These are people that struck a deal with Canada so that they get a percentage of all sales of blank media in the country. Prior to this deal, they got nothing. They created a whole new revenue stream out of nothing more than saying how piracy was hurting them and that this was the only solution.
So much for thinking they can end piracy, right? They lobbied that they couldn't, and are now getting paid on that belief.
3 years? Is that much? My 80GB IDE disk is still chugging along just fine after 8 years.
Well, if they all last at least 8 years, then why isnt there an 8 year warranty?
I have old HD's as well that still work. I've also tossed more than I retain because they failed. You were modded insightful but you werent insightful at all. You were trying to extrapolate from a small sample of anecdotal evidence.
I think the actual paranoid argument is that the auto makers buy up the patents for better designs.
The complainer often does not know that patents are public record, and when I inform them of this, they often do not want to talk about it any more until they can "search for these patents" because "they must be there."
I'm using Ubuntu 10.4 on an old Dell and big copies don't seem to slow it down any more than I'd expect on an old machine
Your expectations are screwed up. A copy of any size should not impair the responsiveness of the system. Even for very old systems (80386), the CPU is so much faster than the hard drive that the amount of CPU cycles consumed by a copy process should be well within a rounding error that will show 0% usage. If this is not the case, then something is wrong with either the scheduler or the copy algorithm.
Its not that simple. The fact is that for the most part, there arent that many more users watching. If I catch an episode of Its Always Sunny In Philadelphia on TV/DVR, I'm probably not going to also watch that same episode on Hulu, or ComedyCentral.com, or even via a Torrent. On the other hand, if I catch it on Hulu, I'm probably not going to watch it on TV/DVR.
So for the providers, its about steering people towards the source that is most profitable to them, with the other sources primarily simply there to catch the few people that cant watch it via that most-profitable medium.
Wikipedia says the 8086 can address 1024k. So the 640 limit was a Microsoft decision, not a hardware limitation.
A fool and his wikipedia soon open their mouths and announce how ignorant they are on the internet.
The 640K limit was imposed by hardware manufacturers that mapped BIOS to addresses above 0xA0000. For instance the VGA graphics mode video memory was mapped to 0xA0000 and was 64K in size, followed by 32K of BIOS code, followed by another video buffer for text mode starting at 0xB8000 which was 8K in size, followed by 8K more of bios code.
Now, if we want to get really pedantic, you couldnt even use all of the space below 0xA0000 because at 0x00000 sat the 1K interrupt vector table.
Still further, DOS did allow allocating memory above 0xA0000 if no BIOS was mapped into it (although typically this memory was instead used for EMS paging to allow addressing many megabytes of memory)
And finally, Bill Gates never said "640K ought to be enough for anybody" (do you need a citation, or would your precious wikipedia be enough for you?)
You are correct. There are quite a few algorithm fields where papers use 'standardized' problems to compare their results to other methods, but those problems contain only extremely simplified and extremely degenerate cases, rather than practical use cases.
In the case of things like Genetic Algorithms, the simplified problem is often the "One Max" problem and the hard problem is the degenerate "Trap" problem (where the next-best solutions are all maximally far away in state space.)
In the theoretical the research which tackles these standardized problems are interesting, but in applied usage the user doesnt really care at all about those standardized cases because they don't even remotely resemble the problem they are solving.
So while reading the article, all I can think is "its great for 'denoising, image blending and segmentation'" but continue to wonder what practical use this will have that I could leverage for solving problems that I might encounter. Will I one day be combing over their paper in order to implement it, or will I be skipping over their paper because someone else actually generalized it? (ie, like I skipped over Compact Genetic Algorithms w/Tournament Selection and went straight to Extended Compact Genetic Algorithms)
Considering the enormous travel time, and thus the enormous distance, and that radiant power is what, quartered every time you double the distance, I'm just amazed we get any photons at all from there.
It doesnt take all that many doublings to reach the end of the universe.
The difference between 8 light minutes (distance to the sun) and 12.1 billion light years only is 49.56 doublings.
