Why not? It's only recently we've discovered techniques to make word processors run nice and smooth, altought I suspect it'll take 12-core machines to keep up with fast typists.
More seriously, since every site insist on being a "web application" nowadays, it should come as no surprise that they - not to mention all the interpreted layers of abstraction between them and the processor - suck juice like a marathon runner in Sahara. Things like GreaseMonkey - Firefox extension which lets you insert your own scripts into pages you visit - and extensions in general don't exactly help there, either. Neither do various Javascript libraries and frameworks that add yet another layer of abstraction between the application and the iron.
Chernobyl caused 56 direct deaths. It may have contributed up to an estimated 4,000 cancer deaths. It didn't kill "untold thousands" and had no possible way of killing "millions" - you'd have to nuke a city to get that many, and even then use a huge device aimed at Manhattan or similar region.
In fairness dropping bombs on Japan killed many many more civilians then military people/targets.....massive civilian casualties are not acceptable in any war situation...but then maybe the US things it is?
Massive civilian casualties are unavoidable in any war that involves halfway equal opponents fighting for real. And while atomic bombing of cities might have been going too far, it should be noted that the Japanese had earned it many times over - the Rape of Nanking, the sexual slavery practiced by Japanese military on occupied territories, the human experiments, and oh heck, just read the page.
When debating the justness of atomic bombing Japan, this context should be remembered. They were not innocent victims, but fanatical supporters of a regime every bit as bad as the Nazis - in fact, they were staunch allies of the Nazis. And while it's true that innocents were also harmed in the bombings, it's also true that it was Japan that began the war and refused to surrender despite being beaten beyond any hope of victory, so it can be argued that their blood is on Hirohito's hands.
Key word: "should" not have to, or must. I'm offering my OPINION of what I think the Europeans should do, not forcing compliance as the Congress did when it mandated Utah outlaw polygamy. I observe; I opine. I do not force.
Yet when I do the same it's "Europeans spew vitriol against America."
You've also suffered a rather critical observation failure if you're comparing the EU to US Government. EU is completely unable to force anyone do anything, due to not having any military forces. Unlike the US, we're a group of independent nations with our own militaries; if a member state decides to ignore a decision the EU can threaten, it can sanction, it can make a lot of noise, but ultimately it simply cannot coerce. One of the things we really should decide is whether to go the path of a true Federation, or remain as a loose trade alliance; however, as it is, a member state can for all intents and purposes nullify any decision it doesn't like.
Since you missed this kind of basic thing, your observations really aren't worth much.
I would never imply you should shut up, as you have done with me.
I have not done so. I have pointed out a conflict in your posts. If you wish to read "implications" to that then that's your problem..
I respect everyone's right to free speech, even if I disagree with them.
You apparently do not.
Drawing this conclusion from "implications" you project to other people's posts is indicative of rather severe paranoia.
Do you seriously believe there's any sort of equivalence between suggesting that the EU be run differently and thinking that the government has any business in people's bedrooms or marriages?
None whatsoever. What does that have to do with anything? Quite a non-sequiter you have there.
However, you are pleased to know that in no European countries will the government have any say in who cohabitates with whom. One is also not prevented from conducting whatever religious or secular rituals one wishes, as long as said rituals don't break any laws - human sacrifice would be illegal, for example, since it requires murder. So you can, in fact, keep your marriage to any number of people entirely separate from the government, as long as you don't expect said government to legally recognize said marriage - but if you do, it's hardly reasonable to demand that the government stays away from your issues when you yourself seek to bring them to its attention.
Both views he expressed are consistent: central governments should have less control over people's lives, and people should have more ability to get the government out of their lives.
The view that Utahians should be able to conduct themselves as they please but Europeans should conduct themselves as an American posting on Slashdot pleases are quite inconsistent.
Furthermore, the whole idea of a government is to act as an organizing and coordinating body for the segment of society it governs. For practical reasons - society is far too big and complex for a single body to organize effectively, yet splintering it into manageable portions is very inefficient, unless these portions have another body managing their interactions - there are multiple levels of government, with "central" being the top of the hierarchy. However, this designation says absolutely nothing about the nature of the central government, its relation to its people, or their ability to influence decisions that affect them. As such its foolish to insist that the central government should have less - or more - influence than the intermediate levels: you have no way of knowing if that will make people better or worse, unless you're familiar with the particular society and government structure in question.
