What would be good for everyone would be to stop being pussies. Hype-generating journalist hook: the solution is violence.
Back in the day, circa pre-Jesus, rape was ALWAYS the woman's fault. Woman gets brutally beaten and raped, the town ties her up and stones her for adultery. You're a whore, bitch. Even as near as medieval times, once a woman was raped, she had no honor as a woman because she'd lost her virginity--no decent man would marry such a ruined tramp. Rape destroys a woman--not by being harmful, but by making her a worthless whorebag.
Today we like to ignore that an often repeated falsehood becomes true, especially in emotional matters. The more we talk about pit bulls, the more people are afraid of vicious pit bulls; they used to be America's favorite dog, kept to take care of and protect young children, best temperament of any animal you've ever seen. We tell rape victims they've been through a horrible ordeal until they believe it--several "victims" have gone decades facing a hard social life only to wake up one day and think, "You know... it wasn't THAT bad at the time... it really sunk in when the therapists started telling me how terrible it was and how much they'd help me..." and realize that they just swallowed it hook-line-and-sinker and BECAME the victim because that's what they were told. Magically, their emotional issues all evaporate.
And that's what rape is.
Rape is an imaginary construct we create in society to give us a collective sense of self-worth. We convince people it's so horrible so that when they get raped it DESTROYS them; then after WE harm them in this way, we attack the rapist to make ourselves feel good. The rapist is obviously evil; but by making him even MORE evil, we can show that we're really, REALLY doing something. In short: Society needs its demons.
The truth is rape is a bunch of groping and poking, a major annoyance. It's a form of assault. It can be less violent than a fist to the head, or it can be brutal and painful and in some cases fatal. In the end, though, it's just another annoying asshole or another severe beating. If women had that perspective drilled into their head instead of the whole "oh how horrible it will ruin your life" thing, they wouldn't wake up thinking "oh no my life is ruined it's so terrible!" and--again, AGAIN!!--blaming and punishing themselves. That this is still the victim's fault is a sign of a barbaric society, one that fancies itself "civilized" because it can hide its belief that the victim is responsible for the crime.
The solution is more violence. Rapists, like everyone else that harasses or assaults you, essentially need to be punched in the head. That's the solution. A woman shouldn't be breaking down crying thinking her life is being destroyed while she's being raped; she should be thrashing or patiently waiting for an opening, burning with fury looking for her chance to beat the senses from the asshole forcing himself upon her. She should feel a sense of relief or triumph when she escapes in tact, not a sense of shame and loss. What shameful thing has she done? What has she lost? She has been through an unfair ordeal and has survived it; especially if she's forced her assailant off her, then she should feel a great sense of victory and of justice. She should not bear responsibility for the terrible actions of others.
Re:Ok, let's see you died in the wool capitalists
on
OnLive Acquires OnLive
·
· Score: 2
Empirical results? The best economies are capitalist. The more capitalist an economy becomes, the stronger it becomes.
The more capitalist an economy becomes, the weaker it becomes. Unless it's already socialist as hell, then it becomes stronger.
It would be more capitalist to gut all our government regulations, consumer protection laws, anti-trust laws, etc.. let the free market figure it out. Purified capitalism carries no such thing as business for the common good. There is actually a government regulated business class by which you register your business to provide a public benefit, such as Good Will collecting items that would typically be destroyed and thus reduce the wealth present in the economy and selling them at very low prices such that low-income individuals can buy i.e. clothes--this business operation is a money-making cash cow, yet it is extremely beneficial to the public.
In a purified capitalist system, the entire market control is capital. Money. Profit. Lying, cheating, conning people, as long as you don't break the framework laws--which start getting close to anarchy, as business operations can only be covered as far as anything else, you shouldn't even need a permit to operate a business (no incorporation). Fraud is a difficult concept in capitalism: in theory, market forces would drive people toward a product that works as advertised, so why do we need to protect consumers against fraud....
The end result is corporatism, where megacorporations buy up everything and become effective government. CACI supplies the US Military with privately trained troops in Iraq--yes, there are private contracted soldiers, which means there are corporations in America with their own military forces. Imagine the buying frenzy to control all private sector military, police, private security contract, etc. All the guards, cops, and soldiers are controlled by Walt Disney Co.
Sometimes, the government just has to set down the rules and make sure these people play fair. They need--or at least it's beneficial--to nudge the market a little--not cripplingly so, but a little. In my state, the government charges businesses $400 for 1MWh of produced/consumed power. A business has a $400 obligation; however by generating 1MWh of solar power, they can escape this obligation. I have a solar water heater that generates above 5MWh of energy per year (couple it to a radiative heating system boiler via a plate heat exchanger). For each MWh up to 5MWh, I get 1 Solar Renewable Energy Credit.
