Then go for: CXXFLAGS="$CXXFLAGS -D_GLIBCXX_PARALLEL -fopenmp" this will lead redirect calls like: std::sort(begin, end) to __gnu_parallel::sort(begin, end)
Exceptions are not standard comform anymore, as the code is now parallelised.
Hardly. The CCC is a highly prolific club and is very likely keen on some legal "retaliation", as it would generate even more public attention on that matter. Since the Home Secretary stated, that storing fingerprints is no privacy concern, he would be hard pressed to explain his stance.
"Would you stop doing illegal things, when reprimanded by someone?"
Did they also asked: "Would you stop your perfectly legal activity, when reprimanded by your ISP?"? Or: "Do you think it is right, that your ISP should monitor your activity on the internet?"
> The ruling emphasized that cyber spying by the authorities would have to receive the permission of a judge.
I'd say, that is a given. More importantly, the ruling states that such measures are only allowed, if there is a concrete and imminent threat of life or the foundations of the state.
1) Works with libgpod based programs (e.g. gtkpod or Amarok) 2) Which is developed primarily on Linux 3) Which you don't have to employ, but allows you to use the online shop with the most extensive range of products 4) Ogg isn't a popular codec. At best, it is popular container format, which it isn't neither. 5) Works with every store, which provides MP3s or AAC, which contary to Ogg Vorbis ARE popular formats. 6) See 1) 7) For which, for some unknown reasons, exist a very active developer community, and a shitload open source software. Maybe even more than for any other portable player, thankyouverymuch. 8), 9), 10) Point taken, but mainly a matter of taste.
> [...] that any conditions imposed regarding distribution of a copyrighted work is at the whim of the copyright holder.
No. The conditions are still subject to a) common law
Extreme example: you can't demand the firstborn for the use or distribution of the work. b) interpretation by court
The legal meaning is finally determined by judges.
> The country was in economic shambles after WW I, and the squabbling nascent democracy just didn't manage to put things together again.
Not exactly correct. The economy took of under Stresemann in the 20s (with lots of funding of by the US government), but then came the Great Slump.
> Hitler was a law-and-order, family values candidate who managed to put people to work and had simple, straightforward answers
Those simple answers where: Lowering the unemployment rate, by taking women and jews out of the unemployment statistic, disbanding unions and sending people who refuse to work to concentration camps. Support the economy by large public spending as funding a military buildup with huge loans from banks with seats in countries you will later invade. This is hardly a viable economic concept for a civil state.
I think you missed several points: You applied for the FBI and had your past checked in matters and ways very likely specifically laid out to you once before you get hired. They already work for the government in non-sensitive areas and have to sign away their right on any privacy because of arbitrary unspecified background checks at will.
In Germany, secret searches of homes are prohibited. IRC, they have to happen in the presence of a member the household, or a neighbour. The telephone, mail and internet communication are not part of the home, and can be secretly monitored under the observation of a judge. The suspect has to be informed afterwards. The home enjoys a much stronger constitutional protection than communication.
Of course, the ministry of interior and the police argue, that they can't stop the terrorists, if they can't secretly hack the computer and monitor their communication. And of course, it will only be used for severe crimes. Normal people have nothing to fear.
How about: uclibc? ~100K for the whole library. I assume, you use the embedded c-library newlib in the kit as C-library. So a comparison to an embedded c++ library would be appropriate.
G++-iostream is optimised for performance on standard computers and includes support for locales. Hardly something, which I'd expect to perform well in a space constrained environment.
> Dyson isn't really saying that global warming doesn't exist.
Neither did I claim with a single word the opposite.
> The correct response to the article is not to dismiss him as physicist
Nor with a single word do I question his expertise in physics.
> He's saying that unquestioning belief and outright dismissal of differing ideas is antithetical to science and dangerous.
Yes, and takes the whole field of climatology as an "example", claiming that they rely practically only on models and do no field work, because it is more comfortable, and by that derides a whole branch of science.
That may not be the point of his post, but it is the point of mine.
> About those models, what do you have to say about this?
