You missed the comment at the bottom. The USA isn't inferior, I'm calling out your specific understanding. For example the endless conflation of a free market and a perfect market. Every time you talk about one you actually talk about the other defined in the text book.
Even in this very thread the two are confused. For example the ability to create a competitive product or service depends on a perfect market. A perfect market can not exist without heavy government regulation in a capitalistic system. A capitalistic system fundamentally depends on the principles of a free market, and a free market is inherently unstable from conception right until the entire market is dominated by a single monopoly.
The USA knows this. You also have antitrust regulation and laws on the books for this very reason. However money talks, and it especially talks when its donated to people in order to preserve the free market conditions which ultimately prevent future competition from being created.
That's economics 101. It does get far more complicated than that.
Explain why the extent of your business acumen appears limited to taxing and fines.
Because ultimately that is the only handle any government has on a *foreign* entitiy. It's also the only handle any government has on any entitiy where the continued operation of that entity in that country is in the mutual interest of both parties. This is why it's so laughable every time you see someone suggesting that either a country nationalise / kick out a company, or that a company leaves said country. It's unrealistic that hurts both parties far more than taxes and fines, even *if* such a regulation is possible and legal. And for all the cries of socialism it actually would be legally impossible to do far worse in Europe despite it's reputation as a big and overbearing government.
Taxes and fines have their purpose and in general work quite well. On a more local scale you see quite a bit more servere reactions with laws passed to effectively eliminate undesirable business practices. But before you cry Volkswagon it is also worth remembering that big local companies underpin the big local economy, and in that specific case also prop up the finances of the government through public/private partnerships.
Politics 101: The more high level and abstract the government (and it doesn't get more high level or abstract than the EU) the more soft levers like tarrifs and taxes are approriate for control.
What exactly have you created lately?
Oh I don't know. Just last week I read in the paper about a new system developed in an EU nation by a large producer of medical devices which will dramatically improve infant mortality during CPR by analysing and regulating airflow through the mouth. I'm sure you don't hear about that in your echo chamber of local news though, just how you don't hear about the EU and local governments here cracking down quite heavily on local anti-competitive behaviour too. After all, when you live outside the EU everything must be us vs them and we only crack down on "evil" USA companies because we "can't" innovate. But hey, many of us consider your aggresive mistreatment of people in the rest of the world (data collection) parasitic, and your superiority shows Mr Black Pot.
Or use Yandex. Tell the Russians how they have to run things.
Why? Yandex aren't doing anti-competitive practices pushing their products through their monopoly (at least not in countries where antitrust laws exist). And there's also no reason not to use Google search. Why would we do that? The only demands here is that they don't cross bundle unfairly. If you want an explaination as to why your suggestion is silly just go back and read 4 paragraphs further up. The intent is not for anyone to "stop using Google" that would be bad for both Google and the EU.
Exactly as I said. People by default should not be allowed on the internet right? I mean it's a security risk that is many orders of magnitude worse than what you are proposing as a default.
Oh, how cute. You're planning only for today.
Nope. We're analysing the risk that is presented and the possible ways it could be exploited with a very clear answer. It won't be, not on a desktop computer, because while you're kicking yourself to close security holes I'm sending emails to your mother claiming I'm Microsoft and due to a problem on her computer she should run an executable.
There's a good reason the vast majority of malware targets users rather than esoteric and hard to exploit bugs.
Protip: The sky isn't falling, and you'd realise that if you do a risk assessment rather than just shout about expensive defaults from the mountaintops.
The USA* is not evil. You people do stupid shit and smart shit, so does every country in the world. If you think that this side of the Atlantic says the USA* is universally evil then you haven't been paying attention.
We are constantly haraunged about how inferior we are compared to Europeans.
If that is what you understand out of all comparison between the USA* and Europe then I would suggest you start with the comment that you people in the USA* are inferior at understanding English.
Next up, it would seem that our betters would easily be able to put Google right out of business.
And inferior at understanding economics and business.
