You later claim that Democrats avoided having cloture votes. Either they occured or they didn't. Why is your view of whats been happening so inconsistent?
The ordinary state of affairs is for a floor debate on bills to happen and then you must have a majority (51) votes to pass them
Fixed that for you.
The Democrats saying "OK, we're going through the motions and we'll make you vote to end cloture for all of these" would be playing right into their hands
The alternative to allowing filibuster tho, was...
So instead of pointlessly wasting time, they tried to get something else done, but the GOP just kept screaming "no!" and filibustering.
Another inconsistency. Why are you so inconsistent? Even in the same post you can't seem to keep things straight.
Let me explain the ordinary course of events and how the democrats did not follow them. Ordinarily there is a floor debate where compromises are made by both parties in order to get enough votes.
Time and again, the Democrats didn't allow this ordinary course of events to unfold, at all. Not even a single bit. Instead they made back room deals with some republicans, and then they called for cloture votes without any floor debate at all.
The upshot of their strategy was that the bills would only be public knowledge for 1 day (or over a weekend at most if cloture was raised on friday) before vote.
The democrats didn't want the public to even have enough time to read what was being voted on before voting occurred.
That, sir, is what was going on. That, sir, is not "filibustering" but instead "ramming unscrutinized bills through"
The Democrats have convinced you that they were doing it because of those damn Republicans. Fake the fuck up. They were doing it because they wanted to ram shit through, pure and simple.
Better solution - How about Akamai watches where the actual HTTP/FTP request comes from, rather than the DNS?
Because when the request comes, its time to deliver data, not a redirect. The machine that receives that request either delivers its content, or the user experiences gets no content at all.
Remember that Apple (and Hulu/NetFlix/etc) is running the web pages and clients.
Akamai (and other CDN's) is only serving up the large video and music streams. Akamai is not in a position to modify Apples pages or client content, nor would Apple be open to that sort of thing.
Any other system than what they are doing would place demands on Apple/etc to provide 100% assurance that 100% of the clients can redirect/etc (hence, could only work for HTTP, and still not on 100% of HTTP clients either.. so Apple would also have to start white-listing clients before even revealing the akamai link)
Yeah, because every magazine has RSS feeds for articles... oh wait.. nearly all of them don't.
The first Magazine I looked at (Card Player) only has an RSS feed for news items. Most of the articles are only available to subscribers, while the RSS feed only covers stuff available to everyone (essentially.. their in-house blogger crap)
When a cloture vote does not get the mandatory 60+ votes (in the Senate) to end the debate, then thats a filibuster. Nothing short of that is a filibuster.
This has not happened hundreds of times since 2008. That would be an average of once per week, right? Do you even think about this stuff before saying it? Did you really mean to say about once per week since 2008? Really?
A cloture vote is used to end debate on a bill, and if successful that brings the bill itself to a vote.
Not all cloture votes that fail indicate filibusters. Sometimes, as as happened very recently (Don't Ask, Don't Tell), a group of Senators will call for a cloture vote even when there hasnt been any debate at all on the bill yet (or, in fact, have procedures for the vote been agreed upon.)
In these cases it is simply not a filibuster, it is just an attempt to rush through legislation without any debate at all.
The democrats have re-branded this failed rush as filibusters, and thats what you seem to be counting.
Its as if you think that other drives don't suffer the same degradations in 'real world scenarios'
Do you think that there is something magical about SSD's that makes their real world performance degradation significantly worse than other technologies, or is your invokation of unknown magic specific to OCZ?
He is using worse case scenarios for his decision making.
Nothing wrong with that.. but its not realistic to expect the market as a whole to also think that way. The market is more concerned with average case.
None of the SSD's they seem to have tested in your first link were SATA 3.0 (6 Gbps) so obviously they were restricted to less than 300MB/sec....
As far as your second link, since they benchmarking the slowest OCZ card (and showing that the benchmarks agree with the advertised speed), why are you declaring that its making poor use of PCIe x4 given that fact?
Its the slowest card that OCZ offers. Think about it.
Why is it impressive that a smaller solid state drive performs as well as a standard size one? What does the size have to do with anything relating to these performance benchmarks?
