This is only true to an extent. There is a very strong relationship between your genetics and your intelligence however.
For example a kid born from parents with IQ's below 90 is adopted and raised by smart parents(say 140+) He's almost certainly going to be smarter than his biological parents. He is also almost certainly never going to be as smart as his adopted parents.
I see this causing problems in adopted kids households all the time. Parents are smart, parents waited too long to have kids, adopted baby from trailer trash that were too dumb to not procreate. Kid gets into his teens, school gets harder, parents can't understand why the kid is having so much trouble with stuff they breezed through, and neither can the kid because he doesn't know he's adopted(which just adds more frustration), and it causes a whole lot of tension.
I said higher end. 3570 is where it starts to win a bit again. The games that were tested in Win8 that particular i5 lost most of the benches.
The scheduler is making big improvements however. The 8150 is in those benchmarks seeing huge gains over similar tests run 6 months ago with much the same configuration for GPU but on Win8. The overall data points to a 20-30% performance gain, which puts it where AMDs marketing team has basically said they are shooting for right now. They just screwed up releasing bulldozer too early. They should have continued development and released a Phenom III then released bulldozer now, as piledriver.
Its ATI bought and rebadged as AMD. I still call it ATI partly out of habit and partly because thankfully its design process and most of its staff are still intact. AMD should have kept the brand. You don't rebadge the only other major player in a market you buy into.
When you buy the cards you can still see ATi printed on some of the chips.
The current video card situation is as it has always been with the exception of a few generations (4000-6000 series) where Ati just had nvidia completely on the ropes.
Nvidia wastes shitloads of money designing something that can win the crown for performance with a 40-60% yield from factories plus needs to get clocked down so far to get higher yields for cheaper cards that they lose on every other level, and ATI designs a solid platform that wins on every other level and still gets 90%+ yield for their top cards. Its what makes ATI profitable. ATI also tends to be first-to market with next-gen GPUs for the last few years and as such takes the crown for awhile for enthusiasts. Plus a lot of enthusiasts know that the next-amazing-thing from Nvidia will only claim the crown by 2-5% at most so they get the latest and greatest from ATI, overall they spend more time with the fastest system available.
Actually check out the Anandtech review. They do it on windows 8 with the new scheduler... the difference in performance of the FX series from Windows 7 to Windows 8 is fucking mind-boggling. The FX-8350 actually trounces all but the higher end I5s and gives the I7 a run for its money in several games. For Sub-$200 if you're getting Windows 8(which I apparently will be now) you can't get anything thats even close performance wise.
Try actually reading some of those sites yourself... even the most modern games the difference between stock AMD processors and stock Intel processors is usually something along the lines of 150 fps vs 200+ fps. Neither matters, your monitor can't display all of the frames EITHER ONE is rendering.
Therefore, he is absolutely correct. CPU doesn't matter at all.
It does not, because an information based economy is essentially a giant ponzi scheme waiting to fall over. Telecoms and software industries are all well and good, but what you refer to as an "Information Based Economy" is what its headed towards, and largely IS right now, and its exactly what isn't needed. The U.S. needs to start producing tangible products again and a big help to get that started would be to get rid of this idea of magical information that somehow has value on its own.
I don't normally respond to ACs... but most of what you say checks out, except for the fact that Intels own X86-64 implementation was about a 30-40% performance loss on both 32 and 64 bit instead of the performance gain that came with AMDs version. If intel had had their own viable version ready to go they wouldn't have had to start from scratch and rebuild their roadmap around AMD64, claiming otherwise is just being out of touch with reality. The costs they took on the nose for that were extravagant. In the billions extravagant. MS had nothing to do with Intel being forced to go with AMD64, MS was pushing Intel to get their own product ready.
After 6 months of Intel saying it was just around the corner without even providing MS a working instruction set MS essentially said "Sorry, you took too long, we're standardizing on AMD64 because our enterprise customers want 64 bit now, and this is ready now."
He was mentioning in the situation of you actually DID bring your phone in to the interview with you. It is a sign that you are behind the times, which in the tech industry is a big no-no to have on display in an interview.
