yeah, it's so they don't have to release the source to their changes.
that's great for juniper, but completely irrelevant when the topic is GPL router software.
BTW, back in the early and mid 90s, freebsd had a better networking stack. that was a long time ago, back in the days of linux versions 0.99.x and 1.x. Linux caught up and passed them. just as importantly, linux has support for many more networking devices and chipsets than freebsd.
I know little about the FM1/FM2/FM2+ sockets as I've never had any interest in AMD's fusion CPUs. Integrated graphics just doesn't appeal to me.
I can only suggest you start reading at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socket_FM2 and follow the links at the bottom to pages about other sockets (in particular AM3+).
Socket FM2+ is apparently backwards-compatible with FM2 CPUs, so a current FM2 CPU in an FM2+ motherboard would give you some upgradability for the next few years if you want a fusion APU with integrated graphics. NOTE that FM2+ CPUS will not work in older FM2 motherboards.
ditto for the AM3+ socket. it is/will be compatible with current and next gen non-fusion CPUs (current piledriver, and "steamroller" CPUs due out later this year). Also compatible with older Phenom II CPUs if you can find one.
e.g. my current main system has a 990FX AM3+ motherboard with a Phenom II 1090T CPU...I haven't bothered upgrading it to an FX-8350 piledriver CPU but will probably upgrade it to a steamroller CPU next year.
I'm tempted by the idea of an Intel LGA2011 CPU and motherboard but am also very wary of buying into a dead-end - i've seen Intel abandon too many promising CPU lines over the years....the only LGA2011 CPU I can afford is the i7-3820 and that's no better than the FX-8350 but costs about $100 more for the CPU plus another $200-$350 for a new motherboard. More importantly, I can't count on future Intel CPUs to push down the prices of current high-end LGA2011 CPUs like the i7-3970X...Intel is at least as likely to just abandon LGA2011, especially if it competes too well with their "server" Xeon CPUs.
right now, Intel does have an advantage in power consumption. AMD has had that advantage in the past, and will again...just as Intel has had it before and will have it again.
even so, the difference between $384 and $225 pays for at least two or three years worth of electricity...and that's a huge underestimate because it ignores the fact that the machine will be idle or nearly-idle most of the time.
by then, it will be time to upgrade the CPU and maybe the motherboard too (definitely the m/b if it's an intel, they'll make sure of that with yet another new and incompatible socket...possibly not for AMD).
add in the cost of the motherboard, and the difference between $704 ($384 CPU + $320 mb) and $416 ($225 CPU + $191 mb) pays for even more years of electricity.
my machines, even my home machines, are on 24/7, and i do pay my own electricity bill. most of the time they're idle and cpufreq on-demand setting keeps them throttled down at 800Mhz....it takes a huge workload to get even one of the cores to full-throtle at 3.2Ghz, and a massive load to get all six cores running at that.
the only machines i've ever built or worked on that were running flat out all the time are computational clusters - not exactly a typical usage.
most other servers, including virtualisation servers, are mostly idle, or have long periods of mostly-idle time....and even when they're busy, they're largely waiting on I/O rather than doing useful computational work.
intel chips tend to be slightly faster, but much more expensive.
compare Intel's latest i-4770k to AMD's FX-8350 for example.
the Intel chip is roughly 10% faster overall than the AMD, being generous, you can say it's up to maybe 15% faster. The i-4770K at $384 costs 70% more than the FX-8350 at $225.
(prices in AUD because that's where i am)
The i-4770k also has yet another new soccket (1150-pin rather than 1155 or 2011), so it's not just a simple CPU upgrade if you had an existing system, you have to buy a new motherboard as well.
The FX-8350 can be installed in the same motherboard that your old phenom-ii or even am3 sempron CPU was in.
Intel motherboards also tend to be about 70% more than roughly-equivalent AMD motherboards (although direct comparisons are more difficult due to wide variations in features)...but compare a top of the line Asus Sabertooth Z87 for Haswell CPUs at around $320 to the rough equivalent for AMD, the Sabertooth 990FX at around $190
PCE-e 3.0 in the Z87 is kind of nice, in a theoretical sense (nothing really uses it yet, not in any way that provides a noticable benefit over PCI-e 2.0), but the 990FX still has a slight edge in the number of slots and other ports (the Z87 has improved vastly over LGA-1155 and LGA-2011 motherboards - with those, you got a LOT less slots, sata & usb ports and I/O capability than AMD chipset boards)
the same is true for other Intel chips. A high-end Intel i-3970X may wipe the floor with an AMD FX-8350 - but you'd expect it would have to, at $1129 just for the CPU it costs five times as much. It's nowhere near five times as fast, though....at best, it's maybe 1.5-2x as fast.
as someone who rigorously compares features and prices whenever it's time to upgrade my systems (which i do every two or three years, on average), that's been a recurring pattern for at least the last twenty years - Intel tends to be slightly faster, but costs MUCH more. and motherboards for Intel CPUs tend to have far fewer features but still cost much more.
Since I don't have unlimited wealth, I care about getting value for money. AMD is far from perfect, but they've consistently been at the sweet spot for price vs features for a long time.
As a buyer, I also like the simplicity of AMD's chip features. More expensive chips are faster and better than cheaper chips. They don't have some features arbitrarily disabled for market segmentation, so you don't have to carefully check whether a particular chip has support for virtualisation or whatever. The rule is simple: if you pay more, you get more.
