css blocking is ok if you don't worry about false positives or flexibility. The nice thing about AdBlock is that you can keep your extension list fairly short (and comprehensible) with some use of regular expressions. Interesting (although probably not the best example for 'comprehensible' ^_^ ) filter example from their forum:
erm... I only checked the fibonacci routine, but it's actually quite funny - he's branching recursive calls, a clear case when a smart-enough runtime optimization would work better. I mean, any reasonably smart optimizer would eventually figure out that there are too many calls to the same function with the same argument to just stand by and watch. I'd say that given this difference c++ did quite alright in that one.
So yes, there are cases when runtime optimizations that are unavailable at compile time can speed things a lot. Does this make Java faster? yes, if you look at the right corner case. Hell NO, if you look at the wrong one.
The right tool for the job, as usual. And the right tool wielder, otherwise any tool will suck.
Interesting paper - as long as one does not look up the references to note that it's an embarrasing copy from the second one. Including the wrong 'single-photon interference' thought experiment which, funny enough, is traced back to Deutsch[*] - remember the 'see the multiverse with a RadioShack laser and a bunch of pinholes' article a while ago?. makes one wonder ehich answer he thinks is true now - one photon multiple paths or one photon and a whole bunch (erm... maybe just one here?) of 'shadow'/whatever multiverse photons...
Actually, if you agree about the email beforehand his scenario still holds - "Julie, em me when you're done with work." corner cases ^_^
on the other hand, when the toaster gets to work as the only comm device in the house, I might just buy a nice old Prescott system to handle my toasts.
Well, they seem to go against what AMD has been telling so far: there's one memory controller designed to service core0 and core1; only the core0 link is used so far, core1 will be enabled when an actual second core is available. This is part of what they mean by 'designed for multicore from the beginning'. They pretty much want the dual core to be a drop-in replacement (+ BIOS update, provided that the motherboard supports that - for one thing, higher power consumption per socket would be expected).
ok, got that: apparently they reciprocated. Prost blocked Senna in 1989 (Japan), Senna crashed into to Prost next year (same race). However, the admission about deliberate was Senna's. I haven't seen the '89 race, so I don't know if that one was deliberate or not (googling turns up that Prost was ahead and neither wanted to move aside; if that's true, he's not to blame). Also, Senna was the one fined for dangerous behavior, albeit it might have been from cutting a chicane. AFAICT, the '89 race wasn't even title-deciding, as opposed to the '90 one.
Anyway, thanks for the pointer. I guess to some extent this was a personal issue between Prost and Senna. Not quite the same thing as Schumacher, who really tops them by far in the dirty driving contest.
I guess he can win an appeal to the the decision if his thesis results weren't falsified. However, it does not look like keeping the degree is going to be of much help for him.
I confess my memory of old F1 races isn't too good anymore, so here's the question: when did Prost try to run someone out of the race? I remember Senna crashing into Prost once and Schumacher (at least clearly trying) into several people (Hill, Villeneuve), but nothing of the sort with Prost. Can you give me an example?
Given the fact that the hints are SCO would lose a pure copyright argument, they might not want to go there (remember, their own (denied) motion was intended to prevent this - move back to state court, no copyrights involved).
Maybe they would rather lose this on insufficient pleadings rather than clarifying the ownership of the copyrights - that is, the fact that they weren't transfered?
Actually, being able to switch between a perfoect insulator and a superconductor could be... interesting. Of course, there would be some new and funny quantum effects going on in your CPU.
Unfortunately, not all conductors have a superconducting phase transition at low temperatures.
So we should keep at heating up the atmosphere then. Just think of your children... erm, children's children's... whatever. Let's hope human race survives long enough to have to deal with the next Ice Age when/if it comes.
Measuring 3190 metres long and calculated by isotope measurement to be 740,000 years-old at its farthest end, the core gives a compelling picture of the Earth's cycles of warmth and cold.
