WWI aircraft might have been survivable against the puny ground threats of the time
Meant to say this in the other message. You're being most disingenuous. Those "puny ground threats", are demonstratively far more lethal against the A-10 then they were against most WWII combat aircraft. This is one of the primary reasons why A-10s are not allowed into areas with heavy AAA coverage.
Doesn't your definition of survivability include actually surviving?
Of course it does. The reason pilots survived as long as they did is because of those survivability features built into ally aircraft. Those pilots will tell you as much. Its a well documented fact of history. Many axis aircraft has no such features and as such, had almost no aces by the end of the war.
Its not that our aces were invincible or unhitable...its that their aircraft allowed them to remain flying DESPITE taking devastating hits. Hits that would have simply put an end to the fight right then and there if it were not for their survivability features. The reason many a pilot survived head-on encounters with Japanese pilots is because the ally planes frequently had armor around its cowl, engine, and firewall/cockpit, while the Japanese did not. We had resealable gas tanks. The Japanese did not. The armor was so effective, ally pilots actually used this as a fairly common tactic because maneuverability and size suffered from all of the extra steel plate, large gas tanks, and huge engines.
Get back to me when an AA shell explodes in the cockpit and the plane is still flown home and landed...or when almost all of the wings are gone and stabilizers are gone...and its landed... Frequently flying was done with differential engine thrust. Add thrust to gain/hold altitude. Pull throttle to sink. Add throttle to right remaining right engine to turn right. So on and so on...
I'm not arguing that its impossible for an A-10 to make such a feat. Only that the A-10 survivability in real life situations pale in comparison to what was well documented to have uncommonly happen during WWII.
And you're right, they didn't have tubs - they had steel armor plate around the pilot and their engines. Again, as I originally stated.
You also need to place those comments into perspective. The combat conditions in which WWII pilots were expected to fly, and in fact did so on a regular basis, would not even be allowed today for A-10 pilots. Not even close. Hell, before A-10s are allowed into an area, air superiority is required, Apaches have likely come and gone, not to mention many stealth aircraft and cruise missiles. Back then, they were both the first in and last out against AAA densities which doesn't have a parallel today.
Not to diminish their contribution, but you are mis-attributing a lot. The A-10 is widely considered to be far less survivable than many WWI aircraft. In fact, most all of the survivability features you attribute to the A-10 came directly from common WWII ally aircraft attributes. One of the reasons why WWII aircraft are more survivable is they didn't use extremely fragile turbines.
Historically, WWII is the apex of aircraft survivability because of our transition to jets and then again with fly by wire and hydraulics. When a new ground attack vehicle was required (aka, the A-10), they looked back in time to re-learn what made an aircraft highly survivable. And when they looked back, they almost exclusively looked at WWII aircraft. Almost all of the survivability features in the A-10 are simply re-imaginings and modernizations of WWII ideas and technology.
It's one of the most survivable aircraft I've ever heard of
Check out of some the stories and images from WWII. The amount of damage many of those planes received and yet still managed to some how seems impossible. Pilots landing bailing wire and bubble gum on their last breath so they could save their crew don't seem very strained once you start digging....and far too many belly gunners crushed...
Having said that... how difficult would it be to design some kind of screen or grating to protect the intake vents of an engine so that birds could not get sucked into the engine and damage it?
Jet engines consume vast quantities of air. They are giant vacuum cleaners. Placing an obstruction directly in front of and engine which consumes vast quantities of air is counter productive as it drastically reduces available power.
Take off and landing is the most dangerous phase of a flight. This is typically when engines are required to produce maximum power. So limiting air only during these phases of flight, when they are most likely to strike a bird, in of itself brings with it additional dangers.
If you don't believe such an obstruction risks major starvation of the engine, remove the air filters from your A/C in your house and note how much more air moves through your entire house. And keep in mind, the amount of air moved through your house in a minute, is likely consumed in a second, in even smaller jet engines during take off.
That's a completely ridiculous question. Why do we need police? Keep in mind, police have no legal obligation to actually help you in any way. None. Which leaves us with only one sane question, "Why does he _not_ need to pack heat."
But ignorance does not, which is exactly what such statements prove. You seriously need to learn some extremely basic history before you respond further.
The first amendment has maintained its power exactly because the second amendment exists. The only reason the second amendment isn't first is because they wanted it understood the new country they created was built first on the pen and second on the sword; only after the pen has failed. Furthermore, they specifically granted the power to ensure a corrupt government can be overthrown.
