The Weimar republic and Zimbabwe suffered massive inflation, not deflation.

Afaik, the problem with VLIW processors in general is that they attempt to exploit instruction-level parallelism.

This is an entirely different beast to what's presented in the paper.

Instruction-level parallelism occurs when there are instructions within a (fixed) window of a code stream where there are no dependencies between two or more instructions.

The VLIW paradigm is have bundles of instructions which contain all instructions that can be executed simultaneously. This shifts complexity from the hardware[1] to the compiler.

Unfortunately, ILP can be very difficult to extract from arbitrary code, though cases exist where it's trivial.

[1] Latter RISC chips and today's non-mobile CPUs take advantage of ILP through the use of multi-issue out of order execution. Out-of-order execution typically defers execution of any given instruction until all its dependencies have been fulfilled i.e. memory/cache accesses have occurred, previous results are available, etc. By making these units multi-issue the CPU dynamically exploits ILP to the availability of hardware, no recompilation required (though it may help).

These hardware techniques are slowly coming to the mobile arena as they are relatively expensive transistor wise.

Vaccines do not guarantee immunity, but are very, very likely to.

Actually, they were ordered to return the recovered salvage by a US federal court. The court decided Spanish government had a sovereign claim over the shipwreck of the Nuestra Señora de las Mercedes.

> Maybe Oracle can actually expand Java. Oracle owns silicon, so why not make a processor that is designed from the ground up for Java bytecode? Perhaps even build it into the SPARC architecture . ARM tried it with Jazelle in earlier cores which they've replaced with the ThumbEE and successor. JIT compilers (and in ARM's case simpler+compact instructions) seem to have been more economical than implementing a (partial) second instruction set in a processor and requiring to be at least as fast the JIT competition.

Really?

http://www.irishdentist.ie/news/news_detail.php?id=3969

Mind you this was a walk-in procedure, not an impacted tooth or anything. And it definitely wasn't subisidized by the Irish government (that's where you get a discount for paying PRSI). Which appears to have been cut.

Leaching indirectly off insurance companies? That'd be interesting given the VHI tend to refund costs of low priced stuff to the you directly afaik.

A $1000 dollars for a wisdom tooth extraction? I had one extracted in Ireland as a walk-in patient. No insurance mentioned, no PRSI slips shown.

60 Euro. And that included an X-Ray to say, "Yes, that tooth is pretty much irrecoverable".

And I probably could have gotten it performed cheaper outside the capital.

Thanks and good luck on new ventures.

You can't utilize multiple processors with OCaml directly. There is some effort going towards building a multicore version but it's not being undertaken by INRIA.

I'd disagree on the use of OCaml for certain applications as there is no multi-core support. You might be able to hack something in using multiple processes, but it will probably be pretty ugly.

http://www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx

Shame really that someone couldn't even do the research to see if such wild claims about MS are in any way true.

To some degree yes.

http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/simonpj/papers/list-comp/index.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity_(operating_system)

Sure, there's components written in assembly + C, C++. But it's quite possible to write the vast majority of an OS in a variant of C#. Also, have a look at C#'s "unsafe" extension which permits the normal C hackery.

SSTO is a dumb idea for bell shaped rocket engines due to their limitations. Aerospike and linear aerospikes can potentially offer SSTO capability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerospike_engine

> It would mean that development cycles slow down, algorithmics finally win over brute force and that software quality would have a chance to improve (after going downhill for a long time). Um, nope. Companies will simply sell bigger boxes to run their bloated code. > GPUs as CPUs? Ridiculous! Practically nobody can program them http://www.nvidia.com/object/cuda_apps_flash_new.html > and very few problems benefit from them. Media encoding/transcoding. Scientific code, minimum spanning trees can also be done a a GPU. If you mean by a 'few problems' that it doesn't run Word/Office/Java etc, then yes. Otherwise if it's a case that the algorithmics (sic) can be done in a data parallel fashion, then the problem might be able to done on a GPU.