One nice thing is that AMD doesn't play tricks with features. All of their new CPUs come with IOMMU and AES instructions. With Intel, you have to be very careful what chip you pick. Core i3's for the most part aren't overclockable and don't have AES-NI. Looking for VT-d? Watch out, the overclockable Core i7-3700k doesn't have it, but the non-k version does.
You obviously know WAAAAYY more about CPUs than I do. Just to give some perspective of where I am coming from in terms of background and knowledge...
Let's say 8150 is slower , 20-30% on single threading (I am not saying it's true, I am saying people say it) than intel's chip. Is single threaded the normal use-case or is that a competitive gamer thing (obsession) where the only thing separating you from your opponent is not skill or strategy but CPU speed on a single thread.?
Mostly, in my life, I am using more than one thread. I am doing a number of things at once. The OS wants one (or more). My programs all want as many as I've got. Even people who aren't working with IDEs and rendering applications are still, say, listening to music and watching a video and all this kind of thing all at once.
Intel's chip costs more, are slower except on single threaded applications, Intel is evil. I can OC the chip easily and have a nice stable system that is just as fast for zero extra dollars on a single threaded application.
But the overall thing to not lose sight of is -the chips are stupifyingly fast . We can look at CPU bench marks all day but mostly they sit idle waiting for our I/O to hurry up.
Not arguing here. Just observing and thinking aloud.
Also, you might be interest in an observation... Win7 often uses all 8 cores. The chip comes with a utility from AMD that let's you track core activity. My IDE definitely uses all 8 to good effect and windows Explorer (file system) also uses all 8 on a regular basis. My MB has a slick 'n easy OC utility, but I don't use it.. like I said, this thing is way fast enough for me programming, using drawing programs.. moving files...you know work stuff... .
Most self-reported atheists are really one of two things.
The first is agnostic - they'll admit they can't be SURE in the same spirit as Descartes said he couldn't be SURE about the external world. The second is atheist, as in "non-believer", WRT to gawd and especially Christianty.. ie. I do not believe ANY of that shit, which is technically not atheism since atheism implies having absolutely CERTAIN knowledge about the non-existence of gawd.
But their atheism is not comparable to a Christian's Christianity in terms of firmness and the irrational of the belief. You can't compare them. So.. you're under arrest.
First, how do you get my quotes to show up grayed out?
Secondly, employers "standardize" their practices which is to say they watch each other and collude, er I mean "read market signals" and all sort of end up with the same pricing - working conditions- employment contracts etc etc, all as abusive as possible.
The idea that one of them will defect is a joke. In case you aren't aware of it, competition is not the natural state of affairs- cooperation is. That's why cartels and monopolies and pollution of the commons are all the natural order of things, sans government "interference".
Then there's blacklisting which is just "free speech" according to libertarians. Left unchecked, that's enough to make sure you never work anywhere ever again, or starve to death looking for work.
Charles Koch,...never ran for anything and he was certainly never our candidate.... You are just blindly slinging mud on a subject you know nothing about.
You know, projection is not just a fanciful idea Freud cooked up. Here's your "blindly slinging mud on a subject you know nothing about"
From Wikipedia:
Koch was the Libertarian Party's vice-presidential candidate in the 1980 presidential election, sharing the party ticket with presidential candidate Ed Clark. The Clarkâ"Koch ticket promising to abolish Social Security, the Federal Reserve Board, welfare, minimum-wage laws, corporate taxes... and U.S. Federal agencies including the SEC, EPA, ICC, FTC, OSHA, FBI, CIA, and DOE.[2][12]
Libertarians are essentially arrested development Asperger-like cases who really just don't "get" how other people experience the world and where therefore society's value system comes from. Instead, they like to systematize and systematize and present theories of How Everything Should Be derived from Basic Principles . That's Asperger's -type thinking. It just is.
Not understanding human values. Not understanding compassion except as a concept they know they ought to want to be associated with . Creating theoretical systems that satisfy their narrow definition of "right" and being completely unable to deal with and needing desperately to reject the the messiness of real world systems.
What if Koch had achieved his ends, the libertarian party ends and destroyed the federal government or as Grover "Filth" Norquist put it - "shrunk it down so it's small enough to drown in a bathtub" ? For these guys, who cares about the human toll.. so long as the world is pure by their weirdo standards. That's Asperger's thinking. That's sociopathy.
I don't know what you're complaining about. The market has spoken.
ABC is a privately owned corporation . They can do whatever they want for whatever reason they want. Your whining to us or the government of whoever about the "unfair" actions of a private corporation sounds like socialism to me.
If you don't like ABC's decision, then you can start your own television station and have your own debate.
I don't know. I read the performance benchmarks on the 8150 before I bought it and I thought they were pretty good, except Win 7 doesn't hardware but a few 2D graphics calls, which is NOT AMD's fault and impacts some benchmarks.
Now that I have it , I love it. I can see all 8 cores working, I can keep it all cool (75 F) no problem and the price / performance ratio is excellent, leaving out legacy PC chips whose price is near zero. The absolute performance is also pretty excellent.. for between US $100 and $500 you can get a chip that's another 30% faster from Intel, but why bother ? I'd rather put that money into an SSD and really feel some difference for my cash.
AMD is not making its earning predictions, OK.. and their real problem is Wall Street who's punishing their stock for it. It's not like they can't make great chips at great prices.
If Bulldozer 8150 was not literally 8x's a Phenom II in terms of power, well, it's still better by a bunch and at a great price. I love my 8150 and it's blazing fast for everything I want it to do. Highly recommended.
The thing with Intel is, internally they're actually a worse corporation than even you described. Head hunters I have known almost immediately blanched at their name when I brought it up and said things like.. I do not recommend anyone work for Intel. I have seen the same remarks by the same professionals in print.
