It's not belief that's the problem, it's "faith", which is a completely unsupported belief, not flowing from analytical thinking.
I will agree that they are in fact different things. But you can have faith in something because you trust it to be reliable for valid reasons.
People just swallow whatever religious nonsense they're fed, without pausing to think about the fact that the supernatural is completely imaginary.
Which people? All religious people (I call bull, if so)? Wikipedia has an excellent article on weasel-words, and why you should avoid them. You might want to check it out.
My experience with this has been that people raised in nominally religious households tend to default to a-religious, and that its a crapshoot with people raised in devout ones.
I think you are also making some gross assumptions regarding why people believe what they believe, and attributing ignorance and lack of analysis to a broad category of people for no good reason.
Unless you have strapped yourself into your chair (and velcro'd your chair to the ground), Im pretty sure you have it as a belief. Beliefs can change, of course, which seems to be your objection to calling it a belief.
But you are playing a bad kind of semantics by trying to insist you have no beliefs, when you clearly do by both the common usage and the dictionary usage. You hold in your mind certain premises to be true.
Not sure I agree (disclaimer, I dont claim to be an expert on politics).
From wikipedia:
Fascism opposes multiple ideologies: conservatism, liberalism, and two major forms of socialism—communism and social democracy
There is a running dispute among scholars about where along the left/right spectrum that fascism resides.[31][32][33][34] Fascism was founded during World War I by Italian national syndicalists who combined left-wing and right-wing political views,
More to the point, if you asked the average left-wing person if they support numerous government programs to promote the greater social good, you will generally get a positive response-- left-wing truly is socialist at its extreme. I dont think this needs to be a negative-- socialism has some correct ideas regarding societal good, but as with most things it goes awry when taken to its extreme. To be clear, I think some government programs for "the greater social good" can be justified.
On the other hand, if you were to ask your average right-wing person whether they support basically any aspect of fascism, you will get varied responses. Certainly I am republican (which is generally regarded as "on the right"), and I do not at all support a large expansive government, nor basically any of the attributes wikipedia assigns to fascism. I am conservative, very much inclined towards protection of individual (as opposed to group) freedoms, very much opposed to centralized power, etc etc etc.
I contend that you have something akin to blind faith in your own perception of reality being accurate. If you did not, I do not think you would be posting on slashdot or using a computer.
Unless you have a vastly different perception of reality than anyone ive spoken with, you absolutely do. You have assumptions and beliefs that allow you to continue to interact with this reality.
For instance, do you have any rational basis for expecting the force of gravity to continue to operate 5 seconds after reading this? Certainly you have the belief that it will based on past knowledge, but thats not a guarentee, and even if it were that itself would be based on beliefs about the past.
You seem to be trying to separate "knowledge of facts" from "beliefs" when they are in fact the same thing. You can ask "are those beliefs justified", which is both a valid and a distinct question. Further, all of us (at least those of us who are sane) have beliefs which are not justified from a purely scientific method standpoint: you cannot PROVE that you exist or that your perception of reality is accurate, nevertheless you believe it (if you are sane).
Unfortunately that is not correct. Analytic thinking is geared towards determining whether something is true or not, and belief is simply "holding a premise to be true" (thanks wikipedia for the concise definitions!). That is, belief flows from critical thinking.
Lets examine this real fast: You (I am assuming) do not believe that religions have any merit. Presumably, you have some reasons or rationale for why you arrived at that conclusion. That is, you have a belief, because you had at some point (I hope) done some critical thinking, and your chain of reasoning resulted in a belief.
Likewise, I have religious views. I have belief in certain things. I, too, have reasons for my faith, and have several reasons for why I hold them to be true.
I suppose you may disagree with the definition of belief, but I think that that is a good one and if you disagree it would be easiest if you simply clarified your definitions.
Then batch script it as a logon script. If the script actually runs, and you write it decently, it shouldnt fail except in the most bizarre circumstances; and if that happens you just add a few logging lines ( >>SomeLog.txt 2>&1). You know you can script reg imports, right?
