With an N of any meaningful size (say 100000) then adding 1 more to N is so close to free that it might as well be free. Right?
We have to square N to double the runtime, and then square it again to double it again. 2^8 becomes 2^16 becomes 2^32 becomes 2^64.
If you can do 2**8 items in real-time today, then in ~5 years you can do 2**64 items in real-time on the newer hardware. Thats why O(Log N) is fucking unlimited.
Still no reason to call it "unlimited."
Its because beyond a certain size of N, any increase in N that does not already hit non-computational constraints (memory limits, the word size of the architecture, etc) becomes essentially free from a computational perspective. When doubling N from 1 Billion to 2 Billion items only increases the workload by 3.33%.. THATS FUCKING UNLIMITED
They did mention medical imaging, which is a nearly 100% voxel based market...
So like ray-tracing their renderer would begin "for each pixel..."
One of the benefits of raytracing is that it does scale extremely well with the amount of scene geometry. Essentially, doubling the amount of geometry only adds 1 more iteration to hit testing. O(PR log N) where P is the number of pixels, R is the number of rays per pixel, and N is total amount of geometry in the scene. It is this scaling that means that if geometry continues to increase in complexity, raytracing will eventually overtake rasterization in raw performance.
Raytracing is like QuickSort() and Rasterization is like BubbleSort().. for small N the BubbleSort() beats QuickSort() because it has a smaller constant. In the case of Raytracing vs Rasterization, Rasterization has very small constants compared to raytracing so Raytracing doesnt overtake Rasterization until N is very large (Intel had put out an estimate several years ago.. determining that the N where raytracing overtakes rasterization in raw performance is somewhere between 1 million and 10 million polygons)
Now these guys just seem to be doing Raycasting (ala medical imaging), rather than Raytracing, so the N where this happens would be quite a bit smaller.
Powerball, etc. also sometimes have positive expected winnings, however the vast majority in that situation still lose money.
I can turn a negative EV game like roulette into one that you apparently would be happy with, because I can give you a betting system that allows you to walk away from the table a $10 winner well over 98% of the time.
The good news is that you only have to be willing to risk $1270. Doesn't sound so hot, does it?
The point is that even for negative EV games, people that make large numbers of wagers can manipulate their variance into a Taleb Distribution.
You need to modify what you think is important. The chance of walking away a winner is only important if you have a large fraction of your bankroll at stake.
This isn't much different than anything else online. I pay taxes on my XBox 360 purchases, this shouldn't be any different just because it is online.
We are talking about "in-game items" here, which are simple database entries. Now please explain why these shouldnt be any different than the purchase of a game.
There's only a crisis because there's a Democrat in the White House and Republicans are willing to force a default to get their demands met.
A stark contrast to the way that Democrats get their demands met, which is to throw in enough pork to get enough Congressmen and Senators to vote for it.
Re:Could Someone Help Me Out With This?
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 1
As an engineer that uses math on a daily basis, the more I read about the rising debt the more confused I am. It seems that a strategy of Reagan's was to take in less money in taxes than the government spends [wikipedia.org] and this strategy has been intact for far too long. So if you're trying to balance a budget, how in the hell do you justify spending way more money than you take in? Either you have to raise taxes or cut spending. It's pretty clear that Clinton was the only president to break from this norm since then [wikipedia.org] and now we're shocked that our debt crises get worse and worse every term?
Have you been paying any attention at all these past two months?
We know from recent events that the House has unquestionably the most control of both Taxing and Spending. With that in mind, the Democrats controlled the House from 1949 to 1995. If we are to presume that "The Reagan Years" were bad, then surely the Democrats should get the most credit for its "badness" since they controlled the House through all of it. If we are to also presume that "The Clinton Years" were good, then surely the Republicans should get the most credit for its "goodness" since they controlled the House for the last 6 years of that period.
However, who "should" get credit and who "actually" gets credit are two different things.
You, for instance, clearly dont care who "should" get credit. You would rather vilify Reagan and champion Clinton, even though the House clearly had the most control.
Every single time you are talking about the federal budget and appeal to a President as responsible you are making the naive error of an uneducated twat, a twat that doesnt know what the fuck he is talking about.
Which of course is fantasy because we can't balance the budget without some new revenue
The federal budget has been growing faster than national GDP. End of fucking argument.
An analogy is that you earn $X per year and receive a 5% per year raise. Your wife budgets $Y per year for beauty supplies but increases that spending by 10% per year.
