This should prove to our readers (in response to some of the above posts) that there indeed is some serious gender bias out there. How depressing.
How is it gender biased to ask that question? (Though I would have phrased it as "or is it that women don't have the same aptitude for math, science and engineering on average?)
There are clearly (on average) physiological and mental differences between men and women, although more research needs to be done to quantify those differences. It is also hard to say how much social conditioning and learning have to do with these issues (nature versus nurture). I know some studies have shown that men have a better grasp of 3D spatial relationships on average, for instance.
It may (or may not) be that advocating "equal numbers" of female mathematicians, scientists and engineers is on par with advocating equal numbers of female NFL players, female championship heavyweight boxers (WBF etc.) or female ditchdiggers.
All that said, I certainly welcome and encourage those women that have an aptitude and desire for math and science oriented pursuits. I just don't think it should be forced on women in general in some misguided pursuit of "equality".
I hate political correctness in general, and in particular that which refuses to admit there are real differences between the sexes - because there are. Billions of years of evolution have made it so. We should try to better understand those differences (viva la difference!), rather than burying our heads in the sand and pretending futilely they don't exist.
I'm sure this will get modded to oblivion, but at least try to consider the facts of the situation rather than having a knee-jerk reaction. TIA.:-)
It covers most of the issues you bring up with the exception of the automation issue (note the 300 MPH cruise speed at altitude). For short hops it can do 140+ MPH. It is VTOL, so there is no tough navigation issue other than collision avoidance on takeoff/landing. I'd think landing areas (parking lots) would have vertical corridors at each end, one for landing, one for taking off. Vehicles would either land in the landing zone and then taxi (hover at ground level) to their parking spot, or reverse the process to take off. Avoiding hitting people would be the biggest issue, which might call for manual control at ground level only.
This type of vehicle would be quite suitable for short-haul, as well as long-haul, travel. It'd sure be nice reading/surfing during the trip to work...
Remember, the way this would actually work is that small numbers of early adopters would pioneer this (air taxis according to the article). Once the initial wrinkles are worked out, it'd be ready for wider adoption. Economies of scale would set in, making them less expensive over time. At the same time, software able to handle truly large numbers of vehicles in the air simultaneously will arrive.
Clean hydrogen or alcohol turbines will make the pollution/mileage issue moot. The M400 is supposed to get 20 MPG anyhow, which is better than many vehicles on the road today...
I think it'll happen...it's only a matter of when.:-)
We cannot even handle automated cars, i think it is a long way off to automated car planes.
The 3D nature of air travel makes automation easier, since there is more spacing between vehicles. We have autonomous aircraft right now that can perform complex flight plans in American airspace, and commercial jetliners that can land automatically. What technical hurdles are left?
I am bitter, but I am alive, just imagine getting hit by that jackass while in the air because he wasnt paying attention to his avoidance program, or him not filling his gas up properly before flying.
Flying cars will never be widely available until they're fully automated, with no ability to override without the equivalent of a current pilot's license. Read the article for more thoughts on this issue... (BTW sorry to hear about your accident, that does suck.)
A whole host of problems.
As long as they are fewer than with the current (as you point out) broken system.
All the effort, fuel and pollution required just to get a hunk of metal off the ground and keep it there with the current technology is wasteful and unsustenable.
Actually, the mileage should be comparable to current cars - and since aircraft fly in straight lines with no braking, they have certain inherent efficiencies. Add hydrogen/alcohol (renewable, clean) power, and voila!
I live in Boston. Drivers here have more than enough trouble coping with travel in two dimensions. Adding a third is a recipe for disaster.
That's a silly attitude. The addition of a third dimension also adds a lot more room to avoid other vehicles.
That, coupled with good automation that'll eliminate the risks of intoxication and fatigue, should make flying vehicles much safer than land vehicles. Also, think how much will be saved (eventually) when there's less road maintenance...
Except for the annoying, inane chatter of the DJ at the beginning of the song, and breaking back in at the end, as the song is trailing off. "That was 50 Cent's latest, 'Kill all the white ho's and sell drugs to kids,' off his latest album, 'It's fun to pretend you're a pimp.'"
The digital cable channels don't suffer from this at all, and I presume satellite radio doesn't either. FM stations vary quite a bit on this.