Nothing wrong with using new tech. The problem is that when you need liquid cooling you're already hitting a technological barrier: the chip runs too hot, eats too much power and you have to change something qualitatively to deal with it.
That and the fact that, unless 90nm gets a lot better, G5 powerbooks look kind of distant if Apple already neeeds to remove that much heat from the cpu. Here's hoping that I'm wrong and those cpus running at less than 30W are actually possible (and then, adding liquid cooling for efficiency, not because nothing else works, would be quite neat)
Agreed. But how do you distinguish between being "pretty" and "beautiful"? You're right (and I didn't contest that) when saying these attributes are subjective. For me, "pretty" means that there's some (important) level where I don't 'connect' - if I did, it would be "beautiful".And since art is about connecting... Of course, YMMV - so I apologize for making that statement too definite. De gustibus non disputandum. ^_^
Well, you took most of it out of context, but still...
Which is like saying "fluids all flow".
interesting notion. Compressibility does not imply fluidity[*]. Anyway, it's funny that you mentioned ice - it so happens that over a wide enough range of temperatures compressing ice yields a glassy state (which, btw, is fluid, as opposed to ice). Yes, it has to do with ice having the lower-density crystal structure. So no, in general you don't have to get solids by compressing fluids.
Clearly not. But just as clearly, this has literally nothing to do with the subject at hand
Clearly, ideed - it only has to do with something the GP said. Read it again, it wasn't about cooling, just pressure. Anyway, back to cooling: (1) there's no fluid trully incompressible (neutronic matter is a different aggregation state) so when you apply pressure you normally get a volume decrease, thus perform work and heat up the system. (2) you can't just change one parameter (like pressure) of a constrained system - the thermo equations + system constraints require at least 2 parameters to change. For a closed, neutral, non-magnetic, etc. system at fixed volume a pressure change will require either a temperature or an enthropy change (or a combination of both). However, this was mostly a theoretical argument, as there's no truly incompressible fluid.
I'm not arguing that water is a poor refrigerant - that's clear enough. That's clear enough (note that 'poor' doen not mean 'non'). I don't know what got you carried away so much about it, but you ended up forgetting that 'nearly incompressible' != 'completely incompressible'. Compression heats up. Putting pressure compresses things (albeit for solids you'll need way too much pressure to notice a difference). The fact that the end result is small does not mean it's zero. And yes, it makes the material unfit practically for a coolant.
[*]ex: crystals that change allotropic forms when compressed.
this: "You can put pressure behind it to drive it but the pressure's not IN the water." makes no sense.[*]
even zero compressibility does not mean fixed pressure. If you push harder on the surface the internal pressure has to adjust to maintain mechanical equilibrium on the volume boundary.
[*] Take for instance a steady flow of a viscous fluid through a pipe: you apply a pressure difference between the pipe ends, you get a pressure gradient inside the fluid that keeps it moving and provides the force to compensate for the viscous drag. Even if there's no resistance (viscous or other), you'll have an accelerating mass of fluid and then the inertial force will still give you a pressure gradient. Another example of this is simply the vertical pressure gradient in water due to the gravitational field (the rho*g*h term in Bernoulli's law).
not really. It's pressure-driven in this case. A decrease in pressure brings a decrease in temperature (if you don't have too much heat exchange). The significant thermo potential here is the free energy, not the internal energy.
Radiators by all laws of physics can only cool down anything going through them to (almost) room temperature.
Radiators, yes - but you get more than that in the baragain. Using external power for cooling is trivial: add some expansion stage to the cooling fluid and it gets colder. All it requires is pump power.
They added a SECOND PROCESSOR and you're complaining about coming up short 500 mhz in processor speed?
You're either trolling yourself, or deluded by the megahertz myth here. there's a major difference besides the 0.5GHz clock difference involved: a different technological process.
Look at how even 2.5GHz has to be liquid-cooled to be stable enough with the old transistor fabrication process. Steve Jobs happily ignored the fact that everyone seemed to have some problems with the transition to 90nm when he made his prediction. Counting on engineers to save the marketing's butt doesn't always work.
