Yeah, I solved it back then. I guess falling back down was a bug (it was a little frustrating), but I actually found it to be an above-average Atari 2600 game. Seriously, get an emulator and play them all. You will see it gets a solid B-. Not great, but a playable and somewhat fun multi-screen adventure game (of which there were so few on Atari: Raiders of the Lost Ark (only slightly better), Adventure, Superman, Haunted House, Star Raiders.
Actually, "The fool says in his heart there is no God." God has done so many things for me. "You have not because you ask not." If you don't want God, he's not going to barge in and force you.
But we don't watch anything on NBC or TBS, so I wouldn't pay for those. My $40 just went to $18. And besides, let's be real. Everybody but CBS is on Hulu Plus for $8 a month and probably isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
As someone who has investigated what the compiler (.NET) does on a 64-bit machine I can answer your questions somewhat:
Are the 64 bit registers and arithmetic used often, or would that have more of a scientific number crunching (corporate) application than anything else?
Yes. The original registers were ax, bx, cx, dx, si (code pointer), di (data pointer), bp (byte pointer), sp (stack pointer). As you can see, there are only 4 values that you can hold at once. And cx and dx have special meanings in some commands, so only a and b are really free. This means that if you have even 3-4 local variables, most likely one or more are being stored on the heap. 32-bit doubled the size of all of these, but you were still basically severely limited to 2-3 registers at a time for actual programmer usage.
64-bit adds 8 more free and open registers (r8-r15). These can be filled with anything meaning that any subroutine that has local variables that go out of scope quickly most likely doesn't actually store these values on the heap at all anymore. This means that there is no memory access at all, which leads to much faster code.
32-bit goes up to 2 billion, so 64-bit math is rarely used for integers. But 64-bit floats are very common. And floating point math is much faster. Also, there are extensions for math like MMX, 3DNow!, SSE, SIMD, etc., all of which also have their own registers. And now people are using graphic cards to do really fast math sometimes as well.
Or can they sometimes cram two 32 bit numbers in a register and process a 32-bit program twice as fast?
You can, but with so many registers available now, there's usually no reason to so it rarely happens.
I assume that that 64-bit opens up a lot of extra room for processor commands. Do they use more commands making bitcode more succinct and faster?
All the new processor commands are called: MMX, 3DNow!, SSE, SIMD, etc.
It's not so much that the new commands make things more succinct, they just do more in hardware. For instance, if you have ever zipped anything, you have probably seen the CRC32 checksum that goes along with each compressed file. Well, that's now a command in SSE4.2. So you can have the CPU do CRC32 for you and it's 10-times (or more) faster than doing it in hardware. It's just a matter of whether, for instance, WinZip, 7-Zip, Explorer or whoever actually rewrites their code to use this CPU command. (And whether you downloaded a new version since they did this.)
Similarly, it's not a matter of whether a programmer knows about these commands, because these days most people write in Java or C#. It's a matter of whether the.NET or Java compiler gurus that turn the IL into assembly with on-the-fly compilation on your machine know about all these new commands. Since there is no CRC32 command in.NET, that command will never be used by most normal people, even if they are using CRC32's, because the Just-In-Time compiler can't tell that that's what their subroutine is doing.
And of course it would make them quicker to execute as more data can be crammed into a single word (The Word length would go up to match the number of bits, I assume. I think I remember working with 32 bit words in univ, so that makes sense)?
Actually, strings are a hair slower in 64-bit because they are usually UTF-8 or UTF-16 so characters are a little more inefficient to work with. I'm really not sure why there aren't new CPU instructions for the most common string functions for the most common string types. Maybe somebody can get on that. But I guess that most string handling is so efficient already that nobody notices that much.
"God planted the evidence for evolution to tempt you."
Man, is this strawman getting tired. NO CREATIONIST BELIEVES THIS. I'm sorry that this is the best answer your uneducated grandma could give you, but seriously, the people at the conference will not be saying this.
This is not Insightful, it's technically Offtopic.
Some creationists dismiss the fossil record, geological evidence, and other physical evidence of the claims made by modern science as decoys, an elaborate ruse created by some god in order to mislead those who lack faith. However, few of these same people are willing to acknowledge that a very similar argument could be used against the existence of their god, holy text(s), and/or prophet(s). Is it not equally plausible that Yahweh, the Christian Bible, and the story of Jesus and his homies are all just be an elaborate ruse created by Satan to test his followers? Why the abundant application of skepticism when it comes to everything we can observe in the natural world but total lack thereof when it comes to unverifiable stories that other humans tell us? Seem inconsistent to me.
Nobody at the conference will be saying this. Here's what they will be saying:
Do they have even the slightest understanding of the theory of evolution? At all?
Yes. They believe it goes against the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which says that chance leads to chaos, not order. And that order is only brought about by creation and design.
Slashdot Mirror
Because as long as the harm isn't too egregious, it's better to let people learn from their own suffering rather than making additional laws.
Yeah, I solved it back then. I guess falling back down was a bug (it was a little frustrating), but I actually found it to be an above-average Atari 2600 game. Seriously, get an emulator and play them all. You will see it gets a solid B-. Not great, but a playable and somewhat fun multi-screen adventure game (of which there were so few on Atari: Raiders of the Lost Ark (only slightly better), Adventure, Superman, Haunted House, Star Raiders.
Give it to God?
Actually, "The fool says in his heart there is no God." God has done so many things for me. "You have not because you ask not." If you don't want God, he's not going to barge in and force you.
All kinds of wrong. They will provide a server box to be housed in the ISP containing their most popular content FOR FREE.
