No matter what flags I threw at the compiler the 32-bit version always lagged behind the 64-bit version because the 32-bit user space wasn't optimized to take advantage of newer processor features. In short I would have had to recompile all of 32-bit land to match performances.
That's not an unreasonable thing to do on, say, a server dedicated to running one application as fast as possible. (Or you could install a distribution that optimises for modern processors). If it gives a substantial performance advantage over 64-bit (and the grandparent seemed to think it does; the only way to tell is to actually benchmark your real application) then it would be worth it.
Why do you assume that everyone has CONFIG_IKCONFIG=y set?
It's worth giving atvice to those with sense
And, for that matter, why do you assume that zcat is gzip in disguise? Those who run posix compliant systems have a different zcat that doesn't do.gz files, and (sometimes) a gzcat that does gzip files. Try "gzip -dc" instead -- it has a greater chance of succeeding outside your own system.
This is only relevant to linux, so it's perfectly reasonable to assume the system is linux. Those foolish enough to cripple their system for the sake of following the posix standard probably wouldn't listen to any advice anyway.
It can only seem to be to long if you think you can do it better.
But people would think they could do better. When automatic interlocking of railway points became the norm, signalmen began habitually hotwiring the equipment to avoid the "wasted time" the generous tolerances left; it took a number of deaths to change that. I think we'd see similar things happening for the first decade or so after automated driving tech arrived.
Required full stop would be wrong, sure. But I'd have no problem with the law requiring automated driving on the public rows - they exist primarily as a utility, and having a human in control would put other people's lives at risk. Do your pleasure driving on private courses designed for it.
Linux has lost its way. FreeBSD just sits here, quietly working the way it always has (still on OSS for sound, would you believe, and it works beautifully).
I think it's time to accept that the web is now irrevocably an applications platform (sad, I remember the day when we would laugh at anyone calling themselves a "website programmer", but that's how it goes). For actual content I'm going back to gopher. Anyone know a good tech news site?
No, but nobody prescribed what video player I had to buy, nobody said I couldn't use a video recorder from another country (assuming they used the same display technology, etc), nobody told me what TV I had to have to play my video, nobody told me that the video would only work over SCART / composite / RF-out. It just worked, that's what I mean by "on whatever hardware I want".
But there weren't any alternatives; you didn't *have* the option of using a portable player, most VCRs only had one output socket available (I remember having a whole drawer-full of adapters). You can't say "before, no-one stopped me playing it different ways, and now they are, they've changed the deal"; there were no different ways around. So from the point of view of the media folks, they're selling you the same thing they always were, because you can do everything you could do with a VHS tape (namely, hooking it up to your TV and playing it, because really that was all everyone who wasn't a serious geek could do) with a blu-ray.
my old 4:3 CRT is still just as fine display as I ever want it to be from where I sit in my sofa. Closer up, yeah, but otherwise no. This comes from a person who spends all day less than 18 inches from computer screens and can spot a single bad pixel from two-three times that distance. It might be bullshit to you, but to me HD res provides absolutely no advantage whatsoever.
On a TV from across the room, sure. But I can certainly spot the difference on my projector, and there are movies - not all of them, not even most, but there are some - that benefit hugely from it.
No way around that, I'm afraid. Try watching a movie that's all about the spectacle (note this probably doesn't actually mean a good movie) and was done in HD from the get-go; I'd suggest Vexille if you can't think of anything yourself. Whether you care about the quality difference is another matter, but it is there.
The deal in the past was always "I give you about £20, you let me watch that movie wherever I take the disc/tape, on whatever hardware I want, and I promise not to copy it". That sufficed for about 40 years.
Come on, this is disingenuous. Were you really ripping your VHS tapes to watch on your, I don't know, NeoGeo?
Arguing why you can't put your DVD or Blu-Ray collection on a hard drive is about as pointless as arguing why there is no football dispenser in your new car.
It's more like Ford doesn't want you putting a football dispenser in your car, so they get a law passed making it illegal to put a football dispenser in your car, even if it's your own footballs and your own damn car.
Um, what? What about them? Are you claiming you have an algorithm that gives an exponential speedup for those problems? If so, publish it, and collect millions of dollars.
If not, are you saying we should assume that a quantum computer would be better for those problems? Why?
