Constitutional changes (e.g. a "Balanced Budget Amendment") might help prevent the collapse of the dollar, but they are not needed. If the financial system can be saved, it can be done so without anyone exceeding the simple-layman plain-reading of the constitution.
And frankly, even if President Ron Paul needed to exceed his legal powers to do something, of all the candidates running for office, that guy (except for maybe Gary Johnson, but probably not) would be the last one to actually do so. If you want "Ron Paul deep cuts" then passing amendments quickly enough is not something you're worrying about.
Screw 'em, all we need is to be able to kill people.
Seriously: in that sentence, who does "we" refer to? When you realize it refers to the federal government, not the country, and that those are two totally different (and often adversarial) things, you'll "get" the idea of constitutional limits.
We need to not be assholes on the internet, but we don't want the government to regulate what you're allowed to say on the internet. We need religion to go away and die, but we don't want government to outlaw (or establish) religion. We want speed limits on some roads, but recognize that the federal government is no better informed about what roads need what limits, then our state and local governments made up of people who actually live here and have maybe seen the roads. We want certain building codes, but recognize that buildings in Alaska and Louisiana exist within totally different environments.
Wanting feds to butt out of an issue, is usually not the same as taking any particular side on that issue.
[Regarding whether or not a Ron Paul interpretation of the constitution is a good idea (regardless of whether he's right or wrong about the framer's intent)]
requiring an amendment (which requires several years at a minimum to pass) for the normal day-to-day actions of the Congress, which so gridlock the national government, as to force to destruction.
What the hell is so restrictive about "several years" when you're talking about the feds getting into totally new areas? Issues drag on for decades anyway, and granting Congress broad powers over some particular topic once would allow Congress to address that topic without needing passage of more amendments. With a few words, it's settled. The country's day-to-day needs wouldn't be impacted at all. If you look at Article 1 Section 8, it's pretty vague about how Congress would go about implementing its powers; it just lets them do it. All sorts of things which are currently excused by the catch-all "interstate commerce" combined with "necessary and proper" clauses could easily be handled in the same way, with an explicit grant of power (or handled by the people or states not granting that power).
When was the last time anyone worried about the constitutionality of the day-to-day actions of Congress in establishing post offices or providing and maintaining a navy? The explicit power in the constitution works perfectly for those kinds of things (or else it works perfectly bad and you're advocating amendments to take those powers away;-).
Ideas like a national sales tax, national health plan, drug war, etc are so old that generations have been born and died since they first came up, with your own great grandparents probably squabbling about the constitutionality back when they were idealistic and young. And you're worried about "several years" being too short of a time to decide whether or not its Congress' problem to deal with?
What the hell could Congress possibly do, that we haven't already had 20 years to talk about, wage internet flame wars over, and finally settle on and pass an amendment to authorize them being The One Entity who has to address the topic? Are you worried about something just totally bonkers and unanticipated, like an alien invasion or an asteroid or nova or -- damn, everything I can even fathom, would be a sudden threat from space -- where the country would just have to suddenly set policy in a new unforeseen area?
This shows off a weakness in open source.. Sometimes you just need to force the new version down the mouth.
The purpose of Free Software is to avoid becoming bound by other people's decisions in situations where you don't want to be. That is, it should always be totally impossible for someone to "force anything down the mouth." What we see here is that by having the freedom to fork, what you call a "weakness" acted as a strength. The needs of downstream outweigh the needs of upstream.
That is, of course a Free Software way of looking at it.
If you wish to promote Open Source instead of Free Software, you can make an argument that it is expedient to force other people to do what they don't want, because the needs of upstream outweigh the needs of downstream. By preventing forking and fragmentation, Open Source developers can roll out their changes to a wider audience, more easily achieve Global Domination, etc. Yes, by that measure, the fact that other people are allowed to control what software they run or maintain, despite whatever you want, is a weakness rather than a strength. Open Source advocates don't necessarily have to adopt that conclusion, but yeah, I can see that PoV.
I guess it just depends on whose side you're on and what's most important to you. It comes down to why you care about Open Source.
I used to think IR is a good idea and maybe it still is. But in one way it has been almost as obsoleted as the accessory-connector (and almost USB itself!). The only physical connector you really need is for power. For everything else, there's Wifi & IP.
