A matter of perspective perhaps. If all you are going to do is browse the web and run Word it might be tolerable.
Agreed.
Given what I do with computers I would rather give up computing entirely rather than try to run Win7 on a P4, the license alone costs more than the computer is worth.
In their case, they picked up Win7 through some promo... $35 for 7HomePrem. But otherwise, I agree completely.
The concern about tpms isn't about hacking your car, its about tracking it. The premise being that if you deploy a bunch of receivers that listen for "This is my ID" from the TPMS, you can track everyone's vehicle.
I find most distrubing that in, a grown up person, a word can distract from the meaning.
It distracts from the story, because the reader sees "nigger" and it triggers a response that the author did not intend. It distracts in a teaching environment, because a bunch of time and attention has to be spent explaining the word, what it means, how it evolved, and so forth, that it wasn't as offensive at the time, that yes billy, you still can't call your friend Jim, "Nigger Jim"... nothing which has anything to do with the story.
There's nothing wrong with that lesson being taught. But its a problem if that's not the lesson you set out to teach.
For what its worth, I AM against the censorship. But practically nobody will teach the book to children in its unaltered state. Is preserving the word 'nigger' worth effectively banning the book from schools instead?
I know you were giving an example, but 100 years from now "thee, thine and thy" will NOT be considered shocking and slanderous because they never were associated with something abhorrent to begin with. Even if I played along with that train of thought, then Shakespeare's plays should STILL be preformed with the original words even though they were never meant to be a shock because to change them wouldn't preserve the spirit of the play!
I've seen shakespeare performed enough times to know that the language isn't relevant. I've seen it performed in French (every single word changed). I've seen it rendered in silent films (no spoken words at all). The spirit survives just fine.
I've also read a few translations to english of the Iliad, the Count of Monte Christo, and other titles. And this is an interesting point... each translation is different. Each translator translated the book into the english of his time and place. A British translation from 1850 is not the same as an American one from 1996.
I mean, why does the Bible usually contain 'thee or thou'... the original hebrew / aramaic / latin / whatever didn't use those particular words. It used the language appropriate words at the time it was written. A modern english translation of the bible should use modern english.
I can only wonder what Twain must be like for a non-english speaker picking it up... what does the Japanese version contain? Do the japanese have a word for nigger that carries the same baggage with it? If they don't is the read actually better, because the words are loaded with the closest contextually correct meaning the translator could fine, instead of the the drifted meanings we are rigidly stuck with in english?
Is there a legitimacy to the idea that one can translate from English to English? If we go back far enough, meaning, pronunciation, and the language overall has drifted enough that we have to. What will twain look like in 500 years... will we be able to read it? Or will it need to be translated? If we translate it... will nigger come through as anything more than black slave with a footnote saying that the word used was also a 'mild perjorative' at the time?
Why then if we're reading it in 2010... do we need to use the 'most reviled word in english' simply because language hasn't drifted far enough to make it unreadable, and the 'mild perjorative' has evolved into the most hated word in the language.
I'm asking the question. I absolutely think we need to preserve the original in its original form forever. But on some level I don't object to the idea of a "2011 school edition" with the language "updated and simplified" for 9 year olds.
As for the "think of the child-runs angle, is it really that hard to help kids understand that not using certain words is simply being polite? It's like teaching them not to swear.
To be fair, not a lot of childrens books have hundreds of expletives in them.
Letting yourself be distracted by the meaning behind a specific word is a very poor excuse to shit upon ANY story and the meaning behind it, especially so when it's such an important work.
I would read the uncensored version. I'd let my daughter read it, but would take the time to explain it. Putting it in her school curriculum... I think a lot of people would object. Obviously... a lot of people have. Is it better that the book simply dodge the controversy and not teach the book at all?
This is the problem though. The word should not be a distraction.
But it is.
In fact keeping it used, keeping it in the book, is the best thing that can be done because it reduces the shock value. The word is only shocking and a distraction because it is taboo.
Why exactly do we want to reduce the shock value? There is nothing wrong with having offensive words in the language. That way when we when we pull them out, they carry all that offensive baggage. You want to deprive language of the ability to shock and offend. That's just as bad as censorship.
The only issue here, is that some of today's most reviled words weren't always 'most reviled'.
The word itself is not the problem though..
The word itself is precisely the problem, which is why no one is objecting to "black slave" which means the same thing.
