Why would you pay the extra money for an OC card and then run it in non-OC mode?
I've got an MSI card, the first thing that I did when I plugged it in was put it into OC and run 3dmark on it to see how high I could push the clocks while it was stable. This is the market that they sell the OC cards into.
Reviewers are not being given cards "boosted" above retail, the market for an OC card is somebody who is going to switch on the OC and use it. It is quite likely that reviewers are being given review samples that came out of the "good" bin, but any decent reviewer discusses that in their review. I don't know what the OC averages for the bin they sell are - but mine got 10% ontop of the 10% factory OC so I'm happy with the 20% above stock. Which is roughly what they were reviewed as when they came out (this is a 980-ti, not a newer card).
No it does not. The text of the sirective says if it is published it must be made freely accessible. "Publically available" is your own redundant substitution.
Not in any context that I have ever heard it used. To "publish" is to make public, or to make available to the public. To "disclose" is to communicate results privately to a third-party. http://legal-dictionary.thefre... is a very crappy two-minute reference to back this up - do you have a link to backup your definition as I have never heard used in that way.
Or he could have said something that simplified it instead of romanticising it:
The English language is an API: the alphabet and the dictionary. People use that API to write books, emails, webpages and a million other things. The things that they create are copyrighted as creative expressions using combinations of letters and words.
Oh whoops, it is a bit awkward that the law no longer fits that explanation after the previous ruling...
Good point. Thanks for the well explained example. I feel that I may have just been schooled on some aspect of economics 101:) certainly I learned something interesting today - thanks for that.
If corporations are allowed to pay tax on "profit" then they will continue to game the system. Make them pay tax on income - in the territory that they earned the income. Then there is no game to play.
That is a shame. I really need a factorisation of 15. Well, one that is approximately correct to a degrer of accuracy. Wonder which of the three quantum algorithms people will try on this thing.
I don't think they want to amplify the circle-jerk: this reads much more like "the circle-jerk is too intense for some delicate people, lets slow it down folks, take our time and move more softly..."
The option to make a mistake program and in the specification are not exactly the same. Bugs in the code and bugs in the spec are two different kinds of mistake. One has a lower probability and is more visible than the other. Rather than doubling the number of places that a bug can be made, it remove the options for implementation errors and replaces then with fewer options to make specification errors.
Assuming that specs are being written manually. It is far more useful to derive a spec automatically from a smaller definition of how it should behave. Again this is reducing the number of options to make mistakes and increasing their visibility. So now we are quite a long way from what you originally wrote?
No, you've misunderstood. To get Hurd working they literally need blood: like actual blood. Without signing the soul in the right way you cannot bind it into the software.
Your wording indicates that you believe this to be true although you have not actually tried it.
I have. It does not work like that in practice. Specifically, I have a Synology that can sustain 120MB/s on my Gig-E easily. I have an internal SSD that can sustain 400MB/s equally easily. Trying to move GTA-V and Far Cry 4 onto a network drive was painful.
It's unclear if it is A) the bandwidth, B) the latency, or C) both. But what is clear is that the world stutters and the LOD flops out during play creating a very visible effect on graphical detail. Maybe 10GbE would fix this, or probably, the latency would still be a killer.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not clear that you understand the word "inadvertently". You should study it. Take the chance to learn something today.
Yes - I "explicitly" pointed out that the bin quality of the review cards is the real problem, not putting them in OC mode by default.
The OC cards have really good fans on them - the "gaming" mode is actually called silent.
Why would you pay the extra money for an OC card and then run it in non-OC mode?
I've got an MSI card, the first thing that I did when I plugged it in was put it into OC and run 3dmark on it to see how high I could push the clocks while it was stable. This is the market that they sell the OC cards into.
Reviewers are not being given cards "boosted" above retail, the market for an OC card is somebody who is going to switch on the OC and use it. It is quite likely that reviewers are being given review samples that came out of the "good" bin, but any decent reviewer discusses that in their review. I don't know what the OC averages for the bin they sell are - but mine got 10% ontop of the 10% factory OC so I'm happy with the 20% above stock. Which is roughly what they were reviewed as when they came out (this is a 980-ti, not a newer card).
No it does not. The text of the sirective says if it is published it must be made freely accessible. "Publically available" is your own redundant substitution.
The first sentence is the general legal definition "To circulate, distribute, or print information for the public at large."
The second sentence is a more specific case that only applies to slander.
Not in any context that I have ever heard it used. To "publish" is to make public, or to make available to the public. To "disclose" is to communicate results privately to a third-party. http://legal-dictionary.thefre... is a very crappy two-minute reference to back this up - do you have a link to backup your definition as I have never heard used in that way.
Case B seems straightfoward: if you are not publishing then you are not required to do so. If you are publishing then it must be open access.
Congratulations on your 2.6th billion mile of treadmill. Perhaps soon you will be slim enough to make it out of the basement door and up the stairs?
I don't think that is very fair at all. Does a shit sandwich constantly bug you if you have decided to dine on something else tonight?
Or he could have said something that simplified it instead of romanticising it:
The English language is an API: the alphabet and the dictionary. People use that API to write books, emails, webpages and a million other things. The things that they create are copyrighted as creative expressions using combinations of letters and words.
Oh whoops, it is a bit awkward that the law no longer fits that explanation after the previous ruling...
Good point. Thanks for the well explained example. I feel that I may have just been schooled on some aspect of economics 101 :) certainly I learned something interesting today - thanks for that.
If the corporate tax rate on revenues is set at 35%. Of course in real life the percentage can changed, e.g. 1.75% of revenues.
You mean that an inefficient business would fail?
If they are being kept afloat by a subsidy scheme then a different scheme would keep them in operation under a different tax regime.
It is still stupid.
If corporations are allowed to pay tax on "profit" then they will continue to game the system. Make them pay tax on income - in the territory that they earned the income. Then there is no game to play.
That is a shame. I really need a factorisation of 15. Well, one that is approximately correct to a degrer of accuracy. Wonder which of the three quantum algorithms people will try on this thing.
I don't think they want to amplify the circle-jerk: this reads much more like "the circle-jerk is too intense for some delicate people, lets slow it down folks, take our time and move more softly..."
Indeed you did, the correct wordage started "Given my unknown age x, solve for ...". Tsk tsk. Terrible show.
Other people would pin it on basic numeracy.
So it was literally the last thing that you read? You must have found it to be quite satisfying.
You are still over-simplifying somewhat.
The option to make a mistake program and in the specification are not exactly the same. Bugs in the code and bugs in the spec are two different kinds of mistake. One has a lower probability and is more visible than the other. Rather than doubling the number of places that a bug can be made, it remove the options for implementation errors and replaces then with fewer options to make specification errors.
Assuming that specs are being written manually. It is far more useful to derive a spec automatically from a smaller definition of how it should behave. Again this is reducing the number of options to make mistakes and increasing their visibility. So now we are quite a long way from what you originally wrote?
Correction: A "computer" can not "verify" *all* software for correctness.
It makes quite a big difference, there is an entire field devoted to Formal Verification.
So its set after Trump wins the election?
Less hookers, less trickle-down?
No, you've misunderstood. To get Hurd working they literally need blood: like actual blood. Without signing the soul in the right way you cannot bind it into the software.
Your wording indicates that you believe this to be true although you have not actually tried it.
I have. It does not work like that in practice. Specifically, I have a Synology that can sustain 120MB/s on my Gig-E easily. I have an internal SSD that can sustain 400MB/s equally easily. Trying to move GTA-V and Far Cry 4 onto a network drive was painful.
It's unclear if it is A) the bandwidth, B) the latency, or C) both. But what is clear is that the world stutters and the LOD flops out during play creating a very visible effect on graphical detail. Maybe 10GbE would fix this, or probably, the latency would still be a killer.