From what I gather RTFA, what they mean is that the took the median ages for each of the five networks and averaged them together. In other words, "average live median age" is actually correct as the figure is indeed the average of the median ages for each network. (The headline of the article is confused though as this says nothing about the average age of viewers.)
Yes, because OSX is the 10th version of the original Mac OS code line because Ubuntu 8.04 is a minor sub-release of the 8th version of that distribution, because the 2.6 represents only the second major version of the Linux Kernel and because OS/2 3.0 was a major update of the OS over OS/2 2.1.
Though you are generally correct, it is important to note that doubling the number of cores doesn't improve performance as much as doubling the clock speed (or improving the number of cycles the average instructions take) because of troubles running serialized software software in parallel. Doubling is great, quadrupling is pretty good, but eventually you just don't get much bang. (Or, at least you won't without serious software improvement.) It's a serious problem the industry will soon face.
But as you say, it is questionable if most people actually need more performance.
I am completely aware that Windows NT 3.1 was based on OS/2, not DOS. But you can hardly call it "Windows 1.0", as that name was already take by "Windows 1.0". At best, you could make a case that it should be called "Windows NT 1.0", but then, you'd be arguing with the people who actually make it.
And given that I spent a good three years enjoying the "fun" is rewriting 16-bit software to 32-bit software, you can bet that I know in depth exactly how all that crap went.
In any case, the old DOS based stuff lived on in Windows 95, Windows 98 and Windows ME. You seem to have left those off your little self invented naming scheme. You really should tell Microsoft, because GetMajorVersion() keeps incorrectly returning 6.
Well, yes, and if the poster had said "NT1, NT2, NT3" etc, he'd have had a point. But to say that NT3.1 one was "Windows 1.0" is ridiculous given that there was something named "Windows 1.0" long before it appeared.
Re:The "7" refers to nothing in particular
on
Fresh Air For Windows?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
That makes no sense, given that there old DOS based system when through "Windows 1.0", "Windows 2.0", "Windows 3.0" and "Windows 3.1".
Are you saying that Windows 3.1 was not Windows?
Re:They should make a concerted effort to drop leg
on
Fresh Air For Windows?
·
· Score: 1
I just had a great lesson in "legacy" support today when I bought a "Clifford the Big Red Dog" game for my son from the discount bin. "Supports Windows and Macintosh!" it said. On the old PPC iBook my son uses, the installer brings up the OS9 emulation stuff, which then seems to hang. So I try my work XP laptop, only to have the game announce "Requires a minimum of 256 colors" when I try to run it after the successful install. Only after lots of digging do I discover where I can find a dialog to set to 640x480 256 color graphics. (It certainly isn't in the main screen resolution dialog.)
This game is only eight years old. Heaven help you if you want to run software from the early 90s. And yet things aren't changed because in theory (though not in practice) Windows is backwards compatible all the way to DOS.
My wife got an Economics degree, had trouble finding a job that wasn't infinitely boring, gave up, got a teaching credential, and now teaches ten year olds for a third my salary.
It is very doubtful that you are going to get the kind of exponential explosion of intelligence improvement that the "Singularity" relies on by modifying human brains biologically. You might make a brain 10% smarter with a pill, but your not going to make it 10x smarter without radical redesign, and given realities of genetics and breeding time, that will take decades, if not centuries.
My favorite idiotic recommendation was when it suggested that because I'd purchased a 60gb Playstation 3, I might like to purchase the newer 40gb Playstation 3.
This is a crock. Proponents of AI were making very specific statements, like "machines will beat grand masters in five years" (uttered in the late fifties) that failed to come true. If anything, it's been the opposite, with people saying things like "well, sure, we don't have human level intelligence like we claimed we'd have by 2000, but we can recognize some speech!"
Heh. I knew a guy who would go down to the beach and ask every single moderately good looking woman he saw if she wanted to fuck. He was probably only successful one of every fifty times, however, he asked so many women that he generally got laid every night.
Not the path I'd take, but if getting laid is all you want, it does work.
Slashdot Mirror
Every Democratic candidate does it, both losers like Kerry and winners like Bill Clinton.
This is pretty much useless without really expensive lenses, so don't expect to see it in any consumer-level cameras.
This goes back to the twenties, when Al Capone was convicted of "tax evasion".
The real world isn't nicely divided into "brains" and "brawn". Intelligence is not inversely correlated with muscle-mass.
From what I gather RTFA, what they mean is that the took the median ages for each of the five networks and averaged them together. In other words, "average live median age" is actually correct as the figure is indeed the average of the median ages for each network. (The headline of the article is confused though as this says nothing about the average age of viewers.)
