If you switch from using carbs, to using Fats (such as the ketogenic diet), suddenly your blood sugar isn't changing very much, and you usually can reduce your insulin usage over time.
But, at least if you're a type 1, not reduce it to zero, I suspect.
See, I think they should fall up. Antiparticles are predicted by the negative energy solutions of the Dirac equation.
But they still have positive energy. (Think of them as "holes" in a sea of negative-energy electrons; kick an electron out of that sea and you get a positive-energy negatively-charged electron and a positive-energy positively-charged "hole", i.e . a positron.)
However, this is not how we have traditionally defined anti-matter; the original definition was actually due to the fact that the universe has significantly less mass than it should, and "anti-matter" was hypothesized as an explanation.
Actually, the original modern definition of anti-matter was "Dirac's relativistic equation for the wave function of the electron had negative energy states as well as positive energy states, which was a bit weird, so it was proposed that all the negative energy states were filled, and if you knocked an electron out of one of the low-energy states, a "hole" would be left behind, and that hole behaved like an electron, except that it has a positive charge". It was later seen in the real world (particles moved in a magnetic field as if they had the mass of an electron and a +1 electrical charge). See, for example, the Wikipedia article about the positron.
Correlation does equal causation, both statements are true. Just missing some conditions there. Say you repeatedly hit your head with a hammer, it would be right to correlate it with the pain in your head. But if your were walking, saw a shooting star and felt a pain in your left knee, no that does mean the shooting star caused it.
"Repeatedly" is the key word there. A one-time incident with a shooting star and a pain in your left knee doesn't give much of a "correlation"; you need a few more data points for that.
And a more precise version of what should be meant by "correlation is not causation" is "if A and B are correlated, that, by itself, is insufficient to suggest that A causes B, given that the same correlation would show up if B caused A or if C caused both A and B". The "conditions" in your first example are what let you conclude that "A causes B" is the most likely case.
(If somebody were able to make their headache go away by hitting themselves on the head with a hammer, that might be a case of "B causes A" there, but that would be a case of the pain coming first and the hitting-yourself-on-the-head coming later; if somebody were to have a neurological disorder that 1) caused pain in the head and 2) caused an impulse to hit himself or herself on the head with a hammer, that would be a case of "C causes A and B", but, in that case, the pain would probably happen before he or she hit himself or herself on the head.)
So were the scientists at the chemical companies right or were the 3 million people who signed a petition right?
Or were the scientists claiming links between neonicotinoids and colony collapse disorder right?
Opteron ought to be compared to POWER, not PowerPC, given the target markets.
Presumably referring to, as per the distinction I drew in "Both POWER (all-caps) and PowerPC refer both to instruction set architectures and brand names used on processors that implemented them.", POWER and PowerPC the brand names used on processors, not POWER and PowerPC the instruction set architectures.
Also, in the Windows world itself, you had 64-bit MIPS and Alpha based workstations that ran NT...
...which was a 32-bit OS, so it didn't provide 64-bit computing on those 64-bit processors.
Seeing as the PowerPC 970 ("G5") was the first 64-bit PowerPC (not POWER, though) processor, even the Opteron came out before the first 64-bit PowerPC.
As I said in an earlier post in this thread, "Both POWER (all-caps) and PowerPC refer both to instruction set architectures and brand names used on processors that implemented them."
If "the first 64-bit PowerPC" refers to PowerPC-the-brand, yes, the first one (other than the 620, which wasn't made in large quantities) was the 970.
If it refers to PowerPC-the-instruction-set, the first one was the POWER3 - it implemented the full PowerPC instruction set (as well as the POWER2 version of the POWER instruction set).
I suppose it depends on how you look at it. If you view the page directory as a bank select then it is a sort of segmentation.
If you view the page directory as a bank select then any form of paging with more than two levels of page table is a sort of segmentation, including x86 paging without PAE (all the way back to the 80386), and the form of paging on just about every modern processor.
And how many people actually owned a SPARC, POWER, or Itanic for that matter?
Well, some of the masses might have had G5 iMacs (PowerPC 970, 64-bit), but, yes, it took AMD to bring 64-bit to most of the masses.
At least one comment claims that the original title of the article was "64-bit Computing Reaches 10th Anniversary", which, if true, means the article came out with a bogus headline (there's more to "Computing" than stuff that runs on a mainstream desktop or laptop machine, and DEC OSF/1 came out in 1993, so it's been at least 20 years); if the original comment was posted before that, I can see his complaint (and the complaint of the person who pointed out that the MIPS R4000 came out before the first 64-bit PowerPC processor). Complaining about "64-bit x86 Computing Reaches 10th Anniversary" neglecting other 64-bit architectures, however, is silly.
PAE is more or less old school segmentation.
PAE isn't segmentation at all. It's a mode that changes the page table entry format to support more physical memory. Maybe you're thinking of something else as being "PAE", but Intel's (and AMD's and...) idea of PAE is a Physical Address Extension.
64-bit binaries are larger and might run 103% at the speed of 32-bit if you're lucky.
Maybe there is a lot of software written in C that uses int or unsigned when it should have typedef'd a size appropriate for its needs.
Software that's written in C, in all of the environments I know of for x86, has 32-bit ints (signed or unsigned) whether compiled 32-bit or 64-bit, so you're presumably not saying that those programs suddenly get 64-bit ints when compiled 64-bit. They will get 64-bit longs on UN*X (but not on Windows), and will get 64-bit pointers in either case.
but PAE is nothing but a spec on top of the other mess of bullshit known as segmentation.
Actually, no, it's a mode that changes the page table format to allow larger physical addresses in page table entries. Nothing to do with segmentation.
Only if it's a fat binary, but thankfully these never needed to catch on with the x86 to x86-64 transition.
...although they did anyway, in OS X (even though the vast majority of Macs had x86-64 processors).
The fact that they are, maybe? ints become twice as big,
If you're talking about C-language ints, on very few 64-bit platforms are they 64-bit. Most UN*Xes are LP64, not ILP64, and Windows is LLP64 (they didn't even make long 64-bit, unlike most UN*Xes).
so do pointers.
POWER != PowerPC
Both POWER (all-caps) and PowerPC refer both to instruction set architectures and brand names used on processors that implemented them.
The PowerPC ISA took the POWER ISA, added some stuff such as general-register-based multiply and divide instructions, and removed a few instructions (and didn't add in the ones used in the POWER2 processor).
POWER3 was a 64-bit processor that implemented the union of 64-bit PowerPC and POWER; I don't know whether any subsequent POWERn processors implemented the POWER ISA-only instructions or just the current version of the PowerPC/Power (not all-caps) ISA.
Nothing happens.