The first thing is to use the EU's willingness to have a lot of Government intervention, provide a superior search experience, and subsidize the bejabbers out of a search engine and shopping experience. When Google cannot compete with the Government subsidized prices, they will either adapt, or die.
And you don't seem to understand the difference between Socialism and the EU.
The trick is to use your willingness for Government control for th ebenefit of Europeans, rather than just try to tax the "Murricans.
Somehow you don't seem to understand taxes, and government handles on the economy and their use either.
Seriously - there is a metric shit ton more money to be made by running the business instead of just parasitizing it. Use your power of government control.
Nope. We don't want governments to run or prop up private enterprises. What we want is to not get shat on by corporations, and then thank them for it the day after Thanks Giving.
*USA is often used generally, but quite frequently it is targetted at specific individuals. In this post, USA means you.
Did you ever in the past upgrade on innovation, or because your computer was unable to do something?
As I said, it depends on what *you*, and you alone, specifically *you* do with your computer. You see no sense in upgrading. I found it a necessity given my not that rare workload of playing with photos and videos.
As for innovation, we just entered the world of raytracing. Expect an upgrade to be necessary in the coming year for quite an incredible jump in the graphic quality of games if you do that. Gaming and photo / video editing aren't incredible edge cases.
But yes if you're the home user whose workload extends to firing up Google Docs, posting on Slashdot and watching Netflix then your 6 year old computer should last you 6 years more.
A quick read through the ACPI specification implies that the caches should be flushed *before* entering the S1 state and letting the hardware deal with the rest.
I'm not sure what to make of the comment. Part of the comment makes it apear as though this instruction comes after waking (making it pointless since the cache is already invalid). If this comment is about before going into the sleep state then it wasn't a manufacturer who asked for this, it was the ACPI specification itself, and not flushing the cache before entering would be in breach of the spec.
"15.1.1 S1 Sleeping State The S1 state is defined as a low wake-latency sleeping state. In this state, all system context is preserved with the exception of CPU caches. Before setting the SLP_EN bit, OSPM will flush the system caches. If the platform supports the WBINVD instruction (as indicated by the WBINVD and WBINVD_FLUSH flags in the FADT), OSPM will execute the WBINVD instruction. The hardware is responsible for maintaining all other system context, which includes the context of the CPU, memory, and chipset. "
A very big portion of the ACPI specification details exactly how to flush caches going into and out of the various sleep states and how hardware should respond to this. If implementing the specificaiton as written it would appear as though flushing the cache when waking doesn't need to be done.
Are there any experts on this topic here which can shed more light on this?
Or maybe someone made a mistake. The specification seems to imply you need to flush the cache *BEFORE* entering the S1 state and the hardware is responsible for the rest:
"15.1.1 S1 Sleeping State The S1 state is defined as a low wake-latency sleeping state. In this state, all system context is preserved with the exception of CPU caches. Before setting the SLP_EN bit, OSPM will flush the system caches. If the platform supports the WBINVD instruction (as indicated by the WBINVD and WBINVD_FLUSH flags in the FADT), OSPM will execute the WBINVD instruction. The hardware is responsible for maintaining all other system context, which includes the context of the CPU, memory, and chipset. "
The process of check and verification itself was only a small part of the performance of memory. ECC memory is almost impossible to find at common desktop speeds with almost all of them being in the sub 3000MHz except for the truly ultra-expensive modules.
Where someone wants to pay for equal speeds and chose something like a 2166 module the ECC memory invariably has far worse latency figures.
ECC memory has a lower upper speed limit, lower than the actual standard speed capability of a modern processor, it has a higher latency for all equivalent speeds than non-ECC modules, and almost universally a higher price (the worst performing ECC modules in a speed class are often more expensive than some of the best performing non-ECC modules).
You'd think the AI would have figured out no one has a 5-foot-tall head?
If you went blind in one eye, how would you recognise the size of an object you're analysing if you're unable to identify the distance it is from the camera?
