The fact that a new car ran into your old car, and everything was fine but the old car, doesn't convince me that the new car wasn't the savior.
I was specifically talking about the economics of accidents, in particular low velocity accidents. New "crumple zone" cars get destroyed in those and cost multiple thousands to get back on the road, while older steel cars frequently drive away from those accidents (even when hitting other steel cars), sometimes not needing any repairs at all and since its still drivable, we are talking about cosmetic repairs.
I think the point he is making, and if not then I would like to make, is that that old Chevy truck was still completely drivable after the accident.
Crumple zones work in multiple ways, and one of them is to put the vehicle into a state of needing such expensive repair that after a certain (relatively young) age that it no longer makes financial sense to get them back on the road.
While driving a big old early-90s metal Buick, I was in a fairly low speed rear-ender by a new late-2000's fiberglass and plastic Honda. The Honda was literally destroyed. I not only drove away in my Buick, I never needed repairs (the bumper was pushed in a little.. that was it.)
These modern cars are safer in high speed collisions, but at a large cost in value. I do not think that most people realize just how large the cost difference actually is. Its not just that these safer cars cost more at the dealership relative to income because of their safety features, its that they also don't survive a large portion of all accidents. That early 90's Buick survives and drives away from all but those high speed accidents.
With GCC, -O2 enables strict aliasing and thus makes assumptions (sometimes incorrect) about what types of pointers might point to the same memory locations, and it makes these assumptions so that it can produce better code.
I get it... if the optimization flags is specifically "-O#" then its bad because you have amazingly decided that "-O#" is a special "generic" flag.
I got news for ya: Just because you are used to using a particular flag because its not been a problem for you so far, that does not make it special or "generic."
2. Lowers its user prices for a short period, dumping the price and bankrupting the competitor. Then pushing prices to even higher level to gain the money lost back.
..creating an incentive for even more competitors to move in.
3. Buys new competitor out outright.
..so the original profit incentive remains, plus they indicate a new one, so even more competitors move in.
4. Uses local bought and paid for legislature to block the competitor.
Thats calls regulation.
5. Reminds its contacts in the local media to talk about 4. as if it's the fault of the government
The government had the power to grant those regulations or to not grant them. Like it or not, the government dealt the hand and then pushed the pot.
Its more a matter of practicality than regulation.
Come off it. First the Statists claim that there isnt enough regulation and thats why monopolies exist, and then when its pointed out that the regulation that exists specifically mandates that monopolies exist, we are to then fall back on the "oh thats a matter of practicality" excuse for why the Statist belief system has fucked us into having monopolies?
You don't get to blame the situation on free markets. Period.
Nobody would stand for yet another cable company trenching through every neighborhood laying new wire or fiber.
Says who? You? Amazing that you have decided what other people will stand for for them. You have therefore decided for everybody that yet another Statist solution is the only acceptable solution.
Meanwhile in the real world, companies like Verizon and Google are laying down new infrastructure in the very neighborhoods where you claim that "nobody would stand for yet another..." and completely against your claims the people are cheering them on.
What is happening is that there were no exclusive fiber contracts and low and behold now companies are moving in and laying down fiber. Could those exclusive contracts possibly be the problem, and could your claim that people wont stand for more infrastructure be a completely fabricated lie? Yes. Yes it could.
The best value i-series Intel shows up at 37.68.
The best value A-series AMD shows up at 44.95
The best value FX-series AMD shows up at 55.66.
That best value i-series is both more expensive and slower than the best value A-series, so no mixing apples and oranges here. Intel is still getting slaughtered on value, and thats before factoring in their more expensive motherboards.
The API has some warts, but its not dreadful. The dreadful part is the bloated framework that itself enforces silly inefficiencies upon your program.
I just recently wrote an asm dll to return to the 128-bit result of the 64-bit multiply that the x64 processor produces for free every time it multiplies integers, for use in.NET. Calling it from managed code was significantly slower than performing the "long hand" equivalent 4 multiplies and 3 adds while staying in managed land. Nothing I did would remove the completely unnecessary over-the-top overhead that the framework apparently imposed for no reason (the parameters were passed by value!)