With Intel, it's nowhere near that simple. You have to carefully check what features are in the specific chip you're buying. It may be faster and more expensive, but it might have virtualisation support or some other useful feature disabled. If you pay more, you get both more and less.
But history has proven that it has the potential to be A source of evil
i never said it wasn't, or that government was perfect and spotless.
but government is only as bad as you let it be. if you abdicate citizen control over government and leave it to only the rich and powerful and the corporations then they will use it to fuck you and fuck you hard - more of the same. i guess you're used to it by now.
and some would like to see that opportunity limited.
it's corporate evil that most needs to be limited. you can achieve that best - and your own aim of limiting government too - by taking control of the government away from them and back into the hands of citizens
And you are a bigot.
no, just sick and tired of seeing the same self-sabotaging idiocy all the fucking time. you idiot yanks can't see any wrong or any evil without immediately thinking "the government did it". you've been trained well.
no other people are so thoroughly brainwashed. that deserves contempt, not praise - so that's what i give.
How do you get to believe that kind of bullshit? are you just born stupid or is it brainwashed into you?
"the government" is *NOT* the source of all evil. There are plenty of other sources that have nothing at all to do with government, and there are plenty of things that governments can and do do that aren't in the least bit evil.
why the fuck, when you hear a rich and poweful man telling you that "government and regulation is evil and bad for you" that you never, ever, not even for one moment stop to think and ask yourself "what's in it for him to say that? why does he want me to believe that?"
have you no natural suspicion? or cynicism? or has it all been channeled and misdirected via propaganda into anti-government theology?
rent-seeking, for instance, is completely unrelated to government or 'government powers'. it is what happens when a private individual or organisation uses their monopoly or near-monopoly of supply to charge whatever they think they can get away without an angry mob with pitchforks burning them down.
and that means a lot...far more than you might expect because most people will take a hell of a lot of shit from businessmen parasites and exploiters before getting angry enough to even think about doing something about it. rebellion only occurs when conditions become completely and relentlessly unbearable.
it's got nothing at all to do with governments or governmental powers.
yep. staged transition worked extremely well for a few decades while the illegality of theft was phased in. gave burglars and so on years to get used to the 'semi-legal' status of their profession and adjust slowly to their job gradually becoming illegal.
the huge compensation payouts for their loss of income helped too.
Opposition to rent seeking is probably the primary defining characteristic of libertarianism
how quaint - you actually believe that?
the primary definining characteristic of US-style Libertarianism is suckering the aspirationally stupid to endorse policies that allow the rich and powerful to fuck everybody else (including their stupid supporters) over in whatever way they like with no restrictions.
it's a con-job to make you think that your interests align with theirs, that what is good for them is good for you.
The 19th century robber barons weren't unfettered free marketeers, they were people who translated a high level of political influence and corruption into personal fortunes. This is exactly what libertarianism opposes
No, that's precisely what Libertarianism endorses. THAT is the golden age without regulations that they want to return to.
Furthermore, the 19th century was a period of great improvement in the standard of living for everybody, not a period of economic and social decline the way you falsely portray it.
there's some truth in that, but only because there were militant and active unions who successfully fought against oppressive and exploitative working conditions and only because progressive politics and socialism hadn't yet been completely propaganised into being seen as demonic and anti-American (look into your own history, even socialism was both a popular and effective political force in the US up until the late 1940s - it's where ALL of your great national infrastructure projects and your social support programs came from)
change the law so that political donations without a proper, verifiable audit trail back to a specific individual donor is deemed to be the proceeds of crime and subject to immediate civil forfeiture.
the first whistleblower or citizen-detective who reports the improper donation gets to keep 50%
the other half gets split equally between any competing candidates - but only to independents and minor parties.
0. your crtieria are, like the legal system, stacked heavily against the defendant....you did, however, forget to say "SUPERFAIL if your initials are not B.H.". merely an oversight, i'm sure.
0a. the right to silence redresses a small amount of the power imbalance of the ordinary individual vs the state
1. a defendant's alibi may be that they were committing another crime somewhere else. they should not have to admit to a crime the police may know nothing about to clear themselves of a crime they did not and could not possibly have committed.
2. the defendant's alibi may be that they were doing something perfectly legal but embarassing or career/family destroying. they could be blackmailed or simply exposed by a leaked transcript of their interview, or when it becomes public record tendered as evidence.
or it may expose someone else to same. which also leads to:
2a. if your alibi is not believed and you end up getting convicted anyway, the other person will be charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice (or whatever that's called in the US). this may make no difference to your sentence (but probably will due to added charges of conspiracy), but it certainly harms you to have your loyal friend or sexual partner or whatever imprisoned for a crime they didn't commit.
or have them forced to recant their alibi for you in order to avoid charges,
3. silence is golden. whatever you don't say can't be twisted, selectively quoted, misremembered and used against you.
"I didn't say that, i answered No Comment to every single question" is far stronger and more credible reply under cross-examination than a wussy "i didn't quite say that, i said something similar instead but it is being taken completely out of context. it's not what i meant!". the former is definitive, the latter makes you sound like a lying weasel crybaby.
cops and prosecuting laywers are accomplished and skilled liars, far better and more practised than you are ever likely to be and they also have the advantage of being presumed honest and truthful by the courts.
Nothing you say to them can help you - it will only ever be used against you. a cop giving evidence against you in court will *never* voluntarily recount anything you said that might exonerate you, they will cherry-pick the things that might make you seem guilty. and they are very skilled at getting you to say many such small, seemingly irrelevant things in an interview which, added together, can be presented as tantamount to a confession.
