RTFA. It addresses this. The article explains that half of baryonic maass was unaccounted for, and if these clouds are typical of the whole universe, that explains the 50% of "missing" baryonic mass. Astrophysicists can explain 2% of the expected mass of the universe as visible baryons. These clouds would be another 2% of the expected mass. Dark matter is 23%, dark energy is the remaining 73%.
For this to explain dark matter, the clouds they discovered would have to be less than ONE TENTH of the average density of intergalactic baryons.
Translations of a copyrighted work are derived works of the original. Creation of derived works is a transferable right reserved to the original work's author. There is very little legal difference between distributing the original video with subtitles and distributing the subtitles separately. The big punitive damages from RIAA lawsuits apply also to separately distributed fansubs.
Setting that aside, I have not seen any of these "numerous softwares" that you describe. The authors would tend to run afoul of contributory infringement claims, since the only real use is to allow that kind of unlicensed derivative work.
Ignoring that: DVD regions.
But why make consumers work and pay more to get English subtitles for a long-delayed import DVD? A lot of people love these shows enough to do high-quality translations with peer recognition as their only compensation. Better business sense would be for anime creators to work with, rather than persecute, the fansubbers.
US companies -- mostly distribution cartels and corporate copyright owners -- finally realized how they could make money from Internet distribution, and now we have services like iTunes. Video, including anime, will probably have its day soon. I expect fansubbing to dry up once that happens.
To some extent, the original Japanese seiyuu use silly voices, since anime is mostly targeted at kids and teens. Kansai-ben corresponds pretty well to a US Western dialect and accent. American characters in anime tend to have accents as bad as "flied lice" Asian characters in older US movies. That being said, your essential point is correct: US voice acting dubs tend to be more steretyped and less professional than the Japanese.
Most fansubbers do not think Japanese copyrights are invalid, and I suspect most would be insulted by the idea that the US is that much more important than Japan. However, they do think it is a lesser evil to service a demand for timely English-translated anime than to hope that the anime is eventually licensed by a high-quality US distributor.
This is the same situation as music and movies, but with significant value-add by the copyright infringers that enables them to reach market they do. I would gladly pay several dollars to download a (non-redistributable) subbed episode in anime series that I follow (about the same that it costs in the US on DVD). That greatly reduces my cost to explore new series, compared to the usual DVD release style. Unfortunately, the copyright holders do not offer anything like that.
Most of the fansub releases hit the net within a week or two of when the original show airs in Japan. That is long before it is commercially available in any region. For shows that are imported to the US, the lag time between Japanese release and US release has dropped sharply.
One might wait for a year or so after the show airs, and then wait a month between volumes. But what is the point when you can get it almost in real time?
I suspect it would be more useful for Japanese companies to work out formal deals with (fan- or otherwise) subbers and sell advertising in the torrent versions of the shows. A tweaked video format with DRM built-in could track distribution breadth or stop people from skipping the commercials.
In that respect, I agree that the ideal would be legitimate online distribution that produces income for the creator of the series, but lawsuits are neither an effective nor elegant way to get there.
I'll see your unsupported claim of being fastest and raise you a product endorsement: Gregory Arakelian reportedly sustains 158 wpm and can hit 183 wpm, and endorsed one particular brand of QWERTY keyboard as the best keyboard out there. As someone else pointed out, sample sizes of one are not very reliable, and thus not very interesting.
Re:Ironically, that story isn't true
on
New Standard Keyboard
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Liebowitz and Margolis's articles mention other studies (by Western Electric and Oregon State University) that are in line with Strong's results but not with Dvorak's results. They mention a study by two people at the IBM Research Laboratory (and several other unidentified studies) that found no keyboard with clear advantage over QWERTY. The named studies do not appear to be online.
The reports that Strong was biased and refused to provide his raw data come from another Dvorak disciple (Hisao Yamada), who later published other defenses of the Dvorak layout and was not above using odd analyses to interpret data as being in Dvorak's favor. Not exactly a sterling source.
Complaining that Windows (or QWERTY) won the market instead of your favorite is petty: free markets are pretty efficient, and if the benefits were as significant as you seem to think, somebody would have switched and saved a bundle in the long run.
As someone pointed out, your example XML is not "best current practice" with XML. In addition to using attributes to carry user data, you have not specified schema namespaces for any of your elements. Adding the method specification envelope for JSON and either SOAP or XML-RPC puts XML at even more of a disadvantage.