If you dont understand how routing protocols work, I shudder to think of the results of trying to implement even something as simple as RIP. You may be able to follow the directions, but that may not prevent you from introducing massive security holes or routing loops.
Ditto with STP or VLANs: Without understanding the principles, you will be hopeless trying to configure them even if you understand the commands. With STP for example, you may indeed end up with a spanning tree, and its root may be in the most unbelievably inconvenient place and slow the entire network down.
Normally, also a speedup due to additional superscalar hardware, but Intel explained that one away as "improved graphics".
Your words, not mine. You wanted a clockboost (which they really havent done for about 6 years now, and did not promise), and a speedup (which they delivered). You claimed that power efficiency is, to quote your post, "missing in action" (even though it isnt).
You seem to have assumed they reneged on all their promises despite the reality of the situation, for no other apparent reason than that you wanted something to rail about. Possibly check the sources before buying into the slashdot spin bs.
Working on a real internet router requires knowledge of subnetting, the OSI layer, ethernet / TCPIP specifics, routing protocols, etc. Thats not vocational, its theory.
I wouldn't look at it as one vs the other. I would look at it that if we all had CS degrees, certs would probably go out the window.
Id probably agree with that, but it seems like a waste to get a 4 year degree emphasizing programming and then spend your time working in a career on Cisco gear at a major ISP. Wouldnt it have been better to have more IT specifics? Why not branch it out into specialties in the CS degree program?
Those type of programs can be good-- I went thru one myself-- but they tend to deemphasize theory in favor of practice.
Think how disastrous it is when someone with no understanding of programming theory (what Big O is, for example) tries to do anything of any complexity. It can be just as bad when someone who doesnt understand the basics of the OSI model tries to do networking.
I've always thought of CS vs IT as Engineer vs Technician. One designs the other implements and operates.
Theres more to it than that. IT folks are going to be responsible for things like ACLs, setting up VLANing, setting up secure remote access, etc. Im sorry, but thats just not something a programmer-turned-part-time IT guy should handle at any company of any resonable size. Does he understand the different types of VPN? Does he have a firm grasp on the difference between opening TCP port 1723 and UDP port 1723? Or what the difference between TCP port 47 and IP protocol 47 (GRE)?
From personal experience, the answer tends to be no. Even with a firewall as simple as a Sonicwall, leave programmers in charge of the firewall for any length of time and you end up with row upon row of contradictory ACLs, with noone really sure what rules are needed and what arent.
Perhaps youre right that you can get a lot of those skills from a certificate level study (for example going thru CCNA classes will get you a lot of the way there), but what seperates a good IT person from a bad one are those specifics-- really understanding what VPN DOES, how firewalls function, how to troubleshoot performance issues on a server, how to troubleshoot issues with packet loss or routing loops, etc. That spans several certificate programs, and at that point I could say "you can become a programmer just by taking a quickie on Java programming". Yea, you could, but you wouldnt be very good at it, thats the point.
I think that they are very close in some ways and the foundationals should perhaps be the same-- learning logic gates and some basic programming languages (scheme, C++, etc) would be great whether you end up in CS proper or IT-- but towards the end things really branch off. An IT guy doesnt need to know assembler, and a programmer probably doesnt need to understand how to set up RADIUS authentication for WPA or understand the specifics of how RSTP trees are set up.
Intel HD graphics 2000 is sufficient to play Starcraft 2 at reasonable levels, I think 50% improvement over the already 50% faster HD 3000 would be very welcome for gamers.
Care to link the benchmarks where the SB outperforms IB? The linked sources seem to agree that it is generally 10-15% faster, with the GPU being substantially faster.
Higher clockspeeds use more power. Intel hasnt gone much above 3.3gHz for years, with 3.7 (i believe) being the top clock rate that they have ever done. You expect them to change that now when the focus is on higher efficiency, more cores, and lower power usage?
It doesnt represent a problem at all, and for the record all of the benchmarks ive seen on hothardware (linky) show it as being faster than sandy bridge, so theres that speedup youre complaining about.
They never said that there would be a clock boost-- id be interested to see what your source is for that statement.
