You do realize that the colour spectrum of LEDs is a solved problem, right?
So what you are saying is that we are going to go ahead and ban stuff now, and then maybe solve the problems with the intended replacement in the future?
I give it 10 years before you are crying about some of the many other problems with this law, such as the environmental disaster as people just throw these alternatives into the trash.
Translation: "I am going to completely sidestep the cost of ownership issue entirely, because I actually have no idea whats cheaper even though earlier I pretended that I did"
64-bit pointers take up twice the space in caches, and especially L1 cache is very space-limited.
L1 cache is typically 64KB, which is room for 8K 64-bit pointers or 16K 32-bit pointers. Now riddle me this.. if you are following thousands or more pointers, what are the chances that your access pattern is at all cache friendly?
The chance is virtually zero.
Of course, not all of the data is pointers, but that actually doesnt help the argument. The smaller the percentage of the cache that is pointers, the less important their size actually is, for after all when 0% are pointers then pointer size cannot have any performance impact.
So the best case for your argument is when there are literally 8192 pointers sitting in the cache, where you would be able to instead fit 16384 pointers if they were 32-bit. But surely the act of following 16384 pointers in your access pattern is actually going to make the L1 cache 100% completely moot with a cache miss at literally every follow...
Having smaller data structures is much better for the small 64-byte cache lines of modern CPUs.
If your data structure includes pointers that you actually use, then you are randomly accessing memory anyways. If you arent using those pointers, then I suggest 0-sized pointers which are compatible with x64.
An SSD is a physical storage that presents a logical drive to the system. There is no 1:1 mapping between physical sectors and logical sectors. Logical sector 0 is always the boot sector, but can be located anywhere on the physical media.
An SSD is also unaware of the file system that is present. Prior to TRIM the entire logical volume, including all of its free sectors, were always allocated to physical locations and the SSD was unaware of which physical/logic blocks were considered free by the filesystem. This meant that the SSD could never treat the logical blocks allocated by the volume (but were considered free by the filesystem) for any purpose other that storing data. For all intents and purposes, the filesystems 'free' blocks were indistinguishable from valid data that needed to be protected.
Thus begat the rise of over-provisioning. Thats 120GB SSD was probably a 128GB SSD pretending to only be able to store 120GB, leaving 8GB as a pool of 'ready to be written to' blocks of data.
However as TRIM support began ramping up, it was now possible for the filesystem to inform the SSD that some of the logical volume was unimportant and could also be used as a pool of 'ready to be written to' blocks of data. Thus begat the rise of power-of-two SSD's whos performance didnt rapidly begin to suck.
Over-provisioning is still recommended if there is any chance of nearly filling the SSD, but is now completely irrelevant in the case of sparsely populated logical volumes. So now modern SSD's also have a configurable amount of over-provisioning with (typically) a quite small amount of default over-provisioning.
TL;DR: Without TRIM, the SSD must consider your entire logical partition (free space and all) as valid data that needs to be maintained. With TRIM, the SSD can be informed as to which space is free, thus it does not need to maintain the integrity of the data that is there.
Things like inflation and deflation are not bad things. They are frequently a symptom of bad things, tho.
One could argue that not being able to increase (or decrease) the money supply is a bad (limiting) thing, but on the same token clearly being able to increase (or decrease) the money supply can (and so frequently does) also lead to bad things.
The current massive inflation (don't believe the "official" CPI numbers) is a symptom of bad monetary policy, a policy that is used to continue the perpetuation of largest ponzi scheme the world has ever seen: The United States Public Debt. Both the FED and government even admit that its a ponzi scheme every time the debt-ceiling issue comes up ("If we cant borrow more money then we will default on our debt.") The baby boomer generations government lived so far outside of its means that the debt is now unpayable, and no its not a rich vs poor issue. Its a big government and the resulting excessive influences issue (that of course benefits the have's over the have-nots -- thats how big government works.)
This is why bitcoin is attractive to so many people, but the fundamental problem with bitcoin remains that while the setup certainly prevents printing arbitrary amounts of currency, its still itself a completely arbitrary thing. We are free to choose to use it (to the extent that its legal) but we are also free to choose to not use it. As for myself.. let me know when I can pay my taxes with it.