However, I strongly suspect that none of this has really anythign to do with grandparent's comment. It seems more likely that he's simply unable to comprehend that someone might not consider US Constitution as the best foundation for a system of government ever. That's understandable, I suppose, as it certainly has plenty of good ideas - the First Amendment in particular - but in the end, it's writers, they were not EU's Founding Fathers, and they do not get a say in how we'll organize our Union. Neither do their fanboys.
Same applies to the EU. A majority of 13 Member States should have the power to nullify EU Acts that are unconstitutional (powers not granted to the EU by the Lisbon Treaty).
Oh well, turnaround is fair game: you should stop worrying what people who've been dead for centuries intended for your country, and concentrate on what works now. Also, your country is currently a bizarre mix of capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich which gives you the worst of both worlds: you get thousand-page bills any comissar would be proud of - especially of the unrelated "rider" bills slipped in at the last minute and hiding in the mass of text - which are sufficiently complex that even the people who wrote them aren't really sure what they're supposed to mean, yet any kind of injury likely results in personal bankruptcy for the affected, and your solution to this is to mandate giving money to private corporations. Pick one, socialism or capitalism, build your country around it, then add chosen elements of the other to act as plaster to fill in the holes.
Oh, and whichever one you pick, dethrone the robber barons pretending to be capitalists as long as they get to climb to success on other people's backs, then turn around and demand bailouts when the tide turns against them.
Huh, I could've sworn Java was over 18 by now. Oops.
It's 14.
So overweight for such a young girl, tsk-tsk.
Not really, it's all the glittery stuff and wrappings she's wearing that makes her seem bulked up. Once you get her out of her clothes she's - I mean, I... crap.
Java has char arrays with mandatory bounds checking. C has char arrays without mandatory bounds checking. That's because Java is a safe language for wimpy nerds and C is a festiy, dangerous, buffer overrun defying language for real macho coders. Unfortunately, C too is used by nerds instead.
off course your PC doesnt REQUIRE bios upgrades to run new games, but they might be beneficial for the entire system as a whole
Mine required a BIOS upgrade to not complain about corrupted CMOS data (and lose all settings) at every boot. On the other hand, the process has been made pretty painless, with the BIOS being able to read and install the upgrade from a USB stick.
Haven't the Mythbusters proven again and again that operating a vehicle from 'non standard' driving perspectives is quite difficult?
Everything is difficult if you haven't practiced it. Once you do practice, I'd imagine it would be almost as easy as driving normally - almost, because you aren't getting inner ear feedback from the exact movement of the car.
People use remotely controlled vehicles all the time.
When you're talking about losing Seoul temporarily along with tens of thousands of US soldiers, you don't want to be playing what-ifs later on, especially if you could stop the flow of DPRK soldiers almost instantly with nuclear weapons.
And since Seoul is "right next to the DMZ", you'd have to drop those nukes right next to the city and the troops you're trying to save.
This plan appears to have a flaw that should be corrected before implementation.
I bet a handful of strategically placed nukes would knock mankind for a loop rather easily. Start looking at the Ring of Fire, which holds one of our largest tectonic plates.
The biggest nuke ever, Tsar Bomba, corresponds to about 60 megatons of TNT. That's the equivalent energy release of about 7.2 earthquake in Richter scale.
In other words, Ring of Fire is not going to be affected in any measurable way by any nuclear we have or could reasonably build, and that's even ignoring the fact that the weakest parts (where earthquakes occur) are beneath tens of kilometers of solid rock.
I think a much stronger argument is that when a huge segment of the population performs some act routinely without any sense of guilt, that's evidence that society as a whole doesn't consider it wrong. In a secular society, what can define right and wrong, except the consensus of the people? If the consensus is that something is not wrong, why is there a law against it?
Because huge segment of population also engages in selfish behavior routinely without any sense of guilt, thus it's okay for politicians to make laws against common good if their corporate buddies are willing to pay them for them.
