The president of Egypt also has a political angle on this, because some of his opposition comes from the fundamentalist religious leaders, and he has to attempt undermining their *moral* authority (since they can't argue on the *civil* authority side). OTOH there should be no distinction between religion and state (at least, according to the religion). Not very different from any Western royalty who ruled "by grace of God" (sic).
"Live and let live" is a good attitude; the problem is that the OTHER person has to have the same attitude towards YOU. This is a core problem with trying to have a tolerant and multicultural society: one is supposed to be tolerant of other people's positions, INCLUDING the position of being an intolerant bigot insisting that the society become restrictive and intolerant to satisfy the requirements of one or another old book.
Once you have updated the iOS, a wipe to factory settings brings you back to a "clean install" state of the *updated* iOS. This was the warning from Apple Support on the phone when my wife was updating her iPhone 5 from iOS 6 to 8, and worrying about losing her data. Maybe Apple's engineering department has a way to go backwards, but they don't permit customers to do it.
Let's consider one of your examples further: "word processing renders thousands of characters to the screen, which can be done in parallel." The starting position of each character depends on the position and size of the one before it, which in turn depends on the one before *that*, including where the lines break (not to mention ragged-right vs. double-justify). And let's not forget kerning - further interaction between characters. While it would seem, then, that one could treat every individual character as an individual sprite for display calculations, for the practical application of word processing it really makes just as much sense to handle the text file serially - and it's a lot less complex. The way I read Linus' posting, he's arguing that parallelism is overused and overhyped FOR GENERAL USE, and I tend to agree - at the same time that I'm very happy that my 4-core processor seems to overlap all of its network I/O and disk I/O and processing, and I'm very happy with my nice graphics card. From what I've seen over time, the GENERAL-PURPOSE bang for the buck is caching - making more memory faster and closer to the CPU.
No, not completely ignorant. They bought a device that claimed to have a certain amount of space for user media. One could argue: If they had not upgraded, they would not have lost so much space to the new OS. However, it's not enough to say "stay with what you have, like a hardware device", because things *stop* working - my wife kept using iOS 6 on her iPhone until a few weeks ago when Facetime broke, so she had to upgrade to the latest iOS 8. A hardware device wouldn't be upgradeable, but it also wouldn't stop working arbitrarily - it would keep working at the same level. Neither Apple nor Microsoft make it easy to just stay at the same level; at some point they create and enforce an incompatibility that forces an upgrade. (Oh, and we stopped buying cassettes and 8-tracks years ago, too.)
I don't read "unimportant subset"; I read "subset, not general-purpose". By all means, graphics and parallel computer are/will-be important; but look at the history of processor development - the rise of the GPU as a separate device, taking the processing load *off* the CPU. I keep reading posts about using the appropriate language for a task; how much more so, then, is using the appropriate hardware design for a task?
This is like debating whether your kitchen renovation would be better with an 8 burner stove, or more counter space. A restaurant, cooking separate meals for 4 or 6 people at a time, needs more burners - and usually has more cooks to go with them. At home, with one cook, 4 burners is usually as much as one can handle simultaneously, and the counter space is more useful. Different solutions for different problems.
If you were putting together a PC (any variety, any era), what would you expect to get the most bang for the buck? Obviously get the fastest current hardware, but then: double the CPU? double the RAM? double the comm (which at this point includes SATA controllers)? My experience all the way back to Z80s has normally been more RAM, the extension of which is more cache close to the CPU, which is one of the things Linus says.
It's hard to parallelize one application, which is why we all point to a handful of well-understood examples in graphics and that's about it. It's more straightforward - and more understandable - to parallelize multiple applications, like a "server" hearkening back to the old mainframe days. For a *general-purpose* computer doing mostly one or two things at a time with background communication and I/O, more RAM/cache == less thrashing == better *all-around* performance without adding complexity.
Every study ever done, every paper written by smart and productive people, says that knowledge workers need private spaces for concentration, and separate conference spaces for conferencing. The wide-open "collaborate all day" space sounds like hanging around the water cooler all day. At the cube farm I'm in now, I have a 7-foot wall between me and a main corridor; but people stop in the corridor junction and schmooze to the point that I can't hear myself think.
I worked at one place where the VP brought in Tim Lister for a 2-day "boot camp" seminar, and insisted that a new building have 1- or 2-person offices for engineering (no bigger than a typical cubicle or two, but an enclosed office!) (with common lab areas for test equipment). Heck, the accounting department and legal department and HR all got private offices (bigger ones) - why not the people doing the work that brought in money?
I'd say this is more like a guy hearing a joke about aliens, and going into a rant about how illegal aliens are taking jobs away from citizens, and the *original* joke teller has to explain that the joke was about SPACE aliens. And the guy keeps ranting about illegal aliens, because space aliens are impossible, and the joke teller says, "Yes, of course, the whole story was impossible, and has nothing to do with what you're getting upset about." So the guy now gets upset about being insulted as clueless. This goes on until the joke teller gives up, or - if in a bar - a fight breaks out.
The point was supposed to be, Newton being born on Christmas - or anyone else for that matter - is not particularly special. Therefore, people getting upset about someone celebrating Newton's birthday on Christmas - or anyone else's for that matter - makes no sense.
Are either of us prohibited from celebrating because the other owns the day? Should we have checked our birth certificates for exact times, so that the earlier could claim the day and the later could never celebrate again? Oh dear, I bet we're not the only two humans born on that particular day; probably not even the only ones in our city, let alone the country, let alone the world. Maybe we should all get together to fight it out . . . or, better idea, we should all get together for a PARTY.
I see no religion bashing here. Tyson said nothing whatever about religion; only referenced Newton.
But as long as you brought up the subject, why do atheists have to prove that God doesn't exist, rather than theists having to prove that God does exist? Faith may be the evidence of things unseen, but if something is unseen and unheard and immaterial and unknowable . . . how does a theist have any proof that it exists? and where would an atheist find any evidence?
Of course, he had to use the Julian Calendar to make it "true", since under the Gregorian Calendar, Newton was born in January of 1643....
But the Julian calendar was the one being observed in England at the time, so that's the one that applies to the birth date. Just think of it as a a different time zone. (Yes, I know time zones hadn't been invented yet.)
I see no mockery here. No mention of anyone or anything other than the person he is celebrating. In any group of 23 or more people, there's a 50% chance two will have the same birthday. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I see no mockery whatever. A surprise ending, perhaps, worthy of O. Henry, but no mockery. Now, if you want mockery of someone's birthday, go watch "Monty Python's Life of Brian".
The guy who drove to NYC and killed two cops was a nut-case who should have been locked up for earlier incidents. Similarly, I think the cop responsible for the death in NYC was guilty of at least accidental homicide (I think he meant to arrest the victim, not any worse, though I do not understand from the video why the incident was escalated to a physical confrontation). Neither reflects the average person - which is the point of the original article.
... progressives say "let's change things for the better" conservatives say "don't throw the baby out with the bath water".
You make some interesting and reasonable points. On the other hand, it often seems to *me* that the positions are more like progressives saying "we've got to do something about this problem" and conservatives saying "it was good enough for grandpa, it's fine, don't change anything". (I'll bet we could agree that both situations occur, and haggle over the percentage.) The polarization mentioned by many leads to an "If you're not with us, you're against us" attitude, which pushes those who might otherwise be moderate and thoughtful (on either side!) to the extremes.
Then they'll ask the question the other way. There have been lots of articles about the importance of wording questions for voting day, and the number of times that "no" means "yes" because the question is worded "do you want to PREVENT xyz" rather than "Do you want xyz".
... because that's obviously the least convenient time and I'll be most annoyed and most likely to ignore it! Oh, no, wait, I bet their logic is "that's the time I'm definitely sitting there and watching". Either way, I press "exit" and go on. It's annoying to get ads on a service I'm paying for (as opposed to ads on broadcast TV, that's just the way it is).
This isn't even a back door; it's how the system works. Only the authorized licensed carriers are supposed to issue command codes, just like the C,D,E,F touch-tones (yes, Virginia, there are four more than on your phone). What's being described here is a basic fraud, as basic as Charlie Chaplin in a restaurant posing as a waiter and pocketing the money someone else leaves with a bill. The failure is in assuming that someone intending to violate conventions and rules will follow the "authorizations" any more than they will follow any other rules.
Umm . . . no. What seems like rationality and logic to you is irrelevant to the other side (whoever the other side is), and vice versa, so one side pointing out that a "manifesto is full of outright nonsense" just translates to "refusal to acknowledge our legitimate concerns" on the other side. As an example, consider the "right to choice" vs. "right to life": if one side insists that human life begins at conception, then abortion is logically murder, and it DOES NOT MATTER that the other side considers that initial premise to be false because of its origin in religion; in fact, that very failure to "accept" the premise is grounds for the one side to invalidate anything the other side says. The two sides are arguing completely different logical structures based on completely different premises that have nothing to do with each other, and could not possibly disprove each other.
Slashdot Mirror
After all, there are *lots* of prophets.
