You can't treat a patient you never see. If you know the doctor is just gonna nag you to lose weight again, why would you go back?
Exactly. If when you go to the doctor for something unrelated to weight they spend over half the time talking about your weight, then the next time you have an issue that also isnt related to weight they will obviously again spend over half the time talking about your weight.
They do it because its easy. Its become part of their script even when there is a complete lack of any health issues related to weight present in the patient, even when obviously the patient doesnt even have a weight problem but simply falls outside the threshold of an archaic measure like BMI.
True story: Co-worker had recently had a C-section get infected, and the doctor nagged her about her weight. She just gave birth you lazy cocksucker!
In the mobile sphere, where something like the A4 is most likely to actually be used (since they're touting the power consumption), you can easily find $400 laptops with Intel i3 in them.
Why did you just pick $400?
Answer: Because thats what you have to pay for the Intel solution.
Is this important?
Answer: Only if the AMD solution you are comparing against also costs $400.
So, did you justify your argument?
Answer: No, because you never once mentioned the price of AMD solutions, nor went through the effort to see exactly what AMD solutions were available in the same price range and compare the performance of those equally priced devices with the precious i3 that you are drooling on. And this is just as I predicted and mentioned in the post you replied to: You do not want to discuss price..
The facts:
AMD A6 and A8 devices sell for under $400, while you haters are comparing sub-$400 i3 solutions to AMD A4 devices.
Anyone can play this game! All of these AMD devices kick Intels ass because they all beat the shit out of Intel 486's in the sub-$400 range. Better performance, better power efficiency, and hell.. Intel doesnt even offer an integrated GPU even on their top-end 486's.
Ultimately this costs each EU citizen 10 euros each, on average.
I always try to consider the scenario where instead of taxation funding it, that the government instead set up a government-managed corporation that issued and sold stock to fund the project, with a share of future profits going to shareholders.
Some would say that this obviously doesnt work because otherwise a private corporation would already be doing it for the same purposes as the government project, however private corporations like to show actual profit and stuff.. and if it "obviously doesnt work" then its not obviously profitable.
In addition, all these folks are trying to justify their AMD hate with these A4 benchmarks when the A4 is the lowest end of these new chips, and none of these haters ever want to talk price.
In the price range the A4's comes in, Intel doesnt have any competitive chips. Not a single one at all.
What is better, upgrading a 35mpg car to 42mpg, or upgrading a 15mpg SUV to one that gets 20mpg?
Why do you care? Either you have a 35mpg vehicle or you have a 15mpg vehicle.
It seems to me that the main reason to want to use something like L/100km is so that you can boast to your friends about how much greater your car upgrade was compared to their car upgrade. Get yourself some self-esteem and you wont suggest that the rest of the world has to conform to your chosen system so that you can belittle them.
And the loan was entirely repaid. Interest payments fell short.
To quote wikipedia: "Under the Solyndra restructuring plan, the government is projected to recoup 19 percent on $142.8 million of the loan and nothing on the remaining $385 million"
So instead, you had the Republicans using the filibuster more than any Congress in history.
More times than ever in history, so every other time in history had a negative sum of filibuster occurrences? (hint: zero filibusters during the period you claim)
I know that the Democrats equate threats of a filibuster with actual filibusters, but they seem to only do so when its convenient, and absolutely refuse to compare the records on equal terms. The number of Democrat filibusters only includes actual filibusters, while the number of Republican filibusters includes any time someone says the word 'filibuster.'
I am claiming that the previous president gave them some money as well and I erroneously assumed that 535 million included all the money they got out of these loan programs.
Got a citation?
It looks more like that you have an honesty problem, which you have compounded several times now on this issue as one statement of yours after another gets cracked wide open as a complete lie by the citation you did give.
In fact, of the 23 companies that received funding under the same program as Solyndra did, at least 19 of them are still in business - that's an 83% success rate.
No thats not an 83% success rate. Success happens when they pay the fucking loans back.
Are you really so stupid that you dont know what a successful loan looks like?
