In my case, this did not lead to perceived improvement power saving. Battery indicator still reports 1.5hr, and the batter is 66% drained in about a hour, so I'm guessing the prediction would be accurate. On the same system, I used to be able to squeeze out more than 3 hours under Windows 7. However, it has to be noted that performance was dramatically lower on Windows 7, too.
Is it possible that unused PCIE cards waste that much power? On Linux I drain my laptop's batter in under 2 hours, sometimes 1.5. On Win7 it used to take 3+ hours with brightness at 100% (because I was outdoors).
DISCLAIMER: Author of this post is currently using Linux because of superior performance and availability of tools not available on Windows platform.
I'm going to have to call bullshit on that. Unless you're living somewhere other than the US, the chances are that you're not seeing genuine netbooks on sale. The term has been redefined lately to refer to ultramobiles, but genuine netbooks are getting really hard to find.
In fact it's gotten nearly impossible to find a new netbook for under $200, which is really the point. Netbooks are entry level ultramobile computers which handle pretty much just web apps and very little else. And those have gotten very hard to find in the US.
A price point doesn't (shouldn't?) define a product. Companies charge you what you are willing to pay. As long as there are people who would pay $400 for what they consider a netbook, netbooks will cost $400. Of course, different brands have different power when it comes to convincing you to pay more, and hence the range of prices from $200+ to $400+ for a netbook. So, if it doesn't have an optical drive, if the screen size is sub-12", looks like a small notebook, and people in the shop tell you it's a netbook, it's a netbook for all practical purposes, price point notwithstanding.
I'd also say that netbooks are a market in their own right, unlike ultraportables. I remember when the first eeePC came to market, nobody really expected to do real work on it. It was considered more of an accessory. Something you'd carry with you in a bag/suitcase/backpack, when you didn't need a 'real' computer. It wasn't something you bought to replace your ultraportable, or instead of an ultraportable (or any other device, for that matter). You also have to keep in mind that, while we got our hopes up by reading all the OLPC news, most people were unaware of OLCP project when eeePC made its debut. They didn't know about the $100 laptop promise, so they said "Wow, look at eeePC! So cheap!" instead of "Hmph... this is a bit more than $100 we were expecting."
You consider the lack of a built-in optical drive to be an advantage? Could you explain?
I only use the optical drive when I'm installing an OS. So if it can take a thumb drive with install media, I never need an optical drive. So I can imagine that having it take less space (and also make the structure more robust by not creating the hole withing the machine) would be a good idea.
Really? I copy my hardware to my 3-D printer every night.
According to the media companies, you've just stolen that hardware!
You are permitted to make one (1) copy of the said hardware without express written permission, for backup purposes only, and provided that it is not used at the same time as the original.
Not only that, but they'd have to do it from private property - say, every vehicle in a parking garage because they suspected that one of them had a drug stash in its trunk.
So because it's too much trouble, they just lift the whole garage.
Sorry, but there were plenty of countries that tried communism and that turned out appalling and oppressive for 99% of the population that were not occupied by the Soviets after WWII. Including, the Soviet Union itself. You may want to look up some of the following, Cuba, Cambodia under Pol Pot, Yugoslavia, China.
Actually, you might look up Yugoslavia yourself first. I don't know about other countries, but in Yugoslavia, a vast majority of the population lived a normal unhindered life just like in any non-communist country. Some old-timers claim it was even better than in other countries during the time. So there you have it. Just because you say it was oppressive for 99% of population (a completely random number, no doubt), does not make it so, especially not with the 'always' tag. You should also not mix up countries that were forced into kind of a communist regime because they were occupied by the USSR (Eeast Germany, Bulgaria, Hugary, etc), and countries that had more or less independent communist revolution (Cuba, Yugoslavia, China, Vietnam, etc). In the latter case, the flavors of the communism differ by quite a bit. I'm not saying that any of those implementations were by any mean perfect or even good. I'm saying that you shouldn't draw conclusions by all implementations based on your personal opinion and random metrics that are only applicable to a subset of the implementations to begin with.
You're also more likely to commit a violent crime if you're not white. Statistics prove it. More violent crime is committed per capita by blacks than whites. So it's good for society to lock them up when they enter the legal system.
