No he didn't. He didn't say "I think" or "I believe" or "The way I see it"
He claimed specifically that the conservatives are equating or selling net neutrality as equivalent to the fairness doctrine, and then even asked why that is.
The only clue that it is an opinion is that it isnt based in the reality that I have been observing... more specifically, that he is either completely full of shit living in a fantasy world that bares no resemblance to reality, or that I have missed some rare pundit interview that he is basing his claim upon.
As for the rest of your post... you are obviously so emotionally involved with your own ideology that you feel that you have to defend anyone that attacks its opponents, even if the person making said attack isnt basing any of his claims in an actual demonstrable reality.
(and the reason I don't switch is because where I am the competitors fastest speeds aren't even close to as good as Comcast's slowest)
This suggests that Comcast is doing something right.
I'm not a fan of Comcast at all. Didn't like it when I heard they were playing man-in-the-middle and dropping Bittorrent traffic, certainly didn't like it when they started buying up content producers, and absolutely did not like their laughable attempt to re-define themselves as a peer with their ISP (Level 3.) That being said, Comcasts service seems to be equal or better than most providers at this time.
They just dont seem to be that far out of line in the grand scheme of things if their service is better than the competition in your area. The real question is, why is the competition so much worse? Perhaps there you can find some fruit for regulatory justification.
That said, the FCC *is* the Federal Communications Commission, so I'm a bit confused about how the internet would not fall under its purview just by definition.
You say "by definition" but are only talking about "title."
"Federal Communications Commission" is a title, not a charter. Did you know that you can actually look up their charter, as defined by law? That, BY DEFINITION, defines what is and is not under their purview.
Well Google certainly doesnt want the FCC to start regulating the internet.
First these rules are applied to providers, but eventually to all services by the very same reasoning. If your provider cannot discriminate content, then it stands to reason that neither can Google.. that Google cannot (for example) selectively discriminate against "low quality" sites (link farms, duplicators, etc..) in its search results.
A simple honest question fore the pro-regulators. Which ISP right now at this very moment needs to be regulated by the FCC, and precisely which regional market are they a monopoly in that justifies your thinking?
There wont be an AM4 processor until DDR4 is ratified and available, and if AMD is true to their history then AM4 processors will have an additional DDR3 memory controller so that they will work in AM3+ boards.
They probably see the SATA 3.0 market as currently too small, such that OCZ can not become so dominant so as to prevent Intel from successfully entering it later.
Sure, I can get 3TB for $100, but for $170 I can get a very high performance SSD that is large enough (90GB) for my needs.
Why do all my computers need terabytes of storage? Thats right.. they don't. I only need large storage on shared network media. My computers need high performance storage, not stupid amounts of extra GB's.
When one use a lnked list, one usually does not need to know its size frequently. Therefore counting the number of element is pretty much redundant and a performance hog in most application.
The implementation is a doubly linked list. Setting a backwards pointer on every element is pretty much redundant and a performance hog in most applications, that only iterate forwards.
Here we are talking about wasting one more machine word per list for performance reasons, in a structure that wastes two machine words per list element for performance reasons.
size() should not be a member of std::list at all if the O(n) crowd is to be listened to, for its inclusion is then only a trap to be fallen into.
I call heavy-OOP usage "object spaghetti".. a nest of objects with hard to follow references to other objects. Answering simple questions such as "Does Foo() cause Bar() to be invoked?" becomes non-trivial.
OOP is good for the frameworks that complex applications leverage, but not so good otherwise. OOP for the sake of OOP is dumb.
Even the best single SSDs come close to 2.5 Gbit, so to really justify Thunderbolt, you'd have to do RAID.
On SATA, SSD's have rapidly consumed whatever bandwidth is available. Before SATA 3.0, SSD's banged their head on SATA 2.0 limits, and now that SATA 3.0 is becoming widespread a new generation of SSD's is now starting to bang its head on SATA 3.0 limits.
