You're attempting to fold all of the market barriers to entry into the definition of quality, so that any barrier to entry (like third party application support) is written off as a good quality of the monopolist's product. Which is totally useless when the point to distinguish between barriers to entry and meritorious competition on the basis of price and quality.
It is only a barrier to entry if the availability and quantity of 3rd party applications is a real metric that matters to consumers.
Throw up a web site, advertise it on over-clocker forums and what-not, and hold a competition..
A race with $15000 in prize money. The runners are scored on how many "work units" they complete. Work units are distributed randomly and multiple people receive the same units so there is result verification. 1st place gets $5000, 2nd place gets $4000, 3rd place gets $3000, 4th place gets $2000, and 5th place gets $1000.
And whom is compelling those who wish to advertise to use Google? There are other other ad services available which provide the same function.
I dont think you know what "function" means in this context. If you want a million eyes on your advertisement today, you have to go with Google, and thus you cannot go with anyone else because Google forbids it.
the only thing that is a perfect model of a system is an exact copy of the system, and we don't have a second Earth stashed away in the backyard.
Bullshit red herring.
I didnt ask that they use the perfect model. I asked that they use the best model they have.
Different models made different simplifying assumptions (use different cell size for the simulation, incorporate different feedbacks, use simpler couplings between ocean and atmosphere, and so on).
Irrelevant. One is better than the others regardless of how the models are implemented.
By using a range of different models, we get an idea of how much these simplifications affect the results.
What does that have to do with anything? I didnt ask that they measure how much a simplification effects the rests. I asked for the results of the best model they have.
So we get a range of results, which hopefully bracket the behaviour of the real system.
I didnt ask the range of results for models with varying levels of simplification. I am asking for the results of the best model.
Are you suggesting that they dont know which model is best, or likely best? Seriously?
Your argument that "per cell" is meaningfully different than "per block" falls flat when both shrink at the same rate with process size reductions. You really do need to learn about SSD technology. I realize that you THINK that you know what you are talking about, but its quite apparent that you don't.
The rewrite figures are going to shit as they move to smaller processing tech, 25nm eMLC is already down to 3000 writes/cell, they say you won't get $1/GB at normal prices until we get 19nm which at least some say will be down to 1000 writes.
Based on 3000/25nm tech, the new erase cycle limits will be ~58% (1700/19nm) but the storage capacity per area will increase by ~70%.
That you're getting 500MB/s write speed is nice, but if you actually start using that regularly you'll burn through the disk in a matter of months.
The smaller tech has just as much "heavy use" as the larger tech when equal amounts of board area are dedicated to flash chips. A board with 1 TB of 1700-cycle flash can take a serious write pounding even with considerable write amplification. The same board on the 25nm tech would only have 588 GB of 3000-cycle flash/
"Heavy use" doesnt mean "fastest possible erases." I don't know what you think heavy use means, but even extreme pounding scenarios (such as cycling the entire 1 TB once per day, something you might see in a non-incremental backup server) still gives these drives years of cycles to "blow" through. You could technically kill this theoretical drive in a little over a month but that says nothing about what a "heavy user" will actually witness.
The people solving write needs extreme enough that they would burn through the cycles of this theoretical 1 TB drive in less than a year are dedicating a lot more than a single 1 TB drive to their data volume problem
.... when they consistently surpass 1 or 2 million write-cycles per block............
(P.S. Please don't lecture me about wear-leveling, etc. I know how they work.)
The last FLASH process size reduction took away ~39% of overall erase cycles but added ~64% more capacity per per mm^2.
In your view the latest generation SSD's are even worse than the previous generation because they only have 61% of the erase cycles, right?
If you really knew how SSD's worked, you wouldnt be talking about SSD's with millions of erase cycles per block. I mean what the fuck...
Oh, and last, but not least, it's not exactly "natural selection" if it's caused by careless poisoning by one species.
If a species cannot survive because of side-effects of another doing its own thing, then it most certainly is natural selection when the species doesn't survive.
Just because the acting-species is mankind in this case doesnt change shit.