Well, I'd say it proves my point: Scientific process at work. I have never claimed, that the models are flawless, but that they are the best knowledge we have.
> that at the very least the models have a big flaw,
Have a flaw. The impact has to be ascertained by the scientific community in question.
To quote Dr. Spencer himself from your link:
The big question that no one can answer right now is whether this enhanced cooling mechanism applies to global warming.
> and at the worst this might be an indication of a bias in the construction of those models.
To quote Mr. Spencer once more:
Everyone just assumed that more rainfall means more high altitude clouds. That would be your first guess and, since we didn't have any data to suggest otherwise...
So, no need to suggest some collective agenda. Scientists (himself included) made an educated guess and he tested it and disproved it. The consequences will be evaluated and the theories adapted and, if necessary, the models too.
It is not a major requirement change, because, contrary to the statement of The Inquirer, the previously optional and now mandatoryfeatures are provided by NVidia (source) and ATI DX10-cards (source). Both are have 32-bit fp unified shaders and 4xAA.
> ahem, didn't we just go through this today, with proof that the current accepted models had a y2k bug, and that 1998 AREN't the hottest years on record, but the 1930's are? i suggest you stop talking about models right now good sir.
If you'd read more than the title and the blurb, you'd have noticed, that:
a) It had nothing to do with climate models, but a single data-set was not properly accounted for. b) It wasn't a y2k-bug, but people overlooked, that the people providing the data changed the method in adjusting for the time of day measurements (in the year 2000) d) It is hardly disproving my position, as exactly that is the scientific method at work. A mistake has been made, and will be accounted for in future work.
> [...] , and that 1998 AREN't the hottest years on record, but the 1930's are?
You are mixing up your grammar and the data. The year 1998 isn't the hottest year on record (note singular), that is true. The 1930's however are not the hottest years (note plural) on record. Instead of being only first by 0.1K, the year 1998 is now only second by 0.1K. That's bad for publicity, because it was such a catchy headline, but it has practically no impact on science and climate models.
More importantly for climate purposes, the longer term US averages have not changed rank. 2001-2006 (at 0.66 C) is still warmer than 1930-1934 (0.63 C - the largest value in the early part of the century) (though both are below 1998-2002 at 0.79 C). [...]
Yes, and why not? If I remember correctly, it was Einstein, who said something along the line: People tend to forget that even the greatest experts are almost as dumb as the next person outside their field of expertise.
He commits, in my eyes, a common mistake of physicists, hubris. (I hold physics in highest regards, and believe physics is the most scientific field of science.)
> But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests.
> It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds.
So, essentially, because he has a fundamental understanding of the formulas involved, he is suggesting, that climatologists do not know, where they can apply certain models and where not and that they are too comfortable, to actually go out and experiment. Thank you, sir, for derogating a whole field of science and scientists, which, if you'd bothered to follow the news, happen to search for new data for verifying the models, by taking ice core samples, tree rings, and more recently wolf bones and in general, follow the same scientific methods as physics do. (Especially astrophysics)
The results are tested the same way any scientific theory is tested. And the same way in experimental physics, everyone hopes to disprove some theory, as it would carve their name in history, the same motivation has one in climatology.
No, it is not overblown, because, as Alan Cox put it:
Ext3 currently is a standards compliant file system. Turn off atime and its very non standards compliant, turn to relatime and its not standards compliant but nobody will break (which is good)
It is no option for the kernel to make noatime standard, as it would brake POSIX compliance. But without noatime, the OS suffers a large penalty compared to some other OSs. The magnitude of the penalty has been made clear in the quote from the article. So a solution, which is POSIX compliant, but doesn't suffer as much a penalty as the current solution is sought for.
No, the question is not so much, what they do with their net. The point is, that municipalities could provide special laws or regulations only for their provider. Say, they don't need to pay a certain fee, or only part of it, or they would be allowed to hang the wires at poles, while other companies are not. Or the municipalities services are made required to use the local provider.