Libertarians can do math. Tour problem is that you cannot do research.
With regards to the 5 "new" factories, "GM would say only that it will create or keep 1,000 positions."
Now lets be really generous and suppose that they will create 1000 new positions, thats at a cost of $10 billion in taxpayer money or about $10,000,000 per position.
Now, what were you saying about doing math? Oh thats right..you were saying "The mcgrew family can subtract, but can only subtract the number of ignorant points the mcgrew family racks up every day from the previous days large negative number"
See, your problem is that you latch on to the first thing in sight that confirms whatever unfounded notion you have (and you and I both know that you know that its unfounded) and then proceed to act like you know something (and you and I both know that you know that you do not know shit.) You are not a smart person, nor a creative thinker. You are a shallow bullshit artist (and both you and I know that you know that thats what you are) whose games only work on your even less educated friends.
Come back when you know what the fuck you are talking about.
It wasn't their money to gamble with. It belonged to the taxpayers.
Its not your property if you do not retain the rights afforded to property owners.
The idea that the money did not "belong" to the government is a fantasy based on wishful thinking. Its a pipe dream that doesnt jive with reality. The members of government that decide the fate of these vast sums of money are not asking you, the supposed "rightful owner" of the tax dollars, what to do with it.
Nobody with the power to decide asked the question "is this good value for the taxpayer?" Nobody with the power to decide asked the question "what is the best thing we can do for the taxpayer with this money?" Those are not the questions being asked by those with the power to decide. The vast majority of government spending is value lost for the taxpayers.
Current FY2013 Federal spending is about ~$30000 per household, and thats only about half of all government spending (State and Local spending in total is similar)
~$60000 in government spending per household. This particular loss for the taxpayers is about $100 per household. If you are really and truly up-in-arms about the government dropping $100 per household in this case, why aren't you a member of an armed and violent rebellion against the government right this moment?
My guess is that for the most part that you defend government spending on the grounds that you dont know specifically which corporations are benefiting, but as soon as a specific corporation is named you are suddenly and magically upset about it.
a) Those 'other shareholders' bought the shares voluntarily. The taxpayer didn't.
I wonder if you feel the same way when its taxpayer money used for social programs that have near-certain negative returns.
The problem began when the government moved to help the company with taxpayer dollars. It is no surprise from that point forward that the taxpayers lost value, because the government does not evaluate taxpayer value the same way that taxpayers do. Most members of government evaluate legislation as a tool to gain campaign donations, with taxpayer value nowhere in sight of this evaluation.
So here we are. Big government protected big business and fucked over the tax payers in a big way again. This is exactly as was predicted by the Libertarians that protested the bailouts (both the Democrats and Republicans did not protest the bailouts.)
Are any of those in the realm of cost effective vs the simple bulb?
I like how you called him a lazy moron while you failed to even check if any of those are cost effective (I assume that if you knew that they were, you would have said so in order to strengthen your clearly weak insult-throwing position.)
I'm not sure about the heat lamps, but they are significantly more expensive than a simple bulb and don't seem to actually put out significantly more heat per watt so you will have to explain how these are a better choice. I am however sure that those small desk/space heaters are so far more more expensive than simple bulbs that they would have to be orders of magnitude more efficient at generating heat, which they arent, so yay for you being dishonest.
Are there any 100W plugin heaters... other than light bulbs, or do you seriously suggest that he choose a solution that produces 1500% more than he needs?
And I'm sure you have something more than anecdotal data to back that assertion up right?
What is better than anecdotal evidence in this case?
You could link to study after study showing how CFL's arent pieces of shit.... meanwhile he keeps buying CFL's and getting a pieces of shit.
"Studies" are always trumped by personal experience. It is you that needs to provide a citation for why the next CFL he buys wont be like any of the previous ones.
Ah, the old "lets regulate in order to educate" scheme....
let us know when you also support CFL's being packaged with their lifetime energy requirements... a small battery would do since they dont even last a year.
