Comment: Re:in other words, 46% of americans are dumb (Score 1) 1156
Bravo Sir, Bravo.
I doff my hat in respect of your newfound awareness. Hold it dear and enjoy life for all it's good and bad songs.
There's hope for the rest of them yet.
|
|
Bravo Sir, Bravo.
I doff my hat in respect of your newfound awareness. Hold it dear and enjoy life for all it's good and bad songs.
There's hope for the rest of them yet.
You know, you could not watch it....
I don't get why it's so hard not to watch them.
Ah, so we should all be good little sheep and fit in with the pack - got you.
That sounds like a society to be proud of.
</sarcasm> for our U.S. viewers.
I'm sorry, yes, that _is_ screwed up. Advancement occurs through differing viewpoints, not through some boring grey parroting to "fit in".
Getting on with others != turning off your critical thinking skills and shouting "Me too!".
As if peer pressure is something new?
Murder isn't very new either.
I'm sorry, what was your point?
There's a big difference between what people tell pollsters because they think that's what they *should* say, verses what they actually do or believe
Even assuming what you say is true, it's still a pretty strong reflection on how screwed up your society is that people are coerced into espousing a particular worldview due to pressure.
Land of the free indeed.....
I vote for those adorable tiny monkeys!
Only problem is they'd waste that 200 mensa IQ on more accurate and long distance flinging poo devices.
A process can guarantee that it is allocated CPU time by using one of the kernel's real-time scheduling policies (SCHED_FIFO/SCHED_RR). These are scheduled independently and ahead of any non-realtime processes.
Aside: It isn't a guarantee, because other SCHED_RR/FIFO tasks of equal or higher priority can compete for that CPU.
If the system has been designed properly, it will mostly work fine without having to use the real time scheduler
For almost all cases where a realtime kernel is justified use of a non-realtime kernel is definitely not "mostly good enough".
Figures from Core2Quad, saturating background threads and IO with numCores latency testing threads (latency threads are set to SCHED_FIFO).
Kernel 3.014-rt31 - max scheduling wakeup latency of about
Kernel 3.3.2 - max scheduling wakeup latency of up to 10 milliseconds, plus some wakeup deadlines missed
That may not be much to you, but that reliability can be the difference between pops and clicks in an audio stream.
Think contracts and what is broken when you don't have a contract whatsoever, just a promise.
I heard you guys don't wear them on the toilet either.
Think of the children!
The real reason why Python will still be slower than Java is because it's a much more dynamic language.
Well, that and the fact you can't use more than one core profitably in python without going out to native code....
Python was actually originally conceived as a language to sit between a *ix shell, and C.
I think you got the asterisk in the wrong place, let me rewrite that for you:
Python was actually originally conceived as a language to s*it between a Unix shell, and C.
Which I confess, it does very well.
God grant us the serenity to accept the things we cannot change, courage to change the things we can, and wisdom to know the difference.