Uh... that's called plagiarising yourself. The uni i go to has a clause that says submitting work that you have already submitted before will be considered plagiarism.
Recent POWER chips *are* PowerPCs. I think the POWER2 was the last non-PowerPC chip. A stripped-down POWER4 formed the basis of the G5. How do you suppose that was possible if they were two entirely different processor families?
... "high level" APIs that wouldn't look the least bit out of place in 1989.
Damn straight. To me, Quartz Composer is a "high level" API. Drag and drop visual programming, with the ability to delve into custom shader code if needed.
Lawyers are smart. If you tell one that MP3 is a specific type of music file and that not all music files are MP3s, just like not all tissues are Kleenexes, they'll get it.
Then why do CEOs, etc receive large (some would say outrageous) performance bonuses? If a low-level grunt invents the Next Big Thing, and makes the company millions, why doesn't he get the large bonus? I guess it was the brilliant "Mission Statement" the CEO came up with that really lead to the success.
When you think about it, Quartz Extreme only needs to handle a relatively small number of parallel polygons at basically a constant distance away. That's a much simpler job than millions of triangles at arbitrary angles to each other at varying distances and whatnot.
Sure, right up until you hit the minimise button and Quartz Extreme uses the 3D hardware to do a mesh warp of the window as it goes into the Dock... while the contents of the window are still updating! Try minimising a playing movie in slow-mo (hold down shift when you hit the yellow button) on a relatively new Mac.
See, this is where the abstractions fail. Computers *aren't* random access machines any more. To write high performance code, you have to know about cache misses, page faults, etc. The way you read your data is very important to performance. Often it's worthwhile to make the algorithm more complex if it means its working set now fits in the CPU's cache.
No, shifting left shouldn't be any *slower* than multiplying by a power of 2, it's just that there's little point any more. Most decent compilers will detect multiplication by a constant power of 2 and substitute a shift for you. This means that there's no need to obfuscate the code for that speed boost.
That said, pretending that the compiler will always turn your lazy code into super high performance code is just silly. Compilers are getting better at optimising but they still have plenty of blind spots. A compiler won't save you from algorithmic inefficiencies. Sure, it's smart enough to instruction schedule reasonably well, but it can't yet turn an O(n^2) algorithm into an O(n) algorithm.
The point is that the new generation of coders (to which i belong) often doesn't really know how the machine works anymore. If programming languages were perfect abstractions, and compilers were capable of unlimited sophistication in their transformations from what the programmer intended to efficient machine code, then this wouldn't be important. But if the compiler could do that, then you probably wouldn't need a programmer at all.
Don't get me wrong, premature optimisation *is* evil, and for some problems, a naive implementation is adequate. But it would be nice if programmers knew how to do more than a naive implementation, no?
Why did the Japanese and the Brits choose ".co"? The internet TLD for commercial sites is ".com", hence ".com.au". Australia mirrored the international TLDs under "au", so there's ".edu.au", ".net.au", ".org.au", ".com.au", ".gov.au" and maybe i missed one.
It's the choice of the individual country, of course, but i'm curious why you'd question it. Australia is following the norm, those other countries are doing something different (yes, i'm aware a lot of countries use ".co.(country code)").
Another point, Australia uses ".edu.au" rather than ".ac.uk" as the uk does.
Umm... just because you're holding a hammer, don't pretend the idea of an internet home directory is a nail. Why would you want to use GMail for this when something like WebDAV would be far faster and more reliable?
Google isn't the first to offer space on the internet. While i appreciate the coolness of the hack, wouldn't it be better to go with something *designed* for that purpose? And is putting your entire home directory on the internet really necessary? Does it all need to be accessible from everywhere? I'd prefer something like Apple's iDisk (not that i'm a.Mac member).
An EE course that doesn't involve programming? Strange. I'm an EE student and we have to do quite a few CS subjects.
And you know what? The CS subjects are the easiest i do. The hardware stuff (circuits, gates, microprocessor design, etc) is way harder. I'll never complain about assembler again.
Because no positive mutation has ever been shown. Every mutation ever observed results in a delterous effect on the organism.
That logic just doesn't make sense. If I type a random bunch of characters, I *could* produce the works of Shakespeare. If I change a random gene, it *could* be beneficial. How can you possibly argue that a random change can't be beneficial ever? A random change can produce anything, including stuff that is good.
Granted, I am not an evolutionary geneticist, but all evidence I've seen tends to suggest that genetics *is* a zero-sum game. You simply can't give to Peter without taking from Paul.
Again, why? One example from agriculture doesn't prove anything. All it proves is that we don't know how to do it properly. That *may* be because it isn't possible but not necessarily.
Mutations that are positive are also far less obvious. If your child is slightly stronger than normal, would you notice? If they have a crippling disability, on the other hand, you sure will.
Creating a 1 in 4 chance of a very early death is not a "good" result.
Ah, but i believe 2 in 4 are protected from malaria? Evolution has selected for the sickle-cell property because it provides an overall benefit for the group. African Americans still have the mutation but it is fading out (hence the lower prevalence). Evolution takes time, especially now that modern medical practices mean that many more sufferers survive.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh... that's called plagiarising yourself. The uni i go to has a clause that says submitting work that you have already submitted before will be considered plagiarism.
