- What happens when your subscribtion ends ? Can you still listen to your huge collection or does it expire ? - The choice on yahoo music does not appear to be great. I listen to classical music, I found a grand total of one (1) J.S. Bach album. It appears that I would then need to subscribe to multiple services to cater to my tastes. Would I still be saving money then ?
The whole point of using C for benchmarks like SPEC is to remove the influence of any and all VM, interpreters and the like. It is as close to programming on the bare metal as reasonably possible these days.
Now FORTRAN is indeed used a great deal on supercomputers and is easier to optimize aggressively, this is true, but I've yet to see a modern O/S written in FORTRAN, although I have little doubt that this is possible. I'm sure you could link FORTRAN code into the Linux kernel, but I doubt it would be accepted in the main tree...
Now on the FORTRAN vs. C question if you read the classic "real programmers don't eat quiche" it seems that although the author doesn't think much about Unix he says good things about C. That ought to settle the debate ?
If not C99 is easier to parallelize than C89, and some swear C++ can match or exceed FORTRAN.
On the flawed but amusing computer language shootout page the fastest language is plain straight C, followed by SmartEiffel, which actually translates to C, followed by MLton which also translates to C, followed by D which may or may not have its own compiler, I'm not sure.
Anyway, on that particular benchmark suite, C is the champ, no doubt. Then there is the small matter of actual professional benchmarks, like SPEC, which are all in C.
C is very fast because it has hardly any feature over straight assembly. In some particular case it may turn out that missing features such at a good GC might in fact improve performance, but guess what, you can implement those in C. In fact all the languages listed above are, strangely enough, written in C.
In the meantime what you comment as being "strange and baseless" is in fact rather firmly rooted in fact.
Let's hear something different now, I'm listening. Is there a language that can do better than C in a wide series of situations ?
TeX is a fully fledged language, so you can make any calculation you want in it, including programming a spreadsheet if you feel so inclined. I'm not aware of any real attempt though...
However, on the presentation side, the Beamer LaTeX package is excellent.
This goes both ways. Rich people can litteraly get away with murder (need I give examples?), or in this case they can harass people based on very little evidence because they can afford to pay lawyers.
The laptops are well-known brands (IBM/Lenovo, Dell etc) with Linux pre-installed and supported, where everything work, including modem, wireless, suspend-to-ram, etc.
According to CDC, about 23% of all deaths are due to cancer, so I don't understand your comment.
Eventually everybody dies and is so subjet at some point to some pretty catastrophic health problem. The objective of a "civilised" society should to be able to treat everybody for every condition with the best care available. This is an ideal of course, but your proposal seems to me like "Sorry dear sir/madam, you've got some pretty serious condition. We could treat you and you would have some chance of recovery, but you can't pay for the care and it is not covered by insurance or health care. You can now go home to die".
To me that sounds pretty unacceptable, given that some nations seem to be able to cope with the problem with a better approach than the US.
Why would you purchase DELL servers with W2k3 on them as opposed to no operating system at all? the latter option cost $0, whereas W2K3 costs at least $350.
If you are keen to throw away $350 you could at least send them RH's way by buying RHEL3. This is exactly the same price and this can only help RH enhance their offering. All of this for the low effort of clicking on the right button when customizing your order.
This is what you can find on DELL's pages when buying any server:
Operating System
Note: Dell does not certify and is unable to provide support on this server when installed with an operating system not listed below. If self installing an operating system, the no FD/CD option may require the use of an external floppy drive, CD drive, or USB key.