That is one of the biggest WTFs I have about SOAP: You have to negotiate service location already. Why not negotiate the schema at the same time? I suspect I know the answer -- that it would make the schemas bigger and break in some cases -- but that's just another sign of XML misdesign.
My comments about NY and MA turn out to be wrong: both states passed the UTSA into law in 2004. Along with the US Virgin Islands, these were the first to adopt it since 1985. Curse you, outdated web pages!
If the plaintiff wins a suit, or even has a reasonable basis to believe they may win (as determined by a court in possible countersuit -- and US legal tradition is pretty friendly towards the original plainiff here), then the defendant will not be awarded costs or fees related to that suit.
California breaks this down by cause of action: if the plaintiff pursues a single frivolous cause of action, even if every other part of their lawsuit is sound, the defendant might be able to recover costs related to defending from the frivolous cause of action.
As a non-lawyer, I would think Nick's best course of action is to move for a change of venue or dismissal due to lack of personal jurisdiction. Apple could probably not show that he had a presence in California.
As a side benefit, the two states where he is undoubtedly present (New York and Massachussetts) apparently have not passed the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. NY uses common law for trade secrets, and MA has some other statutory protections, so he may not be home free, but Apple would have a different burden of proof.
Groklaw's commentary on the request provided some interesting comments. One reason is that if the motion is granted, software patents end up years away rather than months away. Another reason is that it provides the European Council a graceful way out of software patents.
While I am glad that software patents have been thwarted in Europe -- hopefully for good -- I do wonder if that kind of motion will be broadly used to set back other controversial, but less pernicious, kinds of legislation.
You do not need multiple mirrors or antennas; if you "expose" your receiver over a relatively long time (perhaps several seconds), you can use a technique called synthetic aperture radar to improve the effective aperture in one dimension without the cost of a bigger lens or dish. Google can explain better than I can; it has been several years since I encountered it at university. Obviously, if your objective is moving, the result will come out blurred, but that can also provide useful information.
It is clearly bullshit: Asteroid impacts are memoryless, and more terrestrial causes probably are.
1 in 455 chance of effective human extinction within a century means the expected interval between events like that is 31,500 years (100 years * log(0.5) / log(454/455)). Over the past 600 million or so years, there have been six definite mass extinctions (Cambrian, Ordovician, Devonian, Permian, Triassic, Cretaceous), with some scientists suggesting there have been more, occurring on a 26 million year cycle. Even those estimates are three orders of magnitude rarer than "1 in 455" suggests.
In contrast, we would have almost a 37% chance of surviving 45,500 years with the 1-in-455 odds.
"Later" is after the speaker decides that conversation is over. You pick a signing key for your messages, sign it with your normal public key, send messages using the first key, and your correspondent can confirm you are who you claim. When you want to finish the conversation, you publish (at least to your correspondent) the temporary signing key, and anyone who has it can then forge messages that are as trustable as what you said.
There are two huge methodological problems in the study. One is the sample size (6 liars, 3 truth tellers). The other is independent variables. The liars were all asked to lie about something they did. The truth tellers were all asked to tell the truth about something they saw.
It seems likely that recall of action versus observation would have at least as much impact as lying versus truth-telling. To be good science, the study would have to be repeated with just the people who fired the gun or with just the people who watched someone fire the gun: It must vary only one variable at a time.
My point -- which you apparently missed entirely -- was that the study doesn't show anything useful. It makes an observation. It does not explain the observation and it does not attempt to explain the observation, but the synopsis implies that somehow Bush stole hundreds of thousands of votes in Florida. At least you realize the study is just hand waving.
There is one hell of a big difference between saying "statistically significant correlation" and "causal relationship." There are a large number of other significant variables that they have not and cannot control or account for: Nader, population of these counties, differences in turnout, other demographic effects, the alleged "hurricane effect" and more. It is grossly irresponsible for them to jump from finding a statistically interesting discrepancy to implying (as they do in their synopsis) that Bush should not have gotten hundreds of thousands of votes.
Bush got a significant number more votes in 2004 than in 2000. That correlates with how long he spent in office, and some of his biggest gains were in states that went for Kerry this year. That does not establish any kind of causal relationship; it does not mean that Democrats who voted for Nader or Gore in 2000 voted for Bush in 2004 because they decided he was a nice guy after all.