Why? For generations now, it's been stocked to the gills with corporate psychopaths. Like above, so below. The level of viciousness of the politics is out of this world . For instance, there's something called "forced ranking" where 10% of their employees with the lowest scores on their reviews are automatically fired each year.
Killing every tenth person in order to improve performance has another name- decimation.. deci-mation. It goes back to the Romans. Crassus used it to motivate the troops to capture Spartacus. The thing is even then it was considered regressive, ancient and barbaric.
Obviously, people in that environment are preoccupied with one thought - "not me".
Fucking over the other guy has evolved into a fine art there. Its totally vicious.
Maybe AMD stumbled with 8150 in some academic sense. I think I am a demanding consumer of PCs.. I build my boxes, and I sure don't feel it. If it was less than expected, which is very different than bad, well then, obviously, onward.
I'll never buy an Intel chip until they're the only chip maker on earth. Their business practices are as dirty and illegal as they come as the many lawsuits brought against them testify to. Is the Intel e3 1275 20% faster than an non-OC 8150 for another $150.00, almost twice the price of a 8150 ($169.00 Shell Shocker price this week) Fine. 20% for ethics and morality. It's what I give elsewhere in my life anyway.
Oh, and this giving works out to another $150.00 bucks in my own pocket. Now that's a decision everyone involved can feel good about....
So let's talk about hypotheticals that will never come to pass because.. why again?
This is not hypothetical, it is principle.
No actually you're not paying attention to what you're saying. What you said was I had no right to live if I needed to own a slave to live. That's not a principle of anything, it's a hypothetical, and a weird one at that, one which only you injected into the conversation.
Of course if I had looked carefully I would have seen the obvious footrprint of a libertarian of the Grover Norquist "estate taxation is worse than the holocaust" type.
As soon as you guys start injecting slavery into every conversation what's next is "and taxation is a form of slavery".
Without enslaving someone, or taking their money (which is a fancy way to partially, retroactively, enslave them) to pay someone else, just how are you going to provide any of these supposed 'rights?'
My argument goes unanswered- what's the point of recognizing airy fairy ivory tower "rights" if you deprive people of food clothing and shelter by saying to them they have no "right" to them.
The point you keep charging right past and pretending not to see is that if you respect peoples rights you cannot deprive them of clothing or shelter! That is the whole point of rights!
First, you can deprive people of food clothing and shelter by more means than simply snatching them away. You can refuse to give him a job, or pay him so little he cannot afford them. Notably, doing those two evil things are defended as "rights" by libertarians also. That is why the healthy people in society join together to pass laws against discrimination and for a minimum age. As Rand Paul made clear this past year but is always true with libertarians, these are things libertarians hate and are always targeting for elimination. All based on Principles, of course
The only real Principle any libertarian is interested in is the Principle that he can expect to inflict without limit or interference upon those less lucky than he is whatever depravity he sees fit including but not limited to prostitution, indentured servitude, discrimination, slave wages, environmental degradation, and monopolistic practices.
The fact that society has coalesced against all these things enrages the libertarian , the Ayn Randian superman-sociopath, the genetic misprints like Grover Norquist because it goes against the perception of their "freedom" and "rights" their malformed brains generate.
What you seem to want to do is conflate the concept of depriving someone of their clothes and shelter, with simply declining to provide them with clothes and shelter. Two very different things. I dont have a natural right to clothing and shelter provided for me for free - I have a natural right to be left to peacefully enjoy the clothing and shelter I worked hard to provide myself with - *and so does everyone else.*
That is the masturbation fantasy of libertarians- there is a direct correspondence between someone's willingness to work and productivity and their ability to provide for themselves. Success therefore is a measure of moral goodness and hard work. If you're old enough to type and you still believe this, then obviously you're a lost cause or a genetic misprint of whatever. Everyone else recognizes it as being typical of the self-serving lies about the nature of reality that conservatives and libertarians and fundamentalist religionists (prosperity gospel etc etc etc ) spew.
Your alternative is that you have a right to it so it just has to magically be provided for you,
First off , no one is provided with anything as an alternative to work- that's j
That slavery is intrinsically wrong, because it is the denial of humanity, and that if you ever do require a slave to survive, it is your time to die instead.
So let's talk about hypotheticals that will never come to pass because.. why again?
What are rights except things you can't live without and you cannot assuredly provide yourself ?
That's not what rights are at all. Rights, in this context, means a rightful enforceable claim.
I leave it as an exercise for the reader to spot the circularity in this definition. hint: "a rightful enforceable claim".
Using the thing to be defined in the definition of the thing is called "circular reasoning" .
A right is a thing which humans define - it's a thing of our imagination as opposed to a supernatural thing. We define them they way they do because in our collective judgement they are things without which human life is deprived of dignity . Normal humans are born with brains which understand the concept of dignity the same way they understand the concept of "you" and "me".
It's the human condition that we cannot provide for ourselves, that we need a society to give us things to survive. Granting a certain subset of material and intellectual things as "rights" is just an acknowledgement of the bare facts of existence.
If something is yours by right, then you are not morally barred from taking it by force.
Where "barred" is a meant morally, not literally, bit SO WHAT? Your obsession with "force " is typical of libertarians who spend their lives chiefly concerned with exploring the limits of what they can do TO other people and what they can stop other people from doing to them. It's the preoccupation of an developmentally arrested personality - a sociopath who sees humans and society in terms of "taking" and "being taken from". Your entire post reeks of that.
What's the alternative? You have a right to this all this abstract stuff, just no right to go on living ?
In certain cases, yes. As I said, if you cannot survive without enslaving someone... or killing them, then you have a moral obligation to die.
This is completely stupid hypothetical which is not worth entertaining. It serves the purpose you set it to bey permitting you to dodge my point while appearing to reply to it.
My argument goes unanswered- what's the point of recognizing airy fairy ivory tower "rights" if you deprive people of food clothing and shelter by saying to them they have no "right" to them.
