The difference here is that nobody can cry fowl when Microsoft makes C# better, so the argument about Microsoft "destroying" JAVA is silly... as if they will "destroy" C#.
Microsoft made Java better for those that used its stack, and got in hot water because of it due to licensing and patent issues. It wasnt because what they did was morally wrong, but instead only because it was legally wrong.
Before Mono, all their language and development tools were based around the Windows operating system.
pssst.. Microsoft didnt begin with Windows (which began in 1985 with Windows 1.0, but you are probably talking about Windows 3.0 since prior to 3, Windows had almost no market share)
I suppose you are going to think they started with MSDOS now... sigh..
Microsoft began with programming languages.. and was the undisputed development king of the first desktops (Apple's, Commodore's, Altair's, Atari's, Tandy's...)
The federal overtime provisions are contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Unless exempt, employees covered by the Act must receive overtime pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek at a rate not less than time and one-half their regular rates of pay.
(emphasis mine)
Where are my rights, here? This doesnt give me ANY rights. This is just a mandate. A restriction on both my employer and on me.
Maybe I want more hours and my employer wants me to work more hours, but he cannot justify overtime pay...
Where are my rights when the terms of my employment are dictated by the government?
Every championed 'Workers Rights' issue is exactly like this. A restriction that prevents me (and my union!) from fully negotiating the terms of my employment with the employer.
The only true 'Workers Rights' issues I know of are, in fact, about unionization. The right to collectively negotiate the terms of employment, but even unions are not exempt from these other bullshit 'Rights'
If the DSLAM is being fed with a 10 Gbit/s fiber line, then no, there won't be any slowdown even if all your DSL neighbors decide to bittorrent at the same time.
You begin with an If.... and then limit the equation to only your neighbors.... and only want to follow the link back to the DSLAM, ignoring the BRAS that many DSLAMS converge on.
To put this as succinctly as possible. The BRAS needs to be able to handle every user of every DSLAM it connects to. We are talking about massive areas of coverage all going to a single point.
Evidence of the problem is that DSL users complain about prime time bandwidth just as much as Cable users. It doesnt mean anything that the bottleneck isnt the DSLAM, which is all you have talked about.
Each channel individually can do up to 42.66 Mbps downstream (U.S. DOCSIS) all on its own. It isnt hard to imagine ALL provider having at least 12 free channels, which equates to 512Mbps of downstream capacity.
This is why its hard to believe the grandparents claim that 9 users downloading at the same time can prevent you from getting your email.
You keep saying "Worker's Rights" but I dont think you actually know what that means.
Restrictions are not Rights. You speak of "treating people with respect" but dont want to let them negotiate the full terms of their own employment. How is that treating anyone with respect? Thats the opposite of respect. Thats completely disrespectful.
You also speak of slave labor, and say its because "we can't really live on our own without a job".. But if you remove jobs from the equation, people still cant live on their own without labor.
A job is just monetized labor. All you have done is state the obvious, but hidden it in such a way that it allows you to appeal to emotion. Heaven forbid people would have to perform labor in order to survive.
Someone who works in a fast food joint is performing less labor than they would have to in a world without society. Hunting is time-consuming, and lets not talk about how much effort is needed to plant, maintain, and harvest enough crops to feed a family. Yet amazingly, that fry cook or cashier in the United States makes more than enough in just a few hours to purchase food for their family for the day.
Sure, they wont be driving around in a shiny new SUV, but think about how much labor is required to build a shiny new SUV. First you must mine the ores... get the picture?
Business is business. If you work hard than you can negotiate better terms than those that don't work hard. Employers are all about the bottom line. You can request more compensation whenever you like, but you will only get it when it makes sense to do so.
All this "works rights" crap is about DEMANDING more compensation regardless of how much sense it makes to receive it, and that my friend, has nothing to do with "rights"
Failsafes are designed to fail.... safe. In other words, if they fail they aren't supposed to work at all.
