Yes, and then the article clearly follows that up with:
"Sorry, source code for BitTorrent 6.0, like the source code for uTorrent, will not be released. However, versions 5 and earlier were of course released under open source licenses, and remain available for you to modify and redistribute subject to the terms of their respective licenses."
It's true enough that earlier versions of the BitTorrent protocol are available, however considering that BitTorrent is continuously evolving, older versions offer little benefit to a forward looking developer. To many in the BitTorrent community, BitTorrent, Inc. has turned its back on the open source movement. Addressing these concerns, Ashwin Navin, President of BitTorrent, Inc., spoke to Slyck.com.
"That's a true statement," Ashwin told Slyck.com, referring to the uTorrent acquisition FAQ. "We'll always maintain an open source version, although it may not necessarily reflect the latest client on the site."
They said the "community" will not be affected, but that's hard to buy when they're changing the nature of what the community revolves around. There's always the possibility that the open source code base will become defunct.
Also, and what's perhaps most exciting about these theories, is that they make predictions, predictions which can be verified or falsified based on observations. These are delicate experiments to be sure, but some will be possible to perform in just the next few years (for example, different cosmological origin theories predict different behaviors for the Universe at very early times, and these would imprint themselves on objects which can be observed).
Aside from the auto-vectorizing stuff, most of Intel is advertising does not happen automatically. Instead, they provide abstractions that make it easier to write high performance multithreaded code. But programmers will still have to do the hard stuff, which is figure out how best to parallelize their algorithms, distribute their data, and synchronize their threads.
Which is why we allow it when the situation warrants it. But no matter how much training the driver has, or how used to it the rest of the drivers are, it is still a risk. And if we're going to agree to that risk - which we do - it had better be for a good reason - which is an emergency situation where seconds count.
Sure it can. It makes the roads less safe for the other people driving on them. Traffic laws are not meant to be arbitrary, they exist for safety's sake. So the gain from breaking them needs to be significant.
Keep in mind that while MapReduce is a functional concept, it relies on an extraordinary amount of procedural or object-oriented code in order to function. Specificaly, the Linux kernel, the entire Linux system stack and the Google File System. I think functional programming is neat, and I particularly like it when people find practical applications for it (bonus if it's in a high performance context), but don't ignore the significant infrastructure that enables it to happen.
that's not a strictly accurate description of the situation, although it's close. Linux doesn't limit it, it uses one SPE for its own benefit. So 7 SPEs are in use, just as they are when playing games, but one of them is consumed by the kernel.
And I don't think that's an accurate description. On Cell Blades with Linux, all 8 SPEs are usable by applications. My understanding is that with the PS3, one SPE is disabled so they can get a higher yield, and one SPE is used by the Game OS. (Yes, the Game OS is always around since there is a hypervisor between the Game OS, Linux and the hardware.)
In the phrase "unoriginal storyline," I think you latched onto the wrong word. I think it's a relatively recent phenomenon that the plot of a story is considered the most important, but originality has always been valued. While Shakespeares plots were unoriginal, his execution was clearly novel. We don't read or watch Shakespeare for the stories but for his use of language.
Yes, you can lose fat through exercise alone. (Notice I don't say "weight," since that would include muscle mass, and it's fat loss we want.) By "exercise alone" I assume you mean by not changing your diet, which means you keep calories consumed fixed. By strength training, you increase muscle mass, which increases your metabolism, which given a fixed number of calories, means less will go into fat storage. Cardio itself will burn fat stores. This is not the optimal method - eating right, strength training, and regular cardio is optimal - but it will have an effect.
Calorie reduction is important, and so is what calories you consume. But if you weren't seeing anything from exercise, you were either too impatient or you weren't exercising right. Intensity and type of training matters.
Well, you hit on the important point: you do what you can. But from what I know, you're missing out on strength gains because you're doing cardio immediately afterwards. If you split strength training and cardio up, you would get more strength gains and burn fat. I used to do both together, and I found that if I did cardio after lifting, I would hold back. Now, when I'm done lifting, I do nothing but eat, shower and rest.
Also, getting lean protien into your body as soon as you can after lifting is good. There's a period of about an hour after strength training that your body uses more of what you put into it. I don't know why our bodies work that way, but they do.
But, that's all just optimization. The important thing is to keep doing it. Your fat loss and muscle gains will come, but they will come gradually. But after a year or two, you can transform your body. So keep at it, keep it fun and interesting, work hard, and the benefits will come.
I never said you could burn off a "bloated diet." Eating well is important. But so is strength training, and it doesn't take being in the gym all day. Two or three days a week of one or two hour sessions can transform your body if you do the right exercises (compound lifts like bench, squat and deadlift) with intensity. Read this guy's site for lots more info: http://www.martygallagher.com/. Marty Gallagher was a competitive powerlifter and he coached competitive powerlifters. He now mostly writes about strength training and general health. He knows his shit.
Doing cardio immediately after lifting will decrease muscle mass gains (and make it harder for you to lose fat). After you lift, your body needs two things: food and rest. You build muscle when you rest, not while you train, and your body needs food (prefferably lean protien) to do it. Cardio is important, of course, but you'll see better results if you do them at different times.
What you're reccomending is the exact opposite of what is good for you. Assuming a fixed number of calories a day, if you spread that out over more meals, your metabolism is greater and your body makes better use of the food.
The point was not to redo the Miligram study in a virtual environment. The point was to demonstrate that people still feel conflicted when harming a subject they know isn't real. That result allows for virtual experiments where the real ones would be unethical.
So, it's mathematically convenient to start assigning probabilities to an electron's exact location, because we don't have the means to say "Ah, there it is!" without moving it somewhere else.
You're missing the point - and the beauty - of the Heseinburg Uncertainty Principle. Your implicit assumption is that the electron has an exact location, much like a baseball would. Your assumption is that the electron has an exact position and an exact momentum, we are just incapable of measuring both at the same time. But an electron is not a baseball. The implication of the Uncertainty Principle is that the electron has no exact position or momentum. It is, inherently, uncertain. It is not a result of our inability to measure it. Uncertainty and randomness are built into the Universe.
Doesn't that seem a bit presumptuous? Sure, we can treat subatomic particles as probabilistic - and in many cases, with out current means, we have to - but it seems a bit hasty to jump to the conclusion that many quantum physicists have, and argue that there's a schism between quantum-level physics - which are strictly probabilistic - and non-quantum physics, which aren't.
There's no argument. It's consequence of the fact that we have different sets of laws to describe the Universe at the quantum level and the macroscopic level. And at least in thermodynamics (I am unsure about classical mechanics), one can derive the macroscopic laws directly from the quantum laws. The interactions are so complex, yet so predictable, that at the macroscopic level we can discard the quantum theory and use things like the ideal gas law.
Quantum theory has made some of the accurate predictions in science. Keep in mind that the world does behave differently on the macroscopic scale, and that is the scale that we have evolved to have an intution for. We have no intution for the quantum level simply because there was no evolutionary selection for it. This does not mean there is anything wrong with the theory, or it is misunderstood.
What you're missing is learning science from scientists.
No physicist believes the choice is made by the conscious observer. The conclusion that physicists have come to is far more interesting: uncertainty is inherent in the universe.
Slashdot Mirror
Aside from the auto-vectorizing stuff, most of Intel is advertising does not happen automatically. Instead, they provide abstractions that make it easier to write high performance multithreaded code. But programmers will still have to do the hard stuff, which is figure out how best to parallelize their algorithms, distribute their data, and synchronize their threads.
Not in CS. Even the theory people I know write their own Latex.
No, people have objected because scientific conclusions were removed because they were politically controversial.
It's funny only if you're not in the Computer Science Department at Virginia Tech.
Which is why we allow it when the situation warrants it. But no matter how much training the driver has, or how used to it the rest of the drivers are, it is still a risk. And if we're going to agree to that risk - which we do - it had better be for a good reason - which is an emergency situation where seconds count.
Keep in mind that while MapReduce is a functional concept, it relies on an extraordinary amount of procedural or object-oriented code in order to function. Specificaly, the Linux kernel, the entire Linux system stack and the Google File System. I think functional programming is neat, and I particularly like it when people find practical applications for it (bonus if it's in a high performance context), but don't ignore the significant infrastructure that enables it to happen.