I can sell that credit; currently there's enough in the market to push prices down to $195 per SREC, so businesses will pay me about $1000/year for owning and operating my solar water heater. This arrangement is the government's way of using market forces to push solar energy--every MWh my water heater generates is that much less gas burned, just like using 1MWh of solar power rather than electricity from the gas turbine plant. This situation leaves it up to producers and consumers to decide what's best for them and how to pay for it--it encourages the production of more solar power plants (although if you consume 1MWh Solar Energy it's solar and you don't need to pay $400), it encourages businesses to lower their energy usage, it encourages businesses to install any offsetting technology (PV, solar hot water, etc--a lot of businesses install PV to lower their obligation AND SELL THE SREC THEY GENERATE FROM IT), it even encourages consumers to install solar power options like PV arrays or solar water heaters. The market decides exactly what to do with that, how to fluctuate prices, and which direction to take; the burden is small and can be ignored, but will fill with the way the market decides is best without the government getting its hands dirty and trying to micromanage this shit.
This situation also gives an edge to companies like Capstone Turbine, who sell roof-mounted gas turbines for winter heating. Capstone Turbine gas
Exactly. They want Google to pay them for providing the service of indexing your site. I want construction workers to pay me to build a deck on my house. Funny thing is the construction workers want ME to pay THEM. Crazy, isn't it?
Google will just de-list them and, since nobody remembers bookmarks or URLs, Al-Jazeera and CBSNews will be swiftly forgotten and sent to the hell of bankruptcy. Google can't de-list, say, MSN, since Microsoft is a competitor and Google has a monopoly; however if MSN demands Google pay $1 per search result, Google can refuse to pay and then be compliant with copyright demands by de-listing them. Further, Google could then refuse to ever re-list MSN ever again; and a court would have to then order Google to list them, but it would be extremely difficult because MSN initiated the "take me off your list" call and how are we going to accuse Google of abusing their monopoly now? What's your argument? Google is being abusive by declining to take advantage of a special offer to utilize a competitor's product for free?
Yes and the one I was talking to last week started bitching about her iPhone being horribly slow, shitty, and stupid. That's the difference between nerds and girls: nerds go "blahblah features blahblah OS design blahblah Tegra 3" and girls go "THIS THING IS SUCH A *PIECE* *OF* *SHIT*!!!" and throw their iPhone at you.
It probably doesn't help Apple that comparing the Apple iPhone to the Samsung Galaxy or Google Galaxy Nexus (same phone, slightly different software) is like comparing a nerfed ("Balanced") Dungeons & Dragons wizard to a real fucking wizard.
You are a master of making an argument by verbosity. Bravo on the skillful use of a huge logical fallacy; it almost looks like it makes sense, if you don't think about the vacant conclusions drawn.
For example, your "live-and-let-live" policy is more a "fear of change and involvement": Nobody wants to be involved with those dirty hippies, them niggers over there, or the rape happening in the next alley over that isn't their problem. People don't call the police because there may be criminal retaliation, they may be inconvenienced with a trial, and so on.
American's "consumer-driven economy" makes Americans poor due to large amounts of waste. Wasteful spending is wealth destruction, and destruction is not profit. I live on much less than a typical American with a much higher level of luxury, but I haven't bought myself a brand new iPhone every year (I bought a $150 Samsung Dart, then bought myself a $350 Google Galaxy Nexus recently; in the same time frame, I know people who have bought 4 iPhones or even more Android phones as they needed every new HTC that came out). I had the same PC for almost a decade, and it still ran well (I virtualized 2 OSes!), and cost me under $1000; I know people who spend $400 every 8-12 months on a new eMachine, or who upgrade their PC once or twice a year to have the most powerful gaming rig possible. Before the economy ran bad, I knew people buying brand new cars every 3-5 years; I maintain mine for much cheaper.
We buy every gadget, we buy every iteration, we buy big projection TVs and then 2 years later buy an LCD and then a year later a plasma and then a year after that a bigger plasma because they came down in price. People have $300 cable bills and complain they can't afford food, what the hell is that? This isn't to our advantage.
Our national debt is, unfortunately, bigger than our GDP. Beyond 80% is generally unsustainable, beyond 100% is severe. The typical American household is further in debt as a percent of income because they take huge mortgage loans that take 30 years to pay off, which isn't really a great scenario; also they "build equity" (arguable how much compared to what they lose in interest, but it's something), and the American government just has a lot of operational debt. The fact that a lot of things have big numbers--like for example trillions of little yeast cells floating in my beer fermenter--doesn't mean trillions of US dollars isn't a lot; ingesting a few trillion grains of salt will kill you.
The ordinary American seems interested to hear when our movie stars do something stupid, like have a 1 day marriage or have sex with their sister. They want to hear hyperbole that strengthens their own existing opinions, not reasoned arguments that push back against them. That and juicy gossip.
Mostly espionage laws as a foreign agent. If he were a US Citizen it'd be treason, and the punishment is death.
Most people try to apply their own strange perception to legal matters, especially involving espionage. "Oh this should have never been secret" "how is this a matter of national security" etc. The fact is the government says so and that's the end of that; until you put the government on trial for abuse of power and make them liable for classifying things in bad faith, that stuff is taken on faith to be important state secrets. That means disseminating it is an act of war.