...a statement trying to distract from the reality of the situation which is undeniable, that too few people are signing up even in States with functioning exchanges, let alone in in Oregon.
Do you see how dishonesty doesnt work as a response when you are already in a position of weakness?
I believe you are leaving out the part where the poor performance of most of the State-based exchanges have already been excused away as "well those are red State with a Republican governor."
The point being that Oregon is not a red State by any measure.
The lie works because the defense against the lie is "actually there are 8752 completed applications" in a State of nearly 3900000 people. For the math challenged, thats significantly than 1% of the population.
So the only defense against the lie is to admit complete failure.
Just like in chess, when you are in a position of weakness the reality of the situation is not a defense.
"We have tried to contact you on numerous occasions [emphasis mine] to give you the opportunity to return this item to us (at our cost and no inconvenience to yourself), but to date you have refused to do so.
No inconvenience? Really?
I order (X), but you send me (X+Y). Inconvenience #1
Then you spam my email and snail mail when you discover your error. Inconvenience #2
You demand that I repackage and ship the item (Y) back to you. If I do this, thats inconvenience #3
Here is the deal. If you want me to do right by you after you have inconvenienced me, then you first gotta do right by me and that includes not dishonestly claiming that you havent inconvenienced me when clearly you have.
As soon as you claim that this situation is not an inconvenience to me, I am going to respond "it was broken so I put it in the trash." -- your lie deserves a lie as a response, because fuck liars.
Slashdot Mirror
So, because you can't educate your morons, erm, people on the proper way to discard such stuff, we can't replace energy-hungry bulbs?
The answer is "Yes, thats why we can't."
Which part of accepting reality confuses you?
The warrantee is for the power supply, in case it has an early failure. The LEDs will last forever
Lets convert this to a computer analogy.
"The SSD warranty is for the capacitors and controller, in case of early failure. The flash will last forever"
Come back when you have an argument that involves the device continuing to work as intended.
You do realize that the colour spectrum of LEDs is a solved problem, right?
So what you are saying is that we are going to go ahead and ban stuff now, and then maybe solve the problems with the intended replacement in the future?
I give it 10 years before you are crying about some of the many other problems with this law, such as the environmental disaster as people just throw these alternatives into the trash.
Everything breaks. Everything is hard to fix.
Translation: "I am going to completely sidestep the cost of ownership issue entirely, because I actually have no idea whats cheaper even though earlier I pretended that I did"
64-bit pointers take up twice the space in caches, and especially L1 cache is very space-limited.
L1 cache is typically 64KB, which is room for 8K 64-bit pointers or 16K 32-bit pointers. Now riddle me this.. if you are following thousands or more pointers, what are the chances that your access pattern is at all cache friendly?
The chance is virtually zero.
Of course, not all of the data is pointers, but that actually doesnt help the argument. The smaller the percentage of the cache that is pointers, the less important their size actually is, for after all when 0% are pointers then pointer size cannot have any performance impact.
So the best case for your argument is when there are literally 8192 pointers sitting in the cache, where you would be able to instead fit 16384 pointers if they were 32-bit. But surely the act of following 16384 pointers in your access pattern is actually going to make the L1 cache 100% completely moot with a cache miss at literally every follow...
Having smaller data structures is much better for the small 64-byte cache lines of modern CPUs.
If your data structure includes pointers that you actually use, then you are randomly accessing memory anyways. If you arent using those pointers, then I suggest 0-sized pointers which are compatible with x64.
sigh this isnt exactly right either
The situation is thus:
An SSD is a physical storage that presents a logical drive to the system. There is no 1:1 mapping between physical sectors and logical sectors. Logical sector 0 is always the boot sector, but can be located anywhere on the physical media.
An SSD is also unaware of the file system that is present. Prior to TRIM the entire logical volume, including all of its free sectors, were always allocated to physical locations and the SSD was unaware of which physical/logic blocks were considered free by the filesystem. This meant that the SSD could never treat the logical blocks allocated by the volume (but were considered free by the filesystem) for any purpose other that storing data. For all intents and purposes, the filesystems 'free' blocks were indistinguishable from valid data that needed to be protected.
