Even in the summary the finding was qualified by the fact the detriment was related specifically to a single gene. The two studies do not contradict each other because one study applies to a specific gene and the other study is, I assume, more general. Note: I have no idea if either study is correct, I simply want to point out that they do not contradict each other. The story submitter was implying a contradiction where there is none.
Stand in front of a curb and drop onto your shins so that your shins impact the curb. With enough weight on your shins, you could snap them in half due to the shearing pressure. If you have armor on, the armor takes the low area, high pressure impact of the curb and spreads it out over a much wider area of the shin. This reduces the shearing force on the shin, turning a "fall onto a curb" into a "fall on the street" and reduces the risk of breaking a bone.
Hmm now that I think about it, this flexible armor is going to have to go stiff in regions which are both near and far from the site of impact to spread out the force of the impact. If it just hardens at the site of impact then there is no protection from hitting things like metal bars and curbs which would break bones.
I want to make a couple distinctions in this post. The first distinction is that both Television and the Internet hit the sweet spot in terms of being sources of information. The second distinction I would like to make is in what ways the internet (and any source of information) can be addictive.
Every animal can process information at the instinctual level. What separates us from the other animals is our ability to process information at more abstract levels. Our brains are setup to do both levels of processing. Instinctually we watch other humans around us, interpret their actions, and learn to perform new actions through imitation. We are always keeping an eye out for role models, those people whom we wish to emulate and pattern ourselves after. It does not matter whether the person we are watching is a flesh embodied human being or a 2-d picture blasted over the boob-tube, our brains instinctually recognize the human form and cue in on it automatically to instinctually process information. Through years of education we train our young to be as receptive to abstract information as they are to instinctual information. The entire first 21 years of most college student's lives is spent in a pure information receptive mode (watch this, memorize that, shut-up and pay attention). Is it any wonder that we become zombies in front of the two mediums which provide us the most instinctual and abstract information? I have to watch myself around the television because I easily fall into a mode of pure watching, a state where my mind is pacified by being over stimulated with information. But this happens through a natural process. The brain's function is to process and absorb information. It just so happens that the Television and the Internet are the fattest channels of information and the brain naturally gravitates to them. Gravity is an apt analogy. Try extraditing yourself from the gravity well of being in the middle of a movie you are engrossed in. Watching TV and getting sucked into the Internet (games and all) is the result of a completely natural process. I am not trying to say it is healthy to be so absorbed or that TV watching and Internet cruising shouldn't be regulated, but simply that it is a prime example of the brain doing its job.
Given that being sucked into the TV and the Internet is natural, the question arises as to when is it healthy and when is it unhealthy. That is a vastly open question. But I can speak from personal experience that I use internet browsing and television watching to AVOID other aspects of my life. I use these two spigots of information as a way to distract myself from or numb myself towards other aspects of my life. This is clearly unhealthy behavior, but I would not call it an addiction. I do not know the official term for an avoidance pattern as opposed to an addictive pattern. But many people use the internet and especially television as a way to numb themselves from other aspects of their lives. Addiction does come into play, but from what I've seen of my own experience the addiction is not to the medium (TV or Internet) but towards the stories being conveyed over those mediums. I experienced withdrawal pains after I watched Season One and Season Two of Battlestar Galactica on DVD because the story was left unresolved. I experienced withdrawal pains when I stopped playing World of Warcraft because the story of my character was left unresolved. I experience the same kind of withdrawal pain when I have left a book unfinished for too long because the story was left unresolved.
To sum up my two major distinctions, It is not the internet nor television itself which is addictive, but the stories we get attached to that are addictive. The Internet and Television hit a sweet spot in the brain for its maximal conveyence of human processible information, and our propensities to become zombies to these devices is due to the brain being over stimulated with information. This in and of itself is not bad and is not addiction, but it does provide more opportunity for people to avoid looking at other aspects of their lives and to get caught up in or lost in the stories being played out before their eyes.
The man's ability comes straight from his intuition. I'd really like to know how his mind worked. But the wikipedia article states he was intuitively aware of some mathematics and completely lacking in others. Having such a high intuition is the seed of his genius but it may also spell out the limits of his genius as well. The intuition comes from the way his mind moves. But what I've found to be true about my own intuition and movement of my own mind is that its very easy to get intuitive insight when the insight lies within the realms of how my mind moves. Insight which requires the movement of my mind in different ways eludes me until I am able to find a way to subsume "that way of thinking" with "this way of thinking". But I've always been limited by "my way of thinking." Every genius has that limitation.
