You are going to go to your doctor and ask to be screened for everything that you might have a genetic disposition to, rather than find out what things you do have a genetic disposition to and then screen for those?
here is what I think: You dont know what you are talking about, at all, but clearly you think that you do. Take the time to find out why you don't, rather than the time to spread complete crap all over the internet.
Why should you have to demonstrate that to the FDA, instead of to your customers? As long as you are truthful in your disclosures, I think you should be able to sell your test.
Exactly. Once upon a time the FDA's only job was to make sure that medications were safe. It wasn't their job to verify efficacy.
Now the FDA acts as gatekeeper, making sure that its extremely expensive to do business.. and that whole safety thing has been sacrificed in the process (when the list of side effects is long, and all of them worse than the condition the medication is supposed to be treating...)
Part of the issue comes down to the unstated quotas that policy clearly must observe. I need to pinch a few more people each month than I have been.
Anyone who doest think there are unstated quotas, please explain what you think happens to an officer that pinches 0 people in January, February, and March. Do you think that they still have a job in April?
And this is not a partisan thing, since the biggest area where this kind of silliness happens is obscenely high military budget, and that gets reapproved without much serious question.
...at least the obscenely high military budget, wasteful as it is, produces world-leading results. I think that if a military contractor had been given the task of building the federal exchange website, that it would have come in even more over budget, but it would have at least worked.
The politicians with the purse strings here.dont actually care about the money, but they do care about looking like they do more harm than good. In asymmetric evaluations, its easy to excuse big negatives (such as wasteful overspending) with small positives (such as a working outcome.) This much is obvious given the clearly harmful size of the federal budget yet calls for spending more keep coming out from both the left and right.
I'm a converted NVidia user that would only recommend AMD right now, but even I will readily admit that "Trueaudio" is stupid marketing crap that isnt even close to passing the bullshit test.
There is a reason that hardware accelerated audio died 15 years ago. Its because CPUs from that era were so powerful that many-channel realtime software mixing wouldnt use even a fraction of a percent of CPU time.
The best way to keep this in perspective is to realize that the number of samples per second for audio is less than the number of pixels wolfenstein3d, released in 1992, rendered per frame. 20 year old hardware could do realtime many-channel CD quality audio software mixing, and in fact there were more than a few programs that did exactly that (scream tracker, impulse tracker,...)
Hardware audio acceleration is was on its last legs 20 years ago.
If expensive solutions count, why not a PC version of the PS4 board?
Maybe because nobody is selling such a thing?
The deal here is that memory controllers are now integrated into CPU''s (for performance reasons), so you can really only effectively use memory that the CPU was specifically designed for. Even if the mobo provided some emulation so that you could drop gddr5 into it instead of ddr3, your throughput would still be limited to 64 times the cpu's base memory clock, which is already attainable with ddr3.
You want to give Ayn Rand credit because all she did was describe Communism in a country in a continent next to the continent Venezuela is in? I'm not seeing the insight here. Ayn Rand neither invented Communism or alternate history.
I wanted to point out how foolish you are, thats all. You were attempting to claim that Atlas Shrugged wasn't describing whats going on in Venezuela but in fact thats exactly what Atlas Shrugged described, the only difference being a different country.
Now I want to point out what great lengths you seem to be going to in order to avoid simply admitting that your comment about Ayn Rand was uneducated (because you didn't read the book) nonsense.
I also don't think Ayn Rand was talking about Venezuela, or that most of her detractors would support a government take over of Best Buy, but you know, shades of grey and all that.
Have you even read Atlas Shrugged? Venezuela might not have been mentioned, but Mexico was nationalizing everything in the story, later followed by America passing the "Fair Share Directive" leading to "Directive 10-289" which locks the entire workforce into their current jobs and at their current pay, and demands that they consume exactly as much as they did the previous year. Thats a government takeover of everything.
30+ FPS in Far Cry 3 with Ultra settings at 4K resolution doesnt sound to me like "struggling"
49 FPS Grid 2 with Ultra settings at 4K resolution doesnt sound to me like "struggling"
45+ FPS in Just Cause 2 with Very High settings at 4K resolution doesnt sound like "struggling"
30+ FPS in Total War: Rome II with HQ settings at 4K resolution doesnt sound like "struggling"
If you arent right about existing hardware.. how could you possibly be a good judge of future hardware? Are you unaware that people are already doing 1080P gaming on their APU? My guess is that you were thinking that APUs "struggle" with 480P or some shit....