4. answering some questions but refusing to answer others will be used against you.
5. it is the job of the police, not you, to find evidence to prove you guilty. you're not allowed to actively obstruct them or lie to them, but you also have no obligation to assist them.
who the fuck are you that i should let you run whatever you want on my machine just because i stumbled across your site on a google search or a link from some other site?
i have no reason to trust you - or your ad network - or anyone else by default. i sure as hell won't let you run code on my machine just because you want or expect me to.
the reason i run NoScript is because the web is full of untrustworthy sites that attempt to run spyware or worse.
i don't want random strangers running code on my machine, any more than i want to share my toothbrush with them. it's unclean, and unhygienic, and guaranteed to fuck up your day (or your life)
running a browser without script and ad blocking is the internet equivalent of visiting a junkie squat and jabbing yourself with every dirty syringe you find on the floor.
i've run across a few sites that try to make their site unreadable without javascript - that just guarantees i won't even bother sticking around long enough to bother figuring out if i ever want to come back (and if i *really* want to read the page/article that i stumbled upon, i'll just view it in lynx or use wget or write a scraper....but it's generally not worth the bother, there's millions of other sites on the net that aren't so obnoxious)
then there's no good reason for them to have root.
depending on the work environment, devs may or may not have root on their own workstations, but definitely shouldn't have it on the development, testing, or production servers unless part of their job is systems administration (either because they're an assistant sysadmin or because their employer is a cheapskate and thinks that sysadmins and programmers are the same).
actually, i'm partly wrong - there's one good reason, to teach them how to cope with the mess caused by the kind of bad systems adminstration done by a programmer who sees it as a boring chore that uses up valuable dev time. but that would only work if they only had root on another students' VM rather than their own.
another good reason is that some students will realise that they prefer or are better skilled at sysadmin work than at programming, and devote their future studies and work to further that....programming and systems administration require similar skill sets, but quite different attitudes and aptitudes.
Lighten up on the defensiveness. Some "fat chicks" are indeed like that.
and some men are rapists, a tiny percentage (but much larger than the percentage of fat chicks who want to be abused or just ogled by complete strangers) - does that justify regarding all men as being rapists?
So no, it's not misogyny, it happens.
when it's said of an entire class of people ("fat chicks") instead of a particular individual who has that psychological fuckup or saying that a particular individual must have that fuckup just because she fits your classification of a fat chick, then YES, it is misogyny. same as saying all men are rapists is misandry, and saying all black men are crack-smoking gangsters is racism, or saying all americans are gun-loving psychopaths (the 0.0001% who prefer knives make that a racist statement:) .
if it bothers you when someone wears on in public, you should already be bothered. Google "public web cam" for just a small smidgen of cameras that already out there, recording your movements 24/7.
that's what bothers people - it reminds them that they're being recorded nearly all the time. they don't want to be reminded, they want to keep their illusion of privacy.
also, many people believe (rightly or wrongly) that CCTV cameras are a necessary evil because they help prevent shoplifting, deter thieves, and help catch criminals (e.g. a CCTV camera in a shop window identified the rapist who murdered a young woman only a few kilometres from where I live a few years - he probably wouldn't have been caught otherwise). they don't accord the same "necessary evil" status to cameras used by individuals, they see it as a frivolous techno-toy with no benefit to them or to society.
personally, i don't agree that CCTVs are a necessary evil - i think that they are not worth the loss of privacy or anonymity (one of the benefits of living in a city IS anonymity - you don't have your neighbours knowing about every thing that happens in your life as you do in a small town). But i'm clearly in the minority on this issue.
uploading photos to the internet IS publishing. that's not even legal grey-area.
and it's not hard to argue that photos being auto-submitted to face recognition databases on the net is publishing too.
that IS a grey area at the moment, but it won't be long until it's being argued in court cases around the world - the matter will be decided there or in legislatures above them.
There's a need in my life that Glass can fill that my smartphone can't.
you misspelt want
I ride a motorcycle, while I'm on the road, I can't pull up google maps, or check to see what that alert sound was (assuming I even hear it).
when you're on the road, you should be paying attention to the road, not to a screen, not to alert sounds from your e-devices, and not to phone calls.
if you need to look at a map or take/make a phone call, stop at the side of the road first.
at least on a bike your momentary distractions are more likely to kill yourself than others, but you're still placing others at unneccessary risk. pedestrians don't want or need you and your bike plowing into them at 60 K or more, and whle it may seem at times like car drivers want to kill you, they really don't want you messing up their paint-work.
you're right. realising that most people are stupid is depressing.
it explains a lot about the world and how it got to be such a fucked-up mess, and leads to the inescapable conclustion that the species is doomed (and probably not worth saving, anyway)
ignorance isn't bliss, though....it's just ignorance.
it's not happening to them (you know, fat chicks complain about lecherous young men... because they're not looking at them).
you were doing so well up until this point. not particularly informative or interesting, but not completely pointless and stupid either.
but this is just idiot baying-pack misogyny.
"fat chicks" don't complain about lecherous young men "not looking at them" - they complain about them treating them like shit, insulting them for no reason, expecting them to suck their cocks "just because they're fat so shouldn't be fussy", groping and assaulting them, and occasionally raping them for being fat and unsympathetic characters unlikely to prevail in a court-case.
most "fat chicks" would like nothing better than to be left alone to get on with their lives in peace without being spat on or worse by creepy arseholes like you.