It also seems to me that certain coral species are the product of crappy mutations if they can only survive in only one single location within our massive ocean, and then also the CO2 levels cant go higher even though historically CO2 levels have frequently cycled way above current levels. The species is specialization into too small a volume and as predicted by prophecy its not working out. Doesn't matter how great things have been so far.. this species have no chance even without mankind.
Try to freeze some of its eggs and sperm? Sure.. why not? But to be surprised that such a weak species is dying off? fuck that.
If Redbox stuck disc burners in every kiosk, then right from the get-go there will be a lot of folk knocking on their door for access. Redbox would take care of both just-in-time manufacturing AND full scale distribution network for whoever is willing to haggle over percentages above profit. The RIAA would also be standing in line to get a chance to haggle.
Do the majority of real world uses 'fill all cores'?
In the majority of my real world use cases, I only need a $20 single core chip.
I dont care about the majority of real world use cases because those cases are already far into performance-masturbation territory. I do not care so much if the photoshop blur filter takes an extra 6ms, but it matters a lot to me if an h.264 encode takes an extra 45 minutes.
Going from 2 core to 6+ core is a massive win if you are doing encoding. It doesnt matter if its an intel or AMD chip that you are going to or from. The only single-threaded shit I sit through was already fast enough yesterday.
Slashdot Mirror
He didnt buy a small laptop, notebook, or netbook.
This blog post is about a guy justifying his purchase.... to himself.
Is there a reason that you are doubting that NDK to JACK to ALSA cannot ever be faster than NDK to ALSA ?
..ignorance maybe?
..I'm pretty sure that adding another API layer isnt going to improve latency.
You're attempting to fold all of the market barriers to entry into the definition of quality, so that any barrier to entry (like third party application support) is written off as a good quality of the monopolist's product. Which is totally useless when the point to distinguish between barriers to entry and meritorious competition on the basis of price and quality.
It is only a barrier to entry if the availability and quantity of 3rd party applications is a real metric that matters to consumers.
You can't both have your cake and eat it too.
..or create one.
Throw up a web site, advertise it on over-clocker forums and what-not, and hold a competition..
A race with $15000 in prize money. The runners are scored on how many "work units" they complete. Work units are distributed randomly and multiple people receive the same units so there is result verification. 1st place gets $5000, 2nd place gets $4000, 3rd place gets $3000, 4th place gets $2000, and 5th place gets $1000.
They just claimed that it was mind-blowingly fast.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.
And whom is compelling those who wish to advertise to use Google? There are other other ad services available which provide the same function.
I dont think you know what "function" means in this context. If you want a million eyes on your advertisement today, you have to go with Google, and thus you cannot go with anyone else because Google forbids it.
Are you fucking stupid or just a google lover?
It is necessary to run third party software, which has nothing to do with the quality or price of the actual Microsoft product.
You arent considering the full-breadth of what 'quality' means.
Q: "Why did you choose Windows?"
A: "Because it does the things I want."
That is the very fucking definition of quality when you get right down to it.
The point is that smartphones ARE becoming powerful enough to do what 99% of people want them to.
Smartphones can do 99% of the things that people want smartphones to do!! oh.. wait.... yeah... fuck...
Tell us Mr Smart Guy, how much of the shit that people want desktops to do will a smartphone be able to also do in the next generation?
dogpile.com
Oh second!
Dogpile uses Google, Bing, AND Lycos for backends. Dogpile does not have its own backend.
Unlike in the US, corruption is illegal in Europe
Italy and Greece spring to mind as proof that you are full of it.
The FCC should not have a twitter account for the same reason that the FCC should not have a radio station or television station.
I thought that this shit would be obvious.
Why the fuck does the FCC have a twitter?
...and this is the organization you fuckers want to head network neutrality?
20 PRINT A$ "is stupid!"
?SYNTAX ERROR
the only thing that is a perfect model of a system is an exact copy of the system, and we don't have a second Earth stashed away in the backyard.
Bullshit red herring.
I didnt ask that they use the perfect model. I asked that they use the best model they have.
Different models made different simplifying assumptions (use different cell size for the simulation, incorporate different feedbacks, use simpler couplings between ocean and atmosphere, and so on).
Irrelevant. One is better than the others regardless of how the models are implemented.
By using a range of different models, we get an idea of how much these simplifications affect the results.