Rights in the hands of conservatives are carefully gerrymandered so as to let them appear to be concerned about their fellow man while actually giving them full license to exploit them unto death. If I can't eat, or have no shelter or no way to make a living , I can't pursue happiness can I ? I'm not free, am I? I have no liberty, do I? Here., have some abstract bullshit but ask for the necessary prequisites? That's socialism!
Yeah but if we listen to you, facts can be ignored. You seem to be saying that blacks were' doing well in the 50s. In fact, you're saying they were better off then than they are today. That's a fucking joke, right up there with your subhuman Congressman who recently opined that blacks were better off under slavery. Do you guys ever have a NEW idea.. oh that's right.. you're conservatives, you don't by definition.
Conservative tactic- extract one tiny fact from a larger historical context and hold it up as definitively causational despite the SEA of OBVIOUS causation all around you.
The only thing conservatives excel at is denying reality making up stories that make themselves feel good about themselves.
But I can live without a slave... so your point is....
What are rights except things you can't live without and you cannot assuredly provide yourself ? People have a right to those things because rights are things that subtend and are necessary for all other "rights" like the ones in the Constitution- Lfe Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness
What's the alternative? You have a right to this all this abstract stuff, just no right to go on living ? Impoverishing people to death - as they do in many parts of the world- is killing them. Starving people to death - as they do in Africa- is killing them.
Sure we work for food and shelter , but when there's no work and no food and no shelter, then fuck you and take your life liberty and pursuit of happiness with you to your grave?
In the hands of conservatives the Rights in the Constitution aren't Rights at all- they're any airy fairy ivory tower license to fuck other people over while still feeling good about yourself.
ohh.. I see... the conservative says it wasn't the 300 plus years of slavery and wanton, sustained, sicko destruction of all things conservatives hold up as the foundation of society and civilization - family religion and culture- that hurt them. It was the 30 years of social welfare programs of the sort found in Europe and Scandinavia that conservatives don't like.. that's what really hurt them!
It's just amazing to watch a racist reason out loud. It's why you can't reason with them and why we had to go to war to free the slaves in the first place.
It's the height of silliness to assert that something you need to exist in this world is not a human right. It is. It's a human right to have access to clean and safe food, housing, clothing medical care and to be free of fear from lawlessness and arbitrary authority. People who disagree with any of this are the problem... their idea is nice summed as "I'm doing OK in this zero sum game called life , you all go find someplace to die, or work for me for a few years, then go off and find someplace to die.
Secondly, "those people" were brought here as slaves and worse had their culture, religion and family ties methodically and deliberately destroyed. Those would be the same culture, religion and family values which Republicans and conservatives claim as the essence of civilization and which, if they're impinged upon in the least by the state (not to mention "slave owners"), will immediately cause our culture to explode from within.
Then they endured over 100 years of outright written-into-law discrimination of the rankest worst sort.
They still endure everything from outright "do not hire" racism to the tepid racism you offered here today.
Is there another set of unfortunates in this nation who met the same fate? Sure. The Native Americans. How are they doing? See how that works?
Finally is there anything I just told you you didn't already know? Could you, if you had been motivated to, inferred the above on your own without me or anyone else making it explicit?
Yes, you could have. And the fact that you didn't is what racism is.
Finally finally, your side's best attempt at assigning a genetic cause to economic and social disparity was The Bell Curve which was mercilessly ripped to shreds by researchers on purely scientific and statistical grounds a few decades ago.
I know for a fact that in certain white old man circles The Bell Curve is taken as proof of the scientific basis for racism. Thankfully all these 60 plus year old guys are doing the world a favor and dying of heart attacks and high blood pressure on a spirit-lifting regular basis.
The greatest thing that could happen to humanity is for scientists to find the set of genes that causes excessive greed, xenophobia, anti-social behavior, excessive religiosity and piousness, excessive selfishness , and especially the one that causes people to reject rational evidence in favor of "things that make me feel happy and special" .
Don't tell me there's not a genetic component to any of this, because there is. Women are less greedy, less warlike, less anti-social, more responsible, more cooperative, more egalitarian and fairer by a large measure ON AVERAGE than men. It's not a plot on the part of women to make men look bad.
If we're going to survive, we need to start taking responsibility for what we create. What is created now is something fit for an environment long past- one where destructive weapons and destructive practices only had so much power. Now that power is infinite and the world is populated by people who never evolved to survive their ability to wield that power.
Yeah, this is the most serious challenge facing humanity and in some sense the final challenge. If we don't destroy ourselves first, it's one we have to solve and where we have to go.
I came on too strongly. It's not that there's no sense to what you're saying, it's that it doesn't portend the future.
Sales on PC are flat because consumer income is non-elastic. If you buy the 500 tablet, you don't buy the 500 desktop. But like cars, everyone HAS at least one desktop and will continue to have a desktop and continue to upgrade or buy new desktops.
You cite facts in a discussion without supporting links.. that's less than confidence inspiring , as I am sure you know btw.
Sure tablet and the cell phone bill sucking at consumer's wallets each month leave less room for PC purchases. That's where the danger to the PC comes from- the siphoning off of resources... sooner or later in everywhere but America the regulatory bodies will begin to limit what the cell carriers can charge for what.
To a degree, people are dumping cable TV to pay for smart phones. There's only so much room in the budget for monthlies so that leaves money for the five year PC cycle.
Once everyone has a functioning PC, then the market is saturated. All markets saturate- everyone has a working car- and from there in it's all about disposable income and time in the form of pent up demand as those durable goods age. PCs provide a service that is not replaced by and cannot be replaced by smart phones or tablets because of the form factor, the ergonomics.
Smartphones largely provide read-only access to information anywhere and that's novel... right now. They also provide the ability to communicate in text a little.. ask for something specific or chat with friends. That's new and novel and the PC cannot substitute. But they serve different functions despite both being computers and one is not taking over the other.