It's funny - sometimes you'll see a post here where the author is both against imaginary property and pro-GPL. Their hearts are in the right place, but they really don't understand what they're saying. It gives opponents something to latch onto as well.
that's because they, unlike you, understand that the GPL is a legal hack to subvert copyright laws so that they work for freedom rather than against it.
it only makes no sense if you're too stupid to read.
You just said that some people can work 80h with no problem.
you're confusing me with someone else. i never said that.
my first and only involvement in this thread is to respond to the question "why would it imply that the French government has a right, or even an interest, in forbidding these particular developers to work 80h/week?"
the answer is, as i said, that by limiting maximum working hours per week, governments prevent exploitation of those unable to say "No" as well as those stupid enough to say "Yes".
governments have a duty to protect citizens from abusive and exploitative employers, just as they have a duty to protect citizens from thieves, murderers, and rapists.
and just as not everyone is physically strong enough to defend themselves against a mugger or a rapist, not everyone is able to stand up to their employer and say "No, I won't work any more overtime, or 80 hours/week" or "No, I wont suck your cock to keep my job".
If Google or Apple aren't paying what you consider their "fair share"
their fair share is the corporate tax rate of 30% of net that they agreed to when they chose to do business in this country.
i thought you anarcho-capitalist retards held agreements to be both binding and sacred - or is it OK to break agreements you voluntarily entered into if you disagree with the other party's politics? or because you can get away with it?
or is it simply because "bizness gud, gubmint bad"?
... blame your own politicians and courts.
of course! now i understand, it's so obvious once you've pointed it out - the victim, the police, and the courts are always the ones responsible for a crime, not the perpetrator. never the perp.
perhaps one day someone will murder you and get away with it by claiming they didn't kill the yokel in Bumfuck County, USA, they were pretending they were in Ireland while they did it so that's where it happened. and it will judged to be your fault for letting someone imagine you were overseas.
Well, good luck with that. All that will likely come crashing down.
you really do believe that theft is OK as long as you're big enough to get away with it, don't you?
do you masturbate to the fantasy that one day you'll also be big enough?
dream on, peon. you never will be. you're an economic peasant and your job is to work your arse off propping up those who stomp you down, because keeping everyone else down is how they stay on top.
for the same reason that governments have a compelling interest in preventing people from selling themselves - or their children - into slavery.
because exploitation happens, and governments have a duty to protect all of their citizens, not just the rich. even those stupid enough to be willing, or coerced by economic circumstance, to work themselves into an early grave.
by limiting maximum working hours per week, governments prevent exploitation of those unable to say "No" as well as those stupid enough to say "Yes".
Claiming that corporate taxes pay for "externalities" associated with these products is a bald faced lie
Well, it might be if i had indeed said that or anything like that. I didn't, and still don't.
Try responding to what i actually wrote, and not to your half-arsed strawman.
Most of the actual externalities are paid for by taxes on gas, land, payroll, sales, and other sources
no, they're not. you clearly have no fucking idea what you're talking about. externalised costs are NOT borne by the company (or individual) who benefits from them. that's the entire fucking point, they're costs borne by third-parties, by the entire community, by someone else - ANYONE ELSE.
the classic example is that of dumping toxic waste in a river - there's no cost to the polluting factory (in fact, they save the expense of disposing of their waste properly). the cost is borne by everyone else who lives by or uses that river, swims in it, drinks it, washes in it, eats fish from it, especially those downstream.
read the wikipedia link in my last post, especially the section on negative externalities.
That's why B2B and internet shopping are so hot.
funny, middle-men being eliminated doesn't seem to have reduced retail prices much, or at all.
if reducing costs in the distribution chain don't magically reduce prices, why do you expect me or anyone else to believe that requiring parasite corporations to pay their fair share of taxes would somehow magically increase them?
IMO it would be a fucking great thing if the price of an item bore any kind of direct relationship to the cost of producing it. but it rarely does. the price is far more often exactly what they think they can get away with (aka "what the market will bear" in self-congratulating marketing wanker biz-speek)
I'm not "getting upset", I'm explaining to you why raising taxes just won't work.
actually, you are. you're just another moron apologist for corporate thieves. you see them as canny businessmen minimising their unjust tax burden. i see them as parasitic leeches engorging themselves on the toil and blood of others.
i guess your attitude is only to be expected - you're an american, after all, and raised to admire con-men and thieves and to regard "caveat emptor" not as a warning against vermin but as a slogan of sound business practice.
more importantly, i never said that taxes must be raised (although i do happen to also think that they should be raised, at least to the levels before the rich and the corporates were given massive tax cuts - that's a separate issue from the point i was making here).
You have companies moving their profits overseas because they don't want to pay US or UK taxes. Your solution? Raise taxes further.
No, that isn't my solution.
My solution is that the scum-sucking corporate parasites should pay their fair share of taxes and not be allowed to get away with exploiting loopholes to evade tax.