These statisticians would be much more useful doing something besides counting coincidences: They could look for real evidence of vote fraud or work on a better e-voting system.
Read the fine site (it wasn't/.'ed when I looked). They encourage a grid system for deployment -- either to reduce loading on transit backbones or to increase number of installed miles -- that could look like a web around a city.
The US has a slightly outdated system, but there are analogous situations in any fair system. If you have counted 90% of the ballots and 66% of those (60% of the total) are for one person, it is almost impossible for the other person to win a simple majority. If you factor in statistical analysis of voting patterns in the unreported votes, you can get a pretty good estimate of results before counting every vote.
That is all that has happened here: There are lots of votes left to count, and where they can make a difference, they will be counted. The results are not yet final, and the results will not be final until January 6 when Congress counts the electoral college ballots.
I know exactly what "ad hominem" means. Neither your original post nor your response contained any explanation for why saying that makes them jackasses. If you like, I could let you off as merely guilty of Appeal to Authority ("their comments make them jackasses because i say so, do not doubt my words!") but I tend to think that Ad Hominem is more appropriate: The only way your words would convince anyone is through unsupported insult to the speaker.
The creators of that "Team America" movies (same guys behind South Park) got hammered because they said, basically, that if you're clueless don't bother to vote.
Not coincidentally, the creators of "Team America" are jackasses.
Because, as we all know, ad hominem attacks are horribly enlightening. (Not.)
If you vote on a whim or at random, your vote means nothing. Some candidate count it as an endorsement for their policies. If you have not educated yourself (to your own satisfaction -- no one else should or can tell you how much is enough) on which candidate you agree most with for the issues that are important to you, you should leave that part of the ballot blank. If you do not agree much with any candidate who is on the ballot, you are in a quandary; you can either write in a candidate you do agree with or leave it blank. Vote because of your views, not because someone tells you to!
If Osama gets recruits from Bush being in power, what will happen if Kerry gets elected and the world sees that bin Laden's tactics get results?
P.S. If Osama is able to plan and carry out attacks, why have they been sitting on their thumbs? It doesn't matter if al Qaeda has replaced those captured and killed. That organization has lost a lot of experience and knowledge. It takes a lot more than a job title to make an effective operation planner or money launderer.
I do not think one can seriously claim Osama or his underlings want Bush to stay. They have both concrete and abstract goals. The concrete goals are mostly related to establishing a new caliphate: getting non-Muslim troops out of the Middle East, adopting radical Shariyah laws in more countries, and obliterating those pesky Jews. The abstract goals are related to getting power and influence in the world. All these goals are better served by a Kerry presidency than a Bush presidency.
The US already has plans to shutter bases in Saudi Arabia. Kerry has already said he wants to pull US troops out of Iraq based on a timeline rather than milestones.
Kerry is also less likely to insist on real (Western) democratic forms of government in developing countries or those where the law is in flux. Bush has made it clear that the mission in Iraq is not just to oust a repressive dictatorship but to act as a lever for taking control of other countries from royal families or clerics and giving it to the people's directly elected representatives.
Kerry does not want the US to lead the world; he wants some "global test" on policies, which will likely be unduly influenced by European anti-Semitism and support for the terrorist groups that (contrary to their stated goals) work to undermine Palestinian statehood.
Finally, a Kerry victory will -- as has been covered by quite a few Western and Middle Eastern bloggers -- be seen as a retreat by the US, and a victory for forces of terror. The US will lose moral ground, and under Kerry it will cede even more moral ground; these putatively Islamic terrorists hope to fill that void and become more recognized.
All in all, I think it is clear that Osama bin Laden has more to gain from a Kerry victory than a Bush victory. If you listen to other translations of his recent tapes, there is a fairly strong suggestion that states that vote Kerry will be spared from bin Laden's wrath.
Source code is generally on a filesystem; you will not get the same behavior from one huge file containing every line of source. The current version of TCC also saves its output to a filesystem. Providing file and memory allocation systems are two of the biggest things a monolithic kernel does. I would say that for PC OSes, the other two are device I/O and IPC, but once you have a file system and memory allocation, you have most of an OS kernel.
