No he wasn't. You made the mistake that most people make, which is listen to what they say rather than observe what they do.
His voting record told you everything you needed to know. The least deserving of a right to complain now are the people that didnt care about the easily discoverable facts about Obama that were not only discoverable by the ordinary man looking at the public record (which is available online) but also covered extensively by what I guess you would have called "partisan sources."
The insurance that you received from your employer in lieu of cash to buy your own
Why not just take the cash then?... oh thats right... many employers are not allowed to give you more cash instead of health insurance...
So you are essentially saying that the solution to one injustice is adding another injustice.. now when does this end? When will you liberals finally say "wait a minute.. we cant create another injustice"
The problem with working until the job is done is that, for me at least, the job is never done.
If I finish one part there is always the next step there, waiting to get done.
Then your company has gotten pretty close to optimizing P * QUOTA * Productivity = X , but why are they optimizing that?
If a company can sell X units per day, they should have enough workers to produce X units per day.
Of course, they should never every have have enough workers to produce 2X units per day. That would be preposterous, right? Gotta fire some people, maybe replace some of the more efficient people with less efficient people too.../sarcasm
See the problem with your circular argument yet? You have forced the time quota into both sides of the argument.
Simply replace T with (work) day and the two situations you describe are identical.
See, there you are forcing it in. Why not T = half day? T must after all be a full day!! Thats the essence of the your argument, and its the flaw of it. Can't possibly pay anyone $200 for 4 hours of their time.. must pay them $200 for 8 hours of their time....
I take this to mean that the cable companies have decided any means of distribution they don't control is illegal.
br>
Wrong. Cable companies were in full support of Aereo.
Why is it that you people feel so compelled to give your opinion on subjects where you dont even know who the principal actors are? Seriously.... why? You knew that your opinion wasn't informed.
Cable companies were rooting for Aereo because they too would like to set up antenna arrays and individually deliver local content that way instead of paying the broadcasters a retransmission fee.
Now STFU about shit that at even the most trivial and basic level you are completely uniformed about.
Actually thanks in part to people that think just like you, 40 is the bare minimum
It used to be that there was work that needed to be done, workers did that work until it was done, and then there was no work to be done.
Now there is work that needs to be done, but workers work until they hit their time quota rather than until the work is done. Sometimes they finish the work before the time quota is satisfied, and sometimes they dont finish the work.
All the negatives you can think of stem from time quotas having been forced upon the various industries that do not naturally have time-based workloads.
Factories for instance make money per unit of product manufactured, but are forced by-and-large to pay their workers per unit of time T (per hour, per day, etc..). The ramifications of this is that a factory owner is now faced with optimizing a completely artificial situation. They can sell X units per day, but instead of simply making sure that they have enough workers P to produce X units per day, they also must now try to have the amount of workers P that produces X in exactly time T.
This fucks up everyones incentives. The factory owner now has fucked up incentives, but also the workers too now have fucked up incentives.
Paid just enough not to quit while working just hard enough not to get fired.
There is work where the availability of the worker is part of the job, and it is really only these where it isnt completely fucked incentive-wise to pay per unit time.
Fucked up incentives lead to inefficiency, and not just for the employer. Everyone is hurt.
In a summary addressing the "work week," how does one end up reducing it by 112 hours or more?
Through the awesome power of smoke and mirrors. Keep shifting units so that nobody has enough patience to actually think critically about the claims that you are making.
The city (at least the one I live in) contracts that service, not only are you responsible for the tow fee you are also responsible for a fine should you leave your car parked to long
..interesting, but doesnt refute anything. The tow truck driver is a 3rd party profiting off public parking.
If they're charging at cost, then the city overall benefits
How do you figure that? Commuters are willing to pay big bucks for parking and instead of collecting big bucks from them for parking, they tax the residents...
You have a strange definition of "benefit" that is based on inefficiency.
its possible for people to benefit from inefficiency, but you seem to have assigned the benefit to the wrong people. It is the communters that benefit, and nobody else.
Yes, like the public who pay taxes that support the system and think that public resources should be available to the people who pay to create them at cost and not some inflated rate.
What inflated rate is that?
The real issue is that SF doesnt seem to give a shit that they are fucking the local residents (by taxation) for the benefit of out of town visitors to their city (who dont pay SF taxes but enjoy the under-priced parking spots that those SF taxes subsidize)
Everything else is applying your personal perspective and inferring pointless nonsense.
Everything else? Really?
So the other 5 IRS employees that also had their hard drives mysteriously crash and lose emails for the exact same time period... thats pointless nonsense?
You Obama apologists arent even trying to sound like you have a valid point anymore, are ya?
You could go ahead a run both paths of code. Then decide which one is correct and discard the unused results.
Intel is already doing partial speculative execution in the case of conditional branches. The pipeline is filled with the predicted path which is then frequently executed out of order (before the condition is known)..
