No it won't. It will become obsolete faster as it's completely unmaintainable. Anything that breaks will be harder to deal with. Obsolete components can't be swapped out.
You are clueless. Nobody upgrades computers. Nobody.
Now if you _really_ want to upgrade a Mac, there's a very simple method: You make sure your Time Machine update is complete, you put it on eBay, get lots of money, buy a new and better Mac, and restore it from your backup and you have your computer back as it was, just better. Try that with a PC. You get _nothing_ for a used PC.
If you read the first review for this on Amazon, you'll find it runs at 120 Hz at 1920x1080 res. That's pretty nice, as most decent video cards do a good job at that res, but not even the highest end ones can hit 60 Hz at 4K, at least with good settings levels.
If that's the case, then you can switch it to 1920x1080 and watch 1920x1080 movies at either 24 or 30 fps just fine; either five or four frames in a row will display the same image.
We're headed down the freeway. Up ahead I see some teenagers standing on an overpass holding something large and watching cars pass underneath. I recognize a potential dropped rock and change lanes to get away from it. Will the computer do that?
Good that you mentioned it, so we can add that to the programming:-) Now the good news is that the self-driving car will take a high-resolution picture of the buggers and send it straight to the police (I would say that standing on an overpass and holding something large is, in fact, dangerously interfering with the traffic).
But, what happens when the stupid meat-bag in the "driver's" seat decides to hit the brakes, or fiddle with the steering wheel while in a train? Or a tire blows out? By the time you're close enough to draft the car in front of you, I would imagine you are too close for even a computer to avoid an accident (mechanical limits vs. reaction times).
If you are bumper-to-bumper you don't have an accident. The damage isn't done by cars touching. It's done by cars colliding at some speed difference. If these cars drive a two inches distance, there is very little force when they "collide".
If you programmed the breaks for my car and all of a sudden going 105 Km/h, downhill, in the rain, with the sun out and listening to the radio at a level of 43.4 db, my breaks don't work, I get into an accident and end up in the hospital. Do you really think you shouldn't be held response for this? The breaks failed because you didn't consider case N, which even though you didn't think of, doesn't mean it didn't exist.
All you need is to make my salary high enough, and I'll take that risk. By paying insurance. I heard that in the USA about 50% of the retail price of a step ladder goes towards insurance; maybe someone has a link to actual facts about it. Medical cost is also affected.
Given the two scenarios: My father (in another car) is killed when struck by someone speeding to the hospital, trying to save a family member . . . Or: my mother is killed because someone decided "to protect everyone" to limit the speed my car could travel while I was trying to take her to the hospital . . . I'd find it a lot easier to live with the first scenario, than the second. And I suspect most other people would as well.
Your father couldn't.
Simple solution: An override button. When you use it you take full responsibility for all the speeding tickets you get, and all the damage you cause. I suppose you can live with losing your driving license for crossing three red traffic lights to get your mother to the hospital.
Again, I ask, Why should the owner of a car pay insurance, when they are not in control of the vehicle?
You may own a self-not driving vehicle aka a house. You don't control where it goes; it's not supposed to go anywhere. If a roof tile drops off your roof and injures me, you are liable.
The owner of the car would be liable for the cost of an accident caused by the car because they are the owner of the car, and they are clearly in control of whether the vehicle drives or not. The owner of the car pays insurance because society demands that car owners pay insurance so victims won't get stuck with the cost.
Except 99.5% of the time really just means 100% of the time in certain cases and 0% in other cases. If it's icy outside, you may want to manually drive. It's not like you won't know it's icy out. After a few generations, those cases will almost gone, except driving "off the grid", like dirt paths.
I suppose if a self driving car says "I'm not driving here" then it might be wiser for you not to drive either. But let's say the self driving car says "this dirt track looks bad, there is a risk of damage to the car", then you might make the decision to go there or not, and if you go on the dirt track the self-driving car might do better than you - but you still might end up with damage which is your responsibility. The only situation where the car would insist on handing over driving to you is situations that it recognises and knows it isn't programmed to handle as well as a human. "Dirt track module is still under development, can't drive here".
