Swearing at someone is the verbal form of might makes right.
I'm notoriously guilty of doing this; but unlike you, I neither suffer from a learning disability, or crippling self delusion, so I understand its psychological effect on my targets. I understand that it's oppressive and shitty. I make peace with my imperfection in this department by trying to only aim it at fuckwits incapable of even a squirt of enlightened or self-reflective thought, such as yourself.
I'd cite psychological points regarding swearing down at someone, and certain personality disorders like codependency and narcissism, but you'd simply reply that you don't acknowledge any authority other than your own.
The only good use I've ever found for psychology or religion is the books make a good source of emergency paper in a diarrhea situation.
A problem the language composition portions of your brain seem to suffer from frequently.
Perhaps a psychologist could help you figure out why you seem hell bent on denigrating things you lack the intellect to understand. Some kind of childhood trauma? Did your father constantly make fun of you for trying to ram that square peg in that round hole?
Historically they've conquered, enslaved, and forcefully converted countless cultures, and here, today, they still insist on maintaining entire countries ruled by their ideology in which all others are either excluded or treated as second class citizens.
This isn't wrong. But why single out them? That statement is equally true for most Christian nations. You can argue that today's contemporary Christian ideology is a bit nicer (see: Under more control of atheists) but that's about it.
Ya, it would be shitty targeting at best, though; with high probability of collateral damage and missing people entirely who are considered part of that "race"
Something people would do well to remember- there is more variation between any two random people within a population than there are between the averages of two populations. That's regardless of diagnostic racial characteristics.
For the same reason that "race" is not a scientific construct, it's also a shitty biomarker for a weapon.
Because here in Seattle, we had 2.5um particulate smog.
They're discussing ozone here. It didn't come from a fire.
Your first clue should have been where you typed, "we had a week or so", and then remembered, "damn, the article said 87 days, didn't it."
What do you think that has to do with pole costs?
As a senior network engineer at an ISP, I can tell you our data costs have dropped through the floor too. That's simply due to the fact that the internet continues to become more connected. Companies that previously had monopolies on big-player transit no longer do. Where we once paid $10/mbps @ 95th percentile, we now pay $.02.
As links have become faster, fiber multiplexing has become cheaper, one can push far more bits per time interval through a single static port cost. It isn't because the rent went down on their pole.
Nope. Both sides get the shaft.
The FCC ruling makes it so the coastal elites can't actually charge the telecoms fair market value for use of their poles, which they will pay whatever the fuck we want to charge them, since we're offering them a customer base measured with 8 figures.
And it's fucking over the rural people, because it doesn't force the wireless carriers, as a concession for that awesome handout they get at the expense of the coasties, to provide service to the rural people.
This literally fucks everyone except for the carriers. This should make it quite clear where the allegiances lie.
Monopoly rent? The people of that municipality paid for those fucking poles. They own them. They get to set the price for use of them, for services that serve fucking *them*.
How fucking stupid are you?
I'm a liberal socialist, but this is about the only thing the FCC has done lately that I like.
That's because price controls (don't let people dress this up as anything but what it is) are an idea that has had a lot of traction in the traditional socialist movements.
What blows my mind is that the Trumpians are too fucking stupid that this idea isn't the kind of red they think it is, and they're absolutely willing and happy reconfigure their brain to accommodate.
Think about how much vastly more efficient it is to have reason-based fees for every telecommunications company everywhere in the country
This is always the reasoning behind price controls. It doesn't fucking work, because different areas have different fair-market values.
Quite simple. It federally enforces local municipalities to sell use of public land for under fair-market value for that locale.
Who do you *think* that benefits? The consumer? You think your service bill is going to go down?
Municipalities will make $270 per cell per year.
That's probably wonderful for some places. Certainly you recognize that there is a difference in fair market values in locations with median incomes of 32k/year/family vs. places with median incomes of 75k/year/family. You'd mandate the richest economies sell their public assets- with access to *millions* of people, for the price Harrison, Arkansas gets serving their few thousand?
You'd support federally mandating that rich ass cities try to pay their bills like small shithole towns?
Put that on a telephone pole (rather, allow a 5G provider to pay for their own people to put it on a pole and maintain their equipment) and make $270 per year.
It's my pole, not yours. Why are you trying to tell me how much it's worth?
Given that a telephone pole runs about $3000 [dailyherald.com]
Good god, you can't think that price is uniform across the country... You can't. Right?
Poles are erected under contract; contractors charge fair market value for an area; fair market value for an area is dependent upon many factors, including income and cost of living in the area.
that means the city is paid to replace each pole so used every 11 years if they like.
