Why don't DMVs have driving simulators where you train to handle adverse situations well? Hell, even common ones like a busy traffic light intersection would be good to train on, where things happen that are tricky to handle well. Do it many times and you learn to have the right response automatically. I'd have loved something like that.
I mean, reinstalling Windows or restoring your backups because the stupid hard drive crashed, or configuring a stubborn driver, or trying to share a stupid printer from Win 7 to XP,... it's just like an itch you can't scratch isn't it? You just gotta do it and you know it's gonna take fucking longer than it should. What's the point of becoming angry on top of that hey...
I too have found that knowing what to expect often helps, so I set my goal really low and expect that to take hours, when it should take only minutes. Sometimes I can even enjoy having my predictions of more stupidity in the process constantly confirmed, and laugh at it in a belittling way, or sit in amazement at how it exceeded even my imagination of absurdity.
Yes, but the fact that two separate studies (haven't RTFA) arrived at the SAME conclusion CLEARLY shows that they are just covering over the real problem. I mean, what else could explain them coming to the same conclusion?
Even with the FDIV bug, Intel could have just disabled the FPU and sold these chips as FPU-less chips. The only problem would be if they refused to compensate people who had bought the chips under the claim that they had working FPUs.
And here, unlike with the FDIV bug, updating the specs of this controller chip to simply have two fewer ports isn't as major a change. Again, I'm not saying that Intel can get out of compensating people who already bought the chip under the claim that it had 6 working ports; this is about the chips Intel still has, and that work perfectly fine if these two ports aren't used. It would be idiocy to scrap these chips just because people can't grasp the situation.
Of course, I guess "Intel Resumes Shipping of Faulty Cougar Point chip" doesn't seem as catastrophic.
How is it faulty, given Intel's updated specs? It's like saying that the i486SX was defective because it was "really" an i486DX with a defective FPU. This Cougar Point chip they will be shipping again is not defective, because they have updated the specs to match what the chip really does. The original batch was (and still is) defective, because it did not match the specs at the time (and anyone who purchased it should be compensated).
There's a chance they could drop their SD cards without the paper airplane and they'd still work. They don't have much mass and I'm sure their terminal velocity isn't that high. Plus, do they contain many parts that could actually break?
Reminds me of this old review of an early mp3 player (they didn't have hard disks small enough to fit inside them at the time):
"Both players [MPMan and the RIO] were able to withstand a vigorous shaking with no skips whatsoever" --Matt Rosoff, C|net
Seriously, if Samsung wanted to impress me, it'd do some harsh conditions tests that basically act like normal conditions only with time greatly accelerated. So they'd do constant rewriting tests at elevated temperature and humidity, constant insertion/removal, etc. Then, they might do these with competing cards as well. Finally, they'd look at typical and heavy use one might make of the card, and use their test figures to estimate the lifetime of the card. Of course, it might all be moot if the expected lifetime greatly exceeds the expected time when no current products will even accept the cards anymore. They should do this for microSD, since those probably have the "weakest" memory chips, due to having to be so small.
I don't know that I've ever cursed at my computer, that is, talked to it as if it were sentient. I sure as hell say "piece of shit", "god damn it", etc. all the time, curse the programmers, etc. I guess I don't view machines as sentient, just well-designed or badly-designed (due to the designer), so it never occurs to me to curse at the computer itself.
the diff is that you query the chipset and unless it lies to you, it will say it has 6 ports.
if it does lie and show you only good ports, its not quite as bad; but then again, you don't always have to query the chip - by the make/model of the chip, you should know - at the driver level - how many X and Y ports to expect. the static mappings will need to be fixed, also.
This is why Intel would need to first update its specs so that model Sandy Bridge 1234 only has 4 ports or whatever. Yes, chips already shipped before this problem was found should be replaced or some kind of refund for the lower functionality than originally claimed.
Essentially, Intel shipped chips that they thought had features A and B, and people bought it expecting those. Intel later found that it lacked B. As long as it compensates people who bought it with claimed features A and B, there's nothing wrong with Intel continuing to sell the chips as long as they only claim that it has feature A, and make clear that they lack feature B (and update documentation/specs). Obviously people who originally heard of the chip supporting features A and B and perhaps incorporated this into software must inform themselves of this change. Intel could simply things by simply giving these chips a new part number, so that nobody would have false expectations of its features.
Sometimes it seems like a company just can't win here at Slashdot. No matter what they do, no matter how logical and practical, the "evil corporation" demon is always found in their actions. Maybe what Intel is doing is evil, but the claimed reasons do not point unambiguously to evil. But what the hell do I know, I guess Intel should just junk all these chips, since clearly they are of no freaking use to anyone, and would just rip people off if they sold them.
Assuming Intel fixes (or has already done so) their documentation for this run of chips, how is this any different than a chip not performing beyond its specs? It's like days past when they shipped an FPU-less CPU, when it was really the FPU model but with defects in the FPU. In this case, it's part of the I/O system. Again, assuming they spec these chips as just not having this part of the I/O system. Presumably the ones with this part working will have a clearly-different part number that can easily be determined by looking at the chip. I just don't see the problem.
In the future, I'm guessing there will be a patent on adding a plurality of integer values, each equaling one, to give the result two, and another on adding a plurality of integer values, one equaling one, the other equaling two, to give a result of three, etc.
Buying used helps Sony as well. It raises the price of used consoles, making a new one more attractive to some people. This also makes it more attractive to sell one's console (and perhaps buy a new one). Sure, it's a small effect, but so is buying a new one. I never understand these arguments that the used market is disconnected from, or only negatively influences, sales of new consoles.
Blame either the manufacturers for failing to increase pixel density or consumers for failing to demand it. You've got to go to a 30" monitor to get a higher resolution, and the price of those beasts scares most people away. Why pay $800+ for a 30" when a pair of 24" 1080p monitors costs half that?
You answered the question right there. The manufacturers are making monitors with higher resolutions, but the price makes it not worth it to most people. I'd say that it's not that 30" monitors are overly expensive, it's that 1920x1080 monitors have gotten disproportionately cheap due to the economics of producing many more of them than other resolutions. That is, it's not a hump that's keeping people from moving up, it's that they're stuck in a valley. Either way, it's unfortunate that things have stagnated.
What do you mean? Bills like this one and the one to make pi equal to 3.0 make it easier for people, by simplifying reality to a level that everyone can grasp.
I think a science class could benefit from covering intelligent design. It's commonly talked about as if it were science, so a science class is the perfect place to explain the ways it fails to be scientific. Of course, this is the perfect way to cause major political problems, so it's not done. Score one more for politics trumping truth.
Right to access internet seems to be merely the obvious conclusion of the fundamental rights. This doesn't mean that anyone has to provide you internet, just that they may not attempt to prevent you from accessing if you've got a means.
Why did you have to go ruin the juvenile notion that robots will be just like us, only made of mostly metal rather than mostly water? Or that logic can somehow define goals, absent of any starting assumptions as to what is desired?
In other news, they are also setting quotas for contributions by people based on their height, weight, hair length, hair color, eye color, and left/right-handedness, ensuring that the ratios of contributors matches that of the population at large.
I was reading a posting about evaporative cooling of group beliefs. Basically, more moderate people leave a group due to it degrading, which accelerates its degradation because they served to keep it in check. What's left is a more-distilled version of the degradation. Repeat.
Some interference may not be a bad thing. If I'm using Skype, I wouldn't mind if the ISP gave my packets priority over someone's email. Realtime audio and video is a lot more time sensitive and if someone has to wait a few extra milliseconds for their email, I don't think that they would notice or even care.
Indeed. I would prefer to delay web page accesses by 0.1 seconds so that others' VOIP works without interruption, as long as they do the same so that my VOIP works without interruption as well. So if my ISP offered me completely hands-off serivce, and service with this tradeoff (for the same price), I'd choose the latter, even though it's delaying some of my traffic. Put another way, to achieve the same interruption-free VOIP in the hands-off manner, I'd have to get a dedicated line that has guaranteed bandwidth, which would be much more expensive.
Slashdot Mirror
Why don't DMVs have driving simulators where you train to handle adverse situations well? Hell, even common ones like a busy traffic light intersection would be good to train on, where things happen that are tricky to handle well. Do it many times and you learn to have the right response automatically. I'd have loved something like that.
I too have found that knowing what to expect often helps, so I set my goal really low and expect that to take hours, when it should take only minutes. Sometimes I can even enjoy having my predictions of more stupidity in the process constantly confirmed, and laugh at it in a belittling way, or sit in amazement at how it exceeded even my imagination of absurdity.
Yes, but the fact that two separate studies (haven't RTFA) arrived at the SAME conclusion CLEARLY shows that they are just covering over the real problem. I mean, what else could explain them coming to the same conclusion?
And here, unlike with the FDIV bug, updating the specs of this controller chip to simply have two fewer ports isn't as major a change. Again, I'm not saying that Intel can get out of compensating people who already bought the chip under the claim that it had 6 working ports; this is about the chips Intel still has, and that work perfectly fine if these two ports aren't used. It would be idiocy to scrap these chips just because people can't grasp the situation.
How is it faulty, given Intel's updated specs? It's like saying that the i486SX was defective because it was "really" an i486DX with a defective FPU. This Cougar Point chip they will be shipping again is not defective, because they have updated the specs to match what the chip really does. The original batch was (and still is) defective, because it did not match the specs at the time (and anyone who purchased it should be compensated).
It would be even cooler if they just put gold bars, or gift cards for a million dollars in them, and dropped them all on my front lawn.
Reminds me of this old review of an early mp3 player (they didn't have hard disks small enough to fit inside them at the time):
"Both players [MPMan and the RIO] were able to withstand a vigorous shaking with no skips whatsoever" --Matt Rosoff, C|net
Seriously, if Samsung wanted to impress me, it'd do some harsh conditions tests that basically act like normal conditions only with time greatly accelerated. So they'd do constant rewriting tests at elevated temperature and humidity, constant insertion/removal, etc. Then, they might do these with competing cards as well. Finally, they'd look at typical and heavy use one might make of the card, and use their test figures to estimate the lifetime of the card. Of course, it might all be moot if the expected lifetime greatly exceeds the expected time when no current products will even accept the cards anymore. They should do this for microSD, since those probably have the "weakest" memory chips, due to having to be so small.
