Until that "equal treatment" extends to marriage. Then they suddenly oppose equality.
Adding a vocal minority to an existing elite class of people that enjoys special rights and privileges does not create or increase equality. It create inequality. It decreases equality.
I know that you dont see it that way, but thats because your thinking on the subject is extremely shallow. You do not see married people as an elite class with special rights and privileges. You take those special rights and privileges for granted as if they are just and right. They aren't.
Homosexuals do not want to get married because of their respect for the institution of marriage. They want to get married because married people are an elite class that has special rights and privileges that non-married people do not enjoy. In effect, homosexuals are saying that it sucks to not be married in this country. They are pointing out an inequality, but that inequality is not that they cannot get married. That inequality is that married people are an elite class.
Now spare us your shallow liberal feel good thought processes.
Wrong. Non-strawman liberals are, in fact, for equal opportunities.
When you automatically consider the existence of unequal outcomes as a problem, and then use this now identified "problem" as a reason to try to manipulate things towards equal outcomes, you are not in fact supporting equal opportunities at all no matter how you try to word it.
You exist and in fact automatically believe there is a problem simply because there isnt equal outcomes, therefore the argument is not straw. The argument is in fact all about you, and that makes you so uncomfortable that you want to dismiss it. Too bad. Not dismissed.
The IRS already spends $300 million/year (FY2014) on this supposed "modernization," and thats down from previous years ($330 million/year for FY2012 and FY2013) So over the last decade they have blown through billions on "modernization."
With this sort of budget, they could have built several Titan supercomputers per year (in 2012 it was the fastest supercomputer ever built) and still had billions of dollars left over.
The agency actually currently blows through a total of $11.7 billion/year.
It seems to me that they already have an order of magnitude more money than they need and the problem for them is that when push comes to shove their budget could easily be cut in half several times, which if it happened would mean the big-whigs over at the IRS would suddenly lose their power to wastefully spend many billions of dollars per year. Obviously that outcome is frowned upon by those that control that money.
That some people defend this practice with statement like "Given that the alternative is either not having civilization or living in a permanent Mexican standoff " shows that those people really have no idea how much money these government agencies are spending. There is a reason that 4 of the 5 richest counties in the United States surround Washington D.C:
#1 Loudoun County, Virginia. 35 miles from D.C
#2 Howard County, Maryland. 27 miles from D.C
#3 Fairfax County, Virginia. 11 miles from D.C
#4 Hunterdon County, New Jersey. 160 miles from D.C.
#5 Arlington County, Virginia. 5 miles from D.C.
Let us know when we can download the raw unprocessed data to feed into their pet algorithm. Yeah... you are about to link to some place where you THINK the raw data is... but you are wrong... thats processed data ("adjusted") and they keep altering the old, already processed, data.... funny that.
(I am a witness to it - quite simple really, download their data... wait 4 weeks and download it again... do a difference.. note how old data keeps changing)
Not data that contradicts his beliefs, I don't think.
No he clearly intended to "kill file" any site that contradicted his beliefs. he stated it quite clearly. if he meant something else then he should have said something else. But this is common with the AGW side of things.. they exaggerate like hell for the purposes of making their arguments seem stronger... but those with a keen eye see it the other way... their arguments seem weaker whenever they do it.
It will be slower and/or consume more energy than an Intel version
Unlikely at the same total price point. That only happens in the $300+ area of the desktop space.
The price of the Atoms people are comparing the E-series with doesn't include a GPU for the Atom... as if GPU's are magically free... dont use energy... conveniently ignored for the purpose of cheering on... shitty Atoms?
Which one of these has never been used to define the bitness of a machine? Yes, its the one you are using.
Anyone with a triple channel i7 has a 192-bit desktop right now (thats the width of the data bus of first gen i7's) according to your idea of what machines a machine 8-bit...
no IBM PC was ever 8-bit.. never.. they started with a 16-bit word size and 20-bit addresses.. some might argue they were 20-bit, but its pretty well accepted that 16 is the right description while 20 is the wrong description.
8 isnt even wrong, its just retarded... something someone could only think was right if they didnt know fucking anything at all about what they are talking about... thats you.. and you know it.. so why are you talking? You know you certainly shouldnt be pretending to be knowledgeable.. so why are you doing it?
Funny how in the desktop space the Intel fans always talk about single-threaded performance even when the multi-threaded performance is way behind, but then in the low-watt space they do an about face and ignore the single-threaded performance.. even when the multi-threaded performance is barely better at all while the single-threaded is way behind....
Let us know when for the price of that Atom, you at least get a GPU too. Funny how you ignored that too.
Also note that rather recently Intel drastically dropped the accuracy of their FPU's in order to make the performance numbers look better.... dont expect 80-bit procession even when explicitly using the x87 instructions now... its now been documented that this is the case but for a few years Intel got away without publicly acknowledging the large drop in accuracy....
Keep in mind that the fastest implementations of just about any ultra-common standardized algorithms ((un)encryption, (de)compression, etc...) are in assembler. This fact doesnt shed as good light on compilers as some people like to disingenuously shine. Sure, most of the time you don't care that much about every last bit of performance, but when the CPU time for the algorithm in question easily totals billions of CPU hours... suddenly the arguments about assembler not being important start to look rather foolish.