Last night the TV remote was acting funny, dying battery or something. So m'lady picked up her phone, started the remote app, and changed the TV's input from one source to another (that combined with on/off is about all the TV remote gets used for anyway, so I'm not sure why the battery would be dead). Everything's doable over networks these days. Who really needs "docking" hacks, IR, etc?
I know there's an answer to that last question, and it's "someone." Someone has a TV without an ethernet port, someone has a computer whose OS really just wants to mount block devices instead of NFS or CIFS shares, etc. So there's room for diversity. I wonder if this is just a transition need, though, fading as the rest of their equipment catches up.
The "standard connector" should be IP, and then app-specific protocols (hopefully very open ones) on top of that. Is this really not obvious?
Cool. And we'll mark that centralized authority as "moderately trusted," but I still want two more just like it which will never have motivation to conspire with it.
*sigh* You're taking them too seriously, and as soon as you play their game, you lose. If I may play FSMs-advocate..
vestigial organs/parts. If a creator independently designed each organism, then lots of stuff that shouldn't be there somehow made it into the finished product.
Shouldn't be there?! Who are you, puny human, to say what should or shouldn't be? How do you know FSM's plan? Where the fuck were you when FSM created the world? Bad design?! Oh really, Mr. Smarty Pants, you can call the design "bad" when you don't even know what the goal was? LOL, you puny humans and your blinders, focusing on trivial things like efficiency and performance, since those limited concepts are the only things your tiny FSM-given brains can handle. Telling you the purpose of the designs so that you would be able to judge (HA!) whether they're good or bad, would be like you telling an ant who just cares about gathering food, the purpose of a USB flash drive. He tastes the flash drive, sees it doesn't work well as food, and concludes it must not have had any conscious creator.
The sheer arrogance of thinking you know what's in FSM's mind or know better than FSM, is just outrageous. The fact that the vestigial parts are there, is evidence that they should be there. You just haven't figured out why, because you're not as smart as FSM.
Dude: religion. What part of "can't be falsified" don't you understand? If religion could be tested or argued about, it wouldn't be religion.
One thing I don't get about the alleged strategy being used against Assange, is how this brings him closer to US government retaliation (unless the sex charges themselves are the retaliation). Can someone explain that to me?
It's hard to believe he's thinking in terms of some kind of.. ahem.. extra-legal action, such as assassination. What, I'm supposed to believe covert US agents are capable of operating in Sweden but not just as capable in UK? Oh please. The whole point of moving him to Sweden has to have something to do with legal options. And illegal activity the US wanted to perform, has been available all along and doesn't need Sweden's help. (Anyone disagree?)
Is there an actual legal mechanism whereby Assange could be extradited to US? He's not a US citizen, and AFAIK there's been no criminal complaint in the US, and I'm not sure he's even informally accused of having really broken any US law (or at least no more so than the media organizations that received and published the information). Are Guardian people being extradited?
So, WTF? All I can think of is that the embarrassment, expense, and possible sentence that goes with the rape charges themselves. And I'm not downplaying that at all (assuming the charges are false) but people are saying he's being set up for something worse than that. What is it, and how would it work?
My Courier met a disgraceful and ignominious end in 2008 when I was moving and realized that it was just inconceivable that I would ever use it again or that it would even have resale value. I was probably slightly wrong about that second thing (somebody, somewhere, maybe could have used it) but it didn't seem worth the trouble. It ended up in a box of stuff that went to a electronics recycler, and probably ended up poisoning someone in China.
FWIW, I'm glad Microsoft didn't end up tarnishing the once-very-reputable name "Courier." That name should be retired and always thought of with an implicit "US Robotics" prepended to it. What's next, Microsoft RX7? Microsoft P-38 Lightning? Microsoft Amiga?
The America Invents Act was passed with President Obama's strong leadership after nearly a decade of effort to reform the Nation's outdated patent laws.
The president is responsible for any changes that you like.
But it's important to note that the executive branch doesn't set the boundaries of what is patentable all by itself. Congress has set forth broad categories of inventions that are eligible for patent protection.
The president isn't responsible for things you don't like.
I guess "fragmentation" is a synonym for "competition." If you want the best stuff to exist (heh, but with everyone disagreeing about what is best), then you're in favor of it. If you want the world to unify to support something that maybe isn't as good, you're against it. I guess it all depends on what you want.
Yes, you can make a case for unity. People have been preaching that for (literally!) thousands of years. And yet, not everyone is sold on the idea.
The problem I have with cc is who stands to make money while most people will have to pay more with no real benefit.
