Well yeah, and it's been known for a long time they do this to save energy for those behind the leader, and that they trade off leaders from time to time.
Sometimes it takes a while for something in one discipline to reach another (I'm guessing ornithologists and military aerospace engineers probably don't rub elbows too often, but what do I know), and it's not always obvious that an idea in one area would apply to another (geese and airplanes are in fact different).
Still, I can't help but scratch my head that they're just now testing the idea.
Sorry, I didn't think enough. First part is the same; what he wrote is what he meant. The second part isn't; what you wrote is not really applicable.
The whole function would look like something like this (I'm being bad and ignoring the case where the entry isn't in the list): list* entry = list_head; list** pp = list_head; while(entry != entry_to_delete) {
pp = &entry->next;
entry = entry->next; } *pp = entry->next;
At the last step, pp is either pointing to the 'next' member of the previous entry, or, if you deleted the first entry in the list, list_head.
No, he's removing an entry from the list, so *pp = entry->next is correct; point the previous list entry at the entry beyond the one you're removing. What you wrote is for walking the list, which would be in the loop where you find the list entry you want to remove.
Yeah, it was very interesting. Though I sort of disagree about the non-temporal access part. Sure exposing the details of your cache hierarchy is stupid when that hierarchy can change. But telling the processor "I don't intend to access this data again" is actually a very useful hint for a lot of microarchitectures, and the ones that don't benefit can just ignore it (and even the cache-hierarchy specific ones can be either ignored or altered to suit a design -- none of them *promise* that data will be contained in a certain level of cache).
So he's absolutely right that exposing microarchitecture is generally a bad idea (and that IA-64 sucks), but there's still good to be had from memory usage hints. I think the main lesson here is not to get too specific on the ISA side, and on the programmer side don't get too wrapped up in trying to optimize "prefetch to L0/L1/L2" type instructions.
Disclaimer: I'm a German and we were, after all, responsible for that oft mentioned surrender but we also admire courage and tenacity even in our (thankfully former) enemies.
Well and to be frank any nation on earth would have ended up surrendering if they were in the situation of having a long land border with Germany at the start of that war. Nobody was ready for Blitzkrieg and the only reason the UK and US weren't in the same boat as France is because they were protected by the English Channel and the Atlantic freaking Ocean respectively.
The challenge is to develop software that 'understands' what objects are in order to deduce how they can be used. The US Navy is funding the project and says the machines might ultimately be deployed alongside humans.
Seems like it would get pretty annoying having one of these around...
"That is a wool sock. It can be used to cover your feet, carry small objects, hold small heavy objects to be used as a bludgeon, or to masturbate."
"That is a bottle of ranch dressing. It can be used to top a salad, as a bludgeon, or to masturbate."
If you're interested in knowing more then you should read the article, where the figure you request is given and then converted into the perhaps more meaningful for getting a sense of scale to the average person '# of earths' measurement.
If we extrapolate a bit (and I'm not a great statistics guy) they should be expecting a dual engine failure about 1/4 of launches and a triple failure probably around 1/10 launches. I doubt they can cope with that.
Oh my god that's worse than the math that was done in the last thread.
You can't go from "odds that at least one engine has failed in a test" to "odds that two engines will fail in a test" like that. You have to start with the engine failure rate, which is 1 of 9 engines in 4 launches, or 1/36. And no the odds of two engines failing is not 2/36.
Or accurate representation of actual mission classification and purpose. Something can be primarily a "test" but still doing something useful. But being a test, the last mission didn't include any supplies essential to station function. Just extra stuff since, test or no, it was going to the station anyway.
Certainly. OrbComm certainly has reason to be disappointed but they would have known before hand that their payload was secondary to the Dragon capsule.
I read on Reuters that OrbComm was still planning on launching 17 satellites on Falcon 9 rockets. On those launches, the satellite will be the primary payload. So they probably see the not-complete-failure of their test satellite launch as acceptable, and the complete-success-despite-engine-problems of the primary payload as a sign that they'll be fine for the rest of the launches.
Of course that's all partially dependent on the contract they have with SpaceX, but at the very least they don't feel strongly enough to try to get out of it.
What made parts of 2001 boring was the model shots, which lasted way too long. It wasn't the story, but how the story was told.
Yes, and the way it was told was integral to the story being told, and it was told in a perfect way. It was slow, it was deliberate, it was quiet and brooding, it was space travel. This was reflected in a lot more than just the model shots.
I won't tell you it wasn't boring. I don't find it boring at all, but I certainly can understand how you could.
But 2001 shot like Apollo 13 would not have been better. It would have been a much worse movie. Apollo 13 was done right for what it was, which is not what 2001 was. Kubrick made the right decision.
It is not hard for me to see how SpaceX could make a good profit and still be cheaper than NASA.
I think the biggest factor is NASA having to go through the traditional defense contractors who are also making a profit, but with cost-plus contracts.
Do I think SpaceX could make a good profit and still be cheaper than Lockheed or Boeing? Yes. Yes I do.
So at the end of the day this is cheaper for NASA.