I'm not as bad as most, and I'll probably just be blunt and ask you why you have a blackberry instead of... well just about anything. If the answer is satisfactory then I'm good, and anything from "I'm frugal and my contract isn't up yet" to "My previous work used BBE and this was just easier" is acceptable.
I'd seriously have less problems with someone carrying a dumb cell than a blackberry right now.
The thing in the tech world is you always have to be either ahead of the game or at the very least up with the times. A blackberry in your pocket is a sign that you are not in either of those categories. Its also a sign that you're a bit anti-social which will make it more difficult for you to meld with the existing staff.
Its not an absolute, but it is a sign, and will be interpreted as such.
Actually, since marketing affects so many other departments, being seen with a blackberry is currently a way to become an instant pariah.
If I was hiring for example, your out-of-date and out-of-touch phone would be a hindrance to me hiring you and force you to answer more questions than the next guy.
This is a false maxim. Innovation happened at a (relatively speaking) much faster pace before patents became the norm. The only thing protecting them were trade secrets. Which worked just fine. Patents came along to spur innovation because things like steam engines (probably a bad example, but you get the idea) were being kept as trade secrets and in order to compete you would have to develop your own from scratch. Nowadays with all of the advanced design tools we have? Minimal cost. You just need to have a clue as to what you're doing in the first place.
Back then you'd have had to prototype every single idea to see if it even had a chance of working.
Patents, as such, do nothing but stifle innovation now. The life span of most products is 5 years at best, meaning whoever is first to the gate gets a monopoly and rakes in billions. When the patent actually expires the product is, or should be, irrelevant.
I should also point to the actual costs of those items. Which was exorbitant. I have an old 486 from AMD thats still trucking along. I can't say the same of any of the pentium 1-3's that I owned.
Part of the reason as I understand it is that due to everything being so much better/faster now, in order to keep costs down the manufacturing techniques basically allow for a lot more leakage and eventually it gets worse and worse as the part gets used. In addition these new manufacturing techniques are just plain shitloads cheaper than the old way.
You'll notice most of the stuff in orbit is from the 90's at best. There are a few extremely expensive fast chips, and the rest is running off 486s essentially.
The trouble is, it used to go for $200-400 per item in the 60s-70s and if you adjust that to today for inflation you're looking at something around $1100-$2000. Its not that I don't remember the stuff, its that it is extremely irrelevant to the conversation due to its cost.
It took them almost 2 years just to implement AMDs solution and get it to market. They had been trying for years already to come up with an X86-64 solution and failed big time.
So no, Intel would not have won that fight, other than how they actually did already go about winning it, or by revoking the x86 licensing from AMD(if that was possible). But Intel's engineers wouldn't have won that fight. They would have at best been another year+ behind, which would have been enough to make them irrelevant. In the 2 years that AMD had them completely and utterly trounced(As bad as Intel has AMD trounced right now actually, in some ways much worse than the current situation) their market share went straight down to about 50% on consumer and 70% server. The only thing that kept that from getting worse was their existing long term contracts, which another year would have seen some of the biggest ones expire. Those two years cut their cash on hand balance by over half and there was some real concern that Intel might go belly up.
I see this as an excuse all the time. Its like people are covering for the fact the technology is inherently disposable, because its cheap.
I don't know the exact WHY of it any more than the submitter, but wifi equipment definitely DOES degrade.
The 3 year old wifi card in my laptop doesn't grab signal as well anymore.
I just replaced a 3 year old wireless router that I would have had to replace a year prior if I'd actually needed all of its original coverage.
Everything electronic degrades over time. The only electronics we have that are mostly proof against it are in orbit and cost exorbitant amounts of money.
Now, that said, if it works for 3 years it will generally keep working, if at reduced effectiveness. Seems to be extremely similar to my average power supply life span.
There is overlap to a significant degree, channel 2 won't help, but channel 4-5 might. There are generally about 3 channels worth of overlap on those wifi channels. If its only a small amount of interference thats causing the signal to drop, channel 3 might even do it. However if theres enough interference to cause problems, swapping to channel 2 from channel 1 won't help because they share about 80% of the same band.
Yes, in fact if you read the fine print every Intel processor built today is built on the AMD64 architecture.