Change your options. It's perfectly possible to do a decent x264 encode at about 1.3x realtime; of course you lose a noticeable degree of compression (but you're still far better off than xvid, probably better than the original bluray encode (which will have used a specific, very conservative profile so it can be played correctly by the hardware) too)
It's a biased example too. Avatar is a pretty rare film in that a) it's far more about the visuals than the plot and b) those visuals are good enough to justify getting a higher quality copy.
Writing firmware for the drives (or rather, dumping the existing firmware and tweaking it slightly) has been one of the standard techniques in bluray ripping for at least a year now.
Sure you can do all that, but these days half the screen on facebook is taken by mafia wars / popular videos / blah. And ads. If I had a "Make the UI go back to how it was before you started doing "apps"" button, facebook would suit me fine.
Their military is, ah, not very large by any standard, for instance, they have a grand total of one carrier of some 37 kilotons. We have eleven carriers over twice that size.
That makes the military small by the US "twice as many carriers as the rest of the world put together" standard. But on a global scale, no; there are IIRC only about six countries that bother having carriers at all.
Well... Mozilla _has_ concentrated on low RAM usage in the past. The actual memory usage of Gecko is significantly lower than its competitors if you load some pages and measure it.
Gecko, maybe - I've seen decent performance out of that funny gnome browser (epiphany?) occasionally. But if you're saying firefox, what are you smoking? Opera, Chrome and Konqueror all do far, far better.
The class system is too weak, and the whole language and culture is too permissive - make a mistake and it won't show up until several hundred lines later. Its scoping is insane and incomprehensible. There are good aspects to javascript, sure, but on the whole I'd prefer any other modern dynamic language - tcl, perl, python, ruby, groovy are all much more pleasant to write. Heck, writing python with no debugger at all I can get it right quicker than with js/firebug.
Signing a message that refers to the "link to my resignation letter below", but not including the actual link? Guess the guy really doesn't understand security.
Geocentrism isn't wrong in the same way phlogiston (which ended up requiring some matter to have negative mass) is wrong. It's more complicated, less predictive, and less consistent with labratory-scale tests.
Huh? Sure matter doesn't have negative mass, but you could construct a theory with it in if you wanted. (Of course such a theory would be more complicated, less predictive, and less consistent with laboratory tests.) What's the distinction you're drawing here?
Many mentally ill people are able to live perfectly normal lives except in one specific area that causes them problems - e.g. phobics who are perfectly fine provided they never see a spider / go up a tall building / etc.
Please. Newton looked into such things because at the time, with the knowledge available, they seemed to have a chance of revealing the truth. Just as most scientists of that era were religious, many of them did astrology and so on. But knowing what we do now, an interest in either is questionable in a scientist.
Slashdot Mirror
Plenty of other things (e.g. cars) are pretty similar in that regard though.
That's not an unreasonable thing to do on, say, a server dedicated to running one application as fast as possible. (Or you could install a distribution that optimises for modern processors). If it gives a substantial performance advantage over 64-bit (and the grandparent seemed to think it does; the only way to tell is to actually benchmark your real application) then it would be worth it.
It's worth giving atvice to those with sense
And, for that matter, why do you assume that zcat is gzip in disguise? Those who run posix compliant systems have a different zcat that doesn't do .gz files, and (sometimes) a gzcat that does gzip files. Try "gzip -dc" instead -- it has a greater chance of succeeding outside your own system.
This is only relevant to linux, so it's perfectly reasonable to assume the system is linux. Those foolish enough to cripple their system for the sake of following the posix standard probably wouldn't listen to any advice anyway.
But people would think they could do better. When automatic interlocking of railway points became the norm, signalmen began habitually hotwiring the equipment to avoid the "wasted time" the generous tolerances left; it took a number of deaths to change that. I think we'd see similar things happening for the first decade or so after automated driving tech arrived.
Required full stop would be wrong, sure. But I'd have no problem with the law requiring automated driving on the public rows - they exist primarily as a utility, and having a human in control would put other people's lives at risk. Do your pleasure driving on private courses designed for it.
Linux has lost its way. FreeBSD just sits here, quietly working the way it always has (still on OSS for sound, would you believe, and it works beautifully).
/recent freebsd convert
I think it's time to accept that the web is now irrevocably an applications platform (sad, I remember the day when we would laugh at anyone calling themselves a "website programmer", but that's how it goes). For actual content I'm going back to gopher. Anyone know a good tech news site?
No, but nobody prescribed what video player I had to buy, nobody said I couldn't use a video recorder from another country (assuming they used the same display technology, etc), nobody told me what TV I had to have to play my video, nobody told me that the video would only work over SCART / composite / RF-out. It just worked, that's what I mean by "on whatever hardware I want".
