Are you questioning their scientific prowess or do you really believe that they would put loyalty to a former employer before honesty of scientific inquiry?
Given that plants consume CO2 to produce energy and oxygen, without CO2 there would be no life. It's an essential component of creating plant-matter. Without it, there would be NO food chain. So, no, you can't claim that it's a pollutant if removing it would mean removing life.
Well, given how many of the pro-AGW arguments are made based on the spectrum data observed from satellite-generated imagery, expertise in astrophysics is not unrelated to the subject.
In that results returned by Google are at Google's discretion. Should Google change their policy or cease to exist, or be brought down by a foreign cyber attack, FBI probably would like to keep operating.
Actually, you are. Communism is a dictatorship in the name of populism. Actively working to turn a nation into a dictatorship, especially under the guidance of foreign agents, is in effect attempting to overthrow the system of government. It's treasonous. The line which cannot cross is in a democracy is the line of attempting to end a democracy. You can believe in whatever you want. But if you occupy a position of power and you attempt to act on those believes, in a democracy, we have a right to know about those believes.
The question, then, is how was the police officer responsible punished for the arrest? Because if he wasn't that just means that police are free to arrest journalists "by mistake" whenever they judge necessary. Tacit acquiescence of a arresting of journalist is, in fact, an attack on journalism.
No, not IDL. If it requires serialization, it's not an IPC. You use shared memory mmapped files as you would regular memory. It is, in fact, not just in name memory shared between processes the way it would be shared between threads. Only the pointer has a different value in processes and the same value in threads.
The problem isn't that they might not have new products. The problem for them is that if they introduce a product which gets only a lukewarm (rather than hot) reception, then they will lose more money in that quarter or two than the other tech companies would lose if they introduced a complete stinker. Leverage multiplies losses. If BestBuy can't sell enough of gadget X, they half the shelf space which is occupied by gadget X. Apple store has to sell Apple products. So they would lose money both on "keeping the lights on" in the stores (figuratively speaking) and on the product which only got the lukewarm reception.
Btw, you do know that after the fall of the Soviet Union (and declassification of a lot of KGB documents), McCarthy's suspicions were proven to be mostly accurate, do you not?
If they consider direct media ownership by government officials as impinging on freedom of information. For example, Italy's Berlusconi owned controlling interest in much of Italy's media. He received quite a bit more consideration than any other politician would in the modern era. For any other politician a sex scandal would have been a blow to their career, while Berlusconi was only sank by Italy's near bankruptcy. As another example, on the same note, there is very little negative coverage of mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg. While he does not technically run the company, he does own Bloomberg LP which owns Bloomberg TV and US News. He is an unmarried man and most people don't even know the name of his girlfriend(girlfriends?). This is quite a fit for a politician of such high visibility. Clearly, the more media a politician owns, the less negative or controversial coverage they get.
Between threads I can just pass a pointer/reference - it's seamless and easy. Between processes I have to put a lot of work into serializing my object (which can get annyoingly complicated if my object is a fraph that might have cycles) just to hand it from one process to another.
Look into shared memory, or even a memory-mapped file. Memory-mapped files, by the way, are just as efficient as shared memory. What happens underneath is "memory" is physical memory pages+disk swap, while "memory mapped file" is disk file+in-memory cache. But since these are both operating-system level constructs, they can be shared between processes. You don't have to serialize objects between processes. Use IPCs.