Any gun laws which effectively prevent the potential overthrown of the government (I'm not advocating) is completely unconstitutional. Period. Anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant of history or pushing an agenda. Both are extremely common. If you don't like the rights provided under the Constitution, advocate the change of the Constitution and along with it, restriction and removal of your rights. Because that's exactly what you'd be doing; or if not your rights, the rights of our children and children's children.
You need to understand, police are in now way legally obligated to save you from anything at all; assuming they are even there. Its extremely likely, whenever you actually need police, they will only be there after the need is gone. The "Protect And Serve" expression makes for great marketing but is nowhere near accurate. An accurate creed is, "Observe And Report", because that's exactly what they do. Which means, if you want protection, you must have the rights granted under the second amendment. To argue otherwise is to argue people deserve no protection from harm or injury from others.
The legitimate reasons and the specific reasons why the second amendment exists are almost endless. Every time I see someone make your statement, in my head, its always translated into, "duuh?", because you are ignorantly advocating almost everything bad humanity has to offer - and don't even realize it. Your ignorance is specifically advocating the death and injury of innocent people and even more government corruption.
Seriously. Our forefathers are extremely well documented. I encourage you to go learn about them, why specific choices were made, and why the US Constitution was written the way it was. Once you do that, you'll realize how many insanely stupid and ignorant people we have in power, including the power over your rights, privileges, freedom, and life. If you're not frustrated and at least a little bit concerned, you've not learned enough. Seriously.
He's about to be convicted of a felony. They will revoke his ability to own firearms. It isn't a right if it can be taken away from you. It's a privilege (like driving).
It wasn't that long ago that felons were handed a weapon, some bullets, and some coins to allow them to fend for themselves. Why? Because people could read AND understand the US Constitution.
I agree with your point, but its a right. Period. Not a privileged. Period. Don't confuse unconstitutional gun laws with rights and/or privileges. All you've really argued is that people in power, and many ignorance people of the general population, can't understand the easiest to comprehend legal document with the most power over this land.
Install a tool called, "alien". Then run, "sudo alien -r google-talkplugin_current_xxxx.deb". You now have an RPM. Or you can do, "sudo alien -t google-talkplugin_current_xxxx.deb", and you now have a tgz archive.
At this point, I don't know if the plugins actually work.
If this is any example, they are not ignored. Its just more likely you'll be threatened, arrested, and/or have the shit beat out of you for simply asking about a complaint form.
I forget which video its on but they have a lengthy segment of undercover police simply walking into a station and asking if there is a complaint form. They are all seriously harassed and intimidated. The undercover person usually attempts to retreat at this point. And when they fail to identify themselves or reveal the nature of their intended complaint, they frequently get stalked, threatened, and arrested.
Scary shit and hard to believe you're in the US. And according to the video producers, that series of videos constitutes a tiny portion of the video they had at the time. And since those videos have been released, they have said their repository of like videos have exploded.
If project planning and management is not a phase in of itself of your project, you immediately know your management is inept. Prepare to be in 24x7 reactionary development requiring long hours and lots of stress. Sadly, this is the vast majority of management, and especially so in the software industry.
All too often developers are blamed for missed deadlines and held accountable by demanding high stress and long hours. The reality is, this is almost always a failure of management because of serious ignorance or a complete unwillingness to plan their project.
Which costs less? A couple of people working normal business hours for a couple of weeks to several months, creating a sane project and project plan or fifty people working overtime on an unrealistic, half assed plan over the course of eight to twelve months? Sadly, most management picks the former rather than the later. It says a lot of management in the software industry.
Pilots are extremely poorly paid. That's why when they finally start making some serious money with seniority, they hate to give it up in contract negotiations or job loss. Rightfully so. After all, they absolutely earned it by giving up short term pay for long term pay and benefits. Some pilots can earn over $200k/yr. But they literally start on the bottom rung when starting at a new airline. Imagine changing jobs and suddenly your income is a tiny fraction of it was before doing exactly the work. That's the world of a pilot.
The average pilot pay is something like 50k/yr, but that's only because of the extreme on the high end. A large number of pilots are pulling less than 30k/yr and many instructors are lucky if they make over $10-$12/hr.
