Ideally, I would prefer if I didn't get any unsolicited calls on my phone.
Short of that though, it might actually be nice if unsolicited callers could leave me voicemails without actually causing my phone to ring: that way I wouldn't be bothered as often with phone calls I'm going to ignore anyway, and I can just delete the messages at my convenience.
Those who put in the work to earn their wealth tend to have the drive that pushes them to get out and do things. Not just cruising around the world and hanging out with friends, but actually working towards tangible goals.
On the other hand, those who receive a windfall of unearned wealth (inherited, lottery, etc.) often spend the money and end up worse off than they were to start with. They see more zeros in their bank account, and they constantly have the urge to splurge.
In both cases, working is a defense mechanism: It helps keep one group sane, and the other from spending through all their money.
Varied life perspectives likely have more to do with the results. A team made up of young, heterosexual, white males who were raised in upper-middle class households is likely to have a less diversity of thought than a team that includes those of other colors, ages, genders, and sexual orientations.
Think of it more in terms of adding diversity into the intellectual gene pool. Collaboration is often an iterative process; The more diverse the group, the higher the chances are that it will produce something truly novel. The converse can also be true.
That all being said, while I agree that diversity can be great, I don't believe that having "quotas" or "goals" (which almost universally require standards to be lowered) for diversity to be a healthy option either.
Common behavior in games like DayZ fairly accurately mirrors behavior that is appropriate in a situation where the rule of law has entirely disappeared.
Just look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs and it should become far more clear. Morality, at least as we generally conceive it, is something that doesn't really come up until pretty much every other need is fulfilled. In a situation without the rule of law, individuals are generally forced to spend much of their time working in the bottom two levels of the pyramid.
Thus, the logical reaction to new persons revolves around our needs and the available resources. Since there is little benefit to be gained (at least in DayZ) from working with strangers, and a huge amount of risk, there are really only two options: Kill them, or avoid them. Since avoiding other people is often so difficult, and they have little to offer you other than your death, this leads to people defaulting to the other option.
As the benefits of cooperation increase, and the penalty for dying goes down (read: when you can securely cache excess equipment for use with future characters), I suspect that we'll see less KOS, more avoidance, and more cooperation.
That case you quote is bullshit though; The law they are apparently being tried under really should only apply if they found (or bought it from someone who found it) the suitcase and then didn't try to return it to the "rightful owner." The article you link to clearly states that the original owner of the suitcase sold/donated said suitcase to the Salvation Army who in turn sold it to the couple. Essentially, the original owner sold/donated the item in question, and did not *lose* it. As far as I see it, it is unreasonable to pursue the couple in question in criminal court over this, at least for the offense they are seemingly being charged with.
Now to be clear, the right thing for the couple to do would have been to go back to the Salvation Army store where they bought it and see if the SA could get in touch with whoever the suitcase came from, but doesn't mean that the law they're being charged under applies in that situation.
Also, the case you quote doesn't correlate with the Gizmodo iPhone case; the only way it could is if Apple sold it (knowingly or unknowingly) to a third party from whom Gizmodo acquired it.
I'm not the world's leading expert on processor design, but from what I can tell from the schematics and die pictures I've seen of the Westmere 6-Core CPU's, it only *looks* like they stuck 2 3-core processors on the same die. Everything I have read about Nehalem (and now this current die-shrink) has said how modular and scalable it has been designed to be; Intel saw the limitations of their early dual-core designs in that they *weren't* particularly modular or scalable, and I can't imagine that they would repeat that mistake.
That said, from what I can tell, they laid it out like they did (so that it looks like three cores on one side and three on the other) in order to minimize the maximum distance(s) between certain key components (they stuck the queue and most of the uncore in the middle). It is my assumption that although there appears to be two L3 caches on the die, that any core can directly access any of the cache. I base this mostly on my understanding of how the QPI system works on a DP platform -- one link is for communicating with the Northbridge (Current DP NB is tylersburg 5520 while SP boards usually use X58) while the other is for direct communication with the other processor --- I would assume that if processor 0 can get data directly from the cache on processor 1, that any core on processor 1 can access any data on it's internal shared cache.
Your argument seems to be "GTA 4 runs like shit on my dual core CPU, and they say that you really should run it with on a quad, so therefore it will run even better on a 6-core CPU."
No offense, but that's a load of crap. GTA 4 runs like shit because it is for all intents and purposes a completely non-optimized console port. I've seen PLENTY of people with computers hands down above and beyond mine (tri/quad SLI with watercooled and heavily overclocked GTX285/295's (respectively), along with watercooled and heavily overclocked extreme-edition i7's) have difficulty running GTA 4 well.