However, bashing Steve for that is fun once, then it gets lame. It's not like anyone is completely infallible, so he has a right of making silly predictions now and then. As someone else pointed out, Bill Gates has been abusing this very right with lots of Windows release dates, so there.
the Pentium4s are much LESS efficient than PentiumIII.
Well, you're several years behind. At anything past roughly ~2GHz, a P4 core is more efficient than a P3 core. It comes down to a lot of things, but take for instance the pipeline: simpler stages that can be executed faster. Of course, you have to work on keeping the pipe full, but that's the breaks.
By the same type of argument, the Prescott core needs an even higher frequency to work efficiently - something that, by the looks of the current landscape, it won't be getting anytime soon (if at all).
spiritual communication between an artist [...] and [the] public
it's public==audience (noun).
Anyway, I would have to side (partly) with the GP. Beauty is in the eye that beholds it. And thus art has to convey a message to its viewers. However, not everything that conveys a message is art - and the distinction is highly subjective. But the intent to convey a message from the creator is almost always a prerequisite.
Bottom-line: art sense is mostly acquired through education, as it's tied to the culture of that era. There are, of course, examples of art that transcend the local culture - and one may restrict the definition of art to their kind (and receive the scorn or ire from lots of artists that won't qualify, as well as from hordes of 'connoisseurs'). But there's no real problem with that, as what really matters is the impression on the individual: it's art for me if I feel it as such.
And no, art does not have to be 'pretty'. In fact, most of the stuff that endures is beautiful, not pretty. There's a distinction, you know.
Indeed. Only that it's 2 steps further - right click, go to properties, select 'run as a different user' (or some similar wording). So yes, this has been possible in Windows for a while.
Slashdot Mirror
css blocking is ok if you don't worry about false positives or flexibility. The nice thing about AdBlock is that you can keep your extension list fairly short (and comprehensible) with some use of regular expressions. Interesting (although probably not the best example for 'comprehensible' ^_^ ) filter example from their forum:
/[\W\d](onlineads?|ad(banner|click|-?flow|frame|im a?g(es?)?|_id|js|log|serv(er|e)?|stream|_string|s| trix|type|vertisements?|v|vert|xchange)?)[\W\d]/
erm ... I only checked the fibonacci routine, but it's actually quite funny - he's branching recursive calls, a clear case when a smart-enough runtime optimization would work better. I mean, any reasonably smart optimizer would eventually figure out that there are too many calls to the same function with the same argument to just stand by and watch. I'd say that given this difference c++ did quite alright in that one.
So yes, there are cases when runtime optimizations that are unavailable at compile time can speed things a lot. Does this make Java faster? yes, if you look at the right corner case. Hell NO, if you look at the wrong one.
The right tool for the job, as usual. And the right tool wielder, otherwise any tool will suck.
Interesting paper - as long as one does not look up the references to note that it's an embarrasing copy from the second one. Including the wrong 'single-photon interference' thought experiment which, funny enough, is traced back to Deutsch[*] - remember the 'see the multiverse with a RadioShack laser and a bunch of pinholes' article a while ago?. makes one wonder ehich answer he thinks is true now - one photon multiple paths or one photon and a whole bunch (erm ... maybe just one here?) of 'shadow'/whatever multiverse photons ...
'nuff said.
[*] cf. the web page of your second reference
Actually, if you agree about the email beforehand his scenario still holds - "Julie, em me when you're done with work." corner cases ^_^
on the other hand, when the toaster gets to work as the only comm device in the house, I might just buy a nice old Prescott system to handle my toasts.
