Because only the application knows how to split its own inputs so that multiple worker threads can each work independently on an input chunk. The job of the OS is to figure out how much CPU time each worker gets, based on a variety of factors (such as thread and process priority/nice-ness). If you have multiple CPUs and they're not at 100% usage, this results in parallel processing of those inputs.

Prove it.

All languages are syntactic sugar for the IR code that gets generated. Fundamentally, all compilers translate from a Source language to a Target language (machine language in a lot of cases).

Whether the compiler checks that the types match, that there will be overflow, that you're doing signed vs unsigned comparison - it's up to the compiler and its developers. Clearly, one compiler can have more features than the other one. To access those new features, the compiler needs to see syntactic constructs in the source code. If you can't extend Javascript (or it's not feasible, or you just don't want) to incorporate those syntax changes, you can always develop a new language, such as Dash (or Dart?), with the risk that it will fail, but with the opportunity of fixing the bad things in Javascript and add the features that you want.

This is just a natural way of language evolution (in the broad scope of translating source code to machine code). You can't anticipate all the requirements of the future, so you design a language that solves all previous problems (or a relevant subset) and the current ones. In time, it will become obsolete, as people will build on top of your language to solve the problems they'll face at that point in time.

Obviously, everyone hates change. I say: Give it a shot! At least don't dismiss it till you've looked at it and figured out how it may or may not help you. If it doesn't, stick with what works for you. If it does, hey, you're now better off. Chances are, people aren't wasting their time to develop a new language, unless it solves someone's problem (their problem, your problem, everyone's problem - depends on the goals of that language).

I, for one, always welcome a new programming language, just to see what it brings to the table.

in my country:

• - we bribe the doctors. If you don't bribe them, they don't treat you and most won't even diagnose you. It's because "their salaries are low".
• - most doctors drink their way through medical school.
• - many doctors fail their exams again and again and attempt to buy the medical degree (and those who have enough money succeed in buying it).
• - lie their asses off to get your money and then prescribe a ton of drugs, more than you need, just to make the pharmacies happy.
• - do _not_ stay up to date with the latest in medical research.
• - there are a handful of good, honest doctors who want to treat people and are forced to do magic with the few antiquated tools they have. Access to the only MRI scanner in the country, which also happens to be the most advanced piece of medical technology we have, is controlled by the private clinic that owns it and ... no, you're not getting scanned unless you're the president's son or you're filthy rich.

I'll take Watson's diagnosis any day of the week!

for fragmentation. ffs.

what's wrong with ":tabe /path/to/file" then pressing "gt" or "gT" to go forward/backward between tabs?

There is no such thing as bad publicity

"piracy free" not. See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2011/mar/17/android-market-pirated-games-concerns and http://eightyeightgames.com/2011/03/25/iphone-piracy-rate/

This was fairly obvious to anyone who has observed the evolution of Facebook, the Facebook Like button and sites like StumbleUpon.

Letting people choose the best needles in a haystack based on their likes is just too invaluable for any search engine with a huge haystack. Clearly, G+ and the +1 buttons on the search page (and on other sites) play their part in curating Google's data. As far as abuse goes, people have tried to abuse every variable in the page rank formula, and succeeded at times. But, it's like always playing catch-up: it's time consuming and not a sustainable model in the long run.

Now back to the Facebook Like buttons. Facebook's disadvantage was they didn't have a search engine at hand to exploit the data they were getting. If I were them, I would have tried to sell it to Bing or Yahoo. Maybe Bing/Yahoo weren't interested. But, as far as I can tell, there are more Facebook Like buttons on websites now, than there are +1 buttons (though this is changing rapidly). Perhaps now Bing will be interested in Facebook's Like button data, if Google's ranking system benefits a lot from their own +1 data (and I assume it will).

Is this real? Is AI that good these days?

If you were able to deploy only 1 defense mechanism to a mission critical server, which one would it be and why? You have a choice of: firewall, antivirus, ids, stack smashing protector, monitors, other: please specify)

How come you remember this dialog?

but have you filed a bug report?

It's about time!