Right. You're full of shit and stuck in the 90's, dude. I tell you what, you buy the fastest dual processor machine you can for under $8000 that's not based on an x86 chip. I'll buy the fastest that is. We'll see who gets "ass-raped".
Similarly, in a month or two let's extend that bet up to 8 cores. In fact, I'll buy a 4 core machine and you can buy an 8 core machine. We'll see who gets ass-raped.
You "alternative architecture" guys crack me up. The battle is over - x86 has won at every level above the cell phone/PDA.
Nehalem chips currently out in dual processor mode murder in price performance (and are comparable or better in performance per processor). You guys really need to get with the times.
Nehalem EX chips will extend this up to the 8-way domain.
None of these offer much better performance. None. Please find me a general purpose (even niche) processor with higher performance than a high end Xeon across a variety of loads. Power? Nope. Anything from Sun? Nope. When Nehalem comes out it will not be possible to buy a general purpose CPU for anything up to 8 sockets (64 cores).
No, the facebook guy is just stupid, that's all. There are plenty of other performance bottlenecks in a system. Hard drive performance is currently the biggest one. This asshole is like a gamer who updates from a 2.2GHz processor to a next-gen 3.0Ghz faster per clock CPU then complains when Crysis doesn't run any faster.
Yeah, stupid, Crysis isn't faster because your $150 graphics card was the bottleneck.
No, people want what they expect to get. People expect Windows on a PC. Your netbook sales argument is specious - netbooks are a newish thing, people's expectations aren't as set in that space.
Yep, seems like a tautology to me - he's guilty. Note they didn't convict him of sexual abuse of a minor, or making child pornography, or anything like that.
Does this mean I think he should be convicted of a crime - maybe. The problem is the use (I assume) of the word "exploitation" in a crime. It can be interpreted to mean almost anything. It's like being convicted of being "too douchy". How douchy is too douchy?
You do know Windows 7 is out and well reviewed already in pre-release form, right? Or do you think they're just going to say "screw it, let's totally change it over the next 2 months and obsolete all those reviews!"?
Oh shut up about Snow Leopard. When I can go buy it and install it legally in a supported way on my home PC I'll listen. Until then you're comparing apples to AK-47's.
Hint: Apple could sell it for $5 and still make money off it. Guess how?
OK, I don't know if you're smart enough to get the hint. They can charge more for the hardware they control as a single source than they would otherwise need to.
You fall into the laughable trap that computer OS's are important. They aren't. People care about browsing the web, preparing documents, looking at pictures, playing music, etc... The OS doesn't matter to them.
People whose job is computers, however, should know all these OS's if their job requires it.
In short, you're taking the parochial dweeby nerd point of view.
That's how it works now. Some vendors offer you the PC without OS or with various (for cost or not) OS options.
You're missing the point that nobody gives a shit about alternative OS's. Almost everyone (in terms of percentage) wants their new desktop PC to come with Windows, and that's how they're sold. You're buying a PC that works when you plug it in, and that's how it's sold. If you want to go outside the norm you'll have to buy from less mass-market sources.
Greed is what has driven human development. When it doesn't infringe on someone else's rights then greed is certainly good.
Trying to amass wealth to take care of your self and your family is not wrong unless it's done through force or fraud.
Protectionist (or "optimalist") trade policies are neither force nor fraud. Put in place whichever policies are most likely to benefit America at large. Sometimes those policies will be open, other times not. Lean towards Open Trade where there is no discernible benefit either way.
As for the environment, global warming is a pointless argument. A better one is that our current energy policies are unsustainable and that regardless of whether global warming is largely man-caused air quality has a huge impact on our health as US citizens. From a Greedytarian perspective, it doesn't behoove any of us to get cancer or have lung problems due to pollution.
_Nothing_ works when it's in the form of an Idea. Socialism as an Idea doesn't work. Libertarianism as an Idea doesn't work. I find the "we should privatize all the roads" Libertarians tiresome and insipid, but find myself agreeing more with general Libertarian principle than with Liberalism, Progressivism, Neoconism, etc... But people like to try to get themselves under an umbrella. "I'm Republican and a neocon, therefore anything Obama does I must hate, no matter how trivial or whether I would have cheered if Dubya had done the same thing".
The correct Libertarian approach isn't an idealistic one, but a societal "greedy" one. We shouldn't have 100% open trade because of some ideal. We should determine what policies will be in our best interests and will protect the rights of US citizens, everything else is secondary.
Good god. Could you please propagate any more myths? Lyle Alzado did not die from steroids, first of all.
I was actually kind. Your second sentence is just an outright fabrication, and a laughable one. Checked out of Mexican hospitals for various cancers, huh? Right... Cancer isn't really something you need to worry about with steroids, there are other health complications though.
Are you two douchebags sitting in red leather recliners with many a leather bound book at your backs, dressed in red smoking jackets with pipes in your mouths? If not, you should be - it would add nearly 1% to your pointless pomposity.
Absolutely! You guys are exactly right this is what we need. A high deductible plan from the US govt. You pay the first $X thousand (say $6k for a family), then the high deductible kicks in.
Unfortunately, it'll never fly. If it's not "free", people will bitch.
You are lying. It will cost the government more. It will cost me more as a taxpayer. It will cost _some people_ less. Overall you're making comparisons to something for which there are no comparisons. You have _no idea_ what the efficiencies will be of a modern US health system moving to a public system as nothing even remotely similar has been done in history.
That's a laughable argument. You think the 15% number is "poor results". It's not. The US has the best health care in the world unless you use lies like "infant mortality" which aren't calculated correctly elsewhere, or life expectancy where the US has several other factors which get us a whole 2-3 years less than a few countries.
That 15% is going towards providing middle class and above citizens the best health care in the world and then paying for emergency care for the rest and medicaire/medicaid (funny, you do know those are included in the magic "15%" number, right?).
The proper solution to this problem is something like an HSA. You pay the first several thousand dollars (if you can't, the govt. loans it to you), then the government kicks in with "high deductible insurance" for the rest. Then you as an American are guaranteed to pay no more than say $6000 a year in medical costs.
Don't be silly. Fist, medical treatment is far from the only determiner of life expectency. We have more violence (maybe 100 days of life expectancy right there), more obese Americans, more smokers, and just more _people_ crammed into bigger denser cities.
The average American has much better health care than the average citizen in any other country.
Easy. We have a) 9-10 times as many people - (Canada is somewhere around the size of California). b) We have better medical coverage for the middle and above classes, comparable for lower income, and worse for the poor. c) We have cultural factors like more violence, more fat, smoking Americans.
Unless you're poor, the US has the best health care system in the world.
Slashdot Mirror
Right. You're full of shit and stuck in the 90's, dude. I tell you what, you buy the fastest dual processor machine you can for under $8000 that's not based on an x86 chip. I'll buy the fastest that is. We'll see who gets "ass-raped".
Similarly, in a month or two let's extend that bet up to 8 cores. In fact, I'll buy a 4 core machine and you can buy an 8 core machine. We'll see who gets ass-raped.
You "alternative architecture" guys crack me up. The battle is over - x86 has won at every level above the cell phone/PDA.
Indeed there are. Do you think Facebook is crunching numbers? Do you think Facebook is going to buy $100k machines?
You can't buy faster commodity (think under $20k) hardware than the latest gen Xeons.
Unfortunately, for $5576 you could buy a Nehalem machine literally 10 times faster on many tasks, and 2-3 times faster on most.
Lol. Yeah. Compared to...? Nehalem EP? Nehalem EX? I don't think so. You're posting old benchmarks.
http://www.itjungle.com/tfh/tfh041309-story01.html
Nehalem chips currently out in dual processor mode murder in price performance (and are comparable or better in performance per processor). You guys really need to get with the times.
Nehalem EX chips will extend this up to the 8-way domain.
It will probably, but want to bet they're using normal and possibly even commodity hard drives?
I meant when Nehalem-EX comes out - Nehalem is of course out.
None of these offer much better performance. None. Please find me a general purpose (even niche) processor with higher performance than a high end Xeon across a variety of loads. Power? Nope. Anything from Sun? Nope. When Nehalem comes out it will not be possible to buy a general purpose CPU for anything up to 8 sockets (64 cores).
No, the facebook guy is just stupid, that's all. There are plenty of other performance bottlenecks in a system. Hard drive performance is currently the biggest one. This asshole is like a gamer who updates from a 2.2GHz processor to a next-gen 3.0Ghz faster per clock CPU then complains when Crysis doesn't run any faster.
Yeah, stupid, Crysis isn't faster because your $150 graphics card was the bottleneck.
No, people want what they expect to get. People expect Windows on a PC. Your netbook sales argument is specious - netbooks are a newish thing, people's expectations aren't as set in that space.
Exploitation: Check, probably.
Minor: Check.
Yep, seems like a tautology to me - he's guilty. Note they didn't convict him of sexual abuse of a minor, or making child pornography, or anything like that.
Does this mean I think he should be convicted of a crime - maybe. The problem is the use (I assume) of the word "exploitation" in a crime. It can be interpreted to mean almost anything. It's like being convicted of being "too douchy". How douchy is too douchy?
You do know Windows 7 is out and well reviewed already in pre-release form, right? Or do you think they're just going to say "screw it, let's totally change it over the next 2 months and obsolete all those reviews!"?
