I realize that asking everyone to understand the nuances of every disease is a bit much, so I don't want to yell and scream too much. However, type I diabetics are the ones that need insulin injections. They are the ones that benefit from this. They did not get their diabetes from being overweight or from eating lots of sugar. It is an autoimmune reaction, and more than likely genetic.
...but to argue that a CEO is 1000x (number pulled from ass) more valuable to a company than it's employees on the ground is just ludicrous.
Is it really? How do you quantify value? How do you choose it? Is it equally ludicrous that we have "argued" (which is a strange verb to use for a free market) that a set amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons, conviently in the form of an ounce of gold is equal to about 650$, whereas roughly the same number of protons, neutrons, and electrons in the form of an ounce of oil is worth about two cents.
If I may argue against both you and the entire slashdot groupthink for a moment... does it occur to anyone that the reason shitty CEOs fail and their companies crash and burn is because they suck at their job... and therefore it's just the free market doing what the free market does (please spare me the "THINK OF THE WORKERS THEY SCREWED!"). Somewhere, some other CEO who is running his company smarter, is making alot more money for his company and himself, and making alot more jobs then that CEO just lost. Maybe that CEO pays himself less because he is smart. Maybe he doesn't. Maybe it doesn't matter (ie 5 million in a billion dollar company). Maybe this is all a bunch of envious garbage based on bad economics and a feeling of self-righteousness. Everyone likes to think of CEOs being greedy douchebags who screw everyone and get rich.. why.. because we all need our boogeymen. That's just simple people groping for answers. The real reason CEOs make alot of money is because someone is willing to pay them to do it. If they were completely useless, companies could save X million a year by not paying them, and someone would have figured it out by now.
Did it ever occur to anyone that, on average, CEOs create jobs, grow companies, and increase wealth of themselves and others? Evil sons of bitches.
But one could certainly make a good argument that the first CEO deserves to be paid more, because he generated a larger absolute return to shareholders.
Yes, one could. And then one might read chapter two of any economics textbook and realize that's complete rubbish. Chapter one is about supply and demand... that one might help explain these salaries in a new and insightful way, too.
The more interesting question is if a person with only passing familiarity with assembly can do better then the compiler, and the answer to that is usually no these days.
This seems to be conventional wisdom. Have you ever actually tried it? I don't think you have. I don't think anyone who keeps this wisdom has. Why? Because my experience tells me that assertion to be just plain wrong. For small, compact, numerical (which includes address calculation) loops, "naive assembly" code will outperform your compiler. The sophistication of the algorithm will determine the speedup. (Ie, a block move isn't probably going to be sped up that much).
I urge you to try it. If you need a simple numerical algorithm.. how about an image blur? 3x3 Gaussian convolution is pretty simple. You don't even need to use SIMD (but if you do, you'll win, by alot).
I don't believe this as much as the people who I see repeating that sentence all the time...
I can often get 4-5x speed improvements with most computational functions (image processing). I have gotten in the order of 10x speed improvements for address-calculation-heavy functions. I've looked at thousands and thousands of lines of code generated from modern compilers of all varieties, and I can say with absolute certainty that they are _not_that_good_. SIMD, alone, will provide huge speedups. So-called autovectorization doesn't work that well. Even if it was able to vectorize the calculation, it still does a terrible job using temporal vs non-temporal memory storage (look up write-combining). For certain types of function you can get 50% improvements by using write-combining correctly.
In very tight loops based on address calculations, compilers are just plain bad. Create an array of 3d arrays where each value is an index to a quantized lookup table, and then try to do a sum over all that. Look at that generated assembly code and it's a complete mess. Do it by hand correctly factoring out all the non-loop dependant stuff, and you will get huge improvements.
Re:Comments from people who actually create Creati
on
Beginning GIMP
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
While I can buy the notion that The GIMP is suitable for many tasks that programmers might require, does anyone on here who considers him/herself first and foremost a designer use
Really? I tried to create myself a simple test image in GIMP and needed 5 tutorials to do anything. Sure I can do "burn marks" with a single button, but drawing a straight line requires a tutorial. It may be powerful, but it is so unintuitive, and made me long for MSpaint.
At this point I realised you are actually a free-market supporter who is aware of non-financial costs
I appreciate your comments. And you are absolutely right. I am a big proponent of the free-market because it is the most optimal way to turn input into output (in esssence, manhours -> lifestyle). It is a method by which we optimize that relation. The trick is to just get the market's currency (money) to be a correct measure of cost. There are certain hidden costs in a libterarian free-market that are not correctly accounted for by the monetary costs in it. People get "free lunches" (ie, they make alot of money and destroy a river). Those need to be added to the model to make the system optimize to the correct 'costs'.
Yeah and we CANT HAVE THAT! can we.. Asking americans to be the slightest bit altruistic, why thats MADNESS!!
I'm an american and i should be able to piss all over the rest of the world. Its my god given right don't you know.
You are a troll and an idiot, but I can't let this kind of stupidity go without a response. I am not saying that Americans shouldn't be altrustic. I'm saying that Congress is being hypocrites in asking Americans to do things they don't have the backbone to do themselves, to their own disadvantage. I realize that my nuanced point is too subtle for someone who has an ax to grind... It's unfortunate that my words never make it all the way to your cerebral brain, and instead gets picked up in the spinal cord for your instant kneejerk troll reponse.
You might want to try reading what I wrote, and taking all the sentences in context to find the overarching meaning, instead of just picking a single sentence, and implying a bunch of garbage to fit into your preconcieved prejudice that you can use to make ridiculously sweeping generalizations like:
This is why people hate america. No honour, no accountability and certainly no "personal responsibilty".
... because then it makes it easy for me to say "And this is why America pisses all over the rest of the world. Because it's filled with idiot trolls like you".
You clearly don't understand the economics of taxes. Taxes cause a dead-weight loss in a free market economy (read inefficiency). By taxing people who use "energy-inefficient" servers what you really do is raise the barriers to entry into the server market thus raising the prices everyone must pay for servers due to decreased competition. So you want to provide a tax-break for this to offset the higher cost... Where should we get that money? Increase the deficit?? Tax more??
That's just not correct. Taxes can be used to cover the "hidden costs" associated with certain behavior. That's exactly the point. The enviornmental damage is done taken into account by a pure-free-market. Long term damage of that nature needs to be put in monetary terms (like taxes), to be modeled for and taken account in the system.
It's pretty easy to tax gas and use the money to give tax breaks to people who buy energy effecient servers. This puts the long-term enviornment damage that is not accounted for in the normal free market where it belongs, and makes the system optimize around a more "correct" cost metric.
Whew.... Now I feel better. Knowing that my share of the debt is only $76k puts my mind at ease. Go Bush!
I agree to some extent that Clinton was a much better Republican than Bush is. I do not agree, really, with your implied conclusion that "debt = bad". I'm pretty sure that is incorrect. I am not an economist, but I've always believed that most economists feel that governments being indebted to their people is finicially sound, to some extent. A 0-debt country runs major inflation risks. Let me restate that I am not an economist. I don't know what is and is not a healthy amount of debt. I don't pretend to know. I have no other option but to trust economists (not politicians) to tell me what is and is not a healthy amount of debt.
So in conclusion, I think jumping up and down and screaming about the national debt isn't very productive for anything other than fearmongering. Getting a straight answer from economists is basically impossible, however.
Maybe someone should try telling Americans the same thing about cars. To paraphrase the legislation "give high priority to energy efficiency as a factor in determining best value and performance for purchases of cars."
I know yours is a bit tongue in cheek, however I still must comment on this concept. This is so offensive to me. Don't ASK people to do things that are non-optimal. Don't ask people to make themselves and their business less cost effective. You don't set up a free market, and then ask people to work outside of the equilibrium points "because". Money is just the metric by which we choose to optimize the system. Taxes and tax breaks on things like this exist for a reason... to help account for hidden costs to make the optimal point... actually.. you know.. optimal.
