I was wrong about nVidia - the VIA video chips are S3. But still, the GPU can be more powerful than the CPU. Though programming GPU for all the tasks of a CPU is hard, it can be done, which is why there's interest in General Purpose Graphics Processing Units (GPGPU).
Apple's worst business skill has always been estimating demand and managing supply to meet it. That's one main reason corporations never adopted Macs: if they hire 1500 new people, what if Apple's supply chain has a slowdown at that time? The single source of Macs through Apple alone made that bottleneck a defining problem in planning to use Macs in IT. Even as recently as this decade, the iMac/iPod Era, Apple has continued to brag about demand outstripping supply, leaving "empty shelves" after product intros, as if that were good for anyone. Including Apple: every empty, grasping hand at that empty shelf is a failed sale, that could be satisfied by one of Apple's many competitors. And since those competitors' products don't run Apple software (though that's mitigated a little by cross-platform iPod peripherals), that's often a lost customer, for their entire life.
Extra unsold stock also means Apple has the opposite problem, cost of production and distribution without return from sales. Which also pisses off sales channel partners, which might decide not to risk it on Apple products when manageable supply chains (and believable marketing projections) can be had with Apple's competition.
You might expect draining a swamp to have an impact, but not the same as species extinction (especially over a much larger area than 1/3 of 1930s New Orleans).
But if you did expect it, you would be informed by millennia of experience draining swamps. It might have been an unknown risk sometime in the distant past, but in the 1930s the impact was predictable. Not only is this species extinction not predictable, but its impact isn't even being considered, as far as the article we're discussing reveals. Which indicates serious problems in how responsible are the people going ahead with it.
These VIA CPUs and their motherboards would do a lot more good if their nVidia drivers were completely open. Quite a lot of the overall processing power is in the nVidia chip on the mobo. But when the drivers for Linux (and probably Windows, too) don't fully expose all the video features, the CPU has to do a lot more work preprocessing, at much lower efficiency than the nVidia chip can.
DDT once looked like a great idea. Millions more will die from environmental collapse when we continue to just ignore the consequences of our drastic interventions.
These decisions require more info than just their direct effects.
Stupid cunt, they can arrest you after they've stopped you for a moving violation. Hell, they can arrest you for several different moving violations.
I'm talking about the basic question of our rights and the government protecting, not trampling, them. You're not even qualified to talk about what happens when a cop stops you. Keep your shithead out of the way of even deeper discussions like the Constitution. Especially if you're going to burst in here with your foul, obnoxious stupidity just because I spank you out of every thread you bray your worthless assery.
People who want a better solution than one that's worse than the problem aren't hypocrites just because they're not suffering from the problem.
It's like saying that only men can have a position on war, only women have a position on childbirth, only children have a position on primary education. Obviously many people are qualified to help process the problem, even those without something material at stake. In fact, since those stakes can often cloud one's judgement of possible damaging consequences, especially when that damage could be done to other people, not oneself, having dispassionate people without a directly vested interest involved in the solution usually helps make it more balanced.
The only reason humans are in a position to make these kinds of dramatic changes in our environment is because we can work together on problems without requiring that we experience their damage directly. That empathy is key to the human cooperation that puts us in these positions of power.
Not all 2500 are present in the places we're talking about extincting the 33. Do you have science to support this specific proposition that the rest of this specific ecosystem can continue without significant damage from loss of this dependency?
What a load of crap. What people are saying is that just if your logic is warped by revenge for having caught a disease to the extent that you don't consider the other consequences when you attack it with a crude solution, you shouldn't be the one making the decision. That conflicts of interest are bad for decisionmaking.
And no one said you don't "love nature". In fact, no one was talking to you at all. What we said was that doing this could be worse for nature, and therefore us, than what's being predicted by people planning it, than other solutions,
And the idea that the only people who aren't hypocrites are the ones who have gotten the disease or worse before working to eradicate it is the most medievally stupid idea I've heard yet.
You haven't gotten the disease, so by your logic you're not qualified to comment on it. Why don't you take your own advice, until you get your logic fixed?
We might not "need" to go any further, but our action would indeed go further. That's the entire point of this thread, if you'd just pay attention instead of blurting just because you've got a keyboard.
That's not a straw man. It's an example that you evidently understand that's equivalent to extincting mosquitoes, which you evidently don't understand.
Where's your citation to prove that mosquitoes aren't an essential dependency in their ecosystem?
That's an excluded middle fallacy. The kind of emotional reaction to being proved wrong that sends starships into black holes. Interesting TV, but bad leadership.
Just because something isn't always a virtue doesn't mean it's always a sin. If you're now arguing that we should make epidemiological decisions based exclusively on revenge for having gotten sick once, without being checked by logic, then maybe you should hang out with those emotionally damaged people somewhere who just love mosquitoes.
