This is true. On Linux, the only compilers that I know of that use the same C++ ABI as gcc are clang, ICC, XLC, ARMcc, Open64 and Path64. If you're using something else then you may encounter problems.
Absolutely not! ABIs are part of the definition of a platform. The Itanium C++ ABI is more or less the same on all (non-AArch32) *NIX systems, but the C ABIs are very different. For example, the C ABI on x86-32 on FreeBSD will pass a union of a pointer and an integer in a register, the Linux ABI will pass it on the stack.
The EU rule requires that you either provide a Micro USB port or an adaptor. A USB-C port and a USB-C to Micro USB adaptor would fit that, though there is an effort underway to allow just USB-C. The design requirements of USB-C included making chargers and adaptors very cheap (there's an interesting story of how the two resistors that it uses to select the voltage were chosen).
Micro USB is designed so that the cable will fail long before the socket on the device does
That's an explicit requirement for USB-C. For Micro USB, I've seen several devices where the port is damaged, but never seen one cable with a damaged connector.
If your monitor / TV uses the HDCP DRM crap than it adds a few frames latency and so you need the audio to be delayed in the monitor by the same amount, even if it's going to external speakers. This was the main reason for pushing audio into the HDMI spec, though there are some other processing steps (e.g. upscaling using inter-frame information) that can also introduce latency and make being able to delay the audio by a fixed, display-controlled, amount useful.
If you're buying an Apple screen, then it will have the USB hub in the display and will provide power. If USB-C connectors become mainstream, then I'd hope that other manufacturers will too.
No, they require a dongle and Apple will sell you one for $80. Just as existing Apple laptops require a dongle to talk to VGA projectors and Apple will sell you one for $20, meanwhile third party vendors will sell you one for $5. Apple always charges an insane amount for dongles.
Nope, no cache flush for compare and exchange. Modern CPUs use a modified version of the MESI protocol, where each cache line has a state associated with it (modified, exclusive, shared, invalid in MESI, a few more in modern variants). When you do a compare and exchange, you move your copy of the cache line into exclusive state and everyone else's into invalid. Before this, you must have the line in the shared state (where multiple caches can have read-only copies). When another core wants access to the memory, it will request the line in shared state. If another cache has it in its exclusive state, then the exclusive line will be downgraded to shared and a copy of its contents sent to the requesting site.
If atomic operations had to go via main memory then they would be significantly slower than they are and would be a huge bottleneck for multicore systems.
They don't flush, no. They will add memory fences, which will generate cache coherency bus traffic, but won't trigger a write back to main memory (modern CPUs can snoop the cache of other cores, so the data will be sent cache to cache).
The main reasons for flushing the cache are:
If you have some non-volatile DRAM and want to ensure consistency.
If you're doing DMA on anything other than the latest Intel chips, so that the DMA controller will see the data that you've flushed from the cache.
If you're writing a JIT compiler or some other form of self-modifying code (including a run-time linker) and need to ensure that i-cache and d-cache are consistent (I think x86 does this automatically, but I could be wrong).
If you're writing a crypto algorithm and want to make side-channel attacks via the cache difficult.
Network transparency is completely supported. The protocol used is called HTTP. The windowing system that runs on top of the Freon graphics driver layer is the Chrome web browser.
The three laws of robotics come from Asimov. Clarke's three laws are:
When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Because education needs to be expensive, and if you're not spending a lot on the education itself then you should at least move to one of the places with the highest cost of living in the US.
I subscribe to the theory of natural selection when it comes to clothes. The purpose of the washing machine is to supply evolutionary pressure. Clothes that don't survive die off and don't reproduce (i.e. I don't buy similar ones in the future). Eventually my wardrobe is full of clothes that are fit for their environment. The same applies to crockery and the dishwasher.