First, the lower range for ICEs is incorrect. The car most often sold in the Japan is the Toyota VITZ (Yaris), which has a model with a footprint of about 133 g/km, in Europe it's the VW Golf. There is a model with 143 g/km.
More importantly, the calculation is based on the current energy mix. But how would the distribution of power sources look like, when all the cars were driven by electrical power? I fear Quebec wouldn't be able to produce 97 per cent of its power from hydro.
> I fail to note how the passage of time has made Adam Smith's observations less relevant.
The same way the passage of time has made Newtons observations made less relevant. In other words, not. The observations are valid, and so are the discovered principles, but they are incomplete.
> Trade [...] builds wealth.
Trade results in a total increase of wealth, most of the time.
But only in symmetric relationship to an equal increase of wealth of all participating parties. But not so in an asymmetric relationship, to put it mildly.
Such an "asymetrical increase", was and is usually not supported across political borders either in a nation (labour unions), or across borders.
> [and] the absence of government interference builds wealth.
Thanks for ignoring my (well, actually Joseph Stiglitz) counter-examples.
> The EU doesn't build digital cameras. The tariff won't build them either.
Tariffs (accompanied with infrastructure and education) is a way to protecting a fledging branch of industry in one country from a highly competitive one existing in another.
Unless you want stay a country, which functions as a component supplier for companies, which have margins ten to hundred-fold of yours (paid by your citizens), just for putting the parts together and label on it, it is the way to go. (Or was in my given examples).
However, in the case of the EU, it is unlikely, unless the costs of building a factory and training personnel pay off in clear time-frame. So, the limited amount of tariff makes it unlikely.
> The net effect is tax revenue for government and more expensive cameras for EU consumers.
I won't argue for the tariff in question, and believe your prediction is very likely. I argue, however, against your, in my eyes, simplistic view of political economics.
Tariffs are more often misused than correctly applied and usually even support the unequal trade relationships. This, however, does not mean tariffs cannot be used to increase the wealth of nations, as said examples showed.
Slashdot Mirror
Then go for:
CXXFLAGS="$CXXFLAGS -D_GLIBCXX_PARALLEL -fopenmp"
this will lead redirect calls like:
std::sort(begin, end)
to
__gnu_parallel::sort(begin, end)
Exceptions are not standard comform anymore, as the code is now parallelised.
You mean something like parallel_sort in libstdc++, since GCC 4.3.0?
One of several parallelised standard algorithms.
Hardly. The CCC is a highly prolific club and is very likely keen on some legal "retaliation", as it would generate even more public attention on that matter.
Since the Home Secretary stated, that storing fingerprints is no privacy concern, he would be hard pressed to explain his stance.
From the summary:
> 658 [...] affecting Microsoft products and 738 affecting Apple
> the iPhone's processor runs at 620
The iPhone's arm11 runs at 412MHz (before firmware 1.1.2 at 400MHz). Theoretically, it could run with 620MHz, but it doesn't.
"Would you stop doing illegal things, when reprimanded by someone?"
Did they also asked: "Would you stop your perfectly legal activity, when reprimanded by your ISP?"?
Or: "Do you think it is right, that your ISP should monitor your activity on the internet?"
> The ruling emphasized that cyber spying by the authorities would have to receive the permission of a judge.
I'd say, that is a given. More importantly, the ruling states that such measures are only allowed, if there is a concrete and imminent threat of life or the foundations of the state.
> There's one HUGE difference though, kimchee is not typically cooked when it's made, whereas sauerkraut is cooked.
Sauerkraut is not cooked, when it is made, for exactly the reasons you cited in kimchi.
1) Works with libgpod based programs (e.g. gtkpod or Amarok)
2) Which is developed primarily on Linux
3) Which you don't have to employ, but allows you to use the online shop with the most extensive range of products
4) Ogg isn't a popular codec. At best, it is popular container format, which it isn't neither.
5) Works with every store, which provides MP3s or AAC, which contary to Ogg Vorbis ARE popular formats.
6) See 1)
7) For which, for some unknown reasons, exist a very active developer community, and a shitload open source software. Maybe even more than for any other portable player, thankyouverymuch.
