More delusion. In reality, you'd like get a judgment and never be paid. And that's assuming you can find an attorney to take you case. And if you can, most of your judgment, assuming you ever get paid, would be absorbed by the attorney.
Find a new job.
So what you're advocating is everyone who creates must find a new job. You just destroyed a huge segment of the economy. Congratulations idiot!
I need more people like you. People seem to think that copyright is about "compensating" people or "being fair".
That's because their statement is based and wholly rooted in fact - unlike yours - which is pure delusion. First and foremost, copyright exists to FAIRLY reward creation by means of COMPENSATION. Only after the creator has been FAIRLY COMPENSATED is the public at large intended to receive the works. It is ONLY in doing so is everyone able to win. Stealing before the creator can be compensated is completely contrary to the notion of encouraging creation.
This is such a simple concept and one which is extremely well document. Its really hard for me not to look down on those who come to some other conclusion as somehow being mentally deficient. Literally.
On what world is it possible for creation to not be rewarded and it to concurrent encourage creation? Basically your delusion punishes creation and you're arguing it magically encourages it. Its literally a retarded notion.
Well at least we've finally gotten past the classic pirate lie that nobody is harmed. The fact that my post was troll moderated only underscores the general stupidity and ignorance of the pro-pirates surrounding the issue. Pirates don't want to discuss reality, they only want to push their lies and propaganda. The reality is, they are a thief of a different color. Period.
So since you're willing to admit, and rightfully so, piracy is destroying business and therefore the economy, what model should they use? Or should we all just ball up and admit creation is dead and pirates have effectively destroyed - only the buggy whip makers haven't come to terms with it yet. You realize the destruction of copyright means the destruction massive segments our what little non-service orientated economy exists in the US. So after all these people are fired, what are they to do? Eat stolen music and movies re-runs?
Seriously, what are the solutions? Stealing shit simply isn't viable nor sustainable. So what options do we have?
I fail to see why it's a major problem that needs to be handled.
Because it destroys small businesses and seriously hurts medium sized business. Go look up the statistics about the economic contribution small and medium sized businesses make to the US economy. In this, it has the effect of destroying innovation.
People are constantly pissed about all the ad ware on Android. But the fact remains, piracy is so rampant, pirates have literally chased developers away from the platform and literally created the entire ad ware market on Android. If it were not for pirates, there would be little to no need for ad ware supported applications. To make matters worse, pirates are not working hard to remove ad ware from ad ware applications. Android makes for an interesting look because its ecosystem very clearly shows a financial harm to developers because of piracy and the overall effect is has on all participants. Not to mention, Android is excellent proof of why that stupid story about price being a huge factor for piracy is complete bullshit.
If you don't like ad ware, find a pirate and repeatedly kick him in the nuts until he goes unconscious. He and other like him, are literally the reason why we all suffer with ad ware on Android.
The thing is, physics said that the titanic could sink.
No. Physics said the Titanic could said. Marketing said it couldn't.
Physics says that a nuclear plant can't critically melt down a-la Chernobyl.
Nope. That's you saying that. That's why most nuclear reactors have containment buildings. Chernobyl didn't have one.
I think that what we need to take from this is that no matter how much we plan, and how much we try to minimize the worst case scenarios, they'll still happen, and we need more than 8 hours of battery backup for the cooling systems.
Its important to quantify your comments with the understand that these reactor's designs are fifty years old. Nuclear technology has considerably improved since then despite an extremely stagnant nuclear market. Those exact reasons are why modern reactors use a completely passively cooled system. They do not require motors, batteries, or generators to continue to cool once the reactor is shutdown. In fact, the residual heat powers the cooling. So the more heat the reactor generators, the more cooling it powers.
Ultimately, anti-nukers are literally the reason why most of these old reactors are still running and why they've not been replaced with newer, improved, safer, and more efficient reactors. Its rather ironic that anti-nukers are in fact, the single largest reason why the world is at a higher risk from nuclear reactors than reasonable need be.
Its important to understand, in most cases, anti-nukers are literally at fault. Anti-nukers prevent many of these old reactors from being replaced - at least here in the US and most of the world. I can't say authoritatively if that's the case in Japan or not. But given they are over forty years old, chances are, anti-nukers are at fault here.
Umm.. a poster above spoke about this patch in terms of Person A and Person B, so I am assuming it's a patch which distributes computing resources in a more fair manner among users accessing the system simultaneously. So, no desktop user will ever notice this as only one user accesses the machine ever. If this is what it is, it is extremely similar to a project I did two semesters back. xD
It doesn't really have anything directly to do with people. Instead of person A and B, think of it as process group A and B. The A and B can be associated with two difference people or one person and two different processes.
So to be absolutely clear, most desktop users absolutely will see a difference. Using the traditional example, you can now do a massive compile while listening to music and browse the web without any noticeable effect on music playing and web browsing, all the while the background compile is happily chugging along.
If we break that example down it looks something like this. Let's assume a compile of four processes and playing music and web browsing each take one process. The old scheduling means that the music player gets one unit of work scheduled out of every six. The same goes for the web browser. On the other hand, the compile gets four work units out of every six. If you only have four CPUs, that means some mix of two processes are always waiting to run. If that's your music player or web browser, you might discern some delay or skipping.
On the other hand, with process groups associated with sessions, your web browser and music player, each, now see one out of every three units. That more of less means they each get a dedicated CPU some some left over for the compile. Likewise, that means the compile gets a dedicated CPU and whatever the music player and web browser didn't use. That translates into the web browser and music player being able to run 16.3% more frequently and because of cpu affinity distribution is far more likely to experience lower latencies and higher cache hits.
Not really. Most of what I've read have been observations made of various piracy channels, and reported via studies. So I believe these efforts to establish piracy metrics, at least in relative terms, are likely fairly accurate in relative terms. Meaning trends can clearly be established. These trends indicate piracy has steadily been on the rise while media prices have steadily been falling to roughly $0.99. But even then, many prices have continued to fall well below that.
I am entirely pro-nuke, and I am sick as fuck of you industry apologists poisoning the debate. Of course nuclear power isn't safe. There hasn't been a "safe" form of power since the dawn of mankind.
That is part of the problem. Its well documented coal is far, far more dangerous than nuclear power. Period. But the sad truth is, anti-nukers are making the world more dangerous for everyone. Anti-nukers have scared the general public so badly, the word nuclear is now, officially, a scary word, having extremely negative connotations. Its so bad, MNRI was renamed to MRI. Guess what the N stood for. They had to do that because people refused to receive diagnostic treatment.
Anti-nukers also prevent the rapid adoption of safer nuclear technologies. They increase the cost everyone pays for energy. They are literally the reason why many reactors are run past their certified lifetime rather than being decommissioned and replaced with modern, safer, varieties.
Literally, the world would be a better place if all anti-nukers dropped dead tomorrow.
But ignoring all that, part of the problem is you're speaking of things in absolutes. Most people, when they say, "safe", they are speaking in relative terms. The problem is, most people don't realize there is a difference. In relative terms, nuclear power is one of the safest, if not the safest, form or power we have. It is by far safer and cleaner than coal. But in absolute terms, you are of course correct, no form of power generation is safe or clean. None. And that's where the rhetoric comes in. Anti-nukers lie and tell people nuclear is dangerous and everything else is safe. Meaning they speak of the dangers of non-nuclear power in relative terms and they go out of their way to speak of nuclear power in absolutes.
For what its worth, it now appears one of the containment vessels has been ruptured. Initial reports is that radioactive sea water is likely leaving the vessel by means other than scheduled stream releases.
But yes, you're point is completely valid. Its very important to remember these reactors were designed in the 1960s and the plant came online in the early 1970s. Its been providing safe power for over forty years despite numerous earth quakes.
Furthermore, modern designs use convective cooling. The cooling system is entirely passive. The heat of the reactor literally powers the cooling process. So as long as the reactor continues to generate heat, the reactor continues to be automatically cooled by that same heat without any need for batteries or generators.
Heck, in just the last thirty years alone, considerable advances in nuclear safety technology has been created and this is with an almost completely stagnant nuclear market (most new designs in production were created in the 1970s and went online in the 1980s).
The sad truth is, the anti-nukers literally make nuclear power needlessly more dangerous (by slowing design, development, and adoption of newer, safer technology) and needlessly far more expensive. Anti-nukers literally are everyone's worst enemy.
I'm honestly not sure about stock kernels and even that likely varies from manufacturer to manufacturer, but many (most - all) third party roms do use process groups to allow for priority assignment and are heavily tweaked in this regard. This is one of the reasons why many third party roms seem to be more responsive than factory roms.
While I can't say for sure, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if this finds its way into android as this type of technology can go a long way toward reducing interface latency. For example, system services and launcher could be in two groups while use applications and services could be in a third. That means the CPU need only divided three ways, and sub-divided from there, rather than shared sixty ways which definitely drives up interface latency.
Most people that I know of that make fun of "American beers" are making fun of the absolute shit carrying the budweiser, michelob, coors, etc "big" brands.
But in doing so, they are exposing massive ignorance. The fact is, its far, far harder to control quality on lightly flavored beer than it is on rubusto, old world beers. This is something even Samuel Adams* is quick to point out. The fact is, when you have a light flavor, the smallest hint of skunk or a screwup in quality is immediately noticeable. Whereas, in darker, heavier flavored beers, you can almost literally place a skunk into the beer and most will hide it. That's the point.
Now if you want to argue you simply don't like the flavor, I certainly don't have a problem with that. More power too you! Regardless, the simple fact is, the required quality of those, "inferior beers", sadly, almost always exceeds those, by far, which others openly brag about. Add to the fact they are obtaining and maintaining such high quality at such massive scales is all the more embarrassing for those other, typically European, brands.
As you say, there are plenty of American micro- and regional- breweries making great beer.
At one point in time, early in American's history, America had more micro breweries than did Europe. America literally became king of the brew. At this point in time, American offered greater quality and taste. A lot of European brewers followed. And in fact, much of what is considered European brew was directly lifted from American breweries. It became a full circle (Europe -> America -> Europe). Eventually, larger brewers took over because of bottling technology improvement meant the death of smaller brewers; who sometimes did lack in quality and consistency. With the exception of the highly specialized brews, where personal preference is highly subjective, American's microbreweries represent the best beers the world has to offer. That not to say European beers are paled in comparison. What I'm saying is, American, in its own right, has a proud beer tradition which easily rivals that of the best of traditional European beers.
Which means, at the end of the day, almost without fail, those ridiculing any segment of the American beer market are actually exposing their ineptitude and ignorance for beer in general; begging to be entirely ignored. At the end of the day, the flavor is all that matters; be it a heavy, all absorbing tone or a light, refreshing accent, and everything in between. It either speaks to you or it doesn't. Regardless, you can't shake a finger at American big brand beer as being inferior - as factually and scientifically, its not. This is a simple truth which any honest industry Brew Master will share.
(*) Please note, I refer you to Samuel Adams not because I endorse their product but because they are a highly regarded and highly acclaimed American brewery; even outside of the US.
The "I'd buy it if it were reasonably priced" meme is in reality largely a rationalization to justify current piracy. Only a few would follow through and go legit.
Exactly! This is exactly what multiple studies have proven, not to mention what history clearly shows. Price is an excuse and in reality, is a tiny, tiny factory in the majority of decisions to pirate. Furthermore several studies clearly show piracy stems from a sense of self entitlement and rarely has anything to do with the price of the goods. The fact piracy levels have risen despite media prices falling, clearly supports these studies and more or less completely invalidates bullshit studies like this one.
Regardless, your post about whether or not they would do that for a new game is not relevant when we're talking about the relationship between price and revenue. The conclusion still shows that lower prices translate to higher revenue, regardless of what you think Valve may or may not do.
And that would be the completely wrong conclusion. Sales went up because the market perceived it to be a good bang for the buck. If the rest of the market were to follow suite, after a while we'd be back to the pre-existing market state. For your conclusion to be sound, the seller is forced to infinitely discount prices as the market adjusts each time. Which, according to you, ultimately means, they can maximum profit by giving everything away. Brilliant.
Whoosh! That has got to be one of the most irrational, illogical, and patently stupid things I've read on slashdot in recent times. Such a statement is completely orthogonal to the subject at hand. You don't even address the original point - which clearly whooshed over your head. Which, in of itself, is pretty amazing since it was stated at such clearly low comprehension levels.
The rest is you saying you've not bothered to read shit on the subject, including the endless stories posted here. Are you seriously suggesting that because piracy exists no one is making money? That's the basis of your entire post. You are really stupid.
Please don't reply. I don't feel like reading more unreasonable stupidity.
The problem is, adding a "return" at the end of a function is not, "badly designed benchmarks." Furthermore, adding an unused variable, declared at the top of a function is not, "badly designed benchmarks."
Simple simple fact is, IE was caught cheating in several benchmarks. To wit, MS hoped to explain as invalid dead code elimination, which in fact, had the code not even been eliminated, it would have not even been measurable. Furthermore, those bugs a huge amount of code would have run exceptionally poorly on IE and yet, that was never observed.
Except the problem is, it had nothing to do with dead code elimination. The cited examples are where dead code, whereby code which actually runs, is eliminated or otherwise reduced such that it results in the wrong thing. Where as IE's "dead code" elimination was the elimination of code which never made a difference to the over all running of the code. For example, if adding a return on the end of a function results in several multiples of slower code, then just about all code will run slow - and that's not what was observed. Furthermore, simply adding an unused variable is extremely unlikely to create problems for any code. And should it, it means IE would be completely unable to be competitive with any other JS implementation - and yet they are.
Simply stated, wishful thinking, as you've provided, does not countermand reality.
The reality is, this is pure bullshit. For decades pirates claimed they need only lower prices and it would be the end of piracy. And so, we can how the sub-$0.99 cent music market and piracy is still raging; if not growing. The simple truth is, far too many studies, not to mention history which completely invalidates this study before it was written, proves price is almost never (only for a tiny minority is price) a significant factor in piracy.
People love to make fun of American beers but in doing so completely expose their bias and/or general ignorance. The reality is, American beers actually re-invented beer making. The beer before the resurgence of beer making in America largely existed because their grandfather made beer and that was good enough. Whereas, American beer grew because people wanted something which tasted good. And beer sold based on that notion. Before such a market existed, people purchased beer because it was a necessity of life*.
Of course, this doesn't mean all American beers are excellent or even good. Anyone whos had a variety of any country's beers will tell you otherwise; which isn't even account for individual differences in preferences. Just the same, if you want to drink a beer that largely drunk because your father's father drank it, drink something other than American beer. On the other hand, if you want to drink a beer which is around almost solely because it tastes good and is refreshing, give an American micro brew a chance.
So ask yourself, are you drinking beer because someone's great, great grandfather liked it and you've trained your buds to believe that is what tastes good, or are you drinking it because it really tastes good to you? An exceedingly large number of beer snobs fall into the former category. Which IMOHO, completely undermines the entire basis of their snobbery.
(*) Its important to remember, in times past, beer wasn't drank because it tasted good. Beer was largely consumed because it was safer (more pure, less contamination, fewer bugs, slightly pro-antibiotic) than water. Furthermore, for many people, it was a primary source of nutrition. As such, most really old beer recipes exist primarily for their shelve life and nutritional value with taste being a far second priority. This is, in fact, why many people went to work drunk, or at least diminished, and why coffee became a critical necessity of the industrial revolution. Those who didn't drink coffee to counter act the effects of high beer intake were far more likely to be maimed or killed.
I completely agree with you and is, in fact, I point I specifically mention; albeit without as much detail. As I originally stated, if in fact you care to IE, its certainly a good upgrade. Regardless, my main point remains completely valid, don't trust any well known benchmark number about IE because MS has been repeatedly caught cheating. Even though MS has been caught cheating, real world performance, over all, still shows it to be a very competitive browser and a massive leap forward for IE in general.
It only contradicts if one presumes Red Hat is isolated from all other businesses on the planet. The reality is, responsible business frequently understand paying legalized extortion is frequently cheaper than a protracted legal battle forced by an extremely broken legal system.
The simply fact is, you know your legal system is extremely broken when the rule of thumb is its cheaper to pay extortion than it is it enter the legal system to not pay said extortion.
Pragmatically, Red Hat paying this only means they have an interest in running a company. It says nothing more and nothing less. Anything anyone wants to read into it, unless additional facts are provided, only validates people are attempting to read their own ignorance or malice into the situation.
Go back and re-read what I said and hopefully we'll realize why you argument makes no sense whatsoever. Using your completely broken logic, almost nothing could ever be investigated and criminals would be almost completely immune to prosecution. Your position doesn't even make logical sense, let alone bare a relationship to the actual laws.
The "cheating" you mention was the result of dead code removal optimization.
As well documented, dead code removal would have not created the observed effect. And if it did, IE would be completely unable to be competitive with any browser. Dead code removal does not in any way explain their obvious cheats.
Slashdot Mirror
More delusion. In reality, you'd like get a judgment and never be paid. And that's assuming you can find an attorney to take you case. And if you can, most of your judgment, assuming you ever get paid, would be absorbed by the attorney.
Find a new job.
So what you're advocating is everyone who creates must find a new job. You just destroyed a huge segment of the economy. Congratulations idiot!
I need more people like you. People seem to think that copyright is about "compensating" people or "being fair".
That's because their statement is based and wholly rooted in fact - unlike yours - which is pure delusion. First and foremost, copyright exists to FAIRLY reward creation by means of COMPENSATION. Only after the creator has been FAIRLY COMPENSATED is the public at large intended to receive the works. It is ONLY in doing so is everyone able to win. Stealing before the creator can be compensated is completely contrary to the notion of encouraging creation.
This is such a simple concept and one which is extremely well document. Its really hard for me not to look down on those who come to some other conclusion as somehow being mentally deficient. Literally.
On what world is it possible for creation to not be rewarded and it to concurrent encourage creation? Basically your delusion punishes creation and you're arguing it magically encourages it. Its literally a retarded notion.
Well at least we've finally gotten past the classic pirate lie that nobody is harmed. The fact that my post was troll moderated only underscores the general stupidity and ignorance of the pro-pirates surrounding the issue. Pirates don't want to discuss reality, they only want to push their lies and propaganda. The reality is, they are a thief of a different color. Period.
So since you're willing to admit, and rightfully so, piracy is destroying business and therefore the economy, what model should they use? Or should we all just ball up and admit creation is dead and pirates have effectively destroyed - only the buggy whip makers haven't come to terms with it yet. You realize the destruction of copyright means the destruction massive segments our what little non-service orientated economy exists in the US. So after all these people are fired, what are they to do? Eat stolen music and movies re-runs?
Seriously, what are the solutions? Stealing shit simply isn't viable nor sustainable. So what options do we have?
I fail to see why it's a major problem that needs to be handled.
Because it destroys small businesses and seriously hurts medium sized business. Go look up the statistics about the economic contribution small and medium sized businesses make to the US economy. In this, it has the effect of destroying innovation.
People are constantly pissed about all the ad ware on Android. But the fact remains, piracy is so rampant, pirates have literally chased developers away from the platform and literally created the entire ad ware market on Android. If it were not for pirates, there would be little to no need for ad ware supported applications. To make matters worse, pirates are not working hard to remove ad ware from ad ware applications. Android makes for an interesting look because its ecosystem very clearly shows a financial harm to developers because of piracy and the overall effect is has on all participants. Not to mention, Android is excellent proof of why that stupid story about price being a huge factor for piracy is complete bullshit.
If you don't like ad ware, find a pirate and repeatedly kick him in the nuts until he goes unconscious. He and other like him, are literally the reason why we all suffer with ad ware on Android.
Opps. I didn't read closely enough. I transposed the M and the N. That should read NMRI and not MNRI.
The thing is, physics said that the titanic could sink.
No. Physics said the Titanic could said. Marketing said it couldn't.
Physics says that a nuclear plant can't critically melt down a-la Chernobyl.
Nope. That's you saying that. That's why most nuclear reactors have containment buildings. Chernobyl didn't have one.
I think that what we need to take from this is that no matter how much we plan, and how much we try to minimize the worst case scenarios, they'll still happen, and we need more than 8 hours of battery backup for the cooling systems.
Its important to quantify your comments with the understand that these reactor's designs are fifty years old. Nuclear technology has considerably improved since then despite an extremely stagnant nuclear market. Those exact reasons are why modern reactors use a completely passively cooled system. They do not require motors, batteries, or generators to continue to cool once the reactor is shutdown. In fact, the residual heat powers the cooling. So the more heat the reactor generators, the more cooling it powers.
Ultimately, anti-nukers are literally the reason why most of these old reactors are still running and why they've not been replaced with newer, improved, safer, and more efficient reactors. Its rather ironic that anti-nukers are in fact, the single largest reason why the world is at a higher risk from nuclear reactors than reasonable need be.
Its important to understand, in most cases, anti-nukers are literally at fault. Anti-nukers prevent many of these old reactors from being replaced - at least here in the US and most of the world. I can't say authoritatively if that's the case in Japan or not. But given they are over forty years old, chances are, anti-nukers are at fault here.
Umm.. a poster above spoke about this patch in terms of Person A and Person B, so I am assuming it's a patch which distributes computing resources in a more fair manner among users accessing the system simultaneously. So, no desktop user will ever notice this as only one user accesses the machine ever. If this is what it is, it is extremely similar to a project I did two semesters back. xD
It doesn't really have anything directly to do with people. Instead of person A and B, think of it as process group A and B. The A and B can be associated with two difference people or one person and two different processes.
So to be absolutely clear, most desktop users absolutely will see a difference. Using the traditional example, you can now do a massive compile while listening to music and browse the web without any noticeable effect on music playing and web browsing, all the while the background compile is happily chugging along.
If we break that example down it looks something like this. Let's assume a compile of four processes and playing music and web browsing each take one process. The old scheduling means that the music player gets one unit of work scheduled out of every six. The same goes for the web browser. On the other hand, the compile gets four work units out of every six. If you only have four CPUs, that means some mix of two processes are always waiting to run. If that's your music player or web browser, you might discern some delay or skipping.
On the other hand, with process groups associated with sessions, your web browser and music player, each, now see one out of every three units. That more of less means they each get a dedicated CPU some some left over for the compile. Likewise, that means the compile gets a dedicated CPU and whatever the music player and web browser didn't use. That translates into the web browser and music player being able to run 16.3% more frequently and because of cpu affinity distribution is far more likely to experience lower latencies and higher cache hits.
It's near impossible to prove.
Not really. Most of what I've read have been observations made of various piracy channels, and reported via studies. So I believe these efforts to establish piracy metrics, at least in relative terms, are likely fairly accurate in relative terms. Meaning trends can clearly be established. These trends indicate piracy has steadily been on the rise while media prices have steadily been falling to roughly $0.99. But even then, many prices have continued to fall well below that.
I am entirely pro-nuke, and I am sick as fuck of you industry apologists poisoning the debate. Of course nuclear power isn't safe. There hasn't been a "safe" form of power since the dawn of mankind.
That is part of the problem. Its well documented coal is far, far more dangerous than nuclear power. Period. But the sad truth is, anti-nukers are making the world more dangerous for everyone. Anti-nukers have scared the general public so badly, the word nuclear is now, officially, a scary word, having extremely negative connotations. Its so bad, MNRI was renamed to MRI. Guess what the N stood for. They had to do that because people refused to receive diagnostic treatment.
Anti-nukers also prevent the rapid adoption of safer nuclear technologies. They increase the cost everyone pays for energy. They are literally the reason why many reactors are run past their certified lifetime rather than being decommissioned and replaced with modern, safer, varieties.
Literally, the world would be a better place if all anti-nukers dropped dead tomorrow.
But ignoring all that, part of the problem is you're speaking of things in absolutes. Most people, when they say, "safe", they are speaking in relative terms. The problem is, most people don't realize there is a difference. In relative terms, nuclear power is one of the safest, if not the safest, form or power we have. It is by far safer and cleaner than coal. But in absolute terms, you are of course correct, no form of power generation is safe or clean. None. And that's where the rhetoric comes in. Anti-nukers lie and tell people nuclear is dangerous and everything else is safe. Meaning they speak of the dangers of non-nuclear power in relative terms and they go out of their way to speak of nuclear power in absolutes.
For what its worth, it now appears one of the containment vessels has been ruptured. Initial reports is that radioactive sea water is likely leaving the vessel by means other than scheduled stream releases.
But yes, you're point is completely valid. Its very important to remember these reactors were designed in the 1960s and the plant came online in the early 1970s. Its been providing safe power for over forty years despite numerous earth quakes.
Furthermore, modern designs use convective cooling. The cooling system is entirely passive. The heat of the reactor literally powers the cooling process. So as long as the reactor continues to generate heat, the reactor continues to be automatically cooled by that same heat without any need for batteries or generators.
Heck, in just the last thirty years alone, considerable advances in nuclear safety technology has been created and this is with an almost completely stagnant nuclear market (most new designs in production were created in the 1970s and went online in the 1980s).
The sad truth is, the anti-nukers literally make nuclear power needlessly more dangerous (by slowing design, development, and adoption of newer, safer technology) and needlessly far more expensive. Anti-nukers literally are everyone's worst enemy.
I'm honestly not sure about stock kernels and even that likely varies from manufacturer to manufacturer, but many (most - all) third party roms do use process groups to allow for priority assignment and are heavily tweaked in this regard. This is one of the reasons why many third party roms seem to be more responsive than factory roms.
While I can't say for sure, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if this finds its way into android as this type of technology can go a long way toward reducing interface latency. For example, system services and launcher could be in two groups while use applications and services could be in a third. That means the CPU need only divided three ways, and sub-divided from there, rather than shared sixty ways which definitely drives up interface latency.
From reading. Its more or less common knowledge at this point. Do you believe piracy is down? If so, on what do you base that opion?
Most people that I know of that make fun of "American beers" are making fun of the absolute shit carrying the budweiser, michelob, coors, etc "big" brands.
But in doing so, they are exposing massive ignorance. The fact is, its far, far harder to control quality on lightly flavored beer than it is on rubusto, old world beers. This is something even Samuel Adams* is quick to point out. The fact is, when you have a light flavor, the smallest hint of skunk or a screwup in quality is immediately noticeable. Whereas, in darker, heavier flavored beers, you can almost literally place a skunk into the beer and most will hide it. That's the point.
Now if you want to argue you simply don't like the flavor, I certainly don't have a problem with that. More power too you! Regardless, the simple fact is, the required quality of those, "inferior beers", sadly, almost always exceeds those, by far, which others openly brag about. Add to the fact they are obtaining and maintaining such high quality at such massive scales is all the more embarrassing for those other, typically European, brands.
As you say, there are plenty of American micro- and regional- breweries making great beer.
At one point in time, early in American's history, America had more micro breweries than did Europe. America literally became king of the brew. At this point in time, American offered greater quality and taste. A lot of European brewers followed. And in fact, much of what is considered European brew was directly lifted from American breweries. It became a full circle (Europe -> America -> Europe). Eventually, larger brewers took over because of bottling technology improvement meant the death of smaller brewers; who sometimes did lack in quality and consistency. With the exception of the highly specialized brews, where personal preference is highly subjective, American's microbreweries represent the best beers the world has to offer. That not to say European beers are paled in comparison. What I'm saying is, American, in its own right, has a proud beer tradition which easily rivals that of the best of traditional European beers.
Which means, at the end of the day, almost without fail, those ridiculing any segment of the American beer market are actually exposing their ineptitude and ignorance for beer in general; begging to be entirely ignored. At the end of the day, the flavor is all that matters; be it a heavy, all absorbing tone or a light, refreshing accent, and everything in between. It either speaks to you or it doesn't. Regardless, you can't shake a finger at American big brand beer as being inferior - as factually and scientifically, its not. This is a simple truth which any honest industry Brew Master will share.
(*) Please note, I refer you to Samuel Adams not because I endorse their product but because they are a highly regarded and highly acclaimed American brewery; even outside of the US.
The "I'd buy it if it were reasonably priced" meme is in reality largely a rationalization to justify current piracy. Only a few would follow through and go legit.
Exactly! This is exactly what multiple studies have proven, not to mention what history clearly shows. Price is an excuse and in reality, is a tiny, tiny factory in the majority of decisions to pirate. Furthermore several studies clearly show piracy stems from a sense of self entitlement and rarely has anything to do with the price of the goods. The fact piracy levels have risen despite media prices falling, clearly supports these studies and more or less completely invalidates bullshit studies like this one.
Regardless, your post about whether or not they would do that for a new game is not relevant when we're talking about the relationship between price and revenue. The conclusion still shows that lower prices translate to higher revenue, regardless of what you think Valve may or may not do.
And that would be the completely wrong conclusion. Sales went up because the market perceived it to be a good bang for the buck. If the rest of the market were to follow suite, after a while we'd be back to the pre-existing market state. For your conclusion to be sound, the seller is forced to infinitely discount prices as the market adjusts each time. Which, according to you, ultimately means, they can maximum profit by giving everything away. Brilliant.
Yes that's why Amazon and iTunes failed.
Whoosh! That has got to be one of the most irrational, illogical, and patently stupid things I've read on slashdot in recent times. Such a statement is completely orthogonal to the subject at hand. You don't even address the original point - which clearly whooshed over your head. Which, in of itself, is pretty amazing since it was stated at such clearly low comprehension levels.
The rest is you saying you've not bothered to read shit on the subject, including the endless stories posted here. Are you seriously suggesting that because piracy exists no one is making money? That's the basis of your entire post. You are really stupid.
Please don't reply. I don't feel like reading more unreasonable stupidity.
The problem is, adding a "return" at the end of a function is not, "badly designed benchmarks." Furthermore, adding an unused variable, declared at the top of a function is not, "badly designed benchmarks."
Simple simple fact is, IE was caught cheating in several benchmarks. To wit, MS hoped to explain as invalid dead code elimination, which in fact, had the code not even been eliminated, it would have not even been measurable. Furthermore, those bugs a huge amount of code would have run exceptionally poorly on IE and yet, that was never observed.
Except the problem is, it had nothing to do with dead code elimination. The cited examples are where dead code, whereby code which actually runs, is eliminated or otherwise reduced such that it results in the wrong thing. Where as IE's "dead code" elimination was the elimination of code which never made a difference to the over all running of the code. For example, if adding a return on the end of a function results in several multiples of slower code, then just about all code will run slow - and that's not what was observed. Furthermore, simply adding an unused variable is extremely unlikely to create problems for any code. And should it, it means IE would be completely unable to be competitive with any other JS implementation - and yet they are.
Simply stated, wishful thinking, as you've provided, does not countermand reality.
That's the verdict of a major new academic study
The reality is, this is pure bullshit. For decades pirates claimed they need only lower prices and it would be the end of piracy. And so, we can how the sub-$0.99 cent music market and piracy is still raging; if not growing. The simple truth is, far too many studies, not to mention history which completely invalidates this study before it was written, proves price is almost never (only for a tiny minority is price) a significant factor in piracy.
This is very true.
People love to make fun of American beers but in doing so completely expose their bias and/or general ignorance. The reality is, American beers actually re-invented beer making. The beer before the resurgence of beer making in America largely existed because their grandfather made beer and that was good enough. Whereas, American beer grew because people wanted something which tasted good. And beer sold based on that notion. Before such a market existed, people purchased beer because it was a necessity of life*.
Of course, this doesn't mean all American beers are excellent or even good. Anyone whos had a variety of any country's beers will tell you otherwise; which isn't even account for individual differences in preferences. Just the same, if you want to drink a beer that largely drunk because your father's father drank it, drink something other than American beer. On the other hand, if you want to drink a beer which is around almost solely because it tastes good and is refreshing, give an American micro brew a chance.
So ask yourself, are you drinking beer because someone's great, great grandfather liked it and you've trained your buds to believe that is what tastes good, or are you drinking it because it really tastes good to you? An exceedingly large number of beer snobs fall into the former category. Which IMOHO, completely undermines the entire basis of their snobbery.
(*) Its important to remember, in times past, beer wasn't drank because it tasted good. Beer was largely consumed because it was safer (more pure, less contamination, fewer bugs, slightly pro-antibiotic) than water. Furthermore, for many people, it was a primary source of nutrition. As such, most really old beer recipes exist primarily for their shelve life and nutritional value with taste being a far second priority. This is, in fact, why many people went to work drunk, or at least diminished, and why coffee became a critical necessity of the industrial revolution. Those who didn't drink coffee to counter act the effects of high beer intake were far more likely to be maimed or killed.
Your time line is incorrect.
I completely agree with you and is, in fact, I point I specifically mention; albeit without as much detail. As I originally stated, if in fact you care to IE, its certainly a good upgrade. Regardless, my main point remains completely valid, don't trust any well known benchmark number about IE because MS has been repeatedly caught cheating. Even though MS has been caught cheating, real world performance, over all, still shows it to be a very competitive browser and a massive leap forward for IE in general.
It only contradicts if one presumes Red Hat is isolated from all other businesses on the planet. The reality is, responsible business frequently understand paying legalized extortion is frequently cheaper than a protracted legal battle forced by an extremely broken legal system.
The simply fact is, you know your legal system is extremely broken when the rule of thumb is its cheaper to pay extortion than it is it enter the legal system to not pay said extortion.
Pragmatically, Red Hat paying this only means they have an interest in running a company. It says nothing more and nothing less. Anything anyone wants to read into it, unless additional facts are provided, only validates people are attempting to read their own ignorance or malice into the situation.
Go back and re-read what I said and hopefully we'll realize why you argument makes no sense whatsoever. Using your completely broken logic, almost nothing could ever be investigated and criminals would be almost completely immune to prosecution. Your position doesn't even make logical sense, let alone bare a relationship to the actual laws.
The "cheating" you mention was the result of dead code removal optimization.
As well documented, dead code removal would have not created the observed effect. And if it did, IE would be completely unable to be competitive with any browser. Dead code removal does not in any way explain their obvious cheats.