Granted, little is known about exactly what the P4 is supposed to do, and why it needs so much power, but I doubt that such a big change was really necessary.
When AMD decided to make a higher-powered CPU, they simply used the existing platform, but then again, they don't have the kind of clout Intel does when it comes to these kinds of things. Anyhow, AMD just created a list of recommended power supplies that matched their spec on the existing interface. Why can't Intel do the same? Do they really feel the need to up the power by so much to require all this extra stuff?
Apparently so. This wasn't a decision to gain consumers, it was a decision to attack their competition (look, we have all this stuff and they don't; it must mean we're better). People who buy OEM machines won't be all that affected, though, as they're bying the whole package anyhow. Those of us who like to pick-and-choose our parts are probably going to look elsewhere for at least the next couple of years. I know I will. I intend to keep that sweet Supermicro 750A around for a long time. Goodbye, Intel.
That's absurd! Having been a college freshman, I can say that being a college freshman does not inherently lead to death.
True, but notice my use of the phrase "at the worst end of the spectrum."
In jail, drunk off their asses? Maybe so. Because if you tell them "drinking is bad" and their friends tell them "drinking is cool" then they're going to want to drink.
I agree and disagree. If the "drinking is bad" message is hammered with negative reinforcement, and the "drinking is cool" message is hammered with positive reinforcement, the outcome is a no-brainer. However, if parents talk to their children about alcohol/drugs/sex without going into the fire and damnation "you're a horrible, ungrateful child if you don't listen to me" mess, then the children are far more likely to follow their parents' advice.
But if at 13, they drink enough to wake up in jail with a horrible hangover, then maybe at 15 or 16 when all their friends say "drinking is cool," they'll say "What are you talking about? Have you ever had any alcohol?" and their friends will say "Well, no, but my big brother is cool, and he's in a frat and drinks a lot, and besides, it's against the law, so it must be cool." and your kid will say "Well I have had alcohol, and it didn't taste very good, and I ended up in jail with a horrible headache and felt like a moron. I think it was a mistake, and if drinking is
to be 'cool' or 'fun', we have to do it in moderation."
Possibly, but that's one heck of a kid who can stand up to to his/her friends like that. Then again, they might wake up in jail with a hangover and think "oh, wow, what a rush...I gotta get my friends in on this."
But instead, you tell them it's forbidden, and they feel all cool about doing it and they spend their freshman
year rebelling by joining a frat and waking up in dumpsters every weekend.
True enough, but again it depends on the approach the parents took.
I respected and loved my parents, but I'm glad I didn't always listen to them. They told me to stop spending all my time playing video games and reading and fooling around with my computer, and do my homework, because if I got bad grades I wouldn't end up in a good college and get a good job. I blew them off and only worked hard in classes that interested me. I got into a great college that I absolutely love and am confident is the perfect place for me, and I now have a very well paying computer job doing something that interests me. Yes, your parents are experienced, and that's a valuable thing. But they aren't very experienced at your life, and they don't always know what's best for you. They're also only human, and sometimes you're smarter than they are. They also have some of the stupid irrational parenting instincts that seem to get injected into them as soon as they see a baby. Like the fatherly "my little baby girl is never dating anyone, ever." So if you believe everything your parents say, you miss tons of opportunities and probably just repeat your parents' lives instead of finding your own.
Very true. I suppose it's a balancing act between accepting our parents' advice and knowing what we're capable of out from under their wing. However, sex/drugs/alcohol have all been around since long before our parents, and they'll be around for a long time from now. Those issues are universal to every generation.
Not without jumping off of something. You can accept it when people tell you that it will hurt, but you never really know. You "learn" that a lot of things hurt, and most of the time they do. But there are lots of chances for amazingly intense and fulfilling experiences that you'll miss out on if you believe what people tell you about what hurts and what's safe.
Maybe, but I also know what it's like to fall off my bike. It's a hop-skip-and-jump from "knowing" that pain to deducing that I'm going to die if I jump off that bridge, or at the very least get really really mangled. I can deduce from relatively small experiences of mine, or from the experiences of others. Maybe I really never know, but damn, some things are just not worth knowing. I count that jump as one of them. I also count sticking my hand in the garbage disposal while it's on as another.
Well, I disagree with you on that particular one, but it's your call with your kids. The point is that at least you accept the responsibility of parenting the kids, and don't expect the laws and the corporations to do it for you. That's the real point I want to get across here.
Absolutely! But a little discussion around the edges never killed anyone.:) I, for one, have learned some things from you and appreciate the opportunity.
Ah, so we should let our 13-year-old children associate with college freshmen and just accept it when they end up in jail drunk off their asses, or at the worst end of the spectrum, dead. Yep, we told them what would happen, they didn't listen, they're dead now. Oh fricken well. We should just accept it. I think not.