He wrote it because it *did* shock and offend some audiences, making his point ever more forcefully that the caste system was alive in America, and America was the worse for it.
As a child I remember singing "eenie meenie miney moe, catch a nigger by the toe, if he hollers let him go"... in the school playground." And NOBODY blinked. And this was in Canada no less. And I'm not THAT old.
To equate how people used the word in 1910 to the way we reacted now is simply absurd.
Suppose Twain were alive today, and was setting out to compose this novel now... would he STILL choose the word "nigger" now that its been overloaded with additional meaning? What if today-Twain was Russian? Would he choose the most reviled word in the Russian language as an adjective or would he simply say the equivalent of "worthless uneducated black slave"?
That would be an upgraded 7 year old system, not a 9 year old system.
Happy new year! Its 2011. 2003 is now 8 years ago, not 7.
Average system configurations changed radically between 2001 and 2003 due to the uptake of WinXP.
I disagree. RAM jumped from 128 to 256/512. That's about it. Northwood/Willamette P4's were superseded by Prescott... which would have happened anyway. Piles of people including me upgraded our older Win98/ME/2k PCs with Pentium III 500/800/1000MHz CPUs to XP.
Having said that a 9 year old system with a northwood cpu and 256/512MB of ram would need the same $50 in upgrades... 2GB RAM and a modern video card. The directx video card requirement kills a lot of old laptops, but its a minor and inexpensive upgrade on a desktop.
I gave my sister an old Dell Optiplex Pentium 4 (Prescott system dated 2003, 3GHz+). I spent $50 on it get it up to 2GB of RAM and dropped in a 7400GS video card. My brother in law plans on dropping in a new hard drive and trying windows 7 in it.
And it -more- than meets the specs. I could see an even older unit pulling it off. Really, 32-bit Vista and 7 run on just about anything, as long as the video card is remotely modern and you've dumped ram into it, in my experience at least.
Based on the app store being out for all of 1 day I'm not surprised. No one is going to go to the trouble of removing it from all their websites in the first 12 hours. Will they still be offering it in 6 months or a year from the site, or will it just be replaced by a link to the app store?
Some choice editing won't change the realities of the South in the mid-1800s, to think this fools anyone is a presumption of ignorance amongst teachers, parents, and children.
Playing devil's advocate here...
Maybe they aren't actually trying to hide the realities of the South in the mid-1800s. Maybe they aren't trying to fool anyone.
Maybe switching out nigger for slave actually restores the reality of the South in the mid-1800s. I mean, in the mid-1800s "nigger" didn't have the shock value it does today. It was a pretty unremarkable word, really, at the time.
If 100 years from now, "thee, thy, thine" are the most shocking slanderous word one can utter, then perhaps shakespeare SHOULD be performed with "you/your/yours" substituted in its place to preserve the spirit of the play. Shakespeare didn't intend to completely shock the audience when he wrote "thy". Just as Twain wanted to show that "nigger Jim" was of no consequence and "beneath contempt", but there was no "shock value" in calling him "nigger Jim" at the time.
Pulling the word 'nigger' out, and switching in slave, allows you to spend time on the actual story, without the distraction of the -word- 'nigger'. They aren't trying to exorcise the rascism and slavery. The word itself really is the problem.
Personally, I object to censorship... but I really do see their point. When Mark Twain wrote it 'nigger' was not 'the most vile word all of the english language', and I do find it distracting which in context, it shouldn't be. And it gets in the way when discussing the book later... should a 9 year old use the word when writing a book review, or doing some chapter questions?
My concern isn't that previous OS users should get the app store. My concern is that previous OS users may suddenly be locked out of getting applications they otherwise would have been able to get because distribution has been moved to the app store which they don't have access to.
ony was first with the VCR and look where they ended-up (lost to JVC with its better-designed and cheaper VHS).
Sony had brand name recognition, and a leg up on getting a product out the door... JVC could have licensed Beta and released Beta players, except that Sony's terms were so ridiculous that JVC figured it would be more profitable to invent their own standard rather than work with Sony.
Sony lost the format wars by enabling them to happen in the first place. Had they licensed the technology more reasonably, and created a working group to manage the standard instead of dictating everything to everyone else, JVC wouldn't have gone their own way in the first place.
Difference is that nobody could get everyone to sign up for a passport. As much as I despise the site, Facebook ALREADY has the critical mass Microsoft couldn't get.
