I have an i7 with 8 threads. I was *never* CPU limited for anything - ever. Even a DVD rip, I'd end up limited by IO, rather than CPU. I'm sure there is some theoretical load that could have stressed the CPU, but I never saw it. When I started LoLing with the wife, her load times were 1/4 mine. Since every time it loaded, I'd be provably slower than her. It was embarrassing. Her laptop is a year old, compared to mine, 3 years old. So, I pulled out my 3G modem and dropped in a 256GB SSD in the mSATA slot. Loaded a fresh Windows on the new drive, and used the old for storage. Installed LoL on the SSD, and my load times are now better than hers by 5-10%.
SSD loads my CPU more because things wait less time on IO. But still can't fill the CPU for any more than a few seconds at a time. A DVD rip takes ~10 minutes per 90 minute DVD, but without CPU at 100%, so probably limited by DVD read speed (using all 8 threads, sometimes I use 7, if I plan on running a game at the same time). The only time I can reliably max out the CPU is when I'm on a 1G Internet connection and re-open a browser with 30-50 tabs. It loads all the tabs and renders all the content on all of them as fast as it can. 3-10 seconds of 100% CPU is the best I can do, without loading something designed to deliberately load CPUs.
I may have "overpaid" (though I got the laptop at a great discount, lower than the i5 version), but it's nice to never be CPU limited.
Oh, and the wife's drive is a 1GB HDD with 20 GB SSD cache drive. Almost exactly the same speed as my 256 GB SSD, and a whole lot more space. Much better bang for the buck than my 256GB SSD primary drive with 750 GB spinner for storage, and the same usable space.
For the Haswell (the "previous" generation), the cap on turbo was lower for the i7 than the i5. Not by much, but enough that a purely single task test should give the i5 a small advantage.
Yup, I hadn't looked up all the specs of the new chips. No quad-core. 33% more cache than the i5. A little more speed. Not the bigger differences of the older line, 2-core vs 4-core and all that. I already have a Haswell i7, and can't get any faster from the new line. Just cooler. I'll stay with my current as long as I can.
I have an i7-3612QM in my laptop. Sure, you wouldn't likely see that in a ultralite. But comparing the i5, the i7 runs a little slower to keep 4 cores in the same heat as the 2-core i5. For multithread, the i7 will be much better. With single-thread only, and one program at a time, the i5 may have a slight advantage. A dual core i5 vs dual core i7, there's not as much difference.
Almost all guns used in mass shootings in the US were obtained legally. Adam Lanza's mom bought them legally. If they were illegal for his mom to own, would he have still had access to guns to shoot up the school?
The average user occasionally does something like rip a DVD, or leave stuff running in the background while playing the game. Though all that stuff wouldn't fill up the CPUs, except for a DVD rip or similar, but that's not going to make a huge difference.
This is not about religion. This is about political power, this is
about uneducated, ignorant youth who are being manipulated by clerics
and extremists.
How many other religions have clerics or holy men advocating extreme
violence?
Yeah, why can't they convince the ignorant youth to suck priest cock, like the Catholics do? Violence? That's bad. Good thing rape isn't violence.
The i5 has the same thermal power as the i7. The i5 generally runs at a slight speed advantage to the i7. The i7 has twice the cores of the i5. So for single threaded tasks, the i5 may be a hair faster. But for multithreads (getting more common, despite the complaints about it here), the i7 will be almost twice as fast as the i5.
Call me when they have the i7. For no more heat and exactly the same battery life, I'd rather pay for the i7.
Quote where I Said the GP brought up AOL. Quote where you "dealt with" the AOL red herring. Neither are in this thread. I read the whole thing, and it's not there.
The part where you have to resort to this kind of insult when you got caught claiming that a topic you brought up was actually brought up by someone earlier in a thread.
No, I just did that to avoid blatantly calling you a liar. But now I will. Nowhere in this thread of responses back to the OP did I ever say the GP said anything about AOL. Nor did you say anything useful about my definition of free.
You just don't like that I proved your preferred (and useless) definition of "free" wrong. So you are making up lies to have something to argue about.
Sure, but that is fairly different to what you initially proposed.
I don't see it as any different that what I initially proposed. You took what I said as the worst possible implementation, rather than trying to figure out how to do it best.
The general idea is - authenticate USB devices. Somthing that isn't done today. The rest is first guess as to a possible manner. You are complaining about the color of the USB device, rather than addressing the general idea.