Well, torrent users are obviously perceptive. Adding about 50 lines of code to add a display spot for an image, catch a click and call a URL launcher, and do a periodic network call to download ad packages (an image and an ad ID) sure bloats the hell out of software. I mean uTorrent only took what, 15 lines of bash to implement in the first place?
The problem with mangling is C gives you a symbol like "strcpy", which you might compare for the 50,000 links that have to be made during program load, and have to perform 300,000 character comparisons.
In C++ you get _NSstd__IOSTREAM__55STRING_OPEREQ__STRING__STRING__CHARX__ or some crazy thing. You wind up with 100, 150, 250 character long function names for class foo member 'int bar(int, &int)'. To make matters worse, the above hypothetical was ridiculous: you won't do 300,000 character comparisons because there are only about 20 str* functions, you'll do 60 comparisons (20x3) plus around 50,000 more because of all these functions that don't start with 's' (though there will be a couple thousand that do, but don't start with 'st', adding a few thousand more comparisons). In C++, though, things aren't so friendly...
In C++, you actually wind up comparing, as per our approximated example, _NSstd__ for EVERYTHING in the std namespace. That's 8 character comparisons per symbol (function, overloaded operator, variable, class, class member, etc) in the std namespace--everything in the STL. That once for EVERY symbol in the STL. EVERYTHING under the IOSTREAM class has to compare _NSstd__IOSTREAM__, so each one of those totals 18 character comparisons per member of the IOSTREAM class. That means just to load IOSTREAM you definitely have to do (members_of_iostream^2 * 18 / 2) character comparisons. In the real world, you can do hundreds of thousands or even millions of character comparisons just to load one C++ class member.
It used to take about 14 seconds to load OpenOffice.org on a given piece of hardware. Michael Meeks made that about 1.7 seconds by direct binary linking (i.e. telling the linker that a given symbol was in a given library), avoiding 95% of the character comparisons. It got down to somewhere between 2.5 and 3.5 seconds with just Meeks' PT_GNU_HASH non-standard ELF extension, which adds sorted bucket hashes to the symbol tables to bypass most of the work--it worked so well, in fact, that after publicly discussing the patch on the glibc mailing list as Meeks repeatedly submitted new versions, Ulrich Drepper waited a month and then put his name at the top of the patch and claimed he wrote it (on the same mailing list!).
Meeks had white papers written about this shit. He showed how long it takes C programs to link versus similar C++ programs, explained why, then set out to mitigate the stupidity caused simply by using C++. Current gcc toolchains produce PT_GNU_HASH headers (precomputed ELF hashes) and sort the symbol tables to match the ordering of the hash tables, allowing glibc to basically walk through the binary in a straight line. This eliminates the CPU overhead of computing hash values (never mind character comparisons, we're doing a ton of math) and puts everything in a straight line so PREFETCH instructions and just built-in automated CPU prefetching can reasonably eliminate CPU cache misses--which makes things REALLY fucking fast. Loading a C++ program on Linux is now roughly half as fast as loading an architecturally equivalent C program, which is an improvement over the 10x longer it used to take to load C++ programs.
You can see a bunch of shit at http://lwn.net/Articles/192624/ for the executive summary. Sorry the writing's so poor; I need to not write technical column articles like I write slashdot posts.
For the most part, handling a failed allocation (your "malloc() does't fail" argument unfortunately raises problems here...) is a matter of going, "Can't handle this. return ERROR." Then you have to naturally free up the partially allocated resource, if said exists; otherwise the logic to say, "Well that didn't work" is pretty straight forward (nothing allocated, just abort with an error and keep backing out until you get to the function that initiated the resource request anyway).
Programming isn't voodoo. People say it's "hard" to do certain things but in reality it's just "hard" to design a process. It's easy to do just about anything. It's easy to build the world's tallest skyscraper; some engineer has to figure out how to build the structure to not topple over, though. This is a real concern: think about the compressive strength on cement, on steel, not to mention the flex from just being so damn long, oscillation from the wind... where and how do you need to put beams and tie them together to keep this thing from dropping over?
Programmers spend a lot of time building a tall tower, then come back complaining it's hard to stop it from toppling when something goes wrong; this is because they considered, for example, memory management as an afterthought, and in the "close" and "free" and "end" and whatever functions they're trying to figure out how they're going to free the right memory, and how they're going to make sure it's actually not in use first. It's a lot of work to design into a process all the state concerns to dictate when an allocated object is and is not in use; however this IS something you can control BY DESIGN. It doesn't have to be mystic voodoo.
The same way you design it properly for an environment with paging. You still OOM without paging, you still OOM without a page file, and you still fail allocations whether or not you get your own virtual memory area rather than a single monolithic shared area.
What, did you think the swap file made [ if ( ! (a = malloc(sizeof[int] * 1024))) return ENOMEM; ] unnecessary?
Yeah. I'm not a fan of C++, though the compiler spends so little time running that this shouldn't pose much of a problem with bloat and clunk. On the other hand, loading C++ stuff is an abomination that takes eternity due to massive mangling (a problem Michael Meeks has spent a lot of time trying to marginalize with Bdirect linking, faster hash algorithms, etc), and the compiler gets run repeatedly.