If I'm responsible for the operation of the vehicle, I'll bloody well drive myself and be engaged for the entire time, and don't need your autonomous car.
I'f I'm not responsible for the operation of the vehicle, I want to be in the back seat in one hell of a good safety cage with no pretense whatsoever that I'm in control.
Imagine a slightly different situation. You are a rich bloke who hires a chauffeur to do his driving for him, and some law says that you are still legally responsible for any accidents caused by your car (in most cases you would be responsible anyway - kind of. Your insurance pays, and your premium goes up). You would just try to hire a good chauffeur and fire him if he drives dangerously, but you wouldn't be constantly watching him. And that chauffeur would be a professional where you are an amateur, and therefore should be better at driving than you are.
There are two distinct things: One is that you are officially the driver even if the car drives itself, and you are responsible. But the whole point of a self driving car is that it is safer driving in a self-driving car with your eyes closed than in a non-self driving car with open eyes. You are responsible, but nobody is going to say "you are responsible because you used a self driving car without watching". They will say "you are responsible because your self-driving car caused the crash". Which will happen less often than if you drove yourself.
Right now you have to (a) watch out what you are doing and (b) pray that you don't have an accident. With a self driving car you don't need to watch out what you or the car are doing; you still have to pray that you don't have an accident.
And the whole idea of taking control in unexpected situations is nonsense. In the very best case, you would have to (1) do something to take control away from the computer and (2) react to the problem. In situations where there is enough time for that, the computer can handle things just fine. And people may think they are good in unexpected situations, but they are not.
Passwords are of no use if you have amnesia, because you don't have a clue what they are for.
But with any security question, there are always events where you say "if X happens, then you have lost and there is no point in trying to mitigate". For example, if people break into your house willing to beat you up for your passwords and kill you if you don't give them out, then you have lost.
Write your private passwords on paper, hide them somewhere in your house, if you want deposit a copy at your work place in case the house burns down (if you have a work place with your own desk that can hold private stuff), and lay off the paranoia.
No, if I release content into the public domain, a downstream user can still add proprietary extensions to it, and then sue reusers who use that fork without a icense. I'd like to license my software under a license that allows downstream users to do anything they want, except sue another downstream user.
So what if the next downstream user doesn't conform to the license by suing someone, what are you going to do? Sue them?
This is seriously a difficult problem. When you give your software to soeone else, you can either give them a license, or enter a contract. If there is a contract then you can actually force them to do something (like force them not to sue somebody else), but you may have to go to court to force them. If there is a license, then you can't force them to do anything. You can take them to court for copyright infringement if they don't conform to the license; that's how GPL works.
I'm sure it was Apple that stopped Apple from contributing to GCC. I'm thankful that they contributed to LLVM by developing Clang, but it was entirely their own choice to not contribute to GCC after 4.2.1.
It was an intentional change in the license that made it impossible for Apple to do some of the things they wanted to do.
You know what's the worst "innovation" in mobile technology? The keyboard on iOS 7. Where the keys don't change when you are typing caps vs lower case.
That would be exactly the same then as any existing keyboard on any typewrite or computer. Changing the display of the keys would be just irritating. And obviously when it counts (symbols, numbers etc. ) the display does change.
With everything, there are professional users and amateur users. For amateur users, it's important to get reasonably good results with relatively low effort without much learning. For professionals, what counts is the effort for projects the size a professional does, after learning a lot.
Trying a new programming language every week cannot give any useful information to a professional user, because the language can only be judged on how well it works for inexperienced developers on tiny projects. That's not what professionals do.
Yeah, like *I FUCKING SAID*, I'm perfectly fine with the idea that climate and weather are two different things. I just want some consistency. You can't just pick and choose weather events and say "This weather event counts as evidence, but this one doesn't." Nor can you construct a hypothesis that is so convoluted as to be supported by ALL EVIDENCE, and which is impossible to disprove. That's not science, it's religion.
Global warming means there is more energy around. Energy which can move cold air to areas where it doesn't belong. The extra energy provided by global warming is right now moving huge amounts of freezing air from the polar region where it belongs, to the USA where it doesn't belong.
