Asking a serious question on slashdot. At night. Clearly.
So, if I obfuscate my question I'm going to get better results?
All right, here we go:
Given a number of N chain reactions, H in which heated matter closely resembling our current model of isotopes of low-proton proton/neutron agglomerates and their corresponding companion electrons forms new such matter with the number of the protons per individual agglomerate increasing and being somewhere between one and 26 and under the condition that between individual such reactions there is a large amount of space and under the assumption that each such reaction is large enough to maintain itself for an amount of time significantly longer, most probably by orders of magnitude, than 375.7 fortnights and three days and under the assumption that each such reaction has an attractive force on everything else in the universe with a power diminishing with increasing distance and under the assumption that this attractive force causes the reactions to form clusters, L, which might be rotating or not and under the assumption that dense clusters of matter, K, circle each such reaction and under the assumption that
$\exists c \in K: \exists q \in L: \exists ö \in H: ö \in q \wedge$ c circles ö $\wedge$ c is Earth,
how exactly is defined the magnitude of c's expansion in those dimenions of bosonic string theory that can be accurately described with the C datatype given in appendix 5?
Oh, that's already common knowledge - when NASA calculated the size of the galaxy, the reference data was in parsecs and the NASA engineer assumed that it was in terarods. Thus they're roughly 5/6 off mark.
Well, the CoS and Slashdot aren't too friendly. Slashdot is proud of being censorship-free, but after someone posted Scientology's OT III text Scientology forced Slashdot to remove the post. You can tell from the tone (and the contents) of the article how Slashdot felt (and those who remember the incident still feel) about that.
It's the typical reaction of someone who once was on the receiving end of Scientology's questionable legal action. Any Hubbardite would have a hard time posting here about their religion without being downmodded to hell.
Actually, those e-meters do have one thing going for them: Judging from a screenshot of a deleted eBay auction, the solid metal (brass?) version looks somewhat classy (but still pretty kitschy). With a meaningful scale and built-in voltmeter thost things could almost be used as a decorative, insanely expensive multimeter.
Of course, it's much easier and cheaper to just get a digital multimeter, a block of brass and some time on a CNC mill...
World reknowned roboticist Dr. Thomas Light of Light Labs, Inc. has announced today that this dream-reenacting robot, commonly known as "Dream Man", is not a threat to the safety of the free world. "Dream Man", so Light, "is one of [Dr.] Albert [Wily]'s more stupid creations. He fits right in with Plant Man and Charge Man."
"Reverse engineering Dream Man's weapon is definitely something I look forward to. Albert's stupid ideas never fail to crack me up", added Light.
Light also announced that he will be sending the autonomous weapon of mass destruction codenamed "Mega Man" to destroy Dream Man along with seven other so called "Robot Masters", which form the latest iteration in the ongoing Light/Wily feud that has been waged since Wily's theft of several robot prototypes from Light Labs in 199X.
The United Nations Security Council has announced that it fully supports Light, even though like usual it has no idea about what's actually going on or why the world is supposed to be in danger. They do, however, support anyone who stands up to would-be world dominators, especially ones they perceive as zany.
Meanwhile, Light has drawn considerable criticism over discarding the weapon data from the last encounter with Wily's Robot Masters. During the conflicts, Light reverse-engineers the weapons used by the Robot Masters in order to provide Mega Man with additional firepower. However, as soon as Wily is defeated, the new weapons are summarily discarded in what Light's detractors see as a display of shortsightedness.
"Seriously", so Japanese Minister of Defense Shigeru Ishiba, "even though Dream Man doesn't look very threatening, he might prove difficult to defeat with just a puny plasma cannon. A few Crash bombs or a burst of Atomic Fire would probably do him in easily, but as Light insists on throwing away perfectly good weapon data Rockman [as the Japanese call Mega Man] is going to have a bit of a fight ahead of him."
Ishiba added that Japan would be happy to provide cover fire or E-tanks if needed.
Repeating that for every single file is only marginally less tedious than hnting down the files. It's still lightyears behind just selecting the entire playlist and dragging that onto the destination folder.
Linux can be compiled to be hotplugable, if i understood correctly it means this isnt true.
