You mean "criminals" and "crazy people"? You know, people who're already PROHIBTED BY LAW from owning firearms? Yet, somehow, they mysteriously do?
But of course they do, there are vast areas in the USA where it's easier to buy a gun than a Kinder egg (both being banned of course). They do get their paws on guns because the US of A is the biggest gun warehouse in the world.
You DO understand that, even if there was universal confiscation of legally acquired firearms, that criminals would still be able to acquire guns right?
Only in the USA and similarly-rife-with-guns-countries. Try acquiring any kind of real gun in most of Europe, see how difficult THAT is.
You're hallucinating if you think getting rid of legally acquired firearms will get rid of violence. Hell, getting rid of legally acquired firearms won't even get rid of GUN violence.
In case of the USA you're totally right. The proposal, as it would be, would come about 120 years too late. Now you're screwed.
Question: Who are YOU to declare a right "obsolete"?
Some dude from a foreign country who might see things differently. I don't declare it in any way, I just happen to think it's obsolete.
Simply because YOU see no value in it doesn't mean it has no value.
That's valid for everything in this world. Even dog shit has value for someone.
If you want to give up your own right to guns, feel free. I'm not gonna stop you.
Guess what, I never had any. Ever. In my whole life. And I live happily without it, because the most I can feel threatened with in my third world country's capital is being mugged by someone stronger than me. Which never happened, despite the fact I am a middle aged thin metalhead walking through the city every night at 1-2 AM.
But I deeply resent attempts to force or shame me into giving up mine. I own firearms. So what? I don't kill people with them. I don't allow criminals and crazies to use them to kill people either. I own a car. So what? I don't kill people with it. I don't allow criminals and crazies to use it to kill people either.
And before you start telling me that automobiles aren't designed to kill people, I will say "so what"? They still kill more people than firearms every year. Intent of a device doesn't negate reality.
Whataboutism at its finest. "what about cars, what about knives, what about big fists and rat poison" - we aren't talking about either of those, now, are we? it wasn't about you and your guns. Ever. See, that's why you and people like you don't comprehend. But at the same time I know I can't have a logical discussion with your kind, so whatever, man.
Anyone with a basic machine shop can make just about any sort of firearm they want.
Your point being? That doesn't qualify as "easy". It's orders of magnitude more difficult for Average Joe in Poland to illegally manufacture a gun, make the bullets, test it and carry it around (any of the above being severely punished with years of jail time), than it is for Average Joe in the USA to enter a shop and leave with pretty much anything they want in terms of firearms.
There are no countries which have banned firearms which don't have any firearms at all as a result.
So what? Nobody talked about absolutes.
You can't stop people from getting a gun if they want one. You can only make it more difficult. Unfortunately, the side effect of any of the proposed ways of making it more difficult for someone who will misuse a gun to get one is that you make things more difficult on 99 other law-abiding people with an inherent right recognized in our Constitution to self-defense for every bad guy you inconvenience.
That's why I said USA is completely screwed in that regard and can't undo this even if they wanted to. That inherent right became obsolete many decades ago but due to various parties with an agenda it never got reconsidered. And here you are.
Not to mention that it's literally impossible to round up and destroy the existing firearms in the U.S. without causing a civil war where most of the military will be on the side of the other people with the guns.
Yup. You're screwed. I am not advocating introduction of gun control in the USA. I am smart enough to realize it's impossible. You're screwed for good, period.
Here's something concrete: in the USA, it's too easy to procure a gun. Gun free zones, civilian guns, even police guns are irrelevant in the case someone with enough resolve decides to shoot a bunch of people, as long as guns are easily available for purchase by pretty much anyone. Are there solutions? Sure, but all of them except really tough gun control are like pouring whisky over a festering wound every couple days, but no other treatment, and since gun control is impossible to enforce in the USA, you guys are forever stuck. No wonder my American friends were amazed to see a single police patrol with just a couple never used handguns over a period of three days along a very busy, 100-mile stretch of seaside resorts in my country. How come? Strict gun control. No gun control: That's how USA ended with a huge and very heavily armed police force, and slightly less heavily armed citizens. It's an armament race that has been going on for many decades. Soon enough it's gonna be police RPGs versus civilian miniguns or something like that. And there's nothing you can do to stop the trend.