Well, they seem to go against what AMD has been telling so far: there's one memory controller designed to service core0 and core1; only the core0 link is used so far, core1 will be enabled when an actual second core is available. This is part of what they mean by 'designed for multicore from the beginning'. They pretty much want the dual core to be a drop-in replacement (+ BIOS update, provided that the motherboard supports that - for one thing, higher power consumption per socket would be expected).
ok, got that: apparently they reciprocated. Prost blocked Senna in 1989 (Japan), Senna crashed into to Prost next year (same race). However, the admission about deliberate was Senna's. I haven't seen the '89 race, so I don't know if that one was deliberate or not (googling turns up that Prost was ahead and neither wanted to move aside; if that's true, he's not to blame). Also, Senna was the one fined for dangerous behavior, albeit it might have been from cutting a chicane. AFAICT, the '89 race wasn't even title-deciding, as opposed to the '90 one.
Anyway, thanks for the pointer. I guess to some extent this was a personal issue between Prost and Senna. Not quite the same thing as Schumacher, who really tops them by far in the dirty driving contest.
I guess he can win an appeal to the the decision if his thesis results weren't falsified. However, it does not look like keeping the degree is going to be of much help for him.
I confess my memory of old F1 races isn't too good anymore, so here's the question: when did Prost try to run someone out of the race? I remember Senna crashing into Prost once and Schumacher (at least clearly trying) into several people (Hill, Villeneuve), but nothing of the sort with Prost. Can you give me an example?
yeah, offtopic, so sue me.
Given the fact that the hints are SCO would lose a pure copyright argument, they might not want to go there (remember, their own (denied) motion was intended to prevent this - move back to state court, no copyrights involved).
Maybe they would rather lose this on insufficient pleadings rather than clarifying the ownership of the copyrights - that is, the fact that they weren't transfered?
Actually, being able to switch between a perfoect insulator and a superconductor could be ... interesting. Of course, there would be some new and funny quantum effects going on in your CPU.
Unfortunately, not all conductors have a superconducting phase transition at low temperatures.
So we should keep at heating up the atmosphere then. Just think of your children ... erm, children's children's ... whatever. Let's hope human race survives long enough to have to deal with the next Ice Age when/if it comes.
Nothing wrong with using new tech. The problem is that when you need liquid cooling you're already hitting a technological barrier: the chip runs too hot, eats too much power and you have to change something qualitatively to deal with it.
That and the fact that, unless 90nm gets a lot better, G5 powerbooks look kind of distant if Apple already neeeds to remove that much heat from the cpu. Here's hoping that I'm wrong and those cpus running at less than 30W are actually possible (and then, adding liquid cooling for efficiency, not because nothing else works, would be quite neat)
"Pretty" != "meaningless fluff"
... Of course, YMMV - so I apologize for making that statement too definite. De gustibus non disputandum. ^_^
Agreed. But how do you distinguish between being "pretty" and "beautiful"? You're right (and I didn't contest that) when saying these attributes are subjective. For me, "pretty" means that there's some (important) level where I don't 'connect' - if I did, it would be "beautiful".And since art is about connecting
Well, you took most of it out of context, but still ...
Which is like saying "fluids all flow".
interesting notion. Compressibility does not imply fluidity[*]. Anyway, it's funny that you mentioned ice - it so happens that over a wide enough range of temperatures compressing ice yields a glassy state (which, btw, is fluid, as opposed to ice). Yes, it has to do with ice having the lower-density crystal structure. So no, in general you don't have to get solids by compressing fluids.
Clearly not. But just as clearly, this has literally nothing to do with the subject at hand
Clearly, ideed - it only has to do with something the GP said. Read it again, it wasn't about cooling, just pressure. Anyway, back to cooling: (1) there's no fluid trully incompressible (neutronic matter is a different aggregation state) so when you apply pressure you normally get a volume decrease, thus perform work and heat up the system. (2) you can't just change one parameter (like pressure) of a constrained system - the thermo equations + system constraints require at least 2 parameters to change. For a closed, neutral, non-magnetic, etc. system at fixed volume a pressure change will require either a temperature or an enthropy change (or a combination of both). However, this was mostly a theoretical argument, as there's no truly incompressible fluid.