$X is the GDP, $Y is federal spending. No matter where $X and $Y start, eventually $Y overtakes $X. Even if the government were to increase taxes to match spending each year, to balance the budget in the manner you suggest, we are still fucked.
The solution is to let GDP grow at least as fast as spending. Since GDP cannot be controlled, it is spending that must be controlled. Period and end of debate.
There is no reason to believe that Google knows anything about video codec technology, for they have never developed one themselves. They have never been a member of that industry.
Video codec patents arent simply about the nice mathematics. They are about efficient ways of performing that math on various technologies. Thats the real situation.
It isn't that the overall math in play can't be accomplished in ways that avoid patents, its that its very hard to do any of it nearly as efficiently as H.264 without running into patents. Companies like IBM surrounded things like arithmetic coding (used in both codecs) with patents on efficient methods fairly early on, and while those initial patents are now out of scope, new technologies created new opportunities for new efficient methods that again were patented.
Even if the reference implementation is remarkable and avoids the patents, there is so little chance that a re-implementation to efficiently work on GPU's that its really kind of laughable. There is pretty much no way in hell that VP8 can be put on every device and made efficient while avoiding the patents, EVEN IF THE REFERENCE IS PATENT FREE.
This means that multiple metadata writes to the same block return much more quickly, but it also means that the data isn't really committed to stable storage when the OS thinks that it is. If the machine shuts down and that data still hasn't been flushed, it goes away.
The issue isnt File System corruption.. when the issue happens, the machine simply can no longer detect the drives no matter what you do. Its not simply data loss.. complete loss of any access to the device.
This means either an actual hardware failure, or that during power-on the firmware is failing to initialize. My theory is this second alternative, that its Block System (not the same as the File System! The Block System maps logical sectors to subsets of physical blocks in an arbitrary way) has become corrupted in such a way that the firmware isn't completing initialization.
The result in either case is exactly this sort of behavior: one minute your data is there, the next it isn't.
Thats not the failure behavior these OCZ drives are exhibiting.
As indicated in some of the text that appears on screen, they are using 13 samples on 10 channels (at 2:15 into the video). Note that the power bars arent simply triggered.. thats the actual amplitude of each audio sample as its being played as well. Thats what the IIgs was doing while the Amiga was flailing around with 4 channels.
The Bush tax cuts did not increase revenue, they cut revenue by over a trillion dollars. If you don't like the term "Bush", then call them "Republican". (And don't call the health care bill (insurance company tit-sucking act) "Obamacare", by your logic.)
Did I call it Obamacare? Oh, no.. I didn't.. did I?
In fact, in other posts I specifically named the House Speaker and the Senate Majority Leader when talking about the helathcare bill.
In other words, my logic and usage is CONSISTENT. Thats because I am not out to deceive with bullshit.
The Bush wars (and they were his alone, although Congress rolled over) cost trillions more
Looks like someone here might be out to deceive tho...
killing millions of brown people (mostly under the age of 5, continuing the Bush I and Clinton policies) and enriching the most evil plutocrats the world has ever seen.
Yep. Confirmed. You are out to deceive.
Surely the facts of both of these wars is enough to convince us that the decision to enter into them was a bad one. Surely we don't need to lie and exaggerate given that the actual facts are so damning all on their own.
What is it about Bush that makes you think that you need to deceive everyone you talk to about him? Seriously.. Do you really need him to be worse in order to defend your other opinions?
The financial parasite enabling acts ("financial bailouts") started in the Bush presidency, drafted by Bush appointees.
The draft was a few pages and never approved as H.R. 3997 was rejected by the Democrat controlled House. The Democrat controlled Senate then revised their own H.R.1424 to include a bailout, which was then approved by the House. In short, the draft wasnt even the starting point of the bill that passed. The bill that failed began with the draft.
Can we get a little fucking honesty here? Seriously.
(A) The draft wasnt part of what was passed.
(B) The Democrats had control of both House and Senate in 2008
Both parties are complicit in treason. There isn't a bit of real difference between them when you look at their acts rather than their rhetoric.
This is just it tho.. one party has a substantially better track record in House and Senate. Thats the entire point here. The difference between the two is extreme. If you do NOT favor one party over the other, its because you've been listening (rhetoric) instead of watching (acts.)... and every time you mention the President with regards to Acts of Congress (like you just did) you are only demonstrating a lack of even a fundamental accuracy in your argument.
Why you dipshits cant seem to remember that the President doesnt draft budgets or alter tax rates for more than a few seconds is beyond me. You should remember it forever because its always been true. Stop assigning Acts of Congress to the President. Seriously. Just stop. Its dishonest. Bush was bad.. we don't need to be dishonest about how bad he was.
