Bands that were incredibly well known and highly regarded, thanks to the promotion of those evil record companies executing that old business model, chocked while experimenting with a new business model. What do you think will happen to new and unknown bands? Face it, artists have always needed sponsors, the royalty and churches in the past, the record companies in more recent times. Support directly from fans yields merely subsistence in the optimistic scenarios. That's a pretty ludicrously out-of-touch take on the situation.
I think that puts the hype over penryn into perspective. There are some nice improvements energy leaks and such, but it's nothing revolutionary. Improvements in fabrication technology have nothing to do with improvements in the ISA, beyond the extent to which the ISA relies on the performance provided by the process. The process improvements in Penryn are revolutionary. 45nm on hafnium gates with a whole slew of other process changes needed to make that work is something that five years ago wasn't even believed possible - I recall gloom-and-doom predictions that the brick wall was at 65 nm.
Practically, Penryn may be an incremental step, but the process behind it will give Intel huge room for improvement in the next couple of years.
Speak for yourself. As far as I can tell, there are quite a lot of people very happy with the demo. I was struck by how balanced the gameplay was. There are dozens of ways to go fragging, especially with vehicles, and not one of them feels nerfed or overwhelmingly powerful. Personally, I think ONS is the best thing since sliced bread, and while there is no ONS map in the demo, the indications are that Warfare and ONS are as good as ever.
What are the specific problems you have with the demo?
The Phalanx and friends are good against most missiles... but not against the kind of missiles a serious adversary might use today against a carrier battle group. There are several Soviet-designed sea-skimming missiles whose final attack speed reportedly exceeds the maximum that the Phalanx can engage, and Russia and India are jointly developing an even faster one (claimed Mach 2.8). As far as I know, there is no viable defense against such a missile, whether Phalanx or point defense SAM.
The other aspect discussed here is ultra-stealthy subs with Granit supercavitating torpedoes. No known defense against that one, either, once the sub is in range.
Oh, I'm sorry, did I hurt your feelings? Then why don't you stop going around making ridiculous uninformed statements?
I didn't claim you confused those terms. You said: Every living thing on this planet is just as highly evolved as every other, which is so ridiculous as to boggle the mind, whether we take it literally or in some bullshit metaphorical layman sense. I suggested that you may have meant something else which is actually correct, but you don't seem to be interested in correctness.
Complain that I "implicitly claim" something that's not true. I'm not complaining, I'm interpreting your words. You can't interpret the words in your previous post to mean anything other than that you don't consider technology a manifestation of intelligence. If you don't want to be misunderstood, express yourself more clearly.
The Air Force was in need of these capabilities and were on track to implementing them when Challenger happened. The Vandenberg launch site would have allowed an Air Force shuttle to start launching heavy spy satellites (the contracts for which went to Titan/Atlas/Delta instead) and go on permanent standby for rescuing and repairing those satellites. Had the costs per launch not increased further, the shuttle could also be used to rescue satellites stranded in bad transfer orbits due to launch misfires (dozens lost in the past two decades with losses in the tens of billions I think) and return them to Earth. The Air Force also wanted ability to be flexible about landing sites, which requires glide capability and would only have been needed had the shuttle or its derivative been used tactically, which obviously was in the distant future before Challenger and shelved afterwards. This was also during the Cold War, when a combination civilian/military program for building a transport as sophisticated as the shuttle's initial specs made a lot of sense.
The shuttle is all those things because it's a 1960s technology vehicle, effectively in a research stage, built to a set of very ambitious requirements and frozen in that overall design in a production run of nearly 30 years with much lower volume than optimal. Just because we can't operate that design safely, or don't have the wherewithal to iterate that design to perfection using modern technology, doesn't mean that a winged, manned, heavy, fully reusable orbital transport is not an extremely desirable way to go to earth orbit.
To say that an amateur could replicate the shuttle's capabilities is ludicrous. That's your hubris speaking.
Every living thing on this planet is just as highly evolved as every other Complete bullshit, but I think you mean that humans have sustained no more evolutionary change than many other species, and that's true.
