You, sir, are a rather nice guy. Me? I'd make 'em get a tattoo on their big lying faces that reads:
WARNING: Politics as a profession has been linked to ignorance, corruption, and sociopathy
So that every time they speak into a camera, we will all be reminded that nothing they say is to be trusted.
.... and get everybody to compile all their stuff a second time?
Not so simply solved..
I'm not sure you understand the point of benchmarking.
You can benchmark a lot of stuff. But its pointless to benchmark HD read/write speeds when what you're interested in is FLOPS. So there are benchmarks which see how many floating point ops your system can do. And there are benchmarks about hard drive performance. But there tends not to be one benchmark to rule them all.
BAPco say that SYSmark is a benchmark for real-world business app performance. But AMD say SYSmark doesn't utilize the GPU in any way.
Given that modern operating systems go to GPUs for rendering, which they're good at, and freeing up CPU time for CPU stuff, SYSmark isn't benchmarking what they claim to be benchmarking.
Which would make SYSmark a pointless benchmark.
Okay, but SYSmark isn't a CPU benchmark.
From BAPco's SYSmark page:
SYSmark® 2012 is the latest version of the premier performance metric that measures and compares PC performance based on real world applications.
As stated by the GP, there are CPU benchmarks such as SPEC's. But SYSmark isn't one and AMD alleges it isn't designed to benchmark what they say they're benchmarking.
And... your solution is to advance
I mean, I guess when it gets bad enough we can just make a planetary exclusion zone. But thats gonna make a lot of people unhappy. Its rather hard to just pick up and find a new planet.
YOU are doing the nuclear industry no favors by making such arguments. The nuclear industry has responded, but governments are more interested in listening to people like you who do not know what they're talking about. Thus newer, safer reactors don't get built and we're at greater risk because we're still using old hardware past its end of life date.
The nuclear industry has responded to safety concerns by developing reactors with passive safeties, meaning that even in the event of complete coolant system failure, they still will not meltdown. And they do not use water as a coolant/neutron moderator so they don't get hydrogen buildup leading to explosions in a failure state either. They have reactors that can consume "waste" from current reactors as fuel reducing the need for storing a bunch of radioactive waste.
What's the obvious logic? You may as well take the tires, and do something with them that will probably leave them in some form of litter. After all, you've paid for their disposal. You may as well take them and get some entertainment or other temporary use out of them, too. Instead of just leaving them with the store to be disposed of.
Thats sorta what not requiring the fee to be paid does.. Yes, if the fee isn't required, you could walk out with the tires and the money and still do the same thing. But that means that it has to be worth the fee+entertainment-effort before you'll do it.
when the fee is required regardless, you're out the money either way. In effect, it is no longer part of your decision making process. You can either leave the tires, expend no effort, and get no entertainment. Or you can take the tires and do something stupid but fun with them and then leave them. More than likely guilt free, too. Since you "paid" for their disposal. They're just not being disposed of from the store.
Reading comprehension fail.
I said that as the self-proclaimed voice of free speech there was nothing hypocritical about their actions. If speech is totally free, then this is a permissible action. It is speech. It is totally free.
If it is not totally free, then there are consequences to your speech and you bear them in proportion to the aggravation your speech causes others.
And, I am not at all wrong in "my" assertion that speech need be totally free, even though I didn't assert that speech need to be free or tightly controlled or anything between. But political speech isn't totally free, and religious speech is even less deserving. Although you should post any and all social media accounts you have, so that any political or religious entity can use it to spread their message. After all, such speed must be utterly free, yes?
Somehow, I don't think you'll dehypocrite yourself by doing so. And I'm going to go on living a happy life under the premise that anybody sticking political signage in my yard or attempting to preach to me in my office will be summarily bounced. No speech has any business being utterly free. And such a thing is functionally impossible anyway. So, thankfully, no speech is actually utterly free.
Clearly, you didn't read the article. Which I know is an absurd thing to do on
However.. this is not about making an account for @Area51 or a Facebook page, so you can Like the Marine Corps.
The USAF wants a software package that will allow a user to create and manage 10 separate accounts that are geograhically and culturally correct for the area the account is supposed to be from. And they want the package to be able to handle at least 50 such users.
They want the ultimate in internet troll technology.