Also, none of this is consumer-grade capability
Also, none of this is consumer-grade capability
You are wrong. Not even close. When you think of something, you think of the worst possible way only. That makes you and only you wrong, and not me. I mentioned drivers, because I was expecting your inane and irrelevant response. All USB deviced identify themselves to the OS today. So a "key" of some kind to unlock the device is well within the capabilities of consumer-grade devices today.
That you are still listing reasons why it's impossible just shows you have no imagination, not that there's anything wrong with the idea. As you are uninterested in discussing the idea, but instead just "proving" me wrong in every post, I give up. You win. USB is impossible. Nobody will ever make USB work (hey, that's no more off topic/non sequitur than any of your responses so far).
or the two jurisdictions agree to move the proceedings to a higher jurisdiction (eg District to County) where both may prosecute the same case on the same evidence at the same time in the same chamber.
And what joint higher court would there be for an action in Canada and one in the USA? It doesn't seem like you could appeal to a district court that included both.
So I asked, am I wrong in calling an AOL disk sent to me at no cost to me a "free" disk when someone asks why I'm using it as a coaster?
What part of a discussion don't you understand. I didn't say he said anything. I'm just saying that his definition of "free" is the most useless definition ever.
Samsung Galaxy S3 is supposed to get it, but no time released that I've seen. I would go out of my way to upgrade it, if it were seamless one-step, rather than I could do it now, with rooting and unofficial/unsupported images.
You can ban someone for any reason. That would be an interesting exercise. Ban someone for playing too flawlessly to be human. It would be "evidence" of a cheat, even if weak. Now they just need to have 10,000 copies running, playing every hand of poker. The site is not running well, but it would be interesting to see it playing itself in fast time. 10 hands a second, 10 days. Would the answer come back to a Wargames quote?
It's not jurisdiction shopping to get a local ruling against them (as you live in that jurisdiction) and trying to get a ruling against them in their jurisdiction as well, where they can be compelled to comply. Usually, you don't have both concurrently, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it. Jurisdiction shopping got Paul Little in prison. A person in CA who made porn in CA and sold it in CA was sentenced in FL. Because the people that hated him shopped for a DA willing to take it on. And yes, that's different because it was criminal.
But you can't file in CA and FL at the same time for someone that has a nexus in both. The jurisdictions overlap, as you can apply a CA judgment in FL and vice versa. But the same doesn't apply to a suit in the US and Canada. There's no overlap at all. Different independent laws, different independent jurisdictions.
And GP asserting that a "free" AOL disk isn't free because AOL paid for it isn't pedantic? That definition of free doesn't exist in any closed system. Everything has a cost.
The much more popular "no cost to the end user" definition of free is obviously the right one.
It's time more people realized that when the government uses the term "free" it truly is a lie,
The meaning of "free" from the government is obvious to everyone. Only the mentally ill have a problem with using the common word accurately. "no cost to the user" is always the meaning, and I've never seen "free" used inappropriately with that common definition.
But in a real poker game, human players make lots of mistakes. A player who adjusts their strategy to exploit these mistakes will win vastly more than this (formerly theoretical) "perfect player". The game-theory optimal strategy is focused on not losing, rather than exploiting mistakes and winning the most.
In real life, the human player can feign a mistake as well. So you aren't playing the cards, but the person.
I'm not a poker player, but I am a bridge champion. The bridge techniques for humans guess the locations of cards based on where they are likely to be. There's also guessing where the cards are to guess what the opponents will bet (as bets are exclusive and competitive). Full knowledge of all the cards lets you make the perfect bet. So you communicate with your partner via your bets, and try to guess the key cards to get to the right bet. While trying to cut out your opponents if they also have a valid bet.
Your bet has meaning beyond the obvious. The time it takes to make it is illegal to use to communicate with your partner, but it still has meaning. Same as poker players showing a tell. Though in bridge competitions, sometimes blinds are used so you can see cards, but not any of the other players.
So in an actual game, the expert human player will outperform the computer because the other humans in the game are exploitable.
A game of one bot and 2 standard opponents, the bot should win. A human expert may eliminate the 2 standard opponents faster, or more reliably (as the bot is chance dependent, for small enough runs of games).
But a game of one bot and one expert. The expert will, at best, hold his own.
Slashdot Mirror
Just like every decade for as long as any of us have been alive?
I have an i7 with 8 threads. I was *never* CPU limited for anything - ever. Even a DVD rip, I'd end up limited by IO, rather than CPU. I'm sure there is some theoretical load that could have stressed the CPU, but I never saw it. When I started LoLing with the wife, her load times were 1/4 mine. Since every time it loaded, I'd be provably slower than her. It was embarrassing. Her laptop is a year old, compared to mine, 3 years old. So, I pulled out my 3G modem and dropped in a 256GB SSD in the mSATA slot. Loaded a fresh Windows on the new drive, and used the old for storage. Installed LoL on the SSD, and my load times are now better than hers by 5-10%.
SSD loads my CPU more because things wait less time on IO. But still can't fill the CPU for any more than a few seconds at a time. A DVD rip takes ~10 minutes per 90 minute DVD, but without CPU at 100%, so probably limited by DVD read speed (using all 8 threads, sometimes I use 7, if I plan on running a game at the same time). The only time I can reliably max out the CPU is when I'm on a 1G Internet connection and re-open a browser with 30-50 tabs. It loads all the tabs and renders all the content on all of them as fast as it can. 3-10 seconds of 100% CPU is the best I can do, without loading something designed to deliberately load CPUs.
I may have "overpaid" (though I got the laptop at a great discount, lower than the i5 version), but it's nice to never be CPU limited.
Oh, and the wife's drive is a 1GB HDD with 20 GB SSD cache drive. Almost exactly the same speed as my 256 GB SSD, and a whole lot more space. Much better bang for the buck than my 256GB SSD primary drive with 750 GB spinner for storage, and the same usable space.
For the Haswell (the "previous" generation), the cap on turbo was lower for the i7 than the i5. Not by much, but enough that a purely single task test should give the i5 a small advantage.
Yup, I hadn't looked up all the specs of the new chips. No quad-core. 33% more cache than the i5. A little more speed. Not the bigger differences of the older line, 2-core vs 4-core and all that. I already have a Haswell i7, and can't get any faster from the new line. Just cooler. I'll stay with my current as long as I can.
I have an i7-3612QM in my laptop. Sure, you wouldn't likely see that in a ultralite. But comparing the i5, the i7 runs a little slower to keep 4 cores in the same heat as the 2-core i5. For multithread, the i7 will be much better. With single-thread only, and one program at a time, the i5 may have a slight advantage. A dual core i5 vs dual core i7, there's not as much difference.
Oh, and the US has a higher suicide rate than Foxconn. And guns are good for that. Why do we count suicides inconsistently?
Almost all guns used in mass shootings in the US were obtained legally. Adam Lanza's mom bought them legally. If they were illegal for his mom to own, would he have still had access to guns to shoot up the school?
The average user occasionally does something like rip a DVD, or leave stuff running in the background while playing the game. Though all that stuff wouldn't fill up the CPUs, except for a DVD rip or similar, but that's not going to make a huge difference.
Yup. And my S3 is so slow that it's almost unusable. Sometimes 10 seconds between click and response.
This is not about religion. This is about political power, this is about uneducated, ignorant youth who are being manipulated by clerics and extremists.
How many other religions have clerics or holy men advocating extreme violence?
Yeah, why can't they convince the ignorant youth to suck priest cock, like the Catholics do? Violence? That's bad. Good thing rape isn't violence.
The i5 has the same thermal power as the i7. The i5 generally runs at a slight speed advantage to the i7. The i7 has twice the cores of the i5. So for single threaded tasks, the i5 may be a hair faster. But for multithreads (getting more common, despite the complaints about it here), the i7 will be almost twice as fast as the i5.
Call me when they have the i7. For no more heat and exactly the same battery life, I'd rather pay for the i7.
The part where you have to resort to this kind of insult when you got caught claiming that a topic you brought up was actually brought up by someone earlier in a thread.
No, I just did that to avoid blatantly calling you a liar. But now I will. Nowhere in this thread of responses back to the OP did I ever say the GP said anything about AOL. Nor did you say anything useful about my definition of free.
You just don't like that I proved your preferred (and useless) definition of "free" wrong. So you are making up lies to have something to argue about.
Sure, but that is fairly different to what you initially proposed.
I don't see it as any different that what I initially proposed. You took what I said as the worst possible implementation, rather than trying to figure out how to do it best.
The general idea is - authenticate USB devices. Somthing that isn't done today. The rest is first guess as to a possible manner. You are complaining about the color of the USB device, rather than addressing the general idea.
Also, none of this is consumer-grade capability
Also, none of this is consumer-grade capability
You are wrong. Not even close. When you think of something, you think of the worst possible way only. That makes you and only you wrong, and not me. I mentioned drivers, because I was expecting your inane and irrelevant response. All USB deviced identify themselves to the OS today. So a "key" of some kind to unlock the device is well within the capabilities of consumer-grade devices today.
That you are still listing reasons why it's impossible just shows you have no imagination, not that there's anything wrong with the idea. As you are uninterested in discussing the idea, but instead just "proving" me wrong in every post, I give up. You win. USB is impossible. Nobody will ever make USB work (hey, that's no more off topic/non sequitur than any of your responses so far).
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.
or the two jurisdictions agree to move the proceedings to a higher jurisdiction (eg District to County) where both may prosecute the same case on the same evidence at the same time in the same chamber.
And what joint higher court would there be for an action in Canada and one in the USA? It doesn't seem like you could appeal to a district court that included both.
Free? As in somebody else pays for it...
So I asked, am I wrong in calling an AOL disk sent to me at no cost to me a "free" disk when someone asks why I'm using it as a coaster?
What part of a discussion don't you understand. I didn't say he said anything. I'm just saying that his definition of "free" is the most useless definition ever.
Samsung Galaxy S3 is supposed to get it, but no time released that I've seen. I would go out of my way to upgrade it, if it were seamless one-step, rather than I could do it now, with rooting and unofficial/unsupported images.
You can ban someone for any reason. That would be an interesting exercise. Ban someone for playing too flawlessly to be human. It would be "evidence" of a cheat, even if weak. Now they just need to have 10,000 copies running, playing every hand of poker. The site is not running well, but it would be interesting to see it playing itself in fast time. 10 hands a second, 10 days. Would the answer come back to a Wargames quote?
It's not jurisdiction shopping to get a local ruling against them (as you live in that jurisdiction) and trying to get a ruling against them in their jurisdiction as well, where they can be compelled to comply. Usually, you don't have both concurrently, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it. Jurisdiction shopping got Paul Little in prison. A person in CA who made porn in CA and sold it in CA was sentenced in FL. Because the people that hated him shopped for a DA willing to take it on. And yes, that's different because it was criminal.
But you can't file in CA and FL at the same time for someone that has a nexus in both. The jurisdictions overlap, as you can apply a CA judgment in FL and vice versa. But the same doesn't apply to a suit in the US and Canada. There's no overlap at all. Different independent laws, different independent jurisdictions.
"Fraud is a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair [...] gain."
Yup, it's fraud.
A lie you benefit from is more commonly called "fraud". Are you asserting that fraud is legal and ethical?
So it's free like the postman delivered AOL disks. Or are those not free to me because AOL paid to press them and send them?
The much more popular "no cost to the end user" definition of free is obviously the right one.
It's time more people realized that when the government uses the term "free" it truly is a lie,
The meaning of "free" from the government is obvious to everyone. Only the mentally ill have a problem with using the common word accurately. "no cost to the user" is always the meaning, and I've never seen "free" used inappropriately with that common definition.
But in a real poker game, human players make lots of mistakes. A player who adjusts their strategy to exploit these mistakes will win vastly more than this (formerly theoretical) "perfect player". The game-theory optimal strategy is focused on not losing, rather than exploiting mistakes and winning the most.
In real life, the human player can feign a mistake as well. So you aren't playing the cards, but the person.
I'm not a poker player, but I am a bridge champion. The bridge techniques for humans guess the locations of cards based on where they are likely to be. There's also guessing where the cards are to guess what the opponents will bet (as bets are exclusive and competitive). Full knowledge of all the cards lets you make the perfect bet. So you communicate with your partner via your bets, and try to guess the key cards to get to the right bet. While trying to cut out your opponents if they also have a valid bet.
Your bet has meaning beyond the obvious. The time it takes to make it is illegal to use to communicate with your partner, but it still has meaning. Same as poker players showing a tell. Though in bridge competitions, sometimes blinds are used so you can see cards, but not any of the other players.
So in an actual game, the expert human player will outperform the computer because the other humans in the game are exploitable.
A game of one bot and 2 standard opponents, the bot should win. A human expert may eliminate the 2 standard opponents faster, or more reliably (as the bot is chance dependent, for small enough runs of games).
But a game of one bot and one expert. The expert will, at best, hold his own.
The play the bot looks to be slashdotted.