What I dont get is that companies like Dell have been shipping SSD's for much more than 5 years now. Surely Dell has some good statistics about failure rates, since their customers want refunds and shit when things die quickly. Is it that Dell wont release the data? Has anyone even asked?
I understand that the latest crop of SSD's from companies like OCZ have been a real nightmare. I suspect the OCZ issue has to do with powering down the device, with the capacitor responsible for ensuring this happens correctly isnt supply enough power for long enough to let all the buffers write out correctly.. most of the failure posts you see on newegg begin "I put the machine to sleep....".. in other words, several gigs were written out right before the device lost its primary supply of power. So it could easily be that final book-keeping is failing to complete correctly, leaving the flash in a "corrupted" (the controller cant make sense of its own "block system") state
The so-called Bush tax cuts. Which ones did you think?
You keep going on about the President(s) and Taxes and Budget. Why is this? Have you not taken a civics class?
The President does not draft budgets, nor can the President increase or lower taxes. If that were true, wouldnt the current crisis be Obama's fault for not lowering spending and raising taxes? Why hasn't Obama done that?
Every single time you attempt to pin the Federal fiscal situation on the President, you are demonstrating your ignorance. Every time you make a "point" by making the association between President and Debt, you are saying nothing at all. You ate only repeating a lie. You want proof? THE CURRENT CRISIS IS PROOF THAT THE PRESIDENT DOESNT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT.
I demonstrated quite succinctly that they could have raised taxes, in spite of any previous tax cuts.
They didn't. How is this changing the subject?
You appear to be uncomfortable with watching the Democrats instead of listening to them. Why is is to hard for you to take things at face value? Is it the years of investment you have put into believing what they said rather than noticing what they did?
The Bush Tax Cut was already passed when Pelosi and Reid became Speaker/Leader.
When Pelosi and Reid because the dynamic duo, they didnt need a single Republican votes to pass anything. The evidence of this is the Health Care bill which between both House and Senate got exactly 1 Republican vote. This is in fact another fine example of their talk being a disconnect from what they do. When they were drafting that Health Care bill, they told the country that all those "compromises" were to please Republicans... but wait.. only 1 Republican voted for the thing in both House and Senate (combined) and it still passed.. so who were they really pleasing? We could debate about who they were actually pleasing, but there is no debate at all that they were lying.
Those two had unchallenged power and could have raised taxes, but didn't. They could have cut spending, but didn't. Stop listening to what they say and look at what they did. What did they do exactly? They paid off Wall Street, Hollywood, Insurance Companies, Automobile Manufacturers (Unions), and Banks. That isnt what they said.. but its what they did.
Borrowing money isn't bad. Not paying it back is bad.
The problem is the borrowed money, that we cant afford the minimum payment, and the solution according to you is to borrow more money. Anything to keep the illusion alive I guess... right?
There's a nice little graph for you:
A graph that breaks it down by president during this specific crisis... really? Doesnt this crisis prove that the president doesnt have shit-all to do with spending, or the budget? Doesn't it? Are you eyes even open?
Anything that seems to support your preconceived notions no matter how dishonest, is that it? What is wrong with you?
And yet somehow, the Democrats are the ones who don't know how to manage money.
If presidents get the credit, then isnt this all Obama's fault? Isn't this your metric? The president bust be responsible right now, as well as then, right?
Who exactly told you that the President was responsible? Wasn't it the Democrats in power, doing all that spending, that told you that? Wasn't it?
And in direct response to your numbers, that very same graph (it's the first table on the page) lists how much the national debt has increased under Democrat vs. Republican presidents. Not the debt ceiling, the debt itself. The two are very different numbers...
Because the President doesnt have dick-all to do with it! DUH!
Every time you appeal to the President, you are being dishonest. Every single time. I'm sorry that you were lied to all these years, and I'm sorry that its so damn embarrassing that you didn't pay any attention then, but the fact remains THAT YOU WERE LIED TO AND YOU ARE JUST REPEATING THE LIE. Want proof that you are repeating the lie? This crisis, in which the *only* thing the president could do was get on television and make a speech, IS THE PROOF YOU NEED.
This isn't a case of someone trying to do some sexual assault on you or something.
Its worse. Its a case of congress stealing the futures of hundreds of millions of people that havent even been born yet.
Furthermore, my anaology had nothing to do with sexual assault. It had to do with asking someone to do something unacceptable and then asking for a compromise that is still completely unacceptable.