Thus begat the rise of over-provisioning. Thats 120GB SSD was probably a 128GB SSD pretending to only be able to store 120GB, leaving 8GB as a pool of 'ready to be written to' blocks of data.
However as TRIM support began ramping up, it was now possible for the filesystem to inform the SSD that some of the logical volume was unimportant and could also be used as a pool of 'ready to be written to' blocks of data. Thus begat the rise of power-of-two SSD's whos performance didnt rapidly begin to suck.
Over-provisioning is still recommended if there is any chance of nearly filling the SSD, but is now completely irrelevant in the case of sparsely populated logical volumes. So now modern SSD's also have a configurable amount of over-provisioning with (typically) a quite small amount of default over-provisioning.
TL;DR: Without TRIM, the SSD must consider your entire logical partition (free space and all) as valid data that needs to be maintained. With TRIM, the SSD can be informed as to which space is free, thus it does not need to maintain the integrity of the data that is there.
Obama is the one doing it - the teaparty wouldnt have - its classic democrat policy to accuse the opposition of doing what they themselves are doing
Indeed.
Things like inflation and deflation are not bad things. They are frequently a symptom of bad things, tho.
One could argue that not being able to increase (or decrease) the money supply is a bad (limiting) thing, but on the same token clearly being able to increase (or decrease) the money supply can (and so frequently does) also lead to bad things.
The current massive inflation (don't believe the "official" CPI numbers) is a symptom of bad monetary policy, a policy that is used to continue the perpetuation of largest ponzi scheme the world has ever seen: The United States Public Debt. Both the FED and government even admit that its a ponzi scheme every time the debt-ceiling issue comes up ("If we cant borrow more money then we will default on our debt.") The baby boomer generations government lived so far outside of its means that the debt is now unpayable, and no its not a rich vs poor issue. Its a big government and the resulting excessive influences issue (that of course benefits the have's over the have-nots -- thats how big government works.)
This is why bitcoin is attractive to so many people, but the fundamental problem with bitcoin remains that while the setup certainly prevents printing arbitrary amounts of currency, its still itself a completely arbitrary thing. We are free to choose to use it (to the extent that its legal) but we are also free to choose to not use it. As for myself.. let me know when I can pay my taxes with it.
Libertarians can do math. Tour problem is that you cannot do research.
With regards to the 5 "new" factories, "GM would say only that it will create or keep 1,000 positions."
Now lets be really generous and suppose that they will create 1000 new positions, thats at a cost of $10 billion in taxpayer money or about $10,000,000 per position.
Now, what were you saying about doing math? Oh thats right..you were saying "The mcgrew family can subtract, but can only subtract the number of ignorant points the mcgrew family racks up every day from the previous days large negative number"
See, your problem is that you latch on to the first thing in sight that confirms whatever unfounded notion you have (and you and I both know that you know that its unfounded) and then proceed to act like you know something (and you and I both know that you know that you do not know shit.) You are not a smart person, nor a creative thinker. You are a shallow bullshit artist (and both you and I know that you know that thats what you are) whose games only work on your even less educated friends.
Come back when you know what the fuck you are talking about.
But how am I supposed to give billions in subsidies to corn farmers then?
I'm sure that the Democrats will find another way to give them billions.
It wasn't their money to gamble with. It belonged to the taxpayers.
Its not your property if you do not retain the rights afforded to property owners.
The idea that the money did not "belong" to the government is a fantasy based on wishful thinking. Its a pipe dream that doesnt jive with reality. The members of government that decide the fate of these vast sums of money are not asking you, the supposed "rightful owner" of the tax dollars, what to do with it.
Nobody with the power to decide asked the question "is this good value for the taxpayer?" Nobody with the power to decide asked the question "what is the best thing we can do for the taxpayer with this money?" Those are not the questions being asked by those with the power to decide. The vast majority of government spending is value lost for the taxpayers.
Current FY2013 Federal spending is about ~$30000 per household, and thats only about half of all government spending (State and Local spending in total is similar)
~$60000 in government spending per household. This particular loss for the taxpayers is about $100 per household. If you are really and truly up-in-arms about the government dropping $100 per household in this case, why aren't you a member of an armed and violent rebellion against the government right this moment?