Weather is a chaotic system, but often chaotic systems have longer-term trends that are possible to observe. For example, if you pour sand into a pile, then you can fairly accurately predict the shape of the cone that it will create, but the exact pattern of bounces for each grain is impossible to predict as it depends on the exact position, shape, and location of every grain that it hits on the way down and a tiny error in any of these will magnify to a huge error after a few bounces. It's a chaotic system that has macro-scale effects that can be predicted.
Weather is a chaotic system with very similar properties. The longer the timescale, the easier it is to predict. Predicting the average temperature difference between summer and winter, for example, is much easier than predicting the temperature tomorrow.
To give a simpler example, if I toss a coin 100 times, I'd expect you to be able to tell me, with a fairly small margin of error, how many times I will roll heads. I wouldn't expect you to be able to guess what the result of any individual toss will be more than about half the time.
If you think that predicting weather and predicting climate are similar problems, then I'd encourage you to read up a bit on chaos theory.
The whole reason Firefox exists is because a group broke off and built it to remove the feature bloat in Mozilla/Netscape.
The 'feature bloat' that they removed was sharing a XUL / XPCOM runtime with the mail client and other apps. If you only ran the web browser, Firefox was lighter, but if you also used the mail client then Firefox and Thunderbird were heavier between them than the old Mozilla suite. The main reason that I switched back in the day was that the browser was very crashy and I'd lose in-progress emails when the browser crashed: moving the mail client to a separate process fixed this.
There have been a few proposals recently to abolish SIMs. They were created back in the days of rented carphones so that people could move their phone number and contacts between phones easily. Now, they basically serve the same purpose as a WiFi password. It wouldn't be too difficult to provide the keying material in a QR code or similar so that when you get a new phone you just photograph it and have an app provide it to the baseband processor.
Carriers are very hostile to this, because if the SIM isn't a physical device there's no constraint on the number that can exist in one phone - you could easily have an app that would select the best rate from a dozen or so pre-pay virtual sims for whatever country you happened to be in.
Page 11 is talking about capital cost. The figure for nuclear is $7,591/kW, which is a lot more than some (although not the highest). But how does that work out over the lifetime of the plant? Assuming 100% uptime, that's 8,760kWh in the first year, so that's less than $0.90/kWh. If the plant is operating for 20 years, then that's around 4/kWh. Most nuclear plants are built with a 40-60 year expected lifespan, which makes the capital cost negligible over the lifetime of the plant.
The correct page to look at is Page 2, which gives the unsubsidised cost of electricity from all of the generating mechanisms. Nuclear is $124/MWh - that's lower than all of the other fuel sources in their 'conventional' bucket that have a little representative diamond listed (coal doesn't, and has a range that extends both above and below nuclear). Only Gas Combined Cycle is cheaper on average, and that's only when excluding most of the costs. Only utility-scale PV comes out cheaper overall, and you also need to add in storage costs if you want to use PV for a significant amount of grid supply.
You're better off building a containment wall against flooding and keeping the reactor not too far above the water level.
That's fine too. The problem is building neither. The other problem is not fixing the design that was known to cause hydrogen build-up and explosions that breach containment in any problem scenario.
For every anecdote of a human taking over and saving the day, you can find a similar one of the human taking over and crashing. It mostly boils down to the amount of training that the pilot has had - and even the ones that end up crashing in situations where the automatic systems would probably have managed have had vastly more training than almost any driver on the road...
It's worth noting that there is one piece of automation in cars already that does give a different kind of driving license in a lot of places: automatic gear change. If you get a driving license in a car that has an automatic transmission then you can't drive manual cars with it, though the converse is allowed.
Newton looked at the spectrum and saw that it contained six distinct colours to the human eye: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, purple. But his alchemist beliefs considered 7 to be a magic number and so wanted the spectrum to have seven colours. He decided that purple should be split into indigo and violet to reflect this, but didn't split any of the others (even where the difference is at least as pronounced) because it contradicted his mystical thinking.