Congress has the power to move the cost equilibrium (taxes). They don't. They choose to ask you operate to your own disadvantage for the good of us all. Why? Because they are bought and paid for. There are lobbies that prevent them from doing it. So they resort to this seriously ridiculous concept. If you want us to use more energy effecient $THINGS then use TAXES and TAX BREAKS to move the market. Move the god damm equilibrium point so it's cost effective for us to do so. Asking me to operate outside of the cost equilibriums of a free market is basically asking me to risk my own fincial health because you don't have the willpower to risk things yourself. I'm sorry but my retirement/business/kids-college is more important than your re-election. Therefore your "instructions" on how I should spend my money are of no meaning to me. Stand up and make buying energy effecient things cost-effective, and then we'll talk.
Why is it that every time I see someone slam the democrats, the response is usually countering the content of the slam, but when someone slams the republicans, the response is an acusation of blind partisanship, independant of the content of the slam?
(tongue-in-cheek) Maybe it's because Democrats are more apt to use sweeping self-righteous generalizations that need to be pointed out for their hypocrisy? I've just done it twice in two posts. Go me. (harhar).
I'm no Republican. I consider myself squarely libertarian.. and every time I see a $color-stater jump and try to pin issues on $othercolor-staters, when they are all roughly equally guilty, a little piece of me dies. I would do the same for a Republican who blames child-molesting on Democrats. Bad people are bad people, and they need to be rooted out. Pinning it on the "color" your team is playing against because you can't see the forest for the trees is the reason this shit is the way it is. That goes for "corruption", "child-molesting" or "accusations of blind partisainship"
Dear God, for the sake of humanity, please take the rest of those corrupt Republican potato chips!
PS. God, no need to worry about the Democratic corrupt. We recognize that red-state/blue-state is really the fight between good and evil, and, as such, in times of people losing their entire life's savings and others dying young, the most important thing is whether or not another state switches to my color. GO TEAM GO
Funny how they only do this with the sciences that threaten their beliefs.
Huh? What? Threatens their beliefs? The Big Bang? Are you reading the same theory I am? The Big Bang is litterally a religious persons DREAM scientific theory. They couldn't have written it any better themselves. Not only is it the perfect theory explaining the moment of creation, but it also predicts that not only does everything happen, all of creation, in a single moment, at a single point, but it even predicts that our laws and rules and science cannot touch anything that happened before it. It, literally, points to a single moment/point and says the entire universe came from this point, at this time, and we can never hope to know what happened before that.
If that's not "biblical" in it's details, then nothing is.
You've actually hit the nail on the head. Pretty much everyone who replied to me gave me a lecture about how online optimization is better because it lets you tune to the system. Every single one of them neglects the fact that this can just as easily be done offline in an unsupervised fashion and it will create faster code. It is true that precompiled binaries don't react well to changing system conditions, however, "high end" code should be running in a quiet system, anyway. Keeping in mind this thread is about the death of native code... I point merely to my world of high-performance code... where there is absolutely no chance of this ever happening. Any alpha-programs like scientific computing or even games will, for the entire foreseeable future, do the heavy lifting natively.
Are you at least smart enough to grasp that you don't get it?
Actually I'm smart enough to realize that I don't have the time nor the patience to start from scratch and explain why people don't understand the actual advantages of JIT'ing versus the observed advantage of JIT'ing because of implementation details. People don't understand that native compilers can do many of the optimizations that they attribute to JIT'ing.. and many neglect the overhead penalty because they aren't used to writing code where it matters. People who writing user-apps don't care about things that actually matter in a discussion between JIT and non-JITed code.
I've learned not to spit upwind, and arguing with people who literally do not exist in the same world I do is pointless. User apps/development-speed/etc/etc versus real-time/response-time/framerate/computation. But nice try at a troll. I give it a 3/10.
Hmm, I'm having trouble seeing the good side of complete human annihilation, which is pretty much guaranteed if the U.S. decides to fling nukes at a similarly armed enemy.
Here, let me blow your mind for a minute, then. Slashdotters love to argue (on topics that agree with their politics) that the POTENTIAL for abuse doesn't not equate to abuse. This line of reasoning is sound. The internet can be "abused" it doesn't mean we need tight internet controls. CDs might be copied, it doesn't mean we need DRM. (Guns... oh wait..).
Have you stopped to consider the fact that, per capita, the second half of the twentith century was one of the least bloody in modern history? It followed the most bloody periods in history. Am I actually suggesting that nuclear weapons as a deterrant have prevented massive wars? Probably. I think the argument could be made that it has.
Yeah, that sounds so simple, obvious, transparent and logical. And therefore, it must be wrong; these are not exactly characteristics of this administration. Just sayin'.
That's a rational approach. Decice Bush is wrong then try to figure out what he's saying.
Don't start quoting me rankings and then talking about teaching. Know what you are talking about if you want to have a conversation. Rankings are not based, in virtually any way, on teaching. If you want to be taught something, don't look at the rankings. (Speaking of reading comprehension) I couldn't have spelled it out any clearer.. but I've repeated myself three more times for your benefit.
Multithreading can work only in very high levels, by separating stuff into a sound thread, networking thread, rendering thread, physics thread, and a main one (usually containing the gameplay)
You do realize that rendering is a stream-style computation that we've already broken out into a parallel architecture, yes? Physics is embarassingly parallel... also, and it's headed in that direction. AI is embarassingly parallel (19 actors, 19 A* searches at once). How about a few processor for adapative AI? Training the neural net or bayesian classifier? I know very little about games, but I do know afair bit about AI. I could fill all the processors with complex AI and AI-training myself with enough time. Game developers would likely be more clever.
Slashdot Mirror
I was hoping it'd show you how to dance like a maniac then fly off into the sky :(
I was hoping it'd show you how to "prank the stiffly stifferson to death with a tire iron. WHAMO". Best SNL skit of all time.
Too much ignorance in this thread. Diabetes is one of the most misunderstood diseases in existence.
I realize that asking everyone to understand the nuances of every disease is a bit much, so I don't want to yell and scream too much. However, type I diabetics are the ones that need insulin injections. They are the ones that benefit from this. They did not get their diabetes from being overweight or from eating lots of sugar. It is an autoimmune reaction, and more than likely genetic.
...but to argue that a CEO is 1000x (number pulled from ass) more valuable to a company than it's employees on the ground is just ludicrous.
Is it really? How do you quantify value? How do you choose it? Is it equally ludicrous that we have "argued" (which is a strange verb to use for a free market) that a set amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons, conviently in the form of an ounce of gold is equal to about 650$, whereas roughly the same number of protons, neutrons, and electrons in the form of an ounce of oil is worth about two cents.
If I may argue against both you and the entire slashdot groupthink for a moment... does it occur to anyone that the reason shitty CEOs fail and their companies crash and burn is because they suck at their job... and therefore it's just the free market doing what the free market does (please spare me the "THINK OF THE WORKERS THEY SCREWED!"). Somewhere, some other CEO who is running his company smarter, is making alot more money for his company and himself, and making alot more jobs then that CEO just lost. Maybe that CEO pays himself less because he is smart. Maybe he doesn't. Maybe it doesn't matter (ie 5 million in a billion dollar company). Maybe this is all a bunch of envious garbage based on bad economics and a feeling of self-righteousness. Everyone likes to think of CEOs being greedy douchebags who screw everyone and get rich.. why.. because we all need our boogeymen. That's just simple people groping for answers. The real reason CEOs make alot of money is because someone is willing to pay them to do it. If they were completely useless, companies could save X million a year by not paying them, and someone would have figured it out by now.
Did it ever occur to anyone that, on average, CEOs create jobs, grow companies, and increase wealth of themselves and others? Evil sons of bitches.
But one could certainly make a good argument that the first CEO deserves to be paid more, because he generated a larger absolute return to shareholders.
Yes, one could. And then one might read chapter two of any economics textbook and realize that's complete rubbish. Chapter one is about supply and demand... that one might help explain these salaries in a new and insightful way, too.
The more interesting question is if a person with only passing familiarity with assembly can do better then the compiler, and the answer to that is usually no these days.
This seems to be conventional wisdom. Have you ever actually tried it? I don't think you have. I don't think anyone who keeps this wisdom has. Why? Because my experience tells me that assertion to be just plain wrong. For small, compact, numerical (which includes address calculation) loops, "naive assembly" code will outperform your compiler. The sophistication of the algorithm will determine the speedup. (Ie, a block move isn't probably going to be sped up that much).
I urge you to try it. If you need a simple numerical algorithm.. how about an image blur? 3x3 Gaussian convolution is pretty simple. You don't even need to use SIMD (but if you do, you'll win, by alot).
I don't believe this as much as the people who I see repeating that sentence all the time...
I can often get 4-5x speed improvements with most computational functions (image processing). I have gotten in the order of 10x speed improvements for address-calculation-heavy functions. I've looked at thousands and thousands of lines of code generated from modern compilers of all varieties, and I can say with absolute certainty that they are _not_that_good_. SIMD, alone, will provide huge speedups. So-called autovectorization doesn't work that well. Even if it was able to vectorize the calculation, it still does a terrible job using temporal vs non-temporal memory storage (look up write-combining). For certain types of function you can get 50% improvements by using write-combining correctly.
In very tight loops based on address calculations, compilers are just plain bad. Create an array of 3d arrays where each value is an index to a quantized lookup table, and then try to do a sum over all that. Look at that generated assembly code and it's a complete mess. Do it by hand correctly factoring out all the non-loop dependant stuff, and you will get huge improvements.
While I can buy the notion that The GIMP is suitable for many tasks that programmers might require, does anyone on here who considers him/herself first and foremost a designer use
Really? I tried to create myself a simple test image in GIMP and needed 5 tutorials to do anything. Sure I can do "burn marks" with a single button, but drawing a straight line requires a tutorial. It may be powerful, but it is so unintuitive, and made me long for MSpaint.
At this point I realised you are actually a free-market supporter who is aware of non-financial costs
I appreciate your comments. And you are absolutely right. I am a big proponent of the free-market because it is the most optimal way to turn input into output (in esssence, manhours -> lifestyle). It is a method by which we optimize that relation. The trick is to just get the market's currency (money) to be a correct measure of cost. There are certain hidden costs in a libterarian free-market that are not correctly accounted for by the monetary costs in it. People get "free lunches" (ie, they make alot of money and destroy a river). Those need to be added to the model to make the system optimize to the correct 'costs'.
Yeah and we CANT HAVE THAT! can we.. Asking americans to be the slightest bit altruistic, why thats MADNESS!! I'm an american and i should be able to piss all over the rest of the world. Its my god given right don't you know.
:
... because then it makes it easy for me to say "And this is why America pisses all over the rest of the world. Because it's filled with idiot trolls like you".
You are a troll and an idiot, but I can't let this kind of stupidity go without a response. I am not saying that Americans shouldn't be altrustic. I'm saying that Congress is being hypocrites in asking Americans to do things they don't have the backbone to do themselves, to their own disadvantage. I realize that my nuanced point is too subtle for someone who has an ax to grind... It's unfortunate that my words never make it all the way to your cerebral brain, and instead gets picked up in the spinal cord for your instant kneejerk troll reponse.
You might want to try reading what I wrote, and taking all the sentences in context to find the overarching meaning, instead of just picking a single sentence, and implying a bunch of garbage to fit into your preconcieved prejudice that you can use to make ridiculously sweeping generalizations like
This is why people hate america. No honour, no accountability and certainly no "personal responsibilty".
You clearly don't understand the economics of taxes. Taxes cause a dead-weight loss in a free market economy (read inefficiency). By taxing people who use "energy-inefficient" servers what you really do is raise the barriers to entry into the server market thus raising the prices everyone must pay for servers due to decreased competition. So you want to provide a tax-break for this to offset the higher cost... Where should we get that money? Increase the deficit?? Tax more??
