Sorry for the double reply, but I'm getting really annoyed by people who make the distinction between "apps" and "programs". There's no difference at all. The word "app" is a shortening of "application", i.e. what Mac OS calls a program, or executable. Apps are not inherently small, or less fully featured things than programs, it just happened that the first platform to call them "apps" all the time lent itself to small programs, not giant ones.
Heh, the irony being that what they should have taken from "users spend 95% of their time with one maximised app" was "we don't do a good enough job of supporting lots of windows of lots of different sizes". Mac users for example are perfectly happy with windows spread all over the place, and I can identify a few things (even in windows 7) that are the reason:
1) Less crufty window border stuff everywhere –maximising a window in windows is a good way of getting rid of all the extra padding they add around windows when they're not maximised. 2) Menu bar at the top, always –meaning that again, tons of screen real estate isn't taken up by duplicated menu bars if you have loads of windows open, and meaning that for those that do use the menus, that mousing to them is easier. 3) The "zoom" button making windows as big as they need to be, rather than simply full screening them, encouraging users to think "what can I get next to this".
The best you can say is that Google is worlds better than Microsoft, Apple or Oracle.
That's the thing... You really can't. They're exactly as evil as Microsoft, Apple and Oracle, they're a corporation after all.
The reason so many slashdotters seem incapable of seeing that is simply because it happened that momentarily their interests alligned with the average slashdotter's.
This was true of apple but half a decade ago, when they started shipping a UNIX OS, and lovely hardware, and has slowly changed as everyone realised that they're still just as evil as every other corporation out there.
Well quite... my comment was rather to hopefully wake up some of the masses around slashdot who seem to think that google is somehow not just another corporation, and somehow far more friendly to them than any of the other computing behemoths out there.
No, I claimed that the A10-5800k *is* a piledriver. Which it is.
You made three assertions.
1. That fusion was between an i5 and i7 in terms of speed 2. That piledriver was faster still. 3. That you were talking about the FX line, not the fusion line all along.
All are false. 1. Is false because the fastest fusion chip (the A10-5800K) is only roughly as fast as the i3-3220, no where near as fast as an i5 or i7. 2. Is false because the A10 *is* a piledriver chip. There are faster piledriver chips out there, I compared the fastest available piledriver chip to intel's slightly cheaper i5. The i5 is faster than the FX-8350 in 23 of the 37 tests, some by a very significant margin. Also notably, the other tests include things like h264 encoding, which the i5 has a hardware unit for, which was not tested. 3. Is false as you can observe from the above quote.
No, this was quite a lottle bit evil. As were all the various anticompetitive practices they've been into recently. Many of those have even been directly trying to bring down open source competition, like deliberately polluting OpenStreetMap's data.
The top end non fusion CPU genreally comes between the i5 and close to much more expensive i7, sometimes beating out the i7 in multithreaded benchmarks. It's over 75% of the speed of the i5 single threaded now.
Piledriver is not much better - it's the same architecture as trinity, but with the GPU stripped off.
There actually really aren't that many tasks where multithreading makes up the difference, as you can see from a comparison of a top end piledriver, against a cheaper i5 that consumes about half the power: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=701
As you can see, even in a lot of the parallel benchmarks the i5 wins, and that's ignoring the i5's hardware video encoder, which utterly demolishes software mode. Overall, the i5 is a significantly better chip, at significantly lower power, and cheaper to boot.
You're right that Haswell is a tock aimed at boosting performance... But, the resulting chips will be sold at increments only 5% higher than ivy bridge's performance, and significantly reduced power consumption.
Okay, so now we can combine these two definitions to define theft as... "The act of tak[ing] (the property of another) without right or permission."
So by extension, not only have we established that stealing was indeed the correct word to use here, and entirely applicable, but also that one possible definition of theft does not require depriving someone else of the items, so it could be argued reasonably that this is both stealing *and* theft, not just stealing.
