GCC is a mess that has been getting consistently worse since 3.0. It's so bad that compiling GCC with GCC, with any CPU optimizations enabled, produces a non-working compiler
There is a very simple way to test that statement. Make a default build of gcc. Step two and three is a build of gcc by gcc. Funny thing. That always works, and has never been an issue, if it was you wouldn't have a compiler package, since any packaged version of GCC is build by the same version as shipped!!..
What does Apple have to do with it? It started as a pretty cool project, then it got partially adopted by by Apple, and started to smell a bit, but it is still a pretty cool project like it always have been.
I don't think they mean univeral that way, I believe they mean universal lossless compression as gzip, bzip2 or 7zip. They will work on almost any data, but not all kinds of data. The idea here is that the show has a new way to do this that is supposed to be even better. The method they use remind me though of FLAC.
Well, that is perfect. I prefer to NEVER buy any product I see advertised. If they waste money on that, their products must not be good enough to sell on their own, or the competion can sell better products cheaper because they don't waste money on ads. As such I prefer ads for stuff I would never buy, make it too targeted and shopping becomes... difficult.
It doesn't. It also has trouble detecting two identical versions of firefox. This is only really works as a few more bits to existing fingerprint frameworks.
The human eye CAN tell the difference. What it can't do it distinguish individual pixels, just like you normally can't see individual frames when a movie or game is faster than 24fps. If your eye-sight was so poor that you coun't see better than 300dpi at one meter, you would not be allowed to get a drivers license in most countries. Road signs are designed to be read by the minimal allowed vision at a certain distance, that means you must be able to read half a meter high letters at 1km, which requires 1/5cm resolution, which is the same as 600dpi at 1m, and that is minimum.
* Very long charge life comparatively (2 weeks would be okay) and/or very easy charging (put it on a charging pad).
Closest I can think to those requirements are the Casio G-Shock Bluetooth models. Two year battery life and notifications for most of the common things you'd want. A comparison chart can be found here.
Unfortunately they don't really go so well with a suit - although I don't suspect that will be a problem for the majority of Slashdot readers.
Great idea, but why does they have to look like SHIT? The shape looks like something big and rubbery made for toddlers, and the display for 13-year old boys with a 1980's fetish.
Lie detectors only "work" if you tell the subject he is subject to a lie detector test and he believes you, and even then you will not get much better than 50/50 unless you are trained tester who can reach 80/20 under optimal circumstances. So, are you sure you want to ruin your relationship over a test that will be wrong 20% of the time, even when done under optimal circumstances by the best professionals?
"They fund a whole series of institutions doing science trolling." What institutions? What evidence is there the Koch brothers are involved?
Are you joking? Sorry for linking WP, but the information there is consistent with what is available everywhere else and it is more centralized.
Here are the two first I could find, there are many others but this should be enough: The Heritage Foundation and The Cato Institute. As for what evidence that the Koch brothers are involved? They are the official founders. For all the evil they do they do try to hide their involvement in political trolling of science.
"They fund a whole series of institutions doing science trolling." What institutions? What evidence is there the Koch brothers are involved?
Are you joking? Sorry for linking WP, but the information there is consistent with what is available everywhere else and it is more centralized.
Here are the two first I could find, there are many others but this should be enough: The Heritage Foundation and The Cato Institute. As for what evidence that the Koch brothers are involved? They are the official founders. For all the evil they do they do try to hide their involvement in political trolling of science.
To manage the system, Minix has a so-called "reincarnation server" that restarts core system daemons if they go down unexpectedly. It's totally modular and redundant -- far more ambitious and advanced in its design than Linux or OS X. Minix is designed from the beginning to never go down. There is nothing else like that in the Unix world.
I see people say this all the time. Some mysterious group is willing to pay for skeptic research. I've never seen any evidence of this. Can you post a link to something substantial.
You know of two people known as the Koch brothers? They fund a whole series of institutions doing science trolling.
And to step out of American politics: In Denmark normally considered an environmental and left-leaning country the right wing government of the early 2000s hired the famous sceptic Bjørn Lombog (who coined the term climate sceptic) to lead an institute called the Environmental Assessment Institutue a climate studýing institute supposed to "evaluate" the state of climate studies. The institute only purpose was to prove that climate science was wrong, but was never able to prove anything, and ended up having to shut itself down as it proved its mission pointless (though only after a long serious of weak articles and bad science).
Since then Bjørn Lomborg reluctingly stopped questiong whether global warming was happing or was man caused and is now running an initiate trying to argue that it is either not worthwhile or too late to do anything about it.
Follow the money. How many grants are given to the study of..... non catastrophic AGW? If you are a climatologist and want funding, you are pro-AGW, and you don't hide it, even if you are skeptical, as it is the only way to keep your funding.
You have mixed something up. There are huge grants for disproving or challenging anything related to AGW funded by the powers that oppose (everybody with money). Pro-AGW science only receive money from everybody without money, which while a lot, doesn't really add up to anything.
Try taking a handheld camera and hold it at people who are typing their phone or ATM pincode and see what happens... (Warning damage yo your face may occur). The problem is that you can't pretend it is off like you can with a google glass.
The court ruling only required them to remove a link to ONE article. Everything beyond that is Google acting on its own not bound by any court rulings.
No they are not. Google is deciding to do things that no law required them to. END OF STORY. Remember there is no new law here, the original case was about a specific Spanish law. Does that spanish law require taking down unrelated UK links? No!!
In common law a ruling by a court is legally binding, just as strongly as a new law. In the rest of the world precendence is only an indication of what a new court case may decide, not something they need to follow or heed.
What law? There is no new law here. Only existing national laws. All that is happening now is that Google has to obey existing national laws that forbid republishing certain facts. So which British law required them to remove the link? Or is it Google that are just making up rules as they go now?