The trouble with SSO adoption is that most users would arrive at your site, and then need to visit the SSO site to create a login. Granted they'd only need to do this once, for the first SSO site they visit, but its enough of a hassle "right now" for people that it doesn't get rolled out in the first place.
If you start with a site that has the critical mass and it offers SSO, then when most users arrive at your site, they already have an account with the SSO provider, so its a single click... and its the path of least resistance to get in.
It doesn't matter to most people if its a smart idea, or even if its secure... its easy.
Personally I hope facebook falls flat on its face or better still shrivels up and dies, but I would take this threat seriously... enough people are on facebook that they could well win becoming sso provider "by default".
You can power up your short-wave radio for free, take long walks in the park, play chess with your friends and otherwise exercise your constitutional freedoms in just about any way you see fit.
Yes, I can do a lot of things, but I can't purchase internet services from a free competitive marketplace, which is what I actually want to do. Hence my complaint.
Seeing as the reason I can't do this is because of government management and regulation of that market ostensibly for my benefit, my expectation is that the government actually manage and regulate it FOR MY BENEFIT.
The Internet is a private service, and you must enter private contracts to use the service. It's entirely your choice it the terms of those contracts are acceptable or not, as is the choice of contract partners.
The government has intervened to grant limited monopolies to specific companies to the wiring infrastructure, easements, right of ways, and then have regulated their activities. My choices are limited to those companies. It is not a free market.
Last time I checked, access to the Internet was not a constitutional right.
Is that a good thing do you think?
If Congress decides that access to Internet is a fundamental right, then I expect the state to build a tax-funded network that can enable said right
It would help if private companies stopped suing them every time a jurisdiction tries.
not confiscate existing private infrastructure to provide a technically unattainable access guarantee
Infrastructure largely funded and/or subsidized with taxes by companies with government protected monopolies.
If I want to purchase services from a provider available to me that prioritizes YouTube and Netflix over Torrent traffic, why the heck shouldn't I be able to?
To echo the sentiment of your other responders. What if I DON'T want to purchase internet services from such a provider? Why the heck should I HAVE to? In the best cases there are only 5 providers, and 3 of them just resell services from the first 2, and those 2 both have traffic shaping you have no control over. In the worst case, you have one provider and you take it or leave it.
Nothing in the spectrum gives me the choice to choose a provider that prioritizes traffic in a way that I like.
To be fair though, I -agree- with protocol QoS such as prioritizing streaming video over torrent traffic. - interactive / real time traffic should take precedence over bulk download. And therefore I strongly disagree with prioritizing youtube while bumping netflix down below torrent traffic... especially if its based on the ISP extorting money from content providers while holding their own customers who are actually paying you for the bandwidth to connect them to the content they want as hostages/pawns.
It really is, if you have software that takes advantage of all those core.
And if that is the only software you use. Otherwise you get a performance increase in one or two activities, for a net increase in total performance, that is distinctly less than DOUBLE.
There are many other examples like mine that show overall performance is increasing. Even games now benefit from more cores, although 4 is about the limit of increasing performance for most current titles.
Yes, overall performance is definitely increasing. No argument. But its not doubling anymore. Its doubling when you do X task, with Y software. But u,v, and w are only 18% faster, so if you spend your time split evenly between u,v,w,x you are seeing 38% increase overall... or however it works out for you.
It used to be you bought a new PC and it was twice as fast as your old one. 100% faster accross the board, and the new [hardware feature like MMX] made task X with Y software 150% faster than your old PC.
Besides my current PC is an i7 920, launched in Q4'08. Its 2 years later now. What can I buy that's twice as fast for the same price I paid 2 years ago? (~$350 iirc)?
Even spending 3x as much, and getting a top of line 6 core, I'm still not seeing 100% performance increase at anything, let alone accross the board. At best I'll see a 50-70% increase a couple specific applications? That's at BEST, and at triple the price point.
I know you said that it shouldn't be I/O, but I would still bet money that if you put an SSD in there you'd notice a dramatic improvement. (Although, you didn't mention RAM usage, but even then the SSD would help since it would speed up swap.)
However, when I observe PCs stall with no significant cpu activity and no disk activity... if it were thrashing ram there should be disk activity. No, those stalls have got to be something else.
