Atheism explicitly rejects god[s] and that's all there is to it. However, if a consistent philosophy includes atheism, it also rejects magic for the same reason it rejects god[s]. So your claim is garbage.
Bush-43 contributed to the 2008 recession by pushing through a government-paid medication bill. It was the Democrats, particularly Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd, who prevented ending the disastrous policies of Freddy Mac, HUD, etc. that expanded the home-loan market. Bush tried to overturn those policies, and was given the middle finger.
if you cut taxes and do not immediately cut spending by at least an equal amount you create debt that must be paid back later.
It depends. Without detailing all the possible options, consider just one counterexample. If tax rates on repatriated income were reduced, huge quantities of money would flow back into the US and be taxed at the lower rate, money with currently will never return to the US.
That said, spending is as damaging as taxation. Blaming it exclusively on Republicans is disingenuous.
John Boehner is a bad actor abusing his position in order to keep those among the Republicans who are freedom-oriented in line. Boehner's position isn't far from the Democrats': "more power, and I must be in charge."
The GOP has put a lot of effort into the prevention of voter fraud, fraud like the recently-publicized Democrat poll-watcher who admitted to voting twice. Fraud like voting in multiple districts. Fraud like registering and voting under multiple aliases. Fraud like voting by non-citizens. It is not voter suppression to try to prevent voting by those for whom voting is illegal, but that's a point most leftists would like to ignore.
Fast forward to protests held during Obama's tenure, the Occupy Wall Street movement. This time it wasn't a single day, but weeks, and months, of protest camps across hundreds of cities. The end result: ? How many bankers have been arrested?...
Unbathed, paid and bussed-in "protestors" trespassing, robbing and raping. We're supposed to obey their stinking demands?
If the detonator acts on contact within about 100 microseconds, and the explosion is well established within about a millisecond, it should be effective.
SPARC has register frames (8 frames of 8 registers IIRC) so that saving/restoring is unnecessary until you run out of frames. I don't know if this is an advantage in practice.
Recoding obscure opcodes involves ever-smaller areas of silicon. Yes, it's an engineering nuisance, but that's all it is. For a completely new general purpose architecture, or even a completely new instruction set, to replace X86 it would have to be so dramatically superior to X86 that competitors could substantially beat X86 performance even with an inferior process technology. I doubt that such a great advantage is even possible without Intel making another Pentium-4 blunder.
AMD sold off its fabs because they couldn't keep up and because AMD was hemorrhaging cash. Like so many others, they're relying on someone else to make their chips.
GPUs are not general purpose processors: they have enormous pipelines that make branching a severe performance hit, even if the branched-to instruction is in the cache.
I agree that code size matters. But speed matters even more
Small code size helps speed because large code increases the likelihood of a cache miss. Cache misses are very expensive.
It's probably neither possible nor desirable to target Intel microcode. The binary code that comes in on data pins is a publicly defined static interface. Microcode is not only secret, there's no assurance that it won't change without notice, even on chips with the same model number.
At one time, Intel and others made special expensive versions of chips with many extra pins for makers of hardware debuggers and other such esoteric equipment. Those special chips allowed realtime access to internal registers and busses, etc.. I doubt that such things are available now; there are just too many pins and too much internal complexity for it to be practical.
It is only modern CISC chips that effectively recode instructions into RISC instructions. Early CISC machines, up to about 1986 could not afford that overhead. Instead, the complex RISC instructions were microcoded, often as hard-wired ROM. Before CPUs were single chips, CISC machines were just circuit design.
In the film era, 1960s and onward, Nikon was generally considered the professional 35mm camera. Not only did they make some of the best equipment, they had rental and service arrangements for genuine pros that were absent from other manufacturers.
Alas, the ISO rating for digital sensors is bogus. Double the amplification and you double the rating, but also the noise (except converter quantization noise.) If adequate gain is available, it's the improvement in S/N that is most important area for improvement.
It's only possible to put a few large sensors on a semiconductor wafer, and it costs at least a couple of thousand dollars to process a wafer. Large sensors also mean high rejection rates. Don't expect the sensor price floor to drop until wafer processing costs drop.
There is nothing in the article that suggests that this is a Bayer-type system. In fact, one of the theoretically easiest ways to improve S/N is to not filter out 2/3 of the signal like Bayer does.
There are tradeoffs involved in lens size and sensor size. To get the same S/N and image as a 50mm f/2 lens on a 36x24mm sensor, on an 18x12mm sensor a 25mm f/1 lens with twice the cycles/mm resolution would be required. Design of such lenses is difficult, and design and production of low f-number zoom lenses is extremely difficult. (Also keep in mind that it is impossible to have a lens faster than f/0.5). Signal integrity issues with a smaller sensor are more difficult.
In my opinion, the optimum for high quality with acceptable cost is smaller than 36x24mm, but not much smaller. Small sensors used in point-and-shoots are annoyingly noisy in only moderately dark situations.