So now not only do I have to contend with end users changing default packages on distros, I also have to contend with the source code they are using not even being 100% mine, also with possibly hacked up header files (to solve someone elses problem), and link against who-knows-what libraries, etc.. etc..?
Still further, I would then have to provide support so that your grandmother could successfully compile it. Oh, did you expect me to stick it on your distros repository, and thus give the program away for free? Thanks but no thanks.
Now you know why professional developers dont make things like Linux games. Your response to shortcomings that generates fragmentation is to ask for source code, rather that deal with the actual issue.
The problem from a commercial standpoint is that a binary for one distro just doesnt work on another, and even within the same distro there are frequent compatibility breaks between versions.
Add to this the plethora of windowing managers, audio stacks, and so on that the users themselves can go ahead and replace. It is at this point that you realize that you've gone well past the line where fragmentation is a valid criticism.
Nobody can point to some specific spot in the sand and say "thats where fragmentation begins".. but what we can do is point at a specific spot and say "thats definitely on the wrong side"
I use both Ubuntu and Windows. I only develop for Windows.
It shouldn't unless they are violating their stated principles. Of course, they ARE violating their stated principles at least a little bit (google's updater hard to disable/etc) but this is the first I have heard of them hijacking the default browser.
The thing is, even if there was such a thing, there is still the issue of verifying that all of the code installed on the device (including OS, Rom's, etc..) during the election is actually the result of a fair and honest compile of said source code, and then further than the hardware itself (cpu, etc..) is actually vanilla specification.
I'm not sure how you go about verifying any of that in a satisfactory manner. Even if you did shit like making sure the CPU's were acquired with a randomized off-the-shelf method, you still have to later verify that those same CPU's were the ones installed on election day, and so forth. For software authentication, do you trust all the people that do the authentication?
Its no-win. The safest way to do things is with physical ballots, hand counting, and as many eyes as possible on the entire process from start to finish. Even then there is risk of tampering.
Truth is not to make shit up and then when faced with a query for a citation, to claim that it was all just an "exaggeration" "for comic effect."
I will ask again. Citation please. Is there any citation at all that you have that even remotely backs up even an un-exaggerated version of your claims?
There is also the problem that the poster is measuring performance based on some single metric (presumably FPS in some game) which doesnt necessarily mean much.
Many years ago I upgraded from a Voodoo 3 to GeForce 4 Ti 4600, and for more than a few games that GF4 was slower in FPS than the Voodoo at first (but still more than fast enough for gaming.)
This was at a time when games were almost strictly simple textured polygon throwers, which was the Voodoo 3's only strength. As the use of multi-texturing became more prevalent (heavily used in terrain splatting..), the advantages of the GF4 over the voodoo became apparent as more scene detail became essentially free, whereas that voodoo required many rendering passes to accomplish the same thing.
Now I'm not saying I know that this generation of AMD gpu's will experience the same sort of future-benefits as that GeForce 4 did, especially since DX10/DX11 really isnt having a rapid uptake, but there could easily be design choices here that favor DX11 features that just arent being heavily used yet.
The question is not 'is the 6870 slower than that 5870?' in some specific benchmark. The question is, which is these cards will provide a solid gaming platform for the most games. As with my experience, that voodoo performed better than the GF4 for while.. but for the newest games the GF4 kept providing a good experience whereas that voodoo became completely unacceptable.
A "reasoned response" would be "We at Apple feel like the users get a better experience when we have full control over what you can and can't do with a device. Since most people are idiots, the average user is happier when we make decisions for them. True freedom results in a worse experience, so we don't believe in freedom." At least that would be intellectually honest.
Thats a reasoned response, but certainly not an intellectually honest one.
Apple is playing gatekeeper because Apple is protecting its other interests. You paid half a grand for that iPhone, but thats not enough. They also want to nickel and dime you on the content you consume. Sure, there are some free apps, and some free music, and some free videos.. but you are still in their store getting it.
