Re: Polishing a turd?
AOT code is not necessarily always faster.
207 posts • joined 9 Aug 2012
AOT code is not necessarily always faster.
Do you guys have some vendetta against Fry?
I can vouch for Xamarin being really great. Not least because programming in C# is so much nicer than Java, or obj c. API is great,and the Xamarin IDE isnt too bad either (also good for Unity3d programming if you cant use Visual Studio).
Knights of the Old Republic.
Once the corporate customers have gone, once open-source FOSS and Linux prevail
Go where? Who in an office can work with Linux? I mean admin, HR, office drones etc. Why would any medium to large company inflict that on themselves?
Servers? Maybe. Because RedHat, CentOS are realistic alternatives.
MS has lost the phone/tablet war. Server OS is still being fought. Office desktop? Only the most insane lunatics of the most depraved kind would force their staff to use Linux.
Mac? Save that for the receptionist so any visitors think the company is hip. But everyone else, give them a Dell with Win7.
Chess, like many other simple "wargame" simulations is simply memory and extrapolation from the current position. It is no more a sign of intelligence than is a bubble-sort or a Celsius-to-Fahrenheit conversion table.
In this case how is anything a sign of intelligence? And I think you'll find there is far more to it than memory and extrapolation. You do need insights into how other people think etc.
What you are saying reminds me of when people say Poker is a game of luck. In that case why do the same faces keep appearing at Poker Series Finals?*.
*example taken from the film Rounders (a good film by the way).
Pilots, knowing about and by now having purloined uber expensive cargo, bail out having set auto pilot to send plane to the most remote place possible.
What expensive cargo? The mangosteens? And how would the get away with the cargo if they bailed out of the plane?
First and foremost I hope that whatever happened, whenever they do find the wreckage, that they find the crew and passengers were unconscious when they hit the water.
Fire or other inflight accident is almost impossible here. From the flightpath, it is known that the autopilot was reprogrammed and it was following an autopilot course all the way over Malaysia and into the Indian Ocean. So, the autopilot course set was not to get them back to an airport, so it doesn't make sense.
Up to a point I would agree that this is the weakest point in the "fire" theory. I don't know how the AP ended up in the Southern Ocean. And I won't pretend to.
Fumes disabling people is also not possible. The pilots are equipped with their own personal oxygen supplies, which may not have lasted 7 hours, but would have lasted long enough to get control and put out a mayday. We also know that the electrical systems of the aircraft were working at least to some extent (hence satellite 'pinging' etc.). Therefore, how did all the other electrical systems (such as transponder etc.) fail (and all backups) without being switched off?
Well, this is a bit of a stretch. In the panic and chaos we would never know what they were doing, or if the oxygen masks were working correctly, if the fire was a sudden flash fire, or if the succumbed to thick smoke. There is no way of knowing how long they had to put on oxygen masks. Even then, they could easily pass out form the heat.
As for the passengers, I don't know. But it may not be relevant to what happened if the flight cabin door was locked and inaccessible.
Also, bear in mind the debris spotted in the Indian Ocean is outside the 7hour flight time of the aircraft (it might have been carried by ocean currents) and is thought to be bobbing just under the surface.
I'm not sure that is entirely true. It seems to be within a reasonable distance of the tip of the southern arc.
The largest part is also believed to be 24m long. If the aircraft entered an uncontrolled descent (say due to fuel running out) and hit the ocean, there is almost no chance of a 24m piece of debris being left. It would hit at high speed (600mph?) and would be utterly destroyed. At that speed, it would be the same as flying into concrete.
We have no way of knowing what the angle of incidence was, what the speed was, etc. So none of the above is fact. In fact I doubt very much that it is the case that in the event of a crash caused by lack of engines that the whole plane would be utterly destroyed (as in no fuselage).
So, could they have tried to land on the Ocean? Maybe, but why fly there and then try to do that? All in all, this doesn't make any sense at all.