Except the summary seems wrong by its own sources:
TechSpot
Since late last year Ivy Bridge seems to be the architecture everyone is waiting for. Although Intel is only anticipating a 10–15% processing performance bump when compared to Sandy Bridge,
Which is what they have been saying for about a year now, and what everyone expected. And for the record, 15% speed boost at the same clock with lower power usage is not insignificant, at all.
AnandTech:
Ivy Bridge is a tick+, as we've already established.... The end result is a reasonable increase in CPU performance (for a tick), a big step in GPU performance, and a decrease in power consumption.
SemiAccurate:
For raw numbers, the top HD 4000 only has 16 shaders, but the underlying architecture is completely new......Intel is claiming about 2x the graphics performance from 33% more units. We don't think these claims are out of line for the general case.
Way to go, summary, you successfully implied that the chip was a flop when your sources indicate it hit its target, has substantially better GPU performance, and has a launch price in line with its current lineup. Slashdot truly is master of the art of spin.
So if someone wants to go down the path towards a CCIE and work on internet backbones, in your mind CS would cover that? Because to my mind that falls under IT, and most CS majors arent going to know how to work on a real internet router.
Or lets say we want to implement WPA2-enterprise with RADIUS, is that something you suppose your typical CS major is going to have expertise in?
Said hypothetical republican didnt, and its kind of ridiculous that youre defending one person's actions by claiming his alternative would have hypothetically acted the same.
If you are implying that it doesnt matter who you vote for and what their political ideology is, then Id say your idea is as toxic an idea as any other here.
Unless I was completely not paying attention in Civics class, I recall that "enforcement of the law " falls under the executive branch of the government. There is a guy at the top of the executive right now who is up for reelection in a few months. Im fairly certain thats who GP was referring to.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not belief that's the problem, it's "faith", which is a completely unsupported belief, not flowing from analytical thinking.
I will agree that they are in fact different things. But you can have faith in something because you trust it to be reliable for valid reasons.
People just swallow whatever religious nonsense they're fed, without pausing to think about the fact that the supernatural is completely imaginary.
Which people? All religious people (I call bull, if so)?
Wikipedia has an excellent article on weasel-words, and why you should avoid them. You might want to check it out.
My experience with this has been that people raised in nominally religious households tend to default to a-religious, and that its a crapshoot with people raised in devout ones.
I think you are also making some gross assumptions regarding why people believe what they believe, and attributing ignorance and lack of analysis to a broad category of people for no good reason.
That's a theory, not a belief.
Unless you have strapped yourself into your chair (and velcro'd your chair to the ground), Im pretty sure you have it as a belief. Beliefs can change, of course, which seems to be your objection to calling it a belief.
But you are playing a bad kind of semantics by trying to insist you have no beliefs, when you clearly do by both the common usage and the dictionary usage. You hold in your mind certain premises to be true.
Not sure I agree (disclaimer, I dont claim to be an expert on politics).
From wikipedia:
Fascism opposes multiple ideologies: conservatism, liberalism, and two major forms of socialism—communism and social democracy
There is a running dispute among scholars about where along the left/right spectrum that fascism resides.[31][32][33][34] Fascism was founded during World War I by Italian national syndicalists who combined left-wing and right-wing political views,
More to the point, if you asked the average left-wing person if they support numerous government programs to promote the greater social good, you will generally get a positive response-- left-wing truly is socialist at its extreme. I dont think this needs to be a negative-- socialism has some correct ideas regarding societal good, but as with most things it goes awry when taken to its extreme. To be clear, I think some government programs for "the greater social good" can be justified.
On the other hand, if you were to ask your average right-wing person whether they support basically any aspect of fascism, you will get varied responses. Certainly I am republican (which is generally regarded as "on the right"), and I do not at all support a large expansive government, nor basically any of the attributes wikipedia assigns to fascism. I am conservative, very much inclined towards protection of individual (as opposed to group) freedoms, very much opposed to centralized power, etc etc etc.
I contend that you have something akin to blind faith in your own perception of reality being accurate. If you did not, I do not think you would be posting on slashdot or using a computer.
