stereotype A conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image. Since you apparently haven't learned anything about history, let me educate you. Jews, from the time of Pharoh to today, have met with an incredible amount of anti-semetism. This has been the case anywhere from Russia to America. (Richard Feynman couldn't get into Columbia because of racial quotas) The state of Israel was created to deal with this by providing a safe haven for jews, a new zion, especially after the Holocaust.
(Zion An idealized, harmonious community; utopia.)
As for the Jews being racists, find one example that shows that the majority of the Jews have ever engaged in mass racism. As you cannot, I must conclude that you were either trolling, or a moronic "activist" whining about the plight of the Palestinians or Mumia Abu-Jamal
Political correctness isn't about rudeness, it's about not "offending" a certain group, where being offended does not correlate with rudeness but with imagined slights. An example from answers.com shows how insane this is, as the PC term hearing impaired is active in conveying the impairment, while deaf is just neutral. It's not just people being stupid, it completely muddles the languages, making communication more difficult than it already is. See here for more.
>In reality, it isn't a "gaseous medium" that imposes the maximum velocity, it's the velocity of the mass the ship is ejecting from its engine(s) that imposes it.
The GP is correct. It's the momentum of the ejected mass that imposes the limiting velocity. Since momentum must be conserved, the final velocity a ship has = v_ship = delta-p/m_ship.
If it took an apple falling on Newton's head for him to discover gravity, then I think someone's head fusing would sorta prevent any further investigation.
Ok, yeah, I figured that since I'd say none of the users of this site have a Power5 or other such behmoth at home that they could be igonored. True about benchmarks, the only *real* benchmark is the time it takes to computer to process, but spec is the best I know of short of that, espeically compared to MIPS and MHz, or whetstone and dhrystone. And if spec performance is anything close to reality, then the point still stands that x86 dominates the *home* market for speed.
Extrapolating linearly results for a 2.5GHz, x86 is still about 1.5x to 1.75x on ints, and 1.4x to 2x on floats. From this I must conclude that you are as the subject says, or that "pounds into the ground" has aquired the slang usage meaning "is pwnd". For some reason, IBM PPC processors seem to have aquired Jobs' RDF, from the G5 to Cell.
>the popular consensus WAS that PPC's WERE better than anything in the x86 camp. That is, during the G4 era. And, as usual, popular concensus turns out to be wrong. The x86 still dominates any other processor available today in raw speed, though not on throughput. If you want to program in assembly, it's easier for a beginner to pickup risc because of its regularity, but I highly doubt most that the people complianing about the ISA actually used it and were just complaining that it seemed to them to be unelegant, and today it's pretty much a non-issue, as evidenced by the fact that special instructions like SSE2 are automatically used by compilers, making it unnecessary and actually more harmful sometimes to code assembly due to the way modern CPUs schedule instructions.
>it pushed more numbers with far less power I'll give you that it required less power per flop, but check the results about to see how the mythical power of the g4 was all apple hype.
>AltiVec showed a ton of promise According to wiki, Altivec has been around since the late-1990s, while SSE2, comparable in power to it, debuted in 2001. Any chance that Altivec would improve performance would've happened, and IBM and Motorola even had a falling out over whether to include it, according to the register.
The PPC has not been comparable in performance to anything offered by x86 for years. It added no competition to the market. I bid it good riddence so Apple might actually do some innovation that is actually about usability, instead of blatent lies about performance.
As for petty whining about Microsoft having a monopoly - guess what, Windows and x86 have succeeded where Apple failed because they understood what the market, and engineered it to be good enough, as opposed to being control freaks about the purity of their products.
BritneySpears14: I slip out of my pants, just for you, bloodninja.
Google: Womens' pants. Sale at jjill.com.
bloodninja: Oh yeah, aight. Aight, I put on my robe and wizard hat.
Iran's President Mohammad Khatami issued a brief statement today saying, "I call upon all true Iranians to find smooth wombat and slit his throat. Also, I recommend http://www.falafel-bymail.com/ for all your falafel needs."
The movie studios *were* barred from owning theaters due to the 50's Paramont case, but relaxed restrictions in the 80's have allowed them once more to tighten their grip. See here for more
Scene: 2 am, Upper South Side. It's drizzling and there's a slight wind. SatanicPuppy turns up his collar to the cold and damp. He hurridly walks along, always anxious to get these meetings out of the way. A car cruises by. He pauses, slightly alarmed, but it keeps going. Stopping to light a ciggarette, he takes a futive look around, then quickly turns into the alleyway. It takes a few moments for his eyes to adjust to the sudden darkness, but then his sees the dull red glow of a cigarette.
"You're late", his contact says, his voice monotone. "There was trouble, I had to be absolutely sure that no one suspects anything's going on", he nervously replies. His contact continues smoking his cigarette. Stammering, he blurts out "I've got the money." "Good." After another long pause, his contact take a drag from his cigarette and continues "The files are at..." rattling off a random sounding website and the password. His contact takes the money, vanishing into the darkness. SatanicPuppy sighs, makes sure he has the info perfectly memorized, and walks away, thinking how much easier it would be if he had internet access.
