64 bit pointers can be very useful in languages like Java and Smalltalk that run on virtual machines. In most current Smalltalks the basic data type fed to the VM is a 32 bit object pointer (OOP). The first 2 bits of the OOP are used as a tag to tell the VM what the OOP represents. One of the four possible tags means "my other 30 bits are a pointer to an object header", another means "my other 30 bits are an integer in the range -(2^29 - 1) to 2^29", another could be "I have a 16 bit Unicode char in my two lowest bytes", and so on. Given that one tag is used to denote a pointer to an object header, up to three types can be represented as immediate objects, so long as they each can fit in the 30 non-tag bits. Since they don't have to pay the indirection penalty, operations on immediate objects can be much faster than the equivalent ops on non-immediate objects. In the Smalltalk implementations I am familiar with, floating point arithmetic is very slow compared to C, while integer performance is not so bad, due to the immediate representation of most integers.
With a 64 bit OOP, you can afford to devote more bits to the tag, and thus represent more data types in the immediate form. For example, if you use four tag bits, 15 data types can be immediate (you have to leave one tag to designate the non-immediate types). A 32 bit float can now be immediate. If you're willing to devote four of the 15 tags to it, you can have immediate 62 bit floats, enough to implement a double with a 9 bit exponent rather than the IEEE 11 bit exponent, but with the same 52 bit mantissa. So you lose some range, but no precision.
64 bit pointers will also help in mapping really large files into memory, but that's another story....
Because if they are invented by man, there's no reason anyone should feel bound by them. As men, we are all moral equals, so who among us has the stature to say what is moral and what isn't? Who gave other men the right to tell me what is right and wrong?
To say that morality exists is to say that there is something higher than yourself to which you owe allegiance. This something cannot be of your own invention, because if you invented it, you can change it whenever you feel like it. If so, it doesn't really constrain you at all and the term morality becomes meaningless.
On USENET, there's a rule that as soon as someone mentions Hitler or calls someone a Nazi, the thread is dead. In discussions like this one, the equivalent is bringing up the subject of slavery. So here goes:
Assume it's 1859 and I'm a slaveholder. I presume you disapprove of my enslaving my fellow man. Why? What gives you the right to object? By your lights, we all get to form our own opinions about morality without any reference to quaint notions of absolute right and wrong. It is all merely a matter of opinion, so my opinion in favor of slavery is just as good as your opinion against it.
And so it goes on issue after issue. Theft? What is property but a social convention anyway? Rape? Why not, you might enjoy it! Lying? If there is no Truth, how can you call anything a lie? And so on. If morality is just a matter of opinion, than anything I can get away with is OK.
It is one thing to say that we are not always sure that we know what is right in a given situation. It is another thing entirely to say that nothing is really right or wrong. The first is consistent with the Platonic idealism, i.e., the belief that ideas are real things that we can discover. The second leads to nilhilism.
How does a way of thought get to be old, i.e., traditional, in the first place? Usually it is because it seems valid to a lot of people over a long period of time. This is not something to be dismissed lightly. It's a lot like music. Sure, there was a lot of bad popular music made decades ago, but the old music that still gets played is likely to be pretty good stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
64 bit pointers can be very useful in languages like Java and Smalltalk that run on virtual machines. In most current Smalltalks the basic data type fed to the VM is a 32 bit object pointer (OOP). The first 2 bits of the OOP are used as a tag to tell the VM what the OOP represents. One of the four possible tags means "my other 30 bits are a pointer to an object header", another means "my other 30 bits are an integer in the range -(2^29 - 1) to 2^29", another could be "I have a 16 bit Unicode char in my two lowest bytes", and so on. Given that one tag is used to denote a pointer to an object header, up to three types can be represented as immediate objects, so long as they each can fit in the 30 non-tag bits. Since they don't have to pay the indirection penalty, operations on immediate objects can be much faster than the equivalent ops on non-immediate objects. In the Smalltalk implementations I am familiar with, floating point arithmetic is very slow compared to C, while integer performance is not so bad, due to the immediate representation of most integers.
With a 64 bit OOP, you can afford to devote more bits to the tag, and thus represent more data types in the immediate form. For example, if you use four tag bits, 15 data types can be immediate (you have to leave one tag to designate the non-immediate types). A 32 bit float can now be immediate. If you're willing to devote four of the 15 tags to it, you can have immediate 62 bit floats, enough to implement a double with a 9 bit exponent rather than the IEEE 11 bit exponent, but with the same 52 bit mantissa. So you lose some range, but no precision.
64 bit pointers will also help in mapping really large files into memory, but that's another story....
Hmm...
On my system, ls -l looks like this:
-rw-rw-r-- 1 username group fileSize date name
so that `ls -l | awk '{print $3}' | grep "juser" `
is just juser repeated as many times as there are files owned by juser. In short, your command doesn't work.
It seems to me you've just made an argument for a GUI interface.
Because if they are invented by man, there's no reason anyone should feel bound by them. As men, we are all moral equals, so who among us has the stature to say what is moral and what isn't? Who gave other men the right to tell me what is right and wrong?
To say that morality exists is to say that there is something higher than yourself to which you owe allegiance. This something cannot be of your own invention, because if you invented it, you can change it whenever you feel like it. If so, it doesn't really constrain you at all and the term morality becomes meaningless.
On USENET, there's a rule that as soon as someone mentions Hitler or calls someone a Nazi, the thread is dead. In discussions like this one, the equivalent is bringing up the subject of slavery. So here goes:
Assume it's 1859 and I'm a slaveholder. I presume you disapprove of my enslaving my fellow man. Why? What gives you the right to object? By your lights, we all get to form our own opinions about morality without any reference to quaint notions of absolute right and wrong. It is all merely a matter of opinion, so my opinion in favor of slavery is just as good as your opinion against it.
And so it goes on issue after issue. Theft? What is property but a social convention anyway? Rape? Why not, you might enjoy it! Lying? If there is no Truth, how can you call anything a lie? And so on. If morality is just a matter of opinion, than anything I can get away with is OK.
It is one thing to say that we are not always sure that we know what is right in a given situation. It is another thing entirely to say that nothing is really right or wrong. The first is consistent with the Platonic idealism, i.e., the belief that ideas are real things that we can discover. The second leads to nilhilism.
How does a way of thought get to be old, i.e., traditional, in the first place? Usually it is because it seems valid to a lot of people over a long period of time. This is not something to be dismissed lightly. It's a lot like music. Sure, there was a lot of bad popular music made decades ago, but the old music that still gets played is likely to be pretty good stuff.