Though I guess the guy that tried to convince me C++ is a strict superset of C and that all C will compile as C++ can now enjoy his front page article about how he was wrong.
You and a huge number of people. Instead of Romney 37% Obama 39% Paul 24% we get Romney 48% Obama 51% Paul 1% because you would rather vote in some crack than someone who's halfway decent. Could you imagine if the third party got a viable vote? Politicians might have to stop banking on Republicans voting for Republicans and Democrats voting for Democrats, and instead try to pretend to be a candidate that people actually want. But all the people like you are preventing that; you're preventing competition in the market place, helping the monopoly parties keep control while providing worse and worse products and service.
If Ron Paul has 88 million twitter followers and Mitt Romney has 7, obviously nobody cares about Romney. That means Paul will probably smash the next election, it's not worth voting for Romney because he's got less of a following and is going to be marginalized.
In real life, plenty of people consider a vote for a third party to be a wasted vote. They want their vote to "count", which i don't understand. I don't even vote because the people who are up in front of me aren't of my interests; my vote won't count in any way relevant to me anyway. If your votes were between a child rapist who is likely to get about 48%-54%, an opportunistic middle school teacher boning 13 year olds who is likely to get 47-55%, and an upstanding and educated man with real economics ideals who is likely to get 7%, who do you vote for?
The common mentality is to pick either of the first two that you like more (perhaps, more, the second one, for being guilty of a lesser crime), because the guy you actually like is just a wasted vote and throwing your vote away is foolish. Increasing the perception that you can win is thus extremely significant, more so than actual political views or whether or not you're a convicted pederast.
It's not so much that. DDR has a buffer inside because it's operating at 200MHz instead of 800; internally it can, say, run 4 fetches in parallel and load a 1 word buffer, while the external clock then runs at 4 times the speed and drains that buffer. Registered RAM is something else.
The problem here is that DDR runs at 200MHz internally because running silicone at 800MHz leaks a lot of power and thus consumes a ton of power and gets very hot.
Internally you'd need DDR running at 1GHz for this at the very least. That's like 100 times as much power and then some. You'd need a solid state "read-write head" to read each byte, then rewrite it back for writeback refresh. It would get extremely hot and eat power like your mom eats load.
No, no I won't. See, the trick with semiconductor technologies is they're slow or they're hungry. If they're at GHz, they're power-hungry; if they're light on power, they're slow. Look at ARM. 0.1W of peak power at 600MHz. At 1200MHz, 1W of peak power. That's 10 times as much power consumption and it's a very light weight chip. DDR and QDR RAM uses an internal buffer and runs at high external speeds, but internally it's running at 100MHz or so instead of 400MHz. DDR3 particularly transfers on the up and down clock of a quadrupled clock, so twice per cycle you get a load of 4 chunks of data pulled down (8x speed). Why? Because running at a straight 1600MHz instead of 200MHz and sending a pulse on clock up and clock down would be lunacy, and the chip would overheat and suck tons and tons of electricity.
This memory actually has to be refreshed at 1000MHz internal clock. DDR3 fastest? 266 2/3 internal clock. At 1000MHz it has to read, then write back to refresh. That's got to be done across the entire array (each storage word needs its own refresh circuit, or you need one hell of a fast refresh circuit scanning memory). That's a hell of a lot of independent operations happening in parallel.
The entire plot of The Gap Cycle is based on SOD-CMOS chips. It's true. When you get to the last book you'll look back at it all and be like... holy shit, it is!
The. ENTIRE. Plot. All of it. Some of the most significant back story (explaining parts of the story BEFORE the story started) requires a thorough explanation of how SOD-CMOS works, and most of the actual plot wouldn't have occurred without that back story.
My response to that is usually to suggest a better operating system, one that enforces stricter constraints and so crashes programs out much more quickly when they misbehave. Making memory exclusively writable or executable (never both) and randomizing the address space layout tends to have that impact.
Hardware break points are also fantastic, but programmer are so terrible at using introspective debuggers it's pathetic. The truth is C, C++, etc programs are much easier to write than people think because they're much easier to debug than people realize. The normal way to debug anything is inline debugging--modifying the program and having it print noise to explain itself; most people don't use introspective debuggers.
It's kind of like people who don't know how to use automake or make files at all, and they complain that they have to tweak and hand-compile things on various OSes, gcc src/*.c -o a.out etc. and it doesn't always work. Automake is hard to work out the first time through; once you've got it, though, life becomes a lot easier. Introspective debugging is like that: how many people do you know that could use gdb to any effect?
Slashdot Mirror
What would be good for everyone would be to stop being pussies. Hype-generating journalist hook: the solution is violence.
Back in the day, circa pre-Jesus, rape was ALWAYS the woman's fault. Woman gets brutally beaten and raped, the town ties her up and stones her for adultery. You're a whore, bitch. Even as near as medieval times, once a woman was raped, she had no honor as a woman because she'd lost her virginity--no decent man would marry such a ruined tramp. Rape destroys a woman--not by being harmful, but by making her a worthless whorebag.