There isn't much hypocritical about it. If free speech is totally free, then it is permitted to usurp another's platform to spread your speech. These pseudo-christians seem to believe it, because they certainly have no issues seizing funerals as their own platform to spread their speech. So, by their own behavior, it is permissible for Anonymous to seize the group's website to make their own statements.
If free speech isn't totally free, then the voice of free speech is at least the most motivated choice to impose the consequences of speech on the speaker. Being a douchebag at a funeral has consequences.
But.. who are the weak? Modern governments are more likely to have processes which preclude the numerically superior side from imposing its will on the numerically inferior side on the premise that the numerically inferior is the "weak" side.
However, if you give the smaller side too much political ability is is not weak. It can stop the majority at will, hence the majority is weak. Give it too little power and it is weak, unable to stop the majority from having its way.
Making the issue even more difficult, each issue up for debate by the government has different power bases and backing, different sizes of sides. Any government incapable of rapidly, accurately, and dynamically allocating political restraints will fail to protect the weak. That currently includes all governments.
If your one piece of mail or one packet of traffic were all that were travelling, you might have a point. But your mail courier and your internet provider have many package/packet origins headed to many different destinations. They will make a best effort to deliver each as they can, given that everybody else in the queue also wants their stuff delivered at least as much as you do. They have limited resources in which to do this. If traffic is congested, the mail courier cannot develop a new route/plane/vehicle in the timeframe of your delivery. The ISP cannot negotiate a new upstream provider in the timeframe of your packet's delivery. It is a best effort with the resource at hand. If there are insufficient resources, some of you will be disappointed.
If this is not good enough for you, you can pay for a guaranteed class of service.
If you fly and have checked baggage, the airline will make a best effort to see that your luggage arrives at your destination when you do. However, if you have a quick turnaround for a connecting flight and your checked baggage isn't sorted and loaded in time to make it out, the airline will shrug and say they've made a best effort. Clearly, according to you, they haven't. After all your carry-on made it just fine and they could have let you carry on all your baggage. This would entirely alter the situation by lowering max passenger counts and increasing aircraft groundtime (as passengers try to organize and haul 2-3 more bags off a plane). But to anybody else, the airline has made a best effort. If you wanted a better class of service, you could pay for it by reducing your baggage to a carry-on only (or.. I guess by paying for seats in which to put your otherwise-would've-been-checked baggage).
They're also comparing apps from an app store to games on disc, as if those two markets were directly competing. I got news for the author; they're not.
Second.. they're also basing their estimate of when apps will overtake game sales on the assumption that physical game sales are shrinking, because last year was down 5%. Although they conveniently don't mention that for roughly the same period, both song and app sales revenues also had declines. See those nice well-below-the-pretty-line data points in the graph?
Spectacular scholarship on display in the article, I must say.
If the state of California was honest with its residents, it would tell you that they want two bites at this delicious tax apple. Once on the "sale" of the phone (which isn't..) and then each month for taxes based on your invoiced service fees, which include Verizon's margin to pay for the "free" phone.
But thats no surprise to me. CA has some of the highest taxes at all levels, and they still can't fund a government.
Well.. firstly.. I didn't assume you suggested something to spend the money on. Nor did I assume, or state, that you had all the solutions.
You said "we do what we can"
If we spend money doing what we can and didn't need to
I wouldn't have thought that I would need to explain the downsides of wasteful spending, or as you so eloquently called it spending "more money than we had to"
Yeah.. I guess. If car insurance cost billions of dollars a day and there was a good chance that the insurance carrier wouldn't pay out in the event of an accident. (Oh wait, the second part is true)
Retooling the entire planet's infrastructure won't be cheap, isn't guaranteed to prevent a catastrophe (and a catastrophe isn't even guaranteed to occur), and while we only "spent more money that we had to" we're consuming funds and resources that could've been applied to other human endeavors. Like health care, so people don't die of disease. Or energy efficiency so that people who currently can't afford electrical infrastructure may be able to afford power so that they don't freeze to death in winter or heat stroke in summer. Or maybe we spend some money on cleaning up manufacturing processes (or just spending it on proper post-manufacture disposal of waste) so that they don't require so many nasty toxic chemicals which get dumped into waterways and seep into aquifers, poisoning people.
But yeah, you're right. Its only money.
One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis
