So just go enjoy your enormous investing wealth and stop bothering the peons. Really, it's cruel, is that the reputation you want? Because you know those occupy people are starting to make lists of who to kill. Don't be in the disreputable 1%.
I think that Intel's hyperthreads and AMD's Bulldozer 'cores' both use a resource sharing arrangement, and in neither case are full cores. The benchmarks bear this out: intel's hyperthreading is nearly as good as AMD's.
This would compete with the Xeon-E chips that aren't out yet. But in terms of performance about 75%, so this is the equivalent of a 12-core intel chip.
If you believe that allowing people the freedom to make themselves sick is immoral, sure. Personally, I don't. Of course, I also favor drug legalization which isn't a popular opinion either.
Food from the existing process has proven safe over many years. There's a limited amount of exciting new exposure that could happen, at least without first poisoning the plants and animals in the area to such a degree that it would be obvious. With a new lab process you run the risk of something like BPA-laden plastics being used as a growth substrate. The problems could be subtle enough not to show up for twenty years until the cancers start killing people.
You're highly motivated to protect yourself and your family. There are an awful lot of people who just don't eat at the restaurants where they work because they know what goes on.
It's disingenuous to suggest that those processes would be similar. The industrial production of synthetic meat would involve a very different set of chemicals and equipment. To suggest they are guaranteed to be equally safe because they both take place in a thing we name a 'factory' is very intellectually dishonest.
Not if the toxin turns out to be the substrate or some such. You can only control for what you know to be a danger, and even then there's a matter of will.
Could be a protein digestion deficiency. Very, very rare, but it does happen. Highly fatal and noticeable when its one of the more common/vital proteins, might go unnoticed for life for something like fungus.
(I know there are other approaches to animal's status, but there is no notable modern moral philosopher who disputes that the suffering of animals is a serious concern)
That's a problem of circularity. It's the same problem with AGW for example. All the argument pro can be categorized as having formed in the same environment, and that environment attempts to exclude credit for arguments from the other side, thus rendering the other side 'not notable'.
So don't use appeal to authority as support for your point, or you lose the argument.
Yes, that would be vegetarian, as opposed to vegan. Vegetarians can eat animal byproducts (honey, eggs, bavarian peasant poop, etc). That's the very definition of the difference with the vegans.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, he 'independently' invented it, just a couple of months after it was presented at a conference that he no doubt would have heard about it from.
Sure.
Sounds exactly like the kind of abuse the patent system was designed to prevent to me.
So just go ahead and slide that slider into the future and see how things turn out, and make your investment decisions that way.
He got 20% from the gp you replied to. Have you lost track of the conversation, or just trolling? ;-)
So just go enjoy your enormous investing wealth and stop bothering the peons. Really, it's cruel, is that the reputation you want? Because you know those occupy people are starting to make lists of who to kill. Don't be in the disreputable 1%.
Why not provide some evidence that it can't. Every benchmark says you're wrong and I'm right.
I think that Intel's hyperthreads and AMD's Bulldozer 'cores' both use a resource sharing arrangement, and in neither case are full cores. The benchmarks bear this out: intel's hyperthreading is nearly as good as AMD's.
I'm not sure if you're just trolling, but you're way off about what fracking involves, and your claim does not logically follow.
Ah, I see your pov now: I wasn't looking at it in terms of immorality. I was suggesting that there were practical issues aside from the moral ones.
Slight correction, on threaded workloads, we'd be talking about a 6-core chip, intel runs 2 threads per core.
This assumes that performance is not significantly different from the desktop line, which is usually the case.
This would compete with the Xeon-E chips that aren't out yet. But in terms of performance about 75%, so this is the equivalent of a 12-core intel chip.
If you believe that allowing people the freedom to make themselves sick is immoral, sure. Personally, I don't. Of course, I also favor drug legalization which isn't a popular opinion either.
Food from the existing process has proven safe over many years. There's a limited amount of exciting new exposure that could happen, at least without first poisoning the plants and animals in the area to such a degree that it would be obvious. With a new lab process you run the risk of something like BPA-laden plastics being used as a growth substrate. The problems could be subtle enough not to show up for twenty years until the cancers start killing people.
Nope. The truth of the subject matter is independent of whether or not he loses the argument.
The point of my response was that it was fine, except not, because there are all sorts of other problems involved.
You're highly motivated to protect yourself and your family. There are an awful lot of people who just don't eat at the restaurants where they work because they know what goes on.
But no one wants that, and hence, Microsoft.
It's disingenuous to suggest that those processes would be similar. The industrial production of synthetic meat would involve a very different set of chemicals and equipment. To suggest they are guaranteed to be equally safe because they both take place in a thing we name a 'factory' is very intellectually dishonest.
Not if the toxin turns out to be the substrate or some such. You can only control for what you know to be a danger, and even then there's a matter of will.
Could be a protein digestion deficiency. Very, very rare, but it does happen. Highly fatal and noticeable when its one of the more common/vital proteins, might go unnoticed for life for something like fungus.
1984 got it exactly right, you're just among the proles I'm afraid.
(I know there are other approaches to animal's status, but there is no notable modern moral philosopher who disputes that the suffering of animals is a serious concern)
That's a problem of circularity. It's the same problem with AGW for example. All the argument pro can be categorized as having formed in the same environment, and that environment attempts to exclude credit for arguments from the other side, thus rendering the other side 'not notable'.
So don't use appeal to authority as support for your point, or you lose the argument.
Yes, that would be vegetarian, as opposed to vegan. Vegetarians can eat animal byproducts (honey, eggs, bavarian peasant poop, etc). That's the very definition of the difference with the vegans.
Well, there'd be the hefty risk of spreading disease that way, so that wouldn't be a good idea.
Naive, idiot, or brilliant troll, I'm afraid.