Please make sure not to apply for a job where I work OK? We have enough people working the bare minimum as it is. I try to keep them off my team but it's a never ending battle...
I enjoy working with people who have a desire to do good work and like what they do enough to work more than 40 hours if that's what's called for, when that's what's called for. People who walk out the door when there is still work to be done because jobs are "a dime a dozen" are not people I want to work with.
I also enjoy working with people who prioritize work appropriately and have lives out of work. And those people typically are reasonable and realize that sometimes more than 40 is part of the job, just as the rest of us are reasonable and realize that working excessive hours on a continual basis is not cool either.
But people who only want to do the minimum necessary just to get paid? They can stay away. Far away.
The moment you begin a sentence with "Liberals" or "Conservatives" is the moment I stop reading. If you can't think on a higher plane than that kind of pointless labelling, then your comments are not interesting and will be ignored.
And yes, I literally stopped reading at the first word of your sentence (OK actually I read "Liberals are always", so I guess I read three).
The point is that people "vote with their dollars and their feet" is not a good argument in this case.
People "vote with their dollars and their feet" means that people make their choices known through actions other than voting on the issue. But the person you replied to is pointing that "voting with dollars and feet" does not legitimize the contested activity, just like "voting with your feet" that having to pay for garbage removal is too onerous and demonstrating that by dumping your trash inappropriately does not legitimize that activity.
In other words, just because people prefer an alternative and would take that alternative when nothing else prevents them from doing so, does not legitimize that alternative.
As for the debate at hand, I think I fall on the side of the cab companies; but I think that these new services have definitely put them on notice. We have the technology to make them irrelevant, so they'd better improve or die. Regulations may prevent cab alternatives from operating now but that can and will change...
Agreed. I've said it before and I'll say it again: significant performance increases in the x86 world are a thing of the past.
There simply isn't enough money in the market chasing higher performance to make the development cost of faster chips worth the investment.
This is actually an opportunity for AMD. I expect it costs AMD less to catch up to Intel than it costs Intel to push to faster speeds, and since Intel isn't being paid anymore to get faster, AMD can, like the slow and steady tortoise, gradually catch up to Intel. I believe it will take a couple more years, but if AMD survives that long, I believe that it will have achieved near performance parity with Intel by then.
And then neither company's offerings will get much faster, forever thereafter, until there is some new kind of 'killer app' that demands increased CPU speeds that people are willing to pay for (could happen anytime; but the way things are going, with everyone moving to mobile phones and pads, I think we're in for a relatively long haul of form factor and power usage dominating the marketable characteristics of CPUs).
I believe Intel will continue to hold a power advantage over AMD for a long time though, but AMD will gradually narrow that gap as well.
The thing is, AMD will be fighting Intel for a stagnating/shrinking CPU market, and more than likely AMD won't increase its margins significantly during this process, it will just reduce Intel's margins. Not really good news for either company, but worse for Intel.
Ah, so that's what he meant. Yeah I've had two Intel 520s in my work computer for a couple of years now, no problems. But you're right, the crucial difference is Intel vs. OCZ.
You can count me among those who wouldn't touch anything by OCZ with a 10 foot pole. Not even with Toshiba backing them.
There are too many pseudo-science stories on Slashdot these days. Are you listening, editors? It's like reading Scientific American (which was almost as bad as Omni last time I read it).
Here we have a whole huge paragraph full of fantasized bullshit whose only supporting documents are a speculative paper submitted to arXiv, and a brief regurgitation thereof on some arXiv blog.
Please stop wasting my time. I want to read NEWS for Nerds (where "news" means "as factually verifiable as possible") and stuff that MATTERS (and pseudo science speculation does not matter to me).
Taking off-topic potshots against FOSS in response to a misinformed post which incorrectly describes the date of the bug report in response to a post which inaccurately maligns the attitude of kernel developers towards security bugs?
For fuck's sake, we're three levels deep in FUD here. Someone throw me a rope so I can pull myself out of this quagmire of bullshit.
Read Anandtech's review of the technology. It makes games much, much more playable. It eliminates tearing and stuttering. It's a real thing, not just some hype. Sorry that you've become so jaded to new tech that you think everything is hype, but seriously, this is real.
I have to wonder why the idea of adaptive vsync wasn't thought of earlier or implemented into display standards earlier. It just seems like such an obvious idea once you've heard of it. Surely someone else in the graphics/display industry must have had the idea before NVidia?
I can't think of any downsides to having this technology; it's pure upside as far as I can tell. Although, I guess I could imagine that there could be some technical downsides, depending upon how displays are typically implemented. For an LCD, I can imagine that knowing the frequency ahead of time allows the LCD panel to perhaps "pipeline" some of its operation, allowing faster grey-to-grey transitions. For example, if the display knows that the next frame is going to come at exactly X milliseconds in the future, then perhaps it could start transitioning all pixels to grey at time X - N, where N is the average time it takes for pixels to transition to grey, and then when the frame is received, it could then transition all pixels from grey to the next frame pixel colors faster. With adaptive vsync, the display would not be able to do this; it would have to start the transition from frame M pixel values to frame M + 1 pixel values only as soon as frame M + 1 becomes available.
Not being able to play grey-to-grey optimization games is I guess a possible downside of adaptive vsync; but I suspect it's a pretty small downside. Aside from gamers who want to see "the next frame" with the smallest latency possible, I don't know that anyone is really going to care much about that potential downside.
You are right, I misunderstood what the O.P. was saying.
I personally don't see the value in having someone else carry my shopping items home for me, but perhaps that's because I hate to shop and don't find the idea of being to browse through a real life store and order items for delivery any more appealing than being able to browse through an online store and order items for delivery.
Also, there are plenty of city dwellers in the USA that have more or less the same "anything I want is a 5 minute walk away" experience. Maybe it's not *exactly* the same experience as in Japan, but it can be close.
Your post smacks a bit of cultural superiorism, by the way.
"ou buy your stuff, in bulk if you one, pay $10 (1000-something yen IIRC), and voila they'll deliver it to your apartment. Every major train/subway station/nexus has a mall so shopping (and buying delivery) is also conveniently located.) Try to do that anywhere in the US."
You may know alot about Japan but your ignorance of the USA is showing here. What you describe is possible in many parts of the USA.
Our family hardly ever shops anymore, we just buy it all online and have it delivered. Groceries too. The only place we ever go out to is farmer's markets, because a) they don't deliver, and b) they're often more of an experience than just a shopping trip.
BTW we live in Cupertino, CA.
Disclaimer: it's possible that you meant "this kind of shopping arrangement is not found in every part of the USA" instead of how I interpreted your statement, as "this kind of shipping arrangement is not find in *any* part of the USA"). If this is the case, then I expect the same is true in Japan. I have been to rural parts of Japan and I'm pretty sure they weren't delivering toothpaste off of subway cars there...
I graduated from CMU in 1994 with a Math/CS degree. I went back there this spring with some college friends for the first time in about 20 years.
There are alot of new buildings, and they are ridiculously opulent compared to what we had. Instead of the bare concrete corridors of Wean Hall (which they've actually tiled and put drop ceilings in sometime in the past 20 years - way to spoil a mood!) students now walk through gleaming glass and natural wood interiors.
I must say it all seems about 1,000 more cushy than we ever had it, and CMU lost a little of its stark barrenness in the process. As an old timer I lament that but I can certainly see how it makes the place more comfortable and attractive to the young-uns.
I expect that the same is true on many campuses in the USA, perhaps especially the CS powerhouses. I live maybe 20 miles from Stanford now and although I haven't been on their campus in maybe 15 years I have heard that there has been tons of development there as well (probably more than CMU given how ungodly rich Stanford is).
I haven't been to MIT since 1993 maybe but I expect they also have had a glut of fancy new buildings in the past 20 years.
While I don't agree with much of what you say, I do agree that there is something to be said for social pressure against being fat, and losing that social pressure is on balance a bad thing.
I noticed maybe 10 years ago that it had become acceptable for teenage girls to wear low cut jeans and short tops with rolls of fat sticking out. Girls would wear this fashion with pride regardless of their physique. This is very different than when I was a teenager in the 80s and looking like that would generally subject a person to ridicule.
Whether or not that just kept fat girls from feeling pretty, or if it actually encouraged greater concern for one's weight, I don't really know; but a little shame about any of one's faults is unpleasant but necessary if you ask me.