Oh shut up about Snow Leopard. When I can go buy it and install it legally in a supported way on my home PC I'll listen. Until then you're comparing apples to AK-47's.
Hint: Apple could sell it for $5 and still make money off it. Guess how?
OK, I don't know if you're smart enough to get the hint. They can charge more for the hardware they control as a single source than they would otherwise need to.
You fall into the laughable trap that computer OS's are important. They aren't. People care about browsing the web, preparing documents, looking at pictures, playing music, etc... The OS doesn't matter to them.
People whose job is computers, however, should know all these OS's if their job requires it.
In short, you're taking the parochial dweeby nerd point of view.
That's how it works now. Some vendors offer you the PC without OS or with various (for cost or not) OS options.
You're missing the point that nobody gives a shit about alternative OS's. Almost everyone (in terms of percentage) wants their new desktop PC to come with Windows, and that's how they're sold. You're buying a PC that works when you plug it in, and that's how it's sold. If you want to go outside the norm you'll have to buy from less mass-market sources.
Greed is what has driven human development. When it doesn't infringe on someone else's rights then greed is certainly good.
Trying to amass wealth to take care of your self and your family is not wrong unless it's done through force or fraud.
Protectionist (or "optimalist") trade policies are neither force nor fraud. Put in place whichever policies are most likely to benefit America at large. Sometimes those policies will be open, other times not. Lean towards Open Trade where there is no discernible benefit either way.
As for the environment, global warming is a pointless argument. A better one is that our current energy policies are unsustainable and that regardless of whether global warming is largely man-caused air quality has a huge impact on our health as US citizens. From a Greedytarian perspective, it doesn't behoove any of us to get cancer or have lung problems due to pollution.
Funny, they modded you troll but you're of course right. Firefox on linux looks like shit.
I know. I much prefer all those much faster CPUs out there to boring old x86.
Wait, there aren't any that are faster. Doh!
_Nothing_ works when it's in the form of an Idea. Socialism as an Idea doesn't work. Libertarianism as an Idea doesn't work. I find the "we should privatize all the roads" Libertarians tiresome and insipid, but find myself agreeing more with general Libertarian principle than with Liberalism, Progressivism, Neoconism, etc... But people like to try to get themselves under an umbrella. "I'm Republican and a neocon, therefore anything Obama does I must hate, no matter how trivial or whether I would have cheered if Dubya had done the same thing".
The correct Libertarian approach isn't an idealistic one, but a societal "greedy" one. We shouldn't have 100% open trade because of some ideal. We should determine what policies will be in our best interests and will protect the rights of US citizens, everything else is secondary.
Good god. Could you please propagate any more myths? Lyle Alzado did not die from steroids, first of all.
I was actually kind. Your second sentence is just an outright fabrication, and a laughable one. Checked out of Mexican hospitals for various cancers, huh? Right... Cancer isn't really something you need to worry about with steroids, there are other health complications though.
Are you two douchebags sitting in red leather recliners with many a leather bound book at your backs, dressed in red smoking jackets with pipes in your mouths? If not, you should be - it would add nearly 1% to your pointless pomposity.
Absolutely! You guys are exactly right this is what we need. A high deductible plan from the US govt. You pay the first $X thousand (say $6k for a family), then the high deductible kicks in.
Unfortunately, it'll never fly. If it's not "free", people will bitch.
You are lying. It will cost the government more. It will cost me more as a taxpayer. It will cost _some people_ less. Overall you're making comparisons to something for which there are no comparisons. You have _no idea_ what the efficiencies will be of a modern US health system moving to a public system as nothing even remotely similar has been done in history.
That's a laughable argument. You think the 15% number is "poor results". It's not. The US has the best health care in the world unless you use lies like "infant mortality" which aren't calculated correctly elsewhere, or life expectancy where the US has several other factors which get us a whole 2-3 years less than a few countries.
That 15% is going towards providing middle class and above citizens the best health care in the world and then paying for emergency care for the rest and medicaire/medicaid (funny, you do know those are included in the magic "15%" number, right?).
The proper solution to this problem is something like an HSA. You pay the first several thousand dollars (if you can't, the govt. loans it to you), then the government kicks in with "high deductible insurance" for the rest. Then you as an American are guaranteed to pay no more than say $6000 a year in medical costs.
Don't be silly. Fist, medical treatment is far from the only determiner of life expectency. We have more violence (maybe 100 days of life expectancy right there), more obese Americans, more smokers, and just more _people_ crammed into bigger denser cities.
The average American has much better health care than the average citizen in any other country.
Easy. We have a) 9-10 times as many people - (Canada is somewhere around the size of California). b) We have better medical coverage for the middle and above classes, comparable for lower income, and worse for the poor. c) We have cultural factors like more violence, more fat, smoking Americans.
Unless you're poor, the US has the best health care system in the world.