Comment Re:We can only hope... (Score 0) 227
What could the system possibly be doing while I sit there thinking about what I want to move next?
What could the system possibly be doing while I sit there thinking about what I want to move next?
Mind you I am not even saying that such acitivites will be eliminated, but curbed a little bit.
Riiight... thats exactly how a global governance will operate.
There haven't been changes in the sun or in volcanic eruptions that are sufficient to account for the temperature trend.
The models also fail to account for the temperature trend (where or where did the predicted heat go?)
This is why you shouldnt be in bed with the modelers. But we see that you actually are...
Not data that contradicts his beliefs, I don't think.
No he clearly intended to "kill file" any site that contradicted his beliefs. he stated it quite clearly. if he meant something else then he should have said something else. But this is common with the AGW side of things
It will be slower and/or consume more energy than an Intel version
Unlikely at the same total price point. That only happens in the $300+ area of the desktop space.
The price of the Atoms people are comparing the E-series with doesn't include a GPU for the Atom... as if GPU's are magically free... dont use energy... conveniently ignored for the purpose of cheering on... shitty Atoms?
The 8088 had an 8 bit external bus
bus width
address lines
fastest word size
Which one of these has never been used to define the bitness of a machine? Yes, its the one you are using.
Anyone with a triple channel i7 has a 192-bit desktop right now (thats the width of the data bus of first gen i7's) according to your idea of what machines a machine 8-bit...
no IBM PC was ever 8-bit.. never.. they started with a 16-bit word size and 20-bit addresses.. some might argue they were 20-bit, but its pretty well accepted that 16 is the right description while 20 is the wrong description.
8 isnt even wrong, its just retarded... something someone could only think was right if they didnt know fucking anything at all about what they are talking about... thats you.. and you know it.. so why are you talking? You know you certainly shouldnt be pretending to be knowledgeable.. so why are you doing it?
Yes, but he is clearly writing for people who grew up professionally with the x86.
There was never an 8-bit x86, and that includes the 8088.
Depends on your definition of 8-bits. The 8088 in the original IBM PC had an external 8 bit data bus, unlike the 8086.
The size of the data bus has never mattered wrt low level programming, and everyone who was ever involved in said low lever programming knows that, meaning that you are not included in that group. Conveniently you became an anonymous coward to defend yourself with even more ignorance. Idiot.
The size of the address bus was 20-bits on both 8088 and 8086. Thats much wider than we see here in your last ditch effort to label these are 8-bit processors. Idiot.
Guess that means you are at least partially retarded.
Nope, it means that you dont know what matters and what does not. Idiot.
You are a retarded idiot. The author states right at the beginning of the article that he's focusing on x86. In the (late) 80s, most people had an IBM PC, if they had anything.
That's because the perfect strategy is suboptimal.
Consider a chess engine that sees that it will be mated in 13 moves, and that the only reason its 13 moves and not 12 moves is because it can sacrifice its queen right now delaying the mate by 1 additional move.
The minimax strategy is to play the queen sacrifice, but in practice that just increases the likelihood of a loss because all opponents now have an easy win, not just those that see these mates.
Now poker isnt a 2 player game, so the effects of collusion are to be considered. Clearly against players who are colluding the perfect strategy is a losing strategy (that maybe just happens to minimize the losses.) Note that even when your opponents are not colluding, that does not mean that the decisions that they are making aren't equivalent to players who are colluding (colluders would bet and raise here, and so coincidentally are these fools you are playing again), ergo the perfect 3+ payers strategy is almost certainly a losing strategy.
Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.