But we don't watch anything on NBC or TBS, so I wouldn't pay for those. My $40 just went to $18. And besides, let's be real. Everybody but CBS is on Hulu Plus for $8 a month and probably isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
DirecTV (HughesNet) and Dish also have internet, as do Sprint, Verizon, T-Mobile and AT&T on wireless if you can get any of them in 4G.
And for years, many poorly-written buggy drivers would crash immediately if PAE was enabled.
As someone who has investigated what the compiler (.NET) does on a 64-bit machine I can answer your questions somewhat:
Are the 64 bit registers and arithmetic used often, or would that have more of a scientific number crunching (corporate) application than anything else?
Yes. The original registers were ax, bx, cx, dx, si (code pointer), di (data pointer), bp (byte pointer), sp (stack pointer). As you can see, there are only 4 values that you can hold at once. And cx and dx have special meanings in some commands, so only a and b are really free. This means that if you have even 3-4 local variables, most likely one or more are being stored on the heap. 32-bit doubled the size of all of these, but you were still basically severely limited to 2-3 registers at a time for actual programmer usage.
64-bit adds 8 more free and open registers (r8-r15). These can be filled with anything meaning that any subroutine that has local variables that go out of scope quickly most likely doesn't actually store these values on the heap at all anymore. This means that there is no memory access at all, which leads to much faster code.
32-bit goes up to 2 billion, so 64-bit math is rarely used for integers. But 64-bit floats are very common. And floating point math is much faster. Also, there are extensions for math like MMX, 3DNow!, SSE, SIMD, etc., all of which also have their own registers. And now people are using graphic cards to do really fast math sometimes as well.
Or can they sometimes cram two 32 bit numbers in a register and process a 32-bit program twice as fast?
You can, but with so many registers available now, there's usually no reason to so it rarely happens.
I assume that that 64-bit opens up a lot of extra room for processor commands. Do they use more commands making bitcode more succinct and faster?
All the new processor commands are called: MMX, 3DNow!, SSE, SIMD, etc.
It's not so much that the new commands make things more succinct, they just do more in hardware. For instance, if you have ever zipped anything, you have probably seen the CRC32 checksum that goes along with each compressed file. Well, that's now a command in SSE4.2. So you can have the CPU do CRC32 for you and it's 10-times (or more) faster than doing it in hardware. It's just a matter of whether, for instance, WinZip, 7-Zip, Explorer or whoever actually rewrites their code to use this CPU command. (And whether you downloaded a new version since they did this.)
Similarly, it's not a matter of whether a programmer knows about these commands, because these days most people write in Java or C#. It's a matter of whether the .NET or Java compiler gurus that turn the IL into assembly with on-the-fly compilation on your machine know about all these new commands. Since there is no CRC32 command in .NET, that command will never be used by most normal people, even if they are using CRC32's, because the Just-In-Time compiler can't tell that that's what their subroutine is doing.
And of course it would make them quicker to execute as more data can be crammed into a single word (The Word length would go up to match the number of bits, I assume. I think I remember working with 32 bit words in univ, so that makes sense)?
Actually, strings are a hair slower in 64-bit because they are usually UTF-8 or UTF-16 so characters are a little more inefficient to work with. I'm really not sure why there aren't new CPU instructions for the most common string functions for the most common string types. Maybe somebody can get on that. But I guess that most string handling is so efficient already that nobody notices that much.
She's happy. And old-fashioned...
Nope. The result will be this:
https://answersingenesis.org/answers/
LOTR is based on the Bible. Tolkien was a Christian. Just thought I would point that out.
Because you guys are all hellbound reprobates already... ;)
Nope. Somehow only Christianity makes them angry and full of vitriol.
So, you can win a large judgment for religious discrimination.
Hey, I've got to hand it to you. Even as someone who doesn't believe in it, you proved that you have looked at it and provided a resource for others.
Here is their science (wait, you thought they didn't have any). Read up. Educate yourself on the debate:
https://answersingenesis.org/answers/
Most Christians don't, actually.
It already did. I mean, here we are reading about it on Slashdot and I don't even live anywhere near Michigan.
"God planted the evidence for evolution to tempt you."
Man, is this strawman getting tired. NO CREATIONIST BELIEVES THIS. I'm sorry that this is the best answer your uneducated grandma could give you, but seriously, the people at the conference will not be saying this.
This is not Insightful, it's technically Offtopic.
God put those fossils there to test our faith.
"God put those fossils there in the flood" is actually what they would say.
Yes. This was before he became an atheist.
Some creationists dismiss the fossil record, geological evidence, and other physical evidence of the claims made by modern science as decoys, an elaborate ruse created by some god in order to mislead those who lack faith. However, few of these same people are willing to acknowledge that a very similar argument could be used against the existence of their god, holy text(s), and/or prophet(s). Is it not equally plausible that Yahweh, the Christian Bible, and the story of Jesus and his homies are all just be an elaborate ruse created by Satan to test his followers? Why the abundant application of skepticism when it comes to everything we can observe in the natural world but total lack thereof when it comes to unverifiable stories that other humans tell us? Seem inconsistent to me.
Nobody at the conference will be saying this. Here's what they will be saying:
Fossil record: https://answersingenesis.org/f...
Geological evidence: https://answersingenesis.org/g...
Anything else: https://answersingenesis.org/a...
dismissing all their actual arguments without hearing them out
Here, they're not hard to find: https://answersingenesis.org/a.... Scroll down to topics and read away.
Do they have even the slightest understanding of the theory of evolution? At all?
Yes. They believe it goes against the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which says that chance leads to chaos, not order. And that order is only brought about by creation and design.