The president of Egypt also has a political angle on this, because some of his opposition comes from the fundamentalist religious leaders, and he has to attempt undermining their *moral* authority (since they can't argue on the *civil* authority side). OTOH there should be no distinction between religion and state (at least, according to the religion). Not very different from any Western royalty who ruled "by grace of God" (sic).
"Live and let live" is a good attitude; the problem is that the OTHER person has to have the same attitude towards YOU. This is a core problem with trying to have a tolerant and multicultural society: one is supposed to be tolerant of other people's positions, INCLUDING the position of being an intolerant bigot insisting that the society become restrictive and intolerant to satisfy the requirements of one or another old book.
Once you have updated the iOS, a wipe to factory settings brings you back to a "clean install" state of the *updated* iOS. This was the warning from Apple Support on the phone when my wife was updating her iPhone 5 from iOS 6 to 8, and worrying about losing her data. Maybe Apple's engineering department has a way to go backwards, but they don't permit customers to do it.
Let's consider one of your examples further: "word processing renders thousands of characters to the screen, which can be done in parallel." The starting position of each character depends on the position and size of the one before it, which in turn depends on the one before *that*, including where the lines break (not to mention ragged-right vs. double-justify). And let's not forget kerning - further interaction between characters. While it would seem, then, that one could treat every individual character as an individual sprite for display calculations, for the practical application of word processing it really makes just as much sense to handle the text file serially - and it's a lot less complex. The way I read Linus' posting, he's arguing that parallelism is overused and overhyped FOR GENERAL USE, and I tend to agree - at the same time that I'm very happy that my 4-core processor seems to overlap all of its network I/O and disk I/O and processing, and I'm very happy with my nice graphics card. From what I've seen over time, the GENERAL-PURPOSE bang for the buck is caching - making more memory faster and closer to the CPU.
No, you can't.
No, not completely ignorant. They bought a device that claimed to have a certain amount of space for user media. One could argue: If they had not upgraded, they would not have lost so much space to the new OS. However, it's not enough to say "stay with what you have, like a hardware device", because things *stop* working - my wife kept using iOS 6 on her iPhone until a few weeks ago when Facetime broke, so she had to upgrade to the latest iOS 8. A hardware device wouldn't be upgradeable, but it also wouldn't stop working arbitrarily - it would keep working at the same level. Neither Apple nor Microsoft make it easy to just stay at the same level; at some point they create and enforce an incompatibility that forces an upgrade. (Oh, and we stopped buying cassettes and 8-tracks years ago, too.)
I don't read "unimportant subset"; I read "subset, not general-purpose". By all means, graphics and parallel computer are/will-be important; but look at the history of processor development - the rise of the GPU as a separate device, taking the processing load *off* the CPU. I keep reading posts about using the appropriate language for a task; how much more so, then, is using the appropriate hardware design for a task?
This is like debating whether your kitchen renovation would be better with an 8 burner stove, or more counter space. A restaurant, cooking separate meals for 4 or 6 people at a time, needs more burners - and usually has more cooks to go with them. At home, with one cook, 4 burners is usually as much as one can handle simultaneously, and the counter space is more useful. Different solutions for different problems.
If you were putting together a PC (any variety, any era), what would you expect to get the most bang for the buck? Obviously get the fastest current hardware, but then: double the CPU? double the RAM? double the comm (which at this point includes SATA controllers)? My experience all the way back to Z80s has normally been more RAM, the extension of which is more cache close to the CPU, which is one of the things Linus says.
It's hard to parallelize one application, which is why we all point to a handful of well-understood examples in graphics and that's about it. It's more straightforward - and more understandable - to parallelize multiple applications, like a "server" hearkening back to the old mainframe days. For a *general-purpose* computer doing mostly one or two things at a time with background communication and I/O, more RAM/cache == less thrashing == better *all-around* performance without adding complexity.
Every study ever done, every paper written by smart and productive people, says that knowledge workers need private spaces for concentration, and separate conference spaces for conferencing. The wide-open "collaborate all day" space sounds like hanging around the water cooler all day. At the cube farm I'm in now, I have a 7-foot wall between me and a main corridor; but people stop in the corridor junction and schmooze to the point that I can't hear myself think.
I worked at one place where the VP brought in Tim Lister for a 2-day "boot camp" seminar, and insisted that a new building have 1- or 2-person offices for engineering (no bigger than a typical cubicle or two, but an enclosed office!) (with common lab areas for test equipment). Heck, the accounting department and legal department and HR all got private offices (bigger ones) - why not the people doing the work that brought in money?
I'm going to have to use that the next time I play Chrononauts.