Statistics never prove anything. You might demonstrate something using statistics, but nobody has created flawless stats to date. For example, if you show that 5/10 non-whites committed a violent crime versus 3/10 whites:
1. Is the difference significant enough to draw conclusions? 2. Was the sampling done in an unbiased way? 3. How do you define a violent crime to begin with? 4. How do you value the violence level? (e.g., you can't compare 3 serial murders to 5 assaults that resulted in minor injuries, although both could be considered violent) 5. Is the 'violent' crime the only crime that hurts the livelihood of the society?
and so on. There are many factors that can ruin the accuracy of the information.
Also, it shows that there has historically been a much higher rate of facing the death penalty for murder among blacks than among whites convicted of murder.
Yes, that's so, but I'm not convinced it's racial. A rich man can get away with murder -- remember OJ? But I'm sure you're eight in some jurisdictions -- Texas, for example. They finally did away with the death penalty in Illinois after it was proven that half the men on death row were innocent.
Also, did you notice that almost no women get executed, regardless of race or economics, even in Texas?
I know we're on the same side of this discussion, mcgrew. Did I fail to make my point clear originally?
It's possible.
Just shows how irrational the judicial system is in general.
You should probably take a look at what communism is, as in, the proper definition of communism, not the attempts at practical implementations of derivatives (leninism, stalinism, maoism et al).
It doesn't matter what communism is. If you have to stick a gun in peoples' backs to get them to practice it, it's wrong.
National socialism had nothing to do with communism, though. It's not Marxist, and in fact it completely rejects the concept of class warfare that underlines communism (and all Marxist strains of socialism).
It just goes to show that extreme totalitarianism is not exclusive to communism, and can be propped by other political ideologies.
Correct. That was my point.
I hope you're not trying to say that Bush or Blair were communists or even socialists?...
It's not about communism at all. I'm arguing that you don't even need communism to have the same kind of symptoms (the kind of reactionary mindset).
Umm.. so all that killing and oppression should be repeated and 'learned from' until somebody gets it right and then we will have a communist utopia? Is that what you are saying?
There were around 100 or so implementations of communism. If every single of them was "not the TRUE communism", perhaps there's something wrong with the ideology?
It's those damned hardware manufacturers that won't release specs so people can write drivers.
But in the grand scheme of things, when Kraft gets taxed, so does Sargento, etc. resulting in an across the board price increase for ALL cheese.
Using such non-essential food as cheese just shows you how much more they can hit you without you complaining about pain. You just stop eating that much cheese, and that's it. For non-essential products, companies don't have much choice but to keep prices low, because otherwise people would save money for more essential things by cutting cost for non-essential ones.
If prices of more essential foods like oil, flour, and sugar grow due to heavy taxation, then it starts to hurt. People have no choice but to buy these things, and suddenly, the whole economy starts to hurt because most non-essential products start seeing a decrease in sale. That's where things ideally start working in consumer's favor. However, it's only ideally, because most governments are too stupid to do things logically, and as a result, economies collapse, and you get crisis.
You mean as opposed to communism, which always turns out as appalling and oppressive for 99% plus of a country's citizens in countries that were occupied by the Soviets after WWII?
Key is to be prophet and leader of this change so that you end up "owning" this place. At first, you offer paradise, then you offer some looting and ability to kick powerfull people in balls.
(And yes, I have lived in communist country, i know very well how it works in practice, thank you very much.)
Hm, I live in an ex-communist country, and I don't remember anyone offering paradise, loot, or ball-kicks. In fact, the offer was pretty standard: you work, live, pay taxes, and don't step on government's idea of what's good and what's wrong. Just like in any non-communist country. And there was secret police, and normal police, and all that shit. And you could get arrested for spreading foreign ideology, much like in any modern country. I see no reason why that had to change.
But there you have it. We are now a democratic country, where we have all the standard democratic offerings: you work, live, pay taxes, and don't step on government's idea of what's good and what's wrong. And there is secret police, and normal police, and all that shit. And you could get arrested for spreading foreign ideology, much like in any modern democratic country. And you could get arrested for spreading non-democratic ideology, much like in any modern democratic country.
At some point, I imagine I could move to another democratic country, and not being able to tell the difference.