If a failsafe fails, then it does not do so safely. If its not supposed to work at all, but the rocket launches anyways, thats called a failure of the fail-safes.
DSL proponents like to point out the shared nature of cable, but forget that all internet connections get shared at some point. Its just a question of the location where this first happens.
Cable users are, in practice, experiencing higher bandwidth than DSL users. The assumption from the DSL camp is that sharing closer to home is a downside for the end user, but the evidence seems to suggest otherwise..
Could it be that Cable networks are forced to structure themselves better due to their nature? That the immediate sharing is actually a downside for the provider (cost inefficiency) instead of the end user (service inefficiency?)
In short, doesnt DSL allow the provider to get away with using less equipment, and so they do, and you get less bandwidth because of it?
In 2010 ( thats this year) there are only 1011 billionaires in the world. The very richest person in the world has $53 Billion.
You are claiming that health insurance companies are paying their executives 1 trillions dollars (your 31% figure of the over 2 trillion in health insurance payouts each year).. so over the past decade, they have paid out 10 trillion dollars to their executives.
Lets suppose that there have been 10,000 health insurance executives over the past 10 years. That would have created 10,000 billionaires (with exactly $1 billion) during this period.. but wait.. there are only 1011 billionaires worldwide... fuck.. I guess you are full of shit.
Wow, you refuted exactly nothing in your post, provided 0 evidence, and then went off on me for not providing facts, pure idiocy.
I refuted it before you even said it, in the post you replied to.
FACT: Health Insurance providers pay out over $2 trillion in claims each year. Thats TTTTTrillion. Not BBBBillion, or MMMMillion.
Until you provide numbers that suggest that Health Insurance executives as a whgole get paid 1 trillion dollars each year, all you have is that link... which doesnt even claim that the administrative costs are primarily due to insurance companies.
In fact, the only thing it claims about insurance companies is that THE NUMBERS ARE EASY TO TRACK (which is obvious, since insurance companies are highly regulated, publicly traded, etc.. you can check their financial statements online), but specifically declares that ALL forms of administrative costs are factored in.
PNHP has published a series of peer-reviewed studies over the past 20 years showing a steady increase in health administrative costs.
They do not attribute this to only insurance companies, as I have already said. But lets examine their 31% figure.
Health Insurance Companies pay out over 2 trillion dollars per year. If there is 31% administrative waste, that means that there should be 1 trillion dollars of what should be easily trackable money being blown on their executives. 1 trillion!!!! Are you fucking serious? Are you suggesting that they are able to hide 1 trillion dollars a year in salaries and compensations? Seriously? SERIOUSLY?
Yet amazingly there are only a handful of billionaires worldwide! Seriously!! Are you fucking stupid?
No, you arent stupid. You are dishonest. You just tried to misrepresent the 31% figure in the link you provides as primarily being due to insurance companies, when the link actually states that it ISNT primarily due to insurance companies. All it claims is that the numbers for insurance companies are easy to track! If they are easy to track, then why don't you find some of those numbers and get back to me with.. you know.. FACTS.
What may happen, what AMD would like to see happen, is for GPU functions to become a part of the CPU, that GPUs go away because CPUs can do it. However that'll be because CPUs have GPU like logic in addition to their own.
The problem, as Intel found out with Larrabee, is that a cache that works well for CPU tasks does not work well for GPU tasks, and vise-versa. For a GPU the bandwidth is everything, while for a CPU its the latency that matters most.
Our CPU's L1 caches are 32K/64K in size because smaller caches have significantly smaller latencies than larger ones. Its quite obvious that a 64K cache is way too small for a GPU, which could literally process 64K of data in only a few of its clock cycles.
Intel never could solve the problem. Larrabee could either be a GPU with poor CPU-capabilities, or a multi-core CPU with poor GPU-capabilities.
Maybe in the future... not with todays memory types.
3d is done on the video card, not on the compiler or he VM.