I'd say this is more like a guy hearing a joke about aliens, and going into a rant about how illegal aliens are taking jobs away from citizens, and the *original* joke teller has to explain that the joke was about SPACE aliens. And the guy keeps ranting about illegal aliens, because space aliens are impossible, and the joke teller says, "Yes, of course, the whole story was impossible, and has nothing to do with what you're getting upset about." So the guy now gets upset about being insulted as clueless. This goes on until the joke teller gives up, or - if in a bar - a fight breaks out.
The point was supposed to be, Newton being born on Christmas - or anyone else for that matter - is not particularly special. Therefore, people getting upset about someone celebrating Newton's birthday on Christmas - or anyone else's for that matter - makes no sense.
Are either of us prohibited from celebrating because the other owns the day? Should we have checked our birth certificates for exact times, so that the earlier could claim the day and the later could never celebrate again? Oh dear, I bet we're not the only two humans born on that particular day; probably not even the only ones in our city, let alone the country, let alone the world. Maybe we should all get together to fight it out . . . or, better idea, we should all get together for a PARTY.
I see no religion bashing here. Tyson said nothing whatever about religion; only referenced Newton.
But as long as you brought up the subject, why do atheists have to prove that God doesn't exist, rather than theists having to prove that God does exist? Faith may be the evidence of things unseen, but if something is unseen and unheard and immaterial and unknowable . . . how does a theist have any proof that it exists? and where would an atheist find any evidence?
Of course, he had to use the Julian Calendar to make it "true", since under the Gregorian Calendar, Newton was born in January of 1643....
But the Julian calendar was the one being observed in England at the time, so that's the one that applies to the birth date. Just think of it as a a different time zone. (Yes, I know time zones hadn't been invented yet.)
I see no mockery here. No mention of anyone or anything other than the person he is celebrating. In any group of 23 or more people, there's a 50% chance two will have the same birthday. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I see no mockery whatever. A surprise ending, perhaps, worthy of O. Henry, but no mockery. Now, if you want mockery of someone's birthday, go watch "Monty Python's Life of Brian".
The guy who drove to NYC and killed two cops was a nut-case who should have been locked up for earlier incidents. Similarly, I think the cop responsible for the death in NYC was guilty of at least accidental homicide (I think he meant to arrest the victim, not any worse, though I do not understand from the video why the incident was escalated to a physical confrontation). Neither reflects the average person - which is the point of the original article.
... progressives say "let's change things for the better" conservatives say "don't throw the baby out with the bath water".
You make some interesting and reasonable points. On the other hand, it often seems to *me* that the positions are more like progressives saying "we've got to do something about this problem" and conservatives saying "it was good enough for grandpa, it's fine, don't change anything". (I'll bet we could agree that both situations occur, and haggle over the percentage.) The polarization mentioned by many leads to an "If you're not with us, you're against us" attitude, which pushes those who might otherwise be moderate and thoughtful (on either side!) to the extremes.
If I don't say "yes", the answer is NO.
Then they'll ask the question the other way. There have been lots of articles about the importance of wording questions for voting day, and the number of times that "no" means "yes" because the question is worded "do you want to PREVENT xyz" rather than "Do you want xyz".
... because that's obviously the least convenient time and I'll be most annoyed and most likely to ignore it! Oh, no, wait, I bet their logic is "that's the time I'm definitely sitting there and watching". Either way, I press "exit" and go on. It's annoying to get ads on a service I'm paying for (as opposed to ads on broadcast TV, that's just the way it is).
This isn't even a back door; it's how the system works. Only the authorized licensed carriers are supposed to issue command codes, just like the C,D,E,F touch-tones (yes, Virginia, there are four more than on your phone). What's being described here is a basic fraud, as basic as Charlie Chaplin in a restaurant posing as a waiter and pocketing the money someone else leaves with a bill. The failure is in assuming that someone intending to violate conventions and rules will follow the "authorizations" any more than they will follow any other rules.
Umm . . . no. What seems like rationality and logic to you is irrelevant to the other side (whoever the other side is), and vice versa, so one side pointing out that a "manifesto is full of outright nonsense" just translates to "refusal to acknowledge our legitimate concerns" on the other side. As an example, consider the "right to choice" vs. "right to life": if one side insists that human life begins at conception, then abortion is logically murder, and it DOES NOT MATTER that the other side considers that initial premise to be false because of its origin in religion; in fact, that very failure to "accept" the premise is grounds for the one side to invalidate anything the other side says. The two sides are arguing completely different logical structures based on completely different premises that have nothing to do with each other, and could not possibly disprove each other.
Chaos wins, not because Order is stupid (though Mel Brooks had a good point), but because its victory conditions are simpler.