I'm not sure you understand the "fire" theory. Nobody was flying the plane down there. The pilots and and passengers were unconscious or dead.
I'm sorry, but all in all, anything but deliberate act (by someone unknown) seems almost impossible. The known information (assuming what we're told is right) seems to rule it out. Whether it's the pilot(s) or someone else, who knows. The known movements of the aircraft seem to rule out accident, as does the inability to find the debris (so far) and the information that some of the known flightpath seems to include segments designed to avoid radar (flying low for instance, but whilst seemingly under control).
There are no theories that make much sense. Terrorism or Suicide don't really hold up to scrutiny. But by and large the fire theory (or some catastrophic event) fits better than any other. Clearly we don't have anywhere near enough information to make better theories.
And again, as I said in the OP, if the debris is indeed the missing plane, the fire theory makes more sense. Why would terrorists deliberately fly to the middle of nowhere to run out of fuel and crash? And if it wasn't for Inmarsat's data, which presumably any terrorist wouldn't have known about, we would never have known where to begin looking.
Hope they find it.
If found this probably supports the cockpit fire theory more than any other.
Is blu ray still an acronym?
For application level programming there is little reason to use C if C++ is available.
Indeed, why use C++, when Java or C# are available for application level programming?
So the answer isn't 42 afterall?
...how to write a game in Python.
What's wrong with that? That sounds like a good idea to me. Use PyGame (or maybe there is a better library for games now), you can easily teach a kid the core concepts of programming and have fun.
Also you can write the same game in Visual Studio (C++), with SDL.
He also said:
"change it from 9-3:15 (or whatever it is right now) to 8 - 5."
I'd estimate that you get 5 hours lessons from a 9-3:15 day and at least 7 hours from an 8-5 day, which would more than make up for the difference. I think the anonymous coward actually made some pretty good suggestions.
One small problem with that idea. The NUT(ters).
Yes, when they have reason to attack they hold back, when they have the chance to talk they wave rifles. It's almost as if they wanted to keep this state of affairs indefinitely, without resolution one way or another, isn't it?
No. Not at all. SK has been trying to open up relations with NK. Everytime NK resorts to threats (laughable, maybe, but threats none the less), and occassionally breaking the terms of the ceasefire (60 year old ceasefire). And let's not forget that it routinely threatens nuclear war against SK, the USA and even Japan, and has even fired "warning" missiles into the Sea of Japan. There is only one destabilizing force in East Asia and that is NK. Even China is washing its hands of the country.
The US-SK military exercises are legitimate, and let's not forget these are annual exercises, not some special show of force, and this is not a matter of "dick-waving", but of security.
Regardless the reason or whether the Norks' own actions can be taken as justifications for these muscle-flexing numbers, is it really so surprising they might be put off by the sight of armed troops playing D-day on the other side of the trench?
What could the US/SK troops be preparing for? Hmmm.
I can't imagine. Presumably they want to deter the NK regime from shelling SK civilians, which it does on occassion, or sinking SK warships. The USA and SK have actually been incredibly restrained, considering after the sinking of the Cheonan
they were within rights (remember they are still at war) to bomb the living hell out of NK military positions.
But it's all the USA's fault, of course. That's the post-Iraq narrative that everyone likes to spout, forgetting what is actually happening in the world. For 6 decades the only thing standing between SK and a totalitarian nightmare has been the US marine corp ad SK military.
The US troops could perfectly take the wait, it isn't like their wars are going anywhere anyway.
No they couldn't. Military training exercises are planned months in advance and cost a lot of money.
Not in the UK so couldn't watch the video. I'm assuming it's the same as this:
The most worrying part of the interview is the assumption (from Paxman and Dexter) that "picking up" coding is simple. You can pick it up in a day? Paxman is shocked that Dexter has been learning for a year.
Worryingly, the assumption seems to be that you can just pick it up quickly. Also, I hope the real lessons cover more than HTML and jQuery.
If there is that much shale gas then it needs to be banned, or else we'll face CO2 levels in the atmosphere crossing 2000ppm.