8), 9), 10) Point taken, but mainly a matter of taste.
> [...] that any conditions imposed regarding distribution of a copyrighted work is at the whim of the copyright holder.
No. The conditions are still subject to
a) common law
Extreme example: you can't demand the firstborn for the use or distribution of the work.
b) interpretation by court
The legal meaning is finally determined by judges.
> The country was in economic shambles after WW I, and the squabbling nascent democracy just didn't manage to put things together again.
Not exactly correct. The economy took of under Stresemann in the 20s (with lots of funding of by the US government), but then came the Great Slump.
> Hitler was a law-and-order, family values candidate who managed to put people to work and had simple, straightforward answers
Those simple answers where:
Lowering the unemployment rate, by taking women and jews out of the unemployment statistic, disbanding unions and sending people who refuse to work to concentration camps.
Support the economy by large public spending as funding a military buildup with huge loans from banks with seats in countries you will later invade.
This is hardly a viable economic concept for a civil state.
I think you missed several points:
You applied for the FBI and had your past checked in matters and ways very likely specifically laid out to you once before you get hired.
They already work for the government in non-sensitive areas and have to sign away their right on any privacy because of arbitrary unspecified background checks at will.
> Scientists borrow representations from one another all the time
Yes, with citing the correct source. Without it, it is plagiarism, which can easily mean the end of a scientific career.
In Germany, secret searches of homes are prohibited. IRC, they have to happen in the presence of a member the household, or a neighbour. The telephone, mail and internet communication are not part of the home, and can be secretly monitored under the observation of a judge. The suspect has to be informed afterwards. The home enjoys a much stronger constitutional protection than communication.
Of course, the ministry of interior and the police argue, that they can't stop the terrorists, if they can't secretly hack the computer and monitor their communication.
And of course, it will only be used for severe crimes. Normal people have nothing to fear.
> Would uClibc++ also run on top of MSVCRT (for use with MinGW)?
I have to say, I have no idea.
How about: uclibc? ~100K for the whole library. I assume, you use the embedded c-library newlib in the kit as C-library. So a comparison to an embedded c++ library would be appropriate.
G++-iostream is optimised for performance on standard computers and includes support for locales. Hardly something, which I'd expect to perform well in a space constrained environment.
> You missed the point of the article
I think, you missed the point of my post.
> Dyson isn't really saying that global warming doesn't exist.
Neither did I claim with a single word the opposite.
> The correct response to the article is not to dismiss him as physicist
Nor with a single word do I question his expertise in physics.
> He's saying that unquestioning belief and outright dismissal of differing ideas is antithetical to science and dangerous.
Yes, and takes the whole field of climatology as an "example", claiming that they rely practically only on models and do no field work, because it is more comfortable, and by that derides a whole branch of science.
That may not be the point of his post, but it is the point of mine.
Well, I'd say it proves my point: Scientific process at work. I have never claimed, that the models are flawless, but that they are the best knowledge we have.
> that at the very least the models have a big flaw,
Have a flaw. The impact has to be ascertained by the scientific community in question.
To quote Dr. Spencer himself from your link:
> and at the worst this might be an indication of a bias in the construction of those models.
To quote Mr. Spencer once more:
So, no need to suggest some collective agenda. Scientists (himself included) made an educated guess and he tested it and disproved it. The consequences will be evaluated and the theories adapted and, if necessary, the models too.
> and major requirement change
It is not a major requirement change, because, contrary to the statement of The Inquirer, the previously optional and now mandatoryfeatures are provided by NVidia (source) and ATI DX10-cards (source).
Both are have 32-bit fp unified shaders and 4xAA.
If you'd read more than the title and the blurb, you'd have noticed, that:
a) It had nothing to do with climate models, but a single data-set was not properly accounted for.
b) It wasn't a y2k-bug, but people overlooked, that the people providing the data changed the method in adjusting for the time of day measurements (in the year 2000)
d) It is hardly disproving my position, as exactly that is the scientific method at work. A mistake has been made, and will be accounted for in future work.