Why do they do that, anyway? On the radio stations around here, the DJ will be introducing a song, talking about whatever, and the song will start while they're still talking. Just the instrumental part though. The DJ always finishes whatever he's saying just before the lyrics of the song actually start (I'm convinced they have some kind of countdown display that tells them exactly how many seconds are left before the lyrics of the song start). Are they just trying to be smooth, or do you think their license agreements for the songs actually requires them to talk over some portion of the song, to try and discourage exactly the kind of activity you described (i.e., taping the songs off the radio)?
Like I said, it varies a lot with the station and program. I'm pretty sure in most cases the explanation is that the DJs are idiots that really like the sound of their own voice.;-)
I'm pretty sure most listeners would prefer that the music be played without annoying voiceovers, sound effects, etc.
An effective response to this type of behavior would be to boycott RIAA products.
Sadly, this would probably be trumpeted as "yet more evidence that piracy hurts CD sales".
I don't download music, and I haven't bought a CD in years.
BTW, an interesting alternative is to digitize analog from FM or digital cable, then rip to MP3. It's even legal (VCR law).;-) You won't notice a quality difference in most situations.
The radiation on mars will not be nearly as big a deal as the trip to mars will be. It is almost certain that initially, we will have to live underground rather than on top. If we do so, it protects us from Radiation, 300 MPH winds, Easier to insulate, etc.etc.
Exactly. I'm mystified that NASA doesn't talk more about underground habitation. Hang a few plasma displays on the wall and you might just as well be in Hawaii (minus the 1/3 G gravity of course;). Regular centrifuge use may be necessary to prevent bone mass loss.
The 300 MPH winds shouldn't be a very big deal though - the atmosphere is so thin you'd hardly feel anything.
I am in hopes that we will send a private mission to mars and not have them return. It would be far more useful to send a small mission on a one way trip, with a supply ship once a year. They could build a small base, expand our knowledge of Mars a million fold over what simple remote vehicles do today, just due to the fact that they would need all sorts of cpu power there. In addition, they would be able to control system there quickly.
The discovery of "vast" amounts of water on Mars should very much facilitate such a plan. A colony would need a high power energy source (read: nuclear reactor), and some reliable tools and artifacts - then it can start it's own "Biosphere" experiment. Martian tomatoes, anyone?:-)
The startup time is longer because it's NOT Just Loading the Program. The code ( class and Jar files ) are going thru the Byte Code Verifier. Java is checking security and authenticating the code. Verifying that your files Have Not been Hacked.
Nice, but overkill for traditional applications. My OS security (I run Linux for almost all real work) should be sufficient to protect local executables.
When's the last time your exe's were examined for correctness?
When they were compiled. With Java's safety features, most nasty unintentional problems don't happen, period. Further, gcj will compile java bytecode (already verified).
As I'm sure you know, Java programs don't run in a sandbox and can do just about anything to the local system, just like any other program. Bytecode verification won't help if it's out to do something malicious.
If you knew what Java were giving you you'd be very happy with it.
I'm quite aware of (and happy with) what Java is giving me. That doesn't mean I don't want more...like fast program startup and blazing runtime speed.
Why Java is unCool is because Windows Geeks are the Laziest bunch of programmers on the planet, and they do NO RESEARCH on anything other then the Simpleton coding paradiem Microsoft provides.
If you bothered to actually read the article, it's about why LISP programmers in particular, and OSS programmers in general, think Java isn't "cool". Stupid article, BTW - go check SourceForge for how many OSS Java projects there are.
Many "top hackers" like Java, simply because it is a fairly logical evolution of C, unlike C++ which is a mess. Java is well suited to large scale software development, and is quite productive as well. Advantage: Java. How many new LISP projects have you seen lately?;) Sheer envy is the problem here.
By the way, you.NET Programmers should be KISSING SUN'S BUTT. If it weren't for Sun you'd still be coding in VB6 and Com+.
I keep forgetting that another of Java's faults is the completely arbitrary requirement for users to configure its memory requirements, despite the fact most users will have no idea how to do this, what legitimate requirements a program might have, and even that they're supposed to do this at all.
This can, of course, be handled by the installation process but it is a pain in some ways.
IIRC this is also addressed in the release of Java formerly known as "1.5".
I have no complaint about the speed of a Java application once it is up and running. The only problem I have is that the runtime takes so long to heave its vast bulk into memory and fiddle with stuff before the app. gets control.