Airlines spend all their money on airplanes, fuel, and executives; who do almost nothing. Pilots are almost always the first or second to lose benefits and wages and for what they do, are paid horribly. There are extremely few airlines which are well run and are not plundered on a daily basis by their executives.
When in the media you hear executives blame high pilot wages on the airline's inability to make a profit, that's really the executives complaining they can't sustain an ineptly run company while pulling in exorbitant and completely unjustified salaries, so they want someone else to blame - pilots. Airlines are notorious for being extremely top heavy.
Can developer recreate issue in development environment? If yes. No. Stop.
Can developers recreate issue in test which is loaded with production data? If yes. No. Stop.
If developers can not obtain information in development and test systems then absolutely they need access to the production system. But that access is to diagnose, not debug! There is a difference. Logging may need to be enabled and production may slow. Generally speaking, if the administrators have done a proper job of specing and maintaining the system in the first place, the system will survive additional logging being enabled.
Do they carte blanche access? Generally not. But if you have really good developers who are capable of using good judgment and/or have a good relationship with the production guys, there's generally no reason things can't be discussed and worked out.
Really, this is a question of simple problem solving skills and relationships. Is an article really required?
A single thread of high CPU usage should only impact a single (virtual?) CPU. However, since the secondary (hyper-thread) CPU also was impacted, it tells me that there are some situations where a HT CPU cannot do two things literally at once. For lack of better statistical methods, I estimate this as the virtual CPU counting only as half a CPU.
Then you are being generous. There are a lot of misconceptions of how and what hyperthreading does. Hyperthreading is basically a CPU mechanism is lowers the cost of performing a context switch from one thread to another so long as the thread is executing on the same core. This is why OS scheduler support is so important and why a scheduler mistake can completely blow any and all hyperthreading benefits for the given scheduler interval. Additionally, hyperthreading attempts to schedule units of work on the single core when the core otherwise has scheduling gaps available on various execution units. To gain full benefit, you need an optimizing compiler which understands hyperthreading. Mostly this means Intel's compiler. Basically you need a unit of work to not require scheduling on all available execution units and the hyperthreaded unit of work must be able to be executed on the idle execution unit.
What this means is, if a core is fully utilized or the available instructions are not laid out in a manner which allows the hyperthreading scheduler to effectively schedule units of work, there is no performance gain. In fact, because of the extra context switches and resources which are still used attempting to schedule work which can not be scheduled, a performance penalty of roughly 30% and higher latencies is very common. Add a little more if not running on Linux.
In the end though, even when everything is working correctly and your applications are specifically targeting hyperthreading support, chances are you won't see more than roughly a 30% gain - because ultimately, you still only using spare execution unit capacity; which generally isn't a lot.
Most people, by far, unless they specifically know their applications take advantage of hyperthreading, perform better with hyperthreading disabled. In fact, server installations are always recommended to disable hyperthreading, again, unless you specifically know your server applications directly benefit from the use of hyperthreading. I consider this to be the desktop rule of thumb too, again, unless you know. An example would be Photoshop being your primary application.
So at the end of the day, for most people, the performance metric ranges from -30% (35% on Windows) to +~ 30%. If you're doing better than +30% then you are exceedingly lucky and have an exceptionally rare workload which is near ideal for hyperthreading and your OS' scheduler. Which means, given an absolutely ideal workload, a six core hyperthreading CPU is roughly equal to eight cores. And if you're wrong, worst case, those six cores is roughly equal to a four core, non-hyperthreading system.
They absolutely are not a marketing gimmick. They absolutely can lead to significant performance loss. In fact, if you have hyperthreading enabled, you're likely running slower because of it! The vast majority of people should have hyperthreading disabled - unless you just like running slower than possible.
Intel's hexacore offering features hyperthreading technology, which allows each core to execute two threads simultaneously. This means that Intel's hexacore chips actually have twelve logical cores, while the AMD hexacore chips only have six logical cores.
Virtual core count is a completely meaningless metric.
You do realize that simply enabling hyperthreading can actually reduce performance right? In some cases significantly so. The general rule is, unless your primary applications are specifically coded and compiled to properly support hyperthreading, you're going to take a performance hit. Most benchmarks (admitted, dated as its been a while since I last looked) come in around a 30% performance LOSS! That's based on Intel CPUs. We have no idea if AMD's implementation will suffer the same constraints. If not, AMD could potentially have a huge performance gain on a broader, less specialized workload.
