You may have a point in there, but AMD has to start somewhere, yes?
Intel can afford to spend all that money *because* they sell high-quality CPUs and rake in the cash. We have already seen AMD ape after Intel (with Mantle par example) in a limited fashion, and we can expect that behaviour to intensify *iff they can get an architecture to start paying off in the relevant market segment*. Hence, the first step in fixing all of your concerns would be to create and sell an architecture that can compete with Intel in the dev/gamer segment.
I'll never understand why they went with the name nForce, especially since it was around the time when the battles with nVidia Geforce were the most intense.
" We do not want to make it impossible to contact family, first responders or medical professionals in an emergency situation."
1. The Note 7 is the very reason *why* you need to contact first responders and medical professionals in the first place! 2. How exactly are customers supposed to contact these people to let them know they need medical attention and a new phone after said phone has exploded?
Are we talking interesting things like Enron? Or interesting things like Fanny Mae?
The only interesting thing I'm sure will NOT come from this is what the FCC were doing until Trump, - adding consumer protections in a geographical monopoly trying to break into a full-on walled garden monopoly.
I know very few professional programmers who learned it in college without doing it beforehand. I actually can't even think of one off the top of my head - everybody I know who's a successful, high-level programmer started on their own.
The bottom line is that the typical middle and upper-middle class teenager has everything necessary to program computers at home simply by virtue of having a computer and an internet connection. A bigger difference could be made in inner city areas where kids don't have that at home. I know a guy who builds community centers in inner city areas. Connecting with folks like him would really make the $s go a long way.
But my guess is that this is also a present for teachers' unions, so actually trying to figure out how to maximize returns for the money isn't relevant.
This, a thousand times this.
I haven't met a single talented programmer that didn't come to uni/college without previous experience in programming. They all know either programming, scripting, or a whole bunch of semi-scripting stuff. Not surprisingly, these are also the students that get the best grades while the others complain they aren't spoonfed the answers (even when the answer is as simple as 'google it').
You can teach programming, but you can't teach enthusiasm, and you can't teach analytical mindsets. Wasting money on those god-awful returns is not something I consider a worthwhile pursuit with tax-payer dollars. MS and Google and whatnot are free to spend their own money on that, but any politician that wants to throw my money in that burning barrel deserves a 'stupidcone'.
Why not go to a place where those "unimportant" lines aren't respected, then report back to us just how wonderful that place is? I hear Angola and Sudan are all about free-thinking and libertarianism these days.
Personalized medicine, vaccines, cancer therapy and prevention, agriculture, space exploration and exploitation, all future medical treatments, insurance, life prolongation, climate change survival.
All these are partially or completely dependent on our grasp of evolutionary processes and how to exploit/apply them. To do that we need to know the evolutionary theory and how the genomic pathways developed over time.
You might notice that the list above includes several of the most daunting challenges this generation will face, so I'd say evolution is not a "minor scientific theory".
I can see the reason. After all, there are a number of very good reasons why you don't want to hand out possibly blackmail-enabling information about your politicians.
The shortsightedness regarding this amendment is that the previously mentioned reason can be extended to EVERY FUCKING PERSON ON THE PLANET.
Guy Fawkes day (a la V for Vendetta, not the catholic stuff) is fast approaching in Britain.
So fucking things up immensely on a global scale leads to shit getting immensely fucked up on a global scale? Color me surprised. I just hope it doesn't affect the skeptics and deniers, it might bruise their egos.
Yes, there is hypocrisy. But there is also a very strong element of necessity. Alcohol is bad for you, and were it discovered today it wouldn't be legal, just like medical drugs discovered today must pass through faaaaar stricter controls than 100 years ago. Tobacco, the same.
Now, as everyone here probably knows, it's far easier to ban something new than to prohibit something that has already been adopted (like the prohibition showed). While marijuana should be legal if we wanted some 'fairness', the fact is we already have alcohol, and adding yet another bad thing will not have a positive effect on society. We already have the drunks, do we also want the junkies? Ideally we would have neither, but it's too late to ban alcohol. It is, however, not too late to block the newer stuff.
And let's not start with the "people should do what they want as long as it doesn't affect others" because only a moron could believe marijuana or drinking doesn't affect others.
Some aspects of the system are already in testing, but there are some challenges to implementing such a far-reaching apparatus. It's difficult to centralize all that data, check it for accuracy, and process it, for example -- let alone feed it back into the system to control everyday life. And China has data from 1.4 billion people to handle.
Don't worry, it won't take long. Just like in Soviet and DDR, there won't be any testing for accuracy.
Only a complete moron would think that a recreational drug that alters your mood and brain chemistry is 'safe'. Doesn't matter if it's alcohol or THC, these work by fidgeting with things in the brain that should obviously be left alone (for the sake of health - I think the recreational value is apparent). We don't do surgery for the fun of it, we don't do blunt force trauma for the fun of it, why should altering our insides via drug or drink be considered 'safe' when no other internal alteration is, and who could possibly be dumb enough to think so?
"The single biggest thing people can do to help keep their online identity safe is probably the easiest -- a solid password."
Fucking cannot be absolutely more wrong on this one. Firstly, you "shouldn't" re-use passwords. So it isn't a "solid password", but instead a "solid password per web site". But what *IS* a solid password? That's right. Complex as fuck shit to remember. Upper, lower, number, specials, with a minimum and maximum that isn't even remotely consistent from web site to web site.
You aren't thinking about the real world here, you're thinking like a programmer.
Yes, a long and complex password is better from a cryptographic view, but noone will ever remember 200+ characters. If you want to be safe, then you need a simple, reusable password for low-risk sites (forum accounts like/.), a secure and long password for critical sites that you access through special services (like your email account), and possibly a third medium security password for sensitive sites (like online gaming where your credit card is involved). This allows you to remember the passwords, and if a low/medium-risk password should be compromised, it doesn't matter so much. Better yet, since you only have three passwords to keep track of, you can make them a bit tougher.
This stuff is actually something everyday people can use in the real world.
Just tell him that Hillary and Bernie think climate change is a made up hoax from the 1%. Given how the left instantaneously changed their views on TPP when Trump opposed it, I'm sure this will work.
Since when was it OK to break the spirit of the law? Is this some post-Trump perspective where tax avoidance is a virtue?
I can see the problem with Google acting as a vigilante, but taking the side of those that attempt to circumvent US law seems almost anarchistic. Surely "because it's not *technically* illegal" is a childish defense.
I think the issue arises when conversations aren't private. When you say stuff on Twitter, you aren't talking to a specific person, you are saying something to everyone on Twitter. I'd certainly argue there's a difference between talking to your friend on the phone and shouting from a soapbox on Town Square. A Twitter conversations falls somewhere inbetween those two.
What about when the local paper prints something? Should you have a right to join in and correct any misinformation printed? What about when someone on Twitter posts something fake/false? Should you have a right to join and correct that? While a tweet isn't a PSA or newsprint, it can certainly be used like both of those, and the similarities are as many as the dissimilarities. As such, I can certainly see an argument for either case.
I care about what happened the last time a maniacal demagogue held power over a disillusioned populace during a harsh recession. I'd rather not see that happen again.
Slashdot Mirror
You may have a point in there, but AMD has to start somewhere, yes?
Intel can afford to spend all that money *because* they sell high-quality CPUs and rake in the cash.
We have already seen AMD ape after Intel (with Mantle par example) in a limited fashion, and we can expect that behaviour to intensify *iff they can get an architecture to start paying off in the relevant market segment*. Hence, the first step in fixing all of your concerns would be to create and sell an architecture that can compete with Intel in the dev/gamer segment.
I'll never understand why they went with the name nForce, especially since it was around the time when the battles with nVidia Geforce were the most intense.
I can't have been the only confused as fuck...
I take it you didn't find a sense of humour at the Black Friday sale?
Perspective indeed.
" We do not want to make it impossible to contact family, first responders or medical professionals in an emergency situation."
1. The Note 7 is the very reason *why* you need to contact first responders and medical professionals in the first place!
2. How exactly are customers supposed to contact these people to let them know they need medical attention and a new phone after said phone has exploded?
Had Canadians wanted to deal with real issues they wouldn't have elected a feminist government.
Are we talking interesting things like Enron? Or interesting things like Fanny Mae?
The only interesting thing I'm sure will NOT come from this is what the FCC were doing until Trump, - adding consumer protections in a geographical monopoly trying to break into a full-on walled garden monopoly.
I know very few professional programmers who learned it in college without doing it beforehand. I actually can't even think of one off the top of my head - everybody I know who's a successful, high-level programmer started on their own.
The bottom line is that the typical middle and upper-middle class teenager has everything necessary to program computers at home simply by virtue of having a computer and an internet connection. A bigger difference could be made in inner city areas where kids don't have that at home. I know a guy who builds community centers in inner city areas. Connecting with folks like him would really make the $s go a long way.
But my guess is that this is also a present for teachers' unions, so actually trying to figure out how to maximize returns for the money isn't relevant.
This, a thousand times this.
I haven't met a single talented programmer that didn't come to uni/college without previous experience in programming. They all know either programming, scripting, or a whole bunch of semi-scripting stuff.
Not surprisingly, these are also the students that get the best grades while the others complain they aren't spoonfed the answers (even when the answer is as simple as 'google it').
You can teach programming, but you can't teach enthusiasm, and you can't teach analytical mindsets. Wasting money on those god-awful returns is not something I consider a worthwhile pursuit with tax-payer dollars. MS and Google and whatnot are free to spend their own money on that, but any politician that wants to throw my money in that burning barrel deserves a 'stupidcone'.
Why not go to a place where those "unimportant" lines aren't respected, then report back to us just how wonderful that place is? I hear Angola and Sudan are all about free-thinking and libertarianism these days.
Waaaaat?
Personalized medicine, vaccines, cancer therapy and prevention, agriculture, space exploration and exploitation, all future medical treatments, insurance, life prolongation, climate change survival.
All these are partially or completely dependent on our grasp of evolutionary processes and how to exploit/apply them. To do that we need to know the evolutionary theory and how the genomic pathways developed over time.
You might notice that the list above includes several of the most daunting challenges this generation will face, so I'd say evolution is not a "minor scientific theory".
Good one, I actually snorted.
Opinions I disagree with.
I can see the reason. After all, there are a number of very good reasons why you don't want to hand out possibly blackmail-enabling information about your politicians.
The shortsightedness regarding this amendment is that the previously mentioned reason can be extended to EVERY FUCKING PERSON ON THE PLANET.
Guy Fawkes day (a la V for Vendetta, not the catholic stuff) is fast approaching in Britain.
So fucking things up immensely on a global scale leads to shit getting immensely fucked up on a global scale? Color me surprised. I just hope it doesn't affect the skeptics and deniers, it might bruise their egos.
Yes, there is hypocrisy. But there is also a very strong element of necessity.
Alcohol is bad for you, and were it discovered today it wouldn't be legal, just like medical drugs discovered today must pass through faaaaar stricter controls than 100 years ago.
Tobacco, the same.
Now, as everyone here probably knows, it's far easier to ban something new than to prohibit something that has already been adopted (like the prohibition showed). While marijuana should be legal if we wanted some 'fairness', the fact is we already have alcohol, and adding yet another bad thing will not have a positive effect on society. We already have the drunks, do we also want the junkies? Ideally we would have neither, but it's too late to ban alcohol. It is, however, not too late to block the newer stuff.
And let's not start with the "people should do what they want as long as it doesn't affect others" because only a moron could believe marijuana or drinking doesn't affect others.
Some aspects of the system are already in testing, but there are some challenges to implementing such a far-reaching apparatus. It's difficult to centralize all that data, check it for accuracy, and process it, for example -- let alone feed it back into the system to control everyday life. And China has data from 1.4 billion people to handle.
Don't worry, it won't take long. Just like in Soviet and DDR, there won't be any testing for accuracy.
Only a complete moron would think that a recreational drug that alters your mood and brain chemistry is 'safe'.
Doesn't matter if it's alcohol or THC, these work by fidgeting with things in the brain that should obviously be left alone (for the sake of health - I think the recreational value is apparent).
We don't do surgery for the fun of it, we don't do blunt force trauma for the fun of it, why should altering our insides via drug or drink be considered 'safe' when no other internal alteration is, and who could possibly be dumb enough to think so?
"The single biggest thing people can do to help keep their online identity safe is probably the easiest -- a solid password."
Fucking cannot be absolutely more wrong on this one. Firstly, you "shouldn't" re-use passwords. So it isn't a "solid password", but instead a "solid password per web site". But what *IS* a solid password? That's right. Complex as fuck shit to remember. Upper, lower, number, specials, with a minimum and maximum that isn't even remotely consistent from web site to web site.
You aren't thinking about the real world here, you're thinking like a programmer.
Yes, a long and complex password is better from a cryptographic view, but noone will ever remember 200+ characters. /.), a secure and long password for critical sites that you access through special services (like your email account), and possibly a third medium security password for sensitive sites (like online gaming where your credit card is involved). This allows you to remember the passwords, and if a low/medium-risk password should be compromised, it doesn't matter so much. Better yet, since you only have three passwords to keep track of, you can make them a bit tougher.
If you want to be safe, then you need a simple, reusable password for low-risk sites (forum accounts like
This stuff is actually something everyday people can use in the real world.
I'm guessing the female participation in this study was also at 40%.
Just tell him that Hillary and Bernie think climate change is a made up hoax from the 1%. Given how the left instantaneously changed their views on TPP when Trump opposed it, I'm sure this will work.
Since when was it OK to break the spirit of the law? Is this some post-Trump perspective where tax avoidance is a virtue?
I can see the problem with Google acting as a vigilante, but taking the side of those that attempt to circumvent US law seems almost anarchistic. Surely "because it's not *technically* illegal" is a childish defense.
I think the issue arises when conversations aren't private. When you say stuff on Twitter, you aren't talking to a specific person, you are saying something to everyone on Twitter.
I'd certainly argue there's a difference between talking to your friend on the phone and shouting from a soapbox on Town Square. A Twitter conversations falls somewhere inbetween those two.
What about when the local paper prints something? Should you have a right to join in and correct any misinformation printed? What about when someone on Twitter posts something fake/false? Should you have a right to join and correct that? While a tweet isn't a PSA or newsprint, it can certainly be used like both of those, and the similarities are as many as the dissimilarities. As such, I can certainly see an argument for either case.
Just out of curiosity, how many times a day do you accuse someone of hate speech?
I don't care about who caused the bubble.
I care about what happened the last time a maniacal demagogue held power over a disillusioned populace during a harsh recession. I'd rather not see that happen again.
What the hell is a butt-hut? I'm afraid of what it might be yet at the same time morbidly intrigued.
Bet you $50 MS fucks up the first patch royally leading to a much larger than average patch to hot-fix the differential issue.