It is not difficult to justify parallel programming. Ten years ago, it was difficult to justify because most computers had a single processor.
Most computers *STILL* have a single processor. If I recall right, AMD only began selling dual cores in 2005. That's only 2 years ago, and AMD and Intel have still sold a lot (mostly) of single core chips since then. It's only been the last several months that dual-cores are becoming more the norm in new machines.
I've been building/using SMP machines for over a decade, but until the last couple of years most folks couldn't get one at a decent price. It's hardly surprising that since most folks up until that time didn't have ready access to multiple processors that they didn't bother thinking about or working on coding to take advantage of them. Expect a big change in that over the next several years as we get programmers going through school working on them the whole time, and for everyone else to gear up as well now that they will start to finally become commonplace.
Some states have a sales tax, others don't have a sales tax but rely entirely on other means of income such as property taxes, etc.
Since it varies state-to-state if you have any sales tax, sometimes the seller will just not charge the tax, leaving the buyer to deal with the hassle/paperwork of paying the tax. Lots of buyers simply don't pay any when they are supposed to.
On my annual state tax form (we have sales tax here) there is a special box for you to put in the $ amount you spent on internet purchases that you haven't yet paid taxes on (and a corresponding box to calculate what you now owe in taxes based on that amount).
Now this I can (partially) agree with, though once you decide you don't want a given car and want another, you're still going to have to 'uninstall' (e.g. sell or trade-in) the thing, no?
No. The analogy I used was test driving a car to find out which one you wanted to use. Much like installing a variety of apps to find which MP3 player you like and want to keep to use daily. When you test drive the car, if you don't like it you simply walk away. With the app, you have to find a way to uninstall it. The car you test drove won't normally leave traces of it around your garage.
When you go to the Kia dealership to test drive a car, and then go to drive the Hyundai, you are going to find all the major controls for both vehicles in the same place. Not true with software.
Also, after you've decided the Kia isn't for you... you don't have to try to figure out how to uninstall the damn thing because it is sucking up resources.
Frankly it sounds like you really want to play a turn-based strategy game rather than a real-time one then. There's nothing wrong with that. I like those (like Fallout) myself. But that's not what Starcraft is.
Get a grip. They can't sue their broadband providers for calling 768/128 broadband, because it is broadband according to the current FCC definition. I'm sure if the FCC redefines it, the providers will change their lingo.
Probably because it's a story/puzzle/level design contest, not a texture/physics/lighting contest. The NWN2 is extremely stable, and well known, so lots of folks are already familiar with it. If you can make an interesting level/story/puzzle in it, then it will be all the better when tied in with the latest engine of the day.
Certainly. I've heard it for years too. Server apps usually spawn lots of processes, or threads to handle jobs. Often servers run multiple services, so those split up among CPUs. Server software does it fairly decently. But what % of machines are servers? Not a big number. What % of machines for the past years had multiple CPUs? A smaller number. Multi-CPU non-servers? Way way way way way under 1%.
SMP machines used to be rare. Now that dual-cores (and soon quad) are becoming mainstream for regular desktop/laptop computers, there will finally be a real incentive for the apps that run on them to actually take advantage of multiple CPUs. Suddenly CS students, and folks who just like to program, will suddenly have access to a multi-cpu machine all the time on their own desks. That's bound to have an impact.
Certain apps get a big boost from quad cores, lots of others don't. Some of those apps aren't for servers. For example, if you happen to do a ton of video editing, a quad core might be a good choice. I'll agree with you for most of us it's silly on the desktop right now. That won't necessarily be true in a few years when they write a lot more apps that need and take advantage of multithreading.
Do Linux or Apple users not mind when a bot-net army takes down a website they are trying to access, or clogs the pipes?
Do Linux or Apple users not mind all the spam to their inbox from hijacked machines?
Do Linux or Apple users not have to worry about some family member being taken in by a phishing scheme, hosted on a hijacked machine?
Do Linux or Apple users not mind tons of hijacked machines probing any SSH or other ports you might have open, looking for vulnerabilities or doing dictionary password attacks?
Less hijacked machines on the internet helps us all. Be you a Windows, Linux, Apple, BSD, or other user. Not caring about hijacked windows boxes because you are leet enough to use Linux is stupid.
And did you notice how blurry the image was of the 'standard' text. Nice job there. "look how much easier the text on the right is to read compared to the old stuff on the left!". This is a SERIOUSLY flawed example.
Did they do such a shoddy job in the study? Why is there no link to a peer-reviewed study?
Ok, 'new to windows' then. Is that better? Anyone who bothered to patch their machines regularly knew of this change. Before ~5 years ago, patches would come out individually. Of course, most folks who aren't 'into' IT in some fashion didn't bother to patch anyhow.
I believe you missed this bit of my post: "to minimize or eliminate the amount of time that an exploit is out there, and their own machines are unpatched."
