... the net neutrality regulations ARE NOT a government takeover of the running operations of telecoms.
True, but that's not the same thing as saying net neutrality rules don't affect cost structures for telecoms.
Selling an unlimited service and then limiting it is fraud. People should go to jail for that. Requiring vendors to tell the truth about their product and adhere to their product claims in not an unreasonable intrusion into their cost structures.
>just to accommodate those who want to carry on their luggage
I don't want to carry on luggage. I want to avoid baggage claim, not lose my bag and skip the line at check in. Carrying on is just means, not the motivation.
It boils down to "why not pre-compile entire websites into binary packages per-page? It would make it much faster and more efficient for the browser to load it..."
Or we could write programs, compile them and let users run them on their computer.
Interesting list:
0 * 1/z -> 0
z / z --> 1
The way it was explained to me was that it one analyzes division from the positive side towards zero, and division from the negative side towards zero you end up with this
0/+0 is +Infinity
0/-0 is -Infinity
Since 0/0 is BOTH +Infinity AND -Infinity you end up with TWO values. Division is only closed when it produces a single number. The answer is undefined because we don't know WHICH infinity to pick.
Mathematics hasn't evolved to multi-value constants.
If you're using normal numbers. Any self respecting field is closed over its operators, including division.
Yes. It. Is. Different. f(x)/g(x) is undefined if f(x) and g(x) are both zero, and pretending it can ever be anything else is going to get you in a lot of hot water very fast. Now, then L'Hopital's Rule can help you find the limit as a approaches x of f(a)/g(a), but that is something different, and you have to be aware it's different.
It works in the physical world. Don't be so dismissive.
That's why I never use floating point. It's a mess. It's impossible to achieve a uniform random distribution of floats. The space isn't uniform.
Fixed point is nice, as long as you have an idea of how big your numbers will be.
Yup.
Graph y=0/x as x -> 0 from both sides. It's a straight line (y=0) heading for (0,0).
Graph y=x/x as x -> 0 from both sides. It's a straight (y=1) line heading for (0,1).
At x=0, it could be either of those answers, or anything else. No one answer is correct.
To be more correct, the 68000 certainly could support multitasking, both cooperative and preemptive -- it just could not fully support instruction restart after certain types of exceptions ( and this could not support virtual memory ala UNIX).
I was puzzled by TechyImmigrant's comment and found the same thing. The 68000 saved enough state to handle interrupts which is needed for preemptive multitasking but not bus fault exceptions which are needed to support virtual memory like with a 68451 MMU.
I am not aware of any CPUs which support interrupts that cannot support preemptive multitasking.
I too was puzzled by how I muddled up preemption with instruction restart for paging or virtual memory. I wasn't even drunk.
As usual, your shitty posting history is confirmed by yet another piece of shit post. The 68010 had nothing to do with "instruction restart". Jesus Christ.
Yes it did. It had a prefetch buffer added and retained enough state to undo an instruction when it hit a memory fault half way through executing the instruction. I have designed computers using the 68010 that took advantage of that.
Yes. These things bubbled up slowly from my subconscious since earlier today. Years of crypto has ruined my CPU architecture skills.
As I remember it, it was an Apollo workstation that used that method.
>a classmate posting something questioning the pre-emptive multitasking capabilities of AmigaOS
Yes. The Amiga ran on a 68000. The 68000 didn't support instruction restart. So you couldn't properly do preemptive multitasking with it. It needed the applications to cooperate with the interruptions. So an application could undermine the preemption. The 68010 fixed this problem. There were also unix based 68000 workstations that had two 68000s, one running a clock cycle behind the other, so the state of the CPU could be rewound and the instruction restarted when necessary.
>isp's were ALREADY under the domain of the fcc.
A very different domain of the FCC.
> obvious repub
Wut? Your brain appears to be broken.
I can't afford expensive art, but I can afford some of the art I like. I buy that. I don't expect it to make money. I expect it to look good.
I think there's a reasonable expectation that expensive art should be a lot better at the things you use art for than cheap art.
Expectation and reality don't seem to line up a whole lot in my experience.
Net neutrality is good. It is good that big ISPs are subject to it.
However a world in which ISPs are placed within the legal framework of phone companies is bad.
A well written net neutrality law would have been better than the FCC bringing ISPs under their wing.
Understanding is always the understanding of a smaller problem in relation to a bigger problem. -- P.D. Ouspensky