There *should* be a simple way to estimate whether the BSD or GPL style promotes more open source: Y = # of users using project X code Z = Average usage of project X code, from 0-1 "Goodness" of license = Sum Y*Z over all projects X. However, given that you'd need to do some serious analysis of survey data to find out how close people are to reporting the truth, it very probably is impossible.
>Comparisons of policy are not invalidated by exceptions of personal behavior of one or even several leaders of any nation.
Correct.
It would however take an editor of Pravda to believe that Krushchev's actions were anything but typical of the actions of pretty much any Soviet politician and therefore policy, as with American politicians and American policy. The politicians make the policy.
To be fair to me, Kennedy didn't bang his shoe at the UN yelling "We will bury you!" either, it was just a comparison of the the typical actions of the govt in response to the parent equating America's goals with the Soviet Union's goals. However, I did think Krushchev did both at the same time.
As for the American military's stated aim, I assume you mean this part "dissuade future military competition". I don't see how military competition could be construed as a plan to rule the world, and the first google link says this about military competition "The aim is not to prevail over a competitor; it is to avoid a competition." So really, the US just wants to avoid another arms race like with the Soviets.
>That's funny, because in Soviet Russia, the USA was considered an enemy because the Soviets were in the way of the US accomplishing their stated goal of world conquest.
That explains Kennedy pounding his shoe on the table at the UN as he yelled "We will bury you!". Go learn something about the USSR and its brutal repression of its people before you make invalid comparisons.
I lost all illusions at the NSA's coolness when the recruiter came to UIUC. I fully expected some badass in an immaculate suit with sunglasses and an earpiece, generally looking badass. Instead they send some nerd. That was the day I knew that the terrorists had won.
Slashdot Mirror
>The stereotype is that Jews are victimized.
stereotype A conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image.
Since you apparently haven't learned anything about history, let me educate you. Jews, from the time of Pharoh to today, have met with an incredible amount of anti-semetism. This has been the case anywhere from Russia to America. (Richard Feynman couldn't get into Columbia because of racial quotas) The state of Israel was created to deal with this by providing a safe haven for jews, a new zion, especially after the Holocaust. (Zion An idealized, harmonious community; utopia.)
As for the Jews being racists, find one example that shows that the majority of the Jews have ever engaged in mass racism. As you cannot, I must conclude that you were either trolling, or a moronic "activist" whining about the plight of the Palestinians or Mumia Abu-Jamal
Political correctness isn't about rudeness, it's about not "offending" a certain group, where being offended does not correlate with rudeness but with imagined slights. An example from answers.com shows how insane this is, as the PC term hearing impaired is active in conveying the impairment, while deaf is just neutral. It's not just people being stupid, it completely muddles the languages, making communication more difficult than it already is.
See here for more.
>In reality, it isn't a "gaseous medium" that imposes the maximum velocity, it's the velocity of the mass the ship is ejecting from its engine(s) that imposes it.
The GP is correct. It's the momentum of the ejected mass that imposes the limiting velocity.
Since momentum must be conserved, the final velocity a ship has = v_ship = delta-p/m_ship.
If it took an apple falling on Newton's head for him to discover gravity, then I think someone's head fusing would sorta prevent any further investigation.
I am the inventor of fusion,
I must now clear up some confusion.
If the fusion is hot,
As this is clearly not.
Then a breadbox you ain't using.
Ok, yeah, I figured that since I'd say none of the users of this site have a Power5 or other such behmoth at home that they could be igonored.
True about benchmarks, the only *real* benchmark is the time it takes to computer to process, but spec is the best I know of short of that, espeically compared to MIPS and MHz, or whetstone and dhrystone. And if spec performance is anything close to reality, then the point still stands that x86 dominates the *home* market for speed.
>To this day, a Dual 2.5GHz G5 still pounds a 3+GHz P4/AMD whatev into the ground
See here
Top 20 2-way SPEC systems
Top 20 SPECint_rate2000
2 2600 Opteron 40.5 36.1
6 3200 Pentium 4 Xeon 34.3 32.9
10 2200 PowerPC 970 21.5 20.2
Top 20 SPECfp_rate2000
2600 Opteron 45.8 42.3
3600 Pentium 4 Xeon 28.6 28.2
2200 PowerPC 970 20 19.2
Extrapolating linearly results for a 2.5GHz, x86 is still about 1.5x to 1.75x on ints, and 1.4x to 2x on floats. From this I must conclude that you are as the subject says, or that "pounds into the ground" has aquired the slang usage meaning "is pwnd".
For some reason, IBM PPC processors seem to have aquired Jobs' RDF, from the G5 to Cell.
>the popular consensus WAS that PPC's WERE better than anything in the x86 camp. That is, during the G4 era.
And, as usual, popular concensus turns out to be wrong.