His point is that it is easy to write some n-body simulation, but it is much harder to write one that gives correct results, and to prove that it follows the theory. The one you wrote in middle school probably didn't give correct results, or could you reproduce for example constant orbits in a two body problem?
It's just a bloody simple system of differential equations. n bodies, each has a location (3 coordinates) and a speed vector (3 coordinates), so you have six equations. The speed is obviously the derivative of the location, and the theory gives you the equation to calculate the derivative of the speed. Look up Fehlberg or "Adaptive Runge-Kutta-Fehlberg" and you are there.
You saw a speed-up because video and 3D are in a class of problems that are very easy to parallelize [wikipedia.org]. So is decompressing all the images in an HTML document. Laying out the document, on the other hand, isn't so easy to parallelize, if only because every floating box theoretically affects all the boxes that follow it.
But there is a lot of work to be done in parallel for every box before you can actually start the layout. Get the text, get the fonts, do all kinds of height and width calculatons, find possible break points and so on.
It might be interesting to consider that Microsoft was able to claim a trademark on "Windows", "Word" and "Excel", et. al under US of A laws. Common words.
Word and Excel are fine. They have nothing to do with the business that Microsoft is in, or with the product. "Windows" is a bit dubious because "Windows" is a computing term. Apple has trademarks for "Numbers" and "Pages".
of people setting out to the pole at summer, to highlight the damage wrought by global warming, and then getting stuck in the ice, and then their rescuers getting stuck in the ice... it really feels as if over-the-top global warming alarmism has jumped the shark. Right here
It would depend on these people's IQ. If you start with for example 20 feet of ice, then no ship is going to get stuck in there because they can't get in. If it melts to 10 feet of ice and breaks up because of global warming, then they get stuck.
Slashdot Mirror
No it won't. It will become obsolete faster as it's completely unmaintainable. Anything that breaks will be harder to deal with. Obsolete components can't be swapped out.
You are clueless. Nobody upgrades computers. Nobody.
Now if you _really_ want to upgrade a Mac, there's a very simple method: You make sure your Time Machine update is complete, you put it on eBay, get lots of money, buy a new and better Mac, and restore it from your backup and you have your computer back as it was, just better. Try that with a PC. You get _nothing_ for a used PC.
If you read the first review for this on Amazon, you'll find it runs at 120 Hz at 1920x1080 res. That's pretty nice, as most decent video cards do a good job at that res, but not even the highest end ones can hit 60 Hz at 4K, at least with good settings levels.
If that's the case, then you can switch it to 1920x1080 and watch 1920x1080 movies at either 24 or 30 fps just fine; either five or four frames in a row will display the same image.
We're headed down the freeway. Up ahead I see some teenagers standing on an overpass holding something large and watching cars pass underneath. I recognize a potential dropped rock and change lanes to get away from it. Will the computer do that?
Good that you mentioned it, so we can add that to the programming :-) Now the good news is that the self-driving car will take a high-resolution picture of the buggers and send it straight to the police (I would say that standing on an overpass and holding something large is, in fact, dangerously interfering with the traffic).
But, what happens when the stupid meat-bag in the "driver's" seat decides to hit the brakes, or fiddle with the steering wheel while in a train? Or a tire blows out? By the time you're close enough to draft the car in front of you, I would imagine you are too close for even a computer to avoid an accident (mechanical limits vs. reaction times).
If you are bumper-to-bumper you don't have an accident. The damage isn't done by cars touching. It's done by cars colliding at some speed difference. If these cars drive a two inches distance, there is very little force when they "collide".
If you programmed the breaks for my car and all of a sudden going 105 Km/h, downhill, in the rain, with the sun out and listening to the radio at a level of 43.4 db, my breaks don't work, I get into an accident and end up in the hospital. Do you really think you shouldn't be held response for this? The breaks failed because you didn't consider case N, which even though you didn't think of, doesn't mean it didn't exist.
All you need is to make my salary high enough, and I'll take that risk. By paying insurance. I heard that in the USA about 50% of the retail price of a step ladder goes towards insurance; maybe someone has a link to actual facts about it. Medical cost is also affected.