IMO the biggest mistake AMD ever made was to license that tech back. Due to Intel licensing them the X86 arch though it may have been forced due to some sort of reciprocity clause for anything developed to supplement x86.
AMDs market share was too small for courts to go after them for market abuse though, if existing deals didn't force it then they should have kept it.
Not quite. Law enforcement has to read you your Miranda rights before *that particular law enforcment officer*, or set of officers can use your speech directed towards them in a court of law.
Getting arrested is generally a stressful event and the reading of the Miranda rights is supposed to cool you down a bit.
Miranda rights don't apply to anything written down for all to see in a public forum. They don't even apply to seized letters so long as proof of you writing the letters while not being coerced to do it can be established.
for tech companies, generally speaking, it was the number tossed around during the Microsoft inquisition. MS is still above this number but they've (apparently) been forced to play nice somehow.
Microsoft is the only precedence for the tech sector, and as such would likely be referenced heavily.
Google has the lions share of the market, but its market share for searchs as of September 2012 is 65%.... this is at minimum 15% shy of anyone being able to scream Monopoly!
What Google is doing here right now is saying out loud and directed at some idiot French government officials what EVERY search engine will do if this comes to pass.
The only people that will try to get this enforced are the old entrenched newspapers and their sites, and this will only bring about their downfall even faster, so bring it on!
They certainly can be, but I still think it should be a personal choice. My statement isn't that seat belts are universally bad, its that they shouldn't necessarily be mandated, because there are many driving situations in which it is not a good idea to be wearing one. I probably experience more of those than most because of where I live, but the fact remains the situations exist.
I'm fine with mandated rules for baby car seats etc because they at least advise a best practice as the baby is not able to make its own decision. I'm fine with legislation up to age 18. After that it should be a personal choice.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me google that for you.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=intelligence+linked+to+genes
Science daily has two separate articles on it within the first 3 results.
Wanting yourself to be able to be just as special a snowflake as anyone else "If I really wanted to be I could!" doesn't make it so.
This is only true to an extent. There is a very strong relationship between your genetics and your intelligence however.
For example a kid born from parents with IQ's below 90 is adopted and raised by smart parents(say 140+) He's almost certainly going to be smarter than his biological parents. He is also almost certainly never going to be as smart as his adopted parents.
I see this causing problems in adopted kids households all the time. Parents are smart, parents waited too long to have kids, adopted baby from trailer trash that were too dumb to not procreate. Kid gets into his teens, school gets harder, parents can't understand why the kid is having so much trouble with stuff they breezed through, and neither can the kid because he doesn't know he's adopted(which just adds more frustration), and it causes a whole lot of tension.
I said higher end. 3570 is where it starts to win a bit again. The games that were tested in Win8 that particular i5 lost most of the benches.
The scheduler is making big improvements however. The 8150 is in those benchmarks seeing huge gains over similar tests run 6 months ago with much the same configuration for GPU but on Win8. The overall data points to a 20-30% performance gain, which puts it where AMDs marketing team has basically said they are shooting for right now. They just screwed up releasing bulldozer too early. They should have continued development and released a Phenom III then released bulldozer now, as piledriver.
Its ATI bought and rebadged as AMD. I still call it ATI partly out of habit and partly because thankfully its design process and most of its staff are still intact. AMD should have kept the brand. You don't rebadge the only other major player in a market you buy into.
When you buy the cards you can still see ATi printed on some of the chips.
The current video card situation is as it has always been with the exception of a few generations (4000-6000 series) where Ati just had nvidia completely on the ropes.
Nvidia wastes shitloads of money designing something that can win the crown for performance with a 40-60% yield from factories plus needs to get clocked down so far to get higher yields for cheaper cards that they lose on every other level, and ATI designs a solid platform that wins on every other level and still gets 90%+ yield for their top cards. Its what makes ATI profitable. ATI also tends to be first-to market with next-gen GPUs for the last few years and as such takes the crown for awhile for enthusiasts. Plus a lot of enthusiasts know that the next-amazing-thing from Nvidia will only claim the crown by 2-5% at most so they get the latest and greatest from ATI, overall they spend more time with the fastest system available.