So I hit the forums looking for a solution.. turns out the.net framework offers a native bigmul (Math.BigMul) that does exactly what I was trying to do... but oh no, they didnt implement a 64-bit version. So in 32-bit mode I can multiply two 32-bit values and get a 64-bit result, but in 64-bit mode I cannot multiply two 64-bit values and get a 128-bit result, in spite of the fact that both fucking modes offer a single general purpose instruction to do exactly that. Fucking retarded.
Sigh.. you are wrong.. not about the compiler producing code outside of spec with higher optimization levels.. you are wrong that the compiler is "broken" if it makes these assumptions, because of command line switches such as increased optimization levels are telling it to make them.
Optimizations are a desirable thing even when they might sometimes violate the ideas of the abstract machine that the language defines. Thats not "broken" -- thats "giggity!"
The most egregious example in todays American is that they deny that a human fetus is in fact human and thus they argue that it does not deserve human rights such as the right to life.
I say that this is the most egregious current example because it results in the senseless deaths (murder) of over a million people per year in America.
Not to mention the fact that the higher optimization levels are not ever guaranteed to produce correct code... many optimizations are only possible under assumptions that cannot be guaranteed at compile time, but are taken for granted to be the case at runtime. Perhaps the simplest such assumptions is that functions that take two input pointers do not encounter cases where those two pointers point to the same memory in a way that could break register usage optimizations.
Here is an idea.. learn something, anything, about what you are talking about. As it stands you dont seem to know even the basics.
The only way a default is currently possible is if the president specifically orders the treasury department not to service the debt, regardless of what congress does with budgets and debt ceilings.
if you don't like those facts, you can work to change them. Perhaps you could support moving the treasury department from the executive branch to the legislative branch, and with your support it might happen.
Oh, wait... an ignorant person supporting something doesnt actually make it likely... does it?
Indeed. I was always an NVidia fanboy when it came to GPU's once I upgraded off of Voodoo3, starting with a GeForce 4 Ti 4800 up until the 8800 GT which I used until just a month ago. Towards the end the drivers started to become real crap, running the 8800 GT hotter and hotter (downgrading the drivers showed this to be true) and there were reports of the latest drivers killing cards on a large scale, not to mention the widespread growing TDR issues with certain games (that go unfixed for literally years.. epic multi-hundred page threads on the steam forums.)
I am now the happy owner of an A10-6800K just using the integrated HD 8670D (which is a bit better than that 8800GT.) So far I havent experienced the "ATI/AMD driver issues" that I was worried about. It seems to do fine at 1080p gaming so long anti-aliasing is disabled (16x anisotropic filtering has no meaningful performance impact.) My favorite game is Team Fortress 2 and this thing rocks out 100+ FPS at 1920x1080 with high settings (but no AA.)
Eventually I'll want a discrete GPU and right now NVidia isnt an acceptable option for me due to the issues they have been having and that I experienced first hand. They completely lost me when one of their employees posted to one of those epic threads on the steam forums saying that he found the problem that caused the TDR issue in TF2 on 8xxx/9xxx series cards and it will be fixed in the next driver release.. and then he went silent for 2 months only to come back and say nah... actually havent found the problem and wont be looking. So fuck nvidia.
Its a 100W APU. Its the king of the current batch of CPU's with on-die GPU's with regards to GPU performance (Intel's best is like 50% of the performance.) So unlikely to ever see a laptop anytime soon.
As far as the 19 FPS on Ultra with 8x MSAA.. AMD Catalyst can do "Morphological AA" that works on top of other AA methods (for example, 2x MSAA) and is supposed to be very efficient and frequently comparable to 8x SSAA all by itself.. but meh.. hard to quantify subjective stuff like "aa quality")
After all these tests, I have settled on 1920x1080 0xAA / 16xAF with High settings (before I was running 0xAF) Havent benchmarked that same area I was running for the tests, but I always have fraps running and its nearly always 30+ FPS regardless of what I am doing. It seems like the shadows are the performance enemy with these settings (indoor areas seem to always always 40+)
The other poster seem to be right that AF is virtually free. I could do a more detailed analysis of AA options in the Control Center, but meh.. I dont play with AA anyways...