During Bush the DOE refused to give Solyndra a loan on the grounds that they would fail, and the DOE report even estimated the date of failure. Obama gets in office and of course Solyndra is all buddy buddy with Obama so he makes the DOE give them a loan, and then they failed at almost exactly the date estimated by the DOE under the Bush administration.
It wasn't that they were morons. Its that the business that you think they were in is not the business they were actually in. Their business plan was a highly successful play at defrauding the American taxpayer. They werent morons at all.
The morons are fucks that make excuses for why Solyndra got a fucking loan that everyone knew was bad.
Doesn't matter your thoughts on th policy - the science behind it is with a 5-sigma degree of certainty FACT.
Its a fact that more CO2 in the atmosphere makes us worse off? Really?
You just proved his point. You do not know the difference between policy and science. Science says that more CO2 will increase the greenhouse effect. Science does not say that we will be worse off, yet thats exactly what kyoto is all about.
You're obviously right. Similarly "you should step off the tracks before that freight train barreling along kills you" is not a scientific statement. However "if you don't step off the tracks before that freight train arrives then you will die" is a scientific statement. Many people think the recommendation to step off the tracks is obviously, if not scientifically, a reasonable recommendation under those circumstances. Some may disagree.
"If we don't reduce carbon emissions then we are worse off" is also not an accurate scientific statement, jackass. Adding the word "if" didnt help you.
We still don't know if the ideal (with respect to humans) global average temperature of the planet is higher or lower than today, so presenting arguments that assume that higher is worse as if it were a fact only hurts your obviously uninformed and politically motivated story of doom and gloom.
Every time you so obviously and clearly deceive you lose another potential follower, and if and when the time comes that we really do need to take control of the thermostat of this planet, well it'll suck if we have to lower the temperature because fake deceiving fucks like you cried wolf so often that nobody can take you seriously.
This is a proven fact; just recompiling some code for x86_64 provides a 15% performance increase for this reason alone (on the same processor.)
Note to self:
A CPU that has completely unused silicon in one mode performs better when all of its silicon is being used by the other mode.
You claim that I failed to understand the argument, but its you that are failing to make an argument that doesnt have a hole big enough to drive a clue truck through.
Your logic fails because THE POLICE ARE NOT COMPLICIT IN THE MURDER.
You really dont understand that the IRS is complicit in the shit that you are complaining about, do you? You can blame private companies all day long, but at the end of the day its still the same IRS that fucked you because you've missed where the real problem is.
Its the governments wrong-doing because people generally hold governments to a higher standard than they do private enterprises. Really. They do. You don't. But people in general do.
Register renaming doesn't make up for a lack of registers because it's harder for a compiler (or human) to optimize for it.
Register renaming and the OOE that it enables greatly widens the target that compilers needs to hit. The point of register renaming is that you still win even when the compiler is retarded about register use. Intels latest chips are commonly pulling 2.5+ instructions per clock cycle even when using compilers written in the 1990's, written before there was even such a thing as register renaming.
Intel designs processors that execute existing code efficiently. Thats the metric in use by their engineering team.
In no way, shape, or form does register renaming have either a negative impact on cpu performance or on compiler optimization opportunities. Its the exact opposite.
Intel has been able to keep up with modern technology by clever engineering and piling on bandaids over the chip's eccentricity's, but it's still a pile of baindaids. That's why Intel wanted to dump it and start fresh.
By bandaids what do you mean exactly? We all know that support for 16-bit mode and memory segmentation costs silicon, but at most that requires the same number of transistors as the first 8088. If you mean because its not RISC then sorry your favorite design philosophy didn't win the performance war, but it was for the same reason that the opposing design philosophy didn't: Hybrid of CISC and RISC is better than either, but can only be implemented with a design philosophy that permits a large instruction set.
As far as register counts, there are diminishing returns to adding more registers. In practice any out-of-order CPU (ie: performance) already has a pool of registers greater than the number of ones indicated by the instruction set. This pool is used in a register renaming scheme that allows the CPU to manage a long out-of-order pipeline efficiently.
You claim that Intel wanted to dump x86 and start fresh with something simpler, but thats not what we observe to have been implemented with Itanium. Sorry, Intel wanted to dump x86 because they had to share x86, not for whatever bullshit you are imagining.
