Ah, er, what's that? SATA2 runs at 3Gb/s because the paltry 1.5Gb/s of SATA1 was outpaced by fast hard drives.
Rubbish. There isn't a SATA hard disk on the market that exceeds 1.5Gb/s, even in synthetic benchmarks, for anything except a direct-cache transfer (which is irrelevant due to its size). Though they are getting close, with 10k RPM drives and high-density 2TB drives hitting ~140MB/sec. In real-world use it's unlikely most people would notice even if bandwidth was a "paltry" 0.75Gb/s.
This isn't even counting RAID0 controllers that can effectively double that.
No, they're irrelevant because you can only put a single drive on a channel. The RAID controller has multiple channels [0].
Summary: Is 10Gb/s too much for a modern consumer desktop? No; if you have a lot to transfer you WILL see the difference.
No, you won't. Not on anything that could be referred to as "a consumer desktop" with a straight face (hint: multiple RAID arrays with double-digit spindle counts and 10Gb networks aren't "consumer" anything).
[0]Except for port multipliers, but they usually come with their own internal bottlenecks.
Ok so you have 1 "wire" with two optical fibers, both your external cd and your esata drive want to talk to the PC. How do they do that at the same time?
Same way a computer with only one CPU can run multiple processes at "the same time".
Hyperbole much? That's like saying that the Democrats would happily send bankers to the gulag for short selling investments, while they short sold investments as well, if they could only get the full-on fascism they are striving so hard for.
From my observations of American politics, the Republicans are far, far more interested in implementing Fascism than the Democrats are. Indeed, to the casual observer it seems that's their Raison d'être.
It's not my job to give a logical account of "God". I'm not the one claiming he exists.
You cannot: not of the Christian God, it is self-contradictory by design. If you want to hold a consistent view towards the Christian God, you have to say: "This is gibberish", you cannot say "It does not exist", on pain of producing more gibberish.
False. I can quite easily say it does not exist, simply by (as you have) pointing out that the fundamental concept is basically broken by design.
Consider your argument when substituting Santa Claus for God: "A psychic fat guy in a red suit rides a magical sleigh around and visits every child in the world in one night ? That's nothing but gibberish ! Clearly the only logical and consistent conclusion is that we should not discount the possibility that he might exist."
And contrary to what you seem to believe, Democrats aren't liberal (root "libertas") [...]
That's because nowhere outside of America, would the Democrats be referred to as "liberal". The word's meaning in US politics, is unique to that arena - hence the reason it doesn't really match up with its Latin roots.
If copyright terms were rolled back to something reasonable such as 30 years then a lot of this so called illegal copying (downloading a Beatles song for example) would simply go away.
I'd be quite happy to lay down a few large bills betting that the proportion of copyright infringement happening to works more than 30 years old is insignificantly small.
let's do away with the arbitrage, gambling, and bullshit from wall street. make them own a stock for ONE WHOLE DAY. No more of this low-latency trading bullshit.
A Capital Gains Tax that started at 95% and decreased ~2.5% per month would go a long way towards fixing many problems (/avoiding them in the first place).
I disagree with filtering material on euthanasia. However this isn't an objection against the filter itself (I mean, I agree with filtering stuff on graffiti or terrorist), but simply against the choice of application.
"Filtering is fine, except for the stuff *I* don't want filtered."
Don't get me wrong though Mr Troll-Flagger, I hate Conroy with a passion but I do get what brendan_hill is saying, and that is filtering is fundamentally a good idea.
No, it's a fundamentally broken idea.
Lets look at it this way, how great would it be to have a safe internet?
It'd be awesome. My idea of a "safe" Internet is one where people who believe that magical sky people will punish us for being naughty, are not allowed to infect children with their irrational ideas, where anyone can learn about how awesome sex is, including how to avoid unwanted consequences like pregnancy, and where information on how to retain a little dignity as your ability to physically survive is diminishes is freely available. What do you think ?
Ideally a filter would give us a foundation to eventually build facilities and technology to trump these things [...]
No, it wouldn't. That's like saying seatbelt laws give us a foundation for stopping people drink driving.
We still have IP6 to look forward too and the technological benefits it _could_ bring to internet security, but again its something too far off and I'm sure someone is bound to stuff that up to (I know I'm a cynic).
The security benefits of IPv6 have, absolutely and utterly, zero to do with the "benefits" of censorship.
Once again people seem to assume that the way I word something is a coincidence or product of random chance. It isn't. There's a very good reason why I never said "comparable standard of living" in my post. The only thing like this I mentioned was cost of living. I'm not trying to pick on you because many, many, MANY people here do this, but apparently people just read whatever they want without regard for what I actually did and did not say.
Sorry, if I'd realised you were just trolling I wouldn't have bothered replying.
It's either mistaken or intellectually dishonest to ignore this.
No, it's a reasonable assumption of context.
If you aren't going to keep relevant variables consistent, then the comparison is meaningless. Saying X is a cheaper place to live than Y, when the standard of living isn't even remotely comparable, is as pointless as saying you're rich because if you went to Zimbabwe you'd be a billionaire.
Don't rail on other people because *you* did the wrong thing.