Thats just a small sampling of demonstrable misinformation events. It looks to me like there is ample evidence (CITATIONS) for these networks here to use fake stories to further specific political agendas, often around election time.
I'm not saying that Fox doesnt have its share of FUD, but come on.. look at this shit. These are blatant attempts to influence elections in extremely fraudulent ways.
...fully 51% of CNN's regular viewers are Democrats while only 18% are Republicans. MSNBC's audience makeup is similar - 45% of regular viewers of MSNBC are Democrats, 18% are Republicans.
....Currently, 39% of regular Fox News viewers are Republicans while 33% are Democrats; in 2006, the margin was 38% to 31%.
Basically, in 2008 the Fox News viewership was much more balanced than either CNN or MSNBC.
The "faux news" meme was certainly alive and kicking then, but there you have it. Fox appeals to a balanced audience while the others heavily favor liberal viewership.
It seems to me that it is much more likely that those who say that Fox News is heavily biased are themselves at least as heavily biased in the other direction, and that while Fox News leans to the Right that it is more much centrist than these liberals think.
Hell, even with MSNBC's highly Democrat viewership, they still had to demote both Olbermann and Matthews. Thats how biased their lineup is. These guys are even too liberal for most democrats when it comes to reporting on things like presidential campaigns.
Slashdot Mirror
You are only claiming that they believe that.
These are people that struck a deal with Canada so that they get a percentage of all sales of blank media in the country. Prior to this deal, they got nothing. They created a whole new revenue stream out of nothing more than saying how piracy was hurting them and that this was the only solution.
So much for thinking they can end piracy, right? They lobbied that they couldn't, and are now getting paid on that belief.
Out of curiosity, can you calculate the actual write amplification factor you are experiencing on those Intel SSD's with that SMART data?
3 years? Is that much? My 80GB IDE disk is still chugging along just fine after 8 years.
Well, if they all last at least 8 years, then why isnt there an 8 year warranty?
I have old HD's as well that still work. I've also tossed more than I retain because they failed. You were modded insightful but you werent insightful at all. You were trying to extrapolate from a small sample of anecdotal evidence.
Citation still needed.
What I am basing my assumptions on is where the manufacturer puts its money where its mouth is. Both SDD and HDD's have 3 year warranties.
The MTBF values could be horseshit, but are equal or better on modern SSD's as well.
have a lot shorter life expectancy than current HDD's
Citation needed.
At sea level, at the equator, facing west, or someplace else?
Are you sure that they don't get that?
The question is how many additional people will pirate because of their policies, and what does that cost them vs doing something about it?
I think the actual paranoid argument is that the auto makers buy up the patents for better designs.
The complainer often does not know that patents are public record, and when I inform them of this, they often do not want to talk about it any more until they can "search for these patents" because "they must be there."
I'm using Ubuntu 10.4 on an old Dell and big copies don't seem to slow it down any more than I'd expect on an old machine
Your expectations are screwed up. A copy of any size should not impair the responsiveness of the system. Even for very old systems (80386), the CPU is so much faster than the hard drive that the amount of CPU cycles consumed by a copy process should be well within a rounding error that will show 0% usage. If this is not the case, then something is wrong with either the scheduler or the copy algorithm.
Its not that simple. The fact is that for the most part, there arent that many more users watching. If I catch an episode of Its Always Sunny In Philadelphia on TV/DVR, I'm probably not going to also watch that same episode on Hulu, or ComedyCentral.com, or even via a Torrent. On the other hand, if I catch it on Hulu, I'm probably not going to watch it on TV/DVR.
So for the providers, its about steering people towards the source that is most profitable to them, with the other sources primarily simply there to catch the few people that cant watch it via that most-profitable medium.
Wikipedia says the 8086 can address 1024k. So the 640 limit was a Microsoft decision, not a hardware limitation.
A fool and his wikipedia soon open their mouths and announce how ignorant they are on the internet.
The 640K limit was imposed by hardware manufacturers that mapped BIOS to addresses above 0xA0000. For instance the VGA graphics mode video memory was mapped to 0xA0000 and was 64K in size, followed by 32K of BIOS code, followed by another video buffer for text mode starting at 0xB8000 which was 8K in size, followed by 8K more of bios code.