This is not because SSD technology is getting faster. It is because the interface is getting faster. SSD technology is embarrassingly parallel and can easily go faster.
Make a faster "just plug it in" interface and SSD's will consume it. Some SSD companies have made their own custom interfaces for this very purpose, such as OCZ's HSDL.
tl;dr - You have screwed up cause and effect in your SSD example, proving that you are shouting from someone elses lawn right now.
"The difference between microeconomics and macroeconomics is that microeconomics is wrong about specific things, and macroeconomics is wrong about things in general." -Yoram Bauman
Seriously.. removing the fixed function pipeline is not evidence of the design goals of the hardware. The hardware is still first and foremost designed to be able to rasterize triangles quickly. The fact that this has become "programmable" is also not evidence of the design goals of the hardware, which is still to perform optimally at DirectX rendering. Its not designed to be optimal at anything else.
If you think different, then explain the poor performance at branching. Oh, thats right.. rendering triangles doesnt require much branching. If you still think different, then explain the extremely poor cache latency... oh, thats right.. rendering triangles doesnt require low latency memory operations.. Funny how the needs of rasterization has defined the performance of the chips, yet you deny that this is the case.
These people believe that when the ancient romans were having lots of same-sex sex, that it "wasn't their choice." Apparently an entire culture spontaneously became homosexual and it wasn't of their free will to do so.
Do you have any proof that sexuality of any sort is a "preference"?
..so pedophiles dont have a choice?
I wonder if when discussing pedophilia that you are so "open minded", or if on the other hand, you say things like "they should be castrated" and "lock them up in pound-em-in-the-ass prison" Sexual preference (aka simple attraction) does not define sexual behavior. Someone who goes both ways is bi-sexual, even if they "prefer" one sex over the other.
This "homosexual" word defines behavior, not preference.. ..just like "pedophile" defines behavior, not preference.
The very concept flies in the face of generally accepted science
...that people should decide things like this for themselves? According to you, that is against generally accepted science! Really? Did you even read what the person said that you replied to?
You know whats worse than someone who hates homosexuals? Someone that can justify the closed-minded bullshit like you are spitting.. for there is no end in sight for your spitting, because you think its 'right' to lump an entire class of people together.
If you are gay, just be fucking gay. Don't tell other people why they are gay. Don't try to claim that science tells other gay people why they are the exact same gay as you. I got a clue for you.. it doesnt fucking do that.
Your comments about exposing the functionality were correct a few generations of the hardware ago. They're no longer true as the programming model exposed by CUDA isn't tied to rasterisation at all.
It isnt a fixed-function pipeline anymore, but the hardware is still tailored to the needs high performance rasterization rather than high performance computation. The market is looking for good DirtectX performance, and if it doesnt have that then NOBODY BUYS THE GPU. So here we are, locked into the demands of rasterization even if the FFP was eliminated a few generations ago. Its moot that the hardware is more programmable.. its still at its core hardware designed only for high performance rasterization.
As for video, why can't you generate that into a texture and draw it as a quad?
Textures arent any different than frame buffers when you get right down to it. You still need to lock its buffer/etc.
But in all honesty, the bus is so slow that you never want to write individual pixels over it anyways.... once you have settled on shuttling millions of bytes at a time over the bus for efficiency reasons, then it really doesnt matter what the boiler plate is surrounding that operation is... aggregated over all those pixels the overhead can only be minimal.
I think AMD's point tho is that something like DirectX enforces the rasterization paradigm when the hardware could be so much more if it wasnt forced to offer good performance for that specific API.
We are at the point now where the number of computations per second performed by todays GPU hardware should be enough to handle realtime raytracing.. nothing spectacular yet in the secondary ray department.. maybe just a few secondary rays per pixel.. interesting/unique stuff. But the hardware simply doesnt expose the functionality in a way that allows the leveraging of its horsepower in that way effectively, and that could in fact be blamed on DirectX bring the only API that matters. What if the hardware could be designed differently so that fill rate (as an example.. lots of triangles leading to lots of overdraw requires lots of fill rate) wasnt as important?
