Those 52% disproportionately live in areas that are net recipients of EU money (mostly via the Common Agricultural Policy). How about a compromise: we pull out of CAP and reduce our EU contribution in proportion to the reduction in our rebate, and spend the money on things that don't disproportionately benefit those regions?
The problem is that invoking article 50 is going to be a 2-year process. Given the demographics of the polls, those 16-17-year olds would have skewed the balance a lot closer to, if not completely towards, remain. Similarly, the number of people in the 65+ bracket will have died by the time the UK actually leaves. People who will have to live with the consequences of the decision were not able to vote, whereas people who will not all got to vote. There's a lot of resentment from the younger generation because of this.
No, it's not 'politicians didn't tell the whole truth,' it's that everything that the Leave campaign said was a lie. For example:
Turkey is going to join the EU (Britain has a veto on new members, so if that's really a problem for the population of the UK then we could have stopped it).
We'd have £350m/week extra to spend on the NHS (that £350m is money that goes to the EU, not the net. We get a lot of it back already and it goes disproportionately to places that voted Leave in farm subsidies and so on).
We'll get back control of our borders and retain access to the common market (the EU has made it clear that you either accept freedom of movement or you don't get access to the common market).
Normal people will be better off (the crash in the value of the Pound has already made the housing shortage worse by increasing the rate at which foreign individuals are buying up homes in the UK and it's starting to affect prices in shops).
The thing I don't like about the EU is that it gives national governments a way to pass unpopular laws via the Council of Ministers and then claim that it was those evil unelected technocrats in Brussels that did it. British governments have been doing that for 20 years and have vetoed proposals to move the centre of power in the EU to the Parliament.
They are doing. Foreign investors have bought even more property in the UK since the crash, because all of a sudden someone buying in Dollars, Yuan, or Yen gets a third more than they would have done a few weeks ago.
But I don't see it as bad for the UK people.
Much of the UK already had a housing shortage, now suddenly houses have become even less affordable for people in the UK.
Most countries that have referenda as part of their constitutions require far more than a simple majority, typically a 60% minimum. The referendum had a turnout of around 75%, so around 40% of the total eligible voters turned up to say 'yes, let's fuck up the country'. Many of these believed the lies of the Leave campaign (e.g. we'll have £350m/week more to spend on the NHS) or the self-serving propaganda of the Murdoch-owned press (Murdoch, whose brother in law made £200m in one day as a result of the vote - no conflict of interest there).
More people in the UK support reintroducing the death penalty than support leaving the EU, which is why the UK has never had majority rule as a part of its constitution. Clement Attlee described referenda as a tool of fascists and Nazis that he would not inflict on the British people. It's a shame that Cameron didn't pay attention to history.
I know several over-50s who work in the valley. A small handful of them were made redundant when HP went insane. I think the longest that any of them spent looking for a new job was two weeks. A few more were made redundant when MSR closed with bay area office. They were all hired within a week (several by Google). They're all hired because they spent the first 30 or so years of their professional life learning.
Add to that, the stuff where AArch64 really wouldn't make sense is typically M- or R-profile. ARMv8-M doesn't include AArch64 for this reason (amusingly, the early versions of the ARMv8 spec said that AArch32 and AArch64 were both optional and forgot to mention that you needed at least one, so it was possible to have a fully conforming implementation that implemented no instructions). If you're using A-profile then you're already at the beefy end of embedded, which goes all of the way up to 100+TB storage appliances with multi-socket multi-core CPUs.
You still want a 64-bit OS on x86, even if you don't care about the larger memory. Targeting x86-64 gives you (at least - I've probably forgotten some things):
A guarantee that SSE is there, so you can use SSE for all floating point (much faster than x87, even if you don't use the vector functionality) and a calling convention that uses SSE registers so you aren't doing expensive x87-SSE moves all the time to actually do calculation (which you get if you target i686+SSE).
More registers, which reduces instruction count noticeably.
Cheap PC-relative addressing, which makes position-independent code (all libraries and typically the main binary if you're doing ASLR too) around 10% cheaper.