> [...] , and that 1998 AREN't the hottest years on record, but the 1930's are?
You are mixing up your grammar and the data.
The year 1998 isn't the hottest year on record (note singular), that is true. The 1930's however are not the hottest years (note plural) on record. Instead of being only first by 0.1K, the year 1998 is now only second by 0.1K. That's bad for publicity, because it was such a catchy headline, but it has practically no impact on science and climate models.
(source)
Yes, and why not? If I remember correctly, it was Einstein, who said something along the line: People tend to forget that even the greatest experts are almost as dumb as the next person outside their field of expertise.
He commits, in my eyes, a common mistake of physicists, hubris. (I hold physics in highest regards, and believe physics is the most scientific field of science.)
> But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests.
> It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds.
So, essentially, because he has a fundamental understanding of the formulas involved, he is suggesting, that climatologists do not know, where they can apply certain models and where not and that they are too comfortable, to actually go out and experiment. Thank you, sir, for derogating a whole field of science and scientists, which, if you'd bothered to follow the news, happen to search for new data for verifying the models, by taking ice core samples, tree rings, and more recently wolf bones and in general, follow the same scientific methods as physics do. (Especially astrophysics)
The results are tested the same way any scientific theory is tested. And the same way in experimental physics, everyone hopes to disprove some theory, as it would carve their name in history, the same motivation has one in climatology.
It is no option for the kernel to make noatime standard, as it would brake POSIX compliance. But without noatime, the OS suffers a large penalty compared to some other OSs. The magnitude of the penalty has been made clear in the quote from the article.
So a solution, which is POSIX compliant, but doesn't suffer as much a penalty as the current solution is sought for.
No, the question is not so much, what they do with their net. The point is, that municipalities could provide special laws or regulations only for their provider. Say, they don't need to pay a certain fee, or only part of it, or they would be allowed to hang the wires at poles, while other companies are not. Or the municipalities services are made required to use the local provider.
> compared to ICE emissions of 167 to 224 g/km.
First, the lower range for ICEs is incorrect. The car most often sold in the Japan is the Toyota VITZ (Yaris), which has a model with a footprint of about 133 g/km, in Europe it's the VW Golf. There is a model with 143 g/km.
More importantly, the calculation is based on the current energy mix. But how would the distribution of power sources look like, when all the cars were driven by electrical power? I fear Quebec wouldn't be able to produce 97 per cent of its power from hydro.
> I fail to note how the passage of time has made Adam Smith's observations less relevant.
The same way the passage of time has made Newtons observations made less relevant. In other words, not. The observations are valid, and so are the discovered principles, but they are incomplete.
> Trade [...] builds wealth.
Trade results in a total increase of wealth, most of the time.
But only in symmetric relationship to an equal increase of wealth of all participating parties. But not so in an asymmetric relationship, to put it mildly.
Such an "asymetrical increase", was and is usually not supported across political borders either in a nation (labour unions), or across borders.
> [and] the absence of government interference builds wealth.
Thanks for ignoring my (well, actually Joseph Stiglitz) counter-examples.
> The EU doesn't build digital cameras. The tariff won't build them either.
Tariffs (accompanied with infrastructure and education) is a way to protecting a fledging branch of industry in one country from a highly competitive one existing in another.
Unless you want stay a country, which functions as a component supplier for companies, which have margins ten to hundred-fold of yours (paid by your citizens), just for putting the parts together and label on it, it is the way to go. (Or was in my given examples).
However, in the case of the EU, it is unlikely, unless the costs of building a factory and training personnel pay off in clear time-frame. So, the limited amount of tariff makes it unlikely.
> The net effect is tax revenue for government and more expensive cameras for EU consumers.
I won't argue for the tariff in question, and believe your prediction is very likely.
I argue, however, against your, in my eyes, simplistic view of political economics.
Tariffs are more often misused than correctly applied and usually even support the unequal trade relationships. This, however, does not mean tariffs cannot be used to increase the wealth of nations, as said examples showed.