the fact that burning wood makes it easier to plant more trees
By this, I meant cutting down more trees obviously clears more land for planting, land which might be more accessible or otherwise economical. This is the only "cycle" present in this system: the cycle of using the same plot of land over and over. Which might be handy, sure, but that doesn't mean burning coal and planting the same number of trees in a different spot wouldn't accomplish the same thing.
There are two SEPARATE actions here: the burning of a hydrocarbon, and the planting of trees to capture carbon from the atmosphere. "Closed fuel cycle" is nonsense; the CO2 captured by the plants isn't the same CO2 molecules released into the atmosphere, nor is it captured at the same time the other CO2 is emitted. Yes, atmospheric CO2 is pretty much fungible... and that's my entire point.
If I burn X amount of wood, leading to one metric ton of CO2 entering the atmosphere, and then plant enough trees to recapture one metric ton of CO2... ok, fine. Taken together, that's neutral.
If I burn X amount of coal or gasoline, leading to one metric ton of CO2 entering the atmosphere, and then plant enough trees to recapture one metric ton of CO2... that is no less carbon neutral than the above.
Timescales don't matter. This isn't a "closed looped"; it is two separate actions. There are subtitles here, like the amount of carbon emitted extracting, transporting and storing the fuel, the fact that burning wood makes it easier to plant more trees, the possibilities of forest fires, and it could be that the net result of these things make wood more attractive. But this stuff about timescales and closed loops is meaningless.
You are supposed to be able to hold a phone without it losing signal.
I suspect that they had no reason to suspect the signal would be degraded if the phone was held that way. You're arguing they should have been testing for a previously unknown (or at least obscure) flaw before it was known to be A Thing.
As far as Drax goes I'm astonished that they're trying it on a large scale. I strongly suspect it wouldn't work if widely applied for reasons already stated, and thus this is just a greenwashing scheme, but I'd need to hunt down their specific claims and technical data first.
what matters is that the wood is replaced at the same rate that it is used
You can artificially tie together those two things and call it "carbon-neutral", sure. And you could also plant trees after burning coal (let's say on a small scale) or running your car and claim that coal and gasoline are carbon-neutral as well.
This is missing the point. We're almost certainly not going to be able to grow enough trees or other plants fast enough to recapture all of the carbon we release through all of our hydrocarbon combustion. The ability to do this with wood burning is a consequence of its much smaller footprint as compared to other fossil fuels.
(There is another possible exception here that just occurred to me regarding forests that are prone to cyclical fires, but I suspect this excludes most of the UK.)
sustainably managed forests existing in many developed countries.
What else would they have done with that wood? To get a proper accounting, you have to compare this to the counterfactual situation where there is no wood burning. Some trees (fewer, one assumes) are felled for wood and replanted. People who clear land of trees can't sell them for burning, so it's either wood or whatever other means of disposal one uses for trees. This is an intrinsically carbon-negative state of affairs.
I'm not arguing wood burning is a huge issue; on the contrary, it's precisely due to its small-scale usage that this artificial accounting of carbon-neutrality could be realistically claimed.
Don't worry hun, you're not the first person to be allergic to facts or reason. You might not have noticed until now due to your above average tenacity.
If the average consumer could potentially hold the phone in a manner that makes it malfunction, how did they not see that happen in their first round of testing?
Uh, because that was a bit of a black swan? If they didn't happen to hold the phone that way, why would they even think to try?
By that logic, parents who bought Aquadots for their children should have first eaten some of the beads to check if they had psychoactive drugs in them (i.e. why would they have any reason to suspect such a thing?)
But I'm sorry but the fact that you as a FOSS user doesn't know about it? Just shows how shitty the community is
That's bullshit. Do you claim to know even 1/10 of the FOSS contributions in the world today? Were you aware that, for instance, in ~2012 that Intel released Cilk++ as open source when previously it was proprietary? Is every FOSS user in the world supposed to automatically know this the moment it happens?