So why are credit card fees still anywhere from 2% on up (borne by sellers)?
You aren't factoring in the real costs of the service which is when the credit card companies don't get paid what is owed to them, where they end up selling the debt at a large discount to a collection agency.
Nearly 1.3 million bankruptcies were closed in 2009 alone, with only ~40,000 of them being by businesses. You can imagine that these weren't by people that owed an average of only $100. Its more like an average of $10,000+. Billion of dollars don't get paid back to credit card companies each year.
Not all ISP's are in the business of primarily delivering television. AT&T as a single example is still primarily in the business of delivering telephone service, and I would wager about even money that their DSL subscribers outnumber their television subscribers by at least 2 to 1. Most homes have 2 copper lines running into them.. the cable line and the telephone line.
Furthermore, bandwidth demands such as those presented by Netflix are a fixed target. Netflix can ramp up quality to 1080P and then thats pretty much it. Bandwidth gets cheaper and cheaper with no real end in sight, while the costs of obtaining content for television just isnt following the same economics (its going up.)
The market is likely going to move to their being multiple Mega-Netflix style services owned by the content producers themselves on a consortium as the primary video delivery method used by people. Instead of $30 broadband + $10 netflix, it will be more like $15 broadband + $30 megaflix. The broadband provider is going to go along with this because its damn near pure profit in the future.
Indeed. Rebuilding a 2TB RAID takes a very long time as it is. It is so long that it isnt unheard of to lose a second disk during the rebuild, destroying the 99.999% uptime that RAID was supposed to secure for you.
I dont understand the infatuation with large drive raiding. Its much more sane to use 500GB drives.. just use more of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? He offered his opinion.
No he didn't. He didn't say "I think" or "I believe" or "The way I see it"
He claimed specifically that the conservatives are equating or selling net neutrality as equivalent to the fairness doctrine, and then even asked why that is.
The only clue that it is an opinion is that it isnt based in the reality that I have been observing... more specifically, that he is either completely full of shit living in a fantasy world that bares no resemblance to reality, or that I have missed some rare pundit interview that he is basing his claim upon.
As for the rest of your post... you are obviously so emotionally involved with your own ideology that you feel that you have to defend anyone that attacks its opponents, even if the person making said attack isnt basing any of his claims in an actual demonstrable reality.
(and the reason I don't switch is because where I am the competitors fastest speeds aren't even close to as good as Comcast's slowest)
This suggests that Comcast is doing something right.
I'm not a fan of Comcast at all. Didn't like it when I heard they were playing man-in-the-middle and dropping Bittorrent traffic, certainly didn't like it when they started buying up content producers, and absolutely did not like their laughable attempt to re-define themselves as a peer with their ISP (Level 3.) That being said, Comcasts service seems to be equal or better than most providers at this time.
They just dont seem to be that far out of line in the grand scheme of things if their service is better than the competition in your area. The real question is, why is the competition so much worse? Perhaps there you can find some fruit for regulatory justification.
That said, the FCC *is* the Federal Communications Commission, so I'm a bit confused about how the internet would not fall under its purview just by definition.
You say "by definition" but are only talking about "title."
"Federal Communications Commission" is a title, not a charter. Did you know that you can actually look up their charter, as defined by law? That, BY DEFINITION, defines what is and is not under their purview.
Well Google certainly doesnt want the FCC to start regulating the internet.
First these rules are applied to providers, but eventually to all services by the very same reasoning. If your provider cannot discriminate content, then it stands to reason that neither can Google.. that Google cannot (for example) selectively discriminate against "low quality" sites (link farms, duplicators, etc..) in its search results.
