I think it's amusing how you assume that I have a favorite doggie in the contest just because you do. Having a perpetual favorite is the behavior of idiots who can't even protect their own self-interest. Have fun with that.
I think it's amusing how you assume that I have a favorite doggie in the contest just because you do. Having a perpetual favorite is the behavior of idiots who can't even protect their own self-interest. Have fun with that.
I suppose that is great news for people who are desperate for Intel to suffer some competition, but AMD is doing it at the continued cost of a significantly larger chunk of electricity. The contrast in power consumption is less stark than the Ivy Bridge days - which is when I gave up on AMD - but still significant. It matters less if you're addicted to FPS games that demand cutting edge graphics performance, since GPUs these days can easily consume three time more power than the alleged central processor. I consider myself a gamer, but I WILL NOT burn through the power that a GTX 1080 consumes. Still, even in GPUs AMD/ATI has become and continues to be the loser in terms of work done per Watt. There too, I abandoned AMD because its graphics cards gobble significantly more energy resource than the competition (Nvidia).
There is lengthening history at AMD of ignoring the power envelope or at least sacrificing it for the sake of barely remaining competitive, across the board. If the focus changed from raw performance to work done per unit of energy, the veil would be lifted and their charade exposed.
Given that Intel has abused its industry dominance to first create and then abandon de facto socket standards perhaps two dozen times - who's keeping count now? - over its history, this is hardly a shocking maneuver. Rather it is entirely expected. They like to force people to buy all new hardware sooner rather than later, considering they're collecting royalties for much of it that doesn't have its brand name on it. Back in the Good Olde Days when there were actually other manufacturers competing to populate those same de facto standard sockets, Intel would abandon sockets just to shake up those little guys and drain their resources trying to retool and keep up. Having fully succeeded in eliminating ALL competition for their own de facto socket standards, they now do it just for grins and giggles (and perhaps for those licensing fees).
This is certainly well known to the manufacturers, yet they choose not to attempt to compensate for it by selling stock that is slightly LONGER than the stated length. Why?
It is no longer being sufficiently dried. It is shipped quite wet and prone to further warping and even mildew, so what planing is done prior to shipping is rendered pointless much of the time. Those actions are no longer part of what we pay for. Even if they were, what is to stop the manufacturer from reasonably estimating the shrinkage due to drying and compensating for it in the final shipped product? Could it be greed, wanting consumers to eat two feet of waste rather than they lose profit on a half inch?
The conversation isn't about who bears the burden of custom orders; the conversation is about manufacturers making a good-faith effort to produce and put on the shelf what they advertise. Deliberately or carelessly inaccurate lengths aren't even the entire story: the overall quality and usability of "home improvement center" lumber has declined substantially in the last 30 years. The 2x4 and 2x6 stock at my local stores is consistently terrible now. I estimate that at best 40% of it is true and free of damage that would make it unsuitable for many personal projects. It's routine for me to be forced to inspect an entire rack just to find a handful of true undamaged stock; when we wanted 40 new fence boards, it required an hour of our time to inspect and then replace an entire pallet on the floor to find ones worth the effort. I don't recall being so horrified by the condition of lumber 20 years ago. Either we've run out of trees suitable for harvest of good lumber, or the quality control process of the lumber producers has been tossed aside in favor of volume. Regardless, the producers aren't supplying what they advertise, and that is the issue.
Hint: we had already established that before you showed up to enlighten us... again. The non-linear commenting format here means that if you don't read other branches, you don't really know what's been said.
Who should reasonably bear the burden of this variation, the lone individual buyer with limited experience, or the large corporations full of specialists who can more easily compensate for it? Hint: not the lone individual buyer.
I wasn't referring to studs. I was referring to all the other lengths that don't measure up to what is advertised. Studs are cut as they are to avoide waste, while all the other examples exist specifically to cause waste, and thus more profit.
Ask yourself why any business would produce and sell a product that was deliberately sized to an odd measurement not useful to human purposes? It's intentional wastefulness: it's intended that you must buy more material than you actually need and thus waste some of it. The manufacturer isn't just breaking even, so that waste is extra profit for them, regardless of the personal and societal consequences. Analogies: packages of bolts, nuts, and such sold in odd numbers, or tubes of toothpaste where ALL the advertising shows actors using obscenely excessive amounts of it.
The lawsuit is likely focused on deceptive labeling of the third dimension of lumber, which DOES matter and isn't an "industry quirk". I myself have recently bought allegedly 8-feet-long lumber that proved to be about 1/4 of an inch shorter than that. This is being done in spite of at least some of Home Depot's management knowing about it, and that's fraudulent. They can try and blame it on the lumber producers and claim that they're being defrauded, too, but the likelihood of no one in Home Depot's giant operation noticing that their bedsheets have been shorted and sounding an alarm is quite small. It's either outright conspiracy or synergistic collusion.
You find that solution acceptable? What happens when KickStarter plugs that little hole in the echo chamber? You think quite small and narrow when you solve problems, don't you?
... open spaces in a large garden are very common.
They are only common in gardens maintained by people who understand nothing about soil, microclimate, water conservation... you know, everything that American gardeners were never taught and never learn. It's disgusting when even back yard gardeners - the target market of this device - are applying wasteful techniques pioneered in a distant age of ignorance and perpetuated by giant monoculture factory farms. You use English like a hippie, so I'd expect you to know better and not defend this ignorance.
Hmmm... if you've got enough open soil between your garden plants for this thing to wander, then you're gardening wrong! And if a weed appears right next to a desirable plant - which is all too frequent - what then? Also never mind that it's useless for a weed-filled grass lawn, apparently? What was wrong with mulch, which works fine when applied correctly?
Peer review is rendered rather pointless and ineffective if every peer considers the inaccurate methodology to be authoritative and fails to question it.
And yet it remains quite the rarity in humans, including those spat out from expensive universities with highly coveted reputations. What is common rather than rare? Self-delusion is commonplace. It crowds out critical thinking, since the two cannot coexist. Tribalism is comorbid with that self-delusion, and nurtures it to the detriment of critical thinking. The so-called top universities actually nurture tribalistic thinking. Critical thinking goes out the window more often than not; it's simply not the most useful survive-and-thrive skill in this over-populated highly tribalistic groupthink-dominated environment. Only certain roles in this civilization make well developed critical thinking a necessary mental discipline.
You rarely get what you pay for. That is capitalism for you.
That's great, but the GPL wasn't even a gleam in anyone's eye at the time of my anecdote. Copyright certainly existed, but trying to exercise it in that fashion back then would have been nothing but trouble.
Back in the early Eighties, I took a programming course from a particular instructor who I later learned from a friend had "cheated" and used some of my work from the class as an example in later classes. Humor aside, cheating is hardly a new thing. Neither is programming.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's amusing how you assume that I have a favorite doggie in the contest just because you do. Having a perpetual favorite is the behavior of idiots who can't even protect their own self-interest. Have fun with that.
I think it's amusing how you assume that I have a favorite doggie in the contest just because you do. Having a perpetual favorite is the behavior of idiots who can't even protect their own self-interest. Have fun with that.
I suppose that is great news for people who are desperate for Intel to suffer some competition, but AMD is doing it at the continued cost of a significantly larger chunk of electricity. The contrast in power consumption is less stark than the Ivy Bridge days - which is when I gave up on AMD - but still significant. It matters less if you're addicted to FPS games that demand cutting edge graphics performance, since GPUs these days can easily consume three time more power than the alleged central processor. I consider myself a gamer, but I WILL NOT burn through the power that a GTX 1080 consumes. Still, even in GPUs AMD/ATI has become and continues to be the loser in terms of work done per Watt. There too, I abandoned AMD because its graphics cards gobble significantly more energy resource than the competition (Nvidia).
There is lengthening history at AMD of ignoring the power envelope or at least sacrificing it for the sake of barely remaining competitive, across the board. If the focus changed from raw performance to work done per unit of energy, the veil would be lifted and their charade exposed.
Given that Intel has abused its industry dominance to first create and then abandon de facto socket standards perhaps two dozen times - who's keeping count now? - over its history, this is hardly a shocking maneuver. Rather it is entirely expected. They like to force people to buy all new hardware sooner rather than later, considering they're collecting royalties for much of it that doesn't have its brand name on it. Back in the Good Olde Days when there were actually other manufacturers competing to populate those same de facto standard sockets, Intel would abandon sockets just to shake up those little guys and drain their resources trying to retool and keep up. Having fully succeeded in eliminating ALL competition for their own de facto socket standards, they now do it just for grins and giggles (and perhaps for those licensing fees).
gopher: FTW!
Can we please spread that out across several articles at least? That's too much apologetic bullshit to digest in one sitting.
It's that simple, and Jacob knows it. He's setting the example for the greedy to pretend to take to heart.
This is certainly well known to the manufacturers, yet they choose not to attempt to compensate for it by selling stock that is slightly LONGER than the stated length. Why?
It is no longer being sufficiently dried. It is shipped quite wet and prone to further warping and even mildew, so what planing is done prior to shipping is rendered pointless much of the time. Those actions are no longer part of what we pay for. Even if they were, what is to stop the manufacturer from reasonably estimating the shrinkage due to drying and compensating for it in the final shipped product? Could it be greed, wanting consumers to eat two feet of waste rather than they lose profit on a half inch?
You'll get your citation from this lawsuit. For now enjoy my few anecdotal data points.
We're not getting "flat" true boards as it is.
The conversation isn't about who bears the burden of custom orders; the conversation is about manufacturers making a good-faith effort to produce and put on the shelf what they advertise. Deliberately or carelessly inaccurate lengths aren't even the entire story: the overall quality and usability of "home improvement center" lumber has declined substantially in the last 30 years. The 2x4 and 2x6 stock at my local stores is consistently terrible now. I estimate that at best 40% of it is true and free of damage that would make it unsuitable for many personal projects. It's routine for me to be forced to inspect an entire rack just to find a handful of true undamaged stock; when we wanted 40 new fence boards, it required an hour of our time to inspect and then replace an entire pallet on the floor to find ones worth the effort. I don't recall being so horrified by the condition of lumber 20 years ago. Either we've run out of trees suitable for harvest of good lumber, or the quality control process of the lumber producers has been tossed aside in favor of volume. Regardless, the producers aren't supplying what they advertise, and that is the issue.
Hint: we had already established that before you showed up to enlighten us... again. The non-linear commenting format here means that if you don't read other branches, you don't really know what's been said.
Who should reasonably bear the burden of this variation, the lone individual buyer with limited experience, or the large corporations full of specialists who can more easily compensate for it? Hint: not the lone individual buyer.
I wasn't referring to studs. I was referring to all the other lengths that don't measure up to what is advertised. Studs are cut as they are to avoide waste, while all the other examples exist specifically to cause waste, and thus more profit.
Ask yourself why any business would produce and sell a product that was deliberately sized to an odd measurement not useful to human purposes? It's intentional wastefulness: it's intended that you must buy more material than you actually need and thus waste some of it. The manufacturer isn't just breaking even, so that waste is extra profit for them, regardless of the personal and societal consequences. Analogies: packages of bolts, nuts, and such sold in odd numbers, or tubes of toothpaste where ALL the advertising shows actors using obscenely excessive amounts of it.
The lawsuit is likely focused on deceptive labeling of the third dimension of lumber, which DOES matter and isn't an "industry quirk". I myself have recently bought allegedly 8-feet-long lumber that proved to be about 1/4 of an inch shorter than that. This is being done in spite of at least some of Home Depot's management knowing about it, and that's fraudulent. They can try and blame it on the lumber producers and claim that they're being defrauded, too, but the likelihood of no one in Home Depot's giant operation noticing that their bedsheets have been shorted and sounding an alarm is quite small. It's either outright conspiracy or synergistic collusion.
You find that solution acceptable? What happens when KickStarter plugs that little hole in the echo chamber? You think quite small and narrow when you solve problems, don't you?
... open spaces in a large garden are very common.
They are only common in gardens maintained by people who understand nothing about soil, microclimate, water conservation... you know, everything that American gardeners were never taught and never learn. It's disgusting when even back yard gardeners - the target market of this device - are applying wasteful techniques pioneered in a distant age of ignorance and perpetuated by giant monoculture factory farms. You use English like a hippie, so I'd expect you to know better and not defend this ignorance.
Isn't that just the Internet's perfect Echo Chamber of Things? No public criticism or questioning allowed.
Hmmm... if you've got enough open soil between your garden plants for this thing to wander, then you're gardening wrong! And if a weed appears right next to a desirable plant - which is all too frequent - what then? Also never mind that it's useless for a weed-filled grass lawn, apparently? What was wrong with mulch, which works fine when applied correctly?
Peer review is rendered rather pointless and ineffective if every peer considers the inaccurate methodology to be authoritative and fails to question it.
Everyone should have critical thinking skills....
And yet it remains quite the rarity in humans, including those spat out from expensive universities with highly coveted reputations. What is common rather than rare? Self-delusion is commonplace. It crowds out critical thinking, since the two cannot coexist. Tribalism is comorbid with that self-delusion, and nurtures it to the detriment of critical thinking. The so-called top universities actually nurture tribalistic thinking. Critical thinking goes out the window more often than not; it's simply not the most useful survive-and-thrive skill in this over-populated highly tribalistic groupthink-dominated environment. Only certain roles in this civilization make well developed critical thinking a necessary mental discipline.
You rarely get what you pay for. That is capitalism for you.
That's great, but the GPL wasn't even a gleam in anyone's eye at the time of my anecdote. Copyright certainly existed, but trying to exercise it in that fashion back then would have been nothing but trouble.
Back in the early Eighties, I took a programming course from a particular instructor who I later learned from a friend had "cheated" and used some of my work from the class as an example in later classes. Humor aside, cheating is hardly a new thing. Neither is programming.