Hmm, let me think. Read 200+ MB from disk and compile that versus read ~1.5 MB from disk. Which is going to be faster? They're also running Linux inside an emulator -- TCC needs an already-running kernel. For cold boots, there is no way TCC will be as fast as a precompiled kernel, and I don't see any place that it will be useful.
Slashdot Mirror
RTFA. It addresses this. The article explains that half of baryonic maass was unaccounted for, and if these clouds are typical of the whole universe, that explains the 50% of "missing" baryonic mass. Astrophysicists can explain 2% of the expected mass of the universe as visible baryons. These clouds would be another 2% of the expected mass. Dark matter is 23%, dark energy is the remaining 73%.
For this to explain dark matter, the clouds they discovered would have to be less than ONE TENTH of the average density of intergalactic baryons.
Translations of a copyrighted work are derived works of the original. Creation of derived works is a transferable right reserved to the original work's author. There is very little legal difference between distributing the original video with subtitles and distributing the subtitles separately. The big punitive damages from RIAA lawsuits apply also to separately distributed fansubs.
Setting that aside, I have not seen any of these "numerous softwares" that you describe. The authors would tend to run afoul of contributory infringement claims, since the only real use is to allow that kind of unlicensed derivative work.
Ignoring that: DVD regions.
But why make consumers work and pay more to get English subtitles for a long-delayed import DVD? A lot of people love these shows enough to do high-quality translations with peer recognition as their only compensation. Better business sense would be for anime creators to work with, rather than persecute, the fansubbers.
US companies -- mostly distribution cartels and corporate copyright owners -- finally realized how they could make money from Internet distribution, and now we have services like iTunes. Video, including anime, will probably have its day soon. I expect fansubbing to dry up once that happens.
To some extent, the original Japanese seiyuu use silly voices, since anime is mostly targeted at kids and teens. Kansai-ben corresponds pretty well to a US Western dialect and accent. American characters in anime tend to have accents as bad as "flied lice" Asian characters in older US movies. That being said, your essential point is correct: US voice acting dubs tend to be more steretyped and less professional than the Japanese.
Strawmen are easy to disagree with like that.
Most fansubbers do not think Japanese copyrights are invalid, and I suspect most would be insulted by the idea that the US is that much more important than Japan. However, they do think it is a lesser evil to service a demand for timely English-translated anime than to hope that the anime is eventually licensed by a high-quality US distributor.
This is the same situation as music and movies, but with significant value-add by the copyright infringers that enables them to reach market they do. I would gladly pay several dollars to download a (non-redistributable) subbed episode in anime series that I follow (about the same that it costs in the US on DVD). That greatly reduces my cost to explore new series, compared to the usual DVD release style. Unfortunately, the copyright holders do not offer anything like that.
Most of the fansub releases hit the net within a week or two of when the original show airs in Japan. That is long before it is commercially available in any region. For shows that are imported to the US, the lag time between Japanese release and US release has dropped sharply.
One might wait for a year or so after the show airs, and then wait a month between volumes. But what is the point when you can get it almost in real time?
I suspect it would be more useful for Japanese companies to work out formal deals with (fan- or otherwise) subbers and sell advertising in the torrent versions of the shows. A tweaked video format with DRM built-in could track distribution breadth or stop people from skipping the commercials.
In that respect, I agree that the ideal would be legitimate online distribution that produces income for the creator of the series, but lawsuits are neither an effective nor elegant way to get there.
I'll see your unsupported claim of being fastest and raise you a product endorsement: Gregory Arakelian reportedly sustains 158 wpm and can hit 183 wpm, and endorsed one particular brand of QWERTY keyboard as the best keyboard out there. As someone else pointed out, sample sizes of one are not very reliable, and thus not very interesting.
Liebowitz and Margolis's articles mention other studies (by Western Electric and Oregon State University) that are in line with Strong's results but not with Dvorak's results. They mention a study by two people at the IBM Research Laboratory (and several other unidentified studies) that found no keyboard with clear advantage over QWERTY. The named studies do not appear to be online.
The reports that Strong was biased and refused to provide his raw data come from another Dvorak disciple (Hisao Yamada), who later published other defenses of the Dvorak layout and was not above using odd analyses to interpret data as being in Dvorak's favor. Not exactly a sterling source.
Complaining that Windows (or QWERTY) won the market instead of your favorite is petty: free markets are pretty efficient, and if the benefits were as significant as you seem to think, somebody would have switched and saved a bundle in the long run.