Mere conjecture. Plus, if this is such a big issue then why aren't AGW believers living in tents and doing their laundry with washboards, staying off the internet, staying away from airports (Prince Charles, Al Gore *cough*, *cough*) etc?
If the rising CO2 levels is really that scary then I don't understand why practically all AGW believers are doing nothing about it. Does riding your bike to work, staying off planes, really make any difference? It's always token gestures, with vague and doubtful climate benefits, i.e. trying to buy locally sourced food.
If action were actually needed, masses of believers would be abandoning the towns and setting up low carbon communes or something to show that they actually believe their own spiel.
Its really sad when someone posts the sort of thing you just did, you claim its a scam etc and refuse to see any other possibility, that is as bad as what you accuse the majority of the worlds scientists of, they beleif in global warming but have different opinions of cause and effect.
The majority of the world's scientists? Let's be clear, we are talking about climate scientists here. And saying "most" indicates that you know very well that some scientists doubt the full supposed threat of AGW.
You just refuse to accept it, oh and please if no model can show climate change how do you know for sure that the climate isn't changeing ?
That's not the issue. The issue is whether we have enough (or any) evidence to supposet that humans are causing massive climate change. Three years ago, you'd be lucky to get an AGW believer to admit that our supposed "catastrophic climate change" has paused. Now the obvious fact is inescapable, there is not one iota of a thought int he general body of AGW believers that their model and their theory could be wrong. Even though the observed data has contradicted their theory. We get excuse after excuse for why the models failed. We still get Al Gore bleating incessently about "deniers" and "the facts are in". Well no, the facts are not in. The observed data has destroyed your theory.
Most people dont care. So long as X Factor and Eastenders is on the TV now one gives one! Its a shame really that more people are not concerned.
I don't think you are being fair to people here. There is only so much caring and worrying a person can do in a day, and they have a lot of things to worry about, ie. paychecks, loans, pensions, economic problems, wars in foreign countries, family issues, immigration (...here we go), local politics etc. Where on the long list of people's issues is this supposed to sit?
You might say it should be top of the list, but for many people there are far more important matters, and I don't mean Justin Bieber's haircut, or the X Factor.
Still, things do and can change over time. Many of the disinterested 99% can be moved towards dissent and even action. There's always a straw which breaks the camel's back.
What action? And just out of interest, what change do you want to happen?
According to UK current prime minister, he is a legitimate target.
He is "Eu". That is not something his party presently wants to be a part of. From there to officially considering it an adversary is only one step. That is a step that is very easy to make with a bit of nudging from the friends with benefits across the pond.
It is not like this step has been made for the first time either. Belgacom anyone?
Why exactly isn't he a legititmate target for spying? He obviously know his work crosses into the realm of national security for a lot of countries. I expect any country with a well-funded spy agency would want to "watch him closely". The only issue here is the USA/UK seem to have been caught.
And yet you and I both took time to comment on the story, Obama takes time out of his day to comment on it, the CBC, NY Times and NY Post to articles on it.
Come on. The stories are slowly sliding off the front page. Once they're off the front page they might as well not print them. With each new "revelation" we become more and more accustomed, or desensitized if you like, to these headlines.
Obviously my post is getting hammered with downvotes, since this is the Reg. But what are they actually downvoting? I didn't say anything incorrect. Downvote me when you go on your protest marches.
People care, just not enough.
Not enough for you.
They don't realize how serious this is.
How serious is this? When did spy agencies ever respect anybody's privacy?
Would there be other grey haired geeks out on the streets, I wonder.
Doubt it. The world doesn't care any more. Only the Reg and the Guardian still think this is news. 99% of people don't even really understand what the NSA's technology is capable of. In the UK, there has been barely a murmer (outside the proffessional naggers at the Guardian) about this. When I talk to non-tech friends they barely care that the NSA/GCHQ may or may not be spying on their emails. A lazy, illogical approach, maybe. But that seems to be the case.
