missing the point how are the TB chips linked to the chip set? and does each controller have it's own X4 link?
The TB 2.0 chipsets use a x4 PCIe 2.0 link per controller. Guess that means that each pair of two TB ports shares the bandwidth of a controller (6 ports / 3 controllers / 12 PCIe 2.0 lanes total.
Probably not fast enough for external graphics that would outperform the (extremely fast) internal graphics solution but still orders of magnitude more bandwidth than any current external consumer or prosumer storage solution.
Anyhow... that's a lot faster than any consumer or prosumer storage solutions. It might be a little slow only if you were driving an external video card but the internal cards can handle 3X 4K displays already.
One thing you should be happy about... putting all the expansion OUTSIDE of the computer using STANDARDIZED interfaces (Thunderbolt was actually developed by Intel and you can get PC adapters) means that any money you put into expanding a computer will be easily portable to other computer or when you upgrade a computer. This isn't necessarily true with internal cards (think ISA / VESA / PCI / PCIe / PCIx). Also, you don't have to worry about upgrading your computer's power supply or cooling when you add expansion.
Without going into specifics, I believe an apt analogy would be giving everyone in the country a flying car. While this would no doubt be enjoyable, without proper training and regulation it would also be tremendously dangerous (also assume training and regulating is not practical in this case).
In the day of the horse and buggy, many people were against horseless carriages. They were loud, spooked horses on the road, and much more prone to accidents... especially without "proper training and regulation". Yes, imaging how bad things would be if everyone had a horseless carriage.
FWIW, they did the same thing on the PS3. Disabling one of the SPU cores to get higher yields. Even on machines where all the SPU's passed, they still had to disable one though to "standardize" performance... so sometimes functional chips are actually crippled to meet demand for lower specs but it's more often a factor to attain higher yield. Intel did "crippling" on functional Pentiums at first to meet Celeron demand (before actually making a new die for celerons). It's a little bit of both to be honest.
I have a number of coworkers who basically don't function until their second cup of coffee in the morning. Providing coffee, tea, and soda is a no-brainer for increased productivity.
FWIW, most "free food" programs encourage workers to come in earlier (for breakfast) or stay later (work past dinner time) or to not spend a long time off the company property over lunch. The extra time at work usually pays for the food costs. When we have "crunch time" and are working late, my company orders food for people putting in extra hours. It's probably cheaper than overtime as well.
I do not have a problem with them not paying more than they are legally required to, but only to a certain extent. And that extent is when they start pumping money into lobbyists and political donations to KEEP those laws unfairly in their favor. If businesses stay out of politics, then they cannot be blamed when they get advantages from it. But, when they essentially buy our politicians and laws, I have a lot less tolerance for the "I was just following the law" excuse.
Just remember that unlimited donations to provide political advertising or independent political funding from corporations is considered constitutionally protected "free speech" in the US due to the Supreme Court (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - 2010). And "independent" is a very weak word here. Also in the US, "Corporations are People my friend" remains true even though Romney lost.
I think the proposed Buffett Rule does... in which people are required to pay a minimum tax rate based on their income so a billionaire doesn't have a lower rate than his secretary. Since "corporations are people" (according to the Supreme Court), we could apply a Buffet Rule to corporations as well, where they are required to pay a minimum tax rate on their earnings regardless of how many loopholes they have taken advantage of.
If everything legally permissible is deemed morally acceptable then humanity is doomed.
Corporations, as well as the rich, will rarely consider taking advantage of a tax loophole to be "morally wrong". In fact, by the code of corporations, in which maximizing profits for shareholders is one of the prime decrees, to not take advantage of an available loophole would be "morally wrong" to their shareholders.
Therefore, it is up to lawmakers to remove the loopholes. But of course, that will never happen with a Republican House and with Senate Republicans forcing a super-majority 60+ vote on ALL legislation with an ever-present filibuster threat since Obama took office.
I've got socks older than you. What are you gonna do when you really get old?
My first published computer program came out YEARS before he was born and I continue to learn new things all the time. I've been programming video games professionally since the 80's and full time since 1993. Every few years, I have to learn entire new OS, new hardware for console, direct low level programming on completely unique custom chips, new IDE's or debugging tools, SDK's, TRC's etc... even new computer languages. Often when the next console comes out, anything I've learned in the previous round is "obsolete" and I have to start over.
But learning and embracing change is a way of life for a good developer. Heck, when I first started programming C wasn't even a certified language. I taught it to myself. Then C++ came our and I taught myself. And template programming and C++11 etc. etc.
In my industry, you have to be driven and constantly researching and teaching yourself new skills. It's good to at least examine some of what is "shiny" to everyone and see what it's about in many fields but in mine it's a matter of survival.
If he's afraid of learning new things now and embracing trends or even disruptive changes, there's no way he'll have a competive skill set in 20 years. If I was stuck on old trends that were around when I started, I'd be programming legacy database code in COBOL and PL1.
Early experiments with in vitro meat had no muscle tone. (Past stories here have pointed this out.) The closest natural experience would be eating a fetus—not exactly good steak.
Maybe they could apply electro-stimulus to the muscle cells when they are grown in-vitro so they contract and build up muscle fibers?
The code works... he's spending time complaining that he has to beautify it because he doesn't understand it due to the current style. I'd really suggest thinking about this wisdom from another slashdot thread...
There's also the matter of rewriting things introducing new bugs and getting the "so what good did it do to rewrite it when the new code doesn't work?" element. Worse is when the new bug is difficult to reproduce or troubleshoot.
However, if it's not buggy and you are refactoring because it's not "elegant" that's much harder to justify or document.
It's all in how you phrase the change log entry: "Improved understandability of the code to allow easier implementation of future changes to user requirements."
Still, spending a lot of time refactoring code that is functioning correctly and as he claims "works and gets the job done" is time that he is not working on other tasks. Also, he notes that the other employee is extremely productive at just getting code done that actually works while he is spending lots of time refactoring this working code and then complaining about his "wasted time".
I've seen plenty of coding styles and even if it's a little ugly but works, it's often better to do your own tasks and focus on your own productivity than cleaning up code that already works.
It works and gets the job done, but it's far from elegant and there are numerous little (some might say trivial) mistakes everywhere.
If there are functional mistakes, then it shouldn't be working and the best way to complain would be to make bug reports and document your fixes to the code.
However, if it's not buggy and you are refactoring because it's not "elegant" that's much harder to justify or document. Because it kind of sounds like you are complaining about his coding style while he is being productive and writing a ton of less than perfectly styled code that "works and gets the job done".
Employees in the computer industry are often encouraged to work overtime. The free meals keep you onsite and working harder. Especially for dinner -- once you've left the office for dinner at home, it's highly unlikely you are coming back in.
Plus driving and parking in many of those areas is a nightmare. Even for walking, many of these sites are "campuses" that require you to go off campus to actually get food from third parties and walking 1/2 a mile to get lunch is definitely "inconvenient".
So yes, it is for employee convenience.... not just for employee enjoyment. Their is no reason why "convenient food" can't also be pleasurable to enjoy... or should the only tax-free meals be bland?
it was a great idea to start building homes on swamp land?
I dunno... ask the people in New Orleans who built homes on drained swampland that was below sea level that required constant pumping of water into canals (where the canal water level is higher than the hour ground levels).
Basically, cows poop when they see something new, Unfortunately, showing them something over and over becomes "old" pretty quickly. Fresh material stimulates the production of "fresh material" from cows.
Slashdot Mirror
missing the point how are the TB chips linked to the chip set? and does each controller have it's own X4 link?
The TB 2.0 chipsets use a x4 PCIe 2.0 link per controller. Guess that means that each pair of two TB ports shares the bandwidth of a controller (6 ports / 3 controllers / 12 PCIe 2.0 lanes total.
Probably not fast enough for external graphics that would outperform the (extremely fast) internal graphics solution but still orders of magnitude more bandwidth than any current external consumer or prosumer storage solution.
Anyhow... that's a lot faster than any consumer or prosumer storage solutions. It might be a little slow only if you were driving an external video card but the internal cards can handle 3X 4K displays already.
The TB bus does not have a lot of bandwidth it's only pci-e X4 and I hope that each port or has it's own X4 link or at least one X4 link for 2 ports.
Thunderbolt 2 is 20Gb/s. There are 6 ports and 3 Thunderbolt controllers (each controller handles a full 20Gb/s across 2 ports).
FWIW, PCIe 1.0 x8 is only 16Gb/s and x4 is only 8Gb/s.
The bandwidth here is basically faster than 6 x8 slots.
I mean really... why?
One thing you should be happy about... putting all the expansion OUTSIDE of the computer using STANDARDIZED interfaces (Thunderbolt was actually developed by Intel and you can get PC adapters) means that any money you put into expanding a computer will be easily portable to other computer or when you upgrade a computer. This isn't necessarily true with internal cards (think ISA / VESA / PCI / PCIe / PCIx). Also, you don't have to worry about upgrading your computer's power supply or cooling when you add expansion.
Which I will release to the public in a 1.7TB archive. If I'm arrested, I will release the one-time pad decryption key.
The PC market is currently losing money for most manufacturers as well.
Without going into specifics, I believe an apt analogy would be giving everyone in the country a flying car. While this would no doubt be enjoyable, without proper training and regulation it would also be tremendously dangerous (also assume training and regulating is not practical in this case).
In the day of the horse and buggy, many people were against horseless carriages. They were loud, spooked horses on the road, and much more prone to accidents... especially without "proper training and regulation". Yes, imaging how bad things would be if everyone had a horseless carriage.
FWIW, they did the same thing on the PS3. Disabling one of the SPU cores to get higher yields. Even on machines where all the SPU's passed, they still had to disable one though to "standardize" performance... so sometimes functional chips are actually crippled to meet demand for lower specs but it's more often a factor to attain higher yield. Intel did "crippling" on functional Pentiums at first to meet Celeron demand (before actually making a new die for celerons). It's a little bit of both to be honest.
I have a number of coworkers who basically don't function until their second cup of coffee in the morning. Providing coffee, tea, and soda is a no-brainer for increased productivity.
FWIW, most "free food" programs encourage workers to come in earlier (for breakfast) or stay later (work past dinner time) or to not spend a long time off the company property over lunch. The extra time at work usually pays for the food costs. When we have "crunch time" and are working late, my company orders food for people putting in extra hours. It's probably cheaper than overtime as well.
I do not have a problem with them not paying more than they are legally required to, but only to a certain extent. And that extent is when they start pumping money into lobbyists and political donations to KEEP those laws unfairly in their favor. If businesses stay out of politics, then they cannot be blamed when they get advantages from it. But, when they essentially buy our politicians and laws, I have a lot less tolerance for the "I was just following the law" excuse.
Just remember that unlimited donations to provide political advertising or independent political funding from corporations is considered constitutionally protected "free speech" in the US due to the Supreme Court (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - 2010). And "independent" is a very weak word here. Also in the US, "Corporations are People my friend" remains true even though Romney lost.
Can you please define what "fair share" means?
I think the proposed Buffett Rule does... in which people are required to pay a minimum tax rate based on their income so a billionaire doesn't have a lower rate than his secretary. Since "corporations are people" (according to the Supreme Court), we could apply a Buffet Rule to corporations as well, where they are required to pay a minimum tax rate on their earnings regardless of how many loopholes they have taken advantage of.
If everything legally permissible is deemed morally acceptable then humanity is doomed.
Corporations, as well as the rich, will rarely consider taking advantage of a tax loophole to be "morally wrong". In fact, by the code of corporations, in which maximizing profits for shareholders is one of the prime decrees, to not take advantage of an available loophole would be "morally wrong" to their shareholders.
Therefore, it is up to lawmakers to remove the loopholes. But of course, that will never happen with a Republican House and with Senate Republicans forcing a super-majority 60+ vote on ALL legislation with an ever-present filibuster threat since Obama took office.
I've got socks older than you. What are you gonna do when you really get old?
My first published computer program came out YEARS before he was born and I continue to learn new things all the time. I've been programming video games professionally since the 80's and full time since 1993. Every few years, I have to learn entire new OS, new hardware for console, direct low level programming on completely unique custom chips, new IDE's or debugging tools, SDK's, TRC's etc... even new computer languages. Often when the next console comes out, anything I've learned in the previous round is "obsolete" and I have to start over.
But learning and embracing change is a way of life for a good developer. Heck, when I first started programming C wasn't even a certified language. I taught it to myself. Then C++ came our and I taught myself. And template programming and C++11 etc. etc.
In my industry, you have to be driven and constantly researching and teaching yourself new skills. It's good to at least examine some of what is "shiny" to everyone and see what it's about in many fields but in mine it's a matter of survival.
If he's afraid of learning new things now and embracing trends or even disruptive changes, there's no way he'll have a competive skill set in 20 years. If I was stuck on old trends that were around when I started, I'd be programming legacy database code in COBOL and PL1.
Microsoft has been caught selling DATA to advertisers.
When you are using "FREE" SERVICES (FaceBook, GMail, Google Seach, Yahoo, etc), then you need to realize that *YOU* are the product being sold.
The carnivorous humped bladderwort...
Sounds like something from an episose of red Red Dwarf.
Or Hyperdrive
Early experiments with in vitro meat had no muscle tone. (Past stories here have pointed this out.) The closest natural experience would be eating a fetus—not exactly good steak.
Maybe they could apply electro-stimulus to the muscle cells when they are grown in-vitro so they contract and build up muscle fibers?
There's also the matter of rewriting things introducing new bugs and getting the "so what good did it do to rewrite it when the new code doesn't work?" element. Worse is when the new bug is difficult to reproduce or troubleshoot.
However, if it's not buggy and you are refactoring because it's not "elegant" that's much harder to justify or document.
It's all in how you phrase the change log entry: "Improved understandability of the code to allow easier implementation of future changes to user requirements."
Still, spending a lot of time refactoring code that is functioning correctly and as he claims "works and gets the job done" is time that he is not working on other tasks. Also, he notes that the other employee is extremely productive at just getting code done that actually works while he is spending lots of time refactoring this working code and then complaining about his "wasted time".
I've seen plenty of coding styles and even if it's a little ugly but works, it's often better to do your own tasks and focus on your own productivity than cleaning up code that already works.
It works and gets the job done, but it's far from elegant and there are numerous little (some might say trivial) mistakes everywhere.
If there are functional mistakes, then it shouldn't be working and the best way to complain would be to make bug reports and document your fixes to the code.
However, if it's not buggy and you are refactoring because it's not "elegant" that's much harder to justify or document. Because it kind of sounds like you are complaining about his coding style while he is being productive and writing a ton of less than perfectly styled code that "works and gets the job done".
You can't even search your past posts or friends posts for keywords or by a date range... and those seem like "easy" data searches.
Employees in the computer industry are often encouraged to work overtime. The free meals keep you onsite and working harder. Especially for dinner -- once you've left the office for dinner at home, it's highly unlikely you are coming back in.
Plus driving and parking in many of those areas is a nightmare. Even for walking, many of these sites are "campuses" that require you to go off campus to actually get food from third parties and walking 1/2 a mile to get lunch is definitely "inconvenient".
So yes, it is for employee convenience.... not just for employee enjoyment. Their is no reason why "convenient food" can't also be pleasurable to enjoy... or should the only tax-free meals be bland?
it was a great idea to start building homes on swamp land?
I dunno... ask the people in New Orleans who built homes on drained swampland that was below sea level that required constant pumping of water into canals (where the canal water level is higher than the hour ground levels).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/New_Orleans_17th_Street_Canal_filling.JPG
Forbes did an article last April about what some companies pay in taxes. Here's a few of the more recognizable companies.
Apple - 24.6% ($4 bil on $33 bil)
Pretty sure your math is wrong here... 24.6% of $33 billion is $8.1 billion. Apple, if they paid $4B on $, only paid about 12% in taxes.
None of our tests reliably stimulated defecation, which seemed to occur most when cows were exposed to novelty.
That is unless I mistook the meaning of the word "novelty" and that things like glasses with a built in moustache will make a cow do-a-doody.
I love when the headline question is answered right there in the summary.
Actually there is a way to make a cow poop if you follow links to the actual abstract:
None of our tests reliably stimulated defecation, which seemed to occur most when cows were exposed to novelty.
Basically, cows poop when they see something new, Unfortunately, showing them something over and over becomes "old" pretty quickly. Fresh material stimulates the production of "fresh material" from cows.