If even Newton 'One of the smartest men to ever live' couldn't manage to keep his science separate from his mysticism, what hope do you think other religious people have?
Slashdot Mirror
This is true. On Linux, the only compilers that I know of that use the same C++ ABI as gcc are clang, ICC, XLC, ARMcc, Open64 and Path64. If you're using something else then you may encounter problems.
An ABI is supposed to be independent of platform
Absolutely not! ABIs are part of the definition of a platform. The Itanium C++ ABI is more or less the same on all (non-AArch32) *NIX systems, but the C ABIs are very different. For example, the C ABI on x86-32 on FreeBSD will pass a union of a pointer and an integer in a register, the Linux ABI will pass it on the stack.
The EU rule requires that you either provide a Micro USB port or an adaptor. A USB-C port and a USB-C to Micro USB adaptor would fit that, though there is an effort underway to allow just USB-C. The design requirements of USB-C included making chargers and adaptors very cheap (there's an interesting story of how the two resistors that it uses to select the voltage were chosen).
Micro USB is designed so that the cable will fail long before the socket on the device does
That's an explicit requirement for USB-C. For Micro USB, I've seen several devices where the port is damaged, but never seen one cable with a damaged connector.
If your monitor / TV uses the HDCP DRM crap than it adds a few frames latency and so you need the audio to be delayed in the monitor by the same amount, even if it's going to external speakers. This was the main reason for pushing audio into the HDMI spec, though there are some other processing steps (e.g. upscaling using inter-frame information) that can also introduce latency and make being able to delay the audio by a fixed, display-controlled, amount useful.
If you're buying an Apple screen, then it will have the USB hub in the display and will provide power. If USB-C connectors become mainstream, then I'd hope that other manufacturers will too.
No, they require a dongle and Apple will sell you one for $80. Just as existing Apple laptops require a dongle to talk to VGA projectors and Apple will sell you one for $20, meanwhile third party vendors will sell you one for $5. Apple always charges an insane amount for dongles.
You might want to look up what an IOMMU is and for how many generations of x86 processors they've been a standard feature.
Nope, no cache flush for compare and exchange. Modern CPUs use a modified version of the MESI protocol, where each cache line has a state associated with it (modified, exclusive, shared, invalid in MESI, a few more in modern variants). When you do a compare and exchange, you move your copy of the cache line into exclusive state and everyone else's into invalid. Before this, you must have the line in the shared state (where multiple caches can have read-only copies). When another core wants access to the memory, it will request the line in shared state. If another cache has it in its exclusive state, then the exclusive line will be downgraded to shared and a copy of its contents sent to the requesting site.
If atomic operations had to go via main memory then they would be significantly slower than they are and would be a huge bottleneck for multicore systems.
The main reasons for flushing the cache are:
You've seen reproductions. At best, printed photographs. It's not the same thing.
Indeed. In comparison with how close you can get in the Louvre, the prints have a lot more discernible detail than the original...
Network transparency is completely supported. The protocol used is called HTTP. The windowing system that runs on top of the Freon graphics driver layer is the Chrome web browser.
Because education needs to be expensive, and if you're not spending a lot on the education itself then you should at least move to one of the places with the highest cost of living in the US.
I subscribe to the theory of natural selection when it comes to clothes. The purpose of the washing machine is to supply evolutionary pressure. Clothes that don't survive die off and don't reproduce (i.e. I don't buy similar ones in the future). Eventually my wardrobe is full of clothes that are fit for their environment. The same applies to crockery and the dishwasher.
Weather is a chaotic system, but often chaotic systems have longer-term trends that are possible to observe. For example, if you pour sand into a pile, then you can fairly accurately predict the shape of the cone that it will create, but the exact pattern of bounces for each grain is impossible to predict as it depends on the exact position, shape, and location of every grain that it hits on the way down and a tiny error in any of these will magnify to a huge error after a few bounces. It's a chaotic system that has macro-scale effects that can be predicted.
