My biggest complaint with posts is when the submitter simply copy and pastes the first (relevant) paragraph from the story. That's redundant; I generally decide from the headline alone if I'm going to click through on the linked article. I read the submission text to get the submitter's brief analysis of the article itself, not an article teaser.
There's also this wierd effect when I read the paragraph again in the article. It's like an unexpected echo that throws me off from the article's topic.
There are a lot of things that people considered common sense that experiment showed to be incorrect. These researchers aren't saying "Look, a revolutionary new concept!" they're just saying "Yeah, that phenomenon that we all think we experience is quantifiable; it does happen to everyone and these are the effects it has on us."
This attitude of not investigating perceived obvious phenomenon means we would never be surprised by an experiment that gives results different than our expectation. Taking the sentiment to the extreme, we'd do no experiments at all, and simply reason our way through things without checking to see if our reasoning agrees with reality (which is basically what the ancient Greeks did).
Knowing that the military figured this out from experience, and that most people know it instinctively, it's hard not to wonder why someone thought it necessary to quantify this.
Because if we wrote off everything as knowable through common sense or anecdotes, then we'd never run those experiments that truly surprise us.
Of course I will be moded down but unlike all the slashdot sheep-teenager with mod points I do enjoy expressing my opinion.
I sincerely want a (-1, Martyr) mod for people who basically dare the moderators to mod them down, implying that any moderator who mods them up is cool like them. Let your comments stand on their own merit; this "I'm so different from the masses" stuff is silly.
Anyway, back on topic, Jobs saw that NeXT was good technology and used it well. That's basically the gist of what was being said.
His advise is sound. He did not say "Continue to put stress on an injured joint," which seems to be what you got out of it. There is plenty of aerobic exercise one can do that does not stress the knee. Swimming and cycling are two good examples.
Looking in the mirror is a great way of comparing yourself to what is "normal," not what is "healthy."
I don't see what percieved normality has to do with it. It's obvious by looking in a mirror if you have any extraneous fat. The BMI is generally a reasonable number, but again, why bother? It tells you what you can already see.
I'm skeptical whenever someone guesses at bodyfat percentages. I can't eyeball my own or anyone else's. I doubt that anyone but a person who regularly checks other people's bodyfat percentages can do it accurately (since they've seen a wide range of body types and know the associate percentage). So I didn't put much stock in the number the GP threw out.
Back to the BMI, I think it's worthless for an individual. It's useful if you're trying to get data over a large population. But the BMI is just a ratio of height and weight - you can do this mentally by just looking in the mirror, which also has more information than a simple ratio.
Try lifting weights. Your metabolic weight is partially a function of your muscle mass. If you increase your muscle mass, your metabolic rate must also increase. It could very well be that 1500 calories a day was still too much. Despite being geared towards women, this site is an excellent reference for anyone who's interested in starting strength training.
Going to a gym is not an option - bad knees, you see.
False. There are plenty of other exercises you can do that don't put strain on your knees. Swimming is an excellent workout. It sounds like you've stopped exercising completely, which is why you gained weight. Diets don't work in the long term. You need regular exercise. You do have a choice to be an active person.
BMI doesn't account for muscle mass, so it's not useful for people who do any sort of strength training. It doesn't tell you anything that you can't get by just looking in the mirror.
I'm 6'1" and about 180 lbs. I was definitely stronger over the summer when I was able to lift more regularly; I was close to 190 lbs. and I could see my abs. Yet, my BMI was borderline overweight.
I skimmed the 44-page report, and I saw a fundamental problem with their data. All data depends on the number of and severity of system updates. More updates of higher severity is worse. The implicit assumption here is that more updates of higher severity indicates greater system vulnerability, which is not necessarily true.
Keep in mind I only skimmed the report, so if anyone read it closely, let me know if I'm mischaracterizing their data.
Headers often need to be segregated simply because implementation files need to be able to say #include "needed_data_structures.h" without having to explicitly add many directories to the include path. In a large project, many.c files are going to include the same.h file.
This reminds me of programmers who put all their ".h" files in one directory, and all their ".c" files in another directory. I would go nuts having to type "vi../headers/module.h" all damn day.
That's appropriate for large projects. Check out the source code for the Linux kernel. It would be much harder to navigate if each.c and corresponding.h had their own directory.
There's no need. This lawsuit looks so cut-and-dried in favor of the spyware detection company that a law school student could come up with most of the defense as a homework assignment over the weekend.
This is not a good analogy as your car engine performance metric is extremely flawed.
No, it's a good analogy for exactly that reason. I don't know shit about engines. Most people don't know shit about processors. However, I still have to make a decision about purchasing a car, and frankly, as long as it moves when I push down on the pedal, I'm happy. Most people are like that with computers.
This is only going to get more and more confusing with multi-core. Users are going to have to distinguish not only based on clock speed, but number of processors, and with HT (number of logical processors).
That's just the point, I think Intel and others want to move away from having typical consumers have to wade through all this crap. Using names that are associated with the intended use of the processor, instead of the specs, is supposed to achieve this.
If I go to buy a car, the only metric I'll use to evaluate the engine is the number of cylinders. And frankly, my knowlege is limited to "More cylinders means more power." Most people don't know much about engines and don't want to learn. The car buying process takes this into account, and I think this is what Intel is going for.
What's more, he [intellectual-property lawyer Thomas Hoffmann, with DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary in Seattle] said, Microsoft appears to have had a legitimate complaint of trademark infringement, based on Lyttle's use of Windows in his product name.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
I think something like this qualifies. It was probably illegal by international law (there was no declared war, so I don't see how it can be considered an act of war), it's not a stretch to call it violent (and I think it's easily a show of force), and it was likely meant to disrupt the Soviet's infrastructure, and consequently, the Soviet government and society itself.
No. It was not that it was sponsored by Microsoft; it is that it was sponsored almost to its enterity by Microsoft and it was "invitation only", where invitations could come only from... Microsoft.
False. "Sponsored" by Microsoft means they donated money to it. It's a USENIX sponsored conference (which, if you're not aware, is an organization that sponsors highly respected systems conferences). It does not mean that Microsoft ran the show. Out of a 12 person committee, only two are from Microsoft Research.
I don't understand your complaint. They wrote some papers about their research project, why wouldn't they put them on their site? Before you dismiss the quality of the papers, you want to actually read them.
Perl doesn't have an intermediate step that has assembly code, and neither does Ruby.
Sure it does. It's just that there's another layer (the perl program, in Perl's case) inbetween your Perl source and the resulting code. While your Perl program may never exist as a machine executable, there certainly is a stream of instructions associated with your Perl program. That was the parent's point.
Compiled languages go from their language to machine code, once again, no assembly.
Not true. When you invoke gcc, for example, there four distinct phases: preprocessing, compilation, assembly and linking. The output of the compilation process is assembly code for the architecture gcc was compiled for. It then invokes as, the GNU assembler, to convert the assembly code to machine code. Passing gcc the option -S tells it to not call the assembler, and the output is assembly code. Most compilers are going to have these distinct phases for reasons of portability, code maintenance, and ease of applying optimizations (some optimizations are applicable at the source code level, others at the assembly level).
But there really is a one-to-one mapping of assembly to machine code, so I don't consider the difference to be significant. Assembly is really just human-readable machine code. Even then, most processors don't actually execute the machine code as-is. Pentiums break down x86 instructions into micro-operations which are what really get executed on the processor.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, gcc is not multithreaded. I'm not sure if there even are multithreaded compilers; there's not much parallelism to exploit.
My biggest complaint with posts is when the submitter simply copy and pastes the first (relevant) paragraph from the story. That's redundant; I generally decide from the headline alone if I'm going to click through on the linked article. I read the submission text to get the submitter's brief analysis of the article itself, not an article teaser.
There's also this wierd effect when I read the paragraph again in the article. It's like an unexpected echo that throws me off from the article's topic.
There are a lot of things that people considered common sense that experiment showed to be incorrect. These researchers aren't saying "Look, a revolutionary new concept!" they're just saying "Yeah, that phenomenon that we all think we experience is quantifiable; it does happen to everyone and these are the effects it has on us."
This attitude of not investigating perceived obvious phenomenon means we would never be surprised by an experiment that gives results different than our expectation. Taking the sentiment to the extreme, we'd do no experiments at all, and simply reason our way through things without checking to see if our reasoning agrees with reality (which is basically what the ancient Greeks did).
Knowing that the military figured this out from experience, and that most people know it instinctively, it's hard not to wonder why someone thought it necessary to quantify this.
Because if we wrote off everything as knowable through common sense or anecdotes, then we'd never run those experiments that truly surprise us.
Of course I will be moded down but unlike all the slashdot sheep-teenager with mod points I do enjoy expressing my opinion.
I sincerely want a (-1, Martyr) mod for people who basically dare the moderators to mod them down, implying that any moderator who mods them up is cool like them. Let your comments stand on their own merit; this "I'm so different from the masses" stuff is silly.
Anyway, back on topic, Jobs saw that NeXT was good technology and used it well. That's basically the gist of what was being said.
NeXT was the basis for OSX.
I'm surprised that so many researchers still view cancer as a sentient malicious being living within a biological system.
Did anyone explicity or implicitly say it is?
8% is very low. Is that your guess or have you had it measured?
His advise is sound. He did not say "Continue to put stress on an injured joint," which seems to be what you got out of it. There is plenty of aerobic exercise one can do that does not stress the knee. Swimming and cycling are two good examples.
Looking in the mirror is a great way of comparing yourself to what is "normal," not what is "healthy."
I don't see what percieved normality has to do with it. It's obvious by looking in a mirror if you have any extraneous fat. The BMI is generally a reasonable number, but again, why bother? It tells you what you can already see.