Today we like to ignore that an often repeated falsehood becomes true, especially in emotional matters. The more we talk about pit bulls, the more people are afraid of vicious pit bulls; they used to be America's favorite dog, kept to take care of and protect young children, best temperament of any animal you've ever seen. We tell rape victims they've been through a horrible ordeal until they believe it--several "victims" have gone decades facing a hard social life only to wake up one day and think, "You know... it wasn't THAT bad at the time... it really sunk in when the therapists started telling me how terrible it was and how much they'd help me..." and realize that they just swallowed it hook-line-and-sinker and BECAME the victim because that's what they were told. Magically, their emotional issues all evaporate.
And that's what rape is.
Rape is an imaginary construct we create in society to give us a collective sense of self-worth. We convince people it's so horrible so that when they get raped it DESTROYS them; then after WE harm them in this way, we attack the rapist to make ourselves feel good. The rapist is obviously evil; but by making him even MORE evil, we can show that we're really, REALLY doing something. In short: Society needs its demons.
The truth is rape is a bunch of groping and poking, a major annoyance. It's a form of assault. It can be less violent than a fist to the head, or it can be brutal and painful and in some cases fatal. In the end, though, it's just another annoying asshole or another severe beating. If women had that perspective drilled into their head instead of the whole "oh how horrible it will ruin your life" thing, they wouldn't wake up thinking "oh no my life is ruined it's so terrible!" and--again, AGAIN!!--blaming and punishing themselves. That this is still the victim's fault is a sign of a barbaric society, one that fancies itself "civilized" because it can hide its belief that the victim is responsible for the crime.
The solution is more violence. Rapists, like everyone else that harasses or assaults you, essentially need to be punched in the head. That's the solution. A woman shouldn't be breaking down crying thinking her life is being destroyed while she's being raped; she should be thrashing or patiently waiting for an opening, burning with fury looking for her chance to beat the senses from the asshole forcing himself upon her. She should feel a sense of relief or triumph when she escapes in tact, not a sense of shame and loss. What shameful thing has she done? What has she lost? She has been through an unfair ordeal and has survived it; especially if she's forced her assailant off her, then she should feel a great sense of victory and of justice. She should not bear responsibility for the terrible actions of others.
Bitcoin rolling out sales tax lol!
Empirical results? The best economies are capitalist. The more capitalist an economy becomes, the stronger it becomes.
The more capitalist an economy becomes, the weaker it becomes. Unless it's already socialist as hell, then it becomes stronger.
It would be more capitalist to gut all our government regulations, consumer protection laws, anti-trust laws, etc .. let the free market figure it out. Purified capitalism carries no such thing as business for the common good. There is actually a government regulated business class by which you register your business to provide a public benefit, such as Good Will collecting items that would typically be destroyed and thus reduce the wealth present in the economy and selling them at very low prices such that low-income individuals can buy i.e. clothes--this business operation is a money-making cash cow, yet it is extremely beneficial to the public.
In a purified capitalist system, the entire market control is capital. Money. Profit. Lying, cheating, conning people, as long as you don't break the framework laws--which start getting close to anarchy, as business operations can only be covered as far as anything else, you shouldn't even need a permit to operate a business (no incorporation). Fraud is a difficult concept in capitalism: in theory, market forces would drive people toward a product that works as advertised, so why do we need to protect consumers against fraud....
The end result is corporatism, where megacorporations buy up everything and become effective government. CACI supplies the US Military with privately trained troops in Iraq--yes, there are private contracted soldiers, which means there are corporations in America with their own military forces. Imagine the buying frenzy to control all private sector military, police, private security contract, etc. All the guards, cops, and soldiers are controlled by Walt Disney Co.
Sometimes, the government just has to set down the rules and make sure these people play fair. They need--or at least it's beneficial--to nudge the market a little--not cripplingly so, but a little. In my state, the government charges businesses $400 for 1MWh of produced/consumed power. A business has a $400 obligation; however by generating 1MWh of solar power, they can escape this obligation. I have a solar water heater that generates above 5MWh of energy per year (couple it to a radiative heating system boiler via a plate heat exchanger). For each MWh up to 5MWh, I get 1 Solar Renewable Energy Credit.
I can sell that credit; currently there's enough in the market to push prices down to $195 per SREC, so businesses will pay me about $1000/year for owning and operating my solar water heater. This arrangement is the government's way of using market forces to push solar energy--every MWh my water heater generates is that much less gas burned, just like using 1MWh of solar power rather than electricity from the gas turbine plant. This situation leaves it up to producers and consumers to decide what's best for them and how to pay for it--it encourages the production of more solar power plants (although if you consume 1MWh Solar Energy it's solar and you don't need to pay $400), it encourages businesses to lower their energy usage, it encourages businesses to install any offsetting technology (PV, solar hot water, etc--a lot of businesses install PV to lower their obligation AND SELL THE SREC THEY GENERATE FROM IT), it even encourages consumers to install solar power options like PV arrays or solar water heaters. The market decides exactly what to do with that, how to fluctuate prices, and which direction to take; the burden is small and can be ignored, but will fill with the way the market decides is best without the government getting its hands dirty and trying to micromanage this shit.
This situation also gives an edge to companies like Capstone Turbine, who sell roof-mounted gas turbines for winter heating. Capstone Turbine gas
Exactly. They want Google to pay them for providing the service of indexing your site. I want construction workers to pay me to build a deck on my house. Funny thing is the construction workers want ME to pay THEM. Crazy, isn't it?
Google will just de-list them and, since nobody remembers bookmarks or URLs, Al-Jazeera and CBSNews will be swiftly forgotten and sent to the hell of bankruptcy. Google can't de-list, say, MSN, since Microsoft is a competitor and Google has a monopoly; however if MSN demands Google pay $1 per search result, Google can refuse to pay and then be compliant with copyright demands by de-listing them. Further, Google could then refuse to ever re-list MSN ever again; and a court would have to then order Google to list them, but it would be extremely difficult because MSN initiated the "take me off your list" call and how are we going to accuse Google of abusing their monopoly now? What's your argument? Google is being abusive by declining to take advantage of a special offer to utilize a competitor's product for free?
Yes and the one I was talking to last week started bitching about her iPhone being horribly slow, shitty, and stupid. That's the difference between nerds and girls: nerds go "blahblah features blahblah OS design blahblah Tegra 3" and girls go "THIS THING IS SUCH A *PIECE* *OF* *SHIT*!!!" and throw their iPhone at you.
It probably doesn't help Apple that comparing the Apple iPhone to the Samsung Galaxy or Google Galaxy Nexus (same phone, slightly different software) is like comparing a nerfed ("Balanced") Dungeons & Dragons wizard to a real fucking wizard.
You are a master of making an argument by verbosity. Bravo on the skillful use of a huge logical fallacy; it almost looks like it makes sense, if you don't think about the vacant conclusions drawn.
For example, your "live-and-let-live" policy is more a "fear of change and involvement": Nobody wants to be involved with those dirty hippies, them niggers over there, or the rape happening in the next alley over that isn't their problem. People don't call the police because there may be criminal retaliation, they may be inconvenienced with a trial, and so on.
American's "consumer-driven economy" makes Americans poor due to large amounts of waste. Wasteful spending is wealth destruction, and destruction is not profit. I live on much less than a typical American with a much higher level of luxury, but I haven't bought myself a brand new iPhone every year (I bought a $150 Samsung Dart, then bought myself a $350 Google Galaxy Nexus recently; in the same time frame, I know people who have bought 4 iPhones or even more Android phones as they needed every new HTC that came out). I had the same PC for almost a decade, and it still ran well (I virtualized 2 OSes!), and cost me under $1000; I know people who spend $400 every 8-12 months on a new eMachine, or who upgrade their PC once or twice a year to have the most powerful gaming rig possible. Before the economy ran bad, I knew people buying brand new cars every 3-5 years; I maintain mine for much cheaper.
We buy every gadget, we buy every iteration, we buy big projection TVs and then 2 years later buy an LCD and then a year later a plasma and then a year after that a bigger plasma because they came down in price. People have $300 cable bills and complain they can't afford food, what the hell is that? This isn't to our advantage.
Our national debt is, unfortunately, bigger than our GDP. Beyond 80% is generally unsustainable, beyond 100% is severe. The typical American household is further in debt as a percent of income because they take huge mortgage loans that take 30 years to pay off, which isn't really a great scenario; also they "build equity" (arguable how much compared to what they lose in interest, but it's something), and the American government just has a lot of operational debt. The fact that a lot of things have big numbers--like for example trillions of little yeast cells floating in my beer fermenter--doesn't mean trillions of US dollars isn't a lot; ingesting a few trillion grains of salt will kill you.
The ordinary American seems interested to hear when our movie stars do something stupid, like have a 1 day marriage or have sex with their sister. They want to hear hyperbole that strengthens their own existing opinions, not reasoned arguments that push back against them. That and juicy gossip.
Dogfish Head Shelter Pale Ale. 60 Minute IPA for something stronger.
Mostly espionage laws as a foreign agent. If he were a US Citizen it'd be treason, and the punishment is death.
Most people try to apply their own strange perception to legal matters, especially involving espionage. "Oh this should have never been secret" "how is this a matter of national security" etc. The fact is the government says so and that's the end of that; until you put the government on trial for abuse of power and make them liable for classifying things in bad faith, that stuff is taken on faith to be important state secrets. That means disseminating it is an act of war.
Well, torrent users are obviously perceptive. Adding about 50 lines of code to add a display spot for an image, catch a click and call a URL launcher, and do a periodic network call to download ad packages (an image and an ad ID) sure bloats the hell out of software. I mean uTorrent only took what, 15 lines of bash to implement in the first place?