Draining a swamp that doesn't make a species extinct doesn't have the potential for a ripple effect through an entire ecosystem as making an entire species extinct.
The consideration of the ripple effects of extincting and entire species on which others depend doesn't seem to be part of the process here. That is bad in itself. And the kind of people managing an ecosystem who make that kind of fundamental mistake seem to me the kind of people who will make other mistakes. In fact they seem so narrowly focused on genetic engineering a mosquito that they don't seem to be trustworthy to actually manage anything except maybe a single genetic engineering project. And even that is dubious.
No, obviously you think that when someone has something bad happen to them, it's OK to do something possibly even worse to possibly stop it.
By your flawed logic, since you never had Dengue fever, you shouldn't be eradicating it. Of course that's stupid. But that logic is just as broken as saying what you just said.
Obviously you've never had your ecosystem collapse because a species many others depended upon was wiped out artifically all at once.
That might be true - pesticides are unnecessarily wasteful. But they don't destroy an entire species, and we don't know how destructive are the ripple effects to those other species that depend on it.
Just because this new strategy is a choice doesn't mean we have to choose between only those two choices. We could also nuke the swamps, but that's not a good choice, either.
What would really impress me would be if scientists engineered a Dengue Fever virus that killed mosquitoes, but which is immunologically recognized by the same systems in the mosquitoes. Then release that virus into the mosquito population. And watch the mosquitoes evolve to no longer carry the virus.
If we want to get rid of the mosquitoes because they're annoying and disgusting, we can also encourage the bird, fish and reptiles/amphibians that eat them.
Those are ways to work with the creatures we have to share the ecosystem with, not to work against them. And, because we're actually more familiar with success from husbandry than from extermination, we'll probably manage it better.
Yes, it is a problem that those searches violate our rights. Extending them to iPods etc makes the problem worse. Now is a good time to stop the problem, especially if we're ever going to shrink it.
Not only have I taken a walk in a tropical region, I lived in Southeast Louisiana for years, which is thousands of miles of swamp. I actually got an unidentified virus in Africa most probably from one of the many mosquitoes who bit me while I slept near the Niger River. In New Orleans, we eliminated centuries of Yellow Fever by draining the swamps, not by targeting a species with untested genetic engineering weapons. But even that action has had consequences to the rest of the ecosystem, though at the more familiar level of drainage and flooding.
Fortunately, public health decisions aren't made by one guy calling themself "Dutch Gun" who wants to just walk around pulling triggers because of their single personal benefit.
Instead, people with that kind of power typically don't make decisions with at the neural level that slaps at a sting. Instead we think of the actual costs of human intervention, and how that's different from the more integrated processes in nature eliminating species, and learning from when it's the same, and causes a ripple effect that we'd rather not be injured by.
Biology is perhaps the most complex studyable natural system. Ecosystems are the most complex interactions of biological systems. We have to consider what an apparently "simple", drastic action that destroys an entire species that other species depend on will actually do, before we do it.
It goes even deeper than that. The question of what they "intended" when they signed the Constitution is another stupid question. For one, "intention" is a manner of speaking, and no way to decide how to protect our rights. What matters is what the words they signed meant to them when they signed it. It's still an intangible question, but it's much easier to actually prove. The meaning of practically all of the words and their grammar to people of their education and social position is quite clear, as is their agreement with those specific formulas when they signed it. Reading their private communications like tea leaves is like looking at polls before people go into the secret ballot booth: an interesting exercise, but trumped by what comes out of the person when they are called to formally say their piece.
But that's not the most important point. What matters is that the Constitution reflects reality. That we have these rights, that the government is instructed to protect them. We have rights to security in our personal effects, like personal data we personally keep. We're fortunate to have a Constitution that instructs the government to protect them. We were fortunate to have had people over 200 years ago to get the government started doing that, but their shortcomings haven't stopped successors from further protecting our rights. And so we don't rely on their unique, if naturally limited, genius, as if they were supernatural. Instead we have to rely on each other today to have their insights, even easier now with their inspirations, to protect ourselves.
Those mosquitoes might suck (pun intended:P), but they're food for a lot of animals that don't suck. If we just eliminate all the mosquitoes, we probably can't tell how we'll affect the rest of the ecosystem. Eliminating the dengue fever germs will have its effect, but I'm not too worried about depriving the worms of the corpses they're used to growing fat on.
Slashdot Mirror
I was wrong about nVidia - the VIA video chips are S3. But still, the GPU can be more powerful than the CPU. Though programming GPU for all the tasks of a CPU is hard, it can be done, which is why there's interest in General Purpose Graphics Processing Units (GPGPU).
