They still do this with GCC. Because of the poor layering, getting a new target often requires hacking up various parts of the middle. Their goal is a working compiler, so they just do the minimum required to get their target working, at the expense of breaking others. These changes won't get incorporated into mainline GCC, so you're stuck with a GCC fork that's going to be unmaintained pretty soon.
In contrast, LLVM back ends are modular and quite easy to write and, more importantly, don't need to touch any of the rest of the system. This is why ARM is now investing quite a lot in LLVM and companies like Qualcomm have seemingly permanent job adverts for anyone with LLVM experience.
Re:Measured from where?
on
GCC Turns 25
·
· Score: 2
There are lots of ways of dealing with it. Grind it up finely and centrifuge it to separate out the different elements, for example, so that you've concentrated all of the stuff that's still radioactive. Then use that in medical sterilisation, x-ray machines, radiothermal generators, and betavoltaics. The reason we don't is not that we lack the ability, it's that we lack the economic incentive. Filling it with concrete and leaving it for a hundred years is cheap, and for beta emitters it's total overkill for preventing contamination - we put beta emitters in power supplies for pacemakers and on glowing key fobs these days. Recycling it is going to cost a lot more than the value of the materials you will extract. That said, recycling may be more attractive if you've got a lot of them to process at once, so passing them to the future to handle makes sense.
well then, if you're talking about perception of value then the people who mine bitcoins obviously perceive the value of what they are doing to be higher than the value of the electricity consumed.
Except that BitCoins are a medium of exchange. They have no value other than the ability to exchange them for something else. It's like the number in your bank balance: you don't even have coins or notes that may become collectable. The value of the money in your bank account is defined by what it can buy for you, as is the value of BitCoins. Currently, however, I don't believe that there are any things that can be bought for BitCoins that can't be bought for less money than the cost of mining the BitCoins.
arguments based on perceived value aren't very convincing.
Since there is no absolute measure of value, perceived value is the only thing that we can talk about in this context. Value is inherently a subjective quality as it depends on your situation. The value of a cup of water to me is a lot less than the value of exactly the same cup to someone in the middle of a desert.
As you say, it depends on the contract. You can write a clause giving you final editorial say on the screenplay - it's not entirely uncommon. You may be offered less money than if you don't require this, of course...
Desktop RAM is also very cheap. My laptop has 8GB, and that only cost £45 almost a year ago (I bought the RAM separately). If you've got 4 DIMM slots (pretty normal in a desktop) then you can buy 16GB for about $40 more than 8GB. If you've only got two, then it will be $200 more. Not very much in comparison to the price of the system.
Actually, it costs £122 (in the Mac Pro - the laptops can't be configured with more than 750GB), irrespective of whether you upgrade the single 1TB disk to a 2TB disk, or you add a second 2TB disk. Adding a second 2TB disk is £245. The cost of buying a 2TB hard disk yourself is about £80-100 at the moment, and it takes under 5 minutes to fit into a Mac Pro, so Apple is charging about £2000/hour for someone to do the installation for you. By coincidence, this is about the same amount as that person earns in a year...
Actually, you'll find that the stock Android experience is a. more popular among most users than the likes of Sense and Touchwiz
Really? My phone came with Sense and the first thing I did was replace it with Cyanogen Mod. The second thing I did was cringe at how much worse the UI got and revert to the firmware it came with...
The younger actors sort-of make sense. When The Doctor was young, he was played by old actors because very young people usually try to seem more grownup than they are. Now that he's over a thousand, he wants to seem younger, so he regenerates into a younger-looking body. On the other hand, it needs to be a young actor who can pull off the whole looking 20 while being over 1000 thing, which I don't really think Matt Smith can do very well.
His first assertion is not just true, it's almost tautological. Any society (meaning any group of people living together and not killing each other) requires some set of rules by which to live. The organisation that defines these rules - whether it's by consensus of all of the involved parties, a strong man imposing his will, or a representative body - is a government.
His second assertion is not quite true, but a government does need the support of the governed in order to function, and taxes are a simple way of providing this support.
The third assertion seems true. I can't think of any examples of better ways of collecting taxes than money. Tithes were fine in an agrarian society, but not so much in a modern one. Perhaps you'd prefer some form of conscription, where people get picked at random (or by some other criteria) to perform government functions?
