Ok, here's a single counterexample to prove you wrong:
Faster in Presto than Gecko. My Blanket statement stands. Oh, did you mean my other non-blanket statement? Yeah.... maybe you should put away the fan mode and start thinking critically.
I'm sure that Gecko isnt faster than Presto at anything. Not 100% sure how it stacks up against WebKit, but I have my doubts about Gecko doing anything faster than it as well.
Gecko really has become slow and bloated, competing on the same level as Trident..
So something you failed to mention is the real reason you dont want an SSD for your desktop... and its not even a good reason... weight? of an SSD? really? That mouse is heavier.
You voted them in, so the're your responsibility. Unless you want to go the tin-foil hat route and say that the US populace has no influence or control over their government - in which case I would be looking for another country of residence.
That said that if I voted for McCain and other republicans, that this sort of thing would happen...
If the world decided to conserve helium for future generations, then this generation gets to go without. The next generation is going to use it up just as quickly.
The inevitability is that most substances on earth will primarily be found inside or part of man-made objects. Its called recycling and we do on the whole apply it just about everywhere made up of valuable stuff, be you in a capitalist, socialist, or communist haven. If there is value in it, we do it by-and-large.
He has basically put all the badness of using up a resource on the single generation variant. Its as if its not bad when more-than-one generation depletes a resource...
I've got news for him. The generation that doesnt have access to the resource doesnt give a fuck how many generations it took to use it up.
Yes it was a pain to read, I just wonder how good the OS X clean up is and the Samsung hardware clean up last?
The answer is of course that the OS/X cleanup doesnt do jack-shit for the SSD, although it still may help out OS/X. The SSD doesnt see "cleanup operation".. it sees "writing data that must be saved"
Without TRIM, once written, the constituent blocks within an erase block are always considered valid.
I think that many folks are confusing logical sectors with physical sectors.
The device is not reading a block, erasing it, making some changes to some of its sectors, and then writing back to the same now-erased block. It is always writing to some different block.
For simplicity-sake lets say that each block contains 4 sectors, A, B, C, and D. When the file system writes to sector A, the SSD reads the entire ABCD block, updates A, and then grabs a virgin block to write ABCD to. The original ABCD block is then free to be erased by the SSD because it knows that it does not contain any mappable logical sectors.
The issue is of course that from the OS/file system perspective, sector's A, B, C, and D may have been deallocated, but the SSD cannot know this without some help. Hence, TRIM.
Only the latest "Release" versions of browsers entered my tests, and while I did want to test IE8 I didnt want to mess with the registry in order to disable its long running script detection, which was causing a blocking modal popup that prevented accurate performance measurements (and we all know its scripting performance is no better than FireFox anyways.)
Test system:
AMD Phenom II x6 1055T (Cool'n'Quiet and Turbo disabled)
Win7/64 Home Premium
428.20runs/s - Opera 10.6 (3445) - July 3rd, 2010.
417.02runs/s - Chrome 5.0.375.86 - July 3rd, 2010.
143.36runs/s - Safari 5.0 (7533.16) - July 3rd, 2010.
104.61runs/s - Firefox 3.6.6 - July 3rd, 2010.
So Google Chrome is doing really well on Google's Benchmark, while Opera is doing a bit better everywhere else. Its Chrome vs Opera on the javascript performance front now, with the others distinctively out of the race in at least one of the benchmarks.
In other words, it's by no means a closed system. I was disappointed that Cash For Clunkers didn't demand more of an energy savings and allowed what I considered to be too-new-to-trash cars to get trashed. But on the whole, it did work.
So on the one hand..
...you know for certain that there were significant negative effects such as 'too-new-to-thrash cars' being trashed, and that the fuel efficiency increase mandated was only minor...
..but on the other you declare for certain that "it did work"
You have come into this with your mind made up, and even though you can list ways that it shouldnt have been made up without a real inspection of the factors, well fuck it.. "it worked"
GDI was designed to work with any sort of plotting device, such as printers. The shortcomings of GDI were the reason that the HAL's for windows display devices were designed, the first of which was WinG, and while later incarnations of GDI gave greater performance and some hardware acceleration support, there are now many hardware features that simply cannot be incorporated into GDI.
Things like texture mapping, gradients, alpha blending, etc.. are just not efficient with GDI, and supporting them would only be for a single kind of plotting device (video cards) so it just doesnt make sense to roll those things up into GDI when there are HAL's specifically tailored for those purposes.
