Where do I make my voice heard that I don't want the US government manipulating the climate?
Quite an extermist, you are! But realistically, the best we can hope is manipulating the climate less. That's what the whole "fighting the anthropogenic climate change" gig is all about.
Ask them what they willing to actually SACRIFICE to fix it and I bet you'll get a very different answer.
That's one point of having representatives, who can work on what needs to be sacrificed by everybody. A voter doesn't need to decide or even have knowledge to decide themselves. All they need to do is pick a candidate they think will do the best job at that (and everything else).
If you imagine quotes around first and second paragraphs, does that put the pompousness into different light? The style was indeed intentional, though I would not call it pompous.
About you setting up straw men about "writing everything from scratch". Nobody does that. By that criteria nobody in the world understands IT. If I really meant that as useful standard, wouldn't it be a humble admission, not arrogance?
You probably failed to read the last paragraph, or then I just wrote it too poorly to be understood.
That being said, I do understand how the browser, the OS, the
Hmm. If you can't read, you are restricted to looking at pictures. If there is someone to read for you, then you can hear the parts of text they choose to read for you, otherwise you are pretty much restricted to children's picture books. A lot of what happens in the world is simply a mystery to you.
If you can't program, you are restricted to using existing features in the way they are implemented. If there is someone to help you, then they can write a piece of code for you to do whatever mundane task (be it VBA, shell script, a feature or a complete application), otherwise you are pretty much restricted to clicking at links, icons and menus. A lot of what happens in the computer is a mystery to you.
Hmm. Not convinced, myself.
A massive spinning magnetron gradually slowing down until centrifugal force can't keep it from collapsing into a black hole anymore.
If you te going to make that much popcorn, you probably should not use microwave owen anyway. Use a kettle, it's cheaper, tastes better, and easier to get seasoning and butter just right.
I think Jupiter makes sure any highly elliptical orbit coming near Jupiter's orbit would not last too many orbits before having it's orbit radically changed, like happens with comets sooner or later if they survive long enough otherwise.
At that range, you have to wonder enough time has elapsed since the formation of the solar system for them to have "cleared the neighborhood" around their orbits.
If they are detected by looking at how they herd the minor bodies in the outer solar system, then I think it is safe to say they are indeed planets.
It already is wrong...
Linux Workstation: 16cores = way faster builds than 4 cores.
Did the 4 core CPU have 1/4th of the transistor count of the 16 core CPU? Then I'd expect it to be much slower of course. Point of Linus was, a 4 core CPU with same transistor count (used for more cache, better out-of-order execution logic, more virtual registers, and so on), as 16 core CPU will be faster on almost every task. So cores beyond 4 (the number Linus threw as the ballpark count) make sense only, if you really can not spend any more transistors in making those 4 cores faster, but still have die space to spare.
Why not? Currently Firefox has problems rendering (loading) two pages simultaneously, although it should be able to handle tens, using several cores.
Same with Evince (which is crap anyway), it cannot do anything in parallel, should be able to use tens of cores.
Javascript? Although the language is the worst I have seen since APL, a smart compiler could at least in some cases parallelize it (maybe with speculative execution or like).
And so on.
It will turn out to be as wrong as "640k".
Javascript is generally used in event driven manner, so it will perform quite well on a single core. Firefox having trouble loading multiple pages simultaneously should still be IO-bound, not CPU-bound, and if the engine has trouble, then it's an SW architecture problem where more cores will not really help.
Point of Linus was, taking a 6 core CPU, and replacing 2 cores with more cache and more transistors per core should make almost anything on Desktop run faster.
Linus doesn't so much say that parallelism is useless, he's saying that more cache and bigger, more efficient cores is much better. Therefore, increased number of cores at the cost of single core efficiency is just stupid for general purpose computing. Better just stick more cache to the die, instead of adding a core. Or that is how I read what he says.
I'd say, number of cores should scale with IO bandwidth. You need enough cores to make parallel compilation be CPU bound. Is 4 cores enough for that? Well, I don't know, but if the cores are efficient (highly parallel out-of-order execution) and have large caches, I'd wager IO lags far behind today. Is IO catching up? When will it catch up, if it is? No idea. Maybe someone here does?
I hear there's lots less carbon in the atmosphere of the moon, we could always move there.
The problem with the moon and carbon dioxide is, just exhaling a few times will make the CO2 ppm in lunar atmosphere rise to Jurassic levels. And then next thing you know, there will be allosauruses roaming about eating the colonists. So going to moon is no solution, we'd need to be even more careful about carbon emissions there.
Chit mon, if we're already screwed, we might as well party and pollute like there's no tomorrow. Might as well use the earth all up since it's a goner anyways.
When all is lost, you don't have care anymore. Thanks, global warming alarmists.
But all is not lost. Things are just going to be bad, but just how bad, that remains to be seen.
On the other hand our ancestors lived self-sufficiently off this land for millenia. On the other hand, that was not very fun life. But then, even if global civilization collapses, information does not disappear overnight. I for one will teach my kids both to make fire with flint and steel, and create and program a robot which can make fire with flint and steel. That should cover a lot of possible futures.
By default, when the tree dies, it will rot and return all that CO2 back to the air. So it's not really a solution unless you sequester the wood after the tree dies.
Sounds like you are not seeing the forest for the trees...
If you have a procedure with 10 parameters, you probably missed some.