Weather is a chaotic system with very similar properties. The longer the timescale, the easier it is to predict. Predicting the average temperature difference between summer and winter, for example, is much easier than predicting the temperature tomorrow.
To give a simpler example, if I toss a coin 100 times, I'd expect you to be able to tell me, with a fairly small margin of error, how many times I will roll heads. I wouldn't expect you to be able to guess what the result of any individual toss will be more than about half the time.
If you think that predicting weather and predicting climate are similar problems, then I'd encourage you to read up a bit on chaos theory.
The whole reason Firefox exists is because a group broke off and built it to remove the feature bloat in Mozilla/Netscape.
The 'feature bloat' that they removed was sharing a XUL / XPCOM runtime with the mail client and other apps. If you only ran the web browser, Firefox was lighter, but if you also used the mail client then Firefox and Thunderbird were heavier between them than the old Mozilla suite. The main reason that I switched back in the day was that the browser was very crashy and I'd lose in-progress emails when the browser crashed: moving the mail client to a separate process fixed this.
In the UK definitely, and I believe in most of the rest of Europe.
There have been a few proposals recently to abolish SIMs. They were created back in the days of rented carphones so that people could move their phone number and contacts between phones easily. Now, they basically serve the same purpose as a WiFi password. It wouldn't be too difficult to provide the keying material in a QR code or similar so that when you get a new phone you just photograph it and have an app provide it to the baseband processor.
Carriers are very hostile to this, because if the SIM isn't a physical device there's no constraint on the number that can exist in one phone - you could easily have an app that would select the best rate from a dozen or so pre-pay virtual sims for whatever country you happened to be in.
Nuclear is expensive. http://www.lazard.com/PDF/Leve... Look at page 11.
Page 11 is talking about capital cost. The figure for nuclear is $7,591/kW, which is a lot more than some (although not the highest). But how does that work out over the lifetime of the plant? Assuming 100% uptime, that's 8,760kWh in the first year, so that's less than $0.90/kWh. If the plant is operating for 20 years, then that's around 4/kWh. Most nuclear plants are built with a 40-60 year expected lifespan, which makes the capital cost negligible over the lifetime of the plant.
The correct page to look at is Page 2, which gives the unsubsidised cost of electricity from all of the generating mechanisms. Nuclear is $124/MWh - that's lower than all of the other fuel sources in their 'conventional' bucket that have a little representative diamond listed (coal doesn't, and has a range that extends both above and below nuclear). Only Gas Combined Cycle is cheaper on average, and that's only when excluding most of the costs. Only utility-scale PV comes out cheaper overall, and you also need to add in storage costs if you want to use PV for a significant amount of grid supply.
You're better off building a containment wall against flooding and keeping the reactor not too far above the water level.
That's fine too. The problem is building neither. The other problem is not fixing the design that was known to cause hydrogen build-up and explosions that breach containment in any problem scenario.
For every anecdote of a human taking over and saving the day, you can find a similar one of the human taking over and crashing. It mostly boils down to the amount of training that the pilot has had - and even the ones that end up crashing in situations where the automatic systems would probably have managed have had vastly more training than almost any driver on the road...
It's worth noting that there is one piece of automation in cars already that does give a different kind of driving license in a lot of places: automatic gear change. If you get a driving license in a car that has an automatic transmission then you can't drive manual cars with it, though the converse is allowed.
I've been playing a bit with GOGS. It has most of the things that I like about GitHub, but can be hosted locally.
Newton looked at the spectrum and saw that it contained six distinct colours to the human eye: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, purple. But his alchemist beliefs considered 7 to be a magic number and so wanted the spectrum to have seven colours. He decided that purple should be split into indigo and violet to reflect this, but didn't split any of the others (even where the difference is at least as pronounced) because it contradicted his mystical thinking.
If even Newton 'One of the smartest men to ever live' couldn't manage to keep his science separate from his mysticism, what hope do you think other religious people have?