meastham

It always baffled me that this feature didn't exist before. I'm glad they implemented it.

The jump to 3.x was a more or less arbitrary decision made by Linus because the 2.6 version numbers were getting very large. Switching to 3.x should basically be the same as any other kernel upgrade, possibly with some additional issues with software that assumes things about the form of the kernel version number. There shouldn't be any distros holding back from upgrading; in fact Ubuntu 12.04 uses a 3.2 kernel.

Many results pages contain no ads. For instance, I just searched for both "Taj Mahal" and "Matt Groening" and received ads for neither query.

Less than twice, but still substantially more. Apple has $98bn [1] on hand and Intel's market cap is 138.54bn [2]

[1] http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-rt-us-applebre82f...

[2] http://www.google.com/finance?q=intel

That's quite a lot to read into a tiny example like this.

For anybody that is wondering, apparently you need 250 karma to change your topcolor: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=438957

Ctrl-alt-t

http://qubes-os.org/Home.html might be interesting

I don't think that he is arguing the the GIL isn't a limitation, just that the fundamental limitation it imposes can't be removed without also changing the threading model or the garbage collector. It's really impossible run threads in parallel with any sort of performance when they're all constantly generating a huge amount of cache coherency traffic by updating reference counts.

In general at least the two processors with the conflict will either have to block for a bit or switch to another hardware thread when write conflicts are occurring. There are lots of architecture tricks people pull to try to mitigate the impact but the reality of the matter is frequently mutating shared state (e.g. reference counts) makes it extremely difficult to have good performance with threads running in parallel.

I believe his argument is that it would reduce thrashing between the caches. With the GIL ownership of a cache line containing the reference count for any given object will only have to be transfered at most once per timeslice. If multiple threads were concurrently accessing a python object it would be ping-ponging back and forth between caches much more frequently.

EDIT: Also, "stop whatever they are doing to synchronize the dirty cache lines with RAM," is not a very good way to describe what is going on, often times you don't have to hit RAM at all, the caches just synchronize between each other. It is still pretty bad for performance though.

The issue is not that they aren't distributing the parser generator, it's that they're not distributing the grammars that are the input to the generator.

Actually, both popular mobile operating systems have a POSIX-y system programming interface under the hood. Whether application developers can get at it is a different matter.

Because that's not what rm does. Changing it would be breaking all sorts of standards. Many, many things depend on rm simply unlinking files. Why don't you use a different program if you would like to have some sort of trashbin behavior?

Almost all of the desktop environments commonly used with Linux do have a trash bin.

There appears to be a bug in recent versions of Chrome that erroneously disables hardware acceleration on machines running OSX with ATI video cards. It seems that they decided to blacklist multisampling on these machines because of a driver bug but ended up disabling all hardware acceleration.

http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=82104

Just curious, do you actually think that the author or any of the people here don't recognize that the libc and coreutils (for most distributions) come from the GNU project? I don't understand why people insist on being so pedantic about the GNU/Linux thing.

This is excellent news. It makes me significantly more likely to use disqus for my own projects.

Github just threw 20 repos my way for my students to use for class projects. It was totally painless and I'm extremely happy.

I did. I just don't see how this is any different than intentionally removing features from software in order to sell it at lower prices.

Why do these types of market partitioning practices anger people so much? Isn't it a good thing that these companies are offering different price points for people to choose from?

This is the model I have. Too bad, seemed like it would be amusing.

Seems like they were using crypt().

Did anybody else get oddly broken graphics when they tried this out? I see a some large red triangles on the borders that fade out and I never see any characters.

They have a way to bundle code for multiple architectures into a single .apk. They don't yet have support for x86 but it appears to be forthcoming.

Source: http://developer.android.com/sdk/ndk/overview.html

Sure, if you completely ignore all of the extra circuitry for the on-chip network and cache coherency and everything else you would need. Transistor density is far from the limiting factor in the number of cores we can wedge into a single system.

Is there anything to stop people form just writing a macro beforehand that does each task? I'm guessing that's how the guy who 4 keystrokes on Simple Text Editing accomplished that.

Kinda a bummer for those of us who don't use twitter..

Edit: Still a very cool project though

I've heard good things about this plugin, which uses clang to do autocompletion inside vim:

http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=3302

I've never encountered a Monte Carlo algorithm that required random numbers of this quality. That doesn't mean they don't exist though.