I don't have beliefs.
Unless you have a vastly different perception of reality than anyone ive spoken with, you absolutely do. You have assumptions and beliefs that allow you to continue to interact with this reality.
For instance, do you have any rational basis for expecting the force of gravity to continue to operate 5 seconds after reading this? Certainly you have the belief that it will based on past knowledge, but thats not a guarentee, and even if it were that itself would be based on beliefs about the past.
You seem to be trying to separate "knowledge of facts" from "beliefs" when they are in fact the same thing. You can ask "are those beliefs justified", which is both a valid and a distinct question. Further, all of us (at least those of us who are sane) have beliefs which are not justified from a purely scientific method standpoint: you cannot PROVE that you exist or that your perception of reality is accurate, nevertheless you believe it (if you are sane).
Batteries are vulnerable to buffer overflows, you know.
(For certain definitions of "buffer" and "overflow")
Unfortunately that is not correct. Analytic thinking is geared towards determining whether something is true or not, and belief is simply "holding a premise to be true" (thanks wikipedia for the concise definitions!). That is, belief flows from critical thinking.
Lets examine this real fast: You (I am assuming) do not believe that religions have any merit. Presumably, you have some reasons or rationale for why you arrived at that conclusion. That is, you have a belief, because you had at some point (I hope) done some critical thinking, and your chain of reasoning resulted in a belief.
Likewise, I have religious views. I have belief in certain things. I, too, have reasons for my faith, and have several reasons for why I hold them to be true.
I suppose you may disagree with the definition of belief, but I think that that is a good one and if you disagree it would be easiest if you simply clarified your definitions.
Then batch script it as a logon script. If the script actually runs, and you write it decently, it shouldnt fail except in the most bizarre circumstances; and if that happens you just add a few logging lines ( >>SomeLog.txt 2>&1). You know you can script reg imports, right?
If you dont understand how routing protocols work, I shudder to think of the results of trying to implement even something as simple as RIP. You may be able to follow the directions, but that may not prevent you from introducing massive security holes or routing loops.
Ditto with STP or VLANs: Without understanding the principles, you will be hopeless trying to configure them even if you understand the commands. With STP for example, you may indeed end up with a spanning tree, and its root may be in the most unbelievably inconvenient place and slow the entire network down.
You realize GPOs can export files (including config.js) and registry settings across an organization, right?
vWell, where did the clock boost go then?
Normally, also a speedup due to additional superscalar hardware, but Intel explained that one away as "improved graphics".
Your words, not mine. You wanted a clockboost (which they really havent done for about 6 years now, and did not promise), and a speedup (which they delivered). You claimed that power efficiency is, to quote your post, "missing in action" (even though it isnt).
You seem to have assumed they reneged on all their promises despite the reality of the situation, for no other apparent reason than that you wanted something to rail about. Possibly check the sources before buying into the slashdot spin bs.
Working on a real internet router requires knowledge of subnetting, the OSI layer, ethernet / TCPIP specifics, routing protocols, etc. Thats not vocational, its theory.
I wouldn't look at it as one vs the other. I would look at it that if we all had CS degrees, certs would probably go out the window.
Id probably agree with that, but it seems like a waste to get a 4 year degree emphasizing programming and then spend your time working in a career on Cisco gear at a major ISP. Wouldnt it have been better to have more IT specifics? Why not branch it out into specialties in the CS degree program?
Those type of programs can be good-- I went thru one myself-- but they tend to deemphasize theory in favor of practice.
Think how disastrous it is when someone with no understanding of programming theory (what Big O is, for example) tries to do anything of any complexity. It can be just as bad when someone who doesnt understand the basics of the OSI model tries to do networking.
I've always thought of CS vs IT as Engineer vs Technician. One designs the other implements and operates.
Theres more to it than that. IT folks are going to be responsible for things like ACLs, setting up VLANing, setting up secure remote access, etc. Im sorry, but thats just not something a programmer-turned-part-time IT guy should handle at any company of any resonable size. Does he understand the different types of VPN? Does he have a firm grasp on the difference between opening TCP port 1723 and UDP port 1723? Or what the difference between TCP port 47 and IP protocol 47 (GRE)?