You should try using Java apps compiled with gcj or one of the commercial traditional Java compilers. There's nothing set in stone that requires Java to be interpreted.
Unfortunately I missed this topic when it originally came up, but this thread seemed a good place to throw in my (belated) two cents...
When I read the linked page, I found more like a Java version of C++ -- it looks as though a lot of those libraries are there to overcome the very strengths/weaknesses (depending on your application) that most differentiate the two languages. If you want to use C++, why not just use C++?
I don't see why you think JADE is a "Java version of C++". If you're referring to the.realtime library, it is mainly a factory implementation that recycles objects when "new" ones are needed rather than creating them from scratch. This is a good design pattern that also works well for C++ - heap allocation is also expensive (and non-deterministic) for C++. For Java, it brings the benefit of determinism, which is very nice. Java has many strengths over C++, but its one major weakness has been a lack of determinism. Long (or even noticeable) garbage collection pauses don't work well for realtime applications (like games for instance;). com.dautelle.jade.realtime addresses that issue.
BTW, on the "make it a part of the core library" front, I don't really see the necessity. Putting it in Jakarta would be O.K., although it seems like something of a strange spot for the realtime part. At least the com.dautelle.* namespace gives the author some much-deserved credit!:-)
This is a specious argument against the use of a national ID - as in "identification" - card. I wonder how B.F. feels about this quote being used when someone feels that their "personal liberty" is being threatened, in comparison to the liberty and freedom of the general population?
Were B.F. to have an opinion at this point, I'm quite sure it would reflect the fact that "personal liberty" and "the liberty and freedom of the general population" are the same - you can't have one without the other.
When this quote was penned, Franklin was reflecting on the actions of some colonists who were taking the side of the English in order to keep English soldiers from imprisoning other colonists... and possibly themselves. The English were an occupying force, and there were *NO* legal means which could be used to appeal their decisions. If they felt you were a threat, you were imprisoned without recourse.
I suppose you mean like those arrested and held indefinitely without formal charges today in America? But I digress...
The legal system in the US may move slowly, but it *does* move and it *does* work. Court decisions have said that the prisoners in Guantanamo are now required to have legal representation, and some may even be released. Abu Ghraib was being actively investigated *before* the media "caught on" and the case became "interesting" - look at the public record. And, the fact that we are having this discussion in an open forum without the fear that the "gummint" will arrest us, simply means that we are free to do so.
Yes, it means that we are free to do so...today.
However, any thinking person should see that our liberties are at risk, from many different directions. For instance, the right to peaceful assembly has been seriously undermined. Now, dissenters are allowed to assemble - in cages well away from public view. What a travesty - the DNC should be ashamed!
If the ID card is solely used to *prove who you are*, then it follows that you are who you *claim* to be... and *probably not* someone who wishes to hurt, maim, or kill as many grandmothers, wives, or children as he/she can. The assumption is, of course, that we haven't naturalized or home-bred more Timothy McVeighs -- something no government can defend against without totally invasive security measures which would never pass Congress' muster.
In other words, it's an ineffective measure which does very little besides erode our freedoms further.
Reflect on the fact that most of the 9/11 terrorists would have had shiny, legitimate national ID cards...now what good would they do again? And at what cost, both in dollars and liberty?
The problem with a national ID card isn't freedom, it's forgery: how do you prove that the ID card is not fake?
That is another problem. You know, you're right - I think instead of national ID cards we should have bone-implanted RFID tags (as 161 Mexican officials have). Anything for safety, right?
Let's get real. Those who wish us harm are not targeting the military. If they were, the 9/11 attacks would have been felt at military bases around the US and the rest of the world. These malcontents are targeting *us*.
And, miraculously, we've managed to avoid any further attacks for nearly three years - without national ID cards. How is this possible?!?
Meanwhile, ~150,000 of our fellow citizens (yes 50 times as many as died on 9/11) have died in traffic accidents. Let's keep our risks in perspective, eh?
I don't see how carrying a national ID card, which proves that I am *ME*, means that I have given up my liberty to obtain freedom.
I don't have a "liberty to obtain freedom" - I have an "inalienable right to be free". See the difference? I wonder why assurances were made when the Social Security Number was introduced that it would "never be a national ID"?
If I see one f*ckng terrorist on a plane that I am aboard, I will take his damn head off with my shoe if I have to.