Look what are yo saying? That tablets and phones will get faster? As fast as desktops one day? See my point? Desktops are the size they are because the larger screens are better, the larger more robust mice and keyboards are better, the larger graphics cards that then require the outsized fans and therefore the large cases are better. The larger motherboards are more sophisticated. Shrink all that down and put it on a phone one day? Fine but the little fiddly interfaces of a 7 inch tablet will still be what they are because humans aren't getting any smaller. The debate is not about the literal size or even technology of the CPU.. it's about where that CPU is.. my place or theirs? One day we'll have biological computers a thousand times smaller or more than today's computer and they'll be everywhere in everything. You know what you call that future ? Desktop everywhere. Little shrunken desktops everywhere. The debate is about where the computer is and who controls it and who is giving money to whom for what. I buy computers , I control those computers, I program and customize them to suit myself and my needs and their data is my personal and private possession. That's the working definition of "desktop" for me.
It's a joke; it's pure class warfare. Doesn't matter if you invented it, if you can't afford to patent it, then fuck you. Why not reinstate poll taxes while you're at it? Why let non-property owners vote at all? Fuck it, just kill the poor.
Fuck you. Who the fuck needs to sell into America anyway? Think I can't make a living selling into the the EU, and a good one at that? Just fucking watch me.
America cares about one thing and one thing only- how much coke can the CEOS and lawyers shove up their noses? America is so fucking fucked. Don't sell software in America- that's the only lesson here.
If you wanted to have a great career you might do what Michael Phillips did, spend 30 years learning the arcana of some academic microworld and be widely known as one of the if not the most brilliant researchers in that world and then apply that knowledge in a societally useful direction by forming a software company and bringing a product to market.
All that would be great, it's certainly what society says it wants, it represents a best case scenario in terms of societal investment and payback in an individual citizen.. and you might think that this is a successful life, a life worth imitating.. but you'd be wrong.. You'd be wrong because it all ends when a lawyer knocks on your door the first time with the strategy to file baseless software patent cases against you until your money is gone, then force you to sell your company to him.. and oh, and become his employee so the integration of your product goes well for him.
Fuck America. don't sell software in nations that permit software patents. That's the ONLY solution. America is the sole possession of the coke snorting class.. we just had that genetic junk tank the entire economy and whine for a bailout and now this slimy take over artist / con man stands to win the Presidency and turn them loose to do it again. Obviously, we're in a societal death spiral we're not going to be pulling out of because at least half the electorate believes in creationism, the magic market bunny and denies global warming. Pretty much it's the end of America as a super power and the beginning of the the rise of Europe as the guardian of the Enlightenment. America is a nation of religious and political / social zealots whose zealotry is unfortunately the kind that closes itself off to self correction. Too bad, but it's time to face reality.. America is past its prime, WAY past its prime and is in the throes of unraveling. That's what happens when you permit religion to lay claim to knowledge superior and truer to science.. citizens are trained up to believe just anything that comes out of the mouths of preachers and politicians because they lack critical thinking skills and worse, are suspicious of them. A population like that is nothing but a societal death sentence being played out over generations.
First, you offer no evidence of what the majority of people do or don't do do with their PCs, only your - somewhat sneering- opinion.
But most importantly, your claim that "most people's" interests wrt to computers is so unchallenging and undemanding that they'll have no reason to own a PC (and there will therefore be fewer and fewer PCs) is actually an attempt to predict the unknowable future. There can and will be apps which require the significant computing resources of a "desktop" to do things "average" people are interested in. There is no natural causal link between a program "average" people find interesting how much CPU power and UI responsiveness that program requires. The chief things blocking the "average" user's ability to make a movie easily- something the average user might be interested in the way the average musician is interested in expensive instruments, amplifiers and sound processing equipment- is an understandable UI and working process, and more powerful local graphics processing, specifically we lack real-time rendering.
It's likely that people WANT to do a wider variety of creative things with computers but , in contradistinction to your assertion, the computers just aren't powerful enough yet.
What's more, as they do become more powerful, NEW things to do will start to appear as a result. Things we haven't even thought of yet which will leverage that power.
Humans need a certain form factor to do complicated creative work and that form factor is not a tablet or phone. If anything, it's going in the opposite direction with bigger phidgets acting as user interfaces.
The future definitely includes access to server-based super-computing , but that's not the same as saying a local powerful machine with complex large, non-virtual user interface devices commanding it are somehow going to be obsoleted, especially since they're not even here yet.
Nope the OP is right no.. fundies demand RESPECT for their anti-science and become enraged and feel "oppressed" when the world doesn't capitulate to their demands.
The common thread is religious conservatives, because they believe they are on a mission from Gawd, believe they have the divine right to ram their world view down everyone else's throat, be it at the point of a gun, school board or an airplane.
You can't negotiate with the fundies of any nation, you can't talk to them about civil society because they see that as a perversion of Gawd's plan.. they want to see the world either destroyed in Armageddon -if they're Christians or brought under a world wide caliphate - if they're Muslims.
They despise civil society that is, UNLESS they're a distinct and notably powerless minority, in which case they RUN to the cause of civil society because Gawd forbid that someone should do to them what it is they want to do to the rest of us.
You can't negotiate with fundies and you can't reason with them and they're not going to stop until they've destroyed Western Civilization Since The Enlightenment and dragged us back to the fucking Dark Ages. And that's why we have the drone program.
Go US drones! Go US drones! When you're done over there, we've got got job for ya over here.
Slashdot Mirror
One nice thing is that AMD doesn't play tricks with features. All of their new CPUs come with IOMMU and AES instructions. With Intel, you have to be very careful what chip you pick. Core i3's for the most part aren't overclockable and don't have AES-NI. Looking for VT-d? Watch out, the overclockable Core i7-3700k doesn't have it, but the non-k version does.
