30 Aug
2002
30 Aug
'02
7:13 p.m.
"Steve Holden"
A bunch of 0.5% improvements add up. If there's not much cost in complexity, why not go for it?
Yeah, right, we just need 200 of them and we're laughing. Computation in infinitesimal time.
Multiply up doesn't have the same ring to it, does it? Cheers, M. -- I don't have any special knowledge of all this. In fact, I made all the above up, in the hope that it corresponds to reality. -- Mark Carroll, ucam.chat