Another mistake they are making is not distinguishing between wealth and income. Taxing wealth amounts to punishment for not spending, and it can only be done once.
96.9% of the people in India (1.18 billion people) live on less than $5 per day (adjusted for purchasing power.) Confiscating 100% of Bill Gates wealth will only give each of them a one time payment of $61.61, less than a month of income.
The upshot of realizing these things is that you see that wealth disparity is a pretend problem, and the closest thing it is to a real problem is the fact that so many people can be so easily fooled into droning on about it like it actually was a problem.
At the end of the day no matter how the handful of people like Bill Gates became so rich, neither their wealth nor their income holds a candle to what governments throw around on a daily basis. The frustrating part is that those than drone on about wealth disparity were basically handed marching orders to drone on about it by members of the very governments that so easily throw around much larger sums of money. It only takes a week for the U.S. Federal government (responsible for only about half of all government spending in the United States) to spend more than Bill Gates entire net worth.
The problem in India is mainly rooted in the lack of the sufficient capitol base necessary for the percentile growth of the economy to keep up with western nations. The problem in America is too many people don't realize that the government already spends more than enough, and because of that they even the worst off of us already have it better than the average man ever had it ever in the history of the world.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't treat a patient you never see. If you know the doctor is just gonna nag you to lose weight again, why would you go back?
Exactly. If when you go to the doctor for something unrelated to weight they spend over half the time talking about your weight, then the next time you have an issue that also isnt related to weight they will obviously again spend over half the time talking about your weight.
They do it because its easy. Its become part of their script even when there is a complete lack of any health issues related to weight present in the patient, even when obviously the patient doesnt even have a weight problem but simply falls outside the threshold of an archaic measure like BMI.
True story: Co-worker had recently had a C-section get infected, and the doctor nagged her about her weight. She just gave birth you lazy cocksucker!
If the answers to the preference questions are lies, it means nothing.
Its complete fools like you that think your are safe from being tracked by Google/Facebook/Whatever because you lie about shit.
The fact is that it doesnt matter even if 100% of people are intentionally lying.
In the mobile sphere, where something like the A4 is most likely to actually be used (since they're touting the power consumption), you can easily find $400 laptops with Intel i3 in them.
Why did you just pick $400?
Answer: Because thats what you have to pay for the Intel solution.
Is this important?
Answer: Only if the AMD solution you are comparing against also costs $400.
So, did you justify your argument?
Answer: No, because you never once mentioned the price of AMD solutions, nor went through the effort to see exactly what AMD solutions were available in the same price range and compare the performance of those equally priced devices with the precious i3 that you are drooling on. And this is just as I predicted and mentioned in the post you replied to: You do not want to discuss price..
The facts:
AMD A6 and A8 devices sell for under $400, while you haters are comparing sub-$400 i3 solutions to AMD A4 devices.
Anyone can play this game! All of these AMD devices kick Intels ass because they all beat the shit out of Intel 486's in the sub-$400 range. Better performance, better power efficiency, and hell.. Intel doesnt even offer an integrated GPU even on their top-end 486's.
Ultimately this costs each EU citizen 10 euros each, on average.
I always try to consider the scenario where instead of taxation funding it, that the government instead set up a government-managed corporation that issued and sold stock to fund the project, with a share of future profits going to shareholders.
Some would say that this obviously doesnt work because otherwise a private corporation would already be doing it for the same purposes as the government project, however private corporations like to show actual profit and stuff.. and if it "obviously doesnt work" then its not obviously profitable.
In addition, all these folks are trying to justify their AMD hate with these A4 benchmarks when the A4 is the lowest end of these new chips, and none of these haters ever want to talk price.
In the price range the A4's comes in, Intel doesnt have any competitive chips. Not a single one at all.
What is better, upgrading a 35mpg car to 42mpg, or upgrading a 15mpg SUV to one that gets 20mpg?
Why do you care? Either you have a 35mpg vehicle or you have a 15mpg vehicle.