3D may be RENDERED with the video card, but it is not "done on the video card." The CPU in a game still handles most culling, and so forth, using a scene graph.
..and here you are talking specifically about the Quake 2 engine, which all us geeks know, HAD to do a lot of CPU work during rendering when it was released. There was no margin for a lot of over-draw in that era, so the Quake 2 engine is actually dominantly CPU bound, using the GPU only for rasterizing triangles, and only after the CPU performs a lot of work making sure the triangle might be visible.
Linux doesnt even know that my wireless card on my other machine exists. Windows 7 works out of the box.
I'd rather have something that works, with wizards as well, than a single data point of heroism from the linux camp that has to be extremely careful about what hardware they buy, for it may not ever work.
How many executives do you think Aetna has? Apparently its enough for 20% of revenue, and if they all make as much as the CEO (doubtful) that would be Three Hundred And Seventy Eight (378) executives at a minimum. In plain english, your assertions are preposterous goal-post-moving attempts to rationalize a conclusions that you have no evidence for, a conclusion formed out of pure greedy jealousy prior to you doing any research. That currently there is no evidence that ytou ever did any research even after this conclusion was formed.
What was it? Did someone sound like they knew what they were talking about, so you have been repeating it ever since?
Why dont you provide some of those FACTS that your signature talks about? It seems to me that someone who goes out of their way to say shit about facts ahead of ideology, but never seems to ever provide any facts at all (I checked your other postings,) is just covering up for a severe lack of research and critical thinking.
The fundamental maintainability problem with assembly is that there is no type safety. You have pointers (everything can be a pointer!), but there is no type information along with them (everything can be anything!)
This cannot be solved while still being called an 'assembler'... it is certainly possible to use (for instance) MASM in such a way that you have some degree of type safety (or rather, SIZE safety) at load and store points, but once in registers you just dont have that safety, in fact the types are obscured at the structure definitions/etc which are just not going to be anywhere near the code that accesses them.
This is why assembly language is now mainly used for libraries... encryption libraries, compression libraries, bitmap manipulation libraries, FFT's, and so forth.
I am a highly experience assembly language programmer going all the way back to the 8086, but these days I just will not write anything substantial entirely in assembler. Inner loops for sure, but no way will (win)main be in assembler. No chance.
Notice how they dont mention what C compiler was used (or any information at all, actually!), but detail explicitly lots of things about java versions, libs, and vm's.
In Win7 there was an instance where a trouble-shooting wizard helped me out.
Occasionally after boot, my network adapter just wouldnt talk to my router. Windows had a yellow triangle with the exclamation point on the tray icon.
Resetting the adapter (disable/enable cycle from device manager) would solve the problem.
Eventually I gave the trouble-shooting wizard a shot and it would figure out (on its own, no interaction from me) that resetting the adapter was worth a shot and would do so, resolving the problem just as well as I was doing.
Since then either a windows update or driver update solved the problem permanently.
For most people, that wizard would have been their only route online, and it did identify and fix the problem... on its own.
For the record, its an integrated Realtek adapter on an MSI motherboard w/ a 6-core Phenom II, running Win7/64.
You have to remember that for most people, the wizards are better than nothing. Sure, some are really crappy and wont help in 90% of the cases.. but that 10% is still better than 0%.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed.
The difference here is that nobody can cry fowl when Microsoft makes C# better, so the argument about Microsoft "destroying" JAVA is silly... as if they will "destroy" C#.
Microsoft made Java better for those that used its stack, and got in hot water because of it due to licensing and patent issues. It wasnt because what they did was morally wrong, but instead only because it was legally wrong.
Before Mono, all their language and development tools were based around the Windows operating system.
pssst.. Microsoft didnt begin with Windows (which began in 1985 with Windows 1.0, but you are probably talking about Windows 3.0 since prior to 3, Windows had almost no market share)
...)
I suppose you are going to think they started with MSDOS now... sigh..