I have a pretty good computer for these days (Core i7 920 CPU on an EVGA E759 X58 motherboard with an EVGA GTX 275 SC {at least that's how it came flashed}), and I have been able to graphically max out EVERY console port I have ever run at a minimum resolution of 1600 x 1200. -- titles like Call of Duty: World at War (I played it completely maxed out at 1600 x 1200 and I think my FPS was capped at 60 (I think I had it set to not do FPS above the monitor's refresh rate), and Mass Effect 2 (which I run completely maxed out at 1920 x 1440 and it has never gone below 60 FPS in any of my 2-3 playthroughs totaling at least three days ingame so far).
Basically, what I'm saying is that if your argument for more processor cores is based on the fact that badly written/optimized code runs better with more processor power, you need to find a better argument.
What you seem to neglect is that in the interveneing time, GB lost many of it's colonies around the world. Granted, had this NOT happened, and had the British colonies NOT gained their independance in the late 1700's, there is no telling what might have happened -- there are too many unknown factors to play "what if?"
My understanding of both World Wars indicates that the United States entered both wars once it was felt that there was no other option. The First World War started in 1914 (July 28th) and ended in 1918 (November 11th). The United States Congress declared war on April 6th, 1917 -- just in time to bail out mainland Europe and be home for next Christmas.
With the Second World War, The United States only declared war (on Japan) after a surprise attack on our soil (Pearl Harbor). Had that not happened, we would not have enetered that war at that time. Also note: We did not initially declare war on Germany; we declared war against Japan and Germany declared war against US.
You do not seem to have fully thought out your point -- that had the war for independance failed, we would have fought in the World Wars anyway. World politcs is too complex a sport to assume that the failure of any one action (the American Revolution) would not cause a later (and similar) action to succeed.
In fact, if you look at the French Revolution, soon there after, and at the king getting beheaded, that's what started it: eventually the peasants and burgeoisie had enough of paying the debt for a war that wasn't theirs and gained nothing for them. But I digress.
I hope you're not trying to draw a parallel between France (at the time of our Revolution) with what we are doing in Iraq right now.
Assuming that you meant to, I just wish to point out that BECAUSE the French helped us win our revolt against the British Empire, WE were then able to help THEM liberate mainland Europe. Twice. There is no telling how much good will come of having at least one stable Democratic nation in the Middle East (other than Israel)
Think of it like global "climate change" -- It *must* be happening, but we won't see definative proof for at least a century...
The Q&D calculation I was told by an EE I know is thus:
For every 10 C cooler you keep a(n) [electronic device] the life expectancy doubles. The reverse is also true.
I'd take this with a grain of salt (the engineer in question had his degree from M.I.T., but hadn't been employed as an engineer for over a decade), but it seems to fit close enough with the observed lifetime of my electronic devices.
I've never spent a single cent on a graphics card. I got my 8800 the old fashioned way -- trade/barter.
And don't even get me started on soundcards -- TF2 FTW!
All things considered, I think VGXPO last year was a very profitable experience for me....
Anyway, on the subject of older machines, I have a Dell Latitude D600 (2 GHz Dothan, 1GB, 160GB, 32MB ATi MR 9000), and the only part that really holds it back from running just about all games released up to about the middle of last year is the video card.
Is twofold:
Firstly, they have a great search engine (read: it is very easy to find what you are looking for), and Secondly, torrents are generally well seeded.
The problem is not getting iTunes by itself; the problem is getting Quicktime by itself.
It used to be that you could only get Quicktime as a standalone program. Now you need to dig through Apple's site to find the standalone installer, otherwise you need to install iTunes too. I don't want iTunes on my Windows box, thats what the Mac is for.
I guess Apple wants to limit Safari for Windows to Macs running Windows via Boot Camp (or whatever it is named now). So it does not completely ban itself.
But I still think it is a stupid decision. They are limiting the market share of their product, in an area where a popular free alternative exists with Firefox. This is not like using MacOS to push hardware sales. I think it was more ignorance/apathy on the part of whoever was in charge of "writing" the EULA for it -- namely that they simply copied and pasted the EULA from the OS X version into the Windows version.
Slashdot Mirror
Ideally, I would prefer if I didn't get any unsolicited calls on my phone. Short of that though, it might actually be nice if unsolicited callers could leave me voicemails without actually causing my phone to ring: that way I wouldn't be bothered as often with phone calls I'm going to ignore anyway, and I can just delete the messages at my convenience.