A simple honest question fore the pro-regulators. Which ISP right now at this very moment needs to be regulated by the FCC, and precisely which regional market are they a monopoly in that justifies your thinking?
For some reason, conservatives are equating or selling net neutrality as equivalent to the fairness doctrine.
Citation please. If you cannot provide one, then what does that make you?
There wont be an AM4 processor until DDR4 is ratified and available, and if AMD is true to their history then AM4 processors will have an additional DDR3 memory controller so that they will work in AM3+ boards.
With LCD's, the backlight is always on regardless of what is on screen.
They probably see the SATA 3.0 market as currently too small, such that OCZ can not become so dominant so as to prevent Intel from successfully entering it later.
The $/GB metric is often irrelevant.
Sure, I can get 3TB for $100, but for $170 I can get a very high performance SSD that is large enough (90GB) for my needs.
Why do all my computers need terabytes of storage? Thats right.. they don't. I only need large storage on shared network media. My computers need high performance storage, not stupid amounts of extra GB's.
When one use a lnked list, one usually does not need to know its size frequently. Therefore counting the number of element is pretty much redundant and a performance hog in most application.
The implementation is a doubly linked list. Setting a backwards pointer on every element is pretty much redundant and a performance hog in most applications, that only iterate forwards.
Here we are talking about wasting one more machine word per list for performance reasons, in a structure that wastes two machine words per list element for performance reasons.
size() should not be a member of std::list at all if the O(n) crowd is to be listened to, for its inclusion is then only a trap to be fallen into.
I call heavy-OOP usage "object spaghetti" .. a nest of objects with hard to follow references to other objects. Answering simple questions such as "Does Foo() cause Bar() to be invoked?" becomes non-trivial.
OOP is good for the frameworks that complex applications leverage, but not so good otherwise. OOP for the sake of OOP is dumb.
Even the best single SSDs come close to 2.5 Gbit, so to really justify Thunderbolt, you'd have to do RAID.
On SATA, SSD's have rapidly consumed whatever bandwidth is available. Before SATA 3.0, SSD's banged their head on SATA 2.0 limits, and now that SATA 3.0 is becoming widespread a new generation of SSD's is now starting to bang its head on SATA 3.0 limits.
This is not because SSD technology is getting faster. It is because the interface is getting faster. SSD technology is embarrassingly parallel and can easily go faster.
Make a faster "just plug it in" interface and SSD's will consume it. Some SSD companies have made their own custom interfaces for this very purpose, such as OCZ's HSDL.
tl;dr - You have screwed up cause and effect in your SSD example, proving that you are shouting from someone elses lawn right now.
So a publisher can send your book directly to the public domain by simply declining to continue printing it? Really?
Disclaimer: can’t read the article (filtered)
Ironic.
"The difference between microeconomics and macroeconomics is that microeconomics is wrong about specific things, and macroeconomics is wrong about things in general." -Yoram Bauman
Seriously.. removing the fixed function pipeline is not evidence of the design goals of the hardware. The hardware is still first and foremost designed to be able to rasterize triangles quickly. The fact that this has become "programmable" is also not evidence of the design goals of the hardware, which is still to perform optimally at DirectX rendering. Its not designed to be optimal at anything else.
If you think different, then explain the poor performance at branching. Oh, thats right.. rendering triangles doesnt require much branching. If you still think different, then explain the extremely poor cache latency... oh, thats right.. rendering triangles doesnt require low latency memory operations.. Funny how the needs of rasterization has defined the performance of the chips, yet you deny that this is the case.
These people believe that when the ancient romans were having lots of same-sex sex, that it "wasn't their choice." Apparently an entire culture spontaneously became homosexual and it wasn't of their free will to do so.
Do you have any proof that sexuality of any sort is a "preference"?
I wonder if when discussing pedophilia that you are so "open minded", or if on the other hand, you say things like "they should be castrated" and "lock them up in pound-em-in-the-ass prison" Sexual preference (aka simple attraction) does not define sexual behavior. Someone who goes both ways is bi-sexual, even if they "prefer" one sex over the other.