So don't think about it. Think about what he has to say instead.
If you're looking for anti-government dangers/threats, there are other people you can look too like Glenn Beck or Alex Jones or MEP Daniel Hannan, who don't pick their noses or eat their feet crud.
What's an "anti-government threat" - a libertarian who's gone off the deep end ?-)
Whatever it is, it can't be very serious, since you're concentrating on someone picking their nose instead.
But how much of your time is spent allocating memory? If you spend 5% of your time in malloc(), doubling its speed saves you 2.5% of your execution time.
And if you're spending more, consider using Java or another language with a relocating garbage collector. Doing lots of short-lived allocations seems to be the perfect match for generational collection.
Or just lift it with winches attached to a sufficiently large ship. According to Wikipedia, it weights less than 5,000 tons, and is less than 250m below the surface. Given that a large cargo ship can easily displace 100,000+ tons, I'd say they're more than up to the task.
Noise changes from moment to moment, so take several images and average them (or simply remove outliers).
How would the software know what parts should be yellow, and what parts should be black?
Iron is hard, while the mud at the ocean floor is soft. It produces a different kind of echo, which can be visualized by colorization.
This is all guesswork, but that's what I'd do if I had to do a project like this.
I guess it's too much to ask of a mainstream magazine to just give us the image, without tweaking it by hand to make it all purty.
What image? Sonar doesn't produce an image, it produces round-trip timing and waveform shift data. That data can be turned into an image by processing with a computer or by hand, however since this image is entirely artificial to begin with it's quite arbitrary to say "process this much and no more".
So no, they can't give you the original image, because it doesn't exist and never has. I suppose they could give you the raw sonar data, but what would you do with it, apart from turning it into an image every bit as artificial as the one in the article?
Like they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I don't think not investigating very unlikely claims is that bad. If all scientists were immortal and had infinity patience we could afford to examine every claim. Until that happens ignoring the unlikely ones that have zero evidence is very reasonable imho.
Ignore it all you want, but that means that all you can honestly say about whether the claims are true or not is "I haven't studied the matter."
About your sig, how should we distinguish between magic and divine power? Is the latter not simply a subset of the former?
It means that as long as there's something we can't do that isn't made impossible by the most basic laws of nature, whatever those are, there's room for improvement. In other words, set the goal at omnipotency, not just great power.
our entire historical narrative is pretty much a litany of black swans. from the assassination of the archduke of austria to the collapse of lehman brothers: we talk about these historical events as inevitable. but thats all argument after the fact, hindsight, that's easy. however, shortly before lehman's collapse, or franz ferdinand's little trip to sarajevo, no one was seriously predicting anything remotely like what was about to happen, and yet these events changed absolutely everything
Actually, no. The situation in Europe was known to be perfectly conductive to a huge war even before Franz got himself shot. There were a lot of incidents happening, any of which could had ignited the poweder keg and started a war, and one of which was pretty much guaranteed to do just that. That it war Franz getting shot that did is, to put it bluntly, completely irrelevant: WWI was caused by opposing alliances and several people actively wanting a war, and using Franz Ferdinand's murder as an excuse to get one.
As for Lehman Brothers collapsing, it should not come as surprise to anyone that a bank that ties a significant amount of its capital into obfuscatingly complex schemes is likely to do just that, altought I suppose it is a bit surprising that the elite didn't bail their buddies out there.
the black swans control your fate, my fate, the fate of the entire world
Kid, I've browsed from one side of this Internet to the other. I've seen a lot of strange stuff, but I've never seen anything to make me believe there's one all-powerful equation controlling everything. There's no mystical feather field that controls my destiny. It's all a lot of simple statistical tricks and nonsense.
Have you ever worked an unsuccessful code on a 6 year old? Have you ever gone out to a call and found a person who'd literally had their head crushed? Have you ever seen someone who was shot 12 times with shotguns, or a person who was stabbed 56 times?
Until you have, I suggest you STFU.
Why is it that every time a cop misbehaves and gets called out for it, other cops crawl out of the woodwork and start defending his actions? Do you think that carrying a star makes you immune to laws? Are you one of those policemen who help corrupt cops who conduct crimes avoid justice?
Having a stressful job means you deserve sympathy, but it does not mean you get to abuse your power.
There are a lot of ways of dealing with that stress.
Yes, there is, and some of them are acceptable and some are unacceptable. This was unacceptable.
So, before you judge, just consider what it's be like to respond to a "Traffic Accident" and find that.
And before defending these officers, just consider what it's be like to find that pictures of your daughter's dead corpse have become online showpieces and find that.
Or are you already past the point where only other cops are real humans who's needs, feelings and rights need to be considered?
"If there is precisely zero evidence for heaven, why do people believe it exists?" - This is a legitimate scientific question that isn't satisfyingly answered at present.
Obviously, if someone believes something, then that someone thinks there is sufficient evidence for that something.
The question, then, becomes: on what evidence do people who believe in heaven (or afterlife in general) do so, and is that evidence valid (as in, make sense without engaging in doublethink)? Posing the question this way not only avoids appearing hostile to your research subjects, thus making it far easier to conduct said research, but also trains you to keep your own biases and preconceptions from influencing your interpretation of results, thus making you a better scientist.
People who declare someone wrong before hearing them out have already failed Science 101 in the most fundamental way possible.
Even when a corporation is owned in whole or in part by another corporation, at some point the chain of ownership ends in a real person.
Is this necessarily true? Two corporations can own each other's stocks, forming a cyclic loop of ownership; what's stopping them from owning 100% of each other?
At that point, would we be looking at the first purely memetic lifeform ?-)
Slashdot Mirror
The real WTF here is that anything is capable of locking up a browser. Multithreading is not exactly a new concept.
Wouldn't offloading rendering to GPU still free up CPU and thus make things faster?
Why not? It's only recently we've discovered techniques to make word processors run nice and smooth, altought I suspect it'll take 12-core machines to keep up with fast typists.
More seriously, since every site insist on being a "web application" nowadays, it should come as no surprise that they - not to mention all the interpreted layers of abstraction between them and the processor - suck juice like a marathon runner in Sahara. Things like GreaseMonkey - Firefox extension which lets you insert your own scripts into pages you visit - and extensions in general don't exactly help there, either. Neither do various Javascript libraries and frameworks that add yet another layer of abstraction between the application and the iron.
Chernobyl caused 56 direct deaths. It may have contributed up to an estimated 4,000 cancer deaths. It didn't kill "untold thousands" and had no possible way of killing "millions" - you'd have to nuke a city to get that many, and even then use a huge device aimed at Manhattan or similar region.
Massive civilian casualties are unavoidable in any war that involves halfway equal opponents fighting for real. And while atomic bombing of cities might have been going too far, it should be noted that the Japanese had earned it many times over - the Rape of Nanking, the sexual slavery practiced by Japanese military on occupied territories, the human experiments, and oh heck, just read the page.
When debating the justness of atomic bombing Japan, this context should be remembered. They were not innocent victims, but fanatical supporters of a regime every bit as bad as the Nazis - in fact, they were staunch allies of the Nazis. And while it's true that innocents were also harmed in the bombings, it's also true that it was Japan that began the war and refused to surrender despite being beaten beyond any hope of victory, so it can be argued that their blood is on Hirohito's hands.
Yet when I do the same it's "Europeans spew vitriol against America."
You've also suffered a rather critical observation failure if you're comparing the EU to US Government. EU is completely unable to force anyone do anything, due to not having any military forces. Unlike the US, we're a group of independent nations with our own militaries; if a member state decides to ignore a decision the EU can threaten, it can sanction, it can make a lot of noise, but ultimately it simply cannot coerce. One of the things we really should decide is whether to go the path of a true Federation, or remain as a loose trade alliance; however, as it is, a member state can for all intents and purposes nullify any decision it doesn't like.
Since you missed this kind of basic thing, your observations really aren't worth much.
I have not done so. I have pointed out a conflict in your posts. If you wish to read "implications" to that then that's your problem..
Drawing this conclusion from "implications" you project to other people's posts is indicative of rather severe paranoia.