Hell I recently picked up an A10-6800K APU and the integrated graphics are more than acceptable for the gaming that I do at 1920x1080 (Team Fortress 2, Kerbal Space Program, Planet Explorers, Skyrim,...).. and its not even with the fastest DDR3 the mobo supports.
Your problem is that you don't know what "owner" means with regard to email accounts.
That email account I have at work doesn't belong to me, yet I can subscribe to your shit. You claim that I am the owner and have given you permission to send your shit if I subscribe. The reality is that I am not the owner and the owner has not given you permission to send your shit, even if I have subscribed.
You really don't seem to understand much about the shit you are doing. The thing is that what you are doing is fine so long as you accept the consequences of your actions rather than bitch and whine about the consequences of your actions. Your actions have consequences. This isn't a liberal utopia where you arent allowed to do things that have consequences.
also true is that many people would cite a major disaster like the Hindenburg* in a discussion about hydrogen fuel cells purely as a scare tactic.
The fact that hydrogen is volatile was known when the Hindenburg flew. They said that it was quite safe before the disaster.
Now here we are again, with people claiming that hydrogen is "quite safe."
It is thus not any sort of fallacy or "scare tactic" to cite the Hindenburg disaster, that on the contrary the cite is that we've done the experiment where we use large quantities of hydrogen in the transportation sector already and we've got a result that tells us that hydrogen is by any meaningful measure not safe.
Hydrogen in rocket launches? So long as there arent thousands of them per day, sure. In millions of vehicles used daily? Preposterous.
The key to understanding something already understood by others is to learn their terminology. Each term is used (and perhaps invented) for a reason, so understanding is often simply a matter of learning those reasons. Also look to what terms have been abandoned, and learn why they were abandoned so as not to fall into abandoned conceptions. Finally, consider that the common everyday-usage of a word may not apply within a given field of study (ex: 'observer')
For example in the world of computer science, software optimization division, people once concerned themselves with instruction cycle counts. People doing to same thing today concern themselves with instruction latency and throughput instead of cycles. 'Instruction cycles' are an abandoned conception in the field, while the terms 'instruction latency' and 'instruction throughput' are used for important reasons that would need to be learned if you wanted to become an expert. Other important terms in this field that once were not are 'locality' and 'dependency.' And as I said, you cannot always take the terms at the face-value of everyday-usage. The software optimization gurus idea of 'locality' is (currently) different from quantum physicists and soccer moms.
If you're sending mail only to people who have signed up to receive your mails and replied to the confirmation message, then you're not a spammer, are you?
That depends on if they have the unconditional authority to make those decisions about that email address. Clearly in every case that you are bitching about actual frequent ("systematic") spam filter problems, the user themselves never had any pretense of unrestricted email access. Work email accounts, university email accounts, free email accounts, and so on.
An alternative to your theory that you are the victim of anti-spam technology is that you and the service owners are both victim of the people that replied to your confirmation message, and another theory is that the only victim is the service owner making you one of the villains.
..then why the fuck do you think that you get the right to complain that another method of communicating unapproved content with them is being blocked?
It is becoming quite clear to me that you are sending folks stuff on their work email that allows them to circumvent connection restrictions at work. Obviously as people come and go from various jobs like this, your emails stop going to the people that subscribed and instead start going to the guy responsible for maintaining those restrictions that you were helping folks circumvent. Hes gotta look at every email going to that former employees box. That man is showing you as much respect as you showed him. Don't like the lack of respect? Show some yourself.
The free market is working fine. Its your willingness to face the consequences of your own impact that isn't working fine.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that a new car ran into your old car, and everything was fine but the old car, doesn't convince me that the new car wasn't the savior.
I was specifically talking about the economics of accidents, in particular low velocity accidents. New "crumple zone" cars get destroyed in those and cost multiple thousands to get back on the road, while older steel cars frequently drive away from those accidents (even when hitting other steel cars), sometimes not needing any repairs at all and since its still drivable, we are talking about cosmetic repairs.
Neither does any other language...
I think the point he is making, and if not then I would like to make, is that that old Chevy truck was still completely drivable after the accident.
Crumple zones work in multiple ways, and one of them is to put the vehicle into a state of needing such expensive repair that after a certain (relatively young) age that it no longer makes financial sense to get them back on the road.