This "homosexual" word defines behavior, not preference..
The very concept flies in the face of generally accepted science
You know whats worse than someone who hates homosexuals? Someone that can justify the closed-minded bullshit like you are spitting.. for there is no end in sight for your spitting, because you think its 'right' to lump an entire class of people together.
If you are gay, just be fucking gay. Don't tell other people why they are gay. Don't try to claim that science tells other gay people why they are the exact same gay as you. I got a clue for you.. it doesnt fucking do that.
Your comments about exposing the functionality were correct a few generations of the hardware ago. They're no longer true as the programming model exposed by CUDA isn't tied to rasterisation at all.
It isnt a fixed-function pipeline anymore, but the hardware is still tailored to the needs high performance rasterization rather than high performance computation. The market is looking for good DirtectX performance, and if it doesnt have that then NOBODY BUYS THE GPU. So here we are, locked into the demands of rasterization even if the FFP was eliminated a few generations ago. Its moot that the hardware is more programmable.. its still at its core hardware designed only for high performance rasterization.
As for video, why can't you generate that into a texture and draw it as a quad?
Textures arent any different than frame buffers when you get right down to it. You still need to lock its buffer/etc.
But in all honesty, the bus is so slow that you never want to write individual pixels over it anyways.... once you have settled on shuttling millions of bytes at a time over the bus for efficiency reasons, then it really doesnt matter what the boiler plate is surrounding that operation is... aggregated over all those pixels the overhead can only be minimal.
I think AMD's point tho is that something like DirectX enforces the rasterization paradigm when the hardware could be so much more if it wasnt forced to offer good performance for that specific API.
We are at the point now where the number of computations per second performed by todays GPU hardware should be enough to handle realtime raytracing.. nothing spectacular yet in the secondary ray department.. maybe just a few secondary rays per pixel.. interesting/unique stuff. But the hardware simply doesnt expose the functionality in a way that allows the leveraging of its horsepower in that way effectively, and that could in fact be blamed on DirectX bring the only API that matters. What if the hardware could be designed differently so that fill rate (as an example.. lots of triangles leading to lots of overdraw requires lots of fill rate) wasnt as important?
So why are credit card fees still anywhere from 2% on up (borne by sellers)?
You aren't factoring in the real costs of the service which is when the credit card companies don't get paid what is owed to them, where they end up selling the debt at a large discount to a collection agency.
Nearly 1.3 million bankruptcies were closed in 2009 alone, with only ~40,000 of them being by businesses. You can imagine that these weren't by people that owed an average of only $100. Its more like an average of $10,000+. Billion of dollars don't get paid back to credit card companies each year.
Not all ISP's are in the business of primarily delivering television. AT&T as a single example is still primarily in the business of delivering telephone service, and I would wager about even money that their DSL subscribers outnumber their television subscribers by at least 2 to 1. Most homes have 2 copper lines running into them.. the cable line and the telephone line.
Furthermore, bandwidth demands such as those presented by Netflix are a fixed target. Netflix can ramp up quality to 1080P and then thats pretty much it. Bandwidth gets cheaper and cheaper with no real end in sight, while the costs of obtaining content for television just isnt following the same economics (its going up.)
The market is likely going to move to their being multiple Mega-Netflix style services owned by the content producers themselves on a consortium as the primary video delivery method used by people. Instead of $30 broadband + $10 netflix, it will be more like $15 broadband + $30 megaflix. The broadband provider is going to go along with this because its damn near pure profit in the future.
Indeed. Rebuilding a 2TB RAID takes a very long time as it is. It is so long that it isnt unheard of to lose a second disk during the rebuild, destroying the 99.999% uptime that RAID was supposed to secure for you.
I dont understand the infatuation with large drive raiding. Its much more sane to use 500GB drives.. just use more of them.