That's done in two ways, lower expenses and increase revenue. Revenue has not been keeping pace with expenses due to tax cuts
Revenue has not been keeping pace with spending ("expenses") because spending has gone through the roof over the past 30 years.
Furthermore, those tax cuts you are talking about increased revenue. Did you forget that fact?
Don't know much about the Apple IIGS' audio, but it sounds interesting (no pun intended) (*)
It used the Ensoniq ES5503 DOC chip.
The next generation of this chip (ES5506) was found in the Gravis UltraSound sound card (32-channels) but re-branded the "GF1"
The Amiga's 4 channel (actually 2 channel stereo) just didnt compare to 16 channels. It wasnt even a close contest, as the IIgs sound chip was found in high end synths such as the ESQ-1, SQ-80, and the Mirage.
But the Atari ST? Please. The ST became popular for music because it had MIDI ports built-in. (**) Credit to Atari for their foresight, but nothing that the Amiga couldn't do with a dirt-cheap add-on interface.
With that sort of logic, one could say that the PC had the best graphics because of add-on boards such as TARGA.
The ST had the midi software because the MIDI interface was stock. The ST was the go-to machine for MIDI, not Amiga.
If I had time, I'd be interested in how the "wavetable" synthesis performed versus the Amiga's "real" 4-channel, 8-bit sound
OMG - The Amiga's 4 channels are wavetable. Thats the TERM used for the technology, but I am not surprised that you didn't know that. The IIgs has 16 channel 8-bit "real" [SIC] sound, with the ADDITION that each of the 16 channels was stereo-pannable (the Amiga couldn't even do that..)
Since the democrats are the ones that borrowed well over half the money that the federal government owes, its not a very far stretch to blame them for the money we owe, or the mess we are in.
The score over the past 30 years is $7.9 trillion borrowed when the Democrats controlled both House and Senate, and another $3.6 trillion when control was split between Republicans and Democrats, with only $1.7 trillion borrowed when Republicans controlled both House and Senate.
Yes. That is exactly how unbalanced things have been, yet amazingly its those evil Republicans that are "known" to be the most irresponsible. More was borrowed in the first 2 years of Pelosi (House Speaker, Democrat) and Reid (Senate Majority Leader, Democrat) than the Republicans ever borrowed in the entire history of the country.
STOP LISTENING TO WHAT THEY SAY - The Democrats constantly tell us how bad the Republicans are... START WATCHING WHAT THEY DO - The data is available. Dont listen to what they say. Take a look at what they actually do.
One graph is enough to get you to question things, but you have to take some of the steps yourself (don't listen to what I say either.. the data is available.. you don't need to trust anyones claims)
I understand their perspective and conviction but I think the issue is that they want to do it ALL at once. No compromise
A friend of mine has a nice analogy about compromise.
"Let me stick my dick in your mouth"
"Come on. Let me."
"You should compromise with me. How about just the tip? Can I stick just the tip of my dick in your mouth?"
The point being that when the opposition wants something unacceptable, its always going to be unacceptable. It doesnt magically become acceptable just because its only the tip of his dick.
Wrong. It went down exactly how I said. OS/2 3.0 was doing to be called NT OS/2 until MS and IBM parted ways.
You claim to know the history, but you don't. Windows NT was everything that OS/2 3.0 was intended to be (hardware agnostic, and so forth), because it was in fact OS/2 3.0.
There is no middle class now? Thats not what the Democrats tell me.
The facts are different than your claims. The Democrats keep saying that the middle class is being "eroded", yet the middle class is richer now than they were 30 years ago, with a higher standard of living, greater life expectancy, and so on.
Stop listening to what the Democrats say, and start watching what they do. They appeal to your emotions in order to get you to dislike their opposition.. the problem is that the appeals are not honest. You've been told that before and had no trouble ignoring what people said in that case. Do the same for the Democrats. Stop listening and start watching.
Slashdot Mirror
With an N of any meaningful size (say 100000) then adding 1 more to N is so close to free that it might as well be free. Right?
We have to square N to double the runtime, and then square it again to double it again. 2^8 becomes 2^16 becomes 2^32 becomes 2^64.
If you can do 2**8 items in real-time today, then in ~5 years you can do 2**64 items in real-time on the newer hardware. Thats why O(Log N) is fucking unlimited.
Still no reason to call it "unlimited."
Its because beyond a certain size of N, any increase in N that does not already hit non-computational constraints (memory limits, the word size of the architecture, etc) becomes essentially free from a computational perspective. When doubling N from 1 Billion to 2 Billion items only increases the workload by 3.33%.. THATS FUCKING UNLIMITED
They did mention medical imaging, which is a nearly 100% voxel based market...
