GPU is about slamming more of the small cores into the package. Processing power scales in linear fashion with number of cores because of how parallelizible graphics calculations are.
CPUs cannot do this. They need powerful generalist cores and their support structures instead. So they can't increase amount of cores and expect linear increase of performance. So they don't grow as big as GPUs.
1080p is budget in PC world. Cutting edge enthusiasts are looking at 2140p (4k) and 3D monitors (requires double frame rate). Current high end chokes on these unless run in SLI.
That is simply not happening this decade. The jump in required computing power is ridiculous, while the current "fake lighting" is almost good enough. At the same time, you can't really utilize the current GPU types efficiently for real time lighting because that's simply not what they're optimized for.
3D on high resolution screens is one of the biggest reasons for this. Most of the current budget stuff does fine rendering non-3D at 1080p. 2140p at 120FPS for 3D monitor? Even SLI's choke.
If you're buying a thousand USD video card, you likely have a similar monitor to use with it.
If you want a reliable drive, you have to buy a HD at this point, still. Intel SSD are reliable by SSD standards, but not by HD standards.
We still have ways to go before SSD controllers get to level or reliability of HD controllers simply because of the level of complexity required in SSD controllers. The quick failures are typically controller failures. That's one part where intel shines, it installs expensive and reliable controllers in its drives.
Finnish law allows police to exercise its power to search without a warrant for any crime that has potential sentence of more then 6 months in prison. It's usually used in cases where someone gets caught with significant amount of drugs on their persona > search his/her house.
They're really careful about not abusing this right, as it's generally understood that this is a gentleman's agreement (common in our culture) that such rights are granted with assumption that they will not be abused.
This is why it raised to much critique when they used it to search the girl's house. Considering the fallout, I find it likely that those on top learned the lesson and will not be conducting similar searches.
As another example of similar cases, we have "lex nokia", which is the right of employer to search private information such as email of the employer. In the end, law had a caveat of "company must inform privacy watchdog before any search". Result: zero searches because of fear of stigma from privacy watchdog publicizing the case.
However it's pretty clear that police won't need to do searches here. Organisation in question openly admits to using the code, so this will likely go straight to the court with minimal investigation required.
Sudden failures are controller failures. Especially budget controllers tend to fail before flash does.
Flash failure is "usually" about not being able to write to the disk, but being able to read from the disk. Problem is that when you're getting it, that means you've gone through all the reserve flash and controller no longer has any flash to assign to use from reserve. I.e. drive has been failing for a while.
Modern wear leveling also means that failure would likely cascade very quickly.
In all the honesty, this is badly wrong. Laptops running under heavy load may clock these numbers on the hard drive temp (not ambient inside the case but temperature sensor on the hard drive which essentially all modern hard drives have). Hard drives generate significantly more heat then SSDs due to mechanical issues.
I'm typing this on a machine that has 4x3.5" hard drives stacked on top of each other, and openhardwaremonitor pretty much instantly tells me which drives are on the top and bottom and which are in the middle. Middle ones report 34C and edge ones are 31C. Room temperature is at around 22-24C.
That said, SMART data says that "pre failure" threshold for my seagate drives is 45C. So 40C sounds quite close to it.
Indeed. This is called "wear leveling" and is aimed at preventing a scenario where you have a chunk of data that is never moved or deleted taking a lot of drive space making all wear focus on small area which is worn out very quickly.
The issue people point out is that "even if controller is good enough to last you until wear out, your SSD will fail much sooner then a hard drive".
Fact that controllers fail ridiculously often on budget drives doesn't improve SSD reliability. It is however somewhat understandable, as SSD controllers are significantly more complex then hard drive ones.
I have a very old (I think I bought it circa 2004 or so, it has turion cpu). Display hinges failed in it as well as cooling so I can't play games on it anymore (discreet GPU).
Hard drive is trucking on fine.
Some hard drives obviously last less. However if you have systemic problem with hard drives lasting less then two years, it's time to take a look at the factor that remains the same between these hard drives: user.
The site doesn't belong to law enforcement. It's just a regular "registered organisation". Anyone can register one, it costs about 100EUR to do so.
What happened is that this organisation filed a crime report with police alongside evidence which police (that is actually law enforcement organisation) investigated.