Given the two scenarios: My father (in another car) is killed when struck by someone speeding to the hospital, trying to save a family member . . . Or: my mother is killed because someone decided "to protect everyone" to limit the speed my car could travel while I was trying to take her to the hospital . . . I'd find it a lot easier to live with the first scenario, than the second. And I suspect most other people would as well.
Your father couldn't.
Simple solution: An override button. When you use it you take full responsibility for all the speeding tickets you get, and all the damage you cause. I suppose you can live with losing your driving license for crossing three red traffic lights to get your mother to the hospital.
Again, I ask, Why should the owner of a car pay insurance, when they are not in control of the vehicle?
You may own a self-not driving vehicle aka a house. You don't control where it goes; it's not supposed to go anywhere. If a roof tile drops off your roof and injures me, you are liable.
The owner of the car would be liable for the cost of an accident caused by the car because they are the owner of the car, and they are clearly in control of whether the vehicle drives or not. The owner of the car pays insurance because society demands that car owners pay insurance so victims won't get stuck with the cost.
Except 99.5% of the time really just means 100% of the time in certain cases and 0% in other cases. If it's icy outside, you may want to manually drive. It's not like you won't know it's icy out. After a few generations, those cases will almost gone, except driving "off the grid", like dirt paths.
I suppose if a self driving car says "I'm not driving here" then it might be wiser for you not to drive either. But let's say the self driving car says "this dirt track looks bad, there is a risk of damage to the car", then you might make the decision to go there or not, and if you go on the dirt track the self-driving car might do better than you - but you still might end up with damage which is your responsibility. The only situation where the car would insist on handing over driving to you is situations that it recognises and knows it isn't programmed to handle as well as a human. "Dirt track module is still under development, can't drive here".
If I'm responsible for the operation of the vehicle, I'll bloody well drive myself and be engaged for the entire time, and don't need your autonomous car.
I'f I'm not responsible for the operation of the vehicle, I want to be in the back seat in one hell of a good safety cage with no pretense whatsoever that I'm in control.
Imagine a slightly different situation. You are a rich bloke who hires a chauffeur to do his driving for him, and some law says that you are still legally responsible for any accidents caused by your car (in most cases you would be responsible anyway - kind of. Your insurance pays, and your premium goes up). You would just try to hire a good chauffeur and fire him if he drives dangerously, but you wouldn't be constantly watching him. And that chauffeur would be a professional where you are an amateur, and therefore should be better at driving than you are.
There are two distinct things: One is that you are officially the driver even if the car drives itself, and you are responsible. But the whole point of a self driving car is that it is safer driving in a self-driving car with your eyes closed than in a non-self driving car with open eyes. You are responsible, but nobody is going to say "you are responsible because you used a self driving car without watching". They will say "you are responsible because your self-driving car caused the crash". Which will happen less often than if you drove yourself.
Right now you have to (a) watch out what you are doing and (b) pray that you don't have an accident. With a self driving car you don't need to watch out what you or the car are doing; you still have to pray that you don't have an accident.
And the whole idea of taking control in unexpected situations is nonsense. In the very best case, you would have to (1) do something to take control away from the computer and (2) react to the problem. In situations where there is enough time for that, the computer can handle things just fine. And people may think they are good in unexpected situations, but they are not.
Passwords are of no use if you have amnesia, because you don't have a clue what they are for.
But with any security question, there are always events where you say "if X happens, then you have lost and there is no point in trying to mitigate". For example, if people break into your house willing to beat you up for your passwords and kill you if you don't give them out, then you have lost.
Write your private passwords on paper, hide them somewhere in your house, if you want deposit a copy at your work place in case the house burns down (if you have a work place with your own desk that can hold private stuff), and lay off the paranoia.
The text contains 100 characters.
How much memory should I allocate for UTF8, without wasting memory?
Beginner's question. The text contains 100 bytes, how much memory should you allocate? You rarely care how many characters there are.
No, if I release content into the public domain, a downstream user can still add proprietary extensions to it, and then sue reusers who use that fork without a icense. I'd like to license my software under a license that allows downstream users to do anything they want, except sue another downstream user.
So what if the next downstream user doesn't conform to the license by suing someone, what are you going to do? Sue them?