Why not let the armed flight marshal shoot him as he scrabbles helplessly against the reinforced cockpit door?;-)
I happened to catch a sound bite on TV last night that the government is trying to tighten up the process to get a driver's license since "all the 9/11 terrorists had valid ID".
The next sentence was along the lines of "this may mean we soon will have a national ID card".
I'm glad we're not letting the terrorists win by changing our way of life. *snort*
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety" - Benjamin Franklin
I've not seen this mentioned...
on
RGB to become RGBCMY
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
From the IEEE article:
What's certain, according to her, is that even though Genoa's technology increases the range of colors, it's not recovering the full original color information of a movie on film, lost in the conversion to other formats, like DVD. "It's kind of arbitrarily making images look better," she says, though people will in fact prefer the resulting colors, which will typically be more saturated and brighter.
Various video media may not have the necessary color resolution to drive these displays, but (given quality art assets;) newer video cards do.
I wonder how these types of displays compare to Iridigm's upcoming products on color fidelity. Those look quite interesting, especially at effective 200 DPI.
Sounds really cool, I would love to keep the OS and swap on one of these and use an SATA or IDE drive for storage.
I wonder if it'd be better to do AMD64 with a bunch of RAM (so swap is basically unecessary) and then copy */bin, */lib etc. (no not/etc;) to a RAM disk and then path appropriately.
For a workstation configuration, for instance, you could get a total of 8 GB, then use 2 GB for system bin+lib. This would be a whole lot cheaper than $1K/GB flash memory, and I think you'd end up with a more useful system.
However, we may be getting a few multiprocessor Xeon's for research use; since there are multiple processors, I'm debating whether HT should be turned OFF, as HT slows things down for single processes, and as there are multiple processors to deal with multiple processes, HT may not serve any advantage whatsoever.
Well, you should really look at the number of compute-bound threads you have active on average. If that number is around 4 or greater, and you have a dual-processor box, then you should probably turn on HT.
Just be aware that during the time that you have fewer than that number of threads going, you'll be taking a performance hit...
As hyperthreading cuts the L2 cache in HALF, it should be disabled before doing any of these benchmarks. Hyperthreading only seems to improve the multithreading ability. These benchmarks being run on a single process are not realistic.
Since it isn't possible to dynamically turn hyperthreading on and off while the system is running, the benchmarks should be run in the mode most systems will use - with (highly touted) HYPErthreading turned on. After all, it is supposed to be a useful feature...
Personally, if I really need to run two threads with top efficiency, I'll invest in a dual 2xx Opteron box - with two real processors rather than an extra sorta-processor. That way if I have to pay a dual CPU license fee at least I'll get my money's worth.:-)
Seeing how the JVM that allows this is written in C++,
Or traditional compiler as opposed to JVM, as I pointed out. Neither is necessarily written in C++, BTW.
I am pretty sure it is implemented in C++,
Fine. However, the code that is running (machine code from the JIT, or natively compiled code from an ahead-of-time compiler) is not compiled C++ - it is compiled Java. Important distinction.
and as a simple consequence, also possible in C++.
In the sense that you could write stream of bytes to memory and then execute them from C++, true. In the sense of compiling C++ with an optimizing compiler to get the same performance, no.
That JAVA makes it easy to do is nice when you need this, but has zero to do with the performance argument.
Incorrect (and in fact you have yet to understand my point). Here are some references:
Slashdot Mirror
How is it gender biased to ask that question? (Though I would have phrased it as "or is it that women don't have the same aptitude for math, science and engineering on average?)
There are clearly (on average) physiological and mental differences between men and women, although more research needs to be done to quantify those differences. It is also hard to say how much social conditioning and learning have to do with these issues (nature versus nurture). I know some studies have shown that men have a better grasp of 3D spatial relationships on average, for instance.
It may (or may not) be that advocating "equal numbers" of female mathematicians, scientists and engineers is on par with advocating equal numbers of female NFL players, female championship heavyweight boxers (WBF etc.) or female ditchdiggers.
All that said, I certainly welcome and encourage those women that have an aptitude and desire for math and science oriented pursuits. I just don't think it should be forced on women in general in some misguided pursuit of "equality".
I hate political correctness in general, and in particular that which refuses to admit there are real differences between the sexes - because there are. Billions of years of evolution have made it so. We should try to better understand those differences (viva la difference!), rather than burying our heads in the sand and pretending futilely they don't exist.