Personally, though, yes, an SSD is my next upgrade, and I agree with you that I hope and expect to see a dramatic difference in load times, boot times and other io intensive stuff, but I don't think the stalls I'm complaining here about are related.
One source of stalls that I am aware of are networking related. I've seen lots of stuff choke badly trying to reach servers that aren't reachable, where it just stalls the entire UI of an app while it waits for some network query to timeout. That accounts for some of them, but I'm still head scratching why it stalls in a number of other cases where there shouldn't be any networking dependency/functionality.
It was easier to measure then, because performance was directly related to clock rate.
It was easier to measure then because real world performance was actually doubling and was apparent in most benchmarks.
Now that clock has stopped going up, performance depends on parallel processing.
Performance isn't doubling anymore. Cores are increasing, and the pipelines are being reworked, cache is increasing, but PERFORMANCE isn't doubling.
Then there's a catch, parallel processing depends on the software.
It depends on the task itself being parallelizable in the first place, and many many tasks aren't.
Luckily, the most demanding tasks in computing are those that can be parallelized.
Unfortunately its the aggregate of a pile of small independent undemanding tasks that drags modern PCs to a crawl. And these aren't even bottlenecking the CPU itself... to be honest I don't know what the bottleneck is right now in some items... I'll open up the task manager... cpu utilization will be comfortably low on all cores, hard drive lights are idle so it shouldn't be waiting on IO... and the progress bar is just sitting there... literally 20-30 seconds later things start happening again... WHAT THE HELL? What are the possible bottlenecks that cause this?
Slashdot Mirror
A matter of perspective perhaps. If all you are going to do is browse the web and run Word it might be tolerable.
Agreed.
Given what I do with computers I would rather give up computing entirely rather than try to run Win7 on a P4, the license alone costs more than the computer is worth.
In their case, they picked up Win7 through some promo... $35 for 7HomePrem. But otherwise, I agree completely.
The concern about tpms isn't about hacking your car, its about tracking it. The premise being that if you deploy a bunch of receivers that listen for "This is my ID" from the TPMS, you can track everyone's vehicle.
I find most distrubing that in, a grown up person, a word can distract from the meaning.
It distracts from the story, because the reader sees "nigger" and it triggers a response that the author did not intend.
It distracts in a teaching environment, because a bunch of time and attention has to be spent explaining the word, what it means, how it evolved, and so forth, that it wasn't as offensive at the time, that yes billy, you still can't call your friend Jim, "Nigger Jim"... nothing which has anything to do with the story.
There's nothing wrong with that lesson being taught. But its a problem if that's not the lesson you set out to teach.
For what its worth, I AM against the censorship. But practically nobody will teach the book to children in its unaltered state. Is preserving the word 'nigger' worth effectively banning the book from schools instead?
I know you were giving an example, but 100 years from now "thee, thine and thy" will NOT be considered shocking and slanderous because they never were associated with something abhorrent to begin with. Even if I played along with that train of thought, then Shakespeare's plays should STILL be preformed with the original words even though they were never meant to be a shock because to change them wouldn't preserve the spirit of the play!
I've seen shakespeare performed enough times to know that the language isn't relevant. I've seen it performed in French (every single word changed). I've seen it rendered in silent films (no spoken words at all). The spirit survives just fine.
I've also read a few translations to english of the Iliad, the Count of Monte Christo, and other titles. And this is an interesting point... each translation is different. Each translator translated the book into the english of his time and place. A British translation from 1850 is not the same as an American one from 1996.
I mean, why does the Bible usually contain 'thee or thou'... the original hebrew / aramaic / latin / whatever didn't use those particular words. It used the language appropriate words at the time it was written. A modern english translation of the bible should use modern english.
I can only wonder what Twain must be like for a non-english speaker picking it up ... what does the Japanese version contain? Do the japanese have a word for nigger that carries the same baggage with it? If they don't is the read actually better, because the words are loaded with the closest contextually correct meaning the translator could fine, instead of the the drifted meanings we are rigidly stuck with in english?
Is there a legitimacy to the idea that one can translate from English to English? If we go back far enough, meaning, pronunciation, and the language overall has drifted enough that we have to. What will twain look like in 500 years... will we be able to read it? Or will it need to be translated? If we translate it... will nigger come through as anything more than black slave with a footnote saying that the word used was also a 'mild perjorative' at the time?
Why then if we're reading it in 2010... do we need to use the 'most reviled word in english' simply because language hasn't drifted far enough to make it unreadable, and the 'mild perjorative' has evolved into the most hated word in the language.