After all, many people arguing against the mainstream AGW ideas were people with greater statistical understanding than the supposed "experts" (and that is part of what the study concluded as well, that they had a poor grasp of real statistics - something the rest of us were trying to tell you after looking at the code released along with the emails).
Been saying it for years. Often get modded troll. Sometimes called an "oil company shill."
These climate scientists, in some cases, are practicing extremely advanced statistics. So advanced that even full-blown Masters of Applied Statistics sometimes cock it up badly, because these advanced techniques requires certain assumptions to hold true (assuming linearity, assuming large variances in the data are correlated with other data in the analysis, etc...) and it is often not possible to even make a guess about those assumptions.
Essentially, these climate scientists might have taken a statistics course in college, but that are not masters. Go find someone who has taken a statistics course and ask them if they know how to do Principle Component Analysis, or K-mean clustering. Not a fat chance.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, here's a single counterexample to prove you wrong:
Faster in Presto than Gecko. My Blanket statement stands. Oh, did you mean my other non-blanket statement? Yeah.... maybe you should put away the fan mode and start thinking critically.
I am quite certain that nearly all numbers are larger in magnitude, so....
..its hella small!
I see that the FireFox moderation fans are out in force.
I'm sure that Gecko isnt faster than Presto at anything. Not 100% sure how it stacks up against WebKit, but I have my doubts about Gecko doing anything faster than it as well.
Gecko really has become slow and bloated, competing on the same level as Trident..
If you want a quiet computer, check out what these guys are doing. Oil-submerged goodness.
He said 'all permutation'
So something you failed to mention is the real reason you dont want an SSD for your desktop... and its not even a good reason... weight? of an SSD? really? That mouse is heavier.
You seem to think that computers can only have 1 drive in them.
Are you sure your head it on straight?
Based on your claim, it looks to me like the bottom line is not to trust Seagate.
You voted them in, so the're your responsibility. Unless you want to go the tin-foil hat route and say that the US populace has no influence or control over their government - in which case I would be looking for another country of residence.
That said that if I voted for McCain and other republicans, that this sort of thing would happen...
...they were right!
Farmville for Developers.
It wouldn't be any different. Extremist views are extremist views, regardless of which side it comes from.
You are confusing views with advertising.
If the world decided to conserve helium for future generations, then this generation gets to go without. The next generation is going to use it up just as quickly.
The inevitability is that most substances on earth will primarily be found inside or part of man-made objects. Its called recycling and we do on the whole apply it just about everywhere made up of valuable stuff, be you in a capitalist, socialist, or communist haven. If there is value in it, we do it by-and-large.
I was just bringing up 2005, which by some records was warmer than 1998.
"by some records" is called cherry picking...
Agreed.
He has basically put all the badness of using up a resource on the single generation variant. Its as if its not bad when more-than-one generation depletes a resource...
I've got news for him. The generation that doesnt have access to the resource doesnt give a fuck how many generations it took to use it up.
Yes it was a pain to read, I just wonder how good the OS X clean up is and the Samsung hardware clean up last?
The answer is of course that the OS/X cleanup doesnt do jack-shit for the SSD, although it still may help out OS/X. The SSD doesnt see "cleanup operation" .. it sees "writing data that must be saved"
Without TRIM, once written, the constituent blocks within an erase block are always considered valid.
I think that many folks are confusing logical sectors with physical sectors.
The device is not reading a block, erasing it, making some changes to some of its sectors, and then writing back to the same now-erased block. It is always writing to some different block.
For simplicity-sake lets say that each block contains 4 sectors, A, B, C, and D. When the file system writes to sector A, the SSD reads the entire ABCD block, updates A, and then grabs a virgin block to write ABCD to. The original ABCD block is then free to be erased by the SSD because it knows that it does not contain any mappable logical sectors.
The issue is of course that from the OS/file system perspective, sector's A, B, C, and D may have been deallocated, but the SSD cannot know this without some help. Hence, TRIM.
JavaScript and what-have-you benchmarks....
Only the latest "Release" versions of browsers entered my tests, and while I did want to test IE8 I didnt want to mess with the registry in order to disable its long running script detection, which was causing a blocking modal popup that prevented accurate performance measurements (and we all know its scripting performance is no better than FireFox anyways.)
