not necessarily. You can't run Windows, but a readily available Cell-based desktop workstation in the hands of, say, Gnome developers, would do wonders in making Gnome run better on Cell.
Better, yes, but still nowhere near as well as it runs on x86. It would be like sparc, or itanium, or all these non-x86 machines - you have processor which is in theory faster than the equivalent-price x86, but for running real-world programs it's slower because it hasn't had the huge optimization effort x86 had.
No, "Private" as in "only friends I have chosen to share information with", not as in "and every application that they are stupid enough to install".
That's drawing a distinction that doesn't exist. If you give a friend access to your profile they can do anything with that data; this just makes it more immediately clear.
The application is sucking the information without anyone being aware of it.
No; the friend will get asked when they run the application, effectively "do you want to give this access to anything you can see".
It's not just this generation - the original playstation was much bigger than its competitors, and while the xbox was hilariously huge, even the revised PS2 felt bigger than the gamecube (it was slim but long, which took up more space on the shelf). Sony is the one shrinking its consoles for the simple reason that sony's original consoles are frickin' huge.
And since it's not a console, they could sell it for a profit. I would buy a Linux-running Windows-proof box for the price of a Dell
And there's the rub - for Sony to make a profit on it, they'd have to charge much more than the equivalent Dell. (I'm speaking of equivalent in terms of user experience - any non-x86 architecture gets you more theoretical - but less practical - bang for the buck)
"Private" as in "not accessible to anyone"? That would rather defeat the point of putting it there. The default is perfectly reasonable: your information is visible to people you have declared to be your "friends" - and obviously, they may feed the information you've given them access to, to anyone or anything else.
I'd say it's far more scientific to brand gender and sex as immutable based on your genetics than to relegate it to subjective measurements
The whole point of the term "gender" (in this context) is that it refers to the social identity rather than physical matters - otherwise it would be redundant, we'd just always say sex.
A female is an organism that can produce an ova to create young during its lifespan. A male is an organism that can create sperm to fertilize said Ova during its lfiespan. This is not arbitrary -- this is the scientific definition from biology. Any organism that can do neither of those two during its lifespan is neuter, and any that can do both is hemaphroditic (sic). ANY OTHER DEFINITION is cultural, subjective, non-scientific crap.
That's not a practical definition to use for athletics competitions - you'd have to either ban infertile women from competing as women (heck, you'd presumably have to ban all women without children, since there's no way to be certain she's capable of producing young if she hasn't done so), or permit infertile men to compete as women.
It wouldn't be fair to force such people to compete with the men, because they've got the body mass/strength/endurance/etc of typical XX humans despite having a Y.
A large part of me thinks the only fair thing would be to have everyone competing together. Why is it that we give a separate section for athletes with one particular disadvantage, femininity[*], but make no special allowances for any other genetic differences?
Unfortunately the "We'll fix it" attitude leads to invading other countries (Iraq). Further, you can't have a welfare state AND have uncontrolled immigration
An awesome, geeky company has issued a press release that speaks of its awesome, geeky product in complimentary terms and suggests that we should buy more.
Yes, it's not greatly surprising to those in the know, but it's the kind of thing that belongs on slashdot.
That's not quite true - there have been flawed proofs that stood for several years, including of results that later emerged to be false, e.g. I believe Borsuk's conjecture was thought to be proven for some time.
They have a light, which at first flickers randomly; they learn to turn the light off so that other robots can't tell where they are. To my mind that's not really sophisticated enough to qualify as "deceptive". (Still interesting though)
you must understand that this will not happen for many millions of years, which in terms of human population and energy needs has been already accepted as "forever"
In that case, it's quite easy to supply a nuclear reactor with enough fuel to last forever.
No one has done anything like this before. The style of seamless blending of handheld, real documentary, fake news, CCTV (security cam) and live action fluid is tight. There is even first-person/third-person shooter cams. It's a distinctly unique style of "omniscient" camera person which can which from any source / any angle, yet while blending and cutting between all of them, it still feels cohesive and non-jarring.
Doesn't sound that different from Children of Men.
C++, when done properly, has very little of the problems of C (type unsafety and tedious manual memory management come to mind first).
If you're using C++ what you seem to think of as "properly" (which I can guarantee it isn't; if you can afford to avoid manual memory management then you would be better off using a garbage-collected language in the first place) then the syntax becomes horrible; enjoy writing "std::vector(" for what would be "[" in most modern languages. All the "nice" syntax has been used up on low-level programming features.
Wait, what? What is it you think you do with a proof?
Normally, examine it carefully, publish it if possible, and if no-one notices anything wrong with it, say it's good enough. But you could do all that with the code anyway.
if they do decide that a program has "gone zombie" they don't do it on the basis that it will never terminate, only that it hasn't terminated within a reasonable timescale, so again the halting problem doesn't apply.
No. They do it that way out of necessity, because of the halting problem. And it's a good enough approximation most of the time. But the correct way to do it would be to solve the halting problem. (Well, if it weren't impossible)
Wrong! The whole point of the spec is that it can be formally checked for bugs. You can prove that the spec no longer contains buffer overflow vulnerabilities, and be sure the code matches it. If all you're doing is hacking on code, you can't prove anything.
What good does your proof do you though? You have no way of being sure it's correct. The best you can do is have you or someone else read it - which you could've done with the code.
You could also try and prove that the proof is correct. Of course, you'd have no guarantee that the proof that the proof was correct was correct.
This is why I don't get these efforts - they never remove the possibility of a mistake, only shift it up a level. Well-written code is usually much easier to verify directly, by reading it, than the proofs are.