Ah.. I think I get this point of view. You're saying that climate change causes the currently-best locations for cities (especially coastal ones) and farmland to become not-as-good, and some not-as-good land become the best? So in adapting to the climate change, the majority of the population will end up paying a minority of land speculators who took advantage of the climate models (assuming those models give accurate predictions). Thus speculators have a motivation to spread climate change denial, since an ill-informed populace will cause there to be more exploitable differences in land valuation.
Hmm.. I think that's pretty far-fetched. But even if it's true, I think most people's problem with climate change is the expense of adaptation itself (the "no real benefit" part is something almost everyone agrees on, I think), not who profits by adding a little onto it.
But does the end user have to do esoteric tweaks themselves for an Intel processor with hyperthreading?
To the same degree as Bulldozer. If you think updating your kernel is burdensome to get the most out of Bulldozer, then you probably had the same complaint with the Pentium 4's HT. OTOH if you thought updating your kernel to make a Pentium 4 multtitask better was no big deal, then you're going to have the same attitude about Bulldozer -- that it's no big deal either.
Substitute "Pentium 4" with whatever multiple-instruction-pointers-in-hardware that you first used. If you were playing with SMP motherboards and cheap Celerons (don't remember the details but there was a very cost-effective combo back in the day that turned a lot of people on), similarly you had to update from Windows 95 to NT or Linux 1.x to 2.0.
Really, it all comes down to this: when the hardware guys come out with something new, the pre-existing software is usually not already built to support it to maximum advantage. That's not always the case (e.g. by the time Ivy Bridge comes out in 2012 your kernel from 2011 might already use it very well -- but OTOH your kernel from 2008 probably won't) but usually is.
I agree with the other poster who points out the consistent usage of "esoteric tweaks." Whether it's a "troll meme" or astroturfing, I don't know, but it sure looks stupid and discredits every poster who jumps on that bandwagon.
No, the DMCA notice procedure says nothing about interoperability exemptions. And if you (and the people who modded up your question) had RTFAed you would see that is what the reference to DCMA was all about. This has nothing to do with anticircumvention prohibitions.
If somebody has a web page that you don't like (for any reason, it could be copyright infringement, it could be voicing a negative opinion, or it could be about a product that is compatible with yours), check to see who is hosting them. If it's someone who immediately folds upon receiving DMCA notices, then send 'em one. Silenced. That's what happened here: the Skype-compatible guy was using Google's blogger site, and Google is too big to be able to deal with counter-notices.
So basically they suck. I shouldn't need to tweak my os thread scheduler just so a cpu can suck less.
You must think the i3 and i7 suck too, then, since they have hyperthreading in addition to their multiple cores, and definitely benefit schedulers being HT-aware. Actually, you probably think all multicore CPUs and SMP motherboards suck, since before those were widely available, the kernels in use at the time didn't know how to use more than one CPU.
AMD needs to fix their shit instead of lame excuses.
Can't argue with that; Bulldozer's performance isn't as much as everyone was hoping it would be.
I think what's really gone wrong with the design is that in addition to the nifty approach to integer parallelism (which I still think was a great idea and makes the chips better than they would be without it) they also decided to do the longer-pipeline thing. And it would have worked, if they shipped the new CPUs with an extra GigaHertz or two of clockspeed. But they didn't. Probably for the same reason Intel gave up on the same idea after the P4.
I really hope that mistake doesn't end up killing them. They have got to either get the clockspeed up, or else lower their prices/profits further.
To answer your question with other questions: where are the compression benchmark articles? And is there decompression hardware for either one of them?
One way this situation is different than other codec liberations is that we're talking about lossless codecs now. If your all your music is encoded with one but you end up with a player (or a more efficient player) for the other, converting your entire collection (in either direction) isn't necessarily insane. VP8 didn't have this going for it (OTOH it didn't have a competitor like FLAC going against it, either).
Yes, but even though they're not guaranteed (violation of the expectation isn't fraud), they're also normal and expected, and lack of them being available is exceptional. If you typed "aptitude dist-upgrade" and your desktop computer replied "No, go fuck yourself" then you would be shocked, and your future hardware purchases would probably be such that it would never happen to you a second time.
For some reason, most of us are suppressing our shock, and then not correcting the problem when we buy new hardware, so it happens again and again. That is very strange and wouldn't happen if the computer didn't fit in your pocket. What is special about the form factor, that is causing our software expectations to be different?