Because a Mac Pro is a workstation. Sun's machine is a server.
In the phrase "unoriginal storyline," I think you latched onto the wrong word. I think it's a relatively recent phenomenon that the plot of a story is considered the most important, but originality has always been valued. While Shakespeares plots were unoriginal, his execution was clearly novel. We don't read or watch Shakespeare for the stories but for his use of language.
Scratch that. Ohio State has the most. Ohio only has 25,000 which is about average for a stat university.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_US_un iversities_by_enrollment
Yes, you can lose fat through exercise alone. (Notice I don't say "weight," since that would include muscle mass, and it's fat loss we want.) By "exercise alone" I assume you mean by not changing your diet, which means you keep calories consumed fixed. By strength training, you increase muscle mass, which increases your metabolism, which given a fixed number of calories, means less will go into fat storage. Cardio itself will burn fat stores. This is not the optimal method - eating right, strength training, and regular cardio is optimal - but it will have an effect.
Calorie reduction is important, and so is what calories you consume. But if you weren't seeing anything from exercise, you were either too impatient or you weren't exercising right. Intensity and type of training matters.
Well, you hit on the important point: you do what you can. But from what I know, you're missing out on strength gains because you're doing cardio immediately afterwards. If you split strength training and cardio up, you would get more strength gains and burn fat. I used to do both together, and I found that if I did cardio after lifting, I would hold back. Now, when I'm done lifting, I do nothing but eat, shower and rest.
Also, getting lean protien into your body as soon as you can after lifting is good. There's a period of about an hour after strength training that your body uses more of what you put into it. I don't know why our bodies work that way, but they do.
But, that's all just optimization. The important thing is to keep doing it. Your fat loss and muscle gains will come, but they will come gradually. But after a year or two, you can transform your body. So keep at it, keep it fun and interesting, work hard, and the benefits will come.
I never said you could burn off a "bloated diet." Eating well is important. But so is strength training, and it doesn't take being in the gym all day. Two or three days a week of one or two hour sessions can transform your body if you do the right exercises (compound lifts like bench, squat and deadlift) with intensity. Read this guy's site for lots more info: http://www.martygallagher.com/. Marty Gallagher was a competitive powerlifter and he coached competitive powerlifters. He now mostly writes about strength training and general health. He knows his shit.
Doing cardio immediately after lifting will decrease muscle mass gains (and make it harder for you to lose fat). After you lift, your body needs two things: food and rest. You build muscle when you rest, not while you train, and your body needs food (prefferably lean protien) to do it. Cardio is important, of course, but you'll see better results if you do them at different times.
There is more to exercise than cardio.
What you're reccomending is the exact opposite of what is good for you. Assuming a fixed number of calories a day, if you spread that out over more meals, your metabolism is greater and your body makes better use of the food.
It's and English speaking site for English speaking readers. Is there something wrong with having a bias of covering the English version of a series?
The point was not to redo the Miligram study in a virtual environment. The point was to demonstrate that people still feel conflicted when harming a subject they know isn't real. That result allows for virtual experiments where the real ones would be unethical.
What I described is the Copenhagen interpretation of the uncertainty principle, and it is widely accepted.
There's no argument. It's consequence of the fact that we have different sets of laws to describe the Universe at the quantum level and the macroscopic level. And at least in thermodynamics (I am unsure about classical mechanics), one can derive the macroscopic laws directly from the quantum laws. The interactions are so complex, yet so predictable, that at the macroscopic level we can discard the quantum theory and use things like the ideal gas law.
Quantum theory has made some of the accurate predictions in science. Keep in mind that the world does behave differently on the macroscopic scale, and that is the scale that we have evolved to have an intution for. We have no intution for the quantum level simply because there was no evolutionary selection for it. This does not mean there is anything wrong with the theory, or it is misunderstood.
What you're missing is learning science from scientists.
No physicist believes the choice is made by the conscious observer. The conclusion that physicists have come to is far more interesting: uncertainty is inherent in the universe.