The point is that no incorrect definition was used. The summary mentions stealing. Stealing, means, amongst other things "To take (the property of another) without right or permission." This is exactly what was happening on the pirate app site –people were taking property of another without right or permission. Stealing was occurring, no incorrect definition was being used.
Oddly, synonyms don't always mean exactly the same thing, they have subtly different meanings. If they did mean the exact same thing, we'd only have one word for it.
Synonym: noun 1. A word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language.
And this is exactly the problem... Everyone feels entitled to things they have no entitlement to at all.
Trip up on the pavement? Clearly I'm entitled to $20,000 from the local administration! Buy an iPhone? Clearly I'm entitled to rip off any developer who writes the software I want to run!
its hard to make a judgement based on one article alone (and only the abstract for that matter since i couldn't access the rest) but based on physics and fluid dynamics the impact energy of a falling bullet is significantly lower than that of a bullet fired directly
1) Not that much lower if it's fired at an angle upwards, rather than straight up. 2) It's aimed at an area of the body that bullets typically aren't, which is much much more vulnerable to damage than most of the body.
Mythbusters did this one, they found that a bullet fired straight up will come down with enough force to severely injure you and require you to visit a hospital, but not enough to actually kill you. But that a bullet fired at an angle retained enough of it's velocity to kill.
Yes, and the parent isn't suggesting that reason has anything to do with it. He's suggesting that the stats may show that people who buy alcohol to drink at home have fewer accidents than people who don't, but drive to pubs.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry for the double reply, but I'm getting really annoyed by people who make the distinction between "apps" and "programs". There's no difference at all. The word "app" is a shortening of "application", i.e. what Mac OS calls a program, or executable. Apps are not inherently small, or less fully featured things than programs, it just happened that the first platform to call them "apps" all the time lent itself to small programs, not giant ones.
Heh, the irony being that what they should have taken from "users spend 95% of their time with one maximised app" was "we don't do a good enough job of supporting lots of windows of lots of different sizes". Mac users for example are perfectly happy with windows spread all over the place, and I can identify a few things (even in windows 7) that are the reason:
1) Less crufty window border stuff everywhere –maximising a window in windows is a good way of getting rid of all the extra padding they add around windows when they're not maximised.
2) Menu bar at the top, always –meaning that again, tons of screen real estate isn't taken up by duplicated menu bars if you have loads of windows open, and meaning that for those that do use the menus, that mousing to them is easier.
3) The "zoom" button making windows as big as they need to be, rather than simply full screening them, encouraging users to think "what can I get next to this".
why not get her a nice inexpensive laptop as well?
Because such devices don't exist.
I regard beer as the ultimate nerd baking.
The news is even inaccurate... Facebook didn't land him in jail, being a moron and driving drunk, then not stopping at the scene of an accident did.
The best you can say is that Google is worlds better than Microsoft, Apple or Oracle.
That's the thing... You really can't. They're exactly as evil as Microsoft, Apple and Oracle, they're a corporation after all.
The reason so many slashdotters seem incapable of seeing that is simply because it happened that momentarily their interests alligned with the average slashdotter's.
This was true of apple but half a decade ago, when they started shipping a UNIX OS, and lovely hardware, and has slowly changed as everyone realised that they're still just as evil as every other corporation out there.
Sorry, what's the typo?
Well quite... my comment was rather to hopefully wake up some of the masses around slashdot who seem to think that google is somehow not just another corporation, and somehow far more friendly to them than any of the other computing behemoths out there.
No, I claimed that the A10-5800k *is* a piledriver. Which it is.
You made three assertions.
1. That fusion was between an i5 and i7 in terms of speed
2. That piledriver was faster still.
3. That you were talking about the FX line, not the fusion line all along.
All are false.
1. Is false because the fastest fusion chip (the A10-5800K) is only roughly as fast as the i3-3220, no where near as fast as an i5 or i7.
2. Is false because the A10 *is* a piledriver chip. There are faster piledriver chips out there, I compared the fastest available piledriver chip to intel's slightly cheaper i5. The i5 is faster than the FX-8350 in 23 of the 37 tests, some by a very significant margin. Also notably, the other tests include things like h264 encoding, which the i5 has a hardware unit for, which was not tested.
3. Is false as you can observe from the above quote.
No, this was quite a lottle bit evil. As were all the various anticompetitive practices they've been into recently. Many of those have even been directly trying to bring down open source competition, like deliberately polluting OpenStreetMap's data.
The top end non fusion CPU genreally comes between the i5 and close to much more expensive i7
Oh waid, you've compared a fusion processor to an i3 rather than the non fusion ones I was talking about.
Score: -1 Lying
So much for "don't be evil" ;)
The top end non fusion CPU genreally comes between the i5 and close to much more expensive i7, sometimes beating out the i7 in multithreaded benchmarks. It's over 75% of the speed of the i5 single threaded now.
No, no it doesn't. It gets beaten by the i3 3220 for everything except for very multithreaded tasks, where it roughly draws with it:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/675?vs=677
Piledriver is not much better - it's the same architecture as trinity, but with the GPU stripped off.
There actually really aren't that many tasks where multithreading makes up the difference, as you can see from a comparison of a top end piledriver, against a cheaper i5 that consumes about half the power:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=701
As you can see, even in a lot of the parallel benchmarks the i5 wins, and that's ignoring the i5's hardware video encoder, which utterly demolishes software mode. Overall, the i5 is a significantly better chip, at significantly lower power, and cheaper to boot.
Apple already use higher end ivy bridge chips than these in the MacBook Air... Why would they downgrade them?
You're right that Haswell is a tock aimed at boosting performance... But, the resulting chips will be sold at increments only 5% higher than ivy bridge's performance, and significantly reduced power consumption.
Everything is about power consumption these days.
Okay, so now we can combine these two definitions to define theft as... "The act of tak[ing] (the property of another) without right or permission."
So by extension, not only have we established that stealing was indeed the correct word to use here, and entirely applicable, but also that one possible definition of theft does not require depriving someone else of the items, so it could be argued reasonably that this is both stealing *and* theft, not just stealing.
The point is that no incorrect definition was used. The summary mentions stealing. Stealing, means, amongst other things "To take (the property of another) without right or permission." This is exactly what was happening on the pirate app site –people were taking property of another without right or permission. Stealing was occurring, no incorrect definition was being used.
Oddly, synonyms don't always mean exactly the same thing, they have subtly different meanings. If they did mean the exact same thing, we'd only have one word for it.
Synonym:
noun
1. A word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language.
Your turn!
No one mentioned theft, they mentioned stealing.
Steal:
v. stole, stolen, stealing, steals
1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
Seems to apply to me.
And this is exactly the problem... Everyone feels entitled to things they have no entitlement to at all.
Trip up on the pavement? Clearly I'm entitled to $20,000 from the local administration!
Buy an iPhone? Clearly I'm entitled to rip off any developer who writes the software I want to run!
Fuck off and grow a brain.
its hard to make a judgement based on one article alone (and only the abstract for that matter since i couldn't access the rest) but based on physics and fluid dynamics the impact energy of a falling bullet is significantly lower than that of a bullet fired directly
1) Not that much lower if it's fired at an angle upwards, rather than straight up.
2) It's aimed at an area of the body that bullets typically aren't, which is much much more vulnerable to damage than most of the body.
Mythbusters did this one, they found that a bullet fired straight up will come down with enough force to severely injure you and require you to visit a hospital, but not enough to actually kill you. But that a bullet fired at an angle retained enough of it's velocity to kill.
I have to agree, there's just so much wrong here, it really doesn't to me bode well for them actually producing something good.
Yes, and the parent isn't suggesting that reason has anything to do with it. He's suggesting that the stats may show that people who buy alcohol to drink at home have fewer accidents than people who don't, but drive to pubs.
Same question, but now about professional reviews. ;)
The question is, does that valid C have a different meaning to the also valid C++ :D