You might want to factor in that SSD's often have longer warranties than HDD's these days.
OCZ's SSD's are 3-year while Intel SSD's are 5-year. HDD's manufacturers reduced their warranties from 3,4, or 5 year to 1, 2, or 3 year in 2011.
I'm not saying that thats the situation of the data in the study, but it could be. 5% on an average 2 year warranty vs 1.5% on an average 4 year warranty, well that is quite a significant difference.
To be quite complete, all trades happen at an agreed upon price and if the HFT algorithm is involved its because its got the current highest bid or lowest ask out there.
You will notice that nobody ever has anything to say about this fact being somehow bad. The arguments, 'cept for one, is indeed a combinations of "its evil algorithms" hand waving and "its evil rich people" hand waving.
The one valid argument is that the markets sometimes halt trading and undo previous orders, and since HFT's hit the scene its always been because of HFT's. The solution isnt to stop HFT trading... its to stop these do-overs that prevent algorithmic traders from taking very large losses: Market regulation has distorted the true risks. Restore the true risks and let the bad HFT's fail big once in awhile.
Its not just the benchmark code either. Benchmarks often link to pre-compiled math libraries that themselves were compiled with ICC, so compiling the benchmark with Visual Studio or GCC doesnt help the situation any if you continue to link to those libraries.
In addition, you need to trust the benchmarkers themselves, and most of these tech sites that so often do benchmarks have conflicts of interest (advertising money, free review hardware, etc..) With this in mind I trust PassMarks online benchmark data more than any of review site even though the benchmarks are always entirely synthetic, because the benchmarks are crowd-sourced with anywhere from dozens to thousands of different people benchmarking a given piece of hardware on a wide array of setups.
Read the whole thing again, starting with my first post and what I quoted. Then look at your first reply to me.
Now why is it only you that doest realize that you did in fact just defend solutions that cause more harm than good, and claimed quite plainly and simply that thats what governments were supposed to do.
If you meant something different, then you should have said something different.
No CPU instruction that executes in less than 200 cycles can seriously be said to actually access all system memory.
It doesnt have to access all of memory, just the needed parts.
...and before you go there, the first retirement of RDRAND can be legitimate and immediate while an extra limited-purpose hidden core goes off walking the stack and hunting around without you knowing it, with all future retirement then being a trivial return of a hidden register of that core that is always ready to spit out a compromised value.
..and no, such a hidden limited core would not be a significant burden on Intel. Intels first CPU only needed 2300 transistors. A tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of the number of transistors in todays machines.
So yes, it comes down to trust. Either you trust Intel, or you don't.
I'm not sure that it is a reasonable explanation given that RDRAND has access to everything in both memory and registers and can thus predict and/or coerce with perfect accuracy what the other randomization steps will actually do.
However, I think in the end its a matter of trust. If you cannot trust the CPU then no kernel change is going to improve the situation.
I guess you prefer your solutions which produce larger problems than the initial problem it solved.
"I'm from the government and I'm are here to help."
When people are free to choose for themselves, they wont generally choose solutions that cost them more than the benefits of the solution are worth to them. In the case of this golden rice, the benefits are large and obvious and it is almost certain that there are no large downsides aside from what might present itself in the political/legal game.
Thats really the end of the debate. The only way this rice is likely to have higher costs than benefits is if some government through either direct ("we tax golden rice grown or imported here") or indirect ("we granted someone a monopoly") action.
But just six years later we saw that record broken. That tells us that either there is a trend in ice extent (there is) or, alternatively, variability is increasing (also generally not a good thing as most living things need a fairly stable environment to survive) or both.
..and what this statement tells us is that you seriously dont understand probability.
Here is how you think that it works: a 1 in a 1000 year event happens every 1000 years, so if there is a 6 year gap we can conclude blah blah blah...
Here is how it really works: a 1 in 1000 year event has a probability of 0.001 of happening on any given year, regardless of what happened in the recent past, so if there is a 6 year gap it means nothing.
On top of this even your very basic misunderstandings of probability, you just pulled "1000" out of your ass and then tried to make an argument of it.