If there is such a mutation, and the bacteria that has it ends up on the regolith instead of on the whale where such a mutation would be of no benefit and in fact detrimental if it hinders consumption of whale flesh relative to competitors -- or I guess if the alternate food source is calcium and it ends up in a bone. How does that even work, I don't know, but for the sake of argument why not.
It's possible, but I'm just guessing that it's not going to be very likely, and you'll probably just see them all die when the food source went away. That's usually what happens in situations like this on earth. You need a fair amount of time where both the old and new food sources are present to give a chance for the new food source to be exploited.
That's basically true, but that depends on what "better" means. First you said "more efficiently", which I disagree with. They aren't going to necessarily evolve in a direction that prolongs the food source.
I meant efficient in time, not in resource consumption. As in efficiently accomplishing the task of consuming the whale, thereby consuming more than other bacteria and thus out-competing them. "Effectively" would have probably been a less confusing choice of words.
Nothing wrong with having a unit of force that is related to your unit of mass and earth gravity. The problem is having a unit that is overloaded to be both weight in earth gravity and mass because the unit predates the understanding that there is a difference and so to this day is used interchangeably and without qualification in both cases.
And I agree, those wasteful gluttons could well exhaust their natural resources early
This is exactly what I was saying would happen -- in an environment with lots of whale meat, natural selection would favor those who efficiently (perhaps "effectively" would be clearer) ate the whale, resulting in rapid extinction when the food source ran out.
Evolution is not a response to environmental stimuli.
It is, because evolution is the shift in allele frequencies in a population, not just an individual, and those will be dictated by the combination of the random changes in individuals and natural selection, i.e. the fitness of those changes in a given environment.
Bacteria that are better at eating whale will tend to out compete the ones that are not, so the population of bacteria as a whole will tend to shift in that direction. If you picked bacteria that were already well suited for the environment given perhaps not much would change, but environmental pressure drives evolution make no mistake about it.
Of course it's a random walk, and , but natural selection means not all steps are equally favored.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm disgusted at Canada's flagrant discrimination against the non-breathing.
Well yeah, and it's been known for a long time they do this to save energy for those behind the leader, and that they trade off leaders from time to time.
Sometimes it takes a while for something in one discipline to reach another (I'm guessing ornithologists and military aerospace engineers probably don't rub elbows too often, but what do I know), and it's not always obvious that an idea in one area would apply to another (geese and airplanes are in fact different).
Still, I can't help but scratch my head that they're just now testing the idea.
Sorry, I didn't think enough. First part is the same; what he wrote is what he meant. The second part isn't; what you wrote is not really applicable.
The whole function would look like something like this (I'm being bad and ignoring the case where the entry isn't in the list):
list* entry = list_head;
list** pp = list_head;
while(entry != entry_to_delete) {
pp = &entry->next;
entry = entry->next;
}
*pp = entry->next;
At the last step, pp is either pointing to the 'next' member of the previous entry, or, if you deleted the first entry in the list, list_head.
No, he's removing an entry from the list, so *pp = entry->next is correct; point the previous list entry at the entry beyond the one you're removing. What you wrote is for walking the list, which would be in the loop where you find the list entry you want to remove.
Yeah, it was very interesting. Though I sort of disagree about the non-temporal access part. Sure exposing the details of your cache hierarchy is stupid when that hierarchy can change. But telling the processor "I don't intend to access this data again" is actually a very useful hint for a lot of microarchitectures, and the ones that don't benefit can just ignore it (and even the cache-hierarchy specific ones can be either ignored or altered to suit a design -- none of them *promise* that data will be contained in a certain level of cache).
So he's absolutely right that exposing microarchitecture is generally a bad idea (and that IA-64 sucks), but there's still good to be had from memory usage hints. I think the main lesson here is not to get too specific on the ISA side, and on the programmer side don't get too wrapped up in trying to optimize "prefetch to L0/L1/L2" type instructions.
So you're uncritical in your analysis of his response that you clearly didn't really read, and that makes Linus a douche. Got it.
Disclaimer: I'm a German and we were, after all, responsible for that oft mentioned surrender but we also admire courage and tenacity even in our (thankfully former) enemies.
Well and to be frank any nation on earth would have ended up surrendering if they were in the situation of having a long land border with Germany at the start of that war. Nobody was ready for Blitzkrieg and the only reason the UK and US weren't in the same boat as France is because they were protected by the English Channel and the Atlantic freaking Ocean respectively.
Hey, that's not fair. It's not the first thing we do. First we take pictures so we know what it looked like before we lasered it.
The challenge is to develop software that 'understands' what objects are in order to deduce how they can be used. The US Navy is funding the project and says the machines might ultimately be deployed alongside humans.
Seems like it would get pretty annoying having one of these around...
"That is a wool sock. It can be used to cover your feet, carry small objects, hold small heavy objects to be used as a bludgeon, or to masturbate."
"That is a bottle of ranch dressing. It can be used to top a salad, as a bludgeon, or to masturbate."