Squirrels are quite intelligent It's when you implicitly claim that squirrels are as intelligent as humans that you expose yourself as a complete idiot. Technology is a manifestation of advanced sentience; sentience wielding technology propels intelligence, and after a "critical mass" is reached, technology and intelligence are locked in a feedback loop (ever heard of the technological singularity?). Of course, extraterrestrial life in general is of interest to us, sentient or not, and of any level of intelligence, but we don't know of any way to look for it remotely other than monitoring for potential communications in various wavebands. To claim that technology is anthropocentric and not a manifestation of intelligence is to, well, not be very intelligent yourself.
Sentience and technology makes humans unique? The search for sentience and technology (signals analysis methods aside) is anthropocentric?
You seem to be very confused.
Re:SETI looks for obsolete technology
on
Is SETI Worth It?
·
· Score: 1
We have lighthouses and radio beacons all over the Earth and in orbit. They put out strong carrier signals precisely because those are easy to detect. Why do you think any other civilization wouldn't use the same approach for radio beacons?
The best science is always done by people who don't know if it's going to work. That's because it has by far the biggest pay-off in case of success. SETI's hypotheses are no more extravagant than those of thousands of other successful scientific efforts.
If you were a scientist put in position to pursue a novel hypothesis that requires a substantial amount of work to prove, you would give up and get nothing done.
As for GPUs, well, just buy the last-gen Ultra. An ATI X1950Pro 256M is now $200, anything really more powerful is at least $500. Wrong. A GeForce 8800GT completely obliterates anything from ATI or any non-8800-based card from nVidia, and costs $260, not to mention consumes a lot less power. Now, getting a hold of it is another matter since they're selling like hotcakes...
You may think I'm crazy for saying that, of course, but I'm not a fan of the retributive concept of "justice" that countries like the USA use. Actually, lots of countries unlike the USA use it too, in fact all countries I know of do to some extent...
putting her in jail is counterproductive and wrong - QED. Unless, of course, one believes in using prison to take revenge on people, but that's not something I do (although I do realise I'd probably be in the minority if I lived in the USA). You'd be in the minority in almost all other places as well.
The act of catching a murderer for a crime committed many years ago and putting them in prison is not an act of revenge. It's an act of punishment designed in such a way as not to have a statute of limitations; that in turn is meant to make it a very powerful deterrent against murder. People everywhere tend to agree that murder is a very bad thing and should be punished very harshly as a warning to others.
It is hardly a deterrent, to say that if I didn't catch you for 20 years, I will try and catch you later. It is a very good deterrent. Deterrent means a factor to cause other people not to commit similar crimes. Knowing that you will be in danger of being thrown into jail throughout the rest of your life if you murder someone and try to get away is a powerful factor.
Revenge would dictate to haul someone's ass back into prison whenever they are caught, but that serves no purpose whatsoever apart from revenge. No, it serves the purpose of demonstrating a deterrent to other members of society. There is a reason statutes of limitations don't apply to murder. It should not be a tolerable crime.
Punishment? No, you mean Revenge. No, he means punishment.
Revenge is about hate. No, revenge is about personally making someone suffer for something they did. It may or may not include hate.
The supposed purpose of the police system is to ensure that people are free of fear and hate... Prison is supposed to remove people from society as long as they pose a threat... That is the way we protect ourselves. No, the supposed purpose of police, and the way we protect ourselves, is to ensure that people's actions do not infringe upon other people's basic rights, most importantly the right not to be killed. One of the most effective ways to do so is to provide a powerful deterrent against murder by ensuring that all caught perpetrators serve long prison sentences.
Let me teach you something about dialog: You don't know jack shit. You and I have very different ideas of what dialog means. Guess whose version works better when confronting an abusive police officer and then trying to get that officer to be disciplined? And whose version works better for convincing the politicians in power to promulgate reasonable policies about this?
There are real problems with fear-mongering in this country. What are you doing? I discussed with my local police department's officers how they respond to emergencies and threat reports, took part in protests against the war in Iraq, wrote to my congressman and senator, voted accordingly, participated in the political process in my home country (unfortunately I couldn't be there a few months ago at a protest where dozens were arrested and beaten for protesting a number of things including fearmongering), and wrote and spoke many times to many people about police brutality. I study self-defense (in a very practical school). I strive to educate and train myself and others about good and bad security practices, privacy-invading and preserving technology, personal safety, and various aspects of combat and law enforcement.