I'm not arguing that water is a poor refrigerant - that's clear enough. That's clear enough (note that 'poor' doen not mean 'non'). I don't know what got you carried away so much about it, but you ended up forgetting that 'nearly incompressible' != 'completely incompressible'. Compression heats up. Putting pressure compresses things (albeit for solids you'll need way too much pressure to notice a difference). The fact that the end result is small does not mean it's zero. And yes, it makes the material unfit practically for a coolant.
[*]ex: crystals that change allotropic forms when compressed.
[*] Take for instance a steady flow of a viscous fluid through a pipe: you apply a pressure difference between the pipe ends, you get a pressure gradient inside the fluid that keeps it moving and provides the force to compensate for the viscous drag. Even if there's no resistance (viscous or other), you'll have an accelerating mass of fluid and then the inertial force will still give you a pressure gradient. Another example of this is simply the vertical pressure gradient in water due to the gravitational field (the rho*g*h term in Bernoulli's law).
not really. It's pressure-driven in this case. A decrease in pressure brings a decrease in temperature (if you don't have too much heat exchange). The significant thermo potential here is the free energy, not the internal energy.
Radiators by all laws of physics can only cool down anything going through them to (almost) room temperature.
Radiators, yes - but you get more than that in the baragain. Using external power for cooling is trivial: add some expansion stage to the cooling fluid and it gets colder. All it requires is pump power.
They added a SECOND PROCESSOR and you're complaining about coming up short 500 mhz in processor speed?
.
You're either trolling yourself, or deluded by the megahertz myth here. there's a major difference besides the 0.5GHz clock difference involved: a different technological process
Look at how even 2.5GHz has to be liquid-cooled to be stable enough with the old transistor fabrication process. Steve Jobs happily ignored the fact that everyone seemed to have some problems with the transition to 90nm when he made his prediction. Counting on engineers to save the marketing's butt doesn't always work.
However, bashing Steve for that is fun once, then it gets lame. It's not like anyone is completely infallible, so he has a right of making silly predictions now and then. As someone else pointed out, Bill Gates has been abusing this very right with lots of Windows release dates, so there.
the Pentium4s are much LESS efficient than PentiumIII.
Well, you're several years behind. At anything past roughly ~2GHz, a P4 core is more efficient than a P3 core. It comes down to a lot of things, but take for instance the pipeline: simpler stages that can be executed faster. Of course, you have to work on keeping the pipe full, but that's the breaks.
By the same type of argument, the Prescott core needs an even higher frequency to work efficiently - something that, by the looks of the current landscape, it won't be getting anytime soon (if at all).
brings an interesting (albeit a little inaccurate) twist to the notion of 'vaporware', too ^_^
'liquid cooling?' I spit at liquid cooling! LN2 all the way!
hah, keep your lame liquid nitrogen, anything less than liquid He3 is sooo uncool!
you need to reparse that:
spiritual communication between an artist [...] and [the] public
it's public==audience (noun).
Anyway, I would have to side (partly) with the GP. Beauty is in the eye that beholds it. And thus art has to convey a message to its viewers. However, not everything that conveys a message is art - and the distinction is highly subjective. But the intent to convey a message from the creator is almost always a prerequisite.
Bottom-line: art sense is mostly acquired through education, as it's tied to the culture of that era. There are, of course, examples of art that transcend the local culture - and one may restrict the definition of art to their kind (and receive the scorn or ire from lots of artists that won't qualify, as well as from hordes of 'connoisseurs'). But there's no real problem with that, as what really matters is the impression on the individual: it's art for me if I feel it as such.
And no, art does not have to be 'pretty'. In fact, most of the stuff that endures is beautiful, not pretty. There's a distinction, you know.
I think this is in Win2k too.
Indeed. Only that it's 2 steps further - right click, go to properties, select 'run as a different user' (or some similar wording). So yes, this has been possible in Windows for a while.
I believe his point was about unmodified hardware. The original amount of RAM would not have been enough for XP.
But that's not the main point anyway. He was making an unfair comparison - "the PC is cheaper, so it must be rubbish". That argument was plain wrong.