"That is a cheese grater. It can be used..."
If you're interested in knowing more then you should read the article, where the figure you request is given and then converted into the perhaps more meaningful for getting a sense of scale to the average person '# of earths' measurement.
And then France is all "Fire le missles!"
"But I am le tired."
"Well then have a nap. THEN FIRE LE MISSLES"
Did I just get Avogadro's Number wrong by a factor of 10?
Anyone have a Bat'leth I can commit geek seppuku with?
Earth is 100 mole of 1kg masses!
Or, approximately 1000 mole of Townsend's moles.
Does that help? No? Okay.
If we extrapolate a bit (and I'm not a great statistics guy) they should be expecting a dual engine failure about 1/4 of launches and a triple failure probably around 1/10 launches. I doubt they can cope with that.
Oh my god that's worse than the math that was done in the last thread.
You can't go from "odds that at least one engine has failed in a test" to "odds that two engines will fail in a test" like that. You have to start with the engine failure rate, which is 1 of 9 engines in 4 launches, or 1/36. And no the odds of two engines failing is not 2/36.
pretty obvious PR slant.
Or accurate representation of actual mission classification and purpose. Something can be primarily a "test" but still doing something useful. But being a test, the last mission didn't include any supplies essential to station function. Just extra stuff since, test or no, it was going to the station anyway.
Certainly. OrbComm certainly has reason to be disappointed but they would have known before hand that their payload was secondary to the Dragon capsule.
I read on Reuters that OrbComm was still planning on launching 17 satellites on Falcon 9 rockets. On those launches, the satellite will be the primary payload. So they probably see the not-complete-failure of their test satellite launch as acceptable, and the complete-success-despite-engine-problems of the primary payload as a sign that they'll be fine for the rest of the launches.
Of course that's all partially dependent on the contract they have with SpaceX, but at the very least they don't feel strongly enough to try to get out of it.
What made parts of 2001 boring was the model shots, which lasted way too long. It wasn't the story, but how the story was told.
Yes, and the way it was told was integral to the story being told, and it was told in a perfect way. It was slow, it was deliberate, it was quiet and brooding, it was space travel. This was reflected in a lot more than just the model shots.
I won't tell you it wasn't boring. I don't find it boring at all, but I certainly can understand how you could.
But 2001 shot like Apollo 13 would not have been better. It would have been a much worse movie. Apollo 13 was done right for what it was, which is not what 2001 was. Kubrick made the right decision.
It is not hard for me to see how SpaceX could make a good profit and still be cheaper than NASA.
I think the biggest factor is NASA having to go through the traditional defense contractors who are also making a profit, but with cost-plus contracts.
Do I think SpaceX could make a good profit and still be cheaper than Lockheed or Boeing? Yes. Yes I do.
So at the end of the day this is cheaper for NASA.
If there is such a mutation, and the bacteria that has it ends up on the regolith instead of on the whale where such a mutation would be of no benefit and in fact detrimental if it hinders consumption of whale flesh relative to competitors -- or I guess if the alternate food source is calcium and it ends up in a bone. How does that even work, I don't know, but for the sake of argument why not.
It's possible, but I'm just guessing that it's not going to be very likely, and you'll probably just see them all die when the food source went away. That's usually what happens in situations like this on earth. You need a fair amount of time where both the old and new food sources are present to give a chance for the new food source to be exploited.
That's basically true, but that depends on what "better" means. First you said "more efficiently", which I disagree with. They aren't going to necessarily evolve in a direction that prolongs the food source.
I meant efficient in time, not in resource consumption. As in efficiently accomplishing the task of consuming the whale, thereby consuming more than other bacteria and thus out-competing them. "Effectively" would have probably been a less confusing choice of words.
Nothing wrong with having a unit of force that is related to your unit of mass and earth gravity. The problem is having a unit that is overloaded to be both weight in earth gravity and mass because the unit predates the understanding that there is a difference and so to this day is used interchangeably and without qualification in both cases.
It's subtle, I know. Wait, no, it isn't.
And I agree, those wasteful gluttons could well exhaust their natural resources early
This is exactly what I was saying would happen -- in an environment with lots of whale meat, natural selection would favor those who efficiently (perhaps "effectively" would be clearer) ate the whale, resulting in rapid extinction when the food source ran out.
Evolution is not a response to environmental stimuli.
It is, because evolution is the shift in allele frequencies in a population, not just an individual, and those will be dictated by the combination of the random changes in individuals and natural selection, i.e. the fitness of those changes in a given environment.
Bacteria that are better at eating whale will tend to out compete the ones that are not, so the population of bacteria as a whole will tend to shift in that direction. If you picked bacteria that were already well suited for the environment given perhaps not much would change, but environmental pressure drives evolution make no mistake about it.
Of course it's a random walk, and , but natural selection means not all steps are equally favored.
The pound is also a unit of mass.
Fucking Imperial system, am I right?
*tweet*
Internet Foul, on the Defense, Reading the Article and Thinking for More Than 4 Seconds. 15 Karma point penalty. Repeat First Post.