Legal tender only means that the tax man is required to accept it. You can use any tokens you want in private exchanges, including barter for commodities, IOUs (informal, as well as the more formal kinds including cheques and credit cards), or anything else you choose. In the US, you must accept dollars in settlement for debts, although the debt value can be defined in some other terms and so the dollar value of the debt may be variable.
Actually Natural Selection was known before Charles Darwin even took his voyage
Not quite. It was hypothesised. Darwin's voyage played a major part in providing it enough evidence for it to become an accepted theory. Blyth's articles were highly controversial, and a lot of people dismissed them as being weak on evidence, in much the same way that Einstein's work was dismissed by a lot of people until Eddington showed observations that matched Einstein's predictions and not Newton's.
This is probably the most important thing to cover in a school science class: that science is not dogma. That there are prevailing theories, but observations and experimental results always trump theories. People may be emotionally invested in a particular theory, but eventually the ones that don't stand up to testing are discarded.
So much of science teaching in school seems to fall into the form of 'this is true because scientists tell us it's true'. This is no different from saying 'this is true because priests tell us it's true' and so it's no wonder that people grow up confusing science and religion. I would be far happier if children left school with a deep understanding of the scientific method but not knowing that the Earth went around the Sun than the other way around.
No, Martha was good. I was a bit surprised at how much I enjoyed Rose. When I heard they'd cast Billie Piper, I fully expected the show to suck. Martha Jones was slightly jarring at first because they introduced her straight after the episode where she'd played another character, but once you got past that, she was great: one of the few characters (Nissa probably being the best other examples) who could keep up with the doctor and match his intellect. Then there was Donna, a stupid annoying chavette.
Dropping hints early on in the series that she was going to die seemed like it was going to be great for ratings. We all wanted to watch it to make certain that we didn't miss that. And then in the finale she didn't die. Such a shame...
No, you're not alone. Tennant and Smith both seem more like self-parody (although there's some precedent for that in Doctor Who). I still enjoy their performances, but Eccleston was the only one who made me believe he was almost a thousand years old. Tennant and Smith seem like the Midlife Crisis Doctor - next thing you know he'll paint the TARDIS red...
What I really want is for the Doctor to take on a non-human companion
That sort of defeats the point of the companion. They exist in the show as a surrogate for the audience, someone who will ask the same questions as the audience and allow The Doctor to explain things for the benefit of the audience without breaking the fourth wall. An alien companion can work, but only if there is also a human companion.
I think most of us try to forget Adric. When he dies, you can tell when he dies that all of the characters are thinking 'we have a time machine. We only saw the spaceship crash from the outside - we could go back and rescue him before it does. I really hope no one else thinks of that...'
Actually, that's not too implausible. If the Earth became a black hole, it would have no impact on the orbital mechanics of the rest of the system. The total mass would remain the same, it would just be in something a lot smaller. Of course, a black hole that small would not be stable (maybe magic red matter changes this) and so would start evaporating as Hawking radiation, so it's not going to be too healthy to be very close to it...
I never said he did. Scotty was the one who was complaining about supplies taking a long time to arrive, Kirk was the one marooned there with the expectation of being picked up at some point in the future.
A science class that doesn't teach the history of science is practically religion itself. You don't teach science (well) by listing a load of current theories. You start with simple theories and go through the observations and experiments that invalidated them. Creationism definitely has a place there, because that is what people believed. You start by explaining that people believed that species never changed, and then list some of the examples that disproved this. Then you go on to things like ring species that demonstrate that the concept of a species is itself somewhat flawed and that speciation is a gradual process.
Science is a process, and without teaching the history surrounding each step in the process it's very hard for students to distinguish it from dogma.
Yes and no. They do care about battery life, and a kernel with a driver architecture that was designed with power management in mind from the start helps there. They do care about being able to run random apps without getting malware on their phone, and a kernel with a capabilities model at every layer helps with that. They may not care about the kernel itself, but they certainly do care about things that are dependent on the kernel.
Slashdot Mirror
They still do this with GCC. Because of the poor layering, getting a new target often requires hacking up various parts of the middle. Their goal is a working compiler, so they just do the minimum required to get their target working, at the expense of breaking others. These changes won't get incorporated into mainline GCC, so you're stuck with a GCC fork that's going to be unmaintained pretty soon.