Lying and fiddling the books to claim that money was made in a low-or-zero-tax jurisdiction when it was actually made in a normal taxing jurisdiction is not legal, it's not just "paying no more than they legally have to" as moronic parrot apologists like you bleat on and on about. it's a fucking tax evasion scam, and the companies and individuals who perpetrate it are criminal scum.
criminal scum no better than those who looted the financial system with their bogus loans and bullshit derivatives that caused the GFC and then demanded a bailout of trillions.
you want to know why your country's economy is so fucked - it's because you idiot americans let the thieves on wall street get away with multi-trillion dollar larceny while thieves from haliburton loot the treasury and corporate puppets reduce the already-bargain basement tax rate for the rich. worse, you no
Your observation isn't relevant either; if you increase corporate taxes, you just accomplish two things: they'll have to raise prices, so you end up paying for those taxes, and they'll come up with ways of moving out of the country.
that's one way of looking at it.
another, more accurate way is that if the government doesn't prevent them evading taxes, they are subsidising the price of their products.
i.e. your iphone/whatever is artificially cheap because it's subsidised by tax-payers. part of the cost of you having that item is shifted to people who get no benefit from you owning your gizmo.
Ultimately, no matter "who" you tax, real people end up paying the price. And with corporations, the people ending up paying the price are the people buying their products (and potentially their employees).
how odd... you say that as if it's a bad thing.
why is it that people who are all in favour of user-pays ideology when it comes to essential services provided by governments, get so upset about users paying the full, unsubsidised cost of the products they buy (including subsidies for tax evaded, and externalised expenses[1])
and why do they get so upset about the relatively minor effect that tax has on the retail price, yet are perfectly happy with all the middle-men in the distribution chain taking their markup at every step along the way (typically 30-40% at each stage, sometimes hundreds of percent for some products)
Slashdot Mirror
yeah, it's so they don't have to release the source to their changes.
that's great for juniper, but completely irrelevant when the topic is GPL router software.
BTW, back in the early and mid 90s, freebsd had a better networking stack. that was a long time ago, back in the days of linux versions 0.99.x and 1.x. Linux caught up and passed them. just as importantly, linux has support for many more networking devices and chipsets than freebsd.
I know little about the FM1/FM2/FM2+ sockets as I've never had any interest in AMD's fusion CPUs. Integrated graphics just doesn't appeal to me.
I can only suggest you start reading at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socket_FM2 and follow the links at the bottom to pages about other sockets (in particular AM3+).
Socket FM2+ is apparently backwards-compatible with FM2 CPUs, so a current FM2 CPU in an FM2+ motherboard would give you some upgradability for the next few years if you want a fusion APU with integrated graphics. NOTE that FM2+ CPUS will not work in older FM2 motherboards.
ditto for the AM3+ socket. it is/will be compatible with current and next gen non-fusion CPUs (current piledriver, and "steamroller" CPUs due out later this year). Also compatible with older Phenom II CPUs if you can find one.
e.g. my current main system has a 990FX AM3+ motherboard with a Phenom II 1090T CPU...I haven't bothered upgrading it to an FX-8350 piledriver CPU but will probably upgrade it to a steamroller CPU next year.
I'm tempted by the idea of an Intel LGA2011 CPU and motherboard but am also very wary of buying into a dead-end - i've seen Intel abandon too many promising CPU lines over the years....the only LGA2011 CPU I can afford is the i7-3820 and that's no better than the FX-8350 but costs about $100 more for the CPU plus another $200-$350 for a new motherboard. More importantly, I can't count on future Intel CPUs to push down the prices of current high-end LGA2011 CPUs like the i7-3970X...Intel is at least as likely to just abandon LGA2011, especially if it competes too well with their "server" Xeon CPUs.
right now, Intel does have an advantage in power consumption. AMD has had that advantage in the past, and will again...just as Intel has had it before and will have it again.
even so, the difference between $384 and $225 pays for at least two or three years worth of electricity...and that's a huge underestimate because it ignores the fact that the machine will be idle or nearly-idle most of the time.
by then, it will be time to upgrade the CPU and maybe the motherboard too (definitely the m/b if it's an intel, they'll make sure of that with yet another new and incompatible socket...possibly not for AMD).
add in the cost of the motherboard, and the difference between $704 ($384 CPU + $320 mb) and $416 ($225 CPU + $191 mb) pays for even more years of electricity.
my machines, even my home machines, are on 24/7, and i do pay my own electricity bill. most of the time they're idle and cpufreq on-demand setting keeps them throttled down at 800Mhz....it takes a huge workload to get even one of the cores to full-throtle at 3.2Ghz, and a massive load to get all six cores running at that.
the only machines i've ever built or worked on that were running flat out all the time are computational clusters - not exactly a typical usage.
most other servers, including virtualisation servers, are mostly idle, or have long periods of mostly-idle time....and even when they're busy, they're largely waiting on I/O rather than doing useful computational work.
both are incorrect.
intel chips tend to be slightly faster, but much more expensive.
compare Intel's latest i-4770k to AMD's FX-8350 for example.
the Intel chip is roughly 10% faster overall than the AMD, being generous, you can say it's up to maybe 15% faster. The i-4770K at $384 costs 70% more than the FX-8350 at $225.
(prices in AUD because that's where i am)
The i-4770k also has yet another new soccket (1150-pin rather than 1155 or 2011), so it's not just a simple CPU upgrade if you had an existing system, you have to buy a new motherboard as well.
The FX-8350 can be installed in the same motherboard that your old phenom-ii or even am3 sempron CPU was in.