This is whats going on here. User 0123456 purchased or built an i7 system and a 660 GT which surely cost somewhere between $600 and $1200, He is now trying to justify this expense to himself by arguing with others. If he really felt that he made a good decision, he wouldn't feel the need to throw out opinions ("because if you care about games,...") as if it trumps the numbers.
Some people literally spend thousands on their gaming rigs, so why it is that he is so self-conscious about what he spent can only be speculated about.
APUs won't be able to do 4K for a loooong time for anything but video.
..if a "looooong time" means as soon as AMD and Intel support DDR4, which is in 2014... sure.
The main bottleneck for on-die GPU's is memory bandwidth. Intel "solved" the bandwidth problem in Iris Pro by including a massive L4 cache that cannot be manufactured cheaply. AMD hasn't solved the problem, but is far enough ahead in GPU design that the Iris Pro is only on par with AMD's 6800K APU.
It also probably costs as much for the CPU and GPU as it would for the entire AMD-based system.
The highest end AMD APU you can currently build includes an A10-6800K, which is a whopping $140 for the CPU+GPU. Include the cost of RAM for the GPU so that it can be comparable with a discrete GPU setup...$22 to compensate for dedicating 2GB of DDR3 1866 to the GPU...
$140 + $22 = $166.
His GTX 660 is $190. His i7 is no less than $290 based on todays newegg prices.
$190 + $290 = $480
So he is $314 in the hole. Clearly he doesnt want to talk about semantics such as cost.
AMD's last generation APU scores 865 on that benchmark, so not sure what point you are trying to make here.
I expect the top end Kaveri to score ~1150 on passmarks G3D, and it wont cost $450 or $650 like the two Intel chips that actually have the 128 MB of L4 cache that distinguishes the Iris Pro 5200 from the Intel HD 4600 (which only scores 598 on G3D)
Intels problem is that the method they used to get Iris Pro to perform so well for them (which is actually only about equal to the existing Radeon HD 8670D in the 6800K APU) is expensive, and the method isnt going to get any cheaper any time soon.
The method is simply to add another cache level to their cache hierarchy, and to make it a massive and ridiculously expensive 128MB.
If cache was cheap, all their processors would have a 128MB L4 cache. Cache is quite expensive tho, which is why their budget Haswells such as the Core i3-4130T only have 3MB of it, and the Intel HD 4400 on them performs at literally half the speed of the Iris Pro or the 6800K's Radeon HD 8670D.
Intels GPU problem continues to be shitty GPU architecture, which is a result of them not giving many actual shits about it.
but its really not considering you're now going to RELEARN a BUNCH of shit that GM, Ford, Nissan, Mazda, Toyota and all the rest learned a long time ago.
You wouldn't know it today, because after destroying Tucker they embraced safety via government mandate, and by "embraced safety" I mean "erected barriers to entry through government power so only new competitors with extremely deep pockets stand any chance at all."
Well, people will sometimes say "A is bad, but not as bad as B" to defend their position.
Sometimes people reply to someone about something they didn't say, because they imagined that the person they are replying to didnt say what they meant, but somehow are sure they meant exactly what they imagined them to not have said.
The fact is that you arent grounded in reality. You are grounded in imagination influenced by dislike.
What's your point? Both sides are bad so watch Fox News? All cable news sucks and you'll find fewer liberals who religiously watch MSNBC than conservatives who watch Fox News.
In a post that said nothing good about Fox News, but instead only gave citation to Fox not being even close to the worst, your first thought was that the post was not only support for Fox, but a recommendation to view it.
Do you even see the problem with the whole line of twisted assumptions that you have just made, probably instigated and influenced by what I guess is a clear hatred of what Fox represents?
It is no surprise that fewer people watch MSNBC "religiously" as you call it, given their horrible ratings. What point are YOU trying to make?
Slashdot Mirror
Facial recognition is plenty fast to track you throughout public transit with trivial difficulty.
If that were true, then they surely are using facial recognition instead of card readers for these transit services. Oh, they don't? yeah.
False positive and negative rates of what?
They arent performing a diagnosis. You don't seem to understand that, yet your argument relies on the very thing that you don't understand.
You are going to go to your doctor and ask to be screened for everything that you might have a genetic disposition to, rather than find out what things you do have a genetic disposition to and then screen for those?
here is what I think: You dont know what you are talking about, at all, but clearly you think that you do. Take the time to find out why you don't, rather than the time to spread complete crap all over the internet.
Why should you have to demonstrate that to the FDA, instead of to your customers? As long as you are truthful in your disclosures, I think you should be able to sell your test.
Exactly. Once upon a time the FDA's only job was to make sure that medications were safe. It wasn't their job to verify efficacy.
Now the FDA acts as gatekeeper, making sure that its extremely expensive to do business.. and that whole safety thing has been sacrificed in the process (when the list of side effects is long, and all of them worse than the condition the medication is supposed to be treating...)
..and that screening company will quickly drop him as a client
All these are cheap and worthless improvements! We need faster CPUs - 8GHz for single-core this year and 16GHz next year!
eDRAM may be many things, but cheap isnt one of them.
There is no chance that Intel would rent out its best fabs.
The reality is that Intel has a growing number of out-dated fabs that are not utilizing full capacity, and it wants to sell time on those.
Part of the issue comes down to the unstated quotas that policy clearly must observe. I need to pinch a few more people each month than I have been.
Anyone who doest think there are unstated quotas, please explain what you think happens to an officer that pinches 0 people in January, February, and March. Do you think that they still have a job in April?
Some people, when confronted with a problem, think "I know, I'll use regular expressions." Now they have two problems. - Jamie Zawinski, 1997
And this is not a partisan thing, since the biggest area where this kind of silliness happens is obscenely high military budget, and that gets reapproved without much serious question.
The politicians with the purse strings here.dont actually care about the money, but they do care about looking like they do more harm than good. In asymmetric evaluations, its easy to excuse big negatives (such as wasteful overspending) with small positives (such as a working outcome.) This much is obvious given the clearly harmful size of the federal budget yet calls for spending more keep coming out from both the left and right.
I'm a converted NVidia user that would only recommend AMD right now, but even I will readily admit that "Trueaudio" is stupid marketing crap that isnt even close to passing the bullshit test.
...)
There is a reason that hardware accelerated audio died 15 years ago. Its because CPUs from that era were so powerful that many-channel realtime software mixing wouldnt use even a fraction of a percent of CPU time.
The best way to keep this in perspective is to realize that the number of samples per second for audio is less than the number of pixels wolfenstein3d, released in 1992, rendered per frame. 20 year old hardware could do realtime many-channel CD quality audio software mixing, and in fact there were more than a few programs that did exactly that (scream tracker, impulse tracker,
Hardware audio acceleration is was on its last legs 20 years ago.
If expensive solutions count, why not a PC version of the PS4 board?
Maybe because nobody is selling such a thing?
The deal here is that memory controllers are now integrated into CPU''s (for performance reasons), so you can really only effectively use memory that the CPU was specifically designed for. Even if the mobo provided some emulation so that you could drop gddr5 into it instead of ddr3, your throughput would still be limited to 64 times the cpu's base memory clock, which is already attainable with ddr3.
You want to give Ayn Rand credit because all she did was describe Communism in a country in a continent next to the continent Venezuela is in? I'm not seeing the insight here. Ayn Rand neither invented Communism or alternate history.
I wanted to point out how foolish you are, thats all. You were attempting to claim that Atlas Shrugged wasn't describing whats going on in Venezuela but in fact thats exactly what Atlas Shrugged described, the only difference being a different country.
Now I want to point out what great lengths you seem to be going to in order to avoid simply admitting that your comment about Ayn Rand was uneducated (because you didn't read the book) nonsense.
I like massages with happy endings, and my guess is that so do 150 million other Americans.
I also don't think Ayn Rand was talking about Venezuela, or that most of her detractors would support a government take over of Best Buy, but you know, shades of grey and all that.
Have you even read Atlas Shrugged? Venezuela might not have been mentioned, but Mexico was nationalizing everything in the story, later followed by America passing the "Fair Share Directive" leading to "Directive 10-289" which locks the entire workforce into their current jobs and at their current pay, and demands that they consume exactly as much as they did the previous year. Thats a government takeover of everything.
even the 780 Ti and R9 290X struggle with 4K.