When you answer the "what's special" question is just gets stranger. What's special about that form factor, is that we've gotten accustomed to buying it from our ISPs and having the cost to us, amortized monthly over a couple years. And when we do that, we say "it was free" like they did us a favor, so when it falls into obsolesence, we have nothing to complain about since it was "free."
Yet if your x86 box were paid for with your credit card, you wouldn't call it "free" and you would still expect it to maintainable. So again: what's different about the form factor, that the financing is different and we fool ourselves about the cost?
Consider the idiot that flies past a line of cars waiting to take an off ramp, and cuts in at the last minute. An act that is completely irrational (and risky) but he gets in ahead of the line, doesn't he?
Game theory always does account for things like that, primarily because the behavior you're describing is not irrational. The very fact that you are predicting that "he gets ahead" is what makes it rational.
Same for your "when they zig, you zag" idea: I have never heard of anyone using game theory that doesn't account for (and in fact, predict) that sort of behavior.
If you want to come up with an example where game theory doesn't work, you're going to have to try a few thousand times harder than that.
The reason game theory tends to disappoint, is that peoples' intuitive hunches for the payoffs of certain actions don't match the theory, but those hunches are what they act upon -- and that in turn changes all the payoffs, sometimes toward causing the hunches to becomes true (!) and sometimes toward causing the hunches to be more false. And that itself can be analyzed and predicted, but only if you just happen to know what other people's hunches are going to be -- and that is never predictable.
Game theory is about finding optimum equilibriums for behavior; it can never tell you what people believe.
BTW, back onto GP's subject.. a few months ago I went on an AdamCurtis-athon with some high expectations. It was a letdown, and not nearly as serious a criticism of the targets as I had hoped, especially since I just assumed some of them (e.g. the neo-cons) would be shooting fish in a barrel. I won't say watching all his docs is a waste of time -- it's not -- but don't get your hopes up. You'll find some good anecdotes, carefully selected interesting trivia, and great quotes like the one about economists and psychopaths.. but that's all.
If tech skills' marketability have a half-life of two years, then 22 years ago we were 2^11 times as marketable as we are right now, which happens to be about the same as the number of work hours in a year. Hey everybody, remember 1989 when you made your current yearly pay, every hour? That was so fucking awesome! I must have partied pretty hard back then, because I have no memory of what I did with all that money.
Slashdot Mirror
Careful, this kind of thinking may keep you from ever getting any upgrade at all. There's always something niftier coming in half a year.
Can I get the 30-day plan? "They've launched a nuclear attack with their Monthman missiles!"
Holy crap.
Constitutional changes (e.g. a "Balanced Budget Amendment") might help prevent the collapse of the dollar, but they are not needed. If the financial system can be saved, it can be done so without anyone exceeding the simple-layman plain-reading of the constitution.
And frankly, even if President Ron Paul needed to exceed his legal powers to do something, of all the candidates running for office, that guy (except for maybe Gary Johnson, but probably not) would be the last one to actually do so. If you want "Ron Paul deep cuts" then passing amendments quickly enough is not something you're worrying about.
Seriously: in that sentence, who does "we" refer to? When you realize it refers to the federal government, not the country, and that those are two totally different (and often adversarial) things, you'll "get" the idea of constitutional limits.
We need to not be assholes on the internet, but we don't want the government to regulate what you're allowed to say on the internet. We need religion to go away and die, but we don't want government to outlaw (or establish) religion. We want speed limits on some roads, but recognize that the federal government is no better informed about what roads need what limits, then our state and local governments made up of people who actually live here and have maybe seen the roads. We want certain building codes, but recognize that buildings in Alaska and Louisiana exist within totally different environments.
Wanting feds to butt out of an issue, is usually not the same as taking any particular side on that issue.
[Regarding whether or not a Ron Paul interpretation of the constitution is a good idea (regardless of whether he's right or wrong about the framer's intent)]
What the hell is so restrictive about "several years" when you're talking about the feds getting into totally new areas? Issues drag on for decades anyway, and granting Congress broad powers over some particular topic once would allow Congress to address that topic without needing passage of more amendments. With a few words, it's settled. The country's day-to-day needs wouldn't be impacted at all. If you look at Article 1 Section 8, it's pretty vague about how Congress would go about implementing its powers; it just lets them do it. All sorts of things which are currently excused by the catch-all "interstate commerce" combined with "necessary and proper" clauses could easily be handled in the same way, with an explicit grant of power (or handled by the people or states not granting that power).
