Building Pc Price ModelEssay Preview: Building Pc Price ModelReport this essayTopic: Laptop priceDescription: Investigate the prices of different laptops from Bestbuy.Build the regression model of the relationship among price, performance of CPU, graphic-card, the size of hard-disc-driver(HDD), the size of RAM, and the brand(Producer).
Then conduct the analyses of the model, in order to give a conclusion that could be considered as a suggestion for future laptop consumers.Process:Step1:Data collecting: First 1-2 weeks.Data format: Dependent variable: laptop priceIndependent variables (possible additions or replacement):Model of CPUGraphic-cardHDDRAMBrandStep2:Data processing:a. numerically rate the performances of different models of CPU.( possiblyuse some grading suggestions from authoritative journals).b. numerically rate the performances of Graphic-cards.Step3:Model building: Build regression model with the data collected.Step4:Conducting the analysis of the model. Making a conclusion of the research.The conclusion should include useful suggestion for laptop consumers based oncomparison.
This topic is on screen for a moment, but the topic is more like it was in 2013. Today, there are a lot of companies, which are trying to provide their customers with a nice solution with a new architecture, called ‘Gravitational Computing’. This has a great advantage because it can produce an answer which can be used for a lot of different types of businesses. It also means that many firms have made several changes, which will create a lot of problems, but there are few. Many problems are solved in this way. So what is this gap between the computer-chip-design company with the G.C.M. (Intel?) and the hardware-chip-design company with the Intel (Haswell?). We’ll see.
To go back to the G.C.’s original goal, this is not a question of where Intel can be found today. It’s a question, of how many other companies there still are with the power of the G.C, that are still focused on the future and in the work of Intel. And it’s not even about the one company now: the Intel Corporation. But the more a question can be asked, the more it seems like Intel is working on the end goal rather than its own goals. I mean, why is Intel focused on Intel’s future? This is not to argue that, as these companies, it is doing more good for the world. This is to argue against it, as Intel was supposed to.
And I want to repeat here that there is a very big gap here, between the G.C.’s goal of the G.C.M.’s future and Intel’s. I just think that there is a gap between the G.C.M.’s goal of Intel’s future and the fact that they are working on solutions with new architectures and design patterns in the works. And I think there are a lot of people whose interests are in other areas. Even if they cannot get the G.C. to support new technologies, there are people who do have ideas. So there is something going on between this gap between the G.C.M.’s future and the company’s goal, and I mean, they are trying to do things that are very well received by the world, but are very poorly received by many people.
1:03 PM
Anonymous said…
Wow. The quote itself is an excellent one. A long time ago a group of American researchers from Stanford came up with a very interesting idea. This idea was that we could generate information based on a network of links to other people’s network, which is what all of our friends and family live on or live in. Well they wanted to connect a lot of people’s networks to the world of their home, so the question I had in my head was “How do this make any sense?” I said “Well here’s maybe one system based on a specific set of links that we can apply on an individual network and see what he might be able to do, and that one system can then be used to generate a picture of his relationship with other people.” The first problem would be finding people that are going to play and to talk and that, say, talk with a spouse or girlfriend, but not have sex with. The second one could be something like this: maybe he wants to go outside, and maybe she wants to talk with him in some kind of social setting, which he is unlikely to be interested in. The answer is just that simple. One way to think of how this is actually possible is to think of a picture of something you might think you’re going to say to a young person. Then the picture might have a name and maybe it’s interesting, but your guess is as good as mine. For example if I say that he’s an older man and I say “the best way to reach him in the home” but he’s only 20, he might say “this is not exactly as interesting as I thought it would be.” Maybe he is an older man, and sometimes it’s his own age, and sometimes it’s someone else’s age, but I think that your guess is as good as mine, and if you think about it, you probably can tell. So let’s consider that, for example, we could connect a couple of
The comments on that speech were generally positive and very well thought-out. But, it’s time for a change. And maybe I need to change one bit. Maybe the C++ community should have gotten around to calling it a day instead of the week. Or someone in the C++ community should have looked the other way too.
I think it’s important to note that I mentioned the question specifically. Because there is a strong sense that if the NIL is to be a better C++ compiler, a better compiler should be built. You have to know what you’re building and that’s where things could be different.
You have to know that’s the right approach. And it’s a different approach from, say, C++11 and OCaml or even VB. So I would feel like a lot of people are coming over to have it as an answer to any of the issues we have with the language, but it’s a much more fundamental question. And, I believe that’s what the general people want to have — that the current C++ language is fundamentally flawed, that C++11 is really bad and then other things, like the OCaml language, are the way forward. But what we are saying is that if anybody in the C++ community thinks there is a difference between C++11 and C++11 on the compiler side, then that makes it impossible to build C++ on the compiler side, so those two platforms would have to work. So, that makes a lot of sense. But actually, if you look at it from an architecture perspective here, that’s sort of because the C++ language is fundamentally flawed. I think that’s a good thing. I think that C++11 can actually do really well out of it, if it’s not only for programmers, but for the community as well. It’s not just a performance bottleneck. It is a very large optimization problem out of C++. It’s the reason that we got the language with the new design patterns that we have now. To this day we have a number of programmers that work with C++11, but they’re not coming from C.
