"They had ongoing problems with yields and there were initial problems with power consumption. I vaguely recall that you had to use either ( or both ) certified coolers or power supplies or the warranty was void."
I have no idea about Opterons or the server room, but in the land of the desktop that wasn't so. The FX chips may well have needed a good power supply and decent cooling (especially if you were going to take advantage of their clock-unlocked features), but in general the high-end gamer PC world was as free-for-all as ever.
But you're right, yes, Intel got their act together and took the world back. Core and Core 2 started it, then Nehalem and successors just sealed the deal.
Err, there was a time 8-12 years ago when AMD *did* snatch the performance crown.
Around about the time of the Athlon 64's appearance, when Socket 939 came along, they were actually both faster and cheaper than Intel. Nothing intel had could match the FX range on the desktop, and nothing intel were doing in the server room could match Opteron at the time. Intel was struggling with its netburst architecture (IIRC) which had high clock speeds and performed slightly better under some loads (video encoding IIRC) but markedly worse for pretty much everything else.
It didn't last long, Intel took back the performance crown, and after a few years made serious inroads into the budget sector as well. But for a brief, shining moment (around the time the FX-55 and 57 were released) AMD held the crown.
Not only is the IT world full of contrarians, who likely won't strike just because other people are, but people like being paid and will continue to accept money to ruin the internet.
No fascist regime is ever short of henchmen, and no government lockdown will ever be short of people to perform it, especially if others have just walked out and they are now seen as valuable and dependable by those with power/money.
Also, you're a liar. Multiple libertarians have proposed all sorts of utopia-like systems, all of which are horribly flawed. Unless you want to go down the 'no-true-scotsman' road', I suggest you start reigning in your fellow libertarians to stop them flapping their mouths.
Only that would be against your principles, wouldn't it?
Libertarian principles leave us without roads, police or fire services. If you don't want to be part of a society that considers these and other things necessities for the state to provide then, well, frankly you can suck it because you'll never get your way.
So, people who just want to be left alone and not have the government constantly interfering with their lives, taking their earnings away for things they don't agree with and didn't vote for, and (in the case of the US) want it to honor & obey the limitations to the government's powers set out in plain language in the Constitution, without trying to control and regulate everything down to monitoring all our communications, watching us with drones, telling friends they can't talk to each other (UK) and that children can't set up a lemonade stand in their driveway (US) are "hard line" or somehow "extreme"?
You don't have to be libertarian to want the US government to stick to the constitution, or the UK government to stop the nanny-state bullshit.
A libertarian utopia would devolve into feudalism in no time, not to mention the tragedy of the commons around every corner when it comes to food safety, pollution etc. Some government functions are good in the political opinions of many, many people. It very much is hard-line and extremist to claim that no government functions can ever be good and the whole thing must be scrapped. It's ludicrous.
Because it's housing stock, and people need somewhere to live, and if you aren't renting them out and aren't paying attention to a property for over a decade, then frankly you deserve to lose it to people that want to live there.
The idea was to bring in a non-custodial legal sanction that could be used against repeated anti-social behaviour (graffiti, loud music at night, those damn kids hanging around on the street corner - things that old people get all het up about), and to be fair that's largely what it has been used for.
However the way it's written in law, and the edge cases of its application are what you describe - effectively the imposition of a brand new law on an individual or set of individuals, which they can then be fined or imprisoned for breaking. It's unbelievable.
Oh don't worry, I'm under no illusions about any of the rest of them reintroducing common sense and scaling back the bullshit (Though was pleasantly surprised when ID cards got scrapped).
The conversation I was referring to started with someone saying "well who would I vote for, they're all awful" and some Labour true-believer trying to defend their corner, which made me rather angry.
Good luck with your politics North of the border, I don't personally have any faith you'll be any better off, but at least the illusion of self-determination will be in place!
This is why the ASBO is and has always been a foul addition to British law.
Someon is doing something not illegal, but deemed anti-social, they can be issued with an anti-social-behaviour-order to constrain their activities. Even if the order tries to stop them doing something completely legal, they can be fined or imprisoned fro breaking it. It's a horrific abuse of the law, I just hope that sooner or later someone takes this through to the ECHR and gets the whole ASBO scheme shut down.