While driving a big old early-90s metal Buick, I was in a fairly low speed rear-ender by a new late-2000's fiberglass and plastic Honda. The Honda was literally destroyed. I not only drove away in my Buick, I never needed repairs (the bumper was pushed in a little.. that was it.)
These modern cars are safer in high speed collisions, but at a large cost in value. I do not think that most people realize just how large the cost difference actually is. Its not just that these safer cars cost more at the dealership relative to income because of their safety features, its that they also don't survive a large portion of all accidents. That early 90's Buick survives and drives away from all but those high speed accidents.
Can you give a specific example?
With GCC, -O2 enables strict aliasing and thus makes assumptions (sometimes incorrect) about what types of pointers might point to the same memory locations, and it makes these assumptions so that it can produce better code.
I get it... if the optimization flags is specifically "-O#" then its bad because you have amazingly decided that "-O#" is a special "generic" flag.
I got news for ya: Just because you are used to using a particular flag because its not been a problem for you so far, that does not make it special or "generic."
2. Lowers its user prices for a short period, dumping the price and bankrupting the competitor. Then pushing prices to even higher level to gain the money lost back.
3. Buys new competitor out outright.
4. Uses local bought and paid for legislature to block the competitor.
Thats calls regulation.
5. Reminds its contacts in the local media to talk about 4. as if it's the fault of the government
The government had the power to grant those regulations or to not grant them. Like it or not, the government dealt the hand and then pushed the pot.
Its more a matter of practicality than regulation.
Come off it. First the Statists claim that there isnt enough regulation and thats why monopolies exist, and then when its pointed out that the regulation that exists specifically mandates that monopolies exist, we are to then fall back on the "oh thats a matter of practicality" excuse for why the Statist belief system has fucked us into having monopolies?
You don't get to blame the situation on free markets. Period.
Nobody would stand for yet another cable company trenching through every neighborhood laying new wire or fiber.
Says who? You? Amazing that you have decided what other people will stand for for them. You have therefore decided for everybody that yet another Statist solution is the only acceptable solution.
Meanwhile in the real world, companies like Verizon and Google are laying down new infrastructure in the very neighborhoods where you claim that "nobody would stand for yet another..." and completely against your claims the people are cheering them on.
What is happening is that there were no exclusive fiber contracts and low and behold now companies are moving in and laying down fiber. Could those exclusive contracts possibly be the problem, and could your claim that people wont stand for more infrastructure be a completely fabricated lie? Yes. Yes it could.
Today they are still the value king.
The best value i-series Intel shows up at 37.68.
The best value A-series AMD shows up at 44.95
The best value FX-series AMD shows up at 55.66.
That best value i-series is both more expensive and slower than the best value A-series, so no mixing apples and oranges here. Intel is still getting slaughtered on value, and thats before factoring in their more expensive motherboards.
The API has some warts, but its not dreadful. The dreadful part is the bloated framework that itself enforces silly inefficiencies upon your program.
.NET. Calling it from managed code was significantly slower than performing the "long hand" equivalent 4 multiplies and 3 adds while staying in managed land. Nothing I did would remove the completely unnecessary over-the-top overhead that the framework apparently imposed for no reason (the parameters were passed by value!)
.net framework offers a native bigmul (Math.BigMul) that does exactly what I was trying to do... but oh no, they didnt implement a 64-bit version. So in 32-bit mode I can multiply two 32-bit values and get a 64-bit result, but in 64-bit mode I cannot multiply two 64-bit values and get a 128-bit result, in spite of the fact that both fucking modes offer a single general purpose instruction to do exactly that. Fucking retarded.
I just recently wrote an asm dll to return to the 128-bit result of the 64-bit multiply that the x64 processor produces for free every time it multiplies integers, for use in
So I hit the forums looking for a solution.. turns out the
Sigh.. you are wrong.. not about the compiler producing code outside of spec with higher optimization levels.. you are wrong that the compiler is "broken" if it makes these assumptions, because of command line switches such as increased optimization levels are telling it to make them.
Optimizations are a desirable thing even when they might sometimes violate the ideas of the abstract machine that the language defines. Thats not "broken" -- thats "giggity!"
Name one thing democrats deny?
The most egregious example in todays American is that they deny that a human fetus is in fact human and thus they argue that it does not deserve human rights such as the right to life.
I say that this is the most egregious current example because it results in the senseless deaths (murder) of over a million people per year in America.
Not to mention the fact that the higher optimization levels are not ever guaranteed to produce correct code... many optimizations are only possible under assumptions that cannot be guaranteed at compile time, but are taken for granted to be the case at runtime. Perhaps the simplest such assumptions is that functions that take two input pointers do not encounter cases where those two pointers point to the same memory in a way that could break register usage optimizations.
Here is an idea.. learn something, anything, about what you are talking about. As it stands you dont seem to know even the basics.
The only way a default is currently possible is if the president specifically orders the treasury department not to service the debt, regardless of what congress does with budgets and debt ceilings.
if you don't like those facts, you can work to change them. Perhaps you could support moving the treasury department from the executive branch to the legislative branch, and with your support it might happen.
Oh, wait... an ignorant person supporting something doesnt actually make it likely... does it?
Indeed. I was always an NVidia fanboy when it came to GPU's once I upgraded off of Voodoo3, starting with a GeForce 4 Ti 4800 up until the 8800 GT which I used until just a month ago. Towards the end the drivers started to become real crap, running the 8800 GT hotter and hotter (downgrading the drivers showed this to be true) and there were reports of the latest drivers killing cards on a large scale, not to mention the widespread growing TDR issues with certain games (that go unfixed for literally years.. epic multi-hundred page threads on the steam forums.)
I am now the happy owner of an A10-6800K just using the integrated HD 8670D (which is a bit better than that 8800GT.) So far I havent experienced the "ATI/AMD driver issues" that I was worried about. It seems to do fine at 1080p gaming so long anti-aliasing is disabled (16x anisotropic filtering has no meaningful performance impact.) My favorite game is Team Fortress 2 and this thing rocks out 100+ FPS at 1920x1080 with high settings (but no AA.)
Eventually I'll want a discrete GPU and right now NVidia isnt an acceptable option for me due to the issues they have been having and that I experienced first hand. They completely lost me when one of their employees posted to one of those epic threads on the steam forums saying that he found the problem that caused the TDR issue in TF2 on 8xxx/9xxx series cards and it will be fixed in the next driver release.. and then he went silent for 2 months only to come back and say nah... actually havent found the problem and wont be looking. So fuck nvidia.
Its a 100W APU. Its the king of the current batch of CPU's with on-die GPU's with regards to GPU performance (Intel's best is like 50% of the performance.) So unlikely to ever see a laptop anytime soon.
.. AMD Catalyst can do "Morphological AA" that works on top of other AA methods (for example, 2x MSAA) and is supposed to be very efficient and frequently comparable to 8x SSAA all by itself.. but meh.. hard to quantify subjective stuff like "aa quality")
As far as the 19 FPS on Ultra with 8x MSAA
After all these tests, I have settled on 1920x1080 0xAA / 16xAF with High settings (before I was running 0xAF) Havent benchmarked that same area I was running for the tests, but I always have fraps running and its nearly always 30+ FPS regardless of what I am doing. It seems like the shadows are the performance enemy with these settings (indoor areas seem to always always 40+)
Using fraps 60 second benchmark, running same area (not 100% consistent displayed stuff)
Ultra then switching AA/AF:
0AA/0AF - 23 / 63 / 32.497 (min / max / ave)
8AA/16AF - 16 / 32 / 19.283
High then switching AA/AF:
0AA/0AF - 27 / 57 / 40.867
8AA/16AF - 19 / 36 / 23.833
Medium then switching AA/AF:
0AA/0AF - 32 / 59 / 42.167
8AA/16AF - 20 / 34 / 26.933
Low then switching AA/AF:
0AA/16AF - 35 / 62 / 49.733
8AA/0AF - 22 / 41 / 30.417
8AA/16AF - 22 / 40 / 31.350
The other poster seem to be right that AF is virtually free. I could do a more detailed analysis of AA options in the Control Center, but meh.. I dont play with AA anyways...