None whatsoever. What does that have to do with anything? Quite a non-sequiter you have there.
However, you are pleased to know that in no European countries will the government have any say in who cohabitates with whom. One is also not prevented from conducting whatever religious or secular rituals one wishes, as long as said rituals don't break any laws - human sacrifice would be illegal, for example, since it requires murder. So you can, in fact, keep your marriage to any number of people entirely separate from the government, as long as you don't expect said government to legally recognize said marriage - but if you do, it's hardly reasonable to demand that the government stays away from your issues when you yourself seek to bring them to its attention.
The view that Utahians should be able to conduct themselves as they please but Europeans should conduct themselves as an American posting on Slashdot pleases are quite inconsistent.
Furthermore, the whole idea of a government is to act as an organizing and coordinating body for the segment of society it governs. For practical reasons - society is far too big and complex for a single body to organize effectively, yet splintering it into manageable portions is very inefficient, unless these portions have another body managing their interactions - there are multiple levels of government, with "central" being the top of the hierarchy. However, this designation says absolutely nothing about the nature of the central government, its relation to its people, or their ability to influence decisions that affect them. As such its foolish to insist that the central government should have less - or more - influence than the intermediate levels: you have no way of knowing if that will make people better or worse, unless you're familiar with the particular society and government structure in question.
However, I strongly suspect that none of this has really anythign to do with grandparent's comment. It seems more likely that he's simply unable to comprehend that someone might not consider US Constitution as the best foundation for a system of government ever. That's understandable, I suppose, as it certainly has plenty of good ideas - the First Amendment in particular - but in the end, it's writers, they were not EU's Founding Fathers, and they do not get a say in how we'll organize our Union. Neither do their fanboys.
It's amazing how you can, in the very same thread, magnanimously declare that " "Now I don't personally believe in polygamy, but if that's what Utahans want, then that's what they want. It's THEIR state and their lifestyle, not mine. " yet feel yourself competent to tell how people living in another continent, one quarter world away, should arrange the details of their government.
Oh well, turnaround is fair game: you should stop worrying what people who've been dead for centuries intended for your country, and concentrate on what works now. Also, your country is currently a bizarre mix of capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich which gives you the worst of both worlds: you get thousand-page bills any comissar would be proud of - especially of the unrelated "rider" bills slipped in at the last minute and hiding in the mass of text - which are sufficiently complex that even the people who wrote them aren't really sure what they're supposed to mean, yet any kind of injury likely results in personal bankruptcy for the affected, and your solution to this is to mandate giving money to private corporations. Pick one, socialism or capitalism, build your country around it, then add chosen elements of the other to act as plaster to fill in the holes.
Oh, and whichever one you pick, dethrone the robber barons pretending to be capitalists as long as they get to climb to success on other people's backs, then turn around and demand bailouts when the tide turns against them.
Not really, it's all the glittery stuff and wrappings she's wearing that makes her seem bulked up. Once you get her out of her clothes she's - I mean, I ... crap.
Java has char arrays with mandatory bounds checking. C has char arrays without mandatory bounds checking. That's because Java is a safe language for wimpy nerds and C is a festiy, dangerous, buffer overrun defying language for real macho coders. Unfortunately, C too is used by nerds instead.
Mine required a BIOS upgrade to not complain about corrupted CMOS data (and lose all settings) at every boot. On the other hand, the process has been made pretty painless, with the BIOS being able to read and install the upgrade from a USB stick.
Everything is difficult if you haven't practiced it. Once you do practice, I'd imagine it would be almost as easy as driving normally - almost, because you aren't getting inner ear feedback from the exact movement of the car.
People use remotely controlled vehicles all the time.
And since Seoul is "right next to the DMZ", you'd have to drop those nukes right next to the city and the troops you're trying to save.
This plan appears to have a flaw that should be corrected before implementation.
The biggest nuke ever, Tsar Bomba, corresponds to about 60 megatons of TNT. That's the equivalent energy release of about 7.2 earthquake in Richter scale.
In other words, Ring of Fire is not going to be affected in any measurable way by any nuclear we have or could reasonably build, and that's even ignoring the fact that the weakest parts (where earthquakes occur) are beneath tens of kilometers of solid rock.
