I hate them all.
'"Shut up you idiotic shitstained spooge gargler" is a more concise translation of "I am done listening".'
Seven words is not more concise than 4... You also don't understand the distinction between personal attacks and technical criticism. I made no distinction about value systems.
I could have ranted for a paragraph about how stupid you are, but it was more efficient to articulate it. Not only that, but pointing out the facts is more efficient time wise than have a name calling session that won't end in anything productive. Two programmers can go back and forth for an hour insulting each other and come to nothing or spend 30 seconds pointing out the technical merits of one approach or another. Where I work discussions are always civil and we go through design change decisions very quickly. Other places I've worked they suffer from bad decisions because they can't communicate decision rational. It has nothing to do with value systems and everything to do with efficient communication.
" so don't tell me people should be understanding of these things. "
I told you those things.
You imply that Linus's comments are technical attacks and not personal attacks. Far from the case. He likes to say things like referring to other developers sucking c***. That's a personal attack, not a technical one. Next time a coworker proposes a solution that you think lacks technical merit, tell him he sucks c*** and see how productive that discussion is.
"No matter how many billions you spend, you're not going to make a Chevette go faster than the speed of light."
You're comparing something that most would say is theoretically impossible, to something that most agree is theoretically possible and has already been achieved on a very small scale(LLNL ignition, of course not at the efficiency tipping point yet).
"The problems are technical"
The problems facing a mission to the moon were also technical, but with extraordinary funding they were able to fast track it by dividing up all the technical problems they faced and tackling them individually.
Fusion has many technical problems that could be tackled independently in parallel. See "When will fusion power my house (or vehicle)?" in the previously linked article. It covers this pretty extensively.
"You can't point at funding as a problem for fusion."
I can and did. The facts provided in the link are pretty compelling.
"..can't point at funding.... The problems are
You contradicted yourself.
"No amount of money will fix that."
You've never heard of this thing called "employment". You have a technical problem, you use money to employ experts in the field that you are having that problem, and they come up with a solution. If that solution requires labor and materials to implement, you then employ some more people.
No or little amount of funding means little meaningful progress. You have some independent researchers working here and there to produce some papers and try to get published, but at some point you've got to coordinate activities and get appropriate amount of effort applied to each technical problem in an organized way:
You can't call BS if your only supporting argument is BS.
That was if it got if a moderate amount of funding. The problem is its never seen the kind of funding needed to put it on a decent schedule:
Oh I should have proof read that, there is some grammar murdering going on there. You get the idea though.
Agreed he should accuse WIFI with no evidence, but at the same time it is not a legitimize test with WIFI in the loop. If he's experience connection issues or measuring performance of his cable connection, then he should do a direct connection to eliminate WIFI since it is very susceptible to many issues that could affect performance. Only then can he point fingers at the cable connection.
It may not have to do with cell lifetime, but it does relate to overall endurance. If their "tricks" are legitimate algorithmic approaches to improving endurance, then the native cell lifetime becomes less of a solid metric to endurance. It would be the analogy to when clock speeds of CPUs became less relevant when manufacturers began focusing on increasing pipeline throughput instead of clock speed.
If a decrease from 20nm to 16nm feature size increases density by 25% and only decreases cell lifetime by 10%, then they will have more than enough new capacity to overprovision for the difference, and if their algorithmic improvements are legitimate, then that mitigates the need for additional over provisioning.
There's alot of "if"s in there of course, because you can't always take such PR at face value.
So if anything 4mbps is 100 * dialup, while car is 10 * foot, so if anything 4mbps is better than a car. It's more like a mach 1 fighter jet.
Avg. sustained running speed for a person is around 8-10 mph unless your an Olympic athlete. Car ~80 mph highway. So my anology holds as Running * 10 == Car. Just thought I'd add that for the mathematically challenged.
"but it's still fairly frustrating"
The fact that you want to do more simultaneous "broadband activities" at a time and 4mbps doesn't provide enough bandwidth for this doesn't mean 4mbps != broadband.
You named some things it's good enough for(wikipedia requires about 5% of that bandwidth, so to imply it is just good enough is a kind of rediculous), but you've not given one concrete example of a situation where 4mbps is not enough for typical usage. Unless you're trying to download torrents while streaming 1080p from something like Netflix at the same time, then 4mbps is fine for vast majority of things. If your ISP is giving you the full 4mbps and they haven't over provisioned in your neighborhood(if your on shared bandwidth like cable) then you can have two people watching Netflix at the same time on that connection.
Those are the kinds of activities you can only do on broadband, and the fact that you can do them on 4mbps is what makes it broadband. Unless there is a problem with your connection or your trying to do more than one broadband activity, then something like Netflix should be working just fine.
4mbps is 100 times faster than 56 kbps. This makes 4mbps the car, and 56kbps being on foot, the bicyle would be ISDN which is about as terrible as dialup.
Math mthrfckr, learn it.
Your anology is bad. You obviously have never used dialup.
Dialup is like being on foot.
ISDN, which is slightly better than dialup is the bicycle.
4 mbps is the car.
4mbps is 100 times faster than dialup, if not more because where I can usually get the full speed of my broadband connection, I almost never got the full speed of dialup, usually around 33kbps. What took a week to download on dialup takes 1 hour on 4 mbps.
Give anyone 4 mbps connection who is living in an area that still has dialup as their only option, and ask them if its broadband. If someone works to bring 4/1 mbps connections to more areas, they should be able to advertise it as broadband.