No one, even you at home, are going to be proof against a zero day exploit. It's not about totally eliminating all risk. It's about minimizing it. If there is a reasonable way to reduce the window of vulnerability, they'll take it.
Getting the patch and beginning testing on it the same day the hackers get it is much better than letting the hackers play with it for a good chunk of a month before you even begin testing.
Now the monthly release cycle does benefit the large corps and does hurt home users a bit. I don't know if the pluses of the monthly releases really outweigh the minuses. There are lots of variables and I don't know all the numbers. It may not be the best way, but the big corps do have some valid reasons for wanting it the way it is.
I'm not a large company I can keep up with such updates why must I wait because Lardtech, INC. isn't as fast?
Probably because Lardtech pays MS a *LOT* more than you do. Their preference for a patch cycle beats yours because you don't make MS as much money.
As for why can't the large company just have an internal regular patch cycle, waiting on all patches till the end of the month? Because of modern realities.
Much of the time security holes are found by MS's internal folks, or 'good' security hackers which report holes to MS and gives them a reasonable amount of time to generate/test a patch before reporting them to the public. As soon as MS releases one of these patches, the bad guys leap on it, doing diffs between patched and unpatched code, trying to figure out exactly what it was that MS patched, what the hole was. Then they try to come up with a good exploit that takes advantage of that hole, then they start sending out the exploit, trying to hack machines and make bot-nets.
Sometimes figuring out what exactly the hole was is tough. Sometimes figuring out how to make a usable exploit is tough. But sometimes it's not tough and it's all done, and the exploit goes wild within 24 hours after the release of the patch.
If Lardtech sits on their ass, not even beginning the testing of that patch until the end of the month, they are gonna get owned big-time. Therefore, they don't want the bad guys to get it before their own internal guys can get it and start up the testing cycle, to minimize or eliminate the amount of time that an exploit is out there, and their own machines are unpatched. That's why they want a monthly patch date, in addition to what I already noted in my other post about not wanting to test each patch separately.
Slashdot Mirror
It is not difficult to justify parallel programming. Ten years ago, it was difficult to justify because most computers had a single processor.
Most computers *STILL* have a single processor. If I recall right, AMD only began selling dual cores in 2005. That's only 2 years ago, and AMD and Intel have still sold a lot (mostly) of single core chips since then. It's only been the last several months that dual-cores are becoming more the norm in new machines.
I've been building/using SMP machines for over a decade, but until the last couple of years most folks couldn't get one at a decent price. It's hardly surprising that since most folks up until that time didn't have ready access to multiple processors that they didn't bother thinking about or working on coding to take advantage of them. Expect a big change in that over the next several years as we get programmers going through school working on them the whole time, and for everyone else to gear up as well now that they will start to finally become commonplace.
Yeah, explain to my mother how and why she has to do that. And have her understand.
Some states have a sales tax, others don't have a sales tax but rely entirely on other means of income such as property taxes, etc.
Since it varies state-to-state if you have any sales tax, sometimes the seller will just not charge the tax, leaving the buyer to deal with the hassle/paperwork of paying the tax. Lots of buyers simply don't pay any when they are supposed to.
On my annual state tax form (we have sales tax here) there is a special box for you to put in the $ amount you spent on internet purchases that you haven't yet paid taxes on (and a corresponding box to calculate what you now owe in taxes based on that amount).
Now this I can (partially) agree with, though once you decide you don't want a given car and want another, you're still going to have to 'uninstall' (e.g. sell or trade-in) the thing, no?
No. The analogy I used was test driving a car to find out which one you wanted to use. Much like installing a variety of apps to find which MP3 player you like and want to keep to use daily. When you test drive the car, if you don't like it you simply walk away. With the app, you have to find a way to uninstall it. The car you test drove won't normally leave traces of it around your garage.
When you go to the Kia dealership to test drive a car, and then go to drive the Hyundai, you are going to find all the major controls for both vehicles in the same place. Not true with software.
Also, after you've decided the Kia isn't for you... you don't have to try to figure out how to uninstall the damn thing because it is sucking up resources.
Frankly it sounds like you really want to play a turn-based strategy game rather than a real-time one then. There's nothing wrong with that. I like those (like Fallout) myself. But that's not what Starcraft is.
Right, which is an exploit which allows you to claim $16,000 exactly how? Hint: It doesn't. This isn't an exploit at all.
I know you are an ass. That's enough.
Get a grip. They can't sue their broadband providers for calling 768/128 broadband, because it is broadband according to the current FCC definition. I'm sure if the FCC redefines it, the providers will change their lingo.
Probably because it's a story/puzzle/level design contest, not a texture/physics/lighting contest. The NWN2 is extremely stable, and well known, so lots of folks are already familiar with it. If you can make an interesting level/story/puzzle in it, then it will be all the better when tied in with the latest engine of the day.
To "keep up" on the highway? Yes, it is.
