First, bullshit, the people who actively developed working transistor devices -- specifically Bell Labs -- knew damn well that they were useful as a replacement for vacuum tubes. Maybe you're thinking of lasers?
Second, regardless of the initial R&D development effort, the Moore's observation didn't apply until after the transistor left the lab and was in full modern production and so, if it ever is, will it be with quantum computers.
Complaining about the lack of exponential growth now is just ridiculous.
X-Rays have no temperature, they are EM radiation, not matter.
I weep for whoever told you a collection of photons can't have a temperature in the same way a collection of particles can. Who was it? Was it... no one?
Black body radiation has a characteristic temperature just like the black body that produced it, however in the case of the photon gas it's the Plank's Law distribution of energy in photons rather than the Maxwellâ"Boltzmann distribution which describes the matter.
If there's any sloppiness in the title at all it's specifying just the X-rays when you'd technically have to include all photon energies to get the correct temperature, just like you would include all the particles in a gas or solid. However I think it's pretty much in the noise as far as inaccuracy goes. Unlike your statement. Sorry.
P.S. Such radiation has a temperature and *also entropy*, which is inversely proportional to temperature. So for example if you assume the earth is more or less in equilibrium with the sun, that means the total energy received is equal to the total energy output, but the temperature of the received radiation is much higher, meaning less energy, meaning the earth is emitting a net-positive amount of entropy. In case you've ever wondered how exactly the whole "the earth is not a closed system; it's powered by the sun" thing worked in terms of entropy.
And then there was them buying ATI and suddenly if I wanted to keep using Nvidia cards I had no choice but to return to Intel.
Whoever told you that lied. There's no problem with Nvidia cards in AMD systems; that's what I've been doing for years (because the ATI drivers are even worse under Linux, there's been essencially no choice).
As demonstrated by their marketshare and margins increasing rapidly until they hit the artificial barriers created by Intel. Whatever problems you believe they had were demonstrably not sufficient to limit AMD. Only Intel was.
1) They didn't offer a CPU/chipset/mobo solution. 2) No good chipset.
OEMs might have preferred and AMD-sourced mobo (and they did exist), but it didn't stop them from using AMD parts in either desktop or server markets.
Also, you seem to be talking about the early to mid K7 days when 1) chipsets were relevant and 2) the VIA chipset was the best performing one for AMD. Later in the K7 lifetime it was the NVidia chipset that ruled the roost. The K7 was the arguably superior solution, but not the product of interest at the time of interest.
It's the K8 -- the Opteron and Athlon64 -- that were the obviously superior products. At this point the chipsets were in fact AMD-sourced silicon of little practical relevance since they were just bridges between HT and AGP/PCI-e. The actual performance-relevant parts of the chipset were all on the CPU now.
And this solution was so much better that it took AMD from 'arguably' to 'obviously' superior, first causing AMD's server share to jump up to double-digit numbers for the first time ever in addition to cratering Intel's asking price for Xeons, plus causing their desktop share to grow so rapidly they knew they'd only be able to meet demand with new fab capacity.
Whatever imperfections in their own product portfolio weren't actually that big a deal, obviously, and it was Intel's backroom dealings that were the problem, as shown in a multitude of court documents.
I'm not saying Intel didn't also try to squash AMD
But you are saying that AMD not making it's own mobo, and relying on the VIA266 in the early K7 days when it's the K8 days that matter, had a greater effect on AMD's inability to continue on their marketshare trajectory to it's natural conclusion and fill their fabs than Intel's backroom dealings.
I guess you're just unaware of when AMD had the superior product, but couldn't get OEMs to sell products at the volumes such price and performance superiority would have suggested, because Intel, still the dominant player, had made deals with them not to sell AMD parts. Their market share was growing, necessitating a new fab, but then they hit the artificial limits defined by Intel, a crippling blow after investing billions in a new fab.
There's only been several verdicts against them by the regulatory authorities of multiple governments, and a lawsuit settled between Intel and AMD in AMD's favor with a 1.75 (iirc) billion payout. A pittance compared to what was lost, of course, but still heavily in the news.
I suppose it would have been easy to miss if you only just started following the CPU industry.
I disagree. Without Intel's backroom dealings AMD would have made enough money to weather the idiocy of Hector the Sector Wrecker (as muh ex-Motorolla buddies call him).
The whole reason that GloFo had to be spun off is because AMD invested in huge new fabs because they were fab-limited, but then found out they were Intel-limited, their marketshare didn't increase and their fab capacity was unusued. That's crippling for a silicon manufacturing company, so AMD had to stop being one.