I don't know that I've ever cursed at my computer, that is, talked to it as if it were sentient. I sure as hell say "piece of shit", "god damn it", etc. all the time, curse the programmers, etc. I guess I don't view machines as sentient, just well-designed or badly-designed (due to the designer), so it never occurs to me to curse at the computer itself.
This is why Intel would need to first update its specs so that model Sandy Bridge 1234 only has 4 ports or whatever. Yes, chips already shipped before this problem was found should be replaced or some kind of refund for the lower functionality than originally claimed.
Essentially, Intel shipped chips that they thought had features A and B, and people bought it expecting those. Intel later found that it lacked B. As long as it compensates people who bought it with claimed features A and B, there's nothing wrong with Intel continuing to sell the chips as long as they only claim that it has feature A, and make clear that they lack feature B (and update documentation/specs). Obviously people who originally heard of the chip supporting features A and B and perhaps incorporated this into software must inform themselves of this change. Intel could simply things by simply giving these chips a new part number, so that nobody would have false expectations of its features.
Sometimes it seems like a company just can't win here at Slashdot. No matter what they do, no matter how logical and practical, the "evil corporation" demon is always found in their actions. Maybe what Intel is doing is evil, but the claimed reasons do not point unambiguously to evil. But what the hell do I know, I guess Intel should just junk all these chips, since clearly they are of no freaking use to anyone, and would just rip people off if they sold them.
Assuming Intel fixes (or has already done so) their documentation for this run of chips, how is this any different than a chip not performing beyond its specs? It's like days past when they shipped an FPU-less CPU, when it was really the FPU model but with defects in the FPU. In this case, it's part of the I/O system. Again, assuming they spec these chips as just not having this part of the I/O system. Presumably the ones with this part working will have a clearly-different part number that can easily be determined by looking at the chip. I just don't see the problem.
In the future, I'm guessing there will be a patent on adding a plurality of integer values, each equaling one, to give the result two, and another on adding a plurality of integer values, one equaling one, the other equaling two, to give a result of three, etc.
Buying used helps Sony as well. It raises the price of used consoles, making a new one more attractive to some people. This also makes it more attractive to sell one's console (and perhaps buy a new one). Sure, it's a small effect, but so is buying a new one. I never understand these arguments that the used market is disconnected from, or only negatively influences, sales of new consoles.
I'm just waiting for SCO to sue Sony for infringing on its shoot-self-in-chest-multiple-times business method.
Or take out the entire "cloud" (condensed maybe?) by just taking out this one city. I thought the cloud was supposed to be diffuse, not centralized.
You answered the question right there. The manufacturers are making monitors with higher resolutions, but the price makes it not worth it to most people. I'd say that it's not that 30" monitors are overly expensive, it's that 1920x1080 monitors have gotten disproportionately cheap due to the economics of producing many more of them than other resolutions. That is, it's not a hump that's keeping people from moving up, it's that they're stuck in a valley. Either way, it's unfortunate that things have stagnated.
What do you mean? Bills like this one and the one to make pi equal to 3.0 make it easier for people, by simplifying reality to a level that everyone can grasp.
I think a science class could benefit from covering intelligent design. It's commonly talked about as if it were science, so a science class is the perfect place to explain the ways it fails to be scientific. Of course, this is the perfect way to cause major political problems, so it's not done. Score one more for politics trumping truth.
...with remaining eye.
Right to access internet seems to be merely the obvious conclusion of the fundamental rights. This doesn't mean that anyone has to provide you internet, just that they may not attempt to prevent you from accessing if you've got a means.
Why did you have to go ruin the juvenile notion that robots will be just like us, only made of mostly metal rather than mostly water? Or that logic can somehow define goals, absent of any starting assumptions as to what is desired?
Or more likely, EA is getting free advertisement as to how realistic its games are (not that realism necessarily even makes a game fun).
In other news, they are also setting quotas for contributions by people based on their height, weight, hair length, hair color, eye color, and left/right-handedness, ensuring that the ratios of contributors matches that of the population at large.
I thought it was when you used your Visa card in Soviet Russia and it charged YOU.
I was reading a posting about evaporative cooling of group beliefs. Basically, more moderate people leave a group due to it degrading, which accelerates its degradation because they served to keep it in check. What's left is a more-distilled version of the degradation. Repeat.
Indeed. I would prefer to delay web page accesses by 0.1 seconds so that others' VOIP works without interruption, as long as they do the same so that my VOIP works without interruption as well. So if my ISP offered me completely hands-off serivce, and service with this tradeoff (for the same price), I'd choose the latter, even though it's delaying some of my traffic. Put another way, to achieve the same interruption-free VOIP in the hands-off manner, I'd have to get a dedicated line that has guaranteed bandwidth, which would be much more expensive.