Why should the value of bitcoin raise forever? It's not like it's irreplaceable. Ever heard of Litecoin? Bitcoin is based on an open protocol, and nothing will stop the copycat coins in future.
It sounds like you have been reading too much into protesters propaganda.
Here an interesting link for you.
The video clearly shows the police doing nothing to the protesters while the protesters repeatedly set the police officers ablaze with incendiary devices:
I wouldn't put all of my money into the C++ bank. On one hand, C++ keeps getting better and better with each standard. On the other hand, the complexity is horrendous. One retired professor from my college described C++ as "a notorious can of worms". The later will prevent C++ from becoming a mainstream "must have" programming language. This is why Java became more popular in the first place. On the other hand, it's fair to assume that the market for hiring true C++ experts will not go away. It has its niche.
I don't understand what you mean "per thread". AMD claims A10 is a four core CPU, but each module has only one FPU despite presenting two logical cores, which sounds awfully like hyper-threading to me, but Intel was more honest and called the i3 2-core CPU with hyper-threading. Basically, AMD overestimates how many real cores its processors really have, but this strategy seems to work since the web forums are filled with fanboys who think that more cores is always better.
This is why benchmarks show AMD can't beat Intel CPUs in single threaded applications. If one thread all you can use, then Intel will be faster. If you need to use more threads, you need 8 threads or more before to start beating even Intel's i5.
The A8 makes sense for a very low end system. If I was building a PC, either for playing games or not, I think my might have considered the A8 or A10-6800K (last generation A10) if I was looking for a $130 processor. It looks like they both have compute power somewhere in the neighborhood of Intel i3-4150 but somewhat better graphics.
The problem is that AMD cores aren't that great. For one, each AMD module has two integer cores but only one FPU. Despite that, the call it "dual core" even though for floating point stuff, the AMD architecture awfully sounds like hyperthreading. And so to me it's not surprise that Intel i3 (2 real cores but 4 logical because of hyper-threading) can challenge 4 and 6-core AMD CPUs.
NO ONE buys an i5 CPU to use its integrated graphics for games. The Intel HD Graphics are a bonus for people who don't play games. Add a discrete GPU to i5 based PC as well as to AMD PC, and it will be game over to ANY AMD based system, not just Kaveri based. As for Kaveri A10, which costs $170 online, the lowest as of now, you can beat it with a $69 dollar Intel Haswell Pentium G3220 and a discrete graphics card like a $100 dollar Radeon 7730.
Intel Core i5, mobile or desktop, is the midrange market. NO ONE of AMD's processors, APUs or FX, can match that in speed or power efficiency, not even the new Kaveri APU.
Sigh. You people with your myopic vision. If AMD consigned itself to your view of what it should do, it'll be dead in another 5-7 years. Let's take a look at what Intel offers: Higher performance. Lower energy consumption. Less heat. Smaller die size. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find anything AMD has in its favor from an engineering standpoint. So what does AMD have that's keeping it in business? Cost. AMD offers a lower price point for economy systems.
I am sorry, but I think you can't realize that at this point AMD can't compete even on the low end. A 300-400 dollar BestBuy special laptop with Intel i3 still beat AMD in speed and power efficiency. How much lower can AMD go in prices? They can't. They don't even have the volume to get there. They can integrate all they want, but that doesn't change the fact the AMD offerings are woefully uncompetitive at almost any price level. Forget Intel. After 6months of hyping their product, the flagship Kaveri A10 can't even decidedly beat the _last generation_ AMD's Richland A10.
The whole point of AMD APUs is low cost gaming. That is, lower cost than buying a dedicated GPU plus a processor. Many already argue that you don't save much by buying an APU. A cheap Pentium G3220 with a AMD Radeon 7730 costs the same as the A10 Kaveri APU, and will give better frame rate. Even if the Kaveri APU prices come down, the savings will be small. If you have to buy the GDDR5 memory, there won't be any savings. It's understandable that AMD didn't take that route.
I think you're absolutely right. At the time of the KDE/GNOME conflict in about 98/99 I hanged around a lot of people who were fans of GNU and they were all whining about how much C++ sucks and plain C is better.
In the end, I absolutely hat both side in the GNOME/KDE war and I hope they both die a cruel flaming death. The QT folks were absolutely wrong to try to inflict the non-open source license on us. In the end they were proven wrong and were forced to release QT under an open source license. If these fools released QT under that license for KDE development earlier, the whol GNOME thing might not even have happened. On the other hand GNU/GNOME people were fools to insist on using plain C is the main language of implementation. Both sides were terribly wrong, but I think Trolltech were the dumbest ones originally to refuse to release QT under a insolence that's acceptable to OSS community.
I remember reading an informal opinion/rumor by a Sun Microsystems developer that KDE/QT was the preferred environment, but they were sticking with Gnome/GTK for Solaris purely because of license issues.
I know this maybe a non-solution for OpenBSD, but for future projects, would it make sense to use servers with low-power mobile processors, such as mobile quad core i7 or would this slow down builds too much?
The Guile team is doing amazing work. Starting with version 2, Scheme is no longer something that always runs slow. My simple test code run several times faster in Guile 2 compared to similar code in python 3. The problem is that no one seems to be interested. It's quite sad. Guile is simply a fantastic, fairly complete programming environment with a very fast VM. In the early days of Gnome, GNU elevated Scheme to the number 1 status among the Gnome languages, but it was dropped since then. I don't know whether this is from the perception of LISP as the old-school language or the rejection of the code aesthetics due to meticulous use of parenthesis.
Perhaps we should be looking at MAD statistics more often when summarizing or describing data. However, the standard deviations are very useful in Statistical Inference. Standard deviations are always reported with the parameter estimates. Now this is really useful because the parameter estimates are assumed to be approximately normally distributed either due to the Central Limit Theorem or by assumption of iid normal disturbances. Under the standard normal distribution, two standard deviations account for 95% of the coverage probability, so just by glancing at the standard deviations you know roughly the confidence terminals and also the outcome of a simple z or t test of a hypothesis about the given estimate.
Well, at least Intel is not charging a huge premium for the integrated graphics. The Core i3-4150 is only $130 and the rest of Core line use the same basic GPU.
Yes. To add the insult to the injury, the G3220 is priced at $69 on newegg right now. It's basically a slightly lower clocked i3 without hyperthreading. If you don't play games or edit multimedia, then that's all you really need on an entry level desktop. Add a $100 video card, and it will probably run games at faster frame rate than AMD's $189 A10 Kaveri.
Benchmarks show that for pure CPU intensive tasks, the A10 APUs are roughly comparable to Haswell Core i3s (the entry level ones, at least). The i3-4150 costs $130-140, the last generation A10-6800K dropped to $130-140. The new A10-7850K is listed for $189 on Newegg. Considering this, the new A10-7850K is not very inciting at all. It's not even convincingly faster than A10-6800K, with the current drivers at least. AMD hinted that the new A10-7850K graphics performance will be on the level with Radeon HD7730 or 7750 ($100-120 graphics cards), but looking at the results, it's not near that.
If you just play older games or no games at all, or if you will be buying a dedicated GPU, Core i3 and the quad-core A10-6800K seem like a good deal. If you game a lot, adding a dedicated GPU seems like the best way to go.
Expensive Intel CPUs? Intel's Core i3 is pretty much equivalent to the AMD A10 on general purpose CPU power. Right now, i3-4130 is $129 on newegg while the A1-7850K is $189. The only thing that the A10 has on Core i3 is integrated graphics, but throw a $100 Radeon card into either of these systems, and it will run much faster than the integrated graphics on the A10. And don't forget the dual core Haswell Pentium chips sold for under $100. A Pentium G3220 costs $69 on newegg right now. Add a $100 Radeon HD7730, and it will still beat the A10 in games, while being roughly the same, or a little slower by an unnoticeable margin for general purpose computing.
It's a pretty sad reading IMHO. The Kaveri APU does not seem even decidedly faster than the last generation A10. The only bright spot is that the 65watt TDP A8 APU is not that much slower than the 95watt A10 APU.
That's why there is Fedora. When I used to be a sysadmin, I run CentOS on all Linux servers and desktops at work while using Fedora on a personal desktop at home. Fedora is a too fast of a moving target for production environments, but it's nice OS for enthusiasts looking for an OS that gets an annual update that includes all the bleeding edge software.
Indeed. Instead of selling hardware to miners, the manufacturers can mine themselves as long as the current difficulty level makes it profitable or sell the hardware to their buddies living close to foundries in China, while the rest of suckers across the pacific wait for months for their orders. Once the orders finally ship, the difficulty level goes up and the hardware becomes obsolete and the regular folks are happy to simply break even, if at all. Who could have thought years ago that ASIC manufacturers are the ones who will make the most profit and possibly get to control the bitcoin, but they're really close.
This doesn't make any sense. People don't keep much cash in a back account, because bank interests are meager, barely enough to keep up with the inflation rate, if at all. Historically stocks yielded average 9% return, adjusted for inflation while treasury paper 1%, adjusted for inflation.
Slashdot Mirror
Why should the value of bitcoin raise forever? It's not like it's irreplaceable. Ever heard of Litecoin? Bitcoin is based on an open protocol, and nothing will stop the copycat coins in future.
It sounds like you have been reading too much into protesters propaganda.
Here an interesting link for you.
The video clearly shows the police doing nothing to the protesters while the protesters repeatedly set the police officers ablaze with incendiary devices:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
I wouldn't put all of my money into the C++ bank. On one hand, C++ keeps getting better and better with each standard. On the other hand, the complexity is horrendous. One retired professor from my college described C++ as "a notorious can of worms". The later will prevent C++ from becoming a mainstream "must have" programming language. This is why Java became more popular in the first place. On the other hand, it's fair to assume that the market for hiring true C++ experts will not go away. It has its niche.
I don't understand what you mean "per thread". AMD claims A10 is a four core CPU, but each module has only one FPU despite presenting two logical cores, which sounds awfully like hyper-threading to me, but Intel was more honest and called the i3 2-core CPU with hyper-threading. Basically, AMD overestimates how many real cores its processors really have, but this strategy seems to work since the web forums are filled with fanboys who think that more cores is always better.
This is why benchmarks show AMD can't beat Intel CPUs in single threaded applications. If one thread all you can use, then Intel will be faster. If you need to use more threads, you need 8 threads or more before to start beating even Intel's i5.
The A8 makes sense for a very low end system. If I was building a PC, either for playing games or not, I think my might have considered the A8 or A10-6800K (last generation A10) if I was looking for a $130 processor. It looks like they both have compute power somewhere in the neighborhood of Intel i3-4150 but somewhat better graphics.
The problem is that AMD cores aren't that great. For one, each AMD module has two integer cores but only one FPU. Despite that, the call it "dual core" even though for floating point stuff, the AMD architecture awfully sounds like hyperthreading. And so to me it's not surprise that Intel i3 (2 real cores but 4 logical because of hyper-threading) can challenge 4 and 6-core AMD CPUs.
NO ONE buys an i5 CPU to use its integrated graphics for games. The Intel HD Graphics are a bonus for people who don't play games. Add a discrete GPU to i5 based PC as well as to AMD PC, and it will be game over to ANY AMD based system, not just Kaveri based. As for Kaveri A10, which costs $170 online, the lowest as of now, you can beat it with a $69 dollar Intel Haswell Pentium G3220 and a discrete graphics card like a $100 dollar Radeon 7730.
Midrange market? HAHA
Intel Core i5, mobile or desktop, is the midrange market. NO ONE of AMD's processors, APUs or FX, can match that in speed or power efficiency, not even the new Kaveri APU.
Sigh. You people with your myopic vision. If AMD consigned itself to your view of what it should do, it'll be dead in another 5-7 years. Let's take a look at what Intel offers: Higher performance. Lower energy consumption. Less heat. Smaller die size. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find anything AMD has in its favor from an engineering standpoint. So what does AMD have that's keeping it in business? Cost. AMD offers a lower price point for economy systems.
I am sorry, but I think you can't realize that at this point AMD can't compete even on the low end. A 300-400 dollar BestBuy special laptop with Intel i3 still beat AMD in speed and power efficiency. How much lower can AMD go in prices? They can't. They don't even have the volume to get there. They can integrate all they want, but that doesn't change the fact the AMD offerings are woefully uncompetitive at almost any price level. Forget Intel. After 6months of hyping their product, the flagship Kaveri A10 can't even decidedly beat the _last generation_ AMD's Richland A10.
The whole point of AMD APUs is low cost gaming. That is, lower cost than buying a dedicated GPU plus a processor. Many already argue that you don't save much by buying an APU. A cheap Pentium G3220 with a AMD Radeon 7730 costs the same as the A10 Kaveri APU, and will give better frame rate. Even if the Kaveri APU prices come down, the savings will be small. If you have to buy the GDDR5 memory, there won't be any savings. It's understandable that AMD didn't take that route.
Why do you need so many cores on the desktop though?
I think you're absolutely right. At the time of the KDE/GNOME conflict in about 98/99 I hanged around a lot of people who were fans of GNU and they were all whining about how much C++ sucks and plain C is better.
In the end, I absolutely hat both side in the GNOME/KDE war and I hope they both die a cruel flaming death. The QT folks were absolutely wrong to try to inflict the non-open source license on us. In the end they were proven wrong and were forced to release QT under an open source license. If these fools released QT under that license for KDE development earlier, the whol GNOME thing might not even have happened. On the other hand GNU/GNOME people were fools to insist on using plain C is the main language of implementation. Both sides were terribly wrong, but I think Trolltech were the dumbest ones originally to refuse to release QT under a insolence that's acceptable to OSS community.
I remember reading an informal opinion/rumor by a Sun Microsystems developer that KDE/QT was the preferred environment, but they were sticking with Gnome/GTK for Solaris purely because of license issues.
I know this maybe a non-solution for OpenBSD, but for future projects, would it make sense to use servers with low-power mobile processors, such as mobile quad core i7 or would this slow down builds too much?
The Guile team is doing amazing work. Starting with version 2, Scheme is no longer something that always runs slow. My simple test code run several times faster in Guile 2 compared to similar code in python 3. The problem is that no one seems to be interested. It's quite sad. Guile is simply a fantastic, fairly complete programming environment with a very fast VM. In the early days of Gnome, GNU elevated Scheme to the number 1 status among the Gnome languages, but it was dropped since then. I don't know whether this is from the perception of LISP as the old-school language or the rejection of the code aesthetics due to meticulous use of parenthesis.
Perhaps we should be looking at MAD statistics more often when summarizing or describing data. However, the standard deviations are very useful in Statistical Inference . Standard deviations are always reported with the parameter estimates. Now this is really useful because the parameter estimates are assumed to be approximately normally distributed either due to the Central Limit Theorem or by assumption of iid normal disturbances. Under the standard normal distribution, two standard deviations account for 95% of the coverage probability, so just by glancing at the standard deviations you know roughly the confidence terminals and also the outcome of a simple z or t test of a hypothesis about the given estimate.
Well, at least Intel is not charging a huge premium for the integrated graphics. The Core i3-4150 is only $130 and the rest of Core line use the same basic GPU.
Yes. To add the insult to the injury, the G3220 is priced at $69 on newegg right now. It's basically a slightly lower clocked i3 without hyperthreading. If you don't play games or edit multimedia, then that's all you really need on an entry level desktop. Add a $100 video card, and it will probably run games at faster frame rate than AMD's $189 A10 Kaveri.
Benchmarks show that for pure CPU intensive tasks, the A10 APUs are roughly comparable to Haswell Core i3s (the entry level ones, at least). The i3-4150 costs $130-140, the last generation A10-6800K dropped to $130-140. The new A10-7850K is listed for $189 on Newegg. Considering this, the new A10-7850K is not very inciting at all. It's not even convincingly faster than A10-6800K, with the current drivers at least. AMD hinted that the new A10-7850K graphics performance will be on the level with Radeon HD7730 or 7750 ($100-120 graphics cards), but looking at the results, it's not near that.
If you just play older games or no games at all, or if you will be buying a dedicated GPU, Core i3 and the quad-core A10-6800K seem like a good deal. If you game a lot, adding a dedicated GPU seems like the best way to go.
Expensive Intel CPUs? Intel's Core i3 is pretty much equivalent to the AMD A10 on general purpose CPU power. Right now, i3-4130 is $129 on newegg while the A1-7850K is $189. The only thing that the A10 has on Core i3 is integrated graphics, but throw a $100 Radeon card into either of these systems, and it will run much faster than the integrated graphics on the A10. And don't forget the dual core Haswell Pentium chips sold for under $100. A Pentium G3220 costs $69 on newegg right now. Add a $100 Radeon HD7730, and it will still beat the A10 in games, while being roughly the same, or a little slower by an unnoticeable margin for general purpose computing.
It's a pretty sad reading IMHO. The Kaveri APU does not seem even decidedly faster than the last generation A10. The only bright spot is that the 65watt TDP A8 APU is not that much slower than the 95watt A10 APU.
When you have a dozen releases of OS within a decade, no one is going to remember the individual names anyways.
That's why there is Fedora. When I used to be a sysadmin, I run CentOS on all Linux servers and desktops at work while using Fedora on a personal desktop at home. Fedora is a too fast of a moving target for production environments, but it's nice OS for enthusiasts looking for an OS that gets an annual update that includes all the bleeding edge software.
Indeed. Instead of selling hardware to miners, the manufacturers can mine themselves as long as the current difficulty level makes it profitable or sell the hardware to their buddies living close to foundries in China, while the rest of suckers across the pacific wait for months for their orders. Once the orders finally ship, the difficulty level goes up and the hardware becomes obsolete and the regular folks are happy to simply break even, if at all. Who could have thought years ago that ASIC manufacturers are the ones who will make the most profit and possibly get to control the bitcoin, but they're really close.
This doesn't make any sense. People don't keep much cash in a back account, because bank interests are meager, barely enough to keep up with the inflation rate, if at all. Historically stocks yielded average 9% return, adjusted for inflation while treasury paper 1%, adjusted for inflation.