Comment Re:1973... (Score 3, Insightful) 72
Star Wars took place long, long time ago. So what is this 1973 you are talking about?
Wrooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong.
The quote is "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away....".
Star Wars took place long, long time ago. So what is this 1973 you are talking about?
Wrooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong.
The quote is "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away....".
The top 3 pieces of advice, ever:
3: Think about what you want to do before you do it.
2: Use the proper tool for the job.
1: Floss.
That link talks about 11.5, makes claims with no evidence, and admits to using the ICC compiler.
We KNOW the ICC compiler is rigged. http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...
Here's one where the cheating was exposed when leaked benches for new Macs surfaced before Cinebench had been updated to take them into account.
http://www.tomshardware.com/re...
Those scores require a bit of context, though. The 32-bit build of Geekbench uses x87 code, for starters, so it isn’t optimized for any of the other instruction set extensions that Westmere-EP or Ivy Bridge-EP support. Getting close to Apple’s claim of doubled floating-point performance requires software compiled with the AVX flag. John Poole, the founder of Geekbench, posted several other reasons why the next-gen and previous-gen Mac Pros might be separated by such a narrow margin.
The leaked result was run using the free 32-bit build of Geekbench on a pre-release build of OS X Mavericks. Switching over to the paid 64-bit build of the benchmark adds SSE support, though that’s still a pre-Pentium 4 extension. Tab between the 32- and 64-bit runs on Xeon X5675-based systems and you’ll find that the SSE-capable build averages 14%-better performance.
Curious as to how the very same 12-core Xeon E5-2687 V2 compared in Windows, I ran my own test on a 64-bit build of Geekbench and scored in excess of 30,000 points—more than 25% faster than the leaked number. The individual sub-tests showed both Xeon E5-based platforms trading blows in the integer and floating-point components, but clearly a more real-world comparison was needed in order to establish the new Xeon’s performance in a workstation environment. Fortunately, I have the upcoming Xeon E5-2697 V2, the upcoming Core i7-4960X, an existing eight-core Xeon E5-2687W, and a Core i7-3970X.
This kind of thing isn't exactly a revelation. Benchmarks have been tainted by Intel and the ICC for ages. The real problem is that a lot of actual software is as well, so in the end the artificially-gimped performance reflected in the benchmarks translates to actual usage. Even among fairly-compiled programs Intel's parts typically maintain an IPC advantage, but it's no where near to a degree that would justify the cost difference. Add in nVidia's moneyhatting and gameworks bullshit, and you've got AMD taking it from both ends. This sort of thing should piss you off regardless of what brand you prefer because it stifles competition, increases prices, and retards progress.
The button is bloat. It bloats the UI by default. It bloats the overall package.
The code to insert the button into the UI by default is bloat.
The code to pop up a message telling people how great it is is bloat.
The code to support the standard is bloat.
The "standard" itself is bloat.
I want a build of Firefox without this shit or any of the shitty recent additions like it. Disabling it (or however much of it you can) isn't a fix because it's still resident, still takes up storage space, still needs to be updated when there are security issues, still wastes time and money in development, etc.
They don't fucking understand what people liked about Firefox.
Hint: Fast, flexible, extensible, lean, secure, reliable.
Over the past few years it's gotten relatively slower, less flexible, fatter, less secure (largely as a result of all the new insecure bloaty shit they add in), and less reliable.
Hell, just last month I had to do a complete wipe of Firefox because the fucking internal database was broken as shit after some update and the "Awesome Bar" wasn't pulling from any history past the date it broke (even though all the subsequent history entries were present). I can no longer tell Firefox to remember my browsing history but not to remember the download history. I can't tell Firefox to tie into the standard cert store on any OS, making site-wide management a pain in the ass (you have to use their own half-working, half-documented command line tool and maintain a separate copy of all certs) and making trust pinning nearly impossible. I can't do half the shit I used to be able to do with Firefox because some fucking asshat at Mozilla decided that I didn't need to.
It was on my toolbar with an annoying popup as of 35.0.1.
I believe this shit was introduced in the last version. And yes, it's absolutely useless fucking shit that shouldn't be in a fucking browser.
This is NOT the same thing. In fact, it's closer to the exact opposite. Infants are born with still-developing immune systems, and honey contains botulism spores which are capable of germinating in subjects with weak or still-developing immune systems. This is a proven risk that presents itself *every time* an infant eats honey, and there's a ton of downside if the risk is realized. On the other side of the coin, there's absolutely no upside to feeding an infant honey while their immune system is still developing the ability attack these spores.
False. Infants like honey. There's you upside.
Why hold off on cow's milk? Granted that human breast milk is better for human children, but lots of us were raised on cow's milk (frex, I was adopted as an infant) and there did not seem to be a plague stalking us other than polio, for which they were just coming out with the Sabin and Salk vaccines. UNPASTEURIZED milk, I could understand, but it is illegal to buy that in the USA, except commercially to pasteurize and resell.
Why? Because people are idiots.
There really is no other reason.
Hire humans to build more hardware. Make robots to build more hardware. Build spacecraft when the Earth has been completely mined of its resources and start mining on other planets. Architect more efficient hardware and algorithms and recycle old hardware.... The limits we think we know are very often a product of limited imagination, and not intrinsic to the physical world.
Long before any of that, it would realize that there's no fucking point to anything its doing.
It's about transistor count.
Go fucking look it the fuck up.
I think the bigger problem is, what happens when we reach the long-tail of process development, and demand tapers off to the point they can't fund further R&D?
IE: Systems are "good enough" and people go from buying one every 3 years to "only when they break". That could be 10+ years.
I suppose Intel would just follow the carrot to the next profitable market like they are pushing Atom CPUs lately?
Design them to be replaced every 3 years.
Servers are designed for a 5 year replacement cycle.
Desktops are designed for a 3-5 year replacement cycle.
Laptops are designed for a 3 year replacement cycle.
Tablets are designed for a 2 year replacement cycle (and they're going the way of phones).
Phones are designed for a 1 year replacement cycle (down from 2 years only recently).
This extends to nearly everything tech-related. They're trying to push TVs to a 3 year replacement cycle, they've got printers down to 3 years or less, they're trying to get fridges and other major appliances down to 5 or less (they're currently at 10, down from the 20-30 they used to be). Cars have been on a 3 year cycle for idiots for ages (36 month lease rolling into a new 36 month lease on a new vehicle).
Whether that design involves failure of the device, lack of support/updates, pushed updates to make the device run worse, etc. doesn't matter. The industry is built on planned obsolescence. It's not rare to see someone using a device past its intended replacement cycle, but shit is designed to get people onto a purchase cycle.
And you are just too stupid to form complete sentences.
This was a lot of years ago. Things weren't as tightly controlled back then. '386 days...
The 386 debuted in 1985 (the beginning of the "'386 days").
The 486 debuted in 1989 (the end of the "'386 days").
You claimed that you were looking at hardware that was up to 10-15 years ahead in terms of performance and capability.
That means you saw the equivalent of 1995-2000 level hardware in 1985, 1999-2004 level hardware in 1989, or any corresponding range in the years between.
The Pentium 4 was released in 2000.
Care to revise your bullshit claim?
They've decided to hit 7nm and then call it a day.
I asked Gordon Moore about this and he said it would be illegal.
I'm really fucking tired of people referencing Moore's Law incorrectly.
Moore's Law is only about the number of transistors doubling every 2 years.
I'm also really fucking tired of people saying "The goggles! They do nothing!" when the quote is "My eyes! The goggles do nothing!".
"Ninety percent of baseball is half mental." -- Yogi Berra