Intel motherboards also tend to be about 70% more than roughly-equivalent AMD motherboards (although direct comparisons are more difficult due to wide variations in features)...but compare a top of the line Asus Sabertooth Z87 for Haswell CPUs at around $320 to the rough equivalent for AMD, the Sabertooth 990FX at around $190
PCE-e 3.0 in the Z87 is kind of nice, in a theoretical sense (nothing really uses it yet, not in any way that provides a noticable benefit over PCI-e 2.0), but the 990FX still has a slight edge in the number of slots and other ports (the Z87 has improved vastly over LGA-1155 and LGA-2011 motherboards - with those, you got a LOT less slots, sata & usb ports and I/O capability than AMD chipset boards)
the same is true for other Intel chips. A high-end Intel i-3970X may wipe the floor with an AMD FX-8350 - but you'd expect it would have to, at $1129 just for the CPU it costs five times as much. It's nowhere near five times as fast, though....at best, it's maybe 1.5-2x as fast.
as someone who rigorously compares features and prices whenever it's time to upgrade my systems (which i do every two or three years, on average), that's been a recurring pattern for at least the last twenty years - Intel tends to be slightly faster, but costs MUCH more. and motherboards for Intel CPUs tend to have far fewer features but still cost much more.
Since I don't have unlimited wealth, I care about getting value for money. AMD is far from perfect, but they've consistently been at the sweet spot for price vs features for a long time.
As a buyer, I also like the simplicity of AMD's chip features. More expensive chips are faster and better than cheaper chips. They don't have some features arbitrarily disabled for market segmentation, so you don't have to carefully check whether a particular chip has support for virtualisation or whatever. The rule is simple: if you pay more, you get more.
With Intel, it's nowhere near that simple. You have to carefully check what features are in the specific chip you're buying. It may be faster and more expensive, but it might have virtualisation support or some other useful feature disabled. If you pay more, you get both more and less.
only an idiot american would think Obama was any kind of leftist.
you tell me to face reality? try facing some yourself instead of just eagerly reinforcing your own brainwashing.
the worst kind of idiots are those who'll praise the taste of shit just because they're told it's chocolate.
i never said it wasn't, or that government was perfect and spotless.
but government is only as bad as you let it be. if you abdicate citizen control over government and leave it to only the rich and powerful and the corporations then they will use it to fuck you and fuck you hard - more of the same. i guess you're used to it by now.
it's corporate evil that most needs to be limited. you can achieve that best - and your own aim of limiting government too - by taking control of the government away from them and back into the hands of citizens
no, just sick and tired of seeing the same self-sabotaging idiocy all the fucking time. you idiot yanks can't see any wrong or any evil without immediately thinking "the government did it". you've been trained well.
no other people are so thoroughly brainwashed. that deserves contempt, not praise - so that's what i give.
FFS!
WTF is wrong with you stupid fucking americans?
How do you get to believe that kind of bullshit? are you just born stupid or is it brainwashed into you?
"the government" is *NOT* the source of all evil. There are plenty of other sources that have nothing at all to do with government, and there are plenty of things that governments can and do do that aren't in the least bit evil.
why the fuck, when you hear a rich and poweful man telling you that "government and regulation is evil and bad for you" that you never, ever, not even for one moment stop to think and ask yourself "what's in it for him to say that? why does he want me to believe that?"
have you no natural suspicion? or cynicism? or has it all been channeled and misdirected via propaganda into anti-government theology?
rent-seeking, for instance, is completely unrelated to government or 'government powers'. it is what happens when a private individual or organisation uses their monopoly or near-monopoly of supply to charge whatever they think they can get away without an angry mob with pitchforks burning them down.
and that means a lot...far more than you might expect because most people will take a hell of a lot of shit from businessmen parasites and exploiters before getting angry enough to even think about doing something about it. rebellion only occurs when conditions become completely and relentlessly unbearable.
it's got nothing at all to do with governments or governmental powers.
yep. staged transition worked extremely well for a few decades while the illegality of theft was phased in. gave burglars and so on years to get used to the 'semi-legal' status of their profession and adjust slowly to their job gradually becoming illegal.
the huge compensation payouts for their loss of income helped too.
how quaint - you actually believe that?
the primary definining characteristic of US-style Libertarianism is suckering the aspirationally stupid to endorse policies that allow the rich and powerful to fuck everybody else (including their stupid supporters) over in whatever way they like with no restrictions.
it's a con-job to make you think that your interests align with theirs, that what is good for them is good for you.
No, that's precisely what Libertarianism endorses. THAT is the golden age without regulations that they want to return to.
there's some truth in that, but only because there were militant and active unions who successfully fought against oppressive and exploitative working conditions and only because progressive politics and socialism hadn't yet been completely propaganised into being seen as demonic and anti-American (look into your own history, even socialism was both a popular and effective political force in the US up until the late 1940s - it's where ALL of your great national infrastructure projects and your social support programs came from)
change the law so that political donations without a proper, verifiable audit trail back to a specific individual donor is deemed to be the proceeds of crime and subject to immediate civil forfeiture.
the first whistleblower or citizen-detective who reports the improper donation gets to keep 50%
the other half gets split equally between any competing candidates - but only to independents and minor parties.
0. your crtieria are, like the legal system, stacked heavily against the defendant....you did, however, forget to say "SUPERFAIL if your initials are not B.H.". merely an oversight, i'm sure.
0a. the right to silence redresses a small amount of the power imbalance of the ordinary individual vs the state
1. a defendant's alibi may be that they were committing another crime somewhere else. they should not have to admit to a crime the police may know nothing about to clear themselves of a crime they did not and could not possibly have committed.