Not to mention, proper hyperthreading support requires proper OS scheduling support. Last I looked, Window's scheduler provided less than ideal support for many work loads while Linux tended to perform almost ideal.
Unless you know for a fact your applications specifically take advantage of hyperthreading, enabling hyperthreading is likely SLOWING you down; and potentially, even more so on Windows. And this completely ignores the fact those almost all of those published benchmarks are for dummies who have no idea what they really mean. If you really want to know how a CPU is going to perform for your workload, you'll almost always have to benchmark it yourself - and the results almost universally look nothing like the widely available benchmarks.
So to bring this back on topic, your argument is that Intel is faster because they are more likely to inflict a significant performance penalty unless you know for a fact your applications will benefit. Hmm....seems dubious at best.
Not to mention our current method of creating anti-anything requires far more energy be put in than we can get out of it.
Until storage, cost of creation and energy of creation issues are addressed, we won't be having anti-anything as an energy source for a very long time. At least with hydrogen we have storage down - but its nowhere near ready to be an energy source either.
It actually makes me a bit annoyed when people have signs for "printer paper" or "newspaper only". That's crap.
Actually, its not. Just like oil and plastic, really anything made of long chains, the shorter the chain the more "used" it is. For oil and plastics, shorter hydrocarbon chains means lower quality oil. That's why we change our oil in our cars. For paper, shorter fiber threads means lower quality paper. Meaning, it *may* makes sense for thinks like newspaper, but everything I've read says it doesn't.
You're also entirely missing the point that a lot of paper products come from wood waste. Not to mention, massive numbers of trees are specifically grown to provide paper products. Adding additional paper processing, collecting, shipping, chemical treatment, so on and so on, only adds cost while creating a lower quality paper - as in newspaper.
Besides, non-recycled paper grows trees which creates habitats for animals. Recycling paper does not.
As I originally stated, recycling paper is for dopes that want to feel good for harming the environment and wasting tax dollars.
Because many computer clocks are not entirely accurate, based on the assumption NTP will take care of the variation, we should assume computer clocks will always be inaccurate and therefore give up?
Don't get me wrong, I honestly think ABS is awesome!
Its just that so many people incorrectly believe that ABS always makes them super human. The reality is, in some niche conditions, ABS is far, far more dangerous than a competent, attentive driver. ABS can actually place you into a spin in the right conditions. Likewise, expert drivers can frequently brake in shorter distances, even in turns. But honestly, how many expert drivers do you know? I consider myself to be an advanced driver. I'm hard pressed to match ABS performance in a sports car, but have occasionally done so. I personally know no expert drivers. Using my self as an example, either though I can occasionally beat high end ABS w/traction control, consistency is not there. I fully expect an expert can do a lot better. And of course, there are certainly no end of conditions where ABS can do far better then even an expert driver.
Now lets look at the other end of the spectrum; bad to average drivers. For these people, assuming they can even use such a powerful and simple feature, it can make a huge difference, especially when applying heavy brakes in a turn.
Again, its not that I dislike ABS, its just most people don't understand them and contrary to popular myth, you're not superhuman just because your vehicle is equipped.
While I agree your thinking is rational, unfortunately, its pure fiction. All studies I've read about the subject, and there have been many, support exactly what I told you. People are worse drivers because they believe their safety features allow them to drive more recklessly and still remain safer. Completely irrational and dumb, yet completely true.
Statistically, the accident rate *should* be something like half or less what it is. Yet despite that, the accident rate continues to rise because humans, being dumb, irrational, beings, find ways to cancel out risk adverse features. The reality is, humans are dumb, ignorant, and highly irrational. Anyone who says otherwise, is contradicting just about all science on the subject and likely falls within one or more of the classifications I provided.
There is a truth about the old cliche, "When you create something idiot-proof, nature will create a better idiot."
Slashdot Mirror
WWI aircraft might have been survivable against the puny ground threats of the time
Meant to say this in the other message. You're being most disingenuous. Those "puny ground threats", are demonstratively far more lethal against the A-10 then they were against most WWII combat aircraft. This is one of the primary reasons why A-10s are not allowed into areas with heavy AAA coverage.
Doesn't your definition of survivability include actually surviving?