I'm skeptical whenever someone guesses at bodyfat percentages. I can't eyeball my own or anyone else's. I doubt that anyone but a person who regularly checks other people's bodyfat percentages can do it accurately (since they've seen a wide range of body types and know the associate percentage). So I didn't put much stock in the number the GP threw out.
Back to the BMI, I think it's worthless for an individual. It's useful if you're trying to get data over a large population. But the BMI is just a ratio of height and weight - you can do this mentally by just looking in the mirror, which also has more information than a simple ratio.
Try lifting weights. Your metabolic weight is partially a function of your muscle mass. If you increase your muscle mass, your metabolic rate must also increase. It could very well be that 1500 calories a day was still too much. Despite being geared towards women, this site is an excellent reference for anyone who's interested in starting strength training.
Going to a gym is not an option - bad knees, you see.
False. There are plenty of other exercises you can do that don't put strain on your knees. Swimming is an excellent workout. It sounds like you've stopped exercising completely, which is why you gained weight. Diets don't work in the long term. You need regular exercise. You do have a choice to be an active person.
BMI doesn't account for muscle mass, so it's not useful for people who do any sort of strength training. It doesn't tell you anything that you can't get by just looking in the mirror.
I'm 6'1" and about 180 lbs. I was definitely stronger over the summer when I was able to lift more regularly; I was close to 190 lbs. and I could see my abs. Yet, my BMI was borderline overweight.
He was responding to "Microsoft has more executives than they do engineers and designers combined" which is false.
I skimmed the 44-page report, and I saw a fundamental problem with their data. All data depends on the number of and severity of system updates. More updates of higher severity is worse. The implicit assumption here is that more updates of higher severity indicates greater system vulnerability, which is not necessarily true.
Keep in mind I only skimmed the report, so if anyone read it closely, let me know if I'm mischaracterizing their data.
Headers often need to be segregated simply because implementation files need to be able to say #include "needed_data_structures.h" without having to explicitly add many directories to the include path. In a large project, many .c files are going to include the same .h file.
This reminds me of programmers who put all their ".h" files in one directory, and all their ".c" files in another directory. I would go nuts having to type "vi ../headers/module.h" all damn day.
.c and corresponding .h had their own directory.
That's appropriate for large projects. Check out the source code for the Linux kernel. It would be much harder to navigate if each
There's no need. This lawsuit looks so cut-and-dried in favor of the spyware detection company that a law school student could come up with most of the defense as a homework assignment over the weekend.
This is not a good analogy as your car engine performance metric is extremely flawed.
No, it's a good analogy for exactly that reason. I don't know shit about engines. Most people don't know shit about processors. However, I still have to make a decision about purchasing a car, and frankly, as long as it moves when I push down on the pedal, I'm happy. Most people are like that with computers.
This is only going to get more and more confusing with multi-core. Users are going to have to distinguish not only based on clock speed, but number of processors, and with HT (number of logical processors).
That's just the point, I think Intel and others want to move away from having typical consumers have to wade through all this crap. Using names that are associated with the intended use of the processor, instead of the specs, is supposed to achieve this.
If I go to buy a car, the only metric I'll use to evaluate the engine is the number of cylinders. And frankly, my knowlege is limited to "More cylinders means more power." Most people don't know much about engines and don't want to learn. The car buying process takes this into account, and I think this is what Intel is going for.
Terrorism is not limited to the "bad guys."
No. It was not that it was sponsored by Microsoft; it is that it was sponsored almost to its enterity by Microsoft and it was "invitation only", where invitations could come only from... Microsoft.
False. "Sponsored" by Microsoft means they donated money to it. It's a USENIX sponsored conference (which, if you're not aware, is an organization that sponsors highly respected systems conferences). It does not mean that Microsoft ran the show. Out of a 12 person committee, only two are from Microsoft Research.
I don't understand your complaint. They wrote some papers about their research project, why wouldn't they put them on their site? Before you dismiss the quality of the papers, you want to actually read them.
Perl doesn't have an intermediate step that has assembly code, and neither does Ruby.
Sure it does. It's just that there's another layer (the perl program, in Perl's case) inbetween your Perl source and the resulting code. While your Perl program may never exist as a machine executable, there certainly is a stream of instructions associated with your Perl program. That was the parent's point.
Compiled languages go from their language to machine code, once again, no assembly.
Not true. When you invoke gcc, for example, there four distinct phases: preprocessing, compilation, assembly and linking. The output of the compilation process is assembly code for the architecture gcc was compiled for. It then invokes as, the GNU assembler, to convert the assembly code to machine code. Passing gcc the option -S tells it to not call the assembler, and the output is assembly code. Most compilers are going to have these distinct phases for reasons of portability, code maintenance, and ease of applying optimizations (some optimizations are applicable at the source code level, others at the assembly level).
But there really is a one-to-one mapping of assembly to machine code, so I don't consider the difference to be significant. Assembly is really just human-readable machine code. Even then, most processors don't actually execute the machine code as-is. Pentiums break down x86 instructions into micro-operations which are what really get executed on the processor.