Perhaps that is even true for some magical "average" city in America (what is that... 10k people?)
But even if it is, again, it's their fucking pole. They can replace it on whatever schedule the voters in that city deem important. Maybe the people of Harrison, AR love bent nasty poles. The people of Bellevue, WA probably want some fancy ass poles. They go better with their 10 million dollar houses. What gives you the fucking right?
Now, since poles tend to last a LOT longer than that, it means those people putting the 5G cells on the poles (at their own expense, mind you) will effectively pay for 5 pole replacements on average.
All this math is based on some stupid average number you dredged from the internet, and beyond that still- it's fucking irrelevant. The federal government should not have a say in what my public right-of-way is worth. It doesn't make sense for it to.
And this also means that municipalities cannot keep 5G infrastructure out from their domain via insanely high rental prices.
Yes, because affluent cities are known for their limited new services. I'm looking at an LTE coverage map right now, and it's weird, but it appears at cursory glance to be really concentrated around rich ass big cities. Places with high prices of living and high incomes. Places with expensive fucking utility poles.
Or should we just say that wireless communications should be left at 2G/analog and screw anything else?
Don't know where you live, and frankly, I don't fucking care. Being fortunate to live in a big city, I've had every major new service as soon as it came out. I guess it's just one of the cool benefits I get from paying more in taxes. You're free to do it however you like in your area. But since I'm the one with LTE, and you're the one worried about 2G and analog, perhaps we should fairly evaluate who's ideas are working better.
End of the day- a tower here serves vastly more people than the average city in the US. However we choose to charge corporations using public land to provide services for our people to support our high standard of living is our own business. Not yours. You're free to move here and vote otherwise, of course.
For $250 you could probably buy a whole house in some parts of the country.
I totally understand that. Which is just *another* argument for sub-federal governments exercising *their right* to govern *their* public land right-of-way.
But for the areas where $250 truly is too cheap for a small area, they can charge more - from the summary:
Yes... from the summary-
Cities that charge more than that would likely face litigation from carriers
Allow me to paraphrase:
"Charge us fair-market value for your locality, and be prepared to defend it in court. By the way, our legal budget is more than yours. By a fucking lot."
If a fee is a reasonable approximation of costs then they can charge extra for that location. It just prevents locales from jacking up prices 10x what they are worth if you were renting the space for anything else.
As determined by *who*?
If a carrier pays 10x what you consider it to be worth, then you are in fact the one who is mistaken by virtue of the carrier paying the money, period, all stop.
Federal law is being used to price-fix. There is no avoiding that reality, but there sure are a lot of people trying to dress it up as something else.
How is that unreasonable?
I'm pretty sure I explained how that was unreasonable. You can't fault me if you didn't read it.
It seems to be you contorting your own understanding of what is actually occurring
Your read comprehension problem is now me contorting my own understanding?
not unusually for those driven purely by hate.
In no way am I driven by hate.
I'm pretty unsurprised however, given your complete lack of an argument, that you'd try to portray it as such.
Reasonable limit as decided by the FCC.
Look at those prices. I couldn't rent a 2x2 spot on the roof of a building here for that *per month*.
It's as if local economies don't exist. Or Federalism. The mental gymnastics of the Republicans trying to cope with the cognitive dissonance of their elected government being as bad as their scariest liberal boogyman government is fascinating to watch.
And if this were an attempt to head off municipalities attempting to charge carriers for their use of public airwaves, you'd have a point, and me as a supporter of your point.
But that isn't what this is, and you know that.
This is a handout from the FCC to the industry it regulates at the behest of the people who elect their local leaders to make decisions for their local municipalities.
Gymnastics are a lot funner when they're physical. Give the mental ones a rest.
Wait, WTF?
Now Trump-tards are in favor of the Federal Government telling local municipalities how much their right-of-way is worth?
Does your brain ever just fucking hurt from your ideological cross-dressing?
amdgpu is pretty awesome these days. Works out of the box, and performance is respectable. My only complaint is the required DRI_PRIME=1 for using the AMD GPU in hybrid IGP+discrete setups.
My desktop has an nVidia + Intel IGP, and in the nVidia driver control app, I can just set it to just use the nVidia all the time.
To anyone using amdgpu on a debian derivative- I recommend oibaf's daily Mesa builds. It contains the most recent drivers, and it really makes a difference.
Perhaps Vega APU doesn't have HBCC, but HBCC is a feature on dedicated GPUs to deal with two memory pools (including the system memory).
Kind of... More accurately, it's a controller that turns dedicated VRAM into a gigantic cache for system memory.
