Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Haply so, but exec orders and agencies (Score 1) 180

by Rockoon (#47790521) Attached to: The Executive Order That Led To Mass Spying, As Told By NSA Alumni
Article 2, Section 1 of the watergate articles of impeachment:

1. He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavoured to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be intitiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.

Now STFU you ignorant fuck. Stop acting like an informed person when you arent fucking informed. It took me all of 5 seconds to get this information verbatim so that I could quote it. All of 5 fucking seconds. Thats how fucking uninformed you are. Not even 5 seconds informed.

Comment: Re:*drool* (Score 1) 159

by Rockoon (#47790315) Attached to: Intel's Haswell-E Desktop CPU Debuts With Eight Cores, DDR4 Memory
1.6ghz, and AMD.

Even selecting a 4-core CPU at complete random from the $50 to $100 range on newegg, you are still likely to get a better performing CPU. In other words, its difficult to actually own something worse. The reason for this is that the closest desktop APU to the chip that the PS4 uses is only $49.

$49 fucking dollars.

So yes, consoles ship with "such crappy CPUs."

Comment: Re:*drool* (Score 1) 159

by Rockoon (#47790263) Attached to: Intel's Haswell-E Desktop CPU Debuts With Eight Cores, DDR4 Memory
Above poster needs to be modded up. The fastest "duo" in single threaded performance from 2008 is the E8600.

The fastest i7 is only 85% faster at single threaded jobs.
The fastest i5 is only 65% faster at single threaded jobs.
The fastest i3 is only 57% faster at single threaded jobs.
The fastest AMD FX is only 26% faster at single threaded jobs.
The fastest AMD APU is only 18% faster at single threaded jobs.

The cost of the E8600 is $45. forty-five fucking dollars.

Comment: Re:OK Another one (Score 2) 86

by Rockoon (#47786579) Attached to: Astronomers Find What May Be the Closest Exoplanet So Far

Doesn't that assume that the source of the gravity is a point at the center of a planet? Is that how planetary gravity actually works in practice?

For any collection of mass, if you are further from its center of mass than any part of that collection, then yes in 100% of the possible arrangements of that mass.

Also not commonly known is that when you are closer to the center of mass than any part of that collection, then you are 100% "weightless" in all the possible arrangements of that mass.

Comment: Re:Haply so, but exec orders and agencies (Score 1) 180

by Rockoon (#47784127) Attached to: The Executive Order That Led To Mass Spying, As Told By NSA Alumni

The problem, of course, is that corporations mostly just do what the government wants.

You would too if the alternative was targeted malicious acts of discretionary prosecution against your corporation. This is the government that got caught red handed sicking the IRS on the enemies off the regime, something Nixon was impeached for.

Comment: Re:There's a lot more going on... (Score 0) 155

by Rockoon (#47780531) Attached to: Research Shows RISC vs. CISC Doesn't Matter

unless of course you count the fact that you can't create a CISC CPU with just as many registers that can be used to store data, manipulate data, etc sans a cache hit as a RISC CPU given the same die size

Yes you can.

It appears that you think that the additional decoder depth (multiple u-ops per instruction decoded) that CISC requires isnt a tradeoff for the additional decoder width (more decoders to equal the same effective u-ops per cycle) that RISC requires for the same performance characteristics.

You would be wrong. You are the classic example of the guy that learned one fucking little thing and then imagined an entire imaginary universe from it. Yes, Intels CISC decoders are bigger, but Intel needs less of them than RISC does for the same u-ops per cycle fed into the pipeline and Intel also doesnt need as much memory bandwidth feeding its decoders. Both of the things that RISC needs to match performance also cost the precision silicon, that one thing you knew about for CISC but amazingly were completely ignorant about for CISC. You knew one fucking thing. You imagined a universe. You blew it. You ignorant twat.

Now, simply shut the fuck up and let the REAL nerds discuss.

Comment: Re:Let's be fair (Score 2) 320

by Rockoon (#47773669) Attached to: Should police have cameras recording their work at all times?

Everyone who thinks police should be subjected to wearing a camera every second they're on duty should also have to wear a camera while at work.

The only locations at my place of work that do not (in theory) have cameras is the bathrooms. There are camera, with surveillance people watching them, literally everywhere. These arent shitty cameras either. They are high definition cameras with remote pitch, yaw, and zoom control.

Since this is what happens simply when people work with very large amounts of cash money, it should also be what happens when people work with very large amounts of power over folks that havent chosen to be subjected to that power.

My place of work is not a rare or exceptional location either. There are thousands of such locations in the country and hundreds of thousands of people work under those cameras 24/7/365. Each and every one of us has to be trained and licensed to do the work that we do, so the police dont have any excuses from that angle either.

Comment: Re:Is this the missing "dark matter"? (Score 1) 85

the Sun holds 98% of all the matter in our solar system. If the "missing mass" were normal cold matter, such a great quantity would effectively block the light of the stars we can see

This simply doesnt compute unless you make assumptions about the distribution of the missing mass, and in this case your argument assumes its distributed evenly (nebula) while also taking advantage of the fact that the actual visible mass (stars) isnt.

Let me translate the flaw so you understand: You are claiming that there is no place to put 100 of these brown dwarfs near a star that wouldnt block the stars light from reaching any of the rest of the universe. (and before you go there, I didnt pull 100 out of my ass. I actually did the relative mass calculation. This brown dwarf is about 1/100th the mass of our star.)

I am not arguing that there isnt good reason to believe that the missing matter cannot be baryons. I am arguing that your understanding of the real arguments is complete and utter bullshit and this explanation is complete and utter bullshit.

Even under 100x magnification, the actual visible stars are unresolvable pinpricks of light. Billions of them literally cover ~zero area of the celestial sphere. Since billions of stars cover almost zero area of the sky, billions of smaller things also cover almost zero area of the sky. Their ability to block out the light of the universe is virtually zero unless we make a low-density assumption (such as what your argument does.) Yet in fact these brown dwarfs are 10 times as dense as our sun, the exact opposite of low density.

The primary reason we exclude brown dwarfs like these as being the dark matter within the galaxies that effects its gravity is the lack of gravitational microlensing that such matter would cause. Its not at all the obstruction of light (that you theorize) as the reason, its the lack of bending of light.
So not only is your theory wrong, its antithetical to the real reason. If we expected the proper amount of brown dwarfs that would explain dark matter to block light, we wouldnt be able to expect the microlensing we actually looked for.

Now dont discuss this subject any more unless you learn at least a few basic things.

If you are good, you will be assigned all the work. If you are real good, you will get out of it.

Working...