Unfortunately cores this large, powerful and complex all stand excellent chances of spontaneously self-triggering SMEF (Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure).
That acronym is a fine example of Onomatopoeia.
But is that really true? GPUs have far more than 42 cores, and they don't SMEF very often, do they?
That would be almost, but not quite, entirely unlike a retro-gen GPU.
And highly improbable.
Do you really want this:
A = ones(10000, 10000, 'int8'); % 10000-by-10000 matrix each entry of which is 1, stored using the 8-bit signed integer type
B = 1; % double precision
C = A+B;
to blow C up into a 10000-by-10000 matrix of doubles, requiring eight times as much memory as A?
Obviously not. But it should be my choice as to whether precision is thrown away, not Matlab's.
What I'm saying is this (pardon my Matlab, it has been awhile):
a = int8(1);
b = 1; % double;
c = a + b; % c is type int8, not double
This was a stunner for me when I first encountered it. When you mix double and int types in Matlab, it demotes the double to an int! Same with float and int.
Of course, you must create the int explicitly as such (double is the default) but I mean, WTF Matlab??
Neither you nor the GP offer any evidence to back up your claims. I'm not interested in preparing a thesis about the correlation of political orientation and intelligence. I'll just offer this,
http://www.psychologytoday.com...
and share my own personal experience, which us that there are smart and dumb people across the political spectrum.
It seems like specifying a contract where you're going to pay for the well digging and he gets as many tries as he wants to select well sites isn't likely to lead to a good outcome whether he's a dowser or a geologist. Pay for performance seems like a lot better model than pay for consultation in this instance. Of course, I dare you to find a dowser who would actually agree to that kind of contract, heh.
Better still is payment based on past performance. Whether he's a dowser or a geologist, how many times in the past has he succeeded as a fraction of his attempts? If dowsing is a crock (and I think it is) and study of geology actually improves the probability of finding water, then the geologist should win over time. Unless, of course, the dowser has actually acquired an intuitive sense of geology, and the dowsing rod is just a prop.
Of course, I doubt you will find a dowser who is willing to compare his success rate to a geologist.
People who are suffering, ignorant, and afraid are more willing to turn to the supernatural - be it religion or superstitions - as a 'solution' to their problems.
This.
There's an old Russian proverb: "Pray to God, but continue to row to shore."
If a problem requires action to solve, you can't just pray it away. On the other hand, if you're powerless to do anything about a problem, you may turn to a spiritual salve in order to cope. I have no problem with spiritual practitioners who offer the salve. But if they claim to solve the problem, then I burn with contempt for them.
I stand by my original comment. I was not being sloppy with my language. There are indeed many mainstream religions (or perhaps more correctly, prominent sects thereof) that accept science and the scientific explanations of origins, and have stated as much in their official positions. (Organizations may not have beliefs, but they can have positions.) For them, the origin myths are philosophical and allegorical, not historical or factual.
I just used the word "correct" to be pithy. I agree that science is not something that is "correct" or "incorrect" or that it claims to be able to reveal absolute truth. But I do maintain strongly (and I think you would agree) that science is indisputably the best way to achieve an understanding of nature that is as close as possible to the truth (whatever it may be) even though that understanding needs occasional revision. And despite what you may think, there are many religious organizations that officially hold that position too.
Now I will without hesitation joyfully explain in fine detail exactly how ignorant it is to be part of a fundamentalist Abrahamic religion.
FTFY. There are plenty of non-fundie mainstream religions, Abrahamic and otherwise, that recognize science (and in particular, scientific explanations of origins) as correct.
AFAIK what's different here is that Comcast claims unlimited == no_cap, but unlimited != fixed_price. Obviously Comcast's definitions are highly self-serving, but I don't think they rise to the level of blatant lies.
I say again, I'm not on Comcast's side. I just think that describing Comcast's position in hyperbolic terms (such as "blatant lies") will be self-defeating.
If you don't tell people what the quota is (in a fair way) then blatant lie does cover it quite nicely.
Technically, that sounds more like a lie-by-omission. For it to be a blatant lie, they would have to say there is no quota when in fact there was one.
I have no faith that the government won't fall for this blatant lie.
I have no desire to defend Comcast. However, I think it's a bit strong to call it a "blatant lie." What I would call it is "highly disingenuous."
Comcast says there's no cap: they won't stop sending you bits, they'll just charge you more if you exceed a threshold. Of course, their definition of "cap" is a thin disguise over their real intent, which is to discourage heavy usage of their network. It sucks, but it is tenable.
you aren't getting contacted by a Nigerian 419 scammer with some dead relative or something or other and trying to deposit a magical sum of money in your account.
FTFY.
All laws are bad.
Especially that one..
Well said.
People who generalize are idiots.
Wait...
You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred. -- Superchicken