When was the last time anyone worried about the constitutionality of the day-to-day actions of Congress in establishing post offices or providing and maintaining a navy? The explicit power in the constitution works perfectly for those kinds of things (or else it works perfectly bad and you're advocating amendments to take those powers away ;-).
Ideas like a national sales tax, national health plan, drug war, etc are so old that generations have been born and died since they first came up, with your own great grandparents probably squabbling about the constitutionality back when they were idealistic and young. And you're worried about "several years" being too short of a time to decide whether or not its Congress' problem to deal with?
What the hell could Congress possibly do, that we haven't already had 20 years to talk about, wage internet flame wars over, and finally settle on and pass an amendment to authorize them being The One Entity who has to address the topic? Are you worried about something just totally bonkers and unanticipated, like an alien invasion or an asteroid or nova or -- damn, everything I can even fathom, would be a sudden threat from space -- where the country would just have to suddenly set policy in a new unforeseen area?
The purpose of Free Software is to avoid becoming bound by other people's decisions in situations where you don't want to be. That is, it should always be totally impossible for someone to "force anything down the mouth." What we see here is that by having the freedom to fork, what you call a "weakness" acted as a strength. The needs of downstream outweigh the needs of upstream.
That is, of course a Free Software way of looking at it.
If you wish to promote Open Source instead of Free Software, you can make an argument that it is expedient to force other people to do what they don't want, because the needs of upstream outweigh the needs of downstream. By preventing forking and fragmentation, Open Source developers can roll out their changes to a wider audience, more easily achieve Global Domination, etc. Yes, by that measure, the fact that other people are allowed to control what software they run or maintain, despite whatever you want, is a weakness rather than a strength. Open Source advocates don't necessarily have to adopt that conclusion, but yeah, I can see that PoV.
I guess it just depends on whose side you're on and what's most important to you. It comes down to why you care about Open Source.
I used to think IR is a good idea and maybe it still is. But in one way it has been almost as obsoleted as the accessory-connector (and almost USB itself!). The only physical connector you really need is for power. For everything else, there's Wifi & IP.
Last night the TV remote was acting funny, dying battery or something. So m'lady picked up her phone, started the remote app, and changed the TV's input from one source to another (that combined with on/off is about all the TV remote gets used for anyway, so I'm not sure why the battery would be dead). Everything's doable over networks these days. Who really needs "docking" hacks, IR, etc?
I know there's an answer to that last question, and it's "someone." Someone has a TV without an ethernet port, someone has a computer whose OS really just wants to mount block devices instead of NFS or CIFS shares, etc. So there's room for diversity. I wonder if this is just a transition need, though, fading as the rest of their equipment catches up.
The "standard connector" should be IP, and then app-specific protocols (hopefully very open ones) on top of that. Is this really not obvious?
They also want ponies, so I propose we give everyone a pony and then all problems will be solved.
Just kidding. I know we can give them all ponies. Let's lie to them and just tell them they have ponies, but only if they truly believe.
This approach is foolproof. I'm filing a pat--WTF? What's all this prior art?!!?! DAMMIT!
Cool. And we'll mark that centralized authority as "moderately trusted," but I still want two more just like it which will never have motivation to conspire with it.
Don't listen to this emacs pimp. Teach your grandmother to use vim!
No. Observation covers what, and theory covers how.
*sigh* You're taking them too seriously, and as soon as you play their game, you lose. If I may play FSMs-advocate..
Shouldn't be there?! Who are you, puny human, to say what should or shouldn't be? How do you know FSM's plan? Where the fuck were you when FSM created the world? Bad design?! Oh really, Mr. Smarty Pants, you can call the design "bad" when you don't even know what the goal was? LOL, you puny humans and your blinders, focusing on trivial things like efficiency and performance, since those limited concepts are the only things your tiny FSM-given brains can handle. Telling you the purpose of the designs so that you would be able to judge (HA!) whether they're good or bad, would be like you telling an ant who just cares about gathering food, the purpose of a USB flash drive. He tastes the flash drive, sees it doesn't work well as food, and concludes it must not have had any conscious creator.
The sheer arrogance of thinking you know what's in FSM's mind or know better than FSM, is just outrageous. The fact that the vestigial parts are there, is evidence that they should be there. You just haven't figured out why, because you're not as smart as FSM.