Real Vega APU like the Ryzen 2200 has only one physical memory pool.
That is true.
Tests show that you can set this reserved RAM at the lowest setting and still get adequate 3D performance (but maybe a few % slower than if set at 2GB) so this is managed adequately anyway.
Of course there's little change- "VRAM" and "System" RAM are the same. The partitioning is virtual.
GPU and CPU can shared a single memory space.
They can, but they must communicate over a bus. In this instance, it's the PCIe bus, and while it's one peppy bus, it's not a silly-wide local data bus.
That's a significant feature.
It's a significant cost-saving exercise... Which should be lauded as such, but let's not try to pretend it has some kind of performance benefit.
System RAM is slow, talking over a slower bus.
There is a reason discrete GPUs have dedicated VRAM.
I love jealous, children.
Maybe if you're a good boy, mommy will purchase you a new Vega 11 that's slower than the Vega M.
Probably not though. You don't sound like you come from money, or class, or even a household with a generous disposition;)
Oh god, lol.
I can't believe that was your argument.
No, you're right. 2 / 5 makes it no longer a football field.
But 3 / 5? Definitely football field.
Also, the Vega M GL mops the floor with all currently released APU Vega 8/11 parts. I think you should read this.
It was well known that the Vega in the Kaby Lake-G parts was some kind of Polaris Hybrid. Nobody fooled anyone. And the Vegas in the AMD APUs are some kind of neutered Vega with Polaris memory buses. I knew this when I bought the laptop. As did anyone who did their homework.
Was there some kind of point you were trying to make, anyway? Because I really don't think you did anything other than make yourself look stupid.
One more time, in case you're just a little thick instead of terminally stupid: No APU on the market fits the AMD whitepaper description of "Vega". But AMD calls them all Vegas, so I guess we will too.
AMDs own admittance they they are not actual VEGA GPUs.
Also, you made that up, lol. Making shit up always does your argument good. No, really.
Slashdot Mirror
Swearing at someone is the verbal form of might makes right.
I'm notoriously guilty of doing this; but unlike you, I neither suffer from a learning disability, or crippling self delusion, so I understand its psychological effect on my targets. I understand that it's oppressive and shitty. I make peace with my imperfection in this department by trying to only aim it at fuckwits incapable of even a squirt of enlightened or self-reflective thought, such as yourself.
I'd cite psychological points regarding swearing down at someone, and certain personality disorders like codependency and narcissism, but you'd simply reply that you don't acknowledge any authority other than your own.
The only good use I've ever found for psychology or religion is the books make a good source of emergency paper in a diarrhea situation.
A problem the language composition portions of your brain seem to suffer from frequently.
Perhaps a psychologist could help you figure out why you seem hell bent on denigrating things you lack the intellect to understand. Some kind of childhood trauma? Did your father constantly make fun of you for trying to ram that square peg in that round hole?
It's also funny how people who conflate PC with common decency in the face of people who have none tend to be complete fucking hypocrites.
Until-
Historically they've conquered, enslaved, and forcefully converted countless cultures, and here, today, they still insist on maintaining entire countries ruled by their ideology in which all others are either excluded or treated as second class citizens.
This isn't wrong. But why single out them? That statement is equally true for most Christian nations. You can argue that today's contemporary Christian ideology is a bit nicer (see: Under more control of atheists) but that's about it.
Ya, it would be shitty targeting at best, though; with high probability of collateral damage and missing people entirely who are considered part of that "race"
Something people would do well to remember- there is more variation between any two random people within a population than there are between the averages of two populations. That's regardless of diagnostic racial characteristics.
For the same reason that "race" is not a scientific construct, it's also a shitty biomarker for a weapon.
No, race is a social construct.
DNA is quite physical.
Because here in Seattle, we had 2.5um particulate smog.
They're discussing ozone here. It didn't come from a fire.
Your first clue should have been where you typed, "we had a week or so", and then remembered, "damn, the article said 87 days, didn't it."
You did read it, right?
Actually, IDIOT, the more pollution there is, the less oxygen there is, so that retards fires
Holy shit, that is the stupidest thing I have read here in a long time. Congratulations, sir.
I'll take irrelevant data points for 100, Alex.
What do you think that has to do with pole costs?
As a senior network engineer at an ISP, I can tell you our data costs have dropped through the floor too. That's simply due to the fact that the internet continues to become more connected. Companies that previously had monopolies on big-player transit no longer do. Where we once paid $10/mbps @ 95th percentile, we now pay $.02.
As links have become faster, fiber multiplexing has become cheaper, one can push far more bits per time interval through a single static port cost. It isn't because the rent went down on their pole.