No Operating System
Help Me Choose
Windows® Server 2003, Standard Edition, Includes 5 CALs [add $799]
Windows® Server 2003, Enterprise Edition, Includes 25 CAL's [add $3,295]
Windows® Server 2003, Web Edition [add $349]
Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS 3, 1YR RHN Subscription, Non Factory Install [add $899]
Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS 3, 3YR RHN Subscription, Non Factory Install [add $2,699]
Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES v.3, 1 Year Red Hat Network Subscription [add $349]
Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES v.3, 3 Year Red Hat Network Subscription [add $1,047]
Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES v3, 1 Year Red Hat Network Subscription, EM64T [add $349]
Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES v3, 3 Year Red Hat Network Subscription, EM64T [add $1,047]
Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS v3, 1YR RHN Sub, EM64T, Non Factory Install [add $899]
Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS v3, 3YR RHN Sub, EM64T, Non Factory Install [add $2,699]
Novell Netware 6.5 with 5 New Users, Non-Factory Install [add $799]
No Operating System [Included in Price]
No Operating System, Novell NetWare add $0
Red Hat Enterprise Linux - No Factory Installed Operating System add $0
Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS 4, 1YR RHN Subscription, Non Factory Install [add $899]
Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES v4, 1YR Red Hat Network Subscription, EM64T [add $349]
Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES v4, 3YR Red Hat Network Subscription, EM64T [add $1,047]
Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS 4, 3YR RHN Subscription, Non Factory Install [add $2,699]
Windows® Server 2003, Standard x64 Edition, Includes 5 CALs [add $799]
Windows® Server 2003, Enterprise x64 Edition, Includes 25 CAL's [add $3,295]
SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 9 EM64T, 2 CPU, 1 YR Sub (Non-Factory Install) [add $269]
SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 9 EM64T, 2 CPU, 3YR Sub (Non-Factory Install) [add $747]
It's not quite that simple. At the most fundamental level in physics, special relativity says there is usually no absolute way to tell which of two spacetime events A and B happened first. It depends on the observer. QM further says that the mere act of observing changes the outcome.
In human affairs, there is usually no way to tell what really happened even in tightly controlled environment. Think of a tennis game when the umpire, the electronic eye, the referee and the players can't agree whether a given ball was in or out.
Reality is a figment of our imagination. Usually there is no such thing.
What the parent means is that occasionally dialogs pop up with English in them, typically errors and warnings, sometimes only button labels. It's more unsettling than one would think if one truly speaks no English.
That's interesting because before Chirac became president he used to tour the US on a regular basis and to make it quite clear that he loved the country.
Not with this camera, as X-Rays are hardly ever focussed (they don't bend easily!). Here is an image of a rare and expensive X-ray focussing mirror. You have to use grazing incidence for it to work.
Medical X-ray photographies are simply taken by placing film (or these days a digital detector) behind the body and lighting with X-rays. No focussing is involved.
Except real-world pinhole cameras are always blurry instead of always sharp...
This is due to the fact that the pictures sharpen as the size of the hole diminishes (i.e. large hole = very blurry, small hole = less blurry), but there is a limit to how small the hole can be until it becomes counter-productive due to diffraction.
From TFA, you end up with as many pixels as there are lenses, i.e. 90,000, and indeed the sample images in the article are about 300x300, i.e. 90,000 pixels.
No, sharpening in Photoshop also enhances high frequencies in the image, which gives the impression it's more in focus because it does have sharp artifacts in it.
Read The Fine Article. The proposed solution is almost the exact opposite to the one you are talking about.
The microlens approach doesn't require any moving part, it allows not only to refocus but also to extend focus as if one were using a very high F-stop for large depth of field, without the associated noise due to low light.
The downside is that it requires many pixels to produce a good image, but as the pixel count grows exponentially with time as per Moore law, it will soon be a winning proposition, even with cameras in mobile phones.
On the other hand optical stabilization is as expensive as ever, requires many moving parts and does not allow focus extention.
Assuming 100W/CPU, 5000 Opterons would require about 500kW or so, double that to be sure. Here's an example 1MW generator which you can buy off the web, for far less money than the Opterons would cost. As it's only approx 4m long (or 14 feet) I'm pretty sure one could fit a couple on a semi-trailer with room to spare for lots of fuel.
In fact if the conservatives had done a conservative job the US would be better off. Don't worry so much after the International scene, hand over the UN the tough and thankless job of handling Saddam Hussein, under control of course (it seems they were doing OK after all), reduce the size of government, promote individual freedoms, lower taxes for everybody.
But no, they did almost the opposite of all that. How they can still be called conservatives is beyond me.
Slashdot Mirror
Questions (couldn't find the answers on Yahoo) :
- What happens when your subscribtion ends ? Can you still listen to your huge collection or does it expire ?
- The choice on yahoo music does not appear to be great. I listen to classical music, I found a grand total of one (1) J.S. Bach album. It appears that I would then need to subscribe to multiple services to cater to my tastes. Would I still be saving money then ?
The whole point of using C for benchmarks like SPEC is to remove the influence of any and all VM, interpreters and the like. It is as close to programming on the bare metal as reasonably possible these days.
