There are surprisingly few (on a well-administered system) "background and response tasks" that consume a significant amount of CPU time. In general, pretty much everything is waiting on I/O of some sort, and having more cores doesn't reduce that wait.
15 years ago what you said there was true for both audio chips and network cards. Anybody who wanted one that was half-way decent bought a discrete unit because those performed well, and the hokey versions that you might find integrated were pretty much junk.
You're way way off-base here. The "integrated" audio chips and network "cards" you're talking about are still (and always were) discrete, they were just soldered onto the motherboard instead of stuck into a slot. The "integrated" graphics the GP is talking about are *ON THE SAME DIE*, as in, they *SHARE THE SAME SILICON* as the processor. Given the laws of thermodynamics, it seems unlikely that you'll ever have a high-TDP CPU and a high-TDP GPU (i.e. high-performance) sharing the same hunk of silicon. It doesn't make sense.
That's why I only ever watch the first 1/3 of any late-night "talk" show. I watch the funny stuff, the monologue, and then I shut it off when the "guests" start arriving.
I have 3 HTC phones (Apache, Kaiser, Rhodium), and while the Apache (which has only the normal Mini-USB and charges at the same rate regardless of charger) and the Kaiser (which has ExtUSB and charges at the same rate regardless of charger), the Rhodium (which has the ExtUSB port) charges faster on the wall charger than it does from a computer. Even with a normal Mini-USB cable on the wall charger, it charges faster. I've read somewhere that the wall charger puts out a slightly higher voltage to signal the phone that it can deliver higher current, but I don't know whether that's true or whether it's something else going on.
Regardless, Apple is only in this for the money. There's no technological reason it can't be done.
Wrong. HTC devices charge in slow-mode on any normal USB interface (charger or computer) but charge in fast-mode on their special chargers (over a normal USB cable).
Self-indulgent new-age psychobabble bullshit. The truth is that making a movie 3D adds nothing to the experience for the average viewer, and it forces directors to deal with hassles and expenses they wouldn't otherwise have to. Except for the studios that get to charge extra for the tickets, it's a lose-lose proposition.
Watching a dull half lit polarized image wasn’t fun.
Amen, brother. Anything that involves cutting the light output in half is just NOT going to fly.
But the director has framed the shot and blurred the back ground out. That's ok with 2D; but when I can focus around the screen and the “3D” effect compels me to do so it’s annoying. The image needs to be afocal with everything as sharp as it can be. I’ll look around for myself.
Being 2D doesn't prevent the director from playing with depth-of-field and keeping everything but the main actors blurry. It may be easier to do (maybe, at least on rotoscoped films?), but that's not a 3D problem.
I salute your conviction, but I don't feel strongly enough about most laws to go to jail in an attempt to get them changed. Especially this particular one, where I think the guy got exactly what was coming to him for his blatant copyright violations. This is the GOOD use of copyright, not the bad one. This is what it was intended to do.
I think it's pretty safe to assume it's not looking in *EXACTLY* the same direction, given the video spends nearly all it's time staring at the 10 feet of roadway in front of the forward wheel...
I'm sure the very clearly *MARKED* car behind him with flashing lights, sirens, etc weren't good enough evidence that he was involved in a real traffic stop conducted by real police?
We don't know (from the video) how long the guy was being chased by the police, nor do we know how many police vehicles were involved (he points out 3 in the video, and at least two are involved in the stop, but beyond that, we don't know). Maybe the police had reason to believe he would run? Maybe he's run in the past?
I never said civil disobedience wasn't a valid method for getting a law changed. I do think, however, that you should be prepared to be arrested for breaking the law, and I doubt that a defense along the lines of, "but it was only civil disobedience..." will be very effective.
Sorry, but if you can't "think like a programmer does", you won't be able to create anything but the most trivial program, ever. The difficulty of programming isn't learning language and syntax, it's "thinking like a programmer does". That's precisely the thing that must be accomplished to write complex software, and that's precisely the thing that is difficult to do for most of the population.
Would you be more approving of him if he simply cited his sources?
No, but I'd be more approving (and I suspect the paper would have been too) if he'd have posted stuff along the lines of, "I read in today's paper that [article summary here]. You should grab a paper and check it out."
Slashdot Mirror
There are surprisingly few (on a well-administered system) "background and response tasks" that consume a significant amount of CPU time. In general, pretty much everything is waiting on I/O of some sort, and having more cores doesn't reduce that wait.
I just recently pushed for a "behemoth" video card, but it was only $150. Am I a small niche?
15 years ago what you said there was true for both audio chips and network cards. Anybody who wanted one that was half-way decent bought a discrete unit because those performed well, and the hokey versions that you might find integrated were pretty much junk.
You're way way off-base here. The "integrated" audio chips and network "cards" you're talking about are still (and always were) discrete, they were just soldered onto the motherboard instead of stuck into a slot. The "integrated" graphics the GP is talking about are *ON THE SAME DIE*, as in, they *SHARE THE SAME SILICON* as the processor. Given the laws of thermodynamics, it seems unlikely that you'll ever have a high-TDP CPU and a high-TDP GPU (i.e. high-performance) sharing the same hunk of silicon. It doesn't make sense.
That's why I only ever watch the first 1/3 of any late-night "talk" show. I watch the funny stuff, the monologue, and then I shut it off when the "guests" start arriving.
Of course, if your code pisses off the recording or music industry, then there's no functional difference...
Seems implausible. If you were a major shareholder, and you wanted to effect chance, you would, y'know, vote.
What regulation are they looking to impose? It's not clear at all to me...
But how are you going to get special offers for ink and other supplies?
WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE INK CARTRIDGES?
(vSphere Client, for one example, requires .NET Framework 2.0 but will not work with .NET 3.0)
I call shenanigans. .NET 3.0 is just .NET 2.0 with a few additional libraries added. .NET 3.5 is .NET 3.0 with a few more libraries and a new compiler.
What I'd guess happened is you unknowingly installed .NET 2.0 SP2 with .NET 3.0, and THAT is what broke vSphere. Sucky software is sucky.
Cut it out.
I have 3 HTC phones (Apache, Kaiser, Rhodium), and while the Apache (which has only the normal Mini-USB and charges at the same rate regardless of charger) and the Kaiser (which has ExtUSB and charges at the same rate regardless of charger), the Rhodium (which has the ExtUSB port) charges faster on the wall charger than it does from a computer. Even with a normal Mini-USB cable on the wall charger, it charges faster. I've read somewhere that the wall charger puts out a slightly higher voltage to signal the phone that it can deliver higher current, but I don't know whether that's true or whether it's something else going on.
Regardless, Apple is only in this for the money. There's no technological reason it can't be done.
Wrong. HTC devices charge in slow-mode on any normal USB interface (charger or computer) but charge in fast-mode on their special chargers (over a normal USB cable).
HTC devices have the same two charging modes... and they charge on any USB-shaped plug that provides 5v.
Again, there is no VALID reason that Apple cannot do the same thing. They're profiteering, just like Tandy was.
Self-indulgent new-age psychobabble bullshit. The truth is that making a movie 3D adds nothing to the experience for the average viewer, and it forces directors to deal with hassles and expenses they wouldn't otherwise have to. Except for the studios that get to charge extra for the tickets, it's a lose-lose proposition.
Watching a dull half lit polarized image wasn’t fun.
Amen, brother. Anything that involves cutting the light output in half is just NOT going to fly.
But the director has framed the shot and blurred the back ground out. That's ok with 2D; but when I can focus around the screen and the “3D” effect compels me to do so it’s annoying. The image needs to be afocal with everything as sharp as it can be. I’ll look around for myself.
Being 2D doesn't prevent the director from playing with depth-of-field and keeping everything but the main actors blurry. It may be easier to do (maybe, at least on rotoscoped films?), but that's not a 3D problem.
Having seen it in both 2D and 3D, I will disagree with your statement.
And all that proves is that it's subjective, and not everyone agrees that 3D even has the POTENTIAL to improve the experience.
That's what he's saying. There is -NO SUCH THING- as "faster than the designers intended" for your video card.
I salute your conviction, but I don't feel strongly enough about most laws to go to jail in an attempt to get them changed. Especially this particular one, where I think the guy got exactly what was coming to him for his blatant copyright violations. This is the GOOD use of copyright, not the bad one. This is what it was intended to do.
I think it's pretty safe to assume it's not looking in *EXACTLY* the same direction, given the video spends nearly all it's time staring at the 10 feet of roadway in front of the forward wheel...
I'm sure the very clearly *MARKED* car behind him with flashing lights, sirens, etc weren't good enough evidence that he was involved in a real traffic stop conducted by real police?
We don't know (from the video) how long the guy was being chased by the police, nor do we know how many police vehicles were involved (he points out 3 in the video, and at least two are involved in the stop, but beyond that, we don't know). Maybe the police had reason to believe he would run? Maybe he's run in the past?
We're missing a lot of information here.
So you propose what, then? Ignoring the law and bitching when you get arrested?
I never said civil disobedience wasn't a valid method for getting a law changed. I do think, however, that you should be prepared to be arrested for breaking the law, and I doubt that a defense along the lines of, "but it was only civil disobedience..." will be very effective.
Good luck to you.
Sorry, but if you can't "think like a programmer does", you won't be able to create anything but the most trivial program, ever. The difficulty of programming isn't learning language and syntax, it's "thinking like a programmer does". That's precisely the thing that must be accomplished to write complex software, and that's precisely the thing that is difficult to do for most of the population.
Sorry to disappoint.
Would you be more approving of him if he simply cited his sources?
No, but I'd be more approving (and I suspect the paper would have been too) if he'd have posted stuff along the lines of, "I read in today's paper that [article summary here]. You should grab a paper and check it out."
More of the same, man, more of the same. It's all the same crap, packaged up in different colors and with a different label on top.