Not at all. It's enforced all over the world selectively. But the key is in most cases a policeman actively has to witness the "crime". I've seen it enforced in Australia, the UK, Germany, and The Netherlands as well.
You know that you're in a police state when you have to thank the police for their good work and in the process add a totally mindless "obey the rules" to it too.
Actually you know you're not in a bat shit blame and sue crazy state when a problem arises, is solved quickly, and no one claims that they deserve mountains of money for their "finanical damages" errr I mean hurt feelings.
Not one shred of information on/how/ the script got on the system in the first place
Someone downloaded it and executed it. This is has been how all of these scripts on all operating systems work. Only Apple can fix this. It's time to take away sudo rights from Linux users.
Because they're taking the very rational step of trying to keep the Americans away from their territory? Huh?
I'm glad you followed that sentence with "Huh?" It's an incredible display of self realisation that you have no frigging idea what you're talking about.
Even when shitting on America it's important to remind people, NOT EVERYTHING IS ABOUT AMERICA.
Of course it will be abused in many terrible ways. But at some point you have to ask yourself to what extend do you wish to restrict what a user can do with their own machine. I mean this web-app thing is no different than a normal app downloaded from the web. Do we go the Apple way and curate the entire experience while blocking file system access through insane APIs?
There's a reason the computer has survived the age of the iPad, it's because it's useful.
The house I was in this weekend had a VCR. The owner is 80 years old. I present fluffernutter evidence that the VCR is infact not obsolete and those people with those fancy new DVD things are just doing it wrong.
People who accidentally install a kernel should get safe defaults. Defaulting to insecure is wrong.
People need to take an axe to their cable modem and only go on the internet once they have a degree in Computer Science majoring in security and risk assessment.
I mean I assume you're okay with booting the entire world off that dangerous internet. You've said you're happy with crippling performance for an incredibly low risk that hasn't been shown to be exploited anywhere in the public, so clearly you support throwing out the baby with the bathwater on security right?
What's odd is that ECC is not routinely used in all hardware.
Nothing odd about it. It costs more, It performs worse, and the vast majority of the incredibly rare errors that are caused end up being entirely non-critical due to the way people generally use computers.
If you have a database server handling critical information all day then it makes sense. But hell for the vast majority of workloads your computer is more likely to get "Aw. Snap! Something went wrong" Along with a frowny face displayed in your browser. Any time a consumer is doing anything remotely important they either have a confirmation window (e.g. I don't care if just before I hit submit a magic bit changes the $2000 payment to a $20000 payment since the next thing that will happen will be a "Are you sure you wish to transfer $20000?" message), or they are performing an event so incredibly short that the odds of there being significant and lasting unrecoverable data corruption is low.
Sidenote: That system processing my banking transaction better have ECC memory!
Seems so simple, and if fair, Google should be out of business very quickly.
It's a great idea. First we need to start by regulating Google to make competition possible.
Or do you think competition is the natural state of a free market? If so then you should go find your economics professor and give him a right old kick in the balls for leading you so astray.
The USA knows what is fair as well. They just chose to ignore it in favour of that sweet sweet brib... errr campaign donations. Or did you not know that the EU ruling is actually a law in the USA as well? If so you have a lot more ball kicking to do.
That article says nothing about GPUs being overpriced. It's a bitching and moaning piece that the current top of the line GPU is the most expensive one ever released ignoring that there are plenty of high performance parts with great prices available, mark-ups have gone with the crypto-bust, and due to current market oversupply getting a high-performance GPU has never been cheaper. Bitching about the high cost of being an early adopter for a new technology that is currently sold out everywhere (implying it costs exactly what it needs to) doesn't change that. Weather is not climate as the Slashdot favourite comparison complaint goes, and the price of GPUs has shown an extreme downward trend this year with some cards at less than half the price of their February highs, well below launch price, and recently quite far below MSRP due to oversupply.
Hell NVIDIA's stock price just slid by 50% on news of oversupply and lowered prices following poor sales.
