Right, but most of the other data is text or video (sequences of images).
You could also have audio data. But you would know you wanted to back it up. The vast majority of audio data on a computer these days doesn't even need to be backed up.
The point is, the stuff a person intentionally saved in their home directory needs to be backed up. The rest of the computer probably doesn't. Maybe it does. But it probably doesn't.
I prefer not to take a position yet when I know I don't have any new data.
I'd also want to look at some 5, 10, and 20 years charts before I decided if the 18 month or 2 year change provided any sort of predictive capability.
For example, if you look at the history of the stock market, you can see certain patterns. But if you look at the gold market, there were similar patterns in the past, but then around the year 2000 the last major countries with strategic gold stockpiles sold them down, and the gold market has been unhinged from past patterns since then. It is floating around, but there is no way from the pattern to know what the cycles would be now, what the highs or lows of the swings should be, etc. In the past the low end of the cycles was the industrial value, but without any strategic stockpiles it isn't as well-anchored, and trade volumes drop without prices getting low.
So they talk about the price in the future, but the sources of information are biased and they're not motivated by a desire to give me useful data. So I want to see data that would logically support the idea that there is a pattern similar to the stock market, with understandable cycles, and not like the gold market, where the cycles are currently unknown or in transition. In the past the supply has been dominated by various tricks and gimmicks. If companies said that consumer prices were going to drop, and their own stock prices went way down as a result, I'd believe it. If they say that prices will come down, but their stocks don't move, then nothing happened; there is no news, just a new press release. The only part that is potentially new is the claim that Samsung might "hesitate" to bring online the new capacity they're almost done building out. So the only new thing in the story contradicts that the prediction the story makes will actually come to pass.
Watching movies not only doesn't require high-end hardware, it doesn't even require hardware built within the past 10 years.
Even 10 years ago, watching a DVD used almost no system resources, and didn't require shutting down other programs. You could recompile a linux kernel, and watch DVDs. At the same time.
And yes, I do put surface mount technology next to through-hole, wtf are you talking about? (Don't use acronyms you didn't introduce)
And yes, if games required a $1000 CPU, they would not be a mainstream market. They are a large mainstream market precisely because regular computers play games just fine; even a regular computer that is a few years old, plays games just fine.
Personally, I'd hope that I'd be able to either spend a bunch of time writing optimized code for bare metal, or else implement algorithms quickly using a high level language, as the use case dictates.
The embarrassingly horrible part was only where he claimed that the programmer needs the code to run on powerful hardware in order to meet a "time equals money" type of argument. Whose time equals money? The CPU's time? Or the programmers? And if the solution needed to be performant, would that normally be done with a faster processor, or by horizontal scaling? Somebody who wants a faster processor is putting a very hard upper cap on how fast the solution can run! Whereas using modern scaling methods, the same code can run on a faster processor while you have one, or be distributed when it outgrows the training wheels.
Pretty much the only time where you can't increase performance by horizontal scaling is when you need to go bare metal, and the solution with the lowest latency might be an 8 bit microcontroller that actually has low total throughput.
You'd have to be exceptionally ignorant to think that the source of "words" in the English language is "social acceptance."
And blah-blah-blah, who the fuck cares if the words would have "gratuitous mental load on your listeners?" What is your authority for that being something substantive in relation to the system for knowing what words are "real" English words?
You have to actually understand where English words come from first, before you can enter this conversation in a meaningful way. Otherwise it is blah-blah-blah, just making up sounds. It doesn't help that they're all real words, it is still just sounds because the context is just making shit up without understanding enough about the history of words to even know that different languages use different systems for establishing words, and that there are experts who study how it is done in each language. Original ideas on the topic are not useful unless you learn enough about the subject to know if your ideas are close to original, or just ignore the "101 level" stuff that you're supposed to know.
If the listener doesn't understand, that does not imply that words were misused. If the speaker sounds like an "idiot" to you, while at the same time attempting to understand their words causes an excessive mental load on you, perhaps you should reconsider you basic vocabulary, maybe even look up the word "idiot."
decNumber as defined by the Unicode standard, IEEE 754, and ANSI C all include Infinity and -Infinity when working with decimal floats.
The reason you don't have infinity as a discrete type of NaN is that you're using binary arithmetic. You can't even touch numbers that have to do with money using that shit.
This is why banks are still using COBOL; it only supports decimal arithmetic, so clever sorts can't screw up the rounding as easily.
GCC can handle some of it directly, but for full support I recommend using decNumber package by IBM that is distributed with ICU (unicode) distribution. There is a Ruby binding that embeds that one. In Go the most complete implementation is https://github.com/cockroachdb... . They have it in Java, too.
A lot of people don't understand that when they go to the parts counter at most auto dealers, the company that sold the car isn't who made those parts. And since they're not the manufacturer, they don't have the same sort of liability. Of course they're happy to sell you those parts. And many of the parts are not the stock part, but a qualified replacement part that was totally designed and built by a 3rd party with no involvement by the auto brand other than testing it at the end to qualify it as a replacement.
Tesla doesn't have all that supply infrastructure, that takes decades of operations to develop. They also make way more of the parts themselves, and where they're using suppliers, those suppliers are more likely to be making a "custom part" rather than a pre-designed part built to a certain specification, and so there are differences in liability.
People who don't like it should focus on the future and getting Tesla to agree to be more open as their supply chain matures, instead of just whining that a new company doesn't already do all the good things possible to eventually do.
If you had actually been following the issue, you'd know that third parties would be providing parts and repairs in your doomsday scenario; not exactly a doomsday.
Your tale of woe doesn't line up at all with the part where you point to an authority for information. The information contradicts your story.
Well, in the olden days some of us didn't like buying BIOS chips, and updates weren't always user-installable. So some of us went to a local electronics store, and if you bought a blank EEPROM of the correct size and pinout they'd be happy to copy the firmware off of a real BIOS chip they had laying around. It would work great, but it wasn't even the same brand of ROM, it wouldn't have had the stock secret circuit. And it wouldn't have been sold in a supply chain that expected it to end up as a BIOS chip.
And if you replaced the ROM in a many brands of 14.4 or 28.8 modems you could upgrade them to 56.6. That only cost ~$15, instead of $100+ for a new external modem.
You're right in general, of course. And with RISC-V even if you implement it on an FPGA, how do you know what the FPGA is "really" doing?
I think the most common computer at a Warlord's base is going to be the Toyota ECM. Without that, your technicals won't have good traction control or extreme weather performance.
Sometimes it does. Intel is compelled to license some of their patents to AMD by the DoJ as part of an anti-trust consent decree.
You didn't understand the word "consent" in "consent decree." That means it is a contract between DoJ and Intel. It isn't something they were compelled to do; it is something they agreed to do to prevent being compelled to do things, potentially more or different things than the things they were allowed to agree to do.
Intel isn't going to drop Hypthreading on all its parts, or AMD will happily kick their tail with its superior SMT implementation.
Doubtful. Increasing cores experiences diminishing returns. The difference between 8 cores and 8 cores + HT may be quite minimal except in very rare instances.
Those rare instances tend to the be ones you care about, like compiling or video encoding. If you don't care about performance then by all means accept a wimpy processor, it's right for you.
No, only people with giant bushy neckbeards care about those things these days, for everybody else it is fast enough. Video encoding doesn't need to be fast for normal use cases. And slow compilation isn't really improved by a faster CPU; everybody else who has to compile it will still complain about your sucky code and insufficient build system, if it is actually slow in a use case where that matters.
It isn't actually banned in California, but since they don't have a caste of untouchables who can disappear into the plant without any questions asked, how would you obtain the necessary ingredients for manufacture?!
Slashdot Mirror
Why not just run a hose from Earth to Mars and pump out our excess CO2? Win-win!
Good idea, now draw us a sketch of the pressure seal.
Why are you claiming not to know that OOP is a perspective, not a language feature? It makes you embarrassingly ignorant.
Right, but most of the other data is text or video (sequences of images).
You could also have audio data. But you would know you wanted to back it up. The vast majority of audio data on a computer these days doesn't even need to be backed up.
The point is, the stuff a person intentionally saved in their home directory needs to be backed up. The rest of the computer probably doesn't. Maybe it does. But it probably doesn't.
You just whooshed yourself.
I'm holding out for Browser McBrowserface.
I prefer not to take a position yet when I know I don't have any new data.
I'd also want to look at some 5, 10, and 20 years charts before I decided if the 18 month or 2 year change provided any sort of predictive capability.
For example, if you look at the history of the stock market, you can see certain patterns. But if you look at the gold market, there were similar patterns in the past, but then around the year 2000 the last major countries with strategic gold stockpiles sold them down, and the gold market has been unhinged from past patterns since then. It is floating around, but there is no way from the pattern to know what the cycles would be now, what the highs or lows of the swings should be, etc. In the past the low end of the cycles was the industrial value, but without any strategic stockpiles it isn't as well-anchored, and trade volumes drop without prices getting low.
So they talk about the price in the future, but the sources of information are biased and they're not motivated by a desire to give me useful data. So I want to see data that would logically support the idea that there is a pattern similar to the stock market, with understandable cycles, and not like the gold market, where the cycles are currently unknown or in transition. In the past the supply has been dominated by various tricks and gimmicks. If companies said that consumer prices were going to drop, and their own stock prices went way down as a result, I'd believe it. If they say that prices will come down, but their stocks don't move, then nothing happened; there is no news, just a new press release. The only part that is potentially new is the claim that Samsung might "hesitate" to bring online the new capacity they're almost done building out. So the only new thing in the story contradicts that the prediction the story makes will actually come to pass.
Watching movies not only doesn't require high-end hardware, it doesn't even require hardware built within the past 10 years.
Even 10 years ago, watching a DVD used almost no system resources, and didn't require shutting down other programs. You could recompile a linux kernel, and watch DVDs. At the same time.
And yes, I do put surface mount technology next to through-hole, wtf are you talking about? (Don't use acronyms you didn't introduce)
And yes, if games required a $1000 CPU, they would not be a mainstream market. They are a large mainstream market precisely because regular computers play games just fine; even a regular computer that is a few years old, plays games just fine.
Personally, I'd hope that I'd be able to either spend a bunch of time writing optimized code for bare metal, or else implement algorithms quickly using a high level language, as the use case dictates.
The embarrassingly horrible part was only where he claimed that the programmer needs the code to run on powerful hardware in order to meet a "time equals money" type of argument. Whose time equals money? The CPU's time? Or the programmers? And if the solution needed to be performant, would that normally be done with a faster processor, or by horizontal scaling? Somebody who wants a faster processor is putting a very hard upper cap on how fast the solution can run! Whereas using modern scaling methods, the same code can run on a faster processor while you have one, or be distributed when it outgrows the training wheels.
Pretty much the only time where you can't increase performance by horizontal scaling is when you need to go bare metal, and the solution with the lowest latency might be an 8 bit microcontroller that actually has low total throughput.
People who write code, don't write it faster or slower if it is going to run on a faster or slower piece of hardware. That is daft.
You don't even realize you called your own bluff! *ROFLCOPTER*
Is this the 1970s and people only know how to scale vertically? Give me a break.
You'd have to be exceptionally ignorant to think that the source of "words" in the English language is "social acceptance."
And blah-blah-blah, who the fuck cares if the words would have "gratuitous mental load on your listeners?" What is your authority for that being something substantive in relation to the system for knowing what words are "real" English words?
You have to actually understand where English words come from first, before you can enter this conversation in a meaningful way. Otherwise it is blah-blah-blah, just making up sounds. It doesn't help that they're all real words, it is still just sounds because the context is just making shit up without understanding enough about the history of words to even know that different languages use different systems for establishing words, and that there are experts who study how it is done in each language. Original ideas on the topic are not useful unless you learn enough about the subject to know if your ideas are close to original, or just ignore the "101 level" stuff that you're supposed to know.
If the listener doesn't understand, that does not imply that words were misused. If the speaker sounds like an "idiot" to you, while at the same time attempting to understand their words causes an excessive mental load on you, perhaps you should reconsider you basic vocabulary, maybe even look up the word "idiot."
That is exactly, literally, what I said.
decNumber as defined by the Unicode standard, IEEE 754, and ANSI C all include Infinity and -Infinity when working with decimal floats.
The reason you don't have infinity as a discrete type of NaN is that you're using binary arithmetic. You can't even touch numbers that have to do with money using that shit.
This is why banks are still using COBOL; it only supports decimal arithmetic, so clever sorts can't screw up the rounding as easily.
GCC can handle some of it directly, but for full support I recommend using decNumber package by IBM that is distributed with ICU (unicode) distribution. There is a Ruby binding that embeds that one. In Go the most complete implementation is https://github.com/cockroachdb... . They have it in Java, too.
That is BS. Do you think Ford makes all the parts for their cars?
Replying drunk, I presume? LOL
Manufacturers have significant liability.
A lot of people don't understand that when they go to the parts counter at most auto dealers, the company that sold the car isn't who made those parts. And since they're not the manufacturer, they don't have the same sort of liability. Of course they're happy to sell you those parts. And many of the parts are not the stock part, but a qualified replacement part that was totally designed and built by a 3rd party with no involvement by the auto brand other than testing it at the end to qualify it as a replacement.
Tesla doesn't have all that supply infrastructure, that takes decades of operations to develop. They also make way more of the parts themselves, and where they're using suppliers, those suppliers are more likely to be making a "custom part" rather than a pre-designed part built to a certain specification, and so there are differences in liability.
People who don't like it should focus on the future and getting Tesla to agree to be more open as their supply chain matures, instead of just whining that a new company doesn't already do all the good things possible to eventually do.
If you had actually been following the issue, you'd know that third parties would be providing parts and repairs in your doomsday scenario; not exactly a doomsday.
Your tale of woe doesn't line up at all with the part where you point to an authority for information. The information contradicts your story.
Shorter you: "The world isn't perfect, so don't take any steps to improve anything. (Because the cheaters were on my side, so ha-ha)"
Not impressed.
Well, in the olden days some of us didn't like buying BIOS chips, and updates weren't always user-installable. So some of us went to a local electronics store, and if you bought a blank EEPROM of the correct size and pinout they'd be happy to copy the firmware off of a real BIOS chip they had laying around. It would work great, but it wasn't even the same brand of ROM, it wouldn't have had the stock secret circuit. And it wouldn't have been sold in a supply chain that expected it to end up as a BIOS chip.
And if you replaced the ROM in a many brands of 14.4 or 28.8 modems you could upgrade them to 56.6. That only cost ~$15, instead of $100+ for a new external modem.
You're right in general, of course. And with RISC-V even if you implement it on an FPGA, how do you know what the FPGA is "really" doing?
He said he's drunk, can't you even read?!
I think the most common computer at a Warlord's base is going to be the Toyota ECM. Without that, your technicals won't have good traction control or extreme weather performance.
but it does not work that way for patents.
Sometimes it does. Intel is compelled to license some of their patents to AMD by the DoJ as part of an anti-trust consent decree.
You didn't understand the word "consent" in "consent decree." That means it is a contract between DoJ and Intel. It isn't something they were compelled to do; it is something they agreed to do to prevent being compelled to do things, potentially more or different things than the things they were allowed to agree to do.
Uh, then why do you think you're a "cool kid?"
Not the people in places with good transit. In those places, people vote on the taxes, earmark them for transit, and businesses support it.
Intel isn't going to drop Hypthreading on all its parts, or AMD will happily kick their tail with its superior SMT implementation.
Doubtful. Increasing cores experiences diminishing returns. The difference between 8 cores and 8 cores + HT may be quite minimal except in very rare instances.
Those rare instances tend to the be ones you care about, like compiling or video encoding. If you don't care about performance then by all means accept a wimpy processor, it's right for you.
No, only people with giant bushy neckbeards care about those things these days, for everybody else it is fast enough. Video encoding doesn't need to be fast for normal use cases. And slow compilation isn't really improved by a faster CPU; everybody else who has to compile it will still complain about your sucky code and insufficient build system, if it is actually slow in a use case where that matters.
It isn't actually banned in California, but since they don't have a caste of untouchables who can disappear into the plant without any questions asked, how would you obtain the necessary ingredients for manufacture?!
I can keep the design simple, whenever the hardware is an 8 bit microcontroller.
32 bits is still safe, as long as I don't have any sort of memory controller and can stay away from the DMA.
Give me Perl, and all hope is lost.