You're running a "you don't have to care about paparazzi looking through your windows because you can always hire security guards to block them from your home".
Doesn't work that way in EU. Private citizens have a certain expectation of privacy that they do not need to actively enforce themselves.
This isn't just about France. The problem is that this issue has been raised across the continent. Individual organisations are fairly weak because they're built to deal with things like magazines violating privacy of individual citizens.
However when they all push together, this is bound to start biting google hard, because a pan-european effort will get both to EU parliament as well as commission. And that means new legislative packages, even more ammunition for competition commissioner and in worst case scenario can push EU commission to draft and parliament to approve a directive that will specifically outlaw what google is doing on pan-European level.
Google looks to be playing chicken here. And it stands to win a lot if it wins, but it also stands to lose a lot of it loses.
Issue is that privacy laws are set based on two things: 1. Cultural expectations of privacy in the region. 2. Attempts at circumventing aforementioned expectations for various reasons such as profit.
Issue is that nothing like google existed when current laws were drafted. It does now and it's in a clear and direct opposition with 1. in EU. This means that privacy watchdogs will either have to find applicable laws that will be interpreted in a way that fits 1. and goes against what google does (and many laws in these areas are often drafted specifically to allow for this by executive organs without forcing legislation changes) or they will push new legislation to specifically outlaw what google is currently doing.
The conflict was pretty obvious even with old google services, but it was viewed as a tolerable one. When google unified its services, pretty much every privacy watchdog across the continent red flagged the changes and made inquiries to google as to what it intends to do to resolve this conflict. Google did the (apparently) stupid thing by going with "we're too big to care, fuck off" answer of "we're withing the scope of law". A really stupid answer when you're talking to organisations that have power to both interpret laws as well as wield heavy influence in legislative process through being specialists in their respective field that is essentially consulted and relied upon to maintain privacy rules.
I don't see a good outcome for google unless they intend to spend a lot of effort lobbying hard. Considering that I doubt stupidity being the thing behind decision here, as there are plenty of smart people at google, it's likely that google is hoping to push for paradigm shift and is going all-in.
This obviously means that if it loses, it stands to lose a lot.
EU is a union of states, therefore all citizens of EU countries are EU citizens.
Additionally EU has its own power structures, some of which are elected by state governments, which in turn are elected by citizens of each country and some are elected directly by EU citizens.
Actually it does mean exactly that. What we should be investing in is material technologies which are needed to make solar even marginally functional, as well as better technology for electric grids. That means better and more efficient transformers, wire materials and so on. These are necessities for things like solar to actually work in addition to panel technology itself.
Investing in solar before these problems are solved is like investing in internal combustion engine technology before metallurgy necessary to handle the pressure involved is invented.
Finally in medium to long term, coal (and other combustibles) is in fact sustainable. It's the only sustainable base power we have at the moment in places where there is no chance for hydro and nuclear is off the table for political or geographical/geological reasons. We have more then enough of these fuels for hundreds of years. Coal alone, probably a half millenium at the very least. Then there's natural gas, biofuels and other forms of combustibles. Problem isn't sustainability, it's the pollution. Most specifically CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, as we have mostly eliminated particle, NOx and SO2 emissions which where the actual "pollutants" in the proper meaning of the word.
Essentially coal and other base power forms will remain a necessity until energy transfer and energy storage technologies progress to the point where we don't have to run power plants connected to the grid just because various unreliable renewables like solar and wind might suddenly stop feeding electricity into the grid, collapsing the entire grid. That is what needs to be "heavily invested in" before renewables like solar will have any chance of becoming "ready for the masses", no matter how efficient the technology of those renewables becomes.
Essentially you're making one of the more glaring layman errors. You're putting the cart before the horse.
The point of this entire story is that it's not a cult at all. Instead it's a carefully managed organisation with many people working full time jobs to ensure that it works smoothly and efficiently.
Makes sense. First one overshot and hit Russia, second undershot and hit US. They're going to calibrate for somewhere in the middle and fire for effect soon.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're spending 1k on the card, you're likely spending twice that on the monitor alone.
GPU is about slamming more of the small cores into the package. Processing power scales in linear fashion with number of cores because of how parallelizible graphics calculations are.
CPUs cannot do this. They need powerful generalist cores and their support structures instead. So they can't increase amount of cores and expect linear increase of performance. So they don't grow as big as GPUs.