Now FORTRAN is indeed used a great deal on supercomputers and is easier to optimize aggressively, this is true, but I've yet to see a modern O/S written in FORTRAN, although I have little doubt that this is possible. I'm sure you could link FORTRAN code into the Linux kernel, but I doubt it would be accepted in the main tree...
Now on the FORTRAN vs. C question if you read the classic "real programmers don't eat quiche" it seems that although the author doesn't think much about Unix he says good things about C. That ought to settle the debate ?
If not C99 is easier to parallelize than C89, and some swear C++ can match or exceed FORTRAN.
Alright, pray tell which ones ?
On the flawed but amusing computer language shootout page the fastest language is plain straight C, followed by SmartEiffel, which actually translates to C, followed by MLton which also translates to C, followed by D which may or may not have its own compiler, I'm not sure.
Anyway, on that particular benchmark suite, C is the champ, no doubt. Then there is the small matter of actual professional benchmarks, like SPEC, which are all in C.
C is very fast because it has hardly any feature over straight assembly. In some particular case it may turn out that missing features such at a good GC might in fact improve performance, but guess what, you can implement those in C. In fact all the languages listed above are, strangely enough, written in C.
In the meantime what you comment as being "strange and baseless" is in fact rather firmly rooted in fact.
Let's hear something different now, I'm listening. Is there a language that can do better than C in a wide series of situations ?
TeX is a fully fledged language, so you can make any calculation you want in it, including programming a spreadsheet if you feel so inclined. I'm not aware of any real attempt though...
However, on the presentation side, the Beamer LaTeX package is excellent.
This goes both ways. Rich people can litteraly get away with murder (need I give examples?), or in this case they can harass people based on very little evidence because they can afford to pay lawyers.
Which behaviour do you find the most repulsive?
Sorry, the laptops are all well-known brands, not the servers.
The short answer is yes, plenty of machines built for Linux.
Here are a couple of links :
Servers, desktops etc : http://www.pogolinux.com/
Laptops ! http://www.emperorlinux.com/
The laptops are well-known brands (IBM/Lenovo, Dell etc) with Linux pre-installed and supported, where everything work, including modem, wireless, suspend-to-ram, etc.
You write :
> Second, do I care if other people's kids watch crazy amounts of TV? Not in the slightest.
Except we live in a democracy. These people and their kids will vote. Their decisions will affect your life.
Think of how the "debate" on the invasion of Iraq was skewed, think of how the President has been elected for the last 40 years or so.
Appearance, not competence, is the key.
In other words, you should care.
Perhaps, but you moving to Canada will not change your family.
Hello
According to CDC, about 23% of all deaths are due to cancer, so I don't understand your comment.
Eventually everybody dies and is so subjet at some point to some pretty catastrophic health problem. The objective of a "civilised" society should to be able to treat everybody for every condition with the best care available. This is an ideal of course, but your proposal seems to me like "Sorry dear sir/madam, you've got some pretty serious condition. We could treat you and you would have some chance of recovery, but you can't pay for the care and it is not covered by insurance or health care. You can now go home to die".
To me that sounds pretty unacceptable, given that some nations seem to be able to cope with the problem with a better approach than the US.
I simply don't believe you.
Why would you purchase DELL servers with W2k3 on them as opposed to no operating system at all? the latter option cost $0, whereas W2K3 costs at least $350.
If you are keen to throw away $350 you could at least send them RH's way by buying RHEL3. This is exactly the same price and this can only help RH enhance their offering. All of this for the low effort of clicking on the right button when customizing your order.
This is what you can find on DELL's pages when buying any server:
Operating System
Note: Dell does not certify and is unable to provide support on this server when installed with an operating system not listed below. If self installing an operating system, the no FD/CD option may require the use of an external floppy drive, CD drive, or USB key.