You obviously know WAAAAYY more about CPUs than I do. Just to give some perspective of where I am coming from in terms of background and knowledge...
Numbers please ! Thank you!
I do not think I am debunking anyone; I am conversing. When I debunk, it's much bloodier.
This sums up the other link:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8150+Eight-Core
Let's say 8150 is slower , 20-30% on single threading (I am not saying it's true, I am saying people say it) than intel's chip. Is single threaded the normal use-case or is that a competitive gamer thing (obsession) where the only thing separating you from your opponent is not skill or strategy but CPU speed on a single thread.?
Mostly, in my life, I am using more than one thread. I am doing a number of things at once. The OS wants one (or more). My programs all want as many as I've got. Even people who aren't working with IDEs and rendering applications are still, say, listening to music and watching a video and all this kind of thing all at once.
Intel's chip costs more, are slower except on single threaded applications, Intel is evil. I can OC the chip easily and have a nice stable system that is just as fast for zero extra dollars on a single threaded application.
But the overall thing to not lose sight of is -the chips are stupifyingly fast . We can look at CPU bench marks all day but mostly they sit idle waiting for our I/O to hurry up.
Not arguing here. Just observing and thinking aloud.
Also, you might be interest in an observation... Win7 often uses all 8 cores. The chip comes with a utility from AMD that let's you track core activity. My IDE definitely uses all 8 to good effect and windows Explorer (file system) also uses all 8 on a regular basis. My MB has a slick 'n easy OC utility, but I don't use it .. like I said, this thing is way fast enough for me programming, using drawing programs .. moving files ...you know work stuff... .
From passmark's score for high end CPUs:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
AMD FX-8140 Eight-Core
score: 7,133 $169.00
then about 20 CPUs down the ranked list :
Intel Core i5-2500K @ 3.30GHz
score: 6,580 $217.99*
Oh definitely the bible.. they give them away for free and it saved me big bucks on toilet paper over the years.
The first is agnostic - they'll admit they can't be SURE in the same spirit as Descartes said he couldn't be SURE about the external world. The second is atheist, as in "non-believer", WRT to gawd and especially Christianty.. ie. I do not believe ANY of that shit, which is technically not atheism since atheism implies having absolutely CERTAIN knowledge about the non-existence of gawd.
But their atheism is not comparable to a Christian's Christianity in terms of firmness and the irrational of the belief. You can't compare them. So.. you're under arrest.
First, how do you get my quotes to show up grayed out?
Secondly, employers "standardize" their practices which is to say they watch each other and collude, er I mean "read market signals" and all sort of end up with the same pricing - working conditions- employment contracts etc etc, all as abusive as possible.
The idea that one of them will defect is a joke. In case you aren't aware of it, competition is not the natural state of affairs- cooperation is. That's why cartels and monopolies and pollution of the commons are all the natural order of things, sans government "interference".
Then there's blacklisting which is just "free speech" according to libertarians. Left unchecked, that's enough to make sure you never work anywhere ever again, or starve to death looking for work.
Charles Koch, ...never ran for anything and he was certainly never our candidate .... You are just blindly slinging mud on a subject you know nothing about.
You know, projection is not just a fanciful idea Freud cooked up. Here's your "blindly slinging mud on a subject you know nothing about" From Wikipedia:
Koch was the Libertarian Party's vice-presidential candidate in the 1980 presidential election, sharing the party ticket with presidential candidate Ed Clark. The Clarkâ"Koch ticket promising to abolish Social Security, the Federal Reserve Board, welfare, minimum-wage laws, corporate taxes... and U.S. Federal agencies including the SEC, EPA, ICC, FTC, OSHA, FBI, CIA, and DOE.[2][12]
Libertarians are essentially arrested development Asperger-like cases who really just don't "get" how other people experience the world and where therefore society's value system comes from. Instead, they like to systematize and systematize and present theories of How Everything Should Be derived from Basic Principles . That's Asperger's -type thinking. It just is.
Not understanding human values. Not understanding compassion except as a concept they know they ought to want to be associated with . Creating theoretical systems that satisfy their narrow definition of "right" and being completely unable to deal with and needing desperately to reject the the messiness of real world systems.
What if Koch had achieved his ends, the libertarian party ends and destroyed the federal government or as Grover "Filth" Norquist put it - "shrunk it down so it's small enough to drown in a bathtub" ? For these guys, who cares about the human toll.. so long as the world is pure by their weirdo standards. That's Asperger's thinking. That's sociopathy.
Find a cure, We need to find a cure.
ABC is a privately owned corporation . They can do whatever they want for whatever reason they want. Your whining to us or the government of whoever about the "unfair" actions of a private corporation sounds like socialism to me.
If you don't like ABC's decision, then you can start your own television station and have your own debate.
Problem solved- the Libertarian way!
I don't know. I read the performance benchmarks on the 8150 before I bought it and I thought they were pretty good, except Win 7 doesn't hardware but a few 2D graphics calls, which is NOT AMD's fault and impacts some benchmarks.
Now that I have it , I love it. I can see all 8 cores working, I can keep it all cool (75 F) no problem and the price / performance ratio is excellent, leaving out legacy PC chips whose price is near zero. The absolute performance is also pretty excellent.. for between US $100 and $500 you can get a chip that's another 30% faster from Intel, but why bother ? I'd rather put that money into an SSD and really feel some difference for my cash.
AMD is not making its earning predictions, OK.. and their real problem is Wall Street who's punishing their stock for it. It's not like they can't make great chips at great prices.
If Bulldozer 8150 was not literally 8x's a Phenom II in terms of power, well, it's still better by a bunch and at a great price. I love my 8150 and it's blazing fast for everything I want it to do. Highly recommended.