Dude: religion. What part of "can't be falsified" don't you understand? If religion could be tested or argued about, it wouldn't be religion.
One thing I don't get about the alleged strategy being used against Assange, is how this brings him closer to US government retaliation (unless the sex charges themselves are the retaliation). Can someone explain that to me?
It's hard to believe he's thinking in terms of some kind of .. ahem .. extra-legal action, such as assassination. What, I'm supposed to believe covert US agents are capable of operating in Sweden but not just as capable in UK? Oh please. The whole point of moving him to Sweden has to have something to do with legal options. And illegal activity the US wanted to perform, has been available all along and doesn't need Sweden's help. (Anyone disagree?)
Is there an actual legal mechanism whereby Assange could be extradited to US? He's not a US citizen, and AFAIK there's been no criminal complaint in the US, and I'm not sure he's even informally accused of having really broken any US law (or at least no more so than the media organizations that received and published the information). Are Guardian people being extradited?
So, WTF? All I can think of is that the embarrassment, expense, and possible sentence that goes with the rape charges themselves. And I'm not downplaying that at all (assuming the charges are false) but people are saying he's being set up for something worse than that. What is it, and how would it work?
My Courier met a disgraceful and ignominious end in 2008 when I was moving and realized that it was just inconceivable that I would ever use it again or that it would even have resale value. I was probably slightly wrong about that second thing (somebody, somewhere, maybe could have used it) but it didn't seem worth the trouble. It ended up in a box of stuff that went to a electronics recycler, and probably ended up poisoning someone in China.
FWIW, I'm glad Microsoft didn't end up tarnishing the once-very-reputable name "Courier." That name should be retired and always thought of with an implicit "US Robotics" prepended to it. What's next, Microsoft RX7? Microsoft P-38 Lightning? Microsoft Amiga?
My favorite two parts of the response are this:
The president is responsible for any changes that you like.
The president isn't responsible for things you don't like.
I guess "fragmentation" is a synonym for "competition." If you want the best stuff to exist (heh, but with everyone disagreeing about what is best), then you're in favor of it. If you want the world to unify to support something that maybe isn't as good, you're against it. I guess it all depends on what you want.
Yes, you can make a case for unity. People have been preaching that for (literally!) thousands of years. And yet, not everyone is sold on the idea.
Ah.. I think I get this point of view. You're saying that climate change causes the currently-best locations for cities (especially coastal ones) and farmland to become not-as-good, and some not-as-good land become the best? So in adapting to the climate change, the majority of the population will end up paying a minority of land speculators who took advantage of the climate models (assuming those models give accurate predictions). Thus speculators have a motivation to spread climate change denial, since an ill-informed populace will cause there to be more exploitable differences in land valuation.
Hmm.. I think that's pretty far-fetched. But even if it's true, I think most people's problem with climate change is the expense of adaptation itself (the "no real benefit" part is something almost everyone agrees on, I think), not who profits by adding a little onto it.
To the same degree as Bulldozer. If you think updating your kernel is burdensome to get the most out of Bulldozer, then you probably had the same complaint with the Pentium 4's HT. OTOH if you thought updating your kernel to make a Pentium 4 multtitask better was no big deal, then you're going to have the same attitude about Bulldozer -- that it's no big deal either.
Substitute "Pentium 4" with whatever multiple-instruction-pointers-in-hardware that you first used. If you were playing with SMP motherboards and cheap Celerons (don't remember the details but there was a very cost-effective combo back in the day that turned a lot of people on), similarly you had to update from Windows 95 to NT or Linux 1.x to 2.0.
Really, it all comes down to this: when the hardware guys come out with something new, the pre-existing software is usually not already built to support it to maximum advantage. That's not always the case (e.g. by the time Ivy Bridge comes out in 2012 your kernel from 2011 might already use it very well -- but OTOH your kernel from 2008 probably won't) but usually is.
I agree with the other poster who points out the consistent usage of "esoteric tweaks." Whether it's a "troll meme" or astroturfing, I don't know, but it sure looks stupid and discredits every poster who jumps on that bandwagon.
No, the DMCA notice procedure says nothing about interoperability exemptions. And if you (and the people who modded up your question) had RTFAed you would see that is what the reference to DCMA was all about. This has nothing to do with anticircumvention prohibitions.