The speed of SSD's is linearly correlated with the number of flash chips they contain, because the flash chips are operated in parallel (think RAID0, only its implicit in the design)
Smaller would usually mean less flash chips, so less parallelism.
OCZ has 740MB/s cards for an order of magnitude less (Save $7000 and spend only $650) than than Fusion I/O's offering, and with 50% more capacity too (240GB card)
For cards in the price range you are talking about, OCZ delivers 1400MB/s on its 512GB card.
You do realize that Assange, responding to criticism that he was not redacting confidential information, made a deal with five venerable papers of record in various countries
Wikileaks made the deal. Wikileaks chose the papers. It was therefore Wikileaks deal.
Since we agree that some sensitive information should not be leaked, lets equate that agreed upon no-leak information with YOUR credit card information.
If your credit card company contracts an irresponsible security consultant for maintaining their network security, and then your credit card information leaks all over the internet, are you going to defend the credit card company on these same lines that you are defending Wikileaks?
They went to someone else and well.. its not their responsibility any more?
Also, not a Mac fanboy, but i feel compelled to point out your sig is referring to IE for Mac, which used the Tasman rendering engine, not Trident like the one on windows and was quite impressive in its time, actually.
You are in error. The quote is from Jobs in 1997 (Macintosh IE 3.x) while Tasman wasn't used in any product until 2000 (Macintosh IE 5.x)
Even IE 4.x for the Mac didnt use Tasman, and that was released in 1998.
Based on the language in the order I've read, every argument I've seen so far in the second category is just full of crap. Any real argument against these specific rules should actually quote a rule, and describe in detail how it's wrong.
Why dont you quote the rule that enforces Net Neutrality, instead of trying to get people to bark on command?
(I know that you can't do it without ignoring the wording of the rules)
If this doesnt enforce Net Neutrality, as many are claiming, then what exactly is the end result of passing it?
The end result is that the FCC, who is activily censoring content in the other industries it regulates, is gicen regulatory control over the Internet while simultaneously you do not get Net Neutrality.
it is a way of allowing both sides of a story to be heard so people can make informed judgements.
Your opinion on the matter is idiotic and here is why:
There are more than two sides to a story. You obviously mean when YOUR pet-favorite side of the story isnt represented, then 'the other side' should be represented (Should segregationists get equal air time by mandate? How about Anarchists? Do they get equal air time by mandate? What about Furry Fetishists? Pedophiles?)
Meanwhile Fox is delivering what its viewers desire to continue watching (profit motive.. their product is the viewers who they sell to the advertisers), rather than what some special interest wants them to see (control of information motive... they dont have a product, just an agenda)
You and the rest of the supporters of the fairness doctrine are far more evil than Fox will ever be.
The government should stay out of content control. Period and End Of Story.
That's his point, they can control what we do. If we hack their hardware to run better with simple software solutions then they'll just redesign the hardware so there's a physical restriction on how well the card will perform.
Why presume that these hacks arent just a profit-motived feature?
What incentive do they have not to do things like they are now? or more to the point, if they did "permanent" disabling, what would be their incentive not to change to a disable method with an easy workaround?
I think that you people are forgetting your history. Both AMD and Intel used to always do real physical disabling. Now they don't always do that.
Slashdot Mirror
When the Senate Republicans all vote as a bloc
You later claim that Democrats avoided having cloture votes. Either they occured or they didn't. Why is your view of whats been happening so inconsistent?
The ordinary state of affairs is for a floor debate on bills to happen and then you must have a majority (51) votes to pass them
Fixed that for you.
The Democrats saying "OK, we're going through the motions and we'll make you vote to end cloture for all of these" would be playing right into their hands
The alternative to allowing filibuster tho, was...
So instead of pointlessly wasting time, they tried to get something else done, but the GOP just kept screaming "no!" and filibustering.
Another inconsistency. Why are you so inconsistent? Even in the same post you can't seem to keep things straight.
Let me explain the ordinary course of events and how the democrats did not follow them. Ordinarily there is a floor debate where compromises are made by both parties in order to get enough votes.
Time and again, the Democrats didn't allow this ordinary course of events to unfold, at all. Not even a single bit. Instead they made back room deals with some republicans, and then they called for cloture votes without any floor debate at all.