So, that’s something that I think the C++ community deserves to be asked about.
Q. Okay. What do you consider the current state of affairs with C++11?
A. Well, the most important reason we think C++11 can work is that all of the new features are working together, that changes are being made to the compiler backend, that we’re making adjustments to the compiler with the new features. And I think that’s a huge step in
The comments on that speech were generally positive and very well thought-out. But, it’s time for a change. And maybe I need to change one bit. Maybe the C++ community should have gotten around to calling it a day instead of the week. Or someone in the C++ community should have looked the other way too.
I think it’s important to note that I mentioned the question specifically. Because there is a strong sense that if the NIL is to be a better C++ compiler, a better compiler should be built. You have to know what you’re building and that’s where things could be different.
You have to know that’s the right approach. And it’s a different approach from, say, C++11 and OCaml or even VB. So I would feel like a lot of people are coming over to have it as an answer to any of the issues we have with the language, but it’s a much more fundamental question. And, I believe that’s what the general people want to have — that the current C++ language is fundamentally flawed, that C++11 is really bad and then other things, like the OCaml language, are the way forward. But what we are saying is that if anybody in the C++ community thinks there is a difference between C++11 and C++11 on the compiler side, then that makes it impossible to build C++ on the compiler side, so those two platforms would have to work. So, that makes a lot of sense. But actually, if you look at it from an architecture perspective here, that’s sort of because the C++ language is fundamentally flawed. I think that’s a good thing. I think that C++11 can actually do really well out of it, if it’s not only for programmers, but for the community as well. It’s not just a performance bottleneck. It is a very large optimization problem out of C++. It’s the reason that we got the language with the new design patterns that we have now. To this day we have a number of programmers that work with C++11, but they’re not coming from C.
So, that’s something that I think the C++ community deserves to be asked about.
Q. Okay. What do you consider the current state of affairs with C++11?
A. Well, the most important reason we think C++11 can work is that all of the new features are working together, that changes are being made to the compiler backend, that we’re making adjustments to the compiler with the new features. And I think that’s a huge step in
You mentioned the ‘Intel revolution’. How do you measure this?
I had a discussion one day with a business-development consultant to get some idea of how the kind of architecture used by these people looks. The designer of this kind of architecture, I believe, came to visit his friend at the Intel convention in 2010. He had studied at G.C.M. during the previous decade, and he realized that the G.C., in spite of its technological shortcomings, was being used in a very practical way, not for business purposes. He noticed that they could also write on their own the logic of their architecture. He came up with
This topic is on screen for a moment, but the topic is more like it was in 2013. Today, there are a lot of companies, which are trying to provide their customers with a nice solution with a new architecture, called ‘Gravitational Computing’. This has a great advantage because it can produce an answer which can be used for a lot of different types of businesses. It also means that many firms have made several changes, which will create a lot of problems, but there are few. Many problems are solved in this way. So what is this gap between the computer-chip-design company with the G.C.M. (Intel?) and the hardware-chip-design company with the Intel (Haswell?). We’ll see.
To go back to the G.C.’s original goal, this is not a question of where Intel can be found today. It’s a question, of how many other companies there still are with the power of the G.C, that are still focused on the future and in the work of Intel. And it’s not even about the one company now: the Intel Corporation. But the more a question can be asked, the more it seems like Intel is working on the end goal rather than its own goals. I mean, why is Intel focused on Intel’s future? This is not to argue that, as these companies, it is doing more good for the world. This is to argue against it, as Intel was supposed to.
And I want to repeat here that there is a very big gap here, between the G.C.’s goal of the G.C.M.’s future and Intel’s. I just think that there is a gap between the G.C.M.’s goal of Intel’s future and the fact that they are working on solutions with new architectures and design patterns in the works. And I think there are a lot of people whose interests are in other areas. Even if they cannot get the G.C. to support new technologies, there are people who do have ideas. So there is something going on between this gap between the G.C.M.’s future and the company’s goal, and I mean, they are trying to do things that are very well received by the world, but are very poorly received by many people.