Now, if we want to get really pedantic, you couldnt even use all of the space below 0xA0000 because at 0x00000 sat the 1K interrupt vector table.
Still further, DOS did allow allocating memory above 0xA0000 if no BIOS was mapped into it (although typically this memory was instead used for EMS paging to allow addressing many megabytes of memory)
And finally, Bill Gates never said "640K ought to be enough for anybody" (do you need a citation, or would your precious wikipedia be enough for you?)
You are correct. There are quite a few algorithm fields where papers use 'standardized' problems to compare their results to other methods, but those problems contain only extremely simplified and extremely degenerate cases, rather than practical use cases.
In the case of things like Genetic Algorithms, the simplified problem is often the "One Max" problem and the hard problem is the degenerate "Trap" problem (where the next-best solutions are all maximally far away in state space.)
In the theoretical the research which tackles these standardized problems are interesting, but in applied usage the user doesnt really care at all about those standardized cases because they don't even remotely resemble the problem they are solving.
So while reading the article, all I can think is "its great for 'denoising, image blending and segmentation'" but continue to wonder what practical use this will have that I could leverage for solving problems that I might encounter. Will I one day be combing over their paper in order to implement it, or will I be skipping over their paper because someone else actually generalized it? (ie, like I skipped over Compact Genetic Algorithms w/Tournament Selection and went straight to Extended Compact Genetic Algorithms)
Considering the enormous travel time, and thus the enormous distance, and that radiant power is what, quartered every time you double the distance, I'm just amazed we get any photons at all from there.
It doesnt take all that many doublings to reach the end of the universe.
The difference between 8 light minutes (distance to the sun) and 12.1 billion light years only is 49.56 doublings.
So now not only do I have to contend with end users changing default packages on distros, I also have to contend with the source code they are using not even being 100% mine, also with possibly hacked up header files (to solve someone elses problem), and link against who-knows-what libraries, etc.. etc..?
Still further, I would then have to provide support so that your grandmother could successfully compile it. Oh, did you expect me to stick it on your distros repository, and thus give the program away for free? Thanks but no thanks.
Now you know why professional developers dont make things like Linux games. Your response to shortcomings that generates fragmentation is to ask for source code, rather that deal with the actual issue.
The problem really isnt the number of distros.
.. but what we can do is point at a specific spot and say "thats definitely on the wrong side"
The problem from a commercial standpoint is that a binary for one distro just doesnt work on another, and even within the same distro there are frequent compatibility breaks between versions.
Add to this the plethora of windowing managers, audio stacks, and so on that the users themselves can go ahead and replace. It is at this point that you realize that you've gone well past the line where fragmentation is a valid criticism.
Nobody can point to some specific spot in the sand and say "thats where fragmentation begins"
I use both Ubuntu and Windows. I only develop for Windows.
It shouldn't unless they are violating their stated principles. Of course, they ARE violating their stated principles at least a little bit (google's updater hard to disable/etc) but this is the first I have heard of them hijacking the default browser.
The thing is, even if there was such a thing, there is still the issue of verifying that all of the code installed on the device (including OS, Rom's, etc..) during the election is actually the result of a fair and honest compile of said source code, and then further than the hardware itself (cpu, etc..) is actually vanilla specification.
I'm not sure how you go about verifying any of that in a satisfactory manner. Even if you did shit like making sure the CPU's were acquired with a randomized off-the-shelf method, you still have to later verify that those same CPU's were the ones installed on election day, and so forth. For software authentication, do you trust all the people that do the authentication?
Its no-win. The safest way to do things is with physical ballots, hand counting, and as many eyes as possible on the entire process from start to finish. Even then there is risk of tampering.
Truth is not to make shit up and then when faced with a query for a citation, to claim that it was all just an "exaggeration" "for comic effect."
I will ask again. Citation please. Is there any citation at all that you have that even remotely backs up even an un-exaggerated version of your claims?
There is also the problem that the poster is measuring performance based on some single metric (presumably FPS in some game) which doesnt necessarily mean much.
Many years ago I upgraded from a Voodoo 3 to GeForce 4 Ti 4600, and for more than a few games that GF4 was slower in FPS than the Voodoo at first (but still more than fast enough for gaming.)
This was at a time when games were almost strictly simple textured polygon throwers, which was the Voodoo 3's only strength. As the use of multi-texturing became more prevalent (heavily used in terrain splatting..), the advantages of the GF4 over the voodoo became apparent as more scene detail became essentially free, whereas that voodoo required many rendering passes to accomplish the same thing.
Now I'm not saying I know that this generation of AMD gpu's will experience the same sort of future-benefits as that GeForce 4 did, especially since DX10/DX11 really isnt having a rapid uptake, but there could easily be design choices here that favor DX11 features that just arent being heavily used yet.
The question is not 'is the 6870 slower than that 5870?' in some specific benchmark. The question is, which is these cards will provide a solid gaming platform for the most games. As with my experience, that voodoo performed better than the GF4 for while.. but for the newest games the GF4 kept providing a good experience whereas that voodoo became completely unacceptable.
A "reasoned response" would be "We at Apple feel like the users get a better experience when we have full control over what you can and can't do with a device. Since most people are idiots, the average user is happier when we make decisions for them. True freedom results in a worse experience, so we don't believe in freedom." At least that would be intellectually honest.
Thats a reasoned response, but certainly not an intellectually honest one.
Apple is playing gatekeeper because Apple is protecting its other interests. You paid half a grand for that iPhone, but thats not enough. They also want to nickel and dime you on the content you consume. Sure, there are some free apps, and some free music, and some free videos.. but you are still in their store getting it.
Whatever their angle, Fox News misleads their viewers in support of it.
Citation?
MSNBC anchor Dylan Ratigan apologized this morning for using fake photos of Sarah Palin last Friday in a segment about the former Alaska governor, and for not acknowledging their inauthenticity.
CNN then misrepresented the same photos
MSNBC defends fraudulent Rand Paul transcript as "technically correct", makes no apologies
Lets not forget when CBS tried like hell not to admit to this, spawning the "Fake but Accurate" meme
Thats just a small sampling of demonstrable misinformation events. It looks to me like there is ample evidence (CITATIONS) for these networks here to use fake stories to further specific political agendas, often around election time.
I'm not saying that Fox doesnt have its share of FUD, but come on.. look at this shit. These are blatant attempts to influence elections in extremely fraudulent ways.
What makes you think I'm a liberal?
You were being liberal.
For example, the liberal helping of bullshit you tried to paint on Fox.
Don't like assholes? Then don't be one.
Yet another liberal that exaggerates about things they don't like. Color me surprised.
"OMG Muslims are out to get you" doesn't have a political slant -- it's something you say so people will be scared and keep watching.
Who has said that, and what are their ratings?
Oh, I get it.. you are claiming that Fox News says that. Citation please.
How about this study?
...fully 51% of CNN's regular viewers are Democrats while only 18% are Republicans. MSNBC's audience makeup is similar - 45% of regular viewers of MSNBC are Democrats, 18% are Republicans.
....Currently, 39% of regular Fox News viewers are Republicans while 33% are Democrats; in 2006, the margin was 38% to 31%.
Basically, in 2008 the Fox News viewership was much more balanced than either CNN or MSNBC.
The "faux news" meme was certainly alive and kicking then, but there you have it. Fox appeals to a balanced audience while the others heavily favor liberal viewership.
It seems to me that it is much more likely that those who say that Fox News is heavily biased are themselves at least as heavily biased in the other direction, and that while Fox News leans to the Right that it is more much centrist than these liberals think.
Hell, even with MSNBC's highly Democrat viewership, they still had to demote both Olbermann and Matthews. Thats how biased their lineup is. These guys are even too liberal for most democrats when it comes to reporting on things like presidential campaigns.