Maybe so, but I had my first broadband back in 2002, it was 16 KBps guaranteed and costed me 100 dollars per month. Competition was very useful to boosting broadband width race between competitors. I've seen ISP A teasing a 300 Mbps speed and ISP B releasing 500 Mbps plans the next day. Had there been no competition, bandwidth would have been thin right now.
Feel free to check the validity of your data on Numbeo.com. But be warned, freak places like Bay Area or NY are not representative. Chicago on the other hand is more representative. Here you go: https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of...
Internet is 553% more expensive in Chicago than Bucharest. It's a fucking rip-off for you.
I must admit I was tempted a few times. It's easy to give in to temptation, especially when your wife is relying on you to maintain her phone. But after thinking about it I decided against it for three reasons: 1. I already had full control over her phone (since I bought it, configured it and maintain it 100%) 2. I don't trust ANY third party company with that data 3. I am getting a divorce anyway. What happens after we separate is none of my business.
This is an US-centric website, I try to define everything in expected currency, for example. It's called "being polite". As for my English, given I mainly do business with people from the US of A, work American shifts and speak English more than Romanian... comes with the territory, man. And I do live here in Romania.
A new, smallish 1-bedroom apartment starts from $50-60K here in Bucharest. Larger ones (2-bedroom, living room, office) can go over 150K. The real reason for low prices is ISP competition. True competition, that is.
Does any top tier ISP provide really, truly, honest "Unlimited" service? Anyone? At $40/month? No.
Maybe not in your country. Here, I get 50 GB unthrottled mobile data, plus unlimited gigabit fiber, plus a 3G stick, plus 60+ TV channels, all for 25 bucks a month. As a normal customer with no special treatment. Weird how a third world country can allow for that to happen, eh?
My take is it's both. As weird as it may sound. I agree that speed throttling isn't necessarily linked with net neutrality. As a matter of fact, net neutrality is, by definition, about lane prioritization, which in this case didn't apply.
It could have been both an economic decision and an overzealous H1B employee marking the wrong checkmarks based on an old or traditionally-word-of-mouth-passed-on documentation.
nVidia never said that because nVidia never made such cards. They were all made by integrators and they were all GTX 1060 cards. nVidia just sold the chips to integrators.
Clicked the Nature article. It says Some estimate that the combined electricity consumption for bitcoin and ethereum mining, which together represent 88% of the total cryptocurrency market capitalization (G. Hileman and M. Rauchs http://doi.org/cj22; 2017), has already reached a staggering 47 terawatt-hours per year and is on the rise”. Checking source, it says As a reference, it is estmated that Bitcoin alone currently consumes about 10.41 TWh per year, which is close to the yearly energy consumpton of Uruguay, a country with 3.3 million inhabitants” (Filter error: That's an awful long string of letters there - this was supposed to be the PDF URL but Slashdot won't allow it).
Clicked the Forbes article: So all of the hysteria about cryptocurrency energy use is going to go away in the next few months.”
Clicked the The Guardian article. It quotes the same source as seen elsewhere, from Digiconomist (https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption). The issue with it is that it is controversial, with other estimates, within the very same article (https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption#validation) showing a much lower value.
Now I'm not going to say Bitcoin and altcoins aren't large energy consumers, but putting things into perspective, my own (Eastern European) country consumes in one year more than the highest cryptocurrency estimates worldwide. I'm not overly concerned about either.
A lot of the GPUs *are* useless to gamers because they don't have video circuitry on them or video outputs.
Define "a lot". Headless GPUs represent a tiny minority, mainly because all serious miners shied away from them, knowing their resale value was zero, or close to that. Some suckers still bought them but the totl amount is probably low single digit percentage of all, and I'm generous here.
Not only has millions of tonnes of greenhouses gases been produced due to mining
Where did THAT come from?