Recent POWER chips *are* PowerPCs. I think the POWER2 was the last non-PowerPC chip. A stripped-down POWER4 formed the basis of the G5. How do you suppose that was possible if they were two entirely different processor families?
How the fuck is that interesting? Most of the internet population is from a G8 member! +1 should go to the guy on his C64 in Afghanistan.
Like if those circumstances involve being in a space suit, for example.
Damn straight. To me, Quartz Composer is a "high level" API. Drag and drop visual programming, with the ability to delve into custom shader code if needed.
No, they want to patent: if (ptr1 != ptr2) ...
Lawyers are smart. If you tell one that MP3 is a specific type of music file and that not all music files are MP3s, just like not all tissues are Kleenexes, they'll get it.
Then why do CEOs, etc receive large (some would say outrageous) performance bonuses? If a low-level grunt invents the Next Big Thing, and makes the company millions, why doesn't he get the large bonus? I guess it was the brilliant "Mission Statement" the CEO came up with that really lead to the success.
The rebel doesn't always win.
Sure, right up until you hit the minimise button and Quartz Extreme uses the 3D hardware to do a mesh warp of the window as it goes into the Dock... while the contents of the window are still updating! Try minimising a playing movie in slow-mo (hold down shift when you hit the yellow button) on a relatively new Mac.
Sure, but since 13 is odd, the other 12 roots are complex. It's not like the square root, 4th root, 10th root, etc, where you'll get 2 real roots.
See, this is where the abstractions fail. Computers *aren't* random access machines any more. To write high performance code, you have to know about cache misses, page faults, etc. The way you read your data is very important to performance. Often it's worthwhile to make the algorithm more complex if it means its working set now fits in the CPU's cache.
That said, pretending that the compiler will always turn your lazy code into super high performance code is just silly. Compilers are getting better at optimising but they still have plenty of blind spots. A compiler won't save you from algorithmic inefficiencies. Sure, it's smart enough to instruction schedule reasonably well, but it can't yet turn an O(n^2) algorithm into an O(n) algorithm.
The point is that the new generation of coders (to which i belong) often doesn't really know how the machine works anymore. If programming languages were perfect abstractions, and compilers were capable of unlimited sophistication in their transformations from what the programmer intended to efficient machine code, then this wouldn't be important. But if the compiler could do that, then you probably wouldn't need a programmer at all.
Don't get me wrong, premature optimisation *is* evil, and for some problems, a naive implementation is adequate. But it would be nice if programmers knew how to do more than a naive implementation, no?
It's the choice of the individual country, of course, but i'm curious why you'd question it. Australia is following the norm, those other countries are doing something different (yes, i'm aware a lot of countries use ".co.(country code)").
Another point, Australia uses ".edu.au" rather than ".ac.uk" as the uk does.
Hell, the correct wikipedia link is in the summary!
Look up the term power factor. This system has a power factor of 14.5/14.8 = 0.98, which is surprisingly good for a computer, IIRC.
10,434.39 becomes 10.434,39
Maybe they were using base 1?
Blind hope that we cannot create sentient life because the idea bothers you?
Hmm... I'm an Aussie and I've used it to call the US. No noticeable lag.
Google isn't the first to offer space on the internet. While i appreciate the coolness of the hack, wouldn't it be better to go with something *designed* for that purpose? And is putting your entire home directory on the internet really necessary? Does it all need to be accessible from everywhere? I'd prefer something like Apple's iDisk (not that i'm a .Mac member).
Shame that OO.org is such a load of garbage on the mac, eh? MS Office 2004, on the other hand, is actually pretty good.
An EE course that doesn't involve programming? Strange. I'm an EE student and we have to do quite a few CS subjects. And you know what? The CS subjects are the easiest i do. The hardware stuff (circuits, gates, microprocessor design, etc) is way harder. I'll never complain about assembler again.
Err... hasn't the classic mac os always been like this? Didn't you use QuickDraw both for drawing to the screen and to the printer?
That logic just doesn't make sense. If I type a random bunch of characters, I *could* produce the works of Shakespeare. If I change a random gene, it *could* be beneficial. How can you possibly argue that a random change can't be beneficial ever? A random change can produce anything, including stuff that is good.
Granted, I am not an evolutionary geneticist, but all evidence I've seen tends to suggest that genetics *is* a zero-sum game. You simply can't give to Peter without taking from Paul.
Again, why? One example from agriculture doesn't prove anything. All it proves is that we don't know how to do it properly. That *may* be because it isn't possible but not necessarily.
Mutations that are positive are also far less obvious. If your child is slightly stronger than normal, would you notice? If they have a crippling disability, on the other hand, you sure will.
Creating a 1 in 4 chance of a very early death is not a "good" result.
Ah, but i believe 2 in 4 are protected from malaria? Evolution has selected for the sickle-cell property because it provides an overall benefit for the group. African Americans still have the mutation but it is fading out (hence the lower prevalence). Evolution takes time, especially now that modern medical practices mean that many more sufferers survive.