Those who put in the work to earn their wealth tend to have the drive that pushes them to get out and do things. Not just cruising around the world and hanging out with friends, but actually working towards tangible goals.
On the other hand, those who receive a windfall of unearned wealth (inherited, lottery, etc.) often spend the money and end up worse off than they were to start with. They see more zeros in their bank account, and they constantly have the urge to splurge.
In both cases, working is a defense mechanism: It helps keep one group sane, and the other from spending through all their money.
Varied life perspectives likely have more to do with the results. A team made up of young, heterosexual, white males who were raised in upper-middle class households is likely to have a less diversity of thought than a team that includes those of other colors, ages, genders, and sexual orientations.
Think of it more in terms of adding diversity into the intellectual gene pool. Collaboration is often an iterative process; The more diverse the group, the higher the chances are that it will produce something truly novel. The converse can also be true.
That all being said, while I agree that diversity can be great, I don't believe that having "quotas" or "goals" (which almost universally require standards to be lowered) for diversity to be a healthy option either.
You're entirely on the right track.
Common behavior in games like DayZ fairly accurately mirrors behavior that is appropriate in a situation where the rule of law has entirely disappeared.
Just look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs and it should become far more clear. Morality, at least as we generally conceive it, is something that doesn't really come up until pretty much every other need is fulfilled. In a situation without the rule of law, individuals are generally forced to spend much of their time working in the bottom two levels of the pyramid.
Thus, the logical reaction to new persons revolves around our needs and the available resources. Since there is little benefit to be gained (at least in DayZ) from working with strangers, and a huge amount of risk, there are really only two options: Kill them, or avoid them. Since avoiding other people is often so difficult, and they have little to offer you other than your death, this leads to people defaulting to the other option.
As the benefits of cooperation increase, and the penalty for dying goes down (read: when you can securely cache excess equipment for use with future characters), I suspect that we'll see less KOS, more avoidance, and more cooperation.
It may be a case of potato/potatoe, but while one is correct, the other will get you relentlessly mocked by the press.
Except we don't have a 'representative democracy'; We have a Constitutional Republic.
That case you quote is bullshit though; The law they are apparently being tried under really should only apply if they found (or bought it from someone who found it) the suitcase and then didn't try to return it to the "rightful owner." The article you link to clearly states that the original owner of the suitcase sold/donated said suitcase to the Salvation Army who in turn sold it to the couple. Essentially, the original owner sold/donated the item in question, and did not *lose* it. As far as I see it, it is unreasonable to pursue the couple in question in criminal court over this, at least for the offense they are seemingly being charged with. Now to be clear, the right thing for the couple to do would have been to go back to the Salvation Army store where they bought it and see if the SA could get in touch with whoever the suitcase came from, but doesn't mean that the law they're being charged under applies in that situation. Also, the case you quote doesn't correlate with the Gizmodo iPhone case; the only way it could is if Apple sold it (knowingly or unknowingly) to a third party from whom Gizmodo acquired it.
I'm not the world's leading expert on processor design, but from what I can tell from the schematics and die pictures I've seen of the Westmere 6-Core CPU's, it only *looks* like they stuck 2 3-core processors on the same die. Everything I have read about Nehalem (and now this current die-shrink) has said how modular and scalable it has been designed to be; Intel saw the limitations of their early dual-core designs in that they *weren't* particularly modular or scalable, and I can't imagine that they would repeat that mistake.
That said, from what I can tell, they laid it out like they did (so that it looks like three cores on one side and three on the other) in order to minimize the maximum distance(s) between certain key components (they stuck the queue and most of the uncore in the middle). It is my assumption that although there appears to be two L3 caches on the die, that any core can directly access any of the cache. I base this mostly on my understanding of how the QPI system works on a DP platform -- one link is for communicating with the Northbridge (Current DP NB is tylersburg 5520 while SP boards usually use X58) while the other is for direct communication with the other processor --- I would assume that if processor 0 can get data directly from the cache on processor 1, that any core on processor 1 can access any data on it's internal shared cache.
Your argument seems to be "GTA 4 runs like shit on my dual core CPU, and they say that you really should run it with on a quad, so therefore it will run even better on a 6-core CPU."
No offense, but that's a load of crap. GTA 4 runs like shit because it is for all intents and purposes a completely non-optimized console port. I've seen PLENTY of people with computers hands down above and beyond mine (tri/quad SLI with watercooled and heavily overclocked GTX285/295's (respectively), along with watercooled and heavily overclocked extreme-edition i7's) have difficulty running GTA 4 well.