Someone asked me the other day about why I hated the labour party in the UK. That ASBOs were introduced on their watch is something I forgot at the time, it'll be in there next time someone asks me.
mankind is going to pursue this technology, no matter what you think or do. you don't stop mankind's technological progress. the same technology that can make better pipes for irrigation can be used to make better guns for killing
So sensible people speak up with concerns about whether the guns are being sold to third-world warlords.
so what you do is you don't stand against GMO, because it can make wheat grow in the desert or put vitamin a in crops where the local diet is deficient in that
Who was standing against that? I was calling the poster I replied to on the ridiculous assertion that GMOs can't possibly poison anyone.
what you do is stand against the BAD THINGS that the new technology can do: create ecosystem destroying organisms or crops that depend upon pesticides
Which is exactly what I was doing, talking about the evil done by monsanto here, and the possibilities of unintended consequences if/when genetic material from this stuff spreads.
don't stand against the technology. a fool's errand. because the technology can do good, and will get used no matter what you think.
You could say that about anything, to the extent it would be pointless to stand against anything as soon as someone else says that it will be so, so forget about it.
stand against the bad things a new technology can do. a better more fruitful use of your time
Which is exactly what I was doing.
None of which answers my question about whether you can distinguish between direct, human manipulation of DNA and the various natural and guided phenomena that constitute food-crop evolution to date. But never mind eh. I don't think we fundamentally disagree, but I'm not going to throw away my attitude of caution towards both the open planting of this stuff, and eating it.
"then go hide in your closet. GMO is going on every day, for billions of years. it's called mother nature"
Nice, see your tone hasn't changed in the last decade.
You don't see a difference between evolution (including directed evolution by human selection, and DNA insertion via micro-organisms) and direct human manipulation of the plant genome as different phenomena?
Just to clear up my own use of language here, by -
"how the hell can you say that this stuff won't poison you?"
I meant -
"how the hell can you say that this stuff can't poison you?"
Because the meaning I was trying to convey was that it's silly to say it can't poison you, unless there's some magic going on that I don't know about, I'm sure it could if genes for belladonna toxin generation were put into a food crop, to give a silly example.
"but what they can't do is poison you or give you cooties."
Uh, why not?
Splicing in gene sequences from various places, how the hell can you say that this stuff won't poison you? That reads like unscientific garbage to me.
There's no need to fear this stuff like th epost you replied to, but there's every need to research it properly and make sure that modification X doesn't also introduce slow-acting carcinogen Y into your magic desert-growing vitamin-A wheat.
Yes, there are a lot of luddites and plain liars out there when you talk about GMO. There are others like me who are genuinely concerned about this stuff having unintended consequences and genetic drift into non-GMO crops or even wild populations. Not to mention that the actions of Monsanto in this area have been utterly despicable, but that's less to do with the tech and more to do with corporate ethics.
I commend you patience. The last one I got went like this -
*ring ring* (indian voice)"Hello sir, Microsoft has been doing a survey of your area and" "No they haven't" "yes they have, and we have found a higher than normal incidence of viruses in your area" "No, they haven't, you're a liar" "No sir I am not lying. Our records show that you have a computer attached to the internet" "Right, you've got me out of bed at 9am on a saturday and lied to me three times in the course of ten seconds. F*CK OFF AND DIE YOU EVIL SCAMMER, I HOPE YOUR WHOLE FAMILY DIES IN PAIN" *hangup*
I'm not very friendly if you get me out of bed in the morning at the weekend. In retrospect that may have been overly nasty.
Example scenario - Someone I used to work with and respect says that the guy applying for the job is talented and dedicated. This helps over and above whatever might transpire at interview.
Good interevicew plus personal recommendation wins over good interview in a vacuum. IMHO.
My PSP (which I have now lost, dammit) was mostly used as a picodrive machine. There were one or two PSP games (Starwars Battlefront, mainly) that I also enjoyed on the system, and these I ripped from my disc to the memory stick. That way I didn't have to them around.
I liked my PSP when it was hacked, but have since decided no more Sony for a variety of reasons. I also think I probably don't need a portable gaming system any more, so Vita is off the menu.
Nepotism and cronyism can be pretty bad. BUT we are human, you know, and we'll always like personal recommendations. Not to mention that there are good reasons for this -
If you can get info/recommendations on someone via a trusted channel, and that info says they're reliable and hard working, that's worth a lot. There's no way to get this sort of information just out of the usual two or three hour interview process.
You know we have modules for that these days, right? Stuff like pcmcia drivers only get loaded when needed.
Also it's not as if the Pi is the first linux ARM board out there. Some of us have been running debian on ARM for years.
Hell, I was able to run GNOME 2 over VNC from my Sheevaplug about 3 years ago. Configurable distros like fedora, debian, ubuntu and the other big names should be fine on Pi.
Slashdot Mirror
I have no idea about Opterons or the server room, but in the land of the desktop that wasn't so. The FX chips may well have needed a good power supply and decent cooling (especially if you were going to take advantage of their clock-unlocked features), but in general the high-end gamer PC world was as free-for-all as ever.
But you're right, yes, Intel got their act together and took the world back. Core and Core 2 started it, then Nehalem and successors just sealed the deal.
Err, there was a time 8-12 years ago when AMD *did* snatch the performance crown.
Around about the time of the Athlon 64's appearance, when Socket 939 came along, they were actually both faster and cheaper than Intel. Nothing intel had could match the FX range on the desktop, and nothing intel were doing in the server room could match Opteron at the time. Intel was struggling with its netburst architecture (IIRC) which had high clock speeds and performed slightly better under some loads (video encoding IIRC) but markedly worse for pretty much everything else.
It didn't last long, Intel took back the performance crown, and after a few years made serious inroads into the budget sector as well. But for a brief, shining moment (around the time the FX-55 and 57 were released) AMD held the crown.
The Arab Spring - remind me how many decades those people lived under brutal oppression?
Other than that, fuck you.
Oh sure, a small group could they could disrupt things for a few days, but they'd quickly be replaced afterwards.
A protest could be effected. Permanent change, not so much.
Yeah, good luck with that.
Not only is the IT world full of contrarians, who likely won't strike just because other people are, but people like being paid and will continue to accept money to ruin the internet.
No fascist regime is ever short of henchmen, and no government lockdown will ever be short of people to perform it, especially if others have just walked out and they are now seen as valuable and dependable by those with power/money.
Also, you're a liar. Multiple libertarians have proposed all sorts of utopia-like systems, all of which are horribly flawed. Unless you want to go down the 'no-true-scotsman' road', I suggest you start reigning in your fellow libertarians to stop them flapping their mouths.
Only that would be against your principles, wouldn't it?
Do shut up, there's a good chap.
Libertarian principles leave us without roads, police or fire services. If you don't want to be part of a society that considers these and other things necessities for the state to provide then, well, frankly you can suck it because you'll never get your way.
You don't have to be libertarian to want the US government to stick to the constitution, or the UK government to stop the nanny-state bullshit.
A libertarian utopia would devolve into feudalism in no time, not to mention the tragedy of the commons around every corner when it comes to food safety, pollution etc. Some government functions are good in the political opinions of many, many people. It very much is hard-line and extremist to claim that no government functions can ever be good and the whole thing must be scrapped. It's ludicrous.
Because it's housing stock, and people need somewhere to live, and if you aren't renting them out and aren't paying attention to a property for over a decade, then frankly you deserve to lose it to people that want to live there.
The idea was to bring in a non-custodial legal sanction that could be used against repeated anti-social behaviour (graffiti, loud music at night, those damn kids hanging around on the street corner - things that old people get all het up about), and to be fair that's largely what it has been used for.
However the way it's written in law, and the edge cases of its application are what you describe - effectively the imposition of a brand new law on an individual or set of individuals, which they can then be fined or imprisoned for breaking. It's unbelievable.
Oh don't worry, I'm under no illusions about any of the rest of them reintroducing common sense and scaling back the bullshit (Though was pleasantly surprised when ID cards got scrapped).
The conversation I was referring to started with someone saying "well who would I vote for, they're all awful" and some Labour true-believer trying to defend their corner, which made me rather angry.
Good luck with your politics North of the border, I don't personally have any faith you'll be any better off, but at least the illusion of self-determination will be in place!
This is why the ASBO is and has always been a foul addition to British law.
Someon is doing something not illegal, but deemed anti-social, they can be issued with an anti-social-behaviour-order to constrain their activities. Even if the order tries to stop them doing something completely legal, they can be fined or imprisoned fro breaking it. It's a horrific abuse of the law, I just hope that sooner or later someone takes this through to the ECHR and gets the whole ASBO scheme shut down.
Someone asked me the other day about why I hated the labour party in the UK. That ASBOs were introduced on their watch is something I forgot at the time, it'll be in there next time someone asks me.
Yup, because that's what everyone wants out of a game experience - to get repeatedly spanked by 8 year olds.
That's the sort of thing that just drives folks like me away from games.
Sure, I could play on a pc, or I could sit in the living room and have a much more relaxed time.
So sensible people speak up with concerns about whether the guns are being sold to third-world warlords.
Who was standing against that? I was calling the poster I replied to on the ridiculous assertion that GMOs can't possibly poison anyone.
Which is exactly what I was doing, talking about the evil done by monsanto here, and the possibilities of unintended consequences if/when genetic material from this stuff spreads.
You could say that about anything, to the extent it would be pointless to stand against anything as soon as someone else says that it will be so, so forget about it.
Which is exactly what I was doing.
None of which answers my question about whether you can distinguish between direct, human manipulation of DNA and the various natural and guided phenomena that constitute food-crop evolution to date. But never mind eh. I don't think we fundamentally disagree, but I'm not going to throw away my attitude of caution towards both the open planting of this stuff, and eating it.
Nice, see your tone hasn't changed in the last decade.
You don't see a difference between evolution (including directed evolution by human selection, and DNA insertion via micro-organisms) and direct human manipulation of the plant genome as different phenomena?
Interesting.
That or they managed to talk themselves out of being fed and/or given beer.
We're simple creatures...
Just to clear up my own use of language here, by -
"how the hell can you say that this stuff won't poison you?"
I meant -
"how the hell can you say that this stuff can't poison you?"
Because the meaning I was trying to convey was that it's silly to say it can't poison you, unless there's some magic going on that I don't know about, I'm sure it could if genes for belladonna toxin generation were put into a food crop, to give a silly example.
Uh, why not?
Splicing in gene sequences from various places, how the hell can you say that this stuff won't poison you? That reads like unscientific garbage to me.
There's no need to fear this stuff like th epost you replied to, but there's every need to research it properly and make sure that modification X doesn't also introduce slow-acting carcinogen Y into your magic desert-growing vitamin-A wheat.
Yes, there are a lot of luddites and plain liars out there when you talk about GMO. There are others like me who are genuinely concerned about this stuff having unintended consequences and genetic drift into non-GMO crops or even wild populations. Not to mention that the actions of Monsanto in this area have been utterly despicable, but that's less to do with the tech and more to do with corporate ethics.
It tells you their hands are tied because of free market derp.
That's what it tells you.
I commend you patience. The last one I got went like this -
*ring ring*
(indian voice)"Hello sir, Microsoft has been doing a survey of your area and"
"No they haven't"
"yes they have, and we have found a higher than normal incidence of viruses in your area"
"No, they haven't, you're a liar"
"No sir I am not lying. Our records show that you have a computer attached to the internet"
"Right, you've got me out of bed at 9am on a saturday and lied to me three times in the course of ten seconds. F*CK OFF AND DIE YOU EVIL SCAMMER, I HOPE YOUR WHOLE FAMILY DIES IN PAIN" *hangup*
I'm not very friendly if you get me out of bed in the morning at the weekend. In retrospect that may have been overly nasty.
Example scenario - Someone I used to work with and respect says that the guy applying for the job is talented and dedicated. This helps over and above whatever might transpire at interview.
Good interevicew plus personal recommendation wins over good interview in a vacuum. IMHO.
Mega Drive here.
My PSP (which I have now lost, dammit) was mostly used as a picodrive machine. There were one or two PSP games (Starwars Battlefront, mainly) that I also enjoyed on the system, and these I ripped from my disc to the memory stick. That way I didn't have to them around.
I liked my PSP when it was hacked, but have since decided no more Sony for a variety of reasons. I also think I probably don't need a portable gaming system any more, so Vita is off the menu.
Qualified does not equal good worker.
Nepotism and cronyism can be pretty bad. BUT we are human, you know, and we'll always like personal recommendations. Not to mention that there are good reasons for this -
If you can get info/recommendations on someone via a trusted channel, and that info says they're reliable and hard working, that's worth a lot. There's no way to get this sort of information just out of the usual two or three hour interview process.
Athens, yes, I'm certainly an atheist but I have no trouble believing in the capital of Greece.
You know we have modules for that these days, right?
Stuff like pcmcia drivers only get loaded when needed.
Also it's not as if the Pi is the first linux ARM board out there. Some of us have been running debian on ARM for years.
Hell, I was able to run GNOME 2 over VNC from my Sheevaplug about 3 years ago. Configurable distros like fedora, debian, ubuntu and the other big names should be fine on Pi.