1080p is budget in PC world. Cutting edge enthusiasts are looking at 2140p (4k) and 3D monitors (requires double frame rate). Current high end chokes on these unless run in SLI.
That is simply not happening this decade. The jump in required computing power is ridiculous, while the current "fake lighting" is almost good enough. At the same time, you can't really utilize the current GPU types efficiently for real time lighting because that's simply not what they're optimized for.
3D on high resolution screens is one of the biggest reasons for this. Most of the current budget stuff does fine rendering non-3D at 1080p. 2140p at 120FPS for 3D monitor? Even SLI's choke.
If you're buying a thousand USD video card, you likely have a similar monitor to use with it.
If you want a reliable drive, you have to buy a HD at this point, still. Intel SSD are reliable by SSD standards, but not by HD standards.
We still have ways to go before SSD controllers get to level or reliability of HD controllers simply because of the level of complexity required in SSD controllers. The quick failures are typically controller failures. That's one part where intel shines, it installs expensive and reliable controllers in its drives.
The comparison here is very much in the red for SSD vs HD (original point) though.
I'd rather cheer for liberty then stupidity of your level if that's what you got out of my post.
Finnish law allows police to exercise its power to search without a warrant for any crime that has potential sentence of more then 6 months in prison. It's usually used in cases where someone gets caught with significant amount of drugs on their persona > search his/her house.
They're really careful about not abusing this right, as it's generally understood that this is a gentleman's agreement (common in our culture) that such rights are granted with assumption that they will not be abused.
This is why it raised to much critique when they used it to search the girl's house. Considering the fallout, I find it likely that those on top learned the lesson and will not be conducting similar searches.
As another example of similar cases, we have "lex nokia", which is the right of employer to search private information such as email of the employer. In the end, law had a caveat of "company must inform privacy watchdog before any search". Result: zero searches because of fear of stigma from privacy watchdog publicizing the case.
However it's pretty clear that police won't need to do searches here. Organisation in question openly admits to using the code, so this will likely go straight to the court with minimal investigation required.
This isn't really unusual in the West. Take a look at US Chamber of Commerce for a much more flagrant case.
Sudden failures are controller failures. Especially budget controllers tend to fail before flash does.
Flash failure is "usually" about not being able to write to the disk, but being able to read from the disk. Problem is that when you're getting it, that means you've gone through all the reserve flash and controller no longer has any flash to assign to use from reserve. I.e. drive has been failing for a while.
Modern wear leveling also means that failure would likely cascade very quickly.
In all the honesty, this is badly wrong. Laptops running under heavy load may clock these numbers on the hard drive temp (not ambient inside the case but temperature sensor on the hard drive which essentially all modern hard drives have). Hard drives generate significantly more heat then SSDs due to mechanical issues.
I'm typing this on a machine that has 4x3.5" hard drives stacked on top of each other, and openhardwaremonitor pretty much instantly tells me which drives are on the top and bottom and which are in the middle. Middle ones report 34C and edge ones are 31C. Room temperature is at around 22-24C.
That said, SMART data says that "pre failure" threshold for my seagate drives is 45C. So 40C sounds quite close to it.
Aye, intel drives are known for two things: their reliability and their high prices.
If you tried budget vendors like OCZ, you'd likely have a very different story to tell us.
Indeed. This is called "wear leveling" and is aimed at preventing a scenario where you have a chunk of data that is never moved or deleted taking a lot of drive space making all wear focus on small area which is worn out very quickly.
The issue people point out is that "even if controller is good enough to last you until wear out, your SSD will fail much sooner then a hard drive".
Fact that controllers fail ridiculously often on budget drives doesn't improve SSD reliability. It is however somewhat understandable, as SSD controllers are significantly more complex then hard drive ones.
I have a very old (I think I bought it circa 2004 or so, it has turion cpu). Display hinges failed in it as well as cooling so I can't play games on it anymore (discreet GPU).
Hard drive is trucking on fine.
Some hard drives obviously last less. However if you have systemic problem with hard drives lasting less then two years, it's time to take a look at the factor that remains the same between these hard drives: user.
The site doesn't belong to law enforcement. It's just a regular "registered organisation". Anyone can register one, it costs about 100EUR to do so.