The x86 still dominates any other processor available today in raw speed, though not on throughput. If you want to program in assembly, it's easier for a beginner to pickup risc because of its regularity, but I highly doubt most that the people complianing about the ISA actually used it and were just complaining that it seemed to them to be unelegant, and today it's pretty much a non-issue, as evidenced by the fact that special instructions like SSE2 are automatically used by compilers, making it unnecessary and actually more harmful sometimes to code assembly due to the way modern CPUs schedule instructions.
>it pushed more numbers with far less power
I'll give you that it required less power per flop, but check the results about to see how the mythical power of the g4 was all apple hype.
>AltiVec showed a ton of promise
According to wiki, Altivec has been around since the late-1990s, while SSE2, comparable in power to it, debuted in 2001. Any chance that Altivec would improve performance would've happened, and IBM and Motorola even had a falling out over whether to include it, according to the register.
The PPC has not been comparable in performance to anything offered by x86 for years. It added no competition to the market. I bid it good riddence so Apple might actually do some innovation that is actually about usability, instead of blatent lies about performance.
As for petty whining about Microsoft having a monopoly - guess what, Windows and x86 have succeeded where Apple failed because they understood what the market, and engineered it to be good enough, as opposed to being control freaks about the purity of their products.
Don't you mean:
BritneySpears14: I slip out of my pants, just for you, bloodninja.
Google: Womens' pants. Sale at jjill.com.
bloodninja: Oh yeah, aight. Aight, I put on my robe and wizard hat.
Iran's President Mohammad Khatami issued a brief statement today saying, "I call upon all true Iranians to find smooth wombat and slit his throat. Also, I recommend http://www.falafel-bymail.com/ for all your falafel needs."
Can anyone who's read the Torah comment on whether these verses were accurately translated from Hebrew to Latin/Greek to English?
The "Anonymous Coward"'s posts seem to vary wildly, from GNAA trolls, to reasoned, insightful, informative posts such as this.
The movie studios *were* barred from owning theaters due to the 50's Paramont case, but relaxed restrictions in the 80's have allowed them once more to tighten their grip. See here for more
google for "united artists" holdings
That's the default response to something that they don't have video for.
Scene: 2 am, Upper South Side. It's drizzling and there's a slight wind.
SatanicPuppy turns up his collar to the cold and damp. He hurridly walks along, always anxious to get these meetings out of the way. A car cruises by. He pauses, slightly alarmed, but it keeps going. Stopping to light a ciggarette, he takes a futive look around, then quickly turns into the alleyway. It takes a few moments for his eyes to adjust to the sudden darkness, but then his sees the dull red glow of a cigarette.
"You're late", his contact says, his voice monotone.
"There was trouble, I had to be absolutely sure that no one suspects anything's going on", he nervously replies.
His contact continues smoking his cigarette.
Stammering, he blurts out "I've got the money."
"Good."
After another long pause, his contact take a drag from his cigarette and continues "The files are at..." rattling off a random sounding website and the password.
His contact takes the money, vanishing into the darkness. SatanicPuppy sighs, makes sure he has the info perfectly memorized, and walks away, thinking how much easier it would be if he had internet access.
There *should* be a simple way to estimate whether the BSD or GPL style promotes more open source:
Y = # of users using project X code
Z = Average usage of project X code, from 0-1
"Goodness" of license = Sum Y*Z over all projects X.
However, given that you'd need to do some serious analysis of survey data to find out how close people are to reporting the truth, it very probably is impossible.
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
That's not a fire, that's a spoon.
Where's the scientific proof for global warming, and that we are the cause of it?
>Comparisons of policy are not invalidated by exceptions of personal behavior of one or even several leaders of any nation.
Correct.
It would however take an editor of Pravda to believe that Krushchev's actions were anything but typical of the actions of pretty much any Soviet politician and therefore policy, as with American politicians and American policy. The politicians make the policy.
To be fair to me, Kennedy didn't bang his shoe at the UN yelling "We will bury you!" either, it was just a comparison of the the typical actions of the govt in response to the parent equating America's goals with the Soviet Union's goals. However, I did think Krushchev did both at the same time.
As for the American military's stated aim, I assume you mean this part "dissuade future military competition". I don't see how military competition could be construed as a plan to rule the world, and the first google link says this about military competition "The aim is not to prevail over a competitor; it is to avoid a competition." So really, the US just wants to avoid another arms race like with the Soviets.
Who?
>That's funny, because in Soviet Russia, the USA was considered an enemy because the Soviets were in the way of the US accomplishing their stated goal of world conquest.
That explains Kennedy pounding his shoe on the table at the UN as he yelled "We will bury you!". Go learn something about the USSR and its brutal repression of its people before you make invalid comparisons.
I lost all illusions at the NSA's coolness when the recruiter came to UIUC. I fully expected some badass in an immaculate suit with sunglasses and an earpiece, generally looking badass. Instead they send some nerd. That was the day I knew that the terrorists had won.