, it has also produced millions of graphics cards that are now useless due to being fried alive by mining
Citation needed. This is simply false. It's the typical case of incomplete information being blown completely out of proportion and twisted to carry someone's agenda. While a graphics card used 24/7 would indeed carry a higher risk of becoming defective (by the way, this is the only correct information being flung around like poo by cryptohaters), there isn't much talk about everything else which counterbalances this risk. The vast majority of miners take better care of their cards than regular gamers. The mining cards are undervolted and have power limits set. They are also better cooled than their gaming counterparts, located in open cases and with plenty airflow around them. I suggest researching this topic a bit before vomiting nonsense, but I guess it's simpler to vomit nonsense, isn't it? Fuck being objective.
, which will now be in a third world waste dump now as they are too hard to recycle.
What you fail to mention is that a GPU is much easier to recycle than, say, a mobile phone or a tablet, or a laptop, or a TV for that matter. A GPU's cooling solution has two main components: Aluminium and plastic. Both can be easily separated and melted. What remains is a 200-grams PCB which is flat and has components that can easily be separated.
meanwhile bona fide users of graphics cards have had their supplies disrupted, had their prices more than doubled and have had to wait an extra year for new hardare to come out because nvidia was too busy making mining cards to do r&d. Anyone who made “money” from mining should have it seized under environmental protection laws.
Again, you're either misinformed or carry an agenda. nVidia wasn't the main perpetrator here. They clearly mentioned, more than once, that they can and would ramp up chip production if needed. The issue was integrators (Gigabyte, Asus, MSI and the like) were reluctant to boost chip orders and build many cards, out of fear they're going to be left with huge overstocks. Price jacking happened solely at third party sellers and was boosted by Vnand prices going up like crazy. For THAT you gotta blame Apple, they're buying about 20% of ALL vNand production every year. Guess what they put it in? Yeah, that phone you're carrying.
As I kept saying for quite some time now, it's easier to talk out of your ass and fling misinformation around like poo.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, I wasn't the one alleging things. tell that to the GP.
You mean "criminals" and "crazy people"? You know, people who're already PROHIBTED BY LAW from owning firearms?
Yet, somehow, they mysteriously do?
But of course they do, there are vast areas in the USA where it's easier to buy a gun than a Kinder egg (both being banned of course).
They do get their paws on guns because the US of A is the biggest gun warehouse in the world.
You DO understand that, even if there was universal confiscation of legally acquired firearms, that criminals would still be able to acquire guns right?
Only in the USA and similarly-rife-with-guns-countries.
Try acquiring any kind of real gun in most of Europe, see how difficult THAT is.
You're hallucinating if you think getting rid of legally acquired firearms will get rid of violence.
Hell, getting rid of legally acquired firearms won't even get rid of GUN violence.
In case of the USA you're totally right. The proposal, as it would be, would come about 120 years too late. Now you're screwed.
Question: Who are YOU to declare a right "obsolete"?
Some dude from a foreign country who might see things differently. I don't declare it in any way, I just happen to think it's obsolete.
Simply because YOU see no value in it doesn't mean it has no value.
That's valid for everything in this world. Even dog shit has value for someone.
If you want to give up your own right to guns, feel free. I'm not gonna stop you.
Guess what, I never had any. Ever. In my whole life. And I live happily without it, because the most I can feel threatened with in my third world country's capital is being mugged by someone stronger than me. Which never happened, despite the fact I am a middle aged thin metalhead walking through the city every night at 1-2 AM.
But I deeply resent attempts to force or shame me into giving up mine.
I own firearms. So what? I don't kill people with them. I don't allow criminals and crazies to use them to kill people either.
I own a car. So what? I don't kill people with it. I don't allow criminals and crazies to use it to kill people either.
And before you start telling me that automobiles aren't designed to kill people, I will say "so what"? They still kill more people than firearms every year. Intent of a device doesn't negate reality.
Whataboutism at its finest. "what about cars, what about knives, what about big fists and rat poison" - we aren't talking about either of those, now, are we?
it wasn't about you and your guns. Ever. See, that's why you and people like you don't comprehend. But at the same time I know I can't have a logical discussion with your kind, so whatever, man.
Stop pulling fake shit out of your ass.
Everything you said is contradicted by statistics.
Anyone with a basic machine shop can make just about any sort of firearm they want.
Your point being?
