The GPU in Intel's i5 sucks. As in, even with the reduced CPU/GPU latency, it provides performance equivalent to a mid-range, 3 year old graphics card. Fine for desktop applications, web browsing, and email. Not useful for video processing and definitely none of the computational advantages of putting a high-speed, massively parallel GPU on a PCI-express bus.
Not to mention that the current on-die GPUs offered by Intel don't have access to either DX11, PhysX, nor OpenGL 4.0, so they can't be used as computational hardware anyway (AMD's existing and upcoming Fusion products can all use DX 11 and OpenGL 4, though PhysX is still kept tightly under lock by Nvidia). It does, however, have specialized video transcoding hardware, which I guess is more important right now as few things use DX 11/OGL 4's compute shaders, but may be a liability going forward depending on what kinds of programs are written over the next few years.
And before the transistor was invented in the 1950s I bet everyone thought that widespread computing was pie-in-the-sky. Just because we haven't discovered something yet doesn't mean it's impossible.
What's this got to do with Net Neutrality? It's throttling back traffic and charging for overage - it's a Business Model - not entirely unlike how they charge for Long Distance.
It's Net Neutrality because they are not throttling or capping their own competing services, while they are capping Netflix. AT&T has just announced that they, like Comcast, are the gatekeepers of the Internet, and have free reign to control how much you say, who you say it to, and where your information comes from.
You keep using that word; I don't think it means what you think it means.
Saying that a collection of confirmed observations and scientific laws, like the Theory of Evolution, is "just" a theory is one of those mealy-mouthed word games that unscientific and anti-scientific people use to drive forward their own agendas. It's disingenuous, because there is the implication that there is something "more" than a Theory, that the Theory of Evolution can be but isn't for some reason. Evolution is a theory which has stood the test of time, including attack from a group who would love to see the theory discredited. If there were something "more" then Evolution would be that, but there isn't.
But yes, studies have been done and it takes an industrial strength workload to kill an SSD. If one of these is in your home machine, you likely won't kill it. If you think you might, then you should already have practices in place to deal with disk failure.
Just as important to note is the failure mode for flash memory is for it to become read-only; in other words, it simply becomes impossible to delete what is written on your drive, which is a perfect reminder to get a new one. Given that this sad event will be nearly ten years from now, it should be dirt cheap to buy a replacement drive.
When you do, though, don't forget to remove the metal shell on the old drive and cook it in the microwave for a minute or two to destroy your old data. It's not like you're going to be able to sell the drive used anyway.
Iran might go on about American President X being the some sort of demon, or President Y declaring war on them, but what they really needed to worry about was the third horseman...
Correstion: there was no evidence that it was anything othergood; no corporation of any size can remain truly good for long. Google has, however, gotten closer than any other hugely successful tech company has in recent memory. Their only real mistake was to piss off the people who measure printer ink by the barrel--that is, the media companies--and are suffering the consequences: stupid nonsense "news" stories about how Google is evil, and idiots who blindly parrot what the magic talking box tells them to say.
Wrong; Google announced the accident themselves, then proceeded to be jumped on by every news media agency (who coincidentally all happen to be pissed off that Google News is turning them into a commodity). The German government didn't get involved for months afterward.
They are no longer the cool new guys tearing up the internet and being a company for the people. They are big, diversified, making money hand over fist, and have attracted the requisite controversy, criticism, and bad press that comes with being big and diversified and making money hand over fist.
Specifically, they're taking fire from all sides these days. It's been revealed that Microsoft is astroturfing against Google by paying "partners" to shill against it; no doubt other companies are doing the same. At the same time, media companies are scared of Google TV, Google News, Google Books, and other initiatives to increase customer choice in the media market and weaken the stranglehold that media conglomerates have over the US media landscape, and so are quickly joining on the anti-Google bandwagon. You can see the results: more people are worried about Google accidentally recording wifi data--and then attempting to destroy itwithout letting anyone else fish through it--than they are about the government conducting warantless roving wiretaps. Ridiculous.
