On 2.: Maybe he is talking about branch prediction vs lack of this feature in compilers. What do I mean by that is that optimizing compilers( at least in c ) don't optimize based on measurements from actual programs. A compiler that would run the program for a certain amount of time, to profile, could find the weak spots and optimize.
In addition to GCC, a bunch of other compilers including Intel and Visual Studio do profile based optimization, as well as many dynamic compilers, such as firfox javascript or Java VMs. Profil-guided opitmization has been studied for decades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profile-guided_optimization
GCC has supported `-fprofile-generate` and `-fprofile-use` for profile-guided optimization since (at least[1]) GCC 3.4, which was released over 10 years ago:
Firefox is an example of an application that ships production binaries with PGO.
[1] It was actually supported earlier than this, but I didn't search further; the 3.4.0 manual says "New -fprofile-generate and -fprofile-use command-line options to simplify the use of profile feedback", implying it was there before in a less convenient form.
If a few owners of a legal pot shops end up in a vats of acid, demand might return quickly. I'm not stating that this will happen, I'm just sceptical of the idea that criminal organizations will just quit and go home just because we legalize the sale of drug X.
Did you ever see the Sopranos episode where they tried to shake down a Starbucks? The legal pot shop owners will eventually be CVS, Walgreens, etc. There's nobody to dip in acid.
I'd love to see Mexico and Colombia license all production to pharma/bio companies. These cartels are tough, but I can't imagine they'd survive long against, e.g. Monsanto. Lesser of two evils, but at least one is less violent and sorta civilized.
> The legal pot shop owners will eventually be CVS, Walgreens, etc.
I find your assuredness amazing. The truth of the matter is that nobody has the slightest idea how the legalization of cannabis is going to play out. The coming few years are going to be very interesting. Your prediction is that pot shops will end up on High Street. My prediction is that pot shops well end up in poor neighbourhoods.
I think we have a good idea since it's already in progress. Have you been to Denver? They're really everywhere. And they'e so far been operating under a cloud of uncertainty due to federal laws that will soon likely clear.
It's also been pseudo legal in California for a decade. Dispensary owners haven't been slaughtered, and cannabis is the biggest illegal drug market.
Americans won't tolerate people being dipped in vats of acid. You cannot compare our system of law enforcement to Mexico's, they're vastly different. Our police will stop that. We've dealt with exactly that sort of organized crime before. Alcohol was once controlled by violent criminals, as were casinos. There are a number of reasons why violent organized crime is able to take hold in an impoverished region like Mexico but won't here.
You are using an incorrect definition of the word. Theory used in science[0] means:
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena
and not:
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact
We have a separate word for the latter: a hypothesis.
It is, if upon written request, the terms are confirmed by the one offering the bounty. This has happened here. The originally reporting newspaper has this to say (translation by me):
"[...] The doctor had noted the biologist's 100.000-Euro-Offer on the internet. At the start of the trial, he stated that he had requested (and received) written confirmation of the bet. He sent the documents to the biologist - together with his account number. Still, he did not receive the money and proceeded to sue. [...]"
It's an offer, which can be accepted by someone complying with the terms. At that point it constitutes a contract.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1892/1.htmlCARLILL v. CARBOLIC SMOKE BALL COMPANY; admittedly that's English law rather than German, but the principle holds. That case also deals with rewards, diseases and pseudoscience.
There also seem to be a number of U.S. cases enforcing unilateral reward offers as contracts; a theme seems to be that they intended to get other people to do work and those people reasonably relied on the offer and did the requested work (most often going out and finding a missing person or item).
In Germany, bounties are relatively strictly regulated by law in terms of what you may and may not do etc.
Therefore, if the bounty itself was valid in the sense of the law, then - AFAIK - there's an obligation to pay up.
Absence of a legal contract for such cases exposes a website to abuse. I refuse to believe that a text posted publicly is subject to the same standards as a real contract.
This suggestion isn't solving any problem and is introducing new ones. How will the students pay once they spend their initial free credits, will they get a university account, or make new ones each time, who will manage that, so many problems. You certainly don't need a service that charges to do so, especially where the complete list of participants is available. A simple service that runs on university servers should be able to handle this.
While infrastructure usage cost is measured per second, algorithm developers currently set royalty costs per API call, so there is no incentive for stalling. We also provide a breakdown of your usage by algorithm to help you identify long-running algorithms.