Apple's worst business skill has always been estimating demand and managing supply to meet it. That's one main reason corporations never adopted Macs: if they hire 1500 new people, what if Apple's supply chain has a slowdown at that time? The single source of Macs through Apple alone made that bottleneck a defining problem in planning to use Macs in IT. Even as recently as this decade, the iMac/iPod Era, Apple has continued to brag about demand outstripping supply, leaving "empty shelves" after product intros, as if that were good for anyone. Including Apple: every empty, grasping hand at that empty shelf is a failed sale, that could be satisfied by one of Apple's many competitors. And since those competitors' products don't run Apple software (though that's mitigated a little by cross-platform iPod peripherals), that's often a lost customer, for their entire life.
Extra unsold stock also means Apple has the opposite problem, cost of production and distribution without return from sales. Which also pisses off sales channel partners, which might decide not to risk it on Apple products when manageable supply chains (and believable marketing projections) can be had with Apple's competition.
Whoops, not nVidia, S3. There are open OpenChrome drivers, but they can't get at the best features like full OpenGL and alpha-blending HW.
You might expect draining a swamp to have an impact, but not the same as species extinction (especially over a much larger area than 1/3 of 1930s New Orleans).
But if you did expect it, you would be informed by millennia of experience draining swamps. It might have been an unknown risk sometime in the distant past, but in the 1930s the impact was predictable. Not only is this species extinction not predictable, but its impact isn't even being considered, as far as the article we're discussing reveals. Which indicates serious problems in how responsible are the people going ahead with it.
These VIA CPUs and their motherboards would do a lot more good if their nVidia drivers were completely open. Quite a lot of the overall processing power is in the nVidia chip on the mobo. But when the drivers for Linux (and probably Windows, too) don't fully expose all the video features, the CPU has to do a lot more work preprocessing, at much lower efficiency than the nVidia chip can.
DDT once looked like a great idea. Millions more will die from environmental collapse when we continue to just ignore the consequences of our drastic interventions.
These decisions require more info than just their direct effects.
Get some fucking perspective.
You never showed up to fight. And if you did, you'd be even stupider than you look already. No wonder you're stalking me like a desperate pussy.
Stupid cunt, they can arrest you after they've stopped you for a moving violation. Hell, they can arrest you for several different moving violations.
I'm talking about the basic question of our rights and the government protecting, not trampling, them. You're not even qualified to talk about what happens when a cop stops you. Keep your shithead out of the way of even deeper discussions like the Constitution. Especially if you're going to burst in here with your foul, obnoxious stupidity just because I spank you out of every thread you bray your worthless assery.
People who want a better solution than one that's worse than the problem aren't hypocrites just because they're not suffering from the problem.
It's like saying that only men can have a position on war, only women have a position on childbirth, only children have a position on primary education. Obviously many people are qualified to help process the problem, even those without something material at stake. In fact, since those stakes can often cloud one's judgement of possible damaging consequences, especially when that damage could be done to other people, not oneself, having dispassionate people without a directly vested interest involved in the solution usually helps make it more balanced.
The only reason humans are in a position to make these kinds of dramatic changes in our environment is because we can work together on problems without requiring that we experience their damage directly. That empathy is key to the human cooperation that puts us in these positions of power.
Not all 2500 are present in the places we're talking about extincting the 33. Do you have science to support this specific proposition that the rest of this specific ecosystem can continue without significant damage from loss of this dependency?
What a load of crap. What people are saying is that just if your logic is warped by revenge for having caught a disease to the extent that you don't consider the other consequences when you attack it with a crude solution, you shouldn't be the one making the decision. That conflicts of interest are bad for decisionmaking.
And no one said you don't "love nature". In fact, no one was talking to you at all. What we said was that doing this could be worse for nature, and therefore us, than what's being predicted by people planning it, than other solutions,
And the idea that the only people who aren't hypocrites are the ones who have gotten the disease or worse before working to eradicate it is the most medievally stupid idea I've heard yet.
You haven't gotten the disease, so by your logic you're not qualified to comment on it. Why don't you take your own advice, until you get your logic fixed?
You're not even paying attention. Those species are not "worthless" to the other species that depend on them.
We might not "need" to go any further, but our action would indeed go further. That's the entire point of this thread, if you'd just pay attention instead of blurting just because you've got a keyboard.
It's not fun. But a tiny few people getting histoplasmosis is a lot more fun that the total collapse of an ecosystem if bats went extinct.
There are other solutions to stopping histoplasmosis than crippling an entire ecosystem.
And that's why our ecosystems are largely better than they were before modern times :P.
I hope you starve.
That's not a straw man. It's an example that you evidently understand that's equivalent to extincting mosquitoes, which you evidently don't understand.
Where's your citation to prove that mosquitoes aren't an essential dependency in their ecosystem?
That's an excluded middle fallacy. The kind of emotional reaction to being proved wrong that sends starships into black holes. Interesting TV, but bad leadership.