As someone pointed out, your example XML is not "best current practice" with XML. In addition to using attributes to carry user data, you have not specified schema namespaces for any of your elements. Adding the method specification envelope for JSON and either SOAP or XML-RPC puts XML at even more of a disadvantage.
That is one of the biggest WTFs I have about SOAP: You have to negotiate service location already. Why not negotiate the schema at the same time? I suspect I know the answer -- that it would make the schemas bigger and break in some cases -- but that's just another sign of XML misdesign.
My comments about NY and MA turn out to be wrong: both states passed the UTSA into law in 2004. Along with the US Virgin Islands, these were the first to adopt it since 1985. Curse you, outdated web pages!
If the plaintiff wins a suit, or even has a reasonable basis to believe they may win (as determined by a court in possible countersuit -- and US legal tradition is pretty friendly towards the original plainiff here), then the defendant will not be awarded costs or fees related to that suit.
California breaks this down by cause of action: if the plaintiff pursues a single frivolous cause of action, even if every other part of their lawsuit is sound, the defendant might be able to recover costs related to defending from the frivolous cause of action.
As a non-lawyer, I would think Nick's best course of action is to move for a change of venue or dismissal due to lack of personal jurisdiction. Apple could probably not show that he had a presence in California.
As a side benefit, the two states where he is undoubtedly present (New York and Massachussetts) apparently have not passed the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. NY uses common law for trade secrets, and MA has some other statutory protections, so he may not be home free, but Apple would have a different burden of proof.
Groklaw's commentary on the request provided some interesting comments. One reason is that if the motion is granted, software patents end up years away rather than months away. Another reason is that it provides the European Council a graceful way out of software patents.
While I am glad that software patents have been thwarted in Europe -- hopefully for good -- I do wonder if that kind of motion will be broadly used to set back other controversial, but less pernicious, kinds of legislation.
You do not need multiple mirrors or antennas; if you "expose" your receiver over a relatively long time (perhaps several seconds), you can use a technique called synthetic aperture radar to improve the effective aperture in one dimension without the cost of a bigger lens or dish. Google can explain better than I can; it has been several years since I encountered it at university. Obviously, if your objective is moving, the result will come out blurred, but that can also provide useful information.
It is clearly bullshit: Asteroid impacts are memoryless, and more terrestrial causes probably are.
1 in 455 chance of effective human extinction within a century means the expected interval between events like that is 31,500 years (100 years * log(0.5) / log(454/455)). Over the past 600 million or so years, there have been six definite mass extinctions (Cambrian, Ordovician, Devonian, Permian, Triassic, Cretaceous), with some scientists suggesting there have been more, occurring on a 26 million year cycle. Even those estimates are three orders of magnitude rarer than "1 in 455" suggests.
In contrast, we would have almost a 37% chance of surviving 45,500 years with the 1-in-455 odds.
"Later" is after the speaker decides that conversation is over. You pick a signing key for your messages, sign it with your normal public key, send messages using the first key, and your correspondent can confirm you are who you claim. When you want to finish the conversation, you publish (at least to your correspondent) the temporary signing key, and anyone who has it can then forge messages that are as trustable as what you said.
It seems likely that recall of action versus observation would have at least as much impact as lying versus truth-telling. To be good science, the study would have to be repeated with just the people who fired the gun or with just the people who watched someone fire the gun: It must vary only one variable at a time.
My point -- which you apparently missed entirely -- was that the study doesn't show anything useful. It makes an observation. It does not explain the observation and it does not attempt to explain the observation, but the synopsis implies that somehow Bush stole hundreds of thousands of votes in Florida. At least you realize the study is just hand waving.
There is one hell of a big difference between saying "statistically significant correlation" and "causal relationship." There are a large number of other significant variables that they have not and cannot control or account for: Nader, population of these counties, differences in turnout, other demographic effects, the alleged "hurricane effect" and more. It is grossly irresponsible for them to jump from finding a statistically interesting discrepancy to implying (as they do in their synopsis) that Bush should not have gotten hundreds of thousands of votes.
Bush got a significant number more votes in 2004 than in 2000. That correlates with how long he spent in office, and some of his biggest gains were in states that went for Kerry this year. That does not establish any kind of causal relationship; it does not mean that Democrats who voted for Nader or Gore in 2000 voted for Bush in 2004 because they decided he was a nice guy after all.