Because huge segment of population also engages in selfish behavior routinely without any sense of guilt, thus it's okay for politicians to make laws against common good if their corporate buddies are willing to pay them for them.
So don't think about it. Think about what he has to say instead.
What's an "anti-government threat" - a libertarian who's gone off the deep end ?-)
Whatever it is, it can't be very serious, since you're concentrating on someone picking their nose instead.
And if you're spending more, consider using Java or another language with a relocating garbage collector. Doing lots of short-lived allocations seems to be the perfect match for generational collection.
Or just lift it with winches attached to a sufficiently large ship. According to Wikipedia, it weights less than 5,000 tons, and is less than 250m below the surface. Given that a large cargo ship can easily displace 100,000+ tons, I'd say they're more than up to the task.
Noise changes from moment to moment, so take several images and average them (or simply remove outliers).
Iron is hard, while the mud at the ocean floor is soft. It produces a different kind of echo, which can be visualized by colorization.
This is all guesswork, but that's what I'd do if I had to do a project like this.
What image? Sonar doesn't produce an image, it produces round-trip timing and waveform shift data. That data can be turned into an image by processing with a computer or by hand, however since this image is entirely artificial to begin with it's quite arbitrary to say "process this much and no more".
So no, they can't give you the original image, because it doesn't exist and never has. I suppose they could give you the raw sonar data, but what would you do with it, apart from turning it into an image every bit as artificial as the one in the article?
Ignore it all you want, but that means that all you can honestly say about whether the claims are true or not is "I haven't studied the matter."
It means that as long as there's something we can't do that isn't made impossible by the most basic laws of nature, whatever those are, there's room for improvement. In other words, set the goal at omnipotency, not just great power.
Actually, no. The situation in Europe was known to be perfectly conductive to a huge war even before Franz got himself shot. There were a lot of incidents happening, any of which could had ignited the poweder keg and started a war, and one of which was pretty much guaranteed to do just that. That it war Franz getting shot that did is, to put it bluntly, completely irrelevant: WWI was caused by opposing alliances and several people actively wanting a war, and using Franz Ferdinand's murder as an excuse to get one.
As for Lehman Brothers collapsing, it should not come as surprise to anyone that a bank that ties a significant amount of its capital into obfuscatingly complex schemes is likely to do just that, altought I suppose it is a bit surprising that the elite didn't bail their buddies out there.
Kid, I've browsed from one side of this Internet to the other. I've seen a lot of strange stuff, but I've never seen anything to make me believe there's one all-powerful equation controlling everything. There's no mystical feather field that controls my destiny. It's all a lot of simple statistical tricks and nonsense.
Why is it that every time a cop misbehaves and gets called out for it, other cops crawl out of the woodwork and start defending his actions? Do you think that carrying a star makes you immune to laws? Are you one of those policemen who help corrupt cops who conduct crimes avoid justice?
Having a stressful job means you deserve sympathy, but it does not mean you get to abuse your power.
Yes, there is, and some of them are acceptable and some are unacceptable. This was unacceptable.
And before defending these officers, just consider what it's be like to find that pictures of your daughter's dead corpse have become online showpieces and find that.
Or are you already past the point where only other cops are real humans who's needs, feelings and rights need to be considered?
Obviously, if someone believes something, then that someone thinks there is sufficient evidence for that something.
The question, then, becomes: on what evidence do people who believe in heaven (or afterlife in general) do so, and is that evidence valid (as in, make sense without engaging in doublethink)? Posing the question this way not only avoids appearing hostile to your research subjects, thus making it far easier to conduct said research, but also trains you to keep your own biases and preconceptions from influencing your interpretation of results, thus making you a better scientist.
People who declare someone wrong before hearing them out have already failed Science 101 in the most fundamental way possible.
That gives a whole new meaning to the Blue Screen of Death!
Is this necessarily true? Two corporations can own each other's stocks, forming a cyclic loop of ownership; what's stopping them from owning 100% of each other?
At that point, would we be looking at the first purely memetic lifeform ?-)