The thing with Intel is, internally they're actually a worse corporation than even you described. Head hunters I have known almost immediately blanched at their name when I brought it up and said things like .. I do not recommend anyone work for Intel. I have seen the same remarks by the same professionals in print.
Why? For generations now, it's been stocked to the gills with corporate psychopaths. Like above, so below. The level of viciousness of the politics is out of this world . For instance, there's something called "forced ranking" where 10% of their employees with the lowest scores on their reviews are automatically fired each year.
Killing every tenth person in order to improve performance has another name- decimation.. deci-mation. It goes back to the Romans. Crassus used it to motivate the troops to capture Spartacus. The thing is even then it was considered regressive, ancient and barbaric.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_(Roman_army)
Obviously, people in that environment are preoccupied with one thought - "not me".
Fucking over the other guy has evolved into a fine art there. Its totally vicious.
Maybe AMD stumbled with 8150 in some academic sense. I think I am a demanding consumer of PCs .. I build my boxes, and I sure don't feel it. If it was less than expected, which is very different than bad, well then, obviously, onward.
I'll never buy an Intel chip until they're the only chip maker on earth. Their business practices are as dirty and illegal as they come as the many lawsuits brought against them testify to. Is the Intel e3 1275 20% faster than an non-OC 8150 for another $150.00, almost twice the price of a 8150 ($169.00 Shell Shocker price this week) Fine. 20% for ethics and morality. It's what I give elsewhere in my life anyway.
Oh, and this giving works out to another $150.00 bucks in my own pocket. Now that's a decision everyone involved can feel good about....
So let's talk about hypotheticals that will never come to pass because .. why again?
This is not hypothetical, it is principle.
No actually you're not paying attention to what you're saying. What you said was I had no right to live if I needed to own a slave to live. That's not a principle of anything, it's a hypothetical, and a weird one at that, one which only you injected into the conversation .
Of course if I had looked carefully I would have seen the obvious footrprint of a libertarian of the Grover Norquist "estate taxation is worse than the holocaust" type.
As soon as you guys start injecting slavery into every conversation what's next is "and taxation is a form of slavery".
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1008-07.htm
and of course, here it is...
Without enslaving someone, or taking their money (which is a fancy way to partially, retroactively, enslave them) to pay someone else, just how are you going to provide any of these supposed 'rights?'
My argument goes unanswered- what's the point of recognizing airy fairy ivory tower "rights" if you deprive people of food clothing and shelter by saying to them they have no "right" to them.
The point you keep charging right past and pretending not to see is that if you respect peoples rights you cannot deprive them of clothing or shelter! That is the whole point of rights!
First, you can deprive people of food clothing and shelter by more means than simply snatching them away. You can refuse to give him a job, or pay him so little he cannot afford them. Notably, doing those two evil things are defended as "rights" by libertarians also. That is why the healthy people in society join together to pass laws against discrimination and for a minimum age. As Rand Paul made clear this past year but is always true with libertarians, these are things libertarians hate and are always targeting for elimination. All based on Principles, of course
The only real Principle any libertarian is interested in is the Principle that he can expect to inflict without limit or interference upon those less lucky than he is whatever depravity he sees fit including but not limited to prostitution, indentured servitude, discrimination, slave wages, environmental degradation, and monopolistic practices.
The fact that society has coalesced against all these things enrages the libertarian , the Ayn Randian superman-sociopath, the genetic misprints like Grover Norquist because it goes against the perception of their "freedom" and "rights" their malformed brains generate.
What you seem to want to do is conflate the concept of depriving someone of their clothes and shelter, with simply declining to provide them with clothes and shelter. Two very different things. I dont have a natural right to clothing and shelter provided for me for free - I have a natural right to be left to peacefully enjoy the clothing and shelter I worked hard to provide myself with - *and so does everyone else.*
That is the masturbation fantasy of libertarians- there is a direct correspondence between someone's willingness to work and productivity and their ability to provide for themselves. Success therefore is a measure of moral goodness and hard work. If you're old enough to type and you still believe this, then obviously you're a lost cause or a genetic misprint of whatever. Everyone else recognizes it as being typical of the self-serving lies about the nature of reality that conservatives and libertarians and fundamentalist religionists (prosperity gospel etc etc etc ) spew.
Your alternative is that you have a right to it so it just has to magically be provided for you,
First off , no one is provided with anything as an alternative to work- that's j
So let's talk about hypotheticals that will never come to pass because .. why again?
What are rights except things you can't live without and you cannot assuredly provide yourself ?
That's not what rights are at all. Rights, in this context, means a rightful enforceable claim.
I leave it as an exercise for the reader to spot the circularity in this definition. hint: "a rightful enforceable claim".
Using the thing to be defined in the definition of the thing is called "circular reasoning" .
A right is a thing which humans define - it's a thing of our imagination as opposed to a supernatural thing. We define them they way they do because in our collective judgement they are things without which human life is deprived of dignity . Normal humans are born with brains which understand the concept of dignity the same way they understand the concept of "you" and "me".
It's the human condition that we cannot provide for ourselves, that we need a society to give us things to survive. Granting a certain subset of material and intellectual things as "rights" is just an acknowledgement of the bare facts of existence.
If something is yours by right, then you are not morally barred from taking it by force.
Where "barred" is a meant morally, not literally, bit SO WHAT? Your obsession with "force " is typical of libertarians who spend their lives chiefly concerned with exploring the limits of what they can do TO other people and what they can stop other people from doing to them. It's the preoccupation of an developmentally arrested personality - a sociopath who sees humans and society in terms of "taking" and "being taken from". Your entire post reeks of that.
What's the alternative? You have a right to this all this abstract stuff, just no right to go on living ? In certain cases, yes. As I said, if you cannot survive without enslaving someone... or killing them, then you have a moral obligation to die. This is completely stupid hypothetical which is not worth entertaining. It serves the purpose you set it to bey permitting you to dodge my point while appearing to reply to it.