Huh? I've got a lightweight sports car. It's got 138 HP and I don't just 'keep up', but pass the vast majority of the traffic out there.
300 HP isn't overkill if your driving some damn behemoth SUV. It's overkill for a sane car.
Certainly. I've heard it for years too. Server apps usually spawn lots of processes, or threads to handle jobs. Often servers run multiple services, so those split up among CPUs. Server software does it fairly decently. But what % of machines are servers? Not a big number. What % of machines for the past years had multiple CPUs? A smaller number. Multi-CPU non-servers? Way way way way way under 1%.
SMP machines used to be rare. Now that dual-cores (and soon quad) are becoming mainstream for regular desktop/laptop computers, there will finally be a real incentive for the apps that run on them to actually take advantage of multiple CPUs. Suddenly CS students, and folks who just like to program, will suddenly have access to a multi-cpu machine all the time on their own desks. That's bound to have an impact.
Why isn't half (at least) of the current administration in jail? Because there ain't no justice.
But what does it matter? The 7 are dead. :(
The time limit to move the 150kg was 30 minutes. You already knew about the 30 watt limit. Calculate away.
That being said, it's a lot easier to get a 10 GHz computer with 4x2.5GHz CPUs, than it is to make a single 10 GHz CPU.
That's the entire answer right there.
Certain apps get a big boost from quad cores, lots of others don't. Some of those apps aren't for servers. For example, if you happen to do a ton of video editing, a quad core might be a good choice. I'll agree with you for most of us it's silly on the desktop right now. That won't necessarily be true in a few years when they write a lot more apps that need and take advantage of multithreading.
You must have brushed your teeth in a quantum mirror this morning.
Do Linux or Apple users not mind when a bot-net army takes down a website they are trying to access, or clogs the pipes?
Do Linux or Apple users not mind all the spam to their inbox from hijacked machines?
Do Linux or Apple users not have to worry about some family member being taken in by a phishing scheme, hosted on a hijacked machine?
Do Linux or Apple users not mind tons of hijacked machines probing any SSH or other ports you might have open, looking for vulnerabilities or doing dictionary password attacks?
Less hijacked machines on the internet helps us all. Be you a Windows, Linux, Apple, BSD, or other user. Not caring about hijacked windows boxes because you are leet enough to use Linux is stupid.
Ahh, thanks, I missed that. It's good to see it's actually been peer reviewed.
And did you notice how blurry the image was of the 'standard' text. Nice job there. "look how much easier the text on the right is to read compared to the old stuff on the left!". This is a SERIOUSLY flawed example.
Did they do such a shoddy job in the study? Why is there no link to a peer-reviewed study?
Ok, 'new to windows' then. Is that better? Anyone who bothered to patch their machines regularly knew of this change. Before ~5 years ago, patches would come out individually. Of course, most folks who aren't 'into' IT in some fashion didn't bother to patch anyhow.
I believe you missed this bit of my post: "to minimize or eliminate the amount of time that an exploit is out there, and their own machines are unpatched."
No one, even you at home, are going to be proof against a zero day exploit. It's not about totally eliminating all risk. It's about minimizing it. If there is a reasonable way to reduce the window of vulnerability, they'll take it.
Getting the patch and beginning testing on it the same day the hackers get it is much better than letting the hackers play with it for a good chunk of a month before you even begin testing.
Now the monthly release cycle does benefit the large corps and does hurt home users a bit. I don't know if the pluses of the monthly releases really outweigh the minuses. There are lots of variables and I don't know all the numbers. It may not be the best way, but the big corps do have some valid reasons for wanting it the way it is.
I'm not a large company I can keep up with such updates why must I wait because Lardtech, INC. isn't as fast?
Probably because Lardtech pays MS a *LOT* more than you do. Their preference for a patch cycle beats yours because you don't make MS as much money.
As for why can't the large company just have an internal regular patch cycle, waiting on all patches till the end of the month? Because of modern realities.
Much of the time security holes are found by MS's internal folks, or 'good' security hackers which report holes to MS and gives them a reasonable amount of time to generate/test a patch before reporting them to the public. As soon as MS releases one of these patches, the bad guys leap on it, doing diffs between patched and unpatched code, trying to figure out exactly what it was that MS patched, what the hole was. Then they try to come up with a good exploit that takes advantage of that hole, then they start sending out the exploit, trying to hack machines and make bot-nets.
Sometimes figuring out what exactly the hole was is tough. Sometimes figuring out how to make a usable exploit is tough. But sometimes it's not tough and it's all done, and the exploit goes wild within 24 hours after the release of the patch.
If Lardtech sits on their ass, not even beginning the testing of that patch until the end of the month, they are gonna get owned big-time. Therefore, they don't want the bad guys to get it before their own internal guys can get it and start up the testing cycle, to minimize or eliminate the amount of time that an exploit is out there, and their own machines are unpatched. That's why they want a monthly patch date, in addition to what I already noted in my other post about not wanting to test each patch separately.