You're wrong about not being able to learn "because mommy said so." That's how I learned. That's how I avoided countless potential catastrophes. I, unlike many of my peers, actually respected, loved, and LISTENED to my parents. I knew they understood life better that I because they had lived more of it. They had already been everywhere I was. Believe it or not, there are those of us who can learn that it's going to hurt when we hit bottom without having to jump off a bridge.
You're right about laws, though. They have no place where mere socialization is involved, much like they have no place where the Internet is involved. Parents should be supervising their children and the people they associate themselves with, but they should not just turn away when their children don't listen. I've seen what happens when they do, and it is not a pretty sight.
You're also right that 13-year-olds can associate with 17-year-olds. It happens all the time. Your miss is that parents should accept their 13-year-olds decision to go hang out at the frat house if they so choose, despite parental cautioning. That's irresponsible parenting.
Three devices common today: PDA, Cell phone, and pager. Cell phones and PDAs can have web connectivity, pagers can recieve a very simple and small text message, and even reply to them. The natrual evolution of these devices is leading towards a single device that performs the function of all three.
Some of the most recent cell phones are the closest to this that exists currently, but IMHO they fail to a point that I have no desire to own one. I'll consider it when the following device exists:
A Palm PDA with built-in pager and cell phone hardware with belt-clip. An ear-piece with extending microphone that jacks into the PDA. The PDA's belt clip is such that the device flips up so you can use it from its mounting point. The device retains full Palm functionality.
That way I can carry the three devices I need a the same time in one compact, but fully functional, package. No sacrifices. No need to carry Batman's utility belt.
> How high to you have to get to escape the winds and flying cows?
Not quite so high as low orbit, but high enough to make it interesting. The part of the tornado that we see, as big and impressive as it is, is only about 10% of the full vortex. Most of the heavier debris stays down below that 10%, but lighter things can go all the way up. When they come back down, they're miles away from where they were picked up.
My mind is sorta foggy on it, but I remember a story about a town that got rained on by frogs, with an otherwise clear sky, because a tornado some miles away went over a river full of them, picked them up, and chucked them from over 10,000 feet up. Somebody else probably remembers it better than I am, so don't call me on accuracy.:)
The upcoming Voodoo series cards will use their own power line direct from the power supply because some motherboards (Athlon) are unable to provide the stable high current that newer, high-power video cards (GeForce) demand through the bus. This may be exclusive to Athlon + GeForce owners right now, but at the rate video cards are going, this kind of problem will appear on other systems, too. It's only seen now because the motherboard must supply power to two high-current demanding components, the Athlon and the GeForce. I get the impression that, without this dedicated power supply, the V5 would have a similar problem on all motherboards, not just Athlon. Don't quote me on that, it's just speculation. The dedicated line provides a stability and performance boost to the card. The formerly neglected power supply is about to become a house-hold word. No longer will people buy the cheapest peice of crap 250W they can get their hands on!;)
This is a clear sign that the video card is becoming a whole new monster in the computer. It sounds corny, but the idea of a GPU is far more accurate for the next breed of cards. I expect NVidia's next generation to implement this type of power solution, as well. It just makes sense. The GeForce on Athlon systems has proven that it's needed. If it doesn't, my upgrades next year will not include an NVidia card.
Interesting the way your post leans towards accusing a particular group who, though certainly guilty of what you describe, is not by any means the only group who does that. Those who would call themselves the exact opposite of the group you describe have been known to do the same.
I can't speak for your intent, but if you wanted to make an effective illustration, you should have included an example for the opposite group. Balance makes good argument. Imbalance tends to make the author look biased with an ulterior motive. Such a post will only be regarded seriously by those who agree with the author's position ("preaching to the choir") and not serve much usefulness in the big picture (regarding the issue at hand).
Heck, you could've made the same point without touching controversy, but what fun would that have been?;)
Not much content from me, just an observation and a little advice. Call it constructive criticism.:) I hope it helps.
Not at all. Obviously, my point was too vague to be caught by yourself and whatever moderator agreed with you. Sad, really, that stupid people are given even the slightest power.
And next time you're going to post something, at least put your name, and karma, on the line for it. Oh, wait, Annonymous Coward...I get it. Maybe I should just revert to AC status and be consequence-free...
Yes, this one is a bit flamey, but in light of my previous post being unfairly moderated, I ask that moderators forego moderating this one down. Or, if you've got the points, fix the moderation on the other post and moderate this one down. I can accept being moderated down, but not unfairly.
Uruk has posted a truly insightful commentary, yet doesn't get the points because the moderators don't agree with him. Moderate on quality of content, not whether you agree with the poster or not.
That said, I'll pass on to you all something that was told to me by my best friend's wife after I ripped a movie to shreds (it was a good movie, even).
"WILL YOU SHUT THE HELL UP AND ENJOY THE MOVIE?!?!"
Moderate me as flaimbait, if you must, but I'm making a point. Uruk already made it, though, so why should I repeat it? Read his post again, and pay special attention to the all-caps sentence.
If you didn't like it, fine. But consider this: 2001 was the most boring, un-enlightening, confusing movie I had ever seen...until I read the book. A movie shouldn't be judged that way, though, so my initial judgement stands. Unless you know what's going on in advance, 2001 is a bad movie that looks really good. The same goes for Dune (but I think everybody agrees with me on that one). And now I'm rambling. G'nite:)
I've never seen anything like this before. I checked Linuxcare's site, but couldn't find more about these things, and surprisingly there's nothing on their front page about it. Anybody got a link for more info?
It is sad that we are in an anti-science/education period. It's a backlash, though, of science's anti-religious stand, which itself was a backlash for religion's anti-science stand...cycle, cycle, cycle...
Maybe in another 100 years, the two will finally figure out that they need each other if our species is going to survive the transition from this planet to the cosmos. Then again, maybe not...
Yes, the United States does have its human rights problems. All countries do. The difference is degree. A comparison can be made similar to the one John F. Kennedy made in his speach in Berlin.
"Democracy is not perfect. We have our problems. But we have never had to build a wall to keep our people in; to keep them from leaving us."
I'm probably messing up the words there, but that's about what he said.
Yes, we have our problems, but we don't try to stop people from believing what they want, or pursuing the dreams that they have. Heck, we even stand up for the rights of biggots and racists, to preserve their freedom to spout their crap. We do, however, go after those who would dare to undermine the freedoms this country protects.
The Native Americans have been persecuted in the past, true. Now they are free to do as they will. They have chosen to stay on their reservations, as is their right, and run their own businesses (and many are doing very well). If they choose to drink excessive amounts of alcohol, that is their right and choice. Nobody can force them to do so. Same goes for crack on inner-city streets. Nobody forced the people there to use it, and nobody forces them to use it now. It's a choice, albeit a bad one.
The people of this country are quite free to do as they will, provided it doesn't infringe upon the rights of another to do the same, and that they have the ability to pay for whatever goods and services they seek; a country of freeloaders is the alternative.
That's my patriotic speech for the evening. G'nite.:)
You misunderstand the problem. It's all about perception, and perceptions in written word are quite different from the perceptions in face-to-face communication. When you're talking to somebody in person, you include various body-language, facial expression, and voice tone clues to indicate a great deal of how what you are saying should be interpreted. Heck, even voice-only communication is enough to convey intent.
In the written word, though, such cues are inherently absent. How your reader perceives your words is entirely up to the reader unless you include a blatantly obvious indicator of your intent. For instance, the use of a faked HTML sarcasm tag, a disclaimer at the end of your message describing your intent, or even a conceptual cue like absurd example (which I have seen quite a bit of to indicate sarcasm/jocular tone in postings). Without such markers, expect your readers to take what you write at face value, and don't get offended/upset because they do.
Though I am kinda pleased that I haven't had to give that little speech in quite a while.:)
Hey, I have the same problem! I have my DVD player's audio jacked into my receiver (Dolby Digital *drool*), video to my VCR, which in turn I have the RF-out jacked into my TV. In my case, though, my somewhat older RF-only TV is beginning the stages of "crapoutinsons disease," so I'm inclined to replace the sucker, anyhow.
My problem is a little different, though. How I've delt with it so far is to toggle the RF-input on the TV from primary to secondary and back (it has two RF-in sockets), which cleans up the picture for the remainder of the movie once the task has been performed once. Odd, yes, but it works.
How many people do you know who have sexually transmitted diseases? How many do each of them have? How many of your associates have gotten pregnant? How many pregnancies each? How many have had abortions? How many abortions each? Do they treat abortion as a birth-control device, or do they treat it with responsibility?
Before AIDS, there were many other sexually transmitted diseases. Their decisions before AIDS don't seem to reflect much responsibility.
Perhaps monogamy has nothiing to do with morality (though in my opinion it does), but it has plenty to do with responsibility.
The problem with polyamory and its ilk is that the people involved, for the most part (there are exceptions) do NOT behave in a responsible manner. I have friends who subscribe to your beliefs. Of them, they all have some kind of sexually transmitted disease, they all have more than one sexually transmitted disease, only one of them has not gotten pregnant (yet), and other than that one, only one other has not had an abortion.
Then there's me. Perhaps I'm evil in your eyes, but I see something wrong with those figures. That kind of crap shouldn't be happening.
When I'm in a relationship, I am strictly monogamous. Perhaps I'm restricting myself, perhaps I'm actually *GASP* controlling my baser instincts rather than letting them control me, but I have never gotten a woman pregnant. I have never contracted a sexually transmitted disease. Neither have any of my *ohmygoddirtyword* monogamous friends.
But what do I know, I'm one of those horribly evil people that thinks people should be responsible with their sexuality and not flail it about at a whim.
How's that infection, today?
And if you're one of those exceptional polyamorists who is actually clean, I'm sorry if this offends you.
Your points are valid, but you missed the original poster's use of the past-tense. He was referring to the original context, not the current situation.
Way back when, AIDS was almost exculsively restricted to the homosexual male population, a group that at the time was and is considered immoral by many. Then it spread through to non-monogamous heterosexuals and drug users.
Insert the original poster's message here
Then to the children of AIDS infected mothers. Sporadically throughout, blood transfusions and visits to the dentist were methods of spreading the disease.
Is that not the responsibility of a government? To look after the best interests of its own people?
Granted, it would be nice if the US were more of a team player and helped everybody else out for the sake of sheer niceness, but people and the sociopolitical/economic entities they associate with are, by their very nature, self-serving.
That's what such entities are created for; take care of their own. It's all fine and dandy, provided that a person/sociopolitical/economic entity does so without infringing upon another's ability to do the same.
In Iraq, US action was necessary to protect its interests. The methods did interfere with how Iraq was going about serving its best interests, but that issue is null because Iraq's own actions interfered with the rights of another nation.
Most Americans feel no connection to East Timor, so it's not considered an important issue in addition to there being little to no sociopolitical or economic benefit to be gained. Selfish, yes. Wrong, perhaps. Illegal, no.
Non-Americans like to complain about this as if their country wouldn't dare to act in such a manner, perhaps because of their inherent "niceness." I guarantee that if any other nation were in the position of the US today, that nation would behave in exactly the same way. That's the dark side of human nature. It sucks.
There is a light at the end of that tunnel, but most people here seem to regard it as B.S., so I'll leave it there.;)
I don't seem to recall the US tagging itself as a team player, anyhow. The speaches I recall from the Gulf War days by President Bush involved phrases to the effect of "protect the interests of the American people. Oh, and help those nice people in Kuwait get rid of their invaders, too, yeah, that's it." The propaganda circulated through the media, though, emphasized helping Kuwait kick out a Hitler wannabe. Sneaky, sneaky.
Re:Espionage or Avoiding Re-invention of the Wheel
on
China Enters Space
·
· Score: 1
I think it's odd that people see the use of existing knowledge as this evil espionage thing.
Now that's a funny statement. Trying to bring in the programmer connection is kinda ridiculous, though.
How do you get those libraries? People who create them post them in public places. Now, suppose you wanted a library that wasn't publicly posted. You have to go about obtaining it in some other way, right? Warez. Stealing. Espionage.
That's the point. Re-inventing the wheel is an excessively trivial analogy for this case.
By your thinking it would seem we would have to invalidate all of geology as well, since we can't replicate earthquakes or ice ages in the laboratory. But geology explains why the plates of the earth move at rates of centimeters a year and show how all the data fit nicely if you assume this movement has been happening forever.
I'm not seeking to invalidate evolution or geology, though they both seem to be in the same boat. Neither makes "predictions" in the strict sense. They are methods and theories that explain what HAS happened, and generalize the process that will guide the future. As far as I know, nobody has managed to predict volcanic eruptions or earthquakes with any kind of regularity.
In any case, evolutionary theory is a good theory that succintly explains a vast amount of complexity, makes useful predictions and fits the available data very well. I would argue that it is one of the most important watershed ideas in all of science, on par with Relativity.
My exception here is "useful predictions." I disagree. Rather, evolution can help explain an accurate historical record. Because there are no controlled experiments that can be conducted to test evolution, there is no way to predict results.
Intelligence and faith are not exclusive, but the proper place of faith does not include interference with the proper persuit of science.
And vis versa, I hope. Science's place is to help explain and understand the inner workings of the physical reality. To step beyond that goes against everything that science is about. Likewise, religion cannot hope to explain, in detail, the structure of the atom, and for it to attempt to do so is foolish.
Someday, perhaps, science and religion will co-exist in harmony rather than trying to annihilate the other. Here's to wishful thinking.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Granted, little is known about exactly what the P4 is supposed to do, and why it needs so much power, but I doubt that such a big change was really necessary.
When AMD decided to make a higher-powered CPU, they simply used the existing platform, but then again, they don't have the kind of clout Intel does when it comes to these kinds of things. Anyhow, AMD just created a list of recommended power supplies that matched their spec on the existing interface. Why can't Intel do the same? Do they really feel the need to up the power by so much to require all this extra stuff?
Apparently so. This wasn't a decision to gain consumers, it was a decision to attack their competition (look, we have all this stuff and they don't; it must mean we're better). People who buy OEM machines won't be all that affected, though, as they're bying the whole package anyhow. Those of us who like to pick-and-choose our parts are probably going to look elsewhere for at least the next couple of years. I know I will. I intend to keep that sweet Supermicro 750A around for a long time. Goodbye, Intel.
That's absurd! Having been a college freshman, I can say that being a college freshman does not inherently lead to death.
:) I, for one, have learned some things from you and appreciate the opportunity.
True, but notice my use of the phrase "at the worst end of the spectrum."
In jail, drunk off their asses? Maybe so. Because if you tell them "drinking is bad" and their friends tell them "drinking is cool" then they're going to want to drink.
I agree and disagree. If the "drinking is bad" message is hammered with negative reinforcement, and the "drinking is cool" message is hammered with positive reinforcement, the outcome is a no-brainer. However, if parents talk to their children about alcohol/drugs/sex without going into the fire and damnation "you're a horrible, ungrateful child if you don't listen to me" mess, then the children are far more likely to follow their parents' advice.
But if at 13, they drink enough to wake up in jail with a horrible hangover, then maybe at 15 or 16 when all their friends say "drinking is cool," they'll say "What are you talking about? Have you ever had any alcohol?" and their friends will say "Well, no, but my big brother is cool, and he's in a frat and drinks a lot, and besides, it's against the law, so it must be cool." and your kid will say "Well I have had alcohol, and it didn't taste very good, and I ended up in jail with a horrible headache and felt like a moron. I think it was a mistake, and if drinking is to be 'cool' or 'fun', we have to do it in moderation."
Possibly, but that's one heck of a kid who can stand up to to his/her friends like that. Then again, they might wake up in jail with a hangover and think "oh, wow, what a rush...I gotta get my friends in on this."
But instead, you tell them it's forbidden, and they feel all cool about doing it and they spend their freshman year rebelling by joining a frat and waking up in dumpsters every weekend.
True enough, but again it depends on the approach the parents took.
I respected and loved my parents, but I'm glad I didn't always listen to them. They told me to stop spending all my time playing video games and reading and fooling around with my computer, and do my homework, because if I got bad grades I wouldn't end up in a good college and get a good job. I blew them off and only worked hard in classes that interested me. I got into a great college that I absolutely love and am confident is the perfect place for me, and I now have a very well paying computer job doing something that interests me. Yes, your parents are experienced, and that's a valuable thing. But they aren't very experienced at your life, and they don't always know what's best for you. They're also only human, and sometimes you're smarter than they are. They also have some of the stupid irrational parenting instincts that seem to get injected into them as soon as they see a baby. Like the fatherly "my little baby girl is never dating anyone, ever." So if you believe everything your parents say, you miss tons of opportunities and probably just repeat your parents' lives instead of finding your own.
Very true. I suppose it's a balancing act between accepting our parents' advice and knowing what we're capable of out from under their wing. However, sex/drugs/alcohol have all been around since long before our parents, and they'll be around for a long time from now. Those issues are universal to every generation.
Not without jumping off of something. You can accept it when people tell you that it will hurt, but you never really know. You "learn" that a lot of things hurt, and most of the time they do. But there are lots of chances for amazingly intense and fulfilling experiences that you'll miss out on if you believe what people tell you about what hurts and what's safe.
Maybe, but I also know what it's like to fall off my bike. It's a hop-skip-and-jump from "knowing" that pain to deducing that I'm going to die if I jump off that bridge, or at the very least get really really mangled. I can deduce from relatively small experiences of mine, or from the experiences of others. Maybe I really never know, but damn, some things are just not worth knowing. I count that jump as one of them. I also count sticking my hand in the garbage disposal while it's on as another.
Well, I disagree with you on that particular one, but it's your call with your kids. The point is that at least you accept the responsibility of parenting the kids, and don't expect the laws and the corporations to do it for you. That's the real point I want to get across here.
Absolutely! But a little discussion around the edges never killed anyone.
Ah, so we should let our 13-year-old children associate with college freshmen and just accept it when they end up in jail drunk off their asses, or at the worst end of the spectrum, dead. Yep, we told them what would happen, they didn't listen, they're dead now. Oh fricken well. We should just accept it. I think not.
You're wrong about not being able to learn "because mommy said so." That's how I learned. That's how I avoided countless potential catastrophes. I, unlike many of my peers, actually respected, loved, and LISTENED to my parents. I knew they understood life better that I because they had lived more of it. They had already been everywhere I was. Believe it or not, there are those of us who can learn that it's going to hurt when we hit bottom without having to jump off a bridge.
You're right about laws, though. They have no place where mere socialization is involved, much like they have no place where the Internet is involved. Parents should be supervising their children and the people they associate themselves with, but they should not just turn away when their children don't listen. I've seen what happens when they do, and it is not a pretty sight.
You're also right that 13-year-olds can associate with 17-year-olds. It happens all the time. Your miss is that parents should accept their 13-year-olds decision to go hang out at the frat house if they so choose, despite parental cautioning. That's irresponsible parenting.
Three devices common today: PDA, Cell phone, and pager. Cell phones and PDAs can have web connectivity, pagers can recieve a very simple and small text message, and even reply to them. The natrual evolution of these devices is leading towards a single device that performs the function of all three.
Some of the most recent cell phones are the closest to this that exists currently, but IMHO they fail to a point that I have no desire to own one. I'll consider it when the following device exists:
A Palm PDA with built-in pager and cell phone hardware with belt-clip. An ear-piece with extending microphone that jacks into the PDA. The PDA's belt clip is such that the device flips up so you can use it from its mounting point. The device retains full Palm functionality.
That way I can carry the three devices I need a the same time in one compact, but fully functional, package. No sacrifices. No need to carry Batman's utility belt.
> How high to you have to get to escape the winds and flying cows?
:)
Not quite so high as low orbit, but high enough to make it interesting. The part of the tornado that we see, as big and impressive as it is, is only about 10% of the full vortex. Most of the heavier debris stays down below that 10%, but lighter things can go all the way up. When they come back down, they're miles away from where they were picked up.
My mind is sorta foggy on it, but I remember a story about a town that got rained on by frogs, with an otherwise clear sky, because a tornado some miles away went over a river full of them, picked them up, and chucked them from over 10,000 feet up. Somebody else probably remembers it better than I am, so don't call me on accuracy.
The upcoming Voodoo series cards will use their own power line direct from the power supply because some motherboards (Athlon) are unable to provide the stable high current that newer, high-power video cards (GeForce) demand through the bus. This may be exclusive to Athlon + GeForce owners right now, but at the rate video cards are going, this kind of problem will appear on other systems, too. It's only seen now because the motherboard must supply power to two high-current demanding components, the Athlon and the GeForce. I get the impression that, without this dedicated power supply, the V5 would have a similar problem on all motherboards, not just Athlon. Don't quote me on that, it's just speculation. The dedicated line provides a stability and performance boost to the card. The formerly neglected power supply is about to become a house-hold word. No longer will people buy the cheapest peice of crap 250W they can get their hands on! ;)
This is a clear sign that the video card is becoming a whole new monster in the computer. It sounds corny, but the idea of a GPU is far more accurate for the next breed of cards. I expect NVidia's next generation to implement this type of power solution, as well. It just makes sense. The GeForce on Athlon systems has proven that it's needed. If it doesn't, my upgrades next year will not include an NVidia card.
Interesting the way your post leans towards accusing a particular group who, though certainly guilty of what you describe, is not by any means the only group who does that. Those who would call themselves the exact opposite of the group you describe have been known to do the same.
I can't speak for your intent, but if you wanted to make an effective illustration, you should have included an example for the opposite group. Balance makes good argument. Imbalance tends to make the author look biased with an ulterior motive. Such a post will only be regarded seriously by those who agree with the author's position ("preaching to the choir") and not serve much usefulness in the big picture (regarding the issue at hand).
Heck, you could've made the same point without touching controversy, but what fun would that have been? ;)
Not much content from me, just an observation and a little advice. Call it constructive criticism. :) I hope it helps.
You know what come from Texas, dontcha?
Sorry about that. I didn't need to reply, but dangit...I just felt the urge to use some Full Metal Jacket.
You don't get paid for being a pessimist. :)
I draw the line at my large intestine. Ick.
Not at all. Obviously, my point was too vague to be caught by yourself and whatever moderator agreed with you. Sad, really, that stupid people are given even the slightest power.
And next time you're going to post something, at least put your name, and karma, on the line for it. Oh, wait, Annonymous Coward...I get it. Maybe I should just revert to AC status and be consequence-free...
Yes, this one is a bit flamey, but in light of my previous post being unfairly moderated, I ask that moderators forego moderating this one down. Or, if you've got the points, fix the moderation on the other post and moderate this one down. I can accept being moderated down, but not unfairly.
Uruk has posted a truly insightful commentary, yet doesn't get the points because the moderators don't agree with him. Moderate on quality of content, not whether you agree with the poster or not.
That said, I'll pass on to you all something that was told to me by my best friend's wife after I ripped a movie to shreds (it was a good movie, even).
"WILL YOU SHUT THE HELL UP AND ENJOY THE MOVIE?!?!"
Moderate me as flaimbait, if you must, but I'm making a point. Uruk already made it, though, so why should I repeat it? Read his post again, and pay special attention to the all-caps sentence.
If you didn't like it, fine. But consider this: 2001 was the most boring, un-enlightening, confusing movie I had ever seen...until I read the book. A movie shouldn't be judged that way, though, so my initial judgement stands. Unless you know what's going on in advance, 2001 is a bad movie that looks really good. The same goes for Dune (but I think everybody agrees with me on that one). And now I'm rambling. G'nite :)
I've never seen anything like this before. I checked Linuxcare's site, but couldn't find more about these things, and surprisingly there's nothing on their front page about it. Anybody got a link for more info?
PS - First Post :)
It is sad that we are in an anti-science/education period. It's a backlash, though, of science's anti-religious stand, which itself was a backlash for religion's anti-science stand...cycle, cycle, cycle...
Maybe in another 100 years, the two will finally figure out that they need each other if our species is going to survive the transition from this planet to the cosmos. Then again, maybe not...
Yes, the United States does have its human rights problems. All countries do. The difference is degree. A comparison can be made similar to the one John F. Kennedy made in his speach in Berlin.
"Democracy is not perfect. We have our problems. But we have never had to build a wall to keep our people in; to keep them from leaving us."
I'm probably messing up the words there, but that's about what he said.
Yes, we have our problems, but we don't try to stop people from believing what they want, or pursuing the dreams that they have. Heck, we even stand up for the rights of biggots and racists, to preserve their freedom to spout their crap. We do, however, go after those who would dare to undermine the freedoms this country protects.
The Native Americans have been persecuted in the past, true. Now they are free to do as they will. They have chosen to stay on their reservations, as is their right, and run their own businesses (and many are doing very well). If they choose to drink excessive amounts of alcohol, that is their right and choice. Nobody can force them to do so. Same goes for crack on inner-city streets. Nobody forced the people there to use it, and nobody forces them to use it now. It's a choice, albeit a bad one.
The people of this country are quite free to do as they will, provided it doesn't infringe upon the rights of another to do the same, and that they have the ability to pay for whatever goods and services they seek; a country of freeloaders is the alternative.
That's my patriotic speech for the evening. G'nite. :)
Linux is an O/S, not a lifestyle.
Heretic! Heretic! hehehe
j/k ;)
You misunderstand the problem. It's all about perception, and perceptions in written word are quite different from the perceptions in face-to-face communication. When you're talking to somebody in person, you include various body-language, facial expression, and voice tone clues to indicate a great deal of how what you are saying should be interpreted. Heck, even voice-only communication is enough to convey intent.
In the written word, though, such cues are inherently absent. How your reader perceives your words is entirely up to the reader unless you include a blatantly obvious indicator of your intent. For instance, the use of a faked HTML sarcasm tag, a disclaimer at the end of your message describing your intent, or even a conceptual cue like absurd example (which I have seen quite a bit of to indicate sarcasm/jocular tone in postings). Without such markers, expect your readers to take what you write at face value, and don't get offended/upset because they do.
Though I am kinda pleased that I haven't had to give that little speech in quite a while. :)
Hey, I have the same problem! I have my DVD player's audio jacked into my receiver (Dolby Digital *drool*), video to my VCR, which in turn I have the RF-out jacked into my TV. In my case, though, my somewhat older RF-only TV is beginning the stages of "crapoutinsons disease," so I'm inclined to replace the sucker, anyhow.
My problem is a little different, though. How I've delt with it so far is to toggle the RF-input on the TV from primary to secondary and back (it has two RF-in sockets), which cleans up the picture for the remainder of the movie once the task has been performed once. Odd, yes, but it works.
Go away.
Ah, one of those. Hmm.
How many people do you know who have sexually transmitted diseases? How many do each of them have? How many of your associates have gotten pregnant? How many pregnancies each? How many have had abortions? How many abortions each? Do they treat abortion as a birth-control device, or do they treat it with responsibility?
Before AIDS, there were many other sexually transmitted diseases. Their decisions before AIDS don't seem to reflect much responsibility.
Perhaps monogamy has nothiing to do with morality (though in my opinion it does), but it has plenty to do with responsibility.
The problem with polyamory and its ilk is that the people involved, for the most part (there are exceptions) do NOT behave in a responsible manner. I have friends who subscribe to your beliefs. Of them, they all have some kind of sexually transmitted disease, they all have more than one sexually transmitted disease, only one of them has not gotten pregnant (yet), and other than that one, only one other has not had an abortion.
Then there's me. Perhaps I'm evil in your eyes, but I see something wrong with those figures. That kind of crap shouldn't be happening.
When I'm in a relationship, I am strictly monogamous. Perhaps I'm restricting myself, perhaps I'm actually *GASP* controlling my baser instincts rather than letting them control me, but I have never gotten a woman pregnant. I have never contracted a sexually transmitted disease. Neither have any of my *ohmygoddirtyword* monogamous friends.
But what do I know, I'm one of those horribly evil people that thinks people should be responsible with their sexuality and not flail it about at a whim.
How's that infection, today?
And if you're one of those exceptional polyamorists who is actually clean, I'm sorry if this offends you.
Your points are valid, but you missed the original poster's use of the past-tense. He was referring to the original context, not the current situation.
Way back when, AIDS was almost exculsively restricted to the homosexual male population, a group that at the time was and is considered immoral by many. Then it spread through to non-monogamous heterosexuals and drug users.
Insert the original poster's message here
Then to the children of AIDS infected mothers. Sporadically throughout, blood transfusions and visits to the dentist were methods of spreading the disease.
Insert your post here
Just trying to put this in context.
Is that not the responsibility of a government? To look after the best interests of its own people?
;)
Granted, it would be nice if the US were more of a team player and helped everybody else out for the sake of sheer niceness, but people and the sociopolitical/economic entities they associate with are, by their very nature, self-serving.
That's what such entities are created for; take care of their own. It's all fine and dandy, provided that a person/sociopolitical/economic entity does so without infringing upon another's ability to do the same.
In Iraq, US action was necessary to protect its interests. The methods did interfere with how Iraq was going about serving its best interests, but that issue is null because Iraq's own actions interfered with the rights of another nation.
Most Americans feel no connection to East Timor, so it's not considered an important issue in addition to there being little to no sociopolitical or economic benefit to be gained. Selfish, yes. Wrong, perhaps. Illegal, no.
Non-Americans like to complain about this as if their country wouldn't dare to act in such a manner, perhaps because of their inherent "niceness." I guarantee that if any other nation were in the position of the US today, that nation would behave in exactly the same way. That's the dark side of human nature. It sucks.
There is a light at the end of that tunnel, but most people here seem to regard it as B.S., so I'll leave it there.
I don't seem to recall the US tagging itself as a team player, anyhow. The speaches I recall from the Gulf War days by President Bush involved phrases to the effect of "protect the interests of the American people. Oh, and help those nice people in Kuwait get rid of their invaders, too, yeah, that's it." The propaganda circulated through the media, though, emphasized helping Kuwait kick out a Hitler wannabe. Sneaky, sneaky.
I think it's odd that people see the use of existing knowledge as this evil espionage thing.
Now that's a funny statement. Trying to bring in the programmer connection is kinda ridiculous, though.
How do you get those libraries? People who create them post them in public places. Now, suppose you wanted a library that wasn't publicly posted. You have to go about obtaining it in some other way, right? Warez. Stealing. Espionage.
That's the point. Re-inventing the wheel is an excessively trivial analogy for this case.
By your thinking it would seem we would have to invalidate all of geology as well, since we can't replicate earthquakes or ice ages in the laboratory. But geology explains why the plates of the earth move at rates of centimeters a year and show how all the data fit nicely if you assume this movement has been happening forever.
:)
I'm not seeking to invalidate evolution or geology, though they both seem to be in the same boat. Neither makes "predictions" in the strict sense. They are methods and theories that explain what HAS happened, and generalize the process that will guide the future. As far as I know, nobody has managed to predict volcanic eruptions or earthquakes with any kind of regularity.
As for the rest: Well said!!
In any case, evolutionary theory is a good theory that succintly explains a vast amount of complexity, makes useful predictions and fits the available data very well. I would argue that it is one of the most important watershed ideas in all of science, on par with Relativity.
:)
My exception here is "useful predictions." I disagree. Rather, evolution can help explain an accurate historical record. Because there are no controlled experiments that can be conducted to test evolution, there is no way to predict results.
Intelligence and faith are not exclusive, but the proper place of faith does not include interference with the proper persuit of science.
And vis versa, I hope. Science's place is to help explain and understand the inner workings of the physical reality. To step beyond that goes against everything that science is about. Likewise, religion cannot hope to explain, in detail, the structure of the atom, and for it to attempt to do so is foolish.
Someday, perhaps, science and religion will co-exist in harmony rather than trying to annihilate the other. Here's to wishful thinking.