We should give them 90 days to pay up WITH INTEREST and if they don't? WE the people control the last mile.
You don't seem to understand something.
You The People already control the last mile. To top that off, there are no elections where you have as much influence as the ones that determine who the people will be who will negotiate your towns next contract with the telcos and cable companies. You would even have a reasonable chance of winning such a position should you choose to run for one of them.
but there was no option to move to a higher cap if I needed it (other than to get a business connection).
The business connection is an option, so stop disingenuously saying that there wasnt an option. Its clear that you dont like the option, but its still an option. My ISP's business plans start at $65/month.
You have to understand that patents were originally on manufacturing processes, not on product features. The scope of patents was expanded well beyond what the founding fathers intended.
The intent was to promote public discloser of what would otherwise be trade secrets. The idea being that with that public disclosure, you would be granted an exclusive right to your (presumably more efficient, or new) process for a limited time. This is win-win because you no longer have to run the risk of a competitor discovering your secret (through either spying or their own R&D) while at the same time public knowledge grows as a consequence. It should be noted that some companies still keep trade secrets in some cases rather than patenting, most notably Intel does this for part of their lithography processes (expect to sign some NDAs if you visit their latest FABs.) It also should be noted that there is a small chance of loss with patenting a manufacturing process, that of being denied the patent and thus giving up your otherwise trade secret to public knowledge for no gain.
But in the case of patents on product features, the public gains the knowledge of those features regardless of patents. So the public gains nothing, which isn't win-win like in the case of manufacturing processes. This is also why there is a patent attempt for every product features that has even a remote chance of being awarded a patent. The only downside is the modest filing fee.
So while the case for patents benefiting society is clear, it is not the case for all the kinds of patents that we have today. They were not meant as an increased incentive to make better products, and its quite clear that they quite literally stifle the progress of product improvements.
He cannot. He can't even provide a citation for his claim that Microsoft didnt attempt to negotiate. A lot of people here today have claimed it, but the court documents disagree completely. There was an attempt to negotiate but Motorola (and then Google) wouldn't come down on the price without cross-licensing.
While cross-licensing is common in the industry, there cannot be an absolute demand for one in the case of FRAND. All holders of FRAND patents must be willing to accept a reasonable amount of money, but Motorola (and then Google) refused to accept any reasonable amount of money, a fact revealed in court.
The sellers, not the buyers, are effected by paypals overly-liberal freeze-the-funds policy.
Because of this, even though there are alternatives to paypal, most sellers continue to accept paypal or they will lose customers that prefer paypal.
The policies of paypal will eventually put them out of business unless they change their ways, but its a long way down unless they start messing with the buyers too.
Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump.
I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?" He said, "Yes."
I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian."
I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant."
I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912."
I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.
Is that the only way that his claim can be an incorrect assumption?
Why no, no it isn't. The universe simulation may only continue to provide interesting results while humans continue to exist within it, and will be shut down as soon as humans cease to exist within it.
All Elon has done is put a battery into a nice attractive container and sells it as a high-end luxury car.
Toyota paid $100 million to have Telsa build drive-trains for them for use in the RAV4 EV. Doesn't sound to me like what you claim is all that Elon has done.. sounds to me like there is a commercial demand for the Tesla drive-train, and that Patents that Telsa owns on their own drive-train prevent others from producing a competitive product.
Any system that can only do well if people voluntarily harm their own lot, is a bad system that needs to have its flawed motivations fixed.
Public education can be win-win, but our public education isn't. The core problem is that even if you "make the biggest difference" it doesnt turn it into win-win. You cannot replace the shitty teachers, hell you cant even give the best teachers raises. Thanks teachers union.. go fuck yourselves.
Slashdot Mirror
You might want to factor in that SSD's often have longer warranties than HDD's these days.
OCZ's SSD's are 3-year while Intel SSD's are 5-year. HDD's manufacturers reduced their warranties from 3,4, or 5 year to 1, 2, or 3 year in 2011.
I'm not saying that thats the situation of the data in the study, but it could be. 5% on an average 2 year warranty vs 1.5% on an average 4 year warranty, well that is quite a significant difference.