In contrast, LLVM back ends are modular and quite easy to write and, more importantly, don't need to touch any of the rest of the system. This is why ARM is now investing quite a lot in LLVM and companies like Qualcomm have seemingly permanent job adverts for anyone with LLVM experience.
By the time you've finished the boot process, you're likely to be using more GNU code than Linux code.
There are lots of ways of dealing with it. Grind it up finely and centrifuge it to separate out the different elements, for example, so that you've concentrated all of the stuff that's still radioactive. Then use that in medical sterilisation, x-ray machines, radiothermal generators, and betavoltaics. The reason we don't is not that we lack the ability, it's that we lack the economic incentive. Filling it with concrete and leaving it for a hundred years is cheap, and for beta emitters it's total overkill for preventing contamination - we put beta emitters in power supplies for pacemakers and on glowing key fobs these days. Recycling it is going to cost a lot more than the value of the materials you will extract. That said, recycling may be more attractive if you've got a lot of them to process at once, so passing them to the future to handle makes sense.
well then, if you're talking about perception of value then the people who mine bitcoins obviously perceive the value of what they are doing to be higher than the value of the electricity consumed.
Except that BitCoins are a medium of exchange. They have no value other than the ability to exchange them for something else. It's like the number in your bank balance: you don't even have coins or notes that may become collectable. The value of the money in your bank account is defined by what it can buy for you, as is the value of BitCoins. Currently, however, I don't believe that there are any things that can be bought for BitCoins that can't be bought for less money than the cost of mining the BitCoins.
arguments based on perceived value aren't very convincing.
Since there is no absolute measure of value, perceived value is the only thing that we can talk about in this context. Value is inherently a subjective quality as it depends on your situation. The value of a cup of water to me is a lot less than the value of exactly the same cup to someone in the middle of a desert.
The Master knows the correct definition.
As you say, it depends on the contract. You can write a clause giving you final editorial say on the screenplay - it's not entirely uncommon. You may be offered less money than if you don't require this, of course...
Desktop RAM is also very cheap. My laptop has 8GB, and that only cost £45 almost a year ago (I bought the RAM separately). If you've got 4 DIMM slots (pretty normal in a desktop) then you can buy 16GB for about $40 more than 8GB. If you've only got two, then it will be $200 more. Not very much in comparison to the price of the system.
Actually, it costs £122 (in the Mac Pro - the laptops can't be configured with more than 750GB), irrespective of whether you upgrade the single 1TB disk to a 2TB disk, or you add a second 2TB disk. Adding a second 2TB disk is £245. The cost of buying a 2TB hard disk yourself is about £80-100 at the moment, and it takes under 5 minutes to fit into a Mac Pro, so Apple is charging about £2000/hour for someone to do the installation for you. By coincidence, this is about the same amount as that person earns in a year...
Actually, you'll find that the stock Android experience is a. more popular among most users than the likes of Sense and Touchwiz
Really? My phone came with Sense and the first thing I did was replace it with Cyanogen Mod. The second thing I did was cringe at how much worse the UI got and revert to the firmware it came with...
The younger actors sort-of make sense. When The Doctor was young, he was played by old actors because very young people usually try to seem more grownup than they are. Now that he's over a thousand, he wants to seem younger, so he regenerates into a younger-looking body. On the other hand, it needs to be a young actor who can pull off the whole looking 20 while being over 1000 thing, which I don't really think Matt Smith can do very well.
His first assertion is not just true, it's almost tautological. Any society (meaning any group of people living together and not killing each other) requires some set of rules by which to live. The organisation that defines these rules - whether it's by consensus of all of the involved parties, a strong man imposing his will, or a representative body - is a government.
His second assertion is not quite true, but a government does need the support of the governed in order to function, and taxes are a simple way of providing this support.
The third assertion seems true. I can't think of any examples of better ways of collecting taxes than money. Tithes were fine in an agrarian society, but not so much in a modern one. Perhaps you'd prefer some form of conscription, where people get picked at random (or by some other criteria) to perform government functions?