That's just not correct. Taxes can be used to cover the "hidden costs" associated with certain behavior. That's exactly the point. The enviornmental damage is done taken into account by a pure-free-market. Long term damage of that nature needs to be put in monetary terms (like taxes), to be modeled for and taken account in the system.
It's pretty easy to tax gas and use the money to give tax breaks to people who buy energy effecient servers. This puts the long-term enviornment damage that is not accounted for in the normal free market where it belongs, and makes the system optimize around a more "correct" cost metric.
Whew.... Now I feel better. Knowing that my share of the debt is only $76k puts my mind at ease. Go Bush!
I agree to some extent that Clinton was a much better Republican than Bush is. I do not agree, really, with your implied conclusion that "debt = bad". I'm pretty sure that is incorrect. I am not an economist, but I've always believed that most economists feel that governments being indebted to their people is finicially sound, to some extent. A 0-debt country runs major inflation risks. Let me restate that I am not an economist. I don't know what is and is not a healthy amount of debt. I don't pretend to know. I have no other option but to trust economists (not politicians) to tell me what is and is not a healthy amount of debt.
So in conclusion, I think jumping up and down and screaming about the national debt isn't very productive for anything other than fearmongering. Getting a straight answer from economists is basically impossible, however.
I mean every household only owes about $400,000 in government debt which I'm sure is sustainable.
That number looked really wrong to me so I looked it up:
Debt = 8.4 trillion
Households = 110 million
Population = 295 million
So we owe $28,000 per person, and about $76,000 per household.
Maybe someone should try telling Americans the same thing about cars. To paraphrase the legislation "give high priority to energy efficiency as a factor in determining best value and performance for purchases of cars."
I know yours is a bit tongue in cheek, however I still must comment on this concept. This is so offensive to me. Don't ASK people to do things that are non-optimal. Don't ask people to make themselves and their business less cost effective. You don't set up a free market, and then ask people to work outside of the equilibrium points "because". Money is just the metric by which we choose to optimize the system. Taxes and tax breaks on things like this exist for a reason... to help account for hidden costs to make the optimal point... actually.. you know.. optimal.
Congress has the power to move the cost equilibrium (taxes). They don't. They choose to ask you operate to your own disadvantage for the good of us all. Why? Because they are bought and paid for. There are lobbies that prevent them from doing it. So they resort to this seriously ridiculous concept. If you want us to use more energy effecient $THINGS then use TAXES and TAX BREAKS to move the market. Move the god damm equilibrium point so it's cost effective for us to do so. Asking me to operate outside of the cost equilibriums of a free market is basically asking me to risk my own fincial health because you don't have the willpower to risk things yourself. I'm sorry but my retirement/business/kids-college is more important than your re-election. Therefore your "instructions" on how I should spend my money are of no meaning to me. Stand up and make buying energy effecient things cost-effective, and then we'll talk.
"and starting today, all passwords must contain letters, numbers, doodles, sign language and squirrel noises."
Does it make me crazy if I read that and tried to verbally make a squirrel noise? My cube-neighbor thinks it does.
Why is it that every time I see someone slam the democrats, the response is usually countering the content of the slam, but when someone slams the republicans, the response is an acusation of blind partisanship, independant of the content of the slam?
(tongue-in-cheek) Maybe it's because Democrats are more apt to use sweeping self-righteous generalizations that need to be pointed out for their hypocrisy? I've just done it twice in two posts. Go me. (harhar).
I'm no Republican. I consider myself squarely libertarian.. and every time I see a $color-stater jump and try to pin issues on $othercolor-staters, when they are all roughly equally guilty, a little piece of me dies. I would do the same for a Republican who blames child-molesting on Democrats. Bad people are bad people, and they need to be rooted out. Pinning it on the "color" your team is playing against because you can't see the forest for the trees is the reason this shit is the way it is. That goes for "corruption", "child-molesting" or "accusations of blind partisainship"
Dear God, for the sake of humanity, please take the rest of those corrupt Republican potato chips!
