3d tends to require fractions. While the nintendo ds does not have an fpu, the gpu in it uses fixed point arithmetic (in 1.4.11 format I think? it has been a while) for the projection/model view matrices.
floating point is far better for these uses, not having an fpu imposes serious limitations and work arounds on 3d work
If you honestly don't think 3d is better served by an fpu, I'd heavily encourage you to try writing a software renderer that does not use them (all pc graphics cards these days are essentially a bunch of _hundreds_ of floating point units)
In what sense is the belief that men and women/should/ earn equal pay for equal work falsifiable?
How about the belief that a woman has the/right/ to choose? Falsifiable or not?
These are morals/ethics
Morals are generally based off values/goals, both of those can be arbitrary. Sure certain morals can convey a survival benefit etc, but survival itself could be considered a goal. Some values are more common among people because of psychological (and thus biological) traits, but even that depends on genetics and is only part of it. Morals are a human construct, not an inherent aspect of the universe like things such as gravity etc.
Which is why, when people go "x is ethically right" the instant rebuttle tends to be "to whose ethics? and why?" and they usually wind up without a reason except for "it just is". Which is not exactly a convincing argument.
Seems like you would have a very restricted set of beliefs, all based on readily observable physical phenomena. No higher level human function.
Not really, it just means being analytical with everything, even human function. Sociology is applied psychology is applied biology is applied chemistry is applied physics. We are biological machines responding to external stimuli.
So.. waterfront land costs the same as a typical industrial block where you are from?
While they may save money on purchasing AC units, they can expend far more on other factors because of those choices, the real savings are in running costs.
So when you see atheism vs. Christianity, do you really think "wow those have nothing in common except they are both words." Or do you think "Yeah that's two sets of beliefs about the answers to religious questions."
I agree with this, I never said that many people can not have many values/goals that are similar and some of those similarities are from biology, e.g. the wish to find a partner and procreate, the wish to survive, etc etc.
I was simply countering that ethics is not a clear cut thing, one mans evil is another mans normal, and so using the argument 'I am morally right' means nothing if the person you are talking to does not have that moral, and it cannot be used in the sense that "I am morally right, therefore inherently right" like so many try to do.
But evolution is not a religious conviction (in the way that atheism is)
How is atheism a religious conviction, when the overwhelming majority of atheists are quite simply saying 'I will not believe in unfalsifiable mumbo jumbo, there is no reason nor could there ever be to prefer "god exists" as a conjecture, so I will treat it like other unfalsifiable claims such as the tooth fairy'?
The only difference between atheism and agnosticism is how agressively they push 'unfalsifiable items are bullshit', in reality the two points are the same but one is more politically accepted even though both positions refuse to accept something without evidence (which can never be supplied, because for there to be evidence something has to be falsifiable)
Most atheists simply do not see the point in believing unfalsifiable claims, while I'm sure there are some out there that assert there is no god, I have certainly not encountered any.
The only difference between agnostics and atheists in practice is how aggressive they come across to the religious. In general both recognize that the claims of religion and god etc can never have supporting or detracting evidence because evidence is simply tests which can fail but have yet to. The unfalsifiable nature of the claims lead religion to have no reason to be the preferred conjecture.
Where do you get that info? In the US they can't even ask a question about religion on their census.
Religion
The Bureau of the Census collected information in the Census of Religious Bodies from 1906-1936. This information was obtained from religious organizations.
Public Law 94-521 prohibits us from asking a question on religious affiliation on a mandatory basis; therefore, the Bureau of the Census is not the source for information on religion.
Also data centers are always looking for ways to make their construction cheaper (like Google using lake water or ambient air to cool their centers) than making them look better.
In a similar fashion, science shows precisely when abortion is no longer ethical, and it is when the baby develops a substantial part of its central nervous system.
Science may show the mental capacity of the fetus and it's ability to feel etc however by no means does this show when it is no longer ethical.
Ethics deal with morals, morals are generally based off values/goals, both of those can be arbitrary. Sure certain morals can convey a survival benefit etc, but survival itself could be considered a goal. Morals are a human construct, not an inherent aspect of the universe like things such as gravity etc.
And so the instant rebuttle to 'x is ethical' is generally, to whose ethics?
You'll be very hard pressed to pose a question which Christian theologians haven't come to grips with over the past 1900 years.
The problem of induction.
Religion cannot get by without the use of inductive reasoning, but the use of inductive reasoning is the very source of severe logical errors (false cause, etc etc).
Critical rationalism gets by without inductive reasoning at all, and science functions under that theory of epistemology, religion, and well, any other unfalsifiable claim, does not survive, there is no reason to prefer one conjecture over the other for items that are not falsifiable.
Depends on who you talk to about buddhism, some people consider the soul etc talk to be simply fanciful stories used to entertain or tell a point, since to my knowledge a major aspect of buddhism is to be sceptical of everything (even buddhist teachings itself) it fits just nicely, even a false tale can be fit for purpose depending upon the intended purpose.