I'm asking the question. I absolutely think we need to preserve the original in its original form forever. But on some level I don't object to the idea of a "2011 school edition" with the language "updated and simplified" for 9 year olds.
As for the "think of the child-runs angle, is it really that hard to help kids understand that not using certain words is simply being polite? It's like teaching them not to swear.
To be fair, not a lot of childrens books have hundreds of expletives in them.
Letting yourself be distracted by the meaning behind a specific word is a very poor excuse to shit upon ANY story and the meaning behind it, especially so when it's such an important work.
I would read the uncensored version. I'd let my daughter read it, but would take the time to explain it. Putting it in her school curriculum... I think a lot of people would object. Obviously... a lot of people have. Is it better that the book simply dodge the controversy and not teach the book at all?
This is the problem though. The word should not be a distraction.
But it is.
In fact keeping it used, keeping it in the book, is the best thing that can be done because it reduces the shock value. The word is only shocking and a distraction because it is taboo.
Why exactly do we want to reduce the shock value? There is nothing wrong with having offensive words in the language. That way when we when we pull them out, they carry all that offensive baggage. You want to deprive language of the ability to shock and offend. That's just as bad as censorship.
The only issue here, is that some of today's most reviled words weren't always 'most reviled'.
The word itself is not the problem though..
The word itself is precisely the problem, which is why no one is objecting to "black slave" which means the same thing.
Surely you can read words that may cause offense/differ in meaning today within their original context. Like the word gay for example...
"Gay" isn't the most reviled word in the english language, now is it? You are even allowed to say "gay" on TV. Its not even in the same league.
He wrote it because it *did* shock and offend some audiences, making his point ever more forcefully that the caste system was alive in America, and America was the worse for it.
As a child I remember singing "eenie meenie miney moe, catch a nigger by the toe, if he hollers let him go"... in the school playground." And NOBODY blinked. And this was in Canada no less. And I'm not THAT old.
To equate how people used the word in 1910 to the way we reacted now is simply absurd.
Suppose Twain were alive today, and was setting out to compose this novel now... would he STILL choose the word "nigger" now that its been overloaded with additional meaning? What if today-Twain was Russian? Would he choose the most reviled word in the Russian language as an adjective or would he simply say the equivalent of "worthless uneducated black slave"?
That would be an upgraded 7 year old system, not a 9 year old system.
Happy new year! Its 2011. 2003 is now 8 years ago, not 7.
Average system configurations changed radically between 2001 and 2003 due to the uptake of WinXP.
I disagree. RAM jumped from 128 to 256/512. That's about it. Northwood/Willamette P4's were superseded by Prescott... which would have happened anyway. Piles of people including me upgraded our older Win98/ME/2k PCs with Pentium III 500/800/1000MHz CPUs to XP.
Having said that a 9 year old system with a northwood cpu and 256/512MB of ram would need the same $50 in upgrades... 2GB RAM and a modern video card. The directx video card requirement kills a lot of old laptops, but its a minor and inexpensive upgrade on a desktop.
You clearly have known how to get software for a while, so continue doing it that way.
Yes. But like I said:
"It would suck if you got to the developers website and it just linked back to the app store to buy it."
I gave my sister an old Dell Optiplex Pentium 4 (Prescott system dated 2003, 3GHz+). I spent $50 on it get it up to 2GB of RAM and dropped in a 7400GS video card. My brother in law plans on dropping in a new hard drive and trying windows 7 in it.
And it -more- than meets the specs. I could see an even older unit pulling it off. Really, 32-bit Vista and 7 run on just about anything, as long as the video card is remotely modern and you've dumped ram into it, in my experience at least.
Based on the app store being out for all of 1 day I'm not surprised. No one is going to go to the trouble of removing it from all their websites in the first 12 hours. Will they still be offering it in 6 months or a year from the site, or will it just be replaced by a link to the app store?
Some choice editing won't change the realities of the South in the mid-1800s, to think this fools anyone is a presumption of ignorance amongst teachers, parents, and children.
Playing devil's advocate here...
Maybe they aren't actually trying to hide the realities of the South in the mid-1800s. Maybe they aren't trying to fool anyone.
Maybe switching out nigger for slave actually restores the reality of the South in the mid-1800s. I mean, in the mid-1800s "nigger" didn't have the shock value it does today. It was a pretty unremarkable word, really, at the time.