I think there is the potential for a greater number of genuises, most people are hamstrung by trying to think in ways that are not in line with their own "my way of thinking." Once a person understands the difference in thinking and fosters their own way of thinking, they can begin to develop a greater intuition and begin expressing their own form of genius.
Step 1) Watch for the mental shift into a state of mind where the unconscious behavior gets acted upon.
Consciously you want to stop eating greasy foods. Watch for where the desire to eat greasy food comes from and become consciously aware of the switch in your mind.
Step 2) While participating in the unconscious behavior, constantly reflect on how valueless and meaningless it actually is to you and remember about how much you really want to stop the behavior from ruling you.
Step 3) Consciously interfere with the behavior pattern while you are in the midst of it. Break it, do something else, think about something which will force you mind into a different mindset.
Step 4) While the desire is not active constantly note how meaningless the activity is to you and that you would rather stop. Think about ways to break the pattern, what you could do better with your time, think about what you would replace the pattern with.
Step 5) Catalog any and all triggers: environmental queues, stress in your life, particular types of events, certain people, anything which causes your state of mind to switch. Avoid situations in which triggers will activate. You can also consciously enter a triggering situation and deny the expression of the trigger. This would be like staring at a sign until it losts its meaning to you. You are wiping out the reaction by establishing a pattern of no-reaction in response to the triggering situation.
In the case of eating unhealthy food, consciously decide to eat at healthier restaraunts. Empty your kitchen repeatedly of things you no longer want around. Sit with the foods you no longer want to eat, look at them dispassionately and reinforce your lack of value in them and your denial of anything which gravitates towards them.
The goal is a radical reprogramming of your mind. You are fighting inertia. Over time the energy you put into breaking the old pattern and establishing a new pattern will pay off.
Don't obsess over needing to switch, just put directed energy into it, learn to commit to your actions.
This process must be repeated as much as necessary until the habit is dropped or you are able to consciously intercept the unconscious behavior once its been triggered. It would help to have your friends interfere with you carrying out the habit as well. Interrupt it as much as possible since repeating it only reinforces its existence. Remind yourself constantly. Fight the habit in your mind. Become sly and study it like you would an opponent. Find a way to be smarter than your habit by anticipating its triggers.
Those who have not the true philosophic temper, but a mere surface colouring of opinions penetrating, like sunburn, only skin deep, when they see how great the range of studies is, how much labour is involved in it, and how necessary to the pursuit it is to have an orderly regulation of the daily life, come to the conclusion that the thing is difficult and impossible for them, and are actually incapable of carrying out the course of study; while some of them persuade themselves that they have sufficiently studied the whole matter and have no need of any further effort.
You sir, (or madam), have touched my soul, for I am stuck in both laziness and in pride.
I don't even see how this is possible. How can you teach kids values in a value neutral environment?
You are not teaching values. You would be asking the kid to start a practice of reflecting on their own experience and to reflect on what they sense is right and wrong for themselves. (Always tempered by "Where is your sense of right and wrong coming from?") Basically it get's very philosophical from that point on, something akin to Plato's ideas. Each individual kid is a conscious entity capable of forming judgements and will be making decisions based on those judgements. They really need to be asking themselves "How do I know?" and "How do I find out?" What's the right baseline for judgement? And how should I go about my own actions without said baseline.
I agree with you, it's virtually impossible to not have some value transferrence between student and teacher.
I'd rather I'd been born into a tribal society anyhow. But again that's me dreaming.:)
Actually I find some of the spiritual explanations (leaning towards theosophy) more plausible, but the fact remains I still don't know for sure and it's all probable guess.
It's a byproduct of humans understanding causation.
And you know this for a fact? You know it as absolute truth and that there could not be any other possible explanation?
Then please teach so that I understand what you understand. Cause right now, I'm pretty fucking ignorant with respect to understanding what I am and what's going on in the world.
The ignorance comes from the inadequacy of all the current explanations I've run across, not from an inability to understand them. But if you think you've got an explanation that is real, please share it.
What's the emotional landscape like in the swinging world? Do people not develope emotional bonds between each other, and does that not cause issues to arise which need to be worked through?
Swinging at least appears to be very unemotional, very disconnected sex. Something I couldn't really cope with very well.
You sure you do? What if said state happened to have a totally different type of morality than you? What if "good" character as seen by the state requires fighting other countries?
That would be legislating what good character is and legislating what morality is. I do not agree with that. What I want to see are programs that will encourage kids to think for themselves and to challenge them to develope their own moral codes to live by.
I don't think it's the state's responsibility to tell it's constituents what the moral code is. I think it's the state's responsibility to encourage it's constituents to discover their own morality and to challenge them into thinking deeply and critically.
Telling me I have to want to go to war for the state is legislating morality. I already stated that I didn't agree with that. Morality, ethics and character are always personal and must come from within a person, not from without. I wish the state would encourage us to discover ourselves instead of telling us how we are or ought to be.
Although they *might* be immoral, it's none of the state's business.
Seeing as I spent more than 8 hours of my developemental life in a state-run institution...
Seeing as I was born within the territory of the state and will grow up to be a citizen of the state...
Seeing as all my interaction with people nowadays has this or that a law pertaining to it...
Seeing as the biggest authority oustide myself in my non-religious life is a state of one form or another...
Shouldn't the state be concerned that I go through proper and healthy emotional and character developement?
I agree with separation of church and state.
I do not agree with separation of morality and character building from state. The state needs to foster good character in its citizens. That does not mean legislate a law requiring people to have good character, it means to put into place programs which help people develope good character throughout their lives.
That needs to happen at the level of the state. The state deals with people and an essential part of people is their emotional and character developement.
Having an "explanation" for the sex drive and uncontrollable urges doesn't make it any easier to live with said urges, especially when we also have a conscience and a sense of morality fused into our own beings.
Should a man be happy that his body is telling him to screw any healthy female he comes across?
I'm fortunate enough to be tapped into my emotions and conscience more than I'm tapped into my biological urges. I don't like to cause other people psychological pain nor cause myself psychological pain. All I've ever gotten from promiscuity was pangs of guilt.
You can take your evolutionary biological explanation and smoke it, cause when it comes to living with emotions and having a conscience, the explanation doesn't tell you how to live your life.
JESUS CHRIST, just get rid of the damn time change completely. While we're at it, let's switch the whole world to be in the same time-zone. Computers do it, why can't people?
No shit. 2-issue and in-order requires hand tuned coding. Yes there is a whollop for a "cache miss" (fetching out to main mem) on the SPE's of the Cell processor. But there are ways to code around that. Split the local store up into smaller chunks and fetch data to fill the smaller chunks while the SPE plugs away on the chunks filled with data. That's why the SPE has TWO pipes. One pipe is for memory loads, the other pipe is for data processing.
If you don't split up the local store, you're going to incurr a 500 cycle penalty while waiting for memory. If you split up the local store, you can fetch to half the mem and process on the other half. This amortizes, if not completely masks the cost of main memory access.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
It's up to the developer to optimize their code and ensure that it is being scheduled properly.
I'd love to hear from a developer that is actually doing everything they can at the low level to optimize data flow. What's their experience with keeping the processors fed with data?
The critical factor in a grocery store is that there is a limited amount of shelf space. Dell does not have the same limitation. Dell's "shelf space" is their website. The consumer browses a digitized shelf, a shelf which can have infinite capacity and display an infinite variety of products and configurations. This is something that a grocery store can't do. The concern of how to properly stock the shelf is negligible in Dell's position. Dell has more than enough "shelf space" to offer AMD as a processor solution. Hell they just offered to sell Apple computers if Apple would let them, and that would be a much bigger "shelf space" occupier. So claiming that Dell needs to make decisions based on limited shelf space is not going to work. The change to offer AMD is miniscule compared to the change needed to offer Apple computers and all the necessary software.
I'm questioning whether or not that principle you're using is actually sound or not. You say you don't know much about the performance of an AMD chip. That to me says your principles are not well informed. The higher principle to me would be buying the better processor. I know what you meant, something along the lines of ethical business practices. The question is, though, who is the one with unethical business practices? What are ethical business practices? I certainly don't think making deals with vendors to prevent them from selling your competitor's goods is an ethical business practice. So Intel is not very principled in that respect.
What is that principle which you are pounding AMD for?
Intel's volume discount is NOT making the chips cheaper than AMD. For the same quantity I believe AMD would be able to undercut Intel. The issue isn't that Intel is giving a volume discount. The issue is that Intel would take away their volume discount or mark their prices up if Dell sold AMD chips. Even if the volume sold stayed the same, Intel would still raise their prices because Dell is selling a competitors wares. The volume discount should be based solely on the volume purchased. The volume discount should not be based on whether or not Dell deals with AMD. That's rediculous. If Intel is giving a volume discount then the rate should stay the same no matter how much extra volume Dell does with AMD.
Going back to the grocery store analogy. What if Tide (the detergent) came to you and said that the would charge you more money to sell their detergent (HAH, you paying them for your shelf space, get real, they're paying you! So the analogy here breaks again) unless you stopped selling All, Downie, and any of the other name brand or generic detergents. If Tide told you that, you would laugh them out of your store. That's because you could afford not to sell tide, there's plenty of alternatives. Now lets say there was Tide with 90% of the name brand and market share. And then there was Joe's Detergent which had 10% of the marketshare. Tide comes to your store and tells you to stop selling Joe's detergent or else they will jack up your prices. What are you going to do, stop selling Tide? Get real. You lose too much customer business. So you cut out Joe's Detergent to keep the bigger piece of the pie.
That ultimatum from tide is unprincipled. It is completely unfair in a competitive sense. Tide should not be telling the grocery store what it can and cannot sell. That decision should be solely upon the shoulders of the grocery store operator.
(I've seen no sign of this from my end as a consumer... I can get AMD stuff anywhere).
Yeah, you can get it anywhere, EXCEPT from the biggest vendor of PCs in the world: DELL. So while joe-schmoe, I want to buy a Dell computer cause it's simple to do, browses around the DELL website, he's not being offered the option of having an AMD processor is his box.
The real question is: Would Dell sell AMD boxes if they were not at risk of being charged more by Intel? Considering the amount of volume they do, the cost of changing their assembly lines to have processor/motherboard swaps is negligable. It would probably make them more money in the end because they could sell cheaper computers and thus more volume.
To continue the beauty pageant analogy. Intel isn't locking out AMD by pouring acid on AMD's body or flattening AMD's tires. Intel is boning the judges and the contest administrators to prevent AMD from entering the door.
If Intel's product is truly of value and has intrinsic worth then Intel would not need to prevent its competitors from displaying their wares. The prize bull at the country fair doesn't get to be the prize bull by having no competition. You need your crappy competitors present so that your benefits can be highlighted to the consumer. The problem is, AMD isn't crappy. Right now, AMD is the prize bull. It's Intel that is worried about appearing crappy next to AMD.
Whether you flatten your opponents tires or you prevent them from even entering the market place doesn't matter. You've prevented the consumer from having a real choice in the matter. That is what is unfair about the situation. The people buying Dell computers don't have an option to put AMD in their boxes. I think Dell would sell AMD computers if Intel wouldn't change their pricing scheme.
I decide not to carry a product because I don't like, say, the terms, the pricing, or even the sales person. Does that make ME a bad person? No.
You're right here. But this isn't the situation we're talking about. If Dell doesn't like the terms with AMD, then they can choose not to sell AMD. However the terms with AMD are being influenced by Intel and thus it's not a pure relationship between Dell and AMD. This is the whole point. Intel is influencing business transactions between other companies. Philosophically, I think the transaction should go through or not go through based on the merits of the transaction by itself, not based on whether this transaction will cause other transactions to become more expensive.
Intel clearly does not want the general consumer to have easy access to a choice in processors.
AMD and Intel should be competing over who has the better product, not over who is better able to lock 3rd party vendors into exclusivity.
In terms of product, AMD DOES compete. But Intel isn't giving them the opportunity and is locking them out of dealing with various companies.
There has to be more than one contestant at a beauty pageant. It's not real competition if one of the contestents is preventing the other contestents from participating in the contest.
Suppose Intel were using unfair business practices. What recourse does AMD have? The only referee is the government. The government defines what is fair and unfair. Crying foul necessitates litigation. That the litigation has an effect on marketshare is a side-effect, one which is exploitable to some degree. But would you rather AMD not cry foul when it feels that some injustice or foul play is going on?
What you would recommend AMD do in a situation where they feel Intel is using unfair business practices?
Slashdot Mirror
I use trillian. As far as I'm concerned I have 1 unified chat.
I think it would be nice to have 1 unified gaming front which interfaces particular games and manages my profiles and avatars.
Even in the summary the finding was qualified by the fact the detriment was related specifically to a single gene. The two studies do not contradict each other because one study applies to a specific gene and the other study is, I assume, more general. Note: I have no idea if either study is correct, I simply want to point out that they do not contradict each other. The story submitter was implying a contradiction where there is none.
Stand in front of a curb and drop onto your shins so that your shins impact the curb. With enough weight on your shins, you could snap them in half due to the shearing pressure. If you have armor on, the armor takes the low area, high pressure impact of the curb and spreads it out over a much wider area of the shin. This reduces the shearing force on the shin, turning a "fall onto a curb" into a "fall on the street" and reduces the risk of breaking a bone.
Hmm now that I think about it, this flexible armor is going to have to go stiff in regions which are both near and far from the site of impact to spread out the force of the impact. If it just hardens at the site of impact then there is no protection from hitting things like metal bars and curbs which would break bones.
I want to make a couple distinctions in this post. The first distinction is that both Television and the Internet hit the sweet spot in terms of being sources of information. The second distinction I would like to make is in what ways the internet (and any source of information) can be addictive.
Every animal can process information at the instinctual level. What separates us from the other animals is our ability to process information at more abstract levels. Our brains are setup to do both levels of processing. Instinctually we watch other humans around us, interpret their actions, and learn to perform new actions through imitation. We are always keeping an eye out for role models, those people whom we wish to emulate and pattern ourselves after. It does not matter whether the person we are watching is a flesh embodied human being or a 2-d picture blasted over the boob-tube, our brains instinctually recognize the human form and cue in on it automatically to instinctually process information. Through years of education we train our young to be as receptive to abstract information as they are to instinctual information. The entire first 21 years of most college student's lives is spent in a pure information receptive mode (watch this, memorize that, shut-up and pay attention). Is it any wonder that we become zombies in front of the two mediums which provide us the most instinctual and abstract information? I have to watch myself around the television because I easily fall into a mode of pure watching, a state where my mind is pacified by being over stimulated with information. But this happens through a natural process. The brain's function is to process and absorb information. It just so happens that the Television and the Internet are the fattest channels of information and the brain naturally gravitates to them. Gravity is an apt analogy. Try extraditing yourself from the gravity well of being in the middle of a movie you are engrossed in. Watching TV and getting sucked into the Internet (games and all) is the result of a completely natural process. I am not trying to say it is healthy to be so absorbed or that TV watching and Internet cruising shouldn't be regulated, but simply that it is a prime example of the brain doing its job.
Given that being sucked into the TV and the Internet is natural, the question arises as to when is it healthy and when is it unhealthy. That is a vastly open question. But I can speak from personal experience that I use internet browsing and television watching to AVOID other aspects of my life. I use these two spigots of information as a way to distract myself from or numb myself towards other aspects of my life. This is clearly unhealthy behavior, but I would not call it an addiction. I do not know the official term for an avoidance pattern as opposed to an addictive pattern. But many people use the internet and especially television as a way to numb themselves from other aspects of their lives. Addiction does come into play, but from what I've seen of my own experience the addiction is not to the medium (TV or Internet) but towards the stories being conveyed over those mediums. I experienced withdrawal pains after I watched Season One and Season Two of Battlestar Galactica on DVD because the story was left unresolved. I experienced withdrawal pains when I stopped playing World of Warcraft because the story of my character was left unresolved. I experience the same kind of withdrawal pain when I have left a book unfinished for too long because the story was left unresolved.
To sum up my two major distinctions, It is not the internet nor television itself which is addictive, but the stories we get attached to that are addictive. The Internet and Television hit a sweet spot in the brain for its maximal conveyence of human processible information, and our propensities to become zombies to these devices is due to the brain being over stimulated with information. This in and of itself is not bad and is not addiction, but it does provide more opportunity for people to avoid looking at other aspects of their lives and to get caught up in or lost in the stories being played out before their eyes.
Peace,
Edward
The mistakes found in slashdot stories are really getting out of hand.
The guy's name is not "George C. Deutsch".
It's "George C. Dusch"
Lets get it right, people.
The man's ability comes straight from his intuition. I'd really like to know how his mind worked. But the wikipedia article states he was intuitively aware of some mathematics and completely lacking in others. Having such a high intuition is the seed of his genius but it may also spell out the limits of his genius as well. The intuition comes from the way his mind moves. But what I've found to be true about my own intuition and movement of my own mind is that its very easy to get intuitive insight when the insight lies within the realms of how my mind moves. Insight which requires the movement of my mind in different ways eludes me until I am able to find a way to subsume "that way of thinking" with "this way of thinking". But I've always been limited by "my way of thinking." Every genius has that limitation.
I think there is the potential for a greater number of genuises, most people are hamstrung by trying to think in ways that are not in line with their own "my way of thinking." Once a person understands the difference in thinking and fosters their own way of thinking, they can begin to develop a greater intuition and begin expressing their own form of genius.
Step 1) Watch for the mental shift into a state of mind where the unconscious behavior gets acted upon.
Consciously you want to stop eating greasy foods. Watch for where the desire to eat greasy food comes from and become consciously aware of the switch in your mind.
Step 2) While participating in the unconscious behavior, constantly reflect on how valueless and meaningless it actually is to you and remember about how much you really want to stop the behavior from ruling you.
Step 3) Consciously interfere with the behavior pattern while you are in the midst of it. Break it, do something else, think about something which will force you mind into a different mindset.
Step 4) While the desire is not active constantly note how meaningless the activity is to you and that you would rather stop. Think about ways to break the pattern, what you could do better with your time, think about what you would replace the pattern with.
Step 5) Catalog any and all triggers: environmental queues, stress in your life, particular types of events, certain people, anything which causes your state of mind to switch. Avoid situations in which triggers will activate. You can also consciously enter a triggering situation and deny the expression of the trigger. This would be like staring at a sign until it losts its meaning to you. You are wiping out the reaction by establishing a pattern of no-reaction in response to the triggering situation.
In the case of eating unhealthy food, consciously decide to eat at healthier restaraunts. Empty your kitchen repeatedly of things you no longer want around. Sit with the foods you no longer want to eat, look at them dispassionately and reinforce your lack of value in them and your denial of anything which gravitates towards them.
The goal is a radical reprogramming of your mind. You are fighting inertia. Over time the energy you put into breaking the old pattern and establishing a new pattern will pay off.
Don't obsess over needing to switch, just put directed energy into it, learn to commit to your actions.
This process must be repeated as much as necessary until the habit is dropped or you are able to consciously intercept the unconscious behavior once its been triggered. It would help to have your friends interfere with you carrying out the habit as well. Interrupt it as much as possible since repeating it only reinforces its existence. Remind yourself constantly. Fight the habit in your mind. Become sly and study it like you would an opponent. Find a way to be smarter than your habit by anticipating its triggers.
You sir, (or madam), have touched my soul, for I am stuck in both laziness and in pride.
I don't even see how this is possible. How can you teach kids values in a value neutral environment?
You are not teaching values. You would be asking the kid to start a practice of reflecting on their own experience and to reflect on what they sense is right and wrong for themselves. (Always tempered by "Where is your sense of right and wrong coming from?") Basically it get's very philosophical from that point on, something akin to Plato's ideas. Each individual kid is a conscious entity capable of forming judgements and will be making decisions based on those judgements. They really need to be asking themselves "How do I know?" and "How do I find out?" What's the right baseline for judgement? And how should I go about my own actions without said baseline.
I agree with you, it's virtually impossible to not have some value transferrence between student and teacher.
I'd rather I'd been born into a tribal society anyhow. But again that's me dreaming.
Drugs... yeuck. talk about emotions going wild and crazy rides. I'll pass on that. :)
Actually I find some of the spiritual explanations (leaning towards theosophy) more plausible, but the fact remains I still don't know for sure and it's all probable guess.
And how did I miss the point? Would you care to enlighten me instead of leaving me ignorant?
Or do you get your boost to your self-image from simply telling people they're misguided?
And you know this for a fact? You know it as absolute truth and that there could not be any other possible explanation?
Then please teach so that I understand what you understand. Cause right now, I'm pretty fucking ignorant with respect to understanding what I am and what's going on in the world.
The ignorance comes from the inadequacy of all the current explanations I've run across, not from an inability to understand them. But if you think you've got an explanation that is real, please share it.
What's the emotional landscape like in the swinging world? Do people not develope emotional bonds between each other, and does that not cause issues to arise which need to be worked through?
Swinging at least appears to be very unemotional, very disconnected sex. Something I couldn't really cope with very well.
That would be legislating what good character is and legislating what morality is. I do not agree with that. What I want to see are programs that will encourage kids to think for themselves and to challenge them to develope their own moral codes to live by.
I don't think it's the state's responsibility to tell it's constituents what the moral code is. I think it's the state's responsibility to encourage it's constituents to discover their own morality and to challenge them into thinking deeply and critically.
Telling me I have to want to go to war for the state is legislating morality. I already stated that I didn't agree with that. Morality, ethics and character are always personal and must come from within a person, not from without. I wish the state would encourage us to discover ourselves instead of telling us how we are or ought to be.
Seeing as I spent more than 8 hours of my developemental life in a state-run institution...
Seeing as I was born within the territory of the state and will grow up to be a citizen of the state...
Seeing as all my interaction with people nowadays has this or that a law pertaining to it...
Seeing as the biggest authority oustide myself in my non-religious life is a state of one form or another...
Shouldn't the state be concerned that I go through proper and healthy emotional and character developement?
I agree with separation of church and state.
I do not agree with separation of morality and character building from state. The state needs to foster good character in its citizens. That does not mean legislate a law requiring people to have good character, it means to put into place programs which help people develope good character throughout their lives.
That needs to happen at the level of the state. The state deals with people and an essential part of people is their emotional and character developement.
Having an "explanation" for the sex drive and uncontrollable urges doesn't make it any easier to live with said urges, especially when we also have a conscience and a sense of morality fused into our own beings.
Should a man be happy that his body is telling him to screw any healthy female he comes across?
I'm fortunate enough to be tapped into my emotions and conscience more than I'm tapped into my biological urges. I don't like to cause other people psychological pain nor cause myself psychological pain. All I've ever gotten from promiscuity was pangs of guilt.
You can take your evolutionary biological explanation and smoke it, cause when it comes to living with emotions and having a conscience, the explanation doesn't tell you how to live your life.
JESUS CHRIST, just get rid of the damn time change completely. While we're at it, let's switch the whole world to be in the same time-zone. Computers do it, why can't people?
No shit. 2-issue and in-order requires hand tuned coding. Yes there is a whollop for a "cache miss" (fetching out to main mem) on the SPE's of the Cell processor. But there are ways to code around that. Split the local store up into smaller chunks and fetch data to fill the smaller chunks while the SPE plugs away on the chunks filled with data. That's why the SPE has TWO pipes. One pipe is for memory loads, the other pipe is for data processing.
t echdocs/E815CC047A60914687256FC000734156/$file/ISS CC-07.4-Cell_SPU.PDF
1 5.html
1 6.html
http://www-306.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/
http://research.scea.com/research/html/CellGDC05/
http://research.scea.com/research/html/CellGDC05/
If you don't split up the local store, you're going to incurr a 500 cycle penalty while waiting for memory. If you split up the local store, you can fetch to half the mem and process on the other half. This amortizes, if not completely masks the cost of main memory access.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
It's up to the developer to optimize their code and ensure that it is being scheduled properly.
I'd love to hear from a developer that is actually doing everything they can at the low level to optimize data flow. What's their experience with keeping the processors fed with data?
The critical factor in a grocery store is that there is a limited amount of shelf space. Dell does not have the same limitation. Dell's "shelf space" is their website. The consumer browses a digitized shelf, a shelf which can have infinite capacity and display an infinite variety of products and configurations. This is something that a grocery store can't do. The concern of how to properly stock the shelf is negligible in Dell's position. Dell has more than enough "shelf space" to offer AMD as a processor solution. Hell they just offered to sell Apple computers if Apple would let them, and that would be a much bigger "shelf space" occupier. So claiming that Dell needs to make decisions based on limited shelf space is not going to work. The change to offer AMD is miniscule compared to the change needed to offer Apple computers and all the necessary software.
I'm questioning whether or not that principle you're using is actually sound or not. You say you don't know much about the performance of an AMD chip. That to me says your principles are not well informed. The higher principle to me would be buying the better processor. I know what you meant, something along the lines of ethical business practices. The question is, though, who is the one with unethical business practices? What are ethical business practices? I certainly don't think making deals with vendors to prevent them from selling your competitor's goods is an ethical business practice. So Intel is not very principled in that respect.
What is that principle which you are pounding AMD for?
Intel's volume discount is NOT making the chips cheaper than AMD. For the same quantity I believe AMD would be able to undercut Intel. The issue isn't that Intel is giving a volume discount. The issue is that Intel would take away their volume discount or mark their prices up if Dell sold AMD chips. Even if the volume sold stayed the same, Intel would still raise their prices because Dell is selling a competitors wares. The volume discount should be based solely on the volume purchased. The volume discount should not be based on whether or not Dell deals with AMD. That's rediculous. If Intel is giving a volume discount then the rate should stay the same no matter how much extra volume Dell does with AMD.
Going back to the grocery store analogy. What if Tide (the detergent) came to you and said that the would charge you more money to sell their detergent (HAH, you paying them for your shelf space, get real, they're paying you! So the analogy here breaks again) unless you stopped selling All, Downie, and any of the other name brand or generic detergents. If Tide told you that, you would laugh them out of your store. That's because you could afford not to sell tide, there's plenty of alternatives. Now lets say there was Tide with 90% of the name brand and market share. And then there was Joe's Detergent which had 10% of the marketshare. Tide comes to your store and tells you to stop selling Joe's detergent or else they will jack up your prices. What are you going to do, stop selling Tide? Get real. You lose too much customer business. So you cut out Joe's Detergent to keep the bigger piece of the pie.
That ultimatum from tide is unprincipled. It is completely unfair in a competitive sense. Tide should not be telling the grocery store what it can and cannot sell. That decision should be solely upon the shoulders of the grocery store operator.
(I've seen no sign of this from my end as a consumer... I can get AMD stuff anywhere).
Yeah, you can get it anywhere, EXCEPT from the biggest vendor of PCs in the world: DELL. So while joe-schmoe, I want to buy a Dell computer cause it's simple to do, browses around the DELL website, he's not being offered the option of having an AMD processor is his box.
The real question is: Would Dell sell AMD boxes if they were not at risk of being charged more by Intel? Considering the amount of volume they do, the cost of changing their assembly lines to have processor/motherboard swaps is negligable. It would probably make them more money in the end because they could sell cheaper computers and thus more volume.
To continue the beauty pageant analogy. Intel isn't locking out AMD by pouring acid on AMD's body or flattening AMD's tires. Intel is boning the judges and the contest administrators to prevent AMD from entering the door.
If Intel's product is truly of value and has intrinsic worth then Intel would not need to prevent its competitors from displaying their wares. The prize bull at the country fair doesn't get to be the prize bull by having no competition. You need your crappy competitors present so that your benefits can be highlighted to the consumer. The problem is, AMD isn't crappy. Right now, AMD is the prize bull. It's Intel that is worried about appearing crappy next to AMD.
Whether you flatten your opponents tires or you prevent them from even entering the market place doesn't matter. You've prevented the consumer from having a real choice in the matter. That is what is unfair about the situation. The people buying Dell computers don't have an option to put AMD in their boxes. I think Dell would sell AMD computers if Intel wouldn't change their pricing scheme.
I decide not to carry a product because I don't like, say, the terms, the pricing, or even the sales person. Does that make ME a bad person? No.
You're right here. But this isn't the situation we're talking about. If Dell doesn't like the terms with AMD, then they can choose not to sell AMD. However the terms with AMD are being influenced by Intel and thus it's not a pure relationship between Dell and AMD. This is the whole point. Intel is influencing business transactions between other companies. Philosophically, I think the transaction should go through or not go through based on the merits of the transaction by itself, not based on whether this transaction will cause other transactions to become more expensive.
Intel clearly does not want the general consumer to have easy access to a choice in processors.
They're spinning in opposite directions. One goes counter clockwise, the other goes clockwise.
t erIntro.html
http://www.helicoptersonly.com/maneuvers_2Helicop
The counterclockwise rotation pushes down on the left (Y-X)
The clockwise rotation pushes up on the left (Y+X)
The counterclockwise rotation pushes up on the right (Y+X)
The clockwise rotation pushes down on the right (Y-X)
AMD and Intel should be competing over who has the better product, not over who is better able to lock 3rd party vendors into exclusivity.
In terms of product, AMD DOES compete. But Intel isn't giving them the opportunity and is locking them out of dealing with various companies.
There has to be more than one contestant at a beauty pageant. It's not real competition if one of the contestents is preventing the other contestents from participating in the contest.
Suppose Intel were using unfair business practices. What recourse does AMD have? The only referee is the government. The government defines what is fair and unfair. Crying foul necessitates litigation. That the litigation has an effect on marketshare is a side-effect, one which is exploitable to some degree. But would you rather AMD not cry foul when it feels that some injustice or foul play is going on?
What you would recommend AMD do in a situation where they feel Intel is using unfair business practices?
The Troll factor is appreciable. I agree. :)