2. the defendant's alibi may be that they were doing something perfectly legal but embarassing or career/family destroying. they could be blackmailed or simply exposed by a leaked transcript of their interview, or when it becomes public record tendered as evidence.
or it may expose someone else to same. which also leads to:
2a. if your alibi is not believed and you end up getting convicted anyway, the other person will be charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice (or whatever that's called in the US). this may make no difference to your sentence (but probably will due to added charges of conspiracy), but it certainly harms you to have your loyal friend or sexual partner or whatever imprisoned for a crime they didn't commit.
or have them forced to recant their alibi for you in order to avoid charges,
3. silence is golden. whatever you don't say can't be twisted, selectively quoted, misremembered and used against you.
"I didn't say that, i answered No Comment to every single question" is far stronger and more credible reply under cross-examination than a wussy "i didn't quite say that, i said something similar instead but it is being taken completely out of context. it's not what i meant!". the former is definitive, the latter makes you sound like a lying weasel crybaby.
cops and prosecuting laywers are accomplished and skilled liars, far better and more practised than you are ever likely to be and they also have the advantage of being presumed honest and truthful by the courts.
Nothing you say to them can help you - it will only ever be used against you. a cop giving evidence against you in court will *never* voluntarily recount anything you said that might exonerate you, they will cherry-pick the things that might make you seem guilty. and they are very skilled at getting you to say many such small, seemingly irrelevant things in an interview which, added together, can be presented as tantamount to a confession.
4. answering some questions but refusing to answer others will be used against you.
5. it is the job of the police, not you, to find evidence to prove you guilty. you're not allowed to actively obstruct them or lie to them, but you also have no obligation to assist them.
who the fuck are you that i should let you run whatever you want on my machine just because i stumbled across your site on a google search or a link from some other site?
i have no reason to trust you - or your ad network - or anyone else by default. i sure as hell won't let you run code on my machine just because you want or expect me to.
the reason i run NoScript is because the web is full of untrustworthy sites that attempt to run spyware or worse.
i don't want random strangers running code on my machine, any more than i want to share my toothbrush with them. it's unclean, and unhygienic, and guaranteed to fuck up your day (or your life)
running a browser without script and ad blocking is the internet equivalent of visiting a junkie squat and jabbing yourself with every dirty syringe you find on the floor.
i've run across a few sites that try to make their site unreadable without javascript - that just guarantees i won't even bother sticking around long enough to bother figuring out if i ever want to come back (and if i *really* want to read the page/article that i stumbled upon, i'll just view it in lynx or use wget or write a scraper....but it's generally not worth the bother, there's millions of other sites on the net that aren't so obnoxious)
then there's no good reason for them to have root.
depending on the work environment, devs may or may not have root on their own workstations, but definitely shouldn't have it on the development, testing, or production servers unless part of their job is systems administration (either because they're an assistant sysadmin or because their employer is a cheapskate and thinks that sysadmins and programmers are the same).
actually, i'm partly wrong - there's one good reason, to teach them how to cope with the mess caused by the kind of bad systems adminstration done by a programmer who sees it as a boring chore that uses up valuable dev time. but that would only work if they only had root on another students' VM rather than their own.
another good reason is that some students will realise that they prefer or are better skilled at sysadmin work than at programming, and devote their future studies and work to further that....programming and systems administration require similar skill sets, but quite different attitudes and aptitudes.
and some men are rapists, a tiny percentage (but much larger than the percentage of fat chicks who want to be abused or just ogled by complete strangers) - does that justify regarding all men as being rapists?
when it's said of an entire class of people ("fat chicks") instead of a particular individual who has that psychological fuckup or saying that a particular individual must have that fuckup just because she fits your classification of a fat chick, then YES, it is misogyny. same as saying all men are rapists is misandry, and saying all black men are crack-smoking gangsters is racism, or saying all americans are gun-loving psychopaths (the 0.0001% who prefer knives make that a racist statement :) .
that's what bothers people - it reminds them that they're being recorded nearly all the time. they don't want to be reminded, they want to keep their illusion of privacy.
also, many people believe (rightly or wrongly) that CCTV cameras are a necessary evil because they help prevent shoplifting, deter thieves, and help catch criminals (e.g. a CCTV camera in a shop window identified the rapist who murdered a young woman only a few kilometres from where I live a few years - he probably wouldn't have been caught otherwise). they don't accord the same "necessary evil" status to cameras used by individuals, they see it as a frivolous techno-toy with no benefit to them or to society.
personally, i don't agree that CCTVs are a necessary evil - i think that they are not worth the loss of privacy or anonymity (one of the benefits of living in a city IS anonymity - you don't have your neighbours knowing about every thing that happens in your life as you do in a small town). But i'm clearly in the minority on this issue.
uploading photos to the internet IS publishing. that's not even legal grey-area.
and it's not hard to argue that photos being auto-submitted to face recognition databases on the net is publishing too.
that IS a grey area at the moment, but it won't be long until it's being argued in court cases around the world - the matter will be decided there or in legislatures above them.
you misspelt want
when you're on the road, you should be paying attention to the road, not to a screen, not to alert sounds from your e-devices, and not to phone calls.
if you need to look at a map or take/make a phone call, stop at the side of the road first.
at least on a bike your momentary distractions are more likely to kill yourself than others, but you're still placing others at unneccessary risk. pedestrians don't want or need you and your bike plowing into them at 60 K or more, and whle it may seem at times like car drivers want to kill you, they really don't want you messing up their paint-work.
you're right. realising that most people are stupid is depressing.
it explains a lot about the world and how it got to be such a fucked-up mess, and leads to the inescapable conclustion that the species is doomed (and probably not worth saving, anyway)
ignorance isn't bliss, though....it's just ignorance.
you were doing so well up until this point. not particularly informative or interesting, but not completely pointless and stupid either.
but this is just idiot baying-pack misogyny.