I know, let's not bother with that thing known as personal responsibility, let's legislate EVERYTHING!
I agree. If the people running McDonalds (et al) had some "personal responsibility", we wouldn't need legislation to stop them exploiting children to support their morally questionable industry and ignoring the havoc their nutritionally bankrupt "food" is wreaking on said childrens' health.
A passport is far from "relatively simple to keep on your person", though. Unless you carry a purse. Do you carry a purse?
Huh ? A passport will fit into pretty much any pocket capable of holding a wallet, so unless you're habitually walking around in bike pants or speedos, you are pretty much guaranteed to have.
Now if you were talking about a birth certificate, I could see your point - but a passport ?
Being better doesn't explain why they're cheaper. Usually one pays a premium for "better". So, I think things like cost of living are bigger factors than what you're mentioning there. Compared to several other places, measured in dollars, the USA can be an expensive place to live.
Like where ? Of the places I've lived or spent significant time - Australia, New Zealand, the UK, Switzerland, France and Germany - all are noticably more expensive than the US to live in (particularly food and housing, both of which are dirt cheap in the US).
Where, with a comparable standard of living to the US, is cheaper to live ?
(e) Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d).
Of course, no sane person would carry such valuable documents on their person at all times, because the risk of loss and/or theft (more accurately, the consequences thereof) is/are far too high. So the law is, as usual, an ass.
Personally, I keep all of mine locked up in a safe. So while I'm unlikely to fall too far afoul of this law (being white, English-speaking, and most importantly in the country legally), some cop in a bad mood could certainly ruin my day (or even week), while I had to wait for either my wife or one of my friends to retrieve the necessary paperwork.
Slashdot Mirror
Somebody please either lambaste this or tell me it isn't that far off.
Oversimpliyfing...
The PII was a PPro with an off-die L2 cache and MMX. The PIII was a PII with SSE. The Pentium M was a PIII with a P4 FSB and SSE2.
I'd say games qualify for "little uses". Believe it or not, most people don't use their computers for high end gaming.
Most people don't use their computers for high end _anything_ and whether the machine has one core or a dozen is basically irrelevant.
Ah, er, what's that? SATA2 runs at 3Gb/s because the paltry 1.5Gb/s of SATA1 was outpaced by fast hard drives.
Rubbish. There isn't a SATA hard disk on the market that exceeds 1.5Gb/s, even in synthetic benchmarks, for anything except a direct-cache transfer (which is irrelevant due to its size). Though they are getting close, with 10k RPM drives and high-density 2TB drives hitting ~140MB/sec. In real-world use it's unlikely most people would notice even if bandwidth was a "paltry" 0.75Gb/s.
This isn't even counting RAID0 controllers that can effectively double that.
No, they're irrelevant because you can only put a single drive on a channel. The RAID controller has multiple channels [0].
Summary: Is 10Gb/s too much for a modern consumer desktop? No; if you have a lot to transfer you WILL see the difference.
No, you won't. Not on anything that could be referred to as "a consumer desktop" with a straight face (hint: multiple RAID arrays with double-digit spindle counts and 10Gb networks aren't "consumer" anything).
[0]Except for port multipliers, but they usually come with their own internal bottlenecks.
Ok so you have 1 "wire" with two optical fibers, both your external cd and your esata drive want to talk to the PC. How do they do that at the same time?
Same way a computer with only one CPU can run multiple processes at "the same time".
Hyperbole much? That's like saying that the Democrats would happily send bankers to the gulag for short selling investments, while they short sold investments as well, if they could only get the full-on fascism they are striving so hard for.
From my observations of American politics, the Republicans are far, far more interested in implementing Fascism than the Democrats are. Indeed, to the casual observer it seems that's their Raison d'être.
Can you give a logical account of "God"?
It's not my job to give a logical account of "God". I'm not the one claiming he exists.
You cannot: not of the Christian God, it is self-contradictory by design. If you want to hold a consistent view towards the Christian God, you have to say: "This is gibberish", you cannot say "It does not exist", on pain of producing more gibberish.
False. I can quite easily say it does not exist, simply by (as you have) pointing out that the fundamental concept is basically broken by design.
Consider your argument when substituting Santa Claus for God: "A psychic fat guy in a red suit rides a magical sleigh around and visits every child in the world in one night ? That's nothing but gibberish ! Clearly the only logical and consistent conclusion is that we should not discount the possibility that he might exist."
Got laid off while living paycheck to paycheck? Now you see why responsible adults don't live that way.
Uh huh. And how about when you don't earn enough to do anything _but_ live paycheck to paycheck ?
Atheism is not logical.
It's perfectly logical. There is no evidence of God, ergo there is no God.
I'm with the government on this one. If there's a need for low cast at-home virtual rehabilitation systems, perhaps the market should make some?
It has, apparently - the Wii.
And contrary to what you seem to believe, Democrats aren't liberal (root "libertas") [...]
That's because nowhere outside of America, would the Democrats be referred to as "liberal". The word's meaning in US politics, is unique to that arena - hence the reason it doesn't really match up with its Latin roots.