As a side effect everyone winds up having different thoughts/beliefs etc.
It would explain the relatively small proportion of the population that atheism makes up, as well as why that small proportion is spread throughout the world with no great central region to call home.
I'd say australia is doing fairly well with the atheist business, the census five years ago indicated that approx 30% of australians don't believe in god. And of those that are religious australia has among the lowest church attendance rates in the world, even the believers rate it fairly low on their priorities placing family, work, leisure time and even politics ahead of it.
I don't know anyone who is "pro abortion", but plenty who are "pro choice".
Pro life and pro choice are just market speak, the real issue is for or against the ability of women to legally have abortions. People who use pro life and pro choice are attempting to change the framing in order to get people on their side.
imho, people should be blunt about a topic, speaking as eloquently as possible about their real point without trying to dodge things. This is not a dig at you, but at oh so many idealists that refuse to do so.
This is not a problem in linux land, and this is precisely why everything is going over to gallium3d etc.
When it comes down to it all programmable gpus provide similar functionality, shader units, etc etc, galluim3d serves as the abstraction layer so all of the higher level stuff goes on top.
In the end all you need for the driver is the low level workings of it to provide a state tracker to the abstraction layer that it understands, the rest is already done (or in the process of already being done). Code re-use, it is useful.
They expected their enemy to act as gentlemen and respect a code of civility amongst the war and death, while not ideal in a war situation I think it was quite respectable.
It is the difference between standing to face your enemy, letting them know you are going to fight them, and engaging in a fair fight. Vs stabbing them in the back while they aren't looking.
Sure, the second has a far likelier chance of you winning, but the brits of the day did not consider that kind of behaviour respectable.
Lawyers wind up becoming judges and are rather influential, there is no incentive to make the law system simple enough for the common man, because the more complex it is the more they benefit.
Slashdot Mirror
3d tends to require fractions. While the nintendo ds does not have an fpu, the gpu in it uses fixed point arithmetic (in 1.4.11 format I think? it has been a while) for the projection/model view matrices.
floating point is far better for these uses, not having an fpu imposes serious limitations and work arounds on 3d work
If you honestly don't think 3d is better served by an fpu, I'd heavily encourage you to try writing a software renderer that does not use them (all pc graphics cards these days are essentially a bunch of _hundreds_ of floating point units)
Of course, this could turn into a MAD type of scenario...
You make it sound like that's a bad thing.
Exactly. ARM2 didn't have FP, people still wrote some extremely good stuff for it.
Nintendo DS doesn't have an fpu on either cpu.
In what sense is the belief that men and women /should/ earn equal pay for equal work falsifiable?
How about the belief that a woman has the /right/ to choose? Falsifiable or not?
These are morals/ethics
Morals are generally based off values/goals, both of those can be arbitrary. Sure certain morals can convey a survival benefit etc, but survival itself could be considered a goal. Some values are more common among people because of psychological (and thus biological) traits, but even that depends on genetics and is only part of it. Morals are a human construct, not an inherent aspect of the universe like things such as gravity etc.
Which is why, when people go "x is ethically right" the instant rebuttle tends to be "to whose ethics? and why?" and they usually wind up without a reason except for "it just is". Which is not exactly a convincing argument.
Seems like you would have a very restricted set of beliefs, all based on readily observable physical phenomena. No higher level human function.
Not really, it just means being analytical with everything, even human function. Sociology is applied psychology is applied biology is applied chemistry is applied physics. We are biological machines responding to external stimuli.
So.. waterfront land costs the same as a typical industrial block where you are from?
While they may save money on purchasing AC units, they can expend far more on other factors because of those choices, the real savings are in running costs.
So when you see atheism vs. Christianity, do you really think "wow those have nothing in common except they are both words." Or do you think "Yeah that's two sets of beliefs about the answers to religious questions."
That is easy, reason vs faith.
I know it is done because it works, I just find it reprehensible.
Also quite frustrating when you point it out to people and they call you 'evil' or some such, just for wanting to discuss a point plainly.
I agree with this, I never said that many people can not have many values/goals that are similar and some of those similarities are from biology, e.g. the wish to find a partner and procreate, the wish to survive, etc etc.
I was simply countering that ethics is not a clear cut thing, one mans evil is another mans normal, and so using the argument 'I am morally right' means nothing if the person you are talking to does not have that moral, and it cannot be used in the sense that "I am morally right, therefore inherently right" like so many try to do.
But evolution is not a religious conviction (in the way that atheism is)
How is atheism a religious conviction, when the overwhelming majority of atheists are quite simply saying 'I will not believe in unfalsifiable mumbo jumbo, there is no reason nor could there ever be to prefer "god exists" as a conjecture, so I will treat it like other unfalsifiable claims such as the tooth fairy'?