It seems to me that the main reason to want to use something like L/100km is so that you can boast to your friends about how much greater your car upgrade was compared to their car upgrade. Get yourself some self-esteem and you wont suggest that the rest of the world has to conform to your chosen system so that you can belittle them.
Probably because from Apple's perspective, all Apple did was let the publishers set their own book prices.
Wrong. Part of the agreement with Apple was that the publishers would also not sell anywhere else for less than they do in Apples market.
And the loan was entirely repaid. Interest payments fell short.
To quote wikipedia: "Under the Solyndra restructuring plan, the government is projected to recoup 19 percent on $142.8 million of the loan and nothing on the remaining $385 million"
you liberals need to stop being dishonest fucks.
So instead, you had the Republicans using the filibuster more than any Congress in history.
More times than ever in history, so every other time in history had a negative sum of filibuster occurrences? (hint: zero filibusters during the period you claim)
I know that the Democrats equate threats of a filibuster with actual filibusters, but they seem to only do so when its convenient, and absolutely refuse to compare the records on equal terms. The number of Democrat filibusters only includes actual filibusters, while the number of Republican filibusters includes any time someone says the word 'filibuster.'
I am claiming that the previous president gave them some money as well and I erroneously assumed that 535 million included all the money they got out of these loan programs.
Got a citation?
It looks more like that you have an honesty problem, which you have compounded several times now on this issue as one statement of yours after another gets cracked wide open as a complete lie by the citation you did give.
Its easier to simply stop being a dishonest fuck.
In fact, of the 23 companies that received funding under the same program as Solyndra did, at least 19 of them are still in business - that's an 83% success rate.
No thats not an 83% success rate. Success happens when they pay the fucking loans back.
Are you really so stupid that you dont know what a successful loan looks like?
Solyndra failed because the managers were morons.
No.
During Bush the DOE refused to give Solyndra a loan on the grounds that they would fail, and the DOE report even estimated the date of failure. Obama gets in office and of course Solyndra is all buddy buddy with Obama so he makes the DOE give them a loan, and then they failed at almost exactly the date estimated by the DOE under the Bush administration.
It wasn't that they were morons. Its that the business that you think they were in is not the business they were actually in. Their business plan was a highly successful play at defrauding the American taxpayer. They werent morons at all.
The morons are fucks that make excuses for why Solyndra got a fucking loan that everyone knew was bad.
You're using the boilerplate approach to denying AGW by stating a known and obvious point that applies to all scientific theories.
He didnt mention AGW at all, yet you are saying that he is denying it. Doesnt that make you a dishonest deceiving fuck?
Doesn't matter your thoughts on th policy - the science behind it is with a 5-sigma degree of certainty FACT.
Its a fact that more CO2 in the atmosphere makes us worse off? Really?
You just proved his point. You do not know the difference between policy and science. Science says that more CO2 will increase the greenhouse effect. Science does not say that we will be worse off, yet thats exactly what kyoto is all about.
You're obviously right. Similarly "you should step off the tracks before that freight train barreling along kills you" is not a scientific statement. However "if you don't step off the tracks before that freight train arrives then you will die" is a scientific statement. Many people think the recommendation to step off the tracks is obviously, if not scientifically, a reasonable recommendation under those circumstances. Some may disagree.
"If we don't reduce carbon emissions then we are worse off" is also not an accurate scientific statement, jackass. Adding the word "if" didnt help you.
We still don't know if the ideal (with respect to humans) global average temperature of the planet is higher or lower than today, so presenting arguments that assume that higher is worse as if it were a fact only hurts your obviously uninformed and politically motivated story of doom and gloom.
Every time you so obviously and clearly deceive you lose another potential follower, and if and when the time comes that we really do need to take control of the thermostat of this planet, well it'll suck if we have to lower the temperature because fake deceiving fucks like you cried wolf so often that nobody can take you seriously.
yeah but helicopters are expensive compared to cars. I'm fairly certain that this setup is cheaper than the amount of fiber its replacing.
This is a proven fact; just recompiling some code for x86_64 provides a 15% performance increase for this reason alone (on the same processor.)