No Operating System
Help Me Choose
Windows® Server 2003, Standard Edition, Includes 5 CALs [add $799]
Windows® Server 2003, Enterprise Edition, Includes 25 CAL's [add $3,295]
Windows® Server 2003, Web Edition [add $349]
Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS 3, 1YR RHN Subscription, Non Factory Install [add $899]
Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS 3, 3YR RHN Subscription, Non Factory Install [add $2,699]
Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES v.3, 1 Year Red Hat Network Subscription [add $349]
Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES v.3, 3 Year Red Hat Network Subscription [add $1,047]
Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES v3, 1 Year Red Hat Network Subscription, EM64T [add $349]
Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES v3, 3 Year Red Hat Network Subscription, EM64T [add $1,047]
Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS v3, 1YR RHN Sub, EM64T, Non Factory Install [add $899]
Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS v3, 3YR RHN Sub, EM64T, Non Factory Install [add $2,699]
Novell Netware 6.5 with 5 New Users, Non-Factory Install [add $799]
No Operating System [Included in Price]
No Operating System, Novell NetWare add $0
Red Hat Enterprise Linux - No Factory Installed Operating System add $0
Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS 4, 1YR RHN Subscription, Non Factory Install [add $899]
Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES v4, 1YR Red Hat Network Subscription, EM64T [add $349]
Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES v4, 3YR Red Hat Network Subscription, EM64T [add $1,047]
Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS 4, 3YR RHN Subscription, Non Factory Install [add $2,699]
Windows® Server 2003, Standard x64 Edition, Includes 5 CALs [add $799]
Windows® Server 2003, Enterprise x64 Edition, Includes 25 CAL's [add $3,295]
SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 9 EM64T, 2 CPU, 1 YR Sub (Non-Factory Install) [add $269]
SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 9 EM64T, 2 CPU, 3YR Sub (Non-Factory Install) [add $747]
It's not quite that simple. At the most fundamental level in physics, special relativity says there is usually no absolute way to tell which of two spacetime events A and B happened first. It depends on the observer. QM further says that the mere act of observing changes the outcome.
In human affairs, there is usually no way to tell what really happened even in tightly controlled environment. Think of a tennis game when the umpire, the electronic eye, the referee and the players can't agree whether a given ball was in or out.
Reality is a figment of our imagination. Usually there is no such thing.
What the parent means is that occasionally dialogs pop up with English in them, typically errors and warnings, sometimes only button labels. It's more unsettling than one would think if one truly speaks no English.
That's interesting because before Chirac became president he used to tour the US on a regular basis and to make it quite clear that he loved the country.
Have you actually read the article ?
It says France will indeed forgive its debt to the Iraqi *new* government, so the parent is right, the debt is still outstanding, or was.
It seems to be a relatively nice gesture.
Not with this camera, as X-Rays are hardly ever focussed (they don't bend easily!). Here is an image of a rare and expensive X-ray focussing mirror. You have to use grazing incidence for it to work.
Medical X-ray photographies are simply taken by placing film (or these days a digital detector) behind the body and lighting with X-rays. No focussing is involved.
Even better than a Cell, a Retina.
Essentially a CMOS Retina is a massively parallel computer with processing logic at each and every pixel location.
Except real-world pinhole cameras are always blurry instead of always sharp...
This is due to the fact that the pictures sharpen as the size of the hole diminishes (i.e. large hole = very blurry, small hole = less blurry), but there is a limit to how small the hole can be until it becomes counter-productive due to diffraction.
From TFA, you end up with as many pixels as there are lenses, i.e. 90,000, and indeed the sample images in the article are about 300x300, i.e. 90,000 pixels.
No, sharpening in Photoshop also enhances high frequencies in the image, which gives the impression it's more in focus because it does have sharp artifacts in it.
Read The Fine Article. The proposed solution is almost the exact opposite to the one you are talking about.
The microlens approach doesn't require any moving part, it allows not only to refocus but also to extend focus as if one were using a very high F-stop for large depth of field, without the associated noise due to low light.
The downside is that it requires many pixels to produce a good image, but as the pixel count grows exponentially with time as per Moore law, it will soon be a winning proposition, even with cameras in mobile phones.
On the other hand optical stabilization is as expensive as ever, requires many moving parts and does not allow focus extention.
Well, at the power cord, 110V in the US and Canada.
Are you sure ?
Assuming 100W/CPU, 5000 Opterons would require about 500kW or so, double that to be sure. Here's an example 1MW generator which you can buy off the web, for far less money than the Opterons would cost. As it's only approx 4m long (or 14 feet) I'm pretty sure one could fit a couple on a semi-trailer with room to spare for lots of fuel.
The short answer is yes, it will run many, but not all XB1 games.
For the long answer, read Microsoft's own compatibility list.
In fact if the conservatives had done a conservative job the US would be better off. Don't worry so much after the International scene, hand over the UN the tough and thankless job of handling Saddam Hussein, under control of course (it seems they were doing OK after all), reduce the size of government, promote individual freedoms, lower taxes for everybody.
But no, they did almost the opposite of all that. How they can still be called conservatives is beyond me.