What happened is that this organisation filed a crime report with police alongside evidence which police (that is actually law enforcement organisation) investigated.
You're running a "you don't have to care about paparazzi looking through your windows because you can always hire security guards to block them from your home".
Doesn't work that way in EU. Private citizens have a certain expectation of privacy that they do not need to actively enforce themselves.
This isn't just about France. The problem is that this issue has been raised across the continent. Individual organisations are fairly weak because they're built to deal with things like magazines violating privacy of individual citizens.
However when they all push together, this is bound to start biting google hard, because a pan-european effort will get both to EU parliament as well as commission. And that means new legislative packages, even more ammunition for competition commissioner and in worst case scenario can push EU commission to draft and parliament to approve a directive that will specifically outlaw what google is doing on pan-European level.
Google looks to be playing chicken here. And it stands to win a lot if it wins, but it also stands to lose a lot of it loses.
Issue is that privacy laws are set based on two things:
1. Cultural expectations of privacy in the region.
2. Attempts at circumventing aforementioned expectations for various reasons such as profit.
Issue is that nothing like google existed when current laws were drafted. It does now and it's in a clear and direct opposition with 1. in EU. This means that privacy watchdogs will either have to find applicable laws that will be interpreted in a way that fits 1. and goes against what google does (and many laws in these areas are often drafted specifically to allow for this by executive organs without forcing legislation changes) or they will push new legislation to specifically outlaw what google is currently doing.
The conflict was pretty obvious even with old google services, but it was viewed as a tolerable one. When google unified its services, pretty much every privacy watchdog across the continent red flagged the changes and made inquiries to google as to what it intends to do to resolve this conflict. Google did the (apparently) stupid thing by going with "we're too big to care, fuck off" answer of "we're withing the scope of law". A really stupid answer when you're talking to organisations that have power to both interpret laws as well as wield heavy influence in legislative process through being specialists in their respective field that is essentially consulted and relied upon to maintain privacy rules.
I don't see a good outcome for google unless they intend to spend a lot of effort lobbying hard. Considering that I doubt stupidity being the thing behind decision here, as there are plenty of smart people at google, it's likely that google is hoping to push for paradigm shift and is going all-in.
This obviously means that if it loses, it stands to lose a lot.
EU is a union of states, therefore all citizens of EU countries are EU citizens.
Additionally EU has its own power structures, some of which are elected by state governments, which in turn are elected by citizens of each country and some are elected directly by EU citizens.
Actually it does mean exactly that. What we should be investing in is material technologies which are needed to make solar even marginally functional, as well as better technology for electric grids. That means better and more efficient transformers, wire materials and so on. These are necessities for things like solar to actually work in addition to panel technology itself.
Investing in solar before these problems are solved is like investing in internal combustion engine technology before metallurgy necessary to handle the pressure involved is invented.
Finally in medium to long term, coal (and other combustibles) is in fact sustainable. It's the only sustainable base power we have at the moment in places where there is no chance for hydro and nuclear is off the table for political or geographical/geological reasons. We have more then enough of these fuels for hundreds of years. Coal alone, probably a half millenium at the very least. Then there's natural gas, biofuels and other forms of combustibles. Problem isn't sustainability, it's the pollution. Most specifically CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, as we have mostly eliminated particle, NOx and SO2 emissions which where the actual "pollutants" in the proper meaning of the word.
Essentially coal and other base power forms will remain a necessity until energy transfer and energy storage technologies progress to the point where we don't have to run power plants connected to the grid just because various unreliable renewables like solar and wind might suddenly stop feeding electricity into the grid, collapsing the entire grid. That is what needs to be "heavily invested in" before renewables like solar will have any chance of becoming "ready for the masses", no matter how efficient the technology of those renewables becomes.
Essentially you're making one of the more glaring layman errors. You're putting the cart before the horse.
The point of this entire story is that it's not a cult at all. Instead it's a carefully managed organisation with many people working full time jobs to ensure that it works smoothly and efficiently.
Makes sense. The vindictive Christian God is going to take out competition in the bloodiest way possible.
Looks like we're going to get a sequel for Old Testament, Gundam style. Colony drop!
Makes sense. First one overshot and hit Russia, second undershot and hit US. They're going to calibrate for somewhere in the middle and fire for effect soon.