So are Intel's. This is not a good time to sell x86 CPUs. AMD has a chance to reverse their trends, since they are just a small player, but they'll have to steal that market from Intel.
We, sleeping creatures are "lucky"* that by "coincidence" the day is divided in two parts so different that an animal well adapted to one of them don't fare very well on the other. So, most animals adapt to one of those parts, and just protect themselves the best way they can at the other. For nearly all animals, being awake wouldn't make much of a difference.
* Lucky that we adapted to exactly the environment that we evolved on. What a coincidence, isn't it?
Bridges, and highways, sure, given that they are needed (no, thanks for bridges to nowhere). Dams, schools and houses are better done by anybody else. But the important thing is that the money never goes to the hand of those who are suffering, unless it's specifically tranferred to them, and spending resources on things that they don't need will increase their cost of living (either through taxes, or competition on resources - notice that I'm not against competition, it's just that competing with them won't improve their life).
Anyway, my question was for data. There is this economical assumption that everybody just hold as true, and since it's true, no data is needed to demonstrate it...
Do you (or anybody here) have any data that demonstrates that spending (instead of saving) improves the economy in the long term - like 1 year after you start spending, without exponentially increasing the rate of spending? You can get another definition of long term if you like, but the data should show an improvement that sustains itself or increases after the spending starts, instead of an instantaneous improvement that only goes down with time to a negative assintote.
And they beat a team that created an inexpensive solar cell and another that created a water filter that retains heavy metals, in a competition for sustainable technology, with that. Ok, it probably didn't consider how much the tech improved our footprint, just that it did improve, but even then, those other two are usefull.
Now that I ranted, it looks like a great experiment that could lead to some usefull data about our body's temperature control. It just doesn't look like a product.
But attempting to reduce spending does not trigger a boom!.
And... Do you have any evidence for that? Because a lot of the government spending (any government) is just throwing wealth in a black hole. When one makes that wealth available for some productive application, there should be a boom. Eclipsed by the nominal impact of the goverment savings on the GDP at first, but a boom that should be quite visible if the savings last for any measurable time.
Currently, here at Brazil we even have a hard time observing the nominal burst of the GDP. If it's really there, it's too fast. Every time we measure the outcome after the governemnt has cut some spending, our GDP has increased. Increasing the spending does not have an equivalently fast impact on the numbers.
That both survived until Win7, and then got replaced with something worse. I don't see how that makes Win95 worse than any later version of Windows. Or are you trying to compare it with 3.11?
I tought somethng on the same lines, so I clicked on that link to RTFA. A mistake, obviously, since the article says nothing more than the summary.
The one thing that I could see there (but not read, of course), is that there are wires running from the bracelet, it's not self powered. Not very practical, but answers your questions.
Well, ok, you can trade something if you specify the goods by datacenter and cloud provider (and sometimes computer type). But what you are trading isn't a comodity, as there is only one supplier.
You can compare how they'll perform a specific application, or, more realistic, you can choose by price, uptime and customer service from the set of good enough (again, for your specific application) candidates.
Anyway, I think most people choose based on what ad they see first, or what side their coin felt on.
Well, maybe once we discover some application independent way to measure it. But that's a deep (if possible at all) mathematical breakthrough separating us from the comoditization of computing.
It's a fine concept to put on sci-fy works, just like faster than light travel, or inverting the second law of thermodynamics. It's not something you put in a business plan.
Came-on. We can't even compare computers, what makes you think one can compare computers rented on different locations, with different network and power connections, different support teams, different government oversight, and different sets of policies?
The problem is not even the name of the "=" and "==" operators. The real problem is that C supports statements like a = b = c = 0, and for that requires that "=" return a value.
Yes, in 2003 gcc already produced that warning. Except that there are parenthesis around the assignement (cleverly disgussed as disambiguation for the && and = operators), thus no warning is generated.
But yeah, CVS, you can probably hack on the repo with a text editor and get away with it.
I had a habit of rewritting the history of my personal CVS repositories when I used it. You can remove that "probably", you can change anything in CVS with a text editor, except for binary deltas.
Subversion is slightly better (yeah, I've edited those too). It is hard to change anything, except the commit messages (those are easy), you'll have to make calculations for setting everything up. A custom software is the best option here, but can be done.
I'm still not convinced that one can change a git or hg repository without all developers being aware of the fact. As a first guess, I'd say it requires accessing the all the development machines (a few hundred million ones in the case of Linux).
Not exactly what you asked for. Only 1 GHz, and less cores than you asked, but there are already plenty of people complaining that it's too distributed to be useful, so I guess something like that needs to prosper before people try that OpenCL chip.
Well, I don't know where did you take a chemistry example from... But keep in mind that this phrase only got said because chemists are required to know software development nowadays.
Slashdot Mirror
So are Intel's. This is not a good time to sell x86 CPUs. AMD has a chance to reverse their trends, since they are just a small player, but they'll have to steal that market from Intel.