I'm sure this will get modded to oblivion, but at least try to consider the facts of the situation rather than having a knee-jerk reaction. TIA. :-)
It covers most of the issues you bring up with the exception of the automation issue (note the 300 MPH cruise speed at altitude). For short hops it can do 140+ MPH. It is VTOL, so there is no tough navigation issue other than collision avoidance on takeoff/landing. I'd think landing areas (parking lots) would have vertical corridors at each end, one for landing, one for taking off. Vehicles would either land in the landing zone and then taxi (hover at ground level) to their parking spot, or reverse the process to take off. Avoiding hitting people would be the biggest issue, which might call for manual control at ground level only.
This type of vehicle would be quite suitable for short-haul, as well as long-haul, travel. It'd sure be nice reading/surfing during the trip to work...
Remember, the way this would actually work is that small numbers of early adopters would pioneer this (air taxis according to the article). Once the initial wrinkles are worked out, it'd be ready for wider adoption. Economies of scale would set in, making them less expensive over time. At the same time, software able to handle truly large numbers of vehicles in the air simultaneously will arrive.
Clean hydrogen or alcohol turbines will make the pollution/mileage issue moot. The M400 is supposed to get 20 MPG anyhow, which is better than many vehicles on the road today...
I think it'll happen...it's only a matter of when. :-)
The 3D nature of air travel makes automation easier, since there is more spacing between vehicles. We have autonomous aircraft right now that can perform complex flight plans in American airspace, and commercial jetliners that can land automatically. What technical hurdles are left?
Nope, just moderately literate... ;-)
Flying cars will never be widely available until they're fully automated, with no ability to override without the equivalent of a current pilot's license. Read the article for more thoughts on this issue... (BTW sorry to hear about your accident, that does suck.)
A whole host of problems.
As long as they are fewer than with the current (as you point out) broken system.
Actually, the mileage should be comparable to current cars - and since aircraft fly in straight lines with no braking, they have certain inherent efficiencies. Add hydrogen/alcohol (renewable, clean) power, and voila!
The automated parachute deploys (they have them for planes now) and the X foot fall is eliminated. ;-)
That's a silly attitude. The addition of a third dimension also adds a lot more room to avoid other vehicles.
That, coupled with good automation that'll eliminate the risks of intoxication and fatigue, should make flying vehicles much safer than land vehicles. Also, think how much will be saved (eventually) when there's less road maintenance...
The digital cable channels don't suffer from this at all, and I presume satellite radio doesn't either. FM stations vary quite a bit on this.
Why do they do that, anyway? On the radio stations around here, the DJ will be introducing a song, talking about whatever, and the song will start while they're still talking. Just the instrumental part though. The DJ always finishes whatever he's saying just before the lyrics of the song actually start (I'm convinced they have some kind of countdown display that tells them exactly how many seconds are left before the lyrics of the song start). Are they just trying to be smooth, or do you think their license agreements for the songs actually requires them to talk over some portion of the song, to try and discourage exactly the kind of activity you described (i.e., taping the songs off the radio)?
Like I said, it varies a lot with the station and program. I'm pretty sure in most cases the explanation is that the DJs are idiots that really like the sound of their own voice. ;-)
I'm pretty sure most listeners would prefer that the music be played without annoying voiceovers, sound effects, etc.
Sadly, this would probably be trumpeted as "yet more evidence that piracy hurts CD sales".
I don't download music, and I haven't bought a CD in years.
BTW, an interesting alternative is to digitize analog from FM or digital cable, then rip to MP3. It's even legal (VCR law). ;-) You won't notice a quality difference in most situations.
Just don't share.
Exactly. I'm mystified that NASA doesn't talk more about underground habitation. Hang a few plasma displays on the wall and you might just as well be in Hawaii (minus the 1/3 G gravity of course;). Regular centrifuge use may be necessary to prevent bone mass loss.
The 300 MPH winds shouldn't be a very big deal though - the atmosphere is so thin you'd hardly feel anything.
I am in hopes that we will send a private mission to mars and not have them return. It would be far more useful to send a small mission on a one way trip, with a supply ship once a year. They could build a small base, expand our knowledge of Mars a million fold over what simple remote vehicles do today, just due to the fact that they would need all sorts of cpu power there. In addition, they would be able to control system there quickly.
