I think what the OP was hinting at (but not clearly) was that, once the OS is done, porting all the apps that run on it over is just a matter of recompiling.
Yeah, blindly choosing a resolution like XFree does it is way easier than choosing the resolution and color depth from an onscreen list.
I always thought that was really stupid, along with having to pass bpp as a command line option to the X server. I haven't had to manually edit those damned mode lines in years though which is good.
Assuming you meant "wouldn't call", division is definitely "considerable". Remember we are talking about large numbers. Try doing long division on paper for 35184535666823 divided by 4194319 (answer is 8388617) and you can see there is some work involved, even with these small numbers.
The paper method of long division is O(n^2) and it turns out it can be done more efficiently: As I understand it, you can do division in the steps required for multiplication. Therefore the number of operations required to divide two n digit numbers is bounded by the best multiplication which is O(n lg n lg lg n) (from Knuth Volume II).
This is about 57 for 10 digits and about 182 for 20 digits. You can see that doubling the number of digits here more than triples the required number of operations to compute this result!
Likewise 30 digits require about 6 times more operations. You can see that the "n times" grows faster than the number of digits. Thus, division gets slower and slower the more digits you have to divide.
Actually, many numerical methods people (who tend to use C extensively) seem to like 'goto' a lot.
A lot of numerical methods people use Fortran and Fortran has "GO TO". If you did a quick conversion to C you'd probably just leave it. f2c probably uses goto, but I don't remember for sure.
-Kevin
how to make hideous PDFs like a Computer Scientist
on
Think Python
·
· Score: 2
They'd be much better if they used the standard PDF Type 1 fonts. (I use pdflatex.)
I loved Racing Destruction Set! It was fun to play with different gravity settings like moon gravity so you'd jump your car really far. RDS is also the first split screen two player game I remember playing. Great game for a 1 MHz machine!
I've always had Palms. Not having Flash ROM is
the reason I avoid Handspring. I don't want to be fucked if there's a software bug or be unable to upgrade to a new OS.
You're right. WD-40 is a superlative lubricant. How could I have ripped on it just because it isn't primarily designed as a lubricant and has never lubricated anything well in my experience?
In fact, I just used it for some of the best anal sex I've ever had and replaced the oil in my car. It worked great on both counts. Thanks! P.S. Did you know WD-40 also tastes great on crackers and makes a good hair conditioner? Next time you make pasta, spray in some WD-40 and the noodles won't stick.
I bet a lot of people don't get the refernce to Fermat's conjecture.
Maybe if they are illiterate or have been raised by wolves.
Since I've seen the same stupid joke many times, like whenever a discussion about mathematics comes up, I'd say too many people are aware of the reference.
If each port on the switch connects to a single node on the network and connections are duplex, no collisions will take place. (But imagine if one of your switch ports is connected to a hub with two computers connected to the hub.)
The idea that a 3 judge panel 200 years+ after the passing of the constitution know better than the writers and all the intervening legislators, presidents, and judges is laughable.
I wish the media would stop talking about "Moore's
Law" (and for that matter, referring to CPUs as the computer's brain).
NYT:
Moore's Law holds that the number of
transistors on a microprocessor -- the brain of a modern computer -- doubles about every 18 months,
Well, Gordon observed the exponential increase of transistors on ICs in Electronics, Voume 38 Number 8, April 19, 1965. There were no microprocessors until about 1970! Also, he never mentioned 18 months, thought it can be inferred.
*Sigh*, another Intel troll. There's more to processor speed than raw clock MHz. Sparc processors (the sort found in Sun hardware) do more per clock cycle than an x86. Quad 480MHz UltraSparcs would blow a 2GHz Pentium out of the water...
I work with Suns every day - 420s, 880s, 4800s, 6800s,... They are not fast at CPU intensive tasks. We are talking desktop apps here, not web servers and so on. I understand the difference between single CPU PCs and multiple CPU, high I/O capacity servers.
UltraSPARCs are not computationally very powerful. You're correct that you can't compare the clock speeds, but they still are not that fast -overall-, which is what matters, not efficiency (Mac PPC advocates make the same mistake). An UltraSPARC II at 480 is slow! Even a copper USIII at 750-900 MHz is not that fast. Yes, I believe a 1G UIII has a higher specfp than a P4 at 2GHz (correct me if I'm wrong), but it's slower at integer ops which are the basis of most desktop apps. And you can get P4s at 2.4GHz now. (IBM's Power4 is far superior to USIII, btw) But Sun servers are for server loads, which typically have higher I/O requirements than Excel, or even my developer tools (though admittedly IDE drives suck and I wish I had SCSI at work like I do at home).