Microsoft began with programming languages.. and was the undisputed development king of the first desktops (Apple's, Commodore's, Altair's, Atari's, Tandy's
Opera doesnt have a 64-bit binary.. at least for Windows.
...or stop calling light "pollution"
From U.S. Department of Labor..
The federal overtime provisions are contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Unless exempt, employees covered by the Act must receive overtime pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek at a rate not less than time and one-half their regular rates of pay.
(emphasis mine)
Where are my rights, here? This doesnt give me ANY rights. This is just a mandate. A restriction on both my employer and on me.
Maybe I want more hours and my employer wants me to work more hours, but he cannot justify overtime pay...
Where are my rights when the terms of my employment are dictated by the government?
Every championed 'Workers Rights' issue is exactly like this. A restriction that prevents me (and my union!) from fully negotiating the terms of my employment with the employer.
The only true 'Workers Rights' issues I know of are, in fact, about unionization. The right to collectively negotiate the terms of employment, but even unions are not exempt from these other bullshit 'Rights'
If a failsafe fails in a dangerous way, it wasn't really designed properly as a failsafe, or more properly it wasn't really a genuine failsafe.
Which is why you would test the fail-safes.. and sometimes if they are not properly designed.. they will FAIL!!
Now go back and re-read the first post you replied to, and observe that your reply is stupid.
If the DSLAM is being fed with a 10 Gbit/s fiber line, then no, there won't be any slowdown even if all your DSL neighbors decide to bittorrent at the same time.
You begin with an If.... and then limit the equation to only your neighbors.... and only want to follow the link back to the DSLAM, ignoring the BRAS that many DSLAMS converge on.
To put this as succinctly as possible. The BRAS needs to be able to handle every user of every DSLAM it connects to. We are talking about massive areas of coverage all going to a single point.
Evidence of the problem is that DSL users complain about prime time bandwidth just as much as Cable users. It doesnt mean anything that the bottleneck isnt the DSLAM, which is all you have talked about.
Each channel individually can do up to 42.66 Mbps downstream (U.S. DOCSIS) all on its own. It isnt hard to imagine ALL provider having at least 12 free channels, which equates to 512Mbps of downstream capacity.
This is why its hard to believe the grandparents claim that 9 users downloading at the same time can prevent you from getting your email.
You keep saying "Worker's Rights" but I dont think you actually know what that means.
.. But if you remove jobs from the equation, people still cant live on their own without labor.
Restrictions are not Rights. You speak of "treating people with respect" but dont want to let them negotiate the full terms of their own employment. How is that treating anyone with respect? Thats the opposite of respect. Thats completely disrespectful.
You also speak of slave labor, and say its because "we can't really live on our own without a job"
A job is just monetized labor. All you have done is state the obvious, but hidden it in such a way that it allows you to appeal to emotion. Heaven forbid people would have to perform labor in order to survive.
Someone who works in a fast food joint is performing less labor than they would have to in a world without society. Hunting is time-consuming, and lets not talk about how much effort is needed to plant, maintain, and harvest enough crops to feed a family. Yet amazingly, that fry cook or cashier in the United States makes more than enough in just a few hours to purchase food for their family for the day.
Sure, they wont be driving around in a shiny new SUV, but think about how much labor is required to build a shiny new SUV. First you must mine the ores... get the picture?
Business is business. If you work hard than you can negotiate better terms than those that don't work hard. Employers are all about the bottom line. You can request more compensation whenever you like, but you will only get it when it makes sense to do so.
All this "works rights" crap is about DEMANDING more compensation regardless of how much sense it makes to receive it, and that my friend, has nothing to do with "rights"
Failsafes are designed to fail.... safe. In other words, if they fail they aren't supposed to work at all.
If a failsafe fails, then it does not do so safely. If its not supposed to work at all, but the rocket launches anyways, thats called a failure of the fail-safes.
The thing is with cable with 10 people on it, if 9 of them are downloading, fat chance of you checking your email.