/sarcasm
PS. God, no need to worry about the Democratic corrupt. We recognize that red-state/blue-state is really the fight between good and evil, and, as such, in times of people losing their entire life's savings and others dying young, the most important thing is whether or not another state switches to my color. GO TEAM GO
Funny how they only do this with the sciences that threaten their beliefs.
Huh? What? Threatens their beliefs? The Big Bang? Are you reading the same theory I am? The Big Bang is litterally a religious persons DREAM scientific theory. They couldn't have written it any better themselves. Not only is it the perfect theory explaining the moment of creation, but it also predicts that not only does everything happen, all of creation, in a single moment, at a single point, but it even predicts that our laws and rules and science cannot touch anything that happened before it. It, literally, points to a single moment/point and says the entire universe came from this point, at this time, and we can never hope to know what happened before that.
If that's not "biblical" in it's details, then nothing is.
And the US was nearly the only reason for this violence
Oh, the power of ignorance and blind political agenda.
You've actually hit the nail on the head. Pretty much everyone who replied to me gave me a lecture about how online optimization is better because it lets you tune to the system. Every single one of them neglects the fact that this can just as easily be done offline in an unsupervised fashion and it will create faster code. It is true that precompiled binaries don't react well to changing system conditions, however, "high end" code should be running in a quiet system, anyway. Keeping in mind this thread is about the death of native code... I point merely to my world of high-performance code... where there is absolutely no chance of this ever happening. Any alpha-programs like scientific computing or even games will, for the entire foreseeable future, do the heavy lifting natively.
Are you at least smart enough to grasp that you don't get it?
Actually I'm smart enough to realize that I don't have the time nor the patience to start from scratch and explain why people don't understand the actual advantages of JIT'ing versus the observed advantage of JIT'ing because of implementation details. People don't understand that native compilers can do many of the optimizations that they attribute to JIT'ing.. and many neglect the overhead penalty because they aren't used to writing code where it matters. People who writing user-apps don't care about things that actually matter in a discussion between JIT and non-JITed code.
I've learned not to spit upwind, and arguing with people who literally do not exist in the same world I do is pointless. User apps/development-speed/etc/etc versus real-time/response-time/framerate/computation. But nice try at a troll. I give it a 3/10.
Hmm, I'm having trouble seeing the good side of complete human annihilation, which is pretty much guaranteed if the U.S. decides to fling nukes at a similarly armed enemy.
Here, let me blow your mind for a minute, then. Slashdotters love to argue (on topics that agree with their politics) that the POTENTIAL for abuse doesn't not equate to abuse. This line of reasoning is sound. The internet can be "abused" it doesn't mean we need tight internet controls. CDs might be copied, it doesn't mean we need DRM. (Guns... oh wait..).
Have you stopped to consider the fact that, per capita, the second half of the twentith century was one of the least bloody in modern history? It followed the most bloody periods in history. Am I actually suggesting that nuclear weapons as a deterrant have prevented massive wars? Probably. I think the argument could be made that it has.
Yeah, that sounds so simple, obvious, transparent and logical. And therefore, it must be wrong; these are not exactly characteristics of this administration. Just sayin'.
That's a rational approach. Decice Bush is wrong then try to figure out what he's saying.
Don't start quoting me rankings and then talking about teaching. Know what you are talking about if you want to have a conversation. Rankings are not based, in virtually any way, on teaching. If you want to be taught something, don't look at the rankings. (Speaking of reading comprehension) I couldn't have spelled it out any clearer.. but I've repeated myself three more times for your benefit.
Multithreading can work only in very high levels, by separating stuff into a sound thread, networking thread, rendering thread, physics thread, and a main one (usually containing the gameplay)
You do realize that rendering is a stream-style computation that we've already broken out into a parallel architecture, yes? Physics is embarassingly parallel... also, and it's headed in that direction. AI is embarassingly parallel (19 actors, 19 A* searches at once). How about a few processor for adapative AI? Training the neural net or bayesian classifier? I know very little about games, but I do know afair bit about AI. I could fill all the processors with complex AI and AI-training myself with enough time. Game developers would likely be more clever.