The perpetual calendar
in [Physics]
|
Prev: simple question power, resistance, current, etc
Next: OBSERVATIONS: Einstein's gravitational redshift measured with unprecedented precision
From: Robert Bannister on 1 Mar 2010 19:53 Peter Moylan wrote: > Robert Bannister wrote: > >> My first computer at the beginning of the 80s used to spend up to 4 >> minutes "cleaning up" every couple of days. I figure that is what dreams >> are about: wiping unused variables, erasing unnecessary data, having one >> last check before erasure on the dirty pictures... > > To the best of my knowledge, my dream subsystem doesn't delete the dirty > pictures. They still turn up in subsequent dreams. > You've probably got a more up to date system. -- Rob Bannister
From: DKleinecke on 1 Mar 2010 21:59 On Mar 1, 8:28 am, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...(a)hpl.hp.com> wrote: > Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp(a)retep> writes: > > Besides, it's been true for a number of years now that software > > written in high-level languages often runs faster (up to about a 5% > > improvement) than the same software written in C. That's because > > modern compilers do a lot of code optimisation, but with a low-level > > language a lot of optimisation possibilities aren't applicable. > > When I was in school, C was considered an HLL, and the same point was > made: since control flow is explicit, you can do a lot more > optimization. Which optimizations did you have in mind that don't > apply to C++? This is going a long way away from sci.lang, but would you be so kind as to indicate what optimizations you have in mind that don't apply to C (never mind C++). Isn't optimization carried out using intermediate languages more primitive than C? > > Your "easy to write a compiler for" is more to the point. With the > > kinds of processor that are typically used for embedded > > applications, compilers are available for exactly one language, so > > the programmer has no choice. Wouldn't that imply that writing a better compiler was an interesting business opportunity? Writing a dumb compiler is easy (and tedious). All the skill is in the optimization.
From: Peter T. Daniels on 1 Mar 2010 23:26 On Mar 1, 5:36 pm, Hatunen <hatu...(a)cox.net> wrote: > On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 13:41:15 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > > > > > > <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > >On Mar 1, 11:48 am, Hatunen <hatu...(a)cox.net> wrote: > >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 20:23:39 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > >> <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > >> >On Feb 28, 9:50 pm, "PaulJK" <paul.kr...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >> >> Peter T. Daniels wrote: > >> >> > On Feb 28, 1:42 am, "PaulJK" <paul.kr...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >> >> >> Peter T. Daniels wrote: > >> >> >>> On Feb 26, 1:40 am, "PaulJK" <paul.kr...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >> >> >>>> Peter T. Daniels wrote: > > >> >> >>>>> Do the Pacific states get the same coverage we do? > > >> >> >>>> Ignoring the various pay, satellite, and cable channels, there > >> >> >>>> are about twelve free-to-air locally broadcast channels. > >> >> >>>> One of the free-to-air channels (Prime) broadcasts Winter > >> >> >>>> Olympics every day nonstop from 5:30am to 6:30pm. Looking > >> >> >>>> at today's Friday schedule, apart from the half-hour WO news > >> >> >>>> at 5:30am and Cross Country skiing at 10:30-11:30am all the > >> >> >>>> events are live. > > >> >> >>>> If by "same coverage" you mean "identical programming" then > >> >> >>>> the answer is no. All commentators are either New Zealanders > >> >> >>>> or people who are aware of commenting for the downunder > >> >> >>>> or specifically kiwi audience. Now and then they interrupt > >> >> >>>> the program to switch to another competition to show > >> >> >>>> a kiwi athlete, who would we normally not see, perform > >> >> >>>> their shtick and then switch back. > > >> >> >>> Eh? You take "Pacific states" -- in the context of time zones -- to > >> >> >>> include New Zealand?? > > >> >> >> Whoops, sorry, I didn't realise that by "Pacific states" you meant > >> >> >> "US Pacific states". > > >> >> > We very, very, very rarely use "state" to mean 'independent nation'. > > >> >> And we very, very, very rarely use the expression "Pacific states" > >> >> which would exclude the majority of Pacific states (i.e. non-US > >> >> states in the Pacific). > > >> >"Pacific states" is a wel-established term -- sometimes it includes AK > >> >and HI, sometimes not. > > >> >> This just shows that no matter how hard I try I still sometimes > >> >> fail to correctly translate Merkin E. semantics to English E. > > >> >"State" is not a useful term for 'nation-state' because it is serving > >> >a different, much more salient function not only in the US, but also > >> >in (at least) Mexico and Brazil, and I think Germany. > > >> Germany doesn't have states, it has laender. > > >Which, in English, are called states. > > Which English? I've may have heard that a few times, but > English-speakers calling them states doesn't make them states. If being called by some name doesn't make an entity an example of the things called by that name, then what does?
From: R H Draney on 1 Mar 2010 23:32 Adam Funk filted: > >On 2010-03-01, Hatunen wrote: > >> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 16:16:10 +1300, "PaulJK" >><paul.kriha(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> >>>Hatunen wrote: > >>>> When mentioning temperatures I always try to remember to use "C" >>>> or "F". >>> >>>Don't forget "R" and "K" ! >> >> I, for one, make very few posts requiring either. > >I don't think I've every seen an R or K thermometer (except in >books). Is R for Reaumur or for Rankine?...r -- "Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle
From: CDB on 1 Mar 2010 23:34
Robert Bannister wrote: > Hatunen wrote: >> "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott(a)csuohio.edu> wrote: >>> Hatunen<hatunen(a)cox.net> wrote: >>>> "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott(a)csuohio.edu> wrote: > >>> [...] >>> >>>>> That may be another point of contention: pleasantly cool >>>>> means about 25�, and really good weather starts at about >>>>> 30�. And 5:30 or 6:15 is a nice time to go to bed. > >>>> I do hope you mean celsius degrees. > >>> I do indeed; Rob's posting from Oz. >> >> When mentioning temperatures I always try to remember to use "C" >> or "F". > > I thought there was only one country that used F, although I suppose > Canada swings both ways, so we only have to remember who lives in > America. > We still use imperial for some things, but temperatures, apart from body-temperatures, are Celsius. I would be surprised to find someone under 30 who was comfortable with Fahrenheit. |