.. for small N the BubbleSort() beats QuickSort() because it has a smaller constant. In the case of Raytracing vs Rasterization, Rasterization has very small constants compared to raytracing so Raytracing doesnt overtake Rasterization until N is very large (Intel had put out an estimate several years ago.. determining that the N where raytracing overtakes rasterization in raw performance is somewhere between 1 million and 10 million polygons)
So like ray-tracing their renderer would begin "for each pixel..."
One of the benefits of raytracing is that it does scale extremely well with the amount of scene geometry. Essentially, doubling the amount of geometry only adds 1 more iteration to hit testing. O(PR log N) where P is the number of pixels, R is the number of rays per pixel, and N is total amount of geometry in the scene. It is this scaling that means that if geometry continues to increase in complexity, raytracing will eventually overtake rasterization in raw performance.
Raytracing is like QuickSort() and Rasterization is like BubbleSort()
Now these guys just seem to be doing Raycasting (ala medical imaging), rather than Raytracing, so the N where this happens would be quite a bit smaller.
Powerball, etc. also sometimes have positive expected winnings, however the vast majority in that situation still lose money.
I can turn a negative EV game like roulette into one that you apparently would be happy with, because I can give you a betting system that allows you to walk away from the table a $10 winner well over 98% of the time.
The good news is that you only have to be willing to risk $1270. Doesn't sound so hot, does it?
The point is that even for negative EV games, people that make large numbers of wagers can manipulate their variance into a Taleb Distribution.
You need to modify what you think is important. The chance of walking away a winner is only important if you have a large fraction of your bankroll at stake.
This isn't much different than anything else online. I pay taxes on my XBox 360 purchases, this shouldn't be any different just because it is online.
We are talking about "in-game items" here, which are simple database entries. Now please explain why these shouldnt be any different than the purchase of a game.
There's only a crisis because there's a Democrat in the White House and Republicans are willing to force a default to get their demands met.
A stark contrast to the way that Democrats get their demands met, which is to throw in enough pork to get enough Congressmen and Senators to vote for it.
As an engineer that uses math on a daily basis, the more I read about the rising debt the more confused I am. It seems that a strategy of Reagan's was to take in less money in taxes than the government spends [wikipedia.org] and this strategy has been intact for far too long. So if you're trying to balance a budget, how in the hell do you justify spending way more money than you take in? Either you have to raise taxes or cut spending. It's pretty clear that Clinton was the only president to break from this norm since then [wikipedia.org] and now we're shocked that our debt crises get worse and worse every term?
Have you been paying any attention at all these past two months?
We know from recent events that the House has unquestionably the most control of both Taxing and Spending. With that in mind, the Democrats controlled the House from 1949 to 1995. If we are to presume that "The Reagan Years" were bad, then surely the Democrats should get the most credit for its "badness" since they controlled the House through all of it. If we are to also presume that "The Clinton Years" were good, then surely the Republicans should get the most credit for its "goodness" since they controlled the House for the last 6 years of that period.
However, who "should" get credit and who "actually" gets credit are two different things.
You, for instance, clearly dont care who "should" get credit. You would rather vilify Reagan and champion Clinton, even though the House clearly had the most control.
Every single time you are talking about the federal budget and appeal to a President as responsible you are making the naive error of an uneducated twat, a twat that doesnt know what the fuck he is talking about.
There. I "helped you out with this" as requested.
Which of course is fantasy because we can't balance the budget without some new revenue
The federal budget has been growing faster than national GDP. End of fucking argument.
An analogy is that you earn $X per year and receive a 5% per year raise. Your wife budgets $Y per year for beauty supplies but increases that spending by 10% per year.
$X is the GDP, $Y is federal spending. No matter where $X and $Y start, eventually $Y overtakes $X. Even if the government were to increase taxes to match spending each year, to balance the budget in the manner you suggest, we are still fucked.
The solution is to let GDP grow at least as fast as spending. Since GDP cannot be controlled, it is spending that must be controlled. Period and end of debate.
There is no reason to believe that Google knows anything about video codec technology, for they have never developed one themselves. They have never been a member of that industry.
Video codec patents arent simply about the nice mathematics. They are about efficient ways of performing that math on various technologies. Thats the real situation.