"fat chicks" don't complain about lecherous young men "not looking at them" - they complain about them treating them like shit, insulting them for no reason, expecting them to suck their cocks "just because they're fat so shouldn't be fussy", groping and assaulting them, and occasionally raping them for being fat and unsympathetic characters unlikely to prevail in a court-case.
most "fat chicks" would like nothing better than to be left alone to get on with their lives in peace without being spat on or worse by creepy arseholes like you.
that's because they, unlike you, understand that the GPL is a legal hack to subvert copyright laws so that they work for freedom rather than against it.
it only makes no sense if you're too stupid to read.
you're confusing me with someone else. i never said that.
my first and only involvement in this thread is to respond to the question "why would it imply that the French government has a right, or even an interest, in forbidding these particular developers to work 80h/week?"
the answer is, as i said, that by limiting maximum working hours per week, governments prevent exploitation of those unable to say "No" as well as those stupid enough to say "Yes".
governments have a duty to protect citizens from abusive and exploitative employers, just as they have a duty to protect citizens from thieves, murderers, and rapists.
and just as not everyone is physically strong enough to defend themselves against a mugger or a rapist, not everyone is able to stand up to their employer and say "No, I won't work any more overtime, or 80 hours/week" or "No, I wont suck your cock to keep my job".
their fair share is the corporate tax rate of 30% of net that they agreed to when they chose to do business in this country.
i thought you anarcho-capitalist retards held agreements to be both binding and sacred - or is it OK to break agreements you voluntarily entered into if you disagree with the other party's politics? or because you can get away with it?
or is it simply because "bizness gud, gubmint bad"?
for the same reason that governments have a compelling interest in preventing people from selling themselves - or their children - into slavery.
because exploitation happens, and governments have a duty to protect all of their citizens, not just the rich. even those stupid enough to be willing, or coerced by economic circumstance, to work themselves into an early grave.
by limiting maximum working hours per week, governments prevent exploitation of those unable to say "No" as well as those stupid enough to say "Yes".
Well, it might be if i had indeed said that or anything like that. I didn't, and still don't.
Try responding to what i actually wrote, and not to your half-arsed strawman.
no, they're not. you clearly have no fucking idea what you're talking about. externalised costs are NOT borne by the company (or individual) who benefits from them. that's the entire fucking point, they're costs borne by third-parties, by the entire community, by someone else - ANYONE ELSE.
the classic example is that of dumping toxic waste in a river - there's no cost to the polluting factory (in fact, they save the expense of disposing of their waste properly). the cost is borne by everyone else who lives by or uses that river, swims in it, drinks it, washes in it, eats fish from it, especially those downstream.
read the wikipedia link in my last post, especially the section on negative externalities.
funny, middle-men being eliminated doesn't seem to have reduced retail prices much, or at all.
if reducing costs in the distribution chain don't magically reduce prices, why do you expect me or anyone else to believe that requiring parasite corporations to pay their fair share of taxes would somehow magically increase them?
IMO it would be a fucking great thing if the price of an item bore any kind of direct relationship to the cost of producing it. but it rarely does. the price is far more often exactly what they think they can get away with (aka "what the market will bear" in self-congratulating marketing wanker biz-speek)
actually, you are. you're just another moron apologist for corporate thieves. you see them as canny businessmen minimising their unjust tax burden. i see them as parasitic leeches engorging themselves on the toil and blood of others.
i guess your attitude is only to be expected - you're an american, after all, and raised to admire con-men and thieves and to regard "caveat emptor" not as a warning against vermin but as a slogan of sound business practice.
more importantly, i never said that taxes must be raised (although i do happen to also think that they should be raised, at least to the levels before the rich and the corporates were given massive tax cuts - that's a separate issue from the point i was making here).
No, that isn't my solution.
My solution is that the scum-sucking corporate parasites should pay their fair share of taxes and not be allowed to get away with exploiting loopholes to evade tax.
Lying and fiddling the books to claim that money was made in a low-or-zero-tax jurisdiction when it was actually made in a normal taxing jurisdiction is not legal, it's not just "paying no more than they legally have to" as moronic parrot apologists like you bleat on and on about. it's a fucking tax evasion scam, and the companies and individuals who perpetrate it are criminal scum.
criminal scum no better than those who looted the financial system with their bogus loans and bullshit derivatives that caused the GFC and then demanded a bailout of trillions.
you want to know why your country's economy is so fucked - it's because you idiot americans let the thieves on wall street get away with multi-trillion dollar larceny while thieves from haliburton loot the treasury and corporate puppets reduce the already-bargain basement tax rate for the rich. worse, you no
that's one way of looking at it.
another, more accurate way is that if the government doesn't prevent them evading taxes, they are subsidising the price of their products.
i.e. your iphone/whatever is artificially cheap because it's subsidised by tax-payers. part of the cost of you having that item is shifted to people who get no benefit from you owning your gizmo.
how odd... you say that as if it's a bad thing.
why is it that people who are all in favour of user-pays ideology when it comes to essential services provided by governments, get so upset about users paying the full, unsubsidised cost of the products they buy (including subsidies for tax evaded, and externalised expenses[1])
and why do they get so upset about the relatively minor effect that tax has on the retail price, yet are perfectly happy with all the middle-men in the distribution chain taking their markup at every step along the way (typically 30-40% at each stage, sometimes hundreds of percent for some products)
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality