed to.
No, the steps are still the same size. It's just that they begin at the wrong place. Instead of stepping to track 1, then track 2, then track 3, it steps to track 0.8, then 1.8, then 2.8.
You've got to put a marketing spin on your project if you want people to use it. Always highlight and stress its features and strengths. Never advertise its weaknesses. Don't compare the project to better or more feature rich works.
Ok. Now what do you do if you have written a piece of software, and you want to be honest about its strengths and weaknesses so people can make their own decision about whether to use it? What if you are not making any money from the project anyway, and you just wrote it to scratch an itch, and you just want to help other people who might find it useful? What do you do then?
Slashdot Mirror
Oops, you're right, I dropped a zero.
Huh?
Suppose I have rolled 10 six-sided dice. Without any more information, you'd would say there's a 1 in 6 million chance that they are all fours, and you'd be right. But if you look at one of the dice, you will then have more information: if it's a four, then the odds that all dice are fours becomes 1 in 1 million; on the other hand, if it's not a four, the odds become zero. The latter scenario is five times more likely. Therefore, it is accurate to say that "the chances of all-fours are likely to become even slimmer once more measurements of the dice have been made".
Plus, the team working on this compiler would probably take several man-decades---if ever---to become as fluent and comfortable with gcc as they are with their own code.
(Disclaimer: I work for IBM. In fact, I work on a compiler for IBM, though it's neither this compiler nor gcc. My opinions don't reflect those of IBM.)
You can't make a correction to someone's own humble opinion. Perhaps it's your opinion, but that doesn't mean his is "incorrect".
To put it simply: there's never any steady-state current in a CMOS circuit because the output of each transistor only feeds the gate of the next transistor, and the gate always has high impedance.
Wow, nice user id. :-)
I think I may just start marking the "pr0n" people as Foes, so those posts will get modded down a bit.
Why does every porn joke get instantly rated "5, Funny"?
Uh, how hot do you think something needs to be before it can cause skin burns? (Hint: it doesn't have to be boiling.)
The thing that blows my mind is how they managed to make it so much larger than the Earth.
Please mod parent up, and mod this down. Thankyou.
Uh, so what? Do you understand your parent post's point?
True enough. I think DDOSing Windows Update was clever, but you have a point that it didn't actually damage infected hosts.
I disagree. If the numbnuts at Air Canada had updated their systems against Blaster, this wouldn't have been a problem.
Oh man, too bad my mod points just expired this morning. Thanks for the chuckle.
Uh yeah, that's one of the first things they say on the first page of the article.
Some advice: this would be the time to gracefully admit you were wrong. Taking closing pot-shots as you lose an argument is pretty petty.
Your feedback only affects YOUR search results.
I have never before seen so many ignorant replies rated 5. Please refer to this.