..and here is a video of the gears in action.
To be quite complete, all trades happen at an agreed upon price and if the HFT algorithm is involved its because its got the current highest bid or lowest ask out there.
You will notice that nobody ever has anything to say about this fact being somehow bad. The arguments, 'cept for one, is indeed a combinations of "its evil algorithms" hand waving and "its evil rich people" hand waving.
The one valid argument is that the markets sometimes halt trading and undo previous orders, and since HFT's hit the scene its always been because of HFT's. The solution isnt to stop HFT trading... its to stop these do-overs that prevent algorithmic traders from taking very large losses: Market regulation has distorted the true risks. Restore the true risks and let the bad HFT's fail big once in awhile.
Simple.
Its not just the benchmark code either. Benchmarks often link to pre-compiled math libraries that themselves were compiled with ICC, so compiling the benchmark with Visual Studio or GCC doesnt help the situation any if you continue to link to those libraries.
In addition, you need to trust the benchmarkers themselves, and most of these tech sites that so often do benchmarks have conflicts of interest (advertising money, free review hardware, etc..) With this in mind I trust PassMarks online benchmark data more than any of review site even though the benchmarks are always entirely synthetic, because the benchmarks are crowd-sourced with anywhere from dozens to thousands of different people benchmarking a given piece of hardware on a wide array of setups.
If it means that rotating media no longer has a write performance advantage over flash, then it is a very poor compromise indeed.
What is this, 2008?
Rotating media hasnt been competitive in write performance for quite awhile now.
Have you finished pretending to be retarded
Read the whole thing again, starting with my first post and what I quoted. Then look at your first reply to me.
Now why is it only you that doest realize that you did in fact just defend solutions that cause more harm than good, and claimed quite plainly and simply that thats what governments were supposed to do.
If you meant something different, then you should have said something different.
No CPU instruction that executes in less than 200 cycles can seriously be said to actually access all system memory.
It doesnt have to access all of memory, just the needed parts.
...and before you go there, the first retirement of RDRAND can be legitimate and immediate while an extra limited-purpose hidden core goes off walking the stack and hunting around without you knowing it, with all future retirement then being a trivial return of a hidden register of that core that is always ready to spit out a compromised value.
..and no, such a hidden limited core would not be a significant burden on Intel. Intels first CPU only needed 2300 transistors. A tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of the number of transistors in todays machines.
So yes, it comes down to trust. Either you trust Intel, or you don't.
That's what governments are supposed to do.
Governments are supposed to force solutions that create more harm than good?
Simply amazing....
I'm not sure that it is a reasonable explanation given that RDRAND has access to everything in both memory and registers and can thus predict and/or coerce with perfect accuracy what the other randomization steps will actually do.
However, I think in the end its a matter of trust. If you cannot trust the CPU then no kernel change is going to improve the situation.
I guess you prefer your solutions which produce larger problems than the initial problem it solved.
"I'm from the government and I'm are here to help."
When people are free to choose for themselves, they wont generally choose solutions that cost them more than the benefits of the solution are worth to them. In the case of this golden rice, the benefits are large and obvious and it is almost certain that there are no large downsides aside from what might present itself in the political/legal game.
Thats really the end of the debate. The only way this rice is likely to have higher costs than benefits is if some government through either direct ("we tax golden rice grown or imported here") or indirect ("we granted someone a monopoly") action.
But just six years later we saw that record broken. That tells us that either there is a trend in ice extent (there is) or, alternatively, variability is increasing (also generally not a good thing as most living things need a fairly stable environment to survive) or both.
Here is how you think that it works: a 1 in a 1000 year event happens every 1000 years, so if there is a 6 year gap we can conclude blah blah blah...
Here is how it really works: a 1 in 1000 year event has a probability of 0.001 of happening on any given year, regardless of what happened in the recent past, so if there is a 6 year gap it means nothing.
On top of this even your very basic misunderstandings of probability, you just pulled "1000" out of your ass and then tried to make an argument of it.
We should give them 90 days to pay up WITH INTEREST and if they don't? WE the people control the last mile.
