Comment Re:See nothing that says this is x86 (Score 2) 128
Here are (only two) benchmark results...
http://browser.primatelabs.com...
Here are (only two) benchmark results...
http://browser.primatelabs.com...
I see not one thing that says this is an x86. If it's not x86 it's still ARM and still windows RT even if they don't call it RT anymore. The result being you can only run software from the windows store, no legacy apps.
Wikipedia says the Atom x7 is an x86 chip
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki...
That's pretty harsh! What are you going on?
I got the impression that the article was written after interviewing someone from the company in person. Like you, I don't have anything concrete to go on, but that seems the likeliest explanation for the "go to market" date.And I'm sure the rep from the company had earlier been involved in fundraising and as part of that would have had to tell investors his expectations of energy efficiency.
BBC news articles about scientific papers, by contrast, invariably have the words "scientists say" and usually mention the paper's publication...
Often people taking placebo, homeopathy, etc. will *report* feeling better - but this does not mean they are better in any meaningful sense of the word.
Curiously, I'd say that's the only meaningful sense of "feel better".
If I took treatment which genuinely cured me of some physical ailment but didn't make me feel better, I honestly wouldn't care for it and wouldn't do it again. If I took a placebo which didn't cure the physical ailment but made me feel better, I'd be all over it. I guess I'd just assumed that this was obvious and everyone would have the same reaction. Apparently you don't.
Maybe I'm influenced by endurance sports (e.g. I've done many 10+ mile swims) where I think many people can physically accomplish it, but their state of mind is the only thing allowing them or preventing them from achieving it.
Here in Seattle, the city comes to inspect electrical work.
It happened at Digg. It has happened in certain churches. It has happened in Korea. It happened in Russia and China. "It's okay to ban this kind of speech" is never. Never true.
[citation needed]
The article shows a picture of Breakout, and tends to focus on the wrong things entirely... especially the title, trumping that "computers can beat humans". It's fairly impressive that computers can learn the rules of a simple videogame on their own and perform well, but beating humans is not exactly an apples to apples comparison, because while we can formulate strategies to maximize points, we're also prone to making simple mistakes due to our much poorer reflexes and coordination.
Exactly. The article talks about the "advanced strategy" of tunneling a hole through to bounce the ball of the back wall. But that's only a useful strategy to make up for someone who doesn't have the reflexes to bounce the ball with their paddle, or can't be bothered. If the program had good reflexes and didn't get bored, then tunneling in breakout isn't any advantage.
SQL injection? Shouldn't the "victims" be prosecuted also, for poor IT management?
No, because poor IT management isn't a crime.
Poor software authoring isn't a crime either. Imagine if unpaid open source contributors were held liable for bugs.
Why would the US want to build a skeleton army?
Your assumption boils down to "teachers are women and therefore don't have a gender bias against girls and maths"
??? Weird. That assumption is counter to common sense and my experience (as a male teacher).
My female colleagues and managers are WITHOUT EXCEPTION great software engineers. I wonder why your workspace is so bad?
It's hard to blame it on "the women" because then you'd have to explain why places like my workspace doesn't suffer. So it must be something else. Any ideas?
Well, that's great, but if the No. 1 reason is that girls just aren't as interested in coding as boys (generally/on average) then how far are you going to get?
If 40% didn't do it for the no.1 reason and 30% didn't do it for the no.2 reason then you'd get 30% more.
Stupid question, stupid answer.
So your limited experience with something in your limited area trumps the experiences of everybody else everywhere else ?
I've taken 200+ taxis in Northern Italy, Germany, Singapore, Seattle, LA, Vegas, New York, England, Chicago, Vancouver, Scotland, India, SF and Bay area, British Virgin Islands, Vietnam. Of those only 1 has failed to be clean+safe+reliable. (its headlights were out, and we were driving at night).
The earlier poster claimed that "typically taxis are not clean, safe and reliable", in other words there's >50% chance of not finding such a taxi. If so, then the chances of me having had my experiences are 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%.
So I'm unusually confident that the earlier poster is incorrect.
Here's a typical first-hand report... taxis are neither clean, safe, nor reliable.... It would appear that the Libertarian model is better. Why is the Libertarian view on this particular narrow situation not the correct view?
My experience with taxis has been that they're almost always clean, safe and reliable. I flat out disagree with your "typical" first hand report. The chance of that report being typical and yet not repeated in any of my own many hundreds of taxi rides makes me disbelieve that it's typical.
Your "it would appear" claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I think you're looking at the available evidence through libertarian-tinted spectacles. Please repost when you have some statistically significant comparisons.
If you have no idea what's in them, how would you even recognize evidence as evidence?
If you want to put yourself on the map, publish your own map.