From personal experience, the answer tends to be no. Even with a firewall as simple as a Sonicwall, leave programmers in charge of the firewall for any length of time and you end up with row upon row of contradictory ACLs, with noone really sure what rules are needed and what arent.
Perhaps youre right that you can get a lot of those skills from a certificate level study (for example going thru CCNA classes will get you a lot of the way there), but what seperates a good IT person from a bad one are those specifics-- really understanding what VPN DOES, how firewalls function, how to troubleshoot performance issues on a server, how to troubleshoot issues with packet loss or routing loops, etc. That spans several certificate programs, and at that point I could say "you can become a programmer just by taking a quickie on Java programming". Yea, you could, but you wouldnt be very good at it, thats the point.
I think that they are very close in some ways and the foundationals should perhaps be the same-- learning logic gates and some basic programming languages (scheme, C++, etc) would be great whether you end up in CS proper or IT-- but towards the end things really branch off. An IT guy doesnt need to know assembler, and a programmer probably doesnt need to understand how to set up RADIUS authentication for WPA or understand the specifics of how RSTP trees are set up.
Intel HD graphics 2000 is sufficient to play Starcraft 2 at reasonable levels, I think 50% improvement over the already 50% faster HD 3000 would be very welcome for gamers.
Care to link the benchmarks where the SB outperforms IB? The linked sources seem to agree that it is generally 10-15% faster, with the GPU being substantially faster.
Higher clockspeeds use more power. Intel hasnt gone much above 3.3gHz for years, with 3.7 (i believe) being the top clock rate that they have ever done. You expect them to change that now when the focus is on higher efficiency, more cores, and lower power usage?
It doesnt represent a problem at all, and for the record all of the benchmarks ive seen on hothardware (linky) show it as being faster than sandy bridge, so theres that speedup youre complaining about.
They never said that there would be a clock boost-- id be interested to see what your source is for that statement.
Except the summary seems wrong by its own sources:
TechSpot
Since late last year Ivy Bridge seems to be the architecture everyone is waiting for. Although Intel is only anticipating a 10–15% processing performance bump when compared to Sandy Bridge,
Which is what they have been saying for about a year now, and what everyone expected. And for the record, 15% speed boost at the same clock with lower power usage is not insignificant, at all.
AnandTech:
Ivy Bridge is a tick+, as we've already established. ... The end result is a reasonable increase in CPU performance (for a tick), a big step in GPU performance, and a decrease in power consumption.
SemiAccurate:
For raw numbers, the top HD 4000 only has 16 shaders, but the underlying architecture is completely new. .....Intel is claiming about 2x the graphics performance from 33% more units. We don't think these claims are out of line for the general case.
Way to go, summary, you successfully implied that the chip was a flop when your sources indicate it hit its target, has substantially better GPU performance, and has a launch price in line with its current lineup. Slashdot truly is master of the art of spin.
So if someone wants to go down the path towards a CCIE and work on internet backbones, in your mind CS would cover that? Because to my mind that falls under IT, and most CS majors arent going to know how to work on a real internet router.
Or lets say we want to implement WPA2-enterprise with RADIUS, is that something you suppose your typical CS major is going to have expertise in?
Said hypothetical republican didnt, and its kind of ridiculous that youre defending one person's actions by claiming his alternative would have hypothetically acted the same.
If you are implying that it doesnt matter who you vote for and what their political ideology is, then Id say your idea is as toxic an idea as any other here.
Unless I was completely not paying attention in Civics class, I recall that "enforcement of the law " falls under the executive branch of the government. There is a guy at the top of the executive right now who is up for reelection in a few months. Im fairly certain thats who GP was referring to.
All may be true, and there may be loads of issues...
and millions left without access to their legitimate data."
But the summary doesnt need to go overboard and paint Kim as some innocent dude who was trying to get legitimate users their legitimate data.
Not trying to justify things, but I think we can leave it at "the raid was out of line (or illegal) but Kim remains a parasite."