Men get breast cancer too.
The "potential for errors" typically comes from ... not putting in the correct code to handle exotic events.
My code can see:
A) A limited number of expected results.
B) Anything else
C) A condition where no result is possible because I can't get the resources.
Errors seem to keep popping up in the form of not looking for "anything else." The greatest security researcher's tool is the fuzzer.
The problem with mangling is C gives you a symbol like "strcpy", which you might compare for the 50,000 links that have to be made during program load, and have to perform 300,000 character comparisons.
In C++ you get _NSstd__IOSTREAM__55STRING_OPEREQ__STRING__STRING__CHARX__ or some crazy thing. You wind up with 100, 150, 250 character long function names for class foo member 'int bar(int, &int)'. To make matters worse, the above hypothetical was ridiculous: you won't do 300,000 character comparisons because there are only about 20 str* functions, you'll do 60 comparisons (20x3) plus around 50,000 more because of all these functions that don't start with 's' (though there will be a couple thousand that do, but don't start with 'st', adding a few thousand more comparisons). In C++, though, things aren't so friendly...
In C++, you actually wind up comparing, as per our approximated example, _NSstd__ for EVERYTHING in the std namespace. That's 8 character comparisons per symbol (function, overloaded operator, variable, class, class member, etc) in the std namespace--everything in the STL. That once for EVERY symbol in the STL. EVERYTHING under the IOSTREAM class has to compare _NSstd__IOSTREAM__, so each one of those totals 18 character comparisons per member of the IOSTREAM class. That means just to load IOSTREAM you definitely have to do (members_of_iostream^2 * 18 / 2) character comparisons. In the real world, you can do hundreds of thousands or even millions of character comparisons just to load one C++ class member.
It used to take about 14 seconds to load OpenOffice.org on a given piece of hardware. Michael Meeks made that about 1.7 seconds by direct binary linking (i.e. telling the linker that a given symbol was in a given library), avoiding 95% of the character comparisons. It got down to somewhere between 2.5 and 3.5 seconds with just Meeks' PT_GNU_HASH non-standard ELF extension, which adds sorted bucket hashes to the symbol tables to bypass most of the work--it worked so well, in fact, that after publicly discussing the patch on the glibc mailing list as Meeks repeatedly submitted new versions, Ulrich Drepper waited a month and then put his name at the top of the patch and claimed he wrote it (on the same mailing list!).
Meeks had white papers written about this shit. He showed how long it takes C programs to link versus similar C++ programs, explained why, then set out to mitigate the stupidity caused simply by using C++. Current gcc toolchains produce PT_GNU_HASH headers (precomputed ELF hashes) and sort the symbol tables to match the ordering of the hash tables, allowing glibc to basically walk through the binary in a straight line. This eliminates the CPU overhead of computing hash values (never mind character comparisons, we're doing a ton of math) and puts everything in a straight line so PREFETCH instructions and just built-in automated CPU prefetching can reasonably eliminate CPU cache misses--which makes things REALLY fucking fast. Loading a C++ program on Linux is now roughly half as fast as loading an architecturally equivalent C program, which is an improvement over the 10x longer it used to take to load C++ programs.
You can see a bunch of shit at http://lwn.net/Articles/192624/ for the executive summary. Sorry the writing's so poor; I need to not write technical column articles like I write slashdot posts.
For the most part, handling a failed allocation (your "malloc() does't fail" argument unfortunately raises problems here...) is a matter of going, "Can't handle this. return ERROR." Then you have to naturally free up the partially allocated resource, if said exists; otherwise the logic to say, "Well that didn't work" is pretty straight forward (nothing allocated, just abort with an error and keep backing out until you get to the function that initiated the resource request anyway).
Programming isn't voodoo. People say it's "hard" to do certain things but in reality it's just "hard" to design a process. It's easy to do just about anything. It's easy to build the world's tallest skyscraper; some engineer has to figure out how to build the structure to not topple over, though. This is a real concern: think about the compressive strength on cement, on steel, not to mention the flex from just being so damn long, oscillation from the wind... where and how do you need to put beams and tie them together to keep this thing from dropping over?
Programmers spend a lot of time building a tall tower, then come back complaining it's hard to stop it from toppling when something goes wrong; this is because they considered, for example, memory management as an afterthought, and in the "close" and "free" and "end" and whatever functions they're trying to figure out how they're going to free the right memory, and how they're going to make sure it's actually not in use first. It's a lot of work to design into a process all the state concerns to dictate when an allocated object is and is not in use; however this IS something you can control BY DESIGN. It doesn't have to be mystic voodoo.
The same way you design it properly for an environment with paging. You still OOM without paging, you still OOM without a page file, and you still fail allocations whether or not you get your own virtual memory area rather than a single monolithic shared area.
What, did you think the swap file made [ if ( ! (a = malloc(sizeof[int] * 1024))) return ENOMEM; ] unnecessary?
Yeah. I'm not a fan of C++, though the compiler spends so little time running that this shouldn't pose much of a problem with bloat and clunk. On the other hand, loading C++ stuff is an abomination that takes eternity due to massive mangling (a problem Michael Meeks has spent a lot of time trying to marginalize with Bdirect linking, faster hash algorithms, etc), and the compiler gets run repeatedly.
Though I guess the guy that tried to convince me C++ is a strict superset of C and that all C will compile as C++ can now enjoy his front page article about how he was wrong.
You and a huge number of people. Instead of Romney 37% Obama 39% Paul 24% we get Romney 48% Obama 51% Paul 1% because you would rather vote in some crack than someone who's halfway decent. Could you imagine if the third party got a viable vote? Politicians might have to stop banking on Republicans voting for Republicans and Democrats voting for Democrats, and instead try to pretend to be a candidate that people actually want. But all the people like you are preventing that; you're preventing competition in the market place, helping the monopoly parties keep control while providing worse and worse products and service.
If Ron Paul has 88 million twitter followers and Mitt Romney has 7, obviously nobody cares about Romney. That means Paul will probably smash the next election, it's not worth voting for Romney because he's got less of a following and is going to be marginalized.
In real life, plenty of people consider a vote for a third party to be a wasted vote. They want their vote to "count", which i don't understand. I don't even vote because the people who are up in front of me aren't of my interests; my vote won't count in any way relevant to me anyway. If your votes were between a child rapist who is likely to get about 48%-54%, an opportunistic middle school teacher boning 13 year olds who is likely to get 47-55%, and an upstanding and educated man with real economics ideals who is likely to get 7%, who do you vote for?
The common mentality is to pick either of the first two that you like more (perhaps, more, the second one, for being guilty of a lesser crime), because the guy you actually like is just a wasted vote and throwing your vote away is foolish. Increasing the perception that you can win is thus extremely significant, more so than actual political views or whether or not you're a convicted pederast.
Parent was implying that negros and dirty yellow slanteyes aren't people.
Building temples, digging holes and filling them in again, manufacturing piles of boots and then burning them ...
It's not so much that. DDR has a buffer inside because it's operating at 200MHz instead of 800; internally it can, say, run 4 fetches in parallel and load a 1 word buffer, while the external clock then runs at 4 times the speed and drains that buffer. Registered RAM is something else.
The problem here is that DDR runs at 200MHz internally because running silicone at 800MHz leaks a lot of power and thus consumes a ton of power and gets very hot.
Internally you'd need DDR running at 1GHz for this at the very least. That's like 100 times as much power and then some. You'd need a solid state "read-write head" to read each byte, then rewrite it back for writeback refresh. It would get extremely hot and eat power like your mom eats load.
No, no I won't. See, the trick with semiconductor technologies is they're slow or they're hungry. If they're at GHz, they're power-hungry; if they're light on power, they're slow. Look at ARM. 0.1W of peak power at 600MHz. At 1200MHz, 1W of peak power. That's 10 times as much power consumption and it's a very light weight chip. DDR and QDR RAM uses an internal buffer and runs at high external speeds, but internally it's running at 100MHz or so instead of 400MHz. DDR3 particularly transfers on the up and down clock of a quadrupled clock, so twice per cycle you get a load of 4 chunks of data pulled down (8x speed). Why? Because running at a straight 1600MHz instead of 200MHz and sending a pulse on clock up and clock down would be lunacy, and the chip would overheat and suck tons and tons of electricity.
This memory actually has to be refreshed at 1000MHz internal clock. DDR3 fastest? 266 2/3 internal clock. At 1000MHz it has to read, then write back to refresh. That's got to be done across the entire array (each storage word needs its own refresh circuit, or you need one hell of a fast refresh circuit scanning memory). That's a hell of a lot of independent operations happening in parallel.
The entire plot of The Gap Cycle is based on SOD-CMOS chips. It's true. When you get to the last book you'll look back at it all and be like ... holy shit, it is!
The. ENTIRE. Plot. All of it. Some of the most significant back story (explaining parts of the story BEFORE the story started) requires a thorough explanation of how SOD-CMOS works, and most of the actual plot wouldn't have occurred without that back story.
It needs a 1GHz+ refresh cycle and it definitely needs ECC. Not parity, real ECC. How does this save power again?
My response to that is usually to suggest a better operating system, one that enforces stricter constraints and so crashes programs out much more quickly when they misbehave. Making memory exclusively writable or executable (never both) and randomizing the address space layout tends to have that impact.
Hardware break points are also fantastic, but programmer are so terrible at using introspective debuggers it's pathetic. The truth is C, C++, etc programs are much easier to write than people think because they're much easier to debug than people realize. The normal way to debug anything is inline debugging--modifying the program and having it print noise to explain itself; most people don't use introspective debuggers.
It's kind of like people who don't know how to use automake or make files at all, and they complain that they have to tweak and hand-compile things on various OSes, gcc src/*.c -o a.out etc. and it doesn't always work. Automake is hard to work out the first time through; once you've got it, though, life becomes a lot easier. Introspective debugging is like that: how many people do you know that could use gdb to any effect?