My argument goes unanswered- what's the point of recognizing airy fairy ivory tower "rights" if you deprive people of food clothing and shelter by saying to them they have no "right" to them.
Rights in the hands of conservatives are carefully gerrymandered so as to let them appear to be concerned about their fellow man while actually giving them full license to exploit them unto death. If I can't eat, or have no shelter or no way to make a living , I can't pursue happiness can I ? I'm not free, am I? I have no liberty, do I? Here., have some abstract bullshit but ask for the necessary prequisites? That's socialism!
"facts cannot be racist..:
Yeah but if we listen to you, facts can be ignored. You seem to be saying that blacks were' doing well in the 50s. In fact, you're saying they were better off then than they are today. That's a fucking joke, right up there with your subhuman Congressman who recently opined that blacks were better off under slavery. Do you guys ever have a NEW idea.. oh that's right.. you're conservatives, you don't by definition.
Conservative tactic- extract one tiny fact from a larger historical context and hold it up as definitively causational despite the SEA of OBVIOUS causation all around you.
The only thing conservatives excel at is denying reality making up stories that make themselves feel good about themselves.
Conservatism is a disease that needs to be cured.
But I can live without a slave... so your point is....
What are rights except things you can't live without and you cannot assuredly provide yourself ? People have a right to those things because rights are things that subtend and are necessary for all other "rights" like the ones in the Constitution- Lfe Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness
What's the alternative? You have a right to this all this abstract stuff, just no right to go on living ? Impoverishing people to death - as they do in many parts of the world- is killing them. Starving people to death - as they do in Africa- is killing them.
Sure we work for food and shelter , but when there's no work and no food and no shelter, then fuck you and take your life liberty and pursuit of happiness with you to your grave?
In the hands of conservatives the Rights in the Constitution aren't Rights at all- they're any airy fairy ivory tower license to fuck other people over while still feeling good about yourself.
ohh.. I see... the conservative says it wasn't the 300 plus years of slavery and wanton, sustained, sicko destruction of all things conservatives hold up as the foundation of society and civilization - family religion and culture- that hurt them. It was the 30 years of social welfare programs of the sort found in Europe and Scandinavia that conservatives don't like .. that's what really hurt them!
It's just amazing to watch a racist reason out loud. It's why you can't reason with them and why we had to go to war to free the slaves in the first place.
It's the height of silliness to assert that something you need to exist in this world is not a human right. It is. It's a human right to have access to clean and safe food, housing, clothing medical care and to be free of fear from lawlessness and arbitrary authority. People who disagree with any of this are the problem ... their idea is nice summed as "I'm doing OK in this zero sum game called life , you all go find someplace to die, or work for me for a few years, then go off and find someplace to die.
First off, fuck you.
Secondly, "those people" were brought here as slaves and worse had their culture, religion and family ties methodically and deliberately destroyed. Those would be the same culture, religion and family values which Republicans and conservatives claim as the essence of civilization and which, if they're impinged upon in the least by the state (not to mention "slave owners"), will immediately cause our culture to explode from within.
Then they endured over 100 years of outright written-into-law discrimination of the rankest worst sort.
They still endure everything from outright "do not hire" racism to the tepid racism you offered here today.
Is there another set of unfortunates in this nation who met the same fate? Sure. The Native Americans. How are they doing? See how that works?
Finally is there anything I just told you you didn't already know? Could you, if you had been motivated to, inferred the above on your own without me or anyone else making it explicit?
Yes, you could have. And the fact that you didn't is what racism is.
Finally finally, your side's best attempt at assigning a genetic cause to economic and social disparity was The Bell Curve which was mercilessly ripped to shreds by researchers on purely scientific and statistical grounds a few decades ago.
I know for a fact that in certain white old man circles The Bell Curve is taken as proof of the scientific basis for racism. Thankfully all these 60 plus year old guys are doing the world a favor and dying of heart attacks and high blood pressure on a spirit-lifting regular basis.
Perhaps you will join them- racist.
Don't tell me there's not a genetic component to any of this, because there is. Women are less greedy, less warlike, less anti-social, more responsible, more cooperative, more egalitarian and fairer by a large measure ON AVERAGE than men. It's not a plot on the part of women to make men look bad.
If we're going to survive, we need to start taking responsibility for what we create. What is created now is something fit for an environment long past- one where destructive weapons and destructive practices only had so much power. Now that power is infinite and the world is populated by people who never evolved to survive their ability to wield that power.
Yeah, this is the most serious challenge facing humanity and in some sense the final challenge. If we don't destroy ourselves first, it's one we have to solve and where we have to go.
I came on too strongly. It's not that there's no sense to what you're saying, it's that it doesn't portend the future.
Sales on PC are flat because consumer income is non-elastic. If you buy the 500 tablet, you don't buy the 500 desktop. But like cars, everyone HAS at least one desktop and will continue to have a desktop and continue to upgrade or buy new desktops.
You cite facts in a discussion without supporting links .. that's less than confidence inspiring , as I am sure you know btw.
Sure tablet and the cell phone bill sucking at consumer's wallets each month leave less room for PC purchases. That's where the danger to the PC comes from- the siphoning off of resources ... sooner or later in everywhere but America the regulatory bodies will begin to limit what the cell carriers can charge for what.
To a degree, people are dumping cable TV to pay for smart phones. There's only so much room in the budget for monthlies so that leaves money for the five year PC cycle.
Once everyone has a functioning PC, then the market is saturated. All markets saturate- everyone has a working car- and from there in it's all about disposable income and time in the form of pent up demand as those durable goods age. PCs provide a service that is not replaced by and cannot be replaced by smart phones or tablets because of the form factor, the ergonomics.
Smartphones largely provide read-only access to information anywhere and that's novel ... right now. They also provide the ability to communicate in text a little .. ask for something specific or chat with friends. That's new and novel and the PC cannot substitute. But they serve different functions despite both being computers and one is not taking over the other.