Nope. Both sides get the shaft.
The FCC ruling makes it so the coastal elites can't actually charge the telecoms fair market value for use of their poles, which they will pay whatever the fuck we want to charge them, since we're offering them a customer base measured with 8 figures.
And it's fucking over the rural people, because it doesn't force the wireless carriers, as a concession for that awesome handout they get at the expense of the coasties, to provide service to the rural people.
This literally fucks everyone except for the carriers. This should make it quite clear where the allegiances lie.
Monopoly rent? The people of that municipality paid for those fucking poles. They own them. They get to set the price for use of them, for services that serve fucking *them*.
How fucking stupid are you?
I'm a liberal socialist, but this is about the only thing the FCC has done lately that I like.
That's because price controls (don't let people dress this up as anything but what it is) are an idea that has had a lot of traction in the traditional socialist movements.
What blows my mind is that the Trumpians are too fucking stupid that this idea isn't the kind of red they think it is, and they're absolutely willing and happy reconfigure their brain to accommodate.
Think about how much vastly more efficient it is to have reason-based fees for every telecommunications company everywhere in the country
This is always the reasoning behind price controls. It doesn't fucking work, because different areas have different fair-market values.
Ah, yes, comrade.
With our new price controls, we will eliminate all overcharging in that pesky capitalist market.
So how is it a handout?
Quite simple. It federally enforces local municipalities to sell use of public land for under fair-market value for that locale.
Who do you *think* that benefits? The consumer? You think your service bill is going to go down?
Municipalities will make $270 per cell per year.
That's probably wonderful for some places. Certainly you recognize that there is a difference in fair market values in locations with median incomes of 32k/year/family vs. places with median incomes of 75k/year/family. You'd mandate the richest economies sell their public assets- with access to *millions* of people, for the price Harrison, Arkansas gets serving their few thousand?
You'd support federally mandating that rich ass cities try to pay their bills like small shithole towns?
Put that on a telephone pole (rather, allow a 5G provider to pay for their own people to put it on a pole and maintain their equipment) and make $270 per year.
It's my pole, not yours. Why are you trying to tell me how much it's worth?
Given that a telephone pole runs about $3000 [dailyherald.com]
Good god, you can't think that price is uniform across the country... You can't. Right? Poles are erected under contract; contractors charge fair market value for an area; fair market value for an area is dependent upon many factors, including income and cost of living in the area.
that means the city is paid to replace each pole so used every 11 years if they like.
Perhaps that is even true for some magical "average" city in America (what is that... 10k people?)
But even if it is, again, it's their fucking pole. They can replace it on whatever schedule the voters in that city deem important. Maybe the people of Harrison, AR love bent nasty poles. The people of Bellevue, WA probably want some fancy ass poles. They go better with their 10 million dollar houses. What gives you the fucking right?
Now, since poles tend to last a LOT longer than that, it means those people putting the 5G cells on the poles (at their own expense, mind you) will effectively pay for 5 pole replacements on average.
All this math is based on some stupid average number you dredged from the internet, and beyond that still- it's fucking irrelevant. The federal government should not have a say in what my public right-of-way is worth. It doesn't make sense for it to.
And this also means that municipalities cannot keep 5G infrastructure out from their domain via insanely high rental prices.
Yes, because affluent cities are known for their limited new services. I'm looking at an LTE coverage map right now, and it's weird, but it appears at cursory glance to be really concentrated around rich ass big cities. Places with high prices of living and high incomes. Places with expensive fucking utility poles.
Or should we just say that wireless communications should be left at 2G/analog and screw anything else?
Don't know where you live, and frankly, I don't fucking care. Being fortunate to live in a big city, I've had every major new service as soon as it came out. I guess it's just one of the cool benefits I get from paying more in taxes. You're free to do it however you like in your area. But since I'm the one with LTE, and you're the one worried about 2G and analog, perhaps we should fairly evaluate who's ideas are working better.
End of the day- a tower here serves vastly more people than the average city in the US. However we choose to charge corporations using public land to provide services for our people to support our high standard of living is our own business. Not yours. You're free to move here and vote otherwise, of course.
For $250 you could probably buy a whole house in some parts of the country.
I totally understand that. Which is just *another* argument for sub-federal governments exercising *their right* to govern *their* public land right-of-way.
But for the areas where $250 truly is too cheap for a small area, they can charge more - from the summary:
Yes... from the summary-
Cities that charge more than that would likely face litigation from carriers
Allow me to paraphrase: "Charge us fair-market value for your locality, and be prepared to defend it in court. By the way, our legal budget is more than yours. By a fucking lot."
If a fee is a reasonable approximation of costs then they can charge extra for that location. It just prevents locales from jacking up prices 10x what they are worth if you were renting the space for anything else.
As determined by *who*?
If a carrier pays 10x what you consider it to be worth, then you are in fact the one who is mistaken by virtue of the carrier paying the money, period, all stop.
Federal law is being used to price-fix. There is no avoiding that reality, but there sure are a lot of people trying to dress it up as something else.
How is that unreasonable?
I'm pretty sure I explained how that was unreasonable. You can't fault me if you didn't read it.
It seems to be you contorting your own understanding of what is actually occurring
Your read comprehension problem is now me contorting my own understanding?
not unusually for those driven purely by hate.
In no way am I driven by hate.
I'm pretty unsurprised however, given your complete lack of an argument, that you'd try to portray it as such.
within reasonable limits
Reasonable limit as decided by the FCC.
Look at those prices. I couldn't rent a 2x2 spot on the roof of a building here for that *per month*.
It's as if local economies don't exist. Or Federalism. The mental gymnastics of the Republicans trying to cope with the cognitive dissonance of their elected government being as bad as their scariest liberal boogyman government is fascinating to watch.
And if this were an attempt to head off municipalities attempting to charge carriers for their use of public airwaves, you'd have a point, and me as a supporter of your point.
But that isn't what this is, and you know that.
This is a handout from the FCC to the industry it regulates at the behest of the people who elect their local leaders to make decisions for their local municipalities.
Gymnastics are a lot funner when they're physical. Give the mental ones a rest.
Wait, WTF?
Now Trump-tards are in favor of the Federal Government telling local municipalities how much their right-of-way is worth?
Does your brain ever just fucking hurt from your ideological cross-dressing?
amdgpu is pretty awesome these days. Works out of the box, and performance is respectable. My only complaint is the required DRI_PRIME=1 for using the AMD GPU in hybrid IGP+discrete setups.
My desktop has an nVidia + Intel IGP, and in the nVidia driver control app, I can just set it to just use the nVidia all the time.
To anyone using amdgpu on a debian derivative- I recommend oibaf's daily Mesa builds. It contains the most recent drivers, and it really makes a difference.
especially with Vulkan, where it outperforms nVidia
In performance per dollar, very solidly. In raw performance, the 1080Ti is still king by a very large margin, even in Vulkan applications.
Perhaps Vega APU doesn't have HBCC, but HBCC is a feature on dedicated GPUs to deal with two memory pools (including the system memory).
Kind of... More accurately, it's a controller that turns dedicated VRAM into a gigantic cache for system memory.
Real Vega APU like the Ryzen 2200 has only one physical memory pool.
That is true.
Tests show that you can set this reserved RAM at the lowest setting and still get adequate 3D performance (but maybe a few % slower than if set at 2GB) so this is managed adequately anyway.
Of course there's little change- "VRAM" and "System" RAM are the same. The partitioning is virtual.
GPU and CPU can shared a single memory space.
They can, but they must communicate over a bus. In this instance, it's the PCIe bus, and while it's one peppy bus, it's not a silly-wide local data bus.
That's a significant feature.
It's a significant cost-saving exercise... Which should be lauded as such, but let's not try to pretend it has some kind of performance benefit.
System RAM is slow, talking over a slower bus.
There is a reason discrete GPUs have dedicated VRAM.
I love jealous, children. ;)
Maybe if you're a good boy, mommy will purchase you a new Vega 11 that's slower than the Vega M.
Probably not though. You don't sound like you come from money, or class, or even a household with a generous disposition
No, child. Vega is an architecture.
Educate yourself, kiddo.
Oh god, lol.
I can't believe that was your argument.
No, you're right. 2 / 5 makes it no longer a football field.
But 3 / 5? Definitely football field.
I think you should read this.
It was well known that the Vega in the Kaby Lake-G parts was some kind of Polaris Hybrid. Nobody fooled anyone. And the Vegas in the AMD APUs are some kind of neutered Vega with Polaris memory buses. I knew this when I bought the laptop. As did anyone who did their homework.
Was there some kind of point you were trying to make, anyway? Because I really don't think you did anything other than make yourself look stupid.
One more time, in case you're just a little thick instead of terminally stupid: No APU on the market fits the AMD whitepaper description of "Vega". But AMD calls them all Vegas, so I guess we will too.
AMDs own admittance they they are not actual VEGA GPUs.
Also, you made that up, lol. Making shit up always does your argument good. No, really.