I find that statement interesting. I was playing GTA 5 on a i7-6700K last night and didn't' notice any performance impact from the game. I was running over goats just as well as I always have been. Do you have any benchmarks you can provide, before and after?
I loved the PowerPC arch. Right before apple switch away from the PowerPC I was looking at getting the next generation Mac with a PowerPC chip. Then they switched to intel a few months later and I just decided to stick with windows.
My Linux box is a aging FX-8350. I've also thought about replacing it with a more modern processor. Problem is that I can't justify it. The 8350 delivers everything I need it to do.
Out of touch much? Intel now derives a large and expanding portion of its revenue from Linux servers, versus the shrinking Wintel market
From what I've been seeing over the last 10 years this observation matches what I've been seeing. Not just with intel but with server sales from Dell and IBM too.
Back in 2008 I priced out 150 dell 2950 for a datacenter. The price automatically included a windows license for each server. It it took me 2 weeks to pound it through some thick skulls that we didn't want or going to pay the microsoft tax.
I priced out a few dozen Dell servers a few years back. When I ordered them with Linux on them nobody batted a eye. It would come pre-installed for me. I, of course, thanked them for this service but informed them that I would be re-imaging them my self.
What advantage are you talking about and what competitor? Do you mean AMD? I'm sure you do and yes you would be correct they have a slight advantage now but the funny thing is I don't see them running to exploit it. An advantage is nothing if you don't exploit it and that is just what I'm seeing AMD not do.
So how bad a threat is this if just decide to forgo the patch and run naked? I don't run crapwear or download drivers from whatever source has them. All my games come from steam and almost all my other software comes from companies that I've been doing business with for years.
I looked up the asteroid, 2011 AG5, and its only 140 meters wide. It would make a nice hole but would be far from the Armageddon level event that I thought it would.
But I'm still going to dis-agree with you. The Chicxulub event was only 10 to 15km across but it wipped out 75% of the critters on earth above a certain body weight. We naked apes are well inside that body weight.
Altering the orbit of a body doesn't take much. You ether have to change is energy or its mass. Technically we have changed the orbit of every planet in the solar system by some tiny amount. Setting off enough explosives on the correct rocks can place them on a impact course. Granted it might take years before the actual event but it can be done.
Of course if we where damn determined to eradicate all life on earth we would probably use more than one rock. So it can be done, just not easily
Yeah we do. All we have to do is use nuclear demolitions to alter the orbit of a near earth asteroid. It doesn't have to be a big one, 10-20 miles across. I believe there is a big one swinging around in 2040 that should do it.
If we really wanted to get a gold star we could drop a bigger one and liquefy the crust of the planet. That would exterminate all life on earth right down to the deep bacteria.
No you weren't. The ACA was a mistake, "you can keep your doctor" was the like that allowed the mistake to be passed in the dead of the night. Obama knew when that turd was passed that you wouldn't be allowed to keep your doctor, unless you paid out the ass for it.
The red line was a bluff and when it got called Obama folded like a house of cards.
The ACA deboggle, his doubling the national debit, and his horrible foreign policy are just 3 of the reasons Obama will eventually be labeled as one of the worse presidents in history.
Well they show me ads for things that I might be interested in. We all use ad blockers but you can't block all the ads. Some are going to get through. I would rather have a ad on the side of my page that shows something I'm interested in. Like a new scifi show, graphics card, or video games. I don't want to see ads for hemorrhoid cream or the latest do it yourself hair cut systems.
I see a universe ruled by science, governed by physical laws that we are capable of understanding. There is no such thing as the supernatural, just things we don't understand and some people want to attribute to supernatural. It is ether natural or it doesn't exist.
What I leave room for is something outside our current level of understanding. Weather you want to call that God, alien intelligence, or the great system admin. and all of reality is a computer simulation.
But some people still want to attribute consciousness to divinity. I see no reason to leave that option open, because while we both agree in science we might be wrong. I just leave that possibility open.
The flow charts are excellent ways to visualize what I was describing.
I'm going to respectfully disagree with part of your statement on SAI. We do not know if this is possible. We assume its possible and have good evidence to do so. But since we really don't know the nature of our own sentient, how can we define another? This is something theologians and philosophers have debated since time started. Is our consciousness a divine spark created by some all powerful being or an illusion caused by the random interactions of chemicals and enzymes? I suppose we will really never know if a machine is "alive" till one wakes up and says so.
When I back in college for my CS degree i wrote a paper about AI. Granted this was 250 year ago. I should dig out that paper, update it, and try to publish it.
Anyway, I divided AI into three broad categories.
SI, or simulated intelligence. My module at the time for this was the eliza program in emacs. While it is a very limited at its it is a simulated intelligence. A modern version would be the Siri apps found on Iphones and the Google version. No one will mistake these for a living person and they do not think. They just answer with what is programmed into them. But as time advances that logic will be come more complex. Eventually, I believe you will not be able to discern the difference between them an people. But even if they become that complex they are still nothing more than a glorified if/then/else statement. Not really a thinking machine. This type of AI is possible.
AI, or artificial intelligence. This would be a truly thinking machine. It would be capable of looking at evidence or data, and making complex decisions based on its programming. This is the kind of AI that people think of when they think of Sky-net. I assume that we wouldn't be that stupid though and program in some limitations on what it could and couldn't do. This type of AI is possible.
SAI, or sentient artificial intelligence. This would be a living machine. It would be capable of making decisions based on evidence and data. Using such data it would be capable of predicting the future and planning for it. It would be capable of altering its programming and ignoring any limitation put on it by external events and conditions. Think Data off of Star Trek. This type of AI might be possible.
Three simple categories and I got a C on that paper.
I've had thoughts like this too. The inherent flaws in the system might be enough to prevent a Wylie E. Coyote crash and burn. But again even if the bubble does simply deflate the result will still be the same. Millions will still be lost, it will just be drawn out and more painful.
Because continuing to use a system that has a proven 1.5% chance of killing everyone board is brilliant?
Compared to what we currently have now, which is nothing, yes. Even with a 1.5% failure rate there was still plenty of volunteers that would gladly use the system. If they never launched another space shuttle again scrapping the whole system was plain stupid before we had a working system to replace it. They should have mothballed the fleet instead of scrapping it.
By scrapping the space shuttle those two morons put us completely at the mercy of a foreign power for at least two decades for manned access to space. If they would have mothballed the system at least we would have a system if we needed it.
Slashdot Mirror
An nothing of real value was lost. At least if a 100B in monopoly money went up in flames it would keep your warm for a bit.
So the question you should ask yourself, is why you chose Microsoft.
Because all the games and most of the software I want to run is Windows only. An none of the games have linux counterparts.
Any other questions?
I find that statement interesting. I was playing GTA 5 on a i7-6700K last night and didn't' notice any performance impact from the game. I was running over goats just as well as I always have been. Do you have any benchmarks you can provide, before and after?
I loved the PowerPC arch. Right before apple switch away from the PowerPC I was looking at getting the next generation Mac with a PowerPC chip. Then they switched to intel a few months later and I just decided to stick with windows.
My Linux box is a aging FX-8350. I've also thought about replacing it with a more modern processor. Problem is that I can't justify it. The 8350 delivers everything I need it to do.
Out of touch much? Intel now derives a large and expanding portion of its revenue from Linux servers, versus the shrinking Wintel market
From what I've been seeing over the last 10 years this observation matches what I've been seeing. Not just with intel but with server sales from Dell and IBM too.
Back in 2008 I priced out 150 dell 2950 for a datacenter. The price automatically included a windows license for each server. It it took me 2 weeks to pound it through some thick skulls that we didn't want or going to pay the microsoft tax.
I priced out a few dozen Dell servers a few years back. When I ordered them with Linux on them nobody batted a eye. It would come pre-installed for me. I, of course, thanked them for this service but informed them that I would be re-imaging them my self.
What advantage are you talking about and what competitor? Do you mean AMD? I'm sure you do and yes you would be correct they have a slight advantage now but the funny thing is I don't see them running to exploit it. An advantage is nothing if you don't exploit it and that is just what I'm seeing AMD not do.
Do we have a list of hardware that is good?
So how bad a threat is this if just decide to forgo the patch and run naked? I don't run crapwear or download drivers from whatever source has them. All my games come from steam and almost all my other software comes from companies that I've been doing business with for years.
I looked up the asteroid, 2011 AG5, and its only 140 meters wide. It would make a nice hole but would be far from the Armageddon level event that I thought it would.
But I'm still going to dis-agree with you. The Chicxulub event was only 10 to 15km across but it wipped out 75% of the critters on earth above a certain body weight. We naked apes are well inside that body weight.
Altering the orbit of a body doesn't take much. You ether have to change is energy or its mass. Technically we have changed the orbit of every planet in the solar system by some tiny amount. Setting off enough explosives on the correct rocks can place them on a impact course. Granted it might take years before the actual event but it can be done.
Of course if we where damn determined to eradicate all life on earth we would probably use more than one rock. So it can be done, just not easily
No we haven't. We don't even have it now.
Yeah we do. All we have to do is use nuclear demolitions to alter the orbit of a near earth asteroid. It doesn't have to be a big one, 10-20 miles across. I believe there is a big one swinging around in 2040 that should do it.
If we really wanted to get a gold star we could drop a bigger one and liquefy the crust of the planet. That would exterminate all life on earth right down to the deep bacteria.
I'm sure you did. You should thank the rest of us for paying for the rest of your medical bills.
No you weren't. The ACA was a mistake, "you can keep your doctor" was the like that allowed the mistake to be passed in the dead of the night. Obama knew when that turd was passed that you wouldn't be allowed to keep your doctor, unless you paid out the ass for it.
The red line was a bluff and when it got called Obama folded like a house of cards.
The ACA deboggle, his doubling the national debit, and his horrible foreign policy are just 3 of the reasons Obama will eventually be labeled as one of the worse presidents in history.
Correction. 36745.
Outstanding. Now how will I disable this problem?
Well they show me ads for things that I might be interested in. We all use ad blockers but you can't block all the ads. Some are going to get through. I would rather have a ad on the side of my page that shows something I'm interested in. Like a new scifi show, graphics card, or video games. I don't want to see ads for hemorrhoid cream or the latest do it yourself hair cut systems.
He isn't. Can we can the Pseudoscience bullshit please? Just for a week are so.
Chirp... Chirp,,,
I like that. Replace AI with ML and move everything under the umbrella of AI.
I see no reason to leave that option open,
I should really learn to proofread better. What that line should say is "I see no reason to not leave that option open."
I see a universe ruled by science, governed by physical laws that we are capable of understanding. There is no such thing as the supernatural, just things we don't understand and some people want to attribute to supernatural. It is ether natural or it doesn't exist.
What I leave room for is something outside our current level of understanding. Weather you want to call that God, alien intelligence, or the great system admin. and all of reality is a computer simulation.
But some people still want to attribute consciousness to divinity. I see no reason to leave that option open, because while we both agree in science we might be wrong. I just leave that possibility open.
The flow charts are excellent ways to visualize what I was describing.
I'm going to respectfully disagree with part of your statement on SAI. We do not know if this is possible. We assume its possible and have good evidence to do so. But since we really don't know the nature of our own sentient, how can we define another? This is something theologians and philosophers have debated since time started. Is our consciousness a divine spark created by some all powerful being or an illusion caused by the random interactions of chemicals and enzymes? I suppose we will really never know if a machine is "alive" till one wakes up and says so.
When I back in college for my CS degree i wrote a paper about AI. Granted this was 250 year ago. I should dig out that paper, update it, and try to publish it.
Anyway, I divided AI into three broad categories.
SI, or simulated intelligence. My module at the time for this was the eliza program in emacs. While it is a very limited at its it is a simulated intelligence. A modern version would be the Siri apps found on Iphones and the Google version. No one will mistake these for a living person and they do not think. They just answer with what is programmed into them. But as time advances that logic will be come more complex. Eventually, I believe you will not be able to discern the difference between them an people. But even if they become that complex they are still nothing more than a glorified if/then/else statement. Not really a thinking machine. This type of AI is possible.
AI, or artificial intelligence. This would be a truly thinking machine. It would be capable of looking at evidence or data, and making complex decisions based on its programming. This is the kind of AI that people think of when they think of Sky-net. I assume that we wouldn't be that stupid though and program in some limitations on what it could and couldn't do. This type of AI is possible.
SAI, or sentient artificial intelligence. This would be a living machine. It would be capable of making decisions based on evidence and data. Using such data it would be capable of predicting the future and planning for it. It would be capable of altering its programming and ignoring any limitation put on it by external events and conditions. Think Data off of Star Trek. This type of AI might be possible.
Three simple categories and I got a C on that paper.
Tell me more about this used high-end graphics cards for ridiculously cheap prices.
I've had thoughts like this too. The inherent flaws in the system might be enough to prevent a Wylie E. Coyote crash and burn. But again even if the bubble does simply deflate the result will still be the same. Millions will still be lost, it will just be drawn out and more painful.
Because continuing to use a system that has a proven 1.5% chance of killing everyone board is brilliant?
Compared to what we currently have now, which is nothing, yes. Even with a 1.5% failure rate there was still plenty of volunteers that would gladly use the system. If they never launched another space shuttle again scrapping the whole system was plain stupid before we had a working system to replace it. They should have mothballed the fleet instead of scrapping it.
By scrapping the space shuttle those two morons put us completely at the mercy of a foreign power for at least two decades for manned access to space. If they would have mothballed the system at least we would have a system if we needed it.