Look what are yo saying? That tablets and phones will get faster? As fast as desktops one day? See my point? Desktops are the size they are because the larger screens are better, the larger more robust mice and keyboards are better, the larger graphics cards that then require the outsized fans and therefore the large cases are better. The larger motherboards are more sophisticated. Shrink all that down and put it on a phone one day? Fine but the little fiddly interfaces of a 7 inch tablet will still be what they are because humans aren't getting any smaller. The debate is not about the literal size or even technology of the CPU .. it's about where that CPU is.. my place or theirs? One day we'll have biological computers a thousand times smaller or more than today's computer and they'll be everywhere in everything. You know what you call that future ? Desktop everywhere. Little shrunken desktops everywhere. The debate is about where the computer is and who controls it and who is giving money to whom for what. I buy computers , I control those computers, I program and customize them to suit myself and my needs and their data is my personal and private possession. That's the working definition of "desktop" for me.
It's a joke; it's pure class warfare. Doesn't matter if you invented it, if you can't afford to patent it, then fuck you. Why not reinstate poll taxes while you're at it? Why let non-property owners vote at all? Fuck it, just kill the poor.
Fuck you. Who the fuck needs to sell into America anyway? Think I can't make a living selling into the the EU, and a good one at that? Just fucking watch me.
America cares about one thing and one thing only- how much coke can the CEOS and lawyers shove up their noses? America is so fucking fucked. Don't sell software in America- that's the only lesson here.
If you wanted to have a great career you might do what Michael Phillips did, spend 30 years learning the arcana of some academic microworld and be widely known as one of the if not the most brilliant researchers in that world and then apply that knowledge in a societally useful direction by forming a software company and bringing a product to market.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-among-tech-giants-can-stifle-competition.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
All that would be great, it's certainly what society says it wants, it represents a best case scenario in terms of societal investment and payback in an individual citizen.. and you might think that this is a successful life, a life worth imitating.. but you'd be wrong.. You'd be wrong because it all ends when a lawyer knocks on your door the first time with the strategy to file baseless software patent cases against you until your money is gone, then force you to sell your company to him .. and oh, and become his employee so the integration of your product goes well for him.
Fuck America. don't sell software in nations that permit software patents. That's the ONLY solution. America is the sole possession of the coke snorting class .. we just had that genetic junk tank the entire economy and whine for a bailout and now this slimy take over artist / con man stands to win the Presidency and turn them loose to do it again. Obviously, we're in a societal death spiral we're not going to be pulling out of because at least half the electorate believes in creationism, the magic market bunny and denies global warming. Pretty much it's the end of America as a super power and the beginning of the the rise of Europe as the guardian of the Enlightenment. America is a nation of religious and political / social zealots whose zealotry is unfortunately the kind that closes itself off to self correction. Too bad, but it's time to face reality.. America is past its prime, WAY past its prime and is in the throes of unraveling. That's what happens when you permit religion to lay claim to knowledge superior and truer to science.. citizens are trained up to believe just anything that comes out of the mouths of preachers and politicians because they lack critical thinking skills and worse, are suspicious of them. A population like that is nothing but a societal death sentence being played out over generations.
Bullshit. Total bullshit.
First, you offer no evidence of what the majority of people do or don't do do with their PCs, only your - somewhat sneering- opinion.
But most importantly, your claim that "most people's" interests wrt to computers is so unchallenging and undemanding that they'll have no reason to own a PC (and there will therefore be fewer and fewer PCs) is actually an attempt to predict the unknowable future. There can and will be apps which require the significant computing resources of a "desktop" to do things "average" people are interested in. There is no natural causal link between a program "average" people find interesting how much CPU power and UI responsiveness that program requires. The chief things blocking the "average" user's ability to make a movie easily- something the average user might be interested in the way the average musician is interested in expensive instruments, amplifiers and sound processing equipment- is an understandable UI and working process, and more powerful local graphics processing, specifically we lack real-time rendering.
It's likely that people WANT to do a wider variety of creative things with computers but , in contradistinction to your assertion, the computers just aren't powerful enough yet.
What's more, as they do become more powerful, NEW things to do will start to appear as a result. Things we haven't even thought of yet which will leverage that power.
Humans need a certain form factor to do complicated creative work and that form factor is not a tablet or phone. If anything, it's going in the opposite direction with bigger phidgets acting as user interfaces.
The future definitely includes access to server-based super-computing , but that's not the same as saying a local powerful machine with complex large, non-virtual user interface devices commanding it are somehow going to be obsoleted, especially since they're not even here yet.
Nope the OP is right no.. fundies demand RESPECT for their anti-science and become enraged and feel "oppressed" when the world doesn't capitulate to their demands.
The common thread is religious conservatives, because they believe they are on a mission from Gawd, believe they have the divine right to ram their world view down everyone else's throat, be it at the point of a gun, school board or an airplane.
You can't negotiate with the fundies of any nation, you can't talk to them about civil society because they see that as a perversion of Gawd's plan .. they want to see the world either destroyed in Armageddon -if they're Christians or brought under a world wide caliphate - if they're Muslims.
They despise civil society that is, UNLESS they're a distinct and notably powerless minority, in which case they RUN to the cause of civil society because Gawd forbid that someone should do to them what it is they want to do to the rest of us.
You can't negotiate with fundies and you can't reason with them and they're not going to stop until they've destroyed Western Civilization Since The Enlightenment and dragged us back to the fucking Dark Ages. And that's why we have the drone program.
Go US drones! Go US drones! When you're done over there, we've got got job for ya over here.
Fuckin' subhuman fundie filth.
Regulatory capture... regulatory capture .. OF COURSE!!!!!!!!!!
This is a perfect example why doing science is morally wrong.