Slashdot Mirror
There is a very simple way to test that statement. Make a default build of gcc. Step two and three is a build of gcc by gcc. Funny thing. That always works, and has never been an issue, if it was you wouldn't have a compiler package, since any packaged version of GCC is build by the same version as shipped!!..
DOWN VOTE PARENT - TROLL or PROFESIONAL LIAR.
What does Apple have to do with it? It started as a pretty cool project, then it got partially adopted by by Apple, and started to smell a bit, but it is still a pretty cool project like it always have been.
I don't think they mean univeral that way, I believe they mean universal lossless compression as gzip, bzip2 or 7zip. They will work on almost any data, but not all kinds of data. The idea here is that the show has a new way to do this that is supposed to be even better. The method they use remind me though of FLAC.
Obviously the deaf are just not listening.
Well, that is perfect. I prefer to NEVER buy any product I see advertised. If they waste money on that, their products must not be good enough to sell on their own, or the competion can sell better products cheaper because they don't waste money on ads. As such I prefer ads for stuff I would never buy, make it too targeted and shopping becomes ... difficult.
It doesn't. It also has trouble detecting two identical versions of firefox. This is only really works as a few more bits to existing fingerprint frameworks.
64KiB = 65536 Bytes
64K = 64,000
In no unit of measurement is 64K(anything) = 65635.
65535 is however the maximum value expressible by an unsigned 16-bit binary number.
No, that is not even being pedantic. That is just wrong. Please stop.
Too obvious. It works better the other way, because women rarely suspect an attractive man to be an elite prostitute spy.
The human eye CAN tell the difference. What it can't do it distinguish individual pixels, just like you normally can't see individual frames when a movie or game is faster than 24fps. If your eye-sight was so poor that you coun't see better than 300dpi at one meter, you would not be allowed to get a drivers license in most countries. Road signs are designed to be read by the minimal allowed vision at a certain distance, that means you must be able to read half a meter high letters at 1km, which requires 1/5cm resolution, which is the same as 600dpi at 1m, and that is minimum.
Closest I can think to those requirements are the Casio G-Shock Bluetooth models. Two year battery life and notifications for most of the common things you'd want. A comparison chart can be found here.
Unfortunately they don't really go so well with a suit - although I don't suspect that will be a problem for the majority of Slashdot readers.
Great idea, but why does they have to look like SHIT? The shape looks like something big and rubbery made for toddlers, and the display for 13-year old boys with a 1980's fetish.
Lie detectors only "work" if you tell the subject he is subject to a lie detector test and he believes you, and even then you will not get much better than 50/50 unless you are trained tester who can reach 80/20 under optimal circumstances. So, are you sure you want to ruin your relationship over a test that will be wrong 20% of the time, even when done under optimal circumstances by the best professionals?
You must be looking at a different version of the website. The one linked says "Order now: $249". No other price is listed anywhere else on the page.
Yeah who cares about thousands of dollars (US billion/million).
Are you joking? Sorry for linking WP, but the information there is consistent with what is available everywhere else and it is more centralized.
Here are the two first I could find, there are many others but this should be enough: The Heritage Foundation and The Cato Institute. As for what evidence that the Koch brothers are involved? They are the official founders. For all the evil they do they do try to hide their involvement in political trolling of science.
Sorry, make that: they do not try to hide..
Are you joking? Sorry for linking WP, but the information there is consistent with what is available everywhere else and it is more centralized.
Here are the two first I could find, there are many others but this should be enough: The Heritage Foundation and The Cato Institute. As for what evidence that the Koch brothers are involved? They are the official founders. For all the evil they do they do try to hide their involvement in political trolling of science.
QNX?
Not enough sidewind? Seriously the biggest of the curves can not be produced by spinning balls, it is the wind carrying it.
You know of two people known as the Koch brothers? They fund a whole series of institutions doing science trolling.
And to step out of American politics: In Denmark normally considered an environmental and left-leaning country the right wing government of the early 2000s hired the famous sceptic Bjørn Lombog (who coined the term climate sceptic) to lead an institute called the Environmental Assessment Institutue a climate studýing institute supposed to "evaluate" the state of climate studies. The institute only purpose was to prove that climate science was wrong, but was never able to prove anything, and ended up having to shut itself down as it proved its mission pointless (though only after a long serious of weak articles and bad science).
Since then Bjørn Lomborg reluctingly stopped questiong whether global warming was happing or was man caused and is now running an initiate trying to argue that it is either not worthwhile or too late to do anything about it.
You have mixed something up. There are huge grants for disproving or challenging anything related to AGW funded by the powers that oppose (everybody with money). Pro-AGW science only receive money from everybody without money, which while a lot, doesn't really add up to anything.
Try taking a handheld camera and hold it at people who are typing their phone or ATM pincode and see what happens... (Warning damage yo your face may occur). The problem is that you can't pretend it is off like you can with a google glass.
Yeah if you had it on all the time and mounted on your face. Oh wait, that is just Google glass.
The court ruling only required them to remove a link to ONE article. Everything beyond that is Google acting on its own not bound by any court rulings.
No they are not. Google is deciding to do things that no law required them to. END OF STORY. Remember there is no new law here, the original case was about a specific Spanish law. Does that spanish law require taking down unrelated UK links? No!!
In common law a ruling by a court is legally binding, just as strongly as a new law. In the rest of the world precendence is only an indication of what a new court case may decide, not something they need to follow or heed.
What law? There is no new law here. Only existing national laws. All that is happening now is that Google has to obey existing national laws that forbid republishing certain facts. So which British law required them to remove the link? Or is it Google that are just making up rules as they go now?