Tvtropes works for that. (Though recently I've found that they do something stupid with google results - rather than some of the article text you get a generic description of what an article is. Anyone know how to fix that?)
Blogspot is blocked in a lot of places. I hate when someone sends me a link in a breezy tone, never thinking that it might not be accessible everywhere.
You deserve that one. If you can't access arbitrary locations on the internet, that's your own fault for sucking. What's the alternative, I should always copy-paste a complete website rather than sending a link?
Slashdot Mirror
And which is more appropriate to the material in question?
Better, yes, but still nowhere near as well as it runs on x86. It would be like sparc, or itanium, or all these non-x86 machines - you have processor which is in theory faster than the equivalent-price x86, but for running real-world programs it's slower because it hasn't had the huge optimization effort x86 had.
That's drawing a distinction that doesn't exist. If you give a friend access to your profile they can do anything with that data; this just makes it more immediately clear.
The application is sucking the information without anyone being aware of it.
No; the friend will get asked when they run the application, effectively "do you want to give this access to anything you can see".
It's not just this generation - the original playstation was much bigger than its competitors, and while the xbox was hilariously huge, even the revised PS2 felt bigger than the gamecube (it was slim but long, which took up more space on the shelf). Sony is the one shrinking its consoles for the simple reason that sony's original consoles are frickin' huge.
And there's the rub - for Sony to make a profit on it, they'd have to charge much more than the equivalent Dell. (I'm speaking of equivalent in terms of user experience - any non-x86 architecture gets you more theoretical - but less practical - bang for the buck)
"Private" as in "not accessible to anyone"? That would rather defeat the point of putting it there. The default is perfectly reasonable: your information is visible to people you have declared to be your "friends" - and obviously, they may feed the information you've given them access to, to anyone or anything else.
The whole point of the term "gender" (in this context) is that it refers to the social identity rather than physical matters - otherwise it would be redundant, we'd just always say sex.
A female is an organism that can produce an ova to create young during its lifespan. A male is an organism that can create sperm to fertilize said Ova during its lfiespan. This is not arbitrary -- this is the scientific definition from biology. Any organism that can do neither of those two during its lifespan is neuter, and any that can do both is hemaphroditic (sic). ANY OTHER DEFINITION is cultural, subjective, non-scientific crap.
That's not a practical definition to use for athletics competitions - you'd have to either ban infertile women from competing as women (heck, you'd presumably have to ban all women without children, since there's no way to be certain she's capable of producing young if she hasn't done so), or permit infertile men to compete as women.
A large part of me thinks the only fair thing would be to have everyone competing together. Why is it that we give a separate section for athletes with one particular disadvantage, femininity[*], but make no special allowances for any other genetic differences?
[*] And a few others in the paralympics.
Unfortunately the "We'll fix it" attitude leads to invading other countries (Iraq). Further, you can't have a welfare state AND have uncontrolled immigration
Why not?
Yes, it's not greatly surprising to those in the know, but it's the kind of thing that belongs on slashdot.
That's not quite true - there have been flawed proofs that stood for several years, including of results that later emerged to be false, e.g. I believe Borsuk's conjecture was thought to be proven for some time.
They have a light, which at first flickers randomly; they learn to turn the light off so that other robots can't tell where they are. To my mind that's not really sophisticated enough to qualify as "deceptive". (Still interesting though)
In that case, it's quite easy to supply a nuclear reactor with enough fuel to last forever.
No one has done anything like this before. The style of seamless blending of handheld, real documentary, fake news, CCTV (security cam) and live action fluid is tight. There is even first-person/third-person shooter cams. It's a distinctly unique style of "omniscient" camera person which can which from any source / any angle, yet while blending and cutting between all of them, it still feels cohesive and non-jarring.
Doesn't sound that different from Children of Men.
If you're using C++ what you seem to think of as "properly" (which I can guarantee it isn't; if you can afford to avoid manual memory management then you would be better off using a garbage-collected language in the first place) then the syntax becomes horrible; enjoy writing "std::vector(" for what would be "[" in most modern languages. All the "nice" syntax has been used up on low-level programming features.
drug dealers usually get heavier penalties than child rapists, at least in my area.
Child rapists have a much lower recidivism rate, so that one makes some sense from a rehabilitation perspective.
If your ISP isn't giving you internet access, unfiltered, then that's your fault for not getting a better one. Likewise for your employer.
The alternative is to use websites that everyone can access
Which I'm supposed to figure out how? I should hack into all my friends' networks and read their blocklists before sending them anything?
Normally, examine it carefully, publish it if possible, and if no-one notices anything wrong with it, say it's good enough. But you could do all that with the code anyway.
No. They do it that way out of necessity, because of the halting problem. And it's a good enough approximation most of the time. But the correct way to do it would be to solve the halting problem. (Well, if it weren't impossible)
What good does your proof do you though? You have no way of being sure it's correct. The best you can do is have you or someone else read it - which you could've done with the code.
Uh, "verifying whether a program has gone zombie" is a pretty basic task for the OS which the halting problem prevents you from doing correctly.
This is why I don't get these efforts - they never remove the possibility of a mistake, only shift it up a level. Well-written code is usually much easier to verify directly, by reading it, than the proofs are.
Tvtropes works for that. (Though recently I've found that they do something stupid with google results - rather than some of the article text you get a generic description of what an article is. Anyone know how to fix that?)
You deserve that one. If you can't access arbitrary locations on the internet, that's your own fault for sucking. What's the alternative, I should always copy-paste a complete website rather than sending a link?
Perhaps they could team up with WWE and promote their Crossface product.