Continuing on your informative post:
The current best 4-thread chip that Intel makes is the 22nm i5-4670K and the current best 4-thread chip that AMD makes is the 32nm A10-6800K.
Ignoring the integrated graphics, their passmark benchmarks are 7538 and 5104 respectively. Intel performance is therefore about 1.5x the AMD chip.
Intels process advantage between these two parts is also 1.5x transistors per mm^2.
So performance is still apparently scaling quite well with process size.
Hell I recently picked up an A10-6800K APU and the integrated graphics are more than acceptable for the gaming that I do at 1920x1080 (Team Fortress 2, Kerbal Space Program, Planet Explorers, Skyrim, ...) .. and its not even with the fastest DDR3 the mobo supports.
Your problem is that you don't know what "owner" means with regard to email accounts.
That email account I have at work doesn't belong to me, yet I can subscribe to your shit. You claim that I am the owner and have given you permission to send your shit if I subscribe. The reality is that I am not the owner and the owner has not given you permission to send your shit, even if I have subscribed.
You really don't seem to understand much about the shit you are doing. The thing is that what you are doing is fine so long as you accept the consequences of your actions rather than bitch and whine about the consequences of your actions. Your actions have consequences. This isn't a liberal utopia where you arent allowed to do things that have consequences.
also true is that many people would cite a major disaster like the Hindenburg* in a discussion about hydrogen fuel cells purely as a scare tactic.
The fact that hydrogen is volatile was known when the Hindenburg flew. They said that it was quite safe before the disaster.
Now here we are again, with people claiming that hydrogen is "quite safe."
It is thus not any sort of fallacy or "scare tactic" to cite the Hindenburg disaster, that on the contrary the cite is that we've done the experiment where we use large quantities of hydrogen in the transportation sector already and we've got a result that tells us that hydrogen is by any meaningful measure not safe.
Hydrogen in rocket launches? So long as there arent thousands of them per day, sure. In millions of vehicles used daily? Preposterous.
The key to understanding something already understood by others is to learn their terminology. Each term is used (and perhaps invented) for a reason, so understanding is often simply a matter of learning those reasons. Also look to what terms have been abandoned, and learn why they were abandoned so as not to fall into abandoned conceptions. Finally, consider that the common everyday-usage of a word may not apply within a given field of study (ex: 'observer')
For example in the world of computer science, software optimization division, people once concerned themselves with instruction cycle counts. People doing to same thing today concern themselves with instruction latency and throughput instead of cycles. 'Instruction cycles' are an abandoned conception in the field, while the terms 'instruction latency' and 'instruction throughput' are used for important reasons that would need to be learned if you wanted to become an expert. Other important terms in this field that once were not are 'locality' and 'dependency.' And as I said, you cannot always take the terms at the face-value of everyday-usage. The software optimization gurus idea of 'locality' is (currently) different from quantum physicists and soccer moms.
..and then that same GP dives into a lot of not-correct, tho.
If you're sending mail only to people who have signed up to receive your mails and replied to the confirmation message, then you're not a spammer, are you?
That depends on if they have the unconditional authority to make those decisions about that email address. Clearly in every case that you are bitching about actual frequent ("systematic") spam filter problems, the user themselves never had any pretense of unrestricted email access. Work email accounts, university email accounts, free email accounts, and so on.
An alternative to your theory that you are the victim of anti-spam technology is that you and the service owners are both victim of the people that replied to your confirmation message, and another theory is that the only victim is the service owner making you one of the villains.
..then why the fuck do you think that you get the right to complain that another method of communicating unapproved content with them is being blocked?
It is becoming quite clear to me that you are sending folks stuff on their work email that allows them to circumvent connection restrictions at work. Obviously as people come and go from various jobs like this, your emails stop going to the people that subscribed and instead start going to the guy responsible for maintaining those restrictions that you were helping folks circumvent. Hes gotta look at every email going to that former employees box. That man is showing you as much respect as you showed him. Don't like the lack of respect? Show some yourself.
The free market is working fine. Its your willingness to face the consequences of your own impact that isn't working fine.
"LibreOffice" is a little odd-sounding to the ears of an English speaker, but can you come up with anything better?
StillOpenOffice