If somebody has a web page that you don't like (for any reason, it could be copyright infringement, it could be voicing a negative opinion, or it could be about a product that is compatible with yours), check to see who is hosting them. If it's someone who immediately folds upon receiving DMCA notices, then send 'em one. Silenced. That's what happened here: the Skype-compatible guy was using Google's blogger site, and Google is too big to be able to deal with counter-notices.
You must think the i3 and i7 suck too, then, since they have hyperthreading in addition to their multiple cores, and definitely benefit schedulers being HT-aware. Actually, you probably think all multicore CPUs and SMP motherboards suck, since before those were widely available, the kernels in use at the time didn't know how to use more than one CPU.
Can't argue with that; Bulldozer's performance isn't as much as everyone was hoping it would be.
I think what's really gone wrong with the design is that in addition to the nifty approach to integer parallelism (which I still think was a great idea and makes the chips better than they would be without it) they also decided to do the longer-pipeline thing. And it would have worked, if they shipped the new CPUs with an extra GigaHertz or two of clockspeed. But they didn't. Probably for the same reason Intel gave up on the same idea after the P4.
I really hope that mistake doesn't end up killing them. They have got to either get the clockspeed up, or else lower their prices/profits further.
No, the hype is that it blurs the distinction between cores and hyperthreading. It's both and neither.
To answer your question with other questions: where are the compression benchmark articles? And is there decompression hardware for either one of them?
One way this situation is different than other codec liberations is that we're talking about lossless codecs now. If your all your music is encoded with one but you end up with a player (or a more efficient player) for the other, converting your entire collection (in either direction) isn't necessarily insane. VP8 didn't have this going for it (OTOH it didn't have a competitor like FLAC going against it, either).
Yes, but even though they're not guaranteed (violation of the expectation isn't fraud), they're also normal and expected, and lack of them being available is exceptional. If you typed "aptitude dist-upgrade" and your desktop computer replied "No, go fuck yourself" then you would be shocked, and your future hardware purchases would probably be such that it would never happen to you a second time.
For some reason, most of us are suppressing our shock, and then not correcting the problem when we buy new hardware, so it happens again and again. That is very strange and wouldn't happen if the computer didn't fit in your pocket. What is special about the form factor, that is causing our software expectations to be different?
When you answer the "what's special" question is just gets stranger. What's special about that form factor, is that we've gotten accustomed to buying it from our ISPs and having the cost to us, amortized monthly over a couple years. And when we do that, we say "it was free" like they did us a favor, so when it falls into obsolesence, we have nothing to complain about since it was "free."
Yet if your x86 box were paid for with your credit card, you wouldn't call it "free" and you would still expect it to maintainable. So again: what's different about the form factor, that the financing is different and we fool ourselves about the cost?
And my only answer to that is, "We're stupid."
Game theory always does account for things like that, primarily because the behavior you're describing is not irrational. The very fact that you are predicting that "he gets ahead" is what makes it rational.
Same for your "when they zig, you zag" idea: I have never heard of anyone using game theory that doesn't account for (and in fact, predict) that sort of behavior.
If you want to come up with an example where game theory doesn't work, you're going to have to try a few thousand times harder than that.
The reason game theory tends to disappoint, is that peoples' intuitive hunches for the payoffs of certain actions don't match the theory, but those hunches are what they act upon -- and that in turn changes all the payoffs, sometimes toward causing the hunches to becomes true (!) and sometimes toward causing the hunches to be more false. And that itself can be analyzed and predicted, but only if you just happen to know what other people's hunches are going to be -- and that is never predictable.
Game theory is about finding optimum equilibriums for behavior; it can never tell you what people believe.
BTW, back onto GP's subject.. a few months ago I went on an AdamCurtis-athon with some high expectations. It was a letdown, and not nearly as serious a criticism of the targets as I had hoped, especially since I just assumed some of them (e.g. the neo-cons) would be shooting fish in a barrel. I won't say watching all his docs is a waste of time -- it's not -- but don't get your hopes up. You'll find some good anecdotes, carefully selected interesting trivia, and great quotes like the one about economists and psychopaths .. but that's all.
If tech skills' marketability have a half-life of two years, then 22 years ago we were 2^11 times as marketable as we are right now, which happens to be about the same as the number of work hours in a year. Hey everybody, remember 1989 when you made your current yearly pay, every hour? That was so fucking awesome! I must have partied pretty hard back then, because I have no memory of what I did with all that money.