Ever since the Bolshevik revolution in 1917, all other states which tried communism did so under Russian guidance (either willing or forced).
It has nothing to do with this. National socialism in Germany (Hilter's gig) had nothing to do with Russian guidance, yet it showed the same symptoms. Same with Yugoslav Communism during Broz's regime, which even explicitly forbade spreading Soviet propaganda on Yugoslav soil, and had various 'measures' to prevent that. They all show the same symptoms. And of course, you have countries like US and UK, which use the same ol' measures in a politically acceptable way ("war on terror" anyone?), but the net result is the same.
And just in case you want to argue that US and UK cannot be compared to "totalitarian" and "dictatorial" regimes: people get used to their own shit, and think everyone else's crap smells worse.
Humans are not nice, altruistic beings. It takes an iron fist to make humans in general conform to any system like communism.
Adult humans are not nice, altruistic beings. To evolve a society, it would take generations of adults that would relinquish control over their children. I look at my two kids, and I can totally imagine why idealistic utopian ideologies come to life, and through our failure to raise individuals that can keep their beautiful nature for the sake of conformance, these ideologies fail.
One of these days, I'll be visited by social service for allowing my kids to live just slightly more freely than the society finds acceptable (I can't imagine what would have happened if I dared give them more freedom than that). Reactionary mindset hurts kids the most, and such kids grow up to become reactionary.
Name one instance where the said ideology has ever been managed to be implemented, without the totalitarianism/fascism.
No ideology has ever been implemented without repressive measures on the part of those who seek to maintain the implementation (however flawed it may be). And I'd say you could call this phenomenon fascism. Reaction would also be a good name, I think. That's not just communism. It is also applicable to most democracies that praised Hitler's vision before WWII, and of course, Hitler's national socialism as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Under Ubuntu, I'm using the integrated only, and offload to the real GPU using bumblebee, but the battery still drains too quickly.
In my case, this did not lead to perceived improvement power saving. Battery indicator still reports 1.5hr, and the batter is 66% drained in about a hour, so I'm guessing the prediction would be accurate. On the same system, I used to be able to squeeze out more than 3 hours under Windows 7. However, it has to be noted that performance was dramatically lower on Windows 7, too.
Is it possible that unused PCIE cards waste that much power? On Linux I drain my laptop's batter in under 2 hours, sometimes 1.5. On Win7 it used to take 3+ hours with brightness at 100% (because I was outdoors).
DISCLAIMER: Author of this post is currently using Linux because of superior performance and availability of tools not available on Windows platform.
I'm going to have to call bullshit on that. Unless you're living somewhere other than the US, the chances are that you're not seeing genuine netbooks on sale. The term has been redefined lately to refer to ultramobiles, but genuine netbooks are getting really hard to find.
In fact it's gotten nearly impossible to find a new netbook for under $200, which is really the point. Netbooks are entry level ultramobile computers which handle pretty much just web apps and very little else. And those have gotten very hard to find in the US.
A price point doesn't (shouldn't?) define a product. Companies charge you what you are willing to pay. As long as there are people who would pay $400 for what they consider a netbook, netbooks will cost $400. Of course, different brands have different power when it comes to convincing you to pay more, and hence the range of prices from $200+ to $400+ for a netbook. So, if it doesn't have an optical drive, if the screen size is sub-12", looks like a small notebook, and people in the shop tell you it's a netbook, it's a netbook for all practical purposes, price point notwithstanding.
I'd also say that netbooks are a market in their own right, unlike ultraportables. I remember when the first eeePC came to market, nobody really expected to do real work on it. It was considered more of an accessory. Something you'd carry with you in a bag/suitcase/backpack, when you didn't need a 'real' computer. It wasn't something you bought to replace your ultraportable, or instead of an ultraportable (or any other device, for that matter). You also have to keep in mind that, while we got our hopes up by reading all the OLPC news, most people were unaware of OLCP project when eeePC made its debut. They didn't know about the $100 laptop promise, so they said "Wow, look at eeePC! So cheap!" instead of "Hmph... this is a bit more than $100 we were expecting."
I remember long time ago when rebook hit the market in my country and everyone wanted to have a pair of those (80s perhaps).
rebook a miniature notebook for your... feet?