Your attitude is best summarized as oblivious. What we need is to educate people to be intelligent. The level of intelligence required to understand that you can uphold all the ideals you list, while remaining aware of and prepared for potential threats, is not high. In practical terms, this involves being aware of your surroundings without succumbing to fear, and fighting those who would coopt and abuse this fear in others. You don't have to be a paranoid spy to be aware of what's going on around you, and it certainly doesn't have to affect the way you fit into society.
Please, it's all about cores. I think to you it's all about throwing around bullshit unfounded opinions.
There are many tasks, some of them on the dekstop, which will never be parallelizable. Single-core performance has been and will remain absolutely crucial, even when everyone and their mom can write code in a parallelizing toolkit.
Faster chips require better fabs. Fabs are having difficulty producing better platters with a few enough flaws to produce mass quantities. Strides are being made, but know massive breakthroughs. My phoniness meter just exploded.
Anyway, all p2p is based on innovation... Protocols tend to disappear and being replaced by better and more sophisticated ones. How do you conclude that? BitTorrent is by no means a more sophisticated system than FastTrack. How is a centralized tracker system with no search capability and DHTs better than a mesh network with built-in search capability and DHTs?
Yes. When the head is on the ramp and the shock is strong enough that it would have slammed the head into the platter, collapsing the air cushion, damage to the track and head can be avoided. That requires a fairly strong shock though, like a laptop falling off the table, and many laptops already have protection against that scenario (HDAPS).
To me, the biggest annoyance with this bug (which after further reading does seem to be a BIOS default settings bug) is the constant clicking sounds the hard drive makes as it load cycles the heads.
Having looked at this more closely, it's clear that this is not ubuntu's fault, since those "-B 1" lines don't get called unless laptop mode is enabled. So the problem is that many hard drives default to harmful power management settings after certain conditions are met. Windows resets their power management to reasonable settings, while Linux does nothing. So it's not an Ubuntu problem after all... though setting hdparm -B 128 (the suggested value for my drive) in the acpi scripts after every wake-up wouldn't hurt.
Slashdot Mirror
Practically, Penryn may be an incremental step, but the process behind it will give Intel huge room for improvement in the next couple of years.
Speak for yourself. As far as I can tell, there are quite a lot of people very happy with the demo. I was struck by how balanced the gameplay was. There are dozens of ways to go fragging, especially with vehicles, and not one of them feels nerfed or overwhelmingly powerful. Personally, I think ONS is the best thing since sliced bread, and while there is no ONS map in the demo, the indications are that Warfare and ONS are as good as ever.
What are the specific problems you have with the demo?
The Phalanx and friends are good against most missiles... but not against the kind of missiles a serious adversary might use today against a carrier battle group. There are several Soviet-designed sea-skimming missiles whose final attack speed reportedly exceeds the maximum that the Phalanx can engage, and Russia and India are jointly developing an even faster one (claimed Mach 2.8). As far as I know, there is no viable defense against such a missile, whether Phalanx or point defense SAM.
The other aspect discussed here is ultra-stealthy subs with Granit supercavitating torpedoes. No known defense against that one, either, once the sub is in range.
I didn't claim you confused those terms. You said: Every living thing on this planet is just as highly evolved as every other, which is so ridiculous as to boggle the mind, whether we take it literally or in some bullshit metaphorical layman sense. I suggested that you may have meant something else which is actually correct, but you don't seem to be interested in correctness. Complain that I "implicitly claim" something that's not true. I'm not complaining, I'm interpreting your words. You can't interpret the words in your previous post to mean anything other than that you don't consider technology a manifestation of intelligence. If you don't want to be misunderstood, express yourself more clearly.