That doesn't qualify as "easy". It's orders of magnitude more difficult for Average Joe in Poland to illegally manufacture a gun, make the bullets, test it and carry it around (any of the above being severely punished with years of jail time), than it is for Average Joe in the USA to enter a shop and leave with pretty much anything they want in terms of firearms.
There are no countries which have banned firearms which don't have any firearms at all as a result.
So what? Nobody talked about absolutes.
You can't stop people from getting a gun if they want one. You can only make it more difficult. Unfortunately, the side effect of any of the proposed ways of making it more difficult for someone who will misuse a gun to get one is that you make things more difficult on 99 other law-abiding people with an inherent right recognized in our Constitution to self-defense for every bad guy you inconvenience.
That's why I said USA is completely screwed in that regard and can't undo this even if they wanted to. That inherent right became obsolete many decades ago but due to various parties with an agenda it never got reconsidered. And here you are.
Not to mention that it's literally impossible to round up and destroy the existing firearms in the U.S. without causing a civil war where most of the military will be on the side of the other people with the guns.
Yup. You're screwed.
I am not advocating introduction of gun control in the USA. I am smart enough to realize it's impossible. You're screwed for good, period.
Here's something concrete: in the USA, it's too easy to procure a gun.
Gun free zones, civilian guns, even police guns are irrelevant in the case someone with enough resolve decides to shoot a bunch of people, as long as guns are easily available for purchase by pretty much anyone.
Are there solutions? Sure, but all of them except really tough gun control are like pouring whisky over a festering wound every couple days, but no other treatment, and since gun control is impossible to enforce in the USA, you guys are forever stuck. No wonder my American friends were amazed to see a single police patrol with just a couple never used handguns over a period of three days along a very busy, 100-mile stretch of seaside resorts in my country. How come? Strict gun control.
No gun control: That's how USA ended with a huge and very heavily armed police force, and slightly less heavily armed citizens. It's an armament race that has been going on for many decades. Soon enough it's gonna be police RPGs versus civilian miniguns or something like that. And there's nothing you can do to stop the trend.
So the problem lies further upstream: how easy it is to procure a gun.
So... tell me more about that shoe you found funny. Was it a man's shoe of a woman's shoe?
Maybe so, but I had my first broadband back in 2002, it was 16 KBps guaranteed and costed me 100 dollars per month.
Competition was very useful to boosting broadband width race between competitors. I've seen ISP A teasing a 300 Mbps speed and ISP B releasing 500 Mbps plans the next day. Had there been no competition, bandwidth would have been thin right now.
Feel free to check the validity of your data on Numbeo.com. But be warned, freak places like Bay Area or NY are not representative.
Chicago on the other hand is more representative. Here you go:
https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of...
Internet is 553% more expensive in Chicago than Bucharest. It's a fucking rip-off for you.
That's sale price, not yearly rent :)
Jealousy. Need for control. Doubt. Scientific curiosity (not kidding). Reciprocal agreement.
Enough reasons?
I must admit I was tempted a few times. It's easy to give in to temptation, especially when your wife is relying on you to maintain her phone. But after thinking about it I decided against it for three reasons:
1. I already had full control over her phone (since I bought it, configured it and maintain it 100%)
2. I don't trust ANY third party company with that data
3. I am getting a divorce anyway. What happens after we separate is none of my business.
This is an US-centric website, I try to define everything in expected currency, for example. It's called "being polite".
As for my English, given I mainly do business with people from the US of A, work American shifts and speak English more than Romanian... comes with the territory, man. And I do live here in Romania.
A new, smallish 1-bedroom apartment starts from $50-60K here in Bucharest. Larger ones (2-bedroom, living room, office) can go over 150K.
The real reason for low prices is ISP competition. True competition, that is.
You didn't bother reading the whole post.
Does any top tier ISP provide really, truly, honest "Unlimited" service? Anyone? At $40/month? No.
Maybe not in your country. Here, I get 50 GB unthrottled mobile data, plus unlimited gigabit fiber, plus a 3G stick, plus 60+ TV channels, all for 25 bucks a month. As a normal customer with no special treatment. Weird how a third world country can allow for that to happen, eh?
My take is it's both. As weird as it may sound.