As far as I know CPU hotplugging requires that you use a multiprocessor (with more than one socket) system and that prior to doing something to a processor you need to tell Linux about it. In a single-socket system you'd need to completely switch off your only processor in order to tweak it, which obviously wouldn't work. That's what I think I now about the topic, though; doesn't need to actually be true.
Generally, you'd probably be better off with 3x2.6 than with 4x2.0, though. The latter is only useful if you have many small threads and you need the parallelism. If you do anything that requires heavy lifting, it's still more likely to have few big threads.
As for WGA: WGA doesn't care about the number of cores; Microsoft defines "processor" as "socket", at least for Vista.
To get back to your original queation: Everything is possible. Might be that certain BIOSes can override the procesor's opinion on what the processor can do. Might be that it's set in stone. Might be that you need to connect two pins in order to nullify the processor's capability lock. We've already had any of those scenarios.
There's a lot of such suckers. They're called "overclockers".
You see, production flaws usually don't generate enough hardware to fill an entire low-end line, so there are certain batches that consist entirely of good higher-end ones. If you know the name of the batch you can try to get your hands on one of them and then proceed to unlock its true capabilities. A very nice way to get your hand on processing power without having to pay premium prices.
Why go through all the effort actually manufacturing the 4th core only to disable it?
Yield. No fabbing process gives you 100% yield. You always end up with small imperfections that can cause an area of the chip to fail at high speeds/temperatures or not work at all. Most of the time you can disable that part of the chip and sell the chip as a lower-spec model instead of just throwing it away.
Also, an entire separate manufacturing line just for tri-core chips is expensive. You generate tri-cores from your quad-core lines automatically and if tri-core demand is high it's probably still cheaper to just build quad-cores and disable one core.
That's exactly how, well, the entire hardware industry has been operating for years. Whether NVidia disabled rendering pipelines or Intel downclocked Pentium IIs in order to get Celerons, the basic idea was always that imperfect dies translate into a lower-end product line.
By the way, that kind of stuff generates interest in the product by itself - people like the idea of buying a low-end product and turn it into a high-end one. Of course it's always a bit of a lottery, but it does attract people.
Yeah, but once they get to five cores the processor is becoming too unwieldy to manage small processess well, so they have to add a single sixth core on the backside of the processor. Also, they will have to do TV ads that show two complementarily colored balls of plasma shoot into each other for no apparent reason.
And like I said, nobody programmed their programs to split the processing into three parts, only 1, 2, or 4.
Holy shit. My program uses one thread for the GUI, one for I/O and one for actual calculations. Does that mean it's broken? Can I fix my program by ading a fourth thread that just spinlocks?
Long-term, though, I believe that "any patent that covers part of a formal industry standard cannot be used to sue people for adhering to that standard" is the best option for this particular problem.
Do you really think an HTTPS connection to your credit union looks anything like an encrypted p2p session?
That doesn't matter in this subthread because here we're talking about ISPs filtering all encrypted traffic. Since nobody said anything resembling "that looks like P2P traffic", I assumed that "all" behaved like one would expect.
If MIM turns out to be a problem they'll add client authentication and drop unsigned packages. And Comcast will have to figure out a new way to attac them.
Unless they happen to break HTTPS, which would make sites like Paypal or web banking stop working. The customers would not be amused. Depending on the region, other legitimate services might be affected, too (for example, in Germany we have a special protocol for online banking which of course relies on encryption; the banks would not be happy if their customers couldn't homebank using their smartcards anymore).
Also, people would just work around that, too. Bittorrent via fake HTTP would be possible. If UDP is disabled, they could even use bastardized HTTP, that is UDP modified to look like broken HTTP connections.
In the end any browsing-and-mail only ISP would end up with bad PR and few customers.
Well, we have to admit that Vista does offer improved security. (You are trying to insert a line break. [Cancel] [Allow])
There is a faint chance that someone will be able to tell a bad application's UAC warnings apart from those of a good application. (You are trying to insert a line break. [Cancel] [Allow])
(You are trying to insert a line break. [Cancel] [Allow])
I think UAC might reduce the danger posed from worms etc. by at least an infinitesimal amount. (You are trying to click a button. [Cancel] [Allow]) (The button you have clicked might do something, such as submitting data to a remote server. [Cancel] [Allow]) (UAC will display a warning message now. [Okay]) (You are possibly trying to submit data to a remote server. If this is not the case, please click Cancel immediately. [Cancel] [Allow])
So everyone is a nazi? In that case just take the nazi model and color one party red and the other blue. And never ever let anyone with the nickname of "Godwin" connect to the server. He'd just get a seizure.
I'm not a US American, but from what I've gathered the Democrats are essentially a cross-breed between hippies and communists while the Republicans are essentially nazis on Exxon Mobil's payroll. So just give the Dems flowerchild garments, furry hats and AK47s and the Reps brown shirts, flamethrowers and corporate logos as spray tags.
I think that reflects the political situation in the USA, as seen on Slashdot, quite well.
Yeah, but I like the relative safety of savings accounts. In reality, I'd probably split the money 50/50 with half going to some stable account and half going into a fonds or something similar. However, my post illustrates nicely that even something as conservative as a savings account can make you a tidy bit of money off a million bucks.
It al depends on what you want to do with your money For example, most people, given one million Euros (tax-free), would immediately buy a big car or something similar. I'd put it into a stable savings account at 4% p.a.
Initially, I have 1,000,000 Euros less and no cool stuff. But next month my million bucks generate about 3300 Euros for me. And the month after that. And so on. Three months later my spend-happy counterpart is selling his Porsche in order to cover the outstanding payments for his latest excessive party. Meanwhile I've saved enough to buy a Mac Pro with truly obscene specs. And next month I buy a 30" Apple Cinema Display.
Sure, I never got to drive a really fast car. I didn't have huge parties for two hundred people. But I do have a decent boost to my standard of living that's not going to disappear. Even if I have to pay 50% taxes on the money my savings generate I still get almost 1700 bucks a month for free. That's not enough to quit my work, but certainly a very nice bonus and it might make the difference between a holiday in Italy and one in the backyard.
The important factor is spendig preference: Do you want a wild, excessive lifestyle for a while or do you want a long-term amenity? Some people prefer extasy and some prefer pleasance. Superstars tend to prefer extasy - but then again it was found that a mental disorder is almost a requirement for big-time stardom, so being spendy is probably part of the superstar mindset.
Slashdot Mirror
All right, here we go:
Given a number of N chain reactions, H in which heated matter closely resembling our current model of isotopes of low-proton proton/neutron agglomerates and their corresponding companion electrons forms new such matter with the number of the protons per individual agglomerate increasing and being somewhere between one and 26 and under the condition that between individual such reactions there is a large amount of space and under the assumption that each such reaction is large enough to maintain itself for an amount of time significantly longer, most probably by orders of magnitude, than 375.7 fortnights and three days and under the assumption that each such reaction has an attractive force on everything else in the universe with a power diminishing with increasing distance and under the assumption that this attractive force causes the reactions to form clusters, L, which might be rotating or not and under the assumption that dense clusters of matter, K, circle each such reaction and under the assumption that
$\exists c \in K: \exists q \in L: \exists ö \in H: ö \in q \wedge$ c circles ö $\wedge$ c is Earth,
how exactly is defined the magnitude of c's expansion in those dimenions of bosonic string theory that can be accurately described with the C datatype given in appendix 5?
Appendix 1:
Intentionally left blank.
Appendix 1:
Intentionally left blank.
Appendix 2:
Intentionally left blank.
Appendix 3:
Intentionally left blank.
Appendix 4:
struct space_dimensions {
double x;
double y;
double z;
double d4;
double d5;
double d6;
double d7;
double d8;
double d9;
double d10;
double d11;
double d12;
double d13;
double d14;
double d15;
double d16;
double d17;
double d18;
double d19;
double d20;
double d21;
double d22;
double d23;
double d24;
double d25;
};
Appendix 5:
struct sdim{long double h;long double w;long double d;};
Oh, that's already common knowledge - when NASA calculated the size of the galaxy, the reference data was in parsecs and the NASA engineer assumed that it was in terarods. Thus they're roughly 5/6 off mark.
Ah, apparently they fixed it in the latest version. Thanks for the info.
Well, the CoS and Slashdot aren't too friendly. Slashdot is proud of being censorship-free, but after someone posted Scientology's OT III text Scientology forced Slashdot to remove the post. You can tell from the tone (and the contents) of the article how Slashdot felt (and those who remember the incident still feel) about that.
It's the typical reaction of someone who once was on the receiving end of Scientology's questionable legal action. Any Hubbardite would have a hard time posting here about their religion without being downmodded to hell.
Actually, those e-meters do have one thing going for them: Judging from a screenshot of a deleted eBay auction, the solid metal (brass?) version looks somewhat classy (but still pretty kitschy). With a meaningful scale and built-in voltmeter thost things could almost be used as a decorative, insanely expensive multimeter.
Of course, it's much easier and cheaper to just get a digital multimeter, a block of brass and some time on a CNC mill...
We're talking about Scientology here. The scale starts at 11.
World reknowned roboticist Dr. Thomas Light of Light Labs, Inc. has announced today that this dream-reenacting robot, commonly known as "Dream Man", is not a threat to the safety of the free world. "Dream Man", so Light, "is one of [Dr.] Albert [Wily]'s more stupid creations. He fits right in with Plant Man and Charge Man."
"Reverse engineering Dream Man's weapon is definitely something I look forward to. Albert's stupid ideas never fail to crack me up", added Light.
Light also announced that he will be sending the autonomous weapon of mass destruction codenamed "Mega Man" to destroy Dream Man along with seven other so called "Robot Masters", which form the latest iteration in the ongoing Light/Wily feud that has been waged since Wily's theft of several robot prototypes from Light Labs in 199X.
The United Nations Security Council has announced that it fully supports Light, even though like usual it has no idea about what's actually going on or why the world is supposed to be in danger. They do, however, support anyone who stands up to would-be world dominators, especially ones they perceive as zany.
Meanwhile, Light has drawn considerable criticism over discarding the weapon data from the last encounter with Wily's Robot Masters. During the conflicts, Light reverse-engineers the weapons used by the Robot Masters in order to provide Mega Man with additional firepower. However, as soon as Wily is defeated, the new weapons are summarily discarded in what Light's detractors see as a display of shortsightedness.
"Seriously", so Japanese Minister of Defense Shigeru Ishiba, "even though Dream Man doesn't look very threatening, he might prove difficult to defeat with just a puny plasma cannon. A few Crash bombs or a burst of Atomic Fire would probably do him in easily, but as Light insists on throwing away perfectly good weapon data Rockman [as the Japanese call Mega Man] is going to have a bit of a fight ahead of him."
Ishiba added that Japan would be happy to provide cover fire or E-tanks if needed.
Repeating that for every single file is only marginally less tedious than hnting down the files. It's still lightyears behind just selecting the entire playlist and dragging that onto the destination folder.
Generally, you'd probably be better off with 3x2.6 than with 4x2.0, though. The latter is only useful if you have many small threads and you need the parallelism. If you do anything that requires heavy lifting, it's still more likely to have few big threads.
As for WGA: WGA doesn't care about the number of cores; Microsoft defines "processor" as "socket", at least for Vista.
To get back to your original queation: Everything is possible. Might be that certain BIOSes can override the procesor's opinion on what the processor can do. Might be that it's set in stone. Might be that you need to connect two pins in order to nullify the processor's capability lock. We've already had any of those scenarios.
There's a lot of such suckers. They're called "overclockers".
You see, production flaws usually don't generate enough hardware to fill an entire low-end line, so there are certain batches that consist entirely of good higher-end ones. If you know the name of the batch you can try to get your hands on one of them and then proceed to unlock its true capabilities. A very nice way to get your hand on processing power without having to pay premium prices.
Terms like "JIUHB" come to mind.
Also, an entire separate manufacturing line just for tri-core chips is expensive. You generate tri-cores from your quad-core lines automatically and if tri-core demand is high it's probably still cheaper to just build quad-cores and disable one core.
That's exactly how, well, the entire hardware industry has been operating for years. Whether NVidia disabled rendering pipelines or Intel downclocked Pentium IIs in order to get Celerons, the basic idea was always that imperfect dies translate into a lower-end product line.
By the way, that kind of stuff generates interest in the product by itself - people like the idea of buying a low-end product and turn it into a high-end one. Of course it's always a bit of a lottery, but it does attract people.
Yeah, but once they get to five cores the processor is becoming too unwieldy to manage small processess well, so they have to add a single sixth core on the backside of the processor. Also, they will have to do TV ads that show two complementarily colored balls of plasma shoot into each other for no apparent reason.
Great. A CPU that automatically deadlocks when someone plays rock-paper-scissors on it.
Long-term, though, I believe that "any patent that covers part of a formal industry standard cannot be used to sue people for adhering to that standard" is the best option for this particular problem.
If MIM turns out to be a problem they'll add client authentication and drop unsigned packages. And Comcast will have to figure out a new way to attac them.
Unless they happen to break HTTPS, which would make sites like Paypal or web banking stop working. The customers would not be amused. Depending on the region, other legitimate services might be affected, too (for example, in Germany we have a special protocol for online banking which of course relies on encryption; the banks would not be happy if their customers couldn't homebank using their smartcards anymore).
Also, people would just work around that, too. Bittorrent via fake HTTP would be possible. If UDP is disabled, they could even use bastardized HTTP, that is UDP modified to look like broken HTTP connections.
In the end any browsing-and-mail only ISP would end up with bad PR and few customers.
The eD2k network is still going strong. It's dog slow, granted, but then again it's always been dog slow.
Well, we have to admit that Vista does offer improved security. (You are trying to insert a line break. [Cancel] [Allow])
There is a faint chance that someone will be able to tell a bad application's UAC warnings apart from those of a good application. (You are trying to insert a line break. [Cancel] [Allow])
(You are trying to insert a line break. [Cancel] [Allow])
I think UAC might reduce the danger posed from worms etc. by at least an infinitesimal amount. (You are trying to click a button. [Cancel] [Allow]) (The button you have clicked might do something, such as submitting data to a remote server. [Cancel] [Allow]) (UAC will display a warning message now. [Okay]) (You are possibly trying to submit data to a remote server. If this is not the case, please click Cancel immediately. [Cancel] [Allow])
So everyone is a nazi? In that case just take the nazi model and color one party red and the other blue. And never ever let anyone with the nickname of "Godwin" connect to the server. He'd just get a seizure.
Bush only lied about violence and killing people. Clinton lied about sex, which we all know is much worse...
I'm not a US American, but from what I've gathered the Democrats are essentially a cross-breed between hippies and communists while the Republicans are essentially nazis on Exxon Mobil's payroll. So just give the Dems flowerchild garments, furry hats and AK47s and the Reps brown shirts, flamethrowers and corporate logos as spray tags.
I think that reflects the political situation in the USA, as seen on Slashdot, quite well.
Yeah, but I like the relative safety of savings accounts. In reality, I'd probably split the money 50/50 with half going to some stable account and half going into a fonds or something similar. However, my post illustrates nicely that even something as conservative as a savings account can make you a tidy bit of money off a million bucks.
It al depends on what you want to do with your money For example, most people, given one million Euros (tax-free), would immediately buy a big car or something similar. I'd put it into a stable savings account at 4% p.a.
Initially, I have 1,000,000 Euros less and no cool stuff. But next month my million bucks generate about 3300 Euros for me. And the month after that. And so on. Three months later my spend-happy counterpart is selling his Porsche in order to cover the outstanding payments for his latest excessive party. Meanwhile I've saved enough to buy a Mac Pro with truly obscene specs. And next month I buy a 30" Apple Cinema Display.
Sure, I never got to drive a really fast car. I didn't have huge parties for two hundred people. But I do have a decent boost to my standard of living that's not going to disappear. Even if I have to pay 50% taxes on the money my savings generate I still get almost 1700 bucks a month for free. That's not enough to quit my work, but certainly a very nice bonus and it might make the difference between a holiday in Italy and one in the backyard.
The important factor is spendig preference: Do you want a wild, excessive lifestyle for a while or do you want a long-term amenity? Some people prefer extasy and some prefer pleasance. Superstars tend to prefer extasy - but then again it was found that a mental disorder is almost a requirement for big-time stardom, so being spendy is probably part of the superstar mindset.