You're wasting your time. The problem people have isn't with stopping illegal downloading in itself, it's the terrible methodology and disparity of punishment compared to the severity of the offence.
I don't download music illegally at all, but I still think it's ridiculous to be disconnected because of it. It's an extremely trivial thing, whether it happens or not seems to have no effect on anything substantial; CD sales have gone down but online sales have gone up dramatically. Industry profits go up constantly. Studies seem to show that illegal downloaders are also great customers for the industry, probably because they have a big interest but not unlimited money.
All in all, I can't quite bring myself to give a shit about it.
Re:Faulty on many fronts
on
Less Is Moore
·
· Score: 1
1) No one is following Moore's law. It's a description of what happens.
Good luck getting people to understand that. It's like when people start saying "Godwin's Law!!!" at the mention of Nazis, as if it were a logical fallacy rather than a simple observation.
Back in the 80's in OMNI, there was a toothpaste on the market for about 1 month before being pulled, that had a plaque bacteria that could not digest teeth (made no cavities). Of course, gross factor was high and was summarily pulled from market.
I heard that something like this is being going through human trials right now; a strain of bacteria that replaces the current kind entirely, populating your mouth but not causing caries or other dental complications. For our children the phenomenon may happily be a thing of the past.
If they drop features to make it faster than XP then everyone will bitch that it doesn't have those features.
People would in general, but I doubt they would here on Slashdot. A lean no-bullshit version of Windows that had much lower requirements would probably go down pretty well, doubly so if it were a lot cheaper.
"because Windows 7 felt more ready to go once the desktop loaded up. Both XP and Vista took at least an extra minute after the desktop loaded to be ready to run applications, while Windows 7 ran Firefox without stuttering or hesitation. "
That's a bit weird. My PC with a 14-month-old XP SP2 install is running applications perfectly less than five seconds after I log in.
My old P4 with a six-year-old install took maybe 5-10 seconds at a high estimate, with a total boot time of less than 25 seconds. What have they got on this thing that it takes such an incredibly long time? A minute is something I might expect out on a crap laptop running Vista. For XP on a modern desktop it's crazy.
Come on, give me some credit. Thanks for explaining and all, but a car analogy? These CPU doohickeys aren't new to me you know.
Anyway, why do you think he was talking about clock speed? He never even mentioned that, he just said speed as a synonym for performance like almost everyone else does. As in, "The speed at which it gets shit done." On top of that, he talks about properly using multiple cores as if core performance isn't improving with time, and he's responding to someone who was explicitly talking about performance and not clock speed.
OP is probably right - 3GHz is probably about the practical limit of what CPUs can run at for everyday use
No. There are 3.5Ghz chips available right now with a TDP of 65 watts (C2D E8700). Voltage is more important than frequency with regards temperature and power consumption.
Compare a 3Ghz Pentium 4 with a 3Ghz X2 6000+. The X2 is dramatically faster. A 3Ghz Core 2 is faster than that again by a significant margin. A 3Ghz Core i7 is even faster again by a big margin. Where's this limit of what we can do? Performance has never stopped increasing by large amounts with each architecture. And I'm not even taking into account the increase in cores, this is just per-core performance.
Slashdot Mirror
What was your point again?
It's interesting. Not everything is about the size of your e-penis.
You're wasting your time. The problem people have isn't with stopping illegal downloading in itself, it's the terrible methodology and disparity of punishment compared to the severity of the offence.
I don't download music illegally at all, but I still think it's ridiculous to be disconnected because of it. It's an extremely trivial thing, whether it happens or not seems to have no effect on anything substantial; CD sales have gone down but online sales have gone up dramatically. Industry profits go up constantly. Studies seem to show that illegal downloaders are also great customers for the industry, probably because they have a big interest but not unlimited money.
All in all, I can't quite bring myself to give a shit about it.
Did we not learn anything by watching Rome?
Hmm. Maybe it's on the history channel.
1) No one is following Moore's law. It's a description of what happens.
Good luck getting people to understand that. It's like when people start saying "Godwin's Law!!!" at the mention of Nazis, as if it were a logical fallacy rather than a simple observation.
Those are industries, not scientific research facilities.
Unicron.
No. By the way here's an expansion pack containing the other half of the game you bought, only 20 dollars!
A more accurate description might be: a rare, contained, non-transferrable and temporary occurance of common sense.
I think I'll skip any fireworks displays you may be organising.
Pbbbft. What kind of Mad Midnight Bomber are you?
Oh? I just chalk it up to delusional fanboy bullshit. There's always someone in love with one corporation or another.
Ceiling voyeur faggot is watching you masturbate.
Fursuits? Wait, they already did that one.
I can't believe anyone would take that show seriously.
I don't think you're really supposed to. It's a hilarious show.
Back in the 80's in OMNI, there was a toothpaste on the market for about 1 month before being pulled, that had a plaque bacteria that could not digest teeth (made no cavities). Of course, gross factor was high and was summarily pulled from market.
I heard that something like this is being going through human trials right now; a strain of bacteria that replaces the current kind entirely, populating your mouth but not causing caries or other dental complications. For our children the phenomenon may happily be a thing of the past.
I can't believe the summary got "affect" vs. "effect" right, and...
Reading comprehension is good too.
If they drop features to make it faster than XP then everyone will bitch that it doesn't have those features.
People would in general, but I doubt they would here on Slashdot. A lean no-bullshit version of Windows that had much lower requirements would probably go down pretty well, doubly so if it were a lot cheaper.
Haha, look at this 'sperging nerd.
I'm looking at you, but it's not very amusing...
Gratitude Nazi: Thanks for your pedantic explanation and correction of my erroneous pedantry.
quantum leap
Meaning Nazi: Quantum means 'smallest'. Not huge.
"because Windows 7 felt more ready to go once the desktop loaded up. Both XP and Vista took at least an extra minute after the desktop loaded to be ready to run applications, while Windows 7 ran Firefox without stuttering or hesitation. "
That's a bit weird. My PC with a 14-month-old XP SP2 install is running applications perfectly less than five seconds after I log in.
My old P4 with a six-year-old install took maybe 5-10 seconds at a high estimate, with a total boot time of less than 25 seconds. What have they got on this thing that it takes such an incredibly long time? A minute is something I might expect out on a crap laptop running Vista. For XP on a modern desktop it's crazy.
Taking pictures discreetly exactly as the legislation is supposedly preventing?
Anyway, why do you think he was talking about clock speed? He never even mentioned that, he just said speed as a synonym for performance like almost everyone else does. As in, "The speed at which it gets shit done." On top of that, he talks about properly using multiple cores as if core performance isn't improving with time, and he's responding to someone who was explicitly talking about performance and not clock speed.
OP is probably right - 3GHz is probably about the practical limit of what CPUs can run at for everyday use
No. There are 3.5Ghz chips available right now with a TDP of 65 watts (C2D E8700). Voltage is more important than frequency with regards temperature and power consumption.
Even at 3 GHz, light travels only 10 cm in one cycle, and that's not too much larger than physical size of a single core.
It's far larger. In a C2D E8600 the physical die containing both cores is 107mm squared. Even the whole chip package is way smaller.
It'll run for a while. Then you'll run into a memory limitation and the game will crash. It's happened to me a few times.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Compare a 3Ghz Pentium 4 with a 3Ghz X2 6000+. The X2 is dramatically faster. A 3Ghz Core 2 is faster than that again by a significant margin. A 3Ghz Core i7 is even faster again by a big margin. Where's this limit of what we can do? Performance has never stopped increasing by large amounts with each architecture. And I'm not even taking into account the increase in cores, this is just per-core performance.