The Air Force was in need of these capabilities and were on track to implementing them when Challenger happened. The Vandenberg launch site would have allowed an Air Force shuttle to start launching heavy spy satellites (the contracts for which went to Titan/Atlas/Delta instead) and go on permanent standby for rescuing and repairing those satellites. Had the costs per launch not increased further, the shuttle could also be used to rescue satellites stranded in bad transfer orbits due to launch misfires (dozens lost in the past two decades with losses in the tens of billions I think) and return them to Earth. The Air Force also wanted ability to be flexible about landing sites, which requires glide capability and would only have been needed had the shuttle or its derivative been used tactically, which obviously was in the distant future before Challenger and shelved afterwards. This was also during the Cold War, when a combination civilian/military program for building a transport as sophisticated as the shuttle's initial specs made a lot of sense.
The shuttle is all those things because it's a 1960s technology vehicle, effectively in a research stage, built to a set of very ambitious requirements and frozen in that overall design in a production run of nearly 30 years with much lower volume than optimal. Just because we can't operate that design safely, or don't have the wherewithal to iterate that design to perfection using modern technology, doesn't mean that a winged, manned, heavy, fully reusable orbital transport is not an extremely desirable way to go to earth orbit.
To say that an amateur could replicate the shuttle's capabilities is ludicrous. That's your hubris speaking.
Sentience and technology makes humans unique? The search for sentience and technology (signals analysis methods aside) is anthropocentric?
You seem to be very confused.
We have lighthouses and radio beacons all over the Earth and in orbit. They put out strong carrier signals precisely because those are easy to detect. Why do you think any other civilization wouldn't use the same approach for radio beacons?
Your attitude is stupefyingly anti-scientific.
The best science is always done by people who don't know if it's going to work. That's because it has by far the biggest pay-off in case of success. SETI's hypotheses are no more extravagant than those of thousands of other successful scientific efforts.
If you were a scientist put in position to pursue a novel hypothesis that requires a substantial amount of work to prove, you would give up and get nothing done.
Yeah, what a crock.
The act of catching a murderer for a crime committed many years ago and putting them in prison is not an act of revenge. It's an act of punishment designed in such a way as not to have a statute of limitations; that in turn is meant to make it a very powerful deterrent against murder. People everywhere tend to agree that murder is a very bad thing and should be punished very harshly as a warning to others.
You make your point for me: you lack the intelligence, or at least the composure, to discuss this topic.
There are real problems with fear-mongering in this country. You're not the one doing anything constructive about them.
Your attitude is best summarized as oblivious. What we need is to educate people to be intelligent. The level of intelligence required to understand that you can uphold all the ideals you list, while remaining aware of and prepared for potential threats, is not high. In practical terms, this involves being aware of your surroundings without succumbing to fear, and fighting those who would coopt and abuse this fear in others. You don't have to be a paranoid spy to be aware of what's going on around you, and it certainly doesn't have to affect the way you fit into society.
(Score: 0, Sad)
There are many tasks, some of them on the dekstop, which will never be parallelizable. Single-core performance has been and will remain absolutely crucial, even when everyone and their mom can write code in a parallelizing toolkit. Faster chips require better fabs. Fabs are having difficulty producing better platters with a few enough flaws to produce mass quantities. Strides are being made, but know massive breakthroughs. My phoniness meter just exploded.
Who are you to decide what Wikipedia is or isn't?
Yes. When the head is on the ramp and the shock is strong enough that it would have slammed the head into the platter, collapsing the air cushion, damage to the track and head can be avoided. That requires a fairly strong shock though, like a laptop falling off the table, and many laptops already have protection against that scenario (HDAPS).
To me, the biggest annoyance with this bug (which after further reading does seem to be a BIOS default settings bug) is the constant clicking sounds the hard drive makes as it load cycles the heads.
Having looked at this more closely, it's clear that this is not ubuntu's fault, since those "-B 1" lines don't get called unless laptop mode is enabled. So the problem is that many hard drives default to harmful power management settings after certain conditions are met. Windows resets their power management to reasonable settings, while Linux does nothing. So it's not an Ubuntu problem after all... though setting hdparm -B 128 (the suggested value for my drive) in the acpi scripts after every wake-up wouldn't hurt.
It's really annoying when the drive clicks every five seconds or so. That's the main problem for me (my laptop is affected by this issue).