Make no mistake: despite what politicians of both sides of the aisle say, no Republican, and far too few Democrats, really know or agree with what's actually in the Constitution.
Did you know this forum has a search function? Strange but true.
GP's key phrase was "because they annoyed Google." The stated reason for BMW's de-listing was because they were trying to game PageRank and Google caught wind of it.
So if some corporation wants to steal money from you, but some other department, wants to legit business, you're gonna do business with them? I imagine not, why would the government be any different?
Because a corporation, even a publicly-owned one, is a dictatorship. The US government is a representative democratic republic, meaning that at any one time there will be many different people making decisions, some of which you can agree with, others which you may not. Saying that you don't want to do business with the entire government based on the views or actions of a small section of it is like saying that you refuse to do business with anyone listed on the New York Stock Exchange because Microsoft screwed you over once.
Well I'm not buying it. Net Neutrality is a worthy goal
freedom is worthy goal. Control is not. Doesn't matter that it's only control of people you don't like. (for now)
Exactly, which is why I support Net Neutrality and not an internet kill switch.
May as well wait a few months for the C or D stepping then. By then, Llano and Bulldozer will have come out too, which'll hopefully put some downward pressure on the higher-end chips for both companies (at least I hope it does; AMD really needs a win to keep in business).
Oh, but it's even better than that, from the manufacturer's point of view. The SATA flaw will take time to actually surface, and even then it'll only gradually make your machine unworkable, so by that time you'll be out of warranty, and the manufacturer won't care.
And if you are fool enough to believe with the mechanism in place it will not be used for other things... well then I have a whole shelf of history books to sell you that might make you think twice about power granted never being used or expanded upon.
But Net Neutrality and an Internet Kill Switch are opposite, almost diametrically opposed, regulations. In a very real sense, Net Neutrality is akin to civil rights legislation: its design is to give more rights to those who currently have none (ethnic minorities / ISP customers). Arguing that NN regulation is going to lead to some sort of kill switch is like arguing that civil rights legislation is going to lead to a military dictatorship: sure, it's possible to draw a convoluted line of reasoning that links the two concepts, but it's fallacious to think that one inevitably leads to another.
To be frank, how can you be so blind, when you have all this talk of the government wanting a kill switch? and you willing give them more power??? And look at what happened in egypt.
BTW, if corporations have been lying and committing fraud, we already have laws about that sort of thing.
Joe Frickin' Lieberman's internet kill switch is a completely separate bill from Net Neutrality regulation. One is a mandate that ISPs essentially hand control of the internet over to a government military organization; the other is a series of regulations forbidding companies from shaping their customers' internet traffic to pad their own profits. In fact, they're about as different as a military spending bill is from civil rights legislation; the only thing they have in common is that they both apply to the internet.
FCC gets net neutrality, how long until they need to start policing the content? We already have enough of that bs to deal with. The net has been run by corporations for quite awhile, and there's no major problems with it, and you guys just jump for joy at the thought of giving more power to the government.
Oh good, another slippery slope fallacy. Net Neutrality and some sort of Internet Fairness Doctrine are, again, totally separate issues. The only people I have heard even talk about an Internet Fairness Doctrine are right-wing nutjobs trying to fearmonger the Net Neutrality debate, just like they started shouting Terrorism back when people were questioning Iraq.
Well I'm not buying it. Net Neutrality is a worthy goal, and its worth the long-shot future potential of having to fight a new Fairness Doctrine, if by some weird twist of fate we end up with so many Democrats in office for so long that they can't find anything better to do than try to shoot themselves in the face trying to regulate free speech over the internet.
As a note here, I think our western expansion was all land purchased from empires that didn't really want to have to manage it anymore, unless I'm mistaken. So, even then, we hardly did anything like conquest.
Of course, to be fair, those empires basically conquered the native folks already living there. But, still, we didn't conquer. We just subjugated.
Texas, California, and all the land in-between was annexed as spoils of the Spanish-American War.