I guess, at the end of the day, the British public trust their spies. At least a lot more than the Americans trust theirs.
Or just build temporary brick walls diverting the convoy to their inventory :)
And then the Reaper drones circling above can zero in on the enemy's inventory location. Boom! Bye-bye enemy weapon stockpile.
Your point being?
Models provide predictions, since you can't very well measure something that hasn't happened yet, but you can use measurements to increase accuracy of models and improve their predictive algorythms
Great. Let us know when the models aren't spitting out crap.
QI is a tool to boost his ego by telling everyone else they are wrong, unfortunately he now seems to believe the hype (thank goodness he's not in a position of real power as some of us would now be in internment camps).
QI is a comedy quiz show. For half the show they usually talk about farts or excrement or sex. About ten percent of the show is Stephen Fry reading out factoids. I may be wrong but I don't think Open University use QI for teaching purposes.
Is anyobdy actually surprised by this? I'm not saying that in a snide way. I used to love Super Nintendo, and N64 was the greatest thing ever (GoldenEye, Perfect Dark, Zelda OOT...). Nintendo has been consistently falling behind Sony and later Microsoft ever since those days. (Yes N64 was absolutely superior to PS1 - the only thing PS1 had over it was Tomb Raider... and possibly the controller was a better design).
Now they are so far behind, catching up will be almost impossible IMHO. By which I mean the future is bankruptcy, buyout or relegating themselves to making Mario games for other platforms.
It seems they don't even know how to setup a proper game network.
I don't know what's going on over at Nintendo HQ, but I'm willing to bet my 1080 Snowboarding N64 cartridge, it's the same old cliche problem with Japanese behemoth corporations:
1. Bloated middle management
2. High numbers of unproductive workers who won't quit, can't be fired (easily)
3. Lack of strategy and global awareness by the upper management
They basically bet the farm that the future of gaming was family oriented with an easy to use, kid-firendly console, that abbies, mums, grannies and pet dogs could play. It looks like that hasn't panned out.
Still, I find it hard to undrstand how a company that owns the IP to Pokemon, Mario and Zelda can lose that much money.
I can transliterate it:
Why? 皆様 is a polite term, obviously not the friendly casual term Google wants to use.
And yet nobody is being forced to sign it. Is the USA supposed to put other countries' interests before its own?
And what does Snowden get out of this? Apart from giving up a high paying job and a super hot girlfirend, to live on Russian state handouts.
Its not that this stuff couldn't have been done. I just feel is is highly unlikely that it could be done without some inquisitive individual finding it.
I too am skeptical about this, and the fact that none has been discovered.
mainly because they have a hierarchical electoral system, so yes they have local votes, but in reality it is unlikely a non CPC member will get elected, although it happens, the reason being if you want to get into power you join the CPC, there are people in the CPC who took part in protests in China, they know change takes time...
Yes, never mind the fact that the largest army on earth, the PLA, is the military wing of the CPC. That's just a happy coincidence.
You also forgot to mention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_OS
2) You appear to be denying rapid change in global temperature and asserting large action is not only unnecessary but will be harmful. What constitutes proper action is highly debatable, but any fair reading of the data can't deny the increase in temperature in the last several decades. However, such denial is key to justifying inaction.
Rapid change? Really? And the last several decades? What happened in the last decade? Or doesn't the last decade count?
Don't you think it is a wee bit hasty to start dismantling industry while the data isn't doing what it's supposed to be doing?
What will reduce us to poverty is the fecking banks and the USA constantly developing better ways to kill people.
The banks are creating ways to kill people?
As for nuclear power plants, if they are so safe why can't we all have one in our homes?
Why would anyone want or need a nuclear reactor in their home? Nuclear power is not totally safe. Of course there are risks, but judging by the costs and benefits of the alternatives nuke plants seem to be a much better bet.
From page 2 of the article:
What is really a lot more certain - and this is admitted by hardline greens - is that a shift to all or mostly renewable power means incredibly expensive energy and abandonment of economic growth.