We, sleeping creatures are "lucky"* that by "coincidence" the day is divided in two parts so different that an animal well adapted to one of them don't fare very well on the other. So, most animals adapt to one of those parts, and just protect themselves the best way they can at the other. For nearly all animals, being awake wouldn't make much of a difference.
* Lucky that we adapted to exactly the environment that we evolved on. What a coincidence, isn't it?
Bridges, and highways, sure, given that they are needed (no, thanks for bridges to nowhere). Dams, schools and houses are better done by anybody else. But the important thing is that the money never goes to the hand of those who are suffering, unless it's specifically tranferred to them, and spending resources on things that they don't need will increase their cost of living (either through taxes, or competition on resources - notice that I'm not against competition, it's just that competing with them won't improve their life).
Anyway, my question was for data. There is this economical assumption that everybody just hold as true, and since it's true, no data is needed to demonstrate it...
Do you (or anybody here) have any data that demonstrates that spending (instead of saving) improves the economy in the long term - like 1 year after you start spending, without exponentially increasing the rate of spending? You can get another definition of long term if you like, but the data should show an improvement that sustains itself or increases after the spending starts, instead of an instantaneous improvement that only goes down with time to a negative assintote.
And they beat a team that created an inexpensive solar cell and another that created a water filter that retains heavy metals, in a competition for sustainable technology, with that. Ok, it probably didn't consider how much the tech improved our footprint, just that it did improve, but even then, those other two are usefull.
Now that I ranted, it looks like a great experiment that could lead to some usefull data about our body's temperature control. It just doesn't look like a product.
It's like a condominuim. One that likes to pretend that it's a bank, but spends the deposits instead of lending them.
And... Do you have any evidence for that? Because a lot of the government spending (any government) is just throwing wealth in a black hole. When one makes that wealth available for some productive application, there should be a boom. Eclipsed by the nominal impact of the goverment savings on the GDP at first, but a boom that should be quite visible if the savings last for any measurable time.
Currently, here at Brazil we even have a hard time observing the nominal burst of the GDP. If it's really there, it's too fast. Every time we measure the outcome after the governemnt has cut some spending, our GDP has increased. Increasing the spending does not have an equivalently fast impact on the numbers.
That idea is clearly not new.
Windows 8: Almost as easy as Bash.
That both survived until Win7, and then got replaced with something worse. I don't see how that makes Win95 worse than any later version of Windows. Or are you trying to compare it with 3.11?
I tought somethng on the same lines, so I clicked on that link to RTFA. A mistake, obviously, since the article says nothing more than the summary.
The one thing that I could see there (but not read, of course), is that there are wires running from the bracelet, it's not self powered. Not very practical, but answers your questions.
Are you saying that negative (or realistic, whatever) world view may cause a gene to appear?
Well, ok, you can trade something if you specify the goods by datacenter and cloud provider (and sometimes computer type). But what you are trading isn't a comodity, as there is only one supplier.
You can compare how they'll perform a specific application, or, more realistic, you can choose by price, uptime and customer service from the set of good enough (again, for your specific application) candidates.
Anyway, I think most people choose based on what ad they see first, or what side their coin felt on.
Well, maybe once we discover some application independent way to measure it. But that's a deep (if possible at all) mathematical breakthrough separating us from the comoditization of computing.
It's a fine concept to put on sci-fy works, just like faster than light travel, or inverting the second law of thermodynamics. It's not something you put in a business plan.
Thus it's not a commodity, and your first paragraph is false.
Came-on. We can't even compare computers, what makes you think one can compare computers rented on different locations, with different network and power connections, different support teams, different government oversight, and different sets of policies?
Are you sure about that? I always tough not sucking was the definition of "scripting language".
if ((error == ERRCODE_1 | ERRCODE_2) && (isRoot = true))
Now, what did you gain?
The problem is not even the name of the "=" and "==" operators. The real problem is that C supports statements like a = b = c = 0, and for that requires that "=" return a value.
I'd expect the NSA to at least require a key for a backdoor they create. Looks more like some random hacker's job.
Yes, in 2003 gcc already produced that warning. Except that there are parenthesis around the assignement (cleverly disgussed as disambiguation for the && and = operators), thus no warning is generated.
I had a habit of rewritting the history of my personal CVS repositories when I used it. You can remove that "probably", you can change anything in CVS with a text editor, except for binary deltas.
Subversion is slightly better (yeah, I've edited those too). It is hard to change anything, except the commit messages (those are easy), you'll have to make calculations for setting everything up. A custom software is the best option here, but can be done.
I'm still not convinced that one can change a git or hg repository without all developers being aware of the fact. As a first guess, I'd say it requires accessing the all the development machines (a few hundred million ones in the case of Linux).
Not exactly what you asked for. Only 1 GHz, and less cores than you asked, but there are already plenty of people complaining that it's too distributed to be useful, so I guess something like that needs to prosper before people try that OpenCL chip.
Well, I don't know where did you take a chemistry example from... But keep in mind that this phrase only got said because chemists are required to know software development nowadays.
Why do I keep thinking about Dr. Strangelove every time I see a comment like yours?