You underestimate the potential for evil here: UEFI, baby.
Your A/V could be a runtime service baked right into your motherboard, hooking its dirty little fingers into assorted peripherals and memory spaces all below the OS level. Progress!
Indeed. Thank God I can still buy AMD, though if Bulldozer doesn't bring them back into competitiveness in the server arena they might not be around much longer...
We need to break-up the monopolies. Net neutrality treats the symptom, while breaking the monopolies cures the disease.
Well maybe, but how are the companies going to be broken up? Along geographical lines, like they did with AT&T back in the 80s? That's not going to give me more choices in my area, which is the important metric for competition.
What we need is mandatory line sharing. That's what you have in all the fastest markets, it's the very definition of a free market economy, and it will spur large amounts of competition.
"prioritiz[ing] among or between content, applications, and services, or among or between different types of content, applications, and services unless the end user requests to have such prioritization... "
It's pretty clear that they don't intend to prevent you from opting for a managed discount connection if it's what you want.
Right. What the bill says is that there must be a neutral option, and the default for prioritization is "opt-in" rather than "screw you."
>>>no guarantee that any company wouldn't throttle back your content
True but any such company would quickly lose customers and either learn to change for the better - or end up bankrupt like Circuit City. The advantage of a free market is that customers have the choice to not visit a company, and therefore send it into a nosedive. No such option exists in a Monopoly, and Net Neutrality certainly won't make Comsucks work any better. They'll still be a shitty company. I want choice to pick somebody else.
Where are they going to go? I have two choices for broadband internet in my area: AT&T and Time Warner. Both have gone on record salivating over the possibilities of how to exploit me and the rest of their captured audience to pick winners and losers in the online content market (naturally favoring their own services over those of competitors). Where do I go when both of them start imposing extra fees to stream Netflix, or start deliberately slowing down my Ooma so I'm forced to buy their overpriced VOIP service?
The author of this is an idiot. He may have said something reasonable in the rest of the article but:
"First, if Americans are traveling in volume via high-speed rail, then those systems will need as much security as air travel."
Anyone who thinks this is a fucking idiot and needs a strong dose of Bruce Schneier.
Well, in one sense he is right; it's just in the wrong direction. What needs to happen is for air travel to lower their silly security theater until it matches more sensible rail security.
We need to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world
Can't we just try to work with the rest of the world to try to make things better for everyone? I don't care if America is #1 in x y or z if the world as a whole is not advancing.
The average American worker makes twenty times what the average Chinese worker does. Unless we want to all be making $3,000/year, we need to have some sort of edge to out-compete them. Obama and the Democrats think that is science and infrastructure; the Republicans apparently think that edge is the military.
Another one that thinks playing with insurance will do anything to reduce health care cost. God help us all.
A single payer system will NOT reduce cost. It will only allow the Feds to ration what exists. You decry "complex and failure-prone" plans, and you want to replace that with the hundreds of thousands of pages of legislation that the US Federal government would spew out?
A lot of the problems in our country stems from this quixotic and simplistic belief, cultivated by fifty years of Republican campaign shilling, that private industry can do no wrong and that nothing the government does can ever be good. This slogan is absurd: government does have a proper role in our nation's success, as the neutral arbiter upon which a free market is built. Removing it from that position as we have in the past several decades, first by favoring particular industries with the construction of public-enforced monopolies like the military-industrial complex, national telcom monopolies, and ever-more powerful copyright and patent laws, and later by removing necessary regulation of industry on the orders of powerful lobbying groups, has largely contributed to most of our recent economic troubles.
Slashdot Mirror
The GPU in Intel's i5 sucks. As in, even with the reduced CPU/GPU latency, it provides performance equivalent to a mid-range, 3 year old graphics card. Fine for desktop applications, web browsing, and email. Not useful for video processing and definitely none of the computational advantages of putting a high-speed, massively parallel GPU on a PCI-express bus.