It isn't that the overall math in play can't be accomplished in ways that avoid patents, its that its very hard to do any of it nearly as efficiently as H.264 without running into patents. Companies like IBM surrounded things like arithmetic coding (used in both codecs) with patents on efficient methods fairly early on, and while those initial patents are now out of scope, new technologies created new opportunities for new efficient methods that again were patented.
Even if the reference implementation is remarkable and avoids the patents, there is so little chance that a re-implementation to efficiently work on GPU's that its really kind of laughable. There is pretty much no way in hell that VP8 can be put on every device and made efficient while avoiding the patents, EVEN IF THE REFERENCE IS PATENT FREE.
This means that multiple metadata writes to the same block return much more quickly, but it also means that the data isn't really committed to stable storage when the OS thinks that it is. If the machine shuts down and that data still hasn't been flushed, it goes away.
The issue isnt File System corruption.. when the issue happens, the machine simply can no longer detect the drives no matter what you do. Its not simply data loss.. complete loss of any access to the device.
This means either an actual hardware failure, or that during power-on the firmware is failing to initialize. My theory is this second alternative, that its Block System (not the same as the File System! The Block System maps logical sectors to subsets of physical blocks in an arbitrary way) has become corrupted in such a way that the firmware isn't completing initialization.
The result in either case is exactly this sort of behavior: one minute your data is there, the next it isn't.
Thats not the failure behavior these OCZ drives are exhibiting.
You could use it as two-channel stereo, but it was typically treated as four channel mono.
2 unpannable left channels, and 2 unpannable right channels.
Do you see the limitation of this vs 16 pannable channels?
Here is something from the IIgs demo scene
As indicated in some of the text that appears on screen, they are using 13 samples on 10 channels (at 2:15 into the video). Note that the power bars arent simply triggered.. thats the actual amplitude of each audio sample as its being played as well. Thats what the IIgs was doing while the Amiga was flailing around with 4 channels.
The Bush tax cuts did not increase revenue, they cut revenue by over a trillion dollars. If you don't like the term "Bush", then call them "Republican". (And don't call the health care bill (insurance company tit-sucking act) "Obamacare", by your logic.)
Did I call it Obamacare? Oh, no.. I didn't.. did I?
In fact, in other posts I specifically named the House Speaker and the Senate Majority Leader when talking about the helathcare bill.
In other words, my logic and usage is CONSISTENT. Thats because I am not out to deceive with bullshit.
The Bush wars (and they were his alone, although Congress rolled over) cost trillions more
Looks like someone here might be out to deceive tho...
killing millions of brown people (mostly under the age of 5, continuing the Bush I and Clinton policies) and enriching the most evil plutocrats the world has ever seen.
Yep. Confirmed. You are out to deceive.
Surely the facts of both of these wars is enough to convince us that the decision to enter into them was a bad one. Surely we don't need to lie and exaggerate given that the actual facts are so damning all on their own.
What is it about Bush that makes you think that you need to deceive everyone you talk to about him? Seriously.. Do you really need him to be worse in order to defend your other opinions?
The financial parasite enabling acts ("financial bailouts") started in the Bush presidency, drafted by Bush appointees.
The draft was a few pages and never approved as H.R. 3997 was rejected by the Democrat controlled House. The Democrat controlled Senate then revised their own H.R.1424 to include a bailout, which was then approved by the House. In short, the draft wasnt even the starting point of the bill that passed. The bill that failed began with the draft.
Can we get a little fucking honesty here? Seriously.
(A) The draft wasnt part of what was passed.
(B) The Democrats had control of both House and Senate in 2008
Both parties are complicit in treason. There isn't a bit of real difference between them when you look at their acts rather than their rhetoric.
This is just it tho.. one party has a substantially better track record in House and Senate. Thats the entire point here. The difference between the two is extreme. If you do NOT favor one party over the other, its because you've been listening (rhetoric) instead of watching (acts.) ... and every time you mention the President with regards to Acts of Congress (like you just did) you are only demonstrating a lack of even a fundamental accuracy in your argument.
Why you dipshits cant seem to remember that the President doesnt draft budgets or alter tax rates for more than a few seconds is beyond me. You should remember it forever because its always been true. Stop assigning Acts of Congress to the President. Seriously. Just stop. Its dishonest. Bush was bad.. we don't need to be dishonest about how bad he was.
What I dont get is that companies like Dell have been shipping SSD's for much more than 5 years now. Surely Dell has some good statistics about failure rates, since their customers want refunds and shit when things die quickly. Is it that Dell wont release the data? Has anyone even asked?