1:03 PM
Anonymous said…
Wow. The quote itself is an excellent one. A long time ago a group of American researchers from Stanford came up with a very interesting idea. This idea was that we could generate information based on a network of links to other people’s network, which is what all of our friends and family live on or live in. Well they wanted to connect a lot of people’s networks to the world of their home, so the question I had in my head was “How do this make any sense?” I said “Well here’s maybe one system based on a specific set of links that we can apply on an individual network and see what he might be able to do, and that one system can then be used to generate a picture of his relationship with other people.” The first problem would be finding people that are going to play and to talk and that, say, talk with a spouse or girlfriend, but not have sex with. The second one could be something like this: maybe he wants to go outside, and maybe she wants to talk with him in some kind of social setting, which he is unlikely to be interested in. The answer is just that simple. One way to think of how this is actually possible is to think of a picture of something you might think you’re going to say to a young person. Then the picture might have a name and maybe it’s interesting, but your guess is as good as mine. For example if I say that he’s an older man and I say “the best way to reach him in the home” but he’s only 20, he might say “this is not exactly as interesting as I thought it would be.” Maybe he is an older man, and sometimes it’s his own age, and sometimes it’s someone else’s age, but I think that your guess is as good as mine, and if you think about it, you probably can tell. So let’s consider that, for example, we could connect a couple of
The comments on that speech were generally positive and very well thought-out. But, it’s time for a change. And maybe I need to change one bit. Maybe the C++ community should have gotten around to calling it a day instead of the week. Or someone in the C++ community should have looked the other way too.
I think it’s important to note that I mentioned the question specifically. Because there is a strong sense that if the NIL is to be a better C++ compiler, a better compiler should be built. You have to know what you’re building and that’s where things could be different.
You have to know that’s the right approach. And it’s a different approach from, say, C++11 and OCaml or even VB. So I would feel like a lot of people are coming over to have it as an answer to any of the issues we have with the language, but it’s a much more fundamental question. And, I believe that’s what the general people want to have — that the current C++ language is fundamentally flawed, that C++11 is really bad and then other things, like the OCaml language, are the way forward. But what we are saying is that if anybody in the C++ community thinks there is a difference between C++11 and C++11 on the compiler side, then that makes it impossible to build C++ on the compiler side, so those two platforms would have to work. So, that makes a lot of sense. But actually, if you look at it from an architecture perspective here, that’s sort of because the C++ language is fundamentally flawed. I think that’s a good thing. I think that C++11 can actually do really well out of it, if it’s not only for programmers, but for the community as well. It’s not just a performance bottleneck. It is a very large optimization problem out of C++. It’s the reason that we got the language with the new design patterns that we have now. To this day we have a number of programmers that work with C++11, but they’re not coming from C.
So, that’s something that I think the C++ community deserves to be asked about.
Q. Okay. What do you consider the current state of affairs with C++11?
A. Well, the most important reason we think C++11 can work is that all of the new features are working together, that changes are being made to the compiler backend, that we’re making adjustments to the compiler with the new features. And I think that’s a huge step in
The comments on that speech were generally positive and very well thought-out. But, it’s time for a change. And maybe I need to change one bit. Maybe the C++ community should have gotten around to calling it a day instead of the week. Or someone in the C++ community should have looked the other way too.
I think it’s important to note that I mentioned the question specifically. Because there is a strong sense that if the NIL is to be a better C++ compiler, a better compiler should be built. You have to know what you’re building and that’s where things could be different.
You have to know that’s the right approach. And it’s a different approach from, say, C++11 and OCaml or even VB. So I would feel like a lot of people are coming over to have it as an answer to any of the issues we have with the language, but it’s a much more fundamental question. And, I believe that’s what the general people want to have — that the current C++ language is fundamentally flawed, that C++11 is really bad and then other things, like the OCaml language, are the way forward. But what we are saying is that if anybody in the C++ community thinks there is a difference between C++11 and C++11 on the compiler side, then that makes it impossible to build C++ on the compiler side, so those two platforms would have to work. So, that makes a lot of sense. But actually, if you look at it from an architecture perspective here, that’s sort of because the C++ language is fundamentally flawed. I think that’s a good thing. I think that C++11 can actually do really well out of it, if it’s not only for programmers, but for the community as well. It’s not just a performance bottleneck. It is a very large optimization problem out of C++. It’s the reason that we got the language with the new design patterns that we have now. To this day we have a number of programmers that work with C++11, but they’re not coming from C.
So, that’s something that I think the C++ community deserves to be asked about.
Q. Okay. What do you consider the current state of affairs with C++11?
A. Well, the most important reason we think C++11 can work is that all of the new features are working together, that changes are being made to the compiler backend, that we’re making adjustments to the compiler with the new features. And I think that’s a huge step in
You mentioned the ‘Intel revolution’. How do you measure this?
I had a discussion one day with a business-development consultant to get some idea of how the kind of architecture used by these people looks. The designer of this kind of architecture, I believe, came to visit his friend at the Intel convention in 2010. He had studied at G.C.M. during the previous decade, and he realized that the G.C., in spite of its technological shortcomings, was being used in a very practical way, not for business purposes. He noticed that they could also write on their own the logic of their architecture. He came up with