Not to mention that the current on-die GPUs offered by Intel don't have access to either DX11, PhysX, nor OpenGL 4.0, so they can't be used as computational hardware anyway (AMD's existing and upcoming Fusion products can all use DX 11 and OpenGL 4, though PhysX is still kept tightly under lock by Nvidia). It does, however, have specialized video transcoding hardware, which I guess is more important right now as few things use DX 11/OGL 4's compute shaders, but may be a liability going forward depending on what kinds of programs are written over the next few years.
And before the transistor was invented in the 1950s I bet everyone thought that widespread computing was pie-in-the-sky. Just because we haven't discovered something yet doesn't mean it's impossible.
What's this got to do with Net Neutrality? It's throttling back traffic and charging for overage - it's a Business Model - not entirely unlike how they charge for Long Distance.
It's Net Neutrality because they are not throttling or capping their own competing services, while they are capping Netflix. AT&T has just announced that they, like Comcast, are the gatekeepers of the Internet, and have free reign to control how much you say, who you say it to, and where your information comes from.
Well, evolution is just a theory...
You keep using that word; I don't think it means what you think it means.
Saying that a collection of confirmed observations and scientific laws, like the Theory of Evolution, is "just" a theory is one of those mealy-mouthed word games that unscientific and anti-scientific people use to drive forward their own agendas. It's disingenuous, because there is the implication that there is something "more" than a Theory, that the Theory of Evolution can be but isn't for some reason. Evolution is a theory which has stood the test of time, including attack from a group who would love to see the theory discredited. If there were something "more" then Evolution would be that, but there isn't.
But yes, studies have been done and it takes an industrial strength workload to kill an SSD. If one of these is in your home machine, you likely won't kill it. If you think you might, then you should already have practices in place to deal with disk failure.
Just as important to note is the failure mode for flash memory is for it to become read-only; in other words, it simply becomes impossible to delete what is written on your drive, which is a perfect reminder to get a new one. Given that this sad event will be nearly ten years from now, it should be dirt cheap to buy a replacement drive.
When you do, though, don't forget to remove the metal shell on the old drive and cook it in the microwave for a minute or two to destroy your old data. It's not like you're going to be able to sell the drive used anyway.
Debt was two years ago. This was famine; food prices have gone up by thirty percent in the past year, due to several factors but most notably global warming causing higher instances of storms, leading to lower crop yields around the world.
Iran might go on about American President X being the some sort of demon, or President Y declaring war on them, but what they really needed to worry about was the third horseman...
Correstion: there was no evidence that it was anything othergood; no corporation of any size can remain truly good for long. Google has, however, gotten closer than any other hugely successful tech company has in recent memory. Their only real mistake was to piss off the people who measure printer ink by the barrel--that is, the media companies--and are suffering the consequences: stupid nonsense "news" stories about how Google is evil, and idiots who blindly parrot what the magic talking box tells them to say.
Wrong; Google announced the accident themselves, then proceeded to be jumped on by every news media agency (who coincidentally all happen to be pissed off that Google News is turning them into a commodity). The German government didn't get involved for months afterward.
They are no longer the cool new guys tearing up the internet and being a company for the people. They are big, diversified, making money hand over fist, and have attracted the requisite controversy, criticism, and bad press that comes with being big and diversified and making money hand over fist.
Specifically, they're taking fire from all sides these days. It's been revealed that Microsoft is astroturfing against Google by paying "partners" to shill against it; no doubt other companies are doing the same. At the same time, media companies are scared of Google TV, Google News, Google Books, and other initiatives to increase customer choice in the media market and weaken the stranglehold that media conglomerates have over the US media landscape, and so are quickly joining on the anti-Google bandwagon. You can see the results: more people are worried about Google accidentally recording wifi data--and then attempting to destroy itwithout letting anyone else fish through it--than they are about the government conducting warantless roving wiretaps. Ridiculous.
No giant marketing push. I mean, who has heard of the Archos outside of tech blogs?
The Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 3.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Except it's already been done, and relatively recently: telcom companies were given retroactive immunity for participation in the Bush warantless wiretapping program.