The upshot of their strategy was that the bills would only be public knowledge for 1 day (or over a weekend at most if cloture was raised on friday) before vote.
The democrats didn't want the public to even have enough time to read what was being voted on before voting occurred.
That, sir, is what was going on. That, sir, is not "filibustering" but instead "ramming unscrutinized bills through"
The Democrats have convinced you that they were doing it because of those damn Republicans. Fake the fuck up. They were doing it because they wanted to ram shit through, pure and simple.
Better solution - How about Akamai watches where the actual HTTP/FTP request comes from, rather than the DNS?
Because when the request comes, its time to deliver data, not a redirect. The machine that receives that request either delivers its content, or the user experiences gets no content at all.
.. so Apple would also have to start white-listing clients before even revealing the akamai link)
Remember that Apple (and Hulu/NetFlix/etc) is running the web pages and clients.
Akamai (and other CDN's) is only serving up the large video and music streams. Akamai is not in a position to modify Apples pages or client content, nor would Apple be open to that sort of thing.
Any other system than what they are doing would place demands on Apple/etc to provide 100% assurance that 100% of the clients can redirect/etc (hence, could only work for HTTP, and still not on 100% of HTTP clients either
Yeah, because every magazine has RSS feeds for articles... oh wait.. nearly all of them don't.
The first Magazine I looked at (Card Player) only has an RSS feed for news items. Most of the articles are only available to subscribers, while the RSS feed only covers stuff available to everyone (essentially.. their in-house blogger crap)
Well over a hundred times.
When a cloture vote does not get the mandatory 60+ votes (in the Senate) to end the debate, then thats a filibuster. Nothing short of that is a filibuster.
This has not happened hundreds of times since 2008. That would be an average of once per week, right? Do you even think about this stuff before saying it? Did you really mean to say about once per week since 2008? Really?
A cloture vote is used to end debate on a bill, and if successful that brings the bill itself to a vote.
Not all cloture votes that fail indicate filibusters. Sometimes, as as happened very recently (Don't Ask, Don't Tell), a group of Senators will call for a cloture vote even when there hasnt been any debate at all on the bill yet (or, in fact, have procedures for the vote been agreed upon.)
In these cases it is simply not a filibuster, it is just an attempt to rush through legislation without any debate at all.
The democrats have re-branded this failed rush as filibusters, and thats what you seem to be counting.
Do you know what a filibuster actually is? Its when a party successfully prevents a cloture vote.
Guess how many times that has happened since 2008.
They actually have gotten better, and they continue to get better.
Better according to who?"
Maybe the tax payers would like to have a word with you.
I think the idea is that magazine-hulu would deliver a queue of new articles from magazines the user subscribes to.
Its the reason I use hulu. It queues up new episodes of shows I subscribe to.
Whats with this 'real world usage scenario' crap?
Its as if you think that other drives don't suffer the same degradations in 'real world scenarios'
Do you think that there is something magical about SSD's that makes their real world performance degradation significantly worse than other technologies, or is your invokation of unknown magic specific to OCZ?
SSD's dont use much power, so cooling isnt an issue.
He is using worse case scenarios for his decision making.
Nothing wrong with that.. but its not realistic to expect the market as a whole to also think that way. The market is more concerned with average case.
Also to claim amazon or google or whoever has some kind of monopoly is ridiculous.
Its too late. This kind of monopoly is now defined as such as a matter of law in America.
Shouldn't have hatred Microsoft so much, I guess.
None of the SSD's they seem to have tested in your first link were SATA 3.0 (6 Gbps) so obviously they were restricted to less than 300MB/sec....
As far as your second link, since they benchmarking the slowest OCZ card (and showing that the benchmarks agree with the advertised speed), why are you declaring that its making poor use of PCIe x4 given that fact?
Its the slowest card that OCZ offers. Think about it.
Don't be so dishonest with your presentation.
Why is it impressive that a smaller solid state drive performs as well as a standard size one? What does the size have to do with anything relating to these performance benchmarks?
The speed of SSD's is linearly correlated with the number of flash chips they contain, because the flash chips are operated in parallel (think RAID0, only its implicit in the design)
Smaller would usually mean less flash chips, so less parallelism.
This goes back to DOS for christ sakes.