Slashdot Mirror
Atheism explicitly rejects god[s] and that's all there is to it. However, if a consistent philosophy includes atheism, it also rejects magic for the same reason it rejects god[s]. So your claim is garbage.
The Democrats have been the party of slavery for 185 years.
Bush-43 contributed to the 2008 recession by pushing through a government-paid medication bill. It was the Democrats, particularly Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd, who prevented ending the disastrous policies of Freddy Mac, HUD, etc. that expanded the home-loan market. Bush tried to overturn those policies, and was given the middle finger.
It depends. Without detailing all the possible options, consider just one counterexample. If tax rates on repatriated income were reduced, huge quantities of money would flow back into the US and be taxed at the lower rate, money with currently will never return to the US.
That said, spending is as damaging as taxation. Blaming it exclusively on Republicans is disingenuous.
John Boehner is a bad actor abusing his position in order to keep those among the Republicans who are freedom-oriented in line. Boehner's position isn't far from the Democrats': "more power, and I must be in charge."
Gaah. Who's going to formalize an observation similar to Godwin's law, focusing on "brown people"?
The GOP has put a lot of effort into the prevention of voter fraud, fraud like the recently-publicized Democrat poll-watcher who admitted to voting twice. Fraud like voting in multiple districts. Fraud like registering and voting under multiple aliases. Fraud like voting by non-citizens. It is not voter suppression to try to prevent voting by those for whom voting is illegal, but that's a point most leftists would like to ignore.
Unbathed, paid and bussed-in "protestors" trespassing, robbing and raping. We're supposed to obey their stinking demands?
Well, the "ridiculously" applies here.
OK, how about a computer controlled rifle?
More importantly, we've got to ban those ducks. They're in league with the terrorists.
It was the IRS.
My thought was similar. Model plane gets caught in a strong updraft, rushes upwards regardless of control signals.
If the detonator acts on contact within about 100 microseconds, and the explosion is well established within about a millisecond, it should be effective.
SPARC has register frames (8 frames of 8 registers IIRC) so that saving/restoring is unnecessary until you run out of frames. I don't know if this is an advantage in practice.
Recoding obscure opcodes involves ever-smaller areas of silicon. Yes, it's an engineering nuisance, but that's all it is. For a completely new general purpose architecture, or even a completely new instruction set, to replace X86 it would have to be so dramatically superior to X86 that competitors could substantially beat X86 performance even with an inferior process technology. I doubt that such a great advantage is even possible without Intel making another Pentium-4 blunder.
AMD sold off its fabs because they couldn't keep up and because AMD was hemorrhaging cash. Like so many others, they're relying on someone else to make their chips.
Small code size helps speed because large code increases the likelihood of a cache miss. Cache misses are very expensive.
It's probably neither possible nor desirable to target Intel microcode. The binary code that comes in on data pins is a publicly defined static interface. Microcode is not only secret, there's no assurance that it won't change without notice, even on chips with the same model number.
At one time, Intel and others made special expensive versions of chips with many extra pins for makers of hardware debuggers and other such esoteric equipment. Those special chips allowed realtime access to internal registers and busses, etc.. I doubt that such things are available now; there are just too many pins and too much internal complexity for it to be practical.
Neural connection.
It is only modern CISC chips that effectively recode instructions into RISC instructions. Early CISC machines, up to about 1986 could not afford that overhead. Instead, the complex RISC instructions were microcoded, often as hard-wired ROM. Before CPUs were single chips, CISC machines were just circuit design.
In the film era, 1960s and onward, Nikon was generally considered the professional 35mm camera. Not only did they make some of the best equipment, they had rental and service arrangements for genuine pros that were absent from other manufacturers.
Alas, the ISO rating for digital sensors is bogus. Double the amplification and you double the rating, but also the noise (except converter quantization noise.) If adequate gain is available, it's the improvement in S/N that is most important area for improvement.
It's only possible to put a few large sensors on a semiconductor wafer, and it costs at least a couple of thousand dollars to process a wafer. Large sensors also mean high rejection rates. Don't expect the sensor price floor to drop until wafer processing costs drop.
There is nothing in the article that suggests that this is a Bayer-type system. In fact, one of the theoretically easiest ways to improve S/N is to not filter out 2/3 of the signal like Bayer does.
There are tradeoffs involved in lens size and sensor size. To get the same S/N and image as a 50mm f/2 lens on a 36x24mm sensor, on an 18x12mm sensor a 25mm f/1 lens with twice the cycles/mm resolution would be required. Design of such lenses is difficult, and design and production of low f-number zoom lenses is extremely difficult. (Also keep in mind that it is impossible to have a lens faster than f/0.5). Signal integrity issues with a smaller sensor are more difficult.
In my opinion, the optimum for high quality with acceptable cost is smaller than 36x24mm, but not much smaller. Small sensors used in point-and-shoots are annoyingly noisy in only moderately dark situations.