The CPU manufacturers screwed it up by making buggy processors and, at least in the case of Intel, with little performance benefit over much older processors.
Not at all. The CPU does exactly what it says on the box. They traded security that is almost irrelevant to general consumers in favour of performance and as shown recently that security can happily be regained through software. The CPUs currently on the market do not show any higher level of errata than in the past and they still happily work like they did in the past.
Read the complaint that's exactly what they are asking for.
No they are not. Try reading it again. All they are saying is that what Google did in response to the previous request doesn't actually meet the intent of the original ruling and then they lay out reasons why.
Yeah you need to talk to BASF about that.
Gladly. Let me know what I should talk to them about.
Hope you don't mind high food prices or energy prices, or high taxes
I really don't. My food is far higher quality and healthier than in the USA and Beef aside most of the meals we eat are actually cheaper too. Energy prices are high but we don't pay much for them as a result of the average EU home using less than half the energy of the average American home to say nothing of our cars. As for taxes? I gladly pay them. I receive great benefits including health care, infrastructure and social security in return in a way that has been shown time and time again in economic studies to be more efficient and cost effective compared to the "free" market approach in the USA.
But that's probably why the EU is holding together so well.
I'm genuinely confused at what you're talking about here. I mean the EU is a group of nations united more than ever before with one rogue set of idiots breaking away due to political stupidity against the will of their own people (even pro-Brexit publications admit that a referendum held now would result in staying in the union, as does basic statistics given the time since the previous vote).
So I'm sorry you may need to explain this to me since as far as anyone can see the EU is holding together very well indeed.
Slashdot Mirror
...and going "La la la, I can't hear you" is not a good presidential style.
Be glad he's at least sticking his fingers in his own orifices for a change. It's about as good of a style as this president has.
You missed the comment at the bottom. The USA isn't inferior, I'm calling out your specific understanding. For example the endless conflation of a free market and a perfect market. Every time you talk about one you actually talk about the other defined in the text book.
Even in this very thread the two are confused. For example the ability to create a competitive product or service depends on a perfect market. A perfect market can not exist without heavy government regulation in a capitalistic system. A capitalistic system fundamentally depends on the principles of a free market, and a free market is inherently unstable from conception right until the entire market is dominated by a single monopoly.
The USA knows this. You also have antitrust regulation and laws on the books for this very reason. However money talks, and it especially talks when its donated to people in order to preserve the free market conditions which ultimately prevent future competition from being created.
That's economics 101. It does get far more complicated than that.
Explain why the extent of your business acumen appears limited to taxing and fines.
Because ultimately that is the only handle any government has on a *foreign* entitiy. It's also the only handle any government has on any entitiy where the continued operation of that entity in that country is in the mutual interest of both parties. This is why it's so laughable every time you see someone suggesting that either a country nationalise / kick out a company, or that a company leaves said country. It's unrealistic that hurts both parties far more than taxes and fines, even *if* such a regulation is possible and legal. And for all the cries of socialism it actually would be legally impossible to do far worse in Europe despite it's reputation as a big and overbearing government.
Taxes and fines have their purpose and in general work quite well. On a more local scale you see quite a bit more servere reactions with laws passed to effectively eliminate undesirable business practices. But before you cry Volkswagon it is also worth remembering that big local companies underpin the big local economy, and in that specific case also prop up the finances of the government through public/private partnerships.
Politics 101: The more high level and abstract the government (and it doesn't get more high level or abstract than the EU) the more soft levers like tarrifs and taxes are approriate for control.
What exactly have you created lately?
Oh I don't know. Just last week I read in the paper about a new system developed in an EU nation by a large producer of medical devices which will dramatically improve infant mortality during CPR by analysing and regulating airflow through the mouth. I'm sure you don't hear about that in your echo chamber of local news though, just how you don't hear about the EU and local governments here cracking down quite heavily on local anti-competitive behaviour too. After all, when you live outside the EU everything must be us vs them and we only crack down on "evil" USA companies because we "can't" innovate. But hey, many of us consider your aggresive mistreatment of people in the rest of the world (data collection) parasitic, and your superiority shows Mr Black Pot.
Or use Yandex. Tell the Russians how they have to run things.
Why? Yandex aren't doing anti-competitive practices pushing their products through their monopoly (at least not in countries where antitrust laws exist). And there's also no reason not to use Google search. Why would we do that? The only demands here is that they don't cross bundle unfairly. If you want an explaination as to why your suggestion is silly just go back and read 4 paragraphs further up. The intent is not for anyone to "stop using Google" that would be bad for both Google and the EU.
Take an economics class.
at boot time, and by default, but can be disabled
Exactly as I said. People by default should not be allowed on the internet right? I mean it's a security risk that is many orders of magnitude worse than what you are proposing as a default.
Oh, how cute. You're planning only for today.
Nope. We're analysing the risk that is presented and the possible ways it could be exploited with a very clear answer. It won't be, not on a desktop computer, because while you're kicking yourself to close security holes I'm sending emails to your mother claiming I'm Microsoft and due to a problem on her computer she should run an executable.
There's a good reason the vast majority of malware targets users rather than esoteric and hard to exploit bugs.
Protip: The sky isn't falling, and you'd realise that if you do a risk assessment rather than just shout about expensive defaults from the mountaintops.
Google ia a company based in the evil USA.
The USA* is not evil. You people do stupid shit and smart shit, so does every country in the world. If you think that this side of the Atlantic says the USA* is universally evil then you haven't been paying attention.
We are constantly haraunged about how inferior we are compared to Europeans.
If that is what you understand out of all comparison between the USA* and Europe then I would suggest you start with the comment that you people in the USA* are inferior at understanding English.
Next up, it would seem that our betters would easily be able to put Google right out of business.
And inferior at understanding economics and business.
The first thing is to use the EU's willingness to have a lot of Government intervention, provide a superior search experience, and subsidize the bejabbers out of a search engine and shopping experience. When Google cannot compete with the Government subsidized prices, they will either adapt, or die.
And you don't seem to understand the difference between Socialism and the EU.
The trick is to use your willingness for Government control for th ebenefit of Europeans, rather than just try to tax the "Murricans.
Somehow you don't seem to understand taxes, and government handles on the economy and their use either.
Seriously - there is a metric shit ton more money to be made by running the business instead of just parasitizing it. Use your power of government control.
Nope. We don't want governments to run or prop up private enterprises. What we want is to not get shat on by corporations, and then thank them for it the day after Thanks Giving.
*USA is often used generally, but quite frequently it is targetted at specific individuals. In this post, USA means you.
and yes the shorter upgrade cycles has made it worse.
[Citation required] and don't make me go all Slashdot on you. You should know by now that Correlation is and is not.
In case you don't, hint: It's not Causation.
The only real innovations
Did you ever in the past upgrade on innovation, or because your computer was unable to do something?
As I said, it depends on what *you*, and you alone, specifically *you* do with your computer. You see no sense in upgrading. I found it a necessity given my not that rare workload of playing with photos and videos.
As for innovation, we just entered the world of raytracing. Expect an upgrade to be necessary in the coming year for quite an incredible jump in the graphic quality of games if you do that. Gaming and photo / video editing aren't incredible edge cases.
But yes if you're the home user whose workload extends to firing up Google Docs, posting on Slashdot and watching Netflix then your 6 year old computer should last you 6 years more.
I could not. Therefore as you just said the VCR is in fact not obsolete.
I'm very frightened for the people you need to communicate with if you abuse the english language like this.
A quick read through the ACPI specification implies that the caches should be flushed *before* entering the S1 state and letting the hardware deal with the rest.
I'm not sure what to make of the comment. Part of the comment makes it apear as though this instruction comes after waking (making it pointless since the cache is already invalid). If this comment is about before going into the sleep state then it wasn't a manufacturer who asked for this, it was the ACPI specification itself, and not flushing the cache before entering would be in breach of the spec.