Got any citations for this?
You seem to think that if the provider offers 10Mbit, that thats all the cable line will carry, that 2 people downloading only get 5Mbit each..
Wrong.
DSL proponents like to point out the shared nature of cable, but forget that all internet connections get shared at some point. Its just a question of the location where this first happens.
Cable users are, in practice, experiencing higher bandwidth than DSL users. The assumption from the DSL camp is that sharing closer to home is a downside for the end user, but the evidence seems to suggest otherwise..
Could it be that Cable networks are forced to structure themselves better due to their nature? That the immediate sharing is actually a downside for the provider (cost inefficiency) instead of the end user (service inefficiency?)
In short, doesnt DSL allow the provider to get away with using less equipment, and so they do, and you get less bandwidth because of it?
More facts for ya, Mr Dishonest.
.. so over the past decade, they have paid out 10 trillion dollars to their executives.
In 2010 ( thats this year) there are only 1011 billionaires in the world. The very richest person in the world has $53 Billion.
You are claiming that health insurance companies are paying their executives 1 trillions dollars (your 31% figure of the over 2 trillion in health insurance payouts each year)
Lets suppose that there have been 10,000 health insurance executives over the past 10 years. That would have created 10,000 billionaires (with exactly $1 billion) during this period.. but wait.. there are only 1011 billionaires worldwide... fuck.. I guess you are full of shit.
Wow, you refuted exactly nothing in your post, provided 0 evidence, and then went off on me for not providing facts, pure idiocy.
I refuted it before you even said it, in the post you replied to.
FACT: Health Insurance providers pay out over $2 trillion in claims each year. Thats TTTTTrillion. Not BBBBillion, or MMMMillion.
Until you provide numbers that suggest that Health Insurance executives as a whgole get paid 1 trillion dollars each year, all you have is that link... which doesnt even claim that the administrative costs are primarily due to insurance companies.
In fact, the only thing it claims about insurance companies is that THE NUMBERS ARE EASY TO TRACK (which is obvious, since insurance companies are highly regulated, publicly traded, etc.. you can check their financial statements online), but specifically declares that ALL forms of administrative costs are factored in.
PNHP has published a series of peer-reviewed studies over the past 20 years showing a steady increase in health administrative costs.
They do not attribute this to only insurance companies, as I have already said. But lets examine their 31% figure.
Health Insurance Companies pay out over 2 trillion dollars per year. If there is 31% administrative waste, that means that there should be 1 trillion dollars of what should be easily trackable money being blown on their executives. 1 trillion!!!! Are you fucking serious? Are you suggesting that they are able to hide 1 trillion dollars a year in salaries and compensations? Seriously? SERIOUSLY?
Yet amazingly there are only a handful of billionaires worldwide! Seriously!! Are you fucking stupid?
No, you arent stupid. You are dishonest. You just tried to misrepresent the 31% figure in the link you provides as primarily being due to insurance companies, when the link actually states that it ISNT primarily due to insurance companies. All it claims is that the numbers for insurance companies are easy to track! If they are easy to track, then why don't you find some of those numbers and get back to me with.. you know.. FACTS.
Either way, I'm sure its a pain in the ass.
Suppose this was a test of failsafes that, well, failed.....
The original Quake2 would have been compiled with optimizations for the Pentium Pro's and K6's...
..and oh look, for his K6 benchmark, he barely pulls off 50% of the performance of the C binary.
What may happen, what AMD would like to see happen, is for GPU functions to become a part of the CPU, that GPUs go away because CPUs can do it. However that'll be because CPUs have GPU like logic in addition to their own.
The problem, as Intel found out with Larrabee, is that a cache that works well for CPU tasks does not work well for GPU tasks, and vise-versa. For a GPU the bandwidth is everything, while for a CPU its the latency that matters most.
Our CPU's L1 caches are 32K/64K in size because smaller caches have significantly smaller latencies than larger ones. Its quite obvious that a 64K cache is way too small for a GPU, which could literally process 64K of data in only a few of its clock cycles.
