I have to agree, but it's too bad in some ways, IMO.
I used to get so much joy programming the metal or tinkering with the assembly that came out of the compiler.
Doing that is still possible, but it doesn't pay the bills.
The dream of abstraction is a bit of a nightmare for those that like to get into the guts of the machine.
GPU programming is another example, though Mantle allows the programmer to get a bit closer to the hardware.
Christianity = everyone encouraged to help the less fortunate and free to decide who is less fortunate
Care to cite where the Bible tells people to only help the deserving poor?
Yet in even some of the poorest countries you can get 20Mbit connections with no cap for less money than you pay in the US.
Citation, please, because Akamai's State of the Internet mostly disagrees with you.
But I'd take this in a heartbeat over an AMD counterpart. The maxwell chips are leagues ahead of anything AMD's got.
WIth one exception: the R9 280x when used for DP floating point compute.
For about $250 you can get an R9 280x that in one second will do one trillion double precision floating point operations. That's about 10x faster than the Maxwell cards.
With such a card AMD should have had the scientist/engineer space for GPGPU locked up by now.
But, you know, they're AMD, so...
Personally I love the GTX 750. It gives the biggest bang-for-the-buck and running at about 55 watts max or so it usually doesn't require a larger power supply. It can run completely off motherboard power going to a 16-lane 75 watt PCIe slot.
It's the perfect card for rescuing old systems from obsolescence, IMO.
The only trouble you might have is finding a single-slot-wide card if your system doesn't have room for a double slot card, though in my case I found a double-slot card that I could modify to fit in a single-slot of an old Core 2 Duo E8500 system.
And heat doesn't seem to be a problem at all, even with the mod I did. The low power of the card means less heat. Even if heat becomes a problem, the card is capable of slowly clocking itself down, though I've never seen that yet, even running Furmark.
It's more that the clock reflects the current global political climate.
Ie when Pakistan and India, both nuclear powers, are duking it out, the clock goes closer to midnight.
I strongly suspect that the announcement is due to strong rhetoric from russian leadership - I believe recently either Putin or one of his lackeys declared that they could "raze" the US. There's also been increasingly aggressive "patrols" by Russian bombers along the US and Europe, the recent sub incident in Sweden, and of course the invasion of Ukraine.
Sub freezing temperatures aren't necessary.
In the UK, for example, for every one degree drop in temperature below 18C, deaths in the UK go up 1.5%. The risk of heart attack and stroke seem to increase with dropping temperatures.
And in the USA, the mortality rate is highest in January.
Vietnam shows a similar pattern.
Holder’s order applies only to “adoption,” which happens when a state or local agency seizes property on its own and then asks the Justice Department to pursue forfeiture under federal law. “Over the last six years,” the DOJ says in the press release announcing Holder’s new policy, “adoptions accounted for roughly three percent of the value of forfeitures in the Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture Program.” By comparison, the program’s reports to Congress indicate that “equitable sharing” payments to state and local agencies accounted for about 22 percent of total deposits during those six years. That means adoptions, which the DOJ says represented about 3 percent of deposits, accounted for less than 14 percent of equitable sharing. In other words, something like 86 percent of the loot that state and local law enforcement agencies receive through federal forfeitures will be unaffected by Holder’s new policy.
The story also notes how the press, especially the Washington Post which led with this story, teamed up with Holder to overstate the impact Holder’s order would have.
You do realize why that is, right?
Hint: where does the FSF get the majority of its funding from?
There is an unspoken assumption by abusers that the abusive way they're treating people is normal and that it's just that the person complaining is "too sensitive."
This is literally another form of abuse in and of itself. It's called minimizing.
Linus is playing the "people want me to be PC" card, and mixing it in with some anti-American-ism for popularity.
Nobody's asking him to be PC. Not many people are asking him to be friendly or polite. People are asking him to not be publicly abusive, to not be a bully, and to recognize the impact his words have on others. It is perfectly possible to be an effective manager and leader without being abusive and bullying. Stick to the facts, among other things.
Ie:
"Your code check-in appears to cause a bunch of compile errors, so I've rolled it back. Also, I've noticed that this isn't the first time. We're a large-scale project and it is helpful if contributors extensively validate their contributions."
Not:
"Don't you know how to validate your code? Stop wasting my time! Come back to me when you've evolved past a chimpanzee."
"Hello! Thank you for your code check-in! Now, I'm sorry to have to be the bearer of bad news, but there's a small problem with your code. If it's not too much trouble...." etc etc.
The Win16 thing is hilarious given that you can run Win16 under WINE on 64-bit Linux. The processors are perfectly compatible with 16-bit protected mode code in 64-bit mode, it's just Windows that isn't.
The problem is that too many people think "science" is whatever a person credentialed by some authority professes.
That's wrong.
"Science" is more properly a way of thinking. A "scientist" should be anyone willing to put the evidence offered by reality above intuitions, guesses, dogma, culture, and any other authority while also being open-minded to all possible explanations consistent with reality. It's a skepticism, even skepticism of one's own theories -- "a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty" as Feynman put it.
Sometimes even credentialed scientists forget that.
What is that "better" program? Probably the professional version of TaxAct. Hard to think that there is any software developer more into the details of the tax code than the ones that build the software that does 10s of millions of returns, namely TurboTax and TaxAct.
Those who can, do; those who can't, write. Those who can't write work for the Bell Labs Record.