I agree that speed throttling isn't necessarily linked with net neutrality. As a matter of fact, net neutrality is, by definition, about lane prioritization, which in this case didn't apply.
It could have been both an economic decision and an overzealous H1B employee marking the wrong checkmarks based on an old or traditionally-word-of-mouth-passed-on documentation.
"It will likely take months or longer for the judge to determine whether there is a sufficient class. "
If you're not classy enough, you're not gonna get it!
If they requested it, nVidia provided it.
nVidia never said that because nVidia never made such cards. They were all made by integrators and they were all GTX 1060 cards. nVidia just sold the chips to integrators.
Clicked the Nature article. It says Some estimate that the combined electricity consumption for bitcoin and ethereum mining, which together represent 88% of the total cryptocurrency market capitalization (G. Hileman and M. Rauchs http://doi.org/cj22; 2017), has already reached a staggering 47 terawatt-hours per year and is on the rise”. Checking source, it says As a reference, it is estmated that Bitcoin alone currently consumes about 10.41 TWh per year, which is close to the yearly energy consumpton of Uruguay, a country with 3.3 million inhabitants” (Filter error: That's an awful long string of letters there - this was supposed to be the PDF URL but Slashdot won't allow it).
Clicked the Forbes article: So all of the hysteria about cryptocurrency energy use is going to go away in the next few months.”
Clicked the The Guardian article. It quotes the same source as seen elsewhere, from Digiconomist (https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption). The issue with it is that it is controversial, with other estimates, within the very same article (https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption#validation) showing a much lower value.
Now I'm not going to say Bitcoin and altcoins aren't large energy consumers, but putting things into perspective, my own (Eastern European) country consumes in one year more than the highest cryptocurrency estimates worldwide. I'm not overly concerned about either.
A lot of the GPUs *are* useless to gamers because they don't have video circuitry on them or video outputs.
Define "a lot". Headless GPUs represent a tiny minority, mainly because all serious miners shied away from them, knowing their resale value was zero, or close to that. Some suckers still bought them but the totl amount is probably low single digit percentage of all, and I'm generous here.
How dare you bring truth to the table? Boo!
Not only has millions of tonnes of greenhouses gases been produced due to mining
Where did THAT come from?
, it has also produced millions of graphics cards that are now useless due to being fried alive by mining
Citation needed. This is simply false. It's the typical case of incomplete information being blown completely out of proportion and twisted to carry someone's agenda.
While a graphics card used 24/7 would indeed carry a higher risk of becoming defective (by the way, this is the only correct information being flung around like poo by cryptohaters), there isn't much talk about everything else which counterbalances this risk.
The vast majority of miners take better care of their cards than regular gamers. The mining cards are undervolted and have power limits set. They are also better cooled than their gaming counterparts, located in open cases and with plenty airflow around them. I suggest researching this topic a bit before vomiting nonsense, but I guess it's simpler to vomit nonsense, isn't it? Fuck being objective.
, which will now be in a third world waste dump now as they are too hard to recycle.
What you fail to mention is that a GPU is much easier to recycle than, say, a mobile phone or a tablet, or a laptop, or a TV for that matter. A GPU's cooling solution has two main components: Aluminium and plastic. Both can be easily separated and melted. What remains is a 200-grams PCB which is flat and has components that can easily be separated.
meanwhile bona fide users of graphics cards have had their supplies disrupted, had their prices more than doubled and have had to wait an extra year for new hardare to come out because nvidia was too busy making mining cards to do r&d. Anyone who made “money” from mining should have it seized under environmental protection laws.
Again, you're either misinformed or carry an agenda.
nVidia wasn't the main perpetrator here. They clearly mentioned, more than once, that they can and would ramp up chip production if needed. The issue was integrators (Gigabyte, Asus, MSI and the like) were reluctant to boost chip orders and build many cards, out of fear they're going to be left with huge overstocks. Price jacking happened solely at third party sellers and was boosted by Vnand prices going up like crazy. For THAT you gotta blame Apple, they're buying about 20% of ALL vNand production every year. Guess what they put it in? Yeah, that phone you're carrying.
As I kept saying for quite some time now, it's easier to talk out of your ass and fling misinformation around like poo.