If you really don't want to use more than 4GB of virtual address space, the X32 ABI lets you get all of these benefits in an ILP32 environment, so brings all of the performance benefits and none of the costs of x86-64.
VAX never got ELF support. I believe OpenBSD GC'd it when they removed all of the a.out-only architectures. The OpenBSD GNUstep port maintainer was the only one to ever test Objective-C on VAX and we fixed a couple of bugs as a result.
If Trump were not running, Hillary's popularity would be the lowest of any nominee since they started recording polls. As he is, she's the second least popular - but not by a very large margin. Both parties have managed to pick candidates that most of the electorate regard as unelectable. The election is basically down to whether anyone can be bothered to turn up to vote for who they regard as the slightly lesser of two evils.
200% markup? The wholesale price of the CPU in that machine at the time that I bought it was more than half of the cost of the machine. I actually did look at alternatives and no one sold anything comparable (same CPU, same size screen, same size SSD) more than 10% cheaper, and all of the cheaper laptops compromised on something (weight, battery life, keyboard quality).
If you're using the machine for work, then the price is basically irrelevant. If I spend a couple of hours comparison shopping, then the opportunity cost is far more than I'm going to save in the best possible case.
It's only resolved by the router if it's the only router on the network. If you're configuring a new AP on an existing network then you will already have DNS set up and so the external thing will resolve.
Same here. My partner recently had an issue with her Dell laptop with the batteries dying far too early. Dell is currently giving her the run-around. They started by claiming that batteries are consumables and therefore not covered under the Consumer Rights Act (in spite of the act having no exemption for consumables and Dell listing them as components, not consumables, on their own web site). She's consulted the Citizens' Advice Bureau and they've advised her that under the Consumer Credit Act she can dispute the charge with the credit card and get a full refund for the laptop, but she's wasted ages interacting with their support idiots.
In contrast, the battery died after 4 years with my old MacBook Pro (the last generation that had user-replaceable batteries). Apple claimed 300 recharge cycles in their marketing (now they claim 3,000) and mine showed well below that in their system monitor. 20 minutes on the phone at 3pm on afternoon and they agreed to replace it out of warranty. 9am the following morning, the new battery arrived at my door. Same thing more recently when an Apple PSU died - called them up, replacement arrived at work at 9am the next day. When I stupidly locked myself out of my iPad, they called me to talk me through the factory reset procedure. This included a fun interaction, as I did it at work:
Support guy: Can you click on the blue arrow and tell me how many minutes it has remaining on the download?
Me: 23 seconds
Support guy: Seconds? Are you sure?
Me: Yes, 4 now.
Support guy: It's not that fast when I download it from here!
My most recent customer support experience was with Apple (I got an iPad, set a PIN, then promptly forgot it, and then also managed to lock myself out of my Apple account, which had some security questions that I'd set 10 years ago and then never used). The support tech was probably in India (Apple tier-1 support usually is, tier 2 for here is Ireland) and was helpful, friendly, and courteous. Oh, and I didn't need to wait on hold for ages, I booked an appointment online and they called me on my mobile. Oh, and they also had some quite neat features where you log in online and then get a one-time code that you can use to authenticate yourself to their callcentre people, so you don't need to give out personal information.
During the Raj, it was Welsh soldiers who typically got sent to India, and something very peculiar happened- Indians, of different actual languages and widely separated in distance, began to speak English with a common Welsh accent.
A few big tech companies used to have call centres in Swansea and Cardiff (not sure if they still do). I knew someone who worked there who complained that he would repeatedly be asked by English callers to transfer him to the UK callcentre. Apparently they couldn't tell a Welsh accent from an Indian one. They both have lilting tones, but they're not that similar and Indians tend to use far more formal English than the Welsh (or the English).