Depends on your definition of 8-bits. The 8088 in the original IBM PC had an external 8 bit data bus, unlike the 8086.
The size of the data bus has never mattered wrt low level programming, and everyone who was ever involved in said low lever programming knows that, meaning that you are not included in that group. Conveniently you became an anonymous coward to defend yourself with even more ignorance. Idiot.
The size of the address bus was 20-bits on both 8088 and 8086. Thats much wider than we see here in your last ditch effort to label these are 8-bit processors. Idiot.
Guess that means you are at least partially retarded.
Nope, it means that you dont know what matters and what does not. Idiot.
You are a retarded idiot. The author states right at the beginning of the article that he's focusing on x86. In the (late) 80s, most people had an IBM PC, if they had anything.
..and there was never an 8-bit IBM PC. Talk about retarded... you're the idiot I guess.
That's because the perfect strategy is suboptimal.
..and in all likelihood it is a losing strategy.
Consider a chess engine that sees that it will be mated in 13 moves, and that the only reason its 13 moves and not 12 moves is because it can sacrifice its queen right now delaying the mate by 1 additional move.
The minimax strategy is to play the queen sacrifice, but in practice that just increases the likelihood of a loss because all opponents now have an easy win, not just those that see these mates.
Now poker isnt a 2 player game, so the effects of collusion are to be considered. Clearly against players who are colluding the perfect strategy is a losing strategy (that maybe just happens to minimize the losses.) Note that even when your opponents are not colluding, that does not mean that the decisions that they are making aren't equivalent to players who are colluding (colluders would bet and raise here, and so coincidentally are these fools you are playing again), ergo the perfect 3+ payers strategy is almost certainly a losing strategy.
Slashdot Mirror
Until that "equal treatment" extends to marriage. Then they suddenly oppose equality.
Adding a vocal minority to an existing elite class of people that enjoys special rights and privileges does not create or increase equality. It create inequality. It decreases equality.
I know that you dont see it that way, but thats because your thinking on the subject is extremely shallow. You do not see married people as an elite class with special rights and privileges. You take those special rights and privileges for granted as if they are just and right. They aren't.
Homosexuals do not want to get married because of their respect for the institution of marriage. They want to get married because married people are an elite class that has special rights and privileges that non-married people do not enjoy. In effect, homosexuals are saying that it sucks to not be married in this country. They are pointing out an inequality, but that inequality is not that they cannot get married. That inequality is that married people are an elite class.
Now spare us your shallow liberal feel good thought processes.
Wrong. Non-strawman liberals are, in fact, for equal opportunities.
When you automatically consider the existence of unequal outcomes as a problem, and then use this now identified "problem" as a reason to try to manipulate things towards equal outcomes, you are not in fact supporting equal opportunities at all no matter how you try to word it.
You exist and in fact automatically believe there is a problem simply because there isnt equal outcomes, therefore the argument is not straw. The argument is in fact all about you, and that makes you so uncomfortable that you want to dismiss it. Too bad. Not dismissed.
FDA...? Do they consider mosquitos food or drugs?
Yes.
...all I see is blond, brunette, redhead....
It's chess more or less as it was played 100+ years ago
No it isn't....
Why even open your mouth?
A mile is the distance where a measurement-unit douche-bag still wont notice the warning shots. A good thing to know.
This is just metadata about the police. It isnt telling the waze user anything specific about what the police are saying...
The police should just man up and trust us with this unimportant information.
what makes the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists experts on how much closer global warming puts us to global catastrophe?
They have a consensus.
Implying that four of the five richest counties in the US is due to the spending by the IRS is just BS.
yes, it would be. Good thing that nobody did it. Do you always stretch so far in order to save your fantasy from reality?
One suspects that might have been the point.
The IRS already spends $300 million/year (FY2014) on this supposed "modernization," and thats down from previous years ($330 million/year for FY2012 and FY2013) So over the last decade they have blown through billions on "modernization."
With this sort of budget, they could have built several Titan supercomputers per year (in 2012 it was the fastest supercomputer ever built) and still had billions of dollars left over.
The agency actually currently blows through a total of $11.7 billion/year.
It seems to me that they already have an order of magnitude more money than they need and the problem for them is that when push comes to shove their budget could easily be cut in half several times, which if it happened would mean the big-whigs over at the IRS would suddenly lose their power to wastefully spend many billions of dollars per year. Obviously that outcome is frowned upon by those that control that money.
That some people defend this practice with statement like "Given that the alternative is either not having civilization or living in a permanent Mexican standoff " shows that those people really have no idea how much money these government agencies are spending. There is a reason that 4 of the 5 richest counties in the United States surround Washington D.C:
#1 Loudoun County, Virginia. 35 miles from D.C
#2 Howard County, Maryland. 27 miles from D.C
#3 Fairfax County, Virginia. 11 miles from D.C
#4 Hunterdon County, New Jersey. 160 miles from D.C.
#5 Arlington County, Virginia. 5 miles from D.C.