Of course it does. The reason pilots survived as long as they did is because of those survivability features built into ally aircraft. Those pilots will tell you as much. Its a well documented fact of history. Many axis aircraft has no such features and as such, had almost no aces by the end of the war.
Its not that our aces were invincible or unhitable...its that their aircraft allowed them to remain flying DESPITE taking devastating hits. Hits that would have simply put an end to the fight right then and there if it were not for their survivability features. The reason many a pilot survived head-on encounters with Japanese pilots is because the ally planes frequently had armor around its cowl, engine, and firewall/cockpit, while the Japanese did not. We had resealable gas tanks. The Japanese did not. The armor was so effective, ally pilots actually used this as a fairly common tactic because maneuverability and size suffered from all of the extra steel plate, large gas tanks, and huge engines.
Get back to me when an AA shell explodes in the cockpit and the plane is still flown home and landed...or when almost all of the wings are gone and stabilizers are gone...and its landed... Frequently flying was done with differential engine thrust. Add thrust to gain/hold altitude. Pull throttle to sink. Add throttle to right remaining right engine to turn right. So on and so on...
I'm not arguing that its impossible for an A-10 to make such a feat. Only that the A-10 survivability in real life situations pale in comparison to what was well documented to have uncommonly happen during WWII.
And you're right, they didn't have tubs - they had steel armor plate around the pilot and their engines. Again, as I originally stated.
You also need to place those comments into perspective. The combat conditions in which WWII pilots were expected to fly, and in fact did so on a regular basis, would not even be allowed today for A-10 pilots. Not even close. Hell, before A-10s are allowed into an area, air superiority is required, Apaches have likely come and gone, not to mention many stealth aircraft and cruise missiles. Back then, they were both the first in and last out against AAA densities which doesn't have a parallel today.
I credit the people more so than the equipment.
Not to diminish their contribution, but you are mis-attributing a lot. The A-10 is widely considered to be far less survivable than many WWI aircraft. In fact, most all of the survivability features you attribute to the A-10 came directly from common WWII ally aircraft attributes. One of the reasons why WWII aircraft are more survivable is they didn't use extremely fragile turbines.
Historically, WWII is the apex of aircraft survivability because of our transition to jets and then again with fly by wire and hydraulics. When a new ground attack vehicle was required (aka, the A-10), they looked back in time to re-learn what made an aircraft highly survivable. And when they looked back, they almost exclusively looked at WWII aircraft. Almost all of the survivability features in the A-10 are simply re-imaginings and modernizations of WWII ideas and technology.
I can authoritatively tell you, there has yet to be an A-10 come home in anywhere near as bad of shape as many ally bombers did. Events like this, while not daily fair, were not all that uncommon.
How about a screen that's only used at low speeds/aiports? It could then retract when birds aren't a safety concern.
And here is your answer.
It's one of the most survivable aircraft I've ever heard of
Check out of some the stories and images from WWII. The amount of damage many of those planes received and yet still managed to some how seems impossible. Pilots landing bailing wire and bubble gum on their last breath so they could save their crew don't seem very strained once you start digging. ...and far too many belly gunners crushed...
Having said that ... how difficult would it be to design some kind of screen or grating to protect the intake vents of an engine so that birds could not get sucked into the engine and damage it?
Jet engines consume vast quantities of air. They are giant vacuum cleaners. Placing an obstruction directly in front of and engine which consumes vast quantities of air is counter productive as it drastically reduces available power.
Take off and landing is the most dangerous phase of a flight. This is typically when engines are required to produce maximum power. So limiting air only during these phases of flight, when they are most likely to strike a bird, in of itself brings with it additional dangers.
If you don't believe such an obstruction risks major starvation of the engine, remove the air filters from your A/C in your house and note how much more air moves through your entire house. And keep in mind, the amount of air moved through your house in a minute, is likely consumed in a second, in even smaller jet engines during take off.
"why does he _need_ to pack heat."
That's a completely ridiculous question. Why do we need police? Keep in mind, police have no legal obligation to actually help you in any way. None. Which leaves us with only one sane question, "Why does he _not_ need to pack heat."
And just so you know, I don't carry.
Times change
But ignorance does not, which is exactly what such statements prove. You seriously need to learn some extremely basic history before you respond further.
The first amendment has maintained its power exactly because the second amendment exists. The only reason the second amendment isn't first is because they wanted it understood the new country they created was built first on the pen and second on the sword; only after the pen has failed. Furthermore, they specifically granted the power to ensure a corrupt government can be overthrown.
Any gun laws which effectively prevent the potential overthrown of the government (I'm not advocating) is completely unconstitutional. Period. Anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant of history or pushing an agenda. Both are extremely common. If you don't like the rights provided under the Constitution, advocate the change of the Constitution and along with it, restriction and removal of your rights. Because that's exactly what you'd be doing; or if not your rights, the rights of our children and children's children.
You need to understand, police are in now way legally obligated to save you from anything at all; assuming they are even there. Its extremely likely, whenever you actually need police, they will only be there after the need is gone. The "Protect And Serve" expression makes for great marketing but is nowhere near accurate. An accurate creed is, "Observe And Report", because that's exactly what they do. Which means, if you want protection, you must have the rights granted under the second amendment. To argue otherwise is to argue people deserve no protection from harm or injury from others.
The legitimate reasons and the specific reasons why the second amendment exists are almost endless. Every time I see someone make your statement, in my head, its always translated into, "duuh?", because you are ignorantly advocating almost everything bad humanity has to offer - and don't even realize it. Your ignorance is specifically advocating the death and injury of innocent people and even more government corruption.
Seriously. Our forefathers are extremely well documented. I encourage you to go learn about them, why specific choices were made, and why the US Constitution was written the way it was. Once you do that, you'll realize how many insanely stupid and ignorant people we have in power, including the power over your rights, privileges, freedom, and life. If you're not frustrated and at least a little bit concerned, you've not learned enough. Seriously.
He's about to be convicted of a felony. They will revoke his ability to own firearms. It isn't a right if it can be taken away from you. It's a privilege (like driving).
It wasn't that long ago that felons were handed a weapon, some bullets, and some coins to allow them to fend for themselves. Why? Because people could read AND understand the US Constitution.
I agree with your point, but its a right. Period. Not a privileged. Period. Don't confuse unconstitutional gun laws with rights and/or privileges. All you've really argued is that people in power, and many ignorance people of the general population, can't understand the easiest to comprehend legal document with the most power over this land.
As an aside, Why does a mortgage worker have a conceal and carry permit and a need to pack heat at his desk job?
Because the US Constitution says he can. If you require another reason, you should find another country in which to live.
Its a free country. He has a right to be an idiot. He has a right to own and carry weapons. Unfortunately he used both of his rights at the same time.
I should have waited before I posted. Seems to work like a charm on my RPM based system.
Install a tool called, "alien". Then run, "sudo alien -r google-talkplugin_current_xxxx.deb". You now have an RPM. Or you can do, "sudo alien -t google-talkplugin_current_xxxx.deb", and you now have a tgz archive.
At this point, I don't know if the plugins actually work.
If this is any example, they are not ignored. Its just more likely you'll be threatened, arrested, and/or have the shit beat out of you for simply asking about a complaint form.
I forget which video its on but they have a lengthy segment of undercover police simply walking into a station and asking if there is a complaint form. They are all seriously harassed and intimidated. The undercover person usually attempts to retreat at this point. And when they fail to identify themselves or reveal the nature of their intended complaint, they frequently get stalked, threatened, and arrested.
Scary shit and hard to believe you're in the US. And according to the video producers, that series of videos constitutes a tiny portion of the video they had at the time. And since those videos have been released, they have said their repository of like videos have exploded.
Project management sucked
If project planning and management is not a phase in of itself of your project, you immediately know your management is inept. Prepare to be in 24x7 reactionary development requiring long hours and lots of stress. Sadly, this is the vast majority of management, and especially so in the software industry.
All too often developers are blamed for missed deadlines and held accountable by demanding high stress and long hours. The reality is, this is almost always a failure of management because of serious ignorance or a complete unwillingness to plan their project.
Which costs less? A couple of people working normal business hours for a couple of weeks to several months, creating a sane project and project plan or fifty people working overtime on an unrealistic, half assed plan over the course of eight to twelve months? Sadly, most management picks the former rather than the later. It says a lot of management in the software industry.
And thus, Dilbert and PHBes were born...
Pilots are extremely poorly paid. That's why when they finally start making some serious money with seniority, they hate to give it up in contract negotiations or job loss. Rightfully so. After all, they absolutely earned it by giving up short term pay for long term pay and benefits. Some pilots can earn over $200k/yr. But they literally start on the bottom rung when starting at a new airline. Imagine changing jobs and suddenly your income is a tiny fraction of it was before doing exactly the work. That's the world of a pilot.
The average pilot pay is something like 50k/yr, but that's only because of the extreme on the high end. A large number of pilots are pulling less than 30k/yr and many instructors are lucky if they make over $10-$12/hr.
Airlines spend all their money on airplanes, fuel, and executives; who do almost nothing. Pilots are almost always the first or second to lose benefits and wages and for what they do, are paid horribly. There are extremely few airlines which are well run and are not plundered on a daily basis by their executives.
When in the media you hear executives blame high pilot wages on the airline's inability to make a profit, that's really the executives complaining they can't sustain an ineptly run company while pulling in exorbitant and completely unjustified salaries, so they want someone else to blame - pilots. Airlines are notorious for being extremely top heavy.
Can developer recreate issue in development environment? If yes. No. Stop.
Can developers recreate issue in test which is loaded with production data? If yes. No. Stop.
If developers can not obtain information in development and test systems then absolutely they need access to the production system. But that access is to diagnose, not debug! There is a difference. Logging may need to be enabled and production may slow. Generally speaking, if the administrators have done a proper job of specing and maintaining the system in the first place, the system will survive additional logging being enabled.
Do they carte blanche access? Generally not. But if you have really good developers who are capable of using good judgment and/or have a good relationship with the production guys, there's generally no reason things can't be discussed and worked out.
Really, this is a question of simple problem solving skills and relationships. Is an article really required?
A single thread of high CPU usage should only impact a single (virtual?) CPU. However, since the secondary (hyper-thread) CPU also was impacted, it tells me that there are some situations where a HT CPU cannot do two things literally at once. For lack of better statistical methods, I estimate this as the virtual CPU counting only as half a CPU.
Then you are being generous. There are a lot of misconceptions of how and what hyperthreading does. Hyperthreading is basically a CPU mechanism is lowers the cost of performing a context switch from one thread to another so long as the thread is executing on the same core. This is why OS scheduler support is so important and why a scheduler mistake can completely blow any and all hyperthreading benefits for the given scheduler interval. Additionally, hyperthreading attempts to schedule units of work on the single core when the core otherwise has scheduling gaps available on various execution units. To gain full benefit, you need an optimizing compiler which understands hyperthreading. Mostly this means Intel's compiler. Basically you need a unit of work to not require scheduling on all available execution units and the hyperthreaded unit of work must be able to be executed on the idle execution unit.
What this means is, if a core is fully utilized or the available instructions are not laid out in a manner which allows the hyperthreading scheduler to effectively schedule units of work, there is no performance gain. In fact, because of the extra context switches and resources which are still used attempting to schedule work which can not be scheduled, a performance penalty of roughly 30% and higher latencies is very common. Add a little more if not running on Linux.
In the end though, even when everything is working correctly and your applications are specifically targeting hyperthreading support, chances are you won't see more than roughly a 30% gain - because ultimately, you still only using spare execution unit capacity; which generally isn't a lot.
Most people, by far, unless they specifically know their applications take advantage of hyperthreading, perform better with hyperthreading disabled. In fact, server installations are always recommended to disable hyperthreading, again, unless you specifically know your server applications directly benefit from the use of hyperthreading. I consider this to be the desktop rule of thumb too, again, unless you know. An example would be Photoshop being your primary application.
So at the end of the day, for most people, the performance metric ranges from -30% (35% on Windows) to +~ 30%. If you're doing better than +30% then you are exceedingly lucky and have an exceptionally rare workload which is near ideal for hyperthreading and your OS' scheduler. Which means, given an absolutely ideal workload, a six core hyperthreading CPU is roughly equal to eight cores. And if you're wrong, worst case, those six cores is roughly equal to a four core, non-hyperthreading system.
They absolutely are not a marketing gimmick. They absolutely can lead to significant performance loss. In fact, if you have hyperthreading enabled, you're likely running slower because of it! The vast majority of people should have hyperthreading disabled - unless you just like running slower than possible.
Intel's hexacore offering features hyperthreading technology, which allows each core to execute two threads simultaneously. This means that Intel's hexacore chips actually have twelve logical cores, while the AMD hexacore chips only have six logical cores.
Virtual core count is a completely meaningless metric.
You do realize that simply enabling hyperthreading can actually reduce performance right? In some cases significantly so. The general rule is, unless your primary applications are specifically coded and compiled to properly support hyperthreading, you're going to take a performance hit. Most benchmarks (admitted, dated as its been a while since I last looked) come in around a 30% performance LOSS! That's based on Intel CPUs. We have no idea if AMD's implementation will suffer the same constraints. If not, AMD could potentially have a huge performance gain on a broader, less specialized workload.
Not to mention, proper hyperthreading support requires proper OS scheduling support. Last I looked, Window's scheduler provided less than ideal support for many work loads while Linux tended to perform almost ideal.
Unless you know for a fact your applications specifically take advantage of hyperthreading, enabling hyperthreading is likely SLOWING you down; and potentially, even more so on Windows. And this completely ignores the fact those almost all of those published benchmarks are for dummies who have no idea what they really mean. If you really want to know how a CPU is going to perform for your workload, you'll almost always have to benchmark it yourself - and the results almost universally look nothing like the widely available benchmarks.
So to bring this back on topic, your argument is that Intel is faster because they are more likely to inflict a significant performance penalty unless you know for a fact your applications will benefit. Hmm....seems dubious at best.
Not to mention our current method of creating anti-anything requires far more energy be put in than we can get out of it.
Until storage, cost of creation and energy of creation issues are addressed, we won't be having anti-anything as an energy source for a very long time. At least with hydrogen we have storage down - but its nowhere near ready to be an energy source either.
It actually makes me a bit annoyed when people have signs for "printer paper" or "newspaper only". That's crap.
Actually, its not. Just like oil and plastic, really anything made of long chains, the shorter the chain the more "used" it is. For oil and plastics, shorter hydrocarbon chains means lower quality oil. That's why we change our oil in our cars. For paper, shorter fiber threads means lower quality paper. Meaning, it *may* makes sense for thinks like newspaper, but everything I've read says it doesn't.
You're also entirely missing the point that a lot of paper products come from wood waste. Not to mention, massive numbers of trees are specifically grown to provide paper products. Adding additional paper processing, collecting, shipping, chemical treatment, so on and so on, only adds cost while creating a lower quality paper - as in newspaper.
Besides, non-recycled paper grows trees which creates habitats for animals. Recycling paper does not.
As I originally stated, recycling paper is for dopes that want to feel good for harming the environment and wasting tax dollars.
Because many computer clocks are not entirely accurate, based on the assumption NTP will take care of the variation, we should assume computer clocks will always be inaccurate and therefore give up?
That's geothermal power generation, not heating and cooling. The technologies are completely different, aside from using a hole in the ground.
Don't get me wrong, I honestly think ABS is awesome!
Its just that so many people incorrectly believe that ABS always makes them super human. The reality is, in some niche conditions, ABS is far, far more dangerous than a competent, attentive driver. ABS can actually place you into a spin in the right conditions. Likewise, expert drivers can frequently brake in shorter distances, even in turns. But honestly, how many expert drivers do you know? I consider myself to be an advanced driver. I'm hard pressed to match ABS performance in a sports car, but have occasionally done so. I personally know no expert drivers. Using my self as an example, either though I can occasionally beat high end ABS w/traction control, consistency is not there. I fully expect an expert can do a lot better. And of course, there are certainly no end of conditions where ABS can do far better then even an expert driver.
Now lets look at the other end of the spectrum; bad to average drivers. For these people, assuming they can even use such a powerful and simple feature, it can make a huge difference, especially when applying heavy brakes in a turn.
Again, its not that I dislike ABS, its just most people don't understand them and contrary to popular myth, you're not superhuman just because your vehicle is equipped.
Rational thinking
While I agree your thinking is rational, unfortunately, its pure fiction. All studies I've read about the subject, and there have been many, support exactly what I told you. People are worse drivers because they believe their safety features allow them to drive more recklessly and still remain safer. Completely irrational and dumb, yet completely true.
Statistically, the accident rate *should* be something like half or less what it is. Yet despite that, the accident rate continues to rise because humans, being dumb, irrational, beings, find ways to cancel out risk adverse features. The reality is, humans are dumb, ignorant, and highly irrational. Anyone who says otherwise, is contradicting just about all science on the subject and likely falls within one or more of the classifications I provided.
There is a truth about the old cliche, "When you create something idiot-proof, nature will create a better idiot."