.. in other words, several gigs were written out right before the device lost its primary supply of power. So it could easily be that final book-keeping is failing to complete correctly, leaving the flash in a "corrupted" (the controller cant make sense of its own "block system") state
I understand that the latest crop of SSD's from companies like OCZ have been a real nightmare. I suspect the OCZ issue has to do with powering down the device, with the capacitor responsible for ensuring this happens correctly isnt supply enough power for long enough to let all the buffers write out correctly.. most of the failure posts you see on newegg begin "I put the machine to sleep...."
Thats a strange order to be presenting them in (not alphabetical), until you dig down:
Democrat
Republican
Democrat
Republican
Democrat
Republican
Democrat
Republican
Democrat
Republican
Democrat
Republican
Democrat
Republican
Democrat
Tax rates are at the lowest rates they've ever been since I've been alive (late 70s).
We dont need to go on about "lowest ever" when we can state the actual values. The rate is currently 35% for rich people.
One of the most prosperous decades in the US was during the 50s, when tax rates on the rich were above 90%
Federal tax revenue as a percentage of GDP was at its lowest since 1950.. in the year 1950.
What tax cuts increased revenue?
The so-called Bush tax cuts. Which ones did you think?
You keep going on about the President(s) and Taxes and Budget. Why is this? Have you not taken a civics class?
The President does not draft budgets, nor can the President increase or lower taxes. If that were true, wouldnt the current crisis be Obama's fault for not lowering spending and raising taxes? Why hasn't Obama done that?
Every single time you attempt to pin the Federal fiscal situation on the President, you are demonstrating your ignorance. Every time you make a "point" by making the association between President and Debt, you are saying nothing at all. You ate only repeating a lie. You want proof? THE CURRENT CRISIS IS PROOF THAT THE PRESIDENT DOESNT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT.
Change the subject?
I demonstrated quite succinctly that they could have raised taxes, in spite of any previous tax cuts.
They didn't. How is this changing the subject?
You appear to be uncomfortable with watching the Democrats instead of listening to them. Why is is to hard for you to take things at face value? Is it the years of investment you have put into believing what they said rather than noticing what they did?
The Bush Tax Cut was already passed when Pelosi and Reid became Speaker/Leader.
When Pelosi and Reid because the dynamic duo, they didnt need a single Republican votes to pass anything. The evidence of this is the Health Care bill which between both House and Senate got exactly 1 Republican vote. This is in fact another fine example of their talk being a disconnect from what they do. When they were drafting that Health Care bill, they told the country that all those "compromises" were to please Republicans... but wait.. only 1 Republican voted for the thing in both House and Senate (combined) and it still passed.. so who were they really pleasing? We could debate about who they were actually pleasing, but there is no debate at all that they were lying.
Those two had unchallenged power and could have raised taxes, but didn't. They could have cut spending, but didn't. Stop listening to what they say and look at what they did. What did they do exactly? They paid off Wall Street, Hollywood, Insurance Companies, Automobile Manufacturers (Unions), and Banks. That isnt what they said.. but its what they did.
Stop listening and start watching.
Borrowing money isn't bad. Not paying it back is bad.
The problem is the borrowed money, that we cant afford the minimum payment, and the solution according to you is to borrow more money. Anything to keep the illusion alive I guess... right?
There's a nice little graph for you:
A graph that breaks it down by president during this specific crisis... really? Doesnt this crisis prove that the president doesnt have shit-all to do with spending, or the budget? Doesn't it? Are you eyes even open?
Anything that seems to support your preconceived notions no matter how dishonest, is that it? What is wrong with you?
And yet somehow, the Democrats are the ones who don't know how to manage money.
If presidents get the credit, then isnt this all Obama's fault? Isn't this your metric? The president bust be responsible right now, as well as then, right?
Who exactly told you that the President was responsible? Wasn't it the Democrats in power, doing all that spending, that told you that? Wasn't it?
And in direct response to your numbers, that very same graph (it's the first table on the page) lists how much the national debt has increased under Democrat vs. Republican presidents. Not the debt ceiling, the debt itself. The two are very different numbers...
Because the President doesnt have dick-all to do with it! DUH!
Every time you appeal to the President, you are being dishonest. Every single time. I'm sorry that you were lied to all these years, and I'm sorry that its so damn embarrassing that you didn't pay any attention then, but the fact remains THAT YOU WERE LIED TO AND YOU ARE JUST REPEATING THE LIE. Want proof that you are repeating the lie? This crisis, in which the *only* thing the president could do was get on television and make a speech, IS THE PROOF YOU NEED.
This isn't a case of someone trying to do some sexual assault on you or something.