My guess is that for the most part that you defend government spending on the grounds that you dont know specifically which corporations are benefiting, but as soon as a specific corporation is named you are suddenly and magically upset about it.
a) Those 'other shareholders' bought the shares voluntarily. The taxpayer didn't.
I wonder if you feel the same way when its taxpayer money used for social programs that have near-certain negative returns.
The problem began when the government moved to help the company with taxpayer dollars. It is no surprise from that point forward that the taxpayers lost value, because the government does not evaluate taxpayer value the same way that taxpayers do. Most members of government evaluate legislation as a tool to gain campaign donations, with taxpayer value nowhere in sight of this evaluation.
So here we are. Big government protected big business and fucked over the tax payers in a big way again. This is exactly as was predicted by the Libertarians that protested the bailouts (both the Democrats and Republicans did not protest the bailouts.)
Are any of those in the realm of cost effective vs the simple bulb?
I like how you called him a lazy moron while you failed to even check if any of those are cost effective (I assume that if you knew that they were, you would have said so in order to strengthen your clearly weak insult-throwing position.)
I'm not sure about the heat lamps, but they are significantly more expensive than a simple bulb and don't seem to actually put out significantly more heat per watt so you will have to explain how these are a better choice. I am however sure that those small desk/space heaters are so far more more expensive than simple bulbs that they would have to be orders of magnitude more efficient at generating heat, which they arent, so yay for you being dishonest.
The poor will also throw CFL's in the trash, contaminating the environment...
Are there any 100W plugin heaters... other than light bulbs, or do you seriously suggest that he choose a solution that produces 1500% more than he needs?
And I'm sure you have something more than anecdotal data to back that assertion up right?
What is better than anecdotal evidence in this case?
You could link to study after study showing how CFL's arent pieces of shit.... meanwhile he keeps buying CFL's and getting a pieces of shit.
"Studies" are always trumped by personal experience. It is you that needs to provide a citation for why the next CFL he buys wont be like any of the previous ones.
Ah, the old "lets regulate in order to educate" scheme....
... a small battery would do since they dont even last a year.
let us know when you also support CFL's being packaged with their lifetime energy requirements
Its the "don't do things that leads to annoying the owners" rule.
...a statement trying to distract from the reality of the situation which is undeniable, that too few people are signing up even in States with functioning exchanges, let alone in in Oregon.
Do you see how dishonesty doesnt work as a response when you are already in a position of weakness?
I believe you are leaving out the part where the poor performance of most of the State-based exchanges have already been excused away as "well those are red State with a Republican governor."
The point being that Oregon is not a red State by any measure.
The lie works because the defense against the lie is "actually there are 8752 completed applications" in a State of nearly 3900000 people. For the math challenged, thats significantly than 1% of the population.
So the only defense against the lie is to admit complete failure.
Just like in chess, when you are in a position of weakness the reality of the situation is not a defense.
Ah the magic of language.
"We have tried to contact you on numerous occasions [emphasis mine] to give you the opportunity to return this item to us (at our cost and no inconvenience to yourself), but to date you have refused to do so.
No inconvenience? Really?
I order (X), but you send me (X+Y). Inconvenience #1
Then you spam my email and snail mail when you discover your error. Inconvenience #2
You demand that I repackage and ship the item (Y) back to you. If I do this, thats inconvenience #3
Here is the deal. If you want me to do right by you after you have inconvenienced me, then you first gotta do right by me and that includes not dishonestly claiming that you havent inconvenienced me when clearly you have.
As soon as you claim that this situation is not an inconvenience to me, I am going to respond "it was broken so I put it in the trash." -- your lie deserves a lie as a response, because fuck liars.
That's the equivalent of saying "TV commercials are annoying, so stop watching TV at all."
Yes, exactly like a completely valid and rational reaction, and a wholly achievable policy.
Its true: You don't have to use other peoples services unless you choose to ('cept for that whole health insurance mandate.)
In a free market, how AT&T acted wouldnt matter unless it acted in a way that provided a competitive service.
Its a failure of government.