The win for special-purpose chips has always been obvious. The recent change is in the economics. It used to be very expensive to have any functionality in an IC. One of the driving forces behind the original RISC and VLIW chips was to devote as much of your transistor budget to execution units and remove anything that didn't directly contribute to performance. Now, the economics are quite different. Transistors are cheap but power dissipation is hard. It's easy to stick more execution units on an SoC, but it's very hard to stay within your power budget. Specialised processors that use less power for a specific task and are turned off the rest of the time are a big win. For example, a lot of ARM SoCs for mobile use include a face detection algorithm as a discrete logic block: you write image data to it and read back a list of rectangles. The ARM core and the GPU would both be sufficiently powerful to do this entirely in software, but the coprocessors uses a fraction of the power (and, in a big.LITTLE configuration, means that the photo app can run on the LITTLE core).
I didn't read TFA, but there are quite a lot of algorithms that exhibit superlinear speedup. The costs for a parallel algorithm are typically related to communication, but there's nothing magical about a sequential algorithm that means that it doesn't have its own costs. Storing temporary results and managing the queue of work to do are still requirements for a sequential one and often the parallel version can benefit from better locality of reference and so make better use of caches.
No. The P6 does branch prediction. When you get to a branch, the processor guesses which one is taken and executes that. If it guessed wrong, it throws away all of the speculative results. The grandparent is talking about executing both branches. The up side of this is that you never miss-predict a branch. The downside is that it's not really feasible and gives a huge increase in power consumption. A modern superscalar processor can easily have 50 instructions in flight at once (the Pentium 4 could have 140, which is partly why it rarely hit its peak performance). You have a branch, on average, every 7 instructions. To fill a pipeline of 50 instructions, you need to speculatively execute past 7 branches. Often these are loops, so branch prediction does a good job. Now imagine that you executed every path. After 7 branches, there are 128 possible places you could be. Each one of those includes an average of 7 instructions, so to be able to do all of that you'd need 18 times as many functional units. Register renaming (which is already one of the largest costs on the chip) would become vastly more complicated. Your processor would need liquid helium poured on it to keep it at a stable temperature. And, at the end of this, you'd still not have much better performance.
And that is assuming that all branches are simple conditionals, not computed branches (C++ virtual calls, cross-library calls via a PLT, function pointer calls, and so on). You can't execute all of the possible targets for a computer branch, so you'd still need the branch predictor infrastructure to handle this case, so you're not even saving much on hardware.
A few experimental chips have tried doing this for branches where the predictor doesn't give a high confidence of either path. In this kind of limited use, executing both branches at half speed, rather than executing one with a 50% chance of needing to discard the result, gives slightly better performance.
Slashdot Mirror
Those 52% disproportionately live in areas that are net recipients of EU money (mostly via the Common Agricultural Policy). How about a compromise: we pull out of CAP and reduce our EU contribution in proportion to the reduction in our rebate, and spend the money on things that don't disproportionately benefit those regions?
The problem is that invoking article 50 is going to be a 2-year process. Given the demographics of the polls, those 16-17-year olds would have skewed the balance a lot closer to, if not completely towards, remain. Similarly, the number of people in the 65+ bracket will have died by the time the UK actually leaves. People who will have to live with the consequences of the decision were not able to vote, whereas people who will not all got to vote. There's a lot of resentment from the younger generation because of this.
The thing I don't like about the EU is that it gives national governments a way to pass unpopular laws via the Council of Ministers and then claim that it was those evil unelected technocrats in Brussels that did it. British governments have been doing that for 20 years and have vetoed proposals to move the centre of power in the EU to the Parliament.
It means more people will purchase UK goods
They are doing. Foreign investors have bought even more property in the UK since the crash, because all of a sudden someone buying in Dollars, Yuan, or Yen gets a third more than they would have done a few weeks ago.
But I don't see it as bad for the UK people.
Much of the UK already had a housing shortage, now suddenly houses have become even less affordable for people in the UK.
Most countries that have referenda as part of their constitutions require far more than a simple majority, typically a 60% minimum. The referendum had a turnout of around 75%, so around 40% of the total eligible voters turned up to say 'yes, let's fuck up the country'. Many of these believed the lies of the Leave campaign (e.g. we'll have £350m/week more to spend on the NHS) or the self-serving propaganda of the Murdoch-owned press (Murdoch, whose brother in law made £200m in one day as a result of the vote - no conflict of interest there).
