Generally they have 6 or less pop culture references. I don't really have a problem with any number. As for load times, they should be right down the bottom anyway, just above the "See Also" sections.
Dude, just looking through the history of the article, it seems to have a huge problem with dirt stupid vandalism, like turning Gaius Julius Caeser into Gayest Julius Caesar (link), turning whole sections into childish insults like "suckers" (link), or just deleting the body of the article altogether (link).
I haven't quite seen that level of bullshit before, maybe someone just carelessly did a reversion and your good edit was stuck in the middle. You can always view your old edit to recover the info.
Another particular annoyance for me is "X in fiction" sections, where teenagers with way too much enthusiasm for role playing games add every time some US weapons system, for instance, appears in Wrath of Doom XVII Super Platinum Edition Gold.
Well, in the future, that weapon won't be mentioned any more. Wikipedia should be a collector of information too. As long as it's in the right subsection, I have no problem with it, even if it does create long lists bullet points. If you don't like those things as a reader, you can easily ignore those sections. And there isn't/shouldn't be a problem with information overload, either physical space or readability.
I think the longest ones are 1mm, and NASA are funding a 10 year plan for one university to build a whopping 1cm long one. I could do a google, but I don't know if this is a dupe post or not. They seriously have to get long ones working I would think. I know that steel effectively melts if it's more than 2km high.
I don't think it's part of their Millenium prizes.
Same with Photobucket free. As of about 6 months ago you could upload any file and it wouldn't be resampled unless it exceeded 250kB. I never actually did a binary comparison to test if it was exactly the same though.
Obviously you could get bigger photo sizes with paid accounts, and obviously it created a lot of resampled (downsized) products too. You could always get the full size one though.
Somone call John Dvorak...his title as reigning champion of the blithering idiots is being seriously contested.
Just who is this John Tierney, anyway?
He's the guy who's written a balanced article discussing the a paper by some guy called Professor Landsburg on the cost to society of hacking. Maybe you should read his article.
Today, plasmons can only travel a few millimeters before dying, while today's chips are typically about a centimeter across.
Well, in that case, it sounds similar to my research. See, if you jump, you can fly. Now currently, I can only fly a foot or two. Of course, most people want to fly longer distances, but it's a start.
OK, I know you're joking, but it brings up an important point, flight is "flight over arbitrary distances", so the recent around the world on one tank was important, but it wasn't flight when the old type failed, the old type was just limited by external factors, like the energy density of fuels.
You may be only able to fling plasmons millimetres, but flinging them centimetres may be good enough, you may not need to keep them alive for arbitrary lengths of time. Look at RAM, you only need to keep the charge in the capicitors for nanoseconds, because you can get a reading out of those capacitors fast, and you can just refresh them.
Yep, 19557807593.984J is right if your speed is correct.
1 metric tonne TNT is 4612070452.51237J according to this page.
So it is 4.24 tonnes of TNT, i.e., the energy of a very large conventional explosion, eg, a blockbuster bomb from WWII. Nothing near a nuke though, which is kT to MT.
This is all from kinetic energy though, no explosives on Deep Impact.
Do appfolders (bundles), and if you want the functionality of a shared library, include it in the bundle. Unless it's something like 100 megs. Which it won't be.
If dozens of programs each end up including the same shared code in their appfolders, who cares?
*sigh*
From the FAQ, which has been mirrored just above,
Disk space may be cheap, but memory pressure is still a significant bottleneck on most desktop systems. Static linking prevents page-level sharing which is easily the biggest win in terms of memory usage. Without extensive use of dynamic linking, desktop Linux would slow to a crawl.
Did you seriously just read half a sentence in the FAQ and then reply? FFS. Read up on the paging file article that was posted here ~2 days ago.
Thx for quoting that bit, I'd like an answer on this:
...
if one [CSS box model] is supported, then simultaneously the other [web document identification/MIME] is not.
What's the deal here? Is this something to do with Quirks mode? I seem to remember some troubles with the declaration at the start and it triggering Quirks mode for old pages on IE, is that it? Or is it some other example of IE's CSS implementation clashing with MIME headers?
The only way to "back up" execution is to save your state as you go.