You consider the lack of a built-in optical drive to be an advantage? Could you explain?
I only use the optical drive when I'm installing an OS. So if it can take a thumb drive with install media, I never need an optical drive. So I can imagine that having it take less space (and also make the structure more robust by not creating the hole withing the machine) would be a good idea.
Really? I copy my hardware to my 3-D printer every night.
According to the media companies, you've just stolen that hardware!
You are permitted to make one (1) copy of the said hardware without express written permission, for backup purposes only, and provided that it is not used at the same time as the original.
Not only that, but they'd have to do it from private property - say, every vehicle in a parking garage because they suspected that one of them had a drug stash in its trunk.
So because it's too much trouble, they just lift the whole garage.
If this happened in China, I bet someone'd start the repressive measures discussion right away...
Sorry, but there were plenty of countries that tried communism and that turned out appalling and oppressive for 99% of the population that were not occupied by the Soviets after WWII. Including, the Soviet Union itself. You may want to look up some of the following, Cuba, Cambodia under Pol Pot, Yugoslavia, China.
Actually, you might look up Yugoslavia yourself first. I don't know about other countries, but in Yugoslavia, a vast majority of the population lived a normal unhindered life just like in any non-communist country. Some old-timers claim it was even better than in other countries during the time. So there you have it. Just because you say it was oppressive for 99% of population (a completely random number, no doubt), does not make it so, especially not with the 'always' tag. You should also not mix up countries that were forced into kind of a communist regime because they were occupied by the USSR (Eeast Germany, Bulgaria, Hugary, etc), and countries that had more or less independent communist revolution (Cuba, Yugoslavia, China, Vietnam, etc). In the latter case, the flavors of the communism differ by quite a bit. I'm not saying that any of those implementations were by any mean perfect or even good. I'm saying that you shouldn't draw conclusions by all implementations based on your personal opinion and random metrics that are only applicable to a subset of the implementations to begin with.
You're also more likely to commit a violent crime if you're not white. Statistics prove it. More violent crime is committed per capita by blacks than whites. So it's good for society to lock them up when they enter the legal system.
Statistics never prove anything. You might demonstrate something using statistics, but nobody has created flawless stats to date. For example, if you show that 5/10 non-whites committed a violent crime versus 3/10 whites:
1. Is the difference significant enough to draw conclusions?
2. Was the sampling done in an unbiased way?
3. How do you define a violent crime to begin with?
4. How do you value the violence level? (e.g., you can't compare 3 serial murders to 5 assaults that resulted in minor injuries, although both could be considered violent)
5. Is the 'violent' crime the only crime that hurts the livelihood of the society?
and so on. There are many factors that can ruin the accuracy of the information.
Also, it shows that there has historically been a much higher rate of facing the death penalty for murder among blacks than among whites convicted of murder.
Yes, that's so, but I'm not convinced it's racial. A rich man can get away with murder -- remember OJ? But I'm sure you're eight in some jurisdictions -- Texas, for example. They finally did away with the death penalty in Illinois after it was proven that half the men on death row were innocent.
Also, did you notice that almost no women get executed, regardless of race or economics, even in Texas?
I know we're on the same side of this discussion, mcgrew. Did I fail to make my point clear originally?
It's possible.
Just shows how irrational the judicial system is in general.
In facism, industry controls the government.
Dude, that sounds totally like the US.
You should probably take a look at what communism is, as in, the proper definition of communism, not the attempts at practical implementations of derivatives (leninism, stalinism, maoism et al).
It doesn't matter what communism is. If you have to stick a gun in peoples' backs to get them to practice it, it's wrong.
I fail to see the point of this comment.
National socialism had nothing to do with communism, though. It's not Marxist, and in fact it completely rejects the concept of class warfare that underlines communism (and all Marxist strains of socialism).
It just goes to show that extreme totalitarianism is not exclusive to communism, and can be propped by other political ideologies.
Correct. That was my point.
I hope you're not trying to say that Bush or Blair were communists or even socialists?...
It's not about communism at all. I'm arguing that you don't even need communism to have the same kind of symptoms (the kind of reactionary mindset).
Umm.. so all that killing and oppression should be repeated and 'learned from' until somebody gets it right and then we will have a communist utopia? Is that what you are saying?
Where do you people learn these things?
"where you can be put without a lawyer, without a charge, without due process of any kind " Please elaborate on this shocking situation.
So how's it going down there under the rock? It seems you've build a nice house in there for yourself too. Good show!
There were around 100 or so implementations of communism. If every single of them was "not the TRUE communism", perhaps there's something wrong with the ideology?
It's those damned hardware manufacturers that won't release specs so people can write drivers.
Don't nitpick. His grandfather was in Auschwitz, did you read?
But in the grand scheme of things, when Kraft gets taxed, so does Sargento, etc. resulting in an across the board price increase for ALL cheese.
Using such non-essential food as cheese just shows you how much more they can hit you without you complaining about pain. You just stop eating that much cheese, and that's it. For non-essential products, companies don't have much choice but to keep prices low, because otherwise people would save money for more essential things by cutting cost for non-essential ones.
If prices of more essential foods like oil, flour, and sugar grow due to heavy taxation, then it starts to hurt. People have no choice but to buy these things, and suddenly, the whole economy starts to hurt because most non-essential products start seeing a decrease in sale. That's where things ideally start working in consumer's favor. However, it's only ideally, because most governments are too stupid to do things logically, and as a result, economies collapse, and you get crisis.
You mean as opposed to communism, which always turns out as appalling and oppressive for 99% plus of a country's citizens in countries that were occupied by the Soviets after WWII?
FTFY
Key is to be prophet and leader of this change so that you end up "owning" this place. At first, you offer paradise, then you offer some looting and ability to kick powerfull people in balls.
(And yes, I have lived in communist country, i know very well how it works in practice, thank you very much.)
Hm, I live in an ex-communist country, and I don't remember anyone offering paradise, loot, or ball-kicks. In fact, the offer was pretty standard: you work, live, pay taxes, and don't step on government's idea of what's good and what's wrong. Just like in any non-communist country. And there was secret police, and normal police, and all that shit. And you could get arrested for spreading foreign ideology, much like in any modern country. I see no reason why that had to change.
But there you have it. We are now a democratic country, where we have all the standard democratic offerings: you work, live, pay taxes, and don't step on government's idea of what's good and what's wrong. And there is secret police, and normal police, and all that shit. And you could get arrested for spreading foreign ideology, much like in any modern democratic country. And you could get arrested for spreading non-democratic ideology, much like in any modern democratic country.
At some point, I imagine I could move to another democratic country, and not being able to tell the difference.
Ever since the Bolshevik revolution in 1917, all other states which tried communism did so under Russian guidance (either willing or forced).
It has nothing to do with this. National socialism in Germany (Hilter's gig) had nothing to do with Russian guidance, yet it showed the same symptoms. Same with Yugoslav Communism during Broz's regime, which even explicitly forbade spreading Soviet propaganda on Yugoslav soil, and had various 'measures' to prevent that. They all show the same symptoms. And of course, you have countries like US and UK, which use the same ol' measures in a politically acceptable way ("war on terror" anyone?), but the net result is the same.
And just in case you want to argue that US and UK cannot be compared to "totalitarian" and "dictatorial" regimes: people get used to their own shit, and think everyone else's crap smells worse.
Humans are not nice, altruistic beings. It takes an iron fist to make humans in general conform to any system like communism.
Adult humans are not nice, altruistic beings. To evolve a society, it would take generations of adults that would relinquish control over their children. I look at my two kids, and I can totally imagine why idealistic utopian ideologies come to life, and through our failure to raise individuals that can keep their beautiful nature for the sake of conformance, these ideologies fail.
One of these days, I'll be visited by social service for allowing my kids to live just slightly more freely than the society finds acceptable (I can't imagine what would have happened if I dared give them more freedom than that). Reactionary mindset hurts kids the most, and such kids grow up to become reactionary.
Name one instance where the said ideology has ever been managed to be implemented, without the totalitarianism/fascism.
No ideology has ever been implemented without repressive measures on the part of those who seek to maintain the implementation (however flawed it may be). And I'd say you could call this phenomenon fascism. Reaction would also be a good name, I think. That's not just communism. It is also applicable to most democracies that praised Hitler's vision before WWII, and of course, Hitler's national socialism as well.