OCZ has 740MB/s cards for an order of magnitude less (Save $7000 and spend only $650) than than Fusion I/O's offering, and with 50% more capacity too (240GB card)
For cards in the price range you are talking about, OCZ delivers 1400MB/s on its 512GB card.
You seem to be less informed than you realize.
SATA 1.0 (1.5 Gb/s) can't keep up with any modern SSD
SATA 2.0 (3.0 Gb/s) is currently keeping the industry down.
SATA 3.0 (6.0 Gb/s) isnt widely adopted yet, but even when its finally popular enough that too will just keep the industry down.
SATA-IO should be ashamed of itself for implementing 3.0 with such bullshit specs given the obvious reality of the situation.
Thats why many people want PCIe to become a standard interface for SSD's. That wont happen until low cost/capacity SSD's use it.
You do realize that Assange, responding to criticism that he was not redacting confidential information, made a deal with five venerable papers of record in various countries
Wikileaks made the deal. Wikileaks chose the papers. It was therefore Wikileaks deal.
Since we agree that some sensitive information should not be leaked, lets equate that agreed upon no-leak information with YOUR credit card information.
If your credit card company contracts an irresponsible security consultant for maintaining their network security, and then your credit card information leaks all over the internet, are you going to defend the credit card company on these same lines that you are defending Wikileaks?
They went to someone else and well.. its not their responsibility any more?
How did the author of AppleWin get the right to redistribute the Apple IIe's copyrighted ROM?
I don't think that Microsoft protects this copyright.
(What... you didn't know?)
Procedural languages turn into a spaghetti mess.
Then what of OOP? When you get right down to it, OOP is just procedural with a heavy amount of implicit data indirection.
..and don't even get started on the more complex OOP stuff like polymorphism, because thats spaghetti 3.0.
The original BASIC's were spaghetti 1.0 while anything fully OOP is spaghetti 2.0
SO claim the prize, son. Claim the prize.
Its not honest, equitable, or balanced to only quote the first sentence.
Also, not a Mac fanboy, but i feel compelled to point out your sig is referring to IE for Mac, which used the Tasman rendering engine, not Trident like the one on windows and was quite impressive in its time, actually.
You are in error. The quote is from Jobs in 1997 (Macintosh IE 3.x) while Tasman wasn't used in any product until 2000 (Macintosh IE 5.x)
Even IE 4.x for the Mac didnt use Tasman, and that was released in 1998.
Based on the language in the order I've read, every argument I've seen so far in the second category is just full of crap. Any real argument against these specific rules should actually quote a rule, and describe in detail how it's wrong.
Why dont you quote the rule that enforces Net Neutrality, instead of trying to get people to bark on command?
(I know that you can't do it without ignoring the wording of the rules)
If this doesnt enforce Net Neutrality, as many are claiming, then what exactly is the end result of passing it?
The end result is that the FCC, who is activily censoring content in the other industries it regulates, is gicen regulatory control over the Internet while simultaneously you do not get Net Neutrality.
Wake the fuck up. You are sleeping.
it is a way of allowing both sides of a story to be heard so people can make informed judgements.
Your opinion on the matter is idiotic and here is why:
There are more than two sides to a story. You obviously mean when YOUR pet-favorite side of the story isnt represented, then 'the other side' should be represented (Should segregationists get equal air time by mandate? How about Anarchists? Do they get equal air time by mandate? What about Furry Fetishists? Pedophiles?)
Meanwhile Fox is delivering what its viewers desire to continue watching (profit motive.. their product is the viewers who they sell to the advertisers), rather than what some special interest wants them to see (control of information motive... they dont have a product, just an agenda)
You and the rest of the supporters of the fairness doctrine are far more evil than Fox will ever be.
The government should stay out of content control. Period and End Of Story.
That's his point, they can control what we do. If we hack their hardware to run better with simple software solutions then they'll just redesign the hardware so there's a physical restriction on how well the card will perform.
Why presume that these hacks arent just a profit-motived feature?
What incentive do they have not to do things like they are now? or more to the point, if they did "permanent" disabling, what would be their incentive not to change to a disable method with an easy workaround?
I think that you people are forgetting your history. Both AMD and Intel used to always do real physical disabling. Now they don't always do that.