This is seriously a difficult problem. When you give your software to soeone else, you can either give them a license, or enter a contract. If there is a contract then you can actually force them to do something (like force them not to sue somebody else), but you may have to go to court to force them. If there is a license, then you can't force them to do anything. You can take them to court for copyright infringement if they don't conform to the license; that's how GPL works.
The browser warning is correct. You don't know the identity of the computer you are connecting to. Only that it was signed at some point, by somebody.
You know something more. It was signed at some point, by somebody who is either you or pretending to be you. Well, not helpful.
I'm sure it was Apple that stopped Apple from contributing to GCC. I'm thankful that they contributed to LLVM by developing Clang, but it was entirely their own choice to not contribute to GCC after 4.2.1.
It was an intentional change in the license that made it impossible for Apple to do some of the things they wanted to do.
You know what's the worst "innovation" in mobile technology? The keyboard on iOS 7. Where the keys don't change when you are typing caps vs lower case.
That would be exactly the same then as any existing keyboard on any typewrite or computer. Changing the display of the keys would be just irritating. And obviously when it counts (symbols, numbers etc. ) the display does change.
With everything, there are professional users and amateur users. For amateur users, it's important to get reasonably good results with relatively low effort without much learning. For professionals, what counts is the effort for projects the size a professional does, after learning a lot.
Trying a new programming language every week cannot give any useful information to a professional user, because the language can only be judged on how well it works for inexperienced developers on tiny projects. That's not what professionals do.
Yeah, like *I FUCKING SAID*, I'm perfectly fine with the idea that climate and weather are two different things. I just want some consistency. You can't just pick and choose weather events and say "This weather event counts as evidence, but this one doesn't." Nor can you construct a hypothesis that is so convoluted as to be supported by ALL EVIDENCE, and which is impossible to disprove. That's not science, it's religion.
Global warming means there is more energy around. Energy which can move cold air to areas where it doesn't belong. The extra energy provided by global warming is right now moving huge amounts of freezing air from the polar region where it belongs, to the USA where it doesn't belong.
His point is that it is easy to write some n-body simulation, but it is much harder to write one that gives correct results, and to prove that it follows the theory. The one you wrote in middle school probably didn't give correct results, or could you reproduce for example constant orbits in a two body problem?
It's just a bloody simple system of differential equations. n bodies, each has a location (3 coordinates) and a speed vector (3 coordinates), so you have six equations. The speed is obviously the derivative of the location, and the theory gives you the equation to calculate the derivative of the speed. Look up Fehlberg or "Adaptive Runge-Kutta-Fehlberg" and you are there.
In the UK, both companies sell their product as Budweiser.
One of them sells beer.
You saw a speed-up because video and 3D are in a class of problems that are very easy to parallelize [wikipedia.org]. So is decompressing all the images in an HTML document. Laying out the document, on the other hand, isn't so easy to parallelize, if only because every floating box theoretically affects all the boxes that follow it.
But there is a lot of work to be done in parallel for every box before you can actually start the layout. Get the text, get the fonts, do all kinds of height and width calculatons, find possible break points and so on.
It might be interesting to consider that Microsoft was able to claim a trademark on "Windows", "Word" and "Excel", et. al under US of A laws. Common words.
Word and Excel are fine. They have nothing to do with the business that Microsoft is in, or with the product. "Windows" is a bit dubious because "Windows" is a computing term. Apple has trademarks for "Numbers" and "Pages".
Ha ha ha! land-only. The earth is 66% ocean bro. You were just caught cherry picking while blaming someone else for cherry picking.
And soon it will be 67%.
of people setting out to the pole at summer, to highlight the damage wrought by global warming, and then getting stuck in the ice, and then their rescuers getting stuck in the ice... it really feels as if over-the-top global warming alarmism has jumped the shark. Right here
It would depend on these people's IQ. If you start with for example 20 feet of ice, then no ship is going to get stuck in there because they can't get in. If it melts to 10 feet of ice and breaks up because of global warming, then they get stuck.
C/C++ is undefined behavior. Don't do that, kids!
Not in Java. In Java, it is defined to yield 1 and increase C by 1.