Wrong again, coward. "I think you have to" is a different way of saying "you should", in this case "you should" being shorthand for "I believe it would be better for you to do this and here are the reasons".
No, I don't see it. I was offering an opinion, and used no derogatory terms or insulting language. But then I don't get offended when others offer their opinions, especially when those opinions are explicitly requested.
Thank you again for your response, very interesting. And I mean that sincerely, and did also in my previous reply. I feel a little better educated for having read your posts and that's a rare thing on these forums:)
Your statements are more prescient then I think you realize.
It IS kind of like the Borg; there is kind of like a "hive mind" in open source; whatever the most people think should happen, is what will happen. There is no central authority to dictate that anything other than what the majority wants should happen.
In this case, it's pretty clear that, since all the major distros have accepted systemd, that it's been accepted by the majority of users and become the de facto standard. There seems to be alot of momentum behind it.
I could of course be wrong; maybe it just looks that way, and maybe there is enough of a seething hatred underneath the covers for systemd that it will be ousted soon. But in the meantime, what are you going to do? Just hope, pray, and wait for that to happen? Why not try to improve the thing instead of complaining about it hoping it will go away?
An alternative to my suggestion that people accept systemd and learn to use it, and work to improve it to make it better, is the suggestion that you "take to the streets" and actively fight against systemd rather than accepting it.
You can suggest that to people if you want to; it's just that I don't think it will work and I think those people will waste their time and energy. And I won't suggest to people that they should waste their time and energy on something, especially something that has no moral or ethical implications and is just freaking OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE that we can all change for the better if we want to.
How long until all of the software packages that BSD wants to use require so much work to retrofit to use a different init mechanism that they just throw in the towl and accept defeat?
Slashdot Mirror
40 is not a magical number, as you seem to be implying. Some people can work more hours than that, indefinitely, and still be productive.
Please make sure not to apply for a job where I work OK? We have enough people working the bare minimum as it is. I try to keep them off my team but it's a never ending battle ...
I enjoy working with people who have a desire to do good work and like what they do enough to work more than 40 hours if that's what's called for, when that's what's called for. People who walk out the door when there is still work to be done because jobs are "a dime a dozen" are not people I want to work with.
I also enjoy working with people who prioritize work appropriately and have lives out of work. And those people typically are reasonable and realize that sometimes more than 40 is part of the job, just as the rest of us are reasonable and realize that working excessive hours on a continual basis is not cool either.
But people who only want to do the minimum necessary just to get paid? They can stay away. Far away.
I remember the 90's too and I don't remember any of that.
The race to 1 GHz were heady, optimistic days, and I don't recall anyone thinking that once we got there, it would all be over.
So I call bullshit on your post.
The moment you begin a sentence with "Liberals" or "Conservatives" is the moment I stop reading. If you can't think on a higher plane than that kind of pointless labelling, then your comments are not interesting and will be ignored.
And yes, I literally stopped reading at the first word of your sentence (OK actually I read "Liberals are always", so I guess I read three).
Nobody cares what you say, coward. Go away and let the adults have a discussion.
What's with you and deliberately misinterpreting what others say?
The person you responded to at least tried to lay out an argument in a coherent fashion. Your post - not so much.
I think you missed the point.
The point is that people "vote with their dollars and their feet" is not a good argument in this case.
People "vote with their dollars and their feet" means that people make their choices known through actions other than voting on the issue. But the person you replied to is pointing that "voting with dollars and feet" does not legitimize the contested activity, just like "voting with your feet" that having to pay for garbage removal is too onerous and demonstrating that by dumping your trash inappropriately does not legitimize that activity.
In other words, just because people prefer an alternative and would take that alternative when nothing else prevents them from doing so, does not legitimize that alternative.
As for the debate at hand, I think I fall on the side of the cab companies; but I think that these new services have definitely put them on notice. We have the technology to make them irrelevant, so they'd better improve or die. Regulations may prevent cab alternatives from operating now but that can and will change ...
Agreed. I've said it before and I'll say it again: significant performance increases in the x86 world are a thing of the past.
There simply isn't enough money in the market chasing higher performance to make the development cost of faster chips worth the investment.
This is actually an opportunity for AMD. I expect it costs AMD less to catch up to Intel than it costs Intel to push to faster speeds, and since Intel isn't being paid anymore to get faster, AMD can, like the slow and steady tortoise, gradually catch up to Intel. I believe it will take a couple more years, but if AMD survives that long, I believe that it will have achieved near performance parity with Intel by then.
And then neither company's offerings will get much faster, forever thereafter, until there is some new kind of 'killer app' that demands increased CPU speeds that people are willing to pay for (could happen anytime; but the way things are going, with everyone moving to mobile phones and pads, I think we're in for a relatively long haul of form factor and power usage dominating the marketable characteristics of CPUs).
I believe Intel will continue to hold a power advantage over AMD for a long time though, but AMD will gradually narrow that gap as well.
The thing is, AMD will be fighting Intel for a stagnating/shrinking CPU market, and more than likely AMD won't increase its margins significantly during this process, it will just reduce Intel's margins. Not really good news for either company, but worse for Intel.
References, please.
I have a feeling you can't produce anyway, because relational databases are still widely used.
Ah, so that's what he meant. Yeah I've had two Intel 520s in my work computer for a couple of years now, no problems. But you're right, the crucial difference is Intel vs. OCZ.
You can count me among those who wouldn't touch anything by OCZ with a 10 foot pole. Not even with Toshiba backing them.
Why? What's wrong with Sandforce? Works fine for me ...
There are too many pseudo-science stories on Slashdot these days. Are you listening, editors? It's like reading Scientific American (which was almost as bad as Omni last time I read it).
Here we have a whole huge paragraph full of fantasized bullshit whose only supporting documents are a speculative paper submitted to arXiv, and a brief regurgitation thereof on some arXiv blog.
Please stop wasting my time. I want to read NEWS for Nerds (where "news" means "as factually verifiable as possible") and stuff that MATTERS (and pseudo science speculation does not matter to me).
Thank you.
Taking off-topic potshots against FOSS in response to a misinformed post which incorrectly describes the date of the bug report in response to a post which inaccurately maligns the attitude of kernel developers towards security bugs?
For fuck's sake, we're three levels deep in FUD here. Someone throw me a rope so I can pull myself out of this quagmire of bullshit.
Read Anandtech's review of the technology. It makes games much, much more playable. It eliminates tearing and stuttering. It's a real thing, not just some hype. Sorry that you've become so jaded to new tech that you think everything is hype, but seriously, this is real.
I have to wonder why the idea of adaptive vsync wasn't thought of earlier or implemented into display standards earlier. It just seems like such an obvious idea once you've heard of it. Surely someone else in the graphics/display industry must have had the idea before NVidia?
I can't think of any downsides to having this technology; it's pure upside as far as I can tell. Although, I guess I could imagine that there could be some technical downsides, depending upon how displays are typically implemented. For an LCD, I can imagine that knowing the frequency ahead of time allows the LCD panel to perhaps "pipeline" some of its operation, allowing faster grey-to-grey transitions. For example, if the display knows that the next frame is going to come at exactly X milliseconds in the future, then perhaps it could start transitioning all pixels to grey at time X - N, where N is the average time it takes for pixels to transition to grey, and then when the frame is received, it could then transition all pixels from grey to the next frame pixel colors faster. With adaptive vsync, the display would not be able to do this; it would have to start the transition from frame M pixel values to frame M + 1 pixel values only as soon as frame M + 1 becomes available.
Not being able to play grey-to-grey optimization games is I guess a possible downside of adaptive vsync; but I suspect it's a pretty small downside. Aside from gamers who want to see "the next frame" with the smallest latency possible, I don't know that anyone is really going to care much about that potential downside.
You are right, I misunderstood what the O.P. was saying.
I personally don't see the value in having someone else carry my shopping items home for me, but perhaps that's because I hate to shop and don't find the idea of being to browse through a real life store and order items for delivery any more appealing than being able to browse through an online store and order items for delivery.
Also, there are plenty of city dwellers in the USA that have more or less the same "anything I want is a 5 minute walk away" experience. Maybe it's not *exactly* the same experience as in Japan, but it can be close.
Your post smacks a bit of cultural superiorism, by the way.
"ou buy your stuff, in bulk if you one, pay $10 (1000-something yen IIRC), and voila they'll deliver it to your apartment. Every major train/subway station/nexus has a mall so shopping (and buying delivery) is also conveniently located.) Try to do that anywhere in the US."
You may know alot about Japan but your ignorance of the USA is showing here. What you describe is possible in many parts of the USA.
Our family hardly ever shops anymore, we just buy it all online and have it delivered. Groceries too. The only place we ever go out to is farmer's markets, because a) they don't deliver, and b) they're often more of an experience than just a shopping trip.
BTW we live in Cupertino, CA.
Disclaimer: it's possible that you meant "this kind of shopping arrangement is not found in every part of the USA" instead of how I interpreted your statement, as "this kind of shipping arrangement is not find in *any* part of the USA"). If this is the case, then I expect the same is true in Japan. I have been to rural parts of Japan and I'm pretty sure they weren't delivering toothpaste off of subway cars there ...
I graduated from CMU in 1994 with a Math/CS degree. I went back there this spring with some college friends for the first time in about 20 years.
There are alot of new buildings, and they are ridiculously opulent compared to what we had. Instead of the bare concrete corridors of Wean Hall (which they've actually tiled and put drop ceilings in sometime in the past 20 years - way to spoil a mood!) students now walk through gleaming glass and natural wood interiors.
I must say it all seems about 1,000 more cushy than we ever had it, and CMU lost a little of its stark barrenness in the process. As an old timer I lament that but I can certainly see how it makes the place more comfortable and attractive to the young-uns.
I expect that the same is true on many campuses in the USA, perhaps especially the CS powerhouses. I live maybe 20 miles from Stanford now and although I haven't been on their campus in maybe 15 years I have heard that there has been tons of development there as well (probably more than CMU given how ungodly rich Stanford is).
I haven't been to MIT since 1993 maybe but I expect they also have had a glut of fancy new buildings in the past 20 years.
While I don't agree with much of what you say, I do agree that there is something to be said for social pressure against being fat, and losing that social pressure is on balance a bad thing.
I noticed maybe 10 years ago that it had become acceptable for teenage girls to wear low cut jeans and short tops with rolls of fat sticking out. Girls would wear this fashion with pride regardless of their physique. This is very different than when I was a teenager in the 80s and looking like that would generally subject a person to ridicule.
Whether or not that just kept fat girls from feeling pretty, or if it actually encouraged greater concern for one's weight, I don't really know; but a little shame about any of one's faults is unpleasant but necessary if you ask me.
Wrong again, coward. "I think you have to" is a different way of saying "you should", in this case "you should" being shorthand for "I believe it would be better for you to do this and here are the reasons".
No, I don't see it. I was offering an opinion, and used no derogatory terms or insulting language. But then I don't get offended when others offer their opinions, especially when those opinions are explicitly requested.
Thank you again for your response, very interesting. And I mean that sincerely, and did also in my previous reply. I feel a little better educated for having read your posts and that's a rare thing on these forums :)
Your statements are more prescient then I think you realize.
It IS kind of like the Borg; there is kind of like a "hive mind" in open source; whatever the most people think should happen, is what will happen. There is no central authority to dictate that anything other than what the majority wants should happen.
In this case, it's pretty clear that, since all the major distros have accepted systemd, that it's been accepted by the majority of users and become the de facto standard. There seems to be alot of momentum behind it.
I could of course be wrong; maybe it just looks that way, and maybe there is enough of a seething hatred underneath the covers for systemd that it will be ousted soon. But in the meantime, what are you going to do? Just hope, pray, and wait for that to happen? Why not try to improve the thing instead of complaining about it hoping it will go away?
An alternative to my suggestion that people accept systemd and learn to use it, and work to improve it to make it better, is the suggestion that you "take to the streets" and actively fight against systemd rather than accepting it.
You can suggest that to people if you want to; it's just that I don't think it will work and I think those people will waste their time and energy. And I won't suggest to people that they should waste their time and energy on something, especially something that has no moral or ethical implications and is just freaking OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE that we can all change for the better if we want to.
The difference is in "I think you have to" versus "You have to".
Yes, there is a difference. Saying "you have to" is a command, and it does take away freedom when it is spoken by someone with authority to do so.
Saying "I think you have to" is the same as saying "you should". It's not a command, it's a suggestion.
Do you see the difference now?
How long until all of the software packages that BSD wants to use require so much work to retrofit to use a different init mechanism that they just throw in the towl and accept defeat?