Comment Re:30 years? (Score 1) 629
So hang on, you called his figures crap, then cite some other figures which you show are crap as a reason why his figures are crap? Damn, I've seen some bad arguments, but this...
So hang on, you called his figures crap, then cite some other figures which you show are crap as a reason why his figures are crap? Damn, I've seen some bad arguments, but this...
No, from the very papers you referenced, it has been found that *a single* GMO crop didn't have higher yields than classical crops. You can't extrapolate that to others.
Your generalization is like saying the inline assembler optimizations one programmer performed didn't speed up a program, so inline assembler optimizations can't speed up programs. Which is clearly BS.
'Naturalness', whatever that means too. We've been doing selective breeding on all of our foods for millennia, so I don't consider organic foods to be particularly natural either. Traditional, I'll give them that, but natural? You have to be kidding me.
Or if there is more than everybody could possibly consume, and nobody needed to produce it.
This is why I like robots.
Small form factor business PCs,
Don't need 3D performance. Don't need GPGPU performance in 99% of cases.
Doesn't matter, because it's cheap. Also, CAD and Photoshop *do* use GPGPU these days.
Media center PCs
Plenty fast enough already to play video at 1920x1080.
This should handle 4k video decoding.
low-end Steambox
If you want your games to look like crap.
I think you missed the "low end" part of that quote. Also, it will be really, really cheap compared to something with an additional dGPU. You don't even need PCIe on the motherboard. Not everybody can afford to game at 3x 1080p on high. These should handle 1080p on medium just fine.
Integrating the GPU into the CPU gets the BOM cost down and raises the minimum performance standard.
Because lots of people run 3D games on servers.
Certainly we do use GPUs for some floating-point intensive tasks on servers, but this is nowhere near fast enough to be useful.
These have HUMA. GPGPU-CPU interactions will be much faster than on any previous architecture because not only do they share memory space, they are also cache coherent at a hardware level. It suddenly makes having a whole bunch of FPUs on the graphics card useful for regular old FPU applications, because they can be accessed just as quickly as SSE/x87 FPUs. It makes OpenCL suddenly useful for very small kernels, instead of only being useful for massive data-processing chunks where the parallelisation had to be wide and simple enough to make up for memory copying overhead. TL;DR: I want this on my server, even if just for the stuff like generating graphics and accelerating database hashing. Never mind Folding@home and HPC kind of work.
Seriously, stop being such a downer.
To clarify, if the fuel efficiency of cars increased enough to make driving economical, they would start driving cars instead of riding bicycles.
It is Jevon's Paradox, because if gasoline was too expensive for driving cars they would be riding bicycles. However, if the price of gasoline came down enough they would start driving cars instead.
You probably should have accounted for that in your original snarky comment then.
Which is exactly what the stats say. Tesla's are less than 1/4 as likely to have a fire as gasoline cars (a lot of which are old beaters).
For such an overvalued stock this could be a real thing. Even better is if you do it to somebody else's Tesla. Either that or there's insurance money.
...maybe the car isn't actually the safest car on the planet like Elon claims
A guy went through a cement wall at 100mph, then hit a tree. The car caught fire. News at 11. Oh wait, you mean it was an *electric* car? We're pushing this forward, news at 10. Oh wait, you mean the guy in the car walked away? Damn, slow news day I guess. Hang on, let's just neglect that part. News at 10 it is.
Most gas tanks don't have 1/4" steel plate between them and the road. So far it has a 100% survival rate for passengers in fires, even the guy who went through a cement wall at 100mph. Show me a gas car with those stats.
Basically, fledgling technology isn't quite as safe in its first iteration as 100 year old technology is in it's Nth generation. News at 11.
Your "town of 20k" don't all drive high-performance saloons. Most of them drive old beaters.
Maybe the top of the gas tank is high, but the bottom of the gas tank is just a few inches off the road. What's more likely is, as mentioned above, the Tesla's fancy air-suspension lowers the car at cruising speed to improve efficiency, and this makes it more likely to hit something on the road.
Those are all designed to deal with small high-velocity projectiles. The Tesla battery case also needs to deal with larger 'crush'-type impacts. That Chobham armour doesn't work nearly as well as regular-old-steel-plate when somebody drives a truck over you.
Oh, and $$$. Chobham or boron-carbide faced case-hardened steel would cost more than the car.
Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.