But there weren't any alternatives; you didn't *have* the option of using a portable player, most VCRs only had one output socket available (I remember having a whole drawer-full of adapters). You can't say "before, no-one stopped me playing it different ways, and now they are, they've changed the deal"; there were no different ways around. So from the point of view of the media folks, they're selling you the same thing they always were, because you can do everything you could do with a VHS tape (namely, hooking it up to your TV and playing it, because really that was all everyone who wasn't a serious geek could do) with a blu-ray.
my old 4:3 CRT is still just as fine display as I ever want it to be from where I sit in my sofa. Closer up, yeah, but otherwise no. This comes from a person who spends all day less than 18 inches from computer screens and can spot a single bad pixel from two-three times that distance. It might be bullshit to you, but to me HD res provides absolutely no advantage whatsoever.
On a TV from across the room, sure. But I can certainly spot the difference on my projector, and there are movies - not all of them, not even most, but there are some - that benefit hugely from it.
No way around that, I'm afraid. Try watching a movie that's all about the spectacle (note this probably doesn't actually mean a good movie) and was done in HD from the get-go; I'd suggest Vexille if you can't think of anything yourself. Whether you care about the quality difference is another matter, but it is there.
The deal in the past was always "I give you about £20, you let me watch that movie wherever I take the disc/tape, on whatever hardware I want, and I promise not to copy it". That sufficed for about 40 years.
Come on, this is disingenuous. Were you really ripping your VHS tapes to watch on your, I don't know, NeoGeo?
MakeMKV can include the subtitles as tracks in the MKV. (That's not to say your playback software will know how to read them, mind)
It's more like Ford doesn't want you putting a football dispenser in your car, so they get a law passed making it illegal to put a football dispenser in your car, even if it's your own footballs and your own damn car.
If not, are you saying we should assume that a quantum computer would be better for those problems? Why?
Change your options. It's perfectly possible to do a decent x264 encode at about 1.3x realtime; of course you lose a noticeable degree of compression (but you're still far better off than xvid, probably better than the original bluray encode (which will have used a specific, very conservative profile so it can be played correctly by the hardware) too)
It's a biased example too. Avatar is a pretty rare film in that a) it's far more about the visuals than the plot and b) those visuals are good enough to justify getting a higher quality copy.
Writing firmware for the drives (or rather, dumping the existing firmware and tweaking it slightly) has been one of the standard techniques in bluray ripping for at least a year now.
Sure you can do all that, but these days half the screen on facebook is taken by mafia wars / popular videos / blah. And ads. If I had a "Make the UI go back to how it was before you started doing "apps"" button, facebook would suit me fine.
That makes the military small by the US "twice as many carriers as the rest of the world put together" standard. But on a global scale, no; there are IIRC only about six countries that bother having carriers at all.
Gecko, maybe - I've seen decent performance out of that funny gnome browser (epiphany?) occasionally. But if you're saying firefox, what are you smoking? Opera, Chrome and Konqueror all do far, far better.
The class system is too weak, and the whole language and culture is too permissive - make a mistake and it won't show up until several hundred lines later. Its scoping is insane and incomprehensible. There are good aspects to javascript, sure, but on the whole I'd prefer any other modern dynamic language - tcl, perl, python, ruby, groovy are all much more pleasant to write. Heck, writing python with no debugger at all I can get it right quicker than with js/firebug.
Oh, it's much better than java, no doubt about that. But it sucks in comparison to perl/python/ruby/et al.
Signing a message that refers to the "link to my resignation letter below", but not including the actual link? Guess the guy really doesn't understand security.
Huh? Sure matter doesn't have negative mass, but you could construct a theory with it in if you wanted. (Of course such a theory would be more complicated, less predictive, and less consistent with laboratory tests.) What's the distinction you're drawing here?
Many mentally ill people are able to live perfectly normal lives except in one specific area that causes them problems - e.g. phobics who are perfectly fine provided they never see a spider / go up a tall building / etc.
No, no it isn't. The nondeterminism in quantum mechanics is understood and circumscribed, and we absolutely can be exactly sure.
Please. Newton looked into such things because at the time, with the knowledge available, they seemed to have a chance of revealing the truth. Just as most scientists of that era were religious, many of them did astrology and so on. But knowing what we do now, an interest in either is questionable in a scientist.