Make no mistake: despite what politicians of both sides of the aisle say, no Republican, and far too few Democrats, really know or agree with what's actually in the Constitution.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/06/02/05/235218/Google-Delists-BMW-Germany
Did you know this forum has a search function? Strange but true.
GP's key phrase was "because they annoyed Google." The stated reason for BMW's de-listing was because they were trying to game PageRank and Google caught wind of it.
So if some corporation wants to steal money from you, but some other department, wants to legit business, you're gonna do business with them? I imagine not, why would the government be any different?
Because a corporation, even a publicly-owned one, is a dictatorship. The US government is a representative democratic republic, meaning that at any one time there will be many different people making decisions, some of which you can agree with, others which you may not. Saying that you don't want to do business with the entire government based on the views or actions of a small section of it is like saying that you refuse to do business with anyone listed on the New York Stock Exchange because Microsoft screwed you over once.
Well I'm not buying it. Net Neutrality is a worthy goal
freedom is worthy goal. Control is not. Doesn't matter that it's only control of people you don't like. (for now)
Exactly, which is why I support Net Neutrality and not an internet kill switch.
May as well wait a few months for the C or D stepping then. By then, Llano and Bulldozer will have come out too, which'll hopefully put some downward pressure on the higher-end chips for both companies (at least I hope it does; AMD really needs a win to keep in business).
Oh, but it's even better than that, from the manufacturer's point of view. The SATA flaw will take time to actually surface, and even then it'll only gradually make your machine unworkable, so by that time you'll be out of warranty, and the manufacturer won't care.
And if you are fool enough to believe with the mechanism in place it will not be used for other things... well then I have a whole shelf of history books to sell you that might make you think twice about power granted never being used or expanded upon.
But Net Neutrality and an Internet Kill Switch are opposite, almost diametrically opposed, regulations. In a very real sense, Net Neutrality is akin to civil rights legislation: its design is to give more rights to those who currently have none (ethnic minorities / ISP customers). Arguing that NN regulation is going to lead to some sort of kill switch is like arguing that civil rights legislation is going to lead to a military dictatorship: sure, it's possible to draw a convoluted line of reasoning that links the two concepts, but it's fallacious to think that one inevitably leads to another.
To be frank, how can you be so blind, when you have all this talk of the government wanting a kill switch? and you willing give them more power??? And look at what happened in egypt.
BTW, if corporations have been lying and committing fraud, we already have laws about that sort of thing.
Joe Frickin' Lieberman's internet kill switch is a completely separate bill from Net Neutrality regulation. One is a mandate that ISPs essentially hand control of the internet over to a government military organization; the other is a series of regulations forbidding companies from shaping their customers' internet traffic to pad their own profits. In fact, they're about as different as a military spending bill is from civil rights legislation; the only thing they have in common is that they both apply to the internet.
FCC gets net neutrality, how long until they need to start policing the content? We already have enough of that bs to deal with. The net has been run by corporations for quite awhile, and there's no major problems with it, and you guys just jump for joy at the thought of giving more power to the government.
Oh good, another slippery slope fallacy. Net Neutrality and some sort of Internet Fairness Doctrine are, again, totally separate issues. The only people I have heard even talk about an Internet Fairness Doctrine are right-wing nutjobs trying to fearmonger the Net Neutrality debate, just like they started shouting Terrorism back when people were questioning Iraq.
Well I'm not buying it. Net Neutrality is a worthy goal, and its worth the long-shot future potential of having to fight a new Fairness Doctrine, if by some weird twist of fate we end up with so many Democrats in office for so long that they can't find anything better to do than try to shoot themselves in the face trying to regulate free speech over the internet.
As a note here, I think our western expansion was all land purchased from empires that didn't really want to have to manage it anymore, unless I'm mistaken. So, even then, we hardly did anything like conquest.
Of course, to be fair, those empires basically conquered the native folks already living there. But, still, we didn't conquer. We just subjugated.