30+ FPS in Far Cry 3 with Ultra settings at 4K resolution doesnt sound to me like "struggling"
49 FPS Grid 2 with Ultra settings at 4K resolution doesnt sound to me like "struggling"
45+ FPS in Just Cause 2 with Very High settings at 4K resolution doesnt sound like "struggling"
30+ FPS in Total War: Rome II with HQ settings at 4K resolution doesnt sound like "struggling"
If you arent right about existing hardware.. how could you possibly be a good judge of future hardware? Are you unaware that people are already doing 1080P gaming on their APU? My guess is that you were thinking that APUs "struggle" with 480P or some shit....
Clearly you didn't bother to read the thread, or you'd have noticed that it wasn't about cost.
The person I replied to specifically talked about cost, and in fact its the only thing they talked about.
Maybe YOU should read the thread.
Nothing.
...") as if it trumps the numbers.
This is whats going on here. User 0123456 purchased or built an i7 system and a 660 GT which surely cost somewhere between $600 and $1200, He is now trying to justify this expense to himself by arguing with others. If he really felt that he made a good decision, he wouldn't feel the need to throw out opinions ("because if you care about games,
Some people literally spend thousands on their gaming rigs, so why it is that he is so self-conscious about what he spent can only be speculated about.
APUs won't be able to do 4K for a loooong time for anything but video.
The main bottleneck for on-die GPU's is memory bandwidth. Intel "solved" the bandwidth problem in Iris Pro by including a massive L4 cache that cannot be manufactured cheaply. AMD hasn't solved the problem, but is far enough ahead in GPU design that the Iris Pro is only on par with AMD's 6800K APU.
It also probably costs as much for the CPU and GPU as it would for the entire AMD-based system.
The highest end AMD APU you can currently build includes an A10-6800K, which is a whopping $140 for the CPU+GPU. Include the cost of RAM for the GPU so that it can be comparable with a discrete GPU setup...$22 to compensate for dedicating 2GB of DDR3 1866 to the GPU...
$140 + $22 = $166.
His GTX 660 is $190. His i7 is no less than $290 based on todays newegg prices.
$190 + $290 = $480
So he is $314 in the hole. Clearly he doesnt want to talk about semantics such as cost.
AMD's last generation APU scores 865 on that benchmark, so not sure what point you are trying to make here.
I expect the top end Kaveri to score ~1150 on passmarks G3D, and it wont cost $450 or $650 like the two Intel chips that actually have the 128 MB of L4 cache that distinguishes the Iris Pro 5200 from the Intel HD 4600 (which only scores 598 on G3D)
Intels problem is that the method they used to get Iris Pro to perform so well for them (which is actually only about equal to the existing Radeon HD 8670D in the 6800K APU) is expensive, and the method isnt going to get any cheaper any time soon.
The method is simply to add another cache level to their cache hierarchy, and to make it a massive and ridiculously expensive 128MB.
If cache was cheap, all their processors would have a 128MB L4 cache. Cache is quite expensive tho, which is why their budget Haswells such as the Core i3-4130T only have 3MB of it, and the Intel HD 4400 on them performs at literally half the speed of the Iris Pro or the 6800K's Radeon HD 8670D.
Intels GPU problem continues to be shitty GPU architecture, which is a result of them not giving many actual shits about it.
but its really not considering you're now going to RELEARN a BUNCH of shit that GM, Ford, Nissan, Mazda, Toyota and all the rest learned a long time ago.
You wouldn't know it today, because after destroying Tucker they embraced safety via government mandate, and by "embraced safety" I mean "erected barriers to entry through government power so only new competitors with extremely deep pockets stand any chance at all."
Well, people will sometimes say "A is bad, but not as bad as B" to defend their position.
Sometimes people reply to someone about something they didn't say, because they imagined that the person they are replying to didnt say what they meant, but somehow are sure they meant exactly what they imagined them to not have said.
The fact is that you arent grounded in reality. You are grounded in imagination influenced by dislike.
What's your point? Both sides are bad so watch Fox News? All cable news sucks and you'll find fewer liberals who religiously watch MSNBC than conservatives who watch Fox News.
In a post that said nothing good about Fox News, but instead only gave citation to Fox not being even close to the worst, your first thought was that the post was not only support for Fox, but a recommendation to view it.
Do you even see the problem with the whole line of twisted assumptions that you have just made, probably instigated and influenced by what I guess is a clear hatred of what Fox represents?
It is no surprise that fewer people watch MSNBC "religiously" as you call it, given their horrible ratings. What point are YOU trying to make?