This is indeed what a lot of the "greens" want, at least in a sense. Some have resorted to calling for the abandonment of democracy, or instituting a planned perpetual recession. It never ceases to amaze me how a lot of AGW proponents pepper their talk with anti-capitalism. It's almost as if, for a lot of 'em, reducing CO2 is just a means to an end, the end being the toppling of the capitalist world-order.
I'm just glad the whole AGW scare is winding down now. I followed this year's AGW shindig in Poland in the news, and was pleased, unsurprised and amused to see nothing got agreed, as usual. Which is great for the world, great for capitalism (which every single one of us benefits from), and great for democracy.
American children are literally brainwashed into believing in American supremacy.
I'm sorry, where in the pledge of allegience is there any mention of American supremecy?
Such that, if you question that allegiance and patriotism you get a fairly disproportionate reaction.
Kind of like a TV presenter preferring not to where a poppy on her collar. Just watch the disproportionate reaction.
As others have said on this thread, even though the US has abused its power over the internet, I would much rather see it in the USA's relatively safe hands then have countries like Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and China dictating the terms of internet usage.
As little as I trust the US govt, at least it is democratic, it upholds (in most cases) democratic, free principles, and it is scared shirtless of its own people, as govts should be. I don't see any need to get failed, despotic or anti-democratic govts involved in internet governance.
We already are close to the precipice with the ITU trying to get its grubby paws on the internet:
I presume that the oil companies drew up contracts with the UK gov. around exploration/revenue/investment all that stuff, no doubt a few sweetners etc.
So wont those contracts need to be renegotiated and if so, why would it be on the same terms ie the elusion that tax would instead of going into the UK coffers go directly into Scotlands coffers unchanged?
They will need to be renegotiated, but that will take time. To start with, Scotland would almost certainly keep everything as normal as possible, for the sake of stability and then start negotiating. However, this won't be as easy as SNP thinks to come back with a much better deal.
The idea that Scotland could have a comparable oil fund (ala Norway) is unrealistic. North Sea oil's heyday is over and negotiating with large oil companies as a small government dependent on oil revenues is more difficult than as a larger government.
Not only will the contracts have to be renegotiated but the fact that the rUK has such a large investment in the oil infrastructure, they would need to be part of the negotiations too.
Of course, the above is just conjecture.
That came into existence under the Act of Union 1707. Independence will result in being "disunited". England can call itself anything it likes. Will also need to apply for membership of EU, NATO, and all the rest because the entity under which it took its place will cease to exist.
The Act of Union is not half as important as you may think. How a nation came together is not of so much importance during breakups. This is a historical fact. The Soviet Union "ceased to exist" once the Baltics declared independence. But Russia just became, legally speaking the USSR by another name as far as the international community was concerned. This is the precedent and the standard.
You may have a logical and legalistic point that the UK will "cease to exist", but in reality it means nothing. The Act of Union is just a footnote in history.
I guess the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland ceased to exist after Irish independence? Nope, just a change of name and carry on as usual.
But the Act of 1801 joined the kingdoms of Great Britain (England and Scotland) with that of Ireland.
There is no rUK whatever wishful thinkers might imagine. No UK at all at that stage. r or otherwise.
Wrong. Absolutely, hopelessly wrong. The name may change, but not much else.
Since the UK as it was recognised when it joined the EU (or Common Market as was) would effectively cease to exist if Scotland left, why would either of the two new countries have any more right than the other to remain in the EU, both or neither as far as I can see.
This is not true at all. There will be no "velvet divorce". The UK will cease to exist canard is an SNP favorite but flies in the face of international norms. rUK will carry on the UK's responsibilities to the treaties the UK signed. Just as Russia did for the Soviet Union. This is international precedent and no foreign government in its right mind will decide that the UK has been liquidated and everything is up for grabs. Maybe the Security Council seat can be raffled off.