It's not a clubhouse. It's AMD's responsibility to say something if they want people to sit up and take notice. Your previous post implied AMD did it less than two years ago, and I haven't bought any AMD machines or components since then.
The rest of your post is just off-topic hysteria, regardless of whether or not your summary of AMD's recent contributions are accurate
You can have windows 10 for free now
Uh, no you can't. That ended months ago. And FWIW most non-technical users I know stuck with 7.
Plus they throw in a low end "Pentium" and lower end "Celeron". How low end? Don't look at clock speed, head over to benchmarks.
You forgot Atom, too. Baytrail was surprisingly good and supported Vt-x, not that you're likely to find it in a machine with the RAM and cooling required to do a ton of virtualization.
But yeah, I forgot about the hyper threading madness.
Not only can you get Vt-d on some i7s (as another AC noted) , but you can also get it on some i5s, at least in some past generations. And as I said, it can be found in a few latest generation Celerons, but not all latest generation Celerons.
It really does seem as though they have a genetic algorithm trying to optimize their market segmentation strategy for them.
You still don't get it. The choice is between a short course of anti-depressants, of a lifetime on amphetamines, most people will take the shorter course of drugs.
What nonsense is this? They routinely recommend you stay on anti-depressants for over a year "just to make sure", and if you have any recurrence at all they are happy to prescribe them for life.
Euphorics like amphetamines or opioids could be taken sporadically and symptomatically *or* they could be taken daily. The potential for shorter term treatment is obviously much higher with them than with these low-efficacy things that you supposedly have to take for three weeks to feel anything at all.
. If somebody is on antidepressants for life, their doctor is doing it wrong.
Citation needed. What are the treatment guidelines for refractory or recurrent depression in your neck of the woods? Given that most people don't ever adequately respond to the drugs (adjusted for the ones who would've gone better on their own anyway), what do you guys do? Just cut them off and give them nothing?
You are too focused on quick relief of symptoms, not on what is in the best long-term benefit of the patient.
It's both. There's no reason at all to suspect that Welbutrin, by messing around with dopamine and noradrenaline, is somehow more genuine of an antidepressant than amphetamines, which also mess around with dopamine and noradrenaline. It's just that their culture strongly discourages them from closely studying the latter (though some studies do exist, e.g. depression among kids with ADHD who've taken Adderall.)
The drugs are NOT supposed to make the patient happy.
Yes they are. Or "let them be happy" if you want to be pedantic. A mild to moderate dose of opioids or amphetamines cause previously dull and depressing activities, in a sufferer of MDD, to become joyful again. The positive feedback of accomplishment suddenly returns. This is exactly what SSRIs/SNRIs are alleged to do, but don't (for most people.)
Opioid euphoria could mean staring at the ceiling doing nothing, sure. And by the same token, Wellbutrin could mean flopping on the floor having a seizure.
Freedom is the ability to say two plus two equals four. Amphetamines are already administered to MILLIONS of kids, with tons of safety studies to back it up. It works on the same receptors as Wellbutrin, a drug you appear to champion, but more effectively and with greater euphoria (yes, even at low doses.) There is no reason to suspect it wouldn't work. Such sentences are not unscientific to utter. Indeed, science would grind to a halt if sentences like that were verboten. I never, ever claimed that such studies have been done already, merely that they should be done.
You're the one who thinks it's okay to use amphetamines, self administered, long-term to "fix" the problem.
You are being intellectually dishonest. I repeatedly acknowledged the danger to people with bad impulse control or who have an unhealthy fixation on the state of extreme euphoria.
Having a similar chemical structure means it has similar effects.
Ah, so you're reversing your previous post now and you *are* arguing that the effect of MDMA is similar to amphetamines? Which is it?
people make bad judgments - sleeping with people they never would have if they weren't caught up in feeling good.
Amphetamines lead to people making objectively good judgments all the time. They enhance mental acuity and reaction time. This has been repeatedly scientifically proven, and amphetamine is prescribed to children in the form of Adderall.
Bad judgment is a function of dose. If you fry your brain on them yes, your ability to make decisions will be compromised. I suspect if you down 50 SSRIs (never mind atypical antipsychotics) your brain, including judgment centers, won't be firing at 100%.
And while we're at it - you are a huge liar.
I changed my mind because you were acting especially annoying. I'll leave it to posterity: if someone says "I'm leaving now; sick of arguing" and they stick around for 10 more minutes because the asshole they're talking to is flailing around so wildly they can't resist, is that person a "huge liar"? A mere "bigly" liar, maybe?
I don't disagree, but these things are already illegal and the definition of rape has never been "it's ok just so long as she says yes. The gun to her temple means nothing."
Are porn directors allowed to fire actresses (as in, "we'll pay you for your time already put in but your services will no longer be required here") if they aren't working out? That's quite a bit of pressure to say "yes", isn't it? But people get pressured into doing unpleasant shit on the job all the time. By not walking away, you are consenting to it. Even if the alternative is homelessness, I still don't get to say "my boss kidnapped me and forced me to work on spreadsheets until 9pm". That's not an accurate description of what happened.
The next question is "Is it rape to threaten to have an illegal immigrant deported if they don't work as a prostitute?" Assuming no other threats were made, this is a little hairier. Certainly, blackmail or extortion charges seem applicable, but the word "rape" still seems a bit strong, since the woman presumably made a conscious choice to enter the country illegally and is now faced with the option to continue breaking the law in another way (depending on the legality of the prostitution) or to quit and face the music. That doesn't mean it's right to make the threat or that it would be right for her to be deported (you could certainly make a good case for asylum), but I'm wary of anyone who would unhesitatingly scream "rape!" in this scenario. Swap out "prostitution" for any other illicit activity and you'll instantly see how it's very hard to argue that the person bears no responsibility whatsoever.
Rape is rape when the "yes" has implicit physical violence in there somewhere. When the pressure is something other than violence... I'm not saying it's a moral thing to do by any means, but "rape" is no longer an appropriate word if she has the option (however unpleasant) to walk away, face the music and/or do something else with her life.
Nobody gives a shit about AMD anyway except when they're cheaper than the Intel box. That's the thing they need to work on changing. I doubt they can out-compete Intel/NVIDIA on tech[1], so this is *a* alternate attractor. Again, it's not about winning over the public at large it's about winning over mavens who provide advice to their employers and their friends and family. Yeah, it's a long shot... but what's YOUR strategy for getting AMD to have an identity beyond "the cheap one" ?
1. Yes yes, they've had some interesting ideas over the years but for the past decade their innovations have mostly been outmatched at every turn.
1. Are you sure they "did that" ? Another poster was claiming their proprietary driver was from a different codebase and I've heard someone recently complain that the OSS driver still wasn't up to snuff. If they have third party IP issues that prevent them from open sourcing everything, then so be it, that sucks, but that still somewhat belies what you just said.
2. They should advertise what they *are* doing better. Make a brand identity out of it. I'm sorry I don't follow every AMD story out there religiously, but I'm not omniscient and my time is finite. The fact that my post was modded up to +5 with no downmods tends to indicate that I wasn't alone in assuming that AMD had not done this yet.
Everybody and their dog "contributes to FOSS" in one way or another. Oracle actively contributes to FOSS, for fuck's sake, but I wouldn't call them a friend of open source. If AMD truly has gone above and beyond, well, hire some better market/PR people so more of us know about it, damnit.
It was my understanding that there's a section of Intel CPU schematics that are not open to the public, with some hair-raising "don't you worry, we promise we're not doing anything evil in there" comments from Intel themselves, though I'm having trouble finding the article I read about it a while back (There's a lot of stuff I'm seeing about a "secret hidden core", but these sound less reliable and more sensationalistic than the article I call reading.) Even if there isn't a backdoor or attack vector for a full system compromise, there could be a processor serial number and unique means to retrieve it.
But since I can't find the article at the moment, I can't prove I didn't hallucinate the whole thing.
They could get more mindshare around "AMD Research", considering that's their money maker, I guess?
I've no idea what their balance sheet looks like. If their end consumer sales aren't their money maker, so be it.
Considering it's been brought up on Slashdot previously, that's your own willful ignorance in my opinion.
It's willful ignorance that I don't follow the driver status for a company I gave up on like 8 years ago? The last post on slashdot I saw about regarding drivers is someone bitching that the OSS Radeon driver was being included by default in their favorite distro instead of the proprietary one.
That little tidbit, apocryphal as it may be, did not to me imply that AMD had open sourced the good stuff. And maybe they can't for legal reasons, which sucks for them, but seeing as how ATI/AMD has had driver issues for like 15 years now (not just Linux, but Windows too), I kinda sorta think they could've done something about it by now if they really put their minds to it.
They could at least open up the hardware specs to their CPUs, provided there are no legal impediments to them simply doing that. (Or, if the specs are open, advertise that fact more heavily. I know Intel's aren't.)
If I could ditch AMT and other worrying out of band stuff, I'd gladly sacrifice a bit of performance. My broader point here is about AMD having an identity beyond "the cheap one." For a few years they were both cheaper and more powerful, but even with that killer combo they couldn't beat Intel's brand recognition.
AMD has previously made the vast majority of their profits selling off their technologies and research
Their driver technology? They're been making money off of "selling" their drivers? To whom?
Who is buying up their CPU designs, for that matter? I know I'd drop Intel in a heartbeat if AMD had a fully open, audited design that supported all the instruction sets I care about.
You don't even know their history on this and how it's not helped them.
That's their fault for marketing it shitty then, if that's true. But given your other comments, I suspect they didn't do what I was saying. I'm not saying whitewash it with OSS; I'm saying actually embrace it.
This isn't like software-only situations where you have to worry about a random competitor springing up over night and stealing your thunder, nor are they the main powerhouse innovator here who has to worry about giving away secrets. The upside isn't massive, but the downside is negligible. AMD needs an identity beyond "the cheap one." Regardless of what they've done in the past, my mind definitely does not associate them with more openness or better *nix support. (Admittedly, I haven't tried them in recent years.)
Is that true? Working with the open source driver team is not the same thing as open-sourcing all of their driver code. Is the OSS Linux driver based on, or related to the same codebase that their Windows driver is based on?
I haven't gamed seriously in quite a few years, and it's been even more years since I've owned ATI/AMD GPU, so I'm probably behind the times. I do recall someone recently bitching about the fact that the open sourced Radeon driver had taken over as default in their favorite distro, requiring a manual install of the proprietary one, but I suppose it's possible that was either an uninformed person or someone who had a unique issue.
(There might also be third party IP issues preventing them from open sourcing the main driver, I guess)
Well you don't need to know the generation name, it's the first number of the model number.
Yeah but the existence of the name means that, if the number isn't given, you don't instantly know what they're talking about unless you have these things memorized. At least Android and Ubuntu had the good sense to go alphabetically.
then m3, m5 and m7 are the new lower power variants for the 7th gen CPU's instead of using the U designation.
Lovely.
a quick Google away with Ark
This is admittedly nice but on the flipside, as several others have noted, AMD doesn't do nearly as much of these "let's disable random features with no rhyme or reason" market segmentation games. I wish they had an Ark equivalent, but their products themselves are, at least in this regard, superior for not being randomly hobbled (as much.)
It's not magic, but it gets their driver included in distros like Debian (all its derivatives) by default, out of the box. That's not nothing. A surprising number of Linux users are lazy about that sort of thing, and with Windows 10 on the horizon that number is only going to grow.
The good will isn't nothing, either. AMD needs to *stand* for something. Even when they were beating Intel in performance with the early Athlons (as well as price), Intel still destroyed them in the marketplace. They need to stand for something other than "the cheap option". Granted, the number of people who understand/care about OSS is limited, but we are to some extent market mavens. People listen to our opinion, both at home and in the workplace.
I'm not saying it'll definitely work. I'm saying "Why the hell not? It's worth a shot and is unlikely to significantly harm you."
Slashdot Mirror
the fact that burning wood makes it easier to plant more trees
By this, I meant cutting down more trees obviously clears more land for planting, land which might be more accessible or otherwise economical. This is the only "cycle" present in this system: the cycle of using the same plot of land over and over. Which might be handy, sure, but that doesn't mean burning coal and planting the same number of trees in a different spot wouldn't accomplish the same thing.
Sounds like you write their marketing pamphlets.
There are two SEPARATE actions here: the burning of a hydrocarbon, and the planting of trees to capture carbon from the atmosphere. "Closed fuel cycle" is nonsense; the CO2 captured by the plants isn't the same CO2 molecules released into the atmosphere, nor is it captured at the same time the other CO2 is emitted. Yes, atmospheric CO2 is pretty much fungible... and that's my entire point.
If I burn X amount of wood, leading to one metric ton of CO2 entering the atmosphere, and then plant enough trees to recapture one metric ton of CO2... ok, fine. Taken together, that's neutral.
If I burn X amount of coal or gasoline, leading to one metric ton of CO2 entering the atmosphere, and then plant enough trees to recapture one metric ton of CO2... that is no less carbon neutral than the above.
Timescales don't matter. This isn't a "closed looped"; it is two separate actions. There are subtitles here, like the amount of carbon emitted extracting, transporting and storing the fuel, the fact that burning wood makes it easier to plant more trees, the possibilities of forest fires, and it could be that the net result of these things make wood more attractive. But this stuff about timescales and closed loops is meaningless.
You are supposed to be able to hold a phone without it losing signal.
I suspect that they had no reason to suspect the signal would be degraded if the phone was held that way. You're arguing they should have been testing for a previously unknown (or at least obscure) flaw before it was known to be A Thing.
As far as Drax goes I'm astonished that they're trying it on a large scale. I strongly suspect it wouldn't work if widely applied for reasons already stated, and thus this is just a greenwashing scheme, but I'd need to hunt down their specific claims and technical data first.
what matters is that the wood is replaced at the same rate that it is used
You can artificially tie together those two things and call it "carbon-neutral", sure. And you could also plant trees after burning coal (let's say on a small scale) or running your car and claim that coal and gasoline are carbon-neutral as well.
This is missing the point. We're almost certainly not going to be able to grow enough trees or other plants fast enough to recapture all of the carbon we release through all of our hydrocarbon combustion. The ability to do this with wood burning is a consequence of its much smaller footprint as compared to other fossil fuels.
(There is another possible exception here that just occurred to me regarding forests that are prone to cyclical fires, but I suspect this excludes most of the UK.)
sustainably managed forests existing in many developed countries.
What else would they have done with that wood? To get a proper accounting, you have to compare this to the counterfactual situation where there is no wood burning. Some trees (fewer, one assumes) are felled for wood and replanted. People who clear land of trees can't sell them for burning, so it's either wood or whatever other means of disposal one uses for trees. This is an intrinsically carbon-negative state of affairs.
I'm not arguing wood burning is a huge issue; on the contrary, it's precisely due to its small-scale usage that this artificial accounting of carbon-neutrality could be realistically claimed.
Wood burning can be considered clean in this context because the CO2 that is released was captured from the air in the first place.
So no additional CO2 is released when burning wood.
What? Greenhouse gasses are fungible. It doesn't matter if the carbon was captured recently or (as with coal) in the distant past.
The only way this logic makes sense is if those trees were planted by humans for the primary purpose of burning.
Don't worry hun, you're not the first person to be allergic to facts or reason. You might not have noticed until now due to your above average tenacity.
If the average consumer could potentially hold the phone in a manner that makes it malfunction, how did they not see that happen in their first round of testing?
Uh, because that was a bit of a black swan? If they didn't happen to hold the phone that way, why would they even think to try?
By that logic, parents who bought Aquadots for their children should have first eaten some of the beads to check if they had psychoactive drugs in them (i.e. why would they have any reason to suspect such a thing?)
Ah, an unrepentant and undisguised sophist. Noted.
But I'm sorry but the fact that you as a FOSS user doesn't know about it? Just shows how shitty the community is
That's bullshit. Do you claim to know even 1/10 of the FOSS contributions in the world today? Were you aware that, for instance, in ~2012 that Intel released Cilk++ as open source when previously it was proprietary? Is every FOSS user in the world supposed to automatically know this the moment it happens?
It's not a clubhouse. It's AMD's responsibility to say something if they want people to sit up and take notice. Your previous post implied AMD did it less than two years ago, and I haven't bought any AMD machines or components since then.
The rest of your post is just off-topic hysteria, regardless of whether or not your summary of AMD's recent contributions are accurate
You can have windows 10 for free now
Uh, no you can't. That ended months ago. And FWIW most non-technical users I know stuck with 7.
Plus they throw in a low end "Pentium" and lower end "Celeron". How low end? Don't look at clock speed, head over to benchmarks.
You forgot Atom, too. Baytrail was surprisingly good and supported Vt-x, not that you're likely to find it in a machine with the RAM and cooling required to do a ton of virtualization.
But yeah, I forgot about the hyper threading madness.
Not only can you get Vt-d on some i7s (as another AC noted) , but you can also get it on some i5s, at least in some past generations. And as I said, it can be found in a few latest generation Celerons, but not all latest generation Celerons.
It really does seem as though they have a genetic algorithm trying to optimize their market segmentation strategy for them.
Also, here we don't use antipsychotics to treat depression.
Wrong.
(Assuming you're Canadian based on the spelling.)
You still don't get it. The choice is between a short course of anti-depressants, of a lifetime on amphetamines, most people will take the shorter course of drugs.
What nonsense is this? They routinely recommend you stay on anti-depressants for over a year "just to make sure", and if you have any recurrence at all they are happy to prescribe them for life.
Euphorics like amphetamines or opioids could be taken sporadically and symptomatically *or* they could be taken daily. The potential for shorter term treatment is obviously much higher with them than with these low-efficacy things that you supposedly have to take for three weeks to feel anything at all.
. If somebody is on antidepressants for life, their doctor is doing it wrong.
Citation needed. What are the treatment guidelines for refractory or recurrent depression in your neck of the woods? Given that most people don't ever adequately respond to the drugs (adjusted for the ones who would've gone better on their own anyway), what do you guys do? Just cut them off and give them nothing?
You are too focused on quick relief of symptoms, not on what is in the best long-term benefit of the patient.
It's both. There's no reason at all to suspect that Welbutrin, by messing around with dopamine and noradrenaline, is somehow more genuine of an antidepressant than amphetamines, which also mess around with dopamine and noradrenaline. It's just that their culture strongly discourages them from closely studying the latter (though some studies do exist, e.g. depression among kids with ADHD who've taken Adderall.)
The drugs are NOT supposed to make the patient happy.
Yes they are. Or "let them be happy" if you want to be pedantic. A mild to moderate dose of opioids or amphetamines cause previously dull and depressing activities, in a sufferer of MDD, to become joyful again. The positive feedback of accomplishment suddenly returns. This is exactly what SSRIs/SNRIs are alleged to do, but don't (for most people.)
Opioid euphoria could mean staring at the ceiling doing nothing, sure. And by the same token, Wellbutrin could mean flopping on the floor having a seizure.
You're the one who thinks it's okay to use amphetamines, self administered, long-term to "fix" the problem.
You are being intellectually dishonest. I repeatedly acknowledged the danger to people with bad impulse control or who have an unhealthy fixation on the state of extreme euphoria.
Having a similar chemical structure means it has similar effects.
Ah, so you're reversing your previous post now and you *are* arguing that the effect of MDMA is similar to amphetamines? Which is it?
people make bad judgments - sleeping with people they never would have if they weren't caught up in feeling good.
Amphetamines lead to people making objectively good judgments all the time. They enhance mental acuity and reaction time. This has been repeatedly scientifically proven, and amphetamine is prescribed to children in the form of Adderall. Bad judgment is a function of dose. If you fry your brain on them yes, your ability to make decisions will be compromised. I suspect if you down 50 SSRIs (never mind atypical antipsychotics) your brain, including judgment centers, won't be firing at 100%.
And while we're at it - you are a huge liar.
I changed my mind because you were acting especially annoying. I'll leave it to posterity: if someone says "I'm leaving now; sick of arguing" and they stick around for 10 more minutes because the asshole they're talking to is flailing around so wildly they can't resist, is that person a "huge liar"? A mere "bigly" liar, maybe?
I don't disagree, but these things are already illegal and the definition of rape has never been "it's ok just so long as she says yes. The gun to her temple means nothing."
Are porn directors allowed to fire actresses (as in, "we'll pay you for your time already put in but your services will no longer be required here") if they aren't working out? That's quite a bit of pressure to say "yes", isn't it? But people get pressured into doing unpleasant shit on the job all the time. By not walking away, you are consenting to it. Even if the alternative is homelessness, I still don't get to say "my boss kidnapped me and forced me to work on spreadsheets until 9pm". That's not an accurate description of what happened.
The next question is "Is it rape to threaten to have an illegal immigrant deported if they don't work as a prostitute?" Assuming no other threats were made, this is a little hairier. Certainly, blackmail or extortion charges seem applicable, but the word "rape" still seems a bit strong, since the woman presumably made a conscious choice to enter the country illegally and is now faced with the option to continue breaking the law in another way (depending on the legality of the prostitution) or to quit and face the music. That doesn't mean it's right to make the threat or that it would be right for her to be deported (you could certainly make a good case for asylum), but I'm wary of anyone who would unhesitatingly scream "rape!" in this scenario. Swap out "prostitution" for any other illicit activity and you'll instantly see how it's very hard to argue that the person bears no responsibility whatsoever.
Rape is rape when the "yes" has implicit physical violence in there somewhere. When the pressure is something other than violence... I'm not saying it's a moral thing to do by any means, but "rape" is no longer an appropriate word if she has the option (however unpleasant) to walk away, face the music and/or do something else with her life.
Nobody gives a shit about AMD anyway except when they're cheaper than the Intel box. That's the thing they need to work on changing. I doubt they can out-compete Intel/NVIDIA on tech[1], so this is *a* alternate attractor. Again, it's not about winning over the public at large it's about winning over mavens who provide advice to their employers and their friends and family. Yeah, it's a long shot... but what's YOUR strategy for getting AMD to have an identity beyond "the cheap one" ?
1. Yes yes, they've had some interesting ideas over the years but for the past decade their innovations have mostly been outmatched at every turn.
1. Are you sure they "did that" ? Another poster was claiming their proprietary driver was from a different codebase and I've heard someone recently complain that the OSS driver still wasn't up to snuff. If they have third party IP issues that prevent them from open sourcing everything, then so be it, that sucks, but that still somewhat belies what you just said.
2. They should advertise what they *are* doing better. Make a brand identity out of it. I'm sorry I don't follow every AMD story out there religiously, but I'm not omniscient and my time is finite. The fact that my post was modded up to +5 with no downmods tends to indicate that I wasn't alone in assuming that AMD had not done this yet.
Everybody and their dog "contributes to FOSS" in one way or another. Oracle actively contributes to FOSS, for fuck's sake, but I wouldn't call them a friend of open source. If AMD truly has gone above and beyond, well, hire some better market/PR people so more of us know about it, damnit.
But since I can't find the article at the moment, I can't prove I didn't hallucinate the whole thing.
They could get more mindshare around "AMD Research", considering that's their money maker, I guess?
I've no idea what their balance sheet looks like. If their end consumer sales aren't their money maker, so be it.
Considering it's been brought up on Slashdot previously, that's your own willful ignorance in my opinion.
It's willful ignorance that I don't follow the driver status for a company I gave up on like 8 years ago? The last post on slashdot I saw about regarding drivers is someone bitching that the OSS Radeon driver was being included by default in their favorite distro instead of the proprietary one.
That little tidbit, apocryphal as it may be, did not to me imply that AMD had open sourced the good stuff. And maybe they can't for legal reasons, which sucks for them, but seeing as how ATI/AMD has had driver issues for like 15 years now (not just Linux, but Windows too), I kinda sorta think they could've done something about it by now if they really put their minds to it.
They could at least open up the hardware specs to their CPUs, provided there are no legal impediments to them simply doing that. (Or, if the specs are open, advertise that fact more heavily. I know Intel's aren't.)
If I could ditch AMT and other worrying out of band stuff, I'd gladly sacrifice a bit of performance. My broader point here is about AMD having an identity beyond "the cheap one." For a few years they were both cheaper and more powerful, but even with that killer combo they couldn't beat Intel's brand recognition.
AMD has previously made the vast majority of their profits selling off their technologies and research
Their driver technology? They're been making money off of "selling" their drivers? To whom?
Who is buying up their CPU designs, for that matter? I know I'd drop Intel in a heartbeat if AMD had a fully open, audited design that supported all the instruction sets I care about.
You don't even know their history on this and how it's not helped them.
That's their fault for marketing it shitty then, if that's true. But given your other comments, I suspect they didn't do what I was saying. I'm not saying whitewash it with OSS; I'm saying actually embrace it.
This isn't like software-only situations where you have to worry about a random competitor springing up over night and stealing your thunder, nor are they the main powerhouse innovator here who has to worry about giving away secrets. The upside isn't massive, but the downside is negligible. AMD needs an identity beyond "the cheap one." Regardless of what they've done in the past, my mind definitely does not associate them with more openness or better *nix support. (Admittedly, I haven't tried them in recent years.)
Is that true? Working with the open source driver team is not the same thing as open-sourcing all of their driver code. Is the OSS Linux driver based on, or related to the same codebase that their Windows driver is based on?
I haven't gamed seriously in quite a few years, and it's been even more years since I've owned ATI/AMD GPU, so I'm probably behind the times. I do recall someone recently bitching about the fact that the open sourced Radeon driver had taken over as default in their favorite distro, requiring a manual install of the proprietary one, but I suppose it's possible that was either an uninformed person or someone who had a unique issue.
(There might also be third party IP issues preventing them from open sourcing the main driver, I guess)
Well you don't need to know the generation name, it's the first number of the model number.
Yeah but the existence of the name means that, if the number isn't given, you don't instantly know what they're talking about unless you have these things memorized. At least Android and Ubuntu had the good sense to go alphabetically.
then m3, m5 and m7 are the new lower power variants for the 7th gen CPU's instead of using the U designation.
Lovely.
a quick Google away with Ark
This is admittedly nice but on the flipside, as several others have noted, AMD doesn't do nearly as much of these "let's disable random features with no rhyme or reason" market segmentation games. I wish they had an Ark equivalent, but their products themselves are, at least in this regard, superior for not being randomly hobbled (as much.)
It's not magic, but it gets their driver included in distros like Debian (all its derivatives) by default, out of the box. That's not nothing. A surprising number of Linux users are lazy about that sort of thing, and with Windows 10 on the horizon that number is only going to grow.
The good will isn't nothing, either. AMD needs to *stand* for something. Even when they were beating Intel in performance with the early Athlons (as well as price), Intel still destroyed them in the marketplace. They need to stand for something other than "the cheap option". Granted, the number of people who understand/care about OSS is limited, but we are to some extent market mavens. People listen to our opinion, both at home and in the workplace.
I'm not saying it'll definitely work. I'm saying "Why the hell not? It's worth a shot and is unlikely to significantly harm you."