A quad setup is something you'd use for balancing server loads with lots of concurrent activity, not desktop apps which are "bursty" and benefit more from fast (dedicated) single processors. A 450 is
a very small USII based system with a backplane
that has less memory bandwidth than a current PC! Most of the Java server software I work on is deployed to 6800s. When you're talking about large shared Sun systems, there is a lot of scheduling overhead - something you don't want for interactive desktop apps even though the total amount of work a decent Sun system can do is much higher. The workload
is just different.
Slashdot Mirror
No shit. I was disagreeing.
-Kevin
Of course it is, assuming your source is one 100 line C program.
-Kevin
Toast with peanut butter.
-Kevin
I always thought that was really stupid, along with having to pass bpp as a command line option to the X server. I haven't had to manually edit those damned mode lines in years though which is good.
-Kevin
-Kevin
-Kevin (yes I know that isn't true - Nobel never married)
-Kevin
Assuming you meant "wouldn't call", division is definitely "considerable". Remember we are talking about large numbers. Try doing long division on paper for 35184535666823 divided by 4194319 (answer is 8388617) and you can see there is some work involved, even with these small numbers.
The paper method of long division is O(n^2) and it turns out it can be done more efficiently: As I understand it, you can do division in the steps required for multiplication. Therefore the number of operations required to divide two n digit numbers is bounded by the best multiplication which is O(n lg n lg lg n) (from Knuth Volume II).
This is about 57 for 10 digits and about 182 for 20 digits. You can see that doubling the number of digits here more than triples the required number of operations to compute this result! Likewise 30 digits require about 6 times more operations. You can see that the "n times" grows faster than the number of digits. Thus, division gets slower and slower the more digits you have to divide.
-Kevin
-Kevin
-Kevin
A lot of numerical methods people use Fortran and Fortran has "GO TO". If you did a quick conversion to C you'd probably just leave it. f2c probably uses goto, but I don't remember for sure.
-Kevin
-Kevin
-Kevin
Don't support their disposable mentality!
-Kevin
In fact, I just used it for some of the best anal sex I've ever had and replaced the oil in my car. It worked great on both counts. Thanks! P.S. Did you know WD-40 also tastes great on crackers and makes a good hair conditioner? Next time you make pasta, spray in some WD-40 and the noodles won't stick.
-Kevin
-Kevin
-Kevin
Maybe if they are illiterate or have been raised by wolves.
Since I've seen the same stupid joke many times, like whenever a discussion about mathematics comes up, I'd say too many people are aware of the reference.
Come on people, get some new material!
-Kevin
-Kevin
If each port on the switch connects to a single node on the network and connections are duplex, no collisions will take place. (But imagine if one of your switch ports is connected to a hub with two computers connected to the hub.)
-Kevin
Is that why women couldn't vote until the 1920s?
Because of 144 years of infallible brilliance?
Please.
-Kevin
NYT:
Moore's Law holds that the number of transistors on a microprocessor -- the brain of a modern computer -- doubles about every 18 months,
Well, Gordon observed the exponential increase of transistors on ICs in Electronics, Voume 38 Number 8, April 19, 1965. There were no microprocessors until about 1970! Also, he never mentioned 18 months, thought it can be inferred.
-Kevin
-Kevin
I work with Suns every day - 420s, 880s, 4800s, 6800s, ... They are not fast at CPU intensive tasks. We are talking desktop apps here, not web servers and so on. I understand the difference between single CPU PCs and multiple CPU, high I/O capacity servers.
UltraSPARCs are not computationally very powerful. You're correct that you can't compare the clock speeds, but they still are not that fast -overall-, which is what matters, not efficiency (Mac PPC advocates make the same mistake). An UltraSPARC II at 480 is slow! Even a copper USIII at 750-900 MHz is not that fast. Yes, I believe a 1G UIII has a higher specfp than a P4 at 2GHz (correct me if I'm wrong), but it's slower at integer ops which are the basis of most desktop apps. And you can get P4s at 2.4GHz now. (IBM's Power4 is far superior to USIII, btw) But Sun servers are for server loads, which typically have higher I/O requirements than Excel, or even my developer tools (though admittedly IDE drives suck and I wish I had SCSI at work like I do at home).
A quad setup is something you'd use for balancing server loads with lots of concurrent activity, not desktop apps which are "bursty" and benefit more from fast (dedicated) single processors. A 450 is a very small USII based system with a backplane that has less memory bandwidth than a current PC! Most of the Java server software I work on is deployed to 6800s. When you're talking about large shared Sun systems, there is a lot of scheduling overhead - something you don't want for interactive desktop apps even though the total amount of work a decent Sun system can do is much higher. The workload is just different.
-Kevin
I doubt an E450 will be $500 in 18 months. But even so, a quad @480 already sucks ass compared to a current PC for desktop apps.
Sorry, but I don't want to share.
-Kevin