Whose benefit is it to see all these trade, defence, research treaties voided because 8% of a country decided to cleave itself from the whole?
And absolutely no EU nation will decide (even if they could make that decision) that the rUK loses its place in the EU, since an awful lot of them have their own separatist movements.
It seems to me that a lot of the anti-scot commentards up there have missed the point that if Scots felt like valued and equal partners in the "United" Kingdom, then we wouldn't want independence. After all, it's a big step into the unknown, and only history will tell us whether it was off a cliff or into the promised land.
The last PM was Scottish. The second to last was Scottish educated. The last Chancellor was Scottish. The second in line to the throne was Scottish educated. Scotland has a disproportionate representation at Westminster.
I'm not for or against Scottish independence, but it's very disingenuous to claim Scots don't feel "valued and equal partners".
The point about the remnants of Empire is an interesting one, and depends rather on whether Scottish independence is achieved through a secession or a repeal of the Acts of Union (1707 I think).
If the former, the question doesn't arise, Scotland becomes a new country with only a tenuous connection with the pre-1707 Kingdom of Scotland, with none of the shared assets, liabilities, or international memberships.
If it's the latter, you essentially revert to two countries called England (which had already had Wales for ages) and Scotland; everything, every liability, every asset that has been added since Union is up for grabs (e.g. "OK, if you take Northern Ireland, we'll let you keep Faslane until you get Spadeadam back up to scratch..."
Repealing the Acts of Union is largely irrelevent, meaning your latter possibility is not going to happen. The international norm and the international precedent is that the part of a country wishing to remove itself form the whole is NOT the successor state. East Timor, all of the Soviet Union being prime examples. The rump UK could lose its security council seat (though through what mechanism I don't know), and a few other seats, but will almost certainly be considered the successor state.
Obviously there will be negotiations to divide up the debt. Scotland probably will take about 8~9% of it. North Sea oil and gas will be divided and Scotland will probably get about 90% or thereabouts. Although Salmond's oil fund idea will have to pass a gauntlet of oil companies, who won't want to invest heavily unless they get similar terms they get now.
Scotland will face a big problem choosing the currency. They will almost certainly NOT get any seat on the BoE MPC or any such thing. Or if they did the BoE and rUK treasury will stitch it up to be a largely nominal seat. Scotland would be better off going with its own money in my opinion.
I doubt very much that Scotland will be given automatic access as a member of the EU.
I've no idea if Montserrat, Ascension, Bermuda, Pitcairn, etc. had English or British flags planted, before or after 1707, but it's easy to imagine the sovereignty of the sunnier British islands being up for negotiation as well.
Most of these places would find life as independent nations tricky at best. I'm not sure what benefit they would get form switching from one nominal "mother country" to another. And I doubt a new Scotland would want to manage the foreign and defence affairs of, oh lets say the Falklands.
The company wants around 100 million Thai baht ($3m) in damages, but mostly it wants the app removed from iTunes.
$3 million? Is that a typo?
if not, they're doing it wrong. You're supposed to start with an astronomically obscene amount of money in the lawsuit, and maybe a percentage of every app ever sold ever. Then, after the judge whittles it down after appeal, after appeal, you take what you can get away with.
In unrelated news, shares in Redmond based chair manufacturers slumped over 10% today.
The NSA would have been instrumental in finding the whereabouts of Bin Laden, given that the couriers who visited the target house and the man who supposedly lived there, were having their communications tapped. From the reports I read, this surveillence gave the circumstantial evidence to push Obama into going ahead with the mission to kill bin Laden.
Finally, the only thing I want to see added to the curriculum. Life skills.
After leaving school I had not been taught the following
1: Basic electronics, (wiring plugs etc)
2: Basic home saftey (where gas taps, meters / water mains etc are)
3: How to pay bills
4: What appears on a paycheck
5: How credit cards work
6: How to rent a propperty
You forgot some:
7: Tying shoelaces
8: Not looking directly at the sun.
9: Drinking bleach