Apple store is a leverage. As all other leverage it allows the company to make more money when their core products are successful and forces it to lose more money when they are not. It's not a failing or successful strategy in itself -- only insofar as the core products do well or not. All it will take for them is to miss on a one or two product cycles and the cost of the apple stores will burn a huge hole in their balance sheet. They won't recover from it. Leverage is the opposite of insurance -- it exacerbates failures by many fold while increasing success by a marginal amount. Long-term success is determined by how well they are positioned to survive occasional stumbles. I could go on, but you probably get the point.
there is a lesser performance gain in using threads instead of processes on multi-core systems. since the cost of using threads is less isolation of memory space, it is by definition less robust. the move back to processes is picking up because of just this. the price/reward scale is beginning to tip in the other direction.
yes, and the reason it was cheaper was because the threads would run on the same processor. and blocking in a process meant that you'd have to go through a context switch before another process would run. essentially that meant that any ipc would have to wait for a context switch to happen. but with multiple threads/processes running on multiple cores, it doesn't matter how your two threads communicate (as IPCs or through common memory space). fork and exec doesn't duplicate the whole process. only dirtied blocks get duplicated. which means the code blocks do not.
But you can fork and exec and let your processes block just as well as you let your threads blocks. The serialization between processes should be less sophisticated than it is between threads because if one process blows up, it doesn't take all the others with it.
Sounds like a cop out due to poor implementations to me.
It's not a cop out. You don't gain an advantage from multi-threading if your threads run on different cores. The main advantage of threads was avoiding a context switch during a blocking call. This way switching to another thread was cheaper. And since they ran on the same processor, it meant that you HAD TO switch to another thread. But on multiple cores they often run simultaneously. So if you have (for example) 2 threads running and one blocks, you won't get the advantage of avoiding a context switch to change from blocking to the running thread (because the the running one is running on another core). And you will still pay the performance hit for switching context, because your 1st core now has to run a thread from a different process. Given that writing everything in multi-threadead paradigm requires more complex memory management, it doesn't make sense to do it anymore: there are fewer performance gains from it and there is a higher frequency of bugs due to code complexity.
Not sure why this was modded down. Windows WAS the system in which tread paradigm dominated. It was a performance gain in a single processor machine. Now that we are moving away from multi-threaded and towards multi-core, I guess most people forget what one has to do with the other.
Sooner or later people will have to work out the tools to create safe multithreaded applications without requiring a special degree in parallellization.
Maybe as soon as they figure out IPCs. Before answering the question "aren't single-thread programs bad", you have to mention the difference between a thread and a process. Once one realizes that the main advantages of a multi-threaded paradigm were in single-processor space (because it allowed to avoid a context switch necessary for changing memory space to that of a different process), you won't even have to explain the rest. Most people have already come to expect that multi-core is a Good Thing(TM).
Only the last 2 are responsible for their success. Apple store will be the reason for their eventual downfall. And iPhone was not an innovation. Sun has a prototype smartphone long before Apple.
A smart phone, of course. Yes, Sun had them in prototypes 2-3 years before Apple did. But Apple put it everyone's hands. Just like Exxon ensured logistics negotiating contracts all over the world, building drilling stations all over the world, operated shipping boats, ensured refineries' operations. And then made it possible for a million gas stations to exist everywhere in the country to pour liquid, whose contents are highly explosive, in a safe way in the middle of nowhere. You see, if it's not "digital", it's not innovative. Don't you know? They are just "digging stuff up." Cave man stuff really.
We should be expecting a congressional hearing on what Congress should do with all those profits? I mean, if it was held for Exxon (which doesn't employ slave labor), it should be held for Apple (which does employ slave labor) shouldn't it? Apple is only this profitable because US has relations with China favorable enough that Apple can get a country purporting to defend workers' rights to create a slave-labor powered factories. We should tax that and subsidize failing tech companies, right? I am sure AT&T's and Verizon's of the world could use a hand out.
If you read a little bit more carefully my original comment, you'll see that I took issue with the argument presented rather than the conclusion stated. I am against racial profiling not because it is completely ineffective, but rather because it is not effective enough to pay the price we'd pay for it. As for your claim that Islamic attacks were an aberration, it doesn't hold. They are not targeting US in particular, but rather the West and its institutions in general (and, perhaps, US as an archetype of the West). As such, there have been plenty of attacks in the past 10 years by the Islamic-clerics' motivated fanatics on western targets.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you questioning their scientific prowess or do you really believe that they would put loyalty to a former employer before honesty of scientific inquiry?
Given that plants consume CO2 to produce energy and oxygen, without CO2 there would be no life. It's an essential component of creating plant-matter. Without it, there would be NO food chain. So, no, you can't claim that it's a pollutant if removing it would mean removing life.
Well, given how many of the pro-AGW arguments are made based on the spectrum data observed from satellite-generated imagery, expertise in astrophysics is not unrelated to the subject.
That's not how science works. Reality is there to be discovered. Reality is not there to be voted into office.
In that results returned by Google are at Google's discretion. Should Google change their policy or cease to exist, or be brought down by a foreign cyber attack, FBI probably would like to keep operating.
Actually, you are. Communism is a dictatorship in the name of populism. Actively working to turn a nation into a dictatorship, especially under the guidance of foreign agents, is in effect attempting to overthrow the system of government. It's treasonous. The line which cannot cross is in a democracy is the line of attempting to end a democracy. You can believe in whatever you want. But if you occupy a position of power and you attempt to act on those believes, in a democracy, we have a right to know about those believes.
The question, then, is how was the police officer responsible punished for the arrest? Because if he wasn't that just means that police are free to arrest journalists "by mistake" whenever they judge necessary. Tacit acquiescence of a arresting of journalist is, in fact, an attack on journalism.
No, not IDL. If it requires serialization, it's not an IPC. You use shared memory mmapped files as you would regular memory. It is, in fact, not just in name memory shared between processes the way it would be shared between threads. Only the pointer has a different value in processes and the same value in threads.
The problem isn't that they might not have new products. The problem for them is that if they introduce a product which gets only a lukewarm (rather than hot) reception, then they will lose more money in that quarter or two than the other tech companies would lose if they introduced a complete stinker. Leverage multiplies losses. If BestBuy can't sell enough of gadget X, they half the shelf space which is occupied by gadget X. Apple store has to sell Apple products. So they would lose money both on "keeping the lights on" in the stores (figuratively speaking) and on the product which only got the lukewarm reception.
Btw, you do know that after the fall of the Soviet Union (and declassification of a lot of KGB documents), McCarthy's suspicions were proven to be mostly accurate, do you not?
So you agree with the Obama doctrine?
If they consider direct media ownership by government officials as impinging on freedom of information. For example, Italy's Berlusconi owned controlling interest in much of Italy's media. He received quite a bit more consideration than any other politician would in the modern era. For any other politician a sex scandal would have been a blow to their career, while Berlusconi was only sank by Italy's near bankruptcy. As another example, on the same note, there is very little negative coverage of mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg. While he does not technically run the company, he does own Bloomberg LP which owns Bloomberg TV and US News. He is an unmarried man and most people don't even know the name of his girlfriend(girlfriends?). This is quite a fit for a politician of such high visibility. Clearly, the more media a politician owns, the less negative or controversial coverage they get.
Between threads I can just pass a pointer/reference - it's seamless and easy. Between processes I have to put a lot of work into serializing my object (which can get annyoingly complicated if my object is a fraph that might have cycles) just to hand it from one process to another.
Look into shared memory, or even a memory-mapped file. Memory-mapped files, by the way, are just as efficient as shared memory. What happens underneath is "memory" is physical memory pages+disk swap, while "memory mapped file" is disk file+in-memory cache. But since these are both operating-system level constructs, they can be shared between processes. You don't have to serialize objects between processes. Use IPCs.
Apple store is a leverage. As all other leverage it allows the company to make more money when their core products are successful and forces it to lose more money when they are not. It's not a failing or successful strategy in itself -- only insofar as the core products do well or not. All it will take for them is to miss on a one or two product cycles and the cost of the apple stores will burn a huge hole in their balance sheet. They won't recover from it. Leverage is the opposite of insurance -- it exacerbates failures by many fold while increasing success by a marginal amount. Long-term success is determined by how well they are positioned to survive occasional stumbles. I could go on, but you probably get the point.
there is a lesser performance gain in using threads instead of processes on multi-core systems. since the cost of using threads is less isolation of memory space, it is by definition less robust. the move back to processes is picking up because of just this. the price/reward scale is beginning to tip in the other direction.
yes, and the reason it was cheaper was because the threads would run on the same processor. and blocking in a process meant that you'd have to go through a context switch before another process would run. essentially that meant that any ipc would have to wait for a context switch to happen. but with multiple threads/processes running on multiple cores, it doesn't matter how your two threads communicate (as IPCs or through common memory space). fork and exec doesn't duplicate the whole process. only dirtied blocks get duplicated. which means the code blocks do not.
But you can fork and exec and let your processes block just as well as you let your threads blocks. The serialization between processes should be less sophisticated than it is between threads because if one process blows up, it doesn't take all the others with it.
Sounds like a cop out due to poor implementations to me.
It's not a cop out. You don't gain an advantage from multi-threading if your threads run on different cores. The main advantage of threads was avoiding a context switch during a blocking call. This way switching to another thread was cheaper. And since they ran on the same processor, it meant that you HAD TO switch to another thread. But on multiple cores they often run simultaneously. So if you have (for example) 2 threads running and one blocks, you won't get the advantage of avoiding a context switch to change from blocking to the running thread (because the the running one is running on another core). And you will still pay the performance hit for switching context, because your 1st core now has to run a thread from a different process. Given that writing everything in multi-threadead paradigm requires more complex memory management, it doesn't make sense to do it anymore: there are fewer performance gains from it and there is a higher frequency of bugs due to code complexity.
Not sure why this was modded down. Windows WAS the system in which tread paradigm dominated. It was a performance gain in a single processor machine. Now that we are moving away from multi-threaded and towards multi-core, I guess most people forget what one has to do with the other.
Sooner or later people will have to work out the tools to create safe multithreaded applications without requiring a special degree in parallellization.
Maybe as soon as they figure out IPCs. Before answering the question "aren't single-thread programs bad", you have to mention the difference between a thread and a process. Once one realizes that the main advantages of a multi-threaded paradigm were in single-processor space (because it allowed to avoid a context switch necessary for changing memory space to that of a different process), you won't even have to explain the rest. Most people have already come to expect that multi-core is a Good Thing(TM).
Only the last 2 are responsible for their success. Apple store will be the reason for their eventual downfall. And iPhone was not an innovation. Sun has a prototype smartphone long before Apple.
Sorry, but are you actually defending Communism? I just want to make sure I understood you correctly before I laugh uncontrollably.
A smart phone, of course. Yes, Sun had them in prototypes 2-3 years before Apple did. But Apple put it everyone's hands. Just like Exxon ensured logistics negotiating contracts all over the world, building drilling stations all over the world, operated shipping boats, ensured refineries' operations. And then made it possible for a million gas stations to exist everywhere in the country to pour liquid, whose contents are highly explosive, in a safe way in the middle of nowhere. You see, if it's not "digital", it's not innovative. Don't you know? They are just "digging stuff up." Cave man stuff really.
We should be expecting a congressional hearing on what Congress should do with all those profits? I mean, if it was held for Exxon (which doesn't employ slave labor), it should be held for Apple (which does employ slave labor) shouldn't it? Apple is only this profitable because US has relations with China favorable enough that Apple can get a country purporting to defend workers' rights to create a slave-labor powered factories. We should tax that and subsidize failing tech companies, right? I am sure AT&T's and Verizon's of the world could use a hand out.
If you read a little bit more carefully my original comment, you'll see that I took issue with the argument presented rather than the conclusion stated. I am against racial profiling not because it is completely ineffective, but rather because it is not effective enough to pay the price we'd pay for it. As for your claim that Islamic attacks were an aberration, it doesn't hold. They are not targeting US in particular, but rather the West and its institutions in general (and, perhaps, US as an archetype of the West). As such, there have been plenty of attacks in the past 10 years by the Islamic-clerics' motivated fanatics on western targets.