I would suggest using a desktop for these sorts of tasks if you can afford it. Though I can certainly understand if not. I have friend who's a pro photographer who went solo a bit over a year and a half ago and all she can afford is the laptop I donated her and the low to midrange desktop her oldest has.
Laptops can't as cheaply afford the power for photo editing at the pro level.
This is the real issue. You can argue the high end and other minutia, but for most home users it's about doing fairly basic tasks without excess hassle and cost. CPU's have been more than good enough for web, movies and e-mail and occasional games for a long time now. And consumers mostly look at the out the door price for a pre-built system.
The motherboard is also a consideration, The CPU is not very useful without it.
When I built my current primary system the Intel motherboards cost way to much for significantly fewer capabilities, I was able to get a motherboard that had the features I wanted cheaper than the closest I could get in Intel and take the savings to get a better CPU.
If money is no object, and the feature set you need is available in Intel and you need the highest end per core performance, then sure buy that. In fact which is better is which is better for the usage case.
I've got a 18 month old 6core AMD processor and a $150 dollar Amd graphics card and games run just fine for the most part. There are a couple of places where if I turn all goodies all the way up on one or two where I might notice, but that's more the older graphics card and running things on the other two ( all 3 are 27", 1920x1080) monitors. There is a reasons the AMD and Intell are focusing more and more on power efficiency these days.
Blind faith is the antithesis of science, and recent studies (with actual brain scans) show indoctrinating children with it actually damages the cognitive functions related to critical and logical function.
It was stated as more, not more per capita, if something other than what was said was meant it should have been stated that way.
Also I had just replied to someone deliberately giving totals that make knife crime look worse in the US when the per capita numbers show the opposite.
The second amendment is no more defined by the technology of the time than the first.
The first does say press, the second only says arms, this is a close to reference technology as either gets. In the first they clearly meant the recorded word, in the second they meant "every arm of the soldier, however terrible".
Apparently it is hard to understand. It's seems a lot of people mistakenly believe it's a limit or excuse to limit the second rather than a singularly important reason and encouragement it is. These same people also seem to fail to understand the meaning of militia (every able bodied free man of sound mind), or of arms ("Every sword of the soldier, however terrible").
Probably false assumptions: 1) That 100% of the US army (or an effectively high enough percentage so as to make no difference) will side against their own. 2) That small arms and guerrilla tactics are useless against a better armed army, history says otherwise. 3) That none(or effectively none) of this superior armament would wind up captured or otherwise in the possession or use of the citizens (we dropped single use handguns into occupied France durring WWII with instructions on how use them to do just that) .
Look into the history a bit more. A militia is the people, and well regulated means well trained. And arms is 'every arm of the soldier, however terrible'.
Arms refers to every arm of the soldier however terrible according to the founding fathers. It most assuredly includes fire arms, as well as clubs spears swords and so on.
But not less violence, what is your malfunction that you can't understand that? Are people killed by guns the only ones killed? Is every other death and assault somehow not real to you? Or are you just trolling?
Bullshit. The primary excuse used to try and grab guns is to reduce violent crime and deaths. The other means for criminals and violent people to act on their violent urges are very germane, as these are the means people will turn to. This deceptive attempt to avoid the unpleasant reality that removing peoples ability to defend themselves may not make them safer (In the us crime in general goes down the more people are allowed to own and carry firearms).
You keep trying slant and restrict the argument in your favor with these poor attempts at deception and derailment.
Not forgotten, just understood, unlike what those who would trample on the rights protected by the second amendment.
The founding fathers saw the militia as the entirety of the free adult male population, The first congress passed as one of it's first laws a law making that clear.
The modern "militia" in the form of the national is significantly different from what a militia was intended to be initially, primarily in that one has to sign a contract to be involved, and undertakes a wider scope of activities and duties.
The population of the UK is STAGGERINGLY less than the US as well. Per capita they had more knife deaths than the US (using your numbers and the population of both countries) of course I'm assuming you meant UK by England, If you actually meant just England, then the difference is even bigger.
Two falsehoods, 1) the us is NOT Germany we collect statistics differently just to start with, and 2)in the U.S. strict gun laws usually precede increase in violence and inverse, liberalization of gun laws, is followed by decreased violence.
I have no clue why hoplophobes insist on comparing the U.S. to different countries with different reporting and statistical methodologies, different cultures, and various pretty clear warning signs against attempting the simplistic comparison the always use. Especially given the wealth of data here in the US that is much closer to an apple to apples comparison. Other than the obvious reason that it usually argues strongly against their biases.
Except that crime goes up as criminal find more helpless victims and goes down as the criminals find their odds being shot goes up.
The numbers strongly indicate the "retards" are correct.
Except that reverses the order of events, gun control laws preceded the increase in crime.
On the other side states that have become more permissive of gun ownership have had reduced crime.
The most effect laws for reducing crime seem to be "Shall Issue" c.c.w. laws.
Actually not that crazy, if your are holding a gun or blunt object like a bat or knife you know it's deadly and behave with that in mind. However many not into the martial arts fail to realize just how easy it can sometimes be to kill unarmed, and what started out as a punch thrown in momentary anger turns into homicide.
Slashdot Mirror
I would suggest using a desktop for these sorts of tasks if you can afford it. Though I can certainly understand if not. I have friend who's a pro photographer who went solo a bit over a year and a half ago and all she can afford is the laptop I donated her and the low to midrange desktop her oldest has.
Laptops can't as cheaply afford the power for photo editing at the pro level.
Mycroft
This is the real issue. You can argue the high end and other minutia, but for most home users it's about doing fairly basic tasks without excess hassle and cost. CPU's have been more than good enough for web, movies and e-mail and occasional games for a long time now. And consumers mostly look at the out the door price for a pre-built system.
Mycroft
The motherboard is also a consideration, The CPU is not very useful without it.
When I built my current primary system the Intel motherboards cost way to much for significantly fewer capabilities, I was able to get a motherboard that had the features I wanted cheaper than the closest I could get in Intel and take the savings to get a better CPU.
If money is no object, and the feature set you need is available in Intel and you need the highest end per core performance, then sure buy that. In fact which is better is which is better for the usage case.
Mycroft
I've got a 18 month old 6core AMD processor and a $150 dollar Amd graphics card and games run just fine for the most part. There are a couple of places where if I turn all goodies all the way up on one or two where I might notice, but that's more the older graphics card and running things on the other two ( all 3 are 27", 1920x1080) monitors. There is a reasons the AMD and Intell are focusing more and more on power efficiency these days.
Mycroft
It's not faith to agree that the mostly likely explanation based on the evidence is the most likely explanation.
Mycroft
Blind faith is the antithesis of science, and recent studies (with actual brain scans) show indoctrinating children with it actually damages the cognitive functions related to critical and logical function.
Mycroft
Science requires no such thing.
Sounds like you're hinting at the god of the gaps fallacy.
Mycroft.
I've seen universal battery extenders. basically just batteries with a USB power only port on them and a way to recharge themselves.
Mycroft
It was stated as more, not more per capita, if something other than what was said was meant it should have been stated that way.
Also I had just replied to someone deliberately giving totals that make knife crime look worse in the US when the per capita numbers show the opposite.
Mycroft
The second amendment is no more defined by the technology of the time than the first.
The first does say press, the second only says arms, this is a close to reference technology as either gets.
In the first they clearly meant the recorded word, in the second they meant "every arm of the soldier, however terrible".
Mycroft
Mycroft
Apparently it is hard to understand. It's seems a lot of people mistakenly believe it's a limit or excuse to limit the second rather than a singularly important reason and encouragement it is. These same people also seem to fail to understand the meaning of militia (every able bodied free man of sound mind), or of arms ("Every sword of the soldier, however terrible").
Mycroft
Probably false assumptions: 1) That 100% of the US army (or an effectively high enough percentage so as to make no difference) will side against their own.
2) That small arms and guerrilla tactics are useless against a better armed army, history says otherwise.
3) That none(or effectively none) of this superior armament would wind up captured or otherwise in the possession or use of the citizens (we dropped single use handguns into occupied France durring WWII with instructions on how use them to do just that) .
Mycroft
Mycroft
Look into the history a bit more. A militia is the people, and well regulated means well trained. And arms is 'every arm of the soldier, however terrible'.
Mycroft
Arms refers to every arm of the soldier however terrible according to the founding fathers. It most assuredly includes fire arms, as well as clubs spears swords and so on.
Mycroft.
And LESS than a quarter the population.
Mycroft
But not less violence, what is your malfunction that you can't understand that? Are people killed by guns the only ones killed? Is every other death and assault somehow not real to you? Or are you just trolling?
Mycroft
Wrong, the issue is violence and crime, if you reduce one avenue is it not logical (and supported by evidence) that others will be used?
Mycroft
Bullshit. The primary excuse used to try and grab guns is to reduce violent crime and deaths. The other means for criminals and violent people to act on their violent urges are very germane, as these are the means people will turn to. This deceptive attempt to avoid the unpleasant reality that removing peoples ability to defend themselves may not make them safer (In the us crime in general goes down the more people are allowed to own and carry firearms).
You keep trying slant and restrict the argument in your favor with these poor attempts at deception and derailment.
Mycroft
Not forgotten, just understood, unlike what those who would trample on the rights protected by the second amendment.
The founding fathers saw the militia as the entirety of the free adult male population, The first congress passed as one of it's first laws a law making that clear.
The modern "militia" in the form of the national is significantly different from what a militia was intended to be initially, primarily in that one has to sign a contract to be involved, and undertakes a wider scope of activities and duties.
Mycroft
The population of the UK is STAGGERINGLY less than the US as well. Per capita they had more knife deaths than the US (using your numbers and the population of both countries) of course I'm assuming you meant UK by England, If you actually meant just England, then the difference is even bigger.
Mycroft
Two falsehoods, 1) the us is NOT Germany we collect statistics differently just to start with, and 2)in the U.S. strict gun laws usually precede increase in violence and inverse, liberalization of gun laws, is followed by decreased violence.
I have no clue why hoplophobes insist on comparing the U.S. to different countries with different reporting and statistical methodologies, different cultures, and various pretty clear warning signs against attempting the simplistic comparison the always use. Especially given the wealth of data here in the US that is much closer to an apple to apples comparison. Other than the obvious reason that it usually argues strongly against their biases.
Mycroft
Yes because every time a group of people are slurred it has a basis in reality.
I'm sure Goebbels said the same thing.
Mycroft
Except that crime goes up as criminal find more helpless victims and goes down as the criminals find their odds being shot goes up.
The numbers strongly indicate the "retards" are correct.
Mycroft
Except that reverses the order of events, gun control laws preceded the increase in crime.
On the other side states that have become more permissive of gun ownership have had reduced crime.
The most effect laws for reducing crime seem to be "Shall Issue" c.c.w. laws.
Mycroft
Actually not that crazy, if your are holding a gun or blunt object like a bat or knife you know it's deadly and behave with that in mind. However many not into the martial arts fail to realize just how easy it can sometimes be to kill unarmed, and what started out as a punch thrown in momentary anger turns into homicide.
Mycroft