Intel is not however doing the full concept you have described (eager speculative execution) and I don't think its likely that they ever will. The best case for eager speculative execution would be when the branches are completely unpredictable, which is only very rarely true. Further, it requites significant over-provisioning of execution units to have enough to execute both paths of a conditional branch each at "best possible speed".. resources that would be completely wasted whenever there isnt a conditional branch in the pipeline...
When doing SIMD calculations then you run the same instruction in parallel on many cores with different data as input
Your definition of core seems to be completely different from anyone elses. You seem to have relabeled execution units as 'cores,' and for seemingly completely ignorant reasons.
Knowing Statists, unlike all other mathematics, does not help with programming.
uhhh.. what?
Sure, it wont help with HelloWorld.c,... but lets be real here... unless you definition of "programming" is gluing 3rd party libraries (written by people that know math) together, you clearly havent thought it through. While statistics doesnt encompass all the more-than-simple math knowledge required to be a good programmer, its a start.
If you want any sort of proof of this, open up any volume of the Programmer Bible, aka Donald Knuths "The Art of Computer Programming" - very little code and what code there is is purposely in a fictitious assembly language. Thats because Programming is Math.
The problem is that suggesting an alternative and trying to fix the problem
Nobody did that in this case. Are you following the thread at all?
Someone rightly noted that as demand for college went up, so does its cost (an undeniable fact of economics), and then someone else responded that even more people should be going to college (more demand!) but attempted to claim that the new increased costs don't need to have the same effect that the prior increased costs had.
In actual reality, you cannot deny away the effects that increasing costs has.
What does any of that have to do with anything? You have made the argument completely circular by deciding that the only place to find information is on a university campus. This simply isnt true in reality... there is no conspiracy to constrict information to only being available on university campuses. It simply doesnt exist.
Slashdot Mirror
now the people with the money get to decide how its spent.
Fixed that for ya.
A win for liberty. If you wanted it differently, perhaps you shouldnt have robbed their liberty to begin with.
Now one philosophy is paramount in the eyes of the law.
The philosophy of liberty has only gotten a small win here. One step forward for every two steps back.
The guy we elected was ...
No he wasn't. You made the mistake that most people make, which is listen to what they say rather than observe what they do.
His voting record told you everything you needed to know. The least deserving of a right to complain now are the people that didnt care about the easily discoverable facts about Obama that were not only discoverable by the ordinary man looking at the public record (which is available online) but also covered extensively by what I guess you would have called "partisan sources."
The insurance that you received from your employer in lieu of cash to buy your own
Why not just take the cash then? ... oh thats right... many employers are not allowed to give you more cash instead of health insurance...
So you are essentially saying that the solution to one injustice is adding another injustice.. now when does this end? When will you liberals finally say "wait a minute.. we cant create another injustice"
Borland was the king of compilers. Even M$ used Turbo compilers. However probably this was way before you were even born, young whippersnapper.
I was banging keys before Borland was incorporated, you ignorant twat that all-of-a-sudden refused to log in.
or they are reducing their energy demands on an intelligent way : better insulation for example.
Right. Its not for the obvious reason that follows well known economic laws.. its for the hard to swallow reason that people are more intelligent now.
1998 called and wants its arguments back.
In civilized society we impose rules to prevent people from harming others.
FTFY
And before you go there, there is also "In civilized society we do not impose rules that force people to harm others."
The problem with working until the job is done is that, for me at least, the job is never done.
If I finish one part there is always the next step there, waiting to get done.
Then your company has gotten pretty close to optimizing P * QUOTA * Productivity = X , but why are they optimizing that?
If a company can sell X units per day, they should have enough workers to produce X units per day.
Of course, they should never every have have enough workers to produce 2X units per day. That would be preposterous, right? Gotta fire some people, maybe replace some of the more efficient people with less efficient people too... /sarcasm
See the problem with your circular argument yet? You have forced the time quota into both sides of the argument.
Simply replace T with (work) day and the two situations you describe are identical.
See, there you are forcing it in. Why not T = half day? T must after all be a full day!! Thats the essence of the your argument, and its the flaw of it. Can't possibly pay anyone $200 for 4 hours of their time.. must pay them $200 for 8 hours of their time....
You arent INFORMED enough to know that it was the BROADCASTERS and not the CABLE COMPANIES that went after Aereo?
I take this to mean that the cable companies have decided any means of distribution they don't control is illegal.
br> Wrong. Cable companies were in full support of Aereo.
Why is it that you people feel so compelled to give your opinion on subjects where you dont even know who the principal actors are? Seriously.... why? You knew that your opinion wasn't informed.
Cable companies were rooting for Aereo because they too would like to set up antenna arrays and individually deliver local content that way instead of paying the broadcasters a retransmission fee.
Now STFU about shit that at even the most trivial and basic level you are completely uniformed about.
Copid nailed the complete fallacy that you are working from.
You said a lot of stuff, but its all based on a fallacy, so in the end you said nothing other than the fallacy.