Just because something isn't always a virtue doesn't mean it's always a sin. If you're now arguing that we should make epidemiological decisions based exclusively on revenge for having gotten sick once, without being checked by logic, then maybe you should hang out with those emotionally damaged people somewhere who just love mosquitoes.
Yeah, bad priorities in protecting other species, including humans, from DDT, while the mosquitoes just evolved to ignore it.
Next question, please.
Draining a swamp that doesn't make a species extinct doesn't have the potential for a ripple effect through an entire ecosystem as making an entire species extinct.
The consideration of the ripple effects of extincting and entire species on which others depend doesn't seem to be part of the process here. That is bad in itself. And the kind of people managing an ecosystem who make that kind of fundamental mistake seem to me the kind of people who will make other mistakes. In fact they seem so narrowly focused on genetic engineering a mosquito that they don't seem to be trustworthy to actually manage anything except maybe a single genetic engineering project. And even that is dubious.
What could possibly go wrong?
No, obviously you think that when someone has something bad happen to them, it's OK to do something possibly even worse to possibly stop it.
By your flawed logic, since you never had Dengue fever, you shouldn't be eradicating it. Of course that's stupid. But that logic is just as broken as saying what you just said.
Obviously you've never had your ecosystem collapse because a species many others depended upon was wiped out artifically all at once.
That might be true - pesticides are unnecessarily wasteful. But they don't destroy an entire species, and we don't know how destructive are the ripple effects to those other species that depend on it.
Just because this new strategy is a choice doesn't mean we have to choose between only those two choices. We could also nuke the swamps, but that's not a good choice, either.
I think a better choice, if we're going to monkey with the mosquitoes, might be to make the mosquitoes vulnerable to Dengue.
What would really impress me would be if scientists engineered a Dengue Fever virus that killed mosquitoes, but which is immunologically recognized by the same systems in the mosquitoes. Then release that virus into the mosquito population. And watch the mosquitoes evolve to no longer carry the virus.
If we want to get rid of the mosquitoes because they're annoying and disgusting, we can also encourage the bird, fish and reptiles/amphibians that eat them.
Those are ways to work with the creatures we have to share the ecosystem with, not to work against them. And, because we're actually more familiar with success from husbandry than from extermination, we'll probably manage it better.
Yes, it is a problem that those searches violate our rights. Extending them to iPods etc makes the problem worse. Now is a good time to stop the problem, especially if we're ever going to shrink it.
Not only have I taken a walk in a tropical region, I lived in Southeast Louisiana for years, which is thousands of miles of swamp. I actually got an unidentified virus in Africa most probably from one of the many mosquitoes who bit me while I slept near the Niger River. In New Orleans, we eliminated centuries of Yellow Fever by draining the swamps, not by targeting a species with untested genetic engineering weapons. But even that action has had consequences to the rest of the ecosystem, though at the more familiar level of drainage and flooding.
Fortunately, public health decisions aren't made by one guy calling themself "Dutch Gun" who wants to just walk around pulling triggers because of their single personal benefit.
Instead, people with that kind of power typically don't make decisions with at the neural level that slaps at a sting. Instead we think of the actual costs of human intervention, and how that's different from the more integrated processes in nature eliminating species, and learning from when it's the same, and causes a ripple effect that we'd rather not be injured by.
Biology is perhaps the most complex studyable natural system. Ecosystems are the most complex interactions of biological systems. We have to consider what an apparently "simple", drastic action that destroys an entire species that other species depend on will actually do, before we do it.
It goes even deeper than that. The question of what they "intended" when they signed the Constitution is another stupid question. For one, "intention" is a manner of speaking, and no way to decide how to protect our rights. What matters is what the words they signed meant to them when they signed it. It's still an intangible question, but it's much easier to actually prove. The meaning of practically all of the words and their grammar to people of their education and social position is quite clear, as is their agreement with those specific formulas when they signed it. Reading their private communications like tea leaves is like looking at polls before people go into the secret ballot booth: an interesting exercise, but trumped by what comes out of the person when they are called to formally say their piece.
But that's not the most important point. What matters is that the Constitution reflects reality. That we have these rights, that the government is instructed to protect them. We have rights to security in our personal effects, like personal data we personally keep. We're fortunate to have a Constitution that instructs the government to protect them. We were fortunate to have had people over 200 years ago to get the government started doing that, but their shortcomings haven't stopped successors from further protecting our rights. And so we don't rely on their unique, if naturally limited, genius, as if they were supernatural. Instead we have to rely on each other today to have their insights, even easier now with their inspirations, to protect ourselves.
Those mosquitoes might suck (pun intended :P), but they're food for a lot of animals that don't suck. If we just eliminate all the mosquitoes, we probably can't tell how we'll affect the rest of the ecosystem. Eliminating the dengue fever germs will have its effect, but I'm not too worried about depriving the worms of the corpses they're used to growing fat on.