What could the system possibly be doing while I sit there thinking about what I want to move next?
Mind you I am not even saying that such acitivites will be eliminated, but curbed a little bit.
Riiight... thats exactly how a global governance will operate.
There haven't been changes in the sun or in volcanic eruptions that are sufficient to account for the temperature trend.
The models also fail to account for the temperature trend (where or where did the predicted heat go?)
This is why you shouldnt be in bed with the modelers. But we see that you actually are...
Let us know when we can download the raw unprocessed data to feed into their pet algorithm. Yeah... you are about to link to some place where you THINK the raw data is... but you are wrong... thats processed data ("adjusted") and they keep altering the old, already processed, data.... funny that.
(I am a witness to it - quite simple really, download their data... wait 4 weeks and download it again... do a difference.. note how old data keeps changing)
Not data that contradicts his beliefs, I don't think.
No he clearly intended to "kill file" any site that contradicted his beliefs. he stated it quite clearly. if he meant something else then he should have said something else. But this is common with the AGW side of things .. they exaggerate like hell for the purposes of making their arguments seem stronger... but those with a keen eye see it the other way... their arguments seem weaker whenever they do it.
Your defense of your claim that the 8086/8088 were 8-bit processors has come to this.
I'd get off your lawn but its only artificial turf.... some dork that signed up to slashdot really early but never actually did shit...
It will be slower and/or consume more energy than an Intel version
Unlikely at the same total price point. That only happens in the $300+ area of the desktop space.
The price of the Atoms people are comparing the E-series with doesn't include a GPU for the Atom... as if GPU's are magically free... dont use energy... conveniently ignored for the purpose of cheering on... shitty Atoms?
The 8088 had an 8 bit external bus
bus width
address lines
fastest word size
Which one of these has never been used to define the bitness of a machine? Yes, its the one you are using.
Anyone with a triple channel i7 has a 192-bit desktop right now (thats the width of the data bus of first gen i7's) according to your idea of what machines a machine 8-bit...
no IBM PC was ever 8-bit.. never.. they started with a 16-bit word size and 20-bit addresses.. some might argue they were 20-bit, but its pretty well accepted that 16 is the right description while 20 is the wrong description.
8 isnt even wrong, its just retarded... something someone could only think was right if they didnt know fucking anything at all about what they are talking about... thats you.. and you know it.. so why are you talking? You know you certainly shouldnt be pretending to be knowledgeable.. so why are you doing it?
Funny how in the desktop space the Intel fans always talk about single-threaded performance even when the multi-threaded performance is way behind, but then in the low-watt space they do an about face and ignore the single-threaded performance.. even when the multi-threaded performance is barely better at all while the single-threaded is way behind....
Let us know when for the price of that Atom, you at least get a GPU too. Funny how you ignored that too.
Also note that rather recently Intel drastically dropped the accuracy of their FPU's in order to make the performance numbers look better.... dont expect 80-bit procession even when explicitly using the x87 instructions now... its now been documented that this is the case but for a few years Intel got away without publicly acknowledging the large drop in accuracy....
Keep in mind that the fastest implementations of just about any ultra-common standardized algorithms ((un)encryption, (de)compression, etc...) are in assembler. This fact doesnt shed as good light on compilers as some people like to disingenuously shine. Sure, most of the time you don't care that much about every last bit of performance, but when the CPU time for the algorithm in question easily totals billions of CPU hours... suddenly the arguments about assembler not being important start to look rather foolish.
Yes, but he is clearly writing for people who grew up professionally with the x86.
There was never an 8-bit x86, and that includes the 8088.
Depends on your definition of 8-bits. The 8088 in the original IBM PC had an external 8 bit data bus, unlike the 8086.
The size of the data bus has never mattered wrt low level programming, and everyone who was ever involved in said low lever programming knows that, meaning that you are not included in that group. Conveniently you became an anonymous coward to defend yourself with even more ignorance. Idiot.
The size of the address bus was 20-bits on both 8088 and 8086. Thats much wider than we see here in your last ditch effort to label these are 8-bit processors. Idiot.
Guess that means you are at least partially retarded.
Nope, it means that you dont know what matters and what does not. Idiot.
You are a retarded idiot. The author states right at the beginning of the article that he's focusing on x86. In the (late) 80s, most people had an IBM PC, if they had anything.
That's because the perfect strategy is suboptimal.
Consider a chess engine that sees that it will be mated in 13 moves, and that the only reason its 13 moves and not 12 moves is because it can sacrifice its queen right now delaying the mate by 1 additional move.
The minimax strategy is to play the queen sacrifice, but in practice that just increases the likelihood of a loss because all opponents now have an easy win, not just those that see these mates.
Now poker isnt a 2 player game, so the effects of collusion are to be considered. Clearly against players who are colluding the perfect strategy is a losing strategy (that maybe just happens to minimize the losses.) Note that even when your opponents are not colluding, that does not mean that the decisions that they are making aren't equivalent to players who are colluding (colluders would bet and raise here, and so coincidentally are these fools you are playing again), ergo the perfect 3+ payers strategy is almost certainly a losing strategy.