Instead of complaining about tickets, run for office or attend government meetings and propose changes.
Yeah, that'll work.
'Look, I know you get a sizeable amount of your revenue from taxing those who drive at more than X mph, but you really should stop because it's very silly.'
Research has repeatedly shown that the safest drivers are around the 85th percentile by speed. If lots of people are breaking the speed limit, then it's set below that level. If the limit is set below that level and you drive below it, you're a more dangerous driver than many of those who are speeding.
You really think "Obamacare" is driving this? It would be happening regardless, driven by the insurance companies.
But people were complaining recently that health insurers drive people to have too many tests and unneccesary treatments, so that they can push up premiums.
So... what kind of idiot wrote that pretentious article
One who understands that cost/benefit calculations have to, you know, include the costs as well as the benefits?
If attempting to treat supposed cancers causes debilitating harm to thousands of people but benefits another few thousand people, then it's far from clear whether treatment is beneficial to the majority.
The 19th Century thinking here is remarkable. It makes me wonder who are the conservatives.
The 'progressives' are the modern conservatives, because they're trying to maintain an industrial-era ideology in an increasingly post-industrial society. The 'conservatives' are trying to build a society that works when most people aren't 'working for the man' in a factory twelve hours a day.
If I have to use one non hotkeyed application, I just hit super key and start typing either description or name, and after 2-3 letters it's the first pick on the launcher..
When your answer to 'launching applications sucks with your GUI' is 'you just have to type the name of the application', you're doing something wrong.
If I want to start applications by typing the name, I can use the command-line. If I use a GUI, it's because I don't want to have to use a poorly-implemented copy of a command-line interface to start applications.
So we can look forward to the "year of Linux on the Tablet" just after the "year of Linux on the Desktop"?
Unix already owns the tablet market, and Android is Linux with a non-standard user space. I'm not entirely sure how Ubuntu think they'll compete with Android when it's already free*, though.
Yeah, we've switched a number of CentOS systems to SL over the last few months. I've considered doing that with my telecommuting box, but since I'm connecting to CentOS 5 machines I'd rather have the same OS here.
CentOS is good but slow; AFAIR Red Hat are working on 6.2 whereas CentOS 6.1 isn't even out yet. I use CentOS on my telecommuting system but considered paying for Red Hat last year when security patches got weeks behind.
So CentOS will save you some cash, but if you want to keep the OS up to date with fixes then you'll need to spend some money and buy Red Hat.
The oriignal hyperthreading P4s were pretty much irrelevant because they were single core; the OS either scheduled one thread or two based on whether hyperhreading was enabled in the BIOS, and there was nothing more complex required than that.
And I have to wonder if most of the performance gains will be made by essentially doing the -same things- (such as not putting two high loads on the same core when other cores are idle).
From the article it would appear that in other cases you'll reduce performance because that will disable 'turbo' overclocking. But the whole thing just seems too complex to optimise for because of all the special cases (e.g. don't put two integer threads on different cores, don't put two floating point threads on the same core), so that may be the best compromise.
Lying to the OS for short term gain means long term pain.
Shipping hardware whose performance sucks on real workloads and expecting the OS developers to fix your problem causes short-term pain that leads to long-term pain as your sales drop through the floor.
Oddly, the AMD fanboys were making the opposite argument back in the days when you could cook your breakfast on your Pentium-4 while checking your email.
It's not like hyper threading. For integer operations, the AMD chips are much better. What AMD doesn't have is two floating point units so that's what gets bogged down. There are two instruction decoders and two units to handle integer math, but one floating point unit per component.
Ah, so this benchmark is floating point and that's why it's faster across multiple cores?
I can't really see AMD convincing Microsoft to invest a lot of effort into dynamically tracking which threads use floating point and which don't and reassigning them appropriately. Maybe a flag on the thread to say whether it's using floating point or not at creation time would be viable, but then app developers won't bother to set it.
Perhaps I'm remembering incorrectly, but I thought part of the Bulldozer hype was that it had two 'real' cores and not hyperthreading, with only a few resources shared? Yet now it turns out that you have to treat it like a hyperthreading CPU or performance sucks.
I still don't understand why AMD didn't just set the hyperthreading bit in the CPU flags, so Windows would presumably just treat it like a hyperthreading CPU in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
If staters were as concerned over highway safety as they are with speed, think of how wonderful our highways would be.
Speeding tickets bring in money. Improving roads to improve safety costs money.
QED.
Instead of complaining about tickets, run for office or attend government meetings and propose changes.
Yeah, that'll work.
'Look, I know you get a sizeable amount of your revenue from taxing those who drive at more than X mph, but you really should stop because it's very silly.'
How about you just don't speed, you jack-off...
Research has repeatedly shown that the safest drivers are around the 85th percentile by speed. If lots of people are breaking the speed limit, then it's set below that level. If the limit is set below that level and you drive below it, you're a more dangerous driver than many of those who are speeding.
...when my Google car is driving itself above the speed limit?
You really think "Obamacare" is driving this? It would be happening regardless, driven by the insurance companies.
But people were complaining recently that health insurers drive people to have too many tests and unneccesary treatments, so that they can push up premiums.
Then today they're not paying for enough.
Seems they're damned either way.
So ... what kind of idiot wrote that pretentious article
One who understands that cost/benefit calculations have to, you know, include the costs as well as the benefits?
If attempting to treat supposed cancers causes debilitating harm to thousands of people but benefits another few thousand people, then it's far from clear whether treatment is beneficial to the majority.
Possibly, yes. A few filthy rich tourists could make it into low earth orbit, and a few years later, we'll run out of filthy rich tourists.
I believe China alone has enough millionaires to keep a hotel fully booked for quite a few years.
It's more likely these are last decades. A few more years, and people will decide the ISS is a useless money drain, which they can no longer afford.
By then Bigelow will probably have his space hotel operating with SpaceX flying tourists there on a regular basis. Maybe NASA will buy one.
This applies to the Windows 8 developers as well, who also have a screen hogging touchscreen Start menu that is useless to most users.
But it's SO SHINY!
The 19th Century thinking here is remarkable. It makes me wonder who are the conservatives.
The 'progressives' are the modern conservatives, because they're trying to maintain an industrial-era ideology in an increasingly post-industrial society. The 'conservatives' are trying to build a society that works when most people aren't 'working for the man' in a factory twelve hours a day.
If I have to use one non hotkeyed application, I just hit super key and start typing either description or name, and after 2-3 letters it's the first pick on the launcher..
When your answer to 'launching applications sucks with your GUI' is 'you just have to type the name of the application', you're doing something wrong.
If I want to start applications by typing the name, I can use the command-line. If I use a GUI, it's because I don't want to have to use a poorly-implemented copy of a command-line interface to start applications.
So we can look forward to the "year of Linux on the Tablet" just after the "year of Linux on the Desktop"?
Unix already owns the tablet market, and Android is Linux with a non-standard user space. I'm not entirely sure how Ubuntu think they'll compete with Android when it's already free*, though.
* - assuming you don't pay the Microsoft tax.
...since Unity has made Ubuntu completely suck on anything with a mouse and keyboard.
It's not bad on a netbook where you don't have much screen space to waste. It does suck on a laptop or desktop with a big screen, though.
Yeah, we've switched a number of CentOS systems to SL over the last few months. I've considered doing that with my telecommuting box, but since I'm connecting to CentOS 5 machines I'd rather have the same OS here.
CentOS is good but slow; AFAIR Red Hat are working on 6.2 whereas CentOS 6.1 isn't even out yet. I use CentOS on my telecommuting system but considered paying for Red Hat last year when security patches got weeks behind.
So CentOS will save you some cash, but if you want to keep the OS up to date with fixes then you'll need to spend some money and buy Red Hat.
Well except that it doesn't have enough power to play back 1080p videos, and likely it can't even do 720p either
Uh, that'll explain the various articles about how how it's capable of playing 1080p video (via the GPU).
After 6 months to 1 year, the process will be significantly more mature and the Bulldozer chips will be serious contenders to Intel offerings.
AMD just have to survive six months to a year of selling poorly-performing CPUs that have twice as many transistors as the competition.
The oriignal hyperthreading P4s were pretty much irrelevant because they were single core; the OS either scheduled one thread or two based on whether hyperhreading was enabled in the BIOS, and there was nothing more complex required than that.
And I have to wonder if most of the performance gains will be made by essentially doing the -same things- (such as not putting two high loads on the same core when other cores are idle).
From the article it would appear that in other cases you'll reduce performance because that will disable 'turbo' overclocking. But the whole thing just seems too complex to optimise for because of all the special cases (e.g. don't put two integer threads on different cores, don't put two floating point threads on the same core), so that may be the best compromise.
Lying to the OS for short term gain means long term pain.
Shipping hardware whose performance sucks on real workloads and expecting the OS developers to fix your problem causes short-term pain that leads to long-term pain as your sales drop through the floor.
Why do you care about a few measly watts?
Oddly, the AMD fanboys were making the opposite argument back in the days when you could cook your breakfast on your Pentium-4 while checking your email.
Clearly AMD should be charging $4k more for their CPUs if they're leaving that big a gap between their price and Intel's.
It's not like hyper threading. For integer operations, the AMD chips are much better. What AMD doesn't have is two floating point units so that's what gets bogged down. There are two instruction decoders and two units to handle integer math, but one floating point unit per component.
Ah, so this benchmark is floating point and that's why it's faster across multiple cores?
I can't really see AMD convincing Microsoft to invest a lot of effort into dynamically tracking which threads use floating point and which don't and reassigning them appropriately. Maybe a flag on the thread to say whether it's using floating point or not at creation time would be viable, but then app developers won't bother to set it.
Perhaps I'm remembering incorrectly, but I thought part of the Bulldozer hype was that it had two 'real' cores and not hyperthreading, with only a few resources shared? Yet now it turns out that you have to treat it like a hyperthreading CPU or performance sucks.
I still don't understand why AMD didn't just set the hyperthreading bit in the CPU flags, so Windows would presumably just treat it like a hyperthreading CPU in the first place.
Exactly. Users don't want a 'PC that just works' or most of them wouldn't be running Windows.