Texas, California, and all the land in-between was annexed as spoils of the Spanish-American War.
You underestimate the potential for evil here: UEFI, baby.
Your A/V could be a runtime service baked right into your motherboard, hooking its dirty little fingers into assorted peripherals and memory spaces all below the OS level. Progress!
Indeed. Thank God I can still buy AMD, though if Bulldozer doesn't bring them back into competitiveness in the server arena they might not be around much longer...
That was my point.
We need to break-up the monopolies. Net neutrality treats the symptom, while breaking the monopolies cures the disease.
Well maybe, but how are the companies going to be broken up? Along geographical lines, like they did with AT&T back in the 80s? That's not going to give me more choices in my area, which is the important metric for competition.
What we need is mandatory line sharing. That's what you have in all the fastest markets, it's the very definition of a free market economy, and it will spur large amounts of competition.
I guess you missed this part:
"prioritiz[ing] among or between content, applications, and services, or among or between different types of content, applications, and services unless the end user requests to have such prioritization... "
It's pretty clear that they don't intend to prevent you from opting for a managed discount connection if it's what you want.
Right. What the bill says is that there must be a neutral option, and the default for prioritization is "opt-in" rather than "screw you."
>>>no guarantee that any company wouldn't throttle back your content
True but any such company would quickly lose customers and either learn to change for the better - or end up bankrupt like Circuit City. The advantage of a free market is that customers have the choice to not visit a company, and therefore send it into a nosedive. No such option exists in a Monopoly, and Net Neutrality certainly won't make Comsucks work any better. They'll still be a shitty company. I want choice to pick somebody else.
Where are they going to go? I have two choices for broadband internet in my area: AT&T and Time Warner. Both have gone on record salivating over the possibilities of how to exploit me and the rest of their captured audience to pick winners and losers in the online content market (naturally favoring their own services over those of competitors). Where do I go when both of them start imposing extra fees to stream Netflix, or start deliberately slowing down my Ooma so I'm forced to buy their overpriced VOIP service?
The author of this is an idiot. He may have said something reasonable in the rest of the article but:
"First, if Americans are traveling in volume via high-speed rail, then those systems will need as much security as air travel."
Anyone who thinks this is a fucking idiot and needs a strong dose of Bruce Schneier.
Well, in one sense he is right; it's just in the wrong direction. What needs to happen is for air travel to lower their silly security theater until it matches more sensible rail security.
We need to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world
Can't we just try to work with the rest of the world to try to make things better for everyone? I don't care if America is #1 in x y or z if the world as a whole is not advancing.
The average American worker makes twenty times what the average Chinese worker does. Unless we want to all be making $3,000/year, we need to have some sort of edge to out-compete them. Obama and the Democrats think that is science and infrastructure; the Republicans apparently think that edge is the military.
Another one that thinks playing with insurance will do anything to reduce health care cost. God help us all.
A single payer system will NOT reduce cost. It will only allow the Feds to ration what exists. You decry "complex and failure-prone" plans, and you want to replace that with the hundreds of thousands of pages of legislation that the US Federal government would spew out?
Damn. Just, damn.
The US spends one and a half times what the average country does on healthcare, and we have a lower average lifespan. Whatever you may think of certain bad apples like England's famously wasteful (yet still one-third as expensive as ours!) single-payer system, it's clear that we are not well served by our current, poorly-regulated mess.
A lot of the problems in our country stems from this quixotic and simplistic belief, cultivated by fifty years of Republican campaign shilling, that private industry can do no wrong and that nothing the government does can ever be good. This slogan is absurd: government does have a proper role in our nation's success, as the neutral arbiter upon which a free market is built. Removing it from that position as we have in the past several decades, first by favoring particular industries with the construction of public-enforced monopolies like the military-industrial complex, national telcom monopolies, and ever-more powerful copyright and patent laws, and later by removing necessary regulation of industry on the orders of powerful lobbying groups, has largely contributed to most of our recent economic troubles.