Its worse. Its a case of congress stealing the futures of hundreds of millions of people that havent even been born yet.
Furthermore, my anaology had nothing to do with sexual assault. It had to do with asking someone to do something unacceptable and then asking for a compromise that is still completely unacceptable.
That's done in two ways, lower expenses and increase revenue. Revenue has not been keeping pace with expenses due to tax cuts
Revenue has not been keeping pace with spending ("expenses") because spending has gone through the roof over the past 30 years.
Furthermore, those tax cuts you are talking about increased revenue. Did you forget that fact?
Don't know much about the Apple IIGS' audio, but it sounds interesting (no pun intended) (*)
It used the Ensoniq ES5503 DOC chip.
The next generation of this chip (ES5506) was found in the Gravis UltraSound sound card (32-channels) but re-branded the "GF1"
The Amiga's 4 channel (actually 2 channel stereo) just didnt compare to 16 channels. It wasnt even a close contest, as the IIgs sound chip was found in high end synths such as the ESQ-1, SQ-80, and the Mirage.
But the Atari ST? Please. The ST became popular for music because it had MIDI ports built-in. (**) Credit to Atari for their foresight, but nothing that the Amiga couldn't do with a dirt-cheap add-on interface.
With that sort of logic, one could say that the PC had the best graphics because of add-on boards such as TARGA.
The ST had the midi software because the MIDI interface was stock. The ST was the go-to machine for MIDI, not Amiga.
If I had time, I'd be interested in how the "wavetable" synthesis performed versus the Amiga's "real" 4-channel, 8-bit sound
OMG - The Amiga's 4 channels are wavetable. Thats the TERM used for the technology, but I am not surprised that you didn't know that. The IIgs has 16 channel 8-bit "real" [SIC] sound, with the ADDITION that each of the 16 channels was stereo-pannable (the Amiga couldn't even do that..)
Since the democrats are the ones that borrowed well over half the money that the federal government owes, its not a very far stretch to blame them for the money we owe, or the mess we are in.
The score over the past 30 years is $7.9 trillion borrowed when the Democrats controlled both House and Senate, and another $3.6 trillion when control was split between Republicans and Democrats, with only $1.7 trillion borrowed when Republicans controlled both House and Senate.
Yes. That is exactly how unbalanced things have been, yet amazingly its those evil Republicans that are "known" to be the most irresponsible. More was borrowed in the first 2 years of Pelosi (House Speaker, Democrat) and Reid (Senate Majority Leader, Democrat) than the Republicans ever borrowed in the entire history of the country.
STOP LISTENING TO WHAT THEY SAY - The Democrats constantly tell us how bad the Republicans are...
START WATCHING WHAT THEY DO - The data is available. Dont listen to what they say. Take a look at what they actually do.
One graph is enough to get you to question things, but you have to take some of the steps yourself (don't listen to what I say either.. the data is available.. you don't need to trust anyones claims)
I understand their perspective and conviction but I think the issue is that they want to do it ALL at once. No compromise
A friend of mine has a nice analogy about compromise.
"Let me stick my dick in your mouth"
"Come on. Let me."
"You should compromise with me. How about just the tip? Can I stick just the tip of my dick in your mouth?"
The point being that when the opposition wants something unacceptable, its always going to be unacceptable. It doesnt magically become acceptable just because its only the tip of his dick.
Wrong. It went down exactly how I said. OS/2 3.0 was doing to be called NT OS/2 until MS and IBM parted ways.
You claim to know the history, but you don't. Windows NT was everything that OS/2 3.0 was intended to be (hardware agnostic, and so forth), because it was in fact OS/2 3.0.
There is no middle class now? Thats not what the Democrats tell me.
The facts are different than your claims. The Democrats keep saying that the middle class is being "eroded", yet the middle class is richer now than they were 30 years ago, with a higher standard of living, greater life expectancy, and so on.
Educate yourself with the software and data-set of a world-renowned socio-economic guru.
Stop listening to what the Democrats say, and start watching what they do. They appeal to your emotions in order to get you to dislike their opposition.. the problem is that the appeals are not honest. You've been told that before and had no trouble ignoring what people said in that case. Do the same for the Democrats. Stop listening and start watching.
I still remember when our OS/2 server was forcefully migrated to NT.
When IBM and Microsoft parted ways on OS/2, IBM took the OS/2 2.x codebase and Microsoft took the OS/2 3.0 code base.
Windows NT was that code base. You simply upgraded to the next version of OS/2 as it was going to be.