Intel never could solve the problem. Larrabee could either be a GPU with poor CPU-capabilities, or a multi-core CPU with poor GPU-capabilities.
Maybe in the future... not with todays memory types.
3d is done on the video card, not on the compiler or he VM.
3D may be RENDERED with the video card, but it is not "done on the video card." The CPU in a game still handles most culling, and so forth, using a scene graph.
..and here you are talking specifically about the Quake 2 engine, which all us geeks know, HAD to do a lot of CPU work during rendering when it was released. There was no margin for a lot of over-draw in that era, so the Quake 2 engine is actually dominantly CPU bound, using the GPU only for rasterizing triangles, and only after the CPU performs a lot of work making sure the triangle might be visible.
Linux doesnt even know that my wireless card on my other machine exists. Windows 7 works out of the box.
I'd rather have something that works, with wizards as well, than a single data point of heroism from the linux camp that has to be extremely careful about what hardware they buy, for it may not ever work.
You sure do like to move the goalpost.
How many executives do you think Aetna has? Apparently its enough for 20% of revenue, and if they all make as much as the CEO (doubtful) that would be Three Hundred And Seventy Eight (378) executives at a minimum. In plain english, your assertions are preposterous goal-post-moving attempts to rationalize a conclusions that you have no evidence for, a conclusion formed out of pure greedy jealousy prior to you doing any research. That currently there is no evidence that ytou ever did any research even after this conclusion was formed.
What was it? Did someone sound like they knew what they were talking about, so you have been repeating it ever since?
Why dont you provide some of those FACTS that your signature talks about? It seems to me that someone who goes out of their way to say shit about facts ahead of ideology, but never seems to ever provide any facts at all (I checked your other postings,) is just covering up for a severe lack of research and critical thinking.
The fundamental maintainability problem with assembly is that there is no type safety. You have pointers (everything can be a pointer!), but there is no type information along with them (everything can be anything!)
... it is certainly possible to use (for instance) MASM in such a way that you have some degree of type safety (or rather, SIZE safety) at load and store points, but once in registers you just dont have that safety, in fact the types are obscured at the structure definitions/etc which are just not going to be anywhere near the code that accesses them.
This cannot be solved while still being called an 'assembler'
This is why assembly language is now mainly used for libraries... encryption libraries, compression libraries, bitmap manipulation libraries, FFT's, and so forth.
I am a highly experience assembly language programmer going all the way back to the 8086, but these days I just will not write anything substantial entirely in assembler. Inner loops for sure, but no way will (win)main be in assembler. No chance.
Notice how they dont mention what C compiler was used (or any information at all, actually!), but detail explicitly lots of things about java versions, libs, and vm's.
Basically... link is worthless stroking..
In Win7 there was an instance where a trouble-shooting wizard helped me out.
Occasionally after boot, my network adapter just wouldnt talk to my router. Windows had a yellow triangle with the exclamation point on the tray icon.
Resetting the adapter (disable/enable cycle from device manager) would solve the problem.
Eventually I gave the trouble-shooting wizard a shot and it would figure out (on its own, no interaction from me) that resetting the adapter was worth a shot and would do so, resolving the problem just as well as I was doing.
Since then either a windows update or driver update solved the problem permanently.
For most people, that wizard would have been their only route online, and it did identify and fix the problem... on its own.
For the record, its an integrated Realtek adapter on an MSI motherboard w/ a 6-core Phenom II, running Win7/64.
You have to remember that for most people, the wizards are better than nothing. Sure, some are really crappy and wont help in 90% of the cases.. but that 10% is still better than 0%.
Here, I did the trivial research for you.
Aetna
2009 Revenue $34 Billion
CEO total compensation $18 Million
Percent of revenue: 0.05
You can save $1 out of each $2000 you spend with Aetna if only they would pay their CEO $0.