These statisticians would be much more useful doing something besides counting coincidences: They could look for real evidence of vote fraud or work on a better e-voting system.
Read the fine site (it wasn't /.'ed when I looked). They encourage a grid system for deployment -- either to reduce loading on transit backbones or to increase number of installed miles -- that could look like a web around a city.
The US has a slightly outdated system, but there are analogous situations in any fair system. If you have counted 90% of the ballots and 66% of those (60% of the total) are for one person, it is almost impossible for the other person to win a simple majority. If you factor in statistical analysis of voting patterns in the unreported votes, you can get a pretty good estimate of results before counting every vote.
That is all that has happened here: There are lots of votes left to count, and where they can make a difference, they will be counted. The results are not yet final, and the results will not be final until January 6 when Congress counts the electoral college ballots.
I know exactly what "ad hominem" means. Neither your original post nor your response contained any explanation for why saying that makes them jackasses. If you like, I could let you off as merely guilty of Appeal to Authority ("their comments make them jackasses because i say so, do not doubt my words!") but I tend to think that Ad Hominem is more appropriate: The only way your words would convince anyone is through unsupported insult to the speaker.
Because, as we all know, ad hominem attacks are horribly enlightening. (Not.)
If you vote on a whim or at random, your vote means nothing. Some candidate count it as an endorsement for their policies. If you have not educated yourself (to your own satisfaction -- no one else should or can tell you how much is enough) on which candidate you agree most with for the issues that are important to you, you should leave that part of the ballot blank. If you do not agree much with any candidate who is on the ballot, you are in a quandary; you can either write in a candidate you do agree with or leave it blank. Vote because of your views, not because someone tells you to!
If Osama gets recruits from Bush being in power, what will happen if Kerry gets elected and the world sees that bin Laden's tactics get results?
P.S. If Osama is able to plan and carry out attacks, why have they been sitting on their thumbs? It doesn't matter if al Qaeda has replaced those captured and killed. That organization has lost a lot of experience and knowledge. It takes a lot more than a job title to make an effective operation planner or money launderer.
I do not think one can seriously claim Osama or his underlings want Bush to stay. They have both concrete and abstract goals. The concrete goals are mostly related to establishing a new caliphate: getting non-Muslim troops out of the Middle East, adopting radical Shariyah laws in more countries, and obliterating those pesky Jews. The abstract goals are related to getting power and influence in the world. All these goals are better served by a Kerry presidency than a Bush presidency.
The US already has plans to shutter bases in Saudi Arabia. Kerry has already said he wants to pull US troops out of Iraq based on a timeline rather than milestones.
Kerry is also less likely to insist on real (Western) democratic forms of government in developing countries or those where the law is in flux. Bush has made it clear that the mission in Iraq is not just to oust a repressive dictatorship but to act as a lever for taking control of other countries from royal families or clerics and giving it to the people's directly elected representatives.
Kerry does not want the US to lead the world; he wants some "global test" on policies, which will likely be unduly influenced by European anti-Semitism and support for the terrorist groups that (contrary to their stated goals) work to undermine Palestinian statehood.
Finally, a Kerry victory will -- as has been covered by quite a few Western and Middle Eastern bloggers -- be seen as a retreat by the US, and a victory for forces of terror. The US will lose moral ground, and under Kerry it will cede even more moral ground; these putatively Islamic terrorists hope to fill that void and become more recognized.
All in all, I think it is clear that Osama bin Laden has more to gain from a Kerry victory than a Bush victory. If you listen to other translations of his recent tapes, there is a fairly strong suggestion that states that vote Kerry will be spared from bin Laden's wrath.
Source code is generally on a filesystem; you will not get the same behavior from one huge file containing every line of source. The current version of TCC also saves its output to a filesystem. Providing file and memory allocation systems are two of the biggest things a monolithic kernel does. I would say that for PC OSes, the other two are device I/O and IPC, but once you have a file system and memory allocation, you have most of an OS kernel.
Hmm, let me think. Read 200+ MB from disk and compile that versus read ~1.5 MB from disk. Which is going to be faster? They're also running Linux inside an emulator -- TCC needs an already-running kernel. For cold boots, there is no way TCC will be as fast as a precompiled kernel, and I don't see any place that it will be useful.