Forgot your password?

Comment: Image processing (Score 1) 117

by fyngyrz (#47787737) Attached to: Intel's Haswell-E Desktop CPU Debuts With Eight Cores, DDR4 Memory

I use -- and write -- image processing software. Correct use of multiple cores results in *significant* increases in performance, far more than single digits. I have a dual 4-core, 3 GHz mac pro, and I can control the threading of my algorithms on a per-core basis, and every core adds more speed when the algorithms are designed such that a region stays with one core and so remains in-cache for the duration of the hard work.

The key there is to keep main memory from becoming the bottleneck, which it immediately will do if you just sweep along through your data top to bottom (presuming your data is bigger than the cache, which is typoically the case with DSLRs today.) Now, if they ever get main memory to us that runs as fast as the actual CPU, that'll be a different matter, but we're not even close at this point in time.

So it really depends on what you're doing, and how *well* you're doing it. Understanding the limitations of memory and cache is critical to effective use of multicore resources. You're not going to find a lot of code that does that sort of thing outside of very large data processing, and many individuals don't do that kind of data processing at all, or only do it so rarely that speed is not the key issue, only results matter. But there are certainly common use cases where keeping a machine for ten years would use up valuable time in an unacceptable manner. As a user, I am constantly editing my own images with global effects, and so multiple fast cores make a real difference for me. A single core machine is crippled by comparison.

Comment: Sources of water (Score 1) 490

by fyngyrz (#47787677) Attached to: Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report

The moisture source for lakes and rivers is -- inevitably -- precipitation over lands upstream. Either as direct runoff, or as recurring eruptions from underground aquifers. If the prevailing winds don't bring the more humid air over the cooler, higher landscape, sure, you'll see drought. But you'd see it anyway, more heat or not. When the prevailing winds are bringing more moisture over those same types of terrain, you're going to see more precipitation, not less.

The historical record bears this out. When the earth is warmer, we get (a lot) more plant growth. That's simply not going to happen if the precipitation is reduced for any reason. And, at least as far as I am aware at this time, there is no mechanism that would cause reduction in precipitation. Warmer air holds more moisture, yes, and that effect is in full view in the tropics -- with deluge level rainfall when that moist air hits colder atmosphere and the moisture inevitably precipitates as rain. 400 inches / year as opposed to about 100 inches / year in otherwise similar temperate regions.

I would certainly agree that if the wind patterns change, then the rainfall will too. In both directions. But it seems a little farfetched to say that such changes will result in a consistent decrease in winds traveling onshore. What would such a claim be based upon?

Comment: Re: Impacts (Score 1) 490

by fyngyrz (#47787631) Attached to: Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report

Is this year actually a warmer year? Didn't I just read that we're in a 20-year hiatus in the warming trend?

Yes, warmer air holds more moisture -- anyone who has worked the steam tables to convert between relative and absolute humidity knows that (and I have done so for my auroral photo opportunity prediction freeware), but it's also susceptible to precipitating more moisture when convection brings that moist air up into the colder altitudes. That's why tropical rainfall tends to be in deluges as compared to, for instance, the typical rain shower in Pennsylvania. We know for a fact that the tropics are warmer and wetter in terms of rainfall amounts per year -- and that since they are warmer, their air can hold more moisture. But that's not stopped them from having much more rainfall than anywhere else. While there certainly may be outlier statistics, the general case seems clearly to be: warmer = wetter = more rainfall.

Temperate rainforests get as much 100 inches / year. Tropical rainforests get up to 400 inches / year. If it's not the heat that's doing it, what do you propose is the mechanism?

If it *is* the heat that's doing it, then what is the mechanism where more heat, heat that corresponds with previous tropical climates in the earth's past, won't repeat the same effect here? Looking at the past CO2 level graphs as correlated with plant growth and temperature, there's a very strong correlation with CO2 and plant growth, and with temperature. Plants love CO2, but they still need moisture to survive, and where there's more plant growth, it's pretty much a certainty that there's a significant water supply.

So far, anyway, the idea of warming in the tropics -- or anywhere there's basically unlimited water and related prevailing winds -- leading to drought seems to be a non-starter.