The discovery of "vast" amounts of water on Mars should very much facilitate such a plan. A colony would need a high power energy source (read: nuclear reactor), and some reliable tools and artifacts - then it can start it's own "Biosphere" experiment. Martian tomatoes, anyone? :-)
His lips are moving.
(Or, in this case, his fingers are typing.;)
Nice, but overkill for traditional applications. My OS security (I run Linux for almost all real work) should be sufficient to protect local executables.
When's the last time your exe's were examined for correctness?
When they were compiled. With Java's safety features, most nasty unintentional problems don't happen, period. Further, gcj will compile java bytecode (already verified).
As I'm sure you know, Java programs don't run in a sandbox and can do just about anything to the local system, just like any other program. Bytecode verification won't help if it's out to do something malicious.
If you knew what Java were giving you you'd be very happy with it.
I'm quite aware of (and happy with) what Java is giving me. That doesn't mean I don't want more...like fast program startup and blazing runtime speed.
Why Java is unCool is because Windows Geeks are the Laziest bunch of programmers on the planet, and they do NO RESEARCH on anything other then the Simpleton coding paradiem Microsoft provides.
If you bothered to actually read the article, it's about why LISP programmers in particular, and OSS programmers in general, think Java isn't "cool". Stupid article, BTW - go check SourceForge for how many OSS Java projects there are.
Many "top hackers" like Java, simply because it is a fairly logical evolution of C, unlike C++ which is a mess. Java is well suited to large scale software development, and is quite productive as well. Advantage: Java. How many new LISP projects have you seen lately? ;) Sheer envy is the problem here.
By the way, you .NET Programmers should be KISSING SUN'S BUTT. If it weren't for Sun you'd still be coding in VB6 and Com+.
Bzzzzt. Thanks for playing.
This can, of course, be handled by the installation process but it is a pain in some ways.
IIRC this is also addressed in the release of Java formerly known as "1.5".
I have no complaint about the speed of a Java application once it is up and running. The only problem I have is that the runtime takes so long to heave its vast bulk into memory and fiddle with stuff before the app. gets control.
You should try using Java apps compiled with gcj or one of the commercial traditional Java compilers. There's nothing set in stone that requires Java to be interpreted.
JRE 1.5 should help quite a bit also.
When I read the linked page, I found more like a Java version of C++ -- it looks as though a lot of those libraries are there to overcome the very strengths/weaknesses (depending on your application) that most differentiate the two languages. If you want to use C++, why not just use C++?
I don't see why you think JADE is a "Java version of C++". If you're referring to the .realtime library, it is mainly a factory implementation that recycles objects when "new" ones are needed rather than creating them from scratch. This is a good design pattern that also works well for C++ - heap allocation is also expensive (and non-deterministic) for C++. For Java, it brings the benefit of determinism, which is very nice. Java has many strengths over C++, but its one major weakness has been a lack of determinism. Long (or even noticeable) garbage collection pauses don't work well for realtime applications (like games for instance;). com.dautelle.jade.realtime addresses that issue.
BTW, on the "make it a part of the core library" front, I don't really see the necessity. Putting it in Jakarta would be O.K., although it seems like something of a strange spot for the realtime part. At least the com.dautelle.* namespace gives the author some much-deserved credit! :-)
Were B.F. to have an opinion at this point, I'm quite sure it would reflect the fact that "personal liberty" and "the liberty and freedom of the general population" are the same - you can't have one without the other.
When this quote was penned, Franklin was reflecting on the actions of some colonists who were taking the side of the English in order to keep English soldiers from imprisoning other colonists... and possibly themselves. The English were an occupying force, and there were *NO* legal means which could be used to appeal their decisions. If they felt you were a threat, you were imprisoned without recourse.
I suppose you mean like those arrested and held indefinitely without formal charges today in America? But I digress...
The legal system in the US may move slowly, but it *does* move and it *does* work. Court decisions have said that the prisoners in Guantanamo are now required to have legal representation, and some may even be released. Abu Ghraib was being actively investigated *before* the media "caught on" and the case became "interesting" - look at the public record. And, the fact that we are having this discussion in an open forum without the fear that the "gummint" will arrest us, simply means that we are free to do so.
Yes, it means that we are free to do so...today.