Test system:
AMD Phenom II x6 1055T (Cool'n'Quiet and Turbo disabled)
Win7/64 Home Premium
V8 Benchmark (higher is better)
5752 - Chrome 5.0.375.86 - July 3rd, 2010.
4789 - Opera 10.6 (3445) - July 3rd, 2010.
3239 - Safari 5.0 (7533.16) - July 3rd, 2010.
614 - Firefox 3.6.6 - July 3rd, 2010.
SunSpider Benchmark (lower is better)
252.6ms - Opera 10.6 (3445) - July 3rd, 2010.
277.2ms - Chrome 5.0.375.86 - July 3rd, 2010.
314.8ms - Safari 5.0 (7533.16) - July 3rd, 2010.
675.6ms - Firefox 3.6.6 - July 3rd, 2010.
Dromaeo JavaScript (higher is better)
428.20runs/s - Opera 10.6 (3445) - July 3rd, 2010.
417.02runs/s - Chrome 5.0.375.86 - July 3rd, 2010.
143.36runs/s - Safari 5.0 (7533.16) - July 3rd, 2010.
104.61runs/s - Firefox 3.6.6 - July 3rd, 2010.
So Google Chrome is doing really well on Google's Benchmark, while Opera is doing a bit better everywhere else. Its Chrome vs Opera on the javascript performance front now, with the others distinctively out of the race in at least one of the benchmarks.
In other words, it's by no means a closed system. I was disappointed that Cash For Clunkers didn't demand more of an energy savings and allowed what I considered to be too-new-to-trash cars to get trashed. But on the whole, it did work.
So on the one hand..
...you know for certain that there were significant negative effects such as 'too-new-to-thrash cars' being trashed, and that the fuel efficiency increase mandated was only minor...
..but on the other you declare for certain that "it did work"
You have come into this with your mind made up, and even though you can list ways that it shouldnt have been made up without a real inspection of the factors, well fuck it.. "it worked"
You can start here to figure out why an old car that gets 20 MPG is awesome for the environment vs the manufacture and use of a new car that only gets a modest increase in fuel efficiency.
Cash for clunkers was a huge failure for the environment, but it saved GM dealerships. That was its point.
You seem to think that we should not be spending money, but if not now, then when?
You sound like someone who makes up strawman arguments in order to get +insightful.
Poster says "Subsidizing non-economical power generation is not money well spent."
YOU then respond, via direct quote, with "No, subsidizing clean power generation is money well spent."
In effect, you shrugged off the economics of it. Glad you used douchebag strawman tactics to get +insightful. Now fucking respond to the point.
Modern machines rely heavily on cache for efficiency, and thus code and data locality. I wonder what effect ASLR has on this.
..and fuck the people that buy used cars, the most energy-responsible thing a person could do.
No, subsidizing clean power generation is money well spent.
So it would be well-spent money to, say, hire vegetarian mexicans to generate power on stationary bikes with generators attached to the wheels?
"BECAUSE ITS CLEAN POWER" is not an excuse for money spending. Its bullshit feel-good nonsense and people like you are part of the problem.
GDI was designed to work with any sort of plotting device, such as printers. The shortcomings of GDI were the reason that the HAL's for windows display devices were designed, the first of which was WinG, and while later incarnations of GDI gave greater performance and some hardware acceleration support, there are now many hardware features that simply cannot be incorporated into GDI.
Things like texture mapping, gradients, alpha blending, etc.. are just not efficient with GDI, and supporting them would only be for a single kind of plotting device (video cards) so it just doesnt make sense to roll those things up into GDI when there are HAL's specifically tailored for those purposes.
After all, many people arguing against the mainstream AGW ideas were people with greater statistical understanding than the supposed "experts" (and that is part of what the study concluded as well, that they had a poor grasp of real statistics - something the rest of us were trying to tell you after looking at the code released along with the emails).
Been saying it for years. Often get modded troll. Sometimes called an "oil company shill."
These climate scientists, in some cases, are practicing extremely advanced statistics. So advanced that even full-blown Masters of Applied Statistics sometimes cock it up badly, because these advanced techniques requires certain assumptions to hold true (assuming linearity, assuming large variances in the data are correlated with other data in the analysis, etc...) and it is often not possible to even make a guess about those assumptions.
Essentially, these climate scientists might have taken a statistics course in college, but that are not masters. Go find someone who has taken a statistics course and ask them if they know how to do Principle Component Analysis, or K-mean clustering. Not a fat chance.