Actually check out the Anandtech review. They do it on windows 8 with the new scheduler... the difference in performance of the FX series from Windows 7 to Windows 8 is fucking mind-boggling. The FX-8350 actually trounces all but the higher end I5s and gives the I7 a run for its money in several games. For Sub-$200 if you're getting Windows 8(which I apparently will be now) you can't get anything thats even close performance wise.
Try actually reading some of those sites yourself... even the most modern games the difference between stock AMD processors and stock Intel processors is usually something along the lines of 150 fps vs 200+ fps. Neither matters, your monitor can't display all of the frames EITHER ONE is rendering.
Therefore, he is absolutely correct. CPU doesn't matter at all.
The OS itself is a HUGE upgrade. Its this stupid Metro shit thats got everyone bitching.
It does not, because an information based economy is essentially a giant ponzi scheme waiting to fall over. Telecoms and software industries are all well and good, but what you refer to as an "Information Based Economy" is what its headed towards, and largely IS right now, and its exactly what isn't needed. The U.S. needs to start producing tangible products again and a big help to get that started would be to get rid of this idea of magical information that somehow has value on its own.
I don't normally respond to ACs... but most of what you say checks out, except for the fact that Intels own X86-64 implementation was about a 30-40% performance loss on both 32 and 64 bit instead of the performance gain that came with AMDs version. If intel had had their own viable version ready to go they wouldn't have had to start from scratch and rebuild their roadmap around AMD64, claiming otherwise is just being out of touch with reality. The costs they took on the nose for that were extravagant. In the billions extravagant. MS had nothing to do with Intel being forced to go with AMD64, MS was pushing Intel to get their own product ready.
After 6 months of Intel saying it was just around the corner without even providing MS a working instruction set MS essentially said "Sorry, you took too long, we're standardizing on AMD64 because our enterprise customers want 64 bit now, and this is ready now."
Your approach is the best one.
He was mentioning in the situation of you actually DID bring your phone in to the interview with you. It is a sign that you are behind the times, which in the tech industry is a big no-no to have on display in an interview.
I'm not as bad as most, and I'll probably just be blunt and ask you why you have a blackberry instead of... well just about anything. If the answer is satisfactory then I'm good, and anything from "I'm frugal and my contract isn't up yet" to "My previous work used BBE and this was just easier" is acceptable.
I'd seriously have less problems with someone carrying a dumb cell than a blackberry right now.
The thing in the tech world is you always have to be either ahead of the game or at the very least up with the times. A blackberry in your pocket is a sign that you are not in either of those categories. Its also a sign that you're a bit anti-social which will make it more difficult for you to meld with the existing staff.
Its not an absolute, but it is a sign, and will be interpreted as such.
Actually, since marketing affects so many other departments, being seen with a blackberry is currently a way to become an instant pariah.
If I was hiring for example, your out-of-date and out-of-touch phone would be a hindrance to me hiring you and force you to answer more questions than the next guy.
This is a false maxim. Innovation happened at a (relatively speaking) much faster pace before patents became the norm. The only thing protecting them were trade secrets. Which worked just fine. Patents came along to spur innovation because things like steam engines (probably a bad example, but you get the idea) were being kept as trade secrets and in order to compete you would have to develop your own from scratch. Nowadays with all of the advanced design tools we have? Minimal cost. You just need to have a clue as to what you're doing in the first place.
Back then you'd have had to prototype every single idea to see if it even had a chance of working.
Patents, as such, do nothing but stifle innovation now. The life span of most products is 5 years at best, meaning whoever is first to the gate gets a monopoly and rakes in billions. When the patent actually expires the product is, or should be, irrelevant.
I should also point to the actual costs of those items. Which was exorbitant. I have an old 486 from AMD thats still trucking along. I can't say the same of any of the pentium 1-3's that I owned.
Part of the reason as I understand it is that due to everything being so much better/faster now, in order to keep costs down the manufacturing techniques basically allow for a lot more leakage and eventually it gets worse and worse as the part gets used. In addition these new manufacturing techniques are just plain shitloads cheaper than the old way.
You'll notice most of the stuff in orbit is from the 90's at best. There are a few extremely expensive fast chips, and the rest is running off 486s essentially.