However, any thinking person should see that our liberties are at risk, from many different directions. For instance, the right to peaceful assembly has been seriously undermined. Now, dissenters are allowed to assemble - in cages well away from public view. What a travesty - the DNC should be ashamed!
If the ID card is solely used to *prove who you are*, then it follows that you are who you *claim* to be... and *probably not* someone who wishes to hurt, maim, or kill as many grandmothers, wives, or children as he/she can. The assumption is, of course, that we haven't naturalized or home-bred more Timothy McVeighs -- something no government can defend against without totally invasive security measures which would never pass Congress' muster.
In other words, it's an ineffective measure which does very little besides erode our freedoms further.
Reflect on the fact that most of the 9/11 terrorists would have had shiny, legitimate national ID cards...now what good would they do again? And at what cost, both in dollars and liberty?
The problem with a national ID card isn't freedom, it's forgery: how do you prove that the ID card is not fake?
That is another problem. You know, you're right - I think instead of national ID cards we should have bone-implanted RFID tags (as 161 Mexican officials have). Anything for safety, right?
Let's get real. Those who wish us harm are not targeting the military. If they were, the 9/11 attacks would have been felt at military bases around the US and the rest of the world. These malcontents are targeting *us*.
And, miraculously, we've managed to avoid any further attacks for nearly three years - without national ID cards. How is this possible?!?
Meanwhile, ~150,000 of our fellow citizens (yes 50 times as many as died on 9/11) have died in traffic accidents. Let's keep our risks in perspective, eh?
I don't see how carrying a national ID card, which proves that I am *ME*, means that I have given up my liberty to obtain freedom.
I don't have a "liberty to obtain freedom" - I have an "inalienable right to be free". See the difference? I wonder why assurances were made when the Social Security Number was introduced that it would "never be a national ID"?
At any
If I see one f*ckng terrorist on a plane that I am aboard, I will take his damn head off with my shoe if I have to. Why not let the armed flight marshal shoot him as he scrabbles helplessly against the reinforced cockpit door? ;-)
The next sentence was along the lines of "this may mean we soon will have a national ID card".
I'm glad we're not letting the terrorists win by changing our way of life. *snort*
Various video media may not have the necessary color resolution to drive these displays, but (given quality art assets;) newer video cards do.
I wonder how these types of displays compare to Iridigm's upcoming products on color fidelity. Those look quite interesting, especially at effective 200 DPI.
I wonder if it'd be better to do AMD64 with a bunch of RAM (so swap is basically unecessary) and then copy */bin, */lib etc. (no not /etc;) to a RAM disk and then path appropriately.
For a workstation configuration, for instance, you could get a total of 8 GB, then use 2 GB for system bin+lib. This would be a whole lot cheaper than $1K/GB flash memory, and I think you'd end up with a more useful system.
Yeah, obviously it should have been written for Playstation. ;-)
Well, you should really look at the number of compute-bound threads you have active on average. If that number is around 4 or greater, and you have a dual-processor box, then you should probably turn on HT.
Just be aware that during the time that you have fewer than that number of threads going, you'll be taking a performance hit...
Since it isn't possible to dynamically turn hyperthreading on and off while the system is running, the benchmarks should be run in the mode most systems will use - with (highly touted) HYPErthreading turned on. After all, it is supposed to be a useful feature...
Personally, if I really need to run two threads with top efficiency, I'll invest in a dual 2xx Opteron box - with two real processors rather than an extra sorta-processor. That way if I have to pay a dual CPU license fee at least I'll get my money's worth. :-)
Or traditional compiler as opposed to JVM, as I pointed out. Neither is necessarily written in C++, BTW.
I am pretty sure it is implemented in C++,
Fine. However, the code that is running (machine code from the JIT, or natively compiled code from an ahead-of-time compiler) is not compiled C++ - it is compiled Java. Important distinction.
and as a simple consequence, also possible in C++.
In the sense that you could write stream of bytes to memory and then execute them from C++, true. In the sense of compiling C++ with an optimizing compiler to get the same performance, no.
That JAVA makes it easy to do is nice when you need this, but has zero to do with the performance argument.
Incorrect (and in fact you have yet to understand my point). Here are some references:
- COMPARISON OF FORTRAN AND C [note the parts about optimization]
- Performance of Java versus C++ [note 1) Pointers make optimization hard]
I hope that helped... Please read and understand both thoroughly before posting again.