More people in the UK support reintroducing the death penalty than support leaving the EU, which is why the UK has never had majority rule as a part of its constitution. Clement Attlee described referenda as a tool of fascists and Nazis that he would not inflict on the British people. It's a shame that Cameron didn't pay attention to history.
Hitler didn't win power by proclaiming he was going to kill all the Jews
He might not have said he'd kill them, but 'it's all the fault of the Jews' was a recurring phrase in his speeches.
I know several over-50s who work in the valley. A small handful of them were made redundant when HP went insane. I think the longest that any of them spent looking for a new job was two weeks. A few more were made redundant when MSR closed with bay area office. They were all hired within a week (several by Google). They're all hired because they spent the first 30 or so years of their professional life learning.
Hah, joke's on you, that actually is Tim Cook's Slashdot account!
Look at his username and it will all make sense.
It's better than America's rail at least
That's a very, very long way away from claiming that it's actually good.
64-bit sometimes has a performance hit.
LP64 has a performance hit, but x86-64 doesn't require ILP64, you can happily run ILP32 code with the X32 ABI in long mode.
Add to that, the stuff where AArch64 really wouldn't make sense is typically M- or R-profile. ARMv8-M doesn't include AArch64 for this reason (amusingly, the early versions of the ARMv8 spec said that AArch32 and AArch64 were both optional and forgot to mention that you needed at least one, so it was possible to have a fully conforming implementation that implemented no instructions). If you're using A-profile then you're already at the beefy end of embedded, which goes all of the way up to 100+TB storage appliances with multi-socket multi-core CPUs.
If you really don't want to use more than 4GB of virtual address space, the X32 ABI lets you get all of these benefits in an ILP32 environment, so brings all of the performance benefits and none of the costs of x86-64.
VAX never got ELF support. I believe OpenBSD GC'd it when they removed all of the a.out-only architectures. The OpenBSD GNUstep port maintainer was the only one to ever test Objective-C on VAX and we fixed a couple of bugs as a result.
If Trump were not running, Hillary's popularity would be the lowest of any nominee since they started recording polls. As he is, she's the second least popular - but not by a very large margin. Both parties have managed to pick candidates that most of the electorate regard as unelectable. The election is basically down to whether anyone can be bothered to turn up to vote for who they regard as the slightly lesser of two evils.
200% markup? The wholesale price of the CPU in that machine at the time that I bought it was more than half of the cost of the machine. I actually did look at alternatives and no one sold anything comparable (same CPU, same size screen, same size SSD) more than 10% cheaper, and all of the cheaper laptops compromised on something (weight, battery life, keyboard quality).
If you're using the machine for work, then the price is basically irrelevant. If I spend a couple of hours comparison shopping, then the opportunity cost is far more than I'm going to save in the best possible case.
Spacing them out will reduce the number of branches that need to be predicted, but it will also increase the cost of a single mispredicted branch.
It's only resolved by the router if it's the only router on the network. If you're configuring a new AP on an existing network then you will already have DNS set up and so the external thing will resolve.
Same here. My partner recently had an issue with her Dell laptop with the batteries dying far too early. Dell is currently giving her the run-around. They started by claiming that batteries are consumables and therefore not covered under the Consumer Rights Act (in spite of the act having no exemption for consumables and Dell listing them as components, not consumables, on their own web site). She's consulted the Citizens' Advice Bureau and they've advised her that under the Consumer Credit Act she can dispute the charge with the credit card and get a full refund for the laptop, but she's wasted ages interacting with their support idiots.
In contrast, the battery died after 4 years with my old MacBook Pro (the last generation that had user-replaceable batteries). Apple claimed 300 recharge cycles in their marketing (now they claim 3,000) and mine showed well below that in their system monitor. 20 minutes on the phone at 3pm on afternoon and they agreed to replace it out of warranty. 9am the following morning, the new battery arrived at my door. Same thing more recently when an Apple PSU died - called them up, replacement arrived at work at 9am the next day. When I stupidly locked myself out of my iPad, they called me to talk me through the factory reset procedure. This included a fun interaction, as I did it at work:
Support guy: Can you click on the blue arrow and tell me how many minutes it has remaining on the download?