"15.1.1 S1 Sleeping State
The S1 state is defined as a low wake-latency sleeping state. In this state, all system context is preserved with the exception of CPU caches. Before setting the SLP_EN bit, OSPM will flush the system caches. If the platform supports the WBINVD instruction (as indicated by the WBINVD and WBINVD_FLUSH flags in the FADT), OSPM will execute the WBINVD instruction. The hardware is responsible for maintaining all other system context, which includes the context of the CPU, memory, and chipset. "
A very big portion of the ACPI specification details exactly how to flush caches going into and out of the various sleep states and how hardware should respond to this. If implementing the specificaiton as written it would appear as though flushing the cache when waking doesn't need to be done.
Are there any experts on this topic here which can shed more light on this?
Or maybe someone made a mistake. The specification seems to imply you need to flush the cache *BEFORE* entering the S1 state and the hardware is responsible for the rest:
"15.1.1 S1 Sleeping State
The S1 state is defined as a low wake-latency sleeping state. In this state, all system context is preserved with the exception of CPU caches. Before setting the SLP_EN bit, OSPM will flush the system caches. If the platform supports the WBINVD instruction (as indicated by the WBINVD and WBINVD_FLUSH flags in the FADT), OSPM will execute the WBINVD instruction. The hardware is responsible for maintaining all other system context, which includes the context of the CPU, memory, and chipset. "
Always. Without fail.
The process of check and verification itself was only a small part of the performance of memory. ECC memory is almost impossible to find at common desktop speeds with almost all of them being in the sub 3000MHz except for the truly ultra-expensive modules.
Where someone wants to pay for equal speeds and chose something like a 2166 module the ECC memory invariably has far worse latency figures.
ECC memory has a lower upper speed limit, lower than the actual standard speed capability of a modern processor, it has a higher latency for all equivalent speeds than non-ECC modules, and almost universally a higher price (the worst performing ECC modules in a speed class are often more expensive than some of the best performing non-ECC modules).
You'd think the AI would have figured out no one has a 5-foot-tall head?
If you went blind in one eye, how would you recognise the size of an object you're analysing if you're unable to identify the distance it is from the camera?
Only in America
Not at all. It's enforced all over the world selectively. But the key is in most cases a policeman actively has to witness the "crime". I've seen it enforced in Australia, the UK, Germany, and The Netherlands as well.
You know that you're in a police state when you have to thank the police for their good work and in the process add a totally mindless "obey the rules" to it too.
Actually you know you're not in a bat shit blame and sue crazy state when a problem arises, is solved quickly, and no one claims that they deserve mountains of money for their "finanical damages" errr I mean hurt feelings.
Not one shred of information on /how/ the script got on the system in the first place
Someone downloaded it and executed it. This is has been how all of these scripts on all operating systems work. Only Apple can fix this. It's time to take away sudo rights from Linux users.
Because they're taking the very rational step of trying to keep the Americans away from their territory? Huh?
I'm glad you followed that sentence with "Huh?" It's an incredible display of self realisation that you have no frigging idea what you're talking about.
Even when shitting on America it's important to remind people, NOT EVERYTHING IS ABOUT AMERICA.
but is not even noticeable so far.
Except where the difference causes erosion of natural barriers and proceeds to utterly devastate areas as a result.
Science Bomb!
Of course it will be abused in many terrible ways. But at some point you have to ask yourself to what extend do you wish to restrict what a user can do with their own machine. I mean this web-app thing is no different than a normal app downloaded from the web. Do we go the Apple way and curate the entire experience while blocking file system access through insane APIs?
There's a reason the computer has survived the age of the iPad, it's because it's useful.
The house I was in this weekend had a VCR. The owner is 80 years old. I present fluffernutter evidence that the VCR is infact not obsolete and those people with those fancy new DVD things are just doing it wrong.
People who accidentally install a kernel should get safe defaults. Defaulting to insecure is wrong.