At first I wasn't sure that your statement was true, but after thinking about it for 30 seconds or so, I realized it definitely was. Every instruction produces a deterministic calculation and can be reversed, right? If we have "ADD EAX, EBX", and know the current values of EAX and EBX, going backwards is easy, right?
Try this UTM program:
Set A and B to the values 1 and 2 Add values of A and B and put them in C Put value x1 and y1 into A and B
Now, what UTM's could leave a machine in this state? Remember the states of the Universal Turing Machine are A, B, C, not what's written on the tape, i.e., the instructions.
The answer is, of course, a whole lot, but one simple subset of programs that can leave C in this state is any program like the above one, except the first instruction is Set A and B to values x0 and y0, where x0+y0=1+2=3, which is infinitely many, eg, 2+1=3,3+0=3,4+-1=3, etc. So that's infinitely many programs with the same form as the actual program, but with only a couple of constants changed.
(Note: true Turing Machines states aren't limited to a fixed set, like 0-255 etc, they use an encoding like 0100,1100,110100,111100, which can accomodate any size of number.)
That doesn't quite answer why it's generally complex to run a computer backwards, but you can put any number of instructions in between step 2 and 3, and as long as they don't touch A and B, once you've gone past that last instruction, you have no clue what states A and B were in until you go all the way back to the start of that program.
I guess a good checkpointing algorithm would be to save the states of any registers that are overwritten.
You realize that you are arguing with a firefox developer about how firefox is built, do you not?
How can they be arguing when they're saying the same thing? "The only part of Mozilla that Firefox uses is the rendering and networking" -- "No! Firefox is all new stuff built on top of Gecko [the rendering part of Mozilla]"
I understand what you're saying, but over at this thread they're pretty much saying that the CPU doesn't matter much.
I get the feeling that it's a case of test and see, because nobody really understands the necessary details in all the bottlenecks to come up with a definitive answer.
I was interested in the CPU comments too.
From T(F)A, page 2:
The hidden cost of SLI is the CPU. This is not a necessary upgrade and chances are if you are building up an SLI system, you will not skimp on the processor. But the reality is that you'd better not. Having two video cards means that your system has tremendous graphics potential. PCIe has the bandwidth to handle it, but all of the sudden, the bottleneck is your processor. Now your processor has to deal with the information provided by two GPUs, not one--this means that your game's frames-per-second rate is going to increase only as far as the processor can allow. This does not mean you have to run a FX-55 or a P4EE, but if you are not, you will not be able to realize the full potential of your investment.
Surely the CPU mostly calculates just a few numbers each frame, like viewpoint moved to x,y,z, object #3 yaw rotated by X degrees, etc, and this is sent to the GPU for processing. It would depend on how complex the game's physics model is, but the CPU must be a long way from being the bottleneck.
Do I have this right, or does the CPU have to perform mass calculations on all of an objects points, and the GPU just does the skinning, which I would guess makes the CPU and important factor.
That is not true. The number p1*p2*....*pn+1 is either a prime, OR it has a factor that is not one of the p's. In either case, you have a new prime, which as an aside proves that there are infinitely many primes.
Looks like I'm the first one to work out why you're wrong.
That sequence requires that you know all the primes between p_1 (==2) and p_n, but we can find primes such as the Merseine prime numbers without knowing all the prime numbers below them. In fact, it's been discussed in this thread that we don't know for sure that there aren't other Merseine primes below this one.
Also, the software that requires 'Genuine Windows' will mostly be OS extensions, which should already be coded into Wine. Any non-core apps will probably have an FOSS alternative, and MS has been told it isn't allowed to crush non-OS apps.
Mostly Wine is used to emulate single applications anyway. Disclaimer: I'm six months out of date with Wine.
Being optimized only means it runs faster on a CPU bound task.
Browsing the web is NOT cpu bound (normally). Instead it's typically bandwidth bound.
These tests were specifically to test the local machine bound portion of browser speed, for instance, the CSS tests were testing the rendering speed of a very large page with 2500 divs that had already been viewed once in the browser.
To quote T(F)A:
To test CSS rendering speed I use a CSS benchmark test devised by nontroppo. The test measures the time it takes the browser to render a page consisting of almost 2500 positioned DIVs. The page is stored locally, loaded once to pre-load it, then reloaded 3 times, and the average time taken for those three renderings. The page is the first page loaded after starting the browser (after logging out and in). All browsers took significantly longer during the initial load, which is why I discount this initial load, as it does not reflect the reality of normal rendering.
Similarly, the tests also covered scripting speeds and browser startup times.
Actual network speeds will take the same time for all browsers, plus some local machine/browser dependent latency.
Interesting point, being optimised basically means it should run faster, all things being equal.
The only thing I can think of is that they are different versions of Firefox, (1.0 and 1.0.1 are available on Moox.ws), or that the tester used a version that wasn't optimised for his machine.
On that last point, it shouldn't really work that way. If it is optimised for a lesser chip, it should still run faster than the official build. If it is for a better chip (say optimised for Pentium 4 (M3 optimization) but running on a Pentium 3, M2 optimisation), it should crash very quickly.
>>Give a monkey some spending money, and he'll blow it on pictures of women monkeys.
>Would there be anything wrong with this sentence: give a human some spending money and he'll blow it on pictures of female humans?
>I guess I'm objecting to the notion that being male is the norm.
The only thing I noticed in your humanized version was the double entendre with 'blow it'. That sort of thing always seems to happen when someone starts talking post-modern feminism. Seriously!
Slashdot Mirror
Generally they have 6 or less pop culture references. I don't really have a problem with any number. As for load times, they should be right down the bottom anyway, just above the "See Also" sections.
I haven't quite seen that level of bullshit before, maybe someone just carelessly did a reversion and your good edit was stuck in the middle. You can always view your old edit to recover the info.
Well, in the future, that weapon won't be mentioned any more. Wikipedia should be a collector of information too. As long as it's in the right subsection, I have no problem with it, even if it does create long lists bullet points. If you don't like those things as a reader, you can easily ignore those sections. And there isn't/shouldn't be a problem with information overload, either physical space or readability.
I don't think it's part of their Millenium prizes.
Same with Photobucket free. As of about 6 months ago you could upload any file and it wouldn't be resampled unless it exceeded 250kB. I never actually did a binary comparison to test if it was exactly the same though.
Obviously you could get bigger photo sizes with paid accounts, and obviously it created a lot of resampled (downsized) products too. You could always get the full size one though.
True, that's what I meant, Tierney did a rather good job of presenting rather odd views.
Hmmm, upon reading Landsburgs paper he doesn't seem that off his tree, but his ideas are looney. It's a Logan's Run view of the world.
Somone call John Dvorak...his title as reigning champion of the blithering idiots is being seriously contested.
Just who is this John Tierney, anyway?
He's the guy who's written a balanced article discussing the a paper by some guy called Professor Landsburg on the cost to society of hacking. Maybe you should read his article.
I think you'll find that's a picture of the comet's nucleus in the crescent type phase... here's a better view of it.
Indeed. Can I read your email because it's in Thunderbird?
Problem solved.
Well, in that case, it sounds similar to my research. See, if you jump, you can fly. Now currently, I can only fly a foot or two. Of course, most people want to fly longer distances, but it's a start.
OK, I know you're joking, but it brings up an important point, flight is "flight over arbitrary distances", so the recent around the world on one tank was important, but it wasn't flight when the old type failed, the old type was just limited by external factors, like the energy density of fuels.
You may be only able to fling plasmons millimetres, but flinging them centimetres may be good enough, you may not need to keep them alive for arbitrary lengths of time. Look at RAM, you only need to keep the charge in the capicitors for nanoseconds, because you can get a reading out of those capacitors fast, and you can just refresh them.
Yep, 19557807593.984J is right if your speed is correct.
1 metric tonne TNT is 4612070452.51237J according to this page.
So it is 4.24 tonnes of TNT, i.e., the energy of a very large conventional explosion, eg, a blockbuster bomb from WWII. Nothing near a nuke though, which is kT to MT.
This is all from kinetic energy though, no explosives on Deep Impact.
From the FAQ, which has been mirrored just above,
Did you seriously just read half a sentence in the FAQ and then reply? FFS. Read up on the paging file article that was posted here ~2 days ago.
Thx for quoting that bit, I'd like an answer on this:
What's the deal here? Is this something to do with Quirks mode? I seem to remember some troubles with the declaration at the start and it triggering Quirks mode for old pages on IE, is that it? Or is it some other example of IE's CSS implementation clashing with MIME headers?