Me: 23 seconds
Support guy: Seconds? Are you sure?
Me: Yes, 4 now.
Support guy: It's not that fast when I download it from here!
My most recent customer support experience was with Apple (I got an iPad, set a PIN, then promptly forgot it, and then also managed to lock myself out of my Apple account, which had some security questions that I'd set 10 years ago and then never used). The support tech was probably in India (Apple tier-1 support usually is, tier 2 for here is Ireland) and was helpful, friendly, and courteous. Oh, and I didn't need to wait on hold for ages, I booked an appointment online and they called me on my mobile. Oh, and they also had some quite neat features where you log in online and then get a one-time code that you can use to authenticate yourself to their callcentre people, so you don't need to give out personal information.
During the Raj, it was Welsh soldiers who typically got sent to India, and something very peculiar happened- Indians, of different actual languages and widely separated in distance, began to speak English with a common Welsh accent.
A few big tech companies used to have call centres in Swansea and Cardiff (not sure if they still do). I knew someone who worked there who complained that he would repeatedly be asked by English callers to transfer him to the UK callcentre. Apparently they couldn't tell a Welsh accent from an Indian one. They both have lilting tones, but they're not that similar and Indians tend to use far more formal English than the Welsh (or the English).
The win for special-purpose chips has always been obvious. The recent change is in the economics. It used to be very expensive to have any functionality in an IC. One of the driving forces behind the original RISC and VLIW chips was to devote as much of your transistor budget to execution units and remove anything that didn't directly contribute to performance. Now, the economics are quite different. Transistors are cheap but power dissipation is hard. It's easy to stick more execution units on an SoC, but it's very hard to stay within your power budget. Specialised processors that use less power for a specific task and are turned off the rest of the time are a big win. For example, a lot of ARM SoCs for mobile use include a face detection algorithm as a discrete logic block: you write image data to it and read back a list of rectangles. The ARM core and the GPU would both be sufficiently powerful to do this entirely in software, but the coprocessors uses a fraction of the power (and, in a big.LITTLE configuration, means that the photo app can run on the LITTLE core).
I didn't read TFA, but there are quite a lot of algorithms that exhibit superlinear speedup. The costs for a parallel algorithm are typically related to communication, but there's nothing magical about a sequential algorithm that means that it doesn't have its own costs. Storing temporary results and managing the queue of work to do are still requirements for a sequential one and often the parallel version can benefit from better locality of reference and so make better use of caches.
No. The P6 does branch prediction. When you get to a branch, the processor guesses which one is taken and executes that. If it guessed wrong, it throws away all of the speculative results. The grandparent is talking about executing both branches. The up side of this is that you never miss-predict a branch. The downside is that it's not really feasible and gives a huge increase in power consumption. A modern superscalar processor can easily have 50 instructions in flight at once (the Pentium 4 could have 140, which is partly why it rarely hit its peak performance). You have a branch, on average, every 7 instructions. To fill a pipeline of 50 instructions, you need to speculatively execute past 7 branches. Often these are loops, so branch prediction does a good job. Now imagine that you executed every path. After 7 branches, there are 128 possible places you could be. Each one of those includes an average of 7 instructions, so to be able to do all of that you'd need 18 times as many functional units. Register renaming (which is already one of the largest costs on the chip) would become vastly more complicated. Your processor would need liquid helium poured on it to keep it at a stable temperature. And, at the end of this, you'd still not have much better performance.
And that is assuming that all branches are simple conditionals, not computed branches (C++ virtual calls, cross-library calls via a PLT, function pointer calls, and so on). You can't execute all of the possible targets for a computer branch, so you'd still need the branch predictor infrastructure to handle this case, so you're not even saving much on hardware.
A few experimental chips have tried doing this for branches where the predictor doesn't give a high confidence of either path. In this kind of limited use, executing both branches at half speed, rather than executing one with a 50% chance of needing to discard the result, gives slightly better performance.