Yeah. Microsoft contribute $25,000-$50,000 towards a project whose product it uses.
Surely something must be fishy with that! Considering it's such a huge amount of money for Microsoft and so on (Who just decided to write of 8 billion on their purchase of Nokia mobile phones for instance..)
My Macbook Pro was used for 1.5 year and performed poorly after 1,
What's your point really? Nothing magical about Apple gear. The specs in your Macbook are weak and I know lots of Apple users has complained about how the latest OS is slow on their devices.
It's not too late for a single CPU/GPU package to completely change the playing field.
I think Intel say something like their integrated graphics is like 75 times more capable than their first one or whatever.
(I'm not comparing Intel and AMD here. Just stating how things have moved. There's of course the fact that Nvidia invest into Nvidia Grid, cloud rendering and streaming even games to consumers instead.)
It's all about what you need though. Integrated stuff is enough for many. But not for everyone. And streaming games will likely be the same.
But yeah. Who knows how many purchase graphics cards in the future.
The problem is, following this logic they should have used Nvidia GPU parts as well. This showcases AMD's weaknesses more than anything else. Its confirmation of what everyone already knows, AMD cant make low heat parts.
The Fury X is quicker than the GTX 980 and in half of the games seem to be quicker than the Titan X it seems: http://www.tomshardware.com/re...
So why the fuck would they use an Nvidia card if they got as quick card themselves?
I know it may not support feature level 12.1 of Direct X but that's it. One advantage is that it will allow you to get a cheaper FreeSync monitor.
I guess nobody here at/. took the Nokia lesson. No matter how badly your product sucks, you never, ever admit that to the market. It doesn't matter if you got less credibility than the Iraqi information minister, it's still better than the alternative. Do you know how much ridicule they're going to get for this with funny fake ads with the "Intel inside" logo and jingle? It's brand suicide. The only plausible explanation is that AMD is in "screw tomorrow, we need sales NOW" mode. It's not a shocker if the market pairs an Intel CPU with an AMD dGPU if that makes sense, but if I was head of marketing at AMD I'd rather resign than have this to my name.
Maybe.
Their Piledriver processors was mostly released in 2012-2014. It's three years old by now.
Zen won't be here until 2016.
I have no idea whatever they intend to do the SMT ("hyper-threading") with the same number of cores or not but the IPC / clock is supposed to be 40% quicker.
If you take one of their 8 core chips and make it 40% quicker and then added SMT on top of that maybe it would be somewhat competitive.
Skylake which Intel releases real soon is supposed to be 15% faster / clock than current Haswell. And that's supposed to be a large step.
They had Cannondale in 10 nm planned for the next year but it won't happen then.
So yeah, 6700K will be slightly better than 4790K and by 2016 Intel will do another tock for a tick-tock-tock but AMD may be competitive.
Also the FX-8350 and such isn't all too bad relative the 4790K. _BUT IT IS FOR GAMING_.
I assume part of that is due to not multi-threaded well enough games and maybe to a higher degree that DirectX and OpenGL had the CPU overhead it has and don't spread over the CPU cores. When it does. Which is next month. The AMD processors will likely gain some relative Intel for DX12 titles.
So yeah. Just because they aren't competitive for gaming now doesn't mean that will always be the case.
Seem like the plan is for AMD to go 14 nm in 2016. That's not 10. But then again as said Intel won't reach 10 nm in 2016 either.
The text I read seemed to even question whatever they would do it in 2017.
After all, if more players all over the developing world can access these games, we could see an uplift in the quality of play at the highest tournament level sometime down the line.
Guess some humans consider their value as dangerous, powerful, exotic and amazing species so high they are worth to keep around even though they are dangerous to us =P
On a subjective scale from all the species of the planet if they where well-informed enough I think we'd be considered the worst for lots of them. Not rats and possibly dogs =P
Only if you assume the loss of something is worth anything.
Various bees polinate various flowers and trees but remove one and even if some flowers and tress wouldn't be polinated others would take advantage of the loss.
But I guess it's correct in the way if finite consequences for others. Maybe no species depend on mosquitos only. What about the diseases they spread? But I guess that's what one usually want to stop anyway.
I'm vegan and kinda possibly want to be somewhat consistent there. So that's what make me question whatever to kill them or not. If I killed them I could at least put them to got use by sprinkling them on the lake and hope some fishes took them.
Then I would interfere but their death wouldn't be for nothing at least (likely wouldn't regardless of what I did with them.)
I think killing them of completely is much worse though because evolution takes time and you remove their branch from existance and decrease variety forever.
If you slaughter cows at least other cows will replace them so the whole species isn't loss. But to kill a whole specie(?) is fucking gross.
I have a so-so feeling about hunting to "preserve" wild life too. If that's the solution that's better than nothing. But I wish they wasn't breeded to bring less wild and less competitive versions of the animals just to get better trophies (you could of course argue that's what make them more competitive then but..), I want them to have the best chances to live out in the wild so that eventually they could be released and survive again some time in the future. To not ruin them.
I saw some tweet about locals and tourists which moved a very large snake out of a city.
I don't like mosquitos either. I could want to kill them locally (I live in Sweden so it's scarcely populated outside of cities and inside cities I guess the mosquitos is pretty rare instead) but to kill them all?
Of course I don't want to be eaten by a tiger or killed by a bear or whatever (not a human either..)
But yeah. To kill them all?
If anything humans are the most dangerous animal of the planet so that should make things very simple.
I'm much more threatened by humans than bears too.
Same could be said about Christians, Muslims, Americans, French people, vacuum cleaner sellers, McD personal,.. too. Just kill them and let other humans replace them. Why not?
Guess it doesn't matter that all the extinct animals died because obviously the world carries on anyway.
Just destroy everything. WTF. Something else will replace it eventually. And really our existance is pretty useless anyway and the Earth will be destroyed and all life on it eventually anyway so why bother?
After some time. You can be marked for your failure to not pay your debts and that sits there for some time. I guess it may not be removed when you enter personal bankruptsy so to say but rather when that period is over and the loans are removed? So maybe there's a five year period or so where you're labeled as someone who has failed.
But yeah. Maybe that's better than someone with lots of debt going into that scenario.
Swedes are regarded as trust-worthy. But Sweden of today have lots of immigrants and other cultures blended in and possibly you can't expect the same from them.
Also if the social community/union of Sweden collapses because some people abuse it / doesn't play by the rules then that will be gone.
Maybe what you say would be correct for rich and successful people. For the poor and stupid which has put themselves into this situation or are average joes whom happened to get there I assume many don't realize / think about that / know how to do it and hence face the consequences.
I look at the Nokia which is Nokia. Not what is now Microsoft. I talk about Nokia not Microsoft.
The fact is that Windows phone and number of phones manufactured or not Nokia according to the market is worth about the same. That the phone business has been sold of is irrelevant. The price for that include what it contained and was.
Finns who held the stock through this time is likely about or better of by now (whatever you measure before it was announced or after matters.) Of course having changed to the market in general would still had been a better deal though.
So has it been a success or failure? I don't know. I don't know what would have happened otherwise. Guess I'd say no. But it at least haven't been a catastrophe because Nokia hasn't lost value since it happened (it has relevative the total market value of the whole stock market.)
Yeah. And with high interest rates for a debt which can never be repaid that doesn't help much either.
Here in Sweden if you're in heavy personal debt eventually you may be able to get it written of through some system I won't bother with what it's called because it's 07:28 in the morning and I haven't slept yet but anyway. If you do that you lose everything and all your earnings beyond what you need to survive is given to your debtors for five years or whatever and then it's written off.
I assume you may have a hard time borrowing money afterwards too, for some time. But that too is dropped eventually.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah. Microsoft contribute $25,000-$50,000 towards a project whose product it uses.
Surely something must be fishy with that! Considering it's such a huge amount of money for Microsoft and so on (Who just decided to write of 8 billion on their purchase of Nokia mobile phones for instance..)
My Macbook Pro was used for 1.5 year and performed poorly after 1,
What's your point really? Nothing magical about Apple gear. The specs in your Macbook are weak and I know lots of Apple users has complained about how the latest OS is slow on their devices.
It's just trickery to keep the Chinese back.
"Here. Look at our latest fighter plan plans! This is going to be the shit! Why don't you make a bunch of these suckers?"
It's not too late for a single CPU/GPU package to completely change the playing field.
I think Intel say something like their integrated graphics is like 75 times more capable than their first one or whatever.
(I'm not comparing Intel and AMD here. Just stating how things have moved. There's of course the fact that Nvidia invest into Nvidia Grid, cloud rendering and streaming even games to consumers instead.)
It's all about what you need though. Integrated stuff is enough for many. But not for everyone. And streaming games will likely be the same.
But yeah. Who knows how many purchase graphics cards in the future.
The problem is, following this logic they should have used Nvidia GPU parts as well. This showcases AMD's weaknesses more than anything else. Its confirmation of what everyone already knows, AMD cant make low heat parts.
The Fury X is quicker than the GTX 980 and in half of the games seem to be quicker than the Titan X it seems:
http://www.tomshardware.com/re...
So why the fuck would they use an Nvidia card if they got as quick card themselves?
I know it may not support feature level 12.1 of Direct X but that's it. One advantage is that it will allow you to get a cheaper FreeSync monitor.
I guess nobody here at /. took the Nokia lesson. No matter how badly your product sucks, you never, ever admit that to the market. It doesn't matter if you got less credibility than the Iraqi information minister, it's still better than the alternative. Do you know how much ridicule they're going to get for this with funny fake ads with the "Intel inside" logo and jingle? It's brand suicide. The only plausible explanation is that AMD is in "screw tomorrow, we need sales NOW" mode. It's not a shocker if the market pairs an Intel CPU with an AMD dGPU if that makes sense, but if I was head of marketing at AMD I'd rather resign than have this to my name.
Maybe.
Their Piledriver processors was mostly released in 2012-2014. It's three years old by now.
Zen won't be here until 2016.
I have no idea whatever they intend to do the SMT ("hyper-threading") with the same number of cores or not but the IPC / clock is supposed to be 40% quicker.
If you take one of their 8 core chips and make it 40% quicker and then added SMT on top of that maybe it would be somewhat competitive.
Skylake which Intel releases real soon is supposed to be 15% faster / clock than current Haswell. And that's supposed to be a large step.
They had Cannondale in 10 nm planned for the next year but it won't happen then.
So yeah, 6700K will be slightly better than 4790K and by 2016 Intel will do another tock for a tick-tock-tock but AMD may be competitive.
Also the FX-8350 and such isn't all too bad relative the 4790K. _BUT IT IS FOR GAMING_.
I assume part of that is due to not multi-threaded well enough games and maybe to a higher degree that DirectX and OpenGL had the CPU overhead it has and don't spread over the CPU cores. When it does. Which is next month. The AMD processors will likely gain some relative Intel for DX12 titles.
So yeah. Just because they aren't competitive for gaming now doesn't mean that will always be the case.
Seem like the plan is for AMD to go 14 nm in 2016. That's not 10. But then again as said Intel won't reach 10 nm in 2016 either.
The text I read seemed to even question whatever they would do it in 2017.
And nothing has happaned in 20 years time ..
Of course none will have completely perfected it when they launch and there will be many competitors.
But at least they all think it's relevant since they try.
So write "wide fucking gigantic movie screen" instead then.
And leave out the IMAX brand.
That got to be much better for them?
At least cash is just for criminals. I feel. I don't need them.
After all, if more players all over the developing world can access these games, we could see an uplift in the quality of play at the highest tournament level sometime down the line.
GO INSIDE!
I post shit on the Internet the whole time.
My brain isn't used all that much and English isn't my native language so occasionally my mind and fingers don't type the same thing.
Oh well.
Guess some humans consider their value as dangerous, powerful, exotic and amazing species so high they are worth to keep around even though they are dangerous to us =P
Being unique and diversification is also values :)
Oh well. I'd rather get rid of lots of humans ;D
Ok. I go with the one I know / could think of first hand:
http://www.mosquitoreviews.com...
I guess another obvious one is as bird feed. Another less obvious one as wasp feed.
http://www.wbrcouncil.org/Depa...
http://www.motherearthnews.com...
There's not just one kind of bees and they don't all pollinate the same stuff.
You mean all bees / all pollinators? Good day for those who don't need them I guess ..
Ok all your guys.
I'll give you one chance:
But mosquitos have no benefits.
[citation needed]
Mosquitoes are genuinely useless.
I'm sure the world feels the same about you too.
On a subjective scale from all the species of the planet if they where well-informed enough I think we'd be considered the worst for lots of them.
Not rats and possibly dogs =P
Bees.
Only if you assume the loss of something is worth anything.
Various bees polinate various flowers and trees but remove one and even if some flowers and tress wouldn't be polinated others would take advantage of the loss.
But I guess it's correct in the way if finite consequences for others. Maybe no species depend on mosquitos only. What about the diseases they spread? But I guess that's what one usually want to stop anyway.
Oh there was that too.
Regarding mosquitos and killing them locally.
I'm vegan and kinda possibly want to be somewhat consistent there. So that's what make me question whatever to kill them or not. If I killed them I could at least put them to got use by sprinkling them on the lake and hope some fishes took them.
Then I would interfere but their death wouldn't be for nothing at least (likely wouldn't regardless of what I did with them.)
I think killing them of completely is much worse though because evolution takes time and you remove their branch from existance and decrease variety forever.
If you slaughter cows at least other cows will replace them so the whole species isn't loss. But to kill a whole specie(?) is fucking gross.
I have a so-so feeling about hunting to "preserve" wild life too. If that's the solution that's better than nothing. But I wish they wasn't breeded to bring less wild and less competitive versions of the animals just to get better trophies (you could of course argue that's what make them more competitive then but ..), I want them to have the best chances to live out in the wild so that eventually they could be released and survive again some time in the future. To not ruin them.
My opinion about what?
I saw some tweet about locals and tourists which moved a very large snake out of a city.
I don't like mosquitos either. I could want to kill them locally (I live in Sweden so it's scarcely populated outside of cities and inside cities I guess the mosquitos is pretty rare instead) but to kill them all?
Of course I don't want to be eaten by a tiger or killed by a bear or whatever (not a human either..)
But yeah. To kill them all?
If anything humans are the most dangerous animal of the planet so that should make things very simple.
I'm much more threatened by humans than bears too.
Can't that be said for everything?
Tigers doesn't either. Humans can eat their pray?
Small snakes can be replaced with .. owls?
And so on.
So why bother.
Same could be said about Christians, Muslims, Americans, French people, vacuum cleaner sellers, McD personal, .. too. Just kill them and let other humans replace them. Why not?
Guess it doesn't matter that all the extinct animals died because obviously the world carries on anyway.
Just destroy everything. WTF. Something else will replace it eventually. And really our existance is pretty useless anyway and the Earth will be destroyed and all life on it eventually anyway so why bother?
Same reason some people don't think we should kill all snakes, sharks, humans, crocodiles, tigers, ..
But sure. Kill all humans. Be done with it. Nothing to fear for us or anyone else from humans.
After some time. You can be marked for your failure to not pay your debts and that sits there for some time. I guess it may not be removed when you enter personal bankruptsy so to say but rather when that period is over and the loans are removed? So maybe there's a five year period or so where you're labeled as someone who has failed.
But yeah. Maybe that's better than someone with lots of debt going into that scenario.
Well. To be fair: Tried to.
Swedes are regarded as trust-worthy. But Sweden of today have lots of immigrants and other cultures blended in and possibly you can't expect the same from them.
Also if the social community/union of Sweden collapses because some people abuse it / doesn't play by the rules then that will be gone.
Maybe what you say would be correct for rich and successful people. For the poor and stupid which has put themselves into this situation or are average joes whom happened to get there I assume many don't realize / think about that / know how to do it and hence face the consequences.
Iceland let the banks fall. They work ok now.
I look at the Nokia which is Nokia.
Not what is now Microsoft.
I talk about Nokia not Microsoft.
The fact is that Windows phone and number of phones manufactured or not Nokia according to the market is worth about the same. That the phone business has been sold of is irrelevant. The price for that include what it contained and was.
Finns who held the stock through this time is likely about or better of by now (whatever you measure before it was announced or after matters.)
Of course having changed to the market in general would still had been a better deal though.
So has it been a success or failure? I don't know. I don't know what would have happened otherwise. Guess I'd say no. But it at least haven't been a catastrophe because Nokia hasn't lost value since it happened (it has relevative the total market value of the whole stock market.)
Yeah. And with high interest rates for a debt which can never be repaid that doesn't help much either.
Here in Sweden if you're in heavy personal debt eventually you may be able to get it written of through some system I won't bother with what it's called because it's 07:28 in the morning and I haven't slept yet but anyway. If you do that you lose everything and all your earnings beyond what you need to survive is given to your debtors for five years or whatever and then it's written off.
I assume you may have a hard time borrowing money afterwards too, for some time. But that too is dropped eventually.