Try this UTM program:
Now, what UTM's could leave a machine in this state? Remember the states of the Universal Turing Machine are A, B, C, not what's written on the tape, i.e., the instructions.
The answer is, of course, a whole lot, but one simple subset of programs that can leave C in this state is any program like the above one, except the first instruction is Set A and B to values x0 and y0, where x0+y0=1+2=3, which is infinitely many, eg, 2+1=3,3+0=3,4+-1=3, etc. So that's infinitely many programs with the same form as the actual program, but with only a couple of constants changed.
(Note: true Turing Machines states aren't limited to a fixed set, like 0-255 etc, they use an encoding like 0100,1100,110100,111100, which can accomodate any size of number.)
That doesn't quite answer why it's generally complex to run a computer backwards, but you can put any number of instructions in between step 2 and 3, and as long as they don't touch A and B, once you've gone past that last instruction, you have no clue what states A and B were in until you go all the way back to the start of that program.
I guess a good checkpointing algorithm would be to save the states of any registers that are overwritten.
You realize that you are arguing with a firefox developer about how firefox is built, do you not?
How can they be arguing when they're saying the same thing? "The only part of Mozilla that Firefox uses is the rendering and networking" -- "No! Firefox is all new stuff built on top of Gecko [the rendering part of Mozilla]"
I understand what you're saying, but over at this thread they're pretty much saying that the CPU doesn't matter much.
I get the feeling that it's a case of test and see, because nobody really understands the necessary details in all the bottlenecks to come up with a definitive answer.
I was interested in the CPU comments too. From T(F)A, page 2:
Surely the CPU mostly calculates just a few numbers each frame, like viewpoint moved to x,y,z, object #3 yaw rotated by X degrees, etc, and this is sent to the GPU for processing. It would depend on how complex the game's physics model is, but the CPU must be a long way from being the bottleneck.
Do I have this right, or does the CPU have to perform mass calculations on all of an objects points, and the GPU just does the skinning, which I would guess makes the CPU and important factor.
Looks like I'm the first one to work out why you're wrong.
That sequence requires that you know all the primes between p_1 (==2) and p_n, but we can find primes such as the Merseine prime numbers without knowing all the prime numbers below them. In fact, it's been discussed in this thread that we don't know for sure that there aren't other Merseine primes below this one.
Also, the software that requires 'Genuine Windows' will mostly be OS extensions, which should already be coded into Wine. Any non-core apps will probably have an FOSS alternative, and MS has been told it isn't allowed to crush non-OS apps.
Mostly Wine is used to emulate single applications anyway. Disclaimer: I'm six months out of date with Wine.
Browsing the web is NOT cpu bound (normally). Instead it's typically bandwidth bound.
These tests were specifically to test the local machine bound portion of browser speed, for instance, the CSS tests were testing the rendering speed of a very large page with 2500 divs that had already been viewed once in the browser.
To quote T(F)A:
Similarly, the tests also covered scripting speeds and browser startup times.
Actual network speeds will take the same time for all browsers, plus some local machine/browser dependent latency.
Interesting point, being optimised basically means it should run faster, all things being equal.
The only thing I can think of is that they are different versions of Firefox, (1.0 and 1.0.1 are available on Moox.ws), or that the tester used a version that wasn't optimised for his machine.
On that last point, it shouldn't really work that way. If it is optimised for a lesser chip, it should still run faster than the official build. If it is for a better chip (say optimised for Pentium 4 (M3 optimization) but running on a Pentium 3, M2 optimisation), it should crash very quickly.
How the hell is this on topic?
>>Give a monkey some spending money, and he'll blow it on pictures of women monkeys.
>Would there be anything wrong with this sentence: give a human some spending money and he'll blow it on pictures of female humans?
>I guess I'm objecting to the notion that being male is the norm.
The only thing I noticed in your humanized version was the double entendre with 'blow it'. That sort of thing always seems to happen when someone starts talking post-modern feminism. Seriously!
My god, how fucking stupid can Lucas get?
Oh come on, the whole film is dominated by characters with dumb names. Luke Skywalker? He's a pilot. Darth Vader? Death/Dearth Invader.
That's one of the things I noticed as a kid, the names were descriptions. Yoda's just a play on Yoga, because he's supposed to be spiritual, etc etc.