I have a pretty good computer for these days (Core i7 920 CPU on an EVGA E759 X58 motherboard with an EVGA GTX 275 SC {at least that's how it came flashed}), and I have been able to graphically max out EVERY console port I have ever run at a minimum resolution of 1600 x 1200. -- titles like Call of Duty: World at War (I played it completely maxed out at 1600 x 1200 and I think my FPS was capped at 60 (I think I had it set to not do FPS above the monitor's refresh rate), and Mass Effect 2 (which I run completely maxed out at 1920 x 1440 and it has never gone below 60 FPS in any of my 2-3 playthroughs totaling at least three days ingame so far).
Basically, what I'm saying is that if your argument for more processor cores is based on the fact that badly written/optimized code runs better with more processor power, you need to find a better argument.
Statistics are much more enlightening than anecdotal evidence.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- Mark Twain
What you seem to neglect is that in the interveneing time, GB lost many of it's colonies around the world. Granted, had this NOT happened, and had the British colonies NOT gained their independance in the late 1700's, there is no telling what might have happened -- there are too many unknown factors to play "what if?"
My understanding of both World Wars indicates that the United States entered both wars once it was felt that there was no other option. The First World War started in 1914 (July 28th) and ended in 1918 (November 11th). The United States Congress declared war on April 6th, 1917 -- just in time to bail out mainland Europe and be home for next Christmas.
With the Second World War, The United States only declared war (on Japan) after a surprise attack on our soil (Pearl Harbor). Had that not happened, we would not have enetered that war at that time. Also note: We did not initially declare war on Germany; we declared war against Japan and Germany declared war against US.
You do not seem to have fully thought out your point -- that had the war for independance failed, we would have fought in the World Wars anyway. World politcs is too complex a sport to assume that the failure of any one action (the American Revolution) would not cause a later (and similar) action to succeed.
In fact, if you look at the French Revolution, soon there after, and at the king getting beheaded, that's what started it: eventually the peasants and burgeoisie had enough of paying the debt for a war that wasn't theirs and gained nothing for them. But I digress.
I hope you're not trying to draw a parallel between France (at the time of our Revolution) with what we are doing in Iraq right now.
Assuming that you meant to, I just wish to point out that BECAUSE the French helped us win our revolt against the British Empire, WE were then able to help THEM liberate mainland Europe. Twice. There is no telling how much good will come of having at least one stable Democratic nation in the Middle East (other than Israel)
Think of it like global "climate change" -- It *must* be happening, but we won't see definative proof for at least a century...
Halp is here?
A big problem with such "80+" power supplies is that they commonly only have one +12V rail. Generally, power supplies have 2-4 +12V rails.
The Q&D calculation I was told by an EE I know is thus: For every 10 C cooler you keep a(n) [electronic device] the life expectancy doubles. The reverse is also true. I'd take this with a grain of salt (the engineer in question had his degree from M.I.T., but hadn't been employed as an engineer for over a decade), but it seems to fit close enough with the observed lifetime of my electronic devices.
I wonder what gave you the Inspiron for that comment?
I've never spent a single cent on a graphics card. I got my 8800 the old fashioned way -- trade/barter. And don't even get me started on soundcards -- TF2 FTW! All things considered, I think VGXPO last year was a very profitable experience for me.... Anyway, on the subject of older machines, I have a Dell Latitude D600 (2 GHz Dothan, 1GB, 160GB, 32MB ATi MR 9000), and the only part that really holds it back from running just about all games released up to about the middle of last year is the video card.
No offense, but what part of /. doesn't?
Although I would not consider all ASCII arranged to approxomate images to be art. Just look at all those "Slashdot Sux0rz" posts. *shudders*
...This is a precursor to some big things... Don't you mean "small things?"Is twofold: Firstly, they have a great search engine (read: it is very easy to find what you are looking for), and Secondly, torrents are generally well seeded.
I would be careful to only give them out to people I trust, as it is my understanding that, should someone you invited get banned, you will as well.
The problem is not getting iTunes by itself; the problem is getting Quicktime by itself. It used to be that you could only get Quicktime as a standalone program. Now you need to dig through Apple's site to find the standalone installer, otherwise you need to install iTunes too. I don't want iTunes on my Windows box, thats what the Mac is for.
Really? In that case, where do I go to pick up one of these? Would I have pay for my plane tickets, or are they included too?