The only difference between atheism and agnosticism is how agressively they push 'unfalsifiable items are bullshit', in reality the two points are the same but one is more politically accepted even though both positions refuse to accept something without evidence (which can never be supplied, because for there to be evidence something has to be falsifiable)
Atheists *believe* there is no god
Most atheists simply do not see the point in believing unfalsifiable claims, while I'm sure there are some out there that assert there is no god, I have certainly not encountered any.
The only difference between agnostics and atheists in practice is how aggressive they come across to the religious. In general both recognize that the claims of religion and god etc can never have supporting or detracting evidence because evidence is simply tests which can fail but have yet to. The unfalsifiable nature of the claims lead religion to have no reason to be the preferred conjecture.
Where do you get that info? In the US they can't even ask a question about religion on their census.
Religion
The Bureau of the Census collected information in the Census of Religious Bodies from 1906-1936. This information was obtained from religious organizations.
Public Law 94-521 prohibits us from asking a question on religious affiliation on a mandatory basis; therefore, the Bureau of the Census is not the source for information on religion.
Also data centers are always looking for ways to make their construction cheaper (like Google using lake water or ambient air to cool their centers) than making them look better.
Those are running costs, not construction costs.
In a similar fashion, science shows precisely when abortion is no longer ethical, and it is when the baby develops a substantial part of its central nervous system.
Science may show the mental capacity of the fetus and it's ability to feel etc however by no means does this show when it is no longer ethical.
Ethics deal with morals, morals are generally based off values/goals, both of those can be arbitrary. Sure certain morals can convey a survival benefit etc, but survival itself could be considered a goal. Morals are a human construct, not an inherent aspect of the universe like things such as gravity etc.
And so the instant rebuttle to 'x is ethical' is generally, to whose ethics?
You'll be very hard pressed to pose a question which Christian theologians haven't come to grips with over the past 1900 years.
The problem of induction.
Religion cannot get by without the use of inductive reasoning, but the use of inductive reasoning is the very source of severe logical errors (false cause, etc etc).
Critical rationalism gets by without inductive reasoning at all, and science functions under that theory of epistemology, religion, and well, any other unfalsifiable claim, does not survive, there is no reason to prefer one conjecture over the other for items that are not falsifiable.
Depends on who you talk to about buddhism, some people consider the soul etc talk to be simply fanciful stories used to entertain or tell a point, since to my knowledge a major aspect of buddhism is to be sceptical of everything (even buddhist teachings itself) it fits just nicely, even a false tale can be fit for purpose depending upon the intended purpose.
As a side effect everyone winds up having different thoughts/beliefs etc.
It would explain the relatively small proportion of the population that atheism makes up, as well as why that small proportion is spread throughout the world with no great central region to call home.
I'd say australia is doing fairly well with the atheist business, the census five years ago indicated that approx 30% of australians don't believe in god. And of those that are religious australia has among the lowest church attendance rates in the world, even the believers rate it fairly low on their priorities placing family, work, leisure time and even politics ahead of it.
I don't know anyone who is "pro abortion", but plenty who are "pro choice".
Pro life and pro choice are just market speak, the real issue is for or against the ability of women to legally have abortions. People who use pro life and pro choice are attempting to change the framing in order to get people on their side.
imho, people should be blunt about a topic, speaking as eloquently as possible about their real point without trying to dodge things. This is not a dig at you, but at oh so many idealists that refuse to do so.
This is not a problem in linux land, and this is precisely why everything is going over to gallium3d etc.
When it comes down to it all programmable gpus provide similar functionality, shader units, etc etc, galluim3d serves as the abstraction layer so all of the higher level stuff goes on top.
In the end all you need for the driver is the low level workings of it to provide a state tracker to the abstraction layer that it understands, the rest is already done (or in the process of already being done). Code re-use, it is useful.
you would probably get further with a weather balloon than a rocket, within the $300 range.
True, my mistake, I got the years wrong, instead of 50-70 years ago, it was 80-100.
They expected their enemy to act as gentlemen and respect a code of civility amongst the war and death, while not ideal in a war situation I think it was quite respectable.
It is the difference between standing to face your enemy, letting them know you are going to fight them, and engaging in a fair fight. Vs stabbing them in the back while they aren't looking.
Sure, the second has a far likelier chance of you winning, but the brits of the day did not consider that kind of behaviour respectable.
Central administration is required, because otherwise multiple people can register the same dns names and it all becomes pointless
Same deal with internet ip ranges, we have IANA for a reason. So multiple people don't try and use the same public ip.
Lawyers wind up becoming judges and are rather influential, there is no incentive to make the law system simple enough for the common man, because the more complex it is the more they benefit.
Largest conflict of interest ever.
No professional photographer ever used a Kodak camera.
My medium format kodak 620a disagrees with you
Sure, it was a different era (50-70 years ago), and canon/nikon didn't even _make_ cameras at the time, but there was a time when kodak meant quality.
Houses within a 100km radius of here average between $450k and $800k
With an average wage of about $40k, paying off a home and actually having enough money to.. you know, live. Can be difficult.
Reduce that cost to even $250k, and young people will be able to buy homes again. I'd take a house that looks the same over no house.