Legal tender only means that the tax man is required to accept it. You can use any tokens you want in private exchanges, including barter for commodities, IOUs (informal, as well as the more formal kinds including cheques and credit cards), or anything else you choose. In the US, you must accept dollars in settlement for debts, although the debt value can be defined in some other terms and so the dollar value of the debt may be variable.
Ah, pathetic twenty-first century grammar nazi, unfamiliar with the complex tenses required by time travel.
'No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public' - Henry Mencken
Actually Natural Selection was known before Charles Darwin even took his voyage
Not quite. It was hypothesised. Darwin's voyage played a major part in providing it enough evidence for it to become an accepted theory. Blyth's articles were highly controversial, and a lot of people dismissed them as being weak on evidence, in much the same way that Einstein's work was dismissed by a lot of people until Eddington showed observations that matched Einstein's predictions and not Newton's.
This is probably the most important thing to cover in a school science class: that science is not dogma. That there are prevailing theories, but observations and experimental results always trump theories. People may be emotionally invested in a particular theory, but eventually the ones that don't stand up to testing are discarded.
So much of science teaching in school seems to fall into the form of 'this is true because scientists tell us it's true'. This is no different from saying 'this is true because priests tell us it's true' and so it's no wonder that people grow up confusing science and religion. I would be far happier if children left school with a deep understanding of the scientific method but not knowing that the Earth went around the Sun than the other way around.
No, Martha was good. I was a bit surprised at how much I enjoyed Rose. When I heard they'd cast Billie Piper, I fully expected the show to suck. Martha Jones was slightly jarring at first because they introduced her straight after the episode where she'd played another character, but once you got past that, she was great: one of the few characters (Nissa probably being the best other examples) who could keep up with the doctor and match his intellect. Then there was Donna, a stupid annoying chavette.
Dropping hints early on in the series that she was going to die seemed like it was going to be great for ratings. We all wanted to watch it to make certain that we didn't miss that. And then in the finale she didn't die. Such a shame...
No, you're not alone. Tennant and Smith both seem more like self-parody (although there's some precedent for that in Doctor Who). I still enjoy their performances, but Eccleston was the only one who made me believe he was almost a thousand years old. Tennant and Smith seem like the Midlife Crisis Doctor - next thing you know he'll paint the TARDIS red...
What I really want is for the Doctor to take on a non-human companion
That sort of defeats the point of the companion. They exist in the show as a surrogate for the audience, someone who will ask the same questions as the audience and allow The Doctor to explain things for the benefit of the audience without breaking the fourth wall. An alien companion can work, but only if there is also a human companion.
I think most of us try to forget Adric. When he dies, you can tell when he dies that all of the characters are thinking 'we have a time machine. We only saw the spaceship crash from the outside - we could go back and rescue him before it does. I really hope no one else thinks of that...'
Actually, that's not too implausible. If the Earth became a black hole, it would have no impact on the orbital mechanics of the rest of the system. The total mass would remain the same, it would just be in something a lot smaller. Of course, a black hole that small would not be stable (maybe magic red matter changes this) and so would start evaporating as Hawking radiation, so it's not going to be too healthy to be very close to it...
I never said he did. Scotty was the one who was complaining about supplies taking a long time to arrive, Kirk was the one marooned there with the expectation of being picked up at some point in the future.
If I gave you a fish that glowed in the dark - how would you determine if the glow was a product of evolution or a product of genetic engineering?
Check the serial number on the bottom?
A science class that doesn't teach the history of science is practically religion itself. You don't teach science (well) by listing a load of current theories. You start with simple theories and go through the observations and experiments that invalidated them. Creationism definitely has a place there, because that is what people believed. You start by explaining that people believed that species never changed, and then list some of the examples that disproved this. Then you go on to things like ring species that demonstrate that the concept of a species is itself somewhat flawed and that speciation is a gradual process.
Science is a process, and without teaching the history surrounding each step in the process it's very hard for students to distinguish it from dogma.
Yes and no. They do care about battery life, and a kernel with a driver architecture that was designed with power management in mind from the start helps there. They do care about being able to run random apps without getting malware on their phone, and a kernel with a capabilities model at every layer helps with that. They may not care about the kernel itself, but they certainly do care about things that are dependent on the kernel.