Actually thanks in part to people that think just like you, 40 is the bare minimum
It used to be that there was work that needed to be done, workers did that work until it was done, and then there was no work to be done.
Now there is work that needs to be done, but workers work until they hit their time quota rather than until the work is done. Sometimes they finish the work before the time quota is satisfied, and sometimes they dont finish the work.
All the negatives you can think of stem from time quotas having been forced upon the various industries that do not naturally have time-based workloads.
Factories for instance make money per unit of product manufactured, but are forced by-and-large to pay their workers per unit of time T (per hour, per day, etc..). The ramifications of this is that a factory owner is now faced with optimizing a completely artificial situation. They can sell X units per day, but instead of simply making sure that they have enough workers P to produce X units per day, they also must now try to have the amount of workers P that produces X in exactly time T.
This fucks up everyones incentives. The factory owner now has fucked up incentives, but also the workers too now have fucked up incentives.
Paid just enough not to quit while working just hard enough not to get fired.
There is work where the availability of the worker is part of the job, and it is really only these where it isnt completely fucked incentive-wise to pay per unit time.
Fucked up incentives lead to inefficiency, and not just for the employer. Everyone is hurt.
In a summary addressing the "work week," how does one end up reducing it by 112 hours or more?
Through the awesome power of smoke and mirrors. Keep shifting units so that nobody has enough patience to actually think critically about the claims that you are making.
The city (at least the one I live in) contracts that service, not only are you responsible for the tow fee you are also responsible for a fine should you leave your car parked to long
If they're charging at cost, then the city overall benefits
How do you figure that? Commuters are willing to pay big bucks for parking and instead of collecting big bucks from them for parking, they tax the residents...
You have a strange definition of "benefit" that is based on inefficiency.
its possible for people to benefit from inefficiency, but you seem to have assigned the benefit to the wrong people. It is the communters that benefit, and nobody else.
There was already a law on the books against what this company is trying to do.
So SF has been screwing its tax payers over for the benefit of out-of-town parking-spot-seekers for a long time then?
Yes, like the public who pay taxes that support the system and think that public resources should be available to the people who pay to create them at cost and not some inflated rate.
What inflated rate is that?
The real issue is that SF doesnt seem to give a shit that they are fucking the local residents (by taxation) for the benefit of out of town visitors to their city (who dont pay SF taxes but enjoy the under-priced parking spots that those SF taxes subsidize)
why on earth would I allow a third party to make money off public parking if it's not re-invested into the road system
You mean why on earth would you allow the tow truck driver that removes a car thats been parked in a spot too long to make money off public parking?
Everything else is applying your personal perspective and inferring pointless nonsense.
Everything else? Really?
So the other 5 IRS employees that also had their hard drives mysteriously crash and lose emails for the exact same time period... thats pointless nonsense?
You Obama apologists arent even trying to sound like you have a valid point anymore, are ya?
You could go ahead a run both paths of code. Then decide which one is correct and discard the unused results.
Intel is already doing partial speculative execution in the case of conditional branches. The pipeline is filled with the predicted path which is then frequently executed out of order (before the condition is known) ..
.. resources that would be completely wasted whenever there isnt a conditional branch in the pipeline...
Intel is not however doing the full concept you have described (eager speculative execution) and I don't think its likely that they ever will. The best case for eager speculative execution would be when the branches are completely unpredictable, which is only very rarely true. Further, it requites significant over-provisioning of execution units to have enough to execute both paths of a conditional branch each at "best possible speed"
When doing SIMD calculations then you run the same instruction in parallel on many cores with different data as input
Your definition of core seems to be completely different from anyone elses. You seem to have relabeled execution units as 'cores,' and for seemingly completely ignorant reasons.
Knowing Statists, unlike all other mathematics, does not help with programming.
uhhh.. what?
... but lets be real here... unless you definition of "programming" is gluing 3rd party libraries (written by people that know math) together, you clearly havent thought it through. While statistics doesnt encompass all the more-than-simple math knowledge required to be a good programmer, its a start.
Sure, it wont help with HelloWorld.c,
If you want any sort of proof of this, open up any volume of the Programmer Bible, aka Donald Knuths "The Art of Computer Programming" - very little code and what code there is is purposely in a fictitious assembly language. Thats because Programming is Math.
The problem is that suggesting an alternative and trying to fix the problem
Nobody did that in this case. Are you following the thread at all?
Someone rightly noted that as demand for college went up, so does its cost (an undeniable fact of economics), and then someone else responded that even more people should be going to college (more demand!) but attempted to claim that the new increased costs don't need to have the same effect that the prior increased costs had.
In actual reality, you cannot deny away the effects that increasing costs has.
What does any of that have to do with anything? You have made the argument completely circular by deciding that the only place to find information is on a university campus. This simply isnt true in reality... there is no conspiracy to constrict information to only being available on university campuses. It simply doesnt exist.