Note to self:
A CPU that has completely unused silicon in one mode performs better when all of its silicon is being used by the other mode.
You claim that I failed to understand the argument, but its you that are failing to make an argument that doesnt have a hole big enough to drive a clue truck through.
Do you really think this makes up for not being able to choose registers at compile time?
Uh, who said anything about not choosing registers?
You have imagined an extreme that does not exist.
Your logic fails because THE POLICE ARE NOT COMPLICIT IN THE MURDER.
You really dont understand that the IRS is complicit in the shit that you are complaining about, do you? You can blame private companies all day long, but at the end of the day its still the same IRS that fucked you because you've missed where the real problem is.
Its the governments wrong-doing because people generally hold governments to a higher standard than they do private enterprises. Really. They do. You don't. But people in general do.
It would be nice to see these entities seized by the IRS and large parts sold off to their competitors.
The IRS is complicit in the affairs that you want them to police.
When did it become rational to hold private corporations to a higher standard than we hold members of government?
Oh thats right, it never became rational to do that. Stop being irrational.
Register renaming doesn't make up for a lack of registers because it's harder for a compiler (or human) to optimize for it.
Register renaming and the OOE that it enables greatly widens the target that compilers needs to hit. The point of register renaming is that you still win even when the compiler is retarded about register use. Intels latest chips are commonly pulling 2.5+ instructions per clock cycle even when using compilers written in the 1990's, written before there was even such a thing as register renaming.
Intel designs processors that execute existing code efficiently. Thats the metric in use by their engineering team.
In no way, shape, or form does register renaming have either a negative impact on cpu performance or on compiler optimization opportunities. Its the exact opposite.
Intel has been able to keep up with modern technology by clever engineering and piling on bandaids over the chip's eccentricity's, but it's still a pile of baindaids. That's why Intel wanted to dump it and start fresh.
By bandaids what do you mean exactly? We all know that support for 16-bit mode and memory segmentation costs silicon, but at most that requires the same number of transistors as the first 8088. If you mean because its not RISC then sorry your favorite design philosophy didn't win the performance war, but it was for the same reason that the opposing design philosophy didn't: Hybrid of CISC and RISC is better than either, but can only be implemented with a design philosophy that permits a large instruction set.
As far as register counts, there are diminishing returns to adding more registers. In practice any out-of-order CPU (ie: performance) already has a pool of registers greater than the number of ones indicated by the instruction set. This pool is used in a register renaming scheme that allows the CPU to manage a long out-of-order pipeline efficiently.
You claim that Intel wanted to dump x86 and start fresh with something simpler, but thats not what we observe to have been implemented with Itanium. Sorry, Intel wanted to dump x86 because they had to share x86, not for whatever bullshit you are imagining.
The risk would be greatly mitigated with a cap on inheritance for instance.
The U.S. Federal government grabs 40% of any substantial inheritance. What the fuck are you smoking?
Another mistake they are making is not distinguishing between wealth and income. Taxing wealth amounts to punishment for not spending, and it can only be done once.
96.9% of the people in India (1.18 billion people) live on less than $5 per day (adjusted for purchasing power.) Confiscating 100% of Bill Gates wealth will only give each of them a one time payment of $61.61, less than a month of income.
The upshot of realizing these things is that you see that wealth disparity is a pretend problem, and the closest thing it is to a real problem is the fact that so many people can be so easily fooled into droning on about it like it actually was a problem.
At the end of the day no matter how the handful of people like Bill Gates became so rich, neither their wealth nor their income holds a candle to what governments throw around on a daily basis. The frustrating part is that those than drone on about wealth disparity were basically handed marching orders to drone on about it by members of the very governments that so easily throw around much larger sums of money. It only takes a week for the U.S. Federal government (responsible for only about half of all government spending in the United States) to spend more than Bill Gates entire net worth.
The problem in India is mainly rooted in the lack of the sufficient capitol base necessary for the percentile growth of the economy to keep up with western nations. The problem in America is too many people don't realize that the government already spends more than enough, and because of that they even the worst off of us already have it better than the average man ever had it ever in the history of the world.