You don't seem to understand something.
You The People already control the last mile. To top that off, there are no elections where you have as much influence as the ones that determine who the people will be who will negotiate your towns next contract with the telcos and cable companies. You would even have a reasonable chance of winning such a position should you choose to run for one of them.
Put up, or shut up.
but there was no option to move to a higher cap if I needed it (other than to get a business connection).
The business connection is an option, so stop disingenuously saying that there wasnt an option. Its clear that you dont like the option, but its still an option. My ISP's business plans start at $65/month.
People eat or they die. So you would have people starve to death.
No, whats funny is that you need licenses to hunt and fish for your own food.
If you can't catch a god damned fish without government approval, what hope is there for getting approval to shoot down a drone?
You have to understand that patents were originally on manufacturing processes, not on product features. The scope of patents was expanded well beyond what the founding fathers intended.
The intent was to promote public discloser of what would otherwise be trade secrets. The idea being that with that public disclosure, you would be granted an exclusive right to your (presumably more efficient, or new) process for a limited time. This is win-win because you no longer have to run the risk of a competitor discovering your secret (through either spying or their own R&D) while at the same time public knowledge grows as a consequence. It should be noted that some companies still keep trade secrets in some cases rather than patenting, most notably Intel does this for part of their lithography processes (expect to sign some NDAs if you visit their latest FABs.) It also should be noted that there is a small chance of loss with patenting a manufacturing process, that of being denied the patent and thus giving up your otherwise trade secret to public knowledge for no gain.
But in the case of patents on product features, the public gains the knowledge of those features regardless of patents. So the public gains nothing, which isn't win-win like in the case of manufacturing processes. This is also why there is a patent attempt for every product features that has even a remote chance of being awarded a patent. The only downside is the modest filing fee.
So while the case for patents benefiting society is clear, it is not the case for all the kinds of patents that we have today. They were not meant as an increased incentive to make better products, and its quite clear that they quite literally stifle the progress of product improvements.
He cannot. He can't even provide a citation for his claim that Microsoft didnt attempt to negotiate. A lot of people here today have claimed it, but the court documents disagree completely. There was an attempt to negotiate but Motorola (and then Google) wouldn't come down on the price without cross-licensing.
While cross-licensing is common in the industry, there cannot be an absolute demand for one in the case of FRAND. All holders of FRAND patents must be willing to accept a reasonable amount of money, but Motorola (and then Google) refused to accept any reasonable amount of money, a fact revealed in court.
The sellers, not the buyers, are effected by paypals overly-liberal freeze-the-funds policy.
Because of this, even though there are alternatives to paypal, most sellers continue to accept paypal or they will lose customers that prefer paypal.
The policies of paypal will eventually put them out of business unless they change their ways, but its a long way down unless they start messing with the buyers too.
I was looking for an easy way to distract people while I attempt to run them over. Looks like someone else solved the problem for me.
I think this gives a false sense of security.
All senses of security are false.
Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump.
I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?" He said, "Yes."
I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian."
I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant."
I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912."
I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.
- Emo Philips
Is that the only way that his claim can be an incorrect assumption?
Why no, no it isn't. The universe simulation may only continue to provide interesting results while humans continue to exist within it, and will be shut down as soon as humans cease to exist within it.
All Elon has done is put a battery into a nice attractive container and sells it as a high-end luxury car.
Toyota paid $100 million to have Telsa build drive-trains for them for use in the RAV4 EV. Doesn't sound to me like what you claim is all that Elon has done.. sounds to me like there is a commercial demand for the Tesla drive-train, and that Patents that Telsa owns on their own drive-train prevent others from producing a competitive product.
Reality and the Earth will continue without human "intelligence."
Got any evidence for that?
The problem with assumptions...
Any system that can only do well if people voluntarily harm their own lot, is a bad system that needs to have its flawed motivations fixed.
Public education can be win-win, but our public education isn't. The core problem is that even if you "make the biggest difference" it doesnt turn it into win-win. You cannot replace the shitty teachers, hell you cant even give the best teachers raises. Thanks teachers union.. go fuck yourselves.