It's not that I can't accept it, it's just that to accept it, I need a sound scientific reason to do so. Just saying that one expects drought in the tropics seems like hand-waving at this point. There are plenty of legitimate concerns - a slight, very, very slow rise in sea level, movement of crop-appropriate bands in cultivated areas, that sort of thing, but tropical drought doesn't appear to be one of them.

Also, recent news shows increased plant growth worldwide... something to think about in a situation where CO2 is known to be increasing at an accelerated rate.

Comment: Re:Amazon riding rough over industry? One recourse (Score 1) 98

by Kohath (#47786255) Attached to: Japanese Publishers Lash Out At Amazon's Policies

What that does not help you with at all is that time ten years hence when no competition remains even on niche platforms, and Amazon decides the price should really be 10 what you are paying now...

Fewer and fewer people read books every year. In 10 years, the market will be much smaller than it is now.

Plus, you're trying to pretend there will somehow be a monopoly on books. Or on electronic distribution of text. Because no one could possibly figure out how to print a book or distribute text without Amazon -- so they'll pay 10x what they're paying now. It's not even the tiniest bit realistic.

Comment: Re:This Just In! (Score 4, Insightful) 98

by nine-times (#47785429) Attached to: How Big Telecom Smothers Municipal Broadband

Because you can't have the government competing with them in an area that they might, someday, begin to consider serving.

That's not why. It's because they're afraid of getting shown up.

If you have a bunch of people out in the country getting gigabit internet for $25/month while the city folk are still paying $50/month for 1mbps DSL, it makes AT&T/Verizon look either corrupt or incompetent. It also destroys their argument that they can't provide good Internet in the US because of the low population density.

Comment: Re:Need developers? (Score -1, Flamebait) 121

by BitZtream (#47784107) Attached to: Microsoft Releases Replacement Patch With Two Known Bugs

Dear Asshat,

We make more money each second than you'll make in your entire life. Your arrogant attitude makes us laugh. We have MBAs who have forgotten more about development than you think you know, and about 8 orders of magnitude more than you actually know.

We're sorry you think our predicament is so bad, but we do enjoy floating our yacht on ocean sized volumes of cash, our yachts are big enough the waves aren't an issue, perhaps if you pulled your head out of your ass for a second you would realize this and you would realize that while you try to act like some one cares what you think, you are nothing, hence your AC post. Oh? You don't love us ... I'm sure will lose sleep at night over that.

        A company which actually turns a profit

I'd bet a months pay you don't make $20/hour, let alone 200. Your ignorance wreaks that of a 15 year old without a clue how the real world operates and certainly indicates that you have absolutely no idea what happens in a company the scale of Microsoft. You seem to think %0.00001 of your customers having an issue with regressions is the end of the world.

Seriously, get a clue.

Comment: Re:Bad business practice (Score 3, Insightful) 115

by BitZtream (#47783269) Attached to: Australian Consumer Watchdog Takes Valve To Court

It doesn't show them 'by default'. The opening page is a list of games for your platform, if you browse to a different category or search for a game, you're taking deliberate action to do so. Make sure you search for Mac games if you want to buy games for a Mac, and make sure its badged for Mac.

Mac Steam doesn't start you in the Windows or Linux games page.

Comment: Re:Bad business practice (Score 1) 115

by BitZtream (#47783253) Attached to: Australian Consumer Watchdog Takes Valve To Court

I've seen this happen when a Mac version of the game is coming, but hasn't actually been released. In my case the game showed up on Mac a month or two later.

When I bought it, I was fine with buying only a Windows version and thought the store was wrong when it showed the mac badge.

For reference: Nothing stops you from buying windows only games on mac.

Comment: "otherwise it would be forbidden "? (Score 2) 176

by jcr (#47781703) Attached to: The Executive Order That Led To Mass Spying, As Told By NSA Alumni

Bullshit. It's ILLEGAL, period. Executive orders don't trump acts of congress, and acts of congress don't override the constitution. Every NSA minion involved in collecting this data without a warrant issued by a judge naming a specific person and stating what they're looking for and why, is a CRIMINAL.


"It ain't so much the things we don't know that get us in trouble. It's the things we know that ain't so." -- Artemus Ward aka Charles Farrar Brown