If 100 years from now, "thee, thy, thine" are the most shocking slanderous word one can utter, then perhaps shakespeare SHOULD be performed with "you/your/yours" substituted in its place to preserve the spirit of the play. Shakespeare didn't intend to completely shock the audience when he wrote "thy". Just as Twain wanted to show that "nigger Jim" was of no consequence and "beneath contempt", but there was no "shock value" in calling him "nigger Jim" at the time.
Pulling the word 'nigger' out, and switching in slave, allows you to spend time on the actual story, without the distraction of the -word- 'nigger'. They aren't trying to exorcise the rascism and slavery. The word itself really is the problem.
Personally, I object to censorship... but I really do see their point. When Mark Twain wrote it 'nigger' was not 'the most vile word all of the english language', and I do find it distracting which in context, it shouldn't be. And it gets in the way when discussing the book later... should a 9 year old use the word when writing a book review, or doing some chapter questions?
The word itself is a constant distraction.
My concern isn't that previous OS users should get the app store. My concern is that previous OS users may suddenly be locked out of getting applications they otherwise would have been able to get because distribution has been moved to the app store which they don't have access to.
Yes, provided they also decide they will never again apply a patch to their install of 10.6, for whatever stupid reason.
And what about everyone who doesn't have 10.6?
10.5 and even 10.4 are still pretty common.
I think it's very likely that people looking for Mac software will find it just fine using Google if they decide they just can't use the App Store.
Hopefully. It would suck if you got to the developers website and it just linked back to the app store to buy it.
Move.
I'm not going to base where I live on how many internet providers are available. There are more important things in life.
ony was first with the VCR and look where they ended-up (lost to JVC with its better-designed and cheaper VHS).
Sony had brand name recognition, and a leg up on getting a product out the door... JVC could have licensed Beta and released Beta players, except that Sony's terms were so ridiculous that JVC figured it would be more profitable to invent their own standard rather than work with Sony.
Sony lost the format wars by enabling them to happen in the first place. Had they licensed the technology more reasonably, and created a working group to manage the standard instead of dictating everything to everyone else, JVC wouldn't have gone their own way in the first place.
Difference is that nobody could get everyone to sign up for a passport. As much as I despise the site, Facebook ALREADY has the critical mass Microsoft couldn't get.
The trouble with SSO adoption is that most users would arrive at your site, and then need to visit the SSO site to create a login. Granted they'd only need to do this once, for the first SSO site they visit, but its enough of a hassle "right now" for people that it doesn't get rolled out in the first place.
If you start with a site that has the critical mass and it offers SSO, then when most users arrive at your site, they already have an account with the SSO provider, so its a single click... and its the path of least resistance to get in.
It doesn't matter to most people if its a smart idea, or even if its secure... its easy.
Personally I hope facebook falls flat on its face or better still shrivels up and dies, but I would take this threat seriously... enough people are on facebook that they could well win becoming sso provider "by default".
You can power up your short-wave radio for free, take long walks in the park, play chess with your friends and otherwise exercise your constitutional freedoms in just about any way you see fit.
Yes, I can do a lot of things, but I can't purchase internet services from a free competitive marketplace, which is what I actually want to do. Hence my complaint.
Seeing as the reason I can't do this is because of government management and regulation of that market ostensibly for my benefit, my expectation is that the government actually manage and regulate it FOR MY BENEFIT.
The Internet is a private service, and you must enter private contracts to use the service. It's entirely your choice it the terms of those contracts are acceptable or not, as is the choice of contract partners.
The government has intervened to grant limited monopolies to specific companies to the wiring infrastructure, easements, right of ways, and then have regulated their activities. My choices are limited to those companies. It is not a free market.
Last time I checked, access to the Internet was not a constitutional right.
Is that a good thing do you think?
If Congress decides that access to Internet is a fundamental right, then I expect the state to build a tax-funded network that can enable said right
It would help if private companies stopped suing them every time a jurisdiction tries.
not confiscate existing private infrastructure to provide a technically unattainable access guarantee
Infrastructure largely funded and/or subsidized with taxes by companies with government protected monopolies.
If I want to purchase services from a provider available to me that prioritizes YouTube and Netflix over Torrent traffic, why the heck shouldn't I be able to?
To echo the sentiment of your other responders. What if I DON'T want to purchase internet services from such a provider? Why the heck should I HAVE to? In the best cases there are only 5 providers, and 3 of them just resell services from the first 2, and those 2 both have traffic shaping you have no control over. In the worst case, you have one provider and you take it or leave it.
Nothing in the spectrum gives me the choice to choose a provider that prioritizes traffic in a way that I like.
To be fair though, I -agree- with protocol QoS such as prioritizing streaming video over torrent traffic. - interactive / real time traffic should take precedence over bulk download. And therefore I strongly disagree with prioritizing youtube while bumping netflix down below torrent traffic... especially if its based on the ISP extorting money from content providers while holding their own customers who are actually paying you for the bandwidth to connect them to the content they want as hostages/pawns.
It really is, if you have software that takes advantage of all those core.
And if that is the only software you use. Otherwise you get a performance increase in one or two activities, for a net increase in total performance, that is distinctly less than DOUBLE.
There are many other examples like mine that show overall performance is increasing. Even games now benefit from more cores, although 4 is about the limit of increasing performance for most current titles.
Yes, overall performance is definitely increasing. No argument. But its not doubling anymore. Its doubling when you do X task, with Y software. But u,v, and w are only 18% faster, so if you spend your time split evenly between u,v,w,x you are seeing 38% increase overall... or however it works out for you.
It used to be you bought a new PC and it was twice as fast as your old one. 100% faster accross the board, and the new [hardware feature like MMX] made task X with Y software 150% faster than your old PC.
Besides my current PC is an i7 920, launched in Q4'08. Its 2 years later now. What can I buy that's twice as fast for the same price I paid 2 years ago? (~$350 iirc)?
Even spending 3x as much, and getting a top of line 6 core, I'm still not seeing 100% performance increase at anything, let alone accross the board. At best I'll see a 50-70% increase a couple specific applications? That's at BEST, and at triple the price point.
I know you said that it shouldn't be I/O, but I would still bet money that if you put an SSD in there you'd notice a dramatic improvement. (Although, you didn't mention RAM usage, but even then the SSD would help since it would speed up swap.)
However, when I observe PCs stall with no significant cpu activity and no disk activity... if it were thrashing ram there should be disk activity. No, those stalls have got to be something else.
Personally, though, yes, an SSD is my next upgrade, and I agree with you that I hope and expect to see a dramatic difference in load times, boot times and other io intensive stuff, but I don't think the stalls I'm complaining here about are related.
One source of stalls that I am aware of are networking related. I've seen lots of stuff choke badly trying to reach servers that aren't reachable, where it just stalls the entire UI of an app while it waits for some network query to timeout. That accounts for some of them, but I'm still head scratching why it stalls in a number of other cases where there shouldn't be any networking dependency/functionality.
It was easier to measure then, because performance was directly related to clock rate.
It was easier to measure then because real world performance was actually doubling and was apparent in most benchmarks.
Now that clock has stopped going up, performance depends on parallel processing.
Performance isn't doubling anymore. Cores are increasing, and the pipelines are being reworked, cache is increasing, but PERFORMANCE isn't doubling.
Then there's a catch, parallel processing depends on the software.
It depends on the task itself being parallelizable in the first place, and many many tasks aren't.
Luckily, the most demanding tasks in computing are those that can be parallelized.
Unfortunately its the aggregate of a pile of small independent undemanding tasks that drags modern PCs to a crawl. And these aren't even bottlenecking the CPU itself... to be honest I don't know what the bottleneck is right now in some items... I'll open up the task manager... cpu utilization will be comfortably low on all cores, hard drive lights are idle so it shouldn't be waiting on IO... and the progress bar is just sitting there... literally 20-30 seconds later things start happening again... WHAT THE HELL? What are the possible bottlenecks that cause this?
He's probably gay, or something.
Brought to you by Carls Jr.
"Behavioral Learning for Adaptive Electronic warfare"
Then why not just go with:
behavioral learning for adaptive elecTRONic warfare" => TRON
and called it a day? Way more hip than blade...
Personally, though I think...
behaVIoRAl LeaRning for ADaptIve electrOnic WarfARe. => VIRALRADIO
is more memorable than yet another "BLADE" system.
Trivially solvable by matching orders at random intervals.
But honestly, it doesn't need to be hourly. Match them once a second, and limit you to transacting a particular stock more than once a minute.