What does that have to do with anything? I didnt ask that they measure how much a simplification effects the rests. I asked for the results of the best model they have.
So we get a range of results, which hopefully bracket the behaviour of the real system.
I didnt ask the range of results for models with varying levels of simplification. I am asking for the results of the best model.
Are you suggesting that they dont know which model is best, or likely best? Seriously?
A little WD40 fixed mine. Wish I still had it.
I'm pretty sure the can of WD40 would be empty by now anyways.
Pay illegals to wave methane collectors in the air.
Why are they using multiple models?
Surely one is better than the others??
I wonder if the model they know to be best is one of the ones they point at most often.
Your argument that "per cell" is meaningfully different than "per block" falls flat when both shrink at the same rate with process size reductions. You really do need to learn about SSD technology. I realize that you THINK that you know what you are talking about, but its quite apparent that you don't.
The rewrite figures are going to shit as they move to smaller processing tech, 25nm eMLC is already down to 3000 writes/cell, they say you won't get $1/GB at normal prices until we get 19nm which at least some say will be down to 1000 writes.
Based on 3000/25nm tech, the new erase cycle limits will be ~58% (1700/19nm) but the storage capacity per area will increase by ~70%.
That you're getting 500MB/s write speed is nice, but if you actually start using that regularly you'll burn through the disk in a matter of months.
The smaller tech has just as much "heavy use" as the larger tech when equal amounts of board area are dedicated to flash chips. A board with 1 TB of 1700-cycle flash can take a serious write pounding even with considerable write amplification. The same board on the 25nm tech would only have 588 GB of 3000-cycle flash/
"Heavy use" doesnt mean "fastest possible erases." I don't know what you think heavy use means, but even extreme pounding scenarios (such as cycling the entire 1 TB once per day, something you might see in a non-incremental backup server) still gives these drives years of cycles to "blow" through. You could technically kill this theoretical drive in a little over a month but that says nothing about what a "heavy user" will actually witness.
The people solving write needs extreme enough that they would burn through the cycles of this theoretical 1 TB drive in less than a year are dedicating a lot more than a single 1 TB drive to their data volume problem
(P.S. Please don't lecture me about wear-leveling, etc. I know how they work.)
The last FLASH process size reduction took away ~39% of overall erase cycles but added ~64% more capacity per per mm^2.
In your view the latest generation SSD's are even worse than the previous generation because they only have 61% of the erase cycles, right?
If you really knew how SSD's worked, you wouldnt be talking about SSD's with millions of erase cycles per block. I mean what the fuck...
Oh, and last, but not least, it's not exactly "natural selection" if it's caused by careless poisoning by one species.
If a species cannot survive because of side-effects of another doing its own thing, then it most certainly is natural selection when the species doesn't survive.
Just because the acting-species is mankind in this case doesnt change shit.
It also seems to me that certain coral species are the product of crappy mutations if they can only survive in only one single location within our massive ocean, and then also the CO2 levels cant go higher even though historically CO2 levels have frequently cycled way above current levels. The species is specialization into too small a volume and as predicted by prophecy its not working out. Doesn't matter how great things have been so far.. this species have no chance even without mankind.
Try to freeze some of its eggs and sperm? Sure.. why not? But to be surprised that such a weak species is dying off? fuck that.
You arent thinking clearly enough.
If Redbox stuck disc burners in every kiosk, then right from the get-go there will be a lot of folk knocking on their door for access. Redbox would take care of both just-in-time manufacturing AND full scale distribution network for whoever is willing to haggle over percentages above profit. The RIAA would also be standing in line to get a chance to haggle.
The selection problem is solved as soon as someone exploits the fact that a disc burner easily fits in a big-assed kiosk.
Do the majority of real world uses 'fill all cores'?
In the majority of my real world use cases, I only need a $20 single core chip.
I dont care about the majority of real world use cases because those cases are already far into performance-masturbation territory. I do not care so much if the photoshop blur filter takes an extra 6ms, but it matters a lot to me if an h.264 encode takes an extra 45 minutes.
Going from 2 core to 6+ core is a massive win if you are doing encoding. It doesnt matter if its an intel or AMD chip that you are going to or from. The only single-threaded shit I sit through was already fast enough yesterday.