Previously those apps were banned to stop governments cracking down on google for being a platform for money laundering. Expect the news media (especially the Murdoch stuff - Fox etc) to make a lot of noise about that since google is their hated rival for advertising cash.
That probably came off as teaching an old dog - you know all of that stuff - my post was really just addressing the situation of a single fast core running a single thread versus multiple cores - less relevant than it used to be but some stuff still pegs a CPU at 100% leaving the user to wait around and doesn't have another thread when it can. Now that the average software developer has finally grasped 64 bit and is starting to get a feel for multiple threads that difficult problem will be chipped away at a bit at a time, just as it has been in fields were software developers have had multiple CPUs since the 1990s.
I seem to have had this discussion about just about everything in computing since the mid 1990s, the difference being most people found a situation where more than a single thread worked. You've given some examples yourself about multi-threading. I know that games are pretty well all about state but that doesn't mean some tasks can't be done with in parallel. You mentioned physics - consider how that's simulated in the numerical computing world and how some game engines are dealing with it in a similar way. Many problems in a simulation do seem to be highly parallel if more than a tiny area is modelled.
Not even Civilization VI, the kind of game that possibly could use lots of cores for the computer's AI manages to use 8 cores.
That's a good illustration of that problem with developers isn't it? The number of times I've seen something struggling on one core when there are seven free is maddening. Games, especially very graphical ones with a simulated 3D environment and sound sources located in 3D have a lot of things they could be doing at once. The sensible thing is to divide threads by task (as said above) but there isn't a lot of that going on.
Ironically, some of the chemicals used to treat certain types of cancers
Not ironic at all. A lot of cancer treatments are about killing any fast growing cells, which is mostly going to be the cancer. They are powerful poisons designed to kill but work as a treatment because they don't kill you all at once. If there is enough of you left after all the cancer has been killed off you are cured.
Gaming is one of the classic examples of embarassingly parallel as shown by all those processing units in video cards. Of course some developers can't wrap their heads around more than one thread - even ones born after multiple CPUs were in desktop computers!
Something slightly more credible is that because there are so many fucking spooks on the payroll there's at least one vindictive bastard who saw the chaos of "Wannacry" as a way to get a bigger budget, and when the expected crisis didn't happen they decided to take it out on the guy who turned "Wannacry" into a non-event. You don't have to engineer a crisis to profit from it (as the cynical and expensive security theatre after 9/11 shows).
It doesn't have to be that sinister to still have vindictive bastards. No matter where "Wannacry" came from a massive spread of it would have resulted in lots of lovely "cybersecurity" money getting sent in the direction of the FBI and others. This guy got in the way of someone's empire building. Whether they acted and laid a false charge or took a close look and found something real is the question now IMHO.
It's kind of a bit odd though that the guy who stopped "Wannacry" is the only one involved in the entire thing from NSA to in the wild who has been arrested, especially given things like the situation where the "Stratfor" hack was carried out by one of the FBI's tame hackers/informants who is still wandering around free. I think it's looking more likely that this guy got in the way of someone's agenda at the FBI by limiting the damage of "Wannacry" and thus ruining a chance for extra "cybersecurity" funding. It will probably take years before we know either way.
That's not so trivial to measure as with x-rays, gamma rays etc and one of the reasons Putin's guys used another alpha particle emitter, Polonium, as a difficult to detect poison. Any amount ingested/inhaled is considered unsafe and the idea is to get it out before it's been in there so long. Then it's the cancer lottery - was there enough damage while it was in there for only a tiny chance or certain cancer?
The industrial accident is tragic but the "spin" is worse because it can lead to poor precautions and more accidents. The point here is not about using nukes or not (the stuff exists and has to be dealt with), it's about the lying sacks of shit who hurt everyone by doing so - even their own cause.
Nuke fanboys, if you want to know why we don't have reactors everywhere it's due to these lying sacks of shit making it so an entire industry is not trusted and not the powerless hippies you keep blaming.
Would they bother? That's why the joke from the guy pretending to be a special snowflake raised on how he is so much better than the "little people" is so funny. The "little people" do not really have those intricate plans to catch the superior snowflakes and drag them down to the level of people who have to work for a living.
I actually thought you were serious until you got to this bit:
There are actual undercover PC police that listen for anybody making comments or light jokes that might in some way be discriminatory against "any identifiable group"
Well played - the "alt-right" tribalist clueless troll persona joke is very believable.
It is very simple. Copyright violation charge versus a conviction, for rape of a child no less. Moving the goalpost towards questioning the validity of the conviction is going away from the point. Would a different example of someone fleeing justice help?
My point is the response to copyright violation seems disproportionate.
Fair enough if operating costs only of an already fuelled unit are considered, but without stating such a thing upfront it looks kind of dishonest even if dishonesty was never the intention. It just seemed a bit counterproductive since the old "too cheap to meter" hype grates on nearly everyone whether they like nukes or not.
Why? Roman Polanski doesn't have to worry much about where he travels. Isn't it odd that copyright violation is being taken far more seriously than raping a twelve year old girl hard enough for her to need medical treatment.
But once the reactors enter operation they'll pay for themselves in just a couple of years
Now that's a bit of a strange thing to write. Not even the salesfolk trying to get governments and power utilities to build these things make claims that wild. There's nothing wrong with something with an expected life of three decades or more taking quite a few years to show a return so there is no need for such wild claims. All you are achieving by making such a claim is the impression that either you are holding all the readers here in utter contempt or that you are writing without having the merest shred of a clue about the topic - not a good look either way is it?
"Standardized" nukes like the AP1000 were supposed to lower construction costs and reduce maintenance
Playing devils advocate here - the first one has only just gone live in China (or is about to) despite them being a 1970s style design so those reduced costs are not expected for a while until the rough edges of the design are sorted out. It was only the utterly clueless nuke fanboys (of which there are a few on this site) who claimed that cost savings would be showing up already. Whatever people think about nukes I don't see private enterprise touching it for a while. Socialist intervention or no nukes, tough choice for those pushing nukes due to their political bent instead of practicality. At least if it's pushed by government without any pretence at being a business proposition we may see incremental development instead of a step back into the 1970s driven by a failed attempt at economic viability.
All your text is there above so "selective quoting" does not matter - it's just to draw attention to the small portions of your mostly irrelevant walls of text that are not entirely ignorable.
Oh my, and yet somehow, I actually think the fault you describe, lies in yourself, not the stars
It appear that there is no fault at all - simply a couple of examples that you have taken a great deal of offence about and wasted a vast amount of time writing meaningless drivel about. It reads like a parody instead of something to be taken serious - at least the portions I bothered to read. "Why write so much when you know that you are not going to be taken seriously for any of it" should have been a bit of a clue to you that most of what you'd written earlier was not looked at beyond the first bit of overt stupidity and it's the same this time. If you want to be taken seriously get an account and try for brevity instead of vast volumes of empty outrage that misses the mark by a mile.
Now that's just weird - "fcamera" AKA Frankencamera was a project started by MIT that came out on a variety of non-apple platforms (including android) quite a few years ago and it provided all that you see on the default apple camera app now and more. I really don't know how this article made it past the editor since it shows nothing other than ignorance of what's available on other platforms, or even cross-platform including apple.
Slashdot Mirror
Previously those apps were banned to stop governments cracking down on google for being a platform for money laundering. Expect the news media (especially the Murdoch stuff - Fox etc) to make a lot of noise about that since google is their hated rival for advertising cash.
That probably came off as teaching an old dog - you know all of that stuff - my post was really just addressing the situation of a single fast core running a single thread versus multiple cores - less relevant than it used to be but some stuff still pegs a CPU at 100% leaving the user to wait around and doesn't have another thread when it can.
Now that the average software developer has finally grasped 64 bit and is starting to get a feel for multiple threads that difficult problem will be chipped away at a bit at a time, just as it has been in fields were software developers have had multiple CPUs since the 1990s.
I seem to have had this discussion about just about everything in computing since the mid 1990s, the difference being most people found a situation where more than a single thread worked. You've given some examples yourself about multi-threading.
I know that games are pretty well all about state but that doesn't mean some tasks can't be done with in parallel. You mentioned physics - consider how that's simulated in the numerical computing world and how some game engines are dealing with it in a similar way. Many problems in a simulation do seem to be highly parallel if more than a tiny area is modelled.
That's a good illustration of that problem with developers isn't it?
The number of times I've seen something struggling on one core when there are seven free is maddening.
Games, especially very graphical ones with a simulated 3D environment and sound sources located in 3D have a lot of things they could be doing at once. The sensible thing is to divide threads by task (as said above) but there isn't a lot of that going on.
Not ironic at all. A lot of cancer treatments are about killing any fast growing cells, which is mostly going to be the cancer. They are powerful poisons designed to kill but work as a treatment because they don't kill you all at once. If there is enough of you left after all the cancer has been killed off you are cured.
Gaming is one of the classic examples of embarassingly parallel as shown by all those processing units in video cards.
Of course some developers can't wrap their heads around more than one thread - even ones born after multiple CPUs were in desktop computers!
Something slightly more credible is that because there are so many fucking spooks on the payroll there's at least one vindictive bastard who saw the chaos of "Wannacry" as a way to get a bigger budget, and when the expected crisis didn't happen they decided to take it out on the guy who turned "Wannacry" into a non-event.
You don't have to engineer a crisis to profit from it (as the cynical and expensive security theatre after 9/11 shows).
It doesn't have to be that sinister to still have vindictive bastards.
No matter where "Wannacry" came from a massive spread of it would have resulted in lots of lovely "cybersecurity" money getting sent in the direction of the FBI and others. This guy got in the way of someone's empire building. Whether they acted and laid a false charge or took a close look and found something real is the question now IMHO.
It's kind of a bit odd though that the guy who stopped "Wannacry" is the only one involved in the entire thing from NSA to in the wild who has been arrested, especially given things like the situation where the "Stratfor" hack was carried out by one of the FBI's tame hackers/informants who is still wandering around free.
I think it's looking more likely that this guy got in the way of someone's agenda at the FBI by limiting the damage of "Wannacry" and thus ruining a chance for extra "cybersecurity" funding.
It will probably take years before we know either way.
That's not so trivial to measure as with x-rays, gamma rays etc and one of the reasons Putin's guys used another alpha particle emitter, Polonium, as a difficult to detect poison.
Any amount ingested/inhaled is considered unsafe and the idea is to get it out before it's been in there so long. Then it's the cancer lottery - was there enough damage while it was in there for only a tiny chance or certain cancer?
The industrial accident is tragic but the "spin" is worse because it can lead to poor precautions and more accidents.
The point here is not about using nukes or not (the stuff exists and has to be dealt with), it's about the lying sacks of shit who hurt everyone by doing so - even their own cause.
Nuke fanboys, if you want to know why we don't have reactors everywhere it's due to these lying sacks of shit making it so an entire industry is not trusted and not the powerless hippies you keep blaming.
Would they bother?
That's why the joke from the guy pretending to be a special snowflake raised on how he is so much better than the "little people" is so funny. The "little people" do not really have those intricate plans to catch the superior snowflakes and drag them down to the level of people who have to work for a living.
Well played - the "alt-right" tribalist clueless troll persona joke is very believable.
It is very simple.
Copyright violation charge versus a conviction, for rape of a child no less.
Moving the goalpost towards questioning the validity of the conviction is going away from the point. Would a different example of someone fleeing justice help?
My point is the response to copyright violation seems disproportionate.
Considering the turbine hall hasn't even been built yet let alone a turbine delivered it's going to be kind of tricky to convert.
Fair enough if operating costs only of an already fuelled unit are considered, but without stating such a thing upfront it looks kind of dishonest even if dishonesty was never the intention.
It just seemed a bit counterproductive since the old "too cheap to meter" hype grates on nearly everyone whether they like nukes or not.
Why? Roman Polanski doesn't have to worry much about where he travels.
Isn't it odd that copyright violation is being taken far more seriously than raping a twelve year old girl hard enough for her to need medical treatment.
Misread that title as NASA - Kim is almost big enough to show up on one of their LEO satellites I suppose.
Now that's a bit of a strange thing to write. Not even the salesfolk trying to get governments and power utilities to build these things make claims that wild.
There's nothing wrong with something with an expected life of three decades or more taking quite a few years to show a return so there is no need for such wild claims.
All you are achieving by making such a claim is the impression that either you are holding all the readers here in utter contempt or that you are writing without having the merest shred of a clue about the topic - not a good look either way is it?
Playing devils advocate here - the first one has only just gone live in China (or is about to) despite them being a 1970s style design so those reduced costs are not expected for a while until the rough edges of the design are sorted out. It was only the utterly clueless nuke fanboys (of which there are a few on this site) who claimed that cost savings would be showing up already.
Whatever people think about nukes I don't see private enterprise touching it for a while. Socialist intervention or no nukes, tough choice for those pushing nukes due to their political bent instead of practicality. At least if it's pushed by government without any pretence at being a business proposition we may see incremental development instead of a step back into the 1970s driven by a failed attempt at economic viability.
Yes, just like it's not too difficult to convert a motorbike into a steam locomotive.
Come on guys - at least THINK before posting.
All your text is there above so "selective quoting" does not matter - it's just to draw attention to the small portions of your mostly irrelevant walls of text that are not entirely ignorable.
It appear that there is no fault at all - simply a couple of examples that you have taken a great deal of offence about and wasted a vast amount of time writing meaningless drivel about.
It reads like a parody instead of something to be taken serious - at least the portions I bothered to read. "Why write so much when you know that you are not going to be taken seriously for any of it" should have been a bit of a clue to you that most of what you'd written earlier was not looked at beyond the first bit of overt stupidity and it's the same this time. If you want to be taken seriously get an account and try for brevity instead of vast volumes of empty outrage that misses the mark by a mile.
Now that's just weird - "fcamera" AKA Frankencamera was a project started by MIT that came out on a variety of non-apple platforms (including android) quite a few years ago and it provided all that you see on the default apple camera app now and more.
I really don't know how this article made it past the editor since it shows nothing other than ignorance of what's available on other platforms, or even cross-platform including apple.
That's two different scripts with very different syntax.