Yes, because OSX is the 10th version of the original Mac OS code line because Ubuntu 8.04 is a minor sub-release of the 8th version of that distribution, because the 2.6 represents only the second major version of the Linux Kernel and because OS/2 3.0 was a major update of the OS over OS/2 2.1.
Though you are generally correct, it is important to note that doubling the number of cores doesn't improve performance as much as doubling the clock speed (or improving the number of cycles the average instructions take) because of troubles running serialized software software in parallel. Doubling is great, quadrupling is pretty good, but eventually you just don't get much bang. (Or, at least you won't without serious software improvement.) It's a serious problem the industry will soon face.
But as you say, it is questionable if most people actually need more performance.
Huh. You seem to be under some strange delusion in which version numbers for any application at all have some sort of meaning beyond marketting...
But before you were claiming that Windows 1.0 was Windows NT 3.51...now you say that it is part of the DOS line...please make up your mind!
People in the know who don't know how to call GetMajorVersion()?
Didn't they teach you that at MCSE class?
Trouble is, most apps are shitty, so it is questionable whether backwards compatibility, especially to the pre-NT days, is really worth it.
So what do we call "Windows 3.1" then?
I am completely aware that Windows NT 3.1 was based on OS/2, not DOS. But you can hardly call it "Windows 1.0", as that name was already take by "Windows 1.0". At best, you could make a case that it should be called "Windows NT 1.0", but then, you'd be arguing with the people who actually make it.
And given that I spent a good three years enjoying the "fun" is rewriting 16-bit software to 32-bit software, you can bet that I know in depth exactly how all that crap went.
In any case, the old DOS based stuff lived on in Windows 95, Windows 98 and Windows ME. You seem to have left those off your little self invented naming scheme. You really should tell Microsoft, because GetMajorVersion() keeps incorrectly returning 6.
Next to Microsoft OS/2 1.0?
Well, yes, and if the poster had said "NT1, NT2, NT3" etc, he'd have had a point. But to say that NT3.1 one was "Windows 1.0" is ridiculous given that there was something named "Windows 1.0" long before it appeared.
That makes no sense, given that there old DOS based system when through "Windows 1.0", "Windows 2.0", "Windows 3.0" and "Windows 3.1".
Are you saying that Windows 3.1 was not Windows?
I just had a great lesson in "legacy" support today when I bought a "Clifford the Big Red Dog" game for my son from the discount bin. "Supports Windows and Macintosh!" it said. On the old PPC iBook my son uses, the installer brings up the OS9 emulation stuff, which then seems to hang. So I try my work XP laptop, only to have the game announce "Requires a minimum of 256 colors" when I try to run it after the successful install. Only after lots of digging do I discover where I can find a dialog to set to 640x480 256 color graphics. (It certainly isn't in the main screen resolution dialog.)
This game is only eight years old. Heaven help you if you want to run software from the early 90s. And yet things aren't changed because in theory (though not in practice) Windows is backwards compatible all the way to DOS.
For comparison sake, this is similar to the power requirements of the XBox 360 and PS3.
The Wii takes much less than either.
Sounds like it is time to write a code generator.
Seriously. When you job hands you repetitive projects, figure out how to make the computer do the repetitive part. That's what it is there for.
My wife got an Economics degree, had trouble finding a job that wasn't infinitely boring, gave up, got a teaching credential, and now teaches ten year olds for a third my salary.
It is very doubtful that you are going to get the kind of exponential explosion of intelligence improvement that the "Singularity" relies on by modifying human brains biologically. You might make a brain 10% smarter with a pill, but your not going to make it 10x smarter without radical redesign, and given realities of genetics and breeding time, that will take decades, if not centuries.
The real problem was that we were trying to emulate the brain's ability to learn without actually understanding how the brain learns.
This is the basic trouble with AI. It is trying to simulate something that we simply do not understand.
My favorite idiotic recommendation was when it suggested that because I'd purchased a 60gb Playstation 3, I might like to purchase the newer 40gb Playstation 3.
This is a crock. Proponents of AI were making very specific statements, like "machines will beat grand masters in five years" (uttered in the late fifties) that failed to come true. If anything, it's been the opposite, with people saying things like "well, sure, we don't have human level intelligence like we claimed we'd have by 2000, but we can recognize some speech!"
Heh. I knew a guy who would go down to the beach and ask every single moderately good looking woman he saw if she wanted to fuck. He was probably only successful one of every fifty times, however, he asked so many women that he generally got laid every night.
Not the path I'd take, but if getting laid is all you want, it does work.
Truth is, this is part of why I bought a console. Consoles have DRM, but it almost never gets in the way.
I hope Spore's fun.