People need to take an axe to their cable modem and only go on the internet once they have a degree in Computer Science majoring in security and risk assessment.
I mean I assume you're okay with booting the entire world off that dangerous internet. You've said you're happy with crippling performance for an incredibly low risk that hasn't been shown to be exploited anywhere in the public, so clearly you support throwing out the baby with the bathwater on security right?
What's odd is that ECC is not routinely used in all hardware.
Nothing odd about it. It costs more, It performs worse, and the vast majority of the incredibly rare errors that are caused end up being entirely non-critical due to the way people generally use computers.
If you have a database server handling critical information all day then it makes sense. But hell for the vast majority of workloads your computer is more likely to get "Aw. Snap! Something went wrong" Along with a frowny face displayed in your browser. Any time a consumer is doing anything remotely important they either have a confirmation window (e.g. I don't care if just before I hit submit a magic bit changes the $2000 payment to a $20000 payment since the next thing that will happen will be a "Are you sure you wish to transfer $20000?" message), or they are performing an event so incredibly short that the odds of there being significant and lasting unrecoverable data corruption is low.
Sidenote: That system processing my banking transaction better have ECC memory!
Seems so simple, and if fair, Google should be out of business very quickly.
It's a great idea. First we need to start by regulating Google to make competition possible.
Or do you think competition is the natural state of a free market? If so then you should go find your economics professor and give him a right old kick in the balls for leading you so astray.
The USA knows what is fair as well. They just chose to ignore it in favour of that sweet sweet brib... errr campaign donations. Or did you not know that the EU ruling is actually a law in the USA as well? If so you have a lot more ball kicking to do.
That article says nothing about GPUs being overpriced. It's a bitching and moaning piece that the current top of the line GPU is the most expensive one ever released ignoring that there are plenty of high performance parts with great prices available, mark-ups have gone with the crypto-bust, and due to current market oversupply getting a high-performance GPU has never been cheaper. Bitching about the high cost of being an early adopter for a new technology that is currently sold out everywhere (implying it costs exactly what it needs to) doesn't change that. Weather is not climate as the Slashdot favourite comparison complaint goes, and the price of GPUs has shown an extreme downward trend this year with some cards at less than half the price of their February highs, well below launch price, and recently quite far below MSRP due to oversupply.
Hell NVIDIA's stock price just slid by 50% on news of oversupply and lowered prices following poor sales.
The CPU manufacturers screwed it up by making buggy processors and, at least in the case of Intel, with little performance benefit over much older processors.
Not at all. The CPU does exactly what it says on the box. They traded security that is almost irrelevant to general consumers in favour of performance and as shown recently that security can happily be regained through software. The CPUs currently on the market do not show any higher level of errata than in the past and they still happily work like they did in the past.
Read the complaint that's exactly what they are asking for.
No they are not. Try reading it again. All they are saying is that what Google did in response to the previous request doesn't actually meet the intent of the original ruling and then they lay out reasons why.
Yeah you need to talk to BASF about that.
Gladly. Let me know what I should talk to them about.
Hope you don't mind high food prices or energy prices, or high taxes
I really don't. My food is far higher quality and healthier than in the USA and Beef aside most of the meals we eat are actually cheaper too. Energy prices are high but we don't pay much for them as a result of the average EU home using less than half the energy of the average American home to say nothing of our cars. As for taxes? I gladly pay them. I receive great benefits including health care, infrastructure and social security in return in a way that has been shown time and time again in economic studies to be more efficient and cost effective compared to the "free" market approach in the USA.
But that's probably why the EU is holding together so well.
I'm genuinely confused at what you're talking about here. I mean the EU is a group of nations united more than ever before with one rogue set of idiots breaking away due to political stupidity against the will of their own people (even pro-Brexit publications admit that a referendum held now would result in staying in the union, as does basic statistics given the time since the previous vote).
So I'm sorry you may need to explain this to me since as far as anyone can see the EU is holding together very well indeed.
Maybe you should re-read the very first thing you wrote...