The trouble is, it used to go for $200-400 per item in the 60s-70s and if you adjust that to today for inflation you're looking at something around $1100-$2000. Its not that I don't remember the stuff, its that it is extremely irrelevant to the conversation due to its cost.
It took them almost 2 years just to implement AMDs solution and get it to market. They had been trying for years already to come up with an X86-64 solution and failed big time.
So no, Intel would not have won that fight, other than how they actually did already go about winning it, or by revoking the x86 licensing from AMD(if that was possible). But Intel's engineers wouldn't have won that fight. They would have at best been another year+ behind, which would have been enough to make them irrelevant. In the 2 years that AMD had them completely and utterly trounced(As bad as Intel has AMD trounced right now actually, in some ways much worse than the current situation) their market share went straight down to about 50% on consumer and 70% server. The only thing that kept that from getting worse was their existing long term contracts, which another year would have seen some of the biggest ones expire. Those two years cut their cash on hand balance by over half and there was some real concern that Intel might go belly up.
Can't believe you got modded insightful...
I see this as an excuse all the time. Its like people are covering for the fact the technology is inherently disposable, because its cheap.
I don't know the exact WHY of it any more than the submitter, but wifi equipment definitely DOES degrade.
The 3 year old wifi card in my laptop doesn't grab signal as well anymore.
I just replaced a 3 year old wireless router that I would have had to replace a year prior if I'd actually needed all of its original coverage.
Everything electronic degrades over time. The only electronics we have that are mostly proof against it are in orbit and cost exorbitant amounts of money.
Now, that said, if it works for 3 years it will generally keep working, if at reduced effectiveness. Seems to be extremely similar to my average power supply life span.
There is overlap to a significant degree, channel 2 won't help, but channel 4-5 might. There are generally about 3 channels worth of overlap on those wifi channels. If its only a small amount of interference thats causing the signal to drop, channel 3 might even do it. However if theres enough interference to cause problems, swapping to channel 2 from channel 1 won't help because they share about 80% of the same band.
Yes, in fact if you read the fine print every Intel processor built today is built on the AMD64 architecture.
IMO the biggest mistake AMD ever made was to license that tech back. Due to Intel licensing them the X86 arch though it may have been forced due to some sort of reciprocity clause for anything developed to supplement x86.
AMDs market share was too small for courts to go after them for market abuse though, if existing deals didn't force it then they should have kept it.
Sigh, worded poorly, "speech directed towards them" should read "Speech made in their presence"
I really need to learn how to hit the preview button instead of the submit button for reviewing my posts >_>.
Not quite. Law enforcement has to read you your Miranda rights before *that particular law enforcment officer*, or set of officers can use your speech directed towards them in a court of law.
Getting arrested is generally a stressful event and the reading of the Miranda rights is supposed to cool you down a bit.
Miranda rights don't apply to anything written down for all to see in a public forum. They don't even apply to seized letters so long as proof of you writing the letters while not being coerced to do it can be established.
for tech companies, generally speaking, it was the number tossed around during the Microsoft inquisition. MS is still above this number but they've (apparently) been forced to play nice somehow.
Microsoft is the only precedence for the tech sector, and as such would likely be referenced heavily.
Way to twist it. Out of laws generally means "No laws based entirely on one religion or another"
"Don't kill people" is a law that affects and benefits everyone and is one that stays just based on the rooted in reality bit.
Google has the lions share of the market, but its market share for searchs as of September 2012 is 65%.... this is at minimum 15% shy of anyone being able to scream Monopoly!
What Google is doing here right now is saying out loud and directed at some idiot French government officials what EVERY search engine will do if this comes to pass.
The only people that will try to get this enforced are the old entrenched newspapers and their sites, and this will only bring about their downfall even faster, so bring it on!
Those are some excellent stats. Thank you sir.
They certainly can be, but I still think it should be a personal choice. My statement isn't that seat belts are universally bad, its that they shouldn't necessarily be mandated, because there are many driving situations in which it is not a good idea to be wearing one. I probably experience more of those than most because of where I live, but the fact remains the situations exist.
I'm fine with mandated rules for baby car seats etc because they at least advise a best practice as the baby is not able to make its own decision. I'm fine with legislation up to age 18. After that it should be a personal choice.