If copyright terms were rolled back to something reasonable such as 30 years then a lot of this so called illegal copying (downloading a Beatles song for example) would simply go away.
I'd be quite happy to lay down a few large bills betting that the proportion of copyright infringement happening to works more than 30 years old is insignificantly small.
let's do away with the arbitrage, gambling, and bullshit from wall street. make them own a stock for ONE WHOLE DAY. No more of this low-latency trading bullshit.
A Capital Gains Tax that started at 95% and decreased ~2.5% per month would go a long way towards fixing many problems (/avoiding them in the first place).
Someone needs to come up with a demonstration [...]
No, they don't. The reason to be against censorship is a fundamental one of principle, not because of technical limitations in implementing it.
why does that matter?
Because it's potentially an area of significant savings.
the consumer wanted the content... that is what it cost to create.
That doesn't mean it couldn't have been created for a lot less.
some individuals are more talented than others.
Payscales don't reflect talent, they reflect popularity.
I would kind of doubt that. The ability to easily swap hardware in a full desktop rig will trump laptops any time.
Except for the vast, vast majority of people, this ability is utterly irrelevant because they never upgrade anything inside the box.
not too many independents putting up $250M to make one piece of content though...
How much of that $250M is individuals being paid multi-millions, though ?
I disagree with filtering material on euthanasia. However this isn't an objection against the filter itself (I mean, I agree with filtering stuff on graffiti or terrorist), but simply against the choice of application.
"Filtering is fine, except for the stuff *I* don't want filtered."
So, basically, you're just another hypocrite ?
Don't get me wrong though Mr Troll-Flagger, I hate Conroy with a passion but I do get what brendan_hill is saying, and that is filtering is fundamentally a good idea.
No, it's a fundamentally broken idea.
Lets look at it this way, how great would it be to have a safe internet?
It'd be awesome. My idea of a "safe" Internet is one where people who believe that magical sky people will punish us for being naughty, are not allowed to infect children with their irrational ideas, where anyone can learn about how awesome sex is, including how to avoid unwanted consequences like pregnancy, and where information on how to retain a little dignity as your ability to physically survive is diminishes is freely available. What do you think ?
Ideally a filter would give us a foundation to eventually build facilities and technology to trump these things [...]
No, it wouldn't. That's like saying seatbelt laws give us a foundation for stopping people drink driving.
We still have IP6 to look forward too and the technological benefits it _could_ bring to internet security, but again its something too far off and I'm sure someone is bound to stuff that up to (I know I'm a cynic).
The security benefits of IPv6 have, absolutely and utterly, zero to do with the "benefits" of censorship.
Once again people seem to assume that the way I word something is a coincidence or product of random chance. It isn't. There's a very good reason why I never said "comparable standard of living" in my post. The only thing like this I mentioned was cost of living. I'm not trying to pick on you because many, many, MANY people here do this, but apparently people just read whatever they want without regard for what I actually did and did not say.
Sorry, if I'd realised you were just trolling I wouldn't have bothered replying.
It's either mistaken or intellectually dishonest to ignore this.
No, it's a reasonable assumption of context.
If you aren't going to keep relevant variables consistent, then the comparison is meaningless. Saying X is a cheaper place to live than Y, when the standard of living isn't even remotely comparable, is as pointless as saying you're rich because if you went to Zimbabwe you'd be a billionaire.
Don't rail on other people because *you* did the wrong thing.
In criminal law, theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent. ...
What property was taken ?
How do you purpose that McDonalds impose "personal responsibility" on their customers?
I don't.
I know, let's not bother with that thing known as personal responsibility, let's legislate EVERYTHING!
I agree. If the people running McDonalds (et al) had some "personal responsibility", we wouldn't need legislation to stop them exploiting children to support their morally questionable industry and ignoring the havoc their nutritionally bankrupt "food" is wreaking on said childrens' health.
A passport is far from "relatively simple to keep on your person", though. Unless you carry a purse. Do you carry a purse?
Huh ? A passport will fit into pretty much any pocket capable of holding a wallet, so unless you're habitually walking around in bike pants or speedos, you are pretty much guaranteed to have.
Now if you were talking about a birth certificate, I could see your point - but a passport ?
Being better doesn't explain why they're cheaper. Usually one pays a premium for "better". So, I think things like cost of living are bigger factors than what you're mentioning there. Compared to several other places, measured in dollars, the USA can be an expensive place to live.
Like where ? Of the places I've lived or spent significant time - Australia, New Zealand, the UK, Switzerland, France and Germany - all are noticably more expensive than the US to live in (particularly food and housing, both of which are dirt cheap in the US).
Where, with a comparable standard of living to the US, is cheaper to live ?
(e) Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d).
Of course, no sane person would carry such valuable documents on their person at all times, because the risk of loss and/or theft (more accurately, the consequences thereof) is/are far too high. So the law is, as usual, an ass.
Personally, I keep all of mine locked up in a safe. So while I'm unlikely to fall too far afoul of this law (being white, English-speaking, and most importantly in the country legally), some cop in a bad mood could certainly ruin my day (or even week), while I had to wait for either my wife or one of my friends to retrieve the necessary paperwork.