Hector was no help, that's for sure, but I really think it was Intel that crippled AMD at the worst/best time.
And you still don't know that, because you do know that a single entity giving a large sum of money in exchange for kickbacks isn't the same as many people giving someone a modest sum of money because they believe in the candidate and the platform they have chosen to run on.
I am of course giving you the benefit of the doubt here. But I have faith.
My neighbor might be a great politician - given the chance - he's got some great ideas, he can debate well, and I'm sure that if he took part in a televised debate he might do pretty good and grab vote share from his opponents.
Do you really believe that? Do you believe it enough to give him $10 to help him advertise this fact to others? No? Then is he really that great?
If his campaign isn't organized enough to get the word out and find people willing to support him and his principles, or there aren't actually many such people, then he doesn't have a chance given debate airtime or not. And yes I do think the ability to manage a staff to accomplish a goal has a lot to do with fulfilling the role of a politician. There's a lot more to being a US Congressman than just having some ideas.
Personally I'm nearly as sick (read: actually not nearly but enough that I'm not impressed) of rich people running campaigns as personal vanity projects (*cough*Trump*cough*) as I am of corporate influence in politics.
Because the laws of nations are transient and the laws of physics aren't?
But on the subject of laws I'm not sure what any relevant treaties might say. Seems likely that if somehow this ruling applied to space*, you could find another jurisdiction outside the U.S. to host your asteroid-mining company.
* Legally or not, it makes sense to me that there's a big difference. Meteorites are rare and precious things of immense value to science. If/when we can feasible reach the asteroids readily enough to mine them... there are kind a fucking lot of them. Likewise, if we were up to our fucking necks in "antiquities", there'd probably be a lot less concern about preserving them.
That is a fallacy. So you think that the money raising issue means that he isn't electable?
Yes. If you can't get 5,000 people passionate enough about your candidacy to give you $10 (hint: as passionate as they'd have to be about a six pack of decent beer) then you are not a serious candidate for US Congress.
A "strong candidate" would be able to raise $50k from private citizens. His immediate blaming of his lack of funds on his stance against corporate donations means either he 1) had no plan in place for soliciting donations from ordinary people who want him to win or 2) those people don't exist.
I'm not about to assume he had corporations beating down his door to throw money at him, and he spent so much time standing up for his principles he forgot all about the rest of running a campaign.
Yeah, I was confused because the headline and start of the summary implied it was the lack of corporate contributions that meant he was excluded, and that would indeed suck, but then the rest of the summary and linked "stunning email" also only says "campaign contributions", nothing about them having to come from a corporation.
But then he turns right around and says that of course he doesn't have the money, because he's not accepting corporate donations.
*raises hand* Um, Mr. Candidate, shouldn't a campaign which is explicitly refusing corporate donations have, I dunno, some other method of acquiring funds to run a campaign and pay for those ads? Like, already, before the televised debate issue even came up? Why is your response "Duh, of course I don't have any donations!" Shouldn't that kind of amount be easy for a "strong candidate"? Were you planning on running this whole campaign out of pocket?
Not true. Lots of nerds have deluded themselves into thinking "English is a living language" means "my ignorance, typos, and mistakes are none of the above, they're just the instruments of change! The future is now!"
Also true. I wasn't suggesting the US was a free market. I'm just saying people who are blaming the "free market" for the sorry state of the US' consumer rights are picking the wrong target.
Yes, blaming the theoretical concept of the "free market" when we don't (and can't) have one due to the lack of perfect knowledge, a requirement/assumption of the theoretical model, is foolish and the wrong target.
Blaming the reality of the free market where companies actively try to conceal information and prevent informed choices, and where any moves towards increasing available information have often required government intervention, is blaming the right target.
So is blaming those who willingly conflate the two by saying things like "The [theoretical] free market is perfect and will fix everything, so lets make a [real] free market and get rid of all this regulation!"
Science , specifically astronomy / astrophysics has nothing whatever to do with 'helping poorer nations'.
What a myopic viewpoint, dismissing huge portions of the world's population and their potential future contributions to science, which can only be realized if cultivated. The whole point of these telescopes is that they are inexpensive. It's not worth spending a small amount now for potential increased pool of scientists to choose from later? Are you also against science advocacy and promoting science education and careers here in the states, and think that should instead all be spent on new equipment for the best observatories?
Science is about the future. You're only thinking of the present. Myopic and dumb.
The whole reason to use a pointer-to-pointer is to avoid having to distinguish between deleting the first entry and subsequent, avoiding a conditional branch. Having it in the loop means you execute it multiple times, and could mispredict it multiple times, which is worse than just having one instance of the branch.
Then again I'm pretty sure I need another branch to handle the not-present case, so maybe it's no better.
It's not as simple as that... I'm skeptical that it would provide 100% of intended performance in all cases, especially for very early failures (e.g. right after liftoff)
Of course, I'm just going by SpaceX's statement that they could have sustained two engine failures "of this nature", which obviously includes it happening late in the boost near when they were going to be turning them off anyway thus the relevance of them mentioning that, versus on the pad.
(In fact, this launch failed to put one of its two payloads into its intended orbit. It's not yet clear whether that was a consequence of the failed engine, but it very well could be.)
It seems to be clear that it is. Due to the failed engine they had to alter the trajectory. Because the new trajectory was not able to be checked for safety wrt the ISS in time, they were not authorized for the planned second burn of the second stage, which still could have in theory delivered the Orbcomm satellite to the proper orbit.
So, the failure definitely affected the success of the mission, but not because of the rocket's capability to recover from the failure, just wise precautions. Being demonstrably able to finish the primary mission after that failure, and theoretically being able to handle two of this kind, is pretty impressive. Of course no failing engines will be the situation they strive for in the future.:)
Well, yes, you can if you change the logic of the loop by introducing a conditional into it, when the whole point of using pp was to avoid a conditional outside the loop. Regression ftw.
But isn't that because birds get tired? Planes don't get tired - the lead plane will just burn more fuel than the rest, but as long as it's got enough for the trip, why does it need to swap out?
Migratory birds like geese have insane flight muscles, composed almost entirely of red muscle, and they are not really susceptible to muscle fatigue. The main limitation for them is fuel.
So the reason planes would want to swap leaders is more or less the same reasons as the birds do: To increase the range of all members of the formation.
Is not this whole thing already essentially explained by the fact that we keep putting "like" in quotes? Are people selectively forgetting that clicking "like" on Facebook is not equivalent to actually liking the thing you clicked "like" on? Just like putting a web page in your "Favorites" list in IE doesn't mean it is your favorite web page?
Imagine it in the context of Junior High note passing:
Slashdot Mirror
First, bullshit, the people who actively developed working transistor devices -- specifically Bell Labs -- knew damn well that they were useful as a replacement for vacuum tubes. Maybe you're thinking of lasers?
Second, regardless of the initial R&D development effort, the Moore's observation didn't apply until after the transistor left the lab and was in full modern production and so, if it ever is, will it be with quantum computers.
Complaining about the lack of exponential growth now is just ridiculous.
X-Rays have no temperature, they are EM radiation, not matter.
I weep for whoever told you a collection of photons can't have a temperature in the same way a collection of particles can. Who was it? Was it... no one?
Black body radiation has a characteristic temperature just like the black body that produced it, however in the case of the photon gas it's the Plank's Law distribution of energy in photons rather than the Maxwellâ"Boltzmann distribution which describes the matter.
If there's any sloppiness in the title at all it's specifying just the X-rays when you'd technically have to include all photon energies to get the correct temperature, just like you would include all the particles in a gas or solid. However I think it's pretty much in the noise as far as inaccuracy goes. Unlike your statement. Sorry.
P.S. Such radiation has a temperature and *also entropy*, which is inversely proportional to temperature. So for example if you assume the earth is more or less in equilibrium with the sun, that means the total energy received is equal to the total energy output, but the temperature of the received radiation is much higher, meaning less energy, meaning the earth is emitting a net-positive amount of entropy. In case you've ever wondered how exactly the whole "the earth is not a closed system; it's powered by the sun" thing worked in terms of entropy.
And then there was them buying ATI and suddenly if I wanted to keep using Nvidia cards I had no choice but to return to Intel.
Whoever told you that lied. There's no problem with Nvidia cards in AMD systems; that's what I've been doing for years (because the ATI drivers are even worse under Linux, there's been essencially no choice).
As demonstrated by their marketshare and margins increasing rapidly until they hit the artificial barriers created by Intel. Whatever problems you believe they had were demonstrably not sufficient to limit AMD. Only Intel was.
1) They didn't offer a CPU/chipset/mobo solution.
2) No good chipset.
OEMs might have preferred and AMD-sourced mobo (and they did exist), but it didn't stop them from using AMD parts in either desktop or server markets.
Also, you seem to be talking about the early to mid K7 days when 1) chipsets were relevant and 2) the VIA chipset was the best performing one for AMD. Later in the K7 lifetime it was the NVidia chipset that ruled the roost. The K7 was the arguably superior solution, but not the product of interest at the time of interest.
It's the K8 -- the Opteron and Athlon64 -- that were the obviously superior products. At this point the chipsets were in fact AMD-sourced silicon of little practical relevance since they were just bridges between HT and AGP/PCI-e. The actual performance-relevant parts of the chipset were all on the CPU now.
And this solution was so much better that it took AMD from 'arguably' to 'obviously' superior, first causing AMD's server share to jump up to double-digit numbers for the first time ever in addition to cratering Intel's asking price for Xeons, plus causing their desktop share to grow so rapidly they knew they'd only be able to meet demand with new fab capacity.
Whatever imperfections in their own product portfolio weren't actually that big a deal, obviously, and it was Intel's backroom dealings that were the problem, as shown in a multitude of court documents.
I'm not saying Intel didn't also try to squash AMD
But you are saying that AMD not making it's own mobo, and relying on the VIA266 in the early K7 days when it's the K8 days that matter, had a greater effect on AMD's inability to continue on their marketshare trajectory to it's natural conclusion and fill their fabs than Intel's backroom dealings.
That's simply a-historical rubbish.
I guess you're just unaware of when AMD had the superior product, but couldn't get OEMs to sell products at the volumes such price and performance superiority would have suggested, because Intel, still the dominant player, had made deals with them not to sell AMD parts. Their market share was growing, necessitating a new fab, but then they hit the artificial limits defined by Intel, a crippling blow after investing billions in a new fab.
There's only been several verdicts against them by the regulatory authorities of multiple governments, and a lawsuit settled between Intel and AMD in AMD's favor with a 1.75 (iirc) billion payout. A pittance compared to what was lost, of course, but still heavily in the news.
I suppose it would have been easy to miss if you only just started following the CPU industry.
I disagree. Without Intel's backroom dealings AMD would have made enough money to weather the idiocy of Hector the Sector Wrecker (as muh ex-Motorolla buddies call him).
The whole reason that GloFo had to be spun off is because AMD invested in huge new fabs because they were fab-limited, but then found out they were Intel-limited, their marketshare didn't increase and their fab capacity was unusued. That's crippling for a silicon manufacturing company, so AMD had to stop being one.
Hector was no help, that's for sure, but I really think it was Intel that crippled AMD at the worst/best time.
And you still don't know that, because you do know that a single entity giving a large sum of money in exchange for kickbacks isn't the same as many people giving someone a modest sum of money because they believe in the candidate and the platform they have chosen to run on.
I am of course giving you the benefit of the doubt here. But I have faith.
My neighbor might be a great politician - given the chance - he's got some great ideas, he can debate well, and I'm sure that if he took part in a televised debate he might do pretty good and grab vote share from his opponents.
Do you really believe that? Do you believe it enough to give him $10 to help him advertise this fact to others? No? Then is he really that great?
If his campaign isn't organized enough to get the word out and find people willing to support him and his principles, or there aren't actually many such people, then he doesn't have a chance given debate airtime or not. And yes I do think the ability to manage a staff to accomplish a goal has a lot to do with fulfilling the role of a politician. There's a lot more to being a US Congressman than just having some ideas.
Personally I'm nearly as sick (read: actually not nearly but enough that I'm not impressed) of rich people running campaigns as personal vanity projects (*cough*Trump*cough*) as I am of corporate influence in politics.
Because the laws of nations are transient and the laws of physics aren't?
But on the subject of laws I'm not sure what any relevant treaties might say. Seems likely that if somehow this ruling applied to space*, you could find another jurisdiction outside the U.S. to host your asteroid-mining company.
* Legally or not, it makes sense to me that there's a big difference. Meteorites are rare and precious things of immense value to science. If/when we can feasible reach the asteroids readily enough to mine them... there are kind a fucking lot of them. Likewise, if we were up to our fucking necks in "antiquities", there'd probably be a lot less concern about preserving them.
That is a fallacy. So you think that the money raising issue means that he isn't electable?
Yes. If you can't get 5,000 people passionate enough about your candidacy to give you $10 (hint: as passionate as they'd have to be about a six pack of decent beer) then you are not a serious candidate for US Congress.
You should have accepted those donations.
You're presuming he was offered any.
A "strong candidate" would be able to raise $50k from private citizens. His immediate blaming of his lack of funds on his stance against corporate donations means either he 1) had no plan in place for soliciting donations from ordinary people who want him to win or 2) those people don't exist.
I'm not about to assume he had corporations beating down his door to throw money at him, and he spent so much time standing up for his principles he forgot all about the rest of running a campaign.
Yeah, I was confused because the headline and start of the summary implied it was the lack of corporate contributions that meant he was excluded, and that would indeed suck, but then the rest of the summary and linked "stunning email" also only says "campaign contributions", nothing about them having to come from a corporation.
But then he turns right around and says that of course he doesn't have the money, because he's not accepting corporate donations.
*raises hand*
Um, Mr. Candidate, shouldn't a campaign which is explicitly refusing corporate donations have, I dunno, some other method of acquiring funds to run a campaign and pay for those ads? Like, already, before the televised debate issue even came up? Why is your response "Duh, of course I don't have any donations!" Shouldn't that kind of amount be easy for a "strong candidate"? Were you planning on running this whole campaign out of pocket?
Not true. Lots of nerds have deluded themselves into thinking "English is a living language" means "my ignorance, typos, and mistakes are none of the above, they're just the instruments of change! The future is now!"
No, it uses water vapor. Duh.
Also true. I wasn't suggesting the US was a free market. I'm just saying people who are blaming the "free market" for the sorry state of the US' consumer rights are picking the wrong target.
Yes, blaming the theoretical concept of the "free market" when we don't (and can't) have one due to the lack of perfect knowledge, a requirement/assumption of the theoretical model, is foolish and the wrong target.
Blaming the reality of the free market where companies actively try to conceal information and prevent informed choices, and where any moves towards increasing available information have often required government intervention, is blaming the right target.
So is blaming those who willingly conflate the two by saying things like "The [theoretical] free market is perfect and will fix everything, so lets make a [real] free market and get rid of all this regulation!"
Science , specifically astronomy / astrophysics has nothing whatever to do with 'helping poorer nations'.
What a myopic viewpoint, dismissing huge portions of the world's population and their potential future contributions to science, which can only be realized if cultivated. The whole point of these telescopes is that they are inexpensive. It's not worth spending a small amount now for potential increased pool of scientists to choose from later? Are you also against science advocacy and promoting science education and careers here in the states, and think that should instead all be spent on new equipment for the best observatories?
Science is about the future. You're only thinking of the present. Myopic and dumb.
I would not assume that aerospace engineers had never thought of this before.
That wasn't what I meant to imply. Oops.
The whole reason to use a pointer-to-pointer is to avoid having to distinguish between deleting the first entry and subsequent, avoiding a conditional branch. Having it in the loop means you execute it multiple times, and could mispredict it multiple times, which is worse than just having one instance of the branch.
Then again I'm pretty sure I need another branch to handle the not-present case, so maybe it's no better.
It's not as simple as that... I'm skeptical that it would provide 100% of intended performance in all cases, especially for very early failures (e.g. right after liftoff)
Of course, I'm just going by SpaceX's statement that they could have sustained two engine failures "of this nature", which obviously includes it happening late in the boost near when they were going to be turning them off anyway thus the relevance of them mentioning that, versus on the pad.
(In fact, this launch failed to put one of its two payloads into its intended orbit. It's not yet clear whether that was a consequence of the failed engine, but it very well could be.)
It seems to be clear that it is. Due to the failed engine they had to alter the trajectory. Because the new trajectory was not able to be checked for safety wrt the ISS in time, they were not authorized for the planned second burn of the second stage, which still could have in theory delivered the Orbcomm satellite to the proper orbit.
So, the failure definitely affected the success of the mission, but not because of the rocket's capability to recover from the failure, just wise precautions. Being demonstrably able to finish the primary mission after that failure, and theoretically being able to handle two of this kind, is pretty impressive. Of course no failing engines will be the situation they strive for in the future. :)
Well, yes, you can if you change the logic of the loop by introducing a conditional into it, when the whole point of using pp was to avoid a conditional outside the loop. Regression ftw.
Except you can't drop entry in the 'find entry to delete' loop and use *pp or you'll be modifying the list itself as you traverse.
That's a good point.
But isn't that because birds get tired? Planes don't get tired - the lead plane will just burn more fuel than the rest, but as long as it's got enough for the trip, why does it need to swap out?
Migratory birds like geese have insane flight muscles, composed almost entirely of red muscle, and they are not really susceptible to muscle fatigue. The main limitation for them is fuel.
So the reason planes would want to swap leaders is more or less the same reasons as the birds do: To increase the range of all members of the formation.
Reminds me of one of the recommended example protest signs John Stewart had for his "Rally to Restore Sanity":
"I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler."
Is not this whole thing already essentially explained by the fact that we keep putting "like" in quotes? Are people selectively forgetting that clicking "like" on Facebook is not equivalent to actually liking the thing you clicked "like" on? Just